using hexes.

[heymejack]

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]

Hexes don't really change much. The biggest difference is that it is more difficult to 'trap' people through positioning.

[gomipile]

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]

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]

Yeah, if one's build depends on number of threatened spaces, going to hexes is a nerf.

[valadil]

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]

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]

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]

Obligatory comic #175 link. Someone had to.

[valadil]

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]

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. 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]

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]

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. 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 . It equals 22!

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]

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]

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. Besides, I think I went over the top enough that no one will take my statements as a serious position.

[valadil]

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 . It equals 22!

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]

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. Your stuff in this thread doesn't stand a chance!

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

[valadil]

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

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

[Thinker]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 . It equals 22!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.