My emphasis. By the time the manual came around I stopped getting 2e books.the compendium did not, the later manual did, so I let that one slide![]()
I'm very supportive of this as you know.They got a major art budget upgrade, apparently.
I was thinking the same about a beholder. It is uniquely D&D and not a mythical archetype or anything.I think having a Beholder front and center on the MM is a far better choice than a dragon. It's one of the most unique monsters in the D&D menagerie, and one that a brand new player isn't likely to have seen before, selling the idea that the MM is chock full of new things.
Don't like it. WAY too busy.
I agree with you, Riley. Upon first seeing the image, it struck me that the point of the painting is precisely to be "way too busy"; to be over-the-top bonkers in fact, as if to suggest, "Yo, there are a sh*t ton of wacky monsters in here." The image on the back cover of the new book reinforces that.I'm surprised by your reaction - I don't think you are wrong, but your reaction is exactly opposite my own, which is that (most of) this image is so clean and uncluttered.
For whatever reason, my mind automatically focuses on the center and upper-2/3rds of the painting, and dismisses all the details in the yellow lower foreground as a single, simple design element... unless/until I intentionally focus on the details within it.
Possibly helps explain why I love this illustration - far more than the other two - while others (quite reasonably) disagree.
The style is too blurry and washed out. Same complaint for the other two covers. Also the characters are always in some weird pose facing in an odd direction instead of facing their enemy. IMO the Pathfinder covers blow these out of the water both in their art style and composition.What’s wrong with it for you?
If there was a world wide web back then, can you imagine how the cover of the first Monster Manual would have been slagged?