You can make your own with paper easily.

- Take a standard sheet of paper and put the grid on it manually. Graph paper will make this step easier.
- Once you have one page with the proper gridlines, photocopy as many as you need for your mat (I'd estimate somewhere around 15 or 20).
- Match the gridlines up and tape the pages together.
- Now get some clear contact paper and place it adhesive side up on a table.
- Lay down your gridded paper on the contact paper so they make a battlemat of what ever size you desire. For more durability, laminate the back side too.

The clear contact paper works well with wet-erase markers (I've never tried dry-erase markers).

As for size, I personally just use 2 sheets wide by 2 sheets tall (of 8-1/2 X 11 inch paper), so I guess that's something near 17X22.

**4th Edition, from experience**

When inflicted on a 4e group as part of a curse, it gave *everyone* a headache and made combats incredibly long.

The hex based map presents incredible difficulties in calculating zones relative to the ease of calculating zones in a square map. Either zones in a hex grid are the same *area* as a square grid or they are the same approximation of a circle. Both have their difficulties in calculation. I found that with a group experienced in square maps, everyone had to rebuild their standard tactics from the ground up to deal with the different terrain.

On the advantages side, a hexagon approximates a circle far better than a square, and with wire templates, the difficulty in calculating zones will be reduced. It also offers odd cognitive dissonance (as observed) with the squiggly-lines problem: moving "across the grain" of the map will have a character rapidly oscillate between two different rows, annoying some players.

In the question of balance, bursts will generally effect fewer people (close burst 1 has max 6 targets instead of 8) and blasts may or may not effect more people, depending on how you calculate the area of the blast. A hex-diamond-shaped blast will offer a player greater "reach" than the normal game's blast, at the expense of "width" simply by the geometry of the hexes. Changing the definitions of blasts and bursts to be more "realistic" may help the problem, but will introduce non-trivial balance problems in both directions.

My general recommendation is to never inflict a hex grid on a group used to square grids, but it may not be a bad basis for a campaign if *everyone* wants a hex grid. It's probably more appropriate to use it with a simulationist system though.

**3.5 from little experience**

While running and playing in some play by post versions of 3.5, we tried using hexes. While 3.5 maps more ably to hexes because it's based on naturalistic geometry, the heuristic for calculating distance is slightly more difficult than "every other diagonal counts as 10 feet. Still, hexes are not a bad choice for 3.5 especially if using house-ruled ideas about facing.

**Other tactical games**

Fundamentally speaking, if a game is designed for real geometry it will play well with hexes as both squares and hexes can be mapped to circles and feet without too much trouble. A game with high amounts of abstract tactical design "baked in" (4e) will do less well, because much of that tactical design is based around assumptions of a square grid.

## Best Answer

In the Dungeon Master's Guide, page 250, it states that when playing with a mat the squares or hexes should be 1 inch across and should represent 5 feet. But you can play with the scale of the squares as much as you like.