Anyone Tried Hexes?

[Andur]

Zurai, there is a reason why words mean things, like potential, and the fact of the matter is your potential is 27% less, you don't have to have an enemy in every square/hex, doesn't mean you won't be affecting 27% less area. Don't like the opinion, fine, but the math agrees with it.

Given a "standard encounter area from what WotC has presented us being about 10 x 20, those differences, both will have 200 possible places for something to be, but with hexes AoE's start off with a 22% less effectiveness and it gets worse and worse until you get a burst 5 affecting just over 60% of that area with a square system and hexes just over 45% of the area.

Nifft, for blast 3 for example, you pick on adjacent hex, count that as one and go out 2 more hexes away from you on each face away from you. That will keep blasts in line with squares and also get nice little diamond cones

So I'll clarify and say it makes Bursts worthless, blasts are workable.

 

[hong]

Zurai, there is a reason why words mean things, like potential, and the fact of the matter is your potential is 27% less, you don't have to have an enemy in every square/hex, doesn't mean you won't be affecting 27% less area. Don't like the opinion, fine, but the math agrees with it.

Given a "standard encounter area from what WotC has presented us being about 10 x 20, those differences, both will have 200 possible places for something to be, but with hexes AoE's start off with a 22% less effectiveness and it gets worse and worse until you get a burst 5 affecting just over 60% of that area with a square system and hexes just over 45% of the area.

Nifft, for blast 3 for example, you pick on adjacent hex, count that as one and go out 2 more hexes away from you on each face away from you. That will keep blasts in line with squares and also get nice little diamond cones

So I'll clarify and say it makes Bursts worthless, blasts are workable.

Oh, get real.

 

[Nifft]

Nifft, for blast 3 for example, you pick on adjacent hex, count that as one and go out 2 more hexes away from you on each face away from you. That will keep blasts in line with squares and also get nice little diamond cones

I don't like diamond cones.

Also, if Bursts are reduced in area quanta per unit radius, shouldn't Blasts be similarly reduced?

Burst 1 => 9 : 7
Blast 3 => 9 : 6

Burst 2 => 25 : 19
Blast 5 => 25 : 15

Hmm. As a current Wizard player who gets decent use out of Thunderwave, I would actually take the reduction in size in trade for the more flexible targeting.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In short, Hardhead, Hexes vs Squares is a matter of personal taste, depending upon how you feel about which mechanics you feel are accentuated and which ones you feel are gimped.

 

[Andur]

Oh, get real.

I can't I'm a figment of your imagination...

 

[Christian]

All the theory talk is interesting, but it's been done before ... I too would love to see an answer to the question that was asked in the original post, viz.: has anyone actually tried it in 4E, and how did it work out?

 

[Intrope]

On the subject of AoEs, 4e's Burst seems both simple and nicely circular, but how do you do 4e's Blast shape?

Cheers, -- N

We played (for the first time! woot!) yesterday, on a hex grid. It went well.

For the blast, we used a diamond-shape; it's a little odd (but arguably less so than a square circle). Think of it as a cone where the strongest 'blast' is down the middle, perhaps. Or, you could go with a cone; but if you do this, the starting hex shouldn't be counted (in other words, measure it as if it was a burst) IMO.

Of course, the blast also has a property that you just have to be adjacent to it--which would look odder with a cone than a diamond, I think.

 

[krakenstar]

I've also tried it with previous editions (must say haven't tried it in 4th yet - still trying out all the rules in squares first). But I don't see what difference it was make square vs. hex in all editions.

It all depends on the group. Some groups loves the hexes, most hate them or prefer squares. You also get more support with dungeon tiles etc with squares. Some people found it hard to find charge lanes. It's great for distance finding and for outdoors maps overland and (imo) fighting scale 5'. But indoor dungeons its easier to use squares, at least it is for me.

Try the hex and see if your group like it. But I'd really play 4E with squares first and absorb the rules before attempting it though.

 

[KarinsDad]

There is a small flanking rule that people who use hexes should be aware of.

For medium sized creatures, there are 2 non-flanking hexes around the right and left of the target and 1 flanking hex across.

For large sized creatures, there are 3 non-flanking hexes around the right and left of the target and 2 flanking hexes across.

For huge sized creatures, there are 4 non-flanking hexes around the right and left of the target and 3 flanking hexes across.

Etc.

This is a bit non-intuitive for the larger than medium sizes until one puts miniatures down on a hex grid and figures it out.

 

[bardolph]

Issues with hexes:

• Blast area distorts somewhat. A 60-degree cone is good, but a bit rigid. Sometimes, you won't be able to hit 2 creatures 2 hexes away from each other, because they've split your blast zones.
• Creatures with more than 5' space are hard to represent on a Hex grid. I suppose you could make large creatures a 3-hex triangle, and huge creatures a 7-hex circle. However, determining flanking on multiple-hex targets might be a pain.
• Dungeons with square rooms and corridors that turn at 90-degree angles are hard to capture in hex.

Other than that, hex should work out just fine. You could even switch between hex for outdoors, and squares for indoors.