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

[pming]

Hiya!

I wish there was a more detailed "quality of rest" mechanic, where sleeping in a warm safe bed of an Inn is better than under a flimsy blanket, shivering in the woods with wolves howling around you.

Been there, done that...er...do that.
Here's my general house rule regarding 'quality'; it related to HP's recovered. (NOTE: This was created a while ago for my 1e game, then translated/updated for my 1e/Hackmaster game).

Condition for that day HP recovered
More than mild activity (combat, fleeing, working forge, etc.) +0 / day
Mild activity +1 / day
Mild activity + first aid: sew wounds +2 / day
Mild activity + healing check +2 / day
Complete rest +3 / day
Mild activity + sew wounds + healing +4 / day
Complete rest + healing +5 / day
Complete rest + sew wounds +6 / day
Complete rest + healing + herbalism +6 / day
Complete rest + sew wounds + healing +7 / day
Complete rest + sew wounds + healing + herbalism +9 / day

As you can see, the "Skills" used are for Hackmaster 4th Ed, but I use them as an all-purpose "this is what you need to do using whatever Skills, Backgrounds, or Special Abilities". So a person with a Healers Kit can automatically "Sew Wounds"; if they also have the Medicine Skill (actually taken, so they can use their Prof Bonus), they can make a Skill roll (typically I set the DC to between 8 and 10...lower/higher depending on circumstance; so in a cities 'hospital', probably a DC5...but with only candle light in a damp, cold cave several miles into the Lands of Deepearth/Underdark/Underground might be a DC 12 or even 15).

This has the effect of letting my players have an actual, serious discussion about leaving the dungeon to go back to camp, or even town, to rest...or stick it out in the dungeon.

EDIT: Forgot to mention; I have another small table that has bonuses/penalties to HP recovery based on the "comfort level" of the rest. At a warm inn with clean water, sheets, bandages, and hot cooked food...bonus HP; at a safe woodland camp with warm camp food, bedroll, tent...small bonus or nil; in an undead filled dungeon infested with rats, insects and the rot of the dead...penalty to HP recovery. I can't find the chart right now, but it's only about 6 or 7 'things'.
EDIT EDIT: ...and yes, you can actually LOOSE HP's trying to recover in a really bad spot with really bad/no skills or bandages or REALLY bad skill checks (re: natural 1, or maybe 2 if it's absolutely HORRIBLE conditions)!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[clearstream]

Ah, okay, I missed that. I think it might be worthwhile to write out a fully expanded form of each of our readings of the conditional because I feel like some nuances of meaning are lost in the parsings you’ve given above. As I stated up thread, I certainly don’t feel that your A captures my interpretation adequately, mainly because of your omission of the word “or”.

First I’ll give a full rendering of my current understanding of your interpretation as you have elucidated above:

If the rest is interrupted by a period of at least 1 hour of walking, a period of fighting, a period of casting spells, or a period of similar adventuring activity, the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it.​

Now here’s my interpretation given the same treatment:

If the rest is interrupted by 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.​

​

I hope I’ve gotten your intended meaning correctly this time and helped to clarify any misconceptions you might have had about mine.

That is helpful and shows the intractable nature of the ambiguity. Consider

If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity - fighting, casting spells, at least 1 hour of walking, or similar adventuring activity - the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it.

In the same way that deleting the list-forming dashes and otherwise redundant wording pushes towards your reading, simply reordering the list pushes toward mine.

 

[Hriston]

That is helpful and shows the intractable nature of the ambiguity. Consider

If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity - fighting, casting spells, at least 1 hour of walking, or similar adventuring activity - the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it.

In the same way that deleting the list-forming dashes and otherwise redundant wording pushes towards your reading, simply reordering the list pushes toward mine.

Right, but such reordering already assumes your interpretation.

Here’s what reordering the list looks like under my interpretation:

at least 1 hour of fighting, casting spells, walking, or similar adventuring activity​

 

[clearstream]

Right, but such reordering already assumes your interpretation.

Removing the list-forming dashes and otherwise redundant words assumes your interpretation.

That is what I meant by "intractable": we can solve the ambiguity, but only by changing something... and perforce any such change leans into an interpretation. I reorder, but retain the whole text; you preserve the order, but cut things from the text. The one is not more justified than the other.

[Edit: here is another reformulation, taking "a period" and "1 hour" to be strictly redundant per your reading.

If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity - walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity - the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it.

As you can see, a question immediately falls on how much walking? Oh, at least 1 hour seems right, let's add that... ambiguity achieved!]

 

[Charlaquin]

Removing the list-forming dashes and otherwise redundant words assumes your interpretation.

That is what I meant by "intractable": we can solve the ambiguity, but only by changing something... and perforce any such change leans into an interpretation. I reorder, but retain the whole text; you preserve the order, but cut things from the text. The one is not more justified than the other.

[Edit: here is another reformulation, taking "a period" and "1 hour" to be strictly redundant per your reading.

If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity - walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity - the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it.

As you can see, a question immediately falls on how much walking?

See, for me that wording doesn’t raise the question “how much walking?” it raises the question “how long of a period?”

 

[Hriston]

Removing the list-forming dashes and otherwise redundant words assumes your interpretation.

That is what I meant by "intractable": we can solve the ambiguity, but only by changing something... and perforce any change leans into an interpretation. I reorder, but retain the whole text; you preserve the order, but cut things from the text. The one is not more justified than the other.

My “expansions/edits” were the result of applying a methodology of substitution based on the two interpretations. This was done to make the derived meanings as clear as possible. You don’t seem to have objected to the way I rendered your interpretation, which I would say is equivalent to how I rendered my interpretation.

My objection to the reordering you presented, however, is that it isn’t the result of “simply reordering the list” because it presupposes that the words “at least 1 hour of” are part of the listed item “walking” rather than a preamble to the listed items themselves, and by removing them from their leading position, you’ve altered the meaning far more than “simply reordering” a list should accomplish. Therefore, I offered the alternative of what reordering would look like under my interpretation, so that like can be compared with like.

Do you think we could come up with a neutral rewording? Is that even possible!?

Well, what would be the purpose? I think we already agree what the text in the book is!

 

[clearstream]

My “expansions/edits” were the result of applying a methodology of substitution based on the two interpretations. This was done to make the derived meanings as clear as possible. You don’t seem to have objected to the way I rendered your interpretation, which I would say is equivalent to how I rendered my interpretation.

I didn't believe it was necessary to object, as I wanted to not raise quibbles with your approach but instead tender a corrected reading. I can get into detail if that seems helpful, but for a number of reasons I feel it is better to go on from where we now are.

My objection to the reordering you presented, however, is that it isn’t the result of “simply reordering the list” because it presupposes that the words “at least 1 hour of” are part of the listed item “walking” rather than a preamble to the listed items themselves, and by removing them from their leading position, you’ve altered the meaning far more than “simply reordering” a list should accomplish. Therefore, I offered the alternative of what reordering would look like under my interpretation, so that like can be compared with like.

We are each adjusting the text to solve an ambiguity. Solving the ambiguity unavoidably commits us to an interpretation. It is as much violence to the text to delete meaningful words and dashes (changing the meaning from my perspective) as it is to reorder for clarity (changing the meaning from your perspective). Any change to solve ambiguity perforce leans into one interpretation! Presupposing the dashes aren't necessary to form a list, and presupposing that at least 1 hour of is not part of the "walking" element of that list, equally so.

In case you missed it (I edited it in after posting!), here is another reformulation, taking "a period" and "1 hour" to be strictly redundant per your reading.

If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity - walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity - the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it.

As you can see, a question immediately falls on how much walking? Oh, at least 1 hour seems right, let's add that... ambiguity achieved!

 

[clearstream]

See, for me that wording doesn’t raise the question “how much walking?” it raises the question “how long of a period?”

That much was already clear We probably agree that the dashes stand for parentheses, and that the text inside them is a gloss. By convention that will be a list of examples synonymous with "a period of strenuous activity".

Seeing as period for fighting and casting spells is thoroughly defined by other parts of the ruleset, there need be no doubt about what is meant by them. Walking, lacking a definition of its period elsewhere, needs it here. The definition is itself problematic (ironically so given the OP) as it seems that "standing watch" for two hours must mean nearly literally that: no strolling around or patrolling the periphery. Although, by your reading, it is okay to fight hundreds of combats if they arise.

In any case, I can appreciate your reasons for intransigence, given you debar the possibility that period is well defined for fighting and casting spells.

 

[Charlaquin]

That much was already clear We probably agree that the dashes stand for parentheses, and that the text inside them is a gloss. By convention that will be a list of examples synonymous with "a period of strenuous activity".

Seeing as period for fighting and casting spells is thoroughly defined by other parts of the ruleset, there need be no doubt about what is meant by them. Walking, lacking a definition of its period elsewhere, needs it here. The definition is itself problematic (ironically so given the OP) as it seems that "standing watch" for two hours must mean nearly literally that: no strolling around or patrolling the periphery. Although, by your reading, it is okay to fight hundreds of combats if they arise.

In any case, I can appreciate your reasons for intransigence, given you debar the possibility that period is well defined for fighting and casting spells.

A period of fighting and a period of casting spells are certainly defined. What is not defined under your interpretation is how long of a period of those activities is sufficient to satisfy the conditions for disrupting a long rest.

 

[robus]

That’s because it isn’t mechanical jargon. It’s a plain-English phrase. An adventuring day is a day of adventuring, and the game is designed around the assumption of 6-8 encounters (not necessarily combat encounters) occurring on each such day. But 6-8 encounters do not define an adventuring day, otherwise a day on which the players had fewer than 6 encounters would not be considered an adventuring day, and the adventuring day would have to end after 8 encounters.

I feel like we're going in circles and this is probably my last post on this topic (as it's not really interesting to the OP) .

All of the mechanical aspects of RPGs are written in plain English. Adventuring Day is short hand for a day of encounters that will provide enough challenge that the PCs will likely survive but, in the effort, will burn through most of their daily combat resources: HP, spells etc. If the PCs don't encounter that amount of challenge then it does not qualify as adventuring day in the manner WotC uses it. The challenge, of course, can vary depending on the needs of the group. WotC's recommendation is balanced for a group of PCs controlled by players of average skill.