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

[dave2008]

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.

Of course it could make it a more dynamic flyer like the X-29. So maybe the Topaz is the most dynamic/agile flying dragon?!

To be clear, like my quetzalcoatlus post before, I am being a bit cheeky / silly with this. I don't think there is any logical reason to have backward working wings. It has just been fun to think of wild reasons for it.

 

[pemerton]

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.

My understanding - from AD&D books - is that they fly in virtue of magical pearls in their brains.

Wikipedia tells me that mythology is slightly different: Chinese dragon - Wikipedia

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think intentional backwards wings, designed thoughtfully and with the specific intention of them being backwards, would be cool. This just looks stupid in a boring way, sadly. Which makes sense given it apparently started as a mistake.

I've seen artwork of a theoretical pterosaur with "backwards" wings and canards (like the X-29 above) I note, which was super cool, but sadly it was in the early 1990s and I don't know if the image is online anywhere.

There's a difference between "cool impossible" and "dumb impossible", and this artwork is proof of that lol.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think intentional backwards wings, designed thoughtfully and with the specific intention of them being backwards, would be cool. This just looks stupid in a boring way, sadly. Which makes sense given it apparently started as a mistake.

I've seen artwork of a theoretical pterosaur with "backwards" wings and canards (like the X-29 above) I note, which was super cool, but sadly it was in the early 1990s and I don't know if the image is online anywhere.

There's a difference between "cool impossible" and "dumb impossible", and this artwork is proof of that lol.

Agreed. And while I certainly recognize that there's a major element of taste in that for some things, I think the major dividing line for a lot of people will be whether or not something violates their visual intuition of whether things work or don't.

We see things that can't fly outside of being propelled all the time: bullets, missiles, potatoes. We understand that a force could impel an object through the air. That's not a concern. It's when we see wings, that are clearly for flying forward, like they have all the correct characteristics to be forward-flying wings, and the body they're attached to has all the correct characteristics to fly forward...except the wings point backward relative to the rest of the body.

That's what breaks it for me.

I'd have less trouble accepting literally skeletal wings with no flesh whatsoever, than I would fully-formed counterproductive wings. The skeletal wings won't hurt flight, other than having weight. These ones would actually make flight harder.

 

[mamba]

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

they do, they can blow air out one end, or they have magic

 

[Desdichado]

they do, they can blow air out one end, or they have magic

Not that I'm likely to, but if I ever use Asian dragons, that's exactly how I'll have them travel. They float with magic and their method of propulsion is farting. Sure.

 

[mamba]

Not that I'm likely to, but if I ever use Asian dragons, that's exactly how I'll have them travel. They float with magic and their method of propulsion is farting. Sure.

no worse than the topaz method

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

Because it looks dumb and like some guy just cut and pasted the digital elements wrong when assembling the final art, rather than putting any effort into making backwards wings or something actually unique. Because that's what it is.

The star wars species dugs have what I would describe as "arms for legs, legs for arms". I know design is subjective, but to me, this looks better than some guy who looks like an action figure with the arms and legs popped out of socket and swapped.

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.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

no worse than the topaz method

It's a lot better than this topaz dragon, I'd actually say, because as @EzekielRaiden notes, no wings at all or no functional wings mean obviously purely magical flight, which is an established part of most high fantasy settings.

Whereas 2 wings 4 legs dragons in fantasy tend to fly on a combination of loose physics and semi-realistic wings (unrealistically small muscles, perhaps but who knows) and perhaps, depending on the setting, some amount of magical flight. Generally speaking, the more modern a vision of dragons you have, whether it's GoT/HotD or How to Tame A Dragon or w/e, the more actually aerodynamic and animal-flight-like the behaviour of the dragons is. Toothless flies absolutely like some kind of bird or bat (despite looking and behaving more like a winged cat cosplaying a salamander), for example, and most of GoT/HotD dragons are somewhere between a large bird and jetliner in how they fly.

But if the wings are on backwards, that can only actively impair even magical flight lol.

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.

Yup. It's absolutely possible to do that in fact I think it could look kind of dangerously badass, it just wasn't done here.

EDIT:

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

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.

 

[Rainbow Scissors]

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 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.