|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 3:03AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2008
|
Do you suppose we could get an option in the 'tactical wargaming' module that supports hexmaps rather than just grids?
Oh Content, where art thou?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 3:07AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2005
|
The game doesn't imply grids, so you could certainly play it as written using hexes.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 5:07AM
#3
|
|
|
If you can play without any map at all, presumably you can use a hex map. Really, what's kept hexes from seeing wider use even in semi-mapcentric systems like 3.5 and largely mapcentric systems like 4e is not even so much that the rules were designed with squares as the default assumption as much as the fact that supporting material is almost universally designed with squares. Any maps in any adventures are squares, for example. There might be some random 4e game element that requires a novel adjudication if you're playing with hexes, but I can't think of anything.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 5:18AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2011
|
I've used a hex map in the past with no issues. Counting squares works the same way. I think another reason it doesn't see a lot of use is that it's harder to draw square rooms on a hex map without a ruler (from my experience). Squares are just easier in some situations.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 7:35AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jan 14, 2012
|
I love hexes. 3.5 had option rules in... I think Unearthed Arcana, to support hexes. After that, hexes were all I used. But in 4e, hexes had no place. The quantity of spaces I could affect with a blast or a burst, were decreased if I used hexes.
Looks like D&D Next has gone back to feet as the method of measurement and therefore, hexes could be used again. This makes me happy.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 9:54AM
#6
|
|
|
I love hexes. 3.5 had option rules in... I think Unearthed Arcana, to support hexes. After that, hexes were all I used. But in 4e, hexes had no place. The quantity of spaces I could affect with a blast or a burst, were decreased if I used hexes.
"Hexes had no place" does not remotely follow from "The quantity of spaces I could affect with a blast or a burst, were decreased if I used hexes." Hexes worked fine in 4e, and with the game's deep focus on deep tactical combat were probably the edition where they did the MOST good. I mean, in any edition hexes reduce the number of spaces you threaten with your sword; does that mean that hexes have no place in any edition?
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 11:07AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2008
|
I played an encounter last night with hexes, no issues, worked well with the un-orthodox cave shape.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 2:27PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jan 14, 2012
|
I played an encounter last night with hexes, no issues, worked well with the un-orthodox cave shape.
Since everything in 4e was measured in squares,. And yes, it's true that if I perform a close burst 1 in squares, I can affect up to eight targets. If I used hexes, I could affect only six. So If I ruled that we were using hexes instead of squares, I would have been cheating my players.
It's true that the blasts work reasonably well, but the bursts eliminate some targets. This fact upsets the mechanics of the game and cheats the players.
However, I love hexes and think they should be the standard for all grids, my point was that 4e was designed using squares as a measurement whereas 3rd, 3.5, and D&D Next all use feet as the standard form of measurement. As a DM this gives me the fair option of using hexes if I want. This is a step forward in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 2:45PM
#9
|
|
|
Did you play with hexes in 3e? Are you aware than your threaten fewer squares with a sword in a hex system than if you're using squares?
4e doesn't break in even the tiniest degree if you use a hex system. "Exact number of squares an area effect affects" is not remotely close to an important part of the game design. You also realize that if you just multiply squares by five, then 4e is now magically designed using feet as a measurement? It's obviously your right to play however you like, I'm just baffled that someone with a passion for hexes would let things that are complete and utter non-issues get in the way of using the system how they want. Hexes neither upset the mechanics of the game nor cheat the players in a meaningful way. And aren't the monsters equally "cheated"? It's not like players have a monopoly on area effects.
If the players actually feel cheated by hexes and don't want to play on them, that's fine; it's pretty weird, but people feel cheated for all kinds of illogical reasons. It's just completely untrue, however, the 4e somehow works worse on hexes. That is a wrong statement.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
|
|
|
