My kingdom for a MAP! [Archive] - Wizards Community

My kingdom for a MAP! [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
korcheck
02-24-07, 06:17 PM I have the Huge Eberron map and I have the explorer's handbook and i have the ECS. Can some one tell me which maps info is correct and who did the lightning rail table that doesn't match the distance in miles of any of the three maps of ANY location:weep: I'm so friggin' confused:confused: what should i go off of
spyone
02-25-07, 09:55 AM Well, there's always the good ol' standard cop out: You're willing to accept that magic is real and that various other physical laws have either been edited or removed entirely, but you're worried about the consistancy of the maps?
Maybe cities aren't a consistant distance apart? Maybe they move a little. Maybe the space they are in doesn't conform to euclidean geometry well.

But the truth is probably different authors, different artists, and editors who did not pay enough attention to consistancy.

All else fails, go with the one published most recently, on the assumption that it is a "revision" of anything that came before. ;)
dormcook
02-25-07, 11:10 AM Check the sharn book out. That mess makes any other map disaster look tame.
I spent 1 hour yesterday trying to match up towers from low to high levels. I gave up. It looks like the whole thing will need to be redone from scratch.
We need some bootleg content to start floating around the web or something.:(
dunkeykong
02-25-07, 04:40 PM Check the sharn book out. That mess makes any other map disaster look tame.
I spent 1 hour yesterday trying to match up towers from low to high levels. I gave up. It looks like the whole thing will need to be redone from scratch.
We need some bootleg content to start floating around the web or something.:(

I believe Ive seen some, dont know where, sadly.
Wrathamon
02-26-07, 08:58 PM there was a user map that broke down the lightning rails and all that

but that was before explorer's handbook I believe

Unfortunanetly you will have to correct it.

i beleive they tried to make the world smaller.
johnnype
03-01-07, 02:01 PM This question comes up every now and then. My suggestion is to just download this map (http://pages.videotron.com/sebby777/kildaere_map.html)and be done with it.
DoveArrow
03-01-07, 02:19 PM I know for a fact that the distances described in the Explorer's Handbook are wrong. I don't remember exactly which cities they were, but I think it was Wroat that they put as being farther away from Sharn than Thrane. :rolleyes:

As far as distances on the ECS maps and the large map are concerned, they're pretty much the same. The same goes for the ones in Five Nations. Still, Keith Baker has said that he thinks the distances described on the maps are a little absurd (if my own campaign serves as an example, it takes something like a month to get from Thrane to the Mournlands by lightning rail). He therefore suggests that you take the distances described and cut them by 1/10 (so 500 miles on the map would actually be considered 50 miles in game). Incidentally, it's this ratio that they tried to use when writing the Explorer's Handbook. I don't know exactly what went wrong.
Edymnion
03-02-07, 08:27 AM i beleive they tried to make the world smaller.Other way around, actually. Keith wrote the setting with the world being smaller (which also made the populations make more sense), and somewhere along the line the scale got ramped up by about a factor of 10 (accidentally or intentionally is not known), while none of the supporting information was changed. So, the early books have numbers referring to an Eberron that is much smaller than what the maps show, and only in the later books were the numbers in the text and all that scaled up to match the new world size.

Which, on the same token, means that you should multiply the populations by about 10 as well, since Khovaire is dangerously underpopulated as written, because of the map scale snafu.
Wrathamon
03-02-07, 05:58 PM Other way around, actually. Keith wrote the setting with the world being smaller (which also made the populations make more sense), and somewhere along the line the scale got ramped up by about a factor of 10 (accidentally or intentionally is not known), while none of the supporting information was changed. So, the early books have numbers referring to an Eberron that is much smaller than what the maps show, and only in the later books were the numbers in the text and all that scaled up to match the new world size.

Which, on the same token, means that you should multiply the populations by about 10 as well, since Khovaire is dangerously underpopulated as written, because of the map scale snafu.

no I meant in explorers handbook... the times seem like they tried to shrink it again
spyone
03-04-07, 11:00 AM Which, on the same token, means that you should multiply the populations by about 10 as well, since Khovaire is dangerously underpopulated as written, because of the map scale snafu.

Way more than 10 to keep the same population density. 100, if the linear distance was multiplied by 10.

Remember, a square 1 mile on a side is 1 square mile, and a square 2 miles on a side is 4 miles on a side (2*2).
So, if you had 5 people per square mile and then double the linear distance (to 2 miles a side), to keep the same density (5 per square mile) you'd need to multiply the population by 4.

Which will undoubtedly "break" some other aspects of the setting.
It is regrettable that the scale got changed at some point, and it will really need to be erata-ed to correct it properly, since otherwise we are left wondering which pieces of information have already been adjusted for the scale change and which have not. :(
korcheck
03-04-07, 01:12 PM AAAHHHH!!! math keep it away! I'm melting, I'm melting what a world what a world.:D
tallric_kruush
03-04-07, 02:04 PM This question comes up every now and then. My suggestion is to just download this map (http://pages.videotron.com/sebby777/kildaere_map.html)and be done with it.

I really like this map. Thanks for sharing.

I wish we could get a huge map like the ones made as accessories to Ptolus.
Seghan
03-05-07, 10:14 AM I have to admit it, I love big Khorvaire. As much as the pop densities don't work out at all, and travel distances become a bit of a headache, I really like the vast canvas upon which to paint the adventures. We have tried cutting things down by a factor of ten, but the map just feels claustrophobic. So we are more likely to boost population figures when we need to, and try to work around travel times.
Seghan
03-07-07, 11:00 AM Check the sharn book out. That mess makes any other map disaster look tame.
I spent 1 hour yesterday trying to match up towers from low to high levels. I gave up. It looks like the whole thing will need to be redone from scratch.
We need some bootleg content to start floating around the web or something.:(

In WoTC's defense, I have always figured the Sharn maps were more intentionally vague. They are fairly schematic representations of the district more that proper road atlases. It is pretty important that DM's have the ability to shape the specifics of the city as they see fit, put towers and bridges where they want them for the game and what not. Now, I do think that the maps should have had at least a scale and possibly other bits of detail, probably the locations of a few major towers (Morgrave Uni, Kundark Bank, etc) to key off of. I think it would have been a bit more useful to have had some more illustrations for the flavor.
The_Robot
03-08-07, 07:48 PM In WoTC's defense, I have always figured the Sharn maps were more intentionally vague. They are fairly schematic representations of the district more that proper road atlases. It is pretty important that DM's have the ability to shape the specifics of the city as they see fit, put towers and bridges where they want them for the game and what not. Now, I do think that the maps should have had at least a scale and possibly other bits of detail, probably the locations of a few major towers (Morgrave Uni, Kundark Bank, etc) to key off of. I think it would have been a bit more useful to have had some more illustrations for the flavor.

does anyone else remember a thread where a poster was working on a 3D interactive map of Sharn?
Seghan
03-08-07, 11:28 PM does anyone else remember a thread where a poster was working on a 3D interactive map of Sharn?

Actually, I belive I posted in it a few times. i thought I had it subscribed, but it is around somewhere.
The_Robot
03-08-07, 11:34 PM Actually, I belive I posted in it a few times. i thought I had it subscribed, but it is around somewhere.

yeah, same here. *sigh* that was the greatest idea i had ever heard...i'll try and track down the thread when i have some time...maybe PM that guy.
Seghan
03-08-07, 11:49 PM I just found the 3D map thread and bumped it. It is Sharn Map Help.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
korcheck 02-24-07, 06:17 PM	I have the Huge Eberron map and I have the explorer's handbook and i have the ECS. Can some one tell me which maps info is correct and who did the lightning rail table that doesn't match the distance in miles of any of the three maps of ANY location:weep: I'm so friggin' confused:confused: what should i go off of
spyone 02-25-07, 09:55 AM	Well, there's always the good ol' standard cop out: You're willing to accept that magic is real and that various other physical laws have either been edited or removed entirely, but you're worried about the consistancy of the maps? Maybe cities aren't a consistant distance apart? Maybe they move a little. Maybe the space they are in doesn't conform to euclidean geometry well. But the truth is probably different authors, different artists, and editors who did not pay enough attention to consistancy. All else fails, go with the one published most recently, on the assumption that it is a "revision" of anything that came before. ;)
dormcook 02-25-07, 11:10 AM	Check the sharn book out. That mess makes any other map disaster look tame. I spent 1 hour yesterday trying to match up towers from low to high levels. I gave up. It looks like the whole thing will need to be redone from scratch. We need some bootleg content to start floating around the web or something.:(
dunkeykong 02-25-07, 04:40 PM	Check the sharn book out. That mess makes any other map disaster look tame. I spent 1 hour yesterday trying to match up towers from low to high levels. I gave up. It looks like the whole thing will need to be redone from scratch. We need some bootleg content to start floating around the web or something.:( I believe Ive seen some, dont know where, sadly.
Wrathamon 02-26-07, 08:58 PM	there was a user map that broke down the lightning rails and all that but that was before explorer's handbook I believe Unfortunanetly you will have to correct it. i beleive they tried to make the world smaller.
johnnype 03-01-07, 02:01 PM	This question comes up every now and then. My suggestion is to just download this map (http://pages.videotron.com/sebby777/kildaere_map.html)and be done with it.
DoveArrow 03-01-07, 02:19 PM	I know for a fact that the distances described in the Explorer's Handbook are wrong. I don't remember exactly which cities they were, but I think it was Wroat that they put as being farther away from Sharn than Thrane. :rolleyes: As far as distances on the ECS maps and the large map are concerned, they're pretty much the same. The same goes for the ones in Five Nations. Still, Keith Baker has said that he thinks the distances described on the maps are a little absurd (if my own campaign serves as an example, it takes something like a month to get from Thrane to the Mournlands by lightning rail). He therefore suggests that you take the distances described and cut them by 1/10 (so 500 miles on the map would actually be considered 50 miles in game). Incidentally, it's this ratio that they tried to use when writing the Explorer's Handbook. I don't know exactly what went wrong.
Edymnion 03-02-07, 08:27 AM	i beleive they tried to make the world smaller.Other way around, actually. Keith wrote the setting with the world being smaller (which also made the populations make more sense), and somewhere along the line the scale got ramped up by about a factor of 10 (accidentally or intentionally is not known), while none of the supporting information was changed. So, the early books have numbers referring to an Eberron that is much smaller than what the maps show, and only in the later books were the numbers in the text and all that scaled up to match the new world size. Which, on the same token, means that you should multiply the populations by about 10 as well, since Khovaire is dangerously underpopulated as written, because of the map scale snafu.
Wrathamon 03-02-07, 05:58 PM	Other way around, actually. Keith wrote the setting with the world being smaller (which also made the populations make more sense), and somewhere along the line the scale got ramped up by about a factor of 10 (accidentally or intentionally is not known), while none of the supporting information was changed. So, the early books have numbers referring to an Eberron that is much smaller than what the maps show, and only in the later books were the numbers in the text and all that scaled up to match the new world size. Which, on the same token, means that you should multiply the populations by about 10 as well, since Khovaire is dangerously underpopulated as written, because of the map scale snafu. no I meant in explorers handbook... the times seem like they tried to shrink it again
spyone 03-04-07, 11:00 AM	Which, on the same token, means that you should multiply the populations by about 10 as well, since Khovaire is dangerously underpopulated as written, because of the map scale snafu. Way more than 10 to keep the same population density. 100, if the linear distance was multiplied by 10. Remember, a square 1 mile on a side is 1 square mile, and a square 2 miles on a side is 4 miles on a side (2*2). So, if you had 5 people per square mile and then double the linear distance (to 2 miles a side), to keep the same density (5 per square mile) you'd need to multiply the population by 4. Which will undoubtedly "break" some other aspects of the setting. It is regrettable that the scale got changed at some point, and it will really need to be erata-ed to correct it properly, since otherwise we are left wondering which pieces of information have already been adjusted for the scale change and which have not. :(
korcheck 03-04-07, 01:12 PM	AAAHHHH!!! math keep it away! I'm melting, I'm melting what a world what a world.:D
tallric_kruush 03-04-07, 02:04 PM	This question comes up every now and then. My suggestion is to just download this map (http://pages.videotron.com/sebby777/kildaere_map.html)and be done with it. I really like this map. Thanks for sharing. I wish we could get a huge map like the ones made as accessories to Ptolus.
Seghan 03-05-07, 10:14 AM	I have to admit it, I love big Khorvaire. As much as the pop densities don't work out at all, and travel distances become a bit of a headache, I really like the vast canvas upon which to paint the adventures. We have tried cutting things down by a factor of ten, but the map just feels claustrophobic. So we are more likely to boost population figures when we need to, and try to work around travel times.
Seghan 03-07-07, 11:00 AM	Check the sharn book out. That mess makes any other map disaster look tame. I spent 1 hour yesterday trying to match up towers from low to high levels. I gave up. It looks like the whole thing will need to be redone from scratch. We need some bootleg content to start floating around the web or something.:( In WoTC's defense, I have always figured the Sharn maps were more intentionally vague. They are fairly schematic representations of the district more that proper road atlases. It is pretty important that DM's have the ability to shape the specifics of the city as they see fit, put towers and bridges where they want them for the game and what not. Now, I do think that the maps should have had at least a scale and possibly other bits of detail, probably the locations of a few major towers (Morgrave Uni, Kundark Bank, etc) to key off of. I think it would have been a bit more useful to have had some more illustrations for the flavor.
The_Robot 03-08-07, 07:48 PM	In WoTC's defense, I have always figured the Sharn maps were more intentionally vague. They are fairly schematic representations of the district more that proper road atlases. It is pretty important that DM's have the ability to shape the specifics of the city as they see fit, put towers and bridges where they want them for the game and what not. Now, I do think that the maps should have had at least a scale and possibly other bits of detail, probably the locations of a few major towers (Morgrave Uni, Kundark Bank, etc) to key off of. I think it would have been a bit more useful to have had some more illustrations for the flavor. does anyone else remember a thread where a poster was working on a 3D interactive map of Sharn?
Seghan 03-08-07, 11:28 PM	does anyone else remember a thread where a poster was working on a 3D interactive map of Sharn? Actually, I belive I posted in it a few times. i thought I had it subscribed, but it is around somewhere.
The_Robot 03-08-07, 11:34 PM	Actually, I belive I posted in it a few times. i thought I had it subscribed, but it is around somewhere. yeah, same here. sigh that was the greatest idea i had ever heard...i'll try and track down the thread when i have some time...maybe PM that guy.
Seghan 03-08-07, 11:49 PM	I just found the 3D map thread and bumped it. It is Sharn Map Help.