D&D 4E Manticores will have beards again in 4E

[helium3]

Nope. I'm a bigger fan of the 3.X version of the manticore. It looks like a bad$&# monster you wouldn't wanna mess with.

The other one looks like something Napoleon Dynamite would draw. Something that's bred for its skills in magic.

 

[Thaniel]

Nope. I'm a bigger fan of the 3.X version of the manticore. It looks like a bad$&# monster you wouldn't wanna mess with.

The other one looks like something Napoleon Dynamite would draw. Something that's bred for its skills in magic.

I agree. The 3e edition looks more realistic to me. The old description of 'the face of a bearded man' is a simplistic depiction of what the 3e creature looks like. i.e. the description you would give to someone who had never seen one (as said by an earlier poster). If someone gave me such a description and then I saw something like the 2nd image in frank's post... I think I'd just die of laughter. I wouldn't assume that it would actually be an old man's face. The 3e one is much better.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I find it more monstrous for a beast to have a recognizable human face. It's more unsettling, in my opinion.

 

[gothmaugCC]

First off, are we sure thats a picture from 4th edition, and not just some various file footage they had in the archives? I'd be willing to bet its simply one of the dozens of manticore pictures WoTC employees probably have access to in thier archive.

I agree. The 3e edition looks more realistic to me. The old description of 'the face of a bearded man' is a simplistic depiction of what the 3e creature looks like. i.e. the description you would give to someone who had never seen one (as said by an earlier poster). If someone gave me such a description and then I saw something like the 2nd image in frank's post... I think I'd just die of laughter. I wouldn't assume that it would actually be an old man's face. The 3e one is much better.

Unless your a fan of Greek Mythology type fantasy. In which case half your monsters ARE beasts with human attributes attached, or Vise versa. Personally I like wierd looking monsters with more of a strange supernatural aspect to them. The human face on the manticore to me always denoted a sinister intelligence. The current 3.0 picture just makes me feel like im fighting an oversized canary. No real strange or supernatural factor there.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Unless your a fan of Greek Mythology type fantasy. In which case half your monsters ARE beasts with human attributes attached, or Vise versa. Personally I like wierd looking monsters with more of a strange supernatural aspect to them. The human face on the manticore to me always denoted a sinister intelligence. The current 3.0 picture just makes me feel like im fighting an oversized canary. No real strange or supernatural factor there.

Yep. There are already plenty of monsters that are "realistic-looking" (whatever that actually means in fantasy), and/or have no humanoid features.

The creatures that are actually described with human features in myth and folklore should keep those features, IMO.

 

[The_Universe]

I definitely prefer the 3e version of the manticore to the sketch included in the article. This is not to say that I am specifically opposed to a "bearded" manticore, but, as an earlier poster noted, that thing looks like the bastard love child of Dracula and Napolean Dynamite's infamous Liger. Yuck!

 

[WhatGravitas]

I prefer the 3E version as well. It fits the "bearded" description very well. Assume a scared townsfolk sees one and escapes successfully. He would, probably, describe that as a man-like face with a strange beard.

I mean... you know Dürer's picture of a rhinoceros?

That's not a real one, but the result of such a description - armoured... like the bearded.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I prefer the 3E version as well. It fits the "bearded" description very well. Assume a scared townsfolk sees one and escapes successfully. He would, probably, describe that as a man-like face with a strange beard.

I mean... you know Dürer's picture of a rhinoceros?

Oh, I agree that it's entirely reasonable. And for a "more realistic" setting, I'd have no problem with it.

But again, D&D is a game that includes elements from all corners of mythology and folklore, as well as more modern fantasy. I see no reason for that not to include centaurs, satyrs, and other "part man" creatures--including the manticore.

 

[RPG_Tweaker]

Nope. I'm a bigger fan of the 3.X version of the manticore. It looks like a bad$&# monster you wouldn't wanna mess with.

The other one looks like something Napoleon Dynamite would draw. Something that's bred for its skills in magic.

Heh.. QFT

I definitely like the quality of the 3e manticore artwork, but I'd prefer a more traditional mythological appearance.

My nostalgic side is really partial to Trampier's version in the basic D&D book, or the Michael Whelan cover on Piers Anthony's A Spell for Chameleon.

However, I really like the creepy twisted face of this one, though it'd need some wings.

 

[Delta]

Admittedly, the 3E manticore art design was ill-considered.

And I want my D&D rhinoceros to actually look like that above. ^