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

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Why is that pushback inevitable? You have the books with the art that you like? What's it to you that some new books get published with different art?

The art kind of reflects the rules, which assume a high magic setting with post-medieval technology and social norms. But that bridge was crossed (and burned) a great many years ago. But I reckon pushback against the art reflects pushback against the rules.

 

[Hussar]

The art kind of reflects the rules, which assume a high magic setting with post-medieval technology and social norms. But that bridge was crossed (and burned) a great many years ago. But I reckon pushback against the art reflects pushback against the rules.

In my more cynical moments, I think the pushback has a lot more to do with who is publishing the books, rather than what's being published.

 

[Staffan]

A lot of 3E's art was, and I feel like as someone who has done a lot of art, I should recall the proper term for this (!!!), "floaty" art, i.e. figures/creatures/beings/objects who are full-colour and full detail but just on a white or pale blank background, and it's like, there are times that works, but 3E pushed it far, far beyond the bounds of "what works" into being basically the dominant art style of 3E and becoming quite annoying, frankly.

I agree, and to some degree I think that's emblematic of the focus 3e had on player options over setting material and adventures, with the PC themselves being of paramount importance rather than how they fit into the world. I mean, I don't think that was a conscious choice, but the results of similar types of thought.

 

[Hussar]

It's funny. I just did a bunch of NPC art using AI for my next session. Everything came out with backgrounds. I gotta admit, I kinda like the context that the backgrounds give rather than the straight up "portrait" art.

 

[ezo]

As an aside not directed to you: I hope we are not to the point where not liking something is automatically assumed to be some veiled negative trait…just reading the thread and seeing a lot of assumption.

OH YES! Way too much. If you say something someone else finds even remotely offensive or negative, and they assume they typical assume the worst of your motives, or say your motives are not valid.

Edit: Does anachronistic cover the glasses? Seriously!?! WTF on the glasses criticism.

See, and I didn't want to bring that up again. While I think one poster mentioned anachronistic for the glasses, my complaint was about them not being appropriate, more that in a world of magic where you can raise the dead at 5th level, you shouldn't need a 6th level spell to cure impaired vision. Blindess (not the condition) requires a heal spell, but for vision impairment, IMO lesser restoration should work. That being the case, for 50 gp or so, why wouldn't an adventurer of any significan't experience get their eyesight fixed if they could? That is why I don't like them---it just doesn't make sense to me on that score.

Now, thankfully others pointed out perhaps they are magical lens or something, which would make sense. That isn't how I imagined magical lens to work (thinking of them more like contacts), but it's fine.

So, that is "WTF on the glasses criticism" from my point of view.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I agree, and to some degree I think that's emblematic of the focus 3e had on player options over setting material and adventures, with the PC themselves being of paramount importance rather than how they fit into the world. I mean, I don't think that was a conscious choice, but the results of similar types of thought.

I love this take - this is the sort of take you can build a thesis on - and I do agree, I think it was a subconscious deal, that bled through into larger choices.

 

[Reynard]

I love this take - this is the sort of take you can build a thesis on - and I do agree, I think it was a subconscious deal, that bled through into larger choices.

I don't get this. 3E had tons of setting material, including bringing back old settings by third parties. 3E was focused on character options, but many of those options were directly tied to the world.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

See, and I didn't want to bring that up again. While I think one poster mentioned anachronistic for the glasses, my complaint was about them not being appropriate, more that in a world of magic where you can raise the dead at 5th level, you shouldn't need a 6th level spell to cure impaired vision. Blindess (not the condition) requires a heal spell, but for vision impairment, IMO lesser restoration should work. That being the case, for 50 gp or so, why wouldn't an adventurer of any significan't experience get their eyesight fixed if they could? That is why I don't like them---it just doesn't make sense to me on that score.

Now, thankfully others pointed out perhaps they are magical lens or something, which would make sense. That isn't how I imagined magical lens to work (thinking of them more like contacts), but it's fine.

So, that is "WTF on the glasses criticism" from my point of view.

The difficulty I think with this is two-layered and people don't always consider it - and I'm not saying this as a critique, just an FYI, because I didn't immediately get it either, I had to read up a bit about a decade ago:

1) This presumes every potential disability or whatever you want to call it is a illness or disease to be "fixed", not just something about how that person is. Even on a scientific level the "to be fixed" doesn't hold up - lot of things perceived as disabilities or the like are simply how that person was born or the like. There's a different between someone whose legs got chopped off in an accident or battle and a person who was born without much in the way of legs.

2) If everything "non-normal" can be "fixed" it acts in an exclusionary way. So people who themselves have disabilities will never see themselves represented in that fictional universe in that way.

This isn't new - the first time it really "went big" I think as a concept was Geordi LaForge in TNG, so the 1980s, and there it was slightly different but eventually ends up in roughly the same place.

I think there's a balance to be struck, because also if nothing can be changed/fixed that can clash pretty violently with the magic and science of various settings, and sometimes just seems a bit silly or tonally wrong - but if too much that's different about bodies/minds is to be "fixed" that can also get into some awkward places.

I don't get this. 3E had tons of setting material, including bringing back old settings by third parties. 3E was focused on character options, but many of those options were directly tied to the world.

It's not really a critique of 3E, to be clear, because it's a valid choice to make, just commentary on the 3E aesthetics. I think the issue with 3E and "tied to the world" is that there was theory and practice - in theory a lot of 3E's choices were indeed "tied to the world" (though less so than 2E and even 4E, but that's a long discussion, like I said we're getting into thesis territory), but in practice players (and DMs) tended to see options as just options - whether that was wildly exotic weapons, Prestige Classes, races or the like, and to be fair to those players and DMs, I would suggest WotC generally looked to find ways to encourage you to include these things in your world, rather than exclude them from it (which was more of a 2E approach). 4E had the infamous statement which implied everything was included, but in practice, despite that, 4E designs like the Paragon Path and Epic Destiny were more "tied in" than PrCs typically were - especially as PrCs could be taken in a "bitty" way - a level, a level there, even multiple PrCs on one character. In 4E choices tended to be more "final" than 3E's flexibility (there's a complicated discussion about 3E's approach to Feats vs 4E's, and 3E's is less world-tied, but I actually think better for that in some ways, because 4E had a huge, insane number of overly-specific Feats added via Dragon and so on).

 

[Hussar]

Ditto. And what is with the glasses? You have "glowing power wizard eyes" but you need glasses? Must be trying to be stylish.


No clue, forget trying to tie the artwork to the game.


I'm surprised they don't have her floating/flying as well.


Well, they have to sell those cards somehow. Two birds, one stone.


Or at least have them someplace lying around in the background!


What? Representative art? Perish the thought!


Doesn't appeal to me, either. Not the style, the pose, the lack of context, nothing really. Take the book out of it, and it could be a cleric, sorcerer, or warlock -- not "wizardy" at all IMO.


Sums it up nicely.


That would SO complete the look!


So true!


Yeah, you'd think with the direction WotC is taking D&D, someone would have caught that.

With a first post in the thread like this, it's utterly shocking, shocking I say, that anyone could possibly presume that there might be some motivations present here. I have absolutely no idea where anyone could even remotely think that this is nothing but honest, upfront, forthright, well supported criticism deserving of thoughtful and measured response.



I often find that we reap what we sow.

 

[Parmandur]

The difficulty I think with this is two-layered and people don't always consider it - and I'm not saying this as a critique, just an FYI, because I didn't immediately get it either, I had to read up a bit about a decade ago:

1) This presumes every potential disability or whatever you want to call it is a illness or disease to be "fixed", not just something about how that person is. Even on a scientific level the "to be fixed" doesn't hold up - lot of things perceived as disabilities or the like are simply how that person was born or the like. There's a different between someone whose legs got chopped off in an accident or battle and a person who was born without much in the way of legs.

2) If everything "non-normal" can be "fixed" it acts in an exclusionary way. So people who themselves have disabilities will never see themselves represented in that fictional universe in that way.

This isn't new - the first time it really "went big" I think as a concept was Geordi LaForge in TNG, so the 1980s, and there it was slightly different but eventually ends up in roughly the same place.

I think there's a balance to be struck, because also if nothing can be changed/fixed that can clash pretty violently with the magic and science of various settings, and sometimes just seems a bit silly or tonally wrong - but if too much that's different about bodies/minds is to be "fixed" that can also get into some awkward places.


It's not really a critique of 3E, to be clear, because it's a valid choice to make, just commentary on the 3E aesthetics. I think the issue with 3E and "tied to the world" is that there was theory and practice - in theory a lot of 3E's choices were indeed "tied to the world" (though less so than 2E and even 4E, but that's a long discussion, like I said we're getting into thesis territory), but in practice players (and DMs) tended to see options as just options - whether that was wildly exotic weapons, Prestige Classes, races or the like, and to be fair to those players and DMs, I would suggest WotC generally looked to find ways to encourage you to include these things in your world, rather than exclude them from it (which was more of a 2E approach). 4E had the infamous statement which implied everything was included, but in practice, despite that, 4E designs like the Paragon Path and Epic Destiny were more "tied in" than PrCs typically were - especially as PrCs could be taken in a "bitty" way - a level, a level there, even multiple PrCs on one character. In 4E choices tended to be more "final" than 3E's flexibility (there's a complicated discussion about 3E's approach to Feats vs 4E's, and 3E's is less world-tied, but I actually think better for that in some ways, because 4E had a huge, insane number of overly-specific Feats added via Dragon and so on).

I am reminded of the novel Dawnshard by Brandon Sanderson, which is from the viewpoint of a character who uses a wheelchair in a world of fantastic healing magic. There is a good reason in-world why the condition cannot be healed, and it ends up being a great piece of representstion.