D&D 5E D&D Next weekly art column!

[Hussar]

Huh, really? It changed in the Basic D&D Rules Compendium then. There you have a variety of staves, usable on by particular spellcasters; for example a Staff of the Druids (Druid only), Staff of Harming and Staff of Healing (cleric only), Staff of Elements (wizard only), etc. And some rods are class restricted; for example a Rod of Dominion is usable by any PC but a Rod of Inertia is only usable by a dwarf, halfling, fighter, thief, or mystic. Wands were still mages only.

So by 1991, when the Rules Compendium was printed, the magic object-class associations had shifted.

Heh, well, the fact that you have druids at all is a major change as well.

IDHTBIFOM, but, IIRC, there's only like three, maybe four each of wands, staves and wands in the Basic book.

Funny how things shift.

 

[steeldragons]

Originally Posted by Hussar
It's interesting how iconic elements shift over time. As I mentioned, I've been rereading my Basic/Expert books. Did you know that in Basic D&D, magic staffs were cleric only? Wands were for wizards and rods were for everyone.

uhhhh....What Basic/Expert books are you reading exactly?

I have Basic and Expert books with "Staff of the Magi" and "Staff of Power" in them...yes, there is the "Snake Staff" and "Staff of Healing" which are "cleric only" staffs...But not all staves are cleric only!

I believe you are correct that only magic-users could use wands...and rods, yeah, I think they were for everyone. But WHERE did you read in these books that staves were for clerics only?

 

[Hussar]

[/I]

uhhhh....What Basic/Expert books are you reading exactly?

I have Basic and Expert books with "Staff of the Magi" and "Staff of Power" in them...yes, there is the "Snake Staff" and "Staff of Healing" which are "cleric only" staffs...But not all staves are cleric only!

I believe you are correct that only magic-users could use wands...and rods, yeah, I think they were for everyone. But WHERE did you read in these books that staves were for clerics only?

[/I]

Mentzer Basic.

Sorry, I realize the confusion because I included Expert in there. I was reading both. But, Snake Staff and Staff of Healing are the only two staffs in Mentzer Basic.

 

[Libramarian]

Came across an awesome image on Grognardia -- the cover of the '80s Mattel D&D computer boardgame thing:

How wild is this?

I love the dragon, but I also love the font used here. It appears to be a modification of the font used on the OD&D and early AD&D books "Quentin".

It is used prominently on the earliest printings of the 1e PHB, before they adopted the yellow banner trade dress.

(This is my favorite D&D cover ever)

 

[Hussar]

That dragon is so anime.

 

[Libramarian]

No way man.

Maybe...orientalist?

I realized the Quentin-like font used there is similar to the font used on the B/X covers. The Mentzer sets stylize it further and add the dragon to the ampersand.

Are we returning to a Quentin-ish font? Perhaps, perhaps...

 

[Klaus]

Looking at the 1e covers of the PHB and DMG again, I think part of their excellence comes from the fact that they are mostly dark images highlighting a single, well-lit, bright element (the idol in the PHB, the efreet in the DMG). You can also see some of this in the Easley DMG cover (the DM as Gatekeeper). The dark colors of the cover help create a "neutral" backdrop that makes the main figure "pop" out at a bookstore.

[sblock]

[/sblock]

 

[Hussar]

No way man.

Maybe...orientalist?

I realized the Quentin-like font used there is similar to the font used on the B/X covers. The Mentzer sets stylize it further and add the dragon to the ampersand.

Are we returning to a Quentin-ish font? Perhaps, perhaps...

Heh, it was meant as a joke.

 

[Arytiss]

Looks like a return to a familiar topic for us this week: What is the symbol of D&D?
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Secret Handshake)

 

[Kaodi]

I still think that an updated version of the original dragon ampersand is the closest thing you are going to get to a good secret handshake for D&D. As long as it is basically the same, like #7 was, it is going to be instantly recognizeable to anyone who played D&D before 3e, and probably many if not most who started during 3e.

If you go with something new, then everyone is going to have to learn what it means, instead of having a huge demographic for whom it just would work as a secret handshake already. Most of those recognizeable corporate logos have been around in similar form for a long time. I doubt it would be possible to replicate that effect with something brand new.

(Also, as a throwback to earlier conversations about women and D&D, the secret handshake should not under any circumstances be something that could be construed as a "phallic symbol" ; a term which I think is overused, but is still out there as part of the consciousness of some demographics.)