# Hex grid spell templates



## Zinovia (Jun 8, 2009)

I created some spell templates for use with 4E and our hex grid.  Mine are printed out on transparency film and I think they turned out pretty well.  I threw all of them together into a PDF document along with some illustrations explaining some of my decisions in making them.  

Let me know if you like them! (or if you don't)







Hex grid spell templates 

And the newly revised version: Revised hex grid spell templates


----------



## DanmarLOK (Jun 9, 2009)

I don't use hex personally but that is pretty cool looking.  Nice job.


----------



## Nytmare (Jul 16, 2009)

Would it be less confusing to use things like the "burst 1" hexagon for "blast 3?"  In other words have the blast number count as the number of hexes you counted across, and then use that row to describe a hexagonal area?  So burst1/blast3, burst2/blast5, burst3/(and the oft used)blast7.  It has the added benefit of cutting down the number of templates that you needed by a third.

How do you translate creature sizes to hexes?  Do you turn their bases into triangles?  It would seem like making their bases larger and larger hexes would end up making them way too big.


----------



## Nytmare (Jul 16, 2009)

Actually, at that point, you could combine all of them into ONE template and cut the number of templates by a fourteenth!!


----------



## Apeiron (Jul 17, 2009)

Nice work!


----------



## Zinovia (Jul 18, 2009)

Nytmare said:


> Would it be less confusing to use things like the "burst 1" hexagon for "blast 3?"  In other words have the blast number count as the number of hexes you counted across, and then use that row to describe a hexagonal area?  So burst1/blast3, burst2/blast5, burst3/(and the oft used)blast7.  It has the added benefit of cutting down the number of templates that you needed by a third.



You could certainly do that, and it would likely be easier and less confusing.  In my case, I envision blast spells as cones (like the old AD&D Cone of Cold).  The drawback of using the burst  spells as the default shape is that they effect fewer hexes.  I opted to go for symmetry there, rather than keeping the number of hexes the same as it would have been with a square grid.  I feel it makes sense for the "round" burst spells.  Also fewer enemies can surround you on a hex grid (6 rather than 8), so that kind of balances it.   With the shapes I chose for the blasts, I managed to keep the number of hexes the same as they would have been on a square grid.  



> How do you translate creature sizes to hexes?  Do you turn their bases into triangles?  It would seem like making their bases larger and larger hexes would end up making them way too big.




I use a lot of WotC minis, and just leave their bases as they are. If it's a larger figure, we just put it on the mat and see how many hexes are covered.  If a hex is more than half covered by the base, then the creature is occupying that hex.   For determining flanking, I just do a quick visual assessment to see which hexes are on opposite sides of the monster from each other.  It's extremely simple with medium sized minis, as it is always clear which hex is the flanking hex for any position.  



			
				Nytmare said:
			
		

> Actually, at that point, you could combine all of them into ONE template and cut the number of templates by a fourteenth!!



You could easily combine the bursts, as you've illustrated.  That didn't occur to me, as I kind of like having the different templates for clarity.  Also it's fun seeing the look on my players' faces when I bring out a nice big template for an area spell being cast on them.    If you made the blasts the same shape (hexagonal), then yes, you could get away with a single template as you have shown.  Nice work!


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 1, 2010)

Nice work. Thank you for templates.


----------



## Zinovia (Mar 1, 2010)

Thanks!  Mine still see regular use at the table, and seem to work well for our group.  I took a look at the ones you made (in your sig) and they look cool. Nice graphics on those!  Mine are boring in color, but designed to be transparent so you can see the minis.  I may experiment with pipe cleaners for marking area spells, since the templates would have to go *under* the minis if you were to leave them there.


----------



## Nifft (Mar 2, 2010)

Nice templates. I love hex.



Zinovia said:


> You could certainly do that, and it would likely be easier and less confusing.  In my case, I envision blast spells as cones (like the old AD&D Cone of Cold).  The drawback of using the burst  spells as the default shape is that they effect fewer hexes.  I opted to go for symmetry there, rather than keeping the number of hexes the same as it would have been with a square grid.  I feel it makes sense for the "round" burst spells.  Also fewer enemies can surround you on a hex grid (6 rather than 8), so that kind of balances it.   With the shapes I chose for the blasts, I managed to keep the number of hexes the same as they would have been on a square grid.



 I'm curious why you think it's okay to reduce the terrain unit count for Bursts, but you want to preserve the unit count for Blasts.

I wonder if it would be okay to just have a Blast be a 1-2-3 hex cone (60° cone, orient however you like). That reduces the affected terrain units from 9 -> 6... steeper than the 9 -> 7 reduction Bursts get, but not terribly so, and being able to orient a Blast freely would give Blasts more tactical strength than they currently enjoy.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Zinovia (Mar 2, 2010)

I didn't want to reduce the count for bursts, but I couldn't find any good way to preserve it while keeping a symmetrical shape.  Blasts were easier to keep the count on because of the shape I chose, based on a cone.  Having the two not match in size wasn't an ideal solution.  

So I kept bursts hexagonal, and they do cover less area than their square counterparts.  It is somewhat balanced by there being fewer hexes adjacent to a character (6 rather than 8), and by blasts being close.  Blasts have a slightly bigger area, but you have to be right there to deliver the spell most of the time.  

Making the templates circular is another option for bursts.  That's what we did with fireball and the like in 3E (we still used a hex grid), but then again, the spell description said it was a 20' radius circle.  What is the diameter of a square spell?  (that sounds like a philosophical question, like what is the sound of one hand clapping?).  How big do I make a burst one spell if I make it circular?  Certainly a number could be chosen that covers about the right number of hexes, but it would involve partial hexes at the edges.  

I like knowing which hexes are targeted by the spell, and we have fewer "edge" cases with the hex templates than we did with the round one in 3E.  Ultimately I felt clearly showing which hexes were affected was worth the tradeoff, but I could see using pipe cleaners to make a circle of the right size and just dropping it over the enemies.

I could have made the blasts follow suit and made them hexagonal with the same count as burst spells.  That certainly would follow the standard rules more closely.  I wanted blast spells to be cones, because D&D has always had round spells, and cone-shaped spells.  At first I tried a 60 degree arc, but it was a bit odd as far as fitting it onto the hex grid.  It wound up really narrow, and to cover enough hexes it needed to be wider.  So I went with 90 degrees.  

Your suggestion of just making an arc-shaped template covering 60 or 90 degrees is good - pivot it around and adjudicate edge cases as with the round template.  Just decide how much area it should cover.  

I suppose it just depends on how you like to play.  I'm not sure my group even knows that these spells are all square in the default rules, because they've virtually never played on a square grid.  These templates are used by the bad guys as well, so all spells in the game work the same way, even if it's not exactly RAW.  It works for us.


----------



## Nifft (Mar 3, 2010)

Zinovia said:


> I didn't want to reduce the count for bursts, but I couldn't find any good way to preserve it while keeping a symmetrical shape.  Blasts were easier to keep the count on because of the shape I chose, based on a cone.  Having the two not match in size wasn't an ideal solution.



 Right. IMHO as long as they're close in area it's fine.



Zinovia said:


> So I kept bursts hexagonal, and they do cover less area than their square counterparts.  It is somewhat balanced by there being fewer hexes adjacent to a character (6 rather than 8), and by blasts being close.  Blasts have a slightly bigger area, but you have to be right there to deliver the spell most of the time.



 Ah, see, I actually think blasts already have more tactical value, if you're not limited to a rotationally invariant shape.

With a cone-shapes -- yours or mine -- the caster has a bunch more options. IMHO, those options = tactical power.



Zinovia said:


> Your suggestion of just making an arc-shaped template covering 60 or 90 degrees is good - pivot it around and adjudicate edge cases as with the round template.



 What I'd intended to suggest was a fixed hex template, just like yours, but with fewer hexes... I'll just sketch it, it's confusing to describe. Please pardon the crudeness.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Zinovia (Mar 14, 2010)

The more I consider this, the more I agree that the two types of spells should be similar to each other in size.  I was a bit too focused on the hex count matching the square version when I designed the blast spells.  Given the nature of a hex shaped spell rather than square, the burst spells had to be smaller than their square counterparts (since we're lopping off the corners).  The blast spells should match them in size. 

So I have come up with a revised version, and given up on trying to make a version that aims off the side of a hex.  It just looked weird and didn't fit well.  The bursts are the same, although I combined them into a single template as was suggested up-thread.  They are 7, 19, and 37 hexes total for burst 1, 2, and 3 respectively (vs. 9, 25, and 49 on a square grid).  The blast spells are 8 and 19 hexes for burst 3 and burst 5.  This corresponds much better to their burst counterparts, while still giving me the cone shape I wanted.    

As Nifft suggested, I used a 60 degree arc as the basis, but instead of making it only 6 hexes, I added a couple more at the top, for a total of 8 in a blast 3 spell.  





For the blasts, there is a starting hex that is placed adjacent to the caster.  Here's what they look like.







Revised Hex Spell templates


----------



## Nifft (Mar 15, 2010)

Nice. I really like your new Blast 5 template. IMHO the Blast 3 is tactically more flexible as a 6-hex cone than it is as (your) 8-hex cone, but perhaps that's just a matter of taste.

One further note: there are feats which increase the size of blasts & bursts by 1, so it's possible to have a Blast 4, 6 or even 7 (with both Enlarge Spell and the Thunder one).

"_Your work is never done_", -- N


----------



## eamon (Mar 15, 2010)

Why not have the caster _on_ the gold colored hex?  Wouldn't that be more symmetrical?

Seeing as you've experience with hexes, how does it affect gameplay?  Seems to me the more notable difference is a reduction in mobility; it looks harder to "slip through the cracks" and pushes/pulls have fewer options.   Flanking, on the other hand is easier.


----------



## Zinovia (Mar 15, 2010)

Allowing the caster a choice to stand on the gold colored hex or to place it adjacent to him would add some nice flexibility.  Naturally, if he is in that hex, the spell wouldn't hit there.  If it's adjacent, then it does affect that hex.  I like it as a solution for aiming a spell straight off the point of the hex, rather than angling it to one side or the other.  Good idea, thanks.  

I hadn't considered blast 4, or 6, but IIRC, the newly revised warlock/sorcerer hybrid in my group has the option of increasing the size of spells by a hex (or she will shortly).  It's not hard to figure it out, but I can go in and add some other sizes to the template.  They are used less often than the defaults, but might be useful.  At higher levels, there's a spell for chaos sorcerers (level 20 paragon path spell) that is close blast 2d6 - so it can range in size from blast 2 to blast 12.  That could be entertaining (it hits only enemies).  

To count these, just go out the stated number of hexes along the 60 degree shape (using the existing template), then add in the extra line of hexes across the top of the wedge.


----------



## Zinovia (Mar 15, 2010)

eamon said:


> Seeing as you've experience with hexes, how does it affect gameplay?  Seems to me the more notable difference is a reduction in mobility; it looks harder to "slip through the cracks" and pushes/pulls have fewer options.   Flanking, on the other hand is easier.



Flanking is pretty easy to achieve, and for medium sized creatures, very clear as to which hexes provide flank.  For larger creatures, we wing it a little, but it's not difficult to judge.  I'm not sure that flanking is any easier to achieve than on a square grid.  It's true that there are fewer hexes adjacent to a given opponent (6 rather than 8 ).  

We trade a little bit of side to side "waddle" in movement with a hex grid for the weirdness of the square root of 2 being factored out of diagonal movement on a square grid.  I'd rather that things that are physically further apart also be further apart when counting on the grid, which doesn't happen on diagonals with squares, unless you go back to 1-2-1-2 counts for movement on the diagonal.  So by the RAW with a square grid, you do have more mobility than on hex, provided you move diagonally.  It's something I dislike about squares.  Other than that, I don't think using hexes has much effect on forced movement or mobility however.  

Push or pull powers are always straight away or towards the person using that power, so how would hex reduce the options?  As for slipping through the cracks, isn't it a bit easier with hex, given that the threatened area from any given foe covers fewer hexes than it would squares?

It's hard for me to judge, since the only time I use squares is the occasional LFR game.


----------



## TylerDurden (May 11, 2010)

*4e Square Grid*

Do you guys have a similar grid for 4e square grid? I do not typically use hex grid, but love the transparency idea for the game.


----------

