No one has made fun of you. Challenging your claims is not making fun of you.
Yes, they are. No one is challenging my CLAIMS, they are challenging my OPINION. Big difference.
So the glasses are why we got 97 pages of why it is so hard for some folks to imagine this person as a wizard. Thank goodness we solved that mystery!
Don't ask me... it never was a mystery.
Exactly, and Lasik is not a cure all…
True, it is an operation to assist vision impairment. IME it has been 20 years and counting and I still have 20/20 vision.
At that point I can't take your concerns seriously anymore. What does raising the dead have to do with eyesight?
Frankly, I don't care if you do or not---your choice. Anyway, as far as the two, it is an issue of how much magic is capable of. Magic in D&D is capable of doing a LOT more than magic in HP.
It illustrates the highly non-standard nature of the setting. A world in which raising the dead was generally available would be very different to any typical D&D setting.
I think he meant the exact opposite.
You can't raise dead so you can't fix eyesight in HP...
To clarify:
Since the beginning of D&D (maybe not OD&D?)
raise dead has been "available". Generally? Depends on your setting, of course, but IME it is generally there... the real issue then being "at what price"? Most DMs will have a cleric in cities, even major towns, capable of raising the dead. Many times those clerics will ask for the PCs to complete some task in exchange, or pay very high fees. So, I wouldn't say "generally available" to non-PCs because they lack either the ability to complete such tasks or the gold to pay such fees. But IME for PCs, yeah, it is generally available. This hasn't just been true in my games, but in every game I've played in unless it was purposefully run "low magic".
If magical spells and features in D&D were not capable of doing miraculous things at fairly low to mid levels, expecting magic to assist with vision impairment might not be an expectation of mine. However, in D&D that is not the case. So, something which I consider relatively "simple" by comparison (healing vision vs. raising the dead) should be capable in the game. We already know
heal will cure blindness (not the blinded condition, actual
blindness), but it is certainly a high level spell IMO. However, it is doing "more" to cure blindness than lesser magic could do to assist impaired vision. Nothing in D&D deals with this directly, of course, so it is completely up to the DM/group if magic could function in such a way.
I don't feel such a concept is unreasonable or illogical. In the case of the new wizard image, since it is my expectation magic can assist with impaired vision given everything else magic is capable of, the
need of eyeglasses for a PC isn't likely IMO. Whether a
lesser restoration could do it (AL cost is 40 gp), or something stronger, such as
greater restoration (450 gp) or even
heal (maybe 2000 gp, no AL listed cost), might be necessary, IME PC's generally gain enough gold to make paying for these services attainable. After all, plate armor (at 1500 gp) is typically by 5th level or sooner.
By comparison, in Harry Potter for instance, we don't see magic curing blindness, raising the dead (in fact, we know it can't), nearly instantly restoring lost limbs, etc., so I wouldn't necessarily expect magic to help with impaired vision.
And now it turns out that you're telling us the reason it doesn't appeal to you is that you can't identify with a wizard who would choose to wear glasses.
Well, there are several other reasons why it doesn't
appeal to me, and no, I do not personally identify with this image, but that is a minor issue by comparison to the others I have. But in summary:
magic exists, it can cure blindness and do all sort of amazing things, but it can't help with impaired vision? Makes no sense to me, and if magic can help with impaired vision, I would use it. Others might not, and have their reasons, which I wouldn't agree with personally, but that really shouldn't be any concern of theirs--they can do or not do as they like.
What should we infer from that? That you can only enjoy art depicting people whose choices and behaviours are ones you can identify with? That a "stylish" wizard is so far from not just your own inclinations, but from your very conception of what a wizard might be, that you can't imagine such a person as part of the game world?
You shouldn't infer anything. If you don't know, or wonder why: ask!
As far as me only enjoying art, etc. it seems that is one reason why some people who
wear glasses do identify with this image. Whether they choose to wear them for style, to assist their vision, or whatever, the fact that she's wearing glasses
appeals to them. I doesn't to me, that's all, nothing more to it.
I can easily imagine such a person as part of a game world, but she doesn't "seem" wizardly to me, for all the reasons I've already mentioned upthread.
That's before I get to the comment about the book. Ignoring the fact that most people seem to agree that she is casting some sort of wizard/MU spell (a globe, or a shield), what is the main thing that distinguishes a wizard form a sorcerer? Or a druid? Or (some) warlocks and (some) clerics? The answer is, their book. And of course, as others have already noted, the glasses as an artefact do not detract from, and perhaps reinforce, the presentation of a "bookish", scholarly persona.
Ah, the "book". I think you mean, "books" if you see the larger picture. When you see the full image, there are seveal "books" flying around her. As a poster speculated, they could be
animated and attacking her, which would make more sense to me and fits the context of the image.
Otherwise, it's just a book. Nothing about it indicates it is a spellbook, let alone hers. Even if you accept it is her spellbook, so what? Pact of the Tome warlocks have "spellbooks", as would
any PC with the Ritual Caster feat have a ritual book, and others IIRC.
Of course, I am not alone in also stating the coloring and lighting of the image seems more "divine" than arcane. There are all sorts of reasons why I, and others, don't care for this image as representative of "wizard" or don't care for the image in general.