[4e] Recycled Art

This evolved from the "4e art quality" thread. I noticed in my perusal of several 4e books that WotC cheaped out, and reused several pieces of artwork from earlier editions. As I only have 4e and 3.5 books. A few examples below:

Arcane Power
pg. 20: Grave Caller (Bard Paragon Path) = Suel Arcanamach (CArc)
pg. 90: God Fragment (Warlock PP) = Escalation Mage (FoE)
pg. 91: Hellbringer (Warlock PP) = Morthos the Warlock (CArc)

Divine Power
pg. 44: Anointed Champion (Cleric PP) = Anointed Knight (BoED) [Surprise!]
pg. 70: Adept of Whispers (Invoker PP) = Death Delver (HoH)

Martial Power
pg. 32: Ravager (Fighter PP) = Frenzied Berzerker (CW)
pg. 156: Martial Archetype (ED) = Kensai (CW)

Are there more from the other books, like the PHBs, DMG and Monster Manual? Can you find all the reused art, Playground?

EDIT: I'll try to update the first post with any more that people find.

EDIT 2: It seems that many people think I'm doing this as some kind of slam against 4th edition. I assure all of you that I'm not - my only goal here is a thought exercise. Thank you.

Wizards has been reusing art - not only within D&D books, but on the website and occasionally across different fantasy products - for years.

The idea that this is somehow a bad thing is bizarre, though. All the art is there for is to suggest a mood and a vaguely appropriate appearance for a class. Why would you WANT Wizards to spend money on getting new artwork done when they have perfectly functional artwork laying around?

Halfling Scoundrel's picture is lifted from the Tome of Battle. Somewhere in the Shadow Hand chapter.

Remorhaz and either Death or night hag are both from 3.5 books. I'm pretty sure it's night hag.

@ gametime. because we can.:smalltongue:

I seem to recall that the occassional piece from 2nd edition was used for 3rd and that some of the non-colour pieces were reused in multiple 2nd edition books. Which was fine by me, since the non-colour pieces seemed to be mostly filler to keep the page formatting consistant, while the colour art was spectacular (IMO).

I think it's actually been done almost since D&D first had art.

Ravager on pg 32 of Martial Power is the old Frenzied Berzerker art

Master Spy on pg 95 of Martial Power is a reuse from either Complete Mage or Arcane, I think.

Martial Archetype on pg 156 of Martial Power is the old Kensai from Complete Warrior.

EDIT: I don't really have a problem with reused art. What bothers me a little is when art is reused to illustrate something different than what it was originally associated with in my mind. ESPECIALLY when the original thing it was connected to still exists. The Martial Archetype / Kensai and Ravager / Frenzied Berzerker pics are a good example of this, as Kensai already was in PHB1, and FB appeared in PHB2. Why not use the old Kensai art on the page with the new Kensai?

The Steel Predator from MM2 originally appeared in the 3.0 Fiend Folio.


Recycled art is a pet peeve of mine. If I'm paying premium prices for a new product I should be getting new material. I don't like paying for art I already own. I don't have a problem with revisited art such as the MotP cover. I actually like seeing that done. I do understand it's cheaper for the company to reprint art, but that's exactly what it is, cheap. WotC has the money for it.

That said, what I like about WotC's policy is that at least they give the artist line credit and (I hope) their due commision . TSR rarely did this.

Well, would you be willing to pay .20$ more for each new picture that appears in the book? Artists need food and lodging too, you know.

Honestly, I think it'd be cool if Magic and DND dipped into each other's art pools.

But yeah, it does seem kind of cheap, but I have no idea what it costs to commission art and printing costs are.

Arcane power- one of the bard PPs uses the forlucwhatwhat lyrist prestiege class art of CA.

I don't care though, I'd rather have a fun game then some silly art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trixie

Well, would you be willing to pay .20$ more for each new picture that appears in the book? Artists need food and lodging too, you know.

---

Assuming your numbers are correct I might very well be willing to. I'd pay as much a .5 more per product given a guarantee that there would be no recycled art.

If you're worried about starving artists I think you should root for all original art. I highly doubt Todd Lockwood got the same amount of money from the 4e steel predator versus his original print. It would seem to me that it robs a newer artist from a premium pay check.

Most artists charge per picture, and it costs. Wizards aren't the first company to do this, and they definately won't be the last.

It usually doesn't matter, but I hated it back in 3.0 edition where every sourcebook had the same black and white drawings - I vaguely recall an ancient-greek-style helmet that would appear often, sometimes twice in the same book.

Good artwork is important.

WOTC has used recycled art in the past. Grand History of the Realms, for one---every single piece of art in it is recycled, sometimes in a ridiculous way. An Eberron spell that depicted a warforged being repaired by an unseen artisan was instead reflavored to depict eternal torture of some kind. :smallconfused:

I was indeed annoyed by the recycled art in the 4E books, but to their credit, their chapter spreads are pretty impressive. I especially like the ones by Michael Komarck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nero24200

Most artists charge per picture, and it costs. Wizards aren't the first company to do this, and they definately won't be the last.

---

My understanding is that most artists working for WotC are indeed free lance artists. However once it's sold to WotC it's theirs to reprint. WotC pays them a residual but I don't think it's the premium the original work commanded. I'm pretty sure they have staff artists as well.

Because other companies make poor decisions about how their art is handled doesn't justify WotC doing so.

I don't want to derail this thread any further. I was simply giving the OP an example of what he was looking for. I included an opinion that is clearly not popular or asked for. If people would like to discuss please PM me or create an appropriate thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trixie

Well, would you be willing to pay .20$ more for each new picture that appears in the book? Artists need food and lodging too, you know.

---

Wizards already charges an arm and a leg for their books. $30 minimum for each book regardless of content plus the $10 subscription they expect every player to have is already ridiculous. I'll pay an extra $5 for good work because the 4E books are already filler with massive font size, gigantic amounts of white space, and large boxes everywhere.

I don't know the rates among freelance illustrators but I do know rates among comic book artists. The average cover art will run you between $200-500 with the upper range saved for experienced painters like Alex Ross and Charles Vess. That's for a full page. A professional penciler will ask for an average of $100 per page and an inker and colorist will you run about 2/3 the penciler's asking price.

Simply put, I could commission a full page of work professional quality for less than $500. I could get a simple character looking menacing for about $100. Wizards uses more in-house artists than freelance so they're saving even more money because they don't pay a comissioning cost, can set a stricter deadline, and monitor the work onsight. There should be no excuse for recycling material.

i don't see the problem with the reused art. hell i wouldn't know some of it is reused if someone didn't point it out online.

i don't buy my RPG books for the pretty pictures... those are more of an extra if anything else. as long as the picture can convey what it's supposed to, it works fine for me and i sure don't feel cheated or wronged.

Wow. People will use any means to show that a new edition is "bad".

Who really cares about "recycled" art ? As long as it makes sense in the context it is used, it doesnt hurn anyone.

Look at older books. They have the same images that appear in other books.

I mean, there are black&white images in the 3.5 PHB that were used in 3.0 materials extensively. This probably annoyed a lot of 3.0 players...

Did it stop 3.5 from being awesome ? Nope. Same with 4E.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bayar

Wow. People will use any means to show that a new edition is "bad".

Who really cares about "recycled" art ? As long as it makes sense in the context it is used, it doesnt hurn anyone.

Look at older books. They have the same images that appear in other books.

I mean, there are black&white images in the 3.5 PHB that were used in 3.0 materials extensively. This probably annoyed a lot of 3.0 players...

Did it stop 3.5 from being awesome ? Nope. Same with 4E.

---

I care about recycled art and I don't like paying top dollar for old material. This isn't about the merits of the edition, it's about me getting what my hard earned money is worth. I would actually care less if it didn't reuse art and instead left those pages blank!

Personally, I'd rather have a good recycled picture than a crappy new one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gametime

The idea that this is somehow a bad thing is bizarre, though. All the art is there for is to suggest a mood and a vaguely appropriate appearance for a class. Why would you WANT Wizards to spend money on getting new artwork done when they have perfectly functional artwork laying around?

---

Where did I say it was a bad thing? I admit that the word "cheap" can have negative connotations, but this is more of a thought exercise.

Will update the opening post with more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R. Shackleford

Honestly, I think it'd be cool if Magic and DND dipped into each other's art pools.

---

Yes! I can't tell you how many useless cards I own just because they're pretty. (At least I mostly keep them out of my good decks.) I'd love to see that art in a larger size in a gaming book.