D&D 5E Concentration while Short Resting

[The Crimson Binome]

Actually, although you are allowed to bandage wounds during a short rest (and this is not an activity which will prevent you getting the benefits of the short rest), you are not required to bandage wounds or use medkits etc. in order to gain the benefits of that short rest, even the 'spending hit dice' part!

Unless you're using the gritty option, where you do. If you're using the option that requires you to spend a charge from your medkit in order to recover with Hit Dice, then you need to actually do that at some point before you can gain the benefit of having done so. Likewise, with the wizard's ability to study from their spell book in order to regain spell slots during a short rest. Suggesting that someone could gain the benefit of having performed a task without having actually performed that task would be ridiculous, regardless of how you choose to misinterpret the words on the page.

Of course, there are other abilities which don't require you to take any special action to recover. I think ki might work that way (although I don't have a book with me, to check). Warlock spell slots are another possibility. If the DM describes damage as mostly being fatigue or luck, and you aren't using the medkit rule, then you could potentially say that spending Hit Dice is just something that happens naturally while you're resting. In that case, DM discretion applies.

 

[Xetheral]

I'm not being inconsistent at all - I'm using the definitions and conditions for each type of rest presented by the rule book. They are similar, but slightly different, and not being able to end one to immediately begin the other is with a proviso; you can't just choose to do it because that is indistinguishable from continuing whatever sort of rest you were already taking. When you do an activity that actually ends the type of rest you've been having, you can start a new rest of whichever type you like, assuming you wait the necessary length of time in the case of a long rest.

You're making characters (as opposed to the players) choose between two "indistinguishable" activities that have different outcomes. Yes, that's being inconsistant--if they have different outcomes, they can't possibly be indistinguishable.

(Alternatively, you're being inconsistant when you simultaneously refer to the two types of rest as "slightly different" and "indistinguishable".)

It is not my claim that has created the problem here, it is your hypothetical doing that.

Ok, I'll change the hypothetical. There are three characters: a fighter, a wizard, and a warlock (with both spell slots remaining), all at 1 HP. They declare they're taking a long rest. After 8 hours, they get up. The fighter breaks camp, the wizard prepares a new spell list and casts a spell, and the warlock cooks a tasty breakfast and casts two spells. This takes 30 minutes. Afterwards, the two casters harrangue the fighter into resting so that they can be better prepared for any danger on the road. 30 minutes later, the party is ambushed. The wizard, by definition, is at full HP. How many HP do the fighter and warlock have? Was making breakfast and breaking camp for 30 minutes enough to finish their long rest to get their HP back? Or by resting again with only a 30 minute break (insufficient to interrupt a long rest) are they still not finished with their long rest? Do your answers change if there was only 5 minutes of non-rest activity instead of 30 minutes? How about a full hour?

(Note that if the warlock hadn't had any spell slots when he started resting, he too would necessarily be at full HP because in order to cast the spells at breakfast he had to have finished the long rest to regain the slots.)

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You're making characters (as opposed to the players) choose between two "indistinguishable" activities that have different outcomes. Yes, that's being inconsistant

Incorrect. I am acknowledging that the player's choice (a game play element, which type of rest to take, and for how long) and the character's choice (a narrative) do not have to be intimately linked.

The player is making a choice what kind of rest to take, and there are different rules implications for each. The character isn't making any choices because they are a fictional entity, but the narrative that the character rests is the same regardless of which type of rest the player chooses.

Ok, I'll change the hypothetical. There are three characters: a fighter, a wizard, and a warlock (with both spell slots remaining), all at 1 HP. They declare they're taking a long rest. After 8 hours, they get up. The fighter breaks camp, the wizard prepares a new spell list and casts a spell, and the warlock cooks a tasty breakfast and casts two spells. This takes 30 minutes. Afterwards, the two casters harrangue the fighter into resting so that they can be better prepared for any danger on the road. 30 minutes later, the party is ambushed. The wizard, by definition, is at full HP. How many HP do the fighter and warlock have? Was making breakfast and breaking camp for 30 minutes enough to finish their long rest to get their HP back? Or by resting again with only a 30 minute break (insufficient to interrupt a long rest) are they still not finished with their long rest? Do your answers change if there was only 5 minutes of non-rest activity instead of 30 minutes? How about a full hour?

This hypothetical is better constructed, and I can answer these questions.

Firstly; intending to end one rest, do very little of note, and then return to rest is an attempt to game the system and just plain doesn't work by my interpretation - even if the players is insistent that they have chosen to end a long rest, cast some spells, then start a short rest, it is resolved as casting some spells during a long rest.

That means that this scenario probably doesn't include anyone harranguing anyone into more rest than necessary because there is no benefit to be gained from it. Which means that the ambush happens after a long rest has ended and the party has started their adventuring day.

So specifics on the remaining questions: Making breakfast and breaking camp for 30 minutes is not ending your long rest if you intend to rest more afterwards. My answers do not change if they only took 5 minutes of non-rest activity, but do change if a full hour is taken - specifically, if the characters interrupt their own rest for longer than an hour while they intend to return to rest, they've spoiled the long rest and have to start again. So it is much more beneficial to the characters if the players actually stop intending to rest and do something else than it is to try and game the rest mechanics.

I will acknowledge that my interpretation does produce results which may be referred to as "weird." However, I find this to be a case of weird results no matter what you do, so the choice is really which weird results you would rather have; my weird results of the players being encouraged to have their characters rest the minimum amount of time and then go do stuff, or the weirdness of trying to rest and not succeeding if the player insists on doing that to them self - or the weird results of being able to do things like use second wind, short rest, use second, short rest, and repeat, or a warlock that has gained access to the cure wounds spell full healing an entire party with numerous repeated short rests. And I choose the "No, stop that, no cheesing, play the game" weirdness every time.

 

[Caliban]

I will acknowledge that my interpretation does produce results which may be referred to as "weird."

By my view, that is not an interpretation. That's a flat out house rule. Which is also fine.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

By my view, that is not an interpretation. That's a flat out house rule. Which is also fine.

That gets into what the definition of "house-rule" is. I don't consider a definition of "house-rule" that includes rules I have not changed the text of in any way before using to make my ruling to be useful because it is too broad a definition and would apply to everything I do at the table rather than just to the rules which I have altered or added to the game.

Out of curiosity, do you also consider the other interpretation presented to be a "flat out house rule", or am I the only one getting that designation?

 

[Caliban]

That gets into what the definition of "house-rule" is. I don't consider a definition of "house-rule" that includes rules I have not changed the text of in any way before using to make my ruling to be useful because it is too broad a definition and would apply to everything I do at the table rather than just to the rules which I have altered or added to the game.

I really don't care about your word games and semantic gymnastics. (And since you had to use multiple paragraphs to redefine a few sentences from the book, that's what I consider it.) You know how the rule is intended to be read, and you are choosing to interpret it differently to suit your own purposes. That's a house rule. Changing the text or not changing the text is irrelevant.

People like you are what cause headaches for DM's at AL tables and create a poor experience for the other players because you insist on a weird reading of the rules and try to claim it's a real thing.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...you had to use multiple paragraphs to redefine a few sentences from the book...

I've not redefined anything.

You know how the rule is intended to be read...

No. I've asked for a link to a developer comment clarifying the intended reading, and I have not received one. I don't believe that one actually exists, and thus I know for a fact that none of us fans know how the rule is intended to be read, no matter how confident we are in our guess at what the intent is.

...and you are choosing to interpret it differently to suit your own purposes. That's a house rule.

If there were a single possible interpretation, you'd have a point. But there are, clearly, multiple possible interpretations, so calling one, but not all, of them a "house rule" seems like you are using the phrase as a pejorative.

Changing the text or not changing the text is irrelevant.

Changing the text is making a house-rule. Not changing the text is an interpretation.

People like you are what cause headaches for DM's at AL tables and create a poor experience for the other players because you insist on a weird reading of the rules and try to claim it's a real thing.

People like me? How entirely unfair and inaccurate a claim. I've not tried to give my reading of the rules any more weight than anyone else's reading. I also have no involvement at all with the AL, or with creating a poor experience for any players (you'd know that if you were ever at my table, rather than on the internet making baseless assumptions about how things go at my table or who I am as a person).

However, I have been, repeatedly now, spoken down to by people claiming to know the single "correct" or "intended" interpretation of the text, so if you have a problem with people insisting their reading of the rules is "a real thing," you should turn your attention to them.

 

[Caliban]

I've not redefined anything.

Well, I think we can stop right here. Good day.

 

[Xetheral]

Incorrect. I am acknowledging that the player's choice (a game play element, which type of rest to take, and for how long) and the character's choice (a narrative) do not have to be intimately linked.

The player is making a choice what kind of rest to take, and there are different rules implications for each. The character isn't making any choices because they are a fictional entity, but the narrative that the character rests is the same regardless of which type of rest the player chooses.

Ok, fair enough. We're coming at this from entirely different perspectives. From my point of view, you just took a primarily IC decision ("how much time should we spend resting?") and turned it into a dissociated strictly OOC one ("how do we want to categorize this rest?"). Maybe it's just my bias against disassociated mechanics, but to me that's a change for the worse. At my table I want as much of the narrative as possible to be the result of IC choices.

This hypothetical is better constructed, and I can answer these questions.

Firstly; intending to end one rest, do very little of note, and then return to rest is an attempt to game the system and just plain doesn't work by my interpretation - even if the players is insistent that they have chosen to end a long rest, cast some spells, then start a short rest, it is resolved as casting some spells during a long rest.

That means that this scenario probably doesn't include anyone harranguing anyone into more rest than necessary because there is no benefit to be gained from it. Which means that the ambush happens after a long rest has ended and the party has started their adventuring day.

So specifics on the remaining questions: Making breakfast and breaking camp for 30 minutes is not ending your long rest if you intend to rest more afterwards. My answers do not change if they only took 5 minutes of non-rest activity, but do change if a full hour is taken - specifically, if the characters interrupt their own rest for longer than an hour while they intend to return to rest, they've spoiled the long rest and have to start again. So it is much more beneficial to the characters if the players actually stop intending to rest and do something else than it is to try and game the rest mechanics.

I will acknowledge that my interpretation does produce results which may be referred to as "weird." However, I find this to be a case of weird results no matter what you do, so the choice is really which weird results you would rather have; my weird results of the players being encouraged to have their characters rest the minimum amount of time and then go do stuff, or the weirdness of trying to rest and not succeeding if the player insists on doing that to them self - or the weird results of being able to do things like use second wind, short rest, use second, short rest, and repeat, or a warlock that has gained access to the cure wounds spell full healing an entire party with numerous repeated short rests. And I choose the "No, stop that, no cheesing, play the game" weirdness every time.

And to me the weirdness of the consequences of your interpretation far outweighs any added benefit of preventing people from gaming the system. For that matter, I don't see wanting to rest to recover spent resources as "gaming the system" in the first place--it's the system's chosen recovery method, and a logical, associated mechanic to boot--why shouldn't characters have the option to use it? I have zero problem with a warlock who wants to rest for awhile to heal the whole party... in my opinion the ability to do so is part of what being a short-rest caster means: if you don't do anything strenuous for an hour, you get your spells back. Far from considering it "cheese", I think it's the system working exactly as designed.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Ok, fair enough. We're coming at this from entirely different perspectives.

Indeed. In fact, the only reason I got into this discussion at all was because of someone else posting in a way that showed they didn't believe any other perspective from their own to be possible, or at least that they thought their interpretation was the intended one without any proof to that effect.

And to me the weirdness of the consequences of your interpretation far outweighs any added benefit of preventing people from gaming the system. For that matter, I don't see wanting to rest to recover spent resources as "gaming the system" in the first place--it's the system's chosen recovery method, and a logical, associated mechanic to boot--why shouldn't characters have the option to use it?

It's really a non-issue at my own table, as my players and I haven't had any disagreements about how to use the resting mechanics (by which I mean they have never thought it would be cool to take another rest without first doing a bunch of other stuff). My interpretation of the rules actually comes from a phenomenon I saw on this forum - people were complaining about the "infinite hp" that second wind provided when you assume rests as being repeatable back-to-back, and demanding a fix for the situation, and when I went looking at the relevant rules to weigh in on the issue and make suggestions, I saw the easy fix of just not interpreting rest working that way, and decided I would go with that to prevent any of the stated issues from happening.