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

[DND_Reborn]

I'm kind of confused.

If you, as a halfling, wield a heavy weapon (i.e. all d12/2d6 weapons), you have disadvantage. If you two-hand a Versatile weapon, such as a battleaxe or longsword, you do not. Your house rule isn't necessary at all.

Well it is, actually, but you are correct--not in the sense we were discussing. Sorry for the confusion.

A longsword wielded with two hands can become finesse, allowing DEX to work with it and rogues to SA with it. It can also become heavy, which for our group allows 1.5x STR mod to damage, and allows it to work with GWM and such which otherwise require a heavy weapon.

This makes versatile weapons truly... versatile.

 

[clearstream]

Only if you assume that the intent is for long rests to be easy to disrupt with combat. I disagree that spellcasting for an hour is implausible - again, rituals and spells like find familiar with long casting times make it very plausible.

This feels rather like the parrot sketch. It is not a matter of being easy to disrupt. Six hundred rounds of combat might represent half of an adventurer's career to level twenty! It's a massive amount of combat. It would be an insane test condition, and have the same effect in play as no condition. It envisions that characters who start a rest at level one, could level through to ten in combat without interrupting their rest.

As an aside, I'm researching rule interpretations. My current take is something like this. On the first layer players consider the literal meaning of the words - in this case they are ambiguous. They then apply other modes of interpretation, which include working from preference, conceding to society or authority, and applying over-arching principles.

I tend to favour principles over preference and authority, when they are in conflict. Probably because principles bring the wisdom of interpretation of many games to the job of interpreting one game. I perforce concede to preference for the individual cohort. Probably because to do otherwise would be bootless. Authority and society I find increasingly questionable, the more that I understand principles: unfortunately for many games our authorities are really very poor, while group consensus tends to form around positions that are essentially argued from preference. Both frequently create internal contradictions, lacunae, intellectually bankrupt positions and so forth. Probably because they are highly partisan.

Thus, your arrow falls wide of the mark. I think you must be favouring preference, because on principles the resolution is abundantly clear. You might be favouring authority, but as you haven't mentioned that yet perhaps it isn't a factor. What I mean is that you could easily "prove" your position by appealing to Sage Advice, but that wouldn't undo the argument from principles.

 

[Hriston]

@clearstream , "at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity" is not understood by, I think, anyone as meaning at least 1 hour of walking, at least 1 hour of fighting, at least 1 hour of casting spells, or at least 1 hour of similar adventuring activity. That would be quite silly indeed! Fortunately, there's a perfectly good, non-silly meaning to which the people with which you're arguing subscribe. This meaning, if you'll allow me to paraphrase somewhat, is at least 1 hour spent adventuring, performing activities like walking, fighting, or casting spells. The concept is that, should the need arise to engage in some adventurous activity in the midst of your long rest, that it won't invalidate your long rest unless it takes at least an hour. For example, walking to a troll's cave that's a half-hour away, defeating the troll, and then walking back to your camp will invalidate your long rest. You must start over. But if the troll's cave is only fifteen minutes away, you're fine. Your long rest may resume once you return.

 

[Charlaquin]

This feels rather like the parrot sketch.

I’m not familiar with the reference.

It is not a matter of being easy to disrupt. Six hundred rounds of combat might represent half of an adventurer's career to level twenty! It's a massive amount of combat. It would be an insane test condition, and have the same effect in play as no condition. It envisions that characters who start a rest at level one, could level through to ten in combat without interrupting their rest.

Which is why I said combat alone. And I did edit “easy” to “plausible.” Because yes, I do believe the intent is that it not be plausible for combat alone to prevent a party from completing a long rest. On the other hand, if the party wizard spends a lot of time casting rituals, doing research, maybe takes a walk to clear her head, a late-night goblin attack that goes on for a full minute might push her over the edge. If the party gets attacked by giant spiders that drag off the sleeping rogue, the party only has an hour, minus the time the initial combat took, to rescue him before the rescue mission spoils the rest.

As an aside, I'm researching rule interpretations. My current take is something like this. On the first layer players consider the literal meaning of the words - in this case they are ambiguous. They then apply other modes of interpretation, which include working from preference, conceding to society or authority, and applying over-arching principles.

I don’t think the text is ambiguous. Yes, your interpretation is possible, but it’s not the most natural reading of the sentence, and if it had been the intent it would have been trivially easy to word in such a way that made it completely unambiguous.

I think you must be favouring preference, because on principles the resolution is abundantly clear. You might be favouring authority, but as you haven't mentioned that yet perhaps it isn't a factor. What I mean is that you could easily "prove" your position by appealing to Sage Advice, but that wouldn't undo the argument from principles.

I’m not. I’m favoriting the most straightforward interpretation of the wording, because I don’t see any reason to assume that isn’t the correct interpretation

 

[clearstream]

Which is why I said combat alone. And I did edit “easy” to “plausible.” Because yes, I do believe the intent is that it not be plausible for combat alone to prevent a party from completing a long rest. On the other hand, if the party wizard spends a lot of time casting rituals, doing research, maybe takes a walk to clear her head, a late-night goblin attack that goes on for a full minute might push her over the edge. If the party gets attacked by giant spiders that drag off the sleeping rogue, the party only has an hour, minus the time the initial combat took, to rescue him before the rescue mission spoils the rest.

A principle that gets engaged here is that additional rules should not be authored to give a rule meaning, if it can have meaning without them. In this case the additional rule limits combat to some reasonable amount, not one hour worth. No such additional rule is needed to interpret as a separated list.

I don’t think the text is ambiguous. Yes, your interpretation is possible, but it’s not the most natural reading of the sentence, and if it had been the intent it would have been trivially easy to word in such a way that made it completely unambiguous.

The ambiguity in question is one that is widely discussed and exemplified for use of commas. There is really no reason to go back to arguing whether or not it is ambiguous. It is a near-classic example of comma ambiguity!

not. I’m favoriting the most straightforward interpretation of the wording, because I don’t see any reason to assume that isn’t the correct interpretation

So if I now have this right, on the surface it seems like you are choosing to add rules rather than entertain ambiguity. Once we dismiss working from preference. Can I ask why? How does it justify in your mind?

 

[clearstream]

@clearstream , "at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity" is not understood by, I think, anyone as meaning at least 1 hour of walking, at least 1 hour of fighting, at least 1 hour of casting spells, or at least 1 hour of similar adventuring activity. That would be quite silly indeed! Fortunately, there's a perfectly good, non-silly meaning to which the people with which you're arguing subscribe. This meaning, if you'll allow me to paraphrase somewhat, is at least 1 hour spent adventuring, performing activities like walking, fighting, or casting spells. The concept is that, should the need arise to engage in some adventurous activity in the midst of your long rest, that it won't invalidate your long rest unless it takes at least an hour. For example, walking to a troll's cave that's a half-hour away, defeating the troll, and then walking back to your camp will invalidate your long rest. You must start over. But if the troll's cave is only fifteen minutes away, you're fine. Your long rest may resume once you return.

But here you have changed the rule to sustain your idea. Read as a separated list there is no need to do that. Occam's Razor.

 

[Hriston]

But here you have changed the rule to sustain your idea. Read as a separated list there is no need to do that. Occam's Razor.

I’m sorry, but what do you think I changed?

Your idea is that any instance of fighting, spell-casting, or similar activity constitutes an interruption, correct? How is that consistent with the idea of “a period of strenuous activity” unless the actual period of time of “at least 1 hour” is considered to apply to the whole list? Many spells, for example, are instantaneous and can hardly be considered to constitute “a period” on their own.

Edit: I think you’re looking at the list as defining what strenuous activity is, but it doesn’t. It defines what a period of strenuous activity is.

 

[Charlaquin]

A principle that gets engaged here is that additional rules should not be authored to give a rule meaning, if it can have meaning without them.

...what?

In this case the additional rule limits combat to some reasonable amount, not one hour worth. No such additional rule is needed to interpret as a separated list.

What are you talking about? The rule doesn’t limit combat...

The ambiguity in question is one that is widely discussed and exemplified for use of commas. There is really no reason to go back to arguing whether or not it is ambiguous. It is a near-classic example of comma ambiguity!

I acknowledged that your interpretation is possible. Yes, technically the comma is ambiguous. However, it would have been trivially easy to word the sentence to have the meaning you are drawing from it without this ambiguity. Not so for the meaning I am drawing from it.

So if I now have this right, on the surface it seems like you are choosing to add rules rather than entertain ambiguity. Once we dismiss working from preference. Can I ask why? How does it justify in your mind?

N... No, I am not choosing to add any rules, and I have no idea where you’re getting the impression that I am.

 

[Oofta]

While I still think this whole topic is too concerned about following a strict letter of the law I don't get it. You have 3 PCs that have up to 16 hours per day for resting.

PC A takes 1st watch for 6 hours while PC B rests. PC B takes the next watch for 6 hours. PC B has had a long rest at hour 8, PC A at 12 hours.

Yes, 12 hours have passed and 1 PC did not have watch (or more likely just double up on begin/end watch), but the group is only travelling 8 hours per day anyway.

What's the issue?

 

[Hriston]

While I still think this whole topic is too concerned about following a strict letter of the law I don't get it. You have 3 PCs that have up to 16 hours per day for resting.

PC A takes 1st watch for 6 hours while PC B rests. PC B takes the next watch for 6 hours. PC B has had a long rest at hour 8, PC A at 12 hours.

Yes, 12 hours have passed and 1 PC did not have watch (or more likely just double up on begin/end watch), but the group is only travelling 8 hours per day anyway.

What's the issue?

Really? After five pages you still don’t understand the issue? I’m pretty sure I’ve explained it to death, but I’ll give it another go.

The most natural thing for a three person party to do would be for each person to take a 4-hour watch and sleep for 8 hours, but due to the 2-hour limit on standing watch during a long rest, the one who takes second watch won’t gain the benefit.

It can be worked around, but doing so involves making the fiction conform to the mechanic, at least notionally. I’m certainly not going to focus on any of this in play, but then why have the mechanic?

Which leads me to the solution of disregarding the 2-hour limit on light activity. It serves no beneficial purpose in the game that I can see. A long rest must be at least 8 hours, and you must get at least 6 hours of sleep. That’s it. As an extreme example, would there be anything wrong with a 12-hour long rest in which a character sleeps for 3 hours, stands watch for 6 hours, and then sleeps for another 3? I don’t see anything that could possibly be wrong with that.

Does anyone have any insight into what’s the purpose of this mechanic?