4e Art Direction

[Behold_the_Void]

So I happened to be flipping through the two preview books today while I was waiting for my lenses to be fitted so I could see more than 7 feet past my face. I must say I am quite impressed by some of the artwork, especially the scenery they have for exotic locales like the Feywild, Astral Sea, and Shadowfell. The character designs have an interesting look as well, it's a definite step up from Mialee who was, to be blunt, ugly as sin. Some of the Epic Tier illustrations looked pretty funny though since they're decked out in rather ridiculous-looking gear.

Anyway, let's keep this to the art direction shall we? There are plenty of other threads to harangue about the mechanics and fluff as-is.

[Starsinger]

Mialee who was, to be blunt, ugly as sin.

Quoted for emphasis.

[kpenguin]

Too many pretty adventurers. More ugly ones is a fairer representation of a group that tends to dump Charisma.

[Stycotl]

i was very disappointed with what they did to the green dragon's asthetics. is he supposed to be some sort of narwhale or something?

so sad. wayne reynolds is my favorite wizards artist, but i can barely manage to look at his green dragon. bring back the 3.0 lockwood green dragon.

[Renegade Paladin]

i was very disappointed with what they did to the green dragon's asthetics. is he supposed to be some sort of narwhale or something?

so sad. wayne reynolds is my favorite wizards artist, but i can barely manage to look at his green dragon. bring back the 3.0 lockwood green dragon.

This. 3e's dragon art was awesome as it was; there's no need to screw it up.

[Paragon Badger]

I don't care how ugly the characters are, as long as the art is pretty.

I mean, I can do better than some of the things in the 3.5 PHB and DMG. -_-

[Azerian Kelimon]

I'm curious as to how they'll illustrate the succubi, myself. I and many others consider that pic one of the best in 3.5 (Along with the Golden Soulborn, pity THAT one leeched off all the coolness off of the class itself), and it's going to be very difficult to one up that one.

[RTGoodman]

I agree about the Green Dragon, but I do like some of the new art overall. I'm not as fond of the character art, but I love the various landscapes and things like that. I think one of my favorite D&D pictures I've seen is from "Worlds and Monsters" - it's the one of the pleasant little village that just happens to have big crumble dragon-head ruins/statues all around it.

bring back the 3.0 lockwood green dragon.

That'd be cool, but for 3.0 art I'd much prefer if all new Tieflings looked like the one from the 3.0 MM.

@V: Here's the Worlds and Monsters art gallery. The Green Dragon pic is here.

[Crowheart]

Would any of you happen to have links to some of these pictures? Particularly the Green Dragon. I would like to see how they were done if possible.

[Behold_the_Void]

Green Dragon

Dragonborn Fighter

Adventuring Party

Rogue

I can't find any of the landscape pictures which is a shame because those are REALLY nice.

[Terraoblivion]

While i do not like all the pictures i have seen so far, the art direction of 4e seems to go for a simpler less overwrought style than 3.5 which is something i can wholly get behind. In general i prefer the black and white art from many early 3.0 supplements to the rather extreme and somewhat absurd art of much of 3.5 and 4e seems to be moving closer to the style of early 3.0 than the direction of 3.5. Also i hope they really abandon the monstrous look for succubi that they had adopted towards the end, seduction and lust personified should not have huge claws, damnit.

[an kobold]

Would any of you happen to have links to some of these pictures? Particularly the Green Dragon. I would like to see how they were done if possible.

You can find most of the stuff about a quarter down the page here.

As for myself, I'm really on the fence leaning towards liking the new style. I see a few things that I like (such as dwarven women, hubba hubba ) but, well, the green dragon is meh. Tieflings I really can't say much about them. I like them, the eldritchy feel is there, but I much preferred the drawing of them in the 3.5 planar handbook.

[Stycotl]

oh yeah! and the new dwarven abstract geometric design stuff--what's up with that? i feel like they are all new mexico natives now. maybe the dwarves have traded in their smithying and masonry skills for adobe application and craft (art-deco) or something. martha stewart will be the new principle dwarven deity.

i liked the 3rd ed dwarven style. lots of metal, lots of grotesque faces on their shields and belt buckles, horns and claws on their armor. not the wlking billboard of the geometer's guild that they have going on now.

as you can see, i'm a little miffed with some of the direction the art has taken.

realize that this is all rant, and that after i get it out of my system, i will be able to rationally and fairly discuss all of the cool things, of which there are many, that they have done.

aaron out.

[Dervag]

As for myself, I'm really on the fence leaning towards liking the new style. I see a few things that I like (such as dwarven women, hubba hubba )

It's at moments like these that I thank God my imagination comes with a fuse box.

oh yeah! and the new dwarven abstract geometric design stuff--what's up with that? i feel like they are all new mexico natives now. maybe the dwarves have traded in their smithying and masonry skills for adobe application and craft (art-deco) or something. martha stewart will be the new principle dwarven deity.

i liked the 3rd ed dwarven style. lots of metal, lots of grotesque faces on their shields and belt buckles, horns and claws on their armor. not the wlking billboard of the geometer's guild that they have going on now.

I dunno. I mean, the faces and horns and claws make a lot of sense for dwarves-as-Vikings. But they don't make as much sense for dwarves-as-orderly-machinists.

So I think it's kind of a wash. Depending on what they do, I think the geometric dwarf styles could be a really good idea.

[Grey Watcher]

Well, in addition to some awesome landscapes, I gotta say some of my favorite art I've seen are the new Angels. I like emphasizing the mystery and terror of divine servants from beyond the mortal realm, as opposed to modelesque humans with wings and glowing eyes. The mask-like faces are an especially nice touch.

I'm not sold on the dragonborn art. Some of them, like that Wizard with the wings, or the one in the Rogues section of Races and Classes look nice, others, like the Warlock heading up the Dragonborn writeup just look odd to me.

I also really liked the elemental archons as well. Some of the better renderings of Elementals I've seen yet (most are either too complex, so you loose the elemental in anatomical detail, or too simple, so you aren't so much looking at a creature as just an undefined mass of the element in question).

Oh, and there's one of the examples of Dwarven armor that looks like Optimus Prime or something, as opposed to something out of a Dwarven smithy, but hey.

[Beleriphon]

Oh, and there's one of the examples of Dwarven armor that looks like Optimus Prime or something, as opposed to something out of a Dwarven smithy, but hey.

I like the dwarf armour, its heavy, simply shaped but heavily ornamented, and most of all functional.

[Frosty]

Does anyone know if the Chainmail bikini syndrome still hounds 4e? I wonder if they clothed females more sensibly than in the past. Those armor protect everything except the vital organs!

[Behold_the_Void]

Most female characters are, as always, busty and lacking practical armor.

[Grey Watcher]

I like the dwarf armour, its heavy, simply shaped but heavily ornamented, and most of all functional.

Well, it's just the one image. If you happen to pick up a copy of Races and Classes, it's on page 31, bottom row, third from the left. The rest of the armor and such, I like, but that one suit looks like he's about to turn into a jet plane or something.

Does anyone know if the Chainmail bikini syndrome still hounds 4e? I wonder if they clothed females more sensibly than in the past. Those armor protect everything except the vital organs!

Eh, they can't seem to shed it entirely, at least for characters who favor light armor to begin with (Wizards, Rogues, etc.) still, you seem to see a lot more female fighters and warlords, at least, more sensibly dressed. Even if the breastplates really do overemphasize the breast part....

[Ascension]

I don't like the racially-styled weaponry, especially not the tiefling blade concept art from Races and Classes. That dragonborn linked to earlier, I don't like its sword and shield either (armor's fine, though). The blades have all these extraneous twists and barbs and whatnot (they all end up looking like some sort of flammenschwert-steak knife bastard child) and the shields are in completely nonsensical shapes, most of which seem likely to hurt someone.

Granted, most of the 3E shields were already worthy of complaint, but adding to the list of problems by messing the swords up (messing them up even further, that is...) just makes it worse.

And I hadn't seen that green dragon before. How terribly disappointing. Love the dual wielding... uhh... rogue? Swashbuckler? Girl with cutlass! in the same pic, though. Oooh, makes me wonder if the cutlass will be an actual separate weapon in 4E (not at all likely).

I'm surprised to say that the dwarven (or stocky human, I guess) rogue? looks great, though.

[Frosty]

Eh, they can't seem to shed it entirely, at least for characters who favor light armor to begin with (Wizards, Rogues, etc.) still, you seem to see a lot more female fighters and warlords, at least, more sensibly dressed. Even if the breastplates really do overemphasize the breast part....

I'd say shedding things entirely is probably the crux of the problem

To be honest, armor that have breast-contours really just help deflect the blows towards the center...where the heart is. Very smart indeed.

[Tetsubo 57]

When I saw what passes for the weapons and armour illustrations in 4E I was dumbfounded. Not only is it *worse* than what they put in 3.X but the items look functionally useless. Once again it appears that no one at WoTC owns or has access to a weapons or armour reference book. If I were richer I might consider buying them a small reference library and donating it. Just so they can see what *actual* weapons and armour look like.

[Starsinger]

When I saw what passes for the weapons and armour illustrations in 4E I was dumbfounded. Not only is it *worse* than what they put in 3.X but the items look functionally useless. Once again it appears that no one at WoTC owns or has access to a weapons or armour reference book. If I were richer I might consider buying them a small reference library and donating it. Just so they can see what *actual* weapons and armour look like.

Because that's immediately what I think of when I crack open a fantasy book and flip to the armory... "How could I make this more mundane?" I think it's ever so very much okay for pretend weapons and armor to have their looks dictated by "rule of cool" instead of functionality in real combat.

[tyckspoon]

When I saw what passes for the weapons and armour illustrations in 4E I was dumbfounded. Not only is it *worse* than what they put in 3.X but the items look functionally useless. Once again it appears that no one at WoTC owns or has access to a weapons or armour reference book. If I were richer I might consider buying them a small reference library and donating it. Just so they can see what *actual* weapons and armour look like.

I'd be willing to make quite a large bet on the artists *having* reference materials; they've just made a quite deliberate decision to ignore the heck out of them. It's a game built around high fantasy; I think it's quite silly to treat the fantastic appearances of the equipment as if they were somehow an accident or harmful to the game's intended style.

[Tetsubo 57]

Because that's immediately what I think of when I crack open a fantasy book and flip to the armory... "How could I make this more mundane?" I think it's ever so very much okay for pretend weapons and armor to have their looks dictated by "rule of cool" instead of functionality in real combat.

There is a difference between a fantasy version of a weapon or armour design that looks cool but still functions and one that is just blatantly absurd. WoTC has been in the blatantly absurd category for years now. It isn't that hard to make a fantasy version of a functional item. It matters to me and my gaming dollar.

When I see what I perceive as poor research and sloppy craftsmanship it bothers me. Crack open a reference book once in awhile. I'm not asking for mundane, I'm asking for usable.

[Tetsubo 57]

I'd be willing to make quite a large bet on the artists *having* reference materials; they've just made a quite deliberate decision to ignore the heck out of them. It's a game built around high fantasy; I think it's quite silly to treat the fantastic appearances of the equipment as if they were somehow an accident or harmful to the game's intended style.

But using some of the items that have been included in the game would be harmful to a character. Weapons and armour are real world items. They have evolved over thousands of years into their current forms for a reason, they work. You can modify those designs in literally endless ways and still have them appear usable. Yet WoTC fails to do this again and again and again. Once is a design flaw, dozens of times and it is a policy.

[Starsinger]

There is a difference between a fantasy version of a weapon or armour design that looks cool but still functions and one that is just blatantly absurd. WoTC has been in the blatantly absurd category for years now. It isn't that hard to make a fantasy version of a functional item. It matters to me and my gaming dollar.

When I see what I perceive as poor research and sloppy craftsmanship it bothers me. Crack open a reference book once in awhile. I'm not asking for mundane, I'm asking for usable.

Why would I do that? The weapons in the PHB are boring enough to look at.

[Chronicled]

When I saw what passes for the weapons and armour illustrations in 4E I was dumbfounded. Not only is it *worse* than what they put in 3.X but the items look functionally useless. Once again it appears that no one at WoTC owns or has access to a weapons or armour reference book. If I were richer I might consider buying them a small reference library and donating it. Just so they can see what *actual* weapons and armour look like.

If you mean the cluster of nonweilded weapons each has, I was more irked by 3.X's then 4E's.

[Tetsubo 57]

Why would I do that? The weapons in the PHB are boring enough to look at.

And here is the real kicker: they don't have to be boring. Usable does not equate mundane. Usable can mean fantastic in appearance. Beautiful in design and execution. Usable can mean art made real.

[TheOOB]

I'm enjoying the art that I'm seeing thus far. I've never cared a great deal about that art, I care far more about content then art, but good art is always a plus.

One thing I like is that most the characters and their gear is fairly functional when compared to D&D 3.x. Yes some of the weapons are odd and poorly weighted in their designs(especially the tiefling weapons, those are god-awful), and the female's armor focuses on their figure a bit too much, but for D&D (and fantasy art in general) it's very tasteful. Overall it shows a much better overall quality then 3e, and while it's new and interesting in design, it's also generic enough where you can adopt the art to fit the images of your own campaign world.