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

 

[occam]

For me, I could afford Lasik or the like, but don't want to, would prefer to stay with my glasses, and I don't bring spare glasses with me when I go out and about, so I can relate to a powerful wizard also choosing to keep wearing glasses for whatever reason, and choosing the risks. It may not make sense to you, but neither myself nor the wizard have to make decisions that make sense to you, only decisions that suit ourselves as such.

See, here's the kicker --- I NEVER SAID IT DID have to make sense to me, did I? I said I don't like it because it doesn't make sense to me. Which is all I've ever said.

Okay, that's fine, it didn't make sense to you. But after I conveyed my experience as a nearsighted person, and some of why I choose to wear glasses when I could've instead followed your path and gotten Lasik, and after others in this thread have stepped in with similar sentiments, does it still not make sense to you why someone might make such a choice? Are you capable of understanding, and accepting, the choices of others that aren't the same choices you would make? If you are, then can you not apply the same acceptance to the subject of an illustration (or perhaps to the illustrator, if that's a factor in your assessment)? And if you aren't... well, that leads to my next point.

I think there's a so-far-unspoken factor in this thread that's underlying some of the resistance you've encountered to your opinions and how you state them. Above, you disclaim criticism of your position as... misguided, let's say, because all you said was that "I don't like it because it doesn't make sense to me". You've also repeatedly said that it doesn't make sense to you that real-life people with access to Lasik wouldn't take the opportunity to "fix" their eyesight. (Don't get me started on the normative nature of supposedly "perfect" 20/20 vision, and whether myopia and hyperopia are even unambiguously flaws or disabilities; that's a whole other topic.)

The obvious followup question is, Does that mean you don't like real-life people who choose to wear glasses instead of getting Lasik? Do you dislike anyone that makes choices that "don't make sense" to you? If you are capable of not holding against someone a decision that doesn't make sense to you, then why are you so deadset against doing so for an illustration? And if you aren't capable of appreciating someone that makes decisions differently than you... I think the implication (quite probably entirely unintended!) of that kind of intolerance is responsible for some of the friction in this thread.

 

[Reef]

That, for me, is another thing I don't like about it.

Magic is magic in my games. The gestures, etc. for a spell being performed must be the same as if anyone else is casting it, and the results always look the same was well. If a player wanted their magic missiles to look like chickens, I would just look at them sideways, and tell them to just roll damage. Sorry, but I do take my D&D games, etc. seriously -- and to me, such things take away from that and my enjoyment of the game.

Yeah, I know, people will cry out once more, but oh well... that's just how I play.

I don't think anyone is going to tell you that you can't not like this picture. Also, no one is going to dictate how you run the aestetics of your magic or how magic affects the game world. But based on the responses here, and what I've seen over the decades, I feel confident in saying you may be running things more strictly than many of us. I know over the years, for example, I know I've read suggestions to customize the appearance of magic in the exact way you don't like (although I've read too many editions to be able to quote exactly where).

With that in mind, complaining that the image doesn't represent your own personal campaign style is likely to get pushback. I mean, like it, or don't like it, but you must realize they're going to illustrate the game as it generally is? They obviously can't illustrate to everyone specific individual visions.

You've wondered why everyone has been arguing with you, and I think that is why. The reasons you don't like this image (valid as they are), don't jive with other peoples view of the game. Which caused confusion, and made people question your reaction.

Edit: For example, I can run my game with the ruling that only gnomes can be wizards. But then if I complain that this image doesn't look like a wizard because she's not a gnome, people are going to be confused (even if it is a valid setting rule)

 

[Smythe the Bard]

Is this from Spelljammer? If so its really cool.

 

[mamba]

Is this from Spelljammer? If so its really cool.

it's from the 2024 PHB, does that mean it is not cool then?

 

[Yaarel]

How much less?

Heh. Correct. Fixed.

How is the primal internal? If a druid draws power from these nature souls, that's external to the druid...

The Druid can be either Primal "old faith" animism or a Divine "new faith" ideology. Both require a sacred community.

In the case of the Primal animistic magic, the Druid is the peacemaker of a particular community, such as a group of families living together. While this community can include Humans and other Humanoids, it also includes the ancestors, the animals, and even the local stones and rivers. When there are conflicts within the community, including the rains drying up, the Druid needs to mediate and negotiate to remedy the source of conflict. So all members work constructively with each other. Sometimes, the Druid goes into a trance in a spirit journey to communicate with the souls of these nature beings, such as to regain their cooperation with supplying rains.

When the Primal Druid creates magical fire effects, it is the souls of fiery natural phenomena, like sunlight and forest fires, who are doing the respective effects by means of their own souls.

Essentially, all primal magic is psionic magic, except the primal mage is representing the shared intentions of an entire psionic community, including the psionic souls of rocks and trees.

I think this is rather unorthodox interpretation of divine. How do the gods fit into this?

Clerics dont get the divine power source from the gods. They get it from the Astral plane, "where the gods dwell". The Astral plane is a realm of ideals, paradigms, symbols, archetypes, and ideological worldviews, including ethical alignments. In a word, Divine magic is language. They speak, and it happens.

Obviously, the immortal beings who dwell in the Astral plane, can invite and assist Clerics into the world of Divine spoken magic. The Cleric must maintain a personal connection to the Astral plane. One method is to uphold one of the ethical alignments in ones behavior, such as Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil. Any cosmic principle that is sacred to a worldview can be a method to maintain a connection to the ideologies of the Astral plane. The divine mage must personally cohere with this principle.

On second though, perhaps this or this thread are better places for the discussion on these topics?

The discussion about power sources relates to this thread in the context of what SHOULD arcane magic look like in the D&D illustrations.

In my view, the quasi scientific appearance of complex geometric patterns and formulaic sigils is perfect to represent any arcane magic, especially during spellcasting.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

By comparison, in Harry Potter for instance, we don't see magic curing blindness, raising the dead (in fact, we know it can't), nearly instantly restoring lost limbs, etc., so I wouldn't necessarily expect magic to help with impaired vision.

So you arbitrarily draw a line where something does not make sense to you.

Which is ok. But it is just that. An arbitrary line.

In the Harry Potterverse there are quite some things easier accessible than in D&D in general. But yeah, because you do not see them cure blindness in the movies or raising someone from death, you don't expect them to cure impaired vision?

And as I already proved: the wizard has no impaired vision. The glasses are window glass for style. Maybe a magic item.

 

[Chaosmancer]

To clarify:
IME it is generally there... the real issue then being "at what price"?

Most DMs will have a cleric in cities, even major towns, capable of raising the dead. Many times those clerics will ask for the PCs to complete some task in exchange, or pay very high fees. So, I wouldn't say "generally available" to non-PCs because they lack either the ability to complete such tasks or the gold to pay such fees. But IME for PCs, yeah, it is generally available. This hasn't just been true in my games, but in every game I've played in unless it was purposefully run "low magic".

I don't feel such a concept is unreasonable or illogical. In the case of the new wizard image, since it is my expectation magic can assist with impaired vision given everything else magic is capable of, the need of eyeglasses for a PC isn't likely IMO. Whether a lesser restoration could do it (AL cost is 40 gp), or something stronger, such as greater restoration (450 gp) or even heal (maybe 2000 gp, no AL listed cost), might be necessary, IME PC's generally gain enough gold to make paying for these services attainable. After all, plate armor (at 1500 gp) is typically by 5th level or sooner.

Supposedly I lost credibility when pointing out how you keep defaulting this to being about money, a divivde between the rich and the poor. So maybe some context?

A modest lifestyle is 1 gold per day, a skilled laborer can make 2 gold per day. So, let us assume that some soldier or a smith or... a hedge wizard, as it says in the PHB. Not someone fully middle-class, but just below it. An average person. They can, if they cut out everything except the cost of living from their lives, afford these procedures in:

Lesser Restoration: 1 month, 10 days
Greater Restoration: 1.25 years
Heal: 5.55 years

Let us take the middle road, this is something that would likely cost someone a full years wages, plus extra. A full years wages, for the average person. Now, again, you are not wrong. She's an adventurer, clearly higher than 5th level, so she likely has a thousand gold to go slinging around if she wanted. But this conversation is slightly beyond "adventurers" and is dipping into "realistic for the world" and I just want to draw attention to this context. Yes, for an high-level adventurer traveling to a distant city and dropping a years wages on a minor quality of life improvement is possible. But I think it is important to place that expectation in its context.

 

[Fifth Element]

Yes, they are. No one is challenging my CLAIMS, they are challenging my OPINION. Big difference.

Distinction without a difference. People are challenging the reasons you have provided for your opinions. Opinions themselves aren't sacrosanct, and the justifications put forth for them are even less so. You put your opinion and your justifications for it on a public discussion forum. People are free to discuss them.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

that is not so much an explanation as throwing the hands up and saying ‘well, I assume the artist must have had an idea about what is going on here’…

I get what you did there, and I appreciate the humour, but it's not what I meant. I meant that there are many, many ways to tell the story of what's "going on" in that picture. ONE of them is whatever the artist had in mind. There's many, many more - a few of which I illustrated above.

My ultimate point is, "It's easy enough to come up with plausible stories. I'm not sure why people are spending the same energy they could use to come up with plausible stories in coming up with excuses as to why it doesn't work for them, aside from the natural bent of being contrary."

I mean, there's been A LOT of creativity on display when it comes to arguing against this picture!

Again, I'm fine with people "not liking it" - while I think that it's a perfectly fine piece of D&D art, it's not how I would make my wizard look, either. Like many others, I prefer my D&D worlds to be "lower tech" and "lower magic" than she appears. But there are a lot more D&D games than just mine. Or heck, even in mine, I'm not going to tell my players that they couldn't play a wizard who looks exactly like this one. It's a cooperative game, after all. I can cooperate.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I get what you did there, and I appreciate the humour, but it's not what I meant. I meant that there are many, many ways to tell the story of what's "going on" in that picture. ONE of them is whatever the artist had in mind. There's many, many more - a few of which I illustrated above.

My ultimate point is, "It's easy enough to come up with plausible stories. I'm not sure why people are spending the same energy they could use to come up with plausible stories in coming up with excuses as to why it doesn't work for them, aside from the natural bent of being contrary."

I mean, there's been A LOT of creativity on display when it comes to arguing against this picture!

Again, I'm fine with people "not liking it" - while I think that it's a perfectly fine piece of D&D art, it's not how I would make my wizard look, either. Like many others, I prefer my D&D worlds to be "lower tech" and "lower magic" than she appears. But there are a lot more D&D games than just mine. Or heck, even in mine, I'm not going to tell my players that they couldn't play a wizard who looks exactly like this one. It's a cooperative game, after all. I can cooperate.

My wizard actually wears glasses. Never thought about what strength they are. Was more of a style choice. Pictured him a bit like the cartoon Egon Spengler.