Is there anything about the hezrou's lore or stats that says it must look like a frog? I see art, stats, and lore as all mutually reinforcing. The hezrou is not amphibious nor does it have any association with water, there is nothing distinctively frog-like about its behavior, and none of its mechanics indicate it would be a frog – it could just as easily be a skunk or an owl or a jackrabbit based design.But then is it really a Hezrou? Why not just use a different demon or make one up completely at that point. It doesn't seem like you are embracing the Hezrou, but instead designing it into something completely different.
I am looking deeply into its identity over the whole span of D&D. And I realized that a lot has been lost. The problem there is that those distinctive things which have been lost helped to somewhat buoy against the "generic frog monster" issue where you have a bunch of monsters competing for "frog monster" – hydroloths, banderhobs, bullywugs, froghemoths, grung.
I do agree it's important to honor a monster's origins/roots, but sometimes that also involves looking harder at what's not working, and then finding creative ways to adhere more closely to its origins/roots (or implied origins/roots) in order to make it more interesting at the game table.
Yes, totally, much more of a classic fiend look. Thank you for your feedback!No one in particular is jumping out at me, but I like parts of several. Also, just to be up-front: I hate giving demons masks (seems more of a devil thing to me) and I trend to more "traditional" demon designs.
With those caveats: I Iike the general design of D without the cyborg bits + the back and ears of B + the feet of C. Does that make sense.