Silvercat Moonpaw
Adventurer
Similar to the person who asked before about Pathfinder can someone tell me each of the things Trailblazer changed?
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 3.x gamers who skipped 4e, why are you not "upgrading" to Pathfinder?
- Thread starter AdmundfortGeographer
- Start date
Our group is just getting down 3.5 way of doing things. I'm sure that half of the group would have no problem with the new tweaks and edits, but the other half would be frustrated by these changes (perhaps alienating one player in particular).
Plus I plan on throwing some changes at them with the E6 system.
...and that's my $.02
What's wrong with you people? Paizo just won a jazillion Ennies!
The Man is keeping WOTC down!
Glad to see "edition neutral-ish" Kobold Quarterly got an award, though.
This sums up my position very well.
GlassJaw
Hero
The link that joela posted (thanks!) shows the list of things we changed/tweaked, but it's much more useful if you have the TB book in front of you.
If you have any specific questions about TB, check out the Bad Axe forum:
Bad Axe Games Hosted Forum - EN World D&D / RPG News
You can also try PMing Wulf Ratbane. He has a tendency to be fairly generous with people interested in checking out TB.
Oryan77
Adventurer
Yeah, the 1e & 2e art was much better. With the 80's hairband look, the jugs the size of human heads, and the Village People facial hair. Plus the costume design that looked like outfits that actors would wear in a dinner theater was top-notch.
I thought the Diterlizzi art was dungeon punk? I guess that any modern day design in artwork is going to be labeled 'dungeon punk' or some form of 'punk' if it doesn't look like Boris Vallejo art.
I've never understood this type of criticism of fantasy art. There are things I don't like about each generation of fantasy art (don't like the big eyes and gigantic anime swords in current D&D art). But as long as the artwork was high quality, the style of art isn't going to keep me from buying a book. Maybe being an artist & doing art for a living causes me to be less critical of modern art. I actually find the surge in belt buckles and accessories in art like WAR's very cool. And the Diterlizzi art was one of the things that caught my eye and got me curious about the Planescape setting. Art doesn't seem to be getting worse, it seems to be getting better!
gamerprinter
Mapper/Publisher
Yeah, the 1e & 2e art was much better. With the 80's hairband look, the jugs the size of human heads, and the Village People facial hair. Plus the costume design that looked like outfits that actors would wear in a dinner theater was top-notch.
I thought the Diterlizzi art was dungeon punk? I guess that any modern day design in artwork is going to be labeled 'dungeon punk' or some form of 'punk' if it doesn't look like Boris Vallejo art.
I've never understood this type of criticism of fantasy art. There are things I don't like about each generation of fantasy art (don't like the big eyes and gigantic anime swords in current D&D art). But as long as the artwork was high quality, the style of art isn't going to keep me from buying a book. Maybe being an artist & doing art for a living causes me to be less critical of modern art. I actually find the surge in belt buckles and accessories in art like WAR's very cool. And the Diterlizzi art was one of the things that caught my eye and got me curious about the Planescape setting. Art doesn't seem to be getting worse, it seems to be getting better!
Oh, I never claimed that the art had any decision making aspects for buying a book, I'm just saying I don't especially like the art. So caveat here art doesn't motivate me to buy or not to buy - its just a question of aesthetics. Besides I'm an artist and cartographer and I create realistic art and I prefer realistica art. (Despite being an artist, I hate modern art or abstract anything of art).
I love PF, and I'd have bought it if it had no art or only stick figures, but then I would lament on that decision, but it would not sway from not buying.
And 3.5 had at times good art, but the bulk of it had bizzaro clothing that made no sense, that fit no particular fantasy aspect, just some weird choice by the art director.
So don't read more into my feelings for the aesthetics, art to me has no reflection into the game itself. Bad cartography on the other hand.... meh.
GP
PS: oh and having said what I say in both posts, I'm not implying 1e or 2e art was better. The thread is about 3e and Pathfinder, not anything before.
PPS: now regarding monsters there was some great 2e art, and 3e and PF, the dungeon punk refers to humanoid art, mostly.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
