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

[DivisibleByZero]

for a total of 8 hours, 59.99 minutes.

Your are correct, as I already stated when I made the same claim earlier which everyone ignored.

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

[napoleon_in_rag]

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

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

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

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

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

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

A couple of points on this:

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

[Arial Black]

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

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

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

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

So the two most important concepts here are:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[napoleon_in_rag]

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

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

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

[Ganymede]

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

Again, this is incorrect.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/08/20...hortlong-rest/

[napoleon_in_rag]

Again, this is incorrect.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/08/20...hortlong-rest/

Wrong. The sages are divided on this.

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

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/08/20...hortlong-rest/

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

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/09/07...k-a-long-rest/

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

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

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

[Ganymede]

Wrong. The sages are divided on this.

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

On September 7, 2016 Mike Mearls tweeted...

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

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

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

[Mjolnirbear]

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

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

I disagree.

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

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

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

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

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

[Tanarii]

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

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

RAW is you can only benefit from a Long Rest once per 24 hour period. I left that part out.

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

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

[RSP]

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

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

There is such a thing: I've seen it many times.

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

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

Again, you may play at your table that you tell them what interrupts their rest and then they decide what type of rest they took. This is the definition of metagaming. Not to mention, if it's combat, then, per the rules (and your own statements), the possibility of a SR is over as combat has started.

So, you're saying players should have the option of declaring they took a SR, after the possibility of taking a SR has passed, which isn't possible.

I agree Players can say "we rest for an hour" and then, assuming that hour isn't interrupted, decide if they want that to count as a SR or if they want to continue on with a LR.

[Tanarii]

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

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

Again, you may play at your table that you tell them what interrupts their rest and then they decide what type of rest they took. This is the definition of metagaming.

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

Edit: removed something pretty insulting. My bad.

[RSP]

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

Edit: removed something pretty insulting. My bad.

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

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

[Tanarii]

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

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

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

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

[RSP]

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


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

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

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

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

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

[Tanarii]

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

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

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

[Belier]

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

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

[RSP]

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

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

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

Referring back to the the previously posted Crawford tweet:

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

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

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

[Tanarii]

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

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

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

[Gardakan]

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

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

[RSP]

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

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

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

Fair enough, though I'm still unsure why, after stating the opposite in almost every post, people still think I said Players have to state which Rest they're taking.

[Thrudd]

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

[Demonslayer666]

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

...

But as you have stated, I'm not wrong in your opinion, just wrong in Jeremy Crawford's.

[Foxydono]

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

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

In the games I DM, players have to do exactly that. If they want to take a long rest and get interupted, than it's neither a long or a short rest. Also, fights almost never last longer than one or two minutes. But if they do get into a serieus battle, it will interrupt their sleep. Even if it only lasts for a minute. It aint raw, but I find it very weird they can fight off a dragon attack, almost die and say: well it only lasted a minute, I'll take the other half of my long rest now.

[Foxydono]

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

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

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

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

I agree with this completely.

[Arial Black]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* take the benefits of a long rest

* take the benefits of a short rest

* do neither

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

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

[RSP]

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

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

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

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

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

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

* take the benefits of a long rest

* take the benefits of a short rest

* do neither

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

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

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

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

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

That sounds like a horrible way to play.

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

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

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

Also not allowed:

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

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

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

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

[DivisibleByZero]

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

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

[Glorthindel]

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

[RSP]

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

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

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

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

[DivisibleByZero]

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

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

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

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

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