Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8388657" data-attributes="member: 71699">Where I believe we landed last time we chewed over these lines is that the words in the book are literally ambiguous: they really can be taken either way. Many people agreed that 600 rounds of combat can't be what is intended, notwithstanding JC's tweet.With that in mind, I feel the most plausible approaches are either<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">You say that it is a collection of activities together that break a rest, which is the approach you have outlined</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">You say that any amount of combat, any spellcasting, an hour of walking, breaks a rest</li>
</ol>1. ends up requiring additional words because we have to rule out something that remains included under it, which is 600 rounds of combat. Or if we decide that it must be always a mix of activities, then we are also ruling out exactly 1 hour of walking, which can't really be what we want.Thus, from the words written in the book, I believe there are better grounds to go with 2. than 1. If a DM prefers to put an hour of fighting on the same footing as an hour of walking - which amounts to saying that they prefer rests in their game to be very hard to interrupt - then they have JC's tweet to back them up.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8388657, member: 71699"] Where I believe we landed last time we chewed over these lines is that the words in the book are literally ambiguous: they really can be taken either way. Many people agreed that 600 rounds of combat can't be what is intended, notwithstanding JC's tweet. With that in mind, I feel the most plausible approaches are either [LIST=1] [*]You say that it is a collection of activities together that break a rest, which is the approach you have outlined [*]You say that any amount of combat, any spellcasting, an hour of walking, breaks a rest [/LIST] 1. ends up requiring additional words because we have to rule out something that remains included under it, which is 600 rounds of combat. Or if we decide that it must be always a mix of activities, then we are also ruling out exactly 1 hour of walking, which can't really be what we want. Thus, from the words written in the book, I believe there are better grounds to go with 2. than 1. If a DM prefers to put an hour of fighting on the same footing as an hour of walking - which amounts to saying that they prefer rests in their game to be very hard to interrupt - then they have JC's tweet to back them up. [/QUOTE]

Verification