D&D 5E Interrupting a Long Rest

[Staccat0]

You know, since players can only take 1 long rest every 24 hours, maybe this streamlines things more than I expected.

 

[Lanefan]

Why should that be the thing that ruins your suspension of disbelief? That seems to imply that you believe any length of combat interrupts a rest, which is not RAI.

In any case, we have the RAI from the designers. I'm not sure why it's up for debate.

It's up for debate because the designers, if they in fact really mean what it seems they mean, have flat-out made a Bad Call.

Designers aren't perfect...fair enough...they're going to make mistakes now and then. This is one.

What's uncertain is why they made this bad call and-or what the rationale is behind it, if any.

Lanefan

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's like a shopping list. If I had a list that read "6 eggs, bread, jam, ham, milk." I wouldn't get 6 of everything. Replacing eggs with walking and 6 with "an hour".

If you wrote your shopping list more clearly, as in "6 of eggs, jam, ham, or milk", then there wouldn't be any confusion, right?

 

[Yunru]

If you wrote your shopping list more clearly, as in "6 of eggs, jam, ham, or milk", then there wouldn't be any confusion, right?

Without adding "of" that's still confusing (which doesn't apply to the original content because you would never say "6 of eggs" naturally, while you would naturally say "an hour of walking"). Now if you wrote "6 of: eggs, jam, ham or milk" or "6 eggs; jam; ham; or milk" it'd be abundantly clear for next to no additional complexity.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Without adding "of" that's still confusing (which doesn't apply to the original content because you would never say "6 of eggs" naturally, while you would naturally say "an hour of walking"). Now if you wrote "6 of: eggs, jam, ham or milk" or "6 eggs; jam; ham; or milk" it'd be abundantly clear for next to no additional complexity.

That it is unclear was my primary point. The other point being that your 'shopping list' doesn't match the format of the long rest interruption list, and so isn't very convincing.

 

[Yunru]

That it is unclear was my primary point. The other point being that your 'shopping list' doesn't match the format of the long rest interruption list, and so isn't very convincing.

Oh really? How then, does it not match? You have a number of items seperated only by commas, with the very first item being preceded by a quantity.

 

[Lanefan]

Oh really? How then, does it not match? You have a number of items seperated only by commas, with the very first item being preceded by a quantity.

The mistake in both lists is that the item with quantity should go at the end.

Lanefan

 

[iserith]

It's up for debate because the designers, if they in fact really mean what it seems they mean, have flat-out made a Bad Call.

Designers aren't perfect...fair enough...they're going to make mistakes now and then. This is one.

What's uncertain is why they made this bad call and-or what the rationale is behind it, if any.

Lanefan

I think the real question is why you think it's a bad call.

Is it because it goes against expectations you have based on previous editions of the game? Which I think is irrelevant - this game isn't those games.

Or because you don't parse the sentence in quite the same way they do? Again, irrelevant, because you can run it how you like.

I'd also be curious what benefit you think you get out of having rests interrupted by combat encounters. What improved play experience does that translate to at your table?

 

[Lanefan]

I think the real question is why you think it's a bad call.

Is it because it goes against expectations you have based on previous editions of the game? Which I think is irrelevant - this game isn't those games.

It goes against my expectations of common sense and reality, regardless which edition or game it is.

Or because you don't parse the sentence in quite the same way they do? Again, irrelevant, because you can run it how you like.

I parse the sentence (and later explanations) just fine; and though I know I can run it how I like I would prefer - and note this is only my preference - that where possible the rules be grounded in common sense. (another horrible example that just now came up in another thread is that by RAW your overnight sleep doesn't automatically count as your long rest - again, patently ridiculous)

Somewhere earlier this thread I posted an example of someone sleeping in their house, a bear crashes in, they have to scramble up and (at some slight risk) chase it off. That person probably isn't getting back to sleep anytime soon, and if-when they do they're going to need to sleep in all the later in order to get the full benefit of a good night's rest. So, in game terms this would reflect as the interrupted rest can be resumed but it then has to go on longer, which is pretty much how I do it.

I'd also be curious what benefit you think you get out of having rests interrupted by combat encounters. What improved play experience does that translate to at your table?

It encourages more care with resource and-or time management, gives more feeling of danger where threats are a possibility, etc.; in short it adds to the immersion by making things a bit more realistic.

Lanefan

 

[iserith]

It goes against my expectations of common sense and reality, regardless which edition or game it is.

I parse the sentence (and later explanations) just fine; and though I know I can run it how I like I would prefer - and note this is only my preference - that where possible the rules be grounded in common sense. (another horrible example that just now came up in another thread is that by RAW your overnight sleep doesn't automatically count as your long rest - again, patently ridiculous)

Somewhere earlier this thread I posted an example of someone sleeping in their house, a bear crashes in, they have to scramble up and (at some slight risk) chase it off. That person probably isn't getting back to sleep anytime soon, and if-when they do they're going to need to sleep in all the later in order to get the full benefit of a good night's rest. So, in game terms this would reflect as the interrupted rest can be resumed but it then has to go on longer, which is pretty much how I do it.

I assume by "someone," you mean a person in the real world. If so, then surely you know that the rules apply to resolving uncertainty when it comes to fantasy adventurers, not real people. It's not hard to imagine they're a more resilient lot than you or me such that a bear crashing in the house is annoying, but not enough to prevent them from resting sufficiently to regain resources for the next day's quest.

It encourages more care with resource and-or time management, gives more feeling of danger where threats are a possibility, etc.; in short it adds to the immersion by making things a bit more realistic.

Is that what it really does or what you think it does? Because in games where this has been a thing, we just keep resting until we don't have an interruption. So in my experience it's a minor annoyance and some bookkeeping and doesn't add much. Getting players to really think about whether it's worth taking a long rest is a matter of time pressure, something I think is underutilized by most DMs. Interruptions on rest isn't as a good a tool for achieving this goal in my view. Taken together, it can really be seen as a screw job.