Kobold Sorcerer... how do they work?

[krlsmnk]

Let me give you the background info:

I'm fairly new to Min-Max'ing, but I can handle learning new things FAST. Site a book, show me a template, and my brain goes to work. I just don't know a lot of the stuff because I haven't been doing this long.

My group is running an Evil Campaign (no good-aligned NPCs, Neutral is still okay). They are Gestalt (Unearthed Arcana) Level 5.

My DM has said "All, 3.5 material is allowed. No books are banned. No dragon magazine (for 3.5) is banned, nothing is banned." Homebrew or variants are not allowed. It has to be Wizards Material.

My group already has some power-players in it, and my DM is fair, lenient, and able to have a level-headed, open-minded discussion. The general schtick is "Rules as written, no matter how cheesy."

We have a Fiend of Possession, a Medusa Sorcerer, and a Swashbuckler/Rogue, and a Monk/Fighter (grapple build). We have some CRAZY strong, (and cheesy) players already, and my DM has approved the Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer concept I pitched him. Here's my question: I know they're powerful, (and cheesy, but that's okay) but I don't know exactly why. My DM is open to many debates... so even if something "doesn't make 100% sense" tell me about it anyway but PLEASE SOURCE YOUR INFO WITH BOOK (I can locate page, but it helps).

I want 5 levels of Sorcerer on 1 side of my Gestalt. But what do I put on the other side? I have looked at "White Dragonspawn" (Dragonlance Campaign Setting page 222), and Half-Fey (Fiend Folio), as well as aging him to Venerable. I have 2 more LA (or class levels) I can put on the other side of my gestalt. What should I consider placing those 2 levels in? Also, can you give me some feat ideas?

Flaws are allowed. We use point-buy ability system, so his base CHA, DEX, and CON are all 18, other stats are base 10.

9000 base gold starting. What to buy, what to buy?

http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=435976

Perhaps I missed something? ^ This guy doesn't seem that powerful compared to most level 5 Gestalts.

Suggestions, info, lectures, anything. And don't be afraid to BRING ON THE CHEESE, I actually enjoy thinking about oddities in 3.5

Thanks in Advance!!

~Karl

[Gavinfoxx]

Venerable Loredrake Greater Spellrite Spellhoarding White Dragonspawn Abomination with Magically Talented Dragonwrought Desert Kobold Dragonblood Sorcererwho did the Greater Draconic Rite of Passage!

Venerable: PHB
Loredrake: Dragons of Eberron
Dragonwrought: Races of the Dragon
Spellhoarding: Dragon Magazine #313
White Dragonspawn: Dragonlance Campaign Setting
Dragonspawn Abomination with Magically Talented: Bestiary of Krynn
Greater Draconic Rite of Passage: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060420a
Desert Kobold: Unearthed Arcana
Dragonblood Sorcerer: Races of the Dragon

I...THINK that all fits together. So that is LA+0, I think? Pick some yummy LA templates, then..

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=7044.0

[toapat]

anyway, you are missing half the chedder:

you missed Loredrake (Dragons of Ebberon), which gives you +2 Sorc casting levels, and your Hitdice become D10, meaning you have 9th level casting. Dragonwrought Kobolds are the only non LA True Dragons, they also are the only true dragons with fewer then 12 age categories.

Thus, your kobold's health should be 5d10+25 (57hp)

UA Sub that replaces the Familiar with an Animal companion. Spending a feat for the same effect is bad.

Any Old+ Dragonwrought Kobold qualifies for Epic feats because of RAW being True Dragons.

you also made a mistake, Greater Rite is Minimum 6 Hitdice, one of which has to grant sorcerer spellcasting, you have 5. you also dont have the normal Rite, which is required for Dragonic Reservoir.

Arcane Thesis isnt that good unless you know of some spell that gets a DC bonus from casterlevel used, considering at 6th level you should be casting as a 10th level sorc, and at 13th level you can cast Gate.

[Orran]

Wasn't there a kobolds as true dragons thread just a few weeks ago? Even for the playground this looks like it may be a quick turnaround.

[toapat]

Wasn't there a kobolds as true dragons thread just a few weeks ago? Even for the playground this looks like it may be a quick turnaround.

Kobolds are not true dragons without Dragonomicon+Races of the Dragon, but when you have both, Dragonwrought is one of the most powerful feats in the game.

[Orran]

Kobolds are not true dragons without Dragonomicon+Races of the Dragon, but when you have both, Dragonwrought is one of the most powerful feats in the game.

I believe the last thread addressed these arguments, I don't think it's worth going over again. OP, suffice to say, with a dm as permissive as yours seems, you can get some shenanigans from kobold sorcerers.

[toapat]

I believe the last thread addressed these arguments, I don't think it's worth going over again. OP, suffice to say, with a dm as permissive as yours seems, you can get some shenanigans from kobold sorcerers.
i agree that Kobolds shouldnt be True Dragons, RAW only in the most litteral meaning of the words (which actually makes it so that there are no True Dragons) do Kobolds not qualify as such, because of the Criteria.

basically, because RAW, Kobolds have 12 age categories, and advance in capacity (even if it is only 4 times they actually advance) when proceeding through those age categories, they end up qualifying.

[white rider]

If you wanna have fun? Dragonfire adept for the other half of the build, or at least a couple levels of it. Throw in that and maybe that one dragonpact prc from dragon magic (after you level up), and you have something that is both very powerful and makes sort of sense, fluff-wise.

[Answerer]

i agree that Kobolds shouldnt be True Dragons, RAW only in the most litteral meaning of the words (which actually makes it so that there are no True Dragons) do Kobolds not qualify as such, because of the Criteria.

basically, because RAW, Kobolds have 12 age categories, and advance in capacity (even if it is only 4 times they actually advance) when proceeding through those age categories, they end up qualifying.
No.

By the definition of True Dragon in Draconomicon, Dragonwrought Kobolds would count as True Dragons for exactly the reasons you state.

But Races of the Dragon has a list that is supposed to include all True Dragons published up to that point, and explicitly supersedes Draconomicon. It does not include the Dragonwrought Kobold.

So if only Draconomicon were in play and Races of the Dragon, something identical to Dragonwrought Kobolds would qualify as True Dragons. However, Dragonwrought Kobolds were introduced in Races of the Dragon, which disqualifies them.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

*Desert Kobold (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/environmentalRacialVariants.htm#desertKobolds), no Con penalty. (UA)
*Dragonwrought feat, type changes to dragon, you use age categories, per Draconomicon page 4 (sidebar) you're a true dragon. (RotD)
*Venerable age, per Races of the Dragon you don't take penalties to your physical stats due to being Dragonwrought. (RotD)
*Loredrake archtype, you get +2 levels worth of Sorcerer spellcasting ability, for absolutely no drawback (because you don't have racial HD). (DoE)
*Greater Draconic Rite of Passage (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060420a) for another +1 level of Sorcerer spellcasting capability, which initially requires the Draconic Rite of Passage from Races of the Dragon.
*The Spellhoarding mental disorder and accompanying template does several things. You get Int +2, Wis -4, a +2 on Spellcraft checks, Scribe Scroll and Eschew Materials for free, and some other misc bonuses. Any Sorcerer spellcasting ability is converted to Wizard spellcasting of equal level. You write your spells on your scales instead of in a book, so there's no risk of losing them (called your Spellhoard). You can copy the same spell multiple times to fuel other Spellhoard abilities. You can sacrifice a spell copy to cast that spell directly as though from a scroll. You can sacrifice a spell copy to cover costly material components for another spell.When counterspelling you can sacrifice a spell copy of equal level and a gem of a certain minimum value to automatically add the countered spell to your spellhoard, allowing you to prepare and cast it regardless of what class spell list it's from. (Dragon 313)
*Battle Sorcerer (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#sorcererVariantBattleS orcerer), which gives you considerably better HP and BAB in exchange for reducing your spells/day and spells known. The drawbacks don't carry over to Wizard casting, so with Spellhoarding there's absolutely no drawback at all. (UA)
*Stalwart Sorcerer, again you get increased HP and some proficiencies and even Weapon Focus, in exchange for fewer spells known. Again the drawbacks aren't carried over to Wizard casting, so with Spellhoarding there's no drawback, it's just free bonuses. (CM)

With a gestalt character, starting at level 5, you should go with the following:
Stalwart Battle Sorcerer 5// Martial Wizard (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#wizard) 2/ Master Specialist (CM) 1/ Paragnostic Apostle (CC) 2. Specialize in Conjuration, prohibit Enchantment and Evocation, you can pick Charm Person for the Draconic Rite of Passage so you can still take a single level dip into Mindbender (CA) to get Mindsight (LoM). Get the Abrupt Jaunt ACF for Wizard (PH2), keep your Familiar on the Sorcerer side and even consider Improved Familiar (DMG, CW) for something like an Imp or Quasit, otherwise use the Animal Companion ACF (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#sorcererWizard) and get Natural Bond (CV) with a Fleshraker dinosaur (MM3). Say you visited the Otyugh Hole (CS) to get Iron Will without spending a feat on it. Plan on taking Incantatrix (PGtF, not the old 3.0 MoF/online version) asap, and keep taking Stalwart Battle Sorcerer. Get free class features (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a).

Starting out at level 5, you'll have Sorcerer 7 and Wizard 5 spellcasting, but Spellhoarding will switch that to Wizard 12 casting. At your next level you'll be able to add the Greater Draconic Rite of Passage, so it will go up to Wizard 15 casting. Every level after that will give you +2 levels of Wizard spellcasting ability, including automatic spells known and increased caster level. Take the feat Reserves of Strength (DCS) along with Quick Recovery (LoM) and you can ignore the built-in caster level caps of spells you cast. Buy gems and hire NPC spellcasters to cast choice Cleric/Druid/Bard/Domain spells for you to counterspell and add to your Spellhoard.



But Races of the Dragon has a list that is supposed to include all True Dragons published up to that point, and explicitly supersedes Draconomicon. It does not include the Dragonwrought Kobold.

Absolutely false, you forgot to read the paragraphs that came before the table. That list in Races of the Dragon only lists what varieties of half-dragon you can have. There is no Half-Kobold, so there's no Half-Dragon version of Kobold, despite the fact that the few which are Dragonwrought are true dragons.

[Answerer]

Absolutely false, you forgot to read the paragraphs that came before the table. That list in Races of the Dragon only lists what varieties of half-dragon you can have. There is no Half-Kobold, so there's no Half-Dragon version of Kobold, despite the fact that the few which are Dragonwrought are true dragons.
Incorrect.

The section in question is about Half-dragons, yes, but the description of the chart does not state that it is a list of "dragons capable of making half-dragons." It states the following:

The half-dragon template presents special attacks and special qualities for half-dragon versions of the ten varieties of true dragons described in the Monster Manual. The information here expands that list to include all true dragons published in DUNGEONS & DRAGONS products to date. It supersedes any other previously published information on this topic (such as from Draconomicon).
RAW, this is "all true dragons published in DUNGEONS & DRAGONS products to date." Period, that list is all of them. If you're gonna abuse the rules as written, you have to use all them as written. It explicitly states this is all of them, so it is. And Dragonwrought Kobolds are not on the list.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

RAW, this is "all true dragons published in DUNGEONS & DRAGONS products to date." Period, that list is all of them. If you're gonna abuse the rules as written, you have to use all them as written. It explicitly states this is all of them, so it is. And Dragonwrought Kobolds are not on the list.

You're still ignoring the context (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/context?s=t) because it's convenient to your argument.

The section is headed, "HALF-DRAGONS BEYOND THE MONSTER MANUAL"

From your own quote, "...half-dragon versions of the ten varieties of true dragons described in the Monster Manual. The information here expands that list..." The bolded section refers to the ten half-dragon varieties in the Monster Manual, and the list appearing afterward expands the list of possible half-dragons to include every variety of true dragon for which a half-dragon variety could exist.

Let's look at what list in the Draconomicon it supersedes: page 166-167, a section on Half-Dragons that lists all possible half-dragon varieties to date. It does not supersede an all-inclusive list of every true dragon, it supersedes the all-inclusive list of every possible half-dragon variety.

As I said before, there is no Half-Kobold, so even a Dragonwrought version will not produce a Half-Dragon version of its own. Dragonwrought kobolds appear similar to other dragon varieties, so a half-dragon with a dragonwrought kobold parent would simply be a half-dragon of whatever traits their dragonwrought kobold parent displayed.

[Psyren]

Nah, I'm pretty sure that other thread debunked the DW Kobold = True Dragon bit of gouda that was floating around. And good riddance to bad rubbish I say.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Nah, I'm pretty sure that other thread debunked the DW Kobold = True Dragon bit of gouda that was floating around. And good riddance to bad rubbish I say.

I wasn't going to go through every page of that thread, but from what I've seen the strongest argument that the naysayers have is the irrelevant passage that's been quoted here, whereas the sidebar on page 4 of the Draconomicon clearly states that all dragons are true dragons by default, unless they don't use the twelve age categories.

[Fable Wright]

I wasn't going to go through every page of that thread, but from what I've seen the strongest argument that the naysayers have is the irrelevant passage that's been quoted here, whereas the sidebar on page 4 of the Draconomicon clearly states that all dragons are true dragons by default, unless they don't use the twelve age categories.
I disagree that the passage is irrelevant. Regardless of what the context was, it was officially stated to be ALL True Dragons ever published up until that point. Not which ones could make a half-dragon, nor does the table itself list benefits that Half-Dragons of that type enjoy. There is also the clear RAW gap- they view themselves as having 12 age categories, but they only gain benefit from the traditional Adult/Middle Age/Old/Venerable age categories, rather than a mechanical change at each of the 12 age categories they are alleged to have. It's similar, in my opinion, to arguing a Half-Dragon is a true dragon because their culture separates them into 12 age categories of Infant/Toddler/Juvenile/Preteen/Teenager/Young Adult/Adult/Middle Age/Old/Senior/Venerable/Ancient, despite only changing stats at Middle Age, Old, and Venerable. DW Kobold = True Dragon is mechanically unbalancing, works based on what is now a relatively flimsy argument, and doesn't really work by RAI. If you're going to argue otherwise, fine, but there has been lengthy discussion on the matter that came to a consensus that disagrees with the DW Kobold being a True Dragon cheese and if you want to contest that fact, take it up in that thread.

[mattie_p]

That thread was locked, I believe, and I don't think anyone wants to re-open that argument.

The OP said the DM is lenient, and that "The general schtick is 'Rules as written, no matter how cheesy.' "

If he can get the DWK past his DM as a true dragon, more power to him. It sounds like he might need the boost in this particular campaign.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I disagree that the passage is irrelevant. Regardless of what the context was, it was officially stated to be ALL True Dragons ever published up until that point. Not which ones could make a half-dragon, nor does the table itself list benefits that Half-Dragons of that type enjoy. There is also the clear RAW gap- they view themselves as having 12 age categories, but they only gain benefit from the traditional Adult/Middle Age/Old/Venerable age categories, rather than a mechanical change at each of the 12 age categories they are alleged to have. It's similar, in my opinion, to arguing a Half-Dragon is a true dragon because their culture separates them into 12 age categories of Infant/Toddler/Juvenile/Preteen/Teenager/Young Adult/Adult/Middle Age/Old/Senior/Venerable/Ancient, despite only changing stats at Middle Age, Old, and Venerable. DW Kobold = True Dragon is mechanically unbalancing, works based on what is now a relatively flimsy argument, and doesn't really work by RAI. If you're going to argue otherwise, fine, but there has been lengthy discussion on the matter that came to a consensus that disagrees with the DW Kobold being a True Dragon cheese and if you want to contest that fact, take it up in that thread.

I didn't bring it up in this thread, and I only addressed it as a footnote to a lengthy post that directly answered the OP's questions.

[Orran]

Excellent summary of shenanigans

Very interesting, but I don't understand how spellhoarding makes the wizard and sorcerer levels stack. Surely it would be like taking wizard on both sides of the gestalt, is there some ruling otherwise?

[VGLordR2]

Isn't the Dragonspawn template only applicable to Humanoids?

[Answerer]

You're still ignoring the context (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/context?s=t) because it's convenient to your argument.
I'm fully aware of the definition of the word, thanks. In the future, you can leave me to look up words I do not know rather than assume that I do not know my native language, thank you.

There is a context, but the statement is far broader than the context in which it is brought up. The list that it is updating may or may not have had all True Dragons on it, but the RAW state that the list presented is a list of all True Dragons.

Period. That is what it says. Any other context is relevant in the face of such an absolute statement.

[Baron Corm]

There is no place in a 3.5 source where they explicitly say what you need to be a True Dragon. The only way the writers tell us is by saying "this is a True Dragon" in the monster entry. Kobolds don't have that, even in RotD, so no matter how much guessing and supposing is done as to what a True Dragon is, it's up to your DM. Because the book doesn't say they are, it would be reasonable to assume they aren't. Most people would prefer to base their decision on their favorite set of criteria, though.

Anyway, your DM seems like he would allow it, so your question is probably answered in the second post. Now let's see how many pages of argument this thread gets!

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Very interesting, but I don't understand how spellhoarding makes the wizard and sorcerer levels stack. Surely it would be like taking wizard on both sides of the gestalt, is there some ruling otherwise?

It's +1 level of Sorcerer and +1 level of Wizard when each level is gained, but then Spellhoarding converts the Sorcerer over to Wizard.



I'm fully aware of the definition of the word, thanks. In the future, you can leave me to look up words I do not know rather than assume that I do not know my native language, thank you.

There is a context, but the statement is far broader than the context in which it is brought up. The list that it is updating may or may not have had all True Dragons on it, but the RAW state that the list presented is a list of all True Dragons.

Period. That is what it says. Any other context is relevant in the face of such an absolute statement.

It is not an absolute statement, it is completely irrelevant in any discussion that's not about half-dragon varieties. The context in which words appear is more important than what the words themselves say. The entire thread 'discussing' this issue was just a bunch of people who didn't want it to work, grasping at straws for any excuse they could find to not accept that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons. Now that you have this flimsy excuse, you're going to parade it around in any thread that even touches the subject, regardless of relevance. The OP's DM is extremely lenient and certain to allow kobold shenanigans, but you still came here and derailed the thread as though he's 'doing it wrong' and needs to be corrected. You have added nothing to this thread, you've only spouted quotes that don't even exist outside the context of discussions about half-dragon varieties, intentionally causing a derail.

[Douglas]

If I were in this game, I'd be seriously tempted to show the DM Pun-Pun, if only to demonstrate that there does need to be some limit to the cheesiness.

[Psyren]

The section is headed, "HALF-DRAGONS BEYOND THE MONSTER MANUAL"

"chief grukgruk half-orc too. Other half, also orc." :smallwink:

Anyway - yeah, that's the section title, but the list itself is introduced as being a list of all the true dragons, not a list of all the half-dragons. That doesn't invalidate the context of the heading - it introduces new context which more specific application to our problem. And it explicitly overrides all other true dragon context that has come before it.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

"chief grukgruk half-orc too. Other half, also orc." :smallwink:

Anyway - yeah, that's the section title, but the list itself is introduced as being a list of all the true dragons, not a list of all the half-dragons. That doesn't invalidate the context of the heading - it introduces new context which more specific application to our problem. And it explicitly overrides all other true dragon context that has come before it.


"...half-dragon versions of the ten varieties of true dragons described in the Monster Manual. The information here expands that list..." The bolded section refers to the ten half-dragon varieties in the Monster Manual, and the list appearing afterward expands the list of possible half-dragons to include every variety of true dragon for which a half-dragon variety could exist.

I went to Bible college, I took classes specifically addressing context > content, because biblical passages are constantly taken to mean something that they don't when taken out of context. This is a classic case of exactly that, the list is very specifically nothing but an extension of the list of half-dragon varieties from the Monster Manual, regardless of how it's worded. If it appeared by itself, it would indeed be an absolute and all-inclusive list, but it's not by itself, it's part of a greater section of text. You have to take it within that entire section of text, and the above quote specifically and intentionally reduces it to one very specific, limited subject. It is not a list of all true dragon varieties, it is a list of all true dragon varieties of half-dragon.

[Fable Wright]

I went to Bible college, I took classes specifically addressing context > content, because biblical passages are constantly taken to mean something that they don't when taken out of context. This is a classic case of exactly that, the list is very specifically nothing but an extension of the list of half-dragon varieties from the Monster Manual, regardless of how it's worded. If it appeared by itself, it would indeed be an absolute and all-inclusive list, but it's not by itself, it's part of a greater section of text. You have to take it within that entire section of text, and the above quote specifically and intentionally reduces it to one very specific, limited subject. It is not a list of all true dragon varieties, it is a list of all true dragon varieties of half-dragon.

...It still contains ALL of the True Dragon varieties there are. There is also the chance that if a dragon isn't actually a True Dragon, that it can't produce half-dragons? The fact remains that it is a list of every True Dragon variety in Dungeons and Dragons, bar none. The fact that Kobolds were True Dragons was questionable since that piece of cheese debuted, anyways; now that there is a list of all the True Dragons that doesn't include them, the fact that the fact that True Dragon is only debatably applicable to Kobolds, and the fact that it also goes against RAI should indicate that no, Kobolds aren't, in fact, True Dragons.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

...It still contains ALL of the True Dragon varieties there are. There is also the chance that if a dragon isn't actually a True Dragon, that it can't produce half-dragons? The fact remains that it is a list of every True Dragon variety in Dungeons and Dragons, bar none. The fact that Kobolds were True Dragons was questionable since that piece of cheese debuted, anyways; now that there is a list of all the True Dragons that doesn't include them, the fact that the fact that True Dragon is only debatably applicable to Kobolds, and the fact that it also goes against RAI should indicate that no, Kobolds aren't, in fact, True Dragons.


As I said before, there is no Half-Kobold, so even a Dragonwrought version will not produce a Half-Dragon version of its own. Dragonwrought kobolds appear similar to other dragon varieties, so a half-dragon with a dragonwrought kobold parent would simply be a half-dragon of whatever traits their dragonwrought kobold parent displayed.

This is why Dragonwrought Kobolds are not listed among all the true dragon varieties of half-dragon, they have no half-dragon version of their own. As I said before, grasping at straws for an excuse to not accept that they're true dragons doesn't make it so. Pursuing the books with an agenda to find exactly that will almost certainly result in a passage that appears so when taken out of context, but what you want it to say and what it actually says are two completely different things.

[ThiagoMartell]

I'd just like to point out that Races of the Dragon lists all of the true dragons twice. Dragonwrought Kobold is not on either list.
We've been through this many times on the other thread. It's linked in my sig, if you want to read it all over again.

BF, I just recommend you drop the issue. I respect your right to state your opinion, but I don't think you're going to convince anyone, basically because you're ignoring plenty of evidence. It doesn't say anywhere that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons. That's a conclusion someone came to because of a table that is not mentioned by anything else anywhere else ever. All true dragons have several things in common (things that are mentioned in Draconomicon, in the same page where your piece of evidence about kobolds come from)... and kobold does not have those characteristics.
Also, Draconomicon never says all dragons are true dragons by default. It just says "lesser dragons don't advance through age categories". What that phrase even means was subject to heated debate.

We reached a consensus last time that DWK are not true dragons. You are free to disagree, but there is plenty of evidence for that and no evidence against that.

[mattie_p]

Can I withdraw from this thread? If this is degenerating into DWK = True Dragon vs DWK = nothing then I want out. Unsubscribe, uncheckmark. I want no part of the debate. I'll delete my posts if necessary.

My personal opinion is that the same kobold that made Pun-Pun (type= Humanoid (Reptilian)) (Note, not even dragonblooded) plus one feat does not equal type=dragon (true) [augmented humanoid (reptilian)]. The fact that the dragon type should include augmented humanoid as subtype should automatically disqualify from true dragon.

Anyway, not getting into it.

Bye.

[Hecuba]

Period. That is what it says. Any other context is relevant in the face of such an absolute statement.

As sad as it makes me to support kobold cheese...

The content presented is not a list of true dragons: it is a list of the qualities of half-dragons. The fact that it is explicitly expanding a prior list is an indication that the topic of the list has not changed.

Expressed formally, the first list is

The set of all half-dragons given that the draconic parent must be a true dragon from (the set of all true dragons in MMI)

and the expanded list is then

The set of all half-dragons given that the draconic parent must be a true dragon from (the union of the set of all true dragons in MMI and the set of all true dragons in 3.5 texts to date)

The only other reading that would be gramatically sound would be that the expanded list is

The union of (The set of all half dragons presented in MMI) and (the set of all true dragons in any 3.5 text to date)

While the last reading does exclude Kobolds (and is technically the most correct reading in terms of formal grammar), it also means that the all true dragons must be in the list in their own right (and not presented by proxy of a half dragon).
Since the list contains only information on half-dragons, this would result in the only valid true dragons being half-dragons presented in the list which were not also presented in MMI.

So, under that reading, a Half-Chaos Dragon Elf would be a true dragon, but a Great Wyrm Blue Dragon would not.



This does not make Dragonwrought Kobolds being Dragons any less a silly interpretation based on an unintended reading of ill-examined rules.
It does make trying to base your argument aganst the idea on gramatical construction equally silly.

[Arcanist]

Nah, I'm pretty sure that other thread debunked the DW Kobold = True Dragon bit of gouda that was floating around. And good riddance to bad rubbish I say.

This thread triggered my Portfolio sense

The thread is in my signature :D It includes the standard flame war, grammar nazi-hood and a link to Min/Max where everyone discusses the same thing we're most likely going to be discussing for the next 4 days (or until the mods close the thread)!

EDIT: On a side note: I recommend we assume that his DM is house ruling that DW Kobolds are TD :smallsmile:

[gomipile]

Like magnets.

[Answerer]

The content presented is not a list of true dragons: it is a list of the qualities of half-dragons. The fact that it is explicitly expanding a prior list is an indication that the topic of the list has not changed.
Incorrect: it is both.

The implication is that all True Dragons can create Half-Dragons. I don't know that this was true before Races of the Dragon, but RotD made it so. The list includes all True Dragons printed up the publishing of RotD. If it's not on the list, and was published before or during RotD, it's not a True Dragon, period.

There's literally no way to argue around this. That is what the rules say.

The statement that they are "updating that list [of Half-Dragon-producing dragons]" "to include all True Dragons [to date]" says two things: first, this is a list of all dragons that can produce Half-Dragons. Second, this is also a list of all True Dragons. The implication is that all True Dragons can make Half-Dragons and Half-Dragons always have a True Dragon on one side. However, there is absolutely no qualification on the latter clause. It is completely unrestricted and absolute. You are correct about the list vis a vis Half-Dragons. That does not eliminate what the list is also with respect to True Dragons.

[Waddacku]

It's a list of the half-dragon producing subset of the set of true dragons, but it doesn't state whether it is a proper subset or not.

[Hecuba]

Incorrect: it is both.

The implication is that all True Dragons can create Half-Dragons. I don't know that this was true before Races of the Dragon, but RotD made it so. The list includes all True Dragons printed up the publishing of RotD. If it's not on the list, and was published before or during RotD, it's not a True Dragon, period.

There's literally no way to argue around this. That is what the rules say.

The statement that they are "updating that list [of Half-Dragon-producing dragons]" "to include all True Dragons [to date]" says two things: first, this is a list of all dragons that can produce Half-Dragons. Second, this is also a list of all True Dragons. The implication is that all True Dragons can make Half-Dragons and Half-Dragons always have a True Dragon on one side. However, there is absolutely no qualification on the latter clause. It is completely unrestricted and absolute. You are correct about the list vis a vis Half-Dragons. That does not eliminate what the list is also with respect to True Dragons.

You are reading an implication into the list. Specifically, :

The implication is that all True Dragons can make Half-Dragons and Half-Dragons always have a True Dragon on one side.

Or, as Waddacku phrased it, you are presuming the existance of a proper subset.

There is, to my knowledge, no rule establishing that all True Dragons can make Half-Dragons. There is no clear gramatical implication thereof in the referenced passage (in fact, that is one of the lest formally supportable readings available, as it requires you to make judgement about relation rather than merely the sope of a specified change).

[Psyren]

The section heading (and interpretations thereof) are irrelevant. If the passage says the following:

1) This is a list of all True Dragons in D&D.
2) This list supersedes all previous lists on the subject.

Then the case is open and shut. (It does.)

[ThiagoMartell]

The section heading (and interpretations thereof) are irrelevant. If the passage says the following:

1) This is a list of all True Dragons in D&D.
2) This list supersedes all previous lists on the subject.

Then the case is open and shut. (It does.)

Please, someone, polymorph me into a woman so I can marry Psyren.

[Douglas]

Was that list printed before, or after, dragonwrought kobold?

[Psyren]

Was that list printed before, or after, dragonwrought kobold?

Neither - same book. The assumption is that, had they wanted DWK to be on the list it would have been. But even if they did and it was simply an editing error or oversight, RAW is RAW.

[ThiagoMartell]

Was that list printed before, or after, dragonwrought kobold?

It's in the same freaking book

[Waddacku]

The point is it doesn't say it's a list of all True Dragons. It only says it's a list of all True Dragons as pertains to the creation of half-dragons. It does not specify whether there are True Dragons that do not produce half-dragons or not. The only thing you can unarguably state is that it lists all True Dragons so far published that you can be half of.

That's the problem.

[Hecuba]

The section heading (and interpretations thereof) are irrelevant. If the passage says the following:

1) This is a list of all True Dragons in D&D.
2) This list supersedes all previous lists on the subject.

Then the case is open and shut. (It does.)


It does not say 1. It says that:

The information here expands that list to include all true dragonspublished in DUNGEONS& DRAGONS products to date.

The antecedent of "that list," is a list of half-dragons, and it is exlicitly expanded (not replaced).

The list in question is also contains nothing other than half-dragons. So unless you are arguing that the only true dragons are half-dragons not containded in MMI, the list contains no direct information about true dragons.

Thus again, you are arguing about the technical wording of an element where the technical writing involved does not hold up to basic standards of logical rigor.

[Gwendol]

Bah! Nowhere in the description of the DWK feat does it say the kobold becomes a true dragon.

[Psyren]

The antecedent of "that list," is a list of half-dragons, and it is exlicitly expanded (not replaced).

This is simply not correct, and if you had quoted the whole thing you'd have realized that. To wit:


The half-dragon template presents special attacks and special qualities for half-dragon versions of the ten varieties of true dragons described in the Monster Manual. The information here expands that list to include all true dragons published in DUNGEONS & DRAGONS products to date. It supersedes any other previously published information on this topic (such as from Draconomicon).

"That list" is the 10 true dragons in MM1, on which the half-dragon template is based. NOT the half-dragons themselves.

Your reading makes no sense. How would they expand a list of half-dragons by adding true dragons to it? True dragons are not half-dragons. They are expanding the list of true dragons by adding more true dragons to it.

Your reading makes as much sense as saying "We are expanding the list of meldshapers by adding the Warblade and Crusader."

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Why were dragonwrought kobolds given the twelve age categories? What purpose is served mechanically by separating their age into those twelve categories? They still use the Middle/Old/Venerable categories for ability adjustments, so why did the game designers very intentionally give them something that serves absolutely no purpose other than to distinguish true dragons from lesser dragons? I would honestly like a purely mechanical answer for this from the camp who doesn't believe that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons.

There is absolutely no reason to give them the twelve age categories other than to distinguish them as true dragons. The intent is crystal clear, even if the wording of a section on half-dragons is easy to misconstrue as being about true dragons in general. The sidebar on page 4 of the Draconomicon clearly states that those dragons who do not use the twelve age categories are lesser dragons, which means all other dragons, i.e. all which use the twelve age categories, are true dragons.

[Urpriest]

Why were dragonwrought kobolds given the twelve age categories? What purpose is served mechanically by separating their age into those twelve categories? They still use the Middle/Old/Venerable categories for ability adjustments, so why did the game designers very intentionally give them something that serves absolutely no purpose other than to distinguish true dragons from lesser dragons? I would honestly like a purely mechanical answer for this from the camp who doesn't believe that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons.



IIRC, those age categories also apply to normal kobolds, who certainly do not qualify as True Dragons. So it's clearly purely cultural.

[ThiagoMartell]

IIRC, those age categories also apply to normal kobolds, who certainly do not qualify as True Dragons. So it's clearly purely cultural.

You're correct. Those age categories apply to normal kobolds as well.

[Hecuba]

This is simply not correct, and if you had quoted the whole thing you'd have realized that. To wit:

No, that list is a list, in the Half-dragon entry in MM1, of the qualites of half-dragons for a given draconic parent. The direct topic of the list is half-dragons: the presence of true dragons is tangential.

The most literally correct interpretation of the expansion, in terms of technical writing, is a union of two lists. The fact that this interpretation is absurd is the heart of my point-- you are trying to aruge the technical meaning of wording that does not hold up to basic technical rigor without falling into absurdity.

My next point is that a the expansion being a union with the limiting set of the first list (the 10 true dragons in MM1 rather than then half-dragons directly covered by the list) does not exclude kobolds from being true dragons unless we establish that every true dragon can produce a valid half-dragon. To my knowledge, this is not explicitly established. This makes a reading for kobolds at least as supportable as a reading against.

As for my personal stand on the issue, I hold that it rests on 1 possible reading (neither the most or least questionable) of rules for which are inherently poorly written. I'll take the result which is least stupid-- Kobolds are not true dragons-- rather than rest my decision on which wording is most correct (especially since the most correct wording yields and even stupider result).

[Douglas]

This discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere, and the only opinion that really matters for the purpose of this thread is that of the OP's DM. Given the general stance of high cheese being deliberately sought out and encouraged, said DM is likely to go with Dragonwrought qualifying as a True Dragon unless this debate gets miraculously settled decisively against it, which just isn't going to happen.

With that in mind, could we all please get back to discussing the optimization tricks available under that premise rather than rehashing an old debate about whether the premise is valid?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

IIRC, those age categories also apply to normal kobolds, who certainly do not qualify as True Dragons. So it's clearly purely cultural.

I didn't ask for a scapegoat. It's not presented as purely cultural, nor is it even mentioned at all in any of the flavor text in that entire chapter. The twelve age categories are presented as purely game mechanics for them, the only purpose of which is to distinguish those of the dragon type as true dragons rather than lesser dragons.

[Telonius]

Okay, quick summary of how the cheese works, assuming it's ruled legal.

1. Draconic Reservoir, and the two Draconic Rite of Passage rituals, plus Loredrake; basically give you three levels of sorcerer casting without having to take levels in the class. (Except the one level required for Greater Draconic Rite of Passage).
2. Aging cheese, if allowed, works thusly. Set your age before you choose your feats during chargen. Be Venerable. You get +3 to all mental stats, and -silly to all physical stats. Take Dragonwrought at first. Aging penalties no longer matter, but bonuses remain.

So you have three (basically free) spellcasting level-ups for a Tier-2 class, and bonuses to your casting stat, at the cost of three feats (Dragonwrought, Draconic Reservoir, and Greater Draconic Rite of Passage). No level adjustment.

That's not even getting into the various different flavors of Kobold you pick.

[Orran]

So you have three (basically free) spellcasting level-ups for a Tier-2 class, and bonuses to your casting stat, at the cost of three feats (Dragonwrought, Draconic Reservoir, and Greater Draconic Rite of Passage). No level adjustment.

That's not even getting into the various different flavors of Kobold you pick.

Greater draconic reservoir is not a feat, but it does cost 1000gp. Also, those do have other benefits, taking identify as your spell like ability is a common choice. Being dragon type i also fun for alter self.

[ThiagoMartell]

I didn't ask for a scapegoat. It's not presented as purely cultural, nor is it even mentioned at all in any of the flavor text in that entire chapter. The twelve age categories are presented as purely game mechanics for them, the only purpose of which is to distinguish those of the dragon type as true dragons rather than lesser dragons.

This is incorrect.
As presented, those age categories applies to all kobolds. They are not even creatures with the dragon type. Your guessing intent now, saying it's only purpose is to do what you want it to do.
As I mentioned before, you're ignoring all evidence against DWK not being true dragons just because you want them to be so. I mean, you're even arguing they are true dragons by RAI now. :smallconfused:
Anyway, you can continue houseruling taht they are true dragons as long as you want, but they're not.

[Answerer]

I will state that I misspoke in my earlier post (though it does not seem that anyone caught it).

All True Dragons can produce Half-Dragons. The converse (that all creatures that can produce Half-Dragons are True Dragons) is not, however, necessarily true (though I suspect it is).

The statement in Races of the Dragon is that the list is expanded "to include all True Dragons," which does not mean that everything on the list is a True Dragon. It does still mean that the list includes all True Dragons, but it is possible (based on that statement) that Lesser Dragons are on the list, and if so they may then create Half-Dragons.

But it is not possible for something to be a True Dragon if it is not on that list, and was published at the time of the list's writing. The Incarnum Dragons were published before Races of the Dragon and do not appear, but considering how close together the two books were, it is likely that the list was written before Magic of Incarnum was finished. It's debatable, then, whether or not Incarnum Dragons are True Dragons after Races of the Dragon, depending on how you want to draw the line on "published to date".

But Dragonwrought Kobolds, being in the exact same book, are not debatable. They are not True Dragons. Attempting to limit the list to "True Dragons who can have Half-Dragons" is adding additional rules that are not in the book. The list exists for the purposes of statting Half-Dragons, but it is stated to include all True Dragons, period.

In other words, Races of the Dragon has the de facto effect of stating that all True Dragons can produce Half-Dragons, and any creature that cannot produce Half-Dragons is not a True Dragon. This supercedes the definition of True Dragon in Draconomicon, as the list is explicitly stated to do so. The context here (that the list is for the purposes of stating Half-Dragons) has no bearing on the fact, stated in Races of the Dragon, that it includes all True Dragons. No statement, in that sentence or in any sentence within that paragraph (or, I suspect, the entire book, but I have not read it from cover to cover) qualifies that statement in any way.

[CosmicOccurence]

Alright, it's obvious that nobody's going to change their mind, but whatever.

------------------------------------------------------------------

@Hecuba: you posted this (couldn't figure out how to quote quotes)

It does not say 1. It says that:

"The information here expands that list to include all true dragonspublished in DUNGEONS& DRAGONS products to date."

The antecedent of "that list," is a list of half-dragons, and it is exlicitly expanded (not replaced).

--------------------------------------------------------------------

However, you forgot to bold the second half of this sentence. It now reads ...
"The information here expands that list to include all true dragons published in DUNGEONS& DRAGONS products to date."

It explicitly states that it includes all true dragons published in D&D to date, and it just so happens all of them can create half dragons.


Aside from that, Dracominicon also provides several more things that a true dragon has to have (they are scattered around the book). I don't have access to it at the moment, but I believe one of them is blindsight. As it is, no dragon satisfies every requirement it lays out. So as of now, there are no true dragons.

But! the true dragons mentioned specifically say that they are true dragons in their monster descriptions (and later in the RoD list). It is now a case of specific trumps general (general are true dragon requirements, specific is dragons not meeting those requirements being stated that they are in fact true dragons).

As it stands, DW Kobald neither satisfies every requirement in Draconimicon nor specifically says true dragon. So it does not specifically trump the general rule.

2cp

[Hecuba]

Attempting to limit the list to "True Dragons who can have Half-Dragons" is adding additional rules that are not in the book. The list exists for the purposes of statting Half-Dragons, but it is stated to include all True Dragons, period.

Rules are technical content, and technical content should never be assumed from implication. As point of fact, the list contains no true dragons. The list, as presented, contains only half dragons.

A properly, formally-structured statement for the rule as you are reading it would be:
That list is expanded here to include half-dragons born from each variety of true dragon published in Dungeons & Dragons to date.
There are important elements here:

"For each" is not the same as "for all", especially in the presence of a complex objective clause. This is a fundamental distinction that is, generally, taught in even an introductory technical writing class. In this case, "for each" indicates that each member the true dragon set has a corresponding entry in the half dragon list. "For all" indicates, instead, that each entry on the half dragon list corresponds to a member of the set of true dragons.
Complex objective clauses are still discrete objects from a grammatical standpoint. "The half-dragon template presents Object X" is fully grammatically equivalent to the statement made in the book. Thus a reference back to the object of that sentence refers, in grammatical terms, to the full content of the objective clause-- in this case, the list of "[...] special attacks and qualities [... of half dragons in MMI].
The fact that this is nonsensical is, largely, the reason that this section does not hold up to scrutiny.
There is a grammatically sound reading of the passage. The fact that that reading is nonsensical indicates that the passage does not meet technical rigor, and thus does not of itself provide unambiguous technical resolution. You must instead insert your judgement to fill the lapse in the technical writing (or in this case, the fact that WOTC didn't hire a technical writer to edit their rules at all).

And while I happen to agree with your judgement, I will not pretend that it is a function purely of the text as presented. To do so would be hypocritical when I have failed writing students for far less problematic constructions.

I'm going to go back the floor of my comic shop now and enjoy my amazingly pleasant working-retirement: the pen holder by my desk has a couple red pens in it and -- in combination with this thread -- they are making me antsy.

[Answerer]

1. It actually states that half-dragons are, in fact, true dragons. In fact, they are actually "versions of [...] true dragons."


The half-dragon template presents [stats] for half-dragon versions of the ten [...] true dragons described in the Monster Manual.

This isn't actually relevant to your argument, on further reading; I've got to admit, I found it very difficult to actually parse your argument. But it is an interesting point so I'm leaving it in here.

2. I have no idea why you are bringing up the distinction between "for each" and "for all" since neither phrase is used by Races of the Dragon. Even your own statement uses "from each." Making a technical point based on very specific wording differences, when neither option is actually present, is greatly confusing to me.

To respond, I am forced to assume that you meant statements approximately equivalent to the following:

"For all True Dragons, there is a Half-Dragon on this list"
"For each True Dragon, there is a Half-Dragon on this list"

Regardless of why you have brought up this point that does not appear to be immediately relevant, I will take the time to state my belief that you are incorrect. I even decided to look up some technical English grammar to make sure that this wasn't some obscure usage I was unfamiliar with, but it is not.

The two above statements are completely identical in effect. Yes, "all True Dragons" refers to a set and "each True Dragon" refers to the members of that set, but since the latter refers to every member in turn, the meaning doesn't change: every True Dragon has a Half-Dragon in the list.

Your claim is that the rewording would cause the statement to become its converse, is, as far as I can tell, completely without basis. You're welcome to provide evidence for your claim, but thus far I have not found any, and I have never been taught any, despite having taken technical writing courses well beyond "introductory." I can imagine situations where the distinction would matter, but I don't see how it would apply here. Again, your specific claim certainly appears to be right out.

My guess is that the distinction you were thinking of was ∀ x ∃ y vs. ∃ x ∀ y, but that is "for all ... there exists" versus "there exists ... for all," not "for all" versus "for each." That swap would cause the statement to become its converse (roughly speaking).

3. OK, so it expands the list of "special abilities" to include "all true dragons." True dragons are not, presumably, special abilities, and therefore a list of special abilities cannot be "expanded" to include them. Taken strictly, this is nonsense.

However, that's an almost-meaningless statement. Almost any body of work, no matter how technical, will have nonsensical statements if taken that strictly. Determining RAW is not equivalent to setting your language parsers to maximally pedantic. Invalidating the entire list because of a slight shortening of the text (from "to include the special abilities of all true dragons" to "to include all true dragons") is, frankly, wrong.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

This is incorrect.
As presented, those age categories applies to all kobolds. They are not even creatures with the dragon type. Your guessing intent now, saying it's only purpose is to do what you want it to do.
As I mentioned before, you're ignoring all evidence against DWK not being true dragons just because you want them to be so. I mean, you're even arguing they are true dragons by RAI now. :smallconfused:
Anyway, you can continue houseruling taht they are true dragons as long as you want, but they're not.

That's what I was looking for, a perfect explanation of the not-a-true-dragon camp's arguments.

On one side, we have Draconomicon page 4, a section specifically addressing the differences between true dragons and lesser dragons, and how to determine which a given creature is. As long as a creature of the dragon type doesn't use the twelve age categories, it's a lesser dragon, otherwise it is a true dragon.

On the other, we have a section specifically addressing half-dragon varieties and nothing more, being imagined to be intended as a definitive list of every true dragon. It doesn't include the Deep Dragon, nor the Steel Dragon, nor many other obvious true dragons. That is not even a definitive list of every creature that can produce a half-dragon: A Human Half-Gold-Dragon plus an Elf Half-Gold-Dragon produces a Half-Elf Half-Gold-Dragon.

I think I've made my point by now. There is crystal clear RAW evidence supporting the conclusion that Dragonwrought Kobolds are true dragons. There is an entirely unrelated section being imagined to contradict that. Regardless of how vocal the naysayers try to be, I think anyone capable of viewing this impartially can come to their own conclusion.

[Baron Corm]

Regardless of how vocal the naysayers try to be, I think anyone capable of viewing this impartially can come to their own conclusion.

If you want to claim you're viewing this impartially, consider the comment on page 111 of RotD that says true dragons gain spellcasting as they age. I personally wouldn't take this as a strict definition, because it isn't presented as one. But by your logic, you would. You now have two conflicting passages. Maybe snippets of possible true dragon qualities from different books that can be interpreted as the reader pleases isn't the best way to get a rule-based definition after all!

[Urpriest]

A Human Half-Gold-Dragon plus an Elf Half-Gold-Dragon produces a Half-Elf Half-Gold-Dragon.



Got a rules citation for that? Eberron Half-Elves breeding true was an innovation, not the default for half-races.

[CosmicOccurence]

A Human Half-Gold-Dragon plus an Elf Half-Gold-Dragon produces a Half-Elf Half-Gold-Dragon.

Can you provide a citation for that? I was under the impression that a half elf gold dragon was the child of a gold dragon and a half elf.

Also there are other mentions in Draconimicon of what a true dragon has that is not on page 4 are there not? (once again, I am away from my books so I am unable to cite this)

[Hecuba]

1. It actually states that half-dragons are, in fact, true dragons. In fact, they are actually "versions of [...] true dragons."

That is interesting



2. I have no idea why you are bringing up the distinction between "for each" and "for all" since neither phrase is used by Races of the Dragon. Even your own statement uses "from each." Making a technical point based on very specific wording differences, when neither option is actually present, is greatly confusing to me.

To respond, I am forced to assume that you meant statements approximately equivalent to the following:

"For all True Dragons, there is a Half-Dragon on this list"
"For each True Dragon, there is a Half-Dragon on this list"

Regardless of why you have brought up this point that does not appear to be immediately relevant, I will take the time to state my belief that you are incorrect. I even decided to look up some technical English grammar to make sure that this wasn't some obscure usage I was unfamiliar with, but it is not.

The two above statements are completely identical in effect. Yes, "all True Dragons" refers to a set and "each True Dragon" refers to the members of that set, but since the latter refers to every member in turn, the meaning doesn't change: every True Dragon has a Half-Dragon in the list.

"All" is the plural collective universal qualifier: "each" and "every" are the distributive universal singular qualifiers.
I believe the standard citation on the matter is going to be in Matthews' Syntax (probably somewhere around page 100, though my copy is at home). If you prefer a treatment of the topic online, http://www.semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DA3YTY3N/Tunstall_Chapter_4.pdf seems to give a basic introduction of the distributive side (though it's comments on the the collective qualifiers seem to be covered in another chapter).*

(As an aside, I used "for" instead of "from" in the explanatory text because it is the standard generalized construction of the dative, though this is less of a standard than it once was.)


3. OK, so it expands the list of "special abilities" to include "all true dragons." True dragons are not, presumably, special abilities, and therefore a list of special abilities cannot be "expanded" to include them. Taken strictly, this is nonsense.

However, that's an almost-meaningless statement. Almost any body of work, no matter how technical, will have nonsensical statements if taken that strictly. Determining RAW is not equivalent to setting your language parsers to maximally pedantic. Invalidating the entire list because of a slight shortening of the text (from "to include the special abilities of all true dragons" to "to include all true dragons") is, frankly, wrong.

Which is why I noted that judgement must be introduced. If there were a strong independent indication that all true dragons can produce half-dragons (or if all were a distributive qualifier instead of a collective qualifier), I would agree that your argument in and of itself would be enough to fill the gap. I don't think it does.^
____________________________________

Edit
^: Specifically, your argument requires, as Waddacku noted, that there is a proper correspondence between the restricting set (True Dragons) and the general set (Half Dragons). If you do establish that, then combined with the only non-absurd supportable reading, you have an argument that is both broad enough and sound enough to make your position unassailable.
You have not established that, so we are left in a situation similar to "We all carry a chair to the meeting:" are we each carrying one chair to he meeting, or are we collectively carrying a single giant chair to the meeting? A strict grammatical reading would actually mean the later (again, the distributive universal vs. the collective universal).

*: I took a closer look at the online text in question. Chapter 2 contains a more general treatment covering both the collectives and distributives. The treatment starts at section 2.3.3
http://www.semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DA3YTY3N/Tunstall_Chapter_2.pdf

[ThiagoMartell]

On one side, we have Draconomicon page 4, a section specifically addressing the differences between true dragons and lesser dragons, and how to determine which a given creature is. As long as a creature of the dragon type doesn't use the twelve age categories, it's a lesser dragon, otherwise it is a true dragon.
Dude, HALF of Draconomicon is about true dragons. None of that half applies to kobolds.


On the other, we have a section specifically addressing half-dragon varieties and nothing more, being imagined to be intended as a definitive list of every true dragon.
It's not imagines.

It doesn't include the Deep Dragon, nor the Steel Dragon, nor many other obvious true dragons.
Steel Dragon wasn't even published by then. Steel dragons are even explicitly mentioned in their description to be likely to produce half-dragons, so I don't see your point.
And the deep dragon is right there on the Races of the Dragon list, so...


That is not even a definitive list of every creature that can produce a half-dragon: A Human Half-Gold-Dragon plus an Elf Half-Gold-Dragon produces a Half-Elf Half-Gold-Dragon.
Yes. It is a list of all true dragons that can generate half-dragons.
On a sidenote, only 75% of the time does half-dragons breeding between themselves create another half-dragon.


I think I've made my point by now.
Well, all you made clear to me is that you didn't go through the list very carefully. You even missed the deep dragon.

There is crystal clear RAW evidence supporting the conclusion that Dragonwrought Kobolds are true dragons.
Your "crystal clear evidence" is refuted by half the book where it appears.

There is an entirely unrelated section being imagined to contradict that.
It is not entirely unrelated. In fact, Draconomicon has a list of all true dragons at page 286. Would you be so kind as to compare that list to the one in Races of the Dragon?

Regardless of how vocal the naysayers try to be, I think anyone capable of viewing this impartially can come to their own conclusion.
So you claim you're being impartial? Interesting.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

First of all, I never claimed to be impartial. I quite plainly said I made my points for those who are capable of considering it impartially to make their own decision. I shouldn't be surprised though, considering how many people here believe that Races of the Dragon page 70-72 has anything to do with non-half-dragons.

Second, there is only one place where it is stated whether a given dragon is a true dragon or a lesser dragon, and the only criteria is whether or not they use the twelve age categories. That one instance is all the evidence it needs. A lack of additional evidence is not confirmation of the opposite.

Third, Steel Dragon (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mm/20040328a) as of March 28, 2004. It predates Races of the Dragon by two years, and it's not on the list.

Fourth, please point out where it is stated absolutely that all true dragons can produce a unique variety of half-dragon offspring. I've been looking, but I can't find it anywhere, it's just 'usually' and 'virtually any' and other words that leave room for exceptions, such as dragonwrought kobolds. The convenient presumption that this is one of the criteria for being considered a true dragon is completely false, to the relief of any dragon eunuchs out there.

[VGLordR2]

As much as I'm enjoying watching this argument again, I believe that this thread has been derailed. A lot. I recommend moving this to another thread before this one gets locked.

[ThiagoMartell]

First of all, I never claimed to be impartial. I quite plainly said I made my points for those who are capable of considering it impartially to make their own decision. I shouldn't be surprised though, considering how many people here believe that Races of the Dragon page 70-72 has anything to do with non-half-dragons.
Like I said before, compare the list to the list on the Draconomicon appendix. I've given you a page number and everything.


Second, there is only one place where it is stated whether a given dragon is a true dragon or a lesser dragon, and the only criteria is whether or not they use the twelve age categories. That one instance is all the evidence it needs. A lack of additional evidence is not confirmation of the opposite.
Wrong. You really should read through Draconomicon again. I even gave you a page number. Here, let me show you a few quotes.

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. [...] All true dragons are endothermic. [...] Guillaume and Cirjon established that the shortest-lived true dragon, the white, can live as long as 2,100 years. [...] Every true dragon is immune to at least one type of elemental energy (acid, cold, electricity, or fire), usually the same type of energy as the dragon uses for its breath weapon. [...] True dragons have superb internal temperature regulation and seldom suffer from the effects of excessive heat or cold. [...] All true dragons have great patience. [...] True dragons possess blindsense [...]

That's just a few snippets. Now, please tell me how many of those apply to kobolds.


Third, Steel Dragon (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mm/20040328a) as of March 28, 2004. It predates Races of the Dragon by two years, and it's not on the list.
"The information here expands that list to include all true dragons
published in DUNGEONS & DRAGONS products to date."
I don't think an online article is a product.


Fourth, please point out where it is stated absolutely that all true dragons can produce a unique variety of half-dragon offspring. I've been looking, but I can't find it anywhere, it's just 'usually' and 'virtually any' and other words that leave room for exceptions, such as dragonwrought kobolds. The convenient presumption that this is one of the criteria for being considered a true dragon is completely false, to the relief of any dragon eunuchs out there.
Actually, I never saw any mention os 'usually' and 'virtually any' anywhere. Could you please point me towards some book names and page numbers?

Oh, a completely new information. This is from Draconomicon

Using another creature of the dragon type as a player character is rather less complicated than using a true dragon.
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.
Basically, true dragons officially have varied level adjustments. Kobolds? Don't.

[Answerer]

That is interesting
Glad you think so.


"All" is the plural collective universal qualifier: "each" and "every" are the distributive universal singular qualifiers.
I believe the standard citation on the matter is going to be in Matthews' Syntax (probably somewhere around page 100, though my copy is at home). If you prefer a treatment of the topic online, http://www.semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DA3YTY3N/Tunstall_Chapter_4.pdf seems to give a basic introduction of the distributive side (though it's comments on the the collective qualifiers seem to be covered in another chapter).*

(As an aside, I used "for" instead of "from" in the explanatory text because it is the standard generalized construction of the dative, though this is less of a standard than it once was.)
I'm aware of that distinction; I even noted this in my post.

I'm unaware of any situation in which that distinction would cause a sentence to become its converse, or how using one versus the other would change my reading of the particular sentence in Races of the Dragon. This was the specific point I was making.

Your link is problematic because it is 32 pages long, and you yourself have noted that it does not include the specific distinction you were talking about. As such, it does not help me: I've read the introduction, but linking to 32 pages and saying "my evidence is in there somewhere!" does not a convincing argument make. If you'd told me that I needed to go to page X to find the discussion of "All" vs. "Each" that would be a different matter, but you said that it's not actually in there so I'm not going through all 32 pages.

I also don't have the book you're referring to. I need either a quote that is directly applicable to this argument, or a link to the same.

(EDIT: I see your edit, but I don't have time to read it now. If I stipulate that your argument holds, much of the following is meaningless, but I'm not going to do that until I've read it.)

What are the exact sentences you had in mind where this would become true? Guessing what you're talking about has gotten old.


Which is why I noted that judgement must be introduced. If there were a strong independent indication that all true dragons can produce half-dragons (or if all were a distributive qualifier instead of a collective qualifier), I would agree that your argument in and of itself would be enough to fill the gap. I don't think it does.^
Your parenthetical is a patently absurd requirement in my mind unless and until you have shown otherwise, per the above.

An independent verification of the de facto result of my position would be nice, but it's hardly necessary. The shortening of the sentence is extremely minor, and I would argue that failure to understand that we are talking about "the special abilities of true dragons" rather than "true dragons" themselves is a matter of English comprehension failure, not authorial failure. English is not a particularly ideal language for extremely technical points in any event; it allows that kind of thing as a matter of course. It's inadvisable but hardly going to make a statement incomprehensible to just about anyone.

And I have never claimed that RAW is without judgment, only it must be based on the words actually written on the page. I judge that, despite being technically wrong, the shortening in question is still unambiguous. No other potential reading has been posited that would change my argumentation on the meaning of the paragraph as a whole. Invalidating the entire paragraph on this basis, despite the lack of said ambiguity, does not strike me as a reasonable judgment.


^: Specifically, your argument requires, as Waddacku noted, that there is a proper correspondence between the restricting set (True Dragons) and the general set (Half Dragons). If you do establish that, then combined with the only non-absurd supportable reading, you have an argument that is both broad enough and sound enough to make your position unassailable.

You have not established that, so we are left in a situation similar to "We all carry a chair to the meeting:" are we each carrying one chair to he meeting, or are we collectively carrying a single giant chair to the meeting? A strict grammatical reading would actually mean the later (again, the distributive universal vs. the collective universal).
OK, facts stated in this paragraph:

This is a list of (the special abilities of) the half-dragon versions of dragons. (actually, it states that it's a list of the half-dragon versions of true dragons, which would imply that the converse of my claim is also true)
It has been "expanded to include all true dragons."

Break down for me, exactly, how a true dragon (having been published at that time) could possibly fail to be on that list, while still being a true dragon, barring perhaps a specific-trumps-general argument, without contradicting those statements. I want a purely grammatical breakdown of how you determine that result.

I further would love to see how you come up with the converse from the second fact (that all entries in the list are true dragons), which is what you initially claimed. I can determine this information based on the first fact, but you made that claim specifically with respect to your "all" vs. "each" argument.

[Hecuba]

Break down for me, exactly, how a true dragon (having been published at that time) could possibly fail to be on that list, while still being a true dragon, barring perhaps a specific-trumps-general argument, without contradicting those statements. I want a purely grammatical breakdown of how you determine that result.

I further would love to see how you come up with the converse from the second fact (that all entries in the list are true dragons), which is what you initially claimed. I can determine this information based on the first fact, but you made that claim specifically with respect to your "all" vs. "each" argument.

Alright. Let's start with the absurd reading.

"The half-dragon template entry presents [Set {half-dragons in MMI}]" followed by a sentence noting that [Set {half-dragons in MMI}] has been expanded to include [Set {all true dragons}]. The issue here is that the individual elements of [Set {MM1 true dragons}] are qualities and special attacks of half-dragons born of Dragons in MMI, where the individual elements of [Set {MM1 true dragons}] are simply true dragons.

Under such a reading, what we should have from the expanded list is a dissimilar set of of half-dragons published in MMI and all true dragons from other publications to date.

Instead we have a list of half-dragons: if we took this with the literal meaning as above, this would indicate that all elements (keep in mind, the list itself contains only half dragons) in the list not in MMI is a true dragon (despite every entry being a half-dragon) and nothing not on the list of in MMI is a true dragon (despite giving birth to the half-dragons on the list).

Almost without a doubt, the intended meaning is

The half-dragon template entry presents [Set {half-dragons} as derived from Limiting Set {MM1 true dragons}].
The new list instead expands the Limiting Set to include [{all true dragons}]

But they use the word "all." As a collective qualifier, all establishes the relationship between the main set and the limiting set as being a function on the limiting set as a whole and not of each individual element of the limiting set.
This means that any half dragon derived from the limiting set must be in the new list, but not that every true dragon member of the limiting set must contribute.

To use a less fantastic example, "We replaced the chairs in all of the rooms." does not signify that every room had chairs, but rather that the rooms collectively had chairs and that they have been replaced for all rooms. If a room did not have any chairs, it will not have had any of its chairs replaced: it is still a part of "all of the rooms."

Getting back to the dragons, it is possible for a true dragon previously published not to have a corresponding entry on the half-dragon list in question if and only if it is possible for a type of true dragon not to be a valid parent for a half dragon.
A distributive such as "each" or "every" would have have established that is not the case purely as a function of grammar, as it would indicate that each True Dragon (the limiting set) corresponds to an entry in the list.

Instead the used "all," which does not close that gap.

[Baron Corm]

Every true dragon is immune to at least one type of elemental energy (acid, cold, electricity, or fire), usually the same type of energy as the dragon uses for its breath weapon. [...] True dragons possess blindsense [...]

I'm not sure why the listing of true dragons is held as the best disprover of TD kobolds, when we have things like these, and the line I mentioned last post (that B_F ignored). As I said, I don't take comments like these as law or rules, and don't believe any dragon can be seen as a true dragon without the writers naming it one (though an advancement by age table, complete with everything the 10 TDs in the SRD get such as spellcasting, natural armor, size increases, and such would certainly sway me), but I don't see how people on the other side could just pick and choose the descriptions they want and ignore all others.

[ThiagoMartell]

I'm not sure why the listing of true dragons is held as the best disprover of TD kobolds, when we have things like these, and the line I mentioned last post (that B_F ignored). As I said, I don't take comments like these as law or rules, and don't believe any dragon can be seen as a true dragon without the writers naming it one (though an advancement by age table, complete with everything the 10 TDs in the SRD get such as spellcasting, natural armor, size increases, and such would certainly sway me), but I don't see how people on the other side could just pick and choose the descriptions they want and ignore all others.

Well, the argument was that "it was fluff, so it doesn't matter to a RAW discussion". Yes, it is as stupid as it sounds.
You only even being to make an argument for kobolds being true if you ignore everything but two lines of text from Draconomicon and everything but a feat and a table from Races of the Dragon. Both books contain plenty of evidence that they are not true dragons, but someone really wants that rule exploit to be more than a houserule.

[Analytica]

Well, the argument was that "it was fluff, so it doesn't matter to a RAW discussion". Yes, it is as stupid as it sounds.
You only even being to make an argument for kobolds being true if you ignore everything but two lines of text from Draconomicon and everything but a feat and a table from Races of the Dragon. Both books contain plenty of evidence that they are not true dragons, but someone really wants that rule exploit to be more than a houserule.

With the time spent on this, why hasn't someone hunted up the Draconomicon author and send them an email asking whether they would consider dragonwrought kobolds to, rules-wise, be True Dragons with all that entails? Or would that also be meaningless to a RAW discussion? Then again, I guess they might have NDAs and/or better things to do, but still...

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Nothing is presented as "this is what makes a true dragon," but it does very clearly state what makes a lesser dragon. If a creature of the dragon type does not use the twelve age categories, then it is a lesser dragon, so dragonwrought kobolds are most definitely not lesser dragons.

Descriptions of the biology of imaginary creatures and typical physical descriptions of members of a species are not rules text, nor are they absolute because there are exceptions to every one of them. OA dragons lack breath attacks and energy immunities. Yu Lung dragons only have three age categories, making them comparable in size to kobolds, and they never gain Blindsight, Frightful Presence, and many other abilities that you imagine to be qualifiers for being considered a true dragon.

[Axier]

If Specific trumps General, then I can only see a list that is, while not in context of explicitly "True Dragons", does clearly state that this;
"this list has been expanded to include all true dragons published in DUNGEONS & DRAGONS products to date"

Now, while we can nitpick a few things, but the two common arguments against this statement include Web Enhancement dragons. This argument is invalid as Enhancements are not Products (They do not sell them); while Dragonwraught came out not only in a product, but the one this list is in.

As for Incarnum Dragons, they are published too close together, and by different people. This is obvious oversight, and I feel should not be taken in a manner that would disprove something they could not have covered.

There is a lot of eratta that will never happen that needs to happen to make 3.5 straightforward. Technically I can understand the argument, but it is technically not RAW that these things disprove the poorly worded and written list. It would be a valid argument if the list was mentioned as the one in Draconomicon, that states "all official sources", but that list is null now anyway.

However, this is a RAW discussion, as the OP mentioned RAW, no matter how cheesy.

I argue that RAW has no clerification on Dragonwraught Kobolds.

They do not meet the same aspects of Lesser Dragons, as situated by the Draconomicon.
Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons

I also do not see them meeting the requirements for True Dragons, entirely (strictly the requirements based on hard numbers, and not presumable fluff), mentioned in the Draconomicon. While it can be interpreted as such, am not entirely sure if you can assert that kobolds apply to the following just because they get aging benifits without the drawbacks.

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

As this is the only statement of True Dragon rules that hasn't been fully explained or completely ignored when making some true dragons, such as this sidebar;

RULES: DRAGON IMMUNITIES
Every kind of true dragon has immunity to at least one type of
energy, as noted in the Monster Manual.
A true dragon ignores the detrimental effects of extreme heat
(110°F to 140°F) and of extreme cold (0°F to –40°F). A true
dragon in these conditions does not have to make a Fortitude
save every 10 minutes to avoid taking nonlethal damage.
All creatures of the dragon type are immune to magic sleep
and paralysis effects, also as noted in the Monster Manual.
True dragons develop damage reduction as they age, as
noted in the Monster Manual. Damage reduction is a supernatural
ability and is ineffective in an antimagic field.
True dragons also develop spell resistance as they age, as
noted in the Monster Manual.

However, one could further argue that the few dragons that do not match this are specified as True Dragons, but this part of the argument is moot because the first argument already hinges on what the DM considers "become more powerful as they grow older." really means in her/his campagin. For them to even reach this point, the DM already has to make an executive decision for them to even start going down this path, at which point they are expecting a High Optimization campagin if they are going to even consider it anyway, this is always an argument over Theorhetical Optimization threads, and rarely is it over making an interesting and not broken character.

They are not they are True Dragons from what I look at in RAW, but there is RAW that they are NOT lesser Dragons.

By RAW, they are neither untill the DM says they are one or the other.

There are few rules on Dragons, neither; but by RAW the Kobold can still get epic level feats after they are Old age or older, because that rule is specifically for the Dragon creature type. Also, any rules on the Dragon type still apply to DWK. Thats it. The DM has the final say on whether or not they are True or lesser.

Honestly, if the OP wants a Riddled Spellhoarding Loredrake Desert Dragonwraught Kobold, and the DM says yes, it really doesn't matter to argue it. Rule 0, because Kobolds arent lesser or True.

[Answerer]

Alright. Let's start with the absurd reading.

"The half-dragon template entry presents [Set {half-dragons in MMI}]" followed by a sentence noting that [Set {half-dragons in MMI}] has been expanded to include [Set {all true dragons}]. The issue here is that the individual elements of [Set {MM1 true dragons}] are qualities and special attacks of half-dragons born of Dragons in MMI, where the individual elements of [Set {MM1 true dragons}] are simply true dragons.

Under such a reading, what we should have from the expanded list is a dissimilar set of of half-dragons published in MMI and all true dragons from other publications to date.

Instead we have a list of half-dragons: if we took this with the literal meaning as above, this would indicate that all elements (keep in mind, the list itself contains only half dragons) in the list not in MMI is a true dragon (despite every entry being a half-dragon) and nothing not on the list of in MMI is a true dragon (despite giving birth to the half-dragons on the list).
Aha, this is why I originally brought up the "version" line: you are objecting to the "list of half-dragons" being claimed to have been expanded with "true dragons" despite the fact that the expansion entries are again "half-dragons".

Except that half-dragons are true dragons, moreover, they are versions of their full-dragon counterparts. A half-silver dragon is a silver dragon. The list, therefore, does include actual true dragons, albeit in their half-dragon version.


Almost without a doubt, the intended meaning is

The half-dragon template entry presents [Set {half-dragons} as derived from Limiting Set {MM1 true dragons}].
The new list instead expands the Limiting Set to include [{all true dragons}]

But they use the word "all." As a collective qualifier, all establishes the relationship between the main set and the limiting set as being a function on the limiting set as a whole and not of each individual element of the limiting set.
This means that any half dragon derived from the limiting set must be in the new list, but not that every true dragon member of the limiting set must contribute.

To use a less fantastic example, "We replaced the chairs in all of the rooms." does not signify that every room had chairs, but rather that the rooms collectively had chairs and that they have been replaced for all rooms. If a room did not have any chairs, it will not have had any of its chairs replaced: it is still a part of "all of the rooms."
I already stipulated to this distinction but pointed out that it was a meaningless in this sentence.

Yes, "all" refers to the entire set as a collection. That is, to say that the list was "expanded to include all" means that, if the resulting set after this operation is C, and the set of all true dragons is B, then B ⊂ C. The fact that we are expanding the original set means that if A is the original set, then A ⊂ C as well.

If they had used "each true dragon is added to the list" or some such, the equivalent statement would be something like, "∀ x ∈ B, ∃ x ∈ C" (ironically, the mathematical equivalent is read as "for all").

However, the resulting set C is, in both cases, exactly the same, as the definition of subset is that each of the subset's members is also a member of the containing set.

There is still absolutely no way that "to include all true dragons" could possibly mean that every entry on the list is a true dragon.


Getting back to the dragons, it is possible for a true dragon previously published not to have a corresponding entry on the half-dragon list in question if and only if it is possible for a type of true dragon not to be a valid parent for a half dragon.
A distributive such as "each" or "every" would have have established that is not the case purely as a function of grammar, as it would indicate that each True Dragon (the limiting set) corresponds to an entry in the list.

Instead the used "all," which does not close that gap.
If "all" refers to the entire set (which it does), and the entire set has been added to the original set (which it has), then no member of that set can be missing from the resulting expanded set.

[Hecuba]

Aha, this is why I originally brought up the "version" line: you are objecting to the "list of half-dragons" being claimed to have been expanded with "true dragons" despite the fact that the expansion entries are again "half-dragons".

Except that half-dragons are true dragons, moreover, they are versions of their full-dragon counterparts. A half-silver dragon is a silver dragon. The list, therefore, does include actual true dragons, albeit in their half-dragon version.

Hum. If half-dragons are held to be true dragons, then we're not dealing with true dragons as a limiting set, but as the set under operation. That would, indeed, seem to be sufficient.
Under that case, "all" and "each" both work, since all that is needed is to establish universality (since there is no relationship to parse as collective or distributive).

[Augmental]

Dungeons and Dragons 3.5th Edition; the only game where arguments are fought through set theory.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Half-dragons don't use the twelve age categories, so they're lesser dragons by RAW (unless you apply the template to a kobold or make a half-dragon dragon).

[ahenobarbi]

Dungeons and Dragons 3.5th Edition; the only game where arguments are fought through set theory.

I don't think so. Even simple arithmetic is defined by set theory so in discussing any game with numbers you use set theory (eve if you don't know it) :smallbiggrin:

[Baron Corm]

Descriptions of the biology of imaginary creatures and typical physical descriptions of members of a species are not rules text, nor are they absolute because there are exceptions to every one of them.

The life cycle of a kobold, which you take as "rules text", is a description of the biology of an imaginary creature. I would argue that a sidebar is the farthest thing from "rules text" as you can get, as it is a brief aside on the nature of something, not a thorough description of all of its qualities. This particular sidebar is not absolute and has exceptions as well, one notable one being the Dragonwrought Kobold, as shown by a majority of other sources.

Some true dragons are exceptions to the general rules because they are named as true dragons. The DWK has nothing like that, so it's not an exception.

[ThiagoMartell]

Nothing is presented as "this is what makes a true dragon," but it does very clearly state what makes a lesser dragon. If a creature of the dragon type does not use the twelve age categories, then it is a lesser dragon, so dragonwrought kobolds are most definitely not lesser dragons.
Even this is debatable (with the whole 'advance through' debate). Even then, not being a lesser dragon is not the same as being a true dragon.


Descriptions of the biology of imaginary creatures and typical physical descriptions of members of a species are not rules text, nor are they absolute because there are exceptions to every one of them.
...You do note you're also backing your argument on 'Descriptions of the biology of imaginary creatures', right?


OA dragons lack breath attacks and energy immunities. Yu Lung dragons only have three age categories, making them comparable in size to kobolds, and they never gain Blindsight, Frightful Presence, and many other abilities that you imagine to be qualifiers for being considered a true dragon.
Man, please reread the lung dragons, and please reread my posts before adresing them. I never mentioned blindsight (it was blindsense) and didn't even get near frightful presence. Also, it doesn't say anywhere that all true dragons get breath weapons.
Yu Lung dragons are younger versions of the bigger lung dragons. Even a glance at their description is enough to tell so. And finally lung dragons do get immunity to energy. None of your points are valid. You're misquoting rules (and posts) left and right. Please try to get it straight.

[Answerer]

Hum. If half-dragons are held to be true dragons, then we're not dealing with true dragons as a limiting set, but as the set under operation. That would, indeed, seem to be sufficient.
Under that case, "all" and "each" both work, since all that is needed is to establish universality (since there is no relationship to parse as collective or distributive).
I'm not precisely certain what you're referring to by "set under operation" and "limiting set" (there is a reason I switched to mathematics, which is a language well suited to discussing technical details), but I'm not sure that this step is entirely necessary. It seems simpler (though perhaps more interpretive) to me to be more flexible with how the language of the rules is defining each set.

The really salient point is that the list is "expanded to include all true dragons" which is to say that "all true dragons" ⊂ "this list". I don't see any possible interpretation where a true dragon (printed at that point) would fail to be on the list, since then the statement that the list includes all true dragons would be false.


Dungeons and Dragons 3.5th Edition; the only game where arguments are fought through set theory.
Probably not the only one, but I would point out that set theory's been used in D&D arguments on this board before. In fact, I distinctly recall a signature with a quote from someone commenting on how D&D was the only game where Cantoran set theory in particular would come up (IIRC, this had to do with a "different sorts of infinity" discussion after people began trying to determine the aleph value of various things).


Half-dragons don't use the twelve age categories, so they're lesser dragons by RAW (unless you apply the template to a kobold or make a half-dragon dragon).
Was true with Draconomicon, no longer true with Races of the Dragon. The rule about age categories appeared only in Draconomicon and Races of the Dragon explicitly "supercedes [...] Draconomicon."


Even this is debatable (with the whole 'advance through' debate). Even then, not being a lesser dragon is not the same as being a true dragon.
You have a good argument, don't fall back on the bad ones.

[VGLordR2]

Half-dragons don't use the twelve age categories, so they're lesser dragons by RAW (unless you apply the template to a kobold or make a half-dragon dragon).

Quick question: where does it say that a true dragon must have twelve age categories? Page four of Draconomicon only says "Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons".

[Hecuba]

I'm not precisely certain what you're referring to by "set under operation" and "limiting set" (there is a reason I switched to mathematics, which is a language well suited to discussing technical details), but I'm not sure that this step is entirely necessary. It seems simpler (though perhaps more interpretive) to me to be more flexible with how the language of the rules is defining each set.

As you noted, I hadn't caught the portion where half-dragons were noted as a version of their true dragons progenitor: without that, there is no indication that

{half-dragons}⊆{true dragons}
With that being established, however, your position

{true dragons}→{presented in list}
does indeed hold.



Instead, I was reading it (more or less, since I didn't even consider the possibility of half-dragons being true dragons) as the list being expanded from


{half-dragons}∤({dragon parent}∈{True Dragons in MMI})
to

{half-dragons}∤({dragon parent}∈{True Dragons in all books})


"Each" or "every" would have established it instead established (again, having not caught the {half-dragons}⊆{true dragons}) it as

{half-dragons}∤(∀{true dragons in all books}∃{half-dragon in the list})





This is, incidentally, how I'm going to continue to read in actual play (since I'm not entirely comfortable with the implications of all half dragons being versions of true dragons). But as a matter of logic, I do concede that your reading does hold.

Aside:
(Incidentally, "limiting set" as used in grammatical semantics translates roughly to a relationship expressed with : or ∤ in set theory.)

[ThiagoMartell]

This is, incidentally, how I'm going to continue to read in actual play (since I'm not entirely comfortable with the implications of all half dragons being versions of true dragons). But as a matter of logic, I do concede that your reading does hold.
Hooray for Answerer! One more person has seen the light. :smallcool:

[Answerer]

Instead, I was reading it (more or less, since I didn't even consider the possibility of half-dragons being true dragons) as the list being expanded from


{half-dragons}∤({dragon parent}∈{True Dragons in MMI})
to

{half-dragons}∤({dragon parent}∈{True Dragons in all books})


"Each" or "every" would have established it instead established (again, having not caught the {half-dragons}⊆{true dragons}) it as

{half-dragons}∤(∀{true dragons in all books}∃{half-dragon in the list})


This is, incidentally, how I'm going to continue to read in actual play (since I'm not entirely comfortable with the implications of all half dragons being versions of true dragons). But as a matter of logic, I do concede that your reading does hold.

Aside:
(Incidentally, "limiting set" as used in grammatical semantics translates roughly to a relationship expressed with : or ∤ in set theory.)
OK, I understand how you were parsing the sentence. What I don't understand is why. I would read the verb "include" as equivalent to the set operation ∪. As a result, I would have taken the sentence as saying


{half-dragons}={original list}∪{all true dragons}

There is some (acknowledged) grammatical oddity where it should have read (barring the "half-dragons are versions of their full-dragon counterparts" thing) something like this:


{parents of half-dragons}={original list}∪{all true dragons}

But that kind of shortening seems to me to be the sort of thing that English accepts as a matter of course.


Hooray for Answerer! One more person has seen the light. :smallcool:
Not... how I would express it.

But yeah, now two threads in a row have yielded interesting RAW facts:

Dragonwrought kobolds are not true dragons.
Half-dragons are, and moreover are fully considered to be a member of the same race as their full-dragon parent.

I tend to agree with Hecuba that the implications of point 2 are terrifying.

[Tyndmyr]

Wasn't there a kobolds as true dragons thread just a few weeks ago? Even for the playground this looks like it may be a quick turnaround.

Oddly enough, this makes surprisingly little difference from a practical standpoint. Almost all options, including epic feats are available to "dragons" not "true dragons". Very, very few things make any distinction.

Starting at level 1 with Epic Toughness is hilarious, though. TD is pretty irrelevant to it.

[ThiagoMartell]

Oddly enough, this makes surprisingly little difference from a practical standpoint. Almost all options, including epic feats are available to "dragons" not "true dragons". Very, very few things make any distinction.

Starting at level 1 with Epic Toughness is hilarious, though. TD is pretty irrelevant to it.

Isn't the thing about epic feats specifically about true dragons? :smallconfused:

[Tyndmyr]

Isn't the thing about epic feats specifically about true dragons? :smallconfused:

Nope. Just dragons and age categories. DW kobolds explicitly have both the dragon type and the draconic age categories, so if you're starting old(and why not, due to bonuses), you qualify anyway.

The true dragon argument has fairly little to do with anything practical, but it is a great example of just how far TO arguments can go.

[dextercorvia]

The half-dragon template presents special attacks and
special qualities for half-dragon versions of the ten varieties
of true dragons described in the Monster Manual. The information
here expands that list to include all true dragons
published in DUNGEONS & DRAGONS products to date. It
supersedes any other previously published information
on this topic (such as from Draconomicon).

It seems to me that the crux of this argument is over the antecedent of the bolded this. I fail to see how the opposition to True Dragon Dragonwrought Kobolds can be sure that the 'this' applies to the true dragon part, rather that referring back to the subject of the list -- special attacks and special qualities for half-dragons. The fact that they are incorrect when they state that all True Dragons are on the list is immaterial. The list is not the primary source for what makes a True Dragon, only (possibly) the special attacks and qualities of Half-Dragons.

[Hecuba]

There is some (acknowledged) grammatical oddity where it should have read (barring the "half-dragons are versions of their full-dragon counterparts" thing) something like this:


{parents of half-dragons}={original list}∪{all true dragons}

The issue isn't with the union: the issue is with

{parents of half-dragons}∈{original list}∪{all true dragons}
vs

{parents of half-dragons}={original list}∪{all true dragons}

I'm going to name the sets here, because I need to talk about the result of the union on the right as a whole.


Let
P = {parents of half-dragons}
T=({original list}∪{all true dragons})

Both "each" and "all" establish the universality, which indicates the union (∪) that leads to T.

However, in order to remedy the noted grammatical oddity, we have to introduce a dependent clause, and thus a relationship.
The universality of the qualifier does not translate back to the independent clause: instead, the distributive or collective^ nature of the qualifier used determines what the relationship between the clauses is.

"All," as a collective qualifier, marks that relationship as "∈".

"Each," as distributive, establishes = (since it establishes a relationship between each element of the sets, thus satisfying T∈P and P∈T).*

_____________________________________________

*Technically, I suppose, we would also need to establish

¬T→¬P to reach T∈P and P∈T
Given some posts in this thread, this would appear technically incorrect for "parent:" I suppose we should use "progenitor" instead. But I don't think that this is a point under contention.

^There are other options for kinds qualifiers in general, but not any other options I know of that also are universal qualifiers.

[Tyndmyr]

If it helps, the sets "true dragon" and "lesser dragon" are exclusive, and Draconomicon explicitly lists half dragon as a lesser dragon.

As specific overrides general, this should pretty definitively place half dragon as not a true dragon.

[Downysole]

It's +1 level of Sorcerer and +1 level of Wizard when each level is gained, but then Spellhoarding converts the Sorcerer over to Wizard.

I want to hear more about how taking gestalt wizard/wizard stacks the two class's levels.

[Tyndmyr]

I want to hear more about how taking gestalt wizard/wizard stacks the two class's levels.

Short answer: It doesn't.

It's not really a well accepted interaction...Even if it did work through some justification of wizard not being the same as wizard via spell-hoarding...you'd have two separate sets of casting as wizard X, where X is how many levels you did it for. However, there's nothing in Spellhoarding that clearly makes this work, and gestalt would seem to pretty obviously make this a bad idea.

[Answerer]

Nope. Just dragons and age categories. DW kobolds explicitly have both the dragon type and the draconic age categories, so if you're starting old(and why not, due to bonuses), you qualify anyway.

The true dragon argument has fairly little to do with anything practical, but it is a great example of just how far TO arguments can go.
Dragon Psychoses, most importantly Loredrake, require True Dragon status.

In the case of a Dragonwrought Kobold, it's the difference between casting as a Sorcerer of your level + 1, and casting as a Sorcerer of your level + (IIRC) 5.


It seems to me that the crux of this argument is over the antecedent of the bolded this. I fail to see how the opposition to True Dragon Dragonwrought Kobolds can be sure that the 'this' applies to the true dragon part, rather that referring back to the subject of the list -- special attacks and special qualities for half-dragons. The fact that they are incorrect when they state that all True Dragons are on the list is immaterial. The list is not the primary source for what makes a True Dragon, only (possibly) the special attacks and qualities of Half-Dragons.
The phrase "this topic" is vague, and properly speaking, I think it's only reasonable to consider "this topic" to be everything under discussion in this paragraph.

That is, any thing in that section that contradicts Draconomicon (such as the True Dragon status of half-dragons, the definition of a true dragon, etc.), use Races of the Dragon over Draconomicon.

I don't think it's reasonable to assume that a rule would be written to have no effect whatsoever.


The issue isn't with the union: the issue is with

{parents of half-dragons}∈{original list}∪{all true dragons}
vs

{parents of half-dragons}={original list}∪{all true dragons}

I'm going to name the sets here, because I need to talk about the result of the union on the right as a whole.


Let
P = {parents of half-dragons}
T=({original list}∪{all true dragons})

Both "each" and "all" establish the universality, which indicates the union (∪) that leads to T.

However, in order to remedy the noted grammatical oddity, we have to introduce a dependent clause, and thus a relationship.
The universality of the qualifier does not translate back to the independent clause: instead, the distributive or collective^ nature of the qualifier used determines what the relationship between the clauses is.

"All," as a collective qualifier, marks that relationship as "∈".

"Each," as distributive, establishes = (since it establishes a relationship between each element of the sets, thus satisfying T∈P and P∈T).*

_____________________________________________

*Technically, I suppose, we would also need to establish

¬T→¬P to reach T∈P and P∈T
Given some posts in this thread, this would appear technically incorrect for "parent:" I suppose we should use "progenitor" instead. But I don't think that this is a point under contention.

^There are other options for kinds qualifiers in general, but not any other options I know of that also are universal qualifiers.
Now that you're using math, I can follow your argument easily.

My only claim is that I don't believe that the difference between "all" and "each" in the position that it has in this sentence has the effect of distinguishing between ∈ and =.

Actually, I misspoke earlier when I used equals. The statement says the list is expanded to include all true dragons, but this does not mean every entry on the list comes from a true dragon.

That is, the statement, to me, says that


({original list}∪{all true dragons})⊆{half-dragon progenitors}

If this relationship is not true, then I believe we have a contradiction with the statement that the new list 1. comes from the old list, and 2. has been expanded to include all true dragons.

For the same reason,


{half-dragon progenitors}⊂({original list}∪{half-dragon progenitors})

cannot be true, because then the latter union could not be a subset of the total list.


If it helps, the sets "true dragon" and "lesser dragon" are exclusive, and Draconomicon explicitly lists half dragon as a lesser dragon.

As specific overrides general, this should pretty definitively place half dragon as not a true dragon.
Races of the Dragon explicitly claims primacy over Draconomicon on this point.

[Hecuba]

My only claim is that I don't believe that the difference between "all" and "each" in the position that it has in this sentence has the effect of distinguishing between ∈ and =.

In the sentence as presented, it does not (because there is no dependent clause). But (again, unless we read half-dragons strictly as "versions" of true dragons) we must alter the sentence as presented to make it congruent with the presented list.

Specifically, we must change the sentence so that it accurately describes a list of special abilities for half-dragons organized by progenitors.

There are a few ways to do so, but I can't seem to find any that don't require introducing "special qualities of half-dragons" as the object of an adverbial clause and moving "all true dragon [progenitors]" to a relative dependent clause.


Consider the statement:


"The information here expands that inventory to include the purchase date of computers for all departments currently operating in the school."

While that inventory might contain an entry for a department with no computers, there is no indication that it does. In fact, there is no indication that the information is even organized by department: we merely know that the scope has been expanded to include all departments.

How is that different from:


"The information here expands that list to include special qualities of half-dragons for all true-dragon progenitors published in D&D to date?"

Subject
Verbal phrase and direct object
adverbial dependent clause
relative dependent clause

While there are variations on the order, I believe any corrections we would make to correct the sentences grammatical inconsistency would need to include these basic phrase structures and clauses.

__________________________________
Edit: As I noted above, half-dragons being called out as versions of their draconic progenitors does resolve this neatly (with the uncomfortable implications of making a half-silver dragon a kind of silver dragon as a side effect). The reason being that it moves "half-dragons" into the relative clause, where "all" establishes universality rather than collective relation.

That would be

"The information here expands that list to include special qualities for half-dragons versions of all true-dragon published in D&D to date."

[Thomasinx]

Wow I'm starting to feel sorry for the OP... I bet he didn't expect this can of worms...

[Hecuba]

Wow I'm starting to feel sorry for the OP... I bet he didn't expect this can of worms...

Why?

His question was answered some time ago (if we presume it works, Loredrake+Spell-Hording lets you out-wizard a wizard, Greater Draconic Right of passage is the icing, and the venerable stats without downside are the little candies you sprinkle on the icing).

For the rest, it's been a civil and (for me at least) passably entertaining academic exercise.

[Thomasinx]

Why?

His question was answered some time ago (if we presume it works, Loredrake+Spell-Hording lets you out-wizard a wizard, Greater Draconic Right of passage is the icing, and the venerable stats without downside are the little candies you sprinkle on the icing).

For the rest, it's been a civil and (for me at least) passably entertaining academic exercise.

Answered? He got two possible builds, one of which definitely doesn't work because it hinges on having 6 hit dice, while the character is only level 5.

Usually such a thread gets many responses with possible builds and suggestions. Not just one possible answer, and four pages of people arguing about a related debate topic. Is there really only one way to build a dragonwrought kobold sorcerer to level 5 in a gestalt campaign?

Probably not.

Though, admittedly, I'm far from an expert on DWT kobolds.

[Hecuba]

Answered? He got two possible builds, one of which definitely doesn't work because it hinges on having 6 hit dice, while the character is only level 5.

Usually such a thread gets many responses with possible builds and suggestions. Not just one possible answer, and four pages of people arguing about a related debate topic. Is there really only one way to build a dragonwrought kobold sorcerer to level 5 in a gestalt campaign?

Probably not.

Though, admittedly, I'm far from an expert on DWT kobolds.

More or less, yes. You grab a Sovereign Archetype, you grab a Dragon Psychosis, you profit. The two listed are by far the most powerful options.

Taking them, you then gestalt it the same as you would a wizard.

Technically, (under an even more generous reading) you could also get to look at [EPIC] feats. Most of the one's you'd actually care about for such a build however, also require 9s.

[Tyndmyr]

If it helps, the sets "true dragon" and "lesser dragon" are exclusive, and Draconomicon explicitly lists half dragon as a lesser dragon.

As specific overrides general, this should pretty definitively place half dragon as not a true dragon.

Races of the Dragon explicitly claims primacy over Draconomicon on this point.

Races of the Dragon also has a list of True Dragons. It does not include Half Dragon.

Conclusion: RotD is not trying to make HD into a true dragon.

[ThiagoMartell]

More or less, yes. You grab a Sovereign Archetype, you grab a Dragon Psychosis, you profit. The two listed are by far the most powerful options.

Except you can't take a sovereign archetype.

[Downysole]

Short answer: It doesn't.

It's not really a well accepted interaction...Even if it did work through some justification of wizard not being the same as wizard via spell-hoarding...you'd have two separate sets of casting as wizard X, where X is how many levels you did it for. However, there's nothing in Spellhoarding that clearly makes this work, and gestalt would seem to pretty obviously make this a bad idea.

The only reason I could see to go this route is specializing in two schools but still being able to cast from your restricted schools (on the other side of the wizard list.

[mattie_p]

The only reason I could see to go this route is specializing in two schools but still being able to cast from your restricted schools (on the other side of the wizard list.

Unfortunately, you cannot do that per the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm#buildingAGestaltCharacter):


Building A Gestalt Character
To make a 1st-level gestalt character, choose two standard classes. (You can also choose any of the variant classes, though you can’t combine two versions of the same class.) Build your character according to the following guidelines.

[Downysole]

Unfortunately, you cannot do that per the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm#buildingAGestaltCharacter):

You can tell how many times I've tried to build a Wiz/Wiz gestalt character...