D&D 4E Can anyone now compare squares to hexes using 4e actual play?

[Burr]

Given the billionty people who said they were going to switch to hexes, I figure many have tried it by now. I'm hoping for a comparative response from someone who has given both squares and hexes a fair shot while actually playing 4e.

Does the new tactical game remain as hale and hearty when using hexes?

How did your players take to the change?

Did it make a difference big enough to be worth the effort?

 

[Aegir]

I haven't played with hexes yet, but I don't see any reason why hexes would mess anything up in 4e; the elimination of the 1-2-1-2 rule for diagonals (as well as the changes to AoE effects) pretty much makes them interchangeable.

About the only negative I can think of is it'll be hard to used any published adventure maps, seeing as they're designed with squares.

 

[Mezzer]

Actually, the way bursts and blasts are handled would be totally messed up, plus you wouldn't have straight walls anymore either. Personally, I see no need for hexes, a regular grid works just fine.

Oh, and don't forget that by changing to hexes, you're messing with class balance, since several classes have a multitude of powers which are dependent on the number of enemies adjacent to them and similar conditions. It may not be all that noticeable, but it will be there.

 

[mattdm]

plus you wouldn't have straight walls anymore either.

You can do straight walls with hexes just fine. You just have to remember that the people building the walls didn't have the benefit of a grid to align things with.

 

[Stormtalon]

Actually, the way bursts and blasts are handled would be totally messed up, plus you wouldn't have straight walls anymore either. Personally, I see no need for hexes, a regular grid works just fine.

Specifically, here's how bursts/blasts would be affected:

(note that blast 3/burst 1, blast 5/burst 2 and blast 7/burst 3 are identical areas)

burst size: | 1     2     3
----------------------------
square:     | 9    25    49
hex:        | 7    19    37

So by the time you're up to burst 3/blast 7, you've lost a total of 12 potential targets that could have been hit.

*edit* corrected the blast sizes.

 

[frankthedm]

It is worth the effort to eliminate the diagonal wonkyness of 1-1-1-1 squares.


Blasts don’t need to lose a single ‘square*’, though area bursts lose a little bit, but overall hexes make the game much easier for the players. 4E’s large groups of foes almost need those diagonal corners to get through the party’s defensive lines.

Squares: Having one ally next to you reduces your melee vulnerable area by 12.5% [1/8th]
Hexes: Having one ally next to you reduces your melee vulnerable area by 16.7% [1/6th]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0175.html

 

[mattdm]

It is worth the effort to eliminate the diagonal wonkyness of 1-1-1-1 squares.

Maybe. If you use the shapes suggested in your graphic, you basically have to use templates in order to be reasonably speedy. The "everything is square" abstraction makes it incredibly fast to just eyeball everything.

 

[Stormtalon]

Maybe. If you use the shapes suggested in your graphic, you basically have to use templates in order to be reasonably speedy. The "everything is square" abstraction makes it incredibly fast to just eyeball everything.

Right -- my table assumed blast/burst are the same exact shape: i.e. a hexagonal area a number of hexes corner to corner equal to the blast size (which for burst is equal to 1+2*burst size).

I do need to add one correction to my original post: the corresponding sizes are Blast 3/Burst 1, Blast 5/Burst 2 and Blast 7/Burst 3.

 

[Mezzer]

Another small consideration for you; you can't cut corners on a 4E grid and that would be gone on any hex layout.