Resting Rules

[NewbieDMaster]

Hello Playground,
I have noticed a trend with players resting very frequently. Unless an extreme sense of urgency is put in place, the players just take a short, or even a long rest, between every encounter. This has very noticeably thrown off the balance of the classes. My next game is going to be an open world exploration game, so I will not be intentionally creating urgency to force the players not to rest. What do you think of these rules for resting?

o Short Rest: A short rest is a period of downtime, at least 5 minutes long, during which a character does nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds.
A character can spend one or more Hit Dice at the end of a short rest, up to the character’s maximum number of Hit Dice, which is equal to the character’s level. For each Hit Die spent in this way, the player rolls the die and adds the character’s Constitution modifier to it. The character regains hit points equal to the total. The player can decide to spend an additional Hit Die after each roll. A character regains some spent Hit Dice upon finishing a long rest, as explained below.
You can take a short rest twice. You regain expended uses when you finish a long rest.
 Healing Rest: You can also take a special kind of short rest, called a healing rest. When taking a healing rest, you may spend Hit Dice, as explained above, but gain no other benefits from taking a short rest. Using a healing rest does not expend one of your short rests.

o Long Rest: A long rest is a period of extended downtime, at least 8 hours long, which must take place in a safe and comfortable location. During a long rest, a character sleeps or performs light activity: reading, talking, or eating. If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity—at least 1 hour of walking, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity—the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it.
At the end of a long rest, a character regains all lost hit points. The character also regains spent Hit Dice, up to a number of dice equal to half of the character’s total number of them (minimum of one die).
A character can’t benefit from more than one long rest in a 24-hour period, and a character must have at least 1 hit point at the start of the rest to gain its benefits.
 You can take a special long rest when in an area that is not safe and comfortable. Taking a long rest this way grants you back spent Hit Dice as normal, but does not grant any other benefits.

[Tboy1492]

I thought there was a limit to short and long rests per day (like, gain benefit of it once?)

[OldTrees1]

I can see that your players are too eager to rest (do they really want to rest for an hour after each fight?). If nothing else works, these rules might re establish balance. However you could consider having the world act in a manner that disincentivizes excessive catnaps. Since your world is an open world exploration game, you might have interesting things avoid the PCs if the PCs give them so much time and warning to exploit.

Sidenote: I see no reason for you to shorten the short rest time from 1 hour to 5 minutes.

[Mjolnirbear]

I don't know about OP, but my short rests are 5 minutes too. I want warlocks, fighters and monks to not have to badger the group to short rest. I limit it to twice per long rest (no coffee lock problems in my games lol).

OP, you may want to look at the Gritty rest variant. I believe it would solve your issues.

[NewbieDMaster]

I can see that your players are too eager to rest (do they really want to rest for an hour after each fight?). If nothing else works, these rules might re establish balance. However you could consider having the world act in a manner that disincentivizes excessive catnaps. Since your world is an open world exploration game, you might have interesting things avoid the PCs if the PCs give them so much time and warning to exploit.

Sidenote: I see no reason for you to shorten the short rest time from 1 hour to 5 minutes.

In the player's eyes, there is no reason not to rest for an hour after each fight, if nothing is preventing them from doing so. They figure, their characters feel a lot more powerful after a short rest, so why wouldn't the characters want to do the same. I kinda agree with them when using the RAW. As for making things avoid them, this is a natural response in the world, and my players are aware that the world acts in a natural way in all of my games. It has not prevented them from resting frequently in the past.

Regarding short rest time, I have just found that the 1 hour rest feels unnatural for us. I liked the 5 minute rest from 4e, so I'm just going in that direction.


OP, you may want to look at the Gritty rest variant. I believe it would solve your issues.

Thank you for the suggestion. I have looked into the gritty rest variant, and I find that it doesn't do what I'm looking for. It is far too restrictive, and prevents heroes from effectively handling a cave or dungeon in a single pass.
I want my players to be able to fight 3-6 or maybe more small fights a day, but I don't want them to be at full resources the whole time. With the gritty rest, more than 2-3 small fights start to become deadly... Not what I'm looking for.

[Easy_Lee]

My issue with the above is that they are wordy. I always strive for conciseness with my homebrewing.

I wonder if you could simplify these such that your players understand at a glance what you're on about. For example:

You may spend hit die to regain hit points at the end of a combat encounter.
Short Rests take five minutes, but you may only benefit from two per day.
You may only benefit from one Long Rest per day.
For the purpose of these rules, a day begins at sunrise.

[mephnick]

I don't know about OP, but my short rests are 5 minutes too. I want warlocks, fighters and monks to not have to badger the group to short rest. I limit it to twice per long rest (no coffee lock problems in my games lol).

OP, you may want to look at the Gritty rest variant. I believe it would solve your issues.

I do 5 minute short rests and limit it to 2 per long rest as well, but my long rests are still 24 hours to maintain the pace I like. Characters can take them independantly. It lets me provide any content I want and keeps the rest balance at all times, regardless on if I'm doing a travel, dungeons or city based adventuring day. Decoupling resting from sleeping was the best thing I ever did.

[LtPowers]

In the player's eyes, there is no reason not to rest for an hour after each fight, if nothing is preventing them from doing so.

That's normal and expected. Remember, the guideline of 6-8 encounters per long rest includes non-combat encounters. So if you figure about 3 combat encounters per long rest, that's 3 short rests per long rest, which isn't that far off. Add in a little incentive to keep moving (5-minute short rests makes this much harder) and you can easily get it down to two.


I liked the 5 minute rest from 4e, so I'm just going in that direction.

Short rests in 4e were 10 minutes, not 5.


Powers &8^]

[NewbieDMaster]

My issue with the above is that they are wordy. I always strive for conciseness with my homebrewing.

I wonder if you could simplify these such that your players understand at a glance what you're on about. For example:

You may spend hit die to regain hit points at the end of a combat encounter.
Short Rests take five minutes, but you may only benefit from two per day.
You may only benefit from one Long Rest per day.
For the purpose of these rules, a day begins at sunrise.


I like this. Probably easier to understand. I tend to completely rewrite rules, rather than just getting to the point of what I'm changing, and I can see where information can easily be missed as a result. I think you missed my issue when it comes to long rests however. The rules already limit long rests to 1/24 hours. The problem is, at times, players will decide to take a long rest after a single 5 minute fight. They will just find a safe place, or use Magnificent Mansion at later levels, and hide out there for the entire day, take a long rest, then continue on... My long rest changes remove the ability to rest outside of a safe and comfortable location, such as a friendly town. The intent is to prevent long resting in the wild... Still won't fix long rests when players get access to Magnificent Mansion... but it is what it is I guess...

[Easy_Lee]

I like this. Probably easier to understand. I tend to completely rewrite rules, rather than just getting to the point of what I'm changing, and I can see where information can easily be missed as a result. I think you missed my issue when it comes to long rests however. The rules already limit long rests to 1/24 hours. The problem is, at times, players will decide to take a long rest after a single 5 minute fight. They will just find a safe place, or use Magnificent Mansion at later levels, and hide out there for the entire day, take a long rest, then continue on... My long rest changes remove the ability to rest outside of a safe and comfortable location, such as a friendly town. The intent is to prevent long resting in the wild... Still won't fix long rests when players get access to Magnificent Mansion... but it is what it is I guess...

Got it. That's a difficult one to codify since your idea of safe and the players' ideas of safe may differ. You might write that as, "You may only take a long rest in a safe location," then talk with your players about what "safe" means. Or you might use the word "secure" or "controlled" or "peaceful" depending on your specific intent - preferably something that still allows druids and rangers to sleep in the wilderness rather than needing a town.

[NewbieDMaster]

Got it. That's a difficult one to codify since your idea of safe and the players' ideas of safe may differ. You might write that as, "You may only take a long rest in a safe location," then talk with your players about what "safe" means. Or you might use the word "secure" or "controlled" or "peaceful" depending on your specific intent - preferably something that still allows druids and rangers to sleep in the wilderness rather than needing a town.

I appreciate that... My general idea is, if you feel safe resting there without setting up a guard, then you can long rest there.

[Tanarii]

That's normal and expected. Remember, the guideline of 6-8 encounters per long rest includes non-combat encounters.Provided you use non-combat encounters that use up resources as if a Medium combat encounter. Very few DMs that I've played with do that. The vast majority of non-combat encounters I've seen DMs run are "Easy" at best under 5e rules for difficulty.

-----------

On topic, OP, what kind of adventures are you running where its possible to rest that much? I more often run into the opposite problem: Players are fully aware there are enemies "nearby", and don't want to risk a Short Rest and getting ambushed.

Edit: That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with a "variable" short rest time (ie it can be shorter someplaces and longer other places), or a limit on how often they can be done. Just so long as your players are okay with the idea that its primarily abstract mechanic to represent resource recharge, that's all fine.

[DanyBallon]

When we started playing 5e, my group tried to take short rest after every fight, but as we use the standard hour long short rest, we describe it as setting down to have lunch and lick our wounds (in dungeons, it means finding a secure place to do so), The first few time they tried doing it after their first fight of the day, I just told them that in game time they only woke up a few hours ago, and it would be absurd to rest already for an hour. They agreed with me and we never had this kind of issue since then.

[Malifice]

When we started playing 5e, my group tried to take short rest after every fight, but as we use the standard hour long short rest, we describe it as setting down to have lunch and lick our wounds (in dungeons, it means finding a secure place to do so), The first few time they tried doing it after their first fight of the day, I just told them that in game time they only woke up a few hours ago, and it would be absurd to rest already for an hour. They agreed with me and we never had this kind of issue since then.

This.

Despite any rule to the contrary my players know that any attempt to game the rest mechanic doesn't work. I'll either say 'nope - you just rested recently, you can sit around again if you want, but gain no benefit' or i throw a 'random' encounter at them.

They're generally also on the doom clock (Do task by midnight or else bad thing happens) or are facing other time or environmental pressures that make resting difficult.

Of course I ensure they generally have the opportunity to get a short rest every 2 or so encounters and a long rest every 6 or so.

That said IMG we (DM and players) resolve it via social contract. We spoke about it like the adults we are, I explained the above, and they agreed not to attempt to abuse the rest mechanic.

Instead of rules OP, how about you just chat to your players and tell them they can rest whenever they like, but only gain benefits from the rest when you (the DM) decide they do?

That gets rid of them gaming the rest mechanic (either the old one like they are at oresrnt or the new proposed one).

If they gamed the last one, they'll game this one as well.

Just put a stop to it.

[Kane0]

Remember the old line 'You must gather your party before venturing forth' ?
Do that, just change the words. Limit them to 2 short rests per day (or long rest).

Alternatively you can use the variant rests in the DMG.

[Easy_Lee]

Instead of rules OP, how about you just chat to your players and tell them they can rest whenever they like, but only gain benefits from the rest when you (the DM) decide they do?

I'm far from the only person who absolutely hates it when DMs say something like this. The DM is in control of the world, the monsters, the NPCs, the loot, and even the fabric of reality itself. The least he can do is be consistent and open with the players.

Asking your players not to abuse resting is a better idea. Codifying a system that prevents them from abusing resting is a better idea. Saying that resting only works when I say it does is a terrible idea if you want players like me to stay at your table.

[Malifice]

I'm far from the only person who absolutely hates it when DMs say something like this. The DM is in control of the world, the monsters, the NPCs, the loot, and even the fabric of reality itself. The least he can do is be consistent and open with the players.

Asking your players not to abuse resting is a better idea. Codifying a system that prevents them from abusing resting is a better idea. Saying that resting only works when I say it does is a terrible idea if you want players like me to stay at your table.

What's inconsistent about a rule that you can expect a short rest every 2 or so encounters and a long rest every 6 encounters (at the DMs discretion), and any attempt to game the rest mechanic will fail ('you rest but it doesn't provide any benefits because it's too soon from your last rest', or 'it's too dangerous to rest here and far from feeling better, you're all now on edge', or 'you get attacked by a not really random monster during your rest' or similar)?

That's simply explained to the players at the start of the game. It forms part of the social contract. From that point there are no attempts to game the rest mechanic like the OP is experiencing, and if they do break the social contract and try anyway it simply doesn't work or backfires on them.

The party can rest when they want. The DM decides what benefits it provides (if any).

The game isn't adversarial mate. The DM is simply managing resource expenditure. The players should trust the DM, not be trying to thwart a douche DM.

[OldTrees1]

What's inconsistent about a rule that you can expect a short rest every 2 or so encounters and a long rest every 6 encounters (at the DMs discretion), and any attempt to game the rest mechanic will fail ('you rest but it doesn't provide any benefits because it's too soon from your last rest', or 'it's too dangerous to rest here and far from feeling better, you're all now on edge', or 'you get attacked by a not really random monster during your rest' or similar)?

Easy Lee was replying to a post of yours where your post reads slightly differently than your rephrasing of what your post meant.

It is very easy to read your original post as "you can take a short rest whenever you want, but the DM will sometimes grant and sometimes not grant the benefits of a short rest when you take a short rest". You can see how that reads differently than what you meant by your post. This reading is of the effects of a short rest being inconsistent with the taking of a short rest rather than what you meant about the DM deciding to pace the effects of a short rest and not allowing the PCs to game the system by demanding a short rest.

You can even see how closely you two agree by comparing the other half of both of your posts. You both immediately jump on pointing out that talking to the players is the best solution.

[Malifice]

It is very easy to read your original post as "you can take a short rest whenever you want, but the DM will sometimes grant and sometimes not grant the benefits of a short rest when you take a short rest".

Yeah. Thats precisely what I was saying.

'You can rest whenever you want, but the DM (me) is the final arbiter of when you get benefits from that rest, and what those benefits are. The 5 minute adventuring day doesnt exist at my table. You declare actions, and I decide outcomes. Feel free to try an cycle rests after every encounter if you desire. Often it wont grant any mechanical benefit (you just rested and cant benefit again, your rest was troubled by bad sleep and nightmares - it only counts as a short rest, the area is too dangerous for you to rest properly - you spend a sleepless night but get no mechanical benefit from it, if you rest [bad thing will happen] are you sure you want to do that?, or [rolls dice, ignores result, flicks through a book for show] and then throws a 'random' encounter at the party etc).

Attempts to game the rest mechanic will be met with failure or something worse.

Never fear though: I tend to permit or even suggest you take a short rest every 2 or so encounters, and a long rest every six or so encounters (as a general guideline). Sometimes more, and sometimes less. Use common sense, and avoid attempting to spam rests of any variety over this guideline. Conserve resources accordingly.'

Thats the general rule in my campaign. I sit down with the players (as a group) and explain this to them at the start of a campaign (my players are regulars so know what to expect). It forms part of the social contract of the game. 'This is what you can expect. Dont attempt to game the rest mechanics and I wont by forced to say no (or worse). Nova at your own risk'.

They know where I sit with resting. I dont need any complex rules beyond this. I just DM it.

In my recent campaign I did include a mechanical change to resting however. Similar to above, short rests are 5 minutes (and a max of 2/long rest). You can spend up to 1/2 HD (round up) on a short rest but they otherwise function as normal.

Long rests in this campaign are 8 hours long, but you recover no HP. Instead you recover 1/2 your level in HD, and can then immediately spend as many HD as you have available upon waking. In addition you only recover 1 spell slot of each of levels 1-5 (presuming you have them) and 1 slot (or aracana) of levels 6+ (if you have them).

With these later rules I can be a lot more 'hands off' with managing the adventuring day, and let the players manage themselves (while reserving the right to throw 'random' encounters or other difficulties/ complications their way if they waste time resting instead of pushing on).

[Contrast]

They know where I sit with resting. I dont need any complex rules beyond this. I just DM it.

I assume Easy_Lees objection (which I somewhat agree with) is that they don't know where you stand with resting. They know that sometimes they won't be able to benefit from a rest but its unclear under exactly what circumstances those are.

Lets assume they short rest, fight a single goblin for 5 mins and then immediately try to short rest again. I assume you'd say no.

Now lets assume they short rest then fight a brutal combat in which several people go down to 0 and multiple people completely tap out of resources. Would it be 'gaming' the system to want to take a break after such a hard fight? I have no idea how you'd rule on that.

A lot depends on how you do it of course. If you're reasonably consistent in game (which means you probably have internal 'rules' that you're just not telling the players) and let them know before they rest that they won't get benefits for it then it probably wouldn't bother me that much but I'd much prefer you just to say 'you can get the benefits of x short rests per day, use them as you see fit'.

I've never been at a table where we've 'abused' the long rest rules mostly because whenever anyone has suggested trying to long rest somewhere silly there lots of in games reasons not to already.

[DanyBallon]

Now lets assume they short rest then fight a brutal combat in which several people go down to 0 and multiple people completely tap out of resources. Would it be 'gaming' the system to want to take a break after such a hard fight? I have no idea how you'd rule on that.


I can’t say for Malifice, but in my group if such a thing would happen, they would have two options:

1- call it a day and go back to town to lick their wounds, with all the consequence that may happen (reinforcement may arrive on the enemy side, if they were on a clock, precious hours are lost, etc.)

2- use more healing than they where expected, and continue going forward. Encounters are there to deplete you from your ressources anyway.

And by the way, never my player complained about it, as they know adventuring is not an easy task. Also, it helps getting the feeling that the world is a dangerous place to explore :smallwink:

[Malifice]

I assume Easy_Lees objection (which I somewhat agree with) is that they don't know where you stand with resting. They know that sometimes they won't be able to benefit from a rest but its unclear under exactly what circumstances those are.

Lets assume they short rest, fight a single goblin for 5 mins and then immediately try to short rest again. I assume you'd say no.

Now lets assume they short rest then fight a brutal combat in which several people go down to 0 and multiple people completely tap out of resources. Would it be 'gaming' the system to want to take a break after such a hard fight? I have no idea how you'd rule on that.

A lot depends on how you do it of course. If you're reasonably consistent in game (which means you probably have internal 'rules' that you're just not telling the players) and let them know before they rest that they won't get benefits for it then it probably wouldn't bother me that much but I'd much prefer you just to say 'you can get the benefits of x short rests per day, use them as you see fit'.

I've never been at a table where we've 'abused' the long rest rules mostly because whenever anyone has suggested trying to long rest somewhere silly there lots of in games reasons not to already.

They do know where I stand with resting. I tell them straight up before the campaign begins and they play in it so they get the feel for it.

Generally they get a rest every 2nd battle give or take. A long rest every 6 or so encounters.

They don't try and game it, conserve resources and hold back from resting unless needed. They generally look for a place to short rest after 3 encounters, and a place to long rest after 2 such short rests plus an encounter or two.

They self regulate knowing I won't stand for gaming the rest mechanics at my table.

It comes down to mutual trust and the social contract.

[Contrast]

2- use more healing than they where expected, and continue going forward. Encounters are there to deplete you from your ressources anyway.

So you're saying you'd be happy for them to short rest to heal and expend the resource of hit die?

Edit - Malifice, sorry I think you're missing my point. My point is that there is no definition of what constitutes 'gaming the system'. I still have no idea if you'd consider trying to short rest, encounter, short rest to be acceptable. What if there had been a long in game time between the two but only one encounter? Does it matter how strenuous the encounter was? If I played at your table would I be accused of trying to game the system for trying to short rest between rounds in an athletics competition so I could get action surge back? I have no clue.

You and me might have completely different ideas as to what constitutes 'gaming' which is why I think guidelines are useful (be it one short rest per 4 hours or 2-3 times a day for example). Sometimes a simple suggestion to not be a **** is fine (don't summon a load of pixies, don't wish-simulacrum chain) other times a little more guidance can be helpful. I think this is one of those times.

[DanyBallon]

So you're saying you'd be happy for them to short rest to heal and expend the resource of hit die?


If short rest was only about expending HD to get HP back, I wouldn't mind, but the reason most players ask for short rest is to get back features, this is the exact opposite of expending resources. When I talk about resources expenditure, I talk about taking potions, casting spells and the like.
Also, my players understand that not all encounters are to be fought to the death, and know that retreating and evaluate a better solution to overcome the challenge is often a better option than expending too much resources in a single fight. So they are less expose to the scenario where they've spent almost all their resources just after taking a short rest.

[OldTrees1]

Yeah. Thats precisely what I was saying.

If that reading was precisely what you were saying, rather than what you said either of the 2 times you rephrased it significantly different from that reading, then yes it is a very inconsistent ruling and even an unnecessarily inconsistent ruling.

Rather than saying "not all rests count as short rests" you decided to say "not all short rests count as short rests". Personally I look for better communication when talking to or hearing from my Players.

All of this is before the issues with your summary having multiple people unable to know when you would let them gain the benefit of a short rest despite us all being on generally the same page. However I do not want to get into that topic myself (too messy).

But you do you Malifice

[DanyBallon]

If that reading was precisely what you were saying, rather than what you said either of the 2 times you rephrased it significantly different from that reading, then yes it is a very inconsistent ruling and even an unnecessarily inconsistent ruling.

Rather than saying "not all rests count as short rests" you decided to say "not all short rests count as short rests". Personally I look for better communication when talking to or hearing from my Players.

All of this is before the issues with your summary having multiple people unable to know when you would let them gain the benefit of a short rest despite us all being on generally the same page. However I do not want to get into that topic myself (too messy).

But you do you Malifice

On the other hand, I find Malifice ruling quite clear. He clearly use the normal expectation of D&D of where players describe what they want to do, and the DM decide the outcomes. He also goes as far as to warn them not to abuse the rest mechanic as it should fall in the plausible (i.e. you don't wake up, go all out fighting monsters for 5-10 min then expect to rest for an hour in order to get back the resources you just blew out irresponsibly).

[dickerson76]

I find the inconsistency in this: I expect rules to be adhered to, and therefore to work every time. You call it a rule, but it sounds more like a guideline or general policy. I've added emphasis:


What's inconsistent about a rule that you can expect a short rest every 2 or so encounters and a long rest every 6 encounters (at the DMs discretion), and any attempt to game the rest mechanic will fail ('you rest but it doesn't provide any benefits because it's too soon from your last rest', or 'it's too dangerous to rest here and far from feeling better, you're all now on edge', or 'you get attacked by a not really random monster during your rest' or similar)?

That's simply explained to the players at the start of the game. It forms part of the social contract. From that point there are no attempts to game the rest mechanic like the OP is experiencing, and if they do break the social contract and try anyway it simply doesn't work or backfires on them.

The party can rest when they want. The DM decides what benefits it provides (if any).

The game isn't adversarial mate. The DM is simply managing resource expenditure. The players should trust the DM, not be trying to thwart a douche DM.

I think it'd be more helpful if the players were told ahead of time (when they talk about wanting a rest) whether or not they're about to waste an hour (or eight) of in-game time.

[OldTrees1]

On the other hand, I find Malifice ruling quite clear. He clearly use the normal expectation of D&D of where players describe what they want to do, and the DM decide the outcomes. He also goes as far as to warn them not to abuse the rest mechanic as it should fall in the plausible (i.e. you don't wake up, go all out fighting monsters for 5-10 min then expect to rest for an hour in order to get back the resources you just blew out irresponsibly).

The part I crossed out was not the part being discussed since it was the part both Easy_Lee and Malifice agree upon.

The normal expectation is why I suspected/suspect Malifice meant "When you take a rest, the DM decides if you gain the benefits of a short rest". Despite twice rephrasing it very similar to what we suspected Malifice meant, Malifice has assured me that "no, they meant the other thing".

[Contrast]

If short rest was only about expending HD to get HP back, I wouldn't mind

How convenient for you then that OP has presented some house rules for your consideration/comment which include a short rest option that just allows healing without gaining back short rest abilities! :smalltongue:

[DanyBallon]

How convenient for you then that OP has presented some house rules for your consideration/comment which include a short rest option that just allows healing without gaining back short rest abilities! :smalltongue:

If you go back and reread the posts, I'm giving two options how I would rule at my table a scenario where the characters faced a hard encounter just after a short rest. Then based on my post you asked me if I would be fine as seeing the use of HD in short rest as resource depletion, and I answered that I would only if the short rest didn't give back anything else. I don't see where you got the impression I was discussing about OP houserule as I clearly stated that it was about my group.


The part I crossed out was not the part being discussed since it was the part both Easy_Lee and Malifice agree upon.

The normal expectation is why I suspected/suspect Malifice meant "When you take a rest, the DM decides if you gain the benefits of a short rest". Despite twice rephrasing it very similar to what we suspected Malifice meant, Malifice has assured me that "no, they meant the other thing".

Yet the crossed part is still relevant because when Malifice explained that he tells before hand to his player that such behavior won't be tolerated, and he also wrote that he tries to keep to the 2 encounters between rest as much as possible. So in the end, even without hardcoded rules, his players knows what to expect when they plan a short rest. If just got one, they're bound to get no benefits from the rest, if they already had two encounters since the last rest they should be fine unless they choose a bad location for rest something else is lurking around and will definitely attack them whether they rest or not.

[NewbieDMaster]

This.

Despite any rule to the contrary my players know that any attempt to game the rest mechanic doesn't work. I'll either say 'nope - you just rested recently, you can sit around again if you want, but gain no benefit' or i throw a 'random' encounter at them.

They're generally also on the doom clock (Do task by midnight or else bad thing happens) or are facing other time or environmental pressures that make resting difficult.

Of course I ensure they generally have the opportunity to get a short rest every 2 or so encounters and a long rest every 6 or so.

That said IMG we (DM and players) resolve it via social contract. We spoke about it like the adults we are, I explained the above, and they agreed not to attempt to abuse the rest mechanic.

Instead of rules OP, how about you just chat to your players and tell them they can rest whenever they like, but only gain benefits from the rest when you (the DM) decide they do?

That gets rid of them gaming the rest mechanic (either the old one like they are at oresrnt or the new proposed one).

If they gamed the last one, they'll game this one as well.

Just put a stop to it.

I can respect that this method works for you Malifice, and it may work for me too.

The problem is, I have seen so many times at tables where the DM decides what works and what doesn't, that the DM often isn't reasonable or consistent in their rulings, unless there are guidelines set.

It is really easy as a DM to think you are being fair and reasonable, but actually be playing favorites, like, everytime the power gamer at the table suggests a rest, you automatically assume he is trying to game the system without thinking about it, but if the timid one suggests a rest, then you allow it every time. These are just automatic assumptions that you make without even thinking about it, and it can quickly become frustrating and unfair for players...

I've seen it too many times. I like to think that I wouldn't fall into this trope, but I can't say for sure that I wouldn't, so I'd much rather have strict rules that can be followed, but that "gaming" them would be unreasonable from the character's perspective.

[Tanarii]

If you want to be "fair", just give them a short rest after 3 easy, 2 medium / hard, or one deadly encounter.

[Easy_Lee]

If you want to be "fair", just give them a short rest after 3 easy, 2 medium / hard, or one deadly encounter.

I dislike this for two reasons: the DM decides when PCs take rests, and some encounters actually turn out to be harder or easier than expected.

Generally, players should be in full control of what their characters do. Violate that principle sparingly and only with the greatest of care. Resting is something the PCs do, not something the DM does. It baffles me that so many supposed DMs on this forum think it's a good idea to take control over resting away from the PCs.

Regarding encounters, an archer is likely to take less damage from five fire giants he engages from six hundred feet away on horseback than he will take from two goblins who ambush him in a cave. That's just on example of how encounter "difficulty" can be spectacularly incorrect.

[DanyBallon]

I dislike this for two reasons: the DM decides when PCs take rests, and some encounters actually turn out to be harder or easier than expected.

Generally, players should be in full control of what their characters do. Violate that principle sparingly and only with the greatest of care. Resting is something the PCs do, not something the DM does. It baffles me that so many supposed DMs on this forum think it's a good idea to take control over resting away from the PCs.

Regarding encounters, an archer is likely to take less damage from five fire giants he engages from six hundred feet away on horseback than he will take from two goblins who ambush him in a cave. That's just on example of how encounter "difficulty" can be spectacularly incorrect.

D&D always have been about the players describing/telling what their character try to do, and the DM deciding and describing the outcome. Resting is just the same, the player tell the DM that their character set up to take a rest, and the DM decide if they get benefits from it. I'd say that 99% of the time that the DM decide/describe the expected outcomes from the player, but for the 1% of the time it isn't the DM is not being a bad DM just because he did something different from what the player expected.

[Contrast]

If you go back and reread the posts, I'm giving two options how I would rule at my table a scenario where the characters faced a hard encounter just after a short rest. Then based on my post you asked me if I would be fine as seeing the use of HD in short rest as resource depletion, and I answered that I would only if the short rest didn't give back anything else. I don't see where you got the impression I was discussing about OP houserule as I clearly stated that it was about my group.

Apologies, wasn't trying to be abrasive, was trying to get us back on topic :smalltongue: I was pointing out how OPs suggested rest rules would seem to resolve an issue you had with the rest rules. Sounds like you think that particular idea is a good one?

I think OPs suggested '2 short rests per long rest' is reasonable. From what you've said you think more restrictions should be in place - what are your suggestions to OP for alterations? Do you agree with Malifice that the rule should read 'you're only capable of resting when the DM thinks its appropriate' rather than the current 2 per long and 1 per 24 hour restrictions?

[Tanarii]

D&D always have been about the players describing/telling what their character try to do, and the DM deciding and describing the outcome. Resting is just the same, the player tell the DM that their character set up to take a rest, and the DM decide if they get benefits from it. I'd say that 99% of the time that the DM decide/describe the expected outcomes from the player, but for the 1% of the time it isn't the DM is not being a bad DM just because he did something different from what the player expected.I was meaning it to be completely decoupling the mechanic from in-game time, so it's not reflective on what the characters "choose to do". Instead it's a mechanical refresh based on the number of encounters, adjudicated by the DM directly. That's a house rule (due to the in-game time aspect being waived), and I should have made all that clear.

[Pex]

It is fair and proper for a DM not to want a 5 minute adventuring day. Players who want that are being adversarial against the DM, even if they don't mean to. They're ruining campaign pace, atmosphere and design for wanting to nova everything. Novas should (in my opinion) be special occasions. They're for the BBEG fights where the players have to use everything they got, they want to use everything they got, and it's a pandemonium of actions, attacks, blasting, save or suck, and all sorts of fun kitchen sink chaos that makes it a Game. It's the only combat of the day, but what a combat.

When it's the DM who decides when the party may rest, he's being adversarial against the players even if he didn't mean to. The DM is controlling when the players get their stuff back. He's also controlling when players use their stuff because they're forced to conserve since they don't know when they'll get it back. Combats are unfairly hard because they're not using their stuff when they should be.

The solution has to be metagame trust. The players need to trust the DM is not out to get them. It's ok not to be at full resources for the next fight or two. It won't be a TPK by purposeful design. They can succeed with what they have, but it's also prudent at times to use up some resources for recovery like healing potions. That's why they have them. The DM needs to trust the players are not trying to Win D&D. Conserving of resources is an important skill. However, when the players feel they need to rest they need to rest. In addition to the mechanical aspect of being able to do things, there's also a fun factor. It's boring for the warrior when all he can do is "I attack" when out of class abilities. It's boring for the spellcaster only casting Cantrips because he's out of spells. Once in a while for a usual easy combat to be a bit tougher but manageable is fine. When forced to do it or else the World Is Doomed time factor it's a frustration.

[Tanarii]

When it's the DM who decides when the party may rest, he's being adversarial against the players even if he didn't mean to.This is so wrong it's not even your normal funny jokes.

[Easy_Lee]

It is fair and proper for a DM not to want a 5 minute adventuring day. Players who want that are being adversarial against the DM, even if they don't mean to. They're ruining campaign pace, atmosphere and design for wanting to nova everything. Novas should (in my opinion) be special occasions. They're for the BBEG fights where the players have to use everything they got, they want to use everything they got, and it's a pandemonium of actions, attacks, blasting, save or suck, and all sorts of fun kitchen sink chaos that makes it a Game. It's the only combat of the day, but what a combat.

When it's the DM who decides when the party may rest, he's being adversarial against the players even if he didn't mean to. The DM is controlling when the players get their stuff back. He's also controlling when players use their stuff because they're forced to conserve since they don't know when they'll get it back. Combats are unfairly hard because they're not using their stuff when they should be.

The solution has to be metagame trust. The players need to trust the DM is not out to get them. It's ok not to be at full resources for the next fight or two. It won't be a TPK by purposeful design. They can succeed with what they have, but it's also prudent at times to use up some resources for recovery like healing potions. That's why they have them. The DM needs to trust the players are not trying to Win D&D. Conserving of resources is an important skill. However, when the players feel they need to rest they need to rest. In addition to the mechanical aspect of being able to do things, there's also a fun factor. It's boring for the warrior when all he can do is "I attack" when out of class abilities. It's boring for the spellcaster only casting Cantrips because he's out of spells. Once in a while for a usual easy combat to be a bit tougher but manageable is fine. When forced to do it or else the World Is Doomed time factor it's a frustration.

People need to read this. It's easy to make negative assumptions about the other if you never talk to him.

[DanyBallon]

In reply to Contrast & Tanarii
What I meant is that as long as a player you trust your DM and your DM trust his players, you don’t need any more rules saying that you must rest every 2-3 encounters, or rest after every encounter should be banned. The guidelines in the core are more than enough.
Players expect their DM to let them get back ressources a few times a day, and DM expect their players not to go nova every encounter hoping to rest right after to ger back all their resources right away.

[Tiadoppler]

In general, I like that short rests take an hour. It means that a party choosing to take a rest, or not, has a meaningful consequence: the goblins have time to set up an ambush, the ritual gets closer to completion, the fugitive gallops to the next village, etc.

I dislike the party conflict that it causes, especially in 5e. It's frustrating to hear the same argument over and over again: "I need a nap!" "We have to keep going! The kidnappers are escaping!" "Fred, Timmy stole my pillow!"

Different classes get VASTLY different benefits from short rests: some practically require regular short rests to be functional, while some are nearly indifferent to rests. I wish the use of powers was a bit more consistent across classes, so that every character 'felt tired' after a single hard encounter, but every character still had some ability to keep going if they had to, in an emergency. Honestly, it makes me miss 4e's daily/encounter/at-will system.

[Lombra]

First: characters can gain the benefits of a long rest only once every 24 hours.

Second: don't change anything. Make every encounter hard or deadly, and just let them play an high power game where resources are constantly blown away for a good cause, then throw some easy encounters randomly to tease them during short rests.

It's easier for you to influence the game rather than how players want to behave.

[Tanarii]

In general, I like that short rests take an hour. It means that a party choosing to take a rest, or not, has a meaningful consequence: the goblins have time to set up an ambush, the ritual gets closer to completion, the fugitive gallops to the next village, etc.I like that too. But not all groups treat time as a resource, with meaningful consequences based on how it is used.


Different classes get VASTLY different benefits from short rests: some practically require regular short rests to be functional, while some are nearly indifferent to rests. Not all get the same benefits from a Long Rest too. I've had more than a few sessions where an eager caster, almost always a blaster, has blown through his spell slots and is pushing to retreat for the long rest, and the rest of the party insists on pushing on with either a Short Rest or none at all.

I've also had more than a few sessions where the party was heavily Long Rest oriented, and they had to retreat early, and completely failed the mission / their goal. Only to have the same goal be completed later by another party that wasn't so Long Rest oriented.


In reply to Contrast & Tanarii
What I meant is that as long as a player you trust your DM and your DM trust his players, you don’t need any more rules saying that you must rest every 2-3 encounters, or rest after every encounter should be banned. The guidelines in the core are more than enough.
Players expect their DM to let them get back ressources a few times a day, and DM expect their players not to go nova every encounter hoping to rest right after to ger back all their resources right away.
I agree that it's best to just agree to a generic social contract as a table. But if that's not good enough for the OP, then he has a bunch of options at his disposal. One of which is to just make resource return a completely meta-game thing. Just house-rule it in as a hard rule that they return every X encounters as if Y kind of rest, or whatever.

[ad_hoc]

I dislike the party conflict that it causes, especially in 5e. It's frustrating to hear the same argument over and over again: "I need a nap!" "We have to keep going! The kidnappers are escaping!" "Fred, Timmy stole my pillow!"

That goes away when the difficulty is higher and TPKs are allowed to happen.

Suddenly the entire party wants to short rest so that the Warlock can save them with their spells in the next encounter.

[Tanarii]

Suddenly the entire party wants to short rest so that the Warlock can save them with their spells in the next encounter.
Plus HPs from HD instead of blowing spells on healing.

Provided the DM isn't stupid enough to allow Healing Spirit into her game.

[mephnick]

Provided the DM isn't stupid enough to allow Healing Spirit into her game.

Oh I have good news for you: Apparently near limitless out of combat healing for a low level spell slot isn't a problem. At least that's what people keep trying to tell me.

[Pex]

This is so wrong it's not even your normal funny jokes.

The DM is controlling player choices, taking away agency. He may not be meaning it, but that is what's happening.


Plus HPs from HD instead of blowing spells on healing.

Provided the DM isn't stupid enough to allow Healing Spirit into her game.

Why can't the party be at full hit points for the non-first combat of the day? The bad guys are.

[Malifice]

Just to reiterate the above posts, trust is the key.

I dont play my games with my friends as [DM v Players]. I play them as a collaborative effort.

As DM my role is to create adventures (and run games) where the players are challenged, excited, entertained, and rewarded. Part of that role involves me creating encounters (using the DMG guidelines) of appropriate difficulty, that will be fun, challenging and entertaining for my players.

Without sounding arrogant, I rate my ability as a DM (and the feedback I get is always really positive). I've learnt a lot in the 35 years I've been playing and running the game.

Im not about arbitrarily saying 'no' to resting. But equally I'm not about sitting back and allowing the 5MWD. Allowing the latter throws challenge and balance out the window, and runs counter to my job as DM.

At the start of the current campaign (3 years ago) I sat down with my players and explained how I understood 5E's rest meta to function (the game is losely balanced around 2-3 short rests per long rest, and around 6-8 encounters per long rest). I explained that 'the 5MWD' doesnt work in my games, and any attempt to game the rest mechanics will be met with failure (or worse), and kindly asked my players to refrain from attempting any rest shennanigans.

On the flip side, when I DM i generally allow for a short rest every 2-3 encounters and a long rest any time after 6+ or so encounters. Speifically I turn my mind to the question of time and resting when I plan my adventures during the week, placing natural 'rest points' into the adventures I design, and/or using a 'doom clock' to put the PCs on teh clock.

Sometimes I'll put the PCs on a very narrow 'doom clock' (you only have 6 hours to stop the demon from getting summoned!) and sometimes they'll have an adventuring day with only the 1-2 [deadly+] encounters.

I mix things up.

My players are mature enough to understand the above, and only rest when it feels appropriate to the story, and they're mindful not to abuse resting. So far (in 3 years) I havent had a problem.

The only reason my next campaign (the current players are nearly 20th level, and are about to confront Dragotha and Kyuss and wrap up the campaign) im tightening the resting rules mechanically is because I'm finding having to insert a 'doom clock' into every adventure I plan to be tiresome (and I'm running out of fresh ideas after a weekly 3 years campaign). It will let me be a little more hands off with pushing time constraints to manage the adventuring day.

TL;DR: It boils down to trust. I'm not afraid to have a mature discussion with my players about not abusing resting, and they're mature enough to understand why the ruling is the way it is (and why it exists). They're also mature enough to self regulate and not be gamist ***** about it. On the off chance they dont (or I as DM feel they're resting a little too much, I always reserve the right to [throw random monsters at them, rule the rest doesnt really work for reason X, or simply say 'nope - you cant benefit from a rest yet]. I rarely have to do the latter, and if I do, they understand why.

I trust my players not to attempt to game the system, and they trust me not to be a **** about it and to accomodate reasonable resting/ resource replenishment.

[mephnick]

Why can't the party be at full hit points for the non-first combat of the day? The bad guys are.

At mid-levels it can be most of the combats. Also I'm pretty sure you know the difference between a PC group that is meant to attrit throughout the day and enemies designed to die in a single encounter.

[Pex]

At mid-levels it can be most of the combats. Also I'm pretty sure you know the difference between a PC group that is meant to attrit throughout the day and enemies designed to die in a single encounter.

The druid casting that spell is not using that spell slot to cast Barkskin or Heat Metal or Flaming Sphere or Hold Person or using it to heal himself in combat as a Moon Druid in Wild Shape. The attrition factor is in overall resources, not hit points alone. Let the players worry how they want to spend them. Precisely because enemies are designed to die in the a single encounter they can afford to go nova. Going nova is a measurement of their CR because it's expected they will use all their stuff. Players have to conserve and rest recuperate.

The game functioned fine before that spell ever existed. There are several non-short rest ways for a party to be at full hit points for the non-first combat of the day. They could have used healing potions, Lay On Hands, Life Cleric's Channel Divinity and Prayer Of Healing, the Healer feat, Second Wind. Now the druid has a means to contribute an option.

[bc56]

What if you used standard resting rules, but, every (or most) time the players take a short rest, throw a random encounter at them. It should teach them not to rest when they don't need to very quickly.

[Pelle]

My players are mature enough to understand the above, and only rest when it feels appropriate to the story, and they're mindful not to abuse resting. So far (in 3 years) I havent had a problem.


I think that some players just don't care so much about the story (fiction), and play D&D more like a board/video game. As long as you are on the same page, it should work fine.

The rest mechanics are inherently gamist. That you regain all spells after exactly 8 hours of rest is arbitrary. 8 hours is chosen as a practical value, assuming that characters sleep 8 hours a day, and that they do normal adventure stuff all day, challenging themselves. When players start breaking those assumptions and game that mechanic, you can either change it to better fit the fiction, or include doom clocks in every scenario so that it's not feasible. Or, you can agree to respect the fiction and not abuse resting :smallsmile:

[Tanarii]

The DM is controlling player choices, taking away agency. He may not be meaning it, but that is what's happening. 5e fully intends resting and resource recovery to be tweaked by the DM so they work the way he wants them to. That's why the DMG flat out offers two variants, just to be getting on with.

If the DM wants to make it a completely meta recovery thing, perfectly lining up with the encounter difficulty and adventuring day paradigm, that is within his purvue. He is not taking away player agency. They now have different choices they can make, based on the now precisely known resource recovery rate. Agency is retained, just different. But it is not lost.

You're letting your anti-DM biases get in the way of advising a DM on how to run a reasonable game here.


Why can't the party be at full hit points for the non-first combat of the day? The bad guys are.If you can't tell that it breaks the current balance of resource attrition in to shards, and is hugely overpowered for the value of its supposed resource cost, then you haven't playtested it yet.

I have. It's a hugely broken out of combat healing resource in Tier 1 and Tier 2. My testing shows it extends the adventuring day by up to an extra 200%. In other words, a single Druid in the party having the spell prepared can triple the adventuring day. That is flat out broken.

[mephnick]

The game functioned fine before that spell ever existed. There are several non-short rest ways for a party to be at full hit points for the non-first combat of the day. They could have used healing potions, Lay On Hands, Life Cleric's Channel Divinity and Prayer Of Healing, the Healer feat, Second Wind. Now the druid has a means to contribute an option.

Yes, and Healing Spirit out performs all of them put together with a single level 2 spell slot. Sure they're using up level 2 spell slots, but the return isn't remotely balanced with the cost. I've literally had players say "Who cares, we have Healing Spirit" multiple times during tough combats knowing they could all afford to drop to single digit health and heal up to full whenever they wanted. I shouldn't have to rebalance the entire system based off one 2nd level spell.

[Pex]

What if you used standard resting rules, but, every (or most) time the players take a short rest, throw a random encounter at them. It should teach them not to rest when they don't need to very quickly.

In other words, never let them rest.

:smallsigh:

Edit:

Healing Spirit

Wait. The complaint was players gaming the rest system for a 5 minute adventure day.

Now with Healing Spirit players don't need to rest so often and can continue on adventuring, and that's a problem?


5e fully intends resting and resource recovery to be tweaked by the DM so they work the way he wants them to. That's why the DMG flat out offers two variants, just to be getting on with.

If the DM wants to make it a completely meta recovery thing, perfectly lining up with the encounter difficulty and adventuring day paradigm, that is within his purvue. He is not taking away player agency. They now have different choices they can make, based on the now precisely known resource recovery rate. Agency is retained, just different. But it is not lost.

You're letting your anti-DM biases get in the way of advising a DM on how to run a reasonable game here.

How long in game time it takes to short or long rest the DM can alter to fit the narrative. What's important for the mechanics is how many rests there are compared to encounters that happen. What's important for the fun is how many rests there are per game session. The DM telling players "You only rest when I say you rest" is telling the players what to do.

[Tanarii]

How long in game time it takes to short or long rest the DM can alter to fit the narrative. What's important for the mechanics is how many rests there are compared to encounters that happen. What's important for the fun is how many rests there are per game session. The DM telling players "You only rest when I say you rest" is telling the players what to do.
If a DM is telling the players they must stop in-game and rest, yeah, that's telling the players what to do.

If they suggest to them it might be a good idea, or suggest it might be a bad idea, or lay out the consequences and let them choose, it's not. It's also not if they tell them flat out it's not possible in this location for X in-game reason that will automatically cause an attempt to rest to fail, it's not. Although stated consequences or flat out reason may be rather obviously contrived, blurring the line.

If the DM makes it a metagame hard & pre-known rule with no in game time associated (which would be a house rule), and the players know the exact rate of refreshing, it changes the rules in a way that provides a different set of known choices, without telling the players what their character is doing.

[Malifice]

In other words, never let them rest.

The DM telling players "You only rest when I say you rest" is telling the players what to do.

I don't say that.

I say 'You can rest, but I'll tell you what the outcome of that resting is.'

I'm not messing with player agency. You can rest whenever you want. You have total narrative control over when your character sleeps or puts his feet up. The DM isn't stopping that.

The DM is simply adjudicating the outcome of that action.

Player (while in a dungeon trying to recover a macguffin, after a single encounter, which he novaed, attempting to game the 5MWD): 'My PC falls back out of the dungeon and sets up camp overnight.'

DM: OK... (Rolls dice, ignores result, flips to a ready made encounter he had in his notes)... as you sleep you're woken by the sounds of something large landing at your campsite, screeching loudly. Peering out of your tent, you see a Wyvern 40' away looking right at you! Roll initiative.

(Combat ensues, players win but get beat up)

DM: (noting the PCs have now had 2 encounters and are due a short rest) 'The rest of the night passes uneventfully, but you're all on edge from the attack and have a restless nights sleep, woken often by screeching in the skies above. The rest only counts as a short rest despite lasting 12 hours. Who wants to spend hit dice?

(While players spend HD the DM figures out what the dungeon denizens have been up to in the last 12 hours, noting they have had the whole night to reinforce the dungeon, place the dungeon on high alert, and notify the BBEG of the presence of adventurers... unknown to the PCs the BBEG decides to leave the dungeon, taking the Macguffin with him).

The players have total agency to affect the story and plot. The DM is simply adjudicating the results (both mechanical and narrative) of them exercising that agency.

[Pex]

I don't say that.

I say 'You can rest, but I'll tell you what the outcome of that resting is.'

I'm not messing with player agency. You can rest whenever you want. You have total narrative control over when your character sleeps or puts his feet up. The DM isn't stopping that.

The DM is simply adjudicating the outcome of that action.

Player (while in a dungeon trying to recover a macguffin, after a single encounter, which he novaed, attempting to game the 5MWD): 'My PC falls back out of the dungeon and sets up camp overnight.'

DM: OK... (Rolls dice, ignores result, flips to a ready made encounter he had in his notes)... as you sleep you're woken by the sounds of something large landing at your campsite, screeching loudly. Peering out of your tent, you see a Wyvern 40' away looking right at you! Roll initiative.

(Combat ensues, players win but get beat up)

DM: (noting the PCs have now had 2 encounters and are due a short rest) 'The rest of the night passes uneventfully, but you're all on edge from the attack and have a restless nights sleep, woken often by screeching in the skies above. The rest only counts as a short rest despite lasting 12 hours. Who wants to spend hit dice?

(While players spend HD the DM figures out what the dungeon denizens have been up to in the last 12 hours, noting they have had the whole night to reinforce the dungeon, place the dungeon on high alert, and notify the BBEG of the presence of adventurers... unknown to the PCs the BBEG decides to leave the dungeon, taking the Macguffin with him).

The players have total agency to affect the story and plot. The DM is simply adjudicating the results (both mechanical and narrative) of them exercising that agency.

So the player wanted to long rest but you said to yourself no way and made it a short rest. Why do you get to decide how the character feels, that he must feel on edge and can't long rest?

I've experienced play where the DM refused to let players rest. Not pleasant.

[Malifice]

So the player wanted to long rest but you said to yourself no way and made it a short rest. Why do you get to decide how the character feels, that he must feel on edge and can't long rest?

I've experienced play where the DM refused to let players rest. Not pleasant.

No, I determined the outcome of the players slated actions.

And I didn't prohibit them from resting 12 hours. I just ruled it [mechanically] only counted as a short rest.

Bear in mind I have fully informed my players at the start of the campaign that this is how things will be.

Note how I am not being a **** for the sake of being a ****. I'm making a ruling to ensure game balance and to dissuade the five minute work day, and to stop players from gaming the rest system. It's the players that are attempting to game the rest mechanic. I'm just doing my job as DM here, and ensuring that doesn't happen.

[ad_hoc]

At my table we have settled on a rule of long resting only when safe. (and houseruled away Leomond's Tiny Hut)

What ended up happening was that players would rest and then monsters would come and attack them. It wasn't fun for anyone. Now the DM lets the players know it is safe to rest (and that time is usually obvious).

This makes sense from a story structure point of view as well. D&D is in the action genre. Action heroes will often have a rest in the middle of the story, but not many, and only in places of safety. Resting takes all tension out of the story.

See Terminator 2 as a good example of action pacing. If the band of heroes stopped to have a rest whenever they felt like it then the T-1000 would just kill them.