D&D Next: Concept Art

I noticed this thread on RPG.net today, which linked to a DeviantArt account brimming with D&D Next concept art (looks like the artist’s actual site can be found here). A lot of it is stuff that we have already seen, but there are plenty of new things in there, too (like the yaun-ti, ogre mage, and kuo-toa).

I think a lot of it looks good, particularly the humans, elves, dwarves, and aboleth: the armor and clothing look a lot more functional, and aside from the female dwarf and maybe one of the halflings there was nary a boob-window in sight (at least on the women that looked like they were supposed to be adventuring; the sun elf gets a pass, because she is wearing a bright yellow dress).

I am disappointed that the goblin, fire giant, and halflings have not seen any changes: the goblin still looks too much like an orc for my taste, the fire giant looks bland with its flat, shiny armor, and I am still not sold on the halfling’s big head and tiny feet.

Also, I think the hell hound and spectre are both pretty uninspiring, and the mind flayer looks very much unpolished. Still, these are concepts and the game is still yet a ways away, so maybe we will get some interesting, polished art down the road.

Dragon’s-Eye View: Assassin Devil

The shadow-stuff stuff actually makes sense, two horns are pretty bog-standard, and the indigo skin I can deal with, but why would an assassin devil be six feet tall and wear armor that is even partially made of iron? Something like the shadow from A Clash of Kings makes more sense. There are quite a few entries to choose from, so I was kind of surprised that I only kind of like four of them, art direction be damned:

I think the third image does the best job overall. Though I cannot see its face, it looks the most like what I would expect an assassin to look like, and less like a front-line warrior. I did find it odd that some decided to try and go with normal-to-sexy faces anyway (such as the first one), as well as all the exposed skin and armor with boob-windows (when it was not shaped like boobs in the first place).

I guess the above images I chose are okay, but none of them are really interesting or inspiring. When I think assassin devil, I do not think of indigo skin and iron bits. If anything else, I would imagine something more…inconspicuous? I could see an assassin devil killing someone and wearing their skin, or at least completely covered in black. Maybe it has some sort of camouflaging ability?

On that note the second and third poll questions were also kind of strange. The best for use in D&D? Without concern for appropriateness? Are they trying to avoid nudity or excessive gore? Are they looking for a certain style? To me D&D has never really had a universally solid theme or style going on, though certain settings had their defining artists (namely Tony DiTerlizzi for Planescape and Brom for Dark Sun). The images look like they could have a place in a D&D book but, again, they are kind of boring.

Dragon’s-Eye View: Short People

When I said I was hoping for insanity-inducing artwork, I was not expecting this.

In all seriousness I am not sure where I stand. While they do look friendly, folksy, and cute, the large head and tiny feet also makes them look top-heavy, like they would have a difficult time staying upright (which contrasts with their Dexterity bonus). They also look very cartoon-y, like something you would expect from a Disney or Pixar flick. While not inherently bad on its own, it might contrast poorly with the overall look of D&D.

Seriously, I can imagine a “Pixar presents” caption.

From head to waist they look fine, though the broad face and large nose makes me think of gnomes. Really the main thing that seems off are the tiny feet. I would bulk up the legs, maybe reduce the head a bit, and then see what people think.

Dragons-Eye View: Dragons. Dragons. Dragons.

A Dragon’s-Eye View on dragons? While we saw the concept art in one of the GenCon keynote videos (or in person if you were lucky enough to go), it is nice to finally get a discussion on the look of dragons. Well the red dragon anyway, which is fine since it is both an iconic dragon–appearing on plenty of product covers–and is my favorite.

Personally I like both, though lean a bit more towards the style of Lockwood’s. While I can kind of see the “brute” as representative of a young red dragon (or, at least very angry), I tend to view the white dragon as the more simple, brutish types (and not just because that was their role in 4th Edition). Personality-wise, reds have always come across as more arrogant and confident, which is better exemplified by Lockwood’s rendition.

I find it interesting that he talks about making the smallest size category essentially Large, which is the approach 4th Edition took until they got around to releasing wyrmlings in the Draconomicon books. In 2nd Edition they could range from 4 feet, to just over 350 at their oldest (or 70 squares from head to tail if you wanted to try conveying this on a battle map). 3rd Edition had a similar ranges of sizes, from Small to Colossal (I think there was even a Colossal+).

In this case, size matters. If nothing else keeping the smallest size as Large certainly implies a sense of danger that you do not get from human or halfling sized dragons, which always seemed more appropriate for dragon-like creatures such as drakes. I think trying to determine the size range is a very important question, and was surprised that it was not a poll choice.

I think that one of my pet peeves is dragons having inherent spellcasting levels. Not spell-like abilities, but effectively having wizard/sorcerer levels; the idea of a dragon conjuring a Tenser’s floating disc or pew-pewing adventurers with scorching rays just rubs me the wrong way. Access to thematically appropriate magic or spell-like abilities is fine.

A good idea of what I am thinking are the dragonshouts from Skyrim (ironically probably the very game he mentions disliking for its ease of dragon-slaying). I recall something to the effect that a lot of magical writing was in Draconic, which meshes well with the idea of the dragon language being inherently magical (kind of like truenames).

Dragon’s-Eye View: Undead

Jon talks undead, specifically ghosts and the ghost-like specter and wraith. He first asks about the visual differences between the three. No mechanics, just that if you described them to a player if they could tell them apart. Based on his descriptions and art, I could say that save for the ghost and spectre yeah, they are pretty easy to tell apart. The problem is that I do not like any of the art (and disagree on the flavor material concerning the wraith).

The ghost has an exaggerated pose, like she got shoved, and I guess the sample specter’s manner of violent death was by being skinned? The wraith just looks silly, with its contorted arms and massive right hand. Like the lizardfolk and troglodyte none of this art looks like that anyone was trying very hard, and I hope it all gets scrapped. Also if wraiths are spirits that have been bound to a location, why must they be depicted in armor?  They could just as easily retain their appearance from previous editions, skulking about the place they must guard and ambush intruders.

In 2nd Edition the images of the ghost and spectre looked like the same old lady, just in different colored clothing. 3rd Edition the descriptions were basically the same, except the ghost entry mentioned that “in some cases the spiritual form is somewhat altered” (though provides no examples or limitations), while spectres often displayed the evidence of a violent death. 4th Edition deviated from this model by having ghosts look humanoid (or whatever creature it is a ghost of), with specters looking more like amorphous, vaguely humanoid masses of spirit-stuff.

The wraith is really the odd man out, here. The 2nd Edition picture shows a shadowy shape with roiling smoke for feet, whose skeletal face glows with an internal light. The 3rd Edition wraith looks more like tattered, black cloth with a vaguely humanoid shape. 4th Edition kind of mixed the two, giving us something that looks like a humanoid figure shrouded in black clothing, with glowing eyes and mouth.

So how would I describe them?

I am not entirely opposed to ghosts having the largely traditional “ghost” form that we have come to expect: semi-transparent, blue, white, green, etc color, and perhaps the feet are wispy trails. They could also radiate a soft glow, and I imagine that when they move their form dissipates briefly, solidifying once they stop. In most cases they would appear as they did at their time of death, so if they were injured, mutilated, or executed it would be readily apparent.

Spectres/specters are a bit more difficult to differentiate. If they were victims of violent deaths, I would want to emphasize this more. I like the direction that 4th Edition took, making them appear less composed and more chaotic. If they are so wrapped in rage and hatred, it would make sense to have their spirit forms reflect this. Maybe their eyes glow, too?

While I like the appearance of wraiths (from previous editions, that is), the idea of them being spirits bound to complete or guard something does not really convey that idea. Why not represent this angle with bracers, shackles (that either trail off or drag on the ground), runes circling their heads, or searing writing on their skin indicative of their contract?

Dragon’s-Eye View: More Goblins

Like the article on the gnoll, there is not much to say here. Unlike the gnoll however, what I have to say about the goblin is not positive.

I prefer the goblin in the lower-left hand corner despite it being just a sketch, and from the comments I see that I am not alone (though others seem to like the third one from the left on the bottom row). The largest take looks like a kind of scrawny orc.

I guess I was expecting something more…spindly, I guess, akin to the works of Tony DiTerlizzi or something out of a Guillermo del Toro flick, though even Mike Mignola or Wayne Reynold‘s treatment from Magic: The Gathering would suffice.

I also like the bottom-left goblin because his gear looks a bit more cobbled, which is something that I expect from goblins (and to a point, bugbears, though not hobgoblins).

Dragon’s-Eye View: Making of an Owlbear, Part 2

Another encounter with owlbears? At least, to a point, it indicates that they are paying attention.

I never really liked the whole “a wizard did it” treatment. Not just because I have no seen magic that let a wizard fuse two things together–which could be pretty awesome–but because it also seems lazy. Even so I like Oldgrump and his sasquatch-like gait, while the beak on Longbeak does not make me think of owl (even though it matches what we have seen), and Tallgrizz’s action-hero pose seems kind of out of place.

Out of track 2 I actually kind of like Screecher. I could see it as an owlbear-variant, but I think I would actually prefer it as another monster entirely. While I do not particularly care for the Gorillowl, to me it looks more like result of a wizard’s experimentations or bizarre magical mutations. Again I would prefer something else for the “core owlbear”, but could see room for both.

The “Grizzowl” is basically exactly what I want: it looks bear-like, dangerous, and seems to walk mostly on all four legs. My only problems are that it looks too expressive (like, sinister), and I guess the beak could be a bit bigger, though I can still easily imagine it mauling adventurers to death with just its claws, chowing down, and then barfing up massive pellets later.

Dragon’s-Eye View: Sexism in Fantasy

Rather than get into the topic of sexism in fantasy art, I am going to focus on what I would do if I were in charge of the visual guidelines for Dungeons & Dragons, starting with what I said about wizards awhile back; have characters that are dressed for the occasion. Like, no female wizards scantily clad in skirts while going dungeon crawling, or warriors with “boob” windows, breast-molded armor, or shoulder pads with little-to-nothing else. I guess a simple rule of thumb would be for artists to think about what a male character would wear, and then have them change it into a woman (pose and all).

In a similar vein outside of profile images intended to show off what races and gear look like, I would not want characters–men or women–to be drawn as if they knew they were posing for an art piece in a role-playing game book. Along with fighting monsters, I also want to see characters preparing to go into a dungeon, telling stories and keeping watch around a campfire, searching a room for traps and loot, kicking back in a tavern after cleaning up a dungeon, and doing other things that are not adventuring. To me these are much more interesting to me then a party standing around posing and staring at me with their meta-glares.

I would also like for the art to imply an actual world: 

• Give me a diverse array of adventurers; young and old, men and women, a variety of skin tones, tall and short, thin and fat, and varying degrees of attractiveness. I am not saying that the entire spectrum needs equal treatment, but I want there to be visual evidence that there is more to the world than heavily muscled men and painfully contorted women. 
• Adventurers are probably not going to have clean, polished weapons, armor, and…nothing else. Warriors are probably packing more than one weapon, wizards should be carting around actual spellbooks and pouches for components, almost everyone should be carrying their own backpack, bedroll, waterskin, rope, and more.
• The appearance of various cultures should also be indicative in the architecture, as well as their clothing and gear. I guess kind of like how 4th Edition did it with the jagged weaponry of tieflings and the geometric armor of a dwarf, just…maybe not so uniform. For example, not all dwarves need to have “dwarfy” armor or wield “dwarfy” weapons. Why not have a human wearing chainmail with a blocky-looking axe, or a halfling with a jagged dagger?

That it is for now. There is probably more, and you can see what other people think in the comments section at the bottom of the article.

Dragon’s Eye View: Dat Hat

What makes a wizard a wizard? Is it the pointy hat? Is it the robe? Wizards touring around crumbling, monster infested ruins wearing pointy hats and long, flowing robes is about as reasonable as female warriors wearing armor that ensures that their toned, supple vital spots are barely covered.

Your mileage may vary.

As I mentioned before when armor was brought up, I think that what a wizard wears depends on the situation; what are they doing, and where?

I can see wizards in an academy setting wearing robes, probably to help identify their station. Even pointy hats could have their place, given that there are plenty of silly hats out there. Should they be the norm? Of course not. Do not get me wrong I want to avoid a return to Mialee’s pouch-robe and Hennet’s belt-suit as much as possible, but wizards on the field should be dressed for the occasion. This probably means that they will look as little like a “traditional” wizard as possible, and more like, well…any other explorer or traveler. Given that intelligent monsters would probably treat them as a priority target, this is a good thing.

Really the only common feature that in my mind unifies wizards are their spellbooks, as implements such a wands and staffs have changed in their purpose over the editions, from fire-and-forget tools to actual arcane focuses. Not that all spellbooks need be made of bound leather and paper, or even be books. I think it was Complete Arcane that had rules for making your spellbook out of other things to make it more durable, and I also recall rules for tattooing spells on yourself and carving them into sticks (so a staff might hold a spell, for example).

Dragon’s-Eye View: Appropriate Armor

I chose “whatever he or she wants”. While I get that the traditional wizard or sorcerer is often seen wearing something between a robe and a bikini, it really should depend on a combination of the race, culture, location, and character’s preference. A wizard in the jungle probably won’t be wearing a robe, and might be indistinguishable from any other explorer. The same goes for a spellcaster in a cold region; she is probably piled under enough furs to equate to leather armor (which it very well could be depending on how armor affects spellcasting). In fact I think that in most cases where a spellcaster is out adventuring she should not be clad in a robe (or revealing outfit).

Frankly, none of these guys are dressed for the occasion.

I’m not a fan of the design of either the first image or the photorealistic one at the bottom, though I did like a lot of what I saw in Lords of the Rings and on A Game of Thrones. I am hoping for something with a good combination of function and style, as well as balance between genders. The side-by-side of the man and woman wielding a club and sporting a shield was okay, except that if they are both supposed to be warriors then why does the woman look so much more frail and passive (and, well, less armored). At least there are not any armor-nipples.

Baby steps, I guess.