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

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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

Same way he pays for his coffee at a muggle coffee shop, or any wizard pays for something in the muggle world. Gold is a universal currency, you don’t need to be a wizard to use it.

The books make it clear that HP is wealthy in both the wizarding and muggle world.

You may not be able to understand it, but it’s a fact that there are loads of people who are not fictional, and could easily afford eye surgery, who prefer to wear glasses.

 

[Autumnal]

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

If and only if we insist that “detailed” necessarily implies “in accord with actual physics on every point thst interests me”. I’m another glasses wearer who doesn’t notice the distortion of images through them except for very strong correction. To me, therefore, those are lenses of some moderate to light adjustment, and I’m unconvinced that I have to grant you the high prescription ground here.

I have read and enjoyed Barthes, Eco, and others, and I know that the replacement for authorial intent’s supremacy is not the supremacy of the most nitpicking audience. It is, rather, the absence of supremacy altogether. The discourse of criticism doesn’t stop. The e real fact of lenses’ distorting power is a datum. What it may mean to a particular piece of criticism is pretty open, and not a fact - collectively, we haven’t granted an assumption (or declared theorem) that anything detailed should be interpreted so as to give maximum deference to considerations of naturalism. To put it mildly.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If and only if we insist that “detailed” necessarily implies “in accord with actual physics on every point thst interests me”. I’m another glasses wearer who doesn’t notice the distortion of images through them except for very strong correction. To me, therefore, those are lenses of some moderate to light adjustment, and I’m unconvinced that I have to grant you the high prescription ground here.

I have read and enjoyed Barthes, Eco, and others, and I know that the replacement for authorial intent’s supremacy is not the supremacy of the most nitpicking audience. It is, rather, the absence of supremacy altogether. The discourse of criticism doesn’t stop. The e real fact of lenses’ distorting power is a datum. What it may mean to a particular piece of criticism is pretty open, and not a fact - collectively, we haven’t granted an assumption (or declared theorem) that anything detailed should be interpreted so as to give maximum deference to considerations of naturalism. To put it mildly.

Ok. I concede. You lost me somewhere in your speech...

 

[Autumnal]

In a more relaxed way, then: it’s difficult at best to prove anything by small details that many of us don’t enough think of. They can be significant, but usually aren’t except to say “oh, the artist didn’t think of that either”. Evidence of absence is evidence of absence, but not a very reliable guide to why it’s absence.

 

[Demetrios1453]

By the way, everyone seems to be forgetting that one of the earliest pop culture D&D wizards, the one from the '80s cartoon, wore glasses.

 

[Autumnal]

Sure, but that’s iseksi and therefore didn’t exist then and wasn’t allowed to be fun or good if it did.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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.

Yeah, though for the most part, the same things have been said over and over and over.

 

[Mistwell]

Because it looks rad

Does it? Why does a staff look more or less rad whether it's held or floating? I think it would be more rad if held, myself.

 

[Mistwell]

It's a Floating Staff - magic item. Or, she just dropped it to cast the spell with both hands, and it's simply leaning on her Orb of Invulnerability. Or, it's a Staff of Animating Objects and it animated itself along with all of those flying books, and she's casting Shield while flying with her Belt of Flying and wearing her Glasses of True Sight.

There's no end to the stories that this picture could be implying. No end to stories? Sounds like D&D to me.

I think the game could use a floating staff to save on hands being available. But the animated objects explanation is...not a good one, and not a good story, as that means the staff is irrelevant as a staff in the image, and not casting the spell it appears to be casting. And if she dropped the staff to cast the spell, that's a bad sign for the rules as they were intent on fixing that issue and it's a "story" which means they didn't fix what they set out to fix with that...and also that it's not casting the spell as it appears to be doing in the image.

And I was not referring to flight or the glasses, just why is a staff floating when it is presumably either the wizards weapon or component in casting the spell.

 

[Parmandur]

Does it? Why does a staff look more or less rad whether it's held or floating?

Everything looks more rad floating. We didn't make the rules here.

But I'm guessing the reason it is floating us that she is a wizard.