D&D 5E D&D Next Art Column: June! And July!

[Hussar]

The gnoll looks good, but there is something about the face not quite right - it needs a more eeeevil grin on its face. Likewise, the hands look cartoony big (so what if hyenas have big paws? It doesn't look right on the gnoll).

And while I appreciate they are attempting to create an iconic image for their monsters, I wish they'd consider slipping more variety into the their overall appearance. Allow for different breeds with different builds, stances, colorations and the like.

I mean, how uniform is human appearance?

By and large, humans, besides maybe coloration, are pretty darn uniform. Hairy heads with a small range of colors, skin pigmentation, but, it's not like anyone has spots or stripes. Barring genetic abnormalities, ratios tend to be pretty static, within a fairly small variance.

I mean, there's a reason that clothing comes off the rack and fits most people.

I gotta admit, I liked the gnoll that was depicted. Works for me.

 

[Shemeska]

I really like the artwork, but I've kinda got a soft spot for deranged, depraved, yet intelligent gnolls (some of the ones in Katapesh and elsewhere in Pathfinder's Golarion setting). Even if much of a pack or tribe of gnolls is crazy and kinda dumb, I like there to be canny, deceptively intelligent ones as well (who also happen to be even bat*hit crazier).

 

[Yora]

Both with gnolls and orcs, I think they are going a bit too much in the "evil monster" direction and away from the "hostile humanoid people" one.

From the articles of the last week, they are more like demons than humanoids. Pure evil, and they should be killed on sight, because there is nothing good about them. Not really a fan of that.

I like gnolls in Baldur's Gate. With a more narrow build, but really tall.

 

[Hussar]

Ahh, I kinda like my baseline monsters to be monstrous. Makes for a nice heroic game. Changing that sort of thing is pretty simple anyway - just graft on a different bit of flavour and you're good to go. It's not like every different setting didn't have variant humanoids anyway.

 

[Stormonu]

By and large, humans, besides maybe coloration, are pretty darn uniform. Hairy heads with a small range of colors, skin pigmentation, but, it's not like anyone has spots or stripes. Barring genetic abnormalities, ratios tend to be pretty static, within a fairly small variance.

I mean, there's a reason that clothing comes off the rack and fits most people.

I gotta admit, I liked the gnoll that was depicted. Works for me.

Can't say I much agree with this (except I mostly like the gnoll). I don't think anyone might mistake a norseman for a chinaman (I'm talking beyond the clothing), and the same goes for other ethnicities. The differences don't have to be big, but humans don't all look like clones of Micheal J. Fox. I don't really like "this is THE image of orcs/gnolls/etc. we're going with" and they use the same exact model in every picture (as if it were an iconic, like Mialee).

That's mostly what I'm afraid of; the image they choose will be cloned into every future picture with no variation. I may be wholly mistaken about their intention, but I don't want them to clone the model for every future picture. Look, for example, how Pathfinder's goblin looks to be the same exact "model", with at best different clothing in every goblin picture. I don't want the art to become like that.

That's the sort of difference I'm asking for, mostly - at least with gnolls.

When you get to orcs (and other goblinoids), I'd love to see "no two look alike". Especially when you factor in how they've been so differently depicted over the life of D&D. Having them be a mutable species would be just like we have hundreds of breeds of dogs from terriers to great danes.

 

[Klaus]

Can't say I much agree with this (except I mostly like the gnoll). I don't think anyone might mistake a norseman for a chinaman (I'm talking beyond the clothing), and the same goes for other ethnicities. The differences don't have to be big, but humans don't all look like clones of Micheal J. Fox. I don't really like "this is THE image of orcs/gnolls/etc. we're going with" and they use the same exact model in every picture (as if it were an iconic, like Mialee).

That's mostly what I'm afraid of; the image they choose will be cloned into every future picture with no variation. I may be wholly mistaken about their intention, but I don't want them to clone the model for every future picture. Look, for example, how Pathfinder's goblin looks to be the same exact "model", with at best different clothing in every goblin picture. I don't want the art to become like that.

That's the sort of difference I'm asking for, mostly - at least with gnolls.

When you get to orcs (and other goblinoids), I'd love to see "no two look alike". Especially when you factor in how they've been so differently depicted over the life of D&D. Having them be a mutable species would be just like we have hundreds of breeds of dogs from terriers to great danes.

I expect that once an iconic look is settled upon, variations of it will be created by artists as they work on their individual pieces.

 

[Hussar]

Can't say I much agree with this (except I mostly like the gnoll). I don't think anyone might mistake a norseman for a chinaman (I'm talking beyond the clothing), and the same goes for other ethnicities. /snip

Meh, like I said, beyond skin pigmentation and hair color, very little distinguishes those two people. I mean, there were black haired norsemen weren't there? Give both of them a pretty healthy tan and there's not a huge difference there.

But, at the end of the day, I think I agree with Klaus. They'll have a sort of basic "template" for a monster and then everyone can put their individual stamp on them. It's not like they are creating iconics for classes - where the actual same individual is supposed to be in every picture. It's going to be more of a broad strokes kind of thing.

 

[Zaukrie]

In no recent version of the game has there been one version of any monster. I expect they will look consistent, not identical. I think you are worrying over nothing.