NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="InkTide" data-source="post: 9542701" data-attributes="member: 7048463">I think you're focusing a little too much on my discussion of the spines (less a real biology thing, more a basic physics thing) and the "no living thing I'm aware of" aside I made - my main problem is aesthetic, not realism. I don't want to limit them to what exists IRL, I want the design to work in its world... and those spines would be a problem even in the fantastical world of D&D. It's more a "what was the theming purpose of putting those spines there, why bring up the question of them stabbing themselves in the throat at all?" thing.That split-chin lip-tooth structure is extremely unappealing to me. To me, It doesn't look cool, it doesn't look on theme, it doesn't even really fit with the rest of the head. I can't ignore how outright bizarre its mouth looks, and all the lines of the head and "mane" are guiding my eyes directly to it.I disagree with your premise here, not because I don't think dragons should be reptilian, but because I don't think they should all have the same animal inspirations. White dragons were the only ones with a solid avian motif - it set them apart, even if it was a bit clunky. Now, their faces don't really have an avian or reptilian (lizard, specifically) motif - they have more of a mammalian/vaguely dragon turtle motif with the face structure and the mane. That's fine in theory, but I don't think they do it well, and in terms of making the dragons very distinctive from each other, they're edging in on some of the new metallic dragon mammalian face theming, especially with the almost lion-like brass dragon face... but not even really committing to the design (they've kept the upper beak, but now it feels out of place). If they do revisit dragon turtles again (and I hope they do), I'd want their wide, flat, triangle faces to be distinct from anything in the chromatics or the metallics (or the gems, if they revisit those - good lord do Topaz wings need it).These I can largely agree with - with the copper I think the problem with its neck would be mitigated if the shoulders and body were balanced with it better (could probably stand to have a slightly thicker neck, too - bit too noodly for my taste), and if its head was slightly larger. I still prefer it to the old copper, because there was barely anything memorable about the old copper dragon. Didn't really capture a "jokester dragon" vibe at all for me. I feel like the new one does a better job of that.I just don't agree with your seeming conclusion that any dragon with avian theming shouldn't have it (it really was just the white dragon - I think there's space in the lineup to have just one frozen bird boi). However, if it had a more rounded snout like a savannah monitor (perchance, depending on your mood, with a subtly beak-like structure at the tip), I probably wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with it. But that ugly chin thing, the flattened face (doesn't feel long enough for a savannah monitor snout), and the fact that the frill is way too far forward ruins any comparison with a monitor for me.For the record... red dragons are actually kinda low on my favorite dragons list. I liked them better than black dragons (least favorite in the old chromatics) or white dragons (second least favorite), but they were middle of the pack for me. I liked green and blue the best, preferring blue. I think the redesign pushed green to the front, and the new white dragon to the back of the list.I just don't think it holds a theme cohesively. There's too much going on that isn't working well as a thematic whole, IMO.[ATTACH=full]390483[/ATTACH]You have the body with a solid (pun intended) theme, but then a tail that's arguably too long for the stocky build (and notably lion-like), and then this strange imbalanced mishmash face sticking out of it that can't decide if it wants to be a polar bear, a lion, a bird, a snapping turtle, or one of those hideous Klingons from Star Trek: Discovery.[ATTACH=full]390480[/ATTACH]I just don't see what they were trying to do, theme wise. It doesn't feel like a redesign of the white dragon, it feels like something else entirely, and (to me) like it isn't even sure what that something else was supposed to be.Glad to have helped! Looking it up, I think they may have quietly made it pseudo-public because they had a bunch of difficulty getting it out to people through emails. Since it was never individually for sale AFAIK that was probably less of a problem.I like thinking of it this way (and even official stuff can imply this sometimes), but I also really like the level of detail in this new art, and since it's clearly a push to make D&D dragons more distinctive (whether to stand out or because it's easier to copyright post-OGL, you be the judge), we'll probably never get anything like the old dragon designs again from official sources.If somebody really dislikes the replacements (like a lot of people seemed to with the gold), it stings a little more, since the detail of this artwork is so much higher than the detail given to the older stuff. Usually the new art carries over previous themes (it can feel like an improved 'resolution' image of the original creature still), but when you have stuff like the new white dragon or the Fizban's deep dragon (which genuinely looks like its existence is suffering), if the new design isn't a hit, fans of the old one being upset about it is perfectly understandable, IMO, even with the "you can still use the old ones" caveat.</blockquote>

Verification