# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next >  Would this work? Sorlock rest casting- NOT Coffeelock

## diplomancer

Imagine this: Warlock 17/Clockwork Sorc 3. Fey-touched Gift of Alacrity and Extended Metamagic.

After 6 hours 50 minutes of my Long Rest (having already slept for 6 hours), I've fulfilled the requirements of a Short Rest to get my Pact Magic slots back. I convert one of them into 3 Sorcery Points (my maximum), and then use 2 points for a 1st level slot, which I use to cast Extended Gift of Alacrity. Rinse and repeat for all 4 slots. 

It's now been about 6 hours 55 minutes into the long rest. I spend the next hour not doing any strenuous activity, which means I get another Short Rest, with about 5 minutes to go into the long rest.

With all my four 5th level slots back, I use one of them for Sorcery Points, cast Extended Aid twice to cover the whole party, and Extended Summon Fey (or another Tasha's summon spell).

We get to 8 hours, I complete my Long Rest, getting back all my Sorceror and Warlock spells and my Sorcery Points, but now the whole party has both Gift of Alacrity and 5th level Aid active for the next 15/16 hours, and I have a Summon for the first two hours of the adventuring day.

I don't think that anything in RAW says this doesn't work, and we're talking about a 20th level character here, but I am still curious about the playground opinion; OP or OK?

----------


## Amnestic

> Imagine this: Warlock 17/Clockwork Sorc 3. Fey-touched Gift of Alacrity and Extended Metamagic.
> 
> After 6 hours 50 minutes of my Long Rest (having already slept for 6 hours), I've fulfilled the requirements of a Short Rest to get my Pact Magic slots back. I convert one of them into 3 Sorcery Points (my maximum), and then use 2 points for a 1st level slot, *which I use to cast Extended Gift of Alacrity.* Rinse and repeat for all 4 slots. 
> 
> It's now been about 6 hours 55 minutes into the long rest. *I spend the next hour not doing any strenuous activity,* which means I get another Short Rest, with about 5 minutes to go into the long rest.
> 
> With all my four 5th level slots back, I use one of them for Sorcery Points, *cast Extended Aid twice* to cover the whole party, and Extended Summon Fey (or another Tasha's summon spell).
> 
> *We get to 8 hours, I complete my Long Rest,* getting back all my Sorceror and Warlock spells and my Sorcery Points, but now the whole party has both Gift of Alacrity and 5th level Aid active for the next 15/16 hours, and I have a Summon for the first two hours of the adventuring day.
> ...


Casting spells is almost certainly meant to be a 'strenuous activity' which prevents you from completing a long rest. So no, it doesn't work.

...unless your DM says it's fine, I guess, but I don't see why they would.

----------


## diplomancer

> Casting spells is almost certainly meant to be a 'strenuous activity' which prevents you from completing a long rest. So no, it doesn't work.
> 
> ...unless your DM says it's fine, I guess, but I don't see why they would.


It's a strenuous activity that interrupts a _short_ rest, but it takes one hour of strenuous activity to interrupt a _long_ rest.

I'll quote here the two Rest definitions on the PHB:

Short Rest:




> A short rest is a period of downtime, at least 1 hour long, during which a character does nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds.


Long Rest:




> 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.


Though the bracketed "-at least 1 hour etc" sentence is ambíguos, the natural interpretation (which has been confirmed by Crawford) is that it takes an hour of any of those activities to interrupt a Long Rest. Obviously, if the DM interprets it differently, it would not work. It would still be possible to do it by starting the day with two short rests, so this is mostly a useless speed bump.

----------


## returnToThePast

> Casting spells is almost certainly meant to be a 'strenuous activity' which prevents you from completing a long rest. So no, it doesn't work.
> 
> ...unless your DM says it's fine, I guess, but I don't see why they would.


The long rest would have to be interrupted by at least an hour of strenuous activity such as casting spells before losing its benefits.

Edit: Ninja'd

----------


## Aimeryan

Rest casting works fine. The only question I see here is whether or not you can get back Short Rests during a Long Rest. RAW? I would say you satisfy the requirement for the Short Rest, and similarly, for the Long Rest.

The real problem is getting the DM to agree.

----------


## diplomancer

> The real problem is getting the DM to agree.


I agree that this is the hardest part... But it really shouldn't. Again, 20th level character, everything is way past broken by then, having more hit Points and better initiative shouldn't be a problem. Specially once you consider that even at the most restrictive reading possible, this _still_ works with some extra time, and not even with some extra time if the character's an elf.

----------


## Amnestic

> The long rest would have to be interrupted by at least an hour of strenuous activity such as casting spells before losing its benefits.
> 
> Edit: Ninja'd


This requires a very specific reading that I do not believe is supported. The debate over long rest casting has been played out on these forums multiple times, and I doubt I'll change anyone's minds here, but nevertheless I will lay out the reading _I believe_  is correct.

First, the text:



> *Long Rest*
> A Long Rest is a period of extended Downtime, at least 8 hours long, during which a character sleeps or performs light activity: reading, talking, eating, or standing watch for no more than 2 hours. If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activityat least 1 hour of walking, Fighting, casting Spells, or similar Adventuring activitythe Characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it.


Sentence 1: A long rest is a period of downtime, during which you do light activity, the suggestions of which are sleeping, reading, talking, eating, or standing watch for no more than 2 hours. Casting spells is _not_ included as an example of 'light activity'.
Sentence 2: This sentence's reading depends on whether you're trying to scam a bunch of extra spell slots or not whether or not you think the reading is as follows:

"1 hour of [any/all of the following] walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity]" 
OR
"1 hour of walking OR fighting OR casting spells OR a similar adventuring activity"

English's punctuation and the way the sentence is framed means either is a grammatically appropriate reading *but* given that light activity doesn't include casting spells I lean towards casting spells interrupting, not least because...why would casting spells interrupt a short rest by being strenuous but not do the same for a long rest? Doesn't seem to add up to me.

Again, I doubt I'll convince anyone who hasn't already made up their minds, but as I said this only works if it gets past your DM who has a perfectly valid RAW reason to say 'no'.

And if you do get this scam to work why aren't you just playing a coffeelock anyway? Go whole hog.

----------


## RogueJK

Go fight someone for 59 minutes and 59 seconds straight, full-on fight for survival, and then let me know if you consider that to be non-strenuous and if you're still feeling well-rested.   :Small Big Grin: 

(I know, I know... It's a game.)

----------


## Witty Username

I think a 1 hour short rest would be considered strenuous activity for the purposes of a long rest.
Snacking and light activity is the norm for a short rest, and light activity is enough to break a long rest from what I can reckon (unless you are a warforged or something).

How I run it is you don't get benefits for resting until your done resting, so if you rest for 3 hours, you get a short rest. 9 hours a long rest. For verisimilitude, think of the lethargy one gets when they sleep to long, more rest doesn't mean better rested.

----------


## Aimeryan

> I agree that this is the hardest part... But it really shouldn't. Again, 20th level character, everything is way past broken by then, having more hit Points and better initiative shouldn't be a problem. Specially once you consider that even at the most restrictive reading possible, this _still_ works with some extra time, and not even with some extra time if the character's an elf.


I've found that the more steps required, even if every step is 100% kosher, the more likely the DM is going to say no. Consider the following:

Scenario 1:
Book says: Z = 15.
Player says: I have Z, therefore I have 15.
DM says: Yup, seems good.

Scenario 2:
Book says: Z = X + Y; X = 5; Y = C/2; C = 20
Player says: I have Z, therefore I have 15.
DM says: Hmm, doesn't seem to say anywhere that you have 15.
Player says: Well, X is 5 and Y is 10 because C is 20, so Z is 15.
DM says: Hmm, I'm not sure about this; so no.

I would actually say 5e is worse for this than previous editions, because 5e has entrained people into simplicity - so anything minorly complicated gets noped.

----------


## Witty Username

There is also the problem that alot of things are built on top of all encompassing universal systems that are deliberately vague with no advice for DM adjudication.
It makes even basic interactions frustrating on the DM side to figure what is and isnt working as intended.

----------


## JNAProductions

I would think that at most tables, you cant overlap rests.
8 hours (or less, if allowed by race or something) is a long rest-but you cant simultaneously take a short rest during your long rest.

Thatd be the case at my table, if it came up.

----------


## Frogreaver

What would a DM say if you started a short rest and then 10 minutes into it started another.  Technically the rules don't mandate the resting periods not overlap.  

Which is rather the point.  The rules only really tell what interrupts rests and the activities allowable within one.  This leaves much of how resting works up to the DM.  

Personally I wouldn't allow simultaneous rests.  Back to back short rests I would allow.  I also don't see a major reason to disallow short rests immediately after a long rest.  If there's anything going on that would make me want to the solution is to bring it up as a houserule at that time or to discuss with the player that whatever he is doing is taking away the fun from the game for me.

----------


## diplomancer

> This requires a very specific reading that I do not believe is supported. The debate over long rest casting has been played out on these forums multiple times, and I doubt I'll change anyone's minds here, but nevertheless I will lay out the reading _I believe_  is correct.
> 
> First, the text:
> 
> 
> Sentence 1: A long rest is a period of downtime, during which you do light activity, the suggestions of which are sleeping, reading, talking, eating, or standing watch for no more than 2 hours. Casting spells is _not_ included as an example of 'light activity'.
> Sentence 2: This sentence's reading depends on whether you're trying to scam a bunch of extra spell slots or not whether or not you think the reading is as follows:
> 
> "1 hour of [any/all of the following] walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity]" 
> ...


Calling what you yourself admit is a perfectly valid interpretation of RAW (and the one supported by Crawford and Mearls, actually, not anything convoluted at all) a "scam" is a bit too much, and shows your strong bias here. As to your Coffeelock question, 3 reasons:

1- Coffeelocks are primarily sorcerers. This is the capstone of a primarily Warlock build. As my Warlock is advancing into tier 3, I looked ahead and realized that Warlocks don't get that much for their last 3 levels, and that 3 levels of Sorcerer could be better. Once I realized what you can do with Extended Spell Metamagic, Gift of Alacrity, and Aid, I was convinced (and again, on most adventuring days, you can do that regardless of whether the DM allows what I've said. You can still do it with 2 short rests after the long rest, which still leaves you with 14 hours of adventuring ahead. Quite sufficient for most days when the DM is not imposing events on the players).
2- This is powerful enough. Four 5th level spells per short Rest and Four 1st level and two 2nd levels is sufficient for most adventuring days, unless your DM hates Short Rests (but then you probably aren't taking a Warlock all the way to 17th level). By that level you also probably have those staves that can further prolong your spellcasting.
3- Coffeelock is a book-keeping nightmare (which is a good enough reason to ban it). This character is a lot simpler (if a 20th level full caster can be simple).




> Go fight someone for 59 minutes and 59 seconds straight, full-on fight for survival, and then let me know if you consider that to be non-strenuous and if you're still feeling well-rested.  
> 
> (I know, I know... It's a game.)


On the other hand, wake up in the middle of the night, go punch a bag vigorously for 6 seconds, go back to bed, and tell me that when you woke up in the morning it's like you never went to sleep at all.




> I think a 1 hour short rest would be considered strenuous activity for the purposes of a long rest.
> Snacking and light activity is the norm for a short rest, and light activity is enough to break a long rest from what I can reckon (unless you are a warforged or something).


That's not what the book says. Check the definitions above. Long Rests are either _less_ restrictive than Short Rests (if you go with the interpretation that you can cast spells, as long as it's for less than an hour- you can't cast spells _ at all_ during a short rest, nor can you spend even one round fighting), or just as restrictive. But anything you can do at a Short Rest, with the possible exception of "tending to wounds" (irrelevant here) is light enough not to interrupt a Long Rest

----------


## JNAProductions

You need only four third level slots to do the _Gift Of Alacrity_ casting.

This is achievable by a Warlock 5/Sorcerer 3, and two short rests.

Your specific idea might not be broken-but the precedent it sets is ripe for abuse.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> What would a DM say if you started a short rest and then 10 minutes into it started another.  Technically the rules don't mandate the resting periods not overlap.


The rules don't technically mandate (or forbid) a lot of things. Nor should they. The whole idea of a "short rest" is a meta-construct. Trying to play these games is entirely meta-gaming in the bad sense.

----------


## Frogreaver

> The rules don't technically mandate (or forbid) a lot of things. Nor should they. The whole idea of a "short rest" is a meta-construct. Trying to play these games is entirely meta-gaming in the bad sense.


Why the pushback about the rules leaving it up to the DM?




> You need only four third level slots to do the _Gift Of Alacrity_ casting.
> 
> This is achievable by a Warlock 5/Sorcerer 3, and two short rests.
> 
> Your specific idea might not be broken-but the precedent it sets is ripe for abuse.


Agreed on bad precedent.  Though it's achievable even lower i think.  Sorcerer 3 Warlock 2 could also accomplish the same thing by doing more short rests during the long rest?  Doing it this way also means you just stick with sorcerer instead of warlock, even better - am i right?

Wake up for 5 minutes every hour - cast gift of alcaraity with extend metamagic using a warlock slot.  Turn the other warlock slot into a sorcery point (assuming your DM goes with this ruling).  Rinse and repeat every hour.

----------


## diplomancer

> You need only four third level slots to do the _Gift Of Alacrity_ casting.
> 
> This is achievable by a Warlock 5/Sorcerer 3, and two short rests.
> 
> Your specific idea might not be broken-but the precedent it sets is ripe for abuse.


That deep of a multi-class early on comes at a considerable cost. You'll specially feel it when you are level 13 and are still stuck with 2 5th level slots, and no Mystic Arcanum at all. I wouldn't call it broken.

And nevertheless, it is always "achievable" in 10 hours instead of 8, even if the DM disallows what I propose. Or just 6 hours with an Elf. So if it's a problem, it's better to ban the spell.




> The rules don't technically mandate (or forbid) a lot of things. Nor should they. The whole idea of a "short rest" is a meta-construct. Trying to play these games is entirely meta-gaming in the bad sense.


No, it isn't. It's _Pact_ Magic. The Warlock knows perfectly well that if he does light activity for an hour, his Patron will give him his magic back. There might even be a contract involved. And if he knows that fact, it's not "metagaming" of him to take advantage of that fact, in-world, by trying to learn spells that last for a long time.

----------


## Frogreaver

> And nevertheless, it is always "achievable" in 10 hours instead of 8


Not if the DM rules your long rest isn't over when you try to short rest immediately after it




> Or just 6 hours with an Elf.


Elves still need 8 hours to long rest




> So if it's a problem, it's better to ban the spell.


The spell isn't broken.  Your proposed use of it might be - but probably not.  You are doing alot to achieve that result and a level 4 sorcerer could achieve it anyways - it would just cost a bit more.  Besides - there are more options than banning the spell or getting super strict on resting.

----------


## diplomancer

> Not if the DM rules your long rest isn't over when you try to short rest immediately after it


Either casting spells breaks a Long Rest, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, my suggestion works. If it does, my Long Rest is over once I've cast my first spell (and since I've completed the 8 hours requirements, I get its benefits), and if I then rest for 1 hour I get a Short Rest, since my Long Rest is already over. You may not like it, but the only way to stop it is to either houserule it or to have constant doom clocks or early morning attacks. I don't recommend either solution.





> Elves still need 8 hours to long rest


No, they don't. This is implicit in the PHB (Elves that Trance for 4 hours get the _same_ benefits that a human gets from 8 hours of sleep, humans that sleep for 8 hours get the benefits of a Long Rest, therefore Elves that trance for 4 hours get the benefits of a Long Rest*), confirmed by Sage Advice (included on Sage Advice Compendium even, so not just a random tweet), and explicit in Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse.





> The spell isn't broken.  Your proposed use of it might be - but probably not.  You are doing alot to achieve that result and a level 4 sorcerer could achieve it anyways - it would just would cost a bit more.  Besides - there are more options than banning the spell or getting super strict on resting.


I agree. I don't think this is broken at all, which is why I'm saying DMs shouldn't panic and cry "scam!!!" or try to find out ways to stomp it. If it's the capstone, it's the capstone, it should be good. If it's early, early multiclassing full-casters is a big investment, it's ok to have a good return on it.

Edit*: Heck, I've just realized. You get the *benefits* of a human that slept for 8 hours. So if there are *bad* consequences of a Long Rest, a trancing Elf wouldn't get them, only the good consequences. Coffeelock supercharged! Better get a pre-Mordenkainen elf, though. I wouldn't recommend trying to make that argument to your DM, however, unless you're a Monk with Deflect Missiles, as you WILL get the rulebook thrown at you.😎

----------


## Dork_Forge

What, other than it not explicitly saying you can't, makes you think that you can short rest, twice, whilst already long resting?




> Adventurers can take short rests in the midst of an adventuring day and a long rest to end the day.


The notion that you're able to benefit from two short rests during a long rest, without even interrupting it, is clearly not the intent of the game. Furthermore, it's not even supported in the rules in anyway besides the game not having a sentence saying you can't do both at once. I imagine they didn't think they needed to specify that.

Separately:

Elves - This is sticky, you want, at least in this thread, to take advantage of perceived ambiguity in the writing and point out that the rules don't say x explicitly. The Trance entry doesn't say you gain the benefits of the long rest early, and a human wouldn't even need to sleep for 8 hours to long rest. It takes a small leap to shorten the entire long rest, a leap that you don't want to make when it goes against other readings.

Interrupting a rest - Anyone that says that it takes an hour of fighting to interrupt a long rest is either not thinking about the game when reading that or willfully pushing an abusive interpretation 'because RAW, which allows me to do this thing I want.' Even in a full adventuring day you're not likely to fight for ten minutes throughout the day, nevermind an hour in one go. Fighting is immediately after walking, so you can't selectively say it's an hour for spell casting either.

Rests are for taking the rest and gaining the prescribed benefits of said rest, whilst some DMs might let other stuff fly, it is very much trying to take advantage of the rules for mechanical benefit.

----------


## diplomancer

> What, other than it not explicitly saying you can't, makes you think that you can short rest, twice, whilst already long resting?


The definition of a Short Rest and the definition of a Long Rest. I've posted them on this thread. If you read them, you will see that they are not exclusive. It's not a case of "the rules don't say I can't". The rules say that if I do X, Y happens.

I agree that the sentence you've quoted from the PHB could be construed as not allowing short rests in the beginning or end of an adventuring day, but I would present two objections to that construction:
1- I believe the sentence is descriptive, not prescriptive. The following definition of what a Short Rest IS would support this reading, as it doesn't mention anything about beginning or ending the day (Sage Advice Compendium also states that the theoretical limit of Short Rests in a day is the number of hours in a day, thus supporting the argument that you CAN short rest at the beginning or end of the adventuring day.)
2- _Every_ DM I've played with has granted Short Rest recovery of abilities if a Long Rest gets interrupted midway, at least for the characters who have been sleeping. It's just weird not to, feels terribly gamey, and breaks player immersion.






> The notion that you're able to benefit from two short rests during a long rest, without even interrupting it, is clearly not the intent of the game. Furthermore, it's not even supported in the rules in anyway besides the game not having a sentence saying you can't do both at once. I imagine they didn't think they needed to specify that.


As I've said several times, the DM insisting on it makes little difference, as you can still do it with a 10 hour camping (or less than the regular eight if you're an Elf)




> Separately:
> 
> Elves - This is sticky, you want, at least in this thread, to take advantage of perceived ambiguity in the writing and point out that the rules don't say x explicitly. The Trance entry doesn't say you gain the benefits of the long rest early, and a human wouldn't even need to sleep for 8 hours to long rest. It takes a small leap to shorten the entire long rest, a leap that you don't want to make when it goes against other readings.


This is not a matter of opinion, or of different readings (as the question of interrupting a Long Rest IS a matter of opinion, since the reading is ambiguous). It's a matter of logic. If your DM can't do logic, that's unfortunate, but you can still use a MPMM Elf, as it says it explicitly.




> Interrupting a rest - Anyone that says that it takes an hour of fighting to interrupt a long rest is either not thinking about the game when reading that or willfully pushing an abusive interpretation 'because RAW, which allows me to do this thing I want.'


This "anyone that is not thinking about the game" includes both Crawford and Mearls. It's not on Sage Advice Compendium*, though, so you're free to interpret it differently. But you're not free to claim that those who actually agree with the game designers are not thinking about the game or are bad abusive players. 

*Sage Advice Compendium specifies that Spellcasting breaks a Short Rest, and is silent about whether it breaks a Long Rest. If it DID break it, it would be very weird not to mention it in the same place. I believe it's fair to state that, though the designers believe that it takes one hour of combined interruptions to break a Long Rest, they preferred to leave it open so DMs MAY rule that casting spells breaks a Long Rest, or may choose to rule otherwise. I can see pros and cons on both interpretations, but whatever one the DM takes does not make that much of a difference in this particular case (i.e, if your DM goes for the more restrictive reading, either play an Elf or try to camp for 10 hours).

----------


## langal

Op, munchkin, and not ok.

If you insist on it being otherwise, you are free to allow it in your games or argue with your DM.  None of our opinions matter.

----------


## diplomancer

> Op, munchkin, and not ok.
> 
> If you insist on it being otherwise, you are free to allow it in your games or argue with your DM.  None of our opinions matter.


Or maybe play a regular human Rogue as everything else gets shouts of "OP!" or "abuse!" or "scam!" from some people around here. Definitely never play a Warlock, as most of the power of the class comes from being able to get Short Rests and if you try to get more than your DM feels is "fair", that means you're a metagaming munchkin.

 Just be a Eloquence Bard with Simulacrum and an army of Planar Bound allies, nothing OP there at all. Or at least, nothing that the DM can acuse you of "abusing the rest rules to scam more slots".

My intent to ask here was to ask if the combo works. So far, what I've been told (apart from the insults), is that, "yes, it works, but with a more restrictive DM you might need more time or be an Elf". Everything else is DMs freaking out and houseruling "oh my, an entire 20th level party with Gift of Alacrity and 5th level Aid, how can I challenge them?"
Your players can now take bigger challenges. Enjoy the ride.

----------


## langal

Just use common sense when reading the rules. There are a few places where they could be genuinely confusing.  This is not one of them.

----------


## diplomancer

> Just use common sense when reading the rules. There are a few places where they could be genuinely confusing.  This is not one of them.


I agree. It works, at least with Elves, but depending on DM with all the other races too. Thanks!

----------


## Dork_Forge

> The definition of a Short Rest and the definition of a Long Rest. I've posted them on this thread. If you read them, you will see that they are not exclusive. It's not a case of "the rules don't say I can't". The rules say that if I do X, Y happens.
> 
> I agree that the sentence you've quoted from the PHB could be construed as not allowing short rests in the beginning or end of an adventuring day, but I would present two objections to that construction:
> 1- I believe the sentence is descriptive, not prescriptive. The following definition of what a Short Rest IS would support this reading, as it doesn't mention anything about beginning or ending the day (Sage Advice Compendium also states that the theoretical limit of Short Rests in a day is the number of hours in a day, thus supporting the argument that you CAN short rest at the beginning or end of the adventuring day.)


Based on what? It's text under the resting section that references both type of rest. There's no reason to discount it as only 'descriptive,' especially when that distinction is already tenuous in 5E.




> 2- _Every_ DM I've played with has granted Short Rest recovery of abilities if a Long Rest gets interrupted midway, at least for the characters who have been sleeping. It's just weird not to, feels terribly gamey, and breaks player immersion.


That's great, but also not clear RAW either. Anecdote to anecdote, I don't allow that. The intention of the rests is entirely different, being woken up mid-sleep by danger isn't restful, having to set up camp/undress/redress etc. isn't restful. If the rest gets interrupted then the players can either move on, or decide what kind of rest to try instead.

Just because DMs in your experience have treated it a certain way doesn't make it RAW, I've known plenty of DMs that have rules mistakes as how they think the game works, or they just allow potions to be a bonus action etc.

Just going to point out though that you made this thread to get our opinions, but you don't really seem receptive to this not being a thing.





> As I've said several times, the DM insisting on it makes little difference, as you can still do it with a 10 hour camping (or less than the regular eight if you're an Elf)


I mean, it makes a big difference. For one, if you start turning 8 hour long rests into 10 hour combo rests then your party are more likely to get annoyed, and it's less likely to be safe to do so. Time pressure in games exists, and when you start pushing the standard rest times it's natural for that to bite you in the butt, at least occasionally.

As for the Elf thing, RAW? Sure. In practice? I don't know anyone that would allow it. What are you even resting from? It's purely exploitation for mechanical gain, if your DM allows it and your party accepts it great, but I don't think you're going to get validation here.




> This is not a matter of opinion, or of different readings (as the question of interrupting a Long Rest IS a matter of opinion, since the reading is ambiguous). It's a matter of logic. If your DM can't do logic, that's unfortunate, but you can still use a MPMM Elf, as it says it explicitly.


It's a matter of logic that you can't short rest whilst you're long resting... because you're still resting. But that's not logic you accept, so I pointed out that you wanted the small jump for Elf to be accepted, whilst making a bigger jump for more serious benefits.




> This "anyone that is not thinking about the game" includes both Crawford and Mearls. It's not on Sage Advice Compendium*, though, so you're free to interpret it differently. But you're not free to claim that those who actually agree with the game designers are not thinking about the game or are bad abusive players. 
> 
> *Sage Advice Compendium specifies that Spellcasting breaks a Short Rest, and is silent about whether it breaks a Long Rest. If it DID break it, it would be very weird not to mention it in the same place. I believe it's fair to state that, though the designers believe that it takes one hour of combined interruptions to break a Long Rest, they preferred to leave it open so DMs MAY rule that casting spells breaks a Long Rest, or may choose to rule otherwise. I can see pros and cons on both interpretations, but whatever one the DM takes does not make that much of a difference in this particular case (i.e, if your DM goes for the more restrictive reading, either play an Elf or try to camp for 10 hours).


Given that tweets are no longer official guidance and they very clearly could have addressed it in SAC, I don't think using them is a really strong argument. Especially when a lot of the time Mearls answer is basically 'I'd allow it' which is a DM call not a rules interpretation.

Whilst you think it's fair that you need an hour of combined interruption, I don't think that is a fair interpretation. If leads to weird extremes like fighting for 59 minutes straight, something you would never do or consider reasonable during the day, in order to break the rest. That would never happen. Likewise, you could cast spells nonstop for 59 minutes 54 seconds and not break the rest.

Not only is reading it so the 1 hour is just walking less exploitative, it makes way more sense from an in-game and meta-perspective.

Considering that both rests use the word strenuous and that you can read long rests to be broken by casting as written anyway, it seems a perfectly valid interpretation, and a safer one.

----------


## diplomancer

> Based on what? It's text under the resting section that references both type of rest. There's no reason to discount it as only 'descriptive,' especially when that distinction is already tenuous in 5E.


I've already told you why:
1- the definitions of Long and Short Rest, that don't mention this requirement at all;
2- my experience with several different DMs in several different countries;
3- the SAC, that states that the only limit on number of Short Rests per day are the hours in a day;
And, a new one: 4- if you want to get pedantic, if a Long Rest _ends_  an adventuring day, everything that happens during it but before it's end is still part of the adventuring day, since it hasn't finished yet. Or are night ambushes not part of an adventuring day?






> That's great, but also not clear RAW either. Anecdote to anecdote, I don't allow that. The intention of the rests is entirely different, being woken up mid-sleep by danger isn't restful, having to set up camp/undress/redress etc. isn't restful. If the rest gets interrupted then the players can either move on, or decide what kind of rest to try instead.


That's great, I just would never play a short-rest based class on a table like that, as the DM has a clear bias against Short Rest recovery of resources, to the point he won't let me have it after _sleeping for several hours_




> Just because DMs in your experience have treated it a certain way doesn't make it RAW, I've known plenty of DMs that have rules mistakes as how they think the game works, or they just allow potions to be a bonus action etc.


Yes, and some DMs won't even let you Short Rest even though you've been engaged in strenuous activity and are tapped out of Pact Magic slots!




> I mean, it makes a big difference. For one, if you start turning 8 hour long rests into 10 hour combo rests then your party are more likely to get annoyed, and it's less likely to be safe to do so. Time pressure in games exists, and when you start pushing the standard rest times it's natural for that to bite you in the butt, at least occasionally.
> 
> As for the Elf thing, RAW? Sure. In practice? I don't know anyone that would allow it. What are you even resting from? It's purely exploitation for mechanical gain, if your DM allows it and your party accepts it great, but I don't think you're going to get validation here.


"casting spells is so strenuous that it interrupts a long rest, but if you've cast your spells right after you wake up and then do nothing for an hour, there is nothing for you to be resting for, so you don't get a Short Rest".

I trust you can see the contradiction here. If casting spells is strenuous, and I've used all my Pact Magic slots and cast several spells, obviously I could take a rest. The evidence that I could take a rest is that I've done enough strenuous activity to be tapped out of spells.






> It's a matter of logic that you can't short rest whilst you're long resting... because you're still resting. But that's not logic you accept, so I pointed out that you wanted the small jump for Elf to be accepted, whilst making a bigger jump for more serious benefits.


I'm not making any jumps. Definitely not any on the level of "you can't take a Short Rest after a Long Rest because you are so well rested even if you're tapped out of spells"






> Given that tweets are no longer official guidance and they very clearly could have addressed it in SAC, I don't think using them is a really strong argument. Especially when a lot of the time Mearls answer is basically 'I'd allow it' which is a DM call not a rules interpretation.
> 
> Whilst you think it's fair that you need an hour of combined interruption, I don't think that is a fair interpretation. If leads to weird extremes like fighting for 59 minutes straight, something you would never do or consider reasonable during the day, in order to break the rest. That would never happen. Likewise, you could cast spells nonstop for 59 minutes 54 seconds and not break the rest.
> 
> Not only is reading it so the 1 hour is just walking less exploitative, it makes way more sense from an in-game and meta-perspective.
> 
> Considering that both rests use the word strenuous and that you can read long rests to be broken by casting as written anyway, it seems a perfectly valid interpretation, and a safer one.


As I've repeatedly stated, I agree that it's ok for a DM to rule that casting spells breaks a Long Rest, even if I think it's grammatically incorrect*. What is not ok is claiming that the opposite interpretation, which happens to also be the devs interpretation, is wrong and abusive.




*By the way, if you want to get overly pedantic, no, casting spells shouldn't break a Long Rest, as casting spells is not "a period of strenuous activity"; one hour of casting spells would qualify as such a period, though. So the sentence is grammatically incorrect if the "one hour" is not applied to all activities, as it's the only clause in the sentence that refers to a period of time. But as I've said before, I believe this interpretation falls into the DM's purview, even though I believe the other interpretation is grammatically better, AND it happens to be the devs interpretation as well.

What does not fall into DM's purview (without houseruling, obviously, which is always an option) is:

1- Elves getting a Long Rest in 4 hours and then stringing Short Rests, casting spells to interrupt them, while they wait for the rest of the party to finish their Long Rest.
2- non-Elves camping for longer to achieve the same effect. And no, barring very strict clocks, I don't think any party would object to doing it. It's not "metagaming" to want to be as prepared as possible for a life-and-death situation, who cares about a couple of extra hours for that? If anything, it's metagaming to refuse to do it ("yes, of course my character would want to do that, but if we do it regularly, the DM will be upset and take it out on us; better not to upset the DM"- which is, unfortunately, a quite common position, because of DMs who can't handle Warlocks)

----------


## Witty Username

A topic where I am of the same mind as both PhoenixPhyre and Dork_Forge, its a Christmas miracle.
Resting while resting so I can get double the rest feels like what this amounts to. 

1 hour of "similar adventuring activity", short rests would be 1 hour of light adventuring activity. I don't see why that couldn't interupt a long rest. Its a DMs prerogative though not RAW anything, just pointing out that the rules don't preclude it.

But this is all to say, I don't see the reason for it, it feels like it has the same fundamental problems of coffeelock nonsense, feels very gamey, and its not like sorlock is a bad build without it.

----------


## Amnestic

> Calling what you yourself admit is a perfectly valid interpretation of RAW (and the one supported by Crawford and Mearls, actually, not anything convoluted at all) a "scam" is a bit too much, and shows your strong bias here.


Crawford and Mearls can say whatever they want. They've been wrong before, they'll be wrong again. Again, refer to their Shield Master stuff if you need evidence of that. Crawford et al.'s viewpoint might be something to note, but nothing more.

And of course I'm biased? So are you. Everyone has bias in this discussion. I don't know what to call deliberately timing interruptions to your long rest to get extra spell slots the next day anything other than a scam.

----------


## diplomancer

> A topic where I am of the same mind as both PhoenixPhyre and Dork_Forge, its a Christmas miracle.
> Resting while resting so I can get double the rest feels like what this amounts to. 
> 
> 1 hour of "similar adventuring activity", short rests would be 1 hour of light adventuring activity. I don't see why that couldn't interupt a long rest. Its a DMs prerogative though not RAW anything, just pointing out that the rules don't preclude it.
> 
> But this is all to say, I don't see the reason for it, it feels like it has the same fundamental problems of coffeelock nonsense, feels very gamey, and its not like sorlock is a bad build without it.


You are doubly wrong. Short Resting is not an hour of "light adventuring activity", that is not restful at all, and even if it were, it's a period of _strenuous_activity that breaks a Long Rest, or more than two hours of light activity. The situation in my first post is neither, as it starts at about the 6:45 mark of the Long Rest, and ends before the 8:00 mark.




> Crawford and Mearls can say whatever they want. They've been wrong before, they'll be wrong again. Again, refer to their Shield Master stuff if you need evidence of that. Crawford et al.'s viewpoint might be something to note, but nothing more.


I agree, and I'm not using them as an argument of authority. I'm using them as a "this cannot be an entirely unreasonable and abusive reading of the rules", which is your position. I believe that the SAC mention of Short Rests being interrupted by spells and silence on Long Rests is strong indication that they want to leave this up to DMs, and that both interpretations are _possible_, which is my sole claim here. As I've said, if that's how your DM reads it, be an Elf or make longer camps to achieve a very similar result (you'll have one hour less on each of your spells, which will probably be relevant to your Summoned creature, but most likely not to your 16 hour spells.






> And of course I'm biased? So are you. Everyone has bias in this discussion. I don't know what to call deliberately timing interruptions to your long rest to get extra spell slots the next day anything other than a scam.


That's Warlocks for you. Scamsters. Tricksters. Cheaters. It's why they're held in such suspicion, they break the laws of the universe, giving them tricks other casters can't replicate. That's how they're supposed to work!

Seriously, guys, I'm almost making a Joker's meme here: "wizards get to bend reality to their will and steal the spotlight and everyone's fine, but allow a Warlock to cast a few low-level spells to buff their whole party and then rest after to get their slots back and everyone loses their minds!"

----------


## Dork_Forge

> I've already told you why:
> 1- the definitions of Long and Short Rest, that don't mention this requirement at all;
> 2- my experience with several different DMs in several different countries;
> 3- the SAC, that states that the only limit on number of Short Rests per day are the hours in a day;
> And, a new one: 4- if you want to get pedantic, if a Long Rest _ends_  an adventuring day, everything that happens during it but before it's end is still part of the adventuring day, since it hasn't finished yet. Or are night ambushes not part of an adventuring day?


Whelp, you misunderstood what I said. You took 'based on what?' to be very general, it was actually intended to be 'based on what evidence, reasons, would you label that sentence descriptive rather than mechanical?'

Since you threw in a new one though I'll address that:

4) Since you're fully into pedantic minutiae - You can take a long rest at the end, meaning that it's over when you start it, not end it. Further pedantry, 'in the midst' means in the middle, not the end. 





> That's great, I just would never play a short-rest based class on a table like that, as the DM has a clear bias against Short Rest recovery of resources, to the point he won't let me have it after _sleeping for several hours_


I don't have bias against short rest recovery at all, all of my games actually have PCs with a plethora of short rest resources. A sampling:

- Bard 11/ Warlock 2/ Divine Soul 1
- Stars Druid
- Sorcadin (Divine Soul)
- Battle Master Fighter 

None of them have ever had an issue with the concept of an interrupted Long Rest isn't a Short Rest. It's a failed rest. Why don't they have an issue? Well besides them finding that reasonable, they are also able to take short rests whenever they're in safe location to do so, which is usually 1-3 times a day. If I did it your way, I would be biased towards SR resources and against LR resources, what I'm doing is actually more neutral.

And I have no idea why you're hanging your hat on 'several hours of sleep.' You know what's unpleasant and leaves you feeling awful? Being woken up mid-REM cycle and then immediately being under pressure (and I imagine fighting for your life is worse than being late for work). I mean, pulling in real-world logic doesn't particularly help your argument here.




> Yes, and some DMs won't even let you Short Rest even though you've been engaged in strenuous activity and are tapped out of Pact Magic slots!


...okay? Don't really know why you replied that or what I'm supposed to say to it.




> "casting spells is so strenuous that it interrupts a long rest, but if you've cast your spells right after you wake up and then do nothing for an hour, there is nothing for you to be resting for, so you don't get a Short Rest".
> 
> I trust you can see the contradiction here. If casting spells is strenuous, and I've used all my Pact Magic slots and cast several spells, obviously I could take a rest. The evidence that I could take a rest is that I've done enough strenuous activity to be tapped out of spells.


I think you want this to work, I think you want validation from people here for some reason when you've already made your mind up.

However, I'm pretty sure you're aware how much this is just gaming the rest rules for benefit. You want to do that? Go nuts! Treating the entire game that way just leads to silliness, and a tougher world to face as a result.




> I'm not making any jumps. Definitely not any on the level of "you can't take a Short Rest after a Long Rest because you are so we'll rested even if you're tapped out of spells"


Dude, saying you can short rest during the long rest is most certainly a jump.






> As I've repeatedly stated, I agree that it's ok for a DM to rule that casting spells breaks a Long Rest, even if I think it's grammatically incorrect*. What is not ok is claiming that the opposite interpretation, which happens to also be the devs interpretation, is wrong and abusive.


You really, really shouldn't push the dev angle when Crawford has contradicted his own rulings on Twitter and said things that don't make sense. If it were in the SAC sure! But it isn't. The real reason why? Probably because they're too scared to take a stance on it, so hide in the ambiguity some people perceive.





> *By the way, if you want to get overly pedantic, no, casting spells don't break a Long Rest, as casting spells is not "a period of strenuous activity"; one hour of casting spells would qualify as such a period, though. But as I've said before, I believe this interpretation falls into the DM's purview, even though I believe the other interpretation is grammatically better.


What are you even trying to achieve here? Drawing the distinction of a 'period' being an amount of time whilst 'casting spells' is an activity? That would certainly be a pedantic brownie point for you *except spells have a built-in casting time.* What is the period you've been casting spells for? It tells you in the spell.

And for the record, whatever little it's worth, not only is that my natural reading of the English, it's also that of my girlfriend, whom was a professional editor for a university for most of her adult life and an avid player of 5e herself.

What does not fall into DM's purview (without houseruling, obviously, which is always an option) is:




> 1- Elves getting a Long Rest in 4 hours and then stringing Short Rests, casting spells to interrupt them, while they wait for the rest of the party to finish their Long Rest.


Eh, a valid interpretation of Trance, and the reason why the question has been asked of the Devs so much, is that Trance can simply give you more awake time during a long rest. The entire reason people ask the question of them is because they didn't make it clear and use the words long rest, and they still haven't despite having the ability to errata it at any time.




> 2- non-Elves camping for longer to achieve the same effect. And no, barring very strict clocks, I don't think any party would object to doing it. It's not "metagaming" to want to be as prepared as possible for a life-and-death situation, who cares about a couple of extra hours for that? If anything, it's metagaming to refuse to do it ("yes, of course my character would want to do that, but if we do it regularly, the DM will be upset and take it out on us; better not to upset the DM"- which is, unfortunately, a quite common position, because of DMs who can't handle Warlocks)


DM's that can't handle Warlocks? Seriously? 

If you don't think casting a couple spells, short resting, casting a couple of spells, and then short resting again immediately after a long rest isn't gaming the rules, then I don't think there's anything I can say that would change your mind.

I would be interested in how you'd feel about NPC/monster Warlocks doing the exact same thing though.




> A topic where I am of the same mind as both PhoenixPhyre and Dork_Forge, its a Christmas miracle.


This is the part where our rival Christmas light displays work together to be seen from the Astral Plane, right?

----------


## Amnestic

> Seriously, guys, I'm almost making a Joker's meme here: "wizards get to bend reality to their will and steal the spotlight and everyone's fine, but allow a Warlock to cast a few low-level spells to buff their whole party and then rest after to get their slots back and everyone loses their minds!"


If your concern is about warlock balance vs. wizards then just...buff warlocks. Or nerf wizards. I don't know where you got the idea that everyone's fine with wizards. There's fairly consistent discussion on how they're not fine, with suggestions ranging from nerfing them or buffing others, drastic modifications, to _just straight up deleting the class entirely._

Warlocks are by no means weak. They're absolutely solid. They do not need a questionable interpretation of rest rules and a multiclass to compete and perform.

----------


## diplomancer

> Whelp, you misunderstood what I said. You took 'based on what?' to be very general, it was actually intended to be 'based on what evidence, reasons, would you label that sentence descriptive rather than mechanical?'
> 
> Since you threw in a new one though I'll address that:
> 
> 4) Since you're fully into pedantic minutiae - You can take a long rest at the end, meaning that it's over when you start it, not end it. Further pedantry, 'in the midst' means in the middle, not the end.


If starting the Long Rest was the end of adventuring day, then there could not be any interruptions, as the interruptions are still a part of the previous (pre-Long Rest recovery) adventuring day. You're trying to have your cake and eat it. Either the adventuring day is not over (and thus we are in the midst of it, and so can Short Rest), or it IS over, and we can't be in combat, as combat is a part of the adventuring day.

And the /"in the midst" means "middle"/ argument proves too much, unless you really believe that there's only supposed to be one short rest per adventuring day. (When the SAC states that, circumstances permitting, you can take as many short rests as there are hours in a day! More evidence that the sentence under analysis is descriptive, not prescriptive).






> I don't have bias against short rest recovery at all, all of my games actually have PCs with a plethora of short rest resources. A sampling:
> 
> - Bard 11/ Warlock 2/ Divine Soul 1
> - Stars Druid
> - Sorcadin (Divine Soul)
> - Battle Master Fighter


4 characters, 3 of them_heavily_ long-rest based. Thank you for providing me with the evidence I needed




> None of them have ever had an issue with the concept of an interrupted Long Rest isn't a Short Rest. It's a failed rest. Why don't they have an issue? Well besides them finding that reasonable, they are also able to take short rests whenever they're in safe location to do so, which is usually 1-3 times a day. If I did it your way, I would be biased towards SR resources and against LR resources, what I'm doing is actually more neutral.


Well, since 3 of them are mostly long-rest based, they don't care that much either way. And I suppose the short-rest based one doesn't feel comfortable pushing it. But playing a Short Rest based character I'd definitely insist on having a Short Rest before the Long Rest started, playing under such weird and gamey rules.




> And I have no idea why you're hanging your hat on 'several hours of sleep.' You know what's unpleasant and leaves you feeling awful? Being woken up mid-REM cycle and then immediately being under pressure (and I imagine fighting for your life is worse than being late for work). I mean, pulling in real-world logic doesn't particularly help your argument here.


What about getting two hours of sleep, waking up for your watch, staying awake for about 30 minutes and then being attacked? How has the person who's done that failed to qualify for a short rest?






> ...okay? Don't really know why you replied that or what I'm supposed to say to it.


Since it was a response to your claim that "many DMs don't follow the RAW and don't apply the rules of the games correctly", it was to show that, when you stop the Elf Warlock from doing what I've described, you become one of those DMs.






> I think you want this to work, I think you want validation from people here for some reason when you've already made your mind up.


Validation? Not really. Just a bit of open-mindedness about how someone with Warlock powers would naturally act. And as I've said, it definitely works with an Elf.







> Dude, saying you can short rest during the long rest is most certainly a jump.


It is a consequence of reading the rest rules. It's also not something that is necessary for this idea to work, so I'm not insisting on it if the DM is refractary to the idea, as it works (slightly worse) without this interaction with just a regular Elf. 








> You really, really shouldn't push the dev angle when Crawford has contradicted his own rulings on Twitter and said things that don't make sense. If it were in the SAC sure! But it isn't. The real reason why? Probably because they're too scared to take a stance on it, so hide in the ambiguity some people perceive.


Interesting. While I read their reluctance to rule it as "they want to leave it open for DMs", you read it as they being "too scared" to make a definite ruling.







> What are you even trying to achieve here? Drawing the distinction of a 'period' being an amount of time whilst 'casting spells' is an activity?


Exactly. If your interpretation is the correct one "a period of" in the sentence is superfluous and confusing, it would read much cleaner as _ If the rest is interrupted by 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._ If _any_ amount of spellcasting, even for a few seconds, is too strenuous, it makes no sense to talk about a period of time.





> That would certainly be a pedantic brownie point for you *except spells have a built-in casting time.* What is the period you've been casting spells for? It tells you in the spell.


Gift of Alacrity takes one minute to cast, true, but what's the exact period of time for casting Aid? An Action is NOT a period of time.




> Eh, a valid interpretation of Trance, and the reason why the question has been asked of the Devs so much, is that Trance can simply give you more awake time during a long rest. The entire reason people ask the question of them is because they didn't make it clear and use the words long rest, and they still haven't despite having the ability to errata it at any time.


No, it's not a valid interpretation of Trance. Being a common interpretation does not make it valid. And the reason it is so common is for precisely the same bias we see in this thread; the fear that if something of that sort is allowed it will be broken and OP. And then instead of dispassionately interpreting the rule, possibly coming to the conclusion that it IS OP or abusable, and THEN houseruling it if necessary, people prefer to push a square peg into a round hole and ignore the plain reading of the rule. It's a very common mistake.

And they have used the word Long Rest for the elves in MPMM, rendering this whole bad argument moot.






> DM's that can't handle Warlocks? Seriously? 
> 
> If you don't think casting a couple spells, short resting, casting a couple of spells, and then short resting again immediately after a long rest isn't gaming the rules, then I don't think there's anything I can say that would change your mind.


No, I don't. I feel that this is _exactly_ what a person with such powers would do. The only reason that they wouldn't would be the fear of punishment from "higher powers" (i.e, the DM, that can't handle it).




> I would be interested in how you'd feel about NPC/monster Warlocks doing the exact same thing though.


I'd be totally fine with it, if it was relevant at all. I've stated before that Warlocks probably would make very fun BBEGs, exactly because of their Short Rest capabilities coupled with their invocations. But since NPCs don't follow PC rules and can be exactly what the DMs want them to be as long as they calculate the CR correctly, I don't see the point of this argument.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> I've fulfilled the requirements of a Short Rest to get my Pact Magic slots back. I convert one of them into 3 Sorcery Points (my maximum), and then use 2 points for a 1st level slot, which I use to cast Extended Gift of Alacrity. Rinse and repeat for all 4 slots.


One wrinkle to consider, is it is an entirely valid and sound interpretation for a DM to rule that Pact Magic spell slots can not fuel non-warlock features.

From the PHB, pg 164:
*Pact Magic. If you have both the Spellcasting class feature and the Pact Magic class feature from the warlock class, you can use the spell slots you gain from the Pact Magic feature to cast spells you know or have prepared from classes with the Spellcasting class feature, and you can use the spell slots you gain from the Spellcasting class feature to cast warlock spells you know.*

Pact Magic slots, explicitly, can be used to cast spells.  The verbiage also, quite obviously, _does not explicitly state that Pact Magic slots can be used to fuel Font of Magic or Paladin Smites, or other features gained from multi-classing._

So beyond the issue of a DM not allowing the timing to work, the entire premise of using Pact Magic to fuel other classes abilities may be rejected.

----------


## JNAProductions

> One wrinkle to consider, is it is an entirely valid and sound interpretation for a DM to rule that Pact Magic spell slots can not fuel non-warlock features.
> 
> From the PHB, pg 164:
> *Pact Magic. If you have both the Spellcasting class feature and the Pact Magic class feature from the warlock class, you can use the spell slots you gain from the Pact Magic feature to cast spells you know or have prepared from classes with the Spellcasting class feature, and you can use the spell slots you gain from the Spellcasting class feature to cast warlock spells you know.*
> 
> Pact Magic slots, explicitly, can be used to cast spells.  The verbiage also, quite obviously, _does not explicitly state that Pact Magic slots can be used to fuel Font of Magic or Paladin Smites, or other features gained from multi-classing._
> 
> So beyond the issue of a DM not allowing the timing to work, the entire premise of using Pact Magic to fuel other classes abilities may be rejected.


Not a ruling Id usually go with-a slot is a slot.
But if a player insists on abusing RAW, they should be prepared for RAW to bite them in the butt.

----------


## diplomancer

> One wrinkle to consider, is it is an entirely valid and sound interpretation for a DM to rule that Pact Magic spell slots can not fuel non-warlock features.
> 
> From the PHB, pg 164:
> *Pact Magic. If you have both the Spellcasting class feature and the Pact Magic class feature from the warlock class, you can use the spell slots you gain from the Pact Magic feature to cast spells you know or have prepared from classes with the Spellcasting class feature, and you can use the spell slots you gain from the Spellcasting class feature to cast warlock spells you know.*
> 
> Pact Magic slots, explicitly, can be used to cast spells.  The verbiage also, quite obviously, _does not explicitly state that Pact Magic slots can be used to fuel Font of Magic or Paladin Smites, or other features gained from multi-classing._
> 
> So beyond the issue of a DM not allowing the timing to work, the entire premise of using Pact Magic to fuel other classes abilities may be rejected.


If you look at the rule closely, you will see that it is only about the interaction between Spellcasting and Pact Magic. As a matter of fact, that session is under the heading of how the Spellcasting feature is modified once you multi-class (there is a closed list of which class features are modified by Multiclassing; those are Channel Divinity, Extra Attack, Unarmored Defense, and Spellcasting. All other features, including Flexible Casting and Pact Magic, don't change)

Obviously, you cannot infer, from the silence of a rule that tells you how features A, B, and C interact with feature X, how they interact with different feature Y.

As there is no rule at all in the Multiclassing chapter saying how Pact Magic and Flexible Casting interact, we go back to the class text of each feature. There we read:

From Flexible Casting:




> Converting a Spell Slot to Sorcery Points. As a bonus action on your turn, you can expend one spell slot and gain a number of sorcery points equal to the slots level.



"One spell slot". Not "one sorcerer spell slot", nor "one spellcasting spell slot". Compare it with Eldritch Smite, which specifies one Warlock spell slot. A Pact Magic spell slot is a spell slot, as can be seen from the text of Pact Magic




> Spell Slots
> The Warlock table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your warlock spells of 1st through 5th level. The table also shows what the level of those slots is; all of your spell slots are the same level. To cast one of your warlock spells of 1st level or higher, you must expend a spell slot. You regain all expended Pact Magic spell slots when you finish a short or long rest.
> 
> For example, when you are 5th level, you have two 3rd-level spell slots. To cast the 1st-level spell witch bolt, you must spend one of those slots, and you cast it as a 3rd-level spell.


Can a DM rule it differently? Of course, but not without adding words to the rules (i.e, not without houseruling), by substituting "spellcasting spell slot "  for  "spell slot" in the Flexible Casting text.

Apply this idea consistently, and a Sorlock can't even use his _Sorceror_ slots for Flexible Casting, and a Sorlockadin can't smite at all. Heck, apply it really consistently, and a Sorlock can only use his Pact Magic slots to cast his Sorcerer spells!

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> If you look at the rule closely, you will see that it is only about the interaction between Spellcasting and Pact Magic. As a matter of fact, that session is under the heading of how the Spellcasting feature is modified once you multi-class (there is a closed list of which class features are modified by Multiclassing; those are Channel Divinity, Extra Attack, Unarmored Defense, and Spellcasting. All other features, including Flexible Casting and Pact Magic, don't change)
> 
> Obviously, you cannot infer, from the silence of a rule that tells you how features A, B, and C interact with feature X, how they interact with different feature Y.
> 
> As there is no rule at all in the Multiclassing chapter saying how Pact Magic and Flexible Casting interact, we go back to the class text of each feature. There we read:
> 
> From Flexible Casting:
> 
> "One spell slot". Not "one sorcerer spell slot", nor "one spellcasting spell slot". Compare it with Eldritch Smite, which specifies one Warlock spell slot. A Pact Magic spell slot is a spell slot, as can be seen from the text of Pact Magic


A Pact Magic spell slot is one that by RAW, cannot be used to fuel other powers, only cast spells, once one has multi-classed.  A DM is on solid footing ruling that the argument you proffered above is sophistry.

You might not like that interpretation, one many not use that interpretation, but it is a _valid_ interpretation, and yet another potential point of failure.

I think that is an important consideration, as it shuts down what you want to achieve.

As JNAs post indicates, pragmatic DMs, are willing to just say No, using valid interpretations as justification, if they think something is askance, even if they would not ordinarily use the aforementioned interpretation.

Interweaving rests, to cast Extended Alacrity, is something that many DMs will view with suspicion.  

A straight up use of Extend with Gift of Alacrity is powerful enough, trying to garner more efficiency out of the combo, might just anger the gods.🃏

----------


## JNAProductions

Also to note, since multiclassing is a variant rule, each class is written as if it's not multiclassed.

For instance...




> Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook. Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown on the Wizard table. On your adventures, you might find other spells that you can add to your spellbook.


Taken too literally, as a multiclass Full Caster 16/Wizard 1, you can either:

-Learn a 9th level spell, since you have slots for it
-Not learn any spells, since you no longer use the Wizard table for your slots, and instead use the multiclass table

----------


## Frogreaver

> Either casting spells breaks a Long Rest, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, my suggestion works.


Given this premise I don't think your suggestion works.
For it to work the following rulings have to be made and these all have a tendency to be fairly controversial.
1)  Pact slots must be allowed to be used with Font of Magic.
2)  Short rests must be allowed to occur within long rests.
3)  Elves must be allowed to complete a long rest in 4 hours.




> If it does, my Long Rest is over once I've cast my first spell (and since I've completed the 8 hours requirements, I get its benefits), and if I then rest for 1 hour I get a Short Rest, since my Long Rest is already over.


I agree with the logic here




> No, they don't. This is implicit in the PHB (Elves that Trance for 4 hours get the _same_ benefits that a human gets from 8 hours of sleep, humans that sleep for 8 hours get the benefits of a Long Rest, therefore Elves that trance for 4 hours get the benefits of a Long Rest*), confirmed by Sage Advice (included on Sage Advice Compendium even, so not just a random tweet), and explicit in Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse.


I don't agree.  But I'm not sure this is the thread to hash that out?

I agree that if you play that elves can long rest in 4 hours that your suggestion of being an elf to accomplish this works.  But it's a likely point of failure for anyone else attempting to try this.




> I agree. I don't think this is broken at all, which is why I'm saying DMs shouldn't panic and cry "scam!!!" or try to find out ways to stomp it. If it's the capstone, it's the capstone, it should be good. If it's early, early multiclassing full-casters is a big investment, it's ok to have a good return on it.


In general, you are using the same mechanism coffeelock attempts to use.  That you aren't going all out on it is great, but it does set a really bad precedent and some DM's care alot about avoiding bad precedents.




> Edit*: Heck, I've just realized. You get the *benefits* of a human that slept for 8 hours. So if there are *bad* consequences of a Long Rest, a trancing Elf wouldn't get them, only the good consequences. Coffeelock supercharged! Better get a pre-Mordenkainen elf, though. I wouldn't recommend trying to make that argument to your DM, however, unless you're a Monk with Deflect Missiles, as you WILL get the rulebook thrown at you.😎


Honestly, your readings remind me alot of the early on dual hand crossbow rules readings.  The ones that inspired the clarification that you need a free hand to reload.  "The rules didn't say you needed a free hand to reload therefore you don't."

IMO, this is an RPG and most interactions require more understanding and logic of the situation than 'the rules don't say I can't so I can' or 'they say I can therefore I can in every situation'.  The only time I go exactly with what is said is spells, because spells/magic defys all logic and reasoning and I have nothing left but exactly what it says to base a ruling on.

----------


## diplomancer

> A Pact Magic spell slot is one that by RAW, cannot be used to fuel other powers, only cast spells, once one has multi-classed.  A DM is on solid footing ruling that the argument you proffered above is sophistry.
> 
> You might not like that interpretation, one many not use that interpretation, but it is a _valid_ interpretation, and yet another potential point of failure.


Flexible casting says it takes a spell slot. It does not specify otherwise. There is no rule, in the Multiclassing chapter, about how Pact Magic and Flexible Casting interact, only about how Pact Magic and Spellcasting interact, and that one rule further highlights how interchangeable slots are. Furthermore, the chapter on Multiclassing clearly states that the class features that are modified by multiclassing are Extra Attack, Spellcasting, Channel Divinity, and Unarmored Defense, and proceeds to tell how these features are modified. Pact Magic is not on that list. A DM is free to houserule it, though, of course, but I admit I have a hard time understanding why he would 

And it's even worse than that, as I've already mentioned. Though the rule is silent on how Flexible Casting interacts with Pact Magic (naturally, since it's a rule about the Spellcasting feature), it's not silent on how Pact Magic and Spellcasting interact. And if you read that clause as absolutely restrictive, it makes a big difference for Spellcasting; once you multi-class any Spellcasting class with Warlock you can't cast your spells from your Spellcasting class with your Spellcasting slots, only with Pact Magic, and vice-versa!  This is an absurd conclusion, which shows that the restrictive interpretation is false. But notice that even this outrageous conclusion is actually supported by the text, since the text is _only_ about how Pact Magic and Spellcasting interact. That's not the case with Pact Magic and Flexible Casting.






> A straight up use of Extend with Gift of Alacrity is powerful enough, trying to garner more efficiency out of the combo, might just anger the gods.🃏


Yeah... My point exactly, how NOT doing it is actually metagaming. Not using your class powers because you believe the DM will punish you for doing it. The saddest thing is that it is probably true for a lot of DMs, even if you use it not to steal the spotlight but to bolster the whole party. This when you're in a class that is described in the PHB as 




> Once a pact is made, a warlocks thirst for knowledge and power cant be slaked with mere study and research. *No one makes a pact with such a mighty patron if he or she doesnt intend to use the power thus gained.*Rather, the vast majority of warlocks spend their days in active pursuit of their goals, which typically means some kind of adventuring. Furthermore, the demands of their patrons drive warlocks toward adventure.


I will repeat for emphasis: "No one makes a pact with such a mighty patron if he or she doesn't intend to use the power thus gained". But gods forbid if he decides to have a longer breakfast to use that power!




> I don't agree.  But I'm not sure this is the thread to hash that out?
> 
> I agree that if you play that elves can long rest in 4 hours that your suggestion of being an elf to accomplish this works.  But it's a likely point of failure for anyone else attempting to try this.


Even in the case of the DM that does not follow the logic and also rejects the SAC, you can still use a MPMM Elf, where the rule becomes explicit.




> Also to note, since multiclassing is a variant rule, each class is written as if it's not multiclassed.


True but irrelevant, as neither Flexible Casting nor Pact Magic are features with rules that change once you're multiclassed. Read the chapter- the whole chapter- again if you don't believe me, it's written and formatted very plainly that the rules on Pact Magic are only about how it interacts with Spellcasting (one of the few features that explicitly are changed, which is why your point about the Wizard/Cleric is wrong, as the rule you mentioned is part of the Wizard spellcasting feature).

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

The thread asks Would this work?

The answer is: No, if the DM doesnt allow it.

So wether, this is viable is dependent upon passing certain failure gates.
I propose this hypothesis:  As soon as you request involves maximizing resting, the greater the likelihood that interpretations are used that foil your desires.

A good discussion should include multiple viewpointsbut hey if you just want people to confirm your ideano problem.

----------


## diplomancer

> The thread asks Would this work?
> 
> The answer is: No, if the DM doesnt allow it.


True but trivial, as it is the case of basically everything in the game. If a DM feels fireball is overpowered (at 5th level, it absolutely is, and this is even admitted by the devs, justified by being an iconic spell), he can nerf it. Or to use a less obviously houseruling example, he can rule that since a Familiar can't attack, he can't give the Help Action to help someone attack.

Anyway, I will, if you will pardon me using the dirty word, give it a _rest_ 😎, but I must admit I am surprised at how many people here simply wouldn't let a Warlock use his powers fully, even though even his class descriptions says that this is what Warlocks are supposed to do!

----------


## JNAProductions

"DM, can my Fighter attack with a longsword for +Prof+Strength Mod to-hit, and 1d8+Strength Mod damage?" technically requires DM buy-in. But it's written clearly within the rules that that's how it works.
"DM, can I rest during my rest to recover Short Rest resources, use them, and then continue without interrupting the Long Rest?" also requires DM buy-in. Much more so, because it's NOT written in the rules. It, in fact, goes against the common understanding, as shown by not one person (that I can recall, at the moment) agreeing with your reading.

In addition, the class descriptions are a good starting point... But a Warlock isn't meant to be twisting metagame concepts to empower themselves in game. Hell, would you say a player was playing it wrong if they were offered the chance to backstab their party, killing them all, in exchange for two levels?

----------


## diplomancer

> "DM, can my Fighter attack with a longsword for +Prof+Strength Mod to-hit, and 1d8+Strength Mod damage?" technically requires DM buy-in. But it's written clearly within the rules that that's how it works.
> "DM, can I rest during my rest to recover Short Rest resources, use them, and then continue without interrupting the Long Rest?" also requires DM buy-in. Much more so, because it's NOT written in the rules. It, in fact, goes against the common understanding, as shown by not one person (that I can recall, at the moment) agreeing with your reading.


I fully agree that the "Short Rest within a Long Rest" is more a matter of  DM buy-in. But even if there is no buy-in, it can be accomplished (slightly worse- instead of 15 hours of Gift of Alacrity, 16 hours of 5-th level Aid, and 2 hours of Summon X, you will have 14 hours of Gift of Alacrity, 15 hours of 5th level Aid, and your Summoned friend will now last only for 1 hour-still enough in many situations, and it's still for free) with a MPMM Elf. On top of that, you will have a bunch of extra 2nd level slots, since, unlike the suggestion on my first post, you're doing it after you finish your Long Rest. Which is why I feel that it is not such a big deal to just allow my first post suggestion for other races.

Flexible Casting + Pact Magic, on the other hand, is as much a question of DM buy-in as your Fighter example (well-not exactly, since Multiclassing is a variant rule- but obviously for the purposes of this discussion we are assuming that the DM allows Multiclassing, and that he is not adding extra rules to Multiclassing): "Hey DM, can I use a spell slot to convert it into sorcery points"? Yes, you can, because it's clearly written within the rules that that's how it works.




> In addition, the class descriptions are a good starting point... But a Warlock isn't meant to be twisting metagame concepts to empower themselves in game. Hell, would you say a player was playing it wrong if they were offered the chance to backstab their party, killing them all, in exchange for two levels?


Do you think a 17th level Warlock still hasn't noticed that if he does light activity for 1 hour he gets his slots back? Heck, that he has no idea about how his powers work at all? Why all this talk about "twisting metagame concepts"? Do you think a Warlock asking for a Short Rest during the course of an adventure after 2 or 3 combats all in the space of 10 minutes is "twisting metagame concepts", since it's still early in the morning?

Getting two levels while losing all your companions is a bad power trade. Even if it weren't, I wouldn't say *murdering all your companions* is really comparable to *having a longer breakfast*. Specially since the class description does not state that Warlocks will do anything for more power, only that they intend to use the power they've gained. But several people here have stated that if the Warlock attempts to do just that while they're DM'ing, they will do their best to stop it.

----------


## Aimeryan

Most all the consideration of the recent posts boil down multiple statements which each grant certain privilidges when followed, with no specific interaction-override in place. Specific overrides general only when there is a specific to do so; the lack of a specific saying the general is still the case is not a statement that the general is no longer in play.

That people may find things controversial is kind of irrelevant to a RAW conversation. It may be relevant to whether you think the standard DM would allow it.

----------


## fishyfishyfishy

> Most all the consideration of the recent posts boil down multiple statements which each grant certain privilidges when followed, with no specific interaction-override in place. Specific overrides general only when there is a specific to do so; the lack of a specific saying the general is still the case is not a statement that the general is no longer in play.
> 
> That people may find things controversial is kind of irrelevant to a RAW conversation. It may be relevant to whether you think the standard DM would allow it.


Eh, it's not 3.5e where we had an official rule that specific trumps general. Rules discussions in 5e often don't take into account that the designers have been very clear about their intentions, and that they did NOT give us an order of operations for interpreting rules this time around on purpose. 

OP, if you want a real answer to this send JC a Tweet. No doubt he will tell you the same thing he's told pretty much everyone who's ever asked him about rest-casting: that it is an unintended consequence of the way they wrote the game. It's been such a problem that they have made it explicitly clear in the One D&D playtest materials that casting spells interrupts a long rest. You need to pass this by your individual DM, because they're the ones who are going to decide if this is actually allowed or not.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

Xanathar Guide to Everything and Tashas Cauldron of Everything both state this:
*2. EXCEPTIONS SUPERSEDE GENERAL RULES General rules govern each part of the game. For example, the combat rules tell you that melee weapon attacks use Strength and ranged weapon attacks use Dexterity. That's a general rule, and a general rule is in effect as long as something in the game doesn't explicitly say otherwise.
The game also includes elements- class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and the like- that sometimes contradict a general rule. When an exception and a general rule disagree, the exception wins. For example, if a feature says you can make melee weapon attacks using your Charisma, you can do so, even though that statement disagrees with the general rule.*

There are no definitive answer to the question of can Pact Magic slots be used to power other classes abilities, or if a Sorcerer whom has not expended a spell slot could use Flexible Casting to create a spell slot that exceeds the limits described on the Sorcerer Class spell slots per level chart.

Those rules are qualitatively  different from the how an attack roll is made or the damage formula for Fireball.

A DM that ad hoc rules that Fireball in their campaign world does 6d6 damage, is altering the text.  A DM that interprets the text of Pact Magic as not allowing Pact Magic to fuel other classes non spell abilities has not changed a single word.

The text in that case has multiple interpretations.
The text of Fireball is not subject to multiple interpretations.

----------


## Waazraath

Both short resting within a long rest, as well casting not interrupting a long rest unless it takes an hour, is imo definitely not RAI and as I read it not RAW either. Others already formulated this in various ways I agree with. 

Additionally, for me this is (thus) an obvious example of trying to squeeze more power out of a class than intended. At the tables I play this is frowned upon - not considered 'creative play' but powergaming. And the Warlock really doesn't need that. It's a fun and powerful class as it is. 

Sorry, can't make more of it than that.

----------


## Lunali

I don't get why people are always trying to cram more into their rests.  

You long rest for 8 hours a day.  You can travel for 8 hours a day before you start making checks to avoid exhaustion.  Adventuring is more strenuous than basic travel.  What are you doing with the other 8 hours that's so important that you need to cut into your sleep time?

----------


## Segev

Personally,  I agree that the RAI on elf trance is that elves get long rests in four hours. It is the most intuitive reading, requirningthe least fine parsing of specific terms to split the hairs, and it isn't exactly breaking anything unless long rests are frequently interrupted at the four-hour mark and thus nobody else can get long rests.

Rest-casting, too, for anybody but a monk or warlock,  is only giving advantage the first day of adventuring after downtime, because you have to keep the spell you're going to rest cast in reserve for the next day if you're going to do it. It provides a little efficiency if you manage to save the spell slot, but if you save the slot every day, you're never casing more spells that day than if you didn't rest cast. So it benefits you once every other day AT MOST. Not worthless, but not breaking things.

Finally, I do think that the ambiguous punctuation on interrupting long rests was intended as "[an hour of walking], [fighting], [casting spells]," etc., but don't think the alternate reading where each activity only counts if they aggregate into an hour of interaction is necessarily a bad one. It allows midnight ambushes without the DM having to demand yet another eight hour timer start up.

----------


## diplomancer

> Finally, I do think that the ambiguous punctuation on interrupting long rests was intended as "[an hour of walking], [fighting], [casting spells]," etc., but don't think the alternate reading where each activity only counts if they aggregate into an hour of interaction is necessarily a bad one. It allows midnight ambushes without the DM having to demand yet another eight hour timer start up.


As far as _intention_ goes (or at least original intention), there isn't much room for doubt. Both Crawford and Mearls have stated long ago that you need an hour of interruptions to break a Long Rest.

On the other hand, D&D One is going in the opposite direction, so you could say they've realized the possible issues and are now changing it.

----------


## Aimeryan

> As far as _intention_ goes (or at least original intention), there isn't much room for doubt. Both Crawford and Mearls have stated long ago that you need an hour of interruptions to break a Long Rest.
> 
> On the other hand, D&D One is going in the opposite direction, so you could say they've realized the possible issues and are now changing it.


Its more like the same direction but not as fast. With the current implementation you either have combat and/or casting a spell break a Long Rest or not. With D&D One these will not break the Long Rest, however, they do lengthen it. In terms of practicality, it is more the former than the latter, just a step back.

----------


## diplomancer

> Its more like the same direction but not as fast. With the current implementation you either have combat and/or casting a spell break a Long Rest or not. With D&D One these will not break the Long Rest, however, they do lengthen it. In terms of practicality, it is more the former than the latter, just a step back.


Interesting, it seems they are play-testing many possibilities. I've just double-checked the 3 PDFs released so far. In the first two, combat interrupts a rest, and you can't re-start it, but spellcasting doesn't break it unless it lasts for more than an hour. They also specify that if a Long Rest is interrupted after one hour, you gain the benefits of a Short Rest.

 In the last one, spellcasting (except for cantrips) interrupts it just like combat does, but there is the possibility of resuming it after an interruption (with an additional hour per interruption- though how that works is left unexplained- If you cast a spell during combat, does that count as two interruptions?)

----------


## Aimeryan

> In the last one, spellcasting (except for cantrips) interrupts it just like combat does, but there is the possibility of resuming it after an interruption (with an additional hour per interruption- though how that works is left unexplained- If you cast a spell during combat, does that count as two interruptions?)


Yeah, there is the need for clarification. Lots of weirdness going on:
Does the Long Rest interrupt for the party, or for the individual?How immediate is the permissive resumption of the rest? Immediate is a relative position, rather than an fixed time length.How long can the interruption last for?Can you interrupt something which has yet to resume? Is casting two spells back-to-back two interruptions? Casting a spell or more during combat? During a ritual cast by someone else?If you spend an hour of walking to interrupt the rest, when does the rest resume? Can you cast multiple spells, have multiple combats, and only count as a single interruption as long as you keep moving?When does a Long Rest occur and for how long? Is it a player-informed decision or an automatic one based on whenever the prerequisites are met. This is important because of the 16hr restriction before starting again - you don't accidentally want to Long Rest while on a wagon ride to the adventure if you are already fine. Likewise, if the players decide then they could extend the duration to account for the interruptions, making the interruptions at the end (the text only requires the rest be lengthened in total, not from point of interruption).

An RAI on this would be nice.

----------


## Person_Man

Im horrible on RAW, because I have too many editions floating around in my head.  But this does not seem like the intent of the rules, and Im guessing that the devs will specifically prevent coffee-lock like uses of rests as they update the rules for One D&D.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Go fight someone for 59 minutes and 59 seconds straight, full-on fight for survival, and then let me know if you consider that to be non-strenuous and if you're still feeling well-rested.  
> 
> (I know, I know... It's a game.)


 FWIW, most combats in D&D 5e last 3-5 rounds.  :Small Smile:   The other thing, having boxed a little bit, is that the fighting can also create an adrenalin surge that takes some coming down from.

----------


## Witty Username

> FWIW, most combats in D&D 5e last 3-5 rounds.   The other thing, having boxed a little bit, is that the fighting can also create an adrenalin surge that takes some coming down from.


I can attest to that, hiking not boxing, but I had a bad reaction to high elevation on a relatively steep incline, it took an hour or two for my body to relax again.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> FWIW, most combats in D&D 5e last 3-5 rounds.   The other thing, having boxed a little bit, is that the fighting can also create an adrenalin surge that takes some coming down from.





> I can attest to that, hiking not boxing, but I had a bad reaction to high elevation on a relatively steep incline, it took an hour or two for my body to relax again.


I agree with all of this.

----------

