What's on your mind?
+ Log in or register to post
Results 1 to 10 of 39
Thread: Cover Art for D&D v3.5 Reprint
Saturday, 21st July, 2012, 03:15 AM #1
Scout (Lvl 6)
Cover Art for D&D v3.5 Reprint
Some new cover art has been revealed for the D&D v3.5 reprints via Amazon.com. While I can't be positive this is the final artwork it looks it.
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0786962461/"]Premium Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 Player's Handbook with Errata[/ame]
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0786962453/"]Premium Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon 3.5 Master's Guide with Errata[/ame]
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0786962445/"]Premium Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 Monster Manual with Errata[/ame]
Last edited by Warunsun; Saturday, 21st July, 2012 at 03:16 AM. Reason: Layout
Saturday, 21st July, 2012, 03:26 AM #2
Lama (Lvl 13)
Unlike the 1E covers they were ugly and awful the first time, I was hoping for a changeGloria Finis
Saturday, 21st July, 2012, 03:46 AM #3
Magsman (Lvl 14)
I was hoping they would have ditched the Schlong Sword part of the logo.
Saturday, 21st July, 2012, 04:41 AM #4
Spellbinder (Lvl 16)
I like 'em. Evocative of the originals, while less garish than the 3.5 versions.http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/213067-unified-theory-gnomes.html
Saturday, 21st July, 2012, 07:55 PM #5
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
As much as I like 3.5 and have plenty of supplements for it, these would have to contain some strikingly significant errata between their covers for me to want to pay for any of them.
The cover art is not, in my opinion, an improvement. As busy as the Higgenbotham covers were originally, at least they had a coherent vision.
These look like quick photoshop jobs that sample bits and bobs from the originals and awkwardly template in a decorative border around the centrepieces. They just look cheap and off-kilter to me.
I'd much sooner buy a Pathfinder Core book than a PHB or DMG reprint - it would have more content, and cost less than either.
Maybe my perspective would be different if my 3.5 books weren't still in quite decent condition, but... I don't think so.
I'll be impressed and pleasantly surprised if the previews for these reprints change my mind though.
Sunday, 22nd July, 2012, 08:35 AM #6
Greater Elemental (Lvl 23)
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Planet Alcatraz & D/FW
- Read 0 Reviews
ø Ignore Dannyalcatraz
Sunday, 22nd July, 2012, 02:27 PM #7
Enchanter (Lvl 12)
I actually feel these are big improvements to the covers. The only cover I liked was the 3.0 MM. I thought the covers were awful otherwise, unless you like the look of marbles and tin foil.
Sunday, 22nd July, 2012, 02:50 PM #8
Acolyte (Lvl 2)
The covers are alright, I suppose. But it seems odd that the 3.5 rules are the next to get the "premium" cover treatment. Seems like an AD&D2/e premium, then a 3.5 would have made more sense.K. David Ladage
Lord of Umbragia -- The Arcanum: 30th Anniversary Edition
Sunday, 22nd July, 2012, 04:12 PM #9
Loved the 1e reprint covers. These look awful, and its all about the border/ edging design on all three. Get rid of that and they would actually look pretty good. I rather like the decoratiive work on the "leather" part. I think the center circle designs do a fine job job of evoking the originals without the crappy edging.
Last edited by aventhar; Sunday, 22nd July, 2012 at 04:23 PM.
Monday, 23rd July, 2012, 12:07 AM #10
Spellbinder (Lvl 16)
I'd expect 2E settings to get the re-release treatment before the rules.http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/213067-unified-theory-gnomes.html
By Whizbang Dustyboots in forum General D&D Discussion + Older D&D Editions, D&D Variants, and OSR GamingReplies: 31Last Post: Tuesday, 16th April, 2013, 07:35 AM
By juboke in forum General RPG DiscussionReplies: 11Last Post: Thursday, 2nd February, 2012, 01:05 AM
By pigames.net in forum General RPG DiscussionReplies: 1Last Post: Saturday, 22nd October, 2011, 05:37 PM
By Ogrork the Mighty in forum General RPG DiscussionReplies: 5Last Post: Monday, 29th October, 2007, 03:24 AM
By Mystic Eye in forum General RPG DiscussionReplies: 14Last Post: Monday, 27th January, 2003, 12:19 AM