Are Dragons legendary reptiles!

[The Shadowdove]

Hey everyone,

Our party's sorcerer happened across a staff which forced reptiles within 20 ft to make a wisdom save or be charmed.

Do dragons count?

What does?

Much appreciated!

-Dove

[Easy_Lee]

My gut tells me dragons would be unaffected just because the game is called dungeons and dragons. Dragons are supposed to be the ultimate, end-all-be-all of lifeforms.

However, I do think it would be funny if a dragon was aware of the attempt. That could have some interesting results.

[DanyBallon]

Hey everyone,

Our party's sorcerer happened across a staff which forced reptiles within 20 ft to make a wisdom save or be charmed.

Do dragons count?

What does?

Much appreciated!

-Dove

If you don't mind dragons being reptiles, I'd say yes. But even if you allow them some legendary bonus to wisdom save (because Dragons !!!), beware that there are many other creatures that are dragon as well, like Wyvern. So you should consider the rarity of that wand and if you'd like that it would affect much more creatures that the design intent.

[pwykersotz]

Probably just as much as you are an "ape" or "monkey". It's a lenient ruling, especially as there is no such classification that I'm aware of in 5e. The closest examples are Giant Lizard (Beast), Lizardfolk (Humanoid, Lizardfolk), and Dragon (Dragon). If it thematically fits the campaign to make such sweeping generalizations, or if it's a rule of cool moment, probably yes! Otherwise, I wouldn't bank on it working.

[Daishain]

Dragons are not reptiles. By definition, that category belongs to ectothermic creatures with four limbs (or who are descended from a creature with four limbs in the case of snakes.)

A dragon on the other hand (at least the type that makes an appearance in D&D) is an endothermic creature with six limbs, not to mention their own quite unique body chemistry, and then there's the decidedly non reptilian brain behind all of that. All in all, it doesn't fall into any of the classifications we have for Earth creatures.

In some ways, scales or no scales, dragons actually have more in common with mammals than reptiles (though obviously not enough to actually group them there). Especially since the powers that be have apparently decided that throwbacks of their species are humanoids with breasts on the females...

[ProphetSword]

You should tell the sorcerer to give it a shot. I figure if you're already within 20' of the dragon, you're probably already in trouble. How much worse could it get? :smallsmile:

[Gritmonger]

You'd be better off trying to disbelieve the dragon - I think it would have a better shot.

[RedMage125]

You should tell the sorcerer to give it a shot. I figure if you're already within 20' of the dragon, you're probably already in trouble. How much worse could it get? :smallsmile:

This made me lol.

[Tenmujiin]

Dragons are warm blooded (i.e. endothermic), that basically rules out them being reptiles (even if you ignore the whole 6 limbs thing). The closest classification you could probably get in real world terms for dragons would probably be scaled, 6 limbed mammal (although they have other features that no mammal does, such as the way they age). Ultimately dragons are dragons, not reptiles, mammals, fish or birds.

[Kane0]

Another vote for dragons are dragons, creatures with similarities to mammals and reptiles but are neither. The various draconomicons (my fav is the 3rd ed one) can actually be pretty cool to read through for more info, like their physiology and such.

Edit: Though for use with this rod i'd have the dragon be aware of it but otherwise unaffected. Id gather it would be greatly offended at being classified as a lizard.

[hamishspence]

Dinosaurs evolved warm blood but retained scales (though a few lineages developed feathers as well).

[Kryx]

The closest classification you could probably get in real world terms for dragons would probably be scaled, 6 limbed mammal
Wut... Mammals need one special thing: Mammary glands. Dragons have Eggs. They are nothing like mammals.

[Daishain]

Wut... Mammals need one special thing: Mammary glands. Dragons have Eggs. They are nothing like mammals.

The line is more blurred than you think. Some mammals lay eggs, and dragonborn females (who are directly related to true dragons in this edition) have mammary glands for reasons unknown.

Besides, he was talking about the closest biological equivalent, not that they would actually belong in that classification.

[Kryx]

The line is more blurred than you think. Some mammals lay eggs, and dragonborn females (who are directly related to true dragons in this edition) have mammary glands for reasons unknown.
Yes, they are called Monotremes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotreme

But Dragons themselves do not have mammary glands which monotremes do.

[Daishain]

Yes, they are called Monotremes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotreme

But Dragons themselves do not have mammary glands which monotremes do.

Like I said, closest biological equivalent, not exact match.

[FightStyles]

I'd probably allow it, but I would also remind them that charmed creatures realize they are charmed by the user and may become hostile afterwards...

[pwykersotz]

Yes, they are called Monotremes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotreme

But Dragons themselves do not have mammary glands which monotremes do.

Did you just equate a mighty dragon to a platypus?!

The platypus is offended, and will consume your family for this mockery.

[Beleriphon]

Did you just equate a mighty dragon to a platypus?!

The platypus is offended, and will consume your family for this mockery.

I think they have more in common with the echidna personally. :smallwink:

[cobaltstarfire]

Yes, they are called Monotremes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotreme

But Dragons themselves do not have mammary glands which monotremes do.

Mind you they're extremely basal glands, in that they lack teats and don't ever stand out even when lactating like that of other mammals. Dragons could have mammary glands that we don't know about, since it wouldn't be obvious either way.

(I really think the idea of dragons as monotremes is pretty neat)

But I'd be another "dragons are dragons". They're unique creatures that happen to share some characteristics with other animals.

[Beleriphon]

Mind you they're extremely basal glands, in that they lack teats and don't ever stand out even when lactating like that of other mammals. Dragons could have mammary glands that we don't know about, since it wouldn't be obvious either way.

(I really think the idea of dragons as monotremes is pretty neat)

But I'd be another "dragons are dragons". They're unique creatures that happen to share some characteristics with other animals.

In classic clasification the closest we'd get is that they're clearly vertebrate animals of some kind. Beyond that dragons are pretty obviously a completely different class than any other creature given that they aren't of the tetrapoda superclass. I'd suggest maybe hexapoda superclass than falling into the something like draconidae and go from there. Of course wyverns are in theory tetrapods but also draconic, but they're also no magical animals so.... I think my head is collapsing.

[Gritmonger]

Oh great. Now I have been forcibly Tokyo -station-style put onto a train of thought about "if not mammary glands, how are young dragons fed?" And my fevered brain responds with "regurgitation or pigeon's 'milk'" neither of which strikes me as noble or majestic - or compatible with breath weapons.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Chopped up adventurers, clearly.

[randomodo]

I'm curious if the OP is a player in the campaign in which the staff was found or the DM who placed the staff there to be found?

I don't have a Monster Manual in front of me, but I'd generally rule that if a dragon was categorized as a beast (or however 5e categorizes animals) that it might be subject to the magical effect. If they're categorized as something else, then they wouldn't be.

Also, getting advantage on social skill rolls isn't intrinsically all that powerful. Especially when a dragon will eventually be not charmed by you, and is highly unlikely to take kindly to having been manipulated.

[Beleriphon]

Oh great. Now I have been forcibly Tokyo -station-style put onto a train of thought about "if not mammary glands, how are young dragons fed?" And my fevered brain responds with "regurgitation or pigeon's 'milk'" neither of which strikes me as noble or majestic - or compatible with breath weapons.

Clearly dragons are capable of eating solid(ish) foods when they hatch. Most creatures that hatch from eggs are capable of eating adult diets, albiet in smaller quantities. Given the intelligence of dragons, I suspect hatcling dragons eat whatever their parent feeds them which very well could be anything from dessicated animal carcasses to gold coins.

[Easy_Lee]

Let's not forget that dragons also seem to be capable of hibernation, in a fashion. I'm not convinced that they would fall into any existing animal categories even if they were real.

[randomodo]

I don't categorize dragons as completely natural in my campaigns (largely because my head explodes if I try to think about what kind of calorie intake a giant flying beast would need in order to stay active, and what implications that would have on the surrounding ecology).

(Also, I'm overthinking it)

So, as far as I'm concerned, dragons are inherently magical creatures and some of their sustenance is derived from the winds and weave of magic. This also provides handy plot-related reasons for them to have lairs in strongly-magical areas (and gives a logical reason for why lair abilities can work).

[Tenmujiin]

I don't categorize dragons as completely natural in my campaigns (largely because my head explodes if I try to think about what kind of calorie intake a giant flying beast would need in order to stay active, and what implications that would have on the surrounding ecology).

(Also, I'm overthinking it)

So, as far as I'm concerned, dragons are inherently magical creatures and some of their sustenance is derived from the winds and weave of magic. This also provides handy plot-related reasons for them to have lairs in strongly-magical areas (and gives a logical reason for why lair abilities can work).

Clearly, all the metal that dragons ingest is diverted to an extra dimensional portal in their throats which is used to pay Bahumt/Tiamat/Io to send food through the other way. Also, dragons were once 4 legged creatures like wyverns which were given front legs by a deity

[dancrilis]

If you read the Draconomicon there are hints that Dragons are Cats.


Like a cat’s eye, a dragon’s eye has a comparatively large iris with a vertical pupil.
...
Overall, a dragon’s musculature resembles that of a great cat
...
A dragon on the ground moves like a cat, and can be just as graceful (though the bigger dragons tend to lumber along).
...
Like a cat, with each step a dragon places its hind foot in the place where the corresponding forefoot was.
...
The use of the tail sweep, in particular, is often likened to the way a cat treats a mouse it isn’t quite ready to eat yet

On reptiles it mentions things like this.


At first glance, a true dragon resembles a reptile.
...
As you’ll see from the details to come, however, that first glance doesn’t begin to tell the whole story about the nature of dragons.
...
Despite its scales and wings, a dragon’s body has features that seem more feline than reptilian. Refer to the illustrations on the next few pages as you read on.
...
dragon’s resemblance to a reptile is literally only skin deep.

[hamishspence]

In classic clasification the closest we'd get is that they're clearly vertebrate animals of some kind. Beyond that dragons are pretty obviously a completely different class than any other creature given that they aren't of the tetrapoda superclass. I'd suggest maybe hexapoda superclass than falling into the something like draconidae and go from there. Of course wyverns are in theory tetrapods but also draconic, but they're also no magical animals so.... I think my head is collapsing.

In a world with magic, "hexapods" might have been created from tetrapods (or vice versa).

Wyverns might be "hexapods that have lost two of their limbs" a bit like the various two-armed or two-legged lizards.

Alternatively, dragons might have been "modified from wyvern stock to give them two extra limbs"

It all depends on what suits the players and the DM most.

[Shining Wrath]

How many reptiles have wings?

A Dragon is a reptile in the same way an Angel is a bird. They have exactly one characteristic in common: scales for the Dragon / reptile, wings for the Angel / bird.

I would say the attempt is going to insult the dragon.

[Daishain]

How many reptiles have wings?

Not to dissuade you from your main point, but nearly every non insect creature on earth with wings is a reptile.

[EvanescentHero]

Not to dissuade you from your main point, but nearly every non insect creature on earth with wings is a reptile.

Birds are reptiles?

[Gavran]

Birds are reptiles?

In phylogenetic classification (i.e., not superficial ancient classification based on appearance and behavior), yep.

I'd let it work personally - dragons are magic dinosaurs IMO.

Also, it's charmed guys. Not mind controlled or anything.

[Daishain]

Birds are reptiles?
Yep, they tend to be more closely related to the dinosaurs than modern lizards and crocodiles, but they certainly are.

That chicken you've been eating and her kin are pretty much all that is left of the once mighty dinosaurs. There's a lesson in there somewhere.

[Gnomes2169]

Yep, they tend to be more closely related to the dinosaurs than modern lizards and crocodiles, but they certainly are.

That chicken you've been eating and her kin are pretty much all that is left of the once mighty dinosaurs. There's a lesson in there somewhere.

Yes, that dinosaurs were delicious. Especially with ranch, BBQ or sweet chilly.

[EvanescentHero]

Yep, they tend to be more closely related to the dinosaurs than modern lizards and crocodiles, but they certainly are.

That chicken you've been eating and her kin are pretty much all that is left of the once mighty dinosaurs. There's a lesson in there somewhere.

I knew they were related to the dinosaurs, but unaware of the biological classification. Anyway, the lesson for me is to not eat the chicken, which I've been successfully doing for many years now. Though, hell, if I was presented with the opportunity to try dinosaur meat, I can't necessarily say I wouldn't set aside my vegetarianism for a meal.

[cobaltstarfire]

Whenever things go this way I always want to make the fish joke...

Now dragons as big cats, that's kind of funny. I mean that means a lot of the time they probably are real scary, until you spot one having a spazz, or falling off something.

[EvanescentHero]

Whenever things go this way I always want to make the fish joke...

Now dragons as big cats, that's kind of funny. I mean that means a lot of the time they probably are real scary, until you spot one having a spazz, or falling off something.

Both the Inheritance series and the How to Train your Dragon movies have had dragons that remind me highly of cats, so I can definitely get behind the idea of them having feline ancestry. Especially when you consider that cats love sitting and sleeping on things, and so do dragons.

Now someone just needs to build a dragon-sized box and run some tests. (Or better yet a box that is a bit too small for the dragon!)

[Easy_Lee]

Theory: dragons were the original life form in D&D and created everything else using bits of themselves. All of the sentient races are a bit like dragons, except for outsiders and other alien creatures. This would explain why they don't seem to fit into any single animal type.

[Shining Wrath]

Both the Inheritance series and the How to Train your Dragon movies have had dragons that remind me highly of cats, so I can definitely get behind the idea of them having feline ancestry. Especially when you consider that cats love sitting and sleeping on things, and so do dragons.

Now someone just needs to build a dragon-sized box and run some tests. (Or better yet a box that is a bit too small for the dragon!)

In our current campaign, dragons were gone for 15,000 years and we recently hatched some eggs. We call them "lizard cats" when explaining them to strangers.

[hamishspence]

Yep, they tend to be more closely related to the dinosaurs than modern lizards and crocodiles, but they certainly are.

That chicken you've been eating and her kin are pretty much all that is left of the once mighty dinosaurs. There's a lesson in there somewhere.

And crocodiles are more closely related to dinosaurs than to lizards, turtles, etc.

There's hints that prehistoric crocodilians were endothermic "warm-blooded" but that they lost that endothermy over time:

http://www.adelaide.edu.au/adelaidean/issues/5501/news5550.html

I like the notion of dragons as archosaurs - with their similarities to mammals like cats, being an element of convergent evolution.

[Forum Explorer]

In classic clasification the closest we'd get is that they're clearly vertebrate animals of some kind. Beyond that dragons are pretty obviously a completely different class than any other creature given that they aren't of the tetrapoda superclass. I'd suggest maybe hexapoda superclass than falling into the something like draconidae and go from there. Of course wyverns are in theory tetrapods but also draconic, but they're also no magical animals so.... I think my head is collapsing.

I'd guess that wyverns are actually the ancestors of dragons, and that dragons developed forelimbs, because they needed to manipulate objects in front of them. Somewhere in that development, dragons also became magical.


Let's not forget that dragons also seem to be capable of hibernation, in a fashion. I'm not convinced that they would fall into any existing animal categories even if they were real.

Lots of animals across the various Classes hibernate. Even some species of fish, kinda (lungfish)

[hamishspence]

I'd guess that wyverns are actually the ancestors of dragons, and that dragons developed forelimbs, because they needed to manipulate objects in front of them. Somewhere in that development, dragons also became magical.

Some Dragon Type creatures have four legs and no wings, or four paddles and no wings (landwyrms, dragon turtles) some have wings and "arms" (linnorms) some wings and hind legs (wyverns) and there's at least one with six very crude limbs (the Dragon Eel from MMIII):

http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/images/mmiii_gallery/82963.jpg

I like the notion of the dragon eel being "basal" to the dragon lineage, with, in most cases, dragons losing limbs rather than gaining them.

Not sure where Fiend Folio's Sunwyrm fits in though - that thing looks like it's somehow "doubled" its arms (forelegs) and legs (hindlegs):

http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/images/ff_gallery/50179.jpg

[Yuki Akuma]

Dinosaurs evolved warm blood but retained scales (though a few lineages developed feathers as well).

Dinosaurs weren't reptiles. They were dinosaurs.

(Seriously. They aren't in the class Reptilia. They are of the phylum Chordata, like reptiles, but then again so are mammals and fish.)

[hamishspence]

The point is that "class reptilia" if inclusive of both lizards and crocodiles, must include dinosaurs and birds as well.

Their exclusion is an artificial one - making the class "paraphyletic". The closest thing to a "monophyletic Reptilia" was proposed by Modesto & Anderson, and was one that included dinosaurs & birds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptile


In 1988 Jacques Gauthier proposed a cladistic definition of Reptilia as a monophyletic node-based crown group containing turtles, lizards and snakes, crocodilians, and birds, their common ancestor and all its descendants. Because the actual relationship of turtles to other reptiles was not yet well understood at this time, Gauthier's definition came to be considered inadequate.[16]

A variety of other definitions were proposed by other scientists in the years following Gauthier's paper. The first such new definition, which attempted to adhere to the standards of the PhyloCode, was published by Modesto and Anderson in 2004. Modesto and Anderson reviewed the many previous definitions and proposed a modified definition, which they intended to retain most traditional content of the group while keeping it stable and monophyletic.

They defined Reptilia as all amniotes closer to Lacerta agilis and Crocodylus niloticus than to Homo sapiens. This stem-based definition is equivalent to the more common definition of Sauropsida, which Modesto and Anderson synonymized with Reptilia, since the latter is more well known and more frequently used. Unlike most previous definitions of Reptilia, however, Modesto and Anderson's definition includes birds,[16] as there is no other way to establish a monophyletic clade that includes both lizards and crocodiles.

[Rowan Wolf]

So what do dragons taste like?

[hamishspence]

Probably depends on the dragon.

I wonder - if turtles are very primitive archosaurs - then maybe the Dragon Turtle is both a turtle and a dragon - allowing dragons to be related to dinosaurs, birds, and turtles.

Some of the Oriental Dragons even look like turtles despite mostly following the True Dragon ageing pattern.

[Shining Wrath]

I think evil dragons tell wyvern jokes.

"If you can't cast spells and can't spell spells ... you may be a wyvern!"

[Daishain]

So what do dragons taste like?
Their ability to fly is bolstered by magic, so they're mostly high strength and slow twitch muscle groups. If the fat deposits are relatively low, probably not unlike venison or horse. If relatively high, shouldn't be too far from Beef, or, well, human.

(Note, just in case, that last is based on my limited understanding of how muscle composition affects flavor and definitely not personal experience)

[dancrilis]

Their ability to fly is bolstered by magic ...


It does not seem so, from the Draconomicon:



A dragon owes its ability to fly, and its flight characteristics, to its peculiar anatomy and metabolism. A dragon weighs much less than a strictly terrestrial creature of the same size does, and its muscles—particularly the ones that enable it to fly—are exceptionally strong, giving the dragon’s wings enough power to lift the dragon into the air.


From the same book:


Some sages speculate that a dragon’s ability to fly is partially magical; however, dragons have been known to take wing and maneuver inside antimagic areas where their spells and breath weapons do not work.


As such I think that we can take Dragons to be able to fly purely naturally.

[Forum Explorer]

Some Dragon Type creatures have four legs and no wings, or four paddles and no wings (landwyrms, dragon turtles) some have wings and "arms" (linnorms) some wings and hind legs (wyverns) and there's at least one with six very crude limbs (the Dragon Eel from MMIII):

http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/images/mmiii_gallery/82963.jpg

I like the notion of the dragon eel being "basal" to the dragon lineage, with, in most cases, dragons losing limbs rather than gaining them.

Not sure where Fiend Folio's Sunwyrm fits in though - that thing looks like it's somehow "doubled" its arms (forelegs) and legs (hindlegs):

http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/images/ff_gallery/50179.jpg

Well maybe. I still think the extra limbs (and other abilities) are a reaction to becoming more of a magical based creature then 'natural' like the wyverns are. The dragon eel throws things off a bit though. Unless it's a offshoot from the dragon turtle.

Still I'm not sure we should be looking at the full variety that 3.5 (and other editions) had. That's got a lot of variety and opens up other weird branches like Eastern Dragons.

[cobaltstarfire]

Well maybe. I still think the extra limbs (and other abilities) are a reaction to becoming more of a magical based creature then 'natural' like the wyverns are. The dragon eel throws things off a bit though. Unless it's a offshoot from the dragon turtle.

Still I'm not sure we should be looking at the full variety that 3.5 (and other editions) had. That's got a lot of variety and opens up other weird branches like Eastern Dragons.

It could really go either way, while it's super duper unlikely to re-evolve a limb or body part it's been known to happen from time to time.

I think saying magic is responsible works nicely. Or that the "lesser" dragons and such lost something that caused them to degrade into what they currently are. Could be magic, could be favor with the gods, could just be need of those parts.

[Daishain]

It does not seem so, from the Draconomicon:



From the same book:


As such I think that we can take Dragons to be able to fly purely naturally.

They'd have to flap faster than your average hummingbird to haul that kind of bulk, lighter than it appears or not. If their wings did not fly apart from the strain, the downdraft would be an effective weapon in and of itself. Innate magic is the only reasonable explanation. There are some things an AMF can't touch.

[dancrilis]

They'd have to flap faster than your average hummingbird to haul that kind of bulk, lighter than it appears or not. If their wings did not fly apart from the strain, the downdraft would be an effective weapon in and of itself. Innate magic is the only reasonable explanation. There are some things an AMF can't touch.

Just because you don't understand something does not mean that it is magical.

Dragons have bones that are immensely strong and exceptionally light (appearing hollow on a cross-section).

If you are a believer in intelligent design it could be that Dragons were designed to be the optimal creature across the planes, and that the planes themselves might even be constructed with dragons in mind thereby the rules that govern the the multi-verse ensures that dragons can fly without any inherent magic on the dragons part to enable this - it is a feature of reality.

If you are not a believe in intelligent design and hold that Dragons are naturally occurring and evolved as did other creatures - it is still possible that as Dragons evolved on the planes they became the optimal creatures and that the the reality of the planes ensure that this evolution enables flight.

As such based on either of these two it is possible that where a plane is not conductive to flying dragons that such dragons cannot be found (in fact there may be extinct evidence of proto-dragons which the plane could not sustain - and either by divine quirk or random happenstance they could have been wiped out allowing other life to thrive).

[Daishain]

Just because you don't understand something does not mean that it is magical.

Dragons have bones that are immensely strong and exceptionally light (appearing hollow on a cross-section).

If you are a believer in intelligent design it could be that Dragons were designed to be the optimal creature across the planes, and that the planes themselves might even be constructed with dragons in mind thereby the rules that govern the the multi-verse ensures that dragons can fly without any inherent magic on the dragons part to enable this - it is a feature of reality.

If you are not a believe in intelligent design and hold that Dragons are naturally occurring and evolved as did other creatures - it is still possible that as Dragons evolved on the planes they became the optimal creatures and that the the reality of the planes ensure that this evolution enables flight.

As such based on either of these two it is possible that where a plane is not conductive to flying dragons that such dragons cannot be found (in fact there may be extinct evidence of proto-dragons which the plane could not sustain - and either by divine quirk or random happenstance they could have been wiped out allowing other life to thrive).Intelligent design has jack all to do with it. It is a simple matter of physics and biology. There's a reason ornithopters never became anything more than a curiosity in the realm of flying machines, and that flying creatures anywhere near the size of dragons have never been seen on earth. D&D often bends the rules in question, but it does avoid breaking them save where magic is involved.

As for the plane simply being shaped in a manner that would make these issues disappear, such as having a significantly denser atmosphere and lower gravity, that might be a possibility, except that those changes would have many effects on everything else living in it. For instance, if the aforementioned changes were enacted to the necessary degree, it should be possible for a humanoid to grab a pair of shields or even just the edges of a cloak and safely glide down from tall heights.

Since that is not the case, one must assume once again that there is something special about the dragons and their kin. Perhaps there is a feature of this reality that causes gravitational fields to effect dragonkin far less than others, but such an aspect might as well be magic.

[dancrilis]

Intelligent design has jack all to do with it. It is a simple matter of physics and biology. There's a reason ornithopters never became anything more than a curiosity in the realm of flying machines, and that flying creatures anywhere near the size of dragons have never been seen on earth. D&D often bends the rules in question, but it does avoid breaking them save where magic is involved.
Flat worlds exist, I think the normal rules of our reality are out the window.


As for the plane simply being shaped in a manner that would make these issues disappear, such as having a significantly denser atmosphere and lower gravity, that might be a possibility, except that those changes would have many effects on everything else living in it. For instance, if the aforementioned changes were enacted to the necessary degree, it should be possible for a humanoid to grab a pair of shields or even just the edges of a cloak and safely glide down from tall heights.

A high level monk (call it 14th on average) can fall from a few miles up and walk it off without issue - all without magic, and if they want to flap their arms with shields attached, or spread a cloak as the narrative piece fine - given hit points many high level adventurer in full armour and weighed down with treasure can do the same and be fine after a bit of sleep.

[cobaltstarfire]

that flying creatures anywhere near the size of dragons have never been seen on earth.

.

Not saying that a dragon in real life could fly, but there are some rather large flying animals on earth.

A nice extinct example is Quetzalcoatlus, a critter who's as tall as a giraffe with a near 50 foot wingspan. (although they had really small bodies).

I don't think there's anything living now with a wingspan greater than 10 feet though, and most of those sorts of birds while capable of powered flight, prefer gliding.

[Daishain]

Flat worlds exist, I think the normal rules of our reality are out the window.
Enough rules are the same that comparisons can be made.


A high level monk (call it 14th on average) can fall from a few miles up and walk it off without issue - all without magic, and if they want to flap their arms with shields attached, or spread a cloak as the narrative piece fine - given hit points many high level adventurer in full armour and weighed down with treasure can do the same and be fine after a bit of sleep.
Monks have a form of innate magic that parallels the kind used by dragons in several ways, that actually kind of proves my point.

As for the rest, the mechanic by which high level adventurers survive what they shouldn't is one example of where D&D bends the rules, and is largely irrelevant. They still fall, hard, and are injured by the impact. Their ability to walk off the damage makes no difference to the point.

[Daishain]

A nice extinct example is Quetzalcoatlus, a critter who's as tall as a giraffe with a near 50 foot wingspan. (although they had really small bodies).

Much less weight, much weaker, much smaller, and they come from a time period where the atmosphere on Earth was notably higher pressure than it is now. Not really relevant.

[dancrilis]

Enough rules are the same that comparisons can be made.
Monks have a form of innate magic that parallels the kind used by dragons in several ways, that actually kind of proves my point.
So now two groups have this innate magic that bypasses antimagic, and monks can take damage they just take significantly less - and only if they use a reaction (which could be rolling with the fall or whatever).



As for the rest, the mechanic by which high level adventurers survive what they shouldn't is one example of where D&D bends the rules, and is largely irrelevant. They still fall, hard, and are injured by the impact. Their ability to walk off the damage makes no difference to the point.
The fact that none of there equipment is damaged just another bit of bending the rules ... and of course giants falling compared to smaller creatures and not going splat, just a wee bit of a rules tweak (ignoring the existence of giants to being with - maybe you call innate non-antimagic magic on that too).

A different (and simpler) idea instead of making up a magic explanation is that this is the ways things work in the multiverse - and our world would be the oddity when compared to others.

In fact maybe humans are merely humans in name only and they are biologically different than we are 9or planer rules affect them differently) - hence why they survive stuff we would not.

Edit: and I had forgotten the trusty Roc - not really flying but weaving magic with every flap.

[cobaltstarfire]

Much less weight, much weaker, much smaller, and they come from a time period where the atmosphere on Earth was notably higher pressure than it is now. Not really relevant.

Yeah I know it's almost like I didn't point out in my own post that it has a very small body.

Although estimates are that most pterosaurs in generally were likel heavier than originally believed, and that they would be capable of powered flight even in our own atmosphere. No need to be a massive jerk.

[Daishain]

Yeah I know it's almost like I didn't point out in my own post that it has a very small body.

Although estimates are that most pterosaurs in generally were likel heavier than originally believed, and that they would be capable of powered flight even in our own atmosphere. No need to be a massive jerk.
No jerkhood was intended. My apologies if that was your impression.

[Shining Wrath]

Much less weight, much weaker, much smaller, and they come from a time period where the atmosphere on Earth was notably higher pressure than it is now. Not really relevant.

This discussion has been canonically answered.

Quibble Not With The Giant (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html)