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

 

[cbwjm]

agreed, I would like the pictures to tell more of a story, that is not limited to the 2024 Wizard one

Well, I read somewhere on this site (I think) that the subclasses will have their own art so maybe you'll get it.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I can't see them doing individual art pieces for every wizard school. It would just take up too much space in the book.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I can't see them doing individual art pieces for every wizard school. It would just take up too much space in the book.

There are only going to be 4 Wizard subclasses in the book. And other books (Tasha's, Xanathar's) have art for every subclass.

 

[cbwjm]

I can't see them doing individual art pieces for every wizard school. It would just take up too much space in the book.

Thought there was only 4 in the new book? I'm assuming that there was art for all subclasses, not just wizard but it was from a half remembered comment so I don't know for sure if they will.

 

[teitan]

I'm aware that you have. If you read my post, you can see that blame assignment is not something I am concerned with.

My key point is that we don't have any real evidence yet for your claim re: "house style". Especially as this piece of art is quite typical of Billy Christian's recent work, rather than obviously confirmative to an art director's vision. Equally, if we take the inverse view and assume the art director isn't presenting a vision but simply picking artists already in line with one (as is quite common though both occur), I would respectfully submit that we simply don't have the evidence to support that claim at this stage.

As far as I know, all the 5E 2024 art we've seen so far is:

1) PHB cover dwarf fighter
2) Glowy McWizard here
3) Silver dragon ticker tape parade
4) Landscape art for four backgrounds
5) Tough Champion Fighter lady

The latter two seem here: Take a Peek At the 2024 D&D Player's Handbook

Now if I have missed some definite 2024 art, I apologise and would be delighted if anyone could point me two it, but on that basis of these five pieces we're kind of seeing at least three, perhaps four distinct "styles". The dwarf puts me in mind of Easley's approach, actually. Glowy McWizard is this heroic figure of a different kind, more akin to say an exaggerated digital Clyde Caldwell. The solver dragon and landscapes have a similar style to each other which is nice if a little more generic and concept-art-ish - harder to pin down without higher quality images(can't view ATM). And the tough lady is pretty similar to the current D&D style with perhaps a little more grit.

So it's possible your theory may end up being correct, but we need more evidence.

My key point is this isn’t a trial so back off. I expressed an opinion you disagreed with so I don’t see why you have this need to take me to the shed because you took umbrage with my opinion. Now you’ve wasted a lot of words on a web site at someone who has no interest in discussing this with you at all merely for your attitude. Good day.

Checking myself out of the thread.

 

[Parmandur]

I can't see them doing individual art pieces for every wizard school. It would just take up too much space in the book.

No, there is an individual art piece for each of the 48 Subclasses (so only 4 Wizard Schools). Not of this size, however, inset art pieces next to the text.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

No, there is an individual art piece for each of the 48 Subclasses (so only 4 Wizard Schools). Not of this size, however, inset art pieces next to the text.

Interesting. That's a lot of art right there.

 

[Parmandur]

Interesting. That's a lot of art right there.

Yup, 60 pieces for just the Class chapter. Apparently there will be a lot, and I mean, a lot, of art in the Spells section, too.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yup, 60 pieces for just the Class chapter. Apparently there will be a lot, and I mean, a lot, of art in the Spells section, too.

They also seem to have a small landscape per background, which, depending on how they approach those, could be quite a few, and if spells actually have a lot more illustrations that would be great because honestly D&D spells are rather under-illustrated, at least in core books, in all prior editions.

You and WotC are doing a good job selling me on PHB 2024 I should note - if there's one reliable way to convince me to buy an RPG book it's to fill it with decent quality or at least interesting art (weirdly a far more common approach in the 1990s than the intervening period, with some honourable exceptions like Lancer or Heart, of course).

I guess the challenge to WotC now is can they reach September with some kind of spectacular PR screw up. Based on recent history this is definitely at least a DC20 check for them.

 

[Parmandur]

They also seem to have a small landscape per background, which, depending on how they approach those, could be quite a few, and if spells actually have a lot more illustrations that would be great because honestly D&D spells are rather under-illustrated, at least in core books, in all prior editions.

You and WotC are doing a good job selling me on PHB 2024 I should note - if there's one reliable way to convince me to buy an RPG book it's to fill it with decent quality or at least interesting art (weirdly a far more common approach in the 1990s than the intervening period, with some honourable exceptions like Lancer or Heart, of course).

I guess the challenge to WotC now is can they reach September with some kind of spectacular PR screw up. Based on recent history this is definitely at least a DC20 check for them.

Honest to goodness, the new art and layout stuff (particularly the DMG layout)is more of a draw for me than the rules revisions.