PHB, MM, DMG covers

[JVisgaitis]

Hmm... I'd like to know the reasoning behind he white title... I wonder...

It seems like they are trying to set the logo off which IMO is a mistake. If your logo can't reside on any background, you need to go back to the drawing board. The old D&D logo had that Chevy symbol looking thing that it sat on. Since this one is more free standing I think they placed the white there for that reason.

After looking at the D&D logo for a bit I found out what I don't like. The problem I have is with the hue of the red (I think it should be more maroon) and the weird fiery bits at the bottom. If they want to place it on anything, the should use the rock background that's on the D&D Insider site. That looks sharp.

 

[WhatGravitas]

If they want to place it on anything, they should use the rock background that's on the D&D Insider site. That looks sharp.

Same here - that header was my inspiration for the slightly textured look of the black. Hmph... if they're sticking with the white cover design, I'll probably scan it, 'shop it and glue a rock-background version on my 4E PHB.

Cheers, LT.

 

[DaveMage]

Thumbs down on the new covers - although nice improvement, Jeff!

 

[RFisher]

Ok, it's a green dragon, and I have to admit that its theme would make a perfect PHB cover. But I guess/hope they are going to use it as the cover for an introductory product - a Basic Box or something similar.

These were my thoughts exactly. As soon as I realized it wasn't the PHB cover, I began hoping it would be on a good "basic" product. (The adventure that's coming out in April?)

It might be better if the dungeon walls more in blue/gray tones so the dragon could be red, but I hesitate to tamper with it.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

There's apparently a skirmish game starter kit coming out in April - same month as the quickstart adventure - which will contain five figures not used in any other set, including a Large green dragon.

Want to bet the other four are those adventurers, and that the painting will be used on that game?

 

[RFisher]

OK, to expand on my comments from the other cover art thread...

My criteria for RPG covers:

• Number one is that the name of the game needs to be very, very clear. If the first time you see it is from across the room while squinting, you first reaction should be to immediately know the name of the game. I think the new covers succeed on this one.
• The game's logo needs to be able to degrade gracefully in black & white. (A standard logo requirement.) I think the new logo succeeds.
• The cover art should be full-bleed, so that it is as large as possible & very right there. Almost jumping off the cover. Check.
• The cover art should depict a party adventuring. The PHB art almost succeeds. We have a pair of adventurers, which is better than a lone figure. They don't really look like they're adventuring so much as posing, though. The DMG & MM covers are given something of a waiver on this one since D&D isn't a one-core-book game. I think the content of the DMG & MM artwork is just fine.
• If it's called D&D, it'd be good to have dungeons & dragons depicted. Check & check. (One dragon among the three covers works for me.)
• The artwork should depict things that are actually in the books. I assume this is the case.
• The art should make you want to play! Well, in comparison to the 3e covers, these succeed by a landslide. Probably better than a lot of other games I've seen as well. But could it have been done better...?

So, overall, I think they great.

Question answered. The PHB, at least, could have been better. (^_^)

 

[Doug McCrae]

The green dragon in the other WAR pic is too prominent for it to be the PHB cover. The monster's taking up much more space than the adventurers.

PHB cover should be player characters (and only player characters), at least one casting a spell. MM cover should feature monsters (duh!). DMG cover is a lot trickier. It could show what happens once the PCs kill the monsters, much like the 1e PHB cover, it could depict treasure or it could show a wide landscape with adventurers and monsters, but the world itself given most prominence, JRRT-style.

 

[blargney the second]

JVisgaitis, that cover mock-up is hawt. I'd get excited about playing D&D every time I saw that on the PHB.

 

[Hjorimir]

This is only about 1,000% better than the one they came up with. Nice work, Jeff!

 

[The Human Target]

Umm, so I was just looking at these and I had a few thoughts I wanted to share.

PHB- Has anyone officially stated anywhere that the wizard/sorcerer looking horned character on the PHB cover is in fact a Tiefling? Because he doesn't look like one at all. I know that its said tieflings will be core in 4E, but that doesn't make that particular character a tiefling. You know what he looks like?

A half red dragon.

Tinged red skin, red dragon horns, a dragon tail with a frill, it looks like he has talons on his casting hand, he has ridges on his cheek bone like a red dragon does, and even has a point on his chin just like a red dragon does.

DMG- A red dragon is on the MM cover, looking in his/her crystal ball on the activities of the two characters from the PHB cover. Is that horned mage in fact this dragon's son/descendant? I'd be willing to put money on it.

Its also worth noting that the dragon is looking in on PCs, plotting and probably manipulating their lives. Which when you think about it is exactly what a DM does, and thus makes the cover excellent in terms of reflecting the books content.

MM- The MM cover looks out of place with the other two, which is why I imagine that isn't going to be the final cover. This is all conjecture, but I imagine the final cover will depict whatever creatures the characters on the cover of the PHB are reacting to, with a lightening strike arcing into the frame.

I think that Orcus picture is great, but may be used somewhere else.

So I think that all three covers will in fact have an interrelation and do in fact reflect the contents of the books themselves.

I apologize if someone else has already said this.