Looks good.
QUESTION: The trees seem really big, and as a player I feel I cannot enter their space. Is it possible to denote where the actual trunk of the tree is located?
Looks good.
QUESTION: The trees seem really big, and as a player I feel I cannot enter their space. Is it possible to denote where the actual trunk of the tree is located?
Daniel the Neon Knight: Campaign Cartographer User
Never use a big word when a diminutive one will suffice!
Any questions on CC3? Post them with CC3 in the Subject Line!
MY 'FAMOUS' CC3 MAPS: Thunderspire; Pyramid of Shadows; King of the Trollhaunt Warrens; Demon Queen's Enclave
I'm thinking the grid-map does. On that one, you can see the path wind under the canopy of one of the trees, and on both trees, there's a dark circle in the middle that I'm guessing is the trunk.Originally Posted by NeonKnight
anyway, looks great!
Karo's right - the one with the grid is intended to show where the trunk is. Do you think I should make the foliage more transparent in order to emphasize the location of the trunks?
I'd make the foliage transparent or an optional extra on the map. As it stands, any player who walks under the tree is going to look like he's flying. That will break the spell a little.
I played around with it a bit and this is what I got.
(For comparison, here is the original "Transparent Foliage" map from my first post
I tried simply making the foliage more translucent, and got this:
I'm not sure how I fell about this one - it seems that the foliage blends in to the ground too much. So, I tried outlining the foliage and got this:
I think outlining the foliage has potential, but I'm not certain I like this execution of the idea. I'm going to have to play around with it some more...
Here's a refinement on the outline approach. I think I like this one better...
I think both have there advantages. I guess the question really is whether the players need to know the extent of the tree's canopy? I can think of no situation where this is necessary. Therefore the tree canopy is just pretty, not useful. What is useful is knowing where the stream is, or a rock that can be used for cover, or difficult terrain. From that point of view I like the first of the two you posted. I can see that the tree canopy is there, but I can also see what the terrain is doing. I don't see a need for outlining the canopy.
The tree on the left has a 20' wide trunk and the tree on the right has a 10' wide trunk, if these are 5' squares. That seems spectacularly large for any tree I've ever seen. Not sure if this was intentional.
You're right - typically the exact location of the canopy isn't too relevant to an encounter. However, the encounter I'm putting this map together for has a bunch of goblins hiding the in branches of the trees, waiting to ambush the players as they set up camp for the night. So, I anticipate that the players will want to know how far out the branches extend. Of course, this is part of the utility of these computer maps - it's trivially easy for me to adjust it to my needs.
They're intended to be old oak trees, but, at these sizes, they would also work as, say, weeping willows, or even small baobab trees.
Thanks for the comments!
I still think that 20' wide is a little steep for the trunk.
I see why you need the canopy for this encounter. I think you've got a good balance with that last map with the more subtle outline. Looks to me like a pretty functional (as well as pretty in and of itself) map. Good work.
What program are you going to be using these with?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
