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

 

[Kobold Avenger]

And of course him having British accent is not even least bit weird either.

Which was explained by him being from a family that left France during or after World War II for the UK, and only moved back to France a century or so later.

And funnily enough Star Trek had a captain whose actor could speak fluent French, but that was Bill Shatner.

That's because Shatner is from Montreal, but he'd probably get subtitled if he spoke French on something from France.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Which was explained by him being from a family that left France during or after World War II for the UK, and only moved back to France a century or so later.

Which was completely unnecessary. And of course wouldn't affect his accent centuries later.

 

[Nikosandros]

This is the case I was thinking of. There’s a great book called Dark Archives there a history of books bound in human skin and other strange things, and from I learned they many of them are toxic. I think they quite a few spell components would end up in toxic combinations too, so that you’d likely have made provisions that suit you for our own spell book and would definitely want protection for handling anyone else’s until you know it inside and out.

i imagine the possibility of disposable pull-on fingertip covers.

This reminds me of The Name of the Rose when William from Baskerville

Spoiler: Spoiler for the ending of The Name of the Rose

handles the lost book of Aristotle with a glove, so as to avoid the poison on the corners of the pages...

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Which was completely unnecessary. And of course wouldn't affect his accent centuries later.

I feel that's something that Patrick Stewart himself wanted to use as an explanation.

 

[Maggan]

Reading this thread brings to mind a quote from a friend of mine who's a comic book artist.

"Sometimes I just draw things that look cool."

 

[Chaosmancer]

The cloth on the arms and hands seems to match that covering her midriff. I think it would be one piece covering her upper body.

Could be. I'm thinking it is more a set that uses the same material. I don't know why, there is no visual evidence for it, but the idea of it being a "onesie" of sorts doesn't fit right with me.

If only D&D had mis-cast mechanics. Maybe she was originally painted as a Warhammer Fantasy Role Play caster. But WotC certainly seems to be promoting a trope of female casters wearing glovettes.

View attachment 356034

shrug

You will never hear a sour note in a professional musician's show. They will likely never be out of tune. That doesn't mean that such things are metaphysically impossible.

One thing I often do in the game, is that missed attack rolls from spells, or low damage from spells, represents that sort of finger fumble. You can even do that with successful saves against the magic. Sure, mechanically, the spell always "works" but that doesn't mean it was always cast perfectly and without error.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Right. I think the bigger issue is that even if it's not a spell that's denoted mechanically in a book, people assume the spaces in between must exist. Right, like, if high level clerical magic can literally reverse PC death, then one could assume that they can cure paraplegia as an example. This may not be true in the strictest sense, but yeah there is a certain logic there. This is the sort of thing I was referring to that doesn't really make diegetic sense, per se, but is something D&D is rife with. Another example: standing armies and fortifications. With high level magic and all kinds of flying creatures both would pretty much be obviated immediately, yet they exist in the game in spades.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed it is impossible that magic could give someone 20/20 eyesight.

However, in the course of the discussion of the incredulity some people have that in a magical world, people might still wear glasses, we have had claims that:

Beautiful people would not need glasses.
Powerful people would not need glasses.
Wealthy people would not need glasses.
Saying that not having perfect vision and needing glasses is fine is actively harmful to people.
The only reason to where glasses in a magical world would be if you cannot afford magic to fix your eyesight (too weak to do it yourself or too poor) or if the glasses gave benefits to someone with 20/20 eyesight.

So yes. Magic could likely give someone 20/20 vision. It could likely give someone bald hair. It could likely untwist spines, give people limbs who were born without them, and anything else you want it to do.

That doesn't mean we should see it as a world-building flaw that powerful, wealthy, beautiful people might have scars/glasses/missing limbs/need glasses.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Which was completely unnecessary. And of course wouldn't affect his accent centuries later.

Accents are genetic in Star Trek.

 

[Autumnal]

Accents are genetic in Star Trek.

Take that, nature vs nurture!

 

[Azzy]

What's really weird to me about this glasses kerfuffle is that, I am very certain that if we go back through 2E books (mine are all currently in storage sadly), we're going to find multiple images of apparent spell-casters with glasses or pince-nez, probably 1E as well, almost certainly 3E, and hell there are probably ones in 5E somewhere, so why is this controversial now?

Because it's fashionable to blame WotC for doing things that TSR did as well, but TSR gets a pass. Because reasons.