What are the consequences for a Warforged that does not spend 6 hours in its inactive state?

In the Wayfinder’s Guide to Eberron (p. 68-69 – the version quoted here is as it appears in UA: Eberron Races), a Warforged has the two following traits:

Sentry’s Rest. When you take a long rest, you must spend at least six hours in an inactive, motionless state, rather than sleeping. […]

Warforged Resilience. […] You don’t need to sleep and don’t suffer the effects of exhaustion due to lack of rest, […]

(Wayfinder’s Guide to Eberron, emphasis mine)

While Sentry’s Rest states the rest must be taken, Warforged Resilience seems to indicate there is no penalty for not doing so.

What are the actual consequences for a Warforged that does not go inactive during a long rest?

Are there consequences to being reduced to 0 HP multiple times in combat?

So I was running a game a few weeks ago, in short, during combat the thief and the warlock were both knocked unconscious. Each were brought back by the cleric with healing word and cure wounds. New round, both get knocked out again. Repeat this for 3 rounds until the barbarian manages to end combat. The party, loots the camp and wants to keep travelling.

At this point, I was thinking to myself, “I feel like taking that kind of beating should mean something.” But at the time, I did not remember if there was a rule for that.

My question is, are there any rules that would give some sort of penalty to the PCs in this situation?

In Game Behavior vs. Out of Game Consequences

Two of our players’ characters have had (since the beginning) a very ‘pig-tail pulling’ relationship from day one. One is a high lady, the other a rougher sea-man. Little fireballs aimed at armpits, lots of insults and little poison quills stabs…you get the picture. Both players seem good with and check in with each occasionally to make sure everything is still copacetic. Til last session. Lady decides (for long winded reasons) to sleep in Man’s hammock which is up on deck. Man tips her out of said hammock and says no. Lady says fine, neither of us will and tears one of the supports. It is now too unstable for Man to sleep in but Lady still can. Man says fine, sleep in it.

Man waits until Lady is asleep, then binds her up tightly in hammock. She wakes while this is happening and Man headbutts her to unconsciousness. Man hangs hammock over board of ship, feet first and above water. Which lady is terrified of.

Lady awakes, screams bloody murder, Man comes back. Man tries to say he did this to make peace (with her). Lady tries to bite/claw but can’t. So Lady starts insulting Man and in so doing calls his mother a cow (Man in Minotaur.)

So Man punches unarmed and bound up Lady in face til she quiets then lets her partially loose and walks away.

Lady character is obviously furious and is now doing silent treatment. Man character never apologizes but repeated states he was ‘only trying to make peace.’

No other players seemed bothered by this exchange at all. Some of them even made jokes after the session was over about going by to 1940s and wearing wife beater. and “Wife has black eye cause I explained something to her…why does she has two black eyes..well cause I had to explain it twice.” Hardy har har and all that.

I feel very uncomfortable with both the casual, rather over the line player-on-player unarmed violence AND the after session talk.

I don’t want people to feel like they can’t play their characters in certain ways and in-game culture is different, etc etc. But we are a mostly neutral good or good party (save my character) and that feels wrong for that as well. There is also no good reason for Man character to act like he did.

But I also don’t want to play with people who act like that in game AND also make talk/jokes like they did after.

Help on how to approach?

Origin and Actual Meaning of ‘Stress and Consequences are Not HP’

Over the course of my interactions with the fate community, I’ve repeatedly encountered the mantra that Stress and Consequences are not HP and should not be treated as such. The comparison can be split into two easily analysable bits:

  • Stress is not HP, in that, unlike HP, Stress is a fuzzy abstracted thing not necessarily mapped 1:1 to the concrete state of a character’s health.
  • Consequences are not HP, in that, unlike HP, they can affect the narrative, ability to act etc.

For a long time, I thought they’re contrasts against D&D, which supposedly treat HP as a measure of concrete medical facts about the character’s state. Because describing the system in contrast to D&D seems to be a big trend in the communities. But recently I’ve encountered a definition of HP in D&D, and found that it isn’t all that concrete, and largely shares many degrees of abstraction and fuzziness with Stress:

D&D 5e:

Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Creatures with more hit points are more difficult to kill. Those with fewer hit points are more fragile.

D&D 4e (predating release of the current edition of fate):

Over the course of a battle, you take damage from attacks. Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation.

And even the way things were written initially:

Anyway, keep in mind that the OA/D&D systems were never meant to be combat simulators, and all wise DMs ignored the few portions that lead in that direction. Damage and hit points in any game are most probably based on game considerations that have nothing to do with actual human or animal frailties, if you will. […] In a game, details of such things are pretty well minor considerations, never to be dealt with in any sort of mechanic that is based on actuality, or else the whole reason for the game form, adventure on an onging basis with a heroic game persona, is lost.

(Emphases mine.)

Even our own tag wiki for hit-points states outright that they’re an abstraction.

So these descriptions of what HPs are seem to be invalidate my assumption that the former statement is based on overgeneralising HP from D&D to the understanding of RPGs in general or on assuming that the meaning of HP implies D&D HP.

But that, in turn, complicates my understanding of where the second statement originates from. If one isn’t to read ‘HP’ as ‘D&D HP’, then one can quickly discover that, for example, HP in GURPS or Health Boxes in Storyteller (WoD) do provide effects that affect the narrative, such as making it harder to perform certain actions, just as much if not more than Consequences can.

So it seems to me that neither the contrast to D&D, nor to the broader umbrella of the concept of HP in RPGs in general in its many implementations, can account for the origin of the mantra.

Thus I’d like to know: How did it originate? Was it a result of a misreading of the D&D definition at the time of publishing of fate-core, or is it based on comparison to HPs in a game where they simultaneously are concrete and yet don’t provide the effects that concrete state of being wounded would entail? Or is there perhaps another explanation for what the statement is meant to compare them to? Or is it a case of trying to oppose to a DeadUnicornTrope of HP?

Because to understand what ‘X is not Y’ actually means, one needs to understand what is meant by Y.

What are the mechanical consequences of adding the Two-Weapon Fighting fighting style to the benefits of the Dual Wielder feat?

I’ve been reviewing the Two-Weapon Fighting information, and I don’t understand why Dual Wielder doesn’t grant a benefit like the Two-Weapon Fighting fighting style does.

The description of the feat says “you have mastery over fighting with two weapons”, which implies that you would have already benefited from the two-weapon fighting style considering you’ve “mastered fighting with two weapons”.

According to this thread “Is the Polearm Master Feat compatible with the Two-Weapon Fighting style?”, a feat like Polearm Master basically adds the ability modifier to the offhand attack’s damage inherently. Aside from limiting the damage of the offhand attack to a d4 of damage, I don’t see why a whole feat like Dual Wielder wouldn’t offer the same. Of course, I could be overlooking something that makes adding the benefit of the fighting style to the feat problematic.

What are the mechanical consequences of adding the Two-Weapon Fighting fighting style’s benefit as an additional benefit of the Dual Wielder feat?

MQTT Server risk: likelihood and consequences

I am contemplating forwarding a port to an MQTT server on a home network for a proof of concept project. Message integrity and confidentiality is unimportant for the exercise. Assume no authentication or encryption is required

I could assign the server to the guest wifi to isolate it from the other devices on the LAN. What is the risk (in terms of likelihood and consequences) of the open port? Is the risk confined to problems associated with losing control of the server?

In the future, I intend to migrate to authentication mechanism and engage SSL encryption on port 8883. If downvoting, please consider adding feedback or correct any errors in the OP.

How can I make sure my players’ decisions have consequences?

Last session, my players got into what was meant to be a fairly minor battle. The wizard misjudged the strength of the enemies and used both of his third level spell slots, and the druid acted sub-optimally, but in character, by using several of her healing spells to wake unconscious enemies for interrogation.

The idea was that after this battle they would enter the dungeon and work their way through to the boss encounter, so there would have been resource management consequences for those characters.

In fact, they ignored the dungeon entrance when they found it, and decided to carry on the way they were going and maybe come back and deal with it later if they felt like it. Yes, I know this is something I should have been more prepared for, but I thought I knew my players! (They usually like killing things and collecting treasure…) The town they were heading for was more than a day’s travel away, and I hadn’t intended there to be any more encounters along the route, so in the end I just said they carried on to the town, which meant they got a long rest ‘for free’ and didn’t have any consequences of their decisions. (I’m not trying to punish them, but I think it’s more interesting if they have to think about all these things and can’t just blow all their spells on one battle a day!)

How should I have dealt with this situation on the fly, or when prepping for future sessions? Some ideas I had afterwards:

  • Have the next set of enemies emerge from the dungeon and start a fight, thereby trying to force the players to do what I wanted them to. I feel like I don’t want to railroad them this much, and I already feel like I throw too many unavoidable fights at them.
  • Just keep talking about the entrance to the dungeon until they decide to go in, telling them that they see things that look interesting inside, or asking whether they’re absolutely sure they want to keep walking. See above – railroading. And I don’t want to get to the point where I’m saying ‘look, can you please just do the thing I planned for.’
  • Let them carry on the way they wanted to, but invent another fight that I hadn’t planned in order to force them to run short on spells eventually. See above – I don’t really want to keep forcing them into fights if they don’t want to.
  • Do exactly what I did, and let them carry on with what they wanted even though it makes me frustrated.
  • Something else, and if so what?

Consequences of cascade drop on sequences/functions/views

I am migrating some data to another server while dropping all sequences/functions/views. When I try to do simply

DROP VIEW | SEQUENCE | FUNCTION | AGGREGATE without CASCADE, errors are thrown to indicate dependencies. The goal is that if no data (=tables?) will be affected by using CASCADE, then I can use it.

Assumption: if no table is dependent on views/functions/sequences, then no table will be affected by using CASCADE.

Then I guess using CASCADE for views will be fine since they always depend on some base tables.

For functions and sequences I am not very sure. I haven’t written that many of sql functions myself and I don’t know if the data in a table are generated by some function, whether it means the table depends on the function.

For sequences, it seems that a sequence will be generated automatically by postgres if I use serial as column type. My first guess would be that in this case, the table that is using serial depends on the sequence. However, by testing on a dummy database on my laptop, I found that the data seems to be unaffected. (I just use SELECT COUNT(*) FROM TABLE_NAME after dropping the sequence)

What are the consequences for an illithid rejecting his brain diet?

So I had this idea about a rogue illithid, fighting against his own race. He will be chaotic evil or chaotic neutral, I have not decided yet. But while he does this it is simply too dangerous, or too tedious, to hunt for brains.

What happens to an illithid if he nolonger eats brains?

You can use any lore available. I ask only about lore, since we use a completely different RPG system and we play in a custom setting and I haven’t introduced mind flayers yet, this one will be the first one my players ever met. And the first one I have ever used.