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:

 

[Upper_Krust]

yes, but that doesn't have anything to do with legendary actions (neither the balor or the pit fiend have them), it is just poor monster design. My comment was in response to you asking about legendary actions. I fight between a pit fiend and a balor has nothing to do with that - thus I was confused.

Apologies for the confusion amigo.

I guess my point was, the Balor is pretty weak (for its CR) and thus Legendary Actions might be something they look towards to bolster it, but I agree not all monsters need LA and simply upping damage and in this case damage type, might be the best approach.

That said, I think 'Boss' monsters DO benefit from Legendary Actions/Reactions and without them the Balor (and others like it) don't fill that monstrous role as well as they could.

 

[MGibster]

Dragons are so ubiquitous in fantasy that I've never gotten attached to one particular image from any source and that includes D&D. They're about as generic as zombies and skeletons to me. That said, I do like the art overall even if I don't care for some interpretations. I'm fine with the succubus given that they're shape changers. They probably don't look like that if they're trying to seduce a dwarf unless he's into stargazing or something.

 

[dave2008]

I'm fine with the succubus given that they're shape changers. They probably don't look like that if they're trying to seduce a dwarf unless he's into stargazing or something.

FYI, the thought is that the art was the incubus, which per the stat block preview invades dreams. So not a physical attraction tempter.

 

[Weiley31]

There were at least two female pharoahs I can think of.

Also man sometimes I forget that 1E art often just had monsters with their boobs out.

A lotta women I've talked to before in the past all seem to agree on one thing: Bras kinda suck.

 

[Belen]

That is the thing - what new style are you talking about. There are many different styles represented in the MM art previews. Which ones do you not like?

From Platos Republic and Horace's Ars Poetica; to Tertullian, Augustine of Hippo, and Christine de Pizan; to Leonardo da Vinci and John Calvin; and many others, on through the industrial revolution and into today; history is full of people complaining about others' "tweeny" tastes. If the Monster Manual was illustrated completely in an anime or Chibi-inspired style, I would not like it, but I find it hard to argue that my preference is more mature.

Last time I used cartoony, I got an epic rant on ENWorld about using that term.

It is difficult to find terms to describe not liking the art without getting folks who love it on this site dogpiling you for a preference.

 

[Horwath]

Last time I used cartoony, I got an epic rant on ENWorld about using that term.

It is difficult to find terms to describe not liking the art without getting folks who love it on this site dogpiling you for a preference.

why not use it?

It's just criticism of your criticism.

you have right to yours and they have right to theirs.

and no one is correct for anyone except themselves.

 

[dave2008]

nearly all:
the style is just too colorful and not sharp enough with detail.

Odd, these don't strike me as very colorful. Most of these only have a few colors and muted tones. sharp detail is a preference. I prefer a balance between sharp detail (which tends to look fake and plastic to me) and painterly. To much either way can be a problem for me.

demon on the 2nd picture would be good if it were more dark and sharper detail and not like I'm watching art after 7 beers.

Bone devils are white, hard to make it darker (It is already much darker than previous bone devil art). Your preference I guess. I like things a bit more realisticly colored than everything drab and dark. Maybe for a horror setting that works, but standard fantasy / D&D, not for me.

we can make very precise art now it does not need to imitate brush movements.
I like pencil sharpness.

We can, but again it looks fake to me - the "uncanny valley" issue. A painterly approach captures the dynamism of life better IMO. Pencils work isn't necessarily sharp BTW (particularly not close up).

and the surprised undead? that is hilarious.
OMG! An adventurer here?
In those heels?
How dare you?!

That is an odd interpretation of that zombie. It is not surprised, it is a zombie with lidless, clouded, dead, soulless eyes. It is classic horror look, since about at least 1925:

 

[Horwath]

That is an odd interpretation of that zombie. It is not surprised, it is a zombie with lidless, cloudy, dead, soulless eyes. It is classic horror look, since about at least 1925:
View attachment 391832

maybe,

but this also looks like: what the hell is that?!

hehe

 

[dave2008]

Last time I used cartoony, I got an epic rant on ENWorld about using that term.

It is difficult to find terms to describe not liking the art without getting folks who love it on this site dogpiling you for a preference.

That is not unique to EnWorld. It is typical of the internet and frankly human psychology in general.

 

[dave2008]

maybe,

but this also looks like: what the hell is that?!

hehe

Sure, maybe if you are not aware of 100 years of visual horror media.