D&D 5E Interrupting a Long Rest

[Werebat]

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'.

Arial Black, if this is true, then is it not possible for the DM to pull a "gotcha" on PC wizards and keep them from getting their spell slots back?

It's been two days since the last combat, then there is a combat in the evening where the wizard casts spells, then the wizard wants to long rest and the DM smirks and says, "No no no, you only get ONE Long Rest per 24 hour period, as per The Rules -- and you had your Long Rest just before the combat a few hours ago!"

I mean, the temptation would be THERE, if the player had a habit of rules lawyering for advantage in the past. Theoretically.

 

[FrogReaver]

I didn't say it is.
I didn't say it did.

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."

Except you did say that there would have been mistake upon mistake if it was printed that way.

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.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?521461-Interrupting-a-Long-Rest/page4#ixzz4XqYHYhPW

 

[Lanefan]

Arial Black, if this is true, then is it not possible for the DM to pull a "gotcha" on PC wizards and keep them from getting their spell slots back?

It's been two days since the last combat, then there is a combat in the evening where the wizard casts spells, then the wizard wants to long rest and the DM smirks and says, "No no no, you only get ONE Long Rest per 24 hour period, as per The Rules -- and you had your Long Rest just before the combat a few hours ago!"

I mean, the temptation would be THERE, if the player had a habit of rules lawyering for advantage in the past. Theoretically.

That's an argument waiting to happen; the player can justifiably come back and say "I had my long rest last night and have done nothing since; I should be able to rest overnight tonight as usual". Messy, and the fault's on the DM.

One answer might go something like "a long rest may be taken at any time, but a caster may only recover spells after the first long rest that ends within a midnight-to-midnight day." This way a caster can rest as much as she likes but can still only get spells back once per day, usually in the morning; but is flexible enough to allow for a party who is resting by day and adventuring by night. So, in the above example the caster would have gone through the motions of recovering spells this morning (but had none to recover as none were used yesterday), then after the evening combat could rest overnight and recover spells as usual tomorrow morning.

If for some reason a caster wants to recover spells just after midnight, this is fine: she rests from about 4 p.m. on and gets her spells back just after midnight as that's when the long rest ends (but then can't recover spells again until after the next midnight as she's already used up that day's recovery). As long as there's only one spell recovery allowed between one midnight and the next, you're probably good to go.

Lan-"we've kind of done it this way for decades (though using different lingo than 5e does) and it hasn't presented any real issues"-efan

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Except you did say that there would have been mistake upon mistake if it was printed that way.

You are misrepresenting what I said.

Did I say "The D&D rulebook is infallible."? No.
Did I say "It takes a mountain of mistakes for there to exist an error in the printed version of the book."? No.

I said that this one specific instance of text and its meaning being the opposite of what is indicated by the word choice and layout choices made to make the text what it is would not be a single mistake, it would be a pile of mistakes - which is way different from the above words that you were trying to put in my mouth.

 

[FrogReaver]

You are misrepresenting what I said.

Did I say "The D&D rulebook is infallible."? No.
Did I say "It takes a mountain of mistakes for there to exist an error in the printed version of the book."? No.

I said that this one specific instance of text and its meaning being the opposite of what is indicated by the word choice and layout choices made to make the text what it is would not be a single mistake, it would be a pile of mistakes - which is way different from the above words that you were trying to put in my mouth.

Mountain of mistakes vs pile of mistakes is basically the same thing. Both are just metaphors for "ALOT of mistakes"...

Are you seriously trying to act like there's any real difference between mountain of mistakes and pile of mistakes?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Mountain of mistakes vs pile of mistakes is basically the same thing. Both are just metaphors for "ALOT of mistakes"...

Are you seriously trying to act like there's any real difference between mountain of mistakes and pile of mistakes?

No. That's not even remotely what I was doing.

You are misrepresenting my statement that this particular thing, if it is an error, is the result of a pile/mountain of mistakes as the completely different statement "It takes a pile/mountain of mistakes for there to exist an error in the printed version of the book."

One I said - the other is words you put in my mouth, seemingly deliberately since you've doubled-down on the attempt.

 

[FrogReaver]

So maybe explain why the particular "potential" error in question would require a mountain of other errors while other "potential" errors would not?

Is this particular "possible" error some kind of special case or can we assume that you are taking a general principle like "an error in publishing requires a mountain of errors to happen" and then apply thing that general principle to this specific case?

see I know what it sounded like to me. It sounded like you were saying publishing errors in general would require a mountain of other errors and that's why this specific "potential" publishing error would have required so many errors.

No. That's not even remotely what I was doing.

You are misrepresenting my statement that this particular thing, if it is an error, is the result of a pile/mountain of mistakes as the completely different statement "It takes a pile/mountain of mistakes for there to exist an error in the printed version of the book."

One I said - the other is words you put in my mouth, seemingly deliberately since you've doubled-down on the attempt.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

So maybe explain why the particular "potential" error in question would require a mountain of other errors while other "potential" errors would not?

I already explained the errors necessary for this one thing that is relevant to the conversation. I'm not wasting any time on anything not relevant to the conversation, like how other errors don't require as many mistakes.

Is this particular "possible" error some kind of special case or can we assume that you are taking a general principle like "an error in publishing requires a mountain of errors to happen" and then apply thing that general principle to this specific case?

This case does not have to be a "special case" for it to be the only case I'm actually talking about.

And you can assume whatever you want, but that doesn't make it true. That's why assuming things is commonly discouraged.

see I know what it sounded like to me. It sounded like you were saying publishing errors in general would require a mountain of other errors and that's why this specific "potential" publishing error would have required so many errors.

And since I have clarified that not to be the case, you should just acknowledge that what it sounded like to you and what it was are two separate things, and move on rather than continuing to insert words into my mouth for you to then argue are wrong.

 

[FrogReaver]

I already explained the errors necessary for this one thing that is relevant to the conversation. I'm not wasting any time on anything not relevant to the conversation, like how other errors don't require as many mistakes.

Actually the other part is now relevant. You are the one who brought the whole it's too many errors idea into the conversation as proof/evidence of your point. Now, if you want anyone to take that as proof/evidence of your assertion then we will need to take some time being convinced that your proof/evidence is valid.

Now you may not care to convince anyone and that is fine. That's your call.

But one common invalid technique of making an argument is to make a true statement so general it could literally apply to anything and then use that statement for a specific situation and draw conclusions that this means something special about the specific situation.

If this is true about your proof/evidence then it applying to everything would be a major flaw because that would mean one could use the same evidence to show that any potential published error was so unlikely to be an actual error that it shouldn't be considered. So it is important to know if such an issue applies to your proof/evidence.

This case does not have to be a "special case" for it to be the only case I'm actually talking about.

Please consider my words above.

And you can assume whatever you want, but that doesn't make it true. That's why assuming things is commonly discouraged.

Please note I didn't assume anything. I asked which case was true.

And since I have clarified that not to be the case, you should just acknowledge that what it sounded like to you and what it was are two separate things, and move on rather than continuing to insert words into my mouth for you to then argue are wrong.

There you go again. It is my belief that your proof/evidence applies to basically everything and is thus useless since it's obviously wrong when applied to every situation. You refuse to engage in that discussion and instead just keep claiming I am misrepresenting you and that you are not saying that. So please put an end to any misrepresentation you feel I am doing and explain what makes your particular case different than the others.

 

[Ratskinner]

Seems to be, given the DMG pp 266-267, that the definitions, qualities, etc. of Rests is a potent "Dial" that you can turn for your campaign. So my answer would be..."Rule whatever way fits the type of game you want to run." Who cares what anyone says on Twitter?