# Revised map for Island at the Axis of the World



## Morrus (Sep 6, 2011)

As you probably know, the revised editions of the PG, CG, and IatAotW are due imminently.

If you're just starting the first adventure, you might get some use out of this.  This is a revised map from the IatAotW.

Changes:

Scale is 1sq = 30ft
Bridge therefore now one-square wide (30')
RNS Coaltongue is now scaled correctly to match the new scale


----------



## Siberys (Sep 7, 2011)

A suggestion;

As a general rule, I think encounter maps shouldn't be more than 24x24 5 ft. squares... I understand that sometimes that's not possible (see: RNS Coaltongue), but those should be the exception, not the rule. I mean, the encounters are not necessarily designed with tactical combat in mind, which is good, but in the first two combat encounters of the AP, if I did want to do them tactically it isn't really an option for me simply due to the scale of the maps - my physical mapping tools, not to mention my table, are only so big!

Just something I think should be kept in mind for the AP going forward - that's the only functional quibble I have, and the maps are aesthetically beautiful!


----------



## Morrus (Sep 8, 2011)

Siberys said:


> A suggestion;
> 
> As a general rule, I think encounter maps shouldn't be more than 24x24 5 ft. squares... I understand that sometimes that's not possible (see: RNS Coaltongue), but those should be the exception, not the rule. I mean, the encounters are not necessarily designed with tactical combat in mind, which is good, but in the first two combat encounters of the AP, if I did want to do them tactically it isn't really an option for me simply due to the scale of the maps - my physical mapping tools, not to mention my table, are only so big!
> 
> Just something I think should be kept in mind for the AP going forward - that's the only functional quibble I have, and the maps are aesthetically beautiful!




Our philosophy is: better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

You can use just a section of the map; or change the scale; or roll the area on; or what-have-you.  Those things work just fine.  But there are some people out there who will use the whole map.

So - do we give you the whole map, or just part of it?  The former covers everyone; the latter doesn't cover those that can use it.

4E is very movement-oriented.  Much more so than previous editions.  Possibly to the extent that not many groups have the space to utlilize it; but it certainly works better in great big areas.  So to those that can handle those areas (due to space, printing ability, etc.) - they're covered.  And those who can't?  They're covered, too, because they can choose not to use the whole thing. 

If you're playing the Pathfinder version - a system not as movement focussed as 4E - you can certainly decide to reduce the scale, or use part of the map, or whatever suits you.  Or, if your game tends toward the more mobile end, you can use more or all of it.


----------



## Colmarr (Sep 8, 2011)

Morrus said:


> You can use just a section of the map; or change the scale; or roll the area on; or what-have-you. Those things work just fine. But there are some people out there who will use the whole map.




/Raises hand and whispers me, and then points in [MENTION=90804]OnlineDM[/MENTION]'s direction too.

We love us some big maps. Makes being a Maptool DM very useful.

Having said that, this particular map always did seem a little odd to me. It's too big to be a battle map in the true sense because no combat will ever span the length of the map, and it doesn't have any of the terrain necessary to make an interesting combat area even if one could.

I think it would serve better as background exposition by losing the grid and having a distance marker (a la the Axis Island map) instead.


----------



## Siberys (Sep 8, 2011)

That's kinda what I was getting at - there's not really anything to see at the tactical level on that map, it's so big. I ended up making zoomed-in tactical maps with some features tossed in - like the suggested wagon. If I'd missed that in the reading, or the mention of enlisting citizen's help, there'd have been a featureless square... none too exciting.

I see what you mean with providing for the most people you can, though. That makes sense from a publishing standpoint. I'd still prefer a zoomed-in tactical map in situations like this, personally, but that would probably start digging into the cartography budget, wouldn't it?


----------



## OnlineDM (Sep 8, 2011)

I agree with the other commenters. It's not a very useful tactical map, and that's fine - not every map has to be tactical. But this one seems to be in a weird middle ground; too big and not detailed enough to be tactical, but too small a part of the world to be very useful as a picture to show the party of "Here's where you are in the world." 

If I were ordering cartography anew for this adventure, I would have totally changed the scale of this map to order a more-detailed tactical map instead.

It's not the end of the world, though; as Siberys said, the right answer is probably for DMs to create their own tactical maps for this encounter if combat breaks out. Still, it's nice to have professionally-drawn maps provided for all encounters by the publisher. Nice, but not an absolute requirement.


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 8, 2011)

Colmarr said:


> Having said that, this particular map always did seem a little odd to me. It's too big to be a battle map in the true sense because no combat will ever span the length of the map, and it doesn't have any of the terrain necessary to make an interesting combat area even if one could.
> 
> I think it would serve better as background exposition by losing the grid and having a distance marker (a la the Axis Island map) instead.




Events occur there later in the adventure path. We wanted to provide a sense of location early on. That said, yeah, it kinda isn't ideally designed.


----------



## Colmarr (Sep 8, 2011)

Ooh! Hint-tastic!


----------

