Cleric of Asmodeus
Learned
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 387
From the epic af Art and Arcana book
I think the aesthetic of each edition was strongly influenced by the in house studio artists of each era.
Mostly amateur people for original and early 1st (Trampier, Sutherland, Olut), pros like Elmore and Easley after those folks left for late 1st and 2nd, Wayne Reynolds busy GW style stuff for 4th, and Tyler Jacobson and folks bring back a more painterly style reminiscent of Elmore and Easley for 5th (IMO)
Thank you for the suggestion i will look in to it.Highly recommend the Art and Arcana book if you are interested in the history and evolution of their art department.
Nice findings indeed. I found the looks of the 4th edition the most ugly of the newer.
I'd always wondered if there was a collection of D&D art, especially from the game's start. I didn't know about Art and Arcana, so a big thank you for bringing it to my attention.Highly recommend the Art and Arcana book if you are interested in the history and evolution of their art department.
Both 4th and 5th look like simplified, soulless kid versions.
The Art of the Dungeons & Dragons Fantasy Game (1985), 130 pages arranged by topic (dragons, knights, etc.), majority AD&D but much from non-advanced D&D, mix of color and B&W artworkI'd always wondered if there was a collection of D&D art, especially from the game's start. I didn't know about Art and Arcana, so a big thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Reminder that owlbears make no sense and look kinda stupid because they are based on cheap Chinese toys, like other classic D&D monsters:Gonna be honest, I always thought the idea of owlbears was stupid. It only gets a free pass because it's one of the classic monsters.
3e version looks best though
Was there anything at all in 4E that was not horrible?4e art was horrible.
Was there anything at all in 4E that was not horrible?4e art was horrible.
Was there anything at all in 4E that was not horrible?4e art was horrible.
Alot, yes. It didn't have much to do with D&D, but it's extremely fun to do battle in. It's easily my least favourite system for D&D P&P, but for tactical almost warlike "campaigns" it's awesome. It's a crime against tactical PC-gaming that we never got a full-fledged video game with strict adherence to its rules.
The art, however, is unforgivable. It's part of the worst trend in fantasy art and in many ways even worse than the otherwise worse offenders like WoW.
Was there anything at all in 4E that was not horrible?4e art was horrible.
Alot, yes. It didn't have much to do with D&D, but it's extremely fun to do battle in. It's easily my least favourite system for D&D P&P, but for tactical almost warlike "campaigns" it's awesome. It's a crime against tactical PC-gaming that we never got a full-fledged video game with strict adherence to its rules.
The art, however, is unforgivable. It's part of the worst trend in fantasy art and in many ways even worse than the otherwise worse offenders like WoW.
To each his own, I guess. For me 4E's homogenization of classes and carbon copied powers made combat - the core reason to play D&D - a borefest with same shit powers every time and all the time. Like some fucking mmo game, which is what they tried to emulate in my opinion.
Tactical combat and the way it plays at the table are the things I hate most about 4E. The formalization of class roles (leader, defender, striker controller) was an aberration, and the exaggerate amount of monsters' HP forced you to spam your very limited at-will powers over and over and over. To make it even remotely playable you have to halve the HP of every single monster, but this doesn't change the fact that you are forced to spam your very limited at-will options during every encounter.
Because WotC barely puts any thought into martials. It was the first time that martials were capable of doing more than "attack"There's a reason the Warlord survived to 5E, i
Let me introduce you to one of the best D&D 3.5 handbooks:Because WotC barely puts ever any thought into martials. It was the first time that martials were capable of doing more than "attack"There's a reason the Warlord survived to 5E, i
WotC throwing martials a bone was one of the few things 4E did well.
Iirc it only introduced new classes rather than actually fixing the existing ones.Let me introduce you to one of the best handbook of D&D 3.5:Because WotC barely puts ever any thought into martials. It was the first time that martials were capable of doing more than "attack"There's a reason the Warlord survived to 5E, i
WotC throwing martials a bone was one of the few things 4E did well.
Yes, but it introduced three martial classes (and 8 prestige classes) that had tons of options. It also has a very rough sketch of the at-will, per encounter, and daily powers system.Iirc it only introduced new classes rather than actually fixing the existing ones.Let me introduce you to one of the best handbook of D&D 3.5:Because WotC barely puts ever any thought into martials. It was the first time that martials were capable of doing more than "attack"There's a reason the Warlord survived to 5E, i
WotC throwing martials a bone was one of the few things 4E did well.
Spoken like someone who's never used a combat maneuver in his life. Do the words "Grapple", "Disarm" or "Trip" mean anything to you?It was the first time that martials were capable of doing more than "attack"
Grapple is unarmed combat and is worthless if you aren't strength-based, most enemies can't be disarmed, and trip is exactly one ability which didn't even exist until ...3e, I think, and again worthless if you aren't strength-based.Spoken like someone who's never used a combat maneuver in his life. Do the words "Grapple", "Disarm" or "Trip" mean anything to you?It was the first time that martials were capable of doing more than "attack"
And no, giving fighters magic powers so they can draw aggro and hit with their sword extra hard once per day like 4e did was not a good solution to anything.