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

 

[Reynard]

I'm aware that you have. If you read my post, you can see that blame assignment is not something I am concerned with.

My key point is that we don't have any real evidence yet for your claim re: "house style". Especially as this piece of art is quite typical of Billy Christian's recent work, rather than obviously confirmative to an art director's vision. Equally, if we take the inverse view and assume the art director isn't presenting a vision but simply picking artists already in line with one (as is quite common though both occur), I would respectfully submit that we simply don't have the evidence to support that claim at this stage.

As far as I know, all the 5E 2024 art we've seen so far is:

1) PHB cover dwarf fighter
2) Glowy McWizard here
3) Silver dragon ticker tape parade
4) Landscape art for four backgrounds
5) Tough Champion Fighter lady

There is some sort of awesome volcanic dragon in the second post of the silver dragon thread.

more dragons pls

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

There is some sort of awesome volcanic dragon in the second post of the silver dragon thread.

more dragons pls

That is not a WotC art though, it is from an EnWorld Publishing product.

 

[Jaeger]

The word "clericus" is not the same word as "cleric". But if we are talking derivations, the root word is the Greek klērikos. It is a word that was in use long before the medieval period, and is still used to describe people who work for the church today. There is nothing medieval about it.

Then by the standard you just set; As a derivation of klērikos, it there is nothing 17th century about 'cleric' either.

At this point if I don't get at least a few sentences telling all and sundry that Gary Gygax was completely full of it; I admit it, I'll be a little disappointed...

Gygax loved REH, swords and sorcery and myth. So a lot of his stuff is ancient-world influenced - not medieval. But as a businessman he was pretty rubbish, and when he lost control the the company the aesthetic was changed to something more broadly appealing (see Dragonlance for example). They dropped the pretence of 1950s Hollywood medievalism inherited from Chainmail for something with more contemporary appeal, and D&D has reflected the culture of it's time ever since. That's how it's managed to stay popular. ...

I am not disappointed. Got a paragraph and then some.

No one here is making the claim that D&D doesn't have a wide variety of influences; Sword and sorcery, Mythology, the ancient world. There's even Tharks in OD&D. And nobody is claiming D&D has ever been a historical medieval game. Ren-faire medieval at best.

And yet there is still a common turn of phrase used by fans to describe D&D, that was even used by the man himself:

TSR - Q&A with Gary Gygax

This is the multi-year Q&A sessions held by D&D co-creator Gary Gygax here at EN World, beginning in 2002 and running up until his sad pasing in 2008. Gary's username in the thread below is Col_Pladoh, and his first post in this long thread is Post #39.

www.enworld.org

"...I did not include Vance-inspired creatures in the A/D&D game because they didn't fit well with a quasi-medieval fantasy game, ..."

TSR - Q&A with Gary Gygax

This is the multi-year Q&A sessions held by D&D co-creator Gary Gygax here at EN World, beginning in 2002 and running up until his sad pasing in 2008. Gary's username in the thread below is Col_Pladoh, and his first post in this long thread is Post #39.

www.enworld.org

"Intense adventuring in the quasi-medieval fantasy milieu becomes staid without some variety. ..."

TSR - Q&A with Gary Gygax

This is the multi-year Q&A sessions held by D&D co-creator Gary Gygax here at EN World, beginning in 2002 and running up until his sad pasing in 2008. Gary's username in the thread below is Col_Pladoh, and his first post in this long thread is Post #39.

www.enworld.org

Gentlegamer said:
Is that because of genre considerations? That is, AD&D is pseudo-medieval fantasy where such abilities are inappropriate? Or were the rules themselves simply problematic from a mechanical point of view?

Col_Pladoh:
"Would you believe both? ..." My Note: Gygax does not correct Gentleman gamer when he says: "AD&D is pseudo-medieval fantasy..."

 

[Yaarel]

Then by the standard you just set; As a derivation of klērikos, it there is nothing 17th century about 'cleric' either.

No one here is making the claim that D&D doesn't have a wide variety of influences; Sword and sorcery, Mythology, the ancient world. There's even Tharks in OD&D.

And yet there is still a common turn of phrase used by fans to describe D&D, that was even used by the man himself.

In your posts, I love your examples of historical accuracy. When playing a "medievalesque" or "quasi-medieval" setting of folkbelief, mythologically accurate worldviews, and whimsical fantasy, it helps to keep the reallife medieval world in mind as a relatable reference point.


Personally, I am torn between a Viking Period regional setting with the rest of the planet around it, versus a contemporary modern or nearfuture setting. In any case, the medievalesque is the "central" D&D tradition, and much of the feel.

 

[Reynard]

That is not a WotC art though, it is from an EnWorld Publishing product.

Wait, what? I feel lied to.

 

[Jaeger]

In your posts, I love your examples of historical accuracy. When playing a "medievalesque" or "quasi-medieval" setting of folkbelief, mythologically accurate worldviews, and whimsical fantasy, it helps to keep the real life medieval world in mind as a relatable reference point.

And it's not about historical accuracy, never has been.

"Generic medieval fantasy" has long been a turn of phrase touchstone people use, and everyone has generally understood what they are talking about.

To bring it back on the thread topic...

I'll explain why I am not a particular fan of the new iconic Wizard art from Wotc.

To Be Clear: This is all My Subjective Opinion, YMMV, etc,...

First: We have an earlier piece from the same artist that I like:

When I think of a fantasy realm like Games of Thrones; that has castles, dragons, knights, and where people still fight with swords and bows; There is a certain imagery that comes to mind... And for me, the art piece shown above fits it.

And again, it's not about "historical accuracy":

The Witcher RPG and CRPG are not 'historically accurate', but its art direction has a look that ties in with what is presented in the books.
The latest edition of Rune Quest is also not 'historically accurate', but its art direction also has a certain look that ties in with Glorantha.

But when I see "Dungeons and Dragons" art like this:

I don't see it as being very stylistically different from stuff like this:

i.e. In my opinion: There is nothing artistically that sets her apart as a "Dungeons and Dragons" wizard.

You could call the 2024 PHB Wizard the 'White Wizard' and slot her straight into a Modern Marvel comic, and she'd fit right in...

It just has this very generic fantastical look to it that I just don't find appealing.

Not the artists fault, they do what they are paid to do. And evidently lots of people like the art. Certainly the people at Wotc that commissioned it.

But, It's not for me. But that's just like my opinion, man...

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Wait, what? I feel lied to.

Not sure if your joking, but Morrus made it very clear:

 

[ezo]

Batman say hi.

LOL sure, if you want a PC to have 10 million gp as part of a Noble background with a retainer.

Not all superheroes actually have superhuman powers.

Then they aren't really "superhuman", are they?

Black Widow (movie version) is a pretty good fit for 7th level monk (she has evasion).

True, but again, not really "superhuman".

Which only reinforces my point, you can do (super)heroic things without having superhuman powers. Being able to do things via magic doesn't make you superheroic. Being (super)heroic is in what you choose to do, not how you do it.

Now, as far as "super powers" are concerned, IME (admittedly, I could EASILY be wrong!) superheroes in comic and movies don't have "per use" type powers. They are simply always on (barring psychological issues or kryptonite-type stuff). But in D&D, anything that comes close to bordering on super powers are very limited in use.

D&D isn't a superhero game, unless you house-rule to make it one. I'm not saying you can't do superhuman/superheroic stuff from time to time, but it isn't really the design of the game.

There are RPGs out there designed for the sueprhero genre, and to try to use D&D as is for that would seem a poor substitute to me.

While I get that every piece of art being busty is catering to one part of the audience, I've been a busty gamer all my life and like seeing myself depicted in the art. Lol

Cool! It's everywhere.

Seriously, busty is one thing, this image is more "front and center" about it. Which I get, sex sells, always has and most likely always will unfortunately. Regardless of other issues with the image, it could have been less "direct" about it and still have people like it.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I've always subscribed to that Adventurers are rare. Anything about 10 even more so.

I get that modern D&D etc is every other NPC is an adventurer who went to wizard school or whatever

Riiiiiight…….”modern” D&D. It’s not like in the Forgotten Realms there isn’t a high level NPC every 5’.

It’s not like 2nd and 3rd edition adventures statted up every NPC you interacted with.

It’s not like 2nd ed required druids to defeat a higher level druid in combat to level up.

No, the problem is the kids these days, and the fact that they won’t get off my lawn.

 

[Reynard]

Not sure if your joking, but Morrus made it very clear:

View attachment 354285

I was kidding. I obviously did not read very closely and just assumed it was a separate reveal.