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

[rkanodia]

Will fireballs be firecubes now?

Eh, to a first order approximation, a sphere is a cube anyway.

 

[Imban]

Using any system to model distances on a square (or hex-based) grid, the more "realism" you try to build in

Actually, this isn't true of hex-based grids as long as we're constrained to 2D movement. With hexes, any hex Y hexes away is equidistant and you don't have to worry about diagonals. Granted, as soon as flight enters the picture, this stops working quite so well.

 

[delericho]

The problem with the 2=straight, 3=diagonal system is that you can't measure spell radius and reach using the same system as movement without things getting really weird. If you try to measure 10 foot reach the same way you do movement, you end up with this:

Unless you declare a 10 ft. reach to be 5 points, not 4. In which case the result you get is the closest approximation to the circle that is possible on a square grid (attached).

 

[delericho]

Oops, duplicate post.

 

[Nine Hands]

I'm glad to see there are other fans of the hexmap out there.

Does anyone have experience playing with a hex grid and three-dimensional combat? I.e. flying or underwater? It seems like that's one place where a three-vertex coordinate system might be more useful than hexes' sexy tesselation.

I've played and run Mekton which uses hexes exclusively and we usually mix it up in air-to-air combat with fighters at all different altitudes. We just mark the altitude with a die and use the greater of the two distances (height or hex distance), no need to heavy math in a fast paced battle.

 

[HeinorNY]

I'd imagine that sticking closer to the defendee or attacking the antagonist would be a better solution.

Actually the better solution would be to arrange the miniatures on the grid this way:

The distances between characters would remain the same, but the Wizard would be much safer.

The best defensive tactic is not the formation of the party, their powers, actions, etc, It's the alignment of the grid! Players can use the inconsistence of the rule to create these bizarre situations. It's GOING to happen. A new branch of combat tactics will surge in 4E.

Players will say: "Could we just put the grid this way instead of that way, so I can reach the opponent in 1 round instead of 2?"

It just can't get into my mind, it's just wrong, it's a thing the should not be. They are at the same distance but they are not. H.P.Lovecraft came with this new rule, it gotta be!

 

[Aexalon]

Unless you declare a 10 ft. reach to be 5 points, not 4. In which case the result you get is the closest approximation to the circle that is possible on a square grid (attached).

Of course, that in itself is a quirk that needs introduced to make the system work.

Not necessarely. The area of effect you're describing looks a bit more like a 12.5' radius circle anyway. Which would indeed be 5pts in a 5' = 2pts metric.

Hex circles "suffer" from the same problem. An actual 10' radius circle looks horrible (see Unearthed Arcana's version of the gargantuan size critter); A 12.5' radius circle looks pretty nice (same link, the area labelled as the 10' radius circle).

 

[Christian]

I'm generally a fan of hex-grids, but it's been a long time since I've gamed with someone who didn't hate hex-grid playmaps with a fiery passion. My sample isn't scientific, I know, but I kind of assume that everyone hates hex-maps now.

My group uses a hex grid in 3.5, and I have no doubt we'll continue to use it if and when we convert to D&D v4.

 

[KarinsDad]

Actually, this isn't true of hex-based grids as long as we're constrained to 2D movement. With hexes, any hex Y hexes away is equidistant and you don't have to worry about diagonals. Granted, as soon as flight enters the picture, this stops working quite so well.

I hadn't noticed a problem with Champions Hex Flight.

With regard to distance itself, a simple rule of thumb is: max distance = longer length + 1/3 shorter length for a fair approximation. So, if a target is 100 feet away horizontally and 30 feet up vertically, an approximation is that he is 110 feet away (it's actually 104.4). This is typically good enough, even for Close range calculations.

This "rule of thumb" also works well with hexes if using numbers of hexes instead of feet (for that example, 20 hexes horizontal and 20 hexes vertical is considered 27 hexes away, but is actually closer to 28).

The number comes up a little bit high if the longer distance is much greater than the shorter, a little bit low if the two distances are close to the same. But, it's a good general rule of thumb without doing square and square root calculations in a DM's head.


This rule gets a bit squishy with using number of squares for a square system in any direction except real close to a grid line because the DM cannot just count out the distance in squares unless the target is close to a grid line. Course, for a square system, a DM could change the equation to: longest + 1/3 (x + y) where x and y are the other two dimension distances, but that's more of a pain calculation.

But it works fine for hexes.

 

[danzig138]

As someone who's played both ways--the "1, 2, 1, 2" method, and the "a square is a square is a square" method--I cannot disagree with you more strongly. Even in a group of very intelligent people, the boost in speed and ease of play far outweighs any initial cognitive dissonance.

Word. My map guy, who is not stupid by any means, had a much easier time of things once I said "Screw it. Don't worry about the odd diagonal thing, just count the damn squares". Sped things up a bit for everyone.