PHB II: Am I The Only One Blown Away By The Art?

[caudor]

I assume you're talking about the main barb pic at the beginning of the class writeup? I agree. When I first saw him, I noticed how weird his face was. And his hair. But the thing that really stands out in my mind is his man boob.

I decree that hence forth, he shall be known as Moob, Iconic Barbarian.

The Adroit Explorer and Turathi Highborn are both lacking art.

I really love the art for the Ancestral Incarnate, Shiere Knight (despite her face kind of seeming off to me), Invoker and Zealous Assassin.

Most of the 4e art is terrific. I recall a few wow moments just reading Dragon and Dungeon magazine. Every now and then there is some crazy exception....like that Barbarian. What in the world? He seems to suffer from gynecomastria (man boob), and just does not seem to be proportioned correctly at all.

However, that's the exception and not the rule. Overall, I've been very impressed by 4e art.

 

[Shemeska]

I sometimes wonder what % of those who bemoan recycled art are illustrators or their sympathizers upset to see their chances of getting work from wotc dry up with each recycled illo.

... excuse me? So if someone doesn't like recycled artwork because it's tacky, or seems like a way to skimp people on value, they must either be a jealous artist or one of their toadies?

 

[Hexmage-EN]

My favorite piece in PHB2 by far is the illustration in the Warden section depicting a Shifter Warden bludgeoning a Yuan-ti with a hammer. It looks very nice.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

or seems like a way to skimp people on value

Yeah, recycled art is just like stealing money out of your pocket.

 

[I'm A Banana]

However, that's the exception and not the rule. Overall, I've been very impressed by 4e art.

I've been a little mixed. I really enjoyed most of 3e's art, even when it was silly -- Hennet "Buckles" McSorcerer was still a pretty cool pic. There were a few moaners, and some oddly forced choices, but the angular, piecemeal, in-the-midst-of-action, zoom-bang illos captured my attention really well, and made me excited to be part of a game where stuff like that happened, generally speaking.

4e art hasn't been as zoom-bang for me. There's been some really awesome pieces, but rather than woosh, they thud. Things are shiny, cartoony, solid and like plastic chunks. 3e's pieces conveyed a lot of motion to me, a lot of "captured in the moment" stuff. 4e's pieces convey a more "posed" aesthetic, more prepared and blocky.

Of course, these are vague generalities covering some very different pieces -- it's not exactly a scientific or precise thing, just a general feeling I get. It could be as much from the page layout of 4e as it is the art, though.

 

[resistor]

4e art hasn't been as zoom-bang for me. There's been some really awesome pieces, but rather than woosh, they thud. Things are shiny, cartoony, solid and like plastic chunks. 3e's pieces conveyed a lot of motion to me, a lot of "captured in the moment" stuff. 4e's pieces convey a more "posed" aesthetic, more prepared and blocky.

I have to agree with this, though I haven't looked at nearly all of the 4e books. All the three-quarter-spread illustrations in the core books looked really posed and fake to me.

Not that 3e's illustrations were perfect, but I got MUCH more of a sense of action from them.

 

[Shemeska]

I will give 4e's artwork some credit though. They don't have Crabapple.

 

[Scribble]

Overall I've liked the 4e art more then I liked the 3e art... But it's still not my favorite all time D&D art. The same thing I find bugs me in 4e now with a lot of pics that bugged me in 3e.

1. Like others have said a lot of it is too cartoony. Not that I'm saying that's a BAD thing per sey... Just I tend to prefer the more realistic looking artwork.

2. Too many illustrations, not enough full pieces. Illos are cool... I mean sure they let me know what a thing looks like, but that's it. Full pieces with detailed backgrounds on the other hand tend to inspire a story in me.

Shrug. To each his own.

 

[Dausuul]

The interior art is a definite step up from PHB1. Some really good stuff in there, though there are as always some clunkers too. I don't care about recycled pieces, by and large; I'd rather have a good reprint than a crappy original. There's some stuff from 2E and BECMI that I'd really like to see make a comeback.

I do have to wonder why they keep picking mediocre cover art, though. The goliath isn't bad, but the gnome... euch. Not that it's anywhere near as wretched as the PHB1 cover art. I guess going from "Dear God, why?" to "Meh" is an improvement.

The male half-orc is kind of sexy . . .

The female half-orc is not half bad either. Well, okay, technically I guess she is half bad, but I wouldn't kick her out of bed. (After the third broken bone I might ask her politely to leave.)

 

[frankthedm]

... excuse me? So if someone doesn't like recycled artwork because it's tacky, or seems like a way to skimp people on value, they must either be a jealous artist or one of their toadies?

If someone doesn't like recycled artwork because they feel it's tacky, or it seems like a way to skimp people on value to them, then they aren't in the % of those who i suspect are upset to see the chances of artists getting work from wotc dry up with each recycled illo.

I will give 4e's artwork some credit though. They don't have Crabapple.

Agreed.