Simple but significant movement clarification

[DracoSuave]

Yeah, I hate that, too. Unfortunately, it is a fundamental problem with the geometry of the square grid used in dnd. With a hex grid, this problem and many others would be non-issues.

Quaestor the Wanderer

Unless you are some sort of bee, the chances that your living space can be modeled with a hexgrid are next to nothing. Pretty much anything that mankind builds that is larger than a hand-held tool is designed around right angles.

And the reason isn't because of 'convention' but because of the physics of force distribution (hexagons aren't as sturdy on their sides as squares without cross beams, and distribute force to the side, causing unnecessary sheer)
and because of the geometry of space optimization. (You can't tesselate regular hexagons in such a way that you have straight sides at the edge, only triangles and squares allow you to do that.)

Grids for D&D are square because the rooms and buildings they use it to model are square. It might not be mathematicly elegant, but neither is having a separate ruleset for what happens when a large creature's hindquarters is sharing a hexagon with a perfectly straight wall.

 

[DracoSuave]

Yeah, but it is the STRANGE fact that you CANNOT stand in a row and be impassible unless that line is exactly north-south or east-west. The mentioned house rule seems to be intended to address that anomaly.

You've clearly not played Red Rover.

 

[boar]

Unless you are some sort of bee...

Using hex grids for combat is not nearly so ridiculous as you make it seem. Tons of wargames have done it -- in fact, hexes are an iconic element of wargaming. In the board game community, "hex and counter" is almost synonymous with "wargame."

The problem with a square grid is that there's no good way to handle the diagonals. Either you don't allow diagonal movement, in which case maneuvering is severely limited, or you do allow it, in which case a character can move a farther distance with the same amount of movement simply by walking in a diagonal line.

The reason why nearly all serious board games use hexes is that hexes eliminate the movement disparity and other quirky issues that pop up when your grid has diagonals. I think that 4e was correct to use squares for the simplicity, but that doesn't mean hexes are patently ridiculous.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You've clearly not played Red Rover.

I really don't understand your reference...

The anomaly is if 2 characters stand in a straight row, nothing can go between them. If they stand in a diagonal row, things CAN go between them. It IS an anomaly. The alternate construct is that it takes 3 characters to block a diagonal row. Neither solution is perfect. Either it requires 3 characters to cover a distance of 2.4 squares diagonally, or if you were to house rule it, then only 2 characters can cover that space. Personally I don't see the point of making a house rule either, I wasn't advocating it, just pointing out that there is some logic for it.

Hex grids would of course solve all the tessellation anomalies entirely. But of course it would make maps ugly and complicated and there would necessarily have to be half-hexes in any rectangular space. It would work just as well as anything else though in other spaces, better really. In fact even squares don't solve the half-square problem, just draw a diagonal line on your map and you have to house rule the map. Still I think we all generally prefer squares for tactical maps overall. Such is life...

 

[Oompa]

First of all.. You are basing that someone can't move throw diagonal but it can through horizontal on a house rule..

Just adjust the houserule?

 

[Christian]

Unless you are some sort of bee, the chances that your living space can be modeled with a hexgrid are next to nothing. Pretty much anything that mankind builds that is larger than a hand-held tool is designed around right angles. ... Grids for D&D are square because the rooms and buildings they use it to model are square. It might not be mathematicly elegant, but neither is having a separate ruleset for what happens when a large creature's hindquarters is sharing a hexagon with a perfectly straight wall.

Honestly, it's not that hard. You can virtually always draw your walls in such a way that the fractional hexes necessitated by your 90-degree wall meetings are all either much less or much more than half a hex. That leaves very few corner cases (heh!) to have to deal with.

 

[MacavityCat]

Adjacent characters are not quiet impassible, you get 2 OA when trying to pass right through them though..

And don't forget that in real life two squares would be 3 meter or 10 feet.. That is a lot of space for two persons to stand side by side..

Can you tell me where this is quoted, this would seem to contradict page 290 single OA per opponent turn?

By the way the rules on page 273 state players are adjacent horizontally, vertically and diagonally. Thus can argue that what ever rule applies it applies in all direction.

Thanks for all the useful comment.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Can you tell me where this is quoted, this would seem to contradict page 290 single OA per opponent turn?

I took this to mean each opponent gets one OA, thus a total of two.

 

[Mort_Q]

Can you tell me where this is quoted, this would seem to contradict page 290 single OA per opponent turn?

I believe Oompa means that you provoke 2 OA. One OA from each of the opponents you're passing.

 

[DracoSuave]

Honestly, it's not that hard. You can virtually always draw your walls in such a way that the fractional hexes necessitated by your 90-degree wall meetings are all either much less or much more than half a hex. That leaves very few corner cases (heh!) to have to deal with.

Except for the obvious problem of having to zig-zag in order to follow a 'straight' wall.

Sure you solve the diagonal scale problem, but then you introduce an even more inelegant diagonal-based problem.

Hexagonal grids work well for modeling natural curves and lines, coast lines, that sort of thing, but the second you start modelling rooms it introduces problems best left alone.


Also, for he who asked, Red Rover is a game where two teams stand across from each other, and link hands tightly. One team takes a turn to call out to the other team the name of one of their players. 'Red Rover, Red Rover, we call Draco over!' Then Draco has to run across and try to break through a pair of the linked hands. If he succeeds, he gets to grab one of their players and they switch sides. If he fails, he has to join the opposing side.

And in D&D combat, hands aren't linked together in a wall of grab.