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

[erleni]

4e ampersand is my favourite, but it should be breathing fire to totally kick ass

 

[avin]

I like 2, 13, 18, 20 and 22.

2E looks outdated for my taste, as the only real nostalgia I have for 2E is Planescape... 18's revamp is fine.

 

[Stormonu]

I like the 2E one and

2, 7, 8, 11, 13 & 18

...wait, that sounds too much like something from Lost...

 

[Aelfwyn]

I am a big fan of Elmore's art. I also like action scenes. Whatever it is, though, needs to be at least grounded in reality. I want my fantasy to look like it could really happen. Leave oversized swords and impossibly huge heroes to WoW. That's their thing. WotC doesn't need to take after anyone. They should have a style that we can all associate with them. For me and a few others here, that style is in late 2e or even early 3/3.5e.

 

[Jon Schindehette]

The problem I see with "appropriate"armor discussions, beyond issues of cheese and beef and cake, is that it continues along the trend of punishing the fighter for simply existing. Look at some of our other disussions here about weapon types and armor tables. The fighter needs a spear for this, an axe for that, plate in some situations, mail in others. The wizard however, doesn't. He still casts his same spells, wears the same robes, regardless of environment. Rules for situational combat issues are interesting as q thought experiment, but in the end boil down to placing heavier birdens on already sub-par classes.

I think this is a mistake (wizard doesn't have "appropriate armor) as well. I think wizards and all other classes for that matter should look at the idea of appropriate armor. I don't know how that'll shake out at this point...but I think a wizard in a different climate, culture or race should reflect that climate, culture or race....

 

[Jon Schindehette]

If there are no rules for armor based on environments, what's the point of worrying about the scantly-clad barbarian in the frozen wastes? Who cares about the knight in full plate in the sweltering desert?

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.

If 5e is to be more grounded in reality in the rules, it needs to reflect that in the art.

LOL! Let me ask you this question. Do you care about realistic armor in your game? Apparently a lot of people do - cause I get tons of email complaints about "this sword is too big to be wielded", or "that armor is stupid, they'd never be able to bed over in it."

I don't know if you are one of the folks that care about this stuff. If you are, then I'm sure you can appreciate what I'm trying to do. If you aren't, then enjoy playing your game and visualizing your characters in a manner that works best for you. Your character and your game are yours! Enjoy them!

 

[Jon Schindehette]

I believe I spotted a couple of "ringers" -- as in "if you like these, we're not counting your vote"* -- but I won't say which.

LOL! No ringers. Emi was just having some fun, and I included every sketch that she came up with.

...okay, that isn't true. I bumped 2 of them at random just to round it out to 20 options.

 

[Kaodi]

...okay, that isn't true. I bumped 2 of them at random just to round it out to 20 options.

EN World exclusive content?

 

[Kaodi]

While my vote remains firmly for #7, I wonder if you could not have one with both wings and fire if you just changed the direction of the dragon... Something like this (pardon my primitive artistic "skills"):

 

[Sunseeker]

I think this is a mistake (wizard doesn't have "appropriate armor) as well. I think wizards and all other classes for that matter should look at the idea of appropriate armor. I don't know how that'll shake out at this point...but I think a wizard in a different climate, culture or race should reflect that climate, culture or race....

Culturally, racially, climateally-fitting designs are an entirely different kettle of fish. IMO, these are largely DM tools, to give players the feeling that X is different from Y. However, the problem I have with this, the problem I have always had, is that when people say "culturally or racially fitting", it often leads to stereotypes. Unless the armor is specific to an in-setting culture or race, dressing up black characters in "African" armor or asian-esque characters in Kimono's and Hakama's is worse than putting everyone in western knightly apparel.

Lets take Seela from Pathfinder for example. Strong, black, female in totally non-sexual armor with no hint at being related to real-world african tribes. Seela is not African. Africa does not exist. If Knights from the Nentir Vale dress differently than Knights from the Drow kingdom in the Underdark, that's a good differentiation to show. But if black characters are wearing different outfits than arab characters, than white characters in order to represent fantasy stereotypes of real-world cultures, that is a BAD thing. There is no logical reason to represent these cultures, ancestries and races within the books because those real-world things do not exist in the books.

Some "culturally fitting" examples.

In all of these images, we don't see some attempt to represent a real-world culture, and though the design of Bant is drawn from real world cultures, it has become something uniquely it's own. Arguably the whole Shards of Alara block is one of the best MTG blocks when it comes to unique and developed cultures. Could you imagine if one of these images depicted an obviously asian-esque woman in a kimono? It wouldn't fit. The imagery here is of Bant, not some ascribed culture that vaguely fits some streotypical western ideal of what non-western cultures would be like. Black, white, asian, in this setting you are Bant. If there is an appropriate culture within the D&D univerise, such as the Drow, who have their own racially distinct appearance, it's great to depict them in it. However, depicting a black guy in some african-esque garb because he is black, with no in-game culture or setting to back it is basically racism. There is no good reason for a real-world cultures to be represented in a game that is not set in the real world.

LOL! Let me ask you this question. Do you care about realistic armor in your game? Apparently a lot of people do - cause I get tons of email complaints about "this sword is too big to be wielded", or "that armor is stupid, they'd never be able to bed over in it."

That depends on the game. I'm currently in a Steampunk-esque game where the DM has mandated that everyone wears trenchcoats. As steampunk fitting as trenchcoats actually are, I find the idea incredibly stupid.

So, lets put it this way, I like stuff. To take from MTG in which I don't know if you have any say but certainly has a diversity in art, I will give you three examples of how I feel about armor.

If you're not familiar, the card it Tormented Angel. It's lovely art, and in MTG terms I'm a Vorthos, I appreciate quality art. However, I find the depicted angel to be ridiculously scantly clad, though it's interesting to note that she is actually wounded on many of those exposed body parts.

Here we have the starring art for Avacyn, and although she is more armored, I actually find this armor even more ridiculous than the last. At least Tormented Angel was honest in it's pure fan-service. Avacyn here however is trying to look armored and sexual at the same time. I mean, thigh-garter plate? Cleavage-showing breastplate? Come on. This image has no idea what it's shooting for(which unfortunately follows through on to the actual card but that's another story). She's armored, but she's sexy, she's armored, but she's sexy, she doesn't have any idea what she's going for. It's titillation wrapped up in a ridiculous attempt to pretend to actually be armored, I mean, we're practically pushing a panty-shot under that flowy skirt thing. You can be sexy in full plate, but this isn't how, this is how you look sexy in latex...on a dance floor.

Finally we have the art for Aegis Angel, which although the card is rather bland, the art is magnificent. This is obviously fantasy art, breast-shaped breastplate is the biggest giveaway, but that's really not that immersion breaking. The card and character match, her armor matches her purpose. She is a defender and her design emphasizes that. It's stylized and it's fantasy of course, even without the wings it's still clearly fantasy. However, it's realistic enough for me to buy in to the logic that in a fight, this armor would actually protect the character within it.

So what do I want in art? Two things.
First: I want honesty. Don't dress up titillation with vain attempts to be realistic. If your goal is sexy, be honest about it and go for it. I am an artist, my fiance is an artist, and most of all: I'm not a horny idiot. I'd wager that given the number-crunching and RP aspects of D&D, most players, hormones aside, are pretty intelligent folks.
Second: I want believable fantasy. This sounds contradictory but let me explain. My suspension of disbelief is already in hyperdrive once the first Fireball flies off my Wizard's fingertips, why can I accept this? Because the game has established that such magical feats are perfectly reasonable things for someone trained in the arcane arts to do. There's a certain "fantasy logic" to this, the Wizard can't immediately bend reality on his first day because magic takes training and education to master.

For me, the same applies to my non-magic armored friends. The fighter can fight in that ridiculously bulky armor made of stone, the armor can be covered in spikes, it can be trimmed and shaped to their womanly figure, because the game says this fighter has trained and mastered the art of fighting in this type of armor.

So you ask me: do I care what armor is like? I do. But that level of care depends on the context. LOTR, which seems to be a starring example of D&D to a lot of people, the main cast didn't really don more than in 3e terms, padded cloth, until Helm's Deep, when they got to raid Theodin's armory for gear.

I don't know if you are one of the folks that care about this stuff. If you are, then I'm sure you can appreciate what I'm trying to do. If you aren't, then enjoy playing your game and visualizing your characters in a manner that works best for you. Your character and your game are yours! Enjoy them!

Regardless of how characters are presented in the book, I have always visualized my character as I please. I care about how my character looks....to the extent that I am not over-analyzing the subject. Why should I worry about how well my character will hold up against mounted calvary on the fields of Waterloo? I'm not trying to simulate that battle and I'm certain there are perfectly acceptable systems for doing so, D&D is not one of them.

Some more examples so you can perhaps, get a feel for my taste.

Perfectly acceptable fantasy realism.

Oh it's very anime, but the kernel of realism remains, with a fantastical styling.

I could practically picture this guy in some historical battle, but lets face it, it's pretty darn realistic, but it's still got a very solid element of fantasy.

Alright, we've got a little cheese here with the thrust-forward chest and the cleavage-revealing breastplate, but the rest of the image is "believable fantasy" enough as to get me to overlook that. It's good design all over and it's primary goal is to be more functional than sexy. It is not sex wrapped up in a fake attempt at realism. It is realism with a little added sex appeal. I could buy this for most fantasy settings.

To the converse, we have good art, fairly good design, but the artist just had to go for that severely twisted body pose to show off the T&A and hey, we've even got a chain-mail bikini shot! This kind of appearance I would not find believable for my fantasy games.

Here we have, finally, perhaps one of my favorite images when it comes to realistic fantasy armor. I could conceivably see this standing on a shelf in some historical museum, but it's also quite fantastical, the tower sheild, the claymore-sized sword, the feminine-shaped curves to it. This is probably my ideal blend of fantasy and reality, somewhere along these lines or the Aegis Angel before.

And we always have the fantastic design of this version of Serra Angel, which like Jenara, captures best how I feel reality and fantasy should merge into one unique, original whole within the scope of D&D.

I am not opposed to a little cheese, but cheese is only a side-dish to the main course, which is fantastic realism. Not in the skimpy succubus as in your art column, but something that I could honestly say "I would believe someone could wear that", but is still clearly fantastical. I care about what the armor looks like within a context and within reason. And I hope to some extent, my selection of imagery gives you a better idea of what I define as "fantastic" and "realism".

FYI: I used mostly MTG angels because it's one of the few times women in MTG put on clothes. >.<