"Which D&D Edition Had the Best Art?" Topic

I would say 3rd (though I would definitely not say that they were the best rules).

First was just throwing things at the wall to see what stuck. Some charming art, some awful art.

Second edition: the awkward teenage years. Tries to find its own identity, apart from just medieval guys with magic stuff. Some results are embarrassing. PC's in particular tend to have that Victorian historical "we have all the parts, but don't quite know how they fit together" look.

Third did a good job of reinterpreting the look of First- in particular, the dragons.

Fourth reinvents the wheel. Good stuff is changed, just to be different than before. Yay.

I love what I've seen of 5th's rules, but haven't looked into anything else.

1st Edition AD&D had David Trampier. The rest did not. 1st wins.

Some other artists did offer striking, original looks, notably Erol Otus, Willingham, Dee, while others produced smoother, more "realistic" fantasy art (Elmore, etc.), but Trampier stands out. I'd hang his originals on my wall, and not feel I was just putting up '80s kitsch.

On your other points, I disagree completely. While, yes, the 3rd-4th editions produced more consistent art styles, I find the styles very dated, a completely "Generation Y" and "Millennials" look overly dolled up in modern styles, hair and even make-up. Not to mention the absolutely absurd "buckle-strap" leather attire, as if an entire outfit is made of nothing but the clearance rack at the JC Penny Men's Belt and Leather Accessories department. Not only are they ridiculous looking, you can't believe that anyone would take the time to put them on, if they even could. Meh.

5th edition art is pretty much the same. There are occasional solid bits (dragons look good), but the styles of clothing are too modern or absurd hodgepodges, cultural mish-mashes believable only in a cosplay setting in an LA mall. (A drow with a buzz cut fade? A fighter with dreadlocks in a medieval town? A hipster wizard? A bard with a leather "dew-rag", posing as if for a tourist snap-shot? Another bard with a "lute" that looks more like a Gibson electric bass, slung across her shoulders like a member of a pop rock band? An elf in what appears to be high-heeled "cat suit" chain maille leotards? A wight that looks like he just stepped out of a bad Mad Max retread? Bleh…)

Yes, it's mostly competent brushwork, with lots of action and details, but much of the design work is over done and the action shown unbelievable (even in a fantasy setting), and, returning to my main complaint, everyone is just too modern looking. Plus, none of it is all that interesting, or truly evocative. Compare Trampier's simple black and white ink drawing of three adventurers opening a chest of treasure with a similar scene in the new PH. Trampier's work focuses on the faces of the characters, two with expressions of open greed, the third hovering impassive in the background, giving an impression of unemotional detachment that implies a person of deadly efficiency with his own inscrutable agenda. One glance and you know these characters are all evil, but the most evil may be the one unmoved by the gleaming gold… all done with nothing but India ink and paper.
In the modern PH there is a full color illustration of an entire group standing on a pile of treasure. But that's all you have. A stock party staring at stock loot. Sure, you can see one's a bard, one's a dwarf, etc., and they each have a piece of magic treasure suited to them (how convenient), but that's pretty much it. Oh, maybe that ring in the paladin's hand is dangerous in some way, (it glows purple! Oo, evil! *meh*) but there's little or no emotion in the scene and no sense of who the characters are or what drives them. It's just another "you can be an elf!" picture. An illustration, not a work of art.

And that's okay, because that's what the product calls for: easily grasped illustrations that appeal to teens and young adults who can picture themselves as the heroes of the sequence. But as haphazard as the original art could be, there were moments where a piece might transcend the mere act of illustration to be something more… a glimpse into story.

I liked the artwork in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons – the three hardback books + the mythos book (cool C'thulhu & Melnibone sketches!)

Yes, for 1st: Trampier, Willingham, and Otus are IMO the "Big Three" for me.

As I said, I haven't seen ANY of 5th's art- I just downloaded the free core rules. But I still say as far as the first four editions, 2nd takes the prize for dated looks.

I suppose I was looking at it as art that effectively "set the brand", rather than fun stuff that was "doing it's own thing"- which is definitely 1st. Otus is OUT THERE, man.

The pages of art inserted into the various 2nd edition books were good enough for me to sit and admire them at length. This was true not only of the main three books, but also of all the various Complete Handbooks.

No other edition had that level of art. Thus, for me, 2nd edition AD&D art wins.

Gotta dance with the one I brought/bought -- 1st Edition all the way, clumsy tho' some of it may be, nothing beats it for atmosphere for those of us who were there at the beginning.

Piper said it best … back in the day, when 1st edition rolled out, the full impact of the game and the art has not been equaled.

Sure, there has been better art since, but the "impact" of that 1st edition art blows the others out of the water.

Or put it this way: I have seen some awesome photos sent back by the Hubble telescope. But nothing has the impact of the grainy, black and white image of Neil Armstrong taking that first step off the ladder on the moon.

It's not the "technical" quality of the art, its the impact that art has that matters, and 1st edition wins the prize.

The most memorable art is from the 1st edition. You would think that the art would improve with each subsequent edition, but sadly that is not true. By 3rd edition there isn't even any art on the book covers. I think part of the reason for the downhill slide in the artwork was that certain ignorant forces gave D&D a bad rap in the media with false accusations of satanic worship and misogyny. Also the game was starting to be marketed to younger players, which led to further changes. By the time 2nd edition was published all reference to the words "devil" and "demon" were removed from the game, and thus any artwork along those lines. Some of the art from the MM which showed any nakedness would also disappear; as society became more prudish in this regard. Also markedly different in later editions was the lack of humorous cartoon art which was scattered throughout the DMG.

On a positive note I see 5th edition has reintroduced devils and demons in the MM. But 1st edition art was still the most original, most inspired, and most free.