Tiny Hut is a ritual, so you can stay in that foreeeeever.Or not being able to hole up in a tiny hut
I'm just being cheeky, ignore me.
D&D 5E Why sleeping shouldn't be a long rest
- Thread starter miggyG777
- Start date
I'm just being cheeky, ignore me.
clearstream
(He, Him)
They can't cast during a rest without breaking the rest, so they can't renew the hut, so... 8 hours max.Tiny Hut is a ritual, so you can stay in that foreeeeever.
I'm just being cheeky, ignore me.
You can cast spells and rituals during a long rest, provided it's during the time you are awake, and doesnt take a full hour.They can't cast during a rest without breaking the rest, so they can't renew the hut, so... 8 hours max.
So
clearstream
(He, Him)
It's ambiguous. I rule that any cast interrupts... but let's not get into this.
Asisreo
Patron Badass
What's holing up in leomund's Tiny Hut going to do if you're still 16 hours away from your next long rest? Sounds like its 8 hours of the enemies potentially finding you and waiting for your hut to expire to kick the snot out of you.Tiny Hut is a ritual, so you can stay in that foreeeeever.
I'm just being cheeky, ignore me.
It's not concentration and even if it was there is nothing stopping you from recasting it every 6 hours
It's not ambiguous. I'm happy to get into it. But I also respect your right to rule differently. A happy table is a good table!
Oh yeah, Tiny Hut has lots of weaknesses. But gaps in coverage time is not among them.
clearstream
(He, Him)
The text is "If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity - at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity - the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it."
Groups of posters on this forum have interpreted this in two different ways. Under one interpretation, it is 1 hour of interruption made up of any combination of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity. Under the other interpretation it is interruption made up of 1 hour of walking, or fighting (any amount), or casting spells (any amount), or similar adventuring activity.
Unfortunately, the literal text doesn't contain the wording that would be needed to disambiguate. Crawford offered the ruling that favoured the first interpretation, but that ruling has never made it into errata or published sage advice. It has proven very hard to reconcile the two views. On my assessment this is partly because for each group their interpretation suits their preferred playing style. The "any combination" group have long rests that essentially cannot be interrupted: giving players more control over rests. The "any amount" group have long rests that are easily interrupted: giving DMs more control over rests. Both groups see fatal flaws in the other group's approach.
There have also been arguments over what wording stands given the least change made in order to disambiguate. It has been shown in other threads that it is identically efficient to change the wording to support either version. In the end, seeing they can appeal to the authority of one of the game's designers, the "any combination" group have historically been satisfied with their position; while seeing as "any combination" could include enough combat to advance from level 1 to 20 (a hundred encounters averaging 6 rounds of fighting each) or say 590 rounds of combat and 1 minute of walking, the "any amount" group have historically found it preposterous to agree with the "any combination" group. I am with the latter.
If you have something novel to add to the debate that will be interesting to hear!
Similar Threads
- Locked
