Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6757931" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Sure, a solid hour of nothing but combat is unfeasible. However, there is a penumbra of strenuous activity around "combat" that can pad things out substantially. If you know you're about to be attacked, any time spent prepping I'd call a "strenuous" activity, and that's a good 5-ish minutes there. Then if you take any prisoners, getting them secured will take several minutes at least, and either way you're going to spend a few more minutes stripping them of their valuables. If the group has to move for some reason--retreat to a more-easily-defended location, for example--then all the time spent packing up, moving, and laying back down would count against it too, and that could easily be an hour by itself.As with a lot of limitations in 5e, I feel like people have an...odd perception of it. It's not there to identify a thing that easily and frequently breaks a short rest. Some fighting can happen, but just because you get jumped in camp one time doesn't mean you can't still get some rest. "No amount of fighting" would be a ridiculous extreme, allowing abusive effects. But at the same time, "any amount of fighting" would also be extreme, as it would make unexpected encounters an extremely, inordinately dangerous threat. Thus we get something that's somewhere in the middle, neither so extremely lax that it cannot be negatively impacted ever, nor so extremely strict that even the slightest problem breaks it.Honestly, this feels like exactly the same issue that came up in your "Inspiring Leader" thread. Why is it that limitations need to be either absolutely restrictive, or absolutely permissive? Middle-of-the-road limitations that set a pace seem perfectly cromulent, allowing practical use while still providing some kind of failure-case in the face of reasonable difficulty.</blockquote>

Verification