D&D 5E Planescape shows up in the wild. Tease from Chris Perkins.

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

The DiTerlizzi art's great - the only complaint I have is that it's (seemingly) limited to the DM screen, with the book covers and box art pulling from isolated elements of that image, rather than getting him to illustrate multiple distinct pieces throughout, but that's not a complaint against his art so much as a keen desire for much, much more of it.

That's not to say I'm somehow dissatisfied with the standard 5e art, though. Honestly, both versions look great to me, aesthetics wise.

 

[Incenjucar]

The real question is: Will the new books feature punk girls riding rockets like the old maps did?

 

[LordEntrails]

No one is saying the new stuff is bad, but it isn't the same as it was, and as using him in the new product was clearly because he was associated with the brand originally, his presence here now serves no purpose other than to entice fans of his older style to buy something they otherwise might not.

I'm sorry, I honestly thought that's what you meant by that. I have nothing against him or his artwork, I just don't see WotC using him for any other reason than to entice old Planescape fans, and since his art style has changed, that benefit is to some degree disingenuous.

The have to have someone create the art right? Unless you want them to do AI art. So who would you want them to use? We get that you don't like Tony's newer style, and that's a valid opinion, but really no reason for WotC not to use him.

Any artist not associated with Planescape or D&D has no particular benefit. Sure, they could pick Paula Scher or Dan Mora, but would you expect them to draw any anymore fans than Tony?
Picking an artist who already has a connection to the product gives WotC at least a benefit of the artist being known to the D&D community.

 

[Parmandur]

The have to have someone create the art right? Unless you want them to do AI art. So who would you want them to use? We get that you don't like Tony's newer style, and that's a valid opinion, but really no reason for WotC not to use him.

Any artist not associated with Planescape or D&D has no particular benefit. Sure, they could pick Paula Scher or Dan Mora, but would you expect them to draw any anymore fans than Tony?
Picking an artist who already has a connection to the product gives WotC at least a benefit of the artist being known to the D&D community.

Not to mention that he is an extremely popular children's book illustrator, so a lot of the target audience who don't know Planescape know his art

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's the spirit... Go in wanting not to like it.

I've been pretty unhappy with everything WotC has released since Tasha's, and their recent work on settings made by their predecessor are particularly egregious. I have no reason to believe their version of Planescape would be any better than their version of Spelljammer, or (ugh) Ravenloft.

 

[eyeheartawk]

I've been pretty unhappy with everything WotC has released since Tasha's, and their recent work on settings made by their predecessor are particularly egregious. I have no reason to believe their version of Planescape would be any better than their version of Spelljammer, or (ugh) Ravenloft.

My biggest sources of trepidation are the format (which worked spectularly well for Spelljammer as I'm sure we can all agree) and current 5e meta to try to de-emphasize alignment as much as possible, which in Planescape, doesn't really work.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The have to have someone create the art right? Unless you want them to do AI art. So who would you want them to use? We get that you don't like Tony's newer style, and that's a valid opinion, but really no reason for WotC not to use him.

Any artist not associated with Planescape or D&D has no particular benefit. Sure, they could pick Paula Scher or Dan Mora, but would you expect them to draw any anymore fans than Tony?
Picking an artist who already has a connection to the product gives WotC at least a benefit of the artist being known to the D&D community.

Which is what I said before. They're doing it to bring in the old fans, without caring that the reason they liked his work may no longer exist.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My biggest sources of trepidation are the format (which worked spectularly well for Spelljammer as I'm sure we can all agree) and current 5e meta to try to de-emphasize alignment as much as possible, which in Planescape, doesn't really work.

Me too, but people were talking about the artist, and I have an opinion about that.

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

My biggest sources of trepidation are the format (which worked spectularly well for Spelljammer as I'm sure we can all agree) and current 5e meta to try to de-emphasize alignment as much as possible, which in Planescape, doesn't really work.

Eh, I love alignment as much as the next guy - honestly, probably a fair bit more than most - but there's just as much if not more that they can do with Faction-based philosophical/ideological conflict that doesn't require them to shoehorn everything into the alignment framework by default.

Alignment is important for the conceptual structure of the Great Wheel and the native "outsider" denizens thereof (devil, demons, modrons, archons, etc.).

At a player level, it's largely optional.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Eh, I love alignment as much as the next guy - honestly, probably a fair bit more than most - but there's just as much if not more that they can do with Faction-based philosophical/ideological conflict that doesn't require them to shoehorn everything into the alignment framework by default.

Alignment is important for the conceptual structure of the Great Wheel and the native "outsider" denizens thereof (devil, demons, modrons, archons, etc.).

At a player level, it's largely optional.

Setting is about far more than the player level. WotC no longer cares about that, which is why I don't trust their setting work, at all.