What geometry do you prefer?

[Pinotage]

I find it really interesting how well hexes are doing. I didn't know they were still that popular.

Hexes have significant advantages, but at the same time they don't 'read' as easy as squares do in terms of numbering of labelling them. Reading, say, square G4, is much easier than hex G4. Admittedly, most battlemaps don't really care about the square designation (only really important for online games), so hexes should be at least as popular as squares.

Pinotage

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

For simplicity's sake, I don't mind the 1-1-1 rule.
We always used the 1-2-1 rule, and I don't mind it either, though I definitely see its shortcoming in usability (way too often do you have to recalculate how many diagonals you actually moved)

I think the "first square of diagonal movement costs 2 squares" isn't bad (off course, you need an exception for the 5 ft step), and I'd seriously consider suggesting that in my group.

If it was physically as easy to handle, I really love the idea of gridless handling.

And if it still maintained the tactical complexity of the 3.x combat, I'd prefer a system that works well without any kind of grid or battle mat and minis.

 

[KarinsDad]

How do Hex-gridders deal with edges of the map? Most buildings have straight walls, which is why I use squares.

Has anyone really (fully) integrated the hex-grid into 3.5's combat system? How many house rules are necessary? Any trade-offs? They might be useful out in "natural" environments, thought I don't really see a strong need.

Your straight wall buildings are probably also limited to least common denominator sizes of 5 feet as well. DND 3E has really conditioned people that rooms with dimensions divisible by 5 in rectangular shaped areas is the way to play the game.


Other people have given you the link to the creature size and area effect for hexes (I would never play facing with hexes as per that link though). So, that shows you the rules necessary for those, but I will list them anyway:

1) A small/medium creature takes up one hex. A large takes up 3 hexes. A huge is a small/medium plus every hex around it for 7. A gargantuan takes up a large plus every hex around it for 12, etc.

2) Each 5 foot radius area of effect (burst or spread) takes up one hex more around a single hex. So, a 5 foot radius is 7 hexes, a 10 foot radius is 19 hexes, etc. Note: this makes the radius a bit large. To make it more accurate, one could use the vertex instead of a hex as the center point and use the creature sizes. 5 foot radius is large creature size, 10 foot radius is gargantuan creature, etc. However, some people might have trouble envisioning that for large area of effect.

3) Each 60 degree cone goes up two of the row axes. Note: there are other options here as well. A 30 degree cone is possible going up a spline and a row. A 60 degree cone can up up two splines instead of two axes.

4) Now to the meat of your question. First off, both hexes and squares can be used for any shape and size room. People should not limit themselves to rectangles with 5 foot LCDs. However, hexes work a little bit better with this regard. The basic rule for combat is: if the hex (or group of hexes for larger creatures) shows 50% or more, a creature can be there and fight. If the hex shows 25% or more, a creature can squeeze there and fight. Note: some DMs might not want to use this second rule for simplicity.

That's most of it in a nutshell. The shape of the room is irrelevant. Square, circle, irregular. It just does not matter.

5) There are a few gotchas that people have to take into account that need special rules. If there is a 5 foot wide corridor leading off perpendicular to a row (i.e. along a spline), creatures have to be allowed to travel into a hex, two half hexes, a hex, two half hexes, etc. This also occurs anytime a very narrow corridor exists and it does not go up a row. Creatures also have to be able to fight from within two half hexes in this case.

6) There is one minor limitation of hexes. Movement along a spline allows for straight, slightly off to the right, or slightly off to the left with the same number of hexes moved. What this does is sometimes allow an attacker to move past defenders by picking a different route, but going the same distance. I consider this a minor nuisance at best, but it might bug other people. There does not have to be any special house rules to handle it.

7) To determine cover or concealment, view a line from the center of the starting and ending hexes. If 50% or more of a hex is in front of the target on the side of cover or concealment (including down a spline line), he is covered.

The rules are fairly easy. In fact, easier than "pick a corner of your square, draw a line to any corner of the target square" type rules of 3E.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

The interesting thing to me is that fully two thirds of respondents support an option that is more complex and accurate than 1-1-1-1-1 .

Ken

 

[Greylock]

The second to last option needs a slight edit.

No kidding. I clicked that, hit enter, then read the final option. We don't measure AT ALL and poke fun at folks who use seamstresses tape, but I went and voted for that. The final choice was what I needed to hit.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

no grid, no miniatures.

onbig battles, maybe some dice. Sometimes even a Grid.

But never was any of my players or me actually counting distance or mesuring it with a ruler. Guessing is the way to go, because using the grid is only an approximated model of the real world.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

I vote other. My favourite geometry is that of the Robertson-Walker metric coupled through the Freidmann equation to a critical mass density (and no cosmological constant). It might not fit the observable universe, but there is something elegant about it.

 

[Zinovia]

We've always used a hex grid, since that's what we have for a gaming mat. I find a lot of rules about flanking, cover, spell areas, and diagonal movement much more intuitive. I hex is always 5' worth of movement, regardless of direction. Flanking and facing (not that D&D uses facing rules) are clear. Partial hexes aren't a problem any more than partial squares are if you have 12' wide corridors, or are in a natural cavern.

As for spell areas, we have templates that are actually cut to the correct scaled radius for the spell and are *gasp* circular!!! We overlay the template and see what's inside or not. The DM adjudicates all edge cases. Cones are the same way. Just overlay it where you want the effect to go and see who's in and who isn't. Easy peasy.

To add more verisimilitude to the cases where someone is clearly just at the fringe edge of the spell, the GM has sometimes ruled they will take half damge or 1/4 on a save. It does add complexity, but not a lot. The fact is that hasn't happened often, and it seems more realistic. It works for us.

It bugs me that they might be doing away with cone shaped effects just because they are hard to make fit into a square grid. Cones are a logical shape for breath weapons and some spell effects. The world is not chopped up into 5' cubes, and there's no need to avoid truly circular or cone-shaped effects in D&D. Just draw the shape and leave the edge cases to the GM. Assuming you have players who are willing to listen to the GM that is and not argue the interpretation of the rules, or position the party for the exact tactical advantage allowed by the mechanical underpinnings of the system. Very meta-gamey IMHO.

The grid is there to help us move around in combat, but we never let it override common sense in what shape things are, where people are standing, or what direction we're moving. It's a RPG, not a wargame.

 

[Shroomy]

I think there needs to be an option, which is my preferred one: whatever geometry works best with the overall game system.

 

[Arnwyn]

I voted: 1-2-1-2 (or similar). The teeny-tiny increase in the speed of play for our group doesn't make up for everything else.

Like what?

See the other thread (which I'm pretty sure you're taking part in).