Weapon Illustrations in RPG Books

[Ranger REG]

This is lame art.

See the Lord of the Rings movies for what "artistic" medieval equipment looks like -- interesting, reflecting made up cultures, but also clearly functional (and in many cases, based on actual historical objects from different real cultures).

Yeah, but Peter Jackson's production got the big budget to hire the artists to make lots and lots of concept artwork before PJ can approve the ones he like for his films.

Even then, it just doesn't stop with art, it has to be a real functioning prop items to be used by actors and stuntmen. It's not like WotC have gone ahead to make those arts into real items. They're not making films, just rules for our imaginations.

 

[FireLance]

I never understood why people would want to picture the most absurd versions of weapons, then claim they are broken or cheesy, when their are visual examples that work, look cool... ect..

You've got that backwards. First, they want to be able to claim that the weapons are broken or cheesy, then they bring up the most absurd versions.

This reminds me of how some people, when faced with a choice between two possible interpretations of the rules, choose the more powerful one, and then claim that it is broken.

 

[frankthedm]

Nah- you really can't spike the front of the armor- for most weapons or a shield, your arms will be swinging across your torso.

The back is fine, though.

Do remember the magical capes and backpacks in D&D.

IMHO Armor spikes need more oomph. For as lethal as they look, they don't have the stats to back it up. I'd recommend
*Crit range 19-20 in grapple
*Can take the grapple option of "Damage opponent" even when pinned.
*Each time the wearer is constricted by a creature with discernible anatomy, the constricting creature suffers a hit from the armor spikes, using it's own STR bonus if greater than the armor wearer's.

To balance these out try these...

*-1 AC vs. Manufactured weapons
*Standing up from prone takes a standard action.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

You've got that backwards. First, they want to be able to claim that the weapons are broken or cheesy, then they bring up the most absurd versions.

This reminds me of how some people, when faced with a choice between two possible interpretations of the rules, choose the more powerful one, and then claim that it is broken.

haha thanks for straightening me out on that topic. isn't that a straw man, picking or changing the argument as to disprove or knock that argument down?

It bugs me when this happens. I'm a very visual person, so if the art isn't working they way I think it should, i can change it. Its no problem to me. (Although i do like it when the art is good and solid and its nailed what its trying to express.)

I feel that when people claim a mechanic is broken, someone will quickly respond with an idea to change the mechanic. However when its a visual concept thats in question, Why must the mechanic change to fit that visual perceptions? Why cant the visual change to conform with the persons views?

I mean i could be wrong. I know those arguments don't come up as often as mechanical problems, but even so i feel that thematic or visual problems can be solved by simply imagining something else. its a game were we use our imagination... lets act like it.

ps: sorry for rant.

frank what if the shoulders looked more like this but kept the elbow spikes

in my opinion if spiked armor had spikes all over it would do alot more then a d6. If many spikes jam into all at once that would hurt alot mroe then a single stab with a short sword in my opinion.

 

[Wolv0rine]

Yeah, but Peter Jackson's production got the big budget to hire the artists to make lots and lots of concept artwork before PJ can approve the ones he like for his films.

Even then, it just doesn't stop with art, it has to be a real functioning prop items to be used by actors and stuntmen. It's not like WotC have gone ahead to make those arts into real items. They're not making films, just rules for our imaginations.

While this is true and all, this really does make the case against the artists doing poor work on the weapons & armor in the D&D books worse. I mean seriously, the artist doesn't have to make the items, (s)he just has to draw them.
I know whenever I go into an illustration, more than 3/4 of the time I put into it is in research. If I'm drawing armor, I spend horrendous amounts of time pouring through various real armors of various types trying to find something that comes close enough to what I'm trying to do that I can use it as a strong, functional base for what I'm going to do. The same with weapons. Fantasy, modern, it's all the same. I don't go trotting willy-nilly into drawing a sword any more than I do drawing and M-16A2 with M203 attachment. You have to give it some thought.
But for me, it's a matter of pride. That's my work, and every piece I put out is a representative of my skill, how good of an artist I am. Granted they don't all say what I want them to say, but I like to think that they all say that I put in the work and time to have them not look like I made it up as I went along with nothing to base it on.

That being said, I'll play devil's advocate just long enough to say that everyone has some bad work that they had to turn in for one reason or another (deadline issues or whatever), and it's possible that the artists who have done these atrocious illos cringe when they see them as much as we do. Or not, hell I'm just trying to give them the benefit of the doubt a little.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

That being said, I'll play devil's advocate just long enough to say that everyone has some bad work that they had to turn in for one reason or another (deadline issues or whatever), and it's possible that the artists who have done these atrocious illos cringe when they see them as much as we do. Or not, hell I'm just trying to give them the benefit of the doubt a little.

I can also agree with this to. I know I am ashamed of some art I have done. I think its also fair though, that whoever was in charge of managing and directing the artists (in house or commission), should have been clear on what they wanted. If the result of the art in the phb and dmg is what they expected it to be, Then I disagree with the direction they took. If the art was not what they expected, many things could have happened (time money etc).

Wtc books do look allot better then they used to though, so they doing something different. I must commend them on that.

 

[Minicol]

Here's the secret to art, in a nutshell: 'Cool' surpasses 'Reality'. (snip)

Yes, you could make technically correct weapons and armor illustrations. And all characters would wind up looking almost alike; more like soldiers than heroic fantasy characters. This is the death of any sort of illustration,

.

Yes, I get your point, and it certainly has a lot of merit. Artists need creativity to thrive, and they should not be limited to historical design.

On the other hand, if you study historical weapons a bit, even as a dillettante like me, you will find a stunning lot of variety in styles. If you take the sword, the most overused fantasy weapon, there are so many kind designed over the centuries, that classifying them all is really impossible.

For once, I will try not to criticize, and offer a constructive product idea :
The "complete historical warrior".
Growing from some of the late articles of DRAGON, it would study and illustrate the fighting styles developped over the centuries by the various militaries, and adapt them to D&D 3.5.

Say, instead of having Lidda as an archetype, we could have "Titus the Legionary", "Ida the Samurai", "Theodoric the vandal", "Wolfram the hussar"... you get the idea.

All of these with great art, feats, prestige classes, whatever ...

Why try to reinvent the wheel ? I don't mean to criticize fantasy artists, far from it. But the reality and diversity found over the ages on Earth has been under exploited so far by D&D IMHO.

Regards.

 

[Klaus]

Whoa, Claudio, let's not get excited. That's Kalman Andrasofszky's take; here's Anne Stokes's, from the actual equipment chapter:

Much more reasonable, eh?

Actually, no, not really. Look at the double scimitar's handle. If you grip it with both hands, the hands will be bundled together in the middle of the weapon (the handle is exactly the same length of two scimitar handles fused at the hilt). The handle should be at least three times as long.

I don't have time to Google it up right now, but look for the cover of Shadows of the Last War (WAR) and the Revenant Blade from Player's Guide to Eberron (Ken Lashley), and you'll see that those, along with the Anne Stokes and Kalman Andrazofsky pictures all depict an unwieldable weapon.

 

[wingsandsword]

This is one thing I miss from AD&D. In the AD&D books before 3e, they tended (not always, but tended) to stay closer to historic weapons and armor. The old 2e Arms & Equipment Guide actually had historical accuracy as something it boasted of on the first page (complete with bibliography).

D&D is a fantasy, but for many people starting with history and going from there is the approach we take, not just going for whatever "looks cool" even if there is no way that weapons or armor looking looking like that could be practical weapons or armor.

 

[Vigilance]

Now if we could get rid of the pointed-eared guys who don't sleep, the flying, fire-breathing lizards and the guys casting the spells, then this game might actually be good.