New cover art for the Revised PHB and DMG?

[haiiro]

Oh, and to stay on topic, I really like the tome look of the covers. My biggest reason for this is that it keeps them non-campaign-specific (fantasy scenes as covers generally promote a certain campain setting ex: Wheel of Time).

I agree.

As an aside, the actual models for the covers -- at least, the three I've seen: PHB, DMG, MMII -- are amazing. Particularly with the MMII cover (which I like a lot), it's hard to appreciate the depth and coolness factor just from the cover.

 

[Zander]

*logical Falacy alert!*

Just because a Mad Max figure could fit in 3e doesn't mean that 3e looks like Mad Max.

If A looks like B, then B looks like A. No logical fallacy.

If you're suggesting that that character is an exception among the many Mad Max characters, you may want to watch the films (again), especially Thunderdome. Not every Mad Max character looks like a 3E illustration but there's a fairly large overlap.

A Jedi wearing robes would probably not look out of place in a 3e book, but that doesn't mean 3e looks like Star Wars

I disagree. A Jedi in robes doesn't have nearly enough patches, pieces, pouches, stitching, buckles and leather to be a 3E character. Jedi robes are very much more D&Dish.

 

[Desdichado]

If you're suggesting that that character is an exception among the many Mad Max characters, you may want to watch the films (again), especially Thunderdome. Not every Mad Max character looks like a 3E illustration but there's a fairly large overlap.

A quick point. Even if I accept that it's true that 3e looks like Mad Max (which I don't) then you still have the problem that Mad Max isn't very scifi and doesn't look very futuristic. Mad Max kinda started it's own genre of a Dark Age apocalyptic future, in which clothing (among other things) is decidedly un-futuristic and purposefully barbaric. So, again, even if you can show that Mad Max and 3e look alike, that doesn't mean that 3e looks scifi or futuristic.

 

[shadow]

I have mixed feelings about 3e art. I really like the "ancient tome look" of the covers as well as the DaVinci-esque illustrations that start each chapter.
However, I really hate the look of so many of the iconics. Why do all the adventurers feel compelled to dress in bondage-style clothing? Are they card carrying members of the leather and lace society?

 

[shadowlight]

If A looks like B, then B looks like A. No logical fallacy.

Actually that's the fallacy of Undistributed Middle (a common syllogistic fallacy, ex: Mad Max looks like that guy, D&D looks like that guy therefore D&D looks like Mad Max).

*ducks*

 

[shadowlight]

On a side note, I also think that 3e D&D looks Mad Max-ish and I like it

 

[EricNoah]

I didn't care especially for the "jewel-encrusted book" cover for the PHB, nor the locking/gears theme on the DMG. I did like the cover for the MM. I also liked the "ancient tome" look for the FRCS. If they're going to go the "fake book" cover route I'd rather have it look like the FRCS, but I think personally I would like a luscious, illustrated fanatasy scene.

 

[incognito]

I think I might prefer something that does not make me look like a total ass when I walk down the street with it - like the old DMG used to..

 

[shadowlight]

I didn't care especially for the "jewel-encrusted book" cover for the PHB, nor the locking/gears theme on the DMG. I did like the cover for the MM. I also liked the "ancient tome" look for the FRCS...

Absolutely! I did like the gears, but next time make them involute teeth please!!

 

[Paradoxish]

Death to the "dungeon-punk" style of character art. Weapons, armor and shields look as they do for a reason- it's functional!

I also like the tome look of the cover art, but on the above point I agree with you guys 100%! I hate the spiky, "freak" look of the new art. I love the look of traditional fantasy and hate it when new D&D players get the impression that the entire population of a D&D world shops at the medieval version of Hot Topic...