what would make d20 art better?

what would improve d20 art?

  • more portrayal of recognizable skills and feats

    Votes: 40 31.5%
  • more accuracy (matching the text)

    Votes: 70 55.1%
  • more realism

    Votes: 56 44.1%
  • more action

    Votes: 35 27.6%
  • more fantastic situations

    Votes: 45 35.4%
  • more chainmail bikinis

    Votes: 47 37.0%
  • who cares about the art?

    Votes: 5 3.9%


log in or register to remove this ad


3 things I'd liek to see more of,

1. more recognizable skills, feats, spells etc in aciotn.

2 more realism(I mean this in the I don't like the current punkish style realism sense as in normal leathers, no silly spikes, oh yeah and no clothing made from belts)

3. not in the list but the city/land scape thing. I like people etc to be in it but I also want to see the background, even if that sometimes means the people in it take up very little space.
 

Personnally, I don't like Brom's and Elmore's works. Their technique is good, even excellent -- they don't draw things that are just plain ugly and misshapen, like Kaluta or half the "artist" at White Wolf (*cough* Cobb *cough* Davis *cough*) do -- so that's not the point.

But, I ain't fond of the SM style of Brom; and find Elmore's portraits too static, his characters are always posing for the photographer.

Oh, and Elmore lacks fantasy. Take the MM nymph, for example. She's a beautiful (yet frozen) human woman, but does she looks like a nymph ? No. She don't looks fey at all. DiTerlizzi's nymph, in 2e, sure had this je-ne-sais-quoi that made her a fey.

My fav D&D artists would rather be Wood, Lockwood, Swekel, DiTerlizzi, Bader, and to a lesser scale, I could cite Sardinha, Despain or Cavotta. I also liked about 5% of Reynold's illos.
 

Remove ads

Top