Why not just use hexes?

[Virago]

KD:

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

To be fair, in line with the nitpicking of the rest of your post--no. Hexes are not "virtually identical" against the grain.

I said "significantly less accurate."

A hex is nearly circular

Uh.. no. Check out the 5/10/5 figures verses hex figures at longer ranges.

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.

I agree. Hexes make for better approximations of circles at short ranges. However, I think the hassle of half-hexes makes these gains in accuracy -- which are of dubious value anyway -- negligible. Especially at short ranges, where the terrain is likely to be more detailed, dungeonlike, and less suited to a hex map.

 

[KarinsDad]

KD:

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

To be fair, in line with the nitpicking of the rest of your post--no. Hexes are not "virtually identical" against the grain.

I stand corrected. There are some cases where they are different enough, especially with long narrow rooms.

45 degree movement, 100x100 foot room, corner to corner (i.e. “19 diagonal” spaces of movement):

1) 5/10/5 results in 140 feet
2) hexes result in 140 feet, regardless of grain
3) geometry results in 134.35 feet (remember, corner “space” to corner space is 95x95, not 100x100)

The distance is identical between the two (i.e. hexes and 5/10/5 squares).

Let’s take another example:

A X X
Y X X
X Y X
X Y X
X Y X
X X Y
X X B

Direct line between A and B using path Y. This is a 15 x 35 room, but A is 2.5 feet in from the edges as is B.

1) 5/10/5 results in 35 feet
2) hexes result in 35 feet (using the 35 feet as not against the grain)
3) hexes result in 30 feet (using the 35 feet as against the grain)
4) geometry results in 31.62 feet (remember, corner “space” to corner space is 10x30, not 15x35)

So, here the “against the grain” hex measurement is more accurate, but the “with the grain” hex measurement is identical to the square one.

Here is a case where drawing a room 90 degrees off might result in a difference in movement and hence, a difference in combat with hexes.

I will concede this point. However, in a lot of cases, they are “virtually identical” as I stated.

A hex is nearly circular

Uh.. no. Check out the 5/10/5 figures verses hex figures at longer ranges.

I have. The hex has to have a diameter of 13 hexes before a circle would add in additional hexes at the edges and those would be not quite full hexes.

Still, it’s a lot easier to figure out which ones are or are not, even at larger sizes by marking the 6 hexes at the radius extreme than it is with any method short of a string with squares. In other words, I guarantee I can draw a 21 hex radius circle faster and more accurately than you can draw any 21 square radius circle. And, that’s the bottom line. It’s quicker and easier to use hexes for the majority of what you want to do with the sole exception of rectangular shaped rooms with edges along 0 and 90 degrees. There, squares and the 5/10/5 rule have the advantage in consistency and ease of drawing.

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.

I agree. Hexes make for better approximations of circles at short ranges. However, I think the hassle of half-hexes makes these gains in accuracy -- which are of dubious value anyway -- negligible. Especially at short ranges, where the terrain is likely to be more detailed, dungeonlike, and less suited to a hex map.

What about the hassle of “half-squares” and “third-squares” and “quarter-squares” with non-rectangular rooms or rectangular rooms at non-zero degree angles?

You keep ignoring that completely, but in the vast majority of geometric shapes and directions, squares have this problem in spades.

Hexes also have this problem, but to a lesser extent since they are nearly circular objects.

If you try to put a bunch of six sided dice into a jar, fewer of them will fit in the jar than if you put a bunch of marbles with the same volume as the dice. Why? Because the marbles are spherical whereas the dice are cubes. Same with squares and hexes. Hexes fit easier in a lot of circumstances since they are closer to a circular shape than squares are. Isosceles triangles would be worse than squares, etc.

 

[hong]

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?

It wouldn't in my game. Someone trying to disengage while flanked will draw AoOs, regardless of where they are relative to an arbitrarily positioned grid. That's what DMs are for.

 

[Virago]

KD:

I won't descend into the wonkery of it again. You are technically neglecting space distortion; i.e. something 3 hexes wide and 3 hexes high is rectangular, not square.

I really don't care about this, and as I'd said previously, I don't think whether or not one way resolves a diagonal closer to the true answer matters, really, when both are close enough.

And, that’s the bottom line. It’s quicker and easier to use hexes for the majority of what you want to do with the sole exception of rectangular shaped rooms with edges along 0 and 90 degrees.

That "sole exception" is probably the majority of situations. Also, in an open area, hexes aren't really superior to squares, so there's another common exception.

There are times when hexes really shine of course, but in these cases I would default to entirely gridless, using the grid as simply a drawing aid (it's very faint on my 'battle board'.. just little dots at the corners; so very easy to see it without the squares).

What about the hassle of “half-squares” and “third-squares” and “quarter-squares” with non-rectangular rooms or rectangular rooms at non-zero degree angles?

Usually I don't map out everywhere the party goes, I only draw a map when there is some sort of encounter or other situation; so rectangles at odd angles are very rarely a problem.

When I draw circle effects, I actually draw circles, and just eyeball it to determine if a certain square is effected or not. It's not tough or common. For most area effects I determine them basically like I am playing with miniatures.

Even if I had to follow some grid system slavishly, I'd probably still pick squares. When I need to draw, for example, a 40 by 50 foot room with pillars and a pit in the middle (this is I imagine a much more typical case than some of your bete noir examples), I cringe at the idea of doing it with hexes. Maybe that's something you get used to though.

How do you handle that? A 30x30 room, with a 10x10 pit centered in the middle. This is no bizarre setup. The 10x10 pit will be two hexes and four half-hexes. The party doesn't know it's there. How do you rule when they step 'halfway' onto the pit (that is, they are standing in a hex, half of which is a pit)? Does the pit become effectively a triangle, or a trapezoid, or a parallelogram?

Hexes fit easier in a lot of circumstances since they are closer to a circular shape than squares are.

Hmm, I don't buy this argument, since some shapes are far more common than others in most D&D campaigns.


Anyone remember the irregular arbitrary "regions" from MSHRP? Now there was something silly.

 

[Christian]

It wouldn't in my game. Someone trying to disengage while flanked will draw AoOs, regardless of where they are relative to an arbitrarily positioned grid. That's what DMs are for.

Well-designed rules are generally superior to arbitrary DM rulings. There are significant consistency issues-take RedshirtNo5's 5' step example at the top of this page. If the flanked person wants to take a 5' step and cast a spell, does he draw an AoO then? If so, how-he's out of range of both attackers when he casts?! If not, then why can he do that but someone flanked on the orthoganal can't?

Whether using the 5'/10' method or not, you need to find a consistent method of handling the 2 square diagonal situation. There are three good general rules suggested on the first page of this thread. I kind of like Caliban's myself (go figure), where passing from one square to another on the diagonal involves passing through one or another of the orthogonal squares, even if it 'costs' only 5' of movement. (The other suggestions are from Dr. Zoom, to ignore the 5'/10' rule for reach weapons, and from Wolfpunk [the solution I had been using before I read Caliban's], to count both 10' and 15' reach into the second diagonal square, since both extend past the first 5' distant square, but not as far as the 20' distant third square.) I like Caliban's because it also realistically handles this kind of situation:

XM_
XC|

The character wants to move diagonally forward and right to get to the other side of the monster and the hallway corner. Nope-he needs to either move through the wall, or through the monster. Need to make that Tumble check to pull that one off, buster.

 

[Speaks With Stone]

We use a hex map and we certainly have the occasional problem with reconciling the partial hexes. In general we assume that if the center of the hex is vacant, then you can move into that space freely. If its not, then the GM may allow a tumble or dex to move or occupy.

To solve spell effects, we've made templates that we just drop on the map. Whether you use squares or hexes, I highly recommend the use of templates. They are quick, accurate, and visually satisfying.

 

[Macbrea]

Could do the odd maps and just use the center point of hexes. No, actual lines and require the minitures to touch 1 point. This would make drawing the maps much easier on the eyes.


Just a thought,

 

[KarinsDad]

I won't descend into the wonkery of it again. You are technically neglecting space distortion; i.e. something 3 hexes wide and 3 hexes high is rectangular, not square.

I really don't care about this, and as I'd said previously, I don't think whether or not one way resolves a diagonal closer to the true answer matters, really, when both are close enough.

I am not neglecting it. I have mentioned several times that to me, it doesn't matter. A 30x30 room that has a 6 to 5 ratio in shape is basically irrelevant.

The number of times that I draw perfectly square rooms is much less than all other shapes combined. Plus, nobody really cares usually if a room looks 25x30 when in reality, it is 30x30. At least not any of the people I game with.

That "sole exception" is probably the majority of situations. Also, in an open area, hexes aren't really superior to squares, so there's another common exception.

That sole exception is probably a large minority, not the majority. At least not in the majority of 3E modules I have purchased. And typically, I do not draw town/city rooms and if I do, 4 hexes x 4 hexes is just as good as 4 squares x 4 squares.

However, you are mistaken about open areas. Hexes are superior to squares there due to the diagonal problems with movement, reach, and spell area of effect with squares.

How do you handle that? A 30x30 room, with a 10x10 pit centered in the middle. This is no bizarre setup. The 10x10 pit will be two hexes and four half-hexes. The party doesn't know it's there. How do you rule when they step 'halfway' onto the pit (that is, they are standing in a hex, half of which is a pit)? Does the pit become effectively a triangle, or a trapezoid, or a parallelogram?

No. It's a square.

But, this is hardly difficult. You determine a DC and you secretly roll if necessary. Also, players move their characters in my game and do not have to stick to hexes unless they are in combat. So, it's not that hard to tell usually anyway.

But, just like anything else in the game, if there is a question, I either make a ruling or I make a roll.

How do you handle 7x7 foot pits in your square system or are you a slave to 5x5 foot increment sixed pit traps in your world?

The point is that it is basically irrelevant if you have any amount of realism in your game at all. For example, I rarely have pit traps in random places, rather I place them in obvious routes so that unaware characters such as PCs tend to walk on them as opposed to the people who created them and walk around them anyway.

A 10x10 pit in the center of a 30x30 room? Why? I used to have those in 1E. In 3E, I'd much rather have a 5x25 pit trap in a 30x30 room so that the users of the room can get around or over it, but intruders will blunder into it virtually every time.

Hexes fit easier in a lot of circumstances since they are closer to a circular shape than squares are.

Hmm, I don't buy this argument, since some shapes are far more common than others in most D&D campaigns.

How can you not buy into the argument? Go look at any 3E WotC modules such as The Sunless Citadel, The Forge of Fury, RtToEE, Heart of Nightfang Spire, etc. The irregular shaped areas far outweigh the regular shaped ones by a factor of 3 or 4 or 5 to 1 or more.

You have to be bumping your head into partial squares by the boatload with these modules.

Anyone remember the irregular arbitrary "regions" from MSHRP? Now there was something silly.

Yup. Avoided those bad boys like the plague by playing Champions. Of course, that's a hex system.


The bottom line is that hexes are just as fine for shapes as squares. Problems that people conceive here are mostly in their personal preference and imagination. For every problem that someone can point out with one system, another person can point out the same problem with the other.

The difference, though, is that squares do have a problem with reach, movement, and area of effect spells on diagonals, and are more difficult to figure out larger area of affect spells. Hence, they have a set of problems that do not occur with hexes.

To each their own.

 

[xjp]

Hexes are cool, squares are cool, or no playboard and just DM descriptions can be good enough.

 

[IceBear]

Hexes are cool, squares are cool, or no playboard and just DM descriptions can be good enough.

Amen - they all have their good points and their bad. As long as your group likes the map style you chose, who cares?

IceBear