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

 

[Azzy]

That's well and good, but what kind of wishes is it fulfilling? 3d6 down the line was not the same fantasy as this.

1e AD&D suggested 4d6-L assign as desired as "Method I", as the standard ability score generation and actively argues against 3d6 down the line. So, 1e isn't the same fantasy that you're talking about.

 

[Reynard]

I will reiterate that our likes and dislikes are usually driven by irrational, emotional reactions, and our attempts to identify logical reasons behind them are usually wrong. But for some reason we have an inherent discomfort with owning the inherent irrationality of our tastes, and make up post-hoc reasons to explain them to ourselves anyway.

We also like to assume our preferences are widely held, when that may not be the case (and often isn't).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Right, because the target demographic was nerdy, usually white, boys. The wizard being physically weak and unattractive kept them relatable to that target demographic, while their superheroic abilities came from their intelligence, study, and preparation served that demographic’s power fantasy. Even their quadratic growth compared to the fighters’ linear growth satisfied the narrative of the jocks peaking in high school while the later-blooming nerds would be vindicated in the long-term with wealth and power later in life.

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).

Yeah, this is reminding me of back when the Radiant Citadel book was announced and all of the sudden people were complaining about minor or ridiculous nitpicks that they hadn’t been for previous, similar books. They couldn’t say exactly why they were so upset about the book before it even released, but anyone with half a brain could absolutely tell what they were complaining about. It seems like it’s happening again.

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).

 

[Azzy]

On the general standards of "sexing up" in the popular media, that is not "sexed up" in any meaningful sense.

Yeah, I'm just not seeing the picture as "sexed up".

 

[Charlaquin]

I have never considered it in those terms before but that's, well, interesting at least (but probably beyond the scope of this thread).

Notice how in old-school D&D the most important stats are Strength and Intelligence, but in modern D&D the most important stats are Dexterity and Charisma? I won’t go so far as to claim that that’s because the game is played more by theater kids than nerds now. But it is an interesting parallel.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Notice how in old-school D&D the most important stats are Strength and Intelligence, but in modern D&D the most important stats are Dexterity and Charisma? I won’t go so far as to claim that that’s because the game is played more by theater kids than nerds now. But it is an interesting parallel.

When did theater kids stop being nerds?

 

[Reynard]

Notice how in old-school D&D the most important stats are Strength and Intelligence, but in modern D&D the most important stats are Dexterity and Charisma? I won’t go so far as to claim that that’s because the game is played more by theater kids than nerds now. But it is an interesting parallel.

I blame the 2E bard.

 

[Charlaquin]

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).

Indeed, I don’t think it was intentional pandering to the target demographic, but rather a reflection of the subconscious biases of the designers.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yeah, this is reminding me of back when the Radiant Citadel book was announced and all of the sudden people were complaining about minor or ridiculous nitpicks that they hadn’t been for previous, similar books. They couldn’t say exactly why they were so upset about the book before it even released, but anyone with half a brain could absolutely tell what they were complaining about. It seems like it’s happening again.

It is strange how whenever I open either thread, every dog in the neighborhood goes nuts.

 

[Clint_L]

Yeah, I'm just not seeing the picture as "sexed up".

Me either. I mean, she's attractive for sure, and looks like a wizard straight out of Hollywood central casting (i.e. undeniably gorgeous but given glasses to make her look, you know, intellectual). But she's not all sexed up. She looks like a badass. We're not talking the front of the AD&D DM's Guide, here.

Maybe that's the real problem for some folks.