If a hex is mostly blocked by a wall, you can't use it. If it's mostly open, you can. It's actually very simple.
Moving down that corridor in your example looks awkward. If you allow standing "on the line" to avoid that, you need rules to cover when you can/cannot stand on the line, and how someone standing on a line interacts with someone nearby who is not.
I like hexes because there is less preferred direction to them. But I do get stuck on points like these myself when I think up my own conversions.
Large and up though... why did everything get suddenly so much of a size increase?
Large = 4 hexes in a "diamond" shape (I actually use a 3 hex "triangle")
Huge = what you have listed for large.
And then on up the scale from there.
...what I don't get about people who think hex maps are foreign to D&D - 1st AD&D, and quite a lot of the modules I have read that are written exclusively by E. Gary Gygax, used hexes as/more often than squares.
Not very helpful, I know. But those just disturb my sense of aesthetics and make me think of wargames with stacks of 500 cardboard tokens...
Moving down that corridor in your example looks awkward. If you allow standing "on the line" to avoid that, you need rules to cover when you can/cannot stand on the line, and how someone standing on a line interacts with someone nearby who is not.
If I'm understanding your question correctly, the answer is "You don't ever stand on a line between two hexes." You do this:
And before someone asks, yes I rule that you can flank in a 1 hex corridor, even though two figures cannot stand directly opposite each other.
Large and up though... why did everything get suddenly so much of a size increase?
No fancy reason, that's just the way I do things. I simply prefer using hex shapes rather than three-pointed star shapes.
...what I don't get about people who think hex maps are foreign to D&D - 1st AD&D, and quite a lot of the modules I have read that are written exclusively by E. Gary Gygax, used hexes as/more often than squares.
I didn't know that, thanks for the tidbit!
No fancy reason, that's just the way I do things. I simply prefer using hex shapes rather than three-pointed star shapes.
Well, that makes perfect sense to me - so more power to you.
I didn't know that, thanks for the tidbit!
It was back there a bit - I wasn't actually around for that period myself, but I have delved backwards from my starting point in AD&D 2nd edition all the way back to the original booklets.
There is even a period where it seems that hexes were used for large maps like cities and outdoor areas, and squares were brought into maps with more defined boundries such as tunnels and castles... and there were many times when the old modules required a careful eye - or you would find yourself thinking "man, these are some tiny caverns" before you noticed the note "1 square = 30 feet" on the map.
Really though... I have always suggested that people read some of the old school modules if they get a chance, since back then they were written entirely from a story base instead of "what's fair for this level" like the new stuff.
Well, that makes perfect sense to me - so more power to you.
It was back there a bit - I wasn't actually around for that period myself, but I have delved backwards from my starting point in AD&D 2nd edition all the way back to the original booklets.
There is even a period where it seems that hexes were used for large maps like cities and outdoor areas, and squares were brought into maps with more defined boundries such as tunnels and castles... and there were many times when the old modules required a careful eye - or you would find yourself thinking "man, these are some tiny caverns" before you noticed the note "1 square = 30 feet" on the map.
Really though... I have always suggested that people read some of the old school modules if they get a chance, since back then they were written entirely from a story base instead of "what's fair for this level" like the new stuff.
Hmmm, being one of the old guard hard core wargamer crowd that started playing D&D in the mid 70's I'd put it this way. Hexes were never in my recollection used for indoor tactical level maps. Those were always square gridded. There were a few places where modules had "underground" maps that had hex grids on them, but they were all stuff like the "D" series where you were adventuring in the Underdark and those were basically the equivalent of overland maps. You wouldn't have actually used them in a fight.
That being said there were always those who favored hex grids for combat. There were equally those who didn't bother with grids at all and just measured, and those that didn't bother with figures and tactical maps at all.
I think 4e will work fine with hexes. I'd personally rule that you only need to be 2 hex sides away from an ally to flank. That preserves the ability to shift 2 or move 2 and be in a flanking position. I think I'd be tempted to use the triangular pattern for larger creatures too. Mostly because otherwise large creatures are going to be hard pressed to fit very many places.
Overall though I think squares work fine for indoors. They're just more convenient overall. Easier to draw out walls and such and a lot less ambiguity about what is a playable map position.
Though it makes no difference, this is this is how I would position the hexes. The blue represents the sizes I would use and the red represents the burst 1 and blast 3. Also I did example of the different corridor positions I think 4e will work nicely with the hex system, but I personally prefer the lineless inch system, where i can use my clear wargame templates for blast and burst :D.
Hmmm, being one of the old guard hard core wargamer crowd that started playing D&D in the mid 70's I'd put it this way. Hexes were never in my recollection used for indoor tactical level maps. Those were always square gridded. There were a few places where modules had "underground" maps that had hex grids on them, but they were all stuff like the "D" series where you were adventuring in the Underdark and those were basically the equivalent of overland maps. You wouldn't have actually used them in a fight.
That being said there were always those who favored hex grids for combat. There were equally those who didn't bother with grids at all and just measured, and those that didn't bother with figures and tactical maps at all.
I think 4e will work fine with hexes. I'd personally rule that you only need to be 2 hex sides away from an ally to flank. That preserves the ability to shift 2 or move 2 and be in a flanking position. I think I'd be tempted to use the triangular pattern for larger creatures too. Mostly because otherwise large creatures are going to be hard pressed to fit very many places.
Overall though I think squares work fine for indoors. They're just more convenient overall. Easier to draw out walls and such and a lot less ambiguity about what is a playable map position.
One thing that has not been mentioned, but is very obvious when you look at the choices made for hexes/squares in old maps:
1) Hexes are great for natural shapes. Cavens, forests, overland adventure.
2) Squares fit nicely into rectanguar shapes such as man-made rooms and corridors.
. . . using hexes for square rooms and corridors leaves lots of awkward half-hexes, and looks awkward.
. . . likewise a squared off forest path or swamp looks somewhat suspect.
So, why not do both, and use them for approprate maps?
Or, you know what? Forgo having grids at all! You can play without a grid just fine-- use the range as inches. Your models probably have about a 1" base and are 2" tall for medium size and 1" base and 1" tall for small size.
When you move or use your powers or abilities you measure range with your tape-measure and measure it. Everything within 1" of each other is threatened or in melee and in melee within 2" with a reach weapon.
You can make paper or transparant plastic cut outs for 1", 2", 3", 4", and 5" blast radiuses-- although in the case of burst powers targeting your allies you can just measure to them.
It would give the game a lot more organic, far less calculated feel because everyone would be measuring everything by site rather than by counting squares on the map. You could even use actual terrain in your games instead of drawing squares or hexagons on a map. Dungeon walls no longer have to be exact incraments of 5' apart, they can be whatever your terrain says. Your trees don't have to be square or hexagon-- they can be tree shaped! You have your little tree terrain pieces and toss them down and whereever they fall, that's what you have.
It's both a simple and a beautiful solution to all the problems! Furthermore, charging is ALWAYS a straight-line, no questioning or debating whether or not something is a straight line... there's your tape measure and the two figures and BOOM. Problem solved!
Hmmm, being one of the old guard hard core wargamer crowd that started playing D&D in the mid 70's I'd put it this way. Hexes were never in my recollection used for indoor tactical level maps. Those were always square gridded. There were a few places where modules had "underground" maps that had hex grids on them, but they were all stuff like the "D" series where you were adventuring in the Underdark and those were basically the equivalent of overland maps. You wouldn't have actually used them in a fight.
Thanks for confirming my suspicion of that being the case, I'm not as familiar as I would like to be with pre-AD&D 2nd edition information.
Why does no one ever use octagon maps? It would provide you with the same benefits of hexagon maps except them all your straight lines would make a lot more sense.
No, because regular octagons don't tessellate.