PDA

View Full Version : Something I miss about 3e books



Jimp
2008-08-30, 08:44 AM
I miss how the book covers were designed like ancients or magical tomes. That was seriously awesome.

UserClone
2008-08-30, 08:50 AM
I miss being able to flip easily through the classes chapter. Seriously, they put feats in their own section, but not powers? What gives?

Viruzzo
2008-08-30, 08:51 AM
I don't know, I do like the tome style, but the 4E books remind me of the older editions. Nostalgia is hard to beat!

Prometheus
2008-08-30, 09:26 AM
I miss the books of the earlier additions that had pictures of demons and monsters that were considerably more creepy than the cartoons we get in 3rd and 4th. Of course I was younger when I had last seen them, but they reminded me of forbidden lore and the like.

Gorbash
2008-08-30, 09:47 AM
I'd let Todd Lockwood and Wayne Reynolds have my babies, so I can't really agree with you.

1e and 2e artwork is silly and even if it is creepy to someone nothing beats the coolness those two can dish out.

Jimp
2008-08-30, 10:20 AM
I'd let Todd Lockwood and Wayne Reynolds have my babies, so I can't really agree with you.

1e and 2e artwork is silly and even if it is creepy to someone nothing beats the coolness those two can dish out.

Agreed. What little art was in the 2e books was pretty boring.

Cainen
2008-08-30, 10:22 AM
You're kidding, right? Tony DiTerlizzi's art was amazing.

Gorbash
2008-08-30, 10:31 AM
You're kidding, right? Tony DiTerlizzi's art was amazing.

Couldn't agree more. It was amazing. Now it isn't, compared to other D&D artists.

From the point of view of a person from the time when those books came out, I'm sure it was pretty awesome. But the art of fantasy drawings has progressed so much since then, and now they're not in the same league. Just look at how amazingly livelike Wayne's drawings are, or how Lockwood makes them look realistic and both go into great detail in their drawings and then compare them to those bland, black and white, static drawings from 2e...

Glyde
2008-08-30, 10:32 AM
2e art was too 80s in my book, at least in the older PHB. Everyone had a freaking dirty mustache.

Now the newer 2e books had amazing art, that's for sure.

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 11:27 AM
i miss the focus on the fluff and the actually attempts to have fluff focused entries.
from
EE

Zaeron
2008-08-30, 11:41 AM
i miss the focus on the fluff and the actually attempts to have fluff focused entries.
from
EE

I... really can't think of a whole lot of fluff in the 3e books. I mean, the section on the planes was fluff, and there was a deities section, of course, but... Am I forgetting some large section of fluff, somewhere?

Knaight
2008-08-30, 11:43 AM
I also missed the covers. That and I really don't like the players hand book cover. And I miss the old page color and shinyness.

Gorbash
2008-08-30, 12:21 PM
I... really can't think of a whole lot of fluff in the 3e books. I mean, the section on the planes was fluff, and there was a deities section, of course, but... Am I forgetting some large section of fluff, somewhere?

Lords of Madness, Draconomicon, Manual of the Planes, Races of ____, Elder Evils, Exemplars of Evil, Fiendish Codexes on the top of my head.

Also, what I like A LOT are those descriptions of monsters that should be read to players. Not every monster has it, but I really like them.

Artwork is better, also. I'm not saying 4e has bad, it has some pretty awesome drawings (demons and devils, especially), but 3e has a lot more of Lockwood, Wayne and Sam Wood, who are just godlike at what they do.

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 12:21 PM
I... really can't think of a whole lot of fluff in the 3e books. I mean, the section on the planes was fluff, and there was a deities section, of course, but... Am I forgetting some large section of fluff, somewhere?

3E had tons of fluff. I mean, Lords of madness, BoED, BoVD, MMs, Settings, they were very good. Its fluff wasn't perfect, i'll never sy that, but it was still good quality
from
EE

Crow
2008-08-30, 01:25 PM
Let's not forget the fluff in the monster manual.

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 01:29 PM
Let's not forget the fluff in the monster manual.

wait a second crow, lets not get crazy. You see, the ever wise WotC has decided that the monsters exist as mindless entities to be slaughtered. that is the only true way, and we must bow and follow WOTC's wishes to the letter
can i come out of the box yet masters?

from
EE

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-30, 01:33 PM
Let's not forget the fluff in the monster manual.

I still say the illustration for the 2e Invisible Stalker was a masterstroke of artistic genius :smallbiggrin:

Ecalsneerg
2008-08-30, 01:33 PM
Yes, we must do exactly that...

... wait, what?

Xyk
2008-08-30, 05:15 PM
I really like the italicized description of the monster's in 3e, but in 2e, the invisible stalker was really more fun.

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 05:38 PM
what stalker?
from
EE

Swordguy
2008-08-30, 06:08 PM
what stalker?
from
EE

Exactly...

Chronos
2008-08-30, 06:36 PM
Although, even in 3rd, they had already started taking some of the detail out of the monster entries. The 2nd edition Monstrous Compendium included things like the monsters' diet and activity cycle in every statblock (and it was really fun reading some of those: "Diet: Painful emotions", or the like), and often had an "ecology" section in the body of the entry (which, among other things, told you which pieces of a monster could be used for what purposes, and how much they were worth).

And I have no reason to say this beyond nostalgia, but I kind of miss the random full-page illustrations which were just kind of vaguely fantasy, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the text or with each other.

Cainen
2008-08-30, 06:42 PM
Couldn't agree more. It was amazing. Now it isn't, compared to other D&D artists.

From the point of view of a person from the time when those books came out, I'm sure it was pretty awesome. But the art of fantasy drawings has progressed so much since then, and now they're not in the same league.

I disagree. They're stylized in completely different ways, among other things - DiTerlizzi's art, for one, looks more like taking the essence of a childhood horror story and drawing it in cartoon form. No 3.X art I've seen ever looked like that, and it made for a completely different atmosphere.

Seriously, just compare 2E and 3.X Vargouilles.

Justin_Bacon
2008-08-31, 01:16 AM
I miss how the book covers were designed like ancients or magical tomes. That was seriously awesome.

Interesting. If there's one thing I thought 4th Edition did right it was getting rid of that motif. I'd forgotten how much I liked having evocative fantasy art on the covers of my books.

Jimp
2008-08-31, 09:31 AM
Interesting. If there's one thing I thought 4th Edition did right it was getting rid of that motif. I'd forgotten how much I liked having evocative fantasy art on the covers of my books.

Yeah it's strange, opinion is a bit split amongst my group as to which they prefer. I guess I like it because it feels like I'm holding some great magical tome :smallbiggrin:.

EvilElitest
2008-08-31, 09:57 AM
Although, even in 3rd, they had already started taking some of the detail out of the monster entries. The 2nd edition Monstrous Compendium included things like the monsters' diet and activity cycle in every statblock (and it was really fun reading some of those: "Diet: Painful emotions", or the like), and often had an "ecology" section in the body of the entry (which, among other things, told you which pieces of a monster could be used for what purposes, and how much they were worth).

And I have no reason to say this beyond nostalgia, but I kind of miss the random full-page illustrations which were just kind of vaguely fantasy, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the text or with each other.

actually it was mixed. the 2E was more advanced in some ways certainly, and in general i preferthat, but it had less detail in other articles. So i suppose it varies
from
EE

Chronos
2008-08-31, 10:06 AM
Oh, right, the original topic: I like the way 3e did it, too. I think it'd be even better, though, if they had a Special Edition or the like, for which the covers actually were sculpted and textured like dragonhide or whatever, with the brass clasps and all.


actually it was mixed. the 2E was more advanced in some ways certainly, and in general i preferthat, but it had less detail in other articles. So i suppose it variesOh, the 3e books definitely had more detail on the mechanics (ability scores other than Int and occasionally Str, saving throws, etc.), which I welcomed, but as far as flavor, I don't think there was anything 3e added. Of course, for someone who has both editions, it's easy enough to port the flavor over.

ghost_warlock
2008-08-31, 10:17 AM
Oh, right, the original topic: I like the way 3e did it, too. I think it'd be even better, though, if they had a Special Edition or the like, for which the covers actually were sculpted and textured like dragonhide or whatever, with the brass clasps and all.

Well, they did do a leatherbound version (http://www.amazon.com/Special-Handbook-Rulebook-Dungeons-Roleplaying/dp/0786934328/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220196024&sr=8-1)...

bosssmiley
2008-08-31, 12:58 PM
2e art was too 80s in my book, at least in the older PHB. Everyone had a freaking dirty mustache.

And 3E art has dated just as badly...as will 4E art. Until, in time, they take on a retro charm of their own, just as the line-art illustrations of the 1E rulebooks have. :smallwink:


Now the newer 2e books had amazing art, that's for sure.

Planescape & Birthright. Yep. Total agreement here. Two of the first game lines to create an internally coherent art style. I mean, even the page background watercolours for the Birthright books were flavourful.

Edea
2008-08-31, 01:14 PM
I miss how the book covers were designed like ancients or magical tomes. That was seriously awesome.

*Looks at book collection*

I'd have to agree with you, they look so pretty ^_^.

Eldan
2008-08-31, 02:11 PM
Oh, yes. Di'Terlizzis Pictures just aren't as good, sure...

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/jophielalicia/Art/Catlord.jpg

Lord Tataraus
2008-09-01, 11:02 AM
The look of the 4e books is one of the initial things I didn't like about 4e and it just goes down hill from there...of course, it's not a deciding factor, but the books look cooler in the tome style.

BizzaroStormy
2008-09-01, 12:20 PM
Yeah, while the art on the cover of the 4e PHB was nice, I do prefer the tomey look of the 3.x boox. As for 4e as a whole, i think i'd rather just stay with 3.x. I happen to like roleplaying and 4e takes the RP out of RPG, leaving you with just G.

Chronos
2008-09-01, 04:26 PM
As for 4e as a whole, i think i'd rather just stay with 3.x. I happen to like roleplaying and 4e takes the RP out of RPG, leaving you with just G.This is probably not the right thread for that discussion.

EvilElitest
2008-09-01, 04:40 PM
Yeah, while the art on the cover of the 4e PHB was nice, I do prefer the tomey look of the 3.x boox. As for 4e as a whole, i think i'd rather just stay with 3.x. I happen to like roleplaying and 4e takes the RP out of RPG, leaving you with just G.

G for gulp. Dont' ask
from
EE