Hex Vs. Square

[Conaill]

Just in case there's people here that don't know about this... here's the *official* way for dealing with diagonals on a square grid:

1) when moving diagonally, the first square counts for 5', the second square for 10'. Alternate for larger distances.

2) if you have a reach weapon, you don't actually threaten opponents that are two squares away on the diagonal, however...

3) when an opponent approaches you along the diagonal, you still get an AoO with a reach weapon before he gets adjacent to you, however...

4) if you want to attack with a reach weapon along the diagonal, you would have to be in the diagonally adjacent square (because you don't threaten 2 squares away), and remember that the "real" distance is really 10' (so your opponent can't just attack back, even though he's in an adjacent square).


Now tell me, does a square grid still seem easier to deal with? "Little to no modification to the rules", hmm?


PS: Here's the quotes from the FAQ on diagonal movement and reach. 4) is just my common-sense extrapolation of these rules.

I am wondering about a 10-foot pole. On a square grid map, do you reach two squares diagonally from your location? Do you reach two squares in every direction? Also, how much of your speed does diagonal movement take up?
When counting diagonals, the first (and all odd diagonals) is 5 feet and the second (and all even diagonals) is 10 feet. You'd need a reach of 15 feet to attack 2 diagonals away (but only a 20-foot reach to attack 3 diagonals away). Likewise, if you move 3 diagonals, your total movement would be 20 feet.

Okay, so I can't reach 15 feet on the diagonal with my 10- foot reach weapon. Does that mean I don"t get attacks of opportunity against foes who approach me on the diagonal?
If you're a Medium-size character armed with a reach weapon, you do not threaten a foe 2 diagonals (15 feet away), but if a foe moves up to attack you on the diagonal, you still get an attack of opportunity against that foe before the foe gets adjacent to you. (At some point the approaching foe had to be 10 feet away and threatened by you.) Note, however, that if the foe moves adjacent to you with a 5-foot step, you do not get an attack of opportunity, even if the foe takes that step along a diagonal.

 

[Ranger REG]

It's easier to deal with when your opponent is two diagonal squares away and you wield a reach weapon. The same goes for the opponent wielding a reach weapon against you. So technically both you and your opponent cannot hit each other.

In any case, when it's your turn, take a 5-feet step to move your threatened area so your opponent is now inside your reach weapon's range and attack him. Of course, if he too wield a reach weapon he can attack you on his turn.

 

[Conaill]

Sure, there's just no good way to represent two opponents with reach weapons being 10' away from each other on a square grid. You're either 5' away (adjacent square) or 15' away (one square over).

 

[Conaill]

One tip for drawing rectangular rooms and corridors on a hex grid: always draw your straight lines in between the lines of the hex grid. That will avoid all confusion with partial hexes:

  _______             _______
 /       \     D     /       \
/---------\---------/---------\
           \_______/          |\__
     A     /       \     C    |/
\         /         \         |
 \_______/           \_______/|  E
 /       \           /       \|
/         \         /         |
           \_______/     B    |\__
           /       \          |/
\         /         \         |
 \_______/           \_______/|

(pretty, no? )

This way, nobody will be in doubt that A, B, and even C count as "full" hexes, whereas D and E do not. You'll never have to worry about what to do with those half hexes!

 

[dvvega]

Actually, if you can get some clear plastic with either a square grid or hex grid, you can use it as an overlay to your hex/square battlemat.

That's something I've done in the past.

 

[KarinsDad]

This way, nobody will be in doubt that A, B, and even C count as "full" hexes, whereas D and E do not. You'll never have to worry about what to do with those half hexes!

This is very interesting. I'll have to think about it some more.

They are what 3E was designed to use, and as such require little to no modification of the rules.

Actually, they look like they were tacked on after the fact due to the lack of rules for them and not designed in at all, but that is debatable.

However, squares require quite a few modifications to the rules, but Conaill has already mentioned some of them (reach, movement). I will not reiterate those, but will mention some he did not (and some of these have been mentioned here on the boards before):

X X Z
Y A Y
Z B C
X D X E

If character A is flanked by two characters Z, he can move to square E via C with no AoOs.

If character A is flanked by two characters Y, he can move to square D via B with an AoO from both Y characters. One orientation, he stays as far away as possible and he does not get attacked by either. The other orientation, he stays as far away as possible and gets attacked by both.

Just one instance that you need a special rule. Hexes have no problem at all here.


Another case is the Shield spell where the line is either drawn in front of the character (giving protection on only 3 squares out of 8 surrounding the character), or the entire line to one side is covered (giving a step function or staggered protection). One is more esthetic, one is more accurate (half of the squares).

Ditto for a diagonal protection of the Shield spell in squares, except that the protection is always staggered squares.

Hexes have a similar problem with the Shield spell, but not nearly as severe.

You can pick the esthetic: I’m not going to bother drawing it here, but for those familiar with hex numbering schemes, if you are standing in hex 2239, it would protect nw 2139, n 2238, and ne 2339, but not sw 2140, s 2240, or se 2340. It would also not protect 2439 (2 hexes east) or 2039 (two hexes west). But, at least it covers 3 out of 6 hexes immediately surrounding the character.

Or, you can pick the accurate where it protects 2439, 2639, etc., but still not 2039, 1839, etc. (or vice versa, depending on caster’s choice). Just like the square one side protection.

But, there are two advantages here. The esthetic hex system covers 3 out of 6 (i.e. half) of the spaces as opposed to the esthetic square system covering 3 out of 8 spaces. This can be very important in close in melee with many opponents. The second advantage is that the hex system is always the same. There is not staggered diagonal approach like with squares since if you rotate the Shield by 60 degrees, you get the same effect rotated 60 degrees.


Another problem with squares is the bizarre shapes that area effect spells create as per page 68 of the DMG. The Color Spray example there has the alternating square effect problem. For example, move 10 feet east and 5 south and you affect, move 10 feet east and 5 north and you do not affect.

They don't have some of the facing problems of hexes ("What do you mean I can't turn right by 90 degrees?"), and allow you to walk in a straight line in all 8 directions, rather than 6.

There is no facing in 3E. So, what’s the problem? Besides, there are more than 8 directions someone could walk. Squares are rather limiting, just like hexes in this regard.


No doubt about it. Hexes have some problems too. But, two simple rules solve most of these:

1) You can take two half hexes and use it as a full hex.
2) Any half hex you move into resolves as if you had moved into its full hex.

For example, your "What do you mean I can't turn right by 90 degrees?" problem. Solved. And as for the potential problems the second rules creates, well that just prevents character from using two half hexes when it is not advantageous. For example, if an opponent is in hex 0001 and another opponent is in hex 0004, you would not move through half hexes 0002 and 0003 and take an AoO from both, rather you would pick one hex or the other to move through. Ditto for if you were flanked by two opponents.

 

[Gromm]

Biggest problem is that the rules are written with squares in mind, so you have to Rule 0 at least once or twice a session.

Squares aren't perfect, but with the diagonal movement problem solved I don't see anything as being better.

 

[Pangias]

i prefer square

and the only reason is i don't want to waste time designing Dungeons with an hex map.

It's very easy to design a castle with square and what i will earn by using hex doesn't worth it.

When i DM often i don't want to lose time....

Maybe if i had the 2 transparent sheet i would use hex. But i don't.

 

[Gez]

I use squares, because:

• D&D 3 was designed for squares;
• I'm well used to drawing on squares;
• I have lots of squared paper sheets;
• I have a squared dry-clean board.

I don't use hexes because:

• I'm not high-level enough to cast hexes for real ;
• I don't have hexed sheets nor boards;
• I'm not used to it.

Oh, I know squares makes you move faster than normal when you move in diagonal. And then ? That don't change much to balance, since enemies also move faster in diagonal.

 

[Leopold]

buy a chessex hex map with dots in the middle and numbers. Why? Becuase those dots represent the middle of the hex therefore it's like connect the dots.

hex maps rule. we play on hex maps and I cannot think of any other way to play!