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:
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 12.06.33 PM.png


A demon of some kind:
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 12.58.05 PM.png

Arch-Hags:
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 12.56.33 PM.png


Some kobolds:
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 12.56.03 PM.png


A Nalfeshnee, perhaps?
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 12.53.11 PM.png


A revenant:
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 12.32.41 PM.png


Blue dracolich:
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 12.32.52 PM.png


Death Knight:
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 12.32.15 PM.png


Death tyrant:
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 12.26.32 PM.png


Chimera:
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 12.26.18 PM.png


Githyanki (with the central warrior recreating a classic pose):
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 12.23.57 PM.png


A mummy lord:
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 12.16.44 PM.png


A marrow:
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 12.19.01 PM.png


A balrog balor:
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 12.20.16 PM.png


Mimics:
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 12.20.37 PM.png


While I'm tempted to say a tressym, this actually might be a new sphinx design:
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 12.12.12 PM.png


Bone fiend:
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 12.12.01 PM.png


Sladd:
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 12.10.40 PM.png


Rust monster:
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 12.10.05 PM.png


Platinum(?) dragon:
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 12.09.23 PM.png


Bronze dragon:
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 12.09.04 PM.png


Hezrou, perhaps?
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 12.08.45 PM.png


Fire giant, not Karlach:
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 12.08.20 PM.png


Cloud giants:
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 12.08.01 PM.png


Zombies:
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 12.07.38 PM.png


Red dragon:
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 12.07.17 PM.png


Hags (including a male hag):
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 1.02.03 PM.png


Dryads (including a male dryad):
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 1.01.42 PM.png


Horned devil:
Screenshot 2025-01-07 at 1.01.12 PM.png


Incubus and succubus:
Screenshot_20250107_105628_YouTube.jpg


Vampires:
Screenshot_20250107_110938_YouTube.jpg



Screenshot_20250107_104643_YouTube.jpg


Vampire:
Screenshot_20250107_102725_YouTube.jpg


Colossus:
Screenshot_20250107_104308_YouTube.jpg


Spirit naga:
Screenshot_20250107_105827_YouTube.jpg


Copper dragon:
1736276942551.png


White dragon:
1736277033498.png


Blue dragon:
1736277142191.png


Gold dragon:
1736277161607.png


Black dragon:
1736277225814.png
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Christian Hoffer

Christian Hoffer

Let’s actually compare. What is everyone’s favourite of these Monster Manual Minotaurs.

View attachment 392484
View attachment 392485
View attachment 392486
View attachment 392487
View attachment 392488
View attachment 392490
For me, the 3e one is the most menacing posed art. The 5.24 is the most menacing, total, but it's a bit odd that he has a flaming ax in a labyrinth made of what look like dried tree roots. Odd in the sense that there probably aren't any rules for the surroundings catching on fire and minotaurs aren't fireproof. Unless this one is. The 5e is the most noble-looking of them, and I can see those as a playable people. The 1e and 2e minotaurs are OK. Not amazing, but OK.

Edit: There was a 4e piece in there. I forgot. It's also OK. For some reason, I tend to not like 4e art so much. Maybe because it's always things attacking.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

They are ONLY my truth, and as far as art goes, that is the truth I care about most.
It's not a "truth," yours or anyone else's. It's an opinion.

The difference is, opinions can change. Maybe a few years from now, you'll look at that art again and go, "huh, that's not half-bad. I actually kind of like it." Or maybe not. Either way, it's fine.

When you (generic you) call something "my truth," it becomes this immutable thing that will never and can never change, because then truths would become lies, and people (again, generic people) will do anything to avoid saying they were taken in by a lie, even if it's a lie they told themselves.
 

For me, the 3e one is the most menacing posed art. The 5.24 is the most menacing, total, but it's a bit odd that he has a flaming ax in a labyrinth made of what look like dried tree roots. Odd in the sense that there probably aren't any rules for the surroundings catching on fire and minotaurs aren't fireproof. Unless this one is. The 5e is the most noble-looking of them, and I can see those as a playable people. The 1e and 2e minotaurs are OK. Not amazing, but OK.

Edit: There was a 4e piece in there. I forgot. It's also OK. For some reason, I tend to not like 4e art so much. Maybe because it's always things attacking.
I am not a big fan of the 3e one cause the head doesn’t really look like a bull, horns don’t look right to me either.
 

I am not a big fan of the 3e one cause the head doesn’t really look like a bull, horns don’t look right to me either.
Fair enough. But it's nicely monstrous and it invokes bullishness without being a cow-headed human--which as we saw in the other art, can be on the cute side. It's what I imagine a monster would look like and then described by the people who survived the attack as being a bull-headed human.
 

Fair enough. But it's nicely monstrous and it invokes bullishness without being a cow-headed human--which as we saw in the other art, can be on the cute side. It's what I imagine a monster would look like and then described by the people who survived the attack as being a bull-headed human.

Yeah. I like the 3e one specifically because it does not look exactly like a human with some bull parts glued on. It looks like a unique creature, with some bullish features. To me that makes it seem more real than a literal patchwork of different creatures.
 

Fair enough. But it's nicely monstrous and it invokes bullishness without being a cow-headed human--which as we saw in the other art, can be on the cute side. It's what I imagine a monster would look like and then described by the people who survived the attack as being a bull-headed human.

I tend to agree. The 3.X Minotaur doesn't look like a Minotaur to me, as much as it does this horrible, bestial creature.

Honestly, minotaurs are a rough bunch, because you tend to make them look noble (like the 5.14 art) because of how bulls are depicted in a lot of art, but they are supposed to be cannabilistic horror monsters in DnD. It makes it kind of hard to balance their art correctly
 

Bubblegum fantasty with Ai prompts. You are just straight up insulting the artists.

Here are two full pieces not zoomed in on or affected by Youtube quality. I think these are excellent pieces. How are these anything like you said.
bafkreiadw3hriztzcmta75aeok3ctfhaqcgtwn3izpte3aihrlclwcrq4m@jpeg

bafkreifcr5nvqnzrng4mzcxeqziv3l7m2fnx6opwe5bcaqcaosn6xgaf3a@jpeg
Nice, thanks!
I think now that what I thought would be 2 other Treants on the picture are actually the animated trees - I think Treants can animate 2 trees, no? Would explain why they lack faces.

I'm really confused by your and @BB Shockwave 's assertions that these are a change or a step backwards.

2014 Androspinx
View attachment 392344

2024 potential Androsphinx
View attachment 392345

Both are tattooed, winged lions with jewelry indicating royalty. I don't see the "step backwards" here. It is the same design philosophy.
I was fine with the 5E designs despite them being just winged lions because the designs were not overly busy, plus, I did like the vaguely egyptian iconography like the beard and the jewelry.
But these new ones look over-done. Too many magical markings/glowing sigils (I guess they cannot be tattoos since... how would that show under fur?) and the braided manes? Like, who does their manes that way? They do not have hands. :D
 



This post is an 11 on the Morrisete Irony Scale.
I disagree. When someone enters a discussion about new art immediately attacking the artists, likening their work to AI-generated images, calling it "awful," "embarrassing," "beyond cringe," and "lame bubblegum," implying that those that like the new art are merely pretending to like it out of some loyal devotion to WotC, and lists an older artist that they feel is far superior, I think it's fair to provide an alternate perspective and critiques to the work of the artist they praise. It is not hypocritical to do so. And my criticisms of Elmore's art were far more civil and fair than the insults @AstroCat made against the new Monster Manual art, its artists, and those that enjoy it.

The art from the new core rulebooks has inspired me way more than Elmore’s ever has. If Elmore’s art inspires you (general you) more, great! I never attacked the people that like art I don’t prefer. @AstroCat did, and my point was to illustrate that art is a matter of taste, others have criticisms of the art they praise as being objectively better, and you shouldn’t act like your preference is superior or insult the people that like other styles or imply that the art is as bad as AI slop.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Trending content

Remove ads

Top