# Worlds and Monsters Art Gallery



## Scholar & Brutalman (Feb 20, 2008)

There's a Worlds and Monsters Art gallery up on gleemax. It seems to be most of the art at first glance, but with fairly small image sizes.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 20, 2008)

My only complaint is that those landscape pics aren't wallpaper-sized.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 20, 2008)

Wish they'd put the titles or names on the pics.

WHich one is the bugbear, exactly?


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 20, 2008)

Did they do one for Races and Classes that I missed?  I can't seem to find it in the archive.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Feb 20, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Wish they'd put the titles or names on the pics.
> 
> WHich one is the bugbear, exactly?





Goblin, Hobgoblin and Bugbear, I think


----------



## MaelStorm (Feb 20, 2008)

I just ordered both 'Wizards Presents' books. And seeing the arts for W&M in advance makes me even more impatient. As Mouseferatu says, the landscapes are amazing.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Feb 20, 2008)

Interesting comic-book style. It used to be more like sketches or attempts at realism but this is very comic-y.

It looks good but I don't know... In my mind, when I role-play, I don't imagine D&D being a comic.


----------



## Belorin (Feb 20, 2008)

I can't tell who is more fearsome, Asmodeus or Orcus. Asmodeus is definitely malevolent, but Orcus seems to be saying "I am EVIL!".
There is that compelling female Githyanki, the Angels and the Cyclops.
Plus the Dragons.
And the landscapes...

Bel


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 20, 2008)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> Interesting comic-book style. It used to be more like sketches or attempts at realism but this is very comic-y.
> 
> It looks good but I don't know... In my mind, when I role-play, I don't imagine D&D being a comic.




I dunno I think these two pictures from the Rules Compenium take the case for best comic-"strip" material 

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/RulesComp_Gallery/83327.jpg

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/RulesComp_Gallery/97130.jpg


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Feb 20, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> My only complaint is that those landscape pics aren't wallpaper-sized.





Super-agreed.

Is there any reason we CAN'T get a wallpaper-sized edition of these pieces? I mean, I don't see how it'd detract from W&M sales (any more than these small versions), and it might even serve as some decent advertising for 4e if they stuck a logo in the corner...


----------



## Voss (Feb 20, 2008)

You know, its really going to bother me that all Fomorians  are Balor of the Evil Eye.  Racial stereotyping is terrible, especially when there isn't any basis for it


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Feb 20, 2008)

Half-Orc? http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/104091.jpg

I'm really curious as to how Orcs will be handled in 4E. Anyone has anything, other than they presumeably will be tougher (opponents for 5th lvl PCs)?


----------



## pukunui (Feb 20, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> My only complaint is that those landscape pics aren't wallpaper-sized.



 My only complaint is that so much of the art in the preview books is clearly computer-generated.

Most of them are fine (you'd only notice if you knew what to look for) but some of them are glaringly CGI (like the landscape piece with the castle in the background ... I can't stop looking at the little shield and skull that have been copied and pasted so you've got two identical shield/skull things in the same piece and they're not even that far from each other).

EDIT: this is the one I'm talking about (although you really can't tell when it's so small):
[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





[/sblock]




			
				Matrix Sorcica said:
			
		

> Half-Orc? http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/104091.jpg



Sorry to disappoint you but that's a hobgoblin.



> I'm really curious as to how Orcs will be handled in 4E. Anyone has anything, other than they presumeably will be tougher (opponents for 5th lvl PCs)?



I remember reading somewhere that 4e orcs are going to crank up the "blood-thirsty savage" thing even more, while the hobgoblins are going to get flying fortresses and an even more Sparta-like militaristic society.


This has got to be my favorite of the landscape pieces:
[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]

FYI, my favorite piece from R&C is the one with the red-haired female elf warlock doing some sort of ritual in the woods ... that one is very evocative.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Feb 20, 2008)

pukunui said:
			
		

> Sorry to disappoint you but that's a hobgoblin.



Not disappointed. I would have been disappointed if it was an orc.


----------



## Nytmare (Feb 20, 2008)

The art makes me miss highschool...


----------



## MadBlue (Feb 20, 2008)

The art looks pretty good. My only complaint is the massive heads on the troll, spined devil and wyvern (which otherwise look pretty cool).


----------



## JVisgaitis (Feb 20, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> My only complaint is that those landscape pics aren't wallpaper-sized.




Not only that, you can't even rescale them with Genuine Fractals because the quality is so low.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Feb 20, 2008)

pukunui said:
			
		

> Most of them are fine (you'd only notice if you knew what to look for) but some of them are glaringly CGI (like the landscape piece with the castle in the background ... I can't stop looking at the little shield and skull that have been copied and pasted so you've got two identical shield/skull things in the same piece and they're not even that far from each other).




That's not CGI, its digitally painted. Huge difference. Looking at the larger image I see what you mean. Its a preview book though, so it doesn't bother me at all. That's obviously just a very loose sketch. If that makes it intact into the final book, then I'll complain.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 20, 2008)

Some of the art is really cool, but overall I don't like it.  I think it's because many of the figures look so top-heavy and out of proportion.  Such thick arms and legs!


----------



## Clavis (Feb 20, 2008)

Is it just me, or does it seem like there's an awful lot of unsafe bridges and walkways suspended in air? I always wondered why people in fantasy worlds could build clockwork robots, but never got the concept of the safety railing...


----------



## WhatGravitas (Feb 20, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> That's not CGI, its digitally painted. Huge difference. Looking at the larger image I see what you mean. Its a preview book though, so it doesn't bother me at all. That's obviously just a very loose sketch. If that makes it intact into the final book, then I'll complain.



Yep. Digitally painted art involves the same skill as traditional art, it's just a different medium, like acrylics, oils, watercolours and so on. Also, read this article, it describes the difference quite well and shows that you cannot even distinguish them in every case - it's more a style choice than everything else. For example, this is also digital art. And none of them are Computer-Generated Imagery (CGI).
Cheers, LT.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 20, 2008)

I liked the artwork, but (there's always a but, isn't it) I found many of the pictures a little bit to dark for my taste. (Even though it makes sense for many of the pictures to have them dark, so I had trouble discering all details. And the artwork was good enough to want me to do that.


----------



## AFGNCAAP (Feb 20, 2008)

Nytmare said:
			
		

> The art makes me miss highschool...




Yeah... all it needs is Eddie in the pic... probably working along with or somehow pwning Orcus....


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 20, 2008)

Clavis said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or does it seem like there's an awful lot of unsafe bridges and walkways suspended in air? I always wondered why people in fantasy worlds could build clockwork robots, but never got the concept of the safety railing...




The SW universe is the worst. Its an OSHA lawsuit waiting to happen. As soon as those lightning fast doors take someone's arm off, lawyers will be coming out of the woodwork. The rebels took the wrong approach. They should have sued the empire into submission.


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 20, 2008)

There's an interesting tidbit with regard to the art direction in World & Monsters.

They mention that they are explicitly moving from a preponderance of "character in action" shot that we see in 3E to more landscape/scenery shots.

So apparently, we are going to get less this,
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




and more of this, 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about this art direction change. While scenery shots are nice, it is things like the former which I'm willing to bet actually get people (younger and older) saying "How do I do that/I want to be that guy" which makes them actually interested in the game.

The cave of chaos picture is more of a "What's the story behind that/Why are they there?" which wouldnt actually get people interested in the game itself....


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 20, 2008)

I vastly prefer the landscape art. For example, I consider some of the old Ralph McQuarrie landscape paintings he did for the original SW some of the most evocative sci-fi art ever.

It really helps me with that sense of wonder as I look at those paintings and imagine what it would be like to be standing there and seeing that in person.

I do like comic book/anime style artwork, but more for character poses and portraits. Its strange but I actually don't like action shots in my RPG books with one major exception, and that's superhero RPGs which IMO should be all portraits and action shots.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 20, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Yep. Digitally painted art involves the same skill as traditional art, it's just a different medium, like acrylics, oils, watercolours and so on. Also, read this article, it describes the difference quite well and shows that you cannot even distinguish them in every case - it's more a style choice than everything else. For example, this is also digital art. And none of them are Computer-Generated Imagery (CGI).
> Cheers, LT.



 Just look at www.toddlockwood.com . All his artwork has been digitally painted for several years, now.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Feb 20, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about this art direction change. While scenery shots are nice, it is things like the former which I'm willing to bet actually get people (younger and older) saying "How do I do that/I want to be that guy" which makes them actually interested in the game.
> 
> The cave of chaos picture is more of a "What's the story behind that/Why are they there?" which wouldnt actually get people interested in the game itself....



I'm not too sure of this. The Lord of the Rings movies cashed in an enormous amount of success with awe-inspiring panoramic shots. I think landscapes alone could be boring - but awe-inspiring, perhaps even otherworldly landscapes, give you a window into a fantasy world.

Which in turn will turn on your imagination. Furthermore, the "I want to be that guy" isn't a particularly good approach for a _tabletop_ game. You only have your imagination to "see" that "guy", so it's already addressing more imaginative types - which will perhaps react better to contextual imagery than singular characters without backdrop.

If you now mix it with characters, which will probably happen - as W&M is a book _about the world_, I daresay that the landscapes are a good way to fire your imagination.

Also don't forget that the lack of backdrop was a criticism concerning 3E art that I have heard more than once here on ENWorld.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## hong (Feb 20, 2008)

What was the art in Races & Classes like? More of the action shots?


----------



## Kaodi (Feb 20, 2008)

The landscapes have certainly been taken to the next level. Almost makes it seem like a return to the days of full page quality art.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Feb 20, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about this art direction change. While scenery shots are nice, it is things like the former which I'm willing to bet actually get people (younger and older) saying "How do I do that/I want to be that guy" which makes them actually interested in the game.
> 
> The cave of chaos picture is more of a "What's the story behind that/Why are they there?" which wouldnt actually get people interested in the game itself....



Your thoughts are alien to me.  That first pic is a waste of photons.  The second one makes me want to stat up a character and clear out those caves.  Nothing makes me want to play more than questions like "What's the story here?" or "Why are you here?".


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 20, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> That's not CGI, its digitally painted. Huge difference. Looking at the larger image I see what you mean. Its a preview book though, so it doesn't bother me at all. That's obviously just a very loose sketch. If that makes it intact into the final book, then I'll complain.



Which image looks like a loose sketch?  I am not finding it... you artists and your highly attuned sense of detail can really ruin it for us meatheads.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 20, 2008)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> The landscapes have certainly been taken to the next level. Almost makes it seem like a return to the days of full page quality art.



In the case of Worlds & Monsters, some of these images are full page quality art!  I really can't express how much better they are in the book.


----------



## lutecius (Feb 20, 2008)

digital or not, the landscapes and the dragons are inspiring. the b&w art is really uneven and sometimes kind of amateurish. yes i'm talking about you, little toothy fey-thing with knives and stumpy legs!

I had forgotten how yucky the dryad was. not for being a tree-with-boobs but for being more evocative of alien bondage than scary-tree-spirit. i suppose they tried too hard to distinguish themselves from warhammer (and yet adopted their take on the dryad)

the bug-lady by WAR should apply to the "find the anime" thread

the nightmare looked better as a mini (which is not a good thing)



			
				MadBlue said:
			
		

> The art looks pretty good. My only complaint is the massive heads on the troll, spined devil and wyvern (which otherwise look pretty cool).



completely agree on the troll, unfortunately it is consistent with other preview art & minis. I like the stoney look and the not flaccid nose, but the elongated head and odd crook look clumsy. they could do without the elrond hairstyle too. it doesn't look that good on elves, it is just silly on trolls. either go bald or grow some shrub-like hair, like the scandinavian trolls. i like the big-head wyvern, though.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 20, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> What was the art in Races & Classes like? More of the action shots?



 More of the "cool pose" scenes with nearly-no-background (if at all).

I think 4e is (thankfully) aiming for a middle ground between action shots and establishing (i.e. locale) shots. As well it should.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 20, 2008)

lutecius said:
			
		

> the b&w art is really uneven and sometimes kind of amateurish. yes i'm talking about you, little toothy fey-thing with knives and stumpy legs!




That would be the new *ahem* "quickling"....


----------



## WyzardWhately (Feb 20, 2008)

I really prefer the landscape art.  It plays up adventurers as brave explorers, rather than just killing machines.  Don't get me wrong, there should be the occasional battle, or menacing confrontation, or aftermath scene.  But I looove the landscapes.

And, yes, WotC:  We would like some desktops of these.  I understand they're pressed for time out there, but it'd be totally sweet.


----------



## EvilDwarf (Feb 20, 2008)

Agreed.  If these landscapes were higher res, they would totally rock as desktop backgrounds.  I could even use them in my transition to 4e games because I like to use a lot of artwork when I DM.

Plus, when someone asked me where I got the cool backgrounds, I could torture my game-mates who aren't yet keen on 4E by showing them what they'll be missing!!!


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 20, 2008)

EvilDwarf said:
			
		

> Plus, when someone asked me where I got the cool backgrounds, I could torture my game-mates who aren't yet keen on 4E by showing them what they'll be missing!!!




What does not being keen on the new edition of D&D have to do with appreciating good fantasy art?

I know that even though I'm not going to be switching to the new edition, I will be sure to stop by the WotC website to see the art galleries from time to time.  

Fantasy art can be very inspirational....


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 20, 2008)

Hmm...I'm switching to 4E and I prefer the action/character pose from 3E moreso than the scenery shot.

In D&D, it always seemed like only the magic-user was anything special and that he gt all the cool stuff (anyone remember the various action shots in 2E with the wizard like the cover of Spells & Magic, 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 or the various action/magic shots like in the original Tome of Magic.

I always thought the non-spellcasters got gipped because frankly to me, the old 1e/2e paradigm seemed to say "Well, non-spellcasters, you guys, aren't really that cool. It's all about the wizard/scenery"

Why again would I want to be a melee guy?


----------



## Zamkaizer (Feb 20, 2008)

Much, if not all, of the line art is for the miniatures game, so what we see here is not necessarily representative of what we'll encounter in the Monster Manual. Notice, for instance how Wayne Reynolds' sketch of this demon was, in fact for this art in the book of Vile Darkness.

William O'Connor, Steve Prescott, and Wayne Reynolds' sketches certainly are nice though, as are Howard Lyon's full-color illustrations. I could do without the Githyanki Real Doll though.

I truly wish they had labeled the illustrations though. And what's with the tiny image size?! It annoys me to no end that, despite the difference in size between a book and a card, the illustrations featured on Magic: The Gathering's site are, on average, substantially larger than those on the Dungeons & Dragons site.


----------



## arscott (Feb 20, 2008)

I'm a little bit disappointed by the dragons.  With talk about the dragons occupying a variety of different monster roles, I'd hoped they'd have greater differences in body structure.  I also liked the feathered wyvern and am sad to see it go away.

I like the troll.  It's topheavy and cartoonish, but it's a look that works well.  It's a good physical expression of the personality that I envision a troll to have.


----------



## pukunui (Feb 20, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> There's an interesting tidbit with regard to the art direction in World & Monsters.
> 
> They mention that they are explicitly moving from a preponderance of "character in action" shot that we see in 3E to more landscape/scenery shots.
> 
> ...



For the record, I much prefer the latter (which I think is by far one of the best pieces of art from the entire 3e catalog) to the former. I find landscape type stuff to be much more evocative than action shots. The lack of landscapes was one of the first things I noticed, and complained about, with 3e. I missed all the old contextual fantasy art that was so prevalent in 2e.



@ those who said the art's not CGI but digitally painted -- my bad, that's actually what I meant. And you _can_ tell. Some of the stuff looked traditionally done to my graphic-designer-in-training eyes but I showed it to the more experienced department head (who is also one of my d&d players) and he scanned through both preview books and said that pretty much _all_ the color art was done on a computer. Most of it is done well but the ones like that castle landscape with the duplicated skull & shield are really obvious (if you look closely at the strokes, theyve got digital layering/transparency and are all the same thickness - eg. clearly done with a photoshop brush).

Anyway ... I don't think WAR does his stuff on the computer, does he? Even if he does, it's still really good, and his stuff is going to be on the covers of the core books, at least. I wasn't too impressed with William O'Connor's stuff, so I hope he was just the "preview" guy and won't have too much stuff, if anything, in the actual product.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 20, 2008)

Beautiful stuff, especially the landscapes. I liked the vrock, I think it's a Ron Spencer. What's the female with leaves for an arm? A nymph? A morphing dryad?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 20, 2008)

On the background/no background issue it depends on what the art is trying to do. A monster pic for example doesn't need any background, it's purpose is solely to depict the monster.


----------



## Sir Sebastian Hardin (Feb 20, 2008)

Eventhough I am all for 4e, the art in this book (the monsters, not the landscapes) is in average worse than the ones in the Monster Manual 1. The new hobbo sucks, as the dryad. Very, very few ones are better than their 3e versions.

The landscapes are really cool, though. Priceless!


----------



## Incenjucar (Feb 20, 2008)

Unfortunately, with the whole minis thing, it's entirely possible that monster design will at least be somewhat dependant on what makes a good mini.   :\ 

As for action scenes and so forth... those are fine.  Especially when they're amidst scenery.

You can have an epic battle raging IN epic scenery.

Comic books do it all the time.


----------



## Zamkaizer (Feb 20, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Beautiful stuff, especially the landscapes. I liked the vrock, I think it's a Ron Spencer. What's the female with leaves for an arm? A nymph? A morphing dryad?



I think those are beetles...


			
				pukunui said:
			
		

> Anyway ... I don't think WAR does his stuff on the computer, does he? Even if he does, it's still really good, and his stuff is going to be on the covers of the core books, at least. I wasn't too impressed with William O'Connor's stuff, so I hope he was just the "preview" guy and won't have too much stuff, if anything, in the actual product.



We'll have to agree to disagree about William O'Connor's work. Concerning Wayne Reynolds work though, all of it is done with acrylics, with some digital cleaning-up by Wizards' graphic designers.


----------



## lutecius (Feb 20, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Beautiful stuff, especially the landscapes. I liked the vrock, I think it's a Ron Spencer. What's the female with leaves for an arm? A nymph? A morphing dryad?





			
				lutecius said:
			
		

> the bug-lady by WAR should apply to the "find the anime" thread



are those leaves? i thought they were beetles or roaches. wasn't there some guy who morphed into vermin in 3e? 
visually, turning into a swirl of leaves would be a nice evasion manoeuvre for a dryad (unless someone catches them all and makes some fire)

i like the vrock too, i hated the skeletal/insectoid 3e look.


----------



## pukunui (Feb 20, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Beautiful stuff, especially the landscapes. I liked the vrock, I think it's a Ron Spencer. What's the female with leaves for an arm? A nymph? A morphing dryad?



It's a lamia, according to the W&M caption.



			
				Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> We'll have to agree to disagree about William O'Connor's work.



Um, I guess so. I just don't think he draws people very well. At least not faces or arms. And it looks like he didn't get the memo that tieflings are supposed to have small tails ...



> Concerning Wayne Reynolds work though, all of it is done with acrylics, with some digital cleaning-up by Wizards' graphic designers.



Thanks.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Feb 20, 2008)

pukunui said:
			
		

> @ those who said the art's not CGI but digitally painted -- my bad, that's actually what I meant. And you _can_ tell. Some of the stuff looked traditionally done to my graphic-designer-in-training eyes but I showed it to the more experienced department head (who is also one of my d&d players) and he scanned through both preview books and said that pretty much _all_ the color art was done on a computer. Most of it is done well but the ones like that castle landscape with the duplicated skull & shield are really obvious (if you look closely at the strokes, theyve got digital layering/transparency and are all the same thickness - eg. clearly done with a photoshop brush).



Well, if you look at Lockwood's stuff, the distinction between digital and non-digital is almost impossible to see. And for the visible photoshop brushes, it's a style-thing - while I'm totally untalented at photoshop as a medium (I can only work with acrylics), I visit art pages fairly often.

And the visible brush style thing is a telltale sign, but it's often a) an effect that people aim for, because it's something traditional media cannot produce or only very imprecise - so it's kind of a fad. b) the brushes are the result of quick sketches - with the large obvious brushes, you can sketch things fast and get a picture that gives you a "complete"-looking impression. Fully worked, it'll look more refined, and less "photoshop-brushed". But yeah, you can almost always see a slight difference, especially because digital art lacks the "grittiness" of the underlying texture and because of the brighter whites.

On the other hand, what's the problem? I mean using computers as a medium doesn't mean that that artwork is "lesser" art, generally people who can work very well on a digital artwork are often similarly skilled in using a normal brush, computers just give an extra range of effects, for example, Lockwood isn't worse than before, just because he switched to computers. And AFAIK, many artists use computers nowadays, even if it's only for touch-ups.

Just compare these three: Silver Dragon, Reaper's Gale, and Gasfish. Without looking, which one is painted with acrylics, oils, or computer?

Cheers, LT.


----------



## pukunui (Feb 20, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Well, if you look at Lockwood's stuff, the distinction between digital and non-digital is almost impossible to see. And for the visible photoshop brushes, it's a style-thing - while I'm totally untalented at photoshop as a medium (I can only work with acrylics), I visit art pages fairly often.
> 
> And the visible brush style thing is a telltale sign, but it's often a) an effect that people aim for, because it's something traditional media cannot produce or only very imprecise - so it's kind of a fad. b) the brushes are the result of quick sketches - with the large obvious brushes, you can sketch things fast and get a picture that gives you a "complete"-looking impression. Fully worked, it'll look more refined, and less "photoshop-brushed". But yeah, you can almost always see a slight difference, especially because digital art lacks the "grittiness" of the underlying texture and because of the brighter whites.
> 
> ...



 Fair enough. I don't really know why I don't like it. It just rubs me the wrong way. Maybe I'm just being a grognard about art and part of me _does_ think it's "lesser" art if it's done on a computer (says the guy who's almost a fully-fledged graphic designer *rolls eyes*).

BTW, I guessed the middle one was digital (my eye can't distinguish between oil or acrylic paints but there's just something about the light in the Reaper's Gale one that said "digital" to me). Turns out I was right!


----------



## lutecius (Feb 20, 2008)

pukunui said:
			
		

> It's a lamia, according to the W&M caption.



intriguing.  i thought lamia were serpentine in mythology or quadrupeds with human faces and breasts in medieval engravings. 
is the artist credited for each picture? some i can't figure out.


----------



## pukunui (Feb 20, 2008)

lutecius said:
			
		

> intriguing.  i thought lamia were serpentine in mythology or quadrupeds with human faces and breasts in medieval engravings.
> is the artist credited for each picture? some i can't figure out.



 Nope, the artist isn't named ... but considering that WotC has gotten captions wrong in the past, it's entirely possible that it's _not_ a lamia.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 20, 2008)

> intriguing. i thought lamia were serpentine in mythology or quadrupeds with human faces and breasts in medieval engravings.




They were half-snake, half-women monsters that ate children. The legend basically goes that there was a queen named Lamia who had her children stolen away by a jealous Hera (because like every other lady in ancient Greece, she was makin' it with Zeus), and became monstrous as she ate other people's children in vengeance. There's also a bit about her being able to take out her eyes, or never close her eyes, and it's said that she created more in her image that now go around kind of like bogeymen, eatin' kids up. 

She was kind of a monster in the model of Scylla or even Medusa or the Gorgons: a woman-snake-beast. She was dangerous to men because she wasn't really the family type: she'd eat up her own children, too. But her top half was supposed to be very comely, and she was supposed to have magical abilities (probably including shapeshifting).

I'm not sure where the lion-bodied person comes from, or the wisdom drain, but I'd be happy if the 4e version had something to do with snakes and liked to eat babies and could hide out/use disguises to trick others. That'd be sweet enough.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 20, 2008)

lutecius said:
			
		

> intriguing.  i thought lamia were serpentine in mythology or quadrupeds with human faces and breasts in medieval engravings.
> is the artist credited for each picture? some i can't figure out.




Yeah you are right that is what they classically are but I dunno about the new one. Perhaps it is just a bad caption or a placeholder name.


----------



## lutecius (Feb 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'm not sure where the lion-bodied person comes from, or the wisdom drain, but I'd be happy if the 4e version had something to do with snakes and liked to eat babies and could hide out/use disguises to trick others. That'd be sweet enough.



i was sure i had seen it somewhere so i just had to dig a little. i was wrong about the period though. it was in one of Edward Topsell's bestiaries (early 17th C.)
http://www.eaudrey.com/myth/lamia.htm
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~ian.mccormick/lamia.jpg
note that the 2nd one has male genitalia and breasts... curiouser and curiouser


there are 3 different pics of some kind of angel with metal wings and a fiery sword. they look somehow related to archons. anyone knows what they are called in w&m?


----------



## Zamkaizer (Feb 21, 2008)

lutecius said:
			
		

> there are 3 different pics of some kind of angel with metal wings and a fiery sword. they look somehow related to archons. anyone knows what they are called in w&m?




Those would be the new Angels.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Feb 21, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> That would be the new *ahem* "quickling"....




Right, because the old keebler-elf-on-speed was a worthwhile concept to preserve...


----------



## Guild Goodknife (Feb 21, 2008)

I loved the landscapes. The monsters not so much.
But please tell me this http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/104091.jpg
wasn't done by Dennis Cramer, it kinda looks like his style.   
Please, i absolutely despise his art, don't let him taint 4E with his water colors!!


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 21, 2008)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> Right, because the old keebler-elf-on-speed was a worthwhile concept to preserve...




Not necessarily.  I don't mind a change in design at all, but a creature called a quickling and renown for its ability to move blindingly fast shouldn't look like it would have trouble walking.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 21, 2008)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> Goblin, Hobgoblin and Bugbear, I think




Thanks a bunch!  



			
				MadBlue said:
			
		

> The art looks pretty good. My only complaint is the massive heads on the troll, spined devil and wyvern (which otherwise look pretty cool).



I think the massive troll head is actually very distinctive. That HUGE troll mouth is _creepy_. It makes them look inhuman in a real freaky way. Like they could just pick up a child and eat them whole.

Very dark fairy tale.


----------



## lutecius (Feb 21, 2008)

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> Those would be the new Angels.



thanks.
I am a bit disappointed: no legs, no face, metal armor, elemental feel... i thought the whole point of the new archon was to be different from angels. i imagined the angel would be sexier and more human. 
I liked the symetry of human angels / disciplined elemental archons vs humanoid devils / chaotic elemental demons


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 21, 2008)

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> Those would be the new Angels.


----------



## lutecius (Feb 21, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Those would be the new Angels



 now that's sexier and somewhat more human


----------



## frankthedm (Feb 21, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> They mention that they are explicitly moving from a preponderance of "character in action" shot that we see in 3E to more landscape/scenery shots.
> 
> So apparently, we are going to get less this,
> 
> ...



GREAT!!! Omnislash is fine, as a bad joke. Hell, if Capcom made another D&D arcade game, It would be fine there. But in a book for the Tabletop RPG, The Caves of Chaos landscape is the only one of those two to belong.


----------



## fnwc (Feb 21, 2008)

MadBlue said:
			
		

> The art looks pretty good. My only complaint is the massive heads on the troll, spined devil and wyvern (which otherwise look pretty cool).




Is this the troll?






It's a bit of departure from the 2nd edition green monster, but I like it.


----------



## JamesP (Feb 21, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> and more of this, (EPIC PICTURE)
> 
> Can you tell me where this is from? I absolutely love it.
> 
> ...


----------



## lutecius (Feb 21, 2008)

Guild Goodknife said:
			
		

> I loved the landscapes. The monsters not so much.
> But please tell me this http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/104091.jpg
> wasn't done by Dennis Cramer, it kinda looks like his style.
> Please, i absolutely despise his art, don't let him taint 4E with his water colors!!



is he the same as Dennis Crabapple McClain? because he does have a thing for black eye sockets. 
i am not a fan either. well as long as he doesn't draw humans... his faces are consistently ugly


----------



## Incenjucar (Feb 21, 2008)

fnwc said:
			
		

> Is this the troll?
> 
> It's a bit of departure from the 2nd edition green monster, but I like it.




Really, it looks like they made an ugly burly halfling out of clay, then just grabbed his face and started pulling.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 21, 2008)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Really, it looks like they made an ugly burly halfling out of clay, then just grabbed his face and started pulling.



It REALLY reminds me of the tusk-toothed creatures in _The Hobbit_ cartoon.


----------



## lutecius (Feb 21, 2008)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> Right, because the old keebler-elf-on-speed was a worthwhile concept to preserve...





			
				Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Not necessarily. I don't mind a change in design at all, but a creature called a quickling and renown for its ability to move blindingly fast shouldn't look like it would have trouble walking.



that, and the cutesy-keebler-elf-turning-out-to-be-a-fast-nasty-little-bastard   IS a concept.

I understand the move away from the sweet friendly fairies, but giving them cruel and feral dispositions while keeping their cheerful and likable appearances is what makes them interesting and scary (think Chucky or Pennywise. I also loved the Grey Jester from Heroes of Horrors  http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/hoh_gallery/91997.jpg, a fine adventure too)
If you want them to have a more nature-oriented feel to fit the feywild, DiTerlizzi's AD&D2 or Changeling art is also a good approach.

we ALREADY have mean ugly fey creatures. they're called goblins, kobolds, trolls...
and this new quickling does look like a goblinoid with bad dentition and grasshopper clubfeet. not much of a concept.


----------



## Zarithar (Feb 21, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> It REALLY reminds me of the tusk-toothed creatures in _The Hobbit_ cartoon.




The trolls?






Or the goblins?


----------



## Klaus (Feb 21, 2008)

Guild Goodknife said:
			
		

> I loved the landscapes. The monsters not so much.
> But please tell me this http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/104091.jpg
> wasn't done by Dennis Cramer, it kinda looks like his style.
> Please, i absolutely despise his art, don't let him taint 4E with his water colors!!



 I'm not all that thrilled by this take on the hobgoblin. I vastly preferred the ones on the cover of Red Hand of DOOOOOOM. Since the bugbear is still pretty much the same, I wish they'd kept that look for the hobbos.


----------



## Zarithar (Feb 21, 2008)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I'm not all that thrilled by this take on the hobgoblin. I vastly preferred the ones on the cover of Red Hand of DOOOOOOM. Since the bugbear is still pretty much the same, I wish they'd kept that look for the hobbos.









Yea... I don't see how the "new" hobgoblin art is superior to the above.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 21, 2008)

I do like the new troll look, if that is what it is. I've never been a huge fan of D&D's wiry regenerating booger-monsters, appearance-wise.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 21, 2008)

Zarithar said:
			
		

> Yea... I don't see how the "new" hobgoblin art is superior to the above.



One word:

Mohawks.


----------



## Zarithar (Feb 21, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> One word:
> 
> Mohawks.




Can't argue with that!


----------



## pukunui (Feb 21, 2008)

Now that the R&C art gallery is finally up, I can post my favorite pic from that book:






This one's pretty cool too:






It's funny. When I first looked through R&C, I thought there was a preponderance of warlocks shown (I think there's one for every race) ... so I went and counted. There are actually more pictures of fighters than of any other class. After that, it's the rogue. Wizards and warlocks are tied for third. I think that there are still more full-page, full-color pics of warlocks than other classes, though. Most of the fighters are just b/w sketches, for instance.


This is my favorite of the tieflings (she has a small, well-proportioned tail, whereas most of the others' tails are just way too huge, as are their horns ...):


----------



## Rechan (Feb 21, 2008)

Zarithar said:
			
		

> The trolls?



I... don't remember.

All I remember is the creatures in the scene where Gandalf makes the SWORD appear and all of them are like "OH CRAP".


----------



## Guild Goodknife (Feb 21, 2008)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I'm not all that thrilled by this take on the hobgoblin. I vastly preferred the ones on the cover of Red Hand of DOOOOOOM. Since the bugbear is still pretty much the same, I wish they'd kept that look for the hobbos.




What i really dislike about this new Hobgoblin is how the black around his deep sunken eyes makes it look like he's wearing a monster rubber mask.


----------



## Guild Goodknife (Feb 21, 2008)

edit: double post


----------



## Zarithar (Feb 21, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I... don't remember.
> 
> All I remember is the creatures in the scene where Gandalf makes the SWORD appear and all of them are like "OH CRAP".




That would be the goblins then... when Gandalf rescued them from the goblin king.


----------



## Zamkaizer (Feb 21, 2008)

Concerning Hobgoblins, this is far and above still my favorite depiction of them:


----------



## Zarithar (Feb 21, 2008)

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> Concerning Hobgoblins, this is far and above still my favorite depiction of them:




I have to agree. That's pretty damn cool and true to the spirit of the original 1st Ed artwork.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 21, 2008)

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> Concerning Hobgoblins, this is far and above still my favorite depiction of them:



Epic. Win.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 21, 2008)

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> Concerning Hobgoblins, this is far and above still my favorite depiction of them:



 That's the Lhesh Haruuc, ruler of the goblinoid nation of Darguun in Eberron.

But I do think it's a bit too orcish.

I make my hobgoblins like this:

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]


----------



## Zarithar (Feb 21, 2008)

Klaus said:
			
		

> That's the Lhesh Haruuc, ruler of the goblinoid nation of Darguun in Eberron.
> 
> But I do think it's a bit too orcish.
> 
> ...




Yep that works too... I've just got to agree with others on the exaggerated sunken eyes... it's a little too much.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 21, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Epic. Win.




I agree.  I just look at that picture and I can hear the sound of kingdoms being crushed beneath his boots....


----------



## pukunui (Feb 21, 2008)

Zarithar said:
			
		

> Yep that works too... I've just got to agree with others on the exaggerated sunken eyes... it's a little too much.



I prefer the MM 3.5 look myself, but I dig the mohawk on the new guy (the sunken eyes _are_ a bit off-putting, I'll agree). Is it just me or does the hob in the goblin family lineup look oriental?


What do you guys think of the idea that hobgoblins will live in floating fortresses?


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Feb 22, 2008)

The gallery looks pretty good, overall.

My particular favorites are the wyvern (the pic in 3.* MM is one of the worst ones in the book, and one of the worst deciptions of a wyvern I've ever seen), the hydra (they've never had any claw attacks anyway, so why keep the legs?), the hag and the undead guys.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 22, 2008)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> The gallery looks pretty good, overall.
> 
> My particular favorites are the wyvern (the pic in 3.* MM is one of the worst ones in the book, and one of the worst deciptions of a wyvern I've ever seen), the hydra (they've never had any claw attacks anyway, so why keep the legs?), the hag and the undead guys.



 The wyvern is good and all, but it seems a bit unbalanced.I prefer Sam Belledin's depiction of a wyvern fighting a 3e dragonborn, from Races of the Dragon:






I expect a creature with the wyvern's structure (forelegs doubling as wings) to walk on all fours, like the dragons in Dragonslayer and Reign of Fire.

Vermithrax (Dragonslayer):





The Great Bull (Reign of Fire):


----------



## smetzger (Feb 22, 2008)

What is this?

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/105724.jpg


----------



## hong (Feb 22, 2008)

smetzger said:
			
		

> What is this?
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/105724.jpg



 Oni.

Roll on Oriental Adventures 4E!


----------



## Klaus (Feb 22, 2008)

smetzger said:
			
		

> What is this?
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/105724.jpg



 Ogre Mage.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 22, 2008)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Ogre Mage.



Isn't that what hong wrote?


----------



## Klaus (Feb 22, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Isn't that what hong wrote?



 Not necessarily.


----------



## Keenath (Feb 22, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> GREAT!!! Omnislash is fine, as a bad joke. Hell, if Capcom made another D&D arcade game, It would be fine there. But in a book for the Tabletop RPG, The Caves of Chaos landscape is the only one of those two to belong.



Back in 2nd edition they had lots of landscapey sort of shots and lots of what I have to think of as "static action" images -- That is, the characters are engaged in some sort of activity, like fighting, but have no sense of kinetic energy.

If I may steal a few pics from that thread over there, compare this Action Scene in 2nd edition...

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]

..to a late 3rd edition Action Scene.

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]

Those wizards don't look like they're in motion.  Their cloaks and hair billow dramatically, but there's no sense of inertia to them.  In the second, by comparison, you can almost feel the impact of that attack.  They don't actually have to be in combat to feel it, though...

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]

Even though she's not actually moving, it has a sense of energy that's lacking in the 2nd edition image.


Now, on the other hand (or really the same hand), I'm not a big fan of the "I'm a heavily armored fighter dude standing in front of a blank background!" art that I've seen a lot of in 3.x.

I suppose my wish would be to keep maybe 50% of the good 'action pose' art, and replace the rest with landscapes, using landscaped backgrounds for the "class example" art.  Taking the R&C book, for example -- this is far preferable to this.  I know sometimes you have to go with the unobtrusive background for page composition reasons, but I prefer the background that gives your characters some sense of place.


Also, this dude totally looks like Bruce Campbell.  Maybe more like back in the Evil Dead or Hercules days than now, but we all get older.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 22, 2008)

Keenath said:
			
		

> Also, this dude totally looks like Bruce Campbell.  Maybe more like back in the Evil Dead or Hercules days than now, but we all get older.




Whenever I see that guy I ALWAYS start laughing/giggling.


----------



## Zamkaizer (Feb 22, 2008)

Keenath said:
			
		

> I suppose my wish would be to keep maybe 50% of the good 'action pose' art, and replace the rest with landscapes, using landscaped backgrounds for the "class example" art.  Taking the R&C book, for example -- this is far preferable to this.  I know sometimes you have to go with the unobtrusive background for page composition reasons, but I prefer the background that gives your characters some sense of place.



Well, I find that the 'focus, surrounded by whitespace' conceit actually looks better in the context of a page of a book. 

Something I'd love to see though, would be full-page illustrations, in the same vein as _Dragon_'s covers, in every chapter of a book, or an Eberron-esque diorama in the center of every book.


----------



## pukunui (Feb 22, 2008)

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> Well, I find that the 'focus, surrounded by whitespace' conceit actually looks better in the context of a page of a book.
> 
> Something I'd love to see though, would be full-page illustrations, in the same vein as _Dragon_'s covers, in every chapter of a book, or an Eberron-esque diorama in the center of every book.



 Yes, more full-page illustrations would be nice, although you'd end up with all the crunch-lovers complaining about the wasted space ... *rolls eyes*


----------

