D&D 5E Good art and Really bad art in the 5e PHB

[sgtscott658]

Hi ya-

A couple of my players and I really liked some of the art in 5e, the Bar room fight page was very cool looking, the Full page art for Part one was also very cool, heck I kinda wish they used that artwork for the cover of the PHB because the PHB cover art sucked (what the hell is that on the PHB cover anyway?)

I really liked the Gnome Art on page 35, very cool indeed, the Druid art was also very cool too. On the other hand, the Halfling art really sucked, whats up with the huge head and tiny legs? Did this particular artist suffer from dyslexia?

But to most of us, the worst art had to be the half orc Paladin (the klingon tiefling is a close second) An angry monstrous creature does not strike me as Paladin like in anyway. I know some people will not like this posting and for them I do apologize upfront if I did offend them with this posting but boy, the art in 5E could have been much better, thankfully the system aint that bad and is fun.


Scott

 

[Nebulous]

No, it is fair enough to politely voice our opinions on an anonymous internet forum where it really has no impact anyway. And art is so subjective anyway, what one person loves another person loathes.

For the most part i like the art. Even the paladin you mentioned, i don't think of a half orc as being a paladin EVER, but that's just my personal preference. The text does describe a paladin as possibly being a loner set on revenge, so he could definitely be an angry paladin.

Here's my qualm with the 5e PHB...i counted the full page art, including some half pages i combined into one....there are 30 full cover pages. I like the art, i really do, but part of me feels like they could have included more interesting options, such as more background or spells, instead of all that art. I'm not saying take it all away, hell, just scale it BACK a little!

 

[Lalato]

And I'm the exact opposite. I could use about 30 more full pages of art. Different strokes (no pun intended)...

 

[Wild Gazebo]

I was a bit surprised about the art when I first leafed through the book. There is a general softness to most of the colour choices (whether these were filtered for the book or artist choice I don't know) with the sense of children's book...if not in content. But, what really floored me, is the large amount of amateur work hearkening back to some of the first editions. Now, I haven't really perused the illustration credits in detail; but, the sheer amount of disregard for figure and form and the poor amount of building a harmonious design in several of the compositions (to be fair many of the pictures are obviously cropped) took me by surprise. I must admit, it is really growing on me...but I was jarred the first time I looked at it. Whatever the skill of the artists I consider the book a success because the book makes me want to play D&D.

 

[sgtscott658]

WotC shoulda hired Tony DiTerlizzi, his artwork is very evocative of D&D. Here is a proper version of a Tiefling that does not resemble a klingon:

http://diterlizzi.com/home/games-gallery/#!lightbox[games]/13/

Or a Pally that looks like a Paladin:

http://diterlizzi.com/home/games-gallery/#!lightbox[games]/19/


Scott

 

[Chocolategravy]

It weighs in at about 60 less pages than 3.5E and has a lot more art, so significantly less rules. More correctly it spends significantly less time on the rules that it has, as overall it covers pretty much the same ground as previous editions do. There are numerous sites with many hugely talented artists showing galleries of their work. The value of having a lot of art in the book is exactly zero. I'm paying for rules.

 

[Mercurius]

It weighs in at about 60 less pages than 3.5E and has a lot more art, so significantly less rules. More correctly it spends significantly less time on the rules that it has, as overall it covers pretty much the same ground as previous editions do. There are numerous sites with many hugely talented artists showing galleries of their work. The value of having a lot of art in the book is exactly zero. I'm paying for rules.

Value to whom? Yourself, presumably - but my guess is that most people enjoy art in their D&D books and don't just want endless pages of text.

You seem to take the view that quantity--and weight--are more important than quality and aesthetic appeal. I actually feel very different from you and like the fact that they cover more ground with less rules, and that there is plenty of art which makes it more pleasurable to read through.

 

[Steely Dan]

I would have liked more black & white art (line drawings, etc); I am not really into full splash pages (maybe a few, like the one in the intro, around the campfire).

 

[GameDoc]

I and most of my gaming group cut our teeth on 2e and so far all of us who did have said independently that the art and layout makes it feel like a successor of the 2e PHB, visually at least. That gave me a warm fuzzy.

I'm of two minds regarding the halflings. The proportionately tiny feet were odd to see (halflings a la Rob Liefeld...?), but I'm also glad to see them wearing shoes and not pigeonholed into being hobbits. I know a lot of fans prefer the hobbit look, but I'm glad to see some efforts at keeping them distinct.

I was also surprised (although not unhappy) with the lack of having a consistent look. The most out of place thing to me seemed to be the tapestry image in the fighter section. Partially because it's visually dissimilar to anything else in the book, but also because it appears to have a wizard (granted it could be an eldritch knight) alongside the fighter. No other class entry depicts members of other classes. This might have fit better in the combat chapter.

 

[GameDoc]

I would have liked more black & white art (line drawings, etc); I am not really into full splash pages (maybe a few, like the one in the intro, around the campfire).

This too.