D&D 5E Art in 5e...?

[Hussar]

Now see, what we have heah is a failyoor t'communicate. You used the word "problem" when what you meant to say was "best thing about..."

Easy mistake. You're welcome.

I don't know about you, but, I can certainly do without the bad illo's in those 1e books. The great ones were great. But the bad ones were SO bad. Say what you like about 3e, there were very few truly bad 3e pics in the WOTC books. 4e as well to be honest. Pathfinder too. There's stuff I like and stuff I don't like, but, it's not easy to find really bad art in post 2000 D&D books of any stripe.

 

[shadow]

Regardless of the artist, art in 5e needs to evoke adventure. We need more illustrations of characters in action or in some type of a setting. I really don't want any more illustrations of characters standing around in 'cool' poses and trying hard to look bad@$$.

 

[steeldragons]

I don't know about you, but, I can certainly do without the bad illo's in those 1e books. The great ones were great. But the bad ones were SO bad. Say what you like about 3e, there were very few truly bad 3e pics in the WOTC books. 4e as well to be honest. Pathfinder too. There's stuff I like and stuff I don't like, but, it's not easy to find really bad art in post 2000 D&D books of any stripe.

Ah. I see where the disconnect is. Your "was all over the place" was a subjective statement of "quality" and your personal liking it/them.

I took "all over the place" as the varying/different artists and styles...the diversity...were the "problem." Not a flat out "this is a 'good/well drawn' picture" and "this is a 'bad/badly drawn' picture."

 

[Hussar]

Ah no. Different styles is great. But some illos by the same artist were great and some were shockingly bad.

Tramper comes to mind for one. Great and stinky.

 

[Salamandyr]

Actually there's a lot of bad art in the WOTC books...it's just covered up by color; often badly done digital color.

What 3rd had, to a great extent, was a consistent feel.

4th Edition, at least while I was keeping up with the line, was just an embarrassment. A lot of it was technically amateurish, and the rest was just aesthetically...meh.

It might have changed. I remember being struck by an illustration from one of the Essentials books while I was flipping through it at the store.

One can forgive a lot of the mediocre art in the early books (pre-1982 essentially), because you're talking largely about a company that was working on a shoestring. That they had any art was pretty amazing. The 1982 Mentzer Basic set was really the first go TSR had of trying to put out a product with a consistent look and feel, and it's still flat beautiful. And it stayed that way troughout the line. The D&D Companion has some of my favorite art ever published by a gaming company, along with Star Frontiers and Gamma World 2e.

The Advanced line had to wait for a makeover until 2nd Edition, and while I'm not a fan of most of the color art for those books, the overall look and feel, the layout and design of the books is great. And the 2e Monstrous Compendiums are still the top monster books of all time. And a lot of the ancillary materials from that time (the Forgotten Realms material for instance) had really great art.

3e is close, but I don't think WOTC has ever matched TSR at their best (mid 80's through early 90's) at putting out beautiful art.

From what I've seen of the art for Next, the art for the monsters will be great, and the art for people will be very boring.​

 

[Ruin Explorer]

What 3rd had, to a great extent, was a consistent feel.

4th Edition, at least while I was keeping up with the line, was just an embarrassment. A lot of it was technically amateurish, and the rest was just aesthetically...meh.​

That is some seriously un-objective opinion right there!

Imo, the only really consistent thing in 3E's art was "a lot of it was by WAR" (who, for my money, has a painfully horrible aesthetic - he's skilled - though overrated - but his art makes me sigh, and not in a good way). That and maybe Regdar is getting killed again.

But "an embarrassment", for 4E? I don't think that's remotely justifiable. Most of 4E's art was pretty decent - easily on par with 3.XE, frequently better than late-3E stuff. Technically amateurish? What? On the contrary, 4E's problem was technically competent, but very boring art. Again, especially compared to 3E. Aesthetically meh I can see, though. But technically? No way, technically it was broadly ahead of 3.XE.

As a side-note, the visual-design of the books themselves and so on in 4E was vastly superior to the overdesigned mess that was 3.XE.

All that said, most 4E cover art is inexplicably terrible beyond belief. Who the hell thought that stuff was a good idea?

 

[Salamandyr]

dbl post

 

[Obryn]

I'm a lot more interested in how inclusive or varied the art is, than I am in specific artists. I'd like to see both male and female adventures, dressed like people going into dangerous situations, with a variety of both real world and fantastic races and ethnicities.
I'd also like to put in a vote for more landscape and object art that evokes a sense of mystery. More like this:

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Not a stylistic choice - but I want to see some humor.

The cartoons in 1st ed were great, or some of the stuff in 3.x (Krusk helping Redgar climb, or the use magic device failure picture).

 

[mhensley]

Not a stylistic choice - but I want to see some humor.

The cartoons in 1st ed were great, or some of the stuff in 3.x (Krusk helping Redgar climb, or the use magic device failure picture).

Yes, this please. It would be really great if they got some cartoons in the rulebooks. The absolute best thing about the new HackMaster phb was the kodt comic that explained combat. The DCC book has some nice comics as well. Why does D&D have to be so serious?