Feedback Thread: Maps

squeen said:
I just realize I left the grid off of this version. I've got the walls about 5-8' thick here, thinking that the giant beavers are about 5-6' long. Probably not "to scale" for a real/practical lodge. Maybe there's a little bit of "structural magic" at play.
Click to expand...
Huh. If the walls are 8', those are some big rooms. Probably best to leave it to magical giant intelligent beaver engineering. EDIT: I looked up passwall, in 1e it extends 10, you might want to change the scale, just so the walls end up being 12'.

It occurs to me that giant intelligent beavers would be brilliant stronghold and siege engineers. I am definitely going to work that in somewhere.

squeen said:
Also, what I hope to make clear is that all points of egress are through underwater passages. I'm thinking of a little side-graphic to show that.
Click to expand...
It was clear to me, but that might not be a great yardstick.
 
Last edited:
Beoric said:
It occurs to me that giant intelligent beavers would be brilliant stronghold and siege engineers.
Click to expand...

The beaver way of building is "cram a bunch of logs in there" - I don't know how well that would translate to human engineering.
 
DangerousPuhson said:
The beaver way of building is "cram a bunch of logs in there" - I don't know how well that would translate to human engineering.
Click to expand...
Spoken as someone who has never tried to disassemble a beaver dam. The logs aren't crammed in there randomly, and they are carefully mortared with mud. And those aren't the only materials they use, if other things are available. Tearing out those dams became a bit hazardous once the little buggers somehow got their hands on some scrap barbed wire.
 
Fair - they use logs AND mud - but show me the beaver who builds a working trebuchet, and I'll buy into them being master siege engineers.

You need a big pile of wood? A beaver is your man. Otherwise? Ehhh...
 
DangerousPuhson said:
Fair - they use logs AND mud - but show me the beaver who builds a working trebuchet, and I'll buy into them being master siege engineers.

You need a big pile of wood? A beaver is your man. Otherwise? Ehhh...
Click to expand...
AD&D giant beavers are sentient. Not super bright, but I have known a lot of very good craftsmen who weren't terribly book smart but were very good at their jobs, including finding innovative solutions. I think sentience + beaver engineering instincts could plausibly design superior fortifications and trenchworks.
 
A stronghold in the wilderness downstream of the Beaver Lake. I had this done partially before and posted it earlier in the thread. I'm hopefully done with it now, except mapping and keying some interiors. The Beaver Lake map and the Lodge are nearly complete too. Everything should be ready next time the kids have time to play.

AWgk85p.jpg
 
Cool man! You might consider labeling the height of inclines so the DM/Players know where they may have to climb, or could find cover or height advantage.
 
The key numbers are a bit hard to spot/read on the map. I suggest one of two approaches:

1) Bolded white numbers with a black outline; or
2) A white circle added underneath the numbers, with or without black outline.

As True says, heights would be beneficial too. Otherwise I love it.
 
BTW, one of the things I do when I convert early edition modules to later editions is increase the size of them. AD&D, for example, assumed a medium creature took up 3.3 feet of space, so you could have three abreast in an average 10' wide dungeon corridor. If you use 10' corridors in modern games, where the assumption is that a medium creature takes up 5', you can only have two abreast in a dungeon corridor, which leaves a lot of people doing nothing in the back, unable to act, if you use early edition party sizes. The rooms also get pretty cramped. So I change the scale of the dungeon so that 10' corridors become 15' corridors.
 
Beoric said:
If you use 10' corridors in modern games, where the assumption is that a medium creature takes up 5', you can only have two abreast in a dungeon corridor, which leaves a lot of people doing nothing in the back, unable to act
Click to expand...

My default dungeon corridor is 5' wide; the width of one modern character... or in AD&D conversion, slightly greater than 1.3 character widths, which does not suit my purposes.

The fun thing about going single file is that *everyone* is in the back (except one poor pole-proddin' SOB).
 
yeah, I've been mapping more and more 5' corridors. Some of these default old-school rooms are immense in real-world terms.
 
The1True said:
Some of these default old-school rooms are immense in real-world terms.
Click to expand...

I remember seeing an old video on YouTube (lindybeige, I think) about underground structures and how adding extraneous corners and widened halls and non-direct passageways and such was not realistic, because it takes a ton of time and effort for no practical architectural payoff. It really changed the way I designed dungeons.
 
The1True said:
yeah, I've been mapping more and more 5' corridors. Some of these default old-school rooms are immense in real-world terms.
Click to expand...
I have few of these, partly because it makes the players nervous when they have to use one, plus they can use it as a refuge from large monsters.

But for most corridors, I figure if I'm going to insist on random encounters, I need to at least let the whole party engage in them. A war of attrition with 10 orcs facing 10 PCs in single file just ain't fun on a regular basis. And if you have large or huge monsters in a dungeon, you have to think about how they are going to get around.
 
Beoric said:
But for most corridors, I figure if I'm going to insist on random encounters, I need to at least let the whole party engage in them. A war of attrition with 10 orcs facing 10 PCs in single file just ain't fun on a regular basis. And if you have large or huge monsters in a dungeon, you have to think about how they are going to get around.
Click to expand...

Groups of creatures/large creatures are more meant to be encountered inside a room or open area, not in a corridor. They *can* be encountered there (and it does periodically make for interesting tactical choices), but that doesn't mean they *should* be encountered there.
 
I also like little 3', low-ceiling stretches the players have to crawl through single-file.

Corridors are great for trapping the party when the monsters know the dungeon layout and can circle around them to attack from both sides.
 
I've taken to incorporating small "squeeze" segments into my dungeon corridors, which only allow for Small characters to pass through (not in a way that prohibits access to crucial areas though, obviously). It's way more interesting than splitting the party via surprise portcullis, particularly because the party can attempt different ways to bypass it beyond just "bend bars/lift gates" (they can shrink, dig, acrobat, go around, etc).
 
squeen said:
I also like little 3', low-ceiling stretches the players have to crawl through single-file.
Click to expand...
Yeah, these always make players very nervous. Make them even smaller so they PCs have to remove their armor to go through, or so only the gnomes and halflings can fit, and there are interesting choices to be made.
 
I keep forgetting to post this. But I ordered a family photo book from Printique. High quality but not cheap. It had two things going for it that make it intriguing for use as a "map book":

1) heavy duty paper, almost cardboard---like a children's book.
2) effectively ZERO gutter lost in the middle. So maps can span two pages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top