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

[smcmike]

I've seen martial characters who's Players state they practice with their weapons/workout every night. In some ways, I think this is assumed as part of the game: the battlemaster doesn't just magically learn new maneuvers, it's assumed he was practicing these things over the previous levels, likewise with Wizards learning new spells: it was what they've been researching (none of this is RAW of course).

Many things can happen over downtime, whether or not it's also during a rest. I'll continue below.

We aren’t talking about downtime. We are talking about a scenario in which the players have told the DM they are taking a long rest, and the DM interrupts that rest after three hours.

Again, why would you have to narrate that process? There certainly are reasons to do so, but there are also reasons not to.

If the DM asks "are you going to find an inn first?" And the Player(s) respond "sure." Do you really need to continue with going into all the detail, bringing your horse to the stables, unpacking your gear, carrying everything to the room. Doffing armor, heading downstairs to the main room, etc?

No, of course not. If the players get to a town and say “We’d like to go to an inn and take a long rest,” you say “ok, you find your way to the Painted Pony and settle in for the night.”

The absurdity comes when you then say “three hours later, you are awakened by a noise. You have not had a chance to get any sort of rest, because I assume you were out buying arrows at midnight.”

You seem to have a real problem with maintaining consistent levels of abstraction. If we are talking about interrupting a long rest, and whether the characters have had a chance to take a short rest in the meantime, we are counting hours.

[DivisibleByZero]

we are counting hours.

I thought we had evolved to counting calories about three weeks ago. Are we back to counting hours again?

[RSP]

We aren’t talking about downtime. We are talking about a scenario in which the players have told the DM they are taking a long rest, and the DM interrupts that rest after three hours.

Any rest is, by definition, downtime:

"A short rest is a period of downtime..."

"A long rest is a period of extended downtime..."

You can't talk about rests without talking about downtime.

No, of course not. If the players get to a town and say “We’d like to go to an inn and take a long rest,” you say “ok, you find your way to the Painted Pony and settle in for the night.”

The absurdity comes when you then say “three hours later, you are awakened by a noise. You have not had a chance to get any sort of rest, because I assume you were out buying arrows at midnight.”

You seem to have a real problem with maintaining consistent levels of abstraction. If we are talking about interrupting a long rest, and whether the characters have had a chance to take a short rest in the meantime, we are counting hours.

There's no reason to make up false statements. I understand you disagree with me, however, there's no reason to try to argue that I said "I assume characters are out buying arrows at midnight." It is telling if that's what's your argument has to revert to.

Again, a LR is a lot more permissive than a SR; they have different rules. If a Player says they're abiding by and pursuing a LR, they are not necessarily doing activities that fulfill a SR.

[smcmike]

There's no reason to make up false statements. I understand you disagree with me, however, there's no reason to try to argue that I said "I assume characters are out buying arrows at midnight." It is telling if that's what's your argument has to revert to.

Mea culpa: I misread your argument. Don’t post and cook.

Again, a LR is a lot more permissive than a SR; they have different rules. If a Player says they're abiding by and pursuing a LR, they are not necessarily doing activities that fulfill a SR.

Party: “Let’s head to the inn and get some rest.”

DM (knowing goblins will attack the inn around midnight): “It’s about dusk. Do you want to do anything before going to sleep?”

Party: “Nah just wolf some food down and pass out. No need for a watch rotation in the inn.”

DM: “Four hours after you go to bed, there is a crash at the door.”

Players: “We were totally wiped out from killing the dragon - can we count that as a short rest?”

How can the answer to this be no?

A long rest is mostly sleeping. Sleeping definitely does not break the restrictions for short rests.

[Arial Black]

That's why I quoted the caloric burn from "walking around the house." It requires more energy than eating or reading.

...but fewer calories than breaking jalapeno-eating records.

And the 'strenuous activity' mentioned by JC in the LR section was not 'walking around the house', it was 'walking for an hour as adventuring activity', like rushing to the village before the orc horde gets there. These are two different activities in terms of how strenuous they are and how many calories they burn! Just because they can both be described as 'walking' does not make them the same activity OR the same level of strenuous!

See, this is what you continually do: try to misrepresent what I've said. Please quote where I said "walking two steps is so exhausting that you don't get your breath back."

You have continuously claimed this throughout the thread! Every single time you claim that 'walking 5 feet' means that you cannot benefit from a short rest!

Whether something makes you out of breath or not isn't the rule. Whether or not something is more strenuous than reading or eating or drinking or tending wounds is.

No! The examples are not the rule, especially when you twist the wording so that the example of strenuous activity (walking for an hour as adventuring activity) is imagined to be the same activity (and therefore equally strenuous) as a totally non-strenuous activity (walking to the bathroom).

The rule is not "can I describe an activity as 'walking' no matter how relaxing it is"; the rule is, "Is the actual activity being done by the creature 'strenuous activity' OR 'light activity'?

And separately, walking is specifically stated as being strenuous activity.

Not 'all walking, including types of walking which are definitely NOT strenuous', but 'walking as adventuring activity'.

[DivisibleByZero]

Can I walk around if I'm on a diet, lowering my caloric intake?

[EvilAnagram]

Can I walk around if I'm on a diet, lowering my caloric intake?

No, that's an even higher proportion of your daily calories. You're only allowed to walk if you have a half-dozen doughnuts and a whole ham.

[RSP]

Mea culpa: I misread your argument. Don’t post and cook.



Party: “Let’s head to the inn and get some rest.”

DM (knowing goblins will attack the inn around midnight): “It’s about dusk. Do you want to do anything before going to sleep?”

Party: “Nah just wolf some food down and pass out. No need for a watch rotation in the inn.”

DM: “Four hours after you go to bed, there is a crash at the door.”

Players: “We were totally wiped out from killing the dragon - can we count that as a short rest?”

How can the answer to this be no?

A long rest is mostly sleeping. Sleeping definitely does not break the restrictions for short rests.

Players: "We were totally wiped from the dragon; as soon as we reach the inn we want to Short Rest, while eating dinner."

DM: "Cool. You eat and get a SR. What now?"

[smcmike]

Players: "We were totally wiped from the dragon; as soon as we reach the inn we want to Short Rest, while eating dinner."

DM: "Cool. You eat and get a SR. What now?"

Now we go to bed?

This doesn’t seem annoying to you, putting the players at a disadvantage for not declaring double rests?

Personally, I prefer to use as much natural language as possible - we need some sleep. We have a quick dinner and go to bed. When the DM wakes us up at 3 a.m., we can sort out what mechanical benefits we received from the rest we got.

I still don’t understand this, though: if I say “my character goes to bed,” and the DM says “a couple of hours later, you hear a crash,” what basis is there for denying my character the benefits of a short rest?

[RSP]

And the 'strenuous activity' mentioned by JC in the LR section was not 'walking around the house', it was 'walking for an hour as adventuring activity', like rushing to the village before the orc horde gets there. These are two different activities in terms of how strenuous they are and how many calories they burn! Just because they can both be described as 'walking' does not make them the same activity OR the same level of strenuous!

The walking mentioned by the RAW, is, in fact walking. You can try to parse walking into different categories. As a DM you can decide there are different categories of walking, however, the rules do not do this. Walking=walking.

"Rushing" to a burning village doesn't sound like walking in my opinion.

You have continuously claimed this throughout the thread! Every single time you claim that 'walking 5 feet' means that you cannot benefit from a short rest!

Do you not see a difference between claiming walking is strenuous activity because the rules state it is strenuous activity; and claiming walking 5 feet makes you out of breath?

I'm actually curious if you see these as the same claim, as you state here.

No! The examples are not the rule, especially when you twist the wording so that the example of strenuous activity (walking for an hour as adventuring activity) is imagined to be the same activity (and therefore equally strenuous) as a totally non-strenuous activity (walking to the bathroom).

The rule is not "can I describe an activity as 'walking' no matter how relaxing it is"; the rule is, "Is the actual activity being done by the creature 'strenuous activity' OR 'light activity'?

There is no twisting of wording on my part: it literally states walkingbis strenuous activity.

Again, the statement is not "walking for 1 hour is strenuous activity." This is just not what that sentence says.

"A period of strenuous activity" is referring to strenuous activity done over a period of time. That period of time is 1 hour. The strenuous activity is listed as being walking, fighting, casting or similar adventuring activity. Walking is listed as a strenuous activity.

This shouldn't be surprising as walking is, in reality, more strenuous than reading or eating.

Not 'all walking, including types of walking which are definitely NOT strenuous', but 'walking as adventuring activity'.

Walking is walking. "Forced march" is used in the travel pace section, as are fast/normal/slow pace. Note none of these change or alter walking and none of these terms were used in the definition of either a LR or SR.

Movement speed is stated as being a creatures walking speed in a round:

"Every character and monster has a speed, which is the distance in feet that the character or monster can walk in 1 round."

Again, notice walking is the base. It's a singular term in 5e.

[RSP]

I still don’t understand this, though: if I say “my character goes to bed,” and the DM says “a couple of hours later, you hear a crash,” what basis is there for denying my character the benefits of a short rest?

There's more on this earlier in the thread, but it comes down to a) the players deciding to take a SR after that SR has broken usually because combat has started), b) doing so retroactively only after knowing something has happened, and c) the assumption of nothing that would break a SR happening (such as waking to pee in the middle of the night). Again, I've detailed these more in prior posts.

Do I think this is a huge deal? It hasn't been at my table. In fact I don't think turning a LR into a SR has ever come up in a game I've been in.

I also don't think it's a huge deal to say "I go buy arrows" when the players are in the town. However, I'm adverse to allowing "oh yeah, I also bought climbing gear when I bought arrows when we were in the town two days ago" when the players are now faced with a wall in a dungeon.

Maybe some DMs say "yeah no problem" and allow the climbing gear to appear on the sheet. I don't.

If it's stated a LR is occurring, I assume that's what the characters are doing, because a LR isn't the same thing as a SR; just like buying arrows isn't the same thing as buying climbing gear.

[smcmike]

There's more on this earlier in the thread, but it comes down to a) the players deciding to take a SR after that SR has broken usually because combat has started), b) doing so retroactively only after knowing something has happened, and c) the assumption of nothing that would break a SR happening (such as waking to pee in the middle of the night).

There is nothing retroactive here. My character was literally sleeping. That’s what he was doing, sleeping. The question of whether I can take the benefits of a short rest does not change what happened in the slightest.

Do I think this is a huge deal? It hasn't been at my table. In fact I don't think turning a LR into a SR has ever come up in a game I've been in.

And yet here we are.

I also don't think it's a huge deal to say "I go buy arrows" when the players are in the town. However, I'm adverse to allowing "oh yeah, I also bought climbing gear when I bought arrows when we were in the town two days ago" when the players are now faced with a wall in a dungeon.

This is retconning. Me saying “My character goes to sleep” and then claiming that my character was sleeping is not.

If it's stated a LR is occurring, I assume that's what the characters are doing, because a LR isn't the same thing as a SR; just like buying arrows isn't the same thing as buying climbing gear.

But sleeping is the same as both. I said “my character is going to sleep.”

Let’s imagine we have a besieged castle - an endurance challenge. The characters are desperate for rest, and declare “I’m going to try to go to sleep for as long as I can - a long rest if I can get it, but even an hour’s nap will do me good.”

Is there anything wrong with this?

[RSP]

There is nothing retroactive here. My character was literally sleeping. That’s what he was doing, sleeping. The question of whether I can take the benefits of a short rest does not change what happened in the slightest.



And yet here we are.



This is retconning. Me saying “My character goes to sleep” and then claiming that my character was sleeping is not.



But sleeping is the same as both. I said “my character is going to sleep.”

Let’s imagine we have a besieged castle - an endurance challenge. The characters are desperate for rest, and declare “I’m going to try to go to sleep for as long as I can - a long rest if I can get it, but even an hour’s nap will do me good.”

Is there anything wrong with this?

Well your endurance challenge I'd say needs more clarity. It sounds like your Player in this instance is saying "I'm going to SR but if I can sleep 8 hours, I'll make it a LR." I don't agree with this position.

Now, sleeping can qualify for either. I've stated how I deal with this as a DM previously.

The big issue, as I see it, is the "you tell me what's interrupting my rest, and then I'll tell you what I was doing the last hour." That is, if I, as the DM have to explain what's happening before the Player says what rest they're taking, it's too late.

For instance, what a Player may decide their wounded 5th level character can handle one goblin. They may have a different answer on what rest they're taking if it's a more difficult encounter. So essentially that route leads to "I'll wait to see how difficult this combat is before I decide whether I was doing a LR or if I completed a SR.

That sort of "I want to know the future before explaining the past" doesn't fly with me, in part because combat starts once the enemies are there.

Now if all you're saying is "sleeping can be either a LR or a SR" I'm not disagreeing. The argument (and this thread) isn't whether sleeping can count as either, it's whether an interrupted LR can be a SR. I'm still arguing, no, they are different things.

[smcmike]

Well your endurance challenge I'd say needs more clarity. It sounds like your Player in this instance is saying "I'm going to SR but if I can sleep 8 hours, I'll make it a LR." I don't agree with this position.

Why not? I don’t see any support for your opposition within the rules.

The big issue, as I see it, is the "you tell me what's interrupting my rest, and then I'll tell you what I was doing the last hour." That is, if I, as the DM have to explain what's happening before the Player says what rest they're taking, it's too late.

No, the player was clear about what the character was doing for the last hour. Sleeping.

Now if all you're saying is "sleeping can be either a LR or a SR" I'm not disagreeing. The argument (and this thread) isn't whether sleeping can count as either, it's whether an interrupted LR can be a SR. I'm still arguing, no, they are different things.

If sleep can be either, and the character is sleeping, in what way are they different things?

[MaxWilson]

I also don't think it's a huge deal to say "I go buy arrows" when the players are in the town. However, I'm adverse to allowing "oh yeah, I also bought climbing gear when I bought arrows when we were in the town two days ago" when the players are now faced with a wall in a dungeon.

Maybe some DMs say "yeah no problem" and allow the climbing gear to appear on the sheet. I don't.

Tangent: I heard one DM say that in such a situation, he asks for an Int save to see if the PC managed to be smarter/more foresighted than the player. Seems like an interesting solution.

[napoleon_in_rag]

How many times do I need to hit a deceased stallion with a maul to interrupt a long rest?

Does expired mare tenderizing count as a strenuous activity?

[RSP]

Why not? I don’t see any support for your opposition within the rules.



No, the player was clear about what the character was doing for the last hour. Sleeping.



If sleep can be either, and the character is sleeping, in what way are they different things?

Again, if it's a goblin interrupting vs a vampire, does that change whether it was a SR vs a LR? If it's one goblin vs 10 goblins,does that change whether it was a SR or LR? Combat starts when enemies are present. How long do you wait and still allow the change from a LR to a SR?

If the character is awoken by a single goblin and they say to you "a goblin? I'll take care of this then continue my LR," initiative is rolled, and rnd 1 begins, but then 10 more goblins enter the fight (1st was just a scout or something), can the Player now say "oh there's 11 goblins? Okay then I was SRing earlier; let me roll my HD."

When do you, SMC, lock in the player's answer on whether his rest was a SR or LR?

[Arial Black]

The walking mentioned by the RAW, is, in fact walking. You can try to parse walking into different categories. As a DM you can decide there are different categories of walking, however, the rules do not do this. Walking=walking.

"Rushing" to a burning village doesn't sound like walking in my opinion.

Different activities, each taking different amounts of energy, can all be described as 'walking', but that does not make them the same activity!

If I enter the Olympic 50 km Race Walk event (current men's world record is 50km, around 31 miles, in 3h:32m:33s), I will be exhausted at the end of it. This would not count as 'light activity' in the game, it would definitely be 'strenuous activity' and be incompatible with either LR or SR. To quote Wikipedia, "Compared to other forms of foot racing, stride length is reduced; to achieve competitive speeds racewalkers must attain cadence rates comparable to those achieved by world-class 800m runners".

The idea that these racers' 'walking' is exactly as exhausting/strenuous as 'pottering around the garden for 3-and-a-half hours' is absurd. The rules do not claim this!

First, the examples are not the rule!

Second, the example is 'walking as an adventuring activity', whether it's for 1 hour or not.

Third, there are no actual 5e rules that give every action an associated 'strenuousity', and if there were such rules then 'race-walking' would be a different activity than 'nipping to the fridge'.

The point of the examples is not to define 'strenuous activity' as 'more exhausting than reading' or to define 'light activity' as 'less exhausting than walking'. The point of the examples is to help the DM decide whether 'what the PC is actually doing' should be judged either 'light activity' OR 'strenuous activity', which is the actual rule!

The whole of the list of both sets of examples is meant to be read in context and as natural language rather than lawyer-speak. In the context of a short rest, then 'reading, eating, tending to wounds' are examples of the typical activities that adventurers take while resting, and therefore do not invalidate a rest. They are not 'rules' that define 'eating' as 'an activity that can NEVER be strenuous'!

And in the context of a long rest, then 'at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or other adventuring activity' are examples of the typical activities that adventurers take which are not restful. They are not 'rules' that define 'walking' as 'an activity which is ALWAYS so exhausting that taking two steps per HOUR means that you can NEVER benefit from a short rest'!

The source of your inability to grasp this seems to be that you believe that the resting rules were deliberately written so that they do not simulate any kind of reality, and in fact turn the game world into a surreal place where Effect comes before Cause, such that my coffee cup breaks TODAY because I am going to drop it TOMORROW! A world where you cannot possibly benefit from a short rest if you take a single step in 1 hour, while breaking world jalapeno eating records is perfectly relaxing!

I've got news for you: JC did not write such deliberately absurd rules! Why would he? Why would he want to punish PCs for taking a single step? Why would he want to break Causality?

He doesn't. All the reader has to do is understand the wording correctly, and it all makes sense. 'Correctly' in this case is understanding the the DM simply has to decide if what the PCs are actually doing is 'strenuous activity' or not, and this is achieved by using their human judgement based on reality. It is not achieved by having a Rules List of named strenuous activities which count as strenuous even if the name could apply equally to activities which are relaxing and activities which are exhausting.

Do you not see a difference between claiming walking is strenuous activity because the rules state it is strenuous activity; and claiming walking 5 feet makes you out of breath?

I'm actually curious if you see these as the same claim, as you state here.

Do you not see that an activity which prevents you from having a short rest is an activity which prevents you from recovering from exertion? If you rule that 'walking 5 feet per hour' absolutely prevents you from getting a short rest then you are claiming that it is preventing you from recovering the resources which recover on a short rest. If 'walking 5 feet' does not exhaust you, then why would it prevent you from resting? "Because the rules say so"? No. They. Do. Not.

There is no twisting of wording on my part: it literally states walkingbis strenuous activity.

Again, the statement is not "walking for 1 hour is strenuous activity." This is just not what that sentence says.

"A period of strenuous activity" is referring to strenuous activity done over a period of time. That period of time is 1 hour. The strenuous activity is listed as being walking, fighting, casting or similar adventuring activity. Walking is listed as a strenuous activity.

How can you quote the whole sentence, ignore half of that very sentence AND the context, and then pretend the he Rule says only the first half? The entire sentence is about 'adventuring activities' and is meant to be understood in context.

This shouldn't be surprising as walking is, in reality, more strenuous than reading or eating.

Provably untrue. 'Walking 5 feet' is not more strenuous than 'breaking the world record for eating jalapenos'.

Walking is walking.

But different types of walking are not all equally strenuous, a claim you are making every time you claim that the Rules say that 'walking 5 feet' prevents resting in exactly the same way as 'racewalking 50 km'.

"Forced march" is used in the travel pace section, as are fast/normal/slow pace. Note none of these change or alter walking and none of these terms were used in the definition of either a LR or SR.

Movement speed is stated as being a creatures walking speed in a round:

"Every character and monster has a speed, which is the distance in feet that the character or monster can walk in 1 round."

Again, notice walking is the base. It's a singular term in 5e.

'Forced march' is a rules term with attached rules. 'Walking' is not a rules term in and of itself. 'Movement speed' IS a rules term, 'strenuous activity' and 'light activity' are rules terms. 'Eating, 'walking', tending wounds' and so on are not rules terms; they are simply natural language examples. Your misunderstanding of this is the reason behind your rulings that are literally absurd.

[RSP]

Different activities, each taking different amounts of energy, can all be described as 'walking', but that does not make them the same activity!

If I enter the Olympic 50 km Race Walk event (current men's world record is 50km, around 31 miles, in 3h:32m:33s), I will be exhausted at the end of it. This would not count as 'light activity' in the game, it would definitely be 'strenuous activity' and be incompatible with either LR or SR. To quote Wikipedia, "Compared to other forms of foot racing, stride length is reduced; to achieve competitive speeds racewalkers must attain cadence rates comparable to those achieved by world-class 800m runners".

The idea that these racers' 'walking' is exactly as exhausting/strenuous as 'pottering around the garden for 3-and-a-half hours' is absurd. The rules do not claim this!

First, the examples are not the rule!

Second, the example is 'walking as an adventuring activity', whether it's for 1 hour or not.

Third, there are no actual 5e rules that give every action an associated 'strenuousity', and if there were such rules then 'race-walking' would be a different activity than 'nipping to the fridge'.

The point of the examples is not to define 'strenuous activity' as 'more exhausting than reading' or to define 'light activity' as 'less exhausting than walking'. The point of the examples is to help the DM decide whether 'what the PC is actually doing' should be judged either 'light activity' OR 'strenuous activity', which is the actual rule!

The whole of the list of both sets of examples is meant to be read in context and as natural language rather than lawyer-speak. In the context of a short rest, then 'reading, eating, tending to wounds' are examples of the typical activities that adventurers take while resting, and therefore do not invalidate a rest. They are not 'rules' that define 'eating' as 'an activity that can NEVER be strenuous'!

And in the context of a long rest, then 'at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or other adventuring activity' are examples of the typical activities that adventurers take which are not restful. They are not 'rules' that define 'walking' as 'an activity which is ALWAYS so exhausting that taking two steps per HOUR means that you can NEVER benefit from a short rest'!

The source of your inability to grasp this seems to be that you believe that the resting rules were deliberately written so that they do not simulate any kind of reality, and in fact turn the game world into a surreal place where Effect comes before Cause, such that my coffee cup breaks TODAY because I am going to drop it TOMORROW! A world where you cannot possibly benefit from a short rest if you take a single step in 1 hour, while breaking world jalapeno eating records is perfectly relaxing!

I've got news for you: JC did not write such deliberately absurd rules! Why would he? Why would he want to punish PCs for taking a single step? Why would he want to break Causality?

He doesn't. All the reader has to do is understand the wording correctly, and it all makes sense. 'Correctly' in this case is understanding the the DM simply has to decide if what the PCs are actually doing is 'strenuous activity' or not, and this is achieved by using their human judgement based on reality. It is not achieved by having a Rules List of named strenuous activities which count as strenuous even if the name could apply equally to activities which are relaxing and activities which are exhausting.



Do you not see that an activity which prevents you from having a short rest is an activity which prevents you from recovering from exertion? If you rule that 'walking 5 feet per hour' absolutely prevents you from getting a short rest then you are claiming that it is preventing you from recovering the resources which recover on a short rest. If 'walking 5 feet' does not exhaust you, then why would it prevent you from resting? "Because the rules say so"? No. They. Do. Not.



How can you quote the whole sentence, ignore half of that very sentence AND the context, and then pretend the he Rule says only the first half? The entire sentence is about 'adventuring activities' and is meant to be understood in context.



Provably untrue. 'Walking 5 feet' is not more strenuous than 'breaking the world record for eating jalapenos'.



But different types of walking are not all equally strenuous, a claim you are making every time you claim that the Rules say that 'walking 5 feet' prevents resting in exactly the same way as 'racewalking 50 km'.



'Forced march' is a rules term with attached rules. 'Walking' is not a rules term in and of itself. 'Movement speed' IS a rules term, 'strenuous activity' and 'light activity' are rules terms. 'Eating, 'walking', tending wounds' and so on are not rules terms; they are simply natural language examples. Your misunderstanding of this is the reason behind your rulings that are literally absurd.

Again, walking is stated as strenuous activity. I see no reason in any of your posts to go against the rules on this. Certainly DMs can rule as they like. Nothing you have posted in this thread has been evidence against the rules specifically stating walking as strenuous activity.

[Arial Black]

Again, if it's a goblin interrupting vs a vampire, does that change whether it was a SR vs a LR? If it's one goblin vs 10 goblins,does that change whether it was a SR or LR? Combat starts when enemies are present.

That is not the case, for a couple of relevant reasons. First, if there is no actual combat then the very fact that enemies are present doesn't mean there was combat! Second, even if one of your allies has struck or been struck by an enemy in a Combat Round in initiative order, this does not mean that you have done anything strenuous yet, nor does it mean that you didn't already have 3 hours of sleep!

How long do you wait and still allow the change from a LR to a SR?

There is no such thing! You are not 'having a long rest', you are just 'resting/sleeping'. There is no 'change' from LR to SR, because your downtime is NEITHER, until you decide to take the benefits of one or the other.

If the character is awoken by a single goblin and they say to you "a goblin? I'll take care of this then continue my LR," initiative is rolled, and rnd 1 begins, but then 10 more goblins enter the fight (1st was just a scout or something), can the Player now say "oh there's 11 goblins? Okay then I was SRing earlier; let me roll my HD."

When do you, SMC, lock in the player's answer on whether his rest was a SR or LR?

This seems to be a vexing question for you, but for the rest of us (who understand the resting rules as intended) it is not a problem at all.

Whether a PC's downtime is a LR or a SR is unknown until the benefits are taken. Just like you don't know if the cat is dead or alive until you open the box, or that you don't know (at age 20) if you are more than half-way through your life yet and cannot know if you were until you die.

To be a LR the player has to declare that their PC is taking the benefits of a LR. But he can only do so if a.) he qualifies, and b.) he isn't in the middle of a strenuous activity at the point in-game where his PC gained those benefits.

To be a SR then the player has to declare that their PC is taking the benefits of a SR. But he can only do so if a.) he qualifies, and b.) he isn't in the middle of a strenuous activity at the point in-game where his PC gained those benefits.

Applying that to your example situation: the party is resting/sleeping, hoping to get a LR but your PC has only been asleep for 3 hours. Note that you PC is NEITHER 'long resting' NOR 'short resting'; he is just 'sleeping' during that 3 hours.

At that point, goblins attack. You have the PCs make various rolls re: surprise, and instruct them to roll initiative. This stuff is all meta-game rules; the characters in the game world are not engaging in the 'stressful activity' of 'determining who goes first'! Merely existing during initiative is not a strenuous activity. 'Fighting' is a strenuous activity, but nothing has actually happened yet.

Next, creatures act in initiative order, some of whom may be surprised and unable to actually do anything until their first turn ends. As soon as a surprised creature's first turn ends then they are no longer surprised AND they are no longer 'resting'; according to the rules then they are constantly alert for danger, a state which is incompatible with rest. Those who were not surprised were on the alert from the start, and are no longer 'resting'.

However, it has yet to be determined whether or not the PCs have already had a LR, a SR, or neither. It must be established before their first turn in combat, even if you have to pause combat resolutions until the character sheet is updated with the benefits of a rest, if any.

As DM you have two choices here: you can either wait until each PC's first turn and ask them if they have already completed a SR (or LR, if they qualify). They make their choice and then proceed with their turn. OR, if you worry about shenanigans where players try to use the knowledge of what has happened in the fight so far to gauge whether to take a SR or not, you can ask each player if their PC has already completed a SR (or LR) at the same time you have them roll initiative.

When do you lock the players in? Well, two things: as soon as they take the benefits of a LR or SR then they are locked in, and if their first turn in combat comes up and they choose not to have already taken a LR/SR, then they are locked in from gaining the benefits of ANY type of rest until the combat is over.

Can you envision any problems with this approach?

[Arial Black]

Again, walking is stated as strenuous activity. I see no reason in any of your posts to go against the rules on this. Certainly DMs can rule as they like. Nothing you have posted in this thread has been evidence against the rules specifically stating walking as strenuous activity.

Because the rules do not state that ANY movement using your legs is defined as 'strenuous activity'. You're reading half the sentence again.

[RSP]

Because the rules do not state that ANY movement using your legs is defined as 'strenuous activity'. You're reading half the sentence again.

Correct: the rules don't state "any movement using your legs," however, they do state "walking."

[DivisibleByZero]

I think we need to define walking, each individually, and argue about that until the second week of June.

[EvilAnagram]

I think we need to define walking, each individually, and argue about that until the second week of June.

Can we make it the third week of June? I have a work thing.

[Arial Black]

*snip*

I noticed you avoid addressing the solution to your alleged 'problem' re: 'when do you lock the PC's into their choice of LR/SR/neither'.

What is your answer? Can you see a problem with running the game like this?

[tieren]

How many times do I need to hit a deceased stallion with a maul to interrupt a long rest?

Does expired mare tenderizing count as a strenuous activity?

You win the internets

[RSP]

I noticed you avoid addressing the solution to your alleged 'problem' re: 'when do you lock the PC's into their choice of LR/SR/neither'.

What is your answer? Can you see a problem with running the game like this?

I don't know what you're referring to (you didn't include the passage I wrote so I can't go off what was said)

It's not an avoidance, though, it's a real life time availability constraint.

[RSP]

To be a LR the player has to declare that their PC is taking the benefits of a LR. But he can only do so if a.) he qualifies, and b.) he isn't in the middle of a strenuous activity at the point in-game where his PC gained those benefits.

To be a SR then the player has to declare that their PC is taking the benefits of a SR. But he can only do so if a.) he qualifies, and b.) he isn't in the middle of a strenuous activity at the point in-game where his PC gained those benefits.

The Player did declare they were taking a LR. Their character then preceded to adhere to a LR, which does not equate to adhering to a SR.

Next, creatures act in initiative order, some of whom may be surprised and unable to actually do anything until their first turn ends. As soon as a surprised creature's first turn ends then they are no longer surprised AND they are no longer 'resting'; according to the rules then they are constantly alert for danger, a state which is incompatible with rest. Those who were not surprised were on the alert from the start, and are no longer 'resting'.

However, it has yet to be determined whether or not the PCs have already had a LR, a SR, or neither. It must be established before their first turn in combat, even if you have to pause combat resolutions until the character sheet is updated with the benefits of a rest, if any.

As DM you have two choices here: you can either wait until each PC's first turn and ask them if they have already completed a SR (or LR, if they qualify). They make their choice and then proceed with their turn. OR, if you worry about shenanigans where players try to use the knowledge of what has happened in the fight so far to gauge whether to take a SR or not, you can ask each player if their PC has already completed a SR (or LR) at the same time you have them roll initiative.

When do you lock the players in? Well, two things: as soon as they take the benefits of a LR or SR then they are locked in, and if their first turn in combat comes up and they choose not to have already taken a LR/SR, then they are locked in from gaining the benefits of ANY type of rest until the combat is over.

Can you envision any problems with this approach?

The same one I've described multiple times now which is that the Player is making a choice on what their past actions were only after knowing what the future holds. That is, the Player gets to know what interrupted a LR (and would end a SR) before deciding.

If you want to run your table this way, cool. But combat starts not when a character's initiative order comes up, but when the DM determines surprise. Combat is not Downtime. Combat is not a period of rest. Once combat starts any rest is over.

LRs and SRs are different things characters can do over a period of downtime. If a character announces they're doing a LR, then their character is adhering to the rules of a LR over that period.

Side note: You seem to have adjusted your idea of when combat starts (previously you stated the character's could continue resting thru combat, based on their actions). Is this perceived change a correct interpretation of you stance?

[Pelle]

If a character announces they're doing a LR, then their character is adhering to the rules of a LR over that period.

Do you mean player or character announces a LR? Does LR exist as a thing in the fiction for you?

[Arial Black]

The Player did declare they were taking a LR. Their character then preceded to adhere to a LR, which does not equate to adhering to a SR.

No, not 'declare they are taking a LR' (which you have them do at the start of the downtime!), but 'declare they are taking the benefits of a LR', which can only be done at the end of the downtime; in fact, it defines the end of that rest.

The same one I've described multiple times now which is that the Player is making a choice on what their past actions were only after knowing what the future holds. That is, the Player gets to know what interrupted a LR (and would end a SR) before deciding.

Then take the option that I already posted where you ask the players whether or not their PCs are taking the benefits of any rest at the same point in play where you ask them to roll initiative; i.e. before you tell them what woke them up.

If you want to run your table this way, cool. But combat starts not when a character's initiative order comes up, but when the DM determines surprise. Combat is not Downtime. Combat is not a period of rest. Once combat starts any rest is over.

When 'combat starts' is not the issue here. What matters is whether or not that particular creature is exerting itself (even if that 'exertion' is because of the heightened state of alert they are in as soon as they realise that their life is in imminent danger). If someone else is 'in combat' but you are not, then your rest is not interrupted because you haven't engaged in 'strenuous activity'.

If and when a creature enters combat, then he cannot take the benefits of a rest until he is no longer in combat. However-and this is the important bit!-if the creature has already had a rest before the combat started, then the fact that he's in combat after he gained the benefits does not take away the benefits he already earned.

What you are doing is creating a DM 'Gotcha!', and doing it by breaking causality!

I cannot stress enough how truly absurd breaking Causality would be! No world or universe could possibly function in any non-surreal way if Effects occur after their Cause! You drop dead today because you will get hit by a bus tomorrow! But what if, knowing what killed you, you choose to avoid busses for a few days? How can your corpse get hit by that bus anyway? You're dead, aren't you?

No, Cause must come before Effect. What you are doing is saying that the PCs cannot gain the benefits of the SR rest they had between midnight and 1am, because they will be 'in combat' at 3am! Causality shattered to smithereens!

And your reason for ruling this way is so that you can spring a 'Gotcha!' on the players. Even though you know that their PCs have been sleeping for 3 hours at that point, and certainly qualify for a SR, you are denying them the benefits of the SR that they have already had by shouting, "Combat! Roll initiative!", without giving them a chance to say whether or not they take the SR benefits, and deny them a chance to gain those benefits because they are 'in combat' now! After they already had that rest!

You're basically cheating, and creating an absurd universe in order to get away with it.

LRs and SRs are different things characters can do over a period of downtime. If a character announces they're doing a LR, then their character is adhering to the rules of a LR over that period.

Absolutely untrue. Neither type of rest is an 'activity' by your PC in the game world (where what your PC is actually doing is 'avoiding strenuous activity'), but a meta-game way of 'cashing-in' (at least) 1 or 8 hours of downtime in order to gain the benefits.

In other words, 'short/long resting' is not an in-world activity which lasts 1/8 hours. 'Taking the benefits of a long/short rest' is an instantaneous player meta-game decision which reflects the in-world reality that the characters have already rested for the appropriate amount of time.

Side note: You seem to have adjusted your idea of when combat starts (previously you stated the character's could continue resting thru combat, based on their actions). Is this perceived change a correct interpretation of you stance?

Perhaps my wording was unclear, but my stance is unchanged. 'Other people, but not me, fighting' doesn't interrupt my rest. If the character is aware that they are 'in combat' then this puts them in a heightened state of awareness that is incompatible with resting; it is 'stressful'. If they are not surprised, and they are aware that their life is in danger, then that starts as the combat round starts. Note that this doesn't negate the rest they have already had to this point! If they are surprised then they are not aware their life is in danger (and therefore not 'stressed') until the end of their first turn.

They are 'not resting' (because they are 'in combat) for as long as they are in that combat(!). Usually, this means they are 'in combat' until the DM says that the combat is over and they are no longer acting in initiative order in Combat Rounds. However, it is possible that a creature in a combat may leave that combat before that combat is officially ended. Something like teleporting away, or plane-shifting, or some other major 'getting out of Dodge' way of not being in combat anymore.

I'll give you an example:- the party have been asleep for 3 hours. Each party member has his own room in the inn. The bad guys smash down the door to the cleric's room, hoping that the sounds of the rowdy inn cover any noise they make. You declare combat has started and have everyone roll initiative whether they are sleeping or not.

Do the PCs hear them and wake up? You have the PCs roll Perception checks with disadvantage because they are asleep; the one's that pass the check wake up and can take actions on their turn, the one's that fail do not wake up, count as surprised, and cannot take actions until they do wake up. Since the combat goes on round after round, any sleeping PCs get to roll Perception checks each round, and wake up as soon as they succeed.

Several combat rounds go by. Over that time every PC eventually wakes up...except one. The wizard again, always on about his need for beauty sleep! He failed every roll to wake up and now that the combat is over he is still asleep. Lazy, selfish so-and-so!

But, has the wizard's rest been interrupted? No, of course not! Why would it? The wizard did not engage in combat, so the 'being in combat' reason for a rest being interrupted does not apply. He was asleep throughout the whole event.

Would you claim that the wizard's rest was interrupted? If so, why? What 'strenuous activity' did he take?