| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason this ring is so annoying is because it does two incredibly powerful things for PCs for a paltry fee, meaning your PC would be a fool not to buy one as soon as possible.
Any item, feat or ability that falls under the general description of "you would be a fool not to get it" needs to simply get incorporated into the rules so that players don't have to waste time and/or gold on the thing. That's what I mean by an "item tax."
The existence of the item serves no purpose other than to restrict gaming choices because the vast majority of PCs simply have to buy one. Just look at the first dozen posts on this thread. They are near unanimous in saying "you gotta get this." In a game that is supposed to be about choices, this item just takes a choice away from players.
At the very least it needs to be split into two items, or made expensive enough to balance against its awesome power. A ring of sustenance should sustain you without food, but not affect your sleep. Something that impacts your sleep should probably be a head slot item anyway.
An item that reduces all need to carry or forage for food and water is awesome enough to cost ten times what this ring costs. Adding the ability to recover spells after two measly hours of sleep should at least triple that cost. That's how powerful the item is in game terms.
As proven by the near universal acclaim for the need for the item.
One of my very important NPC's wears one of these since she's surrounded by enemies in her court. Not having to eat or drink is a great way to avoid being poisoned.
And the OP is on the list!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason this ring is so annoying is because it does two incredibly powerful things for PCs for a paltry fee, meaning your PC would be a fool not to buy one as soon as possible.I guess all my PCs are fools, because it has never fit their concept.
Mine too TOZ, as I already said, the only PC I ever had who purchased this ring did so because the rest of the party all had one and his need for a night's sleep was creating party problems. I have deliberately avoided this ring because I find it so unrelentingly cheesy.
My personal opinion is that this is something that "makes sense" for a PC of level 12 or so. But at 2,500g, this is cheapby level 5. I would price something like this at about 25,000 gold at minimum. Maybe more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally as an adventurer I get enough of a challenge to my survival from the bigger, stronger creatures I constantly have to kill.
True, and many players are content being challenged by monsters and NPCs. This is not meant to be a "hack'n'slash is bad" or "my gaming style is better than yours" comment. But the game also incorporates rules for encumbrance, starvation and how to finding food in the wild, harsh weather and how to protect one from the elements, natural hazards etc and other rules to challenge the party without monsters that are alluring to other players. I understand that this is not your case, but for those who enjoy "player vs elements", the item is unequal. It is this inconsistency that displease me the most and that I find poor design.
Oh and i stand by the dual standards claim as all your objections would apply to a lot of other items you don't seem to have a problem.
Then you don't know much of my posting history. I have an issue with items that perform very differently from one game to another. There are a few others item that I dislike for the same reasons I mentioned earlier, but this thread is concerning the ring of sustenance.
Ah the ring of sustenance. I could talk about this all day as it has been such a point of debate in games I've run.
Firstly, the cost is wrong. It is so useful, it gives so much, saves so much expenditure. Imagine how much is saved in food costs over a few years? Imagine what the demand would be? Who would want this? The price would sky-rocket in light of the demand.
In game, one player especially, who loves his spellcasters, always wants it. When playing rogues or something else, he always wanted it as well. As dm, I did not allow it after eventually coming down upon it. The games I run are survival games, hard sandbox adventures, low magic. In a game that was about surviving the elements, living off the land while exploring and adventuring, this player didn't get that and wanted to play it safe. They should be freed from so many of the problems a human faces in a region like Sargava and the Mwangi expanse. They should be set, and be able to do just fine with less sleep, fluid, food etc. So a player went so far as to really want this ring for multiple characters even when it was against the spirit of this game.
Another dm I know solved it well and dealt with the same char in his game. Low level wizard wanted ring of sustenance. Dm makes some checks. "Sorry, high demand item, there are none available." "But its a low end magic item?" "None available."
Feels good man. They want to be lazy, protected, safe. How shameful in a "hero".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My take on the ring is that it is just too meta-gamey. It has become so common that it's almost become a caster item tax. Most of the folks I game with who play casters buy one of these as soon as they possibly can.
When a feat, item or spell becomes that ubiquitous it means something is wrong with the rules or the item. Like a pack full of CLW wands.
I personally only get the ring if every other caster is getting it, because then if you don't have one, you become an impediment to the party's adventuring.
Which, again, demonstrates that something's wrong with the rules or the item or both.
I agree that it's pretty metagamey, but it's a magical item in a world where carpets fly, shoes teleport you across continents, and swords can be intelligent.
Interestingly enough, consider the group that where only one person bothers to buy it, and have a famine befall the rest... I'm piecing together a medieval zombie-apocalypse game, and one of the challenge ideas I have coming to mind is a scenario involving a food shortage, a hungry mob, and 1 ring of sustenance...
Ah yes.. I remember that player, Loyalist. He looked lost after losing it in an underground desert and said:" its crucial to the character concept."
Keep in mind he was playing a ranged rogue who wasn't cowardly but getting close to it, given how flighty his character was.
Josh, what an idea!
The item becomes so important, an evil item given how much death and distrust it will bring with it. You just know by the end, the ring has to be destroyed. Throw it into the fires of mount doom Frodo!
In this thread we discover that magic items ruin any attempt at a realistic economy, and disapprove of people playing the game differently than we do.
So, in other words, a typical Monday.
The reason this ring is so annoying is because it does two incredibly powerful things for PCs for a paltry fee, meaning your PC would be a fool not to buy one as soon as possible.
Any item, feat or ability that falls under the general description of "you would be a fool not to get it" needs to simply get incorporated into the rules so that players don't have to waste time and/or gold on the thing. That's what I mean by an "item tax."
The existence of the item serves no purpose other than to restrict gaming choices because the vast majority of PCs simply have to buy one. Just look at the first dozen posts on this thread. They are near unanimous in saying "you gotta get this." In a game that is supposed to be about choices, this item just takes a choice away from players.
At the very least it needs to be split into two items, or made expensive enough to balance against its awesome power. A ring of sustenance should sustain you without food, but not affect your sleep. Something that impacts your sleep should probably be a head slot item anyway.
An item that reduces all need to carry or forage for food and water is awesome enough to cost ten times what this ring costs. Adding the ability to recover spells after two measly hours of sleep should at least triple that cost. That's how powerful the item is in game terms.
As proven by the near universal acclaim for the need for the item.
Really good points dragon.
Josh, what an idea!
The item becomes so important, an evil item given how much death and distrust it will bring with it. You just know by the end, the ring has to be destroyed. Throw it into the fires of mount doom Frodo!
I like putting my players in challenging social situations to see how they react. Still hammering out the details, but issues will come up like a sickly mother needing to feed her children wanting the ring, the defacto leader of the town wanting it, how badly are the players willing to hold onto it, will they fight for it? Will they risk getting cast out of their sanctuary to face the undead hordes without a home? etc etc.
I love smearing the gray area in scenarios, because every player is different, and you get to see wildly different ideas and proposals come from unlikely sources. I like to run games where there are sometimes no clear cut villains and heroes, and players are more likely to role-play out and make their own villains, even become villains themselves on occasion. *evil DM grin*
Yeah me too man. When they go evil, and believe they are still doing good, that can be great. That can be the sign you are really getting into the npcs as the dm, drawing players into the world.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every melee fighter has heavy armor, it's an item tax I tell you, whenever every single character of a certain type has the same thing, it is a sign the game is badly written. We should increase the cost of heavy armor or remove it from the game, after all, it's so cheap that once you enchant it beyond +2 there's almost no difference between armor costs.
Every magic user has wands and scrolls. Again, ITEM TAX! If all spell casters have wands and scrolls, then that indicates the system is poorly built, we should either increase the cost of wands and scrolls, or we should remove them from the game, because every single spellcaster uses them.
Potions of healing are also an item tax, since everyone keeps a few potions on them. Any time Every Single Character (ESC, trademark applied for) has something, it's obviously a problem because it's too good, it's become a have to have item and an item tax. We need to make healing potions much much more expensive, or we need to remove them from the game.
Obviously the only real solution is to make every class have a way of healing itself, a way of attacking in melee and ranged the same number of times and amount damage per round, and to cast the same spells, that way we have more originality!
[/rant]
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In this thread we discover that magic items ruin any attempt at a realistic economy, and disapprove of people playing the game differently than we do.
I. Am. So. Frickin. Tired. Of. This. Sort. Of . Asinine. Response.
Someone ASKED for our opinions, dammit! When we respond with our frickin OPINIONS some holier than thou condescending commenter accuses us of "disapproving" of how other people play, or trying to dictate "badwrongfun".
Sick. Of. It.
|
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize my opinion was banned.
Interestingly enough, the person my post was in response to favorited it.
But when you call characters 'fools', 'lazy', and 'shameful', what other conclusion should be drawn?
And what, exactly, does my post do to prevent you from posting your opinion?
In this thread we discover that magic items ruin any attempt at a realistic economy, and disapprove of people playing the game differently than we do.I. Am. So. Frickin. Tired. Of. This. Sort. Of . Asinine. Response.
Someone ASKED for our opinions, dammit! When we respond with our frickin OPINIONS some holier than thou condescending commenter accuses us of "disapproving" of how other people play, or trying to dictate "badwrongfun".
Sick. Of. It.
I hear ya, but it's nothing new around here. Ignore it and move on, plenty of discussion to be had. :)
But back on topic, this particular item provides a service which is only useful in games that make use of food/survival, etc. They provide an in-game solution to daily upkeep/bookkeeping to help some games flow faster. The caveat that the ring must be worn for X hours before it begins to work helps cut down on min/maxing switching it off with other rings. There are plenty of other very powerful rings that player is now not using to make room for the ring of sustenance.
If a DM is wanting to have a grittier game where survival is more of an issue, they can always disallow this item. Might want to disallow Endure Elements as well, since that pretty much nullifies outdoor weather exposure threats. I could see a gritty survival/wilderness game being pretty fun without those spells(I'm a big fan of Rangers).
@mdt, there are multiple types of heavy armor, and there are plenty of melee builds that use medium or even light armos and make up the difference with dex bonuses or feats. Some heavy armor is dirt cheap, some is incredibly expensive.
Options. Choices. Your "rebuttal" is actually a demonstration of my point.
@TOZ, don't bother to whine about your opinion being challenged after your post attacked the opinions of others. This sort of thing happens all the time. Someone says "what do you think abou XXX?" And when someon says "I think YYY." The accusations of imposing playstyle on others come flying.
It is asinine and tiresome. It is not restricted to this thread. It is commonplace. And it is irritating as hell to see people snarking in a way that seems intended to discourage anyone ever voicing their opinion on anything for fear of being tagged as "badwrongfun guy." You are better than that. Or at least I hoped so.
@josh, my point is that if the GM and group want to run a campaign where tracking food, water and sleep is just a bother, why force the PCs to buy the ring? Just do it and let the gold be spent on something valuable to that type of game.
Well I'm sorry that you seemed to be doing the exact thing you accused me of.
Not even close TOZ. My opinions were precisely on the topic being asked about and had no personal attack involved. They were advancing the converasation by providing point and counterpoint in a discussion of opinions.
Your "opinion" was a direct accusation of a personal nature designed to discourage conversation. It is a shame you can't tell the difference.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a shame you can't read me as well as you think you do.
I. Am. So. Frickin. Tired. Of. This. Sort. Of . Asinine. Response.Someone ASKED for our opinions, dammit! When we respond with our frickin OPINIONS some holier than thou condescending commenter accuses us of "disapproving" of how other people play, or trying to dictate "badwrongfun".
Sick. Of. It.
Direct accusation. Personal nature. Are you saying you didn't want to discourage conversation with this? That you didn't want me to stop talking?
@josh, my point is that if the GM and group want to run a campaign where tracking food, water and sleep is just a bother, why force the PCs to buy the ring? Just do it and let the gold be spent on something valuable to that type of game.
Nobody is forcing anyone to buy anything? If the group agrees to a harsh survival game, that's a theme of the game. I've had much, much stranger and even more common items/races/classes banned from games I've played in for no other reason than the DM didn't feel like reading the text or dislikes that item/race/class. At least in a harsh survival game there's a precedent, an actual purpose.
Every melee fighter has heavy armor, it's an item tax I tell you, whenever every single character of a certain type has the same thing, it is a sign the game is badly written. We should increase the cost of heavy armor or remove it from the game, after all, it's so cheap that once you enchant it beyond +2 there's almost no difference between armor costs.
Every magic user has wands and scrolls. Again, ITEM TAX! If all spell casters have wands and scrolls, then that indicates the system is poorly built, we should either increase the cost of wands and scrolls, or we should remove them from the game, because every single spellcaster uses them.
Potions of healing are also an item tax, since everyone keeps a few potions on them. Any time Every Single Character (ESC, trademark applied for) has something, it's obviously a problem because it's too good, it's become a have to have item and an item tax. We need to make healing potions much much more expensive, or we need to remove them from the game.
Obviously the only real solution is to make every class have a way of healing itself, a way of attacking in melee and ranged the same number of times and amount damage per round, and to cast the same spells, that way we have more originality!
[/rant]
Props mdt. :3
Every melee fighter has heavy armor, it's an item tax I tell you, whenever every single character of a certain type has the same thing, it is a sign the game is badly written. We should increase the cost of heavy armor or remove it from the game, after all, it's so cheap that once you enchant it beyond +2 there's almost no difference between armor costs.
Every magic user has wands and scrolls. Again, ITEM TAX! If all spell casters have wands and scrolls, then that indicates the system is poorly built, we should either increase the cost of wands and scrolls, or we should remove them from the game, because every single spellcaster uses them.
Potions of healing are also an item tax, since everyone keeps a few potions on them. Any time Every Single Character (ESC, trademark applied for) has something, it's obviously a problem because it's too good, it's become a have to have item and an item tax. We need to make healing potions much much more expensive, or we need to remove them from the game.
Obviously the only real solution is to make every class have a way of healing itself, a way of attacking in melee and ranged the same number of times and amount damage per round, and to cast the same spells, that way we have more originality!
[/rant]
Mmmmm, different builds and concepts for different characters played by differing players. In a Thursday game I am attending, my character is the party "fighter". This one is actually wearing no armour, is all about speed, attack power and escaping to do it again (with some zen archery backing it up). A defensive fighter that wants to keep mobile and light, will avoid the heavy. A polearm fighter with unarmed as a back-up to a sundered weapon may go monk and keep again, away from the heavy. A rogue fighter in an at times pure fighter role won't probably go above medium armours, but will opt to get them enchanted to boost stealth. Lot of potential in this here game.
Plenty of discussion to be had, no need to react to snarky comments from those who don't really want to contribute.
On rings of sustenance, a larger price could perhaps be asked for. I've seen, as I wrote above, the roll to find it in the city check. Its availability would really depend on the number of crafters. In my world, crafters, real specialists along this line are rare amongst spellcasters. I have heard a dm say, that by his view, magic item crafting would be something logically almost all spellcasters would go into, bridging the merchant and the cleric or wizard together. That seemed a bit sad to me, crushing the possibilities of spellcasters under a crafting-mercantile-majority, but each to their own. When you run a game like backwoods Isger, don't have to worry so much. I will throw one sustenance ring in soon, and make it really desired. Owning it becomes a curse. One ring to rule all the hotdogs!
Direct accusation. Personal nature. Are you saying you didn't want to discourage conversation with this? That you didn't want me to stop talking?
OK, you got me there. I violated my recent rule to not get trolled into pissing contests. Instead I am trying to use the "flag button" for its intended purpose, which my outburst was just as worthy as your snark was.
No argument there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just saying you can't put out a fire by adding more fuel.
Yeah. It's amazing how thoroughly I know that to be true and yet still somehow allow my indignation at being accused of something goad me into reaching for the gasoline can...
Well, another opportunity to learn the same old lesson. Maybe one of these days it will stick...
@mdt, there are multiple types of heavy armor, and there are plenty of melee builds that use medium or even light armos and make up the difference with dex bonuses or feats. Some heavy armor is dirt cheap, some is incredibly expensive.Options. Choices. Your "rebuttal" is actually a demonstration of my point.
Actually, no it wasn't. Full Plate is mechanically better than half-plate, at all heuristics. It's the same weight, potentially 2 more AC, or at least the same AC (depending on dex), it has a lower ACP and lower arcane failure chance. Banded Mail is mechanically superior to Splint Mail, lighter, lower ACP, potentially higher AC. So it's down to a choice between those two for heavy, the others are inherently inferior. Between Banded and Full Plate, the only thing Banded has going for it is 25 lbs lighter weight. Full is 2 AC better. Once you're to the point of having +2 armor, the 1200gp difference in price doesn't even come into it. That means that there is no functional choice for heavy armor other than full plate.
I have never in my gaming life been screwed by a failure to get some sleep or a lack of food and water....
YMMV, but I would never buy this ring for anything other than flavor.
@mdt, perhaps you should start a thread on how full plate armor is a gimmick or awesome sauce and we can hash it out there and see how other people view the options available for armor. I strongly suspect you'll find your assertions here challenged thoroughly.
EDIT: oh, and FWIW, if I agreed with you that full plate is the only viable choice, then I would absolutely consider it an item tax and or that any other choice was a trap.
In either of those cases, that's still a rules problem.
Never had bad weather outdoors? Always had food and water in even the harshest terrains? Temperate region gaming?
Thought of one heuristic for the plate debate. In an area with a lot of item damage, against certain foes, the half plate or banded becomes cheaper to replace than full plate. Rust monsters, acid, sundering foes, certain spells, the quick and nasty heavy armours can be a better choice than the one armour of the highest tech level bristling with enchantments and the sink for plenty of wealth.
Never had bad weather outdoors? Always had food and water in even the harshest terrains? Temperate region gaming?
Between a cleric/druid/ranger/barb etc. every one of those can be overcome rather easily with skills or spells.
Never had bad weather outdoors? Always had food and water in even the harshest terrains? Temperate region gaming?
Thought of one heuristic for the plate debate. In an area with a lot of item damage, against certain foes, the half plate or banded becomes cheaper to replace than full plate. Rust monsters, acid, sundering foes, certain spells, the quick and nasty heavy armours can be a better choice than the one armour of the highest tech level bristling with enchantments and the sink for plenty of wealth.
Given that sundering with acid tends to be difficult and/or useless (since acid still doesn't ignore the object's hardness, meaning mundane acid flasks that deal 1d6 acid damage can't hurt them at all), and your armor and gear do not suffer from AoE attacks unless you roll a 1 followed by rolling the piece of gear on a chart, I don't think this is much of an argument against plate mail.
Couple this with the fact it's entirely possible to get plate mail made out of other materials that simply do not rust. Dragonscale plate isn't metal and provides the usual benefits. Ironwood isn't metal but provides the usual benefits. Even in the case of rust monsters, you get a Reflex save to avoid your item getting damage. At higher levels, make whole is your friend.
Ironically, this is a better argument against shatter than rust and general degredation. :P
Thought of one heuristic for the plate debate. In an area with a lot of item damage, against certain foes, the half plate or banded becomes cheaper to replace than full plate. Rust monsters, acid, sundering foes, certain spells, the quick and nasty heavy armours can be a better choice than the one armour of the highest tech level bristling with enchantments and the sink for plenty of wealth.
Which is why I said past +2 armor. At +2 armor or higher, the cost of the armor becomes a fraction of the armor cost. +2 Splint Mail is almost as costly as +2 Full plate by the time you're buying them. So your argument fails on that point. +2 Splint Mail costs 4350gp, +2 Plate Mail = 5650gp. Splint Mail is 23% cheaper Full Plate at +2. As you go up in Pluses, the percentage difference goes down. You're supposed to be in the level 6 to 8 range for +2, which means 1350gp is a relatively minor expenditure.
If you're dealing with things that damage metal armor, you go out and get dragon hide full plate and be done with it, because it's mechanically better and more cost efficient, you don't drop down to buying multiple metal versions of splint mail for the rust monsters to eat.
@mdt, perhaps you should start a thread on how full plate armor is a gimmick or awesome sauce and we can hash it out there and see how other people view the options available for armor. I strongly suspect you'll find your assertions here challenged thoroughly.
I don't have to go start threads on it. Go do a few searches, you'll find plenty of threads on why is full plate the only viable heavy armor in the game.
I don't have to go start threads on it. Go do a few searches, you'll find plenty of threads on why is full plate the only viable heavy armor in the game.
1. Heavy armor itself is not the only viable armor in the game. The difference between full plate and even studded leather armor with full dex bonuses is merely a +2. What do I get for giving up a +2 in my AC? Well, I can climb better, move faster, cast better, carry more gear, etc... unless you can convince me that heavy armor is always a better choice than medium or light armor, then you certainly aren't going to convince me that full plate is the only viable armor class in the game.
2. In low magic campaigns with limited gold to spend, full plate armor may be too expensive for characters who would rather spend their limited resources on weapons instead of shiny armor.
3. There are a number of feats and abilities that level the AC playing field for those who may not wish to wear full plate.
The bottom line is that full plate armor is the best choice of armor for a rather narrow category of PC while the ring of sustenance is considered required equipment by many players for just about any PC at all.
YEAH ANYTHING THAT IS STANDARD IS A TAX. FOOD, WATER, BACKPACK, HANDY HAVERSACKS, WANDS OF CLW, POWER ATTACK, DEADLY AIM. ALL OF IT SHOULD BE FREE.
Oh wait perhaps certain items and feats are expected to be taken by a lot of characters. Anyone arguing that the item pays for itself has to consider that it would take about 13.7 years for it to do so. Like I said before there are certain campaign settings where I would personally disallow the item.
@OP
I've only seen the ring taken twice in my entire 3.5/pathfinder career so Idk if people honestly care.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In this thread we discover that magic items ruin any attempt at a realistic economy, and disapprove of people playing the game differently than we do.
Personally, I vote that GM's get to kick players with Rings of Sustenance in the nuts once per session, so that they can feel less sad about themselves for hating their players choices.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In this thread we discover that magic items ruin any attempt at a realistic economy, and disapprove of people playing the game differently than we do.I. Am. So. Frickin. Tired. Of. This. Sort. Of . Asinine. Response.
Someone ASKED for our opinions, dammit! When we respond with our frickin OPINIONS some holier than thou condescending commenter accuses us of "disapproving" of how other people play, or trying to dictate "badwrongfun".
Sick. Of. It.
The irony about this post is so thick and sticky that it can be used as Sovereign Glue.
I've only seen the ring taken twice in my entire 3.5/pathfinder career so Idk if people honestly care.
My experience has been similar. However, what I have seen is that some groups do consider the ring to be required, and if you get in a group like that, you better get one too. That's true of only a few items I know of. But it is true of this ring.
Fortunately the ring is pretty cheap. On the other hand, gold pieces are pretty universally needed by most classes. We should probably stop awarding treasure. It's a tax on players to have to keep getting and spending treasure. We should either remove treasure in the game, make it purely for fluff purposes, and/or give away items for free.
@Laurefindel
So if the ring of sustanence is such a problem do people also ban all the low level create food/drink spells?
I'm of those who think that at-will create water and create food and water as a 1st level spell can be immersion breakers. I prefer the goodberries approach; it makes food more nourishing but without berries to start with, the spell is a no go.
I'm aware that 3.5 and Pathfinder are high fantasy games, and that accepting high fantasy is also accepting that environment eventually becomes negligible (unless the said environment is a river of lava from hell teaming with devil-fish or somethin'). But IMO, certain spells and items happen too soon, are too cheap or provide too wide of a blanket immunity for my own personal taste and play-style.
Now before someone suggests for me to look for another game, I'd say that all the elements that I like about a RPG are included in the RaW. Unfortunately, a few spells and items kind of ruin the application of those rules. For some this is a feature, for others it's a design flaw. Personally, I stand in the second group.
@ Liam
But I can pour water into my wine. Should we play together, I'm sure we would have a great time. I never meant to single you out in this conversation, and I hope no offense came out of it.
'findel
Imagine how much is saved in food costs over a few years?
Yeah. Poor Meals cost 1sp per day, and that's buying them from an inn, it probably costs a lot less to make the meals yourself.
Anyway, at 1sp per day, the ring pays for itself in only 69 years. Somewhat longer than the average lifespan of a common peasant.Now, a 1/day item of Create Food and Water costs 5400gp, and can feed 15 people. That pays for itself in only 10 years. Now that's a bargain.
An item that reduces all need to carry or forage for food and water is awesome enough to cost ten times what this ring costs.
Or twice as much for an entire party (see above)
Adding the ability to recover spells after two measly hours of sleep should at least triple that cost.
And what are you doing with those extra 6 hours that's so valuable, exactly?
Not adventuring (at least not the kind that involves walking), not crafting (there's already plenty of time to craft the max 4 hours while adventuring), and not casting spells (not if you want to be able to prep all your spells later.)
Walk 8 hours, rest for 4, walk 8 more hours then use the 4 remaining ones for rest and spell prep? that's 24 hours.