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

 

[Gravenhurst48]

When would you say all of this was more than 50% true for D&D, when did it flip over from being the "majority" view, to the minority view?

Because I would say, as someone who started running AD&D 2E in 1989, it was certainly before that date.

Wizards were, very clearly not "elderly", because you rolled for age, and you were very young. Further, you couldn't (AFAICR) even choose to start out old despite the stat bonuses it would give you - that wasn't something allowed for or even really hinted at - otherwise every Wizard/Mage/Magic-User would have!


Again, when was the last time 3d6 Down The Line "the norm" for character creation? It was definitely not the case by say, 1993, when I got on the internet. Nor was it the case with literally any group I played with before that. 4d6 Drop The Lowest, Arrange To Taste was immediately the norm - not only did the Canadian woman who taught me to play 2E suggest that, but every group I came across, all of them (and it was at least 7 or 8 before 1993), were either using that, a close variant of that (usually allowing some re-rolls or point-shifting), or a Monty Haul-type system where they got ridiculous stats.

Looking online, in the 1990s, absolutely no-one said they used 3d6 Down The Line - even the people who played the trad-est sounding games didn't use it (in fact they often used odd points-based homebrew methods, or so they self-reported).

So you're acting like D&D is "evolving", but this evolution you're complaining about had taken place almost completely by the early 1990s.

I used 3d6 DTLine until all the crybabies wanted easier rolls, so 3d6 was kept but re-roll lowest die. Then players cried some more, so I switched to 4d6 DTLowest with 1st Character, then 3d6 DTLine when a player re-rolls a new PC because now they are an experienced player. I have in the middle of an escalated situation, to keep momentum going and pace fast, when a PC dies I may deduct a CON point and bring the PC back to life in some creative way just to keep the action rolling. The PC usually has some penalty from the death blow, but sometimes it's just bring 'em back to attack mode to keep everyone happy, minus 1 CON pt.
And without opening campaign PHBs to verify, quite possibly from my imagination, Greyhawk was grittier with 3d6 and Faerun 4d6 light. Ravenloft was theatre of the mind. Darksun was 3d6 minus 1. And Planescape was out to lunch on cloud nine. Jokes aside, how a character was rolled created statistics reflecting the challenge of the setting. Even the point buying option doesn't do any justice for D&D, IMO, because the ruleset does not offer enough choices to buy in to anything. I believe percentage based mechanics better suit a point buying system.
Anyways, back onto the image opinion, if this art is used for the cover, "hate it". If used inside, "meh". Leave MTG art for the card game.

 

[Gravenhurst48]

And...I'm suddenly glad they're not trying to cater to all gamers...

Too frkn bad, for me.

 

[mamba]

Has D&D ever had a cohesive art style?

for a whole edition, no, for some settings like Dark Sun or Planescape they did however (not that I really know all modules in either, but from what I have seen)

I remember early editions being a wonderful mishmash of different artists. Half the time, the artists couldn’t even agree on what an orc or goblin looked like. And with the customizable nature of the game, that seems to be fitting.

I assumed that with the bigger art budget, we would also get more of an identity than with the 2014 books, but that does not seem to be the case. We seem to get higher production value, but no identity.

I do agree with you that D&D is a melting pot of things, so not getting a cohesive and identifiable style might be intentional to reflect that. Personally I still would have preferred an identifiable style however, you can still show a huge variety of things even in a recognizable style.

 

[ezo]

they've even got the glowing eyes.

With... gasp... GLASSES, too! Man, to think I could have been griping about this for years now and I missed it!!!

Go EZO, I am in your corner!

I appreciate that, but...

Show me more boobs, I am good with that accentuating detail!

Let's not go overboard, ok?

 

[mamba]

Do wish folks would pick a lane.

I have picked a lane and you did not like that either

 

[mamba]

Really? Really?? Really???

Apart from this not being the same pose as Henry (hands are not at all in the same position…), not every pose a superhero can assume is superheroic, otherwise every single one would be…

 

[mamba]

Anyways, back onto the image opinion, if this art is used for the cover, "hate it". If used inside, "meh". Leave MTG art for the card game.

it is inside art, we have not seen the cover yet

 

[Gravenhurst48]

When did theater kids stop being nerds?

When more people became interested just as in RPGs and video gaming. Now nerds are the bullies and the cool kids just want to hangout and game.

 

[Gravenhurst48]

This is a fascinating point - I wonder how it intentional it was, especially given the level limits being a lot lower originally, but certainly ended up that way, and they intentionally made it even more extremely that way in 3E by just taking away most of the factors "holding back" full casters whilst adding in a ton of rules claiming to "empower" martials, but actually just forcing them to be vastly be more likely to fail at everything (not least going from multiple full THAC0 attacks to the ridiculous -5 approach).

I think there are quite a few genuine criticisms of several of the Radiant Citadel adventures (which are rather variable in quality and applicability), and that the sub-setting itself is not very well-considered (ironically for an attempt at a more diverse setting it definitely managed to "trigger" me - and I kind of mean that - re: my own disability, too) but it was definitely true to say that the Radiant Citadel ones got much more nit-picking than the previous collection, Candlekeep Mysteries (ironically a lot of the complaints about that revolved around how WotC had seemingly gutted a PoC adventure-writer's adventure).

The minus 5 rule is great, like a called shot to the head in hopes of critical damage or maiming an eye, or the ankle to trip the enemy, thus hindering their movement. 5e Disadvantage rule is a good compromise along with an additional -2, for called shots.
To me, not every DM can improvise on the spot when a player wants to MacGyver something in his favor where there is no rule for. Bordering ridiculous and slowing down initiatives to wait for the DM to figure out how this guys crazy request could or cannot work. If their ability is good enough to give the PC tactical meta-gaming information, then its minus 5, baby. If the ability score does not reflect a characters request, then it's a no. No roll. It doesn't happen. Player changes answer or he loses turn and we move on.

 

[Morrus]

I just ignored your reply banter because it seems I have poked a nerve. You are boring. Move on and keep with the program.

If you can’t conduct yourself without name calling, you’ll be asked to leave the thread. Dial it back please.