PDA

View Full Version : 4th ed Concpet Art Gallery



Lord Tataraus
2007-11-27, 04:42 PM
Well, I don't know if any new info will come out of this, but it is good to see what the designers are visuallizing so enjoy the concept art gallery (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4art/20071116a), reproduced in full below (excluding labels):
WARNING lots of images!!!
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_01.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_02.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_03.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_04.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_05.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_06.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_07.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_08.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_09.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_10.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_11.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_12.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_13.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_14.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_15.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_16.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_17.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_18.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_19.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_20.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_21.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_22.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_23.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_24.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_25.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_26.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_27.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_28.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_29.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_30.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_31.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_32.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_33.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_34.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_35.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_36.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_37.jpg

Matthew
2007-11-27, 04:46 PM
Where's the Dwarf with the Tower Shield and War Hammer? (I hate that one, and also kind of like it... I'm torn)

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/4e/20071121_drdd_1th.jpghttp://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/4e/20070831a_drdd_1th.jpg



Dwarf - "What? I don't know what you're talking about, it's a good six inches shorter than a door."

cupkeyk
2007-11-27, 04:52 PM
Eep, they changed the Dryad from fey to plant!

Morty
2007-11-27, 05:12 PM
All I have to say is that some of the dwarven weapons(second picture) look even more ridiculous than those in PHB.

Premier
2007-11-27, 05:20 PM
Most images are too small for me to see at this resolution, but the ones I can range from "meh" to "stupid!".

Rachel Lorelei
2007-11-27, 05:35 PM
I love what they're doing with female dwarves.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_01.jpg

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_10.jpg

And especially this, from elsewhere:
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9692/dd4edwarffemalegp9.jpg

That makes me want to play a female dwarven fighter. I've never wanted to play a dwarven fighter.

Thinker
2007-11-27, 05:37 PM
Rachel, where's its beard? :smalltongue:

cupkeyk
2007-11-27, 05:38 PM
All I have to say is that some of the dwarven weapons(second picture) look even more ridiculous than those in PHB.

why? they look pretty mundane? mostly hammers, machetes, a morningstar and a pick

Morty
2007-11-27, 05:46 PM
why? they look pretty mundane? mostly hammers, machetes, a morningstar and a pick

I mean their sizes. I don't know all that much about weapons, but I have a sneaky suspicion that weapons like those would be horribly unwieldy.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-11-27, 05:48 PM
Rachel, where's its beard? :smalltongue:

Female dwarves haven't had beards for a long time.

But really, look at those. Real armor for the fighter, a distinct dwarven aesthetic, good-looking without cute/pretty and without twiggishness...
I like this art.

littlechicory
2007-11-27, 05:55 PM
But really, look at those. Real armor for the fighter, a distinct dwarven aesthetic, good-looking without cute/pretty and without twiggishness...
I like this art.

Agreed! I'm glad they're paying note to the dwarves.

And is it just me or does the male half-elf ranger look waaaaay more than half elf?

Thinker
2007-11-27, 06:07 PM
Female dwarves haven't had beards for a long time.

But really, look at those. Real armor for the fighter, a distinct dwarven aesthetic, good-looking without cute/pretty and without twiggishness...
I like this art.

I agree it looks nice in the manner you stated. I also like that it still looked like you would expect the stereotypical dwarf.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-27, 06:12 PM
Most images are too small for me to see at this resolution, but the ones I can range from "meh" to "stupid!".

I've replaced the thumbnails with the full-size.

I second the comment that the dwarf art is better. In fact, I think they're really improving the look of the races. Though the half-elf male and female look very different from each other...

BardicDuelist
2007-11-27, 06:17 PM
I hate the way the weapons look (yes, the dwarven one are impossible to use, as the look right now).

Otherwise, I like it.

tyckspoon
2007-11-27, 06:26 PM
I've replaced the thumbnails with the full-size.

I second the comment that the dwarf art is better. In fact, I think they're really improving the look of the races. Though the half-elf male and female look very different from each other...

Obviously the male favors his elven heritage more than the female. It's a mixed-heritage race, it makes sense that there would be a wide variation in appearance.

For all of you worried that 4th edition is going to drastically change the style of the game, you can relax: That Thrall of unpronouncable evil proves that evil female spellcasters will still dress like sluts.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-27, 06:32 PM
For all of you worried that 4th edition is going to drastically change the style of the game, you can relax: That Thrall of unpronouncable evil proves that evil female spellcasters will still dress like sluts.

Oh I don't know about that, the other females are modestly and *gasp* functionally dressed!!! As for the thrall, well everyone knows that all evil women are sluts. :smallwink:

de-trick
2007-11-27, 07:05 PM
Oh I don't know about that, the other females are modestly and *gasp* functionally dressed!!! As for the thrall, well everyone knows that all evil women are sluts. :smallwink:

Ohh snap

at least Im looking forward of the art in 4.0

but go dwarfs!!!*starts shouting and going nuts*

ArmorArmadillo
2007-11-27, 07:18 PM
Speaking of dwarves, I'm glad to see dwarves without beards; even if it's just cause they're female. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mc14b)

Ganurath
2007-11-27, 07:39 PM
...Where's my half-orcs?

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-27, 07:42 PM
...Where's my half-orcs?

As far as I know, they're gone, just gone. The humans have started to abort all half-orc babies and stopped they're "coupling" with orcs. So, yeah, no half-orcs...sorry.

Artanis
2007-11-27, 07:44 PM
Holy c***, female characters in armor that actually protects them! Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse or something?

Charles Phipps
2007-11-27, 07:45 PM
Female Dwarves? Isn't there a law against that?

Ganurath
2007-11-27, 07:51 PM
As far as I know, they're gone, just gone. The humans have started to abort all half-orc babies and stopped they're "coupling" with orcs. So, yeah, no half-orcs...sorry.*twitch*

*twitch*

*breathe deep*

I'll wait until I see more conclusive evidence that they aren't in 4th other than the lack of concept art. If they aren't there, though... Thog SMASH!

Egill
2007-11-27, 07:52 PM
Female dwarves haven't had beards for a long time.

But really, look at those. Real armor for the fighter, a distinct dwarven aesthetic, good-looking without cute/pretty and without twiggishness...
I like this art.

I really like the dwarf concept art. It made me want to play a dwarf wizard. I have never wanted to play a dwarf wizard. Hell, I have never wanted to play a dwarf.

MrNexx
2007-11-27, 07:52 PM
Rachel, where's its beard? :smalltongue:

My first thought, as well. They must have gone adventuring because they were so ugly, they had trouble finding decent husbands.

Poor, whiskerless women...

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-27, 07:57 PM
*twitch*

*twitch*

*breathe deep*

I'll wait until I see more conclusive evidence that they aren't in 4th other than the lack of concept art. If they aren't there, though... Thog SMASH!

I think it was confirmed elsewhere, I don't remember where. Anyone else know about this?

I must say I was shocked to see no scantily dressed women, even the Evil Slut Wizard[sup]TM[sup] isn't too bad. As for the dwarven weapons being unwieldy, only the huge axe-thing looks far-fetched, the others are fine.

pinkbunny
2007-11-27, 08:05 PM
I never thought I'd say it, but those dwarves are fine looking women.

I like all the sketches, except for the weapons, those are quite thick for real use.

Omniplex
2007-11-27, 08:47 PM
That troglodyte is badass. http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_07.jpgThough, I think the colored pictures are for something else, something other than 4ed concept art. Probably something demony.

ReproMan
2007-11-27, 09:07 PM
*shakes head*

Just think of the poor grey-bearded mothers who would weep if they saw they saw their daughters looking like that. My Gods, they're even showing... Ankles!!!

graymachine
2007-11-27, 09:20 PM
Actually, I like the dwarven weapons and don't think them too much out of scale. Keep in mind that dwarfs are, functionally, the same size as humans (medium). This makes me think of them as denser in muscle and bone than humans (which helps explain their CON bonus.) This means they could weld heftier, dense weapons with the same ease as humans weld the lighter versions. To me, it adds a richness of detail that a good, descriptive DM could use. Of course, this is coming from something that really likes the Warhammer 40k art.

Tren
2007-11-27, 09:22 PM
I don't see anything particularly wrong with the dwarven weapons besides the Snowflake axe on the left side. The small sword in the middle seems to have a bit of a Cloud complex, and the big one with the cross guard two to the right is a little much, but the one in the middle could easily be a dwarven take on a (real-world) falchion, big ol' one sided weapon meant for hacking and smashing. Seems perfectly in line with a race that's not so keen on the whole "finesse" thing.

nooblade
2007-11-27, 09:26 PM
I'm not the only one who thought Dwarven Wizards are awesome, right? Sure, they don't have the best stuff, Halfling Wizards get the dex and size modifier (staying in core), but they're great for roleplaying and backstory, you can think of a ton of things for it, even if most of it encroaches on DM-defined-setting territory.

Mr Pants
2007-11-27, 09:52 PM
The weapons may not be realistic, but to me they do look pretty cool. It is a game afterall, weapons can look however you want them to.

Edit: Yeah dwarven wizards give me that Lorekeeper feel to them. Makes my character feel different from all the dwarven fighters.

Egill
2007-11-27, 10:01 PM
I'm not the only one who thought Dwarven Wizards are awesome, right? Sure, they don't have the best stuff, Halfling Wizards get the dex and size modifier (staying in core), but they're great for roleplaying and backstory, you can think of a ton of things for it, even if most of it encroaches on DM-defined-setting territory.

Core dwarves are pretty neat. I haven't really looked at the race in probably a year. +2 saves vs. spells & spell-like abilities is pretty nice. +2 con is nothing to sneeze at.

This inspired me to reread Races of Stone. Dream Dwarves have fluff that is more appealing to me, and the dwarven racial substitution levels for sorcerers provide some interesting, fluffy options.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-27, 10:05 PM
I've always wanted to play a Dwarf arcanist, unfortunately I always DM :smallfrown: I really need to join a PbP...

Of course, I have so many projects going I don't have much time, oh well.

littlechicory
2007-11-27, 10:07 PM
@ nooblade: The group I'm playing with usually goes with sorcs for everything BUT dwarves, who are always wizards. Sure, they're short on Dex and Medium in size, but the Con boost means more hitpoints and a higher Concentration bonus when casting defensively.

Hawriel
2007-11-27, 10:19 PM
I mean their sizes. I don't know all that much about weapons, but I have a sneaky suspicion that weapons like those would be horribly unwieldy.

Your just now noticsing this about WOTC? Their art work has always been unrealistic.

Never liked dwarven wizards its just not right. Wish they would make some kind of Rune magic class for dwarves.

Mephisto
2007-11-28, 12:49 AM
why? they look pretty mundane? mostly hammers, machetes, a morningstar and a pick

The swords are too thick and heavy-looking. The guard might as well not be there, as it's the same width as the blade. And the sword with the triangular flanges on it is just an exercise in wtfery.

Also, the mace on the far right is absurdly short. The grip is more than half the total length, meaning it's harder to get any meaningful force behind the blow.

hamlet
2007-11-28, 09:31 AM
Hate the concept art.

No, that's not a knee-jerk reaction. I just don't like it.

It's too . . . I don't know. Does "big eye small mouth" mean anything to anybody? Not too Anime since it seems that they've tuned out some of that vibe, but definately heavily influenced still. Of course, that's not something that can be entirely gotten rid of, but I still think that minimizing it would be a great benefit to the FRPG genre. I'm kind of sick of Anime and Manga literally infesting everything nowadays, but that's mostly a pet peeve.

The weapons are, frankly, absurd. There is NO reason why anybody in their right mind would design a weapon that blocky, heavy (ok, heavy looking, it's a freakin' drawing), and unweildy. Weapons were always designed to be lighter and easier to handle since the lighter it was, the longer you could go on killing those who disagree with you and the easier it was to handle, the less training you'd have to give to idiot peasants when you were putting together an army. Not only that, using that much material in building a weapon is cost prohibitive. Putting too much metal in such a weapon is going to up the cost by several orders of magnitude in addition to making it too heavy to hold in the first place.

Yes, they're only concept art, but they are so flat and unevocative (worse than the usual WOTC art) that I feel completely uninspired by them. They're just so . . . blah. And cold.

On the other hand, it is nice to see characters again wearing semi-functional garb rather than the straps, buckles, spikes, and enourmous pauldrons of previous art. Doubt very much that that'll last for long though.

The best FRPG art for D&D has always been, and likely will always be, the color prints that were in the various 2nd edition manuals. Not the blue line versions, but the full page, full color paintings that were just beautiful. My favorite has always been the cover of Dungeon magazine #1. Now THAT'S a dragon!

AKA_Bait
2007-11-28, 10:17 AM
Holy c***, female characters in armor that actually protects them! Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse or something?

Now now, there are still tight pants, middriffs showing and dropped necklines. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Of coruse, this is a huge improvment over the chainmail bikini of days gone by.

DraPrime
2007-11-28, 10:33 AM
I'm glad to see that Graz'zt is looking as bad ass as ever. Has anyone noticed that the picture of the Bar-lgura looks suspiciously similar to the picture in Book of Vile Darkness?

Matthew
2007-11-28, 11:25 AM
I will also throw in my vote for "the weapons look stupid" (i.e. not very practical). Reminds me of the War Hammer drawing from the 3e PHB. On the other hand, I suppose the listed weights of the weapons will now match their conceptual drawings! :smallwink:

hamlet
2007-11-28, 11:33 AM
I will also throw in my vote for "the weapons look stupid" (i.e. not very practical). Reminds me of the War Hammer drawing from the 3e PHB. On the other hand, I suppose the listed weights of the weapons will now match their conceptual drawings! :smallwink:

Historically speaking, warhammers weighed about 4 pounds and looked, if anything, like a meat tenderizer. Which, in most respects, is what they were.

They were actually considered horseman's weapons since they were very effective if you swung it one handed in a wide arc while riding past at good speed.

Nothing like a shattered skull to ruin your morning.

Tren
2007-11-28, 11:34 AM
I'm glad to see that Graz'zt is looking as bad ass as ever. Has anyone noticed that the picture of the Bar-lgura looks suspiciously similar to the picture in Book of Vile Darkness?

I don't think the last couple are actually 4E concept art, a lot of those pics have been in the Dungeon and Dragon articles on D&D Insider, especially the deathknight and Grazz't stuff.

Dausuul
2007-11-28, 11:35 AM
Female dwarves haven't had beards for a long time.

But really, look at those. Real armor for the fighter, a distinct dwarven aesthetic, good-looking without cute/pretty and without twiggishness...
I like this art.

I love how they managed to work in cleavage in the last one without leaving the usual gaping hole in the armor. Ah, the wonders of chain mail. :smallbiggrin:

Matthew
2007-11-28, 12:23 PM
Historically speaking, warhammers weighed about 4 pounds and looked, if anything, like a meat tenderizer. Which, in most respects, is what they were.

They were actually considered horseman's weapons since they were very effective if you swung it one handed in a wide arc while riding past at good speed.

Nothing like a shattered skull to ruin your morning.

I have a fair idea of what a 'typical' historical War Hammer looked like, but as far as I know their weight varied between 2 and 4 lbs, with the latter being in the upper range for what could be handled in One Hand. What the 3e PHB presents is a fantasy War Hammer. In the 3e PHB (not the 3.5e PHB) it was listed as weighing 8 lbs. Most weights were halved for 3.5.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph35_gallery/PHB35_PG120_WEB.jpg

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_02.jpg

As for it being a Horse Man's weapon, that rather depends on who you ask. Certainly, there was a predisposition in the latter Middle Ages for Foot Men to employ Two Handed versions of pretty much all weapons, but prior to that there is no reason to think that One Handed War Hammers were employed by Foot Sergeants or dismounted Knights. That said, if you can lay your hands on any sources that might speak to the contrary, I would be interested to read them.

Images taken from: My Armoury Weapon Compare (http://www.myarmoury.com/compare.html)

http://www.myarmoury.com/images/compare/comp_othr_ans_hamr.jpg http://www.myarmoury.com/images/compare/comp_othr_lutel_17011.jpg http://www.myarmoury.com/images/compare/comp_othr_lutel_17012.jpg http://www.myarmoury.com/images/compare/comp_othr_lutel_17010.jpg http://www.myarmoury.com/images/compare/comp_othr_lutel_17016.jpg

The larger ones were likely used Two Handed and are unrepresented in the core rulebooks; I have also seen intermediate sized hammers, though they are of a less nuanced design.

Anyway, I don't know how that accords with your opinion.

hamlet
2007-11-28, 12:49 PM
My understanding of the use of warhammers as horesman's weapons is, admittedly, out of a History Channel TV show that is no longer aired. I've not seen it independantly verified, but it rang true to me since it's one of those few weapons that would be VERY effective in mounted combat, moreso than on foot. Getting all that extra momentum behind the impact point of a relatively slower weapon with a concentrated impact head and being able to move out of retaliatory range quickly.

I could, of course, be wrong.

Using a warhammer against a mounted foe seems like a poor idea since it relies first on your ability to hit a moving target with a swing rather than setting for charge which is a much better idea.

Weapons to use against a mounted foe:

Good: a zweihander sword designed for chopping through horse and rider together, or a long spear.

Better: A welsh long bow from far away.

Best: With a stick, while he sleeps.

mostlyharmful
2007-11-28, 12:59 PM
Am I the only one who thinks the dragon with the big honking nose spike is a bit daft. I mean its a predator, which can't reach anything big with its mouth cause there's this big thing in the way.:smallconfused: Maybe they only eat small or smaller things, maybe they use a kife and fork.

And the weaponry is still so clunky you'd wrench every muscle in your arm trying to use the damn things.

That being said Hoooray! for sensible female artwork, doubly so for dwarves. Woot.

Artanis
2007-11-28, 01:06 PM
Are the weapons supposed to be "normal" weapons or Dwarvish versions? Because if they're "normal" weapons, then yeah, they mostly look too short and fat to be much good. However, most of those weapons look like they'd be just fine for a short-but-muscular Dwarf.

tyckspoon
2007-11-28, 01:07 PM
Am I the only one who thinks the dragon with the big honking nose spike is a bit daft. I mean its a predator, which can't reach anything big with its mouth cause there's this big thing in the way.:smallconfused: Maybe they only eat small or smaller things, maybe they use a kife and fork.

And the weaponry is still so clunky you'd wrench every muscle in your arm trying to use the damn things.

That being said Hoooray! for sensible female artwork, doubly so for dwarves. Woot.

They spear things on the spike and then lick it off with their tongues, obviously.

DraPrime
2007-11-28, 01:08 PM
Am I the only one who thinks the dragon with the big honking nose spike is a bit daft. I mean its a predator, which can't reach anything big with its mouth cause there's this big thing in the way.:smallconfused: Maybe they only eat small or smaller things, maybe they use a kife and fork.

And the weaponry is still so clunky you'd wrench every muscle in your arm trying to use the damn things.

Fantasy artwork has never made sense. I have yet to see a dwarf that actually decided to get a shave. I refuse to believe that all the males of a race don't even know what a razor is.

Matthew
2007-11-28, 01:09 PM
My understanding of the use of warhammers as horesman's weapons is, admittedly, out of a History Channel TV show that is no longer aired. I've not seen it independantly verified, but it rang true to me since it's one of those few weapons that would be VERY effective in mounted combat, moreso than on foot. Getting all that extra momentum behind the impact point of a relatively slower weapon with a concentrated impact head and being able to move out of retaliatory range quickly.

I could, of course, be wrong.

Using a warhammer against a mounted foe seems like a poor idea since it relies first on your ability to hit a moving target with a swing rather than setting for charge which is a much better idea.

Weapons to use against a mounted foe:

Good: a zweihander sword designed for chopping through horse and rider together, or a long spear.

Better: A welsh long bow from far away.

Best: With a stick, while he sleeps.


Heh, well the History Channel sometimes leaves stuff out, but I wouldn't want a War Hammer versus cavalry any more than a Battle Axe or what have you. A Lucern Hammer would be okay, though.

Wikipedia seems to think that the War Hammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_hammer) was used for close combat and by horse men, which accords with what I know of it. However, it also claims that they were developed to face heavy armour, which I don't think is very accurate. I have seen twelfth century War Hammers and the design is very similar. It is true, however, to say that they seem to have gained popularity at the same time as heavy armour, which suggests a relationship.

DraPrime
2007-11-28, 01:12 PM
Are the weapons supposed to be "normal" weapons or Dwarvish versions? Because if they're "normal" weapons, then yeah, they mostly look too short and fat to be much good. However, most of those weapons look like they'd be just fine for a short-but-muscular Dwarf.

Let's not forget that dwarves' bodies naturally produce steroids.

F.L.
2007-11-28, 01:14 PM
Fantasy artwork has never made sense. I have yet to see a dwarf that actually decided to get a shave. I refuse to believe that all the males of a race don't even know what a razor is.

Doubly so since the Dwarves are supposed to have invented metal earlier than most, and are master metalworkers. Given the number of other blades Dwarves forge...

mostlyharmful
2007-11-28, 01:15 PM
They spear things on the spike and then lick it off with their tongues, obviously.

Elf on a stick, get it while it's dribbly.

Dragor
2007-11-28, 01:15 PM
I have to say, I love the Dwarven art. I'm liking it much better than the 3rd Ed art, so far, as a whole- hope they keep this standard up.

And yeah, the weapons aren't on scale. But hey, they look cool. So, basically, I'm already sold. :smallamused:

TheThan
2007-11-28, 01:55 PM
I really like the concept art for the dwarves, they made the females pretty without being rod thin like all the other females, additionally they look well…freaking awesome on top of that. Now if you like your dwarf females with beards, that’s your choice. As for me, I’ll take them as they are presented.


I like most of the other pics other than the Dryad and the Yuan-ti, they’re just not snake enough for me. That pureblood looks like a freaking lizard man not a snake man.

Uin
2007-11-28, 02:11 PM
Grazz't looks horrible, but thats probably because Wayne Reynolds didn't draw him.

Solid artwork, nice Dwarves. In most books there are a few pictures I object to and 4th Ed won't be an exception. Human females with extra large breasts are still fair game I see... doesn't anyone find them a bit off-putting?

Tempest Fennac
2007-11-28, 02:14 PM
Does anyone know if there's any artwork depicting Gnolls and/or Lupins at the minute?

hamlet
2007-11-28, 02:21 PM
Heh, well the History Channel sometimes leaves stuff out, but I wouldn't want a War Hammer versus cavalry any more than a Battle Axe or what have you. A Lucern Hammer would be okay, though.

Wikipedia seems to think that the War Hammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_hammer) was used for close combat and by horse men, which accords with what I know of it. However, it also claims that they were developed to face heavy armour, which I don't think is very accurate. I have seen twelfth century War Hammers and the design is very similar. It is true, however, to say that they seem to have gained popularity at the same time as heavy armour, which suggests a relationship.

I won't dispute that the History Channel is not a great source of hard fact. I still like to laugh at it when they play the Nostradamus shows and the global warming shows.

I will say, though, that they often come out with interesting tidbits every so often . . . and then bury them in hour long useless shows.

However, it does make sense that hammers would have arrisen with heavy armor. Most of them, including yours, have spikes on the back. This is a great way to punch through heavy armor since it concentrates all the power of the hit on a single point. Would open up field plate like a can of tuna.

TheMeanDM
2007-11-28, 02:30 PM
I wonder if GW has a problem with the D&D 4E Monster Manual......

http://www.enworld.org/images/4e/mm.jpg

The word of the day kids is BLOODTHIRSTER.

Matthew
2007-11-28, 02:43 PM
I won't dispute that the History Channel is not a great source of hard fact. I still like to laugh at it when they play the Nostradamus shows and the global warming shows.

I will say, though, that they often come out with interesting tidbits every so often . . . and then bury them in hour long useless shows.

However, it does make sense that hammers would have arrisen with heavy armor. Most of them, including yours, have spikes on the back. This is a great way to punch through heavy armor since it concentrates all the power of the hit on a single point. Would open up field plate like a can of tuna.
Yeah, I hear that a lot. However, the Spiked War Hammer is not restricted to the later middle ages and there's no actual direct evidence to say that it was an 'heavy armour buster' that I am aware of. Consequently, I am wary of linking the two too closely. I do think it makes sense, but I have reservations. For one thing, the majority of battlefield combatants would not be armoured in full plate, so it doesn't make that much sense to me that the War Hammer proliferated amongst the common troops, who would mainly be dealing with one another. I also think the War Hammer would be a good weapon against Mail!

That said, we are just basically missing the relevant data. We don't know how many men wore what type of Body Armour. We don't know how effective the armour was in general. We don't know how many men carried War Hammers, what type or for what purpose. We don't know how effective they were against various types of Body Armour.

About all that can be said is that those who could afford Body Armour generally wore the best that they could. We observe that Shields declined in popularity at the same time as Body Armour became heavier, that daggers appear to increase in popularity and that weapons appear to become more diverse and the War Hammer more popular amongst both foot men and horse men. We can attempt to draw conclusions from this, but there are many caveats that must be borne in mind. I don't doubt that a War Hammer has better potential for puncturing Plate Body Armour and transmitting the force of impact blows than a Sword, for instance, but to what degree I have to admit is unknown. Certainly, the Sword does not disappear off the battlefield, nor any other weapon.

That said, this is probably better left for the Real Life Arms and Armour Thread, as we're starting to really derail this Thread.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-28, 02:54 PM
I wonder if GW has a problem with the D&D 4E Monster Manual......


Wait... that's not really the 4e MM is it? Please tell me it's not...

DraPrime
2007-11-28, 02:56 PM
Wait... that's not really the 4e MM is it? Please tell me it's not...

Sorry, it is.

Wizzardman
2007-11-28, 02:56 PM
Fantasy artwork has never made sense. I have yet to see a dwarf that actually decided to get a shave. I refuse to believe that all the males of a race don't even know what a razor is.

Oh, I imagine they know what a razor is--but why would they want to use one on their wonderful dwarven beards?

Dwarves live in mountains and caves! Mountains and caves are cold! Facial hair keeps your face warm and looks awesome! Not to mention that it can help prevent the dwarf from breathing tons of rock dust.

Now, I'll agree its a little silly for the blacksmiths and skilled forge-dwarves of the clans to keep long beards, but I imagine the craftsmen are allowed to have shorter beards and handlebar mustaches to make up for the dangers of their profession.

Honestly, what's wrong with dwarves enjoying good facial hair? Next you'll be complaining about Dwarves that drink a lot.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-28, 03:06 PM
Sorry, it is.

Oh son of a female canine. You know, I really think that one of the reasons 3.5 grew the gaming pool was because the core books covers didn't look totally like an oversized comicbook/fantasynovel so you could be 24 years old and read one on the bus/train etc without getting funny looks. Seriously, I know judging a book by it's cover is bad but that's a serious turn off of 4e for me.

Artanis
2007-11-28, 03:42 PM
I wonder if GW has a problem with the D&D 4E Monster Manual......
The demon is different enough from a Bloodthirster to count as a "generic big red evil dude". The first thing I thought was actually, "huh, looks kinda like Diablo."

However, I DO agree that it looks...how to put this nicely..."uninspiring".

Dausuul
2007-11-28, 03:53 PM
The demon is different enough from a Bloodthirster to count as a "generic big red evil dude". The first thing I thought was actually, "huh, looks kinda like Diablo."

However, I DO agree that it looks...how to put this nicely..."uninspiring".

I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be Orcus.

Dunno what it is about the demon lords. I've seldom seen a picture of Orcus that I liked, at least in 3E/4E, and I've never seen one of Graz'zt that I thought was worth beans. He's supposed to be charming and handsome in an evil way, isn't he? So why does he always have backward knees and hideous deformed oversized feet? I thought his only demonic features were the six-fingered hands and the small horns.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-11-28, 04:06 PM
Let's not forget that dwarves' bodies naturally produce steroids.

[biologist sarcasm]Yes, this is a well known trait limited to dwarves. I also notice how you didn't include any '*' or '/' in your post due to the fact that your baby arms can't reach that far to the side of the keyboard.[/biologist sarcasm]

So, about the art.

The weapons look like they're from Fable. Honestly, if you think that weapons look like that I don't want to play the ruleset based on what you think fighting is like.

The lizard thing looks crap. It's too stocky, doesn't look like a lizard at all. The Lizardfolk in the 3rd edition monster manual is better.

I don't personally like the art style the human woman and the elf with the shortbow are in.

The manticore is uninspiring.

The ape thing's arms look too big. I know apes have big arms and you can exagerate perspective but it has wrists bigger than it's head. Heck, it has wrists bigger than it's entire leg.

The demon looks crap.

The dryad is okay but I honestly prefer naked hot chicks. It's not like they aren't mythologically acurate.

The fire elemental with the swords looks like it has traced from Hero Machine.

The insect man looks interesting but needs more work.

Now time to say how much I hate the painted stuff.

The guy in the cave with the dragon head and red loin cloth looks too human. Slightly bent legs isn't lizard enough, it's just cutting corners. If you can only draw anatomically correct humans don't draw lizard men, get a comission that suits you.

The elf chick fighting the skeleton looks out of place, as though there's an anomoly in art style space time around her head. The skeleton is awesome and deserves to win even if putting skeletons in full armour so you can just draw a human with a skull head is cheap.

The green glowing axe picture is lame.

The dragon holding the crystal has a too human looking arm that also doesn't appear to be attactched to his body. Maybe I'm misunderstanding and this is actually a completly serpantine dragon with a mostly out of picture green giant friend holding a crystal for him.

The blacker looking dragon has awesome wings but is suffering from the now contageous non reptilian limb syndrome.

The next pick is too cluttered. There's a bit of ruined burning thing every 4 mm of picture.

The next landscape suffers from similar compression problems.

Oh look, it's Morrrrrrrdorrrrrrrr

Is that goat legged thing actually standing on that rock because it looks kind of flat so he can't be. His orange friend has an awesome grin but lame hair that appears to be an inch behind his head.

Is that guy in black wielding a sword, a rail gun or a tuning fawk. Oh, and it's on fire. The half dwarf half lizard guy doesn't seem that keen on being part of his legs. Unless it's a levitating legless guy with a front facing kobold behind him.

Is that Graz't? Well, his chaotic nature appears to have made his legs out of scale. Perhaps this is part of his 4 dimensional geometry looking maddening to
mortals or am I giving the artist too much credit? One thing I do know, he sure likes stepping on his angel action figures.

If this is the new water elemental and the hero machine guy is the new fire elemental I'm worried. I mean, people have seen lakes and fire right? It's not hard to imagine what being attacked by them would be like is it?

Woman in purple dress, what is up with you? Have you cast a spell to turn you into a twig and what advantages does it give? Why did you tilt the head on your staff to look dead on at the viewer when it clearly isn't being carried that way. I'm looking forward to the spell that makes one of my legs invisable. Do I get to sneak attack with kicks all the time?

Okay, that's enough for me. I'm going to go back to read my old Warhammer Armies Supplements and looking at the pretty pictures in them.

jamroar
2007-11-28, 04:09 PM
I dunno. While the PC concept art looks OK (actually, much better than 3.0's), much of the monster designs look generic and uninspired to me. And the dragons we've seen look downright horrible compared to the 3.0/Draconomicon versions.

hamlet
2007-11-28, 04:19 PM
That said, this is probably better left for the Real Life Arms and Armour Thread, as we're starting to really derail this Thread.

But that's half the fun!

And yes, I agree with you pretty much. You can't really know, without actual evidence, what weapons evolved in reaction to what, or if they were just there as a result of some lunatics fevered imagination. But it's certainly fun to speculate.

Telonius
2007-11-28, 04:21 PM
The weapons picture does look a little weird ... I work with graphic art quite a bit. Sometimes it turns out kind of squat and blocky like that if you mess with the margins and resize the height and width. It's an easy mistake to make if you're not careful, and don't know what they're supposed to look like in the finished product. I wonder if that's what happened there?

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-28, 04:45 PM
I wonder if GW has a problem with the D&D 4E Monster Manual......

http://www.enworld.org/images/4e/mm.jpg

The word of the day kids is BLOODTHIRSTER.

NNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One thing I had always loved about the 3.x core books (and a few others) was how the cover art was designed to look like a fancy, ancient tome. It was a great selling point for me. This cover art looks downright bland and templated.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-11-29, 04:17 AM
Fantasy artwork has never made sense. I have yet to see a dwarf that actually decided to get a shave. I refuse to believe that all the males of a race don't even know what a razor is.One of the Dragonlance books includes a Dwarf who shaves. Once. I want to say his name was something like Kharas?

kyuubigan
2007-11-29, 01:53 PM
Fantasy artwork has never made sense. I have yet to see a dwarf that actually decided to get a shave. I refuse to believe that all the males of a race don't even know what a razor is.

Actually, I have seen some dwarves without beards in the PhB2.

Also, you have to take into account dwarven society. Beards for dwarven men are about as important to them as a humans hair is important to us. Dwarves often style their beards, and put jewelry in them. Asking a dwarf to shave his beard is like asking a girl to shave her head, to try to put it into perspective.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-29, 01:58 PM
Asking a dwarf to shave his beard is like asking a girl to shave her head, to try to put it into perspective.

Humm... that's not that unusual to me. But then, I hang out in the east village pretty often...

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-29, 02:31 PM
One of the Dragonlance books includes a Dwarf who shaves. Once. I want to say his name was something like Kharas?

I remember that, but that was a punishment for something (disobeying orders?).

Wizzardman
2007-11-29, 02:59 PM
Humm... that's not that unusual to me. But then, I hang out in the east village pretty often...

And I'm sure the dwarven equivalent [East Mine?] probably sports some shaved Dwarves, as well. Of course, I do have trouble seeing much in the way of Dwarven counterculture, but I suppose its possible.

Sleet
2007-11-29, 03:01 PM
I remember that, but that was a punishment for something (disobeying orders?).

I believe it's a symbol of banishment from your clan. Could be wrong, though.

Dausuul
2007-11-29, 03:01 PM
I remember that, but that was a punishment for something (disobeying orders?).

Actually, it wasn't a punishment (or rather, it was, but self-imposed). It was Kharas's way of expressing his shame over being forced to wage war on his fellow dwarves.

hamlet
2007-11-29, 03:04 PM
I remember that, but that was a punishment for something (disobeying orders?).

That was Kharas. He shaved his beard in shame over being ordered by his Thane (name escapes me) to fight against his own people (the Hill Dwarves) during the Dwarfgate War instigated by Fistandantilius/Raistlin Majere shortly after the Cataclysm as Raistlin sought to gain access to the portal to the Abyss located near there.

EDIT: I'm so VERY depressed that I knew that. And argh, ninja'd.

vegetalss4
2007-11-29, 03:25 PM
NNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One thing I had always loved about the 3.x core books (and a few others) was how the cover art was designed to look like a fancy, ancient tome. It was a great selling point for me. This cover art looks downright bland and templated.

i agree with this.
NNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mostlyharmful
2007-11-29, 03:28 PM
i agree with this.
NNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NNNNNNOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!??!!**!!

The motion is thirded.:smallannoyed:

Vulion
2007-11-29, 04:19 PM
I love what they're doing with female dwarves.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_01.jpg

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/360_Gallery/dragon360_10.jpg

And especially this, from elsewhere:
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9692/dd4edwarffemalegp9.jpg

That makes me want to play a female dwarven fighter. I've never wanted to play a dwarven fighter.

Tell me about it, they look great.

Also...

NNNNNNOOOOOOOO!!!!1!!!!11!! fourthed!

bosssmiley
2007-11-29, 05:21 PM
All I have to say is that some of the dwarven weapons(second picture) look even more ridiculous than those in PHB.

I look at the dwarf concept art for 4th Ed and can't seem to shake from my mind the thought that we've seen these rigid geometric forms in Dwarvish iconography before. I'm not saying that they're a direct rip-off of Alan Lee's prior art designed to pander to the lowest common denominator element among gamers... Oh, wait, maybe I am.

TL;DR version: WOTC asks "How does I shamelessly copypasta LOTR concept art?"

As for the other character art. The rangers, rogues, etc. all look pretty interchangable. "Hardworn leather" is obviously this edition's "asymmetrical garb and excessive buckles". :smallamused:

Call me a blithering hopeless optimist; but I expect the biggest name in fantasy gaming to help form taste, not slavishly follow it.

Darke
2007-12-09, 03:20 AM
It looks cool-ish, the art looks so much more realistic and well...better.

I've only been around for the mid-end of 3.5 though.

Is that a lich in the background of the MM?

If they all have covers like that, I am not letting 4.0 into my house...I don't care if I do not own the house.

zaei
2007-12-09, 12:28 PM
Wow, people dislike the covers? I thought the covers of the core 3.x books were HIDEOUS! The only one I'll actually be seen in public with is the special edition PHB, with it's black leather/silver lettered cover. All the rest of them look like the people at wizards gave some first graders a bunch of fake plastic gems, some glue, and about 5 minutes.

KIDS
2007-12-09, 01:24 PM
The images are quite promising, I like them. Just if they continue that way... *I'm looking at you, whomever drew Mialee*

Anyways, my favorite is the elf woman with the glowing sword parrying away the skeleton king, very inspiring picture. Awesomeness!

p.s. on a second look, no. Images aren't bad but I agree that for a brand new edition, it would really be nice to start with all great images instead of a bunch of "meh" collections

Dausuul
2007-12-09, 02:06 PM
As for the other character art. The rangers, rogues, etc. all look pretty interchangable. "Hardworn leather" is obviously this edition's "asymmetrical garb and excessive buckles". :smallamused:

Hey, no complaints here. Adventurers should be wearing hardworn leather. The asymmetrical garb/excessive buckles/GIANT FRICKIN' PLATES look always drove me up the wall.

Personally, I'd like a return to the aesthetic values of 2E. Say what you will of the mechanics, that edition had excellent art. (1E had some very good art and some incredibly bad art.) Rarely in 3E have I seen anything approaching the artistic quality that 2E had as standard.

(Of course, not everything needs to return to the 2E aesthetic. The chain mail bikini appears to have died a well-deserved death, and I see no need to resurrect it.)