Why you shouldn't use 5 ft corridors

[Beckett]

I do agree that I should have made the last room where the BBEG lived a lot bigger though.

This is the only part where I really ran into a problem, and as soon as I started drawing out the map, I looked, said, "That's too small," and extended it. Other than that, I don't recall any problems for my 4 or 5 person group. I do seem to recall the characters splitting up a few times. I just checked with my wife, and while she figures they would have appreciated more space, the 5' hallways were perceived as challenging instead of annoying.

I'd venture that part of Merric's problem was with six players; with the standard group size being four, I think it falls on the shoulders of the DM to realize adjustments might need to be made with a nonstandard party.

 

[catsclaw227]

Anyway... the map for "TinH" may be poorly designed for minis play, but it's not meant to be a minis game. It's for the RPG version of D&D, and as a result I feel that it does its job perfectly.

I think this is the operative quote here. These encounters were a lot of fun for my group, specifically for this reason. They said it made the game feel more like an RPG than a tactical miniatures game.

I guess the game is played in different ways by different people.

 

[Lanefan]

I have to disagree that just because an adventure is designed for 4 characters and the players take 7 in, that the physical layout of the adventure by necessity should be tweaked to account for the larger party. Ridiculous! (tweaking the opponents, however, is fair game...)

Where the problems arise is people...mostly DMs...being unable or unwilling to allow things to happen that the RAW don't or can't account for; in this case, squashing your front line together and still having them fight. How hard is it, for example, to just rule that each squashed combatant is at -2 to hit, and loses half of any Dex bonus to AC as there's no room to move? It's simple! Just do it! (and use smaller minis if required; the old metal ones work well for this)

As for the design - from the maps posted it looks pretty good to me. Part of the fun of dungeon crawls is seeing what's around the next corner or behind the next door; that map has lots of corners and lots of doors, so far so good. There don't appear to be any corridors going in random loops like some old-school modules have, nor are the passages so small as to restrict movement (T1 Village of Hommlet: how many characters have *you* lost in those narrow little ghoul tunnels), so all's well on that front too.

That said, I too would get bored if every adventure was on this scale. There's nothing better than a big ol' set-piece brawl in some massive cavern with archers on balconies and spells and swords flying everywhere...

Lanefan

 

[Kmart Kommando]

Here's an idea I've been kicking around while reading this thread:

Has a few steps though..

Go with the 3ft square idea, convert all movement to that scale.
Take Iron Heroes' idea of 1/4 of your movement counts for no AoOs instead of the 5ft step. (though the 5ft step needs adjustment as well)
Now you have a 6ft shift, instead of 5ft step. (more movement = more tactical movement, and less static 5ft step full attack.)
For threatening areas, you have around your 3ft square, (assuming a medium creature) a ring of close range, and also threaten the next ring out, long range.
Divide weapons into close range melee, long range melee, and reach weapons. (also some with multiple ranges)
Have a -2 to -4 to hit using a weapon on a target not in its range, like great sword on a guy 3ft from you, or dagger on a guy 6ft away. I didn't crunch numbers, but it sounds fun.

So, a normal medium sized humanoid has a 30ft move, or 10 3ft squares, can move up to 2 squares without provoking an AoO, the same at this speed as the 6ft (2 square) shift and still do a full attack.
Add in IH's skill challenges, and you can do like a tumble or jump check, or whatever is appropriate to the situation, to gain more movement for one round, then a 40ft move gets you 3 squares to move without an AoO, 50ft move a 4 square move, etc.

Then you have 6ft corridors, where 2 guys stand and fight side by side, and it looks real enough, plus you have wiggle room for having more action than 5ft step, full attack, 5ft step, cast spell, etc.

You can still have 2 opponents holding each other at arm's reach, since both are using great axes, and one guy can ditch the axe, quick draw a short sword and get up in his face with a 6ft (2square) shift.

Reach weapons will kind of be threatening more area, but opponents have a bit more movement to get by, if they can.

Might want to go with Tumble as an opposed roll as well.

You might need more room on the table for the battle mat though. I'd give up my dice, paper, and snack spot for something like this.

 

[Nikosandros]

There is no such thing as a "half-square", Klaus.

But there is common sense... it's obvious that two character could occupy the same space, no matter what the rules say. D&D is a RPG not a boardgame...

 

[robberbaron]

Common sense dictates to me that two PCs could be in the same 5' square and fight, however, having done 9thC re-enactment, fighting shoulder to shoulder, I would say:

-2 to all attacks (probably skills as well),
an extra -2 with slashing and bludgeoning weapons (swing like normal and you'll have your mate's eye out),
no Dex bonus to AC, though there is the possibility that one PC with a large shield could provide AC bonus to his companion in the same square (perhaps, a level check of some sort?).
I'd give no Dex bonus to Reflex saves as well.

 

[hoyerhan reborn]

Even if squeezing when fighting is allowed (which it is in our campaign), we have found it to be an inferior tactic in most cases. The -4 penalty to attack and AC is so harsh that it is not worth the benefit of getting an extra attack.

In fact I think the best solution in the example given by MerricB is to do like this:
Place two fighters in the L-shaped room, one in front of the door (Joe), the other next to him (Bill).
1) Joe attacks monster, then takes a 5ft step away from Bill.
2) Now Bill can take a 5ft step to attack the monster.
3) Next round Joe holds his action
4) Bill attacks and takes a 5ft step away from Joe.
5) Now Joe takes his action. Moves to attack monster.
Repeat

This way two fighters may attack the monster each round without any penalties.

 

[MerricB]

Even if squeezing when fighting is allowed (which it is in our campaign), we have found it to be an inferior tactic in most cases. The -4 penalty to attack and AC is so harsh that it is not worth the benefit of getting an extra attack.

In fact I think the best solution in the example given by MerricB is to do like this:
Place two fighters in the L-shaped room, one in front of the door (Joe), the other next to him (Bill).
1) Joe attacks monster, then takes a 5ft step away from Bill.
2) Now Bill can take a 5ft step to attack the monster.
3) Next round Joe holds his action
4) Bill attacks and takes a 5ft step away from Joe.
5) Now Joe takes his action. Moves to attack monster.
Repeat

This way two fighters may attack the monster each round without any penalties.

Heh. Nice idea.

Incidentally, another way of getting to bear on this monster is to have a high AC meleeist right in front of it, and two archers standing on either side - the cover from the walls allows them to attack without AoOs, and it doesn't have any cover against them! Very nice if they both have Precise Shot.

I enjoy tactical problems like that one.

Bull Rushing it isn't an option, of course. It has 6-8 legs, so it has a +8 on its check (+4 Strength bonus, +4 stability). Opposed checks get very nasty when they're not in your favour... A +0 difference indicates a 55% chance of success. A -1 difference is 50% chance. A -2 difference is 45% chance. A -5 difference (most likely) is a 27.5% chance of success. Given each attempt gives the creature a free attack... not good.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

But there is common sense... it's obvious that two character could occupy the same space, no matter what the rules say. D&D is a RPG not a boardgame...

Err... I think you'll find that when it comes to combat, players like the rules to be more strict than when you're handling the role-playing elements of the game.

Would you like it if two Ogres suddenly were squeezing together because it's "common sense" and bashing you to a pulp?

House rules are fine and all, but you can't assume their use as a designer. As a designer, you need to assume the RAW.

 

[Gez]

Would you like it if two Ogres suddenly were squeezing together because it's "common sense" and bashing you to a pulp?

Reminds me of this:




In the last Eberron session, a changeling rogue, thanks to the magic of action points, managed to stop a bullrushing ogre. That's typical of these "it's only possible because of the rules" scenarii... Common sense would result in a lot more TPK when fighting big monsters.