Does Wizards even read the stuff they write?

[TigerT20]

In the PHB, gnomes are described as having tan or brown faces(pg 35)

The image on the same page has neither of these, instead being pretty obviously Causican. This is a wee bit of a minor issue (or a more major one depending on how you look at it), but what are some other cases of Wizards contradicting themselves in the books, let alone JC's tweets?

Edit: y'all please I'm looking for silly mistakes not interesting ways of defining 'artistic libreties'

[ZorroGames]

In the PHB, gnomes are described as having tan or brown faces(pg 35)

The image on the same page has neither of these, instead being pretty obviously Causican. This is a wee bit of a minor issue (or a more major one depending on how you look at it), but what are some other cases of Wizards contradicting themselves in the books, let alone JC's tweets?

Too long underground?

I feel free to change skin tones, hair color, eye color, etc., as I desire for my characters to look. I do not try and connect PCs to any racial stereotypes from my real life experiences. These are minor aspects and if I want a green skinned and red eyed Gnome I just fit it into my backstory.

This is simply not an issue for any game of D&D I have played in since 1974.

[TigerT20]

Too long underground?

I feel free to change skin tones, hair color, eye color, etc., as I desire for my characters to look. I do not try and connect PCs to any racial stereotypes from my real life experiences. These are minor aspects and if I want a green skinned and red eyed Gnome I just fit it into my backstory.

This is simply not an issue for any game of D&D I have played in since 1974.

I never said it was a very big issue - merely a contradiction. Tbh I think I'm the only person in my group that actually reads flavor text.

[Boci]

Cameron from LRR said playing Gloomhaven has given him a new appreciation for Wizards of the Coast editing standard. There are quite a few mistakes, but most of them are minor. Description vs. art is a big catagory with this. Creatures eyes will not match the description, a spell that manifests as black smoke will be shown as white smoke. I assume what happens is the descriptions are written first, and then artists either ignore them or find that the colours describe don't actually look as cool as the writter may have thought they did, and so improvise, and no one catches the mismatch because its not a high priority.

[Segev]

I also imagine, for art based text, that not every bit of art is commissioned to go specifically with a given page. Or with specific text.

For example, the races in the PHB probably just had someone commissioned to make art for each one with an early description. Final description and edits likely were done after the art was made and chosen but without the writer seeing it.

[Misterwhisper]

It is more that 5e has crappy art mixed with a lot of old stuff.

[Catullus64]

I think that the example the OP mentioned is illustrative of a fifth-edition phenomenon that I think is actually good overall: a lack of unified theme or style to the art in the book. Aside from mostly sharing a sort of watercolor, soft-focus look, I'd be hard pressed to say that there are any aesthetic choices or styles that run through all the artwork pieces in the core books, let alone expansions. While such a scattershot approach can result in some massive missteps, like the infamously grotesque Halflings or the ridiculous leopard skin bra-wearing druid, it means no one aesthetic choice gets to define the entire book (which is important for me: while I know many people who liked it, the absurdly busy and overly posed artwork of 4e, which did seem like it had a certain degree of singular creative vision, really prejudiced me against that edition as a whole.)

[stoutstien]

In the PHB, gnomes are described as having tan or brown faces(pg 35)

The image on the same page has neither of these, instead being pretty obviously Causican. This is a wee bit of a minor issue (or a more major one depending on how you look at it), but what are some other cases of Wizards contradicting themselves in the books, let alone JC's tweets?

Edit: y'all please I'm looking for silly mistakes not interesting ways of defining 'artistic libreties'

And hobgoblins can have blue noses. Other than the mutant halflings I don't see anything abtuse about the art work.

[ZorroGames]

I never said it was a very big issue - merely a contradiction. Tbh I think I'm the only person in my group that actually reads flavor text.

Well, WOTC is hardly unique for that kind of stuff said the man who had to use mimeographed rules for years.

Edit: I read the flavor text myself. Much nicer term than fluff IMO.