D&D 5E Interrupting a Long Rest

[Uchawi]

That was not my intention. The "IMO" was meant to show that I was not trying to utter a dictum that was in some way universally true.
Those statements were meant to make explicit how I see any rulings/rules issues being integrated into play; again, "in my opinion" was meant as a softener, restricting it to my interpretation of the OP's question, not as a claim to special insight or absolute truth.

I am fully aware that my reading does not adhere to the Crawford tweet. I do not find twitter a helpful medium for interpretation generally: I prefer boards (this board particularly) because people thoughtfully state their opinions and listen to one another. Maybe, sometimes, opinions are even changed.

I agree with your reasoning.

 

[Azurewraith]

Well most 5e combats last at most 5rounds(from my experience anyway) that's 35seconds of activity strenuous activity, yes but you could get back to sleep after it. I find the real question is what party would want to settle down again in an area they just got attacked in?

 

[Arial Black]

No, you obviously have to choose what sort of rest you are trying to have when you start it because the interruption conditions are different.

This is not true!

You stop doing anything strenuous. That is 'resting'.

If you do anything strenuous within one hour then you didn't get a short rest. If you avoided strenuous activity for a whole hour then you did get a short rest!

If, in the previous 8 hours you have had at least 7 hours free of any stressful activity, then you have had a long rest.

There is no logical or RAW reason to imagine there are two different kinds of 'not doing anything'.

 

[Plaguescarred]

While Mearls doesn't give official answers on the intention of rules or their intended function as written, Crawford does, and in this tweet has stated entirely clearly that a long rest isn't interrupted by a normal-length combat.

Thanks i was sure JC had made a tweet but couldn't find it.

While i like the grittyish idea that combat interrupt a long rest, i also believe it most often just needlessly waste more time in a day to come to the same result and thus it's usually just more convenient to wave it unless the party is on a time limit or something to make it really matter. Also a campaign doesn't have to be one way or another all the time; a DM can just decide that some combat do interrupt a long rest, while another doesn't, depending on various factors based on lenght, difficulty, dyingness etc...


Yan
D&D Playtester

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

This is not true!

Show me evidence.

You stop doing anything strenuous. That is 'resting'.

When the game text creates a specific definition of a word as it relates to the game, the standard definition of that word no longer applies. "Short Rest" and "Long Rest" are defined game terms, not casual language usage of those words.

There is no logical or RAW reason to imagine there are two different kinds of 'not doing anything'.

Reason both logical and RAW:

• The sentence "Adventurers can take short rests in the midst of an adventuring day and a long rest to end the day." has no purpose other than to establish those types of rests as game elements.
• "Short Rest" is a paragraph heading, and is followed by a set of conditions for how to take a short rest, and what benefits a short rest provides.
• "Long Rest" is a paragraph heading, and is followed by a different set of conditions from the above for how to take a long rest, and what benefits a long rest provides.
• If these two types of rest are actually the same, singular, casual language definition of rest, the layout of two separate and heading-bearing paragraphs, and redundant mentioning of conditions shared between the two, are wasted effort and word count - so either we assume a purpose to the layout and word count, or we assume lack of competence in the authors, which is illogical given their professional status and bodies of work.

 

[FrogReaver]

Show me evidence.

When the game text creates a specific definition of a word as it relates to the game, the standard definition of that word no longer applies. "Short Rest" and "Long Rest" are defined game terms, not casual language usage of those words.

Reason both logical and RAW:

• The sentence "Adventurers can take short rests in the midst of an adventuring day and a long rest to end the day." has no purpose other than to establish those types of rests as game elements.
• "Short Rest" is a paragraph heading, and is followed by a set of conditions for how to take a short rest, and what benefits a short rest provides.
• "Long Rest" is a paragraph heading, and is followed by a different set of conditions from the above for how to take a long rest, and what benefits a long rest provides.
• If these two types of rest are actually the same, singular, casual language definition of rest, the layout of two separate and heading-bearing paragraphs, and redundant mentioning of conditions shared between the two, are wasted effort and word count - so either we assume a purpose to the layout and word count, or we assume lack of competence in the authors, which is illogical given their professional status and bodies of work.

Professionals can be generally compotent and make mistakes...

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Professionals can be generally compotent and make mistakes...

That is correct.

But it is also not an accurate assessment of what must be the case if 3 paragraphs and 3 headings were used in error, not caught in editing, sent to print, and remained in error despite being a great big notice it by flipping to that page because "Hey wait, why are there headings here that don't need to be?" over the course of multiple years and errata passes. That's not generally competent but made a mistake - that's mistake piled on top of mistake and those mistakes failing to be realized.

 

[FrogReaver]

That is correct.

But it is also not an accurate assessment of what must be the case if 3 paragraphs and 3 headings were used in error, not caught in editing, sent to print, and remained in error despite being a great big notice it by flipping to that page because "Hey wait, why are there headings here that don't need to be?" over the course of multiple years and errata passes. That's not generally competent but made a mistake - that's mistake piled on top of mistake and those mistakes failing to be realized.

The D&D rulebook is not infallible and it doesn't take a mountain of mistakes for there to exist an error in the printed version of the book.

There a pretty wide gap between there's must have been an error and there must have been errors piled upon top of errors for that section to be printed as such. But the ultimate point is, just because it's not written in the best most concise most whatever way it could have been doesn't mean it was done so in error. There can be multiple right ways to do something. Trying to infer too much from the structure of a document can lead to all kinds of errors.

 

[Werebat]

Trying to infer too much from the structure of a document can lead to all kinds of errors.

Well, unless you're talking about the Bible.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The D&D rulebook is not infallible,,,

I didn't say it is.

..it doesn't take a mountain of mistakes for there to exist an error in the printed version of the book.

I didn't say it did.

There a pretty wide gap between there's must have been an error and there must have been errors piled upon top of errors for that section to be printed as such. But the ultimate point is, just because it's not written in the best most concise most whatever way it could have been doesn't mean it was done so in error. There can be multiple right ways to do something. Trying to infer too much from the structure of a document can lead to all kinds of errors.

I think it comes down to probability.

Which is more likely?
A) The experienced authors chose words and layout for a reason, the editing passes saw nothing wrong because nothing was wrong in this case, and a small number of people reading the passage are coming away with an unintended interpretation. (I say "a small number of people" because not even all of the forum goers here, a small sample of an extensive population, share the interpretation in question)

B) The layout and word choices made run in direct opposition to the authors intended meaning of the passage and they didn't realize it, the editing passes also didn't realize there was a disagreement between how the text reads and what it is intended to mean, and only a small number of people reading the passage have come away with the intended interpretation.

A is unquestionably more likely. Especially given that the authors have been asked numerous questions about rest, and still no mistake in the text regarding that section has been noticed and errated to make Arial Black's interpretation actually supported by the text - and there have been 3 pieces of errata made to that very section of text, showing that it can't be explained away by saying "They just haven't notice the mistake because they haven't looked at that section again since it went to print."