Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="oreofox" data-source="post: 7865000" data-attributes="member: 6776240">I don't know what the 2e art looks like for Pathfinder, but for their 1e art, they commissioned a lot of great artists all over deviantart to create many of the images used in their books (that isn't something from WAR). As for 5e, they seemed to have taken everything from 1 artist (conceptopolis) for all 3 of their core books. Calling it "hot garbage" might be a bit extreme, but they are that visually unappealing to me. That is not knocking their talent, because they are very talented. It's their visual style they go for that turns me off, and makes me think "hot garbage". The biggest offenses to my eyes are the giants, gnolls, svirfneblin (doesn't even look like a gnome), lycanthropes (though the half-page image where Gaston from Beauty and the Beast is fighting a werewolf isn't bad), and just so much else in the MM. Flipping through the pages makes me wish they would have just not used art. Then there's the halflings with giant heads and baby feet in the PHB. WotC has access to numerous amazing artists they can pull from (just look at the art on numerous Magic cards), and yet they decided to... Ok, apparently they went with more artists than I originally thought (looks like close to 60?), though so many look to be from one person. I know The other artists could have contributed only a single image, but that doesn't seem like something WotC would do.Still, the majority of 5e art that isn't a full-page or half-page image, hasn't been appealing to my eyes. There are, however, quite a few images in the PHB that I like.</blockquote>

Verification