Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 7883762" data-attributes="member: 58416">I wasn't aware he was an artist for the book.&nbsp; That's surprising because I liked his D&amp;D 3.5 stuff.Looking again, some things look okay. The art for the bear on page 40 seems fine. The Archons mostly seem okay too.I think it's most of the reptilian or lizard stuff which looks weird to me. If this make sense, they look too... I dunno... too clean? This is subjective, but I also feel as though they're too sleek in places they should have some ruggedness and too rugged in places where they should be more refined. (Yeah, I know that sounds like some pedantic BS art critic, but...) Many of them seem more fish-like (or maybe froggy) than I feel they should. The kobolds are an example; they seem more like slaad or maybe a mutated grippli (with snakey shark heads).The Demons seem mostly okay. I'm not sure how I feel about the Balor though. It's something about the head and face that bothers me... on further thought, that seems to be the area which seems most off to me for many of the pieces. Something just isn't quite right about how bodies connect to head and/or the style of head &amp; face.In contrast, the Derro seem fine.I like most of the Devils.The Bronze and Blue dragons look like they have rival instagram accounts, with a lot of duck lip and booty pop photos.I like the Drakes. At first, I was unsure, but I like them now. I think the way they're drawn captures the idea that they're sorta the less smarty goofy cousins of dragons.Overall, like I said, nothing is bad. The production values are great, and the artists involved are undeniably talented. Something just seems slightly off about the underlying (for a lack of better words) soul.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Argyle King, post: 7883762, member: 58416"] I wasn't aware he was an artist for the book. That's surprising because I liked his D&D 3.5 stuff. Looking again, some things look okay. The art for the bear on page 40 seems fine. The Archons mostly seem okay too. I think it's most of the reptilian or lizard stuff which looks weird to me. If this make sense, they look too... I dunno... too clean? This is subjective, but I also feel as though they're too sleek in places they should have some ruggedness and too rugged in places where they should be more refined. (Yeah, I know that sounds like some pedantic BS art critic, but...) Many of them seem more fish-like (or maybe froggy) than I feel they should. The kobolds are an example; they seem more like slaad or maybe a mutated grippli (with snakey shark heads). The Demons seem mostly okay. I'm not sure how I feel about the Balor though. It's something about the head and face that bothers me... on further thought, that seems to be the area which seems most off to me for many of the pieces. Something just isn't quite right about how bodies connect to head and/or the style of head & face. In contrast, the Derro seem fine. I like most of the Devils. The Bronze and Blue dragons look like they have rival instagram accounts, with a lot of duck lip and booty pop photos. I like the Drakes. At first, I was unsure, but I like them now. I think the way they're drawn captures the idea that they're sorta the less smarty goofy cousins of dragons. Overall, like I said, nothing is bad. The production values are great, and the artists involved are undeniably talented. Something just seems slightly off about the underlying (for a lack of better words) soul. [/QUOTE]

Verification