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:

 

[Hussar]

People are being pressed to give reasons.

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

Dunno what thread you're reading, but, no one is EVER asked why they don't like something. Like, ever. What actually happens is someone jumps in with some kind of hot take about why the art is crap and how it's terrible, and then when pressed to explain why the art is crap and terrible, they get all huffy.

 

[Hussar]

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 ..."

The problem is, no one is ever content with just saying they don't like something and moving on. No. Instead we have page after page of people trying to "prove" that they don't like something because of some sort of concrete reason.

I dunno. I don't really understand the impulse to come in and widdle in other people's cornflakes. I just don't get it. It's been decades now of people endlessly telling me how WotC art is crap. Like I said, I just don't get it. If I don't like something, I just don't talk about it. What's the point in telling people in an art preview thread how much you hate the art? ((Not you, specifically, just the generic "you".)) I mean, I don't like Planescape. I don't. I never have. But, I also don't feel the need to jump into every Planescape thread and tell everyone how Planescape is crap. I just don't understand I guess.

I want to talk about the stuff I like. Not really interested in talking about stuff I don't like.

 

[dave2008]

Dunno what thread you're reading, but, no one is EVER asked why they don't like something. Like, ever. What actually happens is someone jumps in with some kind of hot take about why the art is crap and how it's terrible, and then when pressed to explain why the art is crap and terrible, they get all huffy.

While that may be generally true, it is not absolutely true. Just 2 days ago I asked @pukunui on these very forums why they didn't like the 2024 dragon designs and they politely answered. One can have civil conversation across the internet.

 

[Hussar]

While that may be generally true, it is not absolutely true. Just 2 days ago I asked @pukunui on these very forums why they didn't like the 2024 dragon designs and they politely answered. One can have civil conversation across the internet.

I generally find that in specifics, there's lots of room for civil conversations. Why you do or don't like this particular image - fair enough. But, there's been more than a few posts of general "this art is crap" which isn't particularly useful.

 

[dave2008]

But, there's been more than a few posts of general "this art is crap" which isn't particularly useful.

I completely agree.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The problem is, no one is ever content with just saying they don't like something and moving on. No. Instead we have page after page of people trying to "prove" that they don't like something because of some sort of concrete reason.

I dunno. I don't really understand the impulse to come in and widdle in other people's cornflakes. I just don't get it. It's been decades now of people endlessly telling me how WotC art is crap. Like I said, I just don't get it. If I don't like something, I just don't talk about it. What's the point in telling people in an art preview thread how much you hate the art? ((Not you, specifically, just the generic "you".)) I mean, I don't like Planescape. I don't. I never have. But, I also don't feel the need to jump into every Planescape thread and tell everyone how Planescape is crap. I just don't understand I guess.

I want to talk about the stuff I like. Not really interested in talking about stuff I don't like.

I guess. But you do understand that you have now derailed this thread for several posts by complaining in length how you do not like how people express their opinions? Is that better?

 

[BB Shockwave]

Found this on a youtube video called Dungeon Dudes. Apparently, the (originally from Planescape) Animal Lords are making a return to D&D in this book, as CR20 Celestials! Depicted are the Cat and Wolf Lords, but the stat blocks have three variants of the creature (Forager, Hunter and Sage) that can be applied to any type of animal's Animal Lord.

Yes, that is something they've gone for with the red. These are from the dragon art book:

Red wyrmling:
View attachment 391951

Adult red:
View attachment 391952

That says to me that a red dragon's feet and the front of its face blacken over time, probably due to fire coming out of its mouth and the fact it likes to walk around in lava or whatever.

Some of the concept art also mentioned it.

So it gets more black because it breathes fire and walks on fire?
You know... FIRE... The thing Red Dragons are famously IMMUNE to?
I think this shows how little logic there was behind these redesigns...

 

[BB Shockwave]

You weren't the only one. The D&D movie creators must have thought so too, since the rust monsters in the movie are also little bugs. It's possible these are just meant to be juvenile ones, but I quite like them this size. I also like the way they look here and don't really understand why WotC has redesigned them to have shiny gold carapaces.

Not in any 5e books. They didn't make the cut for Fizban's. I think they were last featured in a 4e dragon book.

On a related note, I would personally like to see the return of 4e's iron dragon.

I think those were just juvenile Rust Monster larvae. Even back in 2E, they were said to grow throughout their lifespan - and Planescape introduced Rust Dragons, who were Rust Monsters that grew to large enough size, and underwent a metamorphosis on Acheron's iron cubes!

I have a feeling - since they mentioned how they made monster "families" that the golden Rust Monster depicted here is some sort of evolution of the creature, and not the "common" variety. Maybe some special version that likes to eat magic weapons and artifacts, LOL!

 

[pukunui]

So it gets more black because it breathes fire and walks on fire?
You know... FIRE... The thing Red Dragons are famously IMMUNE to?
I think this shows how little logic there was behind these redesigns...

Maybe it’s like carbon scoring in Star Wars.

 

[BB Shockwave]

View attachment 391794
Since this guy wasn't given a name, I shall call him "Frank".

In all seriousness, though, I like the new art. The kobold designs are neat (thicken them boys up!) and the slaad look appropriately menacing. Also even though I know that rust monsters are medium creatures, I always end up picturing them as tiny little bugs so it's cool to see them put up next to some adventurers so we can get a good idea of their scale.

Can't wait to see more stuff on the dracolich as well.

And I am curious as to what Frank actually is... somebody else said an oversized quasit and I'm inclined to agree.

It was! They literally say the Nycaloth's name while this art is shown.
Also, they looked like this in 1E. I do agree it looks like the pre-3E look for the Quasit, more Jabberwock-like.