D&D (2024) Here's The New 2024 Player's Handbook Wizard Art

 

[Dire Bare]

There's also the presumption that she's human. After all, glowing eyes isn't all that rare in a number of races.

True, but . . . the character being human works just fine too.

I mean, if your PC wizard describes their eyes as glowing when they cast a spell . . . that works for me!

 

[Dire Bare]

Wait what? I missed that! I guess I totally tuned out on all Daggerheart discussion when I heard it was going to be deck-based (which together with being set in a Victorian-era based time period and "weird dice" is one of my top "KILLLL MEEEEEEEE" dealbreakers re: RPGs). Also CR should probably ask the people running the extremely well-SEO'd fan site to stop using so much extremely ugly AI art, because damn.

Daggerheart is deck-based, but . . . doesn't really require actual, physical decks of cards. Each ability is a "card", but not one that you would draw randomly. It's just a "card" rather than a page in a book. And when using online resources like Demiplane, there isn't much functional difference. Well, from what I can tell from my perusal of the playtest material on Demiplane.

And Daggerheart is NOT a Victorian fantasy, that's Critical Role's OTHER new RPG, Candela Obscura. Daggerheart's setting is very D&D adjacent. Also, no weird dice for either game.

 

[gorice]

As others have pointed out, superheroism has always been present, and naturalism has always been selective at best. What has shifted is where the naturalism and superheroism are employed. And it really has been more of a gradual shift than a sudden one.

I never claimed otherwise. D&D art has, indeed, always occupied a broad spectrum, from mud & blood naturalism to superheroes. And it has moved more toward the (super-)heroic over time, especially in the WotC editions.

This image (and recent D&D stuff in general) puts the dial at superheroes and jams it there. As someone who loathes contemporary superhero stuff, I don't think I'm sinister or foolish for disliking this.

Right, because the target demographic was nerdy, usually white, boys. The wizard being physically weak and unattractive kept them relatable to that target demographic, while their superheroic abilities came from their intelligence, study, and preparation served that demographic’s power fantasy. Even their quadratic growth compared to the fighters’ linear growth satisfied the narrative of the jocks peaking in high school while the later-blooming nerds would be vindicated in the long-term with wealth and power later in life.

Plausible. The trope of wizards being crusty old blokes is a lot older, though, which is something I shouldn't have to point out.

As an aside: all the people digging up the 1st or 2nd edition age tables (because OD&D & basic didn't exist, I guess) to 'prove' me wrong about the likes of Gandalf and Merlin ought to be ashamed of their reaching pedantry.

Well, she’s a woman of color, which puts her at the intersection of at least two demographics that are underprivileged in real life. I imagine there are plenty of young D&D players who would be thrilled to see someone who looks like them depicted in the game as being powerful, just as young nerdy boys were to see characters who looked like them depicted as being powerful. I don’t expect old, white-bearded wizards are going away any time soon, but it’s nice for there to be other wizards too.

This is a non-sequitur, and a breathtakingly underhanded way to respond to an earnest and inoffensive expression of opinion. In case I haven't been crystal clear (I think I have), I like that this art represents a woman of colour. I also like that she wears glasses (and is, if you like, disabled). I don't like blatant superhero aesthetic, or her silly outfit.

The insinuation, by yourself and others, that my criticism is unthinkingly prejudiced at best, or a racist dogwhistle at worst, is completely unacceptable. I expect an apology.

I think you are giving too much credit to a silly pretend elf game.

'Silly pretend elf game' is the line everyone suddenly throws out when they're arguing passionately about RPGs on the internet and run out of good arguments.

 

[Scribe]

'Silly pretend elf game' is the line everyone suddenly throws out when they're arguing passionately about RPGs on the internet and run out of good arguments.

Objection your honour! I throw it out all the time because thats what it is and we need to keep some perspective on what we are wasting our time discussing.

 

[gorice]

Objection your honour! I throw it out all the time because thats what it is and we need to keep some perspective on what we are wasting our time discussing.

Ah, but if it didn't matter to you, why would you spend so much time discussing it? You're caught in a trap of your own making.

 

[Scribe]

Ah, but if it didn't matter to you, why would you spend so much time discussing it? You're caught in a trap of your own making.

There is no trap. I stated it already.

...we need to keep some perspective on what we are wasting our time discussing.

Bold, italics.

 

[GrimCo]

Cool art, not my jam. Not a biggest fan of digital art. It's just looks to perfect, to clean, i would dare to say, it's sterile.

 

[Reynard]

Ah, but if it didn't matter to you, why would you spend so much time discussing it? You're caught in a trap of your own making.

Just because it is silly doesn't mean it doesn't matter to one. Hobbies and entertainment are important, even if they are silly.

 

[Charlaquin]

I never claimed otherwise. D&D art has, indeed, always occupied a broad spectrum, from mud & blood naturalism to superheroes. And it has moved more toward the (super-)heroic over time, especially in the WotC editions.

This image (and recent D&D stuff in general) puts the dial at superheroes and jams it there.

Again, it’s a question of in what ways are the game naturalistic or super-heroic. Much of the art certainly does depict characters doing super-heroic things, but that doesn’t mean naturalism has been erased from the game. It’s still applied as selectively as ever, in different places.

As someone who loathes contemporary superhero stuff, I don't think I'm sinister or foolish for disliking this.

You are certainly not, nor have I claimed as much.

Plausible. The trope of wizards being crusty old blokes is a lot older, though, which is something I shouldn't have to point out.

As an aside: all the people digging up the 1st or 2nd edition age tables (because OD&D & basic didn't exist, I guess) to 'prove' me wrong about the likes of Gandalf and Merlin ought to be ashamed of their reaching pedantry.

Not everyone talking about Wizards’ ages is directly responding to you.

This is a non-sequitur, and a breathtakingly underhanded way to respond to an earnest and inoffensive expression of opinion. In case I haven't been crystal clear (I think I have), I like that this art represents a woman of colour. I also like that she wears glasses (and is, if you like, disabled). I don't like blatant superhero aesthetic, or her silly outfit.

It’s not a nonsequitur at all. You asked if it looks like she’s ever had to sacrifice anything for power. I answered. She looks like a person who belongs to at least two groups who historically lack power.

The insinuation, by yourself and others, that my criticism is unthinkingly prejudiced at best, or a racist dogwhistle at worst, is completely unacceptable. I expect an apology.

I apologize if I gave the impression that I was accusing you of anything, that was certainly not my intent. I would suggest that if pointing out the fact that the art depicts a woman of color in answer to you asking if she looks like she sacrificed anything for power makes you feel as if you are being accused of unthinking prejudice, you may be in a state of hyper-vigilance regarding such accusations.

'Silly pretend elf game' is the line everyone suddenly throws out when they're arguing passionately about RPGs on the internet and run out of good arguments.

It is a silly pretend elf game though, and I get the distinct impression that you are taking it far more seriously than is warranted.

 

[Tonguez]

Me either. I mean, she's attractive for sure, and looks like a wizard straight out of Hollywood central casting (i.e. undeniably gorgeous but given glasses to make her look, you know, intellectual). But she's not all sexed up. She looks like a badass. We're not talking the front of the AD&D DM's Guide, here.

Maybe that's the real problem for some folks.

Yeah it amuses me that being female in a nice dress makes it sexed up, even when it's a full conservative bodice.

Plausible. The trope of wizards being crusty old blokes is a lot older, though, which is something I shouldn't have to point out.

It's not though. While mythical Merlin was 400 years old (and half demon), Myrddin the bloke he was based on died in his 40s.
A lot of historic wizards like Roger Bacon and John Dee were in their 40s during their peak (okay Jogn Dee had a white beard too and lived to 81) and literary wizards include Ged Sparrowhawk of Earthsea who was younger.

The white beard Wizard seems to just be Gandalf