D&D 4E D&D 4E Style

[EricNoah]

I do like the idea that the books will have art on them. I was never a big fan of the "fake book" look. The best of those were FR products that combined "fake book" with compelling artwork.

 

[Wormwood]

Hey, ever since Harry Potter, pointy hats are new school again.

Touché!

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Anyone noticed the style of art in these pics

http://www.icv2.com/articles/home/11123.html

Yes. The art itself is much better than in the 3e core books, but the nostalgic styling troubles me. Does that reflect on the rules? The audience they're trying to attract?

Less of the spiky-haired anime styling

None of the 3e art is 'anime' in any way, shape or form, or even shows any signs of being inspired by it.

, and the characters look like they have less "stuff" than in the typical 3.5E art.

A downside if it's just an artistic decision, but a big upside if it represents a rules change: scaling back the bucketloads of magic items and moving assorted dungeoneering kit to a more narrative role.

Perhaps that's a sign of a return to more "realism" or "2E" style in the characters? Less crazy supernatural abilities, less reliance on magic items, etc.

I'm sure not much less (this is D&D after all), but a little bit closer to its roots.

I'm not going to blame you for using "realism" because you, rightly, put it in quotes. The pic does look more like 2e art: high quality execution, traditional styling. I wouldn't call that D&D's artistic roots, though; D&D's artistic roots are crazy-weird black and white with sub-professional linework and composition but a truly unique and out-there style not replicated by any other fantasy.

I don't care for the 'traditional high fantasy' look, but the 'less gear' aspect may hint at a huge plus for the actual gameplay.

I've always wondered what kind of impact all of the Necromancer Games, Castles & Crusades, OSRIC, "earlier Edition 'feel'" games and products would eventually have on the core D&D line. I'm not saying that they will have one, but it'd be interesting if they did (I for one like Necromancer's feel as opposed to say, Eberron, for instance, but that's just a matter of taste).

If we're talking about the core book art, I don't particularly like any of it. 1e's art looked amateurish, 2e's lifeless, 3e's ridiculous. In all three cases, some or even many of the supplements featured beautiful, high-quality and imaginative pieces that really evoked the spirit of the edition.

For a new edition, I'd rather see genuinely anime-influenced art, like Exalted's, or Louis Porter Jr.'s comic book-influenced art. I think that would attract younger players, and ones who would want to play the kinds of games I'd be interested in.

With that said, the quality is definitely the best I've ever seen for a D&D core book, and a high quality execution and consistent art direction trump a particular style in my book.

 

[The_Gneech]

The Wayne Reynolds piece looks like any other Wayne Reynolds piece to me (which is either great or awful depending on if you like Wayne Reynolds).

The halfling cleric looks just like any of the "iconic" sketches Todd Lockwood did for 3.0 (again, which is either great or awful depending on if you like Todd Lockwood).

I don't see any "difference" here. The only change I see is in the logo. And I certainly don't see any pointy hats.

-The Gneech

 

[Klaus]

GOD, I want in!!!!

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Is that a pointy wizard hat I see in the background?

If so, then I have my first negative reaction to 4e.

Dear gods, spare me from the 'old school'.

I don't see a pointy wizard hat. I do see someone with a pointy helm, a mace and a shield at the back.

 

[Hjorimir]

I love what I'm seeing in those two pictures! Not a silly spike in sight! Clean! And for what it's worth, I don't think that is a pointy hat on the wizard; I think it is a part of the shield behind her.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Btw, is is just me, or is that "green dragon" a blue dragon that someone painted green?

Yeah, that's sort of irritating me. I liked that dragons to date have, for the most part, had a specific "look," especially the green dragon, whose look dates to 1E (except for the 1E Dragonlance covers), as I recall.

Since the MIA BBEG of my campaign is, in fact, a green dragon, this is extra-irritating.

 

[GreatLemur]

The Wayne Reynolds piece looks like any other Wayne Reynolds piece to me (which is either great or awful depending on if you like Wayne Reynolds).

The halfling cleric looks just like any of the "iconic" sketches Todd Lockwood did for 3.0 (again, which is either great or awful depending on if you like Todd Lockwood).

I don't see any "difference" here. The only change I see is in the logo. And I certainly don't see any pointy hats.

Yeah, agreement on all points. So far, the art looks basically like 3.x art. It doesn't look "anime style", because these artists--and 3.x artists in general--pretty much never did anything of the sort.

I'm counting down to the appearance of one character with a tattoo or leather straps to convince some folks that 4E's art is all "anime", "punk", or "fetish" style. One Hennet, and they never forgive you...

 

[Kaodi]

After consulting my Draconomicon, comparing that picture to the illustrations of the green and blue dragons in the example dragon section, I am wondering if they are A - Easing up on the physical description limits of dragons to make each one look more unique; or (hopefully) B - Killing the sacred cow of colour-coded dragon. That picture is so much cooler if that is a green 4e dragon rather than a 4e green dragon.