D&D 4E Mechanics and Artwork Discussion

From the epic af Art and Arcana book

 

I think the aesthetic of each edition was strongly influenced by the in house studio artists of each era.

Mostly amateur people for original and early 1st (Trampier, Sutherland, Otus), pros like Elmore and Easley after those folks left for late 1st and 2nd, Wayne Reynolds busy GW style stuff for 4th, and Tyler Jacobson and folks bring back a more painterly style reminiscent of Elmore and Easley for 5th (IMO)

 

Nice findings indeed. I found the looks of the 4th edition the most ugly of the newer.

 

Highly recommend the Art and Arcana book if you are interested in the history and evolution of their art department.

 

Thank you for the suggestion i will look in to it.

 

One version of the Owlbear (and rust beast) were inspired from cheap plastic assorted toys

 

Both 4th and 5th look like simplified, soulless kid versions.

 

I'd always wondered if there was a collection of D&D art, especially from the game's start. I didn't know about Art and Arcana, so a big thank you for bringing it to my attention.

 

Man...
I still remember that we were hoping 4th edition will be a mixed version of 2nd and 3rd. We were such naive back then...

 

The Art of the Dungeons & Dragons Fantasy Game (1985), 130 pages arranged by topic (dragons, knights, etc.), majority AD&D but much from non-advanced D&D, mix of color and B&W artwork

The Art of the Dragonlance Saga (1987), 128 pages arranged by topic (concept art, enemies, heroes, minor characters, other), entirely from the Dragonlance series that had started just three years earlier, mix of color and B&W artwork

The Art of the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Fantasy Game (1989), 120 pages arranged by author (Elmore, Caldwell, Easley, Parkinson, and for whatever reason Fred Fields, plus miscellaneous at the end), not entirely restricted to Advanced D&D, almost entirely color artwork

 

3rd ed owlbear looks the best by far

 

Gonna be honest, I always thought the idea of owlbears was stupid. It only gets a free pass because it's one of the classic monsters.
3e version looks best though

 

Reminder that owlbears make no sense and look kinda stupid because they are based on cheap Chinese toys, like other classic D&D monsters:



https://diterlizzi.com/essay/owlbears-rust-monsters-and-bulettes-oh-my/

 

4e art was horrible.

 

Was there anything at all in 4E that was not horrible?

 

Alot, yes. It didn't have much to do with D&D, but it's extremely fun to do battle in. It's easily my least favourite system for D&D P&P, but for tactical almost warlike "campaigns" it's awesome. It's a crime against tactical PC-gaming that we never got a full-fledged video game with strict adherence to its rules.

The art, however, is unforgivable. It's part of the worst trend in fantasy art and in many ways even worse than the otherwise worse offenders like WoW.

 

To each his own, I guess. For me 4E's homogenization of classes and carbon copied powers made combat - the core reason to play D&D - a borefest with same shit powers every time and all the time. Like some fucking mmo game, which is what they tried to emulate in my opinion.

 

Tactical combat and the way it plays at the table are the things I hate most about 4E. The formalization of class roles (leader, defender, striker controller) was an aberration, and the exaggerate amount of monsters' HP forced you to spam your very limited at-will powers over and over and over. To make it even remotely playable you have to halve the HP of every single monster, but this doesn't change the fact that you are forced to spam your very limited at-will options during every encounter.

 

I never understood the MMO-criticism. I refuse to believe anyone who played the game more than once or twice would hold to that criticism. A video-game with 4E rules would be a deeply, tactical, crunchy hardcore game, very far from MMO-homogenization and tight limits on customization. In most ways, a 4E character is way more customizable than a 5E character, which is one my only criticisms of 5E btw (too narrow customization).

4E failed entirely as a role-playing game. Not because it was shallow or poorly designed or "MMO-like", but because it was almost entirely a complex board game rather than a roleplaying-game.

I completely agree with this criticism (the HP-tuning, to be exact). It's one of the main problems with the system. But I know of no systems without core problems, and this one, at least, is fairly easily house-ruled.

The role-criticism I don't understand. I think it worked very well in a boardgamey-way. There's a reason the Warlord survived to 5E, it's a very neat take on an exiting system concept. And when they released expansion books, the roles were sufficiently dissolved for the crowd who understood the system enough.

 

Because WotC barely puts any thought into martials. It was the first time that martials were capable of doing more than "attack"
WotC throwing martials a bone was one of the few things 4E did well.

 

Let me introduce you to one of the best D&D 3.5 handbooks:



But yes, it basically was a testing ground for certain mechanics of 4E.

 

Iirc it only introduced new classes rather than actually fixing the existing ones.

 

Yes, but it introduced three martial classes (and 8 prestige classes) that had tons of options. It also has a very rough sketch of the at-will, per encounter, and daily powers system.

 

Spoken like someone who's never used a combat maneuver in his life. Do the words "Grapple", "Disarm" or "Trip" mean anything to you?

And no, giving fighters magic powers so they can draw aggro and hit with their sword extra hard once per day like 4e did was not a good solution to anything.

 

Grapple is unarmed combat and is worthless if you aren't strength-based, most enemies can't be disarmed, and trip is exactly one ability which didn't even exist until ...3e, I think, and again worthless if you aren't strength-based.

If anyone sees Vancian magic, they immediately think of D&D. It is a mechanic that defines D&D, you cannot separate it and D&D.
There is absolutely nothing like that for martials. Nothing, not even close.