As the title asks... hex maps?
YAY or nay?
As the title asks... hex maps?
YAY or nay?
Having cut my gaming teeth, so to speak, on Battletech and Champions, I'n a fan. I'm not saying they're inherently superior, just that I prefer them. They do have the advantage of having a larger number of facings, which is irrelevant to D&D/PF, and for me that also helps with verisimilitude when calculating distances (diagonals on square maps give me a bit of a twitch). On the other hand, they can be a pain in urban settings and buildings, because, well, unless you're living in primitive huts or are Buckminster Fuller, your buildings tend to be rectangular.
All in all, for PF, I don't see them as necessary. For games with facings, however, I think they really shine.
On the other hand, they can be a pain in urban settings and buildings, because, well, unless you're living in primitive huts or are Buckminster Fuller, your buildings tend to be rectangular.
I much prefer hex maps to square ones, but this is the reason I still use squares almost exclusively (it's easier than switching back and forth depending on whether there's a wall nearby).
I prefer Hex Grids.
The only real problem I find drawing out maps on hex grids for miniature use. It's a real pain. Now if you could by a mat that had both square grid and hex on the same side, now that would work. The square grid would be light lines to guide drawing out the map. The Hex grid would be dark and where you can move in map. Even a partial covered hex would be considered open. Otherwise you can get hallway with half hexes exposed.
I think hex grids are really neat and playing on one is always a treat. That said, I never use them.
we can use maps with rpgs?[/tongue-in-cheek]
except for when playing Battletech (hex) or Carwars (square) I never use either hex or square maps.
I find square maps easier to prepare and draw, hex grids have the advantage in outdoors surroundings, while indoor I prefer squares.
I switch sometimes, using hex whenever I got time to prepare for it and it is convenient to do so, but otherwise defaulting to squares.
The only real problem I find drawing out maps on hex grids for miniature use.
Try finding a transparent hex grid, and overlaying it on top of your map.
|
As the title asks... hex maps?
YAY or nay?
I think they are maps with hexes on them. :P
Seriously... In my wargaming, I would say "HEXES!!!!!" They are inherently intuitive. In my D20 RPG's, I've been using a grid since 2nd Edition (before the Miniatures Handbook) so its become intuitive. At this point, there's really no difference to me. I suppose that some things are easier to measure with hexes but not so much easier for me that I really care.
Squares made me go crazy when starting to DM 4e, so I decided to run with hexes, and it just made more sense. Houses were as weird as any non-squares outdoor things were, and I just used the same rule (if it takes up most of the hex, it's taken up).
Do witches get a bonus on cartography?
The Cauldron Hex is a feat and a +4 to a skill, so a Hex Map should probably be equivalent in power.
Maybe the Know Direction cantrip as an at-will ability and add KS: geography to the skill list with a +2 bonus.
Plus the witch can only be flanked by 3 pairs of foes, rather then 4.
As the title asks... hex maps?
YAY or nay?
We use a hex map for all our combat and find it a little bit easier to use for movement etc than square maps.
Once you get used to hexes, drawing buildings and other stuff on the map becomes very simple.
That said, I really think it is a matter of personal preferance/taste. Our table dislikes the counting system for diagonal movement on square maps and with hexes it is a simple matter to get where your going with one point per hex.
In the end though, use what you like best and what you find easiest.
Hex map anytime!
Short of going with no grid at all, hexagons provide much better optimization of space than squares.
When drawing on the map, I don't even see the hexes anymore. I just draw what I need to draw and don't concern myself with grids (square, hex or otherwise). A tape measure helps me get a sense of general distances when need be (like reproducing a room from a notes), which does not take more time than "counting squares".
The nicest thing about this, I quickly found out that buildings don't have to be square anymore! Suddenly, all kinds of round towers and curved roads kept popping out. Even strait buildings stopped being perfectly in line with each others!
'findel
Try finding a transparent hex grid, and overlaying it on top of your map.
Does such a thing exist?
I've been looking for those for forever. I gave-up a few years back, are there any on the market now?
'findel
I like hex maps for all (or most) of the above reasons, but when I started to try to use them in 3.x/PF I noticed some telling issues (since the ruleset was built around squares).
1) Flanking (rule-based): The non-modified flanking rules state that only someone directly across from another is flanking. Granted, I use a slightly more liberal interpretation, even on square grids, but how do you define flanking for hex grids?
2) Flanking (tactics-based): Quite simply, you cannot get the same number of people around a target on a hex grid. The number drops from eight to six for a medium opponent. This is usually not a problem, but can be in encounters designed to overwhelm the PCs with small critters that might die easily (the critters, not the PCs). Conversely, it shrinks the number of targets available for whirlwind attack, reach, spells, and other distance-based effects. Also for threatened areas for attacks of opportunity.
I primarily use maptools for my group, and I'm flirting with the idea of grid-less movement (since you can calculate exact distances and paths easily). Can't quite figure out how to make it work, though.
Basically, I like hexagonal grids for the improvement in directions and the shapes of cones and blasts which are far more regular
(diagonals on square maps give me a bit of a twitch)
Yeah, when playing on hex I would remove any rule about diagonal movement - the advantage of hex is that there are more directions so you probably don't need diagonal steps anyway
I guess I could never adjust to the moves knights in hex chess, diagonal in hex is just strange (bishops are ok since the fields are colored and bishops stay on their starting color)I find square maps easier to prepare and draw, hex grids have the advantage in outdoors surroundings, while indoor I prefer squares.
+1
The urban settings MultiClassClown talks about just call for regular squares, directions in urban settings should represent the architecture which somewhat follows a manhattan metric, add diagonal steps where you wanna go beyond the manhattan metric while settings in free nature call for as many directions as possible (but completely free movement would make battle slow and would cause problems with threatened areas and stuff)
1) Flanking (rule-based): The non-modified flanking rules state that only someone directly across from another is flanking. Granted, I use a slightly more liberal interpretation, even on square grids, but how do you define flanking for hex grids?
2) Flanking (tactics-based): Quite simply, you cannot get the same number of people around a target on a hex grid. The number drops from eight to six for a medium opponent. This is usually not a problem, but can be in encounters designed to overwhelm the PCs with small critters that might die easily (the critters, not the PCs). Conversely, it shrinks the number of targets available for whirlwind attack, reach, spells, and other distance-based effects. Also for threatened areas for attacks of opportunity.
1: RAI, flanking is a bonus given by forcing an opponent to defend to sides of his body at the same time. In squares say its defending 0 degrees and 180 degrees. Whats to say that defending 0 and 135 isn't just as hard to do?
2a: I've always allowed critters that are small size to occupy the same square if the idea is for a swarm. Little two/three foot tall creatures could be 2 per space or maybe 5 per 2 connected spaces, and smaller creatures can just pile it on
2b: and yes your PCs might b+$%* because its not RAW that creatures like that can share the same space really, but honestly, in real life, two creatures no bigger than a 4 year old aren't going to stay five feet apart from each other if they're trying to tackle you (think children zombie swarm)
1) Flanking (rule-based): The non-modified flanking rules state that only someone directly across from another is flanking. Granted, I use a slightly more liberal interpretation, even on square grids, but how do you define flanking for hex grids?1: RAI, flanking is a bonus given by forcing an opponent to defend to sides of his body at the same time. In squares say its defending 0 degrees and 180 degrees. Whats to say that defending 0 and 135 isn't just as hard to do?
emphasis mine
Personally, I wouldn't change anything on the flanking rule. The way I see it, flanking isn't so much that it is difficult to defend yourself against two directly opposed enemies, but the these enemies are actively seeking to surround and corner the flanked creature.
I'm sure that defending against 0 and 135 is just as hard to do than 0-180, its just that the flanking configuration clearly indicates that two creatures are successfully harassing their opponent (as opposed to the defender being able to sidestep their harassment).
my 2 coppers...
'findel
1: RAI, flanking is a bonus given by forcing an opponent to defend to sides of his body at the same time. In squares say its defending 0 degrees and 180 degrees. Whats to say that defending 0 and 135 isn't just as hard to do?2a: I've always allowed critters that are small size to occupy the same square if the idea is for a swarm. Little two/three foot tall creatures could be 2 per space or maybe 5 per 2 connected spaces, and smaller creatures can just pile it on
2b: and yes your PCs might b+*#% because its not RAW that creatures like that can share the same space really, but honestly, in real life, two creatures no bigger than a 4 year old aren't going to stay five feet apart from each other if they're trying to tackle you (think children zombie swarm)
1) Actually RAW says that only creatures directly across do this. One on a facing and one on a vertex of the opposite side of a square do not, technically, flank (large critters get a little hazy with this). This is from the Core book. I personally disagree (and say so in a house rule), but that's the rule in the book, for better or worse. On a hex, there are fewer opportunities to do this, RAW. Granted a hex map is completely Rule 0 territory, but it was simply something I noticed when I tried it.
2) I meant small in the sense of high-quantity, low CR critters. It doesn't have to be small-sized or tiny critters. It could be infantry. If Mr. Tough guy is fighting a human or orcish army, he can be surrounded by more people or orcs on a grid map than a hex map. With aid-another actions, this might make the difference between gnat and threat. Again, something I noticed. It's a tactical consideration where the game intrudes on logistics and sheer logic.
2b) PCs b+*#% for any reason they can. :) I had to stamp on a ten minute complain-o-fest because, in the middle of a purge-invisibility spell, a creature vanished (teleported, not invisibility). There was complaint about how he disappeared, why and where, and if he knew a purge invisibility was in effect. Ugh.
Like I said, I enjoy hex maps but these facts CAN become logistical effects. For instance, if the PCs are leading the army, and they want to get as many people around the bad guy as they can. The grid map allows them to do that, but the hex doesn't. And vice versa.
2) Flanking (tactics-based): Quite simply, you cannot get the same number of people around a target on a hex grid. The number drops from eight to six for a medium opponent. This is usually not a problem, but can be in encounters designed to overwhelm the PCs with small critters that might die easily (the critters, not the PCs). Conversely, it shrinks the number of targets available for whirlwind attack, reach, spells, and other distance-based effects. Also for threatened areas for attacks of opportunity.
In my mind, that's a feature of hexmaps, not a bug. RAW flanking works just fine on a square grid, until you get multiple sets of flankers using swarming (not a Swarm necessarily) tactics. That's where things start to be squirrely in my mind, and the problem is a Pythagorean one. For any given 5' SQUARE that a character is in, the distance from the center of that square to the centers of the horizontal and vertical facing squares is 5', and the distance between the centers of either two flanking squares is 10'. But the distance between the centers of the middle square and the diagonal squares that only touch it on the corners is roughly 7.07', and between the flanking pairs, just over 14'. that's ALMOST like allowing flanking on the flat facings when one of the two flankers is 10' from the defender. Furthermore, that extra distance from the defenders means that if you DID have a situation where the # of flankers >4, the horizontal and vertical flankers will get in the way of the vertical flankers. Practically speaking, while the RAW allow diagonal flanking, realistically int's problematic. Hexgrids have no such problem -- ALL 6 of the spaces that touch a center space are equidistant from its center.
|
|
For calculating movement and distance I prefer hex maps. For drawing buildings and dungeons, square grids.
I once saw a neat way to satisfy both. it was a square grid with every other row offset by 1/2 the size of each square so it looked like a brick wall.
This meant moving on the diagonal counted like moving hexes but moving on the straight line counted like on a square.
Try finding a transparent hex grid, and overlaying it on top of your map.Does such a thing exist?
I've been looking for those for forever. I gave-up a few years back, are there any on the market now?
'findel
I could swear I've seen 'em, but it's been years since I looked. The wargaming community would be a good place to ask around, some of those old grognards are veritable loremasters.
Well, if you've seen my posts in Conversions and in the Carrion Crown section, I do like them for overland maps. I'm traditional-- given they were were used in Greyhawk and Mystara.
Try finding a transparent hex grid, and overlaying it on top of your map.Does such a thing exist?
I've been looking for those for forever. I gave-up a few years back, are there any on the market now?
'findel
If you have access to a blueprint shop, I can kick you an AutoCAD file and you can have them print one some out on mylar. Shouldn't be too expensive.
I made a pile of clear 1 inch hex grid maps for my Dark Heresy game when we were playing it. Worked great. We'd overlay them on top of to-scale blueprints and use that for our running gun battles. Quite fun.
I also have a 30x42 PDFs drawn up for a rogue trader vessel, that I stole from some dude on the internet and stuck hex grids over it for gaming. We did the whole "tyranid bug hunt" encounter on it ... very bad things ... too many Aliens flashbacks.
I used to run D&D exclusively in hex maps. I still prefer them. But they seem to intimidate new players, and they are more difficult to draw and line up, so I tend to use squares now.
I keep saying I'll go back to hexes, but it's always just a bit too much trouble.
As the title asks... hex maps?
YAY or nay?
I say Hex Maps give Witches an unfair advatage! ;D
If you have access to a blueprint shop, I can kick you an AutoCAD file and you can have them print one some out on mylar. Shouldn't be too expensive.
here:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5474097/hexgrid.dwgDownload that, carry it to a blueprint shop, tell them you want a print of it on mylar.
Or .. tell them you want 30 copies on bond, and just throw them away when they get too marked up. Whatever.
Hexes for campaign maps..grids for combat..I've been doing it that way since 1974 and don't see any reason to change now
I've used hex maps for more than 20 years. When 3.0 introduced the square grid, I didn't feel like buyng a new battelmat so we just adjusted the rules to hexes and kept right on going. I actually like hexes a lot more. I think movement on a hex battlemat is much more fluid and believable, and you have more/better tactical options. Yes, drawing spaces on the battlemat from the typical square gridmaps included in most adventures can be tricky, but after all this time, I've gotten used to it.
I've used hex maps for more than 20 years. When 3.0 introduced the square grid, I didn't feel like buyng a new battelmat so we just adjusted the rules to hexes and kept right on going. I actually like hexes a lot more. I think movement on a hex battlemat is much more fluid and believable, and you have more/better tactical options. Yes, drawing spaces on the battlemat from the typical square gridmaps included in most adventures can be tricky, but after all this time, I've gotten used to it.
i really feel like it's only tricky if you're trying to line up the buildings to some edge
we have a dry erase hex map we use so we can draw whatever on it
here's out rule: if half or more than the hex, you can't stand in it
tadaaa
|
Works great in DragonQuest (played 2nd ed.). I always wondered why 3.5e had a system that focused on quite a lot of combat detail but still had a character only standing in one of four directions - that your shield can apparently cover 360 degrees...? So in short I like the hex map (if I must use maps).
The other crazy thing is Flat-Footed means your not organized enough to dodge but it seems you are aware enough to put a shield up to defend yourself?! How does that work then. Or is there a rule I've missed that states that any shield bonuses to AC are also lost?
S.
Overland yes, combat no.
Pathfinder/DnD is built with squares in mind, and it has always been too much BS to have to do the conversions. Hard enough going back and forth from Pathfinder to 4e every week!
Like a lot of others, I use a square grid for combat and indoor areas, and a hex grid for overland.
If anyone is interested, you can download the hex overlay I developed for my Serpent's Skull PbP from my profile. You can see an example of what it looks like here (click the right-most thumbnail).
We use rulers, when we're worried about it.
I have plenty of hexes and squares. I'm fine with either one.
|
|
At first glance hex maps look like a more accurate and flexible way of representing battles.
However, I've found that the zig-zag that occurs by travelling in some straight line paths actually consumes more movement than the 1-2-1-2 square movement.
Not to mean that travelling diagonally on squares doesn't consume a lot of movement, but approximating distance by counting every second diagonal as two squares is more accurate overall and handles all directions fairly.
here:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5474097/hexgrid.dwgDownload that, carry it to a blueprint shop, tell them you want a print of it on mylar.
Might do just that...
thanks!
The term logistics usually refers to supplying units... not really applicable when discussing a battle between four-eight heroes and X many monsters, unless I'm misunderstanding you. If you're talking about issues of individual heroes moving around the board to flank baddies, that's a maneuver issue, not a logisitcal issue. Again, I could just be misunderstanding you.
Usually. It also refers to mathematical calculations, or as an implied means of discussing the events and logic leading to an outcome (usually a business or the means of supplying an army, etc. or, in the sense of planning to achieve that outcome and dealing with the problem). I could direct to dictionaries, but I don't think that's necessary, unless you're nitpicking to nitpick, in which case, please feel free to look up the definition yourself.
In the location that it came up in the quote, it could be construed as meaning the planning for the battle by the DM. Mostly, I meant that if the encounter relies on the tactics of multiple combatants, it can make a difference, logically by the nature of the rules, and logistically in that it affects the planning and preparation for the session, and any player of PF or 3.5 could agree, it counts as a large and complex organization.