So Much Art From the 2025 Monster Manual

Here's some preview art from the 2025 Monster Manual, courtesy of Wizards of the Coast's "Everything You Need to Know Video" on the new book.

A classic Faceless Stalker:

A demon of some kind:

Arch-Hags:

Some kobolds:

A Nalfeshnee, perhaps?

A revenant:

Blue dracolich:

Death Knight:

Death tyrant:

Chimera:

Githyanki (with the central warrior recreating a classic pose):

A mummy lord:

A marrow:

A balrog balor:

Mimics:

While I'm tempted to say a tressym, this actually might be a new sphinx design:

Bone fiend:

Sladd:

Rust monster:

Platinum(?) dragon:

Bronze dragon:

Hezrou, perhaps?

Fire giant, not Karlach:

Cloud giants:

Zombies:

Red dragon:

Hags (including a male hag):

Dryads (including a male dryad):

Horned devil:

Incubus and succubus:

Vampires:

Vampire:

Colossus:

Spirit naga:

Copper dragon:

White dragon:

Blue dragon:

Gold dragon:

Black dragon:

 

[mamba]

Some of the concept art also mentioned it.

with 'singed' in parenthesis, i.e. I do not believe this is due to their breath weapon

 

[pukunui]

with 'singed' in parenthesis, i.e. I do not believe this is due to their breath weapon

No, the feet wouldn't be singed by their breath weapons, but their snouts certainly might be.

 

[mamba]

No, the feet wouldn't be singed by their breath weapons, but their snouts certainly might be.

they could be, but given that the red one has dark parts all over while the black one only has a white face, I'd say the reason for the coloration of the red is not the breath weapon, even for the head

 

[pukunui]

they could be, but given that the red one has dark parts all over while the black one only has a white face, I'd say the reason for the coloration of the red is not the breath weapon, even for the head

I guess we'll have to wait and see if the MM says anything then!

 

[Hussar]

consider it an explanation / the reason for the poster, not something trying to convince you...

Which would be fine if it wasn't repeated over and over and over again. "I don't like it." There, simple, easy to understand and no one can possibly gainsay it.

But, as was pointed out above, the actual criticisms that get added to it don't actually clarify anything.

 

[MGibster]

I wonder if we can look forward to new WizKids D&D miniatures sculpted to resemble the 2025 Monster Manual?

 

[pukunui]

I wonder if we can look forward to new WizKids D&D miniatures sculpted to resemble the 2025 Monster Manual?

I'm sure. They've already got new red and black dragons:

PRE-ORDER - D&D Icons of the Realms: Adult Red Dragon Tyrant [2024]

PRE-ORDER NOTICE: This is a Pre-Order item and will NOT ship until the product release date. Pre-Order release dates always subject to change. If you include Pre-Order items in your order, the entire order will be held until all pre-orders become available. If you would like to receive each...

shop.wizkids.com

PRE-ORDER - D&D Icons of the Realms: Adult Black Dragon Corruptor [2024]

PRE-ORDER NOTICE: This is a Pre-Order item and will NOT ship until the product release date. Pre-Order release dates always subjected to change. If you would like to receive each pre-order item at its release, please make separate orders for each item. The Adult Black Dragon is among the most...

shop.wizkids.com

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The main problem being, people want to try to "justify" not liking something.

People are being pressed to give reasons.

Look at the criticisms here - "too colorful", "not sharp or defined enough" and so on and so forth. All attempts to "prove" that the art is bad.

Because "I don't know why I don't like it" is not accepted.

 

[MNblockhead]

You keep saying they were rape demons in medieval mythology... but I've always heard they were associated with dreams and sleep. Their name literally means "the one who lay on top" and they were one of the original sleep paralysis demons. Yes, they gained a sexual element over time, but their association with dreams has always been stronger in the original myths to my knowledge.

Not sure about the original myths. The Malleus Maleficarum (Malleus maleficarum : Kraemer, Heinrich, -1508 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive), published in 1487 and which had a great impact in how incubi were thought of, seduction is emphasized. It focuses on more willing acts; people "subjecting themselves to" inccubi and succubi, but recognizes instances of unwilling victims of incubi. Also, I forgot how much ink was spilled to explain how a child could be born of such a coupling. In short, a succubus collects the sperm from a man and hands it over to the incubus.

The book states "in times long past the Incubus devils used to infest women against their wills, as is often shown by Nider in his Formicarius , and by Thomas of Brabant in his book on the Universal Good, or on Bees", but goes on to claim that witches "do not now, as in times past, subject themselves unwillingly, but willingly embrace this most foul and miserable servitude." In proof of this, it cites the testimony recently burned witches. But it recognizes instances where incubi impose themselves on women against their will: "t may happen that men or women are by witchcraft entangled with Incubi or Succubi against their will. This chiefly happens in the case of certain virgins who are molested by Incubus devils wholly against their will ; and it would seem that such are bewitched by witches who, just as they very often cause other infirmities, cause devils to molest such virgins in the form of Incubi for the purpose of seducing them into joining their vile company." It goes on to give examples.

In the City of God (CE 426), St. Augustine seems to depict the interaction with incubi as non-consensual: "There is, too, a very general rumor, which many have verified by their own experience and trustworthy evidence of others, that sylvans and fauns, who are commonly called 'incubi,' had often made wicked assaults upon women, and satisfied their lust upon them; and that certain devils, called 'Dusii' by the Gauls, are constantly attempting and effecting this impurity is so generally affirmed that it were impudent to deny it."

 

[MNblockhead]

The main problem being, people want to try to "justify" not liking something. It's never enough to simply say, "nope, not to my taste". It's always "Nope. I don't like this because it's bad" and then try to define why it's bad. If folks were far more content to just say, "Sorry, I don't like this" without trying to convince me why I shouldn't like it too, we'd be able to talk about art a lot more easily.

Look at the criticisms here - "too colorful", "not sharp or defined enough" and so on and so forth. All attempts to "prove" that the art is bad.

If you don't like something, why continuously try to convince others why you don't like it. You don't like it. Ok. Groovy. But, endless negativity won't actually make for better conversations.

Well, it wouldn't be much of a discussion if someone just said "I don't like it" and move on. I find those kinds of posts more annoying. I don't understand the point of coming in and just posting "I don't like it" or "it sucks", etc. I'm much more interested in the "because ..."