True Dragons and Dragonwrought Kobolds: A Guide to Interpretation

[tcjantzen]

As D&D is a roleplaying game and all rules are subject to personal interpretation by the players and dungeon master, this may or may not be true due to personal interpretation and/or preference. Rules as written and rules as intended should matter, but ultimately it is up to player and dungeon master preference.

What is a Kobold?

A Kobold is a monster detailed in the d20 SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/kobold.htm) and can also be adapted to fit a player character. In addition to that according to Races of the Dragon, Kobolds are Humanoid (Dragonblood, Reptilian) instead of just Humanoid (Reptilian) as they are in the core rules.

There are several different races of Kobold all of which are irrelevant to the discussion of Dragonwrought, because Dragonwrought is not a race classification; Dragonwrought is a feat that changes the types of a Kobold from Humanoid (Dragonblood, Reptilian) to Dragon (Reptilian)RotD;p100 with the draconic heritage of your choice (detailed in the Races of the Dragon in both Table RotD;p103 and ListRotD;p69-72 form which specificly mention Dragonwrought, Draconic Heritage and Draconic Legacy).

What is a True Dragon?

A True Dragon is a monster detailed in the d20 SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm). Any features of True Dragons are only features, and not requirements. Other monsters or characters that share similar or identical features do not qualify as True Dragons. Just like how Lizardfolk and Troglodytes are not the same monster simply because they share the same type.

True Dragons are of the creature type Dragon. True Dragons themselves come in ten different varieties. Notably they have twelve specially named age categories, which in Races of the Dragon, Kobolds are said to share the same categories RotD;p39 (it is not detailed in the core rules).

An update to this is what is detailed in the Draconomicon as it comes next in the books detailing what are Dragons and True Dragons. In the Draconomicon it begins to state that the only types of dragons are those so far mentioned in the Monster Manual and d20 SRDDrac;4,p31. Shortly after that the Draconomicon does in fact address new types of True Dragons not specified in the Monster Manual or d20 SRD. It goes on to include that of Gem, Faerûnian, Lung, Fiendish, Planar, and the subtypes of eachDrac;p144.

Additionally the Draconomicon does address how dragons advance as player characters: the very title of the section is Advancement and AgingDrac;p142. It details that as a player character they advance based on their age (and at the whim of the player—and by proxy dungeon master), and that they can have character levels which advance like normal player charactersDrac;p143. It also has a list detailing the difference in age advancements between the types of dragonsDrac;p143. This has always been true of the core rules (you can adapt any monster race to a player character), but it details specifically for dragons and gives examples.

Races of the Dragon has a listRotD;p70-72 of all True Dragon types available to be used with the Half-Dragon template detailed in the book, and a tableRotD;p103 of all True Dragon types available as choices for draconic heritage under the feats Dragonwrought, Draconic Heritage, and Draconic LegacyRotD;p100.

So far the only thing that can be a True Dragon in the core rules alone is that of a monster or player with the race of True Dragon, variety withstanding. However, in the book Dragon Magic it actually goes as far to specific that a True Dragon is any dragon (player or monster) with the type Dragon that has twelve age categoriesDM;p87. Assuming that this distinction is not made within the core rules, it does not apply unless Dragon Magic is considered.

What are Dragon Sovereign Archetypes?

Despite what you may think, Sovereign Archetypes for dragons are not standalone. They are modifiers which can be applied to dragon types; Sovereign Archetypes do not have Racial Class packages. According to their introduction in Dragons of Eberron they are introduced in unison with another dragon type: "This special ability replaces the optional spell selection abilities a dragon normally possesses; as such, a silver dragon that adopts the child of Eberron archetype can no longer cast cleric spells or those from the Air, Good, Law, and Sun domains. Those wholly unable to cast cleric spells (black, green, and white) lose nothing when they adopt a Sovereign archetype."DoE;p30

It is not necessary that you are a True Dragon to apply this to the type of dragon picked as your draconic heritage for any of the mentioned feats.

What is Dragonwrought?

Despite how most people seem to be using it: Dragonwrought is not a racial classification. It does, however, change the size/type of a Kobold of any sub-classification from Humanoid (Dragonblood, Reptilian) to Dragon (Repitilian), but Dragonwrought itself is not a classification. It is a feat. This is why you can have a Desert Kobold with the Dragonwrought feat at all, rather than it being only limited to the standard Kobold template as though it was another variation.

Regardless of whether or not Kobolds are indeed True Dragons (even though the above arguments would claim that they are not), by taking the Dragonwrought feat they qualify for any dragon type listed in Races of the DragonRotD;p103 (or that of dragon types not listed in Races of the Dragon with your dungeon master's permissionRotD;p103), qualify for any feats that require the dragon type (but not true dragon), suffer no adverse effects from agingRotD;p39, are given a special aging table like a dragon for fluffRotD;p39 (only because they advance by level and not age), and gain special abilities as if they are a dragonRotD;p100,103 (including darkvision, low-light vision, immunity to paralysis and sleep, a racial bonus to a skill based on your dragon type, and spells added to any arcane casting classes that character has).

Can Kobolds become True Dragons?

In the core rules alone, when given the Dragon type, no. Kobolds cannot become True Dragons. They are of a different race and only would then share the Dragon type (similar to that of Wyverns which are also not True Dragons).

Considering Races of the Dragon, and Dragon Magic: If you create a Kobold character, who takes the feat Dragonwrought (or through the events of your game somehow changes to the Dragon type) regardless of draconic heritage choice, you become a Dragon with twelve age categories (those similar to True Dragons). Then yes, you can become a True Dragon.

In either case it requires that the dungeon master qualify Races of the Dragon and most importantly Dragon Magic as deciding the rules regarding your character (given that without it there is no exception for Dragon type monsters or players with twelve age categories qualifying as True Dragons).

Being a True Dragon is no deciding factor on whether or not Sovereign Archetypes can be applied to your draconic heritage choice; any True Dragon type can be chosen, and Sovereign Archetypes are variants of True Dragon types (to be allowed at dungeon master discretion as Dragonwrought instructs). As a True Dragon you may be able to take Epic Dragon Feats at level 1, but this is RAW not RAI (most likely) and your dungeon master will most likely disapprove.

Posts by others

Waker; Post #7 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16006238&postcount=7) Thank you for addressing advancement fields for both Dragon and Kobold.

Malimar; Post #13 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16006649&postcount=13) Thank you for correcting my error on race classification.

JaronK, Karnith; Post #50 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16012750&postcount=50) Thank you Karnith for links regarded rules about creatures and thank both of you for actually citing the rule regarding True Dragons in Dragon Magic that everyone seems to think is in the Draconomicon.

[tcjantzen]

I will agree that I have missed the section in the Draconomicon on page 4 and it is very well possible that I misinterpret the ruling regarding race (I will study further and submit changes). However, Kobolds with the dragon type still do not advance through age and advance by level.

In addition to this, whether or not a Kobold can be a True Dragon or not (and is not a bias I adhere to) is no limiting factor on whether or not a Kobold with Dragonwrought can have sovereign archetypes which is the supposed go-to argument for deterring the cheese, as that is 100% up to the dungeon master.

[IronFist]

There was a thread in these forums that proved DW kobolds are not true dragons. There is a list of all true dragons in Races of the Dragon and it does not include them. Someone even asked miss Kestrel, who worked in the book, and her answer was "no, unless your DM really wants it to".

[Chronos]

By this argument, would wyverns and dragon turtles be true dragons? Neither of them has any "race" whatsoever other than "dragon".

[tcjantzen]

They do not follow the racial class templates of True Dragons, they follow that of their own, with the addition of the type dragon. They are considered "lesser dragons" for this purpose. As would Kobolds with the dragon type (that or half-dragon).

[olentu]

I will agree that I have missed the section in the Draconomicon on page 4 and it is very well possible that I misinterpret the ruling regarding race (I will study further and submit changes). However, Kobolds with the dragon type still do not advance through age and advance by level.

In addition to this, whether or not a Kobold can be a True Dragon or not (and is not a bias I adhere to) is no limiting factor on whether or not a Kobold with Dragonwrought can have sovereign archetypes which is the supposed go-to argument for deterring the cheese, as that is 100% up to the dungeon master.

Advance through age categories can just as easily mean progress forward through age categories as it can mean have a monster manual entry with a particular turn of phrase.


There was a thread in these forums that proved DW kobolds are not true dragons. There is a list of all true dragons in Races of the Dragon and it does not include them. Someone even asked miss Kestrel, who worked in the book, and her answer was "no, unless your DM really wants it to".

Hmm, leaving aside the fact that that may not be technically true unless races of the dragon was published in several different parts, didn't all this get overridden when dragon magic redefined true dragons necessitating something published in or after september 2006 to block dragonwrought kobolds from being true dragons.

Not that I am saying they are or aren't true dragons mind you, just that whatever the answer the reason you gave seems to be out dated.

[Waker]

Why? Why would you start this topic? Don't you know it will devolve into pages and pages of people bickering back and forth over the nuances of what "advancing" or "becoming more powerful" really means? Regardless I'll add to the topic rather than just say that the feat Dragonwrought Kobold should be erased from existence and never spoken of again.
Pgs 69-72 of Races of the Dragon lists all True Dragons to that point.

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). This is the same book that introduces the Dragonwrought Kobold, yet doesn't put it in the list for Half-Dragons.
Again on pg 103, it has a table containing all True Dragons concerning Draconic Heritage. The header of the table even includes Dragonwrought Kobold to demonstrate that they are influenced by True Dragons.

Draconic Heritage, Dragonwrought, and Draconic Legacy Options
The book that introduces the Dragonwrought Kobolds has not one, but two tables containing all True Dragons and even mentions the Kobolds by name. It wasn't simply an oversight that they weren't included. They are Lesser Dragons, full stop.


Advance through age categories can just as easily mean progress forward through age categories as it can mean have a monster manual entry with a particular turn of phrase.

It can just as easily mean that. Unfortunately it doesn't.
Entry concerning Kobold advancement.

Advancement: By character class
Entry concerning Black Dragon advancement.

Advancement: Wyrmling 5-6 HD; very young 8-9 HD; young 11-12 HD; juvenile 14-15 HD; young adult 17-18 HD; adult 20-21 HD; mature adult 23-24 HD; old 26-27 HD; very old 29-30 HD; ancient 32-33 HD; wyrm 35-36 HD; great wyrm 38+ HD
The Dragonwrought feat doesn't include any information about changing the Kobolds advancement. So it doesn't advance by age categories, it advances by class. It ages and has "draconic" age categories.

[olentu]

It can just as easily mean that. Unfortunately it doesn't.
Entry concerning Kobold advancement.

Entry concerning Black Dragon advancement.

The Dragonwrought feat doesn't include any information about changing the Kobolds advancement. So it doesn't advance by age categories, it advances by class. It ages and has "draconic" age categories.

Yeah, I am pretty sure I say this every time the thread comes up and will probably say it again but whatever it is not like I expect it to change.

It does not say advance by age categories. What the section from the dracomicon says is "advance through age categories," not advance by age categories.

[Arcanist]

I haven't seen a Dragonwrought Kobold thread in what feels like years. The question has been asked time and time again and each time the answer remains the same: No, they are not.

Why these threads keep coming up, I'll never understand but the debate that got the most attention and spread across the boards (even getting duplicated on Min/Max board) like wildfire is in my signature for the interested. Pretty interesting read if I say so myself.

[olentu]

I haven't seen a Dragonwrought Kobold thread in what feels like years. The question has been asked time and time again and each time the answer remains the same: No, they are not.

Why these threads keep coming up, I'll never understand but the debate that got the most attention and spread across the boards (even getting duplicated on Min/Max board) like wildfire is in my signature for the interested. Pretty interesting read if I say so myself.

Yeah it is probably because, so far as i can tell, people are unclear as to why said kobolds are the way they are. I mean, things are already pretty bogged down and dragon magic has not even really been addressed yet yet.

[Erik Vale]

Whilst interesting to skim and all, this doesn't stop the most common abuse of using it to gain early access to epic feats.

Also, these arguments have been made many, many, many times before...

I think that we need a stickied thread linking common arguments/essays/other, that way we pre-prevent flame wars by saying 'We've seen it all before, he'res some links, mod please lock this'.

Anyhow, I might as well grab my popcorn.

[Arcanist]

Yeah it is probably because, so far as i can tell, people are unclear as to why said kobolds are the way they are. I mean, things are already pretty bogged down and dragon magic has not even really been addressed yet yet.

That is because Dragon Magic doesn't really have much to say on it. Now, I might be wrong on that so please feel free to curbstomp me with a correction.

[Malimar]

Despite how most people seem to be using it: Dragonwrought is not a racial classification. It does, however, change the size/type of a Kobold of any sub-classification from Humanoid (Dragonblood, Reptilian) to Humanoid (Dragon, Repitilian), but Dragonwrought itself is not a classification.

There is no Dragon subtype. A dragonwrought kobold is not any sort of Humanoid, it is Dragon (Reptilian).



Benefit: You are a dragonwrought kobold. Your type is dragon rather than humanoid, and you lose the dragonblood subtype. You retain all your other subtypes and your kobold racial traits.

[olentu]

That is because Dragon Magic doesn't really have much to say on it. Now, I might be wrong on that so please feel free to curbstomp me with a correction.

As I recall there is a bit in the book which talks about a mystical ceremony in which the character establishes mental contact with a true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon). And of course kobolds have twelve age categories.

However if I recall past discussion correctly this does not really matter since the magic item compendium limits the maximum types of true dragons to ten different varieties.

Or it might have been that part in the MMV where it says that true dragons have their class skills explicitly defined as opposed to having to derive them from their statistics blocks. But I recall some problem with this reason, presumably the same problem keeping the MM 1 entry from dismissing kobolds as true dragons. Maybe they got explicit class skills in races of the dragon or something.

Edit: Yeah It might be good to be specific so page 87 of dragon magic, 157 of the MIC, and 208 of MMV should be the ones if I recall correctly.

[tcjantzen]

Updated my post based on that of others with hope that it might remain unbiased and to the point. If necessary I will make more adjustments.

[Mithril Leaf]

The way it usually ends up, there are two main sticking points that each side can't really agree upon.

The First is that True Dragons advance through age categories.
One side believes that this refers to the (often) WotC definition of Advancement as the increase in HD as a (typical, such as chromatic) dragon progresses in age. The other side believes that it refers to the plain english (and sometimes WotC) definition of advance meaning to simply pass through in order.

The Second is the (allegedly) all inclusive list of True Dragons to date published in Races of the Dragon.
One side says that since Dragonwrought Kobolds are explicitly not on this list, and the list is published in the same book as the dragonwrought feat, then it means that the Dragonwrought Kobold is not a true dragon. The other side argues that since the list itself is actual not all inclusive (it is missing several true dragons defined previously in other books, such as the Mist and Rattelyr) and may bring up the fact that there was never a Dragonwrought Kobold actually published, merely the feat and race individually.

Beyond these two points, there is generally an agreement that the Dragonwrought Kobold fills the other requirements that are true of all true dragons.

[IronFist]

Hmm, leaving aside the fact that that may not be technically true unless races of the dragon was published in several different parts, didn't all this get overridden when dragon magic redefined true dragons necessitating something published in or after september 2006 to block dragonwrought kobolds from being true dragons.
The author herself has said they were never supposed to be true dragons and no line of text in any official sourcebook ever states that they are true dragons. You can only read it that way if you try to be very specific about something very loose (the definition of true dragon). "advance through" was clearly referencing the Advancement entry and it fits the list. It's very obvious what that means! They couldn't have forgotten about dragonwrought when they wrote the list, since the list mentions them in the header.

Also, if you want to get technical and bring up Dragon Magic, you have to bring up MIC as well - and MIC states quite clearly that there are only 10 kinds of true dragon. MIC is from 2007, Dragon Magic is from 2006 (but see below).


Not that I am saying they are or aren't true dragons mind you, just that whatever the answer the reason you gave seems to be out dated.
Don't think so. Races of the Dragon is the primary source when it comes to dragonwrought kobolds and it is quite clear from it that they are not true dragons. Anything else is irrelevant unless it specifically mentions overriding Races of the Dragon.

[Mithril Leaf]

The author herself has said they were never supposed to be true dragons and no line of text in any official sourcebook ever states that they are true dragons. You can only read it that way if you try to be very specific about something very loose (the definition of true dragon). "advance through" was clearly referencing the Advancement entry and it fits the list. It's very obvious what that means! They couldn't have forgotten about dragonwrought when they wrote the list, since the list mentions them in the header.

That's a rather condescending attitude, considering in various places advance through means to move forwards through something within D&D and a number of very intelligent people parse the statement that way. If it weren't ambiguous, there wouldn't be any discussion to be had.

[IronFist]

That's a rather condescending attitude, considering in various places advance through means to move forwards through something within D&D and a number of very intelligent people parse the statement that way. If it weren't ambiguous, there wouldn't be any discussion to be had.

I apologize if I sounded condescendent, but while the wording itself might be confusing, all the other evidence makes it rather obvious. The arguments usually go like this:
"True dragons advance by age categories while true dragons advance by class levels. Therefore, they are not true dragons."
"The wording is ambiguous. It says advance through age categories, so they qualify."
"But that wording is not used anywhere else in D&D. Can't it be an editing mistake? Look, there is this table in the same book they were published. It even mentions dragonwrought in the header, but does not list them as true dragons. Look, all of the dragons in the list have an Advancement: by age category entry. It really looks like 'advance through' was used as 'advance by' here..."
"That list missed two dragons from books written at the same time as Races of the Dragon and one dragon from an obscure setting-specific supplement, so the list can't be trusted. Also, dragonwrought kobold was never published, so it doesn't count."
"What about the author saying they are not true dragons?"
"That's her opinion, but it's not RAW"
"Of course, but at this point we have piles of evidence (several lists, author's words, statblocks for all true dragons matching) against them being true dragons and only an ambiguous word towards them being true dragons. Occam's Razor should apply here, shouldn't it?"

[olentu]

The author herself has said they were never supposed to be true dragons and no line of text in any official sourcebook ever states that they are true dragons. You can only read it that way if you try to be very specific about something very loose (the definition of true dragon). "advance through" was clearly referencing the Advancement entry and it fits the list. It's very obvious what that means! They couldn't have forgotten about dragonwrought when they wrote the list, since the list mentions them in the header.

Also, if you want to get technical and bring up Dragon Magic, you have to bring up MIC as well - and MIC states quite clearly that there are only 10 kinds of true dragon. MIC is from 2007, Dragon Magic is from 2006 (but see below).


Don't think so. Races of the Dragon is the primary source when it comes to dragonwrought kobolds and it is quite clear from it that they are not true dragons. Anything else is irrelevant unless it specifically mentions overriding Races of the Dragon.

Eh, I would say that you are being just as "very specific about something very loose" when you claim that advance through age categories can be read one and only one way. Really, it seems rather bad form to do the exact thing you just accused me of doing. But anyway, at best you can make the point that the text is ambiguous, as evidenced by our earnest disagreement, in which case the only right answer is "DM fiat required" and that just means neither of us are right, overriding material notwithstanding.

Yeah, the thing is the WotC developers aren't really good at noticing combos so I see no reason why they could not have missed the dragonwrought interaction. But that is all meaningless at the moment what with dragon magic making the to date not matter because of the different dates.

Oh I was waiting to see what your response was about dragon magic before beringing up the MIC. But, as you can see, someone else got interested in the dragon magic scenario and so I brought up the MIC here.
However if I recall past discussion correctly this does not really matter since the magic item compendium limits the maximum types of true dragons to ten different varieties.

Hmm, I do not recall seeing the words "primary source" anywhere in races of the dragon. If you would not mind pointing them out that would be good. If not then the primary source rule does not apply. Well maybe in a text versus table sense but that is probably not what you meant.

[Slide]

The oddest thing about this whole 'advance by age' thing with dragons is that I could *swear* I've seen a few dozen Faerunian dragons that have class levels all over the place, like Malaeragoth (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/wn/20030423a)

How the heck did he pick up 5 levels of Wizard without advancing in the class?

[Gwendol]

Can't dragons also pick up classes? I suggest looking at Draconomicon p. 141 for how.

[IronFist]

Eh, I would say that you are being just as "very specific about something very loose" when you claim that advance through age categories can be read one and only one way. Really, it seems rather bad form to do the exact thing you just accused me of doing. But anyway, at best you can make the point that the text is ambiguous, as evidenced by our earnest disagreement, in which case the only right answer is "DM fiat required" and that just means neither of us are right, overriding material notwithstanding.
You misunderstand. It seems like I have not made my point clear. For that, I apologize.
I'm not saying there is only one reading - I'm saying there are two readings and it is quite obvious which reading is the correct one, because one reading has piles of evidence going for it and the other has "I don't trust the designers" going for it.


Yeah, the thing is the WotC developers aren't really good at noticing combos so I see no reason why they could not have missed the dragonwrought interaction. But that is all meaningless at the moment what with dragon magic making the to date not matter because of the different dates.
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to say.


Hmm, I do not recall seeing the words "primary source" anywhere in races of the dragon. If you would not mind pointing them out that would be good. If not then the primary source rule does not apply. Well maybe in a text versus table sense but that is probably not what you meant.
Primary vs. secondary sources is about book and topic precedence. The only book that even mentions dragonwrought kobolds is Races of the Dragon; therefore, it's the primary source. It's a rule mentioned in every errata file, I believe. It uses the Player's Handbook as an example, IIRC.

[Amphetryon]

It's very obvious what that means! They couldn't have forgotten about dragonwrought when they wrote the list, since the list mentions them in the header.While this is potentially compelling, it may be prudent to recall that we humans have been known to lock our keys in our cars, or forget what it was that we went into another room to get, with surprising regularity. The list of things we humans "couldn't have forgotten" is really shockingly small when it comes right down to it.

[IronFist]

While this is potentially compelling, it may be prudent to recall that we humans have been known to lock our keys in our cars, or forget what it was that we went into another room to get, with surprising regularity. The list of things we humans "couldn't have forgotten" is really shockingly small when it comes right down to it.

While your point makes complete sense, remember the designers were directly asked about this and have already stated that DWK were never supposed to be true dragons.

[Gwendol]

It doesn't matter really. DWK are described as having the dragon type, but are never referred to as true dragons. Their advancement is never changed and so remains "by class".

[Tyndmyr]

I will agree that I have missed the section in the Draconomicon on page 4 and it is very well possible that I misinterpret the ruling regarding race (I will study further and submit changes). However, Kobolds with the dragon type still do not advance through age and advance by level.

In addition to this, whether or not a Kobold can be a True Dragon or not (and is not a bias I adhere to) is no limiting factor on whether or not a Kobold with Dragonwrought can have sovereign archetypes which is the supposed go-to argument for deterring the cheese, as that is 100% up to the dungeon master.

Yeah, the True Dragon actually applies to comparatively little. Dragon Type is enough to qualify for most things.

Oh sure, it matters for Epic Feats, but most of them have additional prereqs anyway. It does give you access to Epic Toughness, and +30 hp at level 1 is nice...but kobolds are not especially beefy, and it doesn't scale at all. Not as important in a campaign. This is mostly a TO argument.


By this argument, would wyverns and dragon turtles be true dragons? Neither of them has any "race" whatsoever other than "dragon".

They are dragons, not true dragons. If, for some reason, you were playing one, you could qualify for draconic things. Again, TD applies to very little.

For most stuff, it's pretty simple. Have the Dragon type? You qualify for dragon goodies.



However if I recall past discussion correctly this does not really matter since the magic item compendium limits the maximum types of true dragons to ten different varieties.

This has the problem of wildly contradicting other lists and so on. Lung Dragons, etc are explicitly defined as true dragons elsewhere, there's definitely more than ten types, regardless of how you feel about DW kobolds.

Really, most of this stuff is a result of people gleefully writing stuff without checking on other books first(in fairness, that'd be a big job). I'm sure whoever wrote MiC just wasn't familiar with the volume of dragon stuff that'd already been published.

Advance can be parsed as either moving through or as the Advancement entry. It's use in the definition is in a text block, and does not specifically clarify which is meant. We could probably yell back and forth over this all day, but frankly, that usually goes nowhere.


The oddest thing about this whole 'advance by age' thing with dragons is that I could *swear* I've seen a few dozen Faerunian dragons that have class levels all over the place, like Malaeragoth (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/wn/20030423a)

How the heck did he pick up 5 levels of Wizard without advancing in the class?

Oh, yeah, Dragons can totally pick up class levels as well. The Advancement entry is merely a default. Likewise, you can normally advance monsters by having them acquire templates. It's sort of like alignments. Always Evil doesn't actually mean always evil. There's always room left for exceptions.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Arguments based on an irrational belief of what the rules should say (especially those arguing RAW from RAI) are troll topics and should never even be posted. That said, here is why they are indeed true dragons based on RAW:

1. Dragonwrought Kobolds do not have their own unique dragon variety, they adopt the color of another dragon variety to use as their own. A definitive list of half-dragon varieties will not include DWKs because they do not have their own unique dragon variety. The same goes for a list of Draconic Heritage varieties. This does not automatically mean they are not true dragons, it only means a half-dragon offspring of a DWK will use whatever dragon variety the DWK parent has chosen.

2. The definitive definition of the qualifications to be a true dragon is given in the Draconomicon, the definitive primary source on dragons. It clearly states that any creature of the dragon creature type, regardless of race, is automatically a true dragon unless it does not use the true dragon age categories. Dragonwrought Kobolds definitely do use those age categories (and increase their mental stats as they age and thus advance) so they are definitely not disqualified from being true dragons. The way it is worded is the cause of this, the designers decided to say all dragons are true dragons unless... and DWKs are definitely not disqualified from the true dragon club as they do have the one thing that causes a lesser dragon to be disqualified for lacking.

2a. A definitive definition of the qualifications to be a true dragon has not been reprinted since the Draconomicon, so this portion of the book is not superseded by any other. The definitive list of half-dragon varieties in Races of the Dragon only supersedes the definitive list of half-dragon varieties portion of the Draconomicon, but it does not override anything else from that book.

3. Asking an author of a rulebook for a very complex game whether they believe their poorly written rules should have unintended interactions with other poorly written rules is absolutely irrelevant. If you want the game to coincide with RAI then your gaming group can make a houserule to make it that way. The RAW makes dragonwrought kobolds count as true dragons until there is an official rules errata to change it.

[tcjantzen]

Arguments based on an irrational belief of what the rules should say (especially those arguing RAW from RAI) are troll topics and should never even be posted. That said, here is why they are indeed true dragons based on RAW:

1. Dragonwrought Kobolds do not have their own unique dragon variety, they adopt the color of another dragon variety to use as their own. A definitive list of half-dragon varieties will not include DWKs because they do not have their own unique dragon variety. The same goes for a list of Draconic Heritage varieties. This does not automatically mean they are not true dragons, it only means a half-dragon offspring of a DWK will use whatever dragon variety the DWK parent has chosen.

2. The definitive definition of the qualifications to be a true dragon is given in the Draconomicon, the definitive primary source on dragons. It clearly states that any creature of the dragon creature type, regardless of race, is automatically a true dragon unless it does not use the true dragon age categories. Dragonwrought Kobolds definitely do use those age categories (and increase their mental stats as they age and thus advance) so they are definitely not disqualified from being true dragons. The way it is worded is the cause of this, the designers decided to say all dragons are true dragons unless... and DWKs are definitely not disqualified from the true dragon club as they do have the one thing that causes a lesser dragon to be disqualified for lacking.

2a. A definitive definition of the qualifications to be a true dragon has not been reprinted since the Draconomicon, so this portion of the book is not superseded by any other. The definitive list of half-dragon varieties in Races of the Dragon only supersedes the definitive list of half-dragon varieties portion of the Draconomicon, but it does not override anything else from that book.

3. Asking an author of a rulebook for a very complex game whether they believe their poorly written rules should have unintended interactions with other poorly written rules is absolutely irrelevant. If you want the game to coincide with RAI then your gaming group can make a houserule to make it that way. The RAW makes dragonwrought kobolds count as true dragons until there is an official rules errata to change it.

Again lets ignore Kobolds because they don't matter.

1. In the list of monsters is there a monster called True Dragon? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm) Cool, we know where to start.

See that list of features it has? These are not requirements. They are features.

See the advancement field, and Racial Class templates? I shouldn't even bring it up because they don't actually mean anything. It's just another cool feature of True Dragons. The Racial Class templates by the way are strictly limited to True Dragons.

See the list of dragon types? Again it doesn't even matter, because only True Dragons can have the Racial Class templates that share their name. Giving any other monster or player character the type dragon (with an arbitrary subtype that means nothing without feats or racial class templates) provide completely unrelated features to that monster or creature. Such as the dragon type providing darkvision, low-light vision, immunity to sleep and paralysis. Nothing else is granted because only those features come from the dragon type.

Oh, but there are more True Dragons than defined in the d20 SRD! Yes you are completely right, and any that must be predefined just so happen to be! They exist in the Draconomicon and Races of the Dragon! They are variants of the already existing racial class templates! They're like expansion packs or houserules; they act in addition. Irrelevant to the discussion of base rules definition. That's why all the books preface with saying: "There are only the 10 base types as defined in the Monster Manual. Here are some variants."

However, if you want Lizardfolk (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lizardfolk.htm) and Troglodytes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/troglodyte.htm) to be the same monster (is it Lizardfolk or Troglodyte? I can't tell) because they have the same size/type, advancement, and age categories that's up to you isn't it? It is most certainly not RAW or RAI.

2. Nope, and if you think so please cite where.

3. I would be sarcastic and pedantic here, but I'm not going to say that someone completely uninvolved in the design of D&D knows more than someone involved.

[Chronos]

See the advancement field, and Racial Class templates?
Since this seems to be the core of your argument, no, I don't. I have no idea what a Racial Class Template is, and so I naturally can't find one under True Dragons. Searching the page, I find that the word "template" appears nowhere, and the only place that "class" appears is in lists of class skills.

[tcjantzen]

Since this seems to be the core of your argument, no, I don't. I have no idea what a Racial Class Template is, and so I naturally can't find one under True Dragons. Searching the page, I find that the word "template" appears nowhere, and the only place that "class" appears is in lists of class skills.

There is a section in the d20 SRD that details it. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#readingATemplate)

[Karnith]

There is a section in the d20 SRD that details it. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#readingATemplate)
Those are the rules for applying a template to a creature, yes. Perhaps I am being a bit thick, but I don't understand how they relate to determining True Dragon status, especially as the True Dragons in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm) don't have templates applied to them by default, nor to the best of my knowledge are there special rules regarding True Dragons and templates. I am also not familiar with the term "Racial Class template;" the closest game term that I can think of that might possibly be related is "Racial Hit Dice." Would you mind explaining what you mean?

[tcjantzen]

Those are the rules for applying a template to a creature, yes. Perhaps I am being a bit thick, but I don't understand how that relates to determining True Dragon status. I am also not familiar with the term "Racial Class template." Would you mind explaining what you mean?

I'm not sure where I first read specifically the term "Racial Class Template," but the previously linked rules definition for applying templates does cover what I mean (I am not certain if "Racial Class template" is the most correct term; I have also seen "racial progression.")

Basically there are different kinds of templates some designed specifically with certain monsters. The d20 SRD gives the example of Changes to Statistics by Size (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#tableChangestoStatisticsbySi ze) of which a monster like Wyvern specifically uses (see Advancement).

The difference being that True Dragons have a large list of special kinds of templates designed for their different subtypes. If you check the advancement field for True Dragons (which says by age) and then scroll down to the subtypes it is sorted by age.

Not all templates are that which follow advancement charts; some templates are simple and add basic changes. If you view the page for Troll (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/troll.htm) it has the Scrag and Troll Hunter templates. The Scrag one for example changes its subtype to Aquatic, sets its walk and swim speed, and only allows it to regenerate in water.

There are also a list of templates (http://www.google.com/cse?cx=015155386140379294602%3Ak9hv7ukafn4&cof=FORID%3A1&q=template&sa=GO&siteurl=www.d20srd.org%2Fsrd%2Fmonsters%2Ftroll.ht m&ref=www.google.com%2Fcse%3Fcx%3D015155386140379294 602%253Ak9hv7ukafn4%26cof%3DFORID%253A1%26q%3DTrol l%26sa%3DGO%26siteurl%3Dwww.d20srd.org%252Fsrd%252 FimprovingMonsters.htm%2523readingATemplate%26ref% 3Dwww.d20srd.org%252Findexes%252FimprovingMonsters .htm%26ss%3D694j124362j6&ss=1370j237230j12#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=template&gsc.page=1) that can usually be applied to anything including players (such as the popular Lich template).

[JaronK]

This summary fails to mention the two places in the books where True Dragons are explicitly defined for rules purposes in situations where that rule is necessary (note that Draconomicon explicity states it's focused on the MM1 10, and that the sidebar in that book isn't tied to any rules that apply to True Dragons).

The two places where there are actual hard and fast rules for what counts as a True Dragon are found in Dragon Magic and one of the Kingdoms of Kalamar books. The latter doesn't matter much due to being a rather unused setting, but Dragon Magic has a straight up rule for what counts as a True Dragon (in a section with special rules for True Dragons).

That rule is that a True Dragon is any creature of the Dragon type with 12 age categories. Dragonwrought Kobolds clearly match this definition without trouble. This is an inescapable point that many folks try to ignore... claiming that Draconomicon should trump because it's the primary source ignores the fact that Draconomicon outright says it's not focused on variant dragon types. Besides, it's very easy to interpret all three definitions (Kalamar, Dragon Magic, Draconomicon) in a way that's not contradictory, so why try to create a false conflict?

None of this matters for whether Kobolds SHOULD have access to Sovereign Archetypes or Epic Toughness at level 1. That, like all things, is a DM call. Planar Binding shouldn't let you get access to infinite Efreeti Wishes, but that doesn't change what RAW is... it just affects what house rules a DM will have to make to rebalance the game.

JaronK

[Karnith]

I'm not sure where I first read specifically the term "Racial Class Template," but the previously linked rules definition for applying templates does cover what I mean (I am not certain if "Racial Class template" is the most correct term; I have also seen "racial progression.")Based on your post, you seem to be confusing a number of different concepts and game terms, which I am going to try to help you with. In most cases, you probably just want the term "advancement (www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm#advancement)" rather than "Racial Class template," if I am understanding your use of the latter correctly.

A template in D&D refers to a specific way of advancing a monster (i.e. by applying a template). There are, however, other ways of advancing creatures; by HD (e.g. how a Wyvern (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/wyvern.htm) advances) and by class level (e.g. how a Rakshasa (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/rakshasa.htm) or a PC advances), and, in the case of True Dragons, by age. Referring to templates when discussing these other forms of advancement is simply confusing.

Basically there are different kinds of templates some designed specifically with certain monsters. The d20 SRD gives the example of Changes to Statistics by Size (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#tableChangestoStatisticsbySi ze) of which a monster like Wyvern specifically uses (see Advancement).This is not an example of a template application, but a consequence of advancing a Wyvern by HD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#increasingHitDice), hence why that table is under the "Increasing Hit Dice" section of that page. When some creatures reach a number of HD, as specified by their Advancement entry, they increase in size. This is a modification of the creature's stats, but it is not an application of a template.

The difference being that True Dragons have a large list of special kinds of templates designed for their different subtypes. If you check the advancement field for True Dragons (which says by age) and then scroll down to the subtypes it is sorted by age.Here again you're running into problems with D&D terminology. Subtype (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#subtypes) is a specific game term that describes a creature beyond its type, e.g. fiends such as devils and demons are of the Outsider type and have the Evil subtype. When dealing with the different kinds of True Dragons (e.g. Red, Blue, Green, etc.), you probably want to to use the term "variety" rather than "subtype." And True Dragons of different age categories are not separate "subtypes" of True Dragons, they are simply the same kind of dragon at different points in the dragon's life.

In terms of dragon advancement, True Dragons advance by age categories. Which is to say that as True Dragons age, they gain HD. Your point, then, seems to be the standard "advances through age categories" argument. To wit, if the statement that True Dragons advance through age categories refers to game-term advancement (i.e. by HD, class levels, etc.), then DWK Kobolds are not True Dragons, because that is not how they advance, because they advance by class levels.

Not all templates are that which follow advancement charts; some templates are simple and add basic changes. If you view the page for Troll (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/troll.htm) it has the Scrag and Troll Hunter templates. The Scrag one for example changes its subtype to Aquatic, sets its walk and swim speed, and only allows it to regenerate in water.Again, these are not templates. A Scrag is a different kind of troll; there is no template application, and in fact there is no advancement at all. They are merely similar creatures. A Troll Hunter, on the other hand, is a Troll that has advanced by class levels; again, there is no template application.

There are also a list of templates (http://www.google.com/cse?cx=015155386140379294602%3Ak9hv7ukafn4&cof=FORID%3A1&q=template&sa=GO&siteurl=www.d20srd.org%2Fsrd%2Fmonsters%2Ftroll.ht m&ref=www.google.com%2Fcse%3Fcx%3D015155386140379294 602%253Ak9hv7ukafn4%26cof%3DFORID%253A1%26q%3DTrol l%26sa%3DGO%26siteurl%3Dwww.d20srd.org%252Fsrd%252 FimprovingMonsters.htm%2523readingATemplate%26ref% 3Dwww.d20srd.org%252Findexes%252FimprovingMonsters .htm%26ss%3D694j124362j6&ss=1370j237230j12#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=template&gsc.page=1) that can usually be applied to anything including players (such as the popular Lich template).This, however, is an actual example of a template.

I would highly recommend that you read Urpriest's excellent guide to monsters (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207928) for a more complete explanation of the rules surrounding monsters.

[IronFist]

This summary fails to mention the two places in the books where True Dragons are explicitly defined for rules purposes in situations where that rule is necessary (note that Draconomicon explicity states it's focused on the MM1 10, and that the sidebar in that book isn't tied to any rules that apply to True Dragons).

The two places where there are actual hard and fast rules for what counts as a True Dragon are found in Dragon Magic and one of the Kingdoms of Kalamar books. The latter doesn't matter much due to being a rather unused setting, but Dragon Magic has a straight up rule for what counts as a True Dragon (in a section with special rules for True Dragons).

That rule is that a True Dragon is any creature of the Dragon type with 12 age categories. Dragonwrought Kobolds clearly match this definition without trouble. This is an inescapable point that many folks try to ignore... claiming that Draconomicon should trump because it's the primary source ignores the fact that Draconomicon outright says it's not focused on variant dragon types. Besides, it's very easy to interpret all three definitions (Kalamar, Dragon Magic, Draconomicon) in a way that's not contradictory, so why try to create a false conflict?

There is no false conflict, you just chose to ignore Races if the Dragon. You know, the book that introduced dragonwrought kobolds. The list of true dragons in Races of the Dragon explicitly mentions that it trumps Draconomicon, while nowhere in Dragon Magic is anything similar ever mentioned. Other than that, Draconomicon is primary source for dragons and Races of the Dragons is primary source for dragon descendants. I think the only thing Dragon Magic is a primary source of are dragonpacts.
Considering you have to ignore the very book they are in to even read it as them being true dragons, I'm surprised veterans familiar with the D&D source rules still try to take this side in the debate.

[Chronos]

Quoth JaronK:

...but Dragon Magic has a straight up rule for what counts as a True Dragon (in a section with special rules for True Dragons).
Where in the book is this?

[Karnith]

Where in the book is this?
I don't know if JaronK was referencing it, but there is a passage in the rules for making a dragonpact that references True Dragon traits. It's also the only mention of it in the book that I know of. Per Dragon Magic:
To make a dragonpact, a sorcerer of 4th level or higher (that is, a character with at least four levels of sorcerer) must undertake a mystical ceremony in which he establishes mental contact with a true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon).(Emphasis mine)

[JaronK]

There is no false conflict, you just chose to ignore Races if the Dragon. You know, the book that introduced dragonwrought kobolds.

I would never do so. Races of the Dragon does not give a definition of True Dragons, though, it just has a list of True Dragons and it details how Dragonwrought Kobolds fit on that list.


The list of true dragons in Races of the Dragon explicitly mentions that it trumps Draconomicon, while nowhere in Dragon Magic is anything similar ever mentioned.

Ah, that list is an issue only if you ignore the rest of Races of the Dragon, which states outright that Dragonwrought Kobolds count as Chromatic or Metallic (player's choice). So, as long as you don't ignore that line, they ARE on the list.

A Dragonwrought Kobold can be a Gold Dragon, a Silver Dragon, a Red Dragon, or whatever else. You have to pick one. Technically by RAW you can't be a Gem Dragon, since it says they can be Chromatic or Metallic. See the table with Kobold Age Categories for reference. Since all the Chromatic and Metallic Dragons are on that list, Kobolds are there. Saying a Dragonwrought Kobold isn't True because you don't see it on that list is like saying a Wyrmling Dragon isn't True because you don't see "Wyrmling Dragon" on the list.


Other than that, Draconomicon is primary source for dragons

Nope, just the Monster Manual 10. Draconomicon is clear on the fact that it's mostly just talking about those dragons, not all dragons. See that very sidebar that we're all referencing.


and Races of the Dragons is primary source for dragon descendants.

For Kobolds at least, where it says Dragonwrought Kobolds can be, for example, Gold Dragons.

Please stop ignoring the parts of the books that completely destroy your arguments.

And Karnith is right about the reference in Dragon Magic. Note that this is the only explicit rule for what a True Dragon is found in any non setting specific book. Draconomicon is more generally describing what the types of Dragons are, but not giving a hard and fast rule (though that Description is easily in agreement with what Dragon Magic says). The Kingdoms of Kalamar rule, btw, is just a creature of the Dragon type with Age Categories, so that fits just fine.

JaronK

[Aegis013]

...
Considering you have to ignore the very book they are in to even read it as them being true dragons, I'm surprised veterans familiar with the D&D source rules still try to take this side in the debate.

I assume you refer to the comprehensive true dragon list in Races of the Dragon. I find it interesting because I've seen the argument made that the table does include Dragonwrought Kobolds, in a sense, because you would be a <Insert Draconic Variety from table> Dragonwrought Kobold. Much in the same way you would be <Insert Draconic Variety from table> Half-Dragon creature.

Edit: Swordsage'd.



None of this matters for whether Kobolds SHOULD have access to Sovereign Archetypes or Epic Toughness at level 1. That, like all things, is a DM call. Planar Binding shouldn't let you get access to infinite Efreeti Wishes, but that doesn't change what RAW is... it just affects what house rules a DM will have to make to rebalance the game.

This is really how I feel about it. Even if you decide they're not True Dragons, you still will likely want to rule away things like early Epic Feat access which they have simply by the merit of Dragon type. (Draconomicon pg 66) The only thing True Dragon really nets them is Sovereign Archetypes and a basket of extra cool points, unless I've missed something.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Where in the book is this?

There's not, I just used the search function on my pdf copy of Dragon Magic. The phrase "true dragon" appears many times, in class/feat flavor descriptions, how creatures interact, who can and cannot take certain feats or create certain magic items, etc. but it never even attempts to define what makes a creature a true dragon.


As for tcjantzen, waving around a bunch of irrelevant features of a specific type of true dragon will not distract your audience from the relevant rules. The dragons in Oriental Adventures don't share those same features as the ones in the Monster Manual, but they're still considered true dragons. Making up terms that appear nowhere in the rules is also not helping your argument. Your confusion between creature type and species is also not helping your credibility. You're overcomplicating things, and in doing so you're trying to draw non-rules and irrelevant, unrelated rules into the argument.

Per the Draconomicon page 4, any creature with the dragon creature type, regardless of how it gained that creature type, regardless of its race or species, is automatically a true dragon unless it does not use the twelve age categories. Nothing else is relevant, there are no other definitive rules on the matter. Nothing you have cited is an actual rule on this topic, only a specific example of a true dragon which does not even coincide with other specific examples of different true dragons. I've made my point, and I'm not going to argue it any further.

As I've already said, this is a troll topic and the thread should never have even been created: You create a new account and post an argument from non-rules sources about a subject that you know has zealous defenders on both sides. The only posts you've ever made have been in this thread, which means you've either made a troll account for the express purpose of baiting arguments here or you've made a very poor choice in how you introduced yourself to this community.

[IronFist]

2. The definitive definition of the qualifications to be a true dragon is given in the Draconomicon, the definitive primary source on dragons. It clearly states that any creature of the dragon creature type, regardless of race, is automatically a true dragon unless it does not use the true dragon age categories. Dragonwrought Kobolds definitely do use those age categories (and increase their mental stats as they age and thus advance) so they are definitely not disqualified from being true dragons. The way it is worded is the cause of this, the designers decided to say all dragons are true dragons unless... and DWKs are definitely not disqualified from the true dragon club as they do have the one thing that causes a lesser dragon to be disqualified for lacking.

False. Kobold age categories are not the same as those of true dragons - all true dragons use the same age categories (wyrmling 0-5 years, very young 6-15 years, etc; Draconomicon, page 12) while kobolds use different age categories (they become very young when they are 6 months old; Races of the Dragon, page 39).
The argument of DWK kobolds not having a 'type' also holds no water - this is what happend to yu lung dragons and Races of the Dragon has rules regarding this.



A Dragonwrought Kobold can be a Gold Dragon, a Silver Dragon, a Red Dragon, or whatever else. You have to pick one. Technically by RAW you can't be a Gem Dragon, since it says they can be Chromatic or Metallic. See the table with Kobold Age Categories for reference. Since all the Chromatic and Metallic Dragons are on that list, Kobolds are there. Saying a Dragonwrought Kobold isn't True because you don't see it on that list is like saying a Wyrmling Dragon isn't True because you don't see "Wyrmling Dragon" on the list.
That is very much not the same thing, specially since half-dragons would fall in the same category and are repeatedly mentioned as being lesser dragons throughout all D&D products.


For Kobolds at least, where it says Dragonwrought Kobolds can be, for example, Gold Dragons.
That's not what it says.

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. (...) Dragonwrought kobolds with chromatic dragon ancestry multiply this number by 5. Dragonwrought kobolds with metallic dragon ancestry multiply this number by 10.
Having ancestry or influence is quite obviously not the same as being something.


Please stop ignoring the parts of the books that completely destroy your arguments.
I'm very sorry if I ever did so, but it was not the case here. Please point out when it happens; if you happen to be correct, as opposed to completely wrong like this last time, I will apologize.

[JaronK]

There's not, I just used the search function on my pdf copy of Dragon Magic. The phrase "true dragon" appears many times, in class/feat flavor descriptions, how creatures interact, who can and cannot take certain feats or create certain magic items, etc. but it never even attempts to define what makes a creature a true dragon.

Page 87, they're defined as any dragon with 12 age categories.

This was actually stated well before you even made this response in an earlier post.

This is a hard and fast rule.

@IronFist: The rule is number of age categories (12), not number of years per category. Draconomicon's description (which is not nearly as good as Dragon Magic's text rule) just asks for the presence of age categories, not years per category either. Please stick to RAW and avoid non RAW claims like the idea that the number of years per age category is relevant.

JaronK

[IronFist]

@IronFist: The rule is number of age categories (12), not number of years per category. Draconomicon's description (which is not nearly as good as Dragon Magic's text rule) just asks for the presence of age categories, not years per category either. Please stick to RAW and avoid non RAW claims like the idea that the number of years per age category is relevant.

Except primary sources disagree on that matter. Please, read up on D&D source rules before clunking up the discussion with meaningless claims.

[Aegis013]

Except primary sources disagree on that matter. Please, read up on D&D source rules before clunking up the discussion with meaningless claims.

I'm having trouble understanding how this (time spent in age categories' relevance) applies as well. Could you please it explain it further so I might be able to understand?

[JaronK]

Except primary sources disagree on that matter. Please, read up on D&D source rules before clunking up the discussion with meaningless claims.

Again, Primary Sources do not disagree. Remember that Draconomicon never claims it's a primary source for any dragons other than the Monster Manual 10 (it outright says it's only focusing on those), and that Draconomicon's description of True Dragons matches Dragon Magic's rule on the topic (and the Kalamar rule).

Furthermore, no primary source says anything about the number of years per age category mattering at all. The claim about years per age category was a meaningless one... please don't clutter up the thread with meaningless claims. The claim about 12 categories was RAW, made by the actual primary source on the topic (it's the primary source because the rule comes from there, and there's no other possible primary source for True Dragons outside the MM1 10 except one setting specific book). That's got a lot of meaning.

JaronK

[olentu]

You misunderstand. It seems like I have not made my point clear. For that, I apologize.
I'm not saying there is only one reading - I'm saying there are two readings and it is quite obvious which reading is the correct one, because one reading has piles of evidence going for it and the other has "I don't trust the designers" going for it.


I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to say.


Primary vs. secondary sources is about book and topic precedence. The only book that even mentions dragonwrought kobolds is Races of the Dragon; therefore, it's the primary source. It's a rule mentioned in every errata file, I believe. It uses the Player's Handbook as an example, IIRC.

Look, any time the whole or your argument hinges on being right because the answer is obvious the whole thing kind of falls apart as soon as someone says that they don't find it obvious. Perhaps if you can dredge up some sort of internationally accepted standard of obviousness we might have something there but without that the fact that people don't find it obvious puts a hole in your argument right there.

Look, these guys don't have a great track record of noticing weird interactions. But anyway, like I said, that does not matter beacause of the to date bit which does not matter beacause of dragon magic.

Right, so once again, would you mind telling me where the word primary source or something equivalent appears. If you don't have that you are just making things up and arbitrarily declaring yourself right.


This has the problem of wildly contradicting other lists and so on. Lung Dragons, etc are explicitly defined as true dragons elsewhere, there's definitely more than ten types, regardless of how you feel about DW kobolds.

Really, most of this stuff is a result of people gleefully writing stuff without checking on other books first(in fairness, that'd be a big job). I'm sure whoever wrote MiC just wasn't familiar with the volume of dragon stuff that'd already been published.

Advance can be parsed as either moving through or as the Advancement entry. It's use in the definition is in a text block, and does not specifically clarify which is meant. We could probably yell back and forth over this all day, but frankly, that usually goes nowhere.

Eh, I really don't see the problem. Sure it may invalidate some other rules and that might suck but I am not really discussing what the rules should say.

Why yes, that is true, and it is always nice when someone can see the ambiguity of the situation. But yes, we could go back and forth over it all day and that is why I tried to move things to the dragon magic definition which eschews the ambiguous use of advance in favor of other wording.

[Jhango]

This again? We all should know by now the reason the Dragonwrought Kolbold is not in the True Dragon list is just a typo.

The REAL question we should be asking is what energy type and shape their breath is and all the other details needed for Draconic Heritage (Dragonwrought Kolbold).


I'm still wanting to put together a Half-Dragon(Dragonwrought Kolbold) that is a Cleric of Pun-pun.

[JaronK]

The REAL question we should be asking is what energy type and shape their breath is and all the other details needed for Draconic Heritage (Dragonwrought Kolbold).

Actually, that's clear. Races of the Dragon says you get to pick what type you are, so you'd be a White Dragon if you wanted Dragonfire Inspiration to do cold damage for you, for example.

But it wouldn't be Draconic Heritage (Dragonwrought Kobold), just like it wouldn't be Draconic Heritage (Wyrmling Dragon). Dragonwrought Kobolds can be any Chromatic or Metallic Dragon (by RAW, they can never be Gem dragons, Planar Dragons, or similar).

JaronK

[tcjantzen]

There's not, I just used the search function on my pdf copy of Dragon Magic. The phrase "true dragon" appears many times, in class/feat flavor descriptions, how creatures interact, who can and cannot take certain feats or create certain magic items, etc. but it never even attempts to define what makes a creature a true dragon.


As for tcjantzen, waving around a bunch of irrelevant features of a specific type of true dragon will not distract your audience from the relevant rules. The dragons in Oriental Adventures don't share those same features as the ones in the Monster Manual, but they're still considered true dragons. Making up terms that appear nowhere in the rules is also not helping your argument. Your confusion between creature type and species is also not helping your credibility. You're overcomplicating things, and in doing so you're trying to draw non-rules and irrelevant, unrelated rules into the argument.

Per the Draconomicon page 4, any creature with the dragon creature type, regardless of how it gained that creature type, regardless of its race or species, is automatically a true dragon unless it does not use the twelve age categories. Nothing else is relevant, there are no other definitive rules on the matter. Nothing you have cited is an actual rule on this topic, only a specific example of a true dragon which does not even coincide with other specific examples of different true dragons. I've made my point, and I'm not going to argue it any further.

As I've already said, this is a troll topic and the thread should never have even been created: You create a new account and post an argument from non-rules sources about a subject that you know has zealous defenders on both sides. The only posts you've ever made have been in this thread, which means you've either made a troll account for the express purpose of baiting arguments here or you've made a very poor choice in how you introduced yourself to this community.

I don't care how you personally feel about the topic but telling me I'm wrong in so many different ways without giving me actual examples doesn't help me. It's more condescending than actually being critical or productive.


I don't know if JaronK was referencing it, but there is a passage in the rules for making a dragonpact that references True Dragon traits. It's also the only mention of it in the book that I know of. Per Dragon Magic:(Emphasis mine)

Thank you Karnith and JaronK for actually showing me the rule that says "A True Dragon is a Dragon that advances through twelve age categories."

For those who keep referencing page 4 of the Draconomicon: it does not say the specific number as mentioned above as everyone seems to be suggesting it does.

[Tyndmyr]

False. Kobold age categories are not the same as those of true dragons - all true dragons use the same age categories (wyrmling 0-5 years, very young 6-15 years, etc; Draconomicon, page 12) while kobolds use different age categories (they become very young when they are 6 months old; Races of the Dragon, page 39).

So? Duration of the age categories is not referenced anywhere. This would seem to be entirely irrelevant.

You can make a valid argument about the ambiguity in Draconomicon's use of "advance", and you can certainly make a list based argument, but the age category thing seems pretty clear.

I do think that the twelve age categories bit as described by JaronK is much clearer, and is both RAW and RAI with regard to draconic age categories in general. Certainly, there is great consistency with using twelve age categories to describe true dragons.

[tcjantzen]

So? Duration of the age categories is not referenced anywhere. This would seem to be entirely irrelevant.

You can make a valid argument about the ambiguity in Draconomicon's use of "advance", and you can certainly make a list based argument, but the age category thing seems pretty clear.

I do think that the twelve age categories bit as described by JaronK is much clearer, and is both RAW and RAI with regard to draconic age categories in general. Certainly, there is great consistency with using twelve age categories to describe true dragons.

In addition to that... most of the True Dragons actually have different age ranges for their age categories. Even in the core rules.

[JaronK]

Thank you Karnith and JaronK for actually showing me the rule that says "A True Dragon is a Dragon that advances through twelve age categories."

For those who keep referencing page 4 of the Draconomicon: it does not say the specific number as mentioned above as everyone seems to be suggesting it does.

Note, Dragon Magic says nothing about Advancement. You just have to have 12 age categories. Kingdoms of Kalamar is even looser (it's in the Draconic Vampirism Feat, btw), requiring only a Dragon with Age Categories (no number specified).

The only way to make all three books agree is to interpret Draconomicon's "Advance Through Age Categories" as growth as opposed to level advancement... this makes them all work together without contradictions.

I don't know why people keep shoving out red herrings like the list (Dragonwrought Kobolds are on the list because they're all Metallic or Chromatic, you chose when you take the feat) or the number of years per age category, when there's crystal clear definitions for True Dragon available.

And let's be clear, none of this is to say that Kobolds should be allowed to use Sovereign Archetypes or take Epic Toughness at level one. This is only a question of what RAW is. A DM can (and should!) make house rules from there to correct the resulting imbalances.

JaronK

[Gemini476]

Would I be correct in assuming that the only things that care about being a True Dragon are Sovereign Archetypes, Dragon Pacts, and Dragon Psychoses?
I know that the whole "ignore prerequisites that include dragonblooded" and "ignore the [Epic] tag" benefits are purely dependent on the Dragon Type, with even Lesser Dragons and Half-Dragons qualifying.

...Wasn't there some argument before about how the Races of the Dragon list of True Dragons implies that Half-Dragons are True Dragons? (And also count as the type of Dragon they are Half- of, of course.)

[JaronK]

Would I be correct in assuming that the only things that care about being a True Dragon are Sovereign Archetypes, Dragon Pacts, and Dragon Psychoses?

True Dragons can take epic feats if they're old enough (note that most epic feats have other requirements that make taking them before level 18 or so impossible, but Epic Toughness is available at level 1).

IIRC, Sovereign Archetypes imply but do not state that you must be a True Dragon. They only RAW require being a dragon.


...Wasn't there some argument before about how the Races of the Dragon list of True Dragons implies that Half-Dragons are True Dragons? (And also count as the type of Dragon they are Half- of, of course.)

Not really. They never claim that.

JaronK

[TuggyNE]

Would I be correct in assuming that the only things that care about being a True Dragon are Sovereign Archetypes, Dragon Pacts, and Dragon Psychoses?

I believe that's correct, plus or minus one. It's not a long list.

Which is the most annoying thing about this perennial argument: it means nothing! It's pointless in the worst way, because the things you can get from True Dragon are insignificant next to the things you can get from being a Dragon.

[Gemini476]

True Dragons can take epic feats if they're old enough (note that most epic feats have other requirements that make taking them before level 18 or so impossible, but Epic Toughness is available at level 1).
Are you sure? I distinctly remember it merely being a sufficiently old creature of the Dragon type. Which book was this in, again?



Not really. They never claim that.

JaronK

It was something that came up during some overly-intensive reading of the text that went with the table, and how it implied that, for example, a Half-Silver Dragon counted as a Silver Dragon. Non-kobold Half-Dragons are disqualified from being True Dragons by virtue of not having twelve age categories, but they are technically on the List of All Current True Dragons (under Silver Dragon, in this example.)

It's very silly and mostly came about during the last pages of one of those old DWK threads. I'll see if I can find it again, which shouldn't be that hard. There aren't many DWK threads that use logical notation (as in, x includes y, z is a subset of y, hence x includes z) to argue about the List.

[JaronK]

Are you sure? I distinctly remember it merely being a sufficiently old creature of the Dragon type. Which book was this in, again?

Draconomicon. I just rechecked... you're right. Being a dragon is sufficient. So, it matters for some Dragon PrCs, Dragon Pacts, Sovereign Archetypes, and the Draconic Vampirism Feat... not much else. Then again, Sovereign Archetypes are a pretty big deal.


It was something that came up during some overly-intensive reading of the text that went with the table, and how it implied that, for example, a Half-Silver Dragon counted as a Silver Dragon. Non-kobold Half-Dragons are disqualified from being True Dragons by virtue of not having twelve age categories, but they are technically on the List of All Current True Dragons (under Silver Dragon, in this example.)

It's very silly and mostly came about during the last pages of one of those old DWK threads. I'll see if I can find it again, which shouldn't be that hard. There aren't many DWK threads that use logical notation (as in, x includes y, z is a subset of y, hence x includes z) to argue about the List.

Ah, as I recall it was an attempt at argument by absurdity to prove Kobolds weren't True. The problem is, while Half Dragons are in fact Half Silver Dragons, they're not actually Silver Dragons, and they don't have the necessary age categories, so they don't fit by text trumps table anyway (I don't get why people keep pointing to the table, as it's trumped by text).

But I'm pretty sure it never says a Half Silver Dragon is in fact a Silver Dragon.

JaronK

[DMwithoutPC's]

slightly of topic, but why would you want to be a true dragon? does it have any use for a Dragonwrouth Kobold player? Or is it just a fluff debate?

[Gemini476]

slightly of topic, but why would you want to be a true dragon? does it have any use for a Dragonwrouth Kobold player? Or is it just a fluff debate?

Sovereign Archetypes and Dragon Psychoses, basically.
SA's of note include Wyrm of War (gives you Fighter feats) and Loredrake (+2 effective Sorcerer level - including casting). They are all LA+0, but you need to be a True Dragon to qualify.
DP's of note... While I haven't read through them in a while, the Spellhoarding template is LA+0, changes your Sorcerer casting to wizard casting, and makes your scales into your spell book. You can also use your scales as scrolls or counter spell to instantly add a spell to your spellhoard, regardless of the originating class.

Wait, can you add Powers to your spellhoard? Investigate further.

A Spellhoarding Loredrake would cast spells as a wizard two levels higher than his sorcerer level.

Sovereign Archetypes are from Dragons of Ebberon, and Dragon Psychoses from an issue of Dragon.

[JaronK]

slightly of topic, but why would you want to be a true dragon? does it have any use for a Dragonwrouth Kobold player? Or is it just a fluff debate?

Fluff's actually a big one... Races of the Dragon has some hilarious fluff about Kobolds and Dragons (basically, Kobolds all know they're dragons, and they actually were formed at the same time as the other True Dragons from the same act). It means that it feels very much like RAI (Debatable, I know) to have Dragonwrought Kobolds running around saying "Yes, I'm totally a True Dragon! Fear me!" Meanwhile everyone else rolls their eyes, but the Kobold knows the truth.

In game though, Sovereign Archetypes are the biggest deal. I doubt anyone really wants to take any of the True Dragon PrCs, as they're just okay and more to the point require being epic to finish.

Dragon Psychoses are definitely cute. But they're not LA +0... they're LA - templates. So... not actually available.

Dragonpacts... well, being a True Dragon gives you one set of options, but being anything other than a True Dragon gives you another set. Which is better is pretty darn debatable.

As far as what's balanced, it's really just the SAs that are broken. DPs still aren't available to PCs, and Dragonpacts are a tossup. Just banning SAs solves balance issues involved with being True Dragons.

JaronK

[Gemini476]

What's more, if you aren't

Playing in Eberron
In a campaign using Eberron sourcebooks
Using Dragon material (the magazine, not the Type)

then being a True Dragon doesn't really mean anything!

Oh, and some of those PrCs not only require you to be Epic to finish them, but require you to be Epic to start them. Dragon Ascendant (12 levels, makes you a quasi-diety,) has +30BAB as a requirement.

You can get around that with some dirty tricks, but it still isn't really worth it.

[Karnith]

I doubt anyone really wants to take any of the True Dragon PrCs, as they're just okay and more to the point require being epic to finish.
Are there any True Dragon PrCs other than Dragon Ascendant? Because that's the only one in Draconomicon that requires you to be a True Dragon, as opposed to just being a Dragon.

[JaronK]

Are there any True Dragon PrCs other than Dragon Ascendant? Because that's the only one in Draconomicon that requires you to be a True Dragon, as opposed to just being a Dragon.

I thought there were a few more, but I'm not sure. I just remember there was at least one, and that it was rather lackluster.

@Gemini: Well, Dragonpacts are still available without Dragon Magazine (Dragon Magic is a published book). But... it's not actually an advantage. Just a change in your options. Still, it does matter!

Also, if for some reason you were playing in Kalamar it might matter, but only if you were killed by a guy with the Draconic Vampirism feat (which nobody would likely ever take).

JaronK

[LordBlades]

While your point makes complete sense, remember the designers were directly asked about this and have already stated that DWK were never supposed to be true dragons.

I'm willing to bet that, if asked, many designers would say many parts of D&D(like class balance, Planar Binding,wish loops etc. ) weren't supposed to work like they do. I recall the guy that designed the Hexblade saying it wasn't supposed to be so weak but they overvalued full BAB.

[JaronK]

Okay, so what's this thing about a designer being asked this? Which designer, and by whom?

JaronK

[Amphetryon]

I'm willing to bet that, if asked, many designers would say many parts of D&D(like class balance, Planar Binding,wish loops etc. ) weren't supposed to work like they do. I recall the guy that designed the Hexblade saying it wasn't supposed to be so weak but they overvalued full BAB.

That would be Mike Mearls, posting on 339 a few years back, and making an unofficial "fix" for the Hexblade that many call the "Mearls Hexblade Fix."

[Hecuba]

Hmm, leaving aside the fact that that may not be technically true unless races of the dragon was published in several different parts, didn't all this get overridden when dragon magic redefined true dragons necessitating something published in or after september 2006 to block dragonwrought kobolds from being true dragons.

Not that I am saying they are or aren't true dragons mind you, just that whatever the answer the reason you gave seems to be out dated.

Actually, date of publication does not enter into the order or precedence for RAW rules arbitration.

I don't remember the specifics book and page numbers, but the crux of the argument is:

Book properly establishes itself as the primary source for the topic
If read literally, the book presents an exhaustive list of true dragons


Unfortunately, if taken literally, the list also establishes all half-dragons descended from true dragons as themselves true Dragons. As such, I don't recommend taking it literally.

It is an interesting rule to examine though, as it's one of the few times that a supplemental book actually properly establishes itself as the primary source on a subject. If they didn't edit the rules it established itself for so poorly, it would actually be impressive.

edit:

Ah, as I recall it was an attempt at argument by absurdity to prove Kobolds weren't True. The problem is, while Half Dragons are in fact Half Silver Dragons, they're not actually Silver Dragons, and they don't have the necessary age categories, so they don't fit by text trumps table anyway (I don't get why people keep pointing to the table, as it's trumped by text).

I'm away from my books, so I might be wrong, but:
If I recall correctly, the text specifically called out the contents of the table.

Despite the fact that I find the reading in question to be textually valid (I was one of the people poring over grammatical minutia in the aforementioned thread), I don't recommend using that reading.

I find the most reasonable conclusion of reading that section is that there is a significant editing error.

The author/editor did a very good job of establishing the section as authoritative. A really, unusually, unprecedentedly good job.
They simply failed to properly define what topic it's authoritative on: the section obviously dealt with half-dragons.
The list in question is fairly obviously a list of half-dragons descended from true dragons.

The fact that they called it out as a list of true dragons makes it bad editing, not a good rule.

[JaronK]

Except Draconomicon says it's only focused on the MM 10, making it the source on those particular dragons, but not the primary source for all dragons. Gem Dragons, Planar Dragons, and any other dragon not found in Monster Manual 1 are not really able to use that source as a "primary source."

If anything, Dragon Magic is the primary source on True Dragons, because it's the first non setting specific book to give an actual rule on what a True Dragon is.

JaronK

[olentu]

Actually, date of publication does not enter into the order or precedence for RAW rules arbitration.

I don't remember the specifics book and page numbers, but the crux of the argument is:

Book properly establishes itself as the primary source for the topic
If read literally, the book presents an exhaustive list of true dragons


Unfortunately, if taken literally, the list also establishes all half-dragons descended from true dragons as themselves true Dragons. As such, I don't recommend taking it literally.

It is an interesting rule to examine though, as it's one of the few times that a supplemental book actually properly establishes itself as the primary source on a subject. If they didn't edit the rules it established itself for so poorly, it would actually be impressive.

There is more then one method for resolving conflicts in the rules. The primary source rule only applies in those cases where something is a primary source. Since nobody has pointed me to where races of the dragon states it is a primary source then the primary source rule does not apply. If you can point out where the book states it is the primary source on the matter that might actually be something.

Edit: Well maybe the text over table version of the primary source rule as that is one of the defined relationships, but that is probably not the one you mean.

[JaronK]

Of course, what trumps the primary source rule is that specific overrides general. I'd say the rule that straight up says a dragon with 12 age categories is a bit more specific than the general description of True Dragons given in Draconomicon or the "dragon with age categories" rule given in Kalamar.

So... primary source might not matter at all.

JaronK

[Hecuba]

There is more then one method for resolving conflicts in the rules. The primary source rule only applies in those cases where something is a primary source. Since nobody has pointed me to where races of the dragon states it is a primary source then the primary source rule does not apply. If you can point out where the book states it is the primary source on the matter that might actually be something.

Edit: Well maybe the text over table version of the primary source rule as that is one of the defined relationships, but that is probably not the one you mean.

The quote from the section is as below. I'd need to wait to get home to pull the relevant page number.

Notably, it specifically calls out itself as superseding information on the topic from 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).

If course, the list isn't actually (by what I would consider a reasonable reading) a list of true dragons. It's a list of half-dragons, sorted by their true dragon parent/progenitor.

But if taken literally, the earlier portion of that passage establishes half-dragons as a "version" of their relevant true dragon progenitor. That is, a half-dragon is a version of it's dragon parent's race, and (as it appears on the indicated list of true dragons) a valid true dragon.

This is a stupid reading. I would throw books if I saw being used.

It's fairly clear to me that they meant "versions of the half-dragon template for each true dragon" (indicating an correspondence between sets) rather than "half-dragon versions of each true dragon" (indicating that the former is a subset of the later).

It's an editing error, which is not out of the ordinary. It's only notable because:

the editing error occurs where it is establishing what topic it is dealing with
and
it goes out of the way to establish it's authority on the topic



Edit: corrected a grammar error and a problem with my set theory nomenclature.

[olentu]

Of course, what trumps the primary source rule is that specific overrides general. I'd say the rule that straight up says a dragon with 12 age categories is a bit more specific than the general description of True Dragons given in Draconomicon or the "dragon with age categories" rule given in Kalamar.

So... primary source might not matter at all.

JaronK

Yeah, that might be the case.


The quote from the section is as below. I'd need to wait to get home to pull the relevant page number.

Notably, it specifically calls out itself as superseding information on the topic from Draconomicon.



If course, the list isn't actually (by what I would consider a reasonable reading) a list of true dragons. It's a list of half-dragons, sorted by their true dragon parent/progenitor.

But if taken literally, the earlier portion of that passage establishes half-dragons as a "version" of their relevant true dragon progenitor. That is, a half-dragon is a version of it's dragon parent's race, and (as it appears on the indicated list of true dragons) a valid true dragon.

This is a stupid reading. I would throw books if I saw being used.

It's fairly clear to me that they meant "versions of the half-dragon template for each true dragon" (indicating an correspondence between sets) rather than "half-dragon versions of each true dragon" (indicating that the former is a subset of the later).

It's an editing error, which is not out of the ordinary. It's only notable because:

the editing error occurs where it is establishing what topic it is dealing with
and
it goes out of the way to establish it's authority on the topic


Look, the primary source rule applies to all material, not just previously published material. Thus the fact that the rule claims to supersede previously published material in no way sets it up as the primary source, merely the most recent source as of the time of its publication. Dragon magic, which was published after races of the dragon, is completely unaffected by that since it was published after.

[Hecuba]

Look, the primary source rule applies to all material, not just previously published material. Thus the fact that the rule claims to supersede previously published material in no way sets it up as the primary source, merely the most recent source as of the time of its publication. Dragon magic, which was published after races of the dragon, is completely unaffected by that since it was published after.

There is specifically no order of publication rule. If it's going to override prior published rules on the subject, it must either be more specific or establish itself as the primary material. The actual passage falls into the later case: it just happens to limit the scope of what it is the primary source for based on date.

As JaronK points out, the Dragon Magic section can be read as more specific. If forced to make a RAW against the literal but stupid reading from RoD, that would be my preferred argument.

That gives unnecessary standing to an editing mistake.

Moreover, DWt Kobolds were published concurrently with the list, which is given to be exhaustive. They are a creature in a book "published to date," and are not on the relevant list. That gets us into even murkier territory where we must argue yet another layer of specificity.


My actual preference, instead, would be to call that section poorly edited and to stand by the position that the list of half-dragons is in fact a list of half-dragons (that happens to be sorted by the related true dragon type).


To be clear, I am not disagreeing with your opinion of the validity of the section or what it actually is. Someone brought of the discussion in question, so I expanded on the content. The only way that that section is taken as relevant (much less important), is if you take so banal definition of RAW as to take an obvious editing lapse as cannon law.

[JaronK]

Moreover, DWt Kobolds were published concurrently with the list, which is given to be exhaustive. They are a creature in a book "published to date," and are not on the relevant list. That gets us into even murkier territory where we must argue yet another layer of specificity.

Not sure why we're talking about DW Kobolds not being on the list again. They are, because all DW Kobolds count as Gold, Silver, Red, Green, etc. They're all Chromatic or Metallic. Saying they're not on the list is exactly like saying Wyrmling Dragons aren't on the list.

Note that order of printing rules are only case by case... sometimes a book says it supersedes all previous books. In those cases it does, but it doesn't supersede later ones. This is not a general rule though, it's a specific rule in a few books (annoying, this phrasing means the Rules Compendium is completely useless now).

JaronK

[olentu]

There is specifically no order of publication rule. If it's going to override prior published rules on the subject, it must either be more specific or establish itself as the primary material. The actual passage falls into the later case: it just happens to limit the scope of what it is the primary source for based on date.

As JaronK points out, the Dragon Magic section can be read as more specific. If forced to make a RAW against the literal but stupid reading from RoD, that would be my preferred argument.

That gives unnecessary standing to an editing mistake.

Moreover, DWt Kobolds were published concurrently with the list, which is given to be exhaustive. They are a creature in a book "published to date," and are not on the relevant list. That gets us into even murkier territory where we must argue yet another layer of specificity.


My actual preference, instead, would be to call that section poorly edited and to stand by the position that the list of half-dragons is in fact a list of half-dragons (that happens to be sorted by the related true dragon type).


To be clear, I am not disagreeing with your opinion of the validity of the section or what it actually is. Someone brought of the discussion in question, so I expanded on the content. The only way that that section is taken as relevant (much less important), is if you take so banal definition of RAW as to take an obvious editing lapse as cannon law.

Well if there is no order of publication rule (which could be the case depending on your view of the FAQ, but that is another argument) then we are left with an unsolvable mess as races of the dragon and dragon magic have equal priority. The primary source rule does not apply (except for perhaps text over table entry but that is iffy) because neither defines itself as the primary source, specific over general does not apply because you feel that it is not clear which is more specific, order of publication date does not apply because of the aforementioned reason, neither is a published adventure so that does not apply, and since dragon magic is published after races of the dragon the special rule in races of the dragon does not apply. Those are all the methods of resolution that I can think of (barring DM fiat of course) and so, unless I am forgetting one, it would seem that the answer is there is no answer, both sides are wrong, and DM fiat is required. That is really what it comes down to.

Edit: Or perhaps dragonwrought kobolds are on the list already as JaronK proposes and on this point there is not actually a contradiction.

[JaronK]

Indeed, because Dragonwrought Kobolds already count as Gold Dragons or whatever, the list thing is entirely a red herring and not worth bringing up.

Also, text trumps table, and text says any dragon with 12 age categories is a True Dragon. Thus, Dragonwrought Kobolds are, and Half Dragons aren't (well, Half Dragon Kobolds are).

So those two tables are doubly irrelevant, and the entire tangent doesn't really matter.

JaronK

[olentu]

Indeed, because Dragonwrought Kobolds already count as Gold Dragons or whatever, the list thing is entirely a red herring and not worth bringing up.

Also, text trumps table, and text says any dragon with 12 age categories is a True Dragon. Thus, Dragonwrought Kobolds are, and Half Dragons aren't (well, Half Dragon Kobolds are).

So those two tables are doubly irrelevant, and the entire tangent doesn't really matter.

JaronK

Eh, I have mostly been presenting the text versus table things as a maybe since I am still not entirely sure about it. I am not sure that the lack of a table entry is a table entry. There was some hope with the later statements that used table as opposed to table entry, but so far as I can recall they all framed the scenario to only those cases where a single product is contradicting itself. But then again that may just be me being overly nit-picky.

But anyway, if you are right about the whole already on the table thing then it does not really matter.

[tcjantzen]

Indeed, because Dragonwrought Kobolds already count as Gold Dragons or whatever, the list thing is entirely a red herring and not worth bringing up.

Also, text trumps table, and text says any dragon with 12 age categories is a True Dragon. Thus, Dragonwrought Kobolds are, and Half Dragons aren't (well, Half Dragon Kobolds are).

So those two tables are doubly irrelevant, and the entire tangent doesn't really matter.

JaronK

Kobolds with the Dragonwrought feat don't count as any type of dragon specifically. They only count as Dragon (Reptilian). Taking the feat only assigns the draconic heritage to the Dragonwrought feat itself; similar to that of Draconic Heritage feat (this feat doesn't even make you a Dragon). It is a parameter of the feat and not the Dragon type. This still does not disqualify Kobolds with Dragonwrought for being a True Dragon if you include the rule in Dragon Magic though.

It is true that list/table is a false argument though; Kobolds don't need to be on the list. You're supposed to pick a type and apply it to your feat. What Kobolds are with the feat is a Dragon (Reptilian) with twelve age categories (different from the normal list of four which is always listed as aging effects not categories) and that qualifies them in Dragon Magic alone.

[Hecuba]

Some stuff spoilered, because I don't disagree with the conclusion (merely the rules arbitration process to get there).

Indeed, because Dragonwrought Kobolds already count as Gold Dragons or whatever, the list thing is entirely a red herring and not worth bringing up.

Also, text trumps table, and text says any dragon with 12 age categories is a True Dragon. Thus, Dragonwrought Kobolds are, and Half Dragons aren't (well, Half Dragon Kobolds are).

The DWK counting as the various dragon types does, indeed, resolve their non-presence on the list (which would, a olentu notes, move the Dragon Magic material to equal footing, which is at least a less silly situation).

Text trumps table only applies if the two rules are both contradictory and equally specific. "All true dragons appear on this list" and "all true dragons have 12 age categories" are not inherently contradictory. It merely resolves the related half-dragon issue. To take them as contradictory, we must take the later requirements as exhaustive, the former requirements as not more specific (supportable but not incontrovertible readings). We would also have to dismiss the possibility someone mentioned (or so I recall-- I didn't reread it in detail today) in the prior thread that the combination of the two rules would indicate merely that half-dragons gain age categories not otherwise indicated-- I never examined that position in detail.


So those two tables are doubly irrelevant, and the entire tangent doesn't really matter.

I agree it's irrelevant, though I would say it's irrelevant because its not a list of true dragons.
I don't find the situation particularly different than, for example, the Vigilante spell table misprint. Both are obviously editing errors. If we presume they are edited correctly (despite ample indication to the contrary), they create situations that are absurd (but not necessarily contradictory).

[olentu]

The DWK counting as the various dragon types does, indeed, resolve their non-presence on the list (which would, a olentu notes, move the Dragon Magic material to equal footing, which is at least a less silly situation).

Text trumps table only applies if the two rules are both contradictory and equally specific. "All true dragons appear on this list" and "all true dragons have 12 age categories" are not inherently contradictory. It merely resolves the related half-dragon issue.

Er, the footing is equal because no rule places the other on better footing so they both remain at the equal, default, footing. Dragonwrought kobolds being on the list would merely make said equal footing irrelevant on the matter in question because the rules would agree.

I would say that "all true dragons are listed on this list" and "a true dragon = dragon with 12 age categories" do contradict each other as soon as there is a dragon with 12 age categories that is not on the list.

[Hecuba]

Er, the footing is equal because no rule places the other on better footing so they both remain at the equal, default, footing.

Spoilered, for same reason as before
That would only be the case if DW Kobolds were not published at or before the publication of RotD. While the age category rule was published later, the Feat and Race were not.
As such, they only enter equal footing if we :

do not take one of the rules to be more specific
do take the age category as both necessary and sufficient (close to a given, with the DM dragon pact aside).
do not take the position a creature on the list not otherwise indicated as having 12 age categories would be presumed to have them because they appear on the given list of true dragons actually, only relevant for the half-dragon tangent, not the dwk element


Example: If we take the table as more specific for true dragons at or before RoD (which, if you postulate that it's not actually a table of half-dragons, is reasonably supportable, as it is explicitly an exhaustive table), then the table would hold the stronger station -- it is quite a specific list, and Dragonwrought Kobolds are within it's publication scope. This would imply that, since they do not appear on the table, DWK are a specific exception to the later published rule.

In contrast, JaronK's ruling insight that I was referencing would outright make two rules on equal footing, without the presupposition of the two items above. Essentially, it sidesteps the issues which could give better than equal footing to the table under certain readings.

[olentu]

That would only be the case if DW Kobolds were not published at or before the publication of RotD. While the age category rule was published later, the Feat and Race were not.
As such, they only enter equal footing if we :

do not take one of the rules to be more specific
do take the age category as both necessary and sufficient (close to a given, with the DM dragon pact aside)
do not take the position a creature on the list not otherwise indicated as having 12 age categories would be presumed to have them because they appear on the given list of true dragons


In contrast, JaronK's ruling insight that I was referencing would outright make two rules on equal footing, without the presupposition of the two items above.

Er, I am not sure I follow. Rules footing and contradictions or lack thereof are not related except in that rules footing does not really matter except when resolving contradictions. The fact that two rules agree or disagree in no way means they are on equal footing, merely that they agree or disagree. If no rule places the other on better footing they both remain at the equal, default, footing but that would be the same whether or not they agree.

But perhaps you mean something other then I do when you say rules footing.

[Tyndmyr]

Er, the footing is equal because no rule places the other on better footing so they both remain at the equal, default, footing. Dragonwrought kobolds being on the list would merely make said equal footing irrelevant on the matter in question because the rules would agree.

I would say that "all true dragons are listed on this list" and "a true dragon = dragon with 12 age categories" do contradict each other as soon as there is a dragon with 12 age categories that is not on the list.

Regardless of interpretation of the list, the list is irrelevant either way. So, we don't really need to argue overly much about which interpretation is correct with regards to DW kobolds. If the list is labeled correctly, and conflicts with text, text trumps table. If the table does not conflict....it doesn't matter.

So, we can really just ignore the table and cheerily move on with it not being an obstacle to DW kobolds = TD.

[olentu]

Regardless of interpretation of the list, the list is irrelevant either way. So, we don't really need to argue overly much about which interpretation is correct with regards to DW kobolds. If the list is labeled correctly, and conflicts with text, text trumps table. If the table does not conflict....it doesn't matter.

So, we can really just ignore the table and cheerily move on with it not being an obstacle to DW kobolds = TD.

Well I would still be unsure about that what with the whole question of if the lack of a table entry is a table entry but I already noted that I may just be nit-picking to finely. But of course, if they agree or are covered under another rule it would not matter.

[Tyndmyr]

Well I would still be unsure about that what with the whole question of if the lack of a table entry is a table entry but I already noted that I may just be nit-picking to finely. But of course, if they agree or are covered under another rule it would not matter.

Omission of data in say, class tables is indeed trumped by text. I don't have the specific examples memorized, but I know that several classes have tables that indicate casting at only a few levels, but are described as having more in the text, and the standard RAW interpretation is that the text is correct in such cases.

And yeah, all RAW tends to be a wee bit nitpicky. It's the nature of the thing, we end up going to fairly great lengths to figure out stuff, where as other interpretations tend to take a guess at what seems reasonable and go with it.

[olentu]

Omission of data in say, class tables is indeed trumped by text. I don't have the specific examples memorized, but I know that several classes have tables that indicate casting at only a few levels, but are described as having more in the text, and the standard RAW interpretation is that the text is correct in such cases.

And yeah, all RAW tends to be a wee bit nitpicky. It's the nature of the thing, we end up going to fairly great lengths to figure out stuff, where as other interpretations tend to take a guess at what seems reasonable and go with it.

The thing is that there are roughly two versions of the primary source like rule applied to texts and tables that I can remember. There is one which is said to apply when the text of a product contradicts itself and in that one text overrules tables, but since were are dealing with two different products that would not apply. There is another that applies to a disagreement between two rules sources (which is the situation we have), but the example given in that situation is text taking precedence over a table entry which leads to the question of if the lack of a table entry is a table entry.

So there is no problem with your example as the text and associated table are presumably within the same product, but that is not what we are dealing with here. It would be nice if someone would correct my memory by presenting a version of the rule that was both more general then only the same product while using table instead of table entry but as I can not recall such a thing I can not assume it exists.