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

 

[ezo]

MtG doesn't count.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Recognize what is true? That you have a choice? If so, I never doubted or argued you didn't....

That someone could choose to keep their glasses. You keep posting as though it is unthinkable, as though any intelligent dungeoneer would never make any other choice...

But they could. So it doesn't matter how powerful the healing magic is. Someone could still choose to not use it and to have glasses, for any number of reasons.

It depends a lot on how impaired your vision is, or someone else's.

Uh huh, so there is a spectrum of how detrimental it could possibly be.

In some cases, such as this, sure. What about your ranger or rogue in light armor fighting a bunch of orcs in hide armor and you're 100 feet away tossing in a fireball?

If you have allies in melee with the enemy, why are you tossing a fireball? Regardless of if you can see the enemy clearly or not, that seems like that is going to be trouble to drop an explosion on a melee that includes your allies.

Also, if you are targetting someone in that melee, and you have a Tiefling rogue and a an elven ranger, then even if they are just moving blobs, one of them is pink, the other is skinny and pale, and everything else is bigger and green. Pretty easy to figure out which ones are the enemy.

Anyway, this entire discussion was about you not having glasses to help you see... so I don't see how having multiple pairs of glasses relates at all.

No, the discussion was about mitigating the issue.

If I don't have glasses, then I can use what details I can see to tell the difference between the targets.
If I have extra pairs, then if my glasses are damaged then I can swap them out.
If I'm 100 feet from the fight, then it is unlikely my glasses get damaged in the first place

Again, you have presented the point as if you would have to be stupid or careless to wear glasses as a dungeoneer. I am simply pointing out that it is potentially far less devastating than you seem to think.

Then your vision is not as bad as you suggested when you wrote "I'd have a hard time seeing people's faces".

Huh? Having extra glasses in my bag has nothing to do with how bad my vision is. Even being unable to make out people's faces, I can tell a seven foot person in a red shirt from a five foot person in a blue shirt, because one is a big red blob and the other is a small blue blob. Yeah, my vision sucks, but there is a difference between "is that person smiling" and "is that person standing next to a building or standing next to a tree?"

And I think even with my bad vision, I could tell quite a lot of information, if I really needed to.

 

[ezo]

That someone could choose to keep their glasses. You keep posting as though it is unthinkable, as though any intelligent dungeoneer would never make any other choice...

No, I don't. I keep posting that it doesn't make sense to me. There's a difference.

But they could. So it doesn't matter how powerful the healing magic is. Someone could still choose to not use it and to have glasses, for any number of reasons.

We'll simply disagree on that, then.

Uh huh, so there is a spectrum of how detrimental it could possibly be.

Obviously.

If you have allies in melee with the enemy, why are you tossing a fireball? Regardless of if you can see the enemy clearly or not, that seems like that is going to be trouble to drop an explosion on a melee that includes your allies.

Because you don't recognise that they are in there??? Again, if your vision is impaired to that extend.

Also, if you are targetting someone in that melee, and you have a Tiefling rogue and a an elven ranger, then even if they are just moving blobs, one of them is pink, the other is skinny and pale, and everything else is bigger and green. Pretty easy to figure out which ones are the enemy.

Or they are all brownish blobs because they are wearing leather armors and the orcs are wearing hide armors...

No, the discussion was about mitigating the issue.

If I don't have glasses, then I can use what details I can see to tell the difference between the targets.
If I have extra pairs, then if my glasses are damaged then I can swap them out.
If I'm 100 feet from the fight, then it is unlikely my glasses get damaged in the first place

No... you said you would do fine without glasses, and I questioned that. Since only you can judge the degree of difficulty you have seeing without glasses, I posed examples of how you might not.

Again, you have presented the point as if you would have to be stupid or careless to wear glasses as a dungeoneer. I am simply pointing out that it is potentially far less devastating than you seem to think.

Depends on your degree of impairment, doesn't it? Like I said, I wear glass while driving at night. So, without glasses in a D&D "world" I would have issues seeing fine detail at a distance in dim light. I can still see quite a bit, but if a DM told me I had disadvantage on a check because of it, I'd agree.

So, how devasting it is completely depends on how poorly the dungeoneer's vision is without assistance.

Huh? Having extra glasses in my bag has nothing to do with how bad my vision is.

No, it doesn't.

Even being unable to make out people's faces, I can tell a seven foot person in a red shirt from a five foot person in a blue shirt, because one is a big red blob and the other is a small blue blob. Yeah, my vision sucks, but there is a difference between "is that person smiling" and "is that person standing next to a building or standing next to a tree?"

Fine, then you are one point on the broad spectrum between excellent vision and completely blind.

And I think even with my bad vision, I could tell quite a lot of information, if I really needed to.

Ok. Only you can be the judge of that.

 

[Hussar]

I’d point out that nearsightedness isn’t the only reason to wear glasses. I’m farsighted. Need glasses to read.

Kinda like how a wizard might be?

Why is this even a discussion?

 

[Chaosmancer]

No, I don't. I keep posting that it doesn't make sense to me. There's a difference.

We'll simply disagree on that, then.

Disagree on what? That people can make different choices than the one you would make? That people can't find glasses aesthetically pleasing and choose to use them? That a character can't have philosophical issues with the Gods and not want Divine Magic to alter their body? What exactly are we disagreeing on here?

Sure, it doesn't make sense to you, but, to be blunt, you can acknowledge that people can make stupid decisions for fashion or prejudice right? Even if those decisions don't make sense to you? So why keep focusing on this idea that you can't imagine someone making those decisions?

Obviously.

Because you don't recognise that they are in there??? Again, if your vision is impaired to that extend.

Or they are all brownish blobs because they are wearing leather armors and the orcs are wearing hide armors...

So everyone is covered head to toe in the same brown shade of armor? Look at the wizard art again. Does she look like she runs in a low-level party that is going to be wearing bog-standard leathers? Look at a lot of Orc art, do they tend to be head to toe in armor? Also, it is hide armor, which means animal hides with fur. They are all going to be exact same shade of brown?

No... you said you would do fine without glasses, and I questioned that. Since only you can judge the degree of difficulty you have seeing without glasses, I posed examples of how you might not.

The part you quoted was at the end of my post. Covering the differences in size, shape, color as well as the ability to trivially carry multiple pairs of glasses even if it was a concern. It was a summary of the entire argument.

Depends on your degree of impairment, doesn't it? Like I said, I wear glass while driving at night. So, without glasses in a D&D "world" I would have issues seeing fine detail at a distance in dim light. I can still see quite a bit, but if a DM told me I had disadvantage on a check because of it, I'd agree.

So, how devasting it is completely depends on how poorly the dungeoneer's vision is without assistance.

Sure. Can you judge that just by looking at someone? Can you tell looking at that artwork whether she is near-sighted or far-sighted, and to what degree? Maybe she only needs reading glasses, she is surrounded by books, is it impossible that this situation happened while she was reading?

Again, like the glasses or not, my point is that they aren't some impossible quandary that no adventurer would ever risk facing. Which, again, is how your posts have repeatedly come across. Not as an opinion, but as a judgement, like saying that no adventurer would ever go into a dungeon without armor, because not having armor is too dangerous. That is the same sort of energy you keep bringing to this discussion about glasses and why any adventurer would clearly want to use Divine Magic to alter their eyesight to not need glasses.

 

[Hussar]

So everyone is covered head to toe in the same brown shade of armor? Look at the wizard art again. Does she look like she runs in a low-level party that is going to be wearing bog-standard leathers? Look at a lot of Orc art, do they tend to be head to toe in armor? Also, it is hide armor, which means animal hides with fur. They are all going to be exact same shade of brown?

To be fair, if you look at a LOT of fantasy on TV or movies, as my wife says it, "which beardy guy in brown is fighting this time?"

 

[Fifth Element]

#GetYourMtGoutOfMyDnD

It's not your DnD...

 

[Fifth Element]

Other than the fact that she's black, how in the heck is that "Storm"?

Indeed.

 

[Fifth Element]

yes, still very generic and without context

I'm going to suggest that you can imagine any context you like. Imagination tends to be encouraged in D&D.

 

[Azzy]

Me and the boys, waiting.

Personally, I never liked his work. ¯\(ツ)/¯