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

 

[Fifth Element]

For the record, I think librarians are great, but the ones I've met tend to dress very practically.

So long robes and a silly pointy hat are out for the wizard, right?

 

[Autumnal]

Speaking of looking like a wizard, I want to commend you on your profile picture!

Thanks . That was a combo of Covid and still being new to this set of disabilities. When my caregiver and I really noticed how shaggy I was getting, we talked about it and agreed it’d be funny to just let it grow and grow until dealing with it stopped being entertaining. It’s now back to a more normal length, but the moment is immortalized.

 

[Fifth Element]

Then who is he? What has he done? I figure I can go into most stores, coffee shops, etc. and ask people and most people wouldn't know, either.

Those same people and places and I ask them about Merlin, Albus Dumbledore, or Gandolph.... well, good chance they know at least of one of them and that they are a "wizard".

Basing your arguments on how you assume hypothetical people would respond to questions you've never actually asked is always - and I mean ALWAYS - a very bad idea.

 

[pemerton]

Gandalf is an angel or a demigod, depending on how you feel about the labels, and not PC fodder outside of Nobilis, Scion, and a few others. Merlin is the son of the Devil and not PC fodder outside Nobilis, Scion, and a few others

I don't want to derail too much, and I hope you know that I appreciate your posts. But on this topic our opinions come apart. I've had Gandalf as a PC, along Elven and Dunadan ranger and a Dwarven Outcast, in a MHRP-based LotR/MERP-type game: https://www.enworld.org/threads/middle-earth-lotr-rpging-using-cortex-heroic.670013/

I think 4e D&D can do Gandalf and Merlin, albeit via a different sort of pathway from Cortex+.

I have no opinion on whether 5e D&D can. (From memory, Moldvay Basic suggests Merlin as an example of a MU, but a Basic MU is not much like Merlin.)

 

[ezo]

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

No, it isn't the only reason--- no one said it was. The only reason its been discussed is because that is what people (myself included) brought up. FYI, although I still don't need glasses to read at all, I can tell the letters are getting a little blurry at 50 compared to what they were at 40. I figured eventually I'll probably need "cheaters" for reading, just like my parents use.

Kinda like how a wizard might be?

Maybe or maybe not. Not all "academics" who wear glasses need them because they read a lot or something.

Why is this even a discussion?

Beats me. I just said it doesn't make sense she is wearing glasses if she is "powerful" enough to have glowing eyes... For some reason, people found that odd and some seemed to take offense.

What exactly are we disagreeing on here?

Does it matter at this point?

So why keep focusing on this idea that you can't imagine someone making those decisions?

Because you keep bringing it up? I mean, I've given my reasons. Sufficient or not to others, they seem to keep wanting me to explain or justify it further or refute why my justifcation isn't valid. It's perfectly valid, because its an opinion. But time and time again, it keeps coming up...

They are all going to be exact same shade of brown?

Probably not, but depending on your degree of impairment you might just see one large brown moving mass... Obviously in your case you don't think so, which is fine, it is your vision after all and I have no idea how well you see without your glasses other than what you've said. If you say you can distinguish enough, I'll trust you, and leave it at that.

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?

I never judged her on that one way or the other. I simply stated that if she has glowing eyes due to her magical "might", it seems like magic would be able to assist her vision so glasses would not be necessary. I never said anything about why she might or might not want them, just that they wouldn't be needed. So, it seems strange to me because I wouldn't want them unless I needed them.

Now, as others pointed out, perhaps they are magical lens of some sort. To which I immediately acknowledged that is a good point and something I hadn't considered because magical lens don't function like that in our games. Also, I can't even recall the last time anyone had magical lens in a D&D game I played in! We had a PC with a magical eye gizmo from Xanathar's IIRC when he lost an eye to a critical hit, but that's it.

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.

Whether they are some impossible quandry or not depends entirely on the degree of impairment IMO. Since D&D doesn't have any rules or mechanics dealing with this, unless the DM/player agree to create some house-rule or such, it is fluff. You want to say your PC needs glasses to see whatever, then have at it. No one is stopping you or anyone else from doing so, obviously. But unless it is a potential issue in the game for your PC (your vision is impaired to the point you need glasses or suffer some penalty), and the PC has to deal with their glasses being taken, broken, running out of spares, etc., why do it? And if it can cause issues, why wouldn't you have it magically helped (assuming your PC can afford it, find someone to cast the spell, or do it yourself)?

Any adventurer who goes adventuring without armor (assuming they are proficient, can afford it, and carry it of course) would be silly IMO. Unless there was some mitgating circumstance (lots of tight spaces to squeeze through, dangerous climbs, you know you won't be fighting anything, etc.), not wearing armor you could wear is basically asking for your PC to get hit, and at worse perish. Now, of course, some features make armor uncessary (like Unarmored Defense for barbarians), but those are exceptions, not in general. Even many barbarians IME wear armor because otherwise the class becomes MAD.

Regardless of how my posts "come across", if I keep telling you it is my opinion why can't you simply accept it? I mean, yes, I feel strongly about it, entirely because people have pushed back against me so much and I find that strange as well. I made a comment about how magic could help with impaired vision if it can do all this other incredible stuff, and people took offense? I said I would do it if it was myself (such as having lasik) and so would every PC I ever play if it was a possible issue in the game, but it isn't.

Things like disabilities aren't in D&D unless the player and DM put them there. The closest you get are the lingering injuries in the DMG, where someone can lose eyes, limbs, etc. But (I believe) many settings have magical items, etc. to replace loses and of course high level magic can heal/regenerate such loses.

Other games have merits and flaws or similar systems, so taking a flaw like "poor eyesight" for your PC makes sense if you want to play a PC that has it, and you get a merit or something for taking that flaw. D&D doesn't have anything like this, of course, and I understand why. The idea of labelling something a "flaw" is offensive to people.

Utlimately it comes down to this:

1. In a game of magic, where you can raise the dead, travel to other planes of existance, control the weather, and numerous other feats of mighty magic including healing the blind, why wouldn't you have magic which could remove impairments like poor vision?
2. If you have such magic in the game, and your PC can afford it (and it is perfectly safe), why wouldn't you use it?
3. Finally, if you choose not to use it (for whatever reason), if there is no impact or issue created by it, why have it other than for purely narrative, etc. reasons?

For myself, the responses are yes it is there, yes I would use it, because there is no impact in the game as it is.

If someone responded "No, we don't have such magic," I would wonder why not?
If someone responded "Yes, we have such magic, but I wouldn't use it for my PC," I would wonder why not?
If someone responded, "Yes, we have such magic, but I wouldn't use it for my PC, but there is no game impact," I would wonder why not?

I'm sure people have their reasons for those responses, certainly, and I never said such reasons were invalid, but still they would seem strange to me. I'm fine with that.

Basing your arguments on how you assume hypothetical people would respond to questions you've never actually asked is always - and I mean ALWAYS - a very bad idea.

Well, since I am not going to go around a store of coffee shop to random people and just ask them out of the blue about it, I have no problem with my assumptions about how I feel people would likely respond. I don't see it as a bad idea at all.

 

[Autumnal]

I don't want to derail too much, and I hope you know that I appreciate your posts. But on this topic our opinions come apart.

Oh, that’s fine. I’m pushing things some as part of valiantly resisting right-deviationism among gerontological hooligans, as it were. Not real popular frontism in support of correct slogans will resume soon.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I mean, that's technically Isekai in the sense that they're pulled in from another world but it doesn't embody even single one of the tropes associated with Isekai anime (I mean, I guess, bad animation but it wasn't badly animated for the period and region!).

If it was an Isekai anime, only Eric (sorry buddy, I'm about to throw you under a very big bus) would have gone through, the rest would all be "natives", and Eric would be even whinier, even more cowardly, way more of just a jerk, and both the girls would be absolutely ALL OVER Eric ALL THE TIME (one of them probably in tsundere way), for no apparent reason at all. Presto would also be female, scantily-clad, and also all over Eric all the time. and probably look about 12 but be technically 300 or something (UH OH). The Barbarian would still be a child (sorry I forget his name), but like, seriously age-inappropriate things would be happening with him and the anime (yeah even a modern one, if it was Isekai, because they tend to have the social attitudes of an anime 20 years older than them) would think it was hilarious. Ranger would be like, drastically dumber than Eric, and maybe have a rivalry but constantly be defeated by his own stupidity and Eric's innate superiority. Venger would be an even more thinly-veiled homophobic stereotype (but admittedly also probably more badass), and Dungeon Master would probably be perving on the girls.

I mean, hell, Rise of the Shield Hero basically is the "What if only Eric came through?" anime in a lot of ways (because the lead is a cowardly whiner who only has a shield to fight with), and it's NOT good (despite being one of the least-awful Isekais).

Log Horizon is on line one. It has some words for you.

Maybe we shouldn't go wide brushing entire genres just like we shouldn't wide brush an entire medium.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yes, as a "returning anime viewer", after a 20+ year gap, I would say you have to pick your anime very, very carefully. There are great shows (not many), good shows (which are often cool but flawed), there are okay shows, and there are terrible shows - the latter are by far the largest category.

If something is:

A) Being called an Isekai

and/or

B) Set inside in a videogame/MMORPG

There easily a 95% chance it is completely terrible and you'd be embarrassed to be seen or thought of as watching it, because it's drivel. No matter how many people say it's good.

You're basically doing the exact same thing as the people throwing 'anime' and 'superhero' around as empty insults. Only it's something you don't like now.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You're basically doing the exact same thing as the people throwing 'anime' and 'superhero' around as empty insults. Only it's something you don't like now.

Disagree strongly, and further unlike those people people, who are arguing from pure ignorance and can never give details, I can argue my case with specifics. Most "recommended" anime that are Isekai are dire and possess the characteristics I've outlined above.

And your point is particularly empty because as I said at least three times now, but people are pretending I didn't, there are honourable exceptions - just very few of them. The vast majority of supposed "exceptions" actually possess the characteristics I've mentioned and are just not very good.

The reality is, like Urban Fantasy, Isekai as a genre has a problem not shared by all genres, and indeed not shared by most genres, which is that people seem to recommend and rate up and claim as good Isekai that is complete crap, and the Isekai isn't complete crap tends to be completely obscured by this - and seems to be a significantly smaller percentage of the genre than other genres.

This isn't an opinion I pulled out of my ass, either - this is an opinion formed repeatedly being burned on this - specifically believing lists that recommended Isekai anime among other anime, and finding that in fact, it was complete trash compared to the other stuff that had been recommended, and almost inexplicable as to why it had been recommended. You recommend Log Horizon, for example, but how am I to trust that when I've been recommended so many other Isekai on a similar basis, and they've almost all been complete crap? That's not rhetorical. I'm partway through Gundam Zeta right now (pretty questionable but a fascinating time-capsule), but if you can really, honestly make a case as to why Log Horizon is worth my time, I'll give it a go - I am pretty open minded about watching a few episodes of an anime recommended by a specific individual.

So I'm demonstrably not doing the same thing. I'm speaking from experience and actual awareness, and having watched these shows, not from using an empty buzzword. Further, I'm open to argument about specific shows.

If Isekai is going to stop being "brushed", it needs to stop rolling around in a cupboard full of brooms, frankly! And anime fans need to stop recommending really dire Isekai as if it was on par with other better anime, and only recommend it when it's actually good, not just "good by Isekai standards" or whatever the measure is. If Log Horizon is "actually good", great, but like, is it? Is that what you're staking your anime recommendation cred on? Again Urban Fantasy shares this problem, albeit for different reasons.

(I would separate out time travel anime from "Isekai" in general I note - the ones I've seen there, whilst having some questionable age-gap stuff, have not had the same issues at all.)

EDIT/TLDR - If you really want to narrow the argument down and not "brush" Isekai, perhaps the real issue isn't the genre, it's the recommendations? I'm skeptical but it's possible. What I've seen consistently since my brother got me back into watching anime a couple of years ago, is that where Isekai is recommended, it's often completely terrible, and a non-Isekai show with the same flaws wouldn't get the same kind of recommendation.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No, it isn't the only reason--- no one said it was. The only reason its been discussed is because that is what people (myself included) brought up. FYI, although I still don't need glasses to read at all, I can tell the letters are getting a little blurry at 50 compared to what they were at 40. I figured eventually I'll probably need "cheaters" for reading, just like my parents use.


Maybe or maybe not. Not all "academics" who wear glasses need them because they read a lot or something.


Beats me. I just said it doesn't make sense she is wearing glasses if she is "powerful" enough to have glowing eyes... For some reason, people found that odd and some seemed to take offense.


Does it matter at this point?


Because you keep bringing it up? I mean, I've given my reasons. Sufficient or not to others, they seem to keep wanting me to explain or justify it further or refute why my justifcation isn't valid. It's perfectly valid, because its an opinion. But time and time again, it keeps coming up...


Probably not, but depending on your degree of impairment you might just see one large brown moving mass... Obviously in your case you don't think so, which is fine, it is your vision after all and I have no idea how well you see without your glasses other than what you've said. If you say you can distinguish enough, I'll trust you, and leave it at that.


I never judged her on that one way or the other. I simply stated that if she has glowing eyes due to her magical "might", it seems like magic would be able to assist her vision so glasses would not be necessary. I never said anything about why she might or might not want them, just that they wouldn't be needed. So, it seems strange to me because I wouldn't want them unless I needed them.

Now, as others pointed out, perhaps they are magical lens of some sort. To which I immediately acknowledged that is a good point and something I hadn't considered because magical lens don't function like that in our games. Also, I can't even recall the last time anyone had magical lens in a D&D game I played in! We had a PC with a magical eye gizmo from Xanathar's IIRC when he lost an eye to a critical hit, but that's it.


Whether they are some impossible quandry or not depends entirely on the degree of impairment IMO. Since D&D doesn't have any rules or mechanics dealing with this, unless the DM/player agree to create some house-rule or such, it is fluff. You want to say your PC needs glasses to see whatever, then have at it. No one is stopping you or anyone else from doing so, obviously. But unless it is a potential issue in the game for your PC (your vision is impaired to the point you need glasses or suffer some penalty), and the PC has to deal with their glasses being taken, broken, running out of spares, etc., why do it? And if it can cause issues, why wouldn't you have it magically helped (assuming your PC can afford it, find someone to cast the spell, or do it yourself)?

Any adventurer who goes adventuring without armor (assuming they are proficient, can afford it, and carry it of course) would be silly IMO. Unless there was some mitgating circumstance (lots of tight spaces to squeeze through, dangerous climbs, you know you won't be fighting anything, etc.), not wearing armor you could wear is basically asking for your PC to get hit, and at worse perish. Now, of course, some features make armor uncessary (like Unarmored Defense for barbarians), but those are exceptions, not in general. Even many barbarians IME wear armor because otherwise the class becomes MAD.

Regardless of how my posts "come across", if I keep telling you it is my opinion why can't you simply accept it? I mean, yes, I feel strongly about it, entirely because people have pushed back against me so much and I find that strange as well. I made a comment about how magic could help with impaired vision if it can do all this other incredible stuff, and people took offense? I said I would do it if it was myself (such as having lasik) and so would every PC I ever play if it was a possible issue in the game, but it isn't.

Things like disabilities aren't in D&D unless the player and DM put them there. The closest you get are the lingering injuries in the DMG, where someone can lose eyes, limbs, etc. But (I believe) many settings have magical items, etc. to replace loses and of course high level magic can heal/regenerate such loses.

Other games have merits and flaws or similar systems, so taking a flaw like "poor eyesight" for your PC makes sense if you want to play a PC that has it, and you get a merit or something for taking that flaw. D&D doesn't have anything like this, of course, and I understand why. The idea of labelling something a "flaw" is offensive to people.

Utlimately it comes down to this:

1. In a game of magic, where you can raise the dead, travel to other planes of existance, control the weather, and numerous other feats of mighty magic including healing the blind, why wouldn't you have magic which could remove impairments like poor vision?
2. If you have such magic in the game, and your PC can afford it (and it is perfectly safe), why wouldn't you use it?
3. Finally, if you choose not to use it (for whatever reason), if there is no impact or issue created by it, why have it other than for purely narrative, etc. reasons?

For myself, the responses are yes it is there, yes I would use it, because there is no impact in the game as it is.

If someone responded "No, we don't have such magic," I would wonder why not?
If someone responded "Yes, we have such magic, but I wouldn't use it for my PC," I would wonder why not?
If someone responded, "Yes, we have such magic, but I wouldn't use it for my PC, but there is no game impact," I would wonder why not?

I'm sure people have their reasons for those responses, certainly, and I never said such reasons were invalid, but still they would seem strange to me. I'm fine with that.


Well, since I am not going to go around a store of coffee shop to random people and just ask them out of the blue about it, I have no problem with my assumptions about how I feel people would likely respond. I don't see it as a bad idea at all.

I keep pushing back, because I'm trying to reflect back your position, which seems to have repeatedly boiled down to "if you had the money and power not to need glasses, you would fix yourself not to need them, because glasses are at best an inconvenient and subpar tool for fixing yourself." Anyone, in your mind, who is wealthy and powerful enough would not be depicted with glasses, glasses are for the poor or the weak. Therefore a powerful character looks weird with glasses to you. The only acceptable answer you've seen for her wearing glasses, is if they are magical glasses that give her something better than normal sight. Something that makes them appropriately more wealthy and powerful.

That's why I pushed back on it being a choice. That is why I pushed back on it not being the debilitation you keep thinking it would be in combat. Because it is not weird or strange to me that powerful, wealthy people might wear glasses. That even in a world where we can raise the dead, travel outside of existence and alter the weather, something that is definitional to me as a person is not something reserved for the poor, the weak, and the unimportant who can't achieve something better.

I understand you didn't intend that message, but it is the one left when you keep insisting that it doesn't make sense to you that people wouldn't choose to fix themselves if they could. And we keep trying to explain it, and you keep digging in and insisting that you don't mean that, but that you still stand by the fact that she looks too strong, too powerful, too wealthy to need glasses in a world that could easily fix her so she doesn't need them. That it doesn't make sense to you that she wouldn't fix herself, or have someone fix her.

I know I'm coming across strong here, but more subtle arguments don't seem to get past your confusion about why we care about this. Why we don't like this idea that glasses look weird on a powerful mage with access to plenty of gold and magic.