Field Folio art gallery

[Oni]

Joshua,

Uhm..which monsters?..I didn't see any of their works in that FF art gallery.

There are no Lockwood pieces but Sam Wood did these:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ff_gallery/50178.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ff_gallery/50179.jpg (man that is one evil looking dragon)
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ff_gallery/50180.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ff_gallery/50181.jpg (his best contribution in my opinion)
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ff_gallery/50182.jpg (an artist so good he doesn't even have to finish his pieces to get them published )

 

[Olive]

It's a shame really, I would have liked to see him do the rendition of the Fiend of Blasphemy, since it was so awesome on the cover of Tome and Blood.

indeed it was, but what on earth IS that fiend?

 

[Pants]

indeed it was, but what on earth IS that fiend?

A balor?

 

[Andrew D. Gable]

Sasso's Swordwraith is REALLY neat looking.

Oh yeah. IMO, Sasso's one of the better artists WOTC's got.

 

[Desdichado]

Regardless of what the gallery says, Lockwood is indeed credited in the actual book. At the very least, I know the steel predator is a Lockwood piece.

But I was referring more to Sam Wood -- he has at least a dozen pieces in the book. Oni's post above is only half of what Wood actually put in the book.

 

[Furtive Noise]

I like most of these monsters, a lot better than some of the stuff out there. However, most look like aliens more than devils and hellbeasts which I thought is what this book was all about. I'm not totally against this look and don't even have older editions to compare them too, but am I the only when that likes a more gothic and tortured 'hellish' look (for lack of a better word)? I suppose a lot of descriptions of classic D&D fiends are pretty far out there though. Just a passing thought.

 

[Thomasson]

I'm not a fan of Denis Cramer, or Tom Baxa, although Baxa's work on this book is better than it is on many others.

And that one devil with the weird p-name -- is it just me, or is that supposed to be Mimi from the Drew Carey show?

Although the description in the book certainly matches that exactly...

I have to admit, when I designed the Paeliryon, that's pretty much exactly what I had in mind. Wayne Reynolds is so freakin' cool. Of course, that's why we commissioned him for an upcoming, important cover of Dungeon.

As for the ocularon, one of the favorite monsters from my batch has been forever tainted. Curses! I'm actually quite pleased with that art, as well. It's just too bad we couldn't see it in action, ripping some poor adventurer's eyes out.

Come to think of it, I'm pretty pleased with nearly all the art for my monsters.

 

[hammymchamham]

Please note this post is all in jest

OK, I WAS going to buy this Fiend Folio, I was all excited, until I see this creature http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ff_gallery/50115.jpg

Whats its name, Bhut. BHUT? One of my friends had a Half-Orc named that. Where has the originality of this Game gone? To hell, and with this newest book, it seems quite literally. At least Sages of the Beach could come up with an original name.

Oh, and of course, I will buy this

 

[Kobold Avenger]

This is the definition from the Encyclopedia Mythica....

Bhutas

The Buthas (singular; Bhut) are a group of evil spirits in Hindu myth.


It also should be noted that Bhut was a variation of ghosts mentioned in the OA web enhancement as well...

 

[Kobold Avenger]

As for the art, I have to say that while many of the pieces were good, the pictures they have of the Rilmani has got to be some of the worse in the book.

What were they thinking when they used that? They should have just used Tony DiTerlizzi's earlier depictions if they were going to use something that bad.

Other than complaints...

The Kaortis look genuinely spooky. The Yuan-Ti Anathema is probably one of my favourite images from the book. And it's good to see many of Baxa's odd designs again.