Dragonwrought Kobold/True Dragon Debate [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

JaronK

2013-02-14, 02:56 PM

Spoilering for the True Dragon thing:

What stops the Loredrake Kobold thing is that Dragonwrought Kobolds are not True Dragons.

The Dragonwrought Kobold feat references a list of True Dragons. Kobolds are not on the list, ergo, Kobolds are not True Dragons.

I just checked. The feat (which is called Dragonwrought, not Dragonwrought Kobold) does not in any way reference such a list. Furthermore, the only such list ever printed was printed before Races of the Dragon, and it was Races of the Dragon that allowed them to do this, so of course they wouldn't be on that list. So... your evidence is absolutely nonsense. The feat is on page 100 of Races of the Dragon, by the way, if anyone else wants to check.

Furthermore, there's only one place where True Dragon is given a specific, strict definition along with rules that actually use the fact that something's a True Dragon. That would be Dragon Magic, page 87, which states very clearly "a true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon)." Races of the Dragon says that Kobolds do indeed have those same 12 age categories, and gave them a feat to give them the dragon type. Done.

It's actually clear cut. If you want to nerf the Sovereign Archetype thing (which was certainly an unintended consequence of making them count as dragons), fine, but there's no need to pretend the rules don't say what they say. It's a perfectly acceptable house rule.

Since they are not True Dragons ergo they cannot be Loredrake.*

*Not sure if it is restricted to True Dragons or not, I lack the source material in question.

It's not, actually. Technically, any creature of the dragon type can do it. The only things they specifically get just for being a True Dragon is, in fact, which side of a Dragon Pact they end up on and a certain interaction with a weird feat called Draconic Vampirism.

Where the Dragonwrought Kobold gets scary in E6 is the ability to take Epic Feats because they are dragons (just not True Dragons).

Personally, I think that's a bug rather than a feature.

I think it's clearly intended that Races of the Dragon made them True Dragons, because all the fluff in that book hints at it and they went out of their way to give them those age categories. But what wasn't intended was for them to get any special powers beyond those afforded to the dragon type, including Sovereign Archetypes and Epic Feats (though honestly the Epic Feats they get access to early aren't any good, except maybe Epic Toughness on a level 1 character).

Anyway, this is all a sidetrack. The point is, any rapid access to 4th level spells, whether via Versatile Spellcaster or Loredrake Draongwrought Kobolds or any other method, is broken in E6.

JaronK

Alienist

2013-02-14, 05:40 PM

Spoilering for the True Dragon thing:

I just checked. The feat (which is called Dragonwrought, not Dragonwrought Kobold) does not in any way reference such a list.

In fact, it does. Last line of the benefit, just before the special, references a list on page 103.

Furthermore, the only such list ever printed was printed before Races of the Dragon, and it was Races of the Dragon that allowed them to do this, so of course they wouldn't be on that list.

Page 103:
"Draconic Heritage for All True Dragons
The table above provides the benefits of the Draconic Heritage feat for all the kinds of true dragons published in D&D products to date."

That's the same table directly referenced from the Dragonwrought feat. In the same book as the Dragonwrought feat.
Which explicitly is a list of all True Dragons.

So... your evidence is absolutely nonsense. The feat is on page 100 of Races of the Dragon, by the way, if anyone else wants to check.

You are absolutely correct about the name of the feat, what book it is in, and what page number it can be found on.

If you could retract the "absolute nonsense", that would be nice.

Furthermore, there's only one place where True Dragon is given a specific, strict definition along with rules that actually use the fact that something's a True Dragon.

Not true (sic). There are other tests for True Dragons (e.g. the SRD also references true dragons), and kobolds clearly fail all the other tests.

That would be Dragon Magic, page 87, which states very clearly "a true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon)." Races of the Dragon says that Kobolds do indeed have those same 12 age categories, and gave them a feat to give them the dragon type. Done.

It's actually clear cut.

It's only clear cut if you
(a) don't read the whole of the Dragonwrought feat
(b) rip out page 103 from the book the Dragonwrought feat is in
(c) cherry pick your evidence, by which I mean you find the single cherry in the entire apple orchard
(d) stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and chant "la la la I can't hear you"

Leaving aside the actual, in your face RAW, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence (e.g. the explicit strong ties in the monster entry between ageing and special abilities, ageing and hit dice, ageing and size* etc against Dragonwrought Kobolds being true dragons, easily more than enough to put the one thing you quoted into doubt.

For something to be a true dragon it is necessary for it to have the true dragon age categories, but it is not sufficient.

You find one test they pass, and then choose to ignore all the rest?

*E.g. SRD (from the section with the True Dragon heading): "The size of a particular dragon varies according to age and variety."

There is a vast preponderance of evidence of that nature, e.g.
"All true dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age. (Other creatures that have the dragon type do not.) "

There is an exceedingly weak semantic argument about whether Kobolds also meet the 'gains more abilities and powers as they age', but when taken in the context of the entry for true dragons clearly kobolds don't qualify. The argument that because they get better mental stats with ageing and hence 'gain power' or 'gain abilities' is not compelling because it contradicts that context.

But hey, I'll be generous and concede the point. I can afford to do that, because there is a list of True Dragons published in the same book as the Dragonwrought feat, and Dragonwrought Kobolds aren't on it.

I think it's clearly intended that Races of the Dragon made them True Dragons, because all the fluff in that book hints at it

Actually, the fluff in the book is very clear about drawing a distinction between things descended from dragons, and true dragons. As such, if you look at the info on kobolds, they're very clearly distantly descended from dragons, and so should get lumped in with all the other dragon descended stuff.

In the Dragonwrought feat it clearly says (twice even!) that Dragonwrought Kobolds have a draconic heritage. Even if you say that is fluff not rules (an overly generous interpretation of fluff), that just proves my point. True Dragons don't have a draconic heritage, but it is only the things which are distantly related to them that have it.

The fluff has other things to say on this topic:
"Kobolds have close biological ties to dragons. The most important difference between the two, however, is that kobolds are cold-blooded creatures, and dragons are warm- blooded."

Hence, neither the rules, nor the fluff support the idea that Dragonwrought Kobolds are True Dragons.

and they went out of their way to give them those age categories. But what wasn't intended was for them to get any special powers beyond those afforded to the dragon type, including Sovereign Archetypes and Epic Feats (though honestly the Epic Feats they get access to early aren't any good, except maybe Epic Toughness on a level 1 character).

I agree that the Epic Feats look a bit weak. Epic Damage Resistance (which gives DR 3/- and stacks with itself) could be a problem in E6, you could become nigh immune to physical damage pretty quickly.

Anyway, this is all a sidetrack. The point is, any rapid access to 4th level spells, whether via Versatile Spellcaster or Loredrake Draongwrought Kobolds or any other method, is broken in E6.

I think the idea that people have that Versatile Spellcaster allows levels of spells higher than those known is based on a gross misreading of both the feat and the rules on learning/knowing spells, where the rules are extremely consistent about only gaining access to new spells when you level up.

Some people might counter that you can also get access to spells through feats (expanded knowledge or whatever), but those are (typically) gained through levelling up.

In any case, even if we wanted Versatile Spellcaster to somehow be an exception to the general rule, we would have the insurmountable hurdle that the only spells it gives you access to are those that you already knew before you used the ability, which is what it actually says (and which I think people forget or gloss over in their haste to find something to abuse).

JaronK

2013-02-15, 03:48 AM

True Dragon stuff hidden away here.

In fact, it does. Last line of the benefit, just before the special, references a list on page 103.

Page 103:
"Draconic Heritage for All True Dragons
The table above provides the benefits of the Draconic Heritage feat for all the kinds of true dragons published in D&D products to date."

That's the same table directly referenced from the Dragonwrought feat. In the same book as the Dragonwrought feat.
Which explicitly is a list of all True Dragons.

Ah, I see what you mean. But it's irrelevant, because all Dragonwrought Kobolds count as one of those types of True Dragons. For example, you can be a Silver Dragon Dragonwrought Kobold, and then you count as a Silver Dragon. Still a True Dragon. So dragonwrought kobolds are listed in that, they just don't need a specific mention. You can't have a "Silver Dragon Dragonwrought Kobold Heritage" because that's the same as "Silver Dragon Heritage."

You are absolutely correct about the name of the feat, what book it is in, and what page number it can be found on.

If you could retract the "absolute nonsense", that would be nice.

Fair enough. Not nonsense, just not relevant.

Not true (sic). There are other tests for True Dragons (e.g. the SRD also references true dragons), and kobolds clearly fail all the other tests.

Actually, no, they don't. There's no other place where True Dragon is defined with a specific rules definition instead of a general description, except Dragons of Krynn, where it says they're any dragon with age categories (needed the definition for the Draconic Vampirism feat). Kobolds pass there too. They also pass Draconomicon's description which is vague enough to be difficult (and yet is irrelevant, since it's not actually trying to define True Dragons).

For something to be a true dragon it is necessary for it to have the true dragon age categories, but it is not sufficient.

You find one test they pass, and then choose to ignore all the rest?

No, I chose all the ones that are actually rules definitions.

*E.g. SRD (from the section with the True Dragon heading): "The size of a particular dragon varies according to age and variety."

There is a vast preponderance of evidence of that nature, e.g.
"All true dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age. (Other creatures that have the dragon type do not.) "

The SRD True Dragon entry is talking about known True Dragons, not all True Dragons, so saying Kobolds fail there is irrelevant. This is especially true considering it also says all known True Dragons are Chromatic or Metallic, while the main list shows many that aren't. So... that's not exhaustive, and thus Kobolds failing there doesn't matter (all Lung Dragons, all Planar Dragons, and all Gem Dragons fail too... in fact the majority of True Dragons fail). Clearly that is not an appropriate test.

But hey, I'll be generous and concede the point. I can afford to do that, because there is a list of True Dragons published in the same book as the Dragonwrought feat, and Dragonwrought Kobolds aren't on it.

Nope, because it really does include them, as they count as the other True Dragon types. A Dragonwrought Kobold is always some other type of True Dragon, just as a Wyrmling Dragon is always some other type.

Actually, the fluff in the book is very clear about drawing a distinction between things descended from dragons, and true dragons. As such, if you look at the info on kobolds, they're very clearly distantly descended from dragons, and so should get lumped in with all the other dragon descended stuff.

Their fluff says they're made of nothing but True Dragon blood.

In the Dragonwrought feat it clearly says (twice even!) that Dragonwrought Kobolds have a draconic heritage. Even if you say that is fluff not rules (an overly generous interpretation of fluff), that just proves my point. True Dragons don't have a draconic heritage, but it is only the things which are distantly related to them that have it.

It doesn't mean draconic heritage as in the feat, it says it as in "your ancestors were X True Dragon type. The same is true of all other True Dragons... a Silver Dragon has Silver Dragons as ancestors, right?

The fluff has other things to say on this topic:
"Kobolds have close biological ties to dragons. The most important difference between the two, however, is that kobolds are cold-blooded creatures, and dragons are warm- blooded."

Hence, neither the rules, nor the fluff support the idea that Dragonwrought Kobolds are True Dragons.

No, that's regular Kobolds. Dragonwrought Kobolds, however, are not cold blooded. They're warm blooded. That's the point of the feat. Why are you talking about non Dragonwrought Kobolds?

At the end of the day, I give you this challenge: using nothing but RAW rules that are actually being used to define True Dragons for purposes of some rule or other, show a definition of True Dragons that eliminates Kobolds but doesn't eliminate other known True Dragons. Don't use anything out of context, and remember that all Dragonwrought Kobolds are of the types found in that list (so the list itself can't exclude them).

JaronK

Tytalus

2013-02-15, 08:18 AM

Ah, I see what you mean. But it's irrelevant, because all Dragonwrought Kobolds count as one of those types of True Dragons.

That's not the case (i.e., RAW citation needed).

It doesn't mean draconic heritage as in the feat, it says it as in "your ancestors were X True Dragon type. The same is true of all other True Dragons... a Silver Dragon has Silver Dragons as ancestors, right?

That's a baseless assertion, too; at best an RAI argument.

Note that the rule text is misrepresented here. The relevant RAW does not say "your ancestors were X True Dragon type". It says: "Your scales become tinted with a color that matches that of your draconic heritage."

By the way, the "Draconic Heritage" feat also involves (not surprisingly) draconic heritage. Feats from that tree have the same references to the creature's "heritage", clearly without implying they are true dragons because of it (compare RotD p.103, for example).

No, that's regular Kobolds. Dragonwrought Kobolds, however, are not cold blooded. They're warm blooded.

Citation needed.

At the end of the day, I give you this challenge: using nothing but RAW rules that are actually being used to define True Dragons for purposes of some rule or other, show a definition of True Dragons ....

The typical argument is RotD p.103: "The table above provides the benefits of the Draconic Heritage feat for all the kinds of true dragons published in D&D products to date.". Neither kobolds nor dragonwrought kobolds are on there, and your arument that "all Dragonwrought Kobolds count as one of those types of True Dragons" doesn't hold water.

Before we delve into an exchange of old arguments, please have a look at this [thread|http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245069&page=23] that addresses the issue in great depth and comes to a rather clear conclusion: kobolds are not true dragons.

---

Regarding the OP:

If you are asking what breaks E6, it makes sense to address the special E6 rules. The main issues here are:

* LA system: While it works reasonably well, some creatures are problematic, the main example being the Pixie (improved invisibility, flight, SR, etc. in a world of 3rd-level spells is too much). Other options are simply very good (Half-Dragon).
* Level limitation. Obviously, anything that allows access to something difficult/impossible to obtain, like higher-level spells, is a problem. The dragonwrought kobold issue isn't really a problem, as the RAW is basis is very shaky and the RAI clearly against it. Other means of obtaining spells of level 4+ exist, but those tend to be similarly cheesy and shouldn't be relevant to actual play.
* Magic items. Artificers can create more powerful items than other characters. It's not necessarily an issue that breaks E6, but it shifts the balance somewhat.

Several other points are often brought up as problems of E6, but which also apply to regular (low-level) play. Those are things any DM should watch out for - E6 or not:

* Mystic Ranger + Sword of the Arcane Order: Unbalanced in and of itself (up to level 10ish)
* Too many companions / wild cohorts / etc. - wreck havoc anywhere
* Anima Mage: overpowered by itself, no particular problem in E6 but rather later
* Tainted Sorcerer: unbalanced by itself, no special issue in E6

Alienist

2013-02-15, 10:08 AM

Fair enough. Not nonsense, just not relevant.

I don't think that's fair. You said there wasn't a comprehensive up to date list of True Dragons, and I showed that not only did such a list exist, but it was actually referenced from inside the Dragonwrought feat (!!!)

How is that irrelevant?

You actually have to ignore parts of the RAW of the feat itself in order to come to the conclusions that you do!

Moreover, there is no need to respond to your challenge, because if you just sat down with a clean slate and tried to look at it from the point of view that Dragonwrought Kobolds are not True Dragons then all the supposed contradictions disappear. The contradictions only exist because you have to jump through so many semantic hoops, and you have to be so selective in what you choose to allow to be a rule and then ignore everything else that doesn't fit.

I think that if you honestly sat down and tried to look at the argument from the other side, everything would snap into focus.

It is hard work to pretend that Dragonrought Kobolds are True Dragons, it's enormously much easier just to accept that they aren't.

There is one interpretation that incorporates all the rules and definitions. There is another interpretation that only allows one definition and is forced to actively ignore all the rest.
Which one is the better one? (Hint: Occam's Razor)

If not Occam, go with Einstein and "just do the simplest thing that could possibly work"

The Glyphstone

2013-02-15, 10:20 AM

It honestly baffles me why people go to so much effort to prove/disprove whether or not Dragonwroughts are True Dragons, when being a True Dragon has next to no mechanical effect. The only thing it's used for is Sovereign Archetypes, and it'd be a far simpler solution to just say 'Kobolds can't take Sovereign Archetypes' than to engage in endless convoluted arguments/counter-arguments over something at is, as evidenced by how long and furiously it's been debated for years, isn't clear at all regardless of how clear each respective side seems to find it.

Either way, it's very much off-topic for the thread, so I'm going to split it off into its own thread.

Sgt. Cookie

2013-02-15, 10:55 AM

There was a huge arse debate, lasted around 30-40 pages, and it concluded that they're not. DWK only fulfill some of the requirements to be considered a True Dragon.

Don't ask me to explain it, as I didn't really get it.

*.*.*.*

2013-02-15, 02:14 PM

Since Dragon Magic is newer than both RotD and Draconomicon, it takes precedence, correct? If it does

...must undertake a mystic ceremony in which he establishes mental contact with a true dragon(that is, a dragon with 12 age categories, such as a red dragon)...

Answerer

2013-02-15, 02:19 PM

Since Dragon Magic is newer than both RotD and Draconomicon, it takes precedence, correct? If it does
No, not unless it explicitly claims that it supersedes previous books. The errata rules actually specify that older books have precedence, as the "primary source" of a given issue. Draconomicon claimed itself as "primary source" on True Dragons, over the original Monster Manual, and Races of the Dragon claimed it again, explicitly over both Draconomicon and Monster Manual. I'd have to check Dragon Magic to double-check.

Anyway, this answer (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/17145/4563) seems to me, barring something missed in Dragon Magic, to cover all the bases, and it does conclude that Dragonwrought Kobolds are not True Dragons.

Deophaun

2013-02-15, 02:21 PM

Since Dragon Magic is newer than both RotD and Draconomicon, it takes precedence, correct?
Nope. What matters is which source is the primary source for dragons. It's tough to argue that a book with a narrow focus on dragon magic is the primary source about what qualifies as a True Dragon, while books about True Dragons and draconic races are secondary.

In other words, Dragon Magic is the least authoritative of the three.

Answerer

2013-02-15, 02:25 PM

Nope. What matters is which source is the primary source for dragons. It's tough to argue that a book with a narrow focus on dragon magic is the primary source about what qualifies as a True Dragon, while books about True Dragons and draconic races are secondary.

In other words, Dragon Magic is the least authoritative of the three.
Those aren't really valid arguments about what makes a primary source. The errata rules specify that the primary source is the first printing of a thing, unless or until something explicitly claims to be a primary source. If Dragon Magic does, then it is. If not, then it is not.

Deophaun

2013-02-15, 02:34 PM

Those aren't really valid arguments about what makes a primary source. The errata rules specify that the primary source is the first printing of a thing, unless or until something explicitly claims to be a primary source. If Dragon Magic does, then it is. If not, then it is not.

Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.
I don't see anything about first printing.

Answerer

2013-02-15, 02:37 PM

Sorry, I thought they were explicit about it. At any rate, "primary" means first. I don't know, then it becomes more ambiguous... why am I utterly unsurprised.

Deophaun

2013-02-15, 02:41 PM

Sorry, I thought they were explicit about it. At any rate, "primary" means first. I don't know, then it becomes more ambiguous... why am I utterly unsurprised.
Except, quite often, tables come before text, yet text is primary.

The only other definition of primary is "book and topic precedence," which reads to me that, by default, a book about fire elementals will, by nature of being solely about fire elementals, trump anything the MM has to say about fire elementals, regardless of whether or not there is any explicit text indicating such. Such text is nice, it is clarifying, but unnecessary unless you have a weird case.

JaronK

2013-02-15, 05:37 PM

Specific overrides general. Draconomicon gives a general description of True Dragons, while Dragon Magic gives a specific ruling for for what they are (which actually matters for the rules in Dragon Magic). Dragons of Krynn also gives a definition, which is less specific than Dragon Magic.

Trying to claim Dragonwrought Kobolds aren't True Dragons means they are in two books (Dragon Magic and Dragons of Kyrnn), but aren't in others (and in those others, being a True Dragon has almost no effect). And those others are far more vague... Kobolds could fit or not, depending on reading.

Note that Sovereign Archetype rules don't even say you have to be a True Dragon.

For everyone who wants to understand this whole thing, the sources you need are Draconomicon (page 4), Dragon Magic (page 87), Dragons of Eberron (Sovereign Archetype section), Races of the Dragon (feats section and the start of the Kobold section), and Dragons of Krynn (Draconic Vampirism Feat). Monster Manual 1 and SRD don't help because they talk about "Known True Dragons" which is a description of some, not a definition of all (and they explicitly state they're only talking about Chromatic and Metallic Dragons).

JaronK

Deophaun

2013-02-15, 05:44 PM

Specific overrides general. Draconomicon gives a general description of True Dragons, while Dragon Magic gives a specific ruling for for what they are (which actually matters for the rules in Dragon Magic).
Draconomicon gives a specific definition for those dragons that are not True, which fits Dragonwrought Kobolds, and can logically be used to create a specific requirement for True Dragons (must advance through age categories, not simply have them). The description presented in Dragon Magic may be necessary to be a True Dragon, but it is not sufficient as per Draconomicon.

And no, I'm not going to have a debate about what "advance through age categories" means, except to say that you should read the section titled Advancement and Aging on page 142 in the Draconomicon.

JaronK

2013-02-15, 05:52 PM

Draconomicon gives a specific definition for those dragons that are not True, which fits Dragonwrought Kobolds,

Actually, it says two things. It says that True Dragons get more powerful as they get older (which Dragonwrought Kobolds do, they gain +3 to all mental stats with no penalties, and page 170 of the DMG defines higher stats as "high powered"). It then says other dragons that aren't true don't advance through age categories... not advance "by" age categories, which is page 142 of Draconomicon is talking about. Note that the line "advances through age categories" is never used on page 142. Note also that 142 says the LA going from Wyrmling to Juvinile for a True Dragon is between +2 and +6 increase... but that's not true for some True Dragons anyway (such as Epic Dragons) so that's actually not accurate anyway. Also, Draconomicon explicitly states that it's mostly just talking about the Monster Manual True Dragons anyway.

So even if your interpretation is correct, you're saying the Draconomicon says DR Kobolds are both True Dragons and Not True Dragons. But Dragon Magic and Dragons of Krynn both definitively state that DR Kobolds are True Dragons. Doesn't that tell you your intepretation is a bit off?

By mine, they're True Dragons in all places.

JaronK

Deophaun

2013-02-15, 06:01 PM

So even if your interpretation is correct, you're saying the Draconomicon says DR Kobolds are both True Dragons and Not True Dragons.
No.

You are having difficulty with a common logical construct.

True Dragons get more powerful as they get older.
True Dragons advance through age categories.
True Dragons have 12 age categories (from Dragon Magic).

True Dragons do ALL of those things. If it only does two out of three, it is not a True Dragon.

Answerer

2013-02-15, 06:04 PM

Deophaun

2013-02-15, 06:10 PM

Dragonwrought Kobolds do all of those things. If we use the definition in Draconomicon, then Dragonwrought Kobolds are True Dragons.
That is one (wrong) interpretation. Of course, my (right) interpretation is that Dragonwrought Kobolds do not advance through age categories. But, as I said, I'm not debating it.

JaronK

2013-02-15, 06:16 PM

Dragonwrought Kobolds do all of those things. If we use the definition in Draconomicon, then Dragonwrought Kobolds are True Dragons.

Using that definition is incorrect, however, because Races of the Dragon explicitly states that it supersedes Draconomicon, and states in two different places that it is providing a list of all True Dragons published to date, and neither list contains the Dragonwrought Kobold.

The definitions don't matter, because they have been overruled. Unless Dragon Magic explicitly states that it is superseding Races of the Dragon.

Except it says that Dragonwrought Kobolds are always one of the members on those very lists.

True Dragons get more powerful as they get older.
True Dragons advance through age categories.
True Dragons have 12 age categories (from Dragon Magic).

Nope, it doesn't say that. It says that True Dragons get more powerful as they get older (DR Kobolds do). It says that non true dragons don't advance through age categories (DR Kobolds do or don't depending on definition).

So you're claiming DR Kobolds are both true and not true here.

Seperately, Dragon Magic explicitly states that simply having 12 age categories and being a dragon makes you a true dragon (backs up my interpretation, does not fit with yours at all).

Do you at least agree that Dragon Magic says DR Kobolds are True Dragons, as does Dragons of Krynn?

Do you at least also agree that DR Kobolds fit the definition of True Dragon in Draconomicon, even if they might also fit the definition of a non True Dragon in that same book?

Furthermore, have you noticed that Draconomicon says it's mostly just talking about the Monster Manual True Dragons, not all True Dragons, while Dragon Magic is talking about all of them?

JaronK

Deophaun

2013-02-15, 06:19 PM

So you're claiming DR Kobolds are both true and not true here.
All True Dragons are dragons.
All True Dragons are creatures.
All True Dragons exist in WotC printed material.

Apparently I have just claimed that dragon turtles, zombies, and alchemist fire are and are not True Dragons.

Sorry, your logic needs work.

JaronK

2013-02-15, 06:33 PM

See, here's the thing: The actual rules for what a True Dragon is, as printed in many books, are the following:

"True Dragons are those creature that become more powerful as they get older." (Draconomicon page 4).

"a true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon)." (Dragon Magic page 87)

And there's also the Dragons of Kyrnn reference, which says True Dragons are any dragon that's got age categories (a more vague version of the DM version).

That's literally it. Those are the only places we have a straight out definition of True Dragon.

Are Kobolds True Dragons based on all the written definitions of True Dragons? That's all of them... I haven't left any out except the stuff that specifically says it's only talking about some, not all, True Dragons.

Separately from that, we have this line:

"Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons." (Draconomicon Page 4)

Now that's the definition of Lesser Dragon.

Are you saying that Kobolds are both Lesser and True? Or is there some other definition of all True Dragons that Kobolds don't fit with?

JaronK

Ruethgar

2013-02-15, 06:39 PM

The list of all true dragons published to date was made before the publishing of Dragonwrought, just saying.

Answerer

2013-02-15, 06:40 PM

"Advance" per the Draconomicon definition of True Dragon cannot refer to the formatting of the "Advancement" section of some dragon's statblocks; to do so would be to give a typesetting decision the weight of rule (read: exactly as meaningful as the fact that Tome of Battle maneuvers being separated into 9 levels for determining whether or not they are spells: not meaningful at all). No creature in the game has "Advancement: By age category," because that is not a thing that exists anywhere in the rules. The True Dragons in Monster Manual advance by HD. That interpretation is absolutely incorrect. "Advance" is not a game term, only a synonym for "progresses" or similar.

Except it says that Dragonwrought Kobolds are always one of the members on those very lists.
Where does it say that?

JaronK

2013-02-15, 07:04 PM

Where does it say that?

Right above the list that's reprinted in Races of the Dragon, page 103. It says the list there is actually a list of "Draconic Heritage, Dragonwrought, and Draconic Legacy Options." So every Dragonwrought Kobold is actually one of those types of dragon (which matches up to the list of True Dragon types in Draconomicon).

This is backed up at the start of the Kobold section (page 39), where it mentions that the maximum age of a Dragonwrought Kobold depends on whether they're metallic or chromatic (oddly it doesn't tell you what their max age counts as if you're a Lung Dragon or Planar Dragon or Gem Dragon).

So all Dragonwrought Kobolds count as one of the other types.

And I completely agree on the "advance through age categories" thing. I think that's just English language... I personally advanced from baby to child to teenager to adult, so I advanced through those ages. Kobolds advance from Wyrmling to Great Wyrm in the same manner. This reading matches up to Dragon Magic and Dragons or Kyrnn and creates no contradictions.

JaronK

Deophaun

2013-02-15, 07:09 PM

Are you saying that Kobolds are both Lesser and True? Or is there some other definition of all True Dragons that Kobolds don't fit with?
The fact that Kobolds are lesser dragons preclude them from being True. You have an unstated assumption that the few scraps of information you have concerning True Dragons are complete. That assumption is unsupported.

"Advance" per the Draconomicon definition of True Dragon cannot refer to the formatting of the "Advancement" section of some dragon's statblocks.
If that's what you think the argument is. As I said, you are entitled to your wrong interpretation. I'm not debating it. If you want to be wrong, be wrong. It doesn't impact me.

JaronK

2013-02-15, 07:11 PM

The fact that Kobolds are lesser dragons preclude them from being True. You have an unstated assumption that the few scraps of information you have concerning True Dragons are complete. That assumption is unsupported.

No, I've been quoting you complete definitions of True Dragon, from places in books that actually use something being a True Dragon to determine real game effects. You're literally trying to say that Dragons of Krynn and Dragon Magic are completely wrong, and only the one (obviously unclear) line in Draconomicon supercedes both clear RAW statements. That makes absolutely no sense.

JaronK

Deophaun

2013-02-15, 07:14 PM

No, I've been quoting you complete definitions of True Dragon.
If they are so complete, then why don't they include the same information?

edit: I'm also not saying their wrong. Quite the contrary. I'm saying every definition of a True Dragon you have provided is right.

danzibr

2013-02-15, 07:25 PM

So what's the counter to the argument:

The information here [...] include[s] all true dragons published in DUNGEONS & DRAGONS products to date.
And then there's no mention of Dragonwrought Kobolds.

Deophaun

2013-02-15, 07:30 PM

Here's another fun one from Draconomicon.

At first glance, a true dragon resembles a reptile. It has a muscular body, a long, thick neck, a horned or frilled head with a toothy mouth, and a sinuous tail. The creature walks on four powerful legs with clawed feet, and it flies using its vast, batlike wings. Heavy scales cover a dragon from the tip of its tail to end of its snout.
Now, before the obvious rejoinder, keep in mind...

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry.

JaronK

2013-02-15, 07:31 PM

If they are so complete, then why don't they include the same information?

edit: I'm also not saying their wrong. Quite the contrary. I'm saying every definition of a True Dragon you have provided is right.

They actually do all say the same thing, if you read them one way. It's only when you try to read them as saying different things that it doesn't work.

Dragon Magic says True Dragons are dragons with 12 age categories. Nice and simple.

Dragons of Krynn says True Dragons are dragons that have age categories. If you read "age categories" as meaning the special draconic age categories, then the this matches Dragon Magic.

Draconomicon says "True Dragons are those creature that become more powerful as they get older". As long as you read "those creatures" as meaning "dragons" (which does make sense), you'll realize that the only dragons that do get more powerful just by getting older are in fact the exact same as the creatures that have age categories (and yes, that includes Dragonwrought Kobolds). It then goes on to say "Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons." If you read that as meaning that lesser dragons don't pass through those draconic age categories as they get older, this fits along with everything else nicely... Lesser Dragons are Dragons that don't have the 12 age categories.

And thus it all fits.

But if you read the Lesser Dragons entry as talking about "Advancement: By Age" then you get the completely contradictory idea that Kobolds are both True (they get more powerful as they age, they have 12 age categories) and Lesser (they don't have Advancement: By Age). But that doesn't work, because they can't be both.

So... one interpretation makes logical sense, and the other one doesn't.

I am, of course, ignoring the lists of True Dragons for the moment, because one was published before the Dragonwrought Feat existed and the other specifically says Dragonwrought Kobolds are of any of those types.

And please remember that Draconomicon, on page 4, specifically says it's mostly just talking about the 10 dragons from Monster Manual... which means the general descriptions of True Dragons in that book are only talking about about those 10.

JaronK

Deophaun

2013-02-15, 07:39 PM

Draconomicon says "True Dragons are those creature that become more powerful as they get older". As long as you read "those creatures" as meaning "dragons" (which does make sense), you'll realize that the only dragons that do get more powerful just by getting older
If such a creature exists, it's not going to be found among the True Dragons. As I said, read page 142 in Draconomicon.

Answerer

2013-02-15, 07:46 PM

Right above the list that's reprinted in Races of the Dragon, page 103. It says the list there is actually a list of "Draconic Heritage, Dragonwrought, and Draconic Legacy Options." So every Dragonwrought Kobold is actually one of those types of dragon (which matches up to the list of True Dragon types in Draconomicon).
Being a list of the All Half-Dragons does not prevent it from also being a list of All True Dragons. Races of the Dragon, in fact, specifies that it is so. The two lists are the same.

So just because it says it is the list of half-dragons does not mean it is not also the list of True Dragons. The fact that it says it is the list of all True Dragons means it is the list of all True Dragons (as well as the list of all half-dragons). Failure to appear on that list, per Races of the Dragon, is a failure to be a True Dragon

This is backed up at the start of the Kobold section (page 39), where it mentions that the maximum age of a Dragonwrought Kobold depends on whether they're metallic or chromatic (oddly it doesn't tell you what their max age counts as if you're a Lung Dragon or Planar Dragon or Gem Dragon).
Now this is an interesting argument. I'd missed this. This implies that Dragonwrought Kobolds, like Half-Dragons, are a "version" of the True Dragons (hence their failure to appear separately on the lists). So there are Red Dragonwrought Kobolds and Gold Dragonwrought Kobolds and so on? Huh. Well then. That... is quite interesting. I may be switching positions on this debate again.

If that's what you think the argument is. As I said, you are entitled to your wrong interpretation. I'm not debating it. If you want to be wrong, be wrong. It doesn't impact me.
It is an insult on a discussion forum to assert your own position and disdain other's positions without so much as stating what your position even is. If you have no interest in debating the issue, then you effectively "forfeit" and really should not be stating the existence of your contrary opinion to begin with: either put your money where your mouth is and back up your assertion, or accept that for the purposes of this debate, you are wrong until you actually post an argument.

JaronK

2013-02-15, 07:46 PM

If such a creature exists, it's not going to be found among the True Dragons. As I said, read page 142 in Draconomicon.

Page 142 is only talking about the Monster Manual True Dragons, not the rest of them. Page 4 of Draconomicon tells you this.

Now this is an interesting argument. I'd missed this. This implies that Dragonwrought Kobolds, like Half-Dragons, are a "version" of the True Dragons (hence their failure to appear separately on the lists). So there are Red Dragonwrought Kobolds and Gold Dragonwrought Kobolds and so on? Huh. Well then. That... is quite interesting. I may be switching positions on this debate again.

Correct. If you're a Dragonwrought Kobold, you always have to have a True Dragon type (that's what the page 103 list is referring to when it says that's your herritage as a Dragonwrought Kobold). So you're always a Silver Dragon Dragonwrought Kobold or a Red Dragon Dragonwrought Kobold or whatever.

It's unclear on your maximum age if you're not Metallic or Chromatic, though. That's just a hole in the rules that there's no way to guess at.

JaronK

Deophaun

2013-02-15, 07:49 PM

It is an insult on a discussion forum to assert your own position and disdain other's positions without so much as stating what your position even is.
::yawn:: I stated, flat out, that I wasn't going to debate it before you decided to try to debate me. So, forgive me if I find your outrage... amusing.

Sgt. Cookie

2013-02-15, 08:08 PM

...Doesn't make him wrong. If you're not going to debate, then don't state your opinion, back it up or be ignored.

Now, either start debating, or don't post in the thread.

Clericzilla

2013-02-15, 08:20 PM

I love seeing discussions like this where one person gives actual quotes and RAW and the other side gives opinions and say those opinions are RAW.

It makes for a great read.

Thanks!

Deophaun

2013-02-15, 08:35 PM

...Doesn't make him wrong. If you're not going to debate, then don't state your opinion
I didn't state an opinion. I stated a page number.

back it up or be ignored.
How will I ever survive.

Sgt. Cookie

2013-02-15, 08:45 PM

By not being arrogant?

You've quoted a page number. Fine. Page 48 of Savage Species.

danzibr

2013-02-15, 08:47 PM

Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone cleared this one up yet.

So what's the counter to the argument:

The information here [...] include[s] all true dragons published in DUNGEONS & DRAGONS products to date.
And then there's no mention of Dragonwrought Kobolds.

Ruethgar

2013-02-15, 09:03 PM

Deophaun

2013-02-15, 09:04 PM

You know, I can't actually find where Races of the Dragon explicitly states it overrides Draconomicon, or where Draconomicon claims it overrules MM. Wouldn't that be in the front of the book?

By not being arrogant?
Served me well so far.

You've quoted a page number. Fine. Page 48 of Savage Species.
Oh, I was so hoping for a witty entry on that page. I would have had to give an Internet for that.

Ruethgar

2013-02-15, 09:26 PM

You know, I can't actually find where Races of the Dragon explicitly states it overrides Draconomicon, or where Draconomicon claims it overrules MM. Wouldn't that be in the front of the book?

Races of the Dragon page 69. Not sure if/where it says it in the Draconomicon.

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).

Answerer

2013-02-15, 09:38 PM

Races of the Dragon was not a published product when the list was made and thus any new dragons presented within (such as dragonwrought) would have to fall back on other definitions of true dragon technically speaking.
You will never convince me that even Wizards would be so ridiculous as to refer to "all products published to date" and not include the published product that the line actually appears in. Races of the Dragon wasn't published when the list was written, but it was published when that list was first put into print, and it was published the first time it got read by a customer.

You know, I can't actually find where Races of the Dragon explicitly states it overrides Draconomicon, or where Draconomicon claims it overrules MM. Wouldn't that be in the front of the book?
It's explicitly in the sections with the lists that are being referenced in this thread. Well, at least the Half-dragon one; I haven't really looked at the other list.

Tanuki Tales

2013-02-16, 12:06 AM

Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone cleared this one up yet.

So what's the counter to the argument:

And then there's no mention of Dragonwrought Kobolds.

Well, JaronK posted this:

This is backed up at the start of the Kobold section (page 39), where it mentions that the maximum age of a Dragonwrought Kobold depends on whether they're metallic or chromatic (oddly it doesn't tell you what their max age counts as if you're a Lung Dragon or Planar Dragon or Gem Dragon)

That's in regards to that DWK count as being True Dragons of their specific breed. So if it appears on the list, it includes DWK of that specific type (Silver Dragons including Silver DWK, Red Dragons including Red DWK, etc).

Ruethgar

2013-02-16, 12:22 AM

You will never convince me that even Wizards would be so ridiculous as to refer to "all products published to date" and not include the published product that the line actually appears in. Races of the Dragon wasn't published when the list was written, but it was published when that list was first put into print, and it was published the first time it got read by a customer.

The phrase "all products published to date" refers to when it was written, not when it was first published even if the intention was otherwise. If, for example, another book had been hastily written and published while the publishing process of RotD was still in the works, it would not be included in the phrase "all products published to date" as found in RotD since it was not published when RotD was written. Similarly, RotD itself would not be included.

Arcanist

2013-02-16, 12:45 AM

The phrase "all products published to date" refers to when it was written, not when it was first published even if the intention was otherwise. If, for example, another book had been hastily written and published while the publishing process of RotD was still in the works, it would not be included in the phrase "all products published to date" as found in RotD since it was not published when RotD was written. Similarly, RotD itself would not be included.

Please refrain from using LB logic. The only logical decision for your interpretation is to assume that:

It is a grammatical error.
WoTC honestly never thought that RoTD would see publication.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. I HATE this topic. All it ever does is cause trouble and eventually someone gets banned :smallannoyed:

JaronK

2013-02-16, 12:47 AM

To add on to this:

As the Dragonwrought Kobold is not present on that list it is not a True Dragon. I've said it once and I'll say it again. I HATE this topic. All it ever does is cause trouble and eventually someone gets banned :smallannoyed:

Again, did you miss the part where it says Dragonwrought Kobolds count as any member of that list? The start of the Kobold section defines the life span of a DW Kobold based on whether it's metallic or chromatic, and the page 103 list in Races of the Dragon says it's actually a list of potential Dragonwrought Kobold types (also Draconic Heritage and such types).

So you're strangely claiming that DW Kobolds aren't True Dragons because they're not found on a list of types that a DW Kobold can be.

JaronK

Arcanist

2013-02-16, 01:01 AM

Again, did you miss the part where it says Dragonwrought Kobolds count as any member of that list? The start of the Kobold section defines the life span of a DW Kobold based on whether it's metallic or chromatic, and the page 103 list in Races of the Dragon says it's actually a list of potential Dragonwrought Kobold types (also Draconic Heritage and such types).

This assumption declares that anything with the Draconic Heritage is also a True Dragon. The reference you are making even suggest that it is heritage based.

As the cited table does not specify it as a definitive list of true dragons, where as the page I cited actually states explicitly that it is a list of all True Dragons. As a DWK is not on that list, it is explicitly not a True Dragon. Needless to say, the list needs to be updated to include potential True Dragons that were published after RoTD.

So you're strangely claiming that DW Kobolds aren't True Dragons because they're not found on a list of types that a DW Kobold can be.

Incorrect. I am claiming that a list of True Dragons that excludes DwK signifies that DwK is not a True Dragon.

Tanuki Tales

2013-02-16, 01:12 AM

Members of the dragonkind races are the
ultimate sorcerers and magic users. True
dragons gain spellcasting power as they
age, for example, and spellscales have a
natural aptitude for sorcery.

Does this mean anything?

Answerer

2013-02-16, 01:13 AM

The phrase "all products published to date" refers to when it was written
Have fun proving that. Yes, I know Magic of Incarnum has explicit True Dragons not found on the list, as an example of the kind of thing you're talking about. But that's not proof: they could easily have been left off the list intentionally (that's not even remotely likely, but that would be a matter of authorial error). The authors could have relied on specific-trumps-general for those dragons. You still would have to prove that "to date" means "when this was written" and not "when this was published," and since you infer that to mean that the list should not include True Dragons from that publication itself, I am telling you right now that you could pull Wizard of the Coast's editor out of his office and into my bedroom, and have him tell me, and then and only then might I consider your position to have any validity whatsoever. Otherwise and failing that, however, I think there is absolutely no merit whatsoever to the idea that "all publications to date" does not include this publication.

Arcanist

2013-02-16, 01:20 AM

Have fun proving that. Yes, I know Magic of Incarnum has explicit True Dragons not found on the list, as an example of the kind of thing you're talking about. But that's not proof: they could easily have been left off the list intentionally (that's not even remotely likely, but that would be a matter of authorial error).

Devil's Advocate: This can be equally possible for DwK. The only way for the DwK to not be a True Dragon is for everything else not listed on that list to not be a True Dragon unless it specifically states it is.

You cannot apply a double standard here. It's either that list is absolute or it's faulty.

JaronK

2013-02-16, 01:23 AM

This assumption declares that anything with the Draconic Heritage is also a True Dragon. The reference you are making even suggest that it is heritage based.

Incorrect. To be a true dragon, you must have 12 age categories, which the other things do not have. However, if you're a Dragonwrought Kobold, you are one of the types of true dragon found on that list. Separately from that, if you have a Draconic Heritage it must be a heritage type from that same list.

As the cited table does not specify it as a definitive list of true dragons, where as the page I cited actually states explicitly that it is a list of all True Dragons. As a DWK is not on that list, it is explicitly not a True Dragon. Needless to say, the list needs to be updated to include potential True Dragons that were published after RoTD.

Except that every Dragonwrought Kobold is a member of one of the things on that list. For example, you can be a Silver Dragon Dragonwrought Kobold. Silver Dragons are on the list, so Silver Dragon Dragonwrought Kobolds are on the list, are they not? The start of the Kobold section tells you this.

What you are saying is kind of like saying Wyrmling Dragons aren't True Dragons, because "Wyrmling" isn't on that list. But that's silly... all Wyrmling Dragons are members of the types in that list. Just as all Dragonwrought Kobolds are.

Incorrect. I am claiming that a list of True Dragons that excludes DwK signifies that DwK is not a True Dragon.

Seriously, the list on page 103 is a list of, among other things, what sort of Dragonwrought Kobold you can be.

@Tanuki: A bunch of dragons gain psionic powers instead of spellcasting, so no, not so much. If that quote is from Draconomicon, then it's talking about the 10 dragons found in the Monster Manual, not all True Dragons (this is stated on page 4).

Arcanist

2013-02-16, 01:41 AM

Incorrect. To be a true dragon, you must have 12 age categories, which the other things do not have. However, if you're a Dragonwrought Kobold, you are one of the types of true dragon found on that list. Separately from that, if you have a Draconic Heritage it must be a heritage type from that same list.

Incorrect. To be a True Dragon you must appear on that list. The definition of what is a True Dragon and what is not a True Dragon is to unreliable to be treated as valid. I remember in the last thread we had (my signature) there was someone on Min/Max board that compiled a list of every single published source of what a True Dragon is. Time and time again the 12 age catagories argument has come up, however the Yu Lung from Oriental Adventures does not have 12 and is on the very list you are referencing. Therefore your definition disqualifies itself, by contradicting itself.

Except that every Dragonwrought Kobold is a member of one of the things on that list. For example, you can be a Silver Dragon Dragonwrought Kobold. Silver Dragons are on the list, so Silver Dragon Dragonwrought Kobolds are on the list, are they not? The start of the Kobold section tells you this.

Such an interpretation implies that a DwK isn't a True Dragon until it selects it's Draconic Heritage. On that note: I'd like to pull up that a Yu Lung Dragon is neither Chromatic or Metallic. The Gem Dragons are also neither Chromatic or Metallic for that matter.

What you are saying is kind of like saying Wyrmling Dragons aren't True Dragons, because "Wyrmling" isn't on that list. But that's silly... all Wyrmling Dragons are members of the types in that list. Just as all Dragonwrought Kobolds are.

That is not how it works. It would be more properly stated as "Silver Dragon Wyrmling" instead of "Silver Dragon Wyrmling Dragon" as you are stating it to be. It's kind of like saying White Human Teenager Human.

Seriously, the list on page 103 is a list of, among other things, what sort of Dragonwrought Kobold you can be.

Can you please quote the section where it states that the table on 103 is a definitive list of all True Dragons and not a table detailing the options available for a Dwk or Dragon Heritage to have?

JaronK

2013-02-16, 01:50 AM

Such an interpretation implies that a DwK isn't a True Dragon until it selects it's Draconic Heritage. On that note: I'd like to pull up that a Yu Lung Dragon is neither Chromatic or Metallic. The Gem Dragons are also neither Chromatic or Metallic for that matter.

Of course they're not. So what? And a Dragonwrought Kobold is always a type of True Dragon, but it doesn't need to take the Draconic Heritage feat. It simply is that type, just like a Wyrmling.

That is not how it works. It would be more properly stated as "Silver Dragon Wyrmling" instead of "Silver Dragon Wyrmling Dragon" as you are stating it to be. It's kind of like saying White Human Teenager Human.

That doesn't matter, but if you want it phrased that way, then it's a Silver Dragon Dragonwrought Kobold.

Can you please quote the section where it states that the table on 103 is a definitive list of all True Dragons and not a table detailing the options available for a Dwk or Dragon Heritage to have?

It is a table detailing which kinda of True Dragon a DWK is. But since everything on that table is a True Dragon and is found on the other list, DWKs are found on that other list. Just like Wyrmlings.

JaronK

Arcanist

2013-02-16, 02:13 AM

Of course they're not. So what? And a Dragonwrought Kobold is always a type of True Dragon, but it doesn't need to take the Draconic Heritage feat. It simply is that type, just like a Wyrmling.

I never stated that it was required to take the Draconic Heritage feat since the feat Dragonwrought specifies that you gain a Draconic Heritage. It happens all at the same time, however, I do find this funny as this also means that Platinum (i.e. Dragonborn) are also True Dragons. You cannot make a double standard for any of these on the table; Either they are all True Dragons or none of them are. On a side note: Wyrmling is an Age category, not a type of Dragon, just like how Dragonwrought is a feat, not a type of Dragon.

That doesn't matter, but if you want it phrased that way, then it's a Silver Dragon Dragonwrought Kobold.

"Kobold" is not an age catagory of the True Dragon. To be more correct: It would be "Silver Dragon Dragonwrought Kobold Wyrmling", but this is honestly just splitting hairs at this point, you can write it anyway you want and still be right.

It is a table detailing which kinda of True Dragon a DWK is. But since everything on that table is a True Dragon and is found on the other list, DWKs are found on that other list. Just like Wyrmlings.

JaronK

Wrong. It details what kind of Heritage that a Dwk can have; A heritage does not specifically make it a True Dragon.

Dwk is not a type of True Dragon stated on the list on pages 69-70, or the table on page 103. If it were your specific case Dragons would be a lot less powerful because they'd have to be stated out all the same and then have a Draconic Heritage applied to them for them to gain an elemental resistance, a type of breath weapon and a class skill as detailed by the Draconic Heritage table.

JaronK

2013-02-16, 02:27 AM

It happens all at the same time, however, I do find this funny as this also means that Platinum (i.e. Dragonborn) are also True Dragons. You cannot make a double standard for any of these on the table; Either they are all True Dragons or none of them are.

No, you're missing this. First of all, Text trumps table, right? The text definition of True Dragon is a Dragon with 12 Age Categories. So Dragonborn are not True Dragons unless they're Dragonwrought Dragonborn Kobolds (which have age categories). The table can't change that.

Second, the list is of what kinds of True Dragon the Dragonwrought Kobolds are, in addition to being other things (like what kinds of True Dragon someone with Dragon Heritage can be descended from). The list itself doesn't make you a True Dragon, it's just that Kobolds aren't excluded by that list because they're on it too (as all those types).

"Kobold" is not an age catagory of the True Dragon. To be more correct: It would be "Silver Dragon Dragonwrought Kobold Wyrmling", but this is honestly just splitting hairs at this point, you can write it anyway you want and still be right.

It's not a age category, but it is a type. Just like "Silver Dragon Wyrmling" is a subset of "Silver Dragon" and is thus on the table you're mentioning, "Silver Dragon Dragonwrought Kobold" is also a subset of Silver Dragon and is thus on the list.

Wrong. It details what kind of Heritage that a Dwk can have; A heritage does not specifically make it a True Dragon.

Of course not. But it tells you what type of True Dragon they are. They're not a True Dragon because of the table... they're just not eliminated by it.

They're True Dragons because the definition of True Dragon is a Dragon with 12 age categories (Dragon Magic, page 87). And again, text trumps table, so this argument is pretty meaningless.

Dwk is not a type of True Dragon stated on the list on pages 69-70, or the table on page 103. If it were your specific case Dragons would be a lot less powerful because they'd have to be stated out all the same and then have a Draconic Heritage applied to them for them to gain an elemental resistance, a type of breath weapon and a class skill as detailed by the Draconic Heritage table.

That doesn't make any sense, and does not follow.

JaronK

Arcanist

2013-02-16, 02:50 AM

No, you're missing this. First of all, Text trumps table, right? The text definition of True Dragon is a Dragon with 12 Age Categories. So Dragonborn are not True Dragons unless they're Dragonwrought Dragonborn Kobolds (which have age categories). The table can't change that.

Text very much does trump table, which is why people have time and time again cited this:

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 is a list (text), not a table. Arguing that all True Dragons have 12 age categories is arguing against the RAW that the Yu-Lung does not and is cited time and time again as being a True Dragon.

Second, the list is of what kinds of True Dragon the Dragonwrought Kobolds are, in addition to being other things (like what kinds of True Dragon someone with Dragon Heritage can be descended from). The list itself doesn't make you a True Dragon, it's just that Kobolds aren't excluded by that list because they're on it too (as all those types).

It's not a age category, but it is a type. Just like "Silver Dragon Wyrmling" is a subset of "Silver Dragon" and is thus on the table you're mentioning, "Silver Dragon Dragonwrought Kobold" is also a subset of Silver Dragon and is thus on the list.

Yes and Half Dragons, and every creature with the Draconic Heritage feat are also on that list.

Of course not. But it tells you what type of True Dragon they are. [...]

They're True Dragons because the definition of True Dragon is a Dragon with 12 age categories (Dragon Magic, page 87). And again, text trumps table, so this argument is pretty meaningless.

I'm looking at Dragon Magic, page 87 and all I'm seeing is mention of Dragonpacts. Just copy the text from the book.

They're not a True Dragon because of the table... they're just not eliminated by it.

That is an argument from ignorance.

That doesn't make any sense, and does not follow.

JaronK

To summarize: Because text and table does not explicitly mention it, it is excluded.

Gwendol

2013-02-16, 04:02 AM

JaronK

2013-02-16, 04:10 AM

This is the strangest argument. Mainly because it is quite clear from the description of the feat that DWK are not true dragons. It doesn't say they are true dragons any more than a half-dragon or a dragonborn. The list of all true dragons re-inforces that, and the 12-age category argument doesn't hold water since it is clear there are true dragons without them.

Name one true dragon that doesn't have 12 age categories (remember that Lung Dragons have their age categories split between two types, as their youngest forms are all the same before they diverge).

JaronK

Greenish

2013-02-16, 04:27 AM

Being a list of the All Half-Dragons does not prevent it from also being a list of All True Dragons. Races of the Dragon, in fact, specifies that it is so. The two lists are the same.The other half, also orc dragon. :smallcool:

I noticed Dragons of Eberron also refers to True dragons, in the section about Sovereign archetypes as it happens:
All true dragons have the potential to use arcane magic. Most have the ability to select spells from the cleric spell list and certain domains. This variant rule instead provides a dragon with a special ability based on the Sovereign archetype it chooses to follow.Make of that what you wish.

JaronK

2013-02-16, 04:52 AM

Greenish

2013-02-16, 05:06 AM

Ah, so it does, which does at least strongly imply that only True Dragons can use Sovereign Archetypes (but note that it's wrong, because many True Dragons, such as all Gem Dragons, do not have arcane casting).

JaronKWell, having "potential to use arcane magic" is pretty meaningless, since most anyone can take levels in sorcerer or the like. :smallamused:

JaronK

2013-02-16, 05:18 AM

Then again, all True Dragons can chose to take class levels if they want. Lesser Dragons can't always do that... Spelleaters, for example, probably can't take class levels.

JaronK

Gwendol

2013-02-16, 05:42 AM

Name one true dragon that doesn't have 12 age categories (remember that Lung Dragons have their age categories split between two types, as their youngest forms are all the same before they diverge).

JaronK

I don't think I have to since 1) the lung dragon clearly has a different way of growing/maturing 2) the feat still doesn't state the true dragonness of DWK, and 3) the list doesn't include DWK.

DWK is just a way to make a kobold more dragonlike, and to qualify for dragon-only feats and other things.

danzibr

2013-02-16, 09:15 AM

Is there anywhere in all the books that, say, Silver Dragon is used as an adjective? Saying Silver Dragons are true dragons and so "Silver Dragon Dragonwrought Kobolds" are true dragons seems... well.

Answerer

2013-02-16, 09:39 AM

Devil's Advocate: This can be equally possible for DwK. The only way for the DwK to not be a True Dragon is for everything else not listed on that list to not be a True Dragon unless it specifically states it is.

You cannot apply a double standard here. It's either that list is absolute or it's faulty.
What? I don't follow you. What exactly do you think I'm saying? Because I don't think you're responding to what I intended to say.

All I said was that the failure of the Incarnum Dragons to appear on the list does not prove that "to date" was "time of writing" rather than "time of publication."

Anyway, speaking of double standards...
"Kobold" is not an age catagory of the True Dragon. To be more correct: It would be "Silver Dragon Dragonwrought Kobold Wyrmling", but this is honestly just splitting hairs at this point, you can write it anyway you want and still be right.
Yes and Half Dragons, and every creature with the Draconic Heritage feat are also on that list.
The only way the Half-dragon list can prove anything about True Dragons is if they are, themselves, True Dragons and examples of their type of dragon. In other words, that list is only meaningful in this debate if you understand a "Silver Half-dragon" to be a "version" (Races of the Dragon's term) of a Silver Dragon.

So you cannot deny that Half-dragons are not only True Dragons but also qualify as the same type of dragon as their draconic parent, because if you do, that list of Half-dragons is meaningless to this argument.

See the original thread where Hecuba and I hashed out the grammar of this.

Anyway, JaronK is arguing that a "Silver Dragonwrought Kobold" is yet another "version" based on the text in Races of the Dragon describing them as being metallic or chromatic, and then the definitions in Draconomicon and Dragon Magic. This argument has merit; it's not as explicit as the list in Races of the Dragon, but it does justify why a Dragonwrought Kobold could be a True Dragon without being on the list, and once that is established we can fall back to the definitions, which the Dragonwrought Kobold clearly meets (because Advancement: By age category" is not a thing so that clearly cannot be what the Draconomicon definition refers to).

That is an argument from ignorance.
You're misapplying that term. It would be an argument from ignorance for JaronK to say "the list does not prove that Dragonwrought Kobolds are not True Dragons, therefore they are." But that's not what he's saying, he's saying "the list does not prove that Dragonwrought Kobolds are not True Dragons, and this other stuff over here proves that they are." YMMV on his "other stuff," but it is not logically fallacious.

Is there anywhere in all the books that, say, Silver Dragon is used as an adjective? Saying Silver Dragons are true dragons and so "Silver Dragon Dragonwrought Kobolds" are true dragons seems... well.
See what I wrote to Arcanist about the Races of the Dragon list.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-16, 09:49 AM

If you're going to insist on rehashing this "discussion" again, can you at least stop referencing dragons of krynn. I like the DL setting as much as anyone (grew up on the novels) but dragons of krynn is -not- a WotC product and, consequently, has no bearing on what is or is not a true dragon.

JaronK

2013-02-16, 12:33 PM

Eh, the truth is there's very few textual references (as opposed to tables) stating what a True Dragon is, so it's hard not to at least mention that one, at the very least for completeness sake. It also happens to coincide with the others.

What I don't understand is why all the people who think they aren't True Dragons are only using a table to try and shoot it down (a table that every DWK fits onto, no less!), while the people who think they are are using text, and yet we all know "text trumps table."

The text says all dragons with 12 age categories are True Dragons. That's it. There's other text in Draconomicon that's confusing, in a book that says it's mainly just dealing with the Monster Manual dragons anyway, but that can fit with that definition if you don't torture the line "advance through age categories" into meaning something very specific about the advancement line of the dragons. And yet we keep hearing about these tables. Weird.

Except for one person who's not using table, and instead going for this tactic:

The list of all true dragons re-inforces that, and the 12-age category argument doesn't hold water since it is clear there are true dragons without them.

And then when challenged to name a True Dragon without them:

I don't think I have to

Yeah, so... retract it then.

JaronK

Gwendol

2013-02-16, 01:40 PM

I did specify my reason why, as well as two other arguments that you choose not to comment on.

Ravenica

2013-02-16, 01:51 PM

Disclaimer: As always I've switched to pathfinder and my 3.5 is very rusty, however I took the old books out of storage just for luls since this conversation seemed interesting.

There's nothing in the dragonwrought feat that grant's you additional age categories as a dragon, it merely changes your creature type and grants you some base abilities of that type... (Source for my understanding of the feat, since I don't have this book) Is it missing information? (http://dndtools.eu/feats/races-of-the-dragon--83/dragonwrought--748/)

I'm not seeing any effect that removes the age penalties from aging either, and just having the creature type dragon doesn't apply that effect.
http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/SRD:Dragon_Type

So it doesn't make any kobold into a true dragon via that line of logic

edit: oops I do have the book, dammit too many books lol
ok so kobolds have 12 age categories by default, dragonwrought gives them the dragon subtype so that is in their favour and I found the caveat in the kobold aging section about not getting aging penalties

The telling line I'm finding is this though
All true dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age. (Other creatures that have the dragon type do not.) They range in length from several feet upon hatching to more than 100 feet after attaining the status of great wyrm. The size of a particular dragon varies according to age and variety. source: Could use a more reliable source (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:True_Dragon) I can't see anything that changes a dragonwrought kobolds size based on age category (lets face it RAW even humans are born medium size, it takes a template to change it normally) or more abilities based on it's age category.

They aren't called out on the list of True Dragon's in the same book as they are defined, which would seem to infer that they are not true dragons.

RAW there is just no support for it. Specific Trumps general so the general qualifications for true dragon would be trumped by a specific list of true dragons. Their qualification for true dragon is iffy at best. YMMV of course and DM can fiat it either way anyway but at my table you wouldn't get anywhere arguing it.

Edit2: Ouch real teller in Races of the dragons Page 64/65 calls out kobolds as seprate from True Dragons explicitly in how they regard other dragon descendants

Answerer

2013-02-16, 02:03 PM

Is it missing information?
Yes, it is. That's the entire text of the feat, but Races of the Dragon has a whole subsection devoted to Dragonwrought kobolds, which specifies exactly what Dragonwrought means, which goes quite a bit beyond what the actual feat text says. It includes the age categories.

Ravenica

2013-02-16, 02:05 PM

Yes, it is. That's the entire text of the feat, but Races of the Dragon has a whole subsection devoted to Dragonwrought kobolds, which specifies exactly what Dragonwrought means, which goes quite a bit beyond what the actual feat text says. It includes the age categories.

yeah found it, rest of the post including that info :smalltongue: the first edit existed before I had even posted I kept the original ignorance in for honesty's sake XD

Gwendol

2013-02-16, 02:17 PM

Answerer

2013-02-16, 02:24 PM

Lack of evidence to the contrary does not prove your point.

Ravenica

2013-02-16, 02:28 PM

Lack of evidence to the contrary does not prove your point.

It does specifically call them out as descended from true dragon's which equates them with being a lesser dragon rather than a true dragon

JaronK

2013-02-16, 02:29 PM

I did specify my reason why, as well as two other arguments that you choose not to comment on.

Your reasoning was not realizing that Lung dragons do in fact have 12 age categories, it's just that they share a common young stage. In other words... you're just wrong.

@Ravenica: The section you're referring to that's talking about what all true dragons are is actually based on the Monster Manual section, which specifically is only talking about "known true dragons" and is in fact only referring to the Metallic and Chromatic dragons found in that very book. It's actually wrong on many points. White Dragons never grow to 100 feet, for example. Brown Dragons don't have wings. And it says that all True Dragons are metallic or chromatic, when in fact the majority aren't (Planar, Gem and Epic Dragons).

Also, you seem to not have read the book that actually clearly defines, in rules terms, what a True Dragon is. That would be Dragon Magic, page 87. Check there before deciding.

It does specifically call them out as descended from true dragon's which equates them with being a lesser dragon rather than a true dragon

Silver dragons are also decended from True Dragons (namely, other Silver Dragons). Luckily, the definition of lesser dragon is not "descended from true dragons."

JaronK

Gwendol

2013-02-16, 02:30 PM

How so? Why would one infer the DWK belonging to a class of creature they are quite evidently not being called out as?

Gwendol

2013-02-16, 02:32 PM

Bah! Silverbrow humans are also decendent from silver dragons. That's neither here nor there.

JaronK

2013-02-16, 02:33 PM

How so? Why would one infer the DWK belonging to a class of creature they are quite evidently not being called out as?

How do you know Humans are Humanoid? They're not called out as humanoid anywhere in the books. Gnomes are, Elves are, Halflings are, but Humans aren't. That's because Humans don't have a Monster Manual entry, while the others do. By your logic, humans aren't humanoid.

However, Humans fit the definition of humanoid, so I say they're humanoid.

Likewise, Dragonwrought Kobolds fit the definition of True Dragon (a dragon with 12 age categories, as per Dragon Magic page 87). They're not listed as True Dragons anywhere (well, except the part where Races of the Dragon has a list of True Dragon types and says that Dragonwrought Kobolds are one of those), just like Humans aren't listed as Humanoid, but the definition is plenty good enough.

And remember, text trumps table. Your entire argument is that you don't see them on a table, and you're trying to ignore the very clear text.

JaronK

Gwendol

2013-02-16, 02:47 PM

How do you know Humans are Humanoid? They're not called out as humanoid anywhere in the books. Gnomes are, Elves are, Halflings are, but Humans aren't. That's because Humans don't have a Monster Manual entry, while the others do. By your logic, humans aren't humanoid.

However, Humans fit the definition of humanoid, so I say they're humanoid.
JaronK

Is that your argument? You do know what humanoid means right?

Greenish

2013-02-16, 02:51 PM

Is that your argument? You do know what humanoid means right?This. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#humanoidType)

Tanuki Tales

2013-02-16, 03:08 PM

@Tanuki: A bunch of dragons gain psionic powers instead of spellcasting, so no, not so much. If that quote is from Draconomicon, then it's talking about the 10 dragons found in the Monster Manual, not all True Dragons (this is stated on page 4).

It's from Races of the Dragons at the beginning of the Spells/Psionics chapter.

Gwendol

2013-02-16, 03:08 PM

Greenish, Very funny, but the argument called out here is that humans don't have to fit the definition of humanoid since they in fact define what humanoid means. DWK do not exactly do the same for true dragons, or even lesser dragons, for that matter.

JaronK

2013-02-16, 03:15 PM

Is that your argument? You do know what humanoid means right?

Yes, yes I do. And that's my point. If a thing fits the definition (which a human obviously does, for humanoid) then the fact that no table lists them as being a member of the group doesn't matter.

Dragonwrought Kobolds fit the definition of True Dragon. Humans fit the definition of Humanoid. The fact that neither is specifically called out as such in the game is completely irrelevant. It's painfully obvious what they are. In fact, unless you do a specific "except Dragonwrought Kobolds", there's no way to make a definition of True Dragon using actual text rules quotes that doesn't including Dragonwrought Kobolds without also eliminating other known True Dragons.

@Tanuki: Ah, got it. Still, it's pretty weird, as Gem Dragons are never arcane casters, nor are Planar Dragons.

JaronK

Tanuki Tales

2013-02-16, 03:21 PM

@Tanuki: Ah, got it. Still, it's pretty weird, as Gem Dragons are never arcane casters, nor are Planar Dragons.

JaronK

Oh, I agree and I'm on your side of this debate. I was just combing Races of the Dragon for any instance of "Dragonwrought" and of "True Dragon" and found that.

JaronK

2013-02-16, 03:24 PM

Oh, I agree and I'm on your side of this debate. I was just combing Races of the Dragon for any instance of "Dragonwrought" and of "True Dragon" and found that.

It's always important to get all the information out there, and using quotes is good. It's a shame how many descriptions of True Dragons are confusing because they're not actually definitions, just descriptions, and they don't actually cover all of them.

The Monster Manual and most of Draconomicon are both useless for that reason.

JaronK

Answerer

2013-02-16, 03:28 PM

descended from true dragon's which equates them with being a lesser dragon rather than a true dragon
[Citation Needed]

Seriously, the best evidence against Dragonwrought Kobolds being True Dragons comes from a list that is only sensible if you interpret it as saying that Half-dragons are True Dragons.

JaronK

2013-02-16, 03:32 PM

[Citation Needed]

Seriously, the best evidence against Dragonwrought Kobolds being True Dragons comes from a list that is only sensible if you interpret it as saying that Half-dragons are True Dragons.

That's really not true. The list is not the primary source (because text always trumps table). That list just says that Half Dragons have True Dragon types. But having a True Dragon type alone doesn't make you a True Dragon. To be a True Dragon, you must be a Dragon with 12 age categories. The fact that DWKs use the same list simply means they're not eliminated by that table... though they couldn't be anyway because text trumps table.

The list means you can be a Half Dragon Silver Dragon or a Dragonwrought Kobold Silver Dragon. But it doesn't actually make you a True Dragon. Being a Dragon with age categories does that.

JaronK

Tanuki Tales

2013-02-16, 03:34 PM

Dragon Magic is looking to be the better source, since it does call out that not all True Dragons get spellcasting:

Not all draconic secrets are about magic. In addition to the
well-known chromatic and metallic true dragons, there are
the gem dragons. Clinging more closely to neutrality, these
beasts of crystal and thought are masters of the powers of
the mind, rather than of arcane forces. Much as sages believe
the better-known dragons were the fi rst to harness arcane
magic, psionic scholars think the gem dragons were the fi rst
to unlock the vast potential of the mind. The boldest of them
study the link between gem dragons and psionics, learning
to tap into what they refer to as the “draconic psionic collective.”
They see themselves as drawing power from psionic
dragon energy and call themselves diamond dragons, after
the rarest of gemstones.

I found this interesting bit in Dragon Magic as well:

Mostly known as feral beasts that barely retain the presence of
mind necessary to be considered true dragons, white dragons
make their homes in frigid climates around the world.

This insinuates that part of the requirement of being a True Dragon is possessing a sufficient intelligence score.

Ruethgar

2013-02-16, 04:25 PM

One last note and I am leaving this thread the frell alone. Two HS English teachers and one college English professor agreed that the text "The information here expands [the list of true dragons] to include all true dragons published in DUNGEONS & DRAGONS products to date" was poorly written in that did not include any new dragons presented in book itself but rather only previous content.

Scow2

2013-02-16, 07:01 PM

Dragonwrought kobolds may be Dragons and advance through age categories, but they're not True Dragons because despite their overwhelming draconic heritage and nature, they're still just kobolds.

A Gold dragonwrought kobold isn't a Gold Dragon - Just looking at one could tell you that much. The same goes for any other Dragonwrought kobold - They're kobolds, not massive flying century/millenia old flying death machines far older, smarter, stronger, and terrifying than any other species in the world. A Dragonwrought kobold is no more a true dragon than a Dragonborn is.

The biggest argument against Kobolds being true dragons comes from common usage of the word True Dragon - House-sized treasure-hoarding arcanely (Or psionically, in the case of Gem dragons)-powered terrifying monsters.

They walk and quack like ducks, but don't look like them.

jedipilot24

2013-02-16, 07:20 PM

If I was a GM and one of my players tried Dragonwrought Kobold cheese, I would use Rule 0 to declare that Dragonwrought Kobolds =/= True Dragons.
End of story.

Tanuki Tales

2013-02-16, 07:48 PM

-Snip

-Snip-

But you both understand that nothing of what either of you just said is RAW/FAW, right?

Invader

2013-02-16, 08:31 PM

Seer_of_Heart

2013-02-16, 08:51 PM

The entire previous debate can be found in my sig. There were more compelling arguments given there as to why they are and were all soundly proven inaccurate. The long and short of it is, DWK's are not true dragons. I don't have the energy to argue the point again though so you'll have to read it there.

I've begun reading it, however the arguments against it that I have seen so far do not seem to be very good. Of course I'm not very far yet :\

123456789blaaa

2013-02-16, 09:00 PM

The poster linklord231 is trying to make a list of all of the stated properties of True Dragons here (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=8903.msg142858#msg142858) (He knows that some of the text contradicts other text. Right now he's just compiling a list of everything that True Dragons are supposed to be. In Step Two he'll cross out the things that are contradicted in other texts). So far he has:

True Dragons:
1. Advance through age categories (Drac, pg 4)
2. “Become more powerful as they grow older” (Drac, pg 4)
3. Resembles a reptile at first glance. It has a muscular body, a long, thick neck, a horned or frilled head with a toothy mouth, and a sinuous tail. The creature walks on four powerful legs with clawed feet, and it flies using its vast, batlike wings. Heavy scales cover a dragon from the tip of its tail to end of its snout. (Drac, pg 5)
4. Every true dragon, no matter how large or small, has exactly 13 cervical vertebrae, 12 thoracic vertebrae, 7 lumbar vertebrae, and 36 caudal vertebrae. (Drac, pg 8)
5. All true dragons are endothermic. (Drac, pg 9)
6. All Dragons start out as eggs (Drac, pg 10)
7. The shortest-lived true dragon, the white, can live as long as 2,100 years. The true dragon species that lives the longest is the gold; Guillaume and Cirjon put the gold’s maximum age at 4,400 years. (Drac, pg 15)
8. Can swim (Drac, pg 21)
9. Every true dragon is immune to at least one type of elemental energy (acid, cold, electricity, or fire) (Drac, pg 22)
10. True dragons have superb internal temperature regulation and seldom suffer from the effects of excessive heat or cold. (Drac, pg 22*)
11. True dragons also develop a supernatural resistance to physical blows, which can prevent nonmagical weapons from harming them at all. (Drac, pg 22*)
12. Thanks to their innately magical nature, true dragons also develop the power to shrug off the effects of spells. Older dragons ignore spell assaults from all but the most powerful magical practitioners. (Drac, pg 22*)
13. *Also on pg 22 is a sidebar that clarifies all true dragons do not have to make Fort saves every 10 minutes as long as the temperature is between -40 and 140 Farenheit, develop damage reduction as they age, and develop spell resistance as they age.
14. All true dragons have great patience. (Drac, pg 25)
15. True dragons fall into two broad categories: chromatic and metallic. (Drac, pg 36)
16. As it ages from wyrmling to juvenile, a true dragon’s level adjustment varies between +2 and +6, depending on the age and dragon variety. (Drac, pg 142)
17. All true dragons have the potential to use arcane magic. (DoE, pg 30)
18. True dragons are winged, reptilelike creatures of ancient lineage. They are known and feared for their size, physical prowess, and magical abilities. (MM1, pg 68)
19. The known varieties of true dragons (as opposed to other creatures that have the dragon type) fall into two broad categories: chromatic and metallic. (MM1, pg 68)
20. All true dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age. (Other creatures that have the dragon type do not.) (MM1, pg 68)
21. True dragons gain spellcasting power as they age… (RotD, 111)
22. All True Dragons appear in some form on the lists on pg 103 and 69 of RotD (“The Lists,” RotD 69 and 103).
23. Dragons are winged, reptilelike creatures of ancient lineage. (MonF)
24. The oldest dragons are among the most powerful creatures in the world. (MonF)
25. Though they are fearsome predators, dragons scavenge when necessary and can eat almost anything if hungry enough. (MonF)
26. A dragon's metabolism operates like a highly efficient furnace and can metabolize even inorganic material. (MonF)
27. ...all dragons are covetous. They like to hoard wealth... (MonF)
28. Those with large hoards are loath to leave them for long. (MonF)
29. By the time a dragon matures to the great wyrm stage, hundreds of gems and coins are embedded in its hide. (MonF)
30. All dragons speak Draconic (MonF)

Update 2/16/13: Found another - All dragons [True or otherwise] come from eggs (Drac pg 10), ksbsnowowl's Monsters of Faerun finds

List of Books Searched:
Book of Exalted Deeds
Cityscape
CAdv
CArc
CChamp
CDiv
CMage
CScound
Draconomicon
Monster Manual

Tanuki Tales

2013-02-16, 09:00 PM

Seeing as I'm too sick at the moment to honestly read through 23 pages that you aren't kind enough to summarize, I have one question from skimming the last page of that thread:

Did that thread treat Draconomicon as the only defining source for the definition of a True Dragon?

Invader

2013-02-16, 09:44 PM

Gwendol

2013-02-17, 05:52 AM

It's worth noting that humans do more than just fit the humanoid type; they define it. The same can't be said of DWK. As long as they aren't explicitly described as being true dragons there is no reason to treat them that way.

How, for example is a venerable DWK different from young adult one (of similar type)? How do DWK grow as they age (hint: contrary to true dragons they don't).

If it wasn't for the rampant cheese associated with DWK argued to be true dragons, this discussion would never be.

TuggyNE

2013-02-17, 06:14 AM

If it wasn't for the rampant cheese associated with DWK argued to be true dragons, this discussion would never be.

I'm not quite sure if you're aware of it from your wording, but nearly all the interesting cheese DWK might have access to is not dependent on being a true dragon, and is in no question whatsoever.

Greenish

2013-02-17, 06:27 AM

How, for example is a venerable DWK different from young adult one (of similar type)? How do DWK grow as they age (hint: contrary to true dragons they don't).Well, the higher the age category, the highest the stat bonuses to mental stats. DWK take to growing old much better than most other races.

I'm not quite sure if you're aware of it from your wording, but nearly all the interesting cheese DWK might have access to is not dependent on being a true dragon, and is in no question whatsoever.Well, I wouldn't call Greater Draconic Ritual or the ability bonuses from being a great wyrm cheese.

Answerer

2013-02-17, 11:12 AM

I've begun reading it, however the arguments against it that I have seen so far do not seem to be very good. Of course I'm not very far yet :\
The first ... most of it is just a rehashing of the same tired arguments about how "advances through age categories" somehow refers to "Advancement" even though all known True Dragons have "Advancement: By HD" and no known creature, Dragon or not, has "Advancement: By age category," which is not a thing ever mentioned anywhere in the rules.

It's only when the list of Half-dragons in Races of the Dragon gets brought up that the thread gets interesting.

This thread got interesting much more quickly since JaronK brought up the idea that Dragonwrought Kobolds being "versions" of True Dragons the same way Half-dragons are. Races of the Dragon has some support for that, but it's not as explicit as it is for the Half-dragons (and let's be honest, it's not particularly explicit for the Half-dragons, either).

Phelix-Mu

2013-02-17, 01:07 PM

I am simply amazed at the stamina of the differing sides in this debate.

If we consider that half-dragons and DWK seem to be in the same figurative basket, being True Dragons not based on a racial qualification, but based on an inherited quality (neither DWK or half-dragons are a distinct race, one being a template and the other being a somewhat random anomaly among the general kobold population, in the manner of spellscales...correct me if I'm wrong on this), then I think we can say that it isn't clear cut that either type of creature should gain all of the benefits of being a True Dragon (are there any?) out of hand.

So I am left wondering, what difference does it make? Sometimes it is explicitly said that benefit/option works for all dragons, sometimes only True Dragons (DM's call on how clearly a given benefit can apply to DWK...some of the PrC for dragons in Draconomicon probably shouldn't apply to DWK even if DWK are True Dragons), or True Dragons and explicitly including DWK. While DWK and half-dragons are both dragons and may be considered True Dragons, they lack many of the cultural and racial characteristics that define dragons generally, and thus might sensibly not qualify for certain things.

Part of the problem here, and I can see it a hundred miles off, is that material was created for DMs to trick out dragons so that they are interesting and challenging creatures to use in a campaign. This material was designed to be used on NPCs. In the course of 3e, however, the rules creep made it increasingly impossible to keep any material out of the hands of players, but the writers remained blissfully unaware of this, except during the occasional burst of clarity (which give us the skeleton of well-defined and mass of ill-defined that we now have). Enter, DWK, a dragon by name only, as it has no natural attacks, no breath weapon, no racial hit die, no default d12 hd, and doesn't get stronger as it ages (except in the way that any non-dragon also does). It really is a super nerfed down half-dragon template for kobolds, though again the spellscale racial anomaly caveat that doesn't apply to half-dragons. Lots of stuff that used to only be available to dragons and half-dragons (and half-dragons only playable by DM permission), is now available to a +0 LA race at the cost of a single feat (probably unwise to allow feats that change racial traits/creature type, they already have a mechanic for that...).

Anyway, blathering on here rather longer than intended, but here is a nice gem of non-clarity to add to our growing hoard, from RotD p40:

On rare occasions, a kobold female lays what kobolds call
a dragonwrought egg (see the Dragonwrought feat, page
100). These eggs are spotted with the color of whichever
true dragon influences the dragonwrought kobold within,
with such mottles increasing in number and size as the
wyrmling inside grows.

Both emphasis mine. So here we have further indication that DWK might be considered True Dragons, but "influences" is far from a robust racial inheritance, or a clear term to use if what was meant was "IT'S A TRUE DRAGON."

I am inclined to rule, as DM, that DW kobolds, while bearing a powerful heritage, have inherited only the most modest sliver of this heritage, getting ever so much less than half-dragons, though at an arguably much cheaper price. While clearly dragons, the True Dragon qualifier is only clear to me on a case by case basis (on the few cases where DWK is explicitly called out, or in instances where it makes sense, unlike certain PrC and game options available to dragons...lair wards come to mind, don't want the DWK sorcerer granting the pacts detailed in Dragon Magic, etc.).

Please explain to me how a case by case assessment is cheating players out of options to which they should have access.

Answerer

2013-02-17, 04:08 PM

I think we can say that it isn't clear cut that either type of creature should gain all of the benefits of being a True Dragon (are there any?) out of hand.
If we could say that definitively, this argument wouldn't be happening.

You are arguing about logic or verisimilitude or what have you, based on your own notions of what is and is not inherited, particularly in those of mixed inheritance. The rules care nothing for any of that, they care only for what is written, and none of what you've written is in any published book.

The only benefit, by the way, is qualification for the Sovereign Archetypes. There's nothing automatic at all, and nothing else that requires it.

Tanuki Tales

2013-02-17, 04:16 PM

The only benefit

The other benefit is access to the Dragon Ascendant PrC for Epic play. And any of the other "True Dragon" only bells and whistles. But yeah, Sovereign Archetypes are the big, cheesy benefit.

Phelix-Mu

2013-02-17, 04:42 PM

If we could say that definitively, this argument wouldn't be happening.

You are arguing about logic or verisimilitude or what have you, based on your own notions of what is and is not inherited, particularly in those of mixed inheritance. The rules care nothing for any of that, they care only for what is written, and none of what you've written is in any published book.

The only benefit, by the way, is qualification for the Sovereign Archetypes. There's nothing automatic at all, and nothing else that requires it.

What does RAW say? I'll check back in a couple pages and refer to you all, clearly much more versed than I. I appreciate the effort you all have put into hashing this out, so my apologies if it seemed like I was trying to put my previous comments on par with your astute RAW dissection.

Right, my position is not based in RAW, but I wasn't clear that having an opinion that is not based in RAW excludes me from commenting on the apparent gravitas of the discussion. Forgive me if I am wrong, and ignore my comments if you don't care for them. My sentiments are only a tiny drop in the vast ocean that is the DWK issue.

I'm not familiar with the Sovereign Archetypes, but if they are desirable, as the magnitude of the discussion suggests, then any DM should be careful about opening the gate here. There are already "shades" of True Dragon, as it apparently encompasses half-dragons, which aren't a distinct type of dragon at all, nor even an actual creature, but a template. DWK is a feat. Feat entry into a category of creatures that gain lots of coolness has to be looked at critically to assess if the op-level of a campaign can handle it. DWK has plenty of cool even without True Dragon status.