Player Help Can an interrupted long rest be treated as a short rest? [Archive]

MaxWilson

2018-02-16, 01:25 PM

So let's say you're playing a monk that's burned through all of his ki. Your party decides to camp for the night and your shift isn't til later in the evening. So your character meditates then goes to sleep.

But a couple hours after he's asleep, the party is ambushed. Does your character have all of his ki points back? And if he spends them to counter the ambush, does he still regain them after completing his long rest?

This is probably a basic question, but it's never come up. So I'm actually not sure of the answer.

If you're looking for a ruling:

Combat ends a rest. [My ruling--by strict RAW you can fight for up an hour without interrupting a rest, but that's stupid because it results in dilemmas like the one that's giving you problems.] If the rest was at least an hour long but not eight hours long, it counts as a short rest. The monk has all of his ki back, but the party will have to sleep/rest for another eight hours afterward to get a long rest.

If one of the PCs manages to spend the whole combat asleep (e.g. a druid who's melded into stone and doesn't hear everyone else fighting) or otherwise still resting, he is not interrupted and will only take six more hours to complete his long rest.

I find this interpretation to be nonsensical.

If you are on watch, weapons ready, and a lone goblin wanders into view, you draw your bow and kill it in a single shot, you now have to get an extra 4 hours of sleep to get the same rest as your buddy on watch who didn't take 6 seconds to fire his bow?

Consider it an adrenaline surge which makes you jumpy for the next half hour as you look for more goblins, which messes up your sleep cycle. It takes some time to settle back down physiologically. Anyone who was asleep, not on watch, and didn't notice the goblin is not affected in the same visceral way.

Tanarii

2018-02-16, 01:32 PM

Aett_Thorn

2018-02-16, 01:41 PM

I find this interpretation to be nonsensical.

If you are on watch, weapons ready, and a lone goblin wanders into view, you draw your bow and kill it in a single shot, you now have to get an extra 4 hours of sleep to get the same rest as your buddy on watch who didn't take 6 seconds to fire his bow?

It makes sense when you think about the facts that combats aren't usually that simple.

It's poor grammar for the point that they are trying to make (the "at least one hour of walking" should come last in the list), but given the other criteria, it makes sense to read it as "at least one hour of walking, or fighting, or casting a spell." Fighting almost never takes more than a full minute, let alone an hour, so why would they make that distinction? Similarly, casting a spell almost never takes more than an action, or maybe a minute. Only a few rare spells take a significant amount of time to cast, so why would you need to cast spells for more than an hour before you're out?

Taken to a logical conclusion, saying that a long rest can't be interrupted by 59 minutes of combat or casting, why wouldn't players just announce that they're taking a long rest right before every combat? If they're fighting for less than an hour, they'd still get the benefits!

Demonslayer666

2018-02-16, 01:50 PM

Playing devil's advocate:
could refer to

At least 1 hour of (walking or fighting or casting spells or similar adventuring activity) - so you can have a mini-adventure during "sleep time" without interrupting your sleep.

OR

(at least 1 hour of walking) or (fighting) or (casting spells) or (similar adventuring activity) - so any spellcasting/fighting interrupts it

...
I disagree. All ambiguity was erased by the hyphen starting the list, making "at least 1 hour of walking" the first element in the list, eliminating any possibility of the "1 hour of" transposing itself onto the other elements in the list.

I find this interpretation to be nonsensical.

If you are on watch, weapons ready, and a lone goblin wanders into view, you draw your bow and kill it in a single shot, you now have to get an extra 4 hours of sleep to get the same rest as your buddy on watch who didn't take 6 seconds to fire his bow?

That's not really fighting now, is it? More like target practice.

Angelalex242

2018-02-16, 01:58 PM

on topic: Yes, an interrupted long rest counts as a short rest.

How important is it if the long rest is interrupted or not? Well, unless there's a 'doom clock' of some kind that causes mission failure, it doesn't ultimately matter if the PCs wake up at 7 am or 11 am.

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-16, 02:00 PM

I disagree. All ambiguity was erased by the hyphen starting the list, making "at least 1 hour of walking" the first element in the list, eliminating any possibility of the "1 hour of" transposing itself onto the other elements in the list.

You might think that, but you could be wrong.
That's the problem with trying to parse language in a rules situation. You miss the forest for the trees.
If you read all of the rules, and take it all in context, you clearly see that it includes any amount of strenuous activity.

R esting
H eroic though they might be, adventurers can’t spend every hour o f the day in the thick of exploration, social interaction, and combat. They need rest—time to sleep and eat, tend their wounds, refresh their minds and spirits for spellcasting, and brace themselves for further adventure.
Adventurers can take short rests in the midst of an adventuring day and a long rest to end the day.
S h o r t R e s t
A short rest is a period of downtime, at least 1 hour long, during which a character does nothing m ore strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds. A character can spend one or m ore Hit D ice at the end of a short rest, up to the character’s maximum number of Hit Dice, which is equal to the character's level. For each Hit Die spent in this way, the player rolls the die and adds the character’s Constitution modifier to it. The character regains hit points equal to the total. The player can decide to spend an additional Hit Die after each roll. A character regains som e spent Hit D ice upon finishing a long rest, as explained below.
L o n g R e s t
A long rest is a period of extended downtime, at least 8 hours long, during w hich a character sleeps or perform s light activity: reading, talking, eating, or standing watch for no m ore than 2 hours. 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.
At the end of a long rest, a character regains all lost hit points. The character also regains spent Hit Dice, up to a number of dice equal to half of the character’s total number of them. For example, if a character has eight Hit Dice, he or she can regain four spent Hit D ice upon finishing a long rest.
A character can’t benefit from m ore than one long rest in a 24-hour period, and a character must have at least 1 hit point at the start of the rest to gain its benefits.

A short rest in interrupted by doing ANYTHING more strenuous than "eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds." You'll notice there is not time limit here.
A long rest is exactly the same, but also allows standing watch (for no more than 2 hours). It then goes on to specifically state that a rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity (even though that is absolutely, completely, and unmistakably obvious, to the point where even typing that was redundant, because they have already laid out exactly what you're allowed to do on a rest....), and then lists some specific things which interrupt said long rest.
That list includes:
-- at least 1 hour of walking
--fighting
--casting spells
-- any similar adventuring activity

Read things in context.
It's quite clear.

Matrix_Walker

2018-02-16, 02:02 PM

Jeremy Crawford has a relevant tweet. You can fight and cast spells and not interrupt your long rest if the activity does not exceed an hour.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/08/20/will-participating-in-1-round-of-combat-break-a-shortlong-rest/

As for the OP, I do not think the RAW is explicit, but my interpretation is that if you get an hour of rest, you have taken a short rest regardless of whether you were declaring it a short rest or not.

tieren

2018-02-16, 02:26 PM

Thrudd

2018-02-16, 02:59 PM

You might think that, but you could be wrong.
That's the problem with trying to parse language in a rules situation. You miss the forest for the trees.
If you read all of the rules, and take it all in context, you clearly see that it includes any amount of strenuous activity.

A short rest in interrupted by doing ANYTHING more strenuous than "eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds." You'll notice there is not time limit here.
A long rest is exactly the same, but also allows standing watch (for no more than 2 hours). It then goes on to specifically state that a rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity (even though that is absolutely, completely, and unmistakably obvious, to the point where even typing that was redundant, because they have already laid out exactly what you're allowed to do on a rest....), and then lists some specific things which interrupt said long rest.
That list includes:
-- at least 1 hour of walking
--fighting
--casting spells
-- any similar adventuring activity

Read things in context.
It's quite clear.

Yes. It makes sense for game play as well. Being too lax with long rests results in trivializing a lot of challenges in which resource management is and should be a major consideration. Long rest ought to be a thing that you can only reliably accomplish in "safe places" like a town or a well guarded camp. Traveling in wilderness or dungeon should be accompanied by a strong chance of random encounters that interrupt long periods being stationary.

Tanarii

2018-02-16, 03:20 PM

Yes. It makes sense for game play as well. Being too lax with long rests results in trivializing a lot of challenges in which resource management is and should be a major consideration. Long rest ought to be a thing that you can only reliably accomplish in "safe places" like a town or a well guarded camp. Traveling in wilderness or dungeon should be accompanied by a strong chance of random encounters that interrupt long periods being stationary.
That's a pretty big assumption about how the players want resting to work. I mean, that's my approach & thinking too, but not every table will want the assumption that a long rest requires a town or well guarded camp.

Malifice

2018-02-16, 03:32 PM

Vogie

2018-02-16, 03:40 PM

I understand what they're going for here.

Personally, I would have worded it

If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity—fighting, casting spells, similar adventuring activity or up to 1 hour of walking—the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it.

However since it 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.

You run into this issue:

Most combats last less than 1 minute so would not count as an strenuous interruption because they don't last at least an hour.

If you're travelling by any means other than walking, and have encounters within that period that don't total to 1 hour... You're technically always having a long rest. A bunch of short social encounters on a train? Long rest. Stay at your post, shooing away sirens from your zeppelin? Long rest. Non-encounter Trip to Disney World involving long queues? The characters must begin the rest again.

Matrix_Walker

2018-02-16, 08:11 PM

I understand what they're going for here.

You seem to be describing the opposite, as your interruption can take any form, and as long as it is less than an hour, your long rest is not interrupted.

I linked the clarification tweet above. The RAI has been revealed, and the RAW's potential ambiguity cleared up.

If you play with any interruption of less than an hour costing the party it's long rest, then you are playing homebrew.

Thrudd

2018-02-16, 11:46 PM

That's a pretty big assumption about how the players want resting to work. I mean, that's my approach & thinking too, but not every table will want the assumption that a long rest requires a town or well guarded camp.

I think It's more the assumption of the game. What players want doesn't come into it- they can house rule away this assumption, or blatantly misread the rules, but it doesn't change how it's designed to work.

The fact is, the only reason for there to be time requirements on resting, or on anything, is for that requirement to have some strategic consequence. You get greater benefit for resting longer, so there must be a downside to resting longer and/or it must be more difficult to achieve. If not, there's no point in making the distinction between short and long. You'd basically be resetting every ability and healing after every fight (which is the way some people play, but not how the game is actually meant to be played.)

History_buff

2018-02-16, 11:55 PM

It’s important to note that one can only benefit from a long rest once per day.

Tanarii

2018-02-17, 12:16 AM

I think It's more the assumption of the game. What players want doesn't come into it- they can house rule away this assumption, or blatantly misread the rules, but it doesn't change how it's designed to work.Im going to guess you and I are thinking of different things when you said "a well guarded camp". I was envisioning a roman legion fortification. :smallbiggrin: Did you just mean not finding a corner room in the dungeon and jamming a piton to lock the door while you rested?

Which btw is a time honored way to rest and recover resources in D&D dungeons. So I'm not sure someone as old-school conscious as Mearls would have been intending to rule that out either.

Malifice

2018-02-17, 03:12 AM

It’s important to note that one can only benefit from a long rest once per day.

If players are attempting to spam long rests to the point this is an issue, then you have bigger problems at your table!

LeonBH

2018-02-17, 05:09 AM

Yes, it can, provided the time they had already rested fulfills the requirements of a short rest.

But also note that the interruption needs to last for at least 1 hour, or 600 rounds of combat, to interrupt a long rest. If the party fights, the fight is over in 18 seconds, and they go back to sleep, that is still part of the same long rest.

Laserlight

2018-02-17, 08:41 AM

If you parse it as ”1 hour of walking, or any fighting, or any spellcasting”, then you're saying that a ritual, or even a single cantrip, is an interruption. I read it as ”1 hour of any combination of walking+fighting+casting”.

If we're being really finicky...you take the middle watch. Did you pace around the camp? One hour of walking, no rest for you! I'm pretty sure that is not RAI, though.

RSP

2018-02-17, 08:47 AM

Officially, no, they are mutually exclusive events. Here's the tweet by Crawford when asked:

"The intent is that you can't take a short rest and a long rest at the same time. #DnD https://twitter.com/swindxgm/status/750439950210961408 …"

I think the main thing this prevents is using HD to heal.

Tanarii

2018-02-17, 12:23 PM

LeonBH

2018-02-17, 12:33 PM

If they rested 8 hours, including other requirements (sleep for 6 + nothing strenuous) they get the benefits of a Long Rest instead.

Agreed, but slight correction here. It's sleep for 6 + 1.01 hour of non-strenuous things + 59.99 minutes of strenuous activity, will also technically count as a long rest.

Asmotherion

2018-02-17, 12:40 PM

My house rule is, as long as you get an hour of uninteroupted light activity (as in, nothing that would cause you to tire yourself), you gain the benefits of a short rest, and may expand an HD.

Unless we play in a gritty realism setting.

Tanarii

2018-02-17, 12:45 PM

Agreed, but slight correction here. It's sleep for 6 + 1.01 hour of non-strenuous things + 59.99 minutes of strenuous activity, will also technically count as a long rest.I intentionally worded it so it works with either side of that argument, because I don't care about it.

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-17, 01:19 PM

Agreed, but slight correction here. It's sleep for 6 + 1.01 hour of non-strenuous things + 59.99 minutes of strenuous activity, will also technically count as a long rest.

No it is not.
It is specifically at least 8 hours of rest. If you do 59.99 minutes of activity, that long rest will take you 9 hours to complete, because you only got 7 hours of rest otherwise, which is not at least 8 and is not a long rest.

And that's if you allow the rest to be broken up. I do not

Tiadoppler

2018-02-17, 01:30 PM

By RAW, a long rest lasts "at least 8 hours" so it can last more than 8 hours.

It must contain at least 6 hours of sleep
It must contain less than 2 hours of light activity
It must contain less than 1 hour of strenuous activity

What if you start a long rest when you're already at full HP, full Spell Slots, etc?

> You "start" your long rest at full HP, Spell Slots, and other resources.
> You sleep 8 hours but choose not to "finish" your long rest, continuing to stand watch and do light activity for an hour.
> You start traveling down the road for half an hour.
> You get involved in a huge, dangerous battle, still "during" your long rest, but after the long rest could end, and use up all your Spell Slots and lose quite a bit of HP.
> Then you spend a turn sitting on the floor, engaging in "light activity" and declare that you have now "finished" your long rest.
> It is now the "end" of your long rest, you regain all your HP and Spell Slots.
> Now you have a battle in which you are able to use two full days of Spell Slots and other resources??

I mean, I have never heard of a DM who would allow that, but it's funny to think about.

RSP

2018-02-17, 01:54 PM

That tweet was specifically about making short rests AND a long rest simultaneously, getting the benefit of both. Not about the time counting as one or the other, whichever the requirements were met for when the rest ends.

In other words, you don't have to sit down and say "this rest will be a Long Rest" then lock yourself into the benefits of that. It's not a button the characters push marked "Long Rest". If they rested an hour, they get the benefit of a short rest. If they rested 8 hours, including other requirements (sleep for 6 + nothing strenuous) they get the benefits of a Long Rest instead.

If you say "we're going to take a long rest" and then 2 hours into it, that rest gets interrupted, your long rest was interrupted. Per the tweet, and what I believe the intent behind it is, you can't then say "oh okay, we weren't long resting, we were short resting," as it was already declared you were long resting.

Likewise, you couldn't say "I short rest" eight times in a row and then declare it a long rest.

The tweet, again, how I take it, means they're mutually exclusive.

However, I don't think there's any rule about having to declare which rest you're taking beforehand, so you could decide to not declare what rest you're taking, and if your 8-hours is interrupted, you could then declare it a short rest (assuming at least 1 hour passed), however, then you'd have to start your whole eight hours over to long rest; you can't claim the SR when interrupted and then continue the LR after the interruption.

Tanarii

2018-02-17, 01:58 PM

If you say "we're going to take a long rest" and then 2 hours into it, that rest gets interrupted, your long rest was interrupted. Per the tweet, and what I believe the intent behind it is, you can't then say "oh okay, we weren't long resting, we were short resting," as it was already declared you were long resting.

Likewise, you couldn't say "I short rest" eight times in a row and tihen declare it a long rest. You don't declare a long rest or a short rest. It's not a button you push marked "Long Rest" or "Short Rest".

You tell the DM you're resting, and how long you're going to try and rest. If you meet the criteria for a short rest, then you got the benefits of short rest. If you instead meet the criteria for a long rest, you get the benefit of a long rest.

The tweet is just saying that if you meet the requirements for both, you don't get both.

RSP

2018-02-17, 02:04 PM

You don't declare a long rest or a short rest. It's not a button you push marked "Long Rest" or "Short Rest".

You tell the DM you're resting, and how long you're going to try and rest. If you meet the criteria for a short rest, then you got the benefits of short rest. If you instead meet the criteria for a long rest, you get the benefit of a long rest.

The tweet is just saying that if you meet the requirements for both, you don't get both.

You absolutely can tell the DM "we take a long rest" or "we're going to take a short rest;" I've seen it in play plenty of times. Doing so would prevent later invoking the other, as again, they're mutually exclusive.

I'm not sure why you think it's not possible for players to declare what type of rest they're planning on taking.

denthor

2018-02-17, 02:08 PM

My thoughts time is time.

Your a barbarian you rage. You survive you are winded and out of rage for the day.

Party starts to wind down for night camp. So called long rest. Takes 15 minutes to set up attack happens . Found a Rogue in around your camp hiding begging for food. You feed him send him on his way let him join for the night. Rest interruption you still can not rage less then an hour your still winded.

1st watch 4 hours. Nothing. 2nd watch 3 hours in. Wolf enters camp. Your mage gets bit . This wakes the mage you need to get two more hours sleep to regain spells you barbarian can rage kills wolf he needs an hour to become not winded again.

Tanarii

2018-02-17, 02:12 PM

You absolutely can tell the DM "we take a long rest" or "we're going to take a short rest;" I've seen it in play plenty of times. Doing so would prevent later invoking the other, as again, they're mutually exclusive.

I'm not sure why you think it's not possible for players to declare what type of rest they're planning on taking.
You can certainly use it as short hand it for declaring how much time you want to take. But that doesn't lock you out of anything. The benefits accrue from what your character has actually done, not what they declared they were going to attempt to do.

Again, this isn't a video game where the players push the Long Rest or Short Rest button to gain the benefits. If they do the thing, that's when they get the benefits that apply.

Edit: Relevant to topic:
http://theangrygm.com/hitting-the-rest-button/

RSP

2018-02-17, 03:27 PM

You can certainly use it as short hand it for declaring how much time you want to take. But that doesn't lock you out of anything. The benefits accrue from what your character has actually done, not what they declared they were going to attempt to do.

Again, this isn't a video game where the players push the Long Rest or Short Rest button to gain the benefits. If they do the thing, that's when they get the benefits that apply.

Edit: Relevant to topic:
http://theangrygm.com/hitting-the-rest-button/

I view it the same as declaring an action: if a player says he attempts to hide, but then fails on the skill check, that player doesn't then get to try a new action just because the first one failed.

A Long Rest and a Short Rest are different things, and per the tweet, they aren't meant to overlap. Again, nothing says you need to make that choice before allowing for the requirements, but there's clearly a choice being made by the Players.

Tanarii

2018-02-17, 03:33 PM

A Long Rest and a Short Rest are different things, and per the tweet, they aren't meant to overlap. Again, nothing says you need to make that choice before allowing for the requirements, but there's clearly a choice being made by the Players.
I see. And what are the characters doing differently when they prepare for a Short Rest or Long Rest? What's the in-world difference between what are merely an abstract mechanic, that they must declare they are attempting something different in-world to choose one or the other before hand, locking themselves out of the other?

napoleon_in_rag

2018-02-17, 04:00 PM

A long rest is exactly the same, but also allows standing watch (for no more than 2 hours). It then goes on to specifically state that a rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity (even though that is absolutely, completely, and unmistakably obvious, to the point where even typing that was redundant, because they have already laid out exactly what you're allowed to do on a rest....), and then lists some specific things which interrupt said long rest.
That list includes:
-- at least 1 hour of walking
--fighting
--casting spells
-- any similar adventuring activity

Read things in context.
It's quite clear.

I agree with this interpretation. It makes sense with the real world. When my 1 year old daughter wakes me up at 2 in the morning and it takes me some time to get her to go back to sleep, I feel like crap the next day even though I had 5 hours of good solid sleep before hand.

Combat causes adrenaline - you would have to spend some time calming down before you could return to sleep. That makes sense.

I have issues with the "casting any spells" rule. A non combat spell shouldn't break up a long rest. For example, a cleric casting "Cure Wounds" shouldn't. A cleric casting "Cause Wounds" should. As a DM, I would make the call on a case by case basis.

I would grant "Long Rest" after interruption if the Wizard cast Sleep on the party or on an individual. This would depend on how many hp the wizard rolled for the spell. Exchanging a spell slot for a Long Rest is fair.

Tiadoppler

2018-02-17, 04:45 PM

I see. And what are the characters doing differently when they prepare for a Short Rest or Long Rest? What's the in-world difference between what are merely an abstract mechanic, that they must declare they are attempting something different in-world to choose one or the other before hand, locking themselves out of the other?

Generally, I'd say that a Short Rest is everyone sitting down, digging into their packs for snacks and medical supplies, drinking water, refilling canteens from a river. It's not that comfortable, and they're not setting up any particular "campsite".

A Long Rest involves setting up tents, unrolling bedrolls, maintaining equipment, sharpening blades and fixing armor, gathering wood for a cooking fire, possibly digging a latrine or even pulling bushes/branches into a small palisade or barricade around the campsite.

Similarly, in a city/town, a short rest might be "a meal at the tavern, sitting around a table", while a long rest is "a night at the inn, in a bed".

Edit:
If you spend 8 hours in a row sitting and eating at a tavern, that's not a Long Rest.
If you spend 1 hour putting up tents, starting a fire, putting out a fire and taking down tents, that's not a Short Rest.

Tanarii

2018-02-17, 04:57 PM

A Long Rest involves setting up tents, unrolling bedrolls, maintaining equipment, sharpening blades and fixing armor, gathering wood for a cooking fire, possibly digging a latrine or even pulling bushes/branches into a small palisade or barricade around the campsite.So if they put up their tents, make camp, sleep for three hours, then get up and continue the day after a nap .. that's not a Short Rest?

Seems arbitrary when they've clearly met the Short rest requirements.

Edit: and if that's acceptable as a Short rest, why do they suddenly lose the benefits when they intended to get up after 6 hours and cook breakfast and relax another 2 hrs ... And they're attacked after just 3 hours of sleep?

Tiadoppler

2018-02-17, 05:11 PM

So if they put up their tents, make camp, sleep for three hours, then get up and continue the day after a nap .. that's not a Short Rest?

Seems arbitrary when they've clearly met the Short rest requirements.

Edit: and if that's acceptable as a Short rest, why do they suddenly lose the benefits when they intended to get up after 6 hours and cook breakfast and relax another 2 hrs ... And they're attacked after just 3 hours of sleep?

I should have specified:

In my houserule, setting up for a Long Rest requires some degree of work. An hour in bed at an inn certainly counts as a "Short Rest", but setting up a campsite takes some time, so it might take 2 hours of "Long Rest" in the wilderness to count as a "Short Rest". Basically, it takes an hour to get things set up, so the "resting" only starts after an hour.

If they set up camp (1 hour), sleep for 3 hours, then break camp (0.5 hours), I'd consider that 3 Short Rests, but it'd take 4.5 hours.

If they go to an inn, sleep for 3 hours, and leave, I'd consider that 3 Short Rests in 3 hours.

If they set up camp (1 hour), sleep for 6 hours, have breakfast (0.5), and break camp (0.5), that's a typical Long Rest.

RSP

2018-02-17, 06:56 PM

Tanarii

2018-02-17, 07:03 PM

DarkKnightJin

2018-02-17, 07:45 PM

Going by Crawford's tweet in Sage Advice, I would say that if the party has had enough time to wind down and rest for long enough to 'qualify' for a Short Rest, they get back the resources that recharge on that.

If they swiftly handle what is interrupting their Long Rest, and can go back to sleep, I say they can gaon the benefits of that Long Rest after it's finished.
But give some fluff about the sleep being less restful than they'd have liked it to be. Perhaps impose a minor penalty for the one(s) that went a bit harder than they needed to.

I wouldn't make them start from the top, especially not if they were over halfway through already, and didn't have to relocate.

Last session I played, we had something similar happen. We'd fought a rather disturbing foe, so the sleep was not as restful as we'd have liked it to be.
Result? We regained half of our spent spell slots instead of the full amount.
It wound up not really mattering, but I think it was handled pretty well.

Matrix_Walker

2018-02-17, 07:51 PM

Rest is rest. If you have had... "a period of downtime, at least I hour long, during which a character does nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds."

You have had a short rest or the first hour of your long rest. If you expend hit dice or make available your other short rest abilities, the long rest period must begin again. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

RSP

2018-02-17, 08:06 PM

The problem is you're assuming that a specific kind of Rest is an action you declare, then going back justifying that assumption as "the rules". That circular and doesn't follow. And nothing in the dev tweet you linked backs that up, since it was about something different.

As I said earlier, you don't need to declare it. But if you do, then that's what it is. Why? Because they are two different things that don't overlap.

Ganymede

2018-02-17, 09:23 PM

It's poor grammar for the point that they are trying to make (the "at least one hour of walking" should come last in the list), but given the other criteria, it makes sense to read it as "at least one hour of walking, or fighting, or casting a spell." Fighting almost never takes more than a full minute, let alone an hour, so why would they make that distinction? Similarly, casting a spell almost never takes more than an action, or maybe a minute. Only a few rare spells take a significant amount of time to cast, so why would you need to cast spells for more than an hour before you're out?

It boggles the mind why you're looking at the listed activities as if they are discrete categories, each of which must be contemplated to be taking up the entire hour. No. Walking, fighting, and casting spells are used as examples of "adventuring activity" and any given hour of a PC's adventuring activity is made up of some combination of the three.

It is the easiest thing in the world to imagine a PC filling an hour with a combination of walking, fighting, and casting spells.

Taken to a logical conclusion, saying that a long rest can't be interrupted by 59 minutes of combat or casting, why wouldn't players just announce that they're taking a long rest right before every combat? If they're fighting for less than an hour, they'd still get the benefits!

A PC declaring that they are taking a long rest at the onset of combat is about as useful as Michael Scott walking into the office and shouting "I declare bankruptcy!" To paraphrase Oscar Martinez, "I just wanted to let you know that you can't just say the word 'long rest' and expect anything to happen."

In either case, it sounds like you think you get to count the 59 minutes of adventuring activity as part of your 8 hours of long rest. This is not correct. You still have to relax for a full 8 hours outside of those 59 minutes.

napoleon_in_rag

2018-02-17, 10:28 PM

Agreed, but slight correction here. It's sleep for 6 + 1.01 hour of non-strenuous things + 59.99 minutes of strenuous activity, will also technically count as a long rest.

As written in the PHB a long rest is 8 hours of rest, of which two can be standing watch. It can be interrupted by 1 hour of walking, but that hour is not part of the rest time. So 4 hours of rest interrupted by 1 hour of walking followed by 4 hours of rest would be a long rest. 4 hours of rest interrupted by 1 hour of walking followed by 3 hours of rest would be a short rest.

RSP

2018-02-18, 12:06 AM

Just to add to this discussion: it seems awfully metagamey to start resting, have three hours pass, wait for the DM to describe what's happening (such as "your sleep is interrupted when 5 hellhounds approach your camp, growling and howling"), and then respond with whether character was taking a SR or a LR.

Essentially you're deciding: "is this enough to prevent my LR all together, or will we be able to continue after dealing with this?" Then, after processing that information, choosing what your character was doing prior to the interruption.

So the intent of the PCs is important prior to starting the rest, because their characters shouldn't know if they're waking up because Steve is snoring, or because Steve was just cut in half by a orc.

Deciding whether or not your character was short resting or long resting, after knowing what interrupted your rest is completely against in-game RP.

RSP

2018-02-18, 12:11 AM

As written in the PHB a long rest is 8 hours of rest, of which two can be standing watch. It can be interrupted by 1 hour of walking, but that hour is not part of the rest time. So 4 hours of rest interrupted by 1 hour of walking followed by 4 hours of rest would be a long rest. 4 hours of rest interrupted by 1 hour of walking followed by 3 hours of rest would be a short rest.

I think Leon was referring to the PHB errata that states a LR requires 6 hours of sleep. Per the errata:

"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 read- ing, talking, eating, or standing watch.”

napoleon_in_rag

2018-02-18, 07:38 AM

I think Leon was referring to the PHB errata that states a LR requires 6 hours of sleep. Per the errata:

"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 read- ing, talking, eating, or standing watch.”

Leon stated:

It's sleep for 6 + 1.01 hour of non-strenuous things + 59.99 minutes of strenuous activity, will also technically count as a long rest.

Any strenuous activity is an interruption. If you are giving a 20 minute speech and I interrupt you for 5 minutes, the total time would be 25 minutes. So Leon's example would require an additional 59.99 minutes of sleep or non strenuous activity for a total of 8 hours, 59.99 minutes.

RSP

2018-02-18, 08:18 AM

Leon stated:

Any strenuous activity is an interruption. If you are giving a 20 minute speech and I interrupt you for 5 minutes, the total time would be 25 minutes. So Leon's example would require an additional 59.99 minutes of sleep or non strenuous activity for a total of 8 hours, 59.99 minutes.

Apologies. Leon is in error as well:

"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 read- ing, talking, eating, or standing watch.”

Here are the requirements for a long rest:

- it's at least 8 hours
- at least 6 hours are sleep
- no more than 2 hours of light activity

Edit: just reread the errata that it only changed the first sentence. Can still be interrupted and yes, you would need to tack on the interruption. Apologies again.

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-18, 08:22 AM

for a total of 8 hours, 59.99 minutes.
Your are correct, as I already stated when I made the same claim earlier which everyone ignored.

If an activity is interrupted by another activity, the time spent on the interruption is not a part of the original activity (because that's what an interruption is.... and if it counted toward the original it wouldn't be an interruption, via the definition of the word), and extended the required time of the original activity by an appropriate amount.
6 hours of sleep + 1.1 hour or light activity + 0.9 hours of interruption = 7.1 hours of rest, which is not "at least 8" and is therefore not a long rest.

napoleon_in_rag

2018-02-18, 08:33 AM

I think we are making a mountain out of a molehill. Let me give an in game example of my interpretation:

I am DMing a party of 4 PCs in a dungeon. They decide to stop and set up camp. They choose a large chamber where several tunnels to inhabited sections intersect. They start a cook fire and have an argument over the loot.

Because they are not being stealthy, I impose a negative modifier on their "Random Encounter" roll. I roll that an encounter happens and roll for the monster. I roll a 5 on a 1d8 to determine how many hours into the rest the encounter occurs. I judge that a short rest has occurred.

The encounter happens and the party defeats the monsters. I judge that the Long Rest was interrupted. I give a subtle hint to the party that camping out in the open is not a wise move. Rob the Ranger says "I remember that there was a side chamber several rooms back that had a door you could close."

They walk for 15 minutes back to that room, wedge the door shut and start resting again. I restart the "Long Rest clock" when they begin walking to the new campsite. I decide that their precautions are enough to prevent another random encounter and give them the benefits of a long rest after 8 hours.

Total game time: 13 hours and some change. Unless there is a BBEG with a ticking clock, this is not a big deal.

A couple of points on this:

1) Long rests are really powerful. One big difference between 5e and previous editions is that you don't need a cleric to heal your PC in 5e because of rests.
2) A dungeon should feel dangerous, like at any minute something will jump out and attack you. If a character can take a long rest at will, I feel like this would break immersion.
3) All encounters don't have to end in combat. If a PC talks/bribes/intimidates their way out of an encounter, I wouldn't count that as an interruption. Even at high levels, I always have some vermin (rats/ bats/ bugs) on my random encounter tables. For example: While Bob the Barbarian is on watch, some rats sneak into the campsite. Bob fails a secret perception roll and doesn't see them. When Cecilia the Cleric comes on watch she passes the roll and finds the rats. The party still gets the benefit of a long rest but loses a random amount of rations. (This has happened to me while camping in real life).

Arial Black

2018-02-18, 10:20 AM

The consequences of the resting rules in 5e result in the following:-

* there is no such thing as declaring a long or short rest in advance; you can say that you are long/short resting, but that has no bearing on what will happen. You just...rest. At that point, you might intend that rest to be one or the other, but the universe doesn't care about your intent, just what you actually do

* at any time, a player can ask the DM, "has it been at least an hour since I've done anything stressful?" If the answer is "yes" then the player may or may not choose to get the benefits of a short rest. If he chooses the benefits, then that rest is over and that time does not count toward a long rest. If he chooses not to take the short rest benefits then...nothing happens. He is still 'resting', which may or may not turn out to be a long rest or just a short rest that lasted more than one hour

* at any time a player whose PC has rested for 8 hours (not counting interruptions), including sleeping for at least six hours, and who hasn't been doing any of the list of stressful things for an hour or more since this period of downtime began, may take the benefits of either a long rest or a short rest (or neither) because that period of downtime qualifies him for either type of rest. However, he must choose only one set of benefits (if choosing any); he doesn't get the benefits of both

So the two most important concepts here are:-

1.) as the period of downtime begins, you don't declare that the upcoming downtime is 'long rest downtime' or 'short rest downtime'; it's just 'downtime' at that point.

2.) the rest (either type) only actually ends when you choose to take the benefits! Until you do, you are just 'resting'.

So, the party settles down for the night, intending to get a long rest. They fall asleep. After three hours go by, they are woken up by being attacked.

At that point, they have not qualified for a long rest, but they have qualified for a short rest. Each PC has a choice:-

* if they choose to take the benefits of a short rest then that short rest is over. If they fight, the time fighting is not 'resting' in any way. After the fight is over and they settle down to sleep again, they start the period of downtime from scratch; the previous rest has been and gone and does not count toward a long OR short rest going forward

* if they choose not to take the benefits of a short rest then they fight (the fighting time not counting toward any rest). Assuming the fight took less than an hour, when they settle down to sleep again then they CAN count the first three hours as part of a long rest, but they CANNOT count it as part of an upcoming short rest since any combat ends a short rest

If some PCs chose to take the benefits of a short rest and some chose not to, then the ones that chose not to will be able to claim the benefits of a long rest five hours after the fight ended, because they have had eight hour in total, slept for six, and not been interrupted for more than an hour.

Those who chose to take the short rest benefits will only qualify for a long rest eight hours after the fight ended, because taking the benefits of a rest ends that rest, and any period of rest cannot be 'cashed in' for both types!

napoleon_in_rag

2018-02-18, 12:08 PM

Assuming the fight took less than an hour, when they settle down to sleep again then they CAN count the first three hours as part of a long rest, but they CANNOT count it as part of an upcoming short rest since any combat ends a short rest

You are misinterpreting the rule. One hour of walking OR any fighting OR casting a spell etc interrupts a long rest. 5e battles never last over an hour because each round is only 6 seconds long for 600 rounds in an hour. You can easily fit a dozen battles into one hour with time to spare.

As a DM, I would allow the long rest to continue if the combat lasts one round or less with no PCs being injured. That's my interpretation though, not RAW.

Ganymede

2018-02-18, 12:44 PM

You are misinterpreting the rule. One hour of walking OR any fighting OR casting a spell etc interrupts a long rest. 5e battles never last over an hour because each round is only 6 seconds long for 600 rounds in an hour. You can easily fit a dozen battles into one hour with time to spare.

Again, this is incorrect.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/08/20/will-participating-in-1-round-of-combat-break-a-shortlong-rest/

napoleon_in_rag

2018-02-18, 01:51 PM

Again, this is incorrect.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/08/20/will-participating-in-1-round-of-combat-break-a-shortlong-rest/

Wrong. The sages are divided on this.

On August 12, 2016, Jeremy Crawford tweeted that a long rest is not broken by combat.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/08/20/will-participating-in-1-round-of-combat-break-a-shortlong-rest/

On September 7, 2016 Mike Mearls tweeted that one round of combat breaks a long rest.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/09/07/will-participating-in-1-round-of-combat-break-a-long-rest/

This is why you cannot throw a Sage Advice Tweet around like's it written in stone. They freely admit that they make mistakes and fix the mistakes in the Sage Advice Compendium or in the Errata. And neither the Compendium or the Errata have anything to say about this. So, as a DM, you have to go back to the PHB and interpret what is written there.

Making a rule that 599 rounds of combat does not interrupt a rest makes no sense to me. That's like a horde of orcs with deadpool grade regeneration up against a level 20 party.

My own interpretation/ruling (I aim for fun but fair)
One hour of walking or equivalent activity breaks a Long Rest.
One round of combat where the PC is uninjured does not break a long rest.
Casting a single Non-Combat spell like lesser restoration or light does not break a rest.
But that's me. You do what you want at your table.

Ganymede

2018-02-18, 02:06 PM

Wrong. The sages are divided on this.

On August 12, 2016, Jeremy Crawford tweeted...

On September 7, 2016 Mike Mearls tweeted...

I've pinpointed the origin of your error. Aside from your dates being inaccurate, you think that Mearls' and Crawford's statements have equal weight. Contrary to that, the Sage Advice Compendium is explicit that only Jeremy Crawford can make official rulings.

"The public statements of the D&D team, or
anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings;
they are advice. One exception: the game’s rules manager,
Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), can make official
rulings"

This is not a muddy issue open to interpretation. It definitely isn't an issue where you can confidently proclaim the one word sentence "Wrong." I don't even understand why this is even being argued over.

Mjolnirbear

2018-02-18, 02:46 PM

If you spend at least one hour resting without doing nothing more strenuous than the short rest listed stuff, it's a short rest. If you spend at least 8 hours resting, it includes 6 hours of sleep, and doesn't include the listed strenuous activity for long rests, then it's a long rest. (Edit: for the six hours of sleep requirement, see PHB errata here: http://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/PH-Errata.pdf
It's not in the basic rules v3.)

So yeah, if you've done the hour or more of nothing more strenuous than X stuff, and there's suddenly a sudden combat, you get the benefits of a short rest for that combat.

I disagree.

Okay, so logically, and RAW, it works out. But it also promotes the five-minute-work-day. Blow your load of spell slots on the first encounter, then rest up.

My rest rules explicitly state: you can only benefit from a long rest once per day, and a short rest twice per day.

Why? For most people, after a long night's sleep, you don't wake up bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, spend an hour at the gym, and then immediately go home and sleep for 8 hours.

You can relax, which is awesome. You can sit on the couch playing video games, or read a book, or lay in the sun and get a tan. But your body doesn't let you store up excess sleep. You can't store up rest.

Coincidentally, this means that I don't have to have wandering orcs burst into the clearing to police the 5MWD, or have an implausible stream of enemies waiting for when you want to take a nap.

Tanarii

2018-02-18, 03:00 PM

Okay, so logically, and RAW, it works out. But it also promotes the five-minute-work-day. Blow your load of spell slots on the first encounter, then rest up.

My rest rules explicitly state: you can only benefit from a long rest once per day, and a short rest twice per day.
RAW is you can only benefit from a Long Rest once per 24 hour period. I left that part out.

Edit: although I'm not sure how this explicitly prevents a 5MWD. You can still theoretically blow everything on one encounter, retreat, long rest, and come back the next day.

I'm not promoting that, I'm just saying that what's relevant is the world not being static and waiting for the PCs, not the 1/24 hour limitation. Time mattering is an unspoken underlying assumption of the rule.

RSP

2018-02-18, 03:07 PM

Tanarii

2018-02-18, 03:26 PM

If a player says "I take a Long Rest," then as DM, I'm going with they'll work through any interruption to try and continue the LR.

If they say "I take a Short Rest," I go with they're only planning on resting an hour.

Again, you may play at your table that you tell them what interrupts their rest and then they decide what type of rest they took. This is the definition of metagaming.
First you describe players metagaming, declaring an abstract rule action instead of what their character is doing. Then you claim the thing that's the exact opposite of metagaming, giving the abstract rest option based on what happens in game.

Edit: removed something pretty insulting. My bad.

RSP

2018-02-18, 05:25 PM

First you describe players metagaming, declaring an abstract rule action instead of what their character is doing. Then you claim the thing that's the exact opposite of metagaming, giving the abstract rest option based on what happens in game.

Edit: removed something pretty insulting. My bad.

I'm not sure what you think I've stated that contradicts. SR/LR is a Player statement, not a character one.

Claiming that you're character was only taking a SR, after 3 hours of a LR, only after that rest was interrupted and combat has started, isn't how the rule works. The possibility of a SR is over as soon as it's interrupted; if you hadn't stated that was the intent, then there is no going back in time and claiming that's what it was.

Tanarii

2018-02-18, 05:39 PM

I'm not sure what you think I've stated that contradicts. SR/LR is a Player statement, not a character one. Exactly. That makes it a metagame statement. That's not implying it's a bad thing, the way metagame is often thrown around. Metagame statements (using the term correctly) are common.

Claiming that you're character was only taking a SR, after 3 hours of a LR, only after that rest was interrupted and combat has started, isn't how the rule works. The possibility of a SR is over as soon as it's interrupted; if you hadn't stated that was the intent, then there is no going back in time and claiming that's what it was.
The player have to doesn't declare its anything metagame after the fact. Or before for that matter. They can just say their character is resting and how (if sleeping, watch schedule, etc) and how long they intend to rest. When it ends for whatever reason (it's how long they said they wanted to rest, an interruption) the DM determines which abstract/metagame rest type applies based on the criteria for each, and tells them what kind of rest it was.

RSP

2018-02-18, 05:48 PM

Exactly. That makes it a metagame statement. That's not implying it's a bad thing, the way metagame is often thrown around. Metagame statements (using the term correctly) are common.

The player have to doesn't declare its anything metagame after the fact. Or before for that matter. They can just say their character is resting and how (if sleeping, watch schedule, etc) and how long they intend to rest. When it ends for whatever reason (it's how long they said they wanted to rest, an interruption) the DM determines which abstract/metagame rest type applies based on the criteria for each, and tells them what kind of rest it was.

No. The DM doesn't decide. The DM doesn't get to say "you have a SR" if the Player wants to try to continue with a LR after the interruption.

The Player can say "my character rests" and anytime before an interruption, they can claim the benefits of a SR or LR, assuming all other requirements are met.

But once the rest is interrupted by something like combat, which ends a SR, there is no claiming the benefits of a SR.

Or, in other words, you can't claim the benefits of a SR after combat has started.

Tanarii

2018-02-18, 05:56 PM

No. The DM doesn't decide. The DM doesn't get to say "you have a SR" if the Player wants to try to continue with a LR after the interruption.
They'd have to start over if they wanted a Long Rest when it was interrupted. The question here is if they can 'downgrade' an attempted Long Rest to a Short Rest. They can either get the benefit of a short rest (if the DM determines it qualifies) or nothing (under your "player declares when beginning the rest" method, or if the DM determined it didn't qualify).

And it's certainly possible for a DM to adjudicate what kind of rest it qualified for.

Belier

2018-02-18, 06:04 PM

I have read as long as the rest is not interrupted for more than 1 hour it is fine and it still count as a full rest. However I would rule if it was interrupted for more than one hour and the player did eat and drink a little I would allow it as a short rest for the benefits of recharging short ress skills and using hit dices. I would then make them consti 10 check if it is first day, dc 15 on second day, dc 20 on third day. I'd give some sort of fatigue penalty to the players.

That's something I could do if my players want to abuse resting or if it is part of a specific part of a scenario.

RSP

2018-02-18, 06:11 PM

They'd have to start over if they wanted a Long Rest when it was interrupted. The question here is if they can 'downgrade' an attempted Long Rest to a Short Rest. They can either get the benefit of a short rest (if the DM determines it qualifies) or nothing (under your "player declares when beginning the rest" method, or if the DM determined it didn't qualify).

And it's certainly possible for a DM to adjudicate what kind of rest it qualified for.

Again, they don't have to state what rest they're taking. But if they're long resting and combat starts, they're unable to claim they were just SRing.

Referring back to the the previously posted Crawford tweet:

"Any amount of fighting breaks a short rest. A long rest can withstand an interruption of up to 1 hour. #DnD https://twitter.com/dmgpunk/status

Once the SR is interrupted by combat, it's done and gone, regardless of if that SR was 1 hour or 3 hours. Once combat starts, the rest is no more and, as such, it's too late to claim the benefits.

Can a DM still allow it? Sure; but it's the same thing as just telling the Players at the start of the rest, "I'm only going to allow a SR here: you'll be attacked after the first hour otherwise."

Tanarii

2018-02-18, 08:03 PM

Oh okay, I finally get it. Your position is a necessary outgrowth of reading the Long Rest interruption phrasing a specific way, so as to allow combat to not interrupt it if it's less than an hour.

In that case, more power to you and your interpretation that player declaration of type of rest is required. Clearly it works for you. :smallbiggrin:

Edit: just in case, because txt isn't always clear: This is me conceding. Because I don't really care about the argument re: what interrupts a long rest.

Gardakan

2018-02-18, 10:06 PM

In adventurer's league, it would be up for quite the debate.

In any of my homebrew games, I'd let it go.

RSP

2018-02-19, 12:13 AM

Thrudd

2018-02-19, 12:12 PM

Players: "We set camp and rest" (in the woods outside the dungeon).
DM: "How long do you intend to rest?"
Players: "For the whole night, 8 hours"(they describe the watch schedule and who's sleeping, studying, etc.)
DM: "ok". Rolls for first watch- nothing
"Ok, first watch is over. HD may be spent if wanted, SR abilities are recovered."
Rolls for second watch- nothing
"Second watch passes uneventfully"
Rolls for third watch - wandering monster
Rolls for perception/surprise
"Watchman, you hear multiple creatures approaching the camp from the north"
"I wake everyone up!"
"Ok roll initiative!" (A combat happens against hungry gnolls)
Players return to rest for the remaining 2 hours of the night. DM rolls for the last watch- nothing
"The last watch was uneventful. SR abilities are recovered again, may spend HD."
Players: "Do we get all HD back and long rest abilities?"
DM: "no, the long rest was interrupted. Wizard hasn't had enough rest to properly recharge spells. You can try staging here another six hours, or move on and see 8f you can find a safer spot..."

Demonslayer666

2018-02-19, 05:13 PM

Foxydono

2018-02-19, 05:33 PM

You absolutely can tell the DM "we take a long rest" or "we're going to take a short rest;" I've seen it in play plenty of times. Doing so would prevent later invoking the other, as again, they're mutually exclusive.

I'm not sure why you think it's not possible for players to declare what type of rest they're planning on taking.
In the games I DM, players have to do exactly that. If they want to take a long rest and get interupted, than it's neither a long or a short rest. Also, fights almost never last longer than one or two minutes. But if they do get into a serieus battle, it will interrupt their sleep. Even if it only lasts for a minute. It aint raw, but I find it very weird they can fight off a dragon attack, almost die and say: well it only lasted a minute, I'll take the other half of my long rest now.

Foxydono

2018-02-19, 05:43 PM

Arial Black

2018-02-20, 04:28 AM

I'm not sure what you think I've stated that contradicts. SR/LR is a Player statement, not a character one.

Claiming that you're character was only taking a SR, after 3 hours of a LR, only after that rest was interrupted and combat has started, isn't how the rule works. The possibility of a SR is over as soon as it's interrupted; if you hadn't stated that was the intent, then there is no going back in time and claiming that's what it was.

No. Creatures 'rest'. They don't 'long rest' or 'short rest' in terms of 'what is your action this round?'

'This round? I'm not doing anything much, just reading. Might take a nap in a bit, might not'.

So, was that 'not doing anything much' a short rest nothing much or a long rest nothing much?

Neither! It was just 'nothing much'. Nothing 'strenuous', in rules terms.

There is absolutely no difference round by round, action by action, in what the creatures actually do.

Imagine that a creature has been doing nothing strenuous for the last, say, ten hours. During that time they slept for eight hours, and didn't do anything strenuous at all in that time. According to the RAW, what they did (or more precisely: did not do) qualifies them for a short rest, AND for a long rest. However, just because they qualify for both doesn't mean that they get (the benefits of) both! What it means is that they can decide to either:-

* take the benefits of a long rest

* take the benefits of a short rest

* do neither

In the RAW, the only determining factor of what kind of rest you just had is what benefits you choose to take! Of course, you have to qualify for that type of rest in order to choose to take its benefits, but if your (in)actions happen to qualify for both then you get to freely choose what kind of rest it was, and you do that by the simple method of taking those benefits.

You don't, RAW, decide in advance what kind of 'sitting down and doing nothing strenuous' you are doing. What you do is look back and say, hey, I've been doing nothing strenuous for x amount of time and I qualify for x kind of rest now. Shall I take the benefits? Yes, I think I will.

RSP

2018-02-20, 07:11 AM

No. Creatures 'rest'. They don't 'long rest' or 'short rest' in terms of 'what is your action this round?'

'This round? I'm not doing anything much, just reading. Might take a nap in a bit, might not'.

So, was that 'not doing anything much' a short rest nothing much or a long rest nothing much?

Neither! It was just 'nothing much'. Nothing 'strenuous', in rules terms.

There is absolutely no difference round by round, action by action, in what the creatures actually do.

Imagine that a creature has been doing nothing strenuous for the last, say, ten hours. During that time they slept for eight hours, and didn't do anything strenuous at all in that time. According to the RAW, what they did (or more precisely: did not do) qualifies them for a short rest, AND for a long rest. However, just because they qualify for both doesn't mean that they get (the benefits of) both! What it means is that they can decide to either:-

* take the benefits of a long rest

* take the benefits of a short rest

* do neither

In the RAW, the only determining factor of what kind of rest you just had is what benefits you choose to take! Of course, you have to qualify for that type of rest in order to choose to take its benefits, but if your (in)actions happen to qualify for both then you get to freely choose what kind of rest it was, and you do that by the simple method of taking those benefits.

You don't, RAW, decide in advance what kind of 'sitting down and doing nothing strenuous' you are doing. What you do is look back and say, hey, I've been doing nothing strenuous for x amount of time and I qualify for x kind of rest now. Shall I take the benefits? Yes, I think I will.

Again, in-game creatures don't claim SR/LR, but Players can.

If you play SR/LRs at your table as round-by-round events (From your "There is absolutely no difference round by round, action by action, in what the creatures actually do."), I can't imagine there's time for anything else in your game:

DM: "Okay, let's wait another 6 seconds...everyone still resting? Okay, then let's move to the next round..."

That sounds like a horrible way to play.

Now, if a Player says "I take a long rest," they are in essence saying "I sleep for at least 6 hours, and do nothing strenuous for another 2, in order to recharge my LR abilities."

As DM, you don't play that real time; that's a difference between RPing and real life. So when a Player says that, it's the same as taking any other game term event. If they say "I cast Identify as a Ritual," then I know what they intend to do for the next 10 mins or so. If that 10 mins get interrupted, the Player doesn't get to say, "oh instead of Ritual Identify, I was casting Fireball, holding it to go off when the enemies enter my range."

Once the rest is interrupted, there's no going back and changing what type of rest it was. RAW, you're not allowed to rest for X hours, then hold that "rest possibility" until combat starts in order to decide after-the-fact what your character was doing in the past.

Also not allowed:

DM: "okay about 2 hours into your rest you're woken by goblins advancing on your camp."

Player: "oh, well during those 2 hours I was placing traps right where those goblins are currently walking."

DM: "oh, you were? Nice play. Okay roll damage for the traps."

That's not how the game works: you don't get to retcon your character's actions after finding out what happens because of those actions.

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-20, 07:56 AM

Again, in-game creatures don't claim SR/LR, but Players can.

What players claim and what characters do can be two wildly different things.
I can claim to try to leap a building in a single bound, but what happens is my character jumps about three feet high.
I can claim to rest for 8+ hours, but in reality the rest lasted 2 hours. In that event, it was a short rest, regardless of my stated intention, because it fulfilled the criteria of being a short rest. I can choose to accept the benefits of a short rest and start my long rest over later, or I can choose to forgo the benefits of the short rest that I earned and hope that the interruption lasts less than an hour.
Just because I say I want to do one thing doesn't mean that's the only possible outcome. If something else happens, then something else happens.

Glorthindel

2018-02-20, 11:01 AM

I just love how some people flip from over declaring Sage Advice rulings as cast-iron written-in-stone involate rulings, or just an idiot spouting crap depending on whether the ruling benefits a player or not. I bet some of the people holding tight to Crawfords ruling on whether combat breaks a long rest are the exact same people calling out his ruling that DM's get to pick what is summoned by summon spells. Classic selective hearing.

RSP

2018-02-20, 12:41 PM

What players claim and what characters do can be two wildly different things.
I can claim to try to leap a building in a single bound, but what happens is my character jumps about three feet high.
I can claim to rest for 8+ hours, but in reality the rest lasted 2 hours. In that event, it was a short rest, regardless of my stated intention, because it fulfilled the criteria of being a short rest. I can choose to accept the benefits of a short rest and start my long rest over later, or I can choose to forgo the benefits of the short rest that I earned and hope that the interruption lasts less than an hour.
Just because I say I want to do one thing doesn't mean that's the only possible outcome. If something else happens, then something else happens.

The DM does not determine which Rest, if any, is occurring. I don't have it handy at the moment, but Crawford confirmed a DM can't force a LR on anyone. (I believe this is the basis of the "Coffee-lock" being legal)

Likewise, a DM shouldn't force a SR on the Players if their goal is to complete the LR after the interruption. If you rest for 7+ hours, get interrupted by 2 rounds of combat, want to continue your LR, but your DM says "sorry, you just SRed. You'll need to start over if you want a LR," then they're screwing you over.

In your example, you're forcing the Players to abandon their LR in favor of taking a SR. This is not something a DM should do.

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-20, 01:40 PM

The DM does not determine which Rest, if any, is occurring. I don't have it handy at the moment, but Crawford confirmed a DM can't force a LR on anyone. (I believe this is the basis of the "Coffee-lock" being legal)

Likewise, a DM shouldn't force a SR on the Players if their goal is to complete the LR after the interruption. If you rest for 7+ hours, get interrupted by 2 rounds of combat, want to continue your LR, but your DM says "sorry, you just SRed. You'll need to start over if you want a LR," then they're screwing you over.

In your example, you're forcing the Players to abandon their LR in favor of taking a SR. This is not something a DM should do.

Exactly which part of
"I can choose to accept the benefits of a short rest and start my long rest over later, or I can choose to forgo the benefits of the short rest that I earned and hope that the interruption lasts less than an hour."
is me "forcing" anything on anyone?

Incidentally:
"I can choose to accept the benefits of a short rest and start my long rest over later, or I can choose to forgo the benefits of the short rest that I earned and hope that the interruption lasts less than an hour."
is literally true of every short rest, ever, because in order to complete a long rest, you must have already qualified for a short rest first.

RSP

2018-02-20, 05:23 PM

Exactly which part of
"I can choose to accept the benefits of a short rest and start my long rest over later, or I can choose to forgo the benefits of the short rest that I earned and hope that the interruption lasts less than an hour."
is me "forcing" anything on anyone?

Incidentally:
"I can choose to accept the benefits of a short rest and start my long rest over later, or I can choose to forgo the benefits of the short rest that I earned and hope that the interruption lasts less than an hour."
is literally true of every short rest, ever, because in order to complete a long rest, you must have already qualified for a short rest first.

Apologies if I mistook your statement: "I can claim to rest for 8+ hours, but in reality the rest lasted 2 hours. In that event, it was a short rest, regardless of my stated intention," appeared to me as if the one deciding the "reality" was the DM, regardless of what the Player claimed.

Your "Incidentally" furthers my point: if every time a Player takes a LR it could be a SR, then the only difference is intent. The only way we know that intent (as DM) is by what the Player tells us. If the Player states "I take a LR" then we know their intent is to rest until they receive the benefits of a LR.

However, it appears you want to allow a LR to change to a SR after the opportunity for a SR has expired (that is, combat has already started). This is not how it works: you cannot get a SR during combat.

Again, it's the same as saying "I attack the orc," and then, after finding out you missed on your attack, declaring "I Hide instead of attacking."

Or see the previous example I gave on casting spells.

Basically, if a Player says they're doing something and that thing has an immediate effect that occurs, I'm not going to let them decide that they didn't do it because that's not how the game is played.

Players declare/describe their actions, the DM describes the effects: the Players don't then get to change what their actions were if they don't like the effects (aside, perhaps, from Wish).

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-20, 05:39 PM

However, it appears you want to allow a LR to change to a SR after the opportunity for a SR has expired (that is, combat has already started). This is not how it works: you cannot get a SR during combat.

No, you cannot get a short rest during combat. You get a short rest during the time that you rested. There isn't some magical moment at the end of a short rest where you decide that a rest has occurred. The rest occurs during the time of the rest.
If you have rested for more than an hour, and you complete all the requirements for a short rest, then you have completed a short rest. Go ahead and gain the benefits. Then combat starts.

Think of it like this, I want to make a large pizza. I run out of cheese halfway through. So I make half of a large pizza. That is still enough for a meal and I can still eat it. Did I fail at making pizza? No, I just made less pizza than I originally planned on.
Just because you don't complete a long rest does not mean you have not completed a short rest. As long as you have rested for at least an hour and done nothing to disqualify you from a short rest, then you have completed a short rest after 1 hour.
If the attack happens after 2 hours, you completed a short rest an hour ago. You have been resting ever since. Feel free to gain the benefits of a short rest if you so desire.

Coffee_Dragon

2018-02-20, 05:59 PM

However, it appears you want to allow a LR to change to a SR after the opportunity for a SR has expired (that is, combat has already started). This is not how it works: you cannot get a SR during combat.

That assumes that cashing in a rest is a type of player action, instead of an SR being the set mechanical consequence of certain in-world circumstances: having rested for a certain time, which in your example already happened.

For those who view mechanics as a tool to model the game world and provide systematic fluff-crunch-fluff feedback, it makes sense to consider someone who rested for an hour and a half before swinging a sword to have got a short rest, all other conditions being met, because that's just how we model that.

For those who view mechanics as the means by which players project their crunch decisions into the game world to be integrated into the fluff, it may make sense to consider long and short rests to be charging meters of different colours and the game world itself has no power to substitute one for the other.

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-20, 06:06 PM

RSP

2018-02-20, 06:07 PM

No, you cannot get a short rest during combat. You get a short rest during the time that you rested. There isn't some magical moment at the end of a short rest where you decide that a rest has occurred. The rest occurs during the time of the rest.
If you have rested for more than an hour, and you complete all the requirements for a short rest, then you have completed a short rest. Go ahead and gain the benefits. Then combat starts.

Think of it like this, I want to make a large pizza. I run out of cheese halfway through. So I make half of a large pizza. That is still enough for a meal and I can still eat it. Did I fail at making pizza? No I just made less Pizza than I originally said I was going to.
Just because you don't complete a long rest does not mean you have not completed a short rest. As long as you have rested for at least an hour and done nothing to disqualify you from a short rest, then you have completed a short rest after 1 hour.
If the attack happens after 2 hours, you completed a short rest an hour ago. You have been resting ever since. Feel free to gain the benefits of a short rest if you so desire.

Again, your discounting the LR and the fact the two don't overlap. If you don't take a SR, you don't get the benefits of a SR. If you want to take a LR and combat breaks out during hour 3 for 4 rounds, feel free to go ahead and continue your LR once the combat is over. But you can't say "oh, instead I'll take a SR" because the combat negated that chance.

And compare you pizza analogy to my analogies (which you ignore): mine use the rules of the game we're discussing, yours do not, which is why I used mine as analogies: because they relate to our discussion. Making pizza, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the rules of 5e.

Your arguement for why an interrupted LR should become a SR is the same as arguing "my interrupted casting of Forbiddance should become a casting of Haste." At one point you qualified for being able to attempt to cast Haste or Forbiddance, and you chose the longer casting time Forbiddance (just like at one point you chose to LR over taking a SR). Combat breaks out after three rounds of your Forbiddance casting. Do you now get to say "oh okay, I want that last round of casting, the one before combat started, to be Haste rather than Forbiddance?"

The answer is no.

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-20, 06:10 PM

Again, your discounting the LR and the fact the two don't overlap. If you don't take a SR, you don't get the benefits of a SR. If you want to take a LR and combat breaks out during hour 3 for 4 rounds, feel free to go ahead and continue your LR once the combat is over. But you can't say "oh, instead I'll take a SR" because the combat negated that chance.

And compare you pizza analogy to my analogies (which you ignore): mine use the rules of the game we're discussing, yours do not, which is why I used mine as analogies: because they relate to our discussion. Making pizza, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the rules of 5e.

Your arguement for why an interrupted LR should become a SR is the same as arguing "my interrupted casting of Forbiddance should become a casting of Haste." At one point you qualified for being able to attempt to cast Haste or Forbiddance, and you chose the longer casting time Forbiddance (just like at one point you chose to LR over taking a SR). Combat breaks out after three rounds of your Forbiddance casting. Do you now get to say "oh okay, I want that last round of casting, the one before combat started, to be Haste rather than Forbiddance?"

The answer is no.

OMG
What are the requirements for completing a short rest?
Have those been met?
Then you are entitled to the benefits of a short rest.

RSP

2018-02-20, 06:18 PM

That assumes that cashing in a rest is a type of player action, instead of an SR being the set mechanical consequence of certain in-world circumstances: having rested for a certain time, which in your example already happened.

For those who view mechanics as a tool to model the game world and provide systematic fluff-crunch-fluff feedback, it makes sense to consider someone who rested for an hour and a half before swinging a sword to have got a short rest, all other conditions being met, because that's just how we model that.

For those who view mechanics as the means by which players project their crunch decisions into the game world to be integrated into the fluff, it may make sense to consider long and short rests to be charging meters of different colours and the game world itself has no power to substitute one for the other.

Again, your leaving out the LR factor. If a SR was only "having rested for a certain time" you may be able to argue that. But that's not what's happening. The Player intended to take a LR, and can still continue that course, and only after learning that LR is interrupted do they want to go back and change their intent.

Let's look at it your way: say a Player states they want to take a LR. 5 hours into it, they're interrupted by combat and decide they can fight through the interruption and continue their LR, however, the fight ends up more difficult than they anticipated and they end up having to flee, running away for the next few hours and destroying any chance of continuing their LR. Can the Player now decide that the passage of time preceding the fight was actually a SR? If not, why not? You're already allowing them to change their intentions from past actions and take the SR during combat, why not afterward? Would you allow them to change their mind two rounds into the combat? One round? At what point are Players no longer allowed to change their past actions in your game?

Per Crawford, you cannot benefit from a SR at the same time as a LR. The Player doesn't get to change what they were doing after learning what the consequences of their decisions were.

RSP

2018-02-20, 06:19 PM

OMG
What are the requirements for completing a short rest?
Have those been met?
Then you are entitled to the benefits of a short rest.

Way to respond to the arguments (and discount the rules and Crawford's tweets).

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-20, 06:22 PM

Way to respond to the arguments (and discount the rules and Crawford's tweets).

I'm not discounting any rules. I'm not discounting Crawford's tweets. You still can't take the benefits of a short rest and then continue on a long rest. But you can choose to take the benefits of a short rest at any time after which you have completed the requirements. Then later you start another long rest if you so choose.
But if you complete the requirements for a short rest then you can choose to gain the benefits of a short rest. You are entitled to that. And I generally despise using that word. But in this case you are entitled.

Foxydono

2018-02-20, 06:25 PM

No, you cannot get a short rest during combat. You get a short rest during the time that you rested. There isn't some magical moment at the end of a short rest where you decide that a rest has occurred. The rest occurs during the time of the rest.
If you have rested for more than an hour, and you complete all the requirements for a short rest, then you have completed a short rest. Go ahead and gain the benefits. Then combat starts.

Think of it like this, I want to make a large pizza. I run out of cheese halfway through. So I make half of a large pizza. That is still enough for a meal and I can still eat it. Did I fail at making pizza? No I just made less Pizza than I originally said I was going to.
Just because you don't complete a long rest does not mean you have not completed a short rest. As long as you have rested for at least an hour and done nothing to disqualify you from a short rest, then you have completed a short rest after 1 hour.
If the attack happens after 2 hours, you completed a short rest an hour ago. You have been resting ever since. Feel free to gain the benefits of a short rest if you so desire.
I get your point and it may even be raw, although there are decent arguments for both sides. If I look at it from a 'in real life' perspective, I would rule that an interrupted long rest would indeed count as short rest, or even multiple short rests if you rested a few hours. Because it makes total sense, you have rested a hour, so you should be able to get those benefits.

From a game mechanic view point however, I look at this differently. Leaving it open whether a player takes a long rest or a short one just asks for meta gaming. Lets say you are in a dungeon and we apply the rules like you are viewing them. Players say I will take a rest. I would ask for how long. Players say for one hour at least. After one hour I say nothing happened, what will you do now. They say we will rest for another hour at least. I say nothing happened and then they do it again and again till they finish a long rest. If they get interrupted, after lets say three hours, they will say they had three shorts rests. That just feels wrong.

Basically, it's a way of to minimilize the risks, while still getting the best result possible. With healing being as easy at it is in 5e, applying the rules like you are suggesting just makes taking rests so much easier and less fun. And I rather not roll play a long rest like eight short ones.

Therefore, I would always make them choose what rest they want and handle rests like a specific action. If they fail at a long rest, they don't get the benefits of a short one. This is easier in my opinion and more fun. Taking a long rest in a dungeon should be a dangerous endavor.

I don't really want to get into the discussion of whether or not it is raw or rai, but it just seems like the best option to handle it like that. And looking at 5 edition in general, it doesn't seem out of place at all to rule it like that. At least not in my opinion.

RSP

2018-02-20, 10:18 PM

I'm not discounting any rules. I'm not discounting Crawford's tweets. You still can't take the benefits of a short rest and then continue on a long rest. But you can choose to take the benefits of a short rest at any time after which you have completed the requirements. Then later you start another long rest if you so choose.
But if you complete the requirements for a short rest then you can choose to gain the benefits of a short rest. You are entitled to that. And I generally despise using that word. But in this case you are entitled.

So if the DM asks the players what they do and they say "we take a Long Rest" that to you means they're taking a Short Rest until that SR is long enough to be a LR? This goes against the rules.

A SR is different than a LR.

If, as DM, I ask the players what they're doing and one Player says they take a SR and the other says they practice their fighting styles for the next hour, I'm going to say the first gets the benefit of a SR, and the other doesnt.

If a third player says "I relax for 15 minutes, then decide to join Player 2 in sparring for 20 minutes, then I'll set up a campfire and then my tent for the remaining 25 minutes," I'm not going to give that Player the benefits of a SR either. However, if they want, they can put the 40 minutes not spent sparring towards a LR. They aren't "entitled" to a SR, though.

Now, if after that first hour, the three characters get attacked, I'm not letting the second and third player go "oh, well then I spent the previous hour doing a SR." That's just not how the game is played, per the rules (feel free to allow it at your table).

I think you assume SR activities = LR activities, but this isn't necessarily true. If a Player tells me "my character exercises every night for an hour when the party stops for the night," then do they get the SR if the party gets attacked 1.5 hours into a LR?

Instead of going into the minutiae of every minute of every stop my players make, I trust them to know the difference between a SR and a LR and to tell me which they're doing, to save time. However, I'm not going to let them change what they're doing once they decide (same as if they do something other than resting.

SRs and LRs are different things in 5e, that's why they have different descriptions in the book. They do have some similar activities, but that doesn't make them the same. The game terms mean different things, which you refuse to accept.

So if a Player tells me "I take a LR," then I'm going with they take a LR. Nothing stops that Player from saying "I take a SR" and then taking a LR after; I trust my players to tell me what their characters are doing.

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-20, 11:04 PM

So if the DM asks the players what they do and they say "we take a Long Rest" that to you means they're taking a Short Rest until that SR is long enough to be a LR? This goes against the rules.

No, it doesn't go against the rules. It is part of the rules. They are intertwined.
That's the part you fail to understand.
You cannot take a long rest without first having taken a short rest. It is literally impossible. It cannot be done.
Of you complete a long rest, you had to have completed a short rest as part of it.
If your long rest gets interrupted, but you have completed a short rest before that happens, you have to make a choice: gain the benefits of the short rest that you have already completed or hope that the interruption lasts less than an hour so you can continue with your long rest.

This is precisely why I personally do not allow a long rest to continue after interruption.

RSP

2018-02-21, 07:39 AM

No, it doesn't go against the rules. It is part of the rules. They are intertwined.
That's the part you fail to understand.
You cannot take a long rest without first having taken a short rest. It is literally impossible. It cannot be done.
Of you complete a long rest, you had to have completed a short rest as part of it.
If your long rest gets interrupted, but you have completed a short rest before that happens, you have to make a choice: gain the benefits of the short rest that you have already completed or hope that the interruption lasts less than an hour so you can continue with your long rest.

This is precisely why I personally do not allow a long rest to continue after interruption.

This is absolutely wrong. You specifically cannot complete a SR during a LR. The fact that this is the basis of your argument proves you wrong. You cannot have a SR in a LR.

By your last sentence, I'm assuming these are all your house rules, though, which you seem to want to argue as RAW.

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-21, 07:58 AM

This is absolutely wrong. You specifically cannot complete a SR during a LR. The fact that this is the basis of your argument proves you wrong. You cannot have a SR in a LR.

For someone who is flat out, absolutely wrong, you are quick to call me so.
You simply cannot do this....
L o n g R e s t
A long rest is a period of extended downtime, at least 8 hours long, during which a character sleeps or perform s light activity: reading, talking, eating, or standing watch for no m ore than 2 hours. 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.

...without doing this during that time:
S h o r t R e s t
A short rest is a period of downtime, at least 1 hour long, during which a character does nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds.

Doing the former, without doing the latter, is impossible. It cannot be done.
In order to complete EIGHT OR MORE hours of light activity you must first complete ONE hour of light activity.
In so doing, you have completed a short rest.
If, after more than one hour has passed during the period that you are resting, you happen to be attacked, you have ALREADY fulfilled the criteria needed for a short rest. It doesn't matter if you stated that you were only shooting for 8 or more hours or not. Once one hour of that has passed, you have completed this:
S h o r t R e s t
A short rest is a period of downtime, at least 1 hour long, during which a character does nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds.
....and as such you are entitled to gain the benefits of completing a short rest.... because you have indeed completed a short rest.

Every single long rest starts as a short rest, and then continues for multiple hours. You cannot have a long rest without completing a short rest first. It is an impossibility.
For you to claim otherwise is what is wrong.

I ask you again: What are the requirements for completing a short rest?
A short rest requires at least one hour of light activity, with nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds.
When you do that, literally THAT, for at least eight hours, have you done that for at least one hour?
The answer is, of course, Yes.

You cannot gain the benefits of both. But you absolutely can choose to gain the benefits of a short rest instead of a long rest. But if you do so, your long rest timer resets to zero.

RSP

2018-02-21, 10:05 AM

In so doing, you have completed a short rest.

You cannot gain the benefits of both.

You do not complete a SR during a LR. That is absolutely false. They are two different things, hence why they have different names.

What happens when you complete a SR? "A character can spend one or more Hit Dice at the end of a short rest." End is the same as complete. So by your own words you should spend HD to regain HPs during the first hour of a LR because, as you say, you complete a SR during a LR.

That is not how it works, by RAW.

Now, if you rest for 1 hour you certainly can certainly qualify for a SR, however, if instead, you opt for a LR, then you've made a decision. You can't go back and change that once combat starts.

Arial Black

2018-02-21, 11:41 AM

The sheer amount of misunderstanding here is astonishing!

I'll go through it step by step:-

'Resting' isn't really something you do, it's something you don't do, i.e. you don't do anything strenuous. 'Resting' is not an activity, it is a lack of an activity!

Therefore, the question isn't really 'have I been resting for an hour', it is really 'have I done anything strenuous in the last hour'.

And the 'not doing anything strenuous' is definitely not split into two types: 'not doing anything strenuous long rest-y' and 'not doing anything strenuous short rest-y'. The period of time in which you did nothing strenuous counts equally toward either type of rest when you look back and ask how long it has been since you exerted yourself.

When you take the benefits of a short rest, that previous time of inactivity does not also count toward a long rest, but if you didn't take the benefits of a short rest then it does.

For example, you do nothing strenuous for two hours. At that point you could take the benefits of a short rest if you wanted to, but you are not forced to, as JC pointed out. If you choose to take the short rest benefits and then continue resting in order to take a long rest, then the clock resets. Two hours was your short rest, and so it will be eight more hours, ten in total, before you qualify for a long rest.

But if after those first two hours you choose not to take the benefits of a short rest then eight hours after you started resting those first two hours were part of the long rest. When the rule says that it's one or the other it means that you cannot count the same hours that you already got the benefits of a short rest from to also count toward a long rest.

Next, how long is a rest?

According to the rules on p186 of the PHB, a short rest is 'a period of downtime at least 1 hour long. A long rest is 'a period of extended downtime at least 8 hours long'.

So, RAW, a short rest in min: 1 hour, max:...infinity? A long rest is min: 8 hours, max: infinity?

If that was the whole of the rule then we would be in trouble, because we only get the benefits of either type of rest at the end of the rest, and the end could be...infinity! Not very...practical.

But that was not the whole of the rule concerning when a rest ends! How do we know when a rest ends? We look to the RAW:-

* A character can spend one or more hit dice at the end of a short rest

* At the end of a long rest, a character regains all lost hit points

The resting rules don't mention class abilities keyed to long/short rests (like regaining slots or Ki points or Rages) because this is the general rule and other, specific rules attach themselves to the general rule for the end of a long/short rest.

The upshot of this is that the only RAW about when a rest ends is that it is simultaneous with taking the benefits of that rest. Therefore, by rule, the end of a rest is defined by the taking of the benefits of that rest.

The rules for resting are the game's attempt to model the reality that the body regains expended energy when it is not expending energy. If you run for 20 minutes and rest for 10 seconds, you get your breath back, but you are not completely rested. The longer you rest (i.e. do not exert energy) the more you recover, until you are 'fully rested'.

The game mechanics obviously cannot be as granular as real life. Any rule about how many seconds it takes to regain 1 hit point while resting would be more trouble than it's worth. What 5e chooses to do is say that if you have not been exerting yourself for 1 hour then you have regained sufficient energy to take the benefits of a short rest, and if you have not been exerting yourself for at least 8 hours then you are 'fully rested', as long as you have had 6 hours sleep.

Next, 'interrupting a rest' and what that actually means. Let's start with the long rest. If, during your attempt to have a long rest, you exert yourself strenuously (by, for example, fighting), then the time spent exerting yourself does not count toward your 8 hours, but so long as you don't exert yourself for more than an hour then you can continue your rest afterward, from the point you were interrupted. So if you had been resting for 4 hours and then fought for 1 minute, then you only need 4 more hours to qualify for a long rest; you don't have to start again and have 8 more hours.

For a short rest, any exertion by you means that the previous time resting does not count toward the 1 hour minimum for a short rest. If you exert yourself then when you start to rest again you start from scratch when calculating your 1 hour minimum for a short rest. So if you had been resting for 45 minutes and then fight (or whatever strenuous activity) for, say, 1 minute, then when you rest again afterward then you cannot carry on from 45 minutes needing only 15 more; you need a full hour before you can take the benefits of a short rest.

And one final point: when the rules talk about a rest being interrupted, it means that if a creature exerts themselves/fight, then that creature is no longer resting. This is important because it does not negate the recovery you have already done by resting, and if other creatures start fighting but you don't then your rest has not been interrupted. It can only be interrupted by you exerting yourself, not by other people exerting themselves!

That should be obvious! And yet, some DMs rule that you cannot get the benefits of an hour of rest that you have already had just because initiative is rolled and other people start fighting near you!

Let's take an example: you sat down at midnight and went to sleep. At 2am the sentry shouts that we are under attack and you wake up. The DM has everyone roll initiative. At that point you have had 'a period of downtime, at least 1 hour long, during which (you) have done nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds', meaning that RAW you can take the benefits of a short rest at this point, but don't have to.

If you start fighting/exerting yourself before you choose to take the benefits of a short rest, then you cannot later claim those benefits without completing a new 1 hour rest. But you certainly can take those benefits before you start to fight! Your short rest is not interrupted until you yourself start to fight!

Let's say that when the party are woken by that attack at 2pm, some PCs choose to take the benefits of a short rest and some don't. For the ones that did, when they lay down to rest again after the fight (which took, say, 1 minute) then they need at least another hour to qualify for another short rest (3:01 am) or another 8 hours to qualify for a long rest (10:01 am) because the time spent on (what turned out to be) a short rest does not also count toward a long rest.

For those PCs who chose not to take the benefits of a short rest, when they go back to sleep after the fight then after 1 hour they qualify for a short rest (3:01 am) and (assuming they do not take the benefits of a short rest in the meantime) they qualify for a long rest 8 hours after they started resting at midnight, but the time spent fighting does not count (therefore, 8:01 am).

You pays your money, you takes your choice. RAW, a rest ends (in a way that you can get the benefits of that rest) at the moment you take those benefits!

RSP

2018-02-21, 12:45 PM

'Resting' isn't really something you do, it's something you don't do, i.e. you don't do anything strenuous. 'Resting' is not an activity, it is a lack of an activity!

I think you're missing the point. I've never argued that you can't rest for an hour and decide to take a SR.

What I've said is you can't decide you're taking a LR and then, after the rest has been interrupted, go back and decide you've actually been taking a SR.

Let's reverse that: would you allow a Player to take a SR (and gain back SR abilities) then, after 8 hours of rest total (including that first SR hour) roll that SR into the 1st of 8 hours of a LR, and declare "you know what? I'm actually going to make that 1st hour part of my LR."

I think we all agree the answer is No. Why can't they do this? Didn't they rest for a total of 8 hours? Sure, but they decided they were SRing for 1 of those hours and LRs and SRs don't overlap.

The Player cannot go back and decide their 1 hour of SR was actually the 1st hour of a LR after the fact, just because they now know the 8 hours wont be interrupted.

The same rules apply in the flip: if you've decided you're LRing, you can't then decide you're actually SRing just because you now know the LR will be interrupted.

It's the same rules/logic being applied either way, yet you agree with one but not the other, which I don't understand.

strangebloke

2018-02-21, 02:08 PM

I get your point and it may even be raw, although there are decent arguments for both sides. If I look at it from a 'in real life' perspective, I would rule that an interrupted long rest would indeed count as short rest, or even multiple short rests if you rested a few hours. Because it makes total sense, you have rested a hour, so you should be able to get those benefits.

From a game mechanic view point however, I look at this differently. Leaving it open whether a player takes a long rest or a short one just asks for meta gaming. Lets say you are in a dungeon and we apply the rules like you are viewing them. Players say I will take a rest. I would ask for how long. Players say for one hour at least. After one hour I say nothing happened, what will you do now. They say we will rest for another hour at least. I say nothing happened and then they do it again and again till they finish a long rest. If they get interrupted, after lets say three hours, they will say they had three shorts rests. That just feels wrong.

The thing is, other than if you're playing a coffeelock (who won't take long rests anyway) there's no benefit to taking multiple sequential short rests. There's also no benefit to taking a short rest and a long rest immediately next to each other. All abilities 'refresh' on a rest. You don't get more abilities unless you're playing a coffeelock or homebrewing something.

So there's no mechanical abuse here.

If I go to bed at night, but wake up halfway through and don't get back to sleep, I gain the benefits of a nap.

So it's certainly reasonable from a realistic perspective.

A short rest is a period of 1 hour of light activity. If you spend an hour with only light activity, you can choose to take the benefits of a short rest. If you spend five hours, you can also choose to take the benefits of a short rest. The only prohibition is on taking both benefits for the same time period. Obviously you can't retroactively decide that a short rest 'was really part of a long rest' and return resources you gained from a short rest.

So by RAW, at the very least it requires a very lawyery reasoning to argue against.

How is this four pages of discussion?

Tanarii

2018-02-21, 02:34 PM

So there's no mechanical abuse here.There is the possibility/potential for mechanical abuse if you don't rule it as any combat or spell casting interrupts a long rest, but instead rule that it does not if it's less than an hour. If that's is the table/DM's ruling on the matter, some extra care needs to be taken that a rest interrupted by either doesn't get claimed as a short rest, followed by continuing the long rest after the "less than an hour" interruption.

That's easily enough done, of course. Arial Black and DivisibleByZero have both provided a simple way: The DM just notes that claiming the benefits of a Short Rest negates progress towards a Long Rest.

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-21, 02:34 PM

So by RAW, at the very least it requires a very lawyery reasoning to argue against.

How is this four pages of discussion?

The main problem is that certain people believe that the players must decide ahead of time, and declare either a short rest or a long rest, when the fact of the matter is that this declaration is irrelevant.
The declaration should simply be; "I'm resting," which would then be followed by a question of: "how long would you like to try to rest for?"
And the answer to the second question is only there as a gauge, but if that rest is interrupted then that gauge is ultimately irrelevant to the actual amount of time they spend resting.

A short rest and a long rest are both rest. The only difference is how much time was spent not doing anything.
Some people would have you believe otherwise.

strangebloke

2018-02-21, 02:40 PM

There is the possibility/potential for mechanical abuse if you don't rule it as any combat or spell casting interrupts a long rest, but instead rule that it does not if it's less than an hour. If that's is the table/DM's ruling on the matter, some extra care needs to be taken that a rest interrupted by either doesn't get claimed as a short rest, followed by continuing the long rest after the "less than an hour" interruption.

That's easily enough done, of course. Arial Black and DivisibleByZero have both provided a simple way: The DM just notes that claiming the benefits of a Short Rest negates progress towards a Long Rest.

So the only benefit is, you get to have the benefits of a short rest during a single combat in the middle of the night, and can get up a few hours earlier than you would have (if you had used DBZ's ruling)?

That's pretty marginal. I would hesitate to call that 'abuse.' by any stretch. More like 'unimportant' or 'a minor detail.'

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-21, 02:51 PM

I missed this before.

From a game mechanic view point however, I look at this differently. Leaving it open whether a player takes a long rest or a short one just asks for meta gaming. Lets say you are in a dungeon and we apply the rules like you are viewing them. Players say I will take a rest. I would ask for how long. Players say for one hour at least. After one hour I say nothing happened, what will you do now. They say we will rest for another hour at least. I say nothing happened and then they do it again and again till they finish a long rest. If they get interrupted, after lets say three hours, they will say they had three shorts rests. That just feels wrong.

No.
There was no sleep. Unless they don't require sleep, it was not a long rest. If they don't require sleep, then they can choose between accepting the benefits of a long rest or a short rest.
That's one rest. That one rest was more than one hour and less than 8 hours. That's a short rest.

RSP

2018-02-21, 03:18 PM

The main problem is that certain people believe that the players must decide ahead of time, and declare either a short rest or a long rest, when the fact of the matter is that this declaration is irrelevant.
The declaration should simply be; "I'm resting," which would then be followed by a question of: "how long would you like to try to rest for?"
And the answer to the second question is only there as a gauge, but if that rest is interrupted then that gauge is ultimately irrelevant to the actual amount of time they spend resting.

A short rest and a long rest are both rest. The only difference is how much time was spent not doing anything.
Some people would have you believe otherwise.

Again, I've never said it needs to be declared ahead of time. I'm not sure how many times I need to state that for it to be understood, but will include it here, again.

The statement I have made is that if it is stated that characters are taking a LR, and then that LR is interrupted by combat starting, the Players cannot now retroactively decide they were actually taking a SR.

Again, for those who believe this is allowed, do you allow this decision after initiative, after the characters turn, after the combat is completed?

If you let Players go back and change what their character's actions were, why don't you allow them to change their mind and undo a SR? It's the exact same rule.

I understand this is easily avoided (again, I trust my players to know the difference between a SR and a LR; I'm guessing you guys don't). If a Player says "I rest," I respond with "How long are you planning on resting; is it a SR or a LR?" and they respond with "I'll let you know when you let me know if we'll be interrupted," that's not going to fly anymore than the Player saying any action that's contingent upon future outcomes.

I also wouldn't allow a Player to say "on my turn, I cast Dispel Magic if I pass the skill check to dispel the villains protective magic; and if I don't pass the check, then I'll instead use my turn to attack the villain with my sword."

I don't find this to be a problem at my table. Again, if a Player says "I Long Rest" I go to either "okay, you long rest," or "after X hours, you hear/see/are attacked..." Likewise, if the Player wants to take a SR, they state they'll take a SR.

The issue we're debating isn't can you do nothing for an hour and take a SR. The issue is can a Player change their intent after finding out the effects of their actions. Again, there's nowhere in the rules this allowed, so I see no reason to complicate resting by allowing it here.

Once a SR is interrupted with combat, you've lost the ability to take a SR.

Xetheral

2018-02-21, 03:36 PM

Once a SR is interrupted with combat, you've lost the ability to take a SR.

Hypothetical: A player declares that their character goes into a tavern to read a novel for four hours until it's time to prepare for a joust that afternoon. The player makes no further action declarations for their character. Combat breaks out in the tavern three hours later.

Would you really deny the character the benefits of a short rest on the grounds that the player failed to declare the completion of the short rest prior to the rest being interrupted by combat? Such a bizarre result would seem to be a logical consequence of your argument.

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-21, 03:42 PM

Once a SR is interrupted with combat, you've lost the ability to take a SR.

And once an hour or more has passed, you have earned the benefits of a short rest, whether combat starts three seconds or three hours after that point has passed.
It isn't about "the ability to take a short rest" at all. It's about the fact that they have ALREADY completed a short rest, and you are arbitrarily denying them the benefits because they didn't specify they were taking them before you told the players to roll initiative.

What are the requirements for completing a short rest?
Have those been filled?
If so, the players are entitled to accept the benefits of a short rest if they desire to do so.
It really is that simple. And I'll keep saying it as long as you keep spouting on about it being interrupted. Once an hour has passed, it can no longer be interrupted because it is already complete. It just hasn't been marked on your sheet yet, but it's done already.

Tanarii

2018-02-21, 04:13 PM

So the only benefit is, you get to have the benefits of a short rest during a single combat in the middle of the night, and can get up a few hours earlier than you would have (if you had used DBZ's ruling)?

That's pretty marginal. I would hesitate to call that 'abuse.' by any stretch. More like 'unimportant' or 'a minor detail.'Eh, apparently it's a big deal to some folks.

strangebloke

2018-02-21, 04:33 PM

I've never said it needs to be declared ahead of time.... if it is stated that characters are taking a LR... "How long are you planning on resting; is it a SR or a LR?" and they respond with "I'll let you know when you let me know if we'll be interrupted," that's not going to fly anymore than the Player saying any action that's contingent upon future outcomes.

If they can't get the benefits without saying "I'm taking a long rest" then that means you are saying that they need to declare that they're taking a long rest.

An action in combat is a discrete quantum. It's a period of time that exists, indivisibly. You take an action and you resolve the effects, including any reaction(s) that fire(s) as well as everything ancillary that doesn't count as an action of any kind (like movement, or extra attacks granted by the extra attack feature). I can't decide halfway through an action that I am not taking that action. Indeed, there is no mechanical sense in which you can even say 'halfway through an action' since the time involved in an action is completely undefined. A turn is a quantum as well, insofar as it's constituent components have no defined amount of time that they occupy.

A long rest is an eight hour period composed of smaller time periods, during which certain things happen. I can decide halfway through a long rest that I'm not taking one, as I get access to new information (for instance, that goblins are attacking me). Therefore, rests are not quanta. A rest can be terminated or extended as a character decides to change things with new information. Another thing that is not a quantum in 5e is movement. The statement "I walk towards the ogre" does not force me to finish that movement if new information becomes available (I see a trap.)

So there is no general rule that requires a rest to be declared. I can declare I'm taking a long rest, and then do whatever the heck I please five seconds later. Unless there is a rule specifically saying that I have to commit to a period of rest, I do not have to commit. If I rest for some time, I fulfill the requirements for a short rest, and I can claim the benefits. JC has clarified that this time spent in a short rest does not count toward a long rest, so my long rest timer is reset.

How is your ruling more balanced or more intuitive?

RSP

2018-02-21, 05:14 PM

Hypothetical: A player declares that their character goes into a tavern to read a novel for four hours until it's time to prepare for a joust that afternoon. The player makes no further action declarations for their character. Combat breaks out in the tavern three hours later.

Would you really deny the character the benefits of a short rest on the grounds that the player failed to declare the completion of the short rest prior to the rest being interrupted by combat? Such a bizarre result would seem to be a logical consequence of your argument.

Without any other factors, why would you think I'd deny a character reading for 3 hours a SR? Here's how I'd deal with the hypothetical:

Is the Player down HPs or missing SR rechargeable abilities? If not, there's no reason for a SR. If so, I don't see a reason why they wouldn't SR.

If a Player says they sit down and read for 4 hours, I'd ask them if they're taking a SR. If they say yes and nothing's going to interrupt them for an hour (if I'm the DM I'm aware of this), I'll let them know they can get the benefits of a SR. If they say no, then we move on.

I've never said you need to declare a SR before resting, though I'd say you need to declare you're taking the benefits of a SR (I guess there could be players out there who would try to decide on their own whether they've completed one, but it's not an issue I've come across). What I've said is if you declare a LR, you can't then change your mind after combat has interrupted the LR .

The entirety of this discussion is based on the issue of a Player declaring they're taking a LR, then finding out they're getting interrupted and wanting to switch from a LR to a SR and get the benefits of the SR after combat has started.

strangebloke

2018-02-21, 05:35 PM

if you declare a LR, you can't then change your mind after combat has interrupted the LR .

Why not?

Why do you need to declare a LR, but not a SR?

What basis in the rules or in logic do you have for saying this?

RSP

2018-02-21, 05:42 PM

If they can't get the benefits without saying "I'm taking a long rest" then that means you are saying that they need to declare that they're taking a long rest.

An action in combat is a discrete quantum. It's a period of time that exists, indivisibly. You take an action and you resolve the effects, including any reaction(s) that fire(s) as well as everything ancillary that doesn't count as an action of any kind (like movement, or extra attacks granted by the extra attack feature). I can't decide halfway through an action that I am not taking that action. Indeed, there is no mechanical sense in which you can even say 'halfway through an action' since the time involved in an action is completely undefined. A turn is a quantum as well, insofar as it's constituent components have no defined amount of time that they occupy.

A long rest is an eight hour period composed of smaller time periods, during which certain things happen. I can decide halfway through a long rest that I'm not taking one, as I get access to new information (for instance, that goblins are attacking me). Therefore, rests are not quanta. A rest can be terminated or extended as a character decides to change things with new information. Another thing that is not a quantum in 5e is movement. The statement "I walk towards the ogre" does not force me to finish that movement if new information becomes available (I see a trap.)

So there is no general rule that requires a rest to be declared. I can declare I'm taking a long rest, and then do whatever the heck I please five seconds later. Unless there is a rule specifically saying that I have to commit to a period of rest, I do not have to commit. If I rest for some time, I fulfill the requirements for a short rest, and I can claim the benefits. JC has clarified that this time spent in a short rest does not count toward a long rest, so my long rest timer is reset.

How is your ruling more balanced or more intuitive?

First off, my argument hasn't been you need to declare a LR but apparently that's what people want to focus on.

So, I'd say yeah, a Player needs to let the DM know if they're taking the benefits of a SR or LR (the player may assume they've fulfilled the requirements but in the DM's eyes they, haven't - is walking around town restful enough for a SR? Up to the DM)

But this isn't what's being discussed (or at least not what I thought we were discussing).

The entire issue is the idea of a player changing their mind after combat has started and they now have new information they didn't have before which makes them want to change what they were doing the previous hours. And it's not the issue of did they take a SR, it's the issue if they said they're taking a LR, which is still ongoing even though it's interrupted.

Again, do you allow the reverse? If a Player says "I stay up all night researching the demon EvilGuy" (during which he can take a SR and not a LR due to not sleeping 6 hours) and then when the party sets out in the morning and gets attacked, I don't let him go "oh wait, instead I slept last night so I can have my spells back; sorry I didn't think we'd have combat this day."

As to why I rule this way:

I don't want my games filled with players going "well, what's the interruption? Describe everything that happens and then I'll let you know what I did an hour or so ago. Is it just the one Orc or will more come as well? Anything tougher than an Orc behind him? One Orc we can take but if it's 5 I'm thinking SR..." Again, I feel this breaks the narrative and in-game feel.

My games tend to go "We take a LR." Then I say "okay" or "well about X hours into the rest you hear XYZ..." and then we play out that situation. I don't want this interrupted by a Player deciding they're now going to roll their HD recovery instead of dealing with the situation on the table.

Again, I trust my players to know the difference between a SR and a LR and if they take a LR, we deal with any interruptions and move on.

RSP

2018-02-21, 05:50 PM

Why not?

Why do you need to declare a LR, but not a SR?

What basis in the rules or in logic do you have for saying this?

(You don't need to declare a rest of either type)

The rules and logic of how the game works.

Combat has started: can you take a SR during combat? No. Can you take a SR during a LR? No.

Edit: I answered this in my previous post and didn't feel like typing it all again.

Xetheral

2018-02-21, 05:56 PM

Without any other factors, why would you think I'd deny a character reading for 3 hours a SR?

You claimed that you can't gain the benefits of a short rest once combat begins. That necessarily implies that players have to claim the benefits of a short rest prior to the DM calling for initiative. Thus, I proposed a hypothetical where a character enters combat having met the requirements for a short rest, but hadn't actually claimed the benefits yet.

Your answer explains how you would avoid my hypothetical (by asking the player if they want to take a short rest). You haven't addressed how you'd deal with the situation of combat beginning after a character met the requirements for a short rest but before claiming the benefits.

Thrudd

2018-02-21, 06:06 PM

Without any other factors, why would you think I'd deny a character reading for 3 hours a SR? Here's how I'd deal with the hypothetical:

Is the Player down HPs or missing SR rechargeable abilities? If not, there's no reason for a SR. If so, I don't see a reason why they wouldn't SR.

If a Player says they sit down and read for 4 hours, I'd ask them if they're taking a SR. If they say yes and nothing's going to interrupt them for an hour (if I'm the DM I'm aware of this), I'll let them know they can get the benefits of a SR. If they say no, then we move on.

I've never said you need to declare a SR before resting, though I'd say you need to declare you're taking the benefits of a SR (I guess there could be players out there who would try to decide on their own whether they've completed one, but it's not an issue I've come across). What I've said is if you declare a LR, you can't then change your mind after combat has interrupted the LR .

The entirety of this discussion is based on the issue of a Player declaring they're taking a LR, then finding out they're getting interrupted and wanting to switch from a LR to a SR and get the benefits of the SR after combat has started.

Players shouldn't declare a long rest or short rest. They declare they are resting and what sort of activities they are performing (studying spell books, meditating, whatever it is a monk does to recharge their ki, sleeping). The DM tells them if and when they have recovered abilities, have option to spend HD, etc.

There's no rational way that a long rest can be said not to include a short rest.

Arial Black

2018-02-21, 06:32 PM

The statement I have made is that if it is stated that characters are taking a LR, and then that LR is interrupted by combat starting, the Players cannot now retroactively decide they were actually taking a SR.

A creature can only 'take a long rest' by actually 'taking the benefits of a long rest'. Before you take the benefits, you are not 'long-resting' OR 'short-resting', you are just 'resting'.

Therefore, if a player says that he's had a long rest then he has already had 8 hours rest. If he hasn't had 8 hours then he cannot take a long rest.

It makes no sense at all to ask a player, 4 hours into non-activity, if they are in the middle of a long rest. You only know what kind of rest it was at the moment you take the benefits.

I understand this is easily avoided (again, I trust my players to know the difference between a SR and a LR; I'm guessing you guys don't). If a Player says "I rest," I respond with "How long are you planning on resting; is it a SR or a LR?" and they respond with "I'll let you know when you let me know if we'll be interrupted," that's not going to fly anymore than the Player saying any action that's contingent upon future outcomes.

Then you are wrong.

The player cannot see into the future. The player may intend to take a long rest, but since he hasn't had one yet (because he hasn't had 8 hours) then the player simply cannot know whether or not he will be able to rest for 8 hours.

If you ask "How long are you planning on resting", whether they answer or not is not relevant. What is relevant is "How much rest have I actually had at this point", and they may or may not qualify for one or both types. If they qualify for either type then they may or may not take the benefits.

If you earn 1gp/hour, and you can buy a short spear for 1gp or a long spear for 10gp, then if you stop work after 3 hours then you have 3gp. You can buy a short spear. If you are asked whether you want to buy a long or short spear and you reply that you want to buy a long spear, the 3gp you earned can be spent on a short spear if you want. Those 3gp are not different types of gold pieces! There aren't 'short spear gps' and long spear gps', there are just 'gold pieces'. Sure, if you spend a gold piece on a short spear then it doesn't also count toward the purchase of a long spear; it's one or the other.

Short and long rests are effectively 'purchased' by 'cashing-in' periods of non-activity downtime. What they might be used to purchase is neither here nor there; it only matters when they actually purchase a rest.

Arial Black

2018-02-21, 06:38 PM

(You don't need to declare a rest of either type)

The rules and logic of how the game works.

Combat has started: can you take a SR during combat? No. Can you take a SR during a LR? No.

'Combat starting' does not stop you resting. What stops you resting is 'exerting yourself/fighting'.

It doesn't matter if initiative has been rolled or other people are fighting, YOU are still resting until the time when YOU start to fight/exert yourself.

Can you take a short rest during combat? Of course! If other people are fighting around you then this is 'during combat', but YOU are still resting until YOU do something strenuous.

strangebloke

2018-02-21, 06:44 PM

'Combat starting' does not stop you resting. What stops you resting is 'exerting yourself/fighting'.

It doesn't matter if initiative has been rolled or other people are fighting, YOU are still resting until the time when YOU start to fight/exert yourself.

Can you take a short rest during combat? Of course! If other people are fighting around you then this is 'during combat', but YOU are still resting until YOU do something strenuous.

Right and I think that's the key. 'Taking the benefits' of a short rest does not require any action. So you jump to your feat after resting for four hours, say 'I take benefits!' and run into combat with replenished resources.

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-21, 06:59 PM

The entire issue is the idea of a player changing their mind after combat has started and they now have new information they didn't have before which makes them want to change what they were doing the previous hours. And it's not the issue of did they take a SR, it's the issue if they said they're taking a LR, which is still ongoing even though it's interrupted.

What have they changed? They were resting. Nothing has changed.
How long have they rested for? Was it more than an hour? Then they are entitled to gain the benefits of a short rest if they want to.

RSP

2018-02-21, 08:28 PM

You claimed that you can't gain the benefits of a short rest once combat begins. That necessarily implies that players have to claim the benefits of a short rest prior to the DM calling for initiative. Thus, I proposed a hypothetical where a character enters combat having met the requirements for a short rest, but hadn't actually claimed the benefits yet.

Your answer explains how you would avoid my hypothetical (by asking the player if they want to take a short rest). You haven't addressed how you'd deal with the situation of combat beginning after a character met the requirements for a short rest but before claiming the benefits.

Why would you think you could gain a SR heal after combat has begun? Can you take a hit, lose HPs then decide to invoke the SR benefits?

RSP

2018-02-21, 08:32 PM

Players shouldn't declare a long rest or short rest. They declare they are resting and what sort of activities they are performing (studying spell books, meditating, whatever it is a monk does to recharge their ki, sleeping). The DM tells them if and when they have recovered abilities, have option to spend HD, etc.

There's no rational way that a long rest can be said not to include a short rest.

Per Crawford, DMs can't force characters to take rests, therefore it has to be up to the Players. Now if you want to have the Players state "I rest" and then the DM tells them "when they have recovered abilities" that's fine, but then your not arguing with me as then the Player can never invoke a SR during combat.

And there is a very rational way that a long rest can be said to not include a short rest, and it's specifically stated that way in the rules.

Xetheral

2018-02-21, 08:45 PM

Why would you think you could gain a SR heal after combat has begun? Can you take a hit, lose HPs then decide to invoke the SR benefits?

So if the character who read the book for three hours didn't declare the rest before initiative was rolled, you would indeed deny them the benefits? Can you see why that seems bizarre?

Edit: To answer your question, I'd give the character the benefit of the rest once the requirements were met without requiring it to be declared prior to initiative being rolled (or ever).

Malifice

2018-02-21, 09:00 PM

How are people still debating this?

Yes; if you rest up for an hour or more, its a short rest. If its 8 or more hours its a long rest.

Subject to your DM ruling otherwise, as always.

So if you're 1 hour or more into a long rest, and your long rest is interrupted, it counts as a short rest unless your DM decides otherwise for whatever story or game balance or other reason he decides on.

CircleOfTheRock

2018-02-22, 02:30 AM

RSP

2018-02-22, 08:56 AM

'Combat starting' does not stop you resting. What stops you resting is 'exerting yourself/fighting'.

It doesn't matter if initiative has been rolled or other people are fighting, YOU are still resting until the time when YOU start to fight/exert yourself.

Can you take a short rest during combat? Of course! If other people are fighting around you then this is 'during combat', but YOU are still resting until YOU do something strenuous.

Yeah, it's so relaxing having people kill each other while you sit there watching.

strangebloke

2018-02-22, 09:09 AM

Yeah, it's so relaxing having people kill each other while you sit there watching.
I don't know, I was pretty relaxed watching the Expendables.

RSP

2018-02-22, 09:15 AM

I don't know, I was pretty relaxed watching the Expendables.

I guess I should have clarified: ...and trying to kill you. If you're a potential target you're in combat. If you're in combat, your SR is interrupted.

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-22, 09:16 AM

RSP

2018-02-22, 05:57 PM

Your problem, Rsp29a, is that you seem too concerned with the idea that you called for an initiative roll before the players told you they were taking/gaining the benefits of something that is already done.
You fail to understand that the short rest was completed already before the call for initiative was made.

The short rest was already done. It just wasn't marked on their sheet yet because no one called an Official End to the rest time.
The problem is that no such Official End exists.
Once the required time has passed, the rest is complete, whether the players made an announcement of such or not.

Again, I've gone over this: it's not an issue of did they rest for an hour. I've already stated I would handle situations where a Player states they rest for an hour or 3. I'd tell them (assuming the first hour was not interrupted) if they didn't already state it that they could take a SR.

That's not what's being discussed. What I've been talking about is when a Player tells the DM they aren't taking a SR and then deciding after situations change down the road, that they would like to change their mind and take a SR's benefits during combat.

Again, a LR continues through up to an hour of combat, so if the rule is "you can take a SR at any time during a LR, then you can take a SR during combat; you can be full HPs, take 50% damage on a hit, then invoke "I'm taking my SR in lieu of the LR I was doing.

Again, where is the cutoff?

Keep in mind, this all occurs in about a 1 min conversation. Player says: "I'm going to rest for a few hours"
DM: "okay, are you SRing?"
Player: "no, I'm going to LR."
DM: "okay after a few hours you wake up to a noise coming down the cavern."
Player: "okay, I get my sword out."
DM: "you see an Orc round the corner, roll initiative."
Player: "okay 8."
DM: "okay, orcs go first: the one advances towards you and you see three more round the corner."
Player: "There's more than one? Okay I'm going to end my LR and SR instead, let me roll my HD..."

Now what if the Player went first and attacked? What if other Players are involved and have acted? Where do you say "okay you can SR this far into combat."

Also, and this is a point I made awhile ago but everyone ignores: SRs are different than LRs. The requirements for a LR do not necessarily count as a SR. You can LR while breaking up every hour doing something strenuous: this would mean you wouldn't have any legitimate rest period that counts as a SR while still being able to legitimately take a LR.

Is unsaddling and unpacking gear off a horse more strenuous than reading? Yes. Is putting up a tent more strenuous than reading? Yes. These things can be done in the 1st hour of a LR but that hour won't count as a SR.

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-22, 07:07 PM

Again, where is the cutoff?

Doing something that would break a short rest (if it weren't already complete, but it is) or actively engaging in combat.
That's the cutoff.

RSP

2018-02-23, 12:10 AM

Doing something that would break a short rest (if it weren't already complete, but it is) or actively engaging in combat.
That's the cutoff.

Or saying "I'm not taking a SR" which is the same as "I'm taking a LR" as the two a mutually exclusive, though it sounds like we agree on not being able to take the SR once combat has started.

Also, see what I said about 1st hour of LR not equaling a SR.

Keep this in mind, from Crawford:

"Any amount of fighting breaks a short rest. A long rest can withstand an interruption of up to 1 hour."

So as DM, I can assume characters taking a LR are doing stuff, such as unpacking gear, collecting/carrying firewood, skinning a deer, etc., all of which would break a short rest (technically walking breaks a SR - as its more strenuous than reading), but, while they don't count as "resting" time for a LR, they don't end it.

So if a Player tells me they're camping for the night and taking a LR, I don't assume that means their character stops moving around. On the contrary, I assume they do all the necessary stuff to set up a camp, remove armor, build a fire, etc. at the very least these things require walking, which breaks a SR.

So again, I don't agree that 1st hour of LR=a SR as it's just not true with what the rules say.

Specter

2018-02-23, 12:43 AM

Players shouldn't declare a long rest or short rest. They declare they are resting and what sort of activities they are performing (studying spell books, meditating, whatever it is a monk does to recharge their ki, sleeping). The DM tells them if and when they have recovered abilities, have option to spend HD, etc.

There's no rational way that a long rest can be said not to include a short rest.

The player cannot see into the future. The player may intend to take a long rest, but since he hasn't had one yet (because he hasn't had 8 hours) then the player simply cannot know whether or not he will be able to rest for 8 hours.

If you ask "How long are you planning on resting", whether they answer or not is not relevant. What is relevant is "How much rest have I actually had at this point", and they may or may not qualify for one or both types. If they qualify for either type then they may or may not take the benefits.

Y'know, these people actually closed the thread. "But I wanna be a bad DM that rules based on how I want players to be!" Then do whatever you want.

RSP

2018-02-23, 12:56 AM

Y'know, these people actually closed the thread. "But I wanna be a bad DM that rules based on how I want players to be!" Then do whatever you want.

Apologies for posting after the thread has closed, but why is it bad DMing to play by the rules, and clarifying what Players are intending; rather than assuming every "rest" is the same even though they are significantly different?

strangebloke

2018-02-23, 01:05 AM

Apologies for posting after the thread has closed, but why is it bad DMing to play by the rules, and clarifying what Players are intending; rather than assuming every "rest" is the same even though they are significantly different?

Well, it isn't the rules, but that's apparently you won't believe everyone else here telling you that.

It's unnecessarily gamist. If I'm napping and I wake up, I'm going to be more rested than if I took no nap at all. Since sleep in 5e heals you, it's a fair assumption that if I take a nap for 3 hours, I'm at least going to be as rested as someone who took a break to brew some tea.

Even if RAW agreed with you, you'd be making a very silly ruling.

RSP

2018-02-23, 01:23 AM

Well, it isn't the rules, but that's apparently you won't believe everyone else here telling you that.

It's unnecessarily gamist. If I'm napping and I wake up, I'm going to be more rested than if I took no nap at all. Since sleep in 5e heals you, it's a fair assumption that if I take a nap for 3 hours, I'm at least going to be as rested as someone who took a break to brew some tea.

Even if RAW agreed with you, you'd be making a very silly ruling.

By all means, ignore RAW if it doesn't work for you.

strangebloke

2018-02-23, 01:29 AM

By all means, ignore RAW if it doesn't work for you.

I'm just saying, that if you were enforcing this as RAW and I was a player at your table, I agreed that this was RAW, I would still consider you a 'bad DM' for doing that. (although not in general.) Enforcing RAW for gamist reasons is not the way to make a game light and fun.

RSP

2018-02-23, 01:54 AM

I'm just saying, that if you were enforcing this as RAW and I was a player at your table, I agreed that this was RAW, I would still consider you a 'bad DM' for doing that. (although not in general.) Enforcing RAW for gamist reasons is not the way to make a game light and fun.

Have you ever played with a player who likes to be the first to say what their character does in every instance, such as "I examine the chest for traps" as soon as the words "chest" is spoken by the DM? And then the DM says something like "okay, it'll take about a minute to thoroughly check it over, what are the rest of the party doing?" And someone says "I open the door on the west wall," and the DM responds "Okay you see a room with an alter and on top of it, lies a sword." And at this point the first player, whose character is completely unaware of what's in this room as they're still examining the chest in the first room shouts out "I grab the sword!"

I dislike this as this type of player tends to dominate the game by always having to be the character doing stuff, even when their character should be completely ignorant that there's even something to do.

So yeah, I tend to make players stick to what they say their characters do and not allow them to redo hours worth of game time.

And again, saying you LR, is not the same thing as saying you take 8 consecutive SRs.

So I don't allow those two to be equal.

If you've found a way that's different that works for you, great, that's why this edition is my favorite: it's built for that.

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-23, 07:51 AM

Have you ever played with a player who likes to be the first to say what their character does in every instance, such as "I examine the chest for traps" as soon as the words "chest" is spoken by the DM? And then the DM says something like "okay, it'll take about a minute to thoroughly check it over, what are the rest of the party doing?" And someone says "I open the door on the west wall," and the DM responds "Okay you see a room with an alter and on top of it, lies a sword." And at this point the first player, whose character is completely unaware of what's in this room as they're still examining the chest in the first room shouts out "I grab the sword!"

I dislike this as this type of player tends to dominate the game by always having to be the character doing stuff, even when their character should be completely ignorant that there's even something to do.

So yeah, I tend to make players stick to what they say their characters do and not allow them to redo hours worth of game time.
No, you are focusing on the chest for the next minute or so, just like we established a moment ago. And is your name Jimmy? Because I told Jimmy that he saw the sword.

How is that a problem?

And again, saying you LR, is not the same thing as saying you take 8 consecutive SRs.

So I don't allow those two to be equal.
Literally no one said that.
No one said that a long rest is comprised of 8 short rests. But pretty much everyone barring you agrees that a long rest includes one short rest by default. You cannot gain the benefits of both, and accepting the benefits of the SR starts your rest timer over, but once an hour or more has passed the benefits of a SR are there for the taking.

LeonBH

2018-02-23, 08:38 AM

Apologies for posting after the thread has closed, but why is it bad DMing to play by the rules, and clarifying what Players are intending; rather than assuming every "rest" is the same even though they are significantly different?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I see, what you said here is not the reason the thread was "closed."

It was "closed" because, several pages back, the OP said they thought everyone should play the way they want to, so that they can have the most fun, regardless of the concept of fun of the other people at the table.

RSP

2018-02-23, 10:04 AM

No, you are focusing on the chest for the next minute or so, just like we established a moment ago. And is your name Jimmy? Because I told Jimmy that he saw the sword.

How is that a problem?

Literally no one said that.
No one said that a long rest is comprised of 8 short rests. But pretty much everyone barring you agrees that a long rest includes one short rest by default. You cannot gain the benefits of both, and accepting the benefits of the SR starts your rest timer over, but once an hour or more has passed the benefits of a SR are there for the taking.

No a LR does not contain a SR by default. Is the character walking around? Doing so prevents a SR, but not a LR. Did they doff armor? No SR. Did they sit by the fire for 45 mins then get up to take a leak? No SR. Did the guard shift change within an hour of the interruption? Those who walked to or from their bedrolls don't get a SR. Did the character wake in the night to check out a noise or go to the bathroom? No SR. Did they drink excessively? No SR.

All of these mundane things aren't worth RPing every time a group states they want to rest for the night, but in-game they occur. For your group, maybe it works to spend that time every rest to see who can qualify for a SR in the unlikely event the LR gets interrupted, but I imagine by and large, most groups don't care to get into that.

Either way, a long rest doesn't by default contain a SR. There's no way you can set up camp and take a SR.

Again, if that's what's fun for your table, cool: houserule that all those activities that prevent a SR but not a LR, are fine to do during a SR; but don't say that's RAW.

At my table, I'd rather deal with character RP or the group trying to obtain an objective rather than spend 15 minutes defining the minutiae of what each character does over a LR.

RSP

2018-02-23, 10:09 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I see, what you said here is not the reason the thread was "closed."

It was "closed" because, several pages back, the OP said they thought everyone should play the way they want to, so that they can have the most fun, regardless of the concept of fun of the other people at the table.

The OP may have came to a determination, but that's not the entirety of the thread. I'd say a great many of threads go well beyond what the OP asked. That's the part of the point of a community board: it doesn't belong to one person but is a resource to all.

People use searches to find answers to questions that often include these threads. Just because the OP came to a conclusion, doesn't mean the ongoing discussion hcsnnot help others. The idea that an OP can just decide to close a thread because they want to is detrimental to the idea of why these boards exist.

RSP

2018-02-23, 10:13 AM

No, you are focusing on the chest for the next minute or so, just like we established a moment ago. And is your name Jimmy? Because I told Jimmy that he saw the sword.

How is that a problem?

And how is this different than doing the same with rests?

"You said you were LRing, not SRing; Jimmy said he was SRing" is the same as "You said you weee focusing on the chest, not opening the door; Jimmy said he was opening the door."

Keeping in mind, RAW, a SR breaks when doing activities allowed by a LR.

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-23, 10:17 AM

RSP

2018-02-23, 11:22 AM

No a LR does not contain a SR by default.
Yes it does.

Is the character walking around? Doing so prevents a SR
According to whom?

Did they doff armor? No SR.
According to whom?

Did they sit by the fire for 45 mins then get up to take a leak? No SR.
According to whom?

Did the guard shift change within an hour of the interruption? Those who walked to or from their bedrolls don't get a SR.
According to whom?

Did the character wake in the night to check out a noise or go to the bathroom? No SR.
According to whom?

Did they drink excessively? No SR.
This is expressly acceptable, and you are flat out wrong.

A short rest is a period of downtime, at least 1 hour long, during which a character does nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds.
It says that nothing more strenuous than these activities is allowed. Not that *nothing else is allowed.*
Big difference.

Is walking more strenuous than reading? Yes. One is deemed exercise and the other not, for one. Is drinking alcohol in excess more strenuous on your body than reading? Yes.

Your "according to whom" is exactly my point. Most games don't need to go into this because "I long rest" covers this. Again, saying "I short rest" denotes different activity. So if someone says "I long rest" I know what they're capable of doing. If they say "I short rest," I know what they're doing.

This is exactly the same logic as a Sword Bard Player stating "I move my sword around while saying stuff" then rolling for an attack and if it hits, saying the movement was an attack, but if the attack fails saying the movement was actually the S component while holding the M component (the sword), and uttering the V component, of casting a spell.

A SR isn't the same as a LR. I've demonstrated this repeatedly, yet you choose to ignore it (I can't help you with that). Claiming one is the other is just as against the RAW as stating casting a spell is the same as the attack action.

You still fail to see that the claim of how long they INTEND to rest has absolutely ZERO bearing on how long they ACTUALLY rested.

A short rest is a period of downtime, at least 1 hour long, during which a character does nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds.
Did that happen?

The did that happen is what you have no idea of knowing, because saying "I take a long rest" is not equal to "I take a short rest." So a player cannot go back and forth between the two.

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-23, 11:44 AM

The did that happen is what you have no idea of knowing, because saying "I take a long rest" is not equal to "I take a short rest." So a player cannot go back and forth between the two.

And here we go again around the mulberry bush.

I am resting.
That's all they need to say.

You yourself have stated multiple times that they do not need to state which rest they are taking, and that you never claimed that they had to. Multiple times you've said this.
So why do you keep insisting that making that declaration matters?
You are talking yourself in circles.

RSP

2018-02-23, 12:05 PM

And here we go again around the mulberry bush.

I am resting.
That's all they need to say.

You yourself have stated multiple times that they do not need to state which rest they are taking, and that you never claimed that they had to. Multiple times you've said this.
So why do you keep insisting that making that declaration matters?
You are talking yourself in circles.

Hence why when asked earlier how I handle this, I stated I ask for clarification: are SRing?

Just like the aforementioned round when the Player declares he's moving his arms while holding his sword. Is he attacking? Casting a spell?

The idea that he'll inform me of what his action was, after the next minute of combat is resolved is ridiculous, yet it's what you think the rules allow.

If someone says "I'm taking a LR" I assume they're doing all the normal stuff involved with that, which includes waking. Walking interrupts a SR.

You've yet to address any of this. If a Player states "I rest" while their character is riding a horse, I assume they dismount. If they later say "nope, I was just sitting in the saddle in the middle of the town for the last 3 hours," when they need to go back and resolve those last 3 hours again, because the rest of the world may react to that situation (like not wanting to allow the blocking a thoroughfare). So that Player just wasted a bunch of the table's playing time trying to game the system by doing your "I'm resting" routine.

A SR does not = A LR.

Thrudd

2018-02-23, 12:13 PM

The issue here is whether or not a "rest" is an action. I think that the benefits of a rest are something that happens automatically when certain conditions are met. It is not an action. The only characters that need to specify some activity in that time are spellcasters that require studying or praying. The difference between the requirements of the two types of rest is the amount of time and whether sleep occurs.

The only hiccup arises because of the metagame currency of hit dice. This is a thing the player can choose to spend or not that is not connected to any decision the character can make (whether or not to heal). This is unlike attacking or moving or any action the character can take, which are clearly things the character is aware of and intends to do. To preserve sanity and order, it probably does need to be specified that the expenditure of hit dice must be declared or not when the DM says the short rest has been accomplished. You can't retroactively decide to do this after discovering you are being attacked. The onus for this flowing smoothly/appropriately lies with the DM, however. You should never call for initiative before checking whether players are using their hit dice from a previously successful short rest. You are responsible for tracking time in the game and making sure actions and events resolve in the proper order. If you make a mistake and forget to offer rest benefits before you start combat, you should absolutely allow retroactive hit dice to be spent.

Some seem to think rest should be an action players need to declare, like "attack" or "move", and each type of rest is a distinct action with different effects. This is too disconnected for me, and not what I think is the proper reading of the rules anyway. If short rest is a distinctly different activity than a long rest, then it must be specified how. For example, if you say hit dice expenditure actually represents binding/tending wounds which requires a certain amount if time, then players need to declare they are doing that- tending wounds- and then they roll their hit dice. If players don't specifically say "we tend our wounds", then no hit dice, and there can be no argument later that they didn't get a chance.

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-23, 12:25 PM

Hence why when asked earlier how I handle this, I stated I ask for clarification: are SRing?
Just like the aforementioned round when the Player declares he's moving his arms while holding his sword. Is he attacking? Casting a spell?
The idea that he'll inform me of what his action was, after the next minute of combat is resolved is ridiculous, yet it's what you think the rules allow.
He did inform you of what his action was. He was moving his arm and swinging his sword, neither of which are attacking nor casting a spell.
That's a ridiculous example, which is why I ignored it.

If someone says "I'm taking a LR" I assume they're doing all the normal stuff involved with that, which includes waking. Walking interrupts a SR.
You keep saying this, but it simply isn't true. Walking does not interrupt a short rest. You can walk. Nothing in the rules states that you cannot walk.
Citation needed.

I think you're confusing the fact the long rest rules state that walking *for more than an hour* is considered strenuous enough to break a long rest with the idea that any amount of it somehow automatically negates a short rest.
Once again, citation needed.

Tanarii

2018-02-23, 12:34 PM

The only hiccup arises because of the metagame currency of hit dice. This is a thing the player can choose to spend or not that is not connected to any decision the character can make (whether or not to heal). This is unlike attacking or moving or any action the character can take, which are clearly things the character is aware of and intends to do. To preserve sanity and order, it probably does need to be specified that the expenditure of hit dice must be declared or not when the DM says the short rest has been accomplished. You can't retroactively decide to do this after discovering you are being attacked.Why is this a hiccup, and why can't you decide to spend HD when the rest ends due to an interruption?

This decision is not retroactive. It's made when the rest ends.

Edit: And there's no problem with players making that decision because you called for initiative either. Again, not retroactive. Initiative is what interrupted / ended the rest. (Technically exerting oneself does but I don't know any DMs that would let a rest keep running after initiative is rolled.)

Thrudd

2018-02-23, 02:33 PM

Why is this a hiccup, and why can't you decide to spend HD when the rest ends due to an interruption?

This decision is not retroactive. It's made when the rest ends.

Edit: And there's no problem with players making that decision because you called for initiative either. Again, not retroactive. Initiative is what interrupted / ended the rest. (Technically exerting oneself does but I don't know any DMs that would let a rest keep running after initiative is rolled.)

That's what the next part of my paragraph talked about. The DM needs to tell the players when the rest is accomplished so they can choose to spend hit dice. If the rest ends before the attack, you tell them the rest is over before you tell them there's an attack. If the rest is interrupted by the attack, then the players have no choices to make.

It would be a retroactive decision only if the DM failed to tell the players about their successful rest before the attack is revealed. Because in-world, the benefits of rest are already possessed by the characters when the attack happens, even if the DM failed to tell the players in a timely manner. If the DM has offered the choice to spend hit dice and players decline, they should not be able to change their mind later. Spending hit dice represents something the characters did during their rest, it isn't a currency like inspiration that you can save up and use at any time.

RSP

2018-02-23, 02:39 PM

He did inform you of what his action was. He was moving his arm and swinging his sword, neither of which are attacking nor casting a spell.
That's a ridiculous example, which is why I ignored it.

You keep saying this, but it simply isn't true. Walking does not interrupt a short rest. You can walk. Nothing in the rules states that you cannot walk.
Citation needed.

I think you're confusing the fact the long rest rules state that walking *for more than an hour* is considered strenuous enough to break a long rest with the idea that any amount of it somehow automatically negates a short rest.
Once again, citation needed.

I'm not confusing anything. Look at the rules for a SR:

"A short rest is a period of downtime, at least 1 hour long, during which a character does nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds.

Is walking more strenuous than reading? Sure. Why would you doubt this? People walk for exercise all the time. SRs recommend it for this purpose. It may not be as strenuous as fighting, but it doesn't have to be: it only needs to be more strenuous than reading, per the RAW.

The fact that a LR specifically calls out walking as equal to fighting in terms of what ends a LR (doing either for an hour ends the LR), furthers the intent behind this rule.

RSP

2018-02-23, 02:47 PM

The issue here is whether or not a "rest" is an action. I think that the benefits of a rest are something that happens automatically when certain conditions are...

That's not the issue: it's not an action. I never said it was.

Now, like "action," 'Long Rest' and 'Short Test' are both game terms that have specific (and different) meanings.

This is, at least partially, why the benefits of a rest cannot happen automatically. If that was the case, and if SR=1 hour of LR, then you could never have a LR as you would automatically get the benefits of a SR after every hour of filling the criteria. And since you cannot get the benefits of a SR during a LR, you'd never be able to get a LR.

Further, you can only have 1 LR per 24 hours. If you automatically gained the benefits after fulfilling the requisite time/effort rules, you could very well take that rest before you even begin Adventuring, removing the possibility of taking one later.

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-23, 04:22 PM

I'm not confusing anything. Look at the rules for a SR:

"A short rest is a period of downtime, at least 1 hour long, during which a character does nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds.

Is walking more strenuous than reading? Sure. Why would you doubt this? People walk for exercise all the time. SRs recommend it for this purpose. It may not be as strenuous as fighting, but it doesn't have to be: it only needs to be more strenuous than reading, per the RAW.

The fact that a LR specifically calls out walking as equal to fighting in terms of what ends a LR (doing either for an hour ends the LR), furthers the intent behind this rule.

What is does not explain is that you somehow think that taking a twenty step trip around behind that tree to take a leak, or a twenty step trip from watch to their bedroll somehow negates a short rest.
It also doesn't explain why you think the act of removing my armor, which would allow me to rest even easier, would somehow negate the effects of the rest.
It's like you believe that as soon as someone calls a rest, they have to go catatonic and comatose for the next 60 minutes unless they decide to eat something.
That's ridiculous.

Walking a little bit will not negate a rest, unless it's more akin to *traveling* than walking.

RSP

2018-02-23, 05:44 PM

What is does not explain is that you somehow think that taking a twenty step trip around behind that tree to take a leak, or a twenty step trip from watch to their bedroll somehow negates a short rest.
It also doesn't explain why you think the act of removing my armor, which would allow me to rest even easier, would somehow negate the effects of the rest.
It's like you believe that as soon as someone calls a rest, they have to go catatonic and comatose for the next 60 minutes unless they decide to eat something.
That's ridiculous.

Walking a little bit will not negate a rest, unless it's more akin to *traveling* than walking.

Houserule as you feel you need but the rule is pretty straightforward: is it more strenuous than reading? If so, it stops a SR.

There is nothing in the SR rules that states "but just a little bit of something more strenuous than reading is okay."

LankyOgre

2018-02-23, 06:07 PM

Houserule as you feel you need but the rule is pretty straightforward: is it more strenuous than reading? If so, it stops a SR.

There is nothing in the SR rules that states "but just a little bit of something more strenuous than reading is okay."

You are very focused on the reading component, while ignoring the phrase in its entirety. Going on a hike is strenuous. Walking to the bathroom is not. If the designers truly intended absolutely no movement, they would have specified that directly. Very few people remain in one place for an hour, no matter how exhausted they are, unless something else is requiring them to. Finally, "tending to wounds" likely means removing a backpack, finding bandages, washing the wound, and applying bandages; possibly including removing arrowheads, minor stitches, or a cold compress. The action of "tending to wounds," can't really be done with both people remaining in a single spot.

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-23, 06:14 PM

Tanarii

2018-02-23, 10:08 PM

That's what the next part of my paragraph talked about. The DM needs to tell the players when the rest is accomplished so they can choose to spend hit dice. If the rest ends before the attack, you tell them the rest is over before you tell them there's an attack. If the rest is interrupted by the attack, then the players have no choices to make.

It would be a retroactive decision only if the DM failed to tell the players about their successful rest before the attack is revealed. Because in-world, the benefits of rest are already possessed by the characters when the attack happens, even if the DM failed to tell the players in a timely manner. If the DM has offered the choice to spend hit dice and players decline, they should not be able to change their mind later. Spending hit dice represents something the characters did during their rest, it isn't a currency like inspiration that you can save up and use at any time.
If initiative is rolled, that ends a rest. At that point they can decide to gain the benefits of their short rest, if they qualify. Pretty straight forward.

Sure, itd be retroactive if combat turns had actually been taken. But thats not what i thought was being discussed here.

LeonBH

2018-02-23, 11:45 PM

If initiative is rolled, that ends a rest. At that point they can decide to gain the benefits of their short rest, if they qualify. Pretty straight forward.

Sure, itd be retroactive if combat turns had actually been taken. But thats not what i thought was being discussed here.

Well, combat ends a short rest. But you can fight while long resting as long as it takes less than 600 rounds. It's why you can have nightly encounters, go back to sleep, and wake up at dawn the next morning without having to restart the rest.

So they could either end their rest and gain the short rest benefits, or stick to their guns and decide to go through with the encounter without a rest, in order to finish up their long rest later.

But regardless of this, you're correct in saying an interrupted LR could be a SR.

Tanarii

2018-02-24, 12:06 AM

Well, combat ends a short rest. But you can fight while long resting as long as it takes less than 600 rounds.Sure sure, I'm not interested in getting into that debate. I agree with how you say it should work for any table that plays that way though.

RSP

2018-02-24, 12:34 AM

You are very focused on the reading component, while ignoring the phrase in its entirety. Going on a hike is strenuous. Walking to the bathroom is not. If the designers truly intended absolutely no movement, they would have specified that directly. Very few people remain in one place for an hour, no matter how exhausted they are, unless something else is requiring them to. Finally, "tending to wounds" likely means removing a backpack, finding bandages, washing the wound, and applying bandages; possibly including removing arrowheads, minor stitches, or a cold compress. The action of "tending to wounds," can't really be done with both people remaining in a single spot.

Is an activity more strenuous than reading? Is it more strenuous than eating? Drinking? Tending wounds? If the answer to these is "yes," then it breaks a SR. I'm not sure where the issue in understanding this comes in. As I posted earlier, check with your DM as to how they'll rule it. But the RAW is what it is.

Again, 1 hour of walking breaks a LR just like 1 hour of fighting does.

I agree with you that walking to the bathroom isn't particularly strenuous, but that's not what the rule states; the rule goes by if it's more strenuous than reading, which it is (also more strenuous than eating or drink, or tending to wounds).

The rules of SRs and LRs are what they are. If you are at 0 HP you could sleep all day and not get the benefits of a LR, yet if you're 7 hours 59 minutes into a LR and get surprise attacked by an assassin and knocked to 0 HPs (and then are left alone), you wake up about 2 minutes later at full HPs (assuming you pass the death saves or otherwise are stabilized). This doesn't make any sense, but it's what the RAW says. I'd probably houserule this situation diffferently (or, more likely, just not have it ever exist in a campaign), but it still is the RAW.

RSP

2018-02-24, 12:41 AM

That's because he's been using such ridiculous examples and such strict interpretations that he's backed himself into a corner. He's been going so hard on the whole walking thing that he can't even admit that walking around a corner to take a leak is acceptable. He can't admit that in order to complete eight hours of rest, you must first complete one hour of rest.
This is what happens when you're desperately trying not to admit that you just might possibly have been wrong....

It's a very simple rule; I'm not sure why you don't understand it. Is something more strenuous than reading? If it is, it breaks a SR. Why is this difficult to understand.

"Rest" is different than the game term "SR" and is different than "LR." The rules specifically tell us what a SR is and what a LR is. You can ignore that, but it's pretty clear.

There's a ton of things that break a SR that don't break a LR. I still haven't seen a reason for why you ignore this and equate SR with LR.

LeonBH

2018-02-24, 01:03 AM

It's a very simple rule; I'm not sure why you don't understand it. Is something more strenuous than reading? If it is, it breaks a SR. Why is this difficult to understand.

Reading isn't the only thing you're allowed to do during a SR. You're also allowed to eat, drink, and tend to wounds, all of which are activities that involve movement.

Consider cantrips. Those are level 0 spells that are so ingrained in the caster, they can cast it all day, over and over, without getting tired at all. If you're reading an interesting enough book, you could definitely do the same for reading without getting exhausted.

Is casting a cantrip more tiring than reading?

If you say "no": Eldritch Blast is a combat-oriented cantrip. Thus you can have combat during a short rest as long as you only cast Eldritch Blast.

If you say "yes": Prestidigitation is one of those spells you can be expected to cast during a short rest. For example, to chill the drink and warm the food during your meal, or to remove the dust from your books for reading. Produce Flame is another cantrip that can shed light to assist you in your reading. Mending, Light, and Druidcraft are all similar spells. Why aren't these utility cantrips allowed during a short rest? How is casting something so innate to you that it's as easy as breathing, more strenuous than reading or eating or tending to wounds?

Arial Black

2018-02-24, 04:42 AM

There isn't just one speed of 'walking'. Some walking is strenuous: power-walking as a fitness exercise, hiking across country for an hour, that kind of thing is more strenuous than tending wounds, eating, drinking, etc.

But other kinds of walking are not strenuous: pottering about the house, dawdling down the road while daydreaming, that kind of thing.

So it is absurd to suggest that ALL walking is strenuous!

The next thing to note is that in the descriptions for both short rest AND long rest the wording is such that it never says anything like, "You must rest for at least 1 hour/8 hours"! The wording it conspicuously uses is that you do nothing more strenuous than (short list of non-strenuous things).

There really is no such thing as 'resting', either in the rules or in real life. There is just 'not doing anything strenuous'. 'Resting' is not 'doing something', it is 'not doing something'.

There are other examples of the way the language treats some concepts is if they were a thing, when they are just the lack of the opposite thing. We talk of 'darkness' as if there was such a thing, but all 'darkness' is is 'lack of light'. We can talk of 'cold' as if it were a real thing, but there is no such thing! What we call 'cold' is merely 'lack of heat'.

And there is no such thing as 'rest', just 'lack of strenuous activity'.

It is absurd to imagine that there are two kinds of 'not doing anything'!

RSP

2018-02-24, 10:09 AM

Reading isn't the only thing you're allowed to do during a SR. You're also allowed to eat, drink, and tend to wounds, all of which are activities that involve movement.

Consider cantrips. Those are level 0 spells that are so ingrained in the caster, they can cast it all day, over and over, without getting tired at all. If you're reading an interesting enough book, you could definitely do the same for reading without getting exhausted.

Is casting a cantrip more tiring than reading?

If you say "no": Eldritch Blast is a combat-oriented cantrip. Thus you can have combat during a short rest as long as you only cast Eldritch Blast.

If you say "yes": Prestidigitation is one of those spells you can be expected to cast during a short rest. For example, to chill the drink and warm the food during your meal, or to remove the dust from your books for reading. Produce Flame is another cantrip that can shed light to assist you in your reading. Mending, Light, and Druidcraft are all similar spells. Why aren't these utility cantrips allowed during a short rest? How is casting something so innate to you that it's as easy as breathing, more strenuous than reading or eating or tending to wounds?

I'd put casting a spell in the domain of "ask your DM," particularly since there's no real world equivalent and nothing is specifically stated about it in the rules for SR.

There's also different spells that might change what's allowed.

Either way, why would you think combat is allowed when it's specifically stated to end a SR? If you allow players to say "I'm not in combat, I'm just moving my arm and sword in a downward motion toward the Orc," and as such, let them continue a SR during the fight, well, that's what DMs are allowed to do. But it isn't RAW.

As for your eating statement: just because eating is allowed, that doesn't mean everything related to eating is allowed: you're allowed to eat venison and maintain a SR, but you're not allowed to go hunting deer during a SR.

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-24, 02:11 PM

That's because he's been using such ridiculous examples and such strict interpretations that he's backed himself into a corner.
See what I mean when I said this?
I was specifically taking about crap like the following.

If you allow players to say "I'm not in combat, I'm just moving my arm and sword in a downward motion toward the Orc," and as such, let them continue a SR during the fight,

LeonBH

2018-02-24, 08:56 PM

I'd put casting a spell in the domain of "ask your DM," particularly since there's no real world equivalent and nothing is specifically stated about it in the rules for SR.

There's also different spells that might change what's allowed.

Either way, why would you think combat is allowed when it's specifically stated to end a SR? If you allow players to say "I'm not in combat, I'm just moving my arm and sword in a downward motion toward the Orc," and as such, let them continue a SR during the fight, well, that's what DMs are allowed to do. But it isn't RAW.

As for your eating statement: just because eating is allowed, that doesn't mean everything related to eating is allowed: you're allowed to eat venison and maintain a SR, but you're not allowed to go hunting deer during a SR.

I'm just taking what you said before and applying consistency to it.

If the DM says Level 0 spells are allowable during a short rest, then it's inconsistent to stop a short rest if the caster always casts Eldritch Blast.

Also, warming your food and chilling your drink isn't the same as deer hunting. Keeping a light up so you can read is a far cry from deer hunting. Unless "eating" for you is being served food into your mouth by a servant who does all the work, you must perform many minor preparatory things in order to eat. In which case, the question comes back to, why not Prestidigitation or Light during a short rest?

LankyOgre

2018-02-24, 08:56 PM

Is an activity more strenuous than reading? Is it more strenuous than eating? Drinking? Tending wounds? If the answer to these is "yes," then it breaks a SR. I'm not sure where the issue in understanding this comes in. As I posted earlier, check with your DM as to how they'll rule it. But the RAW is what it is.

Again, 1 hour of walking breaks a LR just like 1 hour of fighting does.

I agree with you that walking to the bathroom isn't particularly strenuous, but that's not what the rule states; the rule goes by if it's more strenuous than reading, which it is (also more strenuous than eating or drink, or tending to wounds).
.
Well, this helps. I would say that walking to the bathroom is not more strenuous then eating, drinking, tending wounds, or reading. I basically would pick an hour of my day and say, “I didn’t really do much,” and then think of the things that I did do. To me, read, play D&D, watch tv, eat, drink, get a glass of water, have a nice conversation, grab the mail, go to the bathroom, play blocks with my daughter, would all be SR.

RSP

2018-02-24, 09:07 PM

I'm just taking what you said before and applying consistency to it.

If the DM says Level 0 spells are allowable during a short rest, then it's inconsistent to stop a short rest if the caster always casts Eldritch Blast.

Also, warming your food and chilling your drink isn't the same as deer hunting. Keeping a light up so you can read is a far cry from deer hunting. Unless "eating" for you is being served food into your mouth by a servant who does all the work, you must perform many minor preparatory things in order to eat. In which case, the question comes back to, why not Prestidigitation or Light during a short rest?

I'm still not sure why you think it matters. To cast EB, you need to target a creature, so casting EB, is combat, by default, which interrupts a SR. Whether any other spell does is up to the DM.

LeonBH

2018-02-24, 09:52 PM

I'm still not sure why you think it matters. To cast EB, you need to target a creature, so casting EB, is combat, by default, which interrupts a SR. Whether any other spell does is up to the DM.

It matters because it blurs the line on what is allowed and not allowed.

"You can cast only the following spells on a short rest, even if there are other spells of the same level that break the short rest" has no internal consistency beyond an arbitrary boundary.

RSP

2018-02-24, 11:39 PM

It matters because it blurs the line on what is allowed and not allowed.

"You can cast only the following spells on a short rest, even if there are other spells of the same level that break the short rest" has no internal consistency beyond an arbitrary boundary.

Just reread LR: "If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity—at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity"

Per RAW, casting spells is a "strenuous activity," in the same category as walking and fighting, though nothing specifically states a "strenuous activity" is more strenuous than reading, I think it's safe to say by the wording, that the intent is that it is; so I'd say casting breaks a SR.

I'd imagine you could easily cast your cantrips before or after the SR, if needed, though.

I'll assume the "no casting during a SR" is to separate SRs (where you recover resources) from a non-combat encounter (where resources are meant to be spent).

RSP

2018-02-24, 11:41 PM

Well, this helps. I would say that walking to the bathroom is not more strenuous then eating, drinking, tending wounds, or reading. I basically would pick an hour of my day and say, “I didn’t really do much,” and then think of the things that I did do. To me, read, play D&D, watch tv, eat, drink, get a glass of water, have a nice conversation, grab the mail, go to the bathroom, play blocks with my daughter, would all be SR.

That's part of what makes 5e great: DMs are free to houserule if the RAW doesn't work for their table.

RSP

2018-02-24, 11:46 PM

See what I mean when I said this?
I was specifically taking about crap like the following.

How is stating the rules "crap?" Not addressing valid points I make, and instead just posting quotes of mine and calling them "crap" is neither helpful in this debate, nor particularly mature.

Even the RAW states walking is a "strenuous activity." I get you don't like that fact, but you should find a better way to deal with that.

If you don't like the RAW, cool, change it at your table, but trying to insult me for pointing out what the RAW is, is just bad board etiquette.

LeonBH

2018-02-25, 12:40 AM

Just reread LR: "If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity—at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity"

Per RAW, casting spells is a "strenuous activity," in the same category as walking and fighting, though nothing specifically states a "strenuous activity" is more strenuous than reading, I think it's safe to say by the wording, that the intent is that it is; so I'd say casting breaks a SR.

I'd imagine you could easily cast your cantrips before or after the SR, if needed, though.

I'll assume the "no casting during a SR" is to separate SRs (where you recover resources) from a non-combat encounter (where resources are meant to be spent).

This started as you were asserting that SR and LR are mutually exclusive. The contention is that they are not - you can stop a LR and gain a SR as long as you fulfill the requirements of a SR but not a LR.

As evidence of your position, you raised how SR and LR are different in that activities that can end a SR would not end a LR. For example, if you walk during a SR, you have to start it all over again. Whereas if you walk during a LR, you don't have to restart it. Therefore, SR and LR are different.

As a counterpoint, I questioned how cantrips fit into the equation. Level 0 spells ingrained in the caster, that they do not tire out even if they cast it all day, every day. You are saying if you cast a cantrip, it ends a SR but not a LR.

I'll raise this point to you, then: attunement. Let us say that the items in question is the Trident of Fish Command, a weapon.

The RAW says: "Attuning to an item requires a creature to spend a short rest focused on only that item while being in physical contact with it (this can't be the same short rest used to learn the item’s properties). This focus can take the form of weapon practice (for a weapon), meditation (for a wondrous item), or some other appropriate activity."

When attuning to the Trident of Fish Command, would you say it breaks the SR as soon as you do weapon practice? Or would you consider weapon practice as equally taxing as reading?

Moving back to cantrips, what if the item in question was a Wand of the War Mage, which is neither a weapon nor a wondrous item? What would you say is an appropriate activity for attuning to it? Meditation is explicitly allowed for wondrous items, but if weapon practice is fine for magical weapons, would spellcasting practice be appropriate for magical wands and staves?

RSP

2018-02-25, 02:02 AM

This started as you were asserting that SR and LR are mutually exclusive. The contention is that they are not - you can stop a LR and gain a SR as long as you fulfill the requirements of a SR but not a LR.

Pretty good summation. I'd change some of the wording: the benefits of SRs and LRs are mutually exclusive, however, something like sleeping would qualify for either. The issue is stating your taking a LR does not mean you qualify for a SR during that time, or any specific hour of that LR, which others disagreed with.

As for the question on attunement, I'm not surprised there's an apparent contradiction in the rules, as they've had other issues, some of which were errata'd.

I'm not here to try and say one portion of the rules was written "correctly" and the other isn't: I'm stating what the SR and LR rules state.

If you're asking how I think this would play out: the SR and LR rules are pretty clear in what they state (at least so far as I read it), so I'd take the Attunement rule as a case of Specific-beats-General; that is, when attuning to a magic weapon, you can do weapon practice during a SR, even though other weapon practice would usually break a SR. Fluff it as the forging of the magic bond provides the recuperation usually attained from the non-strenuous activities of a SR, if that helps. Or however else you want.

Or houserule one way or the other.

I don't, however, think the rules of attunement should be taken as a better source on what's allowed during a SR than the actual rules of a SR, if that's part of your question to me.

LeonBH

2018-02-25, 04:12 AM

Pretty good summation. I'd change some of the wording: the benefits of SRs and LRs are mutually exclusive, however, something like sleeping would qualify for either. The issue is stating your taking a LR does not mean you qualify for a SR during that time, or any specific hour of that LR, which others disagreed with.

Right, and the basis of your position is that SR and LR are not the same thing because they possess different properties.

I'm going on to challenge how cut-and-dry and distinct those properties really are by raising the standard of what can be considered as "non-strenuous" which weakens the position that SR and LR are different based on their differing properties.

As for the question on attunement, I'm not surprised there's an apparent contradiction in the rules, as they've had other issues, some of which were errata'd.

I'm not here to try and say one portion of the rules was written "correctly" and the other isn't: I'm stating what the SR and LR rules state.

If we're basing only on RAW, then both rules are correct, even if they seemingly contradict each other.

If you're asking how I think this would play out: the SR and LR rules are pretty clear in what they state (at least so far as I read it), so I'd take the Attunement rule as a case of Specific-beats-General; that is, when attuning to a magic weapon, you can do weapon practice during a SR, even though other weapon practice would usually break a SR. Fluff it as the forging of the magic bond provides the recuperation usually attained from the non-strenuous activities of a SR, if that helps. Or however else you want.

Or houserule one way or the other.

I don't, however, think the rules of attunement should be taken as a better source on what's allowed during a SR than the actual rules of a SR, if that's part of your question to me.

I would argue that the rules of attunement for all magic weapons (not just the ones that involve weapon practice) raises the bar of what is strenuous activity. That is, there are two options you can take by RAW:

* There is a contradiction, and magic weapon attunement takes a case of Specific vs General

* There is no contradiction. Weapon practice is regarded by RAW to be as non-strenuous as reading, eating, drinking, and tending to wounds.

You take the first stance above. I will say, though, that RAW doesn't give a definite stance here. If the second point is allowed by RAW, then the bar is raised and things that are equally as strenuous as weapon practice (or lower) does not break a SR.

And there is some logic to the second point. If you've done karate, taekwondo, or other martial arts before, you might notice that kata is a very physical, movement-oriented form of meditation. You eventually get the motions down as second nature, and you might even feel better and more rested after doing one. Look at taichi and how their meditation comes down to practicing martial arts forms.

I will also say that there is an alternate interpretation for the LR "strenuous activity": the following statement:

"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."

Can be taken to mean that 1 hour of walking is strenuous activity, but walking itself is not. You may walk for 59 minutes and 59 seconds without it being considered strenuous, but walking a full 60 minutes brings you up to a "strenuous level". Same for fighting and spellcasting. From a RAW perspective, I believe that is also a valid interpretation.

The sentence equates strenuous activity with 1 hour of walking, not walking.

If all this is true, and there are no RAW rebuttals that can be found, then it seems that the specific argument that SR and LR are different based on the idea that SR can be broken by activities more strenuous than reading, while LR is not, is weaker. What activities break a SR that do not break a LR? If there are no such activities, then they are not different in that regard.

LankyOgre

2018-02-25, 08:16 AM

That's part of what makes 5e great: DMs are free to houserule if the RAW doesn't work for their table.

You see a feature, I see a bug. Looking at this thread, I would say that a lot of people feel RAW is a lot more permissive than the four listed activities and you are houseruling.
Being able to houserule is not a feature of 5e, it’s a feature of RPGs. Having to houserule because nobody can agree on the meaning of the paragraph is poor writing.

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-25, 08:35 AM

I'll raise this point to you, then: attunement. Let us say that the items in question is the Trident of Fish Command, a weapon.

The RAW says: "Attuning to an item requires a creature to spend a short rest focused on only that item while being in physical contact with it (this can't be the same short rest used to learn the item’s properties). This focus can take the form of weapon practice (for a weapon), meditation (for a wondrous item), or some other appropriate activity."

This is an excellent point that his ultra-strict reading cannot contain.
Clearly practicing with a weapon is more strenuous than eating/drinking/reading, and it quite obviously contains moving. But his ultra-strict reading disallows weapons use and moving. So his ultra-strict interpretation, which he claims to be the intended and correct reading of the RAW, creates a situation where something specifically called out as being allowed by the RAW is no longer allowed.
In that case it's paradoxical.
It cannot be a case of specific/general to him, because his list of things allowed is absolute, and being absolute it cannot have exceptions. Even if he does attempt to call it a specific/general issue, he's left with the result where practicing with one weapon is allowed but practicing with another weapon is not.
In that case it's contradictory.

Either way, to the only reasonable conclusion is that his ultra-strict interpretation is not how they intended it to be read, and that the phrase "more strenuous than" is intended to be far more permissive than he is allowing for.

Tanarii

2018-02-25, 11:05 AM

Well, this helps. I would say that walking to the bathroom is not more strenuous then eating, drinking, tending wounds, or reading. I basically would pick an hour of my day and say, “I didn’t really do much,” and then think of the things that I did do. To me, read, play D&D, watch tv, eat, drink, get a glass of water, have a nice conversation, grab the mail, go to the bathroom, play blocks with my daughter, would all be SR.
This gave me a good laugh, because I find playing an exciting and challenging game of D&D is extremely strenuous. DMing even more so. After running a three to four hour session I'm more burnt out than any full day's work. (And yet I still often let players schedule me for back to back sessions on weekends. :smallamused: )

RSP

2018-02-25, 11:54 AM

Right, and the basis of your position is that SR and LR are not the same thing because they possess different properties.

I'm going on to challenge how cut-and-dry and distinct those properties really are by raising the standard of what can be considered as "non-strenuous" which weakens the position that SR and LR are different based on their differing properties.

"Non-strenuous" is not a factor, so doing anything with that term is pointless in this discussion. The relevant piece in terms of a SR is "nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading and tending to wounds." In order to "raise the standard" you need to work with that, which is a very low threshold. None of those activities involve more strenuous work than moving your arms intermittently. None of those activities would be considered a cardio workout, yet walking would.

If we're basing only on RAW, then both rules are correct, even if they seemingly contradict each other.

I didn't say both rules weren't correct. I specifically stated I take what seems a contradiction as an example of specific-bears-general. The rules for Attunement only apply when attaining magic items: if that allows you to paractice with a magic weapon while attuning, that has no effect on what the rules of a SR are, except as specifically stated regarding Attunement.

I would argue that the rules of attunement for all magic weapons (not just the ones that involve weapon practice) raises the bar of what is strenuous activity.

Two things: the rules of attunement have no impact on SRs that don't involve the act of attuning a magic item; and whether an activity is considered "strenuous activity" has no bearing on whether it's allowed during a SR (because the rule is it has to be equal to or less than strenuous than eating, drinking, reading and tending to wounds). The fact that walking is stated as a strenuous activity in the LR rules, provides a good bit of clarity that is, in fact, more strenuous than reading, eating, etc.

That is, there are two options you can take by RAW:

* There is a contradiction, and magic weapon attunement takes a case of Specific vs General

* There is no contradiction. Weapon practice is regarded by RAW to be as non-strenuous as reading, eating, drinking, and tending to wounds.

No. As stated, it's within the RAW, following the specific-beats-general rule. The rules of attunement only apply to attuning magic items and have no other impact on what is allowed during a SR.

Take the Catnap spell: it allows the benefits of a SR after a 10 min nap. This doesn't retroactively change all SRs to only require a 10 min nap, anymore than the Attunement rules change the definition of a SR.

From the Specific Beats General section of the PHB:

"...many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins."

The rules of Attunement create an exception to SR rules that only involves attuning magical items (that require Attunement).

You take the first stance above. I will say, though, that RAW doesn't give a definite stance here. If the second point is allowed by RAW, then the bar is raised and things that are equally as strenuous as weapon practice (or lower) does not break a SR.

As stated above, I take a third position, specific-beats-general. More over, RAW does give a definitive stance: the rules for SR are found in the SR section; the rules for Attunement are found in the Attunement section; and interactions between rules that contain a contradiction use the rules of the Specific Beats General section.

And there is some logic to the second point. If you've done karate, taekwondo, or other martial arts before, you might notice that kata is a very physical, movement-oriented form of meditation. You eventually get the motions down as second nature, and you might even feel better and more rested after doing one. Look at taichi and how their meditation comes down to practicing martial arts forms.

Regardless of whether something is second nature or feels relaxing has no bearing on whether it's more strenuous than reading. Doing a kata is more strenuous than reading or eating or drinking or tending to wounds.

I will also say that there is an alternate interpretation for the LR "strenuous activity": the following statement:

"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."

Can be taken to mean that 1 hour of walking is strenuous activity, but walking itself is not. You may walk for 59 minutes and 59 seconds without it being considered strenuous, but walking a full 60 minutes brings you up to a "strenuous level". Same for fighting and spellcasting. From a RAW perspective, I believe that is also a valid interpretation.

The sentence equates strenuous activity with 1 hour of walking, not walking.

Again, the rules for a SR don't involve whether an activity is "strenuous" or "non-strenuous" it's whether it's more strenuous than reading, drinking, eating or TWs. Something can be considered non-strenuous and yet be more strenuous than reading, eating, etc.

More over, Crawford has tweeted that the rule is [fighting for 1 hour] breaks a LR, not that fighting at all breaks a LR. Likewise, any combat breaks a SR.

The line in LR states "a period of strenuous activity." The period (of time) is the hour. The strenuous activity is fighting, walking, spellcasting, or similar adventuring activity.

Per the tweet, 1 hour of fighting=breaks a LR; yet 59 minutes, 59 seconds of fighting does not.

Per the LR rule, 1 hour of walking breaks a LR; yet 59 minutes, 59 seconds of fighting does not.

So in terms of a LR, fighting is treated the same as walking. It's not a stretch to see these are what are classified as "strenuous activity."

If all this is true, and there are no RAW rebuttals that can be found, then it seems that the specific argument that SR and LR are different based on the idea that SR can be broken by activities more strenuous than reading, while LR is not, is weaker. What activities break a SR that do not break a LR? If there are no such activities, then they are not different in that regard.

I've shown that your post is not true and that there are RAW rebuttals.

RSP

2018-02-25, 11:55 AM

This is an excellent point that his ultra-strict reading cannot contain.
Clearly practicing with a weapon is more strenuous than eating/drinking/reading, and it quite obviously contains moving. But his ultra-strict reading disallows weapons use and moving. So his ultra-strict interpretation, which he claims to be the intended and correct reading of the RAW, creates a situation where something specifically called out as being allowed by the RAW is no longer allowed.
In that case it's paradoxical.
It cannot be a case of specific/general to him, because his list of things allowed is absolute, and being absolute it cannot have exceptions. Even if he does attempt to call it a specific/general issue, he's left with the result where practicing with one weapon is allowed but practicing with another weapon is not.
In that case it's contradictory.

Either way, to the only reasonable conclusion is that his ultra-strict interpretation is not how they intended it to be read, and that the phrase "more strenuous than" is intended to be far more permissive than he is allowing for.

See my response to Leon.

LeonBH

2018-02-25, 12:10 PM

"Non-strenuous" is not a factor, so doing anything with that term is pointless in this discussion. The relevant piece in terms of a SR is "nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading and tending to wounds." In order to "raise the standard" you need to work with that, which is a very low threshold. None of those activities involve more strenuous work than moving your arms intermittently. None of those activities would be considered a cardio workout, yet walking would.

I have raised the standard, as I will re-explain below.

I didn't say both rules weren't correct. I specifically stated I take what seems a contradiction as an example of specific-bears-general. The rules for Attunement only apply when attaining magic items: if that allows you to paractice with a magic weapon while attuning, that has no effect on what the rules of a SR are, except as specifically stated regarding Attunement.

If they are not contradictory, then Specific Beats General does not apply.

Two things: the rules of attunement have no impact on SRs that don't involve the act of attuning a magic item; and whether an activity is considered "strenuous activity" has no bearing on whether it's allowed during a SR (because the rule is it has to be equal to or less than strenuous than eating, drinking, reading and tending to wounds). The fact that walking is stated as a strenuous activity in the LR rules, provides a good bit of clarity that is, in fact, more strenuous than reading, eating, etc.

Following your logic, the rules of a LR has no impact on the rules of a SR. They are different types of rest.

If you allow the rules of a LR to affect the rules of a SR, you must also allow the rules of attunement to affect the rules of a SR. Otherwise, your logic is unsupported.

The rules for a LR are not the same rules for a SR. They are disjoint. If you take elements from the LR rule and use it to describe the things that can or cannot happen in a SR, then you must justify why this is valid, and why you cannot do so for other rules that use the SR mechanic.

No. As stated, it's within the RAW, following the specific-beats-general rule. The rules of attunement only apply to attuning magic items and have no other impact on what is allowed during a SR.

Take the Catnap spell: it allows the benefits of a SR after a 10 min nap. This doesn't retroactively change all SRs to only require a 10 min nap, anymore than the Attunement rules change the definition of a SR.

From the Specific Beats General section of the PHB:

"...many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins."

The rules of Attunement create an exception to SR rules that only involves attuning magical items (that require Attunement).

As you said above, they don't contradict each other. Therefore, Specific Versus General does not apply.

Moreover, they do not have to contradict each other. That is your interpretation, and your interpretation is not RAW.

As stated above, I take a third position, specific-beats-general. More over, RAW does give a definitive stance: the rules for SR are found in the SR section; the rules for Attunement are found in the Attunement section; and interactions between rules that contain a contradiction use the rules of the Specific Beats General section.

The first point is Specific Beats General. Read it again. Or here, I shall list it again for you. There is no third position. Either (and with some wording changes on the 2nd point):

* There is a contradiction, and magic weapon attunement takes a case of Specific vs General

* There is no contradiction. Weapon practice is regarded by RAW to be not more strenuous than reading, eating, drinking, and tending to wounds.

You have taken the first position. But regardless of whichever position count you take, RAW does not say it is exclusively the only correct stance. That is only your interpretation.

Regardless of whether something is second nature or feels relaxing has no bearing on whether it's more strenuous than reading. Doing a kata is more strenuous than reading or eating or drinking or tending to wounds.

Fine, ignore that. I am giving some context to my point, but let us completely discuss text devoid of context from now on then.

Again, the rules for a SR don't involve whether an activity is "strenuous" or "non-strenuous" it's whether it's more strenuous than reading, drinking, eating or TWs. Something can be considered non-strenuous and yet be more strenuous than reading, eating, etc.

And again, you can show that RAW allows for weapon practice to be not as strenuous as reading. Do not apply your personal interpretations over which is strenuous in this regard, stick with RAW. There is nothing that contradicts the second point.

More over, Crawford has tweeted that the rule is [fighting for 1 hour] breaks a LR, not that fighting at all breaks a LR. Likewise, any combat breaks a SR.

Crawford's tweets are not RAW. Let us stick with RAW only, not personal interpretations.

The line in LR states "a period of strenuous activity." The period (of time) is the hour. The strenuous activity is fighting, walking, spellcasting, or similar adventuring activity.

Per the tweet, 1 hour of fighting=breaks a LR; yet 59 minutes, 59 seconds of fighting does not.

Per the LR rule, 1 hour of walking breaks a LR; yet 59 minutes, 59 seconds of fighting does not.

So in terms of a LR, fighting is treated the same as walking. It's not a stretch to see these are what are classified as "strenuous activity."

None of this is RAW. And per your own statements, assigning "strenuous" or "non-strenuous" is meaningless, so please avoid using them.

I've shown that your post is not true and that there are RAW rebuttals.

I have shown that you have not shown what you claim. (EDIT: Re-worded, that was originally a bit aggressive)

We come down to this question: does RAW treat weapon practice to be not more strenuous than reading, eating, drinking, and tending to wounds?

There is no answer that you will find there. You can say it is more strenuous, but you will find no support from RAW.

RSP

2018-02-25, 12:13 PM

You see a feature, I see a bug. Looking at this thread, I would say that a lot of people feel RAW is a lot more permissive than the four listed activities and you are houseruling.
Being able to houserule is not a feature of 5e, it’s a feature of RPGs. Having to houserule because nobody can agree on the meaning of the paragraph is poor writing.

On this thread, a lot more people seem to agree a SR should allow more activity than the RAW states. Adhering to the RAW isn't houseruling; choosing to adopt different rules than the RAW is.

I've yet to see anyone make a valid argument that walking is equal to or less strenuous than reading, yet they seem to allow walking during SRs in their games. Cool. As I see it, that's a good feature of 5e, and other TTRPGs in general: you can make it your own. If you want to see that as a bug, cool.

LankyOgre

2018-02-25, 12:37 PM

On this thread, a lot more people seem to agree a SR should allow more activity than the RAW states. Adhering to the RAW isn't houseruling; choosing to adopt different rules than the RAW is.

I've yet to see anyone make a valid argument that walking is equal to or less strenuous than reading, yet they seem to allow walking during SRs in their games. Cool. As I see it, that's a good feature of 5e, and other TTRPGs in general: you can make it your own. If you want to see that as a bug, cool.

Most people are saying that ambling is less strenuous than reading which is less strenuous than hiking. One issue may be using a single verb instead of related, but meaningful synonyms. You are the primary one stating RAW says not walking. RAW does not say “no walking, ambling, strolling, hiking, or other forms of ambulatory movement.” That is your added interpretation. The bug is that you are stating RAW just as much as others. Not whether or not houserule can be made.

My statement is, “ambling to the bathroom is not more strenuous than reading.” Neither activity would count as exercise. Neither activity would appear on a fitness tracker. Neither activity would result in additional calories burned, heart rate increase, or change in blood pressure.

Arial Black

2018-02-25, 12:45 PM

I've been sleeping for 1 hour. At this point I qualify to take the benefits of a short rest even though I was hoping to take a long rest.

I can choose, at this point, to either:-

* take the benefits of a short rest

OR

* not!

The 1 hour's sleep I have already just had was not 'short-rest sleep' or 'long-rest sleep', it was just 'sleep'.

I think that even you would rule that 'sleep' is not more strenuous than 'eating/drinking/etc.' :smallsmile:

Okay, at this point (1 hour into sleep) I get awoken by cries of, "Orcs! To arms! We're being attacked!" and the DM asking the players to roll initiative and skill checks to determine if we are surprised.

That is not 'strenuous activity'! Not for me, anyway. Other people fighting does not prevent me 'not doing anything stressful', and so nothing prevents me from taking the benefits of a short rest at this point.

Of course, as soon as I leap up and start to exert myself I cannot gain the benefits of a short rest while I am in the middle of exerting myself, but I can certainly say that I've just had the benefits of a short rest before I actually join the combat that is raging around me!

I'll take it even further. Same set up (1 hour's sleep) but what wakes me up is a hammer to the face, damaging me! Can I then claim the benefits of a short rest, such that the hammer damage comes off my hit point total after several of my hit dice are rolled to regain hit points as part of the benefits of a short rest?

Yes! You might say that the hammer hit my face before I declared that I was taking the benefits of a short rest, but the reality is that my short rest was already completed before the hammer fell, because the hammer hit me after my 1 hour's sleep.

You might suggest that the game doesn't work that way! The game doesn't allow you to retroactively declare things, does it?

Oh yes it does! A couple of examples are shield and 'knocking a creature out'.

For the spell, you cast it as a reaction to 'being hit', and the spell may result in you not being hit. Does this result in a time paradox where now that you were never hit so that you cannot have cast the spell which means you were hit which means you can cast the spell but now you were not hit....forever, ad nauseum? Does the javelin actually go through your skull, killing you, and then you cast shield so that the javelin slides out of your head? No. What happened is that if the javelin would hit you, you cast the spell which interposes a magical shield of force which prevents the javelin ever hitting you.

So the game mechanic retroactively lets you change what happened at the table, but nothing retroactive happens in the game world! In the game, you threw up the shield just in time!

The game mechanics for 'knocking a creature out' (PHB p198) say that when an attacker drops a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack (which, according to the rules, kills it) the attacker can knock the creature out instead of killing them. You have to make the choice at the time; you can't kill him and then decide he's alive again a couple of rounds later!

So what actually happens here? At the table, the player hit the orc with his axe, doing 12 damage. The DM says that this kills the orc. The player says that he's going to knock the orc out cold with the flat of his axe. This is how the 5e rules work.

But what happened in the game world? Did I kill the orc, then bring it to life again? No! What was retroactive at the table was not retroactive in the game world! In the game, my blow was with the flat of my axe the whole time.

It's the same with taking the benefits of either type of rest. At the table, the DM might announce 12 points of hammer damage to the face before the player announces that his PC took the benefits of the short rest he has already had, but in the game world the 1 hour rest (and the benefits thereof) came before the hammer to the face.

That's how 5e works.

LankyOgre

2018-02-25, 12:55 PM

Arial Black, great example of retroactive rules actions. I think your examples were very clear and explanatory.

Arial Black

2018-02-25, 01:04 PM

I've yet to see anyone make a valid argument that walking is equal to or less strenuous than reading

I already did this in a post on the last page! It was the post that mentions that 'power walking for exercise' or 'hiking for an hour' is strenuous but 'pottering about the garden' or 'ambling down the road while daydreaming' is not strenuous.

The problem is the the list of 'eating, drinking, reading or tending wounds' is not:-

a.) an exhaustive (no pun intended) list of things that are 'not strenuous'

b.) a list of things that are equally strenuous

c.) a list of terms with a game definition

Every part of this list is to aid the DM in a judgement call to determine if what the PCs did was too strenuous to count as part of a rest.

This also applies to the list about walking, fighting, casting spells. The DM is expected to rule fairly; it's part of his job description. If he rules that 'walking to the bathroom' involves 'walking' and since 'walking for 1 hour' interrupts a long rest then any 'walking' is more strenuous than 'eating' is not making a rational or fair ruling.

Although spells don't exist in real life, nor do hit points or spell slots. The game tries to imagine that casting spells tires you out in the specific way that you use up spell slots from a limited supply, and that 'resting' lets you regain those slots. Therefore, if you are burning spell slots then you are exerting yourself (therefore, not resting). But if you cast a cantrip then you are not exerting yourself by spellcasting, so casting prestidigitation will not interrupt a rest in and of itself.

Of course, if you are casting a cantrip in combat then you are not 'resting', not because cantrips exhaust you but because combat does.

RSP

2018-02-25, 03:11 PM

Most people are saying that ambling is less strenuous than reading which is less strenuous than hiking. One issue may be using a single verb instead of related, but meaningful synonyms. You are the primary one stating RAW says not walking. RAW does not say “no walking, ambling, strolling, hiking, or other forms of ambulatory movement.” That is your added interpretation. The bug is that you are stating RAW just as much as others. Not whether or not houserule can be made.

My statement is, “ambling to the bathroom is not more strenuous than reading.” Neither activity would count as exercise. Neither activity would appear on a fitness tracker. Neither activity would result in additional calories burned, heart rate increase, or change in blood pressure.

I'm glad you mentioned calories. Since walking and reading a real life activities, calories burned (which represents energy used by the body) is a good way to see what's more work for the body, and therefore more strenuous.

Per Livestrong.com:

For a 180 lbs person, reading while sitting up burns about 86 calories per hour (or 1.4333 calories per minute)

That same 180 lbs person burns about 100 calories per mile. Per the PHB, characters travel 3 miles per hour when moving at a "normal pace," so roughly 300 calories are burned over an hour of walking (or 5 calories per minute).

So let's put this in terms of a 6 seconds, as that's essentially the shortest time period used in game terms.

6 seconds of reading burns .1433 calories.
6 seconds of walking burns .5 calories.

So walking takes more effort, that is, it is more strenuous, than reading while sitting up.

Does it take 6 seconds or more to amble to the bathroom? I'd imagine so. So it's more strenuous than reading.

RSP

2018-02-25, 03:14 PM

I already did this in a post on the last page! It was the post that mentions that 'power walking for exercise' or 'hiking for an hour' is strenuous but 'pottering about the garden' or 'ambling down the road while daydreaming' is not strenuous.

Except I didn't ask for what is strenuous vs not strenuous, as that has no bearing on the rules for a SR. It's if an activity is more strenuous than reading.

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-25, 03:15 PM

I'm glad you mentioned calories. Since walking and reading a real life activities, calories burned (which represents energy used by the body) is a good way to see what's more work for the body, and therefore more strenuous.

Per Livestrong.com:

For a 180 lbs person, reading while sitting up burns about 86 calories per hour (or 1.4333 calories per minute)

That same 180 lbs person burns about 100 calories per mile. Per the PHB, characters travel 3 miles per hour when moving at a "normal pace," so roughly 300 calories are burned over an hour of walking (or 5 calories per minute).

So let's put this in terms of a 6 seconds, as that's essentially the shortest time period used in game terms.

6 seconds of reading burns .1433 calories.
6 seconds of walking burns .5 calories.

So walking takes more effort, that is, it is more strenuous, than reading while sitting up.

Does it take 6 seconds or more to amble to the bathroom? I'd imagine so. So it's more strenuous than reading.

Great.
How many calories are burned when practicing with a weapon for an hour?
If we were to use Tai Chi as an approximate comparison, then we're looking at just as much as a light walk, approximately 300 per hour. This would be an extremely generous comparison, as Tai Chi is comprised of slow, deliberate movements. But let us be generous and use this comparison.
Because weapon practice is specifically allowed. Not only is it allowed, but it even goes so far as to grant not only the benefits of a short rest, but also the benefits of either attuning to or learning the magical properties of a weapon.

So 300 calories walking is a no go, but that same 300 calories practicing is fine?
Your entire argument breaks here.
Again.

RSP

2018-02-25, 03:32 PM

I have raised the standard, as I will re-explain below.

If they are not contradictory, then Specific Beats General does not apply.

Following your logic, the rules of a LR has no impact on the rules of a SR. They are different types of rest.

If you allow the rules of a LR to affect the rules of a SR, you must also allow the rules of attunement to affect the rules of a SR. Otherwise, your logic is unsupported.

The rules for a LR are not the same rules for a SR. They are disjoint. If you take elements from the LR rule and use it to describe the things that can or cannot happen in a SR, then you must justify why this is valid, and why you cannot do so for other rules that use the SR mechanic.

I'm not sure why you think I'm allowing LR rules to justify a SR. I've said repeatedly something very similar to "The relevant piece in terms of a SR is "nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading and tending to wounds,"" multiple times.

Is training with a sword more strenuous than reading? Yes. Is it allowed during a SR? No. Is training with a magic sword that you are attuning to allowed during a SR? Yes. The "no" and "yes" in these two seemingly similar circumstances is what seems to be a contradiction. This is why specific-beats-general applies.

And again, you can show that RAW allows for weapon practice to be not as strenuous as reading.

No, you cannot.

Crawford's tweets are not RAW. Let us stick with RAW only, not personal interpretations.

His tweets are official, and therefore, part of the rules, hence they matter.

I have shown that you have not shown what you claim. (EDIT: Re-worded, that was originally a bit aggressive)

We come down to this question: does RAW treat weapon practice to be not more strenuous than reading, eating, drinking, and tending to wounds?

There is no answer that you will find there. You can say it is more strenuous, but you will find no support from RAW.

If the game doesn't specifically define something in game terms, it has its normal meaning.

What is reading? Visually scanning written characters.

What is "training with a sword?" Doing physical movements, while holding a sword or sword-weighted object, in a simulation of combat.

I don't understand how you can interpret sword training as being less strenuous than reading.

RSP

2018-02-25, 03:35 PM

Because weapon practice is specifically allowed. Not only is it allowed, but it even goes so far as to grant not only the benefits of a short rest, but also the benefits of either attuning to or learning the magical properties of a weapon.

So 300 calories walking is a no go, but that same 300 calories practicing is fine?
Your entire argument breaks here.
Again.

No. Weapon practice is not allowed during a SR. What is allowed is weapon practice with a magic weapon you are attuning to during a SR.

The rule is "specific beats general" not "the specific becomes the new general rule."

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-25, 03:58 PM

No. Weapon practice is not allowed during a SR. What is allowed is weapon practice with a magic weapon you are attuning to during a SR.

The rule is "specific beats general" not "the specific becomes the new general rule."

Right.
So 300 calories spent on Thing A is fine, but 300 calories spent on Thing B is not.
Gotcha.
You're the one that started breaking it down by calories to determine what was okay. So reconcile this.
And specific versus general is not an answer when we're breaking down calories.

LankyOgre

2018-02-25, 03:58 PM

I'm glad you mentioned calories. Since walking and reading a real life activities, calories burned (which represents energy used by the body) is a good way to see what's more work for the body, and therefore more strenuous.

Per Livestrong.com:

For a 180 lbs person, reading while sitting up burns about 86 calories per hour (or 1.4333 calories per minute)

That same 180 lbs person burns about 100 calories per mile. Per the PHB, characters travel 3 miles per hour when moving at a "normal pace," so roughly 300 calories are burned over an hour of walking (or 5 calories per minute).

So let's put this in terms of a 6 seconds, as that's essentially the shortest time period used in game terms.

6 seconds of reading burns .1433 calories.
6 seconds of walking burns .5 calories.

So walking takes more effort, that is, it is more strenuous, than reading while sitting up.

Does it take 6 seconds or more to amble to the bathroom? I'd imagine so. So it's more strenuous than reading.

From what I can see, this is for a speed of 3.5 miles/hour. The ambling walk we are discussing is much slower than even that. It is very difficult to find calories expended for otherwise sedentary behaviors, since most calorie expenditure is focused on losing weight and therefore increasing calories burned.

RSP

2018-02-25, 04:25 PM

From what I can see, this is for a speed of 3.5 miles/hour. The ambling walk we are discussing is much slower than even that. It is very difficult to find calories expended for otherwise sedentary behaviors, since most calorie expenditure is focused on losing weight and therefore increasing calories burned.

It's per the Livestrong website which states the ~100 calories per mile walked. The burn of calories deals with distance more than speed when walking. Since 5e states the normal walking speed is 3 miles/hour, that's how I dealt with the distance to time conversion to make it comparable to an hour of reading.

RSP

2018-02-25, 04:26 PM

Right.
So 300 calories spent on Thing A is fine, but 300 calories spent on Thing B is not.
Gotcha.
You're the one that started breaking it down by calories to determine what was okay. So reconcile this.
And specific versus general is not an answer when we're breaking down calories.

Which is where the specific rule of Attunement comes in and overrules the general rule of what is allowed. While attuning you can do select activities that would otherwise break a SR. That's the specific beating general.

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-25, 04:34 PM

Which is where the specific rule of Attunement comes in and overrules the general rule of what is allowed. While attuning you can do select activities that would otherwise break a SR. That's the specific beating general.

Or, maybe, just maybe, that wasn't something that ever broke a short rest, and your own personal ultra-strict interpretation has been the problem.
After all, Tai Chi could be replaced with "weapon practice," and Tai Chi has been used for relaxation/meditation for millennia.

Your interpretation requires a specific/general clause to be invoked (one which creates contradictory results from similar activities)
Ours does not.

RSP

2018-02-25, 04:40 PM

RSP

2018-02-25, 04:47 PM

Or, maybe, just maybe, that wasn't something that ever broke a short rest, and your own personal ultra-strict interpretation has been the problem.
After all, Tai Chi could be replaced with "weapon practice," and Tai Chi has been used for relaxation/meditation for millennia.

Your interpretation requires a specific/general clause to be invoked (one which creates contradictory results from similar activities)
Ours does not.

Tai Chi is more strenuous than reading. It takes even more energy to do it if holding a weapon while doing it.

Are you arguing that you use the same amount of muscles while reading as doing tai chi? Or are you just saying that since it's a healthy thing to do it shouldn't count as strenuous?

RSP

2018-02-25, 04:54 PM

I've been sleeping for 1 hour. At this point I qualify to take the benefits of a short rest even though I was hoping to take a long rest...

Im also genuinely curious now: does your table really allow you to start combat, take a hit and just heal it because it's part of either a SR or LR, or where you just stating that not because you believe it, but you wanted to try to create a certain situation?

If you actually allow this, than anyone could take a LR (but not state they are getting the benefits yet), get involved with combat, fight for a few rounds, use spells and then after the combat ends, get full health and all spellslots back for ending the long rest. This is in addition to getting to use HD after taking damage in combat if you haven't attacked yet.

Edit: Leon and DBZ, do you both allow this at your table as well?

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-25, 04:57 PM

Tai Chi is more strenuous than reading. It takes even more energy to do it if holding a weapon while doing it.

Are you arguing that you use the same amount of muscles while reading as doing tai chi? Or are you just saying that since it's a healthy thing to do it shouldn't count as strenuous?

I'm saying that people have been using Tai Chi for relaxation and meditation for millennia.
I'm saying your ridiculous interpretation means that doing Tai Chi negates a short rest.... *unless* you happen to have an unidentified or unattuned magic weapon in hand. And as you have rightly pointed out the weapon would make it even more strenuous.

The thing people have been doing for ages upon ages? Nope.
Doing that same thing, but making it more strenuous than it was before? Fine.
Explain how that makes any sense.

LankyOgre

2018-02-25, 05:05 PM

I’m going to start a new thread for the short rest discussion.

In regards to Long Rests and “retroactive” declarations, the game is filled with times that you declare something retroactively due to narrative concerns. It’s just a narrative decision and personal preference, not a hard and fast requirement or prohibition.
“You have been in town for a week, what did you do?”
“You will stay in town for a week, what are you doing?”
There isn’t a functional difference between these two statements.

If the DM declaring combat, or another rest interrupting occurrence, prevents the expenditure of HD, then rests can be prevented at will. As a DM, all I have to say is “after you walk an hour,” or start inititiatve, etc.
Otherwise, all DM statements need to follow a narrative pattern that allows for players to state rest recuperation before any other actions.
“You are going to be ambushed by an orc hitting you in the face, do you regain spells first?”

LankyOgre

2018-02-25, 05:14 PM

Im also genuinely curious now: does your table really allow you to start combat, take a hit and just heal it because it's part of either a SR or LR, or where you just stating that not because you believe it, but you wanted to try to create a certain situation?

I would allow a player to state they are spending HD to heal damage that was done before the hammer to the face.
DM “After sleeping for an hour you wake to a hammer smashing into your face and see the grinning face of an orc.”
Player “Since we just finished a short rest, I’m spending 2HD to heal”....roll....8 “8 ho, therefore I’m at 18, not 10.”

RSP

2018-02-25, 05:18 PM

I'm saying that people have been using Tai Chi for relaxation and meditation for millennia.
I'm saying your ridiculous interpretation means that doing Tai Chi negates a short rest.... *unless* you happen to have an unidentified or unattuned magic weapon in hand. And as you have rightly pointed out the weapon would make it even more strenuous.

The thing people have been doing for ages upon ages? Nope.
Doing that same thing, but making it more strenuous than it was before? Fine.
Explain how that makes any sense.

Because the rule isn't a SR is doing "the thing people have been doing for ages upon ages," it's doing something equal to or less strenuous than reading, eating, drinking and TWs.

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-25, 05:34 PM

Because the rule isn't a SR is doing "the thing people have been doing for ages upon ages," it's doing something equal to or less strenuous than reading, eating, drinking and TWs.

.... Except when you do it with a magic weapon that you want to attune or learn about. That's fine. No other cases are.
Explain that. You have yet to explain it, after being asked multiple times.

Party leader: We should stop for a short rest.
DM: What's everyone doing?
Wally the Warlock: I'm eating lunch.
Willy the Wizard: I'm studying my spellbook.
Conner the Cleric: I'm praying.
Mikey the Monk: I'm meditating.
Robbie the Rogue: I'm practicing with my new rapier.
Frankie the Fighter: I'm practicing with my greatsword.
DM: Wally, Willy Conner, Mikey, and Robbie, you guys all gain the benefits of a short rest.
Frankie the Fighter: What about me?
DM: Nope, sorry.
Frankie: But I was doing the exact same thing as Robbie, and he got a rest.
DM: Nope. Oh, and Robbie, not only do you gain a short rest, but you can either attune to the rapier or find out what magical properties it has.
Frankie: WTF dude?!?!? Really?!?!? Are you kidding me right now?
DM: Nope. Not kidding. Sorry.

You really think this is what the rules are trying to convey? Seriously?
You'd rather claim that this is what should happen rather than admit the possibly that you might need to reevaluate what you consider *more strenuous*?
Explain that.

LeonBH

2018-02-25, 07:49 PM

I'm not sure why you think I'm allowing LR rules to justify a SR. I've said repeatedly something very similar to "The relevant piece in terms of a SR is "nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading and tending to wounds,"" multiple times.

You are using the activities considered strenuous by LR to also be more strenuous than reading, eating, walking for SR. This has no logical basis going only by RAW. You must justify why this is valid, yet invalid for the attunement rules to tie into SR.

Otherwise, it is invalid for you to say that walking, fighting, and spellcasting are more strenuous than reading on the basis of the LR rule. For all we know, they could be no more strenuous than reading from the perspective of RAW.

Is training with a sword more strenuous than reading? Yes. Is it allowed during a SR? No. Is training with a magic sword that you are attuning to allowed during a SR? Yes. The "no" and "yes" in these two seemingly similar circumstances is what seems to be a contradiction. This is why specific-beats-general applies.

Why is training with a nonmagical sword more strenuous than reading, from RAW? You are making this up. I thought we were having a RAW discussion.

No, you cannot.

Yes, you can. You have nothing to defend this point. RAW allows it as I have shown, and you are only using your non-RAW personal interpretations to deny it.

His tweets are official, and therefore, part of the rules, hence they matter.

Only insofar as RAI, they matter. They are not RAW.

If the game doesn't specifically define something in game terms, it has its normal meaning.

What is reading? Visually scanning written characters.

What is "training with a sword?" Doing physical movements, while holding a sword or sword-weighted object, in a simulation of combat.

And you can say that one is not more strenuous as the other, going only by RAW.

I don't understand how you can interpret sword training as being less strenuous than reading.

I don't understand how you can make the act of walking break a SR through the absurdity of RAW either, but here we are.

Your absurd point has an absurd argument that you cannot show a counterargument to, unless you apply your personal interpretations to it.

EDIT: If you meant that you actually don't understand how I'm saying weapon practice is not more strenuous than reading by RAW, I'll try one more time to explain it.

The SR rule says you can do things that are not more strenuous than reading, eating, or drinking. The attunement rule gives an example of a thing you can do during an SR, weapon practice. Thus, you can say that RAW believes weapon practice is not more strenuous than reading, eating, or drinking.

You can say, as you have been saying, that this is wrong and that obviously, weapon training is more strenuous than reading (invoking Specific Beats General). But that is one of two interpretations. If we are talking only about RAW, then this is not the only way you can read it.

RSP

2018-02-25, 09:04 PM

.... Except when you do it with a magic weapon that you want to attune or learn about. That's fine. No other cases are.
Explain that. You have yet to explain it, after being asked multiple times.

Party leader: We should stop for a short rest.
DM: What's everyone doing?
Wally the Warlock: I'm eating lunch.
Willy the Wizard: I'm studying my spellbook.
Conner the Cleric: I'm praying.
Mikey the Monk: I'm meditating.
Robbie the Rogue: I'm practicing with my new rapier.
Frankie the Fighter: I'm practicing with my greatsword.
DM: Wally, Willy Conner, Mikey, and Robbie, you guys all gain the benefits of a short rest.
Frankie the Fighter: What about me?
DM: Nope, sorry.
Frankie: But I was doing the exact same thing as Robbie, and he got a rest.
DM: Nope. Oh, and Robbie, not only do you gain a short rest, but you can either attune to the rapier or find out what magical properties it has.
Frankie: WTF dude?!?!? Really?!?!? Are you kidding me right now?
DM: Nope. Not kidding. Sorry.

You really think this is what the rules are trying to convey? Seriously?
You'd rather claim that this is what should happen rather than admit the possibly that you might need to reevaluate what you consider *more strenuous*?
Explain that.

I've said it multiple times. Do you really think training with a sword is as strenuous as reading?

There is an exception in that when attuning to a magic item (which no one in your example claimed to be doing), you can do a few other activities. If you want an example of fluffing this rule, go back and read what wrote when this first came up.

DivisibleByZero

2018-02-25, 09:17 PM

I've said it multiple times. Do you really think training with a sword is as strenuous as reading?

There is an exception in that when attuning to a magic item (which no one in your example claimed to be doing), you can do a few other activities. If you want an example of fluffing this rule, go back and read what wrote when this first came up.

So your answer is yes.
You really think this is what the rules are trying to convey.
You would rather claim that this is what should happen rather than admit the possibly that you might need to reevaluate what you consider *more strenuous*
Got it.
Thanks.

Thrudd

2018-02-25, 09:27 PM

LeonBH

2018-02-25, 09:29 PM

RSP

2018-02-25, 10:18 PM

You are using the activities considered strenuous by LR to also be more strenuous than reading, eating, walking for SR. This has no logical basis going only by RAW. You must justify why this is valid, yet invalid for the attunement rules to tie into SR.

The reference to "strenuous activity" was only to show the intent of the developers. As I said previously, I do not consider reading, eating, drinking or tending wounds to be strenuous activity, and, therefore, anything considered strenuous activity would also be considered more strenuous than reading, etc.

Otherwise, it is invalid for you to say that walking, fighting, and spellcasting are more strenuous than reading on the basis of the LR rule. For all we know, they could be no more strenuous than reading from the perspective of RAW.

Fighting is certainly more strenuous than reading, etc. This is true in real life as well as the game. If you don't believe this is true in real life, I can't help you.

As for the game, we know this is true due to a) it's referred to as "strenuous activity," which interrupts a LR which can otherwise withstand similar activities as a SR (eating, drinking, reading) and, b) Crawford has specifically stated it interrupts a SR.

Why is training with a nonmagical sword more strenuous than reading, from RAW? You are making this up. I thought we were having a RAW discussion.

Because RAW still adheres to the English meanings of words. Training with a sword requires the use of many more muscles, the use of more enerfy than reading does. That's true in 5e as well as real life. Reading, in 5e as well as real life means you're using your eyes to scan characters. Training with a sword, is, in real life and 5e, the act of working your muscles to physically become better at hitting things with a sword.

I'm not sure why you think reading is equal to training with a sword.

Only insofar as RAI, they matter. They are not RAW.

They are in fact official rulings. That means they count.

RSP

2018-02-25, 10:32 PM

So your answer is yes.
You really think this is what the rules are trying to convey.
You would rather claim that this is what should happen rather than admit the possibly that you might need to reevaluate what you consider *more strenuous*
Got it.
Thanks.

And you'd rather claim training with a sword is as strenuous as reading: clearly why Wizards are known for their strength and stamina.

LeonBH

2018-02-25, 10:38 PM

The reference to "strenuous activity" was only to show the intent of the developers. As I said previously, I do not consider reading, eating, drinking or tending wounds to be strenuous activity, and, therefore, anything considered strenuous activity would also be considered more strenuous than reading, etc.

You are just restating how the LR rules can be applied to the SR rules. If the LR rules consider walking to be more strenuous than reading, that shouldn't affect the SR rules at all; just like how you're arguing that if the attunement rule considers weapon training to be less strenuous than reading, that shouldn't affect the SR rules.

Attunement allows weapon practice to be part of a SR. You can explain this in two ways: (1) it is a contradiction that can be handled by Specific Beats General; or (2) weapon practice is less strenuous than reading.

Either interpretation you take leads to the same outcome: you can do weapon practice with a magic weapon. RAW does not say which interpretation is valid, so to say one is the only valid interpretation is to make a claim unfounded on RAW.

Fighting is certainly more strenuous than reading, etc. This is true in real life as well as the game. If you don't believe this is true in real life, I can't help you.

No, you are applying your personal interpretations here. However, when I inserted my own personal interpretations in prior posts, you dismissed them as "not RAW." Case in point: tai chi and kata can relax you.

I know people who would rather drive their motorcycle than read their medical textbooks. For them, reading that material is more strenuous than driving.

You do not get to selectively apply whose interpretations are relevant, least of all yours. Stick to RAW, don't be biased in picking your logic.

You are already defending an absurd conclusion (walking breaks SR) on the basis that it's RAW. In order to do that, you've abandoned real life parallels already. Don't pull them in now at your convenience, or else you have to admit that in real life, walking isn't normally strenuous too.

As for the game, we know this is true due to a) it's referred to as "strenuous activity," which interrupts a LR which can otherwise withstand similar activities as a SR (eating, drinking, reading) and, b) Crawford has specifically stated it interrupts a SR.

Once again, following your own logic, LR rules should not affect SR rules. What is considered strenuous in a LR should not affect what is considered strenuous in a SR.

Otherwise, you need to permit what is considered not strenuous in attunement to also affect what is considered not-strenuous in the SR rule.

Because RAW still adheres to the English meanings of words. Training with a sword requires the use of many more muscles, the use of more enerfy than reading does. That's true in 5e as well as real life. Reading, in 5e as well as real life means you're using your eyes to scan characters. Training with a sword, is, in real life and 5e, the act of working your muscles to physically become better at hitting things with a sword.

I'm not sure why you think reading is equal to training with a sword.

RAW allows for weapon practice to be less strenuous than reading. Read the RAW, as you said before. I'm only saying what the RAW says. And as you said before, if you don't like the RAW, feel free to houserule in your game.

I'm just saying what RAW says, as you said before.

They are in fact official rulings. That means they count.

They are not in the PHB, DMG, and MM. They are not Errata. They count for the purposes of RAI. They are not RAW. They are not mandatory even in AL.

RSP

2018-02-26, 12:21 AM

You are just restating how the LR rules can be applied to the SR rules. If the LR rules consider walking to be more strenuous than reading, that shouldn't affect the SR rules at all; just like how you're arguing that if the attunement rule considers weapon training to be less strenuous than reading, that shouldn't affect the SR rules.

...

They are not in the PHB, DMG, and MM. They are not Errata. They count for the purposes of RAI. They are not RAW. They are not mandatory even in AL.

I guess we should back up here. Let's look at the definition of strenuous:

Per Dictionary.com: "characterized by vigorous exertion, as action, efforts, life, etc." or "demanding or requiring vigorous exertion; laborious," or "vigorous, energetic, or zealously active."

Per Webster.com: "vigorously active," or "marked by or calling for energy or stamina."

That's 5 definitions from 2 well-used sites. None of those offer a definition that allows training with a sword to be less then or equal to reading in terms of being strenuous. Walking is more "vigorously active" than reading. Training with a sword is marked by or calling for energy or stamina" more so than reading. Does something call for more vigor or energy than reading? If yes, it interrupts a SR.

As for Crawford's rulings, the D&D 5e rules consider them official. Each DM decides if they want to use them, same as RAW, but they carry the same weight. I'm not saying I agree with his rulings. And he's certainly made ruling in the past that contradict the RAW. But to 5e, they account.

LeonBH

2018-02-26, 01:00 AM

I guess we should back up here. Let's look at the definition of strenuous:

Per Dictionary.com: "characterized by vigorous exertion, as action, efforts, life, etc." or "demanding or requiring vigorous exertion; laborious," or "vigorous, energetic, or zealously active."

Per Webster.com: "vigorously active," or "marked by or calling for energy or stamina."

That's 5 definitions from 2 well-used sites. None of those offer a definition that allows training with a sword to be less then or equal to reading in terms of being strenuous. Walking is more "vigorously active" than reading. Training with a sword is marked by or calling for energy or stamina" more so than reading. Does something call for more vigor or energy than reading? If yes, it interrupts a SR.

As for Crawford's rulings, the D&D 5e rules consider them official. Each DM decides if they want to use them, same as RAW, but they carry the same weight. I'm not saying I agree with his rulings. And he's certainly made ruling in the past that contradict the RAW. But to 5e, they account.

(1) You can vigorously read, as in cram for a test; you can vigorously eat, as in a chili eating contest; you can vigorously drink and die of water poisoning.

(2) Those dictionaries don't hold sway over RAW. There is no unambiguous word that requires a natural language definition. A dictionary cannot overwrite when RAW allows for weapon practice to be less strenuous than reading.

(3) You are championing RAW. Not RAI. That is how you could claim walking breaks a SR. Thus JC tweets do not have a bearing on this discussion, as they are not RAW.

RSP

2018-02-26, 06:21 AM

(1) You can vigorously read, as in cram for a test; you can vigorously eat, as in a chili eating contest; you can vigorously drink and die of water poisoning.

(2) Those dictionaries don't hold sway over RAW. There is no unambiguous word that requires a natural language definition. A dictionary cannot overwrite when RAW allows for weapon practice to be less strenuous than reading.

(3) You are championing RAW. Not RAI. That is how you could claim walking breaks a SR. Thus JC tweets do not have a bearing on this discussion, as they are not RAW.

1) No. How strenuous is it to read? The singular act of reading? That's what is stated. You can't add to that. You can't say "well I see people reading while running at the gym, so reading is amazingly vigorous." That's not reading, it's running and reading. The act of reading is not a vigorous endevour. Adding other acts while reading doesn't change that reading is an extremely low act of strenuousness.

2) the meanings of words absolutely hold sway over RAW. You can't say "well I'm going to decide to change the definition of words so the RAW suits what I want it to."

3) Crawford's tweets are official. They impact RAW. I know you don't like it. You think it's RAI. It's not. Mearls' tweets can be argued as RAI, but they aren't official; they don't have the same impact as Crawford's. 5e says "Crawford's tweets are official."

But even taking them out, weapon training is, by definition, more strenuous than reading, drinking, eating or tending to wounds. So if, while Attuning you're allowed to weapon train, it's a contradiction.

Essentially, you're saying "well, the rules say I can counter other characters spells in one specific section, with specific rules and a very limited scope (that is, you have to be able to cast the Counterspell spell) of how that countering can work; but I'm going to take that as the general rule and everyone can counter spells whenever they want." That the reason they have specific beat general: if a rule seems to contradict another when used in a specific way, it is an exception to the rule.

The rules of a SR are listed in the write up under Short Rest.

The rules for how to Attune a magic item are under Attunement. It contains an exception to the SR rules for when you are attuning a magic item.

LeonBH

2018-02-26, 09:53 AM

1) No. How strenuous is it to read? The singular act of reading? That's what is stated. You can't add to that. You can't say "well I see people reading while running at the gym, so reading is amazingly vigorous." That's not reading, it's running and reading. The act of reading is not a vigorous endevour. Adding other acts while reading doesn't change that reading is an extremely low act of strenuousness.

Not RAW. It says "reading" and thus all forms of reading is encompassed. Not "lazy reading".

There is no one correct way to read. You don't even have to read with your eyes, to read. Braille. Morse code. Telepathy.

There is no one correct manner of reading. Slowly. Carefully. Meticulously. Vigorously. Passionately (as in a script).

Reading plus running is not ONLY reading. Reading with intensity IS only reading.

2) the meanings of words absolutely hold sway over RAW. You can't say "well I'm going to decide to change the definition of words so the RAW suits what I want it to."

Not RAW. You are so zoned in to interpreting RAW your way that you cannot accommodate the fact you are being exclusive and selective and narrow in your reading.

Your dictionary definition supports me, as in (1), not just you.

3) Crawford's tweets are official. They impact RAW. I know you don't like it. You think it's RAI. It's not. Mearls' tweets can be argued as RAI, but they aren't official; they don't have the same impact as Crawford's. 5e says "Crawford's tweets are official."

Not RAW. Impacts 5e, yes, but it is not RAW.

But even taking them out, weapon training is, by definition, more strenuous than reading, drinking, eating or tending to wounds. So if, while Attuning you're allowed to weapon train, it's a contradiction.

What dictionary are you using that "weapon training" is defined as "more strenuous than reading"?

Essentially, you're saying "well, the rules say I can counter other characters spells in one specific section, with specific rules and a very limited scope (that is, you have to be able to cast the Counterspell spell) of how that countering can work; but I'm going to take that as the general rule and everyone can counter spells whenever they want." That the reason they have specific beat general: if a rule seems to contradict another when used in a specific way, it is an exception to the rule.

The rules of a SR are listed in the write up under Short Rest.

The rules for how to Attune a magic item are under Attunement. It contains an exception to the SR rules for when you are attuning a magic item.

Nope, all of this is your selective, narrow, and personal interpretation. I am insisting that you stick to RAW but you refuse to.

RAW allows weapon training to be less strenuous than reading. No dictionary can undo that.

You CAN read it as an exception. You can also read it as NOT an exception, and come to the same outcome. The fact you choose the first interpretation is your personal interpretation.

Thus far, you have only insisted that your absurd reading of RAW is the right absurd one through applying your own interpretations. You keep leaving the realm of RAW to justify your argument.

RSP

2018-02-26, 10:40 AM

Not RAW. It says "reading" and thus all forms of reading is encompassed. Not "lazy reading".

There is no one correct way to read. You don't even have to read with your eyes, to read. Braille. Morse code. Telepathy.

There is no one correct manner of reading. Slowly. Carefully. Meticulously. Vigorously. Passionately (as in a script).

Reading plus running is not ONLY reading. Reading with intensity IS only reading.

Not RAW. You are so zoned in to interpreting RAW your way that you cannot accommodate the fact you are being exclusive and selective and narrow in your reading.

Your dictionary definition supports me, as in (1), not just you.

Not RAW. Impacts 5e, yes, but it is not RAW.

What dictionary are you using that "weapon training" is defined as "more strenuous than reading"?

Nope, all of this is your selective, narrow, and personal interpretation. I am insisting that you stick to RAW but you refuse to.

RAW allows weapon training to be less strenuous than reading. No dictionary can undo that.

You CAN read it as an exception. You can also read it as NOT an exception, and come to the same outcome. The fact you choose the first interpretation is your personal interpretation.

Thus far, you have only insisted that your absurd reading of RAW is the right absurd one through applying your own interpretations. You keep leaving the realm of RAW to justify your argument.

Whether I skim your post, or consider the possible meanings of every word written it is still reading and is still a very low threshold of vigor and energy. Your example of eating spicy foods: eating is eating; running around looking for water in a panic going "hot, hot, hot" is not eating. Running while reading doesn't let you say "well running is the bar for a SR."

RAW allows weapon training during a SR when attuning. Do you really pursue the list of spells and say "well Wish says any 8th level or lower spell effect can be produced, so my 1st level fighter can do that because it's listed in the RAW?" No. You can't pick apart rules like that, discard necessary elements and just state they're globally applied.

I can't even imagine how you run the game if that's how you view rules.

I've posted, and cited sources, that reading is a very low amount of energy expenditure, so much so that walking require a greater amount of energy expedature. Plus, it's common sense.

If in your games, you allow players to say "I interpret fighting as less strenuous than reading, therefore, combat doesn't break a SR, and can therefore, take the benefits of a SR every hour," and that works for you, cool. But I doubt a large amount of tables allow that. Warlocks must be very well received in such campaigns.

The RAW uses basic English when determining what words mean. If you've decided that doesn't apply to the RAW, how do you interpret any of the rules??

Tanarii

2018-02-26, 10:57 AM

This is all craziness. Thinking for a couple seconds about how people and the world works, and understanding the level of abstraction with which the game treats these things, should make this an easy decisions. trying to read into the rules in this legalistic way is just not what the designers intended - they certainly didn't think about it this hard, and neither should we. Use common sense, it's easy.
That's pretty much my attitude. Both Mearls and JC have made it clear at multiple points that, in theory at least, they intend the game to be open to using good judgement on the rules abstraction fitting the in-world situation and vice versa, as opposed to legalistic parsing.

Although sometimes JC backslides pretty bad in SA and various tweets and videos. e.g. his Stealth video, in which he explicitly supports pop-up hiding, which is something that was originally purely an artifact of legalistic parsing of earlier edition rules.

strangebloke

2018-02-26, 12:31 PM

LeonBH

2018-02-26, 07:29 PM

Whether I skim your post, or consider the possible meanings of every word written it is still reading and is still a very low threshold of vigor and energy. Your example of eating spicy foods: eating is eating; running around looking for water in a panic going "hot, hot, hot" is not eating. Running while reading doesn't let you say "well running is the bar for a SR."

I literally did not say "running and eating". What are you knocking down here, a straw man?

RAW allows weapon training during a SR when attuning. Do you really pursue the list of spells and say "well Wish says any 8th level or lower spell effect can be produced, so my 1st level fighter can do that because it's listed in the RAW?" No. You can't pick apart rules like that, discard necessary elements and just state they're globally applied.

A Fighter does not have 9th level spells in the first place. There is no comparison here.

I can't even imagine how you run the game if that's how you view rules.

I don't break their SR by walking, for one.

I've posted, and cited sources, that reading is a very low amount of energy expenditure, so much so that walking require a greater amount of energy expedature. Plus, it's common sense.

RAW cares not about common sense. That is why SR breaks upon walking. You keep trying to defend an absurd position and then cite common sense as a defense?

If in your games, you allow players to say "I interpret fighting as less strenuous than reading, therefore, combat doesn't break a SR, and can therefore, take the benefits of a SR every hour," and that works for you, cool. But I doubt a large amount of tables allow that. Warlocks must be very well received in such campaigns.

Perhaps. But it would not be a houserule in such a table.

The RAW uses basic English when determining what words mean. If you've decided that doesn't apply to the RAW, how do you interpret any of the rules??

I interpret it the same way you do.

Foxydono

2018-02-26, 07:38 PM

Agreed. This is why SRs should be convertible to LR. You're just resting either way.
I have stated this already in one of my earlier posts, but since the thread became so long and tedious, I will try to explain my point of view once again. I am not sure if it will be of any help, because it seems most people here are very head strong on this subject.

Before I make my argument, let me first say that I do not care whether this is raw or not and I don't think that is very important so long as everyone at your table is having fun and can agree on the matter. If it even becomes a point of discussion in the first place.

Without delving too deeply into legal wording and sage advice, there are two main points of view. An interrupted long rest can count as a short rest or it cannot. If you look at it from a real life perspective, a LR should also count as a SR if interrupted. This is logical, because as qouted: 'You are resting either way'. Legal arguments aside on whether they are mutually exclusive or not set aside, this seems a logical position to take.

From a game mechanic point this does pose some potential problems. Lets say the party is in a dungeon and the party decides to rest. If you don't have to decide what kind of rest you want to take, you'll just say that you are resting. Setting aside the argument what subsitutes for a short rest, because my point focuses on whether an interrupted LR should count as a SR. So in this example the party is just going to take a nap. As a DM, I will ask them for how long they intent to sleep and if they want to set up a guard rotation.

Maybe they want to sleep only five minutes or maybe an hour or eighteen hours. In RL I have to think about how long I want to sleep as well. And if you don't ask them and say that they het interrupted after two hours they might say they just wanted to sleep for an hour. To avoid miscommunication like this I always ask them how long they intent to sleep.

To keep it simple, lets say they either say an hour or eight hours. If it is one hour and before they wake up a battle occurs, than the SR is interrupted, so lets focus on the problem, which is the interrupted LR.

To summarize, the party is in a dungeon and is going to rest. You ask for how long they intent to rest and they say eight hours or so. After three hours they wake up because they are attacked! So what do you do? Give them a short rest or two so they can restore all or most of their HP, warlock spells and short rest abilities?

Although this would be the logical option, I don't like it. The reason for it is there is almost no drawback to say 'you're resting' and than decide the sort of rest you took depending on the outcome. It feels like metagaming to me. In comparison to other editions recovering hit points is really easy and letting players decide their sleep afterwards doesn't sit well with me.

Taking a long rest comes with a lot of benefits and it should also have a drawback. Beside the fact that it takes longer than a SR. And in all honesty, if you get interrupted in the middle of your deep sleep by an ogre, I highly doubt you'll feel much refreshed to be honest. Therefore, I let the intentions of the players be the guideline for the kind of rest they take. If they do choose a LR it has a real downside. Getting interrupted and not having rested at all.

I feel this added danger makes resting more dangerous and more fun, at least for me and my players. Now they actually have to make a real choice how they want to handle their recovery, instead of just saying 'I am going to rest' and then picking the most beneficial option afterwards.

But as I said earlier, everyone should play it as they like, as long as everyone is having fun :)

Tanarii

2018-02-26, 07:52 PM

From a game mechanic point this does pose some potential problems.What problems? That's the part I'm mostly lost on. Unless you allow rests to count as both short and long rest at the same time AND allow combat to not interrupt a long rest and force the amount of time needed for a long rest to start over, so far I haven't seen any.

Although this would be the logical option, I don't like it. The reason for it is there is almost no drawback to say 'you're resting' and than decide the sort of rest you took depending on the outcome. It feels like metagaming to me.This still doesn't make any sense.

Declaring which kind of rules abstraction rest you are making at the start of the rest is literally metagaming*. You are declaring an action based on a rules distinction that doesn't have ANY in-game difference. Like, you don't even have to sleep for the first two hours of a Long Rest, so they're identical up to that point.

Saying "I rest" then determining which abstract game rule applies based on what happened to the characters at the end of the rest, based on what happened during that rest, is the exact opposite of metagaming*.

*assuming here we're using metagaming to mean something like "deciding for OC reasons, not what's happening in-world." In this case, the OC reasons are the rules in the book that aren't perceivable by the characters.

Foxydono

2018-02-26, 08:36 PM

What problems? That's the part I'm mostly lost on. Unless you allow rests to count as both short and long rest at the same time AND allow combat to not interrupt a long rest and force the amount of time needed for a long rest to start over, so far I haven't seen any.
Maybe problems isn't the right way to put it, since the game works fine either way. But allowing a short rest while someone is attempting to long rest makes no sense to me mechanically, because than it would never be a real choice to short rest or long rest even though the game is build around those mechanics. You would always just rest and pick afterwards whatever floats your boat. The whole game is build around certain actions you take as a character and allowing a short rest during an interrupted long rest is circumventing you to make a choice in either of the two. You just reap the benefits as suits you best. I doubt it was intended like this and I do see that as a problem, because it takes away a bit of fun and excitement if you can decide what you wanted with your rest afterwards (for me at least, both as DM and as a player).

Declaring which kind of rules abstraction rest you are making at the start of the rest is literally metagaming*. You are declaring an action based on a rules distinction that doesn't have ANY in-game difference. Like, you don't even have to sleep for the first two hours of a Long Rest, so they're identical up to that point.

Saying "I rest" then determining which abstract game rule applies based on what happened to the characters at the end of the rest, based on what happened during that rest, is the exact opposite of metagaming*.

*assuming here we're using metagaming to mean something like "deciding for OC reasons, not what's happening in-world." In this case, the OC reasons are the rules in the book that aren't perceivable by the characters.
Declaring how long you intent to rest is in no way metagaming. That is just your intent as a character. And in game a character would know what benefits it get from resting. After all, you have been doing that your entire career. It would be rather strange if you idn;t know you could heal after sleeping for an hour. However, if you intent to have a long rest so you can recover all your hit points and spells, but then decide to take the benefits of a short rest because your long rest got interrupted *feels* like metagaming to me. Sure you can say that is how the game works and you slept three hours so you should get that benefit of a short rest even though it was not your intent, but to me that hinges towards metagaming.

Tanarii

2018-02-26, 09:30 PM

Declaring how long you intent to rest is in no way metagaming. That is just your intent as a character.It absolutely is metagaming. Not in the negative oh no stay away from it sense. But in the sense of making a choice about something that the character cannot perceive and cannot make a choice about.

Its only after a rest is completed and the effects are applied, based on what has happened in game, the charcter can tell.

Let me clear though, it is also a metagame choice if the player can choose to forgo a short rest and continue the long rest after combat. If the rules are being interpreted that way, there is no way to avoid a metagame decision.

But if combat always interrupts a long rest, then there is no metagame choice involved. In that case, characters just get a short rest instead of the long rest.

Foxydono

2018-02-26, 10:42 PM

It absolutely is metagaming. Not in the negative oh no stay away from it sense. But in the sense of making a choice about something that the character cannot perceive and cannot make a choice about.

Its only after a rest is completed and the effects are applied, based on what has happened in game, the charcter can tell.

Let me clear though, it is also a metagame choice if the player can choose to forgo a short rest and continue the long rest after combat. If the rules are being interpreted that way, there is no way to avoid a metagame decision.

But if combat always interrupts a long rest, then there is no metagame choice involved. In that case, characters just get a short rest instead of the long rest.
I don't agree with this at all. Metagaming is when you make a decision in game, on knowledge that your character in game doesn't have, but you do irl. For example: Normally you are the first one to open a door, but you accidentally saw the dungeon map and you know the door is trapped and now you refuse to open it. It's a silly example, but you get the point (hopefully).

If you say you want to rest, this is not metagaming. You just intent to rest for a period of time. Be it one hour or eight. This is in no way based on knowledge you have outside the game. Making a choice is not metagaming, unless you base it on something that your character shouldn't know in game. This is exactly the reason why I find making a choice after you get attacked metagamingish. Because you make a choice based on whether you get attacked during your long rest. Your character wouldn't have known it was going to be attacked. So if you intended a long rest and than you change it to a short rest because something happened feels wrong. Although it isn't metagaming strictly speaking. And you argue that the intent does not matter and you just rested long enough to get the benefits of a SR, that's all good if you look at it only from that angle, but to me it feels like:

Player 1 (int 8): I'm trowing a lightning bolt at the will-o'-wisp, oh wait I forgot hes immune right :D, nvm I'm going to throw a fireball instead. The lightning bolt being the long rest, the out game knowledge that the Will-O'-Wisp is immune and finally the fireball represents the change of heart, the short rest. This is not exactly the same, I know. But it captures the core of why I think it feels wrong to change a LR into a SR. Additionally, I don't think a SR and a LR are intended to be used in a such a way and it makes the game a bit less fun to roll play it like this.

Tanarii

2018-02-26, 11:22 PM

Foxydono

2018-02-27, 12:01 AM

Yeah, if a player says their charCter is going to rest, it's not (usually) a metagame choice. I mean, it could be, but resting is something the character knows how to do. It's choosing to short rest or long rest specifically, locking yourself into one or the other, that would be a metagame choice. From the character perspective the choice being made is the intent to rest and the intent to sleep.
I get what you are saying. You mean to say it could be metagaming because you choose to sleep to get certain benefits a SR or a LR gives. I view this differently, because in game my character would know what benefits a SR and a LR (or call it a period of rest) give. It would be rather silly if he did not know what he could or couldn't do after sleeping one or eight hours. So choosing to do one or the other is all 'in-game' knowledge and therefore not metagaming. So even if my characters chooses specifically to long rest to regain spell slots I would not call this metagaming.

As for your last example, you say it as if its a choice of your DM whether you can take the benefits of a SR and it is. But in the examples I've given in my previous post, I'm going under the assumption that the DM has ruled that you can take the benefits of a SR after an interrupted LR and in this case I still find it to give a metagamish option to the player characters to enjoy a short rest instead. Personally, I would be fine too with either ruling as a player, but would definitely prefer choosing beforehand, as it poses more danger to take a long rest that way. Just adds a bit of excitement in my opinion.

Tanarii

2018-02-27, 10:06 AM

Resting is resting. There is no way to get a Long Rest without passing, from the in-character perspective, the requirements for a Short Rest. That's why there is no in-character way for them to know in advance and to decide in advance they will Long Rest but not to Short Rest. The only way that can possible be is if it's a metagame (only) rule the DM has put in place for how the mechanics of Long Resting will work.

Arial Black

2018-02-27, 12:40 PM

No, it's not that simple. The rules of reactions and the rules for certain spells, like Shield break the general rules. Just because Shield works a certain way, doesn't mean everything else in the game follows those exact rules.

And the SR/LR rules also work in this way. You don't decide what benefits you get before you stop exerting yourself; what happens is that you look back and work out how long it's been since you did exert yourself to see what type of rest(s) you qualify for, if any.

You also cannot take a SR to heal after getting hit in the face with a hammer.

That's right. The short rest took place before the hammer to the face, even if the DM announces the hit before you, as a player at the table, tell him that your PC is taking the benefits of the short rest that your character already had in the game world before that hammer hit.

Combat starts when a DM determines surprise (which I'm assuming takes place when a character is sleeping). Getting hit with an attack is during the fourth step of combat: it has stated well before the damage taken.

But 'combat starting' does not prevent me from benefiting from the rest I already had before that combat started!

And 'combat starting' does not mean that I have done anything strenuous yet! 'Other people fighting' does not involve ME doing anything strenuous at all!

The DM can 'start combat' any time he likes, but that is not something that affects my resting state! Only me exerting myself does that!

Arial Black

2018-02-27, 12:53 PM

Im also genuinely curious now: does your table really allow you to start combat, take a hit and just heal it because it's part of either a SR or LR, or where you just stating that not because you believe it, but you wanted to try to create a certain situation?

First, just because 'combat has started' doesn't mean that 'I am engaging in combat'.

Second, when I take a hammer to the face which wakes me up, my short rest benefits, including spending HD to heal, are nothing to do with healing the damage from that hammer blow! The short rest I just had before that hammer fell could only heal damage I had already taken prior to that short rest.

Let's say that I was on 43hp out of 50hp when I went to sleep. Two hours later I'm woken by a hammer to the face for 12 damage. At that point I can announce that prior to that point I had completed a short rest and spent HD to heal up to 50hp. That new 12 hammer damage comes off that 50hp.

The HD I spend cannot heal that hammer damage, because that happened after my rest in the game world.

If you actually allow this, than anyone could take a LR (but not state they are getting the benefits yet), get involved with combat, fight for a few rounds, use spells and then after the combat ends, get full health and all spellslots back for ending the long rest.

Yes. This is because less than 1 hour of combat does not prevent you from taking the benefits of a long rest, and you have already had 8 hours.

This is in addition to getting to use HD after taking damage in combat if you haven't attacked yet.

No!

If you chose to take the benefits of a short rest, then your resting clock resets to zero.

RSP

2018-02-27, 01:46 PM

Let's break this down.

1. 1 hour of activity more strenuous than "walking... or other similar adventuring activity" breaks a long rest.(RAW)

--it's clear from context that the walking being talked about here is the sort of walking used in adventuring activity, since 'other similar' denotes that everything previously mentioned is also 'adventuring activity,' IE: exploration or hiking. This is completely distinct from walking to pick up a bag of chips.

How is walking to get a bag of chips different than walking an equal distance into a room during an "adventure." Further, SRs are ment to take place during the Adventuring day, so yeah, walking during a SR is during an "adventure."

The act of reading doesn't involve many muscles moving throughout your body. Walking does. That's why walking is more strenuous.

2. activity more strenuous than "reading" breaks a short rest.(RAW)

--Activity more strenuous than "Eating, Drinking, reading or tending to wounds." In order for something to be strenuous it has to be more strenuous than any of those things. Reading can be very strenuous, (ever crammed for a test?) as can eating (Eating usually includes preparation of eats. Additionally, eating can include eating barely-edible things. Ever tried to chew your way through a raw coconut?).

Eating does not include preparation. For instance, I ate a big meal on Thanksgiving, however, I did not prepare the meal. Cooking the meal is more strenuous than eating it. Chewing your way through a coconut husk isn't eating, it's chewing your way through a coconut husk. Using my teeth to rip tape isn't eating, it's using my teeth to rip tape.

Cramming for a test isn't just reading: it usually involves forcing your body to stay awake when it would normally be resting through the means of caffeine or other stimulants.

I think you may be confusing strenuous and stressful.

3. you contend that 'walking is more strenuous than reading' on the basis of Caloric consumption whilst walking at 3 miles an hour.

-- 'Tending to wounds' is something I would conventionally consider to be more strenuous than most forms of walking (yes, including hiking), since it typically involves getting hot water, sewing stitches, wrapping/unwrapping bandages, sterilization of wounds, preparation of poultices... all very painful and labor-intensive. Which is more tiring, an hour of walking about town window-shopping, or an hour getting non-anesthetized surgery?

You're using real life healing to reflect in-game healing, when they are extremely different. In game, you're completely healed after a LR. This obviously isn't true in real life. We need things like surgery. That isn't what happens in-game withbout houserules. Here is the RAW of tending to wounds:

"Healer’s Kit. This kit is a leather pouch containing bandages, salves, and splints. The kit has ten uses. As an action, you can expend one use of the kit to stabilize a creature that has 0 hit points, without needing to make a Wisdom (Medicine) check."

"Medicine. A Wisdom (Medicine) check lets you try to stabilize a dying companion or diagnose an illness."

"Rest can restore a creature’s hit points (as explained in chapter 8), and magical methods such as a cure wounds spell or a potion of healing can remove damage in an instant."

"You can use your action to administer rst aid to an unconscious creature and attempt to stabilize it, which requires a successful DC 10 Wisdom (Medicine) check."

Even the Healer feat only works as a 6-second fix:

"When you use a healer’s kit to stabilize a dying creature, that creature also regains 1 hit point.
As an action, you can spend one use of a healer’s kit to tend to a creature and restore 1d6 + 4 hit points to it, plus additional hit points equal to the creature’s maximum number of Hit Dice. The creature can’t regain hit points from this feat again until it finishes a short or long rest."

None of these involve surgery. Surgery in 5e would just cause damage. If you've houserule s surgery into your game, cool. But it isn't RAW. I'd imagine you'd likewise have to houserule how resting works as why would you ever let someone do surgery on you when you can just sleep for 8 hours and good as new?

4. Therefore, a short rest has fundamentally different requirements than a long rest and they are completely different things and cannot happen in the same time.

--Even assuming all your propositions are true... this point doesn't hold. If a SR has requirements 'p' and 'q' and a LR has requirements 'a' and 'b,' I can still take either if I meet requirements 'p,' 'q,' 'a,' and 'b.' If I'm sleeping I am still doing activity less strenuous than reading.

Which I've stated: sleeping would qualify for either, for example. But that doesn't disprove that SRs have different requirements than LRs; they do. We know they cannot happen at the same time as we've been told this by Crawford.

So we're back to if a Player says they're taking a LR, then we can assume they're doing activities that fulfill a LR, which isn't the same group of activities as a SR.

RSP

2018-02-27, 01:51 PM

There is no way to get a Long Rest without passing, from the in-character perspective, the requirements for a Short Rest.

There very much is a way to have a LR without a SR (in character or not): you could have 1 round of fighting within every hour otherwise spent sleeping. Since the fighting is less than an hour, the LR can continue; but the SR cannot.

strangebloke

2018-02-27, 01:57 PM

There very much is a way to have a LR without a SR (in character or not): you could have 1 round of fighting within every hour otherwise spent sleeping. Since the fighting is less than an hour, the LR can continue; but the SR cannot.

Congratulations. You win the point but completely miss the argument.

Kind of characteristic of this whole figgin thread actually.

RSP

2018-02-27, 02:01 PM

First, just because 'combat has started' doesn't mean that 'I am engaging in combat'.

Second, when I take a hammer to the face which wakes me up, my short rest benefits, including spending HD to heal, are nothing to do with healing the damage from that hammer blow! The short rest I just had before that hammer fell could only heal damage I had already taken prior to that short rest.

Let's say that I was on 43hp out of 50hp when I went to sleep. Two hours later I'm woken by a hammer to the face for 12 damage. At that point I can announce that prior to that point I had completed a short rest and spent HD to heal up to 50hp. That new 12 hammer damage comes off that 50hp.

The HD I spend cannot heal that hammer damage, because that happened after my rest in the game world.

Yes. This is because less than 1 hour of combat does not prevent you from taking the benefits of a long rest, and you have already had 8 hours.

No!

If you chose to take the benefits of a short rest, then your resting clock resets to zero.

Combat is combat. Did you roll initiative? You're in combat.

Further, your interpretation allows a character to receive a LR mid fight, if they use an action to do nothing more than read, eat, drink, or stand watch. So essentially, go all out with spells, take damage down to 1 HP remaining then, instead of attacking or casting, just state "I sit down and rest which allows my to resume my LR, which I've previously qualified for, and I am now full health and spell slots again."

That's not how the game works: combat is a game term which involves a series of steps; once you're involved with it, you're in it until the DM says it's over.

RSP

2018-02-27, 02:04 PM

Congratulations. You win the point but completely miss the argument.

Kind of characteristic of this whole figgin thread actually.

The entire argument is that a SR doesn't automatically equal any given hour of a LR. If you concede that point, you concede the argument.

What did you think I was missing?

strangebloke

2018-02-27, 02:33 PM

The entire argument is that a SR doesn't automatically equal any given hour of a LR. If you concede that point, you concede the argument.

What did you think I was missing?

not automatically, but in every reasonable example, it does.

If I'm sleeping for an hour, there's no walking, no fighting, no interrruptions. I fulfill every satisfaction of a short rest. I'm not a part of the camp that it's impossible to take a long rest without taking a short rest.

Your actual problem is that in your head the player needs to declare that he's taking the benefits of a Short or Long rest before rolling initiative. We say that he doesn't have to declare that, just that the short rest applies before initiative if he wants it to apply.

RSP

2018-02-27, 04:42 PM

not automatically, but in every reasonable example, it does.

If I'm sleeping for an hour, there's no walking, no fighting, no interrruptions. I fulfill every satisfaction of a short rest. I'm not a part of the camp that it's impossible to take a long rest without taking a short rest.

Your actual problem is that in your head the player needs to declare that he's taking the benefits of a Short or Long rest before rolling initiative. We say that he doesn't have to declare that, just that the short rest applies before initiative if he wants it to apply.

Keep in mind, the argument is over whether a player who states they are taking a LR can then, after being told of the interruption, go back and change their LR to a SR.

If you agree that taking a LR doesn't necessitate having completed a SR, then I'm curious why you don't agree with this statement.

Here's an example:

DM: "You arrive to the city just before they close the gates for the night. It's about 8pm and it's already dark."

Player: "Okay. We'll Long Rest for the night and then go out in the morning."

DM: "You get to an inn and get rooms. While eating in the common room you notice 3 humanoids with hoods drawn enter, and look around. When they see you they point and head straight for you."

Player: "I want to take a SR."

In this instance, a SR could be still ongoing and not even interrupted. However, we have no idea when the character ceased doing activities that would prevent a SR. We only know that they have so far done what's needed to fulfill a LR, based on the Player's comments on what they were doing.

In essence, we'd have to go back and replay what happens from when the character arrived to the city and what they did between then eating at the inn. And the Player now gets to direct these actions knowing that the future holds three humanoids approaching him while he eats.

You have to play out the mundane aspects that are otherwise encapsulated in a three word sentence. That three word sentence, "I Long Rest," allows the game to focus on Adventuring and RPing, which is the point of the game, rather then go through "okay you're riding your horse through the gate. You ride onto the road. You make a right turn and continue for another minute," etc.

Likewise, I wouldn't let a character say "I get a workout in during the next hour," only to get attacked after that workout and have them say "oh, well then I was actually SRing."

Thrudd

2018-02-27, 07:29 PM

Keep in mind, the argument is over whether a player who states they are taking a LR can then, after being told of the interruption, go back and change their LR to a SR.

If you agree that taking a LR doesn't necessitate having completed a SR, then I'm curious why you don't agree with this statement.

Here's an example:

DM: "You arrive to the city just before they close the gates for the night. It's about 8pm and it's already dark."

Player: "Okay. We'll Long Rest for the night and then go out in the morning."

DM: "You get to an inn and get rooms. While eating in the common room you notice 3 humanoids with hoods drawn enter, and look around. When they see you they point and head straight for you."

Player: "I want to take a SR."

In this instance, a SR could be still ongoing and not even interrupted. However, we have no idea when the character ceased doing activities that would prevent a SR. We only know that they have so far done what's needed to fulfill a LR, based on the Player's comments on what they were doing.

In essence, we'd have to go back and replay what happens from when the character arrived to the city and what they did between then eating at the inn. And the Player now gets to direct these actions knowing that the future holds three humanoids approaching him while he eats.

You have to play out the mundane aspects that are otherwise encapsulated in a three word sentence. That three word sentence, "I Long Rest," allows the game to focus on Adventuring and RPing, which is the point of the game, rather then go through "okay you're riding your horse through the gate. You ride onto the road. You make a right turn and continue for another minute," etc.

Likewise, I wouldn't let a character say "I get a workout in during the next hour," only to get attacked after that workout and have them say "oh, well then I was actually SRing."

This makes no sense. Have they had an hour of restful time as of the moment they get attacked, or not? You, as the DM, know the answer to that. If yes, then they have completed a short rest and you should tell them that before the dinner in the common room. Or you should ask them how long they spend in their rooms before dinner. Either way, there is no excuse for the passage of time to be unknown when this very important mechanic depends on it exclusively. In fact, keeping track of the passage of time is one of your essential responsibilities as DM.

RSP

2018-02-27, 10:49 PM

This makes no sense. Have they had an hour of restful time as of the moment they get attacked, or not? You, as the DM, know the answer to that. If yes, then they have completed a short rest and you should tell them that before the dinner in the common room. Or you should ask them how long they spend in their rooms before dinner. Either way, there is no excuse for the passage of time to be unknown when this very important mechanic depends on it exclusively. In fact, keeping track of the passage of time is one of your essential responsibilities as DM.

I don't think keeping minutes during a long rest is what the game is meant to be. No matter how much time I say goes by (so long as it's an hour+), what the characters do with that time will determine if they qualify for a rest.

Nothing stops a Player from taking a SR then a LR. But a LR is different than a SR. Characters can do a lot more during a LR, the downside being, they don't qualify for a SR.

Thrudd

2018-02-28, 01:27 AM

I don't think keeping minutes during a long rest is what the game is meant to be. No matter how much time I say goes by (so long as it's an hour+), what the characters do with that time will determine if they qualify for a rest.

Nothing stops a Player from taking a SR then a LR. But a LR is different than a SR. Characters can do a lot more during a LR, the downside being, they don't qualify for a SR.

You need to know how many hours pass because that is the primary requisite for the rest. They are defined by how much time has passed. I think you are reading too much into the broad descriptions of what characters might be doing or not doing during that time. The main things are the time and the lack of combat or travel occurring. The rest is basically flavor text- not meant to be taken so prescriptively.

LR is only different from SR because it lasts longer. Both require no combat/spell activity (at all!) and no traveling. It confers all the SR benefits, plus more. Or do you think that SR abilities don't get recharged after a LR, so every time the players need to say that they are taking both a SR and a LR consecutively if they want their rages and ki etc.? I don't think that was the intent.

Arial Black

2018-02-28, 02:02 AM

Combat is combat. Did you roll initiative? You're in combat.

The DM telling me when I am allowed to take my turn in combat doesn't man that I am actually fighting!

Note that nowhere in the description of short rest does it say that 'being in combat' interrupts a short rest. It doesn't say that 'fighting' interrupts SR; it does for LR, but specific beats general, eh? :smallsmile:

Further, your interpretation the RAW allows a character to receive a LR mid fight, if they use an action to do nothing more than read, eat, drink, or stand watch.

It doesn't matter that other people around you are engaged in strenuous activity/fighting, it matters whether or not you are! If by 'middle of a fight' you mean that I personally have killed two orcs in this fight and have been casting/fighting for 5 rounds so far', then no I cannot take the benefits of either type of rest, even if I spend 1 action doing nothing. But if by 'middle of a fight' you mean that people around me are fighting, but I am not fighting or doing anything else stressful, and haven't for 1 hour/8hours, then yes I can take the benefits of any rest for which I qualify before I join in the fight!

So essentially, go all out with spells, take damage down to 1 HP remaining then, instead of attacking or casting, just state "I sit down and rest which allows my to resume my LR, which I've previously qualified for, and I am now full health and spell slots again."

Not while you are fighting/casting/exerting. You have to be resting (not doing anything strenuous) to take the benefits.

That's not how the game works: combat is a game term which involves a series of steps; once you're involved with it, you're in it until the DM says it's over.

Which is irrelevant to the subject of 5e rests, because 'being in initiative order' is not a strenuous act, or even any act at all for a creature in the game! It is a purely meta-game construct to help players/DMs run combat; it's not a real thing in the game world!

My PC is asleep. The sentry shouts, "We're being attacked! To arms!"

The DM has us all roll initiative. I'm seventh to act.

The first six creatures take their turns in order. Then, it's my turn. What am I doing? Did the shout wake me up? Sure. What strenuous actions have I taken in this fight? None!

When was the last time I took any strenuous actions? Over 8 hours ago.

Right, I qualify for either type of rest. I can take the benefits of either type (but only one, not both!), but I don't have to. If I choose not to, then I cannot start fighting/casting/doing strenuous stuff and then take the benefits of a short rest (because I am actually fighting so my short rest clock starts again at zero, and only when I stop exerting myself) OR a long rest (because I have to actually be resting in order to take the benefits). However, before I get involved in this combat myself (by ME actually doing strenuous stuff) then I can take the benefits if I want to, because it represents the rest I have already had, and that rest was not interrupted before it was completed!

The rules basis for this is that a SR is a period of downtime at least 1 hour long, and a LR is a period of downtime at least 8 hours long. This mean that if you qualify for both (because you haven't done anything strenuous for 8 hours and you've slept for 6) and choose to take the SR benefits, then you have just had a short rest which happened to be 8 hours long! And 8 hours qualifies as being 'at least 1 hour'! There is no maximum time a SR or LR can be; each only actually ends when you take its benefits.

This is why the clock resets to zero when you take the benefits of either type of rest, AND why any time spent resting can only count toward one or the other rest, not both.

Your downtime can qualify you for either type of rest, but can only actually be one type. You decide what type of rest it was when you take the benefits.

So if you ask the players if their PCs are taking a SR or a LR, they can tell you what they intend but they cannot tell you what kind of rest it will be because they cannot see the future. All they can do is tell you that they are not doing anything strenuous (and going to sleep), but they are free to react to events in the game world if and when such things come to their notice.

Long story short (heh!), technically, they don't tell you what type of rest they will have, they tell you what type of rest they have just had!