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

 

[bedir than]

What if she just likes wearing glasses?

I could wear contacts, and see a bit better even, but default to glasses.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Maybe she is allergic to Retinax V?

 

[ezo]

The thing is, the reasons you give for disliking it don’t really hold up. There’s a double-standard involved where magic has to be both flexible and rigid in order for these stated reasons to follow logically. That’s what people are disagreeing with you about, not the simple fact that you don’t like it.

They hold up fine. As I have already pointed out. If people don't agree with it, that is their perogative.

The people that commonly complain about people with disabilities being present in fantasy worlds. If you’re not one of them, fine, your arguments are just pretty similar.

I take no issue with them being there at all. And I have no idea what arguments you're referring to, similar or not.

If you're insinuating that saying magic could remove disabilities in a world full of magic is such an argument, I find that hard to believe since I see it as no different from people with disabilities IRL using medicine/science to the same end. Granted, the same arguments about availability could certainly be true! Not everyone with a disability can afford treatment or have the other resources needed. The same could certainly be true in a fantasy game. Having the gold for a magic spell, potion, etc. to afford magical healing could be well outside the reach of many. However, a wizard as depicted in this image I would think would have the resources if such magic exists. If you don't want it to exist in your game, that's fine of course, but I prefer imagining it exists in mine.

I allow the spell to help people, but lesser restoration is clearly intended to remedy more minor, temporary effects, like a Blindness/Deafness spell, Hold Person, or poison. Restoring permanent disabilities is more of a Regeneration/powerful resurrection ability. Plus, Wizards can’t cast Lesser Restoration, so even if she could be cured by that spell, who’s to say that her “party” (if she has one) has a member that can cast the spell?

Whether you want it to be a more powerful spell or not is up to you. I'm fine with lesser restoration helping people with visual or hearing disabilities. If someone has no eyes at all, then yes a spell like regeneration would be needed.

Yes, Wizards can't cast it themselves, but NPC casters are commonly available, and as I use lesser restoration, easily available for some gold in most major regions. She doesn't need a party member to do it, but frankly every other spellcasting class (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger) has it or a subclass (Divine Soul and Celestial) has access to it. IMO it is one of the most commonly taken spells at 2nd level.

Glasses are just a really, really weird thing to criticize.

For the reasons I given, they seem odd to be there, which is all I said. The idea of them being magical items of some sort makes more sense. Anyway, people criticise things about stuff all the time that seems strange to me, too, but I'm not them.

letting you know what people will interpret it as

Ah, so you can read minds instead of just letting people speak for themselves?

Whether or not it should work, people in fantasy settings wearing glasses is quite common in imagery.

And given these are worlds of magic, it always seems just as strange to me, even though I have to wear glasses myself at times. As I said upthread, a farmer, smith, etc. wearing glasses? Certainly. An adventurer? Not so much. Think about how Presto functioned in the D&D cartoons when he didn't have his glasses?

Wearing glasses that allow you to see better isn't something the really needs to be fixed.

It depends on what you want to do. People IRL get surgery to fix their vision. I did myself 20 years ago. My vision was better than 20/20 for a good decade, and is 20/20 even now. I don't even need my glasses to drive at night, but it makes everything sharper.

In a world of magic, how is using magic to "fix" impaired vision really any different? Does it NEED to be done? Of course not, I never claimed it did. But as someone whose had my vision fixed, for an adventurer/wizard of any experience, it seems like something they would do IMO.

When one gives a logical reason for one’s like or dislike of something, one gives other people something to refute. “Aha!” they can say, “your opinion is invalid, because it’s based on a flawed premise, as I will now demonstrate.”

Yep, and I have no idea why people felt it was necessary to try to "refute" my reasons, which are logical as I've covered again and again.

What if she just likes wearing glasses?

I could wear contacts, and see a bit better even, but default to glasses.

Sure! I said earlier maybe she just wants to be stylish...

 

[overgeeked]

They hold up fine. As I have already pointed out. If people don't agree with it, that is their perogative.

Except the part where you’re demonstrably wrong as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

 

[Oofta]

,,,
Ah, so you can read minds instead of just letting people speak for themselves?
,,,

Fine. How I interpreted it and, based on others responses, how several other people interpreted it. Better?

 

[smetzger]

Her staff is obviously attached to an immovable rod with some sovereign glue
and those are goggles of minute seeing

 

[ezo]

Except the part where you’re demonstrably wrong as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

No, it hasn't:

A. magic can restore impaired vision in a magical world just like science can do it IRL. (In fact, with spells like Regeneration, it can do more than IRL). I choose that lesser restoration would be sufficient since it removes the blinded condition, which IMO is not just impaired vision, but NO vision. If the eyes are gone, then regeneration would do it. Therefore, in a magical world, a "powerful wizard" as this image portrays, seems odd to me to be wearing glasses unless they are magical items as has been suggested.

B. there is no single spell, in and of itself, which represents a globe of protection, floating objects, and levitation/flight. it is not clear what this image is supposed to portray in the sense of a D&D character as a "wizard". As others have pointed out, there is nothing about this image that says "wizard" compared to it being representative of a sorcerer or warlock.

These two options are not at odds with each other, as people seem to believe.

Fine. How I interpreted it and, based on others responses, how several other people interpreted it. Better?

Then you interpretted it incorrectly. Follow the path of our conversation. All I've ever claimed is the same as I wrote above and have repeated consistently. You began the "poor vision is a disease" thing, and I have no idea where you got that from because I certainly never said it or implied it.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

While D&D magic can potentially heal almost any injury, I don't see any spell in the rules that can permanently "fix" inborn traits, or the bodily effects of lifestyle and aging (outside of wish, which can potentially do anything at significant risk). I don't think the wizard the illustration can "cure" her poor vision any more than she can "cure" her 8 STR score.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Again, not to insult you - you are free to like what you like, of course - but it strikes me that the colour of a Wizard's clothes, and whether or not they are wearing robes and/or a hat (of any sort, pointy or otherwise)... it all just seems incredibly limiting to me.

It just seems to me that Wizards ought to look like just about anything a D&D player would want them to (appropriate to the setting, but I see that distinction as more broad than a lot of people here seem to as well).

I mean, I don't even get the argument that she looks too much like a Stryxhaven Wizard. Stryxhaven IS a D&D world! YOU can choose not to play in it, of course! But it EXISTS.

She doesn't have to look like YOUR wizard character, whoever you are, that's the whole point: You can make a wizard however you want - and so can this artist.

no, it is more pop culture training: Gold and White Are Divine - TV Tropes
there is a point of me knowing my own likes can be fundamentally pointless.
it is more making the caster hard to confuse with each other

 

[overgeeked]

A. magic can restore impaired vision in a magical world...

Not according to anything in the actual rules, which is what you were pointing to for the basis of your objection originally. There's nothing about fixing nearsightedness or farsightedness in any D&D book. There are also magical items that the glasses could be. You're assuming the character has bad eyesight simply so you can argue against it. I find it hard to believe you'd be arguing against other official D&D art with a character wearing glasses.

I mean, it's been a thing since AD&D.

I choose that lesser restoration would be sufficient...

Ah. So referee fiat, not represented in the actual rules, which is part of what you were objecting to originally. Weird that referee fiat is acceptable here so you can argue against the character wearing glasses but not when it comes to explaining the caster's spells. Hmm. That's odd.

B. there is no single spell, in and of itself, which represents a globe of protection, floating objects, and levitation/flight.

The only one insisting that it be a single spell is you. That's begging the question. Casters can have multiple spells going at once. Only some, not all long-lasting spells require concentration and that's also ignoring magic items. And you're also ignoring the same referee fiat you used to argue against the glasses. That's a strange choice you've made. Hmm.

But, ignoring that...oversight, there are numerous magic items that could cover any one of those effects, likewise numerous spells that cover any one of those effects. Combine the caster actually casting spells themselves and using magic items, and viola, you have game mechanics that allow exactly what you're seeing in the picture.

You also assume, for no clear reason, that all the effects are directly caused by the caster in the image. For example, the books flying around or her flying could be caused by someone else. We don't know because the image lacks context. But, for some reason, you decided to assume the context you wanted so you could argue against it. Making a really weak strawman.