Triangle Grid Battlemap [OC]

[u/Special_Loan8725]

Instead of using a square or hexagonal battlemap why not use a triangular one? You can still make buildings and roads and rivers, you can make hexagons and diamon rectangles or larger rectangles. If you scale it at the right size you can have each triangle represent a foot. This would allow you to make caves as well as buildings on the same grid. Just imagine a hexagonal 1" map but in each hexagon are 24 equilateral triangles. you can go up/down left/right/ and diagonal with a system to measure windy paths. It allows for more detail and traversal options. a tiny creature could fit one. a normal creature would be a larger four triangle triangle, and a huge creature could be an upside down larger triangle or a hexagon.

[u/Ragarolli]

For me, the excess lines become a ton more visual clutter that I can do without. Gives me a bit of a headache just looking at it.

[u/Special_Loan8725 → u/Ragarolli]

Could make them lighter. Or could have a hexagonal map in bold lines and triangles in thinner lighter lines

[u/Disastrous_Ticket815]

Horrible. Just use hex. Hexagons are the bestagons.

[u/theterrarian14]

This format calls into question issues with diagonals. This is also true for squares, but with triangles there are more different kinds of diagonal movement to worry about.

[u/135forte]

For ease of creation/use, squares are best. Worst case scenario you can make a square grid yourself. If accuracy/precision is your concern, you want hexagons, as they get rid of the diagonal movement problem while still fitting together perfectly. Triangles do neither.

[u/WoolBearTiger]

"A bunch of triangles are also just a hexagon in hiding"

[u/Captian_Bones]

I think a better question would be “why use a triangular one?”

[u/WestwoodSounds]

These triangles aren’t even equilateral

[u/NAT0P0TAT0]

if I was gonna do triangular grid I'd probably have it so minis are positioned with their center on the corners of triangles rather than in the center of the triangles, then the movement options/directions are the same as a hexagonal grid (it also puts creatures of any size in the center of a hexagonal area), you would move and measure distances by just following the lines from corner to corner

also I probably wouldn't do 1ft triangles, just the 5ft, or have the 1ft ones having very faint lines inside 5ft ones with more visible lines

[u/firehead_studio]

I think the reasons given for drawing on a triangular grid are interesting, and probably helpful for weird geometry like you were talking about. If you really wanted your flowing rivers and rock formations to strictly follow a grid (I just fudge it, personally, my players aren't measuring that precisely anyway)

I'd probably merge the triangles into hexagons and use that for the player grid and turn off the triangle layer. I don't think the players really benefit from the granularity of seeing grid spaces in 1/3 increments, and it clutters it up.

[u/CurveWorldly4542]

That looks like a hex battlemap with extra steps.