The main reason is because I find that 1-1-1 and 1-2-1 diagonal movement on a square grid to be a little iffy.
I was wondering if (given the information we have so far) there would be any major clashes with the mechanics of the game.
Thoughts?
I've been considering running a hex grid over the square one
The main reason is because I find that 1-1-1 and 1-2-1 diagonal movement on a square grid to be a little iffy.
I was wondering if (given the information we have so far) there would be any major clashes with the mechanics of the game.
Thoughts?
I've been considering this as well. It would mean there are 12 directions to travel (the lines from corner to corner counting as spaces) and the corner directions are slightly less off than with a square grid using 1-2-1-2 (which is not too bad anyway). The only difficulty I would see is the use of dungeon tiles, and really those are only a convenience.
Minis are made for squares, so anything dealing with the minis would be the only real problem. You could just adjust anything relative to the minis except for there bases to make them work for a hex based map.
The D&D minis I have fit very nicely onto the hex battlemat I use. Nothing to adjust thus far.
but squares do make it for a clear game, they let you see stright lines, reach...
Id prefer to go Hex 'xept inside a dungeon, where things will be much more straight (unles is a cave.. or a groove or...)
the hex grid is obvioously much more realistic, people doest move un linear-scuare grids
Oh, I agree totally. Any fool can see that people move in triangles rather than squares!
Oh, I agree totally. Any fool can see that people move in triangles rather than squares!
Really? I've been going in circles all day! ;)
I think the thing someone was mentioning about minis earlier was intended to relate to large and upwards scaled creatures, as I imagine it's a bit more difficult to use them than in squares.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/hexGrid.htm
Dunno how well it will work with bursts/blasts though.
* 3.0/3.5's 1-2-1-2 for diagonals seemed a fair realistic compromise. But I could see some difficulty with measuring distances that cut across a few rows.
* SWSE's 2-2-2-2 for diagonals I saw as a way to eliminate that difficulty, by basically eliminating diagonals altogether. It wasn't as realistic, but I could see the compromise there.
* 4e's 1-1-1-1 was another way to eliminate that difficulty. It seems to me the most unrealistic. I picture my high school geometry teacher sobbing in the name of Pythagoras. I weep a little too.
When I try out 4e, starting off I'm going to do my best to use hexes. When hunkered down to close quarters, like the iconic 10' wide dungeon tunnel, I'll probably use squares until it opens out. For smaller rooms, I might even houserule in the old 1-2-1-2 movement, or go for a 1-1-2-1-1-2 compromise.
For ranged attacks I'll probably get a ruler and measure actual distances instead of counting off spaces.
On a normal square grid:
A diagonal 1-1-1 move is a distortion. The closer you veer to a 45-degree angle, the greater the distortion becomes. (It exceeds realistic distances.)
But note. A diagonal 1-2-1 move is also a distortion. The farther you veer away from a 45-degree angle, without going a full perpendicular angle, the greater the distortion becomes. (It falls short of realistic distances.) In fact, when you plot out all the possible moves, it turns out 1-1-1 and 1-2-1 are more-or-less equally distortive.
Because these moves are about equally bad, it may be preferable to opt for 1-1-1 because of its simplicity.
In the Legacy-ed Rules forum, one thread brought up the following point.
On a normal square grid:
A diagonal 1-1-1 move is a distortion. The closer you veer to a 45-degree angle, the greater the distortion becomes. (It exceeds realistic distances.)
But note. A diagonal 1-2-1 move is also a distortion. The farther you veer away from a 45-degree angle, without going a full perpendicular angle, the greater the distortion becomes. (It falls short of realistic distances.) In fact, when you plot out all the possible moves, it turns out 1-1-1 and 1-2-1 are more-or-less equally distortive.
Because these moves are about equally bad, it may be preferable to opt for 1-1-1 because of its simplicity.
Until you note that the amount that 1-1-1 is off at its worst, is far more than the amount that 1-2-1 is off at its worst. To each their own as to what they chose to use, but I personally prefer hexes or 1-2-1 if using squares.
I've been considering running a hex grid over the square one
The main reason is because I find that 1-1-1 and 1-2-1 diagonal movement on a square grid to be a little iffy.
I was wondering if (given the information we have so far) there would be any major clashes with the mechanics of the game.
Thoughts?
I have never had a problem with mechanics before, I use the hex grid for my games.
In fact, when you plot out all the possible moves, it turns out 1-1-1 and 1-2-1 are more-or-less equally distortive.
Half truth... 1-1-1 and 1-2-1 both distort as often, however the average distortion of 1-1-1 is much larger than 1-2-1.
1-1-1 Is correct more often, but it's average error is higher
1-2-1 is in error more often, but it's error is small
I have a giant map that has both reversible, and I started with hexes, but I've recently been leaning towards squares. I don't mind that it's abstract.
TS