D&D 4E 4E FRCS Cover: NOOOOOOOOOO!

[Ty]

That's not funny. It's just sad and embarrassing.

Maybe my statement wasn't high class humor no, but it is a tongue-in-cheek acknowledgement that WotC did at least bring some common sense to the artwork for mass audiences no matter who they decided to toss on the cover. At least I didn't post a pic of Baltron's Beacon, 1st Edition DMG, etc.

I'm a 4th Edition pessimist typically but at least they're not falling into the tripe of WoW and video games in their appeals to mass youngish teenage male audiences with scantily clad women.

 

[Traycor]

Well, once they have the final artwork, getting rid of it would be basically tossing money in the garbage, since they already paid for it.

Happens all the time. Often times when they want a detail changed, they just comission a new artist to whip up a whole new piece of art.

Case in point... another artist painted a very similar cover for Grand History, but they replaced it with Todd Lockwood's version. Most likely they didn't know if Lockwood would be available so they had a cover made, then when Lockwood was able to do it they used his.

Basically the old piece of art was wasted since it was a close match to that final cover. Too close to reuse for anything.

 

[Lanefan]

In many ways I consider myself a fan of FR as a setting...except I've no use at all for Drizz't. That character is the worst thing to ever happen to the Ranger class (2-weapon fighting I've always thought of as something high-dex. Thieves should be doing, not clumsy Rangers), and as others have noted there's a scary number of players who for some inexplicable reason want to replicate him as their PC. And for the record, I've had good Drow show up in my games now and then...but not as Rangers. (besides, what does a dark-dwelling Drow know about woodscraft anyway?)

For an FR setting-book cover, I'd prefer to see some nameless-for-now heroes in pitched battle with some high-end enemy...a dragon, maybe, or a beholder...with a suitably iconic scene e.g. Shadowdale village or Waterdeep harbour as the background.

Lanefan

 

[Holy Bovine]

What *really* bothers me about that cover isn't Drizzt (heck, it even could be Elminster), but the fact that FR doesn't have a) it's own design any more, but only its 4E cover design and b) Where's my FR logo? Seemingly, FR doesn't have its own logo any more.

And this will probably apply to Eberron as well. A bit sad, I liked the different cover designs very much, as you could instantly see to which setting a book belongs and conveyed a bit of the feeling of the setting.

Cheers, LT.

I agree with this. I'm a little surprised that the setting books have the same layouts (cover wise) as the modules and rulebooks. If anything should have a different logo/font it should be the setting books. The art itself is quite good - I liked Drizzt back in the day (around 1995ish) but haven't read much about him since.

 

[Holy Bovine]

I'm not sure what everyone is freaking out about. This cover is a piece of art that is several years old. Obviously it isn't going to be the new FR cover. That art was used for the Drizzt mini waaay back.

Here, I'm going to post the mini art, the new art, and then I overlayed the two of them. They are obviously the same picture.

Ah! I missed your post earlier. I wonder if this means they are doing a different font/logo for the setting books. It seems silly, to me, not to.

 

[The Little Raven]

I'm a 4th Edition pessimist typically but at least they're not falling into the tripe of WoW and video games in their appeals to mass youngish teenage male audiences with scantily clad women.

This is where I point out the large amount of cheescake fantasy art that existed well before WoW. Plenty of D&D books with T&A squeezed into inpractical chainmail/plate bikinis.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

This is where I point out the large amount of cheescake fantasy art that existed well before WoW. Plenty of D&D books with T&A squeezed into inpractical chainmail/plate bikinis.

QFT, and twice so.

It's nothing new, AT ALL.

 

[WayneLigon]

That character is the worst thing to ever happen to the Ranger class (2-weapon fighting I've always thought of as something high-dex. Thieves should be doing, not clumsy Rangers) ... (besides, what does a dark-dwelling Drow know about woodscraft anyway?)

I think it's pretty much a case of what you get when you try to model a novel character with a game system, especially a game system that at the time was fairly rigid. "Well, the D&D rules don't allow for a PC to do all these things, so what's the best thing we can come up with? He's both quick and tough and he fights up front and is pretty darn stealthy. He's not going to be in a standard four-party situation so he needs to be able to handle lots of stuff alone. The closest thing we got to that is the ranger. Um, with this other stuff, too."

 

[JoeGKushner]

Not what I would've wanted but I can see why they did it. His popularity factor, his recent anniversary, his numerous graphic novel adaptations, etc....

 

[Aris Dragonborn]

In many ways I consider myself a fan of FR as a setting...except I've no use at all for Drizz't. That character is the worst thing to ever happen to the Ranger class (2-weapon fighting I've always thought of as something high-dex. Thieves should be doing, not clumsy Rangers), and as others have noted there's a scary number of players who for some inexplicable reason want to replicate him as their PC. And for the record, I've had good Drow show up in my games now and then...but not as Rangers. (besides, what does a dark-dwelling Drow know about woodscraft anyway?)

For an FR setting-book cover, I'd prefer to see some nameless-for-now heroes in pitched battle with some high-end enemy...a dragon, maybe, or a beholder...with a suitably iconic scene e.g. Shadowdale village or Waterdeep harbour as the background.

Lanefan

Why do you consider Ranger's clumsy? Considering the fact that they live in the wild, and hunt for food, I would think that they would be skilled in moving quietly and camoflauge. Both skills are dependant on Dex in 3E, so the Ranger should have a mid- to high Dex score to be successful in using these skills.

As to 'what does a dark-dwelling Drow know about woodscraft anyway?', keep in mind that Drizzt was trained first as a fighter, then as the lead scout for patrols in the Underdark. He completed his training as a Ranger when he reached the surface and encountered and old Ranger named Mooshie.

I'm a fan of the Dark Elf books, but there is one thing that I disliked about Drizzt: His influence on the design of the 3E Ranger. Seriously, why only give the Ranger only two combat options (Archery and Two-Weapon Fighting)? There are older examples of Rangers in fantasy, like Aragorn from LotR. Considering the popularity of the first two movies, and the fact that they were in theaters by the time the Revised Edition was released, I'm surprised that WotC hadn't included a single-weapon style for the Ranger. Hell, Ren O' the Blade from Pools of Radiance was a Ranger, and he used a two-handed sword.

I've got no big problems with the artwork on the books, though I think the DM Screen has the best.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

I agree. This was one of the few changes they were supposedly making to appease the audience that didn't like the focus on high level characters. While they did say they weren't going to drop Drizzt, putting one of the posterboys of the very problem they said they were going to address on the cover of the book sends a fairly poor message.

Drizzt is a (IIRC) 17th-level multiclassed ranger, who is mostly active only in the North, with some occasional forays down the Sword Coast.

He is, actually, an example of a high-level NPC who isn't setting-disruptive, nor can really be used as such.

 

[mara]

I KNEW this thread would come when I saw the cover, and yet I'm still amazed that anyone here is unhappy or surprised.

As someone else said, there are more Drizzt fans than roleplayers in the world. Why would WotC not try to take advantage of that? They'd be fools not to.

And, for anyone that already plays, what difference does the cover make, really? It is the contents that matter, not the book cover (again, as someone pointed out earlier).

I just don't understand why it bothers anyone that Drizzt is popular. I've NEVER met someone IRL that wanted to play a drow wielding two swords (anectdotal), and I wonder how many of you really have. Also, if people want to do that, isn't that what the game is about, having fun?

One of my friends had such a character, though I don't think he used two swords. Might have, can't recall. The character had multiple personalities as a result of some magical tinkering (a good and a bad side), and who was in charge at any given moment was indicated by different voices. He was an extremely entertaining character.

 

[Nebulous]

I like it. It makes sense to put Drizzt on the cover. Hell, if I was WotC and if I was to put out a 4e Dragonlance book, I'd put the Heroes of the Lance on the cover.

Yeah, if they had the heroes of Icewind Dale on there i'd be pretty happy! But just one drow -- i just think of how much cooler it could have been.

Like this from Streams of Silver: Why can't they just do something like this again????

 

[.:avatar:.]

Like Yoda would say:

<<the shroud of the Dark Elf has fallen. Begun, the Drizzt Clones war has>>

 

[Hussar]

Maybe my statement wasn't high class humor no, but it is a tongue-in-cheek acknowledgement that WotC did at least bring some common sense to the artwork for mass audiences no matter who they decided to toss on the cover. At least I didn't post a pic of Baltron's Beacon, 1st Edition DMG, etc.

I'm a 4th Edition pessimist typically but at least they're not falling into the tripe of WoW and video games in their appeals to mass youngish teenage male audiences with scantily clad women.

ROTF. Considering WOW has a massively larger female audience than D&D, I'm not sure what your point is. WOW players are almost half female and generally in their twenties to early thirties. In other words, the demographic that D&D would LOVE to get a piece of and never, ever has.

 

[HeinorNY]

ROTF. Considering WOW has a massively larger female audience than D&D, I'm not sure what your point is. WOW players are almost half female and generally in their twenties to early thirties. In other words, the demographic that D&D would LOVE to get a piece of and never, ever has.

Good point, I'm glad someone finally made it.
Biased or false opinions sometimes cloud numbers and facts and create absurd truths that keep being repeated by ppl that have few or no knowledge about the issue, and it hurts my eyes.

I like it. It makes sense to put Drizzt on the cover. Hell, if I was WotC and if I was to put out a 4e Dragonlance book, I'd put the Heroes of the Lance on the cover.

QFT.
Unfortunately, such obvious, simple and correct point can't make a "good" discussion, but it's nice to see it's still there, somewhere.

 

[Drowbane]

...Hell, Ren O' the Blade from Pools of Radiance was a Ranger, and he used a two-handed sword...

Ren was better noted for his twin daggers though... IIRC.

 

[HeinorNY]

And it's not only the Nth time he is on a FR book cover, but that's the second time Drizzt appears on the FRCS cover, so no big deal here, though maybe back in the 2E "the hat for dritz new sum limit!"

I'd rather the new cover BTW.

 

[Ahwe Yahzhe]

Art Swap, Please?

QFT.

I like the MM cover, and the DMG cover is decent, but right now my plan is to print the artwork used on the CRS on tacky paper and re-cover the PHB with this artwork.

Ditto - I wonder if it's too late to beg WotC to swap the cover art for the PHB and PCRS. The Player's Handbook, Core Book I for Dungeons and Dragons, should use the art that (1) has the four archetypes (if not roles) represented in action, and (2) has a frickin' DRAGON in (3) a frickin' DUNGEON.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

New art chosen, news.