Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 4046044" data-attributes="member: 2011">Wow. Where to start? So many claims ...How so? You’ll have to illustrate this with an example. The directional constraints are a lot less than squares and the distance constraints are small. For example, moving 90 degrees to the left as opposed to straight up a line results only in about an 8% delta off of real distance (a little is lost on each hex as the movement zigzags). That's much better than the 29% delta of 1 1 1 1 diagonal movement on squares.Who even cares about 8% for a 1 1 1 1 hex system (worse case scenario) when the harder to play 1 2 1 2 square diagonal system was off by 6%.And, DND is not played with orthogonal movement only.This one is true. I'll concede this as an issue with hexes.I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Please give an example.But they were hard to use. A lot harder to use than large hexes as circles and large triangles as cones. And cones are only 90 degrees in 3.5, not 45 degrees. Granted, a cone could be 45+ degrees on a square grid system, but 3.5 doesn't do that. Course, cones can be 30+ degrees on a hex system up a spline and a row.And, speaking of their cones. 15 foot cones in the DMG:XXXXXXOXOorOOXOXXXXXThe first one looks like a tree and the second a triangle. It isn’t until really large size that the 3.5 cones becomes vaguely cone-like. Even the 30 foot cones look mostly like a triangle (or more like a Stealth bomber, but not a cone).And, circle = square is a lot less circular in shape than circle = hex.I wouldn't call that a pain. Draw a line or hold a string up. Cover exists if a hex has 50% or more of it on the side granting cover. That’s just as easy of a rule as "if a line drawn through any" of 3.5 for squares.I fail to see this as hindering game play in any way.I think you are stretching here. It's a feature of hexes, but it is not a failing. It doesn't really affect game play.</blockquote>

Verification