D&D 5E Is 5e "Easy Mode?"

[Sadras]

I refer you to my previous answer.

You are welcome to rule it any which way you want. Myself I changed the entire rest and recovery system tying it to the exhuastion track.

I take issue when someone argues on the side that 5e is NOT easy mode claiming one HAS to rest in a city or otherwise kill ALL vermin in a forest. THOSE are not the rules of 5e. That is not arguing from an honest account of 5e.

You cannot argue 5e is not easy mode when you are challenging with homebrewery.

 

[Umbran]

Is there an erata on this or are we going on what should be the case?
I do remember seeing this thread here.

I'm going to note that the wording is ambiguous. It says:

"If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity—at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting Spells, or similar Adventuring activity—the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it."

As written, the hour may be modifying the entire list, or just the walking. Darned English ambiguous structure!

I think the intent is, "If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity - fighting, casting spells, or similar Adventuring activity, or an hour of walking..."

So, please stop telling them they are not playing by RAW here - as is frequently the case, RAW is not worded clearly, and is open to interpretation.

 

[Sadras]

I'm going to note that the wording is ambiguous. It says:

"If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity—at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting Spells, or similar Adventuring activity—the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it."

As written, the hour may be modifying the entire list, or just the walking. Darned English ambiguous structure!

I think the intent is, "If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity - fighting, casting spells, of similar Adventuring activity, or an hour of walking..."

So, please stop telling them they are not playing by RAW here - as is frequently the case, RAW is not worded clearly, and is open to interpretation.

Disagree.
As it could it have been stated as "If the rest is interrupted by fighting, casting, a period of strenuous activity at least 1 hour of walking or similar adventuring activity..."

 

[TwoSix]

Maybe I just played with different people/expectations. Basically most combats went something like: "Oh **** we're all going to die". Then the caster would go and leave a big giant smoking crater somehow.

But I totally get that different people want different things. No game could ever work for everyone.

Grain of salt, personal anecdote and all, but 5e high level does play pretty differently than high-level AD&D. My game's been at tier 3 for about a year now, and most combats that actually get dragged out (my party is pretty good at figuring out non-combat ways to circumvent encounters) tend to be won by the martials.

The casters tend to shape the encounter by their choice of spells at the beginning, then the battle moves into "shut down the casters" mode with a lot of counterspelling and dispels, and the martial pressure is what actually breaks the encounter open.

 

[Oofta]

If I were to interrupt a rest while in a dangerous locale then I think it would look something like a series of small skirmishes and ambushes over the course of an hour or so. Enemies attack and then scurry back into the darkness. Give chase? Well that's going to pull you into their ambush or they ransack the camp while you're distracted. Maybe the enemy starts a brush fire and you have to fight the fire or pack up camp.

There are any number of ways to interrupt the rest cycle. If nothing else just house rule that camping in dangerous wilderness area isn't very peaceful enough to qualify.

 

[Minigiant]

That might be how you rule it which is perfectly fine - but THAT is not a 5e rule.

The rule is an hour of interruption stops a long rest.

It is up to the DM how long it takes to reset camp.

 

[Umbran]

Disagree.
As it could it have been stated as "If the rest is interrupted by fighting, casting, a period of strenuous activity at least 1 hour of walking or similar adventuring activity..."

Well, of course you disagree - it gets in the way of your interpretation.

That the grammatical construction is ambiguous, though, is not really a matter of opinion. It is absolutely true that this construction can be validly be read in two different ways in English- you choose one or the other, based on context and your guess at author's intent.

RAW is often ambiguous. The writers were human. In 5e, they specifically, (and, iirc, explicitly) chose natural language (which leans to ambiguity) over technical language construction (which leans toward eliminating ambiguity). It is really rather important that we recognize when the writing has multiple interpretations, because if your argument hinges on one very specific reading of one rule... it isn't a particularly strong argument.

 

[Sadras]

Well, of course you disagree - it gets in the way of your interpretation.

That the grammatical construction is ambiguous, though, is not really a matter of opinion. It is absolutely true that this construction can be validly be read in two different ways in English- you choose one or the other, based on context and your guess at author's intent.

RAW is often ambiguous. The writers were human. In 5e, they specifically, (and, iirc, explicitly) chose natural language (which leans to ambiguity) over technical language construction (which leans toward eliminating ambiguity). It is really rather important that we recognize when the writing has multiple interpretations, because if your argument hinges on one very specific reading of one rule... it isn't a particularly strong argument.

Here is the argument from the other side and the one you insist on defending: One cast's a cantrip and one's long rest is interrupted.

 

[billd91]

Here is the argument from the other side and the one you insist on defending: One cast's a cantrip and one's long rest is interrupted.

And if you want a tougher interpretation of what breaks a long rest, then that sounds like exactly the kind of interpretation you'd want... and be supported by the rules.

 

[Sadras]

And if you want a tougher interpretation of what breaks a long rest, then that sounds like exactly the kind of interpretation you'd want... and be supported by the rules.

100%