Hexes NOT Squares?

[solkan_uk]

I don't see as squares are much easier sinve you still have to fractionalise them - I mean how many corriddors are 5' wide? Around here they tend to be closer to 4' and if you look at castles and the like they tend to be really narrow.

 

[genshou]

Well... once you realize that they don't touch even at a corner, I should think it would be clear why you can't attack from one to the other.

I feel the same way about diagonally adjacent squares, so from my perspective hexes are better, because they let six people flank you instead of four.

 

[Ranger REG]

I don't see as squares are much easier sinve you still have to fractionalise them - I mean how many corriddors are 5' wide? Around here they tend to be closer to 4' and if you look at castles and the like they tend to be really narrow.

But squares are still easier than using hexes for dungeon mapping. Don't see them both on the same level in terms of your reasoning.

 

[Ranger REG]

I suppose those that look for more realism in their games would opt for hexes since it is more natural for six opponents to surround someone equidistantly than for eight opponents to have four close and four much further out on the corners.

Of course, the additional difficulty some people find in drawing a straight line or accounting for half hexes in rooms might trump everything else.

If I want realism, I'd go LARPing.

 

[BryonD]

I prefer squares. But don't care a lot.
What I'd liek to see is facing. I think that would solve a lot of minor problems.

 

[woodelf]

Not really. I don't think you could pull it off. I see the benefits, areas of effect, diagonal movement . . . but there would have to be so many rules for half hexes and quarter hexes, it would be madness.

Why? There are no rules for half squares and quarter squares right now. What do you do if a room has dimensions that aren't divisible by 5'? What about a natural cavern that has irregular walls? Or a column 3' in diameter sitting at the corners of squares? If the game can somehow make do without rules for partial squares right now, it can certainly make do without rules for partial hexes in the future.

 

[woodelf]

I find the whole square vs. hex debate to be slightly odd... It really seems like a non-issue of lilliputian proportions to me.

So, which side up do we eat our eggs, er, i mean, grids?

Use whatever, it's only meant to be a convenient set of guidelines for determining distance. I've even used lengths of string with knots spaced one inch apart and found that it works really well. The real world isn't gridded. Real buildings (especially historical ones) don't have dimensions that are precise multiples of 5 ft or always have 90 degree corners. The natural world certainly doesn't pay attention to any semblance of a standardized spacing system!

Yeah, i'm firmly in the "use whatever" camp--as in, i wish the rules would tell you to use whatever, and not even speak in terms of representational grids. Give us distances and areas and reaches and spaces and so on in terms of actual measurements, and let the players decide how they want to convert that to maps (1"=5' squares, 1"=1m hexes, measuring tape, eyeballing it, whatever).

 

[woodelf]

Take another look at a hex grid -- there are no corner-adjacent hexes.

Yeah, my dumb. I was posting in a hurry. Nonetheless, i find the notion that the grid as what determines this, ro that altering it magically alters this in any way, silly. Which was my real point: it's arbitrary to begin with.

4, 6, 8--they're all approximations anyway. Personally, i'd say it would make more sense to base it on, oh, i dunno, what seems the most realistic/reasonable. Like, say, 4 people with slashing/bludgeoning weapons, but 8 with piercing weapons and as many as you want with reaching piercing weapons. Kung Fu movies not withstanding, the notion that 8 people can get close enough to attack a single person with scimitars or war axes, without any risk of hitting each other, and without extensive special training, seems kinda silly. Especially in a game where two trained and experience warriors can't stand literally back-to-back within the space of 5' and use, say, sabres to defend against those attackers. I know it's an abstraction, but to both round up and round down on the space required (not only does a warrior take up the entire 5' allocated to them, they never take up any more than that) just bugs me.

 

[woodelf]

But squares are still easier than using hexes for dungeon mapping.

If your dungeons use all right angles. Me, i've always been a fan of lots of curves and slopes and funky angles. At which point, hexes *might* be a better fit, but likely both of them are equally-poor fits.

 

[ChristianW]

While hexes make great sense from a wargame point of view, I think D&D will stick with squares. I think this will be the case because the target audience (younger players) may find squares more intuitive.