D&D General D&D Art across the editions

[Parmandur]

One thing that strikes me at this point is that the edition I started with and should have nostalgia goggles for, 3.x, doesn't do anything for me compared to every other editions art.

 

[cbwjm]

One thing that strikes me at this point is that the edition I started with and should have nostalgia goggles for, 3.x, doesn't do anything for me compared to every other editions art.

Towards the end of 3e, with all of those books, I felt the quality of the art went far downhill.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

One thing that strikes me at this point is that the edition I started with and should have nostalgia goggles for, 3.x, doesn't do anything for me compared to every other editions art.

Yeah I wasn’t that into DnD art in 2e (where I began) or 3/.5e art.

4e worked for me, especially as the edition progressed.

I did love the old Dragonlance art, though.

 

[Hussar]

Towards the end of 3e, with all of those books, I felt the quality of the art went far downhill.

Now, that I'll disagree with. 3e art towards the end of the run improved immensely. Things like Tome of Magic were just GORGEOUS books. They really, really stepped up their art game in the tail end of 3.5.

 

[dave2008]

Now, that I'll disagree with. 3e art towards the end of the run improved immensely. Things like Tome of Magic were just GORGEOUS books. They really, really stepped up their art game in the tail end of 3.5.

Ok, you made me curious so I checked out the Tome of Magic. After a quick review I'm not see it personally. It is more colorful than the core 3.5e books, but to my eye most of the art seems on the lower end of quality. Was their something in particular that grabbed you (I skimmed it pretty quickly). The cover, IMO, is better than the core books, but otherwise I am not seeing an improvement.

 

[Enrico Poli1]

IMO, 3.x high points for art were FR Campaign Setting, Eberron Campaign Setting, Epic Level Handbook, Deities and Demigods, Tome of Battle... and also Dungeon Magazine at its peak.
(For me, 3.x art was very good, just not comparabile to the peaks of 2e)

Moreover Paizo, with Pathfinder, produced some incredible art. The original Bestiary. Curse of the Crimson Throne, Reign of Winter, Strange Aeons all had fantastic pieces. Thanks Paizo.

 

[dave2008]

I have added the monster art (Beholder, Carrion Crawler, Demon-Balor, Devil-Pit Fiend, Dragon-Red, Giant-Storm, Lich, Medusa, & Minotaur) for each edition to the monster manual post. You get to them through links on the first page on posts 2-6: 5th Edition Art, 4th Edition Art, 3rd Edition Art, 2nd Edition Art, & 1st Edition Art

 

[Sacrosanct]

In summary, Trampier does it best.

 

[oreofox]

I actually liked the 3rd edition core book covers. They made sense to me, as they are handbooks, and should look like books. However, I do enjoy the more full page images of the others, as they are more visually appealing. Except 4e. I did not like a lot of the art from 4e. On another hand, 3e had 2 artists that I absolutely DESPISED seeing their art in a book (Crabapple and England). The former just made such fugly as all heck images, while the latter's non-object art all looked exactly the same: Forward facing with a circle for an open mouth and needle teeth. Rarely was there anything except that pose.

I am one of the strange ones in that I actually enjoy the Pathfinder art, including WAR. A large portion of the 5e art looks like hot garbage, especially the monsters (the ogre is one of the few that I really enjoy). Pathfinder's art looks clean and amazing, IMO.

I have a lot of nostalgia for Dragonlance art, and the black and white artwork with stark black shadows from the AD&D days still makes my heart smile with fondness and memories.

 

[dave2008]

I am one of the strange ones in that I actually enjoy the Pathfinder art, including WAR. A large portion of the 5e art looks like hot garbage, especially the monsters (the ogre is one of the few that I really enjoy). Pathfinder's art looks clean and amazing, IMO.

Based on the art I've posted in this tread the bold comment seems extremely hyperbolic. I am not familiar with PF1 art, but I purchased the PF2e Core Rulebook and Bestiary and have been disappointed with art. The monster art in the bestiary in particular. It is not all bad, but of lesser quality than what I am used to with 5e. However, I don't think I would describe anyone's art as "hot garbage." That type of language seems uninformed or biased IMO.