Hex or grid?

[Jeff Carlsen]

Neither! No grid! Pull out the measuring tape like a boss!

More seriously, as much as I love hex maps, squares are more useful. The grid makes drawing maps and making measurements easier. Overland maps benefit from using a row and column reference system.

The only downside to squares is the measuring of diagonal movement, and I feel that 3.5 handled it reasonably well.

Besides, I use squares as guidelines more than anything these days. Characters don't have to stay within them.

 

[Sunseeker]

Hexes only advantage is diagonal measurement. The biggest downside though, is that it's hard to represent square-based structures with a hex system...without using a lot of half-hexes.

I really don't care as long as the rules are clear on the issue as we don't have to use both.

 

[Tovec]

Points.

.      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .

.      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .

.      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .

.      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .

.      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .

.      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .

.      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .

.      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .      .

Basically, instead of occupying a 5 foot square. You occupy a point. Your reach is the next (5 foot) point over, or 2 points for 10 foot reach. You can travel point to point like you would via 5 foot squares (2 for each other diagonal). It also has the fidelity to make people NOT OCCUPY a whole 5 foot square but instead THREATEN a 5 foot reach.

Thoughts?

 

[Sunseeker]

Points.

Basically, instead of occupying a 5 foot square. You occupy a point. Your reach is the next (5 foot) point over, or 2 points for 10 foot reach. You can travel point to point like you would via 5 foot squares (2 for each other diagonal). It also has the fidelity to make people NOT OCCUPY a whole 5 foot square but instead THREATEN a 5 foot reach.

Thoughts?

Interesting, but it has the same flaw as a grid, that the mid-points NW, NE, SW, SE, are farther away from your central point than N,S,E,W.

Personally, this was one of the immersion-breaking issues that 4e eliminated for me. Measuring everything in squares was much easier to accept than measuring things in distances, due to the fact that hexes prevent lateral movement, and grids have different-distance corners.

 

[Li Shenron]

Do you prefer hexes or grid for combat?

Grid.

What about outdoors maps and city maps?

Neither grid nor hex, just free maps.

And what about dungeon maps?

Free maps, but then if combat happens, grid should be used so it's ok to have it since the start.

 

[Argyle King]

Neither; I prefer to just measure the distance and be able to move in any direction I want. As a GM, this also gives me the freedom to build my world to suit my vision rather than trying to mold everything into squares or hexes.

 

[Tovec]

Interesting, but it has the same flaw as a grid, that the mid-points NW, NE, SW, SE, are farther away from your central point than N,S,E,W.

Any system based on the 4 cardinal coordinates is going to have the same flaw. So in that way my points system is at least no worse than a grid. Besides you count 1 for 1 for only the FIRST diagonal. It'll be a bit more of a reach but honestly it isn't much of an issue, never has been.

It is just something I've been toying around with but from all my peliminary tests it seems to work much better.

Oh, I forgot to add that I would recommend not laying out the point grid and going from there but instead using the points grid when you want to measure things. So it wouldn't be angled N-S-E-W it would be angled in whatever direction you need. Just a thought. I suppose I could pull out my old warhammer plastic disks and measuring tapes too but that seems a little extreme and my idea feels elegant (at least to me ).

Personally, this was one of the immersion-breaking issues that 4e eliminated for me. Measuring everything in squares was much easier to accept than measuring things in distances, due to the fact that hexes prevent lateral movement, and grids have different-distance corners.

How is it immersion breaking to call things feet instead of squares, or not naming the distance at all?

Situation 1:
Player: How far is that drop?
DM: It is 6 squares.

or

Situation 2:
Player: How far is that fall?
DM: Far enough it will probably hurt if you just drop.


Hell, even if you wanted to measure 28 feet instead of 30 squares break immersion.

So squares are easier if everything falls into nice neat squares but they are much harder to break away from if they don't.

How far is that ledge? 3.8 squares?

 

[Gryph]

Hexes are better in all cases (they just need a partial hex rule).

Offset squares are better than square grids.

Interestingly enough, I cannot think of a time in 4E where I opened up a module and it had a diagonal corridor anymore.

Yep, offset squares for indoors is best. Know anyone who makes a vinyl mat with them?

The book of dungeon delves has diagonal corridors in many of them since the dungeon tiles products support diagonals.

 

[Sunseeker]

How is it immersion breaking to call things feet instead of squares, or not naming the distance at all?

Situation 1:
Player: How far is that drop?
DM: It is 6 squares.

or

Situation 2:
Player: How far is that fall?
DM: Far enough it will probably hurt if you just drop.


Hell, even if you wanted to measure 28 feet instead of 30 squares break immersion.

So squares are easier if everything falls into nice neat squares but they are much harder to break away from if they don't.

How far is that ledge? 3.8 squares?

Because as I've mentioned, the distance between two sides and the distance between two opposite corners on a square is different. It makes the little bit of math I am good at(geometry and distances) hurt my head because I know moving 20 feet forward is actually going a shorter distance than 20 feet at an angle.

 

[howandwhy99]

I've had one of those snazzy double-sided battlemats for over two decades now. They are very useful, because you never need to worry about not having one type of grid or the other.

The square grid is what I use for almost everything. Both indoor and outdoor mapping for tactical movement uses squares. This includes skirmish or mass combats.

The hexagon grid is used for ship and massive vehicle movement. This means a sailing ship with 50 sailors on it or piloting the Earthshaker when tooling around the countryside.

I've been playing with the idea of using the grid for a simplified Battle in the Skies/Dawn Patrol combat module for when combat is strictly 3-Dimensional, like aerial or underwater combat. The trick is I may need both grid & hex then for mass battles involving both elements. Simply having both on the same mat would be better in my mind though, so we'll see.