What geometry do you prefer?

[Delta]

The group I tend to play with are made of a bunch of warhammer gamers, so if we're pulling out minis, they'd be warhammer minis on the table, with distances measured by tape measures.

Actually, as much as I'd like to simplify some stuff, a major advantage of 1-2-1-2 for me is that I can interchange measurement by counting (for close things) and measurement by tape measure (for distant missile fire & spells) and have the results be basically the same. That alone would pretty much prevent me from using 1-1-1 (having to give up the long-distance tape measure option for consistency).

 

[glass]

Based on the discussions in the other thread, I am leaning toward hex grid, so I voted for that. I haven't actually tried it yet though, and given how much one of my players has invested in (square-gridded) WotC dungeon tiles I probably won't be trying it any time soon.


glass.

 

[glass]

I find it really interesting how well hexes are doing. I didn't know they were still that popular.

It might be because KarinsDad did a pretty good job of selling them in the other thread.


glass.

 

[Plane Sailing]

The second to last option needs a slight edit.

I've given it a slight edit

 

[Oliviander]

Personally, I prefer hexes, but I can live with 1-2-1-2 easily enough. In actual play, my group only uses a grid for about 75% of combat. When we know distances and tactics won't be a major issue, we do it mentally. I cannot stand the 1-1-1 option, though. It is the only mechanical change in 4e so far that I completely disagree with.

This exactly reflects my opinion about 4e, the 1-1-1-1 movement is the only bad rule I can see so far. (maybe the automatic crit may prove problematic too, but I don't know enough by now
about the system as a whole to really commit myself)

 

[danzig138]

Back in the early editions, we didn't use these fancy pants mats and grids and minis.

In the now-20 years I've been playing, we've always used maps and minis, even with older editins and homebrew games. The few times I didn't have any available, I used graph paper, and was terribly unsatisfied with it.

I voted for squares, 1-1-1-1, but really, I like hexes and squares equally. If I could ever find my damn hex map, I'd use it for the outdoors, and the square maps for locations in or with structures.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

If it had been multiple choice I would have voted both hexes and 1-2-1-2. As it is I voted 1-2-1-2, simply because hexes can be harder to sell players on.

 

[Terramotus]

I voted 1-2-1-2, and using it will be the first house rule I know I'll be using for 4E. Why? Because, despite being easier to use, 1-1-1-1 is simply incorrect to the point that it makes me really wonder about the state of geometry instruction in the US that the designers at WoTC would think it's a good idea. Besides that, it warps gameplay, as was amply demonstrated in the other thread.

I'm sure that in Star Wars it would be simpler and would speed play to assume that all or most planets have breathable atmosphere in exactly the right proportions for humans to breathe and not suffer any ill effects. Star Trek pretty much does this on TV. That doesn't make it not ridiculous.

While we're at it, let's simplify all forms of movement. Three dimensional movement just complicates things, especially when jumping causes you to be aloft when your movement runs out, or trying to figure out how vertical movement is counted. Let's just remove jumping. Falling could also be simplified to automatically save or be bloodied, regardless of distance. Why bother counting up all those dice? Math is hard, Barbie!

 

[Lackhand]

While we're at it, let's simplify all forms of movement. Three dimensional movement just complicates things, especially when jumping causes you to be aloft when your movement runs out, or trying to figure out how vertical movement is counted. Let's just remove jumping. Falling could also be simplified to automatically save or be bloodied, regardless of distance. Why bother counting up all those dice? Math is hard, Barbie!

Okay! Let's simplify all forms of movement! that's a really goo..
oh.
You were being sarcastic. There's nothing wrong with saying "we want to minimize square counting in this game", in and of itself. While I don't think I need 1-2-1-2 to be happy, I can see why others would.

The switch would be to have the jumping rules approximate how far perpendicular to the axis of motion the character travels without needing to plot parabolas.

Like the rules do now.

How's that, Ken?

 

[KarinsDad]

I wonder why no one has mentioned a square grid with offset rows? It has all the benefits of hexes (no diagonals, easy circle templates) and squares (square rooms are easy to draw, you can count squares in any direction to get distance/dimensions).

An interesting question.

I was aware of such grids, but have not actually ever seen a mat made up this way.

Here is a link to a resource for this:

http://www.mojobob.com/roleplay/props/mapping.html

Circular and cone area effects look a little funky with them (i.e. squared off hex shape), but the rules for using them would be similar as for hexes across the board and they definitely have advantages over hexes with regards to most rectangular shaped rooms with LCDs of 5 feet.