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

 

[Chaosmancer]

The Wizard in question has normal-sized eyes and a detailed nose, compared to some common generalizations about "anime art" I don't know where "anime art" comes from.

It largely seemed to be because the art was "flashy". Giant spell sigil, items floating around the character, glowing with power.

I'm not going to say you can't find those things in anime, you can, but to me that is the equivalent of seeing leaves and grass in a picture and saying it is pastoral. Those details can appear in other styles.

 

[Hussar]

Well, lessee what the criticisms seem to be shall we? A quick recap:

1. This is a fantasy version of Storm from Marvel. Well, she does have white eyes and she is flying... and... well... she's black. Other than that?
2. This is too superhero because of the pose. Again, how many different ways do we show someone without wings flying? This is pretty much the standard pose for anyone depicted flying in any genre.
3. She's "hypersexualized". That's a fun one. Fully clothed is hypersexualized?
4. Too anachronistic.
5. Too clean.

Did I miss any?

 

[Chaosmancer]

A lot of 3E's art was, and I feel like as someone who has done a lot of art, I should recall the proper term for this (!!!), "floaty" art, i.e. figures/creatures/beings/objects who are full-colour and full detail but just on a white or pale blank background, and it's like, there are times that works, but 3E pushed it far, far beyond the bounds of "what works" into being basically the dominant art style of 3E and becoming quite annoying, frankly.

5E does it much less, but I still does a sort of less-extreme form of it a lot, where there's a segment of background (sometimes faded-out) behind a figure or monster, and it's like, no, please, please stop that, do like, actual full pieces! Or use it really selectively and consistently - also it works a lot better with black and white pieces than colour ones.

I know some people like it and great for them, but, for me, just less of that, or only use it non-full-colour pieces at least. That's another thing I miss though - non-full-colour pieces. I love a bit of black-and-white or similar similar monotonal or near-monotonal art, some of the most effect RPG art I've seen is that (I loved some of the moody blue on white pieces in 2E, for example), but unfortunately it seems like WotC feel like that's maybe... beneath them? Or that their audience would see it as cheap. Meh. I'd much rather than a really cool B&W piece than a mid or only ok colour one, but I think many people would disagree.

All the stuff I've seen so far for 2024, with no exceptions, has been an actual, full piece at least.

I can't comment much on the black and white art, that's just very much not common anymore. About the only place I consistently see black and white art is specific visual novels, everyone else uses color.

But as for the style, well... it makes sense. Character art is meant to emphasize the character in question, and drawing a full scene or background is not only a lot more work, but it takes more time and space. So, most RPG books have the majority of their art as a character with little to no background, because they asked for the character art, and less background is easier to fit in the book and cheaper.

Is it as visually interesting? Of course not, but you have to consider the goal of the art and the constraints of the situation. In actuality, this image has a lot more background than most do, so WoTC is clearly putting more money towards these pieces than they were before, allowing for more stuff in each picture.

 

[ezo]

Did I miss any?

A few, but why stoke the flames?

Otherwise, I'm not touching your "summary".

G' day!

 

[Chaosmancer]

Honestly, one of the first things I thought looking at this art, is that other than the staff, it reminded me intensely of a scene I had written for an archmage character.

Spoiler: text in question

The magus' eyebrow rose at Kulu's words, watching as he pointed at the platinum coin. Once it lit up, she devolved into giggles, "I do love this spell. Statistically, from your words, you would have chosen the gold coin. You must have a very kind heart for this to be so important to you." After she stopped giggling she tapped her chin, "Now, how to honor your dedication, since you won't let me study you or your more interesting companions..."

She swayed back and forth muttering to herself, "No, they'd kill you for that. That would take too long. What about, no, wrong season..." she traced glyphs in the air, which spun like the gears of a great machine. Within seconds, she was all but cocooned in magical lights, "Tainted data. I'd get an earful. I wouldn't be able to sneak a cream puff. Oh!" The powerful mage snapped her finger and the sigils shifted into a single point.

It isn't exact, obviously, but I do keep seeing it as a type of divination, using magic and the various tomes to compile data and come to a conclusion.


And towards the criticism of the staff not being in their hand... I honestly couldn't care less. People seem to want this character to be very grounded in the magic they are doing, less flashy, more subtle, but that isn't the goal of this art. And it isn't a goal I have when describing magic in my DnD games. I don't want every spell to be grand and impressive, but when something grand and impressive is happening with magic I want it to feel that way. And this is grand and impressive magic. What is she doing precisely? Doesn't matter. The precise magic isn't as important as the feel of POWER.

 

[Zardnaar]

I kinda like this style more eg hand drawn. Oil painting.


Sisters started doing painting.

So older TSR art I like more. Modern versions of that as sone of its aged poorly eg big perms.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Not everyone can achieve that level of genius...but rhe genetic relationship is clear.

"This art looks anime" = "I don't like it" for some people.

I think this is a way of saying “not grounded” or too bright or something. My kid is into anime—I sit down and watch it with her. This is not like any anime I have seen.

I think it’s good but not to my taste—-glasses are a pet peeve of mine.

I like more grit typically, but not a big deal if they have some variation. This wizard may be at the top of her well appointed tower, miles way from
Any dungeon.

I loved some 5e art and some…I did not. This is good. I think the art is going to be the most “competent” in aggregate of any edition to date. I predict some good stuff.

As an aside not directed to you: I hope we are not to the point where not liking something is automatically assumed to be some veiled negative trait…just reading the thread and seeing a lot of assumption.

 

[Cadence]

Well, lessee what the criticisms seem to be shall we? A quick recap:

1. This is a fantasy version of Storm from Marvel. Well, she does have white eyes and she is flying... and... well... she's black. Other than that?
2. This is too superhero because of the pose. Again, how many different ways do we show someone without wings flying? This is pretty much the standard pose for anyone depicted flying in any genre.
3. She's "hypersexualized". That's a fun one. Fully clothed is hypersexualized?
4. Too anachronistic.
5. Too clean.

Did I miss any?

6? The general art style is the current style (the majority of MtG cards lately) as opposed to say the 2e mm on 1e b&w things, older MTG cards or even how some of the 1/4 page character sketches in Tasha feel with the less full background. I'm guessing some of that is old farts liking what they grew up with and there could be someone who has been buried in recent non-secret lair MtG cards and wants something besides crisp lines and bright digital coloring. (Is it old fart griping about comic art if sometimes I like the late 1970s Marvel comics art and coloring and word balloons with black on white instead of the modern digitally colored stuff where I need glasses to read the text. Does it change if I also love Dauterman on Thor and am just fine with Erica Henderson on Squirrel Girl and Alto Firmansyah on Wasp?). In any case, I really like a lot of the modern MtG art better than the older stuff.

7? On first glance the white and gold made me think cleric. I get that the details are all wizard and that some wizards of course where white and that I don't think any of my own cleric PCs have ever worn white (it's the class I play most). Something must have really trained me to think this though - and it annoys me! I mean, for Pete's sake, Gandalf the White! My brain doesn't seem to care. I kind of now one of the iconics for each class to be done in white and gold just to break me of it.

Edit: Does anachronistic cover the glasses? Seriously!?! WTF on the glasses criticism.

 

[mamba]

I think the art is going to be the most “competent” in aggregate of any edition to date

I think so too, from what I have seen I cannot really complain about competency in the 2024 books. I tend to like oil paintings better than digital, this also holds true for the same artist using both mediums.

I liked the old art by Elmore, Parkinson, Caldwell, and Brom a lot and it was competent as well. In 3e the same is true for Lockwood. Where 2024 has the edge is that they mostly painted title pages for the adventures, and there was not much interior art of that quality in the core books, so 2024 is bound to beat the old core books

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I think so too, from what I have seen I cannot really complain about competency in the 2024 books. I tend to like oil paintings better than digital, this also holds true for the same artist using both mediums.

I liked the old art by Elmore, Parkinson, Caldwell, and Brom a lot and it was and competent as well. In 3e the same is true for Lockwood. Where 2024 has the edge is that they mostly painted title pages for the adventures, and there was not much interior art of that quality in the core books, so 2024 is bound to beat the old core books

Yeah—-I really enjoy paintings…really love Brom. I also liked Lockwood.

I am most interested to see how they portray warriors in particular…