• Diotima@kbin.socialOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    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!

    • optissima@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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.

      • Diotima@kbin.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

      • thepixelfox@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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.

        • optissima@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          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.