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

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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

Read the books? It’s mentioned that magic could correct HP’s vision, but he chooses not to (Hermione, on the other had, cosmetically alters her teeth with magic).

And HP also lives in the modern world, and inherited a huge pile of gold, so he could have laser eye surgery, or get contacts. He chooses not to do that either.

 

[Vael]

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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.

I'm absolutely fine with wizards wearing glasses. As part of preferring "lower-tech, lower-magic" settings, I don't think that magic should be able to correct vision (or more precisely, magic that CAN do it should not be easily available) and I don't see glasses are particularly "high-tech". As others have noted, glasses have been around longer than most people realize.

And of course, ultimately it's a game and these sorts of details don't really matter enough to ever be an issue. IMO, of course!

 

[Yaarel]

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.

Re 2024 illustration. Her display of magic along with beautiful, youthful, clean and shiny, makes her read as an Elf casting a high slot spell.

In my campaigns, the ordinary Human communities are Martial, realistic, and rugged. But the Elf communities are Arcane or other magic source, overtly magical and somewhat utopian. Organizing the different flavors into different regional settings helps to bring the world setting to life during gameplay. Many Humans might think an Elf community is a nice place to visit, but wouldnt want to live there. They prefer the groundedness of a Martial way of life, and accept its limitations. Likewise, many Elves might think a Human community is a nice a place to visit, but because of its physical limitations and especially the deaths of loved ones, Elves often remain members of elven communities.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Re 2024 illustration. Her display of magic along with beautiful, youthful, clean and shiny, makes her read as an Elf casting a high slot spell.

In my campaigns, the ordinary Human communities are Martial, realistic, and rugged. But the Elf communities are Arcane or other magic source, overtly magical and somewhat utopian. Organizing the different flavors into different regional settings helps to bring the world setting to life during gameplay. Many Humans might think an Elf community is a nice place to visit, but wouldnt want to live there. They prefer the groundedness of a Martial way of life, and accept its limitations. Likewise, many Elves might think a Human community is a nice a place to visit, but because of its physical limitations and especially the deaths of loved ones, Elves often remain members of elven communities.

That's good stuff. I like it.

 

[Guest 7037866]

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?

Sigh... of course you have a choice. I might not understand why you choose it, but its your choice. Does it really matter to you if I understand why you made a choice you made? It shouldn't, but it seems that it does.

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.

Understand or accept doesn't matter---it's your choice, not mine.

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.

Mostly true. I can very much accept, because I know lasik isn't foolproof, that someone might not choose to undergo it for the risk involved. As I mentioned myself, I had to think long and hard about that issue. But magic in D&D is foolproof, as I also stated, so that reason doesn't carry the same weight it would IRL.

If you lived in a magical world, with access to magic that would help your impaired vision, why wouldn't you? I'm sure you have reasons, but for me, none of those would probably dissuade me.

(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.)

I won't.

20/20 vision isn't "perfect" --- hopefully by now we all understand such a word is not applicable. I don't believe I used it, and if I did I sincerely offer my apologies.

The obvious followup question is, Does that mean you don't like real-life people who choose to wear glasses instead of getting Lasik?

Of course is doesn't, but that is neither here nor there. This isn't a magical world, lasik isn't foolproof. Now, I have asked people about if they've ever considered it, etc. with mixed responses. For "fashion" or other reasons, no, I don't get it, but that's on me---I don't care what others do, or if I understand it or not, it simply is what it is.

Do you dislike anyone that makes choices that "don't make sense" to you?

LOL dislike is a strong word, but in some cases, it will diminsh my opinion of you. Do you smoke? Yeah, you probably are not someone I will be friends with. Now, if you smoke, but you are trying to quit, etc. that will raise my opinion. I understand, like any other addiction (something I've dealt with in myself and those I care about), is difficult to overcome and most likely something that will last with you forever---I know mine does.

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?

I'm not holding this image against the artist. It simply does not represent "wizard in D&D" to me, for all the reasons I've covered, many of which others have agreed with.

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.

It depends on the decision, as I noted about in the smoking example. However, I am not "intolerant" of people with glasses. I just got off of a Zoom meeting with one of my best friends (for nearly 30 years now) who wears glasses and is practically blind without them. For him, lasik is not as much an option for medical reasons currently beyond his control. He WOULD get it done, he could afford it (even in monthly payments...), but he currently doesn't have the option. It certainly doesn't stop me from appreciating him.

I'll be the first to admit I can very easily become intolerant of others. They do, say, like, whatever things that seem strange, silly, or even outright stupid to me. But hey, it's there choice and doesn't affect me, so whatever. Which brings me full circle. It doesn't make sense to me that such a "wizard" in this depiction would have (non-magical) glasses, and so I stated my opinion. That really is all there is to it.

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).

Perhaps that has been your experiences, but it hasn't been mine. Not just in the groups I've run, but also in the groups I joined that were already established.

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.

See, this is what I don't get. Why should I get pushback for voicing my opinion, even if it is unpopular? It's my opinion, that's all, like it or not, and I hope people agree I am entitled to my opinion and voicing why I feel that way.

I don't expect WotC to illustrate to everyone, but I do believe they could be more on target to include everyone. I don't think it would take much for the people who don't like this image to have something very similar that they do.

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.

Which is fine, question it all you want, but instead of pushing back on my reasons, just ask and have a conversation. Even if we end in disagreement.

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)

Probably, but if they asked you about it instead of pushing back... well, that is different, right?

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

Great! We're agreed.

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.

Great example! I took me almost two years to pay for my lasik back in 2004, and then I was making over 50K per year.

So, yeah, it will take time--never said it wouldn't, for the general populace. For adventurers, not so much.

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.

Not at all.

Read the books? It’s mentioned that magic could correct HP’s vision, but he chooses not to (Hermione, on the other had, cosmetically alters her teeth with magic).

I've read the books, several times (admittedly it has been a while...). Where does it mention HP could have his vision fixed by magic? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't recall it. But yeah, I do remember Hermione letting Ms. Pomphey (?) let her teeth go a bit smaller than they were.

And HP also lives in the modern world, and inherited a huge pile of gold, so he could have laser eye surgery, or get contacts. He chooses not to do that either.

Well, gold from the wizarding world. How would he explain he could pay for lasik or something in the muggle world???

 

[cbwjm]

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

Honestly, I'd say this is less for style and more the artist just missing the detail of the warping the glasses would make behind the lenses. I wear glasses and I'd make the same mistake.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

It is a comedy show. I wouldn't expect it to be impressively animated or have historical or cultural relevance. That would be like watching Space Balls and complaining that there isn't high drama or that the costumes are silly.

I mean, it literally opens with the main character dying of shock thinking he was going to get run over after saving someone. It is MEANT to be lampooning isekai tropes. Why would you go into it expecting it to be something it wasn't supposed to be?

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.

Right, but.. how do I put this into words... an example maybe?

"Recently" in One Piece there was the character of Yamato, who is potentially a transman. He was born as a girl, but was so inspired and moved by a male character, that they began identifying as that person, shaping their life and motivations to be that person. Many people that they were a great depiction of a transman, many others thought they were very poorly handled. I was watching a reviewer talk about this and comparing Yamato's depiction to transwomen or potentially non-binary people like Bon Clay from far earlier in the series, and they had a theory on why Yamato's depiction wasn't as good. And that was that it was very likely that Oda, as a middle-aged Japanese man, had a better understanding of Transwomen, as they have existed longer in Japanese society, than he did of Transmen, who are only just now starting to find a place in Japanese society.

I bring this up to make a point. Can we always discount the idea that the execution was just poor, due to lack of experience? How a Realistic Hero Rebuilt the Kingdom has a "harem" but it is much like you describe a polyamorous relationship. The first wife is organizing schedules and making a calendar, everyone is acknowleding and accepting the situation, and I believe for some of the wives there was even a trial period before they were accepted to see if they could emotionally mesh with the group. It is kind of my ideal when considering these shows.

Yes, some of the shows out there have crappy, bland men who just have multiple partners because it is a male fantasy to be desirable and irresistible. But I've seen more shows CRITICIZED for that crappy writing than I have ever seen praised for it. And there have been a few times that I have seen something like that... but there are hints, concepts, that they were going for something else and just failed. Sort of like Hallmark Movie Romances, where the female lead almost invariably cheats on a perfectly nice and fine man, leaving him for the sexier man the movie has as their romantic lead. If taken seriously, most of these women are heartless adulterers, but that wasn't the intent of the writers, just them doing a bad job. So, when I see a harem in a show, I try to not judge it immediately for being poorly written, and instead try and see what the intent of the author was.

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).

Video-game world shows ARE generally terrible. There are very few good ones, because most of them are clout-chasing after Sword Art Online, which I will never understand why people like.

But, there are things you can do other than excoriating Isekai online to people who don't watch anime.

1) Check tags. It sounds like you didn't realize Konosuba was a comedy show, and you seem to want to watch battle-shonen shows. Many review sites will have tags and plot synopsis's that you can check to avoid things you don't want to see.
2) Find reviewers you trust, or people who make those lists, and compare what they like to what you like.
3) Maybe try a few shows that I've mentioned? How a Realitic Hero Rebuilt the Kingdom might be borderline for you, But Ascendance of the Bookworm has none of the tropes you hate and might be one of the best anime (Light Novels are better, but the anime was still good) even if it is much more slice-of-life and has few to zero battles. The Saga of Tanya the Evil has none of the tropes you've really hated, and is also an isekai with some interesting ideas. Might not be to your taste, because she is a pyschotic little war criminal, but it was a good show I avoided for too long because someone told me she was a Nazi (she isn't. The aesthetic is WWII Germany, but there is none of the eugenics or anything else, they just wanted a surrounded, highly capable military for their war stories). Grimgar of Fantasy and Ash is also completely without many of those tropes you don't like. Again, no epic battle scenes, because it is a very grim and gritty fantasy world, but it was a really great show I thought was too short and that I've been eager to revisit. Campfire Cooking with my Absurd Skill is also very funny as a comedy, but avoids all those harem tropes, the main character is basically a salaryman who gets wise to the BS about chosen heroes and sneaks away, using his skill to bring modern conveniences to the fantasy world with some amusing and funny results.

And I'm not recommending these shows to you as some sort of "you must watch these" but more as a proof of concept. Isekai can be different than you think it is. These shows might be able to show you that. And once you are seeing that, maybe it will be easier for you to sift the crap from the quality.

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.

sigh

No. There can be some anarchistic elements, but many of the LitRPG I've read are either very individualistic (I want the freedom to do what I like, but I don't want to harm people) or are actually pro-society (in that the main characters are building a better world). Yes, there are some crap ones out there, but I've actualyl never read a single LitRPG novel that exploited people because they were NPCs, and if I did, I forgot it like the crappy story it was.

The fact that I myself am trying to write in this genre to tell interesting stories already makes me bitter towards the idea that "better writers" aren't interested, especially with the authors I follow who I do respect.

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.

It has already happened. You just missed it. Frankly, you just seem to have terrible luck finding good media. Especially if you've never read a single LitRPG story that you feel was about people, or had themes beyond power leveling.

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.

I frankly don't care if a story is going to "stand the test of time". Harry Potter has been massively influential, but if you go back and look at it, objectively, it isn't that well-written. Honestly, go to any point in history, how many movies from the seventies were made? How many have "stood the test of time" that doesn't mean they weren't good, weren't enjoyed by people.

Again, Sturgeon's Law, 90% of everything created is crap. Paintings, sculptures, movies, books, radio plays, ect ect. I just don't see the value in blaming the genre. Fantasy Writing is often derided as low-brow and not about anything real or true by certain sub-sets of literary critics. I don't care what they think, I like fantasy. Sometimes I like fantasy that is decidedly mid-tier quality, sometimes I have a soft spot for poor quality fantasy. But a Genre, or a sub-genre is just a direction, a set of ideas. It doesn't denote quality.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Honestly, I'd say this is less for style and more the artist just missing the detail of the warping the glasses would make behind the lenses. I wear glasses and I'd make the same mistake.

The intend of the author does not matter. The paper shows fake glasses. So they are.

 

[MNblockhead]

Good lord, 102 pages of posts on one image. Any artist should be proud that their art evokes this much discussion. If nothing else, WotC's art director is doing a good job in getting people talking about the new books.