Hexes NOT Squares?

[orsal]

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.

...which, I would argue, is hexes. If you have six people surrounding one other person, the six are as close to each other as the one in the middle. (Try it with seven identical coins -- if you place six of them around the seventh, they fit together nicely.) If all characters have the same reach, they'll likely fall into an arrangment spaced something like the centers of hexagons on a hexagonal grid.

Square grids make sense in confined rectangular spaces; otherwise, I'd go with hexagons.

 

[Ranger REG]

While hexes make great sense from a wargame point of view,...

To be honest with you, I'd rather have all my wargames (including BattleTech and Star Fleet Battles) to use square grids.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

1 square = 3-1/3 feet works well too. It's 3 squares/hexes across for a 10' passageway, and you can put 2 small dudes (like halflings or gnomes) per square..

You know, I'd probably be totally behind the idea of going gridless and measuring.

The 1E DMG even recommends 3-1/3 feet per square, actually, allow for the (then) common situation of three PCs abreast in a 10' wide passage.

I think measuring is a good option. I kinda liked the offset squares, too; I'd never really thought about using something like that.

 

[Driddle]

One of these days some of you will wake up and realize that your difficulty with a hex-based mapping system is mired entirely in your personal experience with squares. And once you let go of the square-based assumptions -- i.e. "straight" lines, adjacent corner concerns, etc. -- there's nothing you can't do with hexagons that you're not doing already. It's merely a matter of embracing a different subset of rules.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

How about letting go of both kinds of grids, except for easy measure of distance?

Implement rules that sort weapons by how far they reach, express that reach as a paper circle of the appropriate radius affixed to the base of the mini, and provide soft-wire distance measures for quick calculating of movements (in lengths of "standard movement", "jogging movement" and "running movement"). Add facing rules that are quick to grasp and to use, and you're set. Like that, you could immediately see when an AoO is in order (the circles overlap), how many given opponents fit around the PC (how many circles can be arranged around the PC without overlapping), etc.

 

[Doctor Bomb]

Hex-blade

Implement rules that sort weapons by how far they reach, express that reach as a paper circle of the appropriate radius affixed to the base of the mini, ...Add facing rules that are quick to grasp and to use, ...you could immediately see when an AoO is in order (the circles overlap), how many given opponents fit around the PC (how many circles can be arranged around the PC without overlapping), etc.

WHOA.

That's a great idea. IF you know what the natural reach circle of a creature is to start with. If we go by bases, the Halfling and the Half-Orc have the same sized base. That just doesn't work out for the same sized paper circle.

IF we got rid of the whole "this is my square, you can't stand here!" issue, then the minis that DON'T take up a full square/hex could get more bodies in than would be indicated by the standard, ESPECIALLY when wielding daggers instead of two-bladed swords or other nonsense weapons.

I LIKE hexes, but I would rather see (if the game continues to be more mini-centric) the triangular grid, with each side being roughly 1 meter or 3 1/3 feet. That would allow:

1) 10' wide corridors to hold 3 halflings abreast WITH WEAPONS (or two axe-wielding dwarves... or 1 ogre (spear only))

2) Easier to draw maps showing more natural terrain vice square caverns and straight tunnel walls.

3) More realistic area of effect and cone spells on a battle map (can I get a cone that DOESN'T look like an aborted staircase?) and give the length equals width typical of dragon breath wepons and the like)

4) More maneuverability options for running / zigzaging through battle.

5) Walking and dungeon searching would allow quicker access to the corners of rooms where we all put the trapped treasure to allow the wandering monster time to get to the room before they go out and have a hallway battle (those suck for everyone, but especially owlbears...)

The key is to use the sides as UNITS of movement, and start and stop all movement on a POINT, vice in a 5' MySpace zone. With the mini bases re-sized to match the creatures natural attack reach (in increments around a half-UNIT) we would get a much better representation of reality, and we could still skirt the issues of facing (although I like facing rules to, because it is SILLY to have a 10' square horse....or 30' square mega-giant centipede!!)

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Another vote for ditching grids (for combat, not maps in adventures) and going with measuring. Whip up some nice templates for spells and instead of the rediculously convoluted fireball template I had to fashion out of wire to use with a square grid I could go back to using a circle, which is what its supposed to be.

DS

 

[genshou]

One of these days some of you will wake up and realize that your difficulty with a hex-based mapping system is mired entirely in your personal experience with squares. And once you let go of the square-based assumptions -- i.e. "straight" lines, adjacent corner concerns, etc. -- there's nothing you can't do with hexagons that you're not doing already. It's merely a matter of embracing a different subset of rules.

QFT. The only reason dungeons have so many straight lines and right angles is because people have grown up using square grids. I design my dungeons with bizarre enough shapes that the square grid doesn't really offer me any advantages most of the time.

I think getting rid of the grid is a good idea... for some people. Not for me or my group, though. We're handicapped in that regard

 

[Ranger REG]

How about letting go of both kinds of grids, except for easy measure of distance?

You mean circular grid, aka no-grid? I'm down with that.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

WHOA.

That's a great idea. IF you know what the natural reach circle of a creature is to start with. If we go by bases, the Halfling and the Half-Orc have the same sized base. That just doesn't work out for the same sized paper circle.

Nah, why should we go by the size of the mini base? Go by two things...size of the creature itself, and if the weapon it uses has reach, or not.

If you want to simply keep with the D&D measurements, you create a paper circle with a 5' radius (mini-size, of course) for non-reach weapons and unnarmed attacks, and a paper circle with 15' radius for reach weapons (all for medium creatures). Make them larger for larger creatures, smaller for smaller creatures, and that's it. A bit too simplified, maybe, but workable.