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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SamB" data-source="post: 319779" data-attributes="member: 2076">D&D art in generalDon't have the ELH, and don't intend on buying it either.  As to 3E art in general vs earlier incarnations:On average, the artwork is much better, especially in the core rulebooks.  The art in the 1E books was rather quaint and probably would fit in a more historical setting, but color does sell.  I like the majority of the monster illustrations, they are excellent and a number of them make the creatures look like the rather formidable foes they are.The problem with me is a lot of the equipment illustrations and some of the character pics.  For instance:Weapons and armor.  The thing is that historical weapons and armor were designed that way not for looks but BECAUSE THEY WORKED THAT WAY!  A lot of the weapons & equipment (like the axe used by Krusk) look like they did very good paintings of Warhammer miniatures.  The blade on the Barbarian's axe in the PHB looks like it's about 5" thick!  Between that and the tree-trunk haft that sucker would weigh in at about 50lb!  Evocotive is one thing, but absolutely bloody ridiculous is another.In general, a couple of items and illustrations look more appropriate to higher-tech settings.  Rifle-style stocks were never on middle-ages crossbows, because that style wasn't necessary for a weapon with no recoil.  The stock was simply a straight shaft you tucked under your arm.  The armor illustrations in general look too high-tech, and some of the armor types look nearly identical to the others.If you want an idea of what real weapons and armor from the ancient era through the early rennaisance looked like, pick up a copy of Palladiums "Compendium of Weapons, Armor, and Castles."  Most of the weapon artwork isn't particularly great, but the armor illustrations are good, and they have some great real-world info on weapons and armor.Then there's some of the iconics.  The sorcerer actually does look setting appropriate, even if the pants are ridiculous (Going to the toilet looks like an all-day affair).  The rogue (Lidda?), looks a little more Goth/S&M than I'm used to in a D&D setting.  If it was "Cyberpunk d20" I'd say it was a good pick.Another favorite is the rogue/fencer guy in the "Description" section.  An interesting outfit, but he looks like more like the kind of guy who'd draw a laser pistol in his other hand and board a helpless space-merchant ship than he does some duellist from some pseudo-Rennaisance setting.I do miss some of the earlier artists (Parkinson and Wood in particular) but have to agree that the overall art design in the current D&D products is much better, even with the flaws.</blockquote>

Verification