The Battle Grid

[Kane0]

Simple question: Squares or Hexes? Include an explanation if you wish, I'd like to hear peoples reasons.

I've unfortunately only been exposed to squares, but I'd greatly like to experiment with Hexes. They seem more fun to me.

[huttj509]

Simple question: Squares or Hexes? Include an explanation if you wish, I'd like to hear peoples reasons.

I've unfortunately only been exposed to squares, but I'd greatly like to experiment with Hexes. They seem more fun to me.

Hexes tend to work better for open fields, making it easier to envision circles, move in directions other than the normal 8, etc.

Squares work well for constructed buildings that are based around squares and 90 degree angles.

[Wonton]

Pretty much what Hutt said.

Square pros:
Easier to draw most buildings/dungeons
8 directions instead of 6
Easy to calculate distances between any 2 squares using Pythagorean Theorem
Square effects work a lot better

Hex pros:
No "1.5" rule for certain directions
Burst and spread effects work a lot better

I've also only tried squares but I believe them to be superior. I mean, unless you have a dedicated Warmage, how often do Burst and Spread effects really come up in your group? In the past 3 campaigns I've played, I can think of one character (my battlefield controller wizard, who used Fog Cloud and Black Tentacles) that used them.

[Kane0]

How often do Burst and Spread effects really come up in your group?

:smallbiggrin: One campain has a pyromaniac mage (lots of fireballs, burning hands, walls of fire, etc) with me as a Magus that does as much crowd control as I can and the other I play a homebrewed blaster based on the warlock chassis. Lots of area spells and SLAs flying around.

[Malimar]

Square pros:
Easier to draw most buildings/dungeons
8 directions instead of 6
Easy to calculate distances between any 2 squares using Pythagorean Theorem
Square effects work a lot better

Hex pros:
No "1.5" rule for certain directions
Burst and spread effects work a lot better

I concur, but would add "preparing maps on graph paper or in Excel is easier with squares" and "in PbP, with squares you can use a roguelike map" to the square pros.


I've also only tried squares but I believe them to be superior. I mean, unless you have a dedicated Warmage, how often do Burst and Spread effects really come up in your group? In the past 3 campaigns I've played, I can think of one character (my battlefield controller wizard, who used Fog Cloud and Black Tentacles) that used them.

I find myself using a lot of them, at least once every couple battles. Last session the cleric cast consecrate; the previous session, some demons cast stinking cloud; the tiefling occasionally pops out a darkness; over the last couple months, several people (mostly NPCs) have cast fog cloud and obscuring mist something like half a dozen times.

Though I don't actually use the RAW for bursts and spreads. Instead, I use templates (http://luduscarcerum.blogspot.com/2012/07/pi-bursts-and-cones.html) that are actually circles (or circle sections), and if you can get a creature's mini partially or entirely within the circle, it's affected. So the superiority of hexes for bursts isn't so relevant for me.


All of that said, I much prefer the idea of hexes (mostly because I hate the 1.5 rule for diagonals), and would switch in an instant if Excel could do hexes.

[ThiagoMartell]

Squares because D&D has enough rules and I don't want to homebrew more.
Also, dungeon tiles are cool.

[Wonton]

All of that said, I much prefer the idea of hexes (mostly because I hate the 1.5 rule for diagonals)

Why? I find that that rule is quite easy to use in practice - the 2nd, 4th, 6th, etc diagonal movement in a turn takes 2 squares instead of 1. And geometrically, it makes far more sense than 4th edition's stupid "diagonals = 1" rule. The square root of 2 is about 1.414, which is a lot closer to 1.5 than 1.

[Togath]

I Usually use squares, but it's largly because it's easier to find graph paper and battlemaps for squares(and also because I often run games that use a lot of square buildings, and other structures with straight edges), I also sometimes use a gridless method, just using a map and measuring movement in inchs.

[Roguenewb]

I prefer Hexes in a vacuum, but lately, watching my friendly other DM lose his mind trying to draw buildings in HExes is making me reconsider.

As people have said, hexes are really good for spell effects and open spaces, but you know where they *really* shine? Flanking. With Hexes, you can almost always determine cover and flanking in a second, really handy if you have really mobile party members.

[Wonton]

As people have said, hexes are really good for spell effects and open spaces, but you know where they *really* shine? Flanking.

I don't understand. Care to elaborate? Flanking occurs when you can draw a straight line between two allies through opposite sides of an enemy's square. How does that become simpler with hexes?

[Kane0]

With Hexes, you can almost always determine cover and flanking in a second, really handy if you have really mobile party members.

That would be me, with a good fly speed and lots of AoEs :smallbiggrin:

Edit: Out group also does flanking rather loosely.
Is the enemy focusing on you? You are not flanking.
Is he focused on someone else directly adjacent to you? You are not flanking.
Is he focused on someone else and you are in peripheral vision or behind him? You are probably flanking.

[Salanmander]

That would be me, with a good fly speed and lots of AoEs :smallbiggrin:

Edit: Out group also does flanking rather loosely.
Is the enemy focusing on you? You are not flanking.
Is he focused on someone else directly adjacent to you? You are not flanking.
Is he focused on someone else and you are in peripheral vision or behind him? You are probably flanking.

Note that this weakens flanking (which is fine if that's something you want to do, of course). If two people are on opposite sides of an enemy, by RAW they both get flanking bonuses, not just the one the enemy isn't focusing on.


As for my preference, in practice I prefer squares just because that's what I'm most used to. So I default to squares. However, in a blank environment, I think that hexes have way more advantages than squares do, mainly because they have better verisimilitude.

The problem, as everyone has said, is buildings. Hexes are awkward in at least one of any two directions that are perpendicular to each other. So that keeps me with squares unless I want to invest a lot of mental energy (and sometimes physical energy when people have stuff on the battle mat) in switching it up for the situation.


On a side note, I just noticed that hexes look closer to "round" to me than octagons do. Weird.

[ThiagoMartell]

Note that this weakens flanking (which is fine if that's something you want to do, of course). If two people are on opposite sides of an enemy, by RAW they both get flanking bonuses, not just the one the enemy isn't focusing on.


As for my preference, in practice I prefer squares just because that's what I'm most used to. So I default to squares. However, in a blank environment, I think that hexes have way more advantages than squares do, mainly because they have better verisimilitude.

The problem, as everyone has said, is buildings. Hexes are awkward in at least one of any two directions that are perpendicular to each other. So that keeps me with squares unless I want to invest a lot of mental energy (and sometimes physical energy when people have stuff on the battle mat) in switching it up for the situation.


On a side note, I just noticed that hexes look closer to "round" to me than octagons do. Weird.
GURPS deals with buildings by having they take over part of the hex. It also has rules to squeeze into such 'half hexes'.
Well, that's GURPS... there are rules for everything. I'm only familiar with 2nd edition, though, so that could have changed.

[Knaight]

Note that this weakens flanking (which is fine if that's something you want to do, of course). If two people are on opposite sides of an enemy, by RAW they both get flanking bonuses, not just the one the enemy isn't focusing on.

It depends on the situation. Say we have the following grid:
7 8 9
4 5 6
1 2 3
There is somebody at 5, surrounded by enemies. Say there are opponents at 4, 7, 8, 9, and 2. If 2 is focused on, then 4, 7, 8, and 9 have flanking. If 8 is focused on, then 4 and 2 have flanking. If 9 is focused on, then 2, 4, and 7 have flanking. If 4 is focused on then 2, 8, and 9 have flanking. Note that in every sitaution except for 8 being focused on, 3 people have flanking. By RAW, only 2 and 8 have flanking, ever.

Now say 5 moves. If 5 takes a 5 foot step into 6 and focuses on either 8 or 9, 2 still has flanking. If 5 focuses on 2, 8 and 9 still have flanking. Note that by RAW nobody flanks in this situation.

That said, in a simple 2 person flank the rule does indeed weaken flanking. Similarly, in a simple 4 person flank the rule weakens flanking to some extent (though a 2-4-6-8 flank leaves the possibility for diagonal movement which evades flanking entirely by RAW and leaves one flanker by the new rule. A 1-3-5-7 flank remains weakened even with movement). The complete surround is also weakened significantly, as 3 people are denied flanking who would normally have it.

The other extreme is the 2, 7, 9 against 5 flank. By RAW, nobody flanks. Under this system, 2 out of 3 people get flanking.

[Kerrin]

Laying out a building using hexes isn't the issue ... Determining the rules for dealing half-hexes is the problem.

Hexes work well for games played on a wide open field such as spaceship games. But they can potentially have issues with shapes, side slips, and hex spines.

[Wonton]

I still I have yet to be convinced by anyone in this thread why hexes are better. All the responses I'm seeing so far are to the tune of "hexes make more sense".

... :smallconfused:

How?

Here's what it really boils down to - squares are designed with 90 degree turns in mind, while hexes are designed with 60 degree turns in mind. This makes squares very convenient in human-designed buildings, which tend to have 90 degree turns. The argument I'm seeing in this thread is "hexes are better in the open field" - but WHY? Do natural environments have some sort of preference to being oriented more in 60 degree increments than 90 degree ones? Are rocks more likely to be hexagonal than square? Do rivers make 60 degree turns but not 90 degree ones? I must admit, I am confused by your logic.

[Knaight]

I still I have yet to be convinced by anyone in this thread why hexes are better. All the responses I'm seeing so far are to the tune of "hexes make more sense".

... :smallconfused:

How?

A big thing is that hexes better approximate circles. This means that any spreads, bursts, and such have a simpler radius to implement, as having them as hexagons works nicely.

[prufock]

I like hexes in theory, but the battle mat I own is squares, so that's the only thing I've ever used. It's never been a problem, really, so I've had no great desire to replace it.

Most of the time, though, I don't use a grid at all. The grid really only becomes important when we're dealing with large groups. The rest of the time we just do it descriptively.


Do natural environments have some sort of preference to being oriented more in 60 degree increments than 90 degree ones? Are rocks more likely to be hexagonal than square? Do rivers make 60 degree turns but not 90 degree ones? I must admit, I am confused by your logic.

Basically, diagonals. Hex grids use 1:1 movement regardless of your angle, whereas squares require you to use different movement ratios.

The "best" system would probably be with circles, and no grid at all. You'd have minis with bases equal to their space, an additional circle if they have reach, and measure movement with a ruler. You'd be able to move in any direction, not forced into a square or hexagon. Area effects would use templates with the actual shape of the area rather than a square-by-square or hex-by-hex approximation. But all that measuring would probably become tedious.

[Duke of URL]

Hexes also handle reach better, due to the 1.5 diagonal issue with squares. If I'm playing a 5' grid and I have 10' reach, it's bone simple with hexes -- anything withing two hexes is in range. On a square grid, I have to start excluding corners. The problem magnifies as the reach gets larger.

Essentially, it's a circular area of effect, which hexes do a great job with to start, compared to squares.

[hoverfrog]

Octagon because I don't like to feel constrained by other people's choices. Also half moves are simple with octagons.

[Knaight]

Octagon because I don't like to feel constrained by other people's choices. Also half moves are simple with octagons.

Octagons don't fully interlock, leaving an octagon-square set up.

[hoverfrog]

I should have left a smily. I know I should have.

Serious answer. I prefer squares. Just for simplicity. Hexes are fine but my figures have square bases and it's just easier to stick to square grids.

Better yet, no grid and we just wing it.

[Calimehter]

The "best" system would probably be with circles, and no grid at all. You'd have minis with bases equal to their space, an additional circle if they have reach, and measure movement with a ruler. You'd be able to move in any direction, not forced into a square or hexagon. Area effects would use templates with the actual shape of the area rather than a square-by-square or hex-by-hex approximation. But all that measuring would probably become tedious.

Nah, it works pretty well in practice. I've got lots of square grids and lots of hexmaps floating around, but most of the time we just clear out a space and set the markers/minis down and get some tape measures handy. It flows pretty smoothly, though I will admit that might be because most of the group play a lot of Games-Workshop games too . . . i.e. we've got practice and lots of terrain (and tape measures!) . . . and we tend to be perfectly happy "fudging" by 5-ft. increments if player intent was obvious.

[Salanmander]

It depends on the situation. Say we have the following grid:
7 8 9
4 5 6
1 2 3
There is somebody at 5, surrounded by enemies.
...By RAW, only 2 and 8 have flanking, ever.
Uhh, what? How do you get that? By RAW all of them are flanking.

("trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.")



The other extreme is the 2, 7, 9 against 5 flank. By RAW, nobody flanks. Under this system, 2 out of 3 people get flanking.

I'll give you this one, it is possible with your system for one person to flank with less extreme separation.


Laying out a building using hexes isn't the issue ... Determining the rules for dealing half-hexes is the problem.

Hexes work well for games played on a wide open field such as spaceship games. But they can potentially have issues with shapes, side slips, and hex spines.

Yeah, half-hex rules can work, but the main thing is: it just strikes me as off when you have a formation marching down a hallway, and the rules they use change any time they move an odd number of 5-ft increments.

So, I like hexes for their verisimilitude, and in hallways they break that verisimilitude.

@Wonton: As for why hexes work better outside or in natural environments, I find that when I draw a natural scene on hexes, I end up with fewer awkward half-spaces. Sure, there are some hexes that have a little bit on a different side of a border between two things, but it's easier for me to mostly follow the hexes, so it's obvious which space each hex is in.

Also, as other people have said, the inconvenient directions (towards the points of the shape, like diagonals on squares) are less bad on hexes. For the math behind it:

On a grid, if you move along a diagonal and every diagonal counts as 1, you will move 141% of the distance you should have.
On a grid, if every diagonal counts as 2 (disallow diagonal movement, and just count squares), you will move 70% of the distance you should have.

However, on hexes, in the worst case scenario you will move 87% of the distance you should have, which is good enough for most people to just ignore it.

If you use the every-other-diagonal rule on a grid you actually get closer, you will move 94% of the distance you should have. However, it's more things to keep track of, and I know in my time i've definitely seen people go "...hold on, let me start that from the beginning again" MANY times because of that rule.

[Typewriter]

I prefer hexes for three primary reasons:

1. The angles make more sense to me. The whole 1.5 rule of squares always bothered me. I feel like hexes make moving make more sense. I feel like attacking adjacent hexes makes more sense than attacking someone at a diagonal area.

2. I feel that strategy is different (and a bit better) with hexes. I feel like the map has a better, more natural, flow to it that makes planning and strategizing more sensible.

3. Heroscape! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=204041&highlight=boat)

[Drelua]

Last session I had, my DM told me about a group he plays with sometimes that uses the diagonal = 1 square rule. I had 4 words to explain the results of that rule: right-angled equilateral triangle. :smalleek: If you're facing straight towards a man who's 50 feet away, and 50 feet to the right of him is another man, then both of those men are just as far away from you. This results in a strange series of concentric squares around you, with every point of any single square being equidistant from your position. :smallconfused: Great, now I have a headache just from trying to picture that...

[huttj509]

Last session I had, my DM told me about a group he plays with sometimes that uses the diagonal = 1 square rule. I had 4 words to explain the results of that rule: right-angled equilateral triangle. :smalleek: If you're facing straight towards a man who's 50 feet away, and 50 feet to the right of him is another man, then both of those men are just as far away from you. This results in a strange series of concentric squares around you, with every point of any single square being equidistant from your position. :smallconfused: Great, now I have a headache just from trying to picture that...

It's the system 4E uses. Makes things confusing if you try to use it to do geometry, but dirt-simple to draw bursts (squares), cones (more squares), and move your character (you can reach anywhere in a square).

[Roguenewb]

Do it with computers! In a torus shaped hyper geometry! WITH DRAGONS!

The whole concept is pretty ancillary. If you just use a little bit of common sense lubrication, movement is a breeze and it's not really a problem. If, however, you want hyper-detailed tactical simulation gaming....go find a different game. 3.5 isn't a really good *anything*. Its main gift is that it can do some of a ton of things, it's the Factotum of game systems. Stop trying to make it a beguiler (hyper-RP types), or a Warblade (hyper tactical types).

[Wonton]

Hexes also handle reach better, due to the 1.5 diagonal issue with squares. If I'm playing a 5' grid and I have 10' reach, it's bone simple with hexes -- anything withing two hexes is in range. On a square grid, I have to start excluding corners. The problem magnifies as the reach gets larger.

Essentially, it's a circular area of effect, which hexes do a great job with to start, compared to squares.

See, now that's a good point. I'd mentioned before that hexes are better for circular effects, but my opinion was that circular effects are rare enough that it doesn't matter. But, as you pointed out, anyone using a weapon is really a circular effect, because in theory, a melee weapon should be able to hit anyone within a certain range.

Although, (and by this point, I'm mainly playing Devil's Advocate) that doesn't change the fact that no one answered my "Why do hexes work better in an open field" question. I mean, sure, I see that they have their benefits, but those benefits apply regardless of location. I still don't see what it is about the hexagon that makes it especially better than the square in natural surroundings. Mother nature doesn't care about angles, after all.

[Aliek]

I think that's not because nature favors 60 degrees angles. It's that, overall, the hex system is better, but a bit complicated to use inside buildings and somesuch, which favors the squares.
I wouldn't mind using both of them in the same game, tough. It could even be a way to show "how harder it is to fight in close-quarters" or something.

[Drelua]

It's the system 4E uses. Makes things confusing if you try to use it to do geometry, but dirt-simple to draw bursts (squares), cones (more squares), and move your character (you can reach anywhere in a square).

My main problem is when you can move to, let's call it, point A but not point B, when A is further than B because it's diagonal on the grid. Say, one is 90 feet diagonally and the other 70 feet parallel to the grid and you want to charge the latter. I know it's not likely to come up, but just the possibility makes it not worth the slight convenience of not having to count '1,3,4,6' instead of '1,2,3,4' to me. Even if you're switching between straight and diagonal movement, I can't see it being a problem. It's not that the rule's horrendous or anything, it's just that to me it takes away more than it gives.

[Knaight]

Although, (and by this point, I'm mainly playing Devil's Advocate) that doesn't change the fact that no one answered my "Why do hexes work better in an open field" question. I mean, sure, I see that they have their benefits, but those benefits apply regardless of location. I still don't see what it is about the hexagon that makes it especially better than the square in natural surroundings. Mother nature doesn't care about angles, after all.

Humans have a tendency to build 90 degree angles into things. Square and rectangular rooms in floor plans are extremely common. As such, when inside squares work fairly well, as they take this into account (though the 5 foot to a side increment doesn't exactly help things).

[Big Fau]

Uhh, what? How do you get that? By RAW all of them are flanking.


Negative. 1+3, 1+7, 1+8, 3+8, 3+9, 3+4, 1+4, 1+6, 2+4, 2+6, 2+7, 2+9, 4+8, 6+8, 7+9, and 8+9 are all invalid flanking options according to the 3.5 Rules Compendium. There's a more accurate diagram in both the PHB and RC that contradicts your claim.


The Island of Blades stance (Bo9S) makes your statement true though.

[Drelua]

Negative. 1+3, 1+7, 1+8, 3+8, 3+9, 3+4, 1+4, 1+6, 2+4, 2+6, 2+7, 2+9, 4+8, 6+8, 7+9, and 8+9 are all invalid flanking options according to the 3.5 Rules Compendium. There's a more accurate diagram in both the PHB and RC that contradicts your claim.


The Island of Blades stance (Bo9S) makes your statement true though.

I think what he meant was that if there was a person in every square, 5 would be flanked by all of them. I was a little confused reading your post until I realized that you were only talking about which combinations of squares give flanking, not which people were flanking; that didn't come across very clearly to me.

[Big Fau]

I think what he meant was that if there was a person in every square, 5 would be flanked by all of them. I was a little confused reading your post until I realized that you were only talking about which combinations of squares give flanking, not which people were flanking; that didn't come across very clearly to me.

Well, naturally being surrounding by 8 enemies means Flanking for everyone (except against the unflankable).

[Knaight]

Well, naturally being surrounding by 8 enemies means Flanking for everyone (except against the unflankable).

Yes, but when you introduce the focus rules this takes out either a side (e.g. 1, 2, 3) or a corner (e.g 1, 2, 4). My point is, when looking at that rule in detail it seems to more or less work out as even when dealing with decently sized surrounds.

[Malimar]

Why? I find that that rule is quite easy to use in practice - the 2nd, 4th, 6th, etc diagonal movement in a turn takes 2 squares instead of 1. And geometrically, it makes far more sense than 4th edition's stupid "diagonals = 1" rule. The square root of 2 is about 1.414, which is a lot closer to 1.5 than 1.

It's certainly better than the "diagonal = 1" rule, sure. But it's just one of a zillion things you need to keep track of, especially when you're DMing and your part of the battle involves half the things on the map.

If I could persuade my brain to stick entirely to thinking in squares, instead of constantly converting from squares to feet and back, I probably wouldn't dislike it so much, because 1+1+2 is slightly simpler than 5+5+10.

[Salanmander]

Well, naturally being surrounding by 8 enemies means Flanking for everyone (except against the unflankable).

Oh, I understand your post now. I got thrown off by the "surrounded by enemies" line.

Yeah, it seems like in general your rule makes flanking position less strict, but also lets the opponent pick someone who can't flank him. Sad news for the party with a single rogue in it.