Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8388665" data-attributes="member: 6779196">What do you mean by “600 rounds of combat can’t be what’s intended”? Surely you aren’t suggesting that the intent is for 600 rounds of combat to not break a rest?Any combination of the activities listed, which together add up to one hour of activity, breaks the rest. That would include 600 rounds of combat, if such a thing actually happened. A much smaller amount of combat, combined with other activities, is of course the more likely scenario to occur in actual play, but the fact that the rule happens to also cover a situation that is not likely to come up in actual play is not evidence against that interpretation.I find this reading - although technically grammatically plausible - to be extremely unintuitive, and therefore doubt it is the intended interpretation. Jeremy Crawford’s tweet seems to confirm it was indeed not the intent of the writers.Why do we have to rule that option out? I think that (in the unlikely event that it were to actually happen) 600 rounds of combat absolutely should break a long rest.In fact, 600 rounds of combat breaks a long rest under either interpretation, so I don’t see why it being covered by 1 is relevant. Both interpretations have that fact in common.Why would we decide that? Is exactly 1 hour of walking “at least one hour of walking, combat, spellcasting, or other strenuous activity”? Yes, it is, therefore it breaks a long rest.What on earth do you mean “put an hour of fighting on the same footing as an hour of walking”? Just because both scenarios are covered by the same rule doesn’t mean they are equal in any way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8388665, member: 6779196"] What do you mean by “600 rounds of combat can’t be what’s intended”? Surely you aren’t suggesting that the intent is for 600 rounds of combat to [I]not[/I] break a rest? Any combination of the activities listed, which together add up to one hour of activity, breaks the rest. That would include 600 rounds of combat, if such a thing actually happened. A much smaller amount of combat, combined with other activities, is of course the more likely scenario to occur in actual play, but the fact that the rule happens to also cover a situation that is not likely to come up in actual play is not evidence against that interpretation. I find this reading - although technically grammatically plausible - to be extremely unintuitive, and therefore doubt it is the intended interpretation. Jeremy Crawford’s tweet seems to confirm it was indeed not the intent of the writers. Why do we have to rule that option out? I think that (in the unlikely event that it were to actually happen) 600 rounds of combat absolutely should break a long rest. In fact, 600 rounds of combat breaks a long rest under either interpretation, so I don’t see why it being covered by 1 is relevant. Both interpretations have that fact in common. Why would we decide that? Is exactly 1 hour of walking “at least one hour of walking, combat, spellcasting, or other strenuous activity”? Yes, it is, therefore it breaks a long rest. What on earth do you mean “put an hour of fighting on the same footing as an hour of walking”? Just because both scenarios are covered by the same rule doesn’t mean they are equal in any way. [/QUOTE]

Verification