D&D 4E The 4e PHB : Cheesecake Y/N?

[Zamkaizer]

If that's true it's good news IMO, but I think the placeholder was the FRCS' cover.

I believe that the Brazilian publisher dropped that the PHB cover was a placeholder shortly after 4E was announced.

Also, the 'final' covers of several more recently announced books show refinements in design that early covers for the core rulebooks lack.

 

[Nifft]

Looking at it, the male warlock at the back is showing a fair amount of chest, but he's a tiefling male and pretty ugly, so i'm not going to take offence (i mean, trolls with just a loin cloth are ok)

Wait. Exposed + ugly => inoffensive, but exposed + pretty => offensive? If we subtract "exposed" from both sides, we get that pretty => offensive.

We've gotten rather far from when "arate" could mean loveliness, haven't we?

:\, -- N

 

[HeinorNY]

I believe that the Brazilian publisher dropped that the PHB cover was a placeholder shortly after 4E was announced.

Aff.. you can't trust those guys.

I mean the publishers, DEVIR.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I don't see any problem with the (temporary) cover art. Not everyone can afford a full suit of armor, they have to buy it piece meal...

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

Regardless of "raciness," its just plain ugly.

This.

 

[Starglim]

It's serious cheesecake, I'm not offended by it, but I don't much like the design. That doesn't really fit any of the options though.

 

[Aloïsius]

The cover is ugly. This is the PHB ! It means that the book is about the character you can play, and what did we see ? A monster that fit nicely with the "kill first, ask question latter" category (seriously, what do your regular "8 int" paladin do if he encounter that fugly in a dungeon corridor ?) and a girl who could be nice, but who seems unable to stand on her legs (she looks like she sliped on an imaginary turtle) and wears armor with a "hit me" special design. Isn't there something like two or three vital artery and a few lungs behind this opening ?

I pray for this cover to not be the real one.

However, not that I'm not "offended" at all : they can put a nude character on the cover if they want, that's not a problem. The problem is that this cover does not screams "I want to play one of those !".

 

[DamnedChoir]

New option: I am not offended, but I think it's a horrid cover. The art is rather terrible and silly looking, I much preferred the 'plain' covers to the 3E and 3.5E books. Seriously, I may not be offended by the cheesecake, but god, that's not an appetizing cover image for me.

 

[Zamkaizer]

I like Wayne Reynolds (in before massive derail), and I like this cover, but I'll admit it isn't his strongest or most contextually appropriate piece.

Now perhaps we can get back on topic, instead of having the same discussion we have every time the Player's Handbook cover get mentioned?

 

[Felon]

People who get offended by cheesecake need to get out more often. The world is full of much greater injustices than depicting cleavage.

It's an ugly cover. It doesn't say "D&D" to me at all. There ought to be at least a couple more characters, and they should actually be doing something that suggests adventure more strongly than firing bolts at some off-page target.