Room Sizes...

[Grossout]

So what's the "average" size dungeon room going to be in 4E? It has been mentioned many times before that they are going to have to be bigger to accommodate for the expected 4 on 4 (or bigger) battles, and the emphasis on movement during battle.

What do you think? The average room should be about ___ squares x ___ squares...

Thinking back a little... what was the average for 3E?

Just trying to get a feel when designing my own dungeons.

Maybe there is a simple formula, like you should have about X squares for every combatant or something.

I realize that every room and combat situation is different, and that's half the fun, but I gotta think there is a general guideline...

Any thoughts?

 

[Mistwell]

I suppose average in 3.5 was from 10 x 10 to 15 x 15. You can probably get a decent average by examining the dungeon tiles.

 

[Simonides]

Add to this the fact that combats are supposed to be more mobile with a lot more moving around and that makes the room size even bigger. 3.5 killed off the idea of 10x10 rooms. I expect that, in 4E, we will find anything less than 5 squares across is a bit too restrictive.

At the same time, some of Design & Development articles and some of the staff blogs have emphasized the idea of not thinking in terms of rooms but in terms of encounter areas: multiple interconnected rooms and hallways in which a battle takes place. That is, when a fight starts out in Area 3, the monsters in areas 4 and 5 join the battle. So, the party is getting hit from several directions at once or can hit the monsters from multiple directions.

I think we will just have to wait and see how it plays out.

 

[Grossout]

What would be nice is if they showed us a little preview of Keep on the Shadowfell with a partial map of one of the dungeon areas...

 

[mhensley]

ahem.... Mike's Law of Optimum Encounter Area:

http://www.hackslash.net/?p=186

 

[Celebrim]

I would think 6-10 squares per combatant*. So, an average fight would occur in various room sizes:

4x15 - 4x25
5x12 - 5x25
6x10 - 6x16
8x8 - 8x12
9x9 - 9x10
10x10

Of course, sometimes you'll want to break that mold deliberately to create different tones and tactical considerations. Smaller rooms create claustraphobia, and force the players to deal with a situation in which they really don't have alot of room to manuever. Larger rooms create agoraphobia, and force the players to deal with a situation in which they may not be able to close to melee easily.

You can also do interesting things with where in the room the players enter. For example, a 4x25 room (hallway like) is very different tactically if you enter in the middle of one of the short sides and the monsters are somewhere down the hall, or if you enter in the middle of one of the long sides and you have monsters at either end. This is even more true of a 6x10 type room, where entering on the short side allows you to form a defensive perimeter with 5 characters, but entering on a long side probably doesn't.

One of the things I've been thinking about is perhaps changing the definition of a 'step'. Since we are using abstract terminology anway, what's to keep 1 square from being 3' (or a meter) rather than 5'?

A ratio of 3' per square lets you do away with every room has to be a gymnasium, if that sort of thing bothers you. A 10x10 room is then only 30'x30', well back within D&D's traditional scale, and the classic 20'x30' room (now a 7x10) is not that constrictive.

*I probably should say that the term 'combatant' refers to medium-sized creatures, and this will go far wrong if you are dealing with something that isn't. Basically, I'd advocate counting creatures according to the size of thier base. A 10'x10' base needs the same space as 4 combatants to have the same number of positioning options. So, for example, a fight with 5 PC's and 4 large monsters is effectively 21 combatants, and needs 126-210 squares (say a 10x12 to 15x14).

 

[Grossout]

ahem.... Mike's Law of Optimum Encounter Area:

http://www.hackslash.net/?p=186

Mike, I like what you've done here. I haven't had the chance to try it out, but it certainly makes sense to me. Good work!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

A ratio of 3' per square lets you do away with every room has to be a gymnasium, if that sort of thing bothers you. A 10x10 room is then only 30'x30', well back within D&D's traditional scale, and the classic 20'x30' room (now a 7x10) is not that constrictive.

I think I like this. It's not like you can't fit an awful lot of people in a 5'x5' square. Of course, when they're swinging swords it's another matter, but if you assume that they are used to fighting together, they would stay shoulder-to-shoulder or back-to-back, and still fit one each into a square yard (or metre).

This way too you can either make your standard 10' hallway 3 squares wide, or make your standard 2 square hallway 6 feet wide. (Which is still pretty wide for a hallway, if you think about it.)

Fitz

 

[Celebrim]

Mike, I like what you've done here. I haven't had the chance to try it out, but it certainly makes sense to me. Good work!

Yeah, its interesting. My calculation was made without knowing mike's and I came to a similar conclusion by a different process of reasoning. My starting idea was 'How many different places must I have to stand in, before I first first feel like moving around the room is meaningful.' I came to 6-9 (2x3 - 3x3), and rounded the top number up to 10.

For D&D purposes, Mike's idea differs from mine mainly for non-normal speeds. I'm courious to see how it would play out differently. Suppose every player in the party had a speed of 4. Taking mike's idea literally, a slow party would rarely be challenged by being slow because the rooms would shrink to fit. Likewise, a fast monster would always be able to benefit from its speed, and a slow monster would never be punished by the players speed - unless the DM made a conscious decision to allow it. So is the optimal situation one where speed doesn't matter much?

On the other hand, is it really optimal to take a fast monster and put it in a space where it can't use that speed? Or to put a slow monster is a space so large that it dies before it reaches the PCs?

 

[Revinor]

One of the things I've been thinking about is perhaps changing the definition of a 'step'. Since we are using abstract terminology anway, what's to keep 1 square from being 3' (or a meter) rather than 5'?

If we use completely abstract terms, then 1 square is 1 square and you never wonder how 'big' it is. If you start to wonder, it is probably to visualize 'real' distances involved. I would certain have an issue visualizing 4 guys with 2-handed swords fighting without issues in 6'x'6 room. 10'x10' is still small for them, but at least slightly better.

3' squares would be ok for simulating Tokyo subway system

Artur