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

ezo said:

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.


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.

Click to expand...

First of all, Lesser Restoration ends the blinded condition. " You touch a creature and can end either one disease or one condition afflicting it. The condition can be blinded, deafened, paralyzed, or poisoned."

Needing glasses is not a condition because in D&D terms a condition is a temporary effect as explained in appendix A of the PHB. Lesser restoration would not restore sight to someone who has no eyes, would not grant hearing to someone born deaf. So I (wrongly) assumed you meant it should work because needing glasses was a disease. Since needing glasses it is neither a temporary condition, a disease nor blindness for that matter. It simply doesn't apply.

I'm hardly the only one who disagrees with your interpretation. Perhaps in your campaign there's magical lasik and that's fine, but it's not an assumption in most fantasy campaigns. Many fantasy characters are depicted as using glasses, others are deaf.

Sorcerers Apprentice said:

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.

Click to expand...

Agreed, that in 5E it isn't explicitly written---but that is the nature of 5E, and as such is completely up to the DM.

Now, compare it to magic in 1E:

overgeeked said:

Not according to anything in the actual rules, which is what you were pointing to for the basis of your objection originally.

Click to expand...

Was I? Where? My original objection was simply:

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

Click to expand...

overgeeked said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I agreed they could be magical items. Not initially, of course, because magical "lens" and such in our games have always been more like contacts. And I didn't "assuming the character has bad eyesight" so I can "argue against it". I assumed it, because, well, she IS in fact wearing eyeglasses... I had no intent of arguing it one way or another until others brought it up.

overgeeked said:

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

Click to expand...

I know, except, well, magic can restore poor vision in AD&D. Again:

overgeeked said:

Ah. So referee fiat, not represented in the actual rules, which is part of what you were objecting to originally.

Click to expand...

Again, was I, Where? Her wearing glasses was never any issue about "actual rules".

overgeeked said:

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.

Click to expand...

Again, never said DM fiat couldn't represent a spell like whatever it is she is supposed to be doing. I said there is no spell that specifically does it.

So, to be clear: glasses: magic could restore impaired vision. Casting: no spell as written does everything shown in the image. FWIW, I'm not the only one wondering just what is supposed to be going on here or what she might be casting.

Nothing odd about it.

overgeeked said:

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.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not. In fact, my first post about it was agreeing with another poster, as was pretty much everything I responded to in my first post.

Wait? Casters can have more than one spell going on at once!?! Get outta town!

And, once again, I'm not ignoring any of those things.

Not odd, not strange either.

overgeeked said:

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 could be the indirect result of something and/or caused by someone else. We don't know because the image lacks context.

Click to expand...

Sure. Did I ever say there wasn't? Did I? No, I don't think so.

(bolded) and that is one of the main reasons I don't like this image. How is this representative of a D&D "wizard" compared to any other caster options in 5E? It's "pretty", colourful and energetic, sure, but bland, lacking imagination, and has no D&D "wizard" aspect to it IMO.

overgeeked said:

But, for some reason, you decided to assume the context you wanted so you could argue against it. Making a really weak strawman.

Click to expand...

Hmm...? Ok, what did I assume in the context that others didn't? And what, exactly, do you think I am "arguing against"? Because I don't see myself as arguing anything, other than my opinions---which are neither right nor wrong, simply mine.

Oofta said:

Needing glasses is not a condition because in D&D terms a condition is a temporary effect as explained in appendix A of the PHB.

Click to expand...

Really!? Show me where it says they are are caused by a "temporary effect"? Here, I'll help:

Scanning... scanning... nope, no temporary at all. Having impaired vision can be a condition, caused by an other effect (such as aging), lasting until countered (by magic!!) or for the duration specified by the effect (aging lasts a pretty long time, hopefully!).

Oofta said:

Lesser restoration would not restore sight to someone who has no eyes, would not grant hearing to someone born deaf.

Click to expand...

Absolutely true!

Oofta said:

So I (wrongly) assumed you meant it should work because needing glasses was a disease. Since needing glasses it is neither a temporary condition, a disease nor blindness for that matter.

Click to expand...

Yes, wrongly, but it isn't temporary, as nothing about conditions specify they must be temporary. So...

Oofta said:

It simply doesn't apply.

Click to expand...

is incorrect.

Oofta said:

I'm hardly the only one who disagrees with your interpretation.

Click to expand...

Which is fine with me. I'm only defending my interpretation because people continue to want to discuss it.

Oofta said:

Perhaps in your campaign there's magical lasik and that's fine, but it's not an assumption in most fantasy campaigns.

Click to expand...

Well, it isn't magical lasik, just lesser restoration. And who can say it isn't an assumption in "most fantasy campaigns"? People can provide anecdotal evidence, but its just that, anecdotal. It hasn't come up often over the years, but anecdotally, for myself, every game I've played in where it has come up has had magic which can restore impaired senses (particularly sight and hearing).

I mean, why have magic in your game which can regrow lost organs such as eyes, but not have magic that can help it due to natural causes such as aging? I don't see any sense in that. Its like saying you can have an airplane, but not a kite.

Oofta said:

Many fantasy characters are depicted as using glasses, others are deaf.

Click to expand...

Sure, Presto wore them in the 80's. Artwork has them. I'm not saying you can't, I never have. I'm saying (and all I've ever said about it) is that in a world of magic, it seems odd to me to have them when magic could help so you don't need them. I know I don't like to wear my glasses when I do, but I understand others might and don't have any issue if people want to. I might wonder "why?" if I know it is someone who could get lasik, for instance, and they might have any number of reasons, most probably that they don't feel it is safe. Which, in D&D I wouldn't see any different from an NPC saying they "don't trust magic" or something. Odd to me, but I never said it is wrong or implied any such thing.

Looks cool. This must be what it looks like to cast shield.

Levistus's_Leviathan said:

It specifically reminds me of some Strixhaven art, with the floating magic symbols.

Not a criticism. I like this art.

Click to expand...

Too lazy to get up and check, but I do believe Billy Christian did do some work in Strix

For those who have read Max Gladstone's The Craft sequence, this character is very similar to my head-canon of what Tara Abernathy looks like

Eyes of Nine said:

Too lazy to get up and check, but I do believe Billy Christian did do some work in Strix

Click to expand...

That would make sense as to why I thought it looked familiar.

bedir than said:

You almost never want to fight with a backpack on. It's horribly impractical. In an ideal situation you would leave it at camp and travel with a combat load, not the pack.

As a glasses wearer (who could have gotten lasik but didn't) I love seeing glasses in D&D. They are appropriate for the mythology and in real life did nothing to limit myself or other members of elite military units.

Poor vision is likely the most common disability and D&D has ignored it for ages. Accepting that people with poor vision can be heroes just like they are in real life is a great moment.

Click to expand...

Never minding that there are like a bajillion different magical glasses/lenses in the game that are pretty much tailor made for wizards. For all the complaints about "unrealistic equipment" or the like, I would think that wearing some sort of lenses would be pretty low on the list.

Mind of tempest said:

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

Click to expand...

Ah! The old "niche protection". Yeah, I can see your reasoning. It makes sense.

I don't personally feel like it's worth worrying about, but I understand why you feel the way you do. Thanks.

I like it. But at first glance it makes me think it would be perfect for an unarmored full-caster divine class. The details fit for wizard.

Everyone wondering how she can cast all those spells or whatever: