D&D 5E DM purposely gimping my Warlock

[GameDoc]

FWIW, "2 short rests per day, with at least 8 hours between them" is redundant, assuming you take at least one long rest each 24 hours. Your long rest is 8 hours, leaving 16 other hours in the day. If there has to be at least 8 hours between short rests, that only leaves 2 possible before the next long rest comes up.

Not criticizing the rule, just noting that it seems the DM really wants to emphasize not taking too many short rests in a day. And that is his prerogative.

As stated before, I think if the DM implements a house rule that significantly impedes the way a basic class or race works, he or she ought to offer something in return to balance it out. But that's just my view. Others are also valid. And as others have suggested, this particular house rule may not have to totally gimp the class in question.

I understand the OP's concern, but would agree the hyperbole is not helping his case. At the same time his DM doesn't seem very open to discussing the issue or at least offering an honest "mea culpa" for failing to make the house rule apparent from the get go so players could factor it in to their decisions. Courtesy would seem to dictated doing that before stating that he will nevertheless stand by his ruling.

 

[chriton227]

I'm sorry, but that is really [terrible].

I can understand restricting things based on technology (no gunslinger) or culture (no samurai) but I would hate being restricted because the DM's asinine house rules bugger it. Oh, you want to be a dragon-humanoid? Ok, but you're not going to be able to use your breath weapon. You want to forge a pact with a evil power? Well, warlock is borked, how bout you play a wizard instead?

Wasn't this a Ravenloft game? The same Ravenloft that in prior editions had setting rules that weakened Turn Undead and many divine spells for Clerics and Paladins, and then hit Paladins with the nerf hammer of doom by weakening their Detect Evil, disease immunity, fear immunity, had their special mount automatically become evil, and made them detectable by darklords from a mile away? If you wanted to play a paladin it would be borked, and you might want to consider playing a fighter interested in religion instead.

I can understand reservations about having a character who draws power from dark source in a setting where the world is made of evil and fear. Opening yourself to that connection would be like trying to take a small sip of water by standing under Niagara Falls. Every use of their powers would have a chance of moving the character along the path of corruption, resulting in a character that either have to be incredibly conservative about using their powers at all, or would rapidly be corrupted to the point of being an NPC.

There are times when a character concept just doesn't fit the campaign setting. A half-dragon with a fire breath is going to have a hard time in a Spelljammer game based on spending most of your time in the phlogiston, and an aquatic elf is going to have a hard time in an Al Qadim game set in the desert, but neither would be flat out prohibited due to technology or cultural restrictions.

 

[shamsael]

Uh...yes it does.

Wait, what? The definition of "clever" as "intelligent" is literally the very first definition given of the word in a standard American English dictionary.

I'm guessing you googled clever rather than consulting an american dictionary...

Full Definition of CLEVER
1 a : skillful or adroit in using the hands or body : nimble <clever fingers>
b : mentally quick and resourceful <a clever young lawyer>
2: marked by wit or ingenuity <a clever solution> <a clever idea>

Synonyms
artful, creative, imaginative, ingenious, innovative, inventive

Antonyms
uncreative, unimaginative

adjective

skillful in doing something; adroit; dexterous
quick in thinking or learning; intelligent, ingenious, quick-witted, witty, facile, etc.
showing ingenuity or quick, sometimes superficial, intelligence ⇒ "a clever book"
(dialect)
amiable; good-natured
handsome, convenient, nice, etc.

Clever, when it is similar to intelligent, refers to quick wit. I wouldn't comfortably refer to anyone lacking a quick wit as unintelligent.

 

[occam]

I'm guessing you googled clever rather than consulting an american dictionary…

Full Definition of CLEVER
1 a : skillful or adroit in using the hands or body : nimble <clever fingers>
b : mentally quick and resourceful <a clever young lawyer>
2: marked by wit or ingenuity <a clever solution> <a clever idea>

Synonyms
artful, creative, imaginative, ingenious, innovative, inventive

Antonyms
uncreative, unimaginative

You left out the part that comes before this:

clev·er adjective \ˈkle-vər\
: intelligent and able to learn things quickly

: showing intelligent thinking

: funny in a way that shows intelligence

adjective

skillful in doing something; adroit; dexterous
quick in thinking or learning; intelligent, ingenious, quick-witted, witty, facile, etc.
showing ingenuity or quick, sometimes superficial, intelligence ⇒ "a clever book"
(dialect)
amiable; good-natured
handsome, convenient, nice, etc.

You realize Collins is published in Scotland, and was created by an English (as in England) editor, right?

Here's a different one:

clev·er (klĕvər)
Share:

adj. clev·er·er, clev·er·est
1.
a. Mentally quick and original; bright: a clever student.

 

[shamsael]

The bit above the "Full Definition" is not the full definition. It is a condensed, simplified definition for a quick understanding of the word by, probably, non-native speakers. Regardless of where Collins publishes from, they publish, specifically, a Dictionary of American English.

And I don't think the third definition you quoted would characterize clever as an antonym to unintelligent, but rather agrees with the context in which I used it.

The rest of your AH definition:

[QUOTE="American Heritage Dictionary]
clev·er (klĕvər)

1.
a. Mentally quick and original; bright: a clever student.
b. Skilled at accomplishing things, especially with the hands: a clever carpenter.
c. Crafty; cunning: "a hard-working kid who rose from poverty, only to be duped by rich, clever bankers" (Jeff Goodell).
2.
a. Exhibiting ingenuity or imagination; creative or artful: a clever experiment.
b. Witty; amusing: an evening of clever repartee.
c. Characterized by cunning or shrewdness: clever manipulation of public opinion.
3. New England Easily managed; docile: "Oxen must be pretty clever to be bossed around the way they are" (Dialect Notes).
4. Chiefly Southern US Good-natured; amiable.
[/QUOTE]

Now that we're literally bogged down in semantics, I reiterate that if this dungeon master is so unimaginative and lazy that he can't come up with an in game, narrative way to limit short rests, I wouldn't expect the rest of his game to be very good. If the dungeon master intended to limit short rests narratively , I see no reason at all why he would have needed to institute this rule. This goes back to one of the worst parts about the AD&D era that was improved upon during the d20 era: that we no longer restrict play by telling players what can't be done, but rather by telling players that doing something is inefficient or dangerous, and allowing them to try it if they really want to.

 

[Astrosicebear]

I feel as if there is a bit of victim shaming going on here.

The OP was seeking advice on a tough situation, and instead many lambasted him for his choices of character, wording, etc.

the OP made the character. It was approved by the DM. The backstory (if even read) was approved by the DM.

Only when the game started did the DM start house ruling, nerfing, and adjucating against the players. Yet some are still defending this type of DMing? Oh sure, some will say "Let people play how they want." But if I invited you all to a basketball match, and had my team's basket lowered 3 feet because 'its a court rule i have', and my team also will never get called for fouls, and your team cant dribble more than 2 steps before passing or its a turnover." Will anyone want to play? And instead of trying to educate this DM, as would normally be the practice by saying "hey, this isn't necessary, i can help you make this game work the way you want without these rules" we pet the DM on the head and say "it's ok, you can play how you want and your players will either play or they wont." Its equivalent to telling a beaten women that her husband doesnt know any better and she can leave if she doesnt like it. Some of these players, especially IRL can only find one group to play with.

I fear that this attitude leads to many players being turned off by bad DMs. Players that dont have the opportunity to see the true system because of bad DMing. I would rather lose one bad DM and gain 3-5 players than lose even 1 player who is trying.

 

[Ahrimon]

I feel as if there is a bit of victim shaming going on here.

The OP was seeking advice on a tough situation, and instead many lambasted him for his choices of character, wording, etc.

the OP made the character. It was approved by the DM. The backstory (if even read) was approved by the DM.

Only when the game started did the DM start house ruling, nerfing, and adjucating against the players. Yet some are still defending this type of DMing? Oh sure, some will say "Let people play how they want." But if I invited you all to a basketball match, and had my team's basket lowered 3 feet because 'its a court rule i have', and my team also will never get called for fouls, and your team cant dribble more than 2 steps before passing or its a turnover." Will anyone want to play? And instead of trying to educate this DM, as would normally be the practice by saying "hey, this isn't necessary, i can help you make this game work the way you want without these rules" we pet the DM on the head and say "it's ok, you can play how you want and your players will either play or they wont." Its equivalent to telling a beaten women that her husband doesnt know any better and she can leave if she doesnt like it. Some of these players, especially IRL can only find one group to play with.

I fear that this attitude leads to many players being turned off by bad DMs. Players that dont have the opportunity to see the true system because of bad DMing. I would rather lose one bad DM and gain 3-5 players than lose even 1 player who is trying.

That's not what I've seen going on here. I've seen a lot of people saying that the DM messed up by unveiling his house rules after the game had started. Definitely bad on the DM. His rule on timeframes between rests and number of HD recovered are perfectly fine because those are things that are within the DM's design prerogative. While there are some that want to insult the DM and question his quality and intelligence for making these changes, well, I just chalk that up to the usual forum trolls and ignore their own ignorance.

The OP on the other hand has shown nothing but a massive amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth. He's under the impression that a warlock will be useless without having his spells available all the time. But it's been shown to him by many people in this thread that he is over reacting. And reading the exchange between the two of them, he comes off as the bad one.

I don't want to comment on the supposed reactions to his abilities in the game, because we only have one side on that, and that side has proven that he blows things way out of proportion to sway popular opinion.

 

[thalmin]

I reiterate that if this dungeon master is so unimaginative and lazy that he can't come up with an in game, narrative way to limit short rests, I wouldn't expect the rest of his game to be very good. If the dungeon master intended to limit short rests narratively , I see no reason at all why he would have needed to institute this rule.

Perhaps the DM doesn't want to make resting as difficult as what the DMG may offer as alternate resting rules for grittier games (short rest is 8 hours once per day, long rest is weeklong rest in town as has been discussed in other threads.)

 

[Astrosicebear]

The OP on the other hand has shown nothing but a massive amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth. He's under the impression that a warlock will be useless without having his spells available all the time. But it's been shown to him by many people in this thread that he is over reacting. And reading the exchange between the two of them, he comes off as the bad one.

I think you just proved my point.

The OP is concerned about these issues, passionate about playing... and you called him a whiner. His DM essentially sucker punched him and you are telling him to suck it up, or move on.

 

[Astrosicebear]

And lets not kid ourselves here. Any one of us could run a Ravenloft game with 0 rules changes and still run it 'Gritty' and 'dangerous' and 'gothic'. House rules like this are a lazy/ignorant DMs tool.