Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3228755" data-attributes="member: 18280">The paladin in the 1e PHB is in Hell, and is doing well.  Emirkol is indeed showing what the PCs can get away with.  Those are, I agree, the messages of those particular illustrations.  However, that is not the overall message of the illustrations in the 1e PHB.  The overall message is that you win some, you lose some, but that there are a lot of things out to get you.You obviously define "getting blowed up" and "a serious problem" far differently than I do.  In fact, there is nothing in the Lidda picture to indicate that she is more than surprised and (perhaps) inconvenienced.  If you are arguing that the illustrations in the 3.0 PHB imply that puffing on an exploding cigar is equivilent to "getting blowed up", I would suggest that this supports my point more than anything else.In the Jozan and Krusk picture, there is nothing to indicate that anyone other than Krusk is having a problem (and it is very doubtful that the problem...defined by the caption as though it were an "Aid Another" attempt) has any negative impact in game terms.  If you are suggesting that having a fellow PC use you as a stepping stool to make a successful Climb check is what the 3.0 PHB illustrations imply is "serious trouble", again, I would have to say that you are making my point for me.Again, the picture with Tordek in the dragon's jaws would be counter to my thesis if the caption didn't say that it was the dragon, rather than Tordek, who was in trouble.  I would argue that this illustration, and only this illustration in the 3.0 PHB, implies any potential for serious consequences.These are, in fact, addressed in my earlier post.Now, while you might think that the art in the 3.0 PHB is crap, I have said before (and will repeat) that there are actually a couple of illustrations in that book that I am fond of.I do believe that all art is a synthesis of communication and technique, and that both aspects are important to consider when deciding why someone might like Art A over Art X.  In fact, if you go through this thread, you will discover many posts claiming that they don't like the technique of certain pieces, or that they don't like the message of certain pieces.  Hence my thesis concerning what amounts to mixed messages in the 3.0 PHB and DMG artwork.Now, I can understand that some people might react negatively to this idea.  Some might even call it "just possibly the most ludicrous statement I've heard this year".  I, for one, have yet to hear a compelling counter-arguement.  I tend to think that were the 3.0 PHB and DMG illustrations (with captions) differently divided between the books (so that roughly 1/2 of the action-type scenes in each book was instead in the other), there would be no mixed message.  I also think that, were this the case, for a percentage of people who dislike the artwork in 3.0, the artwork would seem better simply due to consistency of message between the books.Where the message portion of the artwork is most similar in all three editions, IMHO, is in the monster books.  As a result, a comparison of (say) 10 randomly selected creatures that have appeared in all editions would focus perforce more on technique than message.  Which is why, as an example, the 3.0 gnoll is such a kick-arse illustration.RC</blockquote>

Verification