D&D 4E I really don't like the new 4E PHB cover

[MaelStorm]

90% of those aren't anything like an adventuring party facing off against an iconic D&D monster; certainly not in a dungeon.

I was asked to show something that depict a party of adventurers fighting an iconic monster? D&D books excluded, naturally.

It's a catch if you want D&D monsters without D&D books.

 

[MaelStorm]

Sorry, you can't use dungeontwister: that's character vs. character. So clearly your whole point fails

Mark

Whoop dee do! You win, I loose.

 

[Doug McCrae]

AFAICT only one of the eight million images Maelstrom posted fits the requirements - fantasy, core rules, party battling monster - Age of Gods.

 

[MaelStorm]

I don't care. You can continue with your requirements. To me there is too much of this classic party, monster, treasure.

Fantasy, sci-fi, whatever. In the end it's the same situation getting transposed in another timeline, in my book it's valid.

 

[Wolfspider]

Wow!

Can you put all those pictures behind a link or something?

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I don't like the cover one bit.

I don't like Wayne Reynold's art one bit. And to top it all off, almost every humanoid creature he depicts has deformed feet -- he did a picture of some Japanese warrior monks for Osprey, and their feet must be all of 4 inches long, but also 4 inches thick. They don't even look remotely human.

However, any expectation of ever seeing any D&D art I would ever like again perished when 3rd edition came out. By now, I'm used to letting my eyes glaze whenever they have the misfortune to wander near a D&D picture ....

 

[Wolfspider]

I don't care. You can continue with your requirements. To me there is too much of this classic party, monster, treasure.

Fantasy, sci-fi, whatever. In the end it's the same situation getting transposed in another timeline, in my book it's valid.

Perhaps so. But your original statement, the one that I called into question, wasn't, as your own (very long) post shows.

 

[MaelStorm]

Perhaps so. But your original statement, the one that I called into question, wasn't, as your own (very long) post shows.

I was sure I was going to have this kind of answer. It's you who came with requirements, and only you can judge if your requirements are fulfilled.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

Not if you listen to the chatter behind the scenes. The Horde channels sound like a bunch of ten-year olds when I was there on my server.

It's odd, because that's the exact opposite of what I picked when I played -- I started with Alliance races, and THEN went to Horde later, still preferring the Alliance overall. Amazing what you find out after the fact.

I concur, Henry. The old "Horde is more mature" saw has been rarely borne out in my experience.

Personally, I think that the equation of "my character is ugly, so he's bad***, so I must be bad***" would be most characteristic of a teenage demographic. Older people generally aren't as worried about projecting how tough and macho they are by picking an ugly video game character. But as you say, amazing what you find out after the fact.

 

[Wolfspider]

I was sure I was going to have this kind of answer. It's you who came with requirements, and only you can judge if your requirements are fulfilled.

Goodness. I think I'm just going to drop it.