# Daily Art Preview



## Trolls

Well, this is good news:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/welcome

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/art_preview/20080414_114717_dh290uw3_0.jpg

Speculation follows:

Tieflings? Possibly, but the wings aren't something we've seen before. My guess is they are cambions, since they seem pretty close to the minis.


----------



## HeinorNY

Trolls said:
			
		

> Tieflings? Possibly, but the wings aren't something we've seen before. My guess is they are cambions, since they seem pretty close to the minis.



I think it's Mephistopheles.
EDIT: maybe not.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

Definitely Cambions.  Thanks for the link to the mini.

Is that an Alu-DemonDevilfiend?


----------



## Chibbot

What is a Cambion?

Not a name I've heard before.


----------



## Guild Goodknife

Trolls said:
			
		

> Well, this is good news:
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/welcome
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/art_preview/20080414_114717_dh290uw3_0.jpg
> 
> Speculation follows:
> 
> Tieflings? Possibly, but the wings aren't something we've seen before. My guess is they are cambions, since they seem pretty close to the minis.




Cool, now i can get my daily 4E fix!   
 Yeah, looks like Cambions.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

Chibbot said:
			
		

> What is a Cambion?
> 
> Not a name I've heard before.




SonChild of a devil and a human.


----------



## Green Knight

Cambions are 2E versions of Half-Fiends (Although personally, I think the 2E Cambions looked way better).


----------



## Klaus

Trolls said:
			
		

> Well, this is good news:
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/welcome
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/art_preview/20080414_114717_dh290uw3_0.jpg
> 
> Speculation follows:
> 
> Tieflings? Possibly, but the wings aren't something we've seen before. My guess is they are cambions, since they seem pretty close to the minis.



 Ugh. Not a fan of that art.


----------



## I'm A Banana

.....I friggin' hate that dude's shirt.

But that's pretty subjective.  I agree with the Cambion speculation!


----------



## WampusCat43

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> .....I friggin' hate that dude's shirt.



Used to wear those to the beach back in the 70s, when I could get away with it.



Gang-signing fiends in Hasselhoff shirts.  Jeez.


----------



## SuperJosh

WOW!, mesh shirt *and *oversized bondage pants?  Goth much? Not that that is a bad thing... if you are into goth... I am not... so no cambions... unless they work at Cinnibon and are named "Azrael".

Oh and that guys hand position reminds me on my wifes when she is fanning her hands after having painted her nails.


----------



## Serensius

Pretty cool, love the dude's gangsta pose.


----------



## WhatGravitas

SuperJosh said:
			
		

> WOW!, mesh shirt *and *oversized bondage pants?  Goth much? Not that that is a bad thing... if you are into goth... I am not... so no cambions... unless they work at Cinnibon and are named "Azrael".



Yep. Very goth/metal-ish. Doesn't bother me... but it sort of breaks my suspension of disbelief, because it's very modern. Well, I actually don't really care. But I'm happy about the fact that the art preview is _daily_ from now on!

Cheers, LT.


----------



## The_Gneech

WampusCat43 said:
			
		

> Used to wear those to the beach back in the 70s, when I could get away with it.
> 
> Gang-signing fiends in Hasselhoff shirts.  Jeez.




Is that better or worse than leather-strap-happy bald guys covered in tattoos and piercings?

Or for that matter, hippie-trippy dryads and wizards that look like they came right off a '70s van mural?

Stupid topicality in _D&D_ art! Fie!

-The Gneech


----------



## WyzardWhately

If Dragonborn can grow wings, I'd sort of want Tieflings to be able to do so as well.  I mean, I'll probably end up playing a Tiefling, and being able to get a set of sweet devil-wings would be pretty awesome.


----------



## Ghaerdon Fain

We at least know they have a female form ;-)


----------



## breschau

Aw. And I was hoping it would be a paragon path / epic destiny for the tieflings. Damn.


----------



## Trolls

breschau said:
			
		

> Aw. And I was hoping it would be a paragon path / epic destiny for the tieflings. Damn.




It's still possible. The cambion mini is an _ascendant_ hellsword, after all. It could be ascended from a tiefling.

It would be strange, though, given the mythology of cambions as half-fiends.


----------



## Zamkaizer

Today's exhibit is pretty good, though it thankfully lacks real life reference. I can't place the artist though. Arnie Swekel? Kieran Yanner?


----------



## Klaus

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> Today's exhibit is pretty good, though it thankfully lacks real life reference. I can't place the artist though. Arnie Swekel? Kieran Yanner?



 I'll take a guess and say Anne Stokes.


----------



## Remathilis

Yay for the glibbering orb!


----------



## Guild Goodknife

For those who didn't notice, this is the page where the art previews are collected: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/artpreview


----------



## Fallen Seraph

*Is imagining rival soccer teams the Mind Flayers vs. Beholders playing soccer with a gibbering orb*


----------



## WhatGravitas

Guild Goodknife said:
			
		

> For those who didn't notice, this is the page where the art previews are collected: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/artpreview



With names and blurbs. Which makes the page actually better than the link on the frontpage!

Cheers, LT.


----------



## fnwc

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Cambions are 2E versions of Half-Fiends (Although personally, I think the 2E Cambions looked way better).



Looks like a drow on a bender.


----------



## Klaus

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Yay for the glibbering orb!



 Now THAT is awesome!

Reminds me a lot of Bernie Wrightson's work!


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Hmm... I wonder if each piece of artwork will be from the MM? I remember them saying somewhere they wanted to have atleast one monster drawn by each of the important D&D artist.

We could see each day a different monster, done by a different artist.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Me Likee gibbering orb, as well. In the next set of minis, I hope 

As for the mesh shirt it reminds me of Rab C Nesbitt!


----------



## Dragonbait

Gibbering Orb = Nishruu

The Nishruu from Monsters of Faerun


----------



## Voss

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> *Is imagining rival soccer teams the Mind Flayers vs. Beholders playing soccer with a gibbering orb*




Beholders win.  Telekinesis means never losing a foot to an insane ball of teeth.


----------



## Lancelot

Nice. Gibbering Orb, despite the similarities, is not the FR nishruu. It's a creature from the 3e Epic Level Handbook... suggesting that this could be a very high level monstrosity (e.g. CR 21+).

It'll be very interesting to see how they fill out the slots at those levels. We've already heard about the pit fiend, war devil, orcus, etc. I'd love to see some other 3e "epic" opponents re-done for 4e, such as the various abominations, demi-lich, colossi, winterwight, worm-that-walks, and mithral/adamantine golems.


----------



## Zamkaizer

Pete Venters drew the Gibbering Orb?

Here there be Magic: The Gathering artists.


----------



## Hussar

Ooo, I like the Gibbering Orb.  Far Realms beastie perhaps?


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Hussar said:
			
		

> Ooo, I like the Gibbering Orb.  Far Realms beastie perhaps?




I would say so the text for it, states as much:


> Gibbering orbs are *denizens of the Far Realm* that wander the planes and the places between, consuming living creatures.


----------



## Zamkaizer

And the Blood Fiend, by Chris Stevens--another Dungeons & Dragons newcomer--is up, and it's damn fine. Two out of three ain't bad.


----------



## Shroomy

Cambion, Gibbering Orb, Blood Fiend...I'm liking the direction of the first MM.


----------



## Kishin

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> Pete Venters drew the Gibbering Orb?
> 
> Here there be Magic: The Gathering artists.




They could do worse. MtG has some fantastic artists. Dan Dos Santos, Dan Scott, Rebecca Guay (Although her art probably wouldn't fit D&D's style), and a host of others.


----------



## Lancelot

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> And the Blood Fiend, by Chris Stevens--another Dungeons & Dragons newcomer--is up, and it's damn fine. Two out of three ain't bad.




Blood Fiend isn't a newcomer - it was in the 3e Fiend Folio (under the broad "demon" sub-category). Good to see it returning in 4e though... and possibly with an extra pair of arms? I can't recall if the "old" bloodfiend had four arms or not.

Nice artwork, although the 3e artwork was also quite exceptional.


----------



## Lancelot

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> And the Blood Fiend, by Chris Stevens--another Dungeons & Dragons newcomer--is up, and it's damn fine. Two out of three ain't bad.




Oops. Just realized you may have meant that the artist (Chris Stevens) was the newcomer, not the blood fiend. Sorry about that - I'm not familiar with the artist, but it is a nice work.


----------



## Zamkaizer

Kishin said:
			
		

> They could do worse. MtG has some fantastic artists. Dan Dos Santos, Dan Scott, Rebecca Guay (Although her art probably wouldn't fit D&D's style), and a host of others.




Actually, Rebecca Guay has done illustrations for several 3E books, including The Book of Exalted Deeds and Complete Warrior.

Concerning my original observation though, I would personally love to see much of M:tG's talent (and budget) applied to D&D. Were artists like Christopher Moeller, Jim Murray, and Kev Walker to became regular illustrators in the new edition, that alone would justify my adopting it, or at least regularly checking the gallery.


----------



## Lanefan

Kishin said:
			
		

> Rebecca Guay (Although her art probably wouldn't fit D&D's style)



Her art would *so* fit the style, particularly if she was doing the Elves, Eladrin, and other fey types. 

Lanefan


----------



## frankthedm

Good quality of art. Looks like a carnage demon got Genestealer'ed. Can't help but notice the artist ''cheated"  by posturing the Blood Fiend in such a way the extra arms could be depicted without showing their connective musculature.   

Much better than the 3E Fiend Folio art which _at best_ had a retro Night Gallery feel to it.

Edit: Yes blood fiends have always had 4 arms.


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara

index
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/artpreview


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Hey, I missed the Gibbering Orb. 
Looks like a Gibbering Mouther, but spheroid instead of flat. I wonder if there will also be a Gibbering Line, and a Gibbering Hypersphere?


----------



## hong

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Hey, I missed the Gibbering Orb.
> Looks like a Gibbering Mouther, but spheroid instead of flat. I wonder if there will also be a Gibbering Line, and a Gibbering Hypersphere?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

hong said:
			
		

>



Nice. But that's not enough. I want it to gibber.


----------



## habaal

Ah!
Half-Plate Bikini!


----------



## Khuxan

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Nice. But that's not enough. I want it to gibber.




It makes me gibber! Isn't that enough?


----------



## GoodKingJayIII

Love the blood fiend.  Dude looks frightening.

I'm guessing that four arms = lots of pain.


----------



## lukelightning

Chibbot said:
			
		

> What is a Cambion?




It's the layer of cells in a plant that is actively growing and dividing.


----------



## Green Knight

The Legion Devil, Ice Devil, and Imp is now up. 

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/art_preview/20080417_114734_0.jpg


----------



## HeinorNY

So much Devilish Love.


----------



## Reaper Steve

If that legion Devil is accurately portrayed as a D&D mini--and that mini is COMMON (seeing how they fill out many previewed devil encounters)--then I will be very happy!


----------



## Kunimatyu

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> If that legion Devil is accurately portrayed as a D&D mini--and that mini is COMMON (seeing how they fill out many previewed devil encounters)--then I will be very happy!




Agreed!

It should be a common -- assuming the base color is black, you only need brown, a black inkwash(maybe) and a little red detailing and you're done. Screams common.


----------



## DandD

The Ice Devil looks cool too, and the Imp is kinda cute...


----------



## Kordeth

DandD said:
			
		

> The Ice Devil looks cool too, and the Imp is kinda cute...




I thought the Devils' schtick in 4E was being mostly human-looking. The ice devil...is not that. It's cool, but seems like it maybe should have jumped ship opposite the succubus.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Kordeth said:
			
		

> I thought the Devils' schtick in 4E was being mostly human-looking. The ice devil...is not that. It's cool, but seems like it maybe should have jumped ship opposite the succubus.




I think the schtick was humanoid, not necessarily human-looking. Devils are two arms, two legs and a head.


----------



## Spatula

Kordeth said:
			
		

> I thought the Devils' schtick in 4E was being mostly human-looking. The ice devil...is not that. It's cool, but seems like it maybe should have jumped ship opposite the succubus.



Hm, that's a good point.  Giant bipedal ice insects would seem to fit in more with the new conception of the Abyss.


----------



## Green Knight

Unless things have changed, the Ice Devils ARE demons. Or they were, but were suckered into a contract with one of the Devil Lords. So now they work for the Devils.


----------



## Hussar

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Unless things have changed, the Ice Devils ARE demons. Or they were, but were suckered into a contract with one of the Devil Lords. So now they work for the Devils.




Where's that from?  I like it, but, that's a bit of D&D lore I've missed.


----------



## Baron Opal

It's on the Wizard's site from ~4 months back, I think. It also mentioned a tidbit about yugoloths that made Shemeska cry a bitter red tear, too.


----------



## frankthedm

Legion Devil now has a proper shield rather than a big ole hellboy fist. Cool. Normally i really hate when monsters overlap each other in MM illos, but I'll forgive the legion devil since he looks just right. Gives me the idea of a legion of those bastards each armed with a Stormbringer equivalent sword.

The Ice devil is great. Imp is fine too.


----------



## neceros

Speaking of Art, I've uploaded quite a few pictures I could find to this gallery. If you find more please Email me, and I'll add them! 
http://www.neceros.com/forum/index.php?automodule=gallery&req=user&user=1&op=view_album&album=1


----------



## Trolls

neceros said:
			
		

> Speaking of Art, I've uploaded quite a few pictures I could find to this gallery. If you find more please Email me, and I'll add them!
> http://www.neceros.com/forum/index.php?automodule=gallery&req=user&user=1&op=view_album&album=1




The '4E Spread' you have there isn't 4E at all, it's from the Five Nations Eberron sourcebook.

Today's art looks great, I particularly like the ice devil.


----------



## Stogoe

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> It's on the Wizard's site from ~4 months back, I think. It also mentioned a tidbit about yugoloths that made Shemeska cry a bitter red tear, too.



I think it was in R&C, too.


----------



## neceros

Trolls said:
			
		

> The '4E Spread' you have there isn't 4E at all, it's from the Five Nations Eberron sourcebook.
> 
> Today's art looks great, I particularly like the ice devil.



Good to know. It was labeled as 4e.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna

When I need things to pour out of a portal from hell, those are _exactly_ what I'm looking for.  Great piece.


----------



## Drkfathr1

As for miniatures to use for the Legion Devil: 
Check out these guys.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII

Ice devils... still big blue bugs!


----------



## DandD

The idea to Ice Devils in 4th edition is that they're some sort of Yugoloth-type demon (the ones who are the most devil-like in regards to organization, per the new edition), who are under mercenary contract to the devils of the nine hell. It makes sense, as demons in 4th edition steem from the Abyss located in the Elemental Chaos, and all demons have some sort of elemental ties. 

I still eagerly await the Ultroloth and its new role in 4th edition.


----------



## Green Knight

Here we go. From THIS. 



> - Ice devils don't look like other devils. We've decided that they are actually a demonic/yugoloth race... one that was entrapped by Mephistopheles long ago in an infernal contract. So ice devils hate other devils, retain their insect-like appearance, and have a special loyalty to Mephistopheles. It's one of the reasons why Asmodeus has never chosen to move against Mephistopheles. Asmodeus would of course win if he did, but that would let the ice devils out of their contract.


----------



## Dragonbait

^^ I forgot about that. Color me pleased. I recently purchased some ice devil minis and am glad that I could use them and still have them represent what they were originally supposed to be. Nice!


----------



## Shroomy

I love the new tarrasque pic:

http://wizards.com/dnd/images/art_preview/20080418_114693_0.jpg


----------



## HeinorNY

RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## DandD

The love-child of Emmerich's Godzilla with the Cloverfield-Monster... 

Nice...


----------



## Shroomy

What do you think, a level 30 solo brute?


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Shroomy said:
			
		

> What do you think, a level 30 solo brute?




Well... The Abomination that was put up in the Excerpt was a Level 26 Elite Controller. So perhaps it is a Level 26 Solo (or around there atleast)?


----------



## Hussar

That's a sweet Tarrasque.  And it does hearken back to its mythological roots a bit more than the bipedal one.  Not that the bipedal one was bad at all.  I loves me the big T.  

Although, the one and only time I ever ran one was at the end of my World's Largest Dungeon campaign and the PC's flawless victoried it.    I'm hoping that the new version is a bit more versatile against a party.


----------



## Dausuul

Finally.  Art that does justice to the tarrasque.

The blue eyes are a nice touch.


----------



## Sonny

Is it me, or does that tarrasque look rather happy go lucky? There's just something about him that looks _pleased_. Anyways, it's a good picture.


----------



## Shroomy

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Well... The Abomination that was put up in the Excerpt was a Level 26 Elite Controller. So perhaps it is a Level 26 Solo (or around there atleast)?




Still, as ostensibly one of the toughest monsters in existence, I would like to see it top out at the very highest levels of the spectrum.  Though a mid-20s solo may work.


----------



## Shroomy

Hussar said:
			
		

> That's a sweet Tarrasque.  And it does hearken back to its mythological roots a bit more than the bipedal one.  Not that the bipedal one was bad at all.  I loves me the big T.
> 
> Although, the one and only time I ever ran one was at the end of my World's Largest Dungeon campaign and the PC's flawless victoried it.    I'm hoping that the new version is a bit more versatile against a party.




Some sort of ranged attack would be nice.


----------



## Shroomy

Sonny said:
			
		

> Is it me, or does that tarrasque look rather happy go lucky? There's just something about him that looks _pleased_. Anyways, it's a good picture.




It finally looks bad-ass, I'd be pleased too!


----------



## A'koss

Arnie has always been one of my favorite artists since the 2e days, I'm glad he's still getting work from WotC. Big T looks great - if he's not _at least_ a level 30 solo I will be severely disappointed.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Kind of looks like an excited lizard-dog.

"YAAAAAAAAY! TIME FOR WALKIES!!!!!"


----------



## Kishin

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Finally.  Art that does justice to the tarrasque.
> 
> The blue eyes are a nice touch.




Amen. 3E's tarrasque looked like he was rejected from a Tyranid army list from WH40K.

2E wasn't bad, looked kinda like a monster from a well animated early 90s cartoon.

This one is an amazing piece of work though,.


----------



## mach1.9pants

That is without a doubt the best tarrasque art I have ever seen, and right up there with the top abominations art of all time!


----------



## Kirnon_Bhale

I love the art too - I also like the new way of enlarging the pic on the screen. I also have to say that if Orcus does not tremble at the thought of the tarrasque wandering into his home then it is not strong enough. 

I have always been of the opinion that the Tarrasque should be the strongest of all. Even the Gods should worry if it gets loose in their domain.


----------



## Derren

The new Tarrasque is very bad. It has nothing awe inspiring but instead just another monster.
And again, we have silly horns.


----------



## Gargazon

Derren said:
			
		

> The new Tarrasque is very bad. It has nothing awe inspiring but instead just another monster.
> And again, we have silly horns.




Tsk. There's always one hater   

The old Tarrasque looked incredibly goofy. I mean, it was giant and brown and had a silly shell-thing. This one is big, green, spiky, has lots of teeth, and is already in the process of ripping a city apart by walking through it. That's bad-ass!


----------



## Derren

Gargazon said:
			
		

> The old Tarrasque looked incredibly goofy. I mean, it was giant and brown and had a silly shell-thing.




Still better than a big lizard dog.


----------



## Gargazon

Derren said:
			
		

> Still better than a big lizard dog.










... No. No it really isn't. Look at it! It looks like some kind of ooze is attacking its back, and it's enjoying it


----------



## Lord Sessadore

Kirnon_Bhale said:
			
		

> I love the art too - I also like the new way of enlarging the pic on the screen. I also have to say that if Orcus does not tremble at the thought of the tarrasque wandering into his home then it is not strong enough.
> 
> I have always been of the opinion that the Tarrasque should be the strongest of all. Even the Gods should worry if it gets loose in their domain.



Well, the MM excerpt about the Phane said that abominations (such as the Phane and Tarrasque) were weapons created by the gods in their war against the primordials, and I would think that the Tarrasque would be one of the more powerful.  I could easily see 30 solo for the big beastie, myself, since the primordials were supposedly too powerful for single gods to combat.


----------



## Lord Sessadore

Gargazon said:
			
		

> ... No. No it really isn't. Look at it! It looks like some kind of ooze is attacking its back, and it's enjoying it



To be fair, the mythological Tarasque had a shell.  Not to say D&D hasn't changed mythological creatures here and there, I'm just sayin'.


----------



## hong

Derren said:
			
		

> The new Tarrasque is very bad. It has nothing awe inspiring but instead just another monster.
> And again, we have silly horns.



 Ah, it's Friday.


----------



## Derren

hong said:
			
		

> Ah, it's Friday.




Just noticed that you missed your "How to write meaningful posts" course again?


----------



## hong

Derren said:
			
		

> Just noticed that you missed your "How to write meaningful posts" course again?



 No, complaining about complaining is scheduled for Saturday.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Fully aware that I may be alone in this, but I consider the Tarrasque to be a huge waste of space which would be much better derived given to other things. 

Maybe I just don't like godzilla in my fantasy? It just seemed like a stupid idea when it was first thought up and doesn't seem to have become any less stupid since then.

Bah humbug!


----------



## Guild Goodknife

"Awwww, look at that adorable face with its big happy smile and beady little eyes"   





"OH MY GOD, IT'S ALIVE! IT'S HUGE! RUN, RUUUUUUUNAAYYYEHARGHL"   



love it


----------



## Derren

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Fully aware that I may be alone in this, but I consider the Tarrasque to be a huge waste of space which would be much better derived given to other things.
> 
> Maybe I just don't like godzilla in my fantasy? It just seemed like a stupid idea when it was first thought up and doesn't seem to have become any less stupid since then.
> 
> Bah humbug!




How much should we bet that the Tarrasque still can't fly.
And I guess it also has no ranged attack unless it now shoots lazerz from its horns.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Hmm. The picture isn't bad, but I am not sure I like the angle. I would like to see it more in profile. The tail looks a bit odd, too. 
It definitely looks heavier and more powerful then the 3E version. The 3E forelegs look more like arms than legs. The 4E one definitely has 4 legs, and it will trample you down, instead of slapping you in the face. 




			
				Gargazon said:
			
		

> Tsk. There's always one hater
> 
> The old Tarrasque looked incredibly goofy. I mean, it was giant and brown and had a silly shell-thing. This one is big, green, spiky, has lots of teeth, and is already in the process of ripping a city apart by walking through it. That's bad-ass!



Amazingly, it's also always the same person!


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Derren said:
			
		

> How much should we bet that the Tarrasque still can't fly.
> And I guess it also has no ranged attack unless it now shoots lazerz from its horns.




I could see various ways it could deal with flying.

Major Reach Attacks: Tail Swipe or Lung (I could see it rearing on its hind-legs and snapping at flying PCs).

Dust Storms or Wind Buffets: The tail is long enough it could create strong wind or dust storms.

Roar: Cause the PCs to become disoriented and crash.


----------



## Elphilm

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Fully aware that I may be alone in this, but I consider the Tarrasque to be a huge waste of space which would be much better derived given to other things.



I pretty much agree, although that 4E illustration of the beast is actually (and for the first time ever) really neat.


----------



## Aloïsius

The tarrasque would be cooler if they stop to give it vegetarian eyes. Place those eyes on the front of the beats, not on its side ! 

(I will try to photoshop it to explain what I mean)


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> The tarrasque would be cooler if they stop to give it vegetarian eyes. Place those eyes on the front of the beats, not on its side !
> 
> (I will try to photoshop it to explain what I mean)




Actually... Sorta makes sense, a beast like that it would be best to be able to see as much of your surroundings as possible. Since your so large, a threat for any angle is that more likely, and anything in your path will probably be crushed anyways.


----------



## Mirtek

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> The tarrasque would be cooler if they stop to give it vegetarian eyes. Place those eyes on the front of the beats, not on its side !



Well, the vegetarian eyes do make some sense. Since the tarrasque isn't really hunting for prey and thus in  need of predator eyes, the tarrasque just eats anything. Trees, rocks, buildings, ....

So she doesn't need eyes placed for better judginge distance between herself and possible prey, but instead is better of with a good panoramic view.

The problem with the big T is not that she's a killer, she wouldn't bother much with fleeing living prey as there is so much lifeless matter for her to consume. The problem with big T is that you want to save the lifeless matter because it's your city, the citizens themselves could easily flee


----------



## Gargazon

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> I could see various ways it could deal with flying.
> 
> Major Reach Attacks: Tail Swipe or Lung (I could see it rearing on its hind-legs and snapping at flying PCs).
> 
> Dust Storms or Wind Buffets: The tail is long enough it could create strong wind or dust storms.
> 
> Roar: Cause the PCs to become disoriented and crash.




Or it now has RADIATION BREATH!!!

Edit: Or giant bugs that leap off it!


----------



## OakwoodDM

The thing I find most amusing about the 3E Tarrasque is that it was messed up when coloured. The line drawing (here ) clearly has the thing with beady little predator's eyes, and looking rather mean.
After colouring, it gets eyes in its ears and looks about as threatening as a giant beagle.


----------



## Klaus

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Hmm. The picture isn't bad, but I am not sure I like the angle. I would like to see it more in profile. The tail looks a bit odd, too.
> It definitely looks heavier and more powerful then the 3E version. The 3E forelegs look more like arms than legs. The 4E one definitely has 4 legs, and it will trample you down, instead of slapping you in the face.
> 
> 
> 
> Amazingly, it's also always the same person!



 Exactly what I thought. The art is done well enough (even if it does harken a bit to Arnie Sweekel's own toad-monster-thing from the MMV), but the lower body lacks definition.

And since we're posting tarrasques:

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]


----------



## Lurks-no-More

Gargazon said:
			
		

> Tsk. There's always one hater



Conven*I*ent*L*y, they tend to be the same people.

Anyway, the new pic of the tarrasque... it's not brilliant, I think, but it certainly is better than the 3e version (which always was kind of anticlimactic to me).


----------



## Gargazon

Klaus said:
			
		

> Exactly what I thought. The art is done well enough (even if it does harken a bit to Arnie Sweekel's own toad-monster-thing from the MMV), but the lower body lacks definition.
> 
> And since we're posting tarrasques:
> 
> [sblock]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/sblock]




Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!

THAT is what a shell should look like, not some kind of nasty mould growth!


----------



## Plane Sailing

OakwoodDM said:
			
		

> The thing I find most amusing about the 3E Tarrasque is that it was messed up when coloured. The line drawing (here ) clearly has the thing with beady little predator's eyes, and looking rather mean.
> After colouring, it gets eyes in its ears and looks about as threatening as a giant beagle.









I agree - it is astonishing how such a strange artistic mistake got past the art directors


----------



## Derren

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> Anyway, the new pic of the tarrasque... it's not brilliant, I think, but it certainly is better than the 3e version (which always was kind of anticlimactic to me).




My problem with the picture is that the new Tarrasque looks very generic. This picture could also have been a new, wingless, dragon, a four legged Behir or any other random big lizard monster.


----------



## Drkfathr1

Its a nice pic, but I guess I have to go against the majority here...I actually prefer the 3E version!


----------



## Elphilm

Derren said:
			
		

> My problem with the picture is that the new Tarrasque looks very generic. This picture could also have been a new, wingless, dragon, a four legged Behir or any other random big lizard monster.



I don't know. The monster design in Sam Wood's line drawing may be more unique than in the 4E image, but overall I think it looks comical rather than threatening. Generic design or not, the new tarrasque pic is one of my favorite 4E monster images (along with the pit fiend and the trio of devils). The lightning, the composition and the perspective all contribute to the effectiveness of the piece. When I look at it I don't think "big lizard dog", I think "a colossal abomination spawned at the dawn of creation to battle the gods themselves".

Even Klaus' image doesn't do it for me, although it is miles better than the official 3E representation.


----------



## AFGNCAAP

I dunno...  I'd have to say that Klaus's tarrasque captures the vibe of the beast for me more than the more recent official depictions.  Then again, the official image of the tarrasque just makes me think of a colossal mutated iguana/chameleon hybrid.

Then again, give the tarrasque a breath weapon, and it just might as well be this fella:





"Oh no... Sharn's about to go... oh no Godzilla!"


----------



## D.Shaffer

Derren doesnt like it.  I'm sure that comes as a COMPLETE surprise to everyone.

I like it.  Nice, big, stompy feel to it.  I think I'd like slightly bigger eyes, maybe something glowy.  I'm actually glad it looks more quadraped now, as the comparisons to the big G himself were a bit to obvious before hand.


----------



## Derren

Elphilm said:
			
		

> The lightning, the composition and the perspective all contribute to the effectiveness of the piece.




The quality (lighting, etc.) of the picture is of course better than the 3E ones, no question but the Subject (Tarrasque) is imo very lacking. It simply has no trademark feature which, when you see the picture, tells you that this is the Tarrasque. In 3E it was the carapace which defined the look of the Tarrasque. In 4E such a defining feature simply lacks and the Tarrasque looks like any other big lizard monster.


----------



## Nymrohd

Well I hate agreeing with Derren but it is a big lizard dog with horns. Big T has a niche but neither the rules nor the drawings have ever managed to cement it. It is supposed to be a massive monster that can cause apocalyptic devastation through brute strength and is for all purposes unstoppable baring the most powerful of magic. It fails rulewise badly in that it is too vulnerable to ranged attacks and it fails as a visual since noone has yet to make it look unique; it just looks like an overdeveloped dinosaur and for all we know a dinosaur with a carapace and horns might have existed at some point anyway . . . 
The tarrasque should incarnate rampage


----------



## Oni

None of the new art is bad, but nothing I've seen has really made me stand back and go wow that's awesome either.  

The new tarrasque looks better than the last incarnation, but I wish it had been grander, the sense of scale could have been pushed more, and it seems kind of generic.  The tarrasque to me should basically feel like the incarnation of the apocalypse, rather than just another big stompy monster.  I'm not sure what I would have done but I still feel meh about it.


----------



## Gargazon

Derren said:
			
		

> The quality (lighting, etc.) of the picture is of course better than the 3E ones, no question but the Subject (Tarrasque) is imo very lacking. It simply has no trademark feature which, when you see the picture, tells you that this is the Tarrasque. In 3E it was the carapace which defined the look of the Tarrasque. In 4E such a defining feature simply lacks and the Tarrasque looks like any other big lizard monster.




I'm sorry, but whenever I think of the Tarrasque it's the head, with its distinctive horns and GIANT mouth. And I absolutely hate the look of that shell/carapace/whatever the brown sludgey thing's supposed to be. I also challenge you to find a big lizard monster that has a head ANYTHING like that Tarrasque.


----------



## Voss

Looks like a tarrasque to me.  I rather like the new pictures for the most part.  Except mister pink claws.


----------



## Zamkaizer

Gargazon said:
			
		

> [...]whatever the brown sludgey thing's supposed to be[...]



Toffee.


----------



## Kishin

Derren said:
			
		

> Just noticed that you missed your "How to write meaningful posts" course again?




You could probably give Hong the notes for the class he missed if you had ever actually shown up for it yourself.

Also, the problem with the 3E tarrasque was IMO, the way its head was drawn. With beady, too-small eyes, tiny nostrils, and a very blunted lizard-but-not-quite jaw structure. I didn't mind the carapace, but the rest of it just looked so...awkward.


----------



## Spatula

It's a nice enough piece of art, but it looks like a giant lizard with horns, which is hardly awe- (or fear-) inspiring.


----------



## frankthedm

If you look at the snout, the new big t has some eye like indentations near it's nose holes.

The New Big T ranks above the 3e coloured version. Claudio's Big T stomps the competition flat though.


----------



## hamishspence

*tarrasque*

The pastel pic looks very like the version of the Tarrasque in the back of the DMG2. Was that the source, or is it a fluke that both use similar pose?


----------



## Cmarco

Gigantic horned beast? Check. Maw filled with razor-sharp teeth? Check. Destruction of a civilized location? Check. 

Yup. It's the tarrasque.


----------



## frankthedm

Well, here are 3 more monster illos that cropped up today, they should fit in here... And speaking of fitting things in, WTF is with depicting female vampires with holes designed into their breastplates? The one spot where armor might be useful for a vampire is instead made a convenient target.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

frankthedm said:
			
		

> And speaking of fitting things in, WTF is with depicting female vampires with holes designed into their breastplates? The one spot where armor might be useful for a vampire is instead made a convenient target.




Ahh, but you see that is in the centre of the chest not off to the side where the heart is, it is a armour/flesh based sword-catcher


----------



## DandD

Must be a Drow Priestess turned into a Vampire Lord. Everybody knows that Drow dress silly and dumb. That's why they're only so few of them to conquer the overworld.


----------



## Belphanior

She's got stars on her armor and a moon on her face.
And warlocks have "stars" as a possible powersource, don't they?

Y'know, I got a feeling the stars are out to get us this edition...


----------



## Klaus

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Well, here are 3 more monster illos that cropped up today, they should fit in here... And speaking of fitting things in, WTF is with depicting female vampires with holes designed into their breastplates? The one spot where armor might be useful for a vampire is instead made a convenient target.



 Nevermind the armor, what the hell is the deal with that hideous warhammer?


----------



## Dausuul

Yeah, the vampire pic is a bit off.  The lich pic isn't all it could have been, a bit cartoony, but it's a dramatic improvement over the clunky-footed 3E one.


----------



## warlockwannabe

Derren said:
			
		

> The quality (lighting, etc.) of the picture is of course better than the 3E ones, no question but the Subject (Tarrasque) is imo very lacking. It simply has no trademark feature which, when you see the picture, tells you that this is the Tarrasque. In 3E it was the carapace which defined the look of the Tarrasque. In 4E such a defining feature simply lacks and the Tarrasque looks like any other big lizard monster.




Actually, except for the fact that the damn thing just wont die, how would you know its a tarrasque anyway? Most people dont see it more than once. (Or not supposed to) A sage in the town might recognize it. Or perhaps the 5 cities it already ate, like Sheboygan and Cincinatti, had refugees telling of it which the sage figured out. But IC, you wouldnt know what the heck it was!


----------



## warlockwannabe

Sonny said:
			
		

> Is it me, or does that tarrasque look rather happy go lucky? There's just something about him that looks _pleased_. Anyways, it's a good picture.




Arent you happy go lucky at the end of an all you can eat extravaganza?


----------



## DandD

There is only one true lich... Mumm-Ra, the Everliving, eternal foe to the blasted Thundercats... 

Hmmm, Mumm-Ra, the Everliving releasing the Tarrasque upon the heroes, now that would be nice.


----------



## Moon-Lancer

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Well, here are 3 more monster illos that cropped up today, they should fit in here... And speaking of fitting things in, WTF is with depicting female vampires with holes designed into their breastplates? The one spot where armor might be useful for a vampire is instead made a convenient target.




I think it works as it protects their heart.   besides, she is undead and boobs probably provide soft cover. 



			
				Klaus said:
			
		

> Nevermind the armor, what the hell is the deal with that hideous warhammer?




yeah, what he said ???


----------



## warlockwannabe

Spatula said:
			
		

> It's a nice enough piece of art, but it looks like a giant lizard with horns, which is hardly awe- (or fear-) inspiring.



I think the awe inspiring part is when it stomps your buddy flat...


----------



## Sojorn

Klaus said:
			
		

> Nevermind the armor, what the hell is the deal with that hideous warhammer?



That's so she can tenderize the meat without spilling its blood all over the place.


----------



## frankthedm

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Ahh, but you see that is in the centre of the chest not off to the side where the heart is, it is a armour/flesh based sword-catcher



The heart has a centered position that _favors_ the left hand side. That conveniently stake sized hole is right over her right ventricle. *Edit *though there is a chance the hole is high enough where the stake will nail the Ascending and Pulmonary Aortas, which might not count.


----------



## Fifth Element

Gargazon said:
			
		

> Tsk. There's always one hater



Or rather, that one's always a hater.


----------



## Klaus

DandD said:
			
		

> There is only one true lich... Mumm-Ra, the Everliving, eternal foe to the blasted Thundercats...



 You, sir or lady, are just plain wrong.

May I present Evidence A:






THAT is a lich.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

frankthedm said:
			
		

> The heart has a centered position that _favors_ the left hand side. That conveniently stake sized hole is right over her right ventricle. *Edit *though there is a chance the hole is high enough where the stake will nail the Ascending and Pulmonary Aortas, which might not count.




Also, now that I just re-looked at the stats. There isn't any mention of staking. I wonder if there will be a broad Vampire-Weakness section in the MM. This could cover rules for sun, stakes, etc.


----------



## Fifth Element

Klaus said:
			
		

> Nevermind the armor, what the hell is the deal with that hideous warhammer?



It's not a warhammer. It's a maul. But yeah, it's pretty ridiculous.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII

Tarrasque?  Awesome
Lich?  Awesome
Phane... eh, ELH is better

Vampire Lord... fail.


----------



## DandD

Klaus said:
			
		

> You, sir or lady, are just plain wrong.
> 
> May I present Evidence A:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THAT is a lich.



He's not a lich. He only got his face melted off, like the Joker. But he can fight with two swords, so I'll give in to that he's a far better combatant than Mumm-Ra, the Everliving. And he's got that Evil-Lyn chick on his side, so he has a better taste. 
I'd rather say Skeletor is a Death Knight.


----------



## Felon

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I agree - it is astonishing how such a strange artistic mistake got past the art directors



Looking at the line-drawing, I can see how it could be made. The position of those eyes are too small and beady relative to the rest of its head, to the point where they look fairly comical. 

Checking out the picture-of-the-day 4e Tarrasque, it occurs to me that it might scarier with no (visible) ocular organs at all. Basically, another immunity for its portfolio.


----------



## frankthedm

AFGNCAAP said:
			
		

> Then again, give the tarrasque a breath weapon, and it just might as well be this fella:
> http://www.creaturescape.com/buildups/kaiju/godzillafw/GodzillaFWfinal6-800.jpg



Hey, don't you think hotlinking a _370_kb image is kinda pushing it? There are dial up users around here.


----------



## TwinBahamut

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Also, now that I just re-looked at the stats. There isn't any mention of staking. I wonder if there will be a broad Vampire-Weakness section in the MM. This could cover rules for sun, stakes, etc.



I never really liked the idea of Vampires dying from a stake through the heart...

I much preferred the original concept, in which running a stake through their heart and into the ground while they were asleep in the coffin means they won't be able to rise from their grave. Because they are stuck.


----------



## wherwrthal

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Hey, don't you think hotlinking a _370_kb image is kinda pushing it? There are dial up users around here.




Naw, the key to dial up surfing and big pictures is just hoping enough of the frame is in sight so you can get a good idea of what it is while still waiting the three days it's going to download.
('sperience)
And I like the tarresque, lich, and the smoke-thingy (can't remember the name)
Gotta agree with above that keyhole armor doesn't make sense to me either, but I want the hammer.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I never really liked the idea of Vampires dying from a stake through the heart...
> 
> I much preferred the original concept, in which running a stake through their heart and into the ground while they were asleep in the coffin means they won't be able to rise from their grave. Because they are stuck.




Yeah, I don't really care one way or the other. Just it is pretty iconic now, so it would be odd for it to not be included anywhere. It is also something that would I think need have more rules applied (especially if it isn't instant death, ie: paralysed, weakened, trapped in the coffin )

If there is a separate section too, with simply a list of general stats/rules for different creatures, Vampires, Oozes, etc. It will be a lot easier to pick and choose. It also wouldn't then take up space in the stat-block.


----------



## Spatula

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> If there is a separate section too, with simply a list of general stats/rules for different creatures, Vampires, Oozes, etc. It will be a lot easier to pick and choose. It also wouldn't then take up space in the stat-block.



That goes against the stated goal of concentrating all relevant information in one spot, so you don't have to go flipping through books during a fight hunting down some rule.


----------



## frankthedm

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> I could see various ways it could deal with flying.
> 
> Major Reach Attacks: Tail Swipe or Lung (I could see it rearing on its hind-legs and snapping at flying PCs).
> 
> Dust Storms or Wind Buffets: The tail is long enough it could create strong wind or dust storms.
> 
> Roar: Cause the PCs to become disoriented and crash.



Yeah spell and arrow ranges may not be enough to keep away from the big T. Notably, that tail is insanely long considering you can see the base of the tail on the left of the Illo and the tip far on the other side of the picture.


Hmm... Anyone like these eyes?


----------



## Green Knight

DandD said:
			
		

> He's not a lich. He only got his face melted off, like the Joker. But he can fight with two swords, so I'll give in to that he's a far better combatant than Mumm-Ra, the Everliving. And he's got that Evil-Lyn chick on his side, so he has a better taste.
> I'd rather say Skeletor is a Death Knight.




Not a Lich? I defy you, good sir! Skeletor is most definitely a Lich. Especially since his warrior skills, while impressive, pale in comparison to his Wizardry. And a Lich is far more suitable for a Wizard (even one who's dipped a little into Fighter skills with multiclassing) then a Death Knight. 

Incidentally, more happened to him then just his face melting off.  Check it out. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUXlbF1tsZs


----------



## Green Knight

Spatula said:
			
		

> That goes against the stated goal of concentrating all relevant information in one spot, so you don't have to go flipping through books during a fight hunting down some rule.




The intent there, I think, is for DM's not to have to flip back and forth in order to see the combat stats. So all the combat related info will be there. That doesn't mean, however, that you can't have additional information that isn't combat related (like vampires being kept at bay by garlic and unable to cross running water, for instance). 



> I much preferred the original concept, in which running a stake through their heart and into the ground while they were asleep in the coffin means they won't be able to rise from their grave. Because they are stuck.




Personally, I don't, because that just sounds silly. They're stuck? Why don't they just pull the stake free, then? They're certainly strong enough. And if the goal is pinning, then why stake them through the heart? Why not through the hands and feet? Or the shoulderblades? Or the forehead? Why the heart? And at the end of the day, why go through all that trouble just to pin them, and not kill them? It seems pretty silly. I can understand being staked putting them in a state of suspended animation (that's how Palladium vampires work. They're reduced to lifeless skeletons, but if the stake is ever pulled free, then they regenerate within moments), but once again, why not just kill them? Nah, better to have stakes kill vampires, plain and simple.


----------



## DandD

Nah, I still maintain that Skeletor is rather a Death Knight. He is able to go toe to toe with the strongest man in the universe, after all.  

His "magics" come from using magical items, if at all. 

However, I am ready to compromise and say that our dear fellow Skeletor is a Death Knight Fighter/Lich Wizard, making him thus a Solo Encounter Monster. 

As for evilness, Mumm-Ra, the Everliving is on equal footing.


----------



## mach1.9pants

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Hmm... Anyone like these eyes?



I like the second one, but they need to be higher on the head IMO


----------



## Fallen Seraph

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> I like the second one, but they need to be higher on the head IMO




I like the original the most, but yeah... If it was there should be higher, it would be getting all sorts of bacteria from the mouth in those eyes.


----------



## Hussar

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Well, here are 3 more monster illos that cropped up today, they should fit in here... And speaking of fitting things in, WTF is with depicting female vampires with holes designed into their breastplates? The one spot where armor might be useful for a vampire is instead made a convenient target.




Most definitely not loving those three.  We've gotta weird assed centaur cat thingie that's kinda groovy, sorta.  We've yet another lich and not one that's really all that great - why do liches always have all their bones?  Come on, let's see some deterioriation on that corpse.  And what the hell is that vampire chick?  That's just goofy.

It's pretty rare for me to not like WOTC art, but, those three are bad.


----------



## Klaus

Hussar said:
			
		

> Most definitely not loving those three.  We've gotta weird assed centaur cat thingie that's kinda groovy, sorta.  We've yet another lich and not one that's really all that great - why do liches always have all their bones?  Come on, let's see some deterioriation on that corpse.  And what the hell is that vampire chick?  That's just goofy.
> 
> It's pretty rare for me to not like WOTC art, but, those three are bad.



 You see, my main complain with the lich is that it is thoroughly skeletal.

I'd like to see liches that still have their skin stretched taut over their bones. And also non-wizard liches (clerics can become them just fine).

Cue in Counter Collection: Undead:


----------



## Green Knight

DandD said:
			
		

> Nah, I still maintain that Skeletor is rather a Death Knight. He is able to go toe to toe with the strongest man in the universe, after all.




A Lich can do just as well as a Death Knight against He-Man.  Biggest piece of evidence, though? Death Knights are created by the gods. Lich's, however, are created through wizard magic. And Skeletor was made a Lich by Hordak, another wizard. 



> His "magics" come from using magical items, if at all.




Yeeeaaahhhh, no. He's easily one of the most powerful wizards in the world. More powerful then Evil-Lynn, Sorceress, and Orko, and probably as powerful as King Hsss (although likely weaker then Hordak). His magic hasn't been shown to be any different from theirs. Just because he needs his Havok Staff, it doesn't mean he's not a Wizard. Remember, Masters of the Universe uses 5E rules , where every spellcaster _*MUST*_ have an Implement in order to use their magic. Evil-Lynn can't cast spells without her staff. Sorceress can't cast spells without her staff. King Hsss can't cast spells without his staff. Orko can't cast spells without his wand. And Skeletor can't cast spells without his staff. 



> As for evilness, Mumm-Ra, the Everliving is on equal footing.




Ok, that I'll agree to. After all, the 'man' tricked the Lady of the Lake into giving him Excalibur, which then proceeded to stab the Sword of Omens right in the eye. That's pretty damn bad ass. And Mumm-Ra is, admittedly, a bit more sane then Skeletor.


----------



## TwinBahamut

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Personally, I don't, because that just sounds silly. They're stuck? Why don't they just pull the stake free, then? They're certainly strong enough. And if the goal is pinning, then why stake them through the heart? Why not through the hands and feet? Or the shoulderblades? Or the forehead? Why the heart? And at the end of the day, why go through all that trouble just to pin them, and not kill them? It seems pretty silly. I can understand being staked putting them in a state of suspended animation (that's how Palladium vampires work. They're reduced to lifeless skeletons, but if the stake is ever pulled free, then they regenerate within moments), but once again, why not just kill them? Nah, better to have stakes kill vampires, plain and simple.



I think the idea is to get them through the heart because it does weaken them somehow... I would need to actually bother to read those old medieval vampire-slaying manuals to actually know the justification, so I don't. The truth is that there is evidence to suggest people actually ran a stake into the chest of a corpse laying in a coffin in the real world, and the justification made was keeping the vampire from rising from the grave, not necessarily killing it (and certainly not reducing it to a pile of ash instantly).

The problem with saying "a stake through the heart kills instantly" is that the question "how do you define a stake?" becomes extremely problematic. How do you differentiate a wooden stake from a metal stake, or a wooden stake from a wooden arrow? What are the weapon stats for a wooden stake? Do you need to use a hammer or not in order to get the effect you want? The whole issue can get pretty messy without a lot of rules lawyering and unnecessary text on the designer's part. Even if you can define the stake, you still need to define how to rule whether it gets through the heart, which is its own unwanted can of worms. If you say "staking an unconscious/inactive vampire to his coffin keeps him from rising", then a stake is something which can keep them held down, so the definition becomes far less problematic, since the stake is being used as a stake, and _very_ few weapons can be used like a stake in this manner. This makes things a lot simpler for everyone.


----------



## Stogoe

If a lich illustration still has all its skin, you really can't tell it's a lich.  And I absolutely love the phane pic.  I'm stealing it for a lower level creature, because it's just that awesome.


----------



## I'm A Banana

To be fair about the Big T, looking like an excited lizard-dog isn't really a criticism. It looks kind of fun, and the T does tend to be more of a force of nature than a true villainous mastermind, after all. 

And I will say that it looks quite a sight better than "godzilla's doofus cousin" from the 3e MM.


----------



## WanderingMonster

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> And I will say that it looks quite a sight better than "godzilla's doofus cousin" from the 3e MM.




You mean Toddzilla?


----------



## Green Knight

> If you say "staking an unconscious/inactive vampire to his coffin keeps him from rising", then a stake is something which can keep them held down, so the definition becomes far less problematic, since the stake is being used as a stake, and _very_ few weapons can be used like a stake in this manner. This makes things a lot simpler for everyone.




That doesn't simplify anything, though, because you'd still have to define which weapons can be used as a stake and which can't. Not to mention that you'd have to define what "keep him from rising" means. Does he stay there stuck like a bug with a pin through him? Can he remove the stake? Is he unconscious or concious? Paralyzed or in a coma? Can he interact with his surroundings in any meaningful way? Can he cast spells, etc? What exactly does "keep him from rising" mean? 

Whatever the case, that'd still be pretty pointless considering the end result. And a vampire getting pinned in his coffin is pretty silly, as is the idea of going through all that trouble to pin a vampire to his coffin when you could instead kill him. If a stake through the heart does nothing but just stick him to the bottom of his coffin, then what's the point? You may as well just cut off his head and be done with it.


----------



## TwinBahamut

Green Knight said:
			
		

> That doesn't simplify anything, though, because you'd still have to define which weapons can be used as a stake and which can't.



Anything that can be pushed into the ground and keep something there works as a stake. Mostly, that means stakes (wooden or otherwise). If the DM is generous, a sword or spear. Arrows are not strong enough to really work. I admit, it is not perfect, but it is still a _lot_ better than the "kill with a stake" alternative, in which (thanks to a certain popular TV show), people will argue that anything and everything made of wood is a "stake", regardless of original purpose or structure, so the word "stake" itself becomes meaningless, and you might as well say "wooden weapon", which is a lot less interesting.



> Not to mention that you'd have to define what "keep him from rising" means. Does he stay there stuck like a bug with a pin through him? Can he remove the stake? Is he unconscious or concious? Paralyzed or in a coma? Can he interact with his surroundings in any meaningful way? Can he cast spells, etc? What exactly does "keep him from rising" mean?



It means that, while the vampires undead nature might not be fully gone, it is pretty much stuck being a normal corpse, and is effectively dead so long as the stake is in place. In other words, it is a set-up for the "grave-robbers unintentionally unleash the terrible evil" scenario. I am pretty sure that one or two Dracula movies start with some variant of this premise...

Also, the Vampire can not obviously remove the stake, since it would not be a weakness if he could.



> Whatever the case, that'd still be pretty pointless considering the end result. And a vampire getting pinned in his coffin is pretty silly, as is the idea of going through all that trouble to pin a vampire to his coffin when you could instead kill him. If a stake through the heart does nothing but just stick him to the bottom of his coffin, then what's the point? You may as well just cut off his head and be done with it.



The idea in this case is that it is pretty hard to kill vampires. The stake through the heart has _always_ been the method used by frightened peasants or common scholars who can't confront the monster directly, but instead try to take advantage of the vampire's moment of weakness (when it is asleep in its coffin). Real heroes armed with powerful magic swords should never have to resort to this tactic, because they are tough enough to fight vampires directly.

To put it more clearly... It is people like Van Helsing from the original Dracula, common people who happen to know something of vampire lore, who use stakes through the heart. For strong heroes who fight vampires professionally, wooden stakes are unnecessary, as is proven by the Castlevania videogames.


----------



## Green Knight

... 

... 

... 

... 

I want a flaming whip.


----------



## Surgoshan

Every time I see a war hammer depicted like the one in that vampiress pic, I wince.

The head of that hammer has to weigh more than fifty pounds!  More likely around a hundred!  You *could* use it as a weapon, but it would be so slow and unwieldy that you'd die before you got in a second swing!

A more realistic war hammer wouldn't look so impressive, until you stopped and considered what it would be like to get hit by a frickin' hammer.  Ever hit your thumb?


----------



## frankthedm

The weapon does not bug me that much in _her_ hands _visually_. i see it and _hope_ "Ah a vampire, she must be strong enough to wield a large maul with a short haft." 

Minis wise _Bugbear Head Reaver_ swings a large greataxe and the _orc raider_ is one handing a greataxe, so their is precedence for npcs wielding big weapons.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Hmm... Is it just me or should the next piece of art be up already. Grrr, they better not exclude weekends for the daily pictures.


----------



## hong

Surgoshan said:
			
		

> Every time I see a war hammer depicted like the one in that vampiress pic, I wince.
> 
> The head of that hammer has to weigh more than fifty pounds!  More likely around a hundred!  You *could* use it as a weapon, but it would be so slow and unwieldy that you'd die before you got in a second swing!




... you didn't like Cloud either, did you?


----------



## Surgoshan

Big swords tend to bug me, too, yeah.  Fortunately, in video games there tend to be more distractions (like story).  With a picture I just look and see "Wow... no."


----------



## hong

Surgoshan said:
			
		

> Big swords tend to bug me, too, yeah.  Fortunately, in video games there tend to be more distractions (like story).  With a picture I just look and see "Wow... no."



 There's nothing stopping a story being present in p&p gaming either. Well, except for possible carping about "railroading"....


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

hong said:
			
		

> There's nothing stopping a story being present in p&p gaming either. Well, except for possible carping about "railroading"....



I think Surgoshan meant he had only the picture to work with. There is no story accompanying this picture (yet). He looks at the pic, sees big hammer, and NO dialog window opens that tells you she would pay you 500 gold pieces if you'd give her 12 Wolf pelts. It's just the "naked picture".


----------



## Surgoshan

Yeah.  That.


----------



## Stogoe

Surgoshan said:
			
		

> Every time I see a war hammer depicted like the one in that vampiress pic, I wince.



Hey! You got your realistic weaponry seminar in my fantasy action game!


----------



## AFGNCAAP

Klaus said:
			
		

> You see, my main complain with the lich is that it is thoroughly skeletal.
> 
> I'd like to see liches that still have their skin stretched taut over their bones. And also non-wizard liches (clerics can become them just fine).
> 
> Cue in Counter Collection: Undead:




Uber-awesome, work, man.  The 1st one really reminds me of Eddie:






As much on an Iron Maiden fan I am, I'm surprised I didn't consider his sort of look for a lich before (or a death knight, for that matter).


----------



## Cirex

Green Knight said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> ...
> 
> ...
> 
> ...
> 
> I want a flaming whip.


----------



## Hussar

The WOTC D&D site is down for me currently.  That's a xill right?  Kinda cool.

As far as honkin' big hammers go, I blame Thor comics.  And the huge weapon thing you can lay on Vajello's doorstep.


----------



## Zamkaizer

Hussar said:
			
		

> The WOTC D&D site is down for me currently.  That's a xill right?  Kinda cool.




That's a Thri-Keen Pyrokineticist from the 3.5E Expanded Psionics Handbook. Nothing new here.


----------



## Klaus

Hussar said:
			
		

> The WOTC D&D site is down for me currently.  That's a xill right?  Kinda cool.
> 
> As far as honkin' big hammers go, I blame Thor comics.  And the huge weapon thing you can lay on Vajello's doorstep.



 Thor? Hardly. In the Marvel comics, Thor's Mjolnir has consistently been depicted with a large-ish head and a short haft, so that Thor's grip is much closer to the head (except when throwing Mjolnir, when he spins it by the straps).


----------



## Hussar

I was referring to the big honkin' head on that thing.  That's NOT a warhammer.


----------



## small pumpkin man

Hussar said:
			
		

> I was referring to the big honkin' head on that thing.  That's NOT a warhammer.



Nope, it's a Godhammer, to go with his Godshirt, and Godhat, warhammers are only Paragon.


----------



## Hussar

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Nope, it's a Godhammer, to go with his Godshirt, and Godhat, warhammers are only Paragon.




The problem being that the Godhammer found its way into the hands of lots of mere mortals in various artworks.


----------



## AllisterH

So it looks like we'll have 3 versons of the Efreet? One of which definitely looks like artillery and the other two might be a brute or a soldier?


----------



## Shroomy

I have to say, I'm not really feeling these efreet pictures, especially the one on the left.  Oh well, they can't all be winners.


----------



## Wiman

Yeah flaming hair Efreet is definately not what I envision, always think of them as darker and bigger if that makes any sense.


----------



## AllisterH

I agree...Doesn't do anything for me. Not to say it is bad but just there,...

Then again, I wonder if efreet and the rest of the jinn simply don't make good art subjects?

I have the entire Al-qadim setting and I've been in-and-out of M:TG since Revised and yet neither of those two product lines have ever produced a genie picture that made me say "Wow...I'd like that as a poster".


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Yeah not amazing, but equal with most D&D art.


----------



## Klaus

Shroomy said:
			
		

> I have to say, I'm not really feeling these efreet pictures, especially the one on the left.  Oh well, they can't all be winners.



 Yeah, those efreeti are pretty bad. They should have at least echoes of their genie side.

Cue in Counter Collection Gold:


----------



## Zamkaizer

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I agree...Doesn't do anything for me. Not to say it is bad but just there,...
> 
> Then again, I wonder if efreet and the rest of the jinn simply don't make good art subjects?
> 
> I have the entire Al-qadim setting and I've been in-and-out of M:TG since Revised and yet neither of those two product lines have ever produced a genie picture that made me say "Wow...I'd like that as a poster".





 

What's my prize?

On a different note, while the Efreet might not be best piece we've seen, they're infinitely better than the Cambions.


----------



## Dunamin

Hmm, I had sort of hoped they went with a swirly elemental lower half instead of legs as the "default form". Always found that a somewhat distinct and classy "genie shtick".

I fear the 4E versions may be mistaken for devils once in a while.


----------



## Protagonist

I would have preferred "legless" efreeti as well, but I like how you can really get a distinct "roles" vibe from each of the three efreeti


----------



## hong

Klaus said:
			
		

> Yeah, those efreeti are pretty bad. They should have at least echoes of their genie side.
> 
> Cue in Counter Collection Gold:




Dear Klaus,

No more pimping pls, kthxb


----------



## AllisterH

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> What's my prize?
> 
> On a different note, while the Efreet might not be best piece we've seen, they're infinitely better than the Cambions.




I always hated this piece because you couldn't tell that it was a BLUE card. Personally, I think the cambions look way better than this genie pic.

That said, I do think like others that the ones that come closest to making me say "Wow" have always been pics of people just opening and letting loose a genie from its confinement.

Although, I think that is at odd with the DEFAULT home of genies which are the Elemental regions. I think WOTC should've never made them a full fledged race but kept them as bound servants to lamps, bottles etc.


----------



## DandD

Keep in mind that according to Worlds & Monsters, Efreeti don't have to be necessarily Genies anymore. They want to do away with the unnecessarily symmetry. Now, Efreeti might very well simply be evil spirits made of smokeless flames, instead of flame-variant-genies. Perhaps Genies won't even be of any element whatsoever.


----------



## Klaus

hong said:
			
		

> Dear Klaus,
> 
> No more pimping pls, kthxb



 Can I be to blame if the examples of how I'd like to see the monsters portrayed were done by me?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Klaus said:
			
		

> Can I be to blame if the examples of how I'd like to see the monsters portrayed were done by me?



Why do you stuff you like? Nobody else does that! Especially not with D&D!


----------



## Zamkaizer

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I always hated this piece because you couldn't tell that it was a BLUE card. Personally, I think the cambions look way better than this genie pic.
> 
> That said, I do think like others that the ones that come closest to making me say "Wow" have always been pics of people just opening and letting loose a genie from its confinement.
> 
> Although, I think that is at odd with the DEFAULT home of genies which are the Elemental regions. I think WOTC should've never made them a full fledged race but kept them as bound servants to lamps, bottles etc.



The Cambions look like they were painted by someone who got a tablet and a DeviantArt account a few weeks ago. Even if the Efreet are somewhat uninspiring, they're at least rendered professionally.

And a quality of great Magic art is that the predominant color is *not* the same as the color of the card it's on.


----------



## DandD

You know what's funny? The one at the left is a gal-efreet. 
Now we know that they're all ugly like sin.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> [\QUOTE]
> 
> That's...that is sick.


----------



## DandD

Yeah, it's the Mahamoti Djinn from Magic: The Gathering, Wizards of the Coast's most profitable venture, far far above D&D whateveredition. 
Must hurt us to know that they won't waste too much money for a second-rate franchise like D&D.


----------



## AllisterH

Which doesn't make sense for a race that is going to be approached mostly as humanoid.

I think by making the jinn entire actual races, the thinking from TSR/WOTC was that the standard jinn shouldn't be the genie in the bottle for the look in the MM.

(Still not impressed with the Fat_Moti pic though and consider the cambion pic to look better)


----------



## Oni

The first thing I thought when I saw the newest update is the fella in the middle reminds me of etrigan(sp?).


----------



## frankthedm

Klaus said:
			
		

> hong said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Klaus,
> 
> No more pimping pls, kthxb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I be to blame if the examples of how I'd like to see the monsters portrayed were done by me?
Click to expand...


On that you are not too blame. 





The wotc Female efreet looks like a Fire elemental W.o.W. orc and the othwer two more like GW orcs crossed with red oni. The one throwing the _Shakunetsu Hadouken_ is alright, but other than the Brass gear, not much jumps out at me and says *Efreet*.

You are to blame however for contibuting to bandwith overload. I like your efeet, though you posted it larger than it needed to be. 600x600 was 170k, 300x300 would have much smaller [only 17k using imageshack's compressor]
http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/3010/449480c187f8eb53vv1df0.jpg


----------



## Shemeska

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> It's on the Wizard's site from ~4 months back, I think. It also mentioned a tidbit about yugoloths that made Shemeska cry a bitter red tear, too.




I actually thought that their making Gelugons (ice devils) as yugoloths contractually forced into servitude in the Hells was pretty damn cool. It was the reasoning in R&C behind making the 1e/2e/3e yugoloths into 4e "soldier demons" in the Abyss that made me shed a few. Mostly because it was the opposite of the reasoning behind shoehorning succubi into the Hells*, given how the 'loths had previously been presented through the years, and because the two other major reasons listed therein were factually incorrect.

*succubi are tempters so we'll make them into devils, because only devils are allowed to be like that in the easily distinguished blacks and whites of 4e fiends. Yet the 'loths who were distinguished by their propensity for manipulating (and even creating) many of the other fiends, are turned against their own nature entirely and slotted into the Abyss as "soldier demons". I didn't buy the rationale at all, and I would have accepted a reasoning of "we liked it better our new way so we changed it" much more than what we got.


----------



## lutecius

I am less bothered by that *cambion* guy's goth-metal outfit than his ugly face and greasy hair.
Is that hell’s new regulation haircut? Are cambion and tiefling males atoning for something their ancestors did ages ago or does hellish blood just comes with bad taste?

It looks like someone's been shopping on Melroberranzan Avenue too, or was it Drow'ho Drive? the cambion girl is ok but she’s dressed like a total... Lolth priestess.

The *blood fiend* looks like something from a late 90’s superhero comic book.

The *legion devil* and *tarrasque* are awesome. Exactly what I expect from a fantasy rpg. Lots of details, realistic shades, yet definitely supernatural and inspiring. 
I wish the *ice devil*’s head was more devilish though (maybe gazelle horns instead of drooping antennae)

I prefer the *efreet* thumbnail to the full image. The one in the middle is not bad if you don’t look too closely at his right foot. Stylized but not too cartoonish. The other two look silly.


----------



## mhacdebhandia

Matt Cavotta's version of the efreet, from the cover of _Dungeon Master's Guide II_, is the superior version of that pose:


----------



## small pumpkin man

Hussar said:
			
		

> The problem being that the Godhammer found its way into the hands of lots of mere mortals in various artworks.



Yes well, memes are like that, I don't blame the Wachowski brothers for The One, and I'm not blaming Jack Kirby for D&D's warhammers.

It may just be that creeping biggerism applies to more things than people would like to admit.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel

Klaus said:
			
		

> You, sir or lady, are just plain wrong.
> 
> May I present Evidence A:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THAT is a lich.




Klaus, let me just say that all of your "He-Man D20" Gallery rocks


----------



## Green Knight

Githzerai are up. 

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/artpreview


----------



## Sojorn

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Githzerai are up.
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/artpreview



Whoa


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Now those are awesome looking Githzerai

Here is text too: _Slaves in a long lost illithid empire, the githzerai were once one people with the githyanki_

Damn... That is nice, and once more, YAY! for non-blank backgrounds.


----------



## Lancelot

Awesome. I've liked most of the pieces so far (the efreet were a bit ordinary, as we say in NZ), but the githzerai are just fantastic.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Even though I never liked how the Githzerai looked in 3e and beyond, this picture of the Githzerai is probably the best of the daily monsters so far...


----------



## Zamkaizer

The Githzerai are awesome, even it is painfully obvious that he had three of his friends pose for it. I think I recognize the center fellow from Steadfast Guard.


----------



## small pumpkin man

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> The Githzerai are awesome, even it is painfully obvious that he had three of his friends pose for it. I think I recognize the center fellow from Steadfast Guard.



Wait, using models is bad now?


----------



## Hussar

Now THAT'S groovy.  I likes that one.  First cool Githzerai I've ever seen.


----------



## WhatGravitas

Hussar said:
			
		

> Now THAT'S groovy.  I likes that one.  First cool Githzerai I've ever seen.



More art from Komarck, please! After all, he also done this often praised piece. Though I think that his artwork often screams "cover"! And he's on my personal list of "favourite fantasy artists"! 

Cheers, LT.


----------



## small pumpkin man

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> More art from Komarck, please! After all, he also done this often praised piece. Though I think that his artwork often screams "cover"! And he's on my personal list of "favourite fantasy artists"!
> 
> Cheers, LT.



I hadn't realized that was Kormack. I should have realized from the awesome.


----------



## Baron Opal

Yowza.

That's by far my fave, and I hope that he did the githyanki as well. The 'flayers anf the gith' are some of my favorite critters.

Edit: Hey, waitaminute... monks aren't in the PHB. I wonder what githzerai stats are going to be? Fighter based? Hmm...


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> Yowza.
> 
> That's by far my fave, and I hope that he did the githyanki as well. The 'flayers anf the gith' are some of my favorite critters.
> 
> Edit: Hey, waitaminute... monks aren't in the PHB. I wonder what githzerai stats are going to be? Fighter based? Hmm...



Well their monster stats don't have to be based off a class. So they can still be monks. As for player race version... Dunno.


----------



## Dunamin

Nice ones! I had hoped they would be slightly less human-like than that, but that's a general preference I have with fantasy races.

More importantly, though, I really hope they do githyankis well (a much more fascinating race). I'd prefer 'yankis and 'zerais to be similar enough that they can be mistaken for each other at a glance, but showcase clear distinctions at a closer look.


----------



## small pumpkin man

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> Yowza.
> 
> That's by far my fave, and I hope that he did the githyanki as well. The 'flayers anf the gith' are some of my favorite critters.
> 
> Edit: Hey, waitaminute... monks aren't in the PHB. I wonder what githzerai stats are going to be? Fighter based? Hmm...



No doubt they will have unique NPC abilities which are probably based a little bit off what the monk is like now, which will likely be quite different from what the monk eventually looks like.


----------



## Soel

The Githzerai pic is by far my favorite. More Komarck please...

The devils and efreet are just bland.


----------



## Yair

Hussar said:
			
		

> Now THAT'S groovy.  I likes that one.  First cool Githzerai I've ever seen.



I'll second that. I generally hate the Gith, but these look awesome. And his other linked piece is great too. WotC should comission more from this guy!


----------



## Elphilm

Komarck <3

Damn, Matt Cavotta's efreeti posted by mhacdebhandia is totally sweet. Definitely beats the 4E art.


----------



## Keefe the Thief

Word. THIS is what 4e art should look like.


----------



## ObsidianCrane

Yair said:
			
		

> I'll second that. I generally hate the Gith, but these look awesome. And his other linked piece is great too. WotC should comission more from this guy!




Yes, yes they should.

http://www.komarckart.com/index.html


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

Best art yet, love the Gith.


----------



## Guild Goodknife

The Githzerais are definitely the best looking bunch of the art previews we've seen so far. WotC art guys, if you read this: *We want more Komarck pieces! *(or artwork of the same quality)


----------



## jtrowell

Dunamin said:
			
		

> Nice ones! I had hoped they would be slightly less human-like than that, but that's a general preference I have with fantasy races.






> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Since one origin story have them being mutated humans from the future, having followed their illithid masters in a time travel, maybe they should look *more* like humans.






> More importantly, though, I really hope they do githyankis well (a much more fascinating race). I'd prefer 'yankis and 'zerais to be similar enough that they can be mistaken for each other at a glance, but showcase clear distinctions at a closer look.




Agree


----------



## Plane Sailing

Githzerai pictures are awesome.

Looking at his site, he has done some fantastic work. Inspiring imagination allied to exquisite 'penmanship'.

It would be nice to see him get more work from WotC!


----------



## Cirex

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> That's a Thri-Keen Pyrokineticist from the 3.5E Expanded Psionics Handbook. Nothing new here.




He asked for a flaming whip, he didn't talk about an original work!

Those Gith look very nice. For the next art, I would like to see something classic like an orc or a goblin.


----------



## Klaus

Words can't express the awesomeness of those Githzerai!

Michael Kormack is teh awesome, and I wish WotC had tapped HIM to do the covers of 4E. His cover for Dungeonscape was at LEAST 5 kinds of awesome!


----------



## Derren

That looks more like a Sci-Fi "Human against alien robot/monster" picture than a fantasy D&D picture. Swap out the flaming sword against a lightsaber and you have a perfect star wars image.

But the Githzerai are very good.


----------



## hong

Derren said:
			
		

> That looks more like a Sci-Fi "Human against alien robot/monster" picture than a fantasy D&D picture. Swap out the flaming sword against a lightsaber and you have a perfect star wars image.




I fully agree, beholders are very sci-fi.


----------



## DandD

Oh well, we'll have to do with Wayne Reynolds and his elephant feet women.


----------



## Zamkaizer

Cirex said:
			
		

> He asked for a flaming whip, he didn't talk about an original work!



But Hussar's response read as though he thought it was a new piece.



			
				small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Wait, using models is bad now?



Of course not. But the Githzerai, and the rest of Komarck's illustrations, for that matter, seem to adhere particularly closely to the reference photo. This leads to a bunch of fantasy illustrations that, for some reason, involve graduate students from modern day Michigan.

And though I like the Githzerai alot, I'm glad Komarck isn't doing the covers for the core rulebooks. His illustrations often have an air of hilariously bad special effects from Sci-Fi Channel Original Movies.


----------



## ImperialParadox

That is the best piece of Githzerai artwork I've ever seen. As a fan of both Gith's I heartily approve.   

I'll second/third/whatever the sentiment - more Michael Kormack please.


----------



## hong

I'd give my left nut to have UDON hired as a regular for 4E.


----------



## Wormwood

Derren said:
			
		

> That looks more like a Sci-Fi "Human against alien robot/monster" picture than a fantasy D&D picture. Swap out the flaming sword against a lightsaber and you have a perfect star wars image.
> 
> But the Githzerai are very good.



Flametongue. Beholder. Plate mail.

Sci fi. Of course. Why didn't I see it earlier.


----------



## small pumpkin man

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> Of course not. But the Githzerai, and the rest of Komarck's illustrations, for that matter, seem to adhere particularly closely to the reference photo. This leads to a bunch of fantasy illustrations that, for some reason, involve graduate students from modern day Michigan.



True, although as I read comics and have read through a bunch of threads going over D&D artwork over the years, I would consider this to be a minor fault, indeed when you're designing for D&D, I'd probably argue it's a positive thing.


			
				Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> And though I like the Githzerai alot, I'm glad Komarck isn't doing the covers for the core rulebooks. His illustrations often have an air of hilariously bad special effects from Sci-Fi Channel Original Movies.



I will agree that relatively normal people are his forte, and that his depictions of "the fantastic" can be a bit hit and miss, (kind of the complete opposite of WAR).


----------



## Klaus

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> But Hussar's response read as though he thought it was a new piece.
> 
> 
> Of course not. But the Githzerai, and the rest of Komarck's illustrations, for that matter, seem to adhere particularly closely to the reference photo. This leads to a bunch of fantasy illustrations that, for some reason, involve graduate students from modern day Michigan.
> 
> And though I like the Githzerai alot, I'm glad Komarck isn't doing the covers for the core rulebooks. His illustrations often have an air of hilariously bad special effects from Sci-Fi Channel Original Movies.



 To each his own, I guess. But this picture from Expedition to the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk would be perfect for the Dungeon Master's Guide:

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 [/sblock]

And his cover for Elder Evils wouldn't look out of place on a Monster Manual cover:

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]

And if we consider "adventurers vs. dragon" the perfect image for a PHB, check out his cover for the Eberron novel "The Killing Song":

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]


----------



## Nightchilde-2

hong said:
			
		

> I'd give my left nut to have UDON hired as a regular for 4E.




UDON is SO Anime.


----------



## DandD

Klaus said:
			
		

> To each his own, I guess. But this picture from Expedition to the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk would be perfect for the Dungeon Master's Guide:
> 
> [sblock]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/sblock]
> 
> And his cover for Elder Evils wouldn't look out of place on a Monster Manual cover:
> 
> [sblock]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/sblock]
> 
> And if we consider "adventurers vs. dragon" the perfect image for a PHB, check out his cover for the Eberron novel "The Killing Song":
> 
> [sblock]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/sblock]



Whoa, they're fantastic. 

Why? Why do we have to contend with the elephant-feet women and the jar-jar-binks-draconoid? What did we do to deserve such low-class pictures?


----------



## AllisterH

Well, maybe he's the type of artist good with "humans" but not that hot with non-human. Anyone have any pics of Cormack with other non-human adventurers.


----------



## Derren

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Well, maybe he's the type of artist good with "humans" but not that hot with non-human. Anyone have any pics of Cormack with other non-human adventurers.




I suppose you mean humanoid non-humans because Kyuss and the Copper Dragon look very good.


----------



## AllisterH

Derren said:
			
		

> I suppose you mean humanoid non-humans because Kyuss and the Copper Dragon look very good.




Yeah...How does his orcs, gnolls, bugbears, elves and dwarves look?


----------



## Derren

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Yeah...How does his orcs, gnolls, bugbears, elves and dwarves look?




Elves and Dwarves are just small humans or humans with pointy ears so I don't see why he should have problems with them

And his Gnolls don't look bad either
[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 [/sblock].


----------



## Elphilm

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Yeah...How does his orcs, gnolls, bugbears, elves and dwarves look?



Gnolls: http://www.komarckart.com/new17.html

Dwarf: http://www.komarckart.com/new19.html

_Edit: ninja'd!_


----------



## DandD

Then it's official. Let us make Komarck the new artistic god of 4th edition, and built a giant church with a huge golden bell that shall chime whenever a new artwork for 4th edition is published by him.


----------



## Wormwood

Derren said:
			
		

> And his Gnolls don't look bad either
> [sblock]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/sblock]



My new favorite game artist. Awesome pics, thanks to all who posted.


----------



## DandD

I knew why I liked him... He did the cover for Street Magic, the Shadowrun 4th edition supplemental book about advanced magic rules, which has so far the best cover of all Shadowrun books. Huzzah.


----------



## Elphilm

DandD said:
			
		

> Let us make Komarck the new artistic god of 4th edition, and built a giant church with a huge golden bell that shall chime whenever a new artwork for 4th edition is published by him.



I've wanted to see that happen ever since I saw those gorgeous full-page works of his in Player's Handbook II!


----------



## AllisterH

Elphilm said:
			
		

> Gnolls: http://www.komarckart.com/new17.html
> 
> Dwarf: http://www.komarckart.com/new19.html
> 
> _Edit: ninja'd!_




Ah, so he's the guy that did the awesome Cave of Chaos pic. I liked that piece and many of his other pieces in his gallery (the Cthulhu pic is very nice....)

Cormack must be something of an unknown still or he might be somewhat slow at creating his pieces (he doesn't seem to have any M:TG work and has few non RPG book covers to his name...Weird)


----------



## Shroomy

I want to chime in and express my love for the githzerai picks.  More please!


----------



## Derren

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Ah, so he's the guy that did the awesome Cave of Chaos pic. I liked that piece and many of his other pieces in his gallery (the Cthulhu pic is very nice....)
> 
> Cormack must be something of an unknown still or he might be somewhat slow at creating his pieces (he doesn't seem to have any M:TG work and has few non RPG book covers to his name...Weird)




I guess the reason why he didn't do the core book covers is a combination of time (his schedule and the time he needs for a picture) and money.

But according to his info he worked for quite a lot of companies so far and his gallery also features a lot of CCG pictures, just not M:TG ones.
http://www.komarckart.com/index.html


----------



## Zamkaizer

Eh, the more stylized fantasy art is, the better, in my opinion. I'll stick with Cavotta, Prescott, Reynolds, Walker, Moeller, and Frazetta, and Zug, thank you very much.


----------



## Zamkaizer

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Ah, so he's the guy that did the awesome Cave of Chaos pic. I liked that piece and many of his other pieces in his gallery (the Cthulhu pic is very nice....)
> 
> Cormack must be something of an unknown still or he might be somewhat slow at creating his pieces (he doesn't seem to have any M:TG work and has few non RPG book covers to his name...Weird)





			
				Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> The Githzerai are awesome, even it is painfully obvious that he had three of his friends pose for it. I think I recognize the center fellow from Steadfast Guard.





> Steadfast Guard.



EDIT: Er, the hyperlinks don't seem to be working properly. If you want to view the image, simply resubmit the URL.


----------



## Elphilm

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I liked that piece and many of his other pieces in his gallery (the Cthulhu pic is very nice....)



Looking through the tentacly goodness of his Call of Cthulhu illustrations makes me crave for a full blown picture of Demogorgon by Komarck.

Wizards should totally hire him to do the covers for next year's batch of the three core books. It would be sweet to see Demogorgon grace the cover of Monster Manual II...


----------



## johnnype

DandD said:
			
		

> Then it's official. Let us make Komarck the new artistic god of 4th edition, and built a giant church with a huge golden bell that shall chime whenever a new artwork for 4th edition is published by him.




All praise The Kormak!

Kidding aside, I've always loved Githyanki but never thought much of the Githzerai until now. Now I'm dying to play one although I assume I'll have to wait a while for the psionics handbook. My only criticism of the piece is that as githzerai the "magic" shouldn't be blasting out of her hands but from her head. That's just a nitpick but then again I'm a psionics purist. 

Lastly, I love both Kormak and Reynolds.


----------



## Oni

I like the gith pic, I do think it's best of the lot so far.  

in general Komark's style feels to me like it's from another decade, that's not a bad thing, but i'm not sure if i'd want to to be the new face of dnd either.  

I think it's funny how vocal disfavor with Wayne Reynolds work has become, it seems like back toward the beginning of 3e he was very much praised and people wanted to see more and more of his stuff.  I still like his work.  The cartoonish feel and colours let him get away with more wild designs that would look cheesy done in a more finely painted manner.  I guess what I'm trying to say that if you try to make the fantastic too photo real then it starts to feel false, and I always thought WAR was in a good place on that specturm.  

If I had to pick an artist that did more finely painted work, I think I'd want Todd Lockwood though.  I've always liked his take on things.


----------



## I'm A Banana

I'll have his manbabies, sure, those are all EXCELLENT works, and I do adore his githzerai.

I like WAR well enough, I think he draws speedy action and toothy horrors awesomely.

I was a fan of DiTerlizzi's "vaguely asian" gith races, too.

Yes yes and yes.


----------



## DandD

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'll have his manbabies, sure, those are all EXCELLENT works, and I do adore his githzerai.



Then it is decided. The shortborn one with suicidal personality shall become our great sacrifice to the great artist, that it may sire a child who shall preserve the bloodline... 
*DandD snaps out of it*
No, wait a minute, is this biologically possible? 
*DandD enters crazy-mode again*
Iä! Iä! Cthulhu fhtagn!


----------



## WhatGravitas

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Yeah...How does his orcs, gnolls, bugbears, elves and dwarves look?



Look here. That was done for Malhavoc Press and features a vulture, lion, and dog person (Harrid, Litorian, and Sibbecai). He pulled that off three years ago, and most artists only get better. I bet he could do pretty good semi-humanoids.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## jackston2

It's all groovy as long as Ron Spencer stays far away.


----------



## OchreJelly

The Gith are way cool.  I like what is probably PSI powersource exuding from the right-most one.

Does anyone know offhand who did those great landscapes in R&C / W&M?


----------



## LordArchaon

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Well their monster stats don't have to be based off a class. So they can still be monks. As for player race version... Dunno.




Hey, Githyanki are playable, so I expect Githzerai to be playable too... And in that case we can be SURE they'll have some unarmed fighting and we can be SURE they will be the only (or one of the few) viable way to make monks before PHB2 or PHB3...

IF they're not going to be playable... Well, they really don't love us players that want to roundhouse-kick dragons on their snouts "a la" Chuck Norris...


----------



## Fallen Seraph

LordArchaon said:
			
		

> Hey, Githyanki are playable, so I expect Githzerai to be playable too... And in that case we can be SURE they'll have some unarmed fighting and we can be SURE they will be the only (or one of the few) viable way to make monks before PHB2 or PHB3...
> 
> IF they're not going to be playable... Well, they really don't love us players that want to roundhouse-kick dragons on their snouts "a la" Chuck Norris...




Oh I definitely think they will be playable, I meant "dunno" as I don't know what their stats be specifically.


----------



## LordArchaon

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Oh I definitely think they will be playable, I meant "dunno" as I don't know what their stats be specifically.




Ok guys, my first character will be Githzerai Rogue with HEAVY Warlock training (Shadow Pact of course...)


----------



## Fallen Seraph

LordArchaon said:
			
		

> Ok guys, my first character will be Githzerai Rogue with HEAVY Warlock training (Shadow Pact of course...)




There isn't a Shadow pact. There is right now; Infernal, Star, Fey and Vestige later on. Though there are people coming up with their own such as Leviathan, Dragon and Theurge Pacts.


----------



## LordArchaon

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> There isn't a Shadow pact. There is right now; Infernal, Star, Fey and Vestige later on. Though there are people coming up with their own such as Leviathan, Dragon and Theurge Pacts.




Oh, Star Pact will do pretty well


----------



## occam

Elphilm said:
			
		

> I've wanted to see that happen ever since I saw those gorgeous full-page works of his in Player's Handbook II!




Ditto!

This is the first piece I've ever seen that made githzerai look cool like adversaries/allies I'd actively want to include in a game.


----------



## Shroomy

After looking at the githzerai pic for a while, I have to admit, I'm kind of weirded out (in a good way) by the center figure's piercing stare.  Maybe I'm unusually paranoid....

I wonder who's on tap tonight.


----------



## HeinorNY

I'd prefer this style of art ...
[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





[/QUOTE][/sblock]

...over this style of art, for all things D&D.
[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]


I know I'm a minority though


----------



## Zamkaizer

Meanwhile, today's art is up and OMG PETE VENTERS IS A FURRY AND HE DOESNT KNOW ANATOMY WHY ARE ITS HANDS BACKWARDS!!!1ONE


----------



## I'm A Banana

I like the Rakshasas, too. Eerily off in just the way it should be!


----------



## Benimoto

I'm pleased to see the Rakshasa Assassin hit the art previews.  Not quite as mysterious or magnetic a picture as the Githzerai, but still a nice picture.  More importantly, Rakshasa as a race beat Githzerai anyday.

Plus, it's good to see that the Rakshasa have taken a cue from some of the later Monster Manuals and broadened out a little.  I expect at least a lurker (assassin), as well as a soldier and a controller rakshasa.  Maybe some artillery would be nice too.


----------



## DandD

Hmm, I though Rakshasas were always humanoid tigers with backward hands? So, can a Rakshasas be any kind of feline humanoid with awkward hands? Or is this change introduced into D&D 4th edition?


----------



## Goobermunch

DandD said:
			
		

> Hmm, I though Rakshasas were always humanoid tigers with backward hands? So, can a Rakshasas be any kind of feline humanoid with awkward hands? Or is this change introduced into D&D 4th edition?




It started with Eberron, where they added a few new types of Rakshasas.  In the ECS, they added the Zakya Rakshasa.  Then, in the MM3, they added the Ak'Chazar and the Naztharune (White Tiger and Black Panther, respectively).

--G


----------



## Rechan

For some reason, the hands don't look backwards to me.


----------



## Shroomy

I'm assuming that is an example of the Naztharune.  I like it.


----------



## Surgoshan

Yeah, its left hand looks awkward.  It's easy enough to get your hands into those positions, but I really don't like the look.


----------



## small pumpkin man

Rechan said:
			
		

> For some reason, the hands don't look backwards to me.



They are. If you were to hold a knife in that position your knuckles would be facing the other way (for the stage left one) and your thumb would be at the back (for the stage right one).



			
				Surgoshan said:
			
		

> Yeah, its left hand looks awkward. It's easy enough to get your hands into those positions, but I really don't like the look.



It looks awkward because it's actually attempting to depict an amusing fantasy/mythology note with actual anatomy.

I like it.


----------



## Klaus

That rakshasa has a mighty large head. As for the backward hands, the left one (our right) is okay, but the other one should be shown more clearly to illustrate the backwardness. And the armor looks a bit too... pedestrian, maybe?

As far as cat-folk go, not the best.


----------



## Keefe the Thief

You cannot have too many Rakshasa in a campaign setting, IMHO. I´ll always remember the old Curse of the Azure Bonds Gold Box game where i met them the first time. "Whooo? A tiger in a bathrobe smoking a pipe just kicked my parties ass!"


----------



## DandD

But they're not cat-folk, aren't they? They're some kind of weird demon from indian mythology, right?


----------



## mhacdebhandia

Surgoshan said:
			
		

> Yeah, its left hand looks awkward.  It's easy enough to get your hands into those positions, but I really don't like the look.



You know they're supposed to be on backwards, right?


----------



## Kobold Avenger

DandD said:
			
		

> But they're not cat-folk, aren't they? They're some kind of weird demon from indian mythology, right?



That's where they came from, and Rakshasa in Indian mythology were described as having bestial features not just cats, but just about any other animal or being malformed which is where the backwards hands probably came from.


----------



## Hussar

hong said:
			
		

> I'd give my left nut to have UDON hired as a regular for 4E.




QFT.  Ben Wooten's stuff for STAP is jammy.



			
				Shroomy said:
			
		

> I want to chime in and express my love for the githzerai picks.  More please!




Now that's pretty high praise.

Now to protect those of you on dialup.

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




[/sblock]

There, now you don't have to go look at the pic in other places.  

Not so happy about this one.  Doesn't scream Rakshasa to me to be honest.  To me Rak's are tiger people.  But, then, I never ever used one in a game either, so, I'm fairly ambivalent.  It's a kinda cool cat person.


----------



## small pumpkin man

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> That's where they came from, and Rakshasa in Indian mythology were described as having bestial features not just cats, but just about any other animal or being malformed which is where the backwards hands probably came from.



I believe most of the details of the D&D Rakshasa come from an epdisode of Kolchak the Night Stalker though. Not that I've gotten around to watching the episode myself, the series is very... 70s.


----------



## WhatGravitas

ainatan said:
			
		

> I know I'm a minority though



You're not (completely) alone! (though well-executed WAR pieces and stuff by rk post have a clear place, at least IMHO)

Cheers, LT.


----------



## mhacdebhandia

Wizards of the Coast introduced different rakshasas in _Monster Manual III_. The rakshasa assassin seen here is just an update of the nazrathune rakshasa from that book. They're still described as having the heads of "black-furred tigers".

The expansion of the rakshasa began with the _Eberron Campaign Setting_, as it happens, where the warrior zakya rakshasas made their debut. They have normal orange-and-black tiger fur, but "can twist [their] backwards hands, enabling [them] to wield weapons normally".

_Monster Manual III_ also includes the white tiger-headed ak'chazar rakshasa, which are necromancers.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

ainatan said:
			
		

> I'd prefer this style of art ...
> [sblock]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/sblock]
> 
> ...over this style of art, for all things D&D.
> [sblock]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/sblock]
> 
> 
> I know I'm a minority though




I really can't decide. I like both!

In a way, "Style 1" looks more... real, and somewhat grittier, I think.
But "Style 2" looks more fantastic. 

I am very much in favor of every 4E rulebook coming in a WAR and a Cromack (was that his name?) version.That would mean WotC could make twice the money with me!  And I didn't even know that I cared so much about "pretty pictures" until 4E arrived.  But in the end, I want to see stuff from other artists, too. So maybe this isn't such a great idea...

You know, maybe WotC should really make an "D&D artbook", covering all artwork of 3 and 4E  (at least all that's generally considered good  ).

PS: 
Maybe Style 1 should be used for Heroic Tier, and Style 2 for Epic? At least the SFX in the second pic makes more sense for higher level characters.


----------



## Gargazon

Surgoshan said:
			
		

> Yeah, its left hand looks awkward.  It's easy enough to get your hands into those positions, but I really don't like the look.




If you can get your hands into those positions, you should probably see a doctor...

Also, I love that they're using the other Rakshasha types. I wonder if we'll actually see the Al'chazar as a epic tier Rakshasha baddy (and maybe a tiger-faced Rajah?).


----------



## Samuel Leming

Klaus said:
			
		

> That rakshasa has a mighty large head. As for the backward hands, the left one (our right) is okay, but the other one should be shown more clearly to illustrate the backwardness. And the armor looks a bit too... pedestrian, maybe?
> 
> As far as cat-folk go, not the best.



I just can't accept rakshasas as cat-folk. Can't do it.  Other than an accident of art, there's nothing cat-like about them.  Why should shape-shifting evil even have a default form?

Does anyone remember the elephant-headed rakshasa mini from 1st edition?

Sam


----------



## Mouseferatu

Samuel Leming said:
			
		

> I just can't accept rakshasas as cat-folk. Can't do it.  Other than an accident of art, there's nothing cat-like about them.  Why should shape-shifting evil even have a default form?
> 
> Does anyone remember the elephant-headed rakshasa mini from 1st edition?




Agreed. I love the _notion_ of the rakshasa, and I don't even mind tiger-headed rakshasa. But that should never have become the default, and they certainly shouldn't have become "cat-people" overall. (They were, IIRC, entirely human in appearance, but for the backward hands and animal head.)

Then again, I have an unrelenting (and, I'll admit, unreasonable) hatred of the notion of cat-people in general. Never been entirely sure why, especially since I really like some other "beast people" (gnolls and minotaurs, f'rinstance).


----------



## Derren

They should have used the traditional Rakshasa. But at least they got the hands right.


----------



## Khaalis

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Then again, I have an unrelenting (and, I'll admit, unreasonable) hatred of the notion of cat-people in general. Never been entirely sure why, especially since I really like some other "beast people" (gnolls and minotaurs, f'rinstance).



You sure you aren't blocking out a bad run in with a furry?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Khaalis said:
			
		

> You sure you aren't blocking out a bad run in with a furry?



You really shouldn't open old wounds, Khaalis. 

But is it really a surprise that our resident blood-sucking rodent might have a problem with cat-people?


----------



## Mouseferatu

Khaalis said:
			
		

> You sure you aren't blocking out a bad run in with a furry?




Is there any such thing as a _good_ one?


----------



## Mouseferatu

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> But is it really a surprise that our resident blood-sucking rodent might have a problem with cat-people?




Nah. Cats are most vulnerable from the inside.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Nah. Cats are most vulnerable from the inside.



Hmm... I think you and Bunnicula should team up against cats.


----------



## mhacdebhandia

Derren said:
			
		

> They should have used the traditional Rakshasa.



Who says they didn't? The existence of the rakshasa assassin doesn't prevent there being a regular rakshasa - and I note that there's a rakshasa baron in the _Dungeons of Dread_ set.


----------



## Guild Goodknife

I love Rakshasas and this one looks pretty good imho! Also, i don't have any problems with non-tiger variants, i vaguely remember Rakshasas with gorilla heads were mentioned in the 2nd edition monster manual..


----------



## Klaus

Samuel Leming said:
			
		

> I just can't accept rakshasas as cat-folk. Can't do it.  Other than an accident of art, there's nothing cat-like about them.  Why should shape-shifting evil even have a default form?
> 
> Does anyone remember the elephant-headed rakshasa mini from 1st edition?
> 
> Sam



 Oh, sure enough, I remember when rakshasas were described as being sometimes tiger-like, sometimes ape-like. I used "cat-folk" here mainly to described the picture's subject. Even when depicted as tiger-humanoids, I'd prefer them to have a more supernatural flair to them (glowing eyes, maybe?).


----------



## Klaus

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Agreed. I love the _notion_ of the rakshasa, and I don't even mind tiger-headed rakshasa. But that should never have become the default, and they certainly shouldn't have become "cat-people" overall. (They were, IIRC, entirely human in appearance, but for the backward hands and animal head.)
> 
> Then again, I have an unrelenting (and, I'll admit, unreasonable) hatred of the notion of cat-people in general. Never been entirely sure why, especially since I really like some other "beast people" (gnolls and minotaurs, f'rinstance).



 Mouse, maybe your hatred stems from the fact that the vast majority of cat-folk designers tend to make their races either uber at everything (always fall on their feet! flawless stealth!) or too cat-like (affected by catnip! hates dogs!), whereas gnolls and minotaurs have very little in them that is hyena-like or bull-like. It's far too easy to fall into the Mary Sue trap, specially if you like cats.

E-mail me so I can show you my own cat-race, the kathos, and let's see if that steers you away from your trauma...


----------



## ferratus

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Agreed. I love the _notion_ of the rakshasa, and I don't even mind tiger-headed rakshasa. But that should never have become the default, and they certainly shouldn't have become "cat-people" overall. (They were, IIRC, entirely human in appearance, but for the backward hands and animal head.)




I agree with this sentiment myself.  I think that the rakshasa are one of the few monsters that suffered flavour-wise with the transition from 2e to 3e.  They downplayed them as enemies of the gods, and instead played them up as evil masterminds.   However, as far as shapechanging infiltrators go, dopplegangers do it better.  As far as cannibal tiger-beasts disguised as humans go, were-tigers do it better.  

From Wikipedia:

_Legend has it that many rakshasas were particularly wicked humans in previous incarnations. Rakshasas are notorious for disturbing sacrifices, desecrating graves, harassing priests, possessing human beings, and so on. Their fingernails are venomous, and they feed on human flesh and spoiled food. They are shapechangers, illusionists, and magicians._

This flavour text actually works very well with the ancient war between the primordials and the Gods.  These would be demons that have a particular hatred of the gods and their churches, and thus attempt to desecrate rites and make a mockery of human civilization.      With this flavour text, Demogorgon actually makes an excellent Rakshasa Rajah.  

Another place where rakshasas would fit would be the Shadowfell.   Being reincarnations of evil beings, eating unclean things like human flesh and spoiled food, desecrating graves and using foul rituals makes them excellent denizens of that plane.  Especially when you consider the fact that the Shadowfell is also going to be a source of illusion magic.  

You know, while I was writing the preceding paragraph, I realized who I'm going to replace the Shadar-Kai (who I hate) with as top dogs in the Shadowfell.  I was going to use the drow, but this is much, much better.

With either flavour text, I would certainly vary the animal hybrids.  I would do it as follows:

Controller - monkey
Soldier - Tiger
Brute - Elephant (Thaskor mini would be an excellent Rakshasa brute)
Striker - Panther
Lurker - Cobra

Extra heads would show the power of the Rakshasa by granting extra actions, and would bump any of them up to noble status.


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean

Hm, I just looked over that art gallery for the first time, and was pleasantly surprised. All of the pictures, with the exception of the cambion, looked good to me .... and I like the fact that the rakshasa is wearing more 'traditional' armor and gear, rather than the bondage fetish leather of 3rd edition.


----------



## hong

ferratus said:
			
		

> You know, while I was writing the preceding paragraph, I realized who I'm going to replace the Shadar-Kai (who I hate) with as top dogs in the Shadowfell.




Heretic! Next you'll be saying you don't like Abyssals.


----------



## DandD

Shadar-Kai suck. Badly. In a badwrongandtotallynotfun-way.


----------



## ferratus

hong said:
			
		

> Heretic! Next you'll be saying you don't like Abyssals.




If the Abyssals aren't emo goths I'm okay with them.


----------



## Khaalis

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> But is it really a surprise that our resident blood-sucking rodent might have a problem with cat-people?



Ok so that brings up the fact that we need an anthropomorphic rat. Or at least Wererats as playable.


----------



## lutecius

Klaus said:
			
		

> Mouse, maybe your hatred stems from the fact that the vast majority of cat-folk designers tend to make their races either uber at everything (always fall on their feet! flawless stealth!) or too cat-like (affected by catnip! hates dogs!), whereas gnolls and minotaurs have very little in them that is hyena-like or bull-like. It's far too easy to fall into the Mary Sue trap, specially if you like cats.
> 
> E-mail me so I can show you my own cat-race, the kathos, and let's see if that steers you away from your trauma...



My hatred definitely has  something to do with furries. And I love cats. As a kid, I even used to like the idea of animal-people... and then came the internet. Now i find cat-people and fox-people nauseating, especially the anime ones.

Minotaurs are not really beast-peole, they are more like assembled animal and human parts.
well, except in 3e... they were horned wookies.

As for the rakshasa, the art is not bad, but i wish they looked more like the demons or shapechanging ogres they were in mythology, something akin to the oni or efreet.
If they insist on making them animal people, they should mix it up a little: tigers with horns, apes with tusks and such.


----------



## hong

ferratus said:
			
		

> If the Abyssals aren't emo goths I'm okay with them.



 They're kinda like bloodsucking Sith. With big swords.


----------



## Klaus

Carnivorous_Bean said:
			
		

> Hm, I just looked over that art gallery for the first time, and was pleasantly surprised. All of the pictures, with the exception of the cambion, looked good to me .... and I like the fact that the rakshasa is wearing more 'traditional' armor and gear, rather than the bondage fetish leather of 3rd edition.



 And of course, rakshasa never wore that in 3e.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> I just can't accept rakshasas as cat-folk. Can't do it. Other than an accident of art, there's nothing cat-like about them. Why should shape-shifting evil even have a default form?




Well, for the record, cats as shape-shifting evil has a very long and storied history not just in India. 

Cats are sneaky little buggers that lurk in the shadows and pounce on you out of nowhere. They were witches familiars 'round the West, and as you scaled them up to tiger sized they got to be fiends in their own right (as they started being a direct threat to a lot of humans, instead of just some critter).

I mean, rakshasas are mythic beings, and though the D&D description of them is, as in most cases, amusingly off, they work for the role that they've been given. Tigers are creatures of stealth and power, of unknown danger lurking in the deep underbrush, of terror in the night. The backwards hands symbolize their "backwards actions," their propensity to evil, while giving them something distinctly alien.

They ain't typical "cat people" from fantasy lit, that's for sure. As prolific as the idea of uber-dexterous kitty women is, rakshasas are definately more than "evil humanoid tigers."

And if they do turn into that, I will be annoyed. 

I'm content with various "predatory cat" forms, really. All kinds of big cat have had a pretty powerful effect on human mythic ideas, lions, tigers, jaguars..... all dangerous forest predators that leap out of nowhere and kill you, all experts at hiding (illusion, deception, shapechanging)....yeah...good stuff.


----------



## Dragonbait

I've been happy with the overall art so far. I like the Rakashasa pic, but I have to echo some of the others on here: Rakashasa are about as much of an answer for a cat-person race as a Bralani is for an elf (both have pointed ears!) or a sword archon is for a human. 

Not that standard D&D NEEDS a cat-person race, just saying the rakshasa should not fill that role 's all.


----------



## Klaus

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Well, for the record, cats as shape-shifting evil has a very long and storied history not just in India.
> 
> Cats are sneaky little buggers that lurk in the shadows and pounce on you out of nowhere. They were witches familiars 'round the West, and as you scaled them up to tiger sized they got to be fiends in their own right (as they started being a direct threat to a lot of humans, instead of just some critter).
> 
> I mean, rakshasas are mythic beings, and though the D&D description of them is, as in most cases, amusingly off, they work for the role that they've been given. Tigers are creatures of stealth and power, of unknown danger lurking in the deep underbrush, of terror in the night. The backwards hands symbolize their "backwards actions," their propensity to evil, while giving them something distinctly alien.
> 
> They ain't typical "cat people" from fantasy lit, that's for sure. As prolific as the idea of uber-dexterous kitty women is, rakshasas are definately more than "evil humanoid tigers."
> 
> And if they do turn into that, I will be annoyed.
> 
> I'm content with various "predatory cat" forms, really. All kinds of big cat have had a pretty powerful effect on human mythic ideas, lions, tigers, jaguars..... all dangerous forest predators that leap out of nowhere and kill you, all experts at hiding (illusion, deception, shapechanging)....yeah...good stuff.



 Yes, rakshasas aren't humanoid tigers as in "those beautiful, majestic creatures", but rather in a "what immortal hand or eye could frame thy fearful symmetry?" way. In the folklore of India, tigers aren't honorable or inspiring. They're pretty much the Devil's work, like flame and shadow (hello, Balrog!) congealed into a form that can strike you down and you won't notice until it is chewing out your soul.


----------



## Oni

I kind of like the new Rakshasa pic.  Simple design and an inherent wrongness (at least if you have the slightest inking about anatomy) to it.


----------



## frankthedm

lutecius said:
			
		

> As for the rakshasa, the art is not bad, but i wish they looked more like the demons or shapechanging ogres they were in mythology, something akin to the oni or efreet.
> 
> If they insist on making them animal people, they should mix it up a little: tigers with horns, apes with tusks and such.



Agreed.


----------



## DandD

So now, everybody can tell the difference between Githyanki and Githzerai. Githzerai are green, Githyanki are yellow.


----------



## small pumpkin man

Githyanki today.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/artpreview

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





[/sblock]

@ DandD I think that's just lighting


----------



## DandD

Might be, but I think that would make it easier for everybody to discern them (somehow), the same as you can/should be able to tell a Drow from a normal Elf. Of course, I do wonder how you're going to differentiate an Eladrin from a normal Elf.


----------



## hong

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Githyanki today.
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/artpreview
> 
> [sblock]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/sblock]



 OMG she's killing me with her brane!!!1


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Well got to say if they keep up this level of art, the MM is going to be really, really pretty to look at.


----------



## A'koss

Hmm... I wish they had gone with a more exotic style of garb for the Githyanki to really emphasize their alien/planar nature. And further, each new edition seems to want to make them more and more human.


----------



## DandD

I hope that whenever possible, we are now going to see a picture depicting male and female of that race/monster type/whatever (when they do actually have a gender, of course). So far, with the cambion, the Githianky and the Githzerai, it seems we're going well.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

A'koss said:
			
		

> Hmm... I wish they had gone with a more exotic style of garb for the Githyanki to really emphasize their alien/planar nature. And further, each new edition seems to want to make them more and more human.



And every edition has been trying to make the Githzerai look more and more like the Githyanki.  I remember when the Githzerai just looked like pale and really gaunt humans.


----------



## Klaus

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Githyanki today.
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/artpreview
> 
> [sblock]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/sblock]
> 
> @ DandD I think that's just lighting



 And Michael Komarck hits another one out of the park!

For decades the arms and armor of the Githyanki have been described as "ornate" and "baroque", but this is the first time they are portrayed that way.

Just look at the hateful sneer in the center githyanki! That's some good acting ("acting" here being used as it is in the comics business, to denote an artist capable of portraying emotions well).


----------



## Dunamin

Hmm, its _very_ nice art and all but I had sort of hoped the two gith races would be a bit less human-like and more distinct from each other than that. I mean, compare the githyanki on the right with the githzerai on the left. Just a tad too identical for my taste.
Also, would have been nice with a depiction of githyankis that in stance and appearance were more aggressive and intimidating, as befits their nature.

Ah, what the hell - I'm nitpicking... Its great art on the whole!


----------



## I'm A Banana

The similarity is a feature, not a bug.

The ARE supposed to be basically the same people, after all, just recently separated in a schizmatic conflict.

They should be more like Brits and French, less like Chimps and Patrick Stewart.


----------



## Dunamin

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The similarity is a feature, not a bug.
> 
> The ARE supposed to be basically the same people, after all, just recently separated in a schizmatic conflict.
> 
> They should be more like Brits and French, less like Chimps and Patrick Stewart.



Well, their separation is not recent, certainly.

If the history of the two races is at least somewhat preserved their divide should be ancient news - enough, at least, for them to have become evolutionarily different. The current edition puts racial mods for githyankis as +2 Str, +2 Con, -2 Wis and for githzerais as +6 Dex, -2 Int, +2 Wis – I’d like to think that meant a keen-eyed observer of the two races could tell physiological differences, subtle though it might be.

I’m not talking appearance difference like chimps and Stewart, more like very varied people within the same general “ethnic group” (moreso than French and Brits, at any rate).


----------



## Amphimir Míriel

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The ARE supposed to be basically the same people, after all, just recently separated in a schizmatic conflict.






			
				Dunamin said:
			
		

> Well, their separation is not recent, certainly.
> 
> If the history of the two races is at least somewhat preserved their divide should be ancient news - enough, at least, for them to have become evolutionarily different. The current edition puts racial mods for githyankis as +2 Str, +2 Con, -2 Wis and for githzerais as +6 Dex, -2 Int, +2 Wis – I’d like to think that meant a keen-eyed observer of the two races could tell physiological differences, subtle though it might be.
> 
> I’m not talking appearance difference like chimps and Stewart, more like very varied people within the same general “ethnic group” (moreso than French and Brits, at any rate).




How long ago did the schism happen? A few thousand years? 

I'm going to agree with Kamikaze Midget and say that the differences between the Githzerai and the Githyanki could be not so much physiological as cultural.

Perhaps the outside appearance of the races is more dissimilar than that of French and Brits... But I'm pretty sure that, to an alien species, the differences between Chinese and Korean, Hindu and Thai, Australian and German, Mexican and Filipino, are fairly few and insignificant.

Indeed, its a lot better to have both races look very very similar to outsiders at first glance.... It even inspires me to include the war between both Gith races in an adventure as a commentary on real life ethnic conflicts... Are the Kosovo Albanians and the Serbs so different from each other, deep inside? They are both human beings!* 



* Disclaimer, this comment is not meant to derail the thread into real-life politics or history, I am only sharing what the art pieces make me feel...


----------



## Hussar

Hang on a tick.  

Doesn't the Githzerai on the left:

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]

look almost identical to the Githyanki on the right?

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]

Same beard, same features, just a bit different tatoos.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Yes, they do look alike, for a moment I thought the Githyanki picture and the Githzerai picture were 2 halves of one big picture.


----------



## Baron Opal

All we need is the mind flayers and my trifecta will be complete.


----------



## MortalPlague

I absolutely love the style of the githzerai and githyanki pictures.  I have to side with Kamikaze Midget in that they wouldn't be that different physically after a mere thousand years of seperation or so.  The differences would mainly be cultural.

Also, I love the way the pictures seem to be two halves of the same confrontation.  This kind of art makes me want to bring githyanki and githzerai into my upcoming game.


----------



## Snarls-at-Fleas

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> It started with Eberron, where they added a few new types of Rakshasas.  In the ECS, they added the Zakya Rakshasa.  Then, in the MM3, they added the Ak'Chazar and the Naztharune (White Tiger and Black Panther, respectively).
> 
> --G




It really started with Hindu fairy tales where rakshasas could have any kind of animal heads. Or even look like this





It is Ravana, King of the Rakshsas


----------



## Cirex

I like the Githyanki picture but...each time we see a female Githyanki, it's the same Githgirl.

Maybe they just cloned her.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Cirex said:
			
		

> I like the Githyanki picture but...each time we see a female Githyanki, it's the same Githgirl.
> 
> Maybe they just cloned her.



It's like with the Smurfs. There is only one female each generation or so.


----------



## WhatGravitas

A'koss said:
			
		

> Hmm... I wish they had gone with a more exotic style of garb for the Githyanki to really emphasize their alien/planar nature. And further, each new edition seems to want to make them more and more human.



You mean more like this?

I rather keep the Komarck Gith! 

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> You mean more like this?
> 
> I rather keep the Komarck Gith!
> 
> Cheers, LT.




Me too, every time.

Cheers


----------



## OakwoodDM

I'd rather Komarck had used different models for the Githzerai and Githyanki. As it is, it looks like it's the same three people in 2 different poss, and one set has an Astral tan. I have nothing against artists using models, but when it's 2 similar races, please, use different models!


----------



## Leatherhead

I wonder why they kept the gith races separate in 4th edition, everyone I know constantly confuses the two.


----------



## Shroomy

I like the fact that while the githzerai and githyanki are nearly identical in appearance, the githyanki feature a very haughty sneer while the githzerai look so serious.


----------



## Wormwood

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Well got to say if they keep up this level of art, the MM is going to be really, really pretty to look at.



Exactly. The art is head and shoulders above the 3e MM (so far)


----------



## heirodule

I want my githyanki to have BURSITIS, dangit.

disturbing picture of bursitis:
[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]


----------



## Goobermunch

Snarls-at-Fleas said:
			
		

> It really started with Hindu fairy tales where rakshasas could have any kind of animal heads. Or even look like this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is Ravana, King of the Rakshsas




There you go, bringing facts into a discussion.

My point is that within the context of D&D, Rakshasas traditionally have been depicted as orange and black tiger men with reversed hands.  The MM3 was, afaik, the first time they were depicted in an official D&D source as being other than orange and black tiger men.  That said, I'm totally using that picture in my next Eberron game as the image for a Rakshasa Raja.

--G


----------



## A'koss

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> You mean more like this?
> 
> I rather keep the Komarck Gith!



Bah.   They're too "pretty" now IMO. I'd prefer they were something closer to the original gaunt, fang-toothed originals. And as it was rightly pointed out, I also think they're now too close now to the Githzerai.


----------



## hong

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> There you go, bringing facts into a discussion.
> 
> My point is that within the context of D&D, Rakshasas traditionally have been depicted as orange and black tiger men with reversed hands.  The MM3 was, afaik, the first time they were depicted in an official D&D source as being other




I say, the fewer 25-year-old D&D anachronisms that make no sense to anyone who hasn't been playing for at least that long, the better.


----------



## med stud

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> It started with Eberron, where they added a few new types of Rakshasas.  In the ECS, they added the Zakya Rakshasa.  Then, in the MM3, they added the Ak'Chazar and the Naztharune (White Tiger and Black Panther, respectively).
> 
> --G



In the 2nd edition MM, rakshasas were described as people with backward hands and animal heads, most often ape- or tigerheads.


----------



## Klaus

Hussar said:
			
		

> Hang on a tick.
> 
> Doesn't the Githzerai on the left:
> 
> [sblock]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/sblock]
> 
> look almost identical to the Githyanki on the right?
> 
> [sblock]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/sblock]
> 
> Same beard, same features, just a bit different tatoos.



 Look again. Bald-zerai has a two-pointed goatee and a soul patch. Bald-yanki has a four-pointed goatee.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII

The new art for the githyanki is excellent.  I think I prefer them with the bestial, ape-like features from past editions though.  These... well, they look like elves.


----------



## frankthedm

OakwoodDM said:
			
		

> I'd rather Komarck had used different models for the Githzerai and Githyanki. As it is, it looks like it's the same three people in 2 different poss, and one set has an Astral tan. I have nothing against artists using models, but when it's 2 similar races, please, use different models!



 Agreed. Sadly many artists trap themselves into only drawing a few different faces.

I do like the Githyankee's armor. Got that swirling astral sea feeling to it.



			
				heirodule said:
			
		

> I want my githyanki to have BURSITIS, dangit.



 Ah, thats what those hanging flesh sacks on them were called.


----------



## xechnao

They all still look like the photos of hot trendy apparel advertisements.


----------



## Lackhand

1) our notions of trendy diverge

2) Actually, trendy advertisements look like these. No, seriously! Dramatic lighting, dramatic posing, a sense of purpose... which deserves that more, the scions of Gith or the clothes-horses of high street?


----------



## Ripzerai

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The similarity is a feature, not a bug.
> 
> The ARE supposed to be basically the same people, after all, just recently separated in a schismatic conflict.




They've been separated for tens of thousands of years for those of us who've done the math (there've been over 150 githyanki queens reigning in the timeless Astral, including one whose reigned for 1000 years and her predecessor, who ruled for over 500). The illithid city of Oryndoll in Toril is over 12,000 years old, and the _Black Spine_ boxed set sets githzerai and githyanki at the very dawn of psionics on Athas, which was 14,000 long Athasian years ago. It's not at all clear how much of their present appearances is due to illithid alterations of their original human stock and how much is due to subsequent adaptation to their respective planes.

But of course, it's 4e now and all previous continuity is up in the air. But I say it's a bug, not a feature. I like my githyanki more reptilian and my githzerai more catlike, personally.


----------



## Klaus

Tens of thousands years of separation will give you peoples as similar as Asians and Amerindians.

The fact that zerais are a bit greener and yankis are bit yellower (in addition to their supernatural differences) is more than enough.


----------



## JohnSnow

Klaus said:
			
		

> Look again. Bald-zerai has a two-pointed goatee and a soul patch. Bald-yanki has a four-pointed goatee.




Other way around actually. Bald-yanki has the two-pointed goatee and soul patch. Bald-zerai is the one with the four-pointed goatee.

I rather like that they don't look all that different. With the exception of skin tone, very few phenotypic changes occur in less than 1000 generations. Barring magical interference of course, they shouldn't be much more visibly distinctive than, say, Vulcans and Romulans.

I rather like the idea that one could mistake a githyanki for a githzerai on first glance. It makes for some very interesting potential storylines.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

As well as confrontations. Imagine a tavern in a Dominion that is heavily trafficked by Astral Vessels.

A crew of Githyanki shipmates are milking their drinks, when a group of robed individuals walk by and sit down at the bar. They pay them no heed, till the accent in their voices becomes noticeable their Githzerai. Swords and other weapons spring into their hands as they approach them. A all out brawl is in the works.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII

For my part, I like the _similarities_ between the two races, showing common origins.

I just don't like that they look like elves.


----------



## WhatGravitas

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> ...timeless Astral...



And the Limbo isn't a very normal place as well. Given the circumstances, the Gith tribes could be almost identical or completely different, after living on a timeless/chaotic (where basically "mind over matter" applies) plane for such a long "time".

Cheers, LT.


----------



## I'm A Banana

hong said:
			
		

> I say, the fewer 25-year-old D&D anachronisms that make no sense to anyone who hasn't been playing for at least that long, the better.




White Raven Onslaught? Golden Wyvern Adept? Fuscia Monkey Explosion?

I'll agree in general, while saying that holding on to some of their IP (like Eberron) means holding onto some of their D&Disms (like tiger rakshasas), at least when they can be vaguely made to work.


----------



## Stone Dog

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> That said, I'm totally using that picture in my next Eberron game as the image for a Rakshasa Raja.
> 
> --G



Just to further muddy the waters a bit... Rajah in Eberron refers to a type of near divine fiendish overlord, not a rakshasa subtype.  Sure, the natural form of a rajah CAN look like that, but it is just as likely to look like Demogorgon or Pazuzu or any number of demon princes or devil lords.


----------



## mhacdebhandia

Actually, the way Keith Baker writes them, Demogorgon _et aliis_ (if they even exist in Eberron) would be a step below the level of the overlords. In his conversion of the Savage Tide adventure path, the plan was that Demogorgon would be "one of the mightiest fiends that remains unbound", and scheming to usurp the power of the rajahs.


----------



## Oni

I think I'm going to be in the minority, but I'm not really all that keen on the githyanki picture because of the armour.  It's crossed the line from cool to cheesy.  It looks like it was pulled out of the generic cheesy fantasy props closet.  It would have been nice to see more variety in facial features from previous gith picture too, because while their races may be similar there should be differences amoung individuals.  The mage guy in the back is cool though, it's a beautiful rendering of fire.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Other way around actually. Bald-yanki has the two-pointed goatee and soul patch.




And the tatoos on Bald-yanki's head look strangely like a printed circuit board.



> I rather like the idea that one could mistake a githyanki for a githzerai on first glance. It makes for some very interesting potential storylines.




I would like the similarity to be such that even _gith_ can't tell just by looking. That way they could be sending spies into each other's organizations. Occasional defectors as well. Same race, two very hostile cultures.


----------



## Hussar

Klaus said:
			
		

> Look again. Bald-zerai has a two-pointed goatee and a soul patch. Bald-yanki has a four-pointed goatee.




That's splitting hairs pretty fine.  

My point is, they're the same character.  I don't mind that the two races look similar, but, identical twins?  That's a bit much.


----------



## TwinBahamut

I don't like either of the gith images at all. Actually, I don't really care for that artists style very much, and it is a very poor combination with the gith. I don't really like realistic art styles, especially ones that aim for being photorealistic like the style in those pictures. I prefer art that exaggerates and distorts in order to emphasize important things and ignore inessential things. This is particularly true for art that is supposed to be depicting a different world and era than our own. Seeing an artist try to portray weird things like the gith like they were actually real just seems wrong to me. Maybe it is the uncanny valley effect or something like that.

Anyways, the combination of realism and gith is particularly bad because it just highlights the fact that gith are stereotypical "rubber forehead aliens" that could have been ripped right out of Star Trek. They essentially humans with funny skin and ears, and without any kind of artistic distortions to get around that fact and highlight what makes them interesting, it just makes them less appealing.

I would rather have the 3E images for the gith than these, and I hope that artist doesn't show up in D&D too much.


----------



## DandD

That's strange. In 3rd edition, they always looked like humans with funny skin and ears for me. Also, the uncanny valley-effect for the giths is okay, in my opinion. They aren't humans, after all, so if they look weird, it actually benefits them, doesn't it?


----------



## Lackhand

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Anyways, the combination of realism and gith is particularly bad because it just highlights the fact that gith are stereotypical "rubber forehead aliens" that could have been ripped right out of Star Trek. They essentially humans with funny skin and ears, and without any kind of artistic distortions to get around that fact and highlight what makes them interesting, it just makes them less appealing.
> 
> I would rather have the 3E images for the gith than these, and I hope that artist doesn't show up in D&D too much.



Your taste in art aside (seriously: joking. Nothing wrong with artistic preferences), Gith really are rubber forehead humans -- 



Spoiler



once, we were kin.


----------



## Spatula

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Actually, the way Keith Baker writes them, Demogorgon _et aliis_ (if they even exist in Eberron) would be a step below the level of the overlords. In his conversion of the Savage Tide adventure path, the plan was that Demogorgon would be "one of the mightiest fiends that remains unbound", and scheming to usurp the power of the rajahs.



That sounds about right.  Eberron's rakshasa rajah have diety-level stats in the Dragon issue writeup on them.


----------



## Klaus

Hussar said:
			
		

> That's splitting hairs pretty fine.
> 
> My point is, they're the same character.  I don't mind that the two races look similar, but, identical twins?  That's a bit much.



 IMC I usually explain the more "homogeneous" look among races such as orcs, goblins and hobgoblins as being the consequence of a high rate of twins, triplets and quadruplets.


----------



## DandD

So that's a 4th edition gnome? Ha, they'll always be silly.


----------



## NaturalZero

Wow...it looks so lame i want to stab it immediately.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

ninja'ed


----------



## Shroomy

I'd rather that they used the artwork from the cartoons, but I can live with it.


----------



## I'm A Banana

The gnome's fine.

It _looks_ like a friggin' gnome. In a way that Nebbin and the WoW gnomes don't really pull off. Looks sagacious and naturalistic and faerie to me!

I'm glad they've found a niche, even if they had to be taken from the PH to do it.


----------



## DandD

I wonder... the cartoon gnome has black eyes, even the sclera (the part of the eye that is white, if you don't want to look that term up on Wikipedia). Do you think that the 4th edition gnome now has all-black eyes too? It's not that clear, but it seems so on the picture...


----------



## small pumpkin man

Shroomy said:
			
		

> I'd rather that they used the artwork from the cartoons, but I can live with it.



Yeah, "I'm a monster, Rhar!!" is my favourite gnome. This artworks fine, but it doesn't make me want to play one or include them in my game, maybe the fluff will help.


----------



## frankthedm

Art for it seems alright. Not a fan of gnomes, but the pic ain't that bad. Kinda has a regal vibe to him, like a mini-me for a  Verdant Prince.


----------



## Hussar

Heh.  I do like Raven Mimura though.  I'd love to see more of her stuff.  This isn't one of her best pieces (IMO) ((And, I REALLY hope she's a she after all this)), but it certainly looks like a faerie.


----------



## A'koss

Wow, that is one femme fey.


----------



## small pumpkin man

Hussar said:
			
		

> Heh.  I do like Raven Mimura though.  I'd love to see more of her stuff.  This isn't one of her best pieces (IMO) ((And, I REALLY hope she's a she after all this)), but it certainly looks like a faerie.



Heh, it's possible, but unlikely.


----------



## DandD

If all Gnomes now have completely black eyes, you won't have the problem to mistake them for shaved skinny dwarves or magical halflings.


----------



## Family

1st session, 1st encounter: 3 gnomes and their badger companions. No question about it. That's just how we roll.


----------



## Kishin

Wow. I was expecting the gnome to look ridiculous, but this is actually pretty cool. It does capture the fey mystique quite well.

Nothing like the cartoon gnome, blessedly.

Also, Raven Mimura is male.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

I personally prefer the cartoon gnome. They look more inhumanly fae, as I imagine gnomes be like. But this does work for a gnome as well, while still making it not silly looking and still look faeish.


----------



## am181d

Bah. The cartoon gnome is ten times more awesome. He has loot and a minion and a lair. This gnome has...

...a dress.


----------



## Zamkaizer

I dislike Raven Mimura's artwork immensely and this does absolutely nothing to change my opinion.

I vastly prefer Steve Prescott's illustration in the power article. I'm a fan of his style, and some of the tricks he employs in that illustration are pretty slick.


----------



## TwinBahamut

Now this art style works a lot better for D&D, at least in my opinion.

It is a very good depiction of a fey creature, I will say that much. I have no idea whether I like it as an image of a gnome or not, so I think I will wait to see the mechanics and flavor text for gnomes first to see how well they match.


----------



## Snarls-at-Fleas

Hmm. Good work actually. Though the gnome looks a bit like Mr. Putin IMO.


----------



## hong

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> White Raven Onslaught? Golden Wyvern Adept? Fuscia Monkey Explosion?




Are these 25-year-old D&D anachronisms...?


----------



## Jack99

This is the first time in 20 years of dnd that I have seen a gnome look good..


----------



## OchreJelly

As much as I like the gnome, my gut reaction was that he looks like a cross between Chef Gordan Ramsey and "Flea" from "The Red Hot Chili Peppers"


----------



## Klaus

After all the talk of how they had to take the gnome away from the PHB to give them a niche, and make them more fey, etc, etc, this picture doesn't convey it. It's a caucasian person with hair mousse, contact lenses and a dress. Nothing in the picture hints that it's short, and certainly nothing about it says "fey". And what's with the hair? Do they have beauty salons in the Feywild to style gnome hair or something?

Nah. This picture could easily be mistaken for a halfling.


----------



## Blackrat

Bah. I like the gnome Klaus did when they made the cartoon. That was much more gnome-like... This one is just disappointing ...


----------



## Hussar

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Heh, it's possible, but unlikely.




Damn.  

Anyway, I always did like *his* work.  The first I recall seeing was in the 3e Oriental Adventures.  Some really good stuff over the years.


----------



## Lackhand

Klaus said:
			
		

> After all the talk of how they had to take the gnome away from the PHB to give them a niche, and make them more fey, etc, etc, this picture doesn't convey it. It's a caucasian person with hair mousse, contact lenses and a dress. Nothing in the picture hints that it's short, and certainly nothing about it says "fey". And what's with the hair? Do they have beauty salons in the Feywild to style gnome hair or something?
> 
> Nah. This picture could easily be mistaken for a halfling.



I'd challenge you to do better, but... 

I disagree. I feel that wearing green/leather/antlers and having green wisps of smoke about your person, whilst in a natural setting, is pretty good (read:blatant) shorthand for "this is nature magic".

The picture could use a ferocious badger, though.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Hong said:
			
		

> Are these 25-year-old D&D anachronisms...?




So...things that make no sense to anyone who doesn't play the game are fine, as long as they're brand new?

Seems like kind of a dumb standard to allow dumb neologisms, while needlessly ditching old things that worked for some reason or another. Down with the hobgoblins, long live the shadar-kai? Not really what I'm looking for...



			
				Klaus said:
			
		

> After all the talk of how they had to take the gnome away from the PHB to give them a niche, and make them more fey, etc, etc, this picture doesn't convey it. It's a caucasian person with hair mousse, contact lenses and a dress. Nothing in the picture hints that it's short, and certainly nothing about it says "fey". And what's with the hair? Do they have beauty salons in the Feywild to style gnome hair or something?
> 
> Nah. This picture could easily be mistaken for a halfling.




Usually, I'm with ya, but this time...the paleness of the "fair folk," the obviously inhuman eyes, the robes and wand of a spellcaster, the swirling leaves and the tree...

Nature + Magic + Subtly Alien = Gnome to me.


----------



## Derren

The gnome is certainly not bad, but I would have likes if WotC/the artist had given them a more noticeable trademark visual.
Without any size reference its really easy to mistake them for elves.


----------



## Klaus

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> So...things that make no sense to anyone who doesn't play the game are fine, as long as they're brand new?
> 
> Seems like kind of a dumb standard to allow dumb neologisms, while needlessly ditching old things that worked for some reason or another. Down with the hobgoblins, long live the shadar-kai? Not really what I'm looking for...
> 
> 
> 
> Usually, I'm with ya, but this time...the paleness of the "fair folk," the obviously inhuman eyes, the robes and wand of a spellcaster, the swirling leaves and the tree...
> 
> Nature + Magic + Subtly Alien = Gnome to me.



 Except that he's not pale, his eyes aren't "obviously inhuman" at first glance, The robes don't make much sense (and are of a fashion that'd put Devis to shame), the hand holding the wand is awkwardly placed (he has to be really straining his tendons to flex his arm and hold his wand like that), and there are barely any swirling leaves. And featuring a tree and grass in the picture is hardly a "fey-only" feature in a fantasy game.

You want to draw fey? You look to the master for inspiration:

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			









[/sblock]


----------



## Kishin

Derren said:
			
		

> The gnome is certainly not bad, but I would have likes if WotC/the artist had given them a more noticeable trademark visual.
> Without any size reference its really easy to mistake them for elves.




I think the facial structure is meant to be fairly distinctive, and the fact that gnomes have the coal black no iris eyes. But, I can see some validity in your complaint here.


----------



## DandD

As long as they mention these details in the race description, so that the reader can spot them in the picture, it's okay.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

I dunno what other people think of this idea. But got me thinking, we know there was the disconnect between Tiefling visual fluff and art, and there are two different gnome drawings.

What if, to generate more ideas from the artist/let players/DMs minds wander more they are giving artist more freedom with racial interpretations. So aslong as it looks like a Tiefling, looks like a Gnome, etc, etc. it can work.

I personally would like this, it be interesting to see various physical interpretations of a race.


----------



## Oni

I don't much care for the new gnome illustration, it's probably my least favorite pic of the lot now.  I can get over how they've changed the gnome in general, but I don't like the character design used for this picture at all, the costuming is very ackward, and doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  What the heck is up with the hair?


----------



## Klaus

I know. I think the clothing/positioning bothered me more than the rest. Which is why I tinkered with the image quickly to try and search my feelings (I knew them to be true...  ). I aldo made the skin paler and a bit greenish.

Here:
[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]


----------



## dblade

I like the new gnome. He looks like he is in touch with the nature magic. His clothes look like they are reacting to magic in the atmosphere by spreading out in an unnatural manner. The swirling energy around the wand and hand supports this impression.  Definitely not bland.


----------



## hong

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> So...things that make no sense to anyone




They are perfectly unobjectionable to me. Well, except for Fuchsia Exploding Whatsit, because fuchsia doesn't explode.



> who doesn't play the game are fine, as long as they're brand new?




It's all about establishing a level playing field.



> Seems like kind of a dumb standard to allow dumb neologisms, while needlessly ditching old things that worked for some reason or another. Down with the hobgoblins, long live the shadar-kai? Not really what I'm looking for...




This is because you have 25 years of D&D anachronisms to let go. Give it time.


----------



## Vempyre

Klaus said:
			
		

> I know. I think the clothing/positioning bothered me more than the rest. Which is why I tinkered with the image quickly to try and search my feelings (I knew them to be true...  ). I aldo made the skin paler and a bit greenish.
> 
> Here:
> [sblock]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/sblock]




I had the same feeling, that something wasn't right with the picture. The right hand, the posture, stuff like that. Your modifications make the picture way better than the original.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Klaus said:
			
		

> Except that he's not pale, his eyes aren't "obviously inhuman" at first glance, The robes don't make much sense (and are of a fashion that'd put Devis to shame), the hand holding the wand is awkwardly placed (he has to be really straining his tendons to flex his arm and hold his wand like that), and there are barely any swirling leaves. And featuring a tree and grass in the picture is hardly a "fey-only" feature in a fantasy game.




Shrugz. He's not excellent by any stretch, but he's about par for what I'd expect from WotC art. Hits the major notes I was expecting. A new direction without a complete overhaul.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> They are perfectly unobjectionable to me. Well, except for Fuchsia Exploding Whatsit, because fuchsia doesn't explode.




Explodes _your mind_.



> It's all about establishing a level playing field.




Right, but that's kind of independent of any legacy whatnots and/or new whatnots. Its not like anyone who knows what a D&D hobgoblin is kind of typically like is at some sort of advantage in any way. 



> This is because you have 25 years of D&D anachronisms to let go. Give it time.




I think it's because my litmus test is "What do I want to use in a game?" I want to use militaristic enemies who can form evil empires and march on, and whom the players can slaughter righteously. I'm not sure at all I want to use shadow people of eternal suffering.

Or, to bring it back to the original item, I want to use devil cat people from hell who can be a constant hidden evil at the edge of your vision. I don't really care where it comes from or how long it's been around. My only measure is how interesting it is to use in my own D&D games. The invisible stalker has been around for that long and I'm STILL not very interested in using one of those.


----------



## hong

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Explodes _your mind_.




Why are you creating stuff to explode your mind?



> Right, but that's kind of independent of any legacy whatnots and/or new whatnots. Its not like anyone who knows what a D&D hobgoblin is kind of typically like is at some sort of advantage in any way.




Hobgoblins are easy. Rakshasae are hard.



> I think it's because my litmus test is "What do I want to use in a game?" I want to use militaristic enemies who can form evil empires and march on, and whom the players can slaughter righteously. I'm not sure at all I want to use shadow people of eternal suffering.




This is because you have 25 years of D&D anachronisms to let go. Give it time.


----------



## Zulithe

Derren said:
			
		

> The gnome is certainly not bad, but I would have likes if WotC/the artist had given them a more noticeable trademark visual.
> Without any size reference its really easy to mistake them for elves.



I agree. That is my main problem with the piece. I think, if you had to choose one image to stick in the MM to represent the Gnome... why this? It's not horrible (though nearly borderline so) but it just does nothing for me. That VERY weird hair. That outfit that makes absolutely no sense. Who would really wear such a thing? Could you imagine that being a real set of clothing. Never would it work. And even approaching it from a romantic perspective, it still doesn't work.

Guess we'll be waiting for the PHB II (if even then) before we see some decent Gnomes.


----------



## dblade

Vempyre said:
			
		

> I had the same feeling, that something wasn't right with the picture. The right hand, the posture, stuff like that. Your modifications make the picture way better than the original.





Now he looks a little nauseated. I like the original better.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel

I agree that the gnome pic is missing a badger for size comparison...

other than that, Im fine with the new gnome


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Why are you creating stuff to explode your mind?




Your enemy's mind. In an explosion of fuscia monkeys.



> Hobgoblins are easy. Rakshasae are hard.




It's not like anyone who knows what a D&D rakshasas is kind of typically like is at some sort of advantage in any way. 



> This is because you have 25 years of D&D anachronisms to let go. Give it time.




Why would I want to let go something that makes the game good, since a "level playing field" is pretty pointless?


----------



## hong

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Your enemy's mind. In an explosion of fuscia monkeys.




So, where's the problem in that case?



> It's not like anyone who knows what a D&D rakshasas is kind of typically like is at some sort of advantage in any way.




The fewer barriers to acceptance of the product, the better. And that means getting rid of idiosyncrasies that only make sense to people with 25 years of experience of D&Disms.



> Why would I want to let go something that makes the game good, since a "level playing field" is pretty pointless?




A level playing field is plenty pointful. But you can't get there without killing a few anachronisms.


----------



## DandD

So that's the picture about the angels in 4th edition, whom we all know (or should know) that they're not going to be exclusively good anymore (so prepare for evil angels serving Bane, or Zehir, or your own evil goddess of darkness and destruction and pancakes). 
It seems this one's called an Angel of Protection. So, what do you think of it, stylistically?


----------



## Fallen Seraph

I like it, it looks angelic but not cliche angelic. It also doesn't look to good or to evil. One thing I really like is the hint of a knight's helmet in the face.

Though do want to see some multi-wing angels.


----------



## AllisterH

I like it. 

Definitely humanoid and you can't tell if it is good or evil and it gives off the impression that it will kick your butt across the field if you piss it off.

How many angel pics will they have in the MM?

Angel of Valour/Protection/Vengeance/Valor Legionnaires?


----------



## Shroomy

We should all bow down to our new, faceless overlords....


----------



## Rechan

If that's a guardian angel, I definitely want it over my shoulder!


----------



## Shroomy

Lets put it this way about the angels:  between the pic, the fluff, and the stats, I'm itching to use them in my adventures.  I guess WoTC would count that as a success.

4e angels, being vaguely traditionally angelic but with the alien twist of no real face is a great, great idea.


----------



## Ravingdork

Ooh...pretty...
























​
I'm not sure that I like the faceless servents aspect of the new Angels, though it does make them much more alien and unnerving. Their swirly misty tails make me think of them more as genie-kind then angels too (just take away the wings). 

The whole mercenary background wreaks of wrongness to me. I love that they are servents of all gods, but now the gods have to make it worth their while somehow? :nonono:


----------



## DandD

Hmm, I wonder about the Ultroloths. Perhaps they'll be some kind of evil demon angel or so. Perhaps an unholy crossbreed between an angel, and a demon, that creates the more mercenary like yugoloth-demons... What do you think about this theory?


----------



## Rechan

"I'm an angel. I kill firstborns while their mamas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even, when I feel like it, rip the souls from little girls, and from now till kingdom come, the only thing you can count on in your existence is never understanding why." -Gabriel (The Prophecy)


----------



## frankthedm

Faceless bad ass angels are epic win in my book. This one looks_ much_ better than the other 4E angels. But the mismatched eyes looks like a sloppy mistake.

The only thing is the angel's obvious horns remove most of the 'mystery' from who's side he is on.


----------



## Zamkaizer

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Faceless bad ass angels are epic win in my book. This one looks_ much_ better than the other 4E angels. But the mismatched eyes looks like a sloppy mistake.
> 
> The only thing is the angel's obvious horns remove most of the 'mystery' from who's side he is on.



Those aren't horns. Learn to hairline.


----------



## small pumpkin man

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> Those aren't horns. Learn to hairline.



Oh, that's why the face looks wierd, I was looking at it wrong, yeah, that makes much more sense.


----------



## Incenjucar

I think we can all agree that the Angel of Valor is the most awesome-looking.


----------



## Dunamin

I was wondering why the efreets had no depiction of a swirly lower half. I guess it's because they reserved that part for the re-conceptualized angels.

Like the facelessness and generally less human-like look. Can't wait to see the look on my paladin player's face when he meets one of his traditional "idols" in battle.


----------



## Surgoshan

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Though do want to see some multi-wing angels.




But you've _got_ some!  One, two.... multi![/smartass]


----------



## frankthedm

To me those are horns, not just skull showing through. They jut too far off to the sides to be a part of the head showing under the whispy orange-spirit hair.

Not that i mind devil horns on an angel, and that what it looks like to me the artist intended those to be.

Without those horns, it retains more mystery.


----------



## Snarls-at-Fleas

It's a bit (quite a bit) late, but I've found it.   
Is my imagination playings tricks with me?


----------



## Jhaelen

I mostly like the reimagining of the D&D Angels, however I'd prefer if in addition to getting rid of facial features they'd also got rid of their gender. The article implies they'll have a gender but angels definitely shouldn't have one!


----------



## Klaus

I typed a more detailed analysis of the Angel pictures, but the boards ate it, so instead I'll just say:

Thos pictures look rushed and sloppy, like the artist didn't feel interested in them and tried to rush them asap.


----------



## WhatGravitas

Klaus said:
			
		

> Thos pictures look rushed and sloppy, like the artist didn't feel interested in them and tried to rush them asap.



Looking at the minis and W&M, I see some changes in the general art direction (more "elemental", feathered wings back). Given that the deadline for this art was probably a at least month ago (to send it to the printers) - they might be rushed indeed.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Quantarum

For things the players are meant to fight and defeat they're fine, for creatures meant to inspire awe they fall very flat.

-Q.


----------



## I'm A Banana

hong said:
			
		

> So, where's the problem in that case?




Meaningless neologisms that make sense to no one create at least as big a barrier to entry as meaningful idiosyncrasies that might make a little bit of sense if you think about it. 



> The fewer barriers to acceptance of the product, the better. And that means getting rid of idiosyncrasies that only make sense to people with 25 years of experience of D&Disms.




I don't think rakshasas that look like tigers are creating any more barriers to acceptance than dragonborn, colored dragons, or gnomes without red hats. I've yet to meet anyone who takes their fantasy and/or ancient Vedic scholarship so seriously as to dismiss a table-top roleplaying game with rakshasas that have nothing to do with ancient myths of the subcontinent. Perhaps they are more widely spread than I have been lead to believe?

The longevity of the ideas, as I said, doesn't have jack squat to do with how those ideas fare at the table. 25 year old blue dragons will work just as well in June, and brand new dragonborn will work pretty well, too, I imagine (perhaps aside from the unfortunate name), and I'm wagering that tiger-rakshasas will work even better than they have for the last 25 years.

None of that makes the slightest bit of sense outside of D&D. I'm pretty sure neither one will stop most people from getting the game, assuming that there is no secret cabal of dragon purists out there who refuse to purchase Dungeons and Dragons because they don't all spit fire and subsist on a diet of virgins.



> A level playing field is plenty pointful. But you can't get there without killing a few anachronisms.




In terms of "barriers to acceptance," anachronisms, idiosyncrasies, misinterpretations, and blatant neologisms have only the mildest of effects (if I'm being generous) on a given table-top roleplaying game.

So what's the point of leveling that particular playing field?


----------



## Oni

I'm kind of mixed on the new angels.  I like the general feel they have but not some of the specifics.  I don't like the wispy tail, I think it looks off, legs would have better IMO.  I'm not sold on the featureless face.  It look goofy in profile for instance.  I think I would have preferred a more fully formed face but one that was androgenous and had to make out the details on because of spilling light/darkness shrouding the features (like a face stretched over a light).  Or if they wanted to go the masked look and actually have them wearing mask, whats behind could be left to the imagination and it would give more creative freedom to artist in what faces angels present to the world.  I like the direction they went with the hair and the robe like armours.  

Why do they have less fingers?


----------



## hong

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Meaningless neologisms that make sense to no one create at least as big a barrier to entry as meaningful idiosyncrasies that might make a little bit of sense if you think about it.




Meaningless neologisms are an opportunity to create new content, free of 25 years of D&Disms and updated to the moods of the time.



> I don't think rakshasas that look like tigers are creating any more barriers to acceptance than dragonborn,




There are plenty of dragonish races in fantasy outside D&D. Some of them even look like dragons.



> colored dragons,




There are plenty of coloured dragons in fantasy outside D&D. Some of them are even blue.



> or gnomes without red hats.




There are plenty of gnomes without red hats in fantasy outside D&D. Some of them may even look like elves.

Conversely, rakshasas that look like tigers and tigers only are needlessly narrow, rootless in a game without tigers, and miss the opportunity to universalise the concept to evil nature spirits, remnant demons in the wilderness, or intruders from the world of the fey. There is nothing about "tiger with hands backwards" that is central to any of these concepts.



> I've yet to meet anyone who takes their fantasy and/or ancient Vedic scholarship so seriously as to dismiss a table-top roleplaying game with rakshasas that have nothing to do with ancient myths of the subcontinent. Perhaps they are more widely spread than I have been lead to believe?




I've yet to meet anyone who takes their fantasy so seriously as to dismiss an RPG with rakshasas that don't look like tigers with hands backwards. Perhaps they are more widely spread than I have been led to believe?



> The longevity of the ideas, as I said, doesn't have jack squat to do with how those ideas fare at the table. 25 year old blue dragons will work just as well in June,




Dragons are a concept wider than D&D, and dragons in D&D encompass more than just blue ones.



> and brand new dragonborn will work pretty well, too, I imagine




Dragon men are similarly a concept wider than D&D.



> (perhaps aside from the unfortunate name), and I'm wagering that tiger-rakshasas will work even better than they have for the last 25 years.




If tiger rakshasas work better, it will have been because they have been reconcepted so as to have a slightly wider and more meaningful niche than "tiger in robe with reversed hands".



> None of that makes the slightest bit of sense outside of D&D.




It makes plenty of sense in the overall fantasy genre.



> I'm pretty sure neither one will stop most people from getting the game, assuming that there is no secret cabal of dragon purists out there who refuse to purchase Dungeons and Dragons because they don't all spit fire and subsist on a diet of virgins.




I'm pretty sure that rakshasas as tigers with hands backwards contribute nothing to getting more people to purchase the game, who would not have purchased it otherwise.



> In terms of "barriers to acceptance," anachronisms, idiosyncrasies, misinterpretations, and blatant neologisms have only the mildest of effects (if I'm being generous) on a given table-top roleplaying game.




Nonsense. Anachronisms, idiosyncrasies, misinterpretations and blatant neologisms have the hugest effect on first impressions, especially if those anachronisms, idiosyncrasies, misinterpretations and neologisms have no relation to what is current in the genre.



> So what's the point of leveling that particular playing field?




To make the game more sensible for people who have no particular attachment to 25 years of D&D anachronisms.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Meaningless neologisms are an opportunity to create new content, free of 25 years of D&Disms and updated to the moods of the time.



Yes, but they still create at least as big a barrier to acceptance, which means that on the issue of "leveling the playing field," it's at least a wash.

Creating new content is really a different conversation.



> There are plenty of X. Some of them even Y.



Okay, lets go with D&D IP, then. Beholders, illithids, githyanki, githzerai, displacer beasts...I still don't see where there is this "barrier to acceptance" you mentioned.

And if the litmus test is "does it exist outside of D&D, too?" I think you'll find that the new stuff doesn't always meet that litmus test, either. Specifically because it's new created content.

And in either case, its preexistence doesn't create much of a barrier to acceptance. 

The flagship example of how 25 years of legacy creates this barrier is in the new direction Forgotten Realms is taking, but that's rather specifically about the history and events of a world, and not a broad lesson to apply rigidly throughout the game at every level. It'd be pretty pointless to say that all monsters must either be brand new or existing and derived solely from the broader modern fantasy milieu.

Because it certainly doesn't create any real barriers to acceptance, nor does it prevent new stuff also existing.



> Conversely, rakshasas that look like tigers and tigers only are needlessly narrow, rootless in a game without tigers, and miss the opportunity to universalise the concept to evil nature spirits, remnant demons in the wilderness, or intruders from the world of the fey. There is nothing about "tiger with hands backwards" that is central to any of these concepts.



Evil scheming tigers and fearful symmetry are as old as William Blake, mang. General evil nature spirits, remnant wilderness demons, or intruders from the world of fey can go by a lot of names, so there's no real "missed" opportunity. So could backwards-handed predatory cat illusionists, I guess, but since the name's already linked through Eberron, and this team obviously has some issues with naming things, I really understand why they stuck with "rakshasas." 

I don't really think you need to take the word that seriously. It's just a game, and the contingent of _Ramayana_ purists that this could be a "barrier to acceptance" for is, I'd wager, tremendously scarce. 



> I'm pretty sure that rakshasas as tigers with hands backwards contribute nothing to getting more people to purchase the game, who would not have purchased it otherwise.



But it probably helps maintain continuity with one of their flagship settings, where rakshasas already exist as big cat people with backwards hands, and thus ensures a clarity when the MM and Eberron talk about the same thing.

I'm guessing that was kind of an important goal for them.

More important than adhering to "hongs idea of what a rakshasas should be," probably, anyway. 



> Nonsense. Anachronisms, idiosyncrasies, misinterpretations and blatant neologisms have the hugest effect on first impressions, especially if those anachronisms, idiosyncrasies, misinterpretations and neologisms have no relation to what is current in the genre.



Eberron is still current, at least for WotC, and reverse-handed tiger-people called "rakshasas" play a pretty significant role in the setting. So, it does.



> To make the game more sensible for people who have no particular attachment to 25 years of D&D anachronisms.



It's just as sensible regardless of how long the D&Disms have been in force.

Secondly, given that the genre is "fantasy," I think people are much more accepting of new weirdness than you're giving them credit for. 50% of fantasy is "Take this mythic word and apply it for your own purposes." (The other 50% is probably "Mimic Tolkien.") I mean, the first  few hits when you google "Bahamut" are about the dragon-king/dragon-deity, rather than the fish that supports the world (you get an early wikipedia reference for that, though). Fantasy has often championed the illogical mish-mash of cool old words and new concepts. 

I don't think many people will have much trouble grokking tiger-rakshasas (especially with Eberron to help them) or cerulean aardvark hardcore, or whatever, regardless of how long either has been around.


----------



## hong

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Yes, but they still create at least as big a barrier to acceptance, which means that on the issue of "leveling the playing field," it's at least a wash.




A barrier to acceptance that applies equally is better than a barrier to acceptance that applies unequally.



> Creating new content is really a different conversation.




You can't create new content without breaking a bit of old content.



> Okay, lets go with D&D IP, then. Beholders, illithids, githyanki, githzerai, displacer beasts...I still don't see where there is this "barrier to acceptance" you mentioned.




There is also not much reason for illithids, githyanki, githzerai and displacer beasts to exist either. But you can't discard everything at once, or the fanbois will cry; so we start with rakshasas and move upward. Beholders are allowed, having taken on a life of their own in fantasy games other than D&D (and the same for drow).



> And if the litmus test is "does it exist outside of D&D, too?" I think you'll find that the new stuff doesn't always meet that litmus test, either. Specifically because it's new created content.




It is new created content that is consistent thematically with existing material in other forms.



> And in either case, its preexistence doesn't create much of a barrier to acceptance.
> 
> The flagship example of how 25 years of legacy creates this barrier is in the new direction Forgotten Realms is taking, but that's rather specifically about the history and events of a world, and not a broad lesson to apply rigidly throughout the game at every level. It'd be pretty pointless to say that all monsters must either be brand new or existing and derived solely from the broader modern fantasy milieu.




It would also be pretty pointless to say that stupid monsters must be kept without regard for the fact that they are stupid.



> Because it certainly doesn't create any real barriers to acceptance, nor does it prevent new stuff also existing.




Stupid monsters in profusion are most certainly a real barrier to acceptance, and prevent reasonable monsters from being designed to replace them.



> Evil scheming tigers and fearful symmetry are as old as William Blake, mang.




And there is no reason that reconcepted rakshasas cannot exist in D&D, as long as they are suitably modified and updated for the times.



> General evil nature spirits, remnant wilderness demons, or intruders from the world of fey can go by a lot of names,




Like rakshasas.



> so there's no real "missed" opportunity.




There is plenty of missed opportunity to turn rakshasas into something other than a D&D ananchronism.



> So could backwards-handed predatory cat illusionists, I guess, but since the name's already linked through Eberron, and this team obviously has some issues with naming things, I really understand why they stuck with "rakshasas."




It is important that the name is linked with Eberron, why?



> I don't really think you need to take the word that seriously. It's just a game, and the contingent of _Ramayana_ purists that this could be a "barrier to acceptance" for is, I'd wager, tremendously scarce.




Tch. The idea is to free the concept from needless specificity. If you tell me that rakshasas now need to have a hundred hands and a dozen heads, in keeping with the image of Ravana, I will tell you that you are merely substituting obscurity for anachronism.



> But it probably helps maintain continuity with one of their flagship settings, where rakshasas already exist as big cat people with backwards hands, and thus ensures a clarity when the MM and Eberron talk about the same thing.




Rakshasas with backwards hands can certainly exist at the same time as rakshasas without backwards hands. As nature spirits, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to take on a myriad different forms, on top of their shapechanging powers. But rakshasas with backwards hands have no reason to be held up as being more representative of such a race than other rakshasas.



> I'm guessing that was kind of an important goal for them.
> 
> More important than adhering to "hongs idea of what a rakshasas should be," probably, anyway.




Give it time.



> Eberron is still current, at least for WotC,




Thus proving that Eberron, too, suffers from 25-year-old D&D anachronisms. And in fact adds on another layer of 8-year-old D&D anachronisms. by adhering to this idea that the rules inform the design of the world.



> and reverse-handed tiger-people called "rakshasas" play a pretty significant role in the setting. So, it does.




And it could be significantly improved by removing these anachronisms.



> It's just as sensible regardless of how long the D&Disms have been in force.




What?



> Secondly, given that the genre is "fantasy," I think people are much more accepting of new weirdness than you're giving them credit for.




This is not new weirdness. This is old weirdness. This is outdated weirdness. This is outdated weirdness with no reason to exist other than one random source that EGG saw once upon a time. There is no reason to maintain this weirdness other than soppy sentimentality.



> 50% of fantasy is "Take this mythic word and apply it for your own purposes." (The other 50% is probably "Mimic Tolkien.") I mean, the first  few hits when you google "Bahamut" are about the dragon-king/dragon-deity, rather than the fish that supports the world (you get an early wikipedia reference for that, though).




You'll notice that I never said anything about Bahamut, who has indeed taken on a life of his own.



> Fantasy has often championed the illogical mish-mash of cool old words and new concepts.




You mean like Golden Wyvern Adept, White Raven Onslaught, and Exploding Fuchsia Midget...?



> I don't think many people will have much trouble grokking tiger-rakshasas (especially with Eberron to help them)




If they need a non-core setting like Eberron to help them, then the concept has already failed.


----------



## Klaus

Whoa. Derail much?

So, how 'bout them PHB pictures, eh?


----------



## I'm A Banana

hong said:
			
		

> A barrier to acceptance that applies equally is better than a barrier to acceptance that applies unequally.



I still don't see any barrier to acceptance. I see it in the FR case, with regards to setting history. I don't see it in the monster case, because there's really no history, just kind of the same stuff over and over again -- nothing to 'catch up on,' like there is in FR.

Perhaps you could help and show me where a lone 25 year old D&D anachronism is preventing someone from playing D&D?



> You can't create new content without breaking a bit of old content.



No, you can. It happens a lot. All the time, in fact. Sometimes you break old content, too, especially when you can make the end product better for it.

I just don't see a game where rakshasas are, say, nature demons, as any inherently better than a game where rakshasas are backwards-handed tiger-people. 

Perhaps you can show me why this is important?



> But you can't discard everything at once, or the fanbois will cry; so we start with rakshasas and move upward.



4e makes fanbois cry a lot. I'm sure the Great Wheel and FR history and half-orcs and druids were bigger blows than rakshasas.

So they'd probably only keep the rakshasas if there was a reason to keep them beyond "appeasing the fanbois." There'd be significantly less reaction with these things than there would be with most of the stuff they've been tormenting the trufans with. 

This really doesn't look like its about 25 years of fanbois or "barriers to acceptance."



> It is new created content that is consistent thematically with existing material in other forms.



I'm pretty confident when the 4e rules are released that I'll be able to pick out at least a handful of things that really _aren't_, and that would fail the "general zeitgeist" litmus test at least as badly as the rakshasas do.



> It would also be pretty pointless to say that stupid monsters must be kept without regard for the fact that they are stupid.



So this is looking more just like you personally think the rakshasas are/have been stupid. Which is cool, but, you know, there might be _other opinions_ which WotC would be _perhaps slightly interested in supporting_. Such as those Eberron fans who like the idea of evil big cat people as a distinct evil demonic race.

So "Only fanbois <3 the dumb rakshasas!" would be misleading at best. 

"What hong thinks is stupid" doesn't enter into it. "What would offend the fanbois" probably doesn't either (here, at least). "What helps us maintain Eberron extraplanar bad dudes as distinct from Default D&D extraplanar bad dudes" might.



> Stupid monsters in profusion are most certainly a real barrier to acceptance, and prevent reasonable monsters from being designed to replace them.



D&D has rid itself of many stupid monsters, and it has invented stupid monsters to replace them (flumph vs. phantom fungus! triapheg vs. ythrak! myconids vs. desmondu!), and it will continue the process ad nauseum. 

It really doesn't prevent reasonable monsters from being designed to replace them. Eight years of 3e saw over 5,000 monsters, and monster manuals are one of the best selling product lines the game has, probably including 3rd party stuff. There's a LOT of room for new hotness in that category. A lot of room for new stupidity, too, but fortunately with monsters there is a built-in failsafe: if the DM thinks its dumb, it dosn't get used, and so it gains none of that "traction," and all it did was waste a little bit of time and money being developed. It definitely doesn't stop anyone from using the game for the hotness in spite of the stupidity. 

Also, the idea that rakshasas as evil tiger-critters are stupid is not as universal as you seem to think it is. 

Also also, the idea that stupid monsters in profusion is a barrier to acceptance is something I'd like to see a bit more concrete information on than your say-so. I kind of doubt that is anything resembling a truism. 



> And there is no reason that reconcepted rakshasas cannot exist in D&D, as long as they are suitably modified and updated for the times.



All we know about them right now in 4e is that they have assassins who look like panthers with reversed hands. Is this not suitable to you?



> There is plenty of missed opportunity to turn rakshasas into something other than a D&D ananchronism.



Based on that picture, you say that? Really, you know what they're like in Eberron, right? They've been more than a D&D anachronism for at least as long as that idea. It just didn't require turning their hands around. Are you not okay with this? Do you feel that WotC should not be okay with this?



> It is important that the name is linked with Eberron, why? ... Rakshasas with backwards hands can certainly exist at the same time as rakshasas without backwards hands. As nature spirits, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to take on a myriad different forms, on top of their shapechanging powers. But rakshasas with backwards hands have no reason to be held up as being more representative of such a race than other rakshasas.




Eberron is important as one of WotC's flagship settings, one where they can develop IP that they can milk, like FR. Rakshasas figure into that IP, by being one of the major villains in the setting, as backwards-handed tiger/big cat critters. It makes a lot more sense to preserve that potential cash cow than it does to adhere to getting rid of "what hong thinks is stupid" as some sort of bible for what should be in the monster manual. A similar case is probably made with regards to the illithids, githzerai, and githyanki. To a lesser degree, Shadar Kai fall into this, too, I'd imagine. 

They're all things with some sort of traction that helps WotC give D&D (and Eberron) its own image, one that can sell.

Since there's no real reason to get rid of them (because barriers to entry don't exist and what hong thinks is stupid isn't a consideration), since there's plenty of reason to keep them (Eberron must be milked, they work as backwards-handed tiger/big-cat villains in a William Blake kind of way), they've been kept. 



> Thus proving that Eberron, too, suffers from 25-year-old D&D anachronisms. And in fact adds on another layer of 8-year-old D&D anachronisms. by adhering to this idea that the rules inform the design of the world. ... And it could be significantly improved by removing these anachronisms. ...
> This is not new weirdness. This is old weirdness. This is outdated weirdness. This is outdated weirdness with no reason to exist other than one random source that EGG saw once upon a time. There is no reason to maintain this weirdness other than soppy sentimentality.




I do think that the design team probably has a more nuanced view of what backwards-handed rakshasas can accomplish for D&D and Eberron than you do. 

It's not about retaining pointless anachronisms as much as it is about developing D&D as distinct from "General Fantasy Milieu."  Get a new catchprase for the month, dude. "Everyone who doesn't hate these rakshasas is just a fanboi" isn't one of your better ones. Maybe go back to the wang jokes, those worked for you.



> If they need a non-core setting like Eberron to help them, then the concept has already failed.




Eberron wants to be part of the fantasy melieu as distinct from other genre tropes. WotC wants the next FR out of it, and they're not going to treat it like a secondary D&D brand so much as a brand in and of itself. Things that aren't shared by other settings, that require people to buy things with that particular brand name on it, are a Good Thing for that goal.


----------



## A'koss

The _*Balor *_is up now - and Swekel has done a great job on it.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/artpreview


----------



## Rechan

THat's a balor? Huh.

Despite the worries of many, the Balor still has his whip and sword, and is roughly humanoid.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Not a huge fan of the balor....something about the lighting seems off...not the worst, but I'd put him in the bottom 5.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

OOO, me likey. I especially like the face.


----------



## A'koss

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Not a huge fan of the balor....something about the lighting seems off...not the worst, but I'd put him in the bottom 5.



Bottom _five_...? This one's gotta be in my Top 3!


----------



## NaturalZero

Ugh...its done by that artist who has no anatomical knowledge. The goofy play-doh arms all over the preview books were bad enough, i dont want them in all the core books too.


----------



## Hussar

I loved his Tarrasque, but, I don't like his balor.  

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





[/sblock]

The pose is just weird.  Looks very awkward.  This is definitely not one of my favorites.

Now, the angels, I kinda liked them.  Both the art and the flavor.  Badassed mercenary angels spawned of the Astral sea.  Cool.


----------



## small pumpkin man

A'koss said:
			
		

> The _*Balor *_is up now - and Swekel has done a great job on it.
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/artpreview



Some of the details look a bit wierd, but it certainly _feels_ like some sort of abyss-spawned abomination. I approve.

-Edit, wait, is that a _mullet_?


----------



## Ravingdork

Oh look, the new art is a bal...**NERDGASM**


----------



## Jack Colby

I don't see anything wrong with that Balor.  I actually like it quite a bit.


----------



## A'koss

Any bets on it's relative power compared to the Pit Fiend?

While a strong argument could be made that the Balor will be a soldier, from what we know about demons I'm leaning towards pegging the Balor as an Elite Brute around the same level as the Pit Fiend.


----------



## Surgoshan

Come on, now, that picture's got skads of flaws.  The _first_ is that the Balrog's whip should have multiple thongs.


----------



## NaturalZero

Surgoshan said:
			
		

> Come on, now, that picture's got skads of flaws.  The _first_ is that the Balrog's whip should have multiple thongs.




...and arms should have actual deltoids, biceps, triceps, brachialises, etc, instead of being giant red socks full of bowling balls.


----------



## frankthedm

Rechan said:
			
		

> THat's a balor? Huh.
> 
> Despite the worries of many, the Balor still has his whip and sword, and is roughly humanoid.



The facial features though are quite bestial though, fitting in with the 4e feel.

It looks o.k., the muscles do seem kinda bloated. But considering nothing will ever come close to the LotR movie Balrog, it's hard to judge Balor illos

Funny how geared up he looks.  Makes it look even more like it's cousin from Warhammer, the Bloodthirster.


----------



## hong

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I still don't see any barrier to acceptance. I see it in the FR case, with regards to setting history. I don't see it in the monster case, because there's really no history, just kind of the same stuff over and over again -- nothing to 'catch up on,' like there is in FR.




The barrier is not the history ingame, but the lack of history out of game.



> Perhaps you could help and show me where a lone 25 year old D&D anachronism is preventing someone from playing D&D?




Nobody said anything about lone 25 year-old D&D anachronisms.



> No, you can. It happens a lot. All the time, in fact. Sometimes you break old content, too, especially when you can make the end product better for it.




Like in this case.



> I just don't see a game where rakshasas are, say, nature demons, as any inherently better than a game where rakshasas are backwards-handed tiger-people.
> 
> Perhaps you can show me why this is important?




Because it results in one idiosyncratic D&Dism with no reason to exist, and hence less barrier to entry.



> 4e makes fanbois cry a lot. I'm sure the Great Wheel and FR history and half-orcs and druids were bigger blows than rakshasas.




Exactly. And hence if they could go, so can this.



> So they'd probably only keep the rakshasas if there was a reason to keep them beyond "appeasing the fanbois." There'd be significantly less reaction with these things than there would be with most of the stuff they've been tormenting the trufans with.
> 
> This really doesn't look like its about 25 years of fanbois or "barriers to acceptance."




While it is indeed true that I love Mearls with all of my body including my pee-pee, I do not ascribe to him traits of omniscience, knowledge of revealed truths, or authorship of a divinely inspired 5-year-plan whose subtle workings we can never fully comprehend. Nor Rich Baker, nice guy though he is.



> I'm pretty confident when the 4e rules are released that I'll be able to pick out at least a handful of things that really _aren't_, and that would fail the "general zeitgeist" litmus test at least as badly as the rakshasas do.




Precisely. Rakshasas as tigers with backwards hands fail the general zeitgeist litmus test.



> So this is looking more just like you personally think the rakshasas are/have been stupid. Which is cool, but, you know, there might be _other opinions_ which WotC would be _perhaps slightly interested in supporting_. Such as those Eberron fans who like the idea of evil big cat people as a distinct evil demonic race.




This ignores the potential Eberron fans who do not care one whit about rakshasas as tigers with backwards hands.



> So "Only fanbois <3 the dumb rakshasas!" would be misleading at best.




Only fanbois <3 the dumb rakshasas by definition, because only fanbois can be aware of, and care about, the dumb rakshasas.



> "What hong thinks is stupid" doesn't enter into it. "What would offend the fanbois" probably doesn't either (here, at least). "What helps us maintain Eberron extraplanar bad dudes as distinct from Default D&D extraplanar bad dudes" might.




So... are we saying that Eberron is D&D?



> D&D has rid itself of many stupid monsters, and it has invented stupid monsters to replace them (flumph vs. phantom fungus! triapheg vs. ythrak! myconids vs. desmondu!), and it will continue the process ad nauseum.




Correct. It is a continuing process of self-renewal, and one that is not helped by clinging on to stupid monsters out of sentimentality.



> It really doesn't prevent reasonable monsters from being designed to replace them.




It prevents reasonable monsters from being designed to replace them in the zeitgeist.



> Eight years of 3e saw over 5,000 monsters, and monster manuals are one of the best selling product lines the game has, probably including 3rd party stuff. There's a LOT of room for new hotness in that category.




Most of which will remain obscure, because the existing monsters are the ones who get all the love.



> A lot of room for new stupidity, too, but fortunately with monsters there is a built-in failsafe: if the DM thinks its dumb, it dosn't get used, and so it gains none of that "traction," and all it did was waste a little bit of time and money being developed. It definitely doesn't stop anyone from using the game for the hotness in spite of the stupidity.




I fully agree that if you think it's stupid, you don't have to use it. Insert comment about paying for stuff which you don't use.



> Also, the idea that rakshasas as evil tiger-critters are stupid is not as universal as you seem to think it is.




This is because your opinion is informed by D&D players who are already familiar with rakshasas as tigers with backwards hands.



> Also also, the idea that stupid monsters in profusion is a barrier to acceptance is something I'd like to see a bit more concrete information on than your say-so. I kind of doubt that is anything resembling a truism.




Stupid monsters are just one part of D&D that keep it from being current to the mainstream. As long as such monsters and associated accidents of history remain, players will look at D&D and see 25 years of cultural detritus accumulated into an unsightly mass not worth climbing.



> All we know about them right now in 4e is that they have assassins who look like panthers with reversed hands. Is this not suitable to you?




If there are rakshasas who do not have tiger's heads and backwards hands, this will be a suitable first step.



> Based on that picture, you say that? Really, you know what they're like in Eberron, right? They've been more than a D&D anachronism for at least as long as that idea. It just didn't require turning their hands around. Are you not okay with this? Do you feel that WotC should not be okay with this?




One should realise? That the use of rising inflections? Is not particularly illuminative?



> Eberron is important as one of WotC's flagship settings, one where they can develop IP that they can milk, like FR. Rakshasas figure into that IP, by being one of the major villains in the setting, as backwards-handed tiger/big cat critters.




And they can continue to be the major villains in that setting, without having their signature feature be tiger heads and backwards hands.



> It makes a lot more sense to preserve that potential cash cow than it does to adhere to getting rid of "what hong thinks is stupid" as some sort of bible for what should be in the monster manual.




Nobody said they couldn't preserve cash cows.



> A similar case is probably made with regards to the illithids, githzerai, and githyanki. To a lesser degree, Shadar Kai fall into this, too, I'd imagine.




Shadar-kai are a new addition to the game, and one that is moreover being given a revamp to make it more relevant to pop cultural trends. They have nothing in common with tigers with backwards hands, who were quite irrelevant even 25 years ago.



> They're all things with some sort of traction that helps WotC give D&D (and Eberron) its own image, one that can sell.




But some are more relevant than others.



> Since there's no real reason to get rid of them




Nobody said anything about getting rid of them.



> (because barriers to entry don't exist




Of course barriers to entry exist. As long as there are people out there playing WoW and not D&D, that is ipso facto evidence of barriers to entry.



> and what hong thinks is stupid isn't a consideration), since there's plenty of reason to keep them (Eberron must be milked,




The suitability of Eberron to continued milking is entirely unaffected by whether rakhasas are tigers with backwards hands.



> ,  they work as backwards-handed tiger/big-cat villains in a William Blake kind of way), they've been kept.




Tell me where Blake said anything about backwards hands.



> I do think that the design team probably has a more nuanced view of what backwards-handed rakshasas can accomplish for D&D and Eberron than you do.




The design team has already killed enough sacred cows that one more shouldn't be too much work.



> It's not about retaining pointless anachronisms as much as it is about developing D&D as distinct from "General Fantasy Milieu."




D&D can easily be developed as distinct from the general fantasy milieu without perpetuating pointless idiosyncrasies which fail to resonate with people outside the game.



> Get a new catchprase for the month, dude. "Everyone who doesn't hate these rakshasas is just a fanboi" isn't one of your better ones. Maybe go back to the wang jokes, those worked for you.




So. Why do you care about rakshasas so much?



> Eberron wants to be part of the fantasy melieu as distinct from other genre tropes.




If D&D needs Eberron to sell its core monsters, then D&D has failed.



> WotC wants the next FR out of it, and they're not going to treat it like a secondary D&D brand so much as a brand in and of itself.




The game remains "Dungeons and Dragons", not "Eberron fantasy gaming". And thank god, or we'd all be riding lightning trains.



> Things that aren't shared by other settings, that require people to buy things with that particular brand name on it, are a Good Thing for that goal.




This has what to do with rakshasas as tigers with backwards hands...?


----------



## Sonny

The Balor is nice. He actually looks pretty close to the 3.5 depiction, though I was hoping they'd try something new. Can't have everything though. 
Still, it's a nice piece of art.


----------



## hong

Nice balor!


----------



## HeinorNY

More hellish love.


----------



## Lurks-no-More

I like both the new angels and the new balor.

The former are quite good; I like the facelessness and their lack of legs both, as it makes them appear more like extensions of a divine will than beings in their own right. (I'm going to ignore the "astral mercenaries" idea; IMO, the whole point of angels is that they _serve some deity_, good, evil or indifferent.)

As for the balor, it looks pretty damn bestial, and at last definitely different enough from the pit fiend. (Balors and pit fiends having been one of the prime examples of pointless symmetry between demons and devils.) Also, the almost translucent sword and the whip coiling around the balor are good touches, I think, showing the weapons as parts of the balor as a whole.


----------



## hong

Anyone have a link to an illo of the new pit fiend? Wanna compare.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





[/sblock]

Here you Hong.


----------



## HeinorNY

And the balor.
[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



[/sblock]


----------



## hong

Huh, the balor and pit fiend aren't as different as I thought.


----------



## HeinorNY

When I was a kid I always thought they were the same monster with different names.


----------



## Mentat55

I like the balor -- not a big change from the MM 3.5 artwork, but that was already a huge improvement from 1st and 2nd ed.  He also looks like he is bellowing and angry, whereas the 3.5 balor is just kind of standing there.  The weapons are nice, basically raw elemental energy given form.

I've decided I miss the pit fiend's trademark fangs, and wings wrapped around the body.


----------



## SlimeGuru42

I love the balor, but wish it had worse posture. A bellowing, bestial, hunched over figure thats clutching tightly to weapons made out of its hatred for everything. Mmm.


----------



## Zulithe

I still like the Fellowship of the Ring Balrog a lot more.






I wish they'd have gone more this route than a Minotaur with wings.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> I like both the new angels and the new balor.
> 
> The former are quite good; I like the facelessness and their lack of legs both, as it makes them appear more like extensions of a divine will than beings in their own right. (I'm going to ignore the "astral mercenaries" idea; IMO, the whole point of angels is that they _serve some deity_, good, evil or indifferent.)
> 
> As for the balor, it looks pretty damn bestial, and at last definitely different enough from the pit fiend. (Balors and pit fiends having been one of the prime examples of pointless symmetry between demons and devils.) Also, the almost translucent sword and the whip coiling around the balor are good touches, I think, showing the weapons as parts of the balor as a whole.




Speaking of Symmetry:
Isn't there a symmetry between Archons and Angels?

Archons come from the Elemental Chaos, Angels from the Astral Sea. Both seem to be mercenary like warriors. 
While Archons are made of the core elements (Fire, Ice), Angels are made from higher concepts (Valor, Vengeance). 

Oh, and IIRC, both lack legs. 

I think I like the Pit Fiend more than the Balor.
The Balor looks more bestial, probably thanks to the hair, and him looking as if he was screaming out loud (possibly breathing fire, too).


----------



## Gloombunny

hong said:
			
		

> Huh, the balor and pit fiend aren't as different as I thought.



Yeah, I'm puzzled by all the "they look different" rejoicing.  They're both big red dudes with big toothy mouths and big red wings.  So one is muscular and has a mullet and the other is scrawny and has a tail.  That's not much of a distinction if you ask me.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

The Balor's sword would have looked better if it was shaped like a wicked looking lightning bolt, as it was in previous editions, rather than a shard of glass.


----------



## mhacdebhandia

Zulithe said:
			
		

> I still like the Fellowship of the Ring Balrog a lot more.



Really? I've always thought looked like some _Diablo_-esque crap.


----------



## Steely Dan

Regarding the new Balor:

I thought demons are now supposed to be the non-weapon wielding bestial fang and claw boys, and devils are the more humanoid weapon-wielders?


----------



## HeinorNY

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Really? I've always thought looked like some _Diablo_-esque crap.



"Diablo-esque crap" doesn't even have wings.


----------



## Kunimatyu

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> Regarding the new Balor:
> 
> I thought demons are now supposed to be the non-weapon wielding bestial fang and claw boys, and devils are the more humanoid weapon-wielders?




Well yeah, but you know how demons are supposed to be animal-esque now? The Balor's simply a bestial demonic version of a sacred cow.


----------



## med stud

NaturalZero said:
			
		

> ...and arms should have actual deltoids, biceps, triceps, brachialises, etc, instead of being giant red socks full of bowling balls.



Yes, because demons are known to have exactly the same musculature as humans


----------



## Derren

Amazing. WotC really made devil and demons fundamentally different like they said they would...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

med stud said:
			
		

> Yes, because demons are known to have exactly the same musculature as humans



See, if a medical student says so on the internet, it must be true!


----------



## Protagonist

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> See, if a medical student says so on the internet, it must be true!




I thought he was a Mediterranean male animal employed for breeding Oo


----------



## LordArchaon

I like the Balor, and pretty much every artwork seen to date (except for Efreets), but I agree that they're not different enough from Pit Fiends.

A color change would have been much appreciated, with red remaining tied to the big devil, but I see they considered it, since the Balor has a much darker hue.
Maybe the things that strikes me the most is seeing the Balor better armored/clothed than the Pit Fiend... Come on! The demons are the bestial ones, the devils are the sophisticated. Pit Fiend needed a cool hell-armor or hell-clothing. Balor only needed much fire and skulls. I see they were going that direction, but then why the naked Pit Fiend?

The angels are by far my biggest favorites. Wow. Maybe I'd only have preferred the elemental bottom being tied to "genies", but it just adds awesomeness to angels as well.


----------



## med stud

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> See, if a medical student says so on the internet, it must be true!



It's the rule zero of the internet 

Actually, in my own professionally inbred way I like when the anatomy is diffusely off when it comes to creatures. It lends a wrongness to a creature that is the living, breathing defenition of wrong. It's the same thing as the skin of the balor; it is glistening, almost plastic and it looks more like a set of clothes than it looks like skin. It is perfectly unsettling, a skin fitting a demon lord   

PS: I'm not a student anymore, I just haven't found a way to change the nick


----------



## Steely Dan

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> Well yeah, but you know how demons are supposed to be animal-esque now? The Balor's simply a bestial demonic version of a sacred cow.




Shame, maybe they should have merged the balor and the pit fiend...?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

med stud said:
			
		

> It's the rule zero of the internet
> 
> Actually, in my own professionally inbred way I like when the anatomy is diffusely off when it comes to creatures. It lends a wrongness to a creature that is the living, breathing defenition of wrong. It's the same thing as the skin of the balor; it is glistening, almost plastic and it looks more like a set of clothes than it looks like skin. It is perfectly unsettling, a skin fitting a demon lord



Balor skin is made from people? 



> PS: I'm not a student anymore, I just haven't found a way to change the nick



I suspected so, due to previous posts of you. But (as they say at least in Germany), "life-long learning" is the way to go. So you will always be a student, albeit you might need to work more and get more money now (assuming you still work in your discipline  )


----------



## Serendipity

THAT's the Balor?  Oh yeah........................................  
After seeing the elementalized angels, I was wondering.  DAUYM that looks formidable.  I like.


----------



## Klaus

The Balor is very, very good.

As for the muscles not showing, do keep in mind that this inhuman creature has a very tough hide, not the thin, soft skin of humans. No one can accuse Arnie Sweekel of not knowing anatomy. Just take a look at his Herakles picture in Deities & Demigods.


----------



## med stud

Klaus said:
			
		

> The Balor is very, very good.
> 
> As for the muscles not showing, do keep in mind that this inhuman creature has a very tough hide, not the thin, soft skin of humans. No one can accuse Arnie Sweekel of not knowing anatomy. Just take a look at his Herakles picture in Deities & Demigods.




That too. Also, many times artists go overboard with muscles and consistently draw pictures of people without body fat what so ever. The problem with that, IMO, is that the person that is drawn looks like a body builder after a strict diet regime. For me, it kills the mood something fierce when every warrior in an illustration looks like someone who has engaged in a very particular training/eating regime.

And about the balor, yet again: Not only does it have thicker skin, it's also a distinct possibility that the balor doesn't have the same muscles as humans


----------



## GoodKingJayIII

Well the artwork is excellent.

I'm really curious to see how the Balor's abilities stack up against a pit fiend's.  Where the PF is a leader, I'd expect the Balor to be a pretty straight elite or solo brute between levels 24-28.


----------



## AllisterH

Big red and scary....Always had a problem describing the difference between a pit fiend and a balor...


----------



## Clavis

I like the Balor picture. It's METAL, which is the most important thing for any D&D art.

As for the recent Pit Fiends... Pit Fiends will always have fat bellies in my mind, a la the 1st Edition Monster manual. Makes 'em look like fat-cat fascist generals. But then, WOTC seems to have banned anything tubby from the art...


----------



## frankthedm

LordArchaon said:
			
		

> Maybe the things that strikes me the most is seeing the Balor better armored/clothed than the Pit Fiend... Come on!
> 
> The demons are the bestial ones, the devils are the sophisticated. Pit Fiend needed a cool hell-armor or hell-clothing. Balor only needed much fire and skulls. I see they were going that direction, but then why the naked Pit Fiend?



1. Any gear the Pit fiend has is treasure. Any gear the Balor has is shrapnel.

2. The artist forgot the Pit fiend’s breastplate. “This hulking devil stands 12 feet tall and has red scales, leathery wings, and a long whiplike tail. It carries a massive mace and _wears an ornate breastplate_ decorated with evil runes and symbols.”

3. I’d imagine Pit fiends should be wearing finery only one step below their Devil Lords, but sadly, most of that kind of stuff is not fire proof. Once combat starts, that dandy outfit becomes ash.

4. Pit fiends can vault their stuff wherever their throne room is and come back to it pretty easy. Balors would carry their stuff wherever they go since I’d imagine they have more a “It is mine because I have it with me” attitude rather than a Devils “It is mine because I have rightful claim on it.” Also, I’d bet balors are far less sedentary and their local terrain is far more unstable, two things that make it a good idea to ‘Carry what you got’.

5. I think the Artist took a little inspiration from the Warhammer Bloodthirster for this Balor. Those Balrog clones do come with a bit of gear on thier bodies.


----------



## Mirtek

hong said:
			
		

> There is also not much reason for illithids, githyanki, githzerai and displacer beasts to exist either. But you can't discard everything at once, or the fanbois will cry; so we start with rakshasas and move upward.



So you want to create an unique D&D IP by eleminating anything unique to D&D? Isn't that what your ripping down of all "barriers to entry" comes down to?


			
				hong said:
			
		

> Of course barriers to entry exist. As long as there are people out there playing WoW and not D&D, that is ipso facto evidence of barriers to entry.



That is a very, very, very weak evidence.

Some people just do not want to play D&D (or any tabletop) period. That's like saying that as long as people are walking by a free giveaway booth without picking anything up it's an ipso facto evidence of barriers to entry.

Some people just walk by the widely open door because they have no interest at all to go through


----------



## mhacdebhandia

ainatan said:
			
		

> "Diablo-esque crap" doesn't even have wings.



I wasn't just referring to the Diablo character, but seriously: if you stuck wings on Diablo and coloured him black, you'd pretty much have that movie Balrog. It's one of the most unimaginative and boring designs they could have gone with.


----------



## Aloïsius

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> I wasn't just referring to the Diablo character, but seriously: if you stuck wings on Diablo and coloured him black, you'd pretty much have that movie Balrog. It's one of the most unimaginative and boring designs they could have gone with.




Yeah, because, of course, we all know that Tolkien was a geek and plagiarized his description of the Balrog upon Diablo... 

After all, Blizzard has never copied stuff from elsewhere,  their work is 100% original, as people who played warcraft after Dune 2 could tell you.


----------



## Benben

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Some of the details look a bit wierd, but it certainly _feels_ like some sort of abyss-spawned abomination. I approve.
> 
> -Edit, wait, is that a _mullet_?




It's a mane not a mullet.  It's the same length of hair all along his head and neck and probably back.


----------



## Kishin

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> Yeah, because, of course, we all know that Tolkien was a geek and plagiarized his description of the Balrog upon Diablo...
> 
> After all, Blizzard has never copied stuff from elsewhere,  their work is 100% original, as people who played warcraft after Dune 2 could tell you.




Pretty sure that wasn't the implication at all.

That said, pretty much what I expected from the Balor. I like it; but its not the most enthralling of the previews simply because I pretty much knew what to expect.


----------



## Shroomy

I really liked the 4e balor artwork; while they do look like pit fiends, the balor is slightly more bestial and feral.


----------



## Oni

The mood of the Balor is very good.  I really like the design for the head and there are alot of nice little details in the pic, I especially like the little crowned skulls it's wearing.  I'm not a fan of the anatomy.  The problem when you change anatomy yet remain so close to a form that everyone recognizes it doesn't come off as different, it comes off as wrong.  I can clearly see that the artist is trying to convey thick skin but I think it looks all the more odd were arms pinch so thin in the upper region above the bicep.  The wrist seem smallish for such a built creature.  The abs bother me a lot, they look like the artist just forgot to drawn in the line to seperate the left and the right.  I guess what it boils down to is he looks like he's wearing one of those stuffed fake muscle shirts and that takes away from what is otherwise a great pic.  Personally I wish the muscle detail had been dialed back a bit and I think it would have made it look as though it had thicker, heavier skin.  He also seems to be missing his right thumb.

But overall it's an enjoyable picture, good mood.


----------



## NaturalZero

Oni said:
			
		

> The problem when you change anatomy yet remain so close to a form that everyone recognizes it doesn't come off as different, it comes off as wrong.  I can clearly see that the artist is trying to convey thick skin but I think it looks all the more odd were arms pinch so thin in the upper region above the bicep.  The wrist seem smallish for such a built creature.  The abs bother me a lot, they look like the artist just forgot to drawn in the line to seperate the left and the right.  I guess what it boils down to is he looks like he's wearing one of those stuffed fake muscle shirts and that takes away from what is otherwise a great pic.  Personally I wish the muscle detail had been dialed back a bit and I think it would have made it look as though it had thicker, heavier skin.  He also seems to be missing his right thumb.
> 
> But overall it's an enjoyable picture, good mood.




Its not really a matter of the artist trying to change things yet remain so close to a form that everyone recognizes, unfortunately. All of his humanoids have poorly rendered anatomy. Its going to drive me nuts if this guys stuff is all over 4E since his bodies/arms remind me of the work of some kid in 9th grade study hall.


----------



## Stogoe

Meh.  The subset of people who have extensively studied human anatomy _and_ are bothered by unrealistic fantasy art is probably vanishingly small.  It sure doesn't bother me.


----------



## Oni

Stogoe said:
			
		

> Meh.  The subset of people who have extensively studied human anatomy _and_ are bothered by unrealistic fantasy art is probably vanishingly small.  It sure doesn't bother me.





Since this thread is specifically a discussion about art though I don't see any reason not to be more critical of what we're being served up.  I don't believe extensive study of human anatomy is required to notice some of the thing going on here either.  Human beings have a pretty good inate sense of what's right and what's wrong when it comes to the human form, it's wired into the brain.  

Also I prefer to think in the gaming industry, art and otherwise that mediocre isn't good enough.  If we as fans don't continually set the bar higher then there won't be any reason for game makers to improve their craft.  Is it ok now, sure.  Would it be better if the mistakes were absent, definately.  

The problem with the little things is while you might not notice them at first, once you do notice them you can't unnotice them.


----------



## Hussar

I don't hate the balor, just, don't love it either.  This is a pretty iconic critter, and I think he could have been done better.  IMO, it's the pose.  Too .... bland.  He's just kinda standing there.  Look at the Pit Fiend pose - action shot.  This is a guy who's going to come and kick your ass.

The balor is doing a Superman pose.  "Look at my chest!"  Paint a big S on it and there you go.  

Not a bad shot, I just compare the Balor to Swinkle's Tarrasque and think it comes up short.  The Big T has a background and he's destroying the countryside.  The Balor is too static.


----------



## DandD

The Dark One... A native to the Shadowfell

Okay, what do you think of that thingie?


----------



## Incenjucar

DandD said:
			
		

> The Dark One... A native to the Shadowfell
> 
> Okay, what do you think of that thingie?




Give him a gas gun, a beak, and a catch phrase:

http://www.geocities.com/athens/delphi/2376/darkwingduck.jpg


----------



## frankthedm

Looks o.k. for a dark creeper. Hopefully _Dark one_ is the entry name and the little guy gets to keep his _Dark creeper_ name.


----------



## Surgoshan

That scabbard is _very_ poorly placed.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

I'd like to see if the Dark Stalkers are still around.

But it seemed like I was the only one that liked Dark Ones, and the vast majority had no idea what they were.  Maybe in 4e they'll get to shine more as a monster.


----------



## Hussar

Surgoshan said:
			
		

> That scabbard is _very_ poorly placed.




ROTF.  Took me a second to see what you were talking about.  Kinda like that sword from a while back no?  

Not a bad pic.  Since when did Dark Ones/Creepers have hooves?  That's new I believe.  But, dark, nasty fairy creature?  Yup, it works.

Frank - I thought that Dark Ones were the bosses and Dark creepers were the mooks.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Hussar said:
			
		

> ROTF.  Took me a second to see what you were talking about.  Kinda like that sword from a while back no?
> 
> Not a bad pic.  Since when did Dark Ones/Creepers have hooves?  That's new I believe.  But, dark, nasty fairy creature?  Yup, it works.
> 
> Frank - I thought that Dark Ones were the bosses and Dark creepers were the mooks.



Dark Ones were the name of both Dark Creepers and Dark Stalkers.

Dark Creepers had hooves before, and yes it was Dark Creepers that were the mooks, while Dark Stalkers were the bosses.


----------



## AllisterH

Ok, since isn't a creature that I recognize, anyone want to give the lowdown on where the Dark One first originated from in previous editions?


----------



## Shroomy

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Ok, since isn't a creature that I recognize, anyone want to give the lowdown on where the Dark One first originated from in previous editions?




Originally, they're from the 1e Fiend Folio.  In 3rd edition, they are also in the Fiend Folio.


----------



## Hussar

And probably pretty recognizable to anyone who played in the Shackled City Adventure Path.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

I like it, though to fit with my world, gonna give him worn and dirty worker-clothes instead of the padded armour and a crude gasmask.

A poster on Gleemax thread pointed out the use of the term "gloom" again in-reference to the Shadowfell. Could this be a nickname for it, or as I hope a aspect of the Shadowfell, like say the Shadowfell version of Ravenloft's fog.


----------



## A'koss

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> I like it, though to fit with my world, gonna give him worn and dirty worker-clothes instead of the padded armour and a crude gasmask.
> 
> A poster on Gleemax thread pointed out the use of the term "gloom" again in-reference to the Shadowfell. Could this be a nickname for it, or as I hope a aspect of the Shadowfell, like say the Shadowfell version of Ravenloft's fog.



Possibly, but when I hear the term "gloom", my first thought is of the cool epic level, shadow-jumping Gloom.


----------



## mhacdebhandia

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> Yeah, because, of course, we all know that Tolkien was a geek and plagiarized his description of the Balrog upon Diablo...
> 
> After all, Blizzard has never copied stuff from elsewhere,  their work is 100% original, as people who played warcraft after Dune 2 could tell you.



Listen, <deleted for propriety's sake>, *Tolkien* didn't design the Balrog they used in the *movie*, did he? Pretty sure it was just "shadow and flame", not "a big hulking thing with batwings and ram's horns and flame-spikes coming up from the tail, and skin like magma".

And the fact that I'm slamming on it as a boring design doesn't mean I think it was the new hotness when Blizzard did it. As it happens, I hated it then too.


----------



## frankthedm

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Listen, <deleted for propriety's sake>, *Tolkien* didn't design the Balrog they used in the *movie*, did he? Pretty sure it was just "shadow and flame", not "a big hulking thing with batwings and ram's horns and flame-spikes coming up from the tail, and skin like magma".
> 
> And the fact that I'm slamming on it as a boring design doesn't mean I think it was the new hotness when Blizzard did it. As it happens, I hated it then too.










Does not look a damned thing like 



Even diablo's bestial form in the second game has only superficial semblances to the Weta Balrog thanks to the forward swept horns. Which are not a new thing for fiends .


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Looks like there are Dark Stalkers as that Dungeon article mentions them.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

DandD said:
			
		

> The Dark One... A native to the Shadowfell
> 
> Okay, what do you think of that thingie?



He looks... unpleasant. He might want to stab me with his sword. I'd prefer not to meet him in a dark alley, or worse, in a cavern in the Shadowfell Underdark.


----------



## I'm A Banana

He looks pretty nice. The kind of characters I would kind of goad my PC's into forcibly allying with. Dark, dangerous, probably unpleasant, but there's Something Worse in the wings.

I'd be surprised if we didn't see both dark stalkers and dark creepers in the MM.


----------



## LordArchaon

This Dark One is the new monster I like the most to date!
I assume it's a shadow fey. It has a lot of the "real gnome sighting" in Argentina, appeared in the news some time ago, and it brings out the same new concept of unsettling creature... It can be the center of a whole adventure path alone.
Maybe one in which the point of light were the PCs start doesn't know of any kind of monsters, never seen anything supernatural or the like...


----------



## AllisterH

Shroomy said:
			
		

> Originally, they're from the 1e Fiend Folio.  In 3rd edition, they are also in the Fiend Folio.




Would you believe I have both the 1E and 3E Fiend folio and my reaction was "They're from WHERE?"

Geez, wonder if they will actually make an impression on me this time around...


----------



## Dragonbait

LordArchaon said:
			
		

> This Dark One is the new monster I like the most to date!




Actually, the Dark One and Dark Stalker are both from 1ed.

I really like the new look. It combines the goblin-like features of the early version with the imp features on the 3ed version. Very well done.


----------



## Mirtek

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Looks o.k. for a dark creeper. Hopefully _Dark one_ is the entry name and the little guy gets to keep his _Dark creeper_ name.



Wasn't _Dark Ones_ always the collective for Dark Creepers and Dark Stalkers?


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Mirtek said:
			
		

> Wasn't _Dark Ones_ always the collective for Dark Creepers and Dark Stalkers?



Yes, and they're making it confusing.  A Dungeon article mentions "Dark One Dark Stalker (Level 10 Lurker)".


----------



## Oni

DandD said:
			
		

> The Dark One... A native to the Shadowfell
> 
> Okay, what do you think of that thingie?




I think it's pretty damn cool.  I like this better than any of the others posted so far.  It made me think of the Shadow's evil mutated mini-me.  

Seriously if all the artwork met this standard I would be extremely happy.  I dig the style.

I don't know what the hell it is, but I want to use it.  Really that's what the art should do, inspire.


----------



## Shroomy

I'd guess that the Dark Creepers would be low-level lurkers or skirmishers.  I thought they exploded in a flash of light when they died, but that's not in the 3e FF and I can't find my copy of the original FF.


----------



## DandD

That's the newest picture on the Wizards of the Coast-page. Hmmm... The Warforged from the Eberron Campaign Setting.


----------



## Zamkaizer

DandD said:
			
		

> That's the newest picture on the Wizards of the Coast-page. Hmmm... The Warforged from the Eberron Campaign Setting.



Yes, we've known that they would be in the Monster Manual I--and playable--for some time.

I typically like Eva Widermann's stuff, but I judge this picture to be super lame, especially in comparison to Steve Prescott's depiction of Warforged.


----------



## HeinorNY

That's one cool robot!
Well done!


----------



## NaturalZero

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> I typically like Eva Widermann's stuff, but I judge this picture to be super lame, especially in comparison to Steve Prescott's depiction of them.




QFT. This has to be the worst warforged pic WotC has put out since eberron's release. Its cartoony but not in a good way.


----------



## Moon-Lancer

I like the parts that are wood. I am impressed with the calves. The face is ok, i guess, but the rest of the body is dripping with anatomy.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Only thing that really takes away from the picture in my eyes is the face.


----------



## hong

Crap. Did they get UDON to do the art?

That means I have to give up my left nut now....


----------



## small pumpkin man

NaturalZero said:
			
		

> QFT. This has to be the worst warforged pic WotC has put out since eberron's release. Its cartoony but not in a good way.



Don't make me prove you wrong  (it would be pretty easy, most of the eberron races have some awful pictures out there)


----------



## frankthedm

_ROBOPALADIN_
Detect the Evil
Smite the Evil
Take its Stuff​
I say the art is good enough and it gives the race all it deserves.


----------



## The_Fan

Okay, back to the darkling, I just looked at it and...umm...am I the only one to find it vaguely offensive in that "accidental racial charicature" sort of way? It's somewhere between Watto and Gargamel in its vague offensiveness.


----------



## Bossemeyer

the points of the warforged image that have me hating it are 
the belly, why is the Docent moved from the Chest to the belly?.
the Hands, you can hardly tell the guy has 3 fingers, a key feature of Warforged.
the feet, are those feet after all, they look more live hooves with toes.
and finally the Terminator rip off eyes, Never have it been said that Warforged have "Red" eyes...


----------



## Rechan

I actually like the face. It has a feeling of a bulldog, or Jaws from that Bond film. I.e. "I can bite your face off."


----------



## Mentat55

Is it just me, or does the warforged's face look kinda like Apocalypse?


----------



## Hussar

I also like Eva Wilderman and I know she's capable of better (I hope I got the sex right this time around).  Not a bad warforged, but, not a great one either.  

I really hate that pose.  It's pretty much the same pose as the balor.  Guy, standing there, not doing anything.  I want ACTION.  I want to see him doing something more than just posing.  The other preview pics show the critters in more active positions, except for the angel pic.  I'm kinda ambivalent on that one.

But, please, no more "Hey, I'm a monster.  I'll just stand here and look vaguely menacing while you take my picture 'K?"


----------



## Incenjucar

Mentat55 said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or does the warforged's face look kinda like Apocalypse?




It's definitely 90s Marvel.

Somewhere between Iron Man, Annihilus, Ultron, and Apocalypse.


----------



## mhacdebhandia

frankthedm said:
			
		

> images snipped



Mate, colour the second version of Diablo black, set its neck and feet on fire, and stick some wings on, and you *have* the movie Balrog. Who are you trying to kid?


----------



## HeinorNY

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Mate, colour the second version of Diablo black, set its neck and feet on fire, and stick some wings on, and you *have* the movie Balrog. Who are you trying to kid?



The fact that you need all that changes means both creatures are very different from each other.
The Balrog is actually a copy of Pikachu. Take Pikachu, paint him black, put some wings and horns, fire him up and you have the LOTR's balrog.


----------



## HeinorNY

Mentat55 said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or does the warforged's face look kinda like Apocalypse?



To me it looks like the Terminator's skeleton. If you erase the wooden parts, it will look a lot.


----------



## Jack Colby

That's the best Warforged I've seen yet, ever.  That race has always looked silly and cartoony, but this one is at least closer to something I might use in a game.


----------



## Jack Colby

Hussar said:
			
		

> I really hate that pose.  It's pretty much the same pose as the balor.  Guy, standing there, not doing anything.  I want ACTION.  I want to see him doing something more than just posing.  The other preview pics show the critters in more active positions, except for the angel pic.  I'm kinda ambivalent on that one.
> 
> But, please, no more "Hey, I'm a monster.  I'll just stand here and look vaguely menacing while you take my picture 'K?"




Even action poses get boring if that's all that's ever used.  Besides, the Balor was in an intimidating, powerful pose, and the Warforged is in a noble, knightly pose.  These are not illustrations for an action story, they are to show us what the creature looks like so we can imagine it doing whatever it needs to do in our games.  Neutral poses are good for that.


----------



## Yair

Hussar said:
			
		

> I really hate that pose.  It's pretty much the same pose as the balor.  Guy, standing there, not doing anything.  I want ACTION.  I want to see him doing something more than just posing.  The other preview pics show the critters in more active positions, except for the angel pic.  I'm kinda ambivalent on that one.



QFT. 
I want action. Better yet - scenes. Weird, open to interpretation scenes. Vistas that fire up the imagination.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

DandD said:
			
		

> That's the newest picture on the Wizards of the Coast-page. Hmmm... The Warforged from the Eberron Campaign Setting.



Like it. 

I think I should use Warforged as Cylons sometime.


----------



## Jhaelen

Bossemeyer said:
			
		

> and finally the Terminator rip off eyes, Never have it been said that Warforged have "Red" eyes...



Yeah, that's the one bit I actually dislike about it. Otherwise it's okay if not great.


----------



## Gargazon

Jack Colby said:
			
		

> That's the best Warforged I've seen yet, ever.  That race has always looked silly and cartoony, but this one is at least closer to something I might use in a game.




What's funny is I'm having the exact opposite reaction to this Warforged. This one looks incredibly goofy and cartoony and wouldn't look out of place in a Comic Book beating up Spiderman. I much prefer the Warforged characters portrayed in the Eberron books.


----------



## Moon-Lancer

frankthedm said:
			
		

>




hay Frank, where does one find that diablo toy? That thing is so awesome.


----------



## Trolls

The warforged is...ok.

The face looks far to robotic, rather than golem-like. The red, glowing eyes don't help, and the lack of any stone components make it seem less earthy.


----------



## Soel

Warforged has the same looks I hated in its original debut, a monkey-like face and the finger/toe lack.


----------



## Ashardalon

Bossemeyer said:
			
		

> the feet, are those feet after all, they look more live hooves with toes.



The feet don't look too dissimilar from the ones seen on the ECS warforged picture.
[sblock=Image]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





[/sblock]


			
				Bossemeyer said:
			
		

> and finally the Terminator rip off eyes, Never have it been said that Warforged have "Red" eyes...



Maybe it hasn't been said, but neither has it been said that they can't have red eyes. Besides...
[sblock=Images]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	











[/sblock]
Not to mention the warforged on the ECS cover and the warforged on the Sharn cover spread.

Personally, I'm fine with the warforged pic. It could be better, but it could also be much worse.


----------



## Derren

Marvel meets D&D

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 [/sblock]


----------



## Snarls-at-Fleas

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Like it.
> 
> I think I should use Warforged as Cylons sometime.




 

Same idea occured to me. A Points of Light campaigns - something along the lines of Cylon-occupied Caprica. May be there are even some manikins somewhere? Maybe Nerath was destroted by warfroged? Could be some interesting potential in it.


----------



## Klaus

The warforged picture is badly proportioned. The legs are far too short for the torso, and the knees are folding back way too much. The wood is rendered well enough, but the metal parts aren't as good, and the face is a bit off (one of the hardest things to get right is the warforged's faceplate... the brows, cheeck"bones" and jaw have a look to them that is hard to do right).


----------



## Voss

ainatan said:
			
		

> To me it looks like the Terminator's skeleton. If you erase the wooden parts, it will look a lot.




Reminds me of the Space Gorilla army in Rackham's AT-43.
Monkeys do, man, monkeys do.

(And yes, I know.  Apes.  Monkies are just inherently more amusing).


----------



## withak

Ugh. Boring subject with bad art. I love warforged, but I've seen enough of them -- I don't need an art preview to have a good idea of what they'll look like in 4E.

C'mon, Wizards, finish off the week with something awesome!


----------



## Guild Goodknife

It's an ok piece, just not the best Eva Widerman could do. Still, i hope to see more of her work in the MM.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Like it.
> 
> I think I should use Warforged as Cylons sometime.




Only if you give them one red eye that moves back and forth.


----------



## WhatGravitas

Klaus said:
			
		

> The warforged picture is badly proportioned. The legs are far too short for the torso, and the knees are folding back way too much. The wood is rendered well enough, but the metal parts aren't as good, and the face is a bit off (one of the hardest things to get right is the warforged's faceplate... the brows, cheeck"bones" and jaw have a look to them that is hard to do right).



I like the decor on the body armour - it's an interesting new take on the Prescott warforged. But the face... I dunno. From an Eberron point of view, it's ugly. But it has its charm - it's just no longer an Eberron warforged.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## WhatGravitas

EDIT: Double post. Stupid internet connection.


----------



## OchreJelly

So if this is confirmation that the Warforged is in the MM, I wonder if it will get the player character treatment that some of the MM races are getting...


----------



## Klaus

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> I like the decor on the body armour - it's an interesting new take on the Prescott warforged. But the face... I dunno. From an Eberron point of view, it's ugly. But it has its charm - it's just no longer an Eberron warforged.
> 
> Cheers, LT.



 I've found that warforged look better when you slap at least some article of clothing on them to contrast the fluidity of fabric with the rigidity of their bodies: http://www.enworld.org/Pozas/Pictures/Line_Art/eberron_comic_page.jpg


----------



## WhatGravitas

Klaus said:
			
		

> I've found that warforged look better when you slap at least some article of clothing on them to contrast the fluidity of fabric with the rigidity of their bodies: http://www.enworld.org/Pozas/Pictures/Line_Art/eberron_comic_page.jpg



Totally random and off-topic - but looking at this comic has remembered me of something:

Sure, I'm not a very good artist (I've used to paint with acrylics, but lack of time means I'm not doing that very often any more - plus, I'm often fumbling with anatomy) - but it just occurred to me, that something sort of bugs me about your (generally pretty good) artwork in general:

I have the feeling that your shading is sometimes not bold enough and lacks contrast - and hence depth. Is this a conscious decision (to keep your art comic-like) or a quirk of your style?

Don't see that as attack, it's a mix of curiosity and (perhaps) constructive criticism.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Voss

OchreJelly said:
			
		

> So if this is confirmation that the Warforged is in the MM, I wonder if it will get the player character treatment that some of the MM races are getting...




Ugh.  Maybe they should start theming the monster manuals.
Classic fantasy, over the top fantasy, stupid fantasy, generic fantasy, not fantasy, etc...


----------



## Masquerade

OchreJelly said:
			
		

> So if this is confirmation that the Warforged is in the MM, I wonder if it will get the player character treatment that some of the MM races are getting...



I believe it has been announced that warforged *will* be one of the PC races in the MM.


----------



## Klaus

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Totally random and off-topic - but looking at this comic has remembered me of something:
> 
> Sure, I'm not a very good artist (I've used to paint with acrylics, but lack of time means I'm not doing that very often any more - plus, I'm often fumbling with anatomy) - but it just occurred to me, that something sort of bugs me about your (generally pretty good) artwork in general:
> 
> I have the feeling that your shading is sometimes not bold enough and lacks contrast - and hence depth. Is this a conscious decision (to keep your art comic-like) or a quirk of your style?
> 
> Don't see that as attack, it's a mix of curiosity and (perhaps) constructive criticism.
> 
> Cheers, LT.



 [threadjack]

In this piece (from 2006, iirc) I was experimenting with comic-book-style colouring, using the DC Comics guide. As such, it didn't came out the way I'd like. And most of the time, when I'm doing 1x1 inch counters, I have to keep an eye out for legibility.

I've recently begun working on pictures with more contrast, like the recent War of the Burning Sky covers ( http://www.enworld.org/enpublishing/russ_cover_tempest.jpg and http://www.enworld.org/enpublishing/russ_cover02.jpg ).

[/threadjack]


----------



## Hussar

Jack Colby said:
			
		

> Even action poses get boring if that's all that's ever used.  Besides, the Balor was in an intimidating, powerful pose, and the Warforged is in a noble, knightly pose.  These are not illustrations for an action story, they are to show us what the creature looks like so we can imagine it doing whatever it needs to do in our games.  Neutral poses are good for that.




"Intimidating, powerful pose"?  Art is in the eye of the beholder and all that.  You see intimidating, I see boring as all get out.  These are monsters!  I don't want static poses.  I want to see them doing stuff, like ripping off arms and the like.  

YMMV and all that.  



			
				Voss said:
			
		

> Ugh.  Maybe they should start theming the monster manuals.
> Classic fantasy, over the top fantasy, stupid fantasy, generic fantasy, not fantasy, etc...




So, which book would you put half the 1e Monster Manual in?  Trappers, Mimics, etc.  Beholders?  

Why the hell do people equate fantasy with stodgy crap written by dead authors?  Gimme Grindylow and K'Chain Che'Malle and I'll happily dump any number of sacred cow monsters.


----------



## Voss

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, which book would you put half the 1e Monster Manual in?  Trappers, Mimics, etc.  Beholders?



Stupid fantasy.  Or generic fantasy in some cases.  Treants, orcs, halflings, etc.



> Why the hell do people equate fantasy with stodgy crap written by dead authors?




Because preferences are subjective.   People like what they like.  And if classic fantasy *was* fantasy, it still *is* fantasy.  But the new stuff, which has entirely different feel, has to be something else. Those were simply the mental categories that seemed most useful to me.
Classic- myth and legend
generic- tolkienized & mass market things that were once classic, but are now just brutalized victims
over the top- giant multi armed fire-breathing skeletons
stupid fantasy- digesters, face-peeling skull cat things, temporal cat-centaurs
not fantasy- war forged and other thinly veiled sci-fi elements.

None of the latter categories feel like fantasy to me.  They just make me sad.


----------



## WhatGravitas

Klaus said:
			
		

> [threadjack]



I see - cool to see how your stuff gets better and better! And update your gallery! 

Cheers, LT.


----------



## kennew142

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Like it.
> 
> I think I should use Warforged as Cylons sometime.




I already do, complete with a resurrection facility.


----------



## DeusExMachina

Hussar said:
			
		

> Why the hell do people equate fantasy with stodgy crap written by dead authors?  Gimme Grindylow and K'Chain Che'Malle and I'll happily dump any number of sacred cow monsters.




Which is why I'm going to play a heavily Steven Erikson influenced campaign. Basically the characters get stuck in a resurgence of a war between two ancient races a la Jaghut/Imass, but with some flavor changes in it. Steven Erikson is great for plot and world building inspiration...


----------



## Moon-Lancer

Klaus said:
			
		

> The warforged picture is badly proportioned. The legs are far too short for the torso, and the knees are folding back way too much. The wood is rendered well enough, but the metal parts aren't as good, and the face is a bit off (one of the hardest things to get right is the warforged's faceplate... the brows, cheeck"bones" and jaw have a look to them that is hard to do right).




I have to agree with alot of what you said. I still think the calves are pretty darn good though, even if the legs are a tad short.


----------



## Oni

hong said:
			
		

> Crap. Did they get UDON to do the art?
> 
> That means I have to give up my left nut now....




If someone had told me a couple months ago that Udon would be doing 4e art I would have thought that would have been great.  Now less so.  

They're the ones that have brought us the bloodfiend and efreets it would seem.  I actually found their DA site just to day and learned just that. 

http://udoncrew.deviantart.com/


----------



## DandD

The White Dragon... Looks kinda cute. 




And that's the Swordswing which lives in the Underdark. Kinda cool. It collects rare items. Flying pack rats with blades of swiftness.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Really, that face makes me think it looks almost corpse like, which I like.


----------



## Sonny

Is it me, or does the white dragon have a real thin layer of fur on it? If it is fur, it's unusual and wouldn't work for most other dragons, but it works for the white one.


----------



## A'koss

The swordwing illo is very cool and the dragon's pretty decent as well, even if it's not quite meshing with that background...


----------



## frankthedm

Oni said:
			
		

> They're the ones that have brought us the bloodfiend and efreets it would seem.  I actually found their DA site just to day and learned just that.
> 
> http://udoncrew.deviantart.com/



Hey... bloodfiend is colored genestealer purple.


----------



## Kishin

The white dragon looks very...birdlike, there.

I don't think they;re gonna top the awesome picture at the front of the Character Classes section in the PHB for White Dragon illustrations soon, if ever.

I like the swordwing, but then again, I like bug monsters.


----------



## Kishin

Hussar said:
			
		

> Why the hell do people equate fantasy with stodgy crap written by dead authors?  Gimme Grindylow and K'Chain Che'Malle and I'll happily dump any number of sacred cow monsters.




See Dragon #352 for the 3.5E Grindylow, though I think it would be very hard to make them as scary as Mieville depicts them. They truly unnerved me in _The Scar_ .

Also, Jaghuts over K'Chain Che'Malle (Which have a ridiculous name....Erikson is really hit and miss on his naming, come to think of it.)


----------



## Klaus

Kishin said:
			
		

> The white dragon looks very...birdlike, there.
> 
> I don't think they;re gonna top the awesome picture at the front of the Character Classes section in the PHB for White Dragon illustrations soon, if ever.
> 
> I like the swordwing, but then again, I like bug monsters.



 You mean that dreadful picture with plastic rendering, garish colours and bad posing?


This white dragon is awesome! Lars Grant-West did the Black Dragon page on Draconomicon, which was the best depiction in the pre-gen pages of Draconomicon.


----------



## Masquerade

DandD said:
			
		

> And that's the Swordswing which lives in the Underdark. Kinda cool. It collects rare items. Flying pack rats with blades of swiftness.



This has probably already been mentioned elsewhere, but that is _so_ a Scyther .
edit - Hehe, only took 7 posts in the other thread. Guess I'm not the only one who saw this immediately.


----------



## Voss

I really don't like the white dragon. 
1- it looks like an albino griffin, not a dragon
2- the wings.  The giant hunchback to connect them to the body looks really odd.  If the body were a bit longer and they actually connected to the sides, rather than the top, it wouldn't look quite so freakish.
3- the head looks like it was cut off something else and just stuck on in a frankenstein-esque manner.  It doesn't match the rest of the dragon.


----------



## zen_hydra

I like the design of the white dragon, but its pose looks off to me.  There is no sense of weight.  It looks like it should be impossible it to stand like it is (with only its left legs supporting it) on the sloping ground.  The feet that are in contact with the ground don't really appear to be bearing any weight.  Maybe white dragons in 4E can levitate.


----------



## Serensius

Wrong. Thread. I'll shut up.


----------



## Drkfathr1

I really like Arnie Swekel's work, but man, that Worg looks AWFUL!


----------



## chaotix42

Well I like the new worg but it looks almost exactly like the guulvorg from MMV...


----------



## Klaus

Drkfathr1 said:
			
		

> I really like Arnie Swekel's work, but man, that Worg looks AWFUL!



 As mentioned in the OTHER art thread (hey, mods, can we get a merge?), that's a Guulvorg, a "war worg" creature created by hobgoblins. It was originally from the MM5.


----------



## Fifth Element

Klaus said:
			
		

> You mean that dreadful picture with plastic rendering, garish colours and bad posing?



No, I think he means the relatively awesome one in post #584 of this thread. You must be thinking of something else.


----------



## Serensius

The art is awesome, but damn.. that is *NOT* a worg. I just saw the picture first, thinking "oh, it's a displacer beast or something? Cool.". Seriously.. hope we will start seeing some more mundane enemies soon.


----------



## Klaus

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> No, I think he means the relatively awesome one in post #584 of this thread. You must be thinking of something else.



 I was replying to this bit:



> I don't think they;re gonna top the awesome *picture at the front of the Character Classes section in the PHB* for White Dragon illustrations soon, if ever.




... which, to be perfectly frank, is a "dreadful picture with plastic rendering, garish colours and bad posing":

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 [/sblock]


----------



## Dragonbait

I have to say "No thank you." to the new Worg.


----------



## Wormwood

Serensius said:
			
		

> The art is awesome, but damn.. that is *NOT* a worg.



We have no idea what "worg" _means _ in 4e, do we?


----------



## GoodKingJayIII

The new Worg design... blech.  It looks like a humongous rat.  How is that thing related to a wolf, exactly?

As a monster, I'd be cool with it.  But I liked worgs better when they were enormous wolves with lots of spiky bits.


----------



## Plageman

Klaus said:
			
		

> As mentioned in the OTHER art thread (hey, mods, can we get a merge?), that's a Guulvorg, a "war worg" creature created by hobgoblins. It was originally from the MM5.



Let's hope we'll see a "normal" worg somewhere in the MM


----------



## Fifth Element

Klaus said:
			
		

> I was replying to this bit:



My apologies, I misinterpreted your post. And I'm inclined to agree.


----------



## Greenfaun

Yeah, I'm disappointed by the new worg too. It doesn't look wolflike, it doesn't look intelligent, and a goblin definitely couldn't ride it. (unless Goblins have a racial power that lets them resist big bony spikes to the crotch in 4e) 

I'm certainly open to the possibility of there being design space for a spiky bity tail-clubbing ratdog thing in 4e but why do that to worgs?


----------



## doctorhook

I'm ok with these new worgs, although I definitely imagined them being hairier. (And by the looks of it, goblins will definitely be using saddles in the future, if there was ever any doubt before.)


----------



## Moon-Lancer

Serensius said:
			
		

> The art is awesome, but damn.. that is *NOT* a worg. I just saw the picture first, thinking "oh, it's a displacer beast or something? Cool.". Seriously.. hope we will start seeing some more mundane enemies soon.




The mundane is dead. Long live the mundane.

"and then when I sell my technology, EVERYONE will be special...  and that way, no one will be."


----------



## OchreJelly

I can respect a risky change to the worg look.  I have always felt that worgs and dire wolves were too similar conceptually.  I like it.


----------



## AllisterH

Plageman said:
			
		

> Let's hope we'll see a "normal" worg somewhere in the MM




Reposted from the WOTC boards....



> Originally Posted by WotC_Logan
> Before Lurkalot loses money betting on worgs, I'll confirm that the picture is a guulvorg (a Huge variant of the worg), and that the worg looks different from that.


----------



## Protagonist

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Reposted from the WOTC boards....




thank dog!


----------



## Inyssius

_Hell_ chess!


----------



## Moon-Lancer

Logan better tell his co-workers they got the image labeled wrong.


----------



## Drkfathr1

That's a relief. I was starting to worry that too many classic monsters were going to suffer from the "extreme makeover" syndrome.


----------



## Logan_Bonner

It's not _wrong_. It is a worg, just a specific type of worg that looks different.


----------



## Sammael

WotC_Logan said:
			
		

> It's not _wrong_. It is a worg, just a specific type of worg that looks different.



Does this mean that the regular worg is in the Monster Manual as well?

EDIT: Never mind, I hadn't seen the repost from WotC boards when I posted that.


----------



## doctorhook

WotC_Logan said:
			
		

> It's not _wrong_. It is a worg, just a specific type of worg that looks different.



Hmm... this is an interesting idea, if not new, that I think I've only just now wrapped my head around -- and I like it!

Take a basic monster concept, boil it down to its core identity, then rebuild it in two or three or four (or more?) variations on that core monster identity and theme. This has a lot of potential, particularly given 4E's explicit combat roles, which will help further legitimize variant monster concepts.

I just hope variants don't get too predictable; for example, having both a Huge displacer beast packlord and (for argument's sake) a Huge worg "packlord" is one thing, but then a winter wolf packlord, shadowcat packlord, blink dog packlord, and a shambling mound packlord is a different situation. I don't expect WotC will make such obvious variants, but it is a potential pitfall I hope they'll avoid. After all, as I said above, there's a lot of cool potential to variant monster'ing!


----------



## Moon-Lancer

Klaus said:
			
		

> I was replying to this bit:
> 
> ... which, to be perfectly frank, is a "dreadful picture with plastic rendering, garish colours and bad posing":
> 
> [sblock]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/sblock]




its as cool as any other custom lens flair ;p. I agree though, its too stiff. Also on a layout note, Why would you ever put an image in the center of the binding like that?


----------



## Digital M@

Klaus said:
			
		

> I was replying to this bit:
> 
> 
> 
> ... which, to be perfectly frank, is a "dreadful picture with plastic rendering, garish colours and bad posing":
> 
> [sblock]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/sblock]




The positioning is poor, but I hate the overly bulky armor, it looks completely restrictive and is more fit to be part of a construct than a humanoid's armor.


----------



## Voss

WotC_Logan said:
			
		

> It's not _wrong_. It is a worg, just a specific type of worg that looks different.




I disagree.  Its still wrong.  This thing is less connected to a wolf than I am.


----------



## Kishin

Klaus said:
			
		

> ... which, to be perfectly frank, is a "dreadful picture with plastic rendering, garish colours and bad posing":




The humanoids in the picture could use some work. But I stand by the dragon looking awesome.


----------



## small pumpkin man

Kruthiks
[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





[/sblock]
A bit too much "mud coloured" for me. Doesn't really stand out.


----------



## A'koss

Hmmm, so the kruthiks have changed from plains creatures to subterranean, I wonder why they went this route. Looks like they kept the 3 stages of advancement intact, though I liked their previous illos better...


----------



## coyote6

WotC_Logan said:
			
		

> It's not _wrong_. It is a worg, just a specific type of worg that looks different.




As that, I like it; as the default worg, I wasn't enamored. I'd be fine with a default worg that didn't look exactly like an evil semi-intelligent wolf (for example, the worgs in Two Towers would be fine) -- but that particular image (from the D&D Art Preview) is a bit too spiny & gaunt to fit the role I would use worgs for.


----------



## Jack Colby

The Kruthiks art doesn't really look finished.  Reminds me of one of the intermediate steps you'd see in a digital art tutorial.   As a rough styled piece, it is fine... just seems less polished than the others we've seen previewed.

I really like the worg, though.  Again, 4E is challenging people's preconceived ideas of what D&D is or can be.  The sense of wonder has returned to the game.


----------



## Moon-Lancer

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Kruthiks
> [sblock]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/sblock]
> A bit too much "mud coloured" for me. Doesn't really stand out.




I think it works. It was shooting for natural pigments, and i think it did it well. It would not have been well executed if parts of the image poped in this case. I think the simultaneous hue works for the creature type makes it part of the earth. think of it as well executed camouflage ;p


----------



## Samuel Leming

WotC_Logan said:
			
		

> It's not _wrong_. It is a worg, just a specific type of worg that looks different.



Is there any way you can get the website folks to correct the label & description text or perhaps post the correct picture instead?

Sam


----------



## small pumpkin man

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> I think it works. It was shooting for natural pigments, and i think it did it well. It would not have been well executed if parts of the image poped in this case. I think the simultaneous hue works for the creature type makes it part of the earth. think of it as well executed camouflage ;p



Sure, I don't have a problem with the choice, but it does make the picture less interesting, a better picture would have made up for it with composition, positioning or an action scene somehow, I see this picture as the equivalent of a picture of an assassin vine which isn't currently strangling anybody.


----------



## Edwin_Su

with the worg art i think it's just a idea of what a worrg coeld look like, you coeld use the stats and give it any look you like as long as the creature is simular in shape and has the same attack modes.
personaly i kind of like the lotr worgs http://www.sideshowtoy.com/mas_assets/jpg/9342_image01.jpg


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Kruthiks look good (or nasty) to me.


----------



## Klaus

Edwin_Su said:
			
		

> with the worg art i think it's just a idea of what a worrg coeld look like, you coeld use the stats and give it any look you like as long as the creature is simular in shape and has the same attack modes.
> personaly i kind of like the lotr worgs http://www.sideshowtoy.com/mas_assets/jpg/9342_image01.jpg



 The wargs, while cool, were a bit too hyena-like for me. For a worg, I'd make them smaller (larger than normal wolves, but not by much) and with more fur (and darker fur, gray or black).


----------



## Derren

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Kruthiks
> [sblock]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/sblock]
> A bit too much "mud coloured" for me. Doesn't really stand out.




Like I said in the other thread (why are there two threads with nearly the same tilte for art previews anyway?) its too Sci-Fi for me, especially the one in the background who appears to be floating.


----------



## Bagpuss

chaotix42 said:
			
		

> Well I like the new worg but it looks almost exactly like the guulvorg from MMV...




Clearly not a worg, but spot on for a guulvorg. What I didn't realise (not owning MMV) is they are a huge variant of the worg, if that's the case why does it look so different?


----------



## D.Shaffer

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Clearly not a worg, but spot on for a guulvorg. What I didn't realise (not owning MMV) is they are a huge variant of the worg, if that's the case why does it look so different?



It's a mutated, goblin raised, inbred worg.  Compare a chihuahua to a wolf.  Now make it a Great Dane sized chihuahua with a bit of far realms taint. Voila!


----------



## Shroomy

I really like the kruthiks.  As for the artwork, I like the rougher style in contrast to the highly polished pic in the MH.


----------



## Zamkaizer

I was greatly afeared when I saw its execrable D&D Miniatures illustration, but today's Manticore art is delicious.

It also represents a nice counterpoint to the warg, being a return to a more traditional form of an iconic monster, instead of a moving away from one.


----------



## small pumpkin man

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> I was greatly afeared when I saw its execrable D&D Miniatures illustration, but today's Manticore art is delicious.
> 
> It also represents a nice counterpoint to the warg, being a return to a more traditional form of an iconic monster, instead of a moving away from one.



I also heartlily approve of this manticore.


----------



## Shroomy

Very traditional D&D depiction, though its not among my favorite art previews that WoTC has released so far.


----------



## frankthedm

I approve the new manticore.


----------



## Hussar

I like this manticore too.  One of my favorite critters.  See, action poses with a background makes all the difference.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

I like it, especially the face.


----------



## Incenjucar

I too approve of the Manticore.

It doesn't look silly and rubbery like the 3E one.

I want to call him Mufasa.


----------



## doctorhook

Nothing else to say about the manticore, other than:

Amazing. Rockin'. Inspiring. Thumbs up.


----------



## Lurks-no-More

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> I was greatly afeared when I saw its execrable D&D Miniatures illustration, but today's Manticore art is delicious.



Hmm... that's tolerable, all right. I'm one of those who think the 3e manticore was the superior version, though...


----------



## Serendipity

Enh.  The Manticore doesn't do it for me.  I think the art looks maybe a little rushed - but a lot of it has and I've only complained about some of it.
It's not attrocious by any means, it just doesn't engage me.  YMMV of course.


----------



## Engilbrand

Actually, I like a lot of the other art. Today's Manticore, though, looks like crap. Could I do better? No. Should a professional artist do better? Absolutely.


----------



## AllisterH

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> Hmm... that's tolerable, all right. I'm one of those who think the 3e manticore was the superior version, though...




Heh, the first time I saw the 3E manticore my reaction was similar to how everyone reacted to the Guulvorg from Monday...

"THAT"S a manticore?!?!?...Er, ok...."

3E Manticore...


----------



## Gargazon

That 4E illustration is exactly how I want my Manticores to look. I mean, EXACTLY.

I'm actually a little scared...


----------



## Voss

Hmm.  Like the return to a more traditional manticore, but the art itself is a bit... dull.  If I was interested in tracing each brush-stroke I might like it, but this just looks like a painting of a manticore.

Not exactly leaping out of the art and going 'Rarrr!'


----------



## Dausuul

Love the new manticore art.  Soooooo much better than the 3.X manticore.


----------



## Klaus

Voss said:
			
		

> Hmm.  Like the return to a more traditional manticore, but the art itself is a bit... dull.  If I was interested in tracing each brush-stroke I might like it, but this just looks like a painting of a manticore.
> 
> Not exactly leaping out of the art and going 'Rarrr!'



 Errr... This IS a painting of a manticore. 

The art is good, I just think some bits (like the face) could use some more definition.


----------



## Engilbrand

He's talking about the actual art itself. It's obviously a painting of something, instead of being done so well that it actually looks like the thing. He's commenting on the art as the medium, not the manticore.


----------



## Voss

Yup.  It actually looks like something that Aristocrat Andrew, Amateur Artist would have hanging on the wall of his manor in the actual game.  Not something thats supposed to invoke, 'This is a manticore, be frightened!',  in a game book


----------



## Klaus

Engilbrand said:
			
		

> He's talking about the actual art itself. It's obviously a painting of something, instead of being done so well that it actually looks like the thing. He's commenting on the art as the medium, not the manticore.



 That's not a valid complaint, since not all art needs to be photorealistic. The manticore does need a little more work detailing the face, but is done well enough (specially the wings and tail). In fact, other than the face and the right foreleg, the entire piece is very well rendered.


----------



## Aloïsius

I can't see the manticore ! error 404 ! Is WotC link broken ? That's strange because the other picture works flawlessly...


----------



## Kishin

I too love the new Manticore. The 3E one was clearly an attempt to be different gone horribly awry.



			
				frankthedm said:
			
		

> I approve the new manticore.




10 points, sir.

Please tell me you can point me in the direction of more of those images. 

Tower of Doom/Shadows over Mystara were both amazing.


----------



## Jhaelen

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> I can't see the manticore ! error 404 ! Is WotC link broken ? That's strange because the other picture works flawlessly...



It's been fixed now:
Manticore


----------



## Lurks-no-More

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Heh, the first time I saw the 3E manticore my reaction was similar to how everyone reacted to the Guulvorg from Monday...
> 
> "THAT"S a manticore?!?!?...Er, ok...."



Well... yeah. Because it's a critter that could be described as "It's like a lion, with a spiked tail, and wings, and a head kind of like a bearded man's." It looks like a real creature of its own, instead of just a mythological mash-up of human and animal parts. (For the same reason, I really like the 3e minotaur. The sphinx isn't bad, either.)


----------



## Stogoe

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> Well... yeah. Because it's a critter that could be described as "It's like a lion, with a spiked tail, and wings, and a head kind of like a bearded man's." It looks like a real creature of its own, instead of just a mythological mash-up of human and animal parts. (For the same reason, I really like the 3e minotaur. The sphinx isn't bad, either.)




I much prefer the mythological mashup to 3e's screeching hate-baby.  Blech.


----------



## Klaus

Stogoe said:
			
		

> I much prefer the mythological mashup to 3e's screeching hate-baby.  Blech.




You can have something midway between the traditional look and the 3e look. Instead of having the parts stand out against each other, you allow their characteristics to "bleed" into each other:

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 [/sblock]


----------



## Sojorn

Oh ugh. Shambling mound and just... ew.

In a good way, but ugh.

It's extra worse if you read the description.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman

I think that's the first time I've ever found the Shambling Mound scary.


----------



## small pumpkin man

Tree eats Man.
[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]
"This shambling carnivore catches prey with its thick, ropelike arms and traps it in the mucky mass of its body, where countless rootlets bore into the victim."

Good family fun 

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/artpreview


----------



## Fallen Seraph

I likey, I am betting will be Feywild creature.


----------



## Incenjucar

Oh man.

That is a great shambling mound.

The old one had its charm, but you could use the same look for some kind of rubbish troll.


----------



## frankthedm

Don't like the teeth, but they are preferable to the carrot nose 1E gave them and thankfully less uniform than the teeth on the stormrage shamber's mini.* The shrooms are a nice touch though too uniform of a green if they are still supposed to look like _rotting_ vegetation though. All said, it is a fine depiction of a plant monster and one of the best illos shambling mounds have gotten. 


shambling mound from 1971's Night gallery; episode 13 "Brenda".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHlhbWfNXzI&feature=related






*


----------



## Moon-Lancer

frankthedm said:
			
		

> I approve the new manticore.




agreed.

Yay mythology!


----------



## Moon-Lancer

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Tree eats Man.
> [sblock]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/sblock]
> "This shambling carnivore catches prey with its thick, ropelike arms and traps it in the mucky mass of its body, where countless rootlets bore into the victim."
> 
> Good family fun
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/artpreview




I like everything about it except The colors are a tad too chromatic in my view, and it doesn't seem to have a designated plane to walk on (even an invisible one)


----------



## Moon-Lancer

Engilbrand said:
			
		

> Actually, I like a lot of the other art. Today's Manticore, though, looks like crap. Could I do better? No. Should a professional artist do better? Absolutely.



 It depends on how much they get paid really.


----------



## Hussar

Damn.  Just.... wow.  That's a fantastic shambling mound.  No more Swamp Thing rip-offs.  This is a monster I want to use.  My fav so far.


----------



## Surgoshan

Huh, kinda reminds me of a porno.

I mean, nice!  Very nice.


----------



## Lurks-no-More

Klaus said:
			
		

> You can have something midway between the traditional look and the 3e look. Instead of having the parts stand out against each other, you allow their characteristics to "bleed" into each other:
> 
> [sblock]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/sblock]



That's a good one, as well. I guess I just don't like patchwork monsters.


----------



## wedgeski

Fantastic shambling mound, and the crunch tidbit sounds gross in the best possible way.

Absolute thumbs up from this DM!


----------



## Jhaelen

Klaus said:
			
		

> You can have something midway between the traditional look and the 3e look. Instead of having the parts stand out against each other, you allow their characteristics to "bleed" into each other:



I like the look of this very much. Bestial features that only on second glance reveal similarities to a humanoid-equivalent malevolant intelligence


----------



## Banshee16

What he heck is #16?  That's supposed to be a worg?  It looks like one of the hairless mutated dogs from I Am Legend....that ain't no worg...

Banshee


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> What he heck is #16?  That's supposed to be a worg?  It looks like one of the hairless mutated dogs from I Am Legend....that ain't no worg...



It has been stated by WoTC designer, Logan Bonner that: "I'll confirm that the picture is a guulvorg (a Huge variant of the worg), and that the worg looks different from that."


----------



## Banshee16

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> It has been stated by WoTC designer, Logan Bonner that: "I'll confirm that the picture is a guulvorg (a Huge variant of the worg), and that the worg looks different from that."




OK, I'm game for that.  Thanks for clarifying..

Banshee


----------



## Fallen Seraph

[sblock=Orcs]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 [/sblock]

_Art by Ralph Horsley_
Orcs worship Gruumsh, the one-eyes god of slaughter, and are savage, bloodthirsty marauders.

Here is the fluff text from the Orc PDF in the newest Excerpt:

Orcs worship Gruumsh, the one-eyed god of slaughter, and are savage, bloodthirsty marauders. They plague the civilized races of the world and also fight among themselves for scraps of food and treasure. They love close combat and plunge furiously into the thick of battle, giving no thought to retreat or surrender.

Within what passes for orc society, there are orcs that fill special roles. Eyes of Gruumsh are orcs with a special connection to their fierce god. They offer sacrifices, read omens, and advise the tribe’s chieftain of Gruumsh’s will. Orc bloodragers are tribal champions feared for their strength and ferocity, and they also make excellent subchiefs or bodyguards. 

Orcs often fight alongside ogres, and they can be coerced or bullied into serving any dark overlord or wicked monster powerful enough to command their obedience.


----------



## Moon-Lancer

Klaus said:
			
		

> You can have something midway between the traditional look and the 3e look. Instead of having the parts stand out against each other, you allow their characteristics to "bleed" into each other:
> 
> [sblock]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/sblock]





looks pretty cool, its right leg (picture plane left) is off somehow.


----------



## Hussar

Horsley always does pretty good stuff.  Nice pic.


----------



## frankthedm

Preview article had the Bannaloth [sp]


----------



## Lurks-no-More

The orcs look good, I think. They're appropriately brutish-looking there.


----------



## Ravingdork

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> [sblock=Orcs]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/sblock]
> 
> _Art by Ralph Horsley_
> Orcs worship Gruumsh, the one-eyes god of slaughter, and are savage, bloodthirsty marauders.




If you are going to post a picture, always post the one with the higher resolution!





*(Left to right) orc raider, orc bloodrager, orc eye of Gruumsh, and orc warrior*​


			
				frankthedm said:
			
		

> Preview article had the Bannaloth [sp]



And here I thought it was a new take on the Carrion Crawler.


----------



## Protagonist

CC seems more likely to me, too


----------



## Jhaelen

Protagonist said:
			
		

> CC seems more likely to me, too



Nah, that's clearly a Balhannoth. Looks exactly as it did in MM4 and the Dungeons of Dread mini.


----------



## Klaus

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> looks pretty cool, its right leg (picture plane left) is off somehow.



 Dunno, I used a lion picture pretty closely as a basis.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

raven_dark64 said:
			
		

> If you are going to post a picture, always post the one with the higher resolution!




If you are going to post a higher resolution image do it in spoiler blocks so that it doesn't mess with the page width.

[sblock*]image[/sblock*] Where the "*" character is not there (included so that the tag shows)


----------



## Hussar

While posting the higher resolution pic is great and all, could you use the Sblock /sblock tags to hide it so it doesn't screw with my screen width.?  Thanks.  And take pity on the poor dialup schlubs out there.

BTW, what the heck is a balhannoth?


----------



## withak

Hussar said:
			
		

> And take pity on the poor dialup schlubs out there.



AFAIK, your browser will load the image whether it's in spoiler tags or not.


----------



## Jhaelen

Hussar said:
			
		

> BTW, what the heck is a balhannoth?



Well, here's the link to the article about the mini.

Here's the picture from the MM4 art gallery. I don't have MM4, but I vaguely remember reading something about it in some preview article or something. IIRC, it had several anti-caster abilities, an anti-magical aura or something to that effect...


----------



## Hussar

Hrm, Earth Giants.  cool.

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]

I always did like Engle's work.  Looks like a Hill giant in the background.


----------



## A'koss

Fire Giants are now up! 

Very nice, but I kinda miss WAR's rendition though...


----------



## Dunamin

Those fire giants are pretty awesome, though I wish they'd use more reference than a staircase to get a sense of their size. Preferably a human-sized humanoid of some sort - loved the old gold dragon picture where a couple of orcs tried to sneak away from it.


----------



## Jim Williams

A'koss said:
			
		

> Very nice, but I kinda miss WAR's rendition though...




Here ya go:

http://www.waynereynolds.com/Fantasymain/14.jpg


----------



## Gargazon

Wow, the Fire Titan looks slightly... Balrog-ish. I like   

It also looks like that, unlike their Earthy cousins, the Fire Giants have the statblock for a warrior and a wizard, which is good.


----------



## Hussar

Well, hopefully fire giants will finally be huge rather than just large.  'cos that's how they're being drawn.  Large ends at about 15 feet or so.  Those things are a heck of a lot taller than 15 feet.


----------



## frankthedm

Hussar said:
			
		

> Well, hopefully fire giants will finally be huge rather than just large.  'cos that's how they're being drawn.  Large ends at about 15 feet or so.  Those things are a heck of a lot taller than 15 feet.



Sorry, the mini for the Titan version has been made and it is huge. those other two are just going to be large.

Wotc had some internal discussions on giants, with at least one employee wanting them to start at huge, but it was decided instead there would be a race of huge titans as upgraded giants. The Minis game has some influence on that decision IIRC.

That was sad news to me. I am an advocate of having giants start at huge.


----------



## Hussar

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Sorry, the mini for the Titan version has been made and it is huge. those other two are just going to be large.
> 
> Wotc had some internal discussions on giants, with at least one employee wanting them to start at huge, but it was decided instead there would be a race of huge titans as upgraded giants. The Minis game has some influence on that decision IIRC.
> 
> That was sad news to me. I am an advocate of having giants start at huge.




I can see why they would want giants as large.  I don't like it, but, I do understand.  If you have huge giants, the battle maps and adventure maps are incredibly boring.  Far and away too much empty space.  

Think about it, an encounter with 5 Huge creatures needs at least double their area in order to fight - we're looking at chambers 10 squares by 9 squares at the minimum, and likely a lot larger.  It's pretty hard to play on the table.

I just wish they'd stop drawing them  so bloody big.


----------



## A'koss

Jim Williams said:
			
		

> Here ya go:
> 
> http://www.waynereynolds.com/Fantasymain/14.jpg



While that one's nice, I was thinking about this one... http://www.waynereynolds.com/D&D eberron/WOTCGallery2A/SecretsofXendrix03.jpg


----------



## frankthedm

Hussar said:
			
		

> I just wish they'd stop drawing them  so bloody big.



Speak for yourself. The bigger they draw them, the more obvious it becomes that D&D giants SHOULD be bigger.


----------



## Dragonbait

Hassur said:
			
		

> Well, hopefully fire giants will finally be huge rather than just large. 'cos that's how they're being drawn. Large ends at about 15 feet or so. Those things are a heck of a lot taller than 15 feet.




I'm quite pleased with the giants so far. As for the fire giants and the stairs: Those stairs might be dwarven made and so they would be smaller than human-sized stairs. The dwarves were slaves to the titans, afterall, and they would be the ones that need to make the stairs to get to high places in a giant's home.


----------



## Klaus

Not liking the Earth Titan. The body is too mishappen for a not-misshapen-enough face. I'd rather it looked like a better-defined Earth Elemental, or maybe a Stone Giant turned up to 11.


----------



## Jim Williams

A'koss said:
			
		

> While that one's nice, I was thinking about this one... http://www.waynereynolds.com/D&D eberron/WOTCGallery2A/SecretsofXendrix03.jpg




Oh yeah.  A sword as big as a building...

I love his stuff.


----------



## Shroomy

Wow, the stirge looks a lot more threatening now.


----------



## Ravingdork

*Check it out!*






Now that's how you do art! This thing is scary AND thought provoking! Many tmes better than Old Stirge!


----------



## Incenjucar

It looks disturbingly intelligent.

And disturbingly resembles that flying blue guy from Star Wars Episode One.


----------



## Dunamin

Whoa! Old Bat-Bug looks a lot more sinister now!


----------



## Klaus

Like I said in the other thread:



			
				Mal Malenkirk said:
			
		

> It's better drawn, but I feel the face of the new stirge is too anthropomorphized.  It looks as if it's about to to talk!
> 
> It's a freaking giant mosquito!  It should appear emotionless.  This looks more like an imp of some sort.



 Seconded.

Also, new stirge reminds me of


----------



## A'koss

The first thing I thought was that it looked vaguely impish too. Overall I quite like it, but I agree that it looks a bit too intelligent (unless they _are_ intelligent now in 4e)...


----------



## Shroomy

Ooh, the new roper is a real badass.  I likey.


----------



## Rechan

Aw, the roper is in? Meh. I never used those things.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

They'll be fun warnings signs that your approaching areas that have been warped by the Far Realm.

I too like it, also I am liking the number of Aberrations there seems to be.


----------



## small pumpkin man

Rechan said:
			
		

> Aw, the roper is in? Meh. I never used those things.



Who wouldn't want a mini-Sarlacc of their own?


----------



## Teemu

Wow, the roper looks scary. I always thought ropers were a little goofy, but this one is nice.


----------



## Shroomy

Teemu said:
			
		

> Wow, the roper looks scary. I always thought ropers were a little goofy, but this one is nice.




Agreed, I like this rendering much more than earlier ones.


----------



## A'koss

Yeah, the new roper looks downright nasty... certainly one of the best renditions I've seen. That said, I have one early request for the 5e MM - every monster must be illustrated in a battle scene against a group of PCs.


----------



## Hussar

A'koss said:
			
		

> Yeah, the new roper looks downright nasty... certainly one of the best renditions I've seen. That said, I have one early request for the 5e MM - every monster must be illustrated in a battle scene against a group of PCs.




Agreed.

Maybe not EVERY pic, but, certainly the majority.  At least toss in some background and other references.  Puts everything in a nice perspective.

Nice roper though.  

And I like the idea of the roper being a Far Realms signpost.  

Klaus - Agreed on the stirge.  I don't like his face.  The rest is great, but, he's too anthro.


----------



## Rechan

A'koss said:
			
		

> That said, I have one early request for the 5e MM - every monster must be illustrated in a battle scene against a group of PCs.



I say have the monsters on that page in the combat. So you have a manticore, medusa and minotaur in an epic battle with some adventurers.


----------



## Patrick O'Duffy

A'koss said:
			
		

> Yeah, the new roper looks downright nasty... certainly one of the best renditions I've seen. That said, I have one early request for the 5e MM - every monster must be illustrated in a battle scene against a group of PCs.




And I'd like to vote against that idea. 

A monster on its own, either static or in a fairly simple action pose, is _much_ more useful to me, because I can print the image out (or simply open the book) and tell the players "it looks like _this_". 

Putting additional characters in their muddles the effect, because the players have to mentally subtract the extra detail and add in their own vision of their characters, and even that assumes their PCs are already in battle, and haven't encountered the critter in a more peaceful or unusual context. 

Solo images aren't as kinetic or visceral, sure, but they're more useful to me as a GM.


----------



## A'koss

Rechan said:
			
		

> I say have the monsters on that page in the combat. So you have a manticore, medusa and minotaur in an epic battle with some adventurers.



That was actually my first thought, splashy fight scenes _are_ cool. But I figured that would lead to some very oddball scenes with epic monsters fighting alongside low heroic tier beasties, colossal sized monsters in scenes with tiny monsters, deep sea monsters along with land monsters all because they're clustered together in the book...


----------



## Fallen Seraph

I also don't think we would get as much deviation as you would expect with having all the monsters in one big picture.

Since well, most likely that 1 page, or 2 pages will cover 1 monster and its variants.


----------



## Klaus

A'koss said:
			
		

> Yeah, the new roper looks downright nasty... certainly one of the best renditions I've seen. That said, I have one early request for the 5e MM - every monster must be illustrated in a battle scene against a group of PCs.



 This is quite close to what was done in Savage Species, where the creatures listed close to each other (or with a similar theme) were shown in the same picture, so you had a mind flayer, an ogre mage and a medusa together, then a treant with a satyr, a nixie and a pixie, etc.


----------



## Moon-Lancer

Klaus said:
			
		

> Dunno, I used a lion picture pretty closely as a basis.




would you mind sending me the reference? maybe I'm just looking at the image wrong. its an old hag or young lady kind of thing.


----------



## Blackrat

Would someone post the pic here like all the others have been? I can't access WotC from my work ...


----------



## Colmarr

While I do like the roper's "circular" teeth, overall I find it far too reminiscent of the aliens in the Simpsons.

Thumbs down from me.


----------



## starwed

Why, in every group of three humanoid monsters, is _exactly_ one female?


----------



## Hussar

At your service luminously challenged rodent.

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





[/sblock]

And the flavour text.

Art by Warren Mahy
This subterranean creature grabs victims with its tentacles and drags them within reach of its monstrous, toothy maw.​


----------



## Blackrat

Thanks Hussar.


			
				Colmarr said:
			
		

> While I do like the roper's "circular" teeth, overall I find it far too reminiscent of the aliens in the Simpsons.



Ah, I see your point. It just needs a glass dome .


----------



## Gargazon

starwed said:
			
		

> Why, in every group of three humanoid monsters, is _exactly_ one female?




So you know what a female looks like?

I imagine this would be the reverse for the Drow pic


----------



## Belphanior

Gargazon said:
			
		

> So you know what a female looks like?
> 
> I imagine this would be the reverse for the Drow pic




Exactly. I for one find it welcome to have an idea of what female giants or githzerai or whatever may look. Much better than just showing off a single dude (it's always a dude, barring the aforementioned drow exception). I like my humanoids a bit more varied.


----------



## lutecius

starwed said:
			
		

> Why, in every group of three humanoid monsters, is _exactly_ one female?



cheescake quotas?
mmh... those stumpy giantess legs... and dem saggy gith boobs....rawr!
Really, the MM should be PG rated.


----------



## lutecius

Belphanior said:
			
		

> Exactly. I for one find it welcome to have an idea of what female giants or githzerai or whatever may look. Much better than just showing off a single dude (it's always a dude, barring the aforementioned drow exception). I like my humanoids a bit more varied.



 I think starwed's question was more about always having exactly 1 female/2 males than having female examples at all.


----------



## Klaus

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> would you mind sending me the reference? maybe I'm just looking at the image wrong. its an old hag or young lady kind of thing.



 Like I had it still saved... Try this: go to Getty Images and search for "Lion". I think that one came from Getty.


----------



## Klaus

Colmarr said:
			
		

> While I do like the roper's "circular" teeth, overall I find it far too reminiscent of the aliens in the Simpsons.
> 
> Thumbs down from me.




It's because the artist gave it regular teeth. When I did the circular mouth, about 6 years ago, I gave it small, grinding stone-like teeth to mash the victims into a paste.


----------



## zen_hydra

Is it me, or does the new roper pic seem to be covered in phallus shaped growths?


----------



## Dausuul

Well, I have to say, the new roper pic is a brilliant piece of work, and it sucks.

It's a brilliant piece of work because the artist clearly invested a lot of skill, effort, and creativity into making the roper look weird and terrifying.

It sucks because a stalagmite with a mouth and tentacles is going to look stupid no matter how good the artist is.

I give Warren Mahy props for trying, but I do not think the artist has been born who can make me take the roper seriously.


----------



## Voss

zen_hydra said:
			
		

> Is it me, or does the new roper pic seem to be covered in phallus shaped growths?




Yes. Yes it does.  To the point that its not at all subtle.  Perhaps the artist is trying to send a message?  'I hate drawing this stupid, stupid monster' is my guess.


----------



## Dragonbait

zen_hydra said:
			
		

> Is it me, or does the new roper pic seem to be covered in phallus shaped growths?




4E is so anime


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Dragonbait said:
			
		

> 4E is so anime



Where's the Japanese Schoolgirls that need to be afraid of anything with tentacles?


----------



## Dragonbait

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> Where's the Japanese Schoolgirls that need to be afraid of anything with tentacles?



That's tomorrow's Monster Manual entry.


----------



## frankthedm

zen_hydra said:
			
		

> Is it me, or does the new roper pic seem to be covered in phallus shaped growths?



Wow. Someone get the rouse.


----------



## Incenjucar

starwed said:
			
		

> Why, in every group of three humanoid monsters, is _exactly_ one female?




Same reason there is always at least one more man than women in any team not specifically marketed towards women.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

_Art by Chris Stevens and Espen Grundet Jern_
Shadar-kai cling to darkness and shadows. They are a bleak and sinister humanlike people that inhabit the Shadowfell and serve the Raven Queen.


----------



## Wolfspider

zen_hydra said:
			
		

> Is it me, or does the new roper pic seem to be covered in phallus shaped growths?




Well, at least we know exactly what weapon will kill the roper:

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]


----------



## Family

Goths! I knew they were into D&D but when I asked them they just blew me off 

Like everyone else does...hey...wait...


----------



## Rechan

Shadar-kai: the albino emo drow. 

Still, I think they look pretty cool and sexy. Art looks good. The art itself makes me want to play one.


----------



## DandD

Shadar-Kai are dumb and look silly. I'm glad to know that their existence is miserable and they get laughed at by every other species, even kobolds.


----------



## frankthedm

The shaderkai illo gets a resounding "Meh" from me.


----------



## Rechan

Rechan said:
			
		

> Still, I think they look pretty cool and sexy. The art itself makes me want to play one.






			
				DandD said:
			
		

> Shadar-Kai are dumb and look silly.




It's really funny to get two exact opposite responses right behind one another.


----------



## frankthedm

And i say that shaderkai with the exposed midriff has masculine hints to the face.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

I like them, they are how I pictured them, and it shows off their martial prowess.


----------



## Rechan

Actually, looking at these guys... they sort've make me think of what The Joker's henchmen would look like, in a fantasy game.


----------



## Keefe the Thief

The picture is okay. Though i have to say, i´ve never had as much fun with any coming edition as with the constant "it´s goth" thing. It´s amazing for me - a practicing person, if you get my meaning - what people identify as goth.


----------



## Dunamin

The picture is ok, but...

I don't get it. What is so compelling and original about Shadar-kai? Their culture and history seems bland and boring to me, and I don't see any physiological features to distinguish them from humans. It’s not about the general real world subculture their style would seem to reflect, I just don't see what is so novel about them.


----------



## jackston2

Hey cool the black flame zealot got a new job


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Well they were once Human so they should reflect that. The interesting thing I find with the Shadar-Kai is how their the extreme form of a addict. This addiction being any form of physical sensation to keep them grounded in reality.

I can quite easily see Shadar-Kai as crazed but masterful warriors, who have absolutely no fear in combat for near death and injury is what saves them from the worst fate of simply fading away into nothingness. Their minds are probably also extremely warped from having to deal with the Shadowfell in general and the Raven Queen.

Essentially they cover the role of a people so twisted and single-focused that their entire culture is based around simple principles such as combat and magic in order to satisfy their need for sensation (primarily pain-based, I imagine in the past other sensations worked before they grew dull).


----------



## Sammael

Another attempt to present shadar-kai as "monsters with traction." What WotC doesn't understand is that they cannot force-feed traction; it has to come to being spontaneously.


----------



## jackston2

Shadar-kai are cool because they're monsters that aren't evil that you can kill without remorse


----------



## Derren

Ok, can someone explain to me how Shadar-Kai are different enough from Drow so that we need both monsters?

To me they look like human drows with a bit WH40K Dark Eldar thrown into the mic.


----------



## hong

Sammael said:
			
		

> Another attempt to present shadar-kai as "monsters with traction."




You seem to dislike shadar-kai.


----------



## keterys

Hmm, drow are exiled elves who consort with demons and live in the underdark.

Shadarkai are immortal humans in service to the God of Death in the Shadowfell who hurt themselves so they actually feel something.

They... seem... different... to... me.


----------



## hong

keterys said:
			
		

> Hmm, drow are exiled elves who consort with demons and live in the underdark.
> 
> Shadarkai are immortal humans in service to the God of Death in the Shadowfell who hurt themselves so they actually feel something.
> 
> They... seem... different... to... me.



 The train of thought seems to be

Driz'zt -> angst
Shadar-kai -> angst
Driz'zt -> drow

THEREFORE

Shadar-kai -> drow

or something.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

I wouldn't even say it is really "angst" sure from our perspective it seems quite bleak. But I imagine more then a few Shadar-Kai are wholly consumed by their culture and process of staying alive and thus are quite elated, hell probably happy to find war and battle.

Thus why there is a caste system too, each of them are scrambling to find the best position to satisfy what they need.


----------



## Aria Silverhands

Blech... a chain sword/whip? Yet another piece of crap to houserule out.


----------



## AZRogue

I liked this one, but I like the shadar-kai. Probably because I'm going to have a lot of shadowfell in my campaign and am going to make darkness an actually dangerous element. I liked the shadar-kai weapons, too. They look like they would hurt!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> _Art by Chris Stevens and Espen Grundet Jern_
> Shadar-kai cling to darkness and shadows. They are a bleak and sinister humanlike people that inhabit the Shadowfell and serve the Raven Queen.



Okay, maybe they are the human answer to Drows, but I still like them. 

I am not sure if the complaints that WotC is just desperately trying to create a cool race are warranted. It might be true, it might not be. But I am tired of Drow. They are not cool to me. They are incompetent dark elves trying to take the world whose plans are consistentlyfoiled by small groups of adventurers... They have a society that eats on itself and is clichéd evil in a way that could never work in a "real" world. 

The Shadar-Kai might become all that. But at this point of time, they are new, fresh and have potential. They might be slightly crazy, but I see a chance that their society can still work...

And I think they definitely fit the idea of a "Dark Reflection" of Humans...


Oh, and bare mid-riff female Shadar Kais are hot. Stupid metal in skin be damned...


----------



## hong

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Blech... a chain sword/whip? Yet another piece of crap to houserule out.



 Play more Soul Calibur.


----------



## hong

I wonder how "Princess Magnificent with Lips of Coral and Robes of Black Feathers" would go as a Shadar-kai name?


----------



## AZRogue

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Okay, maybe they are the human answer to Drows, but I still like them.
> <snip>




I would agree. They seem like a decent race to me that I can use. Drow are a bit played out, though always ready to pop back in when you need someone the PCs KNOW is going to be trouble.

I already have my first encounter with the shadar-kai and the PCs planned out, with them seeing this strange individual around town "writing" on himself with a knife.


----------



## YourSwordIsMine

Goth, Punk and Emo....

Boy... Thats new...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

hong said:
			
		

> I wonder how "Princess Magnificent with Lips of Coral and Robes of Black Feathers" would go as a Shadar-kai name?



Hmm. Magnificent and Coral don't seem to work, I think. Use something darker or shadowfellier...


----------



## Family

Queen Beautiful and Terrible Whom All Shall Love and Dispair?


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman

hong said:
			
		

> I wonder how "Princess Magnificent with Lips of Coral and Robes of Black Feathers" would go as a Shadar-kai name?




I think "Lover Clad in the Raiment of Tears" is a better fit.


----------



## Ginnel

This is the worst art I've seen yet, it doesn't look very good the faces are terrible (in comparisson to other art work not my own) the guy at the back is wielding a curvey short sword in two hands, the way the other male is wielding the chain whip looks urgh, the only thing I like is the two punch daggers the female at the front has got.


----------



## Voss

Nurr.  And Bleh.  The bald one in the middle isn't too terrible, but only because I can't really make out the piercings.  Poor concept and poor execution don't make for an interesting race.

Been there, done that, lost interest back when I was a teenager.


----------



## Wormwood

Voss said:
			
		

> Been there, done that, lost interest back when I was a teenager.



Pardon me while I enjoy my second adolescence.


----------



## Voss

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Pardon me while I enjoy my second adolescence.




Right... I'm not really concerned with that.  I'm just less than pleased at a dull, lifeless retread of 'Cenobites meet WoD'.  Its also the drow and the tieflings all over again- a rather 'cry for attention' edgy-vibe attempt in a slit the wrists sort of way.

(Er... just to be absolutely clear, thats directed at the Shadar-Kai, not you).


----------



## ferratus

I think your feelings towards the Shadar-Kai will depend on whether you like goth subculture or despise it.  If you like goth subculture then Shadar-Kai are interesting and mysterious.  If you don't you'll assume that Shadar-Kai are whiny trust-fund baby suburbanites.   If you believe the latter, you'll likely not use them for major villains.


----------



## AllisterH

ferratus said:
			
		

> I think your feelings towards the Shadar-Kai will depend on whether you like goth subculture or despise it.  If you like goth subculture then Shadar-Kai are interesting and mysterious.  If you don't you'll assume that Shadar-Kai are whiny trust-fund baby suburbanites.   If you believe the latter, you'll likely not use them for major villains.




How about if you're neutral towards the goth subculture....Personally, don't mind the art, it doesn't look bad and I have no problems with it.


----------



## hong

Voss said:
			
		

> Right... I'm not really concerned with that.  I'm just less than pleased at a dull, lifeless retread of 'Cenobites meet WoD'.




You say this like it's a negative thing.


----------



## Klaus

The art is bad.

The composition is weak and convoluted, as if they were separate drawings Photoshopped together.

The figure-work is awkward, and the prop-design (clothing, hair, arms and armor) is really lacking.

The rendering is plastic and flat.

One of the worst pieces presented so far.


----------



## Clavis

Sorry, but the Shadar-Kai just seem so _90s_ to me. Gothy look, piercings, tattoos, fetish clothing. All that stuff was cool and edgy _15 years ago_. Nowadays middle-class teenage girls from the suburbs have piercings. Everybody and their mother has tattoos. They talk about BDSM on broadcast TV. It's frankly all gotten a little boring.


----------



## Nebulous

I'm very lukewarm about this piece, and the entire race in general.  Give me drow anytime.


----------



## Klaus

Clavis said:
			
		

> Sorry, but the Shadar-Kai just seem so _90s_ to me. Gothy look, piercings, tattoos, fetish clothing. All that stuff was cool and edgy _15 years ago_. Nowadays middle-class teenage girls from the suburbs have piercings. Everybody and their mother has tattoos. They talk about BDSM on broadcast TV. It's frankly all gotten a little boring.



 Truth be told, I've seen a lot of granmas (aged anywhere between 40 and 60) with tatoos, and quite a few mothers (aged between 25 and 35) with piercings. The attitude should be in the expressions and body language, not the clothing and hairstyle. That just doesn't cut it.


----------



## Masquerade

ferratus said:
			
		

> I think your feelings towards the Shadar-Kai will depend on whether you like goth subculture or despise it.  If you like goth subculture then Shadar-Kai are interesting and mysterious.  If you don't you'll assume that Shadar-Kai are whiny trust-fund baby suburbanites.   If you believe the latter, you'll likely not use them for major villains.



As far as subcultures go, I find goth subculture dated and predictable.
Within the scope of D&D, I find Shadar-Kai stylish and progressive.


----------



## Voss

ferratus said:
			
		

> I think your feelings towards the Shadar-Kai will depend on whether you like goth subculture or despise it.  If you like goth subculture then Shadar-Kai are interesting and mysterious.  If you don't you'll assume that Shadar-Kai are whiny trust-fund baby suburbanites.   If you believe the latter, you'll likely not use them for major villains.




Actually, I liked goth subculture.  When, you know, it actually existed.  Wannabe goths just make me roll my eyes though.  And this is about as wannabe as you can get.

Of course, theres also the problem with modern anachronisms being shoved into a fantasy setting and how poorly they fit.


----------



## Wormwood

Voss said:
			
		

> Actually, I liked goth subculture.  When, you know, it actually existed.  Wannabe goths just make me roll my eyes though.  And this is about as wannabe as you can get.



I feel the same way when I see AC/DC shirts sold at Hot Topic.

Then I remember, "la révolution dévore ses enfants" and I just relax.


----------



## Voss

Oh, come now.  Its hot topic and AC/DC.  No one involved has any integrity whatsoever.

And if you can't eat your children, what is the point of having them?


----------



## Wormwood

Voss said:
			
		

> Oh, come now.  Its hot topic and AC/DC.  No one involved has any integrity whatsoever.



*polite applause*

Well played, sir.


----------



## Rechan

hong said:
			
		

> I wonder how "Princess Magnificent with Lips of Coral and Robes of Black Feathers" would go as a Shadar-kai name?



You just won a few more points, sir.


----------



## Moon-Lancer

Klaus said:
			
		

> Truth be told, I've seen a lot of granmas (aged anywhere between 40 and 60) with tatoos, and quite a few mothers (aged between 25 and 35) with piercings. The attitude should be in the expressions and body language, not the clothing and hairstyle. That just doesn't cut it.





yup, grandmas with attitude. The new d&d fetish. ;p


----------



## Family

My mom has her ears pierced, and she says she'll fight you till you're bloodied anytime you're ready


----------



## Moon-Lancer

Klaus said:
			
		

> The art is bad.
> The composition is weak and convoluted, as if they were separate drawings Photoshopped together.



its possible that they were. The composition could use some work. I wonder how much of this is the attests fault and how much of this is the commissioners fault. It depends I guess if the commissioner wanted the figures all the same size. theirs alot more options when one is given flexibility with figures allowing them to be present in the forground and background. It also a little odd to see the same pose used twice only mirrored. Must have been a good time saver, but I don't think it was worth the cost.


			
				Klaus said:
			
		

> The figure-work is awkward, and the prop-design (clothing, hair, arms and armor) is really lacking.



true but they know how to render cloth reasonably enough... as seen by the skirt. But overall I feel the clothing could have had stronger identity while the daggers and scimitar could have been more grounded in reality. 


			
				Klaus said:
			
		

> The rendering is plastic and flat.
> 
> One of the worst pieces presented so far.



It might be. I feel the artest could have decided on what color the blood was, and then they would have had a color base for adding translucency to the skin. The skin could have also used more imperfections.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

I love the Shadar-Kai fluff.  I HATE the art.  Not dark or evil enough.  The pale gray skin just looks bland.  Diet Coke of Evil.


----------



## WhatGravitas

I have no problems with the Shadar-Kai. I'm perhaps not totally loving them, but I think they're pretty okay and have a strong enough theme to be compelling villains.

But really don't like that picture. It looks flat, lacks contrast and depth. I don't think that bluish and tan tones are their favourite colours... if you're doing a metal-goth-emo race, stick to midnight black, dark, creepy shadows and don't use that sky colour - unless the _shadow_fell looks like that. And look at the gloved hands/arms of the two women - what are they wearing? Leather? Fabric? Way to glossy and tight for both. :\

In general - the illustration isn't good - at least from my point of view.

Cheers, LT


----------



## Jhaelen

I'm certainly no expert on art but this looks pretty mediocre to me compared to every previous art preview. It doesn't help that I'm not too fond of the Shadar-Kai's 4E conceptualization. So, meh...


----------



## Kishin

IMO, the best way to portray/understand the Shadar-kai would be to read China Mieville's _The Scar_ and draw heavy inspiration from the Lovers.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Shadar-Kai aren't a new monster for 4e, they were introduced in the 3.5 Fiend Folio.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> Shadar-Kai aren't a new monster for 4e, they were introduced in the 3.5 Fiend Folio.




And they are based on real life.


----------



## lutecius

Klaus said:
			
		

> The composition is weak and convoluted, as if they were separate drawings Photoshopped together.



 for me the worst offenders in this regard are the fire giants. Not to mention the fact that they dont look gigantic at all. With these poses, the male and female on each side should have switched places to balance the composition. And save for his left foot, (the artist cannot draw feet btw) the titan looks like he's in the front rather than in the back.



			
				ferratus said:
			
		

> I think your feelings towards the Shadar-Kai will depend on whether you like goth subculture or despise it



 They're not goth, they're more like matrix / ceno-lite crossbreeds to me.
I think the designers decided to pimp the shadar-kai in 4e because they needed some race for their new death-themed world to mirror the fey from the nature-themed world ...so much for eliminating symmetry.
But it’s an interesting challenge, because elves and fairies are an already well developed archetype and they're trying to match it with something new.
They could have just gone for undead, but I guess they wanted an intelligent race even at low levels.

I’m no goth but I actually wish the shadar-kai were. More precisely, I’d love something like the citizens of the Litharge Necropolis (from Neil Gaiman’s Endless) or Limbo Town (from Grant Morrisson’s Klarion) with a touch of Tim Burton’s Victorian fantasy. ie a quiet, conservative, grim civilization concerned with death and undeath.
It doesn’t seem completely incompatible with the shadar-kai, mind you, but my first reaction to this piece and the fluff I've read was more:


			
				Voss said:
			
		

> Its also the drow and the tieflings all over again- a rather 'cry for attention' edgy-vibe attempt in a slit the wrists sort of way.





			
				Clavis said:
			
		

> Sorry, but the Shadar-Kai just seem so _90s_ to me. Gothy look, piercings, tattoos, fetish clothing. All that stuff was cool and edgy _15 years ago_. Nowadays middle-class teenage girls from the suburbs have piercings. Everybody and their mother has tattoos. They talk about BDSM on broadcast TV. It's frankly all gotten a little boring.


----------



## Korgoth

Shadar-Kai might make excellent Minions if you decide to give your players a +6 Holy Avenging Minigun of Speed.

I'd play that.


----------



## Keefe the Thief

The point of Goth has never been to entertain uninitiated onlookers.   




			
				Clavis said:
			
		

> Sorry, but the Shadar-Kai just seem so _90s_ to me. Gothy look, piercings, tattoos, fetish clothing. All that stuff was cool and edgy _15 years ago_. Nowadays middle-class teenage girls from the suburbs have piercings. Everybody and their mother has tattoos. They talk about BDSM on broadcast TV. It's frankly all gotten a little boring.


----------



## Moon-Lancer

Keefe the Thief said:
			
		

> The point of Goth has never been to entertain uninitiated onlookers.





wasn't it to be prepared for spontaneous rocky horror?... I mean you could never be to careful right?

// This line of code executes a time warp... use wisely


----------



## Ipissimus

I'm surprised at how toned down they are. I was expecting something out of Clive Barker's nightmares crossed with the 80's punk movement by way of Pale Horse.


----------



## Rechan

The art at the moment appears to be an invisible foe of some sort.


----------



## DandD

Non-viewable skeletons. Perfect minions, I tell you.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

DandD said:
			
		

> Non-viewable skeletons. Perfect minions, I tell you.



Actually invisible minions would be neat. I could just see the characters swinging their swords trying to hit one and then THUNK! the sword meets flesh and a dead minion appears before them.


----------



## Rechan

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Actually invisible minions would be neat. I could just see the characters swinging their swords trying to hit one and then THUNK! the sword meets flesh and a dead minion appears before them.



Someone work on phantom fungus minions!

Actually, invisible skeletons reminds me of a homebrew creature I heard about on these forums. They were skeletons created by some shadow-dragon demi-god. They had permanent Silence and Deeper Darkness cast on them, and were his personal assassins.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn

The invisible minion idea kind of reminds me of the invisible assailant from that Poe piece.


----------



## Dunamin

Aww man, they messed up and switched skeleton art for invisible stalker art.


----------



## Boarstorm

Is that what that is?  I thought it was the some kind of heraldric crest.  Crimson X on field of white.

Very mysterious.


----------



## Larrin

Dunamin said:
			
		

> Aww man, they messed up and switched skeleton art for invisible stalker art.



dang i got up too late to get that one in, oh well.


----------



## Protagonist

clearly, after targeting the emo/goth and videogamer population with shadar-drow and mooks, this red x is now used to lure in pr0n addicts


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Protagonist said:
			
		

> clearly, after targeting the emo/goth and videogamer population with shadar-drow and mooks, this red x is now used to lure in pr0n addicts



I thought that what the Dragonbooks where already for? well, never hurts to have a second angle...


----------



## Ginnel

Maybe the skeletal minion isn't as loyal as was first mentioned he has now taken advice from undead union officials to strike until he gets better pay, or at least better stats.


----------



## Cirex

I hope Wizard throws us a bone about this situation.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Amazing... The image is still not working.


----------



## Ghaerdon Fain

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Amazing... The image is still not working.




LOL it's a bunch of bones... not one with a WOW factor, yet it is sloppy on WotC's part.  Things to come with DDI? /ugh


----------



## Boarstorm

It's up, finally.

The hot and cold versions I think I can identify, as well as the vanilla skeleton.

But what do you suppose is up with the red one?  Reminds me of the blood skeletons from the Castlevania games.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Looks more purple to me. I think that skeleton will probably have something to do with necrotic damage.

Given that the description for necrotic says:
Necrotic: *Purple-black* energy that deadens flesh and wounds the soul.


----------



## Rechan

I suspect the purple one is a Boneshard skeleton; they explode with necrotic energy.

However, the fact that it has sharp weapons tied to it makes me hesitate.


----------



## Voss

I am a bit puzzled by 'Purple' and 'Dusty'.  The art itself is pretty decent, though I suspect the wacky effects on those two will annoy me a little.  Not much you can really do with skeletons... its too easy for people to tell if you draw them wrong.


----------



## Kunimatyu

The purple one is a Boneshard Skeleton:


----------



## Ravingdork

Why does nobody ever bother to post the picture?

_(Mod Answer: because it is common courtesy to not post copyrighted images like that)_

*Art by Ralph Horsley
Animated by dark magic and composed entirely of bones, a skeleton is emotionless and soulless, desiring nothing but to serve its creator.*​


----------



## Boarstorm

raven_dark64 said:
			
		

> Why does nobody ever bother to post the picture?




I'm a little iffy on the legality and prefer to err on the side of caution, especially given the rule stickied at the top of this forum.


----------



## OchreJelly

In before comments about Diablo skeleton mages.


----------



## frankthedm

wizards.com/dnd/images/art_preview/20080519_114856_0.jpg 

Am i the only person who thinks the skeleton that explodes should look more like a normal skeleton!?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

OchreJelly said:
			
		

> In before comments about Diablo skeleton mages.



I love the Diablo Skeleton Mages! About time they get implemented in D&D? (Though one could argue that Lich Wizards already where that  )


----------



## Rechan

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I love the Diablo Skeleton Mages! About time they get implemented in D&D? (Though one could argue that Lich Wizards already where that  )



I think "Spell-stitched" would constitute the skeletal mages, since they weren't really potent enough to be classified as a Lich.

But yeah, I like those guys.


----------



## lutecius

the art is alright, even if the composition is a little bland, much better than Horsley's orcs anyway.

Now i want sexy. I don't care about skeletons, stirges or ropers, I want more dragons and fiends. 
I WANT THE SUCCUBUS!


----------



## Ipissimus

I gotta say, that pic takes me back to 1E/2E days. Still got that Dragon mag loaded with Undead of all stripes on one of these shelves somewhere. Blazing Bones, Dry Bones, Collossus...  nice to see some of that stuff sort of working it's way back into the game.


----------



## Klaus

I like the skeletons a lot. It's very hard to make skeletons visually compelling, but Horsley has managed it well.


----------



## Gargazon

My guess on the skeletons, from left to right:

Skeleton Warrior, Boneshard Skeleton, Blazing Skeleton, Decrepid Skeleton.


----------



## frankthedm

Not sure if i like the Pigpen dustcloud on the Decrepid Skeleton. Looking like it is in bad shape is fine, but it probably should not be grinding its own bones to dust.


----------



## Oni

Klaus said:
			
		

> I like the skeletons a lot. It's very hard to make skeletons visually compelling, but Horsley has managed it well.




I think I'll disagree with you a bit.  It's the lucky artist that gets something like a skeleton for their assignment.  While they might have been done many times I think they'll always be compelling since we as people will always have inate reaction to the classic visual of death.  That's a strong building block for any artist to start from.  

For me it's not a bad pic, certainly better than the 3e one IMO.  I do think the setting is awfully well lit and doesn't really suite the mood of the monster depicted.  I wish it was gloomier.  



on a different note.

I haven't looked at teh daily art updates for the last week or so.  I was surprised when I went back and looked at them today.  Two of my favorites are monsters I'd always thought were kind of dumb, the stirge and the roper.


----------



## Andor

lutecius said:
			
		

> the art is alright, even if the composition is a little bland, much better than Horsley's orcs anyway.
> 
> Now i want sexy. I don't care about skeletons, stirges or ropers, I want more dragons and fiends.
> I WANT THE SUCCUBUS!




You mean her?


----------



## Hussar

I like the skellies.  I've seen better, I've seen worse.  I'd give it a 7 out of 10.

I agree that the image should be darker.  But, then, if they go darker, you lose detail.  There's a trade off to balance there.


----------



## Teemu

Skull lords... looks pretty nice. A decent from Vohwinkel. I like the three head thing it's got going on.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Did you miss the memo? No direct embedding of the pictures please - Plane Sailing

_Art by Franz Vohwinkel_
Skull lords marshal and command undead.


----------



## Kishin

For some reason I really like the three headed look.

They feel very...vintage to me.


----------



## Kunimatyu

You can crack open MM5 for a (possible) sneak peak at its abilities.

It's a pretty awesome monster, and one of the MM5 ones I was most hoping made the 4e transition. Woot!


----------



## Rechan

Where's that from? I mean, where'd the skull lord appear first?


----------



## Fallen Seraph

I quite like it as well. Also yay more backgrounds!


----------



## Dunamin

Skull Lords, huh? Looks sweet.

Commanding undead sounds sort of generic, though. What does it do unlike any other greater undead?


----------



## Cirex

Rechan said:
			
		

> Where's that from? I mean, where'd the skull lord appear first?




Monster Manual V if I remember correctly.
It had different powers, depending the skulls remaining. With some power, it could remove the bones from someone (causing damage, but not very heavy) and then spit them.

The writing for the Skull Lord is like 5-6 pages long, because it includes its companion stats.


----------



## frankthedm

Were not skull lords skulls set up each facing a different way?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Rechan said:
			
		

> Where's that from? I mean, where'd the skull lord appear first?



Chronicles of Riddick? 

He totally reminds me of the Necromongers boss in full armor. Not that this is neccessarily bad. Just like Diablo II Skeleton Mages, I liked the Necromongers and Chronicles of Riddick. (I know what you say, there is no accounting for taste...  )


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Chronicles of Riddick?
> 
> He totally reminds me of the Necromongers boss in full armor. Not that this is neccessarily bad. Just like Diablo II Skeleton Mages, I liked the Necromongers and Chronicles of Riddick. (I know what you say, there is no accounting for taste...  )



That was a damn fun movie!


----------



## lutecius

Andor said:
			
		

> You mean her?



I hope not. This one is way too tame and cartoony. Look at her hair. I like the pose though.
The malebranche in the same article was from Fiendish Codex II, so there's hope well get new art for both.


----------



## Cirex

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Were not skull lords skulls set up each facing a different way?




Think so. I actually remember the Skull Lord because a friend lent me his MM V (I kinda refuse to buy so many Monster Manuals) and I was browsing it looking for a _refreshing_ challenge for my level 7 party and I found the Skull Lord. 

I'm using it as the spokesman of someone else, so I may not even get to fight with it.


----------



## Nightchilde-2

Kishin said:
			
		

> For some reason I really like the three headed look.
> 
> They feel very...vintage to me.




They remind me of the 3-headed Transformers from the (original, animated) Transformers movie.

Guilty or...Innocent?

(Not that that's necessarily a bad thing for that movie was full of win and awesome (for 1986ish))


----------



## WhatGravitas

lutecius said:
			
		

> I hope not. This one is way too tame and cartoony. Look at her hair. I like the pose though.
> The malebranche in the same article was from Fiendish Codex II, so there's hope well get new art for both.



Don't fear - it's from Expedition to the Demonweb Pits. Albeit the second succubus was shopped out.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Plageman

As far as I'm concerned the best skeleton pictures I've seen this far is the classic "Trick or Treat" picture


----------



## Klaus

The skull lord is one of the best pictures I've seen from Franz Vohwinkel. Well done (and I liked the original Steve Prescott one).


----------



## Trolls

I'm very impressed with the trolls. It looks like we have a regular troll and a war troll (I know that's been mentioned somewhere before), though I don't know what the centre one is.

I do wonder why the left troll's right arm is fainter. I expect it's because the art overlaps with some text.


----------



## mhacdebhandia

Trolls said:
			
		

> I do wonder why the left troll's right arm is fainter. I expect it's because the art overlaps with some text.



I expect it's because the troll is regenerating that arm.


----------



## Trolls

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> I expect it's because the troll is regenerating that arm.




Good point.


----------



## Dragonbait

Trolls said:
			
		

> I'm very impressed with the trolls. It looks like we have a regular troll and a war troll (I know that's been mentioned somewhere before), though I don't know what the centre one is.




The middle one is a giant amphibious one-headed-two-headed Northern reticulating green troll.


----------



## LostInTheMists

Dragonbait said:
			
		

> The middle one is a giant amphibious one-headed-two-headed Northern reticulating green *space hamster*.




FIFY.


----------



## Andor

While the _Idea_ is cool, the art comes so close to being right, that it's a shame it sucks.

Because I doubt anyone can look at that pic and not expect the 'Angel of Decay' to pluck off it's wings and start twirling them over it's head like John Travolta in 'Saturday Night Fever.' What? The artist couldn't think of a pose that screams "Rot & Decay" more than Disco Pose #1?


----------



## Rechan

What the hell is today's preview?


----------



## chaotix42

Angel of decay from Libris Mortis.

I kinda like the older art more, but the new picture is certainly more in-line with the new D&D "look" IMO. I give it a B.


----------



## Andor

chaotix42 said:
			
		

> Angel of decay from Libris Mortis.




Okay now _that_ is badass. God you can just imagine how the thing must stink looking at that pic.


----------



## chaotix42

I know! The shreds of flesh and particles in the air are a very nice touch. It's too "sketchy" to be in a 4e book though, I imagine.


----------



## small pumpkin man

Andor said:
			
		

> While the _Idea_ is cool, the art comes so close to being right, that it's a shame it sucks.
> 
> Because I doubt anyone can look at that pic and not expect the 'Angel of Decay' to pluck off it's wings and start twirling them over it's head like John Travolta in 'Saturday Night Fever.' What? The artist couldn't think of a pose that screams "Rot & Decay" more than Disco Pose #1?



That was pretty much my first impression, yes.


----------



## MinionOfCthulhu

Andor said:
			
		

> While the _Idea_ is cool, the art comes so close to being right, that it's a shame it sucks.
> 
> Because I doubt anyone can look at that pic and not expect the 'Angel of Decay' to pluck off it's wings and start twirling them over it's head like John Travolta in 'Saturday Night Fever.' What? The artist couldn't think of a pose that screams "Rot & Decay" more than Disco Pose #1?




I like to imagine _every _monster dancing.


----------



## lutecius

MinionOfCthulhu said:
			
		

> I like to imagine _every _monster dancing.



This is so WoW.


----------



## lutecius

I prefer the old one too. The pose and angle weren't as dynamic, but it was both more realistic and inspired.
I'm all for stylised monsters from time to time, but more realistic details and subdued colors generally make undead more disturbing and scarier. The texture of the wings, reminiscent of dead leaves, was a nice touch too.

The new one looks like it's aimed at 13 yos. oh, wait! ...



			
				Andor said:
			
		

> While the _Idea_ is cool, the art comes so close to being right, that it's a shame it sucks.
> 
> Because I doubt anyone can look at that pic and not expect the 'Angel of Decay' to pluck off it's wings and start twirling them over it's head like John Travolta in 'Saturday Night Fever.' What? The artist couldn't think of a pose that screams "Rot & Decay" more than Disco Pose #1?



 It is even more of a shame because making a character with both feet on the ground actually look like he's dancing is not that easy.


----------



## frankthedm

I think it look great, at least from the waist up. Once you see the hips and legs, the disco pose becomes noticable. I'd almost bet they made the resolution on the image so large to help hide the rest of the pose 'offscreen'


----------



## Kwalish Kid

lutecius said:
			
		

> This is so WoW.



More Star Wars: Galaxies, actually.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

_Art by Steve Argyle_
Most zombies are created using a foul ritual. Once roused, a zombie obeys its creator and wants nothing more than to kill and consume the living.

I really, really like this pic, nice show of a diverse group of zombies


----------



## Shroomy

brains.....


----------



## Rechan

Okay... What the Hell is the big guy? And... zombie angel?


----------



## Colmarr

Can anyone make out what the one on the left is holding? Is it a heart?


----------



## Colmarr

Rechan said:
			
		

> Okay... What the Hell is the big guy? And... zombie angel?




I'm guessing it's a Zombie Ogre, and my isn't he purrty


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Colmarr said:
			
		

> Can anyone make out what the one on the left is holding? Is it a heart?



I think that is the one we have heard about where it throws its own guts at the PCs and deals necrotic damage by it.

The flying one for some reason makes me think Jeepers Creepers.


----------



## Inyssius

Colmarr said:
			
		

> I'm guessing it's a Zombie Ogre, and my isn't he purrty




It looks like it's got a bugbear head to me, what with the funny-looking hairstyle.


----------



## Family

Colmarr said:
			
		

> I'm guessing it's a Zombie Ogre, and my isn't he purrty




Bring your own brains doesn't apply to him, he just takes whatever looks good from the fridge, the rest pretend not to notice.


----------



## Loincloth of Armour

"Flying zombies!  I can't believe I never thought of this before!"

"It will revolutionize the industry."

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0193.html


----------



## Ginnel

Now isn't that pretty art, only one complaint the way they stand or don't on the ground just doesn't work otherwise bring on more art like this I say.

I think the zombie is throwing some of its own body on the left its a zombie artillery which throws for damage and it also weakens you I believe.


----------



## lutecius

"Once zombified, a rouse obeys its creator and wants nothing more than to kill the living consumer." 
keep that in mind


----------



## Andor

Meh. Everbody knows D&D zombies really look like this:


----------



## Klaus

The picture *seems* to be rebdered well enough (it is rather small to make out the details), but the composition is a bit confusing, like they were rendered separatedly and then Photoshopped together (the one in the back seems to be holding a club on its right hand, but we can't really see it). The excess of fog doesn't help in that regard.


----------



## Ginnel

Klaus said:
			
		

> The picture *seems* to be rebdered well enough (it is rather small to make out the details), but the composition is a bit confusing, like they were rendered separatedly and then Photoshopped together (the one in the back seems to be holding a club on its right hand, but we can't really see it). The excess of fog doesn't help in that regard.




Yup the more I look at it, the more it just has to be photoshopped.

The club which you barely see
the Feet not touching the ground properly
the weird composition

nice spot Klaus


----------



## Lackhand

It's the pixels. I have seen many photoshops in my day, and those pixels don't look right.


----------



## Voss

Klaus said:
			
		

> The picture *seems* to be rebdered well enough (it is rather small to make out the details), but the composition is a bit confusing, like they were rendered separatedly and then Photoshopped together (the one in the back seems to be holding a club on its right hand, but we can't really see it). The excess of fog doesn't help in that regard.




The color palette doesn't help either.  Between the smallness, the fog, and the dark blues and dark greens blending together, the detail is pretty much lost.


----------



## Klaus

Voss said:
			
		

> The color palette doesn't help either.  Between the smallness, the fog, and the dark blues and dark greens blending together, the detail is pretty much lost.



 And just to clarify, Todd Lockwood once told me that it is "okay" to lose detail here and there, when it's done on purpose. That helps bring the main subject of a painting into focus.


----------



## LostInTheMists

Andor said:
			
		

> Meh. Everbody knows D&D zombies really look like this:




Great.  I looked at your picture of the zombie horde, and now I've got "Thriller" going around in my head.  Thanks, Andor.


----------



## frankthedm

I kinda like the zombie illo. The pic is almost black and white and for zombies that is kinda neat.

Corruption Corpse: should look more goopy, but I supose that mifght be a little to over the top.

Chillborn: Not bad

Big zombie: I am guessing bugbear bloodhulk. I'd be very happy if 4E ogres DO look like that though.

Gravehound: Looks a LOT like some bad ass zombie dire wolf minis from a spanish miniatures company.

Winged zombie: Huh? Well, as it happens I have a mage knight mini for this critter, so I guess i can't complain.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Out of today's picture, the one in the middle seems to be the Devourer I remember, and the one in the front looks like the Morhg to me.  Don't quite know what the one in the rear is with the impaled spirits, other than it looks a little like the Devourer on the cover of Planescape Monstrous Compendium 3 which had baby corpses hanging off of its spikes instead.

So it makes me wonder if they grouped at least the Devourer and the Morhg together, and have an "Advanced Devourer".  Which would make things more convenient if the Morhg was a Devourer jr. since it never really impressed me, but the Devourer did.


----------



## Dunamin

Wow, that biggest one with impaled spirits is pretty creepy. Good job on that! The rest aren't bad either.


----------



## Klaus

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> Out of today's picture, the one in the middle seems to be the Devourer I remember, and the one in the front looks like the Morhg to me.  Don't quite know what the one in the rear is with the impaled spirits, other than it looks a little like the Devourer on the cover of Planescape Monstrous Compendium 3 which had baby corpses hanging off of its spikes instead.
> 
> So it makes me wonder if they grouped at least the Devourer and the Morhg together, and have an "Advanced Devourer".  Which would make things more convenient if the Morhg was a Devourer jr. since it never really impressed me, but the Devourer did.



 Yeah, mohrgs and devourers got grouped together and a mega-devourer got added in. Very creepy, and very well-made.


----------



## Ander00

I wouldn't bet on it (heck, I'd say it most likely isn't so), but it just occurred to me that the mega-devourer could actually be a redesigned death giant.


cheers


----------



## hong

Looks pretty good!


----------



## Jhaelen

Wow, that Mega-Devourer reminds me of one of the most memorable encounters in my 2E Darksun campaign in Undertyr - it featured a Unique undead with linked spirits (inspired by the Druj from the Mystara MM).

I hope it's as interesting mechanically as it looks


----------



## frankthedm

Hate the art style, feels too much like they walked out of an episode of the _Extreme Ghostbusters_ cartoon. I wish they would have just kept the Brom painting from Dungeon magazine






Maybe once i see the stats of the super devourer, I might like it more. Just a shame they did not use the Delraich's Magic card art for it.  http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/7253/delraichkb5.jpg


----------



## Dausuul

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Hate the art style, feels too much like they walked out of an episode of the _Extreme Ghostbusters_ cartoon. I wish they would have just kept the Brom painting from Dungeon magazine




Damn, I love Brom... especially for undead.  His style is perfectly suited to portray decaying horrors from beyond the grave.


----------



## Aloïsius

Ander00 said:
			
		

> I wouldn't bet on it (heck, I'd say it most likely isn't so), but it just occurred to me that the mega-devourer could actually be a redesigned death giant.
> 
> 
> cheers



It makes me think to the Gritch of hyperion... Or the cadaver collector from MMx.


----------



## Elphilm

Holy crap the Brom piece is sweet.


----------



## Klaus

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Hate the art style, feels too much like they walked out of an episode of the _Extreme Ghostbusters_ cartoon. I wish they would have just kept the Brom painting from Dungeon magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe once i see the stats of the super devourer, I might like it more. Just a shame they did not use the Delraich's Magic card art for it.  http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/7253/delraichkb5.jpg



 Well, no fair. It's Brom, after all.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

_Art by Dave Allsop_
Foulspawn are deranged humanoids corrupted by contact with the Far Realm, a maddening and distant plane.


----------



## Kunimatyu

I'm just not feeling this one for some reason. I think dolgaunts (dolgrims = lame) would have made a better foulspawn than some of the ones shown here.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn

The Foulspawn are just lame.  I mean they had a good idea at the basis, but the art is awful.  It looks like it came out of a children's cartoon or a poorly illustrated comic.  This is the Far Realms we're talking about, the home of Cthulu and Tsthaugwa and all those fellows.  They can and should be much more horribly unnatural than these refugees from a Saturday morning cartoon.


----------



## Rechan

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> I'm just not feeling this one for some reason. I think dolgaunts (dolgrims = lame) would have made a better foulspawn than some of the ones shown here.



Dolgaunts are awesome, yes. Having tentacles, being blind, and having leeches on their chest - they really grew on me. Like evil, skinned yogi cenobites. 

These things definitely don't make me think of "Illithid's second cousin twice removed on the step-father's side" of the far realms, no. 

Although the little guy on the far right with the four arms? I like him.


----------



## small pumpkin man

They look strangely.... Jolly.

Appropriate for creepy fae, or even some sort of Undead Harlequin, but Far Realm? No. Cthulu is not that kind of insanity.


----------



## chaotix42

From the MMV. Odd, the big skinless one and the four-armed dagger-wielder aren't in the MMV art gallery. They were in there too though. 

I like them as Far Realm humanoids.


----------



## A'koss

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> They look strangely.... Jolly.
> 
> Appropriate for creepy fae, or even some sort of Undead Harlequin, but Far Realm? No. Cthulu is not that kind of insanity.



Agreed. When I read the description that they were Far Realm touched I looked again at the pic and thought maybe they had the wrong image inserted there. I agree they look more like twisted fae creatures with the elvish ears and the almost celtic-like patterns on the one on the left...


----------



## Kunimatyu

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> They look strangely.... Jolly.
> 
> Appropriate for creepy fae, or even some sort of Undead Harlequin, but Far Realm? No. Cthulu is not that kind of insanity.




I suppose it's easy enough to change "Aberrant" to "Fey" in the type descriptions, for the few that are worth saving.

So far, these guys appear to be the Rast/Ravid/Phantom Fungus candidates in the MM -- we knew there'd be some...


----------



## Rechan

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> I suppose it's easy enough to change "Aberrant" to "Fey" in the type descriptions, for the few that are worth saving.
> 
> So far, these guys appear to be the Rast/Ravid/Phantom Fungus candidates in the MM -- we knew there'd be some...



Hey now!

Humanoids warped by the far realms are pretty interesting, as opposed to the PHantom Fungus. These guys' flaw is that their art sucks.


----------



## Hussar

Jeez, now I actually liked this one.  They are humanoids, so, they have to be ... well humanoidish.  The truly tentacular stuff will be there too.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

*Nods* Now... If the art was something like this, we have 2 for 3 (just need the stat-box):

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]
That to me is creepy, twisted humans.


----------



## Korgoth

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Damn, I love Brom... especially for undead.  His style is perfectly suited to portray decaying horrors from beyond the grave.




You know, it's pretty hard to sum up exactly how stone cold awesome that Brom painting is.  I never even liked that stupid monster until now.  Now it creeps the poo out of me and I can't wait to use it sometime.

Unfortunately, now that a Brom masterpiece has been posted all the art from the new Monster Manual looks like a Scooby Doo cartoon by comparison.  Thanks, Brom, for ruining it for everybody with your awesomeosity!  Are you happy now?


----------



## frankthedm

Mr spikey, maybe...  the rest are not really saying far realm to me. Mr Muscles would do fine for a large carnage demon, but they all look kinda mundane as far as D&D monsters go.


----------



## Reaper Steve

FWIW, I like the foulspawn pic (although the big red guy in back did make me immediately think of the carnage demon.)
I like that they all have huge white eyes and ridiculous grins full of large pointy teeth.

No mommy, I don't like clowns!
Sorry, where was I?

Oh yeah...
They definitely strike me as having been touched by the Far Realms. I love my mind flayers, but not not everything from the Far Realms has to look like they could be related to illithids.


----------



## Dunamin

Never heard about foulspawn before, but the concept definitely sounds useful. What did they do as presented in the MMV? Madness-inducing powers?


----------



## WhatGravitas

Meh, I want Dolgaunts. These guys were seriously Far Realms-y enough.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Gargazon

Dunamin said:
			
		

> Never heard about foulspawn before, but the concept definitely sounds useful. What did they do as presented in the MMV? Madness-inducing powers?




In MMV the monsters got more powerful the more you damaged them, except for the mage one who just got more powerful the more magic he cast. So I'd put my money on those Foulspawn getting a hella lot tougher when Bloodied.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> not everything from the Far Realms has to look like they could be related to illithids.




Far Realms = Hentaiverse


----------



## Ginnel

Well I've been thinking a lot on this picture and I kinda like it 

I see these creatures as being on the very edge of the far realms or maybe a portal to it or whatever it is outside their village and they hunt through there and such what and the tribe starts holding these mutations in esteem. 

Also if you imagine far realm pact warlocks and the like as they advance in power their teeth become more pointed their irises and pupils begin to fade also there skin may start to change to resemble one of those little creatures their appearance a physical symptom of the battle inside.


----------



## Moon-Lancer

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> *Nods* Now... If the art was something like this, we have 2 for 3 (just need the stat-box):
> 
> [sblock]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/sblock]
> That to me is creepy, twisted humans.




This reminds me of Berserk, with a fine art twist.


----------



## Klaus

At least the art for the foulspawn is better than the original ushemoi art from MMV.


----------



## frankthedm

Klaus said:
			
		

> Well, no fair. It's Brom, after all.



Plenty fair. We already know the Vampire art is going to be from the previous edition, so that means old art is in the running. Hell I am praying the sahaugin art from 2nd Edition’s Sea Devils that became their 3E MM illo is kept into the 4E MM, should the sahaugin be in it. Sadly I don’t think that will be the case after seeing the bobble headed sahaugin in the recent mini set.


----------



## Andor

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> The Foulspawn are just lame.  I mean they had a good idea at the basis, but the art is awful.  It looks like it came out of a children's cartoon or a poorly illustrated comic.  This is the Far Realms we're talking about, the home of Cthulu and Tsthaugwa and all those fellows.  They can and should be much more horribly unnatural than these refugees from a Saturday morning cartoon.




The Far Realms! Now with Joker Venom!   

So we've got these guys and Illithids... I think the question is ... What does the Far Realms have against lips? Perhaps the secret weapon against Cuthulu is Mick Jagger?


----------



## Klaus

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Plenty fair. We already know the Vampire art is going to be from the previous edition, so that means old art is in the running. Hell I am praying the sahaugin art from 2nd Edition’s Sea Devils that became their 3E MM illo is kept into the 4E MM, should the sahaugin be in it. Sadly I don’t think that will be the case after seeing the bobble headed sahaugin in the recent mini set.



 I kinda like the Sea Devil from d20 Past.


----------



## Hussar

The wraith is up and it's juicy.

The Harpy is ... meh.  Not terribly impressed with it.  The face looks goofy.


----------



## Classic Villany

Hussar said:
			
		

> The wraith is up and it's juicy.
> 
> The Harpy is ... meh.  Not terribly impressed with it.  The face looks goofy.




I agree on the Harpy.

As for the Wraith, I find it a little Meh. The background and "coming at you" pose is nice, but the overall appearance seems a little too Scooby-Doo crook dressed in a bedsheet to me. The 3.5 MM Wraith was much better IMHO for an evil ghost that will drain the life right out of you.


----------



## frankthedm

the harpy does not look goofy, just elven. First thing that came to mind was 'angry elf feminist'


----------



## WhatGravitas

frankthedm said:
			
		

> the harpy does not look goofy, just elven. First thing that came to mind was 'angry elf feminist'



I thought it has a halfling/gnome note. And I think the harpy looks... somehow small. I don't know if that's due to its proportions or lack of reference... perhaps I'm expecting larger wings.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Plane Sailing

re: harpy, I much prefer the 3.5e rendition.


----------



## Klaus

Classic Villany said:
			
		

> I agree on the Harpy.
> 
> As for the Wraith, I find it a little Meh. The background and "coming at you" pose is nice, but the overall appearance seems a little too Scooby-Doo crook dressed in a bedsheet to me. The 3.5 MM Wraith was much better IMHO for an evil ghost that will drain the life right out of you.



 IMHO the wraith suffers because the 3.0 wraith that Mike Kaluta did had a wonderful use of negative space.

As for the harpy, I wasn't fond of the 3.x depiction either. I guess I prefer a more classical look.


----------



## lutecius

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Don't fear - it's from Expedition to the Demonweb Pits. Albeit the second succubus was shopped out.



Aaargh!!! It's her in the MM  I don't mind the malebranche from Fiendish Codex II because it's a good pic, but they actually put the *edited, enlarged half of a recycled, cartoony* picture of a *dressed* succubus in the MM! It's the *Succubus*, fgs! 



			
				frankthedm said:
			
		

> the harpy does not look goofy, just elven. First thing that came to mind was 'angry elf feminist'



Close enough. The text says they're descended from a cursed elf witch.

I prefer this concept to the 3e harpy, but the rendition is also too cartoony. Still better than Allsop's foulspawns and Disco Harbinger though.

Apparently harpies can be male now, so the mini with the pecs was actually a boy. And that explains why they're dressed too: you wouldn't want to see anything dangling when harpies fly over your head.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel

Klaus said:
			
		

> As for the harpy, I wasn't fond of the 3.x depiction either. I guess I prefer a more classical look.




Yeah! why the heck did they dress them up?? I want nekkid succubi and harpies! Like those in YetAnotherFantasyGamerComic... 

Although that may not be fair... that webcomic has nekkid everything


----------



## Zaukrie

Nothing about that Harpy appeals to me as a harpy. It looks like a winged elf. Aren't harpy's hideous, but lure you with their songs anyway? Not happy with that art at all.


----------



## DylanCB

Eh, that harpy is ugly, like they should be. I would kill it on site. Freaky fairy monster. Its all claws and lean muscle. Man, I'm glad it has clothes, ew.


----------



## WhatGravitas

lutecius said:
			
		

> Aaargh!!! It's her in the MM
> I don't mind the malebranche from Fiendish Codex II because it's a good pic, but they've put the *edited, enlarged half of a recycled, cartoony* picture of a *dressed* succubus in the MM! It's the *Succubus*, fgs!



Wait, have you seen the MM? Are you trying to tell me they have done that _for the MM_!? If yes, then blergh.


Cheers, LT.


----------



## lutecius

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Wait, have you seen the MM? Are you trying to tell me they have done that _for the MM_!? If yes, then blergh.



blergh indeed. the succubus, war devil, spined devil and vampires are all recycled.


----------



## frankthedm

The succubus looks good to me. She has that "Old School Pin-up" feel.


----------



## Klaus

lutecius said:
			
		

> blergh indeed. the succubus, war devil, spined devil and vampires are all recycled.



 Plus Medusa (from the cover of Sinister Spire adventure or somesuch), some kobolds (from Races of the Dragon), Death Hag, Night Hag...


----------



## Andor

Klaus said:
			
		

> Plus Medusa (from the cover of Sinister Spire adventure or somesuch), some kobolds (from Races of the Dragon), Death Hag, Night Hag...




Gee. Remember the good old days when WotC had the money to buy new art? 

I guess now we are back to the good old days of TSR... Oh well, maybe they'll finally release the errata for the Shai'irs handbook.

And as for the Harpy... It's not a Harpy. It's got _arms_ for crying out loud. It looks like a halfling got freaky with a turkey vulture.


----------



## Hussar

Ok, liking the black dragon A LOT.  



			
				Andor said:
			
		

> And as for the Harpy... It's not a Harpy. It's got arms for crying out loud. It looks like a halfling got freaky with a turkey vulture.




Umm, since when did harpies NOT have arms?  Even back in 1e they had arms.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel

Andor said:
			
		

> Gee. Remember the good old days when WotC had the money to buy new art?




I don't think this is a budget issue... most likely the Art Director did not like some of the pieces commissioned and had to replace them with some older art.

Depending on the agreement with the artists, they might have even been paid for the unused art.

Now, back to the new piece, I like the dragon, especially its head... but the pose seems a little too static

edit:  On second thought, maybe I'm being unfair... nothing wrong with this dragon, but its really tough to compete with the 3rd edition dragons


----------



## Shroomy

I like that harpies are part bird again instead of some weird part-winged lizard, part human female.


----------



## lutecius

Andor said:
			
		

> And as for the Harpy... It's not a Harpy. It's got _arms_ for crying out loud. It looks like a halfling got freaky with a turkey vulture.



 the face is almost anime but the concept is not so bad. 
And even the classical harpies had arms, though the medieval/heraldic ones didn’t.
[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





[/sblock]
[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]
Some sirens were depicted a birds with human heads, while others had arms and played instruments. 

My preferred version for both sirens and harpies is a compromise: no extra arms but some free fingers on the wings, like pterosaurs and primitive birds, or the akraa… aarakroa… dndbirdmen.
So they can use their hands when needed but use their talons to snatch things/people when in flight.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

What's going on? Everybody busy looking at their PDFs or prematurely released copies of the PDF, no longer daring to discuss art?

Or was this thread lost in the restructuring of the fora forata forums? 

I really liked the last 3 pictures (Black Dragon, Deathpriest Hierophant, Otyugh), but especially the Black Dragon. 

So, now may the pros please nit-pick them?


----------



## Ginnel

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> What's going on? Everybody busy looking at their PDFs or prematurely released copies of the PDF, no longer daring to discuss art?
> 
> Or was this thread lost in the restructuring of the fora forata forums?
> 
> I really liked the last 3 pictures (Black Dragon, Deathpriest Hierophant, Otyugh), but especially the Black Dragon.
> 
> So, now may the pros please nit-pick them?



Me Me!! That deathpriest is he the one in front and the thing behind his minion/overseer? I quite like the human looking guy reminds me of an Athar from planescape
The black dragon while done well, I'm not sure if I quite like the serpentine qualities of its neck and head.
The Otyugh, I like, a big fat garbage eating lump of fat with tentacles and teeth really nice.

All in all though 3 very well done pictures


----------



## WhatGravitas

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> What's going on?



I never see the thread. 

Well, the deathpriests are pretty cool, I like the facial expression. The otyugh is a fine piece, well done (I think), but the monster is just a bit... uninspiring because it's tentacled dirt!

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Klaus

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> I never see the thread.
> 
> Well, the deathpriests are pretty cool, I like the facial expression. The otyugh is a fine piece, well done (I think), but the monster is just a bit... uninspiring because it's tentacled dirt!
> 
> Cheers, LT.



 I like 'em all.

Why couldn't this deathpriest be used in Keep on the Shadowfell as a portrait of the BBEG instead of the bad interior art we got?


----------



## Classic Villany

Black Dragon - Awesome.

Death Priest of Orcus - Where's Indiana Jones? 

Otyugh - Nice. Nothing better than a living, tentacled, garbage disposal with a maw full of pointy teeth.

Demons - The Goristro is a huge improvement IMHO (and I liked the old version) and the Hezrou looks pretty cool as well. The Immolith is nice, but I was kinda hoping it would look more like the mini, but then I'm probably in the minority on that. Kinda reminds me of the Lost Souls from Doom.


----------



## Shroomy

I really liked the demons, especially the Immolith.


----------



## Hussar

Haven't been looking at the art for a bit.

Last few have been very, very good.

Deathpriest is very cool, otyugh juicy, demons very sweet and the yuan-ti anathama is freaky.

Four for four on this round.


----------



## lutecius

The black dragon's pose and proportions are off. Really inferior to the white by the same artist, imo.

I could actually use that otyugh even though I never liked dnd joke-monsters. I have some reservations about Swekel's Pit Fiend and Balor articulations and musculature but that guy can do great colours and gaping maws.
He should have done the manticore. Isn't it weird that you could count every tooth in the tarrasque's mouth but have absolutely no indication that a manticore has three rows of teeth?

Sam Wood's demons are good (er… chaotic evil) but his trolls, ogres and other demon batches (notably the one with the marilith and vrock) are better.

The yuanti is not bad, but I can't see a green cobra without thinking of the 80's cartoons and toy lines. Maybe it needs more subdued colours, and a better pose. Also, the fangs look more mammalian than snaky.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel

Woot! the Red Dragon is awesome!      

And very probably this wraps up the preview art gallery...


----------



## frankthedm

lutecius said:
			
		

> The yuanti is not bad, but I can't see a green cobra without thinking of the 80's cartoons and toy lines.



Considering there is a Yuan-ti sporting He-Man's 'armor' in the 4E MM, you are not the only one.


----------



## Hussar

A manticore has three rows of teeth?  Where's that from?


----------



## Clavis

Hussar said:
			
		

> A manticore has three rows of teeth?  Where's that from?




That part of the Manticore legend goes back as far as Pliny The Elder.


----------



## Hussar

Clavis said:
			
		

> That part of the Manticore legend goes back as far as Pliny The Elder.




Learn something new every day.  Never knew that one.  Cool.  Manticores and wyverns are probably my favourite D&D beasties.


----------

