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

[LeonBH]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RSP]

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

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

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

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

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

Or houserule one way or the other.

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

[LeonBH]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or houserule one way or the other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[LankyOgre]

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

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

[DivisibleByZero]

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

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

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

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

[Tanarii]

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

This gave me a good laugh, because I find playing an exciting and challenging game of D&D is extremely strenuous. DMing even more so. After running a three to four hour session I'm more burnt out than any full day's work. (And yet I still often let players schedule me for back to back sessions on weekends. )

[RSP]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Specific Beats General section of the PHB:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RSP]

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

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

See my response to Leon.

[LeonBH]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Specific Beats General section of the PHB:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RSP]

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

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

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

[LankyOgre]

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

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

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

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

[Arial Black]

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

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

* take the benefits of a short rest

OR

* not!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh yes it does! A couple of examples are shield and 'knocking a creature out'.

For the spell, you cast it as a reaction to 'being hit', and the spell may result in you not being hit. Does this result in a time paradox where now that you were never hit so that you cannot have cast the spell which means you were hit which means you can cast the spell but now you were not hit....forever, ad nauseum? Does the javelin actually go through your skull, killing you, and then you cast shield so that the javelin slides out of your head? No. What happened is that if the javelin would hit you, you cast the spell which interposes a magical shield of force which prevents the javelin ever hitting you.

So the game mechanic retroactively lets you change what happened at the table, but nothing retroactive happens in the game world! In the game, you threw up the shield just in time!

The game mechanics for 'knocking a creature out' (PHB p198) say that when an attacker drops a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack (which, according to the rules, kills it) the attacker can knock the creature out instead of killing them. You have to make the choice at the time; you can't kill him and then decide he's alive again a couple of rounds later!

So what actually happens here? At the table, the player hit the orc with his axe, doing 12 damage. The DM says that this kills the orc. The player says that he's going to knock the orc out cold with the flat of his axe. This is how the 5e rules work.

But what happened in the game world? Did I kill the orc, then bring it to life again? No! What was retroactive at the table was not retroactive in the game world! In the game, my blow was with the flat of my axe the whole time.

It's the same with taking the benefits of either type of rest. At the table, the DM might announce 12 points of hammer damage to the face before the player announces that his PC took the benefits of the short rest he has already had, but in the game world the 1 hour rest (and the benefits thereof) came before the hammer to the face.

That's how 5e works.

[LankyOgre]

Arial Black, great example of retroactive rules actions. I think your examples were very clear and explanatory.

[Arial Black]

I've yet to see anyone make a valid argument that walking is equal to or less strenuous than reading

I already did this in a post on the last page! It was the post that mentions that 'power walking for exercise' or 'hiking for an hour' is strenuous but 'pottering about the garden' or 'ambling down the road while daydreaming' is not strenuous.

The problem is the the list of 'eating, drinking, reading or tending wounds' is not:-

a.) an exhaustive (no pun intended) list of things that are 'not strenuous'

b.) a list of things that are equally strenuous

c.) a list of terms with a game definition

Every part of this list is to aid the DM in a judgement call to determine if what the PCs did was too strenuous to count as part of a rest.

This also applies to the list about walking, fighting, casting spells. The DM is expected to rule fairly; it's part of his job description. If he rules that 'walking to the bathroom' involves 'walking' and since 'walking for 1 hour' interrupts a long rest then any 'walking' is more strenuous than 'eating' is not making a rational or fair ruling.

Although spells don't exist in real life, nor do hit points or spell slots. The game tries to imagine that casting spells tires you out in the specific way that you use up spell slots from a limited supply, and that 'resting' lets you regain those slots. Therefore, if you are burning spell slots then you are exerting yourself (therefore, not resting). But if you cast a cantrip then you are not exerting yourself by spellcasting, so casting prestidigitation will not interrupt a rest in and of itself.

Of course, if you are casting a cantrip in combat then you are not 'resting', not because cantrips exhaust you but because combat does.

[RSP]

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

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

I'm glad you mentioned calories. Since walking and reading a real life activities, calories burned (which represents energy used by the body) is a good way to see what's more work for the body, and therefore more strenuous.

Per Livestrong.com:

For a 180 lbs person, reading while sitting up burns about 86 calories per hour (or 1.4333 calories per minute)

That same 180 lbs person burns about 100 calories per mile. Per the PHB, characters travel 3 miles per hour when moving at a "normal pace," so roughly 300 calories are burned over an hour of walking (or 5 calories per minute).

So let's put this in terms of a 6 seconds, as that's essentially the shortest time period used in game terms.

6 seconds of reading burns .1433 calories.
6 seconds of walking burns .5 calories.

So walking takes more effort, that is, it is more strenuous, than reading while sitting up.

Does it take 6 seconds or more to amble to the bathroom? I'd imagine so. So it's more strenuous than reading.

[RSP]

I already did this in a post on the last page! It was the post that mentions that 'power walking for exercise' or 'hiking for an hour' is strenuous but 'pottering about the garden' or 'ambling down the road while daydreaming' is not strenuous.

Except I didn't ask for what is strenuous vs not strenuous, as that has no bearing on the rules for a SR. It's if an activity is more strenuous than reading.

[DivisibleByZero]

I'm glad you mentioned calories. Since walking and reading a real life activities, calories burned (which represents energy used by the body) is a good way to see what's more work for the body, and therefore more strenuous.

Per Livestrong.com:

For a 180 lbs person, reading while sitting up burns about 86 calories per hour (or 1.4333 calories per minute)

That same 180 lbs person burns about 100 calories per mile. Per the PHB, characters travel 3 miles per hour when moving at a "normal pace," so roughly 300 calories are burned over an hour of walking (or 5 calories per minute).

So let's put this in terms of a 6 seconds, as that's essentially the shortest time period used in game terms.

6 seconds of reading burns .1433 calories.
6 seconds of walking burns .5 calories.

So walking takes more effort, that is, it is more strenuous, than reading while sitting up.

Does it take 6 seconds or more to amble to the bathroom? I'd imagine so. So it's more strenuous than reading.

Great.
How many calories are burned when practicing with a weapon for an hour?
If we were to use Tai Chi as an approximate comparison, then we're looking at just as much as a light walk, approximately 300 per hour. This would be an extremely generous comparison, as Tai Chi is comprised of slow, deliberate movements. But let us be generous and use this comparison.
Because weapon practice is specifically allowed. Not only is it allowed, but it even goes so far as to grant not only the benefits of a short rest, but also the benefits of either attuning to or learning the magical properties of a weapon.

So 300 calories walking is a no go, but that same 300 calories practicing is fine?
Your entire argument breaks here.
Again.

[RSP]

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure why you think I'm allowing LR rules to justify a SR. I've said repeatedly something very similar to "The relevant piece in terms of a SR is "nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading and tending to wounds,"" multiple times.

Is training with a sword more strenuous than reading? Yes. Is it allowed during a SR? No. Is training with a magic sword that you are attuning to allowed during a SR? Yes. The "no" and "yes" in these two seemingly similar circumstances is what seems to be a contradiction. This is why specific-beats-general applies.

And again, you can show that RAW allows for weapon practice to be not as strenuous as reading.

No, you cannot.

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

His tweets are official, and therefore, part of the rules, hence they matter.

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

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

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

If the game doesn't specifically define something in game terms, it has its normal meaning.

What is reading? Visually scanning written characters.

What is "training with a sword?" Doing physical movements, while holding a sword or sword-weighted object, in a simulation of combat.

I don't understand how you can interpret sword training as being less strenuous than reading.

[RSP]

Because weapon practice is specifically allowed. Not only is it allowed, but it even goes so far as to grant not only the benefits of a short rest, but also the benefits of either attuning to or learning the magical properties of a weapon.

So 300 calories walking is a no go, but that same 300 calories practicing is fine?
Your entire argument breaks here.
Again.

No. Weapon practice is not allowed during a SR. What is allowed is weapon practice with a magic weapon you are attuning to during a SR.

The rule is "specific beats general" not "the specific becomes the new general rule."

[DivisibleByZero]

No. Weapon practice is not allowed during a SR. What is allowed is weapon practice with a magic weapon you are attuning to during a SR.

The rule is "specific beats general" not "the specific becomes the new general rule."

Right.
So 300 calories spent on Thing A is fine, but 300 calories spent on Thing B is not.
Gotcha.
You're the one that started breaking it down by calories to determine what was okay. So reconcile this.
And specific versus general is not an answer when we're breaking down calories.

[LankyOgre]

I'm glad you mentioned calories. Since walking and reading a real life activities, calories burned (which represents energy used by the body) is a good way to see what's more work for the body, and therefore more strenuous.

Per Livestrong.com:

For a 180 lbs person, reading while sitting up burns about 86 calories per hour (or 1.4333 calories per minute)

That same 180 lbs person burns about 100 calories per mile. Per the PHB, characters travel 3 miles per hour when moving at a "normal pace," so roughly 300 calories are burned over an hour of walking (or 5 calories per minute).

So let's put this in terms of a 6 seconds, as that's essentially the shortest time period used in game terms.

6 seconds of reading burns .1433 calories.
6 seconds of walking burns .5 calories.

So walking takes more effort, that is, it is more strenuous, than reading while sitting up.

Does it take 6 seconds or more to amble to the bathroom? I'd imagine so. So it's more strenuous than reading.

From what I can see, this is for a speed of 3.5 miles/hour. The ambling walk we are discussing is much slower than even that. It is very difficult to find calories expended for otherwise sedentary behaviors, since most calorie expenditure is focused on losing weight and therefore increasing calories burned.

[RSP]

From what I can see, this is for a speed of 3.5 miles/hour. The ambling walk we are discussing is much slower than even that. It is very difficult to find calories expended for otherwise sedentary behaviors, since most calorie expenditure is focused on losing weight and therefore increasing calories burned.

It's per the Livestrong website which states the ~100 calories per mile walked. The burn of calories deals with distance more than speed when walking. Since 5e states the normal walking speed is 3 miles/hour, that's how I dealt with the distance to time conversion to make it comparable to an hour of reading.

[RSP]

Right.
So 300 calories spent on Thing A is fine, but 300 calories spent on Thing B is not.
Gotcha.
You're the one that started breaking it down by calories to determine what was okay. So reconcile this.
And specific versus general is not an answer when we're breaking down calories.

Which is where the specific rule of Attunement comes in and overrules the general rule of what is allowed. While attuning you can do select activities that would otherwise break a SR. That's the specific beating general.

[DivisibleByZero]

Which is where the specific rule of Attunement comes in and overrules the general rule of what is allowed. While attuning you can do select activities that would otherwise break a SR. That's the specific beating general.

Or, maybe, just maybe, that wasn't something that ever broke a short rest, and your own personal ultra-strict interpretation has been the problem.
After all, Tai Chi could be replaced with "weapon practice," and Tai Chi has been used for relaxation/meditation for millennia.

Your interpretation requires a specific/general clause to be invoked (one which creates contradictory results from similar activities)
Ours does not.

[RSP]

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

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

* take the benefits of a short rest

OR

* not!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh yes it does! A couple of examples are shield and 'knocking a creature out'.

For the spell, you cast it as a reaction to 'being hit', and the spell may result in you not being hit. Does this result in a time paradox where now that you were never hit so that you cannot have cast the spell which means you were hit which means you can cast the spell but now you were not hit....forever, ad nauseum? Does the javelin actually go through your skull, killing you, and then you cast shield so that the javelin slides out of your head? No. What happened is that if the javelin would hit you, you cast the spell which interposes a magical shield of force which prevents the javelin ever hitting you.

So the game mechanic retroactively lets you change what happened at the table, but nothing retroactive happens in the game world! In the game, you threw up the shield just in time!

The game mechanics for 'knocking a creature out' (PHB p198) say that when an attacker drops a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack (which, according to the rules, kills it) the attacker can knock the creature out instead of killing them. You have to make the choice at the time; you can't kill him and then decide he's alive again a couple of rounds later!

So what actually happens here? At the table, the player hit the orc with his axe, doing 12 damage. The DM says that this kills the orc. The player says that he's going to knock the orc out cold with the flat of his axe. This is how the 5e rules work.

But what happened in the game world? Did I kill the orc, then bring it to life again? No! What was retroactive at the table was not retroactive in the game world! In the game, my blow was with the flat of my axe the whole time.

It's the same with taking the benefits of either type of rest. At the table, the DM might announce 12 points of hammer damage to the face before the player announces that his PC took the benefits of the short rest he has already had, but in the game world the 1 hour rest (and the benefits thereof) came before the hammer to the face.

That's how 5e works.

No, it's not that simple. The rules of reactions and the rules for certain spells, like Shield break the general rules. Just because Shield works a certain way, doesn't mean everything else in the game follows those exact rules.

You also cannot take a SR to heal after getting hit in the face with a hammer. Combat starts when a DM determines surprise (which I'm assuming takes place when a character is sleeping). Getting hit with an attack is during the fourth step of combat: it has stated well before the damage taken.

[RSP]

Or, maybe, just maybe, that wasn't something that ever broke a short rest, and your own personal ultra-strict interpretation has been the problem.
After all, Tai Chi could be replaced with "weapon practice," and Tai Chi has been used for relaxation/meditation for millennia.

Your interpretation requires a specific/general clause to be invoked (one which creates contradictory results from similar activities)
Ours does not.

Tai Chi is more strenuous than reading. It takes even more energy to do it if holding a weapon while doing it.

Are you arguing that you use the same amount of muscles while reading as doing tai chi? Or are you just saying that since it's a healthy thing to do it shouldn't count as strenuous?

[RSP]

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

Im also genuinely curious now: does your table really allow you to start combat, take a hit and just heal it because it's part of either a SR or LR, or where you just stating that not because you believe it, but you wanted to try to create a certain situation?

If you actually allow this, than anyone could take a LR (but not state they are getting the benefits yet), get involved with combat, fight for a few rounds, use spells and then after the combat ends, get full health and all spellslots back for ending the long rest. This is in addition to getting to use HD after taking damage in combat if you haven't attacked yet.

Edit: Leon and DBZ, do you both allow this at your table as well?

[DivisibleByZero]

Tai Chi is more strenuous than reading. It takes even more energy to do it if holding a weapon while doing it.

Are you arguing that you use the same amount of muscles while reading as doing tai chi? Or are you just saying that since it's a healthy thing to do it shouldn't count as strenuous?

I'm saying that people have been using Tai Chi for relaxation and meditation for millennia.
I'm saying your ridiculous interpretation means that doing Tai Chi negates a short rest.... *unless* you happen to have an unidentified or unattuned magic weapon in hand. And as you have rightly pointed out the weapon would make it even more strenuous.

The thing people have been doing for ages upon ages? Nope.
Doing that same thing, but making it more strenuous than it was before? Fine.
Explain how that makes any sense.

[LankyOgre]

I’m going to start a new thread for the short rest discussion.

In regards to Long Rests and “retroactive” declarations, the game is filled with times that you declare something retroactively due to narrative concerns. It’s just a narrative decision and personal preference, not a hard and fast requirement or prohibition.
“You have been in town for a week, what did you do?”
“You will stay in town for a week, what are you doing?”
There isn’t a functional difference between these two statements.

If the DM declaring combat, or another rest interrupting occurrence, prevents the expenditure of HD, then rests can be prevented at will. As a DM, all I have to say is “after you walk an hour,” or start inititiatve, etc.
Otherwise, all DM statements need to follow a narrative pattern that allows for players to state rest recuperation before any other actions.
“You are going to be ambushed by an orc hitting you in the face, do you regain spells first?”

[LankyOgre]

Im also genuinely curious now: does your table really allow you to start combat, take a hit and just heal it because it's part of either a SR or LR, or where you just stating that not because you believe it, but you wanted to try to create a certain situation?

I would allow a player to state they are spending HD to heal damage that was done before the hammer to the face.
DM “After sleeping for an hour you wake to a hammer smashing into your face and see the grinning face of an orc.”
Player “Since we just finished a short rest, I’m spending 2HD to heal”....roll....8 “8 ho, therefore I’m at 18, not 10.”