D&D 5E Interrupting rests

[clearstream]

It is also ridiculous to assume that casting a spell (something PCs do all the time, considering cantrips are at will) or fighting for 1 minute (10 rounds) out of 8 hours of resting won't allow you to gain the benefits of a long rest.

Imagine this IRL, a bunch of soldiers are in a fight, get some downtime to rest, have a brief skirmish, and then continue resting to the full time. So, these soldiers now recover no HP?

They could complete a short rest, and recover some HP. Just not all. However, for me the more helpful point comes from thinking about rests as a foundational mechanic. Through moderating resource use, rests open up design space (i.e. for abilities at different power levels). Thus, it shouldn't be too hard for a DM to disrupt a rest. If effectively any amount of combat won't do it, then it becomes a lot more difficult for a DM to say exactly how a rest would ever be interrupted.

In the past, I have been persuaded that the two readings are both permissible: the text is literally ambiguous. One might want to say that short rests and long rests are categorically different, so that things that impact one may or may not have any impact on the other. That is not my position, because they seem in so many respects similar and they satisfy a connected mechanical purpose. Thus, I believe that if casting one spell can interrupt a short rest, then that implies that the casting of spells that can interrupt a long rest must be as few as one spell. That of course then implies that the "1 hour" is tied to "of walking" and does not span the sentence (which FWIW strikes me as less ridiculous when you consider the full scope of cases arising).

 

[DND_Reborn]

They could complete a short rest, and recover some HP. Just not all. However, for me the more helpful point comes from thinking about rests as a foundational mechanic. Through moderating resource use, rests open up design space (i.e. for abilities at different power levels). Thus, it shouldn't be too hard for a DM to disrupt a rest. If effectively any amount of combat won't do it, then it becomes a lot more difficult for a DM to say exactly how a rest would ever be interrupted.

In the past, I have been persuaded that the two readings are both permissible: the text is literally ambiguous. One might want to say that short rests and long rests are categorically different, so that things that impact one may or may not have any impact on the other. That is not my position, because they seem in so many respects similar and they satisfy a connected mechanical purpose. Thus, I believe that if casting one spell can interrupt a short rest, then that implies that the casting of spells that can interrupt a long rest must be as few as one spell. That of course then implies that the "1 hour" is tied to "of walking" and does not span the sentence (which FWIW strikes me as less ridiculous when you consider the full scope of cases arising).

I agree the text was poorly written originally. I like the "combined" activity for 1 hour or more myself.

An interruption into a rest of more than 1 hour is usually only possible if the PCs are attempting to rest in a very hostile area. Personally, we've never had an issue with "nighttime" encounters and combats happen, and then the party finishes its rest.

 

[BluejayJunior]

If it's ridiculous, it's not a logical way to read the sentence.

It's still completely logical. Just because 1 hour of fighting isn't likely doesn't mean that the sentence is illogical if read that way. And having a 1 hour period that includes combat, casting spells afterwards, and doing other activities (like making the camp more defensible or scouting for additional enemies) is completely logical.

 

[jmartkdr2]

A strict reading either way causes silly situations, so I personally don't follow the letter of the text here. RAW, it's either true that casting prestidigitation to light the breakfast cookfire after 7 hours, 59 minutes, and 54 seconds of resting negates the entire rest, or that you need to literally cast spells for an entire hour to cause any sleep disruption.

For myself: If it doesn't make the party move camp, I just have the time spent on the interruption + some time to re-set camp added to the total time need for the rest. But that's a houserule.

 

[DND_Reborn]

For myself: If it doesn't make the party move camp, I just have the time spent on the interruption + some time to re-set camp added to the total time need for the rest. But that's a houserule.

That is pretty much our rule. If you have to break camp and move (especially if the move takes more than 1 hour), the rest is interrupted. Otherwise, no issues.

 

[clearstream]

I agree the text was poorly written originally. I like the "combined" activity for 1 hour or more myself.

An interruption into a rest of more than 1 hour is usually only possible if the PCs are attempting to rest in a very hostile area. Personally, we've never had an issue with "nighttime" encounters and combats happen, and then the party finishes its rest.

In my ToA campaign two weeks back (we play weekly) the party was attempting a long rest and were interrupted twice by combat. The two combats combined will have been at most a few minutes of activity.

 

[clearstream]

It's still completely logical. Just because 1 hour of fighting isn't likely doesn't mean that the sentence is illogical if read that way. And having a 1 hour period that includes combat, casting spells afterwards, and doing other activities (like making the camp more defensible or scouting for additional enemies) is completely logical.

For me the issue there (with the combination of activities reading) is that nothing in the RAW excludes also an hour of any one of the activities, if you are reading the "1 hour" as spanning the whole clause. At that point, the reading becomes less defensible qua RAW because it is no longer literal: it is adding words and/or picking and choosing.

 

[aco175]

My group seemed to streamline most of the rest mechanic to the point I just have one roll a d6 and if a 6 comes up, I have an encounter. I may roll a d10 to see if it is a monster, environment- like a storm, or even something beneficial. If the need comes up, I ask them to roll again to see who is on guard when the monster attacks.

I did read it as 1 hour of walking being as strenuous as casting a spell or fighting, but can read it the other way. Although it cantrips do not count, it kind of nerfs the fighter a bit with cantrips taking over for a crossbow and now the "crossbow" the mage shoots is free compared to the fighter's crossbow which now costs him his rest.

 

[commandercrud]

Doesn't matter to me. I go with the much more sensible Gritty Realism variant for rests.

 

[Ovinomancer]

For me the issue there (with the combination of activities reading) is that nothing in the RAW excludes also an hour of any one of the activities, if you are reading the "1 hour" as spanning the whole clause. At that point, the reading becomes less defensible qua RAW because it is no longer literal: it is adding words and/or picking and choosing.

Yes -- it's an hour of any combination of adventuring things, combat, casting, walking, etc. This could be only one of the things for an hour, or many of the things for an hour. That a solid hour of spellcasting might seem odd, consider casting multiple rituals, for instance.