Okay, where do you stand on diagonal movement?

[Nom]

The issue with 1-2-2-, 2-2-2-, diagonals +1 (which is different to 2-2-2 for difficult terrain), and 2-1-1- is that they draw attention to the distinction between an orthogonal and a diagonal. 1-2-1-2- does this too, but it's doing so because it's trying to closely approximate euclidean distance within the quantisation of the grid. The others are not trying to optimise this approximation, yet still force the player to classify between different modes of "adjacent".

1-1-1- is trivial to explain: you can move to any adjacent square. Yes, this does create some oddities if you use euclidean distance to estimate distances. Instead, estimate using the gridlines.

I'd been over-thinking the distance metric stuff until I was playing on a D&D minis map with my 3 year old daughter. We were racing counters around the map. Since she was only 3, I naturally used a 1-1-1- counting metric. Half way through I suddenly realised: "this is easy, natural, and doesn't feel awkward at all".

 

[sinecure]

Does anyone make a 4'x6' battlemap with hexes on one side and alternating squares (hex-like positioning) on the other?

 

[pawsplay]

Less unanimous than what I would have thought, but perhaps people will change their minds with experience.

 

[Blackrat]

Other: Piece of string with a knot every inch.

 

[jeffh]

Other: Piece of string with a knot every inch.

That's option 5, not option 6. It's the same thing as going gridless and using a tape measure.

 

[Kobu]

I've done eyeballing, ruler measured, 1-1-1-1, 1-2-1-2, and hex. Eyeballing was OK for earlier editions, but not for the more tactical 3rd. Ruler measured is too slow. 1-1-1-1 causes stupid situations with both PCs and monsters sidestepping hazards for free and makes battle maps much more disjointed from what they are supposed to represent. I did 1-2-1-2 for a long time, then went to hex for the easier counting.

I was going to try going back to squares for the published adventures, but now I'm debating whether to use hex or 1-2-1-2. Hex should convert easily from 1-1-1-1, but I also want to use the WotC dungeon tiles. I don't think I could stomach another game with 1-1-1-1 squares, so that's right out. I think what I am going to do is get a few hundred of those little dot stickers and put them on the tile boards where the hex/square-offset centers would be.

 

[Blackrat]

That's option 5, not option 6. It's the same thing as going gridless and using a tape measure.

Ah. But I do use the grid. If the string can be placed from middle of one square to the middle of other you can move there.

 

[Malacoda]

I voted Other. Our group uses a custom printed & laminated matt of offset squares. Nearly the best of both worlds between squares and hexes.

 

[RandomCitizenX]

After running Return of the Burning Plague using the DDXP info last night I can say that unless we make the jump to hex *which is something I may do if I can find a good deal on a hex battle mat* we are using the 1-1-1-1 method. For newer players (which we was the larger part of my six man group) it was one less thing to slow them down.

 

[Evilhalfling]

I stand in the corner near the bishop.