D&D 5E Interrupting a Long Rest

[Yunru]

I think the real question is why you think it's a bad call.

Is it because it goes against expectations you have based on previous editions of the game? Which I think is irrelevant - this game isn't those games.

Or because you don't parse the sentence in quite the same way they do? Again, irrelevant, because you can run it how you like.

I'd also be curious what benefit you think you get out of having rests interrupted by combat encounters. What improved play experience does that translate to at your table?

It's bad because as written a party could theoretically do an entire dungeon crawl (albeit a small one) while long resting, without interrupting said long rest.

 

[Caliban]

It's bad because as written a party could theoretically do an entire dungeon crawl (albeit a small one) while long resting, without interrupting said long rest.

And the other interpretation is bad (that even a single round of combat disrupts a long rest) because a party could theoretically NEVER get a long rest.

They just get a combat encounter with low level critters every 7 hours....

You know, since we are being theoretical and all.

 

[iserith]

It's bad because as written a party could theoretically do an entire dungeon crawl (albeit a small one) while long resting, without interrupting said long rest.

One would think common sense would tell you that interpretation is not correct. Or maybe it is - depending on how you want to run the game. In short, it doesn't really matter, does it? We do what makes sense at our own tables.

 

[Yunru]

One would think common sense would tell you that interpretation is not correct. Or maybe it is - depending on how you want to run the game. In short, it doesn't really matter, does it? We do what makes sense at our own tables.

So you're agreeing that it's a bad call (since that's the stance they take)?

Edit: I agree with the fact that it will vary table by table, but I disagree that it doesn't matter. If nothing else it's bad form for new players (who are most likely to play by-the-book) to get into.

 

[Yunru]

And the other interpretation is bad (that even a single round of combat disrupts a long rest) because a party could theoretically NEVER get a long rest.

They just get a combat encounter with low level critters every 7 hours....

You know, since we are being theoretical and all.

Theoretically yes, which is why spells like Leomund's Tiny Hut, the mansions, and even a good old fashioned alarm spell exist: to avoid combat during resting.

Or just plain old choosing an out-of-the-way place to reat.


Again all theoretical. Personally I'd have it push their rest back an hour.

 

[Caliban]

Theoretically yes, which is why spells like Leomund's Tiny Hut, the mansions, and even a good old fashioned alarm spell exist: to avoid combat during resting.

Or just plain old choosing an out-of-the-way place to reat.


Again all theoretical. Personally I'd have it push their rest back an hour.

Or just not have it disrupt the long rest, as the rules indicate. End result is pretty much the same.

 

[Lanefan]

I assume by "someone," you mean a person in the real world.

Yes, of course.

If so, then surely you know that the rules apply to resolving uncertainty when it comes to fantasy adventurers, not real people.

Yes, but where the two can be made (closer to) the same, then do it.

It's not hard to imagine they're a more resilient lot than you or me such that a bear crashing in the house is annoying, but not enough to prevent them from resting sufficiently to regain resources for the next day's quest.

They're more resilient in that they've got lots of hit points and abilities we couldn't dream of in real life...which might mean they've already got enough going for them and don't need any more.

Is that what it really does or what you think it does? Because in games where this has been a thing, we just keep resting until we don't have an interruption. So in my experience it's a minor annoyance and some bookkeeping and doesn't add much. Getting players to really think about whether it's worth taking a long rest is a matter of time pressure, something I think is underutilized by most DMs. Interruptions on rest isn't as a good a tool for achieving this goal in my view. Taken together, it can really be seen as a screw job.

And by "screw job", you mean...what? Please explain.

Lanefan

 

[Yunru]

Or just not have it disrupt the long rest, as the rules indicate. End result is pretty much the same.

Which ignores the other theoretical extreme (that 599 rounds of adventuring can occur without interrupting a long rest). How convenient.

Hell, to take it to a real munchkin extreme, a character could die, and as long as it doesn't take an hour to do so, regain all their hit points at the end of the rest.

 

[iserith]

So you're agreeing that it's a bad call (since that's the stance they take)?

No, and I'm not aware that's the stance the designers have taken.

Edit: I agree with the fact that it will vary table by table, but I disagree that it doesn't matter. If nothing else it's bad form for new players (who are most likely to play by-the-book) to get into.

"Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!"

 

[Yunru]

No, and I'm not aware that's the stance the designers have taken.

You said common sense would tell you clearing a dungeon in under an hour not interrupting a long rest was the incorrect stance, but the designers state that it has to be an hour of strenuous activity to interrupt.