Can an interrupted long rest be treated as a short rest?

[Arial Black]

Are you guys ever going to just give up? I mean, you've been arguing at each other, not with each other, pretty much exclusively for the entirety of the past week.
Rsp29a: pretty much everyone disagrees with you. Get over it.
Arial: pretty much everyone agrees you should stop trying. Get over it.
Let it die.

Wise words.

It may turn out that I roll badly on my next Wisdom check...!

[Arial Black]

First off, I'm glad we all now know that Ariel Black is the only DM doing stuff the "correct" way, and anyone deviating from the Arial Black rules of DMing is wrong.

You asserting that the 'Arial Black' way is the only way would have more credibility if it weren't for the fact that it's actually the 'everyone in this thread except you!' way.

Second, and more to the point of this thread, which I don't think you've understood correctly, based on the above post, is it correct that you believe the activities allowed by a SR are the same as allowed by a LR?

The examples of activities in the description of both types of rest, both the list of things that say "more strenuous than" AND the list in the long rest section which say "an hour of these things interrupts a long rest", are not absolutes, because each DM has to use reasonable judgement whether what the PC is actually doing is too strenuous compared to those example.

Some mistakes that you keep making include: assuming that ANY time a PC walks it is equally strenuous as hiking for an hour, so that you rule that if a PC walks 5 feet then this MUST be 'strenuous' according to the rules!, letting 'effect' come before 'cause' in your game world such that being in combat after resting for 7 hours means that you could not have benefited from the short rest you already had six hours before that combat started!

If 'effect' could come before 'cause' in the game world, then I could declare that the orc has take 8 points of arrow damage for the arrow I am going to shoot later on!

'Cause' cannot come before its 'effect', in any world. But it can, and regularly does, in 5e's meta-game, where shield stops you from being hit after the game mechanics say you were hit, where you can use the flat of your blade to knock someone out after you already hit with the edge and killed them, where zombies that get reduced to zero hp 'get better' again and stay at 1 hp. But these things do not represent the cause coming after the effect in the game world! They represent that the shield spell was cast in time to block the javelin that would have hit you otherwise, that you used the flat of the blade for that 'killing' blow the whole time, that the zombie was actually reduced to 1 hp instead of being killed, etc. time and again, mechanic after mechanic.

And 5e's resting mechanic does a similar thing. Did you qualify for a short/long rest before you got woken up by being hit in the face with a hammer? Do you want to have already taken the benefits? No problem!

And yet, instead of explaining how you justify the lack of Causality in your game world, you try and distract us (okay, maybe just me!) by trying to convince us (me) that 'walking is walking, and all walking is equally strenuous'. You're wrong there too.

[Arial Black]

Damn! Another '1' on a Wisdom check!

[RSP]

You asserting that the 'Arial Black' way is the only way would have more credibility if it weren't for the fact that it's actually the 'everyone in this thread except you!' way.



The examples of activities in the description of both types of rest, both the list of things that say "more strenuous than" AND the list in the long rest section which say "an hour of these things interrupts a long rest", are not absolutes, because each DM has to use reasonable judgement whether what the PC is actually doing is too strenuous compared to those example.

Some mistakes that you keep making include: assuming that ANY time a PC walks it is equally strenuous as hiking for an hour, so that you rule that if a PC walks 5 feet then this MUST be 'strenuous' according to the rules!, letting 'effect' come before 'cause' in your game world such that being in combat after resting for 7 hours means that you could not have benefited from the short rest you already had six hours before that combat started!

If 'effect' could come before 'cause' in the game world, then I could declare that the orc has take 8 points of arrow damage for the arrow I am going to shoot later on!

'Cause' cannot come before its 'effect', in any world. But it can, and regularly does, in 5e's meta-game, where shield stops you from being hit after the game mechanics say you were hit, where you can use the flat of your blade to knock someone out after you already hit with the edge and killed them, where zombies that get reduced to zero hp 'get better' again and stay at 1 hp. But these things do not represent the cause coming after the effect in the game world! They represent that the shield spell was cast in time to block the javelin that would have hit you otherwise, that you used the flat of the blade for that 'killing' blow the whole time, that the zombie was actually reduced to 1 hp instead of being killed, etc. time and again, mechanic after mechanic.

And 5e's resting mechanic does a similar thing. Did you qualify for a short/long rest before you got woken up by being hit in the face with a hammer? Do you want to have already taken the benefits? No problem!

And yet, instead of explaining how you justify the lack of Causality in your game world, you try and distract us (okay, maybe just me!) by trying to convince us (me) that 'walking is walking, and all walking is equally strenuous'. You're wrong there too.

Can you please answer my question? It was a yes or no question and will go a long way towards resolving this.

Either a) you believe the activities allowed by each rest are the same. Or b) you believe the activities allowed by the two are different.

I will reply to your statements after this point is resolved.

[Arial Black]

Can you please answer my question? It was a yes or no question and will go a long way towards resolving this.

Either a) you believe the activities allowed by each rest are the same. Or b) you believe the activities allowed by the two are different.

I will reply to your statements after this point is resolved.

Neither rest works that way! The lists of activities in each or not rules terms. Each item on the list is a 'natural language' example of an activity which may be considered in the light of how exhausting/strenuous it might be.

The way both real bodies work and the way 5e creatures work is that bodies are always recovering spent energy, unless they are currently expending more energy than they are recovering. In 5e, your 'period of downtime' can count toward a rest (of either type) if what you are doing is no more exhausting than 'light activity'.

It gives examples of 'light activity' (reading, talking, eating, standing watch, drinking, tending to wounds), and there are other examples scattered throughout the rulebook where they come up, usually by saying things like "this can be done during a short rest".

They also give examples of some things that count as 'strenuous activity' (walking for an hour, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity).

The purpose of these examples is to aid DMs to judge whether or not the actual activities of the PCs count as 'strenuous activity/adventuring activity', or whether it is no more strenuous/exhausting than 'light activity'.

In this context, is 'tending to wounds' strenuous or light activity. The truth? It depends! Sitting around the fireside, eating jerky, bandaging a few cuts at your leisure, taking it easy, in this situation the 'tending to wounds' part is 'light activity', tops. But combat medics under fire, taking Actions in Combat to heal allies (magically or not) IS strenuous! Because it's not the name of the activity which defines if it is exhausting or not; it's how exhausting that particular bit of wound-tending happens to be which matters, rules-wise.

So, is 'walking' strenuous activity or light activity? It depends! As mentioned in the long rest section, 'at least 1 hour of walking' in the context of 'similar adventuring activity' does count as strenuous, 'hiking across the moors to get to town before the orcs get there' or the like. But, and this is the crucial part, walking to the fridge to get a cold drink is not 'strenuous activity' just because you 'walked' there!

So it is not a yes/no question, because 'walking' is not a set level of strenuous. Some walking is strenuous activity, other walking is no more than light activity.

Where you go wrong in this is that you imagine that the rules are that ANY time you move from one square to another by 'walking' that this is defined as 'strenuous'. But 'walking' is not a defined rule re: how exhausting it is. You also imagine that every type of walk is equally as exhausting as every other type, such that 'walking across the living room to the fridge and back' counts as activity which is too exhausting to allow you to take a short rest! This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the rest rules.

[RSP]

Neither rest works that way!

I'll get to what you've gotten mistaken with the rules, but that wasn't my question to you. My question didn't involve how the RAW plays out.

My question is do you believe the same activities are allowed during a long rest that are allowed during a short rest?

It's a very simple question. I understand why you're unwilling to answer it, but it really will solve this debate.

[Arial Black]

I'll get to what you've gotten mistaken with the rules, but that wasn't my question to you. My question didn't involve how the RAW plays out.

My question is do you believe the same activities are allowed during a long rest that are allowed during a short rest?

It's a very simple question. I understand why you're unwilling to answer it, but it really will solve this debate.

Oh, I thought we were debating the rules! My bad.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Perhaps you can frame it differently.

For example, 'during a long/short rest' is a problem statement, simply because no-one knows at the time whether or not the period of downtime they are currently enjoying will eventually turn out to have been part of a short rest, part of a long rest, or neither.

No-one can say with certainly that they are 'in the middle of a long rest right now'. All they can say is that they have, so far, had 4 hours of downtime where they have done nothing that is more strenuous than 'light activity'.

Another problem with the question is that the question itself assumes something that is not true: it assumes that 'activities', by name, either are or are not always 'light activity' at most or 'strenuous activity' at least. It assumes, for example, that something like 'walking' is always 'strenuous activity' and 'tending to wounds' is never more than 'light activity'.

But this is not the case. The DM must fairly decide if, in context, this bit of walking or this bit of tending wounds is either 'light activity' OR 'strenuous activity'. Sometimes, 'walking' may be 'strenuous activity', such as when hiking over rough ground to make it to the village before the orcs attack. But sometimes, 'walking' may be no more than 'light activity', such as walking to the fridge and back to get snacks. Unless the fridge is a mile away and guarded by a hydra, then this bit of 'walking' is 'light activity' tops, and will not prevent this period of downtime from counting towards either a long rest or a short rest.

[RSP]

Oh, I thought we were debating the rules! My bad.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Perhaps you can frame it differently.

For example, 'during a long/short rest' is a problem statement, simply because no-one knows at the time whether or not the period of downtime they are currently enjoying will eventually turn out to have been part of a short rest, part of a long rest, or neither.

No-one can say with certainly that they are 'in the middle of a long rest right now'. All they can say is that they have, so far, had 4 hours of downtime where they have done nothing that is more strenuous than 'light activity'.

Another problem with the question is that the question itself assumes something that is not true: it assumes that 'activities', by name, either are or are not always 'light activity' at most or 'strenuous activity' at least. It assumes, for example, that something like 'walking' is always 'strenuous activity' and 'tending to wounds' is never more than 'light activity'.

But this is not the case. The DM must fairly decide if, in context, this bit of walking or this bit of tending wounds is either 'light activity' OR 'strenuous activity'. Sometimes, 'walking' may be 'strenuous activity', such as when hiking over rough ground to make it to the village before the orcs attack. But sometimes, 'walking' may be no more than 'light activity', such as walking to the fridge and back to get snacks. Unless the fridge is a mile away and guarded by a hydra, then this bit of 'walking' is 'light activity' tops, and will not prevent this period of downtime from counting towards either a long rest or a short rest.

Nope. None of that matters for the question I asked.

But obviously you don't want to answer.

So let's try this. Can we agree a Short Rest has the following requirements:

- Must be at least 1 hour long,
- Has no limit on potential length
- Nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds can be done

Does that sound like a fair assessment of the RAW requirements? (I'm not interested, at this point, on how the third point is interpreted. We'll get back to that but I want to establish a common ground first)

[Arial Black]

Nope. None of that matters for the question I asked.

But obviously you don't want to answer.

So let's try this. Can we agree a Short Rest has the following requirements:

- Must be at least 1 hour long,
- Has no limit on potential length
- Nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds can be done

Does that sound like a fair assessment of the RAW requirements? (I'm not interested, at this point, on how the third point is interpreted. We'll get back to that but I want to establish a common ground first)

You can take the benefits of a short rest if:-

* you have had at least 1 hour of downtime; it may be longer, and there is no maximum length
* it only 'ends' at the moment you take the benefits of a short rest
* nothing more strenuous than {example list of 'light activities'}
* note that the examples on the list are not equally strenuous, each item varies in how strenuous it is, none is an exact amount of 'strenuous', and they are not 'rules' themselves ('eating' is exactly this strenuous, always) they are merely examples to help the DM judge if what the PCs are doing is 'light activity' (like the examples) or whether it is 'strenuous' activity (an order of magnitude more strenuous than the examples)

So, understood properly, yes it sounds like a fair assessment.

[RSP]

You can take the benefits of a short rest if:-

* you have had at least 1 hour of downtime; it may be longer, and there is no maximum length
* it only 'ends' at the moment you take the benefits of a short rest
* nothing more strenuous than {example list of 'light activities'}
* note that the examples on the list are not equally strenuous, each item varies in how strenuous it is, none is an exact amount of 'strenuous', and they are not 'rules' themselves ('eating' is exactly this strenuous, always) they are merely examples to help the DM judge if what the PCs are doing is 'light activity' (like the examples) or whether it is 'strenuous' activity (an order of magnitude more strenuous than the examples)

So, understood properly, yes it sounds like a fair assessment.

I wouldn't qualify the list of items allowed as "light activities" as that changes the rule. The RAW is that it can't be more strenuous than the listed activities. "Light activities" could have a much broader list of activities allowed than the actual RAW.

Would a "light workout" be a "light activity?" Open to interpretation; but it most definitely is more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading or tending to wounds.

I also disagree with the "it only 'ends' at the moment you take the benefits of a short rest," as many activities would break a short rest; those activities being "more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds."

If you go by the rule of it only ends when you take the benefits, then you could take the benefits after or during combat. We know this isn't true per the Crawford tweet.

Likewise, it would end on taking a LR, as that would also violate a Crawford tweet on not getting the benefits of a SR during a LR, though I understand you object to this point.

Edit: also, I noticed you changed what I was outlining: what a SR is. Per the PHB, the SR description starts off "a short rest is..." Your post states "you can take the benefits of a short rest..." I just want to clarify, my posts are operating off my original statements of defining what a SR is.

[RSP]

I think part of the issue is you're taking the specific rule given of "nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds," and interpreting that as "this are all what [Arial Black] consider to be 'light activities,' therefore, all light activities are allowed by RAW. But that's not what the RAW states.

Just like if a rule in a restaurant states "dogs allowed," that doesn't equate to "well dogs are categorized as canines, so all canines are allowed; I'll bring my "pet" fox!" However, a fox is not a dog and would violate the specific rule given.

[Arial Black]

I wouldn't qualify the list of items allowed as "light activities" as that changes the rule. The RAW is that it can't be more strenuous than the listed activities. "Light activities" could have a much broader list of activities allowed than the actual RAW.

Of course! It's not only those four listed activities that are allowed, it's ANY activity, so long as that activity is not more strenuous than this ballpark list of comparable activities.

Would a "light workout" be a "light activity?" Open to interpretation; but it most definitely is more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading or tending to wounds.

I would rule that way for a workout that is impact-based and gets you out of breath, but I would rule workouts like Tai Chi or Yoga to be no more than 'light activity'.

See! It depends!

I also disagree with the "it only 'ends' at the moment you take the benefits of a short rest," as many activities would break a short rest; those activities being "more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds."

Then you'd be wrong.

What the rules result in is that you can only take the benefits of a short rest if the immediately preceding hour (or more) has been without you exerting yourself strenuously.

So, if you chill for 45 minutes and then do something strenuous, it is not that "this short rest has been interrupted", it's that you cannot take the benefits of a short rest until (at least) an hour has passed since your last strenuous activity. That 45 minutes of chill turned out not to be a short rest at all!

No-one knows what kind of rest you are in until you take the benefits of a rest.

If you go by the rule of it only ends when you take the benefits, then you could take the benefits after or during combat. We know this isn't true per the Crawford tweet.

No, because the entire preceding hour must be free from strenuous activity, so not possible while you're in combat, and after combat you would have to wait at least 1 hour and hope you don't need to do anything strenuous in the meantime.

Likewise, it would end on taking a LR, as that would also violate a Crawford tweet on not getting the benefits of a SR during a LR, though I understand you object to this point.

If you take the benefits of either type of rest, then you have to start counting the hours of downtime again. Thus, taking the benefits of any rest resets the rest clock to zero. This is why no particular hour counts toward both a long AND short rest. I'm not sure what you think I object to, here.

Edit: also, I noticed you changed what I was outlining: what a SR is. Per the PHB, the SR description starts off "a short rest is..." Your post states "you can take the benefits of a short rest..." I just want to clarify, my posts are operating off my original statements of defining what a SR is.

My re-statement doesn't change the meaning of the words, it just highlights crucial parts.

[Arial Black]

I think part of the issue is you're taking the specific rule given of "nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds," and interpreting that as "this are all what [Arial Black] consider to be 'light activities,' therefore, all light activities are allowed by RAW. But that's not what the RAW states.

Errmm...I'm not sure what you think that I think, so I'll just say what I do think:-

The list in question (eating, drinking, reading, tending to wounds) are not the only activities allowed during a short rest, they are just examples of the kind of things that are considered 'non-strenuous' (or, as the long rest rule words it: 'light activity'), and there are many, many more such possible activities. The DM's job is to judge what the PCs are actually doing against the scale of ballpark 'light activities' mentioned in the list to help with that judgement.

Even then, there may be times when you could be doing one of the things on that list in a way that is 'strenuous activity' and would not count toward a short rest. For example, if you were in a eating competition where the winner is the one who eats the most jalapeno peppers in 5 minutes, if you won then there's no way I'd count that as non-strenuous just because it is 'eating' and 'eating' is on the non-strenuous list!

It's all about the judgement call, and not about the four named activities on that list.

Just like if a rule in a restaurant states "dogs allowed," that doesn't equate to "well dogs are categorized as canines, so all canines are allowed; I'll bring my "pet" fox!" However, a fox is not a dog and would violate the specific rule given.

A better analogy would be if the sign read, "No animals more fierce than a Labrador". So, when a diner brings a poodle or a house cat or an alligator, the Maitre D' must judge whether or not this animal is about as fierce as a Labrador (or less) and let it in, or whether it is noticeably more fierce in which case it is refused.

So, if an activity is about as strenuous as (the list) or less, then it's okay. If it is noticeable more strenuous, then it is not. Simples!

[RSP]

I would rule that way for a workout that is impact-based and gets you out of breath, but I would rule workouts like Tai Chi or Yoga to be no more than 'light activity'.

This is exactly my point: you can say Tai Chi is light activity, but that's not the same thing as saying it's not more strenuous than reading, eating, drinking or tending to wounds. As previously posted, Tai Chi is about as strenuous as walking, per caloric burn, which is a real life measurement of energy use.

A DM is well within their rights to claim Tai Chi is as strenuous as reading, but that's not the same as saying it's RAW (which would use the common English definition of reading and walking, both which have real world caloric burn to measure strenuousness, that is, energy use).

Can you at least see why I don't like using the term "light activity" to describe SRs?

[the_brazenburn]

A better analogy would be if the sign read, "No animals more fierce than a Labrador". So, when a diner brings a poodle or a house cat or an alligator, the Maitre D' must judge whether or not this animal is about as fierce as a Labrador (or less) and let it in, or whether it is noticeably more fierce in which case it is refused.

So, if an activity is about as strenuous as (the list) or less, then it's okay. If it is noticeable more strenuous, then it is not. Simples!

Feral dogs can actually be very dangerous. Obviously, larger ones would be more dangerous, so a Labrador is among the most dangerous types of dogs.

Thus, a fox is less dangerous than a Labrador.

Comparing this to the analogy, an hour of reading is more dangerous than an hour of walking, due to the possibility of paper cuts .

[Arial Black]

This is exactly my point: you can say Tai Chi is light activity, but that's not the same thing as saying it's not more strenuous than reading, eating, drinking or tending to wounds. As previously posted, Tai Chi is about as strenuous as walking, per caloric burn, which is a real life measurement of energy use.

A DM is well within their rights to claim Tai Chi is as strenuous as reading, but that's not the same as saying it's RAW (which would use the common English definition of reading and walking, both which have real world caloric burn to measure strenuousness, that is, energy use).

Can you at least see why I don't like using the term "light activity" to describe SRs?

Yes. It's because as soon as you admit that this is how the game is written to be played then your case falls like a house of cards.

'Light activity' is a phrase I got from the 5e rules for resting.

Also, saying that Tai Chi is more strenuous than "reading, eating, drinking, and tending to wounds" gives the false impression that these four activities are ALL exactly as strenuous as each other, AND that each activity is always the exact same level of strenuous, AND that any activity other than the four named cannot be exactly equal in strenuousness as these four activities, they have to be 'less strenuous' or 'more strenuous', AND if 'more strenuous' even by one calorie per century then it counts as 'strenuous' and ruins a short rest, AND that the 5e rest rules are tied to fixed calorie burn values per activity, or even 'calorie burn' at all!

ALL of those assumptions are wrong!

* each of those 4 activities burn calories at different rates
* each of the 4 burn different amounts of calories each time, sometimes hugely so (power walking for an hour versus popping to the fridge to get a beer)
* other activities' calorie burn may fall between the values of those 4
* burning 1 calorie more than, say, 'reading' does not mean that your activity moves from 'light activity' up to 'strenuous activity'. These are broad brush stroke, ballpark estimates
* lastly, 5e 'light/strenuous activity' is not tied to 'calorie burn' with a fixed value per activity!

[RSP]

Yes. It's because as soon as you admit that this is how the game is written to be played then your case falls like a house of cards.

'Light activity' is a phrase I got from the 5e rules for resting.

Also, saying that Tai Chi is more strenuous than "reading, eating, drinking, and tending to wounds" gives the false impression that these four activities are ALL exactly as strenuous as each other, AND that each activity is always the exact same level of strenuous, AND that any activity other than the four named cannot be exactly equal in strenuousness as these four activities, they have to be 'less strenuous' or 'more strenuous', AND if 'more strenuous' even by one calorie per century then it counts as 'strenuous' and ruins a short rest, AND that the 5e rest rules are tied to fixed calorie burn values per activity, or even 'calorie burn' at all!

ALL of those assumptions are wrong!

* each of those 4 activities burn calories at different rates
* each of the 4 burn different amounts of calories each time, sometimes hugely so (power walking for an hour versus popping to the fridge to get a beer)
* other activities' calorie burn may fall between the values of those 4
* burning 1 calorie more than, say, 'reading' does not mean that your activity moves from 'light activity' up to 'strenuous activity'. These are broad brush stroke, ballpark estimates
* lastly, 5e 'light/strenuous activity' is not tied to 'calorie burn' with a fixed value per activity!

I wouldn't use the rules for LRs (light activity) for SRs, but since that's how you see it, let's explore, then, what makes a LR:

"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. 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."

So:

- at least 8 hours long
- at least 6 hours of sleep
- performs no more than 2 hours of light activity
- light activity is undefined other than it including eating, drinking, reading and standing watch.
- can be interrupted by strenuous activity and then continue so long as the interruption is less than an hour **
- strenuous activity is described as walking, fighting, casting spells or similar adventuring activity.

How's that sound?

** we don't know if the rules of a LR can withstand any amount of strenuous activity, so long as each interruption is less than an hour, or if the total time of interruption has to be less than an hour.

[Arial Black]

I wouldn't use the rules for LRs (light activity) for SRs, but since that's how you see it, let's explore, then, what makes a LR:

"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. 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."

So:

- at least 8 hours long
- at least 6 hours of sleep
- performs no more than 2 hours of light activity
- light activity is undefined other than it including eating, drinking, reading and standing watch.
- can be interrupted by strenuous activity and then continue so long as the interruption is less than an hour **
- strenuous activity is described as walking, fighting, casting spells or similar adventuring activity.

How's that sound?

** we don't know if the rules of a LR can withstand any amount of strenuous activity, so long as each interruption is less than an hour, or if the total time of interruption has to be less than an hour.

Light activity is not really 'undefined'; it is 'defined' as 'any activity that is not as strenuous as strenuous activity'.

That may sound imprecise to you, and you'd be right. This is because both 'light activity' AND 'strenuous activity' are fully intended to be broad stroke, ballpark estimates, rather than 'calorie burn per minute'.

From the wording, a LR can survive any amount of strenuous activity so long as each interruption is less than an hour; of course the time spent on that strenuous activity does not count toward your minimum 8 hours, it just means you don't have to reset the rest clock to zero. This is because a LR can be interrupted by A period of strenuous activity, rather than several periods of strenuous activity which may add up to an hour.

[RSP]

Light activity is not really 'undefined'; it is 'defined' as 'any activity that is not as strenuous as strenuous activity'.

That may sound imprecise to you, and you'd be right. This is because both 'light activity' AND 'strenuous activity' are fully intended to be broad stroke, ballpark estimates, rather than 'calorie burn per minute'.

So then for LR, we'll go with the following:

- Light Activity is an activity of roughly the same strenuousness as eating, drinking, reading and standing watch.

- Strenuous Activity is an activity of roughly the same strenuousness as walking, fighting, spellcasting or Adventuring activity.

- an activity is either Light Activity or Strenuous Activity.

From the wording, a LR can survive any amount of strenuous activity so long as each interruption is less than an hour; of course the time spent on that strenuous activity does not count toward your minimum 8 hours, it just means you don't have to reset the rest clock to zero. This is because a LR can be interrupted by A period of strenuous activity, rather than several periods of strenuous activity which may add up to an hour.

The line of the rule isn't "a long rest can be interrupted by a period of strenuous activity," it's "If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity..." but this is a moot point so far as I'm concerned, as it's undefined. So for the purposes of our discussion, I have no issue with this interpretation.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Since this is still going (and at the risk of repeating something from the last few pages that I didn't follow closely)...

While I'm mostly on the side of thinking downtime is downtime and the resulting type of rest is ultimately negotiated between the players, I'm not sure about the claim from some pages back that "cashing in" a certain amount of downtime for a certain type of rest is the RAW.

When I look at the resting rules in the PHB, there are three sections. The last two enumerate the constraints and effects of the two types of rest, which are... comparatively straightforward. Most of the first section just introduces the idea of resting.

Then there's the short second paragraph of the first section: "Adventurers can take short rests in the midst of an adventuring day and a long rest to end the day." If there's any rule telling us how and when resting must be formally initiated, it can only be that one sentence.

Now, I don't really think it does that, since I don't ascribe much formal weight to it. It looks more to me like it loosely describes the basic idea of a structured adventuring day. It doesn't actually lock in the two types of rest to some timer of the game world, whether a meta-clock ticking out adventuring days or a literal day/night cycle. If it had meant either of those things it could and should have made sure to express that. Plus, it just wouldn't be a great rule.

However, if I had to ascribe formal weight to that sentence, I would be forced to arrive at an interpretation similar to Rsp's: that adventurers/players do initiate one type or the other, potential fluff oddities be damned.

As I said I don't really think that's how it should work, but rather that players and DM negotiate the outcome based on the eventual circumstances matched to the two sets of constraints, which could certainly be described as effectively "cashing in" downtime. (Variant or house rules in effect may also affect the character of negotiations.) But I don't see that this is the clear RAW so much as a reasonable extrapolation. There just isn't a lot written there.

[Arial Black]

So then for LR, we'll go with the following:

Actually, for both short AND long rests!

- Light Activity is an activity of roughly the same strenuousness as eating, drinking, reading and standing watch.

- Strenuous Activity is an activity of roughly the same strenuousness as walking, fighting, spellcasting or Adventuring activity.

Well, yes and no. (Sorry.)

Yes, in the sense that these activities are usually in those camps re: light/strenuous.

No, in that items in one camp may actually be in the other camp, depending on how strenuous what the PCs are doing actually is, as opposed to how strenuous such an activity usually is.

For example, the activity of 'walking'. There is not one single activity called 'walking' which is ALWAYS strenuous. The kind of 'walking' mentioned in the LR description is not any old 'walking' as in 'using your legs to move from one square to the next square' (which would be 'light activity' if you're just nipping to the bathroom and back); no, the type of 'walking' in the LR description is 'at least an hour of walking, in the context of adventuring activity', like hiking over the moors to get to the village before the orc horde. That would be 'strenuous walking', while getting a beer from the fridge would be 'light walking', tops.

It works the other way too. 'Eating' is usually nice and relaxing, allowing your body/mind to rest. However, it could count as 'strenuous' if what you are actually doing, eating-wise' were, y'know, strenuous. Like trying to win an 'eat as many jalapeno peppers as you can in 5 minutes' competition.

- an activity is either Light Activity or Strenuous Activity.

(Sorry about this, but) Yes and no.

Yes, in that 'the thing you are actually doing' is EITHER 'light activity' (or less) OR 'strenuous activity.

No, in the sense that the items on the list are not ALWAYS on that (light/strenuous) list.

What counts is not the name of the activity, because the items are not The Rule, they are just examples. The Rule is, 'What are the PCs doing? Is it strenuous or not?'

[RSP]

Actually, for both short AND long rests!



Well, yes and no. (Sorry.)

Yes, in the sense that these activities are usually in those camps re: light/strenuous.

No, in that items in one camp may actually be in the other camp, depending on how strenuous what the PCs are doing actually is, as opposed to how strenuous such an activity usually is.

For example, the activity of 'walking'. There is not one single activity called 'walking' which is ALWAYS strenuous. The kind of 'walking' mentioned in the LR description is not any old 'walking' as in 'using your legs to move from one square to the next square' (which would be 'light activity' if you're just nipping to the bathroom and back); no, the type of 'walking' in the LR description is 'at least an hour of walking, in the context of adventuring activity', like hiking over the moors to get to the village before the orc horde. That would be 'strenuous walking', while getting a beer from the fridge would be 'light walking', tops.

It works the other way too. 'Eating' is usually nice and relaxing, allowing your body/mind to rest. However, it could count as 'strenuous' if what you are actually doing, eating-wise' were, y'know, strenuous. Like trying to win an 'eat as many jalapeno peppers as you can in 5 minutes' competition.



(Sorry about this, but) Yes and no.

Yes, in that 'the thing you are actually doing' is EITHER 'light activity' (or less) OR 'strenuous activity.

No, in the sense that the items on the list are not ALWAYS on that (light/strenuous) list.

What counts is not the name of the activity, because the items are not The Rule, they are just examples. The Rule is, 'What are the PCs doing? Is it strenuous or not?'

I think ive found a big part of the issue. You seem to be adjusting the rules to how you want to see them and then calling them the rules.

The Long Rest rules clearly state walking as a strenuous activity. I see no way around that designation.

DMs, obviously, can decide they don't want to play that way; and that's fully within the intent of the over arching "Rule 0". However, what I've been discussing isn't "how RSP29a plays 5e," nor "how Ariel Black plays 5e" but rather answering the question of the OP by using the official rules.

Those rules, which you acknowledge, state walking is a strenuous activity. At no point in those rules do they in anyway state walking is not a strenuous activity, or that it is sometimes a strenuous activity. It is clearly identitified in the list of activities deemed strenuous.

[Arial Black]

I think ive found a big part of the issue. You seem to be adjusting the rules to how you want to see them and then calling them the rules.

It's been clear for some time that the reason you don't get this rule is that you mistake the examples for the rule itself.

The Long Rest rules clearly state walking as a strenuous activity. I see no way around that designation.

...And this illustrates your misunderstanding perfectly. The rule is not 'walking is strenuous', and the LR rules don't even use 'walking', per se, as an example at all! The strenuous 'walking' in the LR example is not any old 'moving 5 feet from square to square using your legs', it is that 'walking for an hour as an adventuring activity' is strenuous.

This simply does not imply that any time you walk then that act of walking is strenuous! The rule never says that 'walking' is 'strenuous activity', it says that 'walking for an hour as an adventuring activity' is 'strenuous activity'.

This matches perfectly with the real life situation, where what you are actually doing may or may not be strenuous even if the activity can be described with the same word. 'Hiking for an hour' and 'nipping to the fridge' can both be described as 'walking', but one is strenuous and the other is not.

DMs, obviously, can decide they don't want to play that way; and that's fully within the intent of the over arching "Rule 0". However, what I've been discussing isn't "how RSP29a plays 5e," nor "how Ariel Black plays 5e" but rather answering the question of the OP by using the official rules.

Those rules, which you acknowledge, state walking is a strenuous activity. At no point in those rules do they in anyway state walking is not a strenuous activity, or that it is sometimes a strenuous activity. It is clearly identitified in the list of activities deemed strenuous.

The examples are not the rule! The rule is simply the answer to the question, 'is what you are doing now physically or mentally exhausting? If it is then it is "strenuous activity" and if not then it is "light activity"' The name of what you are doing (like 'walking') is not what matters, what matters is whether it is strenuous or not.

[RSP]

It's been clear for some time that the reason you don't get this rule is that you mistake the examples for the rule itself.



...And this illustrates your misunderstanding perfectly. The rule is not 'walking is strenuous', and the LR rules don't even use 'walking', per se, as an example at all! The strenuous 'walking' in the LR example is not any old 'moving 5 feet from square to square using your legs', it is that 'walking for an hour as an adventuring activity' is strenuous.

This simply does not imply that any time you walk then that act of walking is strenuous! The rule never says that 'walking' is 'strenuous activity', it says that 'walking for an hour as an adventuring activity' is 'strenuous activity'.

This matches perfectly with the real life situation, where what you are actually doing may or may not be strenuous even if the activity can be described with the same word. 'Hiking for an hour' and 'nipping to the fridge' can both be described as 'walking', but one is strenuous and the other is not.



The examples are not the rule! The rule is simply the answer to the question, 'is what you are doing now physically or mentally exhausting? If it is then it is "strenuous activity" and if not then it is "light activity"' The name of what you are doing (like 'walking') is not what matters, what matters is whether it is strenuous or not.

No. Walking is, in fact, strenuous activity. Let's breakdown the rule:

"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."

So, we have 2 things here:

1) "a period of strenuous activity"
So the information within the dashes of the main sentence indicate we're getting more information or better clarity on what the sentence is otherwise saying, that is, they're defining the otherwise undefined "period of strenuous activity." The meaning of the sentence doesn't change if we remove the dashes and the parenthetical statement; but it does give us the definition needed to determine the two undefined terms, that is, what is the time frame of the "period" and what is "strenuous activity?"

The period is defined as "at least one hour," while the strenuous activity is listed as "walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity."

I understand you want to read this as "walking for 1 hour" is the period of strenuous activity, but that just doesn't work as then the period is undefined for the rest of the examples: what's the period of fighting that resets a LR? We'd not know.

The only way to properly read the sentence is "a period [at least one hour] of strenuous activity [walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity]."

2) if the reading still isn't clear to you, Crawford has told us that the above reading from 1) is correct:

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

So we know both the RAI and the Official Rule is for LRs that [1 hour of walking] equals [1 hour of fighting].

So we know the rule is "a period [at least 1 hour] of strenuous activity [walking or fighting].

It's not difficult to see that this is how the rule works.

[tieren]

No. Walking is, in fact, strenuous activity. Let's breakdown the rule:

"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."

So, we have 2 things here:

1) "a period of strenuous activity"
So the information within the dashes of the main sentence indicate we're getting more information or better clarity on what the sentence is otherwise saying, that is, they're defining the otherwise undefined "period of strenuous activity." The meaning of the sentence doesn't change if we remove the dashes and the parenthetical statement; but it does give us the definition needed to determine the two undefined terms, that is, what is the time frame of the "period" and what is "strenuous activity?"

The period is defined as "at least one hour," while the strenuous activity is listed as "walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity."

I understand you want to read this as "walking for 1 hour" is the period of strenuous activity, but that just doesn't work as then the period is undefined for the rest of the examples: what's the period of fighting that resets a LR? We'd not know.

The only way to properly read the sentence is "a period [at least one hour] of strenuous activity [walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity]."

2) if the reading still isn't clear to you, Crawford has told us that the above reading from 1) is correct:

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

So we know both the RAI and the Official Rule is for LRs that [1 hour of walking] equals [1 hour of fighting].

So we know the rule is "a period [at least 1 hour] of strenuous activity [walking or fighting].

It's not difficult to see that this is how the rule works.

I concur with this analysis

[Arial Black]

No. Walking is, in fact, strenuous activity. Let's breakdown the rule:

"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."

So, we have 2 things here:

1) "a period of strenuous activity"
So the information within the dashes of the main sentence indicate we're getting more information or better clarity on what the sentence is otherwise saying, that is, they're defining the otherwise undefined "period of strenuous activity." The meaning of the sentence doesn't change if we remove the dashes and the parenthetical statement; but it does give us the definition needed to determine the two undefined terms, that is, what is the time frame of the "period" and what is "strenuous activity?"

The period is defined as "at least one hour," while the strenuous activity is listed as "walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity."

I understand you want to read this as "walking for 1 hour" is the period of strenuous activity, but that just doesn't work as then the period is undefined for the rest of the examples: what's the period of fighting that resets a LR? We'd not know.

The only way to properly read the sentence is "a period [at least one hour] of strenuous activity [walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity]."

2) if the reading still isn't clear to you, Crawford has told us that the above reading from 1) is correct:

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

So we know both the RAI and the Official Rule is for LRs that [1 hour of walking] equals [1 hour of fighting].

So we know the rule is "a period [at least 1 hour] of strenuous activity [walking or fighting].

It's not difficult to see that this is how the rule works.

Well, that was a whole lot of pointless explanation. True, but not the point.

I'm not arguing against the '1 hour of walking' or 'any fighting, casting spells or similar adventuring activity' interpretation. I agree with it!

But the fact remains that 'ONE HOUR of walking' IS the strenuous activity, as is 'ANY fighting/spellcasting/etc'.

This means that 'walking for LESS than 1 hour' is not 'strenuous activity', even though 'fighting/etc. for less than 1 hour' IS 'strenuous activity.

The rule here is that '1 hour of walking' IS stressful, but 'walking for LESS' is NOT. Your own analytical method reaches the same conclusion.

But the long rest is not interrupted by fighting/casting/etc. unless there is an hour or more of it, while a short rest IS interrupted by ANY of that.

Where 'walking' differs from 'fighting/casting/etc' is that while those things are stressful in any amount but you need an hour of it to interrupt a short rest, 'walking' is only stressful at all if there is at least 1 hour of it.

And JC's tweet which states, "Any amount of fighting breaks a short rest. A long rest can withstand an interruption of up to 1 hour" does not contradict me in the slightest!

At no point does he suggest that 'any amount of walking breaks a short rest'! As your analysis shows, ANY fighting is stressful, but only '1 hour of walking' is stressful.

Hoist by your own petard.

[RSP]

Well, that was a whole lot of pointless explanation. True, but not the point.

I'm not arguing against the '1 hour of walking' or 'any fighting, casting spells or similar adventuring activity' interpretation. I agree with it!

But the fact remains that 'ONE HOUR of walking' IS the strenuous activity, as is 'ANY fighting/spellcasting/etc'.

This means that 'walking for LESS than 1 hour' is not 'strenuous activity', even though 'fighting/etc. for less than 1 hour' IS 'strenuous activity.

The rule here is that '1 hour of walking' IS stressful, but 'walking for LESS' is NOT. Your own analytical method reaches the same conclusion.

But the long rest is not interrupted by fighting/casting/etc. unless there is an hour or more of it, while a short rest IS interrupted by ANY of that.

Where 'walking' differs from 'fighting/casting/etc' is that while those things are stressful in any amount but you need an hour of it to interrupt a short rest, 'walking' is only stressful at all if there is at least 1 hour of it.

And JC's tweet which states, "Any amount of fighting breaks a short rest. A long rest can withstand an interruption of up to 1 hour" does not contradict me in the slightest!

At no point does he suggest that 'any amount of walking breaks a short rest'! As your analysis shows, ANY fighting is stressful, but only '1 hour of walking' is stressful.

Hoist by your own petard.

You didn't read (or perhaps understand) what I wrote. Read it again.

It's not "1 hour of walking is strenuous activity."

It's "1 hour of strenuous activity" breaks a LR. Strenuous activity is listed as "walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity."

[RSP]

Let me put it this way:

The parenthetical (indicated by the dashes) in the sentence is descriptive, but otherwise doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. So without we'd have:

"If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it."

I think the meaning here is pretty straightforward, however, we have no idea what the "period" is, or what "strenuous activity" is.

So that's where the parenthetical statement comes in: it's defining those unknowns for us.

If you were to read it your way: "1 hour of walking is strenuous activity," we'd still not know what the period is, because strenuous activity by itself does not force a restart on a LR; it has to go on for a period of time to do that. So reading it that way would be ridiculous as it wouldn't actually define what's needed to understand the rule.

The only logical way to read the sentence is that the parenthetical is defining both the unknowns: the strenuous activity AND the period of time that activity must occur in order to require a restart to a LR. That is, [the period is 1 hour] and [strenuous activity is walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity].

[Arial Black]

First, the statement "one hour of walking is strenuous" does not mean that "walking for LESS than one hour is strenuous". Nor does it mean that it isn't. The statement about 'walking for one hour' does not tell us anything about how stressful 'walking 5 feet' may be.

Which leads to the second, more important point. The examples are not the rule!

All of the examples on both the list of 'light activity' AND the list of 'strenuous activity' are just typical examples, not the rule itself. We are supposed to use those examples in a specific way: to help us judge how stressful are the actual actions of the creature against the scale of "light or strenuous". We are not supposed to measure their actions on a scale of "can we describe it as 'walking'"!

[RSP]

First, the statement "one hour of walking is strenuous" does not mean that "walking for LESS than one hour is strenuous". Nor does it mean that it isn't. The statement about 'walking for one hour' does not tell us anything about how stressful 'walking 5 feet' may be.

Which leads to the second, more important point. The examples are not the rule!

All of the examples on both the list of 'light activity' AND the list of 'strenuous activity' are just typical examples, not the rule itself. We are supposed to use those examples in a specific way: to help us judge how stressful are the actual actions of the creature against the scale of "light or strenuous". We are not supposed to measure their actions on a scale of "can we describe it as 'walking'"!

I'm not sure what's complicated here. Walking is stated as a strenuous activity per the rules of 5e.

Its not that walking is just an example of what constitutes strenuous activity, it's actually included in the definition of what strenuous activity is within the rules of 5e.

The rule doesn't say "for example walking, fighting, etc." It says "...a period of strenuous activity—at least 1 hour of walking, ghting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity..."

So what is strenuous activity according to the rules of 5e? It's walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity.

Moreover, even if it was just an example, it's still saying walking is "strenuous activity," which in 5e, is mutually exclusive with "light activity." So it's still strenuous activity and not light activity, even if just an example.

I know you don't want to admit this point, but there is no argument of "well, yeah, it says it's strenuous activity, but maybe it's also not strenuous activity."

Can a DM decide in their game it's not strenuous activity? Sure, but that's different than going by what the rules say.