art oddities - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

art oddities

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
pupilofyah
Jul 12, 2009 15:20:00 has anyone noticed that some of the humanoids in the PHB and the MM and some of other new book have the hands on backwards.
#2
The_White_Sorcerer
Jul 12, 2009 18:11:19 Examples? The only ones I've noticed are the rakshasa, and they're supposed to be like that.
#3
pupilofyah
Jul 12, 2009 22:00:32 they are?

now that i have read the entry i know that is on purpose

i had notice that a few time when a creature holds a weapon with a reverse grip it seems like it but as i reviewed the images i am less sure...thanks
#4
Oni_Kagura
Jul 12, 2009 22:54:30 I was hoping this was a thread about abstract/surrealist art.

Anyways - yeah, I've been confused by pictures with reverse grips myself, but I've never seen anything that was an actual goof.
#5
ADHadh
Jul 14, 2009 11:22:16 I find it odd that in new ed. every goblin is painted green, while the description in the MM states that "a member of the goblin species has skin of yellow, orange or red, often shading to brown" (pg135). It may be a similar case to the 3.5 orc (green rather than gray), but much like it, minis have the colours right.
#6
1_ton_ghost
Jul 15, 2009 9:56:29 Eh, call it artistic license. One man's treasure, bla bla bla...

It never ceases to amaze me how a good many, not you or anyone specifically, see an image in a prolific book and begin taking that as gospel precluding all other illustrations as cheap imitations or the like despite the fact that they be rendered far more realistically or closer to the original creative vision of whomever coined the term, invented the monster, etc.

But yeah, typically amongst the dime-a-dozen races (goblinoids, orcs, gnolls, etc), mostly monstrous humanoids, everyone has their predisposed notions and expect everyone else to fall in line rather than they, themselves, actually compromise or flex a little creative/abstract muscle. Curious to see what the 1st incarnation of an orc was per Gygax's designs during his 1st @ bat.

LotR, WoW, Forgotten Realms, etc. never quite see eye to eye, you know? Still, there's some rabid fanboi out there that will always insist that 'x' is the purest incarnation (visually rendered anyway) and that all others, 'y', are all fraudulent...even though mechanically they're all equally worthless and perform the exact same. Never mind that there could be different subraces, you know, like our own human race, right?

For me, I tend to subscribe to the typical Faerunian (prefered setting) visage of them namely being gray skinned. Seems more apt given their aversion to daylight, subterranean ancestry, etc. Green is the most common color in nature though in terms of biomass, however, that's namely kingdom plantae not animalia.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 pupilofyah Jul 12, 2009 15:20:00	has anyone noticed that some of the humanoids in the PHB and the MM and some of other new book have the hands on backwards.
#2 The_White_Sorcerer Jul 12, 2009 18:11:19	Examples? The only ones I've noticed are the rakshasa, and they're supposed to be like that.
#3 pupilofyah Jul 12, 2009 22:00:32	they are? now that i have read the entry i know that is on purpose i had notice that a few time when a creature holds a weapon with a reverse grip it seems like it but as i reviewed the images i am less sure...thanks
#4 Oni_Kagura Jul 12, 2009 22:54:30	I was hoping this was a thread about abstract/surrealist art. Anyways - yeah, I've been confused by pictures with reverse grips myself, but I've never seen anything that was an actual goof.
#5 ADHadh Jul 14, 2009 11:22:16	I find it odd that in new ed. every goblin is painted green, while the description in the MM states that "a member of the goblin species has skin of yellow, orange or red, often shading to brown" (pg135). It may be a similar case to the 3.5 orc (green rather than gray), but much like it, minis have the colours right.
#6 1_ton_ghost Jul 15, 2009 9:56:29	Eh, call it artistic license. One man's treasure, bla bla bla... It never ceases to amaze me how a good many, not you or anyone specifically, see an image in a prolific book and begin taking that as gospel precluding all other illustrations as cheap imitations or the like despite the fact that they be rendered far more realistically or closer to the original creative vision of whomever coined the term, invented the monster, etc. But yeah, typically amongst the dime-a-dozen races (goblinoids, orcs, gnolls, etc), mostly monstrous humanoids, everyone has their predisposed notions and expect everyone else to fall in line rather than they, themselves, actually compromise or flex a little creative/abstract muscle. Curious to see what the 1st incarnation of an orc was per Gygax's designs during his 1st @ bat. LotR, WoW, Forgotten Realms, etc. never quite see eye to eye, you know? Still, there's some rabid fanboi out there that will always insist that 'x' is the purest incarnation (visually rendered anyway) and that all others, 'y', are all fraudulent...even though mechanically they're all equally worthless and perform the exact same. Never mind that there could be different subraces, you know, like our own human race, right? For me, I tend to subscribe to the typical Faerunian (prefered setting) visage of them namely being gray skinned. Seems more apt given their aversion to daylight, subterranean ancestry, etc. Green is the most common color in nature though in terms of biomass, however, that's namely kingdom plantae not animalia.