battlemat: square grid vs. hex grid

I have the large double-sided battlemat with a square grid on one side and a hex grid on the other side. It seems like the core rules assume you use a square grid rather than a hex grid (and all the examples are shown n a hex grid). One thing I dislike about the 3.5 spell templates is that the square grid does a horrible job of handling a circular (or spherical) spell area of effect. This becomes critical in my game because the sorceror just acquired a wand of fireballs.

The way I've been handling it in the past, figures in the squares that are partially enveloped by a circular spell effect get a +2 to +4 circumstance bonus to Reflex saves against those spell effects. But now I'm thinking that the hex grid would better handle these circular spell areas.

Does anyone else use the hex grid rather than the square grid and how does this affect other aspects of the game? This approach might complicate rays and cones of effect, for example, but then again the square grid doesn't handle them perfectly either.

I used the hex grid in the last session (for some outdoor encounters) and it seemed to work well enough. Perhaps I'll use the hex grid for outside encounters and the square grid for inside encounters, since the hexes seem to better allow for movement in all directions while the squares seem to direct movement in a more linear fashion.

Here are the other differences I can foresee:

1. Counting movement might be a bit tricky. Gone is the "free" diagonal. Every hex counts as five feet of movement.
2. Flanking: each hex on the grid is surrounded by six other hexes, so a maximum of only six medium-sized creatures can dogpile another medium creature, as opposed to eight on a square grid.

What else am I missing? Anyone have experience with using the hex grid?

Edit: Something else just occurred to me: how would you handle the space of a Large creature on the hex grid? Would it occupy 3 hexes instead of 4 squares?

Our group has been using a hex map for a couple years now and we all love it. Movement isn't a problem at all, in fact it feels more natural than the grid movement with the funky diagonals. I like the way only 6 figures can surround one figure, it looks and feels more natural than those attackers squeezed in on the corners.

The only problem is you have to be a bit loose and very flexible indoors. If you are the kind of DM that puts in situational modifiers for being partially in the covered square of a fireball blast you would probably be happier sticking with the grid for inside which works much better for that.

Another thing to consider is how large and huge critters work. We decided large creatures take up three hexes instead of four. I don't remember exactly why we ruled this, but it seems to work better and looks more natural on the map. I think we originally did this because the hex map gave them too many threatened squares with four hexes, but i am not sure.

If you want something pseudo official on the subject WOTC's Unearthed Arcana has rules for using a hex map instead of a grid map complete with diagrams detailing everything from spell effects to creature sizes (they advocate using the three hex large creature as well). I highly recommend the book if you like to use house rules and tweaks, if not just scan it in your FLGS and you should get a good idea of how the hex map works from the pictures.

I don't ever recall any problem with a cone effect and a line effect is similarly pretty simple to resolve. Simpler than trying to do one off center on a grid map anyway.

Anyway, have fun. Our group loves the hex map and would never go back.

- Feydras

Cone effects are defined as a 90 degree arc now--something that would be just as problematic for a hex grid to resolve as for a square grid.

Lines wouldn't be much easier to resolve on a hex grid than on a square grid. Granted, there would be six nonproblematic paths instead of four but there would be just as many problematic paths and some of those problematic paths would look even wierder. A straight path from the apex of the hex, for instance would cover a 1 hex/2 hexes/1 hex/2 hexes pattern

Flanking is not much of a problem when confined to medium creatures but flanking large creatures or flanking with reach weapons is at least as problematic as it is on square grids--perhaps more problematic because the application of the "2 opposite sides" rule to determine flanking is less obvious with a hex grid. (Or maybe it's just far more restrictive).

Burst and spread effects would be more representatively shaped, however, there would still be a number of oddities when all of your supposedly circular bursts turned out to be hex shaped. It's closer than squares or the odd cross and block formations that are default for square grids but it's still not perfect.

Personally, I've always hated how hex grids don't allow movement in a straight line on both the X and Y axis. They handle diagonal movement better than square grids but, given a hex with the point at the front, it's impossible to just move forward. You have to move forward and right or forward and left in order to move forward.

I don't much like the three hex solution for large creatures either--at least not with miniatures. The mini inevitably covers up large portions of nearby hexes too and it is often confusing exactly which three hexes a creature is in.

If I have to choose, I stick with a square grid though using hexes outdoors and squares indoors would be workable way to handle things. I think, however, that eschewing the grid alltogether would probably be the best way to handle things. Use templates for spell effects and rulers for movement. You would need to use consistently sized and shaped miniature bases for it to work properly (if one guy is using a 20mm hex base and someone else has a 25mm square base, templates, etc will treat them differently). However, I think it would be worth it.

Unearthed Arcana has rules for using hexes instead of squares for combat, complete with templates like those in the back of the DMG.

I prefer hex.

Hex measures distances much more consistently and tend to overmeasure slightly. Squares tend to undermeasure because of the odd "free" diagnonal (which is easy to accidentally take multiple times when tired or calculating quickly).

There are more flanks and space is slightly more crowded in hex. IME that rewards tactical play more.

As for E-B's complaint you cannot move in a straight line, that is really the wrong way to think about. The hexes define convenient starting and ending locations for the figure, AND they allow a simple method of measuring how far the figure traveled between two hexes.