D&D General D&D Art across the editions

[Sacrosanct]

5e is hit or miss with me. And based on the artist. Some of the art I think is exceptional. And other art by another artist I think is atrocious, especially for the biggest name in RPGs.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The only art that is bad in 5e is some technically lacking pieces where the anatomy is pretty bad.

The half-elf with oddball eye proportions, the bard IIRC is wonky in some way, the Gnome Ranger’s head looks like it goes straight back from the hairline instead of having a domed curve like a head should, etc.

Other than that, at worst you get “not quite top tier fantasy art”.

 

[dave2008]

5e is hit or miss with me. And based on the artist.

That is pretty true of any edition for me, and doing this little exercise only reinforced that opinion.

Some of the art I think is exceptional. And other art by another artist I think is atrocious, especially for the biggest name in RPGs.

Atrocious seems like a strong word to me (but I'm a pretty tolerant person). What art, in any edition do you consider atrocious? The only thing i can think that might garner such a reaction in 5e is the halfling design. I say design because I actually think most of the halfling art is pretty good, it just has the goofy bobble head / needle leg design.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That is pretty true of any edition for me, and doing this little exercise only reinforced that opinion.

Atrocious seems like a strong word to me (but I'm a pretty tolerant person). What art, in any edition do you consider atrocious? The only thing i can think that might garner such a reaction in 5e is the halfling design. I say design because I actually think most of the halfling art is pretty good, it just has the goofy bobble head / needle leg design.

Obviously it’s subjective, and certain things are really off putting that might not be to others. Like Brussel sprouts. Or Nickleback.

But the artist who did the halfling (and half orc and warlock)? I find it awful.

as for other editions, I found the interior art in the 2e black reprints to be equally horrible, and several 3e illios to be really bad as well. There’s one in particular about an elf I believe walking up stairs towards you that was truly wtf

 

[oreofox]

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.

I don't know what the 2e art looks like for Pathfinder, but for their 1e art, they commissioned a lot of great artists all over deviantart to create many of the images used in their books (that isn't something from WAR). As for 5e, they seemed to have taken everything from 1 artist (conceptopolis) for all 3 of their core books. Calling it "hot garbage" might be a bit extreme, but they are that visually unappealing to me. That is not knocking their talent, because they are very talented. It's their visual style they go for that turns me off, and makes me think "hot garbage".

The biggest offenses to my eyes are the giants, gnolls, svirfneblin (doesn't even look like a gnome), lycanthropes (though the half-page image where Gaston from Beauty and the Beast is fighting a werewolf isn't bad), and just so much else in the MM. Flipping through the pages makes me wish they would have just not used art. Then there's the halflings with giant heads and baby feet in the PHB. WotC has access to numerous amazing artists they can pull from (just look at the art on numerous Magic cards), and yet they decided to... Ok, apparently they went with more artists than I originally thought (looks like close to 60?), though so many look to be from one person. I know The other artists could have contributed only a single image, but that doesn't seem like something WotC would do.

Still, the majority of 5e art that isn't a full-page or half-page image, hasn't been appealing to my eyes. There are, however, quite a few images in the PHB that I like.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

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.

Yeah no idea how you decide PF1 has better art than 5e... many of the covers have their own distinct style that's pretty consistent, but I wouldn't say it's better. Also, PF's page layout is more reminiscent of unofficial content that 5e.

 

[dave2008]

I don't know what the 2e art looks like for Pathfinder, but for their 1e art, they commissioned a lot of great artists all over deviantart to create many of the images used in their books (that isn't something from WAR). As for 5e, they seemed to have taken everything from 1 artist (conceptopolis) for all 3 of their core books. Calling it "hot garbage" might be a bit extreme, but they are that visually unappealing to me. That is not knocking their talent, because they are very talented. It's their visual style they go for that turns me off, and makes me think "hot garbage".

The biggest offenses to my eyes are the giants, gnolls, svirfneblin (doesn't even look like a gnome), lycanthropes (though the half-page image where Gaston from Beauty and the Beast is fighting a werewolf isn't bad), and just so much else in the MM. Flipping through the pages makes me wish they would have just not used art. Then there's the halflings with giant heads and baby feet in the PHB. WotC has access to numerous amazing artists they can pull from (just look at the art on numerous Magic cards), and yet they decided to... Ok, apparently they went with more artists than I originally thought (looks like close to 60?), though so many look to be from one person. I know The other artists could have contributed only a single image, but that doesn't seem like something WotC would do.

Still, the majority of 5e art that isn't a full-page or half-page image, hasn't been appealing to my eyes. There are, however, quite a few images in the PHB that I like.

What do you think of the images posted in this thread? Of all the editions I think 5e as the best art represented in the full page spreads. Also, i think the red dragon image is the best and the storm giant is on par with 1e IMO (as the 2 best). I also really like the carrion crawler and the pit fiend is acceptable. I prefer the 3e minotaur the best and probably the 1e or 3e pit fiend (really don't like the painterly style of the 5e one). I also think the 5e medusa is the best though the 1e image reminds me a Clash of the Titans.

I guess I can understand not liking certain pieces and that turning me off to an "edition" of art, but this projects has pretty much convinced me that 5e has the best art of any edition. I mean it is right here in this post PHB, DMG, & MM. I didn't know what the result would be when I started this and I was honestly surprised how much better, IMO, the 5e art was than the previous editions.

However, what is has also made me realize is that some of the best art of previous editions was not in the core books.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What do you think of the images posted in this thread? Of all the editions I think 5e as the best art represented in the full page spreads. Also, i think the red dragon image is the best and the storm giant is on par with 1e IMO (as the 2 best). I also really like the carrion crawler and the pit fiend is acceptable. I prefer the 3e minotaur the best and probably the 1e or 3e pit fiend (really don't like the painterly style of the 5e one). I also think the 5e medusa is the best though the 1e image reminds me a Clash of the Titans.

I guess I can understand not liking certain pieces and that turning me off to an "edition" of art, but this projects has pretty much convinced me that 5e has the best art of any edition. I mean it is right here in this post PHB, DMG, & MM. I didn't know what the result would be when I started this and I was honestly surprised how much better, IMO, the 5e art was than the previous editions.

However, what is has also made me realize is that some of the best art of previous editions was not in the core books.

The best 4e art was definatey post PHB1.

 

[happyhermit]

I don't know pathfinder all that well (never really enjoyed 3.x in general) but I always heard so much love for the art that I wanted to appreciate it, yet it just doesn't work for me most of the time. I think this is a good example of where I can see it's quality art, somebody spent a lot of time and effort on it, but I just don't really want to look at it. That probably sounds harsher than the reality.

It kind of reminds me of Rob Liefeld's art in a way (not visually) where there are a bunch of recurring elements: Anime-esque (I love a lot of anime) hair-as-weapon, spikes just all over the place in general, pieces of fabric flowing downward (typical character might have 6 belts?), tattered fabric so much tattered fabric. When looking at one piece, it doesn't ignite my soul or anything, but I don't hate it, however after the 10th piece...

 

[Green Onceler]

Man the 5e PHB is under appreciated.

I like 5e's art in general, but I hate the Player's Handbook. Too bright and garish. All that red and orange is painful to look at.

I think the Elmore BECMI covers are probably the pinnacle for me - could be nostalgia, I guess, but I just love those covers (except maybe the "I" cover.).