Any chance we could switch to hex based maps instead of square?

[Slyme]

Hex based maps make so many things easier and more intuitive...diagonal movement, AoE templates, etc.

I'd love to see PF2 update to hex maps.

[Gorignak227]

Good point on diagonal movement and aoe templates but most people i know are pretty vocal on their hatred of hex.

[Fuzzypaws]

Hex works better for diagonals, sure, but not cardinals. It works better for wilderness but doesn't map well to the straight line layout of most buildings, cities, roads, ships and dungeons... the most common places for adventures to have combat.

[Ring_of_Gyges]

I like the lines of the dungeon walls lining up nicely with the lines on the grid. We live in rectangular buildings, I think squares are always going to look cleaner.

There are obvious compatibility issues with a switch as well (not just compatibility with old PF1 stuff, but third party stuff like D&D maps, accessories like Dwarven Forge, and so on). Don't hold your breath.

[Planpanther]

I use both when its called for.

[Rycke]

I don't think there's anything that prevents you from using hex based maps.

[pjrogers]

I am a hex-based wargaming grognard from way, way back. However, I think squares make the most sense for PF tactical maps. Larger scale outdoor maps are another story, and I think Paizo already makes use of hexes for them.

[Gorignak227]

Speaking of diagonals...

If we keep squares as the default i hope they switch to the simpler no extra distance calc for diagonals from 5th ed.

[glass]

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Hex works better for diagonals, sure, but not cardinals. It works better for wilderness but doesn't map well to the straight line layout of most buildings, cities, roads, ships and dungeons... the most common places for adventures to have combat.

Hexes work fine for buildings, cities, & roads. The problem with switching to hexes for PF2 is that it would obsolete the dozens of flip mats and map packs Paizo have already published (including the ones currently pre-orderable for the playtest).

_
glass.

[sadie]

I agree that a square grid makes more sense for encounters, buildings and roads, and a hex map for larger scales.

Would it be possible to codify what those larger scales are? A lot of maps have hexes on, but there's no consistent scale to them.

PF2 is adding exploration mode. A good aspect of this would be a measurable scale of travel: "With that number of people carrying that amount of luggage, you can travel eight hexes a day. Where are you going?"

[Ampersandrew]

Gorignak227 wrote:

Speaking of diagonals...

If we keep squares as the default i hope they switch to the simpler no extra distance calc for diagonals from 5th ed.

Oh lord! No!

Just No.

This is the first thing I changed when I playtested 5th edition. If I want to play 5th edition, I know where to find it.

[dragonhunterq]

I've found hexes come with their own problems, I don't find them that intuitive. I suspect it comes down to what you are used to. Lets just Stick with squares.

[Bluenose]

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Hex works better for diagonals, sure, but not cardinals. It works better for wilderness but doesn't map well to the straight line layout of most buildings, cities, roads, ships and dungeons... the most common places for adventures to have combat.

So can you tell me why this road grid works better on a square grid than a hex one? Or this castle plan? Mexico City or Rio de Janeiro would be really hard to represent on a square grid. And squares are significantly worse with round structures, which are hardly uncommon.

[JRutterbush]

Bluenose wrote:

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Hex works better for diagonals, sure, but not cardinals. It works better for wilderness but doesn't map well to the straight line layout of most buildings, cities, roads, ships and dungeons... the most common places for adventures to have combat.

So can you tell me why this road grid works better on a square grid than a hex one? Or this castle plan? Mexico City or Rio de Janeiro would be really hard to represent on a square grid. And squares are significantly worse with round structures, which are hardly uncommon.

Neither of those maps are tactical maps, and thus need no grid at all. And compared to square buildings, yes, round structures are fairly uncommon.

[Stone Dog]

Abandon squares AND hexes! Rulers and templates! Free yourselves from the slavery of the line!

Seriously though, I'd prefer hexes, but squares are just so much easier to draw on.

[Wild Spirit]

All military maps I have seen use square grid. Besides, it's much easier to improvise a square grid than a hexagon one (which you usually have to buy).

[Wheldrake]

Hex maps have their own diagonals, which are even more fiddly to deal with. Back in the early 80s, when playing Squad Leader, AFVs could go along hex edges to avoid buildings depicted in the middle and the like. It leads to a whole new can of worms.

The best way to avoid diagonal madness is to go gridless, and use rulers to adjudicate the movement of figures for PCs and critters. But it does open up a gray area or fudge factor that you don't get in a gridded environment.

[Weather Report]

This is making me want to go gridless, when using a map/mat, and just use soft tape measures.

[KujakuDM]

Both options are fine. Unearthed arcana for 3.5 had a good conversion if you wanted to try it out?

Also going hex would invalidate all of the map packs that Paizo has put out over the years. I highly doubt they would do that.

[pjrogers]

Wheldrake wrote:

Hex maps have their own diagonals, which are even more fiddly to deal with. Back in the early 80s, when playing Squad Leader, AFVs could go along hex edges to avoid buildings depicted in the middle and the like. It leads to a whole new can of worms.

You are clearly a person of great taste and culture. And yes, I totally agree that one can do all sorts of cheesy things with hex grids.