| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't just say a square isn't a square.
Venture-Agent, Colorado—Denver
|
It does cut down on the number of adjacent to a creature (8 on a square grid, vs 6 on a hex grid), and doesn't a hex grid break the two-diagonals = 15 ft rule as well?
Yes to both. So we must stick with squares. Plus, it would confuse a lot of nooBs switching from squares to hexes, back to squares, etc...
|
PFS scenarios are run strictly as written, so unless a scenario has a map which features hexes you must use squares, as displayed on the map in question in the scenario.
I understand your gut reaction, but I didn't ask about redrawing maps so that everything is neatly hex based. I am talking about putting minis inside hexes instead of squares... while NOT changing the maps. I thought it was a given, but I'll clarify in case it isn't. I'm not talking about changing the maps.
So long as the maps are identical to what's presented, what difference does it make if the imaginary lines around each mini intersect at 90 degree angles or 60 degree angles? So long as your hexes are 5' across, the rules all still work.
Furthermore, I'll point to the PFS Guide to Organized Play, Core Assumption. It pointedly omits the requirement, even the recommendation, that GMs have specifically square-based maps.
I'm not looking for an exploit here. Heck, from the GM perspective using hex maps is decidedly NONOPTIMAL. It'd be a bigger pain than it already is to draw maps. PFS parties aren't supposed to be any bigger than 6*, so not being able to surround a single NPC with 7-9 PCs makes little difference. OTOH, PCs are protected from being surrounded by 7-9 NPCs. I'm asking... well, honestly I'm not sure why I'm asking at this point. I'm utterly convinced it is 100% legal and I'm gonna do what I'm gonna do regardless. But ORIGINALLY I was asking because a GM, say prepping for a con where he or she will be running several games, may only possess a finite number of grid maps and may want to make use of some hex-based ones rather than hurriedly re-draw in scant time between slots.
*= I know. You don't even need to go there. So, please save everyone some time by not.
If you have to start calling a hexagon a "six-sided square" to make something work then you should probably stop.
I understand what you're saying, but the nature of PFS makes Pedantry trump Common Sense as soon as the Rules Lawyers chime in.
|
|
The tactical side effects pointed out by David are hard to ignore. You also reduce viable flanking angles. Does it create weirdness when you have a map with narrow 5' hallways (I imagine it's no different than something like a cave wall taking half of a 5' square)? It seems awkward because the hex tiles are staggered rather than aligned. This might have some other side effects for carefully designed maps that include trap doors, hidden passages, etc. I assumed that you have to no plans to change the map, but you're taking something that was designed for squares and converting it to hexagons, and though you seem to be confident in that, it's not exactly a trivial change and it does affect relative position between tokens.
It seems to me that because the maps in the scenario are drawn using square grids that you ought to use square grids as well for the sake of consistency.
It may or may not matter based on the party, but I think that you should at least make sure the players at your table are ok with using a hex grid, and to avoid using one at a large convention like gencon or such. And of course make sure it's not going to mess up the map.
But yeah I wouldn't do it. Seems like it'd be less trouble to use a square grid.
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
I am not seeing the benefit in doing this considering that it would have an effect on the rules and confuse a lot of people.
There is also the whole problem of straight lines on a hex grid means there are half squares that, by the rules, would require squeezing. Having a war gaming background I have looked at the idea of using hexes in RPGs rather than squares. It's just too much hassle for too little gain.
|
|
But yeah I wouldn't do it. Seems like it'd be less trouble to use a square grid.
Totally agreed that given the option, sticking with squares is preferable for all kinds of reasons.. including the ones you and others cited.
However, given the choice between leaving perfectly usable hex-maps blank and erasing and redrawing square maps... I'm going to unapolagetically use those hex maps to avoid erasing and redrawing square maps.
|
|
More stuff, sorry.
I'm utterly convinced it is 100% legal and I'm gonna do what I'm gonna do regardless.
Hope I'm not being too s%#*ty, but I don't know why you made this topic with that attitude.
Also, this basically amounts to house ruling that you're going to use hex grids instead of the square grids used directly in the scenario. Definitely not legal, much less 100% legal.
so not being able to surround a single NPC with 7-9 PCs makes little difference. OTOH, PCs are protected from being surrounded by 7-9 NPCs.
Because you only have 6 adjacent squares instead of 8, it's actually easier to surround tokens.
I'd rather draw the map than deal with people whining about the hex grids or risk running into weird combat side effect from hex grid map that I didn't anticipate from unexpected party tactics.
EDIT: Genuine question, because I don't own a hex map, does the hex map have an equal number of "tiles" covered in an AOE effect? If it's different than squares, that's another non-trivial side effect that I as a player would not appreciate.
|
|
I'm going to unapolagetically use those hex maps to avoid erasing and redrawing square maps.That would not be allowed in PFS.
Show me where it says it ain't ;)
If you're going to a con this weekend and I'm your GM, and you want to walk away because I have a map on hexes rather than squares, it's your loss.
|
|
I'm going to unapolagetically use those hex maps to avoid erasing and redrawing square maps.That would not be allowed in PFS.Show me where it says it ain't ;)
If you're going to a con this weekend and I'm your GM, and you want to walk away because I have a map on hexes rather than squares, it's your loss.
It's actually the opposite. Additional Resources dictates what is legal for use in PFS, and a hex map is definitely not in the additional resources. Therefore, it's not legal for use.
If you're going to a con this weekend and I'm your GM, and you want to walk away because I have a map on hexes rather than squares, it's your loss.
Not if I'm a paying customer and I go complain to the coordinator...
|
Pathfinder has no rules for using hex grids.
Open up your Core Rulebook, and you'll see that I'm correct.
How do you calculate distance with hexes? How do you calculate charge lines? How do you deal with the 90 degree angles of buildings?
Whatever your answer ends up being would be a personal houserule, and not written in any book.
|
|
More stuff, sorry.
I'm utterly convinced it is 100% legal and I'm gonna do what I'm gonna do regardless.Hope I'm not being too s+*&ty, but I don't know why you made this topic with that attitude.
Fair point. It deserves a fair answer. Because I do like to think of myself as open enough to know I might not know what I don't know. But no one's (thus far) said anything that I agree means "PFS OP Rules say you can't do that". My admittedly attitude-enhanced comment came from the aftermath of verifying that indeed the PFS OP Guide Season 6 does not list the requirement to use square maps (or maps of any kind, near as I can tell. But that's another thread, and not the point I'm trying to make here)
Also, this basically amounts to house ruling that you're going to use hex grids instead of the square grids used directly in the scenario. Definitely not legal, much less 100% legal.
I understand what you're saying. I simply (and wholeheartedly) disagree with the conclusion that using hexes instead of squares is a house rule. No, I call that variance in presentation of the same material. I respect your disagreement, and don't mean to insist that you or anyone else should start using hexes. I'm just insisting that given what I see in the PFS OP guide, the CRB, and this thread, I see no reason to think that those imaginary lines on the map is changing the rules one iota.
I'd rather draw the map than deal with people whining about the hex grids or risk running into weird combat side effect from hex grid map that I didn't anticipate from unexpected party tactics.
Totally agreed. I'd sooner buy another map than use a hex one. But, why should I have to? Why should a GM starting out without the resources like I have, for that matter. It's something of principle.
|
|
I see no reason to think that those imaginary lines on the map is changing the rules one iota.
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.
May have missed some.
But these are some concrete reasons to not use hex maps in a system designed for square grids that go beyond "PFS OP Rules say you can't do that." You can't because it has a side effect on how the game plays, and therefore causes table variation which is exactly what PFS tries to prevent.
Totally agreed. I'd sooner buy another map than use a hex one. But, why should I have to? Why should a GM starting out without the resources like I have, for that matter. It's something of principle.
It costs money to play this game just like any other. You pay for the rule book(s), the minis, the dice, the scenarios (unless your coordinator gives them to you to run), the pens to draw the maps. I don't see anything unnatural about buying a general use dry erase map or two for the convenience of not redrawing the maps during the scenario. It'd be one thing if the square dry erase map was not reusable.
|
|
You have 3 stars. I hardly think you're still "starting out".
I hope you didn't earn any of those using hex grids.
I didn't say I was starting out. I was saying, obliquely, that I've got steady income to go with my pre-existing collection of game stuff (that will quite literally go back beyond most people on this forum were born). Not all GMs are so blessed with the ability to just allow a perfectly good map they have on hand that happens to be gridded in hexes to go to waste.
But, since you brought it up, I have run exactly one map during one scenario on a hex map. Why did I do it? Just to be different. It was in season three when the Hao Jin Tapestry stuff was new, and I thought it would be an original way to represent a slight other-wordliness of planar travel that is so rare in PFS. The fun part is it was in the presence of a 5 star GM and my region's VC. Neither of them batted an eye. Do I condone hex maps for reasons like that? Not necessarily.
But would I condone someone who's simply out of square maps, or unable to afford to purchase a square map to use a hex map for those reasons? Hell yes. 100%.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GURPS is my longstanding system of choice -- I *greatly* miss hex maps. But I have come to believe that they just aren't appropriate for Pathfinder.
There are artifacts and grid weirdnesses with all grid systems -- squares aren't "better" than hexagons or vice versa, it's just a matter of how you deal with the glitches that are there. Having said that, because Pathfinder assumes a square grid, they have codified their solutions to square grid issues, and they *haven't* codified their solutions to hex grid issues.
That's why using a hex grid is inadvisable for PFS -- it is inviting table variation, even if everyone otherwise agreed to use hex grids.
I don't think it's out and out forbidden -- my thinking there is influenced by discussions on gridless combat in PFS PbP -- but I would highly discourage it.
|
|
I see no reason to think that those imaginary lines on the map is changing the rules one iota.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:
....
May have missed some.
I'm not disagreeing that those impacts would happen. I'm saying those are impacts, not changes in the rules. And since those impacts are agreed upon as being legitimate*, yes I agree you should use squares whenever reasonably possible.
*=on the charging thing, I disagree. See, a straight line doesn't need to be a contiuous row of squares. 3 squares, then over one row and 3 more squares, and over one row and 3 more squares... that's still "a straight line" Hexes would just be treated the same way.
It costs money to play this game just like any other. You pay for the rule book(s), the minis, scenarios (unless your coordinator gives them to you to run), the pens to draw the maps. I don't see anything unnatural about buying a general use dry erase...
It does cost a lot of money to buy everything in the Core Assumption. Why should someone without a lot of money to burn have to buy even more stuff, especially if it's not in the Core Assumption.
|
Meh. I've used hex-grid maps in PFS before*. The world didn't end.
Square-grid maps are certainly better for most situations, especially buildings and dungeons with lots of right angles.
Hex-grids do have their advantages and disadvantages. Some considerations:
It is advisable you talk to your players. Explain why you are using hexes instead of squares. Ask if everyone is okay with that (ahead of time, if possible). And with any disagreement between the two systems, it is a good idea to give the benefit to the players.
* Edit: now that I think about it, I might have only used hexes in home games. I'm not sure. I use them a lot in home games, that's for sure, and they work just fine. Running things entirely without a grid also works just fine. You can use rulers and templates instead.
|
|
It does cost a lot of money to buy everything in the Core Assumption. Why should someone without a lot of money to burn have to buy even more stuff, especially if it's not in the Core Assumption.
Maps aren't in the core assumption because you're not required to possess your own to play or GM, you can borrow them from others. Nobody cares where you get one or even what you use for one so long as you can represent the map as defined in the scenario and so long as it complies with PF rules.
Half the other things on my list of items are also not included in the core assumption either. I see the cost point as moot. Nefreet has the right idea.
The core of the issue is that you're using a different map type only for convenience reasons and ignoring the fact that PF was not designed with hex grids in mind and it has weird rule interactions. Not really fair to the players.
|
|
Maps aren't in the core assumption because you're not required to possess your own to play or GM, you can borrow them from others. Nobody cares where you get one or even what you use for one so long as you can represent the map as defined in the scenario and so long as it complies with PF rules.
And I think at this point we should agree to disagree about what constitutes PFS rules with regards to how the arbitrary units on a map are required to be shaped, providing of course that the in-game physical features of the map match what's published.
|
|
Not really fair to the players.Please elaborate.
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. As stated by you, you don't use the every other diag rule in your calculations, which is different than what is used in the CRB. That's a house rule, sir.May have missed some.
But these are some concrete reasons to not use hex maps in a system designed for square grids that go beyond "PFS OP Rules say you can't do that." You can't because it has a side effect on how the game plays, and therefore causes table variation which is exactly what PFS tries to prevent.
|
|
I agree that some of those are considerations we must keep in mind when using hex-grids (and some are considerations we must keep in mind when using square-grids). I fail to see the unfairness.
Because its making a game execution change that has an impact on the basic rules of the game, and its forcing the players to adjust to that. It has an impact on combat tactics, and in some cases how other content of the scenario winds up being executed when there are important terrain considerations like traps. It's changing the experience because somebody doesn't want to redraw the map or borrow somebody else's square tile one.
But let's turn this around. Why is "I don't want to redraw the square map" or "I don't want to buy one" a compelling reason to use a hex grid when the rules are designed around square maps?
Come on.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I played one game with hexes. GM had made a mistake and left his maps at home. It was 15 minutes before game time. So rather than canceling the session he bought gaming paper and a marker from the store. All they had were hexes. Nobody complained. Everyone had a good time.
I call that a creative solution.
And yes, weird situations come up once in a while where something needs to be handled quickly. A GM should have that leeway. People who are overreacting a yelling how it's illegal or not fair or whatever need to keep this in consideration.
Please, do not be Lawful Stupid.
This is not saying hexes should be a standard practice.
|
|
GM had made a mistake and left his maps at home. It was 15 minutes before game time. So rather than canceling the session he bought gaming paper and a marker from the store. All they had were hexes.
This is not saying hexes should be a standard practice.
That's a much different case the one presented by the OP.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That would not be allowed in PFS.
Show me where it says it ain't ;)
As it turns out, Pathfinder Society uses the same underlying rules as the Pathfinder RPG. The Society guide doesn't have to explain that clerics channel positive / negative energy, or how the Cleave feat works, or the area affected by a burning hands spell, because all those are explained in the base game.
We don't get to change the base game in Pathfinder Society. If you want one place where squares are explicitly mentioned, look at the game definition of "a 15' cone," a.k.a. the area that a burning hands spell affects.
Hex-based swarms only affect three figures, not 4. (Or do they affect 7?) Rules for cover change significantly. There's no rules for two figures moving perpendicular to each other, unless one zig-zags.
If you're going to a con this weekend and I'm your GM, and you want to walk away because I have a map on hexes rather than squares, it's your loss.
No, actually. It's the con's loss, because they were expecting someone to run Pathfinder Society, and you're running PFS scenarios through your home-brew rules.
|
|
1. Makes it easier to surround a token as you have 6 adjacent tiles instead of 8.
True. Applies to both parties. Since PCs typically outnumber their foes, this is to players' advantage.
2. Reduces flank angles.
Meaning it is easier to get into flanking position. Again, players' advantage.
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).
Let's go with enemies' advantage here. It cancels (1).
4. Changes the coverage of AOE effects (likely).
Unlikely in practice.
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?
Same consideration as using square grids.
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?
Same consideration as using a square grid on maps with non-orthogonal map features. Even a 45-degree hallway causes no end of trouble on a square grid (every other square ends up being squeezing in many cases).
If you read what I wrote above, you will see that I believe square-grid maps are better when buildings and dungeons with right angles are involved.
However, if you know what you are doing, you can draw square map features perfectly well on a hex grid.
7. Has side effects on distance calculations, which assume squares in the CRB. As stated by you, you don't use the every other diag rule in your calculations, which is different than what is used in the CRB. That's a house rule, sir.
There aren't any diagonals on a hex grid (or maybe all directions are diagonals). The point of the every-other-diagonal rule in the CRB is to make the grid distance approximate Euclidean distance. On a hex grid, the grid distance is already close to the Euclidean distance, so no this consideration is unnecessary.
Look, I'm not advocating that PFS should be played on a hex-grid instead of a square-grid. I'm just saying that there are situations where it is no big deal, and may actually be even better, to use a hex-grid. There is no need to start throwing around veiled accusations of GM cheating.
|
|
I agree that some of those are considerations we must keep in mind when using hex-grids (and some are considerations we must keep in mind when using square-grids). I fail to see the unfairness.Because its making a game execution change that has an impact on the basic rules of the game, and its forcing the players to adjust to that. It has an impact on combat tactics, and in some cases how other content of the scenario winds up being executed when there are important terrain considerations like traps. It's changing the experience because somebody doesn't want to redraw the map or borrow somebody else's square tile one.
But let's turn this around. Why is "I don't want to redraw the square map" or "I don't want to buy one" a compelling reason to use a hex grid when the rules are designed around square maps?
Come on.
Let's nip a fallacy in the bud. So long as dice are used and humans are running and playing the game, there will always be variance in scenarios from table to table. Hex vs Squares isn't bringing varying table experience to the table. It'll be there regardless. It's the rules and scenario mechanics we're not allowed to change.
And the rules don't change just because of the angle that the imaginary lines on the map intersect. It really is that simple, in my view. The rules aren't changing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, I think I misstated my point. I'm not talking about tactical advantage, I'm talking about whether it's fair for you, as the GM, to randomly change basic stuff for arbitrary or nebulous convenience reasons. I view this as unfair.
The point is not "it shifts the advantage" but rather "it screws with basic tactics and rules as PF defines it" and because of that you change the game as the players are used to experiencing and how they expect to be playing. It also introduces inconsistency with how the above rule impacts are addressed.
It's no different than making house rules. We know those aren't allowed. Why do that with the maps?
EDIT : Correction of tone.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Movement, Position, And Distance
Miniatures are on the 30mm scale—a miniature of a 6-foot-tall man is approximately 30mm tall. A square on the battle grid is 1 inch across, representing a 5-foot-by-5-foot area.
That is the sum total of the section on Movement, Position and Distance before the PRD goes into into the subsection refering to tactical movement. That section, by the way, refers to movement in squares and feet. Nowhere are hexagons mentioned.
Pathfinder RPG rules make no mention of hexagons. Pathfinder Society obviously makes use of those rules. Using a map based on hexs would not be legal for PFS as pretty much everyone in this thread has already stated.
|
|
Except that, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the rules of Pathfinder were written explicitly for squares, so using hexes instead is changing the rules. And while there will always be table variance, we should not be going out of our way to introduce more of it.
Let's nip a fallacy in the bud. So long as dice are used and humans are running and playing the game, there will always be variance in scenarios from table to table. Hex vs Squares isn't bringing varying table experience to the table. It'll be there regardless. It's the rules and scenario mechanics we're not allowed to change.And the rules don't change just because of the angle that the imaginary lines on the map intersect. It really is that simple, in my view. The rules aren't changing.
So quoteth the CRB:
Miniatures are on the 30mm scale—a miniature of a 6-foot-tall man is approximately 30mm tall. A square on the battle grid is 1 inch across, representing a 5-foot-by-5-foot area.
So, we're in unanimous agreement that when using a grid with squares, those squares have to be 5' across, yadda yadda.
We're not unanimous about whether use of so-defined battle grid is required/mandatory.
Edit: Fun times. Two people quote the same rule and come to opposite conclusions ;)