D&D General Art in D&D

[dave2008]

Her right arm is slightly thick at the mid area.

And i wasnt actually even trying ti say the art was spectacular or "fine" art. But its anatomically more competant than 5e on average.

Its less things that this picture has happening and more things this picture DOESNT have happening actually. For instance, the limbs actually look about the right size in relation to eachother. A massive amount of the time with characters that arent supposed to be at all far off from human, 5e will get that wrong. Youll get cartoon body proportions that just look weird. Ive never seen 3e and earlier do that with character at all often unless saod characters arent meant to be particularly close to human.

I guess I just disagree. Do you have an example of what your talking about? I don't typically analyze each piece of art (in any edition), but nothing in general stands out as being overtly anatomically incorrect in 5e humanoid art (except halflings of course).

 

[Son of the Serpent]

A couple of thoughts:

1. Your comparing a non-average piece (this was a cover if I remember correctly) to an average. Not apples to apples.
2. As an amateur artist who has taken a fair bit of art classes I disagree that the technical skill is far greater than 5e art. To my eye it is on par at best. For me the character is very stilted and unnaturally posed. I don't see this in a lot of 5e art. There will always be exceptions, but this seems average, or lower, to me in that department.
3. The anatomy is no better or worse than 5e art for humans IMO. I personally can't think of 5e human art that has less then this level of anatomical skill. There may be some, but it is certainly not the average.
4. Halflings: people don't like the anatomy of 5e halflings, but that has not, IME, infected the rest of the 5e art.

1. Fair point. But the average prior to 4e and 5e i believe to be closer to that cover than 4e and 5e's average tends to be. You are correct though. Hadnt considered that.

2. Unnatural pose. I agree with that. Anatomical correctness, i still think its closer to that. Wooden though it may be (and it is wooden).

3. At some point ill find some of the johnny bravo looking humans and post a few. Or at least one. One that comes to mind right now is a character im pretty sure was intended to be portrayed as roughly a fighter.

4. I think we can safely say that halflings, gnomes, and actually half orcs all have a reduced capacity to qualify for this issue so no problem there.

Side note, the tails of the tieflings lately...what on earth is wotc thinking? Theres serious problems there.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I guess I just disagree. Do you have an example of what your talking about? I don't typically analysis each piece of art (in any edition), but nothing in general stands out as being overtly anatomically incorrect in 5e humanoid art (except halflings of course).

ill getcha a picture of the fighter. Hopefully later today.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Further side note:

There are several taled races I LOVE playing. The issue isnt that there is a tale. The issue is that the way those tails are should never have issued forth from the paint brush.

 

[The Glen]

Yeah. Honestly thats not what i assumed the imp was doing either.
I think maybe someone was projecting.

Just going off my knowledge of art Direction it looks like they told him to add an imp to the piece and he took a picture of a monkey and converted that. Judging by the pose of the m and the fact that it's popping out of cheeks it does have a strong South American monkey vibe. Rotoscoping existing images is a rather common practice

 

[dave2008]

ill getcha a picture of the fighter. Hopefully later today.

Great, but to be clear a picture or two out of thousands doesn't make a trend. That being said I am really curious about the picture your referencing.

Side Note: RL humans do have quire a variety in anatomy. My son is 6-3 and I am 5-10.5, yet our legs are virtually the same length and he has a much longer torso. His friend ****(name removed) is 6-4, 260 lbs and has the head of someone who is 8' tall! (EDIT: to clarify, he is big man with an oversized head). Also, Look at Michael Phelps for some bizarre anatomy. I guess what I am saying is there is quire a range in human anatomy as is, what is your starting point for the 'correct' humanoid anatomy?

 

[MGibster]

Personally, I hold myself as the gold standard of human anatomy by which I judge all you mortals.

 

[Tazawa]

I loved that piece when it came out in the 2nd edition Player’s Handbook...

Until I noticed that the fighter’s left leg was completely fubar. Look at the alignment of the knee and foot—anatomically impossible. Once I saw it, I couldn’t unsee it. Ruined a very evocative piece of art for me.

Looking at it again, it would have been just as evocative if the fighter didn’t show so much leg and have a bare midriff.

 

[Oofta]

I loved that piece when it came out in the 2nd edition Player’s Handbook...

Until I noticed that the fighter’s left leg was completely fubar. Look at the alignment of the knee and foot—anatomically impossible. Once I saw it, I couldn’t unsee it. Ruined a very evocative piece of art for me.

Looking at it again, it would have been just as evocative if the fighter didn’t show so much leg and have a bare midriff.

D'oh! Now I can't unsee it.

 

[dave2008]

I loved that piece when it came out in the 2nd edition Player’s Handbook...

Until I noticed that the fighter’s left leg was completely fubar. Look at the alignment of the knee and foot—anatomically impossible. Once I saw it, I couldn’t unsee it. Ruined a very evocative piece of art for me.

Looking at it again, it would have been just as evocative if the fighter didn’t show so much leg and have a bare midriff.

Ouch! I just tried to stand like that and I concur - anatomically impossible for me!