I'm going to be running my first game with a grid map in a long, long time but something worries me. I've found myself too influenced by my S-RPG videogame roots when looking at a grid, so I'm worried that battles won't have enough room. When I extend this, I feel like I've overcompensated and now battle zones seem gigantic.
So is there a rule of thumb for "number of tiles for # of enemies of medium size" that works well for you guys? I mean in general. Naturally some fights will have arena-sized locations and some will be in tight hallways. But I mean in general.
Things to consider with this:
-My players this time are smart and not cheap. They'll find advantageous tactics to deal with enemies. So (depending on enemy) the foes are smart as well. They tend to not just sit there like an SRPG boss and suck up the damage. If they get fireballed once, they'll move to a better spot.
-Sorry for not explaining further, but systems for AoO aren't used here. I realize this is odd and may change the advice given.
Thanks for whatever advice is given.
Before an enemy is withing charging range, I don't bother to use a grid map. I just tell the party how far away the enemies are. That saves a lot of space, and doesn't detrimentally effect the game.
In general, I've found that most maps from published adventures have to be increased by anywhere from half (doubling either height or width; or increasing both by a smaller amount) up to double (doubling both height and width), in order to provide sufficient room for maneuvering.
In a few cases, the maps are so tight that if you add the creatures within and the PCs, everyone basically has to stand still.
Of course, some areas should be tight, such as the occasional 5-ft corridor. But mostly, the encounters will be more interesting when the maps are expanded a bit.
I homebrew so I don't know what published maps look like. If my players are in a dungeon it's easy; the space is well defined and I just lay it out on the battlemat. If the party is outside however, I tend to use at least a 60 x 60 space. When detailing outdoor areas I use props (draw trees or undergrowth; plastic rocks, foam hills, etc) to make it more interesting.
My players also tend to think outside the box. I've had barbarians leap over terrain obstacles, rangers and rogues making good use of cover in ranged attacks and a fighter pulling some sweet Parkour type moves to leap onto the back of a chimeric worg. Space has never really been the issue; more like interesting or dynamic space.
I've rarely run into an issue of not being able to fit a battle onto a standard wet-erase battlemat (24 x 36). The bigger question tends to come when the party goes "inside" (i.e. building or dungeon). Typically, I find that I greatly increase the size of the standard building, especially if you consider traditional medieval settings, in order to make the game playable.
The best advice I can give is to simply give your encounter areas enough space to make them interesting. Do not worry about being realistic. My kitchen for example is fairly good sized for a middle-income home. It is roughly 16 feet by 20 feet and fits plenty of people when we have friends over for cook outs and the like. But in game terms, that's roughly a 3x4 area which is, indeed, quite cramped. Not using AoO's will help a bit, but still I would make my kitchen probably at least twice that if I were using it for a battle grid.
The thing to remember is that even though I pretty much throw out the "norms" for how big a building/room/whatever should be, my players have never seemed to notice, or at least care. Its one of those things that if it makes the game more enjoyable, go with it. For your game, just make sure there are frequently multiple exits and that there's room for the monsters (and PCs) to "go around". Nothing ruins the wizard's day more than having a monster loop around and come at the party from behind -- i.e. where the wizard is usually standing.
I've seen DMs use each square/hex as either 10 by 10s or 20 by 20s when space was an issue.
The best advice I can give is to simply give your encounter areas enough space to make them interesting...
I hear you about not worrying about realism. I prefer to follow the "rule of cool" and throw realism to the dogs once somebody mentions "My elven druid dismounts his giant platypus and casts a magic spell at the reanimated dinosaur skeleton." I see realism as the malleable putty shell surrounding the game world- ultimately unbreakable, but very very flexible.
Also, I've no doubt that they'll use cover and other such tactics. I plan my monsters to. Actually, I expect more than one place to turn out like a firefight. My videogame design background sometimes leaks through with puzzle bosses and cinematic encounters.
Thanks for the advice, guys. Yeah, I should have specified these were for indoor battles on dungeons I create myself. My outdoor battles generally don't use a grid map because, to me, "we're in a forest" means there's trees, and "we're on a plains" means there's not.
I'll just run a few quick test scenarios to make sure there's not a clog where there's not supposed to be one.