Slaughtering Sacred Cows: Hex Map

[iNickedYerKnickers]

Change the battle map from the 1" square to a hex map!

[Tholomyes]

I certainly like my hexes, but my experience with Hex systems like HERO (pre 6e), tells me that this is an unpopular opinion. With buildings and crypts and what not being largely rectangular, I've found people tend to gravitate towards squares, and feel some unease at these areas represented by hexes. I'd personally love hexes to become a more accepted standard, but at least for Paizo's bottom line, I don't think it'd be the best for them.

[Fuzzypaws]

I like hex maps, but they do work better for outdoor encounters, caves and other such natural environments. Civilized areas and proper dungeons have too many straight lines and 90 degree corners.

[Ediwir]

Expanding on the above posts, I could appreciate if Exploration Tactics made use of hex maps.

Oh wait, they do! (Mirrored Moon)

I think the current version is a fair compromise and works pretty well :)

[Megistone]

Which rules would have to be adjusted for a combat based on a 5ft hex map?
I think you can use it already, when appropriate, with only minor logical adjustments.

[The Once and Future Kai]

I'm a big fan of hexagonal grid going back to my early introduction to wargaming. Sadly, I think people are too attached to their squares...but I was pleased to see it show up in Starfinder's starship combat mode.

[Lyee]

I feel hexes are better mechanically, but do make area design more difficult. If it's just overlaid on a design that doesn't consider it, you get a lot of partially-filled squares where you need to judge if it's blocked, or squeezing, or... something similar.

[Requielle]

I think that moving to an everything-is-hex design would have looked (fairly or unfairly) like a blatant money grab - by making all of their old map products obsolete for the new edition.

I don't have a ton of the maps, but the ones I have are pretty setting-neutral, and are handy when I suddenly need a forest clearing/cave/ship/abandoned crypt because my group has just found a whole new unexpected option during the adventure.

[dragonhunterq]

Nope! I have never found hex maps easier to use. I have played several games that use them and they were clunky and awkward. I'm not even counting the truly awful ones where you could only fire on foes if they were in the 6 lanes from your hex...

[Landon Winkler]

I prefer hexes and use them with my homegame for PF1 (when we're not running gridless altogether). I wouldn't be surprised if we were back at it once the playtest is over.

But I don't think that warrants switching the entire system over. Squares tend to be a little cleaner for adjudication at the table, so I think they're a better default.

[Ascalaphus]

The action point system is giving me subliminal messages that this game probably should run on hex maps. But they're ugly inside square-angled architecture.

[iNickedYerKnickers]

When sooooo many maps have curves and circles, are angles really that big of a problem?

[Ascalaphus]

I don't think the sky would come down if some encounter maps were hexes and some were squares even. You can use whatever grid scheme works best for the place the encounter is taking place.

[Angel Hunter D]

Hexes are harder to map out,so it won't happen. PF2 is all about designer ease of use, not much else.

[Fumarole]

I would have no problem with moving to hexes other than all of my old maps and such accessories would be rendered obsolete.

[Tridus]

Megistone wrote:

Which rules would have to be adjusted for a combat based on a 5ft hex map?

You won't have to deal with extra complexity with diagonals. That's the main one.

This is actually something I answered in the survey that asked about diagonal movement. The problem only exists because squares are inferior for tactical movement compared to hexes.

[swordchucks]

I love hex maps, but, as others have said, they can be really awkward in dungeons and urban areas. You end up with a lot of half-hexes going into walls and worse.

[iNickedYerKnickers]

swordchucks wrote:

You end up with a lot of half-hexes going into walls and worse.

We already get that with half-squares, or less, in all sorts of curvy, rounded areas. Half-a-dozen of one, six of the other?

[Chance Wyvernspur]

iNickedYerKnickers wrote:

Change the battle map from the 1" square to a hex map!

I think a better solution would be for the game to be flexible enough to use either squares or hexes. This largely just involves some basic rules and some alternative area of effect templates.

Hexes work really well for outdoors battle maps. Squares are good for interiors. If you're really artistic you can even make a map that has both hexes and squares showing both interior and exterior places. For us mere mortals, one at a time is fine and generally works with things like Roll 20.

[Chance Wyvernspur]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

Hexes are harder to map out,so it won't happen. PF2 is all about designer ease of use, not much else.

I dunno. I make battle maps without a grid. Then Roll20 can add the grid for me.

[Chance Wyvernspur]

Another option I forgot to mention above is just supporting movement with a ruler. This was popular in the 1970s and 1980s when we played lots of miniature-based wargames when not playing an RPG.

I don't think Roll20 supports ruler-based movement, but it could with some development. It already has a ruler function. For those actually using figs and maps, its easy.

[KahnyaGnorc]

Unless there is are rules completely incompatible with hexes, why not just use the best grid-type for the battle at hand? Squares for straight walls and distinct corners, Hexes for curved obstacles or over-world?

[avr]

If you choose a direction along a line of hexes then take a right-angled turn off it, suddenly you aren't simply counting hexes any more. Trying to work out flanking & similar using PF rules on a hex map is not easy either, at least for large+ creatures. It's not completely incompatible but it is a pain. Hexes do look better for organic backgrounds, true.