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

 

[TwoSix]

Honest to goodness, the new art and layout stuff (particularly the DMG layout)is more of a draw for me than the rules revisions.

All you had to do was add new subclasses, WotC! That plus new art would have opened my wallet!

<shakes fist>

 

[Parmandur]

They also seem to have a small landscape per background, which, depending on how they approach those, could be quite a few, and if spells actually have a lot more illustrations that would be great because honestly D&D spells are rather under-illustrated, at least in core books, in all prior editions.

Juat checked, and the UA had 18 sample Backgrounds, so probsvly about that many in the final PHB with two per page with those background images (Crawford was really tickled with the idea of using backdrops to illustrate a Background).

Other point about the Spells they dropped: theybwill apparently lean into the named mages as the example illustrations, so a picture of Tasha making someone laugh hideously or Bigby using a big hand spell.

 

[Parmandur]

All you had to do was add new subclasses, WotC! That plus new art would have opened my wallet!

<shakes fist>

They do have 3 brand new ones, and the PHB is kind of the place for the standard tropes?

 

[TwoSix]

They do have 3 brand new ones, and the PHB is kind of the place for the standard tropes?

And that's fair, I just disagree. My position hasn't changed since we discussed this back in June; the new book could have been much more valuable to both current and new players if it had simply been designed as a standalone expansion.

I understand all that. My main point of contention is that since new players neither know nor care what's already gone before, presumably, why not just also give them new options? It's not like there's anything special or precious about the 2014 subclasses or the Xanathar's or Tasha's ones that needs to be presented to those learning the game.

 

[gorice]

Side note: my inner pedant is compelled to point out that people were riding horses into battle long before the invention of stirrups. Stirrups just give you more stability.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So, I know likely no one actually cares, but it has been bothering me as I've read through this entire thread.

Not a single piece of art in this thread is "anime art". None. This is anime art

Spoiler: Yuji

And if you want to see some examples of female characters using magic in anime, here you go

Spoiler: Nanoha, Rayearth, and Myne

That last one is the most magic we see from that character in the entire season, though in the light novels she does have a few other more impressive looking moments.

Spoiler: Cover Art

And this above image ISN'T Anime art. It is from the Light Novel, and you can tell just by comparing the two that these two styles are very different.

Which brings me to the bigger burr that is irritating me. First, not all anime is giant power circles, yes that happens, but it happens in other art too. This isn't an "anime thing" it is more about the scale of the magic being depicted. Secondly, even the idea of an "anime style" is actually a little silly. I mean, seriously, look at this stuff, does any of this actually look like the same style to you?

Spoiler: Baki, Jojo, Monster, Apothecary

I know I am ultimately getting annoyed at nothing. But the DnD community as a whole seems woefully under-informed about Anime. There is, truly, no single anime style. There are popular styles to be sure, but talking about "anime art" like it is a monolith is like talking about "video game art" in the same manner, as though there is no difference between 16-bit games, modern shooters, and Nintendo stylized games.

Do Shonen Battle Anime have giant flashy lasers? Yeah, usually. Slice of Life anime don't, and some of those use magic as well. Comedy anime may or may not. Drama anime certainly abstain away from flash a lot more. Anime from the 80's and 90's has a very distinctive difference from modern anime, and the art style can change mid-show as well, or mid-episode if they have a purpose to it.

Sure, the wizard art is flashy and bright, but it isn't anime.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I guess the challenge to WotC now is can they reach September with some kind of spectacular PR screw up. Based on recent history this is definitely at least a DC20 check for them.

While I am excited for the new books, I gotta agree. DC20 ability check to make it through the year relatively unscathed.

 

[Staffan]

It feels like they used to, that art that suggested story used to be the standard. But memory and nostalgia are terribly unreliable, so I could easily be wrong.

Remember that this is supposed to be the picture illustrating the Wizard class. There's a place for portrait-style art and a place for scenic art, and the class chapter is better suited for the former.

Looking back at 2e, there really wasn't much art at all in the class chapter (or at all, really – at least not in the original version). There were some cool full-page art pieces, but as I recall they were few in number and had little to do with the surrounding text. Starting with 3e, you had more art but most of it was portrait-style or otherwise illustrative rather than mood-setting.

 

[Parmandur]

Starting with 3e, you had more art but most of it was portrait-style or otherwise illustrative rather than mood-setting.

And most of it looked like it came straight from 90's Marvel comics, weird pockets and buckles and all.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

And most of it looked like it came straight from 90's Marvel comics, weird pockets and buckles and all.

I seem to recall they at least had feet in 3e.