D&D 5E Just how long is a long rest anyway?

[Umbran]

In the worst case scenario, the PCs travel 9 hours, everyone fails their con saves and gets a level of exhaustion... Then they make camp, take a long rest, and that level of exhaustion goes away. Best case scenario, everyone succeeds on their con saves and you can press on for another hour. Basically, since you lose exhaustion levels at a rate of 1/day, your first exhaustion level each day is “free.”

That all is IF they don't get significantly attacked in the rest period. If an orc warband comes through, they don't get their rest, and are now left with a level of exhaustion that doesn't get cleared.

And, that's a choice - if they are not generally getting assaulted in the night, you are right, that optimizing for the "happy path" will get them farther per day. If they are a little more conservative, they'll optimize for reliably not having any exhaustion, ever.

Also note that the presence of a barbarian with Frenzy Rage will lean them towards the conservative, because such a character also generates exhaustion for themselves...

 

[Charlaquin]

That all is IF they don't get significantly attacked in the rest period. If an orc warband comes through, they don't get their rest, and are now left with a level of exhaustion that doesn't get cleared.

And, that's a choice - if they are not generally getting assaulted in the night, you are right, that optimizing for the "happy path" will get them farther per day. If they are a little more conservative, they'll optimize for reliably not having any exhaustion, ever.

Also note that the presence of a barbarian with Frenzy Rage will lean them towards the conservative, because such a character also generates exhaustion for themselves...

Indeed! That forced march does put you at risk of having a level of exhaustion if you’re attacked at night. Personally, I think that’s usually a risk worth taking, since the first level only gives you disadvantage on ability checks, which are less likely to make a big difference if you do get attacked than attack rolls or saving throws. But it is not a meaningful consideration especially if you have a frenzy Barbarian in the party or any of your party members are already exhausted.

 

[Charlaquin]

My post isn’t talking about interruption of a long rest by at least an hour of strenuous activity. My post is talking about the two-hour limit on light activity. If I wasn’t clear enough (which I think I wasn’t due to posting a little too hastily), I think the text should read, “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 only light activity, such as reading, talking, eating, or standing watch, in the time remaining.” The way it’s worded now, a character that takes a twelve hour long rest has to spend ten hours of it asleep, unless there’s something between sleep and light activity.

The problem I see with this alternative wording is that it suggests the entire rest must only be sleep and light activity. Under the current rule, if the party sleeps for 6 hours and performs only light activity for 2, they gain the benefits of the long rest after 8 hours. Even if they have 12 hours to kill, they get their hit points and spell slots back after 8, and performing an hour or more of strenuous activity during the remaining 4 hours won’t negatively affect them. Under your proposed revision, a party that sets out to take a 12-hour rest, sleeps for 8 hours, does light activity for 3, but gets interrupted in the last hour misses out on the benefits of a rest they would have more than earned if they had only set aside 8 hours.

 

[DND_Reborn]

What about the circumstance where a character is taking the second watch, gets four hours of sleep, stands watch for four hours, and then gets another two plus hours of sleep? Did the character get a long rest? According to the RaW, I don’t think so.

Well, let's break it down just so we're working with the same example, ok? As I understand your example it is this:

8 PM - 12 AM: Sleeping
12 AM - 4 AM: On watch
4 AM - 6 AM (or later): Sleeping

Conditions required for a long rest:

1. at least 8 hours during which the character...
2. sleeps for at least 6 hours and...
3. performs no more than 2 hours of light activity.
4. Aren't interrupted by strenuous activity for at least 1 hour.

Let's examine them:

1. Due to the 4 + (2) +2 (or more), we have a total of 8+ hours. So, condition one is satisfied. The reason I put the partial watch time (2) and not 4 is explained below under condition three.

2. Sleeps 4 hours and 2 hours (or more) later on. Condition two is good.

3. This is where it gets tricky and potentially confusing. This item limits light activity to no more than 2 hours because you have to sleep for at least 6, to get a total of at least 8. But no where does it say that the 8 hours of extended downtime have to be continuous! So, in the above example, the watch is composed of 2 hours of light activity (which contributes to the long rest time requirement), and two hours that don't.

4. Since those two extra hours of watch are light and not an hour or more of strenuous activity, we don't have a conflict here, either. The fact the interrupting time would have to be strenuous to break the long rest is very important; and keeping watch is defined as a light activity.

So, in total you have 4 hours of sleep, 2 hours on watch, and 2 hours of sleep giving the required 8 hours for a long rest. You have 2 additional hours of watch which don't contribute to the long rest, but don't break it either since that time is not at least 1 hour of strenuous activity.

Thus, I would say this character will benefit from the long rest. In fairness, hopefully you see you really have to. Consider the people who take first and last watch. They have 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep, so they will get a long rest. How could you justify the guy in the middle shouldn't?

I’m not sure what you think “performs no more than 2 hours of light activity” means, but I agree that the intention seems to be that you just need to get enough sleep. I don’t think the text itself does a good job of conveying that.

I agree.

 

[robus]

Being on watch will not interrupt a long rest, neither will combat or other strenuous activity unless it totals 1 hour or more. If their interruption is more than 1 hour (such as moving camp, traveling, etc.) then they won't get the benefit of the rest.

Not to derail things too much but I really can’t believe that 1 hour combat is required to interrupt a long rest. My reading is it’s 1 hour of walking or any combat or any strenuous activity.

1 hour of combat is completely beyond any combat encounter in the game given that a typical combat encounter lasts 30 seconds at most.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Not to derail things too much but I really can’t believe that 1 hour combat is required to interrupt a long rest. My reading is it’s 1 hour of walking or any combat or any strenuous activity.

1 hour of combat is completely beyond any combat encounter in the game given that a typical combat encounter lasts 30 seconds at most.

Sorry, I meant an hour of any of those strenuous activities combined. And that hour need not be continuous either.

So, if you had a combat for a minute (WHEW!), gathered firewood for 30 minutes and water for 10 minutes, walked for 20 minutes while on watch, etc. if your total strenuous activity is at least 1 hour, you won't benefit from the long rest.

 

[Oofta]

Well, let's break it down just so we're working with the same example, ok? As I understand your example it is this:

8 PM - 12 AM: Sleeping
12 AM - 4 AM: On watch
4 AM - 6 AM (or later): Sleeping

Conditions required for a long rest:

1. at least 8 hours during which the character...
2. sleeps for at least 6 hours and...
3. performs no more than 2 hours of light activity.
4. Aren't interrupted by strenuous activity for at least 1 hour.

Let's examine them:

1. Due to the 4 + (2) +2 (or more), we have a total of 8+ hours. So, condition one is satisfied. The reason I put the partial watch time (2) and not 4 is explained below under condition three.

2. Sleeps 4 hours and 2 hours (or more) later on. Condition two is good.

3. This is where it gets tricky and potentially confusing. This item limits light activity to no more than 2 hours because you have to sleep for at least 6, to get a total of at least 8. But no where does it say that the 8 hours of extended downtime have to be continuous! So, in the above example, the watch is composed of 2 hours of light activity (which contributes to the long rest time requirement), and two hours that don't.

4. Since those two extra hours of watch are light and not an hour or more of strenuous activity, we don't have a conflict here, either. The fact the interrupting time would have to be strenuous to break the long rest is very important; and keeping watch is defined as a light activity.

So, in total you have 4 hours of sleep, 2 hours on watch, and 2 hours of sleep giving the required 8 hours for a long rest. You have 2 additional hours of watch which don't contribute to the long rest, but don't break it either since that time is not at least 1 hour of strenuous activity.

Thus, I would say this character will benefit from the long rest. In fairness, hopefully you see you really have to. Consider the people who take first and last watch. They have 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep, so they will get a long rest. How could you justify the guy in the middle shouldn't?



I agree.

While I agree with what you said ... if you have to parse out the wording to this level, it just isn't worth it. As a DM you are empowered to make rulings for your group that makes sense.

A 3 person group having to stand watches like this is an edge case and simply isn't covered because the minimum assumed is 4.

 

[DND_Reborn]

While I agree with what you said ... if you have to parse out the wording to this level, it just isn't worth it. As a DM you are empowered to make rulings for your group that makes sense.

A 3 person group having to stand watches like this is an edge case and simply isn't covered because the minimum assumed is 4.

Sure, I was just going with @Hriston's example and breaking it down.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not to derail things too much but I really can’t believe that 1 hour combat is required to interrupt a long rest. My reading is it’s 1 hour of walking or any combat or any strenuous activity.

1 hour of combat is completely beyond any combat encounter in the game given that a typical combat encounter lasts 30 seconds at most.

I think that’s the intent. Having your long rest interrupted by a 3-5 round combat (or heck, even several 3-5 round combats) won’t be a significant enough interruption to prevent you from gaining the benefits of the rest. It’ll just tax your presumably already depleted resources even more, and probably be more dangerous than your typical combat since most of the party will probably be in their long johns for the fight. 5e really doesn’t want late-night monster attacks preventing the party from getting their resources back. To really screw up a long rest, you need to spend significant time not resting.

Frankly, the only scenario where I see a long rest getting interrupted for a full hour is if part way through the rest, the party decides that the place they’ve chosen to rest is not secure enough, and they either abandon the attempt and try to book it to somewhere safer to start over, or they spend significant time re-securing their current resting place. For example, you made the foolish decision to try to take a long rest in a dungeon, and after multiple assaults by wandering monsters, you decide you have a better shot at surviving if you trek through the woods at night back to town than if you try to finish the rest here.

 

[Hriston]

I understood, I just think it's being overly restrictive for no reason than strict adherence to the rules. The rules assume a 4 person group and you have a smaller group than that.

I'd rather do what makes logical sense than adhere to the strict letter of the rules.

It hadn’t occurred to me that there might be such an assumption. The encounter guidelines assume a group of 3-5 as the default, so I’m not sure why in other places a minimum of four would be assumed.

But I agree about doing what makes sense. The point of my post was to point out that the way this is written can lead to results that don’t make sense and how a different interpretation (and/or a rewrite) can create better results.