How do you feel about 3e's art style?

[BiggusGeekus]

I'll be honest, I didn't like Wayne Reynolds' work until I saw the Eberron Campaign Setting cover. That cover inspires frenetic action!

WAR has a habit of paining heroes and villians who kick butt. That works really well for Eberron. It doesn't look so hot for some of his other stuff, but WAR takes what he does and turns it to 11. Exactly what you want for cover art.

 

[Laman Stahros]

My only real problem with 3e art would have to be more of a style problem. Overly skinny characters (Mialee ?!?), the crappy sketch style in the PHB, things like that just drive me nuts. But, I may be just stuck in the past with my favorite drawings by Easley/Caldwell and the like.

 

[Arnwyn]

General dislike, for me.

I'm more of an Easley/Caldwell/Elmore man, myself.

Yes.

 

[Bran Blackbyrd]

1. Do you like the "3E style" of art?
2. Do you like the drawing that "Artist X" did?

Overall, I like the 3E style better than other editions. Nostalgia is nostalgia. I will always look back on the previous editions fondly, but a lot of the art was bad, and the art that wasn't bad was often silly; and not silly in a good way.
3E broke away from some of the silly, sterotypical 1970's "unicorns, goblins, mushrooms and pointy-hatted wizards" junk that pre-3E editions often wallowed in. This new environment doesn't constantly bombard with the silly stereotypes and I think that creates fertile ground for players to come up with ideas that aren't mired down by said stereotypes.

However, that's regarding the overall style of the editions.

Do I like artist X's drawings? If we're talking about Wayne England, Thomas Baxa, Ben Thompson, Donato Giancola, Crabapple, Jim Pavelec, etc. The answer will almost always be: no, No, NO.
DiTerlizzi, Quinton Hoover, Glen Angus, WAR, Vinod Rams, Lockwood, Rebecca Guay, etc. These people almost never fail to please in my book.

Plenty of the drawings since 3E came along have been bad, just as bad as some of the previous editions and there were some very good illustrations before 3E and vice versa. Overall though, I prefer the "style" of 3E.

 

[StalkingBlue]

Most of the artwork in the core rulebooks leaves me cold, it's bland and static to my eye; and I never played earlier editions, so there's no nostalgia factor involved in my case. The frozen postures of the iconics did nothing to ever inspire me to anything, nor did they do anything for any player I ever showed the books to (especially sad for newbies). All that stays in my mind from the core books is the faint impression of how the iconics must have posed interminably for the WotC artists' many-coloured Official Portraits(TM).

I've quite liked the artwork in Mongoose's Conan RPG, and found that of the Midnight books very inspiring. The b&w Midnight illustrations especially are evocative and full of mood and flavour, and the characters usually seem to be caught in mid-movement - what a breath of fresh air after the 'Portraits, Frozen, 256 Colours' of the core rulebooks!

 

[Wombat]

Compared to earlier editions, it is somewhat better.

Compared to fantasy art, it's generally okay, but nothing to write home about.

Compared to art in general, I tend to sigh a lot and head back into my art history books.

 

[DragonLancer]

I don't really like the so called "DungeonPunk" look of the corebooks. I'd much rather have something that looks a little more realistic.

And Elmore is the best artist.

 

[The_Warlock]

I have to say that I've been generally impressed with a large part of the artwork - especially that which came with the initial push of 3E and its attendant d20 following. Sam Wood and Todd Lockwood's work is fantastic, I especially have a fondness for the pencil/monochrome ink work images. I'm not overly fond of Mr. Reynolds works, some are good, others seem like a comic bookish/anime feel (not in actual image, but in energy and layout).

That said, Larry Elmore and Dennis Beauvais are two of my favorite fantasy and sci-fi artists of all time, and works like there's are what made me pick up my first role-playing project. On the other hand, there was a large amount of visual poo in those old modules and books - some poorly done, other just not what I liked. Jeff Easley's art was always a teeter totter for me - sometimes it was everything you wanted in a fantasy piece, other times it turned into grotesque musculature that made you want to download your brain into a computer to get away from your own biology - and I'm not talking about a picture of a monster.

That said, I've seen less artwork in recent books that captures my imagination. Much like the original Dragonlance modules - Larry Elmore's work was central to that visual theme, and it caught my interest - sunddenly on the 5th module they handed it over to someone (I can't remember her name) who made ink drawing that looked murky, spastic and just plain ugly. I barely wanted to read the modules from that point on because the artwork actually distracted and irritated me. So, only finding half of the artwork really to my liking is nothing new to this edition of the game.

The One Warlock

 

[Turanil]

I LOVED Easley's work. Elmore and Parkinson were amazing too.

Speaking of WotC artists, I agree that some of them are as much competent. However, that really sucks IMO, is that medieval-punkish-childish style. I am so tired of it...

 

[Mystery Man]

Art is subjective.


3E are to me is no different better or worse than any other edition. They all have their moments.

I don't like the barfight painting, it's too busy the perspective is whacked, and you can't tell where the floor is.