Hex experts

[Voadam]

My brother just got a huge battle mat but it is all in hexes. I'm planning on using it in my next game (later in June) but I was wondering if there are considerations I should be aware of when using hexes instead of squares, I like the 6 as opposed to 9 facing but half squares have not come up in my game before and they would seem prominent in placing a hex map in a square room. It seems that spreads and such will work better in hexes.

Any advice or pointers from the hex experts?

 

[Leopold]

My brother just got a huge battle mat but it is all in hexes. I'm planning on using it in my next game (later in June) but I was wondering if there are considerations I should be aware of when using hexes instead of squares, I like the 6 as opposed to 9 facing but half squares have not come up in my game before and they would seem prominent in placing a hex map in a square room. It seems that spreads and such will work better in hexes.

Any advice or pointers from the hex experts?

i've only played with hex maps so I know that i would rather work with hexes than squares as the facing is ssoooo much easier. What seems to be the problem using hexes?? All can be considered 5 ft big or whatever and still used..is this a problem?

 

[Mark]

The mechanics of 3E suggest that a certain number of opponents can achieve adjacent status to other bodies based on a square grid playing surface. The half-hexes are one problem, the number of opponents is another. When it comes to reach, the number of hex grid squares is something you'll need to calculate oddly if a creature or character has fifteen foot reach. (Lay it out and see ) On the plus side, no more worrying about adding five feet to every second square when making a diagonal move! I'd return the hex grid and pick up the square grid. Less head aches that way, IMO. *shrug*

 

[Conaill]

When it comes to reach, the number of hex grid squares is something you'll need to calculate oddly if a creature or character has fifteen foot reach. (Lay it out and see ) On the plus side, no more worrying about adding five feet to every second square when making a diagonal move! I'd return the hex grid and pick up the square grid. Less head aches that way, IMO.

I don't get it. If anything, reach and ranges are *easier* to deal with when using hexes. (And that's based on having played for a significant amount of time on both types of mats.)

AS for how to draw rectangular rooms on a hex map... I strongly recommend that you trace the room outlines "in between" the hex gridlines. So instead of having to deal with 1/2 hexes, you get 3/4 hexes which you can treat as full hexes, and 1/4 hexes which you can ignore.

 

[Voadam]

i've only played with hex maps so I know that i would rather work with hexes than squares as the facing is ssoooo much easier. What seems to be the problem using hexes?? All can be considered 5 ft big or whatever and still used..is this a problem?

I used hexes when I played battletech and I think they work fine when you are outside but you always get a half hex when you are inside against a flat wall. I realize the number of adjacent opponents changes from 8 to 6 (I mistyped before ) when you go from squares to hexes but that seems reasonable for actual combat between equal sized beings. I was asking if there are other aspects of 3e combat that are impacted since it is based on squares not hexes, that I haven't thought through yet.

Mark,

I would think reach is much simpler what with diagonal issues and such. I'm not sure I see the problem with 15 feet reach they threaten three rings of hexes out from themselves. I won't have access to the map until the game so I guess I'll wait and see how hex geometry gets ragged past two rings.

 

[Mark]

I don't get it. If anything, reach and ranges are *easier* to deal with when using hexes. (And that's based on having played for a significant amount of time on both types of mats.)

AS for how to draw rectangular rooms on a hex map... I strongly recommend that you trace the room outlines "in between" the hex gridlines. So instead of having to deal with 1/2 hexes, you get 3/4 hexes which you can treat as full hexes, and 1/4 hexes which you can ignore.

Since the game was playtested using a square grid system, limiting the number of opponents that can gang up on one target theoretically changes the balance of the game when using an alternate/different playing field. The number of opponents reachable on a square hex grid, being diffenent from the number reachable on a hex grid, further (theoretically) unbalances that which was playtested. Might mean absolutely nothing at all given that a DM can make adjustments, but adjustments will need to be made either consciously or otherwise.

Regarding the drawing of rooms, sure it's possible to make yet another adjustment and use a hex grid, but in the long run isn't it easier to just go back to the store and get the square grid map and avoid needing to make any adjustments in the first place?

Ultimately, it is a concern, though admittedly one that people would fine difficult only in varying degrees. *shrug*

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Our group is using a combination of hexes and grids. We have a hex battlemap that we use for outdoors or really large caverns, and then use master mazes (sp?) for our indoor battles. I have not noticed a difference between the two, except the hexes are a little easer for area effect and diagional counting. Using grids indoors is nice however since square rooms are much more common. The biggest drawback we run into using this system is the transition between the hexes and grids when moving from outdoors into a building. This requires a judgement about wether a hex is full or nonexistant. So far this has not been an problem.

 

[Garmorn]

One other concern is the grain of a hexgrid. Unlike squares, hexes have a diffinet grain. I would suggest that you take some time moving units around and see how that effects things. You will find some strange movement routines because of it.

 

[Duncan Haldane]

One thing to consider that others haven't mentioned yet - 3D combat.

If you ever need to go to 3d combat (flying creatures, underwater, etc), Cubes are *much* easier to deal with.

Duncan

 

[Conaill]

If you ever need to go to 3d combat (flying creatures, underwater, etc), Cubes are *much* easier to deal with.

That's right up there with Mark's "cutting the number of opponents you can be surrounded by from 8 to 6 would unbalance the entire system!"