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

[mamba]

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.

the same way balloons do

 

[mamba]

I’d sooner accept a dragon that can fly without wings

yeah, put a winged viking helmet / a propeller hat on a T-Rex and pretend that allows them to fly, that is about the realism of these backward wings

 

[Demetrios1453]

yeah, put a winged viking helmet / a propeller hat on a T-Rex and pretend that allows them to fly, that is about the realism of these backward wings

I mean, that's not particularly outlandish when it comes to D&D, really. Some wizard made a hat of flying instead of boots of flying, was eaten by the T-Rex, but the hat came loose during the fight/devouring and landed and got stuck on one of its lacrimal horns - suddenly, flying T-Rex! That's actually a pretty cool idea, now that I think it over. Terrorize/amuse your characters, and give them a unique magic item once they defeat the creature! I know the people I play with would absolutely love having a propeller hat that actually makes you fly.

 

[dave2008]

the same way balloons do

balloons don't fly they float. That is why it is easy to debunk them as UFOs.

 

[dave2008]

Ok, I don't know if it is the 2hrs of sleep a covid fever dream or both, but I think I got it figured out. The topaz dragon flies backwards with is tail rigid and pointing straight out like e Quetzalcoatlus' neck!

 

[mamba]

balloons don't fly they float. That is why it is easy to debunk them as UFOs.

that is because balloons generally lack a means of propulsion (hello zeppelin), the dragon does not

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Would backward wings inhibit flying backward?

No, but having your limbs and tail pointing the normal way would.

It's like...imagine someone built a car, with all of the seating, windshield, mirrors, safety features, etc., all pointing one direction....and then the engine, steering/driving tires, and brakes pointing in the opposite direction. Except that at least theoretically would drive, it would just be a nightmare to navigate in. The topaz, as displayed, would be bad at aerodynamics no matter which way it was flying, and if it did, it would be slow, unwieldy, and prone to deflecting away from its intended direction of travel.

Like even if we assume the flight is 100% magic and the wings are just decorative, you'd fly worse for the same amount of magical power as a dragon that didn't have these wings.

Actually, a better analogy: it's like a sailing ship, where the sails are made pointing sideways outward the ship, and dragging through the water, well below the keel of the vessel. Even if the ship is actually powered by engines, you've added a ton of extra counterproductive drag for no reason. You'll need more powerful engines just to go at the same speed as a ship with no sails at all.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

we do have RL animals that have some odd wing motions. I actually find the idea of the Topaz dragon flies like a giant hummingbird a bit interesting.

View attachment 414157
View attachment 414158

View attachment 414159

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.

 

[dave2008]

that is because balloons generally lack a means of propulsion (hello zeppelin), the dragon does not

The post you responded to was about Asian dragons which do not have a means of propulsion either.

 

[Desdichado]

I think it looks ridiculous, but I was never going to use a topaz dragon for anything anyway, and if I did, I'd be even less likely to use that art, so so what?