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

 

[Warpiglet-7]

nevermind

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Not worth it

 

[KYRON45]

No, it can't. Leviatate only affects ONE object, not multiple ones. You can't even upcast it to affect multiple objects.


I never said it was unrealistic. I said for this image, a PC with "such apparent power", it seems odd to me she would be wearing glasses. Because, yes, IMO magic would be able to help with any vision disability.

A farmer with glasses? No problem. Maybe he has never met a caster who can caster lesser restoration for him or couldn't afford having an NPC do it. But this "wizard"? No, I'm sorry, but it just doesn't fit for me. As someone posted, perhaps they are magical lens of some sort, and that, for a "powerful wizard" would make sense.


Exactly, a judgement call, which as I've posted I have made.

And sure, a DM could make that other judgement call as well, but then it wouldn't be the purpose of the spell, would it? It would be some form of "magical side effect", which is very much to the effect of what we see in superhero images/media. Fluff it however you want, but it has nothing to do with what spell she is actually casting (assuming it is whatever sphere is there?). But no spell mimics such an effect by itself.


Let's be clear: function of magical SPELLS. First instance, lesser restoration can rid vision impairment. Second instance, no spell does what is depicted in the image.


"Those people"? Who are "those people"? Please stop trying to pigeon-hole me in a group I don't belong to.

Your choice as far as the spell goes. The ability to cure blindless and restore vision is very much a magical thing to me. Helping someone with a vision impairment would be even easier as they can already see to some extent. Since the spell removes the blinded condition, it implies it very much IMO. You don't want to allow it to help people in your games? Your choice.


Cool. And I'm fine if other people like it for whatever reasons. For the reasons I've agreed with others, and stated for myself, I don't. But people seem to take offense to my disliking it for those reasons, so apparently aren't fine with it.

People (including myself) share their reasons with others often because otherwise other people might question why we don't like it. People project issues they have with others on others still.


Short of the floating staff, that's the best description in context yet! Kuddos.

I mean, her floating could be levitate or fly, but since shield is not concentration, that works.

Of course, her feet are still

Agreed, that in 5E it isn't explicitly written---but that is the nature of 5E, and as such is completely up to the DM.

Now, compare it to magic in 1E:
View attachment 353389


Was I? Where? My original objection was simply:



Yeah, I agreed they could be magical items. Not initially, of course, because magical "lens" and such in our games have always been more like contacts. And I didn't "assuming the character has bad eyesight" so I can "argue against it". I assumed it, because, well, she IS in fact wearing eyeglasses... I had no intent of arguing it one way or another until others brought it up.


I know, except, well, magic can restore poor vision in AD&D. Again:
View attachment 353389


Again, was I, Where? Her wearing glasses was never any issue about "actual rules".


Again, never said DM fiat couldn't represent a spell like whatever it is she is supposed to be doing. I said there is no spell that specifically does it.

So, to be clear: glasses: magic could restore impaired vision. Casting: no spell as written does everything shown in the image. FWIW, I'm not the only one wondering just what is supposed to be going on here or what she might be casting.

Nothing odd about it.


No, I'm not. In fact, my first post about it was agreeing with another poster, as was pretty much everything I responded to in my first post.

Wait? Casters can have more than one spell going on at once!?! Get outta town!

And, once again, I'm not ignoring any of those things.

Not odd, not strange either.


Sure. Did I ever say there wasn't? Did I? No, I don't think so.

(bolded) and that is one of the main reasons I don't like this image. How is this representative of a D&D "wizard" compared to any other caster options in 5E? It's "pretty", colourful and energetic, sure, but bland, lacking imagination, and has no D&D "wizard" aspect to it IMO.


Hmm...? Ok, what did I assume in the context that others didn't? And what, exactly, do you think I am "arguing against"? Because I don't see myself as arguing anything, other than my opinions---which are neither right nor wrong, simply mine.


Really!? Show me where it says they are are caused by a "temporary effect"? Here, I'll help:
View attachment 353402
Scanning... scanning... nope, no temporary at all. Having impaired vision can be a condition, caused by an other effect (such as aging), lasting until countered (by magic!!) or for the duration specified by the effect (aging lasts a pretty long time, hopefully!).


Absolutely true!


Yes, wrongly, but it isn't temporary, as nothing about conditions specify they must be temporary. So...

is incorrect.


Which is fine with me. I'm only defending my interpretation because people continue to want to discuss it.


Well, it isn't magical lasik, just lesser restoration. And who can say it isn't an assumption in "most fantasy campaigns"? People can provide anecdotal evidence, but its just that, anecdotal. It hasn't come up often over the years, but anecdotally, for myself, every game I've played in where it has come up has had magic which can restore impaired senses (particularly sight and hearing).

I mean, why have magic in your game which can regrow lost organs such as eyes, but not have magic that can help it due to natural causes such as aging? I don't see any sense in that. Its like saying you can have an airplane, but not a kite.


Sure, Presto wore them in the 80's. Artwork has them. I'm not saying you can't, I never have. I'm saying (and all I've ever said about it) is that in a world of magic, it seems odd to me to have them when magic could help so you don't need them. I know I don't like to wear my glasses when I do, but I understand others might and don't have any issue if people want to. I might wonder "why?" if I know it is someone who could get lasik, for instance, and they might have any number of reasons, most probably that they don't feel it is safe. Which, in D&D I wouldn't see any different from an NPC saying they "don't trust magic" or something. Odd to me, but I never said it is wrong or implied any such thing.

I wonder if the artist put as much thought and time into the artwork as everyone has put into arguing about it.

 

[Oofta]

Maybe the glowing of her own eyes damaged her retinas and that’s why she needs glasses!

Nah, she's like Cyclops. She needs the glasses to keep from blasting other people.

 

[Cadence]

If your vision was usually 20/20 but you wore something to make it a bit blurry - could you still target a medusa but not be affected by its gaze?

 

[Mind of tempest]

If your vision was usually 20/20 but you wore something to make it a bit blurry - could you still target a medusa but not be affected by its gaze?

I doubt even a total facial scrambler would work

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I doubt even a total facial scrambler would work

Put the scrambler on the medusa, that should work.

 

[ezo]

Maybe I'm used to Warhammer. But wizards from many of the schools of magic in Warhammer like their bling. I've never perceived D&D as any different, just less codified.

Fair enough, that just isn't my experience (never got into Warhammer), so when I see "wizards" wearing pauldrons it seems strange.

WAIT A MINUTE! HE'S NOT OBVIOUSLY CASTING A SPELL! What terrible art to use to represent a D&D wizard!

True, true, but it does come from the concept that without something to indicate he represents a wizard and not some other class, it really doesn't represent, well... a wizard. Could be. Could be something else, though, too.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Put the scrambler on the medusa, that should work.

that is not how it works

 

[Reynard]

Can't you safely look at a Medusa via a mirror? Therefore, any camera will do.