Quote from: ForgottenF on January 12, 2025, 11:19:54 AMThey probably want male and female versions of all these monsters so that they can make them player races in future supplements.

For some of the monsters, this is quite possibly correct. The other reason is that, unlike in mythology, few of these monsters are unique beings in D&D, and having two genders is an easy & obvious path to have a population of the monsters rather than a cursed/created individual.

Quote from: HappyDaze on January 12, 2025, 12:08:40 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 12, 2025, 11:19:54 AMThey probably want male and female versions of all these monsters so that they can make them player races in future supplements.

For some of the monsters, this is quite possibly correct. The other reason is that, unlike in mythology, few of these monsters are unique beings in D&D, and having two genders is an easy & obvious path to have a population of the monsters rather than a cursed/created individual.

So they're retconning the monster backstories again? Jhc, I wish they'd make up their darn minds and stick to it

Quote from: Exploderwizard on January 11, 2025, 08:26:38 AMCan't wait to see the art from this turkey. Probably going to be full of smiling gentle "monsters" of indeterminate gender. To solve the riddle of the sphinx you will have to correctly identify its pronouns.

The art they've shown so far is HORRIBLE. It's what you said above, plus a bunch of cartoony cutesy-poo garbage.

Quote from: easywolf32 on January 11, 2025, 01:41:38 PMI mean if you look at the stats and how these abominations to God Almighty live their lives....One trannie on tiktok just had their ribs removed to make their waist smaller said they will make a crown out of it...did you excpect anything better with these people's books.

• Transgender "women" are nearly 49 times more likely than the general population to contract HIV. (Further reading: https://tinyurl.com/2p8mh9jd)

• Transgenders have higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse, mental health disorders, incarceration, homelessness, and unemployment. (Further reading: https://tinyurl.com/y9xbdqod)

• Within the last 12 months (Copyright 2015), 65% of younger transgender youth had seriously considered suicide, more than a third had attempted suicide at least once. (Further reading: https://tinyurl.com/3jc6e5s4)

• Transexual persons, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. (Further reading: https://tinyurl.com/4zpbmrcb)

This is an off-topic post. You need to stay on the subject of the Monster Manual. Failing to do so can lead to sanctions.

Quote from: Orphan81 on January 11, 2025, 03:43:56 PMThe biggest thing about the 2025 Monster Manual, is that there's a new way of Calculating Challenge Rating which has led to the Monster being stronger overall.

One of the largest complaints about 5th edition, was Monsters being too weak, particularly at higher levels. As has been revealed, the way CR was calculated in the 2014 edition, was the maximum output a monster was capable of, if everything was in their favor.

This could have been done with a simple PDF download (and been done years ago). Adjusting CR isn't a good enough reason for buying an entirely new book.

A new Monster Manual I, for the game you already own; needs to be a noticeable improvement, upon the original Monster Manual I.  Otherwise, it's simply not necessary.

Quote from: RPGPundit on January 13, 2025, 06:52:45 PM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on January 11, 2025, 08:26:38 AMCan't wait to see the art from this turkey. Probably going to be full of smiling gentle "monsters" of indeterminate gender. To solve the riddle of the sphinx you will have to correctly identify its pronouns.

The art they've shown so far is HORRIBLE. It's what you said above, plus a bunch of cartoony cutesy-poo garbage.

Which ones? Everything I can find looks...fine. Certainly better than the art I've seen from the PHB and DMG, and I'd call it an upgrade on average from the 2014 MM art.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/so-much-art-from-the-2025-monster-manual.709490/
https://dungeonsanddragonsfan.com/new-dnd-monster-manual/

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 14, 2025, 08:03:41 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on January 13, 2025, 06:52:45 PM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on January 11, 2025, 08:26:38 AMCan't wait to see the art from this turkey. Probably going to be full of smiling gentle "monsters" of indeterminate gender. To solve the riddle of the sphinx you will have to correctly identify its pronouns.

The art they've shown so far is HORRIBLE. It's what you said above, plus a bunch of cartoony cutesy-poo garbage.

Which ones? Everything I can find looks...fine. Certainly better than the art I've seen from the PHB and DMG, and I'd call it an upgrade on average from the 2014 MM art.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/so-much-art-from-the-2025-monster-manual.709490/
https://dungeonsanddragonsfan.com/new-dnd-monster-manual/

Hmm. I have to say I hadn't seen some of those, and I'm surprised to say there's some fairly good art there. But those don't seem to show most of the cutesy-poo crap I've also seen. Clearly some multi-level marketing is going on; places more likely to have normal gamers are showing a bunch of admittedly good fantasy art, and X/reddit/etc is showing the tumblr art garbage.

I don't like the 5e D&D art, in general, but it's difficult to articulate why. A lot of the pieces I don't like are well executed, and I think the artists are skilled. So why don't I like the art? I think it's the style/look that bothers me. Everything has a kind of digital/computer art clarity or "sheen" to it that leaves me unmoved, or turns me off completely.

The only piece from the links, above, that made me stop and go "oh, that's kinda cool" and take a closer look was the "bone fiend." That's the best of the bunch, in my opinion.

Edited to add: "hags" is the second best of the bunch.

Well in Players handbook 2014 the art is almost all straight on static poses. Dull. In the DMs Guide its better with a bit of action and at least two bits with nice angles. What I don't like is they reproduced art a few times. I'm thinking specifically of the goblins on pg 107 of the DMs guide which also appeared on pg 15 in Phandelin and Below and pg 19 of Storm King's Thunder. It's a nice piece of art but WotC has too much money to be pulling that.

While female satyr are a ludicrous abomination, this is not their first appearance in 5.X.  The "monsters of the multiverse" in 2022 included them as a player race, with a large art of a female satyr, and this is where 5.X retconned them to being sexed creatures instead of fey that appear as, or are, male (I think they haven't really been Greek satyrs for a longer time).

So from 5.0 launch to 2022 they were, more or less, correct. 

The others I believe are newly ruined in 5.5.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on January 14, 2025, 09:23:30 PMI don't like the 5e D&D art, in general, but it's difficult to articulate why. A lot of the pieces I don't like are well executed, and I think the artists are skilled. So why don't I like the art? I think it's the style/look that bothers me. Everything has a kind of digital/computer art clarity or "sheen" to it that leaves me unmoved, or turns me off completely.
..,

Leaves me completely cold as well.

Too much of a 'modern' look; like they were meant to be the concept art for a video game, or an animated series.

It's like they were trying so hard to make the monsters look 'cool', that they forgot to make them creatures that the PC's are supposed to be afraid of.

A good comparison would be to look at the 25 'balor' art, and compare it to Alan Lee's balrog pieces.

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 14, 2025, 08:03:41 AMhttps://www.enworld.org/threads/so-much-art-from-the-2025-monster-manual.709490/
https://dungeonsanddragonsfan.com/new-dnd-monster-manual/

Wow, this is the "good" art? Certainly not to my taste I guess. One piece didn't make me wince.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on January 14, 2025, 09:23:30 PMI don't like the 5e D&D art, in general, but it's difficult to articulate why. A lot of the pieces I don't like are well executed, and I think the artists are skilled. So why don't I like the art? I think it's the style/look that bothers me. Everything has a kind of digital/computer art clarity or "sheen" to it that leaves me unmoved, or turns me off completely.

The only piece from the links, above, that made me stop and go "oh, that's kinda cool" and take a closer look was the "bone fiend." That's the best of the bunch, in my opinion.

Edited to add: "hags" is the second best of the bunch.

Yeah, there's something off. Or missing. Complete lack of soul. The composition is weird too, with nothing in particular drawing the eye.

Quote from: Venka on January 15, 2025, 12:10:24 AMWhile female satyr are a ludicrous abomination, this is not their first appearance in 5.X.  The "monsters of the multiverse" in 2022 included them as a player race, with a large art of a female satyr, and this is where 5.X retconned them to being sexed creatures instead of fey that appear as, or are, male (I think they haven't really been Greek satyrs for a longer time).

So from 5.0 launch to 2022 they were, more or less, correct. 

The others I believe are newly ruined in 5.5.

To be fair, a lot of that started as early as 3e. I remember seeing one of the MMs had an entry for male Medusas who were bald and could either petrify or poison (I forget which) people with their arrows.

I also recall them using faun for a female satyr.

The point is, 5e is only when it really started getting pushed in your face, but WotC has been doing this sort of stuff with D&D for as long as it's owned it.

Quote from: RPGPundit on January 14, 2025, 09:20:42 PMHmm. I have to say I hadn't seen some of those, and I'm surprised to say there's some fairly good art there. But those don't seem to show most of the cutesy-poo crap I've also seen. Clearly some multi-level marketing is going on; places more likely to have normal gamers are showing a bunch of admittedly good fantasy art, and X/reddit/etc is showing the tumblr art garbage.

I wouldn't put it past them. I don't use social media, but everything I can find from googling is pretty consistent. Personally, I don't see much problem with having a couple of "cute" monsters in the book. That's been there since at least third edition. As long as they're firmly in the minority, a few less threatening creatures round out the world and provide contrast to the traditionally monstrous ones.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on January 14, 2025, 09:23:30 PMI don't like the 5e D&D art, in general, but it's difficult to articulate why. A lot of the pieces I don't like are well executed, and I think the artists are skilled. So why don't I like the art? I think it's the style/look that bothers me. Everything has a kind of digital/computer art clarity or "sheen" to it that leaves me unmoved, or turns me off completely.

Funny I have opposite problem with it. Particularly with the 2014 5e books, there's a "smudgy" quality to the artwork which I assume was a decision made in the layout/printing process. They also seem to have intentionally muted the colors, and to me it just prevents the illustrations from popping off the page. Personal taste, I guess.
 

Quote from: Jaeger on January 15, 2025, 02:01:47 AMA good comparison would be to look at the 25 'balor' art, and compare it to Alan Lee's balrog pieces.

Not a lot of artists are going to come up well when compared to Alan Lee.