Why not hexagons?

[Pheonix0114]

Unfortunately octogon grids don't quiet work......

But, I've used hexes for space combat in Alternity, and it works amazingly. Haven't tried it with any other game or combat type though.

 

[Corathon]

I prefer (and use) hexes, myself.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

This is why I don't like hexes. So I can move in a straight line up or down, or left and right, but never both depending on which way the hexes face. What? At least with a square I can move in the eight directions I can easily picture, even if diagonals give some people trouble.

I thus propose octagons.

Octagons do not tesselate properly. (And I admit that I posted purely so that I could use the word 'tesselate' - an opportunity not to be lightly missed....)

The Auld Grump, now monkeys or clowns can be used for tesselation... so we can use monkeys?

 

[Stoat]

Octagons do not tesselate properly.
The Auld Grump, now monkeys or clowns can be used for tesselation... so we can use monkeys?

5E will focus extensively on a monkey-based grid. Optionally, DM's will be able to use both fish-based and "angels turning into devils" based grids. Clowns are right out.

Why do hex grids work better for outdoor encounters and/or overland maps?

 

[SnowleopardVK]

Because we have gelatinous cubes.

Gelatinous hexagonal prisms?

[MENTION=16786]Stoat[/MENTION]: Outdoors (and other natural places) don't tend to have a lot of straight lines like indoors does.

 

[jimmifett]

If a system takes facing into account, you typically have the 3 sides as "front", the sides adjacent to the front sides as "sides" and "rear" as a single side behind. Thus, you have 180 deg of front, 60 of side on each side, and 60 deg of back.

With squares, you have 90 deg of each side. Rogues like that extra 30 deg of back to stab

When not dealing with facing, you have 3 possible flanking configurations. With squares, you have 4 possible configurations. If the target takes up more than one hex, don't even bother with flanking, you'll hurt yourself trying to make sense of it.

For vehicles on a 2 dimensional plane, hexes are great for depicting turning radii in regards to speed.

As previously mentioned, hexes suck for 3-dimensional movement if you want to maintain hexgonal aspects, otherwise you end up with Heroscape.

 

[Stoat]

[MENTION=16786]Stoat[/MENTION]: Outdoors (and other natural places) don't tend to have a lot of straight lines like indoors does.

Sure, but so what? People still move in straight lines outdoors and ranges are still calculated in straight lines outdoors. I don't see many more hex shapes in nature than I do squares.

I know there is an ancient and esteemed tradition of using hex maps outside, but why? Where did it come from?

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Personally I prefer my battlemap to represent the edition I'm playing. I used triangles for 3rd edition, squares for 4E, and I'm willing to give hexagons a try when 6th Edition comes out. Truth be told, the tactial side of my games really suffered when 3.5 came out.

 

[prosfilaes]

Sure, but so what? People still move in straight lines outdoors and ranges are still calculated in straight lines outdoors. I don't see many more hex shapes in nature than I do squares.

But hexs are great for straight line movement and ranges, better than squares, since center to center movement gives you three lines instead of two.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

Sure, but so what? People still move in straight lines outdoors and ranges are still calculated in straight lines outdoors. I don't see many more hex shapes in nature than I do squares.

I know there is an ancient and esteemed tradition of using hex maps outside, but why? Where did it come from?

True, but the hex grid still manages to give a slightly better representation of natural walls and things than the square grid does. People move in straight lines yes, but cave walls and rivers don't turn at 90 degree angles (well, not usually). Not that they turn at 60 degree angles either, but it's still closer to a natural representation of outdoors I think.