industrygothica
Adventurer
Haha.. I see we're thinking alike. I just said as much in IC. That's how I know we're all becoming a cohesive unit. Even Brinn, as much as it pains me to say it.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E Out of the Abyss OOC
- Thread starter CanadienneBacon
- Start date
Haha.. I see we're thinking alike. I just said as much in IC. That's how I know we're all becoming a cohesive unit. Even Brinn, as much as it pains me to say it.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
GlassEye
Adventurer
Thank you. I promise you, I will not abuse it by doing 59 minutes and 42 seconds worth of activity during a long rest.
Okay -- I see the link, and I understand the arguments being made. I don't agree with them, and think the subsequent tweets are a forced reading to reduce what (maybe) should have been the case. But simply entre nous, I'll build my case, confident that I am in the minority and am not at my most persuasive.
Here's how I think the rule works:
1. Individuals can take shifts of up to 2 hours but you need to be "resting" for 8 hrs to get the benefit of a long rest. That includes elves, even though they don't need to sleep as much.
2. If your long rest gets interrupted after an hour (by a wandering monster or whatever), you only get the benefits of a long rest. That's why it is so easy to take out new parents with a longsword: they have not had a long rest after several weeks.
3. Now nothing stops you for waiting for that long rest period afterwards, but it means you don't make progress, and there's always the risk of more wandering monsters.
So that was behind my question about only some of us initiating combat, and others not, so that those who needed it could get the benefit of the long rest.
What's more, I think that's what the rule-writer intended (irrespective of subsequent tweets):
We're all good enough at grammar to know that the four possibilities can be parsed two ways <one hour of walking/fighting/spellcasting/or similar> or <one hour of walking/one hour of fighting/one hour of spell casting/one hour of similar> and even the person tweeting noted it was silly to include all those examples if the latter was intended, since combat never lasts 600 rounds. Mearls says they meant the latter, and I don't believe him, nor do I believe that's what was intended. If it were, it could have said "If the rest is interrupted by one hour of strenuous activity of any kind (including walking), the characters must...." or whatever (even putting any item before walking would suggest that).
Also, applying real-world logic to recuperation from adventuring is always dubious, and can usually be played for both sides.
Now I won't complain CB (or the group majority) wants the more generous ruling, but I've not seen anything that makes me think it's the plain reading of what was written.
(There's other dials that could be turned -- an interrupted long rest comes with a level of exhaustion or whatever; but I find that more harsh.)
Anyways, them's my views, and I've found it works pretty well (players accept it and can rationalize it). Fun, fun.
Here's how I think the rule works:
1. Individuals can take shifts of up to 2 hours but you need to be "resting" for 8 hrs to get the benefit of a long rest. That includes elves, even though they don't need to sleep as much.
2. If your long rest gets interrupted after an hour (by a wandering monster or whatever), you only get the benefits of a long rest. That's why it is so easy to take out new parents with a longsword: they have not had a long rest after several weeks.
3. Now nothing stops you for waiting for that long rest period afterwards, but it means you don't make progress, and there's always the risk of more wandering monsters.
So that was behind my question about only some of us initiating combat, and others not, so that those who needed it could get the benefit of the long rest.
What's more, I think that's what the rule-writer intended (irrespective of subsequent tweets):
We're all good enough at grammar to know that the four possibilities can be parsed two ways <one hour of walking/fighting/spellcasting/or similar> or <one hour of walking/one hour of fighting/one hour of spell casting/one hour of similar> and even the person tweeting noted it was silly to include all those examples if the latter was intended, since combat never lasts 600 rounds. Mearls says they meant the latter, and I don't believe him, nor do I believe that's what was intended. If it were, it could have said "If the rest is interrupted by one hour of strenuous activity of any kind (including walking), the characters must...." or whatever (even putting any item before walking would suggest that).
Also, applying real-world logic to recuperation from adventuring is always dubious, and can usually be played for both sides.
Now I won't complain CB (or the group majority) wants the more generous ruling, but I've not seen anything that makes me think it's the plain reading of what was written.
(There's other dials that could be turned -- an interrupted long rest comes with a level of exhaustion or whatever; but I find that more harsh.)
Anyways, them's my views, and I've found it works pretty well (players accept it and can rationalize it). Fun, fun.
CanadienneBacon
Explorer
Ugh.
Somehow, we've collectively gone down the Cannons of Statutory Construction legal path. I find that super ironic, given 5e is supposed to be the "rulings not rules" edition. So, [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION], help me out here, because to my eye this looks a whole lot like the classic plain meaning versus legislative intent argument that we lawyers delve into when we're duking it out in motions practice.
My gut instinct is to always always always default to the plain meaning of text. Legislative intent (here, designers' intent) is what attorneys grasping at straws resort to. To clarify, my gut response to the PHB passage in question on long rests is to interpret it as "there was combat, your long rest was interrupted, no bennies for you."
I'm sensitive, however, to players wishes. Perhaps too sensitive at times. This debate comes at a poor time for me personally; I've been in a heated debate with my judge today in the privacy of chambers, advocating for him to follow the law, and to my frustration he declined. So, yeah. I'm pooped from arguing. I'm gonna take everyone's comments under advisement and sleep on it until I get my own bearings back. Because, really, one thing I know is that I trust my own instincts. Right now it's just a matter of finding them.
More from me tomorrow.
Somehow, we've collectively gone down the Cannons of Statutory Construction legal path. I find that super ironic, given 5e is supposed to be the "rulings not rules" edition. So, [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION], help me out here, because to my eye this looks a whole lot like the classic plain meaning versus legislative intent argument that we lawyers delve into when we're duking it out in motions practice.
My gut instinct is to always always always default to the plain meaning of text. Legislative intent (here, designers' intent) is what attorneys grasping at straws resort to. To clarify, my gut response to the PHB passage in question on long rests is to interpret it as "there was combat, your long rest was interrupted, no bennies for you."
I'm sensitive, however, to players wishes. Perhaps too sensitive at times. This debate comes at a poor time for me personally; I've been in a heated debate with my judge today in the privacy of chambers, advocating for him to follow the law, and to my frustration he declined. So, yeah. I'm pooped from arguing. I'm gonna take everyone's comments under advisement and sleep on it until I get my own bearings back. Because, really, one thing I know is that I trust my own instincts. Right now it's just a matter of finding them.
More from me tomorrow.
Last edited:
(apologies if my thoughts came at a bad time. I had a delayed flight and free airport wifi. Dangerous combination. )
)
industrygothica
Adventurer
Ugh.. so I broke down and started a new map for this month's CG challenge. Sometimes I get tunnel-vision, so someone please come and shake me if I start holding things up here.
-IG
-IG
CanadienneBacon
Explorer
I'll hop over there and take a look, IG.
KS, the problem is me. I'm wiffle-waffling on this issue, and since I hate wiffle-waffling, I'm growing irritated with myself. Everyone has made a viable pitch for their take on the rule, good points all. I doubt we'll reach consensus (consensus is always my preference), which means I'll make a ruling and we'll all live with it.
For now, we're moving forward in the IC as if the long rest was uninterrupted. If I'm honest, although I'm personally uncertain that's the correct result rules-wise, it IS the result that, in this circumstance because of the back-and-forth and because of the poor grammar, feels just to me. I don't think I could abide myself if I flip-flopped a second time in this issue. We need clarity and certainty. Please proceed in the IC as if your rest has one more hour to go and is uninterrupted.
As for a more permanent ruling on the rule, I'll dig a bit on Saturday, do my own research. I hadn't time for that during the week, but will make time this weekend. I'm sure the question will come up again the next time there's combat during a rest, so I'll do the research now but reserve the ruling for when it's necessary in the IC.
KS, the problem is me. I'm wiffle-waffling on this issue, and since I hate wiffle-waffling, I'm growing irritated with myself. Everyone has made a viable pitch for their take on the rule, good points all. I doubt we'll reach consensus (consensus is always my preference), which means I'll make a ruling and we'll all live with it.
For now, we're moving forward in the IC as if the long rest was uninterrupted. If I'm honest, although I'm personally uncertain that's the correct result rules-wise, it IS the result that, in this circumstance because of the back-and-forth and because of the poor grammar, feels just to me. I don't think I could abide myself if I flip-flopped a second time in this issue. We need clarity and certainty. Please proceed in the IC as if your rest has one more hour to go and is uninterrupted.
As for a more permanent ruling on the rule, I'll dig a bit on Saturday, do my own research. I hadn't time for that during the week, but will make time this weekend. I'm sure the question will come up again the next time there's combat during a rest, so I'll do the research now but reserve the ruling for when it's necessary in the IC.
Last edited:
industrygothica
Adventurer
So what do we have that would hold water.. like a pot or something? Could one of these barrelstalks be used as a cask for a short time?
Similar Threads
D&D 3E/3.5
Homebrew Content
