Forgotten Realms 5E Concept Art

Conceptopolis, a professional graphics firm, has posted a number of pieces of concept art for the upcoming 5E Forgotten Realms, which by its nature also includes a number of pictures of more generic monsters and such. You can see the gallery at Deviantart –> HERE <–

Thoughts? Impressions? I’ve got a few myself, but would like to hear some of yours, first.

Written by 

Wargamer and RPG'er since the 1970's, author of Adventures Dark and Deep, Castle of the Mad Archmage, and other things, and proprietor of the Greyhawk Grognard blog.

17 thoughts on “Forgotten Realms 5E Concept Art

  1. So thats what those were for! I stumbled across the pictures while surfing deviantart, and wondered why he had done so msny D&D pictures. Most of the pictures are very good. The gnoll is one of the best I have ever seen. I am suprised that they are focusing on art work at this point in the process, or would br hiring an indepentant contractor to do so. Of things that make me excited about 5E new art work is way down the list. After all I have a lot of decent art work from prior editions. I am missing several monster illustrations from the things they keep throwing into their living forgotten realms adventures, although.

  2. Gotta say that I don't find any of this particularly inspiring. I hate the halflings, and the rest looks very corporate to me, cartoony, and not very original…with maybe the gnoll as an exception.

  3. Personally, I'm not impressed with the art at all. I know it's concept art, and thus far removed from what the finals may look like, but there were definite issues with the Barbarian (head's too small) and the halflings (heads are too large).

    The armor seems to be the extremely bulky "Space Marine" type, and some of the weapons are just ludicrously enlarged (such as the fire giant).

    Most of the monsters all have a similar design, it seems. Pot bellies and spindly legs. Even the legs of the ogre are thin compared to the rest of the body.

    The gnoll is good, but seems to be a cross between Jackalman from the original Thundercats and the jackals from The Lion King.

    On the whole, it seems to be everything I *didn't* like about the art in 3.5 and 4E.

  4. "On the whole, it seems to be everything I *didn't* like about the art in 3.5 and 4E."

    Ditto. They're nicely done pictures of course, just not at all the style I like in my gaming books personally.

  5. They look good. Not *my* style, personally. Gimme Erol Otus. But the kids will go gaga over it. Plus, WotC/D&D's job these days is to use the D&D brand power to recruit new gamers into hobby, and old-school art won't cut it. Plus I'm getting sick of Wayne Reynolds, so the change is welcome.

  6. One of the distinctions I like between paper and pencil role-playing games and computer roll-playing games is that the art is usually hand-drawn in the former. I don't like computer-generated art in my books.

  7. There are significant problems with the legs in many of those designs, notably the halflings and the fire giant. I am not fond of the designs, myself, but they look like the sort of thing that is popular now.

  8. Very Disney, Although a did see a lack of the *ahem* 4e races…that seems to me a returning to an at least 3.x mindset for the Realms race wise, no Kitchen sink of races?


  9. Maybe this art can be good in black&white, because it have something about the old style inside but in full color it seem too much like modern cartoon or manga, just like a legacy from the 4 ed.
    Many words about the old style in the game… few facts.

  10. Personally, I hate it. I understand the idea of different strokes for different folks, and thus that many may like it. Not me. I find it ludicrous, with disproportioned heads and bodies, outsized weapons, and sappy, manga-lite depictions. Ugh.

  11. Hah! Monsters Inc. – as a player and GM of the Realms for 20 years, I really really don't like that art as representative of the Realms. Well excecuted but it doesn't share my vision, nor does it share with art of the past.

Comments are closed.