Late response - I went looking for non-uniform grids using bathroom tiles and found one with hexes, squares, and triangles. Tris are half a square, hexes are twice a square; it mostly solves these issues.
I like hex because it gives my soldiers/ heros 6 directions they can face toward, and the hero formation is more natural as they don't really standing on a straight line but a little bit of curving, or more naturally grouping guarding each other
@@reactionaryprinciplegamingI give my standee character/ hero front and back side, the front side has bigger def , but when running away, moving backward has bigger ap cost than turning/ pivoting and run toward the destination, more efficient AP but no def on the back, while moving to the side I imagine strafing, or side stepping I like the natural 2 options in a hex map, side stepping agressively diagonally up or side stepping defensively diagonally down, because it is turnbase and we don't move at the same time, it is logical to side step defensively in one move immediately leaving melee distance and other friendly unit a tank can immediately fill in the gap blocking the enemy not to target the retreating unit. the front and back side of my hero is the flat side, and the side of the hero is the pointy side, so every hero has straight on vision the maximum attacking and defensive side allowing for a chance of critical attack or faultless defense, and peripheral vision with neutral stat no crits on attack and def, and the other half is his blindspot 3 sides of the rear faces has no defense , so the hero need a slightly behind friendly unit to guard each other by their peripheral vision not to let enemy get behind their front side.
I just have relative distance without grid. Never knew this grid thing existed before I got back to Pen&Paper RPGs after my kids got a bit bigger and needed less time.
I always use a square grid with minis and then give people a tape measure whenever they want to move diagonally. One inch equals five feet. Simple and saves math, while allowing for straight walls.
You could rotate the hex so that you move forward and back on the side not the point. You still have the problem side-to-side, but it's not on the main axis. And it gives you nice diagonals.
I did some more work with hex grids for combat. In Dungeondraft, I lay down a hex grid and then build out the walls and corridors to fit perfectly the 6 angles of the hex grid. Square grids only have 4 angles. The maps look much more natural and mysterious.... The playtests of combat revealed more natural movement and positioning. ... Also, the idea of adding one hex to parts of the total movement circle worked perfectly. A creature can move freely within that circle, which means the inaccuracy of distances between hexes is irrelevant.... One added thing is that I use an extended combat zone where I extend the combat zone by 5 feet. You can find my video on youtube. This extended zone actually works better in hex grids.... So, I am now completely switching over to hexes for combat.
Thank you, I was wondering if an Hex Grid would be a valuable option for my game, but got sus about how it's nearly never used. Now I know that I actually have a game "phase" where I can switch to Hex because, as you said, it's a phase with nearly no spatial confinement.
What i like about hexes is how easy it is to measure radiuses and cones with them. But yeah, this whole jankiness of one axis being bad is kinda a bit turn-off for hexes. All in all, best movement system is probably measured movement, but it just takes more effort and such to use. Just like with squares, you would be using aoe templates and such to see if something is affected by a spell. All in all, movement points solution is best for squares tho.
I didn't even consider the spell effect shape. I can circles being easier, but cones? I think they are worse with hexes. I would need to think more about it.
@@reactionaryprinciplegamingcones are actually pretty easy with hexes, since you have a few simple rules, and they fit very neatly. They only become a bit janky if you wanna rotate them absolutely freely, but the jankieness is there with squares as well.
There is another big advantage to hexes over square grid for combat. If you draw a square of 7x7 squares, there are 49 squares in it. But there are 56 hexagons in that same space. So you have more possible positions for combat within the same space if you use hexes. !!! ... Hexes use space much more efficiently.
How would people feel about it if their DM were to use a Square grid in one encounter, then switch to using a Hex grid in a different encounter, or vice-versa, within the same campaign?
I toyed about that at some point, using squares when in man-made structures and hexes when in natural settings. There was a clear contextual distinction, so the players were OK with it, but if you just do it randomly, I assume some will complain.
I woke up this morning thinking aboht this... Your video is a good analysis but not complete. I like zigzag in a corridor because people do not walk right behind each other and if the PC behind me wants to shoot an arrow, i am not in the way. ... We can build a world where the normal building is a hexagon. ... We can also think in terms of the total spaces that we can move to. Like 6 hexes in all directions. We will see flat sides that are a shorter distance. In such a case we could add 2 to 4 hexes along the flat sides. Those hexes would actually be 7 hexes of movement. Then the total distance with hexes makes perfect sense. ... I did a playtest. ... Now I prefer hexes for combat. I also like the limit of 6 enemies around a PC insted of 8. Flanking is easier too.
I posted a video about using hexes for combat maps. Title of the video is "Yes, Hex maps are better for combat - DnD and other rpgs". I linked to this video in my video.
I just posted a video about resizing hexes for square spaces. Video is called "Hex Hacks: Combat Success with Hex maps in DnD". This is the hack to make hexes work for square spaces.
No grid. If I do have a map... its a schematic of their ship for players to place their icon on to indicate if they are on the bridge of the ship or the engine room. It's purely for meta-gaming reduction purposes. There will be times where I might have an NPC creating a drawn map, scrawled on "parchment", no grid, no tokens. the NPC has a finger pointing (png image) where he says... "this is where we currently are" If the mapping NPC dies, the players are then on their own with the parchment. I do theater of the mind, especially in a VTT. I don't want to waste anyone's precious time having me set up a map, moving tokens, selecting/deselecting targets... I want it to be as fluid as possible. In combat, they are either in melee, or ranged (or not in the location). I stay away from rule mechanics that involve a ton of tactical options due to placement on a grid. (no Pathfinder 2 or D&D4e+) I'm usually playing C&C if we want a D&D style game or Cypher System or Traveller. You might see a few of my first live-plays where I'm getting fed up with using the Map in the VTT (I drop the use of it very quickly). I'd rather be prepared for any environment any direction without worrying about prepping a map for it. Theater of the Mind rocks.
I remember seeing you said you preferred theatre of the mind and I always thought it was funny since the name of your channel is "28mm RPG". I assume the 28mm refers to the usual scale of miniatures we use in RPGs. I also have a video about going gridless (which doesn't cover Theatre of the mind).
@@reactionaryprinciplegaming I collect boardgames with 28mm minis and play some Infinity skirmish games (its like squadbased warhammer). But I stress that I dont use minis for RP.
About hexes, I think people get confused by the zig-zag motion when you have to go in a straight line, but I think that's just a perception problem that can be changed with enough play. It's the same thing as a straight line on a sphere - it's not really straight, and if it's straight, it's not the shortest line between two points. But, if you just start thinking of a Zig-Zag as a straight line, then it kind of begins to work out. At least for my group, we've been having much more fun and clarity with a hex grid rather than a square grid. Also, I've set out a few rules for AoE and for the different shapes and now everything's clear. I think the only real problem on a hex grid for me is that, at least in roll20 where we play, tokens get snapped to the center of a hex, but if you have large or gargantuan tokens, that doesn't fit neatly, since they have to be snapped to the intersection of 3 hexes instead of the center of 1 hex. And I haven't figured out how to solve this yet.
Hi, dont agree with some of yur points, and i have to defend my beloved Hex grid. 1) Surounded by 8 people in meele? they would not have enought room to fight. 2) Straight coridors dont realy exist outside of DND eaven in man made caves coridors often curve. 3) Circular structures and natural caves are mucht bigger problem for square grid than than straigths on a hex. 4) Eaven if you complicate calculations with 1.5 per diagonal you distortion will be 10% for L movement (chess horse) conclusion, hex is easier to calculate (no mental gymnastics with diagonals), Teaches you to draw more realistic maps, and is only 5% worse (10% compared to 15% length distortion) (sorry for english i am not native speaker)
You don't have to excuse yourself for your English; I'm also not a native speaker. Yes, natural structure are not made in straight line, but buildings often are. I guess it depends on which is more common in your game as to which will be a bigger problem. And I don't know how you do your maths, but an hex with a distance of 1 between its centre and the edge will have a distance of 1.115 between the centre and a vertex; that's an error of 0.115. A square with a distance of 1 between centre and edge will have a distance of 1.414 between centre and corner; that would be an error of 0.414, but if we consider the diagonal as 1.5, it's only an error of 0.086.
@@reactionaryprinciplegaming Sorry i just had a bad day and did not whanted to be rude, internet brings the worst in humanity. My math is certainly of i havent used geometry for 12years. 1) it just did not seam fair that you mention hex inacuracy while moving on 30° angle, yet you left out 22,5° what is worst angle for square grid after a fix (and we all still hate that fix) 2) i whanted to attack a little the old style of unnatural maps that square grid kid of nudges you to make consisting of geometrical rooms conected with straight coridors.
@@krystofsvarovsky7456 Don't worry about it, mate; I didn't take your previous comment is aggressive or unpleasant. We're just having a talk. I'm not against hex either; I think both squares and hexes have pros and cons. They are just tools to make combat and movement easier; you pick the one that suits your needs. To be frank, the video was mostly a friendly dig at MaxLiao from Legion of Myth (where I regularly appear on Friday nights) who says "hexes are always better". As for the chess knight's L, which would be two square forwards and one two one side, with the 1.5 movement points per diagonal, that would actually be one move forward and one diagonal to the side, so 2.5 "movement points". The actual distance would be 2.236, so yeah, about a 12% error. No solution is perfect.
I like it, but I find it depends on the group or the type of game you are playing. Although, going gridless with rules or just abstracting the distances are basically two opposite philosophies. Using rulers can bring up the tactical aspect of combat, even more so than gridded combat (which is already a form of abstraction), but it can slow down the game and lead to arguments or analysis paralysis. Going abstract with the distances can also lead to arguments if your group is not in the right mindset. It also means you won't be able to go as deep into the tactical aspect of the game. If your group is more interested in the drama of a fight than the minutia of positioning, ranges of attacks, cover, zones of threat, etc, this can be the right approach. It can be fast and very "cinematic". The important point is to know your players and understand what they are after. Personally, I like all those options, but I will engage with them differently, with a different mindset. Shit, that could be a video right there...
OK... Here is something that will blow your mind and why hexes are better for combat. Take a PC that can move 30 feet. First use squares and use the rule of double movement every other diagonal move. The PC has a total of 120 squares to move to... Now, look at my homebrew for hexes in combat. The PC has 138 possible hexes to move to !!! ... It is because hexes use space more efficiently. Everyone should be using hexes, but they just don't understand yet.
There is an "H" in the word "Hex". There is also a "t" in the word "movement". Also there is an "s" in "points". Thoughtful mathematical look at the whole discussion though. I think I'm going to try the 12 movement points idea.
@reactionaryprinciplegaming You're seeing a hex as 6 directions, but it is 12 directions. Moving from a point puts you in two half hexes that make a full hex. So a one hex wide hallway is still a series of one hexes. There's no need to zigzag, since you are simply moving through one hex area spaces. You should always think of hexes as having two halves and the option of moving through them at a half speed. So if a hex is 5 feet you could move 2.5 feet half into the hex
This reasons are why i use hexagons to natural terrain like woods and squares to buildings, after all, hexagons are created naturally in the world
That's a sensible approach.
Hex for overland travel, squares for character movement
Thanks! This video was very useful!
Late response - I went looking for non-uniform grids using bathroom tiles and found one with hexes, squares, and triangles. Tris are half a square, hexes are twice a square; it mostly solves these issues.
I made such a map for a game design class in college, but it was for a boardgame and the different shaped were defined by the terrain type.
I like hex because it gives my soldiers/ heros 6 directions they can face toward, and the hero formation is more natural as they don't really standing on a straight line but a little bit of curving, or more naturally grouping guarding each other
But the formation is jagged only in one direction; in the other, it is flat.
@@reactionaryprinciplegamingI give my standee character/ hero front and back side, the front side has bigger def , but when running away, moving backward has bigger ap cost than turning/ pivoting and run toward the destination, more efficient AP but no def on the back, while moving to the side I imagine strafing, or side stepping I like the natural 2 options in a hex map, side stepping agressively diagonally up or side stepping defensively diagonally down, because it is turnbase and we don't move at the same time, it is logical to side step defensively in one move immediately leaving melee distance and other friendly unit a tank can immediately fill in the gap blocking the enemy not to target the retreating unit. the front and back side of my hero is the flat side, and the side of the hero is the pointy side, so every hero has straight on vision the maximum attacking and defensive side allowing for a chance of critical attack or faultless defense, and peripheral vision with neutral stat no crits on attack and def, and the other half is his blindspot 3 sides of the rear faces has no defense , so the hero need a slightly behind friendly unit to guard each other by their peripheral vision not to let enemy get behind their front side.
I just have relative distance without grid. Never knew this grid thing existed before I got back to Pen&Paper RPGs after my kids got a bit bigger and needed less time.
I have a video about going gridless that talk a bit about this idea (but to be fair, I don't think it's as polished).
Well explained. Great short video, man!!!
Thank you
I always use a square grid with minis and then give people a tape measure whenever they want to move diagonally. One inch equals five feet. Simple and saves math, while allowing for straight walls.
You can get rid of the grid at that point. I had a video I made after this one about going gridless.
You could rotate the hex so that you move forward and back on the side not the point. You still have the problem side-to-side, but it's not on the main axis. And it gives you nice diagonals.
So well explained thank you
Thank you. I'm glad that you liked it.
Thanks for the summary!
Glad if it was helpful.
Yo this video is very helpful because I didn’t find this information in the players handbook and had to look into the dungeon master guide for DnD 5e
I'm glad it was useful.
It was something that bothered me for a long time, people not getting the pros and cons of each method.
I did some more work with hex grids for combat. In Dungeondraft, I lay down a hex grid and then build out the walls and corridors to fit perfectly the 6 angles of the hex grid. Square grids only have 4 angles. The maps look much more natural and mysterious.... The playtests of combat revealed more natural movement and positioning. ... Also, the idea of adding one hex to parts of the total movement circle worked perfectly. A creature can move freely within that circle, which means the inaccuracy of distances between hexes is irrelevant.... One added thing is that I use an extended combat zone where I extend the combat zone by 5 feet. You can find my video on youtube. This extended zone actually works better in hex grids.... So, I am now completely switching over to hexes for combat.
Thank you, I was wondering if an Hex Grid would be a valuable option for my game, but got sus about how it's nearly never used.
Now I know that I actually have a game "phase" where I can switch to Hex because, as you said, it's a phase with nearly no spatial confinement.
I'm glad you found the video useful.
Nice, finally understand why people chose hex!
What i like about hexes is how easy it is to measure radiuses and cones with them.
But yeah, this whole jankiness of one axis being bad is kinda a bit turn-off for hexes.
All in all, best movement system is probably measured movement, but it just takes more effort and such to use.
Just like with squares, you would be using aoe templates and such to see if something is affected by a spell.
All in all, movement points solution is best for squares tho.
I didn't even consider the spell effect shape. I can circles being easier, but cones? I think they are worse with hexes. I would need to think more about it.
@@reactionaryprinciplegamingcones are actually pretty easy with hexes, since you have a few simple rules, and they fit very neatly. They only become a bit janky if you wanna rotate them absolutely freely, but the jankieness is there with squares as well.
@@reactionaryprinciplegaming Cones work the well on Hex, just pick a face and extend out.
There is another big advantage to hexes over square grid for combat. If you draw a square of 7x7 squares, there are 49 squares in it. But there are 56 hexagons in that same space. So you have more possible positions for combat within the same space if you use hexes. !!! ... Hexes use space much more efficiently.
Thanks!
I think about that dilemma for weeks.
thank you and nice Video
Thank you. I'm glad you found it useful.
How would people feel about it if their DM were to use a Square grid in one encounter, then switch to using a Hex grid in a different encounter, or vice-versa, within the same campaign?
I toyed about that at some point, using squares when in man-made structures and hexes when in natural settings. There was a clear contextual distinction, so the players were OK with it, but if you just do it randomly, I assume some will complain.
I woke up this morning thinking aboht this... Your video is a good analysis but not complete. I like zigzag in a corridor because people do not walk right behind each other and if the PC behind me wants to shoot an arrow, i am not in the way. ... We can build a world where the normal building is a hexagon. ... We can also think in terms of the total spaces that we can move to. Like 6 hexes in all directions. We will see flat sides that are a shorter distance. In such a case we could add 2 to 4 hexes along the flat sides. Those hexes would actually be 7 hexes of movement. Then the total distance with hexes makes perfect sense. ... I did a playtest. ... Now I prefer hexes for combat. I also like the limit of 6 enemies around a PC insted of 8. Flanking is easier too.
I posted a video about using hexes for combat maps. Title of the video is "Yes, Hex maps are better for combat - DnD and other rpgs". I linked to this video in my video.
I just posted a video about resizing hexes for square spaces. Video is called "Hex Hacks: Combat Success with Hex maps in DnD". This is the hack to make hexes work for square spaces.
Both are the same shape viewed from different perspectives
very helpfull thank you
Glad it helped.
Interesting analysis. I'd like to see you compare all of this to miniature style moving. Why use any kind of grid? Why not just move?
I made a follow up video about going gridless.
ua-cam.com/video/4Fu6WjmVbiE/v-deo.html
Oh good. Thanks. I'll check it out now! @@reactionaryprinciplegaming
No grid. If I do have a map... its a schematic of their ship for players to place their icon on to indicate if they are on the bridge of the ship or the engine room. It's purely for meta-gaming reduction purposes.
There will be times where I might have an NPC creating a drawn map, scrawled on "parchment", no grid, no tokens. the NPC has a finger pointing (png image) where he says... "this is where we currently are"
If the mapping NPC dies, the players are then on their own with the parchment.
I do theater of the mind, especially in a VTT. I don't want to waste anyone's precious time having me set up a map, moving tokens, selecting/deselecting targets... I want it to be as fluid as possible. In combat, they are either in melee, or ranged (or not in the location). I stay away from rule mechanics that involve a ton of tactical options due to placement on a grid. (no Pathfinder 2 or D&D4e+) I'm usually playing C&C if we want a D&D style game or Cypher System or Traveller.
You might see a few of my first live-plays where I'm getting fed up with using the Map in the VTT (I drop the use of it very quickly). I'd rather be prepared for any environment any direction without worrying about prepping a map for it. Theater of the Mind rocks.
I remember seeing you said you preferred theatre of the mind and I always thought it was funny since the name of your channel is "28mm RPG". I assume the 28mm refers to the usual scale of miniatures we use in RPGs.
I also have a video about going gridless (which doesn't cover Theatre of the mind).
@@reactionaryprinciplegaming I collect boardgames with 28mm minis and play some Infinity skirmish games (its like squadbased warhammer). But I stress that I dont use minis for RP.
Excellent vid. Would have been good to see moving on the line he'd movement too. I think asl does this.
Thanks. I'll have to go down the ASL rabbit hole at some point.
I have 1 with both.
About hexes, I think people get confused by the zig-zag motion when you have to go in a straight line, but I think that's just a perception problem that can be changed with enough play. It's the same thing as a straight line on a sphere - it's not really straight, and if it's straight, it's not the shortest line between two points. But, if you just start thinking of a Zig-Zag as a straight line, then it kind of begins to work out. At least for my group, we've been having much more fun and clarity with a hex grid rather than a square grid.
Also, I've set out a few rules for AoE and for the different shapes and now everything's clear.
I think the only real problem on a hex grid for me is that, at least in roll20 where we play, tokens get snapped to the center of a hex, but if you have large or gargantuan tokens, that doesn't fit neatly, since they have to be snapped to the intersection of 3 hexes instead of the center of 1 hex. And I haven't figured out how to solve this yet.
Humm... does roll 20 snap creature to the centre of a square grid? Like 2x2 monsters should be on the vertex and not the centre as well.
@@reactionaryprinciplegaming if you go on a hex grid, it snaps it always in the middle of a hex. For squares yeah, it does it properly
Hi, dont agree with some of yur points, and i have to defend my beloved Hex grid.
1) Surounded by 8 people in meele? they would not have enought room to fight.
2) Straight coridors dont realy exist outside of DND eaven in man made caves coridors often curve.
3) Circular structures and natural caves are mucht bigger problem for square grid than than straigths on a hex.
4) Eaven if you complicate calculations with 1.5 per diagonal you distortion will be 10% for L movement (chess horse)
conclusion, hex is easier to calculate (no mental gymnastics with diagonals), Teaches you to draw more realistic maps, and is only 5% worse (10% compared to 15% length distortion)
(sorry for english i am not native speaker)
You don't have to excuse yourself for your English; I'm also not a native speaker.
Yes, natural structure are not made in straight line, but buildings often are. I guess it depends on which is more common in your game as to which will be a bigger problem.
And I don't know how you do your maths, but an hex with a distance of 1 between its centre and the edge will have a distance of 1.115 between the centre and a vertex; that's an error of 0.115. A square with a distance of 1 between centre and edge will have a distance of 1.414 between centre and corner; that would be an error of 0.414, but if we consider the diagonal as 1.5, it's only an error of 0.086.
@@reactionaryprinciplegaming Sorry i just had a bad day and did not whanted to be rude, internet brings the worst in humanity. My math is certainly of i havent used geometry for 12years.
1) it just did not seam fair that you mention hex inacuracy while moving on 30° angle, yet you left out 22,5° what is worst angle for square grid after a fix (and we all still hate that fix)
2) i whanted to attack a little the old style of unnatural maps that square grid kid of nudges you to make consisting of geometrical rooms conected with straight coridors.
@@krystofsvarovsky7456 Don't worry about it, mate; I didn't take your previous comment is aggressive or unpleasant. We're just having a talk.
I'm not against hex either; I think both squares and hexes have pros and cons. They are just tools to make combat and movement easier; you pick the one that suits your needs.
To be frank, the video was mostly a friendly dig at MaxLiao from Legion of Myth (where I regularly appear on Friday nights) who says "hexes are always better".
As for the chess knight's L, which would be two square forwards and one two one side, with the 1.5 movement points per diagonal, that would actually be one move forward and one diagonal to the side, so 2.5 "movement points". The actual distance would be 2.236, so yeah, about a 12% error. No solution is perfect.
What do you think of having no grid. Use a ruler or abstract distances instead. Is this a solution or does it just bring other problems?
I like it, but I find it depends on the group or the type of game you are playing. Although, going gridless with rules or just abstracting the distances are basically two opposite philosophies.
Using rulers can bring up the tactical aspect of combat, even more so than gridded combat (which is already a form of abstraction), but it can slow down the game and lead to arguments or analysis paralysis.
Going abstract with the distances can also lead to arguments if your group is not in the right mindset. It also means you won't be able to go as deep into the tactical aspect of the game. If your group is more interested in the drama of a fight than the minutia of positioning, ranges of attacks, cover, zones of threat, etc, this can be the right approach. It can be fast and very "cinematic".
The important point is to know your players and understand what they are after. Personally, I like all those options, but I will engage with them differently, with a different mindset.
Shit, that could be a video right there...
MY LIFE FOR HEXES!!!!!!
OK... Here is something that will blow your mind and why hexes are better for combat. Take a PC that can move 30 feet. First use squares and use the rule of double movement every other diagonal move. The PC has a total of 120 squares to move to... Now, look at my homebrew for hexes in combat. The PC has 138 possible hexes to move to !!! ... It is because hexes use space more efficiently. Everyone should be using hexes, but they just don't understand yet.
You have a lot of interesting thoughts about the topic. You should do a video about it.
@@reactionaryprinciplegaming I will do a video. Thank you for the inspiration. I have to find out how to link to your video from mine.
I will accept maps with circle grids there OK in my book
Do you mean like "nodes" or you mean circles overlapping each others (or leaving gap between them)?
666 suscribers!
There is an "H" in the word "Hex".
There is also a "t" in the word "movement".
Also there is an "s" in "points".
Thoughtful mathematical look at the whole discussion though. I think I'm going to try the 12 movement points idea.
2 half hexes add up to a single hex. This simple math solved most of your issues
I don't get it to be honest. Would you care to elaborate?
@reactionaryprinciplegaming You're seeing a hex as 6 directions, but it is 12 directions. Moving from a point puts you in two half hexes that make a full hex.
So a one hex wide hallway is still a series of one hexes.
There's no need to zigzag, since you are simply moving through one hex area spaces.
You should always think of hexes as having two halves and the option of moving through them at a half speed. So if a hex is 5 feet you could move 2.5 feet half into the hex
@polvotierno Did a good video reply to this video. I'd invite you to watch it.
ua-cam.com/video/3TNktGR2FG4/v-deo.html
there is no shape with less than six sides
bait