D&D 5E New Monster Manual Cover

From IGN, the cover of the 2025 Monster Manual!

@Morrus

 

[MNblockhead]

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.

If someone watches Fury Road or Army of Darkness and responds, "too much over-the-top action," how does one respond? The filmmakers were going for that. To each their own and move on, I suppose...on to the next thing to criticize.

I often like to read some of the one sentence criticisms of people on these boards and apply them to the (nearly) universally-revered covers of old, such as the first AD&D book covers. If there was a world wide web back then, can you imagine how the cover of the first Monster Manual would have been slagged?

I think part of how one reacts is based on how you see the game. Is each monster a set piece in a more horror/suspense style of play, or are you hacking through one monster after another.

I think D&D has always leaned more into the later. At least since AD&D. I mean, look at the AD&D MM cover. Even from the beginning, you just had monsters, often randomly, populating dungeons and adventurers fighting from one monster to another with the monsters getting progressively tougher the lower down in the dungeon you went.

But sensibilities have changed and trends have come and gone and the expected D&D experience differs from generation to generation and table to table.

 

[MNblockhead]

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.

It has been said before, both in this and other threads about the new art, but I think a lot of us are just not used to looking at this style of painted art. I kinda like the the deviation from crisp computer generated art or ultra realistic painting.

 

[MNblockhead]

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.

I kinda like with the characters facing away from the monsters we see. Give the sense of a wider scene than what we are seeing with the way we as the audience of facing. Something even crazier is off screen and it is up to our imagination on what that might be.*


* Its dragons. ;-)

 

[R_J_K75]

which is about the only reason I buy physical TTRPG books as most of them are just not laid out very well to use in game. I do find it weird to make a decision about buying books for a game you are already familiar with just by the cover.

My feelings on 5E are that the PHB and DMG are so poorly laid out that for me it significantly reduces the enjoyment of the game both during prep and game play. I think it's been over two years since I've played it. As I've already stopped playing it, I don't really have a desire to begin playing it again, and after seeing these covers, I just decided that I most likely won't invest in this edition revision. Is my reaction/decision a little rash, perhaps, but I think it's got more to do with me not really liking 5E and my opinion on the quality covers made me remember that. If I find myself in a game store and I look at them I may buy them. Like you said if they are easily read, understood and laid out might make all the difference, covers aside.

 

[mamba]

Looks good to me!

I mean it's ok, but to me it is certainly not better than the 2024MM

 

[mamba]

So folks, which do you like better the beholder on the 2014 MM or the beholder on this one?

this one

The best beholder art remains:

I guess we disagree

 

[Reynard]

I find it interesting how uncontroversial it seems to be to call the art "horrible" "bad" and worse, relative to how quickly folks come to designers and writers defense when folks criticise the actual content of the books/adventures.

 

[Parmandur]

I find it interesting how uncontroversial it seems to be to call the art "horrible" "bad" and worse, relative to how quickly folks come to designers and writers defense when folks criticise the actual content of the books/adventures.

I mean, the art on these covers is obviously great, but there isn't much to argue about. De gustibus non disputantem. If someone doesn't like cool fantasy art, then they don't like cool fantasy art.

Whereas with the book content, there is more meat to kvetch about.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

This stuff is 100% opinion.

Do you like Coke or Pepsi?

I really am happy with the new art! I did not like the alternate cover for the MM. most people preferred it!

I say take it all with a grain of salt and join up with others who are excited. It’s fun to share that kind of positive emotion!

It’s a drag to hear nonstop complaints, of course. But people have to be able to say they do or don’t like something or it’s a weird echo chamber…

Maybe don’t just jump in art threads for 10 years crapping on it while pining for something else. Go LOOK at something more pleasing at that point…

 

[MNblockhead]

I find it interesting how uncontroversial it seems to be to call the art "horrible" "bad" and worse, relative to how quickly folks come to designers and writers defense when folks criticise the actual content of the books/adventures.

I find the same social dynamics over the actual content and even specific content. You can't talk about anything D&D with a certain number of people taking drive-by shots.