# MM2 art gallery- AWESOME!



## mach1.9pants (May 18, 2009)

I haven't seen a thread up about this and search didn't help so I'll start one
Monster Manual 2 Art Gallery

There is some excellent art in there, really inspiring. I dunno if they are recycled, I have most 3E and 4E books but my memory for art is a bit poor due to old age senility.

I am going to look through for a fave to see if I can find a M1.9Ps tip top art pic 

Here it is: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/Monster2_gallery/143.jpg
Not seen this one before, just love it, where is the mini!!!!?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 18, 2009)

Something about the Witherling I find super cool, beyond just normal, ooo, neat looking undead. Sort of like something from African folklore (that feeling helped by the savannah environment in the background).


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 18, 2009)

Fallen Seraph said:


> Something about the Witherling I find super cool, beyond just normal, ooo, neat looking undead. Sort of like something from African folklore (that feeling helped by the savannah environment in the background).



Haha great minds think alike, check my edit to add on my fave... the witherling


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 18, 2009)

It is funny since it is really a fairly simple drawing, the monster is just standing straight against a background. It really shows how much the actual visual design of a monster can make a impact.

I am thinking in-game I could see myself teaming him up with  Krenshar.


----------



## CleverNickName (May 18, 2009)

I think the Star Spawn looks pretty cool...probably my favorite.


----------



## Amadeus Windfall (May 18, 2009)

Wow, that's some pretty good. Maybe I'll actually by MMII sometime rather than just using the compendium.

The Nothic really creeps me out. Were these in past editions? If they were, what were they like?


----------



## fissionessence (May 18, 2009)

That's pretty crazy, as the witherling was probably my favorite art as well. It's like creepy and mysterious. It makes me wonder if we/I will love it so much after we see its stats. Like, what if it was just a really neat picture of a kobold. I might say, "Oh, that's just another kobold. Kind of cool looking, though." But since it's mysterious and new, the witherling is just awesome.

However, I also love the elementals. I saw a picture called 'elementals' and was very excited. I looked at it, and I thought it was cool. Then, the next piece of art was more elementals! Even awesomer! And you might know where this is going by now . . . but there was a third picture of elementals! Three or four elementals per picture, and three pictures! I'm super hyped right now about the number of elementals in MM2 . . . in case you couldn't tell.

~ fissionessence


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 18, 2009)

Amadeus Windfall said:


> Wow, that's some pretty good. Maybe I'll actually by MMII sometime rather than just using the compendium.
> 
> The Nothic really creeps me out. Were these in past editions? If they were, what were they like?




I've got a Nothic mini in my collection but I dunno what book it was from, cool mini though


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 18, 2009)

mach1.9pants said:


> I've got a Nothic mini in my collection but I dunno what book it was from, cool mini though



A little clumsy to operate on the gaming table sometimes, though. In tight quarters there legs get in the way.


----------



## The_Fan (May 18, 2009)

Amadeus Windfall said:


> Wow, that's some pretty good. Maybe I'll actually by MMII sometime rather than just using the compendium.
> 
> The Nothic really creeps me out. Were these in past editions? If they were, what were they like?




Nothic came from the 3.5 Miniatures Handbook, though I wouldn't be surprised if they had some spiritual ancestor in past editions. If I remember correctly, they were an aberrantion that fed on decayed flesh, which it created through a decaying gaze. One of the first creatures that had physical damge coming from its gaze attack.


----------



## frankthedm (May 18, 2009)

Amadeus Windfall said:


> The Nothic really creeps me out. Were these in past editions? If they were, what were they like?



The art is from the 3.5 minis handbook.i like the art, but it makes me long for hit location rules.

The artist did good work on the of the Eye of  frost beholder. It might be a colour coded underground monkey, but the artist did their job.



			
				Underground Monkey said:
			
		

> ...the somewhat strange phenomenon that as you travel a diverse world, rather than seeing a diversity of creature types, you see _the same_ creature types, in a diversity of colors: in The Lost Woods, you find the Wolf, the Giant Rat, and the Forest Dragon; in the Slippy Slidey Ice World, you find the Arctic Wolf, the Snow Rat, and the White Dragon; in the Temple Of Doom, you'll face the Dire Wolf, Plague Rat, and Zombie Dragon.
> 
> The most common Underground Monkeys are those whose names begin with one of fire, ice or lightning. In games which play Elemental Rock Paper Scissors, the colors may also indicate elemental weakness.




The barghest-skunk made me laugh. At it. Not a fan of the face of the other barghest though that one's hobgoblin form looks suitably impressive.

The Behir illo _could_ have been very good. Shame the artist gave it a chin like a caricature of Jay Leno.

The xorn looks great. Probably the best illo i've seen for the things yet. aberration looking is good in my book.

IIRC the Dagon illo was from a dragon magazine. It is really good annd I am *glad* to see it reused.

New Glabrezu themed demons? Interesting

Gold dragon's facial tentacles are becoming more pronounced...  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I like where this is going.

I like how the gnoll illo has an over-the-top sword & sorcery feel to it.


----------



## Belphanior (May 18, 2009)

I for one love the gnome picture. The guy is a bit too "rawr" but the female's look in her eyes clearly says that she's not funny, she hasn't got a lair or a badger, and she's going to royally  you up now. And all that without abandoning the gnome look or resorting to chainmail bikini.


----------



## Henrix (May 18, 2009)

Lots of great pictures there, much better than MM1!

Even the Myconids look cool, while still funny!


I still dislike the new troglodyte look, but this picture is a lot better. (Not as cool as the 3e trogs, though. They would be more fun as something less bruteish, as weii - too many of those around already.)


----------



## Henrix (May 18, 2009)

After a quick look through the .zip file it seems to me that there are more pictures there. (Or is just my perception skill too low?)


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 18, 2009)

Yes, I thought the art was excellent. I like the new way of doing art for the MM.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 18, 2009)

frankthedm said:


> The Behir illo _could_ have been very good. Shame the artist gave it a chin like a caricature of Jay Leno.



Jay Leno: Translated for Brits and many other English speaking nationals




Jimmy Hill


----------



## Kris (May 18, 2009)

Some I like (the angels look cool), others not so much.

I really dislike the barghests though.


----------



## avin (May 18, 2009)

There's what? 7 - 8 reused art? I like some, but most of them keeps the scooby doo train moving. Demons and devils are inferior compared to the MM. 

My vote goes for Witherling too, a fresh breath of weird among very cartoon art.


----------



## Klaus (May 18, 2009)

Belphanior said:


> I for one love the gnome picture. The guy is a bit too "rawr" but the female's look in her eyes clearly says that she's not funny, she hasn't got a lair or a badger, and she's going to royally  you up now. And all that without abandoning the gnome look or resorting to chainmail bikini.



The gnomes are done nicely, BUT the artist forgot that 4e gnomes have black orbs as eyes.

Great art, overall!


----------



## questing gm (May 18, 2009)

mach1.9pants said:


> There is some excellent art in there, really inspiring. I dunno if they are recycled, I have most 3E and 4E books but my memory for art is a bit poor due to old age senility.




This Copper Dragon was an illustration for a Dragon prestige class (which I can't remember what it was exactly called, something to do with scales or spells) from the 3.x Draconomicon. The other Copper Dragon looks familiar but I'm not sure where did I see it, could be the same book as the former.

The Dimensional Marauder was previously the Ethereal Marauder from 3.x MM1 while the Darkmantle art is the same one from MM1. The Remorhaz shown here is also from MM1 but I remember they had a new art for it (which is awesome) when they previewed it as an excerpt. 

The Warforged Titan looks familiar too but it also looks like a rehash from a previous art. My mind must be showing signs for senility as well. 

Other than those, everything else looks awesome.


----------



## OchreJelly (May 18, 2009)

I'm curious to see how winter wolves are statted.  I had to make them up for an adventure.  Overall, I'm pretty excited to get this book.


----------



## lutecius (May 18, 2009)

On the whole I'm not sure the art is much better than in mm1 (to me phb2 was a vast improvement over phb1)

It's less garish, but there are still a lot of clumsy poses and cartoony pictures (not in a good way). The colossus and demon followers look like something from scooby doo.

There are fewer really bad pics than in mm1 but also fewer really good ones, imo. The bebilith is the best version i've seen, though.

The angel look a lot more like angels, but still suffer from the previous design.

Also, aaargh they did it again. After the angel, dryad and quickling, sprites are now winged goblins. We already have archons/elementals, hags and goblins/imps. Does everything need to be uglified to make an interesting opponent?


----------



## Klaus (May 18, 2009)

questing gm said:


> This Copper Dragon was an illustration for a Dragon prestige class (which I can't remember what it was exactly called, something to do with scales or spells) from the 3.x Draconomicon. The other Copper Dragon looks familiar but I'm not sure where did I see it, could be the same book as the former.
> 
> The Dimensional Marauder was previously the Ethereal Marauder from 3.x MM1 while the Darkmantle art is the same one from MM1. The Remorhaz shown here is also from MM1 but I remember they had a new art for it (which is awesome) when they previewed it as an excerpt.
> 
> ...



Runecarved Dragon was the copper dragon in Draconomicon. The other is new.

The Warforged Titan is straight out of the Eberron Campaign Setting.

The Nothic is from the Miniatures Handbook.

The Steel Predator looks like it's from a later-day MM. They were designed originally for Lord of the Iron Fortress.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 18, 2009)

I quite like a number of these, but...

< rant >What on earth is going on with the stupid giant ant pictures?

It isn't tricky! Insects have head, thorax and abdomen. All legs on the thorax.

If the artist was going for 'strange ant-like being' OK, do what you want. But for goodness sake make the giant ants look a little bit like ants. Hasn't the artist heard of reference pictures?

< / rant >


----------



## NexH (May 18, 2009)

There are many excellent (for me) illustrations here:

*Picture number 30, with the horde of little and scary-looking myconids fading into the spore-clouded distance.
*I love the detail/style in 24 (couatl), 32 (elementals),33 (angels), 46 (genasi), 63 (hawks), 82 (direguards), 140 (yochol).
*The Gold dragon sleeping on that enormous pillow.
*The Witherling picture is indeed great and different.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 18, 2009)

My favorite is the dretch.


----------



## Klaus (May 18, 2009)

No one comments on the 4e looks for sprites?

Man, those fey are really letting themselves go...


----------



## Desdichado (May 18, 2009)

Huge fan of the Dragon art of Dagon.  Nice to see that released without titles covering it up.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 18, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> I quite like a number of these, but...
> 
> < rant >What on earth is going on with the stupid giant ant pictures?
> 
> ...



They don't look like Ants?


----------



## chaotix42 (May 18, 2009)

Mustrum Ridcully said:
			
		

> They don't look like Ants?




They do, just not exactly like real ants, as per Plane Sailing's complaint. Not a big deal for me - they look more than a little like ants as far as I'm concerned. Sure they have an extra body segment and their legs aren't all attached to their thorax but everything else fits the bill. 

The art in the MM2 really pleases me. Some of my favorite pieces are the cockatrice, devas, and silver dragon. The nothic eye of Vecna is the bomb too!


----------



## Squizzle (May 18, 2009)

The werebeasts look like band members whose instruments have been photoshopped out, and weapons 'shopped in their places. The boar is a guitarist; the tiger is a drummer.


----------



## tsadkiel (May 18, 2009)

Klaus said:


> No one comments on the 4e looks for sprites?
> 
> Man, those fey are really letting themselves go...




My local Barnes and Noble had the MMII out early, and I've had the chance to look through it.  As I recall, the sprites in the book are a particular breed of EEEEEVIL sprite, and it's implied that they are exceptional in their ugliness.


----------



## Shemeska (May 18, 2009)

frankthedm said:


> New Glabrezu themed demons? Interesting.




The one on the right is a nycaloth (don't know what 4e named it / changed it into though). I don't particularly care for the art style as much as the 3e WAR version (the original of which is hanging on my wall), or the 3.5 James Zhang version.


----------



## Derren (May 18, 2009)

As it was said, the Copper Dragon is recycled. And I think I have also seen the burning Gold Dragon somewhere before.

The Silver Dragon is a bit disappointing, considering how many people praise that picture. 
And the Were creatures look a bit strange, but mostly because of their weapons.


----------



## avin (May 18, 2009)

tsadkiel said:


> As I recall, the sprites in the book are a particular breed of EEEEEVIL sprite, and it's implied that they are exceptional in their ugliness.




No matter edition or system, any RPG designer who generalizes eeeeevil as ugly won't have my support.

People really have different opinions concerning art, I dislike most of the images, in special the cartoon style for creatures that should inspire fear, not laughing. 

Wotc is thinking it pleases an younger aundience. 

I have serious doubts about it.


----------



## Primal (May 18, 2009)

Derren said:


> As it was said, the Copper Dragon is recycled. And I think I have also seen the burning Gold Dragon somewhere before.




It's from 'Dragons of Faerûn', and it actually represents a specific Gold Dragon druid NPC from High Forest.


----------



## frankthedm (May 18, 2009)

lutecius said:


> The colossus and demon followers look like something from scooby doo.



I thought thee Colossus was a _direct_ shout-out to Mono Tiki Tia

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSlQVGFUqjY&feature=PlayList&p=7085E713E2FF411C&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=17]YouTube - Scooby Doo, Where Are You? - A Tiki Scare Is No Fair Part 3/3[/ame]


----------



## Klaus (May 18, 2009)

avin said:


> No matter edition or system, any RPG designer who generalizes eeeeevil as ugly won't have my support.
> 
> People really have different opinions concerning art, I dislike most of the images, in special the cartoon style for creatures that should inspire fear, not laughing.
> 
> ...



Well, to be fair Lamias as beutiful and Evil, and so are several fey creatures portrayed in adventures, like some eladrin and archfey.

What I want to see is good+ugly. Now there's a rare pairing.


----------



## Quickleaf (May 18, 2009)

Anyone notice the similarity spriggan art has to redcaps? Right down to the iron-shod boots?
http://wizards.com/dnd/images/Monster2_gallery/133.jpg


----------



## Remathilis (May 18, 2009)

Klaus said:


> Runecarved Dragon was the copper dragon in Draconomicon. The other is new.
> 
> The Warforged Titan is straight out of the Eberron Campaign Setting.
> 
> ...




The Steel Predator is from MM2. 

Also, the Slaughterstone Constructs are from MM3, as is the Kenku.

Still, that's 10 out of 40+ images. And nothing as glaring as AP's uses (cough Gimble)


----------



## Nai_Calus (May 18, 2009)

I like the Eladrin picture best. Not one but *two* women in sensible friggin' armor? w00t.


----------



## Klaus (May 18, 2009)

Nai_Calus said:


> I like the Eladrin picture best. Not one but *two* women in sensible friggin' armor? w00t.



Yeah, the eladrin might just get the "most improved race art" award.


----------



## sjmiller (May 18, 2009)

I have a silly question. Why does the creature labeled as a Tiger have shoulder spikes, a line a spikes down its spine, and saber tooth like canine teeth?


----------



## Inyssius (May 18, 2009)

sjmiller said:


> I have a silly question. Why does the creature labeled as a Tiger have shoulder spikes, a line a spikes down its spine, and saber tooth like canine teeth?




That's a *dire* tiger. Dire animals have giant fangs and spikes (and occasionally even a hint of armor plating), and are usually about half again as large as you might expect an animal of its kind to be. It's a D&D tradition.

EDIT: For example, check out the MM1's boars, bears, and wolves--though I'm pretty sure the silly "dire" thing extends back at least into 3.X.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 18, 2009)

avin said:


> No matter edition or system, any RPG designer who generalizes eeeeevil as ugly won't have my support.
> 
> People really have different opinions concerning art, I dislike most of the images, in special the cartoon style for creatures that should inspire fear, not laughing.
> 
> ...




I understand where you are coming from, equating evil with physical ugliness is not fair way to look at life.  But, it's nothing unique to this new D&D book, or even to D&D in general.  Human mythology and religion worldwide has a long-standing tradition of equating spiritual ugliness with physical ugliness.  In fact, the beautifully evil fey stand out as truly insidious because they buck this trend!

Quick!  Name the "evil races" of standard D&D fantasy.  Your top 5 (heck, your top 10) are probably ugly suckers.  Orcs, gobs, gnolls, gith, flayers . . .

Now quick name the top 5 "good races" and they'll all be sexy in one way or another!  Elves, dwarves (ruggedly handsome), halflings (cute), gnomes (even cuter).

Now of course you'll find evil individuals amongst the so-called goodly races and the Klingon Effect has changed our viewpoints somewhat on some of the uglies (shamanistic, nature-loving orcs).  But these are exceptions to the rule.

If anything, D&D 4e has taken some slight steps away from this long tradition with the more wierd player races such as dragonborn, genasi, shifters, the new deva, etc.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 18, 2009)

Inyssius said:


> That's a *dire* tiger. Dire animals have giant fangs and spikes (and occasionally even a hint of armor plating), and are usually about half again as large as you might expect an animal of its kind to be. It's a D&D tradition.
> 
> EDIT: For example, check out the MM1's boars, bears, and wolves--though I'm pretty sure the silly "dire" thing extends back at least into 3.X.




Yep, it's a dire tiger alright!  At the very beginning of 3rd Edition, I liked the idea of the "dire" class of animals . . . but with every illustration since of a spiky bear or spiky tiger I've really started to equate the word "dire" with "stupid-looking".

And, yes, I'm aware of the irony of this and my screen name.  But hey, I like the play on words!


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 18, 2009)

Another one I like is Djinn Windbow


----------



## sjmiller (May 18, 2009)

Inyssius said:


> That's a *dire* tiger. Dire animals have giant fangs and spikes (and occasionally even a hint of armor plating), and are usually about half again as large as you might expect an animal of its kind to be. It's a D&D tradition.
> 
> EDIT: For example, check out the MM1's boars, bears, and wolves--though I'm pretty sure the silly "dire" thing extends back at least into 3.X.



Oh, I know what a dire creature is. I currently run a D&D 3e game (when not running playtests of a new game I am working on), and use dire creatures in it. I just figured if you are going to show a "tiger" it should look like a tiger, not a dire tiger. I am mainly complaining about poor labeling, I guess.


----------



## Klaus (May 18, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> Yep, it's a dire tiger alright!  At the very beginning of 3rd Edition, I liked the idea of the "dire" class of animals . . . but with every illustration since of a spiky bear or spiky tiger I've really started to equate the word "dire" with "stupid-looking".
> 
> And, yes, I'm aware of the irony of this and my screen name.  But hey, I like the play on words!



Hey, allow me to pimp my dire animal art!

http://www.enworld.org/Pozas/Pictures/Wallpapers/dire_wp_lg.jpg


----------



## avin (May 19, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> But, it's nothing unique to this new D&D book, or even to D&D in general.




That's why I've said any system and any edition. 

As for 4E (that you mentioned, not me) bringing weird stuff, I don't agree, AD&D's Planescape had far more weird and interesting fluff. 

By the way, Creature Collection (3e or 4e) is better in therms of avoiding vinculating appearance with alignment


----------



## frankthedm (May 19, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> Yep, it's a dire tiger alright!  At the very beginning of 3rd Edition, I liked the idea of the "dire" class of animals . . . but with every illustration since of a spiky bear or spiky tiger I've really started to equate the word "dire" with "stupid-looking".



Agreed. I was very happy when the new Dire wolf mini was free of bonespurs. Dire animals should look fiercer, not be coated in random barbs of bone. 







 

 



			
				Me said:
			
		

> Benimoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sadly my hopes were crushed when i saw the bonespurs were back in the 4E monster manual. Apparently, the DDM concept art was just Ron Spencer not drawing the spikes on the dire wolf or dire tiger.


----------



## Shemeska (May 19, 2009)

Klaus said:


> Runecarved Dragon was the copper dragon in Draconomicon. The other is new.
> 
> The Warforged Titan is straight out of the Eberron Campaign Setting.
> 
> ...




I'm still surprised at the amount of recycled artwork in 4e books, major core books even. It's been that way in every 4e book I've seen, and it's just jarring to recognize artwork that was often used for a specific concept or even a specific NPC to be reused for something often rather different. Some of them are sourced from less prominant 3.x books, but it's still offputting.

But if they're trying to cut back on costs, the art budget would get hit since it's probably some of the most expensive portions of any book. And as I've been led to understand, Hasbro has designated the D&D side of WotC as a profit center, so the art budget would probably be one of the first things to see cuts for savings if they have to work within the money they generate.


----------



## lutecius (May 19, 2009)

frankthedm said:


> I thought thee Colossus was a _direct_ shout-out to Mono Tiki Tia



yeah, now I'm waiting for the rest of the manual to get unmasked.



Dire Bare said:


> I understand where you are coming from, equating evil with physical ugliness is not fair way to look at life.  But, it's nothing unique to this new D&D book, or even to D&D in general.  Human mythology and religion worldwide has a long-standing tradition of equating spiritual ugliness with physical ugliness.  In fact, the beautifully evil fey stand out as truly insidious because they buck this trend!



That's why I think cute fairies, hot dryads and beautiful angels make more interesting opponents. There are plenty of ugly monsters already. Pretty+mean is a refreshing combination. It also makes the PCs pause before going into hack&slash mode. 



> dwarves (ruggedly handsome)



No, really no. Some male dwarf players may think so, but... no.



frankthedm said:


> Agreed. I was very happy when the new Dire wolf mini was free of bonespurs. Dire animals should look fiercer, not be coated in random barbs of bone.
> 
> Sadly my hopes were crushed when i saw the bonespurs were back in the 4E monster manual. Apparently, the DDM concept art was just Ron Spencer not drawing the spikes on the dire wolf or dire tiger.



Count another vote against the bonespurs (I've never heard of anyone who liked them now that I think of it) but to be fair the spikeless bear on this last picture looks just as silly.


----------



## Shemeska (May 19, 2009)

lutecius said:


> Count another vote against the bonespurs (I've never heard of anyone who liked them now that I think of it) but to be fair the spikeless bear on this last picture looks just as silly.




I don't care for the bonespurs in any edition. I immediately think of a rabbit with Shope Papilloma virus, or something similar.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 19, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> I don't care for the bonespurs in any edition. I immediately think of a rabbit with Shope Papilloma virus, or something similar.



Jackalopes!

I am neutral on the bonespurs myself. Personally I would prefer them going with more sort of mutation style for dire creatures. Since more interesting looking, more unique abilities and is something other then just, "me bigger and meaner!"


----------



## Kunimatyu (May 19, 2009)

I figured out what's so jarring about the ants -- while ants sometimes DO have 4 segments, the 3rd is usually very small, and only has one pair of legs. The artist got that backward, so we have exceptionally freaky quasi-ants.

This whole "realism" thing is probably why we don't have carnivorous dinos in the MM anymore -- if you look at the Drake entry, the big red one is clearly supposed to be a T-Rex stand-in, and the green one to the left is a "raptor" stand-in.

It's probably a wise move, because unless you get an actual paleoartist to do the dinos, they'll come out looking really weird. The 3.5 pic with a T-Rex stepping on a horse was pretty rad, though.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 19, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> And as I've been led to understand, Hasbro has designated WotC as a cost center, so the art budget would probably be one of the first things to see cuts for savings.



What leads you to believe that? That's not what a cost centre is. A cost centre is an admistrative department, like HR or R&D, that is not evaluated based on the profit produced, because it cannot produce profit but is still necessary for the operation of a company. WotC sells product. They are therefore a profit centre. Or an investment centre, if they're evaluated that way.


----------



## darjr (May 19, 2009)

The thorax of an ant is composed of three segments. There are ant species that have one of those exaggerated.

Even so, I must agree, I would have preferred a more canonical ant image.


----------



## Shemeska (May 19, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> What leads you to believe that? That's not what a cost centre is. A cost centre is an admistrative department, like HR or R&D, that is not evaluated based on the profit produced, because it cannot produce profit but is still necessary for the operation of a company. WotC sells product. They are therefore a profit centre. Or an investment centre, if they're evaluated that way.




Not my jargon, so I was a bit off in what I said above, I'll edit it here in a minute.

As I've been told, the D&D side of WotC was designated a profit center by Hasbro. This was said by someone on the DDI side of things to me, so if their understanding is wrong on that, I'm only going by what they told me. They mentioned it in context of it causing budget issues on that side of things, on top of the Hasbro-wide hiring freeze for all but critical positions.


----------



## Hussar (May 19, 2009)

Dunno if it got mentioned, I missed it on my read through, but the Kenku is a reprint as well.

Count me in on not liking bone spurs.  Ick.  I wish they'd redesign the animal somewhat instead of just adding spikes.  A dire tiger (or sabre toothed cat) doesn't look anything like a modern tiger really.  It's closer to a bear, with honking big fangs.

I think you could simply take real world examples of a lot of these animals, and they're different enough to be recognizable as "dire" without spikes.

Didn't they learn in 3e that spikes are not a good thing?


----------



## Baron Opal (May 19, 2009)

Belphanior said:


> I for one love the gnome picture. ... the female's look in her eyes clearly says that she's not funny, she hasn't got a lair or a badger, and she's going to royally  you up now.




Good picture. After looking at that I decided that I if I have gnomes in my world they aren't going to blink. Ever. Their eyes are open while awake, closed while asleep. Sandstorms or bright flashes might do it, but they just have that constant stare while you talk to them at the inn.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 19, 2009)

Count me as another vote for spiky dire animals == silly.

Dire animals as bigger, fiercer versions of their normal kin is fine. Great even. But bony spikes all over just looks silly to me.

And a sabre toothed bear? Lets just not go there, other than to say that I'm not impressed by the 'Fred Flintstone' approach to primitive animals (making everything prehistoric into sabre-toothed creatures is as lazy as using the suffix -gate for any and every political scandal coming down the pike).

Regards,


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 19, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> Count me as another vote for spiky dire animals == silly.
> 
> Dire animals as bigger, fiercer versions of their normal kin is fine. Great even. But bony spikes all over just looks silly to me.
> 
> ...



5 years from now, this will be known as the artgate scandal!


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 19, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> 5 years from now, this will be known as the artgate scandal!




Nooooooooooooooooooo!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 19, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> Nooooooooooooooooooo!



Or antgate, since that what started it, right? 
I am not sure. 

You may add my vote against spikey dire animals, though.


----------



## AllisterH (May 19, 2009)

While I'm not exactly a fan of the spiked look, the problem is that there _IS_ no way to easily distinguish between the dire and non dire version of a creature WITHOUT the spikes.

Example:

We had Wolf, Giant wolf, Worg and now Dire Wolf (and let's not forget Advanced version of each of these). The example miniatures that lacked the spikes could be used for simply a worg IMO.


----------



## Arivendel (May 19, 2009)

Im liking the predakitty (i think i will actually make it turn invisible just for the lol factor... maybe even let it shoot lazers.)

I am also loving the art for the skeletal Tiefling and the shadow figure in the background... I already have an idea for a big dastarly evil guy using that exact same artwork


----------



## Klaus (May 19, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> Count me as another vote for spiky dire animals == silly.
> 
> Dire animals as bigger, fiercer versions of their normal kin is fine. Great even. But bony spikes all over just looks silly to me.
> 
> ...



[sblock]





[/sblock]


----------



## frankthedm (May 19, 2009)

Klaus said:


> ...



Planesailing did not want to go there, but there is a noticeable distinction between sabre teeth that _can or at least might_ be able to work for combat biting and sabre teeth that are so long and curved they _prevent_ biting. Your Smilidon influenced tiger has the former, the 4E cave bear has the latter. 

Edit. Indeed your Sabre-toothed Tiger probably has an easier time employing it's fangs than the overspecialized real life predator Smilodon fatalis. The tiger's fangs are the size of a smilidon's, but it's body is twice the size of said smilidon, going from a 3:1 fang to body ratio, to a 3:2 fang to body ratio, far more useful to a multipurpose bite.

Also, is that skeleton's zweihander intently bent? Nice work on the subtle details.


----------



## Klaus (May 19, 2009)

frankthedm said:


> Planesailing did not want to go there, but there is a noticeable distinction between sabre teeth that _can or at least might_ be able to work for combat biting and sabre teeth that are so long and curved they _prevent_ biting. Your Smilidon influenced tiger has the former, the 4E cave bear has the latter.
> 
> Edit. Indeed your Sabre-toothed Tiger probably has an easier time employing it's fangs than the overspecialized real life predator Smilodon fatalis. The tiger's fangs are the size of a smilidon's, but it's body is twice the size of said smilidon, going from a 3:1 fang to body ratio, to a 3:2 fang to body ratio, far more useful to a multipurpose bite.
> 
> Also, is that skeleton's zweihander intently bent? Nice work on the subtle details.



Nah, not really intended... 

Thanks for the compliments, though!


----------



## frankthedm (May 21, 2009)

Klaus said:


> Nah, not really intended...
> Thanks for the compliments, though!



Keep up the good work.

Speaking of art, I took the Dagon illo and played with it with the Open office image editor trying to make a stone relief looking print out. I hope others find it useful as a hand out 




http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/2986/dagonbareliefa.jpg


----------



## Klaus (May 21, 2009)

frankthedm said:


> Keep up the good work.
> 
> Speaking of art, I took the Dagon illo and played with it with the Open office image editor trying to make a stone relief looking print out. I hope others find it useful as a hand out
> 
> ...



Funny you should mention. Just today I was working on a counter for an abyssal-fish-headed, eel-bodies, tentacled fiend of the deep.


----------



## frankthedm (May 21, 2009)

Henrix said:


> After a quick look through the .zip file it seems to me that there are more pictures there. (Or is just my perception skill too low?)



_D&D Outsiders _are quite interested in what we did not see in the galleries. Do tell!


----------



## Klaus (May 22, 2009)

Y'know, all this dragon alignment thing reminded me: what about couatls? They're even more G-O-O-D than gold dragons!


----------



## Hellzon (May 23, 2009)

frankthedm said:


> _D&D Outsiders _are quite interested in what we did not see in the galleries. Do tell!




Crossposted from RPGnet:



			
				Meeeee! said:
			
		

> What are these dudes? I'm having a brainfart and can't find them in the gallery (but replacing the number in another file path works). Hippie giants?
> Girallon! Can't find him either in the gallery.
> Nor these. Gotta be Penaggalans (and vargouilles). Why is WOTC hiding the cool pics?
> More no-shows in the gallery. Any ideas what they are?




Sadly, I hear there are no actual girallons in the MM2. It's a mystery.


----------

