Monster Manual 3 art gallery

Krug · Sep 5, 2004

Neato:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ag/20040903a

Gez · Sep 5, 2004

The art is rather good. And at least there's some faerie-like faeries (petals and glimmerkins) in D&D (Sprites are too big, they're as tall as Halflings).

The corpse collector is reminiscent of Dan Simmon's Shrike in Hyperion.

And I dislike their new format for art galleries, I preferred when all was in one single page. Took less overall time to load.

Ryltar · Sep 5, 2004

Can't say this makes me want to buy the book. Ah well, at least then I can get Frostburn.

Ashardalon · Sep 5, 2004

"Ouch!! I stepped on my own foot! That HURTS!!"

By the way, Rich Burlew has posted which monsters in the book are his.

Ankh-Morpork Guard · Sep 5, 2004

Great art! Though I do agree I liked it on one page instead of many...

Doug McCrae · Sep 5, 2004

Great art, better than MM1. Some of the concepts looked pretty pointless though. Do we really need more types of giants?

Robbert Raets · Sep 5, 2004

Doug McCrae said:
Do we really need more types of giants?

Well, not need.... But you'll run into them while exploring Xen'Drik, wouldn't you?

Tetsubo · Sep 5, 2004

Doug McCrae said:
Great art, better than MM1. Some of the concepts looked pretty pointless though. Do we really need more types of giants?

There have always been far too many races of humanoids in D&D. Both of the Giant variety and the human scaled ones. You can't swing a stick without hitting some new race...

DragonLancer · Sep 5, 2004

I found the artwork to be rather 50/50 at best, but thats just me.

It has definately refuelled my interest in MM3.

RogueRonin · Sep 5, 2004

I think the art is pretty good, it makes me eager to get my copy (should be here next week). I'm not to sure if i like Matt Cavotta's art for the Eberron races though... I think WotC should have gotten DMAC to do them.