Sorry in advance for a long post.

So for some context I am a very new player, but have been watching and reading dnd content for years. I finally found a group to play with and decided to be an Oath of Vengeance Paladin because they seemed fun and could heal a little with Lay On Hands.

I've been playing for around 4 or 5 sessions now and its going mostly good but the DM has made some questionable decisions that have frustrated me as a player. One specific time is when we were doing a sort of non-lethal arena challenge where different enemies would appear in a tournament bracket. Really creative. At the end of the tournament our party was broken up into pairs and given 2 enemies that were basically player characters to fight. Me and the Warlock I'm paired with are fighting a Sorcerer and Fighter, with everyone being around level 10. Because I know Fighters are far more tanky and damaging than Sorcerers, I use my Channel Divinity option Abjure Enemy on the Fighter

Abjure Enemy: As an action, you present your holy symbol and speak a prayer of denunciation, using your Channel Divinity. Choose one creature within 60 feet of you that you can see. That creature must make a Wisdom saving throw, unless it is immune to being frightened. Fiends and undead have disadvantage on this saving throw. On a failed save, the creature is frightened for 1 minute or until it takes any damage. While frightened, the creature’s speed is 0, and it can’t benefit from any bonus to its speed. On a successful save, the creature’s speed is halved for 1 minute or until the creature takes any damage.

Frightened: • A frightened creature has disadvantage on ability checks and attack rolls while the source of its fear is within line o f sight. • The creature can’t willingly move closer to the source of its fear.

Now I thought this was a very smart play because as long as me and my Warlock partner don't attack the Fighter we could just take down the Sorcerer no problem, however, when the Fighter's turn starts the DM rolls another Wisdom save for them to get out of the Frightened condition. Even though I'm very new, I'm certain that that's not how Abjure Enemy works and I tell the DM so, however, he starts arguing with me over the rules. DM says that because Abjure Enemy causes a condition, anyone affected by it can make a Wisdom save roll on their turn to get rid of the effect, then proceeds to use the fact that the majority of, if not all, spells allow a subsequent roll to snap out of their effects. I'm aware that spells do this but if I'm not mistaken it's because of balance and not because of a rule. There's most likely a spell that doesn't allow a roll to get rid of the effect after the initial casting but of course I don't know it. 

Again, I'm pretty dang sure I'm right here. My question is how do I deal with this? If this is how the DM is ruling Abjure Enemy then it's practically useless. The DM has also done other things like not allow me to regain my Lay On Hands on a long rest. Each time I've tried to argue my case I've just been shut down on the basis of being new, but I know a lot about how the game works and this feels unfair.

In 5e, things generally do what they say they do and don't do what they don't say they do.

Pretty much every spell I've seen so far that causes a fear offers the target an opportunity to roll a save each turn. However, according to your quote, Abjure Enemy does not. Nothing in the condition Frightened offers that repeated save.

I can see where your DM is coming from, but RAW it seems that there is no repeated saving throw. Now, it's possible that in reality, RAI is that there is a repeated save but it was forgotten or some such. Which might be your DM's rationale, but RAW, no repeated saving throws.

That said, the DM is the ultimate authority. What they say goes. And is it really worth getting worked up or arguing over?

Quote from PenaltyRoll >>

The DM has also done other things like not allow me to regain my Lay On Hands on a long rest

I would very much like to hear the DM's rationale for this one, considering Lay On Hands explicitly says you replenish the pool on a long rest

So before you play, it's time for you to ask your DM about your class abilities.  

Ask about your Abjure ability, because you are correct in your interpretation.  Ditto with your lay on hands pool.  Obviously the two of you are in conflict with what you believe they do, and since that person is the DM they are the ultimate authority on what they do in the game.  If you aren't happy with those because you feel its targetting you specifically?  Then bounce.  From a social standpoint, there's no reason to be in a place with a purposeful antagnositic relationship.

Quote from Linklite >>

In 5e, things generally do what they say they do and don't do what they don't say they do.

Pretty much every spell I've seen so far that causes a fear offers the target an opportunity to roll a save each turn. However, according to your quote, Abjure Enemy does not. Nothing in the condition Frightened offers that repeated save.

I can see where your DM is coming from, but RAW it seems that there is no repeated saving throw. Now, it's possible that in reality, RAI is that there is a repeated save but it was forgotten or some such. Which might be your DM's rationale, but RAW, no repeated saving throws.

 Pretty sure its RAI. The design pattern is consistent with Turn Undead and similar abilities like Arcana cleric's Arcane Abjuration, they are just frightened instead of "turnt". All of those abilities effect the targets for the entire duration.

Either way, saving against something at the start of your turn is crazy strong in just about any case and would undermine a heck of a lot of things.

It might help to bring up rules issues after the session, just between the two of you. I could definitely see some less secure DMs doubling down on their misunderstanding of the rules just because they didn't want to be shown up by the new guy.

Quote from scatterbraind >>

Quote from Linklite >>

In 5e, things generally do what they say they do and don't do what they don't say they do.

Pretty much every spell I've seen so far that causes a fear offers the target an opportunity to roll a save each turn. However, according to your quote, Abjure Enemy does not. Nothing in the condition Frightened offers that repeated save.

I can see where your DM is coming from, but RAW it seems that there is no repeated saving throw. Now, it's possible that in reality, RAI is that there is a repeated save but it was forgotten or some such. Which might be your DM's rationale, but RAW, no repeated saving throws.

 

Either way, saving against something at the start of your turn is crazy strong in just about any case and would undermine a heck of a lot of things.

 Usuallly spells grant an additional saving throw at the END of their turn, just so that the caster gets at least one round of benefit from the spell.

With effects like Abjure Enemy, usually an ally will tap you for only a few HP of damage to break you out of the spell.

How experienced is the DM? 

A new DM might, like has been suggested, be struggling a little themselves, and making (poor) judgements on the fly. If so, talk to them directly and privately about what you've experienced and how that affected you. In the heat of the game, it's a drag for the DM to get into rules debates when the've got a lot of other things on their mind. Think about how you interacted with the DM during these discussions. Were you aggressive or rude? Did you press hard on these rulings, and back them into a corner? How you approach the question can have a lot of influence on the outcome.

If this is an experienced DM, then they're not, imo, a person to play with. These are objectively bad rulings with no basis in the rules. Anyone ruling thusly oughta know better if they've played for a fair amount of time. I smell a competitive DM who wants to beat the players.

Your DM is completely wrong. I would find another group to play with. That DM is always going to play against you and the other players instead of playing a neutral game. 

Just making your Abjure Enemy ability not work correctly seems like something that could be done accidentally... most stuff that inflicts the Frightened condition does give additional saves, so I can see someone who doesn't know the game inside and out assuming that there's supposed to be one... especially since Abjure Enemy basically stops this particular fight in its tracks and turns the whole thing into a joke.

That said, not letting your Lay on Hands regenerate on a Long Rest strikes me only as deliberate antagonism. It makes me question their motivation for the rest of their decision-making. I'm also of the mindset, based on what little information you've provided... this isn't the game for you, and you'd be better off leaving and finding a new group to play with.

It is certainly possible that the DM got the details of the fear spell and the frightened condition mixed up as many people do, and the spell does gig a chance to re-save (at the end of) every turn. So that one might be an instance of legitimate confusion if they are not as familiar with the condition rules as they could be. (Nobody’s perfect.) But, as others have said, them not letting your Lay On Hands reset on a long rest is completely incorrect. Did they offer any explanation as to why? If so I would like to know what they said.

Regarding the Lay on Hands, it says when it resets pretty clearly in the rules. You should ask for an explanation.

For the Abjure Enemy, discuss with the GM before the start of the next session. Maybe the fighter had a special ability or item that grants extra saves or resistance to conditions. If this is the case, he doesn't have to reveal it.

Quote from Wysperra >>

For the Abjure Enemy, discuss with the GM before the start of the next session. Maybe the fighter had a special ability or item that grants extra saves or resistance to conditions. If this is the case, he doesn't have to reveal it.

 
It could also be the DM forgot the Fighter had Indomitable when they made the first save and was covering for that. 🤷‍♂️

Quote from PenaltyRoll >>

Again, I'm pretty dang sure I'm right here. My question is how do I deal with this? If this is how the DM is ruling Abjure Enemy then it's practically useless. The DM has also done other things like not allow me to regain my Lay On Hands on a long rest. Each time I've tried to argue my case I've just been shut down on the basis of being new, but I know a lot about how the game works and this feels unfair.

1. Ask the DM if they are intentionally homebrewing the ability or if they are attempting to be faithful to the RAW and think the RAW supports them.
   
   1. If faithful to RAW, go over the text with them to make sure they understand the actual RAW.  Then ask them if they have changed their mind.
      1. If yes but they want to keep the old ruling as a houserule, go to 1.2.
      2. If no, your DM is either telling the truth and is illiterate, or is lying to you.  In either case, I would suggest asking them to homebrew the rule to work like how you know the RAW actually works.
         1. If they refuse, ask why not.  Where you go from here depends on their answer, but you should carefully consider quitting the campaign (and tell the DM this as part of the conversation) - illiteracy here may lead to illiteracy elsewhere in ways you will also not enjoy.
   2. If intentionally homebrewing, ask why.  Where you go from here depends on their answer.

Your DM is failing to read your features properly and come to incorrect assumptions that result in a significant impact on  your character's performances. I'd tell him especially if it affect your enjoyment of the play experience. Do not hesitate to show him this thread, when everyone posting in a thread is in agreement, it's usually a good indication of the correct course. :)

RAW there is no second saving through but if they take any damage they are freed. That is the trade off. Other fears involve a save but they  can be attacked. It is a balance thing. Paladins also don't have the best saving throw dcs unless you really spec hard into charisma. 

Now if they want to house rule it then that is their choice. But thats the sorta thing that needs to be brought up BEFORE a person picks a character. Some builds revolve around an ability. I would genuinely sit down and ask him. If he is house ruling it, thats his call. If it is NOT a house rule and he thinks he has it right, then he is wrong and actually reading the thing together could help.

The lay on hands part is BAD. If it doesn't reset on a long rest when does it reset? That is very much a "the DM is wrong here" and if he wants to house rule that I would want an explanation. I am not a fan of that one. Again a chat would help here.

To say "Leave the game!" is a bit of a snap-decision suggestion. It's definitely worth just getting to the bottom of it if you are otherwise enjoying the game. I'd assume that if you weren't, this wouldn't bother you.

My read is that the DM had not counted on Abjure Enemy, and since he hadn't given the Fighter any ranged attacks, it made a bit of a mockery of the encounter and he felt annoyed.

Send your DM a message along the lines of the following:

Hey, so I came away from our recent session a bit upset, and I don't understand how the rulings were made. So that we can continue having fun together playing this campaign, could you clarify things for me?

In particular, you ruled that Abjure Enemy allowed for additional saving throws, but the rules as written don't state that there are any additional saving throws to be made (just like Turn Undead does not allow different saving throws) and so this was a DM ruling/homebrew ruling that deviated from what I expected. It's your table, but if the rules of the game change unexpectedly like this it causes a real problem for me as a player, because my abilities don't work as the rules say they do when I try to use them. The same is true of Lay on Hands - the rules are explicit about when it recharges, and you made a ruling that it wouldn't, which I don't understand. If the rules change without explanation then I don't know how I'm supposed to run my character, and the game feels like I'm being penalised in some way for making good decisions.

It shouldn't matter in this situation if I'm newer to the game or not, because we all ought to be having fun, and my reading of the rules is correct.

Please could we agree that abilities will work as they are written, unless a prior discussion has been had first? Because I picked a paladin because I wanted the abilities for that class, and in the game we're playing, they don't function the way they're supposed to.

i'd definitely be interested in hearing a follow-up from the OP.   my hopes is that this is all just a big misunderstanding and not a future horror-story we hear from Crispy

Another voice to add to the "talk it out politely" camp:

I've been running DND since 1986, playing everything from Basic through 5E.  I get rules wrong ALL THE TIME and usually it's because I'm forgetting which version I'm playing.  This edition has this rule, that edition changed it to this.  No we don't do flanking, yes rogues nearly always get sneak attack thanks to allies, etc etc etc.  I still remember the first time a rogue said "I apply my sneak attack" and I said "uh.. you're not behid them" and she showed me the rules to say she didn't have to be and I was like "WHA?!?"

I do agree that when you're playing NPC's, it's best to let a PC's ability always have one action to benefit them.  I feel so weird when someone uses trip on an NPC that's next in the initiative order because they, literally, just pop right back up again and no one gets to benefit from it.  

Aside from that, I'd say to talk to the DM and be sure that they get a chance to review the rules as written and go from there.  At my personal table, my ruling in the moment is final in the moment.  And yes, I've blown calls, and sometimes I've had to "homebrew" a rule on the fly just to keep things going.  Case in point I didn't make a player who was using Eldritch blast roll at disadvantage when attacking someone in melee.  I didn't even notice it until I had applied the damage to the NPC on our HP app and moved on to her second blast.  So I did an "on the fly" ruling that she could take her second "shot" with her rapier even though she doesn't (in theory) get two attacks.

Was it the right ruling?  Dunno and don't care.  I had to make something so that we could keep going forward in time and not back and for my table that's more valuable than a few HP damage in either direction.  I did get called out on it by the party fighter who was like "wait do I get 4 blasts with my eldritch blast because I get two attack actions?" and we did resolve it and move on.  Either way, for me, you gotta keep the game gooing.