Kobolds, answer to everything?

[Traitoreous]

I've seen a lot of kobold stuff here in the playground. For example in the recent balor-killing-thread. How can a level 1 kobold wizard win a balor? Where can I find this obscure kobold thing? The MM kobold looks like crap to me.

[LudicSavant]

I've seen a lot of kobold stuff here in the playground. For example in the recent balor-killing-thread. How can a level 1 kobold wizard win a balor? Where can I find this obscure kobold thing? The MM kobold looks like crap to me.

Kobolds are powerful because they got buffs in web articles and supplements.

Also, people associate kobolds with Pun-Pun, a well-known build with unlimited power that can potentially come online at level 1.

[Gallowglass]

OP>

99 out of 100 times, when someone mentions something about a 1st level kobold taking out some impossible goal, they are referring to a tactic using the dragonwrought template to qualify the kobold as a "true dragon" for use of cheesy shenanigans using the aging mechanism to get them access to epic level feats and other powerful tools.

The other one time its some pun-pun tactic that someone has come up with that bends over backwards to avoid dragonwrought cheese. This will involve a candle of invocation. Purchased through some mechanic involving the profession system.

All 100 times it doesn't actually work that way, but don't bother arguing with the RAWarriors about it. Once they have determined to read a rule a certain way, no amount of evidence that it wasn't written to be read that way is going to change their mind. Because, invariably, they -like- finding a way to take the complex system of the game rules and find ways to subvert it even more than they enjoy playing the game. NTTIAWWT.

LudicSavant is correct as well. Kobolds get a LOT of love from the people writing and publishing new contents. There are probably, pound for pound, more templates and race-specific add-on material for kobolds than any other three races combined together. So its easy to find ways to be unique and customize.

[Belzyk]

Lol that was me and. As a Dm it's safe to say no matter what the most perful deity in your game is pun-pun just to shoot down all shenanigans so gate him in and hope he kills the Balors. But yeah it was just me joking around pun-pun is a first level wizard or palafin who has obtained ni-infinite power and deity ranks with raw-rai manipulation and the help of Pazuzu but it's in all honesty is 100% legit not all of the pun-pun builds break game mechanics to get away with his op ness.

[WhamBamSam]

99 out of 100 times, when someone mentions something about a 1st level kobold taking out some impossible goal, they are referring to a tactic using the dragonwrought template to qualify the kobold as a "true dragon" for use of cheesy shenanigans using the aging mechanism to get them access to epic level feats and other powerful tools. Not really. A majority of Dragonwrought Kobold cheese derives directly from statements the book makes explicitly about Dragonwrought Kobolds, or from the dragon type alone rather than special True Dragon status.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very much on the side of the argument that says Dragonwrought Kobolds are True Dragons, but they still get most of their cheese (albeit not the most potent bits) from just being dragons, which isn't a point of debate at all.

[Gallowglass]

http://www.scotthabicht.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/07-020912213753_789.jpg

look. there's one now!

[Troacctid]

Yeah, dragonwrought kobolds aren't true dragons, but it doesn't actually matter, because the cheesiest things they can do don't care if they're true dragons. They explicitly ignore aging penalties—as in the book says right out "Dragonwrought kobolds ignore aging penalties" or something to that effect, so it's really not up for debate—and dragon-type creatures of sufficient age can take epic feats regardless of whether they're true dragons or not.

As for Pun-Pun, that trick uses a Sarrukh ability called Manipulate Form that only works on scaled ones, and kobolds are the only LA +0 scaled one, IIRC. Pun-Pun has a snake as his familiar for the same reason.

[Belzyk]

Yeah, dragonwrought kobolds aren't true dragons, but it doesn't actually matter, because the cheesiest things they can do don't care if they're true dragons. They explicitly ignore aging penalties—as in the book says right out "Dragonwrought kobolds ignore aging penalties" or something to that effect, so it's really not up for debate—and dragon-type creatures of sufficient age can take epic feats regardless of whether they're true dragons or not.

As for Pun-Pun, that trick uses a Sarrukh ability called Manipulate Form that only works on scaled ones, and kobolds are the only LA +0 scaled one, IIRC. Pun-Pun has a snake as his familiar for the same reason.

Depends on what form of pun pun. The paladin punpun doesn't have a familiar. And not all the wizard builds for him use the familiar either. I can't even lie. I use pun-pun in every game I DM he's the overdeity of chezzing. And he don't share his power and even tends to break the fourth barrier and slap players with books when they try to use his powers.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Yeah, dragonwrought kobolds aren't true dragons, but it doesn't actually matter, because the cheesiest things they can do don't care if they're true dragons. They explicitly ignore aging penalties—as in the book says right out "Dragonwrought kobolds ignore aging penalties" or something to that effect, so it's really not up for debate—and dragon-type creatures of sufficient age can take epic feats regardless of whether they're true dragons or not.

As for Pun-Pun, that trick uses a Sarrukh ability called Manipulate Form that only works on scaled ones, and kobolds are the only LA +0 scaled one, IIRC. Pun-Pun has a snake as his familiar for the same reason.

I've always seen the "Dragonwrought's can take Epic Feats" argument and that it was hooey, since its dubious they are True Dragons. I just double checked my Draconomicon. The passage that talks about Epic Feats and Dragons mentions nothing of True Dragons, simply Dragon's who have reached Old Age. Which Dragonwrought Kobolds can totally do. Dang. If only Epic Feats were any note without needing Epic amount of Skill ranks.

[Inevitability]

look. there's one now!

The rules-legal nature of dragonwrought kobolds notwithstanding (I'm with you on that one), the way you are handling people defending their opinion seems extremely unprofessional. We're all gamers here, we all interpret the rules in our own way, and I feel like you are projecting your own refusal to change your view of the rules on the people with other viewpoints.

Calm down and get rid of the sarcastic imagery: it is annoying and doesn't add to the discussion.

[Gildedragon]

Isn't a version of PunPun a lvl 1 expert?

[Belzyk]

Isn't a version of PunPun a lvl 1 expert?

Prolly there's like a million and one ways to make pun-pun

[WhamBamSam]

I've always seen the "Dragonwrought's can take Epic Feats" argument and that it was hooey, since its dubious they are True Dragons. I just double checked my Draconomicon. The passage that talks about Epic Feats and Dragons mentions nothing of True Dragons, simply Dragon's who have reached Old Age. Which Dragonwrought Kobolds can totally do. Dang. If only Epic Feats were any note without needing Epic amount of Skill ranks.Kobolds can qualify for a few that are worth something. Epic Toughness is borked at low levels. Infinite and Excpetional Deflection are solid. A few others have niche uses.

[Malimar]

I houserule Epic feats to be available at level 10 for everybody. I've seen some people houserule them to be available at level 0 (aside from Epic Toughness). The ones you can qualify for early are not generally game-breakingly (or even game-bendingly) powerful (aside from Epic Toughness). So dragonwrought kobolds qualifying for Epic feats early, though possessing a faint aroma of gouda, won't break the game.

[WhamBamSam]

I houserule Epic feats to be available at level 10 for everybody. I've seen some people houserule them to be available at level 0 (aside from Epic Toughness). The ones you can qualify for early are not generally game-breakingly (or even game-bendingly) powerful (aside from Epic Toughness). So dragonwrought kobolds qualifying for Epic feats early, though possessing a faint aroma of gouda, won't break the game.I agree. I actually allow most Dragon and True Dragon cheese for kobolds with a small ban list of exceptions. I personally think it leaves Dragonwrought Kobolds as a fun, flavorful race which is powerful and useful for interesting builds without being unduly unbalanced.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Ya, most Epic feats are hidden behind some combination of Epic Skill ranks, near-Epic (or at least mid-level) class features, or a big fat stack of feats. Though its possible (though maybe not particularly powerful) to take the Great [Stat] feats to just constantly buff up your stats. But ya, the Deflection [Epic] feats are the only ones I'd say are really great. They basically make you immune to ranged attacks of any variety.

[Arael666]

Yeah, dragonwrought kobolds aren't true dragons, but it doesn't actually matter, because the cheesiest things they can do don't care if they're true dragons. They explicitly ignore aging penalties—as in the book says right out "Dragonwrought kobolds ignore aging penalties" or something to that effect, so it's really not up for debate—and dragon-type creatures of sufficient age can take epic feats regardless of whether they're true dragons or not.

As for Pun-Pun, that trick uses a Sarrukh ability called Manipulate Form that only works on scaled ones, and kobolds are the only LA +0 scaled one, IIRC. Pun-Pun has a snake as his familiar for the same reason.

I still don't know why, to this day, there are some people who still defend that idea. Usualy they use the argument "he gets more powerfull as he ages because he gains mental stats".

[Nifft]

I still don't know why, to this day, there are some people who still defend that idea. Usualy they use the argument "he gets more powerfull as he ages because he gains mental stats".

Well, for the question: "Is this one possible way to read the rules?" -- then my answer would be yes, that's technically a possible reading, and it's kind of hilarious.

For the question: "Would you allow this reading in your game?" -- then my answer is hell no.

•*•*•

Never confuse those two different things. It's quite possible for the rules to say silly things, and for everyone to agree that yes, the rules say those things, and yet at the same time NO you can't use the rule that way in our game.

[WhamBamSam]

I still don't know why, to this day, there are some people who still defend that idea. Usualy they use the argument "he gets more powerfull as he ages because he gains mental stats".I mean, they do. They also have 12 age categories in accordance with the Dragon Magic definition. And the arguments against them being True Dragons are usually either extrapolated wildly from tangentially related fluffy passages in the books, reliant on the table of True Dragons in RotD asserting two separate things that it does not in fact assert, or predicated on the obviously erroneous notion that 3.5 developers really understood what they were doing.

Races of the Dragon is essentially the work of an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of typewriters. And y'know what? That's a good thing. I like it for the hot mess it is. I like 3.5 for the hot mess it is, come to that.

As I said, I absolutely let Dragonwrought Kobolds use Dragon and True Dragon cheese in my games. I do enforce a ban list and have one houserule that skews more towards RAI than RAW (with regard to what it means for Sovereign Archetypes to allow spells to be cast as arcane spells). But if you've got some weird use for Lightkeeper or Flame of the Forge in your build, or you want to take two levels of Singer of Concordance for a domain, or you've got some use for Improved Combat Reflexes? Go right ahead. I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I mean, they do. They also have 12 age categories in accordance with the Dragon Magic definition.What benefits does that grant? Do you get +1 to each mental stat per age category?

[Draconium]

What benefits does that grant? Do you get +1 to each mental stat per age category?

Techically, nothing by itself. However, the definition of a True Dragon, as per the Draconomicon, is a creature of the dragon type that advances through 12 age categories. It is generally accepted, then, that a 12-age-category Dragonwrought Kobold can qualify as a True Dragon by this definition.

[Malimar]

must... not... beat... dead... horse...

must resist

can't resist

The popular idea that kobolds advance through age categories is based on a willful misreading of what is meant by "advances through age categories" -- kobolds are clearly listed as advancing "By character class", not age categories. That they have 12 age categories is immaterial to whether they advance by age categories.

nooooooo

why can't I stop

[Draconium]

must... not... beat... dead... horse...

must resist

can't resist

The popular idea that kobolds advance through age categories is based on a willful misreading of what is meant by "advances through age categories" -- kobolds are clearly listed as advancing "By character class", not age categories. That they have 12 age categories is immaterial to whether they advance by age categories.

nooooooo

why can't I stop

Let me clarify - I personally don't think that DWKs should qualify as True Dragons either, and I have my own arguements about the RAW of it. However, I'm not here to start a debate over it, I just wanted to clarify why the 12 age categories are generally considered so important. Now, I'll excuse myself before I get drawn into a debate about it again...

[WhamBamSam]

must... not... beat... dead... horse...

must resist

can't resist

The popular idea that kobolds advance through age categories is based on a willful misreading of what is meant by "advances through age categories" -- kobolds are clearly listed as advancing "By character class", not age categories. That they have 12 age categories is immaterial to whether they advance by age categories.

nooooooo

why can't I stopI had forgotten about this argument. It's the best one by a wide margin. Simply having 12 age categories is sufficient under the Dragon Magic definition. One could argue that Draconomicon doesn't establish itself as the primary source and that the more recent source should take precedent, but that's sort of silly. I suppose I concede.

As I said though, this only invalidates a small portion of kobold cheese.

[Belzyk]

Ya know #imakobold #screwtherules

[The Insanity]

IME orcs are the answer to everything. Orcs with big axes.

[Godskook]

OP>

99 out of 100 times, when someone mentions something about a 1st level kobold taking out some impossible goal, they are referring to a tactic using the dragonwrought template to qualify the kobold as a "true dragon" for use of cheesy shenanigans using the aging mechanism to get them access to epic level feats and other powerful tools.

The other one time its some pun-pun tactic that someone has come up with that bends over backwards to avoid dragonwrought cheese. This will involve a candle of invocation. Purchased through some mechanic involving the profession system.

All 100 times it doesn't actually work that way, but don't bother arguing with the RAWarriors about it. Once they have determined to read a rule a certain way, no amount of evidence that it wasn't written to be read that way is going to change their mind. Because, invariably, they -like- finding a way to take the complex system of the game rules and find ways to subvert it even more than they enjoy playing the game. NTTIAWWT.

LudicSavant is correct as well. Kobolds get a LOT of love from the people writing and publishing new contents. There are probably, pound for pound, more templates and race-specific add-on material for kobolds than any other three races combined together. So its easy to find ways to be unique and customize.

1.I've never seen anyone offer Pun-Pun as anything other than gross stinky cheese of the strictest Theoretical Optimization.

2.I almost NEVER see anyone offer dragonwrought as anything other than strict TO either, but its definitely less common in my experience.

3.Do you really think anyone on this forum would actually called them a "RAWarrior"? So?

4.For as much as you call people "RAWarriors", you realize, we have a thread on the front page of the subforum devoted solely to making fun of how bad of an idea RAW is, and have even created at least two different terms for more preferable, but less definitive, ways to adjudicate the rules(RAI and RACSD, although the latter never caught on).

5.As much as I'd never let a PC -near- dragonwrought, as far as I can tell, by RAW, they actually are True Dragons.

[Belzyk]

1.I've never seen anyone offer Pun-Pun as anything other than gross stinky cheese of the strictest Theoretical Optimization.

2.I almost NEVER see anyone offer dragonwrought as anything other than strict TO either, but its definitely less common in my experience.

3.Do you really think anyone on this forum would actually called them a "RAWarrior"? So?

4.For as much as you call people "RAWarriors", you realize, we have a thread on the front page of the subforum devoted solely to making fun of how bad of an idea RAW is, and have even created at least two different terms for more preferable, but less definitive, ways to adjudicate the rules(RAI and RACSD, although the latter never caught on).

5.As much as I'd never let a PC -near- dragonwrought, as far as I can tell, by RAW, they actually are True Dragons.

I use dragon wrought every time I play a kobold. And am always allowed to. 1. Because I'm usually playing a divine caster. 2. I can make them really old and not be helpless for rp sake. 3. Dragonwroughts really good long as your notnusing them for cheese.

[Arael666]

I had forgotten about this argument. It's the best one by a wide margin. Simply having 12 age categories is sufficient under the Dragon Magic definition. One could argue that Draconomicon doesn't establish itself as the primary source and that the more recent source should take precedent, but that's sort of silly. I suppose I concede.

As I said though, this only invalidates a small portion of kobold cheese.

Draconomicon is not the primary source when we're talking about kobolds, true, but it IS the primary source when we're discussing true dragons. If your argument is that draconomicon does not establish itself as the primary source on true dragons I would like to hers your arguments 'cause I really can't see how.

Anyway, since we're trying to label D kobolds as true dragons they washould qualify by Draconomicon definition wich is 1 - Have 12 age categories; 2 - Advancing by those age categories. I could quote more definitions such as all true dragons being warmblooded while kobolds are coldblooded; all true dragons possessing the gland draconis fundamentum while kobolds do not; all true dragons having 6 limbs while kobolds only have 4; but most people will dismiss that as "just fluff text" so I'll leave it untouched.

[Arael666]

Techically, nothing by itself. However, the definition of a True Dragon, as per the Draconomicon, is a creature of the dragon type that advances through 12 age categories. It is generally accepted, then, that a 12-age-category Dragonwrought Kobold can qualify as a True Dragon by this definition.

The only problem with that logic is that gaining mental stats, even if we're talking about +1 per age category, does not qualify as "advancement" as per monster manual, which defined what advancement is. By it's definition there are only two ways a creaure can advance 1 - by gaining class levels; 2 - by gaining hit dice. Just having age categories does not automatically mean you advance by them.

[Nifft]

The only problem with that logic is that gaining mental stats, even if we're talking about +1 per age category, does not qualify as "advancement" as per monster manual, which defined what advancement is. By it's definition there are only two ways a creaure can advance 1 - by gaining class levels; 2 - by gaining hit dice. Just having age categories does not automatically mean you advance by them.

You're assuming that "advances through 12 age categories" should be read as "the Advancement line of the monster stat block lists age categories".

Another possible reading is that "advances through 12 age categories" simply means that, as a creature's age advances, the creature passes through 12 age categories (unlike the humanoid Adult -> Middle Age -> Old -> Venerable progression).

[Arael666]

You're assuming that "advances through 12 age categories" should be read as "the Advancement line of the monster stat block lists age categories".

Another possible reading is that "advances through 12 age categories" simply means that, as a creature's age advances, the creature passes through 12 age categories (unlike the humanoid Adult -> Middle Age -> Old -> Venerable progression).

The term was previously defined for that reason, you don't get to ignore previously defined terms (such as advancement, hit dice, movement or any friggin ter in DnD) just to read the line the way you want. There is a glossary at the end of each book for a reason.

[AnachroNinja]

It's worth noting that throughout the books, WotC repeatedly and often will use a word for its glossary definition and then use the word later for its dictionary definition. Not making a specific argument for this case mind you, though I do believe that DWK qualify as true dragons personally, just saying that word usage is sketchy at best in these books.

[Arael666]

It's worth noting that throughout the books, WotC repeatedly and often will use a word for its glossary definition and then use the word later for its dictionary definition. Not making a specific argument for this case mind you, though I do believe that DWK qualify as true dragons personally, just saying that word usage is sketchy at best in these books.

While the first part is true, I still have not seen that inconsistency when they are defining something such as in this case, when they are defining true dragons. Meaning, they make mistakes from time to time, but when they are writing some piece of crunch they tend to pay a little more attention. Either way, the burden of proof that this is the case lies with the persons that makes the claim, just saying "they didn't say it was the term they defined" is not enough.

[AnachroNinja]

Right, but there is still a lot of grey here. For example, the relevant text is not that they advance BY age categories, which would be relatively unambiguous, implying that their advancement occurs only via changes in age category. Instead the text reads that true dragons advance THROUGH age categories. An argument could be made that the manner of advancement is not stated as a requirement, merely that advancement occur, while moving through the appropriate age categories. That's a valid reading in my opinion, based on the book definition of advance, and English definitions of through. That would allow the DWK to advance by class, as long as they do it while moving forward through dragon age categories. An argument could even be made that this is intentional since dragons can take class levels as part of their advancement.

I'll grant that your interpretation is not invalid, I merely believe that mine also has validity.

[Draconium]

...all true dragons having 6 limbs while kobolds only have 4...

The Styx Dragon says hello. They only have 4 limbs, and their front legs are so small that they're practically vestigial. Their "wings" work more like fins, and they lack any other limb. This is due to being an aquatic dragon. And they are definitely listed as a True Dragon.

Font get me wrong, I don't agree with DWK being True Dragons either, as I mentioned before. Just be careful when using "fluff" to support it.

[Arael666]

The Styx Dragon says hello. They only have 4 limbs, and their front legs are so small that they're practically vestigial. Their "wings" work more like fins, and they lack any other limb. This is due to being an aquatic dragon. And they are definitely listed as a True Dragon.

Font get me wrong, I don't agree with DWK being True Dragons either, as I mentioned before. Just be careful when using "fluff" to support it.

Funny, there are exceptions, but those are specifically labeled as true dragons even though they do not fill all the requirements on draconomicon. This is not the case with D kobolds though.

[Nifft]

Funny, there are exceptions, but those are specifically labeled as true dragons even though they do not fill all the requirements on draconomicon.

His point was that your fluff-based intuitive argument is explicitly contradicted.

Your counter-argument that your argument is right even when your argument is explicitly wrong is ... not very convincing.

- - -

That said, there is no particular need for a rule which defines "True Dragons" by their inherent traits.

As the guy who is usually the DM, I don't need a passage from a rule-book to tell me that Pun-Pun isn't going to appear in my game.

I can do that all by myself.

[Arael666]

His point was that your fluff-based intuitive argument is explicitly contradicted.

Your counter-argument that your argument is right even when your argument is explicitly wrong is ... not very convincing.


My counter argument is that specifc thrumps general. The general rule is that T dragons have 6 limbs, but the same book that stabilished this general rule listed planar true dragons, it just didn't bother to say "despite x,y,z and w rules, this is a true dragon" it just said "this is a true dragon" the "I know the general rules, this is just an exception" is implicit.

[Malimar]

Also kobolds (including dragonwrought kobolds) qualify for Dragon Wings, which would give them an extra pair of limbs. All the 6 wings thing says is that kobolds need 2 feats to be True Dragons instead of 1.

There are plentiful reasons Kobolds aren't True Dragons, but the 6 limbs thing probably isn't one of them.

[Nifft]

My counter argument is that specifc thrumps general. The general rule is that T dragons have 6 limbs Can you actually quote a sentence in the MM, DMG, or PHB which states this?

Was it the Half-dragon template, which explicitly adds wings to a base creature over Large size, thereby making a Troll Half-Dragon a "true dragon" (by your bad "definition")?

Because it looks to me like you're just making stuff up based on limited evidence, not based on any necessarily inherent traits.

In many settings Tiamat is a dragon, and she violates your little rule and then spits acid on it.

Your rule is bad, it does not match the reality of the game, and it's pointless if the game has a DM -- which all of mine do.

[Arael666]

Can you actually quote a sentence in the MM, DMG, or PHB which states this?

Was it the Half-dragon template, which explicitly adds wings to a base creature over Large size, thereby making a Troll Half-Dragon a "true dragon" (by your bad "definition")?

Because it looks to me like you're just making stuff up based on limited evidence, not based on any necessarily inherent traits.

In many settings Tiamat is a dragon, and she violates your little rule and then spits acid on it.

Your rule is bad, it does not match the reality of the game, and it's pointless if the game has a DM -- which all of mine do.

I'm not saying my rule is to be applied, I specifically said I would not touch this issue in my previous post. We were discussing the fact that an exception to a general rule does not invalidate said rule, more over when there's a specific clause saying it's an exception.

Also, half dragons are not true dragons for the same reason a D kobold is not, they do not advance by age categories (i can1t remember if they have age categories though) 6 limbs or twenty.

[Arael666]

Also kobolds (including dragonwrought kobolds) qualify for Dragon Wings, which would give them an extra pair of limbs. All the 6 wings thing says is that kobolds need 2 feats to be True Dragons instead of 1.

There are plentiful reasons Kobolds aren't True Dragons, but the 6 limbs thing probably isn't one of them.

And that's why I said I would not touch this issue, as it's regarded and "fluff text"

[Inevitability]

Also, half dragons are not true dragons for the same reason a D kobold is not, they do not advance by age categories (i can1t remember if they have age categories though) 6 limbs or twenty.

Dragonwrought kobolds do advance by age categories, though. Races of the Dragon has a table, and Dragonwroughts definitely grow in power as they age (from a mechanical standpoint, there's no reason to not play a venerable one).

[WhamBamSam]

Draconomicon is not the primary source when we're talking about kobolds, true, but it IS the primary source when we're discussing true dragons. If your argument is that draconomicon does not establish itself as the primary source on true dragons I would like to hers your arguments 'cause I really can't see how.

Anyway, since we're trying to label D kobolds as true dragons they washould qualify by Draconomicon definition wich is 1 - Have 12 age categories; 2 - Advancing by those age categories. I could quote more definitions such as all true dragons being warmblooded while kobolds are coldblooded; all true dragons possessing the gland draconis fundamentum while kobolds do not; all true dragons having 6 limbs while kobolds only have 4; but most people will dismiss that as "just fluff text" so I'll leave it untouched.You apparently read "but that's sort of silly. I suppose I concede" differently than I intended it, but whatever. I feel, looking at the relevant bits, that the argument that "advance" is a specifically defined game term is compelling, and probably sinks the idea that Dragonwrought Kobolds are True Dragons. But if I'm being tapped to play Dragon's Advocate, I'll present the case.


For the most part, this book concerns itself with the ten varieties of true dragon described in the Monster Manual — the five chromatic dragons (black, blue, green, red, white) and the five metallic dragons (brass, bronze, copper, gold, silver). True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older.The bolded portion could be read as an abdication of claim to primary source status with regard to True Dragons in generality. Not that this would make Dragon Magic the primary source, that would probably be the Monster Manual, but it's pretty quiet on the subject of what actually constitutes a True Dragon. This would mean that the more recent definition in Dragon Magic takes priority, and that it is only necessary to have 12 age categories, not to advance through them.

That's a mental gymnastics routine to be sure. As I said, the argument that Draconomicon is the primary source and requires advancement in the game term sense is a pretty compelling one. It is, however, the only compelling one. None of the fluff lines you're throwing at the wall come close to sticking.

The line about kobolds being cold-blooded is actually this...
Kobolds have close biological ties to dragons. The most important difference between the two, however, is that kobolds are cold-blooded creatures, and dragons are warm-blooded.Note that that implies dragons in general are warm-blooded. Unless you're arguing that cold-bloodedness is a retained kobold racial trait, this could be parsed to mean that Dragonwrought Kobolds, being dragons (True or otherwise), become warm-blooded. If we're going to really grind this passage into RAW paste, they might actually be both, whatever that would mean.

Some kobolds do have 6 limbs (there's a feat for having been born with wings). Some True Dragons have less. This is not a particularly convincing line of argument.

Hang your hat on the advancement thing. Don't just say you'll leave the other things untouched, actually do it. They're silly and cause the argument to derail wildly, when there's no reason this should boil down to anything other than whether Draconomicon is the primary source for True Dragons (without that primary source authority, all the fluff lines would be overwritten by the Dragon Magic definition anyway) and whether "advance" refers to the advancement line of a monster statblock. You seem to have the stronger position on those points, so confine the argument there.

[Quertus]

I've always seen the "Dragonwrought's can take Epic Feats" argument and that it was hooey, since its dubious they are True Dragons. I just double checked my Draconomicon. The passage that talks about Epic Feats and Dragons mentions nothing of True Dragons, simply Dragon's who have reached Old Age. Which Dragonwrought Kobolds can totally do. Dang. If only Epic Feats were any note without needing Epic amount of Skill ranks.


I houserule Epic feats to be available at level 10 for everybody. I've seen some people houserule them to be available at level 0 (aside from Epic Toughness). The ones you can qualify for early are not generally game-breakingly (or even game-bendingly) powerful (aside from Epic Toughness). So dragonwrought kobolds qualifying for Epic feats early, though possessing a faint aroma of gouda, won't break the game.

So I can turn outsiders pre epic?! This is awesome!

[Malimar]

So I can turn outsiders pre epic?! This is awesome!

Sure, why not? Pretty sure there's one or two other ways of getting that or similar ability pre-epic anyway, ones that don't require 25 Wis and 25 Cha and don't grant Turn Resistance equal to half their SR to the target Outsiders.