-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Why not just use hexes?
- Thread starter Malin Genie
- Start date
Virago said:Hmm I remember arguing over this with Karinsdad once long ago.
I'm surprised someone hasn't piped up with "just use miniatures and tape measures!" at this point
Just use miniatures and tape measures! Jeez, what's wrong with you, people?
Ahem. Anyway, I don't see any reason why hexes should be considered inherently superior to squares. Both are ways to approximate a continuous space using a discrete grid. Like with any approximation, there will be areas where the system is clunky, or breaks down. If you really want accurate representations of your combat arenas, use tape measures.
Ranger REG
Explorer
That's because I haven't seen this thread until recently.
Ideally, no-grid is best. Just take out a measuring tape.
But I prefer square grids over hexes, unless I am playing Star Fleet Battles or BattleTech (not RPG-related).
I like the perfect 45 degree diagonals. And I can count 5s (for 1st and every odd diagonal squares) and 10s (for 2nd and every even diagonal squares).
Ideally, no-grid is best. Just take out a measuring tape.
But I prefer square grids over hexes, unless I am playing Star Fleet Battles or BattleTech (not RPG-related).
I like the perfect 45 degree diagonals. And I can count 5s (for 1st and every odd diagonal squares) and 10s (for 2nd and every even diagonal squares).
I had the same impulse, and started converting squares to hexes for Star Wars d20.
If you think it makes sense for DnD, it makes even more sense for Star Wars. You don't have as many game rules tied to squares (magical area effects, etc...), so the conversion is easier. SW has no attacks of opportunity, just an outright prohibition on doing certain things (like firing a blaster) when you are in a threatened square, so fewer threatened spaces felt better. And the kicker, the conversion to meters makes a square (2 meters) 6.5 feet wide, increasing the diagonal error and making the threat area of 8 squares around really unrealistic.
Bottom line, I had all the reason in the world to convert, and I still went back to squares after two battles. They are just easier to deal with. I instead started converting everything back to feet and introducing AoO... Kooky.
If you think it makes sense for DnD, it makes even more sense for Star Wars. You don't have as many game rules tied to squares (magical area effects, etc...), so the conversion is easier. SW has no attacks of opportunity, just an outright prohibition on doing certain things (like firing a blaster) when you are in a threatened square, so fewer threatened spaces felt better. And the kicker, the conversion to meters makes a square (2 meters) 6.5 feet wide, increasing the diagonal error and making the threat area of 8 squares around really unrealistic.
Bottom line, I had all the reason in the world to convert, and I still went back to squares after two battles. They are just easier to deal with. I instead started converting everything back to feet and introducing AoO... Kooky.
RedShirtNo5
First Post
KarinsDad said:
KarinsDad, in your example, A and C still get AoOs because B is moving out of their threatened areas.
Perhaps you mean this:
X Y X
A B C
X X X
versus this:
A X Y
X B X
X X C
which shows the wierdness with a 5' step when using a square grid.
-RedShirt
Actually, KarinsDad meant exactly what he said. Remember, if all you do is move, the space you start in is not considered threatened-but if you exit *two* threatened spaces, you're still going to be subject to attacks of opportunity. That means that a flanked character cannot disengage without provoking an attack of opportunity from at least one of the flanking characters, unless he is flanked on the diagonal, in which case he can disengage along the orthogonal diagonal without danger.
If the grid is supposed to be a convenience that doesn't really affect the details (which it is, right? I mean, you're characters don't see themselves as chessmen, moving from space to space ...), then this doesn't make much sense. If a character is flanked, why should is matter whether the flankers are orthoganal or diagonal to an imaginary grid?
If the grid is supposed to be a convenience that doesn't really affect the details (which it is, right? I mean, you're characters don't see themselves as chessmen, moving from space to space ...), then this doesn't make much sense. If a character is flanked, why should is matter whether the flankers are orthoganal or diagonal to an imaginary grid?
Artoomis
First Post
I've used both hexes and squares for DnD. Hexes are better for:
Movement
Area of Effect Spells (no wierd shapes like with squares)
Squares are better for:
Rooms and corridors
That's pretty much it. You can uses hexes in rooms and corridors, but it does get a bit odd. The best way is to make a straight corridor appear to be not straight on the map - that is, it follows hex edges. Of course, that is a bit odd-looking.
The same problem happens for squares for any odd-shpoa-ed room (circle, etc.). Neither system is perfect.
The ideal system would be a tape measure with no girds, but who really wants to do that? We are trying hexes in our group right now and I find it a bit easier to work wioth, but it takes a little getting used to.
The best thing about hexes is no counting 5-10-5-10 for diagonals and area of effects are easier to do.
The best thing about squares is they fit straight walls and 90-degree turns better.
Movement
Area of Effect Spells (no wierd shapes like with squares)
Squares are better for:
Rooms and corridors
That's pretty much it. You can uses hexes in rooms and corridors, but it does get a bit odd. The best way is to make a straight corridor appear to be not straight on the map - that is, it follows hex edges. Of course, that is a bit odd-looking.
The same problem happens for squares for any odd-shpoa-ed room (circle, etc.). Neither system is perfect.
The ideal system would be a tape measure with no girds, but who really wants to do that? We are trying hexes in our group right now and I find it a bit easier to work wioth, but it takes a little getting used to.
The best thing about hexes is no counting 5-10-5-10 for diagonals and area of effects are easier to do.
The best thing about squares is they fit straight walls and 90-degree turns better.
Virago
First Post
I don't have too much trouble with the flanking problem, really, I don't care if it's an artifact of the square grid. Also I gave a solution of it (when a character moves diagonally, they are semi-counted as if moving through one of the orthagonal squares in the process). K'sD might have found a flaw in that, but I don't remember it being major -- and the rule above fixes many other situations.
Another advantage to using hexes for Star Wars, I think, is that you can get away with many fewer right angles in the buildings
Personally, I am fine with square grids. The vast majority of stuff in my campaign involves lots of right angles. Even on an open field, the squares with 5/10/5 are not significantly less accurate than hexes -- and they are more accurate for big area type effects, where 5/10/5 and squares gives you something vaguely circular, and hexes just give you a big hex.
Another advantage to using hexes for Star Wars, I think, is that you can get away with many fewer right angles in the buildings
Personally, I am fine with square grids. The vast majority of stuff in my campaign involves lots of right angles. Even on an open field, the squares with 5/10/5 are not significantly less accurate than hexes -- and they are more accurate for big area type effects, where 5/10/5 and squares gives you something vaguely circular, and hexes just give you a big hex.
Virago said:
You are correct for straight line movement. Hexes and squares (using 5/10/5) are virtually identical in those circumstances, regardless of distance or direction.
However, for non-straight line movement, squares start losing a little accuracy.
For example, with hexes, if you are 10 feet away from an opponent and you want to get to the exact opposite side of him while staying 10 feet away, you will move 30 feet to get there.
With squares, you will move 35 feet.
The reason for this is that you are moving in a more circular path with hexes. In fact, the circumference of a half circle with a radius of 10 feet is 1/2 * 2 pi * 10 which is 31.4 feet. Closer to 30 than 35.
So, a lightly armored and encumbered medium sized character could do this and still get in an action with hexes. With squares, he could not.
So, it could make a difference. And just like the AoO example, the grid system should not affect the results, but it does moreso with squares.
Virago said:
Huh?
A hex is nearly circular. So, even a large hex is just as accurate with respect to a circle than a bunch of squares. And, it is much easier to figure out which spaces are included and which are not. For example, look at the Sleep spell diagram on page 69 of the DMG. It looks more like a cross than a circle. But, a hex pattern of 7 hexes across (you ignore the center hex for spread, bursts, and cylinders) looks almost exactly like a circle. Granted, it is still a large hex. But, unless you get to extremely large sizes, you would not include any additional edge hexes even if you drew a large circle on the mat with a compass.
Since most area effect spells in DND are less than 30 feet in radius, hexes are not only just as accurate, they are also much quicker to figure out.
