PDA

View Full Version : Debunking Kobold free sorcerer levels.



Pages : [1] 2

magic9mushroom
2010-01-02, 04:27 AM
I've seen several cheesy builds on here for Kobold Sorcerers using Dragonwrought Kobold/Loredrake and also White Dragonspawn.

Leaving aside the fact that Draconomicon contradicts Dragonwrought Kobolds being True Dragons (it does, several times (all having energy immunity, all being endothermic, all advancing by age categories (which means "advancing" as in "advanced monster" (which Kobolds do not (and yes this is a lot of brackets)))) and I don't see any evidence of the "technicality" everyone's talking about), Dragonwrought Kobolds do not qualify for the White Dragonspawn template, as they are not humanoid (they're dragons). Hence, you cannot use both (not that you could use Loredrake on a Kobold ANYWAY).

Zincorium
2010-01-02, 05:40 AM
I don't have Dragons of Eberron, so I can't comment on Loredrake- although if you also don't have the book, you're not exactly in a position to split hairs.

A kobold with the white dragonspawn template is eligable to take the dragonwrought feat. Although it would be more than a little odd to use Dragonlance material outside the setting.

According to the Draconomicon, a creature of the dragon type is not a true dragon if it does not advance through age categories. Dragonwrought kobolds do not do so, and thus are not eligable for things that require 'True Dragon' but remain eligible for things that simply require Dragon.

Edit:How is it your user name isn't against forum rules?

ex cathedra
2010-01-02, 05:45 AM
Races of the Dragon, page 39, Table 3-2 gives Kobolds precisely the same Age Categories as True Dragons, all twelve of them.

Regarding Dragonspawn, it's just a matter of order. A Kobold qualifies for Dragonspawn, and a Dragonspawn Kobold that takes class levels qualifies for Dragonwrought.

magic9mushroom
2010-01-02, 05:58 AM
I don't have Dragons of Eberron, so I can't comment on Loredrake- although if you also don't have the book, you're not exactly in a position to split hairs.

A kobold with the white dragonspawn template is eligable to take the dragonwrought feat. Although it would be more than a little odd to use Dragonlance material outside the setting.

According to the Draconomicon, a creature of the dragon type is not a true dragon if it does not advance through age categories. Dragonwrought kobolds do not do so, and thus are not eligable for things that require 'True Dragon' but remain eligible for things that simply require Dragon.

Edit:How is it your user name isn't against forum rules?

My user name against forum rules? What?

And you can't take the template before the feat. Dragonwrought Kobolds are born (well, hatched technically) Dragonwrought. White Dragonspawn are made out of existing humanoids/monstrous humanoids. A Dragonwrought Kobold has never been a humanoid or monstrous humanoid, and was hence never eligible for White Dragonspawn.

While Kobolds have the same 12 Age categories as True Dragons, they are NOT advanced by Age Categories the way True Dragons are. Hence, not True Dragon.


Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance
through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons (which
should not be taken to mean that they are necessarily less
formidable than true dragons).

ex cathedra
2010-01-02, 06:10 AM
I believe that you're picking nits over wording to justify connecting two unrelated occurrences. Dragonwrought Kobolds are dragons that gain power and advance through the same age categories as all other true dragons.

magic9mushroom
2010-01-02, 06:16 AM
I believe that you're picking nits over wording to justify connecting two unrelated occurrences. Dragonwrought Kobolds are dragons that gain power and advance through the same age categories as all other true dragons.

And they're quite obviously not True Dragons as that passage obviously refers to, y'know, monster advancement. As in, adding extra HD. Y'know, that thing you do when you want a tougher dragon, but do NOT do for Kobolds, since they're advanced by class level.

Not to mention all the other passages in Draconomicon saying all True Dragons have energy immunity, and most damning of all.

ALL TRUE DRAGONS ARE ENDOTHERMIC.

Yeah.

JaronK
2010-01-02, 06:17 AM
A few points.

First, obviously all Kobolds can take the Greater Draconic Rite. It requires one feat (Draconic Resevoir) and that you're a Kobold who's done the basic Draconic Rite, and the end result is +1 Sorcerer level.

Second, the mechanics of White Dragonspawn and Dragonwrought are simple. You start play as a White Dragonspawn Kobold (which is obviously legal), then you take the Dragonwrought feat (which is a legal choice for a White Dragonspawn Kobold). Templates are always applied before feats, skills, class levels, and everything else unless of course they're specifically noted as being applied later (WD is not). Yes, Dragonwrought represents being born more draconic, but that's okay... this is standard template stacking, and even for stuff you're born with the order matters. This is exactly like taking a template that requires being a Magical Beast after taking the Shadow template.

As to Loredrake, the only time the game explicitly defines True Dragons as being of the Dragon type and getting stronger by getting older, in addition to having age catagories. Dragonwrought Kobolds are of the Dragon type, and do in fact get stronger by getting older (gaining up to +3 to all mental stats with no physical stat loss, as per the rules in Races of the Dragon on page 39). Furthermore, Kobolds explicitly have age catagories, as per page 39 again. Every qualifier is indeed met. Meanwhile, any True Dragon can take Loredrake, so a Dragonwrought Kobold may do so.

Further note that your reference to True Dragons being Endothermic is actually directly contradicted, again by page 39 of Races of the Dragon. It says straight up that Dragons are Warm Blooded. Additionally, the Dragonwrought Feat changes your physiology enough to change your type anyway, so the endothermic thing is a clear red hearing no matter whether you think True Dragons should be endo or exo thermic. Dragonwrought would turn the Kobold into whatever Dragons are.

So, while it's certainly quite strong, it's legal by RAW, and I'd challenge you to actually use quotes from the book to support your case if you want to challenge it. Please don't fall into the trap of thinking that everything powerful must not be RAW. There's plenty of things the designers did that are overpowered, from flowing time/timeless Genesis tricks to gaining spellcasting from Shapechange to Hardened Haunt Shifted bodies. Intended? Almost certainly not. But RAW? Absolutely. Feel free to house rule them in your games (a good GM pretty much has to use house rules sometimes to deal with various balance issues), but let's not pretend the rules were written without this stuff in them.

So yes, at the end of the day a Loredrake White Dragonspawn Kobold with Dragonwrought, Draconic Resevoir, and the Greater Draconic Rite casts at 4 Sorcerer levels above his hit dice (though he's at LA+1 and must serve a dragon... I'd rather just drop White Dragonspawn). It's pretty nasty, especially when Wings of Flurry comes out.


JaronK

pingcode20
2010-01-02, 06:47 AM
On an amusing note, in two short hours this thread has hit rank 3 on Google.

---

As for the age categories:

I think you might have a point here. The interpretation that it refers simply to the passage of time would theoretically mean that *all* dragon-typed creatures with age categories are true dragons, from Dragonwrought kobolds to half-dragon humanoids.

The reading 'True Dragons are creatures of the Dragon Type which are advanced via Age Category' makes the most sense, now that I think about it. This would stand as opposed to adding character classes, hit dice, or templates.

So then it appears Kobolds wouldn't qualify, because you can't advance an Adult Kobold by making him into a Mature Adult Kobold.

On the other hand, a case could be made (for the usual RAW-throttling goodness) that since Kobolds do happen to have the dragon age categories, you theoretically could advance a Dragonwrought Kobold by age category like a True Dragon, even if it only results in additional mental stat boosts at sparse intervals.

It's a loophole that requires you to squint a little and use your imagination, but it's a valid interpretation - since the 'advances through age categories' does seem to stand seperately from the other typical forms of advancement. Well, valid enough for a trick that no sane DM would permit to begin with.

---

From what I can google, the argument against white dragonspawn being applicable is one from the method of inheritance of the template in the first place.

While I'm not familiar with Dragonlance, what I found after a quick search indicates that becoming a 'Dragonspawn' actually involves a sort of ritual, and isn't something hereditary like 'Draconic' or 'Half-Dragon'. Moreover, since the ritual is not performed on an unborn child, any Dragonwrought Kobold would need to be born Dragonwrought prior to gaining any opportunity to become White Dragonspawn.

Basically, you can't have a White Dragonspawn Dragonwrought Kobold for the same reason you can't have a Necropolitan Dragonwrought Kobold. By the time it's possible to gain the template, you've already been disqualified for it.

On the bright side, there is nothing preventing you from having a Neapolitan Dragonwrought Kobold.

EDIT: Can Dragonspawn breed to make little Dragonspawn? If so, this bit is pretty much moot.

magic9mushroom
2010-01-02, 06:52 AM
A few points.

First, obviously all Kobolds can take the Greater Draconic Rite. It requires one feat (Draconic Resevoir) and that you're a Kobold who's done the basic Draconic Rite, and the end result is +1 Sorcerer level.

I've got no objections to the Greater Draconic Rite of Passage, it's completely RAW and RAI. That's why I didn't bring it up.


Second, the mechanics of White Dragonspawn and Dragonwrought are simple. You start play as a White Dragonspawn Kobold (which is obviously legal), then you take the Dragonwrought feat (which is a legal choice for a White Dragonspawn Kobold). Templates are always applied before feats, skills, class levels, and everything else unless of course they're specifically noted as being applied later (WD is not). Yes, Dragonwrought represents being born more draconic, but that's okay... this is standard template stacking, and even for stuff you're born with the order matters. This is exactly like taking a template that requires being a Magical Beast after taking the Shadow template.

It still creates a paradox in your backstory. Surely you must see this.

I cannot imagine how it can be considered legal to play a character that cannot exist.


As to Loredrake, the only time the game explicitly defines True Dragons as being of the Dragon type and getting stronger by getting older, in addition to having age catagories. Dragonwrought Kobolds are of the Dragon type, and do in fact get stronger by getting older (gaining up to +3 to all mental stats with no physical stat loss, as per the rules in Races of the Dragon on page 39). Furthermore, Kobolds explicitly have age catagories, as per page 39 again. Every qualifier is indeed met. Meanwhile, any True Dragon can take Loredrake, so a Dragonwrought Kobold may do so.

You're stretching there. The sentence after, it clarifies by saying that dragons that do NOT get advanced by age category (which includes Kobolds, since their advancement entry is "By class level") are Lesser Dragons.

Kobolds have 12 age categories like a dragon, but are not advanced by them. They do not gain additional HD, LA, or CR. Hence, for all the rules care, they do NOT get stronger with age.


Further note that your reference to True Dragons being Endothermic is actually directly contradicted, again by page 39 of Races of the Dragon. It says straight up that Dragons are Warm Blooded.

Endothermic IS Warm-Blooded, Warm-Blooded is Endothermic. How does Endothermic contradict Endothermic?

Kobolds are exothermic, that is, Cold Blooded, and Dragonwrought doesn't mention a change in this.


Additionally, the Dragonwrought Feat changes your physiology enough to change your type anyway, so the endothermic thing is a clear red hearing no matter whether you think True Dragons should be endo or exo thermic. Dragonwrought would turn the Kobold into whatever Dragons are.

No, it doesn't, because it doesn't mention that in the entry, and lesser dragons can be exothermic. You're begging the question by assuming out of hand that Dragonwrought Kobolds are True Dragons, and then saying that all their qualities obviously change to those of True Dragons because of that, justifying your original assertion. Circular argument.


So, while it's certainly quite strong, it's legal by RAW,

It's legal by RAIITAYCPMWN. "Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove Me Wrong Nyaah".


and I'd challenge you to actually use quotes from the book to support your case if you want to challenge it.

Already did.


Please don't fall into the trap of thinking that everything powerful must not be RAW. There's plenty of things the designers did that are overpowered, from flowing time/timeless Genesis tricks to gaining spellcasting from Shapechange to Hardened Haunt Shifted bodies. Intended? Almost certainly not. But RAW? Absolutely. Feel free to house rule them in your games (a good GM pretty much has to use house rules sometimes to deal with various balance issues), but let's not pretend the rules were written without this stuff in them.

You're strawmanning here. I know there are plenty of things more powerful than this that ARE legal by RAW. I'm claiming that this, in particular, does not work.


So yes, at the end of the day a Loredrake White Dragonspawn Kobold with Dragonwrought, Draconic Resevoir, and the Greater Draconic Rite casts at 4 Sorcerer levels above his hit dice (though he's at LA+1 and must serve a dragon... I'd rather just drop White Dragonspawn). It's pretty nasty, especially when Wings of Flurry comes out.


JaronK

No, he explodes due to time paradox.

@pingcode20: About the White Dragonspawn, exactly, about the advancement, the Monster Manual and SRD specifically say "By character class", so there's no loophole.

lord_khaine
2010-01-02, 06:52 AM
Edit:How is it your user name isn't against forum rules?


Now im courious, whats wrong with the name?

Personaly it makes me think of Super Mario

taltamir
2010-01-02, 06:55 AM
It still creates a paradox in your backstory. Surely you must see this.

I cannot imagine how it can be considered legal to play a character that cannot exist.

basically, yes there are templates you can only gain if "born that way", but there are feats, class features, etc that allow you to aquire what is normally a born template.
You can transform into a variety of things, for example, a dragon disciple becomes a "half-dragon"... that doesn't change their backstory, neither of their parent's was a dragon... its just that the magic that they focused on tranformed to being a half-dragon.

Likewise, taking said feet is a matter of acquiring a normally born template at a later stage in your life.

JaronK
2010-01-02, 06:57 AM
As for the age categories:

I think you might have a point here. The interpretation that it refers simply to the passage of time would theoretically mean that *all* dragon-typed creatures with age categories are true dragons, from Dragonwrought kobolds to half-dragon humanoids.

The reading 'True Dragons are creatures of the Dragon Type which are advanced via Age Category' makes the most sense, now that I think about it. This would stand as opposed to adding character classes, hit dice, or templates.

So then it appears Kobolds wouldn't qualify, because you can't advance an Adult Kobold by making him into a Mature Adult Kobold.

On the other hand, a case could be made (for the usual RAW-throttling goodness) that since Kobolds do happen to have the dragon age categories, you theoretically could advance a Dragonwrought Kobold by age category like a True Dragon, even if it only results in additional mental stat boosts at sparse intervals.

It's a loophole that requires you to squint a little and use your imagination, but it's a valid interpretation - since the 'advances through age categories' does seem to stand seperately from the other typical forms of advancement. Well, valid enough for a trick that no sane DM would permit to begin with.

That second part is what's important... only Dragonwrought Kobolds and the other True Dragons get stronger purely by getting older (at least among the dragons). A Half Dragon will get -6 to all physical stats and +3 to all mental ones by getting old, while a Dragonwrought Kobold only has the +3 to mental stats. That's what makes Dragonwrought Kobolds count as True Dragons. Being a Great Wyrm Dragonwrought Kobold (and yes, that's what a venerable one is called, either that or Wyrm) is strictly superior to being an Adult Dragonwrought Kobold, while being a Venerable Half Dragon Human is clearly physically weaker than being a younger one.


While I'm not familiar with Dragonlance, what I found after a quick search indicates that becoming a 'Dragonspawn' actually involves a sort of ritual, and isn't something hereditary like 'Draconic' or 'Half-Dragon'. Moreover, since the ritual is not performed on an unborn child, any Dragonwrought Kobold would need to be born Dragonwrought prior to gaining any opportunity to become White Dragonspawn.

As per RAW, however, that's not actually how it works. By RAW, you're a White Dragonspawn Kobold first, then you take the feat.

JaronK

taltamir
2010-01-02, 07:02 AM
While I'm not familiar with Dragonlance, what I found after a quick search indicates that becoming a 'Dragonspawn' actually involves a sort of ritual, and isn't something hereditary like 'Draconic' or 'Half-Dragon'. Moreover, since the ritual is not performed on an unborn child, any Dragonwrought Kobold would need to be born Dragonwrought prior to gaining any opportunity to become White Dragonspawn.
As per RAW, however, that's not actually how it works. By RAW, you're a White Dragonspawn Kobold first, then you take the feat.
JaronK

specifically, dragon lance books are based on DnD rules, not vice versa. If the books and the DnD rules disagree, the DnD rules are correct and the books have an error.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-02, 07:04 AM
So, have we rebunked the free kobold sorcerer level cheese trick?

taltamir
2010-01-02, 07:06 AM
say... wouldn't a Kobold Sorcerers using Dragonwrought Kobold/Loredrake and also White Dragonspawn who takes the dragon disciple PrC add half-dragon to the mix?

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-02, 07:09 AM
say... wouldn't a Kobold Sorcerers using Dragonwrought Kobold/Loredrake and also White Dragonspawn who takes the dragon disciple PrC add half-dragon to the mix?

Wouldn't a Red dragon with the half-dragon template for white be immune to fire and cold?

ex cathedra
2010-01-02, 07:10 AM
I'm afraid not, because the sort of people who make White Dragonspawn Loredrake Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerers don't make Dragon Disciples, generally.

taltamir
2010-01-02, 07:11 AM
Wouldn't a Red dragon with the half-dragon template for white be immune to fire and cold?

well, since fire and cold are the same energy type, just different amounts of it...
sorry for killing the catgirls


I'm afraid not, because the sort of people who make White Dragonspawn Loredrake Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerers don't make Dragon Disciples, generally.

heh, nobody should take dragon disciple, its a huge trap... the question was IF someone did anyways... :)

pingcode20
2010-01-02, 07:14 AM
As per RAW, however, that's not actually how it works. By RAW, you're a White Dragonspawn Kobold first, then you take the feat.

JaronK

Do you happen to have the source material? The point could probably be argued against if it's an acquired template, because presumably it couldn't be acquired by a creature that doesn't qualify for it in the first place.


say... wouldn't a Kobold Sorcerers using Dragonwrought Kobold/Loredrake and also White Dragonspawn who takes the dragon disciple PrC add half-dragon to the mix?

This one there's no question about, sadly. As a Dragonwrought Kobold, you possess the Dragon Type and are disqualified for Dragon Disciple. Came up during one of those threads trying to figure out how many times they could cram 'Dragon' into a character.

magic9mushroom
2010-01-02, 07:18 AM
basically, yes there are templates you can only gain if "born that way", but there are feats, class features, etc that allow you to aquire what is normally a born template.
You can transform into a variety of things, for example, a dragon disciple becomes a "half-dragon"... that doesn't change their backstory, neither of their parent's was a dragon... its just that the magic that they focused on tranformed to being a half-dragon.

Likewise, taking said feet is a matter of acquiring a normally born template at a later stage in your life.

Nope. The feat "Dragonwrought" has a description of 1 line:

You were born a dragonwrought kobold.

There is NO WAY to become dragonwrought if you weren't born with it - this is why the feat is 1st level only.


That second part is what's important... only Dragonwrought Kobolds and the other True Dragons get stronger purely by getting older (at least among the dragons). A Half Dragon will get -6 to all physical stats and +3 to all mental ones by getting old, while a Dragonwrought Kobold only has the +3 to mental stats. That's what makes Dragonwrought Kobolds count as True Dragons. Being a Great Wyrm Dragonwrought Kobold (and yes, that's what a venerable one is called, either that or Wyrm) is strictly superior to being an Adult Dragonwrought Kobold, while being a Venerable Half Dragon Human is clearly physically weaker than being a younger one.

You're not being advanced (ie, given extra HD and powers) by age categories, though. As long as your CR, LA, and HD are not affected, the rules say you're not any stronger. Sure, these are the same rules that say a Planar Shepherd is balanced with a Samurai, but it is RAW.


As per RAW, however, that's not actually how it works. By RAW, you're a White Dragonspawn Kobold first, then you take the feat.

JaronK

Which creates a contradiction, as Dragonwrought is retroactive, and hence you couldn't have been made a White Dragonspawn in the first place. You were never a humanoid, and hence White Dragonspawn says "you were made a White Dragonspawn" while Dragonwrought says "you were never eligible to be made a White Dragonspawn", a clear contradiction. Which means your character logically cannot exist.


say... wouldn't a Kobold Sorcerers using Dragonwrought Kobold/Loredrake and also White Dragonspawn who takes the dragon disciple PrC add half-dragon to the mix?

Can't. You can't enter Dragon Disciple if you're already a Dragon. Which you are because of Dragonwrought, just not a True Dragon.

EDIT: Just to make it clear where I stand.

Greater Draconic Rite of Passage is RAW and RAI, and gives you a free level of sorcerer.

White Dragonspawn is legal for a non-Dragonwrought kobold, and gives you a free level of sorcerer in exchange for +1 LA, which depending on your GM (UA is variant, after all) you may be able to buy off to get another free level of sorcerer.

Dragonwrought is incompatible with White Dragonspawn due to not being able to meet the requirements.

Dragonwrought Kobolds, while Dragons, are not True Dragons and are hence ineligible for Loredrake.

Zincorium
2010-01-02, 07:18 AM
It's in the same category as Pun Pun- I can't think of a DM who'd allow 4 additional levels of sorceror casting, especially as white dragonspawn is a very broken template even without the casting bonus.

But it does work. Any of Magic9Mushrooms arguments are setting information- the players can't use them against a character, and the DM doesn't need them.

As for the user name- discussion of drug related activities is explicitly against forum regulations. Magic mushrooms are a drug. Your name is, as far as I can tell, roughly equivalent to Bong0Hit or Crack2Rock, in that while there are perfectly good explanations that don't involve drugs, the interpretation most likely to be made is that you are an advocate of the use of some substance. Specifically, psilocin/psilocybin.

If Roland or one of the other mods hasn't chatted with you about it, you're free and clear. But it seems odd.

taltamir
2010-01-02, 07:22 AM
wow... I am too innocent... I had no idea magic mushroom was a drug. I thought that was a mario reference. (although, in retrospect, mario is a game about drugs. I read somewhere that everything, from the mushrooms to the stars to the fire flowers are all drugs references)

ex cathedra
2010-01-02, 07:26 AM
Nope. The feat "Dragonwrought" has a description of 1 line:

You were born a dragonwrought kobold.

There is NO WAY to become dragonwrought if you weren't born with it - this is why the feat is 1st level only.

That line is flavor text.

magic9mushroom
2010-01-02, 07:37 AM
{Scrubbed}

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-02, 07:39 AM
Nope. The feat "Dragonwrought" has a description of 1 line:

You were born a dragonwrought kobold.

There is NO WAY to become dragonwrought if you weren't born with it - this is why the feat is 1st level only.

Logically speaking:
You shouldn't be able to heal by drowning.
Arrows should fly in a parabolic path.
Feats that grant a template that you should have had from birth should apply first.

In RAW actuality:
You can.
Arrows fly in a perfectly straight line.
Feats are applied after other base templates, at a different stage of character advancement and creation.

While many aspects of D&D may not make real world sense, the thing you must wrap your mind around is this: It's not Rules as Common Sense Dictates. It's Rules as Written. These don't always go hand in hand.

magic9mushroom
2010-01-02, 07:48 AM
Well, actually, the rules do say quite a few times that they're As Common Sense Dictates.

If a character's origins are literally impossible, that character cannot be.

ex cathedra
2010-01-02, 07:52 AM
{Scrubbed}
Haha, it's cute that you think so, but don't try to debunk theory with RAW and then fall back on RAI/RAMS when you're shown to be wrong. I don't see how immature name-calling helps your argument either, for that matter, but ymmv.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-02, 07:56 AM
{Scrubbed}
Rudeness does not generally help you prove a point.

magic9mushroom
2010-01-02, 08:07 AM
Well, when I point you to the specific rule statement that proves you wrong and you dismiss it as flavour text so that you can have your precious overpowered sorcerer with 9th level spells at 14, what am I supposed to say? I mean, you're flat out ignoring the rules you don't like and claiming that the rules allow you to play as a character whose existence is a paradox.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-02, 08:12 AM
It's legal by RAIITAYCPMWN. "Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove Me Wrong Nyaah".
Funny, that's exactly how I interpret your argument.

Is your interpretation balanced? Yes. Is your interpretation sane? Yes. Is your interpretation right? The answer to that is not "yes", and you're far too confident that it is, indeed "yes".


Rudeness does not generally help you prove a point.


I mean, you're flat out ignoring the rules you don't like and claiming that the rules allow you to play as a character whose existence is a paradox.

1) Nobody actually plays Dragonwrought Loredrake kobolds. They're thought experiments.
2) You're being rude here again.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-02, 08:13 AM
Well, when I point you to the specific rule statement that proves you wrong and you dismiss it as flavour text so that you can have your precious overpowered sorcerer with 9th level spells at 14, what am I supposed to say?
Is "I think you are wrong" too polite or civil to be used as an alternative?

ex cathedra
2010-01-02, 08:20 AM
Well, when I point you to the specific rule statement that proves you wrong and you dismiss it as flavour text so that you can have your precious overpowered sorcerer with 9th level spells at 14, what am I supposed to say? I mean, you're flat out ignoring the rules you don't like and claiming that the rules allow you to play as a character whose existence is a paradox.

I've never played a kobold, much less one of these monstrosities. That doesn't make them any less possible via RAW. There's a difference between wanting something to be overpowered and being able to clearly interpret admittedly terribly written rules. The line you quoted wasn't rules text, and there is no corroboratory text in the Benefits, Special, or Pre-requisites section of the feat entry.

magic9mushroom
2010-01-02, 08:22 AM
Is "I think you are wrong" too polite or civil to be used as an alternative?

Well, when certain people stand on the most tenuous threads as though they were the most solid foundations and then have the gall to talk down to me, yes, it is.

@Foryn Gilnith: There is perhaps one stretched meaning of one phrase saying that Dragonwrought Kobolds are True Dragons, whereas they fit the exact definition of a Lesser Dragon (not gaining extra HD/abilities with age). I'm sure because I'm sitting on hard canon and you're sitting on a tightrope.

@aethernox: Excuse me? I was quoting the Draconomicon. You want the whole thing?


THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF DRAGONS
In the D&D game, the term “dragon” encompasses a number
of different creatures, some of which bear little resemblance to
the great flying creatures with breath weapons that we commonly
think of as dragons.
For the most part, this book concerns itself with the ten
varieties of true dragon described in the Monster Manual—
the five chromatic dragons (black, blue, green, red, white) and
the five metallic dragons (brass, bronze, copper, gold, silver).
True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful
as they grow older.
A number of other true dragons are described in Chapter 4
of this book. In addition, Appendix 2: Index of Dragons provides
a complete list of all true dragons that have been presented in
official sources.
Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance
through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons (which
should not be taken to mean that they are necessarily less
formidable than true dragons).
The three kinds of lesser dragon described in the Monster
Manual are the dragon turtle, the pseudodragon, and the
wyvern. Chapter 4 of this book contains a number of descriptions
of other lesser dragons, and Appendix 2 lists every lesser
dragon that has been described in a DUNGEONS & DRAGONS rulebook
or accessory.

sofawall
2010-01-02, 08:29 AM
THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF DRAGONS
In the D&D game, the term “dragon” encompasses a number
of different creatures, some of which bear little resemblance to
the great flying creatures with breath weapons that we commonly
think of as dragons.
For the most part, this book concerns itself with the ten
varieties of true dragon described in the Monster Manual—
the five chromatic dragons (black, blue, green, red, white) and
the five metallic dragons (brass, bronze, copper, gold, silver).
True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful
as they grow older.

Check, mental stats.


A number of other true dragons are described in Chapter 4
of this book. In addition, Appendix 2: Index of Dragons provides
a complete list of all true dragons that have been presented in
official sources.
Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance
through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons (which
should not be taken to mean that they are necessarily less
formidable than true dragons).
The three kinds of lesser dragon described in the Monster
Manual are the dragon turtle, the pseudodragon, and the
wyvern. Chapter 4 of this book contains a number of descriptions
of other lesser dragons, and Appendix 2 lists every lesser
dragon that has been described in a DUNGEONS & DRAGONS rulebook
or accessory.

Kobolds advance through age categories. they even advance through the dragon age categories.

Taking that sentence to mean that they have to gain hit dice through age is stretching at least as far as having a dragonwrought white dragonspawn.

ex cathedra
2010-01-02, 08:33 AM
Regarding your last comment, I was talking about Dragonwrought.

However, I don't see how that passage supports your point.


THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF DRAGONS
In the D&D game, the term “dragon” encompasses a number
of different creatures, some of which bear little resemblance to
the great flying creatures with breath weapons that we commonly
think of as dragons.
For the most part, this book concerns itself with the ten
varieties of true dragon described in the Monster Manual—
the five chromatic dragons (black, blue, green, red, white) and
the five metallic dragons (brass, bronze, copper, gold, silver).
True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful
as they grow older.
A number of other true dragons are described in Chapter 4
of this book. In addition, Appendix 2: Index of Dragons provides
a complete list of all true dragons that have been presented in
official sources.
Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance
through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons (which
should not be taken to mean that they are necessarily less
formidable than true dragons).
The three kinds of lesser dragon described in the Monster
Manual are the dragon turtle, the pseudodragon, and the
wyvern. Chapter 4 of this book contains a number of descriptions
of other lesser dragons, and Appendix 2 lists every lesser
dragon that has been described in a DUNGEONS & DRAGONS rulebook
or accessory.

Dragonwrought Kobolds certainly do become more powerful as they grow older, and they do advance through the same age categories as any other true dragon. Emphasis mine.

Zincorium
2010-01-02, 08:48 AM
1. Draconomicon was printed prior to races of the dragon, and so kobolds neither had access to the dragon type nor had age categories when it was printed. However, as has been quoted, it clearly defines what a lesser dragon, meaning everything that is not a true dragon, is. Dragonwrought kobolds are not lesser dragons by RAW, and are thus true dragons.

2. If you're obsessed by fungi, you can't be ignorant of the fact that certain varieties of mushrooms are used recreationally under the blanket term of 'magic mushroom'. I can barely tell a chantrelle from a fly agaric and I know that. So you either thought it was cute or you're a bit more messed up than Aspergers.

3. Logic is not a requirement of legal character creation unless the DM houserules it to be so. I can play a warforged druid who is made of metal but can't wear it as armor. I can play a werebear who wildshapes into a bear and turns into a bear when raging and rides a bear as a mount and also has one as an animal companion. All by RAW.

Of course, being a creation of a dragon, and also being a creation of a dragon in a slightly different way, is hardly illogical. The fluff is mostly compatible.

4. According to character creation rules, you do not choose a feat at all until you pick a race (including templates). White dragonspawn is applied at this point- while it does not specify aquired or inherited, it also doesn't matter as far as the rules are concerned. You are still a humanoid, and thus a legal target for the White Dragonspawn template if your DM allows it.

Once you have picked these, you may choose any feat for which you have the prerequisites. Kobold? Check. 1st level? Check. You are now a dragonwrought kobold, and GAIN the dragon subtype.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-02, 08:57 AM
Incidentally, M9M, the Draconomicon is 3.0 and Races of the Dragon is 3.5, which means that the Draconomicon is outdated material for a different game.

Would you care to factor this into your argument at any point?

Androgeus
2010-01-02, 08:59 AM
I can play a werebear who wildshapes into a bear and turns into a bear when raging and rides a bear as a mount and also has one as an animal companion. All by RAW.

That charater would be unbearable. Sorry, couldn't resist!

TooManySecrets
2010-01-02, 09:03 AM
However, I don't see how that passage supports your point.

Um, aethernox, the For the most part talks about what the book is going to talk about. It's a completely seperate idea from True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older.

See, the first part of that paragraph says:
"In this book, we're going to talk about true dragons"
and the second part says:
"Oh, by the way, here's what we mean by true dragon."


2. If you're obsessed by fungi, you can't be ignorant of the fact that certain varieties of mushrooms are used recreationally under the blanket term of 'magic mushroom'. I can barely tell a chantrelle from a fly agaric and I know that. So you either thought it was cute or you're a bit more messed up than Aspergers.

That's uncalled for.

Longcat
2010-01-02, 09:05 AM
That charater would be unbearable. Sorry, couldn't resist!

Well, as a druid, you have the right to bear arms, the right to arm bears, and the right to kill things with your bare hands. So, no problem at all here :smallwink:

TooManySecrets
2010-01-02, 09:08 AM
Well, as a druid, you have the right to bear arms, the right to arm bears, and the right to kill things with your bare hands. So, no problem at all here :smallwink:

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/4397/unbearablepersona.jpg

The Dark Fiddler
2010-01-02, 09:09 AM
As for the user name- discussion of drug related activities is explicitly against forum regulations. Magic mushrooms are a drug. Your name is, as far as I can tell, roughly equivalent to Bong0Hit or Crack2Rock, in that while there are perfectly good explanations that don't involve drugs, the interpretation most likely to be made is that you are an advocate of the use of some substance. Specifically, psilocin/psilocybin.

If Roland or one of the other mods hasn't chatted with you about it, you're free and clear. But it seems odd.

I seriously doubt that. Several people expressed confusion at your original statement and nobody bothered explaining it for you. I think you're reading too deeply.

Reminds of this one time at Bulbapedia. A user wanted to ban another user for the signing up as "Special K" with the argument that it's a nickname for a drug. Needless to say, it didn't happen.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-02, 09:11 AM
Well, the fact that Special K is more commonly known as a brand of cereal may have something to do with it.

lesser_minion
2010-01-02, 09:17 AM
Arrows fly in a perfectly straight line.

By RAW, nobody really cares how arrows fly. Yes, you have to be able to trace a straight line to something that isn't blocked by a solid object.
Note that it's assumed that you're in a dungeon (where you wouldn't fire an arrow with enough of a curve to make any difference).

The rules for shooting into a crowd note that a shot at anyone more than a certain distance away is really a parabolic shot, and give those distances.


Incidentally, M9M, the Draconomicon is 3.0 and Races of the Dragon is 3.5, which means that the Draconomicon is outdated material for a different game.

Would you care to factor this into your argument at any point?

So is the ELH and the arcane version of the spell Genesis, which predates the existence of planar traits and therefore cannot in any way be construed as allowing you to control them.

3.0 books don't cease to be valid - 3.5 is a revision, not a completely different game.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-02, 09:22 AM
Incidentally, M9M, the Draconomicon is 3.0 and Races of the Dragon is 3.5, which means that the Draconomicon is outdated material for a different game.

What? Draconomicon is 3.5, evidenced by a distinct absence of "Wilderness Lore" and "Innuendo" in the Prestige Classes section.


So is the ELH and the arcane version of the spell Genesis, which predates the existence of planar traits and therefore cannot in any way be construed as allowing you to control them.

Both have been updated to 3.5, and the updates (which are, admittedly, minimal) take precedence.
However, this is irrelevant, as Draconomicon is not 3.0 material. This thread is already too unfocused, what with the drug discussion and all that. We don't need another tangent.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-02, 09:31 AM
It's listed in my digital collection as a 3.0 book iirc...

TooManySecrets
2010-01-02, 09:32 AM
It's listed in my digital collection as a 3.0 book iirc...

It's in the weird 3.25 state, like Book of Vile Darkness.

EDIT: Checked date of first printing.

Draconomicon: November 2003
Player's Handbook 3.5: July 2003

So, there you go. Take of that what you will.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-02, 09:34 AM
3.0 books don't cease to be valid - 3.5 is a revision, not a completely different game.

And evidently, what they revised is what constitutes a true dragon.

lesser_minion
2010-01-02, 09:36 AM
Both have been updated to 3.5, and the updates (which are, admittedly, minimal) take precedence.


The updates weren't updates, they were reprints of an outdated spell.

There is more than one way to produce a Genesis effect, so a general effect exists. From there, there are two interpretations, equally supported by RAW:

The general effect is as defined in the psionic power, and the spell follows that effect except where it notes otherwise (it doesn't) The spell is the general effect, and the psionic power is a specific effect.


When rules as written support two different interpretations, the RAS interpretation should be determined by deciding which one makes more sense, and the R4TO may be chosen freely from those.

I don't think the RAMS there can even be argued.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2010-01-02, 09:40 AM
White Dragonspawn is an acquired template, the character is not born with it, they gained it prior to gaining their first hit die. A Kobold must take Dragonwrought at level 1, at their first hit die, therefore they would only be able to gain White Dragonspawn after having gained Dragonwrought thereby making them ineligible. The two are not compatible, they never were, and even if you could combine them your character would be from the Dragonlance setting and not Eberron, so you would be ineligible for the setting-specific qualifications of Loredrake. Trying to use both of those together is stinky cheese and should never be permitted.

With regards to whether or not a Dragonwrought Kobold is a true dragon, they clearly do age according to categories just like a true dragon, whereas the lesser dragons specifically do not use age categories. This is the biggest distinction between the two, and trying to focus on one sub-aspect of this (HD according to age category) does not make them different. A Dragonwrought Kobold as a true dragon by RAW, saying otherwise will take a houserule.

Regarding Loredrake:

This special ability replaces the optional spell selection abilities a dragon normally possesses; as such, a silver dragon that adopts the child of Eberron archetype can no longer cast cleric spells or those from the Air, Good, Law, and Sun domains. Those wholly unable to cast cleric spells (black, green, and white) lose nothing when they adopt a Sovereign archetype.
Dragons don’t have to follow archetypes. Indeed, many of the archetypes require training and discipline. If the DM uses this rule, he must decide if dragons that do not have an archetype can gain access to cleric spells as described in the Monster Manual, or if such dragons are limited to standard arcane magic.
Even though a Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer can't pick Cleric spells, they can take a sovereign archetype even though it costs them nothing, just like for a black, green, or white dragon. The character must be aware of that Sovereign dragon and desire to emulate it, so if they're not from Eberron and the DM hasn't adapted the sovereign dragons to the current setting this would be unavailable. It is entirely up to the DM whether or not to allow Loredrake if the game is not set in Eberron.

The Draconic Rite of Passage is in Races of the Dragon, and the Greater Draconic Rite of Passage (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060420a) is available to any qualifying Kobold in a game that allows official web material. Alone it is not an unbalancing advantage given its cost.

TooManySecrets
2010-01-02, 09:42 AM
The main problem with all of these arguments is that the designers probably put nowhere near as much thought into it as you guys are currently (for example, in the product spotlight for Draconomicon (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ps/20031107a), Skip Williams talks about how it would be nice to have a break from the strenous rule writing and work on a book which is primarily fluff).

It's allowed by the rules because the designers never thought to prevent it from happening. It's also entirely within the purview of the DM (and some would say that it's her/his responsibility) to houserule against the brokenness.

Tweekinator
2010-01-02, 12:29 PM
Well, when certain people stand on the most tenuous threads as though they were the most solid foundations and then have the gall to talk down to me everyone else , yes, it is.


The bolded part is you.

Coidzor
2010-01-02, 02:00 PM
... Does this mean that dragons that take class levels no longer count as true dragons?:smallconfused:

ocdscale
2010-01-02, 02:11 PM
Disclaimer: I don't have the books, so can only really comment on what's been brought up in this thread.

But, I haven't seen anyone deal with (what I see as) magic9mushroom's main argument:

True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful
as they grow older.

A number of other true dragons are described in Chapter 4
of this book. In addition, Appendix 2: Index of Dragons provides
a complete list of all true dragons that have been presented in
official sources.

Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance
through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons (which
should not be taken to mean that they are necessarily less
formidable than true dragons).

First section: Kobolds get more powerful as they get older. They are True Dragons. End of story. This is what most of the people are arguing here.

But what does it mean to "become more powerful" from a rules standpoint? Magic9mushroom says it refers to advancement, I don't see a RAW justification for that. But similarly, I don't see a RAW justification for saying "become more powerful" means "strictly mechanically more powerful." It makes logical sense, but "become more powerful" is not something that seems to be defined in the RAW.
So far, however, the ambiguity is leaning heavily towards Kobolds being True Dragons.

Second section: Largely irrelevant for this discussion.

Third section: Creatures that do not advance through age categories are lesser dragons. Kobolds do no advance through age categories (I believe magic9mushroom pointed out that RAW they advance through class levels). Ergo Kobolds are lesser dragons.

Can something be both a True dragon and a lesser dragon? I don't know. But if not, we need to resolve the contradiction between the first and third section.

The clearest resolution is that the third section gives context to what "become more powerful" meant in the first section. It meant advancement. (Doesn't mean it means "advancement" in all cases, just this case) True dragons are the ones that advance through Age categories, lesser dragons are the ones that do not advance through age categories.

Is there another way to reconcile the first and third section?
Clearly: "Creatures can be both True and lesser dragons" is one way to reconcile it, but again I don't know if that's RAW either.

Edit:
... Does this mean that dragons that take class levels no longer count as true dragons?
I don't see why that would be the case. They would still be able to advance by age.

Yuki Akuma
2010-01-02, 02:13 PM
... Does this mean that dragons that take class levels no longer count as true dragons?:smallconfused:

Nah. If you play a gold wyrmling, you're still a True Dragon even with levels in a PC class.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-02, 02:45 PM
On an amusing note, in two short hours this thread has hit rank 3 on Google.

---

As for the age categories:

I think you might have a point here. The interpretation that it refers simply to the passage of time would theoretically mean that *all* dragon-typed creatures with age categories are true dragons, from Dragonwrought kobolds to half-dragon humanoids.

Well, if they have 12 age categories, as required for true dragons, then yes. Most of them do not. Kobolds do.

The 12 age category thing is pretty explicit, it's not like it's commonly used for other stuff...kobolds were intended to be draconic.


The reading 'True Dragons are creatures of the Dragon Type which are advanced via Age Category' makes the most sense, now that I think about it. This would stand as opposed to adding character classes, hit dice, or templates.

Uh...you can advance anything by adding character classes and templates. Including bog standard dragons. See also, the playing as a dragon section of Draconomicon.

So basically, both sources used for the combination contradict your argument explicitly.


This all boils down to "Fluffwise, I don't think this makes sense, and thus, should be illegal". This is a pretty weak argument against RAW.

lesser_minion
2010-01-02, 02:58 PM
The worst bit is that the RAW definition of True Dragon is as follows:

A creature that is listed under the entry "True Dragon" inside the SRD, or a creature whose own entry explicitly describes it as a true dragon.

RAW your way around that.


Uh...you can advance anything by adding character classes and templates. Including bog standard dragons. See also, the playing as a dragon section of draconomicon.

So basically, both sources used for the combination contradict your argument explicitly.

Not so. Every creature has a default method for advancing. In the case of True Dragons, each age category is a different creature under the same listing (a dragon of a given age category can also be advanced by hit dice, template, or character class).

In essence, the offending sentence shouldn't even be considered in this discussion (which removes the only way this trick could be valid).

JaronK
2010-01-02, 03:05 PM
Nope. The feat "Dragonwrought" has a description of 1 line:

You were born a dragonwrought kobold.

There is NO WAY to become dragonwrought if you weren't born with it - this is why the feat is 1st level only.

This is stock standard template stacking. See the template rules for more details. It's perfectly acceptable to order your templates such that one template changes your type and then another must be of that second type, or to order them such that the first template requires your type to be unchanged and then the second changes it. Regardless of fluff, a feat is always applied after a template (unless the template is added after first level, which is not the case here).


You're not being advanced (ie, given extra HD and powers) by age categories, though. As long as your CR, LA, and HD are not affected, the rules say you're not any stronger. Sure, these are the same rules that say a Planar Shepherd is balanced with a Samurai, but it is RAW.

Irrelevant. It just says you have to get stronger, not that you have to gain HD and powers. Since Dragonwrought Kobolds do indeed get stronger (+3 all mental stats is decidedly stronger, and according to the rules equivalent to a significant LA bump in fact), they're True Dragons... the True Dragon definition does not require anything else.


Which creates a contradiction, as Dragonwrought is retroactive, and hence you couldn't have been made a White Dragonspawn in the first place. You were never a humanoid, and hence White Dragonspawn says "you were made a White Dragonspawn" while Dragonwrought says "you were never eligible to be made a White Dragonspawn", a clear contradiction. Which means your character logically cannot exist.

Again, doesn't matter. Template before feats is RAW.


Dragonwrought Kobolds, while Dragons, are not True Dragons and are hence ineligible for Loredrake.

Reread the definition of True Dragons. It's straightforward, and includes nothing about needing to gain HD by aging. The only requirement is that you get stronger (in addition to needing age catagories).

JaronK

Optimystik
2010-01-02, 03:06 PM
The worst bit is that the RAW definition of True Dragon is as follows:

A creature that is listed under the entry "True Dragon" inside the SRD, or a creature whose own entry explicitly describes it as a true dragon.

RAW your way around that.

Where are you citing that from?

SRD Definiton: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm) "All true dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age. (Other creatures that have the dragon type do not.)"

Draconomicon definiton: "True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older."

Tanuki Tales
2010-01-02, 03:08 PM
Well, actually, the rules do say quite a few times that they're As Common Sense Dictates.

If a character's origins are literally impossible, that character cannot be.

You do realize that "Your backstory does not compute" is not a valid disproving of the RAW legality of anything. That is a fluff problem that is easily rectified in any way the player and DM agree upon (assuming the agree upon it in the first place).

lesser_minion
2010-01-02, 03:13 PM
Where are you citing that from?

SRD Definiton: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm) "All true dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age. (Other creatures that have the dragon type do not.)"

Draconomicon definiton: "True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older."

I'm wasn't quoting, I was noting that because there is an entry for a True Dragon, a creature that isn't listed in that entry must explicitly state that it is a true dragon in order to be considered one.


Again, doesn't matter. Template before feats is RAW.

When a rule is BS, I like to see an unambiguous citation before accepting it.

JaronK
2010-01-02, 03:15 PM
The worst bit is that the RAW definition of True Dragon is as follows:

A creature that is listed under the entry "True Dragon" inside the SRD, or a creature whose own entry explicitly describes it as a true dragon.

RAW your way around that.

Considering there are a number of explicit True Dragons listed elsewhere, it's pretty easy to indicate that your logic is flawed. The SRD list is not exhaustive. Shadow Dragons and Lung Dragons and such are both non SRD True Dragons, and listed explicitly as True Dragons.

Again, the only requirements for being a True Dragon are as follows:

Be of the Dragon Type
Have age catagories as a dragon
Get stronger by becoming older

Dragonwrought Kobolds hit all three of these, which is true only for Dragonwrought Kobolds and the creatures explicitly marked as True Dragons. This is about RAW here, not what we as DMs would house rule due to balance.

And TooManySecrets is right about the designers just not thinking about this one. Skip himself is notorious for playing RAI instead of RAW anyway, which is terrible for a designer (he should be focused on turning RAW into RAI, not assuming people will house rule his miswordings!). I most certainly do not believe Kobolds were intended to use the Sovereign Archtypes. I have no idea if they were intended to be True Dragons... at the time of the writing of Races of the Dragon, Dragons of Eberron had not be written and thus being a True Dragon had no mechanical benefit. Frankly, considering the Kobold fluff it makes perfect sense for them to get to count as True Dragons, as they clearly do everything they can to do so (assigning themselves age catagories and such). It's just that the designation wasn't intended to actually mean anything fluffwise, but then Dragons of Eberron screwed that up by attempting to make standard True Dragons more playable by giving them a power boost without realizing that Kobolds got the same boost.

JaronK

JaronK
2010-01-02, 03:19 PM
I'm wasn't quoting, I was noting that because there is an entry for a True Dragon, a creature that isn't listed in that entry must explicitly state that it is a true dragon in order to be considered one.

Yet that's your opinion. There's no actual rule to indicate this. There's a general definition, after all, so it does not need to be restated. As long as something fits the definition, it counts.

JaronK

lesser_minion
2010-01-02, 03:20 PM
Considering there are a number of explicit True Dragons listed elsewhere, it's pretty easy to indicate that your logic is flawed. The SRD list is not exhaustive. Shadow Dragons and Lung Dragons and such are both non SRD True Dragons, and listed explicitly as True Dragons


A creature is a true dragon if it's in the entry or the rules note it as being a true dragon despite it not being there. There. Are. No. Exceptions.

I already allowed for the possibility of other True Dragons - in fact, you even admitted that Shadow and Lung dragons are explicitly noted as being true dragons.

I would also like a citation on your template argument.

JaronK
2010-01-02, 03:22 PM
When a rule is BS, I like to see an unambiguous citation before accepting it.

Read the template rules. When is the White Dragonspawn template applied? In this case, the answer is immediately. Now look at the leveling rules. When do you gain feats in the leveling process? The answer is after gaining class levels, which is clearly after the template is applied.

JaronK

JaronK
2010-01-02, 03:27 PM
A creature is a true dragon if it's in the entry or the rules note it as being a true dragon despite it not being there. There. Are. No. Exceptions.

Boy, sure is nice the rules note Kobolds being a True Dragon when they give them age catagories and advancement via aging?

We have a rules definition for True Dragon. We have a creature that fits the rules for a True Dragon. That's all we need. Your claim that it must say "True Dragon" in the entry is Lesser_Minion's rules, not RAW. After all, is the Tome of Ancient Lore a book? It doesn't say it is in the entry! It fits the definition, since it's a freaking Tome that you read, but it doesn't say it's a book. Is it a book?

JaronK

lesser_minion
2010-01-02, 03:31 PM
The ones that state that an acquired template can be acquired at any time (i.e. the rules do not mandate that they be taken into account before feats), you mean?

Having just read them, they support my argument.

Your interpretation cannot be considered RAS because it does not make sense and is not mandated by RAW.


Boy, sure is nice the rules note Kobolds being a True Dragon when they give them age catagories and advancement via aging?

They don't. The meaning of advancement by age category is only defined by the example that existed when the rule was written.

Yes, an example is an inadequate definition, but it's perfectly adequate to note that a kobold's "advancement by aging" is nothing like the example.

JaronK
2010-01-02, 03:35 PM
The ones that state that an acquired template can be acquired at any time (i.e. the rules do not mandate that they be taken into account before feats), you mean?

At any time includes immediately. The question is not "must White Dragonspawn be taken before Dragonwrought" but rather "can White Dragonspawn be taken before Dragonwrought." The answer is that it can, if applied at level 1.

The simple question for you is this. Can a White Dragonspawn Kobold take the Dragonwrought feat? Is there anything RAW about the Dragonwrought feat that precludes a White Dragonspawn Kobold from taking it? Look at the requirements for the feat. Does a White Dragonspawn Kobold violate those requirements?

Yes or No.

JaronK

JaronK
2010-01-02, 03:38 PM
They don't. The meaning of advancement by age category is only defined by the example that existed when the rule was written.

Yes, an example is an inadequate definition, but it's perfectly adequate to note that a kobold's "advancement by aging" is nothing like the example.

Examples are not exclusive. That's actually what example means... it's a sample of how something works, not the be all end all of every possible way it can work.

And can you please stop writing one argument, then going back and editting your post to add another? Just make a new post. Otherwise it's very confusing.

JaronK

Stormlock
2010-01-02, 03:59 PM
All true dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age.

That's pretty much enough said right there. +3 mental stats does not constitute an 'ability', let alone more than one ability. Otherwise you can argue anything is a true dragon, since most creatures gain mental stats (And therefore power) with age and the definition says nothing about losing physical stats disqualifying them. It is possible to both gain and lose power at the same time. Frightful presence is an ability. Damage reduction is an ability. Spell resistance is an ability. Breath weapons are abilities. Darkness and Plant Growth at will are abilities. Timeless Body is an ability. The stats almost every PC creature happens to gain by aging are not.

JaronK
2010-01-02, 04:03 PM
That's pretty much enough said right there. +3 mental stats does not constitute an 'ability', let alone more than one ability.

IIRC stats are defined as Natural Abilities (as is anything else in a character entry that's not defined as something else. Movement speed and reach are also natural abilities). So yes, they gain abilities.


Otherwise you can argue anything is a true dragon, since most creatures gain mental stats (And therefore power) with age and the definition says nothing about losing physical stats disqualifying them.

Actually nothing else has draconic age catagories. Just Kobolds and standard True Dragons. That disqualifies everybody else right there.

JaronK

Roland St. Jude
2010-01-02, 04:11 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please keep it civil in here.

lesser_minion
2010-01-02, 04:23 PM
@JaronK - I'm not sure this will go much further.

At no point does RAW forbid either of your interpretations. I've already pointed that out. But it doesn't require them, and there is a good reason not to accept them as standard.

My point is still the same - an interpretation of a rule that leads to nonsensical or game-breaking consequences can only be accepted as a standard if that interpretation is clearly required.

As an example: healing by drowning is RAS because RAW is clear that it should be.

I'm not about to accept your interpretation as a standard, and I don't see why anyone else should, unless you can find a very clear, unambiguous definition within the rules as written of "advancement by age category", or a very clear, unambiguous rule that states that templates must be applied before feats.

Stormlock
2010-01-02, 04:27 PM
IIRC stats are defined as Natural Abilities (as is anything else in a character entry that's not defined as something else. Movement speed and reach are also natural abilities). So yes, they gain abilities.



Actually nothing else has draconic age catagories. Just Kobolds and standard True Dragons. That disqualifies everybody else right there.

JaronK

They already have those stats. Aging simply improved them. They didn't gain any more abilities they didn't already have.

And all standard races have normal age categories, and gain mental stats with age. By your definition, Half orcs gain more abilities and power with age. Are they true dragons also?

Stormlock
2010-01-02, 04:29 PM
Lets throw the sentence after it in there too:


They range in length from several feet upon hatching to more than 100 feet after attaining the status of great wyrm.

So, just how big does that kobold get?

Pyro_Azer
2010-01-02, 04:47 PM
Lets throw the sentence after it in there too:



So, just how big does that kobold get?

Going by this white dragons are not true dragons either. At great wyrm they are gargantuan which is a maximum length of 64 feet.

JaronK
2010-01-02, 04:49 PM
I thought I'd already proved that. But here, I can go over it if you like.

Point one: Dragonwrought White Dragonspawn Kobolds. We'll use the rules exactly as written on page 6 of the Player's Handbook. Note that these rules say they're for creating a first level character, but the same rules apply to character creation at any level (the DMG talks about that). First, we check with our DM to make sure that we're allowed to do what we want. For argument's sake, this DM plays exactly by RAW and allows us to do anything that fits the rules. Next we assign ability scores (technically, page 6 says we roll them, but point buy is better!). Now we chose Class and Race. We'll make him a White Dragonspawn Kobold Sorcerer. These are chosen at the same time. Next we assign and adjust ability scores. We'll put Charisma high and do some other stuff that's irrelevant to this example here. Now we review the starting package for our class, which we don't actually care about. Now we record racial and class features. Next step is to assign skills. And now, finally, after all that, we select a feat. A White Dragonspawn Kobold qualifies for the Dragonwrought feat, so we take that.

As you can see, as per the rules on page 6 of the PHB, we chose the Dragonwrouight feat LONG after we've created a White Dragonspawn Kobold. Since the Dragonwrought feat only requires that you be a first level Kobold (and we are, though our ECL is two), we're good to go here... a White Dragonspawn Kobold fits that description. Note that if we were a Dragonwrought Kobold, we could not then become a White Dragonspawn at a later date, for obvious reasons. For reference, the Dragonwought feat is on page 100 of Races of the Dragon.

Now, I hope that's all clear. I'll go into the other stuff in another post, for ease of quoting and clarity.

JaronK

JaronK
2010-01-02, 04:53 PM
They already have those stats. Aging simply improved them. They didn't gain any more abilities they didn't already have.

And all standard races have normal age categories, and gain mental stats with age. By your definition, Half orcs gain more abilities and power with age. Are they true dragons also?

No, they do not have age catagories. Age Catagories are specific to dragons. They do have ages, just not age catagories. Kobolds have age catagories, as per table 3-2 on page 39 of Races of the Dragon. The table is called "Kobold Age Catagories." Note that Kobolds also use "the same life cycle as dragons." Note the distinct lack of a table called "Half Orc Age Catagories."

Furthermore, the bonus to stats gained from aging (whether from age catagories or otherwise) is in fact a Natural Ability, just like size bonuses to stats (unless otherwise noted).

JaronK

Stormlock
2010-01-02, 04:57 PM
Going by this white dragons are not true dragons either. At great wyrm they are gargantuan which is a maximum length of 64 feet.

64 feet from nose to base of tail. Their tail can easily be another 36 feet.

Does your kobold have a 96 foot tail?

Pyro_Azer
2010-01-02, 05:00 PM
64 feet from nose to base of tail. Their tail can easily be another 36 feet.

Does your kobold have a 96 foot tail?

Wrong. 64 feet is the description for total length not from nose to base of tail. Even if it is then that would their official length making them still not fufill the required 100.

Stormlock
2010-01-02, 05:03 PM
No, they do not have age catagories. Age Catagories are specific to dragons. They do have ages, just not age catagories. Kobolds have age catagories, as per table 3-2 on page 39 of Races of the Dragon. The table is called "Kobold Age Catagories." Note that Kobolds also use "the same life cycle as dragons." Note the distinct lack of a table called "Half Orc Age Catagories."
JaronK


Whether you call them categories or columns, Half orcs gain just as many mental stats as kobolds as they age. The SRD makes no mention of categories in the decription of true dragons. It mentions more abilities (as in, plural abilities it didn't previously possess). It doesn't even say they have to have a Dragon Type.

Pyro_Azer
2010-01-02, 05:07 PM
Whether you call them categories or columns, Half orcs gain just as many mental stats as kobolds as they age. The SRD makes no mention of categories in the decription of true dragons. It mentions more abilities (as in, plural abilities it didn't previously possess). It doesn't even say they have to have a Dragon Type.

Which is why Dracinomicon does.

Stormlock
2010-01-02, 05:09 PM
Wrong. 64 feet is the description for total length not from nose to base of tail. Even if it is then that would their official length making them still not fufill the required 100.

Nonsense. 64 feet is the description from nose to base of tail on a quadraped. It says so in the relevant table. Body length. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm#bigandLittleCreatu resInCombat

It is used to define the size category of creatures because creatures with excessively long tails would otherwise be in categories they do not belong. A small monkey, for example, would be a medium sized creature, if it's tail extended far enough. This in no way precludes a gargantuan dragon being over 100feet in length from nose to tip being a requisite for being a true dragon.

JaronK
2010-01-02, 05:14 PM
Okay, so next up is Dragonwrought Kobolds as True Dragons. First let's note that there's a lot of contradictory information on True Dragons. The SRD states:


"The known varieties of true dragons (as opposed to other creatures that have the dragon type) fall into two broad categories: chromatic and metallic. The chromatic dragons are black, blue, green, red, and white; they are all evil and extremely fierce. The metallic dragons are brass, bronze, copper, gold, and silver; they are all good, usually noble, and highly respected by the wise.

All true dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age. (Other creatures that have the dragon type do not.) They range in length from several feet upon hatching to more than 100 feet after attaining the status of great wyrm. The size of a particular dragon varies according to age and variety.

A dragon’s metabolism operates like a highly efficient furnace and can metabolize even inorganic material. Some dragons have developed a taste for such fare. "

This is full of incorrect information. Not all True Dragons are Chromatic or Metallic (Gem Dragons, Lung Dragons, Shadow Dragons, Planar Dragons, and so on are neither). White Dragons never grow to over 100 feet. Furthermore, in some places there is the statement that True Dragons are Endothermic, while Races of the Dragon on page 39 agrees with the above quote that dragons are in fact warm blooded (this quote calls them a furnace). Clearly, this definition does not fit for many creatures listed as True Dragons, and doesn't even fit for all True Dragons in core. So we pretty much have to ignore it. We need a rock solid statement of what a True Dragon is in D&D.

Wiki gives another online source, with this quote:


The third edition of Dungeons & Dragons classifies dragon as a type of creature, simply defined as "a reptilelike creature, usually winged, with magical or unusual abilities" [8]. The dragon type is broken down into several classifications. True dragons are dragons which increase in power by age categories (wyrmling to great wyrm). Lesser dragons do not improve in age categories and may lack all of the abilities of true dragons. Examples of lesser dragons include dragon turtles and wyverns. Other creatures with the dragon type include drakes, felldrakes, elemental drakes, landwyrms, linnorms and wurms. (An unrelated creature called a dragonne is named for its coincidental resemblance to a brass dragon.)

This jives nicely with the Draconomicron's definition on page 4:


"True Dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older" and then goes on to say
"Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance through age catagories are referred to as lesser dragons."

Okay, now that's a nice solid definition that we can work with. So, as per RAW, any creature that has the following attributes are in fact True Dragons:

1: Must be of the Dragon type.
2: Must advance through Age Catagories.
3: Must "become more powerful as they grow older."

Note that abilities are not actually listed as a requirement.

And at this point we must go over what Dragonwrought actually does. According to page 39 of Races of the Dragon "Ability penalties due to age do not apply to Dragonwrought Kobolds." Page 100 of Races of the Dragon has the actual feat, and it sets your type to Dragon. Okay, cool.

So, point 1: Are Dragonrought Kobolds dragons? Of course. The feat explicitly makes them so. Stormlock has claimed that Half Orcs could be True Dragons, but they can't because they're not Dragons.

Point 2: Do Dragonwrought Kobolds advance through age catagories? In context, this part doesn't mean they get stronger via age catagories, only that they go through them (point 3 will get to getting stronger). As per page 39 of Races of the Dragon, Table 3-2 "Kobold Age Catagories", they indeed do. Note that non Kobolds do NOT have age catagories. The Players Handbook has table 6-5 "Aging Effects" on page 109, but says nothing about age catagories. This is why a Half Dragon Half Orc also is not a True Dragon... he has no age catagories. Only Kobolds and things listed explicitly as True Dragons elsewhere have Age Catagories.

Point 3: Do Dragonwrought Kobolds "become more powerful as they grow older?" Absolutely. They in fact slowly gain bonuses to their mental stats, up to +3 when they gain Great Wyrm status.

Thus, Dragonwrought Kobolds meet all the requirements on page 4 of the Draconomicron, which is the only book to give a clear and non contradictory definition (in a convenient sidebar, no less) of True Dragons. While there is contradictory fluff in the various online sources and in campaign setting specific books (claiming that all True Dragons grow over 100 feet when White Dragons clearly don't, or that True Dragons are both Endo and Exothermic), this is the only clear and concise definition. Note that no race other than Dragonwrought Kobolds and things listed as True Dragons actually matches the True Dragon definition... not Half Orcs, not Half Dragons (who are not Kobolds), not anything.

Hopefully that should clear everything up, with source material. And let's all remember that the primary source material (the books) is what is important. When books contradict the SRD, the books always trump. So let's stop trying to use SRD definitions to contradict the Draconomicron and Races of the Dragon, which are the primary source books on the topics of True Dragons and Kobolds, respectively.

JaronK

lesser_minion
2010-01-02, 05:18 PM
RAW doesn't require that an acquired template be considered a part of your race (it clearly isn't how you were born), and it makes equal sense to put gaining an acquired template under description, which follows feats, as it reflects a specific event in your character's backstory.

Since feats exist that represent similar factors to a character's race or an inherited template, it makes sense to require that acquired templates be applied afterwards, in all cases.

And your interpretation of RAW is non-standard because it creates problems, and an equally valid interpretation exists.

True Dragons cannot be defined as anything but "those creatures listed in the SRD's True Dragon entry, or those creatures which are otherwise noted as being a true dragon."

From there, we go to the Draconomicon, which adds that a True Dragon must possess the dragon type and advance by age category.

We have been given a number of examples which are inarguably true dragons, and in every case, each age category is effectively a different creature under the same entry.

We note that while kobolds do not suffer ageing penalties (so only get stronger as they age), and that Races of the Dragon does describe twelve age categories for them:


They effectively follow the same rules as other humanoids, just with more steps defined.
Their advancement by age category does not follow the conventions laid out by any definite example of a true dragon


Those are certainly big enough issues that "advance by age category" can be put up to debate, and from there, we go straight back to establishing a standard by looking at the consequences of different rulings.

Pyro_Azer
2010-01-02, 05:23 PM
RAW doesn't require that an acquired template be considered a part of your race (it clearly isn't how you were born), and it makes equal sense to put gaining an acquired template under description, which follows feats, as it reflects a specific event in your character's backstory.

Since feats exist that represent similar factors to a character's race or an inherited template, it makes sense to require that acquired templates be applied afterwards, in all cases.

This makes absolutely no sense at all. The description of a character cannot alter stats, grant extra forms of movement, give you SLA's or immunities. Templates do this. It makes much more sense to put it under races which is how what you are mechanically alters the game.

Stormlock
2010-01-02, 05:30 PM
Your entire argument is that the SRD isn't a valid reference in a RAW argument? I think we're done here.:smallsigh:

lesser_minion
2010-01-02, 05:30 PM
This makes absolutely no sense at all. The description of a character cannot alter stats, grant extra forms of movement, give you SLA's or immunities. Templates do this. It makes much more sense to put it under races which is how what you are mechanically alters the game.

It's an event that has occurred. If you want to say "this happened to my character", you do so as part of your description, even if "this happening" has a mechanical impact.

An Acquired Template isn't what you are in the same way as an Inherited Template or a character race. Interestingly, there is precedence for both feats and classes to reflect what you are in this way, however.

Pyro_Azer
2010-01-02, 05:33 PM
Your entire argument is that the SRD isn't a valid reference in a RAW argument? I think we're done here.:smallsigh:

The SRD is a valid reference for a Raw argument. However, the SRD is sometimes inconsistent or incorrect. Also dracinomicon's definition came out after the MM therefore it is more recent and being more recent means it is the correct one.

JaronK
2010-01-02, 05:35 PM
Your entire argument is that the SRD isn't a valid reference in a RAW argument? I think we're done here.:smallsigh:

No, that when the SRD is contradicted by the books, the books are the primary source and thus trump. If you cannot understand that, we are indeed done here, as you're unfamiliar with the primary source rules and evidently unwilling to look them up. The SRD is only a valid source for RAW arguments when it is not superceeded by the original source material books.

JaronK

Pyro_Azer
2010-01-02, 05:37 PM
It's an event that has occurred. If you want to say "this happened to my character", you do so as part of your description, even if "this happening" has a mechanical impact.

Also note the rest of what I said.

Sorry I posted before you edited.

I do not think that establishing a standard has much to do with it. Raw is the chasis of D&D but by no means the standard for play. While I think it is silly to use such rules lawyering in an actual game as it is very powerful, I still think it is RAW and possibly deserves a houserule.

lesser_minion
2010-01-02, 05:38 PM
No, that when the SRD is contradicted by the books, the books are the primary source and thus trump. If you cannot understand that, we are indeed done here, as you're unfamiliar with the primary source rules and evidently unwilling to look them up.

JaronK

I see no important contradictions.

Also, you might want to take a minute to remember what the SRD is, because the rule you're disregarding actually does take precedence.


Sorry I posted before you edited.

I do not think that establishing a standard has much to do with it. Raw is the chasis of D&D but by no means the standard for play. While I think it is silly to use such rules lawyering in an actual game as it is very powerful, I still think it is RAW and possibly deserves a houserule.

That's an interesting point, but RAW is what we use as a standard for discussion. I think we can do better than that.

JaronK
2010-01-02, 05:42 PM
RAW doesn't require that an acquired template be considered a part of your race (it clearly isn't how you were born), and it makes equal sense to put gaining an acquired template under description, which follows feats, as it reflects a specific event in your character's backstory.

Templates are part of your race. Note that there is no other time in the rules I quoted in the PHB to apply templates (please review the pages I quoted, I took the time to point them out for you and read them over, the least you could do is take a peek). Discription is about writing the fluff, not mechanics.

Furthermore, there are Racial Substitution Levels in Unearthed Arcana (and SRD) for Half Dragons. Knowing that, are you going to stand by the claim that Templates are not part of your Race?


Since feats exist that represent similar factors to a character's race or an inherited template, it makes sense to require that acquired templates be applied afterwards, in all cases.

Feats are explicitly different from Race. They are assigned far later in the process, after class and race.


And your interpretation of RAW is non-standard because it creates problems, and an equally valid interpretation exists.

Your argument boils down to "it's overpowered, thus it can't be RAW." You WANT Kobolds to not be True Dragons, and thus confirmation bias insists that you be right. Drop that, and look at this nuetrally, not from a perspective of "what would make the game better" but rather "what do the game rules say." It's okay to house rule this one away... Kobolds should NOT have access to Loredrake. But the base rules do allow for it.


True Dragons cannot be defined as anything but "those creatures listed in the SRD's True Dragon entry, or those creatures which are otherwise noted as being a true dragon."

You put that in quotes, but you seem to be quoting yourself. See how I use the real rules?

JaronK

JaronK
2010-01-02, 05:46 PM
I see no important contradictions.

Also, you might want to take a minute to remember what the SRD is, because it actually trumps everything.

Fail dude. Fail. The SRD is a reference document. It's for reference. It never trumps anything, ever. From the SRD: "The Hypertext d20 SRDTM is intended to be a useful supplement to published rulebooks. It is not intended to replace them."

JaronK

lesser_minion
2010-01-02, 05:59 PM
Your argument boils down to "it's overpowered, thus it can't be RAW." You WANT Kobolds to not be True Dragons, and thus confirmation bias insists that you be right. Drop that, and look at this nuetrally, not from a perspective of "what would make the game better" but rather "what do the game rules say." It's okay to house rule this one away... Kobolds should NOT have access to Loredrake. But the base rules do allow for it.

Please don't strawman.

I noted very clearly that your interpretation does not contradict the rules as written.

I then went on to point out that there was an equally valid interpretation that was less problematic, and therefore a better choice for including in RAS.

Problematic rules can quite easily be part of rules as written, but any problematic interpretation of RAW has to be pretty robust before it should be accepted as a standard.


Templates are part of your race. Note that there is no other time in the rules I quoted in the PHB to apply templates (please review the pages I quoted, I took the time to point them out for you and read them over, the least you could do is take a peek). Discription is about writing the fluff, not mechanics.

Furthermore, there are Racial Substitution Levels in Unearthed Arcana (and SRD) for Half Dragons. Knowing that, are you going to stand by the claim that Templates are not part of your Race?

I said that Acquired Templates are not part of your race. They aren't. Inherited templates, sure. But not acquired templates, which reflect an event which has happened to your character, and can be applied at any time (we then establish RAS by noting that this can be interpreted in a way that causes problems).


Feats are explicitly different from Race. They are assigned far later in the process, after class and race.

There is a lot of precedent for the idea that a feat can represent something similar to your character's race. There is no such precedent for an acquired template, which by definition cannot be.


You put that in quotes, but you seem to be quoting yourself. See how I use the real rules?

Find a real answer.

Real rules: there is an entry that details True Dragons. Thus, the SRD (and overriding) definition of a True Dragon is "A dragon detailed in this entry".

Your "real rules" aren't even rules. In both cases, you are quoting flavour text.

The Draconomicon and Dragon Magazine both list additional dragons that can be considered True Dragons.


Fail dude. Fail. The SRD is a reference document. It's for reference. It never trumps anything, ever. From the SRD: "The Hypertext d20 SRDTM is intended to be a useful supplement to published rulebooks. It is not intended to replace them."

I quoted the RTF SRD, which lacks that disclaimer.

Most of the material from the SRD, including the entry for true dragons, is taken directly from the core rulebooks, which take absolute precedence over all other published D&D products.

JaronK
2010-01-02, 06:19 PM
I said that Acquired Templates are not part of your race. They aren't. Inherited templates, sure. But not acquired templates, which reflect an event which has happened to your character, and can be applied at any time (we then establish RAS by noting that this can be interpreted in a way that causes problems).

The default rule is that templates are part of race (you acknowledge this for Inherited). Thus, we'd need a specific rule stating acquired templates are not. Please quote this rule. Don't quote yourself this time, quote a book.


There is a lot of precedent for the idea that a feat can represent something similar to your character's race. There is no such precedent for an acquired template, which by definition cannot be.

Please quote this definition, with page reference. Remember, this is a game where your race can change midway through. Real genetics do not apply.


At no point have I suggested that I am talking about anything but RAS (Rules as Standard).

Rules as standard is just another way of staying Rules as I Play them, hiding the fact that you're talking about what you think is RAI. They're not relevant to anything, as I do not play in your game, and neither do the vast majority of other posters on a forum. If you're not arguing RAW, then your argument is irrelevant anyway, just state that you like X house rules and be done with it.


This is very simple: If the rules as written are not cast iron (which they aren't), then the standard should be determined based on what causes the fewest problems and seems closest to the intent of the designers.

Just because you claim the rules aren't cast in iron doesn't mean they actually aren't. We have a VERY specific definition of True Dragon given in the source book that specializes in True Dragons. Anything that meets that definition is a True Dragon.


Translation: Your RAW interpretation is not strong enough to disallow RAI and RAMS.

Translation: you're talking about your game. This is irrelevant. RAW is the only thing relevant on a forum, especially when you're trying to debunk a rule. RAI is subjective. RAW is not.


Real rules: there is an entry that details True Dragons. Thus, the SRD (and overriding) definition of a True Dragon is "A dragon detailed in this entry".

The SRD is a Reference Document. Here's a definition: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/reference-document.html

Reference Documents never override the actual material, ever. You've spent a good bit of time now quoting yourself and the reference document, while I'm referencing the books. This indicates that your point is invalid.

And note that the SRD definition you just quoted is clearly false, as it claims that the only True Dragons are the one in that entry, despite the fact that there are clearly others.


The Draconomicon and Dragon Magazine both list additional dragons that can be considered True Dragons.

They both list examples, and they list lesser dragons too. Since Kobolds appear on neither list, that is irrelevant. The lists are not exclusive, and Kobolds are not listed as either of the two possibilities. Since your argument is that Dragonwrought Kobolds are Lesser Dragons, the same argument would also apply that since they're not listed as lesser dragons, they must be true. That's obviously a facetious argument.

Also note that the fact that they list other True Dragons indicates that your SRD source is once again false.


Most of the material from the SRD, including the entry for true dragons, is taken directly from the core rulebooks, which take absolute precedence over all other published D&D products.

Not when other D&D books are more specific. The specific always overrides the general. In this case, a book on True Dragons will always trump a book on monsters in general (the Monster Manual, btw) on the topic of True Dragons.

Once again, Draconomicron is the primary source on True Dragons (and in fact Dragons in general). Races of the Dragon is the primary source on Kobolds (not Monster Manual). The fact that I'm quoting only from the primary sources while you have to use only general sources that were printed earlier should tell you something. Or do you believe that Spirit Dragons, Planar Dragons, and Gem Dragons are not True Dragons, as the Monster Manual (and SRD) claim?

JaronK

Ozymandias9
2010-01-02, 06:26 PM
Again, the only requirements for being a True Dragon are as follows:

Be of the Dragon Type
Have age catagories as a dragon
Get stronger by becoming older

This is only even a discussion because the don't use the word "advancement".

To quote the SRD "The advancement line shows how tough a creature can get, in terms of extra Hit Dice." The description of True Dragon expounds these basic requirements without actually using the words "Hit Die" or "advancement".

None the less, with the examples provided throughout the bulk of monster entries, its pretty clear that they do mean "advancement" by their description. It's one of the less reasonably debatable RAI issues.

On another note, I would like to point out that there is no explicit requirement for the rules to be logically consistent (though I do value such consistency over RAW personally).

JaronK
2010-01-02, 06:53 PM
I might agree more if that scentance was in Monster Manual (which uses Advancement like that) but this is Draconomicron. I agree it's the best potential argument against it. But by the dictionary definition, a Kobold certainly advances through age catagories.

JaronK

lesser_minion
2010-01-02, 07:07 PM
The default rule is that templates are part of race (you acknowledge this for Inherited). Thus, we'd need a specific rule stating acquired templates are not. Please quote this rule. Don't quote yourself this time, quote a book.

Please quote a source for your "default rule".

An inherited template has to be applied before an acquired one, and can only ever be acquired as the character is created. That's about the only important rule regarding the two.


Please quote this definition, with page reference. Remember, this is a game where your race can change midway through. Real genetics do not apply.

AFB. You seem to think that a lack of access to the books somehow impedes my reasoning. It doesn't, strangely enough. It just means that you could theoretically find a problem with some of my facts, and if you actually did so, I would be perfectly happy to accept it.


Rules as standard is just another way of staying Rules as I Play them, hiding the fact that you're talking about what you think is RAI. They're not relevant to anything, as I do not play in your game, and neither do the vast majority of other posters on a forum. If you're not arguing RAW, then your argument is irrelevant anyway, just state that you like X house rules and be done with it.

Not so, as I have explained repeatedly.

Rules As Standard are the meaningful rules for discussion purposes, and consist of Rules as Written wherever they are absolutely clear, and the least problematic interpretation of RAW possible where they aren't absolutely clear.

I thought I had made this clear enough every single time I posted.

Compare and contrast Caster Logic, where the most problematic interpretation of rules as written is used.


Just because you claim the rules aren't cast in iron doesn't mean they actually aren't. We have a VERY specific definition of True Dragon given in the source book that specializes in True Dragons. Anything that meets that definition is a True Dragon.

Well, the draconomicon's definition of a true dragon is certainly quite specific. I'm contesting your interpretation of "advances by age category", and you haven't given me a justification for why we can have one true dragon type that possesses age categories but doesn't use them in any way even remotely resembling the way every uncontested example of a true dragon does.


Translation: you're talking about your game. This is irrelevant. RAW is the only thing relevant on a forum, especially when you're trying to debunk a rule. RAI is subjective. RAW is not.

Translation: you're talking BS.

RAW is the exact text on the page. It cannot always be understood, because the rules of the game weren't well written. Parts of what you seem to think of as "the most holy RAW" are actually subjective, like this one.

RAS is what most people call RAW - it's the rules as used on a forum. You know, things like the drowning rules (which are RAS, but aren't how I play).

We have two interpretations of this rule that do not contradict the rules as written anywhere. From there, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the less problematic one is the one that's important for purposes of general forum discussion.


The SRD is a Reference Document. Here's a definition: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/reference-document.html

Reference Documents never override the actual material, ever. You've spent a good bit of time now quoting yourself and the reference document, while I'm referencing the books. This indicates that your point is invalid.


Also BS. I'm AFB right now, but go check your monster manual.

As I said, this particular document is the actual material.


And note that the SRD definition you just quoted is clearly false, as it claims that the only True Dragons are the one in that entry, despite the fact that there are clearly others.

You mean the one I disregarded as flavour text?

At no point do the rules preclude the existence of true dragons beyond the core ones (in the same way as they do not preclude the existence of elven subraces beyond the core ones, or is the SRD absolutely wrong on that, too?) At no point did my argument require that they do.


They both list examples, and they list lesser dragons too. Since Kobolds appear on neither list, that is irrelevant. The lists are not exclusive, and Kobolds are not listed as either of the two possibilities. Since your argument is that Dragonwrought Kobolds are Lesser Dragons, the same argument would also apply that since they're not listed as lesser dragons, they must be true. That's obviously a facetious argument.

This isn't particularly important to my argument. In fact, it demonstrates very clearly that I do not believe true dragons to be limited to solely the ones in the SRD. My argument does not require that to be the case, so I don't see why you keep arguing it.


Also note that the fact that they list other True Dragons indicates that your SRD source is once again false.

It isn't. There is an entry named "True Dragon". There are True Dragons outside of that entry, and the Draconomicon provides us with some rules that allow us to figure out what they are.

The

Your definition of "advance by age category" is not good enough.


Not when other D&D books are more specific. The specific always overrides the general. In this case, a book on True Dragons will always trump a book on monsters in general (the Monster Manual, btw) on the topic of True Dragons.

Once again, Draconomicron is the primary source on True Dragons (and in fact Dragons in general). Races of the Dragon is the primary source on Kobolds (not Monster Manual). The fact that I'm quoting only from the primary sources while you have to use only general sources that were printed earlier should tell you something. Or do you believe that Spirit Dragons, Planar Dragons, and Gem Dragons are not True Dragons, as the Monster Manual (and SRD) claim?

Neither the MM nor the SRD claims any such thing. Try using logic.

Doc Roc
2010-01-02, 07:10 PM
So even if what you say is true, there's nothing to stop me from using level-drain combined with a steel wyrmling and some PaO mojo to stack it even deeper.

Or similar tricks with a kobold.

Basically, all you have any chance of proving is that it's not easy. Not that it's impossible.

lesser_minion
2010-01-02, 07:15 PM
So even if what you say is true, there's nothing to stop me from using level-drain combined with a steel wyrmling and some PaO mojo to stack it even deeper.

Or similar tricks with a kobold.

Basically, all you have any chance of proving is that it's not easy. Not that it's impossible.

Nice catch, actually. You could acquire a template while subjected to a polymorph effect that allowed you to qualify for it (making feats before templates or vice versa irrelevant to this discussion).

That one cannot be contested, unlike the game definition of "advancement by age category", or the order in which characters gain feats and templates, so it's basically standard.

All I'm really interested in is how the text on the page translates to RAS.

It cannot always be interpreted clearly enough to be standard, and I believe that the current convention for RAS (in such cases, go with whatever you want) doesn't really help anyone much.

IMO, "it flies if it's the only reasonable interpretation of the text on the page, or if it is reasonable and doesn't contradict the text on the page" is a much better and more useful standard for discussion. And contrary to what JaronK may think, it certainly isn't "Rules as used in my game". It only excludes cheesey or nonsensical rules where the interpretation can be contested.

JaronK
2010-01-02, 07:29 PM
Please quote a source for your "default rule".

Monster Manual page 291.


An inherited template has to be applied before an acquired one, and can only ever be acquired as the character is created. That's about the only important rule regarding the two.

Dragonwrought, despite being described like one, is not a template. It is a feat.


AFB. You seem to think that a lack of access to the books somehow impedes my reasoning. It doesn't, strangely enough. It just means that you could theoretically find a problem with some of my facts, and if you actually did so, I would be perfectly happy to accept it.

You do not have the primary books. That's why you haven't been accurate this entire time. Since this whole debate boils down to "what do the books say" the fact that you're not reading the books indicates you are not capable of debating.

I've already shredded your "facts" rather soundly at this point. Wait till you have your books, then look up the information. Find out what the books actually say, not what the SRD says (since the SRD is not the primary source on any topic, and core is not the primary source on this particular topic). Then you can debate on what RAW (rules as written in the books) says. Right now you're just arguing without factual evidence.

JaronK

Milskidasith
2010-01-02, 07:30 PM
IMO, "it flies if it's the only reasonable interpretation of the text on the page, or if it is reasonable and doesn't contradict the text on the page" is a much better and more useful standard for discussion. And contrary to what JaronK may think, it certainly isn't "Rules as used in my game". It only excludes cheesey or nonsensical rules where the interpretation can be contested.

No, this is not. What's reasonable for some is not reasonable for others. Some people think blasting is overpowered, some people ban the ToB, some people play (or rather, don't play) psions because they think they can nova for a few hundred d6 of damage, some people think that monks are as good as wizards, and some people play with really strange house rules (critical failures, auto-successes and failures on skill checks, etc.)

Trying to discuss "Rules as Standard" because your rules are not going to be the same as my rules, or Doc's rules, or JaronK's rules, or anybody elses rules.

JaronK
2010-01-02, 07:41 PM
No wonder this debate was going nowhere. I was debating RAW, he was debating his own personal game that I'll never even see (and that no one else on the forum will see) without even looking at the books. Hey, how about I use my houserules to debate too?

Loredrake is fine on Kobolds, and not even overpowered, because Sorcerers are so nerfed in my gestalt game that attempting to cast spells often kills them anyway. In fact, all casters massively suck! Only melee classes and skillmonkeys are any good.

And Loredrake on Kobolds is fine in my other game too, because the players are only allowed to be humans or halflings, so only NPCs can have it.

Boy, this is a useful debate this way, isn't it? Oh wait, it's not. The reason it's only useful to debate RAW on the forums, and not RAI, is because house rules don't carry across between forum members, but RAW does. Once we know what RAW is, each of us can add in our own house rules to rebalance or reflavor the game as we see fit. It's fine to discuss what someone's house rules are as well, since other posters can then decide if those house rules might be good in their games too. But trying to debate what RAI or as you call it RAS is as though either of those were in any way objective facts ends up being a fools game.

JaronK

lesser_minion
2010-01-02, 07:52 PM
No, this is not. What's reasonable for some is not reasonable for others. Some people think blasting is overpowered, some people ban the ToB, some people play (or rather, don't play) psions because they think they can nova for a few hundred d6 of damage, some people think that monks are as good as wizards, and some people play with really strange house rules (critical failures, auto-successes and failures on skill checks, etc.)

Trying to discuss "Rules as Standard" because your rules are not going to be the same as my rules, or Doc's rules, or JaronK's rules, or anybody elses rules.

No. Just no. Although I should probably rephrase my post.

My point was, very clearly, that the text on the page sometimes cannot be interpreted in one single way

When that happens, we need a guideline on what to use as a standard, rather than taking absolutely any interpretation as valid (which, I will admit, is the current convention, and one which certainly does allow this trick to work).

I suggested trying to establish which interpretation was least problematic, and if that failed, trying to infer whatever the designers intended.

Dragonwrought kobolds can take acquired templates that require you to not be a dragon, because your type can change temporarily. You don't lose templates when you stop meeting the requirements.

I doubt that anybody here would allow that in anything but a TO game. But it works as a standard because it cannot be contested, even though it is overpowered and probably contrary to the intent of the designers.

However, I think there are certainly good enough reasons to dispute JaronK's interpretation that a Dragonwrought kobold is considered a true dragon, and we have already demonstrated that that interpretation is problematic.

I think that's enough justification to ignore that interpretation for the purposes of discussion.

For most theoretical optimisers, I'd have thought that avoiding contestable interpretations of the rules would add to the challenge.


No wonder this debate was going nowhere. I was debating RAW, he was debating his own personal game that I'll never even see (and that no one else on the forum will see) without even looking at the books. Hey, how about I use my houserules to debate too?

I am not debating my own personal game that nobody will ever see, I am disputing your use of RAIITAYCPMWN, when it is perfectly possible to establish a real standard.

I even explained repeatedly what that standard was, and gave you the chance to dispute it.

Why is it suddenly houseruling to take two perfectly valid interpretations of the RAW and pick the least problematic one instead of the broken one?

Please, enlighten me.

You haven't demonstrated that the alternative definition of a true dragon is not substantiated by the rules, so you still don't have an argument.

This isn't going anywhere because you can't prove your interpretation incontestable, but I can demonstrate pretty clearly that as long as it isn't incontestable, there is no good reason to accept it.

PS. I can also admit where I was wrong. There is a way to get the template onto the dragonwrought kobold, there just isn't any way to qualify for Loredrake.

The bottom line is that:

- RAW is the words on a page (and any and all valid interpretations)

- RAI is what we think the designers meant, and we avoid it because it's hard to infer from the text.

- RAS is the exact same thing as RAW, except where the rules can be interpreted more than one way. At those points, someone has to work out a guideline for which rule to use.

- RAIITAYCPMWN is essentially the rules as written, favouring interpretations that suit the poster's argument. What we've actually been debating, basically.

- RAP is the rules that are actually used in play, and are completely different to RAS/RAW/RAIITAYCPMWN because RAS has a lot of idiotic mistakes.


Basically, yes, if we go back to the post that started this:


@JaronK - I'm not sure this will go much further.

At no point does RAW forbid either of your interpretations. I've already pointed that out. But it doesn't require them, and there is a good reason not to accept them as standard.

My point is still the same - an interpretation of a rule that leads to nonsensical or game-breaking consequences can only be accepted as a standard if that interpretation is clearly required.

As an example: healing by drowning is RAS because RAW is clear that it should be.

By RAW, what you say is both correct, and incorrect, because the rule isn't completely clear and we have two interpretations.

By RAIITAYCPMWN, we're both right, for obvious reasons.

Current RAS is to do the exact opposite of what I've suggested doing, and favour the worst possible interpretation. You win on that one.

What I'm suggesting is to change RAS to the best possible interpretation of a rule.

JaronK
2010-01-02, 08:04 PM
It's house rules because you're not even looking at the books. You even quoted yourself in there at one point. That's your interpretations, not the rules. And for the record, there are no "Rules as Standard." That's "Rules as Lesser Minion interprets them" which is something else entirely.

And the reason it's houseruling is because you're choosing your rulings based on what's most convenient or balanced, not what's most logically correct from the rules as given. As you say yourself, you are choosing to "pick the least problematic one instead of the broken one." You're not picking the one that most logically follows from the rules as given. That is houseruling, especially when you ignore clearly given rules (such deciding that your template was not part of your race in the case of acquired templates, or that a feat can count as being taken before race is chosen and can invalidate the template). It's rules as you want them to be, not rules as they are. If you were debating RAW, you would never "pick the least problematic one instead of the broken one" You would only pick the one that is written down on the page.

JaronK

JaronK
2010-01-02, 08:08 PM
You haven't demonstrated that the alternative definition of a true dragon is not substantiated by the rules, so you still don't have an argument.

I did, several times. Your alternative definitions of True Dragon have always in some way discounted actual True Dragons as not being True Dragons. Each one you've brought up violates something, whether it's wingless Lung Dragons or too short White Dragons or Gem Dragons that are neither Chromatic nor Metallic. Since your definition leads to logical contradictions, it is false.

Secondly, since the definitions you've given also contradict a more specific source on the topic, they are also overridden. Draconomicron is the more specific source on the topic of True Dragons than the Monster Manual or the SRD. This automatically voids any alternate definition found in those two sources that disagrees with the Draconomicron.

So your "alternative definition" is logically incompatable with the rules and overridden elsewhere in the rules. Is this clear enough for you?

JaronK

HCL
2010-01-02, 08:09 PM
The Dragonomicon, dragons of eberron, and monster manuals imply that True Dragons are those that gain racial hit dies and spellcasting. But they just say "abilities". And because of that, Great wyrm kobolds qualify for Loredrake by raw since the Great Wyrm gives you better abilities (+3 to all mental abilities, specifically) compared to a wyrmling.

By RAW it does work. If I was DM I would not allow aspects from Dragons of Ebberron, or White Dragonspawn, or epic feats. I would probably ban alter self and polymorph while im at it just in case of shapeshifting into a dragon. Or epic feats pre-epic

Zeful
2010-01-02, 08:15 PM
Get stronger by becoming older

Kobolds don't gain Str bonues as they advance in age categories. Therefore they do not get stronger. Therefore they are not True Dragons.

There discussion over.

JaronK
2010-01-02, 08:17 PM
Loredrake of course also doesn't work if you simply don't use Eberron material, and White Dragonspawn has the danger that you now work for a White Dragon. Of course, as a Kobold that's a high honor anyway, so it doesn't matter much.

I'm actually in a nearly all Kobold group (the rest of the players are other draconics like Dragonborns) playing through WLD. It's such a hard dungeon that we actually do use the Sovereign Archtypes... I've got a Cloistered Cleric/PrC Paladin Kobold with the Archtype that gives bonus feats, and we do have a Sorcerer with Loredrake. Of course, we're also playing stupidly on purpose, with a righteous lawful good stick up the butt style play. We wanted to see if phenominal cosmic power could beat out in character stupidity. So far it's worked pretty well... our main tank kicks open every door while shouting that all enemies of light should stand back before the might of dragons, because sneaking up would be dishonorable. Only one of us has died so far (which ain't bad for WLD). We even had one moment where the enemy in the room turned out to be kobolds, who immediately said "Okay, we like dragons!"

JaronK

Reinboom
2010-01-02, 08:18 PM
This... argument is absurd.

In Dragons of Eberron, the Loredrake entry NEVER mentions "true" anywhere near "dragon". In the Sovereign Archetypes section (what Loredrake is under), it only mentions "true" once.
"All true dragons have the potential to use arcane magic."

...that's it.
Am I missing something as to even why people are arguing over what a true dragon is? :smallconfused:

OracleofWuffing
2010-01-02, 08:20 PM
Kobolds don't gain Str bonues as they advance in age categories. Therefore they do not get stronger. Therefore they are not True Dragons.
I'm going to give my Druid nine thousand more points in Wisdom. The DM shouldn't need to worry about this at all, as clearly, it will not make my character stronger. :smallbiggrin:

lesser_minion
2010-01-02, 08:26 PM
I did, several times. Your alternative definitions of True Dragon have always in some way discounted actual True Dragons as not being True Dragons. Each one you've brought up violates something, whether it's wingless Lung Dragons or too short White Dragons or Gem Dragons that are neither Chromatic nor Metallic. Since your definition leads to logical contradictions, it is false.


Actually read it. My definition of a true dragon is:

Anything found in the entry, and anything else which is described in the rules as a true dragon.

I don't need true dragons to have wings, be a particular length, or be chromatic or metallic. All I need is for creatures that are incontestably true dragons to follow the same conventions. I don't know of any that aren't, but as you have a much larger library and are much closer to it, if you can find one that is both incontestably a true dragon and which has a major difference in the way it advances, then I'll happily accept that kobold age category advancement is consistent with true dragon age category advancement.

Not that it's even meaningful any more.

I don't even know where you got that idea from.

Otherwise, you have yet to explain why, for the purposes of discussion, we cannot use "whichever works best" as a guideline for choosing between several different interpretations.



This... argument is absurd.

In Dragons of Eberron, the Loredrake entry NEVER mentions "true" anywhere near "dragon". In the Sovereign Archetypes section (what Loredrake is under), it only mentions "true" once.
"All true dragons have the potential to use arcane magic."

...that's it.
Am I missing something as to even why people are arguing over what a true dragon is?

Probably not. I hopped on some time after everyone seemed to have accepted that you had to be a "true" dragon to take Loredrake, and well after that became the topic of the debate (alongside the order in which you take feats and templates, which also proved completely irrelevant, because Polymorph is just that broken).

JaronK
2010-01-02, 08:35 PM
Actually read it. My definition of a true dragon is:

Anything found in the entry, and anything else which is described in the rules as a true dragon.

That's nice. Too bad that definition isn't anywhere in the rules. It's just, well, your definition.

So now we have Lesser Minion's definition vs the Draconomicron definition. Guess which one is house rules, and guess which one is RAW? I don't have to debunk your definition, since it's not found in the rules anywhere. You have to support it with rules and quotes to actually have something worth considering. Since my definition is no more or less than a quote from the primary source, you DO have to debunk that to make your case that it's wrong.

As for why it matters that they are true Dragons, keep reading page 30 of Dragons of Eberron.
"All true dragons have the potential to use arcane magic. Most have the ability to select spells from the cleric spell list and certain domains. This variant rule instead provides a dragon with a special ability based on the Sovereign archtype it choses to follow. This special ability replaces the option spell selection abilities that a dragon normally possesses; as such, a silver dragon that adopts the child of Eberron archtype can no longer cast cleric spells or those from the Air, Good, Law, and Sun domains. Those wholly unable to cast cleric spells (black, green, and white) lose nothing when they adopt a Sovereign archtype."

I've bolded the key section. SAs are a variant for True Dragons.

JaronK

Heliomance
2010-01-02, 08:37 PM
That could equally be interpreted as simply saying "If you don't have the potential to use arcane magic, you're not a true dragon."

Tyndmyr
2010-01-02, 08:47 PM
Your entire argument is that the SRD isn't a valid reference in a RAW argument? I think we're done here.:smallsigh:

Well, when books and SRD clash, the books come out on top. Check errata to be sure, since that's the usual source of conflict, but every once in a while, the SRD is inadequate or incomplete.

Now, among books, most recently printed always takes priority. Draconomicon is the newest 3.5 book that defines a True Dragon. Therefore, it's definition is the correct one by RAW. So, as a source, it's quite clear which one we have to follow.



Now that that's settled, look at the definition in Draconomicon. It divides dragons into True Dragons and Lesser Dragons. No mention is made of the possibility of being both or being neither, and the wording of it indicates that it's purely one or the other. The distinction for which is which is solely based on age category advancement.


"Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance through age catagories are referred to as lesser dragons."

Well, a kobold advances through age categories. Thus, it can't possibly be a lesser dragon. Notice that it does not require that things only advance through age category...just that it be one of the means of advancement.

Even for those few people who insist that a kobold somehow doesn't fulfill the requirements for true dragons haven't addressed the issue of what they would then become.

JaronK
2010-01-02, 08:56 PM
That could equally be interpreted as simply saying "If you don't have the potential to use arcane magic, you're not a true dragon."

It could, but the context indicates that it's a variant for True Dragons, since that's what it's talking about throughout the entire paragraph. That's why I quoted the whole paragraph... just to make sure the context was clear.

And before anyone tries anything, yes Kobolds do have racial arcane magic potential (the Draconic Rites).

JaronK

lesser_minion
2010-01-02, 09:01 PM
That's nice. Too bad that definition isn't anywhere in the rules. It's just, well, your definition.


It isn't houserules. You aren't a true dragon unless you're part of that entry, or the rules say you are, even though you aren't.

In the same way, you aren't an elf, unless the rules say you are. The monster manual says what an elf is, and if you're not listed there and are an elf, that's because the rules made an exception for you.

You also seem to think I'm arguing against the draconomicon definition, when I'm actually pointing out that what a kobold does is very different to what a true dragon does, and therefore isn't the same thing. (NB. By RAW, the draconomicon definition is necessary but not sufficient - creatures exist which incontestably fit it but are not true dragons)

There is no other valid definition.

It isn't important anyway. We're not even arguing this. You just seem to have an irresistible habit of labelling everything I say "houserules", when I haven't actually said anything that isn't valid RAW, as far as I'm concerned (and even when I'm not disputing someting you've said).

However, age category advancement for incontestable true dragons follows a number of conventions:


Each age category is an entirely different creature within the same entry
Most dragon statistics are based on age category
A dragon of a given age category may advance by hit dice, but never to the start of the next category. It automatically attains the hit dice for its new category when it matures a category, along with all of the other benefits of its new age.


Those aren't sufficient conditions for a creature with the Dragon type to be a true dragon, but there is a lot of evidence that they are necessary, and no kobold meets them.

Apparently, it's a stretch, but its still good enough to be an alternative.

The rule in the draconomicon only gives necessary conditions - it isn't really a definition, because creatures exist which fit, but aren't true dragons. It's not really meaningful, because the only thing missing is "things that are noted as not being true dragons never are", but it's worth pointing out.

Tanaric
2010-01-02, 09:21 PM
You also seem to think I'm arguing against the draconomicon definition, when I'm actually pointing out that what a kobold does is very different to what a true dragon does, and therefore isn't the same thing. (NB. By RAW, the draconomicon definition is necessary but not sufficient - creatures exist which incontestably fit it but are not true dragons)


I'm curious as to which creatures you know of that are dragons, advance through dragon age categories, yet are not true dragons. I, myself, haven't heard of any before.

JaronK
2010-01-02, 09:22 PM
It isn't houserules. You aren't a true dragon unless you're part of that entry, or the rules say you are, even though you aren't.

It's house rules. You have no quote for it. Meanwhile, the rules DO give a definition. I've spelled it out. And Kobolds meet that definition.


In the same way, you aren't an elf, unless the rules say you are. The monster manual says what an elf is, and if you're not listed there and are an elf, that's because the rules made an exception for you.

And if a rule said "an elf is X" and something else met the definition of X, that thing would be an elf.


You also seem to think I'm arguing against the draconomicon definition, when I'm actually pointing out that what a kobold does is very different to what a true dragon does, and therefore isn't the same thing.

Except the definition states clearly that what a True Dragon does is have age catagories, get stronger by getting older, and be of the dragon type. Kobolds do all those things. There's other things that only some True Dragons do, like breath fire or have a swim speed. But those aren't in the given definition in the primary sourcebook, so they're irrelevant to whether the thing is a True Dragon or not.


There is no other valid definition. (I do note with interest that sea serpents fit entirely within the definition but aren't true dragons)

The valid definition is the one given in the rules. Ignore it if you like, but it's right there and it's pretty clear. And where are Sea Serpents? They're not listed in Draconomicron as being a type of Dragon.


It isn't important anyway. We're not even arguing this. You just seem to have an irresistible habit of labelling everything I say "houserules", when I haven't actually said anything that isn't valid RAW, as far as I'm concerned.

That's because you don't use the books to come up with your opinion. You claimed I needed to falsify your definition of True Dragon, and that definition turned out to be one you made up yourself. Mine is just quotes from the Draconomicron, which is why mine is RAW.


Age category advancement for incontestable true dragons follows a number of conventions:


Each age category is an entirely different creature within the same entry
Most dragon statistics are based on age category
A dragon of a given age category may advance by hit dice, but never to the start of the next category. It automatically attains the hit dice for its new category when it matures a category, along with all of the other benefits of its new age.


Those aren't sufficient conditions for a creature with the Dragon type to be a true dragon, but there is a lot of evidence that they are necessary, and no kobold meets them.

That's nice. Draconomicron does not indicate that True Dragons must follow that specific advancement, only that they must advance through age catagories in some way and that they must get stronger by getting older. Again, you've just claimed that Kobolds not following that specific method of advancement means they're not True Dragons, but no rule actually states that, and the actual True Dragon definition doesn't say anything like that.

Once again, here's the actual official RAW definition of a True Dragon from the actual official written in a book source, specifically from page 4 of the Draconomicron in the "The Different Kinds of Dragons" sidebar:


In the D&D game, the term "dragon" encompasses a number of different creatures, some of which bear little resemblance to the great flying creatures with breath weapons that we commonly think of as dragons.

For the most part, this book concerns itself with the ten varieties of true dragon described in the Monster Manual- the five chromatic dragons (black, blue, green, red, white) and the five metallic dragons (brass, bronze, copper, gold, silver). True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older.

A number of other true dragons are described in Chapter 4 of this book. In addition, Appendix 2: Index of Dragons provides a complete list of all true dragons that have been presented in official sources.

Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance through age catogories are referred to as lesser dragons (which should not be taken to mean they are necessarily less formidable than true dragons).

The three kinds of lesser dragon described in the Monster Manual are the dragon turtle, the pseudodragon, and the wyvern. Chapter 4 of this book contains a number of descriptions of other lesser dragons, and Appendix 2 lists every lesser dragon that has been described in a Dungeons and Dragons rulebook or accessory.

Once again, right there is the only definition that matters... the primary source definition straight from the book. Note also that by that definition ALL dragons must be either true or lesser dragons, and ALL lesser dragons lack age catagories unless a specific rule overrides this entry (said specific rule would be in the entry of the creature itself, which is the only thing that could override this). Since Kobolds have age catagories, they CANNOT be lesser dragons, and since all dragons are either True or Lesser, a Kobold who is a dragon (usually via Dragonwrought) must be a True Dragon.

Unless you'd like to claim that Kobolds do not have age catagories? In which case I refer you to page 39 of RotD.

Now, I do not have to argue against your definition, because your definition is a house rule (it's not found in the rules, therefor it is a house rule). To claim my definition is false, you have to prove that the rules I'm using do not exist or are contradicted by a superceeding source... of which there is none, except potentially the Kobold section of Races of the Dragon.

JaronK

Tyndmyr
2010-01-02, 09:24 PM
It isn't houserules. You aren't a true dragon unless you're part of that entry, or the rules say you are, even though you aren't.

In the same way, you aren't an elf, unless the rules say you are. The monster manual says what an elf is, and if you're not listed there and are an elf, that's because the rules made an exception for you.

The rules say you are? Easy enough, yes. Follow RAW, and yes, anything specifically listed as a True Dragon obviously is. Also, anything that falls into the broader category outlined as "this constitutes a true dragon" also is.

I don't see this being a problem. However, I do find it odd how you keep hopping back and forth between "Follow the rules to the letter" and various interpretive things regarding background stories and other non-RAW arguments.


You also seem to think I'm arguing against the draconomicon definition, when I'm actually pointing out that what a kobold does is very different to what a true dragon does, and therefore isn't the same thing. (NB. By RAW, the draconomicon definition is necessary but not sufficient - creatures exist which incontestably fit it but are not true dragons)

What creatures? The only creatures I am aware of that fit it are the usually accepted true dragons(both from MM and elsewhere) and dragonwrought kobolds.

How do you know it's not sufficient? What are these other examples you allude to?


It isn't important anyway. We're not even arguing this. You just seem to have an irresistible habit of labelling everything I say "houserules", when I haven't actually said anything that isn't valid RAW, as far as I'm concerned.

Because it's a definition you made up, not one you quoted from RAW. It does not match definitions from RAW. Therefore, it is a house rule, and will be treated as such unless you show how it is RAW in every regard you listed.


Age category advancement for incontestable true dragons follows a number of conventions:


Each age category is an entirely different creature within the same entry
Most dragon statistics are based on age category
A dragon of a given age category may advance by hit dice, but never to the start of the next category. It automatically attains the hit dice for its new category when it matures a category, along with all of the other benefits of its new age.


Conventions are not RAW. I notice you ignore some conventions, such as the "exactly 12 age categories" that are specific to dragons, and which kobolds do follow.

Dragons as players do not follow those rules, by the way. They have statistics and hit die changes that are not based on age category, and these are not capped or tied to age category.

The section "Dragons as PCs" in Draconomicon includes rules for all of this, and it seems likely that the omission of the above requirements are logical, as otherwise the book would wildly, repeatedly contradict itself.


Those aren't sufficient conditions for a creature with the Dragon type to be a true dragon, but there is a lot of evidence that they are necessary, and no kobold meets them.

A. What IS sufficient conditions to be a true dragon? How do you arrive at these conditions from RAW?

B. No PC played True Dragon would meet those conditions as listed. At least, not without very liberal interpretations that would apply just as well to kobolds.

C. The section "Dragons as PCs" states that there are True Dragons other than those found in the monster manual. It provides a list of some of them, but does not claim to be exhaustive. It gives a guide on constructing charts for LAs for True Dragons not listed.

JaronK
2010-01-02, 09:24 PM
I'm curious as to which creatures you know of that are dragons, advance through dragon age categories, yet are not true dragons. I, myself, haven't heard of any before.

He edited that out. Originally he claimed sea serpents met that condition. I suspect he then learned otherwise. There are no creatures that I know of that are dragons, advance through age catagories, and are listed as not being True Dragons. He's just assuming such a thing must exist. This entire argument has been hordes of assumptions not in evidence.

JaronK

Reinboom
2010-01-02, 09:25 PM
I've bolded the key section. SAs are a variant for True Dragons.

JaronK

...right. Nowhere in there does it say that Sovereign Archetypes requires True Dragons though. It just states what true dragons have the capabilities of doing, and then goes on to say

This variant rule instead provides a dragon with a special ability based on the Sovereign archetype it chooses to follow.
which is to say defines what 'a dragon' has the capability of taking. A sovereign archetype.

Even the first sentence may or not be using the term 'true' by a status definition ("He is not a true soldier! He has not felt the fear, the power, that a true soldier has!"). However, that would be a silly argument to make since... it never says it requires true dragons.

JaronK
2010-01-02, 09:27 PM
...right. Nowhere in there does it say that Sovereign Archetypes requires True Dragons though.

No, but it's strongly implied. That's about all we're going to get here. But I do believe that context matters, so a strong implication in the rules is worth noting. It implies that the line you quote is refering to true dragons when it says dragons.

But I agree it's a strong implication, not a hard and fast gaurantee. Annoying rule construction, right there. Rules should be more than implications!

JaronK

Tyndmyr
2010-01-02, 09:30 PM
No, but it's strongly implied. That's about all we're going to get here. But I do believe that context matters, so a strong implication in the rules is worth noting. It implies that the line you quote is refering to true dragons when it says dragons.

But I agree it's a strong implication, not a hard and fast gaurantee. Annoying rule construction, right there. Rules should be more than implications!

JaronK

In any case, it's pretty clear that a dragonwrought kobold fulfills that. I mean, it requires two seperate "they really didn't mean what they actually wrote" reinterpretations to get anything different.

Reinboom
2010-01-02, 09:31 PM
No, but it's strongly implied. That's about all we're going to get here. But I do believe that context matters, so a strong implication in the rules is worth noting. It implies that the line you quote is refering to true dragons when it says dragons.

But I agree it's a strong implication, not a hard and fast gaurantee. Annoying rule construction, right there. Rules should be more than implications!

JaronK

I disagree with it being implied at all!
Look at the paragraph before it

Pursuing a Sovereign archetype is a lifelong goal, and it is reflected in a dragon's behavior and outlook on life. Dragons are still individuals; one loredrake might be dry and serious, while another is cheerfully manic. But both are utterly dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge. As such, the choice of a Sovereign archetype should provide a DM with a thumbnail sketch of a dragon's motivations and personality.

"dragon's" "Dragons" "dragon's"
None of which refer to true dragons.
This heavily implies that it is indeed "dragons".

lesser_minion
2010-01-02, 09:39 PM
This is like talking to a brick wall.

1. The only way JaronK's definition of a true dragon is wrong is inconsequential. I am not arguing that he is wrong about it, I am arguing about what constitutes advancement by age category.

My definition is RAW - that which is noted as being a true dragon.

If your definition contradicts that in any way, you are houseruling. Your definition doesn't, but doesn't allow for exceptions (this is inconsequential)

2. I am arguing in favour of following the rules as written, but favouring the best possible interpretation where there is more than one interpretation available.

3. I believe that it can be very clearly defined what "advancement by age category" is, and no kobold fits that definition. The rules as written are silent either way.

4. I do not try to trick people by editing my posts. I edited out the point about Sea Serpents, because while it is accurate, all it really does is prove that your definition of a true dragon is wrong in a completely inconsequential way and I didn't feel like being petty. Read my edit.


There is no point in posting further, because this is not going to go anywhere.

I provided a reasonable alternative interpretation of the rules as written and noted that there was a good reason to use it over JaronK's.

Feel free to dispute that, but try answering actual, meaningful points instead of disputing points that aren't necessary to my argument (or, in the case of the definition of a true dragon: nothing you think is a true dragon is outside it).

JaronK
2010-01-02, 09:41 PM
EDIT: Ninjaed a bit, but this post is in response to the one about whether you need to be a True Dragon at all.

But then why mention True Dragons at all in that paragraph? I mean, on further review it seems less of a requirement, but that they're mentioned at all suggests it at least.

It's specifically the instead that interests me. Specifically, "All True Dragons have the potential to use arcane magic. Most have the ability to select spells from the cleric spell list and certain domains. This variant rule instead provides a dragon with a special ability..." The variant rule is providing a special ability instead of a normal True Dragon ability, which indicates it's a variant for True Dragons only. Of course, it then goes on to say that those who can't cast cleric spells don't lose anything, but it still assumes you have that same arcane ability, and all the examples of dragons who lack the cleric abilities are indeed True Dragons.

Still, that might imply that only dragons with some arcane magic ability can use SAs. For the most part, that means True Dragons anyway, since most lesser dragons can't be PCs and lack any racial arcane potential (but not all!).

Meanwhile, our little Kobolds do in fact have such arcane ability, so they're still good to go whether the requirement is True Dragon or racial arcane potential.

JaronK

lesser_minion
2010-01-02, 09:47 PM
Also, for future reference, advancement by classes or templates is a completely separate issue.

Those 'conventions' which you dismiss are the only definition of "advancement by age category" provided in the rules as written.

Sure, I might have made one or two mistakes, but the only convention a kobold follows is having twelve age categories instead of five (which is an aesthetic change, although it is RAW).

Zeful
2010-01-02, 09:49 PM
In any case, it's pretty clear that a dragonwrought kobold fulfills that. I mean, it requires two seperate "they really didn't mean what they actually wrote" reinterpretations to get anything different.

No it doesn't, it requires one: "You're deliberately confusing terms" to get a different interpretation.

Advancement by age category can either refer to what the people of this thread say or it can refer to Advancement bracket of every True Dragon, which list it by age categories.

Which seems more likely from an outside perspective.

JaronK
2010-01-02, 09:51 PM
1. The only way JaronK's definition of a true dragon is wrong is inconsequential. I am not arguing that he is wrong about that, I am arguing about what constitutes advancement by age category.

My definition is RAW - that which is noted as being a true dragon.

No. No part of the rules states "True Dragons are dragons found under the True Dragon entry in the rules somewhere." Lung Dragons, in fact, are not listed under True Dragons in their entry. See OA 152. Your definition is things that are specifically listed as True Dragons somewhere in their entry (a definition never found in the rules), whereas mine is the definition given in Draconomicron.


2. I am arguing in favour of following the rules as written, but favouring the best possible interpretation where there is more than one interpretation available.

No, you invented a rule. Namely you invented a rule that things are True Dragons only if they are specifically mentioned as such. That rule isn't listed anywhere. It would be a reasonable interpretation if there weren't an actual general definition located somewhere else... but there is.


3. I believe that it can be very clearly defined what "advancement by age category" is, and no kobold fits that definition. The rules as written are silent either way.

Again, you claimed there were other non true dragons that had draconic age catagories. Back that claim up or retract it please. I don't believe there are any.


4. I do not try to trick people by editing my posts. I edited out the point about Sea Serpents, because while it is accurate, all it really does is prove that your definition of a true dragon is wrong in a completely inconsequential way and I didn't feel like being petty. Read my edit.

If you actually had the ability to prove me wrong, you would have done so. Lord knows you've tried everything from invented definitions to claiming the SRD trumps all books so far. The only Sea Serpent I can find is the Shadow Sea Serpent from Anauroch: The Empire of Shade, which is a Magical Beast and not a Dragon, and thus clearly doesn't even come close to the definition from Draconomicron.

JaronK

lesser_minion
2010-01-02, 09:56 PM
No. No part of the rules states "True Dragons are dragons found under the True Dragon entry in the rules somewhere." Lung Dragons, in fact, are not listed under True Dragons in their entry. See OA 152. Your definition is things that are specifically listed as True Dragons somewhere in their entry (a definition never found in the rules), whereas mine is the definition given in Draconomicron.

Which is theoretically incomplete, and therefore not RAW (although no example exists, a dragon could have a rule of its own that allows it to count as a true dragon).

My definition, which has somehow been strawmanned and/or misunderstood to death, is:

"A true dragon is anything the rules say is a true dragon"


No, you invented a rule. Namely you invented a rule that things are True Dragons only if they are specifically mentioned as such. That rule isn't listed anywhere. It would be a reasonable interpretation if there weren't an actual general definition located somewhere else... but there is.

No, because every true dragon that fits that definition is, funnily enough, called out by the rules as being a true dragon, exactly as I required.


Again, you claimed there were other non true dragons that had draconic age catagories. Back that claim up or retract it please. I don't believe there are any.

I also noted that it made no difference, but Sea Serpents are an example from Dragon Magazine. It is an official source, and it doesn't even matter - your definition failed to account for the possibility that something could fulfil all of those conditions and then be noted as not being a true dragon.


If you actually had the ability to prove me wrong, you would have done so. Lord knows you've tried everything from invented definitions to claiming the SRD trumps all books so far. The only Sea Serpent I can find is the Shadow Sea Serpent from Anauroch: The Empire of Shade, which is a Magical Beast and not a Dragon, and thus clearly doesn't even come close to the definition from Draconomicron.

JaronK

They were actually included in Dragon, but the citation is irrelevant, because all that matters is that you missed off "is not noted as being an exception" in your definition.

I haven't tried an invented definition, and if you'd read my posts, I actually said that the rule in question was actually from a core rulebook.

JaronK
2010-01-02, 10:04 PM
No, my definition is:

That which is a true dragon by RAW.

Your definition is:

That which is a true dragon by RAW, but only the RAW found in the draconomicon.

Guess who is right.

No, it's not. You haven't even quoted RAW once in this argument, not a single time. Do you want me to go back and quote the actual definition you gave, which you even gave in quotes to quote yourself? Furthermore, since Draconomicron trumps all other entries on the topic of what a True Dragon is except when the entry itself says otherwise (which it does not do for Kobolds, and I was clear that the Kobold entry could trump), using Draconomicron as the primary source is correct.

So, that would be me.


No, because that general definition follows the rule. What about this is hard to understand. I didn't make anything up.

You've made up quite a lot in fact. You made up the rule that to be a True Dragon, the entry had to say it was a True Dragon, and clearly implied that any general rule that described something as being a True Dragon without explicitly decreeing it so could be ignored.


I also noted that it made no difference, but Sea Serpents are an example from Dragon Magazine. It is an official source, and

and isn't printed in any book ever. Not even the Dragon Compendium. This is the thing you were sure would prove me wrong? Care to at least give a page number and issue, or is this another claim we should just trust you on?


They were actually included in Dragon, but the citation is irrelevant, because all that matters is that you missed off "is not noted as being an exception" in your definition.

Nice try, but I did specify that individual entries could trump. Note where I said that the only thing that would trump Draconomicron's definition of True Dragon with regards to Kobolds would be Races of the Dragon, which has the Kobold entry. That's where the exception would be. I even stated clearly "The specific always overrides the general." So no, I wasn't wrong, nor is it relevant, as you and I both knew there was no note of Kobolds being an exception. Now you're just desperately trying to show I was wrong somewhere even if it didn't help your argument.


I haven't tried an invented definition, and if you'd read my posts, I actually said that the rule in question was actually from a core rulebook.

Fine, if you haven't editted it I'll go back and quote you. EDIT: found it. Post 57 from this thread.


The worst bit is that the RAW definition of True Dragon is as follows:

A creature that is listed under the entry "True Dragon" inside the SRD, or a creature whose own entry explicitly describes it as a true dragon.

RAW your way around that.

There you go, totally invented definition. As I said, you claimed that to be a True Dragon, it must be listed in its entry. Since Lung Dragons are not, your invented definition is clearly false.

JaronK

lesser_minion
2010-01-02, 10:15 PM
No, it's not. You haven't even quoted RAW once in this argument, not a single time. Do you want me to go back and quote the actual definition you gave, which you even gave in quotes to quote yourself? Furthermore, since Draconomicron trumps all other entries on the topic of what a True Dragon is except when the entry itself says otherwise (which it does not do for Kobolds, and I was clear that the Kobold entry could trump), using Draconomicron as the primary source is correct.

I don't need quotes, I just have to be right.

You continue to be wrong about what my argument even is.


You've made up quite a lot in fact. You made up the rule that to be a True Dragon, the entry had to say it was a True Dragon, and clearly implied that any general rule that described something as being a True Dragon without explicitly decreeing it so could be ignored.

I didn't mean anyone to infer any such thing. At no point does including the draconomicon's definition contradict what I said.


and isn't printed in any book ever. Not even the Dragon Compendium. This is the thing you were sure would prove me wrong? Care to at least give a page number and issue, or is this another claim we should just trust you on?

July 2006, page 54.

Page 55 actually has the note "like True Dragons, sea serpents gain power as they age." Or, basically, they aren't true dragons as defined in the rules, somehow.


Nice try, but I did specify that individual entries could trump.

OK, sorry about that.



Note where I said that the only thing that would trump Draconomicron's definition of True Dragon with regards to Kobolds would be Races of the Dragon, which has the Kobold entry. That's where the exception would be. So no, I wasn't wrong, nor is it relevant, as you and I both knew there was no note of Kobolds being an exception. Now you're just desperately trying to show I was wrong somewhere even if it didn't help your argument.

I'm not "desperate" at all. You haven't shown yourself to have the sole valid interpretation of RAW, nor have you successfully answered my point that you need it. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

I already edited it out because I'd decided that it was petty and inconsequential.


There you go, totally invented definition. As I said, you claimed that to be a True Dragon, it must be listed in its entry. Since Lung Dragons are not, your invented definition is clearly false.

And not, in fact, the one I have used at all since.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-02, 10:16 PM
Also, for future reference, advancement by classes or templates is a completely separate issue.

Those 'conventions' which you dismiss are the only definition of "advancement by age category" provided in the rules as written.

Sure, I might have made one or two mistakes, but the only convention a kobold follows is having twelve age categories instead of five (which is an aesthetic change, although it is RAW).

Conventions are also not rules. WOTC has a great many conventions, plenty of which get changed. Hell, even Draconomicon and the 3.5 MM don't list dragons in exactly the same way. It's pretty close, but Caster Level is frequently ommitted. For good reason, mind you, as things like Planar Dragons lack spellcasting.

Now wait, it's a convention for dragons to have arcane casting ability you say? The planar dragon description mentions in passing that they're True Dragons.

Guess convention doesn't matter at all for this.

Also, I find it amusing that you dismiss the age convention as an "aestheic" change, but consider the rest important.

lesser_minion
2010-01-02, 10:20 PM
Conventions are also not rules. WOTC has a great many conventions, plenty of which get changed. Hell, even Draconomicon and the 3.5 MM don't list dragons in exactly the same way. It's pretty close, but Caster Level is frequently ommitted. For good reason, mind you, as things like Planar Dragons lack spellcasting.

Now wait, it's a convention for dragons to have arcane casting ability you say? The planar dragon description mentions in passing that they're True Dragons.

Guess convention doesn't matter at all for this.

Also, I find it amusing that you dismiss the age convention as an "aestheic" change, but consider the rest important.

Conventions are the only rules we have in this case. Take enough examples of what "advancement by age category" is, and it's interesting to note that the kobold is rather different.

That definition is the only definition that can be inferred solely from the books (although you can get RAW from the books in conjunction with a dictionary)

Also, where did I say it was conventional for dragons to have arcane casting and how is it relevant?

The conventions that matter are the ones that pertain to advancement by age category.

OracleofWuffing
2010-01-02, 10:26 PM
We can infer the RAW definition of "advance by age category" from what is written in the books, and note that kobolds don't fit into it, or we can infer the RAW from a completely different product that has no rules and is only relevant to the game because both are written in English.
"Infer" is a synonym for "Interpret"... Which is a pretty shakey place to stand on when discussing RAW.

Koury
2010-01-02, 10:27 PM
*Munches on some more popcorn*

So, wait, this movie confuses me. Wasn't it agreed that both of their versions are RAW due to it being ambiguous? Why can it be just that? Ambiguous, as per the way the rules were written? Then, of course, along comes a DM who makes a call between all possible variations of interpretations, but that makes it RAMS to that DM. Hopefully also RAB. But if nothing is changed with wording, added or subtracted, it is still also RAW, isn't it?

I'm not being clear. In my opinion (most likely ONLY my opinion, but still) you are BOTH correct. Both interpretations work. Obviously you can only use one for any given game, but they both still work.

*reaches for more popcorn*

:smallfrown: Aww, I'm all out. Tyndmyr, while you're up, could you grab me another bag please? :smalltongue:

JaronK
2010-01-02, 10:27 PM
Since you've now changed your definition of what a True Dragon is (having tried to subtly sweep under the rug that fact that you were completely wrong in your first attempt, and even having claimed repeatedly never to have made such a first attempt), perhaps you can state, clearly, what you believe a True Dragon is. You've seen my definition, which I quoted nicely... it's the rules on page 4 of Draconomicron, unless specifically contradicted by an individual entry (specific overrides the general).

And when you state this definition, do so with RAW. That means you actually have to cite where you got it, or else it's a house rule. Make sure you don't state again that it's something that says it's a True Dragon in the entry, because that's already been proved false. And certainly don't give me this "A true dragon is anything the rules say is a true dragon" nonsense again. I'm asking you what you think the rules say. Saying that they say what they say is a tautology. Tell us what you think they say.

Because right now you're claiming that "Conventions are the only rules we have in this case" despite the fact that nearly everyone else is capable of citing actual rules. It seems conventions right now are the only rules YOU have in this case (and Kobolds follow draconic aging conventions).

JaronK

Tyndmyr
2010-01-02, 10:30 PM
No it doesn't, it requires one: "You're deliberately confusing terms" to get a different interpretation.

Advancement by age category can either refer to what the people of this thread say or it can refer to Advancement bracket of every True Dragon, which list it by age categories.

Which seems more likely from an outside perspective.

True dragons list "X Dragons By Age", not "Advancement". Yes, they do in fact advance as they age, but Im not sure what you think is different about kobolds.

They advance by age as well. They have the same number of categories on their age chart. They are specifically using draconic ages...I mean seriously, if you call something a "Great Wyrm", they're clearly matching it to the draconic ages. Non dragons just don't use that ever.

Dragonwrought have the type Dragon. The scales match the color of their heritage. They gain immunity to magic sleep, paralysis, darkvision, and low light vision. They can have wings. How much more draconic do you want?


Remember, too, that dragons fall into True Dragon, or Lesser Dragon. There is no other possibility. Dragonwrought kobolds cannot possibly be lesser dragons.

lesser_minion
2010-01-02, 10:35 PM
Right now you're claiming that "Conventions are the only rules we have in this case" despite the fact that nearly everyone else is capable of citing actual rules. It seems conventions right now are the only rules YOU have in this case (and Kobolds follow draconic aging conventions).

Those conventions are a definition of advancement by age category that can be inferred solely by looking at true dragons and noting what they have in common.

Unless you can explain why "advancement by age category" doesn't have to be 'loaded' (noting that such 'loaded' terms are not called out as loaded terms).

Kobolds aren't true dragons by your definition, which I have already noted as being otherwise correct, and conceded that my original definition actually should have included the draconomicon's definition as well.

Don't challenge me to do something that has no bearing on anything.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-02, 10:37 PM
No, because every true dragon that fits that definition is, funnily enough, called out by the rules as being a true dragon, exactly as I required.

Well, that's using a circular definition, then. You're trying to prove your definition based on your use of the definition. Not based on RAW.


Planar Dragons are mentioned in flavor text as being true dragons. Some books refer to them as True Dragons. Ive not seen any mention of them being lesser dragons anywhere.

The specific entry in their listings only says Dragon(Extraplanar).


I also noted that it made no difference, but Sea Serpents are an example from Dragon Magazine. It is an official source, and it doesn't even matter - your definition failed to account for the possibility that something could fulfil all of those conditions and then be noted as not being a true dragon.

Yay. Dragon Magazine...the source that is least canon, most likely that nobody here has it to check your vague claim against, and with no quoting of the actual words.

The reason that this possibility has not been entertained is that I have not seen a single example of this. Is it a dragon? Does it advance by age categories? If so, it's a true dragon. If it fails only the second, it's a lesser dragon. It's that simple.


They were actually included in Dragon, but the citation is irrelevant, because all that matters is that you missed off "is not noted as being an exception" in your definition.

I haven't tried an invented definition, and if you'd read my posts, I actually said that the rule in question was actually from a core rulebook.

I don't suppose you could quote the issue of dragon magazine?

As for the other rule in question, could you cite which core rulebook it comes from and where?

Tyndmyr
2010-01-02, 10:39 PM
Page 55 actually has the note "like True Dragons, sea serpents gain power as they age." Or, basically, they aren't true dragons as defined in the rules, somehow.

Is it listed as a dragon?

If it's not a dragon the true/lesser dragon bit is irrelevant.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-02, 10:42 PM
Those conventions are a definition of advancement by age category that can be inferred solely by looking at true dragons and noting what they have in common.

Unless you can explain why "advancement by age category" doesn't have to be 'loaded' (noting that such 'loaded' terms are not called out as loaded terms).

Kobolds aren't true dragons by your definition, which I have already noted as being otherwise correct, and conceded that my original definition actually should have included the draconomicon's definition as well.

Don't challenge me to do something that has no bearing on anything.

Dude, if you're saying we need to use conventions to determine what is a True Dragon, you need to point out where the rules say that.

And which conventions, exactly, are important.

JaronK
2010-01-02, 10:47 PM
Those conventions are a definition of advancement by age category that can be inferred solely by looking at true dragons and noting what they have in common.

Say the same of yours.

Circular logic. You're claiming that Kobolds aren't true dragons because all true dragons are ones that are different from Kobolds. Note that by your convention logic we could also eliminate Lung Dragons. By convention, all True Dragons (Kobolds included) have wings, except Lung Dragons who have funny looking fin things (that aren't wings). The only exceptions are certain Lung Dragons. Does that mean they're not dragons? Likewise, you claim that the age catagory advancement of True Dragons is the same for all True Dragons except Kobolds, therefor Kobolds are not True Dragons. That's silly.

By any dictionary definition, Kobolds have age catagories and advance through them, just like all True Dragons (but unlike any lesser dragon, except possibly a dragon no one's seen from a Dragon Magazine that you can't quote who is specifically called out in its entry as an exception).

Now, again, state your definition of True Dragon. Go for it. We're waiting.


Kobolds aren't true dragons by your definition, which I have already noted as being otherwise correct, and conceded that my original definition actually should have included the draconomicon's definition as well.

Don't challenge me to do something that has no bearing on anything.

No, you keep trying to claim the True Dragon definition from Draconomicron does not apply to Kobolds, despite the fact that it clearly does. Your interpretation of the definition of True Dragon must be very different from what logic dictates, so I'm curious to hear what it is.

And Kobolds are clearly True Dragons by my (and the Draconomicron's) definition. All Kobolds as they live their lives advance from Wyrmling on up, eventually getting to Great Wyrm if they live that long. By any English Language definition, that would count as advancing through age catagories. Just because they're different in the way that they advance through age catagories (they don't gain HD by gaining age catagories, they gain +1 to all mental stats at Great Wyrm level instead of whatever some other True Dragon might get, etc) doesn't mean they're not advancing at all. All they have to do is advance, not advance in the conventional way. Nobody's arguing that Kobolds are conventional True Dragons. They're rather freakish little lizards, I'd say.

JaronK

lesser_minion
2010-01-02, 10:49 PM
Well, that's using a circular definition, then. You're trying to prove your definition based on your use of the definition. Not based on RAW.

Erm... No.

Everything JaronK believes to be a true dragon is either listed in the true dragon entry, or is otherwise called out as being a true dragon in a different rule.

Everything that is incontestably a true dragon by RAW uses specific rules for its advancement by age category, several of which are not used.

That's enough to contest "DW Kobolds are true dragons by RAW", and from there, it's just a matter of whether you expect the good rules or the bad ones to be incontestable.


Planar Dragons are mentioned in flavor text as being true dragons. Some books refer to them as True Dragons. Ive not seen any mention of them being lesser dragons anywhere.

The specific entry in their listings only says Dragon(Extraplanar).[/QUOTE]

So?


Yay. Dragon Magazine...the source that is least canon, most likely that nobody here has it to check your vague claim against, and with no quoting of the actual words.

Official source, with a page number provided. And this particular point has been killed to death with fire already.


The reason that this possibility has not been entertained is that I have not seen a single example of this. Is it a dragon? Does it advance by age categories? If so, it's a true dragon. If it fails only the second, it's a lesser dragon. It's that simple.


I don't suppose you could quote the issue of dragon magazine?

I did. (And yes, Sea Serpents do have the Dragon type).


As for the other rule in question, could you cite which core rulebook it comes from and where?

The other rule was straight from the entry on True Dragons in the monster manual, and that happens to be ancient history.




Circular logic. You're claiming that Kobolds aren't true dragons because all true dragons are ones that are different from Kobolds. Note that by your convention logic we could also eliminate Lung Dragons. By convention, all True Dragons (Kobolds included) have wings, except Lung Dragons who have funny looking fin things (that aren't wings). The only exceptions are certain Lung Dragons. Does that mean they're not dragons? Likewise, you claim that the age catagory advancement of True Dragons is the same for all True Dragons except Kobolds, therefor Kobolds are not True Dragons. That's silly.

No. Your argument just doesn't follow.

A definition of "advancement by age category" (you know, the important thing) can be inferred from the rules as written by looking at what the age category rules for dragons have in common.

The age category rules are clearly different for kobolds, although there are some similarities.

For every incontestably true dragon I've seen, each different age category is basically a different creature under the same entry - virtually everything it does is a function of age category, with the exception of anything it gains through other modifications (such as templates or classes).

IIUC, the kobold's age category progression grants it normal humanoid ageing modifiers, without penalties, and extended from five to twelve categories.

Not only are most of the categories no different from each other, but the kobold isn't changing much from one category to the next. Very few of its statistics or abilities are actually a function of age category (nothing but a few ability scores, and presumably access to various other options which are gained separately).

It doesn't even have any method of advancement other than character class.

Lamech
2010-01-02, 10:52 PM
So about the white dragonspawn + dragonwrought thing, for the sake of argument lets assume that, dragonspawn is something the kobold must be born with, white dragonspawn is aquired after birth, and the backstory must make sense it is still possible.

First we take a hapless dragonwrought kobold. Then we pyschic reformation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/psychicReformation.htm) dragonwrought into skill focus basket weaving. Then we give the kobold dragonspawn. Finally we give the kobold its dragonwrought back. And we have a dragonwrought dragonspawn kobold. :smallsmile:

Anyway "advance through" seems to be another problem. One interperation is "move through"; kobolds do this. Another is "advance by", if advance just mean get more powerful, again kobolds qualify. If advance is advance in HD we have a problem.

P.S. I may have skipped a few pages so if anyone has pointed these before...

Tyndmyr
2010-01-02, 10:58 PM
Erm... No.

Everything JaronK believes to be a true dragon is either listed in the true dragon entry, or is otherwise called out as being a true dragon in a different rule.

No. As my example gave, Planar dragons are not. They fullfill the draconomicon definition(and yes, they are in draconomicon, so I doubt it's an accident), and they're obliquely referred to as true dragons in the flavor text.

Flavor text is not rules, but it does show designer intent.


Everything that is incontestably a true dragon by RAW uses specific rules for its advancement by age category, several of which are not used.

That's enough to contest "DW Kobolds are true dragons by RAW", and from there, it's just a matter of whether you expect the good rules or the bad ones to be incontestable.

Kobolds are different in some ways from some classical true dragons. Yes. That has no bearing on what RAW says a true dragon is. This is merely an inference based on the entry layout not being exactly the same.

Never mind that other true dragon entry layouts are also not exactly the same.



I did. (And yes, Sea Serpents do have the Dragon type).

Then it's a case of specific overriding general. If kobolds had a specific statement saying that they were not true dragons, then you'd have a similar case.


The other rule was straight from the entry on True Dragons in the monster manual, and that happens to be ancient history.

Overruled by Draconomicon, which is newer. Probably because draconomicon introduced a pile of new True Dragons, which don't really follow the text listed in the MM.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-02, 11:04 PM
Anyway "advance through" seems to be another problem. One interperation is "move through"; kobolds do this. Another is "advance by", if advance just mean get more powerful, again kobolds qualify. If advance is advance in HD we have a problem.

The big issue is that it doesn't specify any specific type of advancement. Therefore, by strict reading, you don't need a specific type, such as hit die advancement, just anything that would qualify as advancement.

Gaining stat score bonuses without the usual physical negatives definitely would be considered advancement of those stats.

lesser_minion
2010-01-02, 11:05 PM
So about the white dragonspawn + dragonwrought thing, for the sake of argument lets assume that, dragonspawn is something the kobold must be born with, white dragonspawn is aquired after birth, and the backstory must make sense it is still possible.

First we take a hapless dragonwrought kobold. Then we pyschic reformation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/psychicReformation.htm) dragonwrought into skill focus basket weaving. Then we give the kobold dragonspawn. Finally we give the kobold its dragonwrought back. And we have a dragonwrought dragonspawn kobold. :smallsmile:

Anyway "advance through" seems to be another problem. One interperation is "move through"; kobolds do this. Another is "advance by", if advance just mean get more powerful, again kobolds qualify. If advance is advance in HD we have a problem.

P.S. I may have skipped a few pages so if anyone has pointed these before...

There isn't an argument on Dragonwrought + White Dragonspawn. Polymorph can be used to change your type from one that doesn't qualify for a template to one that does - as long as you keep it running for long enough, you're sorted.

Templates are just a complete can of worms, really.




No. As my example gave, Planar dragons are not. They fullfill the draconomicon definition(and yes, they are in draconomicon, so I doubt it's an accident), and they're obliquely referred to as true dragons in the flavor text.

Flavor text is not rules, but it does show designer intent.

Yes, a rule other than "anything listed in the True Dragon entry is a true dragon". You seem to have misread my post (although we are actually arguing about what something's flavour is by RAW...).



Kobolds are different in some ways from some classical true dragons. Yes. That has no bearing on what RAW says a true dragon is. This is merely an inference based on the entry layout not being exactly the same.

"some ways"? Very little of a kobold's crunch changes with age category.

I'm not saying (and have never said) that there is a RAW disproof of the trick, because there isn't. I'm saying that there is a RAW alternative which poses fewer problems, and that RAW doesn't provide any guidance on which to use.

Given that, it is sensible to treat the less problematic option as standard.

JaronK
2010-01-02, 11:19 PM
Erm... No.

Everything JaronK believes to be a true dragon is either listed in the true dragon entry, or is otherwise called out as being a true dragon in a different rule.

Wrong. Lung Dragons. They're only listed in an appendix entry in Draconomicon as True Dragons. In their own book they're never mentioned as being True Dragons. That same appendix never mentions Kobolds as True or Lesser.


Everything that is incontestably a true dragon by RAW uses specific rules for its advancement by age category, several of which are not used.

That's enough to contest "DW Kobolds are true dragons by RAW", and from there, it's just a matter of whether you expect the good rules or the bad ones to be incontestable.

Kobolds also has specific rules for advancement by age catagory. They're different from the rest, just like Lung Dragons are a bit different, and just like Gem Dragons are different from Chromatics and Metallics, but they're still there. And nothing in the Draconomicron definition requires the standard "conventional" advancement method... only that they advance at all. They do. They gain +1 to all mental stats when they become Old, an additional +1 half way through Ancient, and a final +1 at Great Wyrm.

Again, being nonconventional is not a disqualification. Lung Dragons have NO statement that they're True Dragons except that they state "All lung dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age." Sound familiar? They're unconventional in that they have no wings, and some even have no tails. Heck, Li Lungs don't even have scales. The only way we can be sure they're True Dragons is that they follow the Draconomicon rules... and they're listed in the Appendix of that book under "True Dragons." And of course the fact that they hit all the rules in Draconomicon for being True Dragons. Seriously, look them up before trying this claim again.

JaronK

JaronK
2010-01-02, 11:22 PM
Yes, a rule other than "anything listed in the True Dragon entry is a true dragon". You seem to have misread my post (although we are actually arguing about what something's flavour is by RAW...).

Unfortunately for you, Draconomicon also states that all dragons must be Lesser or True. Kobolds are not listed in Lesser dragons, and by your logic that only being entered as True or Lesser counts, that means Kobolds are both True (because they're not listed as Lesser) and Lesser (because they're not listed as True).

When your interpretation results in an unsolvable paradox, your interpretation must be flawed. You have yet to come up with a reasonable definition of True Dragon that includes all True Dragons and avoids logical paradoxes while still excluding Dragonwrought Kobolds.

JaronK

Tyndmyr
2010-01-02, 11:24 PM
Yes, a rule other than "anything listed in the True Dragon entry is a true dragon". You seem to have misread my post (although we are actually arguing about what something's flavour is by RAW...).

We are arguing about that?

I could have sworn we were arguing about if, by RAW, a dragonwrought kobold is a true dragon.


"some ways"? Very little of a kobold's crunch changes with age category.

I'm not saying (and have never said) that there is a RAW disproof of the trick, because there isn't. I'm saying that there is a RAW alternative which poses fewer problems, and that RAW doesn't provide any guidance on which to use.

Given that, it is sensible to treat the less problematic option as standard.

Im pretty sure that's not at all what you said. You claimed your previous versions were based on RAW(despite wild interpretation on your part), and made no mention of it being simply an alternative in multiple legal ways of playing.

So...what defines "very little" crunch change? And how do you determine how much is enough? Draconomicon makes no standard beyond advancement, and they have that.

lesser_minion
2010-01-02, 11:27 PM
Wrong. Lung Dragons. They're only listed in an appendix entry in Draconomicon as True Dragons. In their own book they're never mentioned as being True Dragons. That same appendix never mentions Kobolds as True or Lesser.

Try reading the Draconomicon for an explanation of why Lung Dragons are true dragons.


Kobolds also has specific rules for advancement by age catagory. They're different from the rest, just like Lung Dragons are a bit different, and just like Gem Dragons are different from Chromatics and Metallics, but they're still there. And nothing in the Draconomicron definition requires the standard "conventional" advancement method... only that they advance at all. They do. They gain +1 to all mental stats when they become Old, an additional +1 half way through Ancient, and a final +1 at Great Wyrm.

The definition of "advance by age category" certainly implies that it could require significant formal advancement. You have not disproven the alternative, you are merely supporting your own interpretation.


Again, being nonconventional is not a disqualification. Lung Dragons have NO statement that they're True Dragons except that they state "All lung dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age." Sound familiar? They're unconventional in that they have no wings, and some even have no tails. Heck, Li Lungs don't even have scales. The only way we can be sure they're True Dragons is that they follow the Draconomicon rules... and they're listed in the Appendix of that book under "True Dragons." And of course the fact that they hit all the rules in Draconomicon for being True Dragons. Seriously, look them up before trying this claim again.


Erm... so?

As far as I am aware, they're conventional where it matters. True Dragons don't have to have wings, or any other crap, they just have to have the dragon type and a note somewhere (anywhere) that says that they are true dragons. That includes the draconomicon entry, which you seem to think I'm ignoring.




Im pretty sure that's not at all what you said. You claimed your previous versions were based on RAW(despite wild interpretation on your part), and made no mention of it being simply an alternative in multiple legal ways of playing.

So...what defines "very little" crunch change? And how do you determine how much is enough? Draconomicon makes no standard beyond advancement, and they have that.

Among other things, True Dragons advance hit dice, CR, and 'effective level' of most special abilities, solely as a consequence of ageing.

I haven't seen one that cannot change size category and access to natural weapons just by ageing either.

The only benefit a dwk receives is increased mental ability scores.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-02, 11:37 PM
Try reading the Draconomicon for an explanation of why Lung Dragons are true dragons.

There's an entry that specifically states the definitions for true dragons, which they fulfill.


The definition of "advance by age category" certainly implies that it could require significant formal advancement. You have not disproven the alternative, you are merely supporting your own interpretation.

Huh? It states that it requires advancement. It does not state or imply any specific type or amount of advancement. It has two categories "advances through age" and "does not advance through age"

It's binary, yes or no.




Erm... so?

As far as I am aware, they're conventional where it matters. True Dragons don't have to have wings, or any other crap, they just have to have the dragon type and a note somewhere (anywhere) that says that they are true dragons. That includes the draconomicon entry, which you seem to think I'm ignoring.

The point is that it counteracts your squishy arguments based on how similarly dragons are presented.

JaronK
2010-01-02, 11:46 PM
Try reading the Draconomicon for an explanation of why Lung Dragons are true dragons.

I did. You didn't. Still AFB?


The definition of "advance by age category" certainly implies that it could require significant formal advancement. You have not disproven the alternative, you are merely supporting your own interpretation.

No, the definition of "advancing by age catagory" just means you have age catagories, and you advance through them. That's it. This "significant formal advancement" thing is another of your own inventions. I don't need to disprove your inventions. You need to prove them. You need to show where in the rules "formal advancement" is required and where in the rules "significant" is defined.


As far as I am aware, they're conventional where it matters. True Dragons don't have to have wings, or any other crap, they just have to have the dragon type and a note somewhere (anywhere) that says that they are true dragons. That includes the draconomicon entry, which you seem to think I'm ignoring.

Lung Dragons only have the note in the appendix in Draconomicon. But since Kobolds don't have such an entry in True OR Lesser Dragons, that definition as a requirement won't fly.

Apply your logic to determining whether Kobolds are Lesser Dragons. Again you'll find that since they're absent from Draconomicon's Indexes and never stated as Lesser Dragons anywhere else, they must be True. This leads to the earlier logical paradox, so the requirement that they must be stated somewhere is false. Kobolds are neither stated as True or Lesser. Logical failure.


Among other things, True Dragons advance hit dice, CR, and 'effective level' of most special abilities, solely as a consequence of ageing.

Assertion. YOU claim that True Dragons advance hit dice, CR, and effective level of most special abilities soley as a consequence of aging. The rules, however, don't say that. Again, this is another one of your unsupported assertions. The rules only require that True Dragons advance at all through age catagories and get more powerful by getting older. That's it. The rest is your house rule.


I haven't seen one that cannot change size category and access to natural weapons just by ageing either.

Sure you have. They're called Dragonwrought Kobolds. Just like you haven't seen one that lacks wings, unless you're looking at most of the Lung dragons, and you haven't seen one without a tail slap, unless you're looking at one of the Lung Dragons.

JaronK

Zeful
2010-01-03, 12:10 AM
True dragons list "X Dragons By Age", not "Advancement". Yes, they do in fact advance as they age, but Im not sure what you think is different about kobolds.
Wrong. True dragons list "X Dragon Abilities By Age" as part of a chart that is independent of their advancement. Kobolds are advanced by character class (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/kobold.htm). While True Dragons, like the Black Dragon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm#blackDragon), list their advancement by age categories. Unless the Draginomicon or Races of Dragon changed the Advancement part of the Kobold stat block to advancement by age category like the Black Dragon, or in fact any current True Dragon printed, as your RoD quote specifies, then they are not True Dragons.


Remember, too, that dragons fall into True Dragon, or Lesser Dragon. There is no other possibility. Dragonwrought kobolds cannot possibly be lesser dragons.Yes they can. How do Kobolds advance in HD, as stated by their advancement line in the MM? If it is by anything other than "By age categories", then they are lesser dragons.

This is, of course, the opposite viewpoint you are arguing, and the fun thing is it's RAW.

Deastorm
2010-01-03, 12:21 AM
Like a blackhole, this thread drew me. I don't even care, I just couldn't stop reading it. Go outside, all of you.

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-03, 12:25 AM
Wrong. True dragons list "X Dragon Abilities By Age" as part of a chart that is independent of their advancement. Kobolds are advanced by character class (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/kobold.htm). While True Dragons, like the Black Dragon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm#blackDragon), list their advancement by age categories. Unless the Draginomicon or Races of Dragon changed the Advancement part of the Kobold stat block to advancement by age category like the Black Dragon, or in fact any current True Dragon printed, as your RoD quote specifies, then they are not True Dragons.
True Dragons can have class levels. In fact, Draconomicon, which is touted as the "great disprover" here, has Prestige classes for dragons, as well as information stating that dragons that gain sorceror levels advance innate sorceror casting. Thus, they have statistics that change based on age, and may also advance by character class.


Yes they can. How do Kobolds advance in HD, as stated by their advancement line in the MM? If it is by anything other than "By age categories", then they are lesser dragons.Show me that "Gains HD when it advances by age category" is an out and out requirement for true dragons. I want to see the rule that states "All true dragons gain HD as a direct result of aging". Otherwise, you're drawing a correllary that doesn't exist, and representing opinion as RAW.


This is, of course, the opposite viewpoint you are arguing, and the fun thing is it's RAW.
See above for my opinion on your "fun thing". You've not satisfied the burden of evidence. I'm not saying your conclusion is right or wrong; merely that all the supporting points you've brought to bear are not supported by existing cited RAW.

Solaris
2010-01-03, 12:30 AM
I did. You didn't. Still AFB?

Normally I stay out of four-pagers that I didn't start, but this drew me in.
Come on, guy. Seeing someone say that in an argument just drives me up the wall. Just because you come up with answers faster and your opponent has something to do other than argue with you doesn't make you any more or less right.


Like a blackhole, this thread drew me. I don't even care, I just couldn't stop reading it. Go outside, all of you.

But if they did, BOB would burn them to a cinder and then where would I get my daily dose of pointless internet arguments?

JaronK
2010-01-03, 12:33 AM
Wrong. True dragons list "X Dragon Abilities By Age" as part of a chart that is independent of their advancement. Kobolds are advanced by character class (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/kobold.htm). While True Dragons, like the Black Dragon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm#blackDragon), list their advancement by age categories. Unless the Draginomicon or Races of Dragon changed the Advancement part of the Kobold stat block to advancement by age category like the Black Dragon, or in fact any current True Dragon printed, as your RoD quote specifies, then they are not True Dragons.

Races of the Dragon indeed gives Kobolds age catagories, and while they advance differently than the rest of the True Dragons, they do advance, and they do have age catagories. When my Kobold turns into a Great Wyrm, he gains +1 to all mental stats.

Note that LA'd True Dragons always can advance by character class too. If you have a Steel Dragon Monk 1, he's advancing by character class. So that part works too.


Yes they can. How do Kobolds advance in HD, as stated by their advancement line in the MM? If it is by anything other than "By age categories", then they are lesser dragons.

Thank you for actually bothering to read and think about this by the way.

I can fully see your point, that "advancement" could be read in the Monster Manual HD increase sense. However, "advancement" doesn't always mean level wise. There are a number of methods of advancement in the game, from social to exp advancement, and Draconomicon does not specify which kind. It furthermore lists "become more powerful as they grow older" separately from the age catagory buisiness.

In fact, to be specific, to be a True Dragon Kobolds simply must be a Dragon that "becomes more powerful as they grow older." That's it. Being a lesser dragon requires "do not advance through age catagories." Now you have to be one or the other, but which one sounds more accurate to you for a Dragonwrought Kobold? Do Dragonwrought Kobolds not become more powerful as they grow older? Or do not advance through age catagories? Some argument could be made for the latter, but the former is rather set in stone. Since the first part is clear (they are True Dragons since they grow more powerful as they grow older), the last part becomes clear too (advancement through age catagories applies).

JaronK

Tyndmyr
2010-01-03, 12:35 AM
Wrong. True dragons list "X Dragon Abilities By Age" as part of a chart that is independent of their advancement. Kobolds are advanced by character class (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/kobold.htm). While True Dragons, like the Black Dragon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm#blackDragon), list their advancement by age categories. Unless the Draginomicon or Races of Dragon changed the Advancement part of the Kobold stat block to advancement by age category like the Black Dragon, or in fact any current True Dragon printed, as your RoD quote specifies, then they are not True Dragons.

They do indeed advance through age categories, as per RoD. All 12 of them, all the way to Great Wyrm.

Yes, you can also advance them in other ways, such as by character class, but that can't disqualify them from being true dragons, as true dragons can be played by PC, and thus, also advanced through character class, per draconomicon.


Yes they can. How do Kobolds advance in HD, as stated by their advancement line in the MM? If it is by anything other than "By age categories", then they are lesser dragons.

This is, of course, the opposite viewpoint you are arguing, and the fun thing is it's RAW.

Hit die is not part of the requirement. Just advancement. Specific advancement not required.

JaronK
2010-01-03, 12:36 AM
Normally I stay out of four-pagers that I didn't start, but this drew me in.
Come on, guy. Seeing someone say that in an argument just drives me up the wall. Just because you come up with answers faster and your opponent has something to do other than argue with you doesn't make you any more or less right.

Considering my opponent has been regularly making stuff up and then trying to pass it as RAW, making sure he's still AFB is important when he's now trying to claim he's reading something in a book. Normally I wouldn't bring that up, but when he's making assertions I think it's fair to test if he's actually got evidence to back them up.

JaronK

Demons_eye
2010-01-03, 01:03 AM
Can we just take a vote and leave it at that? Or hell some one email one of the writes/staff and see if it's RAW and be done with it?

Sstoopidtallkid
2010-01-03, 01:04 AM
Can we just take a vote and leave it at that? Or hell some one email one of the writes/staff and see if it's RAW and be done with it?The writers have a track record of misunderstanding and outright ignoring rules. See my sig. :(

Zeful
2010-01-03, 01:09 AM
True Dragons can have class levels. In fact, Draconomicon, which is touted as the "great disprover" here, has Prestige classes for dragons, as well as information stating that dragons that gain sorceror levels advance innate sorceror casting. Thus, they have statistics that change based on age, and may also advance by character class.
Show me that "Gains HD when it advances by age category" is an out and out requirement for true dragons. I want to see the rule that states "All true dragons gain HD as a direct result of aging". Otherwise, you're drawing a correllary that doesn't exist, and representing opinion as RAW.

See above for my opinion on your "fun thing". You've not satisfied the burden of evidence. I'm not saying your conclusion is right or wrong; merely that all the supporting points you've brought to bear are not supported by existing cited RAW.

"Advances through Age Category". It clearly references the Advancement line in the stat block of every monster. Kobolds are listed as Advancement: By Character Class, as I linked. True Dragons advancement line reads something similar to this:
Advancement: Wyrmling 5-6 HD; very young 8-9 HD; young 11-12 HD; juvenile 14-15 HD; young adult 17-18 HD; adult 20-21 HD; mature adult 23-24 HD; old 26-27 HD; very old 29-30 HD; ancient 32-33 HD; wyrm 35-36 HD; great wyrm 38+ HD If the Dragonomicon or Rod changes the advancement to look like the latter, then they are true dragons as they advance through age categories, other wise they are not.


Races of the Dragon indeed gives Kobolds age catagories, and while they advance differently than the rest of the True Dragons, they do advance, and they do have age catagories. When my Kobold turns into a Great Wyrm, he gains +1 to all mental stats.If they advance differently from other true dragons, how can they qualify as true dragons?


Note that LA'd True Dragons always can advance by character class too. If you have a Steel Dragon Monk 1, he's advancing by character class. So that part works too.Of course they can, but that's following a different set of rules entirely.


Thank you for actually bothering to read and think about this by the way.

I can fully see your point, that "advancement" could be read in the Monster Manual HD increase sense. However, "advancement" doesn't always mean level wise. There are a number of methods of advancement in the game, from social to exp advancement, and Draconomicon does not specify which kind. It furthermore lists "become more powerful as they grow older" separately from the age catagory buisiness.Then why does the Advancement line exist in monster entires if that's not the type of advancement meant?


In fact, to be specific, to be a True Dragon Kobolds simply must be a Dragon that "becomes more powerful as they grow older." That's it. Being a lesser dragon requires "do not advance through age catagories." Now you have to be one or the other, but which one sounds more accurate to you for a Dragonwrought Kobold? Do Dragonwrought Kobolds not become more powerful as they grow older? Or do not advance through age catagories? Some argument could be made for the latter, but the former is rather set in stone. Since the first part is clear (they are True Dragons since they grow more powerful as they grow older), the last part becomes clear too (advancement through age catagories applies).Except that definition ("get's more powerful as they grow older")applies to every adventuring monster. If a Pseudodragon were to gain a level of Rogue, it would be more powerful than if was when it was younger, even if that's only minutes ago. Does that make it a True Dragon?


They do indeed advance through age categories, as per RoD. All 12 of them, all the way to Great Wyrm.So they gain Dragon Hit dice as if their advancement line were written like the Black dragon is?

Yes, you can also advance them in other ways, such as by character class, but that can't disqualify them from being true dragons, as true dragons can be played by PC, and thus, also advanced through character class, per draconomicon.But that's part of the Level Adjustment Rules, which incidentally, is also organized by age category for true dragons.


Hit die is not part of the requirement. Just advancement. Specific advancement not required.
Why use advancement which is part of every monster entry and not mean HD?

JaronK
2010-01-03, 01:18 AM
If they advance differently from other true dragons, how can they qualify as true dragons?

The same way Lung Dragons can qualify as True Dragons without having Wings or sometimes Tails like other True Dragons. Being different does not mean you're not of the same category. You only have to be the same in a few specific ways. Advancing at all, in any way, through age catagories makes you not a lesser dragon. Becoming more powerful by getting older makes you a True Dragon. Kobolds do it.


Then why does the Advancement line exist in monster entires if that's not the type of advancement meant?

For the same reason "Monster" and "Creature" mean the same thing despite never being properly defined in the rules. Because sometimes the designers get a bit lazy with language.


Except that definition ("get's more powerful as they grow older")applies to every adventuring monster. If a Pseudodragon were to gain a level of Rogue, it would be more powerful than if was when it was younger, even if that's only minutes ago. Does that make it a True Dragon?

No, because while it can get more powerful and get older at the same time, it doesn't get more powerful simply by virtue of getting older. Dragonwrought Kobolds do.


Why use advancement which is part of every monster entry and not mean HD?

D&D rules have never been perfectly precise. Using ambiguous words happens. Luckily, we've got multiple references here... Kobolds do get more powerful by getting older, and have age catagories that they advance through. They don't advance in the same way, but that's okay.

It's like how "Basic Classes" and "Standard Classes" both have the same multiple meanings (in the DMG, it's only the classes in the PHB. In other books, those words mean any 20 level class that's enterable at level 1 and has no requirements to enter it, as opposed to Prestige or Paragon classes). Annoying, but there it is.

The simple fact is that the requirements for being a True Dragon as indicated in Draconomicon are met by Kobolds, and the requirements for being a Lesser Dragon aren't. Yes, Kobolds are a bit different from other True Dragons, much like Lung Dragons (heck, the earth Lung Dragon looks less like the Chromatic dragons than a Kobold does!). But being different doesn't change the fact that they still fit the definition.

JaronK

Tanaric
2010-01-03, 01:20 AM
"Advances through Age Category". It clearly references the Advancement line in the stat block of every monster. Kobolds are listed as Advancement: By Character Class, as I linked. True Dragons advancement line reads something similar to this: If the Dragonomicon or Rod changes the advancement to look like the latter, then they are true dragons as they advance through age categories, other wise they are not.

Flinging around random capitalization to make text seem like other terms does not a good argument make. The actual text of the Draconomicon (AKA, "The Book O' Freakin' Dragons, Use Me For Your Dragony Needs, I Trump Other Sources So There") reads "Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance through age categories..."

Advance, Dictionary style. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Advance?r=75)



If they advance differently from other true dragons, how can they qualify as true dragons?

Because The Book O' Freakin' Dragons says they do?

--

You had other points, of course. And I will, of course, be e-glared at for choosing to ignore them. In the end, it boils down to it being a case of actual rules vs. intent.

Did the writers of RotD know what they were doing when they gave kobolds dragon age categories, and a feat to give them the dragon type? Probably not. They probably didn't have The Book O' Freakin' Dragons in mind when writing that up. But this is the effect.

Do the rules for being a True Dragon presented in The Book O' Freakin' Dragons stop a Dragonwrought Kobold from qualifying as a True Dragon? Not as written. Not as literally interpreted. If you choose to tweak the text in minor ways to make it read what you want it to say, that's your choice. I don't think anyone in their right mind would say you were giving an unfair nerf to Kobold sorcerers. But in the end, taken as written, it does not preclude Kobolds from being True Dragons.

JaronK
2010-01-03, 01:23 AM
Races of the Dragon was written before Draconomicon, and it's quite possible the writers of the last book had every intention of letting Dragonwrought Kobolds count as True Dragons because that's every Kobold's goal, really. But I would bet good money they didn't realize what that would do with regard to Sovereign Archtypes. Dragons of Eberron was being made at the same time, and likely by different designer groups. Without that book, being a True Dragon didn't actually mean anything other than having a cute title.

JaronK

Tanaric
2010-01-03, 01:25 AM
Races of the Dragon was written before Draconomicon,


I may be remembering my dates incorrectly, but I'm fairly certain the Draconomicon was written in late 2003, and RotD in early 2006.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-03, 01:25 AM
You had other points, of course. And I will, of course, be e-glared at for choosing to ignore them. In the end, it boils down to it being a case of actual rules vs. intent.


Oh no my friend. Nothing as simple as that.

MIND CRUSH!

T.G. Oskar
2010-01-03, 01:26 AM
"Advances through Age Category". It clearly references the Advancement line in the stat block of every monster. Kobolds are listed as Advancement: By Character Class, as I linked. True Dragons advancement line reads something similar to this:


Advancement: Wyrmling 5-6 HD; very young 8-9 HD; young 11-12 HD; juvenile 14-15 HD; young adult 17-18 HD; adult 20-21 HD; mature adult 23-24 HD; old 26-27 HD; very old 29-30 HD; ancient 32-33 HD; wyrm 35-36 HD; great wyrm 38+ HD

Umm...isn't that advancement through HD? Just pointing: it's mostly like saying "if it's 5-6 HD, then it's Small; 7-9, Medium; 10-12, Large". It's basically the same event as if you advanced through HD, but instead of increasing size, you increase age category, which for purposes of the game only applies to a few things in the mechanical sense(age in non-dragons imply a loss of physical attributes and an increase in mental attributes, for example).

Now, this begs the slight question: if the intention was to deny Kobolds the chance of acting and behaving as if True Dragons, why the heck give them age categories from Wyrmling to Great Wyrm?

Which leads to the question: how can Kobolds be considered Lesser Dragons and not Humanoid (dragonblooded) creatures? Dragonborn aren't Lesser Dragons, neither do Spellscales. Pseudodragons, Dragonnes, Drakkhensteeds and those weird draconic creatures are, but Kobolds aren't exactly Dragons. Then again, I think that's the entire purpose of the Draconic Rites of Passage and Dragonwrought, right?

Darn, it would be better if it's placed in an algorithmic format. That way, it would be easier to see if it applies or not. Such as: IF Creature type = Dragon AND Age Category = 12 or more, THEN Creature = True Dragon. Then, associate each point with the test. That...should help clear the misunderstanding, instead of using either fluff or assumptions as RAW, which is well underway to become a swear word in these forums or something.

JaronK
2010-01-03, 01:26 AM
Ah, I had that backwards. In that case, I would guess the RotD people thought it was a fine idea to have Kobolds count as True Dragons, but didn't realize what would happen when Dragons of Eberron came out (and I'm sure the DoE people didn't realize what RotD did with Kobolds.)

JaronK

Tanaric
2010-01-03, 01:28 AM
Which leads to the question: how can Kobolds be considered Lesser Dragons and not Humanoid (dragonblooded) creatures? Dragonborn aren't Lesser Dragons, neither do Spellscales. Pseudodragons, Dragonnes, Drakkhensteeds and those weird draconic creatures are, but Kobolds aren't exactly Dragons. Then again, I think that's the entire purpose of the Draconic Rites of Passage and Dragonwrought, right?


The Dragonwrought feat changes their type to Dragon. They have dragon age categories. Draconomicon says that Dragons that don't advance through age categories aren't True Dragons.

Some people have a hard time with this, for some reason.

JaronK
2010-01-03, 01:32 AM
Which leads to the question: how can Kobolds be considered Lesser Dragons and not Humanoid (dragonblooded) creatures? Dragonborn aren't Lesser Dragons, neither do Spellscales. Pseudodragons, Dragonnes, Drakkhensteeds and those weird draconic creatures are, but Kobolds aren't exactly Dragons. Then again, I think that's the entire purpose of the Draconic Rites of Passage and Dragonwrought, right?

Exactly, they become Dragons when they take Dragonwrought. Without it, they're not true dragons.


Darn, it would be better if it's placed in an algorithmic format. That way, it would be easier to see if it applies or not. Such as: IF Creature type = Dragon AND Age Category = 12 or more, THEN Creature = True Dragon. Then, associate each point with the test. That...should help clear the misunderstanding, instead of using either fluff or assumptions as RAW, which is well underway to become a swear word in these forums or something.

Exactly. Dragonwrought Kobolds = Dragon. Their age catagories = 12 (though the number actually isn't important, it should actually be IF Age Catagory > 0), and of course THEN True Dragon.

JaronK

tyckspoon
2010-01-03, 01:35 AM
Without that book, being a True Dragon didn't actually mean anything other than having a cute title.

JaronK

Draconomicon also lets the Dragonwrought Kobolds bypass the requirement to have Epic hit dice in order to qualify for Epic feats. It's mostly not a useful optimization trick, however, as all the good Epic feats require other non-cheeseable qualifiers (skill ranks, usually, or just very high stats.. and if you want to devote the Dex to qualify early for something like Infinite Deflection, well, go ahead, you deserve it.) About half of what's left isn't really worth taking as a non-Epic feat either (Epic skill feat? Epic save feat? Well.. ok, +4 to one save is a pretty big chunk which might be useful if you have a huge weakness, but normally?) The most problematic option is likely turning any spare feats you have into an extra stat bonus or a chunk of HP, and those usually aren't gamebreaking numbers.

JaronK
2010-01-03, 01:40 AM
Yeah, as I recall there was one fun archery feat you could take, but the rest didn't really matter much.

JaronK

Sstoopidtallkid
2010-01-03, 01:44 AM
Draconomicon also lets the Dragonwrought Kobolds bypass the requirement to have Epic hit dice in order to qualify for Epic feats. It's mostly not a useful optimization trick, however, as all the good Epic feats require other non-cheesaeable qualifiers (skill ranks, usually, or just very high stats.. and if you want to devote the Dex to qualify early for something like Infinite Deflection, well, go ahead, you deserve it.) About half of what's left isn't really worth taking as a non-Epic feat either (Epic skill feat? Epic save feat? Well.. ok, +4 to one save is a pretty big chunk which might be useful if you have a huge weakness, but normally?) The most problematic option is likely turning any spare feats you have into an extra stat bonus or a chunk of HP, and those usually aren't gamebreaking numbers.Epic Toughness. Surprisingly worthwhile if taken at level 3. Bonus Domain is decent once you hit level 18. Holy Strike is awesome for a Paladin.

But yes, Armor Skin etc suck.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-03, 01:44 AM
Ah, I had that backwards. In that case, I would guess the RotD people thought it was a fine idea to have Kobolds count as True Dragons, but didn't realize what would happen when Dragons of Eberron came out (and I'm sure the DoE people didn't realize what RotD did with Kobolds.)

JaronK

This seems likely. I've had more or less the same thought myself. Looking at Draconomicon, there's a few things that Dragons can take that are...okish. Ditto prestige classes.

I wouldn't be surprised if the writers of RotD thought it'd be a good idea to make kobolds eligible to take those things. They can't be blamed for not seeing the future, really.


The best option available for epic feats is, IMO, the +30 HP from epic toughness. At level 1, that's pretty handy.

Zeful
2010-01-03, 01:50 AM
The same way Lung Dragons can qualify as True Dragons without having Wings or sometimes Tails like other True Dragons. Being different does not mean you're not of the same category. You only have to be the same in a few specific ways. Advancing at all, in any way, through age catagories makes you not a lesser dragon. Becoming more powerful by getting older makes you a True Dragon. Kobolds do it.I thought you said that the only qualification of a True Dragon was that they get stronger as they get older? Now they need to have wings and tails?


No, because while it can get more powerful and get older at the same time, it doesn't get more powerful simply by virtue of getting older. Dragonwrought Kobolds do.And what qualifies as "getting older" if not the passage of time?


D&D rules have never been perfectly precise. Using ambiguous words happens. Luckily, we've got multiple references here... Kobolds do get more powerful by getting older, and have age catagories that they advance through. They don't advance in the same way, but that's okay.Is it? Do the Lung Dragons have a similar advancement line to the MM True Dragons?


The simple fact is that the requirements for being a True Dragon as indicated in Draconomicon are met by Kobolds, and the requirements for being a Lesser Dragon aren't. Yes, Kobolds are a bit different from other True Dragons, much like Lung Dragons (heck, the earth Lung Dragon looks less like the Chromatic dragons than a Kobold does!). But being different doesn't change the fact that they still fit the definition.Are they? You say that they advance through age categories to mean that they have age categories which they advance through. While I am saying that advance through age categories means that the creature's advancement is regulated through their age categories. Dragonwrought Kobolds match your interpretation, but not mine. Both are valid interpretations of the RAW, which means that in lack of a definitive answer from the RAW, the conventions of other true dragons must be considered when determining what is a true dragon.


Flinging around random capitalization to make text seem like other terms does not a good argument make. The actual text of the Draconomicon (AKA, "The Book O' Freakin' Dragons, Use Me For Your Dragony Needs, I Trump Other Sources So There") reads "Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance through age categories..."Oh so appendix 2 of the Book of Freakin' Dragons list Dragonwrought Kobolds as True Dragons?


Do the rules for being a True Dragon presented in The Book O' Freakin' Dragons stop a Dragonwrought Kobold from qualifying as a True Dragon? Not as written. Not as literally interpreted.And what is the literal interpretation? True Dragons advance through age categories. We all agree on that at least. All I am saying is that the sentence as a whole does not mean the same written backwards as forwards. Yes kobolds have age categories that they advance through, but they're advancement is not regulated through their age categories, as with every true dragon. Both concepts can be written as "advance through age categories". A literal interpretation would include the order of the words in the sentence, which actually precludes the former interpretation, which has "age categories" in front of "advances through".


Umm...isn't that advancement through HD? Just pointing: it's mostly like saying "if it's 5-6 HD, then it's Small; 7-9, Medium; 10-12, Large". It's basically the same event as if you advanced through HD, but instead of increasing size, you increase age category, which for purposes of the game only applies to a few things in the mechanical sense(age in non-dragons imply a loss of physical attributes and an increase in mental attributes, for example).Except the formatting. The age category is in front of the HD, while the size is after. This means a.)The designers are incompetent fools and it means nothing or b.)that the formatting was intentional to show the difference between the advancement of normal animals and True dragons.


Which leads to the question: how can Kobolds be considered Lesser Dragons and not Humanoid (dragonblooded) creatures? Dragonborn aren't Lesser Dragons, neither do Spellscales. Pseudodragons, Dragonnes, Drakkhensteeds and those weird draconic creatures are, but Kobolds aren't exactly Dragons. Then again, I think that's the entire purpose of the Draconic Rites of Passage and Dragonwrought, right?Haveing the Dragon type and being a True Dragon are two vastly different things. And while kobolds revere dragons and make themselves more draconic through powerful magic, they are no more true dragons than the psuedodragon.

JaronK
2010-01-03, 01:52 AM
Remember that Kobolds were very weak originally, and so are Dragons as PCs, but for drastically different reasons (Kobolds due to poor stats, Dragons due to high LAs and HD). So a number of designers tried to fix this by boosting both in different ways. Unfortunately, enough designers did things to Kobolds to make them quite strong (Greater Draconic Rite, various spells that are better if you're a dragon, etc), and then the combination of Races of the Dragon and Dragons of Eberron gave them access to the stuff designed to make Dragons more playable (Loredrake is quite balanced on a Draconic Sorcerer who's already in the hole due to LA and HD). The end result was a massive overcompensation that ended up making Kobolds incredible.

It's much like what happened with Intimidate, with so many designers trying to make intimidating in combat viable that eventually you got combos where you could paralyze whole encounters at will with it. Whoops.

JaronK

JaronK
2010-01-03, 01:59 AM
I thought you said that the only qualification of a True Dragon was that they get stronger as they get older? Now they need to have wings and tails?

They don't. The point is that being different from most of the others doesn't disqualify you. Kobolds advancing differently doesn't disqualify them, just like some Lung dragons having no tail doesn't disqualify them. All you need are the basic rules in Draconomicon.


And what qualifies as "getting older" if not the passage of time?

Even a Dragonwrought Kobold in a coma who does nothing but gets older gets more powerful... it's just getting older that does it. A Lesser Dragon can only get more powerful by class levels.


Is it? Do the Lung Dragons have a similar advancement line to the MM True Dragons?

Yup.


Are they? You say that they advance through age categories to mean that they have age categories which they advance through.

Which is pretty much tautological, actually. And completely logical.


While I am saying that advance through age categories means that the creature's advancement is regulated through their age categories. Dragonwrought Kobolds match your interpretation, but not mine.

Wait a minute. Only part of a Kobold's advancement is regulated through age catagories (mental stats) while the rest is class levels. Only part of a PC dragon's advancement is through age catagories (HD, a few other things), the rest is through class levels. Different, but they both still do it.


Oh so appendix 2 of the Book of Freakin' Dragons list Dragonwrought Kobolds as True Dragons?

No, nor does it list them as Lesser Dragons, mostly because Dragonwrought didn't exist when Draconomicon came out. Shocking. So let's not pretend that's relevant.


And what is the literal interpretation? True Dragons advance through age categories. We all agree on that at least. All I am saying is that the sentence as a whole does not mean the same written backwards as forwards. Yes kobolds have age categories that they advance through, but they're advancement is not regulated through their age categories, as with every true dragon. Both concepts can be written as "advance through age categories". A literal interpretation would include the order of the words in the sentence, which actually precludes the former interpretation, which has "age categories" in front of "advances through".

Note that to prove your point you must also claim that Kobolds do not grow stronger as they grow older, because they must be either True Dragons or Lesser Dragons. I completely agree with what you're saying about advancement... it could be using the dictionary definition (in which case Kobolds qualify) or the Monster Manual definition (in which case they don't). But if they don't, that means they must be Lesser Dragons, which means they cannot grow stronger simply by growing older... which is false. Since the train of logic lead to a falsehood, it must be incorrect. If we assume they meant the dictionary definition of advance, then they are True Dragons, which means they must grow stronger simply by growing older... which they do. Now the logic all works.

JaronK

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-03, 02:12 AM
"Advances through Age Category". It clearly references the Advancement line in the stat block of every monster. Kobolds are listed as Advancement: By Character Class, as I linked. True Dragons advancement line reads something similar to this: If the Dragonomicon or Rod changes the advancement to look like the latter, then they are true dragons as they advance through age categories, other wise they are not.Unless it explicitly references the Advancement line in the stat block, no, it is not "clearly".


If they advance differently from other true dragons, how can they qualify as true dragons?Because it's not a listed requirement?


So they gain Dragon Hit dice as if their advancement line were written like the Black dragon is?Show me where: "Gains HD through advancement" is a requirement. Non HD advancement is available from many sources, friend. Some provide HD, others don't. Look at the monster progression for pixie, for example. 4 levels of advancement. Not a single HD gained.

HD is not a requirement for advancement. Nor is LA, as many creatures don't have any increased LA with racial HD gain.


Why use advancement which is part of every monster entry and not mean HD?
Because Advancement != "gains HD".

Look at any monster progression. They don't gain HD at every level. Does that mean, on those levels, they didn't advance? No. They did. They just didn't gain HD. Which means the two are not linked.

Another fallacy. When are you going to stop trying to use pseudo-logic as it applies to cherry-picked rules, and start trying to actually use RAW? You're trying to say it's not legal. That's a RAW argument. "this doesn't make sense" and "why would it say" has NO place in such arguments. All that matters is:

(1) Does primary source say you're right?
- if yes, then you are
- if no, then
(2) Does primary source say you're wrong?
- if yes, then you are
- if no, then it's open to interpretation.

Tanaric
2010-01-03, 02:13 AM
Oh so appendix 2 of the Book of Freakin' Dragons list Dragonwrought Kobolds as True Dragons?


Ignoring everything else, probably already covered by Jaron.

How could a book printed in 2003 list a race of Dragons introduced in 2006?

Tiiiime travel man. Tiiiime travel.

Zeful
2010-01-03, 02:15 AM
They don't. The point is that being different from most of the others doesn't disqualify you. Kobolds advancing differently doesn't disqualify them, just like some Lung dragons having no tail doesn't disqualify them. All you need are the basic rules in Draconomicon.

Even a Dragonwrought Kobold in a coma who does nothing but gets older gets more powerful... it's just getting older that does it. A Lesser Dragon can only get more powerful by class levels.And now we've reached the beginning of the argument again. The Lung Dragons, while lacking wings and sometimes tails, aren't different from True Dragons because if you put one in a coma for a thousand years it will become more powerful in every respect. Put a Dragonwrought Kobold Fighter* in a coma for a thousand years and all he gets are some boosted saves and more Skill points next level up.

*Of course casters will get stronger, but the point is that not every Dragonwrought kobold actually gets stronger with age, they just don't get weaker.



Which is pretty much tautological, actually. And completely logical.

Wait a minute. Only part of a Kobold's advancement is regulated through age catagories (mental stats) while the rest is class levels. Only part of a PC dragon's advancement is through age catagories (HD, a few other things), the rest is through class levels. Different, but they both still do it.Except a PC dragon will be consulting the Level Adjustment line for his advancement, not the actual advancement line. You're not comparing similar situations.


Note that to prove your point you must also claim that Kobolds do not grow stronger as they grow older, because they must be either True Dragons or Lesser Dragons. I completely agree with what you're saying about advancement... it could be using the dictionary definition (in which case Kobolds qualify) or the Monster Manual definition (in which case they don't). But if they don't, that means they must be Lesser Dragons, which means they cannot grow stronger simply by growing older... which is false. Since the train of logic lead to a falsehood, it must be incorrect. If we assume they meant the dictionary definition of advance, then they are True Dragons, which means they must grow stronger simply by growing older... which they do. Now the logic all works.Except not all Dragonwrougt Kobolds actually get stronger with age. Fighters, Rogues, and Barbarians will simply fail to get weaker as they age and get some useful additional bonuses. While every True dragon, no matter the situation, will get stronger as they age. Since a specific situation does not a general rule make, Dragonwrought Kobolds cannot be said to grow stronger with age the same way a true dragon does. This means that they are not true dragons.

Koury
2010-01-03, 02:17 AM
Better saves isn't stronger? :smallconfused:

Tanaric
2010-01-03, 02:18 AM
Except not all Dragonwrougt Kobolds actually get stronger with age. Fighters, Rogues, and Barbarians will simply fail to get weaker as they age and get some useful additional bonuses. While every True dragon, no matter the situation, will get stronger as they age. Since a specific situation does not a general rule make, Dragonwrought Kobolds cannot be said to grow stronger with age the same way a true dragon does. This means that they are not true dragons.

Aaaand we've reached the pinnacle of semantics. Oh joy.

The Dragonwrought Kobold fighter gained +3 wisdom, +3 intelligence, and +3 charisma.

Net result, from a thousand years in a coma?

He's dead, since kobolds don't live that long.

Net result, from the intent of your experiment?

He has better will saves. He is stronger than a non-great wyrm dragonwrought kobold fighter of the same level. If anything about the situation changed, he would still be stronger. He would be a stronger Commoner. He would be a stronger Warrior. He would be a stronger Wizard.

Next.

Zeful
2010-01-03, 02:28 AM
He has better will saves. He is stronger than a non-great wyrm dragonwrought kobold fighter of the same level. If anything about the situation changed, he would still be stronger. He would be a stronger Commoner. He would be a stronger Warrior. He would be a stronger Wizard.

So in a fight between two Dragonwrought kobold fighter 1, one a wyrmling with a 16, 12, 14, 10, 8, 6 for stats, and the other a great wyrm with identical stats except for a +3 to Int, Wis, and Cha. The Great Wyrm Kobold will always win, or at least win more than 50% of the time? Because the only changing factor in the fight is the dice roll.

So no, not stronger.

Milskidasith
2010-01-03, 02:30 AM
Aaaand we've reached the pinnacle of semantics. Oh joy.

The Dragonwrought Kobold fighter gained +3 wisdom, +3 intelligence, and +3 charisma.

Net result, from a thousand years in a coma?

He's dead, since kobolds don't live that long.

Net result, from the intent of your experiment?

He has better will saves. He is stronger than a non-great wyrm dragonwrought kobold fighter of the same level. If anything about the situation changed, he would still be stronger. He would be a stronger Commoner. He would be a stronger Warrior. He would be a stronger Wizard.

Next.

Actually, if he were an epic wizard, he wouldn't have gained any strength because they have aleph-0 (or at least arbitrarily high, I'm not entirely clear on the math, being only educated in half of AP calculus so far) stats, so the +3 is meaningless.

So once you hit epic, you cease to qualify for anything requiring a True Dragon, because epic dragonwrought kobold wizards/sorcerers stop being True Dragons. :smalltongue:


So in a fight between two Dragonwrought kobold fighter 1, one a wyrmling with a 16, 12, 14, 10, 8, 6 for stats, and the other a great wyrm with identical stats except for a +3 to Int, Wis, and Cha. The Great Wyrm Kobold will always win, or at least win more than 50% of the time? Because the only changing factor in the fight is the dice roll.

So no, not stronger.

If they had a fear inducing feat, yes, because the DW kobold would pass his save against fear 5% more often, which would mean he is shaken 5% less often, giving him less melee penalties, meaning he's slightly more accurate 5% of the time.

So yes, even in this example, the DW kobold is better.

Tanaric
2010-01-03, 02:31 AM
So in a fight between two Dragonwrought kobold fighter 1, one a wyrmling with a 16, 12, 14, 10, 8, 6 for stats, and the other a great wyrm with identical stats except for a +3 to Int, Wis, and Cha. The Great Wyrm Kobold will always win, or at least win more than 50% of the time? Because the only changing factor in the fight is the dice roll.

So no, not stronger.

The requirement for a creature being stronger than another creature is higher to-hit?

Higher HP?

No, it must be higher AC.

Or... maybe a creature is stronger than another because some aspect of it is better.

Your argument is a fallacy. If you want it to be seen as anything more than that, find a rule quote that says a creature must have a specific higher (whatever) to be considered stronger.

Edit: Let's compare two creatures. It doesn't matter what they are. One has a strength score two points higher. This makes it a stronger creature in your example. Why?

Now, let's compare two more creatures. It doesn't matter what they are. One has a higher intelligence, wisdom, and charisma than the other creature. This does not make it a stronger creature in your example. Why?

Sstoopidtallkid
2010-01-03, 02:33 AM
So in a fight between two Dragonwrought kobold fighter 1, one a wyrmling with a 16, 12, 14, 10, 8, 6 for stats, and the other a great wyrm with identical stats except for a +3 to Int, Wis, and Cha. The Great Wyrm Kobold will always win, or at least win more than 50% of the time? Because the only changing factor in the fight is the dice roll.

So no, not stronger.Depends on the builds. But if one's intimidate-based, or has a Sudden Stunning weapon, or anything similar, then yes, the Great Wyrm wins more often.

Koury
2010-01-03, 02:35 AM
So in a fight between two Dragonwrought kobold fighter 1, one a wyrmling with a 16, 12, 14, 10, 8, 6 for stats, and the other a great wyrm with identical stats except for a +3 to Int, Wis, and Cha. The Great Wyrm Kobold will always win, or at least win more than 50% of the time? Because the only changing factor in the fight is the dice roll.

So no, not stronger.

Wait, time out. It is, I would assume, the default position that in a fight between someone with strictly better stats, especially +3 WIS/INT/CHA, and someone without the extra stats the one with the stats is the favorite, no matter how slightly. And by favorite, I mean the stronger of the two.

So yes, given enough trials, the results of the fights will tend towards the great wyrm.

How can you possibly claim anything else? The burden of proving someone strictly statistically worse is a better option is on you.

Tanaric
2010-01-03, 02:37 AM
How can you possibly claim anything else? The burden of proving someone strictly statistically worse is a better option is on you.

Don't you bring your sneaky logic into this!

...I'm on to you. :smallyuk:

Koury
2010-01-03, 02:41 AM
Logic? I just liked the alliteration of "someone strictly statistically."

Milskidasith
2010-01-03, 02:43 AM
You know, what is this supposed to prove, anyway? In one specific circumstance (a fighter who spends his extra skill points on useless skills, with neither of them using intimidate or anything that requires a will save or diplomancing each other), a DW kobold isn't as strong, so they aren't true dragons?

Ok then, a great wyrm gold dragon attempting to kill itself takes longer than a wyrmling gold dragon attempting to kill itself, because it has more HP and can't throw itself off a cliff as effectively. Therefore, gold dragons are not true dragons because in one case a great wyrm gold dragon is weaker in one particular aspect of their character, ignoring all other possibilities (like, say, taking advantage of your resources?)

Tanaric
2010-01-03, 02:44 AM
More logic!

Killing catgirls makes great wrym dragonwrought kobolds weaker than non-great wyrms!

Yeah, okay, that's enough sarcasm from me. But seriously.

Zeful
2010-01-03, 02:57 AM
The requirement for a creature being stronger than another creature is higher to-hit?

Higher HP?

No, it must be higher AC.

Or... maybe a creature is stronger than another because some aspect of it is better.

Your argument is a fallacy. If you want it to be seen as anything more than that, find a rule quote that says a creature must have a specific higher (whatever) to be considered stronger.

They're are no rules to determine what is stronger, short of the Strength tables (which the two kobolds are even at). So we must follow the English language's colloquial use of stronger (unless you wish to continue this debate in another language?). Which in this instance, the Older kobold is not stronger, because where it matters, he is no better than his opponent. If he were a true dragon, he would be stronger than his opponent because all true dragon printed gain HD when they grow up, which also gives them stat-boosts, more abilities, and other bonuses. A true dragon gets everything the kobold does and much, much more. To say that the Great Wyrm Kobold is stronger requires that you qualify "stronger" so that the actual reality of the difference is clear. A great wyrm true dragon does not need that qualification because the difference covers all areas.


If they had a fear inducing feat, yes, because the DW kobold would pass his save against fear 5% more often, which would mean he is shaken 5% less often, giving him less melee penalties, meaning he's slightly more accurate 5% of the time.

So yes, even in this example, the DW kobold is better.Both are fighter 1, the only difference is a fighter feat (as their generic first level feat is taken up by the Dragonwrought feat) as far as I know there are no such feats.

And even then, that's a very specific (and likely impossible) situation. So still All Kobolds are not stronger as they age, some and even most kobolds are, but not all.

Milskidasith
2010-01-03, 03:00 AM
And even then, that's a very specific (and likely impossible) situation. So still All Kobolds are not stronger as they age, some and even most kobolds are, but not all.

Not all great wyrm's are stronger as they age, as I said. If we assume a completely arbitrary contest of, say, killing yourself, and you happen to be flying above a cliff 150 feet in the air, the younger, say, white dragon can instantly kill itself by dropping 150 feet to it's death, while the great wyrm would fail. Therefore, the great wyrm white dragon is weaker than a younger white dragon because it doesn't have the strength to kill itself. Therefore, since great wyrm white dragons are not always stronger, they're not True Dragons.

See what making up absurd situations to fit your choice of definitions does to make your argument seem reasonable? Neither do I.

Tanaric
2010-01-03, 03:06 AM
I just...

What the...

I can't...

http://techbuddha.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/double-facepalm.jpg

Intentional ignorance is very upsetting, you know.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-03, 03:09 AM
They're are no rules to determine what is stronger, short of the Strength tables (which the two kobolds are even at). So we must follow the English language's colloquial use of stronger (unless you wish to continue this debate in another language?).


strong  [strawng, strong] Show IPA adjective, strong⋅er  [strawng-ger, strong-] Show IPA , strong⋅est  [strawng-gist, strong-] Show IPA , adverb
Use stronger in a Sentence
–adjective
1. having, showing, or able to exert great bodily or muscular power; physically vigorous or robust: a strong boy.
2. accompanied or delivered by great physical, mechanical, etc., power or force: a strong handshake; With one strong blow the machine stamped out a fender.
3. mentally powerful or vigorous: He may be old, but his mind is still strong.
4. especially able, competent, or powerful in a specific field or respect: She's very strong in mathematics. He's weak at bat, but he's a strong fielder.
5. of great moral power, firmness, or courage: strong under temptation.
6. powerful in influence, authority, resources, or means of prevailing or succeeding: a strong nation.
7. aggressive; willful: a strong personality.
8. of great force, effectiveness, potency, or cogency; compelling: strong reasons; strong arguments.
9. clear and firm; loud: He has a strong voice.
10. solid or stable; healthy; thriving: The banker predicted a strong economy.
11. well-supplied or rich in something specific: a strong hand in trumps.
12. having powerful means to resist attack, assault, or aggression: a strong fortress; a strong defense.
13. able to resist strain, force, wear, etc.: strong walls; strong cloth.
14. decisively unyielding; firm or uncompromising: She has strong views about the United Nations. He has a strong sense of duty.
15. fervent; zealous; thoroughgoing: He's a strong Democrat.
16. strenuous or energetic; vigorous: strong efforts.
17. moving or acting with force or vigor: strong winds.
18. distinct or marked; vivid, as impressions, resemblance or contrast: He bears a strong resemblance to his grandfather.
19. intense, as light or color.
20. having a large proportion of the effective or essential properties or ingredients; concentrated: strong tea.
21. (of a beverage or food) containing much alcohol: strong drink; The fruitcake was too strong.
22. having a high degree of flavor or odor: strong cheese; strong perfume.
23. having an unpleasant or offensive flavor or odor, esp. in the process of decay: strong butter.
24. of a designated number: Marines 20,000 strong.
25. Commerce. characterized by steady or advancing prices: The market resumed its strong pace after yesterday's setback.
26. Grammar.
a. (of Germanic verbs) having vowel change in the root in inflected forms, as the English verbs sing, sang, sung; ride, rode, ridden.
b. (of Germanic nouns and adjectives) inflected with endings that are generally distinctive of case, number, and gender, as German alter Mann “old man.”
c. belonging to the morphophonemically less regular of two inflectional subtypes.
27. (of a word or syllable) stressed.
28. Optics. having great magnifying or refractive power: a strong microscope.

A kobold with higher mental stats fulfills these definitions:
3. mentally powerful or vigorous: He may be old, but his mind is still strong.
Because their mental stats are higher.

4. especially able, competent, or powerful in a specific field or respect: She's very strong in mathematics. He's weak at bat, but he's a strong fielder.
Again, because their mental stats are higher.

5. of great moral power, firmness, or courage: strong under temptation.
Again, greater wisdom leads to a better understanding of morality, and greater courage.

22.having a high degree of flavor or odor: strong cheese; strong perfume.
Because Dragonwrought kobolds are cheesy

Isn't the English language fun, Zeful?

Milskidasith
2010-01-03, 03:11 AM
I guess it's true that wizards are not stronger than fighters because their strength scores are always lower.

Until epic, anyway.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-03, 03:14 AM
I have edited my response to be even more awesome in the time it took you to quote me.

Tanaric
2010-01-03, 03:17 AM
Blast it, PF. In the time it took me to recover from the burst of (what I pray was) intentional stupidity silliness, you went and stole my quoting thunder. :smallfrown:

Edit: Because calling people stupid is wrong.

Milskidasith
2010-01-03, 03:18 AM
I have edited my response to be even more awesome in the time it took you to quote me.

By editing your post while I was quoting, does that make you a ninja, or a reverse ninja?

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-03, 03:22 AM
By editing your post while I was quoting, does that make you a ninja, or a reverse ninja?

Inverse Mulliganninja!

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-03, 03:33 AM
Both are fighter 1, the only difference is a fighter feat (as their generic first level feat is taken up by the Dragonwrought feat) as far as I know there are no such feats.

Incorrect. Both would have the dragonwrought feat.

If we are arguing that age does or does not make the kobold stronger then we take this:

Dragonwrought Kobold Fighter 1 (young)
Dragonwrought Kobold Fighter 1 (old)

The old one has at least 1 more skill point, and at least a +1 to will saves. this means that it will do everything equally well, and some things better.

This fulfills stronger in many ways:
"12. having powerful means to resist attack, assault, or aggression: a strong fortress; a strong defense."
"13. able to resist strain, force, wear, etc.: strong walls; strong cloth."

Because it has a more effective way to resist mental attacks, it is stronger in this sense.

Zeful
2010-01-03, 03:35 AM
Isn't the English language fun, Zeful?

Yes it is.


Blast it, PF. In the time it took me to recover from the burst of (what I pray was) intentional stupidity silliness, you went and stole my quoting thunder. :smallfrown:

Edit: Because calling people stupid is wrong.

Now you understand my point. Both interpretations of qualifications leads to sillyness and there is no right answer, so pick one and use it. I already have.

Note: To restate and clarify my position. To be a true dragon, one must advance through age categories, directly referencing the Advancement line in the monster's stat block, and grow stronger as they age. Dragonwrought Kobolds satisfy one of these conditions, not both, thus are not true dragons. This is a valid interpretation of the RAW, quoted multiple times in this thread. It is not the only valid interpretation of RAW/

JaronK
2010-01-03, 03:35 AM
Note that the line in Draconomicon is "become more powerful as they grow older" not "become stronger."

And why are we talking about Fighters anyway? These are Kobolds! Compare their version of power... Sorcerers! Will the Wyrmling Sorcerer 10 be more powerful than the Great Wyrm Sorcerer 10, all other things being equal? Will the guy with the lower will save, worse spot checks, lower save DCs, fewer bonus spells, fewer skill points, lower knowledge and spellcraft checks, and so on be more or less powerful than the one who's just plain better?

Think carefully.

Now, please explain a Kobold build, any build, that is not more powerful when it gains +3 to all mental stats. Even a Fighter gets +1 or two to will saves, extra skill points, and better Intimidate checks... sure, it's subtle, but Kobolds want to be Sorcerers anyway for good reason. A Kobold Commoner 1 still gets the boosted skills and will saves, plus he's better at Handle Animal checks (which we all know are the secret to commoners kicking butt anyway).

JaronK

Tanaric
2010-01-03, 03:36 AM
Edit: Bah, massive ninaja'd.

JaronK
2010-01-03, 03:36 AM
Note: To restate and clarify my position. To be a true dragon, one must advance through age categories, directly referencing the Advancement line in the monster's stat block, and grow stronger as they age. Dragonwrought Kobolds satisfy one of these conditions, not both, thus are not true dragons. This is a valid interpretation of the RAW, quoted multiple times in this thread. It is not the only valid interpretation of RAW/

Except that conclusion leads to a logical contradiction. Can you spot it? If you do, you'll see why it becomes non valid.

JaronK

Tanaric
2010-01-03, 03:39 AM
Note: To restate and clarify my position. To be a true dragon, one must advance through age categories, directly referencing the Advancement line in the monster's stat block,

You know, I'm looking right at my copy of the Draconomicon, and I'm just not seeing "Reference Advancement lines to determine True Dragon-ness" anywhere.

Or anything remotely similar.

Since it was missed before, here is the dictionary definition of "advance" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advance?r=75). Note that, in the Draconomicon, it is not capitalized. Since we're splitting hairs, it can't possibly reference "Advancement" with "advance through".

Fun.

Edit: See also: everything Jaron has said so far. And read it this time. With the same amount of literal interpretation you're trying to apply to first level dragonwrought kobold fighters.

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-03, 03:44 AM
Note: To restate and clarify my position. To be a true dragon, one must advance through age categories, directly referencing the Advancement line in the monster's stat block, and grow stronger as they age.
Advancement through age categories does not, RAW, directly reference the advancement line in the monster's stat block. That is your opinion, and is not supported by RAW citing.

Growing more powerful as they age is satisfied.
They do have age categories. Through those age categories, they gain more resistances and skills. This is a power increase. That makes it "more powerful".

Dragonwrought Kobolds satisfy one of these conditions, not both, thus are not true dragons. This is a valid interpretation of the RAW, quoted multiple times in this thread. It is not the only valid interpretation of RAW/
No. It is correlated opinions based loosely on an extrapolated view of RAW.

It is no more valid than the commoner railgun. Because blending common sense and RAW, cherrypicking where it suits you, is NOT RAW. It is homebrew. Take it there. Have fun with it.

However, if you state: "OMGZORZ YOU ALL ARE DOING IT WRONGZ KOBOLDZ CANT GET FREE LEVELZ", and then you acknowledge that you have to rely on specific RAW interpretations that are not all inclusive, and then you state that under other interpretations, they do work?

Then you've disproven the original point. Even if we concede every point you've made (which we're not, mind you), Loredrake Kobold is not a violation of RAW, because you've conceded that under some interpretations, it's legal. Other people can't be doing it wrong if there is a valid RAW interpretation that supports them.

Zeful
2010-01-03, 04:29 AM
Except that conclusion leads to a logical contradiction. Can you spot it? If you do, you'll see why it becomes non valid.

JaronK
You mean this:

Note that to prove your point you must also claim that Kobolds do not grow stronger as they grow older, because they must be either True Dragons or Lesser Dragons. I completely agree with what you're saying about advancement... it could be using the dictionary definition (in which case Kobolds qualify) or the Monster Manual definition (in which case they don't). But if they don't, that means they must be Lesser Dragons, which means they cannot grow stronger simply by growing older... which is false. Since the train of logic lead to a falsehood, it must be incorrect. If we assume they meant the dictionary definition of advance, then they are True Dragons, which means they must grow
And no, it does not. There are two conditions in the Dragonomicon. The first is "Grows more powerful as they age". The second is "advance through age categories". The second is to when creatures with the Dragon type are not true dragons. Dragonwrought Kobolds are creatures that do grow more powerful as they age, but do not advance through age categories. This is not a logical conundrum because the two conditions are independent of each other.


Advancement through age categories does not, RAW, directly reference the advancement line in the monster's stat block. That is your opinion, and is not supported by RAW citing.Advancement is already a game term used for the specific purpose of making a creature more powerful, it is no less a valid interpretation of the existing words than it meaning "moving up a social ladder" does. Moving up said social ladder, gaining experience, spell levels, to-hit bonues, stat bonuses are also forms of advancement. In fact if you think about it do to the way English works you don't ever write "advance through age categories" you write "advancement through age categories". Taking the condition on it's own more than satisfies my interpretation.


Growing more powerful as they age is satisfied.
They do have age categories. Through those age categories, they gain more resistances and skills. This is a power increase. That makes it "more powerful".It's not advancing though.


It is no more valid than the commoner railgun. Because blending common sense and RAW, cherrypicking where it suits you, is NOT RAW. It is homebrew. Take it there. Have fun with it.
Except the commoner railgun works. You can't do a lot of damage or throw the pail very far, but it works. There's absolutely nothing to interpret. It's when people forget about the rules for improvised weapons does it stop working.


Then you've disproven the original point. Even if we concede every point you've made (which we're not, mind you), Loredrake Kobold is not a violation of RAW, because you've conceded that under some interpretations, it's legal. Other people can't be doing it wrong if there is a valid RAW interpretation that supports them.But I am free to point how bloody freaking stupid the other valid interpretation is.

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-03, 04:47 AM
It's not advancing though.
First: "Advance" is not a reserved term. "Advancement" is, in some cases. However, it didn't use "Advancement". The game makes references to characters, when they advance in level. Does that refer to their MM entry? Why, humans don't even have a MM entry. Numerous WotC publications refer to a character advancing down a corridor. Does that refer to the advancement blocks in the monster manual?

Yes, it is different, just as "energy" and "energy drain" are different.


Except the commoner railgun works. You can't do a lot of damage or throw the pail very far, but it works. There's absolutely nothing to interpret. It's when people forget about the rules for improvised weapons does it stop working.When the precept for the commoner railgun is that the fast moving staff deals extra damage from kinetic force, NO. It does not work as originally presented. What you refer to is essentially a bucket brigade. Not the commoner railgun as it was originally presented.

Yet another example where you're incorrectly presenting a situation.


But I am free to point how bloody freaking stupid the other valid interpretation is.

As I am free to courteously refer you to the forum rules when you refer to one of my preferred playstyles as stupid (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1).

JaronK
2010-01-03, 04:57 AM
And no, it does not. There are two conditions in the Dragonomicon. The first is "Grows more powerful as they age". The second is "advance through age categories". The second is to when creatures with the Dragon type are not true dragons. Dragonwrought Kobolds are creatures that do grow more powerful as they age, but do not advance through age categories. This is not a logical conundrum because the two conditions are independent of each other.

Actually, they're not independent. Look it over again. Any dragon that gets more powerful as it grows older is a True Dragon... that's it, full stop. Anything that does not not advance through age catagories is a Lesser Dragon. Also, all dragons are Lesser Dragons or True Dragons.

Now, in logical terms, what does this mean? I'll write it out, you can tell me where you think I go off course.

0: Assumed: Kobolds are Lesser Dragons
1: Given: Kobolds are Dragons
2: Given: All Dragons are Lesser Dragons or True Dragons
3: Given: True Dragons grow more powerful by getting older
4: Given: Lesser Dragons do not advance through age catagories
5: Given: Kobolds get more powerful as they get older
6: Given: Kobolds have age catagories
7: Not 4 + 2: True Dragons do advance through age catagories
8: Not 3 + 2: Lesser Dragons do not grow more powerful by getting older
9: 3 + 7: True Dragons Grow More Powerful by getting older and advance through age catagories
10: 4 + 8: Lesser Dragons Do Not Grow more powerful by getting older and do not advance through age catagories.
11: 10 + 0: Kobolds do not grow more powerful by getting older and do not advance through age catagories.
12: 11+5: Logical failure. Assuption at step 0 Falsified.

As you can see, logic actually does tie 3 and 4 together, because anything that does advance through age catagories must grow powerful by getting older (since it must be true) and anything that doesn't must not grow powerful by getting older (since it must be lesser). So what's the conclusion? Well, we ended up with a logic failure... by defining Kobolds as Lesser Dragons, we assumed they did not grow more powerful as they got older, but they do.

So that doesn't work. But if we assume Kobolds are True Dragons, what then? Then statement 11 becomes "Kobolds do grow more powerful by getting older and do advance through age catagories." And nothing in that is false. Even if you're not sure about the age catagories thing, the growing stronger actually nails it. Even the fact that advancing through age catagories is possibly true is enough.


Advancement is already a game term used for the specific purpose of making a creature more powerful, it is no less a valid interpretation of the existing words than it meaning "moving up a social ladder" does.

It's less valid because it leads to logical contradictions in the interpretation. When one interpretation of the rules leads to a logical falsification and the other does not, the correct interpretation is the one that does not falsify itself.


Except the commoner railgun works. You can't do a lot of damage or throw the pail very far, but it works. There's absolutely nothing to interpret. It's when people forget about the rules for improvised weapons does it stop working.

Actually, it doesn't. By strict RAW, you can move the quarterstaff arbitrarily far in one round, moving it fast enough to exceed even the speed of light with sufficient numbers of commoners... but when you let go of it at the end it just falls down. Why? Because the same silly rules that let it achieve such speed (passing an object is a free action) also fail to take into account that same speed when you drop it (a dropped object just falls to the ground). The commoner railgun only works if you use completely strict RAW in the first part of the equation, then suddenly switch over and use realistic physics at the end... which is absurd. Pick one or the other, but you can't ignore realistic physics at step one and then rely on it in step two, nor can you rely on strict RAW in step one and ignore it in step 2.

JaronK

Zeful
2010-01-03, 05:12 AM
Yes, it is different, just as "energy" and "energy drain" are different.
When the precept for the commoner railgun is that the fast moving staff deals extra damage from kinetic force, NO. It does not work as originally presented. What you refer to is essentially a bucket brigade. Not the commoner railgun as it was originally presented.

Apparently you didn't read. I also wrote that "It's when people forget the rules for improvised weapons does it not work". You can move any object an arbirarily long distance, but if you throw it and it's not a throwing weapon, it moves in up to 5 10ft range increments and deals a specific amount of damage based on it's size.

But then when you bring up the commoner railgun it's a catch 22. I say it works, you ignore the rest of my statement which specifically mentions how it doesn't work and say I don't know what I'm talking about. I say it doesn't work, you quote the Readying an Action rules and say I don't know what I'm talking about.

So yeah, I'm done with you.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-03, 05:13 AM
So, now it's "get more powerful as they age" instead of "get stronger"?

2xMachina
2010-01-03, 05:18 AM
A side step here.

Do you know, a Dragonwrought Kobold can take Dragon Wings, but not fly with them, since they cannot take Improved Dragon Wings? While a normal kobold can fly with the wings, as they qualify.

IDW needs Dragonblood subtype, which Dragonwrought removes. Heck, DW has the same requirement, but Dragonwrought specifically allows you to take Dragon Wings at lvl 3 instead.

Now, depending on how you define allow (can, but still need to fulfill prerequisites, or you can regardless), a dragonwrought kobold cannot actually take dragon wings.

Yay, you're a dragon now, but you can't fly with dragon wings. Too bad, if you're not a dragon you can fly with dragon wings.

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-03, 05:19 AM
But then when you bring up the commoner railgun it's a catch 22. I say it works, you ignore the rest of my statement which specifically mentions how it doesn't work and say I don't know what I'm talking about. I say it doesn't work, you quote the Readying an Action rules and say I don't know what I'm talking about.

So yeah, I'm done with you.

You wonder why I assume your lack of knowledge? Contradictions, and lack of understanding (you stated commoner railgun worked, when the precept behind the railgun, the whole point, was extra damage based on kinetic energy imbued by high speed. The railgun fails to accomplish the primary goal it set out to accomplish, and is, instead, nothing more than a way to pass a stick in a circle. Hence, as I said, it doesn't work. This shows that either you didn't understand the original nature of the commoner railgun, or that you were deliberately being contrary). You're disagreeing with others for no other reason than to disagree, contradicting me when I say it doesn't work, only to agree with me in the next sentence. Which is it?

Oh, and I didn't quote ready action rules in here.

I understand that you flip between telling me it doesn't work and it does faster than the teams at the world speed pancake championships. I disregard it because blatant self-contradiction either shows a contrary nature, or an inexperience with the subject matter.

I apologize for assuming the best, and going with the latter.

pingcode20
2010-01-03, 05:24 AM
IDW needs Dragonblood subtype, which Dragonwrought removes. Heck, DW has the same requirement, but Dragonwrought specifically allows you to take Dragon Wings at lvl 3 instead.

Actually, all Dragons automatically qualify for anything requiring the Dragonblood subtype. Races of the Dragon, Page 4, where they explain the subtype. I'll get the quote in a second.

EDIT:


DRAGONBLOOD SUBTYPE
If a race possesses the dragonblood subtype, it has a strong
affinity to dragons—which means that spells, effects, powers,
and abilities that affect or target dragons also affect it. The subtype
qualifies a creature to use magic items normally only usable
by dragons, and qualifies the creature to take feats that have the
subtype as a prerequisite. The dragonblood subtype also makes
creatures subject to harmful effects that affect dragons.
The dragonblood subtype does not confer the dragon type
or any traits associated with that type. For instance, it does not
give a creature frightful presence.
Dragons automatically qualify for any classes, prestige classes,
racial substitution levels, feats, powers, or spells that require
the dragonblood subtype. Races presented in this book that
have the dragonblood subtype include dragonborn, spellscale,
kobold, and draconic creatures. Should a creature acquire the
dragon type, it loses the dragonblood subtype.

2xMachina
2010-01-03, 05:29 AM
Ah, thanks. I tend to skip reading Intro and such...

JaronK
2010-01-03, 05:37 AM
So, now it's "get more powerful as they age" instead of "get stronger"?

Well, "get more powerful" as they get older is what Draconomicon actually says. I've quoted it a number of times. The people obsessing about "get stronger" simply weren't checking the source material and took off with the whole "get stronger" thing. It's what people get for arguing before reading!

And Zeful... come on. The Commoner Railgun was specifically about doing extra damage based on the kenetic energy gained by passing the thing around. It doesn't do that at all. Passing things at high speed works, but that's it... it's not a gun, and clearly not a railgun. It absolutely positively does not work. The improvised weapon rules have absolutely nothing to do with it, as the Commoner Railgun was not about throwing a quarterstaff that was passed to you from miles away.

JaronK

soir8
2010-01-03, 05:54 AM
Anything with 20 lvls in Monk gets more powerful as it gets older, thanks to no longer taking ability penalties due to age. So does that mean any creature with Dragon type becomes a True Dragon if it gains 20 lvls in monk?

Or does that somehow mean it stops being a lesser dragon?

That's where this kind of thinking leads, if that's how you want to read "advances through age category".

In fact, that means that a Wizard advances through age category, since the damage to their physical ability scores as they age doesn't affect their power so much as the bonuses to Intelligence and Wisdom.

Inyssius Tor
2010-01-03, 06:01 AM
Anything with 20 lvls in Monk gets more powerful as it gets older, thanks to no longer taking ability penalties due to age. So does that mean any creature with Dragon type becomes a True Dragon if it gains 20 lvls in monk?

No, because most creatures do not actually have age categories. They gain ability bonuses as they age, but--unlike the kobold as presented in Races of the Dragon--they don't have anything that's explicitly called an age category.

JaronK
2010-01-03, 06:03 AM
Anything with 20 lvls in Monk gets more powerful as it gets older, thanks to no longer taking ability penalties due to age. So does that mean any creature with Dragon type becomes a True Dragon if it gains 20 lvls in monk?

No, it becomes an outsider. So, level 20 Monk won't get you there. And it still needs to have age catagories of some kind to work with, so it still has to be a Kobold or a Steel Dragon or something.


In fact, that means that a Wizard advances through age category, since the damage to their physical ability scores as they age doesn't affect their power so much as the bonuses to Intelligence and Wisdom.

Well, since the Wizard is a Kobold or other True Dragon (you did just say it has age catagories to advance through, and there are only a very select group of critters that have those), yes, it's a True Dragon.

Once again, note that only Kobolds and other True Dragons have age catagories. Nothing else does (except possibly some sea critter in a Dragon Magazine that no one seems to be able to quote that's specifically exempted). So this kind of thinking does not lead to paradoxes at all.

JaronK

soir8
2010-01-03, 07:06 AM
No, it becomes an outsider. So, level 20 Monk won't get you there. And it still needs to have age catagories of some kind to work with, so it still has to be a Kobold or a Steel Dragon or something.



Well, since the Wizard is a Kobold or other True Dragon (you did just say it has age catagories to advance through, and there are only a very select group of critters that have those), yes, it's a True Dragon.

Once again, note that only Kobolds and other True Dragons have age catagories. Nothing else does (except possibly some sea critter in a Dragon Magazine that no one seems to be able to quote that's specifically exempted). So this kind of thinking does not lead to paradoxes at all.

JaronK

Oops, forgot about the outsider thing. Never played a monk. Sorry :smallsmile:

What I'm referring to is your definition of advancing by age categories meaning getting more powerful by getting older. As in, a wizard who becomes middle aged gets +1 to int, wis and cha, thus becoming more powerful. By your reasoning, any creature of the dragon type who relys on spells should qualify as a true dragon. It's therefore far more reasonable to assume that the word "advance" refers to the Advancement mechanic used for the classical true dragons.

Basically, both arguments are making an assumption about the actual meaning of the text. One assumpion is entirely reasonable, the other willfully bends the rules through questionable semantics.

Demons_eye
2010-01-03, 07:15 AM
Oops, forgot about the outsider thing. Never played a monk. Sorry :smallsmile:

What I'm referring to is your definition of advancing by age categories meaning getting more powerful by getting older. As in, a wizard who becomes middle aged gets +1 to int, wis and cha, thus becoming more powerful. By your reasoning, any creature of the dragon type who relys on spells should qualify as a true dragon. It's therefore far more reasonable to assume that the word "advance" refers to the Advancement mechanic used for the classical true dragons.

Basically, both arguments are making an assumption about the actual meaning of the text. One assumpion is entirely reasonable, the other willfully bends the rules through questionable semantics.

But they gain penalties and so does everyone else. A kobold would just gain the bonus, so hes really advancing while the others are just normal.

soir8
2010-01-03, 07:17 AM
But they gain penalties and so do everyone else, a kobold would just gain the bonus, so hes really advancing while the others are just normal.


The argument has been about becoming more powerful. A wizard that loses some physical stats but gains mental stats becomes more powerful. It's a ridiculous argument to say that this is the same kind of advancement true dragons have.

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-03, 07:24 AM
The argument has been about becoming more powerful. A wizard that loses some physical stats but gains mental stats becomes more powerful. It's a ridiculous argument to say that this is the same kind of advancement true dragons have.

It's on the same scale (pardon the pun).

You may not claim an 120 foot sailing yacht and a 1100 foot aircraft carrier are anywhere close to the same thing...

But if they're both seaworthy on the open ocean? They're both ships. It doesn't matter that capabilities are somewhat differences.

They line up where it counts. Which is on the definition of a ship (nautical definition - seaworthy oceangoing vessel)

soir8
2010-01-03, 07:42 AM
It's on the same scale (pardon the pun).

You may not claim an 120 foot sailing yacht and a 1100 foot aircraft carrier are anywhere close to the same thing...

But if they're both seaworthy on the open ocean? They're both ships. It doesn't matter that capabilities are somewhat differences.

They line up where it counts. Which is on the definition of a ship (nautical definition - seaworthy oceangoing vessel)

The problem with this whole kobold thing is that you're bending the definition of advancement. It's perfectly reasonable to assume it refers to the advancement through age category used by every creature that is known for certain to be a true dragon. Interpreting it in an entirely different way based on nothing more that how you can read the word "advance" is quite clearly a deliberate bending of the rules and shouldn't take precedence over the more logical reading.

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-03, 07:45 AM
The problem with this whole kobold thing is that you're bending the definition of advancement. It's perfectly reasonable to assume it refers to the advancement through age category used by every creature that is known for certain to be a true dragon. Interpreting it in an entirely different way based on nothing more that how you can read the word "advance" is quite clearly a deliberate bending of the rules and shouldn't take precedence over the more logical reading.

The problem is that the "Pro-No" side is even using the term Advancement.

It does not. It uses "advance". As in "George advanced down the hallway" and "Beatrice turned town Reginald's forthright advances".

It's not a reserved term. It's being tauted as one.

But it's not.

Even if not:

"advances through age category"
It does have an age category, and it does increase in power through it.

Not all advancement comes with HD (monster classes). Not all advancement comes with LA (gain a level in wizard, no LA there).

Kobolds, when dragonwrought, have the same age categories as True Dragons.
They gain benefits for progressing in those categories.
The benefits don't come with HD, but that's not a requirement for advancement.
The benefits don't come with LA, but that's not a requirement for advancement.

what's the problem, aside from a desire to be right?

soir8
2010-01-03, 07:50 AM
The problem is that the "Pro-No" side is even using the term Advancement.

It does not. It uses "advance". As in "George advanced down the hallway" and "Beatrice turned town Reginald's forthright advances".

It's not a reserved term. It's being tauted as one.

But it's not.


Pointless semantics. That's all. I'm done with this, as I believe there is nothing wrong with the terminology used. If you want to split hairs over the difference between using the word "advance" and "advancement", feel free, but it's a weak argument at best.

Edit: and we've already gone over the meaning of the term "advancement". Again, it's just deliberate misreading.

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-03, 07:51 AM
Pointless semantics. That's all. I'm done with this, as I believe there is nothing wrong with the terminology used. If you want to split hairs over the difference between using the word "advance" and "advancement", feel free, but it's a weak argument at best.

No weaker than yours.

Even under the advancement guidelines, the kobold increase in power from age meets all the requirements for it.

Koury
2010-01-03, 08:08 AM
Can't we all just get along guys?

So I'm driving down the street, right? I ask my passenger "So, I go straight, right? Or do I turn right, I forget."

They say "Right."

I can interpret this as meaning turn right, or as in correct, go straight. Now if I choose to interpret this as "Turn right" it doesn't suddenly become an invalid interpretation just because the street I'm now on leads to Funky Cheese Land and no one really likes ACTUALLY going to Funky Cheese Land. Thats just a place we like to joke about going.

As I said in my first post in this thread, both sides are correct, imho. Yes, allowing certain interpretations in actual play is silly. That has no bearing on the validity of the interpretation.

lesser_minion
2010-01-03, 08:15 AM
Considering my opponent has been regularly making stuff up and then trying to pass it as RAW, making sure he's still AFB is important when he's now trying to claim he's reading something in a book. Normally I wouldn't bring that up, but when he's making assertions I think it's fair to test if he's actually got evidence to back them up.

JaronK

I'm sorry, what?

No. Everything I have said has been directly inferred from the text. You apparently cannot read your own posts, and seem to think that the Lung Dragon is inconsistent with the definition of a true dragon.

When the argument is about whether something fits your definition.

Unless it isn't gaining hit dice or CR with age category, I don't actually think it is.

The bottom line is, the mere existence of people who disagree with you is enough not to accept it for the purposes of discussion. End.

Try actually proving that "advancement by age category" cannot be read as actual CR advancement (which you actually need to do).

I've accepted your reading, and given a good reason why I only need to present a valid alternative in order for your interpretation not to be what anyone uses for the purposes of discussion.

You can either try to answer those points, or you can accept that the RAW do not actually require anyone to accept your interpretation (the conclusion I've successfully argued since I entered the discussion).

Also, I gave you a quote for the sea serpent and noted that whether or not it was an exception is otherwise irrelevant to the discussion. Could you please stop going on about something that is completely irrelevant?

The bottom line is, that you cannot prove that "advance by age category" should be read as 'unloaded', therefore your interpretation isn't the only valid one.





I can interpret this as meaning turn right, or as in correct, go straight. Now if I choose to interpret this as "Turn right" it doesn't suddenly become an invalid interpretation just because the street I'm now on leads to Funky Cheese Land and no one really likes ACTUALLY going to Funky Cheese Land. Thats just a place we like to joke about going.

As I said in my first post in this thread, both sides are correct, imho. Yes, allowing certain interpretations in actual play is silly. That has no bearing on the validity of the interpretation.

Well, thanks for that. JaronK still cannot accept that there are two ways to read the rule, and I basically entered the argument by noting that while RAW doesn't actually give better support for either interpretation, it's pretty clear which one everyone's going to use most of the time, so it's pretty clear what we should be using as a standard.

JaronK thinks that it's houseruling to pick one interpretation over another. From there, we've been running into a brick wall for three pages.

Koury
2010-01-03, 08:22 AM
Well, to be fair, saying one interpretation that is technically valid doesn't work in your game IS a houserule, isn't it?

soir8
2010-01-03, 08:36 AM
The main problem with the interpretation that allows Kobolds to become True Dragons is that, like I said, it is a deliberate misreading. In the context of a rulebook dedicated to dragons, what is more likely; that "advance through age category" refers to the distinctive HD, size and ability advancement mechanic shared by all other True Dragons, or that the word "advance" refers to something entirely different and we should whip out a dictionary and start making up alternative meanings?

Koury
2010-01-03, 08:48 AM
*shrug* OK.

I just don't get it I guess. Someone finds some technicality that allows them a +10000 to jump checks? Sweet. Thats hilarious. Why is it so seemingly offensive to us that someone else interprets something differently then us? And not even that, they are agreeing it is outlandish to allow and arguing solely that its possibly with broad interpretations.

Interpretations, I feel the need to point out, they are allowed to make.

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-03, 08:48 AM
The main problem with the interpretation that allows Kobolds to become True Dragons is that, like I said, it is a deliberate misreading. In the context of a rulebook dedicated to dragons, what is more likely; that "advance through age category" refers to the distinctive HD, size and ability advancement mechanic shared by all other True Dragons, or that the word "advance" refers to something entirely different and we should whip out a dictionary and start making up alternative meanings?

What seems *most* likely (as in, 100%), is that RAW doesn't clarify the answer to your statement here.

That, thankfully, means that I can interpret it how I like it for my games. And you can interpret it how you like in yours.

And hopefully, just hopefully, we'll all see it in ourselves to not rail over the internet, yelling at how someone else is playing the game wrong.

But then, this is the internet. I'll not get my hopes too high.

lesser_minion
2010-01-03, 09:04 AM
Well, to be fair, saying one interpretation that is technically valid doesn't work in your game IS a houserule, isn't it?

Three pages ago, I pointed out that we could establish which interpretation of RAW is more or less problematic, and that it was reasonable to use the least problematic one as a standard for discussion. JaronK seems to think that throws the discussion completely into houserules territory, when it doesn't. The truth is that without a guideline, we don't have a standard, so we don't have anything to use for the purposes of discussion.

JaronK hasn't demonstrated that "advance by age category" shouldn't be read as referring to actual CR advancement, nor has he given me any good reason why he doesn't need to (he has, however, conceded that it could be read that way, i.e. that it is a valid RAW-only ruling, just not his RAW-only ruling).

He hasn't demonstrated that RAW supports one interpretation better than the other, so the DM can pick whichever one he wants and still be within the RAW.

He has also conceded that a DM would prefer to use the less broken interpretation.

There are places where the rules as written definitely pose a problem - drowning, genesis, acquired template order, polymorphing to gain a template that should probably be illegal, and Manipulate Form are all good examples.

If we want to have a discussion about what house rules solve the problem, that's fine. But if there is a perfectly valid interpretation that the DM can use, then the issue is that the rules are unclear and need to be clarified, not that the rules are broken.

YMMV, I guess. I'll watch the rest of the thread, but I don't see the point in continuing to post.


What seems *most* likely (as in, 100%), is that RAW doesn't clarify the answer to your statement here.

That, thankfully, means that I can interpret it how I like it for my games. And you can interpret it how you like in yours.

And hopefully, just hopefully, we'll all see it in ourselves to not rail over the internet, yelling at how someone else is playing the game wrong.

But then, this is the internet. I'll not get my hopes too high.

I argued a few pages ago that we can do a lot better than "everything that is permitted under RAW is allowed" for the purposes of discussion on a forum.

It appears to be overpowered, and it's not the only possible inference from the text on a page, so why are we favouring it?

soir8
2010-01-03, 09:11 AM
I argued a few pages ago that we can do a lot better than "everything that is permitted under RAW is allowed" for the purposes of discussion on a forum.

It appears to be overpowered, and it's not the only possible inference from the text on a page, so why are we favouring it?


And as I've been arguing, it's not hard to see that it's not only the most problematic possible inference, it's also the least likely.

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-03, 09:18 AM
I argued a few pages ago that we can do a lot better than "everything that is permitted under RAW is allowed" for the purposes of discussion on a forum.

It appears to be overpowered, and it's not the only possible inference from the text on a page, so why are we favouring it?

We're favoring it?

No. We're not.

{table=header]Option | Concept
1 | Proponents that want to use it in a build concept or theorycraft are going to go into it with the assumption that it's allowed. There's no RAW barring this; so it's fine.
2 | Other proponents don't see it as necessarily overpowered, and merely rein in egregrious violations. There's no RAW barring this; so it's fine.
3 | Opponents want to restrict it in their games because they feel it's overpowered. There's no RAW barring this; so it's fine.
4 | Other opponents want to restrict it in my games because they feel it's overpowered. What the...? NOT FINE.[/table]

In other words? Why are we favoring it? Because it's bad form to denigrate another player's preferred style of play, especially when it falls within the rules as written.

If it's RAW legal, and you want to do it, who am I to tell you no?

If you want to call a Kobold a lesser dragon? Great, more power to you. Go with my blessing and have fun.

Why is it when I want to have a kobold be a true dragon, that it's suddenly evilwrongbad?


And as I've been arguing, it's not hard to see that it's not only the most problematic possible inference, it's also the least likely.
The least likely RAW answer is still an RAW answer. You want to be listened to?

Start with civility, rather than trying to get your mitts all up in my game.

I'll say it now. Lesser, Soir? If you're idea of "doing better" than allowing people to play their own games and have their own views for the gamestyle that they prefer (within RAW, no less)... is telling people that they're playing wrong and that nobody should 'support' it on the grounds that they're logic-twisting powermongers...

Then I think I'd rather have your idea of doing worse.

lesser_minion
2010-01-03, 09:56 AM
We're favoring it?

No. We're not.

{table=header]Option | Concept
1 | Proponents that want to use it in a build concept or theorycraft are going to go into it with the assumption that it's allowed. There's no RAW barring this; so it's fine.
2 | Other proponents don't see it as necessarily overpowered, and merely rein in egregrious violations. There's no RAW barring this; so it's fine.
3 | Opponents want to restrict it in their games because they feel it's overpowered. There's no RAW barring this; so it's fine.
4 | Other opponents want to restrict it in my games because they feel it's overpowered. What the...? NOT FINE.[/table]

In other words? Why are we favoring it? Because it's bad form to denigrate another player's preferred style of play, especially when it falls within the rules as written.

Nice argument.

I'm not disputing that you could play it either way, or even recommending that any given player goes one way or the other.

I'm not even saying that you couldn't have a discussion where you assumed the DWK cheese to be allowed.

I'm saying that unless told otherwise, when we go to another thread, it would be better to assume that the less problematic interpretation is the default.

I certainly wouldn't tell someone on the simple questions thread to use the interpretation that could cause problems, I'd give him the interpretation I recommend, explain why I recommend it, and note that the rule is unclear and his DM might decide to rule otherwise.

If the RAW were clear but bad, I would give the bad interpretation and note that the DM will probably want to houserule it.

I'm not a particular fan of theoretical optimisation, but I'm not about to tell people not to do it - it's fun to work out how to milk the rules for all their worth, and it helps to identify points where a DM might want to consider overriding the rules.

But I don't advocate adopting the TO interpretation as the default for a forum discussion, and I think a lot of people do.


Start with civility, rather than trying to get your mitts all up in my game.

I'll say it now. Lesser, Soir? If you're idea of "doing better" than allowing people to play their own games and have their own views for the gamestyle that they prefer (within RAW, no less)... is telling people that they're playing wrong and that nobody should 'support' it on the grounds that they're logic-twisting powermongers...

I don't consider it good form to try to force people to play the game how I play it, and I certainly didn't mean for you to infer that.

It is not wrong to assume the interpretation that seems the least problematic, nor would it be wrong for somebody to have a discussion that didn't follow that standard.

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-03, 10:07 AM
Nice argument.

I'm not disputing that you could play it either way, or even recommending that any given player goes one way or the other.

I'm not even saying that you couldn't have a discussion where you assumed the DWK cheese to be allowed.Good. With you so far.


I'm saying that unless told otherwise, when we go to another thread, it would be better to assume that the less problematic interpretation is the default.And your view is less problematic for you. I feel that. After all, mine's less problematic for me.

I, however, will not drag baggage from this thread to the next.


I certainly wouldn't tell someone on the simple questions thread to use the interpretation that could cause problems, I'd give him the interpretation I recommend, explain why I recommend it, and note that the rule is unclear and his DM might decide to rule otherwise.And I'd issue a counterpoint, after which, it would be expected to go to thread. Because if someone's going to the simple questions thread and asking about it, odds are, they don't want your interpretation.


I'm not a particular fan of theoretical optimisation, but I'm not about to tell people not to do it - it's fun to work out how to milk the rules for all their worth, and it helps to identify points where a DM might want to consider overriding the rules.All true. I, however, don't optimize "to milk the rules". I consider it a thought exercise, much like a Sudoku puzzle. Searching for patterns, combinations, synergies? Well, it helps in other areas, such as my job, where I search for patterns and combinations to sort out accounting issues.


But I don't advocate adopting the TO interpretation as the default for a forum discussion, and I think a lot of people do.There is a difference between TO and CO. IMO, you are wrongly using one for the other.

Please don't assume that I am some kind of total and utter fruitcake on some kind of twisted crusade to spoil your games and force everyone to play the game exactly how I think it should be played.I won't. In return, I only ask that you respect my views and opinions (even if you disagree with them).



At no point have I accused anyone of being a "logic-twisting powermonger". I've just suggested that we can establish a reasonable standard for most discussions.No, Soir was the one on 'logic-twisting'.


Basically, we can have a default rather than having to state exactly which interpretation of the rules we use every single time it comes up.
There is no set default, however. This is because different players play different ways. When a post is in support of the concept, then one can reasonably infer they wish it used, so go with the interpretation where it's allowed.

There aren't many reasons to start a thread based on it not being legal, as it likely won't be so much as a minor blip on the radar for those games. Simply put, the only time it should be an issue is when it's allowed.

As such, the default should likely be "it's allowed", with a dash of "rulings can go both ways, YMMV" for people inquiring about what it is.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-03, 10:08 AM
It's a reasonably clear case, which is supported by being allowed in places like the Arena and such, which are run by people with a pretty tight grasp on RAW.

House ruling it away if you feel it doesn't fit your campaign is one thing...but frankly, it's not like anyone is likely to even play kobold without grabbing dragonwrought. It's not a great race by itself, and if dragonwrought doesn't make one a true dragon, it's not actually very useful.

soir8
2010-01-03, 10:14 AM
The least likely RAW answer is still an RAW answer. You want to be listened to?

Start with civility, rather than trying to get your mitts all up in my game.

I'll say it now. Lesser, Soir? If you're idea of "doing better" than allowing people to play their own games and have their own views for the gamestyle that they prefer (within RAW, no less)... is telling people that they're playing wrong and that nobody should 'support' it on the grounds that they're logic-twisting powermongers...

Then I think I'd rather have your idea of doing worse.


I don't think I've been particularly rude or uncivil. I'm just saying I view the interpretation that allows kobolds to become true dragons as a deliberate bending and misreading of the rules. I haven't said people shouldn't be allowed to do it, and I haven't said anything about what you should be doing in your games. I haven't made any demands that I be listened to and I haven't, intentionally at least, been "getting my mitts all up in your game".

Edit: In fact, I've only made a few posts in this thread, and have only recently even joined this forum. I don't think I've done anything yet to warrant you biting my head off.

lesser_minion
2010-01-03, 10:21 AM
It's a reasonably clear case, which is supported by being allowed in places like the Arena and such, which are run by people with a pretty tight grasp on RAW.

House ruling it away if you feel it doesn't fit your campaign is one thing...but frankly, it's not like anyone is likely to even play kobold without grabbing dragonwrought. It's not a great race by itself, and if dragonwrought doesn't make one a true dragon, it's not actually very useful.

While I don't accept it as standard, I'd probably allow some of it in game.

I play everything by ear, so it isn't a problem for me.


And I'd issue a counterpoint, after which, it would be expected to go to thread. Because if someone's going to the simple questions thread and asking about it, odds are, they don't want your interpretation.

I think the instant the response to a Simple Question is "maybe", it would probably go to thread anyway.




All true. I, however, don't optimize "to milk the rules". I consider it a thought exercise, much like a Sudoku puzzle. Searching for patterns, combinations, synergies? Well, it helps in other areas, such as my job, where I search for patterns and combinations to sort out accounting issues.

I'm sorry if my wording offended you, but we're on the exact same track here.

PO is about making the most effective build you can actually fit into a game. TO is about making the most effective build you can, without worrying about fitting it into the game.


I won't. In return, I only ask that you respect my views and opinions (even if you disagree with them).

I do.


There is no set default, however. This is because different players play different ways. When a post is in support of the concept, then one can reasonably infer they wish it used, so go with the interpretation where it's allowed.

There aren't many reasons to start a thread based on it not being legal, as it likely won't be so much as a minor blip on the radar for those games. Simply put, the only time it should be an issue is when it's allowed.

As such, the default should likely be "it's allowed", with a dash of "rulings can go both ways, YMMV" for people inquiring about what it is.

OK, cool. That's reasonable, makes sense, and I can work with it.

It's also civil, which the last response I had to this point wasn't.

Demons_eye
2010-01-03, 11:17 AM
I argued a few pages ago that we can do a lot better than "everything that is permitted under RAW is allowed" for the purposes of discussion on a forum.

We simple can't do this. Everyone plays with different rules, so the only thing we can do with thought builds is build them on RAW. If some one asks for help with their build am I not going to tell them to use feat X that is only in my game, unless they state any house rules, we can only work with RAW. Are DW Kobolds not True dragons in your game? Thats fine but that does not make it RAW. If X works with Y to make Z by RAW then it is so, and people in this thread have said this over and over.

Kobold have Dragon age category's
Kobold advance by aging (Poorly worded but so is IHS)
Kobold have the Dragon Type.

This fits the true Dragon requirements so they become a true dragon by RAW.

But I doubt this will be the end of it. It starting to become like a broken record really.

lesser_minion
2010-01-03, 11:57 AM
We simple can't do this. Everyone plays with different rules, so the only thing we can do with thought builds is build them on RAW. If some one asks for help with their build am I not going to tell them to use feat X that is only in my game, unless they state any house rules, we can only work with RAW. Are DW Kobolds not True dragons in your game? Thats fine but that does not make it RAW. If X works with Y to make Z by RAW then it is so, and people in this thread have said this over and over.

By RAW, there is no clear answer. End. That is what I set out to prove, and it has been accepted by virtually everyone here. You could play it either way, and nobody here is arrogant enough to try to stop you.

As Phoenix pointed out, if it ever comes up in future discussions, it is likely to be a question of what can be done with the 'true dragon' ruling.

All it really does is mean that True Dragon DWKs can't be regarded as practical because there are different ways to interpret the RAW (furthermore, it means that it's a houserule either way).

I agree with Tyndmyr here - I'd probably houserule it in but keep an eye open for abuse.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-03, 12:02 PM
By RAW, there is no clear answer. End. That is what I set out to prove, and it has been accepted by virtually everyone here.

Really? I see at least half the people saying "kobolds are true dragons. End of story". I also see a coupla people saying "kobolds are not true dragons".

There is a RAW answer, because true dragon qualifications are defined. Either kobolds fall into it, or they do not.