Neverwinter new pics - OH GAWD ITZ HEAVAN

[Roguey]

Neverwinter started out as an "online multiplayer game" but has since transitioned into a free to play MMO.

I'm sorry, but I don't see that big of a difference. The top is more colorful and stylized, while the bottom is more earthy in color and equally rediculous looking.... is he really flexing and the door is exploding? I don't know, I've never been satisfied with fantasy medieval art of any letter. It's all incredibly generic and does little to interest me.

Not to mention the anatomy is all wrong and his feet are conveniently covered by exploding door. Hiding feet is always a sign of a bad/mediocre-at-best artist (notice they're hidden in the 4e book too ).

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

I'm not sure this should be in the MMO section. From my understanding Neverwinter won't be a MMO, rather a single player game with coop support. But who the fuck knows anymore.

p. sure it's an mmo. less of a traditional one and more similar to guild wars in structuring.

Very likely, seeing how it uses the same engine as Champions and Star Trek Online. Which is a good thing I may add, it's a very good combat model to start with.

 

[titus]

Great then! Just what the world needs, a new DDO.
Maybe The Brazilian Slaughter knows more about it?

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

Great then! Just what the world needs, a new DDO.
Maybe The Brazilian Slaughter knows more about it?

No, he doesn't.

I found Neverwinter Nights a fun, but linear game, though.

 

[roll-a-die]

snip

Eh, the PF Barbarian's art is known to be shit (her outfit is a ripoff of some obscure manga character most notably). There is some good stuff

It's also

Full

of

really

bad

animu

style

characters.

 

[Kane]

somehow i dont think these look "animu style" at all.

this is japanese for me:

those above look like some sort of crossover between "standard western fantasy" (think keith parkinson) and japanese style.

this drawing i just found on the pathfinder website looks a lot more like "standard western".

 

[roll-a-die]

somehow i dont think these look "animu style" at all.

this is japanese for me:


those above look like some sort of crossover between "standard western fantasy" (think keith parkinson) and japanese style.



this drawing i just found on the pathfinder website looks a lot more like "standard western".

I was pulling images straight from my PDF copies I have of the books. It's not so much an animu style, as it is just easier to call it an animu style.

They are vastly over detailed, cluttered, having the new style final fantasy/kingdom hearts/Korean MMO/mock 90s comic art style of oh god a gap in detail, better put a [pocket, knife, sword, bow, etc] there to fill it out. It just comes out looking unreal, and not really fantasy, just meh. When I think fantasy RPG I think,

or possibly even,

'


Not that bullshit up there in my last post. That bullshit doesn't deserve to be called up in the same light as the old DnD/PnP RPG art of ages past. It just looks like something out of a Korean MMO or Kingdom Hearts to me.

 

[commie]

I find the lack of 70's-early 80's chainmail bikinis in this thread disturbing.

 

[SinVraal]

oh god a gap in detail, better put a [pocket, knife, sword, bow, etc] there to fill it out. It just comes out looking unreal, and not really fantasy, just meh.

Or a pouch. WTF is up with them and pouches?

 

[waywardOne]

Or a pouch. WTF is up with them and pouches?

Reagents, for games that make spellcasting less popamole.

 

[laclongquan]

somehow i dont think these look "animu style" at all.

Quality stuff.

 

[deuxhero]

oh god a gap in detail, better put a [pocket, knife, sword, bow, etc] there to fill it out.
.

Pretty sure they have all that because the art reflects the rules (Many things require a "light slashing weapon" to counter, so a lot of PCs, including the example ones illustrated, carry a dagger. Similarly, carrying a bow ensures you can do SOMETHING at range, so most martial PCs have one. One item spell casters need to use most spells is a spell component pounch, so every caster has one, with the well prepared casters often carrying more incase the opponent targets it)

 

[roll-a-die]

oh god a gap in detail, better put a [pocket, knife, sword, bow, etc] there to fill it out.
.

Pretty sure they have all that because the art reflects the rules (Many things require a "light slashing weapon" to counter, so a lot of PCs, including the example ones illustrated, carry a dagger. Similarly, carrying a bow ensures you can do SOMETHING at range, so most martial PCs have one. One item spell casters need to use most spells is a spell component pounch, so every caster has one, with the well prepared casters often carrying more incase the opponent targets it)

Let's take a look at the witch then, witches are spell casters of the heally debuffy sort.

So let's start, staff is understandable. dagger and pouch as well. however, she has a quiver full of bone bodkin arrows without a bow, and at least 2 spare short swords. And the worst part, a spell despite that fact that witches take spells from their animal companion. Lemme find a bigger image so it's more apparent.

And really she's one of the least offensive along with the Gunslinger.


Here's a worse one, the rogue.

Let's see triwielding weapons, second sword on back, belts all over, at least 2 daggers, a pouch, which is understandable, caltrops and the like, but meh, an empty hilt, a dagger in her boot, 3 swords on either shoulder. No second empty hilt for the other dagger in her hand, I could go on about how unrealistic her armor is. But I think the fact that she apparently has hooves by the shape of those shoes is enough to end the argument.

 

[abija]

Erm, the hilt for the sword is on her back not a second sword, hilt for the dagger unaccounted for is the other boot and the ones on the shoulders are very obvious daggers not swords looking at the handle design.
If you want to do pointless analysis at least do it right.

 

[deuxhero]

I am pretty sure those are wands, not arrows. I'm pretty sure the rogue is supposed to throw her dagger then draw a new one. Again, both art reflecting mechanics.

 

[Baron]

D&D artwork should remain forever trapped in the Elmore dimension.

 

[roll-a-die]

Erm, the hilt for the sword is on her back not a second sword, hilt for the dagger unaccounted for is the other boot and the ones on the shoulders are very obvious daggers not swords looking at the handle design.
If you want to do pointless analysis at least do it right.

There is no visible sheath on the other boot, like there is for the one with the dagger. Those daggers are also improperly designed to be throwing daggers, they look far too heavy and long. Also I mistook the flange on that sheath for a pommel I apologize.


The witch also can't use rods or wands as far as I recall. Either that or my Pathfinder DM was fucking with me. They trade stuff like that for hexes and curses.

 

[Telengard]

I want to do some pointless anal-ysis.

• Metal is reflective. No rogue in her right mind would wear that much metal. All those studs, the piercings, the partly exposed weaponry above the sheaths - all of that will reflect light, making it difficult to hide.
• Those sheaths aren't locking, nor are the weapons tied in. Unless they are held in by magic, the ones in her back are going to fall out as soon as she moves.
• She is right-handed. The sword sheath should be loosely counter tied instead of tightly tied so that she could draw it with the right hand instead of having to pull the scabbard with the right while drawing with the left hand and then exchanging grips.
• No rogue worth her salt would wear multiple metal rings close enough together to clank. Nor would she use ring tie chains.
• No rogue would wear things that jangle on a ring. Those things go in a leather separating pouch.
• Belts restrict movement, reducing both flexibility and range of movement. It is highly unlikely that a rogue would wear multiple belts where one would suffice.
• Daggers in boots are hard to get to. The only reason to put a dagger there, particularly since she has so many elsewhere, is if it were concealed.

I could go on, but that's enough pointless analysis for me.

 

[ohWOW]

You discuss shit here, when it's clear to everybody that's just shit. Why to waste more words?

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

I want to do some pointless anal-ysis.

• Metal is reflective. No rogue in her right mind would wear that much metal. All those studs, the piercings, the partly exposed weaponry above the sheaths - all of that will reflect light, making it difficult to hide.
• Those sheaths aren't locking, nor are the weapons tied in. Unless they are held in by magic, the ones in her back are going to fall out as soon as she moves.
• She is right-handed. The sword sheath should be loosely counter tied instead of tightly tied so that she could draw it with the right hand instead of having to pull the scabbard with the right while drawing with the left hand and then exchanging grips.
• No rogue worth her salt would wear multiple metal rings close enough together to clank. Nor would she use ring tie chains.
• No rogue would wear things that jangle on a ring. Those things go in a leather separating pouch.
• Belts restrict movement, reducing both flexibility and range of movement. It is highly unlikely that a rogue would wear multiple belts where one would suffice.
• Daggers in boots are hard to get to. The only reason to put a dagger there, particularly since she has so many elsewhere, is if it were concealed.

I could go on, but that's enough pointless analysis for me.

I will just point out that not all Rogues are thieves and not all Rogues sneak around.

 

[SuicideBunny]

There is no visible sheath on the other boot, like there is for the one with the dagger.

that's because the other one is obscured by the leg, you dolt. at least that animu bullshit has consistent quality, unlike that runequest pic you linked, which is just terribly bad.

 

[deuxhero]

The witch also can't use rods or wands as far as I recall. Either that or my Pathfinder DM was fucking with me. They trade stuff like that for hexes and curses.

Witches can use wands, it just has to have a Witch spell (which actually means they get one of the most useful wands: Cure Light Wounds), just like a Wizard or Sorcerer can use any wand with a Wizard/Sorcerer spell and a Cleric can use any wand with a Cleric spell (and unlike scrolls, wands don't need to match on Arcane vs Divine)).

 

[SinVraal]

D&D artwork should remain forever trapped in the Elmore dimension.

Amen brother!

 

[kris]

The most offensive piece on those 4th edition fronts are the weapons.

 

[Mary Sue Leigh]

I'm now officially excited about this one. And I will get beta access apparently. Anyone else? Or actually, anyone else who wants to pre-set a partay? I'm not decided myself, I love thief, but if there's no cute-as-button halflings it would be annoying... same for bard.. probably a feisty dwarf-ess cleric then? Heals good. :D
And everyone likes a support who can probably do some damage/tanking herself, too..