Monster Manual II Art Gallery!

[Furn_Darkside]

The link to the Yakmen picture:

Yay!

Neogi! Yay! (Though the picture is horrible- did it swallow a peacock?)

Man, and I was not planning to buy this book- oh well, back to the poor house.

FD

 

[Zarrock God of Evil]

The # 122 unearthed by Johno is likely to be the Twig Blight.

From the positioning of the Doppleganger in the alphabet, I'm willing to bet that it is called Elder Doppleganger.

It's certainly not the Greater Doppleganger as it was already covered in Monsters of Faerûn. I don't think it's an Elder Doppleganger - it would be indexed as Doppleganger, Elder ...

-Zarrock

 

[Desdichado]

I can barely stand even 10% Wayne Reynolds. The other stuff is pretty good, though.

WAR doing monster artwork is one of the best things WotC has going for them. Although not having Lockwood do the dragons looks like a big mistake, IMO. And Sam Wood is my favorite illustrator in this industry, and he seems to have contributed very little (if anything.)

 

[Desdichado]

The contents of this book looks a lot more "AD&D" than the original MM (which felt just plain "wrong" to me with monsters such as chuul, ravid, krenshar, digester, ethereal filcher, delver, choker, athach, rast, destrachan, howler, gray render, yrthak, tojanida....mmmm, I think the cthulhu/planescape aesthetic bias of the core designers was showing through there to the detriment of the game's classic D&D feel). Between this and the ToH, 3E is finally catching up with it's predecessors in the monster stakes in book form.

Ahhh....

Planescape and Cthulhu are the same asesthetic?!

I've never thought that before.

Although now that I think about it, I think both aesthetics are certainly stronger than before. Unlike you, though, I think that's a good thing. Some of those monsters you rattled off are among my favorites

 

[Frosty]

-All monsters aren't accounted for, eh? So there is still hope for the catoblepas! *crosses fingers*

 

[Furn_Darkside]

-All monsters aren't accounted for, eh? So there is still hope for the catoblepas! *crosses fingers*

Wasn' t that in the newest issue of Dragon?

I kind of flipped by it- so perhaps it was some other goofy looking creature.

FD

 

[Eridanis]

I saw the art for the catoblepas at GenCon. It's in MM2.

 

[Hakkenshi]

How could WotC get someone else to do the Dragons???
Arrrgh...and here I was expecting Todd Lockwood. Sam Wood would have been a more-than-acceptable substitute, but who did THOSE unimpressive gem dragons?

And is there any DiTerlizzi art in there? I didn't notice any, but then I looked very quickly...

 

[Desdichado]

How could WotC get someone else to do the Dragons???
Arrrgh...and here I was expecting Todd Lockwood. Sam Wood would have been a more-than-acceptable substitute, but who did THOSE unimpressive gem dragons?

Normally I'd say yes to anything by Sam Wood, as he's my favorite artist in the biz, but I have to admit, Lockwood's dragons are absolutely untouchable. Wood's brown and fang dragons were a bit disappointing. Especially after flipping the page and seeing Lockwood's shadow dragon! The gem dragons are completely sub-par relative to Lockwood. Or Wood, even, for that matter.

And is there any DiTerlizzi art in there? I didn't notice any, but then I looked very quickly...

I saw one. I haven't liked anything he's done for 3e yet, though. And only about half (if that) of what he did for 2e, for that matter.

 

[Wolfen Priest]

Anyone else think the art quality is not as consistent in this book? Some of the stuff is phenomenal and other stuff sux.

Hope I am not the only one...

I agree completely. The art is definitely below the level of MM1. They probably figured people will buy it no matter what. Well guess what? As far as the art, goes, I'm not as impressed as I want to be.