D&D 5E Just how long is a long rest anyway?

[clearstream]

I’m sorry, but what do you think I changed?

You make a change to rule out the possibility of a "silly" amount of combat. Seeming to say that the combat component can only occur as part of a mix. But the unmodified rule as you are reading it can't only mean a mix, otherwise one hour of walking alone would not interrupt a rest, or any amount of walking and combat... just so long as no one cast a spell!

The unmodified rule, by your reading must include one hour of combat alone as a case. You rule it does not, ergo you have implicitly changed it. @Charlaquin does likewise.

I'm not accusing you of a fault in this: it is a straight fix to remove a problem. The alternative if set on your reading is to accept the problem, but say that it is not a concern. You might say that 1 hour of combat is indeed a case that the rule covers systemically, but as it is an edge case is tolerable.

My earlier point was that as there is a viable reading that does not have that problem at all - so needs neither fixing nor tolerating - then unless one has a preference for play one way or another, one would be well justified in applying that reading. Therefore, probably, one has a preference for play.

[ Edit: 1 round is a "period", right?]

 

[Charlaquin]

You make a change to rule out the possibility of a "silly" amount of combat. Seeming to say that the combat component can only occur as part of a mix. But the unmodified rule as you are reading it can't only mean a mix, otherwise one hour of walking alone would not interrupt a rest, or any amount of walking and combat... just so long as no one cast a spell!

...What??? No. If you somehow managed to spend 600 rounds in combat, that would constitute “at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity.” As would spending 50 minutes casting rituals, 9 minutes walking, and 10 rounds of combat. As would spending an hour walking. As would spending 30 minutes foraging for food and 300 rounds of combat. If you spend a period of at least one hour doing any of the listed things, that interrupts the rest. If you spend a period of less than an hour doing any of the listed things, it doesn’t.

The unmodified rule, by your reading must include one hour of combat alone as a case. You rule it does not, ergo you have implicitly changed it. @Charlaquin does likewise.

Sure, hypothetically an hour of combat alone would be a case of spending “at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity.” I have no idea what either of us said that could possibly have given you the impression that we thought otherwise.

I'm not accusing you of a fault in this: it is a straight fix to remove a problem. The alternative if set on your reading is to accept the problem, but say that it is not a concern. You might say that 1 hour of combat is indeed a case that the rule covers systemically, but as it is an edge case is tolerable.

Tolerable to whom? I told you, I’m not trying to interpret the rules to produce a particular outcome, I’m just assuming that the most natural interpretation of the text is the correct one.

My earlier point was that as there is a viable reading that does not have that problem at all - so needs neither fixing nor tolerating.

What problem??? You seem to be the only person who thinks the fact that 600 rounds of combat interrupts a short rest is a problem.

Thus, unless one has a preference for play one way or another, one would be well justified in applying that needing. Therefore, probably, one has a preference for play.

I have a preference for favoring the most natural, intuitive reading of the text.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don’t generally care what Jeremy Crawford says about the rules, but for what it’s worth here’s what he said on the matter:

Will participating in 1 round of combat break a short/long rest?

D&D Sage Advice ·

www.sageadvice.eu

 

[Charlaquin]

[ Edit: 1 round is a "period", right?]

Yes, but it is not “at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity.”

 

[Oofta]

Really? After five pages you still don’t understand the issue? I’m pretty sure I’ve explained it to death, but I’ll give it another go.

The most natural thing for a three person party to do would be for each person to take a 4-hour watch and sleep for 8 hours, but due to the 2-hour limit on standing watch during a long rest, the one who takes second watch won’t gain the benefit.

It can be worked around, but doing so involves making the fiction conform to the mechanic, at least notionally. I’m certainly not going to focus on any of this in play, but then why have the mechanic?

Which leads me to the solution of disregarding the 2-hour limit on light activity. It serves no beneficial purpose in the game that I can see. A long rest must be at least 8 hours, and you must get at least 6 hours of sleep. That’s it. As an extreme example, would there be anything wrong with a 12-hour long rest in which a character sleeps for 3 hours, stands watch for 6 hours, and then sleeps for another 3? I don’t see anything that could possibly be wrong with that.

Does anyone have any insight into what’s the purpose of this mechanic?

Maybe it was a mistake. Maybe they didn't think anyone would ever do what you're talking about. Maybe it's, I don't know, just a game and a DM should apply common sense now and then while making a ruling that all three can get a long rest as you describe.

As I see it you have 2 completely legitimate options where everyone gets a long rest.

• Accept that the rules are not perfect or at least not perfectly worded to convey their intent. Make a rule that you can have 3 people take turns and they all get the benefit of a long rest.
• Follow the absolute letter of the law and have 2 watches over the course of 12 hours.

As far as "insight into the purpose" ... for most people it works well enough. They'll have more than 3 people in a group or choose one of the 2 options.

 

[clearstream]

Yes, but it is not “at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity.”

Indeed, but that is only relevant to the way you choose to read it. The linguistically legitimate alternative has no such problem.

 

[Hriston]

You make a change to rule out the possibility of a "silly" amount of combat. Seeming to say that the combat component can only occur as part of a mix. But the unmodified rule as you are reading it can't only mean a mix, otherwise one hour of walking alone would not interrupt a rest, or any amount of walking and combat... just so long as no one cast a spell!

The unmodified rule, by your reading must include one hour of combat alone as a case. You rule it does not, ergo you have implicitly changed it. @Charlaquin does likewise.

I'm not accusing you of a fault in this: it is a straight fix to remove a problem. The alternative if set on your reading is to accept the problem, but say that it is not a concern. You might say that 1 hour of combat is indeed a case that the rule covers systemically, but as it is an edge case is tolerable.

My earlier point was that as there is a viable reading that does not have that problem at all - so needs neither fixing nor tolerating - then unless one has a preference for play one way or another, one would be well justified in applying that reading. Therefore, probably, one has a preference for play.

No, I don’t. By my reading, a ridiculous amount (one hour) of fighting alone will invalidate a long rest. I’m not sure where you got the idea that was something I had ruled out. If you actually have the situation in your game where there is an in-game hour of just fighting, whatever that would actually look like, ruling that it invalidates a long rest that was already underway would be entirely consistent with my position.

[ Edit: 1 round is a "period", right?]

Yes, but your reading doesn’t specify one round of anything, does it?

 

[clearstream]

Yes, but it is not “at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity.”

I note the em-dashes parenthising " at least...". The implication is that the general case is " a period of strenuous activity" - and here is a list of examples of that. It can be an hour of walking, it can be fighting, it can be casting spells, etc.

Were it not for those dashes I might read it as you do.

 

[clearstream]

Yes, but your reading doesn’t specify one round of anything, does it?

There is no need because the rule is contextualised by its location in a DnD 5e ruleset. If there is fighting, by the rules of the game that will be for a period of 1 round or more.

 

[Hriston]

Maybe it was a mistake. Maybe they didn't think anyone would ever do what you're talking about. Maybe it's, I don't know, just a game and a DM should apply common sense now and then while making a ruling that all three can get a long rest as you describe.

As I see it you have 2 completely legitimate options where everyone gets a long rest.

• Accept that the rules are not perfect or at least not perfectly worded to convey their intent. Make a rule that you can have 3 people take turns and they all get the benefit of a long rest.
• Follow the absolute letter of the law and have 2 watches over the course of 12 hours.

I’ve gone with something like your first option, by disregarding the 2-hour limit on light activity/standing watch. What this thread has shown me is that the reason I would be displeased with what amounts to your second option (i.e., following the rules) is mostly a matter of aesthetic preference.

As far as "insight into the purpose" ... for most people it works well enough. They'll have more than 3 people in a group or choose one of the 2 options.

If the purpose (or design goal?) was to have something that “works well enough”, I don’t see how leaving out the 2-hour limit on light activity altogether wouldn’t have served that purpose even better. It’s already implied for a long rest of 8 hours by the requirement of having at least 6 hours of sleep. Stating it as a hard limit only adds unnecessary (IMO) inflexibility into the system which is in tension with the flexibility implied by the words “at least”.