Errr... This IS a painting of a manticore.Voss said:Hmm. Like the return to a more traditional manticore, but the art itself is a bit... dull. If I was interested in tracing each brush-stroke I might like it, but this just looks like a painting of a manticore.
Not exactly leaping out of the art and going 'Rarrr!'
That's not a valid complaint, since not all art needs to be photorealistic. The manticore does need a little more work detailing the face, but is done well enough (specially the wings and tail). In fact, other than the face and the right foreleg, the entire piece is very well rendered.Engilbrand said:He's talking about the actual art itself. It's obviously a painting of something, instead of being done so well that it actually looks like the thing. He's commenting on the art as the medium, not the manticore.
frankthedm said:I approve the new manticore.![]()
It's been fixed now:Aloïsius said:I can't see the manticore ! error 404 ! Is WotC link broken ? That's strange because the other picture works flawlessly...
Well... yeah. Because it's a critter that could be described as "It's like a lion, with a spiked tail, and wings, and a head kind of like a bearded man's." It looks like a real creature of its own, instead of just a mythological mash-up of human and animal parts. (For the same reason, I really like the 3e minotaur. The sphinx isn't bad, either.)AllisterH said:Heh, the first time I saw the 3E manticore my reaction was similar to how everyone reacted to the Guulvorg from Monday...
"THAT"S a manticore?!?!?...Er, ok...."
Lurks-no-More said:Well... yeah. Because it's a critter that could be described as "It's like a lion, with a spiked tail, and wings, and a head kind of like a bearded man's." It looks like a real creature of its own, instead of just a mythological mash-up of human and animal parts. (For the same reason, I really like the 3e minotaur. The sphinx isn't bad, either.)