It's just required for the size of larger maps. If you want to restrict all maps to 5' squares, you limit the max scale of maps that will be released. This would take away from the epic scale of some larger environments. As has been laid out here, there are several things you can do:

• Treat it as the reference map it is rather than a battle map
• Use it digitally where scaling to 5' is trivial
• Halve movement and size on the fly

Quote from Gaiasdream >>

I am asking for uniformity of presentation so we can get on with the fun.  Despite evidence that 10' scale maps exist, that evidence doesn't make the maps more useful to those of us who just want to print - laminate - drop it on the table and roll dice.  I don't want to spend my days manipulating photoshop layers.  I am a DM -- I want to run the game.

It's important to realize that 5' scale maps are a relatively recent thing, essentially all maps were printed on 10' scale or larger in AD&D and 3.x, and that D&D has been primarily a physical book product for most of its history. If you want maps actually designed for use with miniatures, I don't recall Wizards products before Dungeon Tiles in 2006 (which were generic products), and adventure-specific maps on a scale suitable for miniatures I first saw in 4th edition. It's reasonable to say "it's 2024 and a ton of people play D&D online, Wizards should adapt to the times", but unless/until they go digital-only, that means maps have to be suitable for use with a physical product, and "converted maps from a product first published in 1976 at 40' per inch" are not going to be suitable for a physical product when printed at 5' per inch.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Gaiasdream >>

I am asking for uniformity of presentation so we can get on with the fun.  Despite evidence that 10' scale maps exist, that evidence doesn't make the maps more useful to those of us who just want to print - laminate - drop it on the table and roll dice.  I don't want to spend my days manipulating photoshop layers.  I am a DM -- I want to run the game.

It's important to realize that 5' scale maps are a relatively recent thing, essentially all maps were printed on 10' scale or larger in AD&D and 3.x, and that D&D has been primarily a physical book product for most of its history. If you want maps actually designed for use with miniatures, I don't recall Wizards products before Dungeon Tiles in 2006 (which were generic products), and adventure-specific maps on a scale suitable for miniatures I first saw in 4th edition. It's reasonable to say "it's 2024 and a ton of people play D&D online, Wizards should adapt to the times", but unless/until they go digital-only, that means maps have to be suitable for use with a physical product, and "converted maps from a product first published in 1976 at 40' per inch" are not going to be suitable for a physical product when printed at 5' per inch.

 There's certainly enough variance in map scale that some scenarios, like this one, seemingly call for TotM over other venues.  I don't think producing a physical map is viable and this discussion helped me reach that conclusion.  I thank you and others for the useful conversation.

I would like to see more and more adventure specific maps produced at 5' square scale and ready for play.  I realize that's not to everyone's taste.

Quote from Wysperra >>

 

Quote from Gaiasdream >>

So there's plenty of maps drawn at both 5' and 10' scale in products from the 2014 - 2024 era.

This doesn't solve the problem.  Why create more work for us?  The issue of having to re-draw a crude version of these beautiful maps at double scale (to say nothing of translating oddly shaped rooms like in the Tsojcanth map) is a workload problem for DMs.  

I am asking for uniformity of presentation so we can get on with the fun.  Despite evidence that 10' scale maps exist, that evidence doesn't make the maps more useful to those of us who just want to print - laminate - drop it on the table and roll dice.  I don't want to spend my days manipulating photoshop layers.  I am a DM -- I want to run the game.

 It's a problem you are inventing for yourself. The 10 foot scale is from before you were born and is an easily understood method for presenting dungeons. They don't do it to be annoying.

Just draw the encounter on a battlemat, it's not that hard. If you're printing the map, draw in the extra lines before you laminate it.

The map is a MAP, not a battlespace. I'm a GM too and you have to what you have to do.

 As someone born in 1970, DMing since 1982, I can say, that's hogwash. I've played every version of the game that has ever been produced. The 5' grid has been standard in DnD since 2nd edition, it's only lately that map makers have been using 10, 15, and 20' scale maps in adventures. Given the prevalence of (and push towards) VTT play, you'd think they'd take that into account when making the maps.

Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, an AD&D 1st edition adventure, uses a 10ft square map and isn't unusual in that regard. Non-5ft dungeon maps go back to OD&D

Quote from HarmAssassin >>

 As someone born in 1970, DMing since 1982, I can say, that's hogwash. I've played every version of the game that has ever been produced. The 5' grid has been standard in DnD since 2nd edition, it's only lately that map makers have been using 10, 15, and 20' scale maps in adventures. Given the prevalence of (and push towards) VTT play, you'd think they'd take that into account when making the maps.

The 5' grid has been standard for playing on a Chessex battle map that you drew your terrain on with wet erase markers. If you use miniatures terrain you probably didn't use a battle map at all, you used a ruler. You didn't directly use the maps printed in adventures at all. However, the implicit standard for combat movement in AD&D was 1" = 10' (movement speeds were literally listed in inches, where an inch was 10'), probably indicating that the original games D&D was based on were played on 15mm scale.

Anyways, regardless of previous editions, 5ft maps are common in 5e and is used when feasible. 10ft (and larger) maps are used when they need to fit it into a space on the page that wouldn't accommodate the full map. That's what I've seen in reviewing my physical copies. The other possibility is when the map was originally 10" and when ported to 5e, they decided to keep the same scale.

Still, so long as we have physical book distribution, I doubt 10" maps will completely disappear. They have to fit it in specific spaces in the book, and the grids can't be too small or they start interfering with image quality. As a result, they will always have some maps in 10", even if 5" is the preferred and possibly even the standard.

Is it something that can be annoying? Sure. As I wrote before, it makes it more awkward to replicate the maps on battle mats because you don't have the same reference points. They'll continue doing those maps though, because they need larger scale maps at times.

I've noticed this too. I don't run prewritten modules, but I have played in a lot of them. What annoys me the most is the DMs that use these maps not realizing that they're 10 ft. squares and force unnecessary constraints on the players.

While I wish their maps were all 5' and designed with VTTs in mind, heck part of your digital purchase should include VTT maps imo. that being said I am not sure what the best solution is as the system creates weird maps due to the 5' space requirement. Either buildings are abnormally large, or no one can move around in them due to people jamming up. And then maps that are 10'+ grids would need to be huge to accommodate a 5' square, or the buildings and spaces get artificially small if you just swap the 10' to 5'. I usually end up going gridless but nothing really gives a perfect solution as when you try to scale these maps things seem to always distort. 

Hotfix: Everyone plays as hill giants.