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

[Charlaquin]

The concept art for Fizban's is more clear with the backwards orientation.
View attachment 414062

That does make it much clearer.

I think the slight ambiguity of the Fizban's official art is why Palmer mentioned "leaning into it." Palmer's art is undeniably back-winged, much like this concept art. Very much, "If this is the design guidance I'm getting, I'm going to go ham on it and not try to 'fix' things or occlude what's happening - these are backwards wings, and they will not be denied!"

Which I respect, honestly. Leaning into the weird and unique elements of a design is a pretty good artistic instinct, because the last thing I need is another 5 dragons who look kind of like cats or whatever.

Yeah, I mean, if WotC is commissioning the art, and what they’re asking for is a dragon with wings that go the wrong way, then it is absolutely correct to give them what they’re asking for, and to do so to the best technical execution you can manage. I think it’s a godawful design, but I can’t fault the artist for doing what the client wanted, and doing it about as well as such a thing can reasonably be expected to be done. But, no matter how good the execution, the concept itself just flat-out doesn’t appeal to me.

Fortunately, it’s just one dragon out of 15, that I was probably never going to use anyway, and on the off chance that I do, WotC will probably have too many other, more pressing concerns to send the Pinkertons after me for describing a dragon differently than the official concept art.

 

[dave2008]

Which 1e dragons though? They weren’t so standardized back then.

Which was good

There was a standard, it was just that the art direction was less strict about artist following the standard.

 

[dave2008]

I find there are subtle differences in how 3e-style art vs 4e-style art presents them. 3e went very very heavily for a "dungeon punk" style married to a "Renaissance sketch" style for the baseline art--and, as a result, all subsequent art hewed extremely closely to that "more like a sketch than a near-realistic painting" look...even when they were trying for a near-realistic look.

4e did not do that. Its art looks like a painter trying to accurately capture the details of the scene as they appear. The White dragon is probably the only place where I think the 3e style does things better, and that's specifically because, as noted, I don't think WotC has ever given White dragons a truly iconic appearance yet. They're missing a je ne sais quoi that would truly make them stand out; frankly, if you took a White and colored it blue, I wouldn't be able to tell you which was which without looking them up.

IDK, I think it is much easier to tell a white dragon from a blue dragon than a 3e blue from 4e blue. IMO opinion the differences between 3e and 4e (except for the green which the did specifically change) were entirely differences in artistic style, not design. In fact, what you describe as differences are ones of style, not design.

Now, which is which?

and

 

[Corinnguard]

IDK, I think it is much easier to tell a white dragon from a blue dragon than a 3e blue from 4e blue. IMO opinion the differences between 3e and 4e (except for the green which the did specifically change) were entirely differences in artistic style, not design. In fact, what you describe as differences are ones of style, not design.

Before the Blue Dragon was redesigned for 2024 D&D, it was one of the more recognizable True Dragons in D&D thanks to its' frilled 'ears' and that massive, bifurcated horn on the middle of its' draconic muzzle. It's still recognizable in 2024 D&D, but its' looks look less impressive to me than they did before.

 

[dave2008]

Before the Blue Dragon was redesigned for 2024 D&D, it was one of the more recognizable True Dragons in D&D thanks to its' frilled 'ears' and that massive, bifurcated horn on the middle of its' draconic muzzle. It's still recognizable in 2024 D&D, but its' looks look less impressive to me than they did before.

I agree, except that I much prefer the 2025 reference design to the 3e-4e-5e design of the blue. My only regret about the 5e24 design is that they dropped the ears. If they had kept them it would be near perfect IMO.

Also, the black design has always been pretty clear as well.

 

[taichara]

Are we certain that the FToD design is supposed to have backwards wings? Cause it looks to me like they are normal wings that are, in that specific piece, twisted into a weird position.

Absolutely, because those early design sketches are actually from, and also in, Fizban's.

 

[Corinnguard]

I agree, except that I much prefer the 2025 reference design to the 3e-4e-5e design of the blue.

The staying power of the Blue, no doubt. TBH, did any of the True Dragons really need a remake of their looks for 2024 D&D?

 

[taichara]

The staying power of the Blue, no doubt. TBH, did any of the True Dragons really need a remake of their looks for 2024 D&D?

Yes.

After just shy of a quarter decade the gold dragon mercifully no longer looks like a catfish-face.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

IDK, I think it is much easier to tell a white dragon from a blue dragon than a 3e blue from 4e blue. IMO opinion the differences between 3e and 4e (except for the green which the did specifically change) were entirely differences in artistic style, not design. In fact, what you describe as differences are ones of style, not design.

Now, which is which?

View attachment 414074
View attachment 414075

and

View attachment 414077
View attachment 414076

Are you asking which edition? I can't tell the difference between 2e and 1e. So I've no idea. Best guess is 2e first, 1e second?

The other two are trivial; the third image is 4e, the fourth image is 3e.

But my point was that if you took an image of a blue dragon and made a second version where it was recolored white, and likewise took an image of a white dragon and made a second image where it was recolored blue, I would never be able to tell which was the "correct" version without looking it up first. I can identify pretty much any other color of dragon regardless of whether the image is manipulated this way because they're all very distinct. I find the Blue and White to be nearly visually identical in most editions.

 

[dave2008]

Are you asking which edition? I can't tell the difference between 2e and 1e. So I've no idea. Best guess is 2e first, 1e second?

The other two are trivial; the third image is 4e, the fourth image is 3e.

No the first two are both 1e: white and blue dragons. If you can't tell the difference then I suspect your pattern recognizing abilities are less than the average person. I mean one has a nose horn (nose horn = blue*) and one has a head sail (head sail = white). Those features have been consistent through all editions (though the white in 5e24 much less so).

But my point was that if you took an image of a blue dragon and made a second version where it was recolored white, and likewise took an image of a white dragon and made a second image where it was recolored blue, I would never be able to tell which was the "correct" version without looking it up first. I can identify pretty much any other color of dragon regardless of whether the image is manipulated this way because they're all very distinct. I find the Blue and White to be nearly visually identical in most editions.

If you couldn't tell the difference between a 3e white and blue without the color than I stand by my statement: your pattern recognizing abilities are undeveloped compared to most humans.

I imagine that probably means you are exceptional in some other area!

*previous to 5e24 the ears of the blue were "iconic" as well. That is one of the few changes of the chromatic dragons that 5e24 has made the I don't agree with.