Rant about the cover of the 4e Player's Handbook

[Keefe the Thief]

This rant says nothing about the quality of actual written contents of said book.

Yeah, I don't like the cover.
For starters, the art is very unpleasing to the eye IMO. While the artist does show incredible skill, the hard edges, sharp contrast and darkish colors don't look good to me. But beauty is in the eye of the eye tyrant.
It's very specific in comparison to the 3/3.5e version. By that I mean it has two very specific characters (a human female spellcaster and a dragonborn male warrior) on its cover instead of something more abstract that every player can relate to.
And lastly, it has some very Unfortunate Implications. The drawing just shouts "Men are brutish monsters and women are sex objects". The male character in that picture is actually an ugly monster and the female character seems to be there for the sole purpose of showing her Great Cleavage.

Thanks for allowing me a place to rant.
Sorry about the poor humor and tvtropes links.

Amazing what a simple image can imply. How times change! In the past, our books implied...

... that all men like to ride horses through brown canyons.

... that all men are either ugly spellcasters or brutish, door-destroying thugs with severe anatomical problems (brown people living in a brown world, apparently).

... hey, some settings even implied that men are heartless killing machines that only care about swords and treasure! Hmm, and i met many players who agreed.


I think i prefer the pair of adventurers, boobs or no boobs.

 

[Dannager]

The art is awesome, it's been a year and a half, and you really don't need to link to TVTropes in order to make your point clear.

 

[fuzzlewump]

I agree with you in that I don't like the cover very much, but that's just because I generally don't like Wayne Reynolds (sorry if that's spelled wrong, didn't look it up) but I can't disagree with boobies.

 

[ppaladin123]

The art is awesome, it's been a year and a half, and you really don't need to link to TVTropes in order to make your point clear.

I agree with you on the tv tropes. However, the art style in question (the posing characters) is in continued use on other recent and upcoming books. I think it is thus a relevant/timely topic.

 

[CarlZog]

There was a tension inherent in this cover that has been missing since. You were dying to know what was going to happen next. You WANTED to be in that scene, even if only as a spectator to see if they got away with it. The real drama of the game was never better displayed than here, I think.

Covers since seem to have focused more on trying to entice you into wanting to become the character displayed, rather than be involved in the scene.

"I want to be that guy!"
rather than
"I want to be THERE!"

Carl

 

[Wormwood]

However, the art style in question (the posing characters) is in continued use on other recent and upcoming books.

Yep---and as a consistent, recognizable design style I have zero problem with D&D art either in conception or execution.

Adventurers looking badass under a huge logo? Fine w/me.

 

[jbear]

Sorry, not feeling you at all.

Wayne Reynolds is an incredibly skillful artist who captures movement and the weight and balance of the body like few can and do.

Love his art. And I much prefer the 4e PHB cover to the 'tome-like' appearance that you prefer.

But rant away. You need many colours to make a rainbow.

 

[RangerWickett]

I'm just amused by the Wayne Reynolds Shuffle. Look at any random collection of illustrations by the man, and find at least 2 that show a person standing up straight, neither hunched nor with their knees bent. Most of the time his characters shuffle toward the viewer, torsos hunched forward, legs bent and knees pointing 45-degrees away from the direction of movement, like they're constantly sidestepping.

It's dramatic, cool-looking sidestepping, and I overall love WAR's art, but I always get a kick out of this.

Me, I much preferred the character sheet cover art, with four adventurers fighting a dragon. I prefer action to static poses. (But I prefer static poses to door-bursting barbarians with hernias, Mr. Jeff Easley.)

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Personally, I loved the 3.X style of book covers. The art made the book seem like a prop in the game

 

[Jhaelen]

Covers since seem to have focused more on trying to entice you into wanting to become the character displayed, rather than be involved in the scene.

"I want to be that guy!"
rather than
"I want to be THERE!"

Yup!

I think this might be partly caused by the 'settingless' rules. No setting = no cool locations.
What I don't get, though, is why they don't focus on the landscape for the setting books. E.g. the new cover for the Dark Sun campaign setting is _terrible_.

I would vastly prefer covers showing more of fantastic locations.
This is one of my favorite pieces from the 3e PHB2.

Isn't this infinitely more inspiring than two toons shuffling about in front of a non-descript background?