D&D 5E Dragon's-Eye View: Concepts in Art

[Plaguescarred]

What is the difference between concept art and illustration? Jon goes over that this week, plus introduces the interns to you.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4dreye/20130522

 

[GX.Sigma]

Good stuff. I vote Steve Prescott becomes the Wayne Reynolds of the new edition. All in favor?

 

[Sonny]

I would actually like to see more of Ben Wootten in D&D Next. The ranger picture below is what I would prefer D&D Next's art to look like. Actual backgrounds, stylish, yet more realistic then a majority of D&D 3e-4e and Pathfinder's art. (The pic below is actually from 4e essentials)

I have nothing against a majority of the art in D&D and Pathfinder, but I am a bit tired of the exaggerated and somewhat comic book-ish art that has pervaded those systems in the last decade.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Nice pieces by Steve Prescott! I like most of the concept art except for the goblin's ears, which i find too large. The Trog is pretty badass...

 

[jadrax]

Yeah, the Trog is the pick of the bunch

 

[Dausuul]

Yeah, the Trog is the pick of the bunch

I disagree. The trog is okay, but I love the marilith. It is the marilith of mariliths.

 

[Ratskinner]

I would actually like to see more of Ben Wootten in D&D Next. The ranger picture below is what I would prefer D&D Next's art to look like. Actual backgrounds, stylish, yet more realistic then a majority of D&D 3e-4e and Pathfinder's art. (The pic below is actually from 4e essentials)

I have nothing against a majority of the art in D&D and Pathfinder, but I am a bit tired of the exaggerated and somewhat comic book-ish art that has pervaded those systems in the last decade.

Having just viewed his gallery, I must agree. Awesome artwork that takes me back. I'd be very happy to see the death of weapons-of-unusual-size and armor-of-unusual-thickness, fire optional.

 

[TerraDave]

In terms of the column...it seems like we are just moving in circles...like we have seen (and read) all this before.

Legends and Lore was bad enough.

 

[Pour]

I don't really like any of it. Damn, I really don't think the art style is going to be for me this edition around. I'm for diversity of art approaches like was mentioned in the comments section of the article. Give everyone a little.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The article seems a little rambly, but I get that this is kind of part of Jon's style.

As for the art itself: not into it. Pretty comic-book-y. And that yuan-ti pureblood is godawful. It's just begging to be hawkeye'd. The marilith is a bit better, but she's still all "I'm gonna hold all these weapons out here at my side, jut out my bosom and bottom, and appeal to the Male Gaze a bit!"

Steve Prescott isn't winning me over with cartoons and T&A.

I've got some concerns about that "IP Bible." Part of what I think lead to 4e's sacred steak buffet - and all the ill will it generated - was the desire to cleave to the brand image and generate a holistic view of what "D&D" was to the extent that it came off as stridently ignoring what the players wanted it to be. So it makes me nervous. He does a pretty good job assuaging my fears.

I wonder why they shouldn't do a separate "IP Bible" for each setting. In FR, goblins look like X. In Greyhawk, Y. In Dragonlance, Z. In Birthright, Q. They can concern themselves mostly with the big brands (like FR and Dragonlance) and they don't need to be artificially tethered to these visions when they go work on what a goblin would look like in a gothic horror setting for when they do Ravenloft. I guess it'd be a lot of work.

I guess I just feel like the art should reflect the message that this is a prop for you to use how you want, not a code to be adhered to. Which is probably naive of me.