New Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide Art and Details Revealed

The marketing cycle for the 2024 Dungeon Master's Guide is underway. Wizards of the Coast has released the first video and accompanying article previewing the 2024 Dungeon Master's Guide. Wizards has already told fans what's actually in the new 2024 Dungeon Master's Guide, so there's not much in terms of actual new details. The video/article revealed that the Bastion system got another look from designers after its initial Unearthed Arcana playtest, that there will be a DM's Toolkit for everything from "alignment to traps," now arranged in alphabetical order, and that there will be 400 "new and improved" magic items.

The 2024 Dungeon Master's Guide will also be the home of rules for crafting magic items and a new Greyhawk campaign setting guide, with a focus on showcasing how Greyhawk can be customized or be used as a model for homemade campaign settings. Finally, the Dungeon Master's Guide will contain a lore glossary and a full chapter about D&D cosmology, the latter of which helps to drive home the idea of the D&D multiverse.


While much of this information was already known, the video and article did show off a LOT of new art, some of which can be found below:

magic-items-and-crafting.jpg


whats-new-in-the-dungeon-masters-guide.jpg
handouts.jpg
greyhawk.png
lore.jpg


bobby.jpeg
planes.jpeg
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Christian Hoffer

Christian Hoffer

You didn't say "the goofy dragonborn having a casual conversation with two people, neither of whom appears to be listening to a word he's saying. " :unsure:
I did...I don't think the dragonborn staring at its fingernails is having a conversation with anyone? Also not as goofy looking. 😉
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Cool, but you responded to my post and that isn't the illustration I was referring to.

ETA: Looking at it again, the white-haired woman (?) appears to be paying attention to the dragonborn, probably. The purple-haired person appears to be pointing at the dragonborn but looking at something out of frame. The beholder is, of course, looking at everything, but I don't know if it's participating in the conversation, lurking, or terrified by the same thing that's bothering the purple-haired person. They have very similar expressions. 😂


View attachment 381546
The Rogue is looking at the Dragonborn Battlemaster, they seem to be arguing with each other animatedly unawares of what is sneaking up on them.

This picture is great??
 

I did...I don't think the dragonborn staring at its fingernails is having a conversation with anyone? Also not as goofy looking. 😉
Nah, I see it as the bard handing him a "magic stick" and the dragonborn is still trying to figure out what makes it magic. ;)
 

The Rogue is looking at the Dragonborn Battlemaster, they seem to be arguing with each other animatedly unawares of what is sneaking up on them.

This picture is great??
I think you have looked at the page layout or something, because you clearly have access to context that I don't. I'm trying to see how the purple-haired person is looking at the dragonborn, and...to my eyes, they're very clearly looking at something out of frame, not the dragonborn. If they had been looking at the dragonborn, looking up and back, we likely wouldn't see much of their face.

But it's not worth arguing about. I don't share your admiration for the piece, but that's okay. The illustrator is clearly very talented.
 

I think you have looked at the page layout or something, because you clearly have access to context that I don't. I'm trying to see how the purple-haired person is looking at the dragonborn, and...to my eyes, they're very clearly looking at something out of frame, not the dragonborn. If they had been looking at the dragonborn, looking up and back, we likely wouldn't see much of their face.

But it's not worth arguing about. I don't share your admiration for the piece, but that's okay. The illustrator is clearly very talented.
Nooooo, it is clear as-is. They are walking along, the Battlemaster and the Rogue are arguing heartedly and looking sideways at each other, and the Paladin is looking on with anger.
 



@Greg Benage I really don't get the laugh, the Dragonborn is looking at the Rogue, and she is looking at him...? The eyelije is quite clear?
My apologies, I assumed you were messing with me--insisting that the purple-haired person is looking sideways at the dragonborn, when we can see her eye, see where it's pointed, and see that it's clearly not directed at the dragonborn, and then adding more detail on the character classes (this time the "paladin") that isn't at all evident in the illustration. Could be, works for me, but I don't see any of the class trappings you do. I mean, the "rogue" is wearing a hooded cloak and gloves...I guess that's sorta roguish. The "battlemaster" doesn't have any armor, but he does have a sword and quiver. The "paladin" appears to be dressed like a serving wench, though that's probably not the preferred nomenclature.

To make this more relevant to my overall criticism of some of the art, I'd love to see the illustration description for this piece. I want illustration that's evocative. If it's a setting, it makes me think "I want to explore that place." If it's a character, it makes me think "I want to play a character like that." If it's action, "I want to do that." To ME, this is a technically proficient (unless the "rogue" is supposed to be looking at the dragonborn) illustration that evokes nothing. There's nothing that makes me want to explore this place, nothing that makes me want to play these characters, nothing that makes me want to do whatever they're doing. The beholder is cool. Maybe it will disintegrate them. 😉
 

My apologies, I assumed you were messing with me--insisting that the purple-haired person is looking sideways at the dragonborn, when we can see her eye, see where it's pointed, and see that it's clearly not directed at the dragonborn, and then adding more detail on the character classes (this time the "paladin") that isn't at all evident in the illustration. Could be, works for me, but I don't see any of the class trappings you do. I mean, the "rogue" is wearing a hooded cloak and gloves...I guess that's sorta roguish. The "battlemaster" doesn't have any armor, but he does have a sword and quiver. The "paladin" appears to be dressed like a serving wench, though that's probably not the preferred nomenclature.
This is the Devotion Paladin, the Battlemaster Fighter, and the general Rogue from the PHB having an atgument, they seem to be reusing the PHB iconics in group shots for the DMG:

Screenshot_20240709_224343_YouTube.jpg
Screenshot_20240620_174447_YouTube.jpg
Screenshot_20240709_225809_YouTube (1).jpg


And yes, the Halfling Rogue is clearly looking at the Battlemaster.

To make this more relevant to my overall criticism of some of the art, I'd love to see the illustration description for this piece. I want illustration that's evocative. If it's a setting, it makes me think "I want to explore that place." If it's a character, it makes me think "I want to play a character like that." If it's action, "I want to do that." To ME, this is a technically proficient (unless the "rogue" is supposed to be looking at the dragonborn) illustration that evokes nothing. There's nothing that makes me want to explore this place, nothing that makes me want to play these characters, nothing that makes me want to do whatever they're doing. The beholder is cool. Maybe it will disintegrate them. 😉

Given the context, the Beholder aka DM seems to be the viewpoint here. The DMG art seems to be from the DM POV, by and large.

This is very 2E-esque to me in terms of being evocative, which is good.
 

Not as much a fan of the dragonborn, but the paladin and rogue are much more evocative in these illustrations. Makes me even more dissatisfied with what was done with them in the piece under dispute.

I'll stop arguing about the rest. 😉
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top