D&D 5E DM purposely gimping my Warlock

[occam]

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.

Sure, and the very first line of the condensed, simplified definition describes clever as "intelligent and able to learn things quickly".

The rest of your AH definition:

And the first part of that definition? "Mentally quick and original; bright".

I said:

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

And there we have it, as demonstrated by Merriam-Webster and American Heritage.

This was in response to:

Outside of England, 'clever' doesn't mean 'intelligent', so I'm drawing no equivalence between play style and mental capacity.

This is clearly untrue. Which explains Sacrosanct's reaction:

Can we please stop with the personal insults about someone's intelligence based on the (biased) one-sided heresay of a person, especially when you know nothing about this DM, and mostest especially since personal play style =/= mental capacity?

to your comment:

I like his rule about hit dice, but the limiting short rests like that is silly. If this DM isn't clever enough to find a way to make those hours spent resting have a their own inherent cost, then he's probably not clever enough to make a game worth playing anyway.

I'm done. I'll let others decide for themselves whether you were impugning the DM's intelligence, or at least, could reasonably have been interpreted to be doing so by a speaker of American English.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I want to run a game that is based on very slow healing... it would be "short rests" set to 8hrs no more then 1 a day, and long rests set to 4-10 days (avreg 1 week) no more then once per month.

I would also set a lot of other restrictions... would anyone think that was unfair?

 

[Astrosicebear]

Yes I know, and I am demonstrating he's fine with other similar arbitrary limits in his game. 60 minutes is arbitrary. 8 hours is arbitrary. Stacking 2 short rests next to each other but not allowing them to overlap is arbitrary. How healing works with both short and long rests is arbitrary. It's ALL arbitrary limits, and none of it has a good in-game narrative behind it. So why the double standard of demanding a DM's similar arbitrary limits require more explanation than you guys are using for your existing arbitrary limits?

As a DM I make sure to explain short rests, or ask the PCs what they are doing. Its anything but an arbitrary time. Because there are stipulations on what a short rest entails. In my HotDQ game the PCs took a short rest as they entered the keep, but spent the hour chatting up the townsfolk and governor. At another point they came back exhausted and choose to relax and bandage wounds and absorb the lull in battle. If I had said they couldn't rest the second time because it was too close to their last rest, it would have been an arbitrary limit with no validation.

The point there that you make and I reinforce is there was no in game justification either way. Maybe we didnt get that side, who knows.

 

[Mistwell]

I want to run a game that is based on very slow healing... it would be "short rests" set to 8hrs no more then 1 a day, and long rests set to 4-10 days (avreg 1 week) no more then once per month.

I would also set a lot of other restrictions... would anyone think that was unfair?

I'd be fine with it, sounds like fun. Clerics and Bards and Druids are going to be much more valuable. So is the Healer feat, and healing potions. Should be an interesting setting.

 

[occam]

I've run (and played in) games where characters started with no equipment, or had everything taken from them; so have plenty of other people. Many others have run games in which healing/resting rules were tweaked for one reason or another (usually to make healing more difficult, I'd wager). Does that make all of us -- how did you put it -- "lazy" and "ignorant"?

If you did those things because you couldn't deal with class/rules/story elements, then yes.

Can you elaborate? How would one not deal with class/rules/story elements? How did the DM in this case not deal with class/rules/story elements?

I posit that DMs imposing such conditions deal with class/rules/story elements by treating the impacts to particular characters as acceptable in the context of the story, and I would venture that the DM in this case may have recognized those impacts and considered them acceptable.

I would also put forth the notion that if anyone "couldn't deal" in this situation, it was the OP.

 

[Astrosicebear]

I want to run a game that is based on very slow healing... it would be "short rests" set to 8hrs no more then 1 a day, and long rests set to 4-10 days (avreg 1 week) no more then once per month.

I would also set a lot of other restrictions... would anyone think that was unfair?

As long as you didnt say, "Oh btw, this is how rests work" halfway into the first game. No one is arguing DMs dont have that ability to alter the game to their needs, as long as its justifiable, explained, and agreed upon by all.

But check the DMG for ideas on how this might affect classes with alot of abilities resetting after short rests.

 

[thalmin]

I want to run a game that is based on very slow healing... it would be "short rests" set to 8hrs no more then 1 a day, and long rests set to 4-10 days (avreg 1 week) no more then once per month.

I would also set a lot of other restrictions... would anyone think that was unfair?

It would be unfair for me to complain about that if I agreed to play in your game knowing about your restrictions in advance (kinda sounds like Harnmaster). It would also be unfair for me to complain if I ignored you informing me of your restrictions. It would be unfair for you to spring those restrictions on the players after play had started.

 

[Mistwell]

As a DM I make sure to explain short rests, or ask the PCs what they are doing. Its anything but an arbitrary time.

I was not talking about what you are doing for that hour, I was speaking to why it has to be at least one full hour.

How are you completely unhealed at 59 minutes and 59 seconds, but fully healed at 60 minutes (when you spent your HD)? Don't tell me it's not arbitrary, of course it is. It was picked because an hour is a nice round number, not because it had any real narrative explanation behind it.

I am not saying you could not make a setting with an in-game narrative explanation, like "The Gods magically grant healing after an hour of peaceful and passive inactivity, as a reminder to the people that peace is a desirable goal and passivity is the path to wisdom" or some such thing. But, I am not aware of anyone actually using such explanations. Instead DMs just say "you need an hour rest" because it's convenient (though arbitrary).

 

[Astrosicebear]

The DM originally was going to take away my Dark One's Blessing feature too after I used it the first time, killing a giant rat and gaining 4 temporary HPs as a result. He seems rather obsessed with making the game as difficult as possible and being adversarial to the players.

Can you elaborate? How would one not deal with class/rules/story elements? How did the DM in this case not deal with class/rules/story elements?

If the DM in this situation had adequately explained why he was being adversarial, or why he was removing that player's ability, it might be a different story. But the fact that he did it directly in response to the spell, and only relented after another player stood up as well, proves my point.

 

[Astrosicebear]

I was not talking about what you are doing for that hour, I was speaking to why it has to be at least one full hour.

How are you completely unhealed at 59 minutes and 59 seconds, but fully healed at 60 minutes (when you spent your HD)? Don't tell me it's not arbitrary, of course it is. It was picked because an hour is a nice round number, not because it had any real narrative explanation behind it.

I am not saying you could not make a setting with an in-game narrative explanation, like "The Gods magically grant healing after an hour of peaceful and passive inactivity, as a reminder to the people that peace is a desirable goal and passivity is the path to wisdom" or some such thing. But, I am not aware of anyone actually using such explanations. Instead DMs just say "you need an hour rest" because it's convenient (though arbitrary).

Let's not devolve into the admittedly arbitrary nature of hit points and healing.

Simply though, I would say it is a process that takes X amount of time. Healing doesn't magically happen at the x-1 second of a rest. It is a process of bandaging, resting, and whatnot that requires the full time frame. Would anyone be so dastardly as to say "you rest for 59 minutes and 59 seconds but then are interrupted...roll initiative, and dont heal." ? I might... I might...

The lapse of time is the DMs choice. It should be 1 hour as RAW, unless otherwise stated and agreed upon prior to game launch. That didnt happen here to our knowledge.