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

[RSP]

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.

Because the rule isn't a SR is doing "the thing people have been doing for ages upon ages," it's doing something equal to or less strenuous than reading, eating, drinking and TWs.

[DivisibleByZero]

Because the rule isn't a SR is doing "the thing people have been doing for ages upon ages," it's doing something equal to or less strenuous than reading, eating, drinking and TWs.

.... Except when you do it with a magic weapon that you want to attune or learn about. That's fine. No other cases are.
Explain that. You have yet to explain it, after being asked multiple times.

Party leader: We should stop for a short rest.
DM: What's everyone doing?
Wally the Warlock: I'm eating lunch.
Willy the Wizard: I'm studying my spellbook.
Conner the Cleric: I'm praying.
Mikey the Monk: I'm meditating.
Robbie the Rogue: I'm practicing with my new rapier.
Frankie the Fighter: I'm practicing with my greatsword.
DM: Wally, Willy Conner, Mikey, and Robbie, you guys all gain the benefits of a short rest.
Frankie the Fighter: What about me?
DM: Nope, sorry.
Frankie: But I was doing the exact same thing as Robbie, and he got a rest.
DM: Nope. Oh, and Robbie, not only do you gain a short rest, but you can either attune to the rapier or find out what magical properties it has.
Frankie: WTF dude?!?!? Really?!?!? Are you kidding me right now?
DM: Nope. Not kidding. Sorry.

You really think this is what the rules are trying to convey? Seriously?
You'd rather claim that this is what should happen rather than admit the possibly that you might need to reevaluate what you consider *more strenuous*?
Explain that.

[LeonBH]

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.

You are using the activities considered strenuous by LR to also be more strenuous than reading, eating, walking for SR. This has no logical basis going only by RAW. You must justify why this is valid, yet invalid for the attunement rules to tie into SR.

Otherwise, it is invalid for you to say that walking, fighting, and spellcasting are more strenuous than reading on the basis of the LR rule. For all we know, they could be no more strenuous than reading from the perspective of RAW.

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.

Why is training with a nonmagical sword more strenuous than reading, from RAW? You are making this up. I thought we were having a RAW discussion.

No, you cannot.

Yes, you can. You have nothing to defend this point. RAW allows it as I have shown, and you are only using your non-RAW personal interpretations to deny it.

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

Only insofar as RAI, they matter. They are not 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.

And you can say that one is not more strenuous as the other, going only by RAW.

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

I don't understand how you can make the act of walking break a SR through the absurdity of RAW either, but here we are.

Your absurd point has an absurd argument that you cannot show a counterargument to, unless you apply your personal interpretations to it.

EDIT: If you meant that you actually don't understand how I'm saying weapon practice is not more strenuous than reading by RAW, I'll try one more time to explain it.

The SR rule says you can do things that are not more strenuous than reading, eating, or drinking. The attunement rule gives an example of a thing you can do during an SR, weapon practice. Thus, you can say that RAW believes weapon practice is not more strenuous than reading, eating, or drinking.

You can say, as you have been saying, that this is wrong and that obviously, weapon training is more strenuous than reading (invoking Specific Beats General). But that is one of two interpretations. If we are talking only about RAW, then this is not the only way you can read it.

[RSP]

.... Except when you do it with a magic weapon that you want to attune or learn about. That's fine. No other cases are.
Explain that. You have yet to explain it, after being asked multiple times.

Party leader: We should stop for a short rest.
DM: What's everyone doing?
Wally the Warlock: I'm eating lunch.
Willy the Wizard: I'm studying my spellbook.
Conner the Cleric: I'm praying.
Mikey the Monk: I'm meditating.
Robbie the Rogue: I'm practicing with my new rapier.
Frankie the Fighter: I'm practicing with my greatsword.
DM: Wally, Willy Conner, Mikey, and Robbie, you guys all gain the benefits of a short rest.
Frankie the Fighter: What about me?
DM: Nope, sorry.
Frankie: But I was doing the exact same thing as Robbie, and he got a rest.
DM: Nope. Oh, and Robbie, not only do you gain a short rest, but you can either attune to the rapier or find out what magical properties it has.
Frankie: WTF dude?!?!? Really?!?!? Are you kidding me right now?
DM: Nope. Not kidding. Sorry.

You really think this is what the rules are trying to convey? Seriously?
You'd rather claim that this is what should happen rather than admit the possibly that you might need to reevaluate what you consider *more strenuous*?
Explain that.

I've said it multiple times. Do you really think training with a sword is as strenuous as reading?

There is an exception in that when attuning to a magic item (which no one in your example claimed to be doing), you can do a few other activities. If you want an example of fluffing this rule, go back and read what wrote when this first came up.

[DivisibleByZero]

I've said it multiple times. Do you really think training with a sword is as strenuous as reading?

There is an exception in that when attuning to a magic item (which no one in your example claimed to be doing), you can do a few other activities. If you want an example of fluffing this rule, go back and read what wrote when this first came up.

So your answer is yes.
You really think this is what the rules are trying to convey.
You would rather claim that this is what should happen rather than admit the possibly that you might need to reevaluate what you consider *more strenuous*
Got it.
Thanks.

[Thrudd]

This is all craziness. Thinking for a couple seconds about how people and the world works, and understanding the level of abstraction with which the game treats these things, should make this an easy decisions. trying to read into the rules in this legalistic way is just not what the designers intended - they certainly didn't think about it this hard, and neither should we. Use common sense, it's easy.

[LeonBH]

This is all craziness. Thinking for a couple seconds about how people and the world works, and understanding the level of abstraction with which the game treats these things, should make this an easy decisions. trying to read into the rules in this legalistic way is just not what the designers intended - they certainly didn't think about it this hard, and neither should we. Use common sense, it's easy.

Agreed. This is why SRs should be convertible to LR. You're just resting either way.

[RSP]

You are using the activities considered strenuous by LR to also be more strenuous than reading, eating, walking for SR. This has no logical basis going only by RAW. You must justify why this is valid, yet invalid for the attunement rules to tie into SR.

The reference to "strenuous activity" was only to show the intent of the developers. As I said previously, I do not consider reading, eating, drinking or tending wounds to be strenuous activity, and, therefore, anything considered strenuous activity would also be considered more strenuous than reading, etc.

Otherwise, it is invalid for you to say that walking, fighting, and spellcasting are more strenuous than reading on the basis of the LR rule. For all we know, they could be no more strenuous than reading from the perspective of RAW.

Fighting is certainly more strenuous than reading, etc. This is true in real life as well as the game. If you don't believe this is true in real life, I can't help you.

As for the game, we know this is true due to a) it's referred to as "strenuous activity," which interrupts a LR which can otherwise withstand similar activities as a SR (eating, drinking, reading) and, b) Crawford has specifically stated it interrupts a SR.

Why is training with a nonmagical sword more strenuous than reading, from RAW? You are making this up. I thought we were having a RAW discussion.

Because RAW still adheres to the English meanings of words. Training with a sword requires the use of many more muscles, the use of more enerfy than reading does. That's true in 5e as well as real life. Reading, in 5e as well as real life means you're using your eyes to scan characters. Training with a sword, is, in real life and 5e, the act of working your muscles to physically become better at hitting things with a sword.

I'm not sure why you think reading is equal to training with a sword.

Only insofar as RAI, they matter. They are not RAW.

They are in fact official rulings. That means they count.

[RSP]

So your answer is yes.
You really think this is what the rules are trying to convey.
You would rather claim that this is what should happen rather than admit the possibly that you might need to reevaluate what you consider *more strenuous*
Got it.
Thanks.

And you'd rather claim training with a sword is as strenuous as reading: clearly why Wizards are known for their strength and stamina.

[LeonBH]

The reference to "strenuous activity" was only to show the intent of the developers. As I said previously, I do not consider reading, eating, drinking or tending wounds to be strenuous activity, and, therefore, anything considered strenuous activity would also be considered more strenuous than reading, etc.

You are just restating how the LR rules can be applied to the SR rules. If the LR rules consider walking to be more strenuous than reading, that shouldn't affect the SR rules at all; just like how you're arguing that if the attunement rule considers weapon training to be less strenuous than reading, that shouldn't affect the SR rules.

Attunement allows weapon practice to be part of a SR. You can explain this in two ways: (1) it is a contradiction that can be handled by Specific Beats General; or (2) weapon practice is less strenuous than reading.

Either interpretation you take leads to the same outcome: you can do weapon practice with a magic weapon. RAW does not say which interpretation is valid, so to say one is the only valid interpretation is to make a claim unfounded on RAW.

Fighting is certainly more strenuous than reading, etc. This is true in real life as well as the game. If you don't believe this is true in real life, I can't help you.

No, you are applying your personal interpretations here. However, when I inserted my own personal interpretations in prior posts, you dismissed them as "not RAW." Case in point: tai chi and kata can relax you.

I know people who would rather drive their motorcycle than read their medical textbooks. For them, reading that material is more strenuous than driving.

You do not get to selectively apply whose interpretations are relevant, least of all yours. Stick to RAW, don't be biased in picking your logic.

You are already defending an absurd conclusion (walking breaks SR) on the basis that it's RAW. In order to do that, you've abandoned real life parallels already. Don't pull them in now at your convenience, or else you have to admit that in real life, walking isn't normally strenuous too.

As for the game, we know this is true due to a) it's referred to as "strenuous activity," which interrupts a LR which can otherwise withstand similar activities as a SR (eating, drinking, reading) and, b) Crawford has specifically stated it interrupts a SR.

Once again, following your own logic, LR rules should not affect SR rules. What is considered strenuous in a LR should not affect what is considered strenuous in a SR.

Otherwise, you need to permit what is considered not strenuous in attunement to also affect what is considered not-strenuous in the SR rule.

Because RAW still adheres to the English meanings of words. Training with a sword requires the use of many more muscles, the use of more enerfy than reading does. That's true in 5e as well as real life. Reading, in 5e as well as real life means you're using your eyes to scan characters. Training with a sword, is, in real life and 5e, the act of working your muscles to physically become better at hitting things with a sword.

I'm not sure why you think reading is equal to training with a sword.

RAW allows for weapon practice to be less strenuous than reading. Read the RAW, as you said before. I'm only saying what the RAW says. And as you said before, if you don't like the RAW, feel free to houserule in your game.

I'm just saying what RAW says, as you said before.

They are in fact official rulings. That means they count.

They are not in the PHB, DMG, and MM. They are not Errata. They count for the purposes of RAI. They are not RAW. They are not mandatory even in AL.

[RSP]

You are just restating how the LR rules can be applied to the SR rules. If the LR rules consider walking to be more strenuous than reading, that shouldn't affect the SR rules at all; just like how you're arguing that if the attunement rule considers weapon training to be less strenuous than reading, that shouldn't affect the SR rules.

...

They are not in the PHB, DMG, and MM. They are not Errata. They count for the purposes of RAI. They are not RAW. They are not mandatory even in AL.

I guess we should back up here. Let's look at the definition of strenuous:

Per Dictionary.com: "characterized by vigorous exertion, as action, efforts, life, etc." or "demanding or requiring vigorous exertion; laborious," or "vigorous, energetic, or zealously active."

Per Webster.com: "vigorously active," or "marked by or calling for energy or stamina."

That's 5 definitions from 2 well-used sites. None of those offer a definition that allows training with a sword to be less then or equal to reading in terms of being strenuous. Walking is more "vigorously active" than reading. Training with a sword is marked by or calling for energy or stamina" more so than reading. Does something call for more vigor or energy than reading? If yes, it interrupts a SR.

As for Crawford's rulings, the D&D 5e rules consider them official. Each DM decides if they want to use them, same as RAW, but they carry the same weight. I'm not saying I agree with his rulings. And he's certainly made ruling in the past that contradict the RAW. But to 5e, they account.

[LeonBH]

I guess we should back up here. Let's look at the definition of strenuous:

Per Dictionary.com: "characterized by vigorous exertion, as action, efforts, life, etc." or "demanding or requiring vigorous exertion; laborious," or "vigorous, energetic, or zealously active."

Per Webster.com: "vigorously active," or "marked by or calling for energy or stamina."

That's 5 definitions from 2 well-used sites. None of those offer a definition that allows training with a sword to be less then or equal to reading in terms of being strenuous. Walking is more "vigorously active" than reading. Training with a sword is marked by or calling for energy or stamina" more so than reading. Does something call for more vigor or energy than reading? If yes, it interrupts a SR.

As for Crawford's rulings, the D&D 5e rules consider them official. Each DM decides if they want to use them, same as RAW, but they carry the same weight. I'm not saying I agree with his rulings. And he's certainly made ruling in the past that contradict the RAW. But to 5e, they account.

(1) You can vigorously read, as in cram for a test; you can vigorously eat, as in a chili eating contest; you can vigorously drink and die of water poisoning.

(2) Those dictionaries don't hold sway over RAW. There is no unambiguous word that requires a natural language definition. A dictionary cannot overwrite when RAW allows for weapon practice to be less strenuous than reading.

(3) You are championing RAW. Not RAI. That is how you could claim walking breaks a SR. Thus JC tweets do not have a bearing on this discussion, as they are not RAW.

[RSP]

(1) You can vigorously read, as in cram for a test; you can vigorously eat, as in a chili eating contest; you can vigorously drink and die of water poisoning.

(2) Those dictionaries don't hold sway over RAW. There is no unambiguous word that requires a natural language definition. A dictionary cannot overwrite when RAW allows for weapon practice to be less strenuous than reading.

(3) You are championing RAW. Not RAI. That is how you could claim walking breaks a SR. Thus JC tweets do not have a bearing on this discussion, as they are not RAW.

1) No. How strenuous is it to read? The singular act of reading? That's what is stated. You can't add to that. You can't say "well I see people reading while running at the gym, so reading is amazingly vigorous." That's not reading, it's running and reading. The act of reading is not a vigorous endevour. Adding other acts while reading doesn't change that reading is an extremely low act of strenuousness.

2) the meanings of words absolutely hold sway over RAW. You can't say "well I'm going to decide to change the definition of words so the RAW suits what I want it to."

3) Crawford's tweets are official. They impact RAW. I know you don't like it. You think it's RAI. It's not. Mearls' tweets can be argued as RAI, but they aren't official; they don't have the same impact as Crawford's. 5e says "Crawford's tweets are official."

But even taking them out, weapon training is, by definition, more strenuous than reading, drinking, eating or tending to wounds. So if, while Attuning you're allowed to weapon train, it's a contradiction.

Essentially, you're saying "well, the rules say I can counter other characters spells in one specific section, with specific rules and a very limited scope (that is, you have to be able to cast the Counterspell spell) of how that countering can work; but I'm going to take that as the general rule and everyone can counter spells whenever they want." That the reason they have specific beat general: if a rule seems to contradict another when used in a specific way, it is an exception to the rule.

The rules of a SR are listed in the write up under Short Rest.

The rules for how to Attune a magic item are under Attunement. It contains an exception to the SR rules for when you are attuning a magic item.

[LeonBH]

1) No. How strenuous is it to read? The singular act of reading? That's what is stated. You can't add to that. You can't say "well I see people reading while running at the gym, so reading is amazingly vigorous." That's not reading, it's running and reading. The act of reading is not a vigorous endevour. Adding other acts while reading doesn't change that reading is an extremely low act of strenuousness.

Not RAW. It says "reading" and thus all forms of reading is encompassed. Not "lazy reading".

There is no one correct way to read. You don't even have to read with your eyes, to read. Braille. Morse code. Telepathy.

There is no one correct manner of reading. Slowly. Carefully. Meticulously. Vigorously. Passionately (as in a script).

Reading plus running is not ONLY reading. Reading with intensity IS only reading.

2) the meanings of words absolutely hold sway over RAW. You can't say "well I'm going to decide to change the definition of words so the RAW suits what I want it to."

Not RAW. You are so zoned in to interpreting RAW your way that you cannot accommodate the fact you are being exclusive and selective and narrow in your reading.

Your dictionary definition supports me, as in (1), not just you.

3) Crawford's tweets are official. They impact RAW. I know you don't like it. You think it's RAI. It's not. Mearls' tweets can be argued as RAI, but they aren't official; they don't have the same impact as Crawford's. 5e says "Crawford's tweets are official."

Not RAW. Impacts 5e, yes, but it is not RAW.

But even taking them out, weapon training is, by definition, more strenuous than reading, drinking, eating or tending to wounds. So if, while Attuning you're allowed to weapon train, it's a contradiction.

What dictionary are you using that "weapon training" is defined as "more strenuous than reading"?

Essentially, you're saying "well, the rules say I can counter other characters spells in one specific section, with specific rules and a very limited scope (that is, you have to be able to cast the Counterspell spell) of how that countering can work; but I'm going to take that as the general rule and everyone can counter spells whenever they want." That the reason they have specific beat general: if a rule seems to contradict another when used in a specific way, it is an exception to the rule.

The rules of a SR are listed in the write up under Short Rest.

The rules for how to Attune a magic item are under Attunement. It contains an exception to the SR rules for when you are attuning a magic item.

Nope, all of this is your selective, narrow, and personal interpretation. I am insisting that you stick to RAW but you refuse to.

RAW allows weapon training to be less strenuous than reading. No dictionary can undo that.

You CAN read it as an exception. You can also read it as NOT an exception, and come to the same outcome. The fact you choose the first interpretation is your personal interpretation.

Thus far, you have only insisted that your absurd reading of RAW is the right absurd one through applying your own interpretations. You keep leaving the realm of RAW to justify your argument.

[RSP]

Not RAW. It says "reading" and thus all forms of reading is encompassed. Not "lazy reading".

There is no one correct way to read. You don't even have to read with your eyes, to read. Braille. Morse code. Telepathy.

There is no one correct manner of reading. Slowly. Carefully. Meticulously. Vigorously. Passionately (as in a script).

Reading plus running is not ONLY reading. Reading with intensity IS only reading.



Not RAW. You are so zoned in to interpreting RAW your way that you cannot accommodate the fact you are being exclusive and selective and narrow in your reading.

Your dictionary definition supports me, as in (1), not just you.



Not RAW. Impacts 5e, yes, but it is not RAW.



What dictionary are you using that "weapon training" is defined as "more strenuous than reading"?



Nope, all of this is your selective, narrow, and personal interpretation. I am insisting that you stick to RAW but you refuse to.

RAW allows weapon training to be less strenuous than reading. No dictionary can undo that.

You CAN read it as an exception. You can also read it as NOT an exception, and come to the same outcome. The fact you choose the first interpretation is your personal interpretation.

Thus far, you have only insisted that your absurd reading of RAW is the right absurd one through applying your own interpretations. You keep leaving the realm of RAW to justify your argument.

Whether I skim your post, or consider the possible meanings of every word written it is still reading and is still a very low threshold of vigor and energy. Your example of eating spicy foods: eating is eating; running around looking for water in a panic going "hot, hot, hot" is not eating. Running while reading doesn't let you say "well running is the bar for a SR."

RAW allows weapon training during a SR when attuning. Do you really pursue the list of spells and say "well Wish says any 8th level or lower spell effect can be produced, so my 1st level fighter can do that because it's listed in the RAW?" No. You can't pick apart rules like that, discard necessary elements and just state they're globally applied.

I can't even imagine how you run the game if that's how you view rules.

I've posted, and cited sources, that reading is a very low amount of energy expenditure, so much so that walking require a greater amount of energy expedature. Plus, it's common sense.

If in your games, you allow players to say "I interpret fighting as less strenuous than reading, therefore, combat doesn't break a SR, and can therefore, take the benefits of a SR every hour," and that works for you, cool. But I doubt a large amount of tables allow that. Warlocks must be very well received in such campaigns.

The RAW uses basic English when determining what words mean. If you've decided that doesn't apply to the RAW, how do you interpret any of the rules??

[Tanarii]

This is all craziness. Thinking for a couple seconds about how people and the world works, and understanding the level of abstraction with which the game treats these things, should make this an easy decisions. trying to read into the rules in this legalistic way is just not what the designers intended - they certainly didn't think about it this hard, and neither should we. Use common sense, it's easy.

That's pretty much my attitude. Both Mearls and JC have made it clear at multiple points that, in theory at least, they intend the game to be open to using good judgement on the rules abstraction fitting the in-world situation and vice versa, as opposed to legalistic parsing.

Although sometimes JC backslides pretty bad in SA and various tweets and videos. e.g. his Stealth video, in which he explicitly supports pop-up hiding, which is something that was originally purely an artifact of legalistic parsing of earlier edition rules.

[strangebloke]

Let's break this down.

1. 1 hour of activity more strenuous than "walking... or other similar adventuring activity" breaks a long rest.(RAW)

--it's clear from context that the walking being talked about here is the sort of walking used in adventuring activity, since 'other similar' denotes that everything previously mentioned is also 'adventuring activity,' IE: exploration or hiking. This is completely distinct from walking to pick up a bag of chips.

2. activity more strenuous than "reading" breaks a short rest.(RAW)

--Activity more strenuous than "Eating, Drinking, reading or tending to wounds." In order for something to be strenuous it has to be more strenuous than any of those things. Reading can be very strenuous, (ever crammed for a test?) as can eating (Eating usually includes preparation of eats. Additionally, eating can include eating barely-edible things. Ever tried to chew your way through a raw coconut?).

3. you contend that 'walking is more strenuous than reading' on the basis of Caloric consumption whilst walking at 3 miles an hour.

-- 'Tending to wounds' is something I would conventionally consider to be more strenuous than most forms of walking (yes, including hiking), since it typically involves getting hot water, sewing stitches, wrapping/unwrapping bandages, sterilization of wounds, preparation of poultices... all very painful and labor-intensive. Which is more tiring, an hour of walking about town window-shopping, or an hour getting non-anesthetized surgery?

4. Therefore, a short rest has fundamentally different requirements than a long rest and they are completely different things and cannot happen in the same time.

--Even assuming all your propositions are true... this point doesn't hold. If a SR has requirements 'p' and 'q' and a LR has requirements 'a' and 'b,' I can still take either if I meet requirements 'p,' 'q,' 'a,' and 'b.' If I'm sleeping I am still doing activity less strenuous than reading.

[LeonBH]

Whether I skim your post, or consider the possible meanings of every word written it is still reading and is still a very low threshold of vigor and energy. Your example of eating spicy foods: eating is eating; running around looking for water in a panic going "hot, hot, hot" is not eating. Running while reading doesn't let you say "well running is the bar for a SR."

I literally did not say "running and eating". What are you knocking down here, a straw man?

RAW allows weapon training during a SR when attuning. Do you really pursue the list of spells and say "well Wish says any 8th level or lower spell effect can be produced, so my 1st level fighter can do that because it's listed in the RAW?" No. You can't pick apart rules like that, discard necessary elements and just state they're globally applied.

A Fighter does not have 9th level spells in the first place. There is no comparison here.

I can't even imagine how you run the game if that's how you view rules.

I don't break their SR by walking, for one.

I've posted, and cited sources, that reading is a very low amount of energy expenditure, so much so that walking require a greater amount of energy expedature. Plus, it's common sense.

RAW cares not about common sense. That is why SR breaks upon walking. You keep trying to defend an absurd position and then cite common sense as a defense?

If in your games, you allow players to say "I interpret fighting as less strenuous than reading, therefore, combat doesn't break a SR, and can therefore, take the benefits of a SR every hour," and that works for you, cool. But I doubt a large amount of tables allow that. Warlocks must be very well received in such campaigns.

Perhaps. But it would not be a houserule in such a table.

The RAW uses basic English when determining what words mean. If you've decided that doesn't apply to the RAW, how do you interpret any of the rules??

I interpret it the same way you do.

[Foxydono]

Agreed. This is why SRs should be convertible to LR. You're just resting either way.

I have stated this already in one of my earlier posts, but since the thread became so long and tedious, I will try to explain my point of view once again. I am not sure if it will be of any help, because it seems most people here are very head strong on this subject.

Before I make my argument, let me first say that I do not care whether this is raw or not and I don't think that is very important so long as everyone at your table is having fun and can agree on the matter. If it even becomes a point of discussion in the first place.

Without delving too deeply into legal wording and sage advice, there are two main points of view. An interrupted long rest can count as a short rest or it cannot. If you look at it from a real life perspective, a LR should also count as a SR if interrupted. This is logical, because as qouted: 'You are resting either way'. Legal arguments aside on whether they are mutually exclusive or not set aside, this seems a logical position to take.

From a game mechanic point this does pose some potential problems. Lets say the party is in a dungeon and the party decides to rest. If you don't have to decide what kind of rest you want to take, you'll just say that you are resting. Setting aside the argument what subsitutes for a short rest, because my point focuses on whether an interrupted LR should count as a SR. So in this example the party is just going to take a nap. As a DM, I will ask them for how long they intent to sleep and if they want to set up a guard rotation.

Maybe they want to sleep only five minutes or maybe an hour or eighteen hours. In RL I have to think about how long I want to sleep as well. And if you don't ask them and say that they het interrupted after two hours they might say they just wanted to sleep for an hour. To avoid miscommunication like this I always ask them how long they intent to sleep.

To keep it simple, lets say they either say an hour or eight hours. If it is one hour and before they wake up a battle occurs, than the SR is interrupted, so lets focus on the problem, which is the interrupted LR.

To summarize, the party is in a dungeon and is going to rest. You ask for how long they intent to rest and they say eight hours or so. After three hours they wake up because they are attacked! So what do you do? Give them a short rest or two so they can restore all or most of their HP, warlock spells and short rest abilities?

Although this would be the logical option, I don't like it. The reason for it is there is almost no drawback to say 'you're resting' and than decide the sort of rest you took depending on the outcome. It feels like metagaming to me. In comparison to other editions recovering hit points is really easy and letting players decide their sleep afterwards doesn't sit well with me.

Taking a long rest comes with a lot of benefits and it should also have a drawback. Beside the fact that it takes longer than a SR. And in all honesty, if you get interrupted in the middle of your deep sleep by an ogre, I highly doubt you'll feel much refreshed to be honest. Therefore, I let the intentions of the players be the guideline for the kind of rest they take. If they do choose a LR it has a real downside. Getting interrupted and not having rested at all.

I feel this added danger makes resting more dangerous and more fun, at least for me and my players. Now they actually have to make a real choice how they want to handle their recovery, instead of just saying 'I am going to rest' and then picking the most beneficial option afterwards.

But as I said earlier, everyone should play it as they like, as long as everyone is having fun :)

[Tanarii]

From a game mechanic point this does pose some potential problems.

What problems? That's the part I'm mostly lost on. Unless you allow rests to count as both short and long rest at the same time AND allow combat to not interrupt a long rest and force the amount of time needed for a long rest to start over, so far I haven't seen any.

Although this would be the logical option, I don't like it. The reason for it is there is almost no drawback to say 'you're resting' and than decide the sort of rest you took depending on the outcome. It feels like metagaming to me.

This still doesn't make any sense.

Declaring which kind of rules abstraction rest you are making at the start of the rest is literally metagaming*. You are declaring an action based on a rules distinction that doesn't have ANY in-game difference. Like, you don't even have to sleep for the first two hours of a Long Rest, so they're identical up to that point.

Saying "I rest" then determining which abstract game rule applies based on what happened to the characters at the end of the rest, based on what happened during that rest, is the exact opposite of metagaming*.

*assuming here we're using metagaming to mean something like "deciding for OC reasons, not what's happening in-world." In this case, the OC reasons are the rules in the book that aren't perceivable by the characters.

[Foxydono]

What problems? That's the part I'm mostly lost on. Unless you allow rests to count as both short and long rest at the same time AND allow combat to not interrupt a long rest and force the amount of time needed for a long rest to start over, so far I haven't seen any.

Maybe problems isn't the right way to put it, since the game works fine either way. But allowing a short rest while someone is attempting to long rest makes no sense to me mechanically, because than it would never be a real choice to short rest or long rest even though the game is build around those mechanics. You would always just rest and pick afterwards whatever floats your boat. The whole game is build around certain actions you take as a character and allowing a short rest during an interrupted long rest is circumventing you to make a choice in either of the two. You just reap the benefits as suits you best. I doubt it was intended like this and I do see that as a problem, because it takes away a bit of fun and excitement if you can decide what you wanted with your rest afterwards (for me at least, both as DM and as a player).

Declaring which kind of rules abstraction rest you are making at the start of the rest is literally metagaming*. You are declaring an action based on a rules distinction that doesn't have ANY in-game difference. Like, you don't even have to sleep for the first two hours of a Long Rest, so they're identical up to that point.

Saying "I rest" then determining which abstract game rule applies based on what happened to the characters at the end of the rest, based on what happened during that rest, is the exact opposite of metagaming*.

*assuming here we're using metagaming to mean something like "deciding for OC reasons, not what's happening in-world." In this case, the OC reasons are the rules in the book that aren't perceivable by the characters.

Declaring how long you intent to rest is in no way metagaming. That is just your intent as a character. And in game a character would know what benefits it get from resting. After all, you have been doing that your entire career. It would be rather strange if you idn;t know you could heal after sleeping for an hour. However, if you intent to have a long rest so you can recover all your hit points and spells, but then decide to take the benefits of a short rest because your long rest got interrupted *feels* like metagaming to me. Sure you can say that is how the game works and you slept three hours so you should get that benefit of a short rest even though it was not your intent, but to me that hinges towards metagaming.

[Tanarii]

Declaring how long you intent to rest is in no way metagaming. That is just your intent as a character.

It absolutely is metagaming. Not in the negative oh no stay away from it sense. But in the sense of making a choice about something that the character cannot perceive and cannot make a choice about.

Its only after a rest is completed and the effects are applied, based on what has happened in game, the charcter can tell.

Let me clear though, it is also a metagame choice if the player can choose to forgo a short rest and continue the long rest after combat. If the rules are being interpreted that way, there is no way to avoid a metagame decision.

But if combat always interrupts a long rest, then there is no metagame choice involved. In that case, characters just get a short rest instead of the long rest.

[Foxydono]

It absolutely is metagaming. Not in the negative oh no stay away from it sense. But in the sense of making a choice about something that the character cannot perceive and cannot make a choice about.

Its only after a rest is completed and the effects are applied, based on what has happened in game, the charcter can tell.

Let me clear though, it is also a metagame choice if the player can choose to forgo a short rest and continue the long rest after combat. If the rules are being interpreted that way, there is no way to avoid a metagame decision.

But if combat always interrupts a long rest, then there is no metagame choice involved. In that case, characters just get a short rest instead of the long rest.

I don't agree with this at all. Metagaming is when you make a decision in game, on knowledge that your character in game doesn't have, but you do irl. For example: Normally you are the first one to open a door, but you accidentally saw the dungeon map and you know the door is trapped and now you refuse to open it. It's a silly example, but you get the point (hopefully).

If you say you want to rest, this is not metagaming. You just intent to rest for a period of time. Be it one hour or eight. This is in no way based on knowledge you have outside the game. Making a choice is not metagaming, unless you base it on something that your character shouldn't know in game. This is exactly the reason why I find making a choice after you get attacked metagamingish. Because you make a choice based on whether you get attacked during your long rest. Your character wouldn't have known it was going to be attacked. So if you intended a long rest and than you change it to a short rest because something happened feels wrong. Although it isn't metagaming strictly speaking. And you argue that the intent does not matter and you just rested long enough to get the benefits of a SR, that's all good if you look at it only from that angle, but to me it feels like:

Player 1 (int 8): I'm trowing a lightning bolt at the will-o'-wisp, oh wait I forgot hes immune right :D, nvm I'm going to throw a fireball instead. The lightning bolt being the long rest, the out game knowledge that the Will-O'-Wisp is immune and finally the fireball represents the change of heart, the short rest. This is not exactly the same, I know. But it captures the core of why I think it feels wrong to change a LR into a SR. Additionally, I don't think a SR and a LR are intended to be used in a such a way and it makes the game a bit less fun to roll play it like this.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, if a player says their charCter is going to rest, it's not (usually) a metagame choice. I mean, it could be, but resting is something the character knows how to do. It's choosing to short rest or long rest specifically, locking yourself into one or the other, that would be a metagame choice. From the character perspective the choice being made is the intent to rest and the intent to sleep.

If your attempt to rest for 8 hrs is interrupted by combat and your DM tells you to take the benefits of a short rest, because he rules your long rest is now dead in the water due to any combat happening, that's also not a metagame choice. A player choosing to take the benefits of a short rest now instead of continuing the long rest after combat less than an hour, if the DM rules long rests work that way, would be a metagame choice.

I think any of these can work, in terms of playability. Although personally I find choosing in advance the least appealing option of the various ways it can be ruled.

[Foxydono]

Yeah, if a player says their charCter is going to rest, it's not (usually) a metagame choice. I mean, it could be, but resting is something the character knows how to do. It's choosing to short rest or long rest specifically, locking yourself into one or the other, that would be a metagame choice. From the character perspective the choice being made is the intent to rest and the intent to sleep.

I get what you are saying. You mean to say it could be metagaming because you choose to sleep to get certain benefits a SR or a LR gives. I view this differently, because in game my character would know what benefits a SR and a LR (or call it a period of rest) give. It would be rather silly if he did not know what he could or couldn't do after sleeping one or eight hours. So choosing to do one or the other is all 'in-game' knowledge and therefore not metagaming. So even if my characters chooses specifically to long rest to regain spell slots I would not call this metagaming.

As for your last example, you say it as if its a choice of your DM whether you can take the benefits of a SR and it is. But in the examples I've given in my previous post, I'm going under the assumption that the DM has ruled that you can take the benefits of a SR after an interrupted LR and in this case I still find it to give a metagamish option to the player characters to enjoy a short rest instead. Personally, I would be fine too with either ruling as a player, but would definitely prefer choosing beforehand, as it poses more danger to take a long rest that way. Just adds a bit of excitement in my opinion.

[Tanarii]

Resting is resting. There is no way to get a Long Rest without passing, from the in-character perspective, the requirements for a Short Rest. That's why there is no in-character way for them to know in advance and to decide in advance they will Long Rest but not to Short Rest. The only way that can possible be is if it's a metagame (only) rule the DM has put in place for how the mechanics of Long Resting will work.

[Arial Black]

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.

And the SR/LR rules also work in this way. You don't decide what benefits you get before you stop exerting yourself; what happens is that you look back and work out how long it's been since you did exert yourself to see what type of rest(s) you qualify for, if any.

You also cannot take a SR to heal after getting hit in the face with a hammer.

That's right. The short rest took place before the hammer to the face, even if the DM announces the hit before you, as a player at the table, tell him that your PC is taking the benefits of the short rest that your character already had in the game world before that hammer hit.

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.

But 'combat starting' does not prevent me from benefiting from the rest I already had before that combat started!

And 'combat starting' does not mean that I have done anything strenuous yet! 'Other people fighting' does not involve ME doing anything strenuous at all!

The DM can 'start combat' any time he likes, but that is not something that affects my resting state! Only me exerting myself does that!

[Arial Black]

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?

First, just because 'combat has started' doesn't mean that 'I am engaging in combat'.

Second, when I take a hammer to the face which wakes me up, my short rest benefits, including spending HD to heal, are nothing to do with healing the damage from that hammer blow! The short rest I just had before that hammer fell could only heal damage I had already taken prior to that short rest.

Let's say that I was on 43hp out of 50hp when I went to sleep. Two hours later I'm woken by a hammer to the face for 12 damage. At that point I can announce that prior to that point I had completed a short rest and spent HD to heal up to 50hp. That new 12 hammer damage comes off that 50hp.

The HD I spend cannot heal that hammer damage, because that happened after my rest in the game world.

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.

Yes. This is because less than 1 hour of combat does not prevent you from taking the benefits of a long rest, and you have already had 8 hours.

This is in addition to getting to use HD after taking damage in combat if you haven't attacked yet.

No!

If you chose to take the benefits of a short rest, then your resting clock resets to zero.

[RSP]

Let's break this down.

1. 1 hour of activity more strenuous than "walking... or other similar adventuring activity" breaks a long rest.(RAW)

--it's clear from context that the walking being talked about here is the sort of walking used in adventuring activity, since 'other similar' denotes that everything previously mentioned is also 'adventuring activity,' IE: exploration or hiking. This is completely distinct from walking to pick up a bag of chips.

How is walking to get a bag of chips different than walking an equal distance into a room during an "adventure." Further, SRs are ment to take place during the Adventuring day, so yeah, walking during a SR is during an "adventure."

The act of reading doesn't involve many muscles moving throughout your body. Walking does. That's why walking is more strenuous.

2. activity more strenuous than "reading" breaks a short rest.(RAW)

--Activity more strenuous than "Eating, Drinking, reading or tending to wounds." In order for something to be strenuous it has to be more strenuous than any of those things. Reading can be very strenuous, (ever crammed for a test?) as can eating (Eating usually includes preparation of eats. Additionally, eating can include eating barely-edible things. Ever tried to chew your way through a raw coconut?).

Eating does not include preparation. For instance, I ate a big meal on Thanksgiving, however, I did not prepare the meal. Cooking the meal is more strenuous than eating it. Chewing your way through a coconut husk isn't eating, it's chewing your way through a coconut husk. Using my teeth to rip tape isn't eating, it's using my teeth to rip tape.

Cramming for a test isn't just reading: it usually involves forcing your body to stay awake when it would normally be resting through the means of caffeine or other stimulants.

I think you may be confusing strenuous and stressful.

3. you contend that 'walking is more strenuous than reading' on the basis of Caloric consumption whilst walking at 3 miles an hour.

-- 'Tending to wounds' is something I would conventionally consider to be more strenuous than most forms of walking (yes, including hiking), since it typically involves getting hot water, sewing stitches, wrapping/unwrapping bandages, sterilization of wounds, preparation of poultices... all very painful and labor-intensive. Which is more tiring, an hour of walking about town window-shopping, or an hour getting non-anesthetized surgery?

You're using real life healing to reflect in-game healing, when they are extremely different. In game, you're completely healed after a LR. This obviously isn't true in real life. We need things like surgery. That isn't what happens in-game withbout houserules. Here is the RAW of tending to wounds:

"Healer’s Kit. This kit is a leather pouch containing bandages, salves, and splints. The kit has ten uses. As an action, you can expend one use of the kit to stabilize a creature that has 0 hit points, without needing to make a Wisdom (Medicine) check."

"Medicine. A Wisdom (Medicine) check lets you try to stabilize a dying companion or diagnose an illness."

"Rest can restore a creature’s hit points (as explained in chapter 8), and magical methods such as a cure wounds spell or a potion of healing can remove damage in an instant."

"You can use your action to administer rst aid to an unconscious creature and attempt to stabilize it, which requires a successful DC 10 Wisdom (Medicine) check."

Even the Healer feat only works as a 6-second fix:

"When you use a healer’s kit to stabilize a dying creature, that creature also regains 1 hit point.
As an action, you can spend one use of a healer’s kit to tend to a creature and restore 1d6 + 4 hit points to it, plus additional hit points equal to the creature’s maximum number of Hit Dice. The creature can’t regain hit points from this feat again until it finishes a short or long rest."

None of these involve surgery. Surgery in 5e would just cause damage. If you've houserule s surgery into your game, cool. But it isn't RAW. I'd imagine you'd likewise have to houserule how resting works as why would you ever let someone do surgery on you when you can just sleep for 8 hours and good as new?

4. Therefore, a short rest has fundamentally different requirements than a long rest and they are completely different things and cannot happen in the same time.

--Even assuming all your propositions are true... this point doesn't hold. If a SR has requirements 'p' and 'q' and a LR has requirements 'a' and 'b,' I can still take either if I meet requirements 'p,' 'q,' 'a,' and 'b.' If I'm sleeping I am still doing activity less strenuous than reading.

Which I've stated: sleeping would qualify for either, for example. But that doesn't disprove that SRs have different requirements than LRs; they do. We know they cannot happen at the same time as we've been told this by Crawford.

So we're back to if a Player says they're taking a LR, then we can assume they're doing activities that fulfill a LR, which isn't the same group of activities as a SR.

[RSP]

There is no way to get a Long Rest without passing, from the in-character perspective, the requirements for a Short Rest.

There very much is a way to have a LR without a SR (in character or not): you could have 1 round of fighting within every hour otherwise spent sleeping. Since the fighting is less than an hour, the LR can continue; but the SR cannot.