It is has been quite awhile since there was a Dragon’s-Eye View article that I wanted to comment on. While I am not a fan of Forgotten Realms, I do like the quality of this concept art:
“What do you think of the halfling, now?”
For me it is a Small step in the right direction, proportion-wise anyway. While I found the first pass at halflings to be just a bit too cartoony for my taste—which, at the time I described as “very”, but they kinda grew on me—the greater issue was the proportions: their heads seemed too large, and their feet too small, especially for a race that comes packaged with a Dexterity bonus.
This second draft looks like an in-between of the first halfling draft, and the ones presented in 3rd and 4th Edition: the proportions are still off, but just enough that I think that I think I could pick them out of a lineup without a scale reference, and without seeming too off. In particular I like the ears of the first, and the generally rustic, pastoral look also helps with this association.
Where do you stand on the visual design of the hippogriff? For me it depends on their origin, as the mythological griffin is described as equal parts lion and eagle, with the hippogriff being the rare offspring of a horse and griffin, because, as in Dungeons & Dragons, griffins really like to eat horses (which sucked because they were easier to deal with than griffins).
Dungeons & Dragons, on the other hand, divides them into two similar-but-separate critters. I say, why not stick with a theme? Lions and eagles are griffons, horses and eagles are hippogriffs, and I am totally cool with them having a horse’s arse with a full-on eagle’s head (I think that the 3rd Edition hippogriff looked kind of odd with the beaked-mouthed horse, though the hoofish-talons were kind of neat).
I think the image above is perfectly serviceable (though it was odd that it was the only hippogriff I could find in all of Magic: The Gathering). Similarly, the hippogryph from World of WarCraft is another solid example, albeit with antlers. Actually, why not go further and mash other things with eagles? It is not like animal-plus-animal monsters are exactly an innovation in the game, after all.
You could even try to tie the entire griffo-sphere together with a similar origin, whether it is crazy wizard, nature spirit, or eagle god. Maybe a couple of wizards/spirits/god decided to have a bet on who could make the best eagle-combo.
The new year kicks off with a monster that low-level parties everywhere love kicking, kobolds. There seems to be two camps on kobolds: one wants them to have a dog/rat-like look, while the other prefers the more recent draconic association. I guess it largely depends on whichever kobold you saw first (which for me, if you are not counting D&D, would have been the red blobs from Hydlide).
 |
| I have no idea. |
Though I owned the Basic set most of my earliest D&D memories stem from 2nd Edition, which mentions them having scaly skin, small horns, and a rat-like tail, but that is about it. No mention of an otherwise rat- or dog-like appearance, though if it were not for Tony DiTerlizzi’s drawing—which I feel were the best in the book—I would have probably assumed a tiny, reptilian creature (especially because, yapping-language or no, not all animals make the noises you assume they would).
Given all of this it is probably no surprise that I have almost no issues with Jon’s mission statement. Almost.
First, I do not see why the eyes need to be particularly large. Does that mean that drow are going to have larger-than-normal eyes? Duergar? Darkvision is not a “real-world” thing, so unless the look fits the theme they are going for I would not bother adhering too closely.
While I like that they are sticking with the draconic essence, I think that WotC should go a step further and give them the same scale colors, horns, and crests that dragons have, something that I wished that they would have done this with the dragonborn (which, had they made dragonborn metallic-only could have made for a nice dichotomy…hint hint).
Some people are against the idea of prehensile tails, but I actually dig them, if for no other reason than it is not something I have really seen in D&D. I mean, tieflings could take the Clever Tail feat to nab items and make Thievery checks with them, so why not kobolds?
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 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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
Aside from a few nitpicks, I actually like the look of these goblins quite a bit.
I like the bugbear‘s feet. They look a bit bearish, which is a nice touch. It could stand to look bit bulkier, with a less cat-like face. Also I think its gear should look a bit more scavenged. Well…I guess that depends on if they are working for someone else that can provide quality weapons and armor (like hobgoblins).
With the exception of the muttonchops I dig the hobgoblin, but then not much has changed from previous iterations. They look more civilized than their cousins, and the equipment has its own distinct look.
The goblin looks a bit wilier, and more distinct from what I envision an orc looking like than the first one. Like the bugbear I think the gear could stand to look more scavenged, though I would go a bit further and make it look somewhat cobbled.
I have never had the opportunity to play any of the G-series adventures or the remakes, or really use giants in general (though I have often planned to). I blame them being understandably mid- to high-level threats, a lofty peak that my groups have only achieved a couple of times. In fact the only time I can recall dealing with giants–specifically frost giants–was a mid-level 2nd Edition campaign.
Speaking of older editions, most of the flavor is expected holdovers from earlier editions: stone giants shaping stone, storm giants controlling weather, cloud giants living in castles on clouds, hill giants being stupid, and so on. There is also some new stuff in the mix, such as hill giants ranking each other based on who can eat the most and cloud giants mining silver from clouds.
In addition to a easy to reference bullet-list of giant traits, you can also play guess the giant here.
The only ones I am not positive about are the cloud and storm giants (which I assume to be A and B respectively). Spindly legs aside I think they are mostly okay, though the fire giant’s armor seems…sleeker than what I would have expected, I guess (and I assume the loincloth is made of something that is immune to fire?). Personally I would cleave to Wayne Reynold’s depiction from Secrets of Xen’drik:
Awful Good Games 