PDA

View Full Version : using hexes.



heymejack
2010-09-08, 09:36 PM
so i just bought one of those big vinyl reversible battlemaps with hexes on one side and squares on the other. the hexes are so interesting. i can't stop looking at them and running my theoretical builds against monsters on them.

but, my real main focus is the game i'm DMing. i want to incorporate the hex grid, but i am sure that all kinds of unforseen stuff is gonna crop up.

playground, share your experiences with me. what do i need to know? how are my players gonna try to use this thing to win fights, and how can i use it to make things as fun as possible? what kinds of problems am i going to run into, and how should i deal with them? which situations are squares better for, and which for hexes?

thank you.

FMArthur
2010-09-08, 10:10 PM
Hexes don't really change much. The biggest difference is that it is more difficult to 'trap' people through positioning.

gomipile
2010-09-08, 10:29 PM
Hexes also make size, reach, and area effects much, much easier to deal with on the map. The disadvantage is that square architecture is a bit harder to map.

Kamai
2010-09-08, 11:04 PM
I've run with a hex map for a 4e game, and the only problems that I could see is square architecture (but you can do it just like a square grid needing a waterfront), trying to figure out a true straight line, which can annoy other players, and abilities based on x people around you, which are weaker.

gomipile
2010-09-08, 11:09 PM
Yeah, if one's build depends on number of threatened spaces, going to hexes is a nerf.

valadil
2010-09-08, 11:22 PM
The disadvantage is that square architecture is a bit harder to map.

This is the worst part of hexes IMO. I'm perfectly happy to use them outdoors or in caves. Castle walls on the other hand just don't work.

You also lose out on some area on AoE effects. I don't *think* this is a big deal, but haven't actually checked to see that it gimps everyone equally.

Finally, some players have violent negative reactions to hexes. I've seen in a couple times. The ensuing hissy fit just isn't worth the trouble.

gomipile
2010-09-08, 11:55 PM
Finally, some players have violent negative reactions to hexes. I've seen in a couple times. The ensuing hissy fit just isn't worth the trouble.

Huh. I've never seen that. Although, that may be because nearly all of the local gamers here are tied together by board games and miniatures games, so we al have some familiarity with various map systems.

heymejack
2010-09-09, 07:45 AM
strange, it seemed like area effect spells would actually be easier.

we do have a goliath with a spiked chain, so he will actually be a little weaker, because of the threatened squares thing.

i don't really see any of my players throwing a hissy though. we're all adults, so it's just not likely.

Amphetryon
2010-09-09, 07:52 AM
Obligatory comic #175 link (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0175.html). Someone had to. :smallwink:

valadil
2010-09-09, 08:46 AM
Huh. I've never seen that. Although, that may be because nearly all of the local gamers here are tied together by board games and miniatures games, so we al have some familiarity with various map systems.

I thought the gamers around here would be better sports about it too, but some of them only like WotC sanctioned materials and WotC only prints diagrams of square grids. They even refer to their movement in terms of squares and not feet in 4e.

However, I wonder if it'd be possible to use hexes on magical or extraplanar terrain. Say, send the players to a dungeon in the astral plane and everything is done in hex there. It's gimmicky, but vaguely interesting.

dsmiles
2010-09-09, 09:23 AM
Hexes do tend to make some actions confusing, but in 3.x it eliminated the need for measuring the 5', 10', 5', 10' mechanic (hypotenuse of the right triangles in a 5' square =/= 7.5 ft. It equals 7.071-ish ft. :smallfurious: Stupid WotC!) for diagonal movement.

Facing, on the other hand is a great mechanic. Do the game designers actually believe that it's equally easy to use your shield on your weapon side? C'mon, seriously? If your shield's in your left hand, you're really going to have a hard time defending your right side with it.

Person_Man
2010-09-09, 09:35 AM
I own a similar map. I uses hexes for outdoor combat, and squares for indoor combat. Outdoors, I use Heroscape terrain, which is also hex based, to add hills and walls and whatnot, and wet erase markers to draw rivers and cover and trees. You can buy it cheap on auction sites, although it's 28mm scale, so things may not match up exactly on your map. It works quite well.

Thinker
2010-09-09, 09:42 AM
Hexes do tend to make some actions confusing, but in 3.x it eliminated the need for measuring the 5', 10', 5', 10' mechanic (hypotenuse of the right triangles in a 5' square =/= 7.5 ft. It equals 7.071-ish ft. :smallfurious: Stupid WotC!) for diagonal movement.
Yeah. Approximations really grind my gears. I also think that regular movement speed is too fast. Does WotC really think that a person walking at 5MPH can travel 30 feet in less than half of 6 seconds?!? 5 MPH * 5280ft/1mi * 1hr/3600s * 3s =/= 30 :smallfurious:. It equals 22! :smallfurious:



Facing, on the other hand is a great mechanic. Do the game designers actually believe that it's equally easy to use your shield on your weapon side? C'mon, seriously? If your shield's in your left hand, you're really going to have a hard time defending your right side with it.

I think it is patently ridiculous that you can be attacked on your shield side at all. Shields block incoming attacks, not simply make them harder to get through. They should also have included rules for helmets to reduce crits or something. How can WotC really think that a lethal blow can happen if you have more armor?!?

Draz74
2010-09-09, 09:45 AM
Do the game designers actually believe that it's equally easy to use your shield on your weapon side? C'mon, seriously? If your shield's in your left hand, you're really going to have a hard time defending your right side with it.

I think that's actually supposed to be the reason why shields provide only a +1 or +2 AC bonus. They provide "more" AC bonus in the direction you're holding them, but less in other directions; and it all gets averaged out.

EDIT: @Thinker: your sarcasm might be too subtle for internet use, here, buddy.

Thinker
2010-09-09, 09:56 AM
I think that's actually supposed to be the reason why shields provide only a +1 or +2 AC bonus. They provide "more" AC bonus in the direction you're holding them, but less in other directions; and it all gets averaged out.

EDIT: @Thinker: your sarcasm might be too subtle for internet use, here, buddy.

I simply prefer to frame my arguments in the form of reductio ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum). Besides, I think I went over the top enough that no one will take my statements as a serious position.

valadil
2010-09-09, 09:57 AM
Yeah. Approximations really grind my gears. I also think that regular movement speed is too fast. Does WotC really think that a person walking at 5MPH can travel 30 feet in less than half of 6 seconds?!? 5 MPH * 5280ft/1mi * 1hr/3600s * 3s =/= 30 :smallfurious:. It equals 22! :smallfurious:


Nah. They think 6 squares is a reasonable distance to move in a board game. If players were moving 3 squares per turn you couldn't cover much terrain. Note that 4th ed simply uses the term squares. I'm not sure if they ever state that a square is 5' or if that's a holdover from 3rd ed. I prefer to think of a square as a yard. That gives you a more realistic move speed.



I think it is patently ridiculous that you can be attacked on your shield side at all. Shields block incoming attacks, not simply make them harder to get through. They should also have included rules for helmets to reduce crits or something. How can WotC really think that a lethal blow can happen if you have more armor?!?

That's an argument for another thread. I don't think that WotC believes real attacks work like they do in D&D. AC is a simplification. A more realistic system would include facing rules that could account for which side of your body is more well guarded. IMO, that's too many rules and I wouldn't want to play that game.

Draz74
2010-09-09, 09:58 AM
Besides, I think I went over the top enough that no one will take my statements as a serious position.

Lightning Warrior wasn't over the top enough that no one took it as a serious homebrew attempt. :smalltongue: Your stuff in this thread doesn't stand a chance!

EDIT: And a timely verification of my concerns by valadil. :smallcool:

valadil
2010-09-09, 10:01 AM
EDIT: And a timely verification of my concerns by valadil. :smallcool:

D'oh. My sarcasm detector has been off all morning. Must be time for a tuneup.

Thinker
2010-09-09, 10:13 AM
Lightning Warrior wasn't over the top enough that no one took it as a serious homebrew attempt. :smalltongue: Your stuff in this thread doesn't stand a chance!

EDIT: And a timely verification of my concerns by valadil. :smallcool:
That was certainly timely. I stand corrected.


D'oh. My sarcasm detector has been off all morning. Must be time for a tuneup.

My bad.

heymejack
2010-09-09, 10:30 AM
the facing variant looks fun, i've always been a little dissatisfied with the normal way. probably won't get into that yet, because we have several new players and the simple version is good, but maybe the roommate and I will start trying to work them into our pvp games, since we're the more xp'd members of the group. that'll be fun.

heroscape, huh? I was just gonna buy foam and cut it into the shapes i want and then draw the squares on them, but that sounds a LOT easier. anybody else have suggestions on how to make the board better? maybe i should start a new thread on that subject. terrain, and whatnot. combat is the biggest part of our game, we aren't the biggest roleplayers, although we're trying to work that in more. but what we like is a big, interesting fight. with obstacles and so on. goooood times.

as far as sarcasm goes, I definitely didn't catch on at first, but it seems as if Draz has some previous experience with the sharp wit of the thinker. i, on the other hand, was trying to imagine how I would attack him, around his stupid shield on his stupid off hand.

Duke of URL
2010-09-09, 10:32 AM
I'd think the most difficult thing is determining straight lines for line effects, charges, etc.

Reducing threatened squares may be a factor, but it doesn't add difficulty.

It's probably easier to adjudicate AoEs (other than lines) because you don't have to deal with determining if 50% or more of a square is affected on the edges.

The Big Dice
2010-09-09, 10:53 AM
I'd think the most difficult thing is determining straight lines for line effects, charges, etc.
That's easier than you think. You've got 6 directions that you can move in in an easily counted straight line, and because of the way sides of hexes line up, you can sometimes "drift" from one row to the next.

But when we use a battlemap, it's pretty much always hexes, and we don't have any trouble with things. There's a bunch of stuff in Unearthed Arcana that covers how to deal with them, as well as templates and stuff for AoE. And the fact the most of the gamers round here have a background in GURPS, Battletech or both certainly doesn't hurt. I guess we're just used to hexes.

RebelRogue
2010-09-09, 10:57 AM
I'd think the most difficult thing is determining straight lines for line effects, charges, etc.
I fail to see why that should get any harder, Just draw the lines between each hexagon corner instead of each square corner. Ok, that's two more, but really.

For 4e, I guess it would take away some of the weirdness of square bursts/blasts. Maybe I should try it some day...

IdleMuse
2010-09-09, 11:06 AM
I'd think the most difficult thing is determining straight lines for line effects, charges, etc.

Reducing threatened squares may be a factor, but it doesn't add difficulty.

It's probably easier to adjudicate AoEs (other than lines) because you don't have to deal with determining if 50% or more of a square is affected on the edges.

We have a house-rule (?) for grid-based combat (whether hex or square), specifically for charges and awkward line effects. It's called a ruler. Lie it down in whatever arbitrary angle you want, usually centre-to-centre for targeted effects. For charges, (for instance), you then just move through every cell that is on that straight line, and this counts as a straight line move. If there's something in the way on one of those squares, you can't do it.

This rule was first implemented after we finished up a campaign with a DM who insisted that things like breath weapons and charges could only be at multiples of 45 degrees, which we found highly immersion-breaking :P

KillianHawkeye
2010-09-09, 11:08 AM
Yeah. Approximations really grind my gears. I also think that regular movement speed is too fast. Does WotC really think that a person walking at 5MPH can travel 30 feet in less than half of 6 seconds?!? 5 MPH * 5280ft/1mi * 1hr/3600s * 3s =/= 30 :smallfurious:. It equals 22! :smallfurious:

If you're doing it in 3 seconds, you are not walking. Walking is when you only move your speed in a round and take no other action. If you move and then act, or do a double move (the speed is the same), you are jogging.

Personally, I have no difficulty with walking 30 feet in 6 seconds or jogging it in 3.

heymejack
2010-09-09, 05:18 PM
yeah, figuring out lines is no problem, we use a piece of string, one end on one corner, the other is move-able, and find the line. it's pretty easy.

Hague
2010-09-09, 05:25 PM
For longer distances on maps I use a small tape measure and measure from the closest corners between two targets on square maps. It's more accurate over long distances but counting diagonals works better for closer quarters. I tend to use smaller figures or tokens so I don't end up knocking over pieces on my mat while using the tape.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-09-09, 06:23 PM
Finally, some players have violent negative reactions to hexes. I've seen in a couple times. The ensuing hissy fit just isn't worth the trouble.
Seriously? I'd declare hex grids forever, just to p!ss 'em off. Anyone who gets visibly upset over a hex grid needs to chill the frak out, or get lost laid.

Nerd rage aside, there are two quirks of hexes that DMs should be aware of. First, if you've got a one-hex wide corridor running on the partial-hex axis, it's technically impossible to flank anyone by RAW. There's a simple solution though; just rule that allies only have to be 120 degrees separate to flank an enemy, rather than 180 degrees.

Second, cones can be restrictive depending on how your targets are placed. Whatever cone template you decide on will effectively divide the battle mat into 3 or 6 zones around a cone-using caster. If two enemies are placed in different zones, the caster can only hit one, even if the enemies are adjacent to each other. The caster can solve the problem [if the DM allows] by simply using the other cone template, but of course one template covers more hexes than the other. An oddity of the hex grid, but not crippling.

Boci
2010-09-09, 07:06 PM
Seriously? I'd declare hex grids forever, just to p!ss 'em off. Anyone who gets visibly upset over a hex grid needs to chill the frak out, or get lost laid.

I'd be a bit bothered if my Dm wanted to uyse hexes, because it would be really confusing. What does it add? Sure I wouldn't throw a hissy fit, but I would expect a reason other than "Lets just try something new".

Zaq
2010-09-09, 08:40 PM
I could see not wanting to use hexes in a 4e game, just because blasts would get kind of weird (bursts are probably ok). In a normal game, I don't see any problems with hexes that aren't there with squares. It can be jarring to have to suddenly change thinking modes, so make sure that your players are cool with using them before you start, but I don't see any issues.

heymejack
2010-09-10, 08:28 AM
if someone had a nerd-rage freak out over something like that at the table, they would be mercilessly ridiculed by the rest of the party until the end of days.

tequila, thanks for the flanking/cone thing, that is exactly the sort of thing i wouldn't have seen coming, so that's very helpful.

we're gonna try it out, pretty much just because i bought this battlemat, it has it, and there's no good reason NOT to try it. if we like, we'll use, and if not, we won't. i'll almost certainly end up using both.

valadil
2010-09-10, 09:45 AM
I could see not wanting to use hexes in a 4e game, just because blasts would get kind of weird (bursts are probably ok).

I mentioned hexes to my 4e group. Their objection wasn't that the geometry would be harder to calculate but that the areas would be different. AoE powers are balanced given a certain number of squares in the area. Changing that to hexes reduces the area. Potential damage output is thus reduced. Hard to say how practical damage is reduced, but the bottom line is that AoEs become weaker.

dsmiles
2010-09-10, 09:49 AM
I mentioned hexes to my 4e group. Their objection wasn't that the geometry would be harder to calculate but that the areas would be different. AoE powers are balanced given a certain number of squares in the area. Changing that to hexes reduces the area. Potential damage output is thus reduced. Hard to say how practical damage is reduced, but the bottom line is that AoEs become weaker.

They don't, though. A blast or burst that covers 9 squares still covers 9 hexes.
x x x
x x x
x x x

vs.

drat...confounded bbcode can anyone help me with hexes?:smallredface:

valadil
2010-09-10, 09:55 AM
They don't, though. A blast or burst that covers 9 squares still covers 9 hexes.
x x x
x x x
x x x

vs.

drat...confounded bbcode can anyone help me with hexes?:smallredface:

I'll pass on bbcode and just use an image.

http://files.sagotsky.com/hex_burst.jpg

The outer rim is burst 2. Inner rim is burst 1. You get 22 and 7 as opposed to 25 and 9.

x x x
x o x
x x x

x x x x x
x x x x x
x x o x x
x x x x x
x x x x x

Rad
2010-09-10, 11:47 AM
Hexes do tend to make some actions confusing, but in 3.x it eliminated the need for measuring the 5', 10', 5', 10' mechanic (hypotenuse of the right triangles in a 5' square =/= 7.5 ft. It equals 7.071-ish ft. :smallfurious: Stupid WotC!) for diagonal movement.
Actually, it's about 7,42 ft. 7.5 is a pretty reasonable approximation.

dsmiles
2010-09-10, 11:57 AM
Actually, it's about 7,42 ft. 7.5 is a pretty reasonable approximation.

No, seriously, the square root of 50 is 7.07106781187. a squared + b squared = c squared. 25 + 25 = 50. Sorry. Math is what I do for a living. No hard feelings, though.

Thinker
2010-09-10, 12:16 PM
No, seriously, the square root of 50 is 7.07106781187. a squared + b squared = c squared. 25 + 25 = 50. Sorry. Math is what I do for a living. No hard feelings, though.

Since they go 5', 15', 20', 30', every second square is about 14.1'. This makes it closer to 15' (net) than to 10' (net) and is close enough for the level of abstraction they are using for everything else.

The Big Dice
2010-09-10, 12:19 PM
I'll pass on bbcode and just use an image.

http://files.sagotsky.com/hex_burst.jpg

The outer rim is burst 2. Inner rim is burst 1. You get 22 and 7 as opposed to 25 and 9.

x x x
x o x
x x x

x x x x x
x x x x x
x x o x x
x x x x x
x x x x x
You also ditch the niggling irritation that bursts are square. And no matter which method you use to plot out your battlemaps, there are always going to be situations where being in one space gets you zapped and being in the one next to it means you're ok.

Personally, I like area effects on hexes because they feel more round. I know they're actually hexagons, but the lack of a right angle corner makes them feel more circular. It's a dumb optical illusion, but it's satisfyingly visceral.

dsmiles
2010-09-10, 12:21 PM
Since they go 5', 15', 20', 30', every second square is about 14.1'. This makes it closer to 15' (net) than to 10' (net) and is close enough for the level of abstraction they are using for everything else.

But you have to admit the square root of 50 is not 7.42, nor is it 7.5. I just don't like people messing with my numbers, so I used hexes more often than not. (And facing, but that's an argument for another time.) 4e is much more ragemath friendly just calling them squares instead of 5' squares. So, problem solved, because 1 square = 1 square = 1 square (See? No math.). :smallbiggrin:

valadil
2010-09-10, 12:47 PM
They don't, though. A blast or burst that covers 9 squares still covers 9 hexes.


So out of curiosity, how are you drawing your blasts? I drew the burst the way I did because it's defined by a center point and extends around a radius. IIRC a blast is defined by a corner and extends out. Does that give you a slice of the burst or some sort of slanted square (which would have the same area as the original burst on a square grid). I like that the slant would retain area, but the shape doesn't make much sense to me as a blast. The slice (which is basically a 6th of the burst) makes sense to me as a blast, but gimps the area.

Which ever way you do it will I think be a houserule regardless since WotC did not anticipate hexes and worded their definitions under the assumption that grids were square.

dsmiles
2010-09-10, 12:53 PM
So out of curiosity, how are you drawing your blasts? I drew the burst the way I did because it's defined by a center point and extends around a radius. IIRC a blast is defined by a corner and extends out. Does that give you a slice of the burst or some sort of slanted square (which would have the same area as the original burst on a square grid). I like that the slant would retain area, but the shape doesn't make much sense to me as a blast. The slice (which is basically a 6th of the burst) makes sense to me as a blast, but gimps the area.
It gives me three parallel lines with the middle one starting either slightly closer (or slightly to the right) or slightly farther (or slightly to the left) than the outer two...but I can't draw it using x's and o's on here. :smallfrown:

EDIT: EUREKA!

x.x.x
.x.x.x
x.x.x
or
.x.x.x
x.x.x
.x.x.x

...but I still can't express the up-and-down version. Sure the shape is a little odd, but you retain the utility of the spell.

valadil
2010-09-10, 01:02 PM
...but I still can't express the up-and-down version. Sure the shape is a little odd, but you retain the utility of the spell.

Something like?

. x
.xxx
.xxx
.x x

(That actually looks more distorted than it would in hex. Computer fonts are taller than wide, so it this gets even more stretched out)

Makes sense that you keep the area, but I just don't like the shape of it. I'd rather just play on a square grid I think. That or pump up damage on my interpretation of bursts and blasts.

dsmiles
2010-09-10, 01:06 PM
Something like?

. x
.xxx
.xxx
.x x

(That actually looks more distorted than it would in hex. Computer fonts are taller than wide, so it this gets even more stretched out)

Makes sense that you keep the area, but I just don't like the shape of it. I'd rather just play on a square grid I think. That or pump up damage on my interpretation of bursts and blasts.

I actually kind of like it. It gives you 4 permutations of a spell's area.

El Dorado
2010-09-10, 05:24 PM
It's been said but straight lines on a hex map are a pain.

Zombimode
2010-09-10, 05:35 PM
Why? Why should it be a bigger problem than on a square grid?

Square grid, draw a "straight" line between point a and point b. You cant, so this comes out:

+++++a
++++++
b+++++

I would say on a hex grid its easier.

RebelRogue
2010-09-10, 06:42 PM
I'll pass on bbcode and just use an image.

http://files.sagotsky.com/hex_burst.jpg

The outer rim is burst 2. Inner rim is burst 1. You get 22 and 7 as opposed to 25 and 9.

x x x
x o x
x x x

x x x x x
x x x x x
x x o x x
x x x x x
x x x x x
Yes it's a few fewer squares, but I doubt it's going to make any huge difference in play. Players relying on the Marked Fury or the Valiant Strike Paladin Power are also slightly nerfed, but again: how much of a difference will it actually do. A bigger concern (as noted) are Close Blasts. How would the look in hex? I'm thinking they should be 'coney' - but that will probably nerf them more than any of the abovementioned effects (having areas of 1+2+...+n instead of n^2). Still, I'd say it's worth a try someday.

El Dorado
2010-09-10, 07:59 PM
Why? Why should it be a bigger problem than on a square grid?

Square grid, draw a "straight" line between point a and point b. You cant, so this comes out:

+++++a
++++++
b+++++

I would say on a hex grid its easier.

It's a bit wonky depending on the direction you are traveling on the grid. Using valadi's image (poached for convenience),

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v620/canon4371/hex_burst.jpg

a line of five hexes from NW to SE is easy; you just count the spaces in a straight line. From N to S, drawing a line through the center of five contiguous hexes creates a jagged line. I understand it's the same distance---it just looks a bit odd.

It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine, exaggerated by a DM who was a stickler for measuring out areas of effect and more than a few bleary-eyed sessions where it would've been easier to count off squares.

The Big Dice
2010-09-10, 09:36 PM
It's a bit wonky depending on the direction you are traveling on the grid. Using valadi's image (poached for convenience),

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v620/canon4371/hex_burst.jpg

a line of five hexes from NW to SE is easy; you just count the spaces in a straight line. From N to S, drawing a line through the center of five contiguous hexes creates a jagged line. I understand it's the same distance---it just looks a bit odd.

It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine, exaggerated by a DM who was a stickler for measuring out areas of effect and more than a few bleary-eyed sessions where it would've been easier to count off squares.
It's only a bit wonky if you follow the hexes specifically. Using an idea lifted from the old FASA Star Trek starship combat game called a side slip.

Start at the bottom centre dark grey hex, go "north" along the line between the two adjacent hexes above it, ending in the middle light grey hex. It's the same distance as moving two hexes, but you did it in one easy straight line.

And it takes the number of possible straight line directions from six to twelve.

Zombimode
2010-09-11, 05:18 AM
It's a bit wonky depending on the direction you are traveling on the grid. Using valadi's image (poached for convenience),

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v620/canon4371/hex_burst.jpg

a line of five hexes from NW to SE is easy; you just count the spaces in a straight line. From N to S, drawing a line through the center of five contiguous hexes creates a jagged line. I understand it's the same distance---it just looks a bit odd.

Ok, but if you look at my example, the same issues can arise with a square grid.


It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine, exaggerated by a DM who was a stickler for measuring out areas of effect and more than a few bleary-eyed sessions where it would've been easier to count off squares.

This one I dont understand. In a squaregrid you count squares, in a hex grid you count hexes.

Problems only arise, if you try to convert a square based game to a hex grid whil trying to preserve the number of tiles effected by AoE effects.
For games, that where desinged with hexes in mind, no such problems ever occur.

If you look arround strategy games, tabletop or turn based on PC, if they use a grid at all, chances are very high it will be a hex grid.
And there are reasons: movement is actually easier on a hex grid, espacially when formations of any kind are used. That and that distances are easier to calculate (4e handwaves this issue and thus producing wildly inacurate distances; this is of course a no-go for any self respecting wargame).

flabort
2010-09-11, 11:44 AM
It's only a bit wonky if you follow the hexes specifically. Using an idea lifted from the old FASA Star Trek starship combat game called a side slip.

Start at the bottom centre dark grey hex, go "north" along the line between the two adjacent hexes above it, ending in the middle light grey hex. It's the same distance as moving two hexes, but you did it in one easy straight line.

And it takes the number of possible straight line directions from six to twelve.

Clever. Very clever.
Directions as a clock hand....

Knaight
2010-09-11, 02:40 PM
Facing, on the other hand is a great mechanic. Do the game designers actually believe that it's equally easy to use your shield on your weapon side? C'mon, seriously? If your shield's in your left hand, you're really going to have a hard time defending your right side with it.
It works really oddly with a 6 second round though. Anyone with 15 ft move can go all the way around a medium sized creature and hit them in the back, they can't turn around to face the in a properly turn based medium. With a very short round (1 second or so) it works much better. See also, GURPS.

Actually, it's about 7,42 ft. 7.5 is a pretty reasonable approximation.

Out of curiosity, how did you get this? Its obviously not 5+root5, and even more obviously not root50, and while its wrong I'm still curious about the thought process.

Reis Tahlen
2010-09-11, 04:20 PM
The true hex-lover :

http://shadowd20.pbworks.com/f/1234615236/Class-Hexblade.jpg

dsmiles
2010-09-12, 06:38 AM
The true hex-lover :

http://shadowd20.pbworks.com/f/1234615236/Class-Hexblade.jpg

Well-played.

@Knaight: I picked up using facing when I was playing Rolemaster/H.A.R.P.; I think their rounds are 2 seconds.