So Much Art From the 2025 Monster Manual

Here's some preview art from the 2025 Monster Manual, courtesy of Wizards of the Coast's "Everything You Need to Know Video" on the new book.

A classic Faceless Stalker:

A demon of some kind:

Arch-Hags:

Some kobolds:

A Nalfeshnee, perhaps?

A revenant:

Blue dracolich:

Death Knight:

Death tyrant:

Chimera:

Githyanki (with the central warrior recreating a classic pose):

A mummy lord:

A marrow:

A balrog balor:

Mimics:

While I'm tempted to say a tressym, this actually might be a new sphinx design:

Bone fiend:

Sladd:

Rust monster:

Platinum(?) dragon:

Bronze dragon:

Hezrou, perhaps?

Fire giant, not Karlach:

Cloud giants:

Zombies:

Red dragon:

Hags (including a male hag):

Dryads (including a male dryad):

Horned devil:

Incubus and succubus:

Vampires:

Vampire:

Colossus:

Spirit naga:

Copper dragon:

White dragon:

Blue dragon:

Gold dragon:

Black dragon:

 

[MNblockhead]

I like this split between Incubi and Succubi better then past attempts, where Succubi were the sexy seductionists and Incubi aka Rapubi were brutal sadistic, violent rape demons (not kidding that was the lore for Incubi in I think 3.5e and I think Maybe a previous edition of Pathfinder) and soldiers in Demon Lord armies. They didn't even change forms or want to. To make matters worse the Rapubi as I call them, the lore was that Incubi were the embodiments of male sexuality, very sexist. This appeared in Dragon Magazine.

Dream sex demons is a huge improvement of demonic rapists IMHO. Major Step up. I mean who ever wanted to use 3.5e Incubi at their table?

Yes, it may grow on me. I'll have to read the fluff and crunch for these entries when the MM is released. I admit it only bothers me because that is how I got used to understanding them based on 1e and 5e. I mean, the gorgon and medusa entries have never bothered me, because I was introduced to them as a kid, without any understanding of the real-life mythology they were drawn from and it just became a "D&D thing" once I was old enough to know more of the real-life history.

Incubi were rape demons in medieval mythology, but I agree with you. No need to stay true to the real-life mythology in an all-ages game. Those who know, and want to run these creatures in a way that is more true to their real-world inspirations can transport the lore or just use the 2014 5e versions. I've always run them as seducers. Having an incubus rape a sleeping female PC is not something I've ever wanted to or want to run. Even skirting around that idea with NPCs is well beyond what I want in my games, veils or not.

Even with the various classic D&D and third-party creatures that have powers of seduction is something to be careful with. You have to know your players. I've used them in my games with my current group, but a failed wisdom wisdom save never leads to non-consensual sex. With most, it just means that the PC is charmed and is manipulated into moving into danger, whether that be moving closer to where the creature can attack, walk off a cliff, drown in river, etc. Draining kiss for the incubus and succubus can be more problematic and for players not comfortable with that I would just re-flavor so some draining, touch attack without getting into details or just forgo using the incubus/succubus.

 

[Sacrosanct]

For starters, I think a big part of it is just a kind of cognitive dissonance. I'm so used to WotC's previous dragon designs that even slight tweaks feel "wrong" somehow. If they had completely redesigned all the dragons, I might not feel that way. But because they are all familiar enough but with relatively minor differences, I think that's what irks me the most.

That’s me. I stopped like dragons in 3e and beyond probably for this very reason. I liked the sleek 1e versions (the green was pudgy, but I liked that as well). I want to say the design towards muscle bound versions turned me off, but I think you may have a point

 

[MNblockhead]

There definitely is almost like a vibe with the Bakshi 'Lord of the Rings'... which I absolutely love lol.

Lord Soth is also very specifically set in the Dragonlance setting IIRC, so I think having a more agnostic Death Knight works out. And it's some sick art to boot. I like the sense of the artist's unique individual styles in a lot of these monsters.

Wasn't a fan on first look, but after looking at a larger version that another poster posted above, I changed my mind. I just hope it comes across as well in print as it does as a good-resolution, zoomed in digital image.

 

[MNblockhead]

I dig the armor on this guy and his followers. It's very atmospheric.

I'll probably get some heat for this, but the more I look at it, the more I prefer it over the lord Soth art. Something about Lord Soth's help with the glowing red eyes in the 5e art always looked a bit goofy to me. My only concern is that when you rely on various dark shades the detail can be lost in smaller print images. Kinda like watching certain movies on a smaller screen with the lights on. Looks terrible, but get a large screen and turn the lights off and it works. That said, it varies greatly by person. My wife can't stand movies that take place in darkness for much of the film. First she's a lights-on person when watching at home. I found a compromise by buying led torch lights that can be tilted and create ambient lighting by being directed toward the top end of a wall, and finding the right amount of dimness that would make her comfortable, while not being annoying and distracting to me. Second, she's has issues with her sight and really has trouble making out whats going on in dark scenes. I suspect it is the same with many people for paintings, illustrations, and photos.

 

[pukunui]

Thank you for taking the time to clarify!

No worries. In addition to the jarring "familiar but different" thing, I also just don't like the aesthetics of the new designs. It's purely subjective, I won't argue that point. Things I don't like in no particular order:

*White faces on black dragons
*The green dragon's cobra head
*All the underbites
*All the extra spiky bits
*The white dragon looking more like a snow lion than a dragon
*The copper dragon's ridiculously long, thin neck
*The bronze dragon's butterfly patterned wings
*All the ankylosaurus / stegosaurus tails
*How some dragons have been made chonkier while others seem overly stretched out

I also feel like the WotC designers still can't quite figure out the blue dragon's niche. It seems like they're steering it more towards being a "storm" dragon rather than a "desert" dragon. The older design never really made sense for its environment (shouldn't the underside of the wings be blue and the tops be sandy colored instead of the other way around?). I think it makes more sense as a "storm" dragon, but then you're left without a chromatic dragon dwelling in arid environments.

I'd also like to add that I've not been a big fan of D&D's color coding of dragons for some time. I'd much prefer more environmental / habitat-themed dragons. Perhaps reds could be fire dragons or volcano dragons. Blues could be storm or tempest dragons. Blacks could be swamp dragons. Or you could have ravagers, longhorns, ridgebacks, spiketails, etc. Think more like Dragon Age or Harry Potter.

 

[MNblockhead]

Wait. What?

I’ve seen a lot of gripes about [emoji640]e but the art? Seriously? [emoji640]e was freaking gorgeous.

Got a decoder ring for that?

Sorry, I know this is an issue that you and some others have been having with the forum. I just couldn't resist the jab. I know there is a discussion in the meta thread, so I we don't need to derail this one. I just hope a root cause and solution are found because it is making discussion for some very difficult.

 

[MNblockhead]

dude, like totally...

I mean, I DO love the art in DCC books, but the aesthetic is not for everyone. D&D tries to hit a wide audience.

 

[MNblockhead]

Sorry to disagree but this is an AWESOME kobold! Unlike the MM24 ones above it exudes both aggresiveness and small size, which are the two essential kobold traits.

Pathfinder Art has never worked for me. I especially dislike their take on goblins. Lots of folks love it though, so what do I know.

 

[MNblockhead]

View attachment 391663
I like how the bearded devil's art shows how nasty/dangerous the beard is. It looks painful to touch, as it should!

Zoomed in like that make it look like a painted plastic mini. While I overall like the art I've seen, something about many of the pieces just don't have a sense of vitality. I don't have the education, training, or talent to have the vocabulary to better explain what I mean. It may also be because I've been immersed in Warhammer Fantasy for the last year and really dig and have gotten used to that art style (well, except for the demons; WF demons just look silly more than scary).

 

[MNblockhead]

PF is just trying too hard to differentiate itself from D&D at this point.

More like not hard enough in my opinion.