|
2 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2011 - 5:22AM
#11
|
|
|
Squares are simpler to handle for distance and layout of corridors etc. If you really dislike the abstraction (I prefer to call it that than declare all of the space is magically non-euclidean), you could always bring back the 3.5E rules for diagonal distances.
I'd prefer hexes if the system converted well to them, but they skew value of powers and game mechanics like flanking, and are a real pain for dealing with Large creatures. They also only work in 2D, and to extend to 3D you need to break them (you end up having hexes flat, and "squares" up/down, so it's still non-euclidean, things that should be spherical are mapped to a rough "cylinders")
Having said that, I have seen at least one conversion to hexes on these forums which looked reasonable to me. I don't use it in practice because on balance I saw no massive gain and prefer to play RAW. But it was workable . . .
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2011 - 8:41AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2011
|
How do you determine if an enemy unit can get between two defenders and reach your squishy striker? I just don't see using rulers as a very good option. Mostly because it would fudge things like flanking, facing and shots taken from cover.
Back to hex: Threatening 61 squares with close blast 5 hex is MUCH MUCH MORE damaging than threatening 25 with close blast 5 in squares.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2011 - 9:03AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2007
|
 What about using the blue-shaded hexes instead for a close blast 5?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2011 - 9:03AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2011
|
Squares are simpler to handle for distance and layout of corridors etc. If you really dislike the abstraction (I prefer to call it that than declare all of the space is magically non-euclidean), you could always bring back the 3.5E rules for diagonal distances.
I'd prefer hexes if the system converted well to them, but they skew value of powers and game mechanics like flanking, and are a real pain for dealing with Large creatures. They also only work in 2D, and to extend to 3D you need to break them (you end up having hexes flat, and "squares" up/down, so it's still non-euclidean, things that should be spherical are mapped to a rough "cylinders")
I hadn't even considered 3D space. Thanks.
Having said that, I have seen at least one conversion to hexes on these forums which looked reasonable to me. I don't use it in practice because on balance I saw no massive gain and prefer to play RAW. But it was workable . . .
If you could link me to that, I'd appreciate it. I'll look for it myself as well and post a link to it if I find it.
I found an alternative to Heroscape that uses 1" squares, but apparently it's just an idea. They would be cheap and very modular and really perfect for my games, however.
I also found a blog where a guy says to use Jenga blocks because they fit inside 1" squares well and make good, low-height walls and you could also saw some of them into halves to make shorter walls. I typically use packs of cards and pennies and things for terrain because I'm poor. Hence the fight with my former player.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2011 - 9:10AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2011
|
What about using the blue-shaded hexes instead for a close blast 5?
But then, how do I determine how it must be oriented? You can turn it any way you want and still threaten a larger number of squares than you should be able to with the power.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2011 - 9:42AM
#16
|
|
|
This was the thread I was thinking of, but the attachments are gone :-( community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2011 - 1:00PM
#17
|
|
|
But then, how do I determine how it must be oriented? You can turn it any way you want and still threaten a larger number of squares than you should be able to with the power.
The answer is that you can't turn it exactly how you want. The farthest hex in a close blast can never be more than 5 hexes away. In your example, only the blue blast is valid.
But I would solve it with a 3-radius (5 diameter) hex pattern rather than oblong (shave off the 3 hexes on both "corners"), then you would not encounter the above issue.
Personally, I would love to see hex rules in the game, as this would allow the DM to choose whichever solution is best for his encounter.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Default module =/= Core mechanic.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2011 - 5:07PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2007
|
What about using the blue-shaded hexes instead for a close blast 5?
But then, how do I determine how it must be oriented? You can turn it any way you want and still threaten a larger number of squares than you should be able to with the power.
It is true that you would have a wider area of possible effect - at least in some ways.
It is the same number of spaces, however, and therefore the same number of potential targets... so it is at least balanced.
When switching to hex based it is the number of spaces affected by a power that should be kept as close to original values as possible (Close bursts suffering in theory, though I rarely see more than 6 creatures adjacent to any one creature in practice) to maintain the power balance of each different attack power.
Personally, I stick to squares for 4E D&D and use hexes for just about everything else.
Careful, man. That much logic might be illegal on the internet. - Salla
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2011 - 7:17PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Feb 11, 2006
|
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.
If a player can't manage to have fun despite square circles and the longer diagonal, good riddance. It's really not worth getting upset over.
That said, square circles and longer diagonal distances do bug me, so I use a hex map when I DM.
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.
I don't know your players, but if they're anything like me, their eyes glazed over halfway through your arguments. Sorry man, but math for most people is about as interesting as reading MacBeth in its original Shakespearian dialect.
I will comment on your first sentence, though. "Wizards has carefully run many tests" is a huge assumption. I mean, have you ever met a WotC dev and talked shop with him? As far as I know, the dev team doesn't share specifics with anyone. I suspect WotC doesn't test anything nearly as much as we'd like them to. Further, I suspect that 4e uses squares because of tradition more than anything. Because if they switched to hexes, a whole lot of fans would be mightily p!ssed off that all their minis are now "useless".
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?
I have no mathematical rebuttal. All I can say is "I use hexes, and it's a blast." (Pun intended!) I have made a few tweaks to make things smoother, which I'm happy to share:
1. I've made four "blast" templates. (Two for blast 3 and two for blast 5.) I airquote "blast" because they're actually triangular templates. Triangles create a cone shape, as I imagine blast powers actually looking like in the game world, and triangles allow me to more closely estimate the number of spaces that a square blast covers. (Triangular blast 3 covers 10 hexes, while triangular blast 5 covers 28 or 31 hexes.)
2. Flanking doesn't require you to be exactly opposite your ally. If you're flanking a Small/Medium enemy, you only need one hex between yourself and your ally to flank. This means that flanking is possible even in a 1-hex wide corridor. It also means that three allies can flank the same enemy, which is much more realistic than the RAW "Two is better than one, but a third gets the cold shoulder" situation. (I usually avoid using the R word in any D&D discussion, but this situation is a pet peeve of mine.)
3. I never draw walls through the middle of a hex. A hex is either mostly inside the line, or mostly outside of it. Either way, it's clear to everyone whether that hex is a real space or a non-space. It may sound like a headache, but it's like riding a bike. You do it a few times, and you're good for life.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2011 - 7:24PM
#20
|
|
|
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.
My Player Advocate cynicism kicks in. I fully accept it was not intentional malice or otherwise you being a mean ol' DM.
If by using hexes you're purposely setting up encounters so that PC abilities aren't so effective or they can be attacked more easily, that's "punishing" the players for the audacity of having their abilities because you want to use hexes. Setting up a particularly challenging encounter once in a while where the party isn't at optimal is fine, but if you need to design almost every encounter like it to accomodate hexes, then it's unfair to the players and you shouldn't use hexes. The PCs' abilities are supposed to be efficiently effective.
Support Cedric Diggory, the real Hogwarts Champion!
|
|
|
