Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CanadienneBacon" data-source="post: 6828249" data-attributes="member: 11146">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.</blockquote>