ah true the line up crime scene style were not the best in the world, but you'd have to admit they were better at showing each elf type than just writing
Eladrin also called moon elves, star elves, sun elves and have varety of x color for skin tone, eye color and hair color.
which is just about the problem in the matter when per say all they show is the moon elf and or star elf( which get mistaken for moon elves)
how about a scenery art with a variety of different elves, etc in them for each ??
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
I don't quite have examples, mainly because I'm too lazy to sift through google results, looking for the examples I'm looking for, but my thoughts boil down to a simple set of guidelines:
1) Chainmail bikinis and boob-plates and the like should be as far away as possible. Female adventurers should be just as realistically armed and armored as Male adventurers. Remember, you can make female adventurers attractive, without oversexualizing them. I don't particularly think this would happen, since WotC has shyed away from the chainmail-bikini style art, for a while now, but I put it as guideline #1, because it is the most important guideline, to me. 1a) As an addition to the above, the depicted roles of adventurers in art should be relatively equally spread across the genders. It's a bit of a trope to make males the frontline, heavy armored, types, and have the females be the Archers, and spellcasters, or otherwise non-front line. Thus, it presents the thought that the Male adventurers are the protecters, and thus, the female adventurers, even if otherwise reasonably armed and armored, need to be protected. 1b) Final sub-point on the above, but I want to see a relatively equal number of male and female adventurers in the art. Not nessisarily 50/50, perhaps, but I'd want to see no more than a 60/40 distribution.
2) I want to see a distribution of different fantasy styles in the art. This can, and probably should, be laxed, in setting books, but in books independant of setting (The core three, for example). But I feel this is the best way to please the most people, and more importantly, make it clear the modular goal of the system: that one playstyle is not the "official" style. Thus, there should be Low fantasy, but also high fantasy, heroic fantasy, sword and sorcery, and even perhaps urban fantasy (drawing perhaps on art from Ebberon) and maybe even gothic horror-inspired art. Now I don't particularly like some of the over the top art of 4e, but I think if enough people actually like it, a (perhaps somewhat toned down) version like it, could be in, on occasion.
3) I want to see more than just combat art. That's one of the bigger reasons I dislike 4e art. At first, I kind of liked it, but after too long, of just seeing jumbled fight scene after jumbled fight scene, it gets irritating. Show parties crowding around a table at the inn. Show a bard trying to fast talk the barron, show the party cautiously creeping around the Mauseleum of Iadrik the Gruesome, without any enemies in sight, except maybe a few ominous shadows. D&D art should reflect D&D.
4) I want to see a large number of "Iconics." They don't need to be named and refered to in the text, like iconics in prior editions, nessisarily, but I want to see them make reappearances. Heck, I think it would be cool for this to be combined with #2, to show the same characters, in different fantasy styles. For example, a party can be seen in a low fantasy style, fighting a dragon, then shown later, lurking around a cityscape at night, then later in the book, shown in a misty graveyard, with a cathedral vaguely off in the background, partially obscuring a full moon, in a gothic horror style. 4a) If recurring characters show up in the books such as this, I'd prefer if most of them aren't the stereotypical class-race combinations. For example, the halfling rogue, in a party with the dwarven fighter, and the elven wizard isn't nearly going to be as exciting to me, as the party with the dwarven rogue, the halfling fighter, and the Half-orc wizard. Even if it isn't that drastic, I've really had it with the so-called "Iconic" classes and races. They really have gotten stale, especially when used in their stereotypical combination.
Well, that's all I can think of for now.
I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.
I wonder what people have against the chain mail bikini and dont mention red sonya, she doesnt wear one,hers is actuall scale. her author did say that it was never intended to be armor... it must be the metal part that people assoscaite with it being armor...
but there are fighting styles for an unarmored to deal with an armored aponent. There are a few reasons as to why that english longsword has a cross guard on the pommel, and if you've heard the phrase pommeled to death....
well no matter...
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
I don't quite have examples, mainly because I'm too lazy to sift through google results, looking for the examples I'm looking for, but my thoughts boil down to a simple set of guidelines:
1) Chainmail bikinis and boob-plates and the like should be as far away as possible. Female adventurers should be just as realistically armed and armored as Male adventurers. Remember, you can make female adventurers attractive, without oversexualizing them. I don't particularly think this would happen, since WotC has shyed away from the chainmail-bikini style art, for a while now, but I put it as guideline #1, because it is the most important guideline, to me. 1a) As an addition to the above, the depicted roles of adventurers in art should be relatively equally spread across the genders. It's a bit of a trope to make males the frontline, heavy armored, types, and have the females be the Archers, and spellcasters, or otherwise non-front line. Thus, it presents the thought that the Male adventurers are the protecters, and thus, the female adventurers, even if otherwise reasonably armed and armored, need to be protected. 1b) Final sub-point on the above, but I want to see a relatively equal number of male and female adventurers in the art. Not nessisarily 50/50, perhaps, but I'd want to see no more than a 60/40 distribution.
2) I want to see a distribution of different fantasy styles in the art. This can, and probably should, be laxed, in setting books, but in books independant of setting (The core three, for example). But I feel this is the best way to please the most people, and more importantly, make it clear the modular goal of the system: that one playstyle is not the "official" style. Thus, there should be Low fantasy, but also high fantasy, heroic fantasy, sword and sorcery, and even perhaps urban fantasy (drawing perhaps on art from Ebberon) and maybe even gothic horror-inspired art. Now I don't particularly like some of the over the top art of 4e, but I think if enough people actually like it, a (perhaps somewhat toned down) version like it, could be in, on occasion.
3) I want to see more than just combat art. That's one of the bigger reasons I dislike 4e art. At first, I kind of liked it, but after too long, of just seeing jumbled fight scene after jumbled fight scene, it gets irritating. Show parties crowding around a table at the inn. Show a bard trying to fast talk the barron, show the party cautiously creeping around the Mauseleum of Iadrik the Gruesome, without any enemies in sight, except maybe a few ominous shadows. D&D art should reflect D&D.
4) I want to see a large number of "Iconics." They don't need to be named and refered to in the text, like iconics in prior editions, nessisarily, but I want to see them make reappearances. Heck, I think it would be cool for this to be combined with #2, to show the same characters, in different fantasy styles. For example, a party can be seen in a low fantasy style, fighting a dragon, then shown later, lurking around a cityscape at night, then later in the book, shown in a misty graveyard, with a cathedral vaguely off in the background, partially obscuring a full moon, in a gothic horror style. 4a) If recurring characters show up in the books such as this, I'd prefer if most of them aren't the stereotypical class-race combinations. For example, the halfling rogue, in a party with the dwarven fighter, and the elven wizard isn't nearly going to be as exciting to me, as the party with the dwarven rogue, the halfling fighter, and the Half-orc wizard. Even if it isn't that drastic, I've really had it with the so-called "Iconic" classes and races. They really have gotten stale, especially when used in their stereotypical combination.
I firmly believe that there should be two editions of the game; the core rules released as a "Basic" set and a more complicated expanded rules edition released as an "Expert" set. These two editions would provide separate entry points to the game; one for new players or players that want a more classic D&D game and another entry point for experienced gamers that want more options and all the other things they have come to expect from previous editions.
Also, they must release several rules modules covering the main elements of the game (i.e., classes, races, combat, magic, monsters, etc.) upon launch to further expand the game for those that still need more complexity in a particular element of the game.
This boxed set contains a simple, "bare bones" edition of the game; the core rules. It's for those that want a rules-light edition of the game that is extremely modifiable or for new players that get intimidated easily by too many rules and/or options. The Basic Set contains everything needed to play with all the "classic" D&D races (i.e., Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling) and classes (i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) all the way up to maximum level (i.e., 20th Level).
The Basic boxed set contains:
Quick Start Rules A "choose your own way" adventure intended as an intro to RPGs and basic D&D terms. Player's Handbook (Softcover, 125 pages) Features rules for playing the classic D&D races and classes all the way up to 20th level. Dungeon Master's Guide (Softcover, 125 pages) Includes the basic rules for dungeon masters.
Monster Manual (Softcover, 100 pages) Includes all the classic iconic monsters from D&D.
Introductory Adventure (Keep on the Borderlands) An introductory adventure for beginning players and DMs.
Also includes:
Character Sheets Reference Sheets Set of Dice
ExpertSet
A set of hardbound rules that contains the core rules plus expanded races and classes, more spells and a large selection of optional rules modules — that is, pretty much everything that experienced players have come to expect. Each expert edition manual may be purchased separately, or in a boxed set. The Expert set includes:
Expert PHB (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus 10 playable races, 10 character classes, expanded selection of spells and rules modules for players.) Expert DMG (Hardcover, 250 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus expanded rules modules for DMs.) Expert MM (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes an expanded list of monsters and creatures to challenge characters)
Expansions
These expansion rules modules can be used with both the Basic and Expert sets. Each expansion covers one specific aspect of the game, such as character creation, combat, spells, monsters, etc.)
Hall of Heroes (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes a vast selection of playable character races and classes, new and old all in one book) Combat and Tactics (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes dozens of new and old optional rules for combat all in one book) Creature Compendium (Hardcover, 350 pages.$35 Includes hundreds of monsters, new and old all in one book) The Grimoire (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes hundreds of new and old spells all in one book)
A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on DamageShow
A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage and Hit Points
In my personal campaigns, I use the following system for damage and dying. It's a slight modification of the long-standing principles etsablished by the D&D game, only with a new definition of what 0 or less hit points means. I've been using it for years because it works really well. However, I've made some adjustments to take advantage of the D&D Next rules. I've decided to present the first part in a Q&A format for better clarity. So let's begin...
What are hit points? The premise is very simple, but often misunderstood; hit points are an abstraction that represent the character's ability to avoid serious damage, not necessarily their ability to take serious damage. This is a very important distinction. They represent a combination of skillful maneuvering, toughness, stamina and luck. Some targets have more hit points because they are physically tougher and are harder to injure...others have more because they are experienced combatants and have learned how to turn near fatal blows into mere scratches by skillful maneuvering...and then others are just plain lucky. Once a character runs out of hit points they become vulnerable to serious life-threatening injuries.
So what exactly does it mean to "hit" with a successful attack roll, then? It means that through your own skill and ability you may have wounded your target if the target lacks the hit points to avoid the full brunt of the attack. That's an important thing to keep in mind; a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean you physically damaged your target. It just means that your attack was well placed and forced the target to exert themselves in such a way as to leave them vulnerable to further attacks. For example, instead of severing the target's arm, the attack merely grazes them leaving a minor cut.
But the attack did 25 points of damage! Why did it only "graze" the target? Because the target has more than 25 hit points. Your attack forced them to exert a lot of energy to avoid the attack, but because of their combat skill, toughness, stamina and luck, they managed to avoid being seriously injured. However, because of this attack, they may not have the reserves to avoid your next attack. Perhaps you knocked them off balance or the attack left them so fatigued they lack the stamina to evade another attack. It's the DM's call on how they want to narrate the exact reason the blow didn't kill or wound the target.
Yeah, but what about "touch" attacks that rely on physical contact? Making physical contact with a target is a lot different than striking them, so these types of attacks are the exception. If a touch attack succeeds, the attacker manages to make contact with their target.
If hit points and weapon damage don't always represent actual damage to the target, then what does it represent? Think of the damage from an attack as more like a "threat level" rather than actual physical damage that transfers directly to the target's body. That is, the more damage an attack does, the harder it is to avoid serious injury. For example, an attack that causes 14 points of damage is more likely to wound the target than 3 points of damage (depending on how many hit points the target has left). The higher the damage, the greater the chance is that the target will become seriously injured. So, an attack that does 34 points of damage could be thought of as a "threat level of 34." If the target doesn't have the hit points to negate that threat, they become seriously injured.
Ok, but shouldn't armor reduce the amount of damage delivered from an attack? It does reduce damage; by making it harder for an attack to cause serious injury. A successful hit against an armored target suggests that the attack may have circumvented the target's armor by striking in a vulnerable area.
What about poison and other types of non-combat damage? Hit point loss from non-physical forms of damage represents the character spitting the poison out just in time before it takes full strength or perhaps the poison just wasn't strong enough to affect them drastically, but still weakens them. Again, it's the DMs call on how to narrate the reasons why the character avoids serious harm from the damage.
If hit points don't don't represent actual damage then how does that make sense with spells like Cure Serious Wounds and other forms of healing like healer kits with bandages? Hit points do represent some physical damage, just not serious physical damage. Healing magic and other forms of healing still affect these minor wounds just as well as more serious wounds. For example, bandaging up minor cuts and abrasions helps the character rejuvenate and relieve the pain and/or fatigue of hit point loss. The key thing to remember is that it's an abstraction that allows the DM freedom to interpret and narrate it as they see fit.
What if my attack reduces the target to 0 or less hit points? If a player is reduced to 0 or less hit points they are wounded. If a monster or NPC is reduce to 0 or less hit points they are killed.
Why are monsters killed immediately and not players? Because unless the monsters are crucial to the story, it makes combat resolution much faster. It is assumed that players immediately execute a coup de grace on wounded monsters as a finishing move.
What if a character is wounded by poison or other types of non-physical damage? If a character becomes wounded from non-combat damage they still receive the effects of being wounded, regardless if they show any physical signs of injury (i.e., internal injuries are still considered injuries).
Ok. I get it...but what happens once a character is wounded? See below.
Damage and Dying
Once a character is reduced to 0 or less hit points, they start taking real damage. In other words, their reserves have run out and they can no longer avoid taking serious damage.
Characters are fully operational as long as they have 1 hit point or more. They may have minor cuts, bruises, and superficial wounds, but they are are not impaired significantly.
Once they reach 0 or less hit points, they become Wounded (see below).That is, they have sustained a wound that impairs their ability to perform actions.
If they reach a negative amount of hit points equal or greater than their Constitution score, they are Incapacitated. This means they are in critical condition and could possibly die.
Characters will die if their hit points reach a negative amount greater than their Constitution score, plus their current level.
Unharmed: 1 hp or more Wounded: 0 hp or less Incapacitated: -(Constitution) to -(Constitution+Level) Dead: Less than -(Constitution +Level)
Wounded When the character reaches 0 or less hit points they become wounded. Wounded characters receive disadvantage on all attacks and saving throws until they heal back up to 1 hit point or more. This allows for a transitory stage between healthy and dying, without having to mess around with impairment rules while the character still has hit points left.
Incapacitated Characters begin dying when they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution score. At which point, they must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw on each of their following turns (the disadvantage from being wounded does not apply for these saving throws).
If successful, the character remains dying, but their condition does not worsen.
If the saving throw fails, another DC 10 Constitution saving throw must be made. If that one fails, the character succumbs to their wounds and dies. If successful, the character stabilizes and is no longer dying.
Finally, if a dying character receives first aid or healing at any point, they immediately stabilize.
Dead Characters will die if they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution, plus their current level. Thus, if an 8th level character with a Constitution score of 12 is down to 4 hit points then takes 24 points of damage (reducing their hit points to -20) the attack kills them outright.
Virtually all the art from AD&D 2e Planescape is a keeper in my book. Actually, the only AD&D 2e books that I kept were my Plancescape ones (for the art) and the Van Richten's Guides (still a good read that inspires adventure ideas).
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
I can totally respect this POV, but I really don't want it to be the only POV represented in the core books.
For low fantasy, I'd love Jon Hodgeson to be the go to guy.
Anyway, low fantasy images definately have a place, but I want a range from that to "dungeon punk". I just don't really dig Elmore specifically. :P I suppose I'd be ok with his art being in the books, but I'd rather someone like Hodgson covering the low fantasy, or him and a couple other people, for a mix of styles.
Fair enough. I'm never going to argue for inequality just because it doesn't jive with my personal preferences; and in general I don't think most people would either (though there are some) - this thread has renewed a little of my hope in the civility of these forums. And I'm not in support of Elmore being the only low-fantasy artist, there are plenty of ones I like.
I did go back and get out the 4E books and started thinking. While, in general, I don't like the exotic looking races or the higher fantasy style of gameplay (and thus don't like seeing a lot of it reflected in the game's artwork) there are instances where I find even those elements appealing:
That could be any race in that armor and I would still laugh its appearance.
There can also be a lot of really horrible (opinion) looking low-fantasy art - including some of Elmore. In the end, as long as there is a mix of artists and styles, I think we'll all be ok. Would I prefer an abundance of grittier, less exotic, low fantasy art? Yes, because that reflects my play style - but if there are also giant lizard-men in really spikey Final Fantasy looking armor with huge swords, I'll probably laugh a little at it to myself, but I'm not gonna write a letter of complaint or not buy by the book because of it. And heck, even some of the higher-fantasy stuff is sometimes inspiring to me so it's worthwhile (to me) for it to be kept in just for those instances.
What's the matter, you dissentious rogues, That rubbing the poor itch of your opinion Make yourselves scabs?
ah true the line up crime scene style were not the best in the world, but you'd have to admit they were better at showing each elf type than just writing
Eladrin also called moon elves, star elves, sun elves and have varety of x color for skin tone, eye color and hair color.
which is just about the problem in the matter when per say all they show is the moon elf and or star elf( which get mistaken for moon elves)
how about a scenery art with a variety of different elves, etc in them for each ??
I'd love scenery art, made with some attempt at it having it's own context, that showed the cultural and ethnic diversity of the race being depicted.
That would be really cool. Cool enough that I'd be ok with sacrificing a whole page per race for said art.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I think that a lot of the old Elmore stuff was also a result of him still being a developing artist, to be fair. I'd guess that his best stuff was probably more recent than his worst.
Anyway, yeah, the 4e art really isn't as extreme as people make it out to be, but the specific examples are bad enough that a lot of people just remember then, and forget the huge number of reasonable swords, non ridiculous armor, etc.
Those two dragonborn are a great example of the range of how that race is depicted, and the bounty hunter reminds us that exotic races don't preclude down to earth, realistic art.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
but how would one go and do the odd man races, like the half elf, the half orc, the tiefling and the aasimar/deva???
elves and eladrin(I so do hope they put them back as one main race instead oftwo) could be done in a wooded area with a crystal and marble structure talking between each other, have a lythari skulking in the shadows, an avarieal sitting in a tree, a sun, moon, a wild, a dark( non drow), a wood, and a star elf conversing about whatever,
this unfortunately does leave out the aquatic elves which could just be mentioned and described.
the dwarves could be portrayed running a forged together or sitting in a dwarven tavern raising a mug together, which wouldnt be that hard, depending on the dwarves used, its either mountain or hill dwarf, shield or gold dwarf, or wahtever eberron uses....
Halflings.... well lets see what halflings coem back, but we could have the lightfoot and a stoutheart halfing teaming up to rob some human and ahve the ghostwise watching from an alley shaking his head....|( this does leave out any and all greyhawk and eberron halflings and only becasue I'm not familiar enough with each of them to know any of them besides the tallfellows... or something)
the gnomes could be portrayed in a communal image portraying simple illusion magics, rock and forest..... yeah I know cheasey.
the drow and duergar could be portrayed shaking on a deal in a underdark chamber..
the half breeds namely the half orc and half elf, I'm not sure how to portray them in a scenery unless sitting at a bar eveily eyeing the other.
The aasimar/deva could be portrayed sitting in some strange location playing a game of chess.
the human art would still portray a problem, which ethnicticty of the settings to use... or use rw ones. but arguing in a town square would be logical being taht in the rw it does seem to be what we all waist time doing anyway...
and I'm not sure on the dragonborn... if it even returns in 5e( excuse me whikle I dont keep up with dev blogs an stuff)
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
Looked at the exotic pictures... and I just don't see the aesthetic. This is one of the reasons I don't like using them because I don't get it, despite keeping up with D&D in its incarnations. The game has always been a box of tools to play with. And my kit just doesn't happen to have dragonborn, eladrin, and tieflings in the games. I guess its a matter of to each their own. Personally, these are fine creations, but something so exotic should wait for the generic guys to go first. To say that the exotic being are part of the automatic assumption feels so jarring for me and really mettles with my suspension of disbelief... (In a game where flying lizards and magic exists?) You could also say it rustled my jimmies too. (Such a strange phrase... Only on the internet, I suppose.) Now, every artists has their successes and flops because no one is perfect. I'm still practicing and think most of my stuff is mediocre.
Disgruntled ghost of the Knights of W.T.F. (Keep D&D alive, end the edition wars!)
"And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Disclaimer: Most of my posts are based on opinions (and are sometimes humorous, other times inspirational)
