this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2024
92 points (98.9% liked)
Baldur's Gate 3
6257 readers
131 users here now
All things BG3!
Baldur’s Gate 3 is a story-rich, party-based RPG set in the universe of Dungeons & Dragons, where your choices shape a tale of fellowship and betrayal, survival and sacrifice, and the lure of absolute power. (Website)
Spoilers
If your post contains any possible spoilers, please:
- Use the text [SPOILER] at the beginning of your title, do not include any spoilers in the title.
- Use the appropriate spoiler markup to conceal that content in the body of your post.
Thank you!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
To measure 100 miles, assuming your 120 foot measurement and assuming that game mechanics = in-world logic, you'd need to cast your spell 4400 times per 100 miles, moving at a glacial pace as you measured. You'd also need to ensure that your path was perfectly straight, you accounted for elevation changes, that you precisely marked each endpoint, etc etc etc.
If you're seeking accuracy, measuring the outside of a 200mi x200mi square would require doing all those calculations across 35,200 castings. If you were measuring the internal dimensions to about a one mile accuracy, you'd be in the millions of castings and you'd still need to ensure you accounted for all of the above.
Regardless, we know that it doesn't work that way because FR sourcebooks tell us that maps are inaccurate, rare, and expensive. We know that the maps are inaccurate because they've told us so!
Locate Object. That other spell combo was an off the head example from someone who hasn't played in a bit. What I'm trying to get at is that they have way more resources than a 'similar' time period, and that you using that as a basis is not well founded, not that your final answer is invalid or anything.
Locate object does not provide measurements, it provides a direction and whether the object is moving.. Canonical lore states very clearly that maps are inaccurate in the FR. That is a canon statement, pulled from a sourcebook written by the man who created the Realms. Whatever explanation we prefer, that is an in-game reality. We can assume that the "easy" methods of offering accurate maps have failed, which would necessarily include magical means.
That maps are as accurate as they are is likely a reflection of the use of magic to assist with their creation.
It's not a video game. If you cast locate object, it's not going to pop up with a map marker with the distance counting down below it as you get closer. It just located an object within that range. You don't see the range circle, you just know the object is somewhere in range of your spell.
You've been proven wrong. Official text in a source book even states the maps aren't accurate. So take the L and stop trying to prove you're right. You come across as a sore loser, and honestly, a bit of a dick to keep pushing when you've been proven wrong.
My friend, I'm not a sore loser and there is no reason to attack me. I know it's not a video game. If it only locates an item within a range, then you can keep moving away from it till it stops magically pinging. Then you can measure that range and use the same process to determine when something is that distance again. Think of it like measuring the total length of a straight of wood then reusing the wood to measure another object. You dont need to know anything more than that to begin measuring something.
I know that the maps in the setting are inaccurate, however I will to also point out that the maps we are referencing are not in the setting. My arguments are being misconstrued, but you seem to think that I should be okay with them being misrepresented. I'm having a fun time talking here, and I've also been considering this for over 20 years and this is the first time I've been able to test my thoughts on this in a dialogue setting, so yeah I'm going to keep talking in this thread. Do not confuse my resoluteness with being a sore loser. If someone brings a point up that I cannot refute with prior information I will concede, however people seem to not be understanding what I'm saying.
I want to see the right answer, or the most right answer we can get, and I'm willing to aid in removing the cruft that is refutable until we get that most right answer.