Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 4043417" data-attributes="member: 2011">Hexes do not cause problems. Squares create a boatload of problems.Some people have mentioned that hexes are difficult to use in square or rectangular shaped rooms. This is totally inaccurate. When using hexes, just draw a rectangular (or any shape and size) room over them. Done. If 50% or more of a given hex is within the room, a PC can use that hex. If about 25% to 50% of a hex is within the room, a PC can squeeze in that hex. For less than 25%, the hex is unusable for combat (DM decision). Note: a given DM does not need to allow squeezing for smaller hexes.All of the drawing problems that hexes have in a rectangular room, squares have in an irregular shaped room. And, all rooms must be in 5 foot increments for squares to not have the same issues that people discuss for hexes. A 17 by 23 foot room is just as off kilter for squares as hexes. Note: 3E DMs have been brainwashed by WotC to create rectangular shaped rooms with dimensions divisible by 5 feet, but any shape and size room or corridor should be useable in the game. Just draw a shape and go. That's much faster than "staying between the lines". Talk about being conditioned by the game rules.With hexes in 3.5, a PC flanked by two enemies and withdrawing will provoke an AoO from one of them since he must move past one of them. With squares in 3.5, a PC flanked horizontally (or vertically) will provoke from both PCs if withdrawing vertically (or horizontally), but from only one if withdrawing diagonally. A PC flanked diagonally will not provoke if withdrawing diagonally, but will provoke from one opponent if withdrawing horizontally or vertically.What this means is that the AoO/withdrawing results are consistent with hexes, regardless of direction and the results are different based on which way the grid is set up relative to the flank for squares.And in 3.5, diagonal movement for squares is 1 2 1 2 whereas for hexes, it is 1 1 1 1 in any direction. That's clunkier for squares. And as illustrated by other posters, changing 4E diagonal movement to 1 1 1 1 will create brand new problems such as "easy bypass of the front line" for PCs blocking in a horizontal / vertical direction. Effectively, the 1 1 1 1 rules for diagonal squares tries to change squares into hexes or circles, but does a really lousy job of it.There are other advantages of hexes:Many hex maps have little dots in the middle of the hexes, so it makes it easy to determine whether 50% of the hex is available for use or not.Many hex maps have numbers on them which make identifying where an invisible PC is. For example, a player can write down the number of the hex where his PC is moving to and hand it to the DM, and the other players do not know where the invisible PC is located.Hexes allow 5 foot circular area effects to include 1 hex, 10 foot 3 hexes, 15 foot 7 hexes, etc. Cones are easier with hexes than squares, pick two hex lines and shape the cone down them.Area effects with squares are just plain painful. Our group had to create wire area effect templates for 3E so that we could more quickly adjudicate area effects. What a pain!Edit: I just thought of another problem with area effects and squares, at least in 3E. When creating a cone or line, the caster picks a grid intersection of his square and can then allow funky directions from it. For example, if the caster picked the NE corner, the cone or line can then travel down, right, up, or left. Up and right make sense (since it is the NE corner being picked), but down and left (or even through the caster's square) allow for lines and cone shapes as if the caster's arm was over 5 feet long and he were standing in the square to the NE of himself. This is easy enough to house rule, but the fact remains that it is allowable with the 3E/3.5 rules.All in all, hexes are vastly superior to squares. And I suspect that if WotC actually used hexes for 4E and illustrated the advantages of them over squares, that many pro-square 3.5 players would come over from the dark side and become pro-hex 4E players. In fact, I'm surprised that WotC in their simplification mode for 4E didn't figure this out. Hexes were used in 1E, so they are part of historic DND.The only advantage I know of for squares is that Tact-Tiles only came in squares (because the company could not figure out a way to create hex shaped Tact-Tiles). However, that company is out of business, so even acquiring Tact-Tiles is becoming a moot point. If a different company came up with hex shaped tiles, they would definitely control a niche market. For 4E, I might create myself my own version of hex shaped tiles with about 10 hexes from each edge to the opposing edge.If someone knows of a true advantage of squares over hexes, please post it because I know of none.In fact, my gaming group has requested that we use hexes when we start doing 4E. Most of them were pro-square before 3E/3.5 and even though we have rarely used hexes, they understand that they are easier, quickly, and more consistent to use. The players are tired of all of the game delays and problems associated with squares from 3E. Personally, I'd rather be playing than counting squares for movement and weird shaped area of effects. What a waste of time. And this waste of time got introduced in 3E. 2E did not have these square grid limitations and plethora of mismatched rules.</blockquote>

Verification