D&D (2024) New D&D Edition's Player’s Handbook Cover Reveal

Game Informer has revealed the cover to the 2024 Player’s Handbook.

The cover features a gold dragon behind the old-school D&D characters Strongheart the paladin, Mercion the cleric, Elkhorn the dwarf fighter, and Molliver the thief. Ringlerun the wizard is absent (then again he got his showcase on one of the 1E AD&D Player's Handbooks), but a drow mage appears to have joined the party!

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's not MCU because it doesn't look like a CGI heavy paused scene from a movie. It's not really a good piece as such imho.

Trying to parse this. The 2e art doesn't look like a paused CGI movie scene to you. But the PHB 2024 cover... does? Not to me, to be frank. It looks like a painted artwork. Brush strokes and all.

Note I'm not a fan of stupid poses for no reason. Clever artist could make it work better. Eg posing for a spellcaster using Mage hand/magic to paint them.

So, a wizard mid-cast at the start of a battle is stupid posing for no reason? A warrior with blade ready as he faces his enemies is stupid posing for no reason? You haven't established the people have no reason, and you haven't established they look stupid... you just declare it. Then say the artist isn't "clever" because he couldn't make it work.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm trying to wrap my head around what wouldn't be considered 'posing' and would still be a good cover for an action fantasy RPG.

- we're not allowed to have an image of characters en media res in a thrilling action scene because posing is bad and wrong.

- we can't have them using any of their abilities to illustrate what the game is about and pique the imagination because posing is bad and wrong.

- we can't have the characters standing shoulder to shoulder because posing is band and wrong.

- we can't have the party relaxing somewhere because the Avengers had a post credit scene where the heroes were sitting around relaxing and marvel is bad and wrong.

- we can't make the books look like actual magic books because... BECAUSE apparently.

So instead of telling us everything that is bad and wrong (because that's EVERYTHING that would fit the game), how about tell us what is allowed to be a D&D cover?

Something hand painted in the 80's by one of three artists.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think that it's a disservice to the whole piece to have that Red Dragon hiding behind the PHB logo. When you don't notice the Red Dragon, the group is standing around "posing", but if you draw more attention to the dragon, they are DEFENDING (not posing)

Perhaps that Gold Dragon is injured (or pretending to be as a "test") and the Red (and its Kobold Minions) has taken the opportunity to try to kill the Gold. The PCs are protecting the gold from the attack.

It's a clear action shot, and not posing at all, when taken into this context.

With the Red Dragon hidden? It looks like posing.

As far as the overall Dragon design work goes, I feel like there's been a direct progression from the 1e PHB to now (at least for Chromatics, the Metallics have had a course that winds like a Gold Dragon's back!)

They are still, and have (nearly) always followed the basics of the 1e design, they'be just tweaked and added distinctions over the years. The "thicc" part of the latest design I could take or leave, but everything else is looking quite slick.

Yeah, I think raising the bottom of the image slightly could help. I also wonder how much the Game Informer watermark is making our eyes glide over that section of the piece. The eye does tend to flow for text, so we are inclined to read the title, then look over at the words Game Informer, which bypasses the dragon when you are looking at reading speed.

Heck, make the text "Player's Handbook" a little smaller and it will probably also clear up the issue.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

The cover features a gold dragon behind the old-school D&D characters Strongheart the paladin, Mercion the cleric, Elkhorn the dwarf fighter, and Molliver the thief. Ringlerun the wizard is absent (then again he got his showcase on one of the 1E AD&D Player's Handbooks), but a drow mage appears to have joined the party!

This is something I think is interesting in the image. I've seen a lot of people call that Elf Mage a Drow, and I get it, it comes from years and years of Drow being the "Dark Elves".

But I think that she's just an Elf! An elf who happens to be black!

Drow are mostly painted in "light purple" these days, and while I think that Drow, like all humanoids, should come in a wide variety of skin-tones, I think that this one is a High Elf. Either way, it is a very modern take - in a good way, IMO.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Yeah, I think raising the bottom of the image slightly could help. I also wonder how much the Game Informer watermark is making our eyes glide over that section of the piece. The eye does tend to flow for text, so we are inclined to read the title, then look over at the words Game Informer, which bypasses the dragon when you are looking at reading speed.

Heck, make the text "Player's Handbook" a little smaller and it will probably also clear up the issue.

It's why I like the Full Image better. Here's my take on how to frame it:

They don't look like they're posing now, do they?

 

[Kobold Avenger]

This is something I think is interesting in the image. I've seen a lot of people call that Elf Mage a Drow, and I get it, it comes from years and years of Drow being the "Dark Elves".

But I think that she's just an Elf! An elf who happens to be black!

I noticed lately in D&D art most Elves who tend to look like Humans of African background are usually Wood Elves, I don't think it's intentional for the artists and maybe there's been an example of a High Elf that looks like one. But mostly they've been Wood Elves over any other type of Elf.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I noticed lately in D&D art most Elves who tend to look like Humans of African background are usually Wood Elves, I don't think it's intentional for the artists and maybe there's been an example of a High Elf that looks like one. But mostly they've been Wood Elves over any other type of Elf.

She could be a Wood Elf, sure.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It's why I like the Full Image better. Here's my take on how to frame it:

View attachment 363869

They don't look like they're posing now, do they?

I like that cover better than the originial art.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Hey, to be fair, I was 100% joking when I said that…

In my defense, the joke isn't any less unreasonable than the real complaint.

 

[Zardnaar]

I noticed lately in D&D art most Elves who tend to look like Humans of African background are usually Wood Elves, I don't think it's intentional for the artists and maybe there's been an example of a High Elf that looks like one. But mostly they've been Wood Elves over any other type of Elf.

They were depicted with darker skin back in 2001 in the FRCS. Not sure if they were any earlier.

So in my personal head canon they've been that the last 23 years.