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

[RSP]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or see the previous example I gave on casting spells.

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

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

[DivisibleByZero]

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

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

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

[Coffee_Dragon]

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

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

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

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

[DivisibleByZero]

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

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

Yes, thank you for saying it more eloquently than I did.

[RSP]

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

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

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

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

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

The answer is no.

[DivisibleByZero]

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

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

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

The answer is no.

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

[RSP]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RSP]

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

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

[DivisibleByZero]

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

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

[Foxydono]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RSP]

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

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

A SR is different than a LR.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[DivisibleByZero]

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

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

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

[RSP]

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

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

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

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

[DivisibleByZero]

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

For someone who is flat out, absolutely wrong, you are quick to call me so.
You simply cannot do this....
L o n g R e s t
A long rest is a period of extended downtime, at least 8 hours long, during which a character sleeps or perform s light activity: reading, talking, eating, or standing watch for no m ore than 2 hours. If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity—at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity— the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it.

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

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

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

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

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

[RSP]

In so doing, you have completed a short rest.

You cannot gain the benefits of both.

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

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

That is not how it works, by RAW.

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

[Arial Black]

The sheer amount of misunderstanding here is astonishing!

I'll go through it step by step:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next, how long is a rest?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RSP]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[strangebloke]

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

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

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

So there's no mechanical abuse here.

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

So it's certainly reasonable from a realistic perspective.

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

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

How is this four pages of discussion?

[Tanarii]

So there's no mechanical abuse here.

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

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

[DivisibleByZero]

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

How is this four pages of discussion?

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

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

[strangebloke]

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

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

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

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

[DivisibleByZero]

I missed this before.

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

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

[RSP]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Xetheral]

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

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

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

[DivisibleByZero]

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

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

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

[Tanarii]

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

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

Eh, apparently it's a big deal to some folks.

[strangebloke]

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

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

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

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

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

How is your ruling more balanced or more intuitive?

[RSP]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[strangebloke]

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

Why not?

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

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

[RSP]

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

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

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

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

How is your ruling more balanced or more intuitive?

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

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

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

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

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

As to why I rule this way:

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

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

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