Dragonwrought

[Cranthis]

So being a dragonwrought kobold is clearly better than just a kobold, but what exactly makes it awesome, or worth spending a feat on?

[eggs]

Age bonuses for free stats, access to the Draconic rite of passage for accelerated Sorcerer casting, Dragon type for effects keyed off odd types like Rapidstrike.

Plus it's optimal for creating hundreds of pages of "uh huh"/"Nuh uh" on various forums debating whether the kobold qualifies as a True Dragon for all the associated benefits (Epic feat access, racial archetypes, templates, etc.)

[tyckspoon]

Plus it's optimal for creating hundreds of pages of "uh huh"/"Nuh uh" on various forums debating whether the kobold qualifies as a True Dragon for all the associated benefits (Epic feat access, racial archetypes, templates, etc.)

Most of those benefits only require being a Dragon, which a Dragonwrought Kobold unambiguously is. I think it's just the Sovereign Archetypes/Psychoses that require actually being a True Dragon (ie, the Lorehoarding Spelldrake combo.)

[Cranthis]

Age bonuses for free stats

No where in the feat does it say that. But I won't argue against it. A free plus 3 to all mentals is fine with me haha.

[Aegis013]

No where in the feat does it say that. But I won't argue against it. A free plus 3 to all mentals is fine with me haha.

Races of the Dragon, page 39, under Aging Effects, there is a footnote. That's the rules text that provides the benefit.

[Cranthis]

Races of the Dragon, page 39, under Aging Effects, there is a footnote. That's the rules text that provides the benefit.

Thank you.

[Spuddles]

Most of those benefits only require being a Dragon, which a Dragonwrought Kobold unambiguously is. I think it's just the Sovereign Archetypes/Psychoses that require actually being a True Dragon (ie, the Lorehoarding Spelldrake combo.)

Dragons over a certain age category qualify for Epic feats, regardless of HD (they must still qualify for pre-reqs), per Draconomonomocon. The age table in RotD gives kobolds pretty explicit age categories, from wyrmling to great wyrm. Dragonwrought changes their type to Dragon. Ergo, Venerable Dragonwrought Kobolds qualify for Epic feats.

At mystic ranger 10, take Improved Spell Capacity 4 times (chaos shuffle out your racial martial weapon proficiencies), nab SotAO, and congrats, 9th level spells at level 10 on a 2 good saves full BAB 6 skill points per level free combat style chassis. Basically a lightning warrior.

Don't worry though, it sacrifices its animal companion for flavor. ;)

[Acanous]

Is it Friday already?

The thing about Dragonwrought is it opens up a lot of cheese, some of it is controversial. Some of it is not. All of it is cheese.

The feat itself doesn't actually do much, it's the implications and optional splat for dragons that make it get silly.

[Kazyan]

It can also get Multiattack with no tricks from the Fangshield Ranger substitution levels, which is the only way to do it with an LA+0 race unambiguously. Unless you dip Totemist or...

Well, I think it's cool! :smallmad:

[Dusk Eclipse]

Also the Dragon type has the nifty ability to ignore pre-requisites for anything that requires Dragonblood subtype, which allows you to enter some prestige classes at level 2.

[Marnath]

Thank you.

It's also worth noting that immunity to physical stat reduction due to aging is a function of the dragon type, not the dragonwrought feat. The feat itself simply says that you become of the dragon type, it doesn't say that you stop taking aging penalties. Therefore that's just something that dragons get. It makes sense too when you consider that real dragons actually become more physically powerful as they age, not less.

[Cranthis]

It's also worth noting that immunity to physical stat reduction due to aging is a function of the dragon type, not the dragonwrought feat. The feat itself simply says that you become of the dragon type, it doesn't say that you stop taking aging penalties. Therefore that's just something that dragons get. It makes sense too when you consider that real dragons actually become more physically powerful as they age, not less.

Is there any way for me to determine exactly what I would get?

[Aegis013]

Is there any way for me to determine exactly what I would get?

You get the benefits of being <insert age category> without the penalties from <insert age category>.

Thus, if you're a young dragonwrought kobold, you get no penalties or benefits.
A middle aged one gets -1 str/dex/con (removed from dragon type), and +1 int/wis/cha.
An old aged one gets -2 physical stats (removed) and +2 mental stats.
A venerable one gets -3 physical (removed) and +3 mental.

This is outlined in the Player's Handbook on Page 109 under Vital Statistics.

[Cranthis]

You get the benefits of being <insert age category> without the penalties from <insert age category>.

Thus, if you're a young dragonwrought kobold, you get no penalties or benefits.
A middle aged one gets -1 str/dex/con (removed from dragon type), and +1 int/wis/cha.
An old aged one gets -2 physical stats (removed) and +2 mental stats.
A venerable one gets -3 physical (removed) and +3 mental.

This is outlined in the Player's Handbook on Page 109 under Vital Statistics.

This I am aware of, but I thought dragons may have had someting different, them having about 6 age categories.

[toapat]

This I am aware of, but I thought dragons may have had someting different, them having about 6 age categories.

they have 12 age categories, and Skeletons made from Carbon Nanotube packs

[Cranthis]

they have 12 age categories, and Skeletons made from Carbon Nanotube packs

Ah yes thank you. I have only a little access to my books at the moment. So does this mean bonuses at each age category?

[toapat]

Ah yes thank you. I have only a little access to my books at the moment. So does this mean bonuses at each age category?

they do, as defined in each True Dragon's age table, typically dragons dont gain INT for progressing through their age categories.

[Cranthis]

they do, as defined in each True Dragon's age table, typically dragons dont gain INT for progressing through their age categories.

So then a Dragonwrought kobold would not receive these bonuses?

[Aegis013]

So then a Dragonwrought kobold would not receive these bonuses?

My understanding is, while the dragonwrought kobolds have 6 age categories laid out, they gain no mechanical influence from them, but still define their mechanical alterations by the Young/Middle-Aged/Old/Venerable categories (and appropriate ages within), with the 6 True Dragon ages simply representing a status within their culture.

Edit for clarity: I mean the 6 age categories have no influence on their ability scores over age, whether or not the 6 age categories truly qualifies them as True Dragons is debated issue.

[Cranthis]

My understanding is, while the dragonwrought kobolds have 6 age categories laid out, they gain no mechanical influence from them, but still define their mechanical alterations by the Young/Middle-Aged/Old/Venerable categories (and appropriate ages within), with the 6 True Dragon ages simply representing a status within their culture.

This does make sense. However, it doesn't say that they don't receive these bonuses. I can probably wiggle it in with my dm.

[Aegis013]

This does make sense. However, it doesn't say that they don't receive these bonuses. I can probably wiggle it in with my dm.

It's pretty clear that a venerable (great wyrm?) dragonwrought kobold gets +3 mental stats for one feat. That on its own is a very powerful feat, but if you get into the further things, assuming the interpretation of Dragonwrought makes you a True Dragon, things can get a bit out of hand. Cheese with Epic Feats, as others have pointed out, and the like, are often unwelcome levels of cheese at game tables.

[toapat]

So then a Dragonwrought kobold would not receive these bonuses?

no, typically the dragon age category benefits are defined by their entry. For most dragons, this means +Not int every stage. For kobolds they have the 12 age categories, but do not actually advance for most of them because they are a humanoid race primarily. They just happen to become true dragons when they do become dragons

[Cranthis]

It's pretty clear that a venerable (great wyrm?) dragonwrought kobold gets +3 mental stats for one feat. That on its own is a very powerful feat, but if you get into the further things, assuming the interpretation of Dragonwrought makes you a True Dragon, things can get a bit out of hand. Cheese with Epic Feats, as others have pointed out, and the like, are often unwelcome levels of cheese at game tables.

I am avoiding super heavy cheese, but an extra cheesy pepperoni is ok

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Should have named this thread "Can of Worms"

Depending on your DM's interpretation of whether Dragonwrought Kobolds are true dragons (Draconomicon p4 vs Races of the Dragon's half-dragon listings on p69-72), you could potentially use the Loredrake or other archtypes from Dragons of Eberron p30-31. You could also take epic feats from 1st level per Draconomicon p66 under Epic Feats.

Just be aware that anything you can do, so can the DM. A Dragonwrought Kobold Warrior 1 Dracolich with two flaws for Epic Toughness twice is CR 1 with 72 HP and three natural attacks (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060420a) which each get an extra 1d6 cold damage and force a save vs. paralysis. Plus you can count on its phylactery being buried deep in Tucker's lair with a few dragonwrought kobold corpses nearby.

[toapat]

Should have named this thread "Can of Worms"

Depending on your DM's interpretation of whether Dragonwrought Kobolds are true dragons (Draconomicon p4 vs Races of the Dragon's half-dragon listings on p69-72), you could potentially use the Loredrake or other archtypes from Dragons of Eberron p30-31. You could also take epic feats from 1st level per Draconomicon p66 under Epic Feats.

Actually, what makes Dragonwrought Kobolds True Dragons is RotD p39, Table 3-2 vs Chapter 4 p55-74 (i will not go looking through RotD to go find the definition of true dragon though). Kobolds have RAW 12 age categories and are NOT Dragon Decended or Dragon like races, unlike the other PC races detailed in the book.

And a Kobold has to be 41+ in order to qualify for epic feats.

[Arcanist]

Away from book ATM, but if memory serves a neat little table in RoTD dismisses DWK from being a true dragon with the only interesting arguement being how the text is written in the form of "to date", but I'm sure that's not the point here. The 12 age categories for Kobolds are often viewed as fluff since they provide no mechanical benefits beyond a pretty title... (the standard age category systems however are RAW and provide mechanical benefits)

On my iTouch ATM so can't give a more details response then this. I do however agree. This thread should have been named "can of worms".

[toapat]

Away from book ATM, but if memory serves a neat little table in RoTD dismisses DWK from being a true dragon with the only interesting arguement being how the text is written in the form of "to date", but I'm sure that's not the point here. The 12 age categories for Kobolds are often viewed as fluff since they provide no mechanical benefits beyond a pretty title... (the standard age category systems however are RAW and provide mechanical benefits)

On my iTouch ATM so can't give a more details response then this. I do however agree. This thread should have been named "can of worms".

I wont argue that the common conclusion is completely stupid (because Dragons are not supposed to be Player Characters if your base character is not a drunken Halfling paladin.), but can you find the table you talk about?

[Sith_Happens]

The only definition I can find of what a true dragon is is in (appropriately) Draconomicon, page 4:


True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older.
...
Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons

Of course, as befitting one of the system's earlier books, the above "definition" is extremely vague.:smallsigh:

The part defining lesser dragons implies that the distiction is based on the presence or absence of age categories. At the very least, because Dragonwrought Kobolds have age categories, they are not lesser dragons by the above definition of a lesser dragon.

The question then is whether they "become more powerful as they grow older." The lesser dragon definition implies that that phrase refers to deriving stats from age categories, but the actual wording is much more general.

As a DWK grows older, it gains mental stat boosts and no physical stat penalties. It's up to your DM to decide whether that qualifies as "becom[ing] more powerful." If so, then DWKs are true dragons. If not, then they're in some sort of limbo between true and lesser dragon.

[toapat]

The only definition I can find of what a true dragon is is in (appropriately) Draconomicon, page 4:

Of course, as befitting one of the system's earlier books, the above "definition" is extremely vague.:smallsigh:

well, that is rather irritating.

this also adds the problem that Kobold Dragon age categories and Humanoid Age Categories dont line up.

[Arcanist]

well, that is rather irritating.

this also adds the problem that Kobold Dragon age categories and Humanoid Age Categories dont line up.

Their is an entire thread in my signature that is more or less the latest DWK discussion that more or less closed the book on the discussion since it inspired 3 parody threads and 2 more threads on other forums (min/max & ensworld). I deeply regret making that thread... Some things are best left forgotten and unknown...

Still on iTouch (watching Law & Order: Special Encounters Unit on netflix... So addictive...)

EDIT:


I wont argue that the common conclusion is completely stupid (because Dragons are not supposed to be Player Characters if your base character is not a drunken Halfling paladin.), but can you find the table you talk about?



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).

The previously presented argument to refute this was a grammatical error in the cited section.


It says "to date," which excludes the present. So, doesn't apply. Even if it did, since True Dragon is the default, and Dragonwrought doesn't say it isn't, the specific would trump the general, and the Dragonwrought is still a True Dragon.

Seriously, a list that specifically excludes the book it's in as an argument to exclude something in said book? And a general list versus a specific case?

GiantITP, you're slipping.

Reading that back to myself after all this time it certainly does add an interesting perspective to it all on Writers intent. :smallsigh:

EDIT of an EDIT: Actually Dragons can be Player Characters, but that is for another discussion (Look at Dragonomicon if you really want to play one. Page 141 I believe?)

[ojayaba]

Everything it grants you access to is what makes it awesome. It starts a chain of feats for you, allows you to age with out taking penalties(but still gain bonuses), opens up this type of discussion again for the Xth time and catches my attention as a thread to see what every one else thinks...

[Dairuga]

When you are opening the whole can of worms about whether or not Kobolds are True Dragons or simply Dragons, I find there are primarily two points to take into account.

1. True Dragons, directly from the monster manual: "All true dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age. (Other creatures that have the dragon type do not.)" This, coupled with all True Dragon having advancement: By age (Advancement: Wyrmling 7–8 HD; very young 10–11 HD; young
13–14 HD; juvenile 16–17 HD; young adult 19–20) Etc.

Kobolds, on the other hand, have "Advancement: By Class". They explicitly advance and grow stronger trough classes, not by growing older, despite sharing the dragonic Age categories.

2. The prior statement notifies that there are other creatures that have the dragon type, and that having the dragon type does not mean you are a true dragon. Thus, Dragonwrought kobolds could be liable to fall under this; their type changes to Dragon, but that does not mean they are a True Dragon.

Thus, a Dragonwrought Kobold is a Dragon, but not a True dragon, because it does not state that they are true dragons per the feat. The feat, furthermore, does not state that the character starts advancing by Age, nor that they are treated as True dragons for effects and feats that revolve around True dragons.


By this interpretation, it leaves them unable to take the Loredrake for instant bonus sorcerer levels, Spellhoarder for instant bonus Wizard levels instead, and epic feats at level 1, merely by starting as a decently-old kobold.

This interpretation, however, is widely contested and it seems that no one is ever going to settle on what is right or not. At least, I feel this way of interpreting seems to be the more natural one.

[Arcanist]

*The sound of a metal book opening up*

NO! You must not read from the book! :smalleek:

[Spuddles]

By this interpretation, it leaves them unable to take the Loredrake for instant bonus sorcerer levels, Spellhoarder for instant bonus Wizard levels instead, and epic feats at level 1, merely by starting as a decently-old kobold.

True Dragon status isn't what lets Dragonwrought kobolds take epic feats; it's that the Draconomicon says that any Dragon that is as old or older than a specific age category qualifies for epic feats, regardless of HD. Guess what a 120 year old dragonwrought qualifies for?

[Axier]

Lets look at what we KNOW to be true.

Dragonwrought gives you the type Dragon, which DEFINATELY qualifies you for the following:
Immunity to sleep and paralasys, qualifications for anything requiring just dragon, and Epic Feats after Old age (The section on EPIC feats ARE NOT for just true dragons. It only requires a dragon older than Old.)

Do you really need to count as a true dragon? No. You get plenty for one feat.

As for wether or not they are True Dragons, I believe, due to the ambiguity of the classification of "True Dragons", it is up to GM interpretation. There is not enough by RAW for me to find for one way or another. I personally, as a GM, allow them to be "True Dragons" only if the power level of the setting I am playing would be good for it.

[Spuddles]

Lets look at what we KNOW to be true.

Dragonwrought gives you the type Dragon, which DEFINATELY qualifies you for the following:
Immunity to sleep and paralasys, qualifications for anything requiring just dragon, and Epic Feats after Old age (The section on EPIC feats ARE NOT for just true dragons. It only requires a dragon older than Old.)

Do you really need to count as a true dragon? No. You get plenty for one feat.

As for wether or not they are True Dragons, I believe, due to the ambiguity of the classification of "True Dragons", it is up to GM interpretation. There is not enough by RAW for me to find for one way or another. I personally, as a GM, allow them to be "True Dragons" only if the power level of the setting I am playing would be good for it.

It's exceptionally clear that kobolds don't qualify as true dragons via the massive amount of text in the draconomicon devoted to defining the characteristics of true dragons.

[Arcanist]

*Holding Jar with Organ in it*


*Holding Jar with Organ in it*

What have we done? :smallfrown:

[Dusk Eclipse]

It's exceptionally clear that kobolds don't qualify as true dragons via the massive amount of text in the draconomicon devoted to defining the characteristics of true dragons.

Draconomicon was published years before Races of the Dragon, there are several good arguments that say Dragonwrought Kobolds aren't true dragons; but none of them are in the Draconomicon.

[Axier]

It's exceptionally clear that kobolds don't qualify as true dragons via the massive amount of text in the draconomicon devoted to defining the characteristics of true dragons.

I argue that defining the characteristics of True Dragons are not rules text. If we are going for RAW, I don't think that fluff should be used, as there are true dragons that do not exactly match these definitions. Especially the Lung dragons, and the Styx.

Fluff like that is more functioning if you the DM are using a campagin setting that has dragons like that. I have a few ideas floating in my head of space fairing dragons, that use their wings as solar sails. Is it rediculous? Yes, but they seem pretty "true" in my head.

[Kazyan]

Hey, it's this thread again. I wonder what--

*walks in, hears Latin chanting from the hole where reality is unmaking itself*

Sigh.

Someone go find the Best Dragonrought Kobold Thread in all those sigs and link to it.

[Axier]

*Looks at Arcanist's signature*

Its there, the one about burning the sacred kobold...

Ill just leave this right here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245069)

[Arcanist]

*Looks at Arcanist's signature*

Its there, the one about burning the sacred kobold...

Ill just leave this right here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245069)

Don't drag me into this. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13337638&postcount=275) I realized how stupid the DWK = True Dragon argument was as soon as someone in that thread tried to argue that it excluded the contents of that book because of the text "To date" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13418384&postcount=365). :smallannoyed:

[Answerer]

It cannot be argued that Dragonwrought Kobolds are True Dragons by RAW. Page 69 of Races of the Dragon includes a list described as "including all True Dragons published [to date]," and which "supersedes anything in previous publications, including Draconomicon." Dragonwrought Kobolds are 1. not in the list, and 2. published at that point in time (being in the same damn book). The description of the list has absolutely no qualifiers on it: anything not on the list is either not a True Dragon, or had not been published at the time.

Even if conflicting evidence is found (and to my knowledge, none has that wasn't explicitly overwritten by Races of the Dragon), that means only that RAW is ambiguous and a houserule must be made to settle the matter. The only argument that could be made is a "specific trumps general" argument if someone found a line somewhere that said "Dragonwrought Kobolds are True Dragons," which we know doesn't exist.

[Axier]

Don't drag me into this. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13337638&postcount=275) I realized how stupid the DWK = True Dragon argument was as soon as someone in that thread tried to argue that it excluded the contents of that book because of the text "To date" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13418384&postcount=365). :smallannoyed:

I apologize, I was merely referencing your signature.

As for the list, it is kinda arguable that the context does not match, because it is in a list made to define the True Dragons types of half-dragons, and it says nowhere that all true dragons make half-dragons.

I feel that it is a decision left to the DM, because sometimes you just want a True Dragon, and other times its just too much. Even if it is RAW, I would totally be for it if it is a high OP cheesefest!

By RAW they still qualify for epic feats if they are old or older. As they ARE definately Dragons with the (ambiguious) subtype.


*EDIT: now looking at the Definition of To Date (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=to+date&o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&h=), which according to Princeton is:

(adv) up to now, to date (prior to the present time) "no suspect has been found to date"

Emphasis mine.
Which would infer that it does not include Races of The Dragon itself.

[Answerer]

As for the list, it is kinda arguable that the context does not match, because it is in a list made to define the True Dragons types of half-dragons, and it says nowhere that all true dragons make half-dragons.
Which would be relevant if the list were described as a list of half-dragons, but it's not. It's described as a list that "includes all True Dragons published [to date]," no ifs, ands, or buts about it. De facto, all True Dragons published by the time of Races of the Dragon produce half-dragon versions.

Note also the term "versions" there – that's what Races of the Dragon uses. I.e. a Red Half-dragon is a version of a Red Dragon. This implies that not only is the Red Half-dragon a True Dragon, it's also a Red Dragon, as in it counts as a Red Dragon for anything that specifically calls out that species.

[Kazyan]

EDIT: now looking at the Definition of To Date (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=to+date&o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&h=), which according to Princeton is:

Emphasis mine.
Which would infer that it does not include Races of The Dragon itself.

I know you're not seriously arguing for DrK cheese being legal, but this is splitting hairs so finely that it can be used to isolate carbon nanotubes. It is blatantly obvious what the writers mean by "to date".

[Arcanist]

It cannot be argued that Dragonwrought Kobolds are True Dragons by RAW. Page 69 of Races of the Dragon includes a list described as "including all True Dragons published [to date]," and which "supersedes anything in previous publications, including Draconomicon." Dragonwrought Kobolds are 1. not in the list, and 2. published at that point in time (being in the same damn book). The description of the list has absolutely no qualifiers on it: anything not on the list is either not a True Dragon, or had not been published at the time.

Even if conflicting evidence is found (and to my knowledge, none has that wasn't explicitly overwritten by Races of the Dragon), that means only that RAW is ambiguous and a houserule must be made to settle the matter. The only argument that could be made is a "specific trumps general" argument if someone found a line somewhere that said "Dragonwrought Kobolds are True Dragons," which we know doesn't exist.

Regardless of all of this due to the layout of the book "to date" actually would include the Dragonwrought Kobold if it were listed since it specifically references it prior to the list is actually defined, so the "to date" argument gets nuked out of the water by so many things it isn't really that funny, but I'd like to note that this is entirely moot really... :smallannoyed:


I apologize, I was merely referencing your signature.

I just don't like when people reference that thread. I regret ever starting it. The only reason I keep it in my signature is so that ironically enough people can simply direct someone else to the thread in a Private Message to correct the other person. I have considered removing it, but I just can't... most of the people in that thread are banned or never post anymore. It feels like an insult to everyone that posted in that thread who poured there hearts out into arguing for or against and to the people that spit into the cake mix. Regardless of all of that the cake turned out pretty good :smallsmile:


As for the list, it is kinda arguable that the context does not match, because it is in a list made to define the True Dragons types of half-dragons, and it says nowhere that all true dragons make half-dragons.

I feel that it is a decision left to the DM, because sometimes you just want a True Dragon, and other times its just too much. Even if it is RAW, I would totally be for it if it is a high OP cheesefest!

By RAW they still qualify for epic feats if they are old or older. As they ARE definately Dragons with the (ambiguious) subtype.

It actually states in the beginning


The information here expands that list to include all true dragons

If it is not on that list it is simply not a True Dragon. A DM's decision to make them True Dragons is their own tables House rule and nothing more. Yes, by RAW anything with the Dragon type that is atleast Old can get Epic feats without being a 21st level Character.

I really rather I didn't get involved in this type of discussion, but it's hard to break an addiction.

[Hecuba]

Note also the term "versions" there – that's what Races of the Dragon uses. I.e. a Red Half-dragon is a version of a Red Dragon. This implies that not only is the Red Half-dragon a True Dragon, it's also a Red Dragon, as in it counts as a Red Dragon for anything that specifically calls out that species.

Which is itself inordinately problematic for some other purposes, but a strict reading of RAW does get to that result. (And if you don't read it as making half-dragons versions of true dragons, the rule presented is even more poorly written).

Gosh that was a fun discussion. {gets all wistful}

[toapat]

well, there is a way to prove whether or not Dragonwroughts are true dragons

unfortunately, it requires a Dragonwrought kobold, a diamond stonesaw, and a scanning electron microscope. also a thermometer.

I would argue that the list of true dragons is not in and of itself perfect. most of the reason people bring up all the other rules about it is because the combination of rules that make DWK a true dragon are a slew of interactions between type and rules.

[Arcanist]

well, there is a way to prove whether or not Dragonwroughts are true dragons

The problem is that most of the "Yes" group is that they ignore a fact and proceed to spout "prerequisites" and the Dragonomicon Page 4 sidebar like it is a spell that will protect them from a fireball.


unfortunately, it requires a Dragonwrought kobold, a diamond stonesaw, and a scanning electron microscope. also a thermometer.

SCIENCE! :smallbiggrin:


I would argue that the list of true dragons is not in and of itself perfect. most of the reason people bring up all the other rules about it is because the combination of rules that make DWK a true dragon are a slew of interactions between type and rules.

The List does not list prerequisites for being a True Dragon. It simply states what is a True Dragon at the point of publication. The very existence of that list completely curb stomps the idea that there are prerequisites for being a True Dragons without actually having been stated otherwise.

[toapat]

The problem is that most of the "Yes" group is that they ignore a fact and proceed to spout "prerequisites" and the Dragonomicon Page 4 sidebar like it is a spell that will protect them from a fireball.

SCIENCE! :smallbiggrin:



The List does not list prerequisites for being a True Dragon. It simply states what is a True Dragon at the point of publication. The very existence of that list completely curb stomps the idea that there are prerequisites for being a True Dragons without actually having been stated otherwise.

well, unfortunately, we dont have a DWK to perform autopsy on.

the list was compiled based on the True dragon definition. im AFB atm, so i cant actually check the heading, but isnt this a case of Kobolds are not normally true dragons, while dwks are actually a kobold with a specific feat. So although the rules define them as true dragons, the table defines them as not, we dont have a fully upto date one for the end of 3.5.

[Xervous]

Summary of DWK benefits, by approximate levels of cheese.

1. Aging benefits that have already been outlined. Mild cheddar, very good, but not gamebreaking. +3 to all mental stats.

2. Access to draconic templates, archetypes, etc. Now we have some sharp swiss here. If your DM says DWK = true dragon, then it just got a lot more powerful, like 3 level accelerated wizard casting with your spellbook scribed into your body, the ability to copy down spells by counterspelling them, and a massive INT bonus to top it all off.

3. Access to epic feats and the selective reading of the True Dragon's ability to ignore prerequisites (the level 2 entry people were mentioning) for Prestige Classes that have dragonblooded as a prereq. This is blue, moldy cheese that will create a gravitational vortex granting any thrown DMG a +20 to the ranged attack roll, just so reality can ensure the cheese is smothered. If this is not enough, each DMG has a 10% chance of combusting on impact for 6d6 damage.

[Answerer]

Regardless of all of this due to the layout of the book "to date" actually would include the Dragonwrought Kobold if it were listed since it specifically references it prior to the list is actually defined, so the "to date" argument gets nuked out of the water by so many things it isn't really that funny, but I'd like to note that this is entirely moot really... :smallannoyed:
What? You quote me but your post has nothing to do with mine. The "to date doesn't include this book" argument was put forward by exactly one user. No one agreed, mostly because it was absurd. I'm not sure why you even bring it up.

[Axier]

While this is going off the rails, into a ravine filled with firey lakes of oil, I should at least mention that I kinda agree with the person who said that "to date" excludes the book itself. I just happen to agree with Princeton University and their definition, and I havent seen a definition of "To Date" that includes the date said...

Is it likly not what they intended, sure, but it would be RAW if we had someone pick it apart for literary accuracy.

This is why we should just ask our DM, and stop trying to have discussions like this. Because god forbid you can or cannot be considered a true dragon.

Even with the list NOT counting dragonwrought kobolds, it doesn't PROVE they are True Dragons, but I havent found anything directly supporting it either way other than fluff and ambiguity.

[NotScaryBats]

The coolest thing about Dragonwrought Kobolds is getting the feat that gives you wings.

Now, you have wings.

[toapat]

While this is going off the rails, into a ravine filled with firey lakes of oil, I should at least mention that I kinda agree with the person who said that "to date" excludes the book itself. I just happen to agree with Princeton University and their definition, and I havent seen a definition of "To Date" that includes the date said...

Is it likly not what they intended, sure, but it would be RAW if we had someone pick it apart for literary accuracy.

This is why we should just ask our DM, and stop trying to have discussions like this. Because god forbid you can or cannot be considered a true dragon.

Even with the list NOT counting dragonwrought kobolds, it doesn't PROVE they are True Dragons, but I havent found anything directly supporting it either way other than fluff and ambiguity.

Even so, let me put the proper prespective on this:

Dragonwrought Kobolds are not treated as true dragons, as they are a racial feat, for the purpose of that list. Dragonwrought Kobolds technically meet all the conditions for being a true dragon, and are in some ways, in fact, the most powerful race of dragons by far. The list i think is reffering to base true dragons, not creautures that RAW become every definition of true dragon without it.

too bad DWKs are mythical, it would be interesting to check their biology to see if they, like true dragons, have that one elemental organ and Carbon nano-tube skeletons.

[ahenobarbi]

The coolest thing about Dragonwrought Kobolds is getting the feat that gives you wings.

Now, you have wings.

But any kobold can take the feat :smalltongue:

Dragonwrought allows you to take the feat at level 3 (normally you can take it only at level 1).

[NoldorForce]

Lets look at what we KNOW to be true.

Dragonwrought gives you the type Dragon, which DEFINITELY qualifies you for the following:
Immunity to sleep and paralysis, qualifications for anything requiring just dragon, and Epic Feats after Old age (The section on EPIC feats ARE NOT for just true dragons. It only requires a dragon older than Old.)(Tweaked the spelling errors.) This is intriguing, and makes me wonder why the discussions happened in the first place if most of the broken stuff doesn't require the questionable nature of true dragons. How many options out there actually require you to be a true dragon? Thus far I can only find one feat (Draconic Knowledge, which was overwritten in Dragon Magic) and one prestige class (Dragon Ascendant) that cares about this status; everything else just wants you to be a dragon, or to be one with special age categories (which kobolds unambiguously get).

Also, just as a heads-up to the folks who cite pages 69-71/102-103 of Races of the Dragon, what's your opinion on incarnum dragons? They seem very much intended to be true dragons and were published a few months before Races of the Dragon, but they don't appear on those lists.

[Kazyan]

Also, just as a heads-up to the folks who cite pages 69-71/102-103 of Races of the Dragon, what's your opinion on incarnum dragons? They seem very much intended to be true dragons and were published a few months before Races of the Dragon, but they don't appear on those lists.

This was discussed in the Best Thread. (I'm the one who actually brought it up.) The reason it was not included was because RotD was finished being written before MoI's publishing, and development naturally caused it to be published after MoI.

So, by RAW, if True Dragon is a status based on certain traits, then the Incarnum Dragon qualifies because duh. If it's not, as suggested by the ironclad text of the RotD list, then the Incarnum Dragon isn't. There you go.

But under any freaking degree of making sense, everyone knows what a True Dragon is, and they can use their own judgement. The rules were never intended to be pored over as closely as optimization forums do. It would be really stupidly easy to homebrew a Half-Incarnum Dragon template requiring one of the extreme alignments, giving you a 1/day breath weapon that works like the Incarnum Dragon's, and immunity to essentia damage (or something).

[Deophaun]

Draconomicon was published years before Races of the Dragon, there are several good arguments that say Dragonwrought Kobolds aren't true dragons; but none of them are in the Draconomicon.
Actually, there is one good one. When Draconomicon was published, it was possible to be a half-dragon druid. A druid at level 15 gains timeless body, which removes aging penalties. Thus, if being a dragon and avoiding aging penalties was enough to qualify as getting more powerful with age, half-dragon druids would have appeared on the comprehensive list of True Dragons published up to that point. They don't.

The real killer is in Races of the Dragon, which states dragons that don't advance by age category are not True Dragons. Kobolds may have the same age categories as True Dragons, but they advance by character class.

[Arcanist]

well, unfortunately, we dont have a DWK to perform autopsy on.

the list was compiled based on the True dragon definition. im AFB atm, so i cant actually check the heading, but isnt this a case of Kobolds are not normally true dragons, while dwks are actually a kobold with a specific feat. So although the rules define them as true dragons, the table defines them as not, we dont have a fully upto date one for the end of 3.5.

I wish we had one to perform an autopsy on, but then again I wish I could dissect a Mindflayer so eh...

Actually the way the section is structured it includes everything up to date (which if you read from start to finish would include the section for Kobolds that actually mention the Dragonwrought Kobolds) meaning it would include the Dragonwrought Kobold, but that is of course assuming I can pull out an outrageous argument as yours.


What? You quote me but your post has nothing to do with mine. The "to date doesn't include this book" argument was put forward by exactly one user. No one agreed, mostly because it was absurd. I'm not sure why you even bring it up.

I quoted you by accident. Sorry. The "to date excludes" argument is ridiculous as even from a RAW perspective it is pulling a few teeth on the matter just to become "legitimate".


While this is going off the rails, into a ravine filled with firey lakes of oil, I should at least mention that I kinda agree with the person who said that "to date" excludes the book itself. I just happen to agree with Princeton University and their definition, and I haven't seen a definition of "To Date" that includes the date said...

Is it likely not what they intended, sure, but it would be RAW if we had someone pick it apart for literary accuracy.

Even with the list NOT counting dragonwrought kobolds, it doesn't PROVE they are True Dragons, but I haven't found anything directly supporting it either way other than fluff and ambiguity.

I'll just snip out the actual points here if you don't mind :smallsmile:

Actually a few of them are linked in the thread in my sig, but are unfortunately ignored, because the opposition stated "Those sources can be edited by flawed humans so it must be wrong.", but by that logic so must every sourcebook ever publish. Hell, every single book ever written is wrong because it was written and edited by a flawed human. :smallsigh: Also I'm confused what you meant here.


Even with the list NOT counting dragonwrought kobolds, it doesn't PROVE they are True Dragons, but I haven't found anything directly supporting it either way other than fluff and ambiguity.

I'm sure I'm reading this wrong, but from looking at it, you just said that the list is wrong because it disagrees with you... Please tell me I'm wrong :smallconfused:


Even so, let me put the proper prespective on this:

Dragonwrought Kobolds are not treated as true dragons, as they are a racial feat, for the purpose of that list. Dragonwrought Kobolds technically meet all the conditions for being a true dragon, and are in some ways, in fact, the most powerful race of dragons by far. The list i think is reffering to base true dragons, not creautures that RAW become every definition of true dragon without it.

too bad DWKs are mythical, it would be interesting to check their biology to see if they, like true dragons, have that one elemental organ and Carbon nano-tube skeletons.

Please, find me a section noted as "Requirements for being a True Dragon". Hell, a person on Min/Max compiled a list of all the features of every dragon ever publish and removed all the features that known True Dragons actually have. At the end it was Determined that their were no True Dragons, because most of them didn't even meet the Core definition of a True Dragon.


Actually, there is one good one. When Draconomicon was published, it was possible to be a half-dragon druid. A druid at level 15 gains timeless body, which removes aging penalties. Thus, if being a dragon and avoiding aging penalties was enough to qualify as getting more powerful with age, half-dragon druids would have appeared on the comprehensive list of True Dragons published up to that point. They don't.

The real killer is in Races of the Dragon, which states dragons that don't advance by age category are not True Dragons. Kobolds may have the same age categories as True Dragons, but they advance by character class.

Hold on I think I have a logical argument against that (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13418805&postcount=373).

[TuggyNE]

This is intriguing, and makes me wonder why the discussions happened in the first place if most of the broken stuff doesn't require the questionable nature of true dragons.

Because this. is. INTERNET! :smalltongue:

No, seriously, it's just a popular nitpick about a minor cheesy side effect of something that is thoroughly and unambiguously cheesy without it. Discussing it is a quirk of forum behavior, or perhaps can be attributed to nerdiness, or both. (Also, it's possible some people are confused, and suppose that if DWKs aren't True Dragons the various other cheesy exploits wouldn't be possible. Sadly, this is not at all the case.)

[olentu]

I quoted you by accident. Sorry. The "to date excludes" argument is ridiculous as even from a RAW perspective it is pulling a few teeth on the matter just to become "legitimate".

Bah, RAW is all about pulling teeth and is quite often rediculous. Now that is not to say I believe that said kobolds are or are not true dragons, but try not to base your argument on what seems "reasonable".

[Deophaun]

Hold on I think I have a logical argument against that (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13418805&postcount=373).
You should have linked to it, then, instead of one that is a pure example of equivocation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation).

Kobolds do not gain HD through aging, therefore they do not advance through aging as the game term requires. Any other definition of "advance" found in a dictionary is irrelevant.

[Spuddles]

(Tweaked the spelling errors.) This is intriguing, and makes me wonder why the discussions happened in the first place if most of the broken stuff doesn't require the questionable nature of true dragons. How many options out there actually require you to be a true dragon?

Because qualifying for loredrake (+2 sorc level), spellhoarding (turn sorc casting into wizard; free feats; ability to counter and learn ANY spell), riddled (+6 int), and the sovereign archetypes that give you druid or cleric casting (beguiler with spontaneous access to entire druid list) is way more broken than qualifying for any of those crappy epic feats.

The best you can get is like infinite deflection. Weeeee......

[Answerer]

You should have linked to it, then, instead of one that is a pure example of equivocation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation).

Kobolds do not gain HD through aging, therefore they do not advance through aging as the game term requires. Any other definition of "advance" found in a dictionary is irrelevant.
Advancement by Age Categories is not a thing in the rules anywhere at all.

Seriously, I cannot stress this enough: if you parse "advances through age categories" as having anything to do with the Advancement of a creature, you have one of two cases: 1. no creature qualifies as a True Dragon, since no creature in the game has Advancement: By Age Category, as that is not a thing that exists, or 2. the rules are referring to a typesetting choice that has no rules weight at all; this is not a legal choice because rules must refer to aspects of the rules. It would be no more valid than to say that True Dragons are those creatures whose names are printed in blue ink.

Moreover, the rule in Draconomicon is not "Advancement" at all, but "advances": small a, used as a verb, etc. There is no reason to automatically assume it's being used as a game term; it is a far more reasonable interpretation to see it as merely a synonym for something like "progresses." In fact, due to the previous paragraph, it's not just a more reasonable interpretation, it's the only valid one, because the alternative is flat-out wrong.

[Hecuba]

In fact, due to the previous paragraph, it's not just a more reasonable interpretation, it's the only valid one, because the alternative is flat-out wrong.

I don't know, I thunk there's probably a good case to be made for interpreting it as poor editing and improper use of reserved terms.

[Answerer]

Frankly, if they honestly did intend to refer to the way the Advancement block is formatted, then they were doing it wrong. The rules literally cannot refer to that, because a formatting choice is not a part of the rules.

[Axier]

I quoted you by accident. Sorry. The "to date excludes" argument is ridiculous as even from a RAW perspective it is pulling a few teeth on the matter just to become "legitimate".

I'll just snip out the actual points here if you don't mind :smallsmile:

Actually a few of them are linked in the thread in my sig, but are unfortunately ignored, because the opposition stated "Those sources can be edited by flawed humans so it must be wrong.", but by that logic so must every sourcebook ever publish. Hell, every single book ever written is wrong because it was written and edited by a flawed human. :smallsigh: Also I'm confused what you meant here.

I'm sure I'm reading this wrong, but from looking at it, you just said that the list is wrong because it disagrees with you... Please tell me I'm wrong :smallconfused:


I agree that the argument is rediculous, I however do feel that it is poorly written and does not in my mind prove anything. I feel indifferent to an extent, because most of the RAW argument is to use Perform (Cheese) with a bonus that MIGHT reduce the negatives your DM is applying to you for being a level 3 sorcerer at level 1.

I have not seen an argument that is solidly RAW for or against true dragon Kobolds in a VERY literal sense. I would, however argue that RAI, and--I HATE RAI--that it is CLEARLY not in favor of True Dragon Kobolds.

I just feel, that instead of arguing ANYTHING, we should all just default to Rule 0, and let the DMs sort it out, because frankly it starts fights, people get angry, and it is pretty much an excuse to start a flame war.

We should, instead, look at what we can ABSOLUTELY prove. Kobolds with the dragonwrought feat ARE dragons, and therefore qualify for epic level feats at an age of Old or older, becuase this restriction is not True Dragon only, and even then the DM will likely smack you with a book or two for that.
Im basically arguing for the middle ground, pointing out that because the book itself, as with most WoTC books, is so poorly written that the DM should just clerify anything that we start ten or so threads every month and end up having us fighting and such. Its not worth ANYONE'S time to fight about this.

[Kazyan]

Whew. That got spirited.

Okay, did everyone get it all out?

Cool, let's talk about something a bit mellower in the other threads. Bard builds or something.

[Answerer]

Axier, I generally agree with you, except on this:

I would, however argue that RAI [...] is CLEARLY not in favor of True Dragon Kobolds.(snipped the part I vehemently agree with)

I don't think this is necessarily true. I don't tend to think of Dragonwrought Kobolds as True Dragons, but the fluff in Races of the Dragon hints at them being related to the True Dragons in a very close way – Dragonwrought Kobolds aren't held merely as proof that kobolds are or were draconic creatures, they're held as proof that they are or were dragons, in the same sense as a blue, red, or gold. While the Draconomicon definition should not apply to them anyway thanks to Races of the Dragon's superseding it, if you're trying to divine RAI from the book then you cannot ignore that the Dragonwrought Kobolds were given very much "true draconic" age categories.

Because of all of that, there's more than enough evidence suggesting that the intent might have been for them to be True Dragons. Not enough to say so definitively, but enough to refute your claim that the intent was "CLEARLY" that they are not.

[Axier]

Axier, I generally agree with you, except on this:
(snipped the part I vehemently agree with)

I don't think this is necessarily true. I don't tend to think of Dragonwrought Kobolds as True Dragons, but the fluff in Races of the Dragon hints at them being related to the True Dragons in a very close way – Dragonwrought Kobolds aren't held merely as proof that kobolds are or were draconic creatures, they're held as proof that they are or were dragons, in the same sense as a blue, red, or gold. While the Draconomicon definition should not apply to them anyway thanks to Races of the Dragon's superseding it, if you're trying to divine RAI from the book then you cannot ignore that the Dragonwrought Kobolds were given very much "true draconic" age categories.

Because of all of that, there's more than enough evidence suggesting that the intent might have been for them to be True Dragons. Not enough to say so definitively, but enough to refute your claim that the intent was "CLEARLY" that they are not.

I suppose you could be right, but I would HOPE that people don't make +0 LA True Dragons for one feat. I clearly understand that they are referenced as being related to True Dragons, but they are never once pointed out as being true dragons, and if we are arguing fluff, because it kinda is, then we have to accept the fluff on True Dragons from the valid sources of the same publisher, unless it is campagin specific to a particular setting. That being said, it never once mentions whether Dragonwraught kobolds are Warm blooded, unlike every other cold blooded kobold. They don't have the same resistances, and they don't have the same method of power increase. I don't think that allusions to their draconic heritage makes even these possible throwback genetics directly True Dragon material. It also doesn't fit with their own creation story, whether historically accurate or scientifically accurate, I don't feel that it was intended in any way. It is mechanically unstable, and even lore-loose and doesn't quite fit with fluff.

Like I said, this is one of the reason why I HATE RAI, and I could be completely wrong, but its mainly I say that because I HOPE someone isn't going to intend something that doesn't entirely fit the fluff, or causes all of these mechanical instabilities.

[toapat]

RAI, dragonwrought Kobolds were probably not intended to be true dragons

The problem is, Kobolds have 12 age categories (although purely fluff ones), which is about the only solid definition we have of true dragon. I cant seem to find the table specifically referenced as the complete list of true dragons upto that book's writing.

[Answerer]

The problem is, Kobolds have 12 age categories (although purely fluff ones), which is about the only solid definition we have of true dragon.
Draconomicon's definition is meaningless if Races of the Dragon is in play, since Races of the Dragon specifically supersedes it. Moreover, I'm AFB but fairly sure that Draconomicon never actually specifies that you need to have 12 age categories, it only says you need to have age categories at all (which, after all, most monsters, including most Dragon-type monsters, lack entirely).


I cant seem to find the table specifically referenced as the complete list of true dragons upto that book's writing.
Page 69 of Races of the Dragon has one.

[Hecuba]

Frankly, if they honestly did intend to refer to the way the Advancement block is formatted, then they were doing it wrong.

Which is my considered opinion of what happened. If they did not, however, it's still bad editing: good editing would involve avoiding non-reserved uses of reserved words whenever possible (and noting it where not).

Not to raise a dead horse to kill it and beat it again, but the quality of technical editing and editorial oversight for almost every element of the rules related to DW Kobolds is among the worst in 3.5.

And that is saying something.

Regardless of which way you think you think the rules fall on the issue*, I would advise any table using DW Kobolds to simply spend 5 minutes to determine why\how they want to use it and make the appropriate house rules\gentleman's agreement.



*Incidentally, after the last (very detailed) reading I made for these rules when it came up in a prior thread, I eventually reached the same conclusion Answerer is noting for RAW.
A literal reading of the passage in question holds its content to be a list of all-true dragons printed to that date (which happens to be presented inthe format of half-dragon versions of those true-dragons).
A literal reading also results in a fair number of other rules by implication (which is, again, should lead you to question the quality of the editing).

[Answerer]

Which is my considered opinion of what happened. If they did not, however, it's still bad editing: good editing would involve avoiding non-reserved uses of reserved words whenever possible (and noting it where not).
Agreed, of course. Still, RAW "advances" does not necessarily have anything to do with "Advancement" while "we're talking about the way the block is formatted" is definitely not a valid rule.

[Deophaun]

Frankly, if they honestly did intend to refer to the way the Advancement block is formatted, then they were doing it wrong. The rules literally cannot refer to that, because a formatting choice is not a part of the rules.
Except it's not just a "formatting choice." It is telling you that a dragon of that age has those HD has those abilities. That would be advancement though age categories whether it was done in table format, in a narrative format, or in iambic pentameter. So yes, it is most definitely a "thing." You can stress it as much as you like, it just makes it break quicker.

[Arcanist]

Except it's not just a "formatting choice." It is telling you that a dragon of that age has those HD has those abilities. That would be advancement though age categories whether it was done in table format, in a narrative format, or in iambic pentameter. So yes, it is most definitely a "thing." You can stress it as much as you like, it just makes it break quicker.

Wonderful so we return to the point that there is no WoTC created Creature listing for a DWK that list how strong it should be at X HD. Therefore we return to the Kobold Monster listing that states.


Advancement: By character class

Where as with a listed True Dragon would state...


Advancement: Wyrmling HD; very young HD; young HD; juvenile HD; young adult HD; adult HD; mature adult HD; old HD; very old HD; ancient HD; wyrm HD; great wyrm HD

... :smallbiggrin:

[Answerer]

Except it's not just a "formatting choice." It is telling you that a dragon of that age has those HD has those abilities. That would be advancement though age categories whether it was done in table format, in a narrative format, or in iambic pentameter. So yes, it is most definitely a "thing." You can stress it as much as you like, it just makes it break quicker.
You are wrong.

Every single creature explicitly labeled a True Dragon advances by HD. All of them. "Advancement by age category" does not exist anywhere in the rules at all. Each age category of a True Dragon is a separate creature that advances by HD up to a certain limit. As the creatures ages (and not as it gains XP), it changes into a new creature, which has new minimum and maximum HD. The formatting for those creatures is literally just short-hand for noting down those minimums and maximums without wasting a lot of space.

And that formatting choice has absolutely no rules weight.

If you wish to continue to debate this subject, I suggest your next post include an explicit reference to how True Dragons actually do have "Advancement: By Age Category," and furthermore a rules citation for exactly what that is and where the rules for it can be found. Otherwise, I'm not going to respond, because I have had this argument about four dozen times and I'm not going to continue to do so. Short of finding said hypothetical citations that no one has yet produced, you are very simply wrong.

[Deophaun]

Where as with a listed True Dragon would state...
... :smallbiggrin:
Pretty much.

The issue is not that there is something explicitly called out as "advacement by age categories," but that the word "advance" has a specific meaning when dealing with monster power. You can find this in the various sections on monster advancement in the MMs, where advancement, advance, advances, and advancing are all used interchangeably as grammar requires. If WotC published something tomorrow that defined a type of creature as one that had to "advance by color," it wouldn't matter that no creature had Advancement: By Color in their stat block (which, btw, would be arguing that formatting = rules), it would still mean that only creatures that had their color tied to their Hit Dice would qualify as that creature type. Since kobold HD are in no way shape or form related to their age cetegories, they cannot be said to advance by age categories as the game uses the term "advance." Therefor, you can only get there from here via equivocation.

[Answerer]

Pretty much.

The issue is not that there is something explicitly called out as "advacement by age categories," but that the word "advance" has a specific meaning when dealing with monster power. You can find this in the various sections on monster advancement in the MMs, where advancement, advance, advances, and advancing are all used interchangeably as grammar requires. If WotC published something tomorrow that defined a type of creature as one that had to "advance by color," it wouldn't matter that no creature had Advancement: By Color in their stat block (which, btw, would be arguing that formatting = rules), it would still mean that only creatures that had their color tied to their Hit Dice would qualify as that creature type. Since kobold HD are in no way shape or form related to their age cetegories, they cannot be said to advance by age categories as the game uses the term "advance." Therefor, you can only get there from here via equivocation.

Still wrong. If it said "advances by age categories," you'd have a stronger case, but it doesn't. It says advances through age categories. As in, proceeds from one to the next.

[Darius Kane]

Is there even someone that actually agrees with Answerer's argument? Because I as hell don't and he can tell me that I'm wrong all he likes, but that won't make him right.

[Arcanist]

Is there even someone that actually agrees with Answerer's argument? Because I as hell don't and he can tell me that I'm wrong all he likes, but that won't make him right.

What is YOUR Argument? If you don't mind me asking :smallconfused:

[Answerer]

It was widely agreed in the last thread. There were some hold-outs on the subject, but quite a lot in agreement. Also, the great thing about facts is they don't care what your opinion is: if you disagree, you're simply wrong. It doesn't change the facts.

This is a matter of the rules of the game and the rules of English grammar. It's a matter of fact. Just because WotC threw in a need herring doesn't actually make it ambiguous, just makes the definitive answer harder to see.

[Deophaun]

You are wrong.

Every single creature explicitly labeled a True Dragon advances by HD. All of them. "Advancement by age category" does not exist anywhere in the rules at all. Each age category of a True Dragon is a separate creature that advances by HD up to a certain limit. As the creatures ages (and not as it gains XP), it changes into a new creature, which has new minimum and maximum HD. The formatting for those creatures is literally just short-hand for noting down those minimums and maximums without wasting a lot of space.
This is explicitly wrong. I suggest you check out the Draconomicon, page 99, talking about Advanced dragons. Read the part about age categories and size. Dragons gain age categories; they do not become new creatures. You're the one who is confusing formatting with rules, not me.

And whether it's "by" or "through," which is a distinction without a difference, the point stands. You cannot have an age category without going through the age categories, so the word "advance" is only necessary if you are using game terminology. When the game talks about characters growing older, it doesn't talk about them "advancing" to middle age. It talks about "reaching," which has no reference to Hit Die.

[Answerer]

Page 99 is explicitly talking about "virtual age categories" for the purposes of adjudicating the powers of Dragons whose stats go beyond those of a Great Wyrm. Totally irrelevant to this discussion. More relevant: page 142 talks about how PC Dragons gain HD. They do so by gaining XP, taking character levels as normal, and also, separately, by aging. The entire section refers exclusively to gaining Dragon RHD as a result of aging, not as a weird form of "aging-by-XP." Those RHD represent the fact that the Dragon gets naturally more powerful as it ages, explicitly not the actual value of the experience it has earned. The two are tracked separately.

There are ways of noting that a creature has a special form of Advancement: see the Barghest (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/barghest.htm), which has "Advancement: Special (see below)". The True Dragons do not have that. They very plainly have "Advancement: By HD," with each age category's individual Advancements being written on one line.


Also, all of this is completely off-topic since Dragonwrought Kobolds are in Races of the Dragon, and that book supersedes Draconomicon anyway.

[Deophaun]

You are still wrong. Use of the word "gain" is entirely irrelevant to the point.
A creature that can only go up to X HD before ceasing to be that creature can only gain a single age category, as it ceases to exist when it gains it and is replaced by a new creature, which can also only gain a single age category before it, too, ceases to exist. Yet, the draconomicon talks about gaining four or seven age categories. Impossible by your interpretation, so your interpretation is wrong.

Furthermore, Great Wyrms actually stay Great Wyrms even while they gain age categories. So, in summary, you should have read the section.

Your argument would have more merit if the True Dragons had Advancement: Special like the Barghest (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/barghest.htm) does. But they don't. They very plainly have Advancement: By HD, written out all on one line for the series of related Creatures.
I repeat, it is you that has confused formatting with rules. This just proves it, as the Barghest could be presented in exactly the same way with no change in rules. Yet, somehow this would make an argument have more or less merit.

[Answerer]

A creature that can only go up to X HD before ceasing to be that creature can only gain a single age category, as it ceases to exist when it gains it and is replaced by a new creature, which can also only gain a single age category before it, too, ceases to exist. Yet, the draconomicon talks about gaining four or seven age categories. Impossible by your interpretation, so your interpretation is wrong.
What? I can't decide if this is a strawman or if I'm being unclear.

Mechanically, they are treated as separate creatures. This is why Draconomicon has all the special rules for transitioning from one to another. Obviously the actual living thing doesn't disappear, it, well, apparently it kind of evolves like a Pokemon. More subtle than that, but you get the idea. The "ding, level-up!" moment is always awkward in level-based games.

Also, I'd point out that I edited my response with a more thorough consideration of exactly what Draconomicon says.


Furthermore, Great Wyrms actually stay Great Wyrms even while they gain age categories. So, in summary, you should have read the section.
Explicitly called out as "virtual age categories." Completely irrelevant.


I repeat, it is you that has confused formatting with rules. This just proves it, as the Barghest could be presented in exactly the same way with no change in rules. Yet, somehow this would make an argument have more or less merit.
Exactly the same way as what?

The Barghest has a unique form of Advancement. It does not Advance by gaining XP, only by feeding. This cannot be labeled "Advancement: By HD" or "Advancement: By class levels" because neither of those things apply to Barghests; that's not how they Advance.

Dragons, on the other hand, have both the formatting and the method of Advancement: By HD, with the slight modification to the formatting in that several creatures all have their HD ranges listed on one line. This modification has no rules weight (unlike an explicit notation that a creature Advances in a special way, as with the Barghest).

[Deophaun]

More relevant: page 142 talks about how PC Dragons gain HD. They do so by gaining XP, taking character levels as normal, and also, separately, by aging.
Do you read what you cite?

When the dragon reaches the specified age, the next level the character attains must be used to advance its dragon level.
It's not separate at all. You reach the age, it buts into your character level and demands its due.

[Answerer]

Do you read what you cite?

It's not separate at all. You reach the age, it buts into your character level and demands its due.
Yes -- and it is entirely separate and unrelated to your XP. If you gain no levels over the course of a millenium, you get a whole bunch of RHD without doing anything. And your ECL jumps up accordingly and you have to spend more time getting that next level.

Anyway, I'm done. I can repeat myself only so many times. Draconomicon is a poorly-written book and Races of the Dragon is worse. This entire argument is irrelevant as the rules in question are obsolete anyway. I'm not going to so much as click on this thread again.

[Deophaun]

Yes -- and it is entirely separate and unrelated to your XP. If you gain no levels over the course of a millenium, you get a whole bunch of RHD without doing anything. And your ECL jumps up accordingly and you have to spend more time getting that next level.
Reading is Fun-damental!

The character must add this dragon level as the first level it gains after reaching an age shown on the table. It gains no benefit from reaching a new
age category until it attains this level.

[toapat]

Page 69 of Races of the Dragon has one.

ok, looking at that list: That list is actually wrong, even within that book. The table on p103 is the complete list of True Dragons (Platnium, although i cant damn well find a refference to what book they are printed in, are on the table as well. besides the obvious dietys and demigods one)

still says this is an entirely accurate table and upto date. and DWKs are still MIA. i think the writers didnt realize that some of the RAW fluff they made for kobolds combined with the dragon type resulted in a pretty op glitch.

I will not argue that DWKs are not supposed to be true dragons, but as far as consistancy goes, there is better argument for them being true dragons then the lung dragons, who have 9, not 12, age categories.

In fact, only the Lung dragons dont follow the standard of True dragon = Dragon + 12 Age categories, and platnium/chromatic, which typically ends with the character having divine ranks.

[Deophaun]

I will not argue that DWKs are not supposed to be true dragons, but as far as consistancy goes, there is better argument for them being true dragons then the lung dragons, who have 9, not 12, age categories.
I have to ask: where does it say that true dragons have 12 age categories? I've never run across it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Lung dragons have twelve age categories. They just all spend the first three as yu lung.

Lung dragons are all different forms of what is essentially the same creature. The fact that they're tied directly into the celestial beuracracy kinda muddies things further, if you're trying to look at it from a genetics perspective.

FWIW, no amount of RAW argument will ever convince me that DWK's were -intended- to be true dragons for one very simple reason. The folks at WotC rather consistently aimed for a low spot on the power curve when they were making new material.

The sheer power that results from treating DWK's as true dragons is one of the most powerfully disuasive arguments for it being intentional I can even imagine.

Seriously, 5+ years of consistently aiming for the bottom of the hill, and they suddenly decide to play king of the mountain with only one very specific feat/race combination? I don't buy it.

[NotScaryBats]

I really can't say if the dragonwrought kobold was meant to be a true dragon, but I don't think the designers aimed for low power in supplements.

Consider the Tome of Battle, where every class is better than a Fighter.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I really can't say if the dragonwrought kobold was meant to be a true dragon, but I don't think the designers aimed for low power in supplements.

Consider the Tome of Battle, where every class is better than a Fighter.

ToB doesn't actually aim any higher on the power curve than any other supplement. There're maybe 1 or 2 really powerful tricks that can be pulled off with that book alone. Otherwise the power-levels are pretty comparable. What the martial adepts are is more flexible and much flashier, not more powerful.

Even if you disregard the ideas in that paragraph, I defy you to name one other supplement that is on the same, allegedly higher, power level.

[Zelkon]

So, dragon wrought kobolds. What features are useful with plain dragon status and what are useful with true dragon? I'm building one and I'm trying to only go partly cheesy.

[toapat]

Lung dragons have twelve age categories. They just all spend the first three as yu lung.

Lung dragons are all different forms of what is essentially the same creature. The fact that they're tied directly into the celestial beuracracy kinda muddies things further, if you're trying to look at it from a genetics perspective.

FWIW, no amount of RAW argument will ever convince me that DWK's were -intended- to be true dragons for one very simple reason. The folks at WotC rather consistently aimed for a low spot on the power curve when they were making new material.

The sheer power that results from treating DWK's as true dragons is one of the most powerfully disuasive arguments for it being intentional I can even imagine.

Seriously, 5+ years of consistently aiming for the bottom of the hill, and they suddenly decide to play king of the mountain with only one very specific feat/race combination? I don't buy it.

I didnt actually look at the dragons in depth, I was only counting age categories, so i didnt look at the description of the worst dragons ever imagined. I only saw that all of them had 9, not 12, age categories.

and i also said, RAW, they probably didnt intend for them to be true dragons, it is simply the rules for determining true dragon status say they are. I also pointed out 1 point where the list is wrong, although i forgot Chromatic too. That list was specifically for dragons which will typically have Hybrids when they shag things.

[Battleship789]

So, dragon wrought kobolds. What features are useful with plain dragon status and what are useful with true dragon? I'm building one and I'm trying to only go partly cheesy.

Draconic Rite of Passage (and its Greater version) are great.

With "just" plain Dragon: can get all mental stats +3 for free (via no aging penalties), qualify for epic feats at "Old" age (need other prerequisites, just not 21+ level), and qualify for type-related feats (Rapidstrike is fun.)

With True Dragon: Sovereign archetypes (Loredrake being the big one), which is the only (big) benefit of being a true dragon, iirc.

[Almagesto]

Also, they don't get a breath weapon just for gaining the Dragon type. This sucks. I mean, I know it's mostly for flavor, but you end up having to take up lousy feats like:

The following is from Person_Man in http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102100
ECL: source: book: damage

1: Dragonborn race/template: Races of the Dragon: 1d8 per 3 HD
1: Draconic Breath feat: Races of Drag: 2d6 per spell lvl
1: Dragonfire Adept class: Dragon Magic: 1d6 per 2 lvls
1: Amon vestige: Tome of Magic: 1d6 per Binder lvl
1: Dragonfire Mask soulmeld: Dragon Magic: 1d6 per essentia
2: Elixir of Fire Breath: DMG: 4d6
4: Dragon Shaman class: PHBII: 1d6 per 2 lvls
4: Dragon Warrior class: Homebrew: 1d10 per 2 lvls
5: Half Dragon template: MM: 6d8
5: Talon of Tiamat PrC: Draconomicon: varies
5: Druid variant: Drag Magic: 1d6 per 2 lvls
6: Dragon Samurai: Miniatures Handbook: 1d8 per level, stacks
6: Tattoed Monk 1 PrC: Comp Warrior: 4d6
6: Dragonheart Mage 1 PrC: Races of Drag: 2d6-3d6 per spell lvl
8: Swift Wing 3 PrC: Drag Magic: 1d6 per level (positive energy)
9: Diamond Dragon 4 PrC: Drag Magic: varies
11: Metabolic Fire graft: Races of Drag: 6d8
15: Orthos vestige: Tome of Magic: ?
16: Drunken Master 10: Comp Warrior: 2d12
16: Dragon bloodline: Unearthed Arcana: 6d8

I also know there are a bunch of spells that effectively duplicate a breath weapon, but I don't have the patience to research all of them.

[Augmental]

ToB doesn't actually aim any higher on the power curve than any other supplement. There're maybe 1 or 2 really powerful tricks that can be pulled off with that book alone. Otherwise the power-levels are pretty comparable. What the martial adepts are is more flexible and much flashier, not more powerful.

Even if you disregard the ideas in that paragraph, I defy you to name one other supplement that is on the same, allegedly higher, power level.

The Player's Handbook.

[Hecuba]

and i also said, RAW, they probably didnt intend for them to be true dragons, it is simply the rules for determining true dragon status say they are. I also pointed out 1 point where the list is wrong, although i forgot Chromatic too. That list was specifically for dragons which will typically have Hybrids when they shag things.

Ahh, but by RAW, the list is not wrong: it can't be. It specifically establishes itself as the authority on the subject and notes that it overwrites prior rules (and does so as a specific rule on the topic, which neatly sidesteps the question of RoD or Drag. is the primary source on true-dragon-ness).

As point of fact, establishing its authority on the subject is about the only thing that the section containing that list does well (setting aside that it probably meant to establish its authority on the subject of half-dragons, not true dragons).

[Axier]

Ahh, but by RAW, the list is not wrong: it can't be. It specifically establishes itself as the authority on the subject and notes that it overwrites prior rules (and does so as a specific rule on the topic, which neatly sidesteps the question of RoD or Drag. is the primary source on true-dragon-ness).

As point of fact, establishing its authority on the subject is about the only thing that the section containing that list does well (setting aside that it probably meant to establish its authority on the subject of half-dragons, not true dragons).

Here is where I can draw some "Intention", for Dragonwroughts not being True Dragons, but the ironic thing is that the way they worded the "authority" uses a phrase, "to date", which would technically--According to Princeton University's definition of "to date"--excludes the content of the book. Any True Dragon that may be in the book Races of The Dragon, by the way it is written, does not have to be in that list to be a true dragon, because the list technically says it excludes the content of this book.

We could, therefore, assume that WoTC INTENDED to present the list as an entirety, but worded it poorly, and DWKs are INTENDED not to be True Dragons.

Or, we can assume that WoTC understands the English language, assumes that any True Dragon presented in RoTD are not needed in the list for redundancy's sake, and/or that DWKs cannot produce half-dragon offspring and they figured that it would be a pointless addition to a list that they may have INTENDED to only be for half-dragon heritage. Therefore we could logically assume that DWKs are INTENDED to be True Dragons.

As you can see, because of this authoritative statement, it has obfuscated the actual rules, making it neigh impossible to determine whether DWKs are TDs by RAW, or even RAI, as all intentions are possible. I feel, that we should think for ourselves, allow the DMs to make the decision, and keep all options open for the sake of enjoying the game.
Because sometimes you feel like a nut, and sometimes you don't.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The Player's Handbook.

A) not a supplement.

B) Looking at the whole book, instead of just the most powerful options, the designers were clearly aiming for a lower level of power than they actually got. In fact, just eliminating a few of the most powerful spells dramatically decreases the power curve of the book on the whole.