Hunter In Darkness
First Post
we dont use maps or minis or i put none down if i did however 1,2,1,2 seems fair
What geometry do you prefer?
- Thread starter Deset Gled
- Start date
Gloombunny
First Post
Hooray for hexes!
The group I joined recently uses hexes just because the GM has a really nice hex mat and no square mat. I don't have a huge amount of play experience with it yet, but there haven't been any issues so far using hexes instead of squares.
The group I joined recently uses hexes just because the GM has a really nice hex mat and no square mat. I don't have a huge amount of play experience with it yet, but there haven't been any issues so far using hexes instead of squares.
Each square should be 1 movement, diagonals included. It is needless complexity otherwise, and 5-foot movement is an abstraction anyway so it doesn't force me to suspend disbelief any more than I feel is reasonable.
I'm an adult, I'm familiar with Euclid (very cute 3 second google image search btw), and also n-dimensional geometry, and I think that something as paramount as movement through space demands simplicity. The game is more expedient, and fewer mistakes will be made with 1 square = 1 square. I would wager that the majority (51% or more) of DMs miscalculate distances and Line of Sight in 3.5 at least once per session.
If you don't want to get shown up by a computer game, then hopefully your human DM ingenuity and reflexes can effectively/quickly compute distance/area. Is everyone clear on the volume of a cylinder? Surface area of a sphere? Uh oh, it took more than 5 seconds to answer (4)(pi)(r^2) didn't it? Maybe you should look into using Firecubes, otherwise your players will be playing World of Warcraft on their laptops while waiting 15-30 minutes for their next turn in combat.
Infinite complexity is not ideal, quick gameplay is key. 1 square should equal 1 square, and I firmly believe this is the way 4E will work.
I'm an adult, I'm familiar with Euclid (very cute 3 second google image search btw), and also n-dimensional geometry, and I think that something as paramount as movement through space demands simplicity. The game is more expedient, and fewer mistakes will be made with 1 square = 1 square. I would wager that the majority (51% or more) of DMs miscalculate distances and Line of Sight in 3.5 at least once per session.
If you don't want to get shown up by a computer game, then hopefully your human DM ingenuity and reflexes can effectively/quickly compute distance/area. Is everyone clear on the volume of a cylinder? Surface area of a sphere? Uh oh, it took more than 5 seconds to answer (4)(pi)(r^2) didn't it? Maybe you should look into using Firecubes, otherwise your players will be playing World of Warcraft on their laptops while waiting 15-30 minutes for their next turn in combat.
Infinite complexity is not ideal, quick gameplay is key. 1 square should equal 1 square, and I firmly believe this is the way 4E will work.
If I dm 4th, I may well go with hexes. The square is looking dumber all the time.
Of course, its been quite a while since I DMed. Back in the early editions, we didn't use these fancy pants mats and grids and minis. But since you have to jettison a lot of the combat rules these days to do that, it isn't worth the rules breakdown that occurs if you do.
Of course, its been quite a while since I DMed. Back in the early editions, we didn't use these fancy pants mats and grids and minis. But since you have to jettison a lot of the combat rules these days to do that, it isn't worth the rules breakdown that occurs if you do.
TwinBahamut
First Post
I agree with you here.Voss said:
The whole "non-Euclidian geometry" thread certainly hasn't convinced me one way or the other on diagonal=1 or 1,2,1,2, but it has convinced me that a square grid that allows for diagonal movement is not what I want to use anymore.
If you ask me, either going with pure "manhattan distance", where even 5ft reach only threatens four squares and fireballs are fire-diamonds, or using a hex-grid are the only real options. Alternating counting of diagonals is a pain that slows down the game, but the 1,1,1,1 option reveals too many flaws in the system for me to accept.
delericho
Legend
It should be as close to free-form as reasonably possible. However, because of the difficulty of handling threatened areas, we need some sort of a grid. And, because of the 'waddling' effect of hexes, and the fact that most buildings tend to be rectangular, I think the square grid is slightly preferable. The 1-2-1-2 movement rule should be applied consistently throughout - including to spell effects and monster bases.
Additionally, all of these issues can go away when using a virtual tabletop - the computer can handle circular spell effects, true diagonal movement, and threatened areas with ease, allowing the whole thing to go properly freeform.
That's my preference, anyway.
Additionally, all of these issues can go away when using a virtual tabletop - the computer can handle circular spell effects, true diagonal movement, and threatened areas with ease, allowing the whole thing to go properly freeform.
That's my preference, anyway.
ThirdWizard
First Post
I find it really interesting how well hexes are doing. I didn't know they were still that popular.
TwinBahamut said:
Like what?
Similar Threads
- Poll
