D&D 5E (2014) D&D Next Art Column Discussion: May

[Klaus]

Silhouette is very chimp, though. Check out those limb proportions!

Simians are still not a bad place to look for goblin looks, though. You can go chimpy without mimicking Pathfinder goblins, probably.

Here's an example of what I mean when I say chimp-inspired goblins:

Snow Goblin, for 3.5E's Frostburn, by Jeremy Jarvis

 

[Klaus]

In later editions, almost all (if not all) the pictures are either someone posing or someone fighting. How about sitting around a fire, camped in a dark shadowy wood. The good old fashioned street market. King's court?

From the 4e DMG, the chapter opener for the Fallcrest section:

[sblock]

[/sblock]

 

[Hussar]

Something I've come to realize with these art threads is that a lot of the "this edition is all X" type opinions really don't carry a lot of water. Sure, there were atmospheric pics in the 1e books. Totally agree. OTOH, there's a ton of static portrait style shots in the Basic/Expert books. So, it's not like anything's really changed all that much.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Here's an example of what I mean when I say chimp-inspired goblins:

Yeah, that doesn't look like PF goblins very much.

And I like the image, I just wish it was a scene rather than a figure.

 

[steeldragons]

From the 4e DMG, the chapter opener for the Fallcrest section:

[sblock]

[/sblock]

Something I've come to realize with these art threads is that a lot of the "this edition is all X" type opinions really don't carry a lot of water. Sure, there were atmospheric pics in the 1e books. Totally agree. OTOH, there's a ton of static portrait style shots in the Basic/Expert books. So, it's not like anything's really changed all that much.

Now, see...to me, this Fallcrest page presented (in significantly more detail and color) is the same as the Red Box Basic image by Elmore of characters in a marketplace. Different, more dramatic angle...and, as I said, more detail and the color don't hurt! But the "mood"...the "feel" is just as evocative...

[Apologies. I looked through every picture Google Images had for "Basic D&D Elmore" and it wasn't there. But I trust at least some of you readers know which image I'm tawkin' about.]

Yeah, that doesn't look like PF goblins very much.

And I like the image, I just wish it was a scene rather than a figure.

On this, my esteemed ENworld colleague, we heartily agree.
--SD

 

[Doug McCrae]

The problem is that D&D simply has too many poorly-differentiated monsters.

D&D has too many monsters, period. It also has too many fights. And dungeons are stupid. These three facts are connected.

 

[Hussar]

D&D has too many monsters, period. It also has too many fights. And dungeons are stupid. These three facts are connected.

Oy, I like dungeons. And fights. And, heck, I like lots of monsters too.

I think that the popularity of 3e is a pretty strong indicator that the whole "back to the dungeon" thing was a pretty good idea.

 

[Sunseeker]

D&D has too many monsters, period. It also has too many fights. And dungeons are stupid. These three facts are connected.

Only if you like "traditional" monsters...then you probably also think D&D has too many races, too many classes, and too many other things that aren't "traditional".

D&D only has too many fights if your DM runs that kind of game. I suspect that if you don't like that kind of game, your games probably have just the right amount of fights.

If dungeons are stupid, I think the product needs a name change.

Based on your preferences, how about "Politics & Dragons?"

All the excitement!
All the danger!
None of the combat!
Only ONE monster!
Just think, we could spend sessions debating Kenysian vs Austrain Economics, my 14th level Elf-Wizard/Socialist vs your 15th level Dragon-Sorcerer/Fighter/New Labor!

 

[Libramarian]

I think if a group of adventurers is walking around town being obvious about who they are, the townsfolk should be more likely to cower in their homes rather than run out trying to sell them things.

I'm not going to shove my cupcakes into the face of someone who has made their fortune slaying supernatural monsters.

I'd like to see townsfolk treat adventurers more like...a billionaire Mexican drug lord going out for a stroll. Rather than thinking "oooh wealthy tourists!"

(referring to the Fallcrest piece)

 

[Sunseeker]

I think if a group of adventurers is walking around town being obvious about who they are, the townsfolk should be more likely to cower in their homes rather than run out trying to sell them things.

I'm not going to shove my cupcakes into the face of someone who has made their fortune slaying supernatural monsters.

I'd like to see townsfolk treat adventurers more like...a billionaire Mexican drug lord going out for a stroll. Rather than thinking "oooh wealthy tourists!"

(referring to the Fallcrest piece)

I dunno, I think it depends on the party. Some parties likely have a reputation for violence and a short temper. Some parties likely have a reputation for throwing money at every beggar in town.

I think the "nice, wealthy hero" trope and the "dangerous, gritty monster-killer" are both valid, but for different party makeups. A party with a Paladin, a Knight, a Cleric, and a Druid are likely to be the former, while a party of a Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, and Warlock are likely to be the latter.