D&D 5E About the artwork...

[Charlaquin]

If I were going to complain about the art (and as I posted, it feels like the artist was trying to make the elf's face and ears mirror the hawk which doesn't work for me), I'd complain about the halflings.

They look like they were all drawn by Rob Liefeld with those tiny, tiny feet! Seriously, Do they have like size 0 shoes?

P.S. I have preferences for art, like everyone. I just remember the halflings being an affront upon the eyes of all mankind when it was first published according to some people.

Yeah, I didn’t care for the halfling art in the PHB either. Back during the 5e playtest, there was an ongoing article series on the mothership where they would show art of a particular creature from across various editions, and a few concept pieces for possible directions they might take for the creature in the new edition, and poll people for opinions about the different concepts. One of the subjects that came up was halfling proportions - should they be proportioned just like humans, as they were in 3e (in which case reference objects would be needed in the art to indicate their size), or should they be proportioned in a distinctly non-human way that would indicate their small size? The latter was the more popular option, and the concept art they showed for this approach, while somewhat divisive, did poll pretty well. It also, in my opinion, looked much better than any of the PHB halfling art ended up looking. I was one of the people who loved the concept art, but I don’t think the direction translated very well to other artists’ styles.

EDIT: Here are some examples of the early concept art, which whether you like it or not, I think most people will at least agree looks like it has a more cohesive direction than the PHB halfling art.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, I didn’t care for the halving art in the PHB either. Back during the 5e playtest, there was an ongoing article series on the mothership where they would show art of a particular creature from across various editions, and a few concept pieces for possible directions they might take for the creature in the new edition, and poll people for opinions about the different concepts. One of the subjects that came up was halfling proportions - should they be proportioned just like humans, as they were in 3e (in which case reference objects would be needed in the art to indicate their size), or should they be proportioned in a distinctly non-human way that would indicate their small size? The latter was the more popular option, and the concept art they showed for this approach, while somewhat divisive, did poll pretty well. It also, in my opinion, looked much better than any of the PHB halfling art ended up looking. I was one of the people who loved the concept art, but I don’t think the direction translated very well to other artists’ styles.

I think LOTR did a good job with the hobbits, I wish they had done something similar with the halfling art. It was all actually pretty subtle with oversized buttons, thicker cloth with a bigger(?) weave and so on. Add those factors in with the forced perspective (small next to others).

Ah well, water under the bridge. I think the halflings look a bit silly, but the artist also had a difficult task.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think LOTR did a good job with the hobbits, I wish they had done something similar with the halfling art. It was all actually pretty subtle with oversized buttons, thicker cloth with a bigger(?) weave and so on. Add those factors in with the forced perspective (small next to others).

Ah well, water under the bridge. I think the halflings look a bit silly, but the artist also had a difficult task.

They did fantastically with the hobbits in the LotR films, but since they had human actors, the hobbits necessarily needed to have human proportions, apart from the prosthetic feet. So they had to use objects for size reference (like the oversized buttons) and forced perspective camera tricks. That works great for film, but I don’t think it would have worked as well on the page. Again, 3e tried the halflings with human proportions thing, and it made it so that unless there was another, not-halfling-sized object in the frame with pictures of Lidda, there would be no way to tell she wasn’t a human. Using the environment to communicate the characters’ size puts a heavy constraint on the art direction, and I think the idea of trying to communicate size via proportions for 5e halflings was a good idea in theory that they fumbled a bit on the execution.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I like smaller species having somewhat different proportions, but in many 5e illustrations they're overdoing it and it ends up looking too cartoonish for my liking.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yeah, I didn’t care for the halving art in the PHB either. Back during the 5e playtest, there was an ongoing article series on the mothership where they would show art of a particular creature from across various editions, and a few concept pieces for possible directions they might take for the creature in the new edition, and poll people for opinions about the different concepts. One of the subjects that came up was halfling proportions - should they be proportioned just like humans, as they were in 3e (in which case reference objects would be needed in the art to indicate their size), or should they be proportioned in a distinctly non-human way that would indicate their small size? The latter was the more popular option, and the concept art they showed for this approach, while somewhat divisive, did poll pretty well. It also, in my opinion, looked much better than any of the PHB halfling art ended up looking. I was one of the people who loved the concept art, but I don’t think the direction translated very well to other artists’ styles.

EDIT: Here are some examples of the early concept art, which whether you like it or not, I think most people will at least agree looks like it has a more cohesive direction than the PHB halfling art.

Spoiler

View attachment 128220

Spoiler

View attachment 128221

Spoiler

View attachment 128222

Spoiler

View attachment 128223

Spoiler

View attachment 128224

Yeah, IMO, the concept art was way better than what we ended up with.

I feel bad for that artist, I really do. You get a dream job and everyone craps on you for it. I don't blame the artist at all. Not one bit. I do blame the Art director though.

Yes, art is subjective, just like food. And I don't begrudge an artist for a piece of art that I don't like that others do. I may not find it pleasing, but if other do, OK. just like the artists who did the 5e half orc and halfling. But just like food, sometimes it's not subjective. And you don't need a culinary degree before you can criticize it. If I dice up strawberries and mushrooms, that's not going to be good. You don't need to be a chef to know this. Like that 3e tiefling I posted upthread. Just objectively bad.

So I think we can agree that while art is subjective and we should keep that in mind, we shouldn't act like people aren't allowed to criticize it unless they have an art degree. That's silly.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yeah, IMO, the concept art was way better than what we ended up with.

Is there any way to still see this concept art?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Is there any way to still see this concept art?

Aaron is one of my favorite artists for 5e, and you can see much of the concept art here

Conceptopolis User Profile | DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, IMO, the concept art was way better than what we ended up with.

I feel bad for that artist, I really do. You get a dream job and everyone craps on you for it. I don't blame the artist at all. Not one bit. I do blame the Art director though.

Yes, art is subjective, just like food. And I don't begrudge a piece of art that I don't like that others do. But just like food, sometimes it's not subjective. And you don't need a culinary degree before you can criticize it. If I dice up strawberries and mushrooms, that's not going to be good. You don't need to be a chef to know this. Like that 3e tiefling I posted upthread. Just objectively bad.

So I think we can agree that while art is subjective and we should keep that in mind, we shouldn't act like people aren't allowed to criticize it unless they have an art degree. That's silly.

No, no, people can absolutely criticize art without needing any kind of special training. But I think it’s important to focus critique on either objective observations (the foreshortening on this arm is wrong, this pose is implausible, the anatomy looks off, etc.) or subjective assessments (“I don’t like the choice of colors, I would prefer more detail, this is too impressionistic for my taste, etc.) over blanket statements of quality (this sucks, it’s ugly, it looks like a 12-year old did it, etc.) Specific criticism over what you like or dislike and why, rather than treating your distaste for a piece as an objective indication of its quality.

Also, it’s off topic, but food is every bit as subjective as visual art.

 

[Charlaquin]

Is there any way to still see this concept art?

I edited my earlier post to add the halfling ones to it.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Aaron is one of my favorite artists for 5e, and you can see much of the concept art here

Conceptopolis User Profile | DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

that is really good stuff. The dwarves are bad asses