D&D 5E Interrupting a Long Rest

[Caliban]

Weird. So if a party tries to short rest eight times in a row and fails every time due to eight ill-timed combat interruptions... They get a long rest?

Do you think they instantly go back to resting as soon as combat ends? As long as each disruption keeps them from returning to rest for at least 7 minutes and 30 seconds, eight of them would add up to an hour.

 

[Quickleaf]

Weird. So if a party tries to short rest eight times in a row and fails every time due to eight ill-timed combat interruptions... They get a long rest?

Leaving aside the RAW as elucidated by Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford (1 hour of D&D combat is flat-out ridiculous - all combats summed together in one adventuring day would be maybe 5 minutes of fighting total), to me the question is one of the extent of the threat.

If they're in an area seriously at risk from wandering monsters, I'd either flat out not allow a long rest or make the long rest involve ability checks & intelligent defensive site planning. To me "long rest" = "food, safety, sleep, and some comforts." Yowling werebats (no offense ) soaring overhead on the lookout for the party is not restful, and I would likely not permit a long rest in those conditions.

So it really depends on the extent of the threat of your sudden wandering monster encounter. Is it something rare/isolated/a fluke that's not likely to be a repeated or extended threat? Then sure, let them continue with the long rest afterward. Is the monster part of a larger tribe roaming the area, part of a team of hunters after the party, does it flee to attack later, or does is it re-spawned or re-summoned? Then I'd probably rule it interrupts the long rest.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Weird. So if a party tries to short rest eight times in a row and fails every time due to eight ill-timed combat interruptions... They get a long rest?

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.

 

[ccs]

In all the 5E games i ran or played in, i don't think a single combat ever lasted that long


Yan
D&D Playtester

I don't think we've had any combats last that long in ANY edition.
The longest combats that we've ever had were in 1e & lasted 20 - 30 rounds (the longest was long enough that my deep gnome was able to fight a few rounds then succefully summon an earth elemental - wich took 10 rounds - and then the fight still continued on).

Nowdays though a round is 6 seconds.... There's no way you will fight for an hour+. You will kill everything or run out of HPs long before you hit the 60m mark in character.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

On the topic of "a combat is never going to last an hour," I have to say that I agree that is unlikely, but also think it isn't relevant.

Yes, the combat won't last an hour, but the combat plus dealing with the aftermath of the combat, moving camp to try to avoid further combat, or doing something with your defeated foes that isn't "just take a nap next to their corpse like that's a normal thing", could take longer than an hour, thus interrupting the rest - because the text says "at least 1 hour of [these activities]", not "at least 1 hour of [one of these activities]".

 

[iserith]

I play it as Mearls and others have stated.

But I think the important thing in running it as you will at your game is to examine the kinds of outcomes you can typically expect if a random encounter interrupts the long rest. How does this impact the play experience? What will players tend to do given this in-game reality? Are those results actually fun? What does ruling that a random encounter interrupts long rest bring to the table?

 

[Kobold Stew]

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.

The game is better (it offers players more interesting strategic choices) if combat does interrupt a long rest. Crawford's ruling is, IMO, a bad one because it makes the consequences of the random encounter less iterating. It means that unless there is a clock, players have no reason not to pause for eight hours.

I would have combat interrupt a long rest.

 

[Caliban]

The game is better (it offers players more interesting strategic choices) if combat does interrupt a long rest.

That is very debatable. I, for one, disagree with that opinion. The idea that a single combat, usually taking less than 60 seconds, prevents you from resting doesn't make any logical sense to me, and I don't see how it makes the game "better" in any way. More frustrating? Certainly. Better? No.

Crawford's ruling is, IMO, a bad one because it makes the consequences of the random encounter less iterating. It means that unless there is a clock, players have no reason not to pause for eight hours.

I would have combat interrupt a long rest.

And I think your ruling is a bad one because it makes Long Rests nearly impossible to get, with only a trivial disruption once every 8 hours. And your ruling still means that, unless there is a clock, the players have no reason not to simply start a new "long rest" immediately after the fight. So now they are taking even longer to complete a rest, potentially up to 15 hours (or even 15 hours and 59 minutes, if you had a combat start at 7 hours and 59 minutes, thereby preventing them from completing the rest). I'm sure the players will thank you.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

It means that unless there is a clock, players have no reason not to pause for eight hours.

I have found that not all players require their choices to be mechanically incentivized, and that no more reason not to pause for eight hours (seconds, to the players, of course since saying "We take a long rest" doesn't take any meaningful amount of time) is needed than that the player's are having their characters behave like real people with goals they consider important and intend to accomplish - which means not spending more time resting than is actually needed, because resting isn't "gettin' it done".

 

[Kobold Stew]

That is very debatable. I, for one, disagree with that opinion. The idea that a single combat, usually taking less than 60 seconds, prevents you from resting doesn't make any logical sense to me, and I don't see how it makes the game "better" in any way.

We can happily disagree. You're response doesn't address the specific way that I defined "better".

And I think your ruling is a bad one because it makes Long Rests nearly impossible to get, with only a trivial disruption once every 8 hours.

I do not see combat, where any character could potentially lose his or her life, as trivial. I have not yet played in a game where long rests have been hard to get. Your assumed conclusions about my approach to this question do not correlate with my experience of play.

And your ruling still means that, unless there is a clock, the players have no reason not to simply start a new "long rest" immediately after the fight. So now they are taking even longer to complete a rest, potentially up to 15 hours (or even 15 hours and 59 minutes, if you had a combat start at 7 hours and 59 minutes, thereby preventing them from completing the rest). I'm sure the players will thank you.

I think you and I play the game very differently (which of course is fine). Your straw man argument here is obviously a silly one, and it is not what I was suggesting, nor does it correspond to what I have seen in play.