| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
 Posted - 25 Aug 2016 : 21:57:41
|
Cards
Realistic RW will never work applied to the Realms. In part because the laws of science of the Realms are not the same as RW.
There are many factors that appear to be different:
The maintain a good diet one needs to eat one pound of food a day, RW that amount of food might be 1,000 calories a day (It depends on meal, rice offers about 800 calories per pound for example). Few RW can live well, if at all, at that low intake.
Tree and Plant Growth is different. Crops are increased by Druid spells, crops include trees - thus wood.
There can be many other offers of how Realms is not the same as RW when it comes down to economy. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
 |
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2016 : 12:24:42
|
Have quickly done some googling: 1.5 metres cubed of wood per person per year was the average at Rome's peak, according to one source who claims it's a conservative estimate. Let's change that to 2m cubed/person/year. The same source claims approx 300m cubed of hardwood is in the average acre.
So 600 square miles of Ardeep forest = 384,000 acres = 115,200,000 metres cubed of hardwood.
If we just take Waterdeep's city population of 132,661, they would use 265,322 metres cubed of wood per year, or 884 acres, or 1.4 square miles. Ardeep Forest alone as a source of wood would last another 4 centuries, assuming no population growth.
If you take the population as the sometimes quoted 2 million, they would use 21 square miles every year. Ardeep Forest would be gone within 30 years by these numbers.
However, if we take into account replanting, the work of druids, and logging in the Westwood and the High Forest, as well as imports from further abroad, I could believe this would be sustainable, at least for a couple more centuries, without the influence of magic. However, those forests are definitely eventually going to run out...
Keen to hear your take Cards.
Edit: We could always cheat and say blueleaf gives up twice as much energy as realworld woods!  |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
Edited by - KanzenAU on 26 Aug 2016 12:28:27 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2016 : 13:41:10
|
| What about the hemp plant? As I understand, it does pretty much everything a tree can do, and grows in considerably less time. And we know hemp rope is available in the Realms. Since they wouldn't have our real-world hangups about using hemp, they'd be far more likely to make use of it. So the question is, can it be used as a viable fuel source? |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Cards77
Senior Scribe
USA
745 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2016 : 16:05:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
What about the hemp plant? As I understand, it does pretty much everything a tree can do, and grows in considerably less time. And we know hemp rope is available in the Realms. Since they wouldn't have our real-world hangups about using hemp, they'd be far more likely to make use of it. So the question is, can it be used as a viable fuel source?
No not really. There really isn't anything except petroleum derived fuels that can output the same amount of energy as wood as fuel for heating and cooking.
Hemp though of course is critical for all sorts of industry in the realms, especially ships/shipping, construction, etc. Pretty much any time anything needs to be build, mass quantities of rope will be necessary. Ships alone have thousands of feet of rope and cable rope. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2016 : 17:33:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cards77
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
What about the hemp plant? As I understand, it does pretty much everything a tree can do, and grows in considerably less time. And we know hemp rope is available in the Realms. Since they wouldn't have our real-world hangups about using hemp, they'd be far more likely to make use of it. So the question is, can it be used as a viable fuel source?
No not really. There really isn't anything except petroleum derived fuels that can output the same amount of energy as wood as fuel for heating and cooking.
It doesn't have to output the same amount of energy if it's more readily available. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Fellfire
Master of Realmslore
1965 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2016 : 18:29:18
|
| Wasn't dung also used as a fuel source throughout RW history? Particularly in rural areas where livestock was prevalent? |
Misanthorpe
Love is a lie. Only hate endures. Light is blinding. Only in darkness do we see clearly.
"Oh, you think darkness is your ally? You merely adopted the dark. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see the light until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but.. blinding. The shadows betray you because they belong to me." - Bane The Dark Knight Rises
Green Dragonscale Dice Bag by Crystalsidyll - check it out
|
Edited by - Fellfire on 26 Aug 2016 18:32:24 |
|
|
|
Starshade
Learned Scribe
Norway
279 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2016 : 19:07:28
|
Rome? Isnt't that a bit optimistic? A Google search (lack my books atm..) puts the climate border between subarctic and temperate to around Waterdeep. So, that makes it possible for it to have some really chilly winters.
Here I live in Norway, we often use use wood as a fuel. Its said, now, by some " you need to have two fathoms of wood for your house for the winter, even if you got an air conditioner or electric ovens". So, to translate the Nordic "favn" wood measurement to English usage, id say 1 fathom/favn is an firewood stack of 2m tall, 2m long by 0.6m, about 2,4 m³. Id say, if you got winter with snow, you'd quickly need 4-6 such units of wood for a winter, perhaps 10 m³, for an family's house. If I assume a nice number, of an family with 3 kids and 2 adults, perhaps 2 m³ volume of firewood per person?
|
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2016 : 02:53:27
|
That's a good point, I would imagine Waterdeep would be colder than Rome too. Somewhere on here someone quoted Ed as saying Waterdeep is the equivalent of the 57th parallel, so the equivalent of north Scotland or just south of Norway.
For argument's sake, let's have a look at the climate of the city of Waterdeep itself and how it might match up. I think your description of it as being borderline between subarctic and temperate is fair: to quote The North - Guide to the Savage Frontier:
quote:
True temperate climate begins south of Waterdeep, yet the
coast between the City of Splendors and Port Llast stays
warmer and wetter throughout the year than inland regions.
And quoting THO about Waterdeep's weather:
quote:
...a warm current and winds both make Waterdeep more balmy than it would otherwise be. And Mount Waterdeep shelters much of the city from the direct force of storms blowing ashore.
I'm guessing based on these descriptions that the equivalent of Waterdeep's temperature would about 5 parallels south of its actual latitude, so about the 52th parallel, which cuts through England. I took 5 parallels difference because I figured it had to be quite noticeable, again quoting The North:
quote:
Southerners are surprised to find mild weather so far north
So maybe medieval England would be a more appropriate benchmark than Rome? Looking quickly at this source on use of firewood in England's past:
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~histecon/energyhistory/data/Warde_Energy%20Consumption%20England.pdf
It looks like only about 1 cubic metre/person/year was the go, according to the section on wood:
quote:
in the reign of Elizabeth I, it is doubtful that much more than 1 cubic metre of wood per person per annum could be supplied
The same source tells us coal use around her reign accounted for about 1/3rd of what wood did (see Appendix I.2), although it rapidly expanded after that. So by that 1.33 cubic metres of wood/person/annum might be appropriate in Waterdeep due to the lack of coal? By this, the earlier figure of 2 cubic metres/person/year that I used seems pretty comfortable (though I may have missed something).
I think it's important to remember that we're going by medieval standards here, not modern ones, so people may have been more likely to rug up heavily than put more wood on the fire, simply due to cost.
The above source also tells us that about 20% of wood consumption probably comes from "free-standing" trees, so least that cuts down on our consumption of Ardeep Forest!
May have rambled a bit here, hope this makes sense! |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2016 : 04:54:33
|
I should note that although I've found a few sources agreeing with around 1-4 cubic metres of wood being consumed per person back in medieval times, I've found it hard to find a second source giving up 300 cubic metres of hardwood per acre. The closest next best I can find is about 150m3/acre from this modern British Columbia source, if that's of interest to anyone:
https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/mr/mr113/harvest.htm
I'm still going to go with the original 300m3/acre for my own uses, so I'm still relatively happy with the original calculations. Hopefully that source knew what he was talking about as far as old world forests go - unfortunately I've been unable to dig it up again.
So, taking the overall Waterdeep population of 1,878,484 in summer, at 2m3/person/year that's 3,756,968m3/year.
20% of this will come from non-forest wood - free-standing trees, glades, etc, leaving 3,005,574m3/year to come from forests.
Ardeep Forest is home to 115,200,000m3 of hardwood if we're happy with the 300m3/acre figure.
This only gives us 38 years until Ardeep Forest is entirely gone and if it's Waterdeep's only source of wood, and there's no regrowth.
However, I have no idea about replanting/coppicing/regrowth rates. If it regrows at 20% of the rate it's being cut down (a total guess on my part), the forest would last 48 years. If it regrows at 50%, eg. with druidic help, it'd last 77 years. Still not a great amount of time, but I guess the elves figured this out, and it may be why they pretty much abandoned the forest wholesale.
Either way, Ardeep's not enough long term, and Waterdeep is going to need supplementation with wood from the High Forest, Westwood, and other sources. A lot of supplementation. I really like the idea of deforestation being a major political problem in the area, as loggers in the High Forest constantly find them under attack from elven groups.
On a sidenote, dung, furze, straw, and bracken were all noted in the Paul Warde source to be useful supplements to wood in medieval England. The paper doesn't clarify how much impact they made however, and they're mostly left out of energy consumption calculations, so I've decided to not take them into account for simplifying my own workings.
Edit: I'm guessing the Westwood would be the major other source. By the SCAG map, it's over double the size of Ardeep, and so could provide a ready source of more wood, reducing any need for wood from the High Forest which would likely be more high risk. With good management, perhaps the Westwood and Ardeep together could last another 200 years before they're gone entirely. |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
Edited by - KanzenAU on 29 Aug 2016 05:00:22 |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1842 Posts |
Posted - 30 Aug 2016 : 02:40:36
|
| The question that might really cook your bacon is where does all the horse dung go? In real-world NYC there was literally millions of pounds of horse manure in the streets every year and getting worse...until the invention of the automobile. Obviously it's pulled away by carts but even in the less-populated Waterdeep there's still going to be tons of it moved (to the the Rat Hills, presumably). It's just hard to imagine that amount dung being ported annually. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
Brimstone
Great Reader
USA
3285 Posts |
Posted - 30 Aug 2016 : 22:44:17
|
| Shipped to The Golden Fields per SCAG. In description of Amphail. Pg's 44-45... |
"These things also I have observed: that knowledge of our world is
to be nurtured like a precious flower, for it is the most precious
thing we have. Wherefore guard the word written and heed
words unwritten and set them down ere they fade . . . Learn
then, well, the arts of reading, writing, and listening true, and they
will lead you to the greatest art of all: understanding."
Alaundo of Candlekeep |
Edited by - Brimstone on 30 Aug 2016 22:47:15 |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
|
|
Cards77
Senior Scribe
USA
745 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2016 : 15:39:15
|
| Yeah it goes to the Rat Hills. There is no mention of any secondary use or market of any kind of dung really. Also many noble houses/stables and probably other establishments in Waterdeep would employ the Realms most trusted waste management entity - THE NOBLE OTYUGH |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2016 : 13:38:54
|
Following on from the population density discussion, here's a first draft of the area around Waterdeep, in 1 mile hexes (big hexes are 6 miles). I've put in non-canon settlements (blue icons) and paths, and I'm thinking of adding a lot more. Canon sites are in black. Looking for opinions about distances between settlements, size of settlements, etc.
I know a dense region around Waterdeep won't be to everyone's tastes, but keen to hear whatever opinions people have!
http://kanzenau.deviantart.com/art/1-Hex-Waterdeep-634407969?ga_submit_new=10%253A1473856370
(PS for those keeping count, my calculations for the area of Ardeep Forest were a little off. By the SCAG map it actually is around 700 square miles, not 600). |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
|
|
|
Cards77
Senior Scribe
USA
745 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2016 : 17:11:17
|
Zundbridge is a canon site. I like what you've done. It gives some more realism and life to the areas just adjacent to Waterdeep. Much as I would imagine London had numerous smaller settlements within a day's ride, all necessary to support a large urban population. Maybe our next project could be to flesh out those non-canon places and breath some real life into this area and release it back out to the community?
I like it overall, IMO you can never have enough rationale for why the Realms works as it does and a network of small settlements just makes sense.
Knowing and naming those small settlements adds a lot of flavor to an otherwise blank map area. |
Edited by - Cards77 on 14 Sep 2016 17:12:00 |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 15 Sep 2016 : 03:02:34
|
Ahh yes, Zundbridge is of course canon - I put the icon as blue because I didn't think there was any canon village there.
In any case, here's the current idea:
Waterdeep is described as one major city, and then scattered thorps and villages around it. So if we want to remain true, to this, this means no towns (901+ pop according to 3e DMG). No maps known to me show any of these villages and thorps areound Waterdeep, with the exception of Rassalantar, Amphail, and Daggerford. So I think it's reasonable to assume that settlements of <900 people would be in the region, in canon - they're just not depicted on maps for the sake of clutter, and only depicting sites of interest to adventurers. Rassalantar, for instance, may be relevant because it's the only hamlet in the hills extending out from the Sword Mountains, or simply because the Crazed Venturers went there one time. Its existence on maps doesn't preclude the existence of many other hamlets of a similar size.
Now we have that same pesky figure of around 1,215,179 people living in the Waterdeep region from the 3e FRCS, not including the city. This, as mentioned in much earlier posts, roughly adds up to just shy of 2 million when added to the peak summer city population of around 660,000, which fits with the 5e-era figures. New calculations of the area around Waterdeep that's not Stump Bog, Ardeep Forest, Rat Hills, Sword Mountains, or the hills extending from those mountains nets almost exactly 8,000 square miles. Chuck that population of 1,215,179 into that area, and we have a population density of approximately 150 people/square mile.
We've determined that all these people must be in villages, hamlets, or thorps...
(quick aside: perhaps Waterdeep actively opposes the building of larger settlements for some historical reason? Alternatively it would not be a big issue to include some towns or even cities if one so desired, but for my purposes I'm sticking for villages and smaller).
...and Medieval Demographics Made Easy puts the average smaller settlement at between 50-300 people, let's go with the larger option and put the average settlement down as a hamlet (by 3e standards) of 300 people. I guessed Undercliff would be over about 4 square miles of area, and host 24,821 people (just under 20% of the winter population of the city) to give us an even number for the rest of the region: 1,200,000 people.
This gives us 4,000 hamlets of 300 people throughout the area. Sounds like a lot, right?
Well across the area, those hamlets would each control about 2 square miles of territory on average, or the equivalent of a 1.5-mile-hex, with 16 or so fitting into any single 6-mile-hex. Each hamlet would be 1.5 miles away from about 6 other hamlets. Assuming the average trade takes place at a slow pace considering a load is likely being carried (in 5e speak, 2 miles/hour), this means each hamlet is about 45 minutes walk away from each other on average.
Now I've got no real idea of what's reasonable, but I can find some people on the net quoting England in the 1400s having villages with walking distances of about 3 miles from each other, and other people quoting around 1 hour's travel. So although 4,000 hamlets, 45 mins from each other seems extreme, perhaps it's actually not too bad for this massive area and massive population.
An alternative approach would be to have the average population be larger, say, 600 (a 3e village rather than a hamlet). That halves the number of settlements to 2,000. Each now controls 4 square miles of territory, or the equivalent of a 2.15-mile-hex: meaning that the average village is 2.15 miles away from the next one. That's an hour travel, and fits the bill a bit more. There would be just under 8 villages in the average 6-mile-hex.
I'm thinking, for myself, I'm more inclined towards the average population of a settlement being 300 rather than 600, despite them having to be closer together. I feel like the idea of the average being a hamlet, with a few villages and a few thorps being more appropriate to the feel of the area than the average being a village.
In either case, the sheer number of settlements required means that mapping all this out would be an incredible amount of work - naming 4,000 hamlets alone is far more than I can ever see myself doing.
My original idea was based on having a campaign start in one of the smaller settlements around Waterdeep, and the adventurers working their way towards the big city. A 1-mile-hex map now seems insufficient for properly characterising the area around such a place in this region, so I think I'll have to zoom in a lot closer.
As always, thoughts appreciated! |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2016 : 23:13:29
|
Eric Boyd had a similar problem when we worked on Daggerford.
The assumption was that most of a given population figure represented the general region, which would include farms, homesteads, and small thorps/hamlets in the area.
So it actually means "the greater Waterdeep Area", or, "The Greater Daggerford Area", much the way modern city populations are rendered. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 20 Sep 2016 23:09:56 |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2016 : 01:50:40
|
Here's the latest image breakdown of what the area might look like, still on a 1-hex map, but zoomed in a bit more:
http://fav.me/daig305
Blue dots are retained from the previous draft, and might represent larger villages.
Yellow dots are the hamlets described in my previous post. They're sized to scale!
As you can see, it's a pretty dense area. But far from unbelievably so: in the top right of the image is a sample from Google Maps of an area in the Northumberland district of the UK, with towns placed similarly far apart and with a similar population density. The yellow dots (hamlets) on this area of the map have been moved to line in with actual settlements on the Northumberland map.
I'm thinking, despite how cluttered this looks on a map, this may be a pretty believable interpretation of the greater Waterdeep area. The fact is, even on a map zoomed in like this, this is still a HUGE area of land.
Edit: clarified a couple points |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
Edited by - KanzenAU on 21 Sep 2016 01:56:35 |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2016 : 03:31:26
|
I've added another version of the map, this time with an overlay of some of Minsk Province in Belarus, another area with a similar population density.
http://fav.me/daiggmg
The overall layover is relatively low resolution, but between the villages of Faldorn and Zundbridge there's a higher resolution map. You can see on the image small "hamlets" in a similar distribution to what I've proposed. Note that even the "higher resolution" part of the map is still too zoomed out for the smaller settlements on there to receive names, but you can make them out if you zoom right in.
|
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
Edited by - KanzenAU on 21 Sep 2016 03:33:38 |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2016 : 06:44:59
|
And final thoughts for the day: here's a map of what the region might look like, broken up into settlements of sizes between towns and thorps (rather than just hamlets as described in the last couple of posts). Settlement:settlement proportions were worked out from MDME and other sources (roughly).
http://fav.me/daigzgm
Undercliff holds 21,000 people, or 1.7% of the "Greater Waterdeep area", or rural population.
Red are towns of average 2,500 people. They hold 7.4% of the rural pop (90,000 people, including Amphail and Goldenfields). There are 36 towns in total, and they're about 18 miles apart.
Blue are villages of average 600 people. They hold 10.7% of the rural pop (129.600 people). They're about 6 miles apart.
Yellow are villages of average 300 people. They hold 32% of the rural pop (388,800 people). They're about 2 miles apart.
Green are thorps of average 73 people. They hold 48.2% of the rural pop (585,779 people). They're about 1 mile apart.
Like this, there ends up being a settlement closer than every mile, but the vast majority of these are thorps, which are almost certainly a small cluster of farmer's homes. YMMV, this is just another way of trying to make this population work.
This is just another draft, in future versions I'd mess with the locations of towns and villages a bit more.
To see thorps and villages properly, you'll need to zoom in. DeviantArt doesn't let you zoom in enough as far as I can tell, so anyone with interest in this should download it from the site via their download button. |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
Edited by - KanzenAU on 21 Sep 2016 06:59:23 |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2016 : 07:09:31
|
Now really the last post for the day...
Here's that 1-mile-hex area around Waterdeep again, this time with that variation between towns and thorps added in.
http://fav.me/daih11m
If I still end up going with a campaign starting in the area around Waterdeep, I'll probably start planning it with a map like this, but leaving the thorps out (making it easy for myself by hand-waving them as farming satellites of the hamlets).
By this method the greater Waterdeep area could be broken down into 36 regions, each with one town being the centre of that region. Each town would have 6 satellite villages feeding into it, and each village has about 6 hamlet, each village about 6 thorps... and at the end each of the 36 towns feeds into the City of Splendors itself.
Meaning each of the 36 regions would contain, approximately:
1 town of ~2,500
6 villages of ~600
36 hamlets of ~300
216 thorps of ~73
Perhaps each of the town has a couple of (or even a few) "power centres", as per the 3e DMG, for instance a noble family and organization such as the Zhentarim. This would give a bit of character to each individual region, and help give an idea of how the smaller settlements run through trickle-down effect.
Alternatively, for less regions we could go with 1 region per 3 towns... |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
Edited by - KanzenAU on 21 Sep 2016 07:20:55 |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2016 : 07:37:37
|
Lastly (surely for reals this time), here's what a regional breakdown with 3 towns per region might look like.
http://fav.me/daih2vg
The regions are:
Northern Coast, Long Road, Lower Dessarin West, Two Rivers, Southern Coast, Amphail Province, Goldenfields Province, Darlund, North Elembar, South Elembar, Harpshield, Delimbiyr
These are placeholder names until I think of something better.
I'm thinking 3 towns/region for 12 regions is more manageable than 36 regions, and allows me to characterize them easier (and actually remember their character).
Meaning each of the 12 regions would contain, approximately:
3 towns of ~2,500 on average
18 villages of ~600
108 hamlets of ~300
648 thorps of ~73 (that I'd leave off future maps for simplicity's sake)
Different regions would vary by population, and ultimately by the number of settlements etc. Some regions may only have 1 (or 0 towns).
Different regions would also have differing relationships with the City of Splendors, too: for instance Waterdeep more closely guards the area within 30-40 miles of its walls - this means Northern Coast, Long Road, Lower Dessarin West, and Two Rivers districts might see better law enforcement and city interference in local politics. These areas would also likely be the most population dense.
Any 1 of the 12 regions would on average be home to close to 100,000 people. If the four regions above each were home to 125,000 (187/sq mi), that leaves the other 8 averaging at 87,500 people (130/sq mi). Admittedly, 187/sq. mi. is denser than normal agriculture could sustain, but with a hand-waved more fertile soil than Earth's + druids + magic, it seems fine.
From here, I'd probably put in some work defining each of the regions better, coming up with power-centres, thinking of what their relationship is to the City, etc.
Thoughts are always welcome!
Edit: one last thought: I would probably spread Southern Coast and Delimbyr regions out, right up towards Daggerford and Secomber. This spreading would make the gradient of settlements less artificial. I'd probably do the same for Amphail and Darlund to the north.
Edit 2: updated map file with the changes thought of in Edit 1. |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
Edited by - KanzenAU on 21 Sep 2016 08:22:14 |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 20 Oct 2016 : 06:21:58
|
I'm still working on this in the background, slowly tightening up the underpinning ideas. Eventually I'll get around to posting some form of finished product.
If we take it as an assumption that the "Waterdeep Environs" lands are indeed populated with farms, thorps, hamlets, etc, do people envisage it as a serf-lord type of situation, or a land of freemen? I was gravitating to it being a land of free landowning farmers, but upon looking into historical analogues, and thinking about the predatory nature of the wealthy, I found it hard to imagine a region where the wealthy (ie. the noble houses and the churches) don't own the majority of the land.
My current thinking is that the land around Waterdeep would be predominantly owned by the Waterdhavian noble houses, along with some of the churches, the occasional exceptionally wealthy non-noble individual, with perhaps guilds owning pockets here and there. These groups then rent the majority of their land out to farmers, who work on it and pay a tax or tithe back to the landowner in return. Land has the potential to be bought by anyone with enough coin - but in practice farmers can't out-buy these groups, and end up paying to use the land rather than owning it themselves.
Tax-collecting would be done by independent tax-collectors ("claws" in Ed-speak) who employ their own private enforcers. The noble houses then just hire the tax-collector, which avoids them violating their 70 men-at-arms limit.
What do people think of this approach? Any thoughts on land ownership in the Waterdeep region? |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
Edited by - KanzenAU on 20 Oct 2016 06:25:06 |
|
|
|
Cards77
Senior Scribe
USA
745 Posts |
Posted - 20 Oct 2016 : 15:49:48
|
| I agree. All that money for the nobles has to come from somewhere. I could see a very loose sort of feudal system where farmers are allowed to farm the land that a noble owns in return for paying tax and a portion of the crops production, etc. If you read heavily in the waterdeep sources it mentions that the nobles have extensive holdings "outside the city". This extends up past Amphail and probably nearly to Daggerford. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 20 Oct 2016 : 15:58:15
|
Maybe more of a share-holder situation, than a serf situation?
Not that there was a lot of difference (historically), but technically a 'shareholder' worked land that belonged to someone else, who got a percentage of the yield, but was still a 'freeman'. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Cards77
Senior Scribe
USA
745 Posts |
Posted - 20 Oct 2016 : 16:25:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Maybe more of a share-holder situation, than a serf situation?
Not that there was a lot of difference (historically), but technically a 'shareholder' worked land that belonged to someone else, who got a percentage of the yield, but was still a 'freeman'.
yeah i wasn't implying serfdom. That's what i meant by "loose". I don't see it as a traditional medieval system. Those farmers would all essentially be renting the land. |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 24 Oct 2016 : 15:26:34
|
I agree that it makes sense for the nobles to own the land, and the peasants to pay them rent, but not be all the way serfs. I've been working on a system of making this region work, through a combination of ACKS rules and looking at agricultural analogues.
I've drawn up a draft of the land I think is reasonable for the noble families to own. In my head, the granting of a noble title is associated with a land grant. The further in the past the title was given, the more land was given: the Ulbrinters were given far more land under Ahghairon's rule than the Adarbrents were under Piergeiron, partially because there was less land left to give.
Here's my current thoughts:
http://kanzenau.deviantart.com/art/WIP-Waterdeep-Noble-Lands-641940191?ga_submit_new=10%253A1477318700
The land is divvied up by 6-mile-hex so that it works well with ACKS. I've had to change the assumptions of ACKS somewhat, but they seem to provide a reasonable amount of income to the noble families. The average fully-populated 6-mile-hex might produce about 7,776gp/month for a noble family, while the farming families on it maintain a lifestyle of 2sp/person/day (2.5x better the ACKS assumptions).
As far as the land division goes, I'm thinking of taking up some more land on the way down to Daggerford, as I imagine it would have been used.
|
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 24 Oct 2016 : 15:32:28
|
For those interested, I've made a summary of what I'm working on at the moment. My own notes are far more detailed, and far more all-over-the-place, and this is just a summary I made for my own reference. I thought it might be of interest to some, but a cursory knowledge of ACKS terms may be required. The formatting was largely lost in the transfer from Evernote.
SUMMARY OF AGRICULTURAL SITUATION:
The Waterdeep region is made up of ACKS Marches or "Laethes" which belong to either the City or a Noble House. It is the equivalent of a 6-mile-hex. Laeth is an administrative term: in practice they're just referred to as "Tarm lands", "Roaringhorn lands", or "City lands". They are kept by the staff of a Noble Lord, or a City official.
The Laethes are then split into ACKS Baronies or "Harads", which are administered by reeves who report to the Laeth's governor (who may be the Noble Lord or City official, or a subordinate).
Harads are split into "yardlands" - an administrative division of 20 modern acres believed to be appropriate for one family to work. The concept of yardlands is used by the reeves to calculate the tax expected, and is not used in practice by farmers
A yardland of 20 acres (equivalent of 4.5 MCG ovals) is on average worked by a single family
A yardland is most commonly split into 4 "farundels" of approximately 5 acres (a bit more than one MCG oval), one for each crop type under the 4-field system. When farmers discuss how much land they have, they describe them in terms of farundels.
Farms in 1491 Waterdeep have two core benefits over medieval farms on Earth:
Advanced agricultural knowledge equivalent in parts to the 1700s in the real world
4-way rotations with nitrogen-rich crops are used, increasing the land used, increasing fertilizer through livestock that feeds on the nitrogen rich crops, the fertilizer increases crop yield
In the modern world & Faerun, these advances increases total crop yield by about 100%
The most common rotation is wheat, turnips, potatoes, ryegrass
Availability of the potato (not available in medieval times)
Has 3x the caloric yield of medieval-era crops
Increases the yield per year by 50% (on a rotational system where the potato is 1 crop)
This could potentially be a lot more if the potato became the main crop in the region
Families consisted of on average 5 people, 3.5 adults and 1.5 kids
An example of this would be two farms living next to each other:
One family is a young couple with a child, living with the wife's parents who worked on the farm before them (4 adults, 1 child)
The other family is a slightly older couple with 2 kids, and the husband's mother only as the husband's father has passed away. (3 adults, 2 children)
Comparions to ACKS:
Differences:
20 acre farms means domains are smaller if all else is the same, with greater population density.
Max greater population density is assumed to be 1,000 families/6-mile-hex rather than 780
Families of 3.5 adults & 1.5 kids instead of 2 adults & 3 kids
Increased agricultural knowledge leads to greater crop yields
Potato availability leads to greater crop yields
These benefits are reaped by the families rather than the Lord:
Families are 2.5x better off (adults live on 2sp/day instead of 8cp/day)
Similarities:
Compatible with monetary and land systems
Same Lord income - doesn't affect wealth earned by domain.
SUMMARY OF DOMAINS:
Laethes: the minimum territory a Noble Lord owns or City official governs.
The total population of a Laethe, on average, is 972 families (4,860 pop)
An area of 4 harads of 5 sq mi each, and a Noble's demesne of 12 sq mi
This is 32 sq mi total, or the equivalent of 1x 6-mile-hex
Governor attends to personal domain or "demesne" of 320 families (1600 pop)
This includes a hamlet of 74 families (370 pop / 259 by 3e standards)
36x Laethes will include a village of 120 families instead of a hamlet
Note villages technically calculate their income differently in ACKS, but ignore this for these purposes
Demesne has domain income of 4,516 gp / month
Governor gathers demesne income of 8gp/family/month (no vassal tithe) = 2,560 gp/month
Reeves gather "vassal income" of 3gp/family/month = (163famx4haradssx3gp)= 1,956 gp/month
Vassal income is in this case an abstraction so ACKS can be used
Governor actually receives 3gp vassal income + 5gp domain income from each Reeve
4x Reeves are each responsible for a harad (their "personal domain" in ACKS-speak)
they are responsible for of 163 families each (815 pop)
Reeve has domain income of 5gp/family/month = 815 gp/month
This is paid directly to the Noble Lord (or Governor if Noble Lord decrees)
Total domain income for the Laeth, if take all of 4 Reeves' income, and all of Governor's income:
4x815+4,516 = 7,776 gp/month (93,312 gp/year) on average
This is the same as 8gp/family/month for the entire Laeth
8gp/month = 12 (6 land, 4 services, 2 tax) - 4 (2 for garrison, 2 for tithes and liturgies)
This is assuming an average land value to the Lord of 6gp/month (ranges from 3-9gp/month)
Some Laethes will earn less from the land 3-9, and have to spend more on the garrison (2-4)
Worst Laeth: Poor land in the wilderness: 9 - 6 = 3gp/family/month = 2,916 gp/month
Best Laeth: Awesome city land = 15 - 4 = 11gp/family/month = 10,692 gp/month
These Laeth numbers all assume a full population of 972 families
4 Small Towns exist on special Laethes owned by the City (or a non-noble in the example of Goldenfields).
These exist at Undercliff, Goldenfields, North Elembar, and the Delimbiyr Route
500 families in the small town
3 harad of 157 families
LAETH INCOME FOR THE NOBLE HOUSES:
#65279;FR3E expectations for the average noble house:
Resource Limit of 35,000 gp (can find items of such wealth as in any large city)
Ready cash limit of 52,000 gp (as much coin as in a small town of 1300 pop (3e) / 1857 pop (w/kids).
Population about 30 nobles (IF the ready cash were distributed evenly, they'd have 1,733 available each)
Keep in mind the resource limit and ready cash limit in 5e are probably lower in 3e, as nobles have less cash.
The baseline "5e Aristocrat", which includes guild leaders, high priests, and politicians, is 10gp+/day. Nobility on average should be at LEAST double this at 20gp/day, and possibly as high as 40gp/day.
Taking the average as 20gp/day in the 5e era of less dominant nobles, this still places them in the "Affluent" league by ACKS terms. At 30 nobles, that would be 600 gp/day, or 18,000 gp/month.
Each noble house owns AT LEAST one Laeth, bringing them in an income of 7,776 gp/month. The average noble house would therefore need other sources of revenue to account for their lifestyle (as they do).
However, most of the noble houses would have at least 2 Laethes, bringing them in 15,552 gp/month - still requiring revenue from other sources, but significantly less so. If they have 3 Laethes, they have more than enough to meet their lifestyle expenses without other sources of revenue.
I would say that almost all noble houses would have 2 Laethes, and 2-3 other sources of income each bringing in ~1,000gp/month that gets them to the 18,000 gp mark.
Noble Titles and Demesnes
Upon the creation of a noble house they are granted a demesne of land by the Masked Lords (and Raurlor before them). Although the titles have been sold and resold, they have never been split.
This means that the restoration of noble titles by Laeral may have given back all the noble houses the rights to their original demesne. This essentially grants them instant income: even if only one Laeth, that provides 86% of what is needed for their entire family to maintain a noble lifestyle at 10gp/day. With pretty much any other venture, they're going to get back over the line. And many noble houses would have the equivalent of 2 or more Laethes.
Newer noble houses would have been granted demesnes further away from Waterdeep City, purely because the land there was already granted to other noble houses. So Adarbrent may hold land out against the Forlorn Hills, for instance. At the same time though, space close to Waterdeep may have opened up when Zoar and Gildeggh lost their titles. |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
Edited by - KanzenAU on 24 Oct 2016 15:35:18 |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 25 Oct 2016 : 01:47:30
|
Here's some more detail on the workings. I figure that I spent a lot of time researching all this, so this might help someone with their own project in the future. Mistakes might get picked up too. Again, this is just me posting from my notes, so apologies for the shorthand. Hopefully this will interest someone.
The overall goal of this was to have farmers living on a better wage than what is implied in ACKS, while retaining ACKS assumptions, and fitting them into the Waterdeep region. It results in an increase in "living expenses" from 8cp to 2sp/adult/day. Each family also produces enough to pay their Lord (usually a Noble House) as much as is assumed by ACKS, to make sure ACKS can be used for other parts of the game.
Revised calculations per MDME:
1 square mile can support 180 people (more if magic is used), including villages, roads, crops, the whole bang.
I originally calculated this as per 100 people on the land (20 families), and 80 people not on the land, but this isn't necessarily the case. And in fact, per the "90% rural, 10% urban" rule, it's unlikely.
Area required for winter population of 1,347,840 / 180 = 7,488 square miles. This is sustainable! It is 94% of the available 8000 sq mi of plains in the area. (Sword Mountains to Forlorn Hills to Delimbiyr Route to the Sea of Swords)
Area required for summer population of 1,878,484 / 180 = 10,436 square miles. Even this is close! It is 130% of the available 8000 sq mi.
The larger population doesn't even have to be sustainable: Waterdeep has fishing and imports too! Not to mention the increased production power of Goldenfields.
MDME Population Density:
Unclear if stated max of 120/sq mi is taking TOTAL land, or just arable land.
This could be based on France, the arable land of which is said to be 63.1% of the country in 1961 (data.worldbank.org). That would mean the oft-stated 105/sq mi density of France, was actually 166/sq mi on the arable parts. This 166/sq mi is the "90% rural" pop, supporting an extra 18 people to live an urban lifestyle, and supporting a total of 184/sq mi of arable land. This is in line with the ideas above.
Family needs 10 acres to be self sufficient, medieval average might be around 20 acres?: Wikipedia (unsourced):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_field_system
Medieval Manors also stands by 20-40 acres, and free yeomen would have 30 on average, so I think tenants on 20 seems accurate.
If this is taken as true, at 1 family/20 acres, there are 32 families/sq mi. 32x5 = 160 people/sq mi on the arable land, which is in line with the France figures above.
Application to Waterdeep:
1,347,840 over TOTAL area (10,500 sq mi) is calculated at 128/sq mi. This is more than medieval France (122%). To be equivalent, would need 12,500 sq mi, but 128/sq mi is within the realm of what is believable.
1,215,179 over AGRICULTURAL area (8,000 sq mi) is calculated at 152/sq mi. This is less than medieval France (92%).
Waterdeep agricultural area was calculated from map as everything not hills, mountains, swamp, or forest, at 76% of total. The area of the UK used for agriculture was 81.8% in 1961, Uruguay was 93%! So this is far from unbelievable.
This works out to 4.2 acres/person. If a family of 5 is assumed (like in ACKS), this works out to 21 acres/family (about 152 people/square mile).
Historical Medieval Family Size
MDME does not take a stance on this.
ACKS assumes a family of 5, and multiple other sources have stated an average of around 4-5.
However, population demographics put kids at 30% of the population, not the 60% ACKS has them at.
The link shows a table and pyramid showing medieval population demographics, which by chance also lines up with the 3e DMG guidelines on how many kids are in populations (+10-40% of population).
http://batintheattic.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/medieval-population-pyramid.html
If we break this down into children 13 and under, "young adults" of 14-35yo, and "mature adults" at 35+, that's 29% being kids, 36% being young adults, and 35.1% being mature adults.
If 5 are in a family, that's each person being 20% of the family.
29% are kids (13 and under), so 1.5 kids in a family.
36% are young adults (14-35), so 1.8 young adults in a family.
35.1% are mature adults (36+), so 1.7 mature adults in a family unit: likely one of the young adult's parents.
For calculating adults vs kids, this is an average of 3.5 adults and 1.5 kids in every family of 5.
ACKS assumptions vs Historical Family Size
ACKS and 5e D&D crop values align pretty well according to the below link, so hopefully ACKS consumption calculations will approximate 5e D&D (and actual requirements - see the ACKS creator's notes via the second link):
http://blogofholding.com/?p=6667
http://www.autarch.co/blog/starting-ground-upliterally
ACKS family eats 45 gp/year. Man produces 80 gp/year off land of 20 acres (+10 fallow non-productive). Family total produces 190gp/year of income. So family eats 45/80 = 56% of what they produce FROM the land. The lord collects the other 44% as part of his total take (3 gp/month).
The Lord collects 12 gp/month in what they produce (land (farm produce and otherwise) and non-land) = 144 /190 year. (76%)
If this was all true, but we alter it, still keeping the ACKS monetary assumptions
ACKS production: 2 adults at 80gp/each & 3 kids at 10gp/each = 190 gp/year
ACKS consumption: adults: 2.3+1.6 = 3.9cp/day, kids: .75+.75 = 1.5cp/day = 12.3cp/day/family = 45gp/year
ACKS consumption of wealth produced: 24%
ACKS lord income = 190 - 45 = 144gp/family/year = 12 gp/family/month
Probable medieval family production: 3.5 adults & 1.5 kids = 295 gp/year
Probable medieval family consumption: 15.9cp/day/family = 58 gp/year*
Probable medieval family consumption of wealth produced, on ACKS model: 20%
Extra income from family = 295 - 144 - 58 = 237/family/year = 8 gp/family/month, purely because of the 3.5/1.5 family model, taking ACKS assumptions (eg. that non-farming adults produce the same income).
*Note: these yields line up with historical statements that a peasant family could survive on own on 10 acres (pre yield increases by Norfolk system).
Giving peasants better living conditions.
The ACKS 45gp/year model doesn't take into account taxes paid for protection (garrison upkeep by Lord), and liturgies and tithes provided. These sum to another 4gp/month (48gp/year) that is paid by the peasants, but is put back into them. So, the ACKS family actually lives on 90gp/year (8cp/adult/day, 3cp/child/day).
But, if we want our peasants living better, say at 2sp/adult/day (poor by 5e standards rather than squalid), they need to get 2.5x the income.
I only change this for adults, as the kids are assumed to not need more.
For the 3.5/1.5 family: previously (58food+45Lord)=103gp/year, now 74.5cp/family/day = 272gp/year.
We need to do this while maintaining the 144gp/year for the Lord. BUT, 4gp of this has already been taken into the peasant's lifestyle expenses via the garrison, tithes, liturgies, so thats only 8gp/month or 96gp/year we need to account for.
272 + 96 = 368gp/year = 31gp/month
368gp/year is 125% of the 295gp/year assumed above to be produced by the 3.5/1.5 family, so this requirement is not met under typical medieval crop yields.
Reasons for increased yield in post-Medieval period: Agricultural Revolution!
Norfolk crop rotation Gave double yield by 1750.
Half growth in output per worker 1600-1800 due to bigger farm size (Allen) quoted in Land, Labour, and Livestock - but other sources refute this, saying land growth did not actually affect yields/acre
Clark - England c1300 75% output is wheat, 93% of calories
Livestock raises yields
Natural history of Oxfordshire 1677 - better wheat crop!
Also, planting closer together may increase crop yields.
Source on Agricultural Revolution reasons for increasing crop yields:
http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-agricultural-revolution-timeline-causes-inventions-effects.html
Perfection of horse-drawn seed press (Jethro Tull modification to existing invention)
machine pushes seed deeper into ground, lose less to feeding birds
Large scale growth of new crops: potato, maize (post-1750)
Passing of the Enclosure laws
Increased land availability: use of turnips and clover for 4-field system reduced fallow land
More livestock: made possible because turnips/clover good for grazing
Improved crop yield:
more livestock = more fertilizer = better production per acre
end of little Ice Age
Brittanica,com:
In the Norfolk four-course system, wheat was grown in the first year, turnips in the second, followed by barley, with clover and ryegrass undersown, in the third. The clover and ryegrass were grazed or cut for feed in the fourth year. The turnips were used for feeding cattle and sheep in the winter. This new system was cumulative in effect, for the fodder crops eaten by the livestock produced large supplies of previously scarce animal manure, which in turn was richer because the animals were better fed. When the sheep grazed the fields, their waste fertilized the soil, promoting heavier cereal yields in following years.
Potatoes, oats, peas, rye is an alternate rotation (wikipedia), assuming potatoes are available.
Wheat to potatoes to barley to peas:
An updated version of the Norfolk four-course rotation could begin with peas or field beans, both legumes, to replace the clover, with wheat in the second year. Potatoes or sugar beet could be grown as replacements for the turnips, with barley, or in some wetter locations, oats, in the fourth year.
http://www.newhallmill.org.uk/display/crop_rotation.pdf
Assuming pretty much any rotation is relatively ok, but need at least one to be nitrogen rich.
Applying crop yields to get better living conditions
ACKS assumes 20 acres of arable land yields 80gp/year on a 30 acre plot (80gp/30acresland/year).
ACKS also assumes non-farmer production of 100% that of the farmer (80gp/year).
To meet the requirements of a "5e poor" family, the land needs to yield an extra 73gp (191%).
The Agricultural Revolution, involving Norfolk 4-field crop rotations, better fertilizer use, and better wheat crops, approximately doubled crop yields from 1350-1750.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Agricultural_Revolution
If we do this here, the land is now producing 160gp/year, and family is producing 375gp/year (102% requirement for "5e poor" lifestyle + Lord income).
This is all assuming that this increased yields do not require greater farm sizes (debatable in literature).
20 acre plot instead of 30 acre plot
However, the above productivity was assuming a 30 acre plot (with the Norfolk improvements). There is only really room for 20 acre plots in the Waterdeep region.
2/3rds of the land means land production is reduced to from 160 to 106gp/year. Other adults still producing 80gp/year (as they are in ACKS). Family overall is reduced to 336gp/year (91% of requirement, requiring 10% boost).
Now we require a boost of 10% of not just the land, but total produce, to get to "5e poor". Alternatively, the land requires a 30% boost.
Improving agriculture on a post-Agricultural Revolution 20 acre plot through the potato
This was accomplished in the real world with the potato and maize crops.
Assuming maize has not properly taken off, since the Maztica supply was cut off, and bugs travelled with them per Ed, at some point in the 1400s killing off most of the maize crops (this last part non-canon).
This leaves the potato, which has 3x the caloric yield of wheat or barley. And, even better, it already exists in Faerun.
Assuming avg 4 crop rotation of wheat, turnips, potatoes, ryegrass (historical: wheat, turnips, barley, ryegrass)
Some families would make barley instead of wheat, and other things could also be in the rotation, but most families would have a potato crop every year as one of their 4.
With land production at 106gp/year previously, and 1/4 of that being changed to 300% yield, we now have a yield of 159/gp/year/20 acres. Adding on the other 2.5 adults at 80gp/adult, and kids at 10gp/child (ACKS assumptions), we get to 389gp/family/year/20 acres. This is 106% of the requirement to live at a "5e poor" lifestyle and pay the Lord the 12gp/month that ACKS assumes!
389gp produced - 96 paid to Lord & not returned = 293gp/year/family.
Adults (14+): "5e poor" requires 2sp/day = 73gp/year. 3.5x adults is 255.5gp/year
This leaves 37.5gp/year for 1.5 kids. ACKS kids requirements: 3cp/day = 11gp/year, so this is over double.
Kids (13 and under): 25gp/year/kid = 7cp/day/kids.
As a rule, this could be used to say that kids under 13 on average have the living expenses requirement of 1/3rd of an adult. They eat more than 1/3rd the food, but they don't less rent etc, so this pans out.
See the summary in above post for where I went after this. |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
Edited by - KanzenAU on 25 Oct 2016 01:57:19 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Waterdeep Population, Density, & Agriculture
