# Arcane Power Art Gallery: Welcome back, old friends



## Remathilis (Apr 20, 2009)

Arcane Power Art Gallery

The Complete Arca.... uh, Arcane Power art gallery is up, and lets say "hi" to our old friends!

Hello Gatecrasher!
Hi Gimble!
Howdy Complete Arcane Cover!
Good Morning Frost Mage!
Top of the day to you, Morthos the Warlock!
Long time no see Suel Arcanomach!
Jolly good day Forcyrn Lyricist!
Guten Taug, Escalation Mage!
Hola Ultimate Magus!

I hope I didn't forget anyone!


----------



## alleynbard (Apr 20, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Arcane Power Art Gallery
> 
> The Complete Arca.... uh, Arcane Power art gallery is up, and lets say "hi" to our old friends!
> 
> ...






I noticed the exact same thing. <sigh>

I truly understand the occasional need to use recycled art, but this one seems particularly full of it.  Is it perception or is there more recycled art in this book than any other?  Likely my perception, I imagine.

I love 4e but this feature was one of the things that always bugged me about 2e.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Apr 20, 2009)

alleynbard said:


> I truly understand the occasional need to use recycled art, but this one seems particularly full of it.  Is it perception or is there more recycled art in this book than any other?  Likely my perception, I imagine.




I don't think it's just perception.  

I don't mind a couple of pieces, but even I went "Daaaang."


----------



## kenmarable (Apr 20, 2009)

alleynbard said:


> I noticed the exact same thing. <sigh>
> 
> I truly understand the occasional need to use recycled art, but this one seems particularly full of it.  Is it perception or is there more recycled art in this book than any other?  Likely my perception, I imagine.
> 
> I love 4e but this feature was one of the things that always bugged me about 2e.



I haven't done a real comparison, but I think one thing that makes it really jump out is that in the Art Gallery, I believe, 6 of the first 8 are recycled art, and you know what they say about first impressions. Scrolling down, the percentage doesn't seem to bad, but seeing 3/4 of the first two rows all recycled was really silly.


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 20, 2009)

I think what really helps is two of the reused artwork comes from class portraits (including the only new one in 3.5) and one is the COVER ART OF ANOTHER BOOK!

But yes, slapping them all in the front doesn't do much to hide it either...


----------



## Zaukrie (Apr 20, 2009)

Is that 4E art? It looks different to me.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 20, 2009)

I like this one: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/APower/26.jpg


----------



## demiurge1138 (Apr 20, 2009)

Eight of the first eight are recycled. There's a few other recycled pieces scattered about, but frontloading it like that is really obvious, and rather annoying.


----------



## avin (Apr 20, 2009)

Disappointing. I was thinking that we were free of reclycled art.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Apr 20, 2009)

Personally,  I don't see the issue in recycling some art.  If the images best describes the topic.  ie a class image, or something else, then who cares?

In this economy, it is a cost cutting measure.  And I would prefer they use this particular cost cutting measure than any number of other ones.

Also, there are people new to 4e that might like some of the images. If they are appropriate, then it's not a big deal to me.


----------



## avin (Apr 20, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> then who cares?




Looks like most of people posting on this topic so far 



catsclaw227 said:


> In this economy, it is a cost cutting measure.




Maybe, but while I'm buying their books I want new art and don't want the "economy" as an excuse.


----------



## hong (Apr 20, 2009)

I like this guy's work more and more each time I see it.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/APower/20.jpg


----------



## Estlor (Apr 20, 2009)

It continues to amaze me how many people are bothered by recycled art.  I didn't buy Arcane Power for this pictures, I bought it for the rules.  The inclusion of material from Dragon Magazine (i.e. the recylcing of rules) bothers me.  Old pictures?  Psh.  It's a D&D supplement, not an art book.


----------



## Quickleaf (Apr 20, 2009)

Why not replace those recycled art pieces with more rules content or fluff? Everybody wins.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Apr 20, 2009)

For me, art is part of the product. I don't want to see artwork I've already seen in a book I bought a few years ago. 

Not a huge deal, but art is important, its part of the total package. I know some people only want the rules and don't care about the art, but personally I like to see art that is evocative of the rules I'm reading. Art that helps inspire me and art that helps focus the overall product by producing the right tone/feel. 

Definately a cost cutting measure.


----------



## alleynbard (Apr 20, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Personally,  I don't see the issue in recycling some art.  If the images best describes the topic.  ie a class image, or something else, then who cares?
> 
> In this economy, it is a cost cutting measure.  And I would prefer they use this particular cost cutting measure than any number of other ones.
> 
> Also, there are people new to 4e that might like some of the images. If they are appropriate, then it's not a big deal to me.




Eh....A few pieces don't bother me.  Too many and I start to get somewhat annoyed.  I wouldn't say I am angry or anything, just a bit irritated.

You are right, a big part of the cost of making one these books is the art.  Cutting back in that area is a cost effective way of increasing profit. And by continuing to charge the same amount for the book as you would if all the art was new is definitely a way of increasing that margin even more.  Go too far though  and it starts to wear on me.

Honestly, I recognize that this is not a huge deal.  Just a little something that gets beneath my skin is all.  I am about as close to a WotC fanboy as one can get, so it certainly has nothing to do with how I feel about the company or the product they produce.


----------



## alleynbard (Apr 20, 2009)

Drkfathr1 said:


> For me, art is part of the product. I don't want to see artwork I've already seen in a book I bought a few years ago.
> 
> Not a huge deal, but art is important, its part of the total package. I know some people only want the rules and don't care about the art, but personally I like to see art that is evocative of the rules I'm reading. Art that helps inspire me and art that helps focus the overall product by producing the right tone/feel.
> 
> Definately a cost cutting measure.




My thoughts exactly.  The art direction is an integral part of the experience and has been since 1e.  Art from that era evokes a certain feel.  2e's art direction started off pretty well.  Then it got all over the place, but still remained somewhat consistent within product lines.  Once recycled art became the norm and not the exception, the books felt like a mess.

But, like you say, recycled art is not a *huge* deal and I would much prefer that to no art at all. Of course, I make my living as a graphic designer so my opinion is a bit skewed.


----------



## alleynbard (Apr 20, 2009)

Quickleaf said:


> Why not replace those recycled art pieces with more rules content or fluff? Everybody wins.




Works for me.


----------



## Klaus (Apr 20, 2009)

demiurge1138 said:


> Eight of the first eight are recycled. There's a few other recycled pieces scattered about, but frontloading it like that is really obvious, and rather annoying.



Try again. 9 of the first 9 are recycled, or 10 of a total 66 pictures. That's almost 1/6th of all art in the book.

The new art is mostly very good, though.


----------



## alleynbard (Apr 20, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I like this one: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/APower/26.jpg




Very nice indeed.


----------



## kenmarable (Apr 20, 2009)

Klaus said:


> Try again. 9 of the first 9 are recycled, or 10 of a total 66 pictures. That's almost 1/6th of all art in the book.
> 
> The new art is mostly very good, though.



I stand (actually sit) corrected. Those were only the ones I recognized offhand.

Although, personally, it doesn't bother me all that much, but that's just my opinion. If the artwork is good and fitting, I can handle some re-use. Probably what bothers me the absolute most however, is when they use recycled art and it's not good.* THAT is annoying!

* Art that is "not good" being a totally subjective thing, of course, making my comment rather tongue-in-cheek.


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 20, 2009)

Nightchilde-2 said:


> I don't think it's just perception.



As others have pointed it appears that way because they decided to put all the recycled art to the top.

I generally don't mind recycled art, sometimes it even makes sense, e.g. if a 4E paragon path is a reimagining of a 3E prestige class.

I don't know a lot about the process of selecting art for a book, but I think they actually commission more pieces than ever make it into the book. They may get several drafts for a piece and then decide which (if any) should be fully rendered and put into the book.
So at this point (or later after receiving the finished piece) they might decide they'd rather go with an existing piece simply because it's actually better!

E.g. I'm actually overjoyed about seeing the Ultimate Magus art again. It's one of my favorites.

The one I liked best of the new ones is the one with the two blue dragons circling the tower.


----------



## Nymrohd (Apr 20, 2009)

Actually it's not that much of recycled art. The first rows are recycled and get your attention but most of the art is new. I don't like that there is this much recycled art anyway but it is not as bad as your initial reaction to it may indicate.


----------



## TerraDave (Apr 20, 2009)

My very first reaction was to start counting...I only got to 6. But I suspected there was more. 

But is it funny? These books aren't cheap exactly.


----------



## Klaus (Apr 20, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> Actually it's not that much of recycled art. The first rows are recycled and get your attention but most of the art is new. I don't like that there is this much recycled art anyway but it is not as bad as your initial reaction to it may indicate.



Much more than the first row. 10 out of 66, actually.


----------



## Nymrohd (Apr 20, 2009)

Well I said the first rows. And 8 out of the 10/66 are on those two first rows.


----------



## Sigdel (Apr 20, 2009)

I don't mind the recycled art. That's just not all that bad. But what I do mind is that Morthos the 3.5 warlock still only has four fingers, including the thumb, on his left hand.
Apparently you lose your pinky when you become a warlock


----------



## frankthedm (Apr 20, 2009)

I have no qualms with recycled art, as long as the art is good in the first place. 

I would have been happier not seeing Gimpball the gnome or the Dandy dwarf.

I'm pleased to see the CA cover art again.

Wayne England is still very hit and miss in my opinion, the bottom  humanoid's are really darn good in this pic thought it's hand looks plain out unfinished and the rest of the pic is meh. His Familiars piece is actually darn good, except he had to go and ruin the pic with a 'Uge 'Ead Imp.

Can't stand this one http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/APower/12.jpg

This is one of the pics that look painfully shooped..


----------



## Starbuck_II (Apr 20, 2009)

Whose the pimp with the keys?


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Apr 20, 2009)

I don't mind some recycled artwork, but this one just annoys me.  Its the same picture from the 3.0 PHB and recycled in the 3.5 PHB.  So its re-recycled artwork.  Almost 10 years old and is one of the most recognizible pictures of the game.


----------



## alleynbard (Apr 20, 2009)

dmccoy1693 said:


> I don't mind some recycled artwork, but this one just annoys me.  Its the same picture from the 3.0 PHB and recycled in the 3.5 PHB.  So its re-recycled artwork.  Almost 10 years old and is one of the most recognizible pictures of the game.




I thought Gimble didn't show up until 3.5, when they changed the gnomes' favored class.  I could be wrong. Of course, even if I am right it doesn't change your point. The image is highly recognizable and has been around for many years.


----------



## Klaus (Apr 20, 2009)

dmccoy1693 said:


> I don't mind some recycled artwork, but this one just annoys me.  Its the same picture from the 3.0 PHB and recycled in the 3.5 PHB.  So its re-recycled artwork.  Almost 10 years old and is one of the most recognizible pictures of the game.



Er... No.

That picture of Gimble first appeared on the 3.5 PHB, when Bard became the gnome's favored class. Prior to that it was the Illusionist.

And if you check WAR's sig, it says '03. So it is about 6 years old.


----------



## Klaus (Apr 20, 2009)

Starbuck_II said:


> Whose the pimp with the keys?



IIRC, Gatecrasher Prestige Class from the Manual of the Planes.


----------



## Ktulu (Apr 20, 2009)

That dude did a ton of the art from the Wheel of Time RPG.  Always liked his style.


----------



## Nai_Calus (Apr 20, 2009)

Yeah, Gimble was a total 'wait what' moment, heh. Though I actually kind of like that picture. I preferred Devis for 3.x Bards, but Gimble looks more 4e-ish than Devis does.

I like most of the art, including the reused pieces, and it's nice to see some people who aren't white, reused or not. Fewer pieces that made me cringe than usual, and several pictures I really like.

Let's see.

http://wizards.com/dnd/images/APower/17.jpg
I like this one a lot. 

http://wizards.com/dnd/images/APower/57.jpg
This one too.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/APower/34.jpg
This one is awesome.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/APower/19.jpg
The only picture of a 4e Tiefling I've ever liked.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/APower/32.jpg
Not bad overall, nice to see a really creepy-looking Eladrin, but how does that dagger on his calf not fall out of its sheath since it's upside down, and further, how does he plan to use it since, well, it's upside down?

I think I'm more concerned with 'does it look good' than 'is it reused' (Also 'does it fit', but I don't have AP yet so I can't judge that yet). I hated the Srinshee and Champion of Corellon Larethian pics in PHB2 because they were both bad and unsuited to the PPs they were supposed to be illustrating.

Also it's nice to finally see more Eladrin instead of endless Dragonborn. Still endless tieflings, but yay Eladrin.


----------



## Quickleaf (Apr 21, 2009)

Quickleaf said:


> Why not replace those recycled art pieces with more rules content or fluff? Everybody wins.



Stupendous idea! And equaninimous too! You took the words right out of my mouth. You're one quick leaf, you.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Apr 21, 2009)

Madly in love with 10, 22, and 26.

And I have to agree with a couple people before me that the recycling itself isn't a huge annoyance, but I wasn't fond of most of the reused ones when I saw them years ago.


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 21, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> In this economy, it is a cost cutting measure.  And I would prefer they use this particular cost cutting measure than any number of other ones.



This right here.


----------



## Scribble (Apr 21, 2009)

What I wonder is how come no one seems to do backgrounds anymore?

I mean even the couple of pieces that show any kind of background in that collection have the background just kind of "haze" out...  Backgrounds kind of pull the whole scene together for me.


----------



## resistor (Apr 21, 2009)

I'll take a stand against reused art.

For me, part of the purpose of art in a D&D product is to be evocative of what's being described in the text, be it a class, an item, a setting, an encounter, whatever.

Problem is that I remember pictures in the context in which they first appeared.  I see the Gatecrasher picture and it evokes "Gatecrasher" for me.  If they later try to use it for something else, it completely falls flat because it doesn't make think of "FooClass", but of "Gatecrasher."

The only time I would consider reusing art reasonable would be for direct ports of class/items/settings/encounters.


----------



## Klaus (Apr 21, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> In this economy, it is a cost cutting measure.  And I would prefer they use this particular cost cutting measure than any number of other ones.




If done purely for cost-cutting, then it's really not the best idea. The cost for having 10 additional color pieces, therefore removing all old illustrations, would be at about US$1500. That cost is a drop in a bucket of water when compared to the true costs of a book (printing, shipping, percentage to the distribution chain, etc).

It seems more like a time-cutting measure.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Apr 21, 2009)

Klaus said:


> If done purely for cost-cutting, then it's really not the best idea. The cost for having 10 additional color pieces, therefore removing all old illustrations, would be at about US$1500. That cost is a drop in a bucket of water when compared to the true costs of a book (printing, shipping, percentage to the distribution chain, etc).
> 
> It seems more like a time-cutting measure.



Really?  10 pieces for only $150 each?  Wow..... Well, you certainly know more than I do about this.  Klaus, how many man-hours does it take to do one of these pieces from initial discussion to handing it in with final approval?

You artist guys need to go on strike and get better wages!

Maybe it's both cost cutting AND time cutting?


----------



## ppaladin123 (Apr 21, 2009)

> http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/APower/19.jpg
> The only picture of a 4e Tiefling I've ever liked.




That tiefling is missing his tail.


----------



## wedgeski (Apr 21, 2009)

Klaus said:


> If done purely for cost-cutting, then it's really not the best idea. The cost for having 10 additional color pieces, therefore removing all old illustrations, would be at about US$1500.



You obviously know more than most of the rest of us about this, but $150 for top-shelf fantasy art? That's astonishingly cheap!


----------



## Klaus (Apr 21, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Really?  10 pieces for only $150 each?  Wow..... Well, you certainly know more than I do about this.  Klaus, how many man-hours does it take to do one of these pieces from initial discussion to handing it in with final approval?
> 
> You artist guys need to go on strike and get better wages!
> 
> Maybe it's both cost cutting AND time cutting?



Keep in mind that the vast majority of the repeated pieces are used as quarter-pagers, so the fee is downgraded from a full page (compare that to, say, a 4e Chapter opener, which is now 1.5 page). Quarter page, color picture for $150? I'd kill for that kind of rate. That's what I usually get for a cover...

As for how long it'd take, I can only speak for myself. If I were to receive an order for 10 pictures like this, I'd send out 5 sketches within 2 days, and do the remaining 5 while the others are being analyzed. Assuming all goes well, it's about 2 days per non-background character piece. All in all, 10 pieces like this would take me 4-5 weeks, from sketch to finished piece.


----------



## RangerWickett (Apr 21, 2009)

Likewise, when I was producing game products, I would have killed for an art budget of $1500. I mean, admittedly we almost never did color interiors, but even for black & white I don't think we were paying a living wage. (Not that we really made enough profit to give ourselves a living wage, though.)

Anyway, a lot of this art is cool, but I'm always amazed that, if WotC is going to reuse art, why don't they reuse art from Magic, which at least is a different product line, so there's less chance of D&D players recognizing it? Plus, good God, have you seen some of the art Magic has these days? It's stunningly good.

For instance:







Some other examples:

http://www.wizards.com/mtg/images/daily/wallpapers/WP_dVdLotP00h25_1280x960.jpg

http://www.wizards.com/mtg/images/daily/wallpapers/WP_dVdTutormue4r_1280x960.jpg

http://www.wizards.com/mtg/images/daily/wallpapers/WP_DvDAkroma_1280x960.jpg

http://www.wizards.com/mtg/images/daily/wallpapers/WP_DvDLuminous_1280x960.jpg

http://www.wizards.com/mtg/images/daily/wallpapers/WP_MasterTransmuter_1280x960.jpg

http://www.wizards.com/mtg/images/daily/wallpapers/WP_Progenitus_1280x960.jpg

http://www.wizards.com/mtg/images/daily/wallpapers/WP_Nyxathid_1280x960.jpg

http://www.wizards.com/mtg/images/daily/wallpapers/WP_nkxg0fw4_1280X960.jpg


P.S., Claudio, I'm going to send you an email.


----------



## Klaus (Apr 21, 2009)

Those pictures show why Magic cards are the high-end of gaming illustration gigs. The rate is very good, so they can get the very best artists.

And those angels? THOSE are angels.


----------



## Mottokrosh (Apr 21, 2009)

I also feel the need to voice my displeasure with recycled art, and speak up for the importance of art in a hardcover book. I find it's especially true for 4E books, where the graphic design is particularly unevocative of medieval fantasy. I mean, beige gradients - how on earth does that say "fantasy"? Since most 4E are extremely crunch heavy, it's that much more frustrating.

I buy 4E books because I like the rules, the system, and the core assumptions. Individual art is often very good in them too, but the overall look of the books - made that much worse since it's the same for all of them - does not speak to my imagination or creativity, which is the biggest shame of all with this edition.

I find myself buying different system books simply because their design, look and feel inspires me when creating adventures, campaigns, or even characters.


----------



## Badwe (Apr 21, 2009)

Interesting that someone else pointed out magic. You know, in magic they often get upset when NEW art is used over their old favorites.  Also, the art in magic isn’t really a good fit for D&D, the cards are illustrated such that they stand out as a 3”x3” picture flopped down on a table, they lack miniscule details like a big D&D piece of art would have.

Other posters seem to have implied that budgets for a book, even wotc, are razor thin as is, don’t squeeze them any tighter guys.  Nobody complains about recycled art in galleries or art history books, if it’s good it’s worth reprinting.  Is it recycling when a novel quotes a poem or when a speaker quotes another orator? If the content is good and fits with the overall piece, a familiar and iconic selection is superior to something new and unfamiliar. 

Furthermore, can we please stop affixing the “humor” tag to veiled criticism of wotc? Just because you think you’re funny doesn’t mean the rest of the forum agrees.  Nobody here is an insightful satirist and it’s… getting… old.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 21, 2009)

Klaus said:


> Those pictures show why Magic cards are the high-end of gaming illustration gigs. The rate is very good, so they can get the very best artists.
> 
> And those angels? THOSE are angels.



I'll be in my bunk. 


But yes, those illustrations are nice. Can someone please create an adventure from the last one (with the heroes on floating triangles and the dragon?)


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Apr 21, 2009)

I find it humorous. 

Criticism can be healthy, at least this thread isn't filled with vitriol. 

It's also an excellent way for WoTC to get some honest feedback.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 21, 2009)

RangerWickett said:


> Anyway, a lot of this art is cool, but I'm always amazed that, if WotC is going to reuse art, why don't they reuse art from Magic, which at least is a different product line, so there's less chance of D&D players recognizing it? Plus, good God, have you seen some of the art Magic has these days? It's stunningly good.




My goodness, that artwork makes D&D look very much the poor relation!


----------



## FloatingDisc (Apr 21, 2009)

There are some great new images here. 

I think that picture of gnomish bard is still my favourite picture of that type (individual character isolated [on a white background]) to ever appear in a RPG book. 

It's interesting to see what other people say are their favourites from this book, I'm amazed at what some people have chosen. Just goes to show how widely peoples' tastes can vary. 

I don't know how to feel about recycled art. I can understand it from a cost-saving perspective, but it does somewhat disappoint me, as my dream is to illustrate this sort of product professionally, and this sort of suggests they can't afford to commission all new art for each book. 

As a commercial graphic designer and illustrator I have to say that the $150 for a finished piece of that quality does seem extremely conservative. If I were to charge at the same rate I would for graphic design, that would be less than 1 hour's work. That said, I don't freelance design or illustration, and I don't charge for the illustration work I do at the moment. Hopefully that'll all change one day ;]


----------



## Qualidar (Apr 21, 2009)

Klaus said:


> If done purely for cost-cutting, then it's really not the best idea. The cost for having 10 additional color pieces, therefore removing all old illustrations, would be at about US$1500. That cost is a drop in a bucket of water when compared to the true costs of a book (printing, shipping, percentage to the distribution chain, etc).
> 
> It seems more like a time-cutting measure.




WOW. As someone who has bought art for non-rpg books, I wouldn't expect to pay less than $1500 per piece, but perhaps the RPG scale is than far off from normal. 




FloatingDisc said:


> As a commercial graphic designer and illustrator I have to say that the $150 for a finished piece of that quality does seem extremely conservative. If I were to charge at the same rate I would for graphic design, that would be less than 1 hour's work. That said, I don't freelance design or illustration, and I don't charge for the illustration work I do at the moment. Hopefully that'll all change one day ;]




Holy the crap. As a fellow graphic designer, let me tell you that I am amazed at your rate! Where do you live and do you have any spare clients?!?


----------



## Windjammer (Apr 21, 2009)

I certainly don't mind re-cycled art - if it is done well. If you look at 3.5 Rules Compendium, which ONLY contained re-cycled art, I never felt ripped off, because the art was re-used in a such a clever way (see the Enworld review for specifics).

What irks me about Arcane Power is that some of the art is re-used in a silly way. Take the Gatecrasher from 3.0 Manual of the Planes. Actually, he was already converted to 4E as a paragon path in 4E Manual of the Planes. Except the picture they used there showcased the rogue-as-striker meme, smashing a rakasha's head with a hammer. Not that I minded too much, though I wondered why that was, as an image, more exemplifying of the gatecrasher (prestige) class than a bunch of keys and lock picks - referring here to the image in 3.0 Manual of the Planes.

Imagine the surprise when I saw that very image used in Arcane Power - to illustrate the Arcane Wayfarer (aka Wayfarer Guide in 3.5 Complete Arcane). [Btw, this is from memory - I didn't buy the book.]

How silly! Keys and lock picks have nothing to do with magic transport. They don't even have something to do with transport _per se_. They have something to do with - gate crashing.

So there you go. Not only can't WotC pay artists for new art work, they also can't pay someone able to re-cycle art with a modicum of, er, intelligence.

And to top it all, that picture is printed in the book with a wrong colour scheme. At the very least, the colours look like faded as if exposed to too much sun light. I should know, as I both own the 3.0 MotP and know the digital picture from the Arcane Power art gallery.

Ordinarily, I would have recommended people to buy the PDF instead (because WotC PDFs remind you - painfully - of how the printed art is intended to look like) - but, given how things are now, I'd recommend them to do something else. ... why, borrow the book from a friend of course!

To sum up. They re-use art, do so in an amateurish way, and print it cheaply. If that isn't indicative of how best-selling 4E is, I don't know what could be. Either that or they don't care to rip off customers in times when they are doing exceedingly well, financially. You decide!


----------



## Kaodi (Apr 21, 2009)

While I am slighty disappointed by the re-used art, for some reason the only thing that sticks in my mind is " Would whatever that drow chick is wearing n #13 translate well onto an Haute Couture runway, and what would the reaction be? "

( Edit: And now that I get around to looking at them, that M:tG Master Transmuter is _awesome_. )


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 21, 2009)

What kind of person do you think the Gimble picture is supposed to represent, anyway?

Certainly not a 4e gnome, who look very different to this nowadays!


----------



## FloatingDisc (Apr 22, 2009)

EDIT: Posted as a reply to Qualidar. 

I'm currently working in London, but, as I said, I don't currently freelance. Even so, as a designer on a salary, even then my time is charged out by the company at at least £80/hour, depending on the work. Colleagues who freelance charge considerably more. I think I may have steered the discussion wrongly, comparing pay rates between design and illustration. 

Something I meant to add in my original post is that I would gladly do fantasy illustration for a fraction of that so long as I could live off the earnings. Otherwise I would continue to do it for my own amusement, for free for my friends ;] (Evidence)


----------



## FloatingDisc (Apr 22, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> What kind of person do you think the Gimble picture is supposed to represent, anyway?
> 
> Certainly not a 4e gnome, who look very different to this nowadays!




Great question!

I based a whole characer concept off of this illustration, actually. It was a very short-lived Planescape PbP game, but it was one of the most fun-to-play characters I've ever played. 

He was indeed a gnome, and a bard. Basically a womanising, thieving, scandelous, treacherous but ultimately good-natured ne'r-do-well ...if you know what I mean >

As an aside, I much prefer the look of 3/3.5 gnomes to the 4e "Communion"-style xenomorphs.


----------



## arscott (Apr 22, 2009)

alleynbard said:


> I thought Gimble didn't show up until 3.5, when they changed the gnomes' favored class.  I could be wrong. Of course, even if I am right it doesn't change your point. The image is highly recognizable and has been around for many years.



In fact, as best I can tell, _none_ of the recycled art we've seen has been in any of the 3.0 core books.

Almost all of the re-used pieces in the 4eMM, for example, appeared for the first time in the 3.5 Monster Manual.  Which is nice for me, since I never upgraded my MM from the 3.0 version.


----------



## doctorhook (Apr 22, 2009)

I don't mind the recycled artwork per se. Honestly, what I do mind is that they still let Wayne England draw faces (especially humanoid faces) from any perspective other than in profile. He's a talented artist, but the faces he draws are quite ugly and awkward-looking IMHO, and it detracts substantially from his art.

There, I said it.

On the plus side, I'm just happy it's not the following artwork. (I'm not sure who the artist is.)[sblock=From Deities & Demigods (WotC, 2002)]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





That's supposed to be Corellon. The deity. No wonder everyone thought Elves were sissies.[/sblock]Overall, I think the artwork is better in 4E than it was in 3E, if only because there's the same artists I liked (and more of them!), but fewer of the ones I didn't.


----------



## Nai_Calus (Apr 22, 2009)

doctorhook said:


> On the plus side, I'm just happy it's not this artwork: [sblock=From Deities & Demigods (WotC, 2002)]
> 
> 
> 
> ...




As a testament to how truly bad that picture is, I knew it was going to be that picture the instant I saw what book it was from. 

I still want to figure out who drew it so I can whack them with the cover of 2E FR's Demihuman Deities. Or the original picture of him from 1E D&Dg. Or the one from On Hallowed Ground. Or even the one from Monster Mythology.

To be fair on the 'sissies' thing, Corellon *was* supposed to be male, female, both and neither, so looking somewhat effeminate kind of fits... But I showed that picture to someone once and their comment was 'Elves worship Hillary Clinton?'. XD I'll stick with Todd Lockwood's for depictions of Corellon, thanks.

I dearly hope they never reuse it for anything. Even Mialee usually looked better.


----------



## hong (Apr 22, 2009)

RangerWickett said:


> http://www.wizards.com/mtg/images/daily/wallpapers/WP_DvDAkroma_1280x960.jpg




Now THAT'S a freakin' deva.


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 22, 2009)

hong said:


> Now THAT'S a freakin' deva.



...and it happens to be from the same artist as my favorite piece from Arcane Power (blue dragons circling tower) - go figure!


----------



## TerraDave (Apr 22, 2009)

I looked at this in the store yesterday. It actually looks good...including the (new) art.

Still, it could have used, say, 9 more pieces of it.


----------

