New Look at Dungeons & Dragons 2024 Red and Black Dragon Revealed Via Bookends

Bookends, of all things, feature the newly redesigned dragons.

dragon bookend.jpg


WizKids has provided Dungeons & Dragons fans with a new look at the 2024 Red and Black Dragons thanks to a new set of bookends. This week, WizKids revealed two new 7-inch resin bookends, one featuring the head of the newly redesigned red dragon and the other featuring the head of the newly redesigned black dragon. Both individual bookends will be released in Q2 2025 with a recommended retail price of $59.99. Notably, WizKids has stated that this will be the start of a new line of official D&D Bookends.

ddbookend-001_ddblackdragonbookend_right_angled_hdrender-webres_1024x1024.webp

ddbookend-001_ddreddragonbookend_left_angled_hdrender-webres_1024x1024.webp


As part of D&D's 50th anniversary and the release of a new set of Core Rulebooks, Wizards of the Coast also redesigned the game's chromatic and metallic dragons, marking the first significant redesign of the game's iconic monsters since Ted Lockwood's versions of the dragons for D&D 3rd edition. Wizards has revealed each of the dragons at a slow and deliberate pace, using the new dragons to promote the just released Player's Handbook. The dragons themselves will be in the 2025 Monster Manual, which will be released in February.

WizKids also recently announced plans to produce a miniature of the redesigned Black Dragon, marking the first of the new dragons to get their own tabletop miniature.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Christian Hoffer

Christian Hoffer


log in or register to remove this ad




EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
I suppose it's a matter of taste. I absolutely hated the look of the old black dragon, the worst of the bunch imo. But it's my favorite among the redesigns. I like the xenomorph vibe and while the horns ARE bizarre I really dig the look of them. They look miles better than the old ones. Looks like they can have a few variations too, given the official artwork. But all very twisty.
Okay so this is a thing I've seen a lot and I want to respond to it here.

"This is much better than the old thing" is not actually a rebuttal to the statement made. Imagine a person with celiac disease has starved for a week, and they're given a sandwich (meaning, something containing gluten.) The sandwich is better than starvation, that's a simple fact. Yet it is also a simple fact that a meal containing gluten is still not good. The starving person should still eat that sandwich, even though it will almost certainly give them intestinal issues, because starving is worse. But "better than starving to death" is damning with faint praise.

You like it. Clearly, for you, this is not "celiac patient chooses sandwich over starvation." But it's not a rebuttal to a person who does have celiac saying, "I know I'm starving, but do you have any food that doesn't contain gluten?"

You don't need to defend your liking of something. But to dismiss someone else's dislike because of the (alleged) improvement over what came before is a non sequitur at best. I am judging this black dragon, not any others that have been drafted in the past. I would like this black dragon to be other than what it is. It could still be different from what it currently is, and be different from what black dragons were in the past.

But when you think about it horns on dragons make no sense in the first place. In the existing animal kingdom only herbivores have large horns - they're defensive structures. The only exceptions I can think of are the brow horns of the dinosaur Carnotaurus (which are probbly used against rivals for mates) or the nose horn on Ceratosaurus (which is more of a crest, probably not used as a weapon).
Dragons are not creatures that evolved. This argument always strikes me as profoundly silly. Even in the context of actual D&D worlds, dragons are products of divine creation. They come from intelligent design, not evolution. They can have whatever traits their divine creator wished them to have. And all of that is still subordinate to Doylist perspectives. You could quite easily invent whatever reason you like.
 

KYRON45

Hero
Okay so this is a thing I've seen a lot and I want to respond to it here.

"This is much better than the old thing" is not actually a rebuttal to the statement made. Imagine a person with celiac disease has starved for a week, and they're given a sandwich (meaning, something containing gluten.) The sandwich is better than starvation, that's a simple fact. Yet it is also a simple fact that a meal containing gluten is still not good. The starving person should still eat that sandwich, even though it will almost certainly give them intestinal issues, because starving is worse. But "better than starving to death" is damning with faint praise.

You like it. Clearly, for you, this is not "celiac patient chooses sandwich over starvation." But it's not a rebuttal to a person who does have celiac saying, "I know I'm starving, but do you have any food that doesn't contain gluten?"

You don't need to defend your liking of something. But to dismiss someone else's dislike because of the (alleged) improvement over what came before is a non sequitur at best. I am judging this black dragon, not any others that have been drafted in the past. I would like this black dragon to be other than what it is. It could still be different from what it currently is, and be different from what black dragons were in the past.


Dragons are not creatures that evolved. This argument always strikes me as profoundly silly. Even in the context of actual D&D worlds, dragons are products of divine creation. They come from intelligent design, not evolution. They can have whatever traits their divine creator wished them to have. And all of that is still subordinate to Doylist perspectives. You could quite easily invent whatever reason you like.
Comparing an autoimmune disorder and starvation to an artistic interpretation of a monster is.....something pretty special.
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
Comparing an autoimmune disorder and starvation to an artistic interpretation of a monster is.....something pretty special.
Okay. My apologies for using an analogy you dislike. Do you not agree that the point still stands? Thing A can be bad, and thing B can be better than thing A, while still not being particularly good in and of itself.
 


NerdyRotica

Villager
Okay so this is a thing I've seen a lot and I want to respond to it here.

"This is much better than the old thing" is not actually a rebuttal to the statement made. Imagine a person with celiac disease has starved for a week, and they're given a sandwich (meaning, something containing gluten.) The sandwich is better than starvation, that's a simple fact. Yet it is also a simple fact that a meal containing gluten is still not good. The starving person should still eat that sandwich, even though it will almost certainly give them intestinal issues, because starving is worse. But "better than starving to death" is damning with faint praise.

You like it. Clearly, for you, this is not "celiac patient chooses sandwich over starvation." But it's not a rebuttal to a person who does have celiac saying, "I know I'm starving, but do you have any food that doesn't contain gluten?"

You don't need to defend your liking of something. But to dismiss someone else's dislike because of the (alleged) improvement over what came before is a non sequitur at best. I am judging this black dragon, not any others that have been drafted in the past. I would like this black dragon to be other than what it is. It could still be different from what it currently is, and be different from what black dragons were in the past.


Dragons are not creatures that evolved. This argument always strikes me as profoundly silly. Even in the context of actual D&D worlds, dragons are products of divine creation. They come from intelligent design, not evolution. They can have whatever traits their divine creator wished them to have. And all of that is still subordinate to Doylist perspectives. You could quite easily invent whatever reason you like.
I was not dismissing anyone's dislike. My very first sentence was "I suppose it's a matter of taste." The new version being miles better is only my opinion, and anyone else is free to disagree because it's all subjective.
 

delax

Villager
Didn't they show the Black dragon in a direct already?
I am (so far) just glad that the dragons have more physical traits to separate them than mere color coding.
Subtle descriptions are not my forte as a dm, but the sinuous Gold vs skull-like Black will probably be fun!

I personally didn't remember anything about the previous Black dragon design to compare, was their only thing the forward-facing horns?
 

Split the Hoard


Split the Hoard
Negotiate, demand, or steal the loot you desire!

A competitive card game for 2-5 players
Remove ads

Split the Hoard


Split the Hoard
Negotiate, demand, or steal the loot you desire!

A competitive card game for 2-5 players
Remove ads

Top