Dragonlance Takhisis Revealed In New Dragonlance Preview Art

WotC has shared some new art of Takhisis, Dragonlance’s 5-headed dragon queen.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yeah the Modern ones look way better. How some of you can say the ones below look similar compared to the old ones is beyond me.

Easy. the body types are all the same. At least AD&D had variation in body types, ranging from muscular, to sleek, to fat. The above are all weightlifter on too much steroids. They also all went crazy with the jaggedness. They are all spiny. And almost all modern dragon illios have tattered wings. To me, modern dragons look a lot more similar to each other than the older versions did.

Kinda like fashion. In the 80s, you had spandex, Member's Only jackets, sweaters, preppies, madonna emulation, power suits, punk, stonewashed jeans, R&B, etc. all as unique fashion statements. Since 2000, there has been....what? Athleisure and hipster?

 

[Weiley31]

From 3E on, I could never go back to the old black and white dragon looks.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Easy. the body types are all the same. At least AD&D had variation in body types, ranging from muscular, to sleek, to fat. The above are all weightlifter on too much steroids. They also all went crazy with the jaggedness. They are all spiny. And almost all modern dragon illios have tattered wings. To me, modern dragons look a lot more similar to each other than the older versions did.

Kinda like fashion. In the 80s, you had spandex, Member's Only jackets, sweaters, preppies, madonna emulation, power suits, punk, stonewashed jeans, R&B, etc. all as unique fashion statements. Since 2000, there has been....what? Athleisure and hipster?

So I don't really get how you can look at that and think this. Also none of the ones from 1e were sleek. They also don't look overly muscled too me at all.

Still art is subjective so even though I heavily disagree with your opinion it is valid.

 

[Giantrollorc]

To me this art looks and feels too generic/ vanilla ,and most definitely too programmed for my tastes. Modern D&D art is almost too predictable nowadays, but it’s definitely crisp and clean and I get why they make the art like this for the masses.

 

[Sacrosanct]

So I don't really get how you can look at that and think this.

Well, I don't think I'm being unreasonable or really out there to look at modern dragons and see them as overmuscled, jagged, with tattered wings. Since it's pretty clear they almost all have tattered wings, have jagged lines, and are all super muscled.... I mean, most of those things are objective, because we can count how many have tons of muscles, tattered wings, and jagged/spiny lines.

Also none of the ones from 1e were sleek.

Sleek means smooth (and glossy). I think these qualify.

But it wasn't just sleek. As mentioned, there were other body types as well, like the Green's roundness, and the red's muscular. Looking at modern dragons, and they all have the same super muscled body type. I mean, look at them by comparison. Sure, liking one over the other is subjective, but I can't see how someone can say there is more body variation in modern dragon depictions than there was in AD&D days. That seems pretty objective by looking at actual body types of both eras. How many round/fat dragons are there in modern depictions? How many modern depictions are like that gold dragon above? How many modern dragons don't look like bodybuilders? What % of modern dragons have tattered wings compared to AD&D? Then simply compare the numbers. There you go.

*talking about the core dragons, for context (chromatic and metallic).

 

[Vaalingrade]

Ah 'the masses'. As distinct from the cultured eflgame enjoyer.

 

[Blue Orange]

There's that old gag about the golden age of science fiction being thirteen. It may also be true for dragon illustrations. (I'm fond of the earlier edition images myself, but I have to admit there's greater technical accomplishment in the later ones, if only because a color Monster Manual would have broken the bank in 1st edition.)

It is possible the globalization of culture has led to a sort of convergence with everyone looking at the same mix of previous-edition D&D illustrations, manga and anime, Marvel and DC comics, and Hollywood Marvel movies, but Gygax and Co. just had whatever was in their library. So I'm not sure things have changed that much as far as uniformity.

 

[darjr]

I wonder why they picked a Tiamat and Bahamut clone for their opposing dragon gods. Have they ever said?

 

[sevenbastard]

I wonder why they picked a Tiamat and Bahamut clone for their opposing dragon gods. Have they ever said?

I think the goal was to write one module featuring each of the dragons in the 1e Monster Manual so as those two were in it they got included.

 

[Stormonu]

I wonder why they picked a Tiamat and Bahamut clone for their opposing dragon gods. Have they ever said?

Not that I know of, but since the whole adventure path was supposed to revolve around getting more use out of dragons, pulling in the existing dragon gods and making it a war between the two seems logical (this was before Io, btw).

It would be interesting if the re-evisioned had pulled in Io and the neutral/gemstone dragons.