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.Code:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thoughts?
Interesting concept.
I think the reason we don't use something like this is because of visual issues. With a confined square or hex, everyone at the table has an angle where they can see if the miniature has been moved into "grid x". With points, it's difficult to see the point under the miniature, so it's a bit more difficult to tell if the miniature was moved correctly or not since the miniature obscures the location. People have to extrapolate location based on the other points on the board. It's also a bit harder to visualize whether a miniature is flanking or diagonal, etc. because there is no "box" to put the miniature into. If the miniature is offset in a grid, the lines are basically outside the miniature and so it's easier to tell that the miniature is poorly placed. Not that this would be a problem often, but I could see it as an issue.
It's kind of like the lines on the road. When the lines are really visible, cars (usually) tend to stay in their lanes. When lines are missing or harder to see, people tend to veer over them without knowing it. I could see the same thing happening with a point grid system, especially when there are 5 miniatures all next to each other.
Someone mentioned offset points. This is what they would look like:
Code:
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .