4e internal art..kind of...ugly? What gives?

[Emirikol]

I've noticed that the internal artwork for the PHB 4e is kind of well, ugly and doesn't look finished. It also looks like some of the artists did kind of sloppy layering jobs with figures in the forefront. Also, the character selection makes it look like D&D is full of ugly deformed formorians (namely any feature of the "new" races) and sickly AIDS victims. What gives? Didn't they want to spend money on the new edition artwork?

jh

 

[Klaus]

While I won't be as harsh as you did, I'd say that yes, the artwork leaves a lot to be desired. There few gems, though. Not a comprehensive list, but:

- The elf archer in the Combat chapter.
- Raven Mimura's tiefling pieces (one watching some gnolls, the other with a Tenser's Floating Disk, and another in the Staffs section).
- The campfire picture in the Quests section.
- The class illustrations (even if the dragonborn Fighter has a clown's nose).
- The half-elf racial picture (even if the male has emo hair).
- The female rogue with the flaming dagger in the Magic Weapons section).
- The hooded male tiefling looking at "wanted" signs in the first chapter.

The other racial pictures were notoriously bad (specially the human one, with its two different pictures Photoshopped together, leaving the white hole of a female tiefling who was in front of the male human).

 

[Mortimer De Gaul]

Question/Statement: I have the 4e Monster Manual but not the 4e Player's Handbook. How does the Player's Handbook compare artwise to
the Monster Manual?

 

[Klaus]

Question/Statement: I have the 4e Monster Manual but not the 4e Player's Handbook. How does the Player's Handbook compare artwise to
the Monster Manual?

The MM has far more pictures than the MM, and it has a bit better quality, but some pictures are still really bad. There are far more gems in there, though, like the dragons.

 

[Emirikol]

RECYCLED 3.5 ARTWORK PUT INTO 4.0!e

I'm also REALLY annoyed at the recycled monster picture artwork from the MONSTER MANUAL.

There are pictures from Frostburn 3.5E in there (and probably others I don't know about)! Damit! New edition means NEW ARTWORK right? Evidenly not.

jh

 

[RangerWickett]

Actually, a lot of previous editions recycled artwork from the one before. Just not 3rd ed (or, y'know, the first version). And considering some of the art they did get, we should be glad they recycled!

 

[Scarecrow]

Whilst it does vary in quality, I'm actually quite impressed with the artwork on the whole. The only thing I'm not convinced about is the Eladrin. I can't help feeling these are supposed to have a more fairy-like Arthur Rackham or Charles Vess feel to them. Instead they just look like regular elves in acid green cloaks.

 

[Emirikol]

Actually, a lot of previous editions recycled artwork from the one before. Just not 3rd ed (or, y'know, the first version). And considering some of the art they did get, we should be glad they recycled!

'aint' that the truth.

jh

 

[Emirikol]

I think what bugs me is that even though I understand that they want to shove Thieflings and Dragonbourne down my throat and "feature" it in the artwork, at least they could have made them look somewhat artistic, attractive or beautiful. If I wanted UGLY crap-sickly looking PC's in the artwork, I'd have asked for Otyough's as a PC class! Hrrrumph

jh