Daily Art Preview

[AllisterH]

Let's hope we'll see a "normal" worg somewhere in the MM

Reposted from the WOTC boards....

Originally Posted by WotC_Logan
Before Lurkalot loses money betting on worgs, I'll confirm that the picture is a guulvorg (a Huge variant of the worg), and that the worg looks different from that.

 

[Protagonist]

Reposted from the WOTC boards....

thank dog!

 

[Inyssius]

Hell chess!

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Logan better tell his co-workers they got the image labeled wrong.

 

[Drkfathr1]

That's a relief. I was starting to worry that too many classic monsters were going to suffer from the "extreme makeover" syndrome.

 

[Logan_Bonner]

It's not wrong. It is a worg, just a specific type of worg that looks different.

 

[Sammael]

It's not wrong. It is a worg, just a specific type of worg that looks different.

Does this mean that the regular worg is in the Monster Manual as well?

EDIT: Never mind, I hadn't seen the repost from WotC boards when I posted that.

 

[doctorhook]

It's not wrong. It is a worg, just a specific type of worg that looks different.

Hmm... this is an interesting idea, if not new, that I think I've only just now wrapped my head around -- and I like it!

Take a basic monster concept, boil it down to its core identity, then rebuild it in two or three or four (or more?) variations on that core monster identity and theme. This has a lot of potential, particularly given 4E's explicit combat roles, which will help further legitimize variant monster concepts.

I just hope variants don't get too predictable; for example, having both a Huge displacer beast packlord and (for argument's sake) a Huge worg "packlord" is one thing, but then a winter wolf packlord, shadowcat packlord, blink dog packlord, and a shambling mound packlord is a different situation. I don't expect WotC will make such obvious variants, but it is a potential pitfall I hope they'll avoid. After all, as I said above, there's a lot of cool potential to variant monster'ing!

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I was replying to this bit:

... which, to be perfectly frank, is a "dreadful picture with plastic rendering, garish colours and bad posing":

[sblock]

[/sblock]

its as cool as any other custom lens flair ;p. I agree though, its too stiff. Also on a layout note, Why would you ever put an image in the center of the binding like that?

 

[Digital M@]

I was replying to this bit:



... which, to be perfectly frank, is a "dreadful picture with plastic rendering, garish colours and bad posing":

[sblock]

[/sblock]

The positioning is poor, but I hate the overly bulky armor, it looks completely restrictive and is more fit to be part of a construct than a humanoid's armor.