Hex grid vs. traditional square grid

[ezkajii]

Which do you prefer? What are some specific advantages/disadvantages/complications with one vs. the other? I like the idea of hex for simplifying the drawing of spell areas and such, but I feel like diagonal travel will be complicated - or does one just never go "diagonal"?
It's sort of a general question, but if it matters, I'm primarily interested in 3.5e D&D use.

[LibraryOgre]

I prefer hexes, myself, because I feel they're cleaner on movement. However, 3.5 married itself to squares, so I imagine that would remain easier.

[Maglubiyet]

I prefer hexes, myself, because I feel they're cleaner on movement.

Cleaner on movement, maybe, but hexes play all hell with drawing 90-degree angles on maps. Some of us that are penmanship-challenged still need to trace the lines.

[Gritmonger]

Hex every time. You'll find some walls give you problems, others are just fine - depending on the way the grid is drawn. The range and distance and radius calculations are so straightforward compared to squares, and (frankly) for a DM, the idea that the most that can crowd about the hapless barbarian who ran out front is six instead of eight is a bit comforting as well.

[Frozen_Feet]

I prefer squares simply because I never have hex paper at hand when I need it.

For actually tracing movement and distance, I use a ruler anyway.

[Psyren]

Wow, you know, it's great to see you being such good sports about this.

[erikun]

Square grids tend to be better for straight things. Hex grids tend to be better for round-ish things. You can set up a building with 90° corners and 45° angles incredibly easy with a square grid, while the 90° corners take a bit of work on hex and I'm not sure how feasable 45° would turn out. Both are kind of awkward when trying to draw any straight line that isn't in one of their coordinate directions; hex has a bit more "give" in this situation but most people who want to move in the common 'up-down-left-right' will find one of those directions to be a strange zigzag movement.

On the other hand, hexes tend to have roundish circles and display 30° and 60° cones perfectly. There's also not the question of "can I attack around this corner?" that you run into with square edges.

[Banjoman42]

I usually use hex paper only to draw maps of areas. It makes drawing land formations a lot easier, but for combat, I prefer square grids. This is primarily due to the fact that a lot of my encounters involve large amounts of weaker enemies, and it makes them a greater challenge to the PCs.

[VoxRationis]

Hexes interact so poorly with most buildings (unless you're playing a sci-fi game with hexagonal alien architecture), I am extremely loathe to use them, diagonals be damned.

Furthermore, a little-emphasized problem with hexes is that you can either move straight forward or you can stand shoulder-to-shoulder with someone (depending on how the battle is oriented in relation to the grid), but not both. That's a big deal if either your PCs or your NPCs want to form a defensive line.

[DigoDragon]

I can work in either shape, but square grids are easier to find when I want a notepad of lined paper for map-making.

[ezkajii]

Wow, I was not expecting this to end up quite so divided! It's sounding like although they both have their advantages, squares are generally more familiar and - notably - easier to find. My main concern in asking this is because I plan to by some of those cool magnetic GNL mats that were advertised here for a little while, and I wanted to know which to get, so I'm thinking I'll buy the hex ones and then if I want square for any reason I can use graph paper or the lower-quality square battlemat I already have.

Thanks for everyone's replies! It's been remarkable informative. Also I hope I didn't convey a "finalization" tone in this message, the discussion's great, keep it coming!

[BayardSPSR]

Wow, I was not expecting this to end up quite so divided!

If you want divided, I don't use grids at all because they slow things down.

[Feddlefew]

I can work in either shape, but square grids are easier to find when I want a notepad of lined paper for map-making.

I use engineering graph paper for map making, since it has 1inch, 1cm, and 1/5 cm squares. It makes scaling easy.

[NomGarret]

For three months the only thing I had on hand was sheet music paper. All the PCs needed to declare their movement in musical notation.

[DigoDragon]

For three months the only thing I had on hand was sheet music paper. All the PCs needed to declare their movement in musical notation.

"I would like to take a Standard Action and a Minor Action this round, because my bonuses are Flat until the next Bridge."

[Flickerdart]

Straight lines in non-grid directions work okay if you have the ability to draw lines (which means either virtual tabletops, or a ruler). Pick any space in your square and in the target square, draw a line, and however many cells it goes through is however many squares you move. Doesn't really matter if you're on a square grid or hex grid. Hell, give a triangular grid a go if you're feeling particularly perverse.

[Seltsamuel]

My players like the simple squares. They still sometimes struggle with movement and combat maneuvers

I played once without any grid and it was awesome. What you need is a ruler and a string for movement and effective lines.

[The Grue]

I like the idea of hex for simplifying the drawing of spell areas and such, but I feel like diagonal travel will be complicated - or does one just never go "diagonal"?

Huh? What does "diagonal" even mean on a hex grid?

[Segev]

Hm. It could be interesting to give every creature (PCs and N-) a length of string that represents their total possible move distance, and then have them lay it out on their turn to show their path. Might mark it in three different colors, with one color being the distance of a normal move, one the additional distance of a double move, and one the additional distance beyond that they can cover in a run.

[The Evil DM]

I find the square grid more useful in the smaller scales, and the hex grid more useful in larger scales.

I use hex grids for large scale naval battles and troop movements.

I use square grids for very close scale tactical battles between small groups.

[Jeraa]

Which do you prefer? What are some specific advantages/disadvantages/complications with one vs. the other? I like the idea of hex for simplifying the drawing of spell areas and such, but I feel like diagonal travel will be complicated - or does one just never go "diagonal"?
It's sort of a general question, but if it matters, I'm primarily interested in 3.5e D&D use.

Neither. I prefer gridless. No need to adjudicate partial spaces. No need to count diagonals. No need for things to be in increments of 5 feet.

[goto124]

If you want divided, I don't use grids at all because they slow things down.

Isn't it system dependant? I can't imagine plauing DnD 3.5e without a grid.

Heck, which system support both square and hex? How does it work...?

[VoxRationis]

My table plays 3.5 mostly sans grid, truth be told. We use consistent scaling on non-gridded tabletop (books for terrain), most of the time, or 5e's TotM-style play. It's not that hard, because most figures are given in feet, and you can use those any time you have a reasonably consistent scale.

@ The Evil DM: Naval games have the difficulty I mentioned before with hex grids. Lines of battle in particular suffer from this because you can't have ships sailing front-to-back pair off with their enemy counterparts; either each ship is offset from its "evil twin", slightly to the van or rear, or the ships are moving at an angle to the line of battle. (That said, I definitely think hexes work better than squares for ships—hexes just have their own problems.)

[BayardSPSR]

Isn't it system dependent? I can't imagine playing DnD 3.5e without a grid.

I guess it is. I don't play D&D, so the idea of a five-foot tactical step has always seemed silly to me. The only distance increments I've needed to use while GMing (for combat purposes, not for descriptive purposes) are "in [weapon] range," "in [weapon] range at a penalty," "close enough to hit," and "close enough to move to and hit in this turn."

[Jeraa]

Isn't it system dependant? I can't imagine plauing DnD 3.5e without a grid.

Heck, which system support both square and hex? How does it work...?

3.5 D&D has rules for a hex grid in Unearthed Arcana. I believe 5e D&D has rules for both in the Dungeon Master's Guide (the normal rules don't assume a grid is used at all).

[Knaight]

Between the two I favor hex grids. With that said, I generally favor games with no grids at all, and if tactical positioning is there I quite like zones.