Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tomBitonti" data-source="post: 7698145" data-attributes="member: 13107">There is a full gallery available here <a href="http://www.minisgallery.com/dnd/dnd5.htm" target="_blank">http://www.minisgallery.com/dnd/dnd5.htm</a>.The photos from the gallery mostly look worse than the pictures shown above.  The following is based on the gallery photos.Many look very meh.  Especially the humanoids.What looks good to me are the Will-o-Wisps, the Gelatenous Cube, and the Umber Hulk.  The skeleton is very nice as an advanced (armored, armed) figure, but not so much as a common skeleton, which has neither arms nor armor, and is good quality for a Common.  But a good useful Common.The wolf has a nice combination of utility and quality as a Common.  Folks with lots of miniatures will have lots of wolfs, but maybe not *too* many to be able to use this one.The Displacer Beast looks nice to have (Merfolk, Meduse, Displacer Beast, Dryad, Mummy, maybe a couple of others.)The rarities are strange.  Mummy should be Rare, not Common, as should the Mimic.The humanoid figures look terrible.  I suppose the invisible figures are nice to have, but, they are very rare, so one won't have many.  Why so rare, when they represent *no* painting effort?The Rare miniatures, for the most part, don't look as good as I expect.  Especially, the Rakhasa, which looks much worse than the prior Rakhasa miniature.  And Strahd ought to be painted much better, for being such an iconic character.  (The photo linked just above looks a lot better, so maybe just a bad photo.)The treant seems an odd choice for the Unique.  There are probably a *lot* of huge treants from the earlier set still around for cheap, and a treant doesn't seem to get much use.Thx!TomB</blockquote>

Verification