D&D 5E The 5E Art is Awesome
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
Sword of Spirit
Legend
I'm liking the art. I'm especially liking the fact that it isn't all stylistically the same. For a good example, take the tapestry piece in the PHB fighter class section. There is nothing else like that in any of the core books, but it feels perfectly at home right there by itself saying, "Hey, I belong too!"
Every time I turned a page I knew that I didn't know what to expect the next piece of art to look like--and that is a great feeling!
Every time I turned a page I knew that I didn't know what to expect the next piece of art to look like--and that is a great feeling!
Gundan Shadeslinger
First Post
These are the types of D&D art I enjoy. There are a few pictures in 5th edition I like but overall I am not impressed with the art at all. In my opinion, it looks very cheap.
Queer Venger
Dungeon Master is my Daddy
IMO 5e has given us the best artwork of any edition and nearly any fantasy rpg. The PHB is a work of art, and while the halfling on p. 26 is not my favorite in the book, turning to p. 120 gives us something worthy of the race. Even the halfing on p. 132 and in particular on p. 176 are excellent IMO. I love that 5e is veering away from chain mail bikini clad females and giving us more realistic views of fantasy (PHB p. 29). At the same time it still tries to be sexy without exploitive (p. 67). Compared to past editions, 5e is a win for me. While I love Reynolds and the beauty of PF, I like that PHB went a different way, by giving us art from many different artists, and that not splat focused-- that is inspiring of the worlds of D&D and take us back to classic sword and sorcery and high fantasy.
Now, the MM, that is absolutely the best monster book Ive seen for any rpg so far. That book can easily be taken apart and each monster page can be framed and put on a wall.
Now, the MM, that is absolutely the best monster book Ive seen for any rpg so far. That book can easily be taken apart and each monster page can be framed and put on a wall.
Last edited:
Salamandyr
Adventurer
The art needs more violent human men doing violent things, with swords...lots and lots of swords. With lots of mighty thews.
The art ranges, with the exception of one artist, from competent to exceptional. However, the art direction is abysmal.
The art ranges, with the exception of one artist, from competent to exceptional. However, the art direction is abysmal.
redrick
First Post
When I got my 5e DMG, my girlfriend went through and stick-noted every boob/thigh/stomach cutout, as well as any other art that read "creepy male gaze" to her. Not a ton, but enough to make me feel a little sheepish and defensive. One thing we noticed was that, while protagonists had generally found a lot more clothing, the many of the female villains still wound up in something closer to fetish gear. I said, "this may be true, but you have to see it in the context of fantasy art over the last 40 years."
I recently pulled out my 2e PHB and realized that, actually, while there are 3 pieces of artwork that feel very much like "fantasy pin-up" (a wood nymph or dryad, the small naked woman with a tail kneeling before the grinning old wizard, and the monster with a tiny bikini and a long piece of cloth dangling between her uncovered splayed legs), most of the women shown are wearing real armor, without boob plates or cut-outs. I think the 5e artwork probably excels in that it more frequently features women of the various classes and races, whereas I feel like most of the women in the 2e book were part of ensembles. The binding for me 2e PHB is falling apart, so I'm afraid to open it more than I have to to get more detail. The 5e book definitely blows the 2e book away on racial diversity, but, stylistically, I have to admit that I like the 2e book much better. There is, however, a lot less art than the 5e book.
Overall, I like some of the 5e art a lot. I have to echo what others have said here, in that I prefer the DMG and Monster Manual art to the PHB art. There are some great pieces in there, and the diversity of characters represented is incredibly useful for my game, but a lot of the portraits are a little bland, and there are some real stinkers. I also really hate the downtime group shot around the campfire that some people seem to really like. It feels to me like a posed photograph that's meant to appear candid. Everybody is in the middle of some sort of action, but none of those actions seem to be related in anyway. The wizard is in the middle of saying something, but there's no indication that anybody is listening to him. One person is asleep. One person is warming her hands at the fire. And one person is staring straight into the 4th wall. Actually, it's a lot like the first 30 minutes of a D&D game with a new group of people. Maybe there's more to that picture than I gave it credit.
I generally dislike all the covers. They feel very GENERIC FANTASY ACTION!! in the way that always made me embarrassed to read my fantasy books in public as a kid. And the warlock or wizard on the front of the PHB is doing a very cheesy "show-off-the-legs" pose that feels pretty unnatural and something you'd never see a male character do in fantasy artwork.
I love the inside cover of the PHB. I love the 2 Turami fighters and the wizard. The warlock is great. I like the "characters identify items" piece and the woman in copper or bronze plate further on in that section. The non-portrait art tends to be very evocative. I'm digging that owl. While I can't remember much off the top of my head for the MM and the DMG, I remember seeing the Baba Yaga's hut piece from the DMG and thinking, "that's awesome."
So, it's a mixed bag. Some good stuff, some real stinkers. A little more consistency would have been nice. On the other hand, I love the way the art direction takes advantage of backgrounds, decorative items and sketches. And I think the overall consistency goes way up for the DMG and MM.
I recently pulled out my 2e PHB and realized that, actually, while there are 3 pieces of artwork that feel very much like "fantasy pin-up" (a wood nymph or dryad, the small naked woman with a tail kneeling before the grinning old wizard, and the monster with a tiny bikini and a long piece of cloth dangling between her uncovered splayed legs), most of the women shown are wearing real armor, without boob plates or cut-outs. I think the 5e artwork probably excels in that it more frequently features women of the various classes and races, whereas I feel like most of the women in the 2e book were part of ensembles. The binding for me 2e PHB is falling apart, so I'm afraid to open it more than I have to to get more detail. The 5e book definitely blows the 2e book away on racial diversity, but, stylistically, I have to admit that I like the 2e book much better. There is, however, a lot less art than the 5e book.
Overall, I like some of the 5e art a lot. I have to echo what others have said here, in that I prefer the DMG and Monster Manual art to the PHB art. There are some great pieces in there, and the diversity of characters represented is incredibly useful for my game, but a lot of the portraits are a little bland, and there are some real stinkers. I also really hate the downtime group shot around the campfire that some people seem to really like. It feels to me like a posed photograph that's meant to appear candid. Everybody is in the middle of some sort of action, but none of those actions seem to be related in anyway. The wizard is in the middle of saying something, but there's no indication that anybody is listening to him. One person is asleep. One person is warming her hands at the fire. And one person is staring straight into the 4th wall. Actually, it's a lot like the first 30 minutes of a D&D game with a new group of people. Maybe there's more to that picture than I gave it credit.
I generally dislike all the covers. They feel very GENERIC FANTASY ACTION!! in the way that always made me embarrassed to read my fantasy books in public as a kid. And the warlock or wizard on the front of the PHB is doing a very cheesy "show-off-the-legs" pose that feels pretty unnatural and something you'd never see a male character do in fantasy artwork.
I love the inside cover of the PHB. I love the 2 Turami fighters and the wizard. The warlock is great. I like the "characters identify items" piece and the woman in copper or bronze plate further on in that section. The non-portrait art tends to be very evocative. I'm digging that owl. While I can't remember much off the top of my head for the MM and the DMG, I remember seeing the Baba Yaga's hut piece from the DMG and thinking, "that's awesome."
So, it's a mixed bag. Some good stuff, some real stinkers. A little more consistency would have been nice. On the other hand, I love the way the art direction takes advantage of backgrounds, decorative items and sketches. And I think the overall consistency goes way up for the DMG and MM.
Jefe Bergenstein
Legend
better than the crazy dreadlock halflings of 4e IMO
Over all, I am really liking the 5e art. Its not the "Bondage Gear" look of 3.x, nor is it the "ACTIONALLTHETIMEADHDD&DSQUIRREL!1" art of 4e/Pathfinder.
Of the WoTC editions, its probably my favorite. None of it stands out as to what I see as D&D still though.
That is still D&D to me. Nothing by WoTC has come close to inspiring as this one simple piece of art.
I love that painting! It's a great scenic moment that emphasis the rewards of teamwork. Plus the twisted side of my mind reads it that a party of Neutral/Evil aligned characters ganged up and killed a gold dragon wyrmling.
Jefe Bergenstein
Legend
Get an axe! Kill em with fire and salt the bones!
We're playing 5th edition in Golarion (the pathfinder world) and halflings are commonly enslaved and discriminated against. My wife plays a halfling rogue and whenever she complains about someone shoving her aside with an "Out of the way, peck!" or has to pretend to be a slave in Cheliax, we taunt her with those. THAT's why your race is hated - because they're gross.
The rest of the art is pretty great, but 5E halflings are the utter worst.
Jester David
Hero
This statement is pretty emblematic of responses to the art in the book. 85-odd noteworthy pieces of art in the book and all everyone can talk about is the five they don't like, the 6% of the artwork that isn't as good...
(Nothing personal though [MENTION=31506]ehren37[/MENTION], you just voiced the oft repeated sentiment most recently after I counted the pieces of art.)
Similar Threads
