D&D 5E (2024) Opinions on the Topaz Dragon Reverse Wings?

[dave2008]

Like, imagine a dragon based on this sort of body-plan:

View attachment 414254

The Mig 31 Firefox - I did enjoy that movie as a child. Remember, you have to think in Russian to fire the missiles!

 

[dave2008]

A bit like Quetzalcoatlus mentioned earlier in the thread, but maybe push the wings even further back, so they're above the rear legs and have a short tail, and like, the front limbs are a second pair of wings, and then then there's a long neck with a dangerous-looking head on the end. Hell, bring in the X-29 and make the rear wings actual scimitar forwards - it would look bizarre but it might well look kind of scary, rather than just derpy in a boring way.

The Topaz dragon is just someone glueing the wings on backwards and going "I meant to do that" Pee Wee Herman style. Like that's the best you could do? If you're going to lean into it, LEAN into it.

I actually am interested in starting with this topaz dragon design and then making the fewest additional changes to give the dragon an irrational but quasiplausible design. So the wings are backward but structured in such way that the flap/swing/rotate in such a way to provide lift / propulsion. Then what other changes might that precipitate?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I do think it can be interesting to see where people draw mental lines.

However, I can understand some of it.

While a realm of fantasy could do anything, I am still less likely to accept that (as a normal thing) gnomes sleep on treasure piles, fly, and burninate the countryside.

And, likewise, my sailing ship analogy.

I can 100% buy a ship that sails through the water on magical power with no obvious means of propelling itself. It just exerts magical force on the water, or whatever.

But a ship designed so that it has a completely flat, squared-off front...and a prow facing backward? No, that just looks ridiculous, because I know what it's like to sail through water, and that would be actively harmful to the ability to sail through water. "But magic makes it sail!" doesn't excuse it. If anything it makes things worse, because now I have a choice; I can either accept that magic makes literally anything sail perfectly equally well no matter how actively antagonistic it is to the physical process of sailing, or I need to reject core premises of the narrative and say that that's stupid, thus inherently putting my own thoughts in tension with what I'm being told and shown.

Just...respect aerodynamics, guys. That's all I really want here. If it's gonna fly, involving wings, make the wings actually aerodynamic. It doesn't matter if they aren't sufficient to support flight on their own. I'm already okay with that. I'm not okay with wings that are literally wrong for flight and would actively make flight worse.

A tossed stone flies. But we expect a smooth stone, not a perfect cube. No one would want to load their sling with a perfect sharp-edged cube. No one would want to use a perfect cube as a golf ball. It would be actively counterproductive.

 

[Laurefindel]

I actually am interested in starting with this topaz dragon design and then making the fewest additional changes to give the dragon an irrational but quasiplausible design. So the wings are backward but structured in such way that the flap/swing/rotate in such a way to provide lift / propulsion. Then what other changes might that precipitate?

Im sticking with my headcanon explanation that the Topaz dragon’s wings aren’t backward; they’re normal and they fly normally. Only, Topaz dragons have the ability to dislocate their « shoulders » to turn their wings backwards when landed. Why? I have no clue, but obviously because it’s of some advantage to these dragons to walk around with their « fingers » up like that. Something magic or psionic-related most likely. Now I’m curious to know the dragon’s features to see if any could validate that theory (in a stretch).

That picture of the flying dragon with backwards wings is wrong; it’s the in-universe artist that saw a Topaz dragon walking around with backward wings and extrapolated that it must also fly backwards. The sage who was accompanying the expedition knew better of course, but he didn’t survive… Now his ghost is stirring in his tomb slapping-his forehead thinking « idiot! ».

 

[dave2008]

Im sticking with my headcanon explanation that the Topaz dragon’s wings aren’t backward; they’re normal and they fly normally. Only, Topaz dragons have the ability to dislocate their « shoulders » to turn their wings backwards when landed. Why? I have no clue, but obviously because it’s of some advantage to these dragons to walk around with their « fingers » up like that. Something magic or psionic-related most likely. Now I’m curious to know the dragon’s features to see if any could validate that theory (in a stretch).

That picture of the flying dragon with backwards wings is wrong; it’s the in-universe artist that saw a Topaz dragon walking around with backward wings and extrapolated that it must also fly backwards. The sage who was accompanying the expedition knew better of course, but he didn’t survive… Now his ghost is stirring in his tomb slapping-his forehead thinking « idiot! ».

That is fine, personally I don't have gem dragons in my world - solves the issue rather easily.

However, this whole discussion has not made me interested in making a crazy topaz dragon design with backward wings that make some sense for some bizarre reason. Saying the simply dislocate and reverse only when they land is not nearly deep enough for what I am looking for. I want some strange method of flight with some other adaptations. My current angle is that it is an adaptation to make it a crazily agile flyer (like the humming bird and X-29). What else needs to change about the design to push that concept? What else is sacrificed to make it insanely agile (probably can't fly as fast for example). I want to take the backward wings and figure out what could work!

 

[dave2008]

Though, as noted, these things still have strokes based on the leading-edge vortex. (Didn't see this message earlier, otherwise I'd have added it to the previous.)

That's really the issue here. The leading-edge vortices face the wrong way for these wings, and these wings aren't the right shape or nature to make use of tip vortices or downwash. The trailing edge of the wing needs to be, y'know, tightly curved and relatively rigid; these wings are very intentionally not like that, with finger-like protrusions and repeatedly pointed membranes, all of which will create turbulence, not useful lift on the backstroke.

Consider also, for example, that the "smooth" part of the wing faces backward, while the rough, ridged, repeatedly-curved, pointed part faces forward--but the aerodynamic parts of the torso face forward, while the chunky things face backward. You might be able to get wings that have fingers pointing forward while still being compatible with aerodynamics...these just don't do that, and pretty concertedly avoid it.

Question: the humming bird can fly forwards, up, down, and backwards with its wings. Why couldn't this work for the dragon but in reverse. If the bird can fly backwards with its forward leading wings, why couldn't this dragon (with a little tweaking) fly forwards with its backward leading wings?

That is what I want to go with now. The topaz fly's like a humming bird essentially upright through the air. Now I just need to think what do we need to tweak to make this more plausible and why the backward wings are a good option.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I actually am interested in starting with this topaz dragon design and then making the fewest additional changes to give the dragon an irrational but quasiplausible design. So the wings are backward but structured in such way that the flap/swing/rotate in such a way to provide lift / propulsion. Then what other changes might that precipitate?

The one thing you have to do is make is so the thick part is in the direction of travel. That's it, essentially. There are animals which have essentially "forward-swept" wings. I.e. the "hand" had to be in the "correct" direction, rather than the wrong. There is absolutely no possibility of the wings ever working except to fly backwards otherwise. (@EzekielRaiden covered this in more detail).

The difference with forward-swept wings is that they're inherently unstable (and IIRC cause slightly more drag though don't quote me on that), and normally that's mitigated by computer-controlled fly-by-wire, which an animal - or dragon's - brain is quite capable of doing the same thing as.

I think we've actually seen dragons with forward-swept wings before in D&D, but I don't know where.

Question: the humming bird can fly forwards, up, down, and backwards with its wings. Why couldn't this work for the dragon but in reverse. If the bird can fly backwards with its forward leading wings, why couldn't this dragon (with a little tweaking) fly forwards with its backward leading wings?

Because a dragon isn't a hummingbird.

aerodynamics operates in different ways at different scales. You can do things with a very tiny, almost weightless being that you absolutely cannot do with even a normal bird-sized animal.

This is why there aren't eagle-sized hummingbirds. The aerodynamics and the energy budget just don't work. At all. The largest hummingbird weighs 24g and has a 21.5cm wingspan, and that's probably close to maxing out that style of flying.

There's no amount of "tweaking" that could ever fix that.

 

[dave2008]

Because a dragon isn't a hummingbird.

aerodynamics operates in different ways at different scales. You can do things with a very tiny, almost weightless being that you absolutely cannot do with even a normal bird-sized animal.

This is why there aren't eagle-sized hummingbirds. The aerodynamics and the energy budget just don't work. At all. The largest hummingbird weighs 24g and has a 21.5cm wingspan, and that's probably close to maxing out that style of flying.

There's no amount of "tweaking" that could ever fix that.

But that is not a good argument when we have psionics / magic involved - aerodynamics (and physics in general) have only a passing importance. Magic can easily make up for such issues. I mean what are the RL energy requirements for magic. It seems to me magic can handle things much more difficult than the weight and aerodynamics of dragon (in fact it has to for every dragon already). I mean flying castles are a thing after all. I am more interested in why than how really. What would be the reason to go down this path. I see the first step being agility in 3d space, but why would the topaz pursue such agility. What would it sacrifice to get it, etc.

I don't really have the time to explore such a design, but it is now on my list of things to look at when I retire!

 

[dave2008]

There's no amount of "tweaking" that could ever fix that.

I mean that is true of a gargantuan sized dragon too (or a giant or about a hundred other things in D&D). So I hardly thing that is the issue. You can't look at RL physics for your full answer.

 

[Demetrios1453]

And, likewise, my sailing ship analogy.

I can 100% buy a ship that sails through the water on magical power with no obvious means of propelling itself. It just exerts magical force on the water, or whatever.

But a ship designed so that it has a completely flat, squared-off front...and a prow facing backward? No, that just looks ridiculous, because I know what it's like to sail through water, and that would be actively harmful to the ability to sail through water. "But magic makes it sail!" doesn't excuse it. If anything it makes things worse, because now I have a choice; I can either accept that magic makes literally anything sail perfectly equally well no matter how actively antagonistic it is to the physical process of sailing, or I need to reject core premises of the narrative and say that that's stupid, thus inherently putting my own thoughts in tension with what I'm being told and shown.

Well, astronomically speaking, the old constellation Argo (named after Jason's ship and now divided into Puppis, the stern, Vela, the sail, and Carina, the keel) actually has the stern forward and the prow to the rear as it moves along its daily path through the sky. I'm pretty sure the ancient Greeks knew which way was which when it came to ships, but they apparently had no problem suspending belief by having a big ship in the sky basically sail backwards. You can, too this day, watch it rise and set stern first.