Anyone Tried Hexes?

[frankthedm]

WHatever area is lost on a Burst is more than made up for by how much easier players can defend from multiple enemies on hex grids.

SImple blasts to cones

Blasts to cones that retain 100% coverage.

 

[Nifft]

Huh, this is more how I though Blasts would work:

Cheers, -- N

 

[KarinsDad]

Huh, this is more how I though Blasts would work:

Cheers, -- N

I don't have a way to draw them, but:

  4
  3 4
C 2 3 4
 1 2 3 4
 2 3 4
 3 4
 4

In other words, use a 120 degree cone instead of a 60 degree one. This maintains the exact same number of "spaces" as the square grid blast.

 

[SableWyvern]

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.

How do you reach this conclusion? Every hex-side has an opposite hex-side, giving 3 pairs of flanking positions, one for each pair of adjacent and opposite hexes.

Edit: Unless you're merely pointing out that for any given position, the flanking position is three hexes away.

 

[bardolph]

WHatever area is lost on a Burst is more than made up for by how much easier players can defend from multiple enemies on hex grids.

SImple blasts to cones...

Agreed. This would be the shape of a blast in a hex-grid system. (I forgive you for the wonky shape of levels 1 and 2, because D&D 4e only has Blast 3 and Blast 5, as far as I can tell)

The only awkward aspect of this shape is that if there is one enemy 1 hex "inside" the blast plus one enemy 1 hex "outside" the blast, it would be impossible to create a blast that catches both.

 

[Incendax]

I have never played 4th Edition on anything but a Hex Map.

It works fine. Even better than a square grid in most circumstances.
Movement is easier, natural terrain is easier, blasts and bursts are easier to imagine.

It fundamentally changes your game in a few minor ways, but we ignore them for the most part.

A) Less monsters can flank you, you have less ability to flank monsters = Wash. Slightly in your favor.

B) Bursts hit less squares. For example, Burst 2 hits 19 squares in Hex and 25 squares in Grid. = Wash, monsters hit less of you as well.

C) Blasts are fine, just make sure the number of squares is equal to the blast rate. For example, Blast 3 is a 3x3 which equals 9 squares, so your blast should equal 9 hexes. Blast 5 is 25 squares, so your blast 5 should equal 25 squares.

 

[KarinsDad]

How do you reach this conclusion? Every hex-side has an opposite hex-side, giving 3 pairs of flanking positions, one for each pair of adjacent and opposite hexes.

Edit: Unless you're merely pointing out that for any given position, the flanking position is three hexes away.

That's what I am pointing out. It's real obvious for medium sized creatures, but less intuitive for large (3 hex) or huge (7 hex), etc. sized creatures. The 3 hex creature is especially weird in some directions (as is the 15 hex gargantuan sized creature).

But, keeping in mind that the number of hexes to the right and left are one greater than any flanking hexes for the larger creatures is an easy to remember rule of thumb that works.

 

[EdPovi]

While you could treat blasts like a cone, I think it works best if you treat them the exact same way you treat a burst.

For example, a burst 1 is the same as a blast 3. Which is a circle 3 hexes in diameter. Burst 2 is the same as blast 5. Same rule of applies were you must be adjacent to the blast.

In other words, both burst and blast create an AoE in the shape of a circle.

 

[doppelganger]

I have never played 4th Edition on anything but a Hex Map.

It works fine. Even better than a square grid in most circumstances.

How can you claim that a hex grid works better than a square grid when you have never played 4E on a square grid?

 

[Nifft]

The only awkward aspect of this shape is that if there is one enemy 1 hex "inside" the blast plus one enemy 1 hex "outside" the blast, it would be impossible to create a blast that catches both.

While that's true, notice how moving one square South and firing directly East would get both of them.

I kinda like how cone placement requires tactical movement, in a way square/circular blast placement doesn't.

Cheers, -- N