SCOOP! Wizards to release 3E Draconomicon

[Eridanis]

Sorry to bring this back on-topic, but...

I just read the blurb over at gamingreport.com, and came down from my initial interest quite a bit. No new dragons, apparently, but lots of art (!) and fluff. Nothing wrong with that, mind you, and I will look at it when it comes out, but one can never have too many cool dragons in a game called "Dungeons and " ... well, you get the idea. I would have loved to see more new (perhaps converted from 1e & 2e) dragon stats.

Glad to see some hints of 3Q & 4Q releases from WotC.

 

[Desdichado]

I just read the blurb over at gamingreport.com, and came down from my initial interest quite a bit. No new dragons, apparently, but lots of art (!) and fluff. Nothing wrong with that, mind you, and I will look at it when it comes out, but one can never have too many cool dragons in a game called "Dungeons and " ... well, you get the idea. I would have loved to see more new (perhaps converted from 1e & 2e) dragon stats.

Yeah, but the older Draconomicon didn't really have very many new dragons either. And if you consider the dragons in print already in MM, MMII, MoF, etc. there's already a ton of dragons to elaborate. Although I really miss the steel dragon, for some reason.

Not that I typically do anything with dragons at all...

 

[Olive]

it's interesting that the book is supposed to have lots of fluff.

sounds interesting to me...

 

[buzz]

Then you forgot how horrid was the art in Magic of Faerûn and Faiths & Pantheons. The FR art sucks, except in the FRCS and the Silver Marches (can't comment on Lords of Darkness). Comparing FR books with generic D&D hardcover hurts the eyes (Manual of the Planes, Psionics Handbook, Deities & Demigods are gorgeous).

You, sir, are on crack.

MoF and F&P may not have been as consistently good as the FRCS, but they still contained some freaking amazing art, much of which was by the same artists that appear in the books you mention above. C'mon, the Gnome Artificer was the bomb, baby! The 3e FR books, save for Monsters of Faerun, are some of the best-looking books in the hobby.

If you want to talk bad WotC art, whip out your copy of Song & Silence. That, my friend, is freaking lousy art (save for the most excellent cover). And if ever a WotC hardcover's art screamed "rush job," it was the PsiHB.

D&D and MotP were both very good, though.


Buzz, who is still consistently amazed at what other people consider "good."

 

[Drakron]

As long its not FR based as the original Draconomicon I might give it a shoot ...

As for art ... well even bad artwork sould descrive the creature, if that 2nd image is a Yuan-ti I am a newt, the artist sould at least bother to read the damn description and look at previous artwork.

 

[drnuncheon]

MoF and F&P may not have been as consistently good as the FRCS, but they still contained some freaking amazing art, much of which was by the same artists that appear in the books you mention above. C'mon, the Gnome Artificer was the bomb, baby!

The decent art in the PrC section was offset by the awful, awful art in the spells section. The bald, leather-and-buckle wearing ballerina elf will have its hideousness forever burned into my mind.

J
shudder

 

[drnuncheon]

snip double post

 

[Bendris Noulg]

The second Yuan Ti pic are offshoots. Broodguard and Tainted Ones, I believe.

 

[Psion]

MoF and F&P may not have been as consistently good as the FRCS, but they still contained some freaking amazing art, much of which was by the same artists that appear in the books you mention above.

I have never been happy with ANY of the art in the FR books, which has always struck me as third best among WotC books art-wise (after CAP system and the softbounds.)

 

[Wormwood]

I have never been happy with ANY of the art in the FR books, which has always struck me as third best among WotC books art-wise (after CAP system and the softbounds.)

Which baffles me, since I think the FR series has consistently the highest art quality in WotC's entire product line.

Opinions, opinions.