D&D 5E I hope this isn't 5E...(art that screams "not this, not this!")

[Hussar]

In either case, neither one was the norm or baseline of the art, which is really what we are talking about here...

Well, I thought this was a thread about D&D art we don't want to see make a comeback. It's not a criticism of edition. I'd also point out that the Thought Eater is from the Monster Manual.

Here's another gem:

Psst, hey Bill! Michael called and said he wants his Elric back.

And, let it not be said that I cast stones only at the old stuff...

Ahhh ahhh, Dude looks like a lady... err, lady looks like a dude? err... well, at least now I know the inspiration for V in OOTS.

 

[Mattachine]

I do not want to see a repeat of a dwarf wizard in a string bikini blasting a galltrit, as was shown in the monster tables at the back of the AD&D Fiend Folio.

Please, please no.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
What's wrong with this one? Looks like a perfectly good, cursed, kill ya soon as strike for ya kinda sword.

Perhaps you find my meaning too country. ((With apologies to the bard.))

 

[Lurks-no-More]

That's one of the reasons I like the 4e Tiefling design and am OK with the Deva's replacing the Aasimir since both of those are far more unique than "holy blonde human" and "unholy human with horns".

My thoughts exactly. Tieflings and Aasimar as a mish-mash of planar traits and features slapped on a human base suited Planescape (even though in practice things were as you said: practically every Tiefling PC I ever saw looked like a human with small horns, devil tail optional), but the 4e style Tieflings are much better and iconic for what is genuinely supposed to be a race.

 

[Scribble]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] aww man I'ma have to dissagree with you on these two.

These two demonstrate how fueled by LSD and Mushrooms the 70s and 80s were. I think above all THAT is what is missing from today's editions.

 

[Lwaxy]

I do not want to see a repeat of a dwarf wizard in a string bikini blasting a galltrit, as was shown in the monster tables at the back of the AD&D Fiend Folio.

Please, please no.

And I was doing so good forgetting that...

 

[billd91]

Going back to the original point of this thread, here are things I DON'T want to see in D&DN.

Ok, Alfred E. Newman, you get voted off the island:


Whoever thought a vampiric, skelton platypus was a good model for a monster was smoking something groooovy:

As much as I love the 1e Fiend Folio, it really did have some very, very miss art. Baby got some serious back:

etc. etc

As far as I'm concerned, that's all the more reason to incorporate a variety of art and artists. You may not much like the artistic stylings of Russ Nicholson, but you may like others and not be completely turned off by the product. A monster book featuring nothing by the work of Thomas Baxa will NOT grace my shelf. But if he's a contributor to a work and I like the rest of the art and presentation, it will.

 

[Scribble]

As far as I'm concerned, that's all the more reason to incorporate a variety of art and artists. You may not much like the artistic stylings of Russ Nicholson, but you may like others and not be completely turned off by the product. A monster book featuring nothing by the work of Thomas Baxa will NOT grace my shelf. But if he's a contributor to a work and I like the rest of the art and presentation, it will.

I agree completely with this- I want to see variety.

It bugs me to no end when a game is filled with one artist or one style the entire way through.

I think that's why I didn't get into the Dark Sun art or the Planescape art as much as others... I liked it, but it was overwhelming.

 

[Hussar]

I have no problems with variety. I even like the idea of mixing different styles as well - some full color, some inks, not a problem.

But, seriously? Any of the images I showed would even remotely be considered good? Those are just ugly.

 

[billd91]

But, seriously? Any of the images I showed would even remotely be considered good? Those are just ugly.

Eye of the beholder, man. Someone else thought they weren't.