D&D 5E What interupts a long rest?

[clearstream]

I suspect, though, that the seeming lack of ambiguity was the result of an underlying (possibly unconscious) assumption that fighting ought to interrupt a rest.

And I of course, should have little doubt that preexisting assumptions informed your own intuition

 

[Charlaquin]

And I of course, should have little doubt that preexisting assumptions informed your own intuition

My reading is based on the conscious discarding of assumptions.

 

[Maxperson]

I suspect, though, that the seeming lack of ambiguity was the result of an underlying (possibly unconscious) assumption that fighting ought to interrupt a rest.

It can be read both ways without any assumption. It's written very poorly in general, which I think was probably deliberate. This is either the sloppiest edition I've seen to date, or they have embraced the rulings over rules aspect of the edition and write things ambiguously in order to have the DM make rulings to fit the table.

 

[Rabulias]

I dug back into the D&D Next playtest files, and found this:

Long Rest
A long rest is a period of extended downtime, about 8 hours long, during which you sleep or perform light activity: reading, talking, eating, or standing watch for no more than 2 hours of the rest period. If you take any strenuous action during a long rest, such as attacking, taking damage, or casting a spell, you must start the rest over.

Long Rest
A long rest is a period of extended downtime, about 8 hours long, during which you sleep or perform light activity: reading, talking, eating, or standing watch for no more than 2 hours of the rest period. If the rest is interrupted by a strenuous action—such as attacking, taking damage, or casting a spell—you must start the rest over to gain any benefit from it, unless the interruption took less than an hour.

The former text was in the first half of the playtest. The latter text remains up through the last Playtest File (September 19, 2013). I did not take part in the playtest, so I don't know if this change was noticed or if it was in response to feedback at the time.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

My cat.

 

[Charlaquin]

I dug back into the D&D Next playtest files, and found this:



The former text was in the first half of the playtest. The latter text remains up through the last Playtest File (September 19, 2013). I did not take part in the playtest, so I don't know if this change was noticed or if it was in response to feedback at the time.

It’s been a long time, but I can’t say that I remember much discussion around that change. Probably got overlooked by a lot of groups. I don’t think it would have made much difference for mine at the time, since I was, frankly, afraid to actually interrupt long rests back then.

 

[clearstream]

My reading is based on the conscious discarding of assumptions.

Likewise.

 

[clearstream]

I dug back into the D&D Next playtest files, and found this:



The former text was in the first half of the playtest. The latter text remains up through the last Playtest File (September 19, 2013). I did not take part in the playtest, so I don't know if this change was noticed or if it was in response to feedback at the time.

So in those early drafts any amount of attacking, taking damage or casting a spell were strenuous activity, and would interrupt the rest. While reading, talking, eating, or standing watch were light activity and could be done for 2 hours without interrupting.

Of course - given my position in this debate - I will point out that the early drafts speak to designer intent during the designing. That may have changed. Or - as I would naturally suspect - it may have stayed the same, but an unfortunate ambiguity was introduced letting in "1 hour of fighting". Which adherents reconciled with by supposing it intended a much smaller amount of fighting mixed in with other activities.

What I discern is this polarity

• For some, 1 round of fighting or 1 spell cast seems far too little to break a rest
• For others, 600 rounds of fighting (or 300, 200, or even 100!) is an absurd requirement
• That polarity is also informed by whether a DM prefers to make it harder or easier to refresh abilities in their game (with many ingenious supporting arguments constructed on both sides).

The words written in the book are literally ambiguous. For me, the minimum fair-minded position is for each side to concede the validity of the others reading. I can say that I will have any amount of fighting interrupt a long rest, but if you feel it should be up to an hour of fighting as part of a mixture of activities, then so far as the words written on the page go that is equally valid.

EDIT I described the polarity as I did with an intent in mind - perhaps a DM could ask themselves "what number of rounds of fighting, and how much spell casting, interrupts a rest in my world?" That could be used to adjudicate rests in a consistent way.

 

[Maxperson]

My cat.

I wondered where those claw marks on my arm came from.

 

[Maxperson]

So in those early drafts any amount of attacking, taking damage or casting a spell were strenuous activity, and would interrupt the rest. While reading, talking, eating, or standing watch were light activity and could be done for 2 hours without interrupting.

Of course - given my position in this debate - I will point out that the early drafts speak to designer intent during the designing. That may have changed. Or - as I would naturally suspect - it may have stayed the same, but an unfortunate ambiguity was introduced letting in "1 hour of fighting". Which adherents reconciled with by supposing it intended a much smaller amount of fighting mixed in with other activities.

What I discern is this polarity

• For some, 1 round of fighting or 1 spell cast seems far too little to break a rest
• For others, 600 rounds of fighting (or 300, 200, or even 100!) is an absurd requirement
• That polarity is also informed by whether a DM prefers to make it harder or easier to refresh abilities in their game (with many ingenious supporting arguments constructed on both sides).

The words written in the book are literally ambiguous. For me, the minimum fair-minded position is for each side to concede the validity of the others reading. I can say that I will have any amount of fighting interrupt a long rest, but if you feel it should be up to an hour of fighting as part of a mixture of activities, then so far as the words written on the page go that is equally valid.

EDIT I described the polarity as I did with an intent in mind - perhaps a DM could ask themselves "what number of rounds of fighting, and how much spell casting, interrupts a rest in my world?" That could be used to adjudicate rests in a consistent way.

There have been a few posters here who have fallen into that middle ground where any little strenuous interruption was too little, but an hour was too much. I want to say that roughly 1/3 are for the hour, 1/3 for a middle ground of some sort, and 1/3 are for any interruption doing it.