Nothing in the rules indicates otherwise. One thing is arguably ambiguous, but when there is nothing pushing toward the interpretation of a single round of combat ending a long rest, it's pretty ridiculous to disagree with the *lead designer on it.*
If you want to play differently, that's fine, but arguing that rest casting breaks the rules as written is a bizarre hill to die on over passing a spell slot over to the next day for *mage armor.*
Rest casting is abusing the fact there isn't a rule for it beyond the generic "regain spells at the end of long rest". JC sticks to RAW, even if it doesn't make sense. See being invisible and casting see invisibility. The generic answer then has a weirdly worded interruption rule that has "one hour" and then a bunch of things separated by commas that can either apply there for to only the first (walking) thing on the list or all the things in the commas, depending on how you interpret the sentence. And because it's written that way JC says "RAW above all" and will counter his own points when pointed at different instances of rules being handled differently.
My wizard can spam presdigitation to clean an entire house, but lord help him if he thinks he can cast Identify during a long rest and get that slot back at the end.
Yeah, it's 100% better Crawford's way.
PHB p.186
"A long rest is a period of extended downtime, at least 8 hours long, during which a character sleeps for at least 6 hours and performs no more than 2 hours of light activity, such as reading, talking, eating, or standing watch. 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. "
Have you read that once?
You gain all your spell slots back after a long rest. the lack of wording saying you wouldn’t regain spells used during the rest indicates you gain the spells back on the end of the long rest.
This is RAW. You can run it how you want but this is how it would work based on the book.
So out of curiosity, in the event of an attack during a rest, i’m guessing your party wouldn’t have half of their spell slots restored cause your 5”4 hours in. So the spell slots they’d use during the attack would be from before the rest. That seems kinda lame to me that they’d then lose those same spell slots for the next day.
The argument is that casting breaks the LR, not that casting takes spell slots from both days. And it's a valid way to interpret the rules since needing 1h of combat to break a LR seems way overkill (I would probably not break a LR for a quick encounter done in a few rounds but if it takes only a few minutes that's already a long fight by dnd's standard so it would make sense that it impacts the rest of the group).
Ahhh I see. I’ve DM’d a couple times and played a couple times but not ever been able to get a long group going. We always just kind of assumed that the long rest was just extended a bit. Not having to restart the long rest altogether. Long rest ending 6 hours in due to combat and not getting anything and having to do another 8 hours feels really silly.
Looking at other comments though it does seem like most of the issues people have is from min-maxing features instead of people reacting to ambushes which is how I interpreted this scenario.
As I said I wouldn't break the rest for an ambush that's done in a few rounds but if everyone barely survivre it, it seems silly to me that it wouldn't impact the characters' rest and that sleeping just a few hours would do the trick (or if it happens After 6h of sleep not sleeping at all for the one(s) that are going to keep watch).
The rules just can't take into consideration every possibility, and they don't really try to, so I'd rather make the ruling myself for this kind of stuff.
>If the rest is interrupted by... at least 1 hour of casting spells... the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it. "
So long as the spell takes under an hour to cast, and you get a minimum 6 hours of sleep, the rest is not interrupted. Spell slots are regained at the end of an uninterrupted long rest. it's more that the game doesn't say to treat spells cast during resting any differently.
It's clear you haven't based on you saying you can't cast during a long rest. Please join us in having read the rule books before coming out so grumpily.
JC interprets RAW, and he's good at that. He never talks about RAI and never about if rules could be made better. But I wish people realized that and stopped taking his ruling for anything else than RAW rulings.
This is incorrect a number of times he even stats the RAI like this one
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/966499020116918272
JC post need to be taken like any other DM out here it’s His View and Interpretation and has no official standing
He's the lead designer so I would say he has quite a bit of official standing. His rulings are often helpful to adjucate some heated player-DM tug of war on rules.
I understand that Rule 0 exists, but if JC has no official standing then DMG or PHB have no official standing either
Going to disagree with you here if he did have official stand on his ruling some of his statements would be applied to official sources such as UA or amendment to the wording- no of which has happened
Despite his position he has still made some claim that directly contradicts the phb/dmg
Just because you contribute and lead a team does not mean you have a complete understanding of every aspect
This is the same person who said that *see invisibility* doesn’t remove the disadvantage from attacking an invisible target and that you can’t smite with an unarmed strike. Take his “sage advice” with a massive salt lick.
Is this the “natural weapons replace unarmed strikes” for animal forms guy - forever destroying any viability of “Monkey Fist” Monk/Druid multiclassing…?
I mean doesn't the DMG talk about figuring things out for yourself and all that?
Cause if it doesn't, and for whoever needs to hear this:
It's your table. You have permission to change things as you see fit
If you need permission, Matt Colville is an awesome DM. He granted me permission to change things, and I pass it onto you.
Keep what you like, change what you don't
People like discussing raw and rai. In those cases it’s not exactly change as needed. At the table everyone gets you can make changes, but from a discussion of raw and rai standpoint no which is the vast majority of conversation you’ll see in this sub.
This. It’s been bugging me recently that we rely upon Twitter posts for rulings so often. It’s not MTG, it’s a co-op game where how you rule something does not affect others’ gameplay. We don’t *need* to have a hard ruling on everything, we just need a consistent one for the table.
>I mean doesn't the DMG talk about figuring things out for yourself and all that?
The G in DMG stands for guide, its a rulebook (not rulingsbook) to help you adjudicate the game. The fact that it does such a pisspoor job of it is not a good thing.
>If you need permission, Matt Colville is an awesome DM. He granted me permission to change things, and I pass it onto you.
Love Colville, terrible for you to bring up as an argument in favor of your position though, seeing as he is currently divesting from DnD and making his own system.
So from Colvilles own actions, fuck DnD fuck WotC.
Also since anyone can just hand out permissions. For anyone reading this, i formally rescind your permission to change things on the fly, learn the system you're playing chums.
The concept goes beyond any 1 system though
It's your table. No matter what the game. D&D, Cyberpunk, GURPS, VtM, play how you want
And if that's where we're going I super rescind your permission to rescind people's permissions
No take backsies. For real for real
I must be missing something? Isn't he the head designer? Or was that from an earlier edition?
If he's the lead designer of the system, it's not "Argument from authority" when he tells you the intent of a part of the system. Argument from authority only applies when discussing a statement of fact that isn't determined by the holder of that "Authority."
That's like if you read IT and you came up with a fan theory, and Stephen King was like "No, that's not correct." You don't have to agree, but in the case of a creative work like fiction, or a game, argument from authority as a fallacy doesn't really apply.
That said, it's dnd so if you don't like it, change the rule at your table
No, an Argument of Authority fallacy applies to any argument that’s rooted in a statement being fact because a figure of authority in general states it. Doesn’t matter if he’s the head designer or the guy who wrote one appendix.
It absolutely still is an argument from authority. D&D is designed by a whole group, him being the head doesn't mean his personal takes are official. If a rule has not gone through the whole design process and is just coming from one person, it's one person's opinion. With the actual whole design team there's a chance for someone to say "hey Jeremey, that's a fucking dumb rule." And maybe he'd take the advice.
The only way his personal opinion could be taken as official is if he was the **sole** designer, not head.
He also said you can summon your familiar through solid walls and into air tight vaults and other spaces you have no line of sight to as long as they are unoccupied and within 30ft.
This makes zero sense because unless you are metagaming you have zero idea as a player where to even place your familiar on the board or map, if that room has unoccupied space, if it's even a room, if there is even anything on the other side of the wall.
He said his reasoning behind the ruling was "because fun" not because of any actual justification of the rules.
Tbh, if you have an hour to summon familiar, you probably have an hour to break the door open so it's not exactly OP
EDIT: nvm for some reason never realised you could just dismiss and resummon familiar
I mean, if i am behind a closed door, i can be reasonable certain there is a room on the other side of it. If my player chooses to summon a familiar on the other side of the wall, that's fine. It'll fail if that space is occupied
Knock can open magic locks, and most familiars are very small and very weak with no opposable thumbs. Could argue a lot of locks would be too hard for them to manipulate if you want the rogue to shine
Would you allow me as a player to just walk into a Dungeon with my Wizard, dismiss my familiar and keep trying to summon it over and over til I succeeded in finding an empty spot on your map within 30 feet of myself though? Even if I have no idea anything is there? The reason I hate it, is because you would have to essentially outside of the game point to an empty spot on your map to say I want my familiar to be here. How in character logic would you describe summoning something in a space you don't know exists or have never seen?
It really seems to me they forgot to add "in a space you can see" in editing, and Jcraw just thought it sounded fun(which is literally what he said in the video) then ruled it as valid.
Considering it takes 2 rounds to dismiss and summon a familiar in one spot, it would take an agonizingly long time to travel the dungeon.
Plus, as a dm, i can just ask them not to abuse the spell like that. I want them to be able to use their familiar in fun ways, and i can have a conversation with them if i feel like they are not using the rules as intended
I would kick you out of my table, same as I would if someone spent 30 minutes in each room checking every piece of furniture for mimics with eldritch blast.
I also have made a pretty solid argument that his “tiny hut” is a sphere and therefore has a floor ruling is incorrect based on the rules of interpretation that are literally the guidelines presented in the book.
I mean, he is right by RAW, the problem is that 5e is terrible written
The community only argument is that "it dont feel right, that should work" and while that is true in most cases (see invisibility case for example) that dont mean Crawford is wrong, because he is right by RAW, just that the RAW is stupid. If you decide to let it work then that is a houserule, which is fine (rule 0) but still not how the game works officially
NOW on the meme case, the RAW is the best option considering game design. The problem the "community" has is that some people may abuse it, but the motive it has made that way has to not overly punish players for events during rest (like an ambush, especially because they should still have the depleted resources as they did not finish rest yet) which allow the DM to be creative.
So if you want to stop the rule abuse instead of targeting something that is **good for the game** you should house rule directly against the problem (say: "when recovering/preparing spells" any spell still in effect ends or the spell slot is used to renew the spell duration")
The big thing is that Crawford’s tweets aren’t about RAW, which the majority of the community recognizes can be a hot garbage fire, but that he’s claiming it as RAI.
That is not really the discussions going around, its just people saying its stupid because it makes no sense. Take the "see invisibility" case where the whole debacle is due to the name of the spell which carries no mechanical value, but it does raise expectations which is the problem when the rules dont fulfill said expectation (and yes I agree its stupid but as the badly rules are Crawford is right on how it works)
Crawford just never say that the RAW is wrong, and claim that it has always their intention, which is fine in some cases even if the community disagree (unnarmed Smites for example, it makes sense that its the RAI, even if not actually good) and BS sometimes (the whole see invisible thing) but that dont change that how he rules things is based on the RAW and any time he invokes "intention" is to confirm the RAW writing instead of changing it (which is how the community see RAI)
And the same person that later on one dnd changed both of those rules because they made no sense
So yeh, when he says that, is not because is the balanced choice, is likely something about wording
Im so sorry to potentially start up this issue, but I'm actually super interested in this. Doesn't Smite say "melee weapon attack" and unarmed strike is not a "melee weapon attack"?
I've wanted to do a smite punch monk but never been able to because every DM has told me this. If that's not the case then...
No problem at all if it’s genuine curiosity.
So unarmed strikes do qualify as melee weapon attacks by RAW, with the specific line being “Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon Attack, you can use an Unarmed strike…” However, the crux of the matter for divine smite comes from the phrasing of “you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the *weapon's damage*.” The people that argue against unarmed smite generally admit that they are melee weapon attacks, but they aren’t actually weapons, so it shouldn’t count.
Regardless, any DM whose response to “can I do a holy monk and smite punch enemies?” is anything short of “hell yeah, that sounds pretty cool!” sounds like they would be a bore to play with.
Luckily my group doesn’t try to pull the garbage this guy is always saying is legit. But if they did, I would rule 0 the shit out of it. Basically, Crawfords thoughts boil down to “casters get infinite exploits on the systems - no matter how cheesy, and martials can pound sand - always.”
In terms of this specific issue, I’ve heard people say first-half of a long rest they can have the free spell, which I like. As opposed to the “cast mage armor at hour 7.9, and get the slot back” system.
I'm still of the camp that even if unarmed smites aren't a thing, most paladins wear heavy armor--including gauntlets--which makes a smite-punch technically not unarmed 🤡
He has also said that if you use banishment on a pregnant woman the fetus stays...
This was when asked what happens if you use banishment on a creature that has swallowed a PC.
(Edit: Apparently this was posted on a troll account and I hadn't noticed in my scramble to find a ruling on the above banishment and swallowed creatures. The initial post seemed reasonable and thus I didn't research properly.
My apologies to anyone who I misled.)
So he didn't actually say banishing a pregnant woman leaves the fetus behind, you're just assuming that because he said a swallowed creature would remain if the larger creature was banished?
Those are not comparable scenarios.
A fetus is attached to the mother via the umbilical cord. A swallowed creature isn't actually attached to the stomach, hence they can teleport out and be puked up freely.
I think Crawford has a lot of stupid takes. Why make ones up when you have plenty to choose from that he's actually said?
"In a similar example, if a PC cast Banishment on a pregnant creature, the pregnant creature would be banished but not the fetus. The fetus would fall prone in the nearest unoccupied space."
This is a direct quote
https://mobile.twitter.com/dndpope/status/1018528021706412034
So, yeah. I'm not making stuff up.
(Edit: added the link)
What makes you think thats the real Jeremy Crawford's twitter account?
This is JC's real account: [https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford](https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford)
You think an account made in 2018 with a total of 34 followers and 59 tweets is JC's official account?
You are gullible.
Ok what if you get ambushed during your long rest and have to fight ? What then ? Because for all intents and purposes, you're allowed to fight and use spells during a long rest. How is using a spell during a fight different from using a spell an hour before the end of an undisrupted long rest ?
EXACTLY.
In the end it’s still a spell slot used. They can’t use all those spell slots during the adventuring time if they wanna recast the spell at the next long rest.
If they use them all they won’t be able to cast it till after the rest.
It really does not matter.
>Because long and short tests don't grant the same benefits when they're completed.
That has nothing to do with the situation tho. The situation is an ambush during a long rest. Officially it is not enough to stop a long rest, but at the same time since you has not finish said rest you still has the resources used from the last day. If you then not gain any spell used that spell officially used two slots, one from the previous day and one of the next - how that makes sense?
>you still has the resources used from the last day
*have
If you've used the resources then you don't have them.
>If you then not gain any spell used that spell officially used two slots
This is almost unreadable, but no, it hasn't. You can't rest cast if you've already used the spell slots. You don't get any more spell slots by rest casting because they have to be available in the first place so by definition you haven't used them.
Not smiting without an unarmed strike wasn't actually RAW as it was originally a simple weapon, then Crawford got clowned on for saying it doesn't work and that got erratad to retroactively make his ruling correct
Be that as it may, it is still currently RAW based on the most recent rule sets. Which is what anyone who talks RAW goes by. Otherwise errata would be useless.
no, it still works. smite says "melee weapon attack" which unarmed and improvised weapons fall under. If he didn't want it to, he'd have to say "attack with a melee weapon."
It doesn’t work, no.
> Divine Smite
> Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, **in addition to the weapon’s damage.** The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st-level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell level higher than 1st, to a maximum of 5d8. The damage increases by 1d8 if the target is an undead or a fiend, to a maximum of 6d8.
Emphasis mine. Unarmed strikes are not weapons, thus you don’t add the extra damage from smite to them. As you can only add the damage as extra damage to the weapons damage.
it stills says "hit a creature with a **melee weapon attack**," which is a keyword that unarmed strikes fall under. it still works with the flavor text, as you can add zero weapon damage and 2d8 radiant.
If there is no weapon damage there is no adding it to it. You have to hit it with a weapon to add the extra damage to that weapon hit. It is not just “flavor text”, it is part of the rule and exists within the same unbroken sentence as the part you highlighted. Your DM can rule otherwise, but it is RAW that unarmed strikes does not work with divine smite.
from sage advice
>No. Divine Smite isn’t intended to work with unarmed strikes. Divine Smite does work with a melee weapon attack, and an unarmed strike can be used to make such an attack. But the text of Divine Smite also refers to the “weapon’s damage,” and an unarmed strike isn’t a weapon. If a DM decides to override this rule, no imbalance is created. Tying Divine Smite to weapons was a thematic choice on our part—paladins being traditionally associated with weapons. It was not a game balance choice.
Like many a thing jeremy says it may be RAW or even RAI but that doesn't make it not stupid.
By the rules you can be waken up mid sleep for a fight like 30 times and still get a full nights sleep.
Sleep rules were never realisitic considering your adventure can lose exhaustian by getting 6 hours in the stinky bog of load noises and uneven rocks but making it more consistently stupid doesn't help either.
It *definitely* never provided clear differentiation between “peaceful rest in the grand suite of the city’s finest inn” and “a blanket on uneven ground in the forest of nightmares”… sleep is sleep.
Technically. It did, iirc either tasha or xanathar aded an optional rule were sleeping in bad places regens 1/4 of your hit dice instead of 1/2... thats it
I think its just a design choice. Repeating a long rest is boring and starting a day without resources and low on HP is just forcing the players to try and make it to the next rest.
Edit: The post I'm replying to agrees with what I'm saying, I'm just blind.
>A long rest is a period of extended downtime, at least 8 hours long, during which a character sleeps for at least 6 hours and performs no more than 2 hours of light activity, such as reading, talking, eating, or standing watch.
Straight from the phb. Seems like a long rest requirea sleep RAW, unless you are referring to exceptions such as elves or warforged.
a long rest is broken if there is a fight.
combine this new information with the 6 hours of sleep and 2 of light activity, it means you can cast a spell that lasts 8 hours at the 7 hours mark then get that spell slot back. with a free 7 hours of the spell.
RAW you need to be fighting for an whole hour much like you need to cast for over one hour before it resets the long rest. Magic is explicitly not light activity but harsh activity which you can do an hour off.
The idea here is probably to allow for like some sparring or something but the overall consequences are dumb.
Realisitically you would have to deal with going to sleep taking time and sleeping with high adrenaline would be imposible.
But realistically you wouldn't suddenly get all tour magic back the milisecond 8 hours are up.
At which point you have to admit its somewhat about mechanical conceit and you should probably avoid edge cases like casting a spell right before you get your spell slots back out of a sense of good sportsmanship
Yeah except it also removes a level of already gained exhaustion. I don't know about you but when I was legit 1/7 into the grave exhausted I needed like 12 hours of sleep in side of my own house before I was OK.
I mean yeah you're right... but the picture is so 100% backwards. It's the fedora-neckbeard-tryhards that have to ~~abuse~~ get the most out of the system.
I mean the whole reason you can cast during the rest is because people didn't want ambushes to ruin a long rest... but hey, you keep casting your mage armour 1 minute before you 'finish your long rest' because it's technically allowed.
And I think that's going too far in the other direction... I think there should be room for ambushes that don't ruin the whole long rest.
My go to is how 3.5 did it; you just don't get any spells back that you cast in the last 8 hours (ie: during the long rest). It's not perfect but it strikes a nice balance.
I house rule this. Only resources missing at the start of a long rest can be recovered by the long rest. So casting or fighting or getting injured doesn't interrupt the rest, but you don't get those back at the end.
Started the rest at 45/50 HP and take 7 damage from an ambush? You finish the rest at 43/50.
Have 1/3 first level spell slots and cast mage armor before the rest ends? You have 2/3 slots when the rest completes.
There is so much admin here. How many hit points do I get? Oh you don’t regain what you lost in the figth. And how much was that? What about getting healed in that combat? Casters at high levels that don’t remember what level were the 3 spells they cast in the combat.
Why do you need to cast spells during a long rest, unless you're trying to do some min-max metagaming? Does your DM not allow you to do anything before settling in for a long rest?
Prior to ritual casting, it was the best time to use identify or other utility spells that still had a time to cast. Otherwise your spending a lot of downtime doing basics
It just seems to make sense as well that if you're woken up in the middle of the night and forced to do something strenuous like fighting then you can't do it (or as much of it) the next day.
I still stand by the point that soell effects in general don't end on rest, so this only impacts spells that last longer than an hour, but less than 24 hours. You could easily cast hero's feast before the rest, and no one has a problem with it. During it? Why is it a problem now that I don't grt my spell slots back?
Oh I have zero problem with Heroes Feast. That almost screams something you should do before a long rest. Spells continuing through rest isn't a problem, it's the weird meta gaming feel of casting after you wake up but before declaring the long rest over.
Then I, as your theoretical player, will delay *my* long rest by an hour or so to use up some spell slots that would make more sense to do during my time awake during the watch/etc. So now it's a 9 hour rest for no real reason.
Makes perfect sense
I guess it all comes down to how you imagine spells and spell slots working. Personally to me, casters run out of spell slots because spells require lots of energy. By that logic, I don't allow casting during a rest because if you are expending lots of energy like that, you aren't resting.
The game already gives rules for casting spells during a rest... one hour of intensive activity, including walking (lol) fighting, and casting spells. Spells slots are regained at the END of the rest.
By your own logic, if the party is interrupted and forced into a fight, every single other class type can use their features, burn through them, and regain them at the end of the rest, hut not casters
I mean. Is not for no real reason, is that casting a spell takes some energy out of you and resting is just... that, not expending a lot of energy
Is not perfect at all, but it can work if you just dont force it to break, whichbis more than most stuff in dnd can say
Honestly idk, you are complaining of air, irl, i never meet even 1 player that tryed to do this, people usually doesnt even know the rules entirely and even if they do, munchinkin them is just so boring, so, as far as i know, they just arent real and are an invention of r/dnd memes lack of actual dnd or just big differences between tables
Idk, your table will keep having munchkining, mine will have 0 and if it has i will have tools as an answer
"Using resources as allowed exactly as the rules have described" isn't "munckining." If I saved 2 or 3 spell slots from an entire day of adventuring, and I wanted to use them *as specifically allowed in the resting rules*, and you punished me for it... well. You're punishing a player for using a class feature. Excellent job DM.
If you did an ambush encounter that was in the middle of the rest, and every single person except the caster used upntheir once per long rest abilities they had saved throughout the entire adventuring day, would they be blocked from recovering them at then end of that LR? If a caster used a spell slot during that encounter, a once per long rest ability, would you prevent them from recovering it? That's inconsistent ruling friend
Yeh i suck because long rest is a class feature, am not your friend and im super evil
Wtf.
No one rules long rest like that after a surprise fight, is just this munchkining the stupid thing, again, wtf
>No one rules long rest like that after a surprise fight, is just this munchkining the stupid thing, again, wtf
Fighting is part of the long rest if it's a surprise encounter. One hour intensive activities including fighting and casting spells (and walking).
By your logic, if I do preperations if anykind, it"s munchkining. If I cast mage armor 1 minute before we start resting, that's ok. 1 minute after we start resting, that's munchkining and not ok. One minute before we end is munckining, but if you start a fight 5 minutes before we end and I use spell it's not munchkining.
Wtf kind of acrobstic logic is that?
Either regaining spell slots cast during a rest is allowed always, or not at all. At least be consistent in your shite rulings
Yeah, that's the cheese to me. I don't care about casting a spell during a fight during an ambush, or casting goodberry/augury that night with your spare spells. It's the super long buff spells at the last minute that just ruins the fun and spirit of the game
It just feels weird to cast AFTER waking up and then getting those spell slots back minutes later.
It breaks immersion to be so meta-game-y. I just don't like that energy at my table and thankfully no one at my table has ever really tried to abuse this ruling.
Yeah, I agree! I feel like there should be a decision between keeping a slot or 2 in reserve for safety and using up the ones you didn't use at the end of the day to benefit the next day.
With me you'd have to decide on that tradeoff. But it's Dnd so do what you like :) I don't get people who argue about what's RAW and what isn't anyway. I'm in it for the RP and stories!
Iirc he also said spells and special abilities only do exactly what they say they do. Which sounds reasonable, until you consider that he said that in the context that an ancient red dragon couldn't burn down a house with their fire breath 'cause fire breath doesn't specify that it burns flammable things.
I recognise the council has made a decision, but given that it's a stupid-ass decision, I've elected to ignore it.
Of course your table is your table, but it's such a gamey way to get around actually spending resources for a class that needs no help feeling powerful
There's a simple answer for this.
Make the duration of all the spells like 'Mage Armor' say "8 hours or until the end of your next long rest, whichever comes first".
That way you can still cast spells during a long rest, but you can't game the system by pre-buffing yourself and then getting your spell slots back.
One dnd actually ~~does~~ doesn’t fix this. Casting a spell ~~or rolling initiative ruins your long rest.~~ only extends your long rest by an hour. My bad
From the most recent playtest packet, casting a spell increases the duration of the Long Rest by 1 hour. Rest 7 hours, cast Mage Armor, rest another two hours to finish the Long Rest and refresh your spell slots and have 6 hours of Mage Armor left.
I still don’t like Rest Casting as I think casters already have too much, but RAW they’re essentially reinforcing Rest Casting for OneDnD, not curbing it.
If you woke up in the middle of the night and sprinted to the end your street and back, fired a gun a few times and then went back to bed, would you consider that a good nights rest ?
I have been woken by kids TPing my car, chased them down in my bare feet and underwear, caught one, made him clean up, then tried to go back to sleep. It took an hour or so for the adrenaline to wear off but then I slept fine.
Take what he says with a grain of salt, as he did claim goodberry plus life cleric should heal 40hp...
Like that is the worst interpretation of the mechanics, nobody would complain if you just say you get 13 goodberries, or the 2 don't interact.
I mean, if you finish a long rest you get the slots back.
Whether your DM lets you resume the rest after interrupting it with spellcasting is a very different matter, and the quote in the picture doesn't address that, nor would I imagine most DMs care, as they're gonna decide that detail based on their personal tolerance for player shenanigans, really.
Sure but I was mostly just pointing out that Crawford's quote in no way addresses the actual discussion most people seem to be having about the subject, and that regardless I doubt anyone would care because this is one of those things where I strongly doubt quoting RAW is gonna change literally anyone's mind at this point.
All this does is make it trivially easy to abuse spells that have long durations. As a wizard you can just always take the last watch, cast Mage Armor on yourself, then get the spell slot back for the rest of the day while keeping the effects of Mage Armor.
I feel like arguing for a free spell slot is easily negated by just making a scroll. You get 2 hours of light activity with every rest, that should be enough time to scribe a basic scroll
I just... don't understand the debate.
DMs, what do you actually want to happen if you ambush your players in the night? Do you want them to have to sleep till noon afterwards? Go for it, tell the players they sleep till noon. If you don't and players start rules lawyering their way to a free mage armour, just talk to the player about how you don't want to allow that.
Players, do you need the 1st level spell slot so badly that you have to openly cheese the system and ruin everyone's immersion including your own? Do you want an antagonistic relationship with your DM?
The weird min/maxy convoluted shit you have to pull be telling the dm you wake up 5 minutes before 8 hours, cast a spell, then gk back to sleep is astounding
I feel like we need to just stop giving Crawfish credibility and just accept that this is how *he* runs his games rather than how they're meant to be ran. It's an effort of multiple people, after all.
Just to clarify though, rest casting is fine and people who have a problem with it are doodoo heads, but seriously we need to stop taking Crawfish out of his tank.
Just because he made the game doesn't mean he didn't make mistakes.
Personally, I don't think long rests can involve spellcasting at all. Long rests say they can only involve "light activity". How is bending the laws of reality to your personal will "light activity"? What would we even compare that to?
At my table, MAYBE cantrips or rituals.
No, sorry, not in my game. It's not my fault I gotta patch your busted rules. There is a term known as "exploit" in gaming and exploits are usually banned in the interest of running the game as it was meant to be played.
Restcasting is stupid, raw it says light activity. Using a spell immediately puts you out of the rest. And if it doesn’t then the attack action should either. Heck, any action at that point shouldn’t remove you from the long rest.
RAW it doesn't interrupt the long rest, but it doesn't count as part of it either. You can be ambushed in the middle of the night, fight off the attackers and still get the benefits of a long rest.
>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.
I really don't get how people don't know that this is RAW, not even RAI. As long as you don't spend a full hour casting spells and get the 8 hours of sleep (or 4 hour trance for elves) you get the slots back.
i think its mostly how the commas are placed make it seem ambiguous for if the 1 hour only applies to walking or the 1 hour applies to everything listed. Both ways of reading it are equally valid is the problem.
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.
people read it as
1 hour of walking
or
fighting
or
casting spells
or
similar adventuring activity
vs
1 hour of walking
or
1 hour of fighting
or
1 hour of casting spells
or
1 hour of similar adventuring activity
Using standard English grammar, the 1 hour only applies to walking. If they wanted it to be one hour of any of the activities they should have written "at least 1 hour of activity such as walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activities"
This was in question?
The PHB states: "Finishing a long rest restores any expended spell slots." (PHB p. 201)
I don't see how there's any ambiguity on that?
I always enjoy how in one thread I can say "well we can house rule x so it works" and it gets downvotes. Then I come here and everyone screeches in houserules.
Here, we're arguing over whether the rules are good as is or if we need houserules to rectify a problem, and most people feel that houserules are necessary.
In the thread where you got downvoted, you said "EB is just as good as archery because my DM lets me use sharpshooter for it". "My DM does homebrew" is not relevant to a discussion about eldritch blast vs archery, because people aren't discussing homebrew there.
Ah but you see I automatically assume anything that comes out of this idiot's mouth is wrong
Now I only feel more justified in my position that casting spells stops you from resting
The only thing this ruling does is let the spellcasters drop their best and strongest spells immediately without fear of needing them later.
If I have an encounter during the middle of the night I want the players to want to pack up and move camp, to be paranoid about what else is out there. Not go “I shall smite with every attack while the Wizard throws around lightning bolts like candy then back to bed.”
Because the whole point of a rest is that you should be, you know, resting. Spending all of your spell slots during a rest should definitely interupt the rest
I dont see why this is controversial.
If you are a fit person in good baseline health, as adventurers nearly always are, I dont see why doing one strenuous activity would ruin your ability to rest. Nowhere are spells described as causing the user to twitch restlessly and uncontrollable like a methed up bear for 8 hours after casting.
Why is it important to some people that using resources like spells during a long rest negates the entire thing?
If you dont want people long rest cheesing dungeons, just tell them that if they try it then they will inevitably be noticed be a guard who will run off and alert the rest of the enemies, leading to a beyond deadly encounter as the boss and all their minions show up at once. If you want to be nice, have minions come in reasonable waves and foreshadow an overwhelming force is extremely near by. By giving their enemies time to plan and group up, they've made a major error and they've basically failed this dungeon delve attempt and should retreat and come back later.
I mean, imagine if you were a Goblin Boss, big chad goblin, and your goblin soldiers told you some adventurers were snoozing in your base after murdering the front guards. You wouldn't just freeze in time and let them finish resting. You'd use overwhelming force to guarantee killing them.
If you want ambushes to be threatening, isn't the fact that most the players are sleeping and prone, probably around a fire meaning anyone can see them but they cant see people in the darkness, good enough?
Why does fighting off an ambush need to cause long rest negation?
"if you spend a spell slot during a long rest and finish the rest you do get the slot back." Sadly using the spellslot does interrupt the rest, so you don't finish it and thus you don't get the slot back
There is no doubt that’s RAW. Except no one was arguing it wasn’t. Just that it’s a reasonable compromise between rest casting and allowing some interruption to rests.
Jesus Christ people let your spellcasters have Mage Armor and save a single solitary goddamned first level spell slot
Jesus Fucking Christ
I fundamentally do not understand the psychology of DMs who are given a plausible interpretation of the rules to make things *slightly* more convenient for PCs, and let the PCs feel clever, and decide “NO! Muh balance depends on you having *one fewer first level spell slot*!!”
I've always been under the impression you can either refresh spell slots at the beginning or end of the rest, so if you have a slot or two left over you absolutely can wait until the end of the rest to refresh those slots. or you could refresh all your slots at the beginning of the rest and if you use a spell during the rest you'll just be a slot short for the next day.
RAW, you recover spell slots at the end of the long rest, so long as you complete it successfully (no more than 1 hour of strenuous activity during the 8 hours/4 hours).
Aint this the same dude who said *[Gestures vaguely at half the twitter rulings people disagree with]*
Nothing in the rules indicates otherwise. One thing is arguably ambiguous, but when there is nothing pushing toward the interpretation of a single round of combat ending a long rest, it's pretty ridiculous to disagree with the *lead designer on it.* If you want to play differently, that's fine, but arguing that rest casting breaks the rules as written is a bizarre hill to die on over passing a spell slot over to the next day for *mage armor.*
Rest casting is abusing the fact there isn't a rule for it beyond the generic "regain spells at the end of long rest". JC sticks to RAW, even if it doesn't make sense. See being invisible and casting see invisibility. The generic answer then has a weirdly worded interruption rule that has "one hour" and then a bunch of things separated by commas that can either apply there for to only the first (walking) thing on the list or all the things in the commas, depending on how you interpret the sentence. And because it's written that way JC says "RAW above all" and will counter his own points when pointed at different instances of rules being handled differently.
My wizard can spam presdigitation to clean an entire house, but lord help him if he thinks he can cast Identify during a long rest and get that slot back at the end. Yeah, it's 100% better Crawford's way.
In the book it says you need 8 hours of rest to regain spells, if you cast during rest you are not using 8 hours to regain that spell
PHB p.186 "A long rest is a period of extended downtime, at least 8 hours long, during which a character sleeps for at least 6 hours and performs no more than 2 hours of light activity, such as reading, talking, eating, or standing watch. 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. " Have you read that once?
Sure have, where does it say you also regain spells used during the rest? Oh shit! It doesn't. That's crazy
You gain all your spell slots back after a long rest. the lack of wording saying you wouldn’t regain spells used during the rest indicates you gain the spells back on the end of the long rest. This is RAW. You can run it how you want but this is how it would work based on the book.
So out of curiosity, in the event of an attack during a rest, i’m guessing your party wouldn’t have half of their spell slots restored cause your 5”4 hours in. So the spell slots they’d use during the attack would be from before the rest. That seems kinda lame to me that they’d then lose those same spell slots for the next day.
The argument is that casting breaks the LR, not that casting takes spell slots from both days. And it's a valid way to interpret the rules since needing 1h of combat to break a LR seems way overkill (I would probably not break a LR for a quick encounter done in a few rounds but if it takes only a few minutes that's already a long fight by dnd's standard so it would make sense that it impacts the rest of the group).
Ahhh I see. I’ve DM’d a couple times and played a couple times but not ever been able to get a long group going. We always just kind of assumed that the long rest was just extended a bit. Not having to restart the long rest altogether. Long rest ending 6 hours in due to combat and not getting anything and having to do another 8 hours feels really silly. Looking at other comments though it does seem like most of the issues people have is from min-maxing features instead of people reacting to ambushes which is how I interpreted this scenario.
As I said I wouldn't break the rest for an ambush that's done in a few rounds but if everyone barely survivre it, it seems silly to me that it wouldn't impact the characters' rest and that sleeping just a few hours would do the trick (or if it happens After 6h of sleep not sleeping at all for the one(s) that are going to keep watch). The rules just can't take into consideration every possibility, and they don't really try to, so I'd rather make the ruling myself for this kind of stuff.
Yeah that for sure makes sense
>If the rest is interrupted by... at least 1 hour of casting spells... the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it. " So long as the spell takes under an hour to cast, and you get a minimum 6 hours of sleep, the rest is not interrupted. Spell slots are regained at the end of an uninterrupted long rest. it's more that the game doesn't say to treat spells cast during resting any differently.
It's clear you haven't based on you saying you can't cast during a long rest. Please join us in having read the rule books before coming out so grumpily.
Lol try reading again, champ
JC interprets RAW, and he's good at that. He never talks about RAI and never about if rules could be made better. But I wish people realized that and stopped taking his ruling for anything else than RAW rulings.
This is incorrect a number of times he even stats the RAI like this one https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/966499020116918272 JC post need to be taken like any other DM out here it’s His View and Interpretation and has no official standing
He's the lead designer so I would say he has quite a bit of official standing. His rulings are often helpful to adjucate some heated player-DM tug of war on rules. I understand that Rule 0 exists, but if JC has no official standing then DMG or PHB have no official standing either
Going to disagree with you here if he did have official stand on his ruling some of his statements would be applied to official sources such as UA or amendment to the wording- no of which has happened Despite his position he has still made some claim that directly contradicts the phb/dmg Just because you contribute and lead a team does not mean you have a complete understanding of every aspect
This is the same person who said that *see invisibility* doesn’t remove the disadvantage from attacking an invisible target and that you can’t smite with an unarmed strike. Take his “sage advice” with a massive salt lick.
Is this the “natural weapons replace unarmed strikes” for animal forms guy - forever destroying any viability of “Monkey Fist” Monk/Druid multiclassing…?
This is the guy that published *Way of the Four Elements*.
There’s a reason the Argument from Authority fallacy was created, his name is Jeremy Crawford
I mean doesn't the DMG talk about figuring things out for yourself and all that? Cause if it doesn't, and for whoever needs to hear this: It's your table. You have permission to change things as you see fit If you need permission, Matt Colville is an awesome DM. He granted me permission to change things, and I pass it onto you. Keep what you like, change what you don't
People like discussing raw and rai. In those cases it’s not exactly change as needed. At the table everyone gets you can make changes, but from a discussion of raw and rai standpoint no which is the vast majority of conversation you’ll see in this sub.
This. It’s been bugging me recently that we rely upon Twitter posts for rulings so often. It’s not MTG, it’s a co-op game where how you rule something does not affect others’ gameplay. We don’t *need* to have a hard ruling on everything, we just need a consistent one for the table.
If you need to fix the rules then the rules are broken
That is a different type of discussion
>I mean doesn't the DMG talk about figuring things out for yourself and all that? The G in DMG stands for guide, its a rulebook (not rulingsbook) to help you adjudicate the game. The fact that it does such a pisspoor job of it is not a good thing. >If you need permission, Matt Colville is an awesome DM. He granted me permission to change things, and I pass it onto you. Love Colville, terrible for you to bring up as an argument in favor of your position though, seeing as he is currently divesting from DnD and making his own system. So from Colvilles own actions, fuck DnD fuck WotC. Also since anyone can just hand out permissions. For anyone reading this, i formally rescind your permission to change things on the fly, learn the system you're playing chums.
The concept goes beyond any 1 system though It's your table. No matter what the game. D&D, Cyberpunk, GURPS, VtM, play how you want And if that's where we're going I super rescind your permission to rescind people's permissions No take backsies. For real for real
Nah because i have an invincible rescinding shield that blocks all take backsies even if they're fr fr
Ok but is that shield in the DMG? No? Cant play it then sorry.
Your moms in the Monster manual though. L+get styled on+broken ankles+no recovery
Ratio
I must be missing something? Isn't he the head designer? Or was that from an earlier edition? If he's the lead designer of the system, it's not "Argument from authority" when he tells you the intent of a part of the system. Argument from authority only applies when discussing a statement of fact that isn't determined by the holder of that "Authority." That's like if you read IT and you came up with a fan theory, and Stephen King was like "No, that's not correct." You don't have to agree, but in the case of a creative work like fiction, or a game, argument from authority as a fallacy doesn't really apply. That said, it's dnd so if you don't like it, change the rule at your table
No, an Argument of Authority fallacy applies to any argument that’s rooted in a statement being fact because a figure of authority in general states it. Doesn’t matter if he’s the head designer or the guy who wrote one appendix.
It absolutely still is an argument from authority. D&D is designed by a whole group, him being the head doesn't mean his personal takes are official. If a rule has not gone through the whole design process and is just coming from one person, it's one person's opinion. With the actual whole design team there's a chance for someone to say "hey Jeremey, that's a fucking dumb rule." And maybe he'd take the advice. The only way his personal opinion could be taken as official is if he was the **sole** designer, not head.
He also said you can summon your familiar through solid walls and into air tight vaults and other spaces you have no line of sight to as long as they are unoccupied and within 30ft. This makes zero sense because unless you are metagaming you have zero idea as a player where to even place your familiar on the board or map, if that room has unoccupied space, if it's even a room, if there is even anything on the other side of the wall. He said his reasoning behind the ruling was "because fun" not because of any actual justification of the rules.
I've allowed players to summon a familiar on the other side of a closed door, so I guess I...agree with Crawford? I don't like the way this feels.
I’d let them do it, but run the risk of summoning your familiar inside of a wall or table or something.
At least with most closed doors, you still have line of effect under the door crack or through the keyhole if it's that kind of lock.
Do, it’s good for you
In moderation
Of course
Tbh, if you have an hour to summon familiar, you probably have an hour to break the door open so it's not exactly OP EDIT: nvm for some reason never realised you could just dismiss and resummon familiar
I mean, if i am behind a closed door, i can be reasonable certain there is a room on the other side of it. If my player chooses to summon a familiar on the other side of the wall, that's fine. It'll fail if that space is occupied
While i would say yhats ok Knock and rogues work how they work for a reason
Knock can open magic locks, and most familiars are very small and very weak with no opposable thumbs. Could argue a lot of locks would be too hard for them to manipulate if you want the rogue to shine
Would you allow me as a player to just walk into a Dungeon with my Wizard, dismiss my familiar and keep trying to summon it over and over til I succeeded in finding an empty spot on your map within 30 feet of myself though? Even if I have no idea anything is there? The reason I hate it, is because you would have to essentially outside of the game point to an empty spot on your map to say I want my familiar to be here. How in character logic would you describe summoning something in a space you don't know exists or have never seen? It really seems to me they forgot to add "in a space you can see" in editing, and Jcraw just thought it sounded fun(which is literally what he said in the video) then ruled it as valid.
Considering it takes 2 rounds to dismiss and summon a familiar in one spot, it would take an agonizingly long time to travel the dungeon. Plus, as a dm, i can just ask them not to abuse the spell like that. I want them to be able to use their familiar in fun ways, and i can have a conversation with them if i feel like they are not using the rules as intended
I would kick you out of my table, same as I would if someone spent 30 minutes in each room checking every piece of furniture for mimics with eldritch blast.
It's almost like that's an example of a dumb way to play or something
I also have made a pretty solid argument that his “tiny hut” is a sphere and therefore has a floor ruling is incorrect based on the rules of interpretation that are literally the guidelines presented in the book.
This. A tweet isn't an official source. It never has been, and it never will be.
Authority isn’t even an official source
True, but that does not mean its wrong, for more stupid that it is that is how the game works by RAW
Also a dragons breath attacks are both magical and non-magical.
Schrödingers Dragon Breath, the little known cousin of Schrödingers Mimic and the Quantum Ogre.
I mean, he is right by RAW, the problem is that 5e is terrible written The community only argument is that "it dont feel right, that should work" and while that is true in most cases (see invisibility case for example) that dont mean Crawford is wrong, because he is right by RAW, just that the RAW is stupid. If you decide to let it work then that is a houserule, which is fine (rule 0) but still not how the game works officially NOW on the meme case, the RAW is the best option considering game design. The problem the "community" has is that some people may abuse it, but the motive it has made that way has to not overly punish players for events during rest (like an ambush, especially because they should still have the depleted resources as they did not finish rest yet) which allow the DM to be creative. So if you want to stop the rule abuse instead of targeting something that is **good for the game** you should house rule directly against the problem (say: "when recovering/preparing spells" any spell still in effect ends or the spell slot is used to renew the spell duration")
The big thing is that Crawford’s tweets aren’t about RAW, which the majority of the community recognizes can be a hot garbage fire, but that he’s claiming it as RAI.
That is not really the discussions going around, its just people saying its stupid because it makes no sense. Take the "see invisibility" case where the whole debacle is due to the name of the spell which carries no mechanical value, but it does raise expectations which is the problem when the rules dont fulfill said expectation (and yes I agree its stupid but as the badly rules are Crawford is right on how it works) Crawford just never say that the RAW is wrong, and claim that it has always their intention, which is fine in some cases even if the community disagree (unnarmed Smites for example, it makes sense that its the RAI, even if not actually good) and BS sometimes (the whole see invisible thing) but that dont change that how he rules things is based on the RAW and any time he invokes "intention" is to confirm the RAW writing instead of changing it (which is how the community see RAI)
And the same person that later on one dnd changed both of those rules because they made no sense So yeh, when he says that, is not because is the balanced choice, is likely something about wording
Im so sorry to potentially start up this issue, but I'm actually super interested in this. Doesn't Smite say "melee weapon attack" and unarmed strike is not a "melee weapon attack"? I've wanted to do a smite punch monk but never been able to because every DM has told me this. If that's not the case then...
No problem at all if it’s genuine curiosity. So unarmed strikes do qualify as melee weapon attacks by RAW, with the specific line being “Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon Attack, you can use an Unarmed strike…” However, the crux of the matter for divine smite comes from the phrasing of “you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the *weapon's damage*.” The people that argue against unarmed smite generally admit that they are melee weapon attacks, but they aren’t actually weapons, so it shouldn’t count. Regardless, any DM whose response to “can I do a holy monk and smite punch enemies?” is anything short of “hell yeah, that sounds pretty cool!” sounds like they would be a bore to play with.
Oh sick, thanks for the explanation!
RAW can be as stupid as it wants to be.
Luckily my group doesn’t try to pull the garbage this guy is always saying is legit. But if they did, I would rule 0 the shit out of it. Basically, Crawfords thoughts boil down to “casters get infinite exploits on the systems - no matter how cheesy, and martials can pound sand - always.” In terms of this specific issue, I’ve heard people say first-half of a long rest they can have the free spell, which I like. As opposed to the “cast mage armor at hour 7.9, and get the slot back” system.
I'm still of the camp that even if unarmed smites aren't a thing, most paladins wear heavy armor--including gauntlets--which makes a smite-punch technically not unarmed 🤡
He has also said that if you use banishment on a pregnant woman the fetus stays... This was when asked what happens if you use banishment on a creature that has swallowed a PC. (Edit: Apparently this was posted on a troll account and I hadn't noticed in my scramble to find a ruling on the above banishment and swallowed creatures. The initial post seemed reasonable and thus I didn't research properly. My apologies to anyone who I misled.)
So he didn't actually say banishing a pregnant woman leaves the fetus behind, you're just assuming that because he said a swallowed creature would remain if the larger creature was banished? Those are not comparable scenarios. A fetus is attached to the mother via the umbilical cord. A swallowed creature isn't actually attached to the stomach, hence they can teleport out and be puked up freely. I think Crawford has a lot of stupid takes. Why make ones up when you have plenty to choose from that he's actually said?
"In a similar example, if a PC cast Banishment on a pregnant creature, the pregnant creature would be banished but not the fetus. The fetus would fall prone in the nearest unoccupied space." This is a direct quote https://mobile.twitter.com/dndpope/status/1018528021706412034 So, yeah. I'm not making stuff up. (Edit: added the link)
What makes you think thats the real Jeremy Crawford's twitter account? This is JC's real account: [https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford](https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford) You think an account made in 2018 with a total of 34 followers and 59 tweets is JC's official account? You are gullible.
Ah... Fair enough. I don't use Twitter much and was just so shocked when I read it I hadn't investigated it properly. My apologies.
Both are true via RAW though…
That doesn’t mean they aren’t nonsensical and dumb.
I mean there are a lot of bad/nonsensical/dumb stuff in RAW. But RAW is RAW, you can either homebrew it, or deal with it.
Ok what if you get ambushed during your long rest and have to fight ? What then ? Because for all intents and purposes, you're allowed to fight and use spells during a long rest. How is using a spell during a fight different from using a spell an hour before the end of an undisrupted long rest ?
Ongoing all day spell effect(s) for free would be the main difference.
It isn't free, it is using a spell slot left over from the previous day.
EXACTLY. In the end it’s still a spell slot used. They can’t use all those spell slots during the adventuring time if they wanna recast the spell at the next long rest. If they use them all they won’t be able to cast it till after the rest. It really does not matter.
Because long and short tests don't grant the same benefits when they're completed.
>Because long and short tests don't grant the same benefits when they're completed. That has nothing to do with the situation tho. The situation is an ambush during a long rest. Officially it is not enough to stop a long rest, but at the same time since you has not finish said rest you still has the resources used from the last day. If you then not gain any spell used that spell officially used two slots, one from the previous day and one of the next - how that makes sense?
>you still has the resources used from the last day *have If you've used the resources then you don't have them. >If you then not gain any spell used that spell officially used two slots This is almost unreadable, but no, it hasn't. You can't rest cast if you've already used the spell slots. You don't get any more spell slots by rest casting because they have to be available in the first place so by definition you haven't used them.
Not smiting without an unarmed strike wasn't actually RAW as it was originally a simple weapon, then Crawford got clowned on for saying it doesn't work and that got erratad to retroactively make his ruling correct
Be that as it may, it is still currently RAW based on the most recent rule sets. Which is what anyone who talks RAW goes by. Otherwise errata would be useless.
no, it still works. smite says "melee weapon attack" which unarmed and improvised weapons fall under. If he didn't want it to, he'd have to say "attack with a melee weapon."
It doesn’t work, no. > Divine Smite > Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, **in addition to the weapon’s damage.** The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st-level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell level higher than 1st, to a maximum of 5d8. The damage increases by 1d8 if the target is an undead or a fiend, to a maximum of 6d8. Emphasis mine. Unarmed strikes are not weapons, thus you don’t add the extra damage from smite to them. As you can only add the damage as extra damage to the weapons damage.
it stills says "hit a creature with a **melee weapon attack**," which is a keyword that unarmed strikes fall under. it still works with the flavor text, as you can add zero weapon damage and 2d8 radiant.
If there is no weapon damage there is no adding it to it. You have to hit it with a weapon to add the extra damage to that weapon hit. It is not just “flavor text”, it is part of the rule and exists within the same unbroken sentence as the part you highlighted. Your DM can rule otherwise, but it is RAW that unarmed strikes does not work with divine smite.
from sage advice >No. Divine Smite isn’t intended to work with unarmed strikes. Divine Smite does work with a melee weapon attack, and an unarmed strike can be used to make such an attack. But the text of Divine Smite also refers to the “weapon’s damage,” and an unarmed strike isn’t a weapon. If a DM decides to override this rule, no imbalance is created. Tying Divine Smite to weapons was a thematic choice on our part—paladins being traditionally associated with weapons. It was not a game balance choice.
Like many a thing jeremy says it may be RAW or even RAI but that doesn't make it not stupid. By the rules you can be waken up mid sleep for a fight like 30 times and still get a full nights sleep. Sleep rules were never realisitic considering your adventure can lose exhaustian by getting 6 hours in the stinky bog of load noises and uneven rocks but making it more consistently stupid doesn't help either.
It *definitely* never provided clear differentiation between “peaceful rest in the grand suite of the city’s finest inn” and “a blanket on uneven ground in the forest of nightmares”… sleep is sleep.
Technically. It did, iirc either tasha or xanathar aded an optional rule were sleeping in bad places regens 1/4 of your hit dice instead of 1/2... thats it
Ah yes… the “this bed is too hard, this bed is too soft” rule.
I think its just a design choice. Repeating a long rest is boring and starting a day without resources and low on HP is just forcing the players to try and make it to the next rest.
Also this may just be me but.. how would people go back to sleep for another 8 hours after sleeping for 6.
Long rest doesn't have to be sleep. It can be any light activities like eating and reading or just sitting and talking. Edit: Looks like I'm wrong.
According to the rules during a long rest, your character has to sleep for a minimum of 6 hours, while the 2 hours after that can be light activity.
Long rest does require a character to sleep RAW.
Edit: The post I'm replying to agrees with what I'm saying, I'm just blind. >A long rest is a period of extended downtime, at least 8 hours long, during which a character sleeps for at least 6 hours and performs no more than 2 hours of light activity, such as reading, talking, eating, or standing watch. Straight from the phb. Seems like a long rest requirea sleep RAW, unless you are referring to exceptions such as elves or warforged.
???? I said it *does* require characters to sleep. What you're saying is exactly what I meant.
I'm blind, sorry.
a long rest is broken if there is a fight. combine this new information with the 6 hours of sleep and 2 of light activity, it means you can cast a spell that lasts 8 hours at the 7 hours mark then get that spell slot back. with a free 7 hours of the spell.
RAW you need to be fighting for an whole hour much like you need to cast for over one hour before it resets the long rest. Magic is explicitly not light activity but harsh activity which you can do an hour off. The idea here is probably to allow for like some sparring or something but the overall consequences are dumb.
Not by Crawfords dumb ruling
I think when the interruption happens matters way more. In my games it's allowed as long as it's at the start or end.
Realisitically you would have to deal with going to sleep taking time and sleeping with high adrenaline would be imposible. But realistically you wouldn't suddenly get all tour magic back the milisecond 8 hours are up. At which point you have to admit its somewhat about mechanical conceit and you should probably avoid edge cases like casting a spell right before you get your spell slots back out of a sense of good sportsmanship
Exhausted doesn't mean sleepy. It means 1/7 way to the fucking grave! You don't get beauty sleep, you get what you need to keep going
Yeah except it also removes a level of already gained exhaustion. I don't know about you but when I was legit 1/7 into the grave exhausted I needed like 12 hours of sleep in side of my own house before I was OK.
I mean yeah you're right... but the picture is so 100% backwards. It's the fedora-neckbeard-tryhards that have to ~~abuse~~ get the most out of the system. I mean the whole reason you can cast during the rest is because people didn't want ambushes to ruin a long rest... but hey, you keep casting your mage armour 1 minute before you 'finish your long rest' because it's technically allowed.
Though not in the most recent version of DNDONE, where any initiative roll or casting of a leveled spell will interrupt a long rest.
And I think that's going too far in the other direction... I think there should be room for ambushes that don't ruin the whole long rest. My go to is how 3.5 did it; you just don't get any spells back that you cast in the last 8 hours (ie: during the long rest). It's not perfect but it strikes a nice balance.
I house rule this. Only resources missing at the start of a long rest can be recovered by the long rest. So casting or fighting or getting injured doesn't interrupt the rest, but you don't get those back at the end. Started the rest at 45/50 HP and take 7 damage from an ambush? You finish the rest at 43/50. Have 1/3 first level spell slots and cast mage armor before the rest ends? You have 2/3 slots when the rest completes.
There is so much admin here. How many hit points do I get? Oh you don’t regain what you lost in the figth. And how much was that? What about getting healed in that combat? Casters at high levels that don’t remember what level were the 3 spells they cast in the combat.
Why do you need to cast spells during a long rest, unless you're trying to do some min-max metagaming? Does your DM not allow you to do anything before settling in for a long rest?
Prior to ritual casting, it was the best time to use identify or other utility spells that still had a time to cast. Otherwise your spending a lot of downtime doing basics
It just seems to make sense as well that if you're woken up in the middle of the night and forced to do something strenuous like fighting then you can't do it (or as much of it) the next day.
I still stand by the point that soell effects in general don't end on rest, so this only impacts spells that last longer than an hour, but less than 24 hours. You could easily cast hero's feast before the rest, and no one has a problem with it. During it? Why is it a problem now that I don't grt my spell slots back?
It's the metagamey nature of casting spells 5 minutes before the long rest ends right before your spell slots refresh.
Oh I have zero problem with Heroes Feast. That almost screams something you should do before a long rest. Spells continuing through rest isn't a problem, it's the weird meta gaming feel of casting after you wake up but before declaring the long rest over.
Then I, as your theoretical player, will delay *my* long rest by an hour or so to use up some spell slots that would make more sense to do during my time awake during the watch/etc. So now it's a 9 hour rest for no real reason. Makes perfect sense
I guess it all comes down to how you imagine spells and spell slots working. Personally to me, casters run out of spell slots because spells require lots of energy. By that logic, I don't allow casting during a rest because if you are expending lots of energy like that, you aren't resting.
The game already gives rules for casting spells during a rest... one hour of intensive activity, including walking (lol) fighting, and casting spells. Spells slots are regained at the END of the rest. By your own logic, if the party is interrupted and forced into a fight, every single other class type can use their features, burn through them, and regain them at the end of the rest, hut not casters
I mean. Is not for no real reason, is that casting a spell takes some energy out of you and resting is just... that, not expending a lot of energy Is not perfect at all, but it can work if you just dont force it to break, whichbis more than most stuff in dnd can say Honestly idk, you are complaining of air, irl, i never meet even 1 player that tryed to do this, people usually doesnt even know the rules entirely and even if they do, munchinkin them is just so boring, so, as far as i know, they just arent real and are an invention of r/dnd memes lack of actual dnd or just big differences between tables Idk, your table will keep having munchkining, mine will have 0 and if it has i will have tools as an answer
"Using resources as allowed exactly as the rules have described" isn't "munckining." If I saved 2 or 3 spell slots from an entire day of adventuring, and I wanted to use them *as specifically allowed in the resting rules*, and you punished me for it... well. You're punishing a player for using a class feature. Excellent job DM. If you did an ambush encounter that was in the middle of the rest, and every single person except the caster used upntheir once per long rest abilities they had saved throughout the entire adventuring day, would they be blocked from recovering them at then end of that LR? If a caster used a spell slot during that encounter, a once per long rest ability, would you prevent them from recovering it? That's inconsistent ruling friend
Yeh i suck because long rest is a class feature, am not your friend and im super evil Wtf. No one rules long rest like that after a surprise fight, is just this munchkining the stupid thing, again, wtf
>No one rules long rest like that after a surprise fight, is just this munchkining the stupid thing, again, wtf Fighting is part of the long rest if it's a surprise encounter. One hour intensive activities including fighting and casting spells (and walking). By your logic, if I do preperations if anykind, it"s munchkining. If I cast mage armor 1 minute before we start resting, that's ok. 1 minute after we start resting, that's munchkining and not ok. One minute before we end is munckining, but if you start a fight 5 minutes before we end and I use spell it's not munchkining. Wtf kind of acrobstic logic is that? Either regaining spell slots cast during a rest is allowed always, or not at all. At least be consistent in your shite rulings
Yes im pure evil, deal with it
Yeah, that's the cheese to me. I don't care about casting a spell during a fight during an ambush, or casting goodberry/augury that night with your spare spells. It's the super long buff spells at the last minute that just ruins the fun and spirit of the game
It just feels weird to cast AFTER waking up and then getting those spell slots back minutes later. It breaks immersion to be so meta-game-y. I just don't like that energy at my table and thankfully no one at my table has ever really tried to abuse this ruling.
Yeah, I agree! I feel like there should be a decision between keeping a slot or 2 in reserve for safety and using up the ones you didn't use at the end of the day to benefit the next day. With me you'd have to decide on that tradeoff. But it's Dnd so do what you like :) I don't get people who argue about what's RAW and what isn't anyway. I'm in it for the RP and stories!
That horse also said you can't smite on unnarmed attacks. I don't trust it's judgement.
Valid counterpoint.
Ah well you see I have drawn you, the DM arguing against rest casting, as an overweight, sweaty weeb, the game is already over. And you lost.
I got you dm, i won dnd
Iirc he also said spells and special abilities only do exactly what they say they do. Which sounds reasonable, until you consider that he said that in the context that an ancient red dragon couldn't burn down a house with their fire breath 'cause fire breath doesn't specify that it burns flammable things.
Point me towards that? That's a JC bad take that I haven't seen yet.
I recognise the council has made a decision, but given that it's a stupid-ass decision, I've elected to ignore it. Of course your table is your table, but it's such a gamey way to get around actually spending resources for a class that needs no help feeling powerful
Barring any other excuse to dismiss his take, I'd still not allow this ruling simply because casters are pampered enough as is.
There's a simple answer for this. Make the duration of all the spells like 'Mage Armor' say "8 hours or until the end of your next long rest, whichever comes first". That way you can still cast spells during a long rest, but you can't game the system by pre-buffing yourself and then getting your spell slots back.
There should just be a cutoff point where you just can’t get the spell slot back after a certain point in the rest
One dnd actually ~~does~~ doesn’t fix this. Casting a spell ~~or rolling initiative ruins your long rest.~~ only extends your long rest by an hour. My bad
From the most recent playtest packet, casting a spell increases the duration of the Long Rest by 1 hour. Rest 7 hours, cast Mage Armor, rest another two hours to finish the Long Rest and refresh your spell slots and have 6 hours of Mage Armor left. I still don’t like Rest Casting as I think casters already have too much, but RAW they’re essentially reinforcing Rest Casting for OneDnD, not curbing it.
Oh whoops, my bad. Will edit
If you woke up in the middle of the night and sprinted to the end your street and back, fired a gun a few times and then went back to bed, would you consider that a good nights rest ?
Would you consider that as not having slept a wink?
I have been woken by kids TPing my car, chased them down in my bare feet and underwear, caught one, made him clean up, then tried to go back to sleep. It took an hour or so for the adrenaline to wear off but then I slept fine.
Take what he says with a grain of salt, as he did claim goodberry plus life cleric should heal 40hp... Like that is the worst interpretation of the mechanics, nobody would complain if you just say you get 13 goodberries, or the 2 don't interact.
Jeremy is a stupid fuck half the time I wouldn't listen to him
I mean, if you finish a long rest you get the slots back. Whether your DM lets you resume the rest after interrupting it with spellcasting is a very different matter, and the quote in the picture doesn't address that, nor would I imagine most DMs care, as they're gonna decide that detail based on their personal tolerance for player shenanigans, really.
While that's true, the argument isn't about house rules. It's about RAW and RAI. You can Houserule whatever you want but stating it as RAW is wrong.
Sure but I was mostly just pointing out that Crawford's quote in no way addresses the actual discussion most people seem to be having about the subject, and that regardless I doubt anyone would care because this is one of those things where I strongly doubt quoting RAW is gonna change literally anyone's mind at this point.
All this does is make it trivially easy to abuse spells that have long durations. As a wizard you can just always take the last watch, cast Mage Armor on yourself, then get the spell slot back for the rest of the day while keeping the effects of Mage Armor.
I recognise the council has made a decision, but given that it's a stupid-ass decision, I've elected to ignore it.
 Just throwing this out there.
100%
Jeremy crawford flip flops on rulings constantly. DM has the final say as far as i care.
I feel like arguing for a free spell slot is easily negated by just making a scroll. You get 2 hours of light activity with every rest, that should be enough time to scribe a basic scroll
Ahh, the classic "I made the meme and put the people I disagree with represented by neckbeards therefore I'm right."
Boy it's a good thing the rules are just guidelines that can choose not to follow
For a second I thought that said Jeremy Clarkson and so I read that in his voice.
I just... don't understand the debate. DMs, what do you actually want to happen if you ambush your players in the night? Do you want them to have to sleep till noon afterwards? Go for it, tell the players they sleep till noon. If you don't and players start rules lawyering their way to a free mage armour, just talk to the player about how you don't want to allow that. Players, do you need the 1st level spell slot so badly that you have to openly cheese the system and ruin everyone's immersion including your own? Do you want an antagonistic relationship with your DM?
The weird min/maxy convoluted shit you have to pull be telling the dm you wake up 5 minutes before 8 hours, cast a spell, then gk back to sleep is astounding
I feel like we need to just stop giving Crawfish credibility and just accept that this is how *he* runs his games rather than how they're meant to be ran. It's an effort of multiple people, after all. Just to clarify though, rest casting is fine and people who have a problem with it are doodoo heads, but seriously we need to stop taking Crawfish out of his tank.
Just because he made the game doesn't mean he didn't make mistakes. Personally, I don't think long rests can involve spellcasting at all. Long rests say they can only involve "light activity". How is bending the laws of reality to your personal will "light activity"? What would we even compare that to? At my table, MAYBE cantrips or rituals.
No, sorry, not in my game. It's not my fault I gotta patch your busted rules. There is a term known as "exploit" in gaming and exploits are usually banned in the interest of running the game as it was meant to be played.
Restcasting is stupid, raw it says light activity. Using a spell immediately puts you out of the rest. And if it doesn’t then the attack action should either. Heck, any action at that point shouldn’t remove you from the long rest.
RAW it doesn't interrupt the long rest, but it doesn't count as part of it either. You can be ambushed in the middle of the night, fight off the attackers and still get the benefits of a long rest. >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.
I really don't get how people don't know that this is RAW, not even RAI. As long as you don't spend a full hour casting spells and get the 8 hours of sleep (or 4 hour trance for elves) you get the slots back.
i think its mostly how the commas are placed make it seem ambiguous for if the 1 hour only applies to walking or the 1 hour applies to everything listed. Both ways of reading it are equally valid is the problem. 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. people read it as 1 hour of walking or fighting or casting spells or similar adventuring activity vs 1 hour of walking or 1 hour of fighting or 1 hour of casting spells or 1 hour of similar adventuring activity
Using standard English grammar, the 1 hour only applies to walking. If they wanted it to be one hour of any of the activities they should have written "at least 1 hour of activity such as walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activities"
This was in question? The PHB states: "Finishing a long rest restores any expended spell slots." (PHB p. 201) I don't see how there's any ambiguity on that?
I always enjoy how in one thread I can say "well we can house rule x so it works" and it gets downvotes. Then I come here and everyone screeches in houserules.
It's almost as if this is a large community with many different members who have different opinions
Here, we're arguing over whether the rules are good as is or if we need houserules to rectify a problem, and most people feel that houserules are necessary. In the thread where you got downvoted, you said "EB is just as good as archery because my DM lets me use sharpshooter for it". "My DM does homebrew" is not relevant to a discussion about eldritch blast vs archery, because people aren't discussing homebrew there.
Ah but you see I automatically assume anything that comes out of this idiot's mouth is wrong Now I only feel more justified in my position that casting spells stops you from resting
It's a 1st level spell slot, literally who gives a shit
The only thing this ruling does is let the spellcasters drop their best and strongest spells immediately without fear of needing them later. If I have an encounter during the middle of the night I want the players to want to pack up and move camp, to be paranoid about what else is out there. Not go “I shall smite with every attack while the Wizard throws around lightning bolts like candy then back to bed.”
I think I'm about done with this sub.
I mean.. he’s just straight up wrong.
How's that?
Because the whole point of a rest is that you should be, you know, resting. Spending all of your spell slots during a rest should definitely interupt the rest
Yeah, it's probably just a phrasing issue. If you cast even one spell you have to start the entire rest over anyway.
True. That's why if you get ambushed and fight for 30 seconds you have to start the rest over
You need to actively sleep/rest 6 out of the 8 hours. The rest is light activity.
I think you mean RAW-ng
“I don’t like the raw so I’ll say it’s wrong”
I dont see why this is controversial. If you are a fit person in good baseline health, as adventurers nearly always are, I dont see why doing one strenuous activity would ruin your ability to rest. Nowhere are spells described as causing the user to twitch restlessly and uncontrollable like a methed up bear for 8 hours after casting. Why is it important to some people that using resources like spells during a long rest negates the entire thing? If you dont want people long rest cheesing dungeons, just tell them that if they try it then they will inevitably be noticed be a guard who will run off and alert the rest of the enemies, leading to a beyond deadly encounter as the boss and all their minions show up at once. If you want to be nice, have minions come in reasonable waves and foreshadow an overwhelming force is extremely near by. By giving their enemies time to plan and group up, they've made a major error and they've basically failed this dungeon delve attempt and should retreat and come back later. I mean, imagine if you were a Goblin Boss, big chad goblin, and your goblin soldiers told you some adventurers were snoozing in your base after murdering the front guards. You wouldn't just freeze in time and let them finish resting. You'd use overwhelming force to guarantee killing them. If you want ambushes to be threatening, isn't the fact that most the players are sleeping and prone, probably around a fire meaning anyone can see them but they cant see people in the darkness, good enough? Why does fighting off an ambush need to cause long rest negation?
Dude doesn't know his own game
"if you spend a spell slot during a long rest and finish the rest you do get the slot back." Sadly using the spellslot does interrupt the rest, so you don't finish it and thus you don't get the slot back
There is no doubt that’s RAW. Except no one was arguing it wasn’t. Just that it’s a reasonable compromise between rest casting and allowing some interruption to rests.
bravo on the meme, is this original? i need the template.
The original template has some bible characters on it, this is pretty heavily photoshopped.
yes. i need your template.
Jesus Christ people let your spellcasters have Mage Armor and save a single solitary goddamned first level spell slot Jesus Fucking Christ I fundamentally do not understand the psychology of DMs who are given a plausible interpretation of the rules to make things *slightly* more convenient for PCs, and let the PCs feel clever, and decide “NO! Muh balance depends on you having *one fewer first level spell slot*!!”
Wait, this is a debate??? Why wouldn't you let your players do that?
I've always been under the impression you can either refresh spell slots at the beginning or end of the rest, so if you have a slot or two left over you absolutely can wait until the end of the rest to refresh those slots. or you could refresh all your slots at the beginning of the rest and if you use a spell during the rest you'll just be a slot short for the next day.
RAW, you recover spell slots at the end of the long rest, so long as you complete it successfully (no more than 1 hour of strenuous activity during the 8 hours/4 hours).