Hexes NOT Squares?

[prosfilaes]

Do you have proof/evidence of this?
I haven't seen any proof that there will be a 4th edition nor has WOTC stated anything as such. All evidence we have is anecdotal.

Over time, just about every roleplaying game in existance has regularly put out a new edition or died. Given that statistical phenomenom and the various reasons for it, and the unlikelyhood of D&D dying in the near future, I think there's rather good evidence that D&D 4th ed will come some day.

 

[Henrix]

How about we measure distances in 4E?

I'd like that. Makes terrain more fun.

 

[Hussar]

Hexes would make combat much easier but would be a true pain in the petoot to map on. Far too many lines going through a part of a hex to make it really work.

As far as going to ten foot squares, are you smoking something? Good grief, that's huge. Can you imagine how tiny a halfling mini would be if 1 inch equalled 10 feet?

 

[Vrecknidj]

I don't think it'll happen. As all the minis games use square grids, and as the rumors indicate that 4e will be more minis-centered, I don't see them losing the advantage of their already-existing, robust minis line.

Dave

 

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

As far as going to ten foot squares, are you smoking something? Good grief, that's huge. Can you imagine how tiny a halfling mini would be if 1 inch equalled 10 feet?

Probably about the same size they are now...

Come on, I've been using minis that have pretty much been the same size (ok, so maybe they have gotten a tiny bit larger with the "heroic scale"/28mm) for over 20 years. I used 1 inch=10" up until 3e. It worked then, it works now if you want it to.

 

[iwatt]

Any chance of going metric while we're at it?

2 metre hexes anyone?

Anybody else note the irony of an Englishman moving away from Imperial Units

Although I've always been metric myself, all my playing has been in Imperial units. Let me tell you that it becomes a pain in the rear to have to convert every room description to metric. Do the French or Spanish translation of D&D work in metric?

 

[SpiralBound]

I use both hexes and squares without problem. I find that squares are convenient for indoor encounters, unless it's a tunnel system or ancient ruins, then I prefer to use hexes. I usually use hexes for outdoor encounters unless it is an urban encounter as it's convenient to draw the roads along the square grid. It could be a grid of triangles or diamonds for all I care. So long as I know how big each space is meant to represent and so long as I don't forget how to count then I think I'll be okay!

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

Look at a map of a collection of houses in a rural area. Are all the houses at precise gridded distances and alignments from each other? One building may be tilted 20 degrees relative to it's neighbour, another my be 12 or 13 feet away from it's neighbour, how would you map that and avoid partial grid spaces? How about castles with round towers? Both squares and hexes will have partial spaces! The horror!!!

 

[Herzog]

I have been using hexbased encountermaps throughout 3.0 and 3.5
I have taken a look at the 'default' maps with squares, decided they didn't make as much sense as hex-grids, and stuck to hexes.

I have never had any problems whatsoever.

If anyone can come up with a problem (rule wise, not 'don't feel comfertable with hexes') I would like to hear it, as I might have to look into it before my next session.

Herzog

 

[buzz]

His reasoning, he tells me, is that it helps make 3.x obsolete and allows them to update the old material with this as one of the major changes.

IMO, your friend is full of it.

He cites the round (rather than square), slightly smaller than 1" bases on D&D minis as a sign that they've been thinking about this for a while.

DDM use round bases because (and this is my conjecture):

1. D&D and DDM don't use facing. A round base has one side, not four sides that imply front, back, left, right.

2. Round bases look aesthetically pleasing on any type of map. Square bases make me want to line them up with square gridlines, and square bases on hexes just look funny.

What are the drawbacks to such a change?

Compatibility with existing maps is the only issue I can see.

What are the benefits of such a change?

Adjudicating movement and area is 87 times easier with hexes.

Would this be a deal breaker for switching to the new edition whenever it comes out?

Not for me. I don't think it will happen, regardless.

 

[buzz]

I'd rather prefer them move towards divorcing minis and other wargame elements from DnD rather than pushing for further, or assumed integration like 3.5 did.

Divorcing minis from D&D would require a massive overhaul of the system if they cared at all about creating a D&D that wasn't wholly reliant on Mother-May-I shenaigans. They'd have create a non-tactical combat system from scratch, or else implement a dice-for-positioning system a la Burning Wheel.

Switching to hexes only invovles replacing some art. Players like you who ignore minis would be no worse off than they have been since 1974.