D&D 4E Non-Euclidean Geometry in 4E?

[Aexalon]

How to map square rooms with hexes

A little course in mapping square rooms with hexes:

1. Do NOT draw lines that bisect hexes, or that are coincide with hex edges. Draw only lines that bisect two hex edges (and only so that the two edges of the hex being intersected are not on opposite sides of the hex)

That's it. Easy, no?

I suppose it could use a bit of clarification. So, here's a map I threw together following this simple rule.

There are two different sets of lines here:

1. Lines that intersect the hex border in two adjacent edges (red in the diagram).
2. Lines that intersect the hex border in two edges that are separated by one other edge (blue in the diagram). Noteworthy: the interline resolution of the blue lines is higher than that of the red lines. This can be seen in the bottom-left square room, which is actually 2.5 "squares" high, and 3 "squares" wide. Also note that this does not cause half-hex determination problems (if one observes a minimum size of at least 1 "square").

The system supports 12 direction, so angles of 30, 60, 90, 120 and 150 degrees can be fairly accurately represented, without causing half-"square" troubles.

I hope we can hereby end the "but you can't map rectangular buildings with hexes" falacy. You can. Now, think out of the box!

 

[Voss]

Just use hexes, much easier to deal with the issue.

Of course, you then have to worry about drawing interior building, half hexes, etc. So, it is a trade off.

I was eyeing a hex battle map just a half hour ago. I should have bought it.

I mock you all and your silly squares.

 

[HeinorNY]

This one isn't actually a problem - movement on diagonals should be "longer" than movement on horizontals. The other ones are still bugs, though.

Yes, but what i tried to show was how the new rule can disrupt gameplay. Remember, those both character are 30 ft. from the X monster. One can be attacked, the other can't. Both could use the Point Blank Shot against the monster for example.
In normal 1-2-1-2 rules, if the character could Point Blank the monster, the monster could attack both, even with a pillar in the way.

 

[rjdafoe]

Fine. It's not feet. But it still represents some measure of distance.

Now, fortunately, there are geometries in which the hypoteneuse of a right-angled triangle is the same length as each side (as is the case here). You simply have to draw your battlemap on the surface of a sphere, or a cone, or some such thing. And then there are weird bending effects to take into effect.

Which of course is much simpler than the "diagonals are 1.5 squares each" rule.

I guess the only thing I have left to say about this is that I am glad I am not a game designer. It must be a thankless job to have everything that you write disected and torn apart by the players when you whole job is to create something that is fun to play and not overbearing in the rules.

I will tell you one thing, me, or no one I know would EVER let a player move the map to view it diagnally. There is something as breaking a spirit of a rule, and to my group, doing that would be akin to saying you rolled a 6 in a d6 when you actually rolled a 1.

I don't have a horse in this race as we currently do the 1,2,1,2 rule anyway and find it not hard to deal with. But to be honest, we only use a map for tactical play in regular sized room type areas. (say 60ish feet max on a side).

It would be would easy. Moving is defined in number of squares.

My group games the way we used to game in 1st edition. The players ask the DM if they can do something and the DM makes the decision.

P1: "How far away are those Orcs"
DM: "300 feet. That would be range increment X for you to shoot your bow"

P1: "How deep in the pit?"
DM: "25 feet"

None of use would use the 1:1 square movement rule to get an edge. We are there to have fun, not to exploit one another.

So for us, wether this rule is there or not is not a huge issue. There are a number of issues that I have with 4th edition, but I am not going to dwell on the stuff that really doesn't matter in the long run. We are simulating after all.

 

[Mouseferatu]

My hangup with hexes has always been the fact that you can't just decide to move right or left. Up and down the board, sure, but right and left must be on at least a slight diagonal.

I'm curious--and I in no way mean this to be snarky, it's an honest question--those of you who prefer hexes, how do you reconcile this to representing anything approaching "realistic" movement?

 

[KarinsDad]

This one isn't actually a problem - movement on diagonals should be "longer" than movement on horizontals. The other ones are still bugs, though.

Except that without the pillars in that diagram, movement on the diagonals is not longer.

 

[Wolfspider]

My hangup with hexes has always been the fact that you can't just decide to move right or left. Up and down the board, sure, but right and left must be on at least a slight diagonal.

I'm curious--and I in no way mean this to be snarky, it's an honest question--those of you who prefer hexes, how do you reconcile this to representing anything approaching "realistic" movement?

I don't prefer hexes particularly, but I do look at hexes as helping depict movement in a much more realistic manner than squares. Therefore, your "hangup" seems very, very odd to me. Squares seem quite artificial, hexes not nearly as much.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I don't prefer hexes particularly, but I do look at hexes as helping depict movement in a much more realistic manner than squares. Therefore, your "hangup" seems very, very odd to me. Squares seem quite artificial, hexes not nearly as much.

With squares, two characters can stand next to each other, and perfectly aligned, whether they're facing north or east. With hexes, they can stand next to each other if they're facing east (one north of the other), but not if they're facing north (because the one east of the other also has to be half a hex north or south).

I know it's all abstract. And I'll cop to the fact that it might be odd for an abstraction to bug me here when it doesn't with diagonal squares. But I just can't wrap my mind around a situation where you can't just stand next to someone, or can't move 5 feet east without also going a bit north or south.

 

[Aexalon]

My hangup with hexes has always been the fact that you can't just decide to move right or left. Up and down the board, sure, but right and left must be on at least a slight diagonal.

I'm curious--and I in no way mean this to be snarky, it's an honest question--those of you who prefer hexes, how do you reconcile this to representing anything approaching "realistic" movement?

Think of your position on the board as a probability wave. You're everywhere in the cell, you're just much more likely to be near the middle than you are to be on the edge. Now, if (on a hex map that lines up one of its axes with the vertical, as in my example in post 121) you want to move west, either

• consider yourself to be standing a bit north of your cell's center, move north-west, and consider yourself standing a bit south of your new cell's center, or
• consider yourself to be standing a bit south of your cell's center, move, south-west, and consider yourself standing a bit north of your new cell's center.

 

[Wolfspider]

I know it's all abstract. And I'll cop to the fact that it might be odd for an abstraction to bug me here when it doesn't with diagonal squares. But I just can't wrap my mind around a situation where you can't just stand next to someone, or can't move 5 feet east without also going a bit north or south.

Someone earlier made the claim that diagonal movement being equal to horizontal movement wasn't strange because each square contains a lot of room to move. A character could be standing in one corner of the square and then move diagonally.

It's the same thing with a hex. It represents a large space. Two people could be side to side holding hands even if they were in different hexes in the way you've described, just as they could be in two squares. Just imagine one character in the upper part of the hex, and the other in the lower part of the hex. They meet in the middle!

All this being said, I'm sure I will always prefer squares, if only because of my early love-affair with graph paper. The dungeons I'd draw!