Monster Manual and re-used art

[Lurks-no-More]

I've seen complaints about WotC re-using art for MM several times in the past, so I sat down with the book and went through the illustrations.

By my count, there are 201 illustrations in the book. Of these, I recognized eight as definitely re-used:

• Astral stalker
• Battle devil
• Drow
• Gorgon
• Bog hag
• Night hag
• Iron defender (possibly the snake, too)
• Vampires

That's 4% of re-used artwork, people. (And all the re-used stuff is pretty good!) Surely, that can't really bother you?

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

War devil, succubus...

 

[Draksila]

Frankly, reused art doesn't bother me; I'm buying the book for the rules and statblocks, not the art. I do expect WotC to listen to customer feedback, however, and refrain from recycling art that has been panned by reviewers. So, to reiterate, I don't mind recycled art... as long as it's good art.

 

[Klaus]

I've seen complaints about WotC re-using art for MM several times in the past, so I sat down with the book and went through the illustrations.

By my count, there are 201 illustrations in the book. Of these, I recognized eight as definitely re-used:

• Astral stalker
• Battle devil
• Drow
• Gorgon
• Bog hag
• Night hag
• Iron defender (possibly the snake, too)
• Vampires

That's 4% of re-used artwork, people. (And all the re-used stuff is pretty good!) Surely, that can't really bother you?

Bog Hag, Death Hag, Night Hag...

 

[Fifth Element]

Bog Hag, Death Hag, Night Hag...

Okay, we're up to what, 6% now? That doesn't detract from the OP's point. There's no real difference between 4% and 6%.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Okay, we're up to what, 6% now? That doesn't detract from the OP's point. There's no real difference between 4% and 6%.

The difference is 2% But your point remains.

Do I like all the reused art? Not at all. But I think when you have such a high volume of art needed to fill a new edition, it's both a supply (how many artists and quality sketches can we get before deadline?) and cost (the process is already expensive without the artists) issue.

 

[Klaus]

Astral Stalker
Beholder (the front one)
Death Knight
Succubus
War Devil
Redspawn Firebelcher
Drow
Gorgon
Hag, Bog
Hag, Death
Hag, Night
Iron Defender
Kobold (pg 169)
Medusa
Slaad, Black
Vampire
Vine Horror

The 3.5 mummy is in the DMG, a Prestige Class from Complete Scoundrel became a Paragon Path in FRPG.

 

[Nebulous]

I guess it's better to have good reused art rather than crappy NEW art. But it still bothers me. Actually, a lot of the new art in the MM 4e is more problematic for me than the recycled stuff. But i have a gripe with that book on several levels, so i'll just be quiet now.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

For the flagship monster product for the highly-anticipated, long-in-development next version of the world's most popular RPG, I think it's disappointing. If it's a trivial number of the total, then the effort and expense of the extra few shouldn't have been a sufficient reason to re-use art.

It's not a deal-breaker, certainly, and it doesn't detract from the book as a whole. I only recognized a couple, but it's been a while since I looked at the original MM.

 

[Dausuul]

The night hag picture bothers me, because I think it looks wretched. I'm fine with the others.