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

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I’d say that it’s not so much that she has glasses, but that they are very obviously Modern in design, and not what you would have seen in the medieval era.

(We know what those looked liked.)

You need to look at more historical spectacles. Wire frame half glasses have been around almost as long as circular lenses. The technology is in grinding the lenses. Once you know how to do that all kinds of shapes are possible. And, since "telescope" is on the basic D&D equipment list, it's clear that sophisticated lens-grinding is part of default D&D.

Now if you want to say it’s fantasy, and they can look however the artist wants them to “because dragons”. Nothing I said matters then…

This is undoubtedly true.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I mean, who cares what the archetypal wizard looks like?

D&D does, since it wants to remain relevant. So as the archetype changes, so does D&D.

The art should represent what D&D wizards look like.

D&D wizards look like someone trying very hard not to look like a wizard, since looking like a wizard pins a target on your back.

But someone trying not to look like the class they represent wouldn't really work for a PHB illustration!

 

[Jaeger]

You need to look at more historical spectacles. Wire frame half glasses have been around almost as long as circular lenses. …

Not in the medieval era in the style that she is wearing.

Your ‘almost as long’ is shy by a few centuries…

If you are going to extrapolate to the degree that if they have telescopes then they can do 18 century style ( generous…) spectacles, then you might as well just directly invoke ‘it’s fantasy, so because dragons’ and be done with it.

And like I said; If we are going to go down the ‘anachronistic look’ road, her glasses are the least of her problems.

So yeah: “Because dragons…”

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Not in the medieval era

Who said anything about "medieval era"? (which lasted "a few centuries", and was very different at the end than it was at the beginning). It doesn't say anything about "medieval" in the D&D rulebooks.

Your ‘almost as long’ is shy by a few centuries…

Like the few centuries between gunpowder weapons (pre-medieval but not on the D&D equipment list) and plate armour (post-medieval but on the D&D equipment list)? There is nothing "medieval" about D&D, never has been.

then you might as well just directly invoke ‘it’s fantasy, so because dragons’ and be done with it.

Which is the default for D&D, and always has been (like studded leather armour- never existed ever).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Pre-2000: Merlin, Gandoph, etc.
2000-2010: the JKR fans add to that: young kids, teenagers, adults, eldery (Dumbledore looks like that for a reason, it resonates with what most people think of as a powerful wizard IMO.) However, the others still get some props thanks to LotR and its world-wide success as well.
2011-2020: Dr. Strange jumps in thanks to Marvel's success, with Wanda as well of course. I couldn't tell you who might be tops to the other, if either.
2021+: I guess something new? Maybe something from the D&D movie or Critical Role stuff resonate to add more to the list??? Since I haven't seen the movie and don't care for CR at all, I couldn't tell you

The big change from your "pre-2000" examples is they existed in an imaginary past (although TH White's Merlin was a time traveller who had visited the 20th century). Post 2000, all those wizards exist in the present time, and their dress somewhat reflects that.

Doctor Strange, of course, was a big influence on D&D as far back as the 1970s. A lot of the "book learned magic" concept came from him. Gandalf didn't learn his magic from books.

As for post 2023:

The influence of BG3 should not be underestimated, going forwards. And this image is similar to the one under discussion. Notice: glowy visual effects for magic; age - mature, but not old; little or no beard, white or otherwise; closely tailored outfit, no hat or cowl; padded shoulders- I blame MMOs for that!

 

[Autumnal]

D&D has never, at any time, taken medieval styling seriously. Not when there was a polearm fetish to indulge, or legal and political systems to ignore, or technological revolutions to ignore, or utterly unrelated frontier cultures to favor, and on and on. If we were to begin to be consistent about it, the game would become largely unrecognizable. And not what many people actually want, to judge from Chivalry & Sorcery sales.

 

[ezo]

First, great list!

George R.R. Martin: 1970; 1996 for A Game of Thrones
Terry Pratchett: 1971
Stephen King: 1974; 1982 for The Dark ToweeEoin Colfe
Neil Gaiman: 1984
Robin Hobb (Megan Lindholm): 1983
Robert Jordan: 1990
Susanna Clarke: 1996
Rick Riordan: 1997; 2008 for Percy Jackson
J.K. Rowling: 1997
Jonathan Stroud: 1997
Eoin Colfer: 1998
Jacqueline Carey: 2001
Christopher Paolini: 2002 (he’s forty?!? Dear God, I’m old…)
Brandon Sanderson: 2005 (among other things, the first author to have multiple multi-million-dollar crowdfunding campaigns)
Joe Abercrombie: 2006
Scott Lynch: 2006
Naomi Novak: 2006
Cassandra Clare: 2007
Patrick Rothfuss: 2007 (and a fizzle to match Game of Thrones but that’s another story)
Peter V. Brett: 2008
Kristin Cashore: 2008
Brent Weeks: 2008
Erin Morganstern: 2011

Second, many of these are post 2000, which was basically part of my point. While some stretch back 50 years, sure, LOTR is even older, but to say the shift "has been going on for 50 years" etc. is a bit misleading. The shift really hasn't been a "shift" until maybe 25-30 years? At best, maybe with Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time (couldn't even finish the 1st book when I tried), but honestly more likely with JKR and Harry Potter.

How can anyone not bring up Wizards of Waverly Place?

Sure, in 2006. Let's go back a decade to Sabrina the Teenage Witch! (1996).

Describing spectacles as “anachronistic” displays a level of historical ignorance. And ignorance tends to accompany - other views.

Ah, my apoloogies since that was your reason for the response.

Ultimately, it comes down to this: If I printed the wizard art presented here, and a typical beared old man wizard image, showed them both to random people on the street, in stores, cafes, etc. I'm sure more people would pick the latter as a "wizard" first.

So, I know the shift is happening. I just think that outside of RPG gamers/comic fans/etc. we aren't to the point yet where the former image would be chosen first as a wizard.

 

[Autumnal]

First, great list!

Second, many of these are post 2000, which was basically part of my point.

Well, yeah, but that particular paragraph didn’t include Ursula K. LeGuin, Terry Brooks, Stephen Donaldson, or Raymond Feist, for starters. But magic-users in their stories are very much part of the traditions I’m talking about. Ged is from 1968 (and therefore older than D&D), and a lot of authors cite LeGuin as an influence. Pug is from 1982, and therefore a bit younger a creation than AD&D1, but Raymond Feist is another one of those big looming influences. And so on.

 

[Reef]

Ultimately, it comes down to this: If I printed the wizard art presented here, and a typical beared old man wizard image, showed them both to random people on the street, in stores, cafes, etc. I'm sure more people would pick the latter as a "wizard" first.

I’m not sure anyone here would dispute that. If you take the caricatured stereotypical image of a wizard, of course people will pick that out. It’s a stereotype for a reason.

Just like if you take an image from a pirate rpg, and put it next to a character with a peg leg, an eye patch, a black hat with the Jolly Roger on it, and a parrot on their shoulder, people will point to the stereotype first and say ‘pirate’.

But that’s the point, isn’t it? Why would a game need to illustrate the hoary old stereotype? Do we want our pirate rpgs to be filled with peg legs and parrots? Or do we want the illustrations to illustrate what the pirates look like in the actual game world? Does every player have to be a variant of Long John Silver?

Everyone knows wizards can be old white dudes with beards and pointy hats. Why waste time and space showing them that. Let’s show them what else wizards can be.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Just a mention: there is only one official D&D setting where wizards wear colour-coded outfits, Dragonlance. And in that setting those colours are black, red and white. This art is Dragonlance compatible, whereas the previous version was not.