# PHB, MM, DMG covers



## Plane Sailing (Aug 17, 2007)

OK, Here are the covers from one of the presentation videos.

me likey!

Does the MM cover look a bit like Orcus? Just looking at the nasty skull-topped sceptre there 

(added additional, clearer cover-montage from the Wizards Gencon site)


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Aug 17, 2007)

Yeah, the covers fit with the "more magazine style" that has been mentioned by David Noonan already...can I say that I find them simply ugly? The layout as well as the pictures? All a matter of taste, I know. But that's what you get when you talk about artwork. To be honest, none of the pictures shouts "Dungeons & Dragons" at me personally.  :\ 

And on a second glance, I have to specify that to the PHB cover. The other two are more tolerable.


----------



## wedgeski (Aug 17, 2007)

Likey too. Excellent art, although the design could use a bit of updating. Plenty of time yet.


----------



## Friadoc (Aug 17, 2007)

At least they're not the bedazzled tombs from hades that increasingly got worse from 3e to 3.5e.

They're clean covers, I think, with maybe a bit too much art, I'd almost like a cover similar to the 2nd Edition Revised ones.

A clean, solid color border with a well done piece of art at the center, and the title across the top and on the binding.

But, I gotta admit, I do like the look of these ones, although anything is an improvement over the last two version styles.


----------



## Sammael (Aug 17, 2007)

I think the new covers are a direct result of fan feedback - people loved the Eberron WAR covers, after all.


----------



## Aloïsius (Aug 17, 2007)

Friadoc said:
			
		

> At least they're not the bedazzled tombs from hades that increasingly got worse from 3e to 3.5e.
> 
> They're clean covers, I think, with maybe a bit too much art, I'd almost like a cover similar to the 2nd Edition Revised ones.
> 
> A clean, solid color border with a well done piece of art at the center, and the title across the top and on the binding.



Yup. I would like the cover NOT beeing designed by Wayne Reynold. I'm somewhat tired of his "screaming and attacking" characters, and they should be, given the usualy akward position he draw them. Why not Lockwood or Sam Wood ?


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Aug 17, 2007)

wedgeski said:
			
		

> Likey too. Excellent art, although the design could use a bit of updating. Plenty of time yet.




Exactly my thinking.


----------



## SHARK (Aug 17, 2007)

Greetings!

I have to admit--I think the covers *rock*!!!

They look clean, vibrant, and dynamic!

A vast improvement over the lame, or at least boring and dull covers so often used for 3.0 and 3.5E.

I'm glad to see that--Hopefully--WOTC is finally getting their act together, and getting with the effing program!!!!!!  

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 17, 2007)

Ah man, with WoTC actually using illustrations and not some werid design on the cover, how will 3rd party publishers get away without using art on their covers for years aping the style?


----------



## Knight Otu (Aug 17, 2007)

I never really had a problem with the Tome Style covers Wizards used (a few 3rd party Tome Styles, on the other hand...), but it's nice to see (near) full-art covers again.


----------



## Horacio (Aug 17, 2007)

I really like the cover, even if I think they are still "mock-ups" and that final cover will be a bit different, more polished.


----------



## Ron (Aug 17, 2007)

They are not great but they aren't bad either, especially the MM & the DMG, which I actually like. However, considering 3.x covers, they were a huge improvement. But then, a plain grey cover would also be a huge improvement.


----------



## Sound of Azure (Aug 17, 2007)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> Yup. I would like the cover NOT beeing designed by Wayne Reynold. I'm somewhat tired of his "screaming and attacking" characters, and they should be, given the usualy akward position he draw them. Why not Lockwood or Sam Wood ?




I have to agree. I'd love to see some Brom covers, myself.


----------



## Gez (Aug 17, 2007)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> Yup. I would like the cover NOT beeing designed by Wayne Reynold. I'm somewhat tired of his "screaming and attacking" characters, and they should be, given the usualy akward position he draw them. Why not Lockwood or Sam Wood ?



Or something like the mock parchment illustrations made by Arnie Swekel for the original 3e books. Those were gorgious.

I know I'm in a minority, but I don't like Wayne Reynold's style; and I find him overused.


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Aug 17, 2007)

I don't mind WAR, his stuff is a tad cartoony yet pleasingly action-packed, but I'd much prefer the graceful style of Lockwood for covers.

Actually, the way they're listed in the Plane Sailing's thumbnails—it seems like it'd be cool if each book was a third of a single scene: 

• PHB players on the left side figting some monster on the right side.
• MM monsters marching across the cover towards the left.
• DMG A boss-monster in a commanding pose.


----------



## RFisher (Aug 17, 2007)

Wow. These meet most of my criteria for good RPG covers. Wow.



			
				Friadoc said:
			
		

> A clean, solid color border with a well done piece of art at the center, and the title across the top and on the binding.




<shrug> I think full-bleed art makes for a much more compelling RPG cover. Framing it makes feel contained (even when the artwork "breaks the frame", IMHO); full-bleed makes it feel more like it's jumping off the book at you.

& compelling artwork is second most important thing on an RPG cover, so let it take up as much of the cover as possible as long as it doesn't obscure the very, very clear title logo.


----------



## RFisher (Aug 17, 2007)

RPG_Tweaker said:
			
		

> Actually, the way they're listed in the Plane Sailing's thumbnails—it seems like it'd be cool if each book was a third of a single scene




That would rock.

Some of my favorite RPG covers are the Rolemaster core books where all the cover illustrations are of the same group of adventures. They even seem to be depicting a sequence of events in the same adventure.


----------



## BluSponge (Aug 17, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Ah man, with WoTC actually using illustrations and not some werid design on the cover, how will 3rd party publishers get away without using art on their covers for years aping the style?




On THIS I agree 100%.  I've really grown tired of everyone immitating the look of the 3e books.  Not that the ole "leather bound tome" idea was that unique, but for some reason only Tekumel tried it before WotC did it.  Then EVERYONE jumped on the wagon.

So if this gets us away from that, its a good thing.

But for some reason, these covers don't inspire me nearly as much as the original 3e covers did.  Bejeweled or not, they were beautiful work.  But I seem to be in the minority, so...

Tom


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Aug 17, 2007)

I prefer the tome-style covers, myself.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 17, 2007)

Notes:

PHB - I don't quite like the "adventurers posing while looking at different directions with nothing dangerous in sight".

DMG - Looks like the dragons are keeping their 3e looks! Woot!

MM - Wow! Orcus made the cover! With a Demon Lord on the cover of the MM and the tieflings added as a PC race, looks like 4e will have a fiendish bent (the sales of the Fiendish Codeces must've been good).


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Aug 17, 2007)

I like the style, overall. Really eye-catching, as compared to the faux-grimoire look of the 3.x (which, IMO, got worse with 3.5 - please, stick a few more useless brass orbs in the design!).

That said, I find it sad that the image which most falls flat for me is the PHB, arguably the most common and important book at the table...and I gotta go with Klaus. It's one of the most "posed for the camera" D&D pictures I've seen since _Dragon Slayers and Proud of It_ in the 2e PHB. "Alright, now throw the lightning cantrip and everybody say "Bigby!"

The MM cover is certainly...dynamic...but I think Orcus lacks raw visual power unless you know who he is already. Maybe it's the resolution/size, but he looks like a pot-bellied red demon to me.

The DMG cover, however, gets me at least half-masted about DMing again. MAN that's cool.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 17, 2007)

It also looks like they will be square, ala Saga.


----------



## A'koss (Aug 17, 2007)

I love WAR's work myself so I think it's great he's getting to do the covers. That said I think the layouts could use a little work (for example, it would have been nice to see an entire party of adventurers on the PHB cover) but they're eye-catching and that's what's most important...


----------



## RavinRay (Aug 17, 2007)

I dunno, I kinda got used to the faux 3D effect with the orbs/buttons/gems and Higginbotham's spectacular art (_MM2_ and the _Expanded Psionics Handbook_ come to mind)… but it's cool. Then again, if there's a dragon on the cover, it just _has_ to be the iconic red and no other species, <sigh>…


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 17, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> It also looks like they will be square, ala Saga.



Those pics aren't square. They're 253x305, 261x307 and 260x305 (pixels). Likely some distortion in the pics, since they don't all have the same height:width ratio, which ranges from 1.18 to 1.21. (The ratio for 8.5x11 is 1.29, while the ratio for a square is obviously 1.00).

Ergo, absolutely no reason to think they'll be Saga-sized.

(Edit:typo)


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 17, 2007)

RavinRay said:
			
		

> I dunno, I kinda got used to the faux 3D effect with the orbs/buttons/gems




Yeah, I kind of liked them too, especially MoI – sweet cover.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 17, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Those pics aren't square. They're 253x305, 261x307 and 260x305 (pixels). Likely some distortion in the pics, since they don't all have the same height:width ratio, which ranges from 1.18 to 1.21. (The ratio for 8.5x11 is 1.29, while the ratio for a square is obviously 1.00).
> 
> Ergo, absolutely no reason to think they'll be Saga-sized.




Okay, right on, they did look a little smudgy and distorted.

…And did you use the word "ergo"?


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Aug 17, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Those pics aren't square. They're 253x305, 261x307 and 260x305 (pixels). Likely some distortion in the pics, since they don't all have the same height:width ratio, which ranges from 1.18 to 1.21. (The ratio for 8.5x11 is 1.29, while the ratio for a square is obviously 1.00).
> 
> Ergo, absolutely no reason to think they'll be Saga-sized.
> 
> (Edit:typo)



Thank the Powers of the Outlands!

That's not what a roleplaying game book looks like, dammit!   

My prejudices are almost incomprehensible!

Edit: Correction. It's not even an incomprehensible prejudice. If I can't slip a copy of my character sheet between the pages of my PHB for backpack transportation, it's not a properly shaped RPG book.


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 17, 2007)

Very, very nice covers. I am most pleased.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 17, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Okay, right on, they did look a little smudgy and distorted.
> 
> …And did you use the word "ergo"?



Indeed. It seemed a most appurtenant choice of word.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 17, 2007)

Oh yeah, and I forgot to include my opinion on the matter. Those covers look awesome.


----------



## Yair (Aug 17, 2007)

I like the idea of full-cover art. And I like the dynamics and topics of the MM and DMG. But... I don't like WAR, especially his faces. I very much hope the PHB gets a better picture, and would have preferred some other artist to do the covers. Lockwood is good.


----------



## Mercule (Aug 17, 2007)

MM and DMG are fine.

I detest the tiefling being featured on the cover of the PHB.  Of course, I detest the tiefling's inclusion in the PHB, so that's not surprising.


----------



## Nebulous (Aug 17, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Yeah, the covers fit with the "more magazine style" that has been mentioned by David Noonan already...can I say that I find them simply ugly? The layout as well as the pictures? All a matter of taste, I know. But that's what you get when you talk about artwork. To be honest, none of the pictures shouts "Dungeons & Dragons" at me personally.  :\
> 
> And on a second glance, I have to specify that to the PHB cover. The other two are more tolerable.




I'm with you 100%.  The PH cover sucks, the other 2 are ok. It just comes down to personal preference, like you said. I do think that Wayne Reynolds has been completely overused in D&D to the point that i completely associate the brand name with his style.


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 17, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> I prefer the tome-style covers, myself.




Same here...


----------



## Nebulous (Aug 17, 2007)

Sound of Azure said:
			
		

> I have to agree. I'd love to see some Brom covers, myself.




If Brom had done the covers i'd buy 4th edition no matter what.  Whatever happened to him anyway?


----------



## Nebulous (Aug 17, 2007)

Yair said:
			
		

> I like the idea of full-cover art. And I like the dynamics and topics of the MM and DMG. But... I don't like WAR, especially his faces. I very much hope the PHB gets a better picture, and would have preferred some other artist to do the covers. Lockwood is good.




Specifically, i agree with that also: i don't like the way he does faces.  Seems like a silly detail to complain about, but i've been seeing it for years and years now and it hasn't improved. Notably, that's partly why i hate the PH cover and like the others better; the latter two have non-humanoids.


----------



## Corsair (Aug 17, 2007)

Does the back character on the PHB have horns?


----------



## Alnag (Aug 17, 2007)

The covers are good, although the logo itself might be a bit better, I guess.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 17, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Indeed. It seemed a most appurtenant choice of word.




Next you're going to bust out with "alas"…


----------



## EricNoah (Aug 17, 2007)

I like 'em. Much better than the "fake book" look.  Though I kinda feel like the perspective is a little too "zoomed in" -- the characters/creatures are too big to fit into the picture.  They look kind of uncomfortable.  Maybe it'll be different when we see clean images...


----------



## EricNoah (Aug 17, 2007)

Corsair said:
			
		

> Does the back character on the PHB have horns?




I think so -- one of the preview articles indicated tieflings are a core race in 4E.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Aug 17, 2007)

I love the full-cover art instead of the "tome" thing.  That's excellent.  I'd like it better if it weren't WAR's art, though (I, too, am tired of it).  Oh well.  (Yeah, Brom would be a cool choice.)


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 17, 2007)

Love the layout, love the artist.

*Love* Orcus.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 17, 2007)

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Next you're going to bust out with "alas"…



That is a preposterous vaticination.

(Huh. Even my spellchecker doesn't recognize that last one.)


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 17, 2007)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I think so -- one of the preview articles indicated tieflings are a core race in 4E.



I've never used tieflings in my games, but unlike dwarves and elves, they're something that comes from D&D rather than generic fantasy. So I support their inclusion, both in the core game and on the PHB cover.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Aug 17, 2007)

Keeping in mind that the first of the new books, PHB, is going to be published in May 2008 and that these are, almost certainly, not the final versions...

... They look good. I've no problem with the tome design itself, but change is always refreshing.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Aug 17, 2007)

Ron said:
			
		

> They are not great but they aren't bad either, especially the MM & the DMG, which I actually like. However, considering 3.x covers, they were a huge improvement. But then, a plain grey cover would also be a huge improvement.



++

The PHB is a stinker though.


----------



## KingCrab (Aug 17, 2007)

I don't like the new PHB art at all, though it might help if bigger versions of the pictures were released.  You can't go wrong with a big red dragon for the DMG though.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 17, 2007)

Never mind.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 17, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> That is a preposterous vaticination.




Please don't bring the pope into this.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Aug 17, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> ...tieflings added as a PC race...




Is that confirmed?


----------



## Delta (Aug 17, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Does the MM cover look a bit like Orcus? Just looking at the nasty skull-topped sceptre there




Yes, it's an identical design to the prototype Orcus gargantuan miniature: 
http://public.fotki.com/rottgutt/gen-con-2007---day-one/


----------



## Klaus (Aug 17, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Is that confirmed?



 Yep.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 17, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Yep.




And hopefully they won't have that nonsensical -2 to Cha…


----------



## Mercule (Aug 17, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Is that confirmed?




I believe the quote I saw was directly from a WotC designer/developer.  

On this, I'd dearly love to be proven wrong, though.  The tiefling's inclusion as a PHB race points to a direction I'm not comfortable with.  Not because of the "Satanic" connotation -- I kinda dig the idea of the occasional tiefling PC.  I just do not want them to ever, ever, ever, EVER be considered as common as elves and dwarves.  Tieflings are an oddity and an aberration, not a stand-alone race.  Something on par with half-ogres.

I think the ever-increasing "beastification" of tieflings in D&D art has encourage my reluctance to embrace them.  If they are nearly indistinguishible from humans and may pop-up in various bloodlines from time to time, that's one thing.  If they look monstrous and hideous (ala the PHB art), I want them relegated well to the background.  Those freaking horns and tail are absurd.  I really don't want to be able to tell from (most) art whether a character is tiefling or human.  The 3.5 MM depiction of a tiefling struck me as what the extreme range of non-human appearance should look like, not the near-human.  Do that, and I'm okay with them being in the PHB.


----------



## RFisher (Aug 17, 2007)

Alnag said:
			
		

> The covers are good, although the logo itself might be a bit better, I guess




A good RPG logo needs, IMHO, two qualities:

The name needs to be very readable & clear. I should be able to stand across the room from the book, squinting, & immediately now the name even though I'd never seen it before.

Secondly, it needs to be reproducible well in black & white.

Anything else is gravy. So, while I can't disagree with "might be a bit better", it still scores an A on my scale.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 17, 2007)

The counter art I did for Fiery Dragon of a tiefling only had differing eye colors (one blue, one yellow) as a hint of fiendish heritage (and the aasimar had a metallic sheen on his skin and pearlescent eyes). I dunno, I guess my tiefling image comes from Toni DiTerlizzi portrayal of them in Planescape. If 4e tieflings look like this, what will half-fiend and fiendish creatures look like?


----------



## Klaus (Aug 17, 2007)

Alnag said:
			
		

> The covers are good, although the logo itself might be a bit better, I guess.



 The new logo is so amazing, I have no words to describe it.


----------



## GreatLemur (Aug 17, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I believe the quote I saw was directly from a WotC designer/developer.
> 
> On this, I'd dearly love to be proven wrong, though.  The tiefling's inclusion as a PHB race points to a direction I'm not comfortable with.  Not because of the "Satanic" connotation -- I kinda dig the idea of the occasional tiefling PC.  I just do not want them to ever, ever, ever, EVER be considered as common as elves and dwarves.  Tieflings are an oddity and an aberration, not a stand-alone race.  Something on par with half-ogres.



The weird thing to me is that I haven't heard anything about Aasimars also being included.  It seems kind of weird to have one without the other, you know?  For that matter, the Genasi should be in there, too.

And, you know, maybe they are.  I mean, this guy is kinda funny looking.  Earth Genasi, maybe?

Anyway, I'm guessing that the inclusion of Tieflings (and possibly other planar races) in the PHB is a move to showcase their new solution to the old level adjustment problem.  I expect that Tieflings will be balanced with the other races at first level, and they'll just have _access_ to lots of interesting racial feats as they advance.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 17, 2007)

Friadoc said:
			
		

> They're clean covers, I think, with maybe a bit too much art, I'd almost like a cover similar to the 2nd Edition Revised ones.



They really look like AD&D 2E. The white sticks too much out, IMHO.


			
				Gez said:
			
		

> I know I'm in a minority, but I don't like Wayne Reynold's style; and I find him overused.



I'm with you here. His faces look like those of mice. But he seems to be popular *shrug*.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 17, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> The counter art I did for Fiery Dragon of a tiefling only had differing eye colors (one blue, one yellow) as a hint of fiendish heritage (and the aasimar had a metallic sheen on his skin and pearlescent eyes). I dunno, I guess my tiefling image comes from Toni DiTerlizzi portrayal of them in Planescape. If 4e tieflings look like this, what will half-fiend and fiendish creatures look like?




For all we know, 4e Tiefling = 3e half-fiend.


----------



## Pbartender (Aug 17, 2007)

Eh...  they don't really impress me.  I've never been especially fond of WAR's art, and the covers presented here aren't especially inspiring.

What I'd love to see is a full cover (meaning wrapping around the entire cover) "iconic" adventuring scene that isn't running-jumping-shouting people with spiky armor and jagged swords.  The 1st ed. AD&D PHB cover with a party of characters going about the business of cleaning up and looting after a lizardman attack has always been my favorite D&D cover art, with the DMG's demon attack and City of Brass a close second.

Imagine the 30th Anniversary "Bar Fight" stretched across the cover of the PHB.  That's the sort of thing I'd like to see.

Even better if, as suggested above, it was a triptych of scenes that stretched across all three Core Rulebooks.



			
				Klaus said:
			
		

> I dunno, I guess my tiefling image comes from Toni DiTerlizzi...




Now there would be a great cover artist.  I'd love to see what he could come up with.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 17, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> The weird thing to me is that I haven't heard anything about Aasimars also being included.  It seems kind of weird to have one without the other, you know?  For that matter, the Genasi should be in there, too.



No, they shouldn't. Enough people humping fiends to make tieflings a PHB a core race is hard enough to believe. Please don't turn elemental-boffing into a national sport while you're at it.


----------



## Virel (Aug 17, 2007)

Looks much better than the garbage that passed for a book cover in 3/3.5, of course it would really take trying to make something uglier than a 3 version book.

Would the white top border look better in gold or black?


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 17, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Please don't turn elemental-boffing into a national sport while you're at it.




I think that's still legal in France.


----------



## avin (Aug 17, 2007)

By now I find 3E cover art better. We'll see.

I'm for more basic races. I just love options.

MAYBE they're going for half blood instead tiefling / aasimar. A generic template for interracial breeds. I don't know.

Hi there Sammael *waves*


----------



## Hjorimir (Aug 17, 2007)

I'm not a fan of the PHB cover at all. First, I'd like to see more characters there and I'm not sure I'd even include a tiefling amongst them. (Which even surprises myself because I think the tiefling is a much better race to have as core over gnomes! Die, gnomes, die!)

Virel, I think I'd go with black over the white, which would make it less obtrusive, though I'm not really sure I'd have a back color to the logo/title at all.

I like WAR fine, but I'd rather have Komarck or maybe Lockwood on the covers.


----------



## airwalkrr (Aug 17, 2007)

Ugly, just ugly. I don't like it at all.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Aug 17, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> Anyway, I'm guessing that the inclusion of Tieflings (and possibly other planar races) in the PHB is a move to showcase their new solution to the old level adjustment problem.  I expect that Tieflings will be balanced with the other races at first level, and they'll just have _access_ to lots of interesting racial feats as they advance.




I gotta say, I'm pretty put-off by the idea of Tieflings as a PC race. And am I the only one that sees a similarity (perhaps not coincidental) between the new Tiefling pics and the Dranei?


----------



## Darth Shoju (Aug 17, 2007)

As far as the covers are concerned, I like the art, but I don't like the way the logos are presented. The new D&D logo itself is good, but I don't like the flat colours and square lines around them (the border-thingies, to use the technical term    ); I'd like to see something more dynamic. Perhaps this is just placeholder art though.


----------



## Oryan77 (Aug 17, 2007)

So does this mean that the 4e MM will have stats for deities since Orcus is on the cover?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Aug 17, 2007)

I always liked the fake tome covers...

But I love this stuff. Orcus and the Red Dragon look wonderful. I'm a bit iffy on the PHB, but I can see myself warming up to it.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Aug 17, 2007)

I anticipate the cover art is like most sci-fi paperbacks and wraps around to fill the back cover.  So in those shots you're just seeing half the image.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 17, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> ++
> 
> The PHB is a stinker though.



SUPER stinker.  Those poses are preposterous. (EDIT: well, pose, anyway.  I can barely make out the Tiefling's pose, but it doesn't seem that bad.  But the fighter alone is enough to generate gales of laughter and/or intense mockery, depending on who I show it to)

The DMG and MM are hot, but the PHB is.... _silly_.  How am I going to regrow a gaming group if the one book they actually need reinforces awful stereotypes?


----------



## 00Machado (Aug 17, 2007)

Not awful, but I'm tired of Wayne Reynold's art these days. It's good. I like it. But I've seen too much of it lately. Todd Lockwood's covers for Forge of Fury, Ptolus, Cry Havoc, etc are more my cup of tea. Brom would also be awesome. Or even a nod to older artists, and an Elmore or Caldwell cover would be cool.


----------



## DungeonMaester (Aug 17, 2007)

Is there nay better pictures floating around out there? 

The images attached are blurry when you click on 'em.

---Rusty


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Aug 17, 2007)

I really like the layout of the covers. I never like "framed" pictures on a cover. 

Also, I like WAR's stuff -- but I don't really like the PHB cover here. I was excited originally because I thought the adventurers fighting the green dragon was the PHB cover. I think it would work much better than two adventurers looking at nothing.

The new D&D logo... a very interesting change. I don't know yet if I like it or not.


----------



## vongarr (Aug 17, 2007)

Not a big fan of the covers. I thought exalted when I saw these covers. I really do not like the white background on the logo either.


----------



## Droogie (Aug 17, 2007)

I know they're trying to catch new players with the latest edition, but don't you think parents will feel a bit reluctant to buy these books for their kids in the...um...bible belt? The PHB and MM could almost be the Book of Vile Darkness is my only point.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 17, 2007)

As much as I like WAR, I'd love to see Michael Kormack (Dungeonscape, Dragon Below trilogy of novels) do the 4E covers.


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 17, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> As much as I like WAR, I'd love to see Michael Kormack (Dungeonscape, Dragon Below trilogy of novels) do the 4E covers.



*Pavlovian response*


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Aug 17, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> As much as I like WAR, I'd love to see Michael Kormack (Dungeonscape, Dragon Below trilogy of novels) do the 4E covers.



 The awesomeness of that might just kill us, though.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 17, 2007)

Droogie said:
			
		

> I know they're trying to catch new players with the latest edition, but don't you think parents will feel a bit reluctant to buy these books for their kids in the...um...bible belt? The PHB and MM could almost be the Book of Vile Darkness is my only point.




You mean a ton of free press coupled with the reputation of 'game your parents don't want you to play'?

Somehow I think they'll survive.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 17, 2007)

DungeonMaester said:
			
		

> Is there nay better pictures floating around out there?
> 
> The images attached are blurry when you click on 'em.
> 
> ---Rusty




I grabbed them from the youtube movie clips (which is why they are blurred and the aspect ratio is sightly skewed too).

Hopefully better ones will become available in time !


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 18, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Hopefully better ones will become available in time !




Better ones became available, so I've added them to the thumbnail list in my first post. The new ones are in a vertical strip of three, so look smaller in the thumbnail, but are better when actually viewed.

Cheers


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 18, 2007)

Now that I can see it better, she definitely looks like she's doing latin ballroom dancing.  It's all about the ribcage being in weird angles.


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Aug 18, 2007)

Droogie said:
			
		

> I know they're trying to catch new players with the latest edition, but don't you think parents will feel a bit reluctant to buy these books for their kids in the...um...bible belt? The PHB and MM could almost be the Book of Vile Darkness is my only point.




There's really no point in attempting to appease demographics who won't buy the product anyway. I believe Gygax made a similar observation long ago.


----------



## Gothmog (Aug 18, 2007)

Honestly, these covers are stinkers.  WAR is technically pretty sound, I just never cared for his work, style, ridiculous postures for characters, or general compositions- its always seemed very cartoonish.  The PHB art is the worst- it just looks ridiculous.  The DMG is the best of the three, but still rather plain.  And the MM looks like Orcus throwing a temper tantrum...why Orcus?  I know he's popular, but he's really overrated, and it would serve the purposes of a MM a lot more to use some more iconic monsters.

Brom covers would be cool- he has great composition and style, but he's moved on to other things now.  From the looks, David Griffith is going to be illustrating some of 4E (the halfling cleric is his).  I've always liked Griffith- he can bring a character's face to life better than almost any other illustrator out there, and his proportions and costumes/armor are great.  He did a lot of work for FFG with their harback books, and recently has been doing quite a few WotC interior illustrations.  Tony Scuzuldo is great too- his Brithright covers were among the best covers ever for D&D/AD&D, and truly captured a feel of action and tension.  Arnie Swenkel would be incredible too- his interior illustrations for the old books were great, and the color work I've seem him do is very impressive.  

However, the best fantasy artist out there now IMO is Pat Loboyko.  His work has been featured in the recent Witch Hunter game by Paradigm, the new Changling: The Lost book (which is gorgeous), and WHFRP2.  He does incredible scenes with a lot of detail and with a strong otherworldly quality, and facial expressions on his characters are also great.  Unlike a lot of fantasy artists, his backgrounds are not just static placeholders to feature the characters, but have intricate detail and action as well.


----------



## Arkhandus (Aug 18, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Yeah, the covers fit with the "more magazine style" that has been mentioned by David Noonan already...can I say that I find them simply ugly? The layout as well as the pictures? All a matter of taste, I know. But that's what you get when you talk about artwork. To be honest, none of the pictures shouts "Dungeons & Dragons" at me personally.  :\
> 
> And on a second glance, I have to specify that to the PHB cover. The other two are more tolerable.




I gotta agree.  The PHB does have the dullest art.  Ooo!  Two adventurers in action poses in the middle of nowhere!  And the woman's wearing partially-revealing, barely-protective armor!  With a cumbersome-looking, oversized broadsword!  And the horned guy is zapping lightning off into _nowhere_!!!  OMG!!!111!!1!

Look, a demon charging forward towards _nothing_, against an empty cavern or vault background!  By himself!  Oh!  And a dragon!  Coiling around a crystal ball by itself!  In another empty room!!

Puh-leaze.  They could have at least bothered to try making the covers look exciting and D&D-ish, rather than generic with one or two posing figures.

I don't mind WAR's artwork usually, but they really should've gone for a different artist.  Plenty of cool artists have already been mentioned in the thread.  WAR's more associated with Eberron and Paizo's upcoming Pathfinder material, I think.

I don't know if the artwork should be within a frame or not, but they shouldn't have half-arsed it with the two long, dull bars.  At least move them to the upper and lower edges, and cropped on the left and right sides, if you're trying to make the artwork prominant.  I'm partial to the style of the revised 2E AD&D covers, as that's when I started playing, but if they were going for art-centric it should have at least been closer to the Draconomicon in that regard.



The *Player's Handbook* should at least have *FOUR* adventurers on the cover.  I mean, it's like a friggin' _no-brainer_.  Even moreso with it being *4*E.

There should be a friggin' _adventuring party_ on the cover, not two poor, clueless berks looking like they _think_ they're bad-arse and can handle the dungeon by themselves, with their awkward and more-flashy-than-effective combat gear.  The warrior isn't even carrying a longbow on their back.

Four adventurers, the fighter, cleric, rogue, and wizard, doing battle with a red dragon, with lots of action apparently going on in the scene.....
in a cavern with stalactites and stalagmites being smashed and falling from the titanic clash of man and beast.....
a big honkin' mound of treasure in the background, and cave-tunnels leading out in various directions.....
three or four half-red-dragon lizardfolk trying to aid their draconic lord and master (and probably sire), maybe getting blasted by the party wizard or flanked by the cleric's summoned angels/archons/whatever and the party's rogue.....


The *Monster Manual* should at least show a menagerie of critters on the cover, not one lone demon, screaming and charging forward like a shmuck ready to die, skull-tipped wand held out to the side like a useless trinket that's no good for blasting stupid adventurers to bits.

Maybe instead a mage's menagerie, inside an elaborate, gothic dungeon vault......
with said mage being an arcanaloth, a fey'ri, or better yet (and more iconically D&D) an *illithid*, pointing down towards the viewer (and the four adventurers at the bottom of the picture), magic sparking to life at its fingertips........
as some of its monstrous thralls advance on the adventurers......
orcs, goblins, minotaurs, fire elementals, drow assassins, griffons, dire bears, ogre magi, vrocks, ghasts, monstrous spiders, thri-kreen, a beholder, a young black dragon, a wyrmling green dragon, etc.......
and other, more benign creatures locked up in cages in the background, some hanging from the ceiling.....
gold dragon wyrmlings, young bronze dragons, gnomes, hound archons, pixies, grigs, etc......


The *Dungeon Master's Guide* might show two armies clashing, perhaps through a crystal ball with the faint reflection of someone (or some_thing_) observing the big conflict.....
an old blue dragon fighting a vicious battle with a silver dragon, claws and breath weapons flying back and forth, each hovering in the air over a battlefield, with other, smaller dragons clashing in the background.......
and beneath them, on the ground, battle two great armies of men and beasts, artillery and spells......
a monstrous, chaotic swarm of orcs, goblin worg-riders, black knights astride nightmares, hill giants launching boulders with their bare hands, trolls charging forward and goading the goblins onward, lizardfolk hurling javelins, ogres riding triceratopses, monstrous shamans and witches hurling fire and lightning at the army of the silver dragon, etc......
and a host of humanoid soldiers marching up beneath their draconic allies, some mounted knights charging in, a unit of pikemen ready to stop the enemy cavalry, elven arcane archers launching a storm of ensorcelled arrows, dwarven halberdiers rushing forward behind the knights, a cadre of elven warmages firing bolts of acid and flame at the opposing trolls, cloud giants retaliating against the enemy hill giants, scattered mages and priests atop shield guardians and hurling Ice Storms and Flame Strikes, a gaggle of gnomes clambering about siege engines that launch a hail of darts, grapeshot, and pots of alchemist's fire, a pack of halfling outriders on warponies trying to execute a flanking maneuver as others bombard the enemy flank with sling bullets, while a small squadron of pegasus-riding elven lancers fly over the halfling outriders for support......


----------



## RFisher (Aug 18, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> The new logo is so amazing, I have no words to describe it.




When it comes right down to it, I completely agree.

(But I can't completely rule out that nothing could make it "a bit better".)


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 18, 2007)

There is an Easter Egg on the WotC main page, but it's a random link.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Aug 18, 2007)

Hmmmm...

[SBLock]Do you have to be logged in as something other than a guest? Because it is just taking me to a wallpaper page...[/SBLock]


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 18, 2007)

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> Hmmmm...
> 
> [SBLock]Do you have to be logged in as something other than a guest? Because it is just taking me to a wallpaper page...[/SBLock]




Nope.  Turns out it's a random page, not a standard link.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 18, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Better ones became available, so I've added them to the thumbnail list in my first post. The new ones are in a vertical strip of three, so look smaller in the thumbnail, but are better when actually viewed.
> 
> Cheers



I revise my earlier statement... the Tiefling's pose is almost as ridiculous as the girl's.  Let me, the sissy wizard, throw my staff arm WAY back so that I can bare my paltry chest at the monsters as I cast lightning off at a 90 degree angle to my own line of sight.... 

Perhaps this is him "casting" _Tasha's Hideous Laughter_.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 18, 2007)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I like 'em. Much better than the "fake book" look.



 For some reason, I kinda like the "fake book" look, and would have liked it even more if the design were more abstract.

Huge fan of WAR's artwork, but I don't like art on the cover of my books. Oh well, it's not that bad. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Aug 18, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> The *Player's Handbook* should at least have *FOUR* adventurers on the cover.  I mean, it's like a friggin' _no-brainer_.  Even moreso with it being *4*E.
> 
> There should be a friggin' _adventuring party_ on the cover, not two poor, clueless berks looking like they _think_ they're bad-arse and can handle the dungeon by themselves, with their awkward and more-flashy-than-effective combat gear.  The warrior isn't even carrying a longbow on their back.
> 
> ...




I know this has been used on the cover of an _adventure_ already, but it's the closest I came to find from my personal favorite, Lockwood...
http://www.toddlockwood.com/resources/images/galleries/dnd/02/forge_fury.jpg

Is missing a hoard, though...and some magic SFX for the elven wizard.  



> The *Monster Manual* should at least show a menagerie of critters on the cover, not one lone demon, screaming and charging forward like a shmuck ready to die, skull-tipped wand held out to the side like a useless trinket that's no good for blasting stupid adventurers to bits.
> 
> Maybe instead a mage's menagerie, inside an elaborate, gothic dungeon vault......
> with said mage being an arcanaloth, a fey'ri, or better yet (and more iconically D&D) an *illithid*, pointing down towards the viewer (and the four adventurers at the bottom of the picture), magic sparking to life at its fingertips........
> ...




For that one, I actually think this one here would be nice...
http://www.toddlockwood.com/resources/images/galleries/magazines/01/beholder.jpg
Or this..shows off nicely what happens when you underestimate a dragon.   
http://www.toddlockwood.com/resources/images/galleries/new_art/01/dragonfire.jpg



> The *Dungeon Master's Guide* might show two armies clashing, perhaps through a crystal ball with the faint reflection of someone (or some_thing_) observing the big conflict.....
> an old blue dragon fighting a vicious battle with a silver dragon, claws and breath weapons flying back and forth, each hovering in the air over a battlefield, with other, smaller dragons clashing in the background.......
> and beneath them, on the ground, battle two great armies of men and beasts, artillery and spells......
> a monstrous, chaotic swarm of orcs, goblin worg-riders, black knights astride nightmares, hill giants launching boulders with their bare hands, trolls charging forward and goading the goblins onward, lizardfolk hurling javelins, ogres riding triceratopses, monstrous shamans and witches hurling fire and lightning at the army of the silver dragon, etc......
> and a host of humanoid soldiers marching up beneath their draconic allies, some mounted knights charging in, a unit of pikemen ready to stop the enemy cavalry, elven arcane archers launching a storm of ensorcelled arrows, dwarven halberdiers rushing forward behind the knights, a cadre of elven warmages firing bolts of acid and flame at the opposing trolls, cloud giants retaliating against the enemy hill giants, scattered mages and priests atop shield guardians and hurling Ice Storms and Flame Strikes, a gaggle of gnomes clambering about siege engines that launch a hail of darts, grapeshot, and pots of alchemist's fire, a pack of halfling outriders on warponies trying to execute a flanking maneuver as others bombard the enemy flank with sling bullets, while a small squadron of pegasus-riding elven lancers fly over the halfling outriders for support......




A few suggestions...
http://www.toddlockwood.com/resources/images/galleries/dnd/01/dragonstrike.jpg
http://www.toddlockwood.com/resources/images/galleries/new_art/01/temeraire.jpg
http://www.toddlockwood.com/resources/images/galleries/new_art/03/memories_of_ice.jpg
http://www.toddlockwood.com/resources/images/galleries/new_art/03/barfight.jpg

And yes, I think Lockwood is one of the best modern D&D artists around. Your taste may vary.


----------



## Alnag (Aug 18, 2007)

It is sure thing, that Lockwood would be cool. But he was in lead in designing 3e look (remember all the sketches), so if they want to make it different, they just started with something completely different. I hope he will appear at least later with some arts. Now we will be feeded Eberronish...


----------



## Pbartender (Aug 18, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> I know this has been used on the cover of an _adventure_ already, but it's the closest I came to find from my personal favorite, Lockwood...
> http://www.toddlockwood.com/resources/images/galleries/dnd/02/forge_fury.jpg
> 
> Is missing a hoard, though...and some magic SFX for the elven wizard.
> ...




You just killed his poor little website's bandwidth by linking those pictures here.

Toddlockwood.com, we barely knew ye...


----------



## Klaus (Aug 18, 2007)

Y'know, the WAR cover to the first Dungeon issue that featured the Dungeon Iconics was pretty much "characters in the middle of nowhere", but it was better composed than the PHB cover.


----------



## Ravellion (Aug 18, 2007)

Yair said:
			
		

> I like the idea of full-cover art. And I like the dynamics and topics of the MM and DMG. But... I don't like WAR, especially his faces. I very much hope the PHB gets a better picture, and would have preferred some other artist to do the covers. Lockwood is good.



I really can't stomach WAR art. I find the coice for him as an artist very strange, as he is a kinda "love him or hate him" kind of artist. Lockwood would indeed have been a safer choice.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Aug 18, 2007)

*New D&D Logo and Covers*

So what does everyone think of the new logo? Personally, I'm not a fan. It looks like a good start, but looks kinda cheesy to me for some reason. As to the covers, I like WAR's work and the covers look good, but I don't like the way the typography looks and is done and I especially don't like the band of white that the D&D logo sits on. I hope these get tweaked as the release gets closer. Thank the gods we lose the whole books that look like books thing.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 18, 2007)

That sums it up for me, too.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Aug 18, 2007)

I like the logo. Looks clean, simple and emphasizes the abbreviation of the name. I really like the notion of having pictures on the covers. I especially love that they got WAR to do them.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Aug 18, 2007)

The logos are OK.  The covers not so much.  There are so many possible iconic images for the core books' covers that I thikn they should stay more generic.

Plus I absolutely hate WAR's style.  Now, if Todd Lockwood were the cover artist, that woul dbe another story ...


----------



## JVisgaitis (Aug 18, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> The new logo is so amazing, I have no words to describe it.




Man, I respect you as an artist, but it has never been more apparent to me how at the other ends of the spectrum our tastes are.


----------



## Digital M@ (Aug 18, 2007)

I like the covers, but I have 8 months or so to get bored with them or find something to nit pick about.  The new logos are my favorite to date, but art is subsective and to each their own.  But you know in the end it is just better to agree with me.


----------



## DragonLancer (Aug 18, 2007)

I don't like the new covers but I LOVE the new logo.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 18, 2007)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> That sums it up for me, too.



Ditto. I would've preferred something more akin to the FR-books or the Arcana Evolved-books, i.e. something with a wide panorama-wrap-around in the middle and stuff above and below. Though I'm pretty partial to the Arcana Unearthed-cover, which was IMHO one of the best RPG covers ever.

Or going to bold full-art route... like Draconomicon.

Or doing something like Dawning Star, which was also one of the best covers ever.

Yeah, a bit lacking, though the art is rad!

EDIT: Even replacing the white by black or just use the logo... would improve the cover by a great deal!

Cheers, LT.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Aug 18, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> You just killed his poor little website's bandwidth by linking those pictures here.
> 
> Toddlockwood.com, we barely knew ye...




It has nothing to do with bandwidth. He has the images protected so you can't direct link to them.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 18, 2007)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Man, I respect you as an artist, but it has never been more apparent to me how at the other ends of the spectrum our tastes are.



 Fair enough. The new logo just hit me in the brain with memories of prior editions, and I love the dragonwing+dragontail ampersand.

But we can talk more, just PM me!


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 18, 2007)

I like the new logo and the DMG and MM covers, but not a big fan of the PH cover.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 18, 2007)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> So what does everyone think of the new logo? Personally, I'm not a fan. It looks like a good start, but looks kinda cheesy to me for some reason. As to the covers, I like WAR's work and the covers look good, but I don't like the way the typography looks and is done and I especially don't like the band of white that the D&D logo sits on. I hope these get tweaked as the release gets closer. Thank the gods we lose the whole books that look like books thing.



 I like the logo. The white band placement, I'm not so sure. I guess I think the logo should be able to float above the art without the need of the white band to anchor it.

As for the art, while I like WAR, these are far from his best work (PHB specially). And if these are the core books of the new edition, they HAVE to be someone's best work.

What I'd have done? Comissioned three pieces of art that, when placed side by side, form a giant scene. PHB has 4 heroes attacking... MM has 2 other heroes engaging five different monsters (orcs, beholders, zombies), who are defending... the archmage in the DMG cover, who's stading before his huge dragon cohort.


----------



## Stereofm (Aug 18, 2007)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> So what does everyone think of the new logo? QUOTE]
> 
> I don't like it too much.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 18, 2007)

I like the new logo. For me, it was the old 3e logo that was starting to look cheesy and out of place, at least on anything that didn't have a dark brown or blue backing. The new logo looks much better on its own than the old one did, though it might class with colours the old one worked well with (the aforementioned brown). 

I like the look of the covers for the most part, though not so much the second character in the back on the PHB. Orcus looks good, but I kind of question why they chose him as the new spokesdemon of the MM. Also, when the hell are we going to see a cover with a dragon that doesn't feature a red dragon? There are 9 other colours to choose from!


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Aug 18, 2007)

I like the design of the logo, but the color choice could be tweaked.

I love the full-cover artwork instead of the pseudobook thing.

I like like dynamic action in the artwork, or something that conveys a story or a sense of wonder (remember that giant spider about to attack in the 1E MM, and the one PC "off camera" with just his hand pointing at it while most of the party is oblivious?)

I dislike "poses."

I'm heartily sick of WAR's work, and wish 4E had a different look.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Aug 18, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> As for the art, while I like WAR, these are far from his best work (PHB specially). And if these are the core books of the new edition, they HAVE to be someone's best work.




Yeah, I agree with you. I like the art, but it certainly isn't what I would have gone with. I think they look good and for art that has to appeal to a wide audience I think its a solid choice. Of those the PHB is certainly the weakest when it should be the best. Why they went with 2 characters when it should be a party of adventurers I don't know.

I like WAR as well, but all of his stuff looks the same and has the same vibe. The same lighting, the same colors, the same dynamics. That and I don't feel anything from his pictures. Its pretty to look at and technically very well sound, but that's about it.

If I was commissioning the covers I would have done wraparounds and I would have picked an artist who could do some really dynamic and dramatic lighting like Raven Mimura. I would have done something more along the lines of what Komarck did for us, but I would have had more action in there and made the characters bigger.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Aug 18, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> But we can talk more, just PM me!




I might take you up on that later... Right now I'm getting ready to go to the Frazetta Museum.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 18, 2007)

I'm perfectly happy with the look of the new logo. I just hope they take down that "Whooomph!" sound that plays every time you go to the D&D homepage.


----------



## teitan (Aug 18, 2007)

I love the new look. It is old school without being tacky old school. While I loved the 3.0 faux book covers, they get old and boring to look at while these covers present an exciting image. I can NOT wait for these to come out and maybe, hopefully, we can get soft covers back as well.


----------



## Asmor (Aug 18, 2007)

My biggest complaint is that the D&D logo is so big and the title of the book is comparitively small. Granted, it won't take long for you to start recognizing the books by their artwork, the core 3 in particular, but it's not easy to see what book's what at a glance.

Also, I miss the old "faux tome" styling, I was always a big fan of it.


----------



## smootrk (Aug 18, 2007)

I am indifferent to the logo.  While I like the art itself, I don't think it is a good choice for the cover.  While I see no need to make a book that looks like a book?!, simpler graphical design looks better to me.  A suitable background style (or skin) with a small graphic & logo seems more classy to me... but it seems like a very long time since WotC worried about having actual style (see Gleemax and others).  Instead they seem to want graphics that scream out "this is a D&D book".


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 18, 2007)

teitan said:
			
		

> I love the new look. It is old school without being tacky old school.




Sums up my feelings perfectly. 

I can't be the _only one_ who really digs the PHB, can I?


----------



## SavageRobby (Aug 18, 2007)

I like the new format and art as well (the logo is okay, but in general logos never do anything in particular for me) although I hope the books are normal sized and not funky shaped.


----------



## DungeonMaester (Aug 18, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I grabbed them from the youtube movie clips (which is why they are blurred and the aspect ratio is sightly skewed too).
> 
> Hopefully better ones will become available in time !




Thanks for working so diligently Plane Sailing. 

I too hope they release the cover images as well.

---Rusty


----------



## Alnag (Aug 18, 2007)

Here are the covers.


----------



## Particle_Man (Aug 18, 2007)

Nostalgia note here:

I notice similarities between the Moldvay/Cook B/X covers and the covers of the 4e PH and DMG.  

B: Female Wizard and "spear and board" fighter with winged helmet.  (Fighting a dragon)

PH: Horned Wizard (as opposed to winged helmet) and "sword and board" female fighter.  Similar poses.  (No dragon but see below)

X: Wizard looking at scene in B through crystal ball.

DMG: Dragon (remember him?) looking at scene in PH through crystal ball.

I admire the thematic tribute of the artist here to Erol Otus.  Maybe I am the first to spot this, I dunno.

Also, for all we know Tieflings might start out looking almost normal at 1st level, and either optionally or mandatorily look more fiendish as they go up in levels.


----------



## Maggan (Aug 18, 2007)

Ok, the DMG cover. The crystal ball.

I totally think the dragon's looking at the characters from the PH cover.

EDIT: so yes, I agree with Particle_Man, it seems.   

/M


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Aug 18, 2007)

Just found a link to them on another thread (otherwise had only seen them on youtube presentation videos).  I'm not enthused in any way.  But then I haven't been much moved by any of the covers since 1E PH and DMG.  I guess that's what I've wanted to see ever since - covers that evoke not just _action_ but STORY.  The art is nicely done but leaves me with no sense of anything special.  They could be covers of any fantasy publication.

I guess with the logo I like the nod to the old-school font but it lacks... dynamics, especially when plastered over 1/5 of the book covers backed with white (?!).


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 18, 2007)

Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> Anyone have a link?



As you wish. . .

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=204278


----------



## Hjorimir (Aug 18, 2007)

I love the new logo, though I like it better on black than on white (so I made the switch there myself). As for the cover art, meh. I'm starting to sound like a broken record here (because there are like four different threads talking about this subject), but give the covers to Michael Kormarck and let WAR do interior art if you must (though I like O'Conner there as well).


----------



## Agamon (Aug 18, 2007)

They are like the awesomeness that is the covers of later printings of the 1E books.  And even though I like the WARman, they aren't quite as awesome, a bit too busy for covers.  And that white band under the logo had gots to go. Ugh.


----------



## Mondbuchstaben (Aug 18, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> There should be a friggin' _adventuring party_ on the cover, (...)
> Four adventurers, the fighter, cleric, rogue, and wizard, doing battle with a red dragon, with lots of action apparently going on in the scene.....



More like this? (Also a WAR artwork, used in promotion of 4e...)






Ok, it's a green dragon, and I have to admit that its theme would make a perfect PHB cover. But I guess/hope they are going to use it as the cover for an introductory product - a Basic Box or something similar.

But still - all 4e cover designs, from the logo to the artist choice to the imagery, completely, utterly make me want to *BUY THOSE BOOKS IMMEDIATELY*.

With its style (that some people here called "cartoony") the artwork is reaching out to a new and young customer base that grew up on anime and/or computer games while _at the same time_ (at least for me "almost grognard") being reminiscent of typical D&D artwork of old. A win in my book.

Add to it this statement... (boldening by me)


			
				Nebulous said:
			
		

> I do think that Wayne Reynolds has been completely overused in D&D to the point *that i completely associate the brand name with his style*.




From WotC's standpoint, Best Of All Worlds.

I like!


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 18, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> As much as I like WAR, I'd love to see Michael Kormack (Dungeonscape, Dragon Below trilogy of novels) do the 4E covers.



*blinks* You mean... something like that: Arcana Evolved's Spell Treasury, which uses incredible awesome Kormack art?

That would be... great (sorry, WAR, but for full-cover art, Kormack is just too awesome)

Cheers, LT.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 18, 2007)

Hjorimir said:
			
		

> I love the new logo, though I like it better on black than on white (so I made the switch there myself).



Well, as said above, I'm of the same opinion as you... and did a quick mock-up of the covers with a rock-like background (see the header of the D&D-website right now, sans the fire- and whoosh-effect).

Look for yourself (attached image).

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Asmor (Aug 18, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Well, as said above, I'm of the same opinion as you... and did a quick mock-up of the covers with a rock-like background (see the header of the D&D-website right now, sans the fire- and whoosh-effect).
> 
> Look for yourself (attached image).
> 
> Cheers, LT.




I gotta say, it looks a lot better with the dark background. The bright background was just so... ostentatious, I guess.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Aug 18, 2007)

While I like it better with a darker background, it definitely grabs your eye quicker with the white.


----------



## Destil (Aug 18, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> What I'd have done? Comissioned three pieces of art that, when placed side by side, form a giant scene. PHB has 4 heroes attacking... MM has 2 other heroes engaging five different monsters (orcs, beholders, zombies), who are defending... the archmage in the DMG cover, who's stading before his huge dragon cohort.



Man, Klaus, that's brilliant. And it's not like WoTC hasn't done it in their other game... recently, and with art by WAR, in fact.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/arcana/1392


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 18, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> While I like it better with a darker background, it definitely grabs your eye quicker with the white.



Hmmm... attention grab is one thing... eye-burning something else! 

Nah, personally, I think the cover artwork is already pretty eye-catching. And the white box distracts from it, which is, from my point of view something sad.

Furthermore, D&D already gets premier spots in FLGSs... and if it doesn't get it, then you'll only see the spines in a bookshelf. Which are hopefully _not white_.

Finally, if you want to be eye-catching, give a huge WAR-poster (the green dragon artwork) as a promo-gift and let the FLGSs put it over the rack - because attention-grabbing is fine, as long as it doesn't extend to the time, where you've already bought the book - with eye-searing white.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Horacio (Aug 18, 2007)

I prefer dark background, and I fully agree with your analysis, LT


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 18, 2007)

I like the covers and layout. The logo is alright. Could have been better, maybe. At least, it's clean, to the point. That's the main thing for me.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 18, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> *blinks* You mean... something like that: Arcana Evolved's Spell Treasury, which uses incredible awesome Kormack art?
> 
> That would be... great (sorry, WAR, but for full-cover art, Kormack is just too awesome)
> 
> Cheers, LT.



 Yeah, he's awesome.

But I wouldn't mind this guy doing something:


----------



## Agamon (Aug 18, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Well, as said above, I'm of the same opinion as you... and did a quick mock-up of the covers with a rock-like background (see the header of the D&D-website right now, sans the fire- and whoosh-effect).
> 
> Look for yourself (attached image).
> 
> Cheers, LT.




Much better.


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 18, 2007)

That's a sweet piece of art!  It's almost like that Pozas guy knows what he's doing...


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 19, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Yeah, he's awesome.
> 
> But I wouldn't mind this guy doing something:



You know, that you're surpassing yourself with every piece of art?

I *really* hope that you get a WotC-commissioned illustration, ASAP!

(and I'd like to thank you for your great, game-enhancing gallery  )

Cheers, LT.


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 19, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> I *really* hope that you get a WotC-commissioned illustration, ASAP!



Emphatically seconded.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 19, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Yeah, he's awesome.
> 
> But I wouldn't mind this guy doing something:



That looks... goofy. The hand is really wierd, and the design of the giant is kinda odd and drab. The woman is looking in the completely wrong way, and the background... Sorry, but I don't like it.

Back on topic, I like the new covers. I hated the tome look, and I vastly prefer having the art take up more space. Also, as an eberron fan, I really like having WAR's work on book covers. The guy is pretty good.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Aug 19, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Look for yourself (attached image).




Yep. That's the first thing I would have did. Looks better IMO as well.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Aug 19, 2007)

Mondbuchstaben said:
			
		

> More like this? (Also a WAR artwork, used in promotion of 4e...)
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This was the first piece of art I saw for 4e and I thought it was the cover for the PHB. It looks friggin' awesome and a heck of a lot better then what they went with. I have no idea why this isn't the cover.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 19, 2007)

Good work, but I honestly believe the white background reads better.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Aug 19, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> PHB - I don't quite like the "adventurers posing while looking at different directions with nothing dangerous in sight".






			
				Klaus said:
			
		

> Y'know, the WAR cover to the first Dungeon issue that featured the Dungeon Iconics was pretty much "characters in the middle of nowhere", but it was better composed than the PHB cover.






			
				Klaus said:
			
		

> As much as I like WAR, I'd love to see Michael Kormack (Dungeonscape, Dragon Below trilogy of novels) do the 4E covers.




I like that Kormack cover for Arcana Evolved quite a bit, but I've got to ask: why does he get a pass for having "adventurers posing while looking at different directions with nothing dangerous in sight" while "in the middle of nowhere", where WAR gets trashed for it (which, to be fair, has been said by more posters than just you -- I just picked out your quotes for simplicity)?

(and BTW I really like that giant illo; it really brings me back to the D&D art that got me into the game in the first place. Kudos!)


----------



## JVisgaitis (Aug 19, 2007)

I put this together quick in Photoshop. I think this pic by WAR makes a far better cover. Only problem is with this I couldn't use their same masthead. I still like it better though.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Aug 19, 2007)

Double post.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 19, 2007)

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> I like that Kormack cover for Arcana Evolved quite a bit, but I've got to ask: why does he get a pass for having "adventurers posing while looking at different directions with nothing dangerous in sight" while "in the middle of nowhere", where WAR gets trashed for it (which, to be fair, has been said by more posters than just you -- I just picked out your quotes for simplicity)?
> 
> (and BTW I really like that giant illo; it really brings me back to the D&D art that got me into the game in the first place. Kudos!)



 I wasn't thinking of the Arcana Evolved cover (first time I saw it), but of the covers of the Dragon Below trilogy (facing hobgoblin ghosts in The Binding Stone, a fiery undead dolgaunt in The Grieving Tree, and a Gargantuan copper dragon aboard a fiery airship in The Killing Song).


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Aug 19, 2007)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> I took that image and made it into my own version of the PHB cover. With the image as it is, I had to move stuff around a bit. I like it better as it looks more iconic D&D to me.




You know...that would be perfect for a 4E PHB cover! Good work! Now how come the guys at WotC didn't see that?


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Aug 19, 2007)

I like it b/c it reminds me of the AD&D books that had real pictures on the cover rather than the stale, textbook-looking 3E books.

Sure you can get some bad cover art, but it still looks more dynamic and interesting.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Aug 19, 2007)

i like the cover myself and it does indeed look better in black


----------



## Klaus (Aug 19, 2007)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> I put this together quick in Photoshop. I think this pic by WAR makes a far better cover. Only problem is with this I couldn't use their same masthead. I still like it better though.



 Awesome! Someone should call Scott Rouse and show him this. There's still time to swap art around!


----------



## Mephistopheles (Aug 19, 2007)

I don't mind either the art look of 1st and 2nd editions or the tome look of 3rd.

Personally I'm not thrilled that they're using Wayne's work for any of the manual covers let alone all three of them. Two things that always bother me about a lot of his work are the awkward way many of his characters are standing around with one foot off the ground for no apparent reason, and the vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly oversized wrists he puts on a lot of his characters. Both of these traits are in these covers. Those issues aside there are still pieces of his that I can appreciate but I'd have to say for my taste these covers are not ones I'd like to be looking at for the lifetime of 4th edition.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 19, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Awesome! Someone should call Scott Rouse and show him this. There's still time to swap art around!



Seconded - that looks pretty cool, probably because of the more vibrant colours. And it's eye-catching (due to the colours), without the eye-straining effect of the white.

EDIT: Hmm... I'd like to know the reasoning behind he white title... I wonder...

Cheers, LT.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Aug 19, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Hmm... I'd like to know the reasoning behind he white title... I wonder...




It seems like they are trying to set the logo off which IMO is a mistake. If your logo can't reside on any background, you need to go back to the drawing board. The old D&D logo had that Chevy symbol looking thing that it sat on. Since this one is more free standing I think they placed the white there for that reason.

After looking at the D&D logo for a bit I found out what I don't like. The problem I have is with the hue of the red (I think it should be more maroon) and the weird fiery bits at the bottom. If they want to place it on anything, the should use the rock background that's on the D&D Insider site. That looks sharp.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 19, 2007)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> If they want to place it on anything, they should use the rock background that's on the D&D Insider site. That looks sharp.



Same here - that header was my inspiration for the slightly textured look of the black. Hmph... if they're sticking with the white cover design, I'll probably scan it, 'shop it and glue a rock-background version on my 4E PHB. 

Cheers, LT.


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 19, 2007)

Thumbs down on the new covers - although nice improvement, Jeff!


----------



## RFisher (Aug 19, 2007)

Mondbuchstaben said:
			
		

> Ok, it's a green dragon, and I have to admit that its theme would make a perfect PHB cover. But I guess/hope they are going to use it as the cover for an introductory product - a Basic Box or something similar.




These were my thoughts exactly. As soon as I realized it wasn't the PHB cover, I began hoping it would be on a good "basic" product. (The adventure that's coming out in April?)

It might be better if the dungeon walls more in blue/gray tones so the dragon could be red, but I hesitate to tamper with it.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 19, 2007)

There's apparently a skirmish game starter kit coming out in April - same month as the quickstart adventure - which will contain five figures not used in any other set, including a Large green dragon.

Want to bet the other four are those adventurers, and that the painting will be used on that game?


----------



## RFisher (Aug 19, 2007)

OK, to expand on my comments from the other cover art thread...

My criteria for RPG covers:


Number one is that the name of the game needs to be very, very clear. If the first time you see it is from across the room while squinting, you first reaction should be to immediately know the name of the game. I think the new covers succeed on this one.
The game's logo needs to be able to degrade gracefully in black & white. (A standard logo requirement.) I think the new logo succeeds.
The cover art should be full-bleed, so that it is as large as possible & very _right there_. Almost jumping off the cover. Check.
The cover art should depict a party adventuring. The PHB art almost succeeds. We have a pair of adventurers, which is better than a lone figure. They don't really look like they're adventuring so much as posing, though. The DMG & MM covers are given something of a waiver on this one since D&D isn't a one-core-book game. I think the content of the DMG & MM artwork is just fine.
If it's called D&D, it'd be good to have dungeons & dragons depicted. Check & check. (One dragon among the three covers works for me.)
The artwork should depict things that are actually _in_ the books. I assume this is the case.
The art should make you want to play! Well, in comparison to the 3e covers, these succeed by a landslide. Probably better than a lot of other games I've seen as well. But could it have been done better...?

So, overall, I think they great.



			
				JVisgaitis said:
			
		

>




Question answered. The PHB, at least, _could_ have been better. (^_^)


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 19, 2007)

The green dragon in the other WAR pic is too prominent for it to be the PHB cover. The monster's taking up much more space than the adventurers.

PHB cover should be player characters (and only player characters), at least one casting a spell. MM cover should feature monsters (duh!). DMG cover is a lot trickier. It could show what happens once the PCs kill the monsters, much like the 1e PHB cover, it could depict treasure or it could show a wide landscape with adventurers and monsters, but the world itself given most prominence, JRRT-style.


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 19, 2007)

JVisgaitis, that cover mock-up is hawt.  I'd get excited about playing D&D every time I saw that on the PHB.


----------



## Hjorimir (Aug 19, 2007)

This is only about 1,000% better than the one they came up with. Nice work, Jeff!


----------



## The Human Target (Aug 19, 2007)

Umm, so I was just looking at these and I had a few thoughts I wanted to share.

*PHB*- Has anyone officially stated anywhere that the wizard/sorcerer looking horned character on the PHB cover is in fact a Tiefling? Because he doesn't look like one at all. I know that its said tieflings will be core in 4E, but that doesn't make that particular character a tiefling. You know what he looks like?

*A half red dragon.*

Tinged red skin, red dragon horns, a dragon tail with a frill, it looks like he has talons on his casting hand, he has ridges on his cheek bone like a red dragon does, and even has a point on his chin just like a red dragon does.

*DMG*- A red dragon is on the MM cover, looking in his/her crystal ball on the activities of the two characters from the PHB cover. *Is that horned mage in fact this dragon's son/descendant?* I'd be willing to put money on it.

Its also worth noting that the dragon is looking in on PCs, plotting and probably manipulating their lives. Which when you think about it is exactly what a DM does, and thus makes the cover excellent in terms of reflecting the books content.

*MM*- The MM cover looks out of place with the other two, which is why I imagine that isn't going to be the final cover. This is all conjecture, but I imagine the final cover will depict whatever creatures the characters on the cover of the PHB are reacting to, with a lightening strike arcing into the frame. 

I think that Orcus picture is great, but may be used somewhere else.

So I think that all three covers will in fact have an interrelation and do in fact reflect the contents of the books themselves.

I apologize if someone else has already said this.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Aug 19, 2007)

I like the art--I'm a WAR fan--but they just don't scream "RPG rulebook" to me.

Also, I'm still not sold on that logo. I hope they come out with something cooler and that's just a placeholder.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 19, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> The green dragon in the other WAR pic is too prominent for it to be the PHB cover. The monster's taking up much more space than the adventurers.
> 
> PHB cover should be player characters (and only player characters), at least one casting a spell. MM cover should feature monsters (duh!). DMG cover is a lot trickier. It could show what happens once the PCs kill the monsters, much like the 1e PHB cover, it could depict treasure or it could show a wide landscape with adventurers and monsters, but the world itself given most prominence, JRRT-style.



 Well, the OD&D Erol Otus cover had a *green* dragon take up half the cover as well...


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 19, 2007)

I'm not sure that "Erol Otus did it!" is an excuse anyone should accept.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Aug 19, 2007)

It's not just Erol Otus, mind you. Larry Elmore's picture on the Basic Set, the cover of the Rules Cyclopedia as well...and compared to the covers of the AD&D 2E PHB (the revised black one as well), or those faux tome looks that inspire mystery, but not adventure, the cover JVis put together actually SCREAMS Dungeons & Dragons in a good way. I'd still prefer a similar scene from Lockwood, but tastes are nothing to be argued about. The motif, though, is definitely something that fits on a D&D PHB...a group of adventurers confronting a dragon in the bowels of an underground dungeon.

I just wish that dragon didn't have that weird spike on its nose...a beak I could stomach, but a spike? I hope we're not going from "spiky armor look" to "spiky natural armor look" as the next source of derogatories for an edition not yet published.


----------



## The Merciful (Aug 19, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> The green dragon in the other WAR pic is too prominent for it to be the PHB cover. The monster's taking up much more space than the adventurers.



Nothing wrong with that. The main point of an adventure is to vanguish enemies and overcome obstacles. Navel casing isn't very adventurous. For that reason, as well as fond memories of Metzen edition D&D boxes, I'm all for prominent mosnters in PHB. 

As for the preview versions of 4th edition covers, the artwork lacks severily in color - it is so grey. Just for that alone reason I like mock up with the green dragon much better. And then there are the other reasons others have already stated.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 19, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Well, the OD&D Erol Otus cover had a *green* dragon take up half the cover as well...



That picture is amazing, the best D&D cover ever imo, but it's for a complete game so it's right that it should show all aspects of the game - adventurers, monster, confrontation, dungeon, treasure. I feel the PHB should just show the adventurers. The cover needs to be, in a sense, incomplete. Otoh I'm not sure if the PCs posing makes for the most striking image.


----------



## The Merciful (Aug 19, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> That picture is amazing, the best D&D cover ever imo, but it's for a complete game so it's right that it should show all aspects of the game - adventurers, monster, confrontation, dungeon, treasure. I feel the PHB should just show the adventurers. The cover needs to be, in a sense, incomplete. Otoh I'm not sure if the PCs posing makes for the most striking image.



Well, PHB is the face for the full game - especially for the players. DMG and monster manuals are for the DM.


----------



## John Drake (Aug 19, 2007)

The covers shown by the presentation at Gen Con, imho are big steaming piles of dung and plates of braised pus. But this one posted by JVisgaitis, was very good, despite the fact I am not fan of the artist. Very good layout and all that jazz.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 19, 2007)

For comparison, here are the covers of previous PHBs.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Aug 19, 2007)

I suppose there's no need to point out that the other half of editions heavily featured adventurers that confronted dragons, who were prominently displayed on the covers?


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 19, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> For comparison, here are the covers of previous PHBs[/IMG]




LOL!

Put in perspective, the new cover and logo design is easily in the top two.


----------



## Nyaricus (Aug 19, 2007)

I don think anyone else has noticed that under "PLayer Handbook" on the PHB cover, it says, "Arcane, Divine and Martial Heroes"

This means psionics aren't in the core book.

cheers,
--N


----------



## Jdvn1 (Aug 19, 2007)

Nyaricus said:
			
		

> I don think anyone else has noticed that under "PLayer Handbook" on the PHB cover, it says, "Arcane, Divine and Martial Heroes"
> 
> This means psionics aren't in the core book.
> 
> ...



 Catch up with the rumor mill! That's been discussed already.



Psionics, I think, are getting a similar treatment that they've always gotten--supplement material.


----------



## Mokona (Aug 19, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> me likey!



They look great to me too!  And yes, I was thinking that was Orcus as well.  The red dragon seems inspired by the Todd Lockwood designs while the green dragon show elsewhere doesn't.  

Also keep in mind that the colored title bar will be carried across books.  So expect DM supplements to use the same color as the _Dungeon Master's Guide_ and _Sword & Fist_ style books to use the same color as the _Player's Handbook_.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 19, 2007)

Nyaricus said:
			
		

> I don think anyone else has noticed that under "PLayer Handbook" on the PHB cover, it says, "Arcane, Divine and Martial Heroes"
> 
> This means psionics aren't in the core book.
> 
> ...



 ... and yet Bruce Cordell (of PsiHB and XPH fame) played a "psion" in a playtest (i.e., a wizard with a different name).


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 19, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> ... and yet Bruce Cordell (of PsiHB and XPH fame) played a "psion" in a playtest (i.e., a wizard with a different name).



But only because Bruce Cordell is the resident illithid in WotC!

(everything he touches gets psionic, far realm or tentacle treatment... he has written the Illithiad and Hyperconscious as well - nothing wrong with it, I love most of his work).

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 19, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> But only because Bruce Cordell is the resident illithid in WotC!
> 
> (everything he touches gets psionic, far realm or tentacle treatment... he has written the Illithiad and Hyperconscious as well - nothing wrong with it, I love most of his work).
> 
> Cheers, LT.



 Yes, and if the resident illithid of WotC can turn a wizard into a psion with just a change of names, we can certainly do the same...


... at least until a 4e Psionics Handbook comes out.


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 19, 2007)

Man, do I love the cover of first edition AD&D PHB. This cover rocks.


----------



## Nyaricus (Aug 19, 2007)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> Catch up with the rumor mill! That's been discussed already.
> 
> 
> 
> Psionics, I think, are getting a similar treatment that they've always gotten--supplement material.



I'm working on it


----------



## RFisher (Aug 20, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> The green dragon in the other WAR pic is too prominent for it to be the PHB cover. The monster's taking up much more space than the adventurers.




Considering that "dragon" is in the name of the game & that the pic actually shows a _group_ of adventurers actually _adventuring_... It's very, very hard for me to fault it as a PHB cover on that point.



			
				Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> Psionics, I think, are getting a similar treatment that they've always gotten--supplement material.




They may have been in an appendix in the 1e PHB, but they were in the PHB.

(Just to nitpick, mind you; not because I like psionics in my D&D. (^_^))


----------



## Nebulous (Aug 20, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> OK, to expand on my comments from the other cover art thread...
> 
> 
> Question answered. The PHB, at least, _could_ have been better. (^_^)




Dude, that's awesome.  YES, that should be the cover of the player's handbook!


----------



## tomBitonti (Aug 20, 2007)

Stereofm said:
			
		

> JVisgaitis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Superj3nius (Aug 20, 2007)

i still think they look like my old high school text books   

subject
sub-subject

catchy picture of people "having fun/ being busy"  ​
in all i dont like it


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 21, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I like the new logo and the DMG and MM covers, but not a big fan of the PH cover.




This is about where I stand.

I always felt the 3E logo was too cluttered and busy. I never liked the sword going through it. This logo looks, to me, a lot sharper and cleaner.


----------



## RFisher (Aug 21, 2007)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> Dude, that's awesome.  YES, that should be the cover of the player's handbook!




Just to make sure their is no confusion due to the way the quote of a quote of a quote works: The PHB remix was JVisgaitis' genius. I merely quoted it.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Aug 21, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> ... at least until a 4e Psionics Handbook comes out.




I think psionics will be introduced in the _PHB II _ to be released in 2009, along with the _Eberron_ campaign book.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Aug 21, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Just to make sure their is no confusion due to the way the quote of a quote of a quote works: The PHB remix was JVisgaitis' genius. I merely quoted it.




Someone else said that the promo piece was better so I hobbled together the cover. That's what I love about the EN World community!


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 21, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> <shrug> I think full-bleed art makes for a much more compelling RPG cover. Framing it makes feel contained (even when the artwork "breaks the frame", IMHO); full-bleed makes it feel more like it's jumping off the book at you.



Full Bleed? That gives me an image of Ron Spencer's Guro work for the 5th edition covers.

PHB: PC splattering mooks
MM: Monsters splattering PCs
DMG: Party Vs BBEG with both sides being cut apart.


----------



## Jer (Aug 21, 2007)

Nyaricus said:
			
		

> I don think anyone else has noticed that under "PLayer Handbook" on the PHB cover, it says, "Arcane, Divine and Martial Heroes"




Actually, I wanted to bring that up...

Why is the Player's Handbook the only book with a "subtitle" - neither the DMG nor the MM have any kind of subtitle under their names, so why does the Player's Handbook get one?  Could this tie into the idea that we're going to be seeing multiple Player's Handbooks over the coming years with 4e?


----------



## Reaper Steve (Aug 21, 2007)

I love the MM Orcus pic, the DMG pic is fine, but I don't care for the PHB cover art.

I'm in the camp that likes the WAR 'party in a dungeon fighting a green dragon pic.'
That pic is superb, with two small corrections needed:
1)The dragon's nose horn needs to go. Just paint over it with the empty door colors.
2) Hey, fighter-dude! Jozan of Pelor called...he wants his armor back.


----------



## John Drake (Aug 21, 2007)

WotC should have just gone a little deeper into the coffers and got an artist of real high caliber like Larry Elmore or Boris Valjo <sic> to do the covers. Getting great artwork (Frazetta) sold covers of th e old Conan paparbacks......


----------



## Maggan (Aug 22, 2007)

John Drake said:
			
		

> WotC should have just gone a little deeper into the coffers




I don't think this is a cost issue. WAR is tremendously popular, and I believe that's why they chose him to do the covers.

Valejo and Elmore are also popular, but I don't think they "scream" NEW and IMPROVED like the WAR images tend to do, for ill or for good.

/M


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 22, 2007)

John Drake said:
			
		

> WotC should have just gone a little deeper into the coffers and got an artist of real high caliber like Larry Elmore or Boris Valjo <sic> to do the covers. Getting great artwork (Frazetta) sold covers of th e old Conan paparbacks......




I love Frazetta, and I believe Elmore is one heck of a landscape artist.

Both both of them are utterly locked into a particular time period, and it *isn't* the 21st century.


----------



## RFisher (Aug 22, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Full Bleed? That gives me an image of Ron Spencer's Guro work for the 5th edition covers.




Hey, I'm good with that too!



			
				John Drake said:
			
		

> WotC should have just gone a little deeper into the coffers and got an artist of real high caliber like Larry Elmore or Boris Valjo <sic> to do the covers. Getting great artwork (Frazetta) sold covers of th e old Conan paparbacks......




Yeah, but it's all a matter of taste, innit? I love Frazetta, but neither Elmore or Vallejo count as high caliber in my book. Though I don't entirely dislike Elmore's work.



			
				Wormwood said:
			
		

> Both both of them are utterly locked into a particular time period, and it *isn't* the 21st century.




For some of us, that is a big bonus for a D&D artist.


----------



## Nebulous (Aug 22, 2007)

John Drake said:
			
		

> WotC should have just gone a little deeper into the coffers and got an artist of real high caliber like Larry Elmore or Boris Valjo <sic> to do the covers. Getting great artwork (Frazetta) sold covers of th e old Conan paparbacks......




I would go with Elmore over WAR in this case. WAR has some really good stuff, he does, but some of it makes me flinch.  I can't say that about Elmore.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 22, 2007)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> I would go with Elmore over WAR in this case. WAR has some really good stuff, he does, but some of it makes me flinch.  I can't say that about Elmore.




People's exhibit A: 3e Monster Manual.


----------



## Vicar In A Tutu (Aug 22, 2007)

I think the covers are horrible. Especially the PHB. I dislike the style as well as the composition. However, the WAR picture of the green dragon fighting the adventurers is much better than the three core covers, as if he restrained his urge to make swords more immense than rocket launchers. The green dragon picture is much less cartoonish. I dread the reaction of my group (I usually DM 3-4 people). They will snicker when they see the covers and take it as yet another confirmation that D&D is KidZ Rule!S.


----------



## Nebulous (Aug 22, 2007)

Is it too late to change the covers?  could these just be placeholders, or is this a done deal? i'm not sure how these things works in the publishing industry.  I do know that WotC probably doesn't care what the Enworlder's think, and the majority of D&D players love Reynold's style, so i'm worried that the PHB will stay as given. Which is really, really too bad.


----------



## Derren (Aug 22, 2007)

Oh my god. Those dragons look horrible. The person responsible for all those nose horns should have his eyes stabbed out (but he is probably blind anyway, there is no other explanation for this stupid look).


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 22, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> Oh my god. Those dragons look horrible. The person responsible for all those nose horns should have his eyes stabbed out (but he is probably blind anyway, there is no other explanation for this stupid look).




facepalm.jpg


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 22, 2007)

I have to ask.

Why is it all right for a ginormous lizard to have wings (requiring two additional limbs), but not to have a spike on its nose?

It boggles to see the number of people complaining about the freakin' nose spike.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 22, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> It boggles to see the number of people complaining about the freakin' nose spike.




Nerd Rage is Serious Business!

edit: However, in all honesty I don't think I can deal with Eight. More. Months. of negativity and snark.

The WotC boards are bad enough.


----------



## Derren (Aug 22, 2007)

Because wings look cool but nose horns look silly?


----------



## Mokona (Aug 22, 2007)

John Drake said:
			
		

> WotC should have just gone a little deeper into the coffers and got an artist of real high caliber like Larry Elmore



I doubt Elmore commands premium prices anymore.  On the other hand, *Wizards of the Coast* probably paid between $5,000 and $10,000 to Todd Lockwood for the cover art of _Draconomicon_.  I don't think they can be accused of being too cheap regarding cover art.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Aug 22, 2007)

Discussion is all right.  Snarky comments aren't.  Please reduce the snark.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 22, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> I have to ask.
> 
> Why is it all right for a ginormous lizard to have wings (requiring two additional limbs), but not to have a spike on its nose?
> 
> It boggles to see the number of people complaining about the freakin' nose spike.



 Can't speak for anyone else, but MY problem is with THAT nose spike.

As it is done (and it is done in the same way in the sketch by Lars Grant-West in the Design & Development article on Dragons at WotC's site), the spike clashes with the rest of the body design. it doesn't look like it belongs in the beast, like the artist was unsure of how to do the dragon's snout. A good design "clicks", and this one doesn't.

At least, IMNSHO.


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 22, 2007)

I'm not a huge fan of the schnozz spike either.  It's the fly in a perfectly good soup.


----------



## Shieldhaven (Aug 22, 2007)

Though it's not a dealbreaker or anything like that for me, I strongly dislike this cover art. I was a fan of 3e/3.5e tome covers. I also liked the PHBII style of cover design. But I strongly dislike Wayne Reynolds' work with only a few exceptions.

Haven


----------



## johnnype (Aug 22, 2007)

I think the artwork is fine but not WAR's best work. I would have preferred an action scene incorporating both heroes and villains. 

I'm also not fond of the white band at the top. It's there to just provide contrast to the title and ends up taking away from the artwork.

The covers are fine but not as good as they could be.


----------



## Victim (Aug 22, 2007)

By now, I'm pretty much sick of the "Book that looks like a book!!!!" design style.


----------



## RFisher (Aug 23, 2007)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> Is it too late to change the covers?  could these just be placeholders, or is this a done deal? i'm not sure how these things works in the publishing industry.  I do know that WotC probably doesn't care what the Enworlder's think, and the majority of D&D players love Reynold's style, so i'm worried that the PHB will stay as given. Which is really, really too bad.




It's never too late. The only questions are how much it'll cost & whether they think that cost is justifiable.

As far as caring what ENWorlders think: It's been looking a lot to me the past few days like Wizards really is paying a lot of attention to ENWorld & their own forums.



			
				Victim said:
			
		

> By now, I'm pretty much sick of the "Book that looks like a book!!!!" design style.




I think I was sick of it the second time I saw it, if not the first. Long, long before Wizards tried it. Maybe even before I'd heard of D&D. I wouldn't even be able to remember what book it might have been, though a day or two searching through my parents house would surely turn up some candidates.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 23, 2007)

I'm just glad that my lovely and talented artist/graphic designer wife agrees with me that the covers look fine. 

(the lurkers support me in e-mail!)


----------

