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

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Lol.

I think the only reason I remember that is because I read it in my freshman English class in high school. I remember very little of it besides noting that the Questing Beast bore a striking resemblance to the D&D Catoblepas (and I thought at the time that that's where D&D got it from).

The questing beast was in Deities and Demigods.

 

[Jaeger]

Is it comparable? D&D magic doesn't usually have any risk of failure, Lasik can be catastrophic. Maybe near/far is just human variation and the magic fix would be disspellable?

Exactly, and Lasik is not a cure all…

And a magic fix from a fantasy world that can literally raise the dead vs. fallible IRL options is an apples to oranges comparison.

 

[Mistwell]

So do we know why their staff is floating?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Of course, in HP you can't raise the dead, and do many of the other things that are standard in D&D.

To go with what some people told me, maybe they are magical lens... after all he seems to be able to see Harry and Ron under the invisibility cloak.

Of course, we do know they can fix glasses!!
View attachment 355048

At that point I can't take your concerns seriously anymore. What does raising the dead have to do with eyesight?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

At that point I can't take your concerns seriously anymore. What does raising the dead have to do with eyesight?

It illustrates the highly non-standard nature of the setting. A world in which raising the dead was generally available would be very different to any typical D&D setting.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It illustrates the highly non-standard nature of the setting. A world in which raising the dead was generally available would be very different to any typical D&D setting.

I think he meant the exact opposite.
You can't raise dead so you can't fix eyesight in HP...

 

[clearstream]

I think he meant the exact opposite.
You can't raise dead so you can't fix eyesight in HP...

Those glasses aren't for fixing eyesight.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Those glasses aren't for fixing eyesight.

Whatever. This whole discussion makes no sense anyway.

 

[cbwjm]

So do we know why their staff is floating?

Because it looks rad

 

[pemerton]

If that was actually the way you felt, I wouldn't make fun of you for it.

No one has made fun of you. Challenging your claims is not making fun of you.

So @ezo, you opened with this:

what is with the glasses? You have "glowing power wizard eyes" but you need glasses? Must be trying to be stylish.

<snip>

Doesn't appeal to me, either. Not the style, the pose, the lack of context, nothing really. Take the book out of it, and it could be a cleric, sorcerer, or warlock -- not "wizardy" at all IMO.

And now it turns out that you're telling us the reason it doesn't appeal to you is that you can't identify with a wizard who would choose to wear glasses.

What should we infer from that? That you can only enjoy art depicting people whose choices and behaviours are ones you can identify with? That a "stylish" wizard is so far from not just your own inclinations, but from your very conception of what a wizard might be, that you can't imagine such a person as part of the game world?

That's before I get to the comment about the book. Ignoring the fact that most people seem to agree that she is casting some sort of wizard/MU spell (a globe, or a shield), what is the main thing that distinguishes a wizard form a sorcerer? Or a druid? Or (some) warlocks and (some) clerics? The answer is, their book. And of course, as others have already noted, the glasses as an artefact do not detract from, and perhaps reinforce, the presentation of a "bookish", scholarly persona.