It's practically a requirement for Soldiers, Nurses, Truckers, etc. Granted, it can take a while to acclimate to sleep/activity/sleep, and the long term health effects are not appealing.
I fall into the same camp, though I do fuss about taking two long rests close together. Not to the point of tyranny, but I can sometimes require constitution saves if you try to sleep too soon.
I fall into the same camp, though I do fuss about taking two long rests close together. Not to the point of tyranny, but I can sometimes require constitution saves if you try to sleep too soon.
This looks like complaining that the rule is overengineered, but not a problem. So what if it handles 599 rounds of combat and that's vanishingly possible to even achieve? What the rules does is say that, yes 600 round of combat breaks a long rest, but also that any combat paired with any spellcasting paired with any walking paired with any other adventuring activities that collectively crossing the 1 hour mark in an 8 hour period voids the long rest. By doing it this way, they're actually economizing rules text -- sure, it's weird that it allows for 599 round of combat but it also now doesn't have to state exactly how much combat and how much spellcasting and how much other stuff does what, it just tosses them into the "don't do this stuff for an hour" bin and it's simple and done.
Can they? Do we care if they do? They don't get the benefit of the short rest if they do this, so I'm not seeing any problems worth addressing at all. If they are taking a short rest, and combat occurs, then they can't switch to a long rest at all, so, again, what problem occurs here?
That's a misleading characterisation: it is simple if any fighting interrupts a rest. JC opts for the more baroque ruling.
You've missed the point being made, which is about what is going on mechanically. That's okay, I suspect we won't agree on this. Luckily, we don't need to
But any fighting doesn't interrupt a long rest. It does interrupt a short rest. The intent is for long rests to be allowed to be temporarily interrupted if the camp is attack or something special occurs. The intent of a short rest is that you need at least an hour of no interruption to gain the benefits. You might disagree with this intent, but that's not a problem with how they're implemented.
Okay, I missed your point. Mechanically, if a short rest is interrupted by any amount of fighting, the short rest is lost. If a long rest is interrupted by any fighting, it must be less than an hour in durations and not combined with any other adventuring activities for more than an hour. You can start a short rest and decide to turn it into a long rest (although I'm not at all clear how this occurs, I'm going with it for arguments sake). What's the mechanical issue at hand, here?You've missed the point being made, which is about what is going on mechanically. That's okay, I suspect we won't agree on this. Luckily, we don't need to
That's not really a houserule, but a DM interpretation of likely events. Unless a player wants to spend multiple hours of the rest casting spells/rituals, this just isn't going the happen. Even then, consider the actual time: you have 8 hours of adventuring, lets add two 1 hour short rests, and an 8 hour long rest: this totals only 18 hours out of 24. Even if you force an hour at dawn and dusk for routine activity, this leaves 4 full hours that this spellcasting can be done without issue.
No, my understanding is that short and long rests are mechanically different, which is in opposition to your view. In only 1 hour, having a sudden event that forces you into activity can disrupt you efforts to relax (although realistically, it would likely extend the short rest by a period of time, not a full hour). Over the course of 8 hours, however, it's not unreasonable for you have some level of strenuous activity, while still being able to return to your 8 hours of relaxation.
Here's your problem. RAW is quite possibly one of the worst ways of looking at 5E. RAW is quite literally the DM interprets the outcome of any action or activity (very early in the PHB), and much of the game is written deliberately vague for the purpose of allowing each DM to determine how they want it to work in their game. Unless the DM directly contradicts something explicit in the PHB, then they are correct. Period. Even if they do contradict something explicit, it is simply a houserule, which 5E was specifically deigned to easily integrate.
Reminder that Sage Advice is only advice, even from the "on high holy JC." In general I find that JC can suck it, because his views on the game are radically different than mine, and I've found the advice of Mearls to be far more useful.
The bolded still reads as if the '1 hour' proviso applies to both walking and combat; you're reading an exclusive 'or' where I - and I suspect many others - am reading an inclusive.
