D&D 5E (2024) Here's The New 2024 Player's Handbook Wizard Art

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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

Maybe so, but a world were generally available magic can "heal" all physical imperfections and deviations is going to look like some kind of neo-fascist utopia, populated by perfect physical specimens who are near-immortal, having cured old age.

As a rider to this, I believe "combat wheelchair" is on the equipment lift for the new PHB, and I expect there will be art reflecting that. I dread to see how long the thread on that is.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Maybe so, but a world were generally available magic can "heal" all physical imperfections and deviations is going to look like some kind of neo-fascist utopia, populated by perfect physical specimens who are near-immortal, having cured old age.

I think this may be the most interesting idea someone has had for a new setting in a long time. A nice new spin on the themes of Dark Sun.

Medieval-trans-humanism-punk!

Set it in a ecological wasteland were only the riches can afford to have a druid on retainer to have access to greenery and fresh water and you have a pretty cool premise.

 

[Guest 7037866]

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

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

So the glasses are why we got 97 pages of why it is so hard for some folks to imagine this person as a wizard. Thank goodness we solved that mystery!

Don't ask me... it never was a mystery.

Exactly, and Lasik is not a cure all…

True, it is an operation to assist vision impairment. IME it has been 20 years and counting and I still have 20/20 vision.

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

Frankly, I don't care if you do or not---your choice. Anyway, as far as the two, it is an issue of how much magic is capable of. Magic in D&D is capable of doing a LOT more than magic in HP.

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...

To clarify:

Since the beginning of D&D (maybe not OD&D?) raise dead has been "available". Generally? Depends on your setting, of course, but 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".

If magical spells and features in D&D were not capable of doing miraculous things at fairly low to mid levels, expecting magic to assist with vision impairment might not be an expectation of mine. However, in D&D that is not the case. So, something which I consider relatively "simple" by comparison (healing vision vs. raising the dead) should be capable in the game. We already know heal will cure blindness (not the blinded condition, actual blindness), but it is certainly a high level spell IMO. However, it is doing "more" to cure blindness than lesser magic could do to assist impaired vision. Nothing in D&D deals with this directly, of course, so it is completely up to the DM/group if magic could function in such a way.

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.

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.

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.

Well, there are several other reasons why it doesn't appeal to me, and no, I do not personally identify with this image, but that is a minor issue by comparison to the others I have. But in summary: magic exists, it can cure blindness and do all sort of amazing things, but it can't help with impaired vision? Makes no sense to me, and if magic can help with impaired vision, I would use it. Others might not, and have their reasons, which I wouldn't agree with personally, but that really shouldn't be any concern of theirs--they can do or not do as they like.

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?

You shouldn't infer anything. If you don't know, or wonder why: ask!

As far as me only enjoying art, etc. it seems that is one reason why some people who wear glasses do identify with this image. Whether they choose to wear them for style, to assist their vision, or whatever, the fact that she's wearing glasses appeals to them. I doesn't to me, that's all, nothing more to it.

I can easily imagine such a person as part of a game world, but she doesn't "seem" wizardly to me, for all the reasons I've already mentioned upthread.

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.

Ah, the "book". I think you mean, "books" if you see the larger picture. When you see the full image, there are seveal "books" flying around her. As a poster speculated, they could be animated and attacking her, which would make more sense to me and fits the context of the image.

Otherwise, it's just a book. Nothing about it indicates it is a spellbook, let alone hers. Even if you accept it is her spellbook, so what? Pact of the Tome warlocks have "spellbooks", as would any PC with the Ritual Caster feat have a ritual book, and others IIRC.

Of course, I am not alone in also stating the coloring and lighting of the image seems more "divine" than arcane. There are all sorts of reasons why I, and others, don't care for this image as representative of "wizard" or don't care for the image in general.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Forget the glasses. The truth is that if we seriously suppose a world where D&D's medium to high level magic was commonly available, it would be totally alien to us and certainly wouldn't resemble the familiar pseudo middle ages at all. Like for an obvious example a death being a financial inconvenience rather than a tragic permanent end would utterly transform the culture in ways it would be hard to imagine.

 

[pemerton]

Forget the glasses.

Just following this bit of advice - why is she wearing fingerless gloves? (Or is it a body suit with holes only for the fingers rather than the whole hand?)

Fashion knows no logic either in the real world, or in the imagined world of fantasy artists.

It's folly to question it.

I mean, someone upthread posted this:

You'd think, in a world of powerful adventuring magicians, someone would have invented scissors, or the magical equivalent thereof, for the trimming of beards before they become impractically long! And perhaps also headgear and torso more conducive to physical activity.

And someone else (I think it was) posted this:

Which serves as a reminder that the game has been gender-neutral when it comes to impractical clothing for wizards from the beginning. Epic shoulder pads are no worse, in that respect, than that Willingham cowl.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Indeed, the standard D&D setting assumes magic is limited in both availability (1 in 10,000 have character levels in 1st edition AD&D) and what it is capable of. And often comes at a price, even if the price is not mechanically built into the rules.

It needs to be like this, it's they only way a standard D&D setting can even approach making sense.

 

[Guest 7037866]

The truth is that if we seriously suppose a world where D&D's medium to high level magic was commonly available, it would be totally alien to us and certainly wouldn't resemble the familiar pseudo middle ages at all. Like for an obvious example a death being a financial inconvenience rather than a tragic permanent end would utterly transform the culture in ways it would be hard to imagine.

Well, you nailed it. That is definitely part of the issue IME.

If you look at a lot of D&D art, we see cities with flying griffon patrols, taverns lit by magical lights, entire cities with glowing light and/or permanant lighting, or silver dragons being honored by a city in a ticker-tape celebration.

Such worlds are IMO very alien to us. We think we can imagine it, and to a degree I'm sure we can, but to be honest it would be a stretch to really understand life in such a world.

Death is inconvenient for PCs, I mean by 5th level you have revivify. By 3rd level you can have light that lasts forever. As soon as my PCs have decent funds, I always give them hooded lanterns with continual flames inside. 5E is rampant with magic compared to earlier editions in many ways, and depicted as such.

And it is for this very reason why I prefer low-magic games. But even then I see lesser restoration as sufficient, so it jives with even a lower-magic game. It is also the reason why so many others prefer low-magic games, because it gives a better chances we can relate to it in any way.

 

[Autumnal]

Like for an obvious example a death being a financial inconvenience rather than a tragic permanent end would utterly transform the culture in ways it would be hard to imagine.

Steven Brust’s Jhereg has entered three chat.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Again, if you were simply saying "Many of the most popular Isekai I don't think are any good, and are full of nasty tropes"... I can't disagree with that.

That's basically what I'm saying.

Konosuba would be another one that people recommended but I thought was like, just, empty of any value. I watched a couple of episodes, I could see where it was going, it wasn't particularly attractively or impressively animated, and it seemed to have nothing of value to say. It's like, I can tolerate something being mid if it's at least a historical or cultural artefact or something, but this isn't even that.

Re: polyamory I feel like it's fundamentally very misguided (and that's putting it politely) to draw a connection between that and harem fantasies. Insulting, even. Real poly situations are complex and require hard emotional work from the people involved to make them work (and often they can't) and even stuff like literal planning/calendars from the people involved too, and tend to be above-board and acknowledged by all individuals (if they actually function, and aren't largely exploitative), and are extremely rarely (I mean, it's probably happened but...) "one immature and unexceptional guy and a bunch of hot babes who are smarter, stronger and cooler than him", which is the typical harem situation.

I think it is a problem with the recommendations, but more specifically you need to understand who is recommending things and why.

So the difficulty I'm seeing is this - the only person I know IRL who recommends anime is my brother - and he doesn't recommend Isekai (unless you count time travel, which I don't). So I'm talking about the countless internet lists of "good anime" or the like. And they're really holding Isekai to a different standard - but not always! Some reviewers just never seem to recommend Isekai. Others rarely do, and only with a health warning. Others still (perhaps the majority), who often generally have good recommendations I'd agree with, drop in Isekai and praise it just like it's a perfectly normal show.h

And with the sole exception of I'm in love with the Villainess, every single Isekai has been dire. Even Villainess is only interesting at all because it's dealing with some stuff seemingly not much discussed in Japanese society, despite being very much present in it. Japan seems more at peace with same-sex relationships than much of the world, but seems to typically see them as one-offs, rather than fundamental to the person's orientation (I.e. "this man just happened to fall in love with this other man" - something more akin to pansexuality). At one point Villainess has to basically "explain like I'm five" re: homosexuality as an orientation (and to be fair it does execute on this very well - with less waffle and sentimentality than I think a Western show would have, but also laser-targeting pernicious myths a Western show might take for granted that "no-one" believes, when in fact people still do). It also doesn't seem to be keen to indulge the nasty tropes, I note (for various reasons).

So what am I supposed to do? Keep trying reliably dire shows? That's what caused me to stop watching anime in the first place!

So I now treat anything that's Isekai as having a massive health warning on it, because as a genre, it's mostly horrible or empty, and as I've said a few times now, people who seem sane continue to sometimes recommend really weak, empty or awful Isekai (specifically videogame-world-themed ones seem to be reliably the worst).


Re: LitRPG - I think it has many of the same problems as videogame Isekai (which I am confident in suggesting directly inspired a lot of it), but they go fundamentally deeper than just "male power fantasy", because it tends to be fundamentally anti-social, almost solipsistic in its mentality, usually about an individual or a very small number of people taking advantage of a system, and given free moral/ethical reign to exploit people because they're "NPCs", however the book tries to phrase it. A lot of it just directly replicates and amplifies the very worst elements of videogame-world Isekai. It's also universally extremely bad written in terms of prose, dialogue, and stylistic elements. We're talking mediocre fan-fiction, have to self-publish levels of bad writing, makes 50 Shades look like Shakespeare-type stuff.

And the cause is the same - LitRPG fans are undemanding re: any element of quality - what they want isn't quality, it's "content" and a specific kind of "content". People getting stuck in videogames and then exploiting the systems to become "the winner" or similar. Combine that with the power fantasy and we see why the trash floats to the top so much. The lack of applicability to real life or people in general means better writer usually just aren't interested, either.

I'm sure, at some point in the next 5-20 years, someone will write a genuinely good and worthwhile novel that is technically LitRPG, one with actual writing skill, something to say and so on. But I doubt it'll be anyone writing in the genre today. Hell, it's already been done as a movie series - The Matrix - but The Matrix was about people and ideas and had themes and subtexts, and LitRPG generally eschews this in favour of stuff like the specifics of exploiting systems or leveling up.

I would say there is a larger issue with nerd culture and people wanting specifically themed "content" to "consume", and having no real regard for the quality of the content so long as it's the right "flavour", as it were (and that flavour is often somewhat masturbatory). I don't see that as inherently a huge problem, but the issue comes when people either get defensive feeling about it so construct misleading edifices to pretend it's "good, actually" (rather than just something they enjoy regardless), or they fail to see that they're holding it to completely different standards to other, similar media. So-called "BookTok" seems to do a lot of this re: fantasy writing I note. Bad writing but the right subject matter and fantasies will do better than good writing that it isn't as indulgent, even if it won't stand the test of time.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Blaming things on an undefinable, unconfirmable internet 'they'? Calling an entire fandom 'undemanding' in a condescending way? Decrying people for looking for something different out of their media?

I dunno, sounds real familiar...

Looks like a new definition of 'two wrongs don't make a right' just dropped.