cloaker: new sculpt, new paint...new avatar.

[funnymouth]

hi everyone, long time no chat!

its been awhile and ive been missing yall. so a fresh new post!

cloaker votey link

fast & dirty.


what classic D&D monster should i sculpt next? i was thinking a grell or a beholder.

 

[Amazon warrior]

V&C\'ed. It\'s awesome and I love it!

 

[Undave]

It\'s the face that really sets it off, nice job.

I think you should do a Gazebo next lol

 

[Amazon warrior]

Originally posted by Undave
It\'s the face that really sets it off, nice job.

I think you should do a Gazebo next lol

Not a gazebo! *hides*

 

[Gilvan Blight]

Very cool. Hope you continue to do more D&D models. Only wish you could sell them, I would love some alternatives to the cheap pre-painted plastic crap WotC puts out now.

Votes for next ones:
Beholder
Hook Horror
Owlbear

 

[Bill]

That is rather excellent

 

[airhead]

That is an excellent cloaker. In that theme, you have lurker above, piercer, trapper and mimic.

I\'ve yet to see a decent Zorn or Umber hulk.

 

[funnymouth]

:redface: wow guys (& gals) thanks for the overwhelmingly positive response! its very encouraging.

great suggestions for followup minis too...now ive got quite the wishlist.

 

[Ritual]

I really like this. I\'m not that much into classical D&D monsters, but this creature has character and that face is, for want of a better word... cute!! The paintjob emphasises this.

 

[GreenOne]

Funny!! You\'re still around
Good to see you picked up some new skills in the meantime too.
Liking the face on this thingy, well done.

 

[demonherald]

it caught my eye while the gallery was hving a working moment earlier.....
Great job and good to see you back at it.. The face does inded rock and it\'s just one of those weird creatures that hits the spot...

on a seperate note ...
out of curiosity does anyone know where things such as this stand on a legal standpoint for production?? Are the rights to them owned by anyone?? ust seems that there arent many decent ones about and it would be great to see them....

 

[Amazon warrior]

Doesn\'t it depend on what you call them? I mean, I have a box of Grenadier D&D sculpts with quite obvious changes to the names to avoid being sued. F\'rinstance, there\'s a (v. cute!) rusting monster (as opposed to a rust monster). And there\'s an illithid-type mini called something completely different as well.

Mind you, these were produced back in the day a bit, so they might have toughened up the rules. But I don\'t think so given that Reaper are still in business.....

 

[Gilvan Blight]

Hasbro has all the rights and it seems that they are being rather tight on them.

You will note that Reaper have not produced very many modern D&D monsters. I think everything that they currently produce are things that could be considered public domain. Things like Griffons, Oozes, Skeletons, Demons anyone can make. But you still don\'t see any Genasi miniatures out there.

Something like a Cloaker is probably owned, you may be able to pull off Sheet Monster or something, but this mini in particular is obviously based on Monster Manual picture of this monster so I doubt even that will fly.

I just wish Hasbro was like TSR and would just licence out this stuff. Especially since their miniature game is now defunct, are they really going to loose that much by letting other companies make minis?

 

[Amazon warrior]

Reaper do have a cloaker, link. Yeah, I\'m a devil for trying to prove my point! Funnymouth\'s is much better, tho.

It would be nice if they did licence more stuff out - more quality sculpts of d&d monsties and races would be cool.

 

[Gilvan Blight]

Originally posted by Gilvan Blight

Something like a Cloaker is probably owned, you may be able to pull off Sheet Monster or something, but this mini in particular is obviously based on Monster Manual picture of this monster so I doubt even that will fly.

That doesn\'t really change my point. That one is not called a Cloaker and also isn\'t a direct \'copy\' of the monster manual picture.

 

[funnymouth]

yes, im around.... lurking, voting from the shadows.

oops! did i call it a \"cloaker\"... thats a typo, its an... evil... land... ray.

it does seem interesting, though, that they can copyright a monster concept, especially since many of them are based on legend or mythology. furthermore, how would someone know which ideas were existing \"property\" and which were... public domain. seems awful vague.

 

[demonherald]

Originally posted by funnymouth
yes, im around.... lurking, voting from the shadows.

oops! did i call it a \"cloaker\"... thats a typo, its an... evil... land... ray.

it does seem interesting, though, that they can copyright a monster concept, especially since many of them are based on legend or mythology. furthermore, how would someone know which ideas were existing \"property\" and which were... public domain. seems awful vague.

That\'s what I was thinking ... where are the libnes and who draws \'em... is there any kind of list out there ???

 

[Undave]

Weren\'t a large proportion of the monsters in DnD made up by players and somehow found their way into scenarios and supplements? That\'s the impression that I always got. DnD never seemed as centralised compared to most of the other gaming worlds out there. It always seemed to me like a big rug with lots of people all pulling in their own direction. Maybe I\'m wrong but I could never get into it for that reason.

 

[Shadzar]

since i like your cave terrain under the cloaker as much as it, how about a piercer next? crawling across the ground because it missed its prey and all that.

 

[Amazon warrior]

Originally posted by Gilvan Blight

Originally posted by Gilvan Blight

Something like a Cloaker is probably owned, you may be able to pull off Sheet Monster or something, but this mini in particular is obviously based on Monster Manual picture of this monster so I doubt even that will fly.

That doesn\'t really change my point. That one is not called a Cloaker and also isn\'t a direct \'copy\' of the monster manual picture.

*points at illithids/mind flayers/mind masters/bathalians/etc..* I think we\'re arguing the same thing from different directions here.