New Player's Handbook Cover Art!

[Amphimir Míriel]

Lastly... get rid of the white background for the logo! It needs a nice textured leather or dragon scale look to it, colored to complement the cover illustrations better.

I am not a graphic designer (I work with several of them, though, being a journalist), but it seems to me that the reason the core rulebooks have the white background is because it provides a stark contrast against the logo.

And of course, visibility in a store's bookshelf full of fantasy covers is what they need to sell books to first time buyers...

We old-timers will buy the books (or not) based on the opinions of strangers in internet forums

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Granted, a larger image might make the dragonborn not look goofy but at this size it looks like a blob of some sort. However, I do like the atmosphere of the new cover better than the fashion show that was the old cover. Between the two, it currently is a wash as far as I am concerned. When I see a larger version of the new cover, if the Dragonborn looks better the new cover will win of the two.

All in all... The green dragon picture is the best one of the three.

WotC, Get the green dragon picture on the cover of the PHB already! Please!!!

 

[DaveMage]

That new cover is UGLY (IMO).
(Although the first 2E PHB was worse.)

Bleh.

 

[Sir Sebastian Hardin]

I like the new cover better than the older one. But... the wizard looks really ugly... it doesn't look like a WAR girl, wich are often really hawt.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I like the new cover better than the older one. But... the wizard looks really ugly... it doesn't look like a WAR girl, wich are often really hawt.

Obviously they are trying to maintain consistency between the artwork and the DDI character generator.

 

[Desdichado]

The real question is: when is Wayne Reynolds going to put those images up in his online art gallery?

 

[DJCupboard]

I like the look of this art, but not as a cover. WAR is a good artist when he's really pushing the boundaries of his form, but this is just stock work (and no artsist's stock work deserves to be on the cover). I'm not an artist or an art critic, but I've always been peeved by his one forward facing foot, his one oversized forearm in front of the body, and his inward pointing teeth on anyone grimacing. This piece has the foot and the forearm (at least on the dragonborn), but at least nobody needs braces here. He's great at details, but at the same time, his objects tend to be too thick.

As much as I love his really great work, I was excited when I heard 4e was going to take a new direction from 3.x, as I expected that to mean less of a realiance on WAR, who utterly dominated this edition. I was bolstered by such early releases as this:

http://www.enworld.org/images/4e/smimura_VictoryAndLootingT_smt.jpg

(Sorry for the small image, I can't quite get the hang of the almost html this board supports)

Ah well, the more things change, the more they stay the same...

 

[EATherrian]

I did this awhile ago. Personally, I think its better than either of the covers they've done so far. Kudos to them for listening and re-commissioning the art though. At least they are willing to listen to their audience and make changes.

Now THAT looks like a Player's Handbook to me! I don't like these new covers much, but I can't quite put my finger on why. Maybe they're just not evocative enough.

 

[EATherrian]

Peoples are so picky.... *sighes deeply*

Dragonborns are not stupid also, btw. But don't tell grognards. *rolls eyes*

I could be considered a grognard I think. I've played for almost 30 years, I love Greyhawk; those two alone should be sufficient for the title. Still, I don't mind the dragonborn. My only problem with the cover has sort of been mentioned. I want to see a party in action. If that party includes dragonborn, I'd be fine with it.

 

[Guild Goodknife]

Have a look at the history of D&D corerules covers. I know i left some out