Core books cover art

[Vicar In A Tutu]

Hi, I was wondering if you guys think whether the cover art of the core books that we've been shown are the "final" covers or just "mock" covers? I especially despise the PHB cover.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Hi, I was wondering if you guys think whether the cover art of the core books that we've been shown are the "final" covers or just "mock" covers? I especially despise the PHB cover.

They look kind of finished to me.

Personally, I'm tickled pink that the new books have actual art on the covers again, instead of the 3e "tome" look. Having art not only inspires, it is evocative of what D&D is all about.

 

[Vicar In A Tutu]

Personally, I'm tickled pink that the new books have actual art on the covers again, instead of the 3e "tome" look. Having art not only inspires, it is evocative of what D&D is all about.

I agree that actual art is better than the 3E faux tome-look. However, I would have preferred another artist. On second thought: the same artist but a different sensibility. I love the picture by WAR that depicts a group of adventurers encountering a green dragon (it was a 4E promotion picture). I think the cover of the PHB should depict the classic D&D adventuring group encountering (or fighting) something in a dungeon environment, maybe a red dragon (the iconic monster). It would have suited the name "Dungeons & Dragons". Instead, we get a fighter in a ninja-pose and a tiefling wizard/warlock blasting something out of sight. What they are fighting, we really don't know. It just doesn't strike me as iconic in any way.

 

[JVisgaitis]

Probably finished. WAR works traditionally his roughs that I've seen are normally just pencils.

 

[Fifth Element]

I just wish that WotC has asked me who they should get to do the covers.

 

[TheArcane]

They are probably finished... too bad. Besides the fact that I really dislike WAR's style, I think the actual content of the cover art is not suitable for the main core product. As mentioned earlier in the thread, the characters on the PHB cover do not appear iconic to D&D, too dark and demonic IMHO, plus they are only two while a party of four would be more classic. The MM cover featuring Orcus is a little better, but nevertheless, surely some other combination of iconic monsters could have said "D&D" better that a demon prince that looks like he's having a fit. Those are exactly the reasons why I think the DMG cover really hits the spot, I really like it. The red dragon is very iconic, and there's an aura of mystery and wonder in the scene.

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

I like them, but I would have loved to see Michael Komarck do them as his style is easily my favorite of any D&D artist out there.

 

[Zamkaizer]

I agree that actual art is better than the 3E faux tome-look. However, I would have preferred another artist. On second thought: the same artist but a different sensibility. I love the picture by WAR that depicts a group of adventurers encountering a green dragon (it was a 4E promotion picture). I think the cover of the PHB should depict the classic D&D adventuring group encountering (or fighting) something in a dungeon environment, maybe a red dragon (the iconic monster). It would have suited the name "Dungeons & Dragons". Instead, we get a fighter in a ninja-pose and a tiefling wizard/warlock blasting something out of sight. What they are fighting, we really don't know. It just doesn't strike me as iconic in any way.

I think they're fighting Orcus from the Monster Manual cover. The way the red dragon on the Dungeon Masters Guide is watching the two adventurers through his orb makes me think that the three together form a little narrative.

 

[Klaus]

The "Fight the Tarrasque" picture from the DMG2 would've been a better cover for the MM than the Orcus one we've seen, IMHO.

Also, I vastly prefer the "green dragon fight" image to the PHB cover we've seen.

 

[Guild Goodknife]

Really like the MM and DMG covers. Not so shure about the PHB, some kind of group shot or a party fighting something would be better imo.