D&D 5E Interrupting rests

[clearstream]

If they didn’t spend at least 6 of those hours sleeping (or 4 of them in trance or low-power mode in the case of elves and warforged), they haven’t met the requirements for a long rest.

Quibbling, really. The case being argued is clear enough. Claiming a rest in retrospect, based on having met the conditions (without necessarily intending to, or declaring it up front).

 

[Lanefan]

Quibbling, really. The case being argued is clear enough. Claiming a rest in retrospect, based on having met the conditions (without necessarily intending to, or declaring it up front).

Ideally the players shouldn't have to 'claim' it. The DM, if she's on the ball, should realize the party have just fulfilled the long-rest requirements and proactively tell them so, if it's clear the players have missed it.

That said, it'd be pretty rare that a party would long-rest without realizing it...maybe if they all got hit with sleeping gas and woke up 12 hours later...?

 

[clearstream]

I’m not super interested in scenarios that are theoretically permissible by the rules but are practically implausible to occur during the course of actual play.

That relates to why I don't find the interpretation compelling. It's implausible that combat even matters as a condition to rests under it. Even if it is theoretically possible.

But we are just restating positions at this point. I'm not sure how we would move the argument (in the sense of discussion) forward? I think considering cancelled, extended, and retrospectively declared rests probably sheds some light on what is going on mechanically. The narrative plausibility of all of these possibilities seems to be firm: "I was going to rest, but awhile in changed my mind", "I was going to take a short nap, but decided on a long rest", "I found myself feeling quite refreshed" and it is after all the intent of the rules to sustain a shared narrative. Whether that fails to matter for your group, or matters for mine, is kind of moot against an intent to simply understand prior to going one way or another.

Others on these boards have suggested using just one kind of rest. I think abilities rightly divide into at-will, per-encounter, per-few-encounters, therefore I think there must be some cost against those tiers. Currently rests is that cost and possibly it is the most appropriate cost, seeing as it is to do with time, and uses over time is what is at stake.

 

[clearstream]

Ideally the players shouldn't have to 'claim' it. The DM, if she's on the ball, should realize the party have just fulfilled the long-rest requirements and proactively tell them so, if it's clear the players have missed it.

Do you feel the DM has an obligation to do that? Or is it a nice-to-have?

That said, it'd be pretty rare that a party would long-rest without realizing it...maybe if they all got hit with sleeping gas and woke up 12 hours later...?

That could be one scenario

 

[Lanefan]

Do you feel the DM has an obligation to do that? Or is it a nice-to-have?

Bit o' both.

 

[Lanefan]

Others on these boards have suggested using just one kind of rest. I think abilities rightly divide into at-will, per-encounter, per-few-encounters, therefore I think there must be some cost against those tiers. Currently rests is that cost and possibly it is the most appropriate cost, seeing as it is to do with time, and uses over time is what is at stake.

I largely agree about the 'tiers' but think there's a different way of getting there which does away with short-rest: the tiers being at-will, x-uses-per-day (or even per-hour), and daily.

All non-magical martial abilities* should be at-will. The x-per-day and daily stuff is for spells, devices, shapeshifts, and so forth. Hit point recovery can be done in two ways: overnight (or 'long') resting and magical healing. Short-rest vanishes as a mechanic.

* - and over-the-top supers-style martial abilities, for anyone other than Monks, can go jump in the lake.

 

[clearstream]

Bit o' both.

It illuminates something about the "1-hour of combat" interpretation. Attentive players could track their activity during a dungeon, where distances are short, and claim rests retrospectively. Possibly insisting that their DM has a degree of obligation to remind them! (I think not, but implied under "Bit o' both".)

Say they did; imagining that they used up their walking, they would be on a forced halt for seven hours. Where that becomes interesting is if they took that seven hours at the start rather than the end. So it is rest, rest, rest, rest, rest, rest, rest, adventure, claim long rest! I'm not saying a DM should allow this, but it seems legal under the given interpretation.

 

[Lanefan]

It illuminates something about the "1-hour of combat" interpretation. Attentive players could track their activity during a dungeon, where distances are short, and claim rests retrospectively. Possibly insisting that their DM has a degree of obligation to remind them! (I think not, but implied under "Bit o' both".)

Say they did; imagining that they used up their walking, they would be on a forced halt for seven hours. Where that becomes interesting is if they took that seven hours at the start rather than the end. So it is rest, rest, rest, rest, rest, rest, rest, adventure, claim long rest! I'm not saying a DM should allow this, but it seems legal under the given interpretation.

Not on my watch.

For me the 'hour' only applies to walking. Any other adventuring or strenuous activity blows the rest, period. That one-hour-of-combat-is-OK interpretation is utter rot.

 

[commandercrud]

Switch to a short rest being a "good night of sleep" instead of a specific number of hours. And switch long rest to being 5 downtime days. Problem solved.

 

[Lanefan]

Switch to a short rest being a "good night of sleep" instead of a specific number of hours. And switch long rest to being 5 downtime days. Problem solved.

Wouldn't that seriously hose the classes whose abilities only recharge on a long rest?

Or are you suggesting everything moves to short-rest recharge under this system?