Dragonlance Campaign Setting Art Gallery

[Wolfspider]

I also tend to regard most of the art as ugly (not just done in a style different from what I prefer, but actually ugly).

I was thinking about picking up this book for nostalgia's sake, but now I'll skip it. If the art has lost most of the flavor that I thought of as Dragonlance, I can only imagine what the rest of the book is like.

Cover's nice, though.

 

[Zogg]

Mostly miss. I think I drew something very much like the Bozak Draconion....when I was in 6th grade. And I am definitely not an artist.

 

[Kai Lord]

I was thinking about picking up this book for nostalgia's sake, but now I'll skip it. If the art has lost most of the flavor that I thought of as Dragonlance, I can only imagine what the rest of the book is like.

Cover's nice, though.

Keep in mind that the cover artist (Matt Stawicki) was hand picked by Sovereign Press, the company who actually wrote the book, while the interior art was all courtesy of Wizards of the Coast.

I admit, for the most part they dropped the ball. Most of the dragons and some of the draconians are indeed dreadful. However, the agreement Sovereign has with WOTC constituted WOTC providing the art for the DLCS, while Sovereign not only writes (as they did the DLCS), but provides the artwork for all the products thereafter.

The Age of Mortals Companion coming out with the DLCS this month will have completely different art, and from I've heard its much better. Ditto for the upcoming Bestiary and Key of Destiny adventure.

Its too bad WOTC blew it for so much of the DLCS, but if they really cared about the setting they wouldn't have farmed it off to Sovereign Press for development. To SP, its been a labor of love from beginning to end, and I believe it will show in the art from here on out. It will be interesting to compare the DLCS to the Age of Mortals gallery when its released.

 

[talinthas]

Shadowperson is singular of Shadowpeople, which is what they were called since chronicals....

The art on the whole wasnt thrilling, but i love the knights and the wizards. The gnome also looked really cool. The dragons i'm not sure about, especially that brass sucker.

Overall though, the book is so good that the art didnt matter =)

 

[CrusaderX]

I was browsing through that DL art gallery last night, and was very disappointed. Sorry, but I thought most of the art was rather awful.

 

[orbitalfreak]

Well, here's another chiming in with a dislike of the art in the book. A lot of the stuff in there looks very 1st edition, and not in a good way! I found the God Symbols and dragons particularly dreadful, though Dragonrider at the bottom looks decent. Dragons without Lockwood is not a good idea.

 

[Kai Lord]

Dragons without Lockwood is not a good idea.

No, dragons with Doug Kovacs is just simply a horrible idea. Lockwood is great, especially for dragons, but his gold can't match the Sardinha one posted at the top of this thread.

Lockwood's Gold Dragon:

 

[Olive]

Yeah but the silver is terrible in comparion to the MM one...

 

[Kai Lord]

Yeah but the silver is terrible in comparion to the MM one...

Oh Lord yes...as I said a monkey could draw a better dragon while clenching a crayon between his buttcheeks than Doug Kovacs.

Richard Sardinha, however, who only drew the Gold and the Blue Dragon w/rider in the DLCS, is comparable to Lockwood IMO.

 

[Kai Lord]

Sardinha's Blue, which better fits DL and also is better than the MM variety (which was drawn by Sam Wood I believe):