Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8102198" data-attributes="member: 71699">That SA was acknowledged in my OP and discussing long rests is firmly on-topic. The connecting consideration is that we now know that a single spell can interrupt a short rest. I believe that includes cantrips due to the RAW that &quot;Cantrips -- simple but powerful spells that characters can cast almost by rote -- are level 0.&quot;Thought about mechanically, JC is resisting the intuition that short and long rests ought to be broken by the same things (because, of course, players could extend a short rest into a long rest, creating the perverse case that things that can interrupt the first hour of that rest can't break the longer rest that that same hour is part of). Unhelpfully then, nothing known about short rests can tell us anything about long rests even if they are in many ways very connected! Which is frankly poor design. This is what I was drawing attention to.On this, as on some other things, I just ignore JC. Speculatively, he rules as permissively as possible in order to be inclusive of casual gamers as well as expert. That's how many of his rulings seem to me. Where I find the SA very helpful is where it lays out the intent... but here one finds it implausible that the intent is that 600 continuous rounds of combat are needed to break a long rest! Because, were that true, the mechanic would have to be crafted by someone who had heard of D&amp;D, but never played it...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8102198, member: 71699"] That SA was acknowledged in my OP and discussing long rests is firmly on-topic. The connecting consideration is that we now know that a single spell can interrupt a short rest. I believe that includes cantrips due to the RAW that "[I]Cantrips -- simple but powerful [B]spells[/B] that characters can cast almost by rote -- are level 0.[/I]" Thought about mechanically, JC is resisting the intuition that short and long rests ought to be broken by the same things (because, of course, players could [I]extend[/I] a short rest into a long rest, creating the perverse case that things that can interrupt the first hour of that rest can't break the longer rest that that same hour is part of). Unhelpfully then, nothing known about short rests can tell us anything about long rests [I]even if[/I] they are in many ways very connected! Which is frankly poor design. This is what I was drawing attention to. On this, as on some other things, I just ignore JC. Speculatively, he rules as permissively as possible in order to be inclusive of casual gamers as well as expert. That's how many of his rulings seem to me. Where I find the SA very helpful is where it lays out the intent... but here one finds it implausible that the intent is that 600 continuous rounds of combat are needed to break a long rest! Because, were that true, the mechanic would have to be crafted by someone who had heard of D&D, but never played it... [/QUOTE]

Verification