Character Art in KotS

[Wolfspider]

I understand the complaint, and were the sketches meant to represent someone in particular, I'd agree (the image of Irontooth bothers me for this same reason -- where's his giant facial tattoo?). But the "character" sketches are NOT meant to represent anything other than the archetype (human wizard, halfling rogue, etc).

I mean, the statblocks don't even have genders. Should the artist have made them all vaguely hermaphroditic? It's just a bit of placeholder artwork to pretty up the page and give you a basic idea -- fleshing out the character is YOUR job.

Hence, I don't consider it a valid complaint.

Thank you for clarifying your position so eloquently. It almost makes me want to forgive you for so readily dismissing mine.

 

[Boarstorm]

Thank you for clarifying your position so eloquently. It almost makes me want to forgive you for so readily dismissing mine.

Yeah, sorry about that.

 

[Crothian]

But the "character" sketches are NOT meant to represent anything other than the archetype (human wizard, halfling rogue, etc).

That information must have been left out of my copy of the module.

I found it very odd and it looks like bad art direction or something. And hearing that the art has was previously used makes it sound even worse.

 

[DimitriX]

I'm sorry I didn't notice the fact that the art didn't match the characters described. I was too busy to figure out why WotC even released an adventure with a set of quick start rules if those rules are going to be confusing, vague, and in the end not even match the complete rules of the PHB. So, while you're wondering why the fighter has a sword and shield, I'm wondering why the fighter's combat challenge doesn't work the way its described on the character sheet.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1033538

 

[Scribble]

Honestly from what I hear about it I don't think this adventure is intended for players new to D&D to get into the game.

it's intended for us... the fans who already know what D&D is, have been scrounging up every ounce of info we can, and just can't wait till next month.

 

[Wolfspider]

Honestly from what I hear about it I don't think this adventure is intended for players new to D&D to get into the game.

it's intended for us... the fans who already know what D&D is, have been scrounging up every ounce of info we can, and just can't wait till next month.

This may very well be true. I seem to recall something about an introductory game coming out at some time in the future, now that you mention it.

 

[Lanefan]

Having got my hopes up with "Worlds and Monsters", I found the KotS art overall somewhat disappointing...and that's without even noticing the discrepancies between art and statblocks until reading this. That, and the blocky style of the player-character sketches (particularly the Dwarf) makes them look like they're made of Lego.

Exception: the picture of the Kobold lair has potential.

The maps, however, are well done throughout the book; and it's incredibly convenient how each encounter area gets its own little map on the same page! Someone was thinking like a DM!

Haven't really looked at the battlemaps yet.

Lanefan

 

[direkobold]

I'm glad I'm not the only person bugged by the art. And yeah I understand the gender argument, but I still think we're looking at sloppy art direction.

Honestly from what I hear about it I don't think this adventure is intended for players new to D&D to get into the game.

it's intended for us... the fans who already know what D&D is, have been scrounging up every ounce of info we can, and just can't wait till next month.

The first column on the first page of the quick start guide would belie this statement. Example:

The D&D game uses a special set of dice. These include at least one of each of these types of dice: d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20. The number corresponds to the number of sides each particular die has.

 

[Boarstorm]

I'm glad I'm not the only person bugged by the art. And yeah I understand the gender argument, but I still think we're looking at sloppy art direction.



The first column on the first page of the quick start guide would belie this statement. Example:

The D&D game uses a special set of dice. These include at least one of each of these types of dice: d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20. The number corresponds to the number of sides each particular die has.

Compare KotS to the first adventure in their most recent "introductory product:

You enter a 10'x10' room. Kill 2 goblins, rescue a unicorn. XP!

They had to include some basics (like the dice, or "What IS Dungeons and Dragons?") for those picking up the product seeing it was an introductory adventure -- but it's an introduction to the 4E ruleset, not an introduction to D&D or role-playing in general. The entire module is waaay too complicated for that.

 

[Klaus]

I'm sure that I'm the only person this bugs, but as I was reading through the characters in KotS I realized that the art doesn't match the description.

The Dwarf is wielding a two-handed maul with no shield but in the art he's got a sword and shield.

The rogue has daggers listed as his ranged basic attack, but he's carrying a hand crossbow in the picture.

The cleric has no shield in his equipment list but a shield in the art.

The dragonborn paladin is listed as having a longsword and shield. In the art he's got no shield and a polearm...

The wizard is the only one who matchs...

Perhaps it wouldn't bug me so much if these were full color polished drawings, but they're pencil sketches! You couldn't spend an addition day or two of the artists time and actually make a picture that matched the description?

Am I the only one this bugs?

Those sketches weren't meant to be the KotS pregens, they just got used during layout. By then I guess it was too late to have the author or editor alter the character sheets to match the pictures (easier than commissioning new pictures based on the stats).

That being said, there's some counters available that might make do.