Hexes vs. Squares Flanking

[KarinsDad]

Draco and my side trek on hexes and squares in the other thread ended up with an undiscussed issue that I wanted to comment on.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5244585-post150.html

Draco is correct in his assessment. One either cannot flank directly along the drawn wall on left hand side of a hex map oriented as per the picture, or one has to add rules to allow it.

Either way, it's not that big of a deal. I prefer adding a simple rule. Another DM might not.

In the image provided, A is a squeeze location. That is less than 50% of a hex, so a PC can only go into that location and squeeze doing so. But if he decides to do so, A can flank C with F.

If one adds a half hex rule that any half hex along a surface can be considered a full hex, and then one adds a half hex wall rule that any half hex along the edge of the wall is flanked by any full hex along the wall, than C and G flank E.

E does not flank G with I, it already has a flanking hex: J.

Bottom line: There are no half or larger squares along the left wall, except A in the corner, that cannot be flanked. Not obviously intuitive, but then again, not that hard of a concept.

Nor does E have to flank G with I. Just because that would happen in a square grid system does not mean that it must happen in a hex system or the hex system is awful. As a similar physics adjustment with regard to squares in 4E, diagonal flanks are inferior to non-diagonal flanks in a square grid. There is no perfection.


The main reason to use hexes is due to a more realistic distance system. Moving from any point A to any point B is a lot more similar length-wise to real world physics, something most everyone understands.


A secondary reason to use hexes is to more easily allow for a lot of strange shapes. Hexes are similar to circles, hence, they fill areas like curved halls fairly well.

The DM just needs partial hex rules in some cases. For example, between the two curved walls on the right, N takes up the majority of a hex, so no partial hex rule need in that case. Ditto for O. L, on the other hand, is in a gray area of two smaller partial hexes. So, the DM just rules that a PC can share those two partial hexes. He then eyeball rules that L flanks O with P and not N with M since a significant portion of L is the hex that flanks O with P.

Is it perfect? Nope. Is it useable? Yup.

Such a set of rules allow for people to play outside the box of "5x5 squares and no partials" that 4E mostly assumes.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Neither shape is perfect for all situations. Compromises must be made, or we will be using rulers, circles cut out of paper and bits of string all the time to figure out who can affect what. Hexes and squares are a convenience.

For combat, I prefer squares, as they are more rigid, and frankly, fit rooms and pieces of paper better. ALso, 4E (the game of this forum) is based on squares, and I am not sure if switching over to hexes is worth the effort.

Hexes would be better if a rule system had facing, I have always thought.

However, for outside maps, I like hexes a lot better. They seem to allow freer movement ,and have less silliness of diagonals versus horizontal and vertical distances. Also, players seem feel less constrained by them, and they are still easy to measure, though simply writing which square is which is not as easy as with squares.

 

[Shin Okada]

Well, of course people can make a rule set using hexes. But for Dungeons and Dragons I largely prefer using squares as it is much easier to draw dungeons, especially artificial dungeons with 90 degree angles on room/corridor corners and crossings.

I doubt if trying to make a hexes-based alternative combat rule worth the effort. Not just flanking, but also you have to re-make the rules for burst and blast. And, while hexes handle horizontal distance somewhat better comparing to squares do, hexes do not handle vertical distance particularly well.

Regarding overland maps, I prefer to use hexes if that is for a wargame and such. But in case of D&D, overland maps are for travel and that is not handled by round-based combat system. So usually, all I need is a ruler or maybe a tape measure.

 

[Zinovia]

Squares and hexes both work, and each has strengths over the other. Squares are the default, and are easier to draw. Hexes let you have round spells, diagonal movement that involves less warping of space, and more obvious flanking in most circumstances. But they are a bit weird to most 4e players.

The biggest reasons for our group going with hexes are
1) that's what we have used for the past twenty years for the various systems we have played.
2) we have a very nice Chessex hex mat in the mega size, that is lined with fabric on the back, rather than being reversible. Each hex has a unique number for reference.
3) our group is used to it at this point, and doesn't like playing on a square grid when I have used a pre-made poster map. They prefer the hex grid.

As I said in the other thread, hexes are sexy. . Offset squares do seem to have a few advantages as well, but I haven't tried that. Spell shapes could be odd.

 

[KarinsDad]

And, while hexes handle horizontal distance somewhat better comparing to squares do, hexes do not handle vertical distance particularly well.

Actually, they handle vertical distance fine if the room is drawn to the hexes. For example, if the hexes in the image above represent a 45 x 35 room, then they are fine. If the hexes in the image above represent a 45 x 32 room (closer to real world physics), then yes, there is a slight loss of distance. Approximately 10%. Crossing this room vertically, the PC has to move 30 feet in order to gain 27 feet of real world distance.

However, the gain of distance diagonally on a square is greater than 40%. In a 40 x 40 room with squares, crossing from corner to corner should be 49 feat, but it is 35 feet in the game system.

It's a lot less inaccurate with hexes vertically than it is with squares diagonally.

Additionally, the minds eye is not bothered by looking at the image above and considering it a 45 x 35 room instead of a 45 x 32 room. Humans are able to view that slight distortion and gloss over it. Once one does that, the difference in distance drops even more for hexes. The square grid always has the 40% diagonal distance issue (shy of 1 : 2 : 1 : 2 movement rules to handle it which WotC removed from the rules).

 

[Infiniti2000]

As I said in the other thread, hexes are sexy.

I find that almost every time I look at a hex map, the example in this thread included, I think they're ugly.

Regarding the argument in general, however, has anyone mentioned combining the options? Put the squarish rooms in regular grids and oddly shaped rooms in hexes.

 

[Shin Okada]

Actually, they handle vertical distance fine if the room is drawn to the hexes.

I meant to use the word "vertical" to indicate altitude. 3D.

Hexes can fill 2D surface. And they make a map which we can count reasonably accurate horizontal distance in any horizontal direction.

But when we try to add height and altitude to the combat, we must stack up imaginary hexagonal prisms. Hexes are equally clumsy to squares when 3D fights are involved.

 

[KarinsDad]

I meant to use the word "vertical" to indicate altitude. 3D.

Hexes can fill 2D surface. And they make a map which we can count reasonably accurate horizontal distance in any horizontal direction.

But when we try to add height and altitude to the combat, we must stack up imaginary hexagonal prisms. Hexes are equally clumsy to squares when 3D fights are involved.

Yes, they have the same 3D issue that squares have. A space 3x3x3 cube for a blast means that if someone is up 2 spaces vertically and anywhere directly above the 3x3 blast horizontally, then that creature is caught in a normal blast.

If someone is up 2 spaces high vertically and anywhere directly above the hex blast horizontally, then that creature is caught in a hex blast.

Back in the day, some DMs and players could pretty much figure out 3D distances in their heads. A 100 foot line Lightning Bolt and the foe is 50 feet up in the air? The foe could be 85 feet away horizontally and still be hit. 90 feet away horizontally and the Lightning Bolt didn't reach. That's a bit of a lost art/science because 4E has been dummied down so much that nobody has to even try to do it. Hexes had an advantage there as well since only one simple calculation had to be done. A hex 17 spaces away hit, one 18 spaces away didn't. Squares suffered with two calculations unless one was directly on the north/south or east/west line from the caster.

 

[Nifft]

Regarding the argument in general, however, has anyone mentioned combing the options? Put the squarish rooms in regular grids and oddly shaped rooms in hexes.

I've seen lots of old ship plans that were made into custom per-section grids (so there was no "underlying" grid, each room or corridor had its own grid markings, which worked well for things sticking off to the sides).

I've never seen a hybrid grid-hex map, but it sounds like a good idea.

Cheers, -- N

 

[KarinsDad]

I've never seen a hybrid grid-hex map, but it sounds like a good idea.

There was once a map in a product where each hex had different shading. This allowed the designer to put together a 3D map of the entire multi-level dungeon on a single 2D map where the various tunnels down and rooms had different shading and could all be viewed by the DM simultaneously. I forget the name of it, but it was probably in the early 80s.