Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 8043947" data-attributes="member: 42856">Physically, I agree that could have small villages or fords not shown on the map because they would be too small.But then, what would be the usefulness of such a map ? Landmarks are not selected for inclusion on a map because of their size but because of their interest. (purely geographic maps are more aesthetic, though).Imagine you're travelling along the High Road. I don't know the lore enough, but I picture it easy to follow, like a roman road. If it is not, it's easy enough to follow the coast line... You are a caravan and you don't really know how much you have travelled. You have an approximation because you know that usually, on a road with such-and-such climate and period of the year, you usually travel around X kiilometers by noon and Y by the evening. The map can answer the question "where will I spend the night, in the dangerous wilderness or at the next settlement". It's a vital info along the high road to show them, so the caravan will know if it can expect to travel to the next village before dusk or not. And if they can't estimate really well how long they moved, having a landmark like "we just crossed the third small river south of waterdeep, the next stop is just over the hill, let's continue insteand of camping here" is a valuable information. Just having a line going from Waterdeep to Neverwinter doesn't feel very useful if theses villages and small rivers exist. I can see overlooking such informations in case you consider traveling in one go from Leilon to Neverwinter. But 70 miles in a day is a long shot (that's over 100 km). I'd expect a five day treck for a cart tracted by oxen. Mentions of those stops would make a lot of sense, even if just pictured as dots and a name.</blockquote>

Verification