D&D 5E What interupts a long rest?

[Mannahnin]

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

 

[Maxperson]

Since I’m not sure which intent you consider ridiculous, I’m not sure this statement can be accurate.

For my edification, which of the following intended rules-consequences do you consider ridiculous?

A: Most long rests will not be interrupted.
OR
B: Long rests will often be interrupted.

RAW does not leave much room for anything in between.

A, which includes being able to fight for 599 straight rounds, casting 599 spells and not lose a long rest.

Two classes? Every spell-caster except the warlock cannot regain any spell slots, if even one random encounter wanders by (not to mention attacks deliberately intended to keep the party from recovering). That’s significant.

Yep the ones who don't get "screwed" consist of two classes. And you're not entirely accurate. Wizards also get spells back on a short rest.

But the fighters and the rogues? They’ll probably be fine. until they run out of hit dice, at least.

You seem to think that this is going to happen every long rest or something. Random encounters just don't happen that often. This isn't the super big deal that a lot of people here seem to think it is.

 

[Charlaquin]

It means accepting something that based on my experience of D&D is intuitively absurd.

It’s absurd to you that 600 rounds of combat would interrupt a long rest? Strange, given that 600 rounds of combat would also interrupt a long rest in your interpretation of the rule.

 

[Charlaquin]

A, which includes being able to fight for 599 straight rounds, casting 599 spells and not lose a long rest.

Indeed! And if you start from the assumption that this should not be possible, it can color your reading of the rule such that interpreting “a period of strenuous activity—at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity” to mean “a period of strenuous activity—at least 1 hour of walking or any amount of fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity” might seem reasonable despite the italicized words not actually being present. However, if you start with no such assumptions and attempt to interpret the literal meaning of the words, regardless of whether the conclusion makes intuitive sense to you, then the most natural reading seems to suggest 599 rounds of combat would not interrupt a long rest. If you feel that should not be the case, you have strong grounds on which to form a house rule.

 

[Rune]

A, which includes being able to fight for 599 straight rounds, casting 599 spells and not lose a long rest.

I think if you check the transcript, you will find that the quotation I was responding to (as well as my response) was referring to the intent of the rule, not the specific mechanics of it. That is a separate discussion.

Yep the ones who don't get "screwed" consist of two classes.

Three classes, at least at lower levels. But even so, this makes it okay? Why would even just one class that gets consistently screwed be a reasonable intent?

And you're not entirely accurate. Wizards also get spells back on a short rest.

That only happens once per long rest. If you aren’t getting the long rests, you’re not getting those slots back again.

You seem to think that this is going to happen every long rest or something. Random encounters just don't happen that often. This isn't the super big deal that a lot of people here seem to think it is.

Why would you assume they are random?

 

[Charlaquin]

Random encounters happen pretty often in my games…

 

[Maxperson]

Three classes, at least at lower levels. But even so, this makes it okay? Why would even just one class that gets consistently screwed be a reasonable intent?

Can you show where the bolded part is true? I've been playing and running the game since 1983. Never have I or the dozens of DMs I've played with ever consistently hit us with wandering monsters. They are fairly rare.

That only happens once per long rest. If you aren’t getting the long rests, you’re not getting those slots back again.

Doesn't stop it from being true.

Why would you assume they are random?

Because I don't assume dick DMs. Bad DMs like that are so rare as to not be worth consideration. A typical DM is not going to routinely deliberately hit you during a long rest with encounters. And random encounters don't happen often enough to be a big deal.

 

[Maxperson]

Random encounters happen pretty often in my games…

All of them at night during a long rest?

 

[Mannahnin]

Random encounters are a regular occurance in my games. Random encounters at night slightly less so, but still common. Especially in hostile or wild territory.

Max, your position is looking a bit circular to me. You don't use random encounters much, but you rule that any encounter interrupts a long rest, therefore any DM who uses random encounters at night with any regularity is a dick and a bad DM.

 

[clearstream]

It’s absurd to you that 600 rounds of combat would interrupt a long rest? Strange, given that 600 rounds of combat would also interrupt a long rest in your interpretation of the rule.

You overlook that half that number - 300 rounds - will not interrupt a rest. That would be as many as 60 typical 5-round combats. It is enough to level from 1 to 7 if using encounter guidelines. You spoke of reliance on intuitions. I see two equally sustainable ways to read the words as they are written. One way chimes far better with my intuitions - and honestly, it feels really strange to me that you don't share my intuition that half an hour of combat won't interrupt a rest.

I guess that is often true of intuitions though. When an interpretation relies on intuitions it is frequently impossible to find a shared understanding.