The only thing the lack of "such as" tells us is that they didn't bother to list anything that happens during downtime, but doesn't rise to the level of light or strenuous. There would be no need to list those things OR use wording such as "such as," because all lesser things are aleady included in the phrase "...does nothing more strenuous than...". Staring at the stars is not more strenuous(or even as strenuous) than light activity. It is downtime, though, and it is included in things you can do during a long rest.
I think we might still be looking at different versions. In the errata document I'm looking at the phrase "does nothing more strenuous than" doesn't appear anywhere. Here's what I understand to be the most-current version (as of the 12th printing of the PHB):
A long rest is a period of extended downtime, at least 8 hours long, during which a character sleeps for at least 6 hours and performs no more than 2 hours of light activity, such as reading, talking, eating, or standing watch. If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity—at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity—the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it.
Without "does nothing more strenuous than" or "such as" or some other language indicating that the list of things that adventurers do during downtime (i.e. "sleep" and "light activity") is non-exclusive, I can't agree that there must be other types of activities that qualify as downtime. That's especially true since the designers
did use "such as" later in the same sentence when describing non-exclusive examples of the sorts of activity that qualifies as "light activity".
Ok, so you seem to be interpreting a long rest as consisting of two categories of activity: “downtime” (which includes sleeping and light activity), and “adventuring activity” (which includes fighting, casting spells, and walking.) Under your interpretation, to complete a long rest you must engage in at least 8 hours of downtime, 6 hours of which must be sleep, and can’t engage in more than 1 hour of adventuring activity. I find this interpretation awkward in a couple of ways: first of all, despite your attempt to treat downtime as a single category of activity, this reading still requires breaking that category up into two subcategories: sleeping and light activity, since one of those subcategories has a minimum requirement, while the other has a maximum. Additionally, as I pointed out before, if these are subcategories of the broader category “downtime,” then it isn’t actually necessary to state the maximum amount of the “light activity” subcategory; that maximum will naturally emerge from the 8 hours of required “downtime” combined with the 6 hour minimum of “sleep.” Furthermore, this renders the “at least” in “a period of downtime, at least 8 hours long” not only redundant but factually incorrect. Under this interpretation, it’s actually impossible to engage in a period of downtime longer than 8 hours without completing a long rest partway through it.
I am interpreting a long rest as consisting of three categories of activity: sleeping, “light activity” (which includes reading, talking, eating, and standing watch), and “adventuring activity” (which includes fighting, casting spells, and walking.) In order to complete a long rest, you must complete at least 8 hours engaging in some combination of these three activities, at least 6 hours of which must be “sleeping,” no more than 2 hours of which mat be “light activity,” and no more than 1 hour of which may be “adventuring activity.” This makes it possible for a long rest that includes some amount of adventuring activity to take more than 8 hours to complete, justifying the “at least” portion, though admittedly in doing so it does appear to include fighting in what it describes as “a period of downtime.” I am inclined to suspect this is the unintentional result of using casual language to describe the 8+ hour period. In other words, I suspect they are being overly casual with their use of the word “downtime” rather than intentionally using it to define a category of activity, comprised of two subcategories.
Thanks for elaborating on your interpretation!
I disagree that it is the most natural reading, but I can see where you are coming from.
To clarify, I disagree that my approach renders redundant/incorrect the "at least" in "a period of downtime, at least 8 hours long". As I see it, light activity is categorically downtime, but you can only count two hours of light activity towards the 8 hour minimum. A character who sleeps for three hours, goes on watch (light activity) for four hours, then sleeps for three more hours has had a period of downtime of ten hours, but has only accumulated eight hours for purposes of meeting the requirements of a long rest.
One other clarification, although it's more of a quibble... I don't view the adventuring activity as "part" of a long rest. A long rest is a period of downtime and I read downtime as excluding strenuous activity. So by my reading adventuring activity (up to, but not including, 1 hour) simply doesn't count towards the required amount of downtime to benefit from a long rest and thus isn't "part" of the long rest. Adventuring activity of an hour or more not only doesn't count towards the accumulated downtime, it also erases any downtime accumulated so far.
Otherwise I don't see downtime having two subcomponents as awkward, and I addressed in my last post why I think the specification on the maximum number of hours of light activity is a reasonable clarification under my interpretation, rather than purely redundant. Even if it were purely redundant, I still think other factors (as previously discussed) weigh against your interpretation.
