An encounter map based on RobA's GIMP Tutorial

[DanChops]

So, real life finally gave me a few hours to play around with mapping again. I wanted to try to create an encounter map, so I took the principles from RobA's regional GIMP map tutorial and applied them to a smaller scale. One of the maps includes a grid and transparent foliage for the trees, so as to better serve as an encounter map. The scale is the D&D standard of one square = five feet.

Grid transparent trees.jpg

The other map doesn't have the grid lines, and has some subtle depth added to the foliage.

No Grid.jpg

Thoughts?

[jfrazierjr]

So, real life finally gave me a few hours to play around with mapping again. I wanted to try to create an encounter map, so I took the principles from RobA's regional GIMP map tutorial and applied them to a smaller scale. One of the maps includes a grid and transparent foliage for the trees, so as to better serve as an encounter map. The scale is the D&D standard of one square = five feet.

Grid transparent trees.jpg

The other map doesn't have the grid lines, and has some subtle depth added to the foliage.

No Grid.jpg

Thoughts?

Welcome back Dan! I would really like to see a higher res version of the one without the grids. My initial gut reaction is: hmm can I use this in my campaign?

Joe

[NeonKnight]

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?

[Karro]

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?

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.

anyway, looks great!

[DanChops]

Welcome back Dan! I would really like to see a higher res version of the one without the grids. My initial gut reaction is: hmm can I use this in my campaign?

Joe

Thanks Joe! Good to be back. Hopefully RL will let me hang around longer this time.

Here's a higher-resolution version of the one with opaque foliage and no grid. I tweaked it a bit to improve the shadows under the trees. At least, I think they're improved - what do you think?

No Grid 2 Large.jpg

Let me know if you find use for it in your campaign. That'd be pretty cool.

[DanChops]

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?

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?

[torstan]

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.

[DanChops]

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

Grid transparent trees.jpg

I tried simply making the foliage more translucent, and got this:

Grid transparent trees 2.jpg

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:

Grid transparent trees 3.jpg

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...

[DanChops]

Here's a refinement on the outline approach. I think I like this one better...
Grid transparent trees 3 green.jpg

[torstan]

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.