MM3 recycled art

[ExploderWizard]

On the other hand, the one thing that I think 4e monster stat blocks really need is a short description. There are lots of monsters with no pic and no description.

QFT. Then again if these buggers are being designed as bags of stats with a 5 minute life expectancy why should we expect them to waste the time and ink.

 

[Crazy_Dragon]

if they recycle the good stuff I don't care

 

[Argyle King]

MM3 isn't the first book to recycle art.

Arcane Power used a few 3rd Edition pictures.

 

[ourchair]

Johnny3D3D speaks the truth. The Eberron books also recycled some of the art from 3.5, and Dragon/Dungeon art gets re-used in the other books all the time.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I have nothing aginst recycled art. Art is a pretty low priority for me, anyway.

 

[doctorhook]

I don't mind recycled art, as long as it's art that I like. However, I do hate it when there's no clear pictures (or adequate descriptions) of monsters -- I still have no idea what a 4E mithral dragon is supposed to look like, even after reading Draconomicon: Metallic Dragons.

As long as WotC doesn't recycle anything by Dennis Cramer/Crabapple/McClain (I think they were the only three names he used) I'll be happy. I have yet find a single person who liked his stuff.

Can you post a link to some of his work? My google-fu is weak.

I never liked art by that "Fisch" guy, from early 3E. The only passable piece from him was the ogre he drew for the Monster Manual, and only because that look caught on.

I'm also no fan of Wayne England's art. Some of his stuff rocks, but he absolutely sucks at faces. It's like he can't draw them from any perspective other than looking perfectly straight ahead, or in side profile; as a result of his faces' lack of dynamism, he is unable to draw attractive faces, even on monsters who are supposed to be ugly -- they're always way too symmetrical.

Johnny3D3D speaks the truth. The Eberron books also recycled some of the art from 3.5, and Dragon/Dungeon art gets re-used in the other books all the time.

Don't forget Monster Manuals 1 and 2. Check out drow and vampires in #1, and the dimensional marauder in #2 -- these are the same pictures used in 3.5E's Monster Manual.

 

[Jhaelen]

However, I do hate it when there's no clear pictures (or adequate descriptions) of monsters

I agree. There's been several creatures that don't include any information about how they look. Sometimes a few hints are hidden in the monster knowledge section and sometimes you can derive something from looking at their powers, but often you're really forced to guess - which is bad.

I would have hoped MM3 would be an improvement in that regard. I like having a written description, even if it's a short one.

 

[doctorhook]

I agree. There's been several creatures that don't include any information about how they look. Sometimes a few hints are hidden in the monster knowledge section and sometimes you can derive something from looking at their powers, but often you're really forced to guess - which is bad.

I would have hoped MM3 would be an improvement in that regard. I like having a written description, even if it's a short one.

I think that recent books have actually been a step backwards in this regard; at least in Monster Manual 1, there was a picture of pretty much nearly every monster.

 

[keterys]

I still have no idea what a 4E mithral dragon is supposed to look like, even after reading Draconomicon: Metallic Dragons.

Couple usable pics in their ecology article - also more description, more knowledge checks, etc.

 

[Scribble]

I think that recent books have actually been a step backwards in this regard; at least in Monster Manual 1, there was a picture of pretty much nearly every monster.

Seems they amped up the amount of flavor in the newer MMs, and I think the new stat block takes more room, so something's gotta give I guess.