Why you shouldn't use 5 ft corridors

[tzor]

This part of the adventure made me want to claw my eyes out. Not because it's cramped and limited, but because my players invariably asked:

"Which side are the hinges on? Which way does the door open?"

In looking at this from a "who would want to build a hallway like that?" I had completely forgotten that the problem of the doorays. Doors generally open to 90 degrees. So that door where the big guy was behind, which way did it open? If to the hallway it either blocks the hallway or the closet when opened. If into the room them the Big bad guy would be knocked back if he stood in front of the door when it slammed open into his square.

 

[Festivus]

Why not simply withdraw to the larger room? Either the opposition will follow the PCs, and give up their terrain advantage, or they won't, and the party can organize themselves for an encounter they know the location and nature of. If the bad guy remains static, he gives up the tactical initiative (not "game initiative") ceding the ability to prepare and optimize the method of attack to the PCs.

The monster in question would not have persued (at least not in my game) for a reason:

Spoiler

It is chained to the wall

For the door opening direction... I wish that map designers would consider that when making maps given the frequency with which I am asked that question. In this instance, I ruled that it opens into the hallway, and the hinges on the south.

 

[James Jacobs]

Yeah... indicating the direction doors open is certainly helpful, but it's also really easy to clutter the map and make it illegible. For Dungeon, I prefer to err on the side of legibility, leaving the direction the door opens to the DM to decide.

As for the commont that designers should abide by the RAW... I disagree to some extent. My philosophy is to abide by the RAI... the "Rules as Intended." The game may strictly forbid two characters to stand in the same square, but logic and intent, to me at least, says that there's no "magical force" that prevents two creatures from occupying the same space. Using the squeezing rules to apply penalties is a great way to ad hoc rule this situation.

I mean... if you go STRICTLY by the RAW... well, does the game say anywhere that you go prone when you become unconscious? And has anyone else noticed that, using the RAW, you can't starve to death (since starvation never causes lethal damage)?

The game isn't perfect. The DM's job is to interpret the rules and make them work.

ANYway... I am indeed taking the 5-foot-corridors scandal to heart, and I'll certainly keep that in mind when designing/developing dungeons in the future, but again, some dungeons are supposed to be cramped and crowded. The LD guild hall in "There Is No Honor" is one of them. Widening the halls out just to make it easier to move around in makes about as much sense to me as making sure that a beholder's dungeon is completly 2-dimensional and doesn't take advantage of the beholder's ability to move in a 3-D dungeon with ease. The dugneon should serve the needs of the story and its denizens first.

 

[Zaukrie]

I've noticed this problem with some of the rooms in dungeons lately. If you have a medium monster in a 10x10 room only 3 characters can be in the room, and that is assuming there is no furniture or anything else in the room. Back in the day when we didn't have minis, we didn't really worry about this so much (or you could argue we weren't very good DMs at the time). I think that is why my oldest son keeps asking if we can have some adventures that occur outside!

 

[Klaus]

Yeah... indicating the direction doors open is certainly helpful, but it's also really easy to clutter the map and make it illegible. For Dungeon, I prefer to err on the side of legibility, leaving the direction the door opens to the DM to decide.

As for the commont that designers should abide by the RAW... I disagree to some extent. My philosophy is to abide by the RAI... the "Rules as Intended." The game may strictly forbid two characters to stand in the same square, but logic and intent, to me at least, says that there's no "magical force" that prevents two creatures from occupying the same space. Using the squeezing rules to apply penalties is a great way to ad hoc rule this situation.

I mean... if you go STRICTLY by the RAW... well, does the game say anywhere that you go prone when you become unconscious? And has anyone else noticed that, using the RAW, you can't starve to death (since starvation never causes lethal damage)?

The game isn't perfect. The DM's job is to interpret the rules and make them work.

ANYway... I am indeed taking the 5-foot-corridors scandal to heart, and I'll certainly keep that in mind when designing/developing dungeons in the future, but again, some dungeons are supposed to be cramped and crowded. The LD guild hall in "There Is No Honor" is one of them. Widening the halls out just to make it easier to move around in makes about as much sense to me as making sure that a beholder's dungeon is completly 2-dimensional and doesn't take advantage of the beholder's ability to move in a 3-D dungeon with ease. The dugneon should serve the needs of the story and its denizens first.

James,

I totally agree on the Rules As Intended.

As for the doors, it is simply a matter of stating (when you give the typical door stats) that "All doors open into a room, unless otherwise noted", as that's the logical architectural design: when a door opens into a room, the hinges are inside the room. If the hinges are exposed, the door is useless (this is also why cell doors hinge outward, so the hinges are hidden from the prisoner).

And I also suggest you don't use 5-foot-wide corridor! Use 2.5-foot wide corridors and populate them with kobolds!

 

[Markn]

Two Ogres can fit in a 5x10 space each if they're squeezing.

As for "there's no thing as a half-square", tell that to a Tiny creature and his three Tiny friends who share the same 5ft. square.

My guideline is: if there's two ways to read a rule, go with the one that makes most sense.

I believe the two ogres in 5x10 space is incorrect. You can squeeze around people during movement but you can't end you movement squeezed because of other creatures. Essentially, you can be squeezed between 2 walls or somthing similar but you can never be squeezed due to another creature. To me this makes sense, both RAW wise and logically.

In regards to the tiny creatures in the same square. They are not squeezed. Technically, they take up a quarter of the square and thus that is the reason more than one can co-exist in the same square. It's a subtle difference but a difference nonetheless.

 

[Markn]

Yeah... indicating the direction doors open is certainly helpful, but it's also really easy to clutter the map and make it illegible. For Dungeon, I prefer to err on the side of legibility, leaving the direction the door opens to the DM to decide.

As for the commont that designers should abide by the RAW... I disagree to some extent. My philosophy is to abide by the RAI... the "Rules as Intended." The game may strictly forbid two characters to stand in the same square, but logic and intent, to me at least, says that there's no "magical force" that prevents two creatures from occupying the same space. Using the squeezing rules to apply penalties is a great way to ad hoc rule this situation.

James,

While I agree with your statement about RAI, I disagree with the "ad-hoc rule about co-existing in the same square". To me that it an integral part of the rules. Like Merric suggests in an earlier message, during combat players expect the rules to be set in stone and not loosey, goosey with ad rules about being in the same square.

I hope you understand my point and I am glad that youi are considering the other side of the fence.

 

[davidschwartznz]

I believe the two ogres in 5x10 space is incorrect. You can squeeze around people during movement but you can't end you movement squeezed because of other creatures. Essentially, you can be squeezed between 2 walls or somthing similar but you can never be squeezed due to another creature. To me this makes sense, both RAW wise and logically.

As a reenactor, I've fought while squeezed in by my allies on many occasions. I wouldn't recommend it (the -4 to attack and AC is a bitch), but I can say with certainty it can be done.

 

[MerricB]

I mean... if you go STRICTLY by the RAW... well, does the game say anywhere that you go prone when you become unconscious? And has anyone else noticed that, using the RAW, you can't starve to death (since starvation never causes lethal damage)?

Cool, isn't it?

I also like how you don't need to sleep except to heal and recover spells. When do you become fatigued and exhausted? It's a pity they don't have movies in the D&D world... imagine the ability to watch all of the extended cuts of LotR back-to-back without needing to sleep!

There is a slight difference between "rules left out" and "rules definitely included" though; that two characters can't be in the same square is actually written in the rules. House-ruling is fine and sensible, but I don't think it can be assumed.

ANYway... I am indeed taking the 5-foot-corridors scandal to heart, and I'll certainly keep that in mind when designing/developing dungeons in the future, but again, some dungeons are supposed to be cramped and crowded. The LD guild hall in "There Is No Honor" is one of them. Widening the halls out just to make it easier to move around in makes about as much sense to me as making sure that a beholder's dungeon is completly 2-dimensional and doesn't take advantage of the beholder's ability to move in a 3-D dungeon with ease. The dugneon should serve the needs of the story and its denizens first.

In fact, to a large part I agree. I mostly object to a large number of 5' corridors leading to small cramped rooms without any room to manuever... over and over again.

If I might make an observation: In cramped quarters, it's interesting to have the party attacked from both directions at once. Secret passages aid this, of course. If, in the text of the encounter, you have "three rounds after the combat commences, a group of 2 thieves attack from the west", then you solve two problems: the back characters having nothing to do, and you give the dungeon the feel of being dynamic without needing the DM to do a lot of work "on the fly".

An advanced form of this has "2 thieves from area 11. attack from the rear", of course, they won't if the party has already cleared area 11 (thus requiring the DM to keep track of more things, but this may be doable).

Cheers!

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I think perhaps it might have been preferable if the thread hadn't been called "Why you shouldn't use 5 ft corridors"... my immediate reaction on reading the title was, "Why on Earth not? 5 ft corridors are cool!"

But actually, on reading, what Merric seems to be saying is, "Please, adventure designers, don't just use 5 ft corridors; please use a reasonable mixture of corridor widths and room sizes to vary the challenges". I totally endorse this view.

Personally I play 1e where the rule is that three characters can stand abreast in a 10' corridor, six in a 20', but only one character in a 5' -- so the effect of differing corridor widths and room sizes is even more magnified. I haven't always designed around this principle in the past, having not always thought about it.

So thanks for the thread, Merric -- having thought about the issue now, my next dungeon will be more fun to play!