|
2 years ago ::
Jun 10, 2011 - 6:51PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2011
|
So I have been hearing a lot from my players arguing about how they want to switch to hex-based movement during encounters and in dungeons. I flat out refused, and one of the players left my group 'forever' in a huff. I tried to explain to him in a calm way why hex is not a good idea using obvious mathematical formulas, but he was very adamant. Suffice to say, he's always been a problem player and we're all a little glad he left (we already have a replacement! :D) BUT, drama aside, I think it's a very interesting debate. I wanted to see what some other DMs think about this. My stance is that Wizards has carefully run many tests on the numbers. One of the biggest flaws with hex is that a hex is surrounded by only six squares, decreasing the effectiveness of close burst 1 powers by 1/4. Another problem is that facing, flanking and blast powers are altered. Finally, in terms of taking cover, more points to calculate from a point on your own hex means it's LESS likely a PC taking cover can hit any given hex unless you say you only need 5/6 points visible from a point on the hex, but this is a bad option because you're rewriting rules that are already balanced to work perfectly. Finally, close blast 5 hex threatens more squares than close blast 5 squares, multiplying the damage potential by a lot!  Losing so much damage potential and being less vulnerable to attacks is a detriment to the balance of D&D 4th ed. I know this as a long time JRPG player who has juggled percentages and numbers his entire life, but not from actual playtesting. Does anyone have a rebuttal? Have you gotten hex to work reasonably well without having to fudge numbers for your players or worry about accidentally making things too easy/tough? Edit: I've found an alternative to Heroscape that uses 1' squares, but it needs funding: www.indiegogo.com/Terrablox
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 10, 2011 - 6:59PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2010
|
And there's the map angle: square rooms are much more common and easier to draw than hexagonal rooms. For an over-land map where shapes are more organic, hex is fine (and I'd say more pleasing to the eye). But in a dungeon? Headache.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 10, 2011 - 7:01PM
#3
|
|
|
I'm not going to say one is better but I've played both before. I feel that hexes make a more fluid movement system but I could see your arguement on the limited spaces, however I don't feel that anyone should quit a game because of the movement style used. To me that is small potatoes, there will always be difference at the table, how we as players deal with this determines the type of player we are.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 10, 2011 - 7:14PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2011
|
And there's the map angle: square rooms are much more common and easier to draw than hexagonal rooms. For an over-land map where shapes are more organic, hex is fine (and I'd say more pleasing to the eye). But in a dungeon? Headache.
Yeah. The guy who left bought Heroscape and wanted to use the hex-tiles to make dungeons, but one of the reasons I said no was because you can't make square buildings that sit on top of them. A hallway 2 'hexes' wide will necessarily be at an angle and cut half the hexes in half after the corner is turned.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 10, 2011 - 8:49PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2007
|
And there's the map angle: square rooms are much more common and easier to draw than hexagonal rooms. For an over-land map where shapes are more organic, hex is fine (and I'd say more pleasing to the eye). But in a dungeon? Headache.
This! BattleTech uses hexes and it makes buildings and streets look absolutely wrong.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 10, 2011 - 9:35PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2011
|
I thought about calling this thread 'For Master Debators' but I didn't want to get in trouble D:
I am hoping someone who prefers hex has attempted it in 4th ed and can illuminate me on how they got around all the problems I posted, since it seems totally broken to me from here.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2011 - 12:50AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Mar 24, 2010
|
I used to use Hex when I played 4th edition. The issue of spell areas increasing I largely ignored, because that can always be remedied by carefully designing your encounter rooms and spacing out the monsters (going light on minions also helps). Most fights I ran were in areas that were either so large that enemies can easily come at the party from any angle, or in a series of small interconected rooms that prevent a power's full area of effect to be taken advantage of. I designed buildings, roads, and other man-made constructs realistically, and allow free movement through any hex that walls and other solid barries pass through so long as at least half of the hex is unobstructed.
My preferrence for hexes in 4th edition is entirely based off of their use of an abstract measurement scale. When you measure in squares it strains my suspension of disbelief to the breaking point that any movement towards the cardinal directions is somehow less effecient than diagonal movement. Arrows firing further diagonally than they do when fired straight ahead is a far more grievous oversight in my books than occasionally having to deal with wonkey room dimensions.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2011 - 1:25AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2011
|
I used to use Hex when I played 4th edition. The issue of spell areas increasing I largely ignored, because that can always be remedied by carefully designing your encounter rooms and spacing out the monsters (going light on minions also helps). Most fights I ran were in areas that were either so large that enemies can easily come at the party from any angle, or in a series of small interconected rooms that prevent a power's full area of effect to be taken advantage of. I designed buildings, roads, and other man-made constructs realistically, and allow free movement through any hex that walls and other solid barries pass through so long as at least half of the hex is unobstructed.
My preferrence for hexes in 4th edition is entirely based off of their use of an abstract measurement scale. When you measure in squares it strains my suspension of disbelief to the breaking point that any movement towards the cardinal directions is somehow less effecient than diagonal movement. Arrows firing further diagonally than they do when fired straight ahead is a far more grievous oversight in my books than occasionally having to deal with wonkey room dimensions.
I see what you mean about it looking like the arrow is flying farther, but really it's not flying farther it's just that in the abstract space of squares it appears so. A character 10 squares away from an archer is just as close to the archer at any angle, for example, even diagonally, and so the arrow is actually NOT flying farther (it only appears so).
Right? Am I saying that right? I'm not honestly even sure.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2011 - 2:09AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2010
|
Right? Am I saying that right? I'm not honestly even sure.
Well, it would require the battlespace to be non-euclidean, so if you're running a campaign out in the Far Realm or on an oddly-shaped asteroid (so that every angle of an equilateral triangle can be 90-degrees), sure.
Hexes do have the advantage of a more realistic mechanism for area-of-effect. However, it can be replicated with a square grid if you're willing to do some math or cut out some templates. 4e, however, went for ease of use, which means no math or templates required for AoE, and also no attempting to squeeze your mini on half a space.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2011 - 4:05AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Mar 24, 2010
|
What CrowScape said.
If I were to go back to 4th edition, I would just get rid of abstract measurment systems and translate any mention of 'square' to 'inch' and play it like a miniature game.
|
|
|
