D&D (2024) 2024 PHB/DMG/MM art/layout: like or dislike?

[beta-ray]

I certainly need to take a closer look (when it is in my hands), but so far I like what I see. I happen to like a lot of art in a book (not that I love every individual piece that I've seen). I like text of course, but not so densely packed. From what I've seen it looks pretty good.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Looks awesome to me.

 

[dave2008]

I can say much about the layout as I don't have the book and we haven't seem anything from the DMG or very little from the MM.

However, I can say that I generally think art has been good to great. There might be an image or two I don't like for one reason or another, but the quality has been top notch and most of it is very impressive and inspiring to me.

 

[dave2008]

Dislike. I wish they spent more time and space focusing on the rules of the game and then put all this fabulous art out in a picture book of some sort.

I have no desire to go back to the wall of text days - no thank you.

 

[Baumi]

I really like the layout from what I have seen. It's easy to find stuff, easy to scan and read,..

Art is mixed for me. I love most of it (consistently good quality!), but overall there is too much high-magic, high-level stuff and many elements to modern day (glasses, hair-cuts, necktie,..). Also not a fan of many of the non-human race depictions, which often looks like normal humans but with glowing eyes or unusual skin-color.

 

[Upper_Krust]

I think the layout and art quality is a vast improvement. I openly disliked the 2014 book which had poor layout and art (IMO), which was far too muted, twee and water-colour-y. This new book is vibrant, the portal style (which I love and am using in my own 5e book) is fantastic, but too much (IMO) of the art still has that twee/safe feel like Y.A. book art. Which sits at odds with someone who grew up with Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer and the Sword & Sorcery art of the 80's.

The current art is non-threatening (just like the rules), as a result it has no edge. It looks fun, yes, but it has lost any sense of danger and peril. Now it might be this is only the theme for the PLAYERS Handbook. With perhaps the DMG and MM having more edgy, dark fantasy illustrations, time will tell - too early to say from the MM art snippets. I do like that D&D has started using full page art in something more than scattershot moments.

But overall I am still on the fence about the PHB and DMG if this is the direction. Will be getting the Monster Manual for certain though.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I really like the layout from what I have seen. It's easy to find stuff, easy to scan and read,..

Art is mixed for me. I love most of it (consistently good quality!), but overall there is too much high-magic, high-level stuff and many elements to modern day (glasses, hair-cuts, necktie,..). Also not a fan of many of the non-human race depictions, which often looks like normal humans but with glowing eyes or unusual skin-color.

This is also my position.

The art is great and a high production value, but it does not represent the fantasy I'm looking for.

So I'm moving on.

 

[Azzy]

From what I've seen, I'm generally favorable to the layout and art. Some of the art is a miss for me, but that's been true of every edition that I've played.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The art and layout hasn't been to my taste since about 2000, so I am an outlier. But that stuff is also not my main priority (I do like when a book hits that out of the park to get the right mood, but it is the rules that matter)

 

[DavyGreenwind]

I've had the book in my hands for a few weeks now, and I say, that the layout is the best it's ever been. I like the art, and I actually don't think it is overwhelming. What I really like is how intentional they were about a subclass fitting on a single page (the majority of them), and pages ending when a subject ends, and the next page beginning with a new subject.

If bright colors bother you, (which is valid), then this PHB probably is not for you.