Nice Balrog!

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

However IMO they made the angels way to much elemental. Personaly I think this totally softens differentiation they talked about as the goal they wanted to achieve almost to the point the whole seperation between elemental chaos and astral sea becomes meaningless.

What's the point if angels are actually just archons with wings? They should really have used a different theme for angels

That's how I see it:

Archons are Elementals, made from the basic stuff of the Universe. (Fire & Ice Archons as example)
Angels are not-quite-Elementals, made from the higher concepts of the Universe (Valor & Vengeance Archons as example)

Both stand for the plane they hail from, and in way, this is a symmetry. But I think it is a lot more powerful as the symmetries and differences between Fire & Water Elementals, or Chaotic Evil Balors or Lawful Evil Pit Fiends.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I like it. Aside from the Efreeti, I've been much more impressed with the 4e art over the 3.5 art.

I'm with you on the Efreeti. The rest look great, but the Efreeti look like... a not quite ready for the big leagues comic book artist.

Fitz

 

[Mirtek]

That's how I see it:

Archons are Elementals, made from the basic stuff of the Universe. (Fire & Ice Archons as example)
Angels are not-quite-Elementals, made from the higher concepts of the Universe (Valor & Vengeance Archons as example)

However this doesn't change my concern.

I understand that they're supposed to be something very different, howere what they actually are is something very similar.

I don't think it was a good move the represent the manifestation of higher concepts mechanically and visually so much like the basic stuff of the universe.

No matter what an is supposed to be, as a matter of fact he looks just like an archon with wings.

So if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, ....

 

[Xyl]

Do we know if Treants are in the new MM?

Probably yes. Some early info talked about a dryad who could teleport to a square next to any large tree or treant. It seems unlikely they'd use that ability unless the treant is in the first MM.

 

[doctorhook]

However this doesn't change my concern.

I understand that they're supposed to be something very different, howere what they actually are is something very similar.

I don't think it was a good move the represent the manifestation of higher concepts mechanically and visually so much like the basic stuff of the universe.

No matter what an is supposed to be, as a matter of fact he looks just like an archon with wings.

So if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, ....

I completely disagree, Mirtek. Just because 4E angels have no legs and happen to be transparent is far cry from them being the same as archons. And what of angels' energy-based attacks? Wizards can blast fire too, and nobody is calling them archons. (Despite that robes often hide wizards' legs, and they have the power to turn invisible. Hmm....)

You're right, there's slight physical similarity between angels and archons. However, I'm going to chalk this up to art direction and 4E "style".