Dragonwrought Kobolds

[AnachroNinja]

RAW...

...People keep using that acronym. Rules as written.

Can you cite for me the written rule which states, "Dragonwrought kobolds are treated as true dragons, and meet all racial requirements such"?

Lesser dragons don't have age categories. DWKs do. Seems to be written right there buddy.

[zergling.exe]

Ha, the synonym game, why don't you post the FULL list of synonyms for both of those words, not just use the ones you want.

At least by RAW, kobolds are listed with the age categories (you cannot deny that). See any other "lesser dragons" that have them listed?

No. Hmm, I didn't think so.

Orange, Purple, Steel, Mist. All lesser dragons that have age categories that they advance through.

[Technetium43]

So is there a source that unambiguously states that all creatures with the dragon type MUST fall into the categories of Lesser Dragon or True Dragon? because I've seen 'if x then lesser', and 'if y then true', but not a specific statement that 'if not x then true', or 'if not y then lesser'.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I don't think the thread has reached that conclusion whatsoever. At the very least, both sides seem to have planted their feet firmly in the ground around how the term "advance" should be applied. DKs have more traits that liken them to True Dragons than Lesser Dragons, so the only excluding factor remaining to be definitively dealt with that I'm aware of is that definition. With that said, I'm not certain that issue will ever be resolved to either party's satisfaction.

One thing I think we can agree on is that if we accept that definition of "advance", it is very cheesey and thus viable only in a TO environment. I think that's where the largest gutteral rejection of that reading stems from as well; it feels too cheesey. I think we'd be best off putting this on the shelf right next to all the other mechanical gimmicks as "Things that just barely work with RAW but leave a bad taste in the mouth"

Did I or did I not call it at post #2 of this thread?

[Doctor Awkward]

If there were such language, there would be no debate. That's the point. Someone could just say, "Hey guys, on Page 219 of Splats of the Dragon, it says 'Dragonwrought Kobolds are True Dragons," or "On Page 146 of Dragonsplat, it specifically notes that Dragonwrought Kobolds are only lesser dragons, not True Dragons," and that would be the end of it. We'd go to the RAW, and it would be there. There is no explicit language stating that DWKs are or are not True Dragons; it must be inferred from the language of different books.

And that's still RAW. The language in those books is RAW. We are debating whether that RAW can be extrapolated into a definition determining whether DWKs are or are not True Dragons. Saying "there is no RAW on this point" is like going to a competition and observing tritely that someone has to win, and someone has to lose - we know. That's why this is being debated.

But that's sort of my whole point.

People keep bringing up as evidence things like fang dragons or orange dragons. They don't fit the mold of normal true dragons at all.

We only know they are true dragons because they have text that explicitly calls them true dragons.

Since the Dragonwrought feat lacks that text, why is there even a discussion? If they were true dragons wouldn't they also have that same language?

WotC editors aren't that inconsistent.

[Technetium43]

Did I or did I not call it at post #2 of this thread?

I mean we all know how this is gonna go. It's like a LordDraco thread, people feel obligated to argue out their points, even though we all know it's not gonna go anywhere. And occasionally we get a new person who 'really thinks they've figured it out :D' but it's already been brought up, and doesn't lead to a satisfactory conclusion regardless. It's just the way of life around here.

[Kelb_Panthera]

But that's sort of my whole point.

People keep bringing up as evidence things like fang dragons or orange dragons. They don't fit the mold of normal true dragons at all.

We only know they are true dragons because they have text that explicitly calls them true dragons.

Since the Dragonwrought feat lacks that text, why is there even a discussion? If they were true dragons wouldn't they also have that same language?

WotC editors aren't that inconsistent.

Que "designer intent doesn't matter" side argument in 3... 2... 1...

[Red Fel]

Lesser dragons don't have age categories. DWKs do. Seems to be written right there buddy.

I think the key point about age categories isn't a semantic one (through vs. via vs. by) but a functional one. Consider.

Take a Red Dragon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm#redDragon). Now, it is a True Dragon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm), and according to the convenient table on the top right of that second link, if it sits on its claws and does nothing for half a decade it advances from Wyrmling to Very Young. More importantly, however, if you click the first link, the Red Dragon monster entry specifically tells you what it gets simply for having gotten older - a size increase, and boosts to HP, ability scores, BAB, saves, and so forth. It also gains damage upgrades to its attacks, and a tail slap.

All for doing absolutely nothing until age 6.

Now, let's get our hypothetical DWK. Let's take for granted that it goes through the same age categories - Wyrmling, Very Young, Young, Tween, Pimple-Face, Freshman, etc. The question is this: If your hypothetical DWK sat on its claws until it entered its next age category, would it explicitly gain a power-up as a function of its Monster Manual entry? Well, here's (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/kobold.htm) what that entry says. It does not say that a Tween Kobold gains a Scream weapon, or that Freshmen Kobolds gain Frightful BO. There is no evidence that a Kobold gains more power simply by having lived.

Now, again, that's not a statement of RAW. Rather, its an inference based on what RAW says. RAW shows that a Dragon, having lived for X years, has certain powers; living for Y additional years grants additional powers or power-ups. No such language exists for Kobolds, which leads me to conclude that, notwithstanding their "age categories," they do not in fact advance by aging; rather, they simply go through a life cycle with the same labels, minus the power-ups.

Again, I don't have my Dragons are Cool, Right? in front of me, so for all I know, there's an entry in there about Kobolds aging into power; I may have forgotten it.

[Mato]

So you are saying that getting older and going through the age categories (regardless of HD, class level, or whatever) is not advancement?fyi, removing all the words that disagree with you doesn't make you right. In fact, its a formal logical fallacy to assume something that isn't wrong is also correct.

It's like when you were in school and they asked you when the USA signed the Deceleration of Independence and wrote down "before 2937", your teacher is still going to mark the answer as a failure and deduct your grade, with enough of those you'd fail the class and even the year of school too. So I highly recommend you try to adapt a better goal to shoot for and try being right instead of "less wrong", otherwise you'll never know success.


But it Doesn't say anything about advancing HD, or class levels, or anything else you are dreaming of, it says advances by AGE categories.Also, I can still work with this you know. So yes, "advances by age categories."

So name something the kobold advances by the result of his age category changing. And before you say he increases his mental stats, you should probably look on the last page. The changes are from the "Aging Effects" table which references the kobold's age in years, not his age categories. :smallsmile:

[Doctor Awkward]

Que "designer intent doesn't matter" side argument in 3... 2... 1...

But of course the intent matters.

It's one thing to say, "This rule is vaguely worded, and we don't know the intent." It's an entirely different thing another thing to say, "The rule is vaguely worded, and therefore I can ignore the intent."

The first is sensible caution.
The second is rules-lawyering.

There's plenty of times in the past I've come across a vaguely worded rule, but that the intent is so glaringly, painfully, obvious there was really no need to question it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

But of course the intent matters.

It's one thing to say, "This rule is vaguely worded, and we don't know the intent." It's an entirely different thing another thing to say, "The rule is vaguely worded, and therefore I can ignore the intent."

The first is sensible caution.
The second is rules-lawyering.

There's plenty of times in the past I've come across a vaguely worded rule, but that the intent is so glaringly, painfully, obvious there was really no need to question it.

What? Are you new?

I don't disagree with you but I've seen that debate almost as often as this one. Some people insist on parsing the game's rules like computer code. They'll argue that you can't -know- the designers' intent so you don't worry about it and parse the rules by "logic" and the grammatic rules of the english language.

Personally, I prefer a more legalistic approach whereby precedent is considered but it's a rather unpopular position.

[AnachroNinja]

I don't think anyone really thinks kobolds were intended to be true dragons. I seriously doubt the designers ever even considered the question to be honest. It also doesn't really matter, they get epic feats and loredrake and most other things anyway.

That's irrelevant though. The point I'm making is that by the book, it seems that is does exist a viable argument for them being true dragons, and no way to prove they aren't that isn't reliant on interpretation of word choice, which isn't a viable standard to work from.

My personal interpretation is that they qualify. I can admit that that isn't an undeniable interpretation. I'm arguing against the people who think that their interpretation is the *only* possible one, because that's wrong.

[Technetium43]

I don't think anyone really thinks kobolds were intended to be true dragons. I seriously doubt the designers ever even considered the question to be honest. It also doesn't really matter, they get epic feats and loredrake and most other things anyway.

That's irrelevant though. The point I'm making is that by the book, it seems that is does exist a viable argument for them being true dragons, and no way to prove they aren't that isn't reliant on interpretation of word choice, which isn't a viable standard to work from.

My personal interpretation is that they qualify. I can admit that that isn't an undeniable interpretation. I'm arguing against the people who think that their interpretation is the *only* possible one, because that's wrong.

This... can literally apply just as well to the 'rulings' that it is. Like, this is a staggering amount of hypocrisy. An 'interpretation', BY DEFINITION isn't RAW. If the RAW is ambiguous, it's ambiguous. There is no 'ambiguous, but I'm right because reasons'. It's either ambiguous, or it's not, and BECAUSE OF THIS VERY ARGUMENT, it's clear that it's ambiguous.

[Doctor Awkward]

I don't think anyone really thinks kobolds were intended to be true dragons. I seriously doubt the designers ever even considered the question to be honest. It also doesn't really matter, they get epic feats and loredrake and most other things anyway.

That's irrelevant though. The point I'm making is that by the book, it seems that is does exist a viable argument for them being true dragons, and no way to prove they aren't that isn't reliant on interpretation of word choice, which isn't a viable standard to work from.

My personal interpretation is that they qualify. I can admit that that isn't an undeniable interpretation. I'm arguing against the people who think that their interpretation is the *only* possible one, because that's wrong.

This bolded portion here is another point I've been trying to make: that's not how the rules work.

The d20 system is an exception-based ruleset. They are structured in such a way as to tell you the things that do happen, not the things that don't happen.

If you are going to make a claim, then the rules need to specifically back up that claim. Not just be vague such that they could sort of be interpreted in a certain way that doesn't specifically forbid the claim.

[Technetium43]

Also, to add onto my previous post, there is some serious false dichotomy stuff going on here. The answer to the question 'Are Dragonwrought Kobolds True Dragons by Raw?' can be 'Yes, the are, and here is why', 'No, they aren't, and here is why', OR 'The RAW is ambiguous and the cannot be conclusively proved to be one or the other' OR some other answer I'm not even aware of. It's not a yes or no question.

[Kelb_Panthera]

What? Are you new?

I don't disagree with you but I've seen that debate almost as often as this one. Some people insist on parsing the game's rules like computer code. They'll argue that you can't -know- the designers' intent so you don't worry about it and parse the rules by "logic" and the grammatic rules of the english language.

Personally, I prefer a more legalistic approach whereby precedent is considered but it's a rather unpopular position.

Case-in-point, the argument that dragons get epic feats just for being old, regardless of whether they're true or not.

The book tells you from the first -page- that it's talking primarily about true dragons throughout, the entirety of the chapter the passage is in is discussing the various abilities described as being those of true dragons and how best to run them, most dragons have no explicitly listed age categories at all, yet people insist that the absence of the word "true" from the sentence means that all dragons that are old or older get to ignore the 21HD requirement of epic feats when virtually all true dragons that are old or older (DWK's not withstanding) meet that requirement.

They insist that a restatement of something easily overlooked for clarity's sake is, in fact, a new rule that allows dragons, all dragons, to bypass a clearly stated hard-limit for no logically consistent reason at all.

[The Insanity]

Lesser dragons don't have age categories. DWKs do. Seems to be written right there buddy.
Having age categories doesn't make you a True Dragon.
I'd also like to add that SRD says that monsters "advance" by adding class levels or hit dice.

[AnachroNinja]

This... can literally apply just as well to the 'rulings' that it is. Like, this is a staggering amount of hypocrisy. An 'interpretation', BY DEFINITION isn't RAW. If the RAW is ambiguous, it's ambiguous. There is no 'ambiguous, but I'm right because reasons'. It's either ambiguous, or it's not, and BECAUSE OF THIS VERY ARGUMENT, it's clear that it's ambiguous.

You realize that you're agreeing with me correct? My entire point is that any decision on this topic is based upon interpretation. The only way to be wrong in this situation is to insist that your point of view has to be right and that the opposing point of view has to be wrong. Thanks for the support though.

[Mato]

The point I'm making is that by the book, it seems that is does exist a viable argument for them being true dragons, and no way to prove they aren't that isn't reliant on interpretation of word choice, which isn't a viable standard to work from.:smallsigh:

On GitP I cannot quote the entire page so work with me some here.
The moderators may remove this spoiled section.

Advancement and Aging
A dragon PC begins at a specified age (in accordance with the current party level in the campaign) and gains character levels as the player wishes over the course of its adventures. As it ages from wyrmling to juvenile, a true dragon’s level adjustment varies between +2 and +6, depending on the age and dragon variety. ... As it ages, as shown on Table 3–21: Aging for Dragon PCs, the dragon is required to devote a level every few years to its dragon “class,” reflecting the extra Hit Die or level adjustment it gains from aging. ... Most of the time, a dragon character who advances a dragon level gains ... Once in a while, a dragon character must advance a dragon level without gaining ... When the dragon reaches the specified age, the next level the character attains must be used to advance its dragon level.

* For example, Simon is creating a gold dragon PC to join a party of 13th-level characters. His character, Keryst, begins play as a newborn wyrmling dragon, with 8 dragon Hit Dice and a level adjustment of +4, plus one level of paladin, for a total effective character level (ECL) of 13th. ...
* Keryst gains two levels as a paladin before reaching his second birthday ... When he turns 2 years old, the next time he gains a level he must add a dragon Hit Die instead of a paladin level. ... His ECL is 15. ...
* After his 2nd birthday, Keryst gains only 1 more paladin level over the next year. Before turning 3, Keryst is a 4th-level paladin and a 17th-level character.
* After his 3rd birthday, he must again add a dragon level, ... His ECL is now 18. ...
* Two more years pass and Keryst gains one more paladin level, making him a 5th-level paladin and a 19th-level character.
* Now he turns 5 and must add another dragon level—but this one does not gain him an additional Hit Die. He still has 10d12 dragon Hit Dice and 5d10 paladin Hit Dice, but his level adjustment is now +5, making him a 20th-level character.

Other True Dragons
For true dragons other than those found in the Monster Manual, construct tables such as those above using the information on Table 3–22: Additional Level Adjustments.

Lesser Dragon PCs
Using another creature of the dragon type as a player character is rather less complicated than using a true dragon. Such a creature has a set level adjustment and no built-in progression due to age ...
* For example, a wyvern character, with a level adjustment of +4 and 7 Hit Dice, has an ECL of 11 and joins a party of 11th-level characters to adventure. The wyvern continues advancing as a character, just like the other characters in the party.
You can prove, without relying on interpretation of word choice, that a kobold is not a true dragon just as you can prove a kobold is a lesser dragon.

The argument is that you can't prove a kobold is a true dragon in a way that isn't reliant on interpretation of word choice, after ignoring several entries of text.

[Gruftzwerg]

- a few people claimed here that Kobolds have 15 age categories which is plainly wrong. Kobolds have like other true dragons 12 age categories (see table 3-2 RotD). The 3 other that some would like to add to the count are "Aging Effects" (table 3-3 RotD) which aren't age categories. No point to debate here.

- "Advancement by Age" is the only (!) defined term/keyword. Nothing else. Anything similar doesn't work. That's not how keywords/term work. Or have you ever seen an instance where.. let's say: the text would use something like "make a powered attack" for the use of "Power Attack" ? Keywords/terms are strict. imho not debatable either.

- While having "Advancement by Age" qualifies you for being a true dragon, the absence does nothing to disprove true dragon status.
Draconomicon p144 "Other True Dragons" gives it for free for anyone who can otherwise justify that he is a true dragon.
The text implies that there are true dragons that still needs to get this boost before they are uptodate and may hit the playground.

- The requirements for true dragons can be broken down (like it happened here in this thread) to being a dragon with dragon age categories and gaining power as they age trough the categories.
Gaining power as they age trough the age categories is simply covered by the pure mental stat gain without pysical stat loss. It doesn't require you to get more powerful for every age category. The text only demands power for aging through the categories at all.

[Technetium43]

- a few people claimed here that Kobolds have 15 age categories which is plainly wrong. Kobolds have like other true dragons 12 age categories (see table 3-2 RotD). The 3 other that some would like to add to the count are "Aging Effects" (table 3-3 RotD) which aren't age categories. No point to debate here.

- "Advancement by Age" is the only (!) defined term/keyword. Nothing else. Anything similar doesn't work. That's not how keywords/term work. Or have you ever seen an instance where.. let's say: the text would use something like "make a powered attack" for the use of "Power Attack" ? Keywords/terms are strict. imho not debatable either.

- While having "Advancement by Age" qualifies you for being a true dragon, the absence does nothing to disprove true dragon status.
Draconomicon p144 "Other True Dragons" gives it for free for anyone who can otherwise justify that he is a true dragon.
The text implies that there are true dragons that still needs to get this boost before they are uptodate and may hit the playground.

- The requirements for true dragons can be broken down (like it happened here in this thread) to being a dragon with dragon age categories and gaining power as they age trough the categories.
Gaining power as they age trough the age categories is simply covered by the pure mental stat gain without pysical stat loss. It doesn't require you to get more powerful for every age category. The text only demands power for aging through the categories at all.

Except a Dragonwrought Kobold DOESN'T gain power by advancing through Dragon Age Categories. It gains power from increasing in age, but these two things aren't necessarily correlated. See, for example, the Extended Life Span (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#extendedLifeSpan) epic feat. A high enough epic leveled Dragonwrought Kobold could take that feat enough times to completely eclipse the standard dragon age categories they're given, and have absolutely no increase in power, but still be a Great Wyrm by that standard. Thus, the two traits are completely independent of eachother. Dragonwrought Kobolds do not, in fact, increase in power by advancing through age categories. :smallamused:

[jdizzlean]

I'm in camp ''it really doesn't matter all the things that really matter are qualified for with the explicit being a dragon whether or not such dragon is ''true.'''' It's a long and unwieldy camp name which makes it unpopular, but it's by far the most accurate.

I suffered through the first 4 pages, and couldn't go any further. this thread ended on the 4th or 5th post.

-insert quote from Pirates of the Carribean: they're more like guidelines anyway.
-insert the agreed upon maxim that the rules are for the interpretation of the DM and there is no one gospel truth in any book anywhere that can't be over-ridden by the whim of He who is.

thus endeth the lesson.

[ryu]

I suffered through the first 4 pages, and couldn't go any further. this thread ended on the 4th or 5th post.

-insert quote from Pirates of the Carribean: they're more like guidelines anyway.
-insert the agreed upon maxim that the rules are for the interpretation of the DM and there is no one gospel truth in any book anywhere that can't be over-ridden by the whim of He who is.

thus endeth the lesson.

Good man! Pick up your complimentary smore of choice and help prepare for the lake disco party

[Kelb_Panthera]

- a few people claimed here that Kobolds have 15 age categories which is plainly wrong. Kobolds have like other true dragons 12 age categories (see table 3-2 RotD). The 3 other that some would like to add to the count are "Aging Effects" (table 3-3 RotD) which aren't age categories. No point to debate here.

It's not "plainly wrong." Middle aged, old, and venerable are categories of aging characters. To claim they aren't age categories is to utterly disregard the english language. In any case where a key word is also a word in common english usage, the defined game terms are not completely divorced from their plain usage. Entering into each of those categories has a defined mechanical effect; something that cannot be said for the other 12.


- "Advancement by Age" is the only (!) defined term/keyword. Nothing else. Anything similar doesn't work. That's not how keywords/term work. Or have you ever seen an instance where.. let's say: the text would use something like "make a powered attack" for the use of "Power Attack" ? Keywords/terms are strict. imho not debatable either.

This is deliberately trying to pretend that "advance" isn't the verb form of "adancement" and, thus, not intended to refer to the game concept of increasing HD/ ECL/ CR. It's nonsense. It always has been. Especially in light of the fact that everything that -is- plainly declared to be a true dragon has an advancement table defining how their power grows as they age.


- While having "Advancement by Age" qualifies you for being a true dragon, the absence does nothing to disprove true dragon status.
Draconomicon p144 "Other True Dragons" gives it for free for anyone who can otherwise justify that he is a true dragon.
The text implies that there are true dragons that still needs to get this boost before they are uptodate and may hit the playground.

The tables that the passage in question are referring to are the tables for how a true dragon PC must level as it ages, should the game last long enough for such to come up. Dr only has tables for the original 10 in the MM and is instructing DM's to make matching tables to equitably distribute the powers described in other true dragon's bestiary entries' aging tables across a normal ECL advancement table.

That is: it's instructing the DM to make what are essentially monster classes for the other true dragons, not to make aging tables for true dragons that don't already have them.


- The requirements for true dragons can be broken down (like it happened here in this thread) to being a dragon with dragon age categories and gaining power as they age trough the categories.
Gaining power as they age trough the age categories is simply covered by the pure mental stat gain without pysical stat loss. It doesn't require you to get more powerful for every age category. The text only demands power for aging through the categories at all.

This assertion is the result of a deliberate misreading of the clear intent of virtually all the rules involved.

Further, while there are exceptions to each of the various characteristics used to describe true dragons in the Dr entry, only DWK's would be exceptions to -all- of them save for simply -having- 12 age categories.

Troacctid has been cracking jokes about basically anything being a true dragon because, with your erroneous reading of pg 144, that's the final straw. That will be -every- quality of true dragonhood excepted and there would be -no- remaining requirement beyond the dragon type and the absence of an explicit declaration of lesser dragonhood. You would be undeniably at the point of "the rules don't say it isn't a true dragon, therefore it is." This is -obviously- wrong because it's in direct contravention of the standard opperation of an exception based rules system. The rules are what they are unless they're explicitly given an exception.

In the absence of an explicit exception, a creature must meet -all- of the qualities of a true dragon described in the MM and Dr to qualify as a true dragon. A dragonwrought kobold partially meets one; it is not a true dragon.




__________________________________________________ ____________




In summary:

From the perspective of logical consistency, DWK's have virtually nothing in common with any other true dragon save merely -having- 12 age categories.

From a simple rules perspective, DWK's are not explicitly true dragons and do not meet -all- of the qualifications listed to be counted amongst them. That other creatures explicitly declared to be true dragons also do not meet all of those same qualifications is immaterial to this point.

From a precedent perspective, RotD provides a supposedly exhaustive list of true dragons which does not include dragonwrougth kobolds.

From the perspective of compiled evidence, all three of the previous points are unambiguously true.

Only by a very deliberate, particular reading that ignores one or more of these can a dragonwrought kobold be considered a true dragon. Dragonwrought kobolds are lesser dragons.

[jdizzlean]

Good man! Pick up your complimentary smore of choice and help prepare for the lake disco party

i happen to be a huge fan of smores.

i have won the thread!!

[ryu]

i happen to be a huge fan of smores.

i have won the thread!!

Flame-cooked or microwave? It comes down to whether you want the golden brown/burnt skin or just the melty gooeyness. I'm a microwave man myself. You? I think we can build a more productive conversation out of this than the entire debate.

[Technetium43]

I mean I'm pretty sure the conversation's over at this point, unless anyone has any other points to bring up.

[ryu]

I mean I'm pretty sure the conversation's over at this point, unless anyone has any other points to bring up.

You're much more optimistic than I am. Ah the innocent days of youth.

[Technetium43]

You're much more optimistic than I am. Ah the innocent days of youth.

Oh trust me, it was an invitation to challenge, not an actual belief. I'm very well versed in how these threads go. (I didn't have an account for a long time)

[Gruftzwerg]

It's not "plainly wrong." Middle aged, old, and venerable are categories of aging characters. To claim they aren't age categories is to utterly disregard the english language. In any case where a key word is also a word in common english usage, the defined game terms are not completely divorced from their plain usage. Entering into each of those categories has a defined mechanical effect; something that cannot be said for the other 12.



This is deliberately trying to pretend that "advance" isn't the verb form of "adancement" and, thus, not intended to refer to the game concept of increasing HD/ ECL/ CR. It's nonsense. It always has been. Especially in light of the fact that everything that -is- plainly declared to be a true dragon has an advancement table defining how their power grows as they age.

basic of keyword usage:


1) first you declare the keyword (and there are 3 legit ways in 3.5 for this)

a) bold written word/term followed by ":" and then the explaining text behind (e.g: "Flurry: ...ruletext.."
b) title of a paragraph (as in "other true dragons" Draconomicon p144)
c) as title of a table as in 3-2 and 3-3 in RotD who are clearly declared as different keywords.


2) you use always the EXACT SAME SPELLING! as stated above, no other (otherwise correct) usage of the english (or whichever) language, no.. only the exact same spelling. this is how keywords are always used. not only in D&D everywhere: other PnP games, trading card games, programming languages (are bases on the same logic: you define a keyword and use the exact same spelling every time), laws and many more things in real life.



Troacctid has been cracking jokes about basically anything being a true dragon because, with your erroneous reading of pg 144, that's the final straw. That will be -every- quality of true dragonhood excepted and there would be -no- remaining requirement beyond the dragon type and the absence of an explicit declaration of lesser dragonhood.
I dunno if Troacctid was trying to be sarcastic again, trolling or just lacking logic here.

He/she ignores the "dragon" requirement and the needed dragon age categories.
When people in this thread claim, that you only need dragon age categories and get more powerful as they age, they are referring to dragons who wanna count as true dragons. so the required dragon type is implied already. Troacctid is just reading the comments word by word and not in context to discredit those who are not sharing the same beliefs.


Show me how basically anything can become a true dragon. How do I get dragon age categories and dragon type for free for basically anything?? I wanna know pls for my next TO build pls. I really need to know THAT. (btw, that's how sarcasm works. You should at least make a point with logical arguments and don't just try to discredit others without any kind of logic).

[Technetium43]

basic of keyword usage:


1) first you declare the keyword (and there are 3 legit ways in 3.5 for this)

a) bold written word/term followed by ":" and then the explaining text behind (e.g: "Flurry: ...ruletext.."
b) title of a paragraph (as in "other true dragons" Draconomicon p144)
c) as title of a table as in 3-2 and 3-3 in RotD who are clearly declared as different keywords.


2) you use always the EXACT SAME SPELLING! as stated above, no other (otherwise correct) usage of the english (or whichever) language, no.. only the exact same spelling. this is how keywords are always used. not only in D&D everywhere: other PnP games, trading card games, programming languages (are bases on the same logic: you define a keyword and use the exact same spelling every time), laws and many more things in real life.



I dunno if Troacctid was trying to be sarcastic again, trolling or just lacking logic here.

He/she ignores the "dragon" requirement and the needed dragon age categories.
When people in this thread claim, that you only need dragon age categories and get more powerful as they age, they are referring to dragons who wanna count as true dragons. so the required dragon type is implied already. Troacctid is just reading the comments word by word and not in context to discredit those who are not sharing the same beliefs.


Show me how basically anything can become a true dragon. How do I get dragon age categories and dragon type for free for basically anything?? I wanna know pls for my next TO build pls. I really need to know THAT. (btw, that's how sarcasm works. You should at least make a point with logical arguments and don't just try to discredit others without any kind of logic).

Ah, and I see we've merged the Fallacy Fallacy and Ad Hominem portion of the evening together this time. With a nice dash of ignoring legitimate responses. Do you actually have a counterpoint to my claim? Because as of now, I don't see how Kobolds advance through age categories.

[Gruftzwerg]

Ah, and I see we've merged the Fallacy Fallacy and Ad Hominem portion of the evening together this time. With a nice dash of ignoring legitimate responses. Do you actually have a counterpoint to my claim? Because as of now, I don't see how Kobolds advance through age categories.

since "advance" or "advance through age categories" aren't defined keywords/terms, you fall back to the regular english interpretation what just basically means that they have those age categories to advance through (get older). Nothing that implies that it is referring to the keyword/term. Cause if you already don't use the exact spelling, you need to give the reader at least a hint that you are referring to it.
Kobold advance through age categories. Advance in regular English definition, not "Advancement by Age"!

Imho you are the one ignoring legitimate responses here. I repeated this argument a few times now in this thread. and this one is especially for you since you asked so kindly for it ;)

[Doctor Awkward]

- a few people claimed here that Kobolds have 15 age categories which is plainly wrong. Kobolds have like other true dragons 12 age categories (see table 3-2 RotD). The 3 other that some would like to add to the count are "Aging Effects" (table 3-3 RotD) which aren't age categories. No point to debate here.

- "Advancement by Age" is the only (!) defined term/keyword. Nothing else. Anything similar doesn't work. That's not how keywords/term work. Or have you ever seen an instance where.. let's say: the text would use something like "make a powered attack" for the use of "Power Attack" ? Keywords/terms are strict. imho not debatable either.

- While having "Advancement by Age" qualifies you for being a true dragon, the absence does nothing to disprove true dragon status.
Draconomicon p144 "Other True Dragons" gives it for free for anyone who can otherwise justify that he is a true dragon.
The text implies that there are true dragons that still needs to get this boost before they are uptodate and may hit the playground.

- The requirements for true dragons can be broken down (like it happened here in this thread) to being a dragon with dragon age categories and gaining power as they age trough the categories.
Gaining power as they age trough the age categories is simply covered by the pure mental stat gain without pysical stat loss. It doesn't require you to get more powerful for every age category. The text only demands power for aging through the categories at all.


You are still missing the point. This is not how the rules are designed to be read.

As I keep trying to point out, D&D 3.5 is an exception based rules system. This should be clear by just reading them. They have to be exception-based, or they wouldn’t function at all. It’s why the expression “Specific trumps general” applies.

To make an unrelated example, a rapier is a one-handed weapon, but has a special exception relating to its use with Weapon Finesse, which normally requires the weapon to be light. The rapier does not define what it means to be a one-handed weapon, it relies on the general rule for one-handed weapons for that. It only defines its own special case, which is the exception regarding Weapon Finesse.

If specific did not beat general, then the general rule that one-handed weapons cannot be used with Weapon Finesse would be absolute and the rapier could not give itself an exception. Instead, the exception would have to be baked into the general rule-- it would have to change from “one-handed weapons cannot be used with Weapon Finesse” to “one-handed weapons aside from the rapier cannot be used with Weapon Finesse.” And then the general rule would be responsible for listing every exception, which is, of course, impossible when you consider that some of the exceptions may not have even been written yet. The general rule for Weapon Finesse would constantly have to be updated with every new exception they wanted to print.

Furthermore, if the rules were not exception-based to begin with, the rapier would be responsible for defining absolutely everything about its use-- including those things it shares with every other weapon. That would get absurdly repetitive, since every other weapon would also have to define those things.

This is why if a thing is supposed to be true, then the rules will tell you it is to be true, not vaguely hint at it.

[Somensjev]

Ah, and I see we've merged the Fallacy Fallacy and Ad Hominem portion of the evening together this time. With a nice dash of ignoring legitimate responses. Do you actually have a counterpoint to my claim? Because as of now, I don't see how Kobolds advance through age categories.

You start as a wyrmling, you then advance to the next age category. Congratulations

Advancement is a keyword, and should be treated as such, however, advance is instead, an undefined term, and thus falls to English definitions:

Advance:
1. Move forwards in purposeful way
2. Make or cause to make progress
there are others, but these are the two verb definitions I found

so, "True Dragons move forwards in a purposeful way through age categories"

If you want a synonym: "True Dragons proceed through age categories"


Seems pretty solid

[Gruftzwerg]

You are still missing the point. This is not how the rules are designed to be read.

As I keep trying to point out, D&D 3.5 is an exception based rules system. This should be clear by just reading them. They have to be exception-based, or they wouldn’t function at all. It’s why the expression “Specific trumps general” applies.



while I agree with your explanation of "specific trumps general", I don't see how that example fits here?
Just kindly asking: Would you point me out where I should apply it here? or why my conclusions would be in conflict with it? Could you just point out to what you are referring here?

[Somensjev]

This is why if a thing is supposed to be true, then the rules will tell you it is to be true, not vaguely hint at it.

Alright, I agree with all of this. Now, if I could just find the place where it tells me that dw kobolds being lesser dragons is true, we'd be fine.

But, hmm, it seems at most it only vaguely hints at it.

I guess we just have to extrapolate then, but, there seems to be a disagreement over how to extrapolate this information, since neither is stated, and both are possible.

[Technetium43]

You seem to think I'm interpreting the rules in any way. I'm not. I'm merely providing an example as to why the specific reading of 'advance through age categories' as per the actual mechanics of the game is NOT a valid interpretation. You're free to use your interpretations, regardless of how much I disagree with them, but that doesn't make them actually right. If you need to 'interpret' or use synonyms, that LITERALLY means that it isn't Rules As Written. The rules don't say 'True Dragons move purposefully through age categories', it says they advance through age categories. I know of no rule that allows you to substitute ambiguous words with other synonyms, and thus, it isn't 'RAW' to do so. Rules As Written is Rules As Written, not Rules As Of My Interpretation. If the Rules As Written aren't clear, then they aren't clear. Full stop. And they aren't.

[jdizzlean]

Flame-cooked or microwave? It comes down to whether you want the golden brown/burnt skin or just the melty gooeyness. I'm a microwave man myself. You? I think we can build a more productive conversation out of this than the entire debate.

charred, burned, blackened. the crispier the better. in fact, light it on FIRE and turn it to get a torch effect out of the marshmallow on the stick. then when the melty middle comes oozing out it picks up little bits of pre-torched mallow goodness so you get that extra smoky flavor in the smore.

and poof, you're back ringside at the campfire.

[ryu]

charred, burned, blackened. the crispier the better. in fact, light it on FIRE and turn it to get a torch effect out of the marshmallow on the stick. then when the melty middle comes oozing out it picks up little bits of pre-torched mallow goodness so you get that extra smoky flavor in the smore.

and poof, you're back ringside at the campfire.

And like I said I'm a microwave man. I want my marshmellow, and by extension my smore, to be as sweet, creamy, rich, and gooey as physically possible. A truly ideal smore requires milk just to wash down in an efficient manner, though if such is not available we can dial back the cooking process slightly to pretty gooey as opposed to black hole of infinitely sticky flavor. Now on to chocolate typing preference. Light side? Milky medium? Oh perhaps a dark man? I'll go for either extremely light or milk chocolate based on mood.

[jdizzlean]

And like I said I'm a microwave man. I want my marshmellow, and by extension my smore, to be as sweet, creamy, rich, and gooey as physically possible. A truly ideal smore requires milk just to wash down in an efficient manner, though if such is not available we can dial back the cooking process slightly to pretty gooey as opposed to black hole of infinitely sticky flavor. Now on to chocolate typing preference. Light side? Milky medium? Oh perhaps a dark man? I'll go for either extremely light or milk chocolate based on mood.


nothing lighter than an original hershey or a Milka bar if i'm splurging (ever). if it's darker, i'll skip the milk and go with a stout or a porter to accompnay.

Denver Beer Co makes a great Graham Cracker Porter that is a perfect match for smore devouring.

[ryu]

nothing lighter than an original hershey or a Milka bar if i'm splurging (ever). if it's darker, i'll skip the milk and go with a stout or a porter to accompnay.

Denver Beer Co makes a great Graham Cracker Porter that is a perfect match for smore devouring.

Chocolates for all comer's it's cool. Important question for graham crackers is how long if at all to cook them extra. After all warmth up to a certain point softens it. Do you want your sweet sandwich holder to bring even more crisp or perhaps a texture more like an ice cream sandwich? I like it soft. On the topic of splurging do you like extras? I like to add roughly a teaspoon or so of honey mixed with cinnamon. It adds to the gooey even harder as well as greatly increasing the sweetness and making the flavor much more complex.

[Kelb_Panthera]

basic of keyword usage:


1) first you declare the keyword (and there are 3 legit ways in 3.5 for this)

a) bold written word/term followed by ":" and then the explaining text behind (e.g: "Flurry: ...ruletext.."
b) title of a paragraph (as in "other true dragons" Draconomicon p144)
c) as title of a table as in 3-2 and 3-3 in RotD who are clearly declared as different keywords.


2) you use always the EXACT SAME SPELLING! as stated above, no other (otherwise correct) usage of the english (or whichever) language, no.. only the exact same spelling. this is how keywords are always used. not only in D&D everywhere: other PnP games, trading card games, programming languages (are bases on the same logic: you define a keyword and use the exact same spelling every time), laws and many more things in real life.

Sorry, no. This is not computer programming. You're trying to establish a fallacious premise because without it your argument falls apart completely. Not that it hasn't already or it would matter if your premise was sound.

A keyword is simply a word keyed to a particular construct in the game. There is no logical failure in using alternate forms of the same word. FFS man, you're arguing that a -typo- could entirey invalidate game rules. Would you argue that a vigilante gets 32 third level spells per day at level 7 too? It is no more wrong to say that humans advance by class level than it is to say that the advancement line for humans reads advancement: by character class. Or rather, would if humans had a bestiary entry anywhere.




I dunno if Troacctid was trying to be sarcastic again, trolling or just lacking logic here.

He/she ignores the "dragon" requirement and the needed dragon age categories.

It's called exaggerating for effect.


When people in this thread claim, that you only need dragon age categories and get more powerful as they age, they are referring to dragons who wanna count as true dragons. so the required dragon type is implied already. Troacctid is just reading the comments word by word and not in context to discredit those who are not sharing the same beliefs.

She's being deliberately snarky because this argument is a tired one that's -always- been nonsense. It requires selective applications of computer-like parsing and normal grammatic readings to work. Pick one, you can't have both.

Computer parse: DWK's do -not- meet all of the listed requirments to be true dragons and are not explicitly called such, full stop. They are lesser dragons.

Normal english grammar: the use of "advance" in the description of what makes a true dragon is a clear reference to the game concept of creature advancement, given that -all- explicit true dragons do advance in HD, ECL, and CR as they age. DWK's do not, therefore they are lesser dragons.

You -must- ignore both for the pro- argument to work.



Show me how basically anything can become a true dragon. How do I get dragon age categories and dragon type for free for basically anything?? I wanna know pls for my next TO build pls. I really need to know THAT. (btw, that's how sarcasm works. You should at least make a point with logical arguments and don't just try to discredit others without any kind of logic).

Your assertions about "other true dragons" getting age advancement tables being applicable for DWK's and, thus, giving them a proper entry for their age based advancement is circular logic. If they must have an age-based advancement table to be true dragons, you can't use the idea that they are true dragons to justify giving them an age-based advancement table. If you could, you could declare any dragon a true dragon and create such a table.

If you don't mind being deliberately obtuse, there's your answer.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Alright, I agree with all of this. Now, if I could just find the place where it tells me that dw kobolds being lesser dragons is true, we'd be fine.

But, hmm, it seems at most it only vaguely hints at it.

I guess we just have to extrapolate then, but, there seems to be a disagreement over how to extrapolate this information, since neither is stated, and both are possible.

Lesser is the default that all dragons who are not true dragons revert to being. Since DWK's don't meet all of the elements of the description of what it is to be a true dragon and are not given an explicit exception for the need to do so, they default to being lesser dragons.

[Gruftzwerg]

I know of no rule that allows you to substitute ambiguous words with other synonyms, and thus, it isn't 'RAW' to do so. Rules As Written is Rules As Written, not Rules As Of My Interpretation. If the Rules As Written aren't clear, then they aren't clear. Full stop. And they aren't.

It's one thing to exchange a non-keyword with a good synonym for better understanding and a tolly another story to sell a non keyword/term ( = "advance through age categories") as a keyword/term ("Advancement" or "Advancement by Age").

example:
if a spell creates "a blank paper" and I exchange the non keyword blank with the word "white" for better understanding (cause the other persons doesn't understand what "blank" means due to bad English in our example), it's totally fine. cause bank ain't a keyword with special meaning.



But you can't take non keywords with no further explanation and use em as if they where keywords. Did you ever read: powered attack or cleaving attack or anything like that without any explanation to what it is referring to? I guess not.

- You may exchange non-keywords for other non-keywords when you "explain" non-keywords.

- You may even exchange non-keyword in the ruletext of keywords to "explain" them better to someone else.

- But you may not exchange non-keywords in text that look similar to keywords and read em as keywords. Keywords rely on EXACT SPELLING or at least special mentioning when it is not the chase.
Show me any other instance where a non-keyword synonym is used for a keyword.

edit:

Lesser is the default that all dragons who are not true dragons revert to being. Since DWK's don't meet all of the elements of the description of what it is to be a true dragon and are not given an explicit exception for the need to do so, they default to being lesser dragons.
there is no default dragon category. dragons are divided into two declared (!) groups. "Lesser Dragons" is a defined category (and a keyword therefor). There is no mentioning that it is the default category. sry, but it's just you who wants to read "default" in there.

[Virdish]

Someone needs to make dw bingo. I've just read through all 10 pages and it has been among the midst entertaining things I've done all night. It had firming given me the new "official" side C. Dragonwrought Kobolds are shrodingers dragons existing in a quantum state of superposition. Every time someone looks at them they must collapse and become either true or lesser dragons but in all other instances exist as both true and lesser dragons.

Tldr; thank you all for making my Tuesday night/ Wednesday morning a little more interesting.

[AnachroNinja]

Once you hit the point where your clinging to your interpretation of the rules ("advance is a game term only relating to HD! Except when it's not, but it is here!") That have no actual basis in fact, while resorting to claims that anyone who doesn't agree with you is *clearly* reading things wrong deliberately, you've lost your argument.

The book says "advance through age categories." Not "advance by age categories" which would lean further towards your interpretation but still be unclear. Not "advancement by age category" which would actually fit what you claim it does mean.

Just "advance through age categories". And that is a statement devoid of any defined game terms besides *age categories*. You can pretend that you are the holy arbiter of English and only your definition of advance matters, but you're wrong. It is a perfectly valid interpretation to claim "advance through" means "to move forward through" because that's what the word means. The fact that you can't seem to admit that is what makes you wrong, regardless of the validity of your interpretation of the rules.


And lesser dragons are not the *default*. Nothing says you have to meet all requirements or you are one. In point of fact, if you advance through age categories, you are explicitly not a lesser dragon unless stated otherwise, like half dragons of any kind. There is a complete list of them in Draconomicon just like the true dragon list. That *default* crap is just a poor attempt to try to make your argument more valid.

Edit: Additional note because this got brought upa couple times. The is no rule that says true dragons have to gain power by advancing through age categories ... Just that they gain power as they age. That's what separates them from others, because they do not lose physical stats from aging, they explicitly gain in power. Whether it's one extra skill point, a bonus spell, or whatever... It is a small but definite boost to "power". Power is not defined to mean HD, SR, or size any where in that book.

[Kelb_Panthera]

there is no default dragon category. dragons are divided into two declared (!) groups. "Lesser Dragons" is a defined category (and a keyword therefor). There is no mentioning that it is the default category. sry, but it's just you who wants to read "default" in there.

Is it really your contention that there are dragons that are neither true nor lesser now? Is that really where you want to take this discussion? Ignoring the fact that DWK's don't meet all of the criteria for true dragons isn't enough for you?

.... You got me. You really had me going for a bit there.

Next you'll be telling me there are dragons that aren't of the dragon type.

[Gruftzwerg]

Is it really your contention that there are dragons that are neither true nor lesser now?

No, I dunno where u did read that into my post? I said that there is no default category. You are either a "lesser dragon" or a "true dragon". One of the 2 defined categories for dragons.

[jdizzlean]

Chocolates for all comer's it's cool. Important question for graham crackers is how long if at all to cook them extra. After all warmth up to a certain point softens it. Do you want your sweet sandwich holder to bring even more crisp or perhaps a texture more like an ice cream sandwich? I like it soft. On the topic of splurging do you like extras? I like to add roughly a teaspoon or so of honey mixed with cinnamon. It adds to the gooey even harder as well as greatly increasing the sweetness and making the flavor much more complex.


i like my graham straight out of the box.

i have once or twice put a little peanut butter under the choccy, i've never tried honey..
i have also replaced the plain chocolate w/ a caramello, or a reese's cup a few times.

[Heliomance]

Lesser is the default that all dragons who are not true dragons revert to being. Since DWK's don't meet all of the elements of the description of what it is to be a true dragon and are not given an explicit exception for the need to do so, they default to being lesser dragons.

This stance applied consistently does require that you consider Mist, Steel, and Orange dragons as lesser as well.

One thing that I briefly mentioned before, but no-one really picked up on is that, while there is another exception to pretty much every qualifier that DWKs fail to meet, there is no other true dragon that is an exception to all of them. Fang dragons don't gain spells. Planar dragons aren't immune to an energy type. Mist dragons aren't called out as being true dragons. Yu Lungs don't gain DR/SR.

DWKs are the only ones that don't do any of those. I think that probably ought to be considered relevant.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Once you hit the point where your clinging to your interpretation of the rules ("advance is a game term only relating to HD! Except when it's not, but it is here!") That have no actual basis in fact, while resorting to claims that anyone who doesn't agree with you is *clearly* reading things wrong deliberately, you've lost your argument.

Making strawmen is a clear sign that your own argument isn't terribly solid.


The book says "advance through age categories." Not "advance by age categories" which would lean further towards your interpretation but still be unclear. Not "advancement by age category" which would actually fit what you claim it does mean.

Saying that a creature that has age categories advances through them in the sense of simply moving through them is tautology. They age, they have categories describing various stages of age, of course they move through those categories. There's utterly no point in the statement if it's read that way.

True dragons, however, advance in the sense of creature advancement, without exception, as they move through those age categories. By this reading the statement is declaring an observable quality of true dragons rather than making a completely unnecessary statement that a thing that has age categories ages.

Context is part of how you determine the meaning of a word when its meaning might otherwise be ambiguous. This is grammar school stuff.


Just "advance through age categories". And that is a statement devoid of any defined game terms besides *age categories*. You can pretend that you are the holy arbiter of English and only your definition of advance matters, but you're wrong. It is a perfectly valid interpretation to claim "advance through" means "to move forward through" because that's what the word means. The fact that you can't seem to admit that is what makes you wrong, regardless of the validity of your interpretation of the rules.

It is -not- a valid interpretation. It is a deliberately erroneous one that ignores -very- basic rules of how language works. Protip: if your interpretation of a sentence makes it a tautological statement, it's not valid.


And lesser dragons are not the *default*. Nothing says you have to meet all requirements or you are one. In point of fact, if you advance through age categories, you are explicitly not a lesser dragon unless stated otherwise, like half dragons of any kind. There is a complete list of them in Draconomicon just like the true dragon list. That *default* crap is just a poor attempt to try to make your argument more valid.

Half-dragons are explicitly lesser dragons. They're on the Dr table for lesser dragon LA. They also lack age categories unless you apply the template to a true dragon.

More importantly, DWK's are the -only- dragon that has 12 age categories and is not -explicitly- a true dragon. If there is any dragon that is neither true nor lesser as a result of having to positively qualify for one or the other, it's the DWK. Literally every other dragon falls into one category or the other and even then that's only true by the tautological reading of "advance" your side insists could be taken as valid. Without it, all dragons fall into one category or the other.


Edit: Additional note because this got brought upa couple times. The is no rule that says true dragons have to gain power by advancing through age categories ... Just that they gain power as they age. That's what separates them from others, because they do not lose physical stats from aging, they explicitly gain in power. Whether it's one extra skill point, a bonus spell, or whatever... It is a small but definite boost to "power". Power is not defined to mean HD, SR, or size any where in that book.

Try this on for size then:

"Dr page 10; all dragons, however, start out as humble eggs and progress through twelve distinct stages, each marked by a new development in the dragon's body, mind, or behavior."

Note, the entire chapter is plainly describing true dragons. There is no distinction whatsoever between a wyrmling kobold and a very young kobold. Moreover, the chapter later goes on to describe the actual ages that make up each of the age categories and they do not match those of the kobold.

Basically the whole bloody chapter just drops a massive, steaming pile on the very notion of a kobold being a true dragon in absence of an explicit statement that they are such. It doesn't matter, at all, that many of the other explicit true dragons miss some of these details because they're -explicitly- true dragons.

This never should have been a debate but people so desperately -want- kobolds to be true dragons so that they can use all the true dragon toys it makes available.

[lylsyly]

Orange, Purple, Steel, Mist. All lesser dragons that have age categories that they advance through.

Actually Orange and Purple and Yellow are called out as "True" Dragons on page 195 of the Dragon Compendium. Oops.

[ryu]

i like my graham straight out of the box.

i have once or twice put a little peanut butter under the choccy, i've never tried honey..
i have also replaced the plain chocolate w/ a caramello, or a reese's cup a few times.

Peanut butter and caramel are valid methods to be sure. I just find that since both combinations are used practically everywhere, go for unusual but tasty things for variety. Peanut butter chocolate? Nice but I've had it literally hundreds of times in various forms? Honey cinnamon chocolate? That sounds amazing, let's do this! That was the rational for the experiment. Turns out it was, in fact, amazing. I've also done well with vanilla enriched whipped cream to balance out darker chocolates. For those of you reading this and wondering, yes, I'm entirely capable of talking about tasty food combos most of you probably haven't tried that I have for days and days at a time. I'm pretty gosh darn good at it too. Good hobby.

[pupaeted]

Imagine if there was a section in Races of the Dragon that had an explicit list of all true dragons to date -- you'd be able to tell if something was a TD or not by just looking to see if it was in the list!

It would be even better if it explicitly assumed primacy over all earlier sources. Oh well, a man can dream.

[AnachroNinja]

Saying that a creature that has age categories advances through them in the sense of simply moving through them is tautology. They age, they have categories describing various stages of age, of course they move through those categories. There's utterly no point in the statement if it's read that way.

That's kind of the point however, this is the only place that states that true dragons have age categories and advance thru them, and more importantly, that lesser dragons do not. As has been noted, there are no naturally occurring lesser dragons with age categories at all.


True dragons, however, advance in the sense of creature advancement, without exception, as they move through those age categories. By this reading the statement is declaring an observable quality of true dragons rather than making a completely unnecessary statement that a thing that has age categories ages.

This is not a direct claim made any where in connection with the statement in question. It's a reasonable assumption, but it's never stated.


Context is part of how you determine the meaning of a word when its meaning might otherwise be ambiguous. This is grammar school stuff.

PS. When you're *determining by context* it's called subjective interpretation. IE, you have no objective evidence to back up your claim. Not only that, but it turns your entire claim into... "Well, the designers wouldn't use grammar or writing style that I personally consider to be invalid, so I must be right."



It is -not- a valid interpretation. It is a deliberately erroneous one that ignores -very- basic rules of how language works. Protip: if your interpretation of a sentence makes it a tautological statement, it's not valid.

When you think you get to decide what people are deliberately doing, you have obviously slipped into delusion as far as your ability to construct a valid argument is concerned, because you're trying to hold both sides in your head and enforce your view onto any information you receive. Not a solid plan generally.





Try this on for size then:

"Dr page 10; all dragons, however, start out as humble eggs and progress through twelve distinct stages, each marked by a new development in the dragon's body, mind, or behavior."

Note, the entire chapter is plainly describing true dragons. There is no distinction whatsoever between a wyrmling kobold and a very young kobold. Moreover, the chapter later goes on to describe the actual ages that make up each of the age categories and they do not match those of the kobold.

Basically the whole bloody chapter just drops a massive, steaming pile on the very notion of a kobold being a true dragon in absence of an explicit statement that they are such. It doesn't matter, at all, that many of the other explicit true dragons miss some of these details because they're -explicitly- true dragons.

You're actually making my point for me. This entire chapter is about true dragons. It's also plainly stated to be about the TEN true dragons in the MONSTER MANUAL and doesn't actually make any specific claims about any other true dragon, which is why so many others are blatant exceptions to the obvious fluff descriptions throughout much of the book. There is only one side bar that makes a deliberate claim about true dragons with out that caveat, and that's the one that tells us that true dragons gain in power as they age, and that they advance through thru categories. Everything else is fluff that is outright intended to apply to the MMI dragons.


This never should have been a debate but people so desperately -want- kobolds to be true dragons so that they can use all the true dragon toys it makes available.

PS, what true dragon toys do you keep trying to make this claim about? You keep trying to blame this on petty optimizers when none of us care about that!


Actually Orange and Purple and Yellow are called out as "True" Dragons on page 195 of the Dragon Compendium. Oops.

They aren't on the list published in Races of the Dragon so they are no longer true dragons by the metrics which prevent DWKs from qualifying.

[Bakkan]

Actually Orange and Purple and Yellow are called out as "True" Dragons on page 195 of the Dragon Compendium. Oops.

Which is then superceded by the text in Races of the Dragon, page 69, which says that any dragon not included in the list on pages 70-72 is not a true dragon. Zergling.exe has the right of it. FWIW, if it ever came up in my game, I would houserule Orange, Purple, Yellow, Steel, and Mist dragons to be true dragons.

[eggynack]

Actually Orange and Purple and Yellow are called out as "True" Dragons on page 195 of the Dragon Compendium. Oops.
Leaving aside the RotD aspect of the argument, mist dragons decidedly aren't called out as true dragons. Poking holes in three of the four (or six, if you include steel and meteor) doesn't seem all that meaningful.

[GilesTheCleric]

ryu, have you had any experience with non-dairy or non-gluten s'mores?

Warning: foul language. Clip from the comedy sketch show "Father Ted", 2 min long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TQuacxEjAU

[Doctor Awkward]

They aren't on the list published in Races of the Dragon so they are no longer true dragons by the metrics which prevent DWKs from qualifying.


Which is then superceded by the text in Races of the Dragon, page 69, which says that any dragon not included in the list on pages 70-72 is not a true dragon. Zergling.exe has the right of it. FWIW, if it ever came up in my game, I would houserule Orange, Purple, Yellow, Steel, and Mist dragons to be true dragons.

Their actual status of true dragonhood is ironically irrelevant. Their entries say explicitly that they "use all of the standard rules for true dragons given on pages 68-70 of the Monster Manual unless otherwise noted". They qualify for true dragon feats and true dragon prestige classes, just like "real" true dragons do. They don't really care what you choose to call them.

The Dragon Compendium is the original source for them, and it has primacy when in conflict with another source.


And as an aside...


PS. When you're *determining by context* it's called subjective interpretation. IE, you have no objective evidence to back up your claim. Not only that, but it turns your entire claim into... "Well, the designers wouldn't use grammar or writing style that I personally consider to be invalid, so I must be right."

This is patently untrue. Determining the meaning of a word by context is universally an exercise in objective observation. Sometimes the word is defined right in the sentence ("While planning the party, Susan was prudent with the guest list, acting with great caution and care not to invite anyone with whom she wouldn't want to jump around in a bounce house), or by listed examples ("Devin procrastinated to avoid his homework all day, watching TV, playing video games and even writing thank you cards to his grandparents").

Other times you can use nearby synonyms or antonyms ("Priscilla could never be called B]haughty[/B]. She is far too humble and modest.") Sometimes you can do it with substitution, swapping out the word you don't know for one you do know until the sentence makes grammatical sense. There is very little opinion to be found in contextual definitions.

[zergling.exe]

Their actual status of true dragonhood is ironically irrelevant. Their entries say explicitly that they "use all of the standard rules for true dragons given on pages 68-70 of the Monster Manual unless otherwise noted". They qualify for true dragon feats and true dragon prestige classes, just like "real" true dragons do. They don't really care what you choose to call them.

The Dragon Compendium is the original source for them, and it has primacy when in conflict with another source.

Just as the Rules Compendium overrides any other book printed before it when they contradict, even when the other book is the 'primary' source, so too does Races of the Dragon override any claims of True Dragonhood printed before it. By RAW, some previously True Dragons are no longer True Dragons, houserule them back, but RAW says they are not.

[Doctor Awkward]

Just as the Rules Compendium overrides any other book printed before it when they contradict, even when the other book is the 'primary' source, so too does Races of the Dragon override any claims of True Dragonhood printed before it. By RAW, some previously True Dragons are no longer True Dragons, houserule them back, but RAW says they are not.

Can you cite the page in Races of the Dragon which states that, "Despite what the text in the Dragon Compendium, creatures not on this list are expressly forbidden from using these rules. They are our rules, and we are not sharing"?

[zergling.exe]

Can you cite the page in Races of the Dragon which states that, "Despite what the text in the Dragon Compendium, creatures not on this list are expressly forbidden from using these rules. They are our rules, and we are not sharing"?

As has already been quoted a few times, page 69 of RotD:

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

So if they aren't in the list and were published before RotD, they aren't a True Dragon anymore.

edit: Bolded the most important part.

[Doctor Awkward]

As has already been quoted a few times, page 69 of RotD:


So if they aren't in the list and were published before RotD, they aren't a True Dragon anymore.

Okay, but by the explicit text in Dragon Compendium, they don't need to be true dragons:


The three dragons presented in this section, the "forgotten" chromatic trio of the orange, purple, and yellow dragons, use all of the standard rules for true dragons given on pages 68-70 of the Monster Manual unless otherwise noted in their descriptions.

It doesn't matter if they aren't actually true dragons. They still use all the same rules that true dragons use anyway because their text says they do.

There is no contradiction, because Races of the Dragons doesn't require other entries to ask permission first before using it's rules.

[zergling.exe]

Okay, but by the explicit text in Dragon Compendium, they don't need to be true dragons:



It doesn't matter if they aren't actually true dragons. They still use all the same rules that true dragons use anyway because their text says they do.

There is no contradiction, because Races of the Dragons doesn't require other entries to ask permission first before using it's rules.

Well from your same quote:


The three dragons presented in this section, the "forgotten" chromatic trio of the orange, purple, and yellow dragons, use all of the standard rules for true dragons given on pages 68-70 of the Monster Manual unless otherwise noted in their descriptions.


So True Dragon rules outside of pages 68-70 of the Monster Manual would be unavailable to them, since, you know, they aren't drawing on those rules.

[Doctor Awkward]

...Okay. Cool.

So... Dragonwrought kobolds are not true dragons.

Settled?

[zergling.exe]

...Okay. Cool.

So... Dragonwrought kobolds are not true dragons.

Settled?

This same argument is what I opened this thread with (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21570933&postcount=1), mostly the same at least.

[Doctor Despair]

This same argument is what I opened this thread with (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21570933&postcount=1), mostly the same at least.

No, it's a very different argument. The opposition to DK's being true dragons was tenuously based on the argument over the term advancement. This "new" attack is on the fact that the various exceptions to the qualifications for true dragonhood are not, in fact, true dragons either. You didn't mention those dragons in OP at all.

[zergling.exe]

No, it's a very different argument. The opposition to DK's being true dragons was tenuously based on the argument over the term advancement. This "new" attack is on the fact that the various exceptions to the qualifications for true dragonhood are not, in fact, true dragons either. You didn't mention those dragons in OP at all.

My initial argument was 'it's not on the RotD list so it's not a True Dragon'. I did not speak on any of the advancement stuff except in where previously True Dragons with age categories were missing from the list and thus not actually True Dragons anymore.

My argument has always been about whether or not it was on RotD's list of True Dragons. Please do not mistake me for some one else arguing about advancing.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That's kind of the point however, this is the only place that states that true dragons have age categories and advance thru them, and more importantly, that lesser dragons do not. As has been noted, there are no naturally occurring lesser dragons with age categories at all.

Your argument is that a tautological statement means that simply having 12 age categories is enough to be considered a true dragon. That's the position you're taking? Just so we're abundantly clear?


This is not a direct claim made any where in connection with the statement in question. It's a reasonable assumption, but it's never stated.

It's not an assumption. Other than the contested DWK, name -one- true dragon that does not have an advancement table relating to their age categories. Observation is not assumption, sir.


PS. When you're *determining by context* it's called subjective interpretation. IE, you have no objective evidence to back up your claim. Not only that, but it turns your entire claim into... "Well, the designers wouldn't use grammar or writing style that I personally consider to be invalid, so I must be right."

Tonymitsu nailed this one. I refer you to his post.



When you think you get to decide what people are deliberately doing, you have obviously slipped into delusion as far as your ability to construct a valid argument is concerned, because you're trying to hold both sides in your head and enforce your view onto any information you receive. Not a solid plan generally.

People that are being disingenuous never say that they are doing so. It has to be observed through their words and actions. For example, a speaker making ad-hominem attacks about his opponent being delusional to broadly undermine his credibility smacks of the speaker having no real faith in his own position.


You're actually making my point for me. This entire chapter is about true dragons. It's also plainly stated to be about the TEN true dragons in the MONSTER MANUAL and doesn't actually make any specific claims about any other true dragon, which is why so many others are blatant exceptions to the obvious fluff descriptions throughout much of the book. There is only one side bar that makes a deliberate claim about true dragons with out that caveat, and that's the one that tells us that true dragons gain in power as they age, and that they advance through thru categories. Everything else is fluff that is outright intended to apply to the MMI dragons.

Oh? Care to provide a citation for that? The chapter introduction in my copy of Dr makes no such explicit statement.


PS, what true dragon toys do you keep trying to make this claim about? You keep trying to blame this on petty optimizers when none of us care about that!

Yes they do, they've just evolved the argument to "they don't even need to be true dragons. Simply having the dragon type is enough," by ignoring context even more.

Specifically; sovereign archetypes, epic feats, and basically -every- option that does require a true dragon because of how WotC heaped the love on the scaly bastards.

[Nifft]

As has already been quoted a few times, page 69 of RotD:


Ah. Oh man, how did I miss this before.



HALF-DRAGONS BEYOND
THE MONSTER MANUAL

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

The rules section is about Half-Dragons. Half-Dragons are the topic of the paragraph.

The lack of orange half-dragon stats here means that there are no canonical orange half-dragons.

Orange Dragons are still canonical True Dragons, and RotD p.69 does not contradict this fact, because it says nothing about true dragons which are unavailable as half-dragons.

RotD p.69 is no longer relevant to the discussion of whether any particular dragon is a True Dragon or not, since it is only asserting rules information about the topic of half-dragons, and we already knew that half-dragons were lesser dragons.

[Doctor Despair]

And their absence from the list was not ultimately what precluded them from true dragonhood; it was the absence of the other dragons, is what I'm saying

[zergling.exe]

Ah. Oh man, how did I miss this before.


The rules section is about Half-Dragons. Half-Dragons are the topic of the paragraph.

The lack of orange half-dragon stats here means that there are no canonical orange half-dragons.

Orange Dragons are still canonical True Dragons, and RotD p.69 does not contradict this fact, because it says nothing about true dragons which are unavailable as half-dragons.

RotD p.69 is no longer relevant to the discussion of whether any particular dragon is a True Dragon or not, since it is only asserting rules information about the topic of half-dragons, and we already knew that half-dragons were lesser dragons.

I'ma bold the part you missed in that paragraph for you:

HALF-DRAGONS BEYOND THE MONSTER MANUAL

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

It says 'all true dragons published to date', meaning that the list has the final say on what was a True Dragon as of January 2006. Orange dragons were printed before then and not on the list, so they are no longer True Dragons. That is what the RAW says, no exceptions.

Now a True Dragon released in February 2006 would not be on the list, but would still be one if it said it was with no conflict with RotD.

[eggynack]

Interesting argument. I'd say there's definitely a reading that "this topic" refers to the immediate contextual topic of true dragons throughout sources, but the header based reading seems valid too.

Edit:
I'ma bold the part you missed in that paragraph for you:


It says 'all true dragons published to date', meaning that the list has the final say on what was a True Dragon as of January 2006. Orange dragons were printed before then and not on the list, so they are no longer True Dragons. That is what the RAW says, no exceptions.
Yeah, but that's not where the argument is coming from. See, that bolded section declares a thing that the list does, but the following section is what's being cited to give RotD its superseding power. Without that power, RotD can lose fights to other sources, and it probably does in the case of orange dragons.

[Nifft]

I'ma bold the part you missed in that paragraph for you:


It says 'all true dragons published to date', meaning that the list has the final say on what was a True Dragon as of January 2006. Orange dragons were printed before then and not on the list, so they are no longer True Dragons. That is what the RAW says, no exceptions.

Now a True Dragon released in February 2006 would not be on the list, but would still be one if it said it was with no conflict with RotD.

Nope, you're wrong about what it says.

The writers were not defining a list of all true dragons.

They were expanding the list of candidate parents for the Half-Dragon Template.

That is the topic, and that is the topic for which the paragraph claims authority -- nothing less, and nothing more.

You seem to think that the authors were talking about half-dragons for a while, then they decided to change subjects and lay down a rule about a different area of the game. That's mis-reading both the text, and the intent.

RAI they're talking about half-dragons.

RAW they're still talking about half-dragons.

That section claims no authority over previous sources regarding the True Dragon-hood of any other dragon -- however, any True Dragon which isn't in that table is clearly not the canon parent of a half-dragon, since that section claims authority over the half-dragon template in preference of all previous sources.

[lylsyly]

to use someone else's argument (meh) ...

Draconomicon pg. 144 (on Lesser Dragons as PCs): "Using another creature of the dragon type as a player character is rather less complicated than using a true dragon. Such a creature has a set level adjustment and no built-in progression due to age,"

Kobolds, dragonwrought or not, have NO SET LEVEL ADJUSTMENT and DO PROGRESS THRU AGE LEVELS even if it is only by age, not HD, ecl, ect.

Now one of you can you the meaning of the word progress to argue that the book wasn't written in English

Yet another ambiguous find.

[Doctor Despair]

Can't say I saw that one coming. Interesting point on the half dragon text *munches popcorn* You two fill the empty hours of my work shift

[Doctor Awkward]

to use someone else's argument (meh) ...

Draconomicon pg. 144 (on Lesser Dragons as PCs): "Using another creature of the dragon type as a player character is rather less complicated than using a true dragon. Such a creature has a set level adjustment and no built-in progression due to age,"

Kobolds, dragonwrought or not, have NO SET LEVEL ADJUSTMENT and DO PROGRESS THRU AGE LEVELS even if it is only by age, not HD, ecl, ect.

Now one of you can you the meaning of the word progress to argue that the book wasn't written in English

Yet another ambiguous find.

So... what are you trying to prove with this statement?

[Technetium43]

to use someone else's argument (meh) ...

Draconomicon pg. 144 (on Lesser Dragons as PCs): "Using another creature of the dragon type as a player character is rather less complicated than using a true dragon. Such a creature has a set level adjustment and no built-in progression due to age,"

Kobolds, dragonwrought or not, have NO SET LEVEL ADJUSTMENT and DO PROGRESS THRU AGE LEVELS even if it is only by age, not HD, ecl, ect.

Now one of you can you the meaning of the word progress to argue that the book wasn't written in English

Yet another ambiguous find.

??????????????


Kobold Characters
Kobold characters possess the following racial traits.


-4 Strength, +2 Dexterity, -2 Constitution.
Small size: +1 bonus to Armor Class, +1 bonus on attack rolls, +4 bonus on Hide checks, -4 penalty on grapple checks, lifting and carrying limits ¾ those of Medium characters.
A kobold’s base land speed is 30 feet.
Darkvision out to 60 feet.
Racial Skills: A kobold character has a +2 racial bonus on Craft (trapmaking), Profession (miner), and Search checks.
Racial Feats: A kobold character gains feats according to its character class.
+1 natural armor bonus.
Special Qualities (see above): Light sensitivity.
Automatic Languages: Draconic. Bonus Languages: Common, Undercommon.
Favored Class: Sorcerer.
Level adjustment +0.



?????????????????????

Also the irony of defining 'progression' as 'progress', when 'progression' is a game term, and then turning around and giving people **** for using 'advancement' and 'advance' the same way is HYSTERICAL. Consistency, my friend.

[Doctor Despair]

So... what are you trying to prove with this statement?

Evidently that DKs cannot be any other type of dragon but a true dragons since they progress through age categories and, since they are indeed dragons, they automatically must be tagged as true if they are used as PCs

[Doctor Awkward]

Evidently that DKs cannot be any other type of dragon but a true dragons since they progress through age categories and, since they are indeed dragons, they automatically must be tagged as true if they are used as PCs

How can they be true dragons if they are not specifically stated to be true dragons?

[Doctor Despair]

How can they be true dragons if they are not specifically stated to be true dragons?

Because they are dragons and that text says that all dragons that are not true dragons do not progress through age categories

[Doctor Awkward]

Because they are dragons and that text says that all dragons that are not true dragons do not progress through age categories

No it doesn't.

It says that creatures that aren't true dragons have no built-in progression due to age.

Built-in progression is contextually defined by the previous heading of "Dragons as Player Characters" under the subheading of "Advancement and Aging". It stipulates that as the dragon ages (as noted on the accompanying table) it gains the abilities normally associated with it's type as well as the statistics granted by dragon hit dice (such as 1d12 of hit points, a point of BAB, a point of Natural Armor, increased saving throws, etc.)

[Technetium43]

Again, PROGRESSION is an actual game term, referring to the collection of Racial Hit Dice and Level Adjustment that one can ADVANCE through. We just had this whole argument about how context apparently doesn't exist, and 'advance' isn't actually a game term, and then you turn around and try to do the EXACT same thing to a different game term? Really?

[ryu]

ryu, have you had any experience with non-dairy or non-gluten s'mores?

Warning: foul language. Clip from the comedy sketch show "Father Ted", 2 min long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TQuacxEjAU

Not really unless by accident. I don't limit ingredients used unless someone in the intended audience has an allergy, intolerance, or similar complication, and even then it's more the case of them getting their serving specially made for them. On the topic of necessary substitution we had someone who wasn't supposed to have beef, and so we made lasagna with a mixture of shrimp, crab, and lobster meat instead. We also replaced the tomato based sauce with a white sauce. Results were actually pretty great so we just do that regularly now.

[Gruftzwerg]

to use someone else's argument (meh) ...

Draconomicon pg. 144 (on Lesser Dragons as PCs): "Using another creature of the dragon type as a player character is rather less complicated than using a true dragon. Such a creature has a set level adjustment and no built-in progression due to age,"

Kobolds, dragonwrought or not, have NO SET LEVEL ADJUSTMENT and DO PROGRESS THRU AGE LEVELS even if it is only by age, not HD, ecl, ect.

Now one of you can you the meaning of the word progress to argue that the book wasn't written in English

Yet another ambiguous find.

so what? Draconomicon p144 "Other True Dragons" give LVL ADJUSTMENT & HD progression for FREE for any TRUE DRAGON. So it isn't a requirement for counting as true dragon. "Oh, you are a True Dragon sir? Wait, you still need your lvl adjustment and extra HD before you smack down the party". That's how the rules work.
The question is still, are DWK True Dragons and get it for FREE?...


How can they be true dragons if they are not specifically stated to be true dragons?
And how can they be "lesser dragons" when they are not specifically stated as? "lesser dragon" ain't a default category. It's one of two!
And DWK doesn't fit in "lesser dragons" cause, anything with Dragon Age categories is denied to be a "lesser dragon".
Are you confused enough now? It's explicit clear that DWK doesn't fit "lesser dragons" as the rules and definition for "lesser dragons" is stated.

That's the reason why people try to fit it into the sole other category left > True Dragons..

Maybe we invent a new category for DWK only the "lesser true dragon" *lol*


as I mentioned earlier: Imho this messed up situation comes from the fact that at the time of the DWK feat release, being a true dragon ain't a big deal balance wise. I guess the intend was to give DWK true dragon status. Later wizard realized that dragons are to weak and buffed em with new material and everybody forgot that DWK also have true dragon status.
The same thing why other obscure builds (1d2 crusader, pun pun, bobafeat.. ) are legit. The publishers/autors have no clue what they are doing when they release new stuff. They are poor build optimizer and rule exploiter. They make even mistakes with their own rules set "how to write rules". All of this made D&D 3.5 ;)

[Troacctid]

so what? Draconomicon p144 "Other True Dragons" give LVL ADJUSTMENT & HD progression for FREE for any TRUE DRAGON. So it isn't a requirement for counting as true dragon. "Oh, you are a True Dragon sir? Wait, you still need your lvl adjustment and extra HD before you smack down the party". That's how the rules work.
No it's not? Like, it's totally not. Look at the rule.

For true dragons other than those found in the Monster Manual, construct tables such as those above using the information on Table 3–22: Additional Level Adjustments.
Do you see kobolds on Table 3–22? Because I don't. How are you supposed to construct a table for them? This rule certainly doesn't allow it.

And that's not even mentioning that the rule only applies to true dragons, which makes it irrelevant to kobolds, since they are not true dragons and thus would not be able to use it in any case.


And how can they be "lesser dragons" when they are not specifically stated as? "lesser dragon" ain't a default category. It's one of two!
And DWK doesn't fit in "lesser dragons" cause, anything with Dragon Age categories is denied to be a "lesser dragon".
Because they have a set level adjustment and no built-in progression due to age, so after character creation there is no reason to advance the character as a monster again. Again, see Draconomicon. But if you ignore that rule, then sure, it's totally ambiguous.

[Gruftzwerg]

No it's not? Like, it's totally not. Look at the rule.

Do you see kobolds on Table 3–22? Because I don't. How are you supposed to construct a table for them? This rule certainly doesn't allow it.

I'll quote the rule text and bold the important part and hope your understanding of the english language should be enough to solve your issue:

For true dragons other than those found in the Monster Manual, construct tables such as those above using the information on Table 3–22: Additional Level Adjustments.
if you still don't get it: if said dragon is a true dragon, the DM should CONSTRUCT a table such as shown on Table 3-22. Table 3-22 is the blueprint for the DM to work with.



And that's not even mentioning that the rule only applies to true dragons, which makes it irrelevant to kobolds, since they are not true dragons and thus would not be able to use it in any case.
We are still trying to prove if or if not they are true dragons. and as it seems of now, they can't be "lesser dragon" and seem to be more "true dragons".



Because they have a set level adjustment and no built-in progression due to age, so after character creation there is no reason to advance the character as a monster again. Again, see Draconomicon. But if you ignore that rule, then sure, it's totally ambiguous.

If DWK are true dragons they get it for free. (EDIT) BTW we only have a statblock for regular Kobolds who don't have that yeah. But we don't have any statblock for DWKs, so no point here again. (end of EDIT)

btw.. could you explain me how you would use the "other true dragons" paragraph? Cause all the time you ask for set lvl adjustment and build-in progression. How the hell is "Other True Dragons" supposed to give them that, when you require it in the first place? Got it? You CAN'T require it to be a True Dragon and than give it later if he doens't have it (?lol) as a true dragon again. That would be totally nonsense.

In-fact, is there any other possible candidate for "Other True Dragons" beside from DWK? I am not aware of anyone (just asking kindly the community here)?

[Doc_Maynot]

The same thing why other obscure builds (1d2 crusader, pun pun, bobafeat.. ) are legit.

Never heard of this trick until now. Always more preferred to use that spell with JPM's capstone. Might mix and match that now...

[Troacctid]

I'll quote the rule text and bold the important part and hope your understanding of the english language should be enough to sole your issue:

if you still don't get it: if said dragon is a true dragon, the DM should CONSTRUCT a table such as shown on Table 3-22. Table 3-22 is the blueprint for the DM to work with.
Uh, no, you skipped some pretty key words in that sentence and completely changed its meaning.


We are still trying to prove if or if not they are true dragons. and as it seems of now, they can't be "lesser dragon" and seem to be more "true dragons".
We're also still trying to prove if or if not halflings are true dragons. After all, the rules don't say they aren't true dragons.


If DWK are true dragons they get it for free.
Then it's a pity they're lesser dragons.


btw.. could you explain me how you would use the "other true dragons" paragraph? Cause all the time you ask for set lvl adjustment and build-in progression. How the hell is "Other True Dragons" supposed to give them that, when you require it in the first place? Got it? You CAN'T require it to be a True Dragon and than give it later if he doens't have it (?lol) as a true dragon again. That would be totally nonsense.
Level adjustment and hit dice by age category are given in the advancement line of all true dragons.


In-fact, is there any other possible candidate for "Other True Dragons" beside from DWK? I am not aware of anyone (just asking kindly the community here)?
How about the ones in Table 3–22 on page 144 of Draconomicon?

[Kelb_Panthera]

btw.. could you explain me how you would use the "other true dragons" paragraph? Cause all the time you ask for set lvl adjustment and build-in progression. How the hell is "Other True Dragons" supposed to give them that, when you require it in the first place? Got it? You CAN'T require it to be a True Dragon and than give it later if he doens't have it (?lol) as a true dragon again. That would be totally nonsense.

I'll field that.

Table 3-22 gives the relevant information for constructing tables like those in 3-21 on the previous page which is what the passage is instructing the DM to do. It contains all of the true dragons from printed sources up to that point. There was no need to generate tables from whole-cloth at that point, at all; simply to slot the info from table 3-22 into the appropriate rows and distribute special abilities. Every true dragon printed after that, save the contested DWK, also has all of the relevant information to construct such a table, though the exact layout of the HD and LA accross the appropriate ECL requires -some- DM decision making.

A DWK has no racial HD, no LA, and no special abilities to distribute accross such a table. Consequently, such a table -cannot- be constructed for them.

[Gruftzwerg]

Never heard of this trick until now. Always more preferred to use that spell with JPM's capstone. Might mix and match that now...

see my signature. it's an altered version of the JPM build, but far more powerful and game breaking.

@ Troacctid


construct tables such as
construct = someone does (build) something.
It doesn't read, take the table 3-22 for only these mentioned dragons.
It talks about:
For true dragons other than those found in the Monster Manual
there isn't anywhere mentioned that it is exclusive list. In fact the DM is suggested/forced to
construct tables such as those above using the information on Table 3–22: Additional Level Adjustments

edit:

A DWK has no racial HD, no LA, and no special abilities to distribute accross such a table. Consequently, such a table -cannot- be constructed for them.
Why not? there are guidelines and the DM may chose something what he thinks fits best. In D&D 3.5 the DM gets a bunch of tools to even build a Monster/True Dragon from scratch. I can't imagine it would be totally impossible to construct said tables for DWK.

[Kelb_Panthera]

see my signature. it's an altered version of the JPM build, but far more powerful and game breaking.

Looked at that, doesn't actually work. That's another discussion for another day.


Why not? there are guidelines and the DM may chose something what he thinks fits best. In D&D 3.5 the DM gets a bunch of tools to even build a Monster/True Dragon from scratch. I can't imagine it would be totally impossible to construct said tables for DWK.

You're now contending that the table accompanying the passage in question is a completely incongruent bit of essentially nothing. That it was -not- in fact, provided to facilitate the very thing it accompanies.

Do I -really- need to explain how absurd that is.

The "table" that would be generated for kobold would be 0 lines. There's no HD and no LA for them to begin with or level into.

[Gruftzwerg]

The "table" that would be generated for kobold would be 0 lines. There's no HD and no LA for them to begin with or level into.

as stated earlier in this thread. The DM has 2 options:

1) generate a table with 0 lines with no HD and no LA. This would lead to very powerful builds if the DM desires it.

2) generate a table similar to any other True Dragon (that the DM thinks fits best for the DWK) and construct a table for the DWK that gives him extra HD and LA. This would make almost any high level cheese DWK build impossible and the DM would encourage the players to play something else, cause DWK are no longer reliable for optimization.

[Troacctid]

as stated earlier in this thread. The DM has 2 options:

1) generate a table with 0 lines with no HD and no LA. This would lead to very powerful builds if the DM desires it.

2) generate a table similar to any other True Dragon (that the DM thinks fits best for the DWK) and construct a table for the DWK that gives him extra HD and LA. This would make almost any high level cheese DWK build impossible and the DM would encourage the players to play something else, cause DWK are no longer reliable for optimization.
Right. Same with halflings. You can generate a table with no HD or LA, or you can generate a table similar to other true dragons' that has them increase in LA and dragon HD as they age. Since this means that halflings can advance through age categories, it qualifies them as true dragons, so they can take sovereign archetypes—provided the DM makes a favorable ruling on the ambiguous text.

[Kelb_Panthera]

as stated earlier in this thread. The DM has 2 options:

Oh FFS.


1) generate a table with 0 lines with no HD and no LA. This would lead to very powerful builds if the DM desires it.

Not an option. A table with 0 lines is just a blank space.


2) generate a table similar to any other True Dragon (that the DM thinks fits best for the DWK) and construct a table for the DWK that gives him extra HD and LA. This would make almost any high level cheese DWK build impossible and the DM would encourage the players to play something else, cause DWK are no longer reliable for optimization.

Did you even look at the other tables? The pattern is -crystal- clear. Any table you constructed that would follow the same pattern and, thus, be similar in any meaningful way other than simply being a table is the 0 line table in your option 1. Unless you're suggesting a DM should homebrew HD and LA to add to a DWK and make a table based on that. You're not actually dragging homebrew into a RAW debate?

[Gruftzwerg]

Right. Same with halflings. You can generate a table with no HD or LA, or you can generate a table similar to other true dragons' that has them increase in LA and dragon HD as they age. Since this means that halflings can advance through age categories, it qualifies them as true dragons, so they can take sovereign archetypes—provided the DM makes a favorable ruling on the ambiguous text.

thx for your troll post again.
halfings aren't of dragon type and therefor have no point to debate being a true dragon at all. further the lack of Dragon Age categories is another point that denies them true dragon status. It won't become more meaningful just because you repeat it over and over again. (and pls don't tell me that it is just your attempt to be sarcastic again... cause repeating something that has been disproved many times is just annoying and not sarcastic at all)



Not an option. A table with 0 lines is just a blank space.

Sry for my bad english. It should read more: A table filled with "0" lines = +0HD +0LVL Adjustment. And 0 is still a valid value in D&D term. It's not the same as blank or nonexistent.


Unless you're suggesting a DM should homebrew HD and LA to add to a DWK and make a table based on that. You're not actually dragging homebrew into a RAW debate?

No, not homebrew. I say that "other true dragons" suggest/force the DM to "construct" tables, such as 3-22. Imho the text gives the DM the duty to do it. "Construct", a word used to build up something that is complete at the end of the process. You don't use it for something that is already complete (than it would read just: "use table 3-22" without construct). The DM needs to build up what is necessary to complete the true dragon, so that he has HD and LA progression (even if it's a "0" value, as said up to the DM).

[Troacctid]

thx for your troll post again.
halfings aren't of dragon type and therefor have no point to debate being a true dragon at all. further the lack of Dragon Age categories is another point that denies them true dragon status. It won't become more meaningful just because you repeat it over and over again. (and pls don't tell me that it is just your attempt to be sarcastic again... cause repeating something that has been disproved many times is just annoying and not sarcastic at all)
All true dragons have the dragon type. Since halflings are true dragons, it means they have the dragon type. Therefore, there is no reason why they can't be true dragons.

[Kelb_Panthera]

thx for your troll post again.
halfings aren't of dragon type and therefor have no point to debate being a true dragon at all. further the lack of Dragon Age categories is another point that denies them true dragon status. It won't become more meaningful just because you repeat it over and over again. (and pls don't tell me that it is just your attempt to be sarcastic again... cause repeating something that has been disproved many times is just annoying and not sarcastic at all)

Obvious sarcasm is, in fact, obviously sarcastic. You have not properly grasped the concept if you can't detect the sarcasm there.

The exageration in extending the argument to non-dragons is to highlight the absurdity of your argument by taking it one step further. I'll be sticking to the circular logic.


Sry for my bad english. It should read more: A table filled with "0" lines = +0HD +0LVL Adjustment. And 0 is still a valid value in D&D term. It's not the same as blank or nonexistent.

This is not a matter of game rules. That 0 is distinct from null (-) in the game rules is irrelevant. We're talking about structuring a table; a matter of writing and data presentation. A table with zero entries isn't a table. It's just a blank space on the page.


No, not homebrew. I say that "other true dragons" suggest/force the DM to "construct" tables, such as 3-22. Imho the text gives the DM the duty to do it. "Construct", a word used to build up something that is complete at the end of the process. You don't use it for something that is already complete (than it would read just: "use table 3-22" without construct). The DM needs to build up what is necessary to complete the true dragon, so that he has HD and LA progression (even if it's a "0" value, as said up to the DM).

Not table 3-22, table 3-21; the tables that describe PC dragon advancement. Table 3-22 provides the relevant information for -how- to structure those tables for all of the true dragons published up to that point. The instruction being given is -quite- clear. The segment (it's more than one paragraph) is a continuation of the larger section of the chapter, headed "Dragons as Player Characters."

[ryu]

Obvious sarcasm is, in fact, obviously sarcastic. You have not properly grasped the concept if you can't detect the sarcasm there.

The exageration in extending the argument to non-dragons is to highlight the absurdity of your argument by taking it one step further. I'll be sticking to the circular logic.



This is not a matter of game rules. That 0 is distinct from null (-) in the game rules is irrelevant. We're talking about structuring a table; a matter of writing and data presentation. A table with zero entries isn't a table. It's just a blank space on the page.



Not table 3-22, table 3-21; the tables that describe PC dragon advancement. Table 3-22 provides the relevant information for -how- to structure those tables for all of the true dragons published up to that point. The instruction being given is -quite- clear. The segment (it's more than one paragraph) is a continuation of the larger section of the chapter, headed "Dragons as Player Characters."

To be fair he's not suggesting a table with no entries. He's suggesting a table with the ordinary number of entries with zeros for all relevant fields. Yes there's a difference.

[Kelb_Panthera]

To be fair he's not suggesting a table with no entries. He's suggesting a table with the ordinary number of entries with zeros for all relevant fields. Yes there's a difference.

The tables in question vary in length. They also follow an observable pattern. Each entry represents how a dragon -must- advance in level when reaching the listed age. Kobolds need -never- advance in level when reaching a certain age. The table would be empty.

Any other number of entries would be arbitrary; 12 for age categories? 120 for standard life span in years? 114 for life after reaching playable adulthood? 1440 for each month in the standard cycle? NI for the smallest measurable unit of time based on the planck constant and subatomic movement? How do you logically decide which to use when none are needed and all are equally valid?

[ryu]

The tables in question vary in length. They also follow an observable pattern. Each entry represents how a dragon -must- advance in level when reaching the listed age. Kobolds need -never- advance in level when reaching a certain age. The table would be empty.

Any other number of entries would be arbitrary; 12 for age categories? 120 for standard life span in years? 114 for life after reaching playable adulthood? 1440 for each month in the standard cycle? NI for the smallest measurable unit of time based on the planck constant and subatomic movement? How do you logically decide which to use when none are needed and all are equally valid?

For a well designed table in this style that conveys all relevant information? Twelve entries with the zeros for appropriate fields. Fifteen if you desire to include aging effects, but not really necessary in my opinion. Also no even for something like this every decision has a purpose. Why list all entries for every dragon species? Removal of ambiguity, the ability to use the same template for all dragons regardless of how many stat changes they get, and thus the ability to save an absolute buttload of time typing otherwise known as the most tedious part of designing a simple table.

[Kelb_Panthera]

For a well designed table in this style that conveys all relevant information? Twelve entries with the zeros for appropriate fields. Fifteen if you desire to include aging effects, but not really necessary in my opinion. Also no even for something like this every decision has a purpose. Why list all entries for every dragon species? Removal of ambiguity, the ability to use the same template for all dragons regardless of how many stat changes they get, and thus the ability to save an absolute buttload of time typing otherwise known as the most tedious part of designing a simple table.

A table that conveys all the relevant information isn't needed. There is no relevant information to fill the table with because DWK's don't advance ECL as they age. That's the information the tables are intended to convey after all.

Choosing 12 for age categories isn't because it logically follows from the pattern of the other tables, it's simpy because there are 12 age categories. All the other tables divide their entries cleanly by ECL, starting with the ECL of a wyrmling of the listed type and progressing to 20.

[ryu]

A table that conveys all the relevant information isn't needed. There is no relevant information to fill the table with because DWK's don't advance ECL as they age. That's the information the tables are intended to convey after all.

Choosing 12 for age categories isn't because it logically follows from the pattern of the other tables, it's simpy because there are 12 age categories. All the other tables divide their entries cleanly by ECL, starting with the ECL of a wyrmling of the listed type and progressing to 20.

Twenty then! The point is that the standardized table length should always be the maximum sized expected of any given table length, so that you can simply copy and paste the template without worrying about altering it or having single cells sticking out at the ends of a table making it look crummy. That's not arbitrary. That's excel 101.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Twenty then! The point is that the standardized table length should always be the maximum sized expected of any given table length, so that you can simply copy and paste the template without worrying about altering it or having single cells sticking out at the ends of a table making it look crummy. That's not arbitrary. That's excel 101.

If you take 20, you've also got to choose what age categories go in each row; how? You obviously can't start with a wyrmling (like all the other tables) since they're unplayable. How about numeric ages for each row?

Not that it matters. You'd have to put ECL's 1-20 in each of their respective rows and a creature with no racial HD or LA cannot be accurately fit to -any- of those rows.

There simpy is -no- way to properly construct and fill the table that conforms to both the game rules and the pattern presented by the other tables.

[Doctor Despair]

Ultimately we now have two tenuous arguments that have a very strong and compelling case against them but nonetheless can not be conclusively disproven in such a way that proponents of DKs as TDs could not continue to argue: whether or not DKs "progress" through age categories and whether or not they "advance" through age categories. If the former is true, they are TDs by the tautology presented in the book. If the latter is true, you can make a case that they qualify to be TDs since they meet all the criteria that describes them and it has been described as a binary between true and lesser dragons.

Yes, a hypothetical responder will say, but to try to swing that DKs progress or advance through age categories is willfully trying to ignore the intent of the text and how those words are typically used in DnD! While I agree with you, Johnny Rulesparser, I also have to point out that while we can prove within a reasonable doubt that we are right, we cannot prove without a shadow of a doubt that we are right unless someone can produce a glossary entry or equivalent where we can see the definition of both terms as they are conjugated and used here in the relevant text. Unless we have that, as far as I can tell, this issue can't be resolved.

[ryu]

If you take 20, you've also got to choose what age categories go in each row; how? You obviously can't start with a wyrmling (like all the other tables) since they're unplayable. How about numeric ages for each row?

Not that it matters. You'd have to put ECL's 1-20 in each of their respective rows and a creature with no racial HD or LA cannot be accurately fit to -any- of those rows.

There simpy is -no- way to properly construct and fill the table that conforms to both the game rules and the pattern presented by the other tables.

No no. You totally can. You have many viable options for including everything, because at no point is it stated that every individual entry in the table need be playable. Merely that such are modeled to be able to exist in the game world. Just like human babies and children. Similarly as ECL is completely divorced from age their is also no requirement that every age category need show up. As a matter of fact? just make several tables with 1-20 ranges all at the same age. Most campaigns don't last decades let alone centuries after all. Someone wants to make a campaign that lasts longer? It still doesn't actually make it hard to make a table to suit it in the slightest. Do keep in mind I don't actually care about the true dragon thing. Precisely none of what I've used these feated kobolds for requires it. I'm just pointing out that tables are a lot simpler and to plan than you think and follow very obvious rules.

[Kelb_Panthera]

No no. You totally can. You have many viable options for including everything, because at no point is it stated that every individual entry in the table need be playable. Merely that such are modeled to be able to exist in the game world. Just like human babies and children. Similarly as ECL is completely divorced from age their is also no requirement that every age category need show up. As a matter of fact? just make several tables with 1-20 ranges all at the same age. Most campaigns don't last decades let alone centuries after all. Someone wants to make a campaign that lasts longer? It still doesn't actually make it hard to make a table to suit it in the slightest. Do keep in mind I don't actually care about the true dragon thing. Precisely none of what I've used these feated kobolds for requires it. I'm just pointing out that tables are a lot simpler and to plan than you think and follow very obvious rules.

Making tables is trivially easy. Making a table that conforms to the same pattern as the rest of them for DWK's is impossible; that's the problem at hand. Trying to match one element of the table throws the rest of them all out of whack and the root cause of that is, and this is the core of the matter, DWK's do not advance in the sense of creature advancement as they age as do -genuine- true dragons.

[ryu]

Making tables is trivially easy. Making a table that conforms to the same pattern as the rest of them for DWK's is impossible; that's the problem at hand. Trying to match one element of the table throws the rest of them all out of whack and the root cause of that is, and this is the core of the matter, DWK's do not advance in the sense of creature advancement as they age as do -genuine- true dragons.

And who CARES about a pattern? The only criteria given for the table is ''such as the above.'' That just means we've a list of fields to use and a standardized number of entries. It's a VERY loose criteria.

[Kelb_Panthera]

And who CARES about a pattern?

Anyone trying to present the same type of information for the same purpose? I mean, obvious answer seemed obvious but you asked. Or are we just gonna pretend that the passage is instucting the DM to create such a table for no reason at all?


The only criteria given for the table is ''such as the above.'' That just means we've a list of fields to use and a standardized number of entries. It's a VERY loose criteria.

Only if you're creating the table for its own sake in support of the absurd argument that DWK's are true dragons rather than for the purpose that the header of the segment describes.

[Doctor Despair]

Only if you're creating the table for its own sake in support of the absurd argument that DWK's are true dragons rather than for the purpose that the header of the segment describes.

While I agree it's absurd, as I said above, that is what we are discussing here.

[ryu]

Anyone trying to present the same type of information for the same purpose? I mean, obvious answer seemed obvious but you asked. Or are we just gonna pretend that the passage is instucting the DM to create such a table for no reason at all?



Only if you're creating the table for its own sake in support of the absurd argument that DWK's are true dragons rather than for the purpose that the header of the segment describes.

As we have already covered in exhaustive detail I consider the very term ''true'' dragon to be both absurd and pointless. You get nothing of particular use for being one, after all. It's a worthless, do-nothing term that people on this forum like to argue about for no particular reason. I'm literally just taking this time to demonstrate because this seems the most likely to actually end the discussion and let you all move on to whatever you'll discuss next in a reasonable time-frame. That said, this passage proves that such a table is to be created for dragons which otherwise qualify and don't have one. Such a table is easily produced, and nothing outside of a list of fields, and likely a standardized number of entries is required.

[Gruftzwerg]

And who CARES about a pattern? The only criteria given for the table is ''such as the above.'' That just means we've a list of fields to use and a standardized number of entries. It's a VERY loose criteria.

It could look like this:


3-22 Additional LA

DWK 0 (Hit Dice) +0 (LA) - (Compare)


DM finished his homework and the player can start to have fun with TD DWK.

Or the DM may think, sry bro. Not in this unoptimized group of T4-5. DWK get the same treatment as Fang Dragons, making any attempt of a "regular TD DWK build" impossible.

[Kelb_Panthera]

As we have already covered in exhaustive detail I consider the very term ''true'' dragon to be both absurd and pointless. You get nothing of particular use for being one, after all. It's a worthless, do-nothing term that people on this forum like to argue about for no particular reason. I'm literally just taking this time to demonstrate because this seems the most likely to actually end the discussion and let you all move on to whatever you'll discuss next in a reasonable time-frame. That said, this passage proves that such a table is to be created for dragons which otherwise qualify and don't have one. Such a table is easily produced, and nothing outside of a list of fields, and likely a standardized number of entries is required.

... you haven't actually looked at the tables, have you?

They do -not- have a standard number of entries. The number of entries is dependent on the ECL of a wyrmling of the type in question. Brass have the most at 15, while golds have the least at 9. They all cap at ECL 20. These are definitional qualities for these tables and DWK's -cannot- define these parameters for their own table because they do not have a wyrmling ECL or an ECl before class levels at all and neither do they advance by age into higher ECL's to generate a stopping point at 20.

As for your assertion that it doesn't do anything, this is only true by the same ignoring of context for all of the other goodies commonly associated with DWK's like supposedly qualifying for epic feats or sovereign archetypes. We can come back to that after -this- issue is layed to rest.


It could look like this:


3-22 Additional LA

DWK 0 (Hit Dice) +0 (LA) - (Compare)


DM finished his homework and the player can start to have fun with TD DWK.

Or the DM may think, sry bro. Not in this unoptimized group of T4-5. DWK get the same treatment as Fang Dragons, making any attempt of a "regular TD DWK build" impossible.

You're not even looking at the right table.

[ryu]

... you haven't actually looked at the tables, have you?

They do -not- have a standard number of entries. The number of entries is dependent on the ECL of a wyrmling of the type in question. Brass have the most at 15, while golds have the least at 9. They all cap at ECL 20. These are definitional qualities for these tables and DWK's -cannot- define these parameters for their own table because they do not have a wyrmling ECL or an ECl before class levels at all and neither do they advance by age into higher ECL's to generate a stopping point at 20.

As for your assertion that it doesn't do anything, this is only true by the same ignoring of context for all of the other goodies commonly associated with DWK's like supposedly qualifying for epic feats or sovereign archetypes. We can come back to that after -this- issue is layed to rest.



You're not even looking at the right table.

The fact that they designed a substandard template to build their tables with has no bearing here. Neither for that matter is your assertion about what the special kobolds do or don't get as that is also entirely optional as others have pointed out.

Further still I really rather doubt you'll have more ground on those issues than these considering we can actually argue with far more certainty over subjects that don't span several odd books, and that I've actually found the passage granting the dragons epic feats past a certain age. I also doubt I'll get you to agree, but that's also entirely irrelevant as we're unlikely to ever play at the same table when mine has allowed it for literal years. By all means though you're welcome to start shouting at clouds for all the effect it will have.

[Gruftzwerg]

... you haven't actually looked at the tables, have you?

They do -not- have a standard number of entries. The number of entries is dependent on the ECL of a wyrmling of the type in question. Brass have the most at 15, while golds have the least at 9. They all cap at ECL 20. These are definitional qualities for these tables and DWK's -cannot- define these parameters for their own table because they do not have a wyrmling ECL or an ECl before class levels at all and neither do they advance by age into higher ECL's to generate a stopping point at 20.

As for your assertion that it doesn't do anything, this is only true by the same ignoring of context for all of the other goodies commonly associated with DWK's like supposedly qualifying for epic feats or sovereign archetypes. We can come back to that after -this- issue is layed to rest.



You're not even looking at the right table.

ehem.. it's you who ain't looking at the right table... consider to read the text that belongs to the tables.
Brass & Gold Dragons are from the 10 base true dragons out of the MM and are listed in table 3-21. Table 3-21 has nothing to do with "other true dragons" and is only for those 10 out of the MM. "Other True Dragons" are covered in table 3-22 and this is where the DWK would belong to. And as you should be able to see, dragons in table 3-22 don't always cap at ECL 20.

Instead of trying to disprove DWK TD status at all cost, try to read a bit more and be a bit more open-minded.

[The Insanity]

Was any of the True Dragons on the list from RotD NOT specificaly called as such before being put on the list?

[daremetoidareyo]

What do you get for being a true Dragon?

[Doctor Despair]

What do you get for being a true Dragonhood?

Evidently nothing

[Cosi]

What do you get for being a true Dragon?

I believe the theory is that being a True Dragon makes you eligible for Sovereign Archetypes. Most of them aren't terribly impressive, though they are certainly worthwhile by virtue of being free. Getting to learn Cleric spells as a Sorcerer is not an amazing deal, because they trade off with your Sorcerer spells, and Cleric spells are mostly either worse than Sorcerer spells or already Sorcerer spells. The one that people care about (which is very broken) gives two free levels of Sorcerer casting.

[Doctor Despair]

I believe the theory is that being a True Dragon makes you eligible for Sovereign Archetypes. Most of them aren't terribly impressive, though they are certainly worthwhile by virtue of being free. Getting to learn Cleric spells as a Sorcerer is not an amazing deal, because they trade off with your Sorcerer spells, and Cleric spells are mostly either worse than Sorcerer spells or already Sorcerer spells. The one that people care about (which is very broken) gives two free levels of Sorcerer casting.

I'd have to look again, but I believe the counter argument is that the sovereign archetypes never actually say you need be a true dragon to take them despite being listed in a section related to true dragons, so any creature with the dragon type could take it

[Doctor Awkward]

What do you get for being a true Dragon?

A number of things, actually.

Sovereign archetypes out of Dragons of Eberron is the big one that most people know about. If dragon racial hit dice were a "class" they would be "alternate class features". You change out an aspect of hit die advancement for something else. What most people tend to miss is that these are RELIGIOUS BELIEFS that true dragons in the Eberron Campaign Setting can choose to follow.

The religion itself is call "Thir" (Draconic for three), and it refers to the three great progenitors of all existence: Siberys, the Dragon Above, Khyber the Dragon Below, and Eberron, the mother of all that is natural. The Dragon Gods (Bahamut, Tiamat, Astilabor, Chronepsis, Falazure, Garyx, etc.) rank just below these three. And below them, are the Sovereigns. Each Sovereign was once a dragon that embodied a primal concept in life and ascended to become a Sovereign in death. Because the Dragon Gods don't have time to concern themselves with lesser races, the Sovereigns watch over them. When an appropriate dragon candidate dies, he becomes a Sovereign in death, replacing one of the existing ones who then ascends to a higher plane of existence. Choosing to embody a Sovereign Archetype in life means that you hope to ascend to replace that Sovereign when you die.

Anyway, the big archetype that pretty much everyone is familiar with is Loredrake. Spellcraft is added as a class skill, and as soon as they are capable of casting sorcerer spells, their effective sorcerer level is increased by two. In exchange, they roll d10's for HP instead of d12's.

People are typically only aware of this one because it's one of the many exploits used under the assumption that Dragonwrought kobolds count as true dragons. By taking levels in Sorcerer, you count as being two levels higher than you actually are. So at character level 2, you'd be an effective Sorcerer 4, and be casting 2nd level spells. It's also used for early entry shenanigans in a couple of builds.

Beyond that, the Draconomicon states that true dragons qualify for epic feats as soon as they reach Old age or older, regardless of their actual hit dice or ECL. So a venerable dragonwrought kobold would use this to take feats that have lax prerequisites right at character creation. Like additional Magic Item Space, Armor Skin, Energy Resistance, and so on.

There's also a couple of feats and prestige classes that have "true dragon" as a prerequisite like Dragon Ascendant or Draconic Knowledge.

[Mato]

Three pages of incorrect statements since my last post and the most inaccurate award goes to...


Beyond that, the Draconomicon states that true dragons qualify for epic feats as soon as they reach Old age or older, regardless of their actual hit dice or ECL.You made up the red text parts.

It actually says epic feats are available to 21st level characters and true dragons of at least old age can select them even if they don't have any class levels. It never once implies they can obtain them early or that they actually meet the prerequisites of the feat.

And there is no text in that entry that says you can use the feat even if you did select it.

Some feats have prerequisites. Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat. ... A character can’t use a feat if he or she has lost a prerequisite.

[Doctor Awkward]

Three pages of incorrect statements since my last post and the most inaccurate award goes to...

You made up the red text parts.

It actually says epic feats are available to 21st level characters and true dragons of at least old age can select them even if they don't have any class levels. It never once implies they can obtain them early or that they actually meet the prerequisites of the feat.

And there is no text in that entry that says you can use the feat even if you did select it.


...

Um, well...

The general rule for epic feats (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#acquiringEpicFeats) is that they are only available to characters of 21st level or higher, regardless of if other prerequisites are met.

That's why not just anyone can take Energy Resistance, even though it has no prerequisites at all.

The Draconomicon states that true dragons of Old age or older can acquire them, even if they don't have any class levels. I honestly don't know how else you can interpret that text other than hitting the Old age category automatically fulfills the 21st level requirement of epic feats if you are a true dragon.

So...

:smallconfused:?

[ryu]

...

Um, well...

The general rule for epic feats (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#acquiringEpicFeats) is that they are only available to characters of 21st level or higher, regardless of if other prerequisites are met.

That's why not just anyone can take Energy Resistance, even though it has no prerequisites at all.

The Draconomicon states that true dragons of Old age or older can acquire them, even if they don't have any class levels. I honestly don't know how else you can interpret that text other than hitting the Old age category automatically fulfills the 21st level requirement of epic feats if you are a true dragon.

So...

:smallconfused:?

Actually the Draconomicon states in no uncertain terms that dragons in general can do that. Read the short paragraph about epic feats on page 66. The word true doesn't even APPEAR in it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Actually the Draconomicon states in no uncertain terms that dragons in general can do that. Read the short paragraph about epic feats on page 66. The word true doesn't even APPEAR in it.

See, this is what I'm talking about when I say "ignoring context" the whole -chapter- is about running true dragons. The statement in question isn't a rule at all. It's pointing out that literally all true dragons that are old or older -already qualify- for epic feats.

[Kelb_Panthera]

ehem.. it's you who ain't looking at the right table... consider to read the text that belongs to the tables.
Brass & Gold Dragons are from the 10 base true dragons out of the MM and are listed in table 3-21. Table 3-21 has nothing to do with "other true dragons" and is only for those 10 out of the MM. "Other True Dragons" are covered in table 3-22 and this is where the DWK would belong to. And as you should be able to see, dragons in table 3-22 don't always cap at ECL 20.

Instead of trying to disprove DWK TD status at all cost, try to read a bit more and be a bit more open-minded.

Let's look at the segment again:

"For true dragons other than those found inthe monster manual, construct tables such as those above using the information on table 3-22: additional level adjustments."

The tables above the passage are those on the previous page; 3-21. Table 3-22 is -below- the passage and presents the information to construct the tables.

Table 3-22 is not the table being refered to by "such as those" in the sentence. If it were, it wouldn't be referring you to the -same- table for the information to fill out the tables being constructed. Your argument is completely illogical.

[ryu]

See, this is what I'm talking about when I say "ignoring context" the whole -chapter- is about running true dragons. The statement in question isn't a rule at all. It's pointing out that literally all true dragons that are old or older -already qualify- for epic feats.

And that would be the case, if they had actually bothered to use the word true just once in a relevant place in that paragraph. I'll even concede that's likely what they INTENDED to be the case. The fact of the matter though? Normal dragons qualify for epic feats, depending on your current HP drowning heals you, prestidigitation can render lava harmless, item handoffs are the key to non-magical faster than light communication, and so on. Your context is meaningless, and your designer intent actually has negative value in an argument with me. That's right folks. Get a designer here to clarify that meant something other than what RAW clearly states in a situation with sheer undeniable eye witness accounts? Completely irrelevant. I've long publicly held the opinion that the game they made by accident was far more fun than the game they ''intended.''

[eggynack]

See, this is what I'm talking about when I say "ignoring context" the whole -chapter- is about running true dragons. The statement in question isn't a rule at all. It's pointing out that literally all true dragons that are old or older -already qualify- for epic feats.
It feels like you're ignoring the context on this one. The chapter doesn't really mention true dragons either. It sees occasional mentions in feat prerequisites and such, but, between the beginning of the chapter and this citation on page 66, the word "true" does not appear a single time. Sure, one can say it's somehow implied, but there seems to be next to no rules basis for denying this capacity to any dragon.

[ryu]

It feels like you're ignoring the context on this one. The chapter doesn't really mention true dragons either. It sees occasional mentions in feat prerequisites and such, but, between the beginning of the chapter and this citation on page 66, the word "true" does not appear a single time. Sure, one can say it's somehow implied, but there seems to be next to no rules basis for denying this capacity to any dragon.

Oh wow really? And here I prefer to allow my opponent in debate the entirety of the factual claims just to completely derail the entire point of their argument by denying a position they banked on me holding. This totally works too though.

[Doctor Despair]

*raises finger*

I...

*Lowers finger again and scurries off to see if a more efficient Music of the Gods build is possible as a venerable Dragonwrought Kobold*

[Kelb_Panthera]

And that would be the case, if they had actually bothered to use the word true just once in a relevant place in that paragraph. I'll even concede that's likely what they INTENDED to be the case. The fact of the matter though? Normal dragons qualify for epic feats, depending on your current HP drowning heals you, prestidigitation can render lava harmless, item handoffs are the key to non-magical faster than light communication, and so on. Your context is meaningless, and your designer intent actually has negative value in an argument with me. That's right folks. Get a designer here to clarify that meant something other than what RAW clearly states in a situation with sheer undeniable eye witness accounts? Completely irrelevant. I've long publicly held the opinion that the game they made by accident was far more fun than the game they ''intended.''

Context is how you differentiate fluff from crunch from play advice. You used it earlier to support your argument by saying the information presented in chapter 1 didn't count against DWK's because it's fluff.

Even just narrowing the scope to the "dragon feats" section and ignoring the greater context of the chapter as a whole, the passage in question is in the introduction that is explaining how the -following- rules text applies to dragons. It's not a rule. It's a statement about how the extant rules relate to dragons. It does not create an exception for the normal rules regarding epic feats because it is not, itself, rules text.

Again, you can't have both; either -all- the information in the book is rules text and DWK's cannot be true dragons for a whole bevy of reasons or you must separate rules from not-rules using context and the statement that old dragons can pick epic feats is not a rule.

[ryu]

Context is how you differentiate fluff from crunch from play advice. You used it earlier to support your argument by saying the information presented in chapter 1 didn't count against DWK's because it's fluff.

Even just narrowing the scope to the "dragon feats" section and ignoring the greater context of the chapter as a whole, the passage in question is in the introduction that is explaining how the -following- rules text applies to dragons. It's not a rule. It's a statement about how the extant rules relate to dragons. It does not create an exception for the normal rules regarding epic feats because it is not, itself, rules text.

Again, you can't have both; either -all- the information in the book is rules text and DWK's cannot be true dragons for a whole bevy of reasons or you must separate rules from not-rules using context and the statement that old dragons can pick epic feats is not a rule.

Oh I need none of this silly context to separate fluff and crunch. For every statement/paragraph and I do mean EVERY statement/paragraph there is a simple test that makes no reliance on any other part of the text. Namely the does this statement/paragraph have any model-able effect on the mechanics of the game on its own or directly stating rules and limitations upon categories test. After that you have clearly stated rules for how to decide precedence when any of these statements conflict already laid out for you. Text automatically trumps tables, specific trumps general, and primary source rules basically.

[Doctor Awkward]

It feels like you're ignoring the context on this one. The chapter doesn't really mention true dragons either. It sees occasional mentions in feat prerequisites and such, but, between the beginning of the chapter and this citation on page 66, the word "true" does not appear a single time. Sure, one can say it's somehow implied, but there seems to be next to no rules basis for denying this capacity to any dragon.

Maybe, but "great wyrm" and "wyrmling" appear a number of times. Those particular age categories don't apply unless you are discussing true dragons.

...Or kobolds.
But then again kobolds are humanoids.


And I know I made a post a page or two back about the difference between, "This rule is unclear and we don't know the intent" and, "This rule is unclear and therefore I can ignore the intent."

The discussion is supposed to be "The Rules as Written", not "The Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, so Nyeah"

RAITAYCPIWN doesn't really roll of the tongue...

[eggynack]

Maybe, but "great wyrm" and "wyrmling" appear a number of times. Those particular age categories don't apply unless you are discussing true dragons.

...Or kobolds.
But then again kobolds are humanoids.
I mean, there's a buncha stuff there that is clearly centered on true dragons. Breath weapons and whatnot. But I don't think it's sufficiently, "The true dragon section," to justify this kinda argument, where we're to implicitly append "True" to every mention of "Dragon". And, as you note, all your context does is, at best, restrict this to dragons with age categories. We were already restricted to that by the cited paragraph.



And I know I made a post a page or two back about the difference between, "This rule is unclear and we don't know the intent" and, "This rule is unclear and therefore I can ignore the intent."

The discussion is supposed to be "The Rules as Written", not "The Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, so Nyeah"
The rule isn't unclear though. It looks really clear. Whether this is supposed to be something all dragons of old age were already doing, or something the rules are now declaring old dragons can do, this is something that old dragons can do, and this kobold is an old dragon. Intent may or may not have value otherwise, but when the rules say something that is explicit, straightforward, and unambiguous like this, I don't see much utility to it.

[Doctor Awkward]

Well I was referring to the lack of clarity regarding that whole chapter applying to just true dragons, or to all dragons.

I mean, as long as we stop seriously pretending that Dragonwrought kobold's are true dragons, I'm down for whatever.

[eggynack]

I mean, as long as we stop seriously pretending that Dragonwrought kobold's are true dragons, I'm down for whatever.
I thought the LA based argument from awhile back sounded right, personally, but I haven't been all that involved, so it could plausibly be one that's proved wrong. I have way higher stakes, meaning any slightest stakes whatsoever (I just updated the kobold entry in my handbook to note that improved elemental and gargantuan wild shape could be solid options) in this epic feat thing.

[Technetium43]

I thought the LA based argument from awhile back sounded right, personally, but I haven't been all that involved, so it could plausibly be one that's proved wrong. I have way higher stakes, meaning any slightest stakes whatsoever (I just updated the kobold entry in my handbook to note that improved elemental and gargantuan wild shape could be solid options) in this epic feat thing.

What LA based argument? I'll be honest I tuned this thread out once we reached the 'making other people admit that they basically are just going to ignore the rules for their interpretation regardless' point of the thread, which is when my job is done.

[eggynack]

What LA based argument? I'll be honest I tuned this thread out once we reached the 'making other people admit that they basically are just going to ignore the rules for their interpretation regardless' point of the thread, which is when my job is done.
Mato had a quote from somewhere or another, which was, "As it ages from wyrmling to juvenile, a true dragon’s level adjustment varies between +2 and +6, depending on the age and dragon variety." That's not the case for kobolds, dragonwrought or otherwise. I suppose it'd get filed as some sorta thing that might be contradicted elsewhere, but it was rather convincing to me in the moment.

[OldTrees1]

What LA based argument? I'll be honest I tuned this thread out once we reached the 'making other people admit that they basically are just going to ignore the rules for their interpretation regardless' point of the thread, which is when my job is done.

The
*cite where RAW says that True Dragons have LA that changes as they age*
*cite where the RAW only gives 1 LA value for Kobolds*
*appeal to the logical side of the other person*
*perpetuate this terrible thread*
argument.


Also I notice that people, probably due to not returning to the RAW, are missing something about one of the arguments:

All true dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age. (Other creatures that have the dragon type do not.)
Everyone has been so focused on the bolded part that they missed the underlined part. Lesser Dragons do not gain more abilities as they age and True Dragons do. Therefore any kind of ability gain that a Lesser Dragon(say as a Half Dragon gains) is not the kind of ability that this RAW was talking about. Since DWK gain no abilities as they age in a manner outside of those a Half Dragon(a known Lesser Dragon) gains, DWK cannot satisfy this requirement.

To disprove this argument you would need to twist the meaning of "gain more abilities as they age" so that you can cite an gain for DWK that is not shared by Half Dragons.

[Doctor Despair]

Ultimately, there's a lot of convincing evidence that they are not true dragons, but the clause found by... I can't recall his name, but it essentially said that all dragons are either true or lesser and that no lesser dragons progress through age categories, though it said it in more words. That leaves enough wiggle room for folks to argue it until the cows come home because, no matter how many ways you disqualify kobolds, that clause could make them the exception to any given one of the rules. In fact, if it did, it might have some humorous repercussions to make them mesh with other rules (for example, perhaps they would gain a level adjustment when aging in those specific stages).

However, I think we've definitely proven that there is no way to prove that kobolds can be true dragons without a shadow of a doubt, which may be the ideal outcome for folks against kobolds as true dragons. You never have to worry about having to houserule against true dragon kobolds because you have evidence to disprove their dragonhood. Meanwhile, those same folks can play true dragon kobolds without houseruling (assuming their table agrees on it) as well. It's a "DM discretion" area by RAW, I think. Granted it's only a technical distinction if DKs still qualify for epic feats and such. Is the language suggesting that you need not be a true dragon to take sovereign archetypes as compelling as the language that permits old dragons to take epic feats?

edit:

Ghostshadow found the tidbit:



Draconomicon pg. 144 (on Lesser Dragons as PCs): "Using another creature of the dragon type as a player character is rather less complicated than using a true dragon. Such a creature has a set level adjustment and no built-in progression due to age,"

Leaves the door open for arguments over what "built-in progression" refers to. I don't think it's very compelling, personally, but it's hard to gun down definitively.

[Gruftzwerg]

The
*cite where RAW says that True Dragons have LA that changes as they age*
Draconomicon Table 3-21 for the 10 base True Dragons from the MM on page 143


*cite where the RAW only gives 1 LA value for Kobolds*
We aren't talking about "Kobolds", we talk about "Dragonwrought Kobolds" and are missing any kind of statblock for them to look at. That's the issue to this question.



Everyone has been so focused on the bolded part that they missed the underlined part. Lesser Dragons do not gain more abilities as they age and True Dragons do. Therefore any kind of ability gain that a Lesser Dragon(say as a Half Dragon gains) is not the kind of ability that this RAW was talking about. Since DWK gain no abilities as they age in a manner outside of those a Half Dragon(a known Lesser Dragon) gains, DWK cannot satisfy this requirement.

To disprove this argument you would need to twist the meaning of "gain more abilities as they age" so that you can cite an gain for DWK that is not shared by Half Dragons.

Kobolds and DWK have access to the Draconic Rite of Passage which gives them a 1st lvl Sorcerer spell as SLA for 1/day. Since they must be able to do the rite by themselves, they need to be mentally grown up for it and aren't born with this ability. So I guess they can get abilities as they age. Not on a certain age and not due to aging, but as they age.

[Technetium43]

Draconomicon Table 3-21 for the 10 base True Dragons from the MM on page 143


We aren't talking about "Kobolds", we talk about "Dragonwrought Kobolds" and are missing any kind of statblock for them to look at. That's the issue to this question.




Kobolds and DWK have access to the Draconic Rite of Passage which gives them a 1st lvl Sorcerer spell as SLA for 1/day. Since they must be able to do the rite by themselves, they need to be mentally grown up for it and aren't born with this ability. So I guess they can get abilities as they age. Not on a certain age and not due to aging, but as they age.

Wow. I'm impressed. I didn't think you would manage to find a WORSE theoretical argument than you've been using, but you've proved me wrong. Congratulations.

Sorry, we don't have statblocks for 'power attack humans' so we can't prove they're not true dragons...

You can't PROVE that half-elves with combat expertise don't get epic feats!



:smallsigh:

Also that last bit is like, the Rosemary Stretch of reaches lol.

[AnachroNinja]

I feel like a rather important bit of information resides on page 4 of the Draconomicon. It's been mentioned, but mostly ignored. It's the information bar at the bottom. This side bar is important because it is clearly information provided in game terms rather then being fluff, which is why it starts..."In the D&D game...".Notably that bar includes two statements about what constitutes a true dragon.

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

2."Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons."

Now, it's pretty important that these are the first rules given for true dragons and pretty much the only ones given on an explicit meta basis. Much of the other stuff like appearing reptile like and so forth could just be fluff stuff. Even more important though, every other piece of information in this book about true dragons, unless specifically stated otherwise, technically falls under the other important note in this side bar.

"For the most part this book concerns itself with the ten varieties of true dragon described in the Monster Manual."

That casts a bit of a shadow over whether any given piece of information actually applies to DWKs anyway. Just something that should be paid attention to.

[lylsyly]

Maybe, but "great wyrm" and "wyrmling" appear a number of times. Those particular age categories don't apply unless you are discussing true dragons.

...Or kobolds.
But then again kobolds are humanoids.


...

Dragonwrought Kobolds are Type Dragon .... which is what this thread is about......
I've notice that the "cannot be camp" are the only ones that say "but kobolds are humanoid" :smallbiggrin:

You want to look at every "lesser dragon" on the list? None of them have an aging table, yet kobolds do, for all effects related to race, kobolds are treated as dragons, and when you take the Dragonwrought feat your type becomes dragon .....

[pupaeted]

It's been mentioned, but mostly ignored.

A lot of relevant things are being ignored. It's because this thread has been "argument as sport" since nearly page one, and anything that would close the matter is ignored or equivocated around so the "fun" can continue.

Anyone who's interested in "Are DWK True Dragons?" as a question of fact would be satisfied by: Almost certainly not (RotD69, MM8), but the real answer is 'ask your GM' (who will say 'no').

This hasn't been a question of fact for about six years, but there's enough tangentially relevant source material to fuel months of bickering.

[lylsyly]

"" Almost certainly not (RotD69, MM8) ""

[Nifft]

A lot of relevant things are being ignored. It's because this thread has been "argument as sport" since nearly page one, and anything that would close the matter is ignored or equivocated around so the "fun" can continue.

Anyone who's interested in "Are DWK True Dragons?" as a question of fact would be satisfied by: Almost certainly not (RotD69 RotD p.69 has been debunked.

That entire section only claims authority over its topic, and its topic is Half-Dragons.

The list of true dragons*has no particular authority over qualifying or disqualifying true dragons, since it only claims authority over the list of canonical half-dragon types.

The argument was founded on a mis-reading, and that mis-reading has been corrected.


MM8) What's the MM8 reference?

[eggynack]

RotD p.69 has been debunked.

That entire section only claims authority over its topic, and its topic is Half-Dragons.

The list of true dragons*has no particular authority over qualifying or disqualifying true dragons, since it only claims authority over the list of canonical half-dragon types.

The argument was founded on a mis-reading, and that mis-reading has been corrected.

How about that quote I said? The one where they apparently have to fall between +2 and +6 LA in their early age categories, when dragonwrought kobolds definitely don't always, or even usually, do that.

[AnachroNinja]

How about that quote I said? The one where they apparently have to fall between +2 and +6 LA in their early age categories, when dragonwrought kobolds definitely don't always, or even usually, do that.

I remember that but not where it was, you have a citation by chance?

[eggynack]

I remember that but not where it was, you have a citation by chance?
I got it from this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21585221&postcount=269), so not particularly.

[Gruftzwerg]

Sorry, we don't have statblocks for 'power attack humans' so we can't prove they're not true dragons...

You can't PROVE that half-elves with combat expertise don't get epic feats!

Does power attack change a Humans type into Dragon, garant dragonlike wings and dragon age categories? I guess not.
And when it comes up to half-elves with combat expertise. Show me your argumentation based on rule text how they are able to get epic feats? Dragons have a base on ruletext to accuire epic feats. Show me your argumentation?
Oh yeah, pointless provocations without any real argument count now as sarcasm, I forgot..



I remember that but not where it was, you have a citation by chance?

Draconomicon 142 - Advancement and Aging


As it ages from wyrmling
to juvenile, a true dragon’s level adjustment varies between
+2 and +6, depending on the age and dragon variety. For a
dragon PC, the dragon’s Hit Dice and class levels plus this
level adjustment is its effective character level (ECL). For a
starting character of juvenile or younger age, this ECL is
somewhere between 5 and 20.
As it ages, as shown on Table 3–21: Aging for Dragon PCs,
the dragon is required to devote a level every few years to its
dragon “class,” reflecting the extra Hit Die or level adjust-
ment it gains from aging.

Note that the paragraph is about the 10 true dragons of the MM (see the table 3-21 it is referring to). The next title on the next page is :"Other True Dragons". So anything mentioned in that quote doesn't need to apply to "other true dragons". It's the base problem that draconomicon talks mostly about the 10 true dragons of the MM.

[OldTrees1]

Kobolds and DWK have access to the Draconic Rite of Passage which gives them a 1st lvl Sorcerer spell as SLA for 1/day. Since they must be able to do the rite by themselves, they need to be mentally grown up for it and aren't born with this ability. So I guess they can get abilities as they age. Not on a certain age and not due to aging, but as they age.

ERROR ERROR
Half Dragon Kobolds are not True Dragons and also gain Draconic Rite of Passage. Therefore Draconic Rite of Passage is not an example of "gain more abilities as they age".

So no, anything specific to Kobolds in general can be done by Half Dragon Kobolds(which are explicitly Lesser Dragons). You need to cite an age based gaining of abilities that cannot be done be duplicated in kind & method by a Half Dragon.

[Red Fel]

ERROR ERROR
Half Dragon Kobolds are not True Dragons and also gain Draconic Rite of Passage. Therefore Draconic Rite of Passage is not an example of "gain more abilities as they age".

So no, anything specific to Kobolds in general can be done by Half Dragon Kobolds(which are explicitly Lesser Dragons). You need to cite an age based gaining of abilities that cannot be done be duplicated in kind & method by a Half Dragon.

This. And it's not just an ability to potentially qualify for once they're older. Heck, a Human can reach the top shelf in the kitchen when he's older, doesn't make him a Dragon, let alone a True Dragon.

No, you have to show specifically that this Kobold, if it did nothing for six years after its birth, would suddenly gain new powers. That is the effect of advancing by age. Not that it's taller, or more mature, or more trusted with deadly traps in its community, or that it could be permitted to take a feat because it's all grown up, but that it gains explicit new abilities simply by merit of existing for an extended period.

[ryu]

This. And it's not just an ability to potentially qualify for once they're older. Heck, a Human can reach the top shelf in the kitchen when he's older, doesn't make him a Dragon, let alone a True Dragon.

No, you have to show specifically that this Kobold, if it did nothing for six years after its birth, would suddenly gain new powers. That is the effect of advancing by age. Not that it's taller, or more mature, or more trusted with deadly traps in its community, or that it could be permitted to take a feat because it's all grown up, but that it gains explicit new abilities simply by merit of existing for an extended period.

Congratulations. You've found something that all dragons true or not are disqualified by. After all eating is an action that must be taken, and I doubt you consider gaining the dead condition a new ability.

[eggynack]

ERROR ERROR
Half Dragon Kobolds are not True Dragons and also gain Draconic Rite of Passage. Therefore Draconic Rite of Passage is not an example of "gain more abilities as they age".

So no, anything specific to Kobolds in general can be done by Half Dragon Kobolds(which are explicitly Lesser Dragons). You need to cite an age based gaining of abilities that cannot be done be duplicated in kind & method by a Half Dragon.
This seems a bit loose, argument-wise. As you say, half dragon kobolds are explicitly lesser dragons. Couldn't that, and not any other quality of half dragons, be the source of the lesser dragon nature of half dragons? The baseline argument of, "That's just not what's being asked for," adds up to me, but drawing half dragon parallels seems open to problems.


Congratulations. You've found something that all dragons true or not are disqualified by. After all eating is an action that must be taken, and I doubt you consider gaining the dead condition a new ability.
Doesn't add up, I think. Eating isn't granting the powers. It's just allowing the dragon to grow old. The logical statement underpinning this claim is, "If a true dragon gets older, then it gains abilities." If the dragon doesn't eat, and therefore dies before growing old, then the consequent is certainly false, but the dragon also hasn't gotten older, so the antecedent is false as well, meaning the statement can still be true as applies to this not eating red dragon.

[OldTrees1]

This seems a bit loose, argument-wise. As you say, half dragon kobolds are explicitly lesser dragons. Couldn't that, and not any other quality of half dragons, be the source of the lesser dragon nature of half dragons? The baseline argument of, "That's just not what's being asked for," adds up to me, but drawing half dragon parallels seems open to problems.

Half Dragons being explicitly lesser dragons could be an additional rule(these Dragons shall not be counted as True) or as a categorization(these Dragons are not True and thus are not counted as True).

However since the arguments for True DWK rely on categorization based rule standards, I think it is fair to hold RAW under the same premises when constructing counterarguments.


All true dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age. (Other creatures that have the dragon type do not.)

[eggynack]

Half Dragons being explicitly lesser dragons could be an additional rule(these Dragons shall not be counted as True) or as a categorization(these Dragons are not True and thus are not counted as True).
I dunno that it matters. For it to be the latter in a meaningful way, you'd probably have to prove unequivocally, without using that lesser dragons text, that half dragons are lesser dragons. Which, in an arguing context, strikes me as roughly identical to proving that dragonwrought kobolds are lesser dragons, and somewhat less useful to boot.

[OldTrees1]

I dunno that it matters. For it to be the latter in a meaningful way, you'd probably have to prove unequivocally, without using that lesser dragons text, that half dragons are lesser dragons. Which, in an arguing context, strikes me as roughly identical to proving that dragonwrought kobolds are lesser dragons, and somewhat less useful to boot.

Huh? If the argument I am trying to disprove treats such sentences as type X and in my counter argument I am using it as type X, why would I need to prove they are right to treat it as type X?

[eggynack]

Huh? If the argument I am trying to disprove treats such sentences as type X and in my counter argument I am using it as type X, why would I need to prove they are right to treat it as type X?
Do you mean the epic feats thing? I don't think it particularly matters how you treat it in that case either. These equality sentences effectively mean, "If these things weren't equal before, then they are now, and if they were before, then they still are." Cause, y'know, equal means equal. You're claiming that half dragons were already equal before this line, but I don't think there's much evidence for that. Or, rather, there is evidence for it, but it's the same evidence that we're already poking at.

[OldTrees1]

Do you mean the epic feats thing? I don't think it particularly matters how you treat it in that case either. These equality sentences effectively mean, "If these things weren't equal before, then they are now, and if they were before, then they still are." Cause, y'know, equal means equal. You're claiming that half dragons were already equal before this line, but I don't think there's much evidence for that. Or, rather, there is evidence for it, but it's the same evidence that we're already poking at.

Now I am completely lost. I suggest you figure out what & who I am talking to because clearly you are talking about something else here.

To help you along:
Some people are treating statements about X as type Y statements.
Some of those people are concluding TD DWKs.
I am adopting their premise to, with 2 of those statements, disprove their conclusion under their premise.

[eggynack]

Now I am completely lost. I suggest you figure out what & who I am talking to because clearly you are talking about something else here.
Probably. Things have indeed gotten rather confusing. Mostly though, I think the main point is that whatever category based thing you're referring to, it probably doesn't feature the problem of a reasonable likelihood of half dragon (or whatever arbitrary other specific thing is being discussed) specificity.

Moreover, consider the fact that nothing could possibly stop the half dragon from being a lesser dragon after the existence of that text, except for some other text explicitly making them a true dragon. Half dragons could have full fledged age categories, ones with fancy abilities, along with all the other things one might expect of a true dragon, but the rules say they're not true dragons so they're not true dragons. Given that fact, the fact that this particular thing doesn't magically make them true dragons loses a lot of its meaning.

[Doctor Despair]

On a tangential note, if Dragonwrought Kobolds can take epic feats that they meet the prerequisites for, then a level 12 Dragonwrought Kobold can use Music of the Gods to take on Greater Deities. What a time to be alive.

[OldTrees1]

Probably. Things have indeed gotten rather confusing. Mostly though, I think the main point is that whatever category based thing you're referring to, it probably doesn't feature the problem of a reasonable likelihood of half dragon (or whatever arbitrary other specific thing is being discussed) specificity.

Moreover, consider the fact that nothing could possibly stop the half dragon from being a lesser dragon after the existence of that text, except for some other text explicitly making them a true dragon. Half dragons could have full fledged age categories, ones with fancy abilities, along with all the other things one might expect of a true dragon, but the rules say they're not true dragons so they're not true dragons. Given that fact, the fact that this particular thing doesn't magically make them true dragons loses a lot of its meaning.

Considering you got confused and forgot what I was talking about, I highly question your ability to say anything about what I was saying.

RAW says Half Dragons are an example of non True Dragons.
RAW in statement #14343 says that True Dragons X and that non True Dragons don't.
Since Half Dragons are one of the not True Dragons statement #14343 talks about, then they can be used to inform us about the meaning of that statement.
Some have tried to abuse the English language with regards to statement #14343.
However when pointing out that to do so they would need to include DWK but not Half Dragons, they have failed to find a valid twist so far.

[Doctor Despair]

Considering you got confused and forgot what I was talking about, I highly question your ability to say anything about what I was saying.


We don't need the ad hominem part :/

[eggynack]

Considering you got confused and forgot what I was talking about, I highly question your ability to say anything about what I was saying.
Possibly. Argument could still arbitrarily hold up, I think. The basic argument I'm making tends to be pretty general use, after all.


Since Half Dragons are one of the not True Dragons statement #14343 talks about, then they can be used to inform us about the meaning of that statement.
Does it inform us of that though? For all we know, half dragons would actually just straight up be true dragons, except they have that lesser dragon text. Therefore, maybe they fit the true dragon half of the text, rather than the lesser dragon half.


However when pointing out that to do so they would need to include DWK but not Half Dragons, they have failed to find a valid twist so far.
The twist, then, would be that the rules explicitly state that half dragons are lesser dragons. No more of a twist than that is required.

[OldTrees1]

We don't need the ad hominem part :/

That was not ad hominem. When someone clearly got confused to the point they though you were talking about something else entirely, it is completely reasonable to question their following statements about your point.

If you visited a Doctor about a sinus infection and they asked you which leg you came in about, you would question any statements they made until they demonstrated understanding that you came in about a sinus infection.

[OldTrees1]

Possibly. Argument could still arbitrarily hold up, I think. The basic argument I'm making tends to be pretty general use, after all.
pretty general use, but out of context in this instance.


Does it inform us of that though? For all we know, half dragons would actually just straight up be true dragons, except they have that lesser dragon text. Therefore, maybe they fit the true dragon half of the text, rather than the lesser dragon half.

The twist, then, would be that the rules explicitly state that half dragons are lesser dragons. No more of a twist than that is required.
Remember the premises I adopted from the argument I am constructing a counterargument to?

[eggynack]

Remember the premises I adopted from the argument I am constructing a counterargument to?
Yes. The text says there's a quality that true dragons possess and that lesser dragons do not. From there, because half dragons are lesser dragons, you can assume that half dragons do not have this quality, and that you can therefore draw parallels between the operation of half dragons in this area and of dragonwrought kobolds in this same area. In particular, the logic would go that if the two behave identically in this area, then both things fall on the same side, which has already been established as the lesser dragon side. Is that an accurate summary of your position?

[Novolin]

Why is anyone still arguing this is completely pointless

[Doctor Despair]

Why is anyone still arguing this is completely pointless

Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/386/

Don't spoil it for us that like to watch though :p

[ryu]

Why is anyone still arguing this is completely pointless

They could say they did it on a whim, or that they planned it. They could say it's war, or that it's for peace.

[eggynack]

Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/386/

Don't spoil it for us that like to watch though :p
This strikes me more as arguing for the sake of arguing than arguing for the sake of correctness. There's a lot of oddities to dragons that're fun to poke around.

[Doctor Despair]

This strikes me more as arguing for the sake of arguing than arguing for the sake of correctness. There's a lot of oddities to dragons that're fun to poke around.

I agree, it's interesting to see how the mechanics work, which is why I've been following this thread much more closely than the equally rule-dense thread debating unarmed strikes. :) I was surprised that I learned something relevant to my pet project in my signature in the course of this thread; just goes to show that such debate isn't fruitless even if it never comes to a resolution.

With all that said, though, that *was* a pretty relevant XKCD to her question and I just couldn't pass up the opportunity she presented :smalltongue:

[Gruftzwerg]

However when pointing out that to do so they would need to include DWK but not Half Dragons, they have failed to find a valid twist so far.

Why should DWK behave the same as half-dragons?

the rule that "half-dragons are lesser dragons" is an specific rule (for half-dragons) that trumps the general rules that differentiate between those two categories. A specific rule that is meant for half-dragons can't be used as general rule for dragons imho.




All true dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age. (Other creatures that have the dragon type do not.)

Since my 1st attempt didn't get much love, I'll try to give it another try..
I know some will hate me for this attempt, cause it's dirty (and i picked it up a while ago) but still valid imho.

Ability Score gain (for the mental stats, a pure gain) counts as Ability gain (they are declared as Special Abilities). You didn't gain a new ability, but it's still a ability gain and that was everything demanded. Power has no special d&d definition and the default english definition can be easily covered by the mental stat gain again.

There you have it and I guess you won't like it again :P
*tries to hide* ^^

[AnachroNinja]

More particularly, the primary statement about true dragons in Draconomicon doesn't say anything about abilities. It says power. Where is the abilities requirement coming from?

[OldTrees1]

Yes. The text says there's a quality that true dragons possess and that lesser dragons do not. From there, because half dragons are lesser dragons, you can assume that half dragons do not have this quality, and that you can therefore draw parallels between the operation of half dragons in this area and of dragonwrought kobolds in this same area. In particular, the logic would go that if the two behave identically in this area, then both things fall on the same side, which has already been established as the lesser dragon side. Is that an accurate summary of your position?

This excludes the shared premises between my counter argument and the argument it counters. (this is the part that is relevant to our miscommunication). Although as you will see below the other side abandon's the shared premise when it is convenient.

This also is a slight variation from my counter argument. Rather than draw parallels between DWKs and Half Dragons in that area, I was drawing parallels between proposed methods of DWK satisfying the critera and Half Dragons using the same methods to the same effect.


Why should DWK behave the same as half-dragons?

the rule that "half-dragons are lesser dragons" is an specific rule (for half-dragons) that trumps the general rules that differentiate between those two categories. A specific rule that is meant for half-dragons can't be used as general rule for dragons imho.

In that case, are not all the rules for True Dragons specific rules that only apply to those Dragons under Dragons, True? Show me a rule that denotes a creature of the Dragon type as a True Dragon by criteria that I cannot claim is likewise a specific rule and thus outside the scope of DWKs.

I have searched through the Dragon books including the Monster Manuel and nowhere, outside of the True Dragon sections, does it mention criteria to be a True Dragon. As a result, if using the criteria based grouping rules premise, then one either must accept those criteria as consistent or abandon your attempted proof.


Since my 1st attempt didn't get much love, I'll try to give it another try..
I know some will hate me for this attempt, cause it's dirty (and i picked it up a while ago) but still valid imho.

Ability Score gain (for the mental stats, a pure gain) counts as Ability gain (they are declared as Special Abilities). You didn't gain a new ability, but it's still a ability gain and that was everything demanded. Power has no special d&d definition and the default english definition can be easily covered by the mental stat gain again.

There you have it and I guess you won't like it again :P
*tries to hide* ^^
Again Half Dragon Kobolds gain ability scores from aging. Therefore ability score gain does not satisfy that condition.

But I guess you won't like that answer. :p
I merely entered this thread to point out the ignored "gain abilities" section of that quote. I am going to go hide from this silly thread. ^^

[ryu]

This excludes the shared premises between my counter argument and the argument it counters. (this is the part that is relevant to our miscommunication). Although as you will see below the other side abandon's the shared premise when it is convenient.

This also is a slight variation from my counter argument. Rather than draw parallels between DWKs and Half Dragons in that area, I was drawing parallels between proposed methods of DWK satisfying the critera and Half Dragons using the same methods to the same effect.



In that case, are not all the rules for True Dragons specific rules that only apply to those Dragons under Dragons, True? Show me a rule that denotes a creature of the Dragon type as a True Dragon by criteria that I cannot claim is likewise a specific rule and thus outside the scope of DWKs.

I have searched through the Dragon books including the Monster Manuel and nowhere, outside of the True Dragon sections, does it mention criteria to be a True Dragon. As a result, if using the criteria based grouping rules premise, then one either must accept those criteria as consistent or abandon your attempted proof.

Simple. One lists criteria over a range of creatures while the other calls a specific type of creature by name. Half dragons aren't true dragons only because they're specifically called out as not. If you apply that template to something that was previously a true dragon it's no longer a true dragon.

[Gruftzwerg]

Simple. One lists criteria over a range of creatures while the other calls a specific type of creature by name. Half dragons aren't true dragons only because they're specifically called out as not. If you apply that template to something that was previously a true dragon it's no longer a true dragon.

You can assume a half-dragon form, allowing you to retain some of the physical prowess of your true form while still being able to move among humans.
Prerequisite

Sorcerer level 5, ability to assume humanoid form, True dragon,
Benefit

You can expend a use of your alternate form ability to take the form of a Medium or smaller humanoid with the half-dragon template.
...

does that mean that this feat won't work? as far as I recall you need the prerequisites at the moment when you use a feat.
If that what you said is true, than the true dragon becomes a lesser one upon changing and and can't keep the prerequisites up. ?? ^^


edit:


But I guess you won't like that answer. :p
I merely entered this thread to point out the ignored "gain abilities" section of that quote. I am going to go hide from this silly thread. ^^
Don't worry, we'll lure you back soon ;) just wait for the next bait.

[ryu]

You can assume a half-dragon form, allowing you to retain some of the physical prowess of your true form while still being able to move among humans.
Prerequisite

Sorcerer level 5, ability to assume humanoid form, True dragon,
Benefit

You can expend a use of your alternate form ability to take the form of a Medium or smaller humanoid with the half-dragon template.
...

does that mean that this feat won't work? as far as I recall you need the prerequisites at the moment when you use a feat.
If that what you said is true, than the true dragon becomes a lesser one upon changing and and can't keep the prerequisites up. ?? ^^


edit:

Don't worry, we'll lure you back soon ;) just wait for the next bait.

Does.... Does that feat at least exist separate from books that have that rule just like prestige classes that would self-disqualify for advancing them if they didn't exist in books where that rule isn't in play? If not then yeah the feat literally doesn't even work because it explicitly works like the template and requires true dragonhood.

[Gruftzwerg]

Does.... Does that feat at least exist separate from books that have that rule just like prestige classes that would self-disqualify for advancing them if they didn't exist in books where that rule isn't in play? If not then yeah the feat literally doesn't even work because it explicitly works like the template and requires true dragonhood.

It's from Dragons of Ebberron page15 and there are just 3 feats without any further special rules for them.

And the talents section in the PHB clearly states that you can't use a talent, when you temporary can't fulfill the prerequisites.

Unless there is an Errata for this book out (?), I guess the feat is bugged.

[ryu]

It's from Dragons of Ebberron page15 and there are just 3 feats without any further special rules for them.

And the talents section in the PHB clearly states that you can't use a talent, when you temporary can't fulfill the prerequisites.

Unless there is an Errata for this book out (?), I guess the feat is bugged.

The question now is whether this was released before or after draconomicon. If before it's drac ruining things for.... lack of communication. If after it's people not reading the book about dragons before making dragon feats.

[Technetium43]

Dragons of Eberron was way, way, way after. Like, 8 years after. And is also setting specific material, which people LOVE ignoring.

[ryu]

Dragons of Eberron was way, way, way after. Like, 8 years after. And is also setting specific material, which people LOVE ignoring.

Actually that could mean the book is more primary than drac specifically when playing in ebberon thus making its rules take precedence if a conflict occurs which would make the feat work.

[zergling.exe]

Dragons of Eberron was way, way, way after. Like, 8 years after. And is also setting specific material, which people LOVE ignoring.

Wait, 8 years after the Draconomicon? It was released in 2011? Wouldn't that make it a 4th edition book?

[eggynack]

Wait, 8 years after the Draconomicon? It was released in 2011? Wouldn't that make it a 4th edition book?
Apparently the 2nd edition version of draconomicon was published in 1999, which is probably the source of the confusion given that's arbitrarily the version of the book most highlighted when you google it. They were apparently actually printed only four years apart. But still, draconomicon came way earlier.

[Technetium43]

Wait, 8 years after the Draconomicon? It was released in 2011? Wouldn't that make it a 4th edition book?

Sorry, 4 years not 8 years. Dragons of Eberron was one of the last supplements of 3.5 is what I was getting at, but I somehow got my dates completely mixed up. Also yeah, see the above.

[eggynack]

I don't see a problem with the operation of this feat. First of all, you're not even necessarily losing your true nature here. Yes, your form is that of a lesser dragon, but alternate form doesn't say you lose... truth. You explicitly retain your types and subtypes, and while that's not what's being discussed here, it does speak to the underlying operation of the ability. Turning into a half-dragon doesn't stop you from being a true dragon anymore than using that same ability to go humanoid does. Is there something that claims this weird operation of dragon alternate form? Because, worst case scenario, it looks like you become a lesser dragon while still being a true dragon. The realistic case scenario though is that you keep being a true dragon, because the ability doesn't say you lose that, and you don't become a lesser dragon, because the ability doesn't say you gain that.

But none of that actually matters, for the most part. Let's assume that using this feat to become a half-dragon causes you to lose access to the feat. What actually happens? You use the feat to become a half-dragon, so you lose access to the feat, but that doesn't mean you magically transform back into your base form through the sheer weight of ability contradiction. You just keep on being a half-dragon, and continue being one forever if nothing happens. From there, the question is how you return to your base form, but that's pretty clear cut as well. You've lost the modification to your alternate form ability, but your basic alternate form, the one you needed as a prerequisite in the first place, is still available, and that ability enables you to return to your original form. It's not like this feat was adding the swap-back functionality, after all. That was within you all along, so if the feat allowed you to swap back before (which is weirdly questionable), it makes no sense to disallow that now. So, the only thing possibly lost from this is the ability to go directly from half-dragon to half-dragon, which wasn't crazy useful in the first place.

It actually kinda looks like the swap-back functionality is intrinsic to the form, so you might not lose that if you lose the underlying ability somehow. These alternate form abilities are admittedly weirdly formatted though. I mean, the alternate form ability of, say, a bronze dragon, explicitly allows you to become a humanoid or whatever, but the trip back is decidedly implicit. It's almost like you're supposed to stay in this form until you use some never actually described magic to leave it. And now all I can think of is using something like trait removal on a transformed dragon.

[daremetoidareyo]

It actually kinda looks like the swap-back functionality is intrinsic to the form, so you might not lose that if you lose the underlying ability somehow. These alternate form abilities are admittedly weirdly formatted though. I mean, the alternate form ability of, say, a bronze dragon, explicitly allows you to become a humanoid or whatever, but the trip back is decidedly implicit. It's almost like you're supposed to stay in this form until you use some never actually described magic to leave it. And now all I can think of is using something like trait removal on a transformed dragon.

Which, we can all agree, would render it a lesser dragon? And therefor its sovereign archetype is gone! and boom, that level of loredrake don't count. Wait, does the humanoid that you turned into have the dragonwrought feat???

[eggynack]

Which, we can all agree, would render it a lesser dragon?
Not necessarily. As I note in my first paragraph, a true dragon that swaps into lesser dragon form doesn't necessarily become a lesser dragon. I don't see why losing alternate form would suddenly cause that loss. You're still a true dragon that happens to be stuck in this weird other form, because alternate form didn't make you lose it, and nothing about trait removal is explicitly causing you to lose it either.

[daremetoidareyo]

Not necessarily. As I note in my first paragraph, a true dragon that swaps into lesser dragon form doesn't necessarily become a lesser dragon. I don't see why losing alternate form would suddenly cause that loss. You're still a true dragon that happens to be stuck in this weird other form, because alternate form didn't make you lose it, and nothing about trait removal is explicitly causing you to lose it either.

Except that a half dragon is explicitly not capable of being a true dragon...So being a true dragon in a half dragon form who is hit with trait removal (or maybe a wish to remove their true dragon status) returns to being an explicitly not true dragon half dragon...

Unless the transformed true dragon alternate formed a half dragon kobold, gained a level divisible by three, took the dragonwraught feat and then gets hit with trait removal, which leaves us...somewhere. I'm gonna say...truedragon?

[eggynack]

Except that a half dragon is explicitly not capable of being a true dragon...So being a true dragon in a half dragon form who is hit with trait removal (or maybe a wish to remove their true dragon status) returns to being an explicitly not true dragon half dragon...
Not at all. You were a true dragon in half-dragon form before trait removal. You are a true dragon in half-dragon form after trait removal. Losing the ability to go from one to the other changes nothing.

[Gruftzwerg]

transform back into your base form through the sheer weight of ability contradiction. You just keep on being a half-dragon, and continue being one forever if nothing happens. From there, the question is how you return to your base form, but that's pretty clear cut as well. You've lost the modification to your alternate form ability, but your basic alternate form, the one you needed as a prerequisite in the first place, is still available, and that ability enables you to return to your original form. It's not like this feat was adding the swap-back functionality, after all. That was within you all along, so if the feat allowed you to swap back before (which is weirdly questionable), it makes no sense to disallow that now. So, the only thing possibly lost from this is the ability to go directly from half-dragon to half-dragon, which wasn't crazy useful in the first place.

It actually kinda looks like the swap-back functionality is intrinsic to the form, so you might not lose that if you lose the underlying ability somehow. These alternate form abilities are admittedly weirdly formatted though. I mean, the alternate form ability of, say, a bronze dragon, explicitly allows you to become a humanoid or whatever, but the trip back is decidedly implicit. It's almost like you're supposed to stay in this form until you use some never actually described magic to leave it. And now all I can think of is using something like trait removal on a transformed dragon.

the problem is in Dragons of Ebberon again. page 15..^^

ALTERNATE FORM
You have unlocked the power to move unseen within the
human world.
Prerequisites:
True dragon, sorcerer level 5th
"True Dragons" in E. can get access to Alternate Form the same way. With the same prerequisite of being a True Dragon. If you use the other feat to obtain Half Dragon status and become a lesser dragon, you can't use Alternate Form at all.

Further I doubt that you can even stay in the Half Dragon Form. An example how temporary loss of prerequisite prevents the use of feats:

- You active Power Attack (a feat with a regular duration of 1 Round) and try to charge the enemy.
- The enemy caster has an prepared action for Ray of Enfeeblement and saps enough of your Str to deny the use of Power Attack. You can't maintain it even that single round.
- Imho in the same way, Half-Dragons "lesser Dragon" exception rule would cause the same with Alternate Form. You can't maintain the prerequisites of the feat and therefor it becomes nonfunctional.

[eggynack]

the problem is in Dragons of Ebberon again. page 15..^^

"True Dragons" in E. can get access to Alternate Form the same way. With the same prerequisite of being a True Dragon. If you use the other feat to obtain Half Dragon status and become a lesser dragon, you can't use Alternate Form at all.
That's definitely a more problematic situation, assuming alternate form does indeed make you not a true dragon.


Further I doubt that you can even stay in the Half Dragon Form. An example how temporary loss of prerequisite prevents the use of feats:

- You active Power Attack (a feat with a regular duration of 1 Round) and try to charge the enemy.
- The enemy caster has an prepared action for Ray of Enfeeblement and saps enough of your Str to deny the use of Power Attack. You can't maintain it even that single round.
- Imho in the same way, Half-Dragons "lesser Dragon" exception rule would cause the same with Alternate Form. You can't maintain the prerequisites of the feat and therefor it becomes nonfunctional.
The feat isn't letting you stay in half-dragon form in the first place. It's letting you take the form. Keeping the form is all down to magical inertia. Similarly, power attack can be there or not, but as long as you actually get the attack action to happen (which is necessary for the attack roll, which is necessary for the feat), the bonus and penalty are sustained by the duration intrinsic to that bonus and penalty. These feats have already done everything they can do before the prerequisites were lost. The idea that you'd lose half-dragon form seems baseless.

[Doctor Awkward]

Oh what fresh hell is all this...?



*ten minutes after reading some absurd discussion about the Alternate Form (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#alternateForm) supernatural ability (explicitly same the supernatural ability granted by the feat in Dragons of Eberron)*

Uh huh...

...uh huh.... uhhh... huh...



Yeah, this is all bad.

None of it is good.


A creature with this special quality has the ability to assume one or more specific alternate forms. A true seeing spell or ability reveals the creature’s natural form. A creature using alternate form reverts to its natural form when killed, but separated body parts retain their shape. A creature cannot use alternate form to take the form of a creature with a template. Assuming an alternate form results in the following changes to the creature:


The creature retains the type and subtype of its original form. It gains the size of its new form. If the new form has the aquatic subtype, the creature gains that subtype as well.
The creature loses the natural weapons, natural armor, and movement modes of its original form, as well as any extraordinary special attacks of its original form not derived from class levels (such as the barbarian’s rage class feature).
The creature gains the natural weapons, natural armor, movement modes, and extraordinary special attacks of its new form.
The creature retains the special qualities of its original form. It does not gain any special qualities of its new form.
The creature retains the spell-like abilities and supernatural attacks of its old form (except for breath weapons and gaze attacks). It does not gain the spell-like abilities or attacks of its new form.
The creature gains the physical ability scores (Str, Dex, Con) of its new form. It retains the mental ability scores (Int, Wis, Cha) of its original form. Apply any changed physical ability score modifiers in all appropriate areas with one exception: the creature retains the hit points of its original form despite any change to its Constitution.
The creature retains its hit points and save bonuses, although its save modifiers may change due to a change in ability scores.
Except as described elsewhere, the creature retains all other game statistics of its original form, including (but not necessarily limited to) HD, hit points, skill ranks, feats, base attack bonus, and base save bonuses.
The creature retains any spellcasting ability it had in its original form, although it must be able to speak intelligibly to cast spells with verbal components and it must have humanlike hands to cast spells with somatic components.
The creature is effectively camouflaged as a creature of its new form, and it gains a +10 bonus on Disguise checks if it uses this ability to create a disguise.
Any gear worn or carried by the creature that can’t be worn or carried in its new form instead falls to the ground in its space. If the creature changes size, any gear it wears or carries that can be worn or carried in its new form changes size to match the new size. (Nonhumanoid-shaped creatures can’t wear armor designed for humanoid-shaped creatures, and vice versa.) Gear returns to normal size if dropped.



You do not ever lose anything for assuming an alternate form that the rules do not explicitly say you lose.


The sole function of the Half-Dragon alternate form feat is to make an exception for the first bolded portion. You can now assume a templated form that you normally are forbidden from doing. Nothing else changes.

[Somensjev]

You do not ever lose anything for assuming an alternate form that the rules do not explicitly say you lose.


The sole function of the Half-Dragon alternate form feat is to make an exception for the first bolded portion. You can now assume a templated form that you normally are forbidden from doing. Nothing else changes.

However, I believe the issue is that by making an exception to the first bolded part, you automatically gain the qualities of the template (other than those stated to stay the same)

The problem is, that template has a specific rule saying you can't be a true Dragon. Which doesn't contradict any of the other bolded parts you stated

[Gruftzwerg]

Oh what fresh hell is all this...?



*ten minutes after reading some absurd discussion about the Alternate Form (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#alternateForm) supernatural ability (explicitly same the supernatural ability granted by the feat in Dragons of Eberron)*

Uh huh...

...uh huh.... uhhh... huh...



Yeah, this is all bad.

None of it is good.



You do not ever lose anything for assuming an alternate form that the rules do not explicitly say you lose.


The sole function of the Half-Dragon alternate form feat is to make an exception for the first bolded portion. You can now assume a templated form that you normally are forbidden from doing. Nothing else changes.

The problem isn't caused directly. It's the template that you get in your new form.
Further "True Dragon" & "lesser Dragon" aren't (sub-)types. They are the 2 dragon categories.
The feat gives access to the templated form and the half-dragon template is what is causing the loss of the "true dragon" status and therefor the prerequisite for the feasts/abilities (Alternate Form).

[ryu]

Oh what fresh hell is all this...?



*ten minutes after reading some absurd discussion about the Alternate Form (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#alternateForm) supernatural ability (explicitly same the supernatural ability granted by the feat in Dragons of Eberron)*

Uh huh...

...uh huh.... uhhh... huh...



Yeah, this is all bad.

None of it is good.



You do not ever lose anything for assuming an alternate form that the rules do not explicitly say you lose.


The sole function of the Half-Dragon alternate form feat is to make an exception for the first bolded portion. You can now assume a templated form that you normally are forbidden from doing. Nothing else changes.

Wrong, because when assuming the form you are explicitly assuming the template which is explicitly not a true dragon which in turns means you no longer qualify for the formshifting to change back. This could've been so easily avoided. They could've stated that the new form was a separate entity from half dragons, or they could've not brought it up in drac. Neither of those two things have occurred and now the only argument for the feat working is a primary source based eberron book favoring.

[Doctor Awkward]

Wrong, because when assuming the form you are explicitly assuming the template which is explicitly not a true dragon which in turns means you no longer qualify for the formshifting to change back. This could've been so easily avoided. They could've stated that the new form was a separate entity from half dragons, or they could've not brought it up in drac. Neither of those two things have occurred and now the only argument for the feat working is a primary source based eberron book favoring.

At which point does the text in the Half-Dragon feat explicitly override anything that is said about Alternate Form on the SRD? The feat even explicitly states its sole function with the last line:


Normal: The alternate form ability cannot be used to take the shape of templated creatures.


Alternate Form is functionally a magical disguise. It changes nothing about the true nature of the character that uses it, nor was it ever intended to.

[Doctor Awkward]

Furthermore, you might as well be arguing that a Vampire (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm) that uses it's ability to change into a wolf or a bat also ceases to be a vampire and can walk out in sunlight, and loses the ability to change back.

After all, a wolf is an animal, and the Vampire template can only be applied to humanoids and monstrous humanoids.

[Gruftzwerg]

At which point does the text in the Half-Dragon feat explicitly override anything that is said about Alternate Form on the SRD? The feat even explicitly states its sole function with the last line:

As said, Alternate Form doesn't do it. It the target half dragon "template" form that turns you into a "lesser dragon".



Alternate Form is functionally a magical disguise. It changes nothing about the true nature of the character that uses it, nor was it ever intended to.

It's not an illusion and it's not base "Alternate Form" causing the issue. It's the "Half-Dragon Form" feat, that gives the option to turn into a half-dragon template.


edit:

After all, a wolf is an animal, and the Vampire template can only be applied to humanoids and monstrous humanoids.
it's not about type and subtype loosing. It's about the 2 dragon categories "true dragons" and "lesser dragons". H-Dragon Template puts you automatically into "lesser dragons".
Vampire requires types to apply to and the Alternate Form doesn't change that.
A totally different story here.

[Doctor Awkward]

As said, Alternate Form doesn't do it. It the target half dragon "template" form that turns you into a "lesser dragon".




It's not an illusion and it's not base "Alternate Form" causing the issue. It's the "Half-Dragon Form" feat, that gives the option to turn into a half-dragon template.


edit:

it's not about type and subtype loosing. It's about the 2 dragon categories "true dragons" and "lesser dragons". H-Dragon Template puts you automatically into "lesser dragons".
Vampire requires types to apply to and the Alternate Form doesn't change that.
A totally different story here.


Ah, I see.
It's not the "Rules As Written" that's causing the issue, but rather the "rules as you interpret them and we can't prove you wrong".


Welp,


Benefit: You can expend a use of your alternate form ability to take the form of a Medium or smaller humanoid with the half-dragon template.

As the feat has a prerequisite of, an explicit use of, and an explicit exception for Alternate Form, it implicitly uses all of the rules for that special ability unless otherwise noted.

It uses only the rules for the template that are noted in the feat description. Since it does not specifically call out "Your type changes from true dragon to lesser dragon." Then as stated by the rules of Alternate Form (several times), you retain all of the characteristics of your original form.


You are certainly free to read it however you like, but as I've illustrated many times, that's not how the rules work.

[Somensjev]

As the feat has a prerequisite of, an explicit use of, and an explicit exception for Alternate Form, it implicitly uses all of the rules for that special ability unless otherwise noted.

It uses only the rules for the template that are noted in the feat description. Since it does not specifically call out "Your type changes from true dragon to lesser dragon." Then as stated by the rules of Alternate Form (several times), you retain all of the characteristics of your original form.


You are certainly free to read it however you like, but as I've illustrated many times, that's not how the rules work.

If it does use all the rules for alternate form, it doesn't matter, since the exception says you gain the template

You become a humanoid, using the rules for alternate form, then you gain the template, which should be entirely exempt from all the rules for alternate form, since it's an exception

You don't gain only the abilities mentioned, you just now have the template, this should come with all positives and negatives of that, including not being a true Dragon


However, I don't have the book in front of me, and so can only comment from memory, and from what others have quoted, so I'll accept it if I'm wrong, but currently I don't think I am

[Doctor Awkward]

If it does use all the rules for alternate form, it doesn't matter, since the exception says you gain the template

You become a humanoid, using the rules for alternate form, then you gain the template, which should be entirely exempt from all the rules for alternate form, since it's an exception




If that feat is an exception that doesn't follow the rules of Alternate Form, then it is a completely useless and non-functioning ability.

You can parse out the specific text to support whatever interpretation you like, but the actual function of the feat is clear: you assume the shape of a templated form. You do not gain the template. You do not change anything about your true nature.

The feat might as be a block of text that says, "Normally you cannot use Alternate Form to assume the form of a templated creature. You can take this feat to assume the form of this list of specific creatures with this specific template."

[Somensjev]

Alternate Form special ability on the SRD

A creature with this special quality has the ability to assume one or more specific alternate forms. A true seeing spell or ability reveals the creature’s natural form. A creature using alternate form reverts to its natural form when killed, but separated body parts retain their shape. A creature cannot use alternate form to take the form of a creature with a template. Assuming an alternate form results in the following changes to the creature:

The creature retains the type and subtype of its original form. It gains the size of its new form. If the new form has the aquatic subtype, the creature gains that subtype as well.

The creature loses the natural weapons, natural armor, and movement modes of its original form, as well as any extraordinary special attacks of its original form not derived from class levels (such as the barbarian’s rage class feature).

The creature gains the natural weapons, natural armor, movement modes, and extraordinary special attacks of its new form.

The creature retains the special qualities of its original form. It does not gain any special qualities of its new form.

The creature retains the spell-like abilities and supernatural attacks of its old form (except for breath weapons and gaze attacks). It does not gain the spell-like abilities or attacks of its new form.

The creature gains the physical ability scores (Str, Dex, Con) of its new form. It retains the mental ability scores (Int, Wis, Cha) of its original form. Apply any changed physical ability score modifiers in all appropriate areas with one exception: the creature retains the hit points of its original form despite any change to its Constitution.

The creature retains its hit points and save bonuses, although its save modifiers may change due to a change in ability scores.

Except as described elsewhere, the creature retains all other game statistics of its original form, including (but not necessarily limited to) HD, hit points, skill ranks, feats, base attack bonus, and base save bonuses.

The creature retains any spellcasting ability it had in its original form, although it must be able to speak intelligibly to cast spells with verbal components and it must have humanlike hands to cast spells with somatic components.

The creature is effectively camouflaged as a creature of its new form, and it gains a +10 bonus on Disguise checks if it uses this ability to create a disguise.

Any gear worn or carried by the creature that can’t be worn or carried in its new form instead falls to the ground in its space. If the creature changes size, any gear it wears or carries that can be worn or carried in its new form changes size to match the new size. (Nonhumanoid-shaped creatures can’t wear armor designed for humanoid-shaped creatures, and vice versa.) Gear returns to normal size if dropped.

You posted this, with (i believe) these sections bolded.

When you become a humanoid with the half Dragon template, you gain everything that the half Dragon has, except as listed above. Agreed?

The problem is, that little "half dragons are lesser dragons" specific rule?
it doesn't fall under any of the areas above, and thus, you gain it.

[Doctor Awkward]

You posted this, with (i believe) these sections bolded.

When you become a humanoid with the half Dragon template, you gain everything that the half Dragon has, except as listed above. Agreed?


Yup.


The problem is, that little "half dragons are lesser dragons" specific rule?
it doesn't fall under any of the areas above, and thus, you gain it.

Such an interpretation would suggest that a half-dragon being a lesser dragon is not a function of it's type, subtype, hit dice, racial characteristics, or other game statistic included but not limited to the list called out in the Alternate Form special ability, but rather a heretofore unmentioned quality that somehow transcends all printed descriptions of the half-dragon template, dragon racial hit dice, and the characteristics of true dragons as delineated in every book that discusses them.


So no. Lesser dragon is not a "thing" that you gain through assuming the disguise of a templated creature.

[ryu]

Yup.



Such an interpretation would suggest that a half-dragon being a lesser dragon is not a function of it's type, subtype, hit dice, racial characteristics, or other game statistic included but not limited to the list called out in the Alternate Form special ability, but rather a heretofore unmentioned quality that somehow transcends all printed descriptions of the half-dragon template, dragon racial hit dice, and the characteristics of true dragons as delineated in every book that discusses them.


So no. Lesser dragon is not a "thing" that you gain through assuming the disguise of a templated creature.

Not every book. Draconomicon as you should be well aware of by now, states that whatever else they are half dragons are not true dragons. This is the absolute power of explicit exceptions.

[Somensjev]

Yup.

at the very least, we've agreed on something


Such an interpretation would suggest that a half-dragon being a lesser dragon is not a function of it's type, subtype, hit dice, racial characteristics, or other game statistic included but not limited to the list called out in the Alternate Form special ability, but rather a heretofore unmentioned quality that somehow transcends all printed descriptions of the half-dragon template, dragon racial hit dice, and the characteristics of true dragons as delineated in every book that discusses them.

As far as I can tell, yes, this is true.

It is not a part of type, subtype, hit dice, racial characteristics, and, unless game statistics has a meaning other than the basic English one, that too. It is simply an explicit rule which is part of the template

I could see an arguement for racial characteristics, but that arguement would include just about every part of the template as "racial characteristics", so I don't see it as valid


I may be wrong somewhere, but, as far as I've seen, you lose true Dragon status upon becoming a half-Dragon, for any reason

[Doctor Awkward]

at the very least, we've agreed on something



As far as I can tell, yes, this is true.

It is not a part of type, subtype, hit dice, racial characteristics, and, unless game statistics has a meaning other than the basic English one, that too. It is simply an explicit rule which is part of the template

I could see an arguement for racial characteristics, but that arguement would include just about every part of the template as "racial characteristics", so I don't see it as valid


I may be wrong somewhere, but, as far as I've seen, you lose true Dragon status upon becoming a half-Dragon, for any reason


Your belief is based on the assumption that being categorized as a "Lesser dragon" is not a game statistic.

If it's not, then what is it?

[ryu]

Your belief is based on the assumption that being categorized as a "Lesser dragon" is not a game statistic.

If it's not, then what is it?

Statistics is long speak for stats aka: NUMBERS.

This is a descriptive flag.

[Doctor Awkward]

Statistics is long speak for stats aka: NUMBERS.

This is a descriptive flag.

Which is, according to belief, not a function of type, subtype, racial hit dice, or special qualities.

What is it a function of?

[Somensjev]

Your belief is based on the assumption that being categorized as a "Lesser dragon" is not a game statistic.

If it's not, then what is it?

Well, unless game statistic has been defined, it means one of these things:
1. a fact or piece of data obtained from a study of a large quantity of numerical data.
2. an event or person regarded as no more than a piece of data (used to suggest an inappropriately impersonal approach).

This doesn't sound like our rule. So it probably isn't a statistic (if anyone can find a glossary definition to contradict this, I'll concede this point

So, it doesn't fit "game statistic", or anything else we've discussed, so it's obviously not something that you don't get. So it must be something you get, whatever it is

[ryu]

Which is, according to belief, not a function of type, subtype, racial hit dice, or special qualities.

What is it a function of?

Half dragon is the descriptive tag which denotes all such creatures with the half dragon template. Half dragons for plural. By simple fact of having this template with this descriptive tag you become immediately subject to all rules that effect holders of the template unless specifically stated otherwise.

You can turn into a half dragon? Well there's a rule which unilaterally calls out all half dragons as non-true dragons. Do it and you immediately become not a true dragon with all that implies. If their was a third category that was specifically separate from either of the other two we'd have to debate which of the two remaining you fell into, but luckily we don't have that complication.

[Somensjev]

If their was a third category that was specifically separate from either of the other two we'd have to debate which of the two remaining you fell into, but luckily we don't have that complication.

Though, if there was a third category, it'd simplify dwk a bit, since they're probably not true, but definitely not lesser

[ryu]

Though, if there was a third category, it'd simplify dwk a bit, since they're probably not true, but definitely not lesser

In a two category system certainty of not being one is certainty of being the other. That's how functional set theory works.

[Doctor Awkward]

Half dragon is the descriptive tag which denotes all such creatures with the half dragon template. Half dragons for plural. By simple fact of having this template with this descriptive tag you become immediately subject to all rules that effect holders of the template unless specifically stated otherwise.

You can turn into a half dragon? Well there's a rule which unilaterally calls out all half dragons as non-true dragons. Do it and you immediately become not a true dragon with all that implies. If their was a third category that was specifically separate from either of the other two we'd have to debate which of the two remaining you fell into, but luckily we don't have that complication.

If it's nothing but a descriptive tag, then so is true dragon. A descriptive tag cannot function as a mechanical prerequisite. When that happens, it's denoted as a "Special" requirement.


And again, you don't gain the template.
You are disguising yourself as something that has the template.


C'mon, how is this in any way unclear?

[Somensjev]

In a two category system certainty of not being one is certainty of being the other. That's how functional set theory works.

That should be true, but at least six threads on the topic say otherwise, so YMMV

[Remuko]

I have been following this thread silently since the beginning and in general I havent agreed with Tonymitsu, but here I must. It clearly states that you are still your normal true dragon self despite your physical appearance.


Also since the main subject of DWK was brought up again and the two categories, that seems to be the whole problem with DWK. ryu mentioned that "certainty of not being one is certainty of being the other", however despite having been on the DWK are true dragons side this whole thread, in silence, there seems to be at least one line each that is clearly descriptive of what cannot be a true dragon and what cannot be a lesser dragon. We have already confirmed quite clearly that DWK have Age Categories which all lesser dragons very explicitly do not have, thus they cannot be Lesser Dragons, but someone else pointed out another bit that, if true, means they explicitly cannot be True Dragons either. This leaves us in a strange position as we are told all dragons are either true or lesser and DWK is 100% clearly a Dragon but can be neither true nor lesser. So either its a third category (that we dont know to exist), or its rules dysfunction. Honestly the latter seems a lot more plausible to me at this point, and if its a rules dysfunction the only real solution is "ask your DM", or I suppose you could try to contact one of the authors who wrote DWK and ask their opinion and try to take that as Intent and RAI.

[ryu]

If it's nothing but a descriptive tag, then so is true dragon. A descriptive tag cannot function as a mechanical prerequisite. When that happens, it's denoted as a "Special" requirement.


And again, you don't gain the template.
You are disguising yourself as something that has the template.


C'mon, how is this in any way unclear?

You can assume a half-dragon form, allowing you to retain some of the physical prowess of your true form while still being able to move among humans.
Prerequisite

Sorcerer level 5, ability to assume humanoid form, True dragon,
Benefit

You can expend a use of your alternate form ability to take the form of a Medium or smaller humanoid with the half-dragon template.

Quoted from the feat itself. The part that seems to unclear to you is that the feat itself literally states the precise opposite of what you just said.

[Gruftzwerg]

If it's nothing but a descriptive tag, then so is true dragon. A descriptive tag cannot function as a mechanical prerequisite. When that happens, it's denoted as a "Special" requirement.


And again, you don't gain the template.
You are disguising yourself as something that has the template.


C'mon, how is this in any way unclear?

well.. "Alternate Form " is a "simple disguise" which can't copy templates. "Half-Dragon Form" lets you overcome this limit. And thus, it ain't "just a simple disguise" anymore. Imho it becomes a templated disguise.

Further the specific rule "half-dragons are lesser dragons" is just tied to "half-dragon(s)". It doesn't ask whether if it's your natural form or if you turned into it. It doesn't requires anything but just to be "somehow" a Half-Dragon (a further problem is the use of "all Half-Dragons", you could even type change and all that, as long as you somehow are a half-dragon > lesser dragon..). Imho it's really confusing, but the problem is that this is a special rule for Half-Dragons. If the same rule would have been categorized under (general) dragons, it wouldn't cause this weird state imho. Cause, if it would have been under "dragons, it would have been a general rule and the Alternate (half-dragon) Form rules would be the specific one. As general rule it could be altered and overridden by specific text/rules.

But as it is now, Alternate Form is specific in regards to what changes & what not, Half-Dragon Form is specific to Alternate Forms incapability to use templates, and at the end waits the specific rule for Half Dragons that makes everything meaningless.

"you turned into a half dragon?" > "*ZZZAAAAP*** this special rule now applies to you and categorizes you as "lesser dragon" now.

PS: I have a headache today and have a hard time to write this post in english. hope I could put my thoughts into the right words here. I'm not sure..^^

[eggynack]

The problem isn't caused directly. It's the template that you get in your new form.
Further "True Dragon" & "lesser Dragon" aren't (sub-)types. They are the 2 dragon categories.
The feat gives access to the templated form and the half-dragon template is what is causing the loss of the "true dragon" status and therefor the prerequisite for the feasts/abilities (Alternate Form).
You're not assuming the form and then getting a template applied to you. You're assuming the form which happens to have a set of qualities. One of the half-dragon's qualities, no matter how you categorize it, is being a lesser dragon, but the text doesn't say you assume that quality, so you don't.


Wrong, because when assuming the form you are explicitly assuming the template which is explicitly not a true dragon which in turns means you no longer qualify for the formshifting to change back. This could've been so easily avoided. They could've stated that the new form was a separate entity from half dragons, or they could've not brought it up in drac. Neither of those two things have occurred and now the only argument for the feat working is a primary source based eberron book favoring.
You are assuming the form with the template, and said form is indeed explicitly not a true dragon, but there's no text that says you pick that up when you swap forms.




it's not about type and subtype loosing. It's about the 2 dragon categories "true dragons" and "lesser dragons". H-Dragon Template puts you automatically into "lesser dragons".
It definitely doesn't do that, because it doesn't say it does that.

Not every book. Draconomicon as you should be well aware of by now, states that whatever else they are half dragons are not true dragons. This is the absolute power of explicit exceptions.
Well, yeah. But you're not wholly a half-dragon. You're a half-dragon in a precisely defined set of senses. None of those senses include "lesser".


This is a descriptive flag.
Cool. Alternate form also doesn't say you get arbitrary "descriptive flags". So you don't.


Half dragon is the descriptive tag which denotes all such creatures with the half dragon template. Half dragons for plural. By simple fact of having this template with this descriptive tag you become immediately subject to all rules that effect holders of the template unless specifically stated otherwise.
You don't really have this template though, is the thing. You're taking on a form which has this template, but that doesn't magically apply the template whole hog atop you. It gives you a pre-defined set of abilities and changes.


You can turn into a half dragon? Well there's a rule which unilaterally calls out all half dragons as non-true dragons. Do it and you immediately become not a true dragon with all that implies. If their was a third category that was specifically separate from either of the other two we'd have to debate which of the two remaining you fell into, but luckily we don't have that complication.
Indeed, you do not become a thing in the middle. You stay a true dragon. Just like you don't stop being a true dragon when you assume human form. Humans aren't true dragons. Sure, they're not lesser dragons either, but, y'know, there is a third flag, and that flag is "None of the above". And you don't assume that flag either.

Because you're not human, and you're not a half-dragon. It's not an illusion or disguise either. Form changing is complicated, sure, but it's not complicated in this way. You just do the things the ability says you do, and don't do anything else, because that's how abilities work. It's as simple as that.

[Somensjev]

I have been following this thread silently since the beginning and in general I havent agreed with Tonymitsu, but here I must. It clearly states that you are still your normal true dragon self despite your physical appearance.

If you were only assuming the form of the humanoid that might be true, but at least twice, there's been an entire list of rules for this, which stated that you gain any parts of the creature, other than those called out as exceptions in the list

Edit: gonna chalk any incorrectness up to lack of sleep/coffee

Though, it is like 5am, and I've had no caffeine, so I may have failed a comprehension check somewhere, though I don't believe so


Also since the main subject of DWK was brought up again and the two categories, that seems to be the whole problem with DWK. ryu mentioned that "certainty of not being one is certainty of being the other", however despite having been on the DWK are true dragons side this whole thread, in silence, there seems to be at least one line each that is clearly descriptive of what cannot be a true dragon and what cannot be a lesser dragon. We have already confirmed quite clearly that DWK have Age Categories which all lesser dragons very explicitly do not have, thus they cannot be Lesser Dragons, but someone else pointed out another bit that, if true, means they explicitly cannot be True Dragons either. This leaves us in a strange position as we are told all dragons are either true or lesser and DWK is 100% clearly a Dragon but can be neither true nor lesser. So either its a third category (that we dont know to exist), or its rules dysfunction. Honestly the latter seems a lot more plausible to me at this point, and if its a rules dysfunction the only real solution is "ask your DM", or I suppose you could try to contact one of the authors who wrote DWK and ask their opinion and try to take that as Intent and RAI.

Can you remember what the bolded part was?

[Gruftzwerg]

another point to mention is, that the specific rule "half-dragons are lesser dragons" isn't restricted to the template or to any other way to become a half-dragon. It talks about half-dragons in general (...as specific rule... didn't I said that I already have a headache..^^).

[eggynack]

another point to mention is, that the specific rule "half-dragons are lesser dragons" isn't restricted to the template or to any other way to become a half-dragon. It talks about half-dragons in general (...as specific rule... didn't I said that I already have a headache..^^).
Yeah, but again, you're not completely a half-dragon, template or not. You are exactly a half-dragon in a set of exact ways.

[ryu]

Yeah, but again, you're not completely a half-dragon, template or not. You are exactly a half-dragon in a set of exact ways.

Doesn't matter. The rule in question doesn't just say ''natural'' half dragons, ''born'' half dragons, or even just half dragons. It specifically states ALL half dragons. No special qualification or doctors note save the feat explicitly saying you retain true dragonhood prevents this as you are within the category half dragons. At that point the feat would be more specific. As it stands the specific thing it says it does is allow you to bypass the no templates rule.

[Remuko]

Can you remember what the bolded part was?

Unfortunately I cannot. It was a few pages ago. If I remembered I would have listed it. Apologies. Thats why I listed that part all as "ifs" etc because I knew it was all based on memory and could be wrong.

[Doctor Awkward]

I have been following this thread silently since the beginning and in general I havent agreed with Tonymitsu, but here I must. It clearly states that you are still your normal true dragon self despite your physical appearance.


Also since the main subject of DWK was brought up again and the two categories, that seems to be the whole problem with DWK. ryu mentioned that "certainty of not being one is certainty of being the other", however despite having been on the DWK are true dragons side this whole thread, in silence, there seems to be at least one line each that is clearly descriptive of what cannot be a true dragon and what cannot be a lesser dragon. We have already confirmed quite clearly that DWK have Age Categories which all lesser dragons very explicitly do not have, thus they cannot be Lesser Dragons, but someone else pointed out another bit that, if true, means they explicitly cannot be True Dragons either. This leaves us in a strange position as we are told all dragons are either true or lesser and DWK is 100% clearly a Dragon but can be neither true nor lesser. So either its a third category (that we dont know to exist), or its rules dysfunction. Honestly the latter seems a lot more plausible to me at this point, and if its a rules dysfunction the only real solution is "ask your DM", or I suppose you could try to contact one of the authors who wrote DWK and ask their opinion and try to take that as Intent and RAI.

Rules dysfunctions like this are invariably caused by not approaching the rules as they were designed to be read. And that is assuming that an implication caused by a vague wording must somehow imply a degree of truthfulness or existence.

The Draconomicon states in no uncertain terms that there exist true dragons and lesser dragons. A true dragon will be explicitly called out as such. If it is not, it is a lesser dragon. Anything else is speculation.

"Oh but this section of these rules creates a similar comparison to--"

Is not how the rules were ever intended to be read. Every single creature has age categories, if you want to count Middle, Old, Venerable, and Maximum as such.


You can assume a half-dragon form, allowing you to retain some of the physical prowess of your true form while still being able to move among humans.
Prerequisite

Sorcerer level 5, ability to assume humanoid form, True dragon,
Benefit

You can expend a use of your alternate form ability to take the form of a Medium or smaller humanoid with the half-dragon template.

Quoted from the feat itself. The part that seems to unclear to you is that the feat itself literally states the precise opposite of what you just said.

Which part? The part that lists true dragon as a racial requirement?
The part that makes oblique references to the rules for Alternate Form?

What possible interpretation of that feat supports your theory that using Alternate Form has any effect other than its intended use of putting on a mask?

This is the major problem with Camp A at this point: too many people have become so set in their interpretation as being the only correct one, that they are becoming tunnel-visioned on every possible scrap of information that could possibly be interpreted to support their presupposed conclusion, no matter how much context must be ignored and clear intent must be dismissed to make it so.

This is not how the rules work. Dragonwrought kobolds are not true dragons because the Dragonwrought feat does not say they are. It does not matter what coincidental similarities they share with true dragons as a result of the specific things granted by the feat. They are not made into true dragons by the feat, because the feat does not say that they are.

[eggynack]

Doesn't matter. The rule in question doesn't just say ''natural'' half dragons, ''born'' half dragons, or even just half dragons. It specifically states ALL half dragons. No special qualification or doctors note save the feat explicitly saying you retain true dragonhood prevents this as you are within the category half dragons. At that point the feat would be more specific. As it stands the specific thing it says it does is allow you to bypass the no templates rule.
It doesn't matter that it doesn't put qualifiers on the half-dragon, because you're not really falling in the set of all half-dragons. You're a half-dragon only to the exact extent the text says you are one, and this doesn't fall within that extent. The issue isn't on the half-dragon end. It's on your end. It's like, the text could say, "All elves are humanoid," and be (I think?) accurate, but you don't adopt that type through alternate form.

[ryu]

It doesn't matter that it doesn't put qualifiers on the half-dragon, because you're not really falling in the set of all half-dragons. You're a half-dragon only to the exact extent the text says you are one, and this doesn't fall within that extent. The issue isn't on the half-dragon end. It's on your end. It's like, the text could say, "All elves are humanoid," and be (I think?) accurate, but you don't adopt that type through alternate form.

And it wouldn't need to add a specific clause about allowing a specific templated form unless it was actually giving you said template. You could literally write ''combat hybrid form'' as the name, then under stats list: as half dragon of appropriate color/metal. They didn't though. Instead they decided that you're a half dragon now. Other workable names would be brute form, or strength form, or even good old mid-form. None of those things or anything similar happened.

[eggynack]

And it wouldn't need to add a specific clause about allowing a specific templated form unless it was actually giving you said template. You could literally write ''combat hybrid form'' as the name, then under stats list: as half dragon of appropriate color/metal. They didn't though. Instead they decided that you're a half dragon now. Other workable names would be brute form, or strength form, or even good old mid-form. None of those things or anything similar happened.
They could have done it differently, and they didn't, but that doesn't suddenly make you a full on half-dragon. The rules are the rules, and the rules don't say that you're becoming a lesser dragon. Neither, in fact, does it say that "you" are getting the half-dragon template. Acquiring a template personally is rules-distinct from taking a form with that template, in much the same way that actually being a particular creature is rules-distinct from adopting the form of said creature.

[Keral]

uh, I'm slowly reading through the all thread. But while I'm still at page 8, I'd like to ask: if a dragonwrought kobold truly needed to be a true dragon, wouldn't it be easier just to get reincarnated into one?

[ryu]

uh, I'm slowly reading through the all thread. But while I'm still at page 8, I'd like to ask: if a dragonwrought kobold truly needed to be a true dragon, wouldn't it be easier just to get reincarnated into one?

Nah man, I'm pretty sure all the listed ones would get you LA. Even if the feated kobolds can't be true, still better to be a kobold dragon.

[Inevitability]

uh, I'm slowly reading through the all thread. But while I'm still at page 8, I'd like to ask: if a dragonwrought kobold truly needed to be a true dragon, wouldn't it be easier just to get reincarnated into one?

Well, there's the issue of no official dragon reincarnation table existing, meaning that true dragons being a possible reincarnation option at all depends on the DM.

If it worked, though, you'd end up in a 'young adult' body, which means you now have 15+ RHD to deal with, in addition to some hefty LA.

[Nifft]

uh, I'm slowly reading through the all thread. But while I'm still at page 8, I'd like to ask: if a dragonwrought kobold truly needed to be a true dragon, wouldn't it be easier just to get reincarnated into one?

The Reincarnation table didn't include any non-kobold true dragons last time I checked...

How are you proposing that the spell Reincarnation could do that?

[Keral]

For a humanoid creature, the new incarnation is determined using the following table. For nonhumanoid creatures, a similar table of creatures of the same type should be created.

It seems pretty straightforward to me. Now, obviously there is a chance of becoming something like a dragon turtle or some other creature of the dragon type which isn't a true dragon, but if the dragon table is to be created similar to the humanoid table, there should still be a bigger chance of becoming a true dragon than anything else.


Well, there's the issue of no official dragon reincarnation table existing, meaning that true dragons being a possible reincarnation option at all depends on the DM.

If it worked, though, you'd end up in a 'young adult' body, which means you now have 15+ RHD to deal with, in addition to some hefty LA.

Well, considering the standard humanoid table has most of the humanoid creatures I'd argue that by raw "a similar table should be created" means also creating a dragon table with the main dragon on it. Worst case scenario the DM is very stingy and there is only 1% chance for every of the most common true dragons (5 chromatic and 5 metallic). Which is still 10% chance of becoming one.

The only issue would be the LA and HD

[Inevitability]

It seems pretty straightforward to me. Now, obviously there is a chance of becoming something like a dragon turtle or some other creature of the dragon type which isn't a true dragon, but if the dragon table is to be created similar to the humanoid table, there should still be a bigger chance of becoming a true dragon than anything else.



Well, considering the standard humanoid table has most of the humanoid creatures I'd argue that by raw "a similar table should be created" means also creating a dragon table with the main dragon on it. Worst case scenario the DM is very stingy and there is only 1% chance for every of the most common true dragons (5 chromatic and 5 metallic). Which is still 10% chance of becoming one.

The only issue would be the LA and HD

This may very well be true, but the DM is just as free to say 'just like there's no locathah on the humanoid table, there's no true dragons on the dragon table; deal with it'.

If your idea depends on the DM including particular monsters on a table they have 100% authority over, it's generally not suited for an optimization thread. After all, the ideal is that the ideas shared here are applicable at all tables, not only those whose DM's choose to include true dragons.

[Nifft]

It seems pretty straightforward to me. Now, obviously there is a chance of becoming something like a dragon turtle or some other creature of the dragon type which isn't a true dragon, but if the dragon table is to be created similar to the humanoid table, there should still be a bigger chance of becoming a true dragon than anything else.



Well, considering the standard humanoid table has most of the humanoid creatures I'd argue that by raw "a similar table should be created" means also creating a dragon table with the main dragon on it. Worst case scenario the DM is very stingy and there is only 1% chance for every of the most common true dragons (5 chromatic and 5 metallic). Which is still 10% chance of becoming one.

The only issue would be the LA and HD

If your plan is to ask the DM to do something nice for you, then why not just ask your nice DM to declare that Dragonwrought Kobolds are in fact True Dragons?

Same result, less character death & fewer penalties (i.e. LA + racial HD).

[Karl Aegis]

So have we arrived at the conclusion that a Half-Dragon (Blue) Young Green Dragon is a lesser dragon with age categories yet?

[Nifft]

So have we arrived at the conclusion that a Half-Dragon (Blue) Young Green Dragon is a lesser dragon with age categories yet?

That is a one-and-a-half-dragon.

Totally different from a mere half-dragon.

[Karl Aegis]

That is a one-and-a-half-dragon.

Totally different from a mere half-dragon.

But a young dragon is not a whole dragon. Kids are not whole people. Maybe that's only when Charlie Sheen is around, though. Is Two and a Half Men still around, and is the half-man Charlie Sheen and not the kid?

Wait.. if both parent are Red Dragons, does that make it a Double Red Dragon?

[Nifft]

But a young dragon is not a whole dragon. Of course it's not. Teen dragons are irrational, and the irrationals is not a subset of the wholes.


Kids are not whole people. "Wholesome kids" is an oxymoron?


is the half-man Charlie Sheen and not the kid? The half-man is Tyrion Lannister.

In related news, Daenerys Targaryen is a true dragon.

[Technetium43]

So have we arrived at the conclusion that a Half-Dragon (Blue) Young Green Dragon is a lesser dragon with age categories yet?

They exist in a quantum superposition of true dragon and lesser dragon.



What, did you think I was joking? Because that's actually 100% not sarcastic. Welcome to D&D everyone, where the primacy rules are made up, and context doesn't matter. The randomly decided winner gets to have a special moment alone with Gygax's immortal spirit.

[Karl Aegis]

Of course it's not. Teen dragons are irrational, and the irrationals is not a subset of the wholes.

"Wholesome kids" is an oxymoron?

The half-man is Tyrion Lannister.

In related news, Daenerys Targaryen is a true dragon.

Okay, yeah, you got me there. Eventually we will figure out how much dragon a Half-Dragon (Yellow, Green) Juvenile Double Brown Dragon is.

[Nifft]

Okay, yeah, you got me there. Eventually we will figure out how much dragon a Half-Dragon (Yellow, Green) Juvenile Double Brown Dragon is.

I'm pretty sure a Yellow-Green Juvenile Double Brown Dragon will be available all summer at Starbucks.

[Karl Aegis]

I'm pretty sure a Yellow-Green Juvenile Double Brown Dragon will be available all summer at Starbucks.

I believe this is what they call "Comedy Gold"... Dragons.