1. No More Elminster and Other Super Powerful NPCs
What never really made much sense to me were all the Super Powerful Epic leveled NPCs running around Faerun. Elminster was a prime example, capable of almost any spell known to man, and possessing tons of powerful artifacts, but did anyone ever actually use him in their games? I'm sure he popped up from time to time, he makes a great benefactor-type NPC requesting the hero's help for some task that is too small for his attention but too large to be ignored. However, does the fact that he can cast Magic Missile at a 30th casting level matter? If you notice, all the good NPCs (Elminster, Bruenor, Simbul, Blackstaff etc.) lost a lot of power. While the Villains (Fzoul Chembryl, Jarlaxle, Manshoon, Szass Tam etc.) all got stronger. What this means to me is that the fate of the world is in our hands, not Elminster's.
2. Ease of Use
I love that the book is in Alphabetical order and easy to use. I actually just now forgot how to spell Szass Tam, and looked up Thay (which he now rules) and looked his name up in less than a few flips of the pages. No matter how nice the 3rd edition Player's Handbook was, you could NEVER do that. It was so chock full of information, and it was hard to tell where entries began and stopped. I liked the small section on Adventuring, and that they offer us a fully fleshed town of Loudwater. Although that could have been in the back I suppose (which is what they normally did) it has no adverse affect at all.
3. Fine Artwork and Maps
Always the most important part for me is the art. And I'm glad that they stopped relying on Sam Wood and Todd Lockwood all the time for everything (although they are talented) and got rid of Wayne England (The guy with the really weird and horrible drawings of people that all look the same) Each illustration is amazing, and I'm very pleased. Except for the Draegloth on pg. 249, I had no idea what it was at first, then I realized it was a Draegloth and it looks horrible. I miss Jeggred (who should still be alive unless someone killed him) Secondly, the Maps are great. The old map was fine, but having the country posted on every entry helps A LOT, you don't have to keep cross referencing with a giganto map, and looking at the Giant Map in the back, I'm pleased, I might try to get it framed.
4. The Changes in the Landscape
Frankly, overall, I feel all the changes made were necessary. There were too many gods for one thing. It's nice to have finally changed them, even if it's only a bit. I like that the countries are not the same, and some of the landscape has changed drastically after the "Spellplague" because these changes really needed to be made, we have had the same Forgotten Realms for 30 years or so, I'm glad that we finally have something new.
5. The Cover
Am I the only one who noticed the different cover with no Drizzt? That's ok, but what is amazing is if you look beneath the dragon's wing, you can see somebodies name at the bottom of the cover: Ed Greenwood. So thank you MR. Greenwood for all your amazing work, and even though this book may feel barebones, it's so that the power is back in the DM's hand instead of Wizard's.
So in Conclusion
The Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide is worth your money. DO NOT listen to the negative nancies who want to say that Wizard's has RUINED Forgotten Realms. Instead, I reach my hand to those Negative Nancies, if you want your realmslore, then just make it. :D
If there's one disclaimer for the FRCG, though, it's that this is a book for A. DMs, and B. Realm afficionados. There's very little 'crunch' in, and what there is is stuff only the DM is going to really need. It looks like they're saving that stuff for the FRPG next month.The art was OK and the guide is easy to use I will grant. But the changes were completely as noted in many other threads
I like the 4e Realms, but I have to say I disagree with virtually everything you've said here. The book for me, was only made worth it by saving around $20 off the cover price, and getting it before everyone else.
Beyond that, I'd have to say the most glaring and disappointing feature of the book is its artwork. The cover is deplorable. Perhaps people with no artistic background, or appreciation for pieces such as Lockwoods can tell, but the glaring artistic errors are sickening.
This book has rekindled an urge to begin submitting pieces to wizards, as I daresay I can churn out something better, and apparently one need not be talented to have an image make the final cut. Then again, perhaps the pay warrants the quality.
-RW
Well, actually I think the cover is one of the better pieces in the book, if not the best. The girl is pretty, at least. However, I was gravely disappointed with Jarlaxles pic among other. But I suppose I better stop now...
What wasn't to like about it? He looks exactly like the swashbuckling, swaggering jackass that he is! I'd have to say that was one of my favorite pieces out of the whole thing, honest.
havent got mine yet, but i gots plans you see, to sell it to page 1 2 , which buys usedbooks if i dont like it.
as for the high and epic lvl npcs, well I disagree with you there.
they were always improperly used by dms, and Elminster was the DM character of the realms.
also you dont like high lvl npcs, just wait until that trash that it living FR comes out and ends.
first we ahd stories of the authors character running around the realms, players gripe, soo we have the players pcs running around and getting mentioned in the timeline via ddi, and people will gripe.
you know what, we all will gripe anyway.
HAIL ELMINSTER!!!
However, I'm no artist, but imo the pic in the CG has its skin too purple hued and the face (especially its facial expression and the nose) occurs to me to be simply wrong.
The way he's drawn in the Drizzt comics is the most appropriate one (according to his descriptions). That said, I prefer Todd Lockwoods pictures of him.
However, I'm no artist, but imo the pic in the CG has its skin too purple hued and the face (especially its facial expression and the nose) occurs to me to be simply wrong.
I dunno. I like that nose. Makes him less "generic prettyboy" and a bit more cartoonish without diminishing his overall feel.
Me, I also think the artwork in the Drizzt comics is incredibly stiff and generic-looking; nothing really has much style or flows too well, like the artist pretty much didn't do much at all beyond literally depicting each character as they're described in the novels without going for much in the way of unique appeal. That, however, is a complaint perhaps better suited to elsewhere.
Art's always a subjective thing, though.
So I'm pretty disappointed in the bashing of the new book.
really? I'm disappointed when I hear someone actually liked it
really? I'm disappointed when I hear someone actually liked it
Weep.
The cover is deplorable. Perhaps people with no artistic background, or appreciation for pieces such as Lockwoods can tell, but the glaring artistic errors are sickening.
What's wrong with it? It's got crisp lines, eye-catching color, vertigo-inducing perspective, and best of all it actually makes an effort to integrate the logo and titlebars as opposed to making them look like bumper stickers. All in all, a very compelling piece of cover art that is likely to attract attention on a store shelf.
EDIT: OK, it does have a couple of transparency issues where the upper layer has been overlayed over the background, but I think that's more likely the printer's fault than the artist's.
But I did buy the 3e FRCS and thought it was a wonderful book. I still wasn't going to play there, but but book was great. I also went onto DriveThru and bought as much of the old stuff as I could.
Now we have the 4E Realms. I understand why poeple dislike the idea of what they have done, I do. I just don't share your dislike.
In fact, after reading here I am trying to figure out how I can leave work early to run by my local game store to pick it up.
Credit to Wizards for wanting to try something new and shaking up the status quo a bit.
Would I feel the same if they had done this to Greyhawk or Ravenloft? Well first off I'd be thrilled if I were getting a book for either.
Tim
I like it because it catches fire easily. :P
It also makes a good door stop. Oh, and I also am using as a cutting board for when I make salad.
What's wrong with it? It's got crisp lines, eye-catching color, vertigo-inducing perspective, and best of all it actually makes an effort to integrate the logo and titlebars as opposed to making them look like bumper stickers. All in all, a very compelling piece of cover art that is likely to attract attention on a store shelf.
First and foremost, I detest this style of CG generated artwork, that is then photshopped. It looks fake, and detracts from a piece. Lockwood makes far more breathtaking scenes with a brush.
Then let's look at the cloak that was and obvious addition after the initial render. It was added in after the fact in photoshop, separate from the CG model. It doesn't line up with her shoulders, doesn't flow with the direction of the wind, and is skewed the wrong way for the percieved weight.
Next is the problem with the wings. The muscles where they should connect are to far back to work, they should be up where her legs are, so the muscles are also working off the shoulder muscles. See Lockwoods dragons.
I also have a qualm with the dragons design. It doesn't match anything that we've seen, and thus stands out as arbitrary in conjunction with the Realms, and DnD in general.
The females pose is too rigid, there is no life in her. It looks almost effortless for her to be riding the dragon, a dragon I might add who is twisting in a manner that doesn't make sense for the line of flight.
We'll touch on the neck, and the impossibility of it, and then add in the perspecive is off if it is meant to work how I think the artist was intending.
Lastly I'll point out the claws. While there is nothing inherently wrong with them, they don't work with the pose, and lack a certain flow to the swoop. It looks and feels as though this thing was frozen in the air, and seconds after the picture was taken, it plumited rigidly to it's death.
Overall, this image is of poor quality, and the artist needs a better understanding of basic artistic principals. Perhaps others won't see any of this, and it might need to be better illustrated in person. But this is a sub par work, that would be better on an art forum to be critiqued, than on the cover of a well known campaign world.
-RW
1) Too much space devoted to encounters. This is a campaign guide. Just publish some modules if you want to have encounters.
2) Map errors. These are inexcusable. I've said this before and I'll say it again. There is NEVER an excuse for bad editing. The only thing you can do is say "I'm sorry, this is a screwup. We didn't mean it."
3) The NPC's are too generic. I miss all the old people we used to have, because they were PEOPLE. They felt like CHARACTERS. This feels like cardboard and paper mache.
4) Returned Abeir. If I had to pay money for this book (Fortunately, I did not, it was part of my D+D Open swag), I would have returned the book on this alone.
5) No Queen Aumauril. No Seldarine. No Eilistraee. No talent.
6) Spellplague=Stupid. You can bandy this about all you want, but as someone who is a veteran of Crisis on Infinite Earths, Secret Invasion, Secret Wars, Millennium, Zero Hour, Infinite Crisis, Final Crisis, and every other continuity bending crossover known to man in comics, I have only one question:
Did you guys at Wizards REALLY think that this was the way to go, knowing that geekthink along these lines is always "Oh, my god, make it stop?"
This was, quite simply, the worst idea in the Forgotten Realms ever, and it will go down in history with many of the other worst ideas ever, like The Eraser Who Tried to Rub Out Batman and Brother Power, The Geek.
First and foremost, I detest this style of CG generated artwork, that is then photshopped. It looks fake, and detracts from a piece. Lockwood makes far more breathtaking scenes with a brush.
Lockwood has been digitally painting since he did the cover of the Thief/Bard supplement for 3e (Song and Silence). He states as much in his own art book. He enjoys canvas painting, but digital painting can achieve the same effect with way more convenience.
Then let's look at the cloak that was and obvious addition after the initial render. It was added in after the fact in photoshop, separate from the CG model. It doesn't line up with her shoulders, doesn't flow with the direction of the wind, and is skewed the wrong way for the percieved weight.
Or is the wind coming from the viewer's direction and her hair just isn't all flying out in every direction, because that's far harder to depict than cloth?
Next is the problem with the wings. The muscles where they should connect are to far back to work, they should be up where her legs are, so the muscles are also working off the shoulder muscles. See Lockwoods dragons.
Uh oh. Dragon anatomy expert on the loose.
I also have a qualm with the dragons design. It doesn't match anything that we've seen, and thus stands out as arbitrary in conjunction with the Realms, and DnD in general.
Or it's not a standard dragon. Or it's a drake. Or it's a wyvern.
The females pose is too rigid, there is no life in her. It looks almost effortless for her to be riding the dragon, a dragon I might add who is twisting in a manner that doesn't make sense for the line of flight.
Because twisting, clutching, hanging-on-for-dear-life armored women make the sexiest covergirls ever.
We'll touch on the neck, and the impossibility of it, and then add in the perspecive is off if it is meant to work how I think the artist was intending.
Look, he just got out of bed, and it's stiff, okay? You're so harsh.
Lastly I'll point out the claws. While there is nothing inherently wrong with them, they don't work with the pose, and lack a certain flow to the swoop. It looks and feels as though this thing was frozen in the air, and seconds after the picture was taken, it plumited rigidly to it's death.
Look.
He was just giving the finger to the other dragon just off the page.
You don't know, man. You just don't know.
Overall, this image is of poor quality, and the artist needs a better understanding of basic artistic principals. Perhaps others won't see any of this, and it might need to be better illustrated in person. But this is a sub par work, that would be better on an art forum to be critiqued, than on the cover of a well known campaign world.
Well, he did get paid for this. That probably makes you very angry. Very angry indeed.
-RW
I think you're just mad because your home country is a zombo-faire now and your prestigious title is now just a euphemism for any shady magic-peddler out there. You got nerfed, buddy.
First and foremost, I detest this style of CG generated artwork, that is then photshopped. It looks fake, and detracts from a piece.
It's overpainted CG? Wow. Then I've really got to hand it to the artist - I can normally tell a CG'd piece by sight (I deal with it practically on a daily basis), but this really doesn't look like it to me.
Next is the problem with the wings. The muscles where they should connect are to far back to work, they should be up where her legs are, so the muscles are also working off the shoulder muscles. See Lockwoods dragons.
Given that even Lockwood's exceptional dragon designs would splat like an elephant if they tried to fly, I think you're being overly critical on this point.
I also have a qualm with the dragons design. It doesn't match anything that we've seen, and thus stands out as arbitrary in conjunction with the Realms, and DnD in general.
It's a scary lizard-thing. I imagine its purpose is to look evocative, not conform to any sort of canon of cryptobiology.
The females pose is too rigid, there is no life in her.
She's a shade. Your average Nazgûl is just as fluid. Compare Theoden riding down the line of spearmen with his sword outstretched.
We'll touch on the neck, and the impossibility of it, and then add in the perspecive is off if it is meant to work how I think the artist was intending.
Again, aerodynamics doesn't apply to fantasy creatures. It's positioned to weight the composition, which purpose it achieves quite well: there's a decent focal spiral to the piece, trailing all the way down to the ground.
Overall, this image is of poor quality
Could have fooled me. Did fool me. Fooled WotC's art director too.
6) Spellplague=Stupid. You can bandy this about all you want, but as someone who is a veteran of Crisis on Infinite Earths, Secret Invasion, Secret Wars, Millennium, Zero Hour, Infinite Crisis, Final Crisis, and every other continuity bending crossover known to man in comics, I have only one question:
Did you guys at Wizards REALLY think that this was the way to go, knowing that geekthink along these lines is always "Oh, my god, make it stop?"
This was, quite simply, the worst idea in the Forgotten Realms ever, and it will go down in history with many of the other worst ideas ever, like The Eraser Who Tried to Rub Out Batman and Brother Power, The Geek.
I'm curious...would you have preferred a simple retcon? I'm serious, the more I read about how they used the spellplague to change things like how magic items work...wouldn't a retcon have been more....I don't know...mature?
If they had just said, "We're taking the 4e cosmological model and applying it to the Forgotten Realms. There was no Blood War, the demons were always in the Abyss, and the Abyss was always at the bottom of the Elemental Chaos, and the Elemental Planes were always just Elemental Domains, aspects of the infinite Elemental Chaos." I think...I would have been fine with that. I think I would have been able to say, "well, at least they're being honest and upfront with us."
We're taking the 4e cosmological model and applying it to the Forgotten Realms. There was no Blood War, the demons were always in the Abyss, and the Abyss was always at the bottom of the Elemental Chaos, and the Elemental Planes were always just Elemental Domains, aspects of the infinite Elemental Chaos."
Man.
As much as the Planescape fan in me is weeping bloody tears over the whole affair still, the mental image of Asmodeus on an Azuth-juice-fueled deific 'roid-rage drop-kicking the Abyss smack in to the dead center of the Inner Planes so hard it creates a gigantic elemental sinkhole that throws the whole structure into absolute chaos is just too glorious to want to let go of.
Man.
As much as the Planescape fan in me is weeping bloody tears over the whole affair still, the mental image of Asmodeus on an Azuth-juice-fueled deific 'roid-rage drop-kicking the Abyss smack in to the dead center of the Inner Planes so hard it creates a gigantic elemental sinkhole that throws the whole structure into absolute chaos is just too glorious to want to let go of.
Rule of Cool, indeed.
Lockwood has been digitally painting since he did the cover of the Thief/Bard supplement for 3e (Song and Silence). He states as much in his own art book. He enjoys canvas painting, but digital painting can achieve the same effect with way more convenience.
Maybe if you took two seconds to look into the differense, you'd realize how rediculous you sound here. There is a large gap between digital painting, and using CG. Lockwood will paint most likely with something akin to Photoshop, or digital canvas. Not using cg mockups. This technique remains the same as with real canvas, however allows for mistakes, and a greater level of detail than one might achieve slaving away with oils.
This cover is not digitally painted, it is done in 3d, and then spliced together in a picture editing program. Things like the clouds are added with a brush, but otherwise it is a completely different style.
Regardless of whether I like said style however, artistically it is poorly composed. Lockwoods images come alive, I would direct you towards "Dragons of Faerun", whereas this image remains static and dead.
Or is the wind coming from the viewer's direction and her hair just isn't all flying out in every direction, because that's far harder to depict than cloth?
Her hair is flowing one way, and the cloak the other. The only argument that could be made is that the cloak is heavier, but even then the transparency refutes this. Also, simple physics will show you that something of that size would need to attain an increadible speed to keep itslelf aloft, and the angle, velocity, and wind all suggest the cloak should flow at a different angle. As you point out however, the hair doesn't work correctly either.
Additionally, where is the cloak attached? I suppose you'll suggest it is magically held to the rear. That seems like what the author was going for here, magic explaining away his inability to compose a piece.
Uh oh. Dragon anatomy expert on the loose.
This isn't even an argument. It is a mock statement, that doesn't refute the issue with the drawing. Even in fantasy some degree of logic should be put into a drawing. The living body isn't just flung together haphazardly. Any artist worth his metal would draw with the musculature in mind. I sure as hell know I do.
My observations on this are drawn from such titles as the Draconomicon, where the skeletal and musculature can be seen. But perhaps whimsy lets this dragon fly from his rib cage. I'm sure those wings just magically got into a pocket socket, so as to make sense hmmm?
Or it's not a standard dragon. Or it's a drake. Or it's a wyvern.
Not a wyvern, nor a standard dragon in the setting, could be a drake, but this is hardly a major point of contention in the image. The lack of familiarity simply further detracts from the layout.
Because twisting, clutching, hanging-on-for-dear-life armored women make the sexiest covergirls ever.
No, but subtle changes in the body would add to the feel of movement. You obviously have no background in art, so I really don't know why I'm trying.
The goal is to bring an image to life. The lack of foresight into such simplistic issues, shows a lack of ability in the artist. This is not a bad thing, we all have to learn, but we don't have to learn on the cover of something like the FRCG.
Look, he just got out of bed, and it's stiff, okay? You're so harsh.
No, I am being truthful. This would be torn apart in any art community. It is flat, dead, and doesn't make sense. That is as simple as I can put it for you. This isn't quite the bottom of the barrel for pieces seen in the Realms, but it's getting pretty darn close.
Additionally, were he simply rousing now, he'd not just leap and be hundreds of feet in the air. If he could attain that type of velocity, then the cloak argument would really come back into play. Not to mantion the awkward spiral he is performing.
Look.
He was just giving the finger to the other dragon just off the page.
You don't know, man. You just don't know.
No I don't, and neither do you. None of the audience will know if something was going on off screen, so implying it in this manner only stands to detract from the image.
Bottom line is it doesn't look right, and doesn't flow properly. I am critiquing the piece honestly, and you are firing low grade BS out all over the place. Making assumptions on what the author might have decided is going on off screen doesn't change the quality of the piece itself.
Perhaps all artists should simply cease trying, and make excuses for the matter off screen.
Well, he did get paid for this. That probably makes you very angry. Very angry indeed.
Not angry. But that doesn't mean I have to like the piece. I have come to expect low grade work from a number of the artists Wizards uses. Look at the race lineup in the Players Guide. Wizards simply needs a better art lead in place, or at the very least someone who has taken an art course.
I can see how someone with no knowledge of basic art fundamentals might find this appealing, but that stems from a lack of training, and doesn't make the piece good.
Regardless, my comment was that perhaps the poor quality stemmed from a low budget.
I think you're just mad because your home country is a zombo-faire now and your prestigious title is now just a euphemism for any shady magic-peddler out there. You got nerfed, buddy.
I always wanted Tam in power, and I knew this was coming given his nature. I am more dissapointed with the change in the Enclaves, but that is something I can fix in my home campaign. So no, overall I'm content with my name. It stands for a true Thay, and stems from a time of real power for them.
What serial box did yours come from? :P
-RW
P.S. Make sure the next time you want to comment on something, you have more than a smart arse attitude, and 15 free minutes to respond. All you did was make yourself look foolish in the eyes of anyone with an arts degree, and set yourself up for a verbal slapping by someone who can draw better blindfolded with a crayon, than you could with three years of practise and your mother holding your hand letting you know what a good job you're doing.
1) The cover art seems fine to me. The monster and rider seem to be at or just past the nadir of a swoop, so they are actually on their way up, making all of the perspective issues posted above moot. They are also possibly bounding off of or preparing to bound off of an unseen object.
We are talking about this picture, right:
2) I wasn't a big fan of the 3e FR, so I'm happy to hear they've changed it.
Your tears are delicious.
We are talking about this picture, right:
Nope. The actual cover has her looking straight towards us rather than to the left, her cloak is now moving dirrectly away(?) from us rather than flowing to the right... and so on. There have been changes made between this and the final.
It's overpainted CG? Wow. Then I've really got to hand it to the artist - I can normally tell a CG'd piece by sight (I deal with it practically on a daily basis), but this really doesn't look like it to me.
Huh. You can't see that this is CG? It looks akin to something you might see from Pools of Radience. It's not that great, CG wise either. And I should know, being an Animator of both CG, flash and classical pieces.
That said, I don't mind being wrong. Someone who paints then, doesn't have much excuse for losing the flow like this. At least with preposed CG the stiffness is explained.
Given that even Lockwood's exceptional dragon designs would splat like an elephant if they tried to fly, I think you're being overly critical on this point.
Most probably would, given their suggested, and the speend required to lift off the ground. However, if one takes into account something like the Pterasaur Quetzocoatlus, who could reach in excess of 13 metres in length, it isn't hard to see how something of the size depictued could fly.
That said, the artist should have at least taken into consideration the basic anatomy of something like this. Gone over how it MIGHT fly were it real, and figured out where bones and muscles might need to be.
It's a scary lizard-thing. I imagine its purpose is to look evocative, not conform to any sort of canon of cryptobiology.
But that kind of defeats the purpose. If you're going to put something iconic on the cover, don't drop the ball on something as simple as this dragon. Rich Baker took a stab at guessing it was meant to be a black dragon, but the edition change has not left them looking like that.
As I said though, a minor point that adds to the whole.
She's a shade. Your average Nazgûl is just as fluid. Compare Theoden riding down the line of spearmen with his sword outstretched.
You don't draw either do you. Take a look at how certain things move in nature, and maybe you'll understand why this doesn't look right. Without being able to sit down in front of you, and sketch out a better pose, it makes it hard to get this point accross.
Again, aerodynamics doesn't apply to fantasy creatures. It's positioned to weight the composition, which purpose it achieves quite well: there's a decent focal spiral to the piece, trailing all the way down to the ground.
The composition is decent, not great, just ok. But all the pieces together make this a bed piece. Trying to defend them individually isn't going to save it. The backdrop is almost as abominable as the focus, so drawing my focus down to it doesn't help.
Could have fooled me. Did fool me. Fooled WotC's art director too.
It's not hard to fool somebody with no artistic knowledge. I know people who like the cover until I explain to them what is wrong with it.
Hell I'm sure people will continue liking it. But it doesn't make it a good image. The fundamentals are there for a reason, you don't throw them out the window when you can't grasp them.
And if you've ever opened the Players Guide, you'll know the Wizards art lead can't be trusted to pick quality pieces.
-RW
I haven't read the FRCG yet, but here's my two cents:
1) The cover art seems fine to me. The monster and rider seem to be at or just past the nadir of a swoop, so they are actually on their way up, making all of the perspective issues posted above moot. They are also possibly bounding off of or preparing to bound off of an unseen object.
We are talking about this picture, right:
That cover is not the one printed.
That one looks alot better than the one on the hard cover, and is the one I was excited about early on. Some of the mistakes are still there, but it looks better stylistically.
That said, the motion path doesn't work for any aerial maneuver being preformed.
-RW
The only argument that could be made is that the cloak is heavier, but even then the transparency refutes this.
I don't believe the transparency is intended to be part of the image, or at least not to the extent that it is (since the dragon is transparent too in places). I think we can chalk this one up to printer error.
Additionally, where is the cloak attached?
Under her pauldrons - common enough on armor where a cloak is supposed to be a status symbol or a badge of rank.
This isn't even an argument. It is a mock statement, that doesn't refute the issue with the drawing. Even in fantasy some degree of logic should be put into a drawing.
And that logic should be "I have this much space to fill. How can I fill it in such a way as to make the eye flow from one area to another?"
Besides which - if, as you say, this is an overpainted render (which I still find it difficult to believe), then the anatomy of the dragon model should be accurate without the artist having to take additional steps to make it so in the final painting.
My observations on this are drawn from such titles as the Draconomicon, where the skeletal and musculature can be seen.
And which are not the be-all and end-all of canon when it comes to artistic rendering of cryptozoology. Different artists have different interpretations of which vertebrae the additional limbs should be attached to.
The lack of familiarity simply further detracts from the layout.
It looks like a generic reptilian flying steed, along the lines of the Fellbeasts from LotR. Not knowing exactly what it is doesn't detract from the image at all as far as I'm concerned.
No, but subtle changes in the body would add to the feel of movement. You obviously have no background in art, so I really don't know why I'm trying.
I do have a background in art, and I agree with him - her pose doesn't look any more stiff than it ought to considering what kind of armor she's wearing.
No, I am being truthful. This would be torn apart in any art community.
On Renderosity, deviant-art or Artzone, it would have people ooh-ing and aah-ing over it.
I can see how someone with no knowledge of basic art fundamentals might find this appealing, but that stems from a lack of training, and doesn't make the piece good.
Now you're just being a snob. I repeat, I have a background in art, and I think it's a very shiny piece, transparency problems notwithstanding.
Red, I can tell you're taking this all very, very seriously.
Question me, and I'll respond. I am pleasantly indifferent, but I like rubbing peoples noses in their words.
Small children don't learn unless you teach them, so I use this as the means of swatting your hand away from what you want. ;)
-RW
That cover is not the one printed.
The differences are mainly superficial. Actually, that one looks pretty much like the printed cover, only with the hair and cloak done differently, and washed over with the Smudge Stick and Angled Strokes filters in Photoshop. And it definitely doesn't fit nearly as well with the trade dress of the cover.
I vastly prefer the crispness of the published one.
Question me, and I'll respond. I'm am pleasantly indifferent, but I like rubbing peoples noses in their words.
Small children don't learn unless you teach them, so I use this as the means of swatting your hand away from what you want. ;)
-RW
All I've learned from this conversation is that I could really, really go for a burger or something right now. Also I'm not a small child. I'm nine. That's bigger than small.
I don't believe the transparency is intended to be part of the image, or at least not to the extent that it is (since the dragon is transparent too in places). I think we can chalk this one up to printer error.
Whether the error was made in production or print, doesn't make it any less of an error.
Under her pauldrons - common enough on armor where a cloak is supposed to be a status symbol or a badge of rank.
The cloak angles don't line up to end beneath her pauldron. However, this is minor in comparrison to the remark on the cloaks angle.
And that logic should be "I have this much space to fill. How can I fill it in such a way as to make the eye flow from one area to another?"
Besides which - if, as you say, this is an overpainted render (which I still find it difficult to believe), then the anatomy of the dragon model should be accurate without the artist having to take additional steps to make it so in the final painting.
That is assuming the model was created correctly. Regardless of paint of CG, there are no sockets for wings on the ribs. Hence the need for them to come from the shoulder, as most other dragons are depicted.
And which are not the be-all and end-all of canon when it comes to artistic rendering of cryptozoology. Different artists have different interpretations of which vertebrae the additional limbs should be attached to.
Simple anatomy for all creatures we could compare too, doesn't allow that to work. The rest of the body seems to follow basic anotomical principles, so why decide arbitrarily to throw anatomy to the wind for the wings? The answer seems to be a lack of foresight, or knowledge of anatomy.
It looks like a generic reptilian flying steed, along the lines of the Fellbeasts from LotR. Not knowing exactly what it is doesn't detract from the image at all as far as I'm concerned.
Then why have a Shade on the cover? Why go through the trouble to make everything iconic, if you were going to say random is fine too later? I think it absolutely detracts, just to what degree is the question.
Is it a major flaw? No. One of many? Yes.
I do have a background in art, and I agree with him - her pose doesn't look any more stiff than it ought to considering what kind of armor she's wearing.
I am not questioning your art degree, however the pose remains stiff. As any rider would know, you'll lean with your turns. Sliding her to the right (Her left) would have leped, and leaning her ever so slightly forward for the angle up. The pose could have stayed as dynamic, and added infinately to the composition and over all feel of life.
On Renderosity or deviant-art, it would have people ooh-ing and aah-ing over it.
As a member of Deviant art, that doesn't make me think more of the image. I have looked at pieces there I'm certain three year olds threw together, and they are given pats on the back for it. So forgive me if I don't put any weight on the opinions of the group there.
That said, I imagine there would be more than a few on DA that could see what I see.
Now you're just being a snob. I repeat, I have a background in art, and I think it's a very shiny piece, transparency problems notwithstanding.
Towards the person this was directed at, absolutetly. I put forth the reason for which I did not like the piece, and explained why. If I wanted someone to try an prove my opinion wrong, I'd find someone with an art background to do so, not some upstart with half a lick of intelligence and a passing whim. ;)
-RW
The differences are mainly superficial. Actually, that one looks pretty much like the printed cover, only with the hair and cloak done differently, and washed over with the Smudge Stick and Angled Strokes filters in Photoshop. And it definitely doesn't fit nearly as well with the trade dress of the cover.
I vastly prefer the crispness of the published one.
It looks drastically different, but I hardly want to spend all night writing long posts to contrast the two images. At first glance they are similar, but similar is where the comparison ends.
-RW
All I've learned from this conversation is that I could really, really go for a burger or something right now. Also I'm not a small child. I'm nine. That's bigger than small.
Congrats. Would you like a cookie for all the big words you managed today.
Careful crossing the street though, you seem like you have alot to give society still. I'm sure there aren't enough people who can make balloon animals look like balloons.
-RW
Huh. You can't see that this is CG? It looks akin to something you might see from Pools of Radience. It's not that great, CG wise either. And I should know, being an Animator of both CG, flash and classical pieces.
With overpainting, it's usually something with the edges, the nose, and the browline that makes it stand out. This one doesn't - it's crisp, yes, but crisp in the way that small brush oils are, no the jarring crispness of CG.
If you're going to put something iconic on the cover, don't drop the ball on something as simple as this dragon.
It doesn't have to look iconic, it just has to look impressive. It's a slathering beastie coming straight for you.
You don't draw either do you.
Not much. I render, and overpaint, and do both still and motion photography, though, so I'm quite well-versed in how things look in nature.
The composition is decent, not great, just ok.
It doesn't have to be great, just good enough to sell books.
It's not hard to fool somebody with no artistic knowledge. I know people who like the cover until I explain to them what is wrong with it.
Art that can only be appreciated by experts isn't good art to put on game book covers. And are you saying that the person who is ultimately in charge of commissioning and selecting every piece of art that goes into a WotC product has no artistic knowledge? Even if they didn't have a background in it, they'd be likely to pick something up just by looking at the stuff day in and day out.
And if you've ever opened the Players Guide, you'll know the Wizards art lead can't be trusted to pick quality pieces.
I see high quality pieces on... pages 4, 6, 13, 16, 33, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 51, 70, 72, 75, 89, 96, 101, 110, 122, 142, 143, 153, 156, 165, 171, 177, 184, 191, 211, 216, 217, 220, 221, 224, 226, 234, 235, 241, 254, 257, 258 especially, 265, 270, 273, 297, 308, 309, and 313, and acceptable quality pieces on all the other pages.
Whether the error was made in production or print, doesn't make it any less of an error.
No, but it does make a difference when considering whose error it is. When it is obviious just by a cursory glance that the object is NOT supposed to be transparent like that, I am inclined to believe that it is an error on the part of the printer, not the artist (although... if this were Discworld, there would be a reason for it to be transparent).
The cloak angles don't line up to end beneath her pauldron.
She's got one arm raised, and the cloak on that side looks like it's going there. Looks a little off, but not too terribly. The other side looks just fine as it is.
That is assuming the model was created correctly. Regardless of paint of CG, there are no sockets for wings on the ribs. Hence the need for them to come from the shoulder, as most other dragons are depicted.
It doesn't look like it's coming from the ribs to me - the wing arm is directly behind and above the foreleg, and following the curve of the spine down, it seems to be positioned just where it should be in relation to the vertebrae.
Then why have a Shade on the cover? Why go through the trouble to make everything iconic, if you were going to say random is fine too later? I think it absolutely detracts, just to what degree is the question.
What castle is that below her? Does the fact that you don't know where she's flying away from detract as well? Not every aspect of the image has to be iconic. In this case, you're supposed to look at the shade and think 'ah, that's from the Forgotten Realms' and the dragon-thing and think 'ooh, that's creepy-looking,' not both of them together and think 'hmm, it's a shade riding a famous whatchamacallit' like some sort of fantasy birdwatcher.
I am not questioning your art degree, however the pose remains stiff. As any rider would know, you'll lean with your turns. Sliding her to the right (Her left) would have leped, and leaning her ever so slightly forward for the angle up.
There's stiff and then there's stiff. To hold a sword aloft while riding requires a certain amount of stiff - certainly if you're doing it in plate. Swords are not light, and plate armor is cumbersome. I'll grant you a forward lean - however, she is leaning to the side she should be given the direction the dragon's turning (although she really ought to be holding the reins with both hands for that sharp of a turn). Also, since I'm fairly sure that this part of the image was composed separately from the background (possibly even by different people) it's possible that there was a miscommunication when setting the pose.
As a member of Deviant art, that doesn't make me think more of the image. I have looked at pieces there I'm certain three year olds threw together, and they are given pats on the back for it. So forgive me if I don't put any weight on the opinions of the group there.
I don't blame you - neither do I. However, you did say 'any art community,' and DA is an art community.
It looks drastically different, but I hardly want to spend all night writing long posts to contrast the two images. At first glance they are similar, but similar is where the comparrison ends.
It's also a small, low-quality picture. I'd like to see a higher-res one before making a final call, but just based on the integration of the trade dress (which is really the only thing I can definitely make out from that picture), what we've got is a better cover.
Nope. The actual cover has her looking straight towards us rather than to the left, her cloak is now moving dirrectly away(?) from us rather than flowing to the right... and so on. There have been changes made between this and the final.
That cover is not the one printed.
That one looks alot better than the one on the hard cover, and is the one I was excited about early on. Some of the mistakes are still there, but it looks better stylistically.
Thanks for the clarification. I'll check out the actual cover as soon as I can, to compare.
That said, the motion path doesn't work for any aerial maneuver being preformed.
The motion path doesn't work for any RL aerial maneuver, but Dragons don't adhere to RL physics.
I'm not a small child. I'm nine. That's bigger than small.
Born on February 29th, are we?
EDIT: Visited your deviantart page, which states you are 25.
Bel
I'm curious...would you have preferred a simple retcon? I'm serious, the more I read about how they used the spellplague to change things like how magic items work...wouldn't a retcon have been more....I don't know...mature?
-No. Retcons are never, ever, good things. Regardless of what is being changes, whether I like it or not, at least with changes that are given explanations, we have explanations. With retcons, "it always ways", and that creates incongruities in the new and old that cannot always be smoothed without some kind of explanation.
I love the 4E Forgotten Realms because it can get two guys to argue incessently over a piece of artwork for two pages, with very little interruption.
Bel
-You probably find the concept of two people arguing about who can hit a ball with a bat better, then.
Born on February 29th, are we?
EDIT: Visited your deviantart page, which states you are 25.
What th--YOU CLEVER BASTARD. >:O
And as another artist (albeit a poor one - my best medium is sculture), I have to agree somewhat with RW, although I don't take my fantasy art nearly as serious as he does.
I hadn't bothered to look at the pic aall the hard when I first saw it, and I understand that the final looks different then this posted, but I can see his point about the whole thing feeling 'off'.
I think by simply rotating the city,bringing the top toward the back, yoiu could correct a lot of the problem. The clouds, I think, look fine behind the dragon, but then the city just screw the whole thing up IMHO.
Maybe I can play with it a little - I fixed a couple of poorly rendered pics from a Paizo book, and they didn't 'appreciate' my efforts over there (their 'fanboys' are worse then FR at times). They have an artist over there that loves drawing heads way too tiny.
Edit: This is the biggest one of the Real cover I could find - anyone want to scan me a better one, or dorect me to the artist's sit (what's his/her name?) so I can locate the original?
I think I liked the cape better on the original...
I also note that we no longer even warrant our own color - originally all the FR books were supposed to have the Blue taxt banners to differentiate them from core. FR really is generic core now.
I don't think I have my DOB on my deviantART Page - they hadn't invented numbers yet back then. :P
And as another artist (albeit a poor one - my best medium is sculture), I have to agree somewhat with RW, although I don't take my fantasy art nearly as serious as he does.
I dunno. I guess now that I'm actually looking at the thing, it's not the greatest piece of art ever, but it's not precisely terrible unless you really want to nitpick. I tend not to look for masterpieces in game books, as a general rule, though.
Unless it's Wayne Reynolds. That guy's art is Action Points Embodied.
And Tony DiTerlizzi.
Never knock the DiTerlizzi.
-No. Retcons are never, ever, good things. Regardless of what is being changes, whether I like it or not, at least with changes that are given explanations, we have explanations. With retcons, "it always ways", and that creates incongruities in the new and old that cannot always be smoothed without some kind of explanation.
I tend to agree, but...how else do you address, specifically, the mechanical changes? I mean, we -are- talking, with regard to magic and magical items, about, essentially, a mechanical change. I've never read a single FR novel (heretic, infidel, I know, I know.) but wouldn't the changes in mechanics regarding how "charged" magic items, and vancian magic, have been easier to just retcon? Or was it that known in-character?
I tend to agree, but...how else do you address, specifically, the mechanical changes? I mean, we -are- talking, with regard to magic and magical items, about, essentially, a mechanical change. I've never read a single FR novel (heretic, infidel, I know, I know.) but wouldn't the changes in mechanics regarding how "charged" magic items, and vancian magic, have been easier to just retcon? Or was it that known in-character?
-You're very "down" on yourself with all of the "noob, infidel" speak, I notice.
-Anyway, with certain mechanical changes, you don't need explanations, as there are no real ramifications in the game. I'm just making this up off the top of my head, but if, say, long swords now do 1d10 points of damage instead of 1d8 points of damage, who cares? Does that have any real impact on the setting? No. So, something like that can be glossed over easily.
-It would be much easier to wave the changes to the new spellcasting system off with a hand wave and, "It was always like that", but that wouldn't make sense, in relation to the rest of the setting. Thay, for example, used to be ruled by the Zukirs, as you know. There was one ruling Zukir for every school of magic, and they were specialists with their schools. Schools of magic no longer exist, and had they never existed, how could this happen? There'd be a lore incongruity there. With magical spells, they now go from Level 1 to Level 20. In the past, Level 9 spells were effectively the most powerful. This makes Karsus casting a 12th Level spell amazing/spectacular/unheard of. Now, casting a 12th Level spell is much simpler.
-So, to make a long story short, retcons cause problems in regards to older lore present in the setting. Explanations fix these, as they give a reason for the changes, so they are always preferable to simply non-explanatory retcons.
-You're very "down" on yourself with all of the "noob, infidel" speak, I notice.
Only with regard to Forgotten Realms. For me, the massive volumes of history are, frankly, daunting. I just like to make it blatantly clear that I, in no way shape or form, claim anything beyond a cursory knowledge of FR.
-Anyway, with certain mechanical changes, you don't need explanations, as there are no real ramifications in the game. I'm just making this up off the top of my head, but if, say, long swords now do 1d10 points of damage instead of 1d8 points of damage, who cares? Does that have any real impact on the setting? No. So, something like that can be glossed over easily.
...Naturally...
-It would be much easier to wave the changes to the new spellcasting system off with a hand wave and, "It was always like that", but that wouldn't make sense, in relation to the rest of the setting. Thay, for example, used to be ruled by the Zukirs, as you know. There was one ruling Zukir for every school of magic, and they were specialists with their schools. Schools of magic no longer exist, and had they never existed, how could this happen? There'd be a lore incongruity there. With magical spells, they now go from Level 1 to Level 20. In the past, Level 9 spells were effectively the most powerful. This makes Karsus casting a 12th Level spell amazing/spectacular/unheard of. Now, casting a 12th Level spell is much simpler.
Yes, but again, wouldn't level be an out-of-game mechanic? Prior to 4e, Meteor Swarm was, what, level 9? The fact that it's now level 25 doesn't change the fact that only the most powerful wizards would be capable of learning it. I will grant you the school problem, though it seems to be temporary, and I'm sure School Specialization can be built back in (The "energy specialization" feats, a la Astral Fire, Dark Fury, etc, are a good start). Schools can be built back in, they're just not currently mechanics that we, out of game, can recognize. You can still decide to play an Illusionist by focusing on Illusion magic, but now School Specialization is the same as being a Specialty Priest...there's no specific mechanic yet, but you can still do it with Flavor.
-So, to make a long story short, retcons cause problems in regards to older lore present in the setting. Explanations fix these, as they give a reason for the changes, so they are always preferable to simply non-explanatory retcons.
I agree, as well...but what I guess the question becomes, if the Spellplague was a bad idea, and a simple hand-waving was a bad idea, and 4e mechanics necessitate a retcon of some kind, due to the differences, what becomes the better answer?
I agree, as well...but what I guess the question becomes, if the Spellplague was a bad idea, and a simple hand-waving was a bad idea, and 4e mechanics necessitate a retcon of some kind, due to the differences, what becomes the better answer?
I suppose what they could have done is concentrated somewhat on the world presented in the Core Rules until we DEMANDED an upgrade to the Realms. I don't know if its because i am getting old or just bitter but it seems that people nowdays complain alot about nothing to the point that it destroys everything good in the item, be it pen and paper or a MMORPG.
I suppose what they could have done is concentrated somewhat on the world presented in the Core Rules until we DEMANDED an upgrade to the Realms. I don't know if its because i am getting old or just bitter but it seems that people nowdays complain alot about nothing to the point that it destroys everything good in the item, be it pen and paper or a MMORPG.
Hmm...well, yes, I think a 3.X (or even completely mechanic-free) "update" would have been interesting. Though, isn't that what the Grand History of the Realms was? They're choosing not to talk about the intervening century, because (I'm guessing, here) they're planning novelizations to cover that time period, and they don't want to talk too deeply about what happened, because that would take some of the surprise out of the novels.
Still, the people who are fans of both FR and 4e would have eventually wanted to be capable of implementing 4e in FR, and they would have needed to know how to do so. That's what the updated FRCG is, it's telling you what's changed, ultimately, in the last 100 years or so to make the world the way it is.
Only with regard to Forgotten Realms. For me, the massive volumes of history are, frankly, daunting. I just like to make it blatantly clear that I, in no way shape or form, claim anything beyond a cursory knowledge of FR.
-No reason to be hard on yourself, however. No one knows everything.
I agree, as well...but what I guess the question becomes, if the Spellplague was a bad idea, and a simple hand-waving was a bad idea, and 4e mechanics necessitate a retcon of some kind, due to the differences, what becomes the better answer?
-The Spellplague is the better answer. Myself, I have no real problem with the Spellplague being the "transitory" explanation of things. It's a lot of the other things that have been stamped onto it (an extra 104 years in the timeline, and the Abeir retcon into a new world) that I personally don't care for. In and of itself, the Spellplague is fine.
-The Spellplague is the better answer. Myself, I have no real problem with the Spellplague being the "transitory" explanation of things. It's a lot of the other things that have been stamped onto it (an extra 104 years in the timeline, and the Abeir retcon into a new world) that I personally don't care for. In and of itself, the Spellplague is fine.
Yeah, returned Abeir I could have done without. I'm pretty sure they didn't leave the whole world explored, and the Genasi and Dragonborn could have migrated from that continent. The Genasi could even have migrated from the Chaos, itself, for that matter.
http://wizards.com/dnd/images/DQ_Minis_x/LargeFangDragon.jpg
It looks drastically different, but I hardly want to spend all night writing long posts to contrast the two images. At first glance they are similar, but similar is where the comparrison ends.
-RW
I still have yet to be convinced by you that this is a bad product. The artwork is great, and I think you have grown spoiled by the artwork Wizards has been able to put forth. We are lucky that Wizards can afford to pay real artists to paint the way they do, and we are lucky that Wizards keeps careful tabs on the look and feel of the artwork. Compare this cover to some of the artwork from 2nd edition or 1st edition. The Old Forgotten Realms boxed set looked like the poster for a bad 80s Sword and Sorcery movie, so I will take the woman on the dragon with a cape.
And as a last note, it's a DRAGON, a make-believe creature that looks like a reptile with wings and teeth. Maybe it's a new dragon, brought by the Shadovar to Toril from the Shadow. A SHADE dragon perhaps? Who cares? it's what's on the inside that counts, since you can't stop complaining about the cover, that shows me that Wizards has obviously put forth a good strong product since you're biggest complaint is her cape and his claws.
Rule of Cool, indeed.
Not just that. Power Glows. Just look at her sword. And her eyes. And the dragons eyes. :D
It looks drastically different, but I hardly want to spend all night writing long posts to contrast the two images. At first glance they are similar, but similar is where the comparrison ends.
-RW
Yes...you do.
Unless it's Wayne Reynolds. That guy's art is Action Points Embodied.
And Tony DiTerlizzi.
Never knock the DiTerlizzi.
I have a nostalgic fondness for Erol Otus
I know it can be frusrrating when someone may come off as a know it all and you want to blast them for something but the best thing is to just not respond to their post or use the ****** feature that will help you not see their posts.
My suggestion is to try and post your ideas for PCs on another thread or maybe make a thread about your next game you plan to run. All this argueing is just going to cause another Forum split. All that will do is give another forum for all of us to argue on. It is like a Mobius Loob of pettyness. Stop the madness! ;)
Mobius Loob of pettyness
I call typo on you Rauric! That's Mobius Lube of pettiness!
:P
I call typo on you Rauric! That's Mobius Lube of pettiness!
:P
Oooh, I meant loop. ;)
The other part is because I am lazy at times. :D
-No. Retcons are never, ever, good things. Regardless of what is being changes, whether I like it or not, at least with changes that are given explanations, we have explanations. With retcons, "it always ways", and that creates incongruities in the new and old that cannot always be smoothed without some kind of explanation
So, if the designers where to say do a Retcon that said there was never a racial difference between Wood and Wild Elves due to the fact that Elves don't evolve and they where in fact both still Green Elves just culturally different, you would feel that it was a bad thing? ;)
IMO the only low point for the artwork was the Draegoloth (sp?) as already stated. Good thing they included a description close to the image as I was wondering what this new plaguechanged Drow was all about.s
One thing I disagree withthe OP on is the quality of the maps (big and small). I know that Netheril is reclaiming Anauroch and grass is growing but I find it hard to tell where the desert still is on the map. I know it's a minor thing but it still irks.
The woman's hair and cloak are flowing in different directions.
That's pretty much a schoolboy error there. How did something like that get passed off as acceptable for the cover of the first campaign setting for the new edition of D&D? Pretty odd, I'd say.
Oh, and you misspelled "Comparison", maybe if you thought about it before you started in with your snobbery.
I still have yet to be convinced by you that this is a bad product. The artwork is great, and I think you have grown spoiled by the artwork Wizards has been able to put forth. We are lucky that Wizards can afford to pay real artists to paint the way they do, and we are lucky that Wizards keeps careful tabs on the look and feel of the artwork. Compare this cover to some of the artwork from 2nd edition or 1st edition. The Old Forgotten Realms boxed set looked like the poster for a bad 80s Sword and Sorcery movie, so I will take the woman on the dragon with a cape.
And as a last note, it's a DRAGON, a make-believe creature that looks like a reptile with wings and teeth. Maybe it's a new dragon, brought by the Shadovar to Toril from the Shadow. A SHADE dragon perhaps? Who cares? it's what's on the inside that counts, since you can't stop complaining about the cover, that shows me that Wizards has obviously put forth a good strong product since you're biggest complaint is her cape and his claws.
Look, I'll mke this very simple for you. If you're going to nitpick about an extra "r" or the slip of an "am", then I daresay you have far more time on your hands than I. When one is typing quickly, in order to get a thought down in the middle of a drawn out post off, the possibility for error increases.
I skimmed the longer ones, and didn't proof the shorter ones. I don't have a spellchecker turned on, so all things considered I'll not worry to much over those small errors.
Additionally, I didn't need to prove anything to you, or anyone else. An opinion was given, I responded with an opinion of my own. I was asked to elaborate, which I did. The fact that I then had to defend a visual position on a forum was the ludicrous part. I doubt very much you have any artistic training, and that is fine, but you are not suited to comment on something you know nothing about.
Lastly, I never said I disliked the book. I infact stated that I did indeed like the 4E Realms. My point was simply that the aspects mentioned as reasons for enjoying the new setting, where not amongst those which I had picked. Regardless, as someone who has seem the art that CAN be put on and in the books, I think it is a perfectly valid position to hold that some effort should be maintained to keep the quality up. The look of the dragon was, for the last time, a minute aspect of my qualms. The fact that some wish to latch onto this aspect of my complaints, shows a great deal about the lack of argument in defense of the rest. Far be it from me though, to expect the initial book, and one of only two thus far announced, to be of top tier quality.
-RW
P.S. Look at the Artists site, and perhaps you'll note that it is not amongst the best of his work. Which either speaks poorly for his attempt, or his pay. In either regard, it is not a vaild excuse for why it would make the cover.
Also, the fact that this aspect recieved more attention from me than others, had nothing to do with the quality of the interior, and had everything to do with being questioned on it.
You can't judge a book by its cover.
I'm not sure which is crazier, that I'm about to say this, or that it's actually, literally, completely appropriate:
You can't judge a book by its cover.
Who's judging the book by its cover?
-RW
So, if the designers where to say do a Retcon that said there was never a racial difference between Wood and Wild Elves due to the fact that Elves don't evolve and they where in fact both still Green Elves just culturally different, you would feel that it was a bad thing? ;)
-That wouldn't be a retcon, as that is the case now! It'd be negating a retcon. An Anti-Retcon. An Unretcon?
-That wouldn't be a retcon, as that is the case now! It'd be negating a retcon. An Anti-Retcon. An Unretcon?
a recon?