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

 

[Zil]

I will say, there is a scrap of legitimacy to that argument. I think it is overblown, but there is precedence.

Gold and White are colors of "purity". Gold is associated with light, the sun, and goodness, as is the color white. So, it is very often used for religious motifs. Temples often use white and gold (in fantasy art) to call to mind the wealth of the Catholic church and the austere purity of ancient greek and roman temples, the idea of cleanliness, ect.

Regarding gold and white colours being worn by Catholic priests, it isn't as simple as that. The colours of the vestments worn often depend on the current place in the liturgical calendar. The same holds true for hangings in the church. Here is a wikipedia link for seasonal liturgical colours. Tying white and gold to purity and cleanliness is definitely apt and it does tie back to the early Christian Church and its vestments. Liturgical vestments originated from a secular source in the very early years when people wore their cleanest Roman style dress to worship. This eventually evolved into what we see today.

 

[ezo]

I have myopia, and I've come to appreciate its virtues, to the point that I sometimes feel sorry for those who can't share my experience. I tell you what, being nearsighted comes in pretty handy when plucking a tiny splinter out of someone's finger, or painting a miniature, or doing other up-close work. And there are moments when I prefer the blurry view of the world I get by just removing my glasses; lit-up Christmas trees offer a different experience to the nearsighted.

I have no plans to get Lasik, aside from any concern over risks. I've been wearing corrective eyewear for nearly half a century, and I plan to go on doing so, even with the existence of a near-magical "fix".

Good for you! And I'm sure if you were in a D&D dungeon and had your glasses broken, lost, or taken from you, you wouldn't have any issues.

Just because YOU wouldn't want to have glasses if you didn't need them does not mean that other people can't make other choices.

I don't think anyone ever said they couldn't, did they?

It just doesn't make sense to me that they could choose that. It's like mushrooms. I hate mushrooms, can't stand them and think they are disgusting, but other people like them. I don't know why... but that isn't my concern. However, if someone presents a gourmet dish and says, "this looks wonderful and tastes terrific," but I see mushrooms, I'm not going to agree with them.

So, no, I don't agree that a powerful PC would wear eyeglasses for corrective purposes if they could afford magical aid instead. But hey, that's just how I feel about it. I've never said others have to or should feel the same.

This is an entirely fair and valid perspective that is also extremely far from universal. The problem isn't from having this viewpoint; the problem comes when assuming nobody would have a different one.

And if I actually assumed that I would completely agree with you. I can't recall anyone else doing that, either, which is probably why I've never understood why people find it difficult to accept that my viewpoint, is just that---mine.

Right, you would make one choice. But, I wear glasses and while I currently can't afford Lasik, I've often considered if I would bother with it if I could.

My glasses aren't particularly inconvenient, and I've had them long enough that I think my face would look weird without them. My choice, if I made it, to keep wearing glasses instead of spending money to not need them is just that, a choice. A choice you would make differently, but one that is still very much a choice that can be made in either direction.

Sure, I get that. I'm bald, have been balding since I was in my late teens. If I could have hair again I'd have to give it thought. I'd probably think I'd look wierd with hair at this point! Someone might ask, "why don't you regrow your hair?" to which I would reply: I might, or I might not. But the difference is me not having hair wouldn't impact me in an adventuring environment as much as relying on glasses could IMO, and so I see little reason to keep them if you didn't have to. You might not weigh the potential risk as highly as I would, which is fine, and decide to keep wearing glasses even then.

but she also shouldn't have glasses because of some nebulous notion of readily-available magical healing, even though no one can name a specific spell that would remedy her sight loss. I'm not sure why anyone would engage the services of a powerful cleric (or whatever) to fix their short-sightedness anyway, when it is presumably somewhat cheaper and easier to just buy glasses. Like in the real world.

Well, I have. Numerous times. Lesser restoration might do it, and heal can cure full blindness, so I'd imagine ruling it can help with vision impairment would be logical.

As far as cost is concerned, all I can say is according to AL, lesser restoration is only 40 gp. While heal isn't listed, it would likely be around 2,000 gp. Considering how many campaigns run IME, even heal would be affordable by 5th level or so since it isn't too much more than a plate armor at 1,500 gp. Your experience might differ, that is just mine.

It's been said multiple times in various ways in this thread, but it is actually okay if you simply don't like the piece. Your reasoning doesn't have to be grounded in formal logic or anything, but when people present obviously facetious arguments like the above, it does rather look like they might be deliberately avoiding pointing out something more obvious that irks them about it.

Yeah, you are dead wrong about that (bolded). I've provided very understandable and realistic arguments why her wearing glasses doesn't jive with me. You don't obviously have to AGREE with my point of view, but this is the crap that irks me---assuming I must have hidden agenda or "something more obvious". Stop assuming please. Disagree, say you find my reasons insufficient if you like, but don't accuse people of saying something or implying it they never did. Thank you.

As for surgery, aside from the cost, there is always a chance for something to go horribly wrong. It might be small, but it is needless, so I wouldn’t have eye, or any other sort of cosmetic surgery.

Sure, that is a perfectly good reason why someone wouldn't have lasik! I had to think about it for a while before I decided to go ahead with it! But since magic in D&D doesn't have a "botch" system/mechanic, I have to think it would be perfectly safe then. It isn't like when someone casts a flying spell, you might not be able to fly (barring environmental concerns of course). You'd be able to fly.

 

[Yaarel]

To me, 5e nailed it the first time. I like this piece, although the glasses don't seem to fit, but overall very cool. But the original 5e wizard - perfection!

The artwork is decent. But.

He can easily be merchant. There is nothing especially wizardly about him.

And. The part that is supposed to be a wizard stereotype − long-beard, long-hair, long-robe − is unrepresentative for most players, and Im fed up with its ubiquity. This Wizard here, along with Gandalf/Dumbledore have their place in D&D, but not every male Wizard.

Lets see some Wizard diversity, including youthful cleancut male college students. Popculture has in mind Harry Potter, Cedric, and Victor Krum, but Level 1 is roughly 20 years old.

Ethnic and gender diversity includes white males. Many American D&D customers are white young men. Feature them well and honorably, at the same time as featuring others well and honorably.

I am glad there will be an image for each Wizard subclass. It is an opportunity to showcase a diversity of Wizard concepts. Same goes for the other classes.

 

[mamba]

It's been said multiple times in various ways in this thread, but it is actually okay if you simply don't like the piece. Your reasoning doesn't have to be grounded in formal logic or anything, but when people present obviously facetious arguments like the above, it does rather look like they might be deliberately avoiding pointing out something more obvious that irks them about it.

if someone says they don’t like glasses, maybe believe them instead of insinuating that it is really about skin color…

 

[CreamCloud0]

I mean, that's technically Isekai in the sense that they're pulled in from another world but it doesn't embody even single one of the tropes associated with Isekai anime (I mean, I guess, bad animation but it wasn't badly animated for the period and region!).

If it was an Isekai anime, only Eric (sorry buddy, I'm about to throw you under a very big bus) would have gone through, the rest would all be "natives", and Eric would be even whinier, even more cowardly, way more of just a jerk, and both the girls would be absolutely ALL OVER Eric ALL THE TIME (one of them probably in tsundere way), for no apparent reason at all. Presto would also be female, scantily-clad, and also all over Eric all the time. and probably look about 12 but be technically 300 or something (UH OH). The Barbarian would still be a child (sorry I forget his name), but like, seriously age-inappropriate things would be happening with him and the anime (yeah even a modern one, if it was Isekai, because they tend to have the social attitudes of an anime 20 years older than them) would think it was hilarious. Ranger would be like, drastically dumber than Eric, and maybe have a rivalry but constantly be defeated by his own stupidity and Eric's innate superiority. Venger would be an even more thinly-veiled homophobic stereotype (but admittedly also probably more badass), and Dungeon Master would probably be perving on the girls.

I mean, hell, Rise of the Shield Hero basically is the "What if only Eric came through?" anime in a lot of ways (because the lead is a cowardly whiner who only has a shield to fight with), and it's NOT good (despite being one of the least-awful Isekais).

i really think you're misidentifying what are the actual factors of isekai here, i don't deny that some of those things have prominently turned up in isekai but they've also turned up in multiple other works and are not what makes isekai, isekai, the literal translation of the word is 'other world'.

(and if your post was meant to be a joke the humor REALLY didn't come through for me)

 

[Zil]

This art does not represent the "D&D" aesthetic we play in our groups. If it represents your D&D aesthetic then that's awesome, enjoy the art that is being maybe specifically for you. We enjoy a more 1e/2e/Shadowdark/DCC/Easley/Elmore/Otus/Frazetta, etc... "D&D" aesthetic for our games, which this is very much not. Maybe there will be some other new "official wotc" art that speaks to our preferred aesthetic moving forward, chances?

That's an interesting mix of artists. I wouldn't normally put Otus in there with some of the others.

While I like your list of artists and I feel that the peak of D&D art occured in 2E times, I really do like this new wizard art. She definitely looks wizardly to me. I wouldn't think that she was a cleric at a glance. As an aging glasses wearing geek, I approve of the spectacles...

 

[Parmandur]

Also not to blow the wheels off this but I notice that looking at the art for the backgrounds, those currently include your stat bonuses, and presumably that'll go live, and unless WotC, like with 5E, makes it so custom backgrounds are "the norm" and these are merely "example", hoooo boy that is not going to go down well.

We know from those images (as they made only tje most minor of formatting edits) and what Crawford reported that the Baclground rules in the first UA have made it in pretty much unchanged, so yup the ASI is part of Baclgrounds now and Builyld Your Own Background is the stated assumption (there is even a sidebar to explain how to deal with Background ASI if you use an old Rave option thar came with ASI, which will no doubt be in the final book):

https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/one-dnd/character-origins/CSWCVV0M4B6vX6E1/UA2022-CharacterOrigins.pdf?icid_source=house-ads&icid_medium=crosspromo&icid_campaign=playtest1

 

[occam]

Good for you! And I'm sure if you were in a D&D dungeon and had your glasses broken, lost, or taken from you, you wouldn't have any issues.

Obviously I would, but I don't generally spend much time in dungeons.

Even in the context of playing a D&D character, I'm not sure your point holds much weight with me. I enjoy playing characters that learn to deal with a myriad of challenges, including their own limitations, and have chosen to play blind, deaf, or disabled PCs on multiple occasions. If glasses were a part of my esthetic vision for a PC, I'd accept the risk of negative consequences when losing them. But I'd also have them carry an extra pair, just as I do in real life.

Besides, lots of equipment-dependent characters face similar risks. Just because a fighter may be near-useless if their sword is taken or broken doesn't mean they're going to implant a sword in their arm to prevent that... although, that'd be a valid choice, I guess.

 

[ezo]

Obviously I would, but I don't generally spend much time in dungeons.

Even in the context of playing a D&D character, I'm not sure your point holds much weight with me. I enjoy playing characters that learn to deal with a myriad of challenges, including their own limitations, and have chosen to play blind, deaf, or disabled PCs on multiple occasions. If glasses were a part of my esthetic vision for a PC, I'd accept the risk of negative consequences when losing them. But I'd also have them carry an extra pair, just as I do in real life.

Most people don't carry spare glasses on them IRL. They might be nearby, like in the house or car, but unless you have a pack, purse, etc. it's not likely. I'm not saying you don't, just IME it isn't the norm. Even then, accessing them during an adventure could have drastic consequences depending on where you keep them!

Besides, lots of equipment-dependent characters face similar risks. Just because a fighter may be near-useless if their sword is taken or broken doesn't mean they're going to implant a sword in their arm to prevent that... although, that'd be a valid choice, I guess.

LOL don't I know it! Rust monsters, shiver....

Armor being the least likely "back up", fighters usually have 2-3 additional weapons IME.

Anyway, I hope I've been clear in saying wearing glasses while adventuring IS possible, I understand that. I just think life would be easier (and safer as an adventurer!) without them.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Good for you! And I'm sure if you were in a D&D dungeon and had your glasses broken, lost, or taken from you, you wouldn't have any issues.

But that's not actually gonna happen, is it?