PDA

View Full Version : Is it just me or is Drawing Quality In 4e going down?(And a note on dragonborn)



Oooohaloophole
2010-01-09, 04:46 PM
Just look at the example Picture on top of First Players handbook and the second one. The second one looks like a kiddie scribble in comparison. Hopefully The Art quality will pick up again.

WHAT THE HELL WOTC! DRAGONBORN BOOBS! HAVE YOU NO SHAME TO WHAT CROWD YOU ARE APEALING TO!

Gamerlord
2010-01-09, 04:54 PM
Aren't you the guy who hated 4e? :smalltongue:
Anyways, would you rather have a fun and balanced game or good art?

Lord_Gareth
2010-01-09, 04:55 PM
I'd rather have mechanical customization and individualism than either. I can always hire an artist and balance my own damn system.

Grumman
2010-01-09, 04:59 PM
WotC doesn't have galleries for the different books any more, do they? 'Cause a link would be handy.

Gralamin
2010-01-09, 05:01 PM
You are saying there is a trend of art quality going down, based on an almost year old book, instead of using a more recent data point?

As an insider, I can say that the art quality in the Dragon articles, at least, is increasing substantially lately.

Edit:

WotC doesn't have galleries for the different books any more, do they? 'Cause a link would be handy.

They (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4art/20090930/ph) still (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4art/20090323) do.

Faleldir
2010-01-09, 05:06 PM
Dragonboobs made sense in 3.5, but 4e has no templates, so their origin had to be retconned. Changing their appearance would make it impossible to reuse illustrations from 3.5 books.

Pyro_Azer
2010-01-09, 05:07 PM
I actually think the art got better from 3.5.

KillianHawkeye
2010-01-09, 05:11 PM
Dragonboobs made sense in 3.5, but 4e has no templates, so their origin had to be retconned. Changing their appearance would make it impossible to reuse illustrations from 3.5 books.

I'm pretty sure the 4E Dragonborn are only related to the 3.5 Dragonborn on a vaguely conceptual level. The concept being "People like to play as dragon guys."

4E Dragonborn have a few unique visual features (most notably their "hair") which would make using non-4E pictures impossible, so I don't think that's the reason they have boobies.

Inyssius Tor
2010-01-09, 05:13 PM
It's (http://wizards.com/dnd/images/wallpaper/wallpaper_draconm_4_1280.jpg) just (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ITW200912_art/img/9.jpg) you (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ITW201001_art/img/4.jpg).

Also: dragons aren't reptiles, and great big bazongas are a wholly unnecessary secondary sexual selection characteristic in any creature. Breasts on dragonborn are no less logical than breasts on humans; if anything, it's the reverse. It's easier to get a good deal out of the neighboring humans if they think you're kind of hot.

Oooohaloophole
2010-01-09, 05:18 PM
Aren't you the guy who hated 4e? :smalltongue:
Anyways, would you rather have a fun and balanced game or good art?

I would like to have a game where I can legitimatly challange my characters and let them feel like they actualy feel powerfull once they are epic:smallannoyed:.

And yes I do think that Wotc threw up thier hands and siad "Scalies"

Grumman
2010-01-09, 05:21 PM
Breasts on dragonborn are no less logical than breasts on humans; if anything, it's the reverse. It's easier to get a good deal out of the neighboring humans if they think you're kind of hot.
*cough*uncannyvalley*cough*burnthexenos*cough*

Sir Homeslice
2010-01-09, 05:23 PM
I would like to have a game where I can legitimatly challange my characters and let them feel like they actualy feel powerfull once they are epic:smallannoyed:.

And yes I do think that Wotc threw up thier hands and siad "Scalies"

For one, scalies is wrong. Two, why do you care so much about quasi-reptilian humanoid funbags?

PS: 4e gives you what you're looking for.

Gamerlord
2010-01-09, 05:24 PM
Wow, we havent even hit post 30 and we have a edition war :smalltongue: , says a lot about the nature of the edition war: It springs out of ambush and without warning. :smalltongue: :smalltongue: :smalltongue:

Sir Homeslice
2010-01-09, 05:26 PM
Wow, we havent even hit post 30 and we have a edition war :smalltongue: , says a lot about the nature of the edition war: It springs out of ambush and without warning. :smalltongue: :smalltongue: :smalltongue:
Exactly like the Spanish Inquisition.

Noble Savant
2010-01-09, 05:28 PM
1. The art style is different in my opinion. 4th edition has a more realistic and three dimensional feel to it compared to 3rd edition. Assuming you choose the best art of 3.5 that is, as some of the splat books tended to have subpar art from various sources, (take a look at some of the stuff in Complete Warrior).

2. Yes yes. Dragonborn have boobs. Hilarious, witty and original. I'll put it simply. Men, (the significant part of the audience), certainly don't mind having breasts on females of most any race, and I do mean any race. Also. quite frankly, it gives the artists a bigger range of drawing options.

Zincorium
2010-01-09, 05:41 PM
Personally, I don't care too much for 4th edition's art- but it's a slight improvement over 3.x's in my opinion.

The chesticles on the dragonborn is a good way of showing which ones are girls and which ones are boys. Useful. If you feel there's some sort of sexual innuendo attached and you're worried about wanting to make little half-dragonborn, chill.

Crow
2010-01-09, 05:42 PM
Can somebody please post pics of the two books he's comparing?

Oooohaloophole
2010-01-09, 05:54 PM
Personally, I don't care too much for 4th edition's art- but it's a slight improvement over 3.x's in my opinion.

The chesticles on the dragonborn is a good way of showing which ones are girls and which ones are boys. Useful. If you feel there's some sort of sexual innuendo attached and you're worried about wanting to make little half-dragonborn, chill.

I do believe Its an Improvement as well but the ones I liked most where actualy taken from the 3.5 books or other books. And No, 5X5 battles where my Pcs have 4 freegin powers (WOW) does not constitute as "Powerfull"

KillianHawkeye
2010-01-09, 06:00 PM
The chesticles on the dragonborn is a good way of showing which ones are girls and which ones are boys. Useful. If you feel there's some sort of sexual innuendo attached and you're worried about wanting to make little half-dragonborn, chill.

I agree. And it probably makes them easier to draw, as well. (They start off just like everybody else.)

Sir Homeslice
2010-01-09, 06:01 PM
And No, 5X5 battles where my Pcs have 4 freegin powers (WOW) does not constitute as "Powerfull"

You're right, I was so silly to have never seen it before. WoW invented the concept of powers/abilities with a specific usage limitation.

Shyftir
2010-01-09, 06:02 PM
Funny my epic level WoW character has WAY more than 4 powers and feels incredibly powerful anytime I face something not comparably epic. (sometimes even then)

Noble Savant
2010-01-09, 06:07 PM
Wow, another thread that has devolved into an edition war. Not only that, but the main discussion revolves on if 4e is like World of Warcraft, and what that constitutes...

Big fun. I'm so very proud.

Mystic Muse
2010-01-09, 06:10 PM
I do believe Its an Improvement as well but the ones I liked most where actualy taken from the 3.5 books or other books. And No, 5X5 battles where my Pcs have 4 freegin powers (WOW) does not constitute as "Powerfull"

So, you're complaining that your characters don't feel powerful at lvl 1?

unless you mean 4 powers that are expended for at least the encounter which would be level 5. You still aren't very powerful at that point.

Also, I'm currently Playing a level 5 Paladin/warlock and I DO feel powerful. a lot moreso than when I was just straight Paladin, though, Being a striker isn't really the Paladin's job.

I just compared the art on the PHB and PHB2 and the only thing that looked stupid in comparison to the first was the guy wielding an axe looking like it was made out of crystal

Starbuck_II
2010-01-09, 06:13 PM
The answer is Strawberry, of course.

nightwyrm
2010-01-09, 06:30 PM
The answer is Strawberry, of course.

Wrong!! The answer is Cherries, you fool!!!!

Oooohaloophole
2010-01-09, 06:30 PM
So, you're complaining that your characters don't feel powerful at lvl 1?

unless you mean 4 powers that are expended for at least the encounter which would be level 5. You still aren't very powerful at that point.

Also, I'm currently Playing a level 5 Paladin/warlock and I DO feel powerful. a lot moreso than when I was just straight Paladin, though, Being a striker isn't really the Paladin's job.

I just compared the art on the PHB and PHB2 and the only thing that looked stupid in comparison to the first was the guy wielding an axe looking like it was made out of crystal

Im not going into a big fight and all but, I Dont feel powerfull in the Roleplaying sense, Im not charging in and Throwing a combination of spells left and right, Im not Flying (at lv 16 doesnt count). The Dmg Discourages anything even slightly gamebreaking Mounts, Homemade monsters, Ect.

Anyway, No BETTER TO DRAW DOESNT MEEN BOOBS. It MEENS IM TO LAZY SO I JUST SLAP ON BOOBS.

Bibliomancer
2010-01-09, 06:32 PM
Also, I'm currently Playing a level 5 Paladin/warlock and I DO feel powerful. a lot moreso than when I was just straight Paladin, though, Being a striker isn't really the Paladin's job.

Which edition are you referring to with this statement? I was under the impression that 4e did not allow multiclassing until level 10, and striker is a 4e term.

nightwyrm
2010-01-09, 06:34 PM
Which edition are you referring to with this statement? I was under the impression that 4e did not allow multiclassing until level 10, and striker is a 4e term.

You can start multiclassing at lv 1 in 4e by taking a multiclassing feat. Multiclassing in 4e is feat based.

Mystic Muse
2010-01-09, 06:34 PM
Which edition are you referring to with this statement? I was under the impression that 4e did not allow multiclassing until level 10, and striker is a 4e term.

My friend showed me the Dragon article with Hybrid rules.


:smallconfused: couldn't you only get 1 spell per turn anyway? and even quicken you'd have to wait until level 9 or 10 to use. also you can still fire off spells left and right with at will abilities.

nightwyrm
2010-01-09, 06:35 PM
My friend showed me the Dragon article with Hybrid rules.

Ahh, that too. Forgot about those.

RebelRogue
2010-01-09, 06:39 PM
Epic 4e chars have 15+ Powers!

Theodoric
2010-01-09, 06:53 PM
:smallconfused: couldn't you only get 1 spell per turn anyway? and even quicken you'd have to wait until level 9 or 10 to use. also you can still fire off spells left and right with at will abilities.
Action points can be used to gain an extra action to use a power, though only once per encounter. :smallwink:

Mystic Muse
2010-01-09, 07:02 PM
Action points can be used to gain an extra action to use a power, though only once per encounter. :smallwink:

I should have mentioned this.

ShadowFighter15
2010-01-09, 08:41 PM
It was touched on by someone before, but someone in another thread a month or so ago made a good point about why female 4e dragonborn have breasts. It's the same reason human females are the only mammals who actually have fat deposits around the milk glands; a secondary sexual characteristic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_sexual_characteristic). Animals don't need them since they're quadrupedal (obscuring views of the chest) and often mate from behind the female.

Humans mate face-to-face and walk on two legs, standing straight up, so human females have breasts to help attract a mate. Dragonborn presumably evolved them for the same reasons. Now if those dragonborn breasts actually had nipples, then you're going too far since reptiles (and presumably dragonborn) don't nurse their young the same way as mammals.

Someone else could probably explain that better than me, but I hope I get the point across.

Faleldir
2010-01-09, 08:44 PM
Dragonborn presumably evolved
Citation needed.

Mystic Muse
2010-01-09, 08:48 PM
Citation needed.

good luck with that.(although there might be something in the second Draconinomicon)

Crow
2010-01-09, 08:50 PM
Maybe it's leftover from when they were wierd humanoids reborn as dragons in 3.5?

jmbrown
2010-01-09, 08:50 PM
Back on the actual topic, 4E is a definite improvement visually over 3E. The artists Wizards has inhouse are no Clive Caldwell or Larry Elmore but they're definitely good. The work suffers from that overly-crisp, sketchy brush look that I see in most digital art but Wizards got the bright idea to illustrate people actually adventuring unlike 3E which had a handful of pictures of people standing around looking menacing.

There are some rough spots, though, especially with iconic monsters. Case in point:

AD&D Astral Dreadnought (http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/doom/images/thumb/f/f7/Beholdercaco.jpg/600px-Beholdercaco.jpg)

4E Astral Dreadnought (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/excerpt_mop3.jpg)

The Tygre
2010-01-09, 09:05 PM
AD&D Astral Dreadnought (http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/doom/images/thumb/f/f7/Beholdercaco.jpg/600px-Beholdercaco.jpg)

4E Astral Dreadnought (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/excerpt_mop3.jpg)

I could go either way personally. But man alive I love 4e art. It's what draws me to the whole edition, the selling point. It all looks so awesome. I remember, when I was a lad, we used to cry for joy if we got -a- Wayne Reynolds illustration. Art was just lousy is some books.


Exhibit A: This awesome prestige class is for tracking fiends, undead, and aberrations through the hellish wilds of the Underdark. They might live off nothing but fungi and cave-dew, missing sunlight for years on end. Truly, in a realm of horrors, these Darkhunters are beacons of light. And here's their art:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/cw_ag/75403.jpg

Exhibit B: The act of a dragon mating ritual is a once in a lifetime experience. It is an elegant dance of power and tenderness, a ballet of creatures comparable to gods. The glory and spectacle can never be matched.
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/draco_gallery/75557.jpg
(I love how the female is missing a pair of legs and the angle male's spine is twisting.)

Exhibit C: Crabapple. McClain. I honestly feel that speaks for itself.

Inyssius Tor
2010-01-09, 09:06 PM
Which edition are you referring to with this statement? I was under the impression that 4e did not allow multiclassing until level 10.

Fortunately, your impression was mistaken. Although it would be an overstatement to say that every single 4e character should at least dabble in another class before level 10, it would not be a particularly significant overstatement.

Multiclassing beyond what would in 3.5 equate to a "one-level dip" is a less universally optimal choice, but it is hardly without use, and its use--where warranted--can substantially alter a character.

I should know, I've done it. My fifth-level paladin would not trade her warden multiclass for anything.

pasko77
2010-01-09, 09:11 PM
Wrong!! The answer is Cherries, you fool!!!!

omg, no. The answer is 42.

Sir Homeslice
2010-01-09, 09:27 PM
AD&D Astral Dreadnought (http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/doom/images/thumb/f/f7/Beholdercaco.jpg/600px-Beholdercaco.jpg)

4E Astral Dreadnought (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/excerpt_mop3.jpg)
The AD&D Astral Dreadnought's packing some serious awesome. Also it reminds me of the Cacodemon from Doom.

Draz74
2010-01-09, 09:41 PM
The AD&D Astral Dreadnought's packing some serious awesome. Also it reminds me of the Cacodemon from Doom.

Meanwhile, the 4e Astral Dreadnought is a Snorlax. :smalltongue:

Inyssius Tor
2010-01-09, 09:44 PM
Meanwhile, the 4e Astral Dreadnought is a Snorlax. :smalltongue:

I'll grant you that one is kind of rubbish, but I'm not sure I could say the same of the other 4E Astral Dreadnought (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ManualPlanes/cover.jpg).

Mystic Muse
2010-01-09, 09:52 PM
omg, no. The answer is 42.

you should have waited until the 42nd post to say that.:smalltongue:

jmbrown
2010-01-09, 09:59 PM
The AD&D Astral Dreadnought's packing some serious awesome. Also it reminds me of the Cacodemon from Doom.

Yeah, I think one of the Doom artists confirmed that the cacodemon's design was directly lifted from the original astral dreadnought.


I'll grant you that one is kind of rubbish, but I'm not sure I could say the same of the other 4E Astral Dreadnought.

I like the dude with the mace. I can imagine this angry little face as he swings the mace above his head menacingly. Meanwhile the two wizards driving the thing seem completely uncaring there's a gargantuan monster following them.

FoE
2010-01-09, 10:22 PM
I like the dude with the mace. I can imagine this angry little face as he swings the mace above his head menacingly. Meanwhile the two wizards driving the thing seem completely uncaring there's a gargantuan monster following them.

Although nothing about the picture conveys motion, it looks like they're steering the craft in an effort to outrun the creature.

Leon
2010-01-09, 10:33 PM
The answer is Strawberry, of course.

42 Strawberries?

Thurbane
2010-01-09, 11:53 PM
Aren't you the guy who hated 4e? :smalltongue:
Anyways, would you rather have a fun and balanced game or good art?
Is there a reason we can't have both? :smallfrown:

Mando Knight
2010-01-10, 12:09 AM
The Dmg Discourages anything even slightly gamebreaking Mounts, Homemade monsters, Ect.

...Uh huh. So, those chapters on making monsters were all lies? The fact that that it's always been easier to grab something out of the MMs rather than scribbling up your own notwithstanding, I don't find any reason why the 4e DMG discourages anything like that...

...And come to think of it, adding in mounts grants easier access to flight all around, since the Wyvern and Griffon are appropriately leveled for early Paragon combat. Draconomicon 2 has some more draconic mounts, and the MM carries multiple forms of Griffon, so it's possible to make Mounted Combat a worthwhile feat...

chiasaur11
2010-01-10, 12:14 AM
Is there a reason we can't have both? :smallfrown:

Like in 4E?

I don't see why not.

Thurbane
2010-01-10, 12:17 AM
Like in 4E?

I don't see why not.
I've not seen much 4E, but I was less than impressed with the interior art. To be fair, 3.X had it's fair share of poor art as well (Crabapple, I'm looking at you!).

I also don't like the policy that WotC no longer post art galleries online for the new books - this was something I really liked about 3.X releases.

...as for fun, I'm afraid 4E doesn't do it for me. Each to their own, but it's just not my thing. But let's not drag the thread down that road. :smallwink:

ShadowFighter15
2010-01-10, 12:42 AM
Citation needed.

I'm just relaying an explanation someone else posted in another thread and it seemed like a good explanation. Even if you look at it solely as an excuse for artists to draw female dragonborn with breasts, it sounds like a plausible one.

Mando Knight
2010-01-10, 12:48 AM
I also don't like the policy that WotC no longer post art galleries online for the new books - this was something I really liked about 3.X releases.

Oh, they do... you just have to look. And most of 'em are locked down as DDI-only this time around, 'cause now they've got that system in place and they want to use it.

Inyssius Tor
2010-01-10, 01:15 AM
Citation needed.

Okay, I'll grant you that--but if they didn't evolve, there's even less of a reason to criticize them on biological grounds, because A Wizard Did It. Adding "because I said so" and "because I didn't feel like messing with the established model" to the list of viable in-setting counterarguments. :smallwink:

deuxhero
2010-01-10, 01:23 AM
2. Yes yes. Dragonborn have boobs. Hilarious, witty and original. I'll put it simply. Men, (the significant part of the audience), certainly don't mind having breasts on females of most any race, and I do mean any race. Also. quite frankly, it gives the artists a bigger range of drawing options.

As my custom title on TVtropes says, that is a major generalization/stereotype


I don't see how it gives them a "bigger range".

Optimystik
2010-01-10, 01:36 AM
I actually think the art got better from 3.5.

Where they didn't simply recycle 3.5 art, you're right.

(lazy WotC :smallannoyed: )


Like in 4E?

I don't see why not.

This.


As my custom title on TVtropes says, that is a major generalization/stereotype

Since you mention TVTropes, this one (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NonMammalMammaries) should be relevant to the Dragonborn boobs discussion.

Mando Knight
2010-01-10, 01:37 AM
I don't see how it gives them a "bigger range".

Bigger "range" is what it's all about. :smalltongue::smallwink:

Crow
2010-01-10, 01:42 AM
Anyone want to post up the evolution of the monster manual Nymph? I haven't see the 4e one yet though.

Inyssius Tor
2010-01-10, 01:43 AM
Where they didn't simply recycle 3.5 art, you're right.

(lazy WotC :smallannoyed: )

Out of curiosity, where did they? I can only remember two bits of recycled art in all the 4e books I've read, and I've read them all.

(Those being a hag in MM1 and a remorhaz in MM2.)

Optimystik
2010-01-10, 01:59 AM
Out of curiosity, where did they? I can only remember two bits of recycled art in all the 4e books I've read, and I've read them all.

(Those being a hag in MM1 and a remorhaz in MM2.)

Many of the paragon paths use 3.5 art. For example, Hellbringer (Warlock PP, Arcane Power pg. 91) is our good friend Morthos from Complete Arcane. Immediately before him is the God Fragment, which should look quite familiar - it uses the same art as the Escalation Mage from Faiths of Eberron. In the same book, the Grave Caller Bard PP uses the same art as the Suel Archanamach from CArc again.

There are others, but I don't have a conclusive list. (Actually, that would be a nice thread to start.)

Gamerlord
2010-01-10, 06:28 AM
Anyone want to post up the evolution of the monster manual Nymph? I haven't see the 4e one yet though.

I don't think it exists anymore.

Comet
2010-01-10, 07:00 AM
I really loved the new art in the 4e core books. Really, that was one of the most awesome parts of the book for me.

Now 3.5, on the other hand, just looked uninspired and ugly. Expect for the monsters, maybe. But in general, the art in the core 3.5 books was distinctively lame or even outright insulting. The DM guide and players handbook were just no fun to read outside the game, at all.

Dallas-Dakota
2010-01-10, 07:30 AM
Just look at the example Picture on top of First Players handbook and the second one. The second one looks like a kiddie scribble in comparison. Hopefully The Art quality will pick up again.

WHAT THE HELL WOTC! DRAGONBORN BOOBS! HAVE YOU NO SHAME TO WHAT CROWD YOU ARE APEALING TO!
Then I'm sure you can do better.
Go draw it, send it in with artistic rights included, I'm sure they'l use it if it's better.

Gamerlord
2010-01-10, 07:36 AM
Then I'm sure you can do better.
Go draw it, send it in with artistic rights included, I'm sure they'l use it if it's better.

Sorry to nitpick, but he said in comparison, as in "Compared to the other books art".

Theodoric
2010-01-10, 07:40 AM
Since you mention TVTropes, this one (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NonMammalMammaries) should be relevant to the Dragonborn boobs discussion.
Well, I for one think it's justified. From an artistic standpoint, female Dragonborn are very similar in appearance to male Dragonborn, and this helps to distinguish the two. Think about what would happen if both genders looked identical.

Andfom an in-universe point of view, dragonborn do no fit into properly into any 'real' scientific category, being non-reptile (Ecology of the Dragonborn, Dragon #365) draconic humanoids created by a God. Earth-logic like 'only mammals have mammaries' does not apply here. :smallwink:

Eldan
2010-01-10, 08:27 AM
They belong in the Class Dracomorpha, obviously. And it's an astounding convergent evolution, really: first, different families of dragons split of, like the true dragons (Dracoidae), landwyrms (vermidracoidae) and dragonborn, then, in a second evolutionary step, they branch out to fill all elemental niches. Fascinating, really.
Now, the dragonborn species (dracantrophus sapiens) is a special example: they show further convergent evolution to humanoid mammals. That nees further research, obviously.

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-10, 10:59 AM
I could go either way personally. But man alive I love 4e art. It's what draws me to the whole edition, the selling point. It all looks so awesome. I remember, when I was a lad, we used to cry for joy if we got -a- Wayne Reynolds illustration. Art was just lousy is some books.


Exhibit A: This awesome prestige class is for tracking fiends, undead, and aberrations through the hellish wilds of the Underdark. They might live off nothing but fungi and cave-dew, missing sunlight for years on end. Truly, in a realm of horrors, these Darkhunters are beacons of light. And here's their art:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/cw_ag/75403.jpg

Exhibit B: The act of a dragon mating ritual is a once in a lifetime experience. It is an elegant dance of power and tenderness, a ballet of creatures comparable to gods. The glory and spectacle can never be matched.
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/draco_gallery/75557.jpg
(I love how the female is missing a pair of legs and the angle male's spine is twisting.)

Exhibit C: Crabapple. McClain. I honestly feel that speaks for itself.

Both of the images in your post were by Rebecca Guay, so it's a love/hate thing. Either you're on her side, or you think her art looks childish. She's got a decent amount of hate from MTG alone.

Oooohaloophole
2010-01-11, 07:38 AM
Lets forgett anything about 4e bad/Good and instead show me some more of that Mouthwatering art (Whoever posted about the Astral Stalker, I WANT MORE:smallsmile:)

Honestly There is more Copied art like the Dragon Evolution drawing (Draconomicon). Im saying the Art is better in 4e but its much more boring, there just standing there most of the time.

Kurald Galain
2010-01-11, 07:40 AM
Seriously, people, the art has consistently declined since the Invisible Stalker in the 2E monster manual.

dsmiles
2010-01-11, 07:47 AM
Personally, I think the 2e artwork from the monstrous manual annual splatbooks was better. But then again I love Tony DiTerlizzi's (http://www.diterlizzi.com/) artwork. It has the unreal qualities I look for in fantsy art.

Satyr
2010-01-11, 08:02 AM
I think I can't assess the actually quality of the pictures in the 4e books, but I found one thing remarkable: Almost all pictures show either combats, martial gestures or people posing with big weapons and / or magical energy special effects (yes, and there are pictures of equipment) There are virtually no pictures showing stuff like exploration, or even the standard clishé tavern scene.
That is not necessarily bad, but it appears to be a bit onesided. I know no other RPG which seem to be so ...obsessed with showing fight scenes.

dsmiles
2010-01-11, 08:29 AM
I think I can't assess the actually quality of the pictures in the 4e books, but I found one thing remarkable: Almost all pictures show either combats, martial gestures or people posing with big weapons and / or magical energy special effects (yes, and there are pictures of equipment) There are virtually no pictures showing stuff like exploration, or even the standard clishé tavern scene.
That is not necessarily bad, but it appears to be a bit onesided. I know no other RPG which seem to be so ...obsessed with showing fight scenes.

That's because 4e is almost solely based on having fights. No more role-playing...:smallfrown:

Comet
2010-01-11, 08:38 AM
That's because 4e is almost solely based on having fights. No more role-playing...:smallfrown:

That is sacrasm, yes?

Come to think of it (the art thing), I think my favourite pieces of art have been from the pre-3th edition era. Can't remember any specific pictures, but those just left a better impression on me.

3.5 (don't know if it's the same with 3) has the whoel dungeonpunk thing going, which is fun as such but not that well executed, I think. The covers for the core books are particularly boring. Just some gears and magic crystals and that's it.

And 4e has some lackluster pieces and a fair bit of recycling. Though the new stuff is on general fairly exciting, I think.

Leolo
2010-01-11, 08:47 AM
In fact i really like many of the PHB2 Art.

The Halforc, for example never looked better. At least from my point of view.

Satyr
2010-01-11, 08:54 AM
I think 4e is more focused on fighting than the previous editions I know, and probably more focused on fighting than the vast majority of other RPGs, but I also think that only very odd people would let pretty pictures and book ilustrations tell them how they have to play their game.

Comet
2010-01-11, 09:00 AM
I think 4e is more focused on fighting than the previous editions I know, and probably more focused on fighting than the vast majority of other RPGs, but I also think that only very odd people would let pretty pictures and book ilustrations tell them how they have to play their game.
Agreed. It's all about awesome tactical combat scenarios, which is a bit different from the majority of RPG systems out there, since most games try to do a bit of everything instead of focusing on one aspect of a story so completely.
The artwork reflects this designer's intent pretty well, which I think is cool.

jmbrown
2010-01-11, 09:04 AM
I think 4e is more focused on fighting than the previous editions I know, and probably more focused on fighting than the vast majority of other RPGs, but I also think that only very odd people would let pretty pictures and book ilustrations tell them how they have to play their game.

Normally I would agree but when 90% of the books are how to blow stuff up, you more or less set the mood for combat.

78% of 3E adventures begin in a tavern. 78% of 4E adventures begin with you blowing up a tavern.

Tiki Snakes
2010-01-11, 10:01 AM
Well, I for one think it's justified. From an artistic standpoint, female Dragonborn are very similar in appearance to male Dragonborn, and this helps to distinguish the two. Think about what would happen if both genders looked identical.

Andfom an in-universe point of view, dragonborn do no fit into properly into any 'real' scientific category, being non-reptile (Ecology of the Dragonborn, Dragon #365) draconic humanoids created by a God. Earth-logic like 'only mammals have mammaries' does not apply here. :smallwink:

Well, going by their keywords and types, I'd say that they ARE mammals. They lack anything to specify them as anything different from the normal and clearly mammalian races, whereas everything from Dragonspawn to Kobolds have either Reptile or Dragon tags, etc etc.

I find it interesting to note that Bahamut's race of 'dragon guys' is so completely less Draconic then Tiamat's in this sense.

dsmiles
2010-01-11, 10:19 AM
That is sacrasm, yes?

No. I prefer heavy plot to heavy fighting. That's one of the reasons I'm moving steadily away from 4e back towards AD&D or Rolemaster/HARP.

EDIT: Dragon boobs...can we get some dragon side-boob with that?

Comet
2010-01-11, 10:29 AM
No. I prefer heavy plot to heavy fighting. That's one of the reasons I'm moving steadily away from 4e back towards AD&D or Rolemaster/HARP.

Oh, I prefer to have my games full of story and characters and whatnot as well.
But why can't that story be about fighting? You can easily make any encounter roleplaying-tastic.

I do get what you are saying, mind. I, too, prefer lighter systems like AD&D, WoD and such because they're easier to learn and require less bookkeeping and number crunching.

But I hardly think games like 4e are killing roleplaying or anything. They just go about doing it differently. There can be plenty of awesome characterisations and dramatic archs even if the characters spend most of their time being killers-for-hire.

dsmiles
2010-01-11, 10:34 AM
Oh, I prefer to have my games full of story and characters and whatnot as well.
But why can't that story be about fighting? You can easily make any encounter roleplaying-tastic.

I do get what you are saying, mind. I, too, prefer lighter systems like AD&D, WoD and such because they're easier to learn and require less bookkeeping and number crunching.

But I hardly think games like 4e are killing roleplaying or anything. They just go about doing it differently. There can be plenty of awesome characterisations and dramatic archs even if the characters spend most of their time being killers-for-hire.

I like that they made 4e basically "DnD Lite," to help get more people into roleplaying, but I think if they spent less space expounding the virtues of combat and more space developing plotlines we'd get less people who want to make the Pun-puns and Tippyverses and more people who want to play a fun, well-balanced game. Less focus on combat and power levels is needed, IMO.

FatR
2010-01-11, 10:49 AM
Epic 4e chars have 15+ Powers!
And about 3-4 of them have actually get used by most builds, considering that monofocusing the way to win 4E.

dsmiles
2010-01-11, 10:51 AM
And about 3-4 of them have actually get used by most builds, considering that monofocusing the way to win 4E.

It's a roleplaying game...you don't "win."

FatR
2010-01-11, 10:54 AM
I like that they made 4e basically "DnD Lite,"
And what exactly is "Lite" about 4e? 4E classes are more mechanically complicated than 3/4ths of the clases in 3.5, Christmas Tree syndrome is much worse, therefore tinkering with items takes more effort, and the amount of things to keep track of during combat is unprecented.

FatR
2010-01-11, 10:58 AM
It's a roleplaying game...you don't "win."
Yes, I do. And my score is reversely proportional to the number of times I'm required to generate a new character or feel saved by GM's cheating in my favor or otherwise pulling my PC's behind from fire.

dsmiles
2010-01-11, 11:05 AM
And what exactly is "Lite" about 4e? 4E classes are more mechanically complicated than 3/4ths of the clases in 3.5, Christmas Tree syndrome is much worse, therefore tinkering with items takes more effort, and the amount of things to keep track of during combat is unprecented.

It's rules lite compared to earlier editions. Attacking and figuring bonuses is easier. Saves are 10, unless you have some kind of bonus, Fort, Ref and Will are now "defenses,"...they streamlined the rules to bring in the video game generation...nobody who only plays video games will ever sit down to figure out a THAC0 chart or what ther P/P/D save, R/S/W save, P-fy/P-morph save, Breath Weapon save, or Spell save is...they will never understand that you have to roll over for saves and THAC0 and under for NWP or ability checks...

I still think TSR did it better than Hasbro, I mean, WoTC can ever do it...

[/soapbox]

FatR
2010-01-11, 11:15 AM
As about the topic, while 4E illustrations are often drawn better, and with less of obvious fail, I've seen very few (I probably can count them on one hand) decent, non-obviously-derivative art concepts of new monster/race/whatever, or serious reimagining of old ones in 4E. And I've at least skimmed through most of 4E books to date. 3.0 gave most of the iconic monsters new distinctive art concepts. 4E, as a rule, either reuses 3.X concepts, or borrows from somewhere else.

Optimystik
2010-01-11, 11:16 AM
But dsmiles, you're missing the point. By making 4e accessible, you introduce D&D to a much wider audience, who would otherwise have been very unlikely to pick up a THAC0/save vs. polymorph chart on their own, or figure out the difference between 18/00 and 18/91. As it's generally not very satisfying to play D&D alone, more players is a good thing.

Furthermore, roleplaying is fluff, and fluff can be added to any system easily. It's simple - impose penalties or grant bonuses to players based on how poorly or well they RP. Developing balanced and tactical combat, on the other hand, is much more difficult, and 4e has excelled in this regard whereas previous editions had many more detrimental issues. If you want 4e to be more roleplay heavy, make it that way.

dsmiles
2010-01-11, 11:26 AM
If you want 4e to be more roleplay heavy, make it that way.

It seems like it's designed to not allow for anything between combats. Streamlining the skills and the minimal amount of social skill now present make it almost not worth my time to "fix" the game to meet my (perhaps "old-fashioned") expectations of what a role-playing game should be. No thanks, I've got better things to do than make a system rp compatible for no pay. Instead, I'll work on perfecting my house rules and turining them into a complete system that I can try to get published.

FatR
2010-01-11, 11:31 AM
It's rules lite compared to earlier editions.
No, just no. It is not rules lite compared to 3.X, and to 2E, there is just no comparison.


Attacking and figuring bonuses is easier. Saves are 10, unless you have some kind of bonus, Fort, Ref and Will are now "defenses,"...
Did you not notice the contradiction? Adding one more stat to keep track of is not being "Lite".


they streamlined the rules to bring in the video game generation...
How many video games with actual character generation did you play recently? Let me tell you, it is, as a rule, not a quick and easy process, if you're concerned with not sucking. On the surface, generation, in, say, Dragon Age seems simple, but if you want your character to kick ass, you need to pre-plan his entire career before making your picks. By the way, this is also applies to 4E, although a single wrong choice in 4E does not shaft you as badly.


nobody who only plays video games will ever sit down to figure out a THAC0 chart or what ther P/P/D save, R/S/W save, P-fy/P-morph save, Breath Weapon save, or Spell save is...they will never understand that you have to roll over for saves and THAC0 and under for NWP or ability checks...
Strangely, 2E-based CRPGs were relatively numerous and popular, and 4E-based CRPGs are nonexistent. And don't think that people who play video games are morons, when it comes to numbers. Besides 2E charts needed no "figuring out", as dynamic modifiers (those you cannot just write into your stats) were quite rare (while in 4E they are extremely common which is one of the main things that make 4E so complicated). So you pretty much needed just to copy relevant numbers from a table to your charsheet and adjust for equipment.

Optimystik
2010-01-11, 11:38 AM
It seems like it's designed to not allow for anything between combats.

The mere fact that 4e has social skills at all proves this statement very wrong.


Streamlining the skills and the minimal amount of social skill now present make it almost not worth my time to "fix" the game to meet my (perhaps "old-fashioned") expectations of what a role-playing game should be. No thanks, I've got better things to do than make a system rp compatible for no pay. Instead, I'll work on perfecting my house rules and turining them into a complete system that I can try to get published.

I have no problem with you doing that, but don't blame your desire to do so on some nonexistent failing of 4e to be RP-focused.

hamishspence
2010-01-11, 11:40 AM
The topic is about drawing quality, not rules.

So far, I haven't noticed a significant drop between, say, PHB1, DMG1, MM1, and, say, the latest books like Draconomicon 2 and The Plane Below.

Optimystik
2010-01-11, 11:50 AM
Art quality-wise I LOVE 4e. They've made every race look dynamic and engaging, even the ones without Charisma bonuses.

I'm still interested in the instances where they reused art from previous editions (and I'm curious to know whether it was only 3.5 art that got treated this way) but as my last topic on the subject got overrun with people who thought I was bashing 4e, I'll wait until it's fallen into more obscurity before I remake it.

FatR
2010-01-11, 12:02 PM
But dsmiles, you're missing the point. By making 4e accessible, you introduce D&D to a much wider audience, who would otherwise have been very unlikely to pick up a THAC0/save vs. polymorph chart on their own, or figure out the difference between 18/00 and 18/91. As it's generally not very satisfying to play D&D alone, more players is a good thing.
4E is not accessible, compared to previous edition, and audience of DnD now is narrower than ever. The former is a soild, unarguable fact, by the way. You're assuming that a moron who cannot figure out the difference between 18/00 and 18/91, even though it is written in the table right before him, can miraculously pre-plan 30 levels of advancement full of trap options, in the game where monsters advance their basic stats faster than players and this gap in numbers must be closed by picking your options correctly. This assumption is obviously false. In 4E character generation takes a separate session, unless everyone knows the system well and comes with ready charactes. In 2E it seriously took 10-20 minutes.


Furthermore, roleplaying is fluff, and fluff can be added to any system easily.
This statement is wrong on countless levels. As I like to pick examples from the direct sources of inspiration for the original DnD, can you add fluff for a gritty relatively down-to-earth setting like Lankhmar, where PCs don't even own a single magic item, to 4E? Can you add fluff for Elric of Melnibone world-shattering exploits? Without inventing/rewriting a ton of stuff?


It's simple - impose penalties or grant bonuses to players based on how poorly or well they RP. Developing balanced and tactical combat, on the other hand, is much more difficult, and 4e has excelled in this regard whereas previous editions had many more detrimental issues.
Mr. Orbizard laughs at the idea that 4E combat is balanced. Neither it is particularly tactical. There rarely are compelling reasons not to spam the same favorite encounter/at-wills routine till the end of time, and therefore its tactics pretty much consist of movement and positioning. But as the answer is usually "dogpiling" this also gets old fairly fast.

JediSoth
2010-01-11, 12:09 PM
Exactly like the Spanish Inquisition.

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!


Personally, I think the 2e artwork from the monstrous manual annual splatbooks was better. But then again I love Tony DiTerlizzi's (http://www.diterlizzi.com/) artwork. It has the unreal qualities I look for in fantsy art.

To me, every edition has art that's great and art that's not so great (or just plain bad). Taste in art is so subjective anyway...

I think the unrealness of Erol Otus is why I liked his illustrations in BECMI & AD&D 1E so much. It didn't creep towards photorealism like some others, but it was just so dark, organic, and weird, I found it really evocative for a fantasy game.

As far as dragonborn boobs go, I would have preferred they got more creative with sexual dimorphism and given us brightly colored dragonborn of one gender and less flashy dragonborn of the other gender. Maybe have males possess large crests and fins with subdued colors and such and the females had brightly colored scales with smaller fins and crests (or vise versa).

Kylarra
2010-01-11, 12:16 PM
4E is not accessible, compared to previous edition, and audience of DnD now is narrower than ever. The former is a soild, unarguable fact, by the way. You're assuming that a moron who cannot figure out the difference between 18/00 and 18/91, even though it is written in the table right before him, can miraculously pre-plan 30 levels of advancement full of trap options, in the game where monsters advance their basic stats faster than players and this gap in numbers must be closed by picking your options correctly. This assumption is obviously false. In 4E character generation takes a separate session, unless everyone knows the system well and comes with ready charactes. In 2E it seriously took 10-20 minutes. On the other hand, with the character builder, 4e chargen is a lot faster than 3.X char gen for people who aren't as familiar with the system, and assuming you upkeep'd your $10 once, you'd have all the current, as of your one DDI subscription update, information loaded onto the builder ready to go instead of having to pour over a dozen or so different books to compile a list of feats and/or spells and/or items that you may want to have for your character, and with retraining, it's a lot harder to build a character that's horrible without trying.

So compared to 2e, it's a bit longer, but in comparison to 3.X, not so much.

Optimystik
2010-01-11, 12:20 PM
FatR, if you want to discuss this further, make a new thread about 4e vs. earlier editions and I'll gladly come to it. To briefly address your points:

1) I never labeled, nor even implied, any players were "morons." That was your term, not mine.

2) Calling something "a solid, unarguable fact" with zero evidence, does not make it one.

3) Are you seriously arguing that it is harder to mess up your character with bad choices in 2e or 3e than in 4e? :smallconfused:

4) 4e is not perfectly balanced, but no gaming system is except chess (and even then, one side always goes first.) It is still far more balanced than earlier editions, because it is the first edition to address the problem of linear warriors and quadratic casters in any meaningful way.

5) I can add any fluff I want to 4e - from "Gritty" low magic to epic high fantasy. It's fluff. There are guidelines for doing so on multiple gaming forums, or I can do it on my own from whole cloth. I control my game world's feel, the sourcebooks only give me mechanics.

Ograbme
2010-01-11, 12:22 PM
4th edition has a more realistic...feel to it compared to 3rd edition.
Let's all take a second to reflect on how wrong this is.

Kylarra
2010-01-11, 12:28 PM
4) 4e is not perfectly balanced, but no gaming system is except chess (and even then, one side always goes first.) It is still far more balanced than earlier editions, because it is the first edition to address the problem of linear warriors and quadratic casters in any meaningful way.I posit that Go is a balanced game because the person that goes second receives bonus points to make up for it.

>_>

On topic, I do like most of the art in 4th edition. I don't think secondary sexual characteristics on dragonborn is outside the realm of fantasy (not that kind of fantasy! :smallsigh:) either.

dsmiles
2010-01-11, 12:29 PM
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

True...


I think the unrealness of Erol Otus is why I liked his illustrations in BECMI & AD&D 1E so much. It didn't creep towards photorealism like some others, but it was just so dark, organic, and weird, I found it really evocative for a fantasy game.

Nice catch. I forgot about going back that far...


As far as dragonborn boobs go, I would have preferred they got more creative with sexual dimorphism and given us brightly colored dragonborn of one gender and less flashy dragonborn of the other gender. Maybe have males possess large crests and fins with subdued colors and such and the females had brightly colored scales with smaller fins and crests (or vise versa).

Personally, I prefer the anthropomorphic boobs trait over the more realistic colors/crests/size thing. If you go this route, you may end up like the anglerfish with males that have no life because they exist inside of the females.

JediSoth
2010-01-11, 01:03 PM
Personally, I prefer the anthropomorphic boobs trait over the more realistic colors/crests/size thing. If you go this route, you may end up like the anglerfish with males that have no life because they exist inside of the females.

COOL, a Unibody adventuring party! Think of the possibilities!

Eldan
2010-01-11, 01:19 PM
Personally, I prefer the anthropomorphic boobs trait over the more realistic colors/crests/size thing. If you go this route, you may end up like the anglerfish with males that have no life because they exist inside of the females.

I'd find such a species intriguing. Seriously. I never understood why, out of so many anthropomorphic and humanoid species, none of them exhibit any large sexual bimorphism. Why can't females elves have some strange colouration, at least? Why can't male goblins have inflatable throat pouches?

Optimystik
2010-01-11, 01:20 PM
@ Eldan: Because verisimilitude takes a backseat to T&A in fantasy art.

Eldan
2010-01-11, 01:22 PM
Sadly, yes. There should be some balance between those.

Oh, well. Same reason why we can't have women in real armour, I guess.

dsmiles
2010-01-11, 01:25 PM
@ Eldan: Because verisimilitude takes a backseat to T&A in fantasy art.

BINGO! YAY, T&A!!!

Now that that's done. I don't see why they can't have those traits in addition to mammary glands, nobody's stopping you from drawing "throat-sack goblins" or "crested elves." Most people won't see it, of course (because they're too busy looking at the T&A in the Dungeons and Dames thread), but nobody's stopping you...:smallwink:

EDIT: @ Eldan: Double purely mental actions, or second Will saves, perhaps?

Eldan
2010-01-11, 01:33 PM
BINGO! YAY, T&A!!!

Now that that's done. I don't see why they can't have those traits in addition to mammary glands, nobody's stopping you from drawing "throat-sack goblins" or "crested elves." ?

Actually, my utter lack of artistic talent is stopping me :smallwink:
My drawings look more or less the same as they did in Kindergarten.

Also, I like the Dungeons and Dames thread...

Kris Strife
2010-01-11, 01:34 PM
Sadly, yes. There should be some balance between those.

Oh, well. Same reason why we can't have women in real armour, I guess.

Why not? The 3.5 Eldarin pic even had an Bat-Nipple on her armor. :smalltongue: Absolutely no reason T&A and realistic armor on women are mutually incompatible.

Theodoric
2010-01-11, 01:48 PM
Also, I like the Dungeons and Dames thread...
I don't, actually; I think it's slightly pathetic. But, heh, whatever tickles your fancy. :smallcool:

It's just a design thing, really. For anything intended to have a reasonably broad audience (marketing-wise), there'd need to have reasonably recognisable races in the starting set that people can identify themselves with. A bipedal dragon with weird cresty things or a a complicated bioluminescent pattern on its skin or something like that :smallwink: is less easy to self-identify with than what's essentially a human with dragon-like traits (the 'CEWL, a dragan race that's just like us'-factor). It's a bit of a marketing/game design thing that goes slightly further than BEWBS, though in the end, not really that much. :smallwink:

dsmiles
2010-01-11, 01:56 PM
Also, I like the Dungeons and Dames thread...

I never said I didn't.

But Theodric is correct in stating that it's a design thing. The more you identify with a race, the more likely you are to play it, or the more likely it will be rated higher by the playtesters. (Personally, I identify with the humans in DnD more than anything else. :smalltongue: )

Eldan
2010-01-11, 02:09 PM
I goes I've spent too much time in the lab recently... I'm identifying with solitary bees :smalltongue:

Oooohaloophole
2010-01-11, 05:15 PM
Hello Its the Thread Dude Here to say A little blurb on 3/4 edition war.

3e had Something I call Roleplaying Roleplaying. its attacks that do not simply have a Discription slapped on, they do stuff wether its Create pits or Bind souls, the attacks are much more interesting....:smallannoyed:Rituals can suck it.

4e is TOO balanced so every little small power blurb smashes the Whole thing. Case and point The Battlemage Pyragon path from the first book . 7d10 damage to roughly 25 people only at lv 20....Warlocks dont get that type of Firepower! If its been edited and now sucks, Very class Wotc.:smallannoyed:

Any review on pathfinder art? I think its got its own type of slick compared to 4e

Kylarra
2010-01-11, 05:52 PM
3e had Something I call Roleplaying Roleplaying. its attacks that do not simply have a Discription slapped on, they do stuff wether its Create pits or Bind souls, the attacks are much more interesting....:smallannoyed:Rituals can suck it. Uh... spells and maneuvers in 3.x do have their own flavor text so ...yeah.



4e is TOO balanced so every little small power blurb smashes the Whole thing. Case and point The Battlemage Pyragon path from the first book . 7d10 damage to roughly 25 people only at lv 20....Warlocks dont get that type of Firepower! If its been edited and now sucks, Very class Wotc.:smallannoyed: 8D10 assuming it's: 1)your last daily power and 2) 25 people are all standing nice and clustered for you in a nice grid. I mean, sheesh why not get angry at lightning bolt or fireball then? I mean a whole 5D6 to 24 people if they're all standing back to back at level 5! Or however many people fit into a 20' spread for fireball.

I wonder if you've ever actually played 4e or if you're just trying to poke holes at it with theorycraft. 4e has its issues, but they're hardly on the scale that you're trying to make it out to be.

FatR
2010-01-11, 05:54 PM
2) Calling something "a solid, unarguable fact" with zero evidence, does not make it one.
Refusing to see a solid, unarguable fact does not make it disappear.



3) Are you seriously arguing that it is harder to mess up your character with bad choices in 2e or 3e than in 4e? :smallconfused:
Is there even an argument about it? In 2e, your only common meaningful choices (that you couldn't fix later) were picking a race, a class and placing stats. Only the cleric had one more unfixable choice, picking a god. It was not hard at all to get them right, particularly due to relative lack of pigeonholing, almost impossible after playing under your current GM a bit and seeing what sorts of challenges he likes to throw at the party. In 3e some classes were easy to screw up, and some were nigh-impossible to, and you also needed to stay at the power level, accepted in your party, so messing up a character was so much easier than in 2e, particularly because some classes were inherently gimped. However, there were so many ways to gain moar powah, that between them and retraining rules, no bad choice was truly unfixable and no concept entirely unplayable. In 4e, all classes are easy to screw up (just pick a wrong race and you'll feel it throughout your career), you still need to stay at the accepted power level, and there stil are ingerently gimped. Except, after falling behind due to bad choices, there are much, much fewer opportunities to catch up, whether by fixing that choices or by getting extra power from somewhere else. As a result, you seriously need to plan all 30 levels of your adventuring career from the start.



5) I can add any fluff I want to 4e - from "Gritty" low magic to epic high fantasy. It's fluff. There are guidelines for doing so on multiple gaming forums, or I can do it on my own from whole cloth. I control my game world's feel, the sourcebooks only give me mechanics.
And I do not believe you. Partially because you conspicously omitted "Without inventing/rewriting a ton of stuff" part. Partially because you do not seem to understand, that if by fluff the rituals cost nothing and allow PCs to summon extraplanar horrors and command them to wreck PCs' enemies $hit as a standard procedure, and by mechanics the rituals work as they do in 4E; or if by fluff heroes walk around with mundane swords and without armor, while my mechanics they must sparkle with magic items like Christmas trees to stay in the game, then the game in question is bad, and any player who actually cared about playing in a non-standard setting to begin with will walk out right away.

Touchy
2010-01-11, 06:21 PM
Refusing to see a solid, unarguable fact does not make it disappear.


Is there even an argument about it? In 2e, your only common meaningful choices (that you couldn't fix later) were picking a race, a class and placing stats. Only the cleric had one more unfixable choice, picking a god. It was not hard at all to get them right, particularly due to relative lack of pigeonholing, almost impossible after playing under your current GM a bit and seeing what sorts of challenges he likes to throw at the party. In 3e some classes were easy to screw up, and some were nigh-impossible to, and you also needed to stay at the power level, accepted in your party, so messing up a character was so much easier than in 2e, particularly because some classes were inherently gimped. However, there were so many ways to gain moar powah, that between them and retraining rules, no bad choice was truly unfixable and no concept entirely unplayable. In 4e, all classes are easy to screw up (just pick a wrong race and you'll feel it throughout your career), you still need to stay at the accepted power level, and there stil are ingerently gimped. Except, after falling behind due to bad choices, there are much, much fewer opportunities to catch up, whether by fixing that choices or by getting extra power from somewhere else. As a result, you seriously need to plan all 30 levels of your adventuring career from the start.


And I do not believe you. Partially because you conspicously omitted "Without inventing/rewriting a ton of stuff" part. Partially because you do not seem to understand, that if by fluff the rituals cost nothing and allow PCs to summon extraplanar horrors and command them to wreck PCs' enemies $hit as a standard procedure, and by mechanics the rituals work as they do in 4E; or if by fluff heroes walk around with mundane swords and without armor, while my mechanics they must sparkle with magic items like Christmas trees to stay in the game, then the game in question is bad, and any player who actually cared about playing in a non-standard setting to begin with will walk out right away.
Just going to point this out, there are OPTIONAL rules for low-magic, giving inherit bonuses to non-magical equipment instead. He can instead create HOMEBREW for the rituals, and remove the 4e standard ritual rules, so the fluff would work with the mechanics. You seem to be taking everything to an extreme opposite.
Example:
"In my story, everyone was transformed into undead, BUT IN MECHANICS THERE ARE NO UNDEAD PC RULES."

Also your opinion is not law, stop acting like it is.

Optimystik
2010-01-11, 06:47 PM
Refusing to see a solid, unarguable fact does not make it disappear.

It has to be there in the first place to disappear, doesn't it?

We could bandy words all day, but this isn't the place for it. Make a new thread to argue your position, so we can stop derailing this one.

jmbrown
2010-01-11, 07:14 PM
Just going to point this out, there are OPTIONAL rules for low-magic, giving inherit bonuses to non-magical equipment instead. He can instead create HOMEBREW for the rituals, and remove the 4e standard ritual rules, so the fluff would work with the mechanics. You seem to be taking everything to an extreme opposite.
Example:
"In my story, everyone was transformed into undead, BUT IN MECHANICS THERE ARE NO UNDEAD PC RULES."

Also your opinion is not law, stop acting like it is.

Covering something up doesn't make it disappear. While I agree that GMs should exercise their right to change things, I will also argue that I didn't spend $40 on broken material requiring my hand to fix. Even in a low magic setting it doesn't change the fact that people can teleport around and scream so loudly it ruptures ear drums. The very fact that magic powers exist completely ruin the concept of a low-magic setting.


Any review on pathfinder art? I think its got its own type of slick compared to 4e
I enjoy it more than 4Es art. They depict more epic situations and the monster design is better. I don't care for the Pathfinder goblin, though. The big headed green guys can die in a fire.

Touchy
2010-01-11, 07:22 PM
Covering something up doesn't make it disappear. While I agree that GMs should exercise their right to change things, I will also argue that I didn't spend $40 on broken material requiring my hand to fix. Even in a low magic setting it doesn't change the fact that people can teleport around and scream so loudly it ruptures ear drums. The very fact that magic powers exist completely ruin the concept of a low-magic setting.


I enjoy it more than 4Es art. They depict more epic situations and the monster design is better. I don't care for the Pathfinder goblin, though. The big headed green guys can die in a fire.

I'm not arguing that, I'm pointing out you don't need MAGICAL EQUIPMENT, to PLAY THE GAME. Infact, I should of just pointed out how wrong he is, because there is nothing stating you have to use MAGICAL EQUIPMENT, there is a list of non-magical things, you can use THOSE AS WELL.

Caps for emphasis.

jmbrown
2010-01-11, 07:24 PM
I'm not arguing that, I'm pointing out you don't need MAGICAL EQUIPMENT, to PLAY THE GAME. Infact, I should of just pointed out how wrong he is, because there is nothing stating you have to use MAGICAL EQUIPMENT, there is a list of non-magical things, you can use THOSE AS WELL.

Caps for emphasis.

And I'm pointing out that a lack of magical equipment doesn't make the game any less magical. I find the concept of a low-magic 4E game hilarious because the character classes are magical by default no matter how you fluff them.

Touchy
2010-01-11, 07:41 PM
And I'm pointing out that a lack of magical equipment doesn't make the game any less magical. I find the concept of a low-magic 4E game hilarious because the character classes are magical by default no matter how you fluff them.
It isn't magic, it's supernatural, or metahuman abilities, for all I care, I can refluff all the magic users to be psionic. All of these aren't "magical", even in 3.5, at 5th level a fighter is equal to an Olympic athlete, and the monk wouldn't be possible in the real world either. ( In further note, bards can't sing to cast, so they are nerfed, paladins are simply extremely religious fighters, psions can still use their "powers" because they come from the mind, and all magical classes are just crazy men, clerics would very based on what the person considers "magic", and druids are just hermits, barbarians would be on the same tree as fighters)

I find a low-magic game a bad idea regardless.

Edit: Could we get back to the topic at hand please? The dragon boobs unnerve me, just because of the indecency in all the major races, because really, we don't see kobold's flaunting there boobs everywhere(Well kobolds are prudes, but for all the better I suppose). The monster art is great, some of the humanoid art gets a bit weird though, mostly in the ways the body can bend, or my personal favorite on page 83 of the PHB.

Sir Homeslice
2010-01-11, 08:03 PM
Even in a low magic setting it doesn't change the fact that people can teleport around and scream so loudly it ruptures ear drums. The very fact that magic powers exist completely ruin the concept of a low-magic setting.

Low-magic != no-magic. Take a second to think on it.


some of the humanoid art gets a bit weird though, mostly in the ways the body can bend, or my personal favorite on page 83 of the PHB.

You want bodywarping? Page 94, Martial Power. Halfling bones should not work that way.

Roland St. Jude
2010-01-11, 11:09 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: This thread is so far off-topic it's not even fair to people who expect to click on an art thread.