|
Now that we've all agreed that you can't do this in PFS, A fun link about Hexes.
Well, I will concede that I won't be using hex maps at my Con. Not because of the merits of any argument, but because Russ Brown is a VL for my area and his rank and his "I said so" trumps any further rules discussions.
|
We're not unanimous about whether use of so-defined battle grid is required/mandatory.
This is what you're after:
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgements, within the
rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com.
|
|
We're not unanimous about whether use of so-defined battle grid is required/mandatory.This is what you're after:
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgements, within the
rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com.
Hence my post immediately before this one. A VL, especially one I interact with, has said this is how it is. For me, the discussion is over, whatever merits it had (or, for sake of argument, I only think it had) prior to that.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
Let's be fair. I never used the words "I said so".
I think if you read the chapter on combat it is blantantly clear that Pathfinder assumes a battle grid with squares. Especially when you look at all the examples and pictures. I think you could make an arguement for no minis/grid although that would be difficult to adjudicate given all the rules involving "tactical movement". However hexagons are never mentioned in the rules, so I think if you use minis then your one choice is a grid with squares*.
I do specifically use the word "assumes" since it does seem other than the one place I quoted a battle grid is not explicitly mentioned.
I do think using a hex map for a home game is a fairly reasonable house rule. Unfortunately we all know that house rules are a no go in PFS.
*The normal four sided kind. :P
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
Cool. No hard feelings.
I assume you are prepping games for TactiCon if you are in the Rocky Mountain area. If so I will be there.
Come introduce yourself if you want - it is a bit wierd talking with someone when they know who are but you don't know who they are (because of the forum alias).
Venture-Agent, Colorado—Denver
|
I use D&D Dungeon Tiles quite a bit in my PFS games since I have a lot of them and not very many PF map packs or flip maps (slowly collecting, though!). I had a very good representation for each of the maps in The Confirmation, but, not exact. Some rooms were a few squares too big or small. I like to err on the side of too big when a cavern or room seems just too small for 2 large bad guys and 6 PCs. Is this allowed or should we draw the maps on blank battlemats if we don't own the actual map pack or flip mat?
|
|
Show me where hexes are referenced in the Pathfinder rules at all. I'll wait.
Hexes are mentioned 101 times on this page. And that page is about movement, which seems to the crux of question IMHO. I would also like to point out that the first season (and sometimes others) the first encounter of every scenario did not even come with a map (to save money IIRC). It was 'assumed' the combat took place in 40x40 foot area and GMs had to fake it. Even my experienced GMs get thrown for a loop when I first have them run a season 0. Finally why is a square in inches, when the character occupying it is millimeters? How does one cope!?!
I only mention these because so many people are calling out 'the rules' as absolute when there are already exceptions to 'the rules'.
|
|
Considering in two of the last 4 games I had the pleasure to run I had to explain that 'd20' is an abbreviation for a dice with 20 sides, and 90% of the rules would be adding some number to the d20 roll, and this is why the system is called a d20 system; explaining the mechanical differences from a square/grid with a hex/grid seem hardly worth mentioning. The time you first time you play an RPG you learn all kinds of neat things, just because this wasn't one of them doesn't make it wrong.
I am not arguing hexes should or can be used in PFS. Personally I think hexes are much easier to arbitrate than grids in a number of occasions. Take the 15 ft. cone for example. Why can a burning hands affect 7 targets when the caster is facing one direction, but only 6 if she is facing another? Why can the caster hit a target flanked by his allies without hitting the allies? Then look at the AoE lines. Why is target A, standing behind target B, and next to target C safe when they are not? (Oddly this answer addresses the squeezing in half a hex concern brought up earlier).
Acedio listed issues that can be addressed with anyone familiar with hex maps. I dinnae think calling them out here is necessary, but I would be happy to show anyone who wants to know. :)
|
|
I use D&D Dungeon Tiles quite a bit in my PFS games since I have a lot of them and not very many PF map packs or flip maps (slowly collecting, though!). I had a very good representation for each of the maps in The Confirmation, but, not exact. Some rooms were a few squares too big or small. I like to err on the side of too big when a cavern or room seems just too small for 2 large bad guys and 6 PCs. Is this allowed or should we draw the maps on blank battlemats if we don't own the actual map pack or flip mat?
I think that's an excellent question.
That is: No one cares who produced the maps, but are we free to use close approximations when it comes to size, etc.? I would think not. Obviously the impact depends on the situation -- making a 50' wide room 45' wide means a heck of a lot less that making a 10' corridor 5' wide -- but in general the campaign leadership errs on the side of consistency.
|
|
I use D&D Dungeon Tiles quite a bit in my PFS games since I have a lot of them and not very many PF map packs or flip maps (slowly collecting, though!). I had a very good representation for each of the maps in The Confirmation, but, not exact. Some rooms were a few squares too big or small. I like to err on the side of too big when a cavern or room seems just too small for 2 large bad guys and 6 PCs. Is this allowed or should we draw the maps on blank battlemats if we don't own the actual map pack or flip mat?I think that's an excellent question.
That is: No one cares who produced the maps, but are we free to use close approximations when it comes to size, etc.? I would think not. Obviously the impact depends on the situation -- making a 50' wide room 45' wide means a heck of a lot less that making a 10' corridor 5' wide -- but in general the campaign leadership errs on the side of consistency.
I believe the statements in the past about this were:
Close approximations are fine, as long as you are careful that the changes don't negatively impact the environment presented.Or, Be careful when changing the size of an area, as it might invalidate tactics, or cause unintended consequences. Making a room too big for, for example, a stated initial partial charge to not work.
Also, on the hexes vs squares debate:
I would vote against it, because there are a bunch of things that can get messed up by using the wrong type of map. Some of us use builds that rely on map management, and hexes would change how some of those abilities work.
Even going mapless, with terrain and measuring tape, can cause some ... interesting ... effects. It might neutralize some of the oddities of the square map grid, like the 10' long 5' step on diagonals, might it might also make some other artifacts of the system act inappropriately in other fashions.
In other words, when using a hex instead of a square, or vice versa, be prepared to deal with the Law of Unintended Consequences, as you may not expect all the ways things work differently.
Also note: Every reference I have seen in Pathfinder for hex grids for maps, have all been in reference to large scale, wilderness, maps, whether it is in Kingmaker, or a recent scenario...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then all I have to say on that matter is that we have several posts in the topic enumerating a series of potential issues that the use of hex maps over squares could have that you have not addressed. I'll list the ones I've seen:1. Makes it easier to surround a token as you have 6 adjacent tiles instead of 8.
2. Reduces flank angles.
3. Reduces the number of viable tiles melee combatants can take, and means you can only have up to 6 melee combatants adjacent to a token (reach not withstanding).
4. Changes the coverage of AOE effects (likely).
5. Unclear how to proceed with Charge lanes, as a straight line sometimes actually zig-zags depending on the angle. What constitutes an obstruction on your zig-zag charge lane?
6. Unclear how to handle buildings or structures with 90 degree angles, or even straight edge, as along certain angles the hex grid zig zags. If a wall of a building occurs on such a zig-zag line are you squeezing on it? Do you squeeze through a 5' hallway because you're in half of a hex tile?
7. Has side effects on distance calculations, which assume squares in the CRB.
While I am a proponent of hexes in general, I agree that they are not PFS legal. I do want to address some of the points you brought up, though:
1. Absolutely true. The trade-off is that you completely eliminate the 5-10-5 corner movement issue and it's abundantly clear when something is flanking (corner to corner sometimes confuses new players in my experience).
2. Again, true, but players are able to discern intuitive flanking rules on hexes than squares. Ex. in the below diagram, many new players think this qualifies as flanking when using squares, but A and B are not flanking X here:
oAo
oXo
ooB
3. From a direct simulation standpoint (which is what the grid/hex system is all about), this is probably more reasonable anyway.
4. It does change AoE effects. Lines are unaffected. Bursts are significantly easier to target because the map is more circle-like. Cones narrow from 90 degrees to 60 degrees typically, which means that their range will also equal their width at the end of the cast. A 10' Cone will still have 3 hexes affected, but it won't look like a staircase. It will look like a cone. A 30' Cone in squares has either 25 or 28 affected squares, depending on the angle and start point, but it will ALWAYS have 21 affected hexes because you don't select vertices for spell origin.
5. There is no practical difference here. This already happens on squares, actually, and there are myriad minutiae to go along with it. There are more, not fewer, paths that are clearly demarcated in hexes. Lastly, the option of last resort is the same: draw a straight line or hold a string from point-to-point and determine what squares/hexes are majority-affected. Those are the charge lane.
6. The same way that they're handled in a grid. Keep in mind that many maps on grids are drawn at 45 degree angles already if they have a contiguous, winding room. If a square or hex is at least half open, you can squeeze into it, with normal squeeze penalties. If the square or hex is not half open, you cannot stand there. You draw the lines as you want them, not as the squares or hexes dictate.
7. Yes, distance calculations are based on squares currently. However, by eliminating the 5-10-5 problem, you eliminate a number of other problems, like corner-approach reach squircles with "imaginary squares." If they have a matched edge, they connect. That's 5'. If they don't have a matched edge, they are, de facto, separated by at least 1 hex. You just count until you get a path, same as before.
Again, I do not have any reason to believe that hex maps are PFS legal and disagree with the OP on this point. I think that the case against hexes really boils down to tradition and, quite frankly, unexamined tradition is the worst reason to do something.
|
|
I guess my use of non-PF maps/packs are ok. They use 1" squares after all.
Indeed they are. When you use for non-PFS maps/packs, or when I draw my map on a battlemat or grid paper, or when Drogon uses those dandy dungeon tiles, we all are approximating the given map to the best of our abilities and resources. What does it matter if the table is a square to the left or the bookshelves aren't deep enough if it has no bearing on the gameplay? That's all decor. It's not like the given maps are 100% accurate for scenery (I'm talking about things like a description of a large round table covered in books and scrolls portrayed on the map as a rectangular dining table with a bowl of fruit, linens, and surrounded by chairs, haha.)
Cosmetic changes are no stranger to PFS.
Crunch changes are not so shiny.
|
|
You can't just say a square isn't a square.
Except of course that Pathfinder squares are not really squares either - we draw them as squares but the diagonals do not act as squares and if you want to confuse newbies explain that to them or how reach weapons (or worse whips) work in that situation - it makes interesting explanations with charging with a lance too.
I understand the desire to use the hex map - because the short-long diagonal goes away, and movement is easier. Plus the flip side of many maps are hex.
I have played in pathfinder games for real chronicals that did not use a square mat - actually we didn't use squares at all, just the flat service and our minis - and a general agreement that the distance a person moved seem about right. the game went a lot faster without the lines on the table.
|
Hex-based systems are, in general, far superior to square-based systems due to the aggravating "radical 2 * side length" diagonal issue. Straight lightning bolts hit 24 squares, but diagonal ones only hit 16? What? Spell areas, in general, would be WAY easier with hexes. But that is not that system we are using.
|
|
"4e uses 1 square on the diagonal."
That is completely absurd by the way. I can make my PC move faster by a factor of radical 2 by just changing the path?
I don't like the one square diagonal rule. However, 1.5 isn't really correct, either. When it gets right down to it, √2 is irrational, and therefore any decimal representation must necessarily be imprecise. It just depends on how much approximation one is comfortable with.
|
|
David, Why do you keep ignoring the point to complain about the wonkiness of imaginary distances?
The point is ease of path along the greater number radial lines.
-
Hex grids are best in systems that use facing.
Most RPGs do not use facing.
Games like CBT(BattleTech) and Naval combat games work better/best on Hex...
I don't care about ease of path. I care about accurate and reproducible distances. I don't see why hexes are best for systems with facing. Most wargames have no facing and they use hexes.
|
|
I don't care about ease of path. I care about accurate and reproducible distances. I don't see why hexes are best for systems with facing. Most wargames have no facing and they use hexes.David, Why do you keep ignoring the point to complain about the wonkiness of imaginary distances?
The point is ease of path along the greater number radial lines.
-
Hex grids are best in systems that use facing.
Most RPGs do not use facing.
Games like CBT(BattleTech) and Naval combat games work better/best on Hex...
I think most wargames don't use either squares or hexes - they use consistant base sizes and measuring tapes. (Warhammer / 40k / Warmahordes etc)