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:

 

[Horwath]

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

I am.

I can still find it funny.

As many horror scenes in movies are.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

It's not very clear as to the meaning. Cartoons range from stick people to photorealistic.

 

[Bae'zel]

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. Mine is different and of course equally as valid!

I like the non-conventional wings because, to me, they're almost a mid-way point between "Western" and "Eastern" dragons. Especially imagining how they move in a "wave-like" way.

Personally, I'm quite annoyed with the whole discourse around how dragons should "REALLY" look, as if Victorian re-imaginings of medieval heraldry defines all mythical creatures. The same people who get up in arms about the dragons in a Game of Thrones, The Hobbit and Harry Potter ("those aren't dragons, they're wyverns!!").

Anytime mythical creatures get too specific, too predictable and too "scientific" my brain rebels. Bring on Asian dragons, Babylonian dragons, wyrms, drakes, cat-faced furry Smaug like in Rankin-Bass's the Hobbit cartoon.

To hell with overly predictable, pedantic definitions. But if it makes you happier to define all "TRVE" dragons as: "two legs, two arms, two giant bat wings, long neck, Carnosaur face" and nothing else ever, then all the power to you, it just seems limiting and unimaginative to me.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

With monster art there is also the distinction between "Do I think the art looks good?" and "Do I want things to look like this in my setting?" To me for most of this art the answers are "yes" and "no" in that order, and that's perfectly fine. I don't expect someone else to produce exactly what I am imagining (unless I pay them to!)

 

[Bae'zel]

With monster art there is also the distinction between "Do I think the art looks good?" and "Do I want things to look like this in my setting?" To me for most of this art the answers are "yes" and "no" in that order, and that's perfectly fine. I don't expect someone else to produce exactly what I am imagining (unless I pay them to!)

Most of the time, the same holds true for me. I always re-imagine monsters to suit my own style.

Personally, I'd love a Monster Manual drawn entirely by Mike Mignola, Moebius, Johan Egerkrans, Brom and Tony DiTerlizzi).

 

[Reynard]

Personally, I'd love a Monster Manual drawn entirely by Mike Mignola,

I would pay a stupid amount of money for this alone.

 

[Chaltab]

With monster art there is also the distinction between "Do I think the art looks good?" and "Do I want things to look like this in my setting?" To me for most of this art the answers are "yes" and "no" in that order, and that's perfectly fine. I don't expect someone else to produce exactly what I am imagining (unless I pay them to!

While I agree on this point, I do find some criticisms perplexing.

It's the difference between saying "I didn't like Finding Nemo," and "I didn't like Finding Nemo because it was too gory."

 

[Paul Farquhar]

While I agree on this point, I do find some criticisms perplexing.

It's the difference between saying "I didn't like Finding Nemo," and "I didn't like Finding Nemo because it was too gory."

A lot of the reasons people don't like certain art are subconscious. Which makes it very difficult to explain.

 

[Demetrios1453]

While I agree on this point, I do find some criticisms perplexing.

It's the difference between saying "I didn't like Finding Nemo," and "I didn't like Finding Nemo because it was too gory."

As opposed to those who didn't like Finding Nemo because it was too Dory.

 

[mamba]

As opposed to those who didn't like Finding Nemo because it was too Dory.

those will really hate the sequel...