Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Zinovia" data-source="post: 4869772" data-attributes="member: 57373">You could certainly do that, and it would likely be easier and less confusing.&nbsp; In my case, I envision blast spells as cones (like the old AD&amp;D Cone of Cold).&nbsp; The drawback of using the burst&nbsp; spells as the default shape is that they effect fewer hexes.&nbsp; I opted to go for symmetry there, rather than keeping the number of hexes the same as it would have been with a square grid.&nbsp; I feel it makes sense for the &quot;round&quot; burst spells.&nbsp; Also fewer enemies can surround you on a hex grid (6 rather than 8), so that kind of balances it.&nbsp;&nbsp; With the shapes I chose for the blasts, I managed to keep the number of hexes the same as they would have been on a square grid.&nbsp; &nbsp;I use a lot of WotC minis, and just leave their bases as they are. If it's a larger figure, we just put it on the mat and see how many hexes are covered.&nbsp; If a hex is more than half covered by the base, then the creature is occupying that hex.&nbsp;&nbsp; For determining flanking, I just do a quick visual assessment to see which hexes are on opposite sides of the monster from each other.&nbsp; It's extremely simple with medium sized minis, as it is always clear which hex is the flanking hex for any position.&nbsp; You could easily combine the bursts, as you've illustrated.&nbsp; That didn't occur to me, as I kind of like having the different templates for clarity.&nbsp; Also it's fun seeing the look on my players' faces when I bring out a nice big template for an area spell being cast on them.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />&nbsp; If you made the blasts the same shape (hexagonal), then yes, you could get away with a single template as you have shown.&nbsp; Nice work!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Zinovia, post: 4869772, member: 57373"] You could certainly do that, and it would likely be easier and less confusing. In my case, I envision blast spells as cones (like the old AD&D Cone of Cold). The drawback of using the burst spells as the default shape is that they effect fewer hexes. I opted to go for symmetry there, rather than keeping the number of hexes the same as it would have been with a square grid. I feel it makes sense for the "round" burst spells. Also fewer enemies can surround you on a hex grid (6 rather than 8), so that kind of balances it. With the shapes I chose for the blasts, I managed to keep the number of hexes the same as they would have been on a square grid. I use a lot of WotC minis, and just leave their bases as they are. If it's a larger figure, we just put it on the mat and see how many hexes are covered. If a hex is more than half covered by the base, then the creature is occupying that hex. For determining flanking, I just do a quick visual assessment to see which hexes are on opposite sides of the monster from each other. It's extremely simple with medium sized minis, as it is always clear which hex is the flanking hex for any position. You could easily combine the bursts, as you've illustrated. That didn't occur to me, as I kind of like having the different templates for clarity. Also it's fun seeing the look on my players' faces when I bring out a nice big template for an area spell being cast on them. :D If you made the blasts the same shape (hexagonal), then yes, you could get away with a single template as you have shown. Nice work! [/QUOTE]

Verification