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

[AlViking]

Don't like it but also don't really care. I'd be okay with crystal wings but unless this thing flies backwards, nope.

Good thing I have no plans on using them and that ever changes I can use a different picture.

 

[mamba]

Enantiornithes are extinct bird-like avialans distinctive for having 'backward wings'

and yet they look like regular bird wings and not like this dragon. The difference is predominantly in the shoulder socket

maybe the Topaz dragon followed that similar 'opposite' wing articulation

nope, that wing simply is nonsensical

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I mean, the design is just terrible, but I also really do not care that much. I am not obligated to follow WotC designs. The dragons in my current setting do not even have six limbs like all the D&D dragons do. It is still a bit perplexing that this got through quality control.

 

[Mind of tempest]

look I can get stranger wing design but this looks dumb

 

[Corinnguard]

Let's hope that the spectral wings of the Topaz Dragonborn aren't going to be set up backwards as well.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Enantiornithes are extinct bird-like avialans distinctive for having 'backward wings', so maybe the Topaz dragon followed that similar 'opposite' wing articulation, not quite what the image depicts, but not impossible given that dragons are significantly larger than the enantiornithes fossil we know

Interesting that the designers of the Topaz Dragon decided to use the wing anatomy of Enantiornithes (Ancient Greek for "opposite birds") for them. I looked them up on Wikipedia. The 'backward wings' are the result of a convex scapula and a concave coracoid. Modern birds have a concave scapula and a convex coracoid.

The Enantiornithes still had claws forward, feathers backward, and flew in the direction of their heads.

These topaz dragons cannot control their flight if they are flying forward, unless the wings are 100% irrelevant to their flight. In general, dragon flight is understood to be magically enhanced, but still actually making use of the wing itself. A Western dragon that had its wings cut off could not fly, even though we know (well, most people know) that a dragon would be much too heavy to fly as they are. Eastern dragons naturally hover/float rather than flying though.

 

[Tonguez]

The Enantiornithes still had claws forward, feathers backward, and flew in the direction of their heads.

These topaz dragons cannot control their flight if they are flying forward, unless the wings are 100% irrelevant to their flight. In general, dragon flight is understood to be magically enhanced, but still actually making use of the wing itself. A Western dragon that had its wings cut off could not fly, even though we know (well, most people know) that a dragon would be much too heavy to fly as they are. Eastern dragons naturally hover/float rather than flying though.

I always assume that in these illustrations the artist has captured the wing in motion, sure this particular position shows a weird angle, but I'm going to assume that in flight the shoulder articulation is such that the Topaz rotates its wing so that they are beneath its body rather than above.

But yes it is a weird angle

 

[Clint_L]

Looks dumb, like an obviously bad design. Not that dragons could actually fly if the wings were facing the correct way (magic aside), but this just looks like a miniature with the wongs glued on backwards by mistake. It's weird, sure, but not interesting or imaginative weird. Just...backwards.

If someone gave me the miniature and I felt like I had to use it, my players would laugh as soon as they saw it. So I would lean into that and rule that it actually has to fly backwards, and is constantly crashing into things. Basically turn it into a joke encounter. The pathetic result of some mad mage's reckless experimentation gone awry.

 

[Composer99]

I'm indifferent, leaning towards kind of liking it. I'd probably prefer either a detached crystalline wing that was more obviously psionically-powered, or rather that all the gem dragons shared something like this opposite wing form. My son likes the design.

 

[Charlaquin]

If someone gave me the miniature and I felt like I had to use it, my players would laugh as soon as they saw it. So I would lean into that and rule that it actually has to fly backwards, and is constantly crashing into things. Basically turn it into a joke encounter. The pathetic result of some mad mage's reckless experimentation gone awry.

That does sound like a really fun encounter, now that you mention it… I suppose with 15 different dragons, one of them just existing for comic relief purposes is fine. I doubt that was the intent behind this design, but death of the author and all that.

EDIT: At one point I was working on random encounter tables for different areas throughout Barovia for a Curse of Strahd campaign that ended up falling through, and “pathetic result of some mad mage’s experiment gone awry” is absolutely the kind of vibe I was going for in the Mount Bartok region.