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

[TaranTheWanderer]

I get it if people don’t like the aesthetic but it’s weird to me that people don’t like it because they think a dragon couldn’t fly like that or that “magic flight only goes so far”.

Asian dragons are depicted as having no wings and are depicted as being able to fly. How do they fly??? They’re just giant serpents.

I find it interesting how people can suspend disbelief for some things and not others when it’s pure fantasy.

 

[Scribe]

I get it if people don’t like the aesthetic but it’s weird to me that people don’t like it because they think a dragon couldn’t fly like that or that “magic flight only goes so far”.

Asian dragons are depicted as having no wings and are depicted as being able to fly. How do they fly??? They’re just giant serpents.

I find it interesting how people can suspend disbelief for some things and not others when it’s pure fantasy.

I think its because they have wings, and we know how wings work (or at least we think we can figure it out) while these are counter intuitive. They look like they are anti-flight essentially.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

edit. I just repeated myself

 

[Scribe]

edit. I just repeated myself

Yes, but its magic. It 'has to be magic' because they have no wings.

This one HAS WINGS, but they are wrong/backwards, and so our minds go 'well yeah wings...but wha...?!'

 

[dave2008]

I don't like that the new dragonborn are more strictly color coded. I liked it better when dragonborn were related to dragons but not necessarily 1-to-1 miniature representations of the dragons.

In general, I'm not a big fan of 5e24's art direction. I cannot deny that some of the art is technically great artwork. But, despite the actual techniques to create the art being measurably better and of higher quality, I still like the style and presentation of it a lot less.

I agree with you on the dragonborn (but am fine with it for those who like them), but disagree with you on the 5e24 dragon designs (note I say design and not art)

 

[dave2008]

I just...do? It's completely obvious to me which picture came from 3e and which came from 4e. The details, the style, just make it completely obvious.

It's like asking how one can tell the difference between a pencil sketch and a painting. I can tell because pencil lines are different from brush strokes.


This is incredibly rude.

More importantly, my point wasn't that they look identical. It's that I have no idea which appearance is which dragon type.

If you gave me a red dragon that had been digitally recolored to be black, or took a B&W sketch of a red dragon and colored it black to begin with, I could with nearly 100% confidence identify that as a red dragon that was simply colored black for whatever reason, and vice versa. Red, green, and black dragons have iconic appearance details, such as horns and facial structure. I don't need the color of their scales to tell at a glance.

With Blue and White? Having looked it up recently, I know that Blue has the club like horn on its snout and White doesn't, but other than that they are extremely visually similar. I have never been able to remember "horn means blue, no horn means white", and must verify which is which essentially every time. A person could hand me a sketch of a white dragon recolored blue, or a blue dragon recolored white, and I almost certainly wouldn't notice, as long as the recolor was well-executed rather than sloppy.

No need to cast aspersions about my skills.

My apologies, I do see how that came off rudely. It was just a matter-of-fact observation from my point of view. I did not intend to offend. Like how I am not particularly good with color. We all have our strengths and weaknesses.

I am now perplexed as you can seem to easily identify the subtle differences in artistic style between 3e and 4e, but can't seem to pick up on the more significant design differences between dragon types. While I agree the 3e-4e-5e style white and blue do look very similar (and I don't like either of the designs), the distinguishing features of each have been there since 1e and make them obviously one or the other (no matter the color or lack of in the art) IMO.

Again, I apologize for coming off rudely, that was not my intent.

 

[Laurefindel]

I get it if people don’t like the aesthetic but it’s weird to me that people don’t like it because they think a dragon couldn’t fly like that or that “magic flight only goes so far”.

Asian dragons are depicted as having no wings and are depicted as being able to fly. How do they fly??? They’re just giant serpents.

I find it interesting how people can suspend disbelief for some things and not others when it’s pure fantasy.

I’d sooner accept a dragon that can fly without wings, or one with wings detached from its body like the spines of the topaz dragon than a dragon that does have wings but use them in a way that is counter-productive.

It’s like having a car with wheels on the roof instead of where they usually are. I’d sooner have a car that flies or levitates than one that drives with wheels on its roof somehow.

I’d had preferred if they found a reason for the dragon to go about with its wings reversed like a double-jointed dragon, because, but actually flies with its wings forward…

 

[Corinnguard]

I’d had preferred if they found a reason for the dragon to go about with its wings reversed like a double-jointed dragon, because, but actually flies with its wings forward…

I think every DM and every player will go with that approach. "They're the only dragon with a double joint in their wings."

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I’d sooner accept a dragon that can fly without wings, or one with wings detached from its body like the spines of the topaz dragon than a dragon that does have wings but use them in a way that is counter-productive.

Yeah, that's what I said earlier. I see where you're coming from but I find it interesting how people can suspend disbelief for one type of 'impossible flight' and not for another type of 'impossible flight' in a fantasy setting.

It’s like having a car with wheels on the roof instead of where they usually are. I’d sooner have a car that flies or levitates than one that drives with wheels on its roof somehow.

Certainly one looks cooler so I understand the desire to have a more appealing design. But, once again, in a fantasy (or sci-fantasy), I see no reason why either shouldn't be able to fly.

I’d had preferred if they found a reason for the dragon to go about with its wings reversed like a double-jointed dragon, because, but actually flies with its wings forward…

It would be cool on an outsider-type creature that is mind-bendingly strange and the average person just says, "but how...?"

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah, that's what I said earlier. I see where you're coming from but I find it interesting how people can suspend disbelief for one type of 'impossible flight' and not for another type of 'impossible flight' in a fantasy setting.

We see objects without wings flying all the time. Bullets. Missiles. Etc. And the idea that a creature can simply move by willing itself to move, while not real, doesn't actually conflict with any basic intuitions of how things physically function.

Wings on backwards directly contradicts physical awareness. We know how animal wings work, at least at a very basic level. They flap, pushing air around in a way that generates lift and forward thrust. We know that they have the shape they have because the air needs to go backward if you want to fly forward.

I used the three interlocking gears example for a very good reason. While some people may not make the logical connection, most who spend even a moment reviewing it will realize "wait, if this gear turns left and that gear turns right...the third one doesn't have any direction it can turn!"

The wings thing is the same. The difference you are not seeing is that something which is not real but compatible with the physical structure we see, is acceptable; it can be ascribed to a greater system we don't understand. Something that is not real specifically because it is outright incompatible with the physical structure we see, is not acceptable; it looks like the artist (writer, director, etc.) simply misunderstood how that physical structure works.

Certainly one looks cooler so I understand the desire to have a more appealing design. But, once again, in a fantasy (or sci-fantasy), I see no reason why either shouldn't be able to fly.

A wing that points backward is actively inhibitory to flight. It isn't just irrelevant. It's actually harmful. A dragon flying by telekinesis would not want wings like this; at least if they pointed forward the wings could help the flight in some way. That's why this "shouldn't be able to fly". It's not that they can't have telekinetic or otherwise supernatural flight. It's that regular wings help, while these wings are actively harmful.

It would be cool on an outsider-type creature that is mind-bendingly strange and the average person just says, "but how...?"

I don't think it would even be cool there. As preciously said, I do not get any "but how...?" feeling out of this. I get "...oh, so the artist doesn't understand wings."

More or less, before I can even begin to speculate, I am already concluding that it's simply incorrect. Not that it is impossible, but that its creator, the artist, has misunderstood the assignment.