D&D (2024) What's not going to cost discipline points for the Monk to do now?

[strawbellebelle]

What people understand and I am trying to explain is that changing to a week long rest extends the in game and out of game time between spending a spell slot, and getting that spell slot back. that is the issue people have with it. I..don't understand how that isn't very clear.

And again, you've summed up the fundamental issue here: casters/half-casters care about rests to get their resources back whenever they need them, but don't care about anyone who gains stuff back on a short rest.

It's purely a refusal to engage with a basic game mechanic the game is balanced around because some people are just selfish, and then complaining when their own selfishness negatively impacts the effectiveness of other PCs.

 

[James Gasik]

You've been tasked with investigating goblin raids on local caravans. You have an encounter with a goblin patrol, realizing that they must have a stronghold of some kind in the area, and that they have patrol groups wandering about looking for enemies...translation- you and your party.

You only have so much time before someone realizes the patrol hasn't returned, which will put the goblins on high alert, and there's a chance to encounter other patrols.

Do you take an hour to short rest in this instance, with the risk of another encounter, and making things harder for you up ahead? Let's assume no.

You manage to find a few entrances to what appears to be a cave system. With some careful scouting, you find a lightly defended back entrance, and, by burning resources, take out the guards without them being able to raise an alert.

But someone will be along to relieve them eventually.

Do you take an hour to short rest in this instance, with the risk of another encounter, and making things harder for you up ahead? Let's assume no.

As you move through the narrow tunnels, you realize that any encounter that A) goes too long or B) makes too much noise, will have the entire complex alerted and actively hunting you down. Your best bet is to take the complex chamber by chamber, quickly eliminating patrols.

You find a barracks, and surprise some of the goblins. Again, resources are expended to do so quickly. You might be able to rest here, but you have no way of knowing when another goblin might show up to rest, or when these goblins were supposed to go on shift.

Do you take an hour to short rest in this instance, with the risk of another encounter, and making things harder for you up ahead? Let's assume no.

Eventually, your luck runs out, and a goblin escapes a battle to warn the others. With the goblins on full alert, large groups start actively searching for you. You can no longer rest here at all. Your choices are to flee to rest, and come back to find the goblins fully dug in and fortified, or push on, and hope you can cause significant enough damage to put an end to their raiding activities.

You might say that this is a contrived scenario; I contend this is a fairly reasonable one, that matches many traditional published adventures. It shows how "not taking a rest" isn't some selfish action on the part of long rest classes*, but a logical expectation of play. Taking a rest during an adventure isn't always free, sometimes it comes with a cost. Whether that cost is worth paying for the party so that someone can get back a Pact Slot or some ki, or their Action Surge is something that has to be decided on by the group. Having your Sorcerer full up on Sorcery Points is great, but it might not be worth it in the long run.

*And just to be clear, every class, whether they have short rest abilities or not, requires short rests. Hit points are a resource that is expended on adventures, and everyone has them. Recovering hit points requires the use of other resources. Taking a short rest to spend some Hit Dice is vastly preferable to spending limited resources like healing potions or spell slots for all concerned.

And the best healing resources, that are recovered on a short rest, still require that short rest to recharge (Healer Feat, Second Wind, the healing of a Mercy Monk, etc..). If the players could, they would short rest after every fight.

This is rarely possible, and even more rarely a good idea.

 

[Retros_x]

I do play a monk, currently. And I mostly DM, and have for more than four decades. I have seen just about every party composition. The 5e monk is the least essential class in the game, and it isn't close. "Support/crowd control" is the role they typically get because they aren't needed for any of the essential roles, and it is also a role that doesn't come up in every battle. And it's a role that other classes can do as well or better. And I play a Mercy monk, which is the only monk subclass that is remotely competitive.

They do mediocre damage, have low survivability, and don't have a clearly defined or important niche. There's a reason that they are ranked at or near the bottom in pretty much every 5e tier ranking: the consensus is that they are weak. Now maybe all those folks are wrong and the small minority who disagree with the consensus, and with the math, are right. Odds are against it, but you never know. However, it wouldn't matter because this rules update is about fixing the obvious problems in 5e, and the current monk is clearly an obvious problem for the majority. So it is getting revamped.

Well thats your problem if you deem support/control not as essential, but that doesn't mean the monk is bad ad it. And it is a role that comes up in most battles - There is always something happening on the battlefield where a monk can help in some way. Monk is the ONLY martial class that can do this well.

But in your second paragraph you perfectly show what I meant in my previous post: You try to gauge the monk by survivability and damage and of course it does less damage than pure damage dealers and can tank less than classes that are meant to tank damage all the time. Of course a monk player will feel disappointed if all they do is stand next to the barbarian and mirror them. That is EXACTLY what I wrote about. You can't gauge the strength of a flexible support class in mathematical criteria. The monk can tank damage for a while if needed, but they also can hit and run with burst damage if needed. They also can stun and harass enemies, especially magic users really well. So their strength is the flexibility, and they have the movement to play out this flexibility and be there if needed.

Plus the basic math that "analytics" like that use only works when you assume in comparisions all battles are in empty dungeon rooms and everybody punches the nearest enemy in a conga line.

The majority just uses monks wrong and gauge their effectiveness by numbers. That is a failure of communication by WotC, they should communicate their design intentions better in the next PHB and how to use the monk, so more players hopefully will actually learn how to play a monk and number cruncher power gamers need to understand that they will never enjoy playing support and control classes. Mechanically the monk just need a slight buff, more feats and options that enhances this support/control role. If WotC listens to the loud majority who are disappointed that a support class has not as many flashy moments and damage numbers as other classes who are designed to do that, we will just get an annoying power creep. And the game will develop more in the direction that every class will feel more samey except some flavor, because they all need to either deal damage or tank damage, because thats all the categories gamers can imagine for martials.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And again, you've summed up the fundamental issue here: casters/half-casters care about rests to get their resources back whenever they need them, but don't care about anyone who gains stuff back on a short rest.

It's purely a refusal to engage with a basic game mechanic the game is balanced around because some people are just selfish, and then complaining when their own selfishness negatively impacts the effectiveness of other PCs.

Frankly I don’t care. You apperently refuse to acknowledge any nuance here, and I just don’t believe that the why matters, so I’m going to step away from this interaction.

 

[tetrasodium]

You've been tasked with investigating goblin raids on local caravans. You have an encounter with a goblin patrol, realizing that they must have a stronghold of some kind in the area, and that they have patrol groups wandering about looking for enemies...translation- you and your party.

You only have so much time before someone realizes the patrol hasn't returned, which will put the goblins on high alert, and there's a chance to encounter other patrols.

Do you take an hour to short rest in this instance, with the risk of another encounter, and making things harder for you up ahead? Let's assume no.

You manage to find a few entrances to what appears to be a cave system. With some careful scouting, you find a lightly defended back entrance, and, by burning resources, take out the guards without them being able to raise an alert.

But someone will be along to relieve them eventually.

Do you take an hour to short rest in this instance, with the risk of another encounter, and making things harder for you up ahead? Let's assume no.

As you move through the narrow tunnels, you realize that any encounter that A) goes too long or B) makes too much noise, will have the entire complex alerted and actively hunting you down. Your best bet is to take the complex chamber by chamber, quickly eliminating patrols.

You find a barracks, and surprise some of the goblins. Again, resources are expended to do so quickly. You might be able to rest here, but you have no way of knowing when another goblin might show up to rest, or when these goblins were supposed to go on shift.

Do you take an hour to short rest in this instance, with the risk of another encounter, and making things harder for you up ahead? Let's assume no.

Eventually, your luck runs out, and a goblin escapes a battle to warn the others. With the goblins on full alert, large groups start actively searching for you. You can no longer rest here at all. Your choices are to flee to rest, and come back to find the goblins fully dug in and fortified, or push on, and hope you can cause significant enough damage to put an end to their raiding activities.

You might say that this is a contrived scenario; I contend this is a fairly reasonable one, that matches many traditional published adventures. It shows how "not taking a rest" isn't some selfish action on the part of long rest classes*, but a logical expectation of play. Taking a rest during an adventure isn't always free, sometimes it comes with a cost. Whether that cost is worth paying for the party so that someone can get back a Pact Slot or some ki, or their Action Surge is something that has to be decided on by the group. Having your Sorcerer full up on Sorcery Points is great, but it might not be worth it in the long run.

*And just to be clear, every class, whether they have short rest abilities or not, requires short rests. Hit points are a resource that is expended on adventures, and everyone has them. Recovering hit points requires the use of other resources. Taking a short rest to spend some Hit Dice is vastly preferable to spending limited resources like healing potions or spell slots for all concerned.

And the best healing resources, that are recovered on a short rest, still require that short rest to recharge (Healer Feat, Second Wind, the healing of a Mercy Monk, etc..). If the players could, they would short rest after every fight.

This is rarely possible, and even more rarely a good idea

I agree that the "long rest classes don't want to stop for a rest" strawman is a transparent effort to shift blame for unreasonable player expectations onto the shoulders of anyone else who points out or pushes back against unreasonable activity. Your scenario seems pretty problematic though, it reads more like a full season recap at the start of a new season of a TV series than play.


How many sessions do you figure all of that plays out across? Unless that is describing a marathon breakfast till bedtime or longer session of play our adventure timeline seems to spam quite a few sessions if the players are the ones doing all that scouting investing fighting and exploring. Either that or an enormous amount of the events are simply being dictated at the players by a novelist rather than played out by players with the gm. I say that it is obviously and objectively an unreasonably contrived scenario because too much occurs for the players to be doing anything much beyond getting pulled from QuickTime story event to QuickTime story event with the occasional combat spliced that's part of the problem with 5e rest mechanics and SR classes though, they don't work as intended until you move from playing d&d to playing story outline in a system lacking mechanics and resources for storyboarding type play.

1. A player objective more worthwhile than simply pillaging and killing.
2. An intriguing story that is intricately woven into play itself.
3. Dungeons with an architectural sense.
4. An attainable and honorable end within one to two sessions playing time.

 

[mellored]

And it is a role that comes up in most battles - There is always something happening on the battlefield where a monk can help in some way. Monk is the ONLY martial class that can do this well

Rogues can run past the front line and knock someone unconscious. Or just do it from a distance with a bow.

Ranger can use Zephyr Strike. Or Barkskin if they need to tank.

So I'm going to disagree.

Not to mention, casters can use Hypnotic pattern has a 120' range. Monk can disrupt something that far away until really late levels. And then next turn you can cast mirror image if you need to tank.

You can't gauge the strength of a flexible support class in mathematical criteria.

Don't be a self defeatist.
I bet you could do it if you tried.

The majority just uses monks wrong

It's their game. Let them play how they want.

number cruncher power gamers need to understand that they will never enjoy playing support and control classes.

On the contrary. I've been begging for a warlord since 5e started.

Mechanically the monk just need a slight buff, more feats and options that enhances this support/control role.

Agreed.

And one of the simplest ways to enhance what they can do, is just to let the do it more often.

That's been the core of what the majority of people have suggested.

More DP, moves cost less, mini moves, ect...

If WotC listens to the loud majority who are disappointed that a support class has not as many flashy moments and damage numbers as other classes who are designed to do that, we will just get an annoying power creep.

That's not what the majority want.
Here, At 28:30

"The main pain point is the constraints of discipline points".

 

[James Gasik]

I agree that the "long rest classes don't want to stop for a rest" strawman is a transparent effort to shift blame for unreasonable player expectations onto the shoulders of anyone else who points out or pushes back against unreasonable activity. Your scenario seems pretty problematic though, it reads more like a full season recap at the start of a new season of a TV series than play.


How many sessions do you figure all of that plays out across? Unless that is describing a marathon breakfast till bedtime or longer session of play our adventure timeline seems to spam quite a few sessions if the players are the ones doing all that scouting investing fighting and exploring. Either that or an enormous amount of the events are simply being dictated at the players by a novelist rather than played out by players with the gm. I say that it is obviously and objectively an unreasonably contrived scenario because too much occurs for the players to be doing anything much beyond getting pulled from QuickTime story event to QuickTime story event with the occasional combat spliced that's part of the problem with 5e rest mechanics and SR classes though, they don't work as intended until you move from playing d&d to playing story outline in a system lacking mechanics and resources for storyboarding type play.

1. A player objective more worthwhile than simply pillaging and killing.
2. An intriguing story that is intricately woven into play itself.
3. Dungeons with an architectural sense.
4. An attainable and honorable end within one to two sessions playing time.

It's interesting that you feel that it's contrived, when it's pretty much exactly what happened when I ran the Sunless Citadel 5e conversion out of Tales of the Yawning Portal, when the players moved into the section of the dungeon occupied by the Durbuluk goblin tribe. I didn't even really enforce this, it was the player's decision when they encountered a patrol (actually wandering monsters I described as such- 3 hobgoblins) and they recalled what the kobolds said about the goblin's numbers (though the kobolds didn't specify that a large number of the goblins were non-combatants). The adventure includes statements like: "Should fleeing PC's somehow draw goblins after them in this chamber, the heroes may also have to contend with the goblins in the area keyed to area 36 connected to this chamber and other chambers farther afield. The goblins in these areas respond to any sound of conflict in area 39 (and areas 40 and 41 for that matter) if they have not already been dealt with by the PC's.", which shows how quickly you can end up with a very large encounter if you're not careful, cautious, and quick about things.

 

[strawbellebelle]

You've been tasked with investigating goblin raids on local caravans. You have an encounter with a goblin patrol, realizing that they must have a stronghold of some kind in the area, and that they have patrol groups wandering about looking for enemies...translation- you and your party.

You only have so much time before someone realizes the patrol hasn't returned, which will put the goblins on high alert, and there's a chance to encounter other patrols.

Do you take an hour to short rest in this instance, with the risk of another encounter, and making things harder for you up ahead? Let's assume no.

You manage to find a few entrances to what appears to be a cave system. With some careful scouting, you find a lightly defended back entrance, and, by burning resources, take out the guards without them being able to raise an alert.

But someone will be along to relieve them eventually.

Do you take an hour to short rest in this instance, with the risk of another encounter, and making things harder for you up ahead? Let's assume no.

As you move through the narrow tunnels, you realize that any encounter that A) goes too long or B) makes too much noise, will have the entire complex alerted and actively hunting you down. Your best bet is to take the complex chamber by chamber, quickly eliminating patrols.

You find a barracks, and surprise some of the goblins. Again, resources are expended to do so quickly. You might be able to rest here, but you have no way of knowing when another goblin might show up to rest, or when these goblins were supposed to go on shift.

Do you take an hour to short rest in this instance, with the risk of another encounter, and making things harder for you up ahead? Let's assume no.

Eventually, your luck runs out, and a goblin escapes a battle to warn the others. With the goblins on full alert, large groups start actively searching for you. You can no longer rest here at all. Your choices are to flee to rest, and come back to find the goblins fully dug in and fortified, or push on, and hope you can cause significant enough damage to put an end to their raiding activities.

You might say that this is a contrived scenario; I contend this is a fairly reasonable one, that matches many traditional published adventures. It shows how "not taking a rest" isn't some selfish action on the part of long rest classes*, but a logical expectation of play. Taking a rest during an adventure isn't always free, sometimes it comes with a cost. Whether that cost is worth paying for the party so that someone can get back a Pact Slot or some ki, or their Action Surge is something that has to be decided on by the group. Having your Sorcerer full up on Sorcery Points is great, but it might not be worth it in the long run.

*And just to be clear, every class, whether they have short rest abilities or not, requires short rests. Hit points are a resource that is expended on adventures, and everyone has them. Recovering hit points requires the use of other resources. Taking a short rest to spend some Hit Dice is vastly preferable to spending limited resources like healing potions or spell slots for all concerned.

And the best healing resources, that are recovered on a short rest, still require that short rest to recharge (Healer Feat, Second Wind, the healing of a Mercy Monk, etc..). If the players could, they would short rest after every fight.

This is rarely possible, and even more rarely a good idea.

I've never played with anyone who expected a short rest after every fight.

And yes, sometimes you have situations where resting isn't an option, or has drawbacks. In such scenarios as you describe, one of two things will occur:

1.) The individual encounters will not be as taxing as they would be during a period where resting is feasible, so as to allow the party to endure through numerous fights; or
2.) The encounters will be taxing enough that classes that don't rely on long-rest resources will run out, leaving them bored and ineffective by the end, while those long-rest-resource classes will still be rolling along.

One of these is what a good DM would do, the other is what a poor DM would do. Variety in encounter and adventures is good. Consistently designing adventures to disadvantage certain classes for not having spell slots is not good.

You also float the idea that having the adventurers pull back to rest and recuperate would logically lead to enemies regrouping as well, making their own preparations. This is 100% a good thing. It is absolutely a good thing to give players that choice. It provides narrative and gameplay opportunities, and encourages the players to devise strategies beyond "mash face against until win". It tasks the players with balancing their resources with progress, and if their plan doesn't pan out or luck goes against them, they can weigh the consequences of a retreat and rest with the risks of continuing onward.

You also neglect the possibility that cunning players can absolutely take advantage of provoking alarm, of hit-and-run sieges on enemy strongholds, of luring enemies into pursuit and searches. And there are certainly methods, magical and otherwise, for players to procure safe refuges for rest. (Starting off a siege on an enemy outpost by falling sixty feet out of nowhere onto a wandering guard and with a full stock of ki points is a thing that can happen. )

 

[Clint_L]

Well thats your problem if you deem support/control not as essential, but that doesn't mean the monk is bad ad it. And it is a role that comes up in most battles - There is always something happening on the battlefield where a monk can help in some way. Monk is the ONLY martial class that can do this well.

But in your second paragraph you perfectly show what I meant in my previous post: You try to gauge the monk by survivability and damage and of course it does less damage than pure damage dealers and can tank less than classes that are meant to tank damage all the time. Of course a monk player will feel disappointed if all they do is stand next to the barbarian and mirror them. That is EXACTLY what I wrote about. You can't gauge the strength of a flexible support class in mathematical criteria. The monk can tank damage for a while if needed, but they also can hit and run with burst damage if needed. They also can stun and harass enemies, especially magic users really well. So their strength is the flexibility, and they have the movement to play out this flexibility and be there if needed.

Plus the basic math that "analytics" like that use only works when you assume in comparisions all battles are in empty dungeon rooms and everybody punches the nearest enemy in a conga line.

The majority just uses monks wrong and gauge their effectiveness by numbers. That is a failure of communication by WotC, they should communicate their design intentions better in the next PHB and how to use the monk, so more players hopefully will actually learn how to play a monk and number cruncher power gamers need to understand that they will never enjoy playing support and control classes. Mechanically the monk just need a slight buff, more feats and options that enhances this support/control role. If WotC listens to the loud majority who are disappointed that a support class has not as many flashy moments and damage numbers as other classes who are designed to do that, we will just get an annoying power creep. And the game will develop more in the direction that every class will feel more samey except some flavor, because they all need to either deal damage or tank damage, because thats all the categories gamers can imagine for martials.

Wow, thanks for mansplaining monks to me - after forty+ years I never understood these basic things about the game and you really enlightened me!

Edit: meh.

 

[tetrasodium]

It's interesting that you feel that it's contrived, when it's pretty much exactly what happened when I ran the Sunless Citadel 5e conversion out of Tales of the Yawning Portal, when the players moved into the section of the dungeon occupied by the Durbuluk goblin tribe. I didn't even really enforce this, it was the player's decision when they encountered a patrol (actually wandering monsters I described as such- 3 hobgoblins) and they recalled what the kobolds said about the goblin's numbers (though the kobolds didn't specify that a large number of the goblins were non-combatants). The adventure includes statements like: "Should fleeing PC's somehow draw goblins after them in this chamber, the heroes may also have to contend with the goblins in the area keyed to area 36 connected to this chamber and other chambers farther afield. The goblins in these areas respond to any sound of conflict in area 39 (and areas 40 and 41 for that matter) if they have not already been dealt with by the PC's.", which shows how quickly you can end up with a very large encounter if you're not careful, cautious, and quick about things.

That actually adds weight to what I said earlier about the gameplay you described. The things you described leading to the rest choices are not how play works, instead it was narrative summary from the gm

Spoiler: for example

You've been tasked with investigating goblin raids on local caravans. You have an encounter with a goblin patrol, realizing that they must have a stronghold of some kind in the area, and that they have patrol groups wandering about looking for enemies...translation- you and your party.

A hook is a hook, this is fine as is or if it was played out in more detail, things need to start somewhere.

You only have so much time before someone realizes the patrol hasn't returned, which will put the goblins on high alert, and there's a chance to encounter other patrols.

This is not something the players can be aware of without the story author telling them as the GM. Even if players assume that it might be an issue 5e is designed to ensure that it probably can't matter.

Do you take an hour to short rest in this instance, with the risk of another encounter, and making things harder for you up ahead? Let's assume no.

I'll reference this answer a few times & just noting this here so I don't keep repeating it. That's always a "risk" but 5e rest mechanics are designed to ensure that the response from an interrupted rest is to finish the combat and say "so whatever.. lets take a rest". Thanks to their explosive recovery & near impossible chances of finishing a rest worse than you started "what if there is another encounter?" is a question answered with "so what? more loot/exp/smash is good!"

You manage to find a few entrances to what appears to be a cave system. With some careful scouting, you find a lightly defended back entrance, and, by burning resources, take out the guards without them being able to raise an alert.

The bold part is a reasonable breadcrumb from the GM, the rest is the party being strapped to the author's story missile. Worse still is that 5e does not even have a mechanic that the GM could leverage to lob in a breadcrumb at cost to speed things up like the underlined part. Either multiple session time consuming interactions & efforts at scouting/exploration each with a chance to insert a rest are condensed into a summary or the author's story missile is still continuing on its course here.

But someone will be along to relieve them eventually.

How do the players come to this conclusion without a novelist telling them? The players can on their own if you go from the short couple sessions of TSC to a long running many session campaign of investigating these goblins or whatever, but doing that runs the risk of players losing the ball on a story that has too many elements rubn

Do you take an hour to short rest in this instance, with the risk of another encounter, and making things harder for you up ahead? Let's assume no.

See my last comment on 5e rest design.

As you move through the narrow tunnels, you realize that any encounter that A) goes too long or B) makes too much noise, will have the entire complex alerted and actively hunting you down. Your best bet is to take the complex chamber by chamber, quickly eliminating patrols.

5e dialed back on attrition to such an extreme degree than encounter length(A) is really only a concern for losing interest when it drags on boring everyone. Going beyond that though it really doesn't matter because PC's are designed with 6-8 encounter day expecting gas tanks on top of monsters being designed for inefficacy and the previously noted rest guarantees. For much the same reasons it becomes virtually impossible for (B) to be a concern without the author telling players and having players not call their bluff

You find a barracks, and surprise some of the goblins. Again, resources are expended to do so quickly. You might be able to rest here, but you have no way of knowing when another goblin might show up to rest, or when these goblins were supposed to go on shift

The bold part is ok summarization of an encounter. The rest is thwarted by the design of rest mechanics in 5e giving the players a concrete certainty that everything will be ok if they just say "so what, lets take a rest here" and rely on the expectation that the GM won't TPK them

Do you take an hour to short rest in this instance, with the risk of another encounter, and making things harder for you up ahead? Let's assume no.

"harder" is a relic of past editions that fails to carry over well into 5e thanks to safe+explosive rest design monster inefficacy & bloated encounter day expectations. The players know that the GM is not going to bore them to death with dozens of goblins all at once capable of focus firing PCs into a fine red mist and they know that if the GM drags out the later encounter with endless stragglers it will reflect poorly on the GM in a way likely to blow up the campaign or result in losing players to boredom if it keeps happening

Eventually, your luck runs out, and a goblin escapes a battle to warn the others. With the goblins on full alert, large groups start actively searching for you. You can no longer rest here at all. Your choices are to flee to rest, and come back to find the goblins fully dug in and fortified, or push on, and hope you can cause significant enough damage to put an end to their raiding activities.

That's not how 5e rest mechanics work at all and the previous issues with encounter day bloat +incapable monsters still applies

I've never played with anyone who expected a short rest after every fight.

And yes, sometimes you have situations where resting isn't an option, or has drawbacks. In such scenarios as you describe, one of two things will occur:

1.) The individual encounters will not be as taxing as they would be during a period where resting is feasible, so as to allow the party to endure through numerous fights; or
2.) The encounters will be taxing enough that classes that don't rely on long-rest resources will run out, leaving them bored and ineffective by the end, while those long-rest-resource classes will still be rolling along.

One of these is what a good DM would do, the other is what a poor DM would do. Variety in encounter and adventures is good. Consistently designing adventures to disadvantage certain classes for not having spell slots is not good.

You also float the idea that having the adventurers pull back to rest and recuperate would logically lead to enemies regrouping as well, making their own preparations. This is 100% a good thing. It is absolutely a good thing to give players that choice. It provides narrative and gameplay opportunities, and encourages the players to devise strategies beyond "mash face against until win". It tasks the players with balancing their resources with progress, and if their plan doesn't pan out or luck goes against them, they can weigh the consequences of a retreat and rest with the risks of continuing onward.

You also neglect the possibility that cunning players can absolutely take advantage of provoking alarm, of hit-and-run sieges on enemy strongholds, of luring enemies into pursuit and searches. And there are certainly methods, magical and otherwise, for players to procure safe refuges for rest. (Starting off a siege on an enemy outpost by falling sixty feet out of nowhere onto a wandering guard and with a full stock of ki points is a thing that can happen. )

I've seen many players who both expect and demand a rest schedule of every encounter or two. Worse is that the other players are incentivized to say "sure whatever" when the "but I neeed those rests to keep up" card gets played & just dig in along with the player(s) pushing for all those rests simply to avoid being fun police for bad design.

I've also seen more than one poster on here say that a rest schedule like that is something that they feel entitled to, often with a justification like "because it's fun".