D&D 5E (2014) Interrupting a Long Rest

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Indeed, you assume an hour must apply to it, but it doesn't.

I'm not assuming. The guy in charge of declaring what the text is intended to mean has clarified that the interruption must be at least an hour.

Let's try looking at it from a different angle. I'm going to say something that is analogous, and you judge for yourself if what I am saying is clear or unclear.

My doctor encourages a daily period of exercise - at least 1 hour of walking, stretching, and working with light weights.

If half an hour of walking occurs, that's not a period of strenuous activity...

With the right variables in play, yes, walking is a strenuous activity. For example, walking while loaded with gear, or on uneven terrain.

The problem with requiring on hour of combat to interrupt a long rest is that it flies in the face of the rest of the game. An hour of combat is longer than the sum of all the combats in an adventuring day if each round is 6 seconds. It's beyond my suspension of disbelief.

The requirement is not 1 hour of combat. It is 1 hour of any combination of the activities combat, walking, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity. There is a huge difference.

 

[iserith]

The problem with requiring on hour of combat to interrupt a long rest is that it flies in the face of the rest of the game. An hour of combat is longer than the sum of all the combats in an adventuring day if each round is 6 seconds. It's beyond my suspension of disbelief.

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.

I imagine many folks are basing their ruling that it does interrupt a long rest on tradition - that's how they've always done it either because that's what previous versions of the game did or how they learned it from others. So it's really the change to that tradition that is the issue for them, I imagine, not that combats never actually last an hour.

In any case, we have the RAI from the designers. I'm not sure why it's up for debate. Everyone can change it how they want for their game.

 

[Arial Black]

Show me evidence.

Okay. 'A short rest is a period of downtime, at least 1 hour long'. 'A long rest is a period of extended downtime, at least 8 hours long'.

The 'downtime' part is made of the same 'stuff', the only difference is that an hour of that 'stuff' gives you the benefits of a short rest and 8 hours of that very same 'stuff' gives you the benefit of a long rest.

It isn't that the 'stuff' is different; the 'stuff' is the same.

The 'stuff', in each case, is 'avoiding strenuous activity'. It isn't really 'doing something' that gives you the benefits, it is 'not doing anything stressful' that gives you the benefits.

What is 'stressful activity' is the same in regards for both long and short rests.

The difference is that any strenuous activity spoils a short rest, but it takes more than an hour's worth of strenuous activity to spoil a long rest. But the 'strenuous activity' is the same 'stuff' for both types of rest.

If I visit my local casino I get my reward card stamped on each visit. If I get three stamps I get a free drink. If I get 7 more stamps (10 total) I get a free meal for two. These stamps are the same kind of stamp! There aren't two different stamps. The receptionist doesn't ask me if this stamp is for the meal or for the drink. I keep my stampcard after my third stamp and keep collecting for the next reward.

'Resting', in both natural language AND 5E RAW, is 'avoiding strenuous activity'. If you collect 1 hour of it then you get the benefits of a short rest. If you collect 8 hours of it then you get the benefits of a long rest, even if you also got the benefits of a short rest within that time.

A short rest is a period of downtime, at least 1 hour long, during which a character does nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds.

A long rest is a period of extended downtime, at least 8 hours long, during which a character sleeps or performs light activity: reading, talking, eating, or standing watch for no more than 2 hours.

In each case, you can do stuff, as long as that activity is not considered 'strenuous'. Each gives examples of activity which is not strenuous enough to spoil the rest, but these are examples, not a prescribed list of mandatory activity!

So, RAW, there are not two different types of inactivity! The only difference is that you get different benefits for accumulating greater amounts of the same kind of inactivity.

 

[robus]

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.

I do - so that's how it's interpreted at my table. I'm just offering my opinion because many people find the official interpretation to be off. That's one reason for these forums to exist, to air alternative interpretations

 

[iserith]

I do - so that's how it's interpreted at my table. I'm just offering my opinion because many people find the official interpretation to be off. That's one reason for these forums to exist, to air alternative interpretations

Sure - it just seems to me that folks are starting in the wrong place with their objections, the real source of which (for some) appears to be how it was handled in other games. I find how one games handles a thing to be irrelevant when it comes to another game. So when I read the rules and the RAI clarification by the designers, I take it to mean that by virtue of the fact that most combats will never last an hour of game time, then that means long rests just aren't interrupted by a battle. This has no impact on my suspension of disbelief.

Whether anyone wants to house rule it, of course, is fine.

 

[Yunru]

But we don't have RAI. We have JC, who clarifies RAW unless he says otherwise, and Mike Mearls, who says how he would run it.

 

[iserith]

But we don't have RAI. We have JC, who clarifies RAW unless he says otherwise, and Mike Mearls, who says how he would run it.

If the designers explain how they use it, that's good enough RAI for me. Even if it wasn't and I insisted on running it how I like or if anyone runs it how they like, who cares?

 

[Yunru]

If the designers explain how they use it, that's good enough RAI for me. Even if it wasn't and I insisted on running it how I like or if anyone runs it how they like, who cares?

I do, as head of the Church of Goodrightfun!

 

[Staccat0]

In my games I make a 20 point list for every dungeon. Higher the number, the "worse" the disruption. The lower numbers feature either "nothing happens" or maybe some fun flavor text about spooky sounds or finding a cool looking stone.

If players take a short rest or make a loud noise or whatever I roll a check on this table, crossing out Encounters as they happen and the population of enemies shrinks.

When players take a long rest, I roll with "advantage" and take the higher result, making long rests inherently more dangerous but still feeling very 5e. The players actually like this becuase it's super clear and the stakes feel Transparent.

This interpretation would definitely hinder my players enjoyment, although there is an argument to be made that disrupting a long rest is already pretty scary. At least assuming players are low on resources when they take one.

 

[Satyrn]

I disagree that it is like a shopping list. A shopping list inherently has an assumption of quantity for each list item because that's how shopping works. A list of activities does not have the same sort of inherent traits.

It kind of does, though. The trait isn't quantity, it's "unrestfulness" (I'm too lazy to find a good word). Because it seems very easy to me to think that 1 hour of walking is as unrestful as 5 minutes of fighting for my life, that "1 hour of walking "is intended to be separate item from "combat." It just seems that the "enough unrestfulness to break a rest" limit would be reached a lot quicker with continuous combat than it would by continuous walking.

Yes, this has me reading between the lines, but it's how I read the list. That is why I find the list to be ambiguous.