PDA

View Full Version : What book is lore drake in?



Aemoh87
2011-02-04, 05:18 PM
Lore Drake, what book is it in?

Jarian
2011-02-04, 05:19 PM
Loredrake, along with the other Sovereign Archetypes, is detailed in Dragons of Eberron.

The Rabbler
2011-02-04, 05:55 PM
Unless you plan on making a dragon more powerful, please refrain from using loredrake. It tends to upset campaigns rather easily.

Coidzor
2011-02-04, 06:58 PM
Unless you plan on making a dragon more powerful, please refrain from using loredrake. It tends to upset campaigns rather easily.

On a dragonwrought kobold, sure, but it should be fine on a regular True Dragon. Unless it's not meant to be a fearsome opponent or sommat.

Aspenor
2011-02-04, 07:00 PM
{Scrubbed}

Greenish
2011-02-04, 08:23 PM
{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}Oh, for the Host's sake, how often does this bloody debate have to raise it's ugly head?

Jarian
2011-02-04, 08:27 PM
Oh, for the Host's sake, how often does this bloody debate have to raise it's ugly head?

Too often.

To sum up the "for" side of the debate: *click* (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10287011&postcount=7)

{Scrubbed}

Aspenor
2011-02-04, 08:34 PM
Now, if people would actually read those rules, instead of pretending to understand and spouting off "IT DOESN'T WORKZ BECAUSE IT'S BROKENZ" then we wouldn't have this discussion as much.

Believe me, I've read those rules, and more pertinent rules, more times than you have.

I'm not going to get into the argument either, but suffice to say you are wrong.

Jarian
2011-02-04, 08:41 PM
I have my doubts as to whether you've read them more often, and about your impartiality if that's true, but we'll just have to agree to disagree, and let everyone else make up their own minds. :smallwink:

Aemoh87
2011-02-04, 11:16 PM
amongst all this arguing no one notices that in The Rabbler's signature it says awesome avatar by so and so... but he has no avatar... good joke!

DAMMIT it was just my internet being lame he does have an avatar :(

well I TM that joke, see you all in court.

Also, not to spark debate but can I see something in writing (from WotC) that says this can't be done, just to show my players if they attempt to do this? I keep a running list of bookmarks to rulings that I know I will need eventually.

The Rabbler
2011-02-05, 12:08 AM
amongst all this arguing no one notices that in The Rabbler's signature it says awesome avatar by so and so... but he has no avatar... good joke!

DAMMIT it was just my internet being lame he does have an avatar :(

well I TM that joke, see you all in court.

Also, not to spark debate but can I see something in writing (from WotC) that says this can't be done, just to show my players if they attempt to do this? I keep a running list of bookmarks to rulings that I know I will need eventually.

My understanding of why this can't be done is because you can't add templates to an already-created character without something specific saying that you can (PrCs for example). When you pick your race, you also pick templates to go along with that race. Because the feat itself requires you to be a kobold (therefore requiring you to have picked a race) and also turns you into a dragon and then makes you eligible for loredrake, loredrake can't be added to the character.

EDIT: grammar/wording stuff.

Flickerdart
2011-02-05, 12:11 AM
my understanding of why this can't be done is because you can't add templates to an already-created character without something specific saying that you can (PrCs for example). When you pick your race, you also pick templates to go along with that race. Later on in character creation, you pick feats. Because the feat itself turns you into a dragon and therefore makes you eligible for loredrake, and you have to pick feats after race (and template) selection, loredrake can't be added to the character.
So you create a character that's not 1st level and none of this has any bearing on the situation. Soblem prolved.

Aspenor
2011-02-05, 12:12 AM
Also, not to spark debate but can I see something in writing (from WotC) that says this can't be done, just to show my players if they attempt to do this? I keep a running list of bookmarks to rulings that I know I will need eventually.

Draconomicon p. 144

Lesser dragons as PC's:

Such a creature has a set level adjustment and no built-in
progression due to age, so after the character begins play
there is no reason to advance the character as a monster
again.

Dragonwrought Kobolds have no built-in progression due to age. They are not True Dragons.

You must be a True Dragon to get a Sovereign Archetype.

The Rabbler
2011-02-05, 12:13 AM
So you create a character that's not 1st level and none of this has any bearing on the situation. Soblem prolved.

If you think about it one step at a time, it makes no sense at all. But, that's a debate that I don't want to start and my Rules-fu is far too weak to argue my side effectively, so let's drop it there.

Flickerdart
2011-02-05, 12:17 AM
Hell, with judicious application of negative levels, you could even have a 1st level character that also works this way. Is there anything backstory can't solve?

Aemoh87
2011-02-05, 12:21 AM
No matter what level you start at the rules state you must start building from scratch. I don't think the true dragon ruling works, but it makes sense that you cannot apply a template after a feat if it is an inherent one. Now the question is, is lore drake inherent. It's likely it is, but I do not own Dragons of Eberron so it's a mystery for me.

Aemoh87
2011-02-05, 12:23 AM
But I did think of a fool proof way to become a lore drake :) but it involves reincarnate and alot of luck :(

Flickerdart
2011-02-05, 12:52 AM
No matter what level you start at the rules state you must start building from scratch. I don't think the true dragon ruling works, but it makes sense that you cannot apply a template after a feat if it is an inherent one. Now the question is, is lore drake inherent. It's likely it is, but I do not own Dragons of Eberron so it's a mystery for me.
The sovereign archetypes are not templates, inherent or otherwise. The only thing the book says about acquiring an archetype is that the dragon must seek to emulate the behaviour of the appropriate Sovereign.

Aemoh87
2011-02-05, 01:05 AM
I really need that damn book so I can read it for myself. Also this thread as well as all the other threads should be mandatory readying for authors. Not because they are full of useful information, but just to show how important key words are and how clear they need to be in rulings.

CycloneJoker
2011-02-05, 01:24 AM
Draconomicon p. 144

Lesser dragons as PC's:

Such a creature has a set level adjustment and no built-in
progression due to age, so after the character begins play
there is no reason to advance the character as a monster
again.

Dragonwrought Kobolds have no built-in progression due to age. They are not True Dragons.

You must be a True Dragon to get a Sovereign Archetype.

If P then Q, Q, therefore P? Really?

Jarian
2011-02-05, 01:37 AM
It's a Loredrake discussion. People have been scraping the bottom of the barrel for proof one way or the other for ages. You can't really have expected more concrete of an argument, surely.

Coidzor
2011-02-05, 04:35 AM
Also, not to spark debate but can I see something in writing (from WotC) that says this can't be done, just to show my players if they attempt to do this? I keep a running list of bookmarks to rulings that I know I will need eventually.

Just houserule it, you're the DM. Casting at 3 levels above one's HD(loredrake + greater draconic rite of passage + being a no-CL loss sorcerer type) is broken by most games standards, after all.

Now, the Greater Draconic Rite of Passage is an obvious patch to their mistake when they decided to gimp spontaneous casters with delayed progression, so that's much more palatable.


Edit: Say, what is the effect of loredrake on a dragon that doesn't have sorcerer casting yet? Just lowers the HD and other stuff and then adds the sorcerer level boost once they normally gain sorcerer casting? Or do they get sorcerer casting early as a sorcerer 2 from their youngest age category and then just add sorcerer levels from aging or leveling to that?

Tenebris
2011-02-05, 04:48 AM
Such a creature has a set level adjustment and no built-in
progression due to age, so after the character begins play
there is no reason to advance the character as a monster
again.

Dragonwrought Kobolds have no built-in progression due to age. They are not True Dragons.


May Ao have mercy on you, dragonwrought kobolds DO HAVE progression through age categories. As a 121 year old dragonwrought kobold you can proudly and loudly call yourself a Great Wyrm. (EDIT: and apparently take epic feats. Kobolds are awesome :smallbiggrin: ).

Aspenor
2011-02-05, 09:44 AM
If P then Q, Q, therefore P? Really?

It is stated in the rules that being a lesser dragon is mutually exclusive with being a true dragon. For this reason, this is sound logic. The logic goes this way, not the way you just said:

If A then not B.
If C, then A.
C, therefore not B.


May Ao have mercy on you, dragonwrought kobolds DO HAVE progression through age categories. As a 121 year old dragonwrought kobold you can proudly and loudly call yourself a Great Wyrm. (EDIT: and apparently take epic feats. Kobolds are awesome :smallbiggrin: ).

No, wrong. "Progression" has a very set meaning. Google "SRD progression" and see what it means.

2xMachina
2011-02-05, 09:48 AM
I get....

Epic class lvls?

EDIT: If you mean, improvement... it is argued that the free mental stats without drawback is improvement.

You might want to look at old arguments. You might have read the rules a lot, but I don't think you've read the arguments itself.

Aspenor
2011-02-05, 09:49 AM
I get....

Epic class lvls?

You get epic class progressions. Progression means gaining HD. Dragonwrought kobolds do not do this.

It's simple. To check to see if something is a true dragon, look at the "advancement" entry in its monster entry. If it does not have age categories listed, it is not a true dragon. Dragonwrought kobolds only progress by class levels.

{Scrubbed}

Greenish
2011-02-05, 10:09 AM
Edit: Say, what is the effect of loredrake on a dragon that doesn't have sorcerer casting yet? Just lowers the HD and other stuff and then adds the sorcerer level boost once they normally gain sorcerer casting? Or do they get sorcerer casting early as a sorcerer 2 from their youngest age category and then just add sorcerer levels from aging or leveling to that?I think the latter one is correct.

Cog
2011-02-05, 10:17 AM
I think the latter one is correct.

Nope. Once they would have casting anyway, then they gain the boost. Taking a level of sorcerer early on is enough to trigger it, though; it doesn't require racial casting.

drakir_nosslin
2011-02-05, 10:25 AM
If A then not B.
If C, then A.
C, therefore not A.


That makes no sense at all. Did you mean:
A =/=> B
C => A
C =/=> B

??

Aspenor
2011-02-05, 10:27 AM
That makes no sense at all. Did you mean:
A =/=> B
C => A
C =/=> B

??

Yes, I mistyped. Thank you for the correction, I'll fix it. Too many dang letters.

CycloneJoker
2011-02-05, 11:09 AM
Yes, I mistyped. Thank you for the correction, I'll fix it. Too many dang letters.

Look, it has to have both no age progression AND no LA. Kobolds have a venerable state, so they are true dragons. Both requirements for them to be not True Dragons are not met, going of what you said. I unfortunately do not have the book on me, but I remember it was fairly clear, and no matter how you read it, a Dragonwrought is still a true dragon. Also, I could not see anything that said you couldn't apply loredrake at first level.

Aspenor
2011-02-05, 11:22 AM
Look, it has to have both no age progression AND no LA. Kobolds have a venerable state, so they are true dragons. Both requirements for them to be not True Dragons are not met, going of what you said. I unfortunately do not have the book on me, but I remember it was fairly clear, and no matter how you read it, a Dragonwrought is still a true dragon. Also, I could not see anything that said you couldn't apply loredrake at first level.

No, wrong. It says lesser dragons have a SET LA. Dragonwrought kobolds do have this, it is either zero or more. Other dragons have variable LA, look at the advancement entry. It increases as you gain age categories.

"Venerable" has nothing to do with true dragons. I don't know what you were trying to say, but what you did say is pretty much irrelevant.

They are not True Dragons. Anyone who says otherwise is falling victim to wishful thinking.

Also, the application of the logic that results in them being True Dragons results in numerous contradictions. The logic I have explained results in zero.

CycloneJoker
2011-02-05, 11:49 AM
No, wrong. It says lesser dragons have a SET LA. Dragonwrought kobolds do have this, it is either zero or more. Other dragons have variable LA, look at the advancement entry. It increases as you gain age categories.

"Venerable" has nothing to do with true dragons. I don't know what you were trying to say, but what you did say is pretty much irrelevant.

They are not True Dragons. Anyone who says otherwise is falling victim to wishful thinking.

Also, the application of the logic that results in them being True Dragons results in numerous contradictions. The logic I have explained results in zero.

No, I'm pretty sure you're the one wishfully hoping that WotC didn't do something that stupid. It is there, plain as day.

Also:
Such a creature has a set level adjustment and no built-in
progression due to age, so after the character begins play
there is no reason to advance the character as a monster
again.

Dragonwrought Kobolds have no built-in progression due to age. They are not True Dragons

Get Races of the Dragon, and look at table 3-2 on page 39. You are wrong, wrong, wrong, and are refusing to admit it.

Also, there is no reason, since they ARE True Dragons, that you can't apply that. Also, you could start as a Kobold with age 89, and 360 days, and in five days, he'll advance due to age. Also, you could have one at 100 and 360 days, and in five days he's a Wyrm. You have reason to advance, so I'm sorry, but you lost. Take it gracefully.

Aspenor
2011-02-05, 12:06 PM
{Scrubbed}

Tyndmyr
2011-02-05, 12:08 PM
We've already beaten this topic to death. Kobolds are true dragons with dragonwrought. Read the rules in detail, the combo works.

Now, as for ways to say no to your players, I suggest not playing in eberron or not allowing the rites of passage in conjunction w loredrake. Spellscale isn't bad tho.

Aspenor
2011-02-05, 12:12 PM
We've already beaten this topic to death. Kobolds are true dragons with dragonwrought. Read the rules in detail, the combo works.

Now, as for ways to say no to your players, I suggest not playing in eberron or not allowing the rites of passage in conjunction w loredrake. Spellscale isn't bad tho.

No, they are not, by RAW. Everyone that believes so has been misled and fell victim to wishful thinking.

In order to get them to be true dragons, you must apply logic that results in numerous contradictions.

Flickerdart
2011-02-05, 12:17 PM
{Scrubbed}

vegetalss4
2011-02-05, 12:27 PM
{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

thank you for your accurate summary, it made me laugh.

Jarian
2011-02-05, 01:46 PM
{Scrubbed}

Aemoh87
2011-02-05, 01:51 PM
It'd be nice if wizards of the coast would read posts like this and put out an errata that cleared things up.

Jarian
2011-02-05, 02:03 PM
It'd be nice if wizards of the coast would read posts like this and put out an errata that cleared things up.

It'd be nice if Tome of Battle's errata didn't spontaneously turn into Complete Mage's errata two fixes in, but WotC never did make it easy for us. :smallwink:

FMArthur
2011-02-05, 02:22 PM
It'd be nice if Tome of Battle's errata didn't spontaneously turn into Complete Mage's errata two fixes in, but WotC never did make it easy for us. :smallwink:

Have they ever commented on this? It's just so mind-boggling...

Jarian
2011-02-05, 02:24 PM
As far as I know, it's another one of their "If we don't mention it, maybe nobody will notice" things.

I mean, you know they have that file saved somewhere, but it would be acknowledging that previous editions actually exist to release it for us.

Aemoh87
2011-02-05, 02:26 PM
It appears they have given up on 3.5. But Pathfinder is a great game (thank god). I think they need to give up on 4E too. I have played so much of it, and all I have found that it's expensive as hell.

You need a map: I used pennies with circular stickers on them instead of minis and then eventually switched to a plastic sheet layed over a map, but still that is expensive.

They already changed the system: the game has changed so much in such a short time it's ridiculous. And whenever they make small changes they give up on everything they left behind.

Booster packs of cards: enough said.

drakir_nosslin
2011-02-05, 02:33 PM
Hmm, I'm looking in Dragons of Ebberon right now, but I can't find where it says that you have to be a True Dragon in order to take an archetype. The text says a lot about True Dragon spellcasting though.

So, what did I miss?

Aemoh87
2011-02-05, 02:36 PM
It's not that you missed something, it's what your forgot to add.

drakir_nosslin
2011-02-05, 02:39 PM
It's not that you missed something, it's what your forgot to add.

:smallsigh:... Yea, that was real helpful...

Tenebris
2011-02-05, 02:47 PM
It'd be nice if wizards of the coast would read posts like this and put out an errata that cleared things up.

(Un)fortunately Wizards don't care about stuff that doesn't generate profit for them anymore. If they did, there would be a valid errata for the Tome of Battle.

In discussions like that I like to quote Celia:
"Hey, I don't make the rules, I just twist them to my purpose."
:smallbiggrin:

In other words, screw with rules as much as you like, if that's fine with your GM. Personally, I would allow anything what's fine with RAW, no half-baked explanations why you cannot do that, similar to those we find in the Wizards' FAQs. But hey, nobody said that half of the campaign cannot take place in a great antimagic zone. So little fragile kobold, how do you feel now with your two useless additional sorcerer levels?

Aspenor
2011-02-05, 03:27 PM
So, what did I miss?

The context. As in, pretty much the entire book.

Greenish
2011-02-05, 03:36 PM
Now, as for ways to say no to your players, I suggest not playing in eberronFor a moment there, I thought you were serious. :smallamused:

Coidzor
2011-02-05, 03:48 PM
In other words, screw with rules as much as you like, if that's fine with your GM. Personally, I would allow anything what's fine with RAW, no half-baked explanations why you cannot do that, similar to those we find in the Wizards' FAQs. But hey, nobody said that half of the campaign cannot take place in a great antimagic zone. So little fragile kobold, how do you feel now with your two useless additional sorcerer levels?

:smallconfused: WHY?!

...It seems far more enjoyable for everyone to not drag it to the level of farce and to just set some rules of engagement.

drakir_nosslin
2011-02-05, 03:49 PM
The context. As in, pretty much the entire book.

Doesn't help the RAW case though.

JaronK
2011-02-05, 06:16 PM
Hmm, I'm looking in Dragons of Ebberon right now, but I can't find where it says that you have to be a True Dragon in order to take an archetype. The text says a lot about True Dragon spellcasting though.

So, what did I miss?

It doesn't actually say it, but the book in general is talking about True Dragons so it's a reasonable enough assumption.

As for what a True Dragon is, here's the obvious quotes, and these are the only ones that are giving definitions (other places give descriptions of "known" true dragons or explicitly state they're talking about the MM10 when they say True Dragons):


true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon).


true dragon (a creature of the dragon type that possesses an age category)


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

And Lesser Dragons?


Other [than True Dragon] creatures of the dragon type that do not advance through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons.

Note the other clause... you check if you're True FIRST, then if not you can be lesser. Not the other way around. Feel free to read the entire entry in context to be sure.

As for Dragonwrought Kobolds... they have 12 age categories and gain stats as they get older (note that DMG 170 states that characters with higher stats are "higher powered characters"). There you go. I've never seen ANY other definition of True Dragons that wasn't explicitly talking about the Monster Manual 10 (as opposed to True Dragons found in other books). For example, Draconomicon says "For the most part, this book concerns itself with the ten varieties of true dragon described in the Monster Manual." That's on page 4, as well.

And as for Lore Drake itself? It's overpowered on Dragonwrought Kobolds, but just fine on true dragons that require racial HD/LA. On those, it just lets them catch up. I don't know why Wyrm of War doesn't get more attention though... one bonus feat every 4 levels is awfully nice.

JaronK

2xMachina
2011-02-06, 02:15 AM
Doesn't help the RAW case though.

You know... +1 to this. Screw true dragon or not. By RAW, DW Kobolds get it whether they're true or lesser.

Tenebris
2011-02-06, 06:01 AM
:smallconfused: WHY?!

...It seems far more enjoyable for everyone to not drag it to the level of farce and to just set some rules of engagement.

Maybe it is because I just believe in liberty (a poor idealistic fool am I, indeed), and don't like any restrictions except those that are consequences of one's doing. Or maybe I'm just vile bastard, who instead of playing cat and mouse with rule abuses will rather use players' own poison against them. But mostly because I really appreciate all those clever tricks, and admiration of one's brilliance is hardly a bad thing.

If players want so badly to spoil their own fun, why interfere? Legal or not (IMHO it is legal), the loredrake trick is not really a pain in DM's neck. The game's universe should roughly correct power gamers wrongdoing, because insanely powerful characters just scream to be noticed by notables, and their attention is rarely good news.

Coidzor
2011-02-06, 06:26 AM
Maybe it is because I just believe in liberty (a poor idealistic fool am I, indeed), and don't like any restrictions except those that are consequences of one's doing. Or maybe I'm just vile bastard, who instead of playing cat and mouse with rule abuses will rather use players' own poison against them. But mostly because I really appreciate all those clever tricks, and admiration of one's brilliance is hardly a bad thing.

If players want so badly to spoil their own fun, why interfere? Legal or not (IMHO it is legal), the loredrake trick is not really a pain in DM's neck. The game's universe should roughly correct power gamers wrongdoing, because insanely powerful characters just scream to be noticed by notables, and their attention is rarely good news.

You said you'd stick the campaign in an anti-magic field if someone proposed running that to you.

Your response here is not in line with the response I was replying to. :smallconfused:

Tyndmyr
2011-02-06, 09:52 AM
No, they are not, by RAW. Everyone that believes so has been misled and fell victim to wishful thinking.

In order to get them to be true dragons, you must apply logic that results in numerous contradictions.

That is nothing more than a contradiction. JaronK has provided an excellent breakdown of the RAW behind Dragonwrought Kobolds qualifying for True Dragonhood. In fact, if you read the fluff sections surrounding dragonwrought kobold in RotD, there's even some evidence for it being RAI, though that can't be proved short of a developer statement. It working with loredrake is almost certainly an unintended consequence, though.

Greenish, I admit, that was a slightly trollish way to post it...I do love me some Eberron. However, I would say a good proportion of games are, for some reason, not set in Eberron. I would not assume that things from a setting specific book are available outside that setting. The DM is quite justified in saying it's not available to players.

In practice, instead of loredrake/rites of draconic passage, I suggest offering a free, resourceless 1 level boost to sorc casting. This puts sorcs on the same progression as wizards, which is desirable...and it avoids the necessity of trawling through sources for unlikely combos, and allows the player to pick a different race if they prefer. Win for everyone.

Aspenor
2011-02-06, 11:17 AM
That is nothing more than a contradiction.

Good definitions do not have contradictions. That very same interpretation results in half-dragon kobold Druid 15's and Monk 17's magically becoming true dragons when they gain that level. Utterly ridiculous.

{Scrubbed}

On the other hand, the actual method of determining a True Dragon results in zero such contradictions. This involves looking at the creature's stat block, and then looking at the Advancement section (hence the words "advance through age categories"). If age categories are listed there, it is a True Dragon. This method results in no such contradictions, unlike the commonly held, erroneous belief.

His claims that "other" necessarily means "else," which gives the order of the statements importance, are inaccurate, as there is no support for such other than his claim. It simply means "not the same," or "different." The word "other" is not giving importance to the order, it is instead allowing one statement to give additional meaning to another. If you actually read the important quotes that JaronK supplied in the correct context rather than with "I want" goggles, you'll see that I am right by RAW.

{Scrubbed}

drakir_nosslin
2011-02-06, 11:24 AM
Good definitions do not have contradictions. That very same interpretation results in half-dragon kobold Druid 15's and Monk 17's magically becoming true dragons when they gain that level. Utterly ridiculous.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

On the other hand, the actual method of determining a True Dragon results in zero such contradictions. This involves looking at the creature's stat block, and then looking at the Advancement section (hence the words "advance through age categories"). If age categories are listed there, it is a True Dragon. This method results in no such contradictions, unlike the commonly held, erroneous belief.

His claims that "other" necessarily means "else," which gives the order of the statements importance, are inaccurate, as there is no support for such other than his claim. It simply means "not the same," or "different." The word "other" is not giving importance to the order, it is instead allowing one statement to give additional meaning to another. If you actually read the important quotes that JaronK supplied in the correct context rather than with "I want" goggles, you'll see that I am right by RAW.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Still doesn't matter. Kobolds can take lore drake wether they are true or lesser dragons, there's no such restriction in the entry in DoE.

Aspenor
2011-02-06, 11:31 AM
Still doesn't matter. Kobolds can take lore drake wether they are true or lesser dragons, there's no such restriction in the entry in DoE.

The whole book is talking about True Dragons. The restriction doesn't have to be explicitly stated. That should be obvious.

Really done, now.

Tenebris
2011-02-06, 11:39 AM
You said you'd stick the campaign in an anti-magic field if someone proposed running that to you.

Your response here is not in line with the response I was replying to. :smallconfused:

I admit that was a poorly devised example of countering most tricky builds, but I made it up just to prove, that a GM can counter anything without just forbidding everything they don't like. If it was a misleading one I apologize.

drakir_nosslin
2011-02-06, 11:52 AM
The whole book is talking about True Dragons. The restriction doesn't have to be explicitly stated. That should be obvious.

Really done, now.

That makes it RAI, and worthless for a discussion such as this one. But each to his/her own.

CycloneJoker
2011-02-06, 11:56 AM
{Scrubbed}

Wabbajack
2011-02-06, 01:01 PM
{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

He's not wrong, he's right. True Dragons advance through age and possible classes. Kobolds (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/kobold.htm) only advance through class levels (see 'Advancement' line and the definition of "Advancement" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm#advancement)), which means that they can't be True Dragons (Draconomicon p.4, "Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance though age categories are referred to as lesser dragons [...]) Advance has a clear definition in DnD, Kobolds getting older does not count as "advancing through age categories" the same way a Tiefling can't be affected by spells that only work on humanoid targets, even though a Tiefling is humanoid in definition, but not humanoid in game terms.

2xMachina
2011-02-06, 01:40 PM
Look in Races of the Dragons.

The Srd Kobold is outdated.

EDIT: Not saying it is there, but the SRD does not include the many boosts WoTC gives Kobolds.

Wabbajack
2011-02-06, 01:56 PM
Races of the Dragon does not change the fact that Kobolds advance by class.

CycloneJoker
2011-02-06, 02:28 PM
Races of the Dragon does not change the fact that Kobolds advance by class.

Dude, read JaronK. If you are True, you cannot be lesser. They are True, by all of the definitions of True Dragon that I could find, and I have almost all of the dragon books, therefore they cannot be lesser. Q.E.D.

Coidzor
2011-02-06, 02:41 PM
I admit that was a poorly devised example of countering most tricky builds, but I made it up just to prove, that a GM can counter anything without just forbidding everything they don't like. If it was a misleading one I apologize.

Ok. Now I think I've got you. Sorry about that.

averagejoe
2011-02-06, 07:30 PM
The Mod They Call Me: This thread has gotten severely off topic, the OP's question has been answered, and no one seems to be willing to be very civil in any case. Thread locked.