Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Outdoor Modular Maps - Viewpoint (Patreon)

Published:
2019-05-22 09:42:24
Edited:
2019-05-27 13:27:36
Imported:
2026-06

Poll

Outdoor Modular Maps - Viewpoint

  • Crosshead Perspective 61
  • In Between Perspective 22
  • Topdown perspective 15
  • (Possible: Front Down Perspective) 2
  • 2019-05-22
  • —2019-05-27
  • 100 votes
{'title': 'Outdoor Modular Maps - Viewpoint', 'choices': [{'text': 'Crosshead Perspective', 'votes': 61}, {'text': 'In Between Perspective', 'votes': 22}, {'text': 'Topdown perspective', 'votes': 15}, {'text': '(Possible: Front Down Perspective)', 'votes': 2}], 'closes_at': datetime.datetime(2019, 5, 27, 13, 27, 31, tzinfo=datetime.timezone.utc), 'created_at': datetime.datetime(2019, 5, 22, 9, 42, 24, tzinfo=datetime.timezone.utc), 'description': None, 'allow_multiple': False, 'total_votes': 100}

Content

I've been experimenting with perspective for quite some time now, generally keeping to this skewed perspective I've designed in order to create these more detailed maps that showcase an isometric style view to give the maps depth.

Now returning to outside maps I would like to do a little poll to see what patrons are generally interested in when it comes to these types of maps. Maps with forests, cliffs, small buildings (think towers, little farm homes, etc). Each of the options provided comes with positives and negatives:

Crosshead Perspective

Doing buildings or anything with a vertical element (think cliffs etc) I can add a lot of depth to my maps. 

-Trees on the other hand might look a bit weird if I do them topdown to keep them from blocking a view, but I could also have them either be transparent  (with a normal base to give you an exact idea where the tree is standing) or just do a base and then the shadow of the leaves to indicate the size of the tree. Doing this perspective makes it easy to continue the modular style of my other maps (meaning I can't do a pinpoint perspective on each separate map as I've done in the past). 

+Buildings will have multiple layers as I've done in the past and I plan on trying a new thing where I do walls on the layer that you put over the the layer underneath, instead of having the walls on the bottom layer where they obscure the 

+It will remain optimalized with all the software I'm creating for future maps, meaning you can combine all my maps with greater ease

  In Between

+Creating a smaller angle to go closer to topdown and still add some depth, I will be able to combine the two. 

-it might take me some time to get this right because its a new style

-won't fit with all future software map projects

  Topdown

+creates the optimal view of exact location of objects

+nothing is blocked by skewed buildings

-less or no depth and thus also less illustrated details

 -won't fit with all future software map projects 

Front Down

+Makes it so only the back of objects are obscured instead of two angles

+-creates less detail but still gives me the opportunity to draw some depth

-won't fit with all future software map projects

Files

Comments

Josh Bell

For me, I like to maintain consistency for map styles. So, I’d take the Crosshead style consistently as it fits with the art style. It means that even if I use map styles by other artists, then I can use all of your art styles for a particular story arc.

Crosshead

I feel the same way about it, the reason I'm doing this poll is because outside maps do fall somewhat outside of the norm and if people would like to see me experiment with another style, now is the time for it. As an illustrator getting to add more depth is a lot more satisfying to see as an end result, so I'd definitely prefer to stick to the plan

Josh Bell

I play on Roll20 and I tend to use wallpaper type images to help my players understand the scale and depth of a room/encounter/setting and then transition to a (normally) top down battlemap. By then, they usually can understand depth and layout etc. Using the ‘Crosshead’ style of battlemap means that it’s much easier and means I no longer have to do this!

SpecialBlend

I'm interested to hear how others handle movement and visibility on parts of the grid that aren't visible from the crosshead perspective, but that are clearly present (whether they're hidden by a building, or by large cavern walls). Whether you use Roll20, or print out maps on large sheets of paper, how do you make it clear that hidden areas can be moved into? A good example, is the Titanic Underworld Dungeon, in the area labeled "4". The high cavern walls (which look great, btw) appear to cover two rows of floor tiles, which is a relatively large portion of the room. Is it intended for players to be able to move into those squares?

Crosshead

The underworld dungeon is a good example because there actually is a lower level map of that one too, where only a fraction of the tiles are covered unlike the top level that does cover a big portion of the hall ways. I'll also be making an effort to resolve this issue by making detachable walls in my upcoming maps if we stick with the program

SpecialBlend

You're absolutely right. Thanks for pointing that out! I haven't actually played with that map set yet, but have been looking for the right opportunity to use it in a session. In that case, crosshead perspective for the win!

Sleepnir

Transparent tree-tops are probably a good idea, but the awesome detail of your Crosshead style is definitely worth any awkwardness of positioning regarding trees and stuff.