D&D 5E D&D Next weekly art column!

[Kaodi]

If you can afford full plate armour, you can probably afford to have that armour enchanted so that it does not affect your level of comfort.

 

[RangerWickett]

Wizards can't fireball red dragons. They can't lightning bolt storm demons. They can't magic missile golems. They can't charm zombies or use telekinesis against ghosts.

I'd like a game where you have multiple options, and are sometimes required to use them. Get the knight out of his heavy armor occasionally, and it increases the tension.

 

[Libramarian]

Why are these issues for the art if they're not also issues for the game? The art doesn't exist in a void, it is a visual representation of systems, rules, points, suggestions and themes within the books.

The game is larger than the mechanics. The art is part of the game on a basic level, alongside the mechanics. The art can inspire a player or DM and have an impact on a campaign in that way, directly, without necessarily being representational or derivative of the mechanics.

Of course coherence is important...the art shouldn't depict something completely impossible by the mechanics of the game or something like that. But the position you are taking here is far too strong.

 

[Sunseeker]

The game is larger than the mechanics. The art is part of the game on a basic level, alongside the mechanics. The art can inspire a player or DM and have an impact on a campaign in that way, directly, without necessarily being representational or derivative of the mechanics.

Of course coherence is important...the art shouldn't depict something completely impossible by the mechanics of the game or something like that. But the position you are taking here is far too strong.

I disagree, if the art is depicting situational armor and weapons, the book, regardless of if it's written in the text, is advocating situational weapon and armor rules. I'm not saying everything needs to be exact point for point, but it should at least be coherent. And I feel that shooing for a specific art style that pertains to ideas not presented in the book leads to a level of dissonance that I don't think will benefit the new edition.

 

[Klaus]

New article is up, focused strictly on the Ampersand:

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Et, And, Ampersand)

My two favorite ampersands are the 1e/2e one, followed by the elegant, flowing 4e one. One is breathing fire, the other has wings. In D&D lore, neither is a true dragon (wings and 4-legged). One could be a linnorm, the other a wyvern, though.

And I'll repeat the idea bandied here before: I'd love to see "here be dragons" (i.e., there's danger here) replaced with "here be dungeons & dragons" (i.e. there's opportunity and danger here) in D&D maps.

 

[Mercutio01]

I voted for sketch 18, which is pretty much an updated version of the 2E logo. Of the actual designs that were used, the 2E ampersand is my favorite, but I think it could use a little modernization.

Sketch #7 was a close second place in my head. It's also a more updated version of the 2E, but I don't think I like the introduction of the third color (gray) into the icon.

 

[steeldragons]

Having already stating my preference for the BECM/1e/2e fire-breather, it should come as no surprise that Samples #7 and #18 are my favorites of those provided.

That said, I find myself REALLY liking #9, holding the sword with its tail. My only note on this one would be to stretch/move the head of the dragon more over top of the tail/sword handle to make it a bit more obvious as an ampersand. The way it is now is very cool looking and definitely something I could see in A logo...but it does not, readily, lend itself to appearing as "&". Moving the head more directly in line/above the left edge would fix that, I think, from what I'm envisioning.

Giving that Latin is all but a dead language, I think the history of the "&" as "et" is really pretty irrelevant...interesting, yes, but irrelevant (unless you want to explain the origins of the ampersand to every person who ever sees it, which I doubt) and the samples that make an attempt at looking like a combined "e" and "t" will simply be lost on...well...just about everyone...looking more unnecessarily fiddly, if not sloppy, as an "&."

But yeah, original flame-thrower, #'s 7, 18, and 9 (revised as stated above) would be my picks.

Think that's all I have to say on ampersands. Which, admittedly, is more than I would have thought possible. hahaha.

--Steel Dragons

 

[Klaus]

I liked 7 and 18 as well. #18's fire just need to be a little more streamlined, maybe using the fire from #7.

EDIT: one of the things I like most about the 1e/2e ampersand (and numbers 7 and 18) is the implied movement of the dragon. You try to follow the dragon's body, and that eye movement imparts a dynamism to the ampersand that is somewhat lost in some of the other designs.

 

[Hussar]

I voted 22. I dunno it just grabbed me. Then again, I've always dug wyverns. Maybe that's it.

 

[Sunseeker]

22, 18, 8.

I voted for 8, there's something about integrating the fire-breath that really I feel makes the ampersand more than just a dragon.