Dragonwrought Kobolds

[zergling.exe]

It came up in the 3.5 RAW Q&A, is a dragonwrought kobold a true dragon? The answer is no, they are not. Races of the Dragon has a list of all true dragons in the half dragon section. What variety of 'true dragon' is not on this list? Dragonwrought kobolds. As far as I can tell, if they are not on that list, they are not a true dragon. Since a half dragon cannot be half dragonwrought kobold, then dragonwrought kobolds cannot be true dragons.

The information here expands that list to include all true dragons published in DUNGEONS & DRAGONS products to date.
Since dragonwrought kobolds are included in Races of the Dragon, if they were true dragons they would have made the list.

Discuss.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Okay no. Can we just not?

This discussion has been had over and over and over again and it almost invariably ends with the mods locking the thread with no consesus ever being reached. It will happen again, guaranteed.

Camp A) The description for what is a true dragon fits with a dragonwrought kobold.

Camp B) That's only true if you take the bit about kobolds having 12 age categories as crunch rather than fluff and take a generous interpretation of the term "advance."

Truth of the matter; sometimes the fluff/crunch divide is a bit muddy and the game does an -awful- job of making it clear when they're using a game keyword vs when they're just using the standard english meaning of a term.

There will -never- be a concensus on this. Ever. Pick camp A or camp B and move on.

I pick B and will not be swayed otherwise. IMO, DWK's are not true dragons. The argument to the contrary can be read in a way to make it technically correct but it requires what I consider an unreasonable interpretation of the relevant texts.

[Illven]

I am camp A.

And to that I reply text trumps table.

However I respect your two's camp B, and hope that you respect mine.

[ryu]

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.

[Novolin]

So whats an untrue dragon?

[Zanos]

So whats an untrue dragon?

Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons (which should not be taken to mean that they are necessarily less formidable than true dragons).

I was camp A, but Races of the Dragon does also contain this blurb:

Members of the dragonkind races are the ultimate sorcerers and magic users. True dragons gain spellcasting power as they age, for example, and spellscales have a natural aptitude for sorcery.
Not sure if that changes much, I haven't really participated in any of these debates.

[Inevitability]

So whats an untrue dragon?

Generally, everything with the dragon type that fails to be considered a 'true dragon' according to whatever arbitrary system you use for that.

The two main definitions for untrue dragons are 'a creature with the dragon type that does not grow more powerful as it advances through twelve age categories' and 'a creature with the dragon type not listed in the Draconomicon's list of true dragons'. The first doesn't include dragonwrought kobolds, the second does.

Apart from dragonwrought kobolds there's little ambiguity, though. Well, unless you bring in half-dragon phaerimm.

[ryu]

So whats an untrue dragon?

Just a ''lesser'' dragon. The only thing you lose for this is not qualifying for a few neat goodies like loredrake. Qualifying for epic feats past a certain age category? You get that. That dragon ritual that makes sorcerers less bad by boosting their progression to wizard standard? You get that. Pretty much everything with a dragon requirement outside like five or ten cool things like loredrake? You get that. The debate literally doesn't matter as dragonwrought kobolds are at least normal dragons explicitly.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I was camp A, but Races of the Dragon does also contain this blurb:

Not sure if that changes much, I haven't really participated in any of these debates.

Seen it before. Dismissed on account of most planar dragons not having native spellcasting "proving" that this is a rule that can have exceptions.

It's a less convincing argument than the one surrounding age categories and what "advance" means, IMO, but it's the one that gets made.

Did I mention I've seen where this conversation's been had before?

[Vizzerdrix]

Both sides are wrong. I already proved they are in fact pumpkins in one of the hundreds of previous threads so lets let the silly discussion die off already, shall we?

[Inevitability]

Both sides are wrong. I already proved they are in fact pumpkins in one of the hundreds of previous threads so lets let the silly discussion die off already, shall we?


Small-sized
Somewhat orange-colored
Unthreatening in direct combat
Edible


Seems to check out.

[Somensjev]

I think the only way this conversation could finish would be if someone could find something that was
1. Not on the list
2. printed before the list
3. Explicitly called a True Dragon

Or if someone found something that specifically called out dw kobolds as lesser dragons

Otherwise, there's no real end to this, as both sides have their own valid arguments and counterarguments

Neither side, currently, is incorrect, they both have a valid point

[Inevitability]

I think the only way this conversation could finish would be if someone could find something that was
1. Not on the list
2. printed before the list
3. Explicitly called a True Dragon

Cue a dozen people showing obscure monsters fitting those criteria and another dozen arguing these monsters don't count.

[Crake]

The way I always end this argument is: True dragons determined by your race. Your race is Kobold. Kobolds are not true dragons. Taking a feat to change your type does not change your race, and thus does not change your qualification of whether or not you are, or are not a true dragon.

[Inevitability]

Taking a feat to change your type does not change your race

*cough*Human Heritage*cough*

[Ruethgar]

RotD was not published at the time of writing, so D&D products to date does not include RotD and any new dragons presented therein such as DWKs.

That being said, True is only needed for very few things, being psychotic, Alternate Form, and epic feats. Sovereign Archetypes are still available regardless due to the dragon type and that's really where DWKs shine more anyway with their +3 sorcerer levels and +3 mental stats.

[ryu]

RotD was not published at the time of writing, so D&D products to date does not include RotD and any new dragons presented therein such as DWKs.

That being said, True is only needed for very few things, being psychotic, Alternate Form, and epic feats. Sovereign Archetypes are still available regardless due to the dragon type and that's really where DWKs shine more anyway with their +3 sorcerer levels and +3 mental stats.

I think you've actually got it reversed. Sovereign archetypes require true. Not sure about the others but I know for a fact epic feats don't require true dragon status having actually gone through the hoops, looked at it, and used dragonwrought to get epic spellcasting early before.

[danzibr]

I was pretty firmly in Camp B before I read this thread. Now I'm not so sure.

[ryu]

I was pretty firmly in Camp B before I read this thread. Now I'm not so sure.

You're more than welcome in the ''it doesn't actually matter at all'' camp.

[Inevitability]

You're more than welcome in the ''it doesn't actually matter at all'' camp.

That's what I do. My group has exactly one player who even knows what dragonwrought kobolds are, and even he knows better than to try and sneak past a psychotic sovereign archetype past me.

[ryu]

That's what I do. My group has exactly one player who even knows what dragonwrought kobolds are, and even he knows better than to try and sneak past a psychotic sovereign archetype past me.

The reason I say it doesn't matter is because most of the nastiest stuff you can get for being a dragon doesn't even require true. I mean the archetypes are nice, but let's be real the actually strong thing is early access to epic feats, thus with optimization pre-epic epic spellcasting. That's, like, twenty orders of magnitude more frightening than any of the archetypes.

[Ruethgar]

I think you've actually got it reversed. Sovereign archetypes require true. Not sure about the others but I know for a fact epic feats don't require true dragon status having actually gone through the hoops, looked at it, and used dragonwrought to get epic spellcasting early before.

Actually the Archetypes don't require True, it is heavily implied, but not outright stated.

[ryu]

Actually the Archetypes don't require True, it is heavily implied, but not outright stated.

Could've sworn that was explicit? I mean I never really cared enough to follow up so I can't say your wrong here, but I thought it was?

[Somensjev]

Actually the Archetypes don't require True, it is heavily implied, but not outright stated.

So, what things explicitly require True Dragon?

Cause, so far, the only thing that seems to have been mentioned that really needs it is loredrake

[ryu]

So, what things explicitly require True Dragon?

Cause, so far, the only thing that seems to have been mentioned that really needs it is loredrake

Dunno. I think true dragonhood may actually be turning into a bigger farce than the antimagic field spell, and that's saying something. I literally giggle audibly anytime that spell is mentioned in a context other than using it with selective metamagic for a great defensive barrier without cost.

[Ruethgar]

So, what things explicitly require True Dragon?

Cause, so far, the only thing that seems to have been mentioned that really needs it is loredrake

The Eberron feat Alternate Form and the feats it's a prereq for require True Dragon, as to the dragon psychosis such as the ever famed Spellhoarding. Loredrake is a Sovereign Archetype and does not need to be True.


"All true dragons have the potential to use arcane magic. Most have the ability to select spells from the cleric spell list and certain domains. This variant rule instead provides a dragon with a special ability based on the Sovereign archetype it chooses to follow. This special ability replaces the optional spell selection abilities a dragon normally possesses; as such, a silver dragon that adopts the child of Eberron archetype can no longer cast cleric spells or those from the Air, Good, Law, and Sun domains. Those wholly unable to cast cleric spells (black, green, and white) lose nothing when they adopt a Sovereign archetype."

That is the only text regarding true dragons and the archetypes, everywhere else only refers to dragons in the general sense. It can be ruled that "Those" refers to True Dragon specifically, but it could just as easily refer to Dragons in general and would require DM adjudication. However inquiring on a few English help sites revealed most siding with the Dragons interpretation as opposed to True Dragon when given the full three paragraphs.

[lylsyly]

I have never chimed in on this debate, but ...

Are Kobolds “True” Dragons?

RotD, p.39
Kobolds are humanoids with the dragonblood and reptilian subtypes. For all effects related to race, a kobold is considered a dragon.”

“Automatic Language: Draconic.”

“Once hatched, kobolds mature at a breakneck pace, using the same life cycle as dragons, but only living one-tenth as long.”

RotD, p. 100
You are a dragon wrought kobold. Your type is dragon rather than humanoid, and you lose the dragonblood subtype. You retain all your other subtypes and your kobold racial traits. Your scales become tinted with a color that matches that of your draconic heritage. As a dragon, you are immune to magic sleep and paralysis effects.
All this tells me that Kobolds with the Dragonwrounght Feat "must" be so-called "True" Dragons, whether they appear on a table of "True" Dragons or not. After all, Text does trump Table, yes?

[D&DPrinceTandem]

...wow didn't think my questions were this big?:smallsmile:....



So, what things explicitly require True Dragon?

Cause, so far, the only thing that seems to have been mentioned that really needs it is loredrake

Xorvintaal dragon requires a True Dragon, I would come in handy for some one (me) to gain immortality because it has an ability called Rejuvenation that works Just like Big T's ability but without the Wish being able to get rid of it draw back. It also has the ability to summon minions to its Layer (which can come quite in handy if the dragons Layer is were ever the dragon currently is). If this dragon had the leadership feat it can have a lot of summon able minions.

Imagine a Kobold army, Know imagine that 1 in that Kobold army was a immortal beings. Scared...I'd be....

[ZamielVanWeber]

You're more than welcome in the ''it doesn't actually matter at all'' camp.

I have a standing houserule in my games that essentially reads: I don't care what the books say or don't say, DWK's are not true dragons. I see the argument can go either way but just do not want that in my games.

[ryu]

I have a standing houserule in my games that essentially reads: I don't care what the books say or don't say, DWK's are not true dragons. I see the argument can go either way but just do not want that in my games.

I mean that's fine, but this thread seems to establishing even harder than I thought it would that it just really doesn't matter.

[Troacctid]

According to Draconomicon, true dragons advance by age category, and any dragon that does not is a lesser dragon. Dragonwrought Kobolds do not advance by age category, so they are lesser dragons.

[Malimar]

According to Draconomicon, true dragons advance by age category, and any dragon that does not is a lesser dragon. Dragonwrought Kobolds do not advance by age category, so they are lesser dragons.

This exactly.

It doesn't matter that they get gradually slightly more powerful as they progress through age categories. "Advance" has a specific game meaning, and kobolds (dragonwrought and otherwise) don't advance through age categories.
Advancement: By character class

[ZamielVanWeber]

I mean that's fine, but this thread seems to establishing even harder than I thought it would that it just really doesn't matter.

There are a couple of rules that trip only for DWK's and I prefer just avoiding them altogether. It does not take a lot, just specific things.

[Ruethgar]

This exactly.

It doesn't matter that they get gradually slightly more powerful as they progress through age categories. "Advance" has a specific game meaning, and kobolds (dragonwrought and otherwise) don't advance through age categories.

Except "advance" has no game meaning, only "Advancement" and nothing in the game has "Advancement: By Age Category" anyway. And the base 10 MMI dragons can all Advance by HD or Class level according to both Dragon Magazine, and Draconomicon.

[Nifft]

IMHO there's tenuous rule support for Dragonwrought Kobolds being True Dragons, so it's valid to decide that they are in any particular game. (The support is tenuous, though, so it's also entirely valid to decide that they are NOT.)

However: Dragonwrought Kobolds being True Dragons has hilarious implications.

Therefore, in my games it is True.

[Technetium43]

... Right, need to add Dragonwrought Kobold Threads to the list of 'threads I should not post in except to tell people not to post in them', alongside LordDraco threads.

Speaking thereof, if you're reading this post you're already too far. Turn back now.

[AnachroNinja]

In the long run, it's all vague enough that for the most part it all comes down to what you personally want to believe is correct. There is no 100% irrefutable evidence for either side. There's some indicators in both directions and some circumstantial stuff but that's it.

Me, I feel like since just being a dragon gets them 99% of the best stuff anyway, I don't see any particular reason to not call them true dragons. As far as everyone else, rule it however makes sense to you, but stop pretending other people are crazy or refusing to acknowledge reason because they don't agree. It's annoying.

Edit: On a side note... It specifies that true dragons gain in power as they age. More notably it specifies that lesser dragons *don't*. Now, however slight it may be, an increase in stats is certainly a gain in power of a kind, and generally only playable races have the rules for stat change via aging. Are there any other playable lesser dragons that have a defined age range and stat gain table? If there isn't, an argument could be made that kobolds actually have to be true dragons based on the fact that they gain anything by aging, if all other lesser dragons follow the explicitly stated trend of never gaining power as they age.

Granted, unless otherwise stated, others would still lose physical stats with age, which could be an argument for why they aren't considered to be actually gaining power, what with it being a trade off at that point. Just a random thought.

[Troacctid]

Except "advance" has no game meaning, only "Advancement" and nothing in the game has "Advancement: By Age Category" anyway. And the base 10 MMI dragons can all Advance by HD or Class level according to both Dragon Magazine, and Draconomicon.
You might think that, if you didn't read Draconomicon, which does define it. True dragons increase in ECL as they grow older, while lesser dragons do not.

[AnachroNinja]

Just curious Troacctid, can you cite the page where it says ECL? I know of the section where it says true dragons grow more powerful as they age, and that they advance through age categories, but I missed the part where it mentioned ECL.

[Doctor Awkward]

All true dragons are endothermic.



Kobolds have close biological ties to dragons. The most important difference between the two, however, is that kobolds are cold-blooded creatures, and dragons are warmblooded.



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


...Uh...discuss, I guess?

[Troacctid]

Just curious Troacctid, can you cite the page where it says ECL? I know of the section where it says true dragons grow more powerful as they age, and that they advance through age categories, but I missed the part where it mentioned ECL.
It's in Chapter 3, pages 141 and 144.

[AnachroNinja]

It's in Chapter 3, pages 141 and 144.

Yah that whole section is a *very* general set of guidelines on how to play a dragon PC and does not at any point make an explicit statements on what constitutes a true dragon as far as I can see. Most of it is even specifically noted as being applicable for only the chromatic/metallic dragons. It has a section for other true dragons that just out and out tells you that you'll need to make your own advancement table and gives some guidelines. An argument could be easily made that dragonwrought kobolds are just a special case and their table would indicate no HAD or LA increases, which would still effectively count as +0 which is different from a non existent value, and less frequent stat increases that only apply to their mental stats.

Is that necessarily true? No! But it's not demonstrably false either, which was kind of my point earlier.

[Inevitability]

...Uh...discuss, I guess?

That's interesting. I guess one might interpret 'all other racial traits' as not including cold-bloodedness, and I doubt it'll be accepted universally, but it's definitely a notable find.

[eggynack]

I think the only way this conversation could finish would be if someone could find something that was
1. Not on the list
2. printed before the list
3. Explicitly called a True Dragon
Orange. Dragon compendium, page 195. Starting with the third criteria, the text says, "The three dragons presented in this section... use all of the standard rules for true dragons given on pages 68-70 of the Monster Manual unless otherwise noted in their descriptions." As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the description of these dragons that explicitly makes them not true dragons, and it seems relatively clear cut that one of the standard rules for true dragons is that they're true dragons. At least it's more clear cut than this whole argument, which is nice. For the second criteria, the book's first printing was in 2005, earlier than the 2006 first printing for RotD. The first printing for the dragon magazine containing orange dragon was significantly earlier, but dragon compendium is rather clear cut first party while the magazine is more ambiguous. Finally, to the first point, it doesn't look like orange dragons even see mention in the book overall, let alone in this list.

So, do I win? I honestly don't have all that much stake in this, and I'm doubtful that this serves as a resolution to the conflict, but a weird use for my dragon search knowledge seems worth it in and of itself.

[Doctor Despair]

Orange. Dragon compendium, page 195. Starting with the third criteria, the text says...

So, do I win? I honestly don't have all that much stake in this, and I'm doubtful that this serves as a resolution to the conflict, but a weird use for my dragon search knowledge seems worth it in and of itself.

I mean, you certainly showed that not being on the table isn't sufficient evidence to discount kobolds from true dragonhood, which earns you a promotion. That leaves us debating on whether there is sufficient evidence to include them, still.

[Celestia]

Personally, I think the evidence for kobolds being true dragon's is stronger than the evidence against it. That is completely irrelevant, however. What is ultimately the most important question in this debate is whether to not it's fun. This is a game, first and foremost, so entrainment value is the true arbiter of rulings, not RAW.

So, with that in mind, kobolds are true dragon's because that is absolutely hilarious. I want to see a webcomic where there's, like, a council of true dragons that has ruled all dragonkind for thousands of years, and then suddenly this dragonwrought kobold shows up and joins the council because they are technically true dragons. And all the other dragons are just so upset by this, especially the kobold has such massive balls that he struts around like one of the cool guys and totally plays up like he belongs to be there. I bet it would be amazing. :smallbiggrin:

[AnachroNinja]

That's interesting. I guess one might interpret 'all other racial traits' as not including cold-bloodedness, and I doubt it'll be accepted universally, but it's definitely a notable find.

As far as I know, racial traits usually refers to the crunch portion of a races description... Stat boosts, size, speed, vision modes, racial bonuses, SLAs and so forth. I'm not aware of cold blooded actually appearing anywhere in kobolds "racial traits" block, though I'm AFB at the moment. It is in one of the fluff seconds of RotD isn't it? To me that kind of suggests it is at least possibly changed my their change to dragon type. I don't think it could be conclusively argued either way, but my inclination is to think that since it doesn't directly fall under the details that aren't changed, DWKs cease to be cold blooded because their dragons and dragons are warm blooded.

It is a good find nonetheless.

[Ruethgar]

...Uh...discuss, I guess?

The description of Kobold digestion is endothermic, somewhat, the text contradicts itself, and normal dragons aren't cut and dry endothermic on their own by their descriptions either.

At any rate it is a faulty ground to stand on.

[lylsyly]

From Races of the Dragon, p. 39;

Table 3–2: Kobold Age Categories

Categories Age
Wyrmling Up to 6 months
Very young 7 to 18 months
Young 19 to 30 months
Juvenile 31 months to 5 years
Young adult 6 to 10 years
Adult 11 to 20 years
Mature adult 21 to 40 years
Old 41 to 60 years
Very old 61 to 80 years
Ancient 81 to 100 years
Wyrm 101 to 120 years
Great wyrm 121 years or older

[D&DPrinceTandem]

.

So, with that in mind, kobolds are true dragon's because that is absolutely hilarious. I want to see a webcomic where there's, like, a council of true dragons that has ruled all dragonkind for thousands of years, and then suddenly this dragonwrought kobold shows up and joins the council because they are technically true dragons. And all the other dragons are just so upset by this, especially the kobold has such massive balls that he struts around like one of the cool guys and totally plays up like he belongs to be there. I bet it would be amazing. :smallbiggrin:
*can use some of this in my sig
YASSSS.

Speaking of balls
Orb of dragonkind Kobold.... anybody...

[Doctor Awkward]

The description of Kobold digestion is endothermic, somewhat, the text contradicts itself, and normal dragons aren't cut and dry endothermic on their own by their descriptions either.

At any rate it is a faulty ground to stand on.

In all honesty, I always felt that the entire argument as to whether or not dragonwrought kobolds counted as "true" dragons was built on faulty ground.

I mean, if you want to take the every possible word in these books literally as part of the objective description, the very first sentence of long description of true dragons in the first Monster Manual states that, "True dragons are winged, reptilelike creatures of ancient lineage." The Dragonwrought feat doesn't give a kobold wings. It makes him eligible to take another feat that gives him wings, but then what does that mean? That Dragonwrought kobolds aren't true dragons unless they also take that feat? So then they aren't true dragons until they have at least three hit dice?

The Draconomicon introduction goes even further: "At first glance, a true dragon resembles a reptile. It has a muscular body, a long, thick neck, a horned or frilled head with a toothy mouth, and a sinuous tail. The creature walks on four powerful legs with clawed feet, and it flies using its vast, batlike wings. Heavy scales cover a dragon from the tip of its tail to end of its snout."

There's an awful lot of physiological qualifiers in that paragraph that Dragonwrought sure doesn't talk about.

To further build on the endothermic point, it's also pretty heavily implied that a true dragons body temperature is so well-regulated due to its elemental subtype. Dragonwrought doesn't grant you one of those either. Speaking of which, the internal organ "draconis fundamentum" (...Wow, seriously WotC?), which is attached to the heart is responsible for regulating all elemental activity related to a a dragon's subtype, and it is only possessed by true dragons, as noted on page 8 of the Draconomicon.

Treating all of this text as rules for defining what exactly a true dragon is creates countless further examples you can delve into that must somehow be reconciled with the Dragonwrought feat:

How about the Twilight, which occurs whenever a true dragon reaches great wyrm stage and must decide to either will itself to depart, enact a ritual to become a guardian, or attempt the path of dracolichdom? I'd love to read the webcomic wherein a kobold applies to become a guardian by consuming 135,000 gold pieces in a single day, 120,000 of which must have been a part of his "horde" for at least 200 years.
Speaking of which, the long text in MM1 also says that all true dragons are covetous and build up treasure hordes. Does that mean that a Dragonwrought kobold that takes Vow of Poverty is automatically no longer a true dragon?
According to the Draconomicon pg 21, "all true dragons can swim". So is the Dragonwrought kobold now required to take ranks in Swim to be a true dragon?
The very next page says that "Every true dragon is immune to at least one type of elemental energy (acid, cold, electricity, or fire), usually the same type of energy as the dragon uses for its breath weapon." So does he now need an elemental immunity too? Does that line also imply that he needs a breath weapon to be considered a true dragon?
How about the next couple of paragraphs, which state that true dragons develop some form of damage reduction as they age, as well as an innate ability to resist spells?
Under Outlook and Psychology, on page 25, it states that "All true dragons have great patience". Are there now roleplaying requirements that DM's should enforce when a player wants their Dragonwrought kobold to be considered a "true" dragon?


I could go on all day, but in the end I would still wind up in Camp "It Doesn't Really Matter". As a DM, I would never to hinge my approval of a Dragonwrought kobold qualifying for the Dragon Ascendant prestige class, following a Sovereign Archetype, or taking the Draconic Knowledge feat on whether or not the character in question actually counts as a "true" dragon by RAW. I'm going to make a judgment call of "Heh, y'know what? You seem like you'd rather enjoy playing that, and it's pretty in line with the power level of the party so sure, go ahead" or "No, not at my table. I don't care what the rules say, it doesn't fit the power level of the rest of the group at all."

And I would advise any other prospective DM's to do the same.

[flappeercraft]

So just for the purpose of being practical on this thread I will make a list covering all points in favor and against Dragonwrought Kobolds being "True Dragons" discussed on this thread at least

In favor:
1. Text > Table (Debatable)
2. Planar dragons which are true dragons do not have spellcasting which goes against #2
3. RotD was published after Draconomicon so that's why Dragonwrought kobolds are not on the list
4. DRW Kobolds lose dragonblood subtype in exchange for Dragon type and as dragons they are immune to paralysis and sleep effects.
5. DRW kobolds gain increases to stats by age without penalty which could debatably be counted as gaining power by age advancement
6. Later books with more True dragons have come out after Draconomicon like RotD and Dragon compendium
7. Dragonwrought kobolds become dragons and even though Dragonwrought explicitly does not change racial traits except type that usually means the statistics not fluff like them being coldblooded which could debatably mean they become warmblooded when they become dragons
8. Kobolds do have Age categories like True Dragons do which is included on a table on RotD

Against:
1. Not included on the table of True dragons
2. They don't gain more spellcasting powers with age
3. "All true dragons have the potential to use Arcane magic" -Dragons o Eberron
4. According to Draconomicon True dragons advance by age category
5. All true dragons are warmblooded but kobolds are coldblooded and Dragonwrought feat specifies you keep all racial traits which includes being coldblooded
6. Dragon age advancement is by ECL not stats
7. on MM1 the descriptions of True dragons includes that True dragons are Winged reptilian creatures which does not include DRW Kobolds as they are not winged, they may take a feat to become winged but they are not naturally
8. Draconomicon includes text that says that True dragons resemble reptilian creatures with a muscular body, long thick neck, horned/frilled head with a toothy mouth and a sinuous tail of which DRW kobold do not have many of those traits
9. It is implied that the bpdy temperature regulation of dragons is so good because of their elemental subtype which DRW kobolds do not gain in any way
10. All true dragons can swim according to Draconomicon and DRW kobolds don't have a swim speed
11. All true dragons are immune to 1 elemental type which DRW kobolds do not have an immunity to at all
12. All true dragons develop DR and SR as they age acording to Draconomicon which DRW kobolds don't

[Nifft]

Against:
1. Not included on the table of True dragons
2. They don't gain more spellcasting powers with age
3. "All true dragons have the potential to use Arcane magic" -Dragons o Eberron
4. According to Draconomicon True dragons advance by age category
5. All true dragons are warmblooded but kobolds are coldblooded and Dragonwrought feat specifies you keep all racial traits which includes being coldblooded
6. Dragon advancement is by ECL not stats
7. on MM1 the descriptions of True dragons includes that True dragons are Winged reptilian creatures which does not include DRW Kobolds as they are not winged, they may take a feat to become winged but they are not naturally
8. Draconomicon includes text that says that True dragons resemble reptilian creatures with a muscular body, long thick neck, horned/frilled head with a toothy mouth and a sinuous tail of which DRW kobold do not have many of those traits
9. It is implied that the bpdy temperature regulation of dragons is so good because of their elemental subtype which DRW kobolds do not gain in any way
10. All true dragons can swim according to Draconomicon and DRW kobolds don't have a swim speed
11. All true dragons are immune to 1 elemental type which DRW kobolds do not have an immunity to at all
12. All true dragons develop DR and SR as they age acording to Draconomicon which DRW kobolds don't


3. If you're using RotD, then a Kobold can undergo the Rite of Draconic Passage and cast an Arcane spell 1/day (as an SLA).

6. What does that mean? Everything that advances increases its ECL (often disproportionately to its CR), if it has an ECL.


Some of these "all true dragons" statements are contradicted by the rules. If I cite some examples, can we reduce this list?

7. Many of the official "True Dragons" from Oriental Adventures do not fit your description. But they are in the table of True Dragons. RULES CONFLICT.

8. Some of the official "True Dragons" from Oriental Adventures do not fit that description, either. (Lung Wang is a turtle, and Li Lung is a sphinx.) But they are in the table of True Dragons. RULES CONFLICT.

9. Not all True Dragons have an elemental subtype. Examples include: Fang Dragon, Battle Dragon, Chaos Dragon, Shadow Dragon, Force Dragon...

10. Many of the non-aquatic dragons in the Draconomicon also lack a Swim speed, so that's not a good argument.

11. The first True Dragon in the Draconomicon's "New Monsters" section directly contradicts that assertion: Fang Dragons never become immune to any damage type.


That's all I got.

[AnachroNinja]

Arguably, anything capable of taking a sorcerer level has "the potential to use arcane magic" and the age bonuses to charisma would grant at least one additional bonus spell, even if at a dork level the sorcerer doesn't currently have access to, which could be argued to fit the "gains arcane power as it ages". I guess an argument could be made that only kobold sorcerers are true dragons, I dunno. I would need citations to really dig into the wording on that stuff.

Example being the ECL advancing one that Troacctid did cite, and which doesn't actually exist.

[Doctor Awkward]

7. Many of the official "True Dragons" from Oriental Adventures do not fit your description. But they are in the table of True Dragons. RULES CONFLICT.

8. Some of the official "True Dragons" from Oriental Adventures do not fit that description, either. (Lung Wang is a turtle, and Li Lung is a sphinx.) But they are in the table of True Dragons. RULES CONFLICT.

9. Not all True Dragons have an elemental subtype. Examples include: Fang Dragon, Battle Dragon, Chaos Dragon, Shadow Dragon, Force Dragon...

11. The first True Dragon in the Draconomicon's "New Monsters" section directly contradicts that assertion: Fang Dragons never become immune to any damage type.

If dragons from Oriental Adventures, and the listed example here don't follow this text, then how do you know they actually are true dragons?

[flappeercraft]

3. If you're using RotD, then a Kobold can undergo the Rite of Draconic Passage and cast an Arcane spell 1/day (as an SLA).

6. What does that mean? Everything that advances increases its ECL (often disproportionately to its CR), if it has an ECL.


Some of these "all true dragons" statements are contradicted by the rules. If I cite some examples, can we reduce this list?

7. Many of the official "True Dragons" from Oriental Adventures do not fit your description. But they are in the table of True Dragons. RULES CONFLICT.

8. Some of the official "True Dragons" from Oriental Adventures do not fit that description, either. (Lung Wang is a turtle, and Li Lung is a sphinx.) But they are in the table of True Dragons. RULES CONFLICT.

9. Not all True Dragons have an elemental subtype. Examples include: Fang Dragon, Battle Dragon, Chaos Dragon, Shadow Dragon, Force Dragon...

10. Many of the non-aquatic dragons in the Draconomicon also lack a Swim speed, so that's not a good argument.

11. The first True Dragon in the Draconomicon's "New Monsters" section directly contradicts that assertion: Fang Dragons never become immune to any damage type.


That's all I got.

Oh about the ECL advancement I meant age advancement, fixed that. Also this is not my information that I'm giving, just a summary of what has been said in this thread already by others and grouping them into evidence for against them being true dragons or in favor of.

[Somensjev]

1. Not included on the table of True dragons
according to others on this thread, the list was printed before dwk, if so, there's no argument to be made from this
If not, there was that Dragon mag one that someone found, if you want to use that as an exception


2. They don't gain more spellcasting powers with age
I believe you posted your own exception to this (i believe planar dragons, iirc?). So there's no reason to hold dwks to it


3. "All true dragons have the potential to use Arcane magic" -Dragons o Eberron
"potential" I believe is not a defined game term, and as such, we default to English definitions, which means every race has that potential


4. According to Draconomicon True dragons advance by age category
Advance isn't a game term, advancement is. This is an important distinction.


5. All true dragons are warmblooded but kobolds are coldblooded and Dragonwrought feat specifies you keep all racial traits which includes being coldblooded
I believe blood temperature would be more of a creature type thing than a race thing.
Besides, racial traits are crunch, blood temperature is fluff. These two things should probably be separated in RAW discussions


12. All true dragons develop DR and SR as they age acording to Draconomicon which DRW kobolds don't
I'm sure there's going to be at least one exception to this, other than kobolds

Ones I don't have to answer:

3. If you're using RotD, then a Kobold can undergo the Rite of Draconic Passage and cast an Arcane spell 1/day (as an SLA).

6. What does that mean? Everything that advances increases its ECL (often disproportionately to its CR), if it has an ECL.


Some of these "all true dragons" statements are contradicted by the rules. If I cite some examples, can we reduce this list?

7. Many of the official "True Dragons" from Oriental Adventures do not fit your description. But they are in the table of True Dragons. RULES CONFLICT.

8. Some of the official "True Dragons" from Oriental Adventures do not fit that description, either. (Lung Wang is a turtle, and Li Lung is a sphinx.) But they are in the table of True Dragons. RULES CONFLICT.

9. Not all True Dragons have an elemental subtype. Examples include: Fang Dragon, Battle Dragon, Chaos Dragon, Shadow Dragon, Force Dragon...

10. Many of the non-aquatic dragons in the Draconomicon also lack a Swim speed, so that's not a good argument.

11. The first True Dragon in the Draconomicon's "New Monsters" section directly contradicts that assertion: Fang Dragons never become immune to any damage type.


That's all I got.

Sorry for any problems posting, I'm currently on my phone and away from books

[Nifft]

7. Many of the official "True Dragons" from Oriental Adventures do not fit your description. But they are in the table of True Dragons.

If dragons from Oriental Adventures, and the listed example here don't follow this text, then how do you know they actually are true dragons?

(...) they are in the table of True Dragons
Hope that helps.


Oh about the ECL advancement I meant age advancement, fixed that. Also this is not my information that I'm giving, just a summary of what has been said in this thread already by others and grouping them into evidence for against them being true dragons or in favor of.
Sure, and I'm not actually arguing one way or the other.

What I want to do is present a list of VALID, NON-DEBUNKED arguments for both sides of the argument, which people can use to make the decision in their own game.

Presenting easily-debunked arguments in a list with legit arguments is a way to get the whole list thrown out.

(IMHO there is no definitive rules answer.)

[Doctor Awkward]

Hope that helps.

So if I understand you correctly, your conclusion that they count as true dragons is because the rules explicitly say "These things are also true dragons."

Does it also say that anywhere for Dragonwrought kobolds?

[eggynack]

If dragons from Oriental Adventures, and the listed example here don't follow this text, then how do you know they actually are true dragons?
In addition to the already noted list thing, there's apparently an OA update which says you're supposed to refer to the true dragon entry for a bunch of stuff, in a manner which would seem to imply the true dragon nature of lung dragons.

[Ruethgar]

If dragons from Oriental Adventures, and the listed example here don't follow this text, then how do you know they actually are true dragons?

Because RotD, as the most recent and arguably primary source lists them specifically as True dragons.

[Nifft]

So if I understand you correctly, your conclusion that they count as true dragons is because the rules explicitly say "These things are also true dragons."

Does it also say that anywhere for Dragonwrought kobolds?

Glad you're caught up.

There are other True Dragons which are NOT in the table, so the answer to your question is: "That's irrelevant."

You can scroll back through the thread to find that particular rules tidbit, it wasn't my find but IIRC it was quite well presented and cited.

In simple language:
- Being on the True Dragons table is sufficient to guarantee unambiguous True Dragon membership.
- Absence from the True Dragons table is NOT sufficient to guarantee exclusion from the True Dragon set.

In formal logic:

On table => True Dragon

Since it's an implication, you can't extract a converse. That's a logical fallacy. You can extract a contrapositive, which states that not(True Dragon) => not(on table), but that's not very useful.


tl;dr - You're repeating a debunked argument, and it didn't work last time either.

[Somensjev]

So if I understand you correctly, your conclusion that they count as true dragons is because the rules explicitly say "These things are also true dragons."
I assume so, since it's explicitly stated that they are


Does it also say that anywhere for Dragonwrought kobolds?
No, it doesn't, but, it also doesn't say they're lesser dragons (the only other kind), so we much use our definition of a true Dragon to work out if they are one

However, large sections of what may or may not be considered a part of true dragonness is directly contradicted by things that we know are true dragons, so we have to adjust the criteria


To discount them as true dragons, you need to find something which:
1. Is explicitly a part of being a true Dragon
2. Has no exceptions
3. Doesn't apply to kobolds

So far, I've only seen things that apply to two of those things, at most

[Nifft]

3. Doesn't apply to mobiles

I think your phone is trying to oppress the noble Kobold race.

EDIT: ... oh you already fixed it. Can't seem to delete this post. Oh well.

[Somensjev]

I think your phone is trying to oppress the noble Kobold race.

You quoted me while I was trying to fix it. I can't even be upset

If your criteria doesn't apply to my phone, I may have to accept that it isn't a True Dragon

[Nifft]

You quoted me while I was trying to fix it. I can't even be upset

If your criteria doesn't apply to my phone, I may have to accept that it isn't a True Dragon

IOs 12.5 will make your phone a True Dragon.

However, it might also make your phone a Kobold.

Update with discretion.

[Doctor Awkward]

There are other True Dragons which are NOT in the table,

That's not where I was heading at all.

What other things are there that are true dragons which are also not on the table? And do they, like the ones in the Dragon Compendium, also count as true dragons on account of also containing text that explicitly says, "These things are also true dragons"?


I want to be sure that the argument here is "Dragonwrought kobolds could be true dragons because the rules don't explicitly say they aren't."

Don't you see the contradiction there? You're claiming that kobolds should count because it's unclear if they do or don't, but in every other instance that this occurs, that's not how the rules are structured.

Draconomicon pg. 38: "True dragons fall into two broad categories: chromatic and metallic."
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,"

With dozens and dozens of further qualifiers that refine what a true dragon is.

Then you have further entries and tables, including one in Races of the Dragon on page 103 that lists every kind of true dragon published to date. And all of them have specific exceptions that state outright, "They don't seem like it, but these things are also true dragons".

But they chose not to specify the same thing for Dragonwrought kobolds.

And that doesn't seem at all strange?

[pupaeted]

I feel like the narrator from Fiddler on the Roof, just wandering into frame and saying "Of course, there was some trouble a little while ago, where some people thought dragonwrought kobolds were true dragons, while some people thought that they weren't, but that's all settled now."

My answer was based on the absence of kobolds in the unambigiously explicit complete list of all True Dragons to date in in Races of the Dragon (the list, not table).

Either way, the entire debate has been argued over by the elder sages much more completely than will ever happen here. I saw the above solution brought up in the original thread and never saw it competently challenged thereafter. I honestly thought the matter was settled, sorree.

[remetagross]

This is a good point, Tonymitsu.

To counter it, one would need to find a creature that is unambiguously a True Dragon, but without it being explicitely stated out. A creature where nowhere is written "this is a True Dragon", and yet would be a True Dragon without a doubt.

If such a creature is found, then this would mark a precedent for Dragonwrought Kobolds being True Dragons even though nowhere in WoTC's published material is such a thing explicitely written out.

[Doctor Awkward]

This is a good point, Tonymitsu.

To counter it, one would need to find a creature that is unambiguously a True Dragon, but without it being explicitely stated out. A creature where nowhere is written "this is a True Dragon", and yet would be a True Dragon without a doubt.

If such a creature is found, then this would mark a precedent for Dragonwrought Kobolds being True Dragons even though nowhere in WoTC's published material is such a thing explicitely written out.

If that's not the textbook definition of a logical paradox, then I don't know what is.

I think I will call it the "Schrödinger's dragon" argument.

[Somensjev]

I want to be sure that the argument here is "Dragonwrought kobolds could be true dragons because the rules don't explicitly say they aren't."
This is close to what I'm trying to argue, but just far enough away that it could lead to a strawman

For the sake of clarity I, at least, am trying to argue " DWK's may be true dragons, because the text doesn't tell us one way or the other, and all attempts to define true Dragon, are either unsupported by rules, apply to kobolds, or have some kind of exception, so ambiguity continues"


Don't you see the contradiction there? You're claiming that kobolds should count because it's unclear if they do or don't, but in every other instance that this occurs, that's not how the rules are structured.

Draconomicon pg. 38: "True dragons fall into two broad categories: chromatic and metallic."
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,"

With dozens and dozens of further qualifiers that refine what a true dragon is.
The problem is, each of these qualifiers is entirely fluff, with no rules meaning. Apply to dw kobolds. Or have a number of exceptions. And therein lies the problem



Then you have further entries and tables, including one in Races of the Dragon on page 103 that lists every kind of true dragon published to date. And all of them have specific exceptions that state outright, "They don't seem like it, but these things are also true dragons".

But they chose not to specify the same thing for Dragonwrought kobolds.

And that doesn't seem at all strange?

It does seem strange, which is no different to the rest of 3.5, its a large, mostly unproofread, pile of contradictions and poor wording

RAW: DWK's may or may not be true dragons, depending on if it can ever be 100% disproved
RAI: I don't think even the writers know

[Nifft]

I want to be sure that the argument here is "Dragonwrought kobolds could be true dragons because the rules don't explicitly say they aren't." This thread is only ~3 pages long. You could find out the positive arguments put forward by reading the previous pages.

I have made exactly zero of them myself.

What I'm doing is debunking blatantly false arguments.

If you want my opinion on Dragonwrought Kobolds, you can find it on the first page of this thread.


Don't you see the contradiction there? You're claiming that kobolds should count because it's unclear
Ha ha ha, no.

What I'm doing is helping to catalog a list of valid non-debunked arguments both for and against.

I explicitly said this a few posts back -- again, it's not a long thread, please do us the courtesy of reading our posts before you try to frame our positions.


Draconomicon pg. 38: "True dragons fall into two broad categories: chromatic and metallic."
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,"

With dozens and dozens of further qualifiers that refine what a true dragon is. The funny thing is that Draconomicon provides a lot of non-metallic, non-chromatic dragons.

It also came after MM2 which gave us Gem dragons, and OA which gave us Lung dragons.

That first assertion is blatantly untrue, and should not be used as the foundation for an argument.

As to the 2nd citation, that's interesting. Maybe it should be added to the (currently very short) list of valid arguments.


And that doesn't seem at all strange?

There are a lot of strange things in D&D.

I enjoy many of them.

[Nifft]

This is a good point, Tonymitsu.

To counter it, one would need to find a creature that is unambiguously a True Dragon, but without it being explicitely stated out. A creature where nowhere is written "this is a True Dragon", and yet would be a True Dragon without a doubt.

If such a creature is found, then this would mark a precedent for Dragonwrought Kobolds being True Dragons even though nowhere in WoTC's published material is such a thing explicitely written out.

GENTLEMEN, BEHOLD!

Steel Dragons: http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mm/20040328a

They appear to have all the trappings of True Dragons, but they don't say explicitly that they are True Dragons, and I don't think anything else says they are either.

[remetagross]

If that's not the textbook definition of a logical paradox, then I don't know what is.

I think I will call it the "Schrödinger's dragon" argument.

Yeah, I didn' say it was easy, but given how incredibly diverse 3.5 is, I wouldn't bet that an answer can't be found.

Edit: Well, that was quicker than I expected :) if we assume that Steel Dragons are, indeed, True Dragons (and, on this one, I think anyone would be hard-pressed to argue for the opposite), then this means that there is a precedent for creatures which are indeed True Dragons while at the same time never explicitely called so. In that regard, I would say, Tonymitsu, that this counters your argument. What do people think of that one?

[Doctor Awkward]

GENTLEMEN, BEHOLD!

Steel Dragons: http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mm/20040328a

They appear to have all the trappings of True Dragons, but they don't say explicitly that they are True Dragons, and I don't think anything else says they are either.

...So that critter doesn't seem like it could possibly be filed under the category of "metallic" dragon?

Not even a little bit?

[Nifft]

...So that critter doesn't seem like it could possibly be filed under the category of "metallic" dragon?

Not even a little bit?

Dude, what?

Did you read the text that I quoted?

[Somensjev]

GENTLEMEN, BEHOLD!

Steel Dragons: http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mm/20040328a

They appear to have all the trappings of True Dragons, but they don't say explicitly that they are True Dragons, and I don't think anything else says they are either.

I am continually impressed by this thread, every time someone mentions something that should be rather difficult to find, someone else comes back with a pretty solid example in mere minutes

[remetagross]

I am continually impressed by this thread, every time someone mentions something that should be rather difficult to find, someone else comes back with a pretty solid example in mere minutes

Totally seconding this...some people have a mastery of the 3.5 resources that is difficult to adequately challenge!

[Doctor Awkward]

Dude, what?

Did you read the text that I quoted?

No, I was already aware that Steel dragons are a thing.


I just... I'm trying to process your assertion that it is not a metallic dragon, which is one of the two broad categories under which "all true dragons" fall according to the Draconomicon.

[Somensjev]

No, I was already aware that Steel dragons are a thing.


I just... I'm trying to process your assertion that it is not a metallic dragon, which is one of the two broad categories under which "all true dragons" fall according to the Draconomicon.

We were told that true dragons can fall under metallic and chromatic, but, were we told that all metallic and chromatic dragons were true?
If we haven't, we fall back into kobold territory

And, we can pretty solidly prove that not all true dragons are metallic or chromatic, so I'll take that statement with some salt anyway

[Nifft]

No, I was already aware that Steel dragons are a thing.

I just... I'm trying to process your assertion that it is not a metallic dragon, which is one of the two broad categories under which "all true dragons" fall according to the Draconomicon.

That is not an assertion which I made.

Nowhere did I say that, nor anything similar.

Here's what I said: "Look at this, I found a monster which exhibits all the traits & trappings of a True Dragon, but nowhere does it explicitly say that it's a True Dragon. (So far as I know.)"

Why did I say this? Because you had put forward an argument that everything MUST be explicitly stated to be a True Dragon, or it cannot be such. This is a counter-example which ought to invalidate one of your arguments.

Just not the one you're talking about.

In a separate post -- which you did not quote -- I said that Gem dragons and Lung dragons were neither Chromatic nor Metallic.


I am continually impressed by this thread, every time someone mentions something that should be rather difficult to find, someone else comes back with a pretty solid example in mere minutes

"This is the sixth time we have made this thread, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it."

[eggynack]

It seems worth note that steel dragons were reprinted in Dragons of Faerun. That source explicitly calls them out as metallic dragons, but whether that's tantamount to calling them true dragons is a bit unclear. More importantly though, DoF has two other dragons, the mercury dragon and the mist dragon. The former is, like the steel dragon, explicitly called metallic, but the latter is neither implicitly nor explicitly either metallic or chromatic.

So, mist dragons.

[Doctor Awkward]

We were told that true dragons can fall under metallic and chromatic, but, were we told that all metallic and chromatic dragons were true?
If we haven't, we fall back into kobold territory

And, we can pretty solidly prove that not all true dragons are metallic or chromatic, so I'll take that statement with some salt anyway

to quote the old anectdote, "that depends entirely upon what your definition of is is."


For instance, I can say A is B such that any object x that belongs to a category A, also always belongs to a category B. In this case, A is a subset of B. So "any odd number is a number", and it's valid. Obviously, the opposite is not valid: "any number is odd number."

But I can also say A is B stands for "objects A and B are equal". Likewise "My Cat" and "Cat Living In My House" are terms for the same thing. Here, equality is symmetric.

Similar to above, but A is B applies to categories: if category A equals to category B, that means that any object x belonging to A also belongs to B and, vice versa, any y belonging to B, also must belong to A


In all three of these cases, only point 1 is demonstrably false. And I'm pretty sure you are currently dealing with point 3.

[Somensjev]

to quote the old anectdote, "that depends entirely upon what your definition of is is."


For instance, I can say A is B such that any object x that belongs to a category A, also always belongs to a category B. In this case, A is a subset of B. So "any odd number is a number", and it's valid. Obviously, the opposite is not valid: "any number is odd number."

But I can also say A is B stands for "objects A and B are equal". Likewise "My Cat" and "Cat Living In My House" are terms for the same thing. Here, equality is symmetric.

Similar to above, but A is B applies to categories: if category A equals to category B, that means that any object x belonging to A also belongs to B and, vice versa, any y belonging to B, also must belong to A


In all three of these cases, only point 1 is demonstrably false. And I'm pretty sure you are currently dealing with point 3.

It is most likely that it is the third definition, but I dont think it's specifically stated as such, so it's only a well informed assumption

But, even with that, mist dragons now fit everything we were trying to use steel dragons for, and they're neither metallic or chromatic

[Troacctid]

This is close to what I'm trying to argue, but just far enough away that it could lead to a strawman

For the sake of clarity I, at least, am trying to argue " DWK's may be true dragons, because the text doesn't tell us one way or the other, and all attempts to define true Dragon, are either unsupported by rules, apply to kobolds, or have some kind of exception, so ambiguity continues"
If that's your standard, then anything could be a true dragon. Half-dragons are true dragons! Prove they're not.

[eggynack]

Is this element of the argument even necessary at this point? If you want the dragon to be metallic or chromatic, because you think that's a necessary but not sufficient element of a true dragon (assuming the text doesn't explicitly state something is a true dragon), steel is right there (though it's a perspective that'd seemingly render the dragonwrought kobold obviously not true, and doesn't seem to hold up that well). If the dragon needs to be neither metallic nor chromatic, because you think that's a sufficient but not necessary element of truth, then the mist dragon is in the exact same source. If you think that being metallic or chromatic or otherwise being listed as true is a both necessary and sufficient element, then I guess you have to contend with the fact that two dragons from the same book with the same format in the same section have one as true and the other as lesser. Which is super weird.

[Nifft]

If that's your standard, then anything could be a true dragon. Half-dragons are true dragons! Prove they're not.

Cats are of type Animal.

Type Animal is not Type Dragon.

Therefore, there exists at least one monster which could kill any one of us in this thread and yet is not a True Dragon.

[Doctor Awkward]

It seems worth note that steel dragons were reprinted in Dragons of Faerun. That source explicitly calls them out as metallic dragons, but whether that's tantamount to calling them true dragons is a bit unclear. More importantly though, DoF has two other dragons, the mercury dragon and the mist dragon. The former is, like the steel dragon, explicitly called metallic, but the latter is neither implicitly nor explicitly either metallic or chromatic.

So, mist dragons.

True enough, however, the introduction for the chapter that lists the statistics for those creatures also says this:

"The dragons here are presented in the format used in the Monster Manual. For further details on dragon combat and abilities not detailed here, see MM 68-70."

The first heading on the page in question is the start of category "Dragon, True".
So while they aren't explicitly stated to be true dragons in their own entry, the context of the book is pretty unambiguous that they are.

[Nifft]

If the dragon needs to be neither metallic nor chromatic, because you think that's a sufficient but not necessary element of truth, then the mist dragon is in the exact same source. If you think that being metallic or chromatic or otherwise being listed as true is a both necessary and sufficient element, then I guess you have to contend with the fact that two dragons from the same book with the same format in the same section have one as true and the other as lesser. Which is super weird.

Nah, he got confused about which argument I was responding to.

I brought up Steel Dragon as an example of something which looked very much like a True Dragon, and which I hope we'd all agree is a True Dragon, but which wasn't explicitly stated to be a True Dragon anywhere in its initial write-up.


Regarding "metallic or chromatic", nobody has answered the counter examples of Gem or Lung. I'm sure there are others, presumably including Mist.

[Doctor Awkward]

Nah, he got confused about which argument I was responding to.

I brought up Steel Dragon as an example of something which looked very much like a True Dragon, and which I hope we'd all agree is a True Dragon, but which wasn't explicitly stated to be a True Dragon anywhere in its initial write-up.


Regarding "metallic or chromatic", nobody has answered the counter examples of Gem or Lung. I'm sure there are others, presumably including Mist.

Um, Gem dragons (as in dragons of the amethyst, crystal, emerald, sapphire, and topaz variety) are clearly listed on both the Appendix of the Draconomicon and Races of the Dragon table on page 103 as being true dragons. Lung dragons, along with all of the oriental adventure dragons are on both of those tables as well.

Wasn't the Schrodinger's dragon supposed to be a dragon which is unambiguously a true dragon, but not explicitly stated to be a true dragon anywhere else?

[eggynack]

"The dragons here are presented in the formatted used in the Monster Manual. For further details on dragon combat and abilities not detailed here, see MM 68-70."
That definitely doesn't strictly imply that the dragons here are true. The abilities within the dragon's text explicitly point back to that same information, so it's information they're referencing whether the dragons here are true or not.


The first heading on the page in question is the start of category "Dragon, True".
Where's it say that, exactly?

[Nifft]

Um, Gem dragons (as in dragons of the amethyst, crystal, emerald, sapphire, and topaz variety) are clearly listed on both the Appendix of the Draconomicon and Races of the Dragon table on page 103 as being true dragons. Correct, yet they are neither chromatic nor metallic.

This is a counter-argument to the assertion that "all true dragons must be chromatic or metallic".


Wasn't the Schrodinger's dragon supposed to be a dragon which is unambiguously a true dragon, but not explicitly stated to be a true dragon anywhere else?

That is exactly what I posted, and yes that is exactly what it appears to be.

Now will you please stop mixing up these two separate arguments? It's getting frustrating.

[Somensjev]

If that's your standard, then anything could be a true dragon. Half-dragons are true dragons! Prove they're not.

That's not quite what I meant, but I can't think of a better way to word it
Lack of sleep might be affecting my word usage slightly

Maybe, "dwk fit most of the definitions of true dragons, and those they don't fit either, have a number of exceptions, aren't well defined, or aren't talked about in either the kobold or dw crunch. So where they fall is ambiguous and can swing either way depending on the preference of those involved"

[Troacctid]

Cats are of type Animal.

Type Animal is not Type Dragon.

Therefore, there exists at least one monster which could kill any one of us in this thread and yet is not a True Dragon.
Actually, interestingly enough, there's nothing that says true dragons have to have the dragon type. I mean, there is, but I'm going to ignore it because I think it's ambiguous.

Yes, I realize a lot of people think cats can't take Sovereign Archetypes, but some people think they do. It's a long-standing debate with points on both sides, and the rules don't address it explicitly, so there's no clear RAW answer. The only real, definitive answer is to ask your DM if cats are considered true dragons in your game.

[Doctor Awkward]

Where's it say that, exactly?
Monster Manual I, page 68. At the end of the previous creature's entry, the first new heading is Dragon, True


That definitely doesn't strictly imply that the dragons here are true. The abilities within the dragon's text explicitly point back to that same information, so it's information they're referencing whether the dragons here are true or not.

To reference my earlier post, it is a symmetrical comparison.

"These dragons use the format for true dragons in the Monster Manual."
"They use the all of the same abilities as the true dragons in the Monster Manual."



This the reason why I was calling these things a logical paradox: because you must accept the inherent contradiction that allows something to be called true dragons by writ of using the rules that classify them as true dragons without them being explicitly called true dragons, and then move on to assume that any creature that shares any similarities at all with those rules must also be a true dragon, in spite of all of the evidence that they are not, labeling all contradictory evidence as invalid (for some reason).

Thus the Dragonwrought kobold is Schrödinger's dragon, existing in a quantum state where it both is and is not a true dragon simultaneously.

[Nifft]

Actually, interestingly enough, there's nothing that says true dragons have to have the dragon type. I mean, there is, but (...)

This is where you transitioned from a well-framed argument (plus comedy), into just-plain-comedy without any hint of a valid argument.

[Doctor Awkward]

Correct, yet they are neither chromatic nor metallic.

This is a counter-argument to the assertion that "all true dragons must be chromatic or metallic".

Oh.

Well, in that case it's a matter of Specific Trumps General. The Draconomicon lists the general rule that all true dragons are broadly categorized as either metallic or chromatic.

The tables clarify that these other things also count as true dragons, in spite of not being chromatic or metallic. It is the noted exception to the general rule.


I was mostly sitting here praying that you weren't about to attempt to argue that a steel dragon shouldn't (obviously) be placed in the metallic dragon category.

[Troacctid]

This is where you transitioned from a well-framed argument (plus comedy), into just-plain-comedy without any hint of a valid argument.
What, people can ignore rules they think are ambiguous to argue that kobolds are true dragons, but I can't ignore those same rules to argue that cats are true dragons?

[Nifft]

GENTLEMEN, BEHOLD!

Steel Dragons: http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mm/20040328a

They appear to have all the trappings of True Dragons, but they don't say explicitly that they are True Dragons, and I don't think anything else says they are either.
This was my whole post. (Emphasis added.)


I was mostly sitting here praying that you weren't about to attempt to argue that a steel dragon shouldn't (obviously) be placed in the metallic dragon category.
There is no possible way to get that meaning from my post.


Well, in that case it's a matter of Specific Trumps General. I think there are currently more non-chromatic / non-metallic dragons than chromatic or metallic dragons.

"All dragons are metallic or chromatic" is not true in specific, nor in general.

It is a false assertion and not a valid argument.

[remetagross]

In that regard, I think that this header about the Steel and Mist dragons allows us to unambiguously deem them by RAI "True Dragons". But, nowhere it is written explicitely "The Steel and Mist dragons are True Dragons". So those can fit the Schrödinger's dragon, can't they?

Now, of course, this does nothing about the other counterarguments about Dragonwrought kobolds not being True Dragons, so this one argument does not allow us to throw out by the window all the other evidence of the "against" camp. It simply allows us to eliminate the argument that says "Dragonwrought Kobolds can't be True dragons because, wherever a True dragon is described, it is explicitely written out "this monster is a True Dragon", and this one sentence does not appear on the description of the Dragonwrought feat".

Since the Steel and Mist dragons are indeed True Dragons but don't have this line in their description, this means that not having this line is not enough to disqualify the Dragonwrought kobold as a True Dragon. Of course, it is not enough to qualify it either.


Are we agreeing on this one point?

[eggynack]

Monster Manual I, page 68. At the end of the previous creature's entry, the first new heading is Dragon, True.
Oh. Why does that matter? This dragon is just referencing material that happens to be in that section. It's not pulling its nature from that resource.



To reference my earlier post, it is a symmetrical comparison.

"These dragons use the format for true dragons in the Monster Manual."
"They use the all of the same abilities as the true dragons in the Monster Manual."
I feel like you're just kinda agreeing with the point, to some extent. They're not explicitly stated to be true dragons anywhere. At all. They pull some ability data from true dragons, and they act like true dragons in every way that matters, and they reference stuff about true dragons, and all of that means we can probably assume they're true dragons in spite of that lack of explicit mention. Which is the whole point. It seems possible to come to the true dragon conclusion simply from a confluence of data, and not from a thing being called a true dragon, or from even having it listed that the thing is a metallic dragon. Whether there is such a confluence of data in the case of dragonwrought seems more undecided, but the possibility space seems open.



This the reason why I was calling these things a logical paradox is because you must accept the inherent contradiction that allows something to be called true dragons by writ of using the rules that classify them as true dragons without them being explicitly called true dragons, and then move on to assume that any creature that shares any similarities at all with those rules must also be a true dragon, in spite of all of the evidence that they are not, labeling all contradictory evidence as invalid (for some reason).

As before, still don't care overmuch about the actual dragonwrought point of the thread. I just like doing the thing where someone says, "Oh if only this thing over here existed then dragonwrought kobolds would make sense as true dragons," and then people in this thread and I are like, "Here's that thing you asked for." it is quite amusing. So, I dunno, maybe dragonwrought kobolds have the necessary confluence of supporting data? I don't think there's necessarily a paradox so much as a more simple ambiguity. Maybe there's just not enough data. Or maybe there is. Whatevs. I'ma just keep using dragon search knowledge.

[Nifft]

What, people can ignore rules they think are ambiguous to argue that kobolds are true dragons, but I can't ignore those same rules to argue that cats are true dragons?

Here's how your current train of argument looks to me:


"People can successfully challenge rules, using examples and citations to show that some rules are contradicted by other rules. Therefore rules don't exist."

IMHO that's a bad-faith argument, and it won't lead anywhere productive.

It's also patently absurd.


Since the Steel and Mist dragons are indeed True Dragons but don't have this line in their description, this means that not having this line is not enough to disqualify the Dragonwrought kobold as a True Dragon. Of course, it is not enough to qualify it either.


Are we agreeing on this one point?

That's certainly my position, yes.

I think there were a few other non-debunked counter-arguments.

Is someone keeping track of the positive arguments?

[Troacctid]

Here's how your current train of argument looks to me:


"People can successfully challenge rules, using examples and citations to show that some rules are contradicted by other rules. Therefore rules don't exist."

IMHO that's a bad-faith argument, and it won't lead anywhere productive.

It's also patently absurd.
Who's used examples and citations to show that the rule about true dragons advancing by age category is contradicted by other rules? I didn't see any examples or citations.

[pupaeted]

What, people can ignore rules they think are ambiguous to argue that kobolds are true dragons, but I can't ignore those same rules to argue that cats are true dragons?

RoD 69 is basically impossible to ignore. I think the same thing's happening here as after page 10 of the original thread, where it just turns into a bit of recreational sophistry.

[Doctor Awkward]

I think there are currently more non-chromatic / non-metallic dragons than chromatic or metallic dragons.

"All dragons are metallic or chromatic" is not true in specific, nor in general.

It is a false assertion and not a valid argument.

"All dragons are metallic or chromatic" is not an opinion that I hold. It is a sentence printed in an official 1st party WotC sourcebook.
Whether or not that sentence is objectively true based on empirical evidence is irrelevant to it's validity. It exists, therefore it is.


@eggynack and pupaeted:

Yeah.

As I stated earlier, I really don't have a dog in this fight either. If I'm the DM, then what I say goes, and I don't care what the rules have to say on the subject.


If there exists a takeaway from this thread that everyone should get, it's that "The rules don't say I can't" is not a good way to approach them. The rules weren't designed to be read that way. They were designed as an exception-based rules system, wherein they define a set of general truths, and then list specific exceptions to them as they come up. They are structured in a way as to tell you what you can do, not what you can't, and if you are ever going to assert that a thing you think is true, then you should have a rule that specifically backs up your claim, not just that they are sort of unclear, but could be interpreted as to not specifically forbid your claim.

Or maybe not.
Who knows?


I am definitely trademarking the term "Schrödinger's dragon" argument, though.

[Nifft]

Who's used examples and citations to show that the rule about true dragons advancing by age category is contradicted by other rules? I didn't see any examples or citations.

Ah, you've cleverly moved the goalposts from "facts don't exist" to something more specific.

That's a fine debate tactic, which is entirely honest, and everyone should do this all the time.


Anyway, IIRC the counter to that was:



Kobolds do have age categories, just like all other True Dragons, as shown on page 39 of RotD:

http://i.imgur.com/5ekOiAl.png


... but that's just what I recall.
RoD 69 is basically impossible to ignore. I think the same thing's happening here as after page 10 of the original thread, where it just turns into a bit of recreational sophistry. Races of the Dragon, page 69? I see a list of half-dragon parent candidates right after that page. Did you mean something else?


"All dragons are metallic or chromatic" is not an opinion that I hold. It is a sentence printed in an official 1st party WotC sourcebook.
Whether or not that sentence is objectively true based on empirical evidence is irrelevant to it's validity. It exists, therefore it is.

Sure, therefore "it is."

However, it is contradicted by other rules: therefore it is wrong.

When a rule contradict either itself or other rules, then nothing about that specific rule can be used as a positive argument.

[Troacctid]

Ah, you've cleverly moved the goalposts from "facts don't exist" to something more specific.
How is it moving the goalposts? That's the rule people are ignoring.


Anyway, IIRC the counter to that was:



Kobolds do have age categories, just like all other True Dragons, as shown on page 39 of RotD:

http://i.imgur.com/5ekOiAl.png


... but that's just what I recall.
Which would be a counter if the rule in question said that having age categories made you a true dragon. But what it actually says is that true dragons advance through age categories. Kobolds do not do this.

[pupaeted]

Did you mean something else?
No.

I recommend any interested spectators to go and read the section.

[AnachroNinja]

There is no in game definition for "Advance". By the English defining, kobolds do in fact move forward thru their age categories. In addition, there is a section of Draconomicon with general guidelines for creating an age advancement table for dragons which do not have one. Kobolds could easily have an advancement table that consists "HD +0, LA +0" at every stage and the increases to mental stats slotted in at approximate points.

[Nifft]

No.

I recommend any interested spectators to go and read the section.

I think this passage is what you meant?

(If not, please actually cite whatever passage you mean.)



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).


As mentioned up thread, this list fails to contain Mist and Steel, which I think we had previously established were legal True Dragons.

Also missing are Orange and the rest from Dragon Compendium -- which was published in 2005, and RotD was 2006.

I bet there are others missing, too.

Sorry, you're wrong.

[Troacctid]

There is no in game definition for "Advance".
Yes there is? It's on page 7 of the Monster Manual.

[Nifft]

Yes there is? It's on page 7 of the Monster Manual.

Interesting!

The SRD's language is not identical: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm

[Troacctid]

Interesting!

The SRD's language is not identical: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm
The SRD changes "This book usually describes..." to "The monster entry usually describes..." on account of not being a book, and d20srd.org includes a courtesy reference link to the section on improving monsters, but the corresponding section is otherwise identical AFAICT. You're probably looking at a different page.

[Nifft]

The SRD changes "This book usually describes..." to "The monster entry usually describes..." on account of not being a book, and d20srd.org includes a courtesy reference link to the section on improving monsters, but the corresponding section is otherwise identical AFAICT. You're probably looking at a different page.

Well, if you can't be arsed to post a link, then I'm not going to dig for it.

Assuming you're right, this looks to be the first non-debunked argument against Kobolds being True Dragons.

[AnachroNinja]

It's not, it's just him citing the information on the "Advancement" line of a stat block again. Even if one were inclined to believe that is somehow definitive vis a vis the statement "True dragons advance thru age categories.", Which it isn't, it also contains the statement..."This is NOT an absolute limit, though exceptions are extremely rare."

[Doctor Despair]

It's not, it's just him citing the information on the "Advancement" line of a stat block again. Even if one were inclined to believe that is somehow definitive vis a vis the statement "True dragons advance thru age categories.", Which it isn't, it also contains the statement..."This is NOT an absolute limit, though exceptions are extremely rare."

Perhaps the exceptions (read: dragonwrought kobolds) are rare because proper true dragons don't take kindly to imitation. ;)

[ryu]

Perhaps the exceptions (read: dragonwrought kobolds) are rare because proper true dragons don't take kindly to imitation. ;)

Why would the weaker group be able to control the population of the stronger one?

[Doctor Despair]

Why would the weaker group be able to control the population of the stronger one?

I suppose that if the kobolds would otherwise be plentiful but are instead scarce due to interference by other true dragons, then the situation doesn't really make sense unless the true dragons were already ancient and powerful before the first dragonwrought kobold was a twinkle in their... uh... broodmother's eye? I know nothing of kobold mating habits or canon draconic history.

[Nifft]

It's not, it's just him citing the information on the "Advancement" line of a stat block again. Even if one were inclined to believe that is somehow definitive vis a vis the statement "True dragons advance thru age categories.", Which it isn't, it also contains the statement..."This is NOT an absolute limit, though exceptions are extremely rare."

Could you lay out this argument in a bit more detail? I feel like I've got the shape of it, but not a good grasp on the details.



Anyway, thinking about this.

Let's imagine a Wyrmling -- which has NOT advanced in any way -- were to take a few character levels, perhaps advancing quite rapidly because it's part of a small party of PCs who are doing their usual three-months-to-level-20 thing while saving the world twice.

This Wyrmling has advanced only through character class (say, Sorcerer).

Is this Wyrmling a True Dragon?


Why would the weaker group be able to control the population of the stronger one?

Large numbers?

I mean there are a LOT of different non-Kobold dragons out there.

[ryu]

Could you lay out this argument in a bit more detail? I feel like I've got the shape of it, but not a good grasp on the details.



Anyway, thinking about this.

Let's imagine a Wyrmling -- which has NOT advanced in any way -- were to take a few character levels, perhaps advancing quite rapidly because it's part of a small party of PCs who are doing their usual three-months-to-level-20 thing while saving the world twice.

This Wyrmling has advanced only through character class (say, Sorcerer).

Is this Wyrmling a True Dragon?



Large numbers?

I mean there are a LOT of different non-Kobold dragons out there.

NUMBERS?! Kobolds are to humans what humans are to elves which are in turn in a similar relationship to dragons! The dragons should be dramatically outnumbered. They're the ridiculously long lived super predator larger than most small buildings, where kobolds are small and literally breed like little reptilian rats.

[The Insanity]

If that's your standard, then anything could be a true dragon. Half-dragons are true dragons! Prove they're not.
RotD, p. 56.

The dragon-descended—those with some draconic traits
but not true dragons—stand apart from society.
About Half-Dragons (and Draconic creatures).


It's not, it's just him citing the information on the "Advancement" line of a stat block again. Even if one were inclined to believe that is somehow definitive vis a vis the statement "True dragons advance thru age categories.", Which it isn't, it also contains the statement..."This is NOT an absolute limit, though exceptions are extremely rare."
How does an elf advance?

[Troacctid]

RotD, p. 56.

About Half-Dragons (and Draconic creatures).
I've decided that's fluff text and therefore doesn't count as a rule. Real rules text doesn't say that half-dragons aren't true dragons.

[AnachroNinja]

According to Draconomicon, true dragons advance by age category, and any dragon that does not is a lesser dragon. Dragonwrought Kobolds do not advance by age category, so they are lesser dragons.

That's the basis of his argument. The standard dragons in the MM have an "Advancement" line in their stat block that lists their age categories and the HD they possess at each point. His reading of "True dragons advance thru age categories" is that they not only possess them, but that must be the method by which they advance in HD and ECL.

The counter argument is that it does not say anything about the Advancement line in the monsters stat block, or ECL, or HD. It simply says they "advance thru age categories". Advance is not itself a specific in game term. In many senses of the word, DWKs advance thru age categories. Further, Draconomicon has a section on generating age category advancement for dragons that don't already have a table. It's somewhere in the page 141-144 section on PC dragons. So it's very possible that kobolds just have an advancement that has values for HD and LA of +0, which statistically is not the same thing as not existing at all in DND, because that is denoted by " - ". Further further, MM page 7 under Advancement specifies that there are exceptions, though rare. So even though kobolds normally are "by character class", it is explicitly possible that they could be an exception that also could advance by age category, albeit in a limited way.

[Aegis013]

As another person in ryu's camp (abbreviated, original name was too long), with no real stake, I just wanted to toss an argument I've seen before and thought interesting into the waters for the sharks to devour.

The reason DWK aren't listed on the list of Dragons provided in Races of the Dragon (even though you'd expect they would be as they are in the same book), is because they are the type of dragon that they select for their heritage, and thus are already listed. So if a Kobold selects Dragonwrought feat at first level and chooses Red, it's a Red Dragon, this determines whether or not this Kobold is Metallic or Chromatic, or falls into the gray area.

It would also determine things like interaction with Orbs of Dragonkind. An Orb of Dragonkind Red would effect this example Kobold as a Red Dragon.

[Technetium43]

Advance is not itself a specific in game term.

In case you haven't already realized, this is basically what troacctid is mocking my dude. And yeah, if you ignore the english language, then I suppose that could almost be a true statement.

[Celestia]

How does an elf advance?
The same as anyone: through targeted political assassinations. *nods*

[ryu]

As another person in ryu's camp (abbreviated, original name was too long), with no real stake, I just wanted to toss an argument I've seen before and thought interesting into the waters for the sharks to devour.

The reason DWK aren't listed on the list of Dragons provided in Races of the Dragon (even though you'd expect they would be as they are in the same book), is because they are the type of dragon that they select for their heritage, and thus are already listed. So if a Kobold selects Dragonwrought feat at first level and chooses Red, it's a Red Dragon, this determines whether or not this Kobold is Metallic or Chromatic, or falls into the gray area.

It would also determine things like interaction with Orbs of Dragonkind. An Orb of Dragonkind Red would effect this example Kobold as a Red Dragon.

Excellent. Well on our way to having enough people for the canoe grouping. If we keep this up we may even work up enough people for the epic end of camping month party where we hang a disco ball over the otherwise fire illuminated lake. Also smores with the option of fire cooking if you like the burnt/golden brown or microwave if you want the melty warm without the crisp.

[AnachroNinja]

In case you haven't already realized, this is basically what troacctid is mocking my dude. And yeah, if you ignore the english language, then I suppose that could almost be a true statement.

Actually that's the (seemingly) serious argument he put forth pages ago before he started up the half dragon satire. Maybe you didn't read that far back, maybe you just have a better developed sense of humor, either way it's an argument that has been put forth by multiple people that needs to be addressed within this debate.

Thanks for your contribution though.

[Doctor Awkward]

Okay. I just have to see if I can sum this up so far:

Camp B: Dragonwrought Kobolds are not true dragons
Camp A: Yes they are.

Camp B: It doesn't say anywhere explicitly that they are.
Camp A: It doesn't have to, it's clear from other evidence.

Camp B: I don't think that's how the rules work...
Camp A: Yes it is.

Camp B: ...Okay, but all you have is a a few specific things that function just like true dragons do, like having the same age categories...
Camp A: Right, so they are true dragons.

Camp B: But they don't have all these other things that true dragons have like <insert example listed earlier>
Camp A: So? This other entry doesn't have that thing either, and that other entry is still a true dragon. So are Dragonwrought kobolds.

Camp B: How do you know those other things are true dragons?
Camp A: Because their entries say so.

Camp B: ...But it doesn't say that for kobolds?
Camp A: Doesn't have to. It's implied. Just like the other entries are implied.

Camp B: What about the criteria established for other true dragons that kobolds don't meet?
Camp A: Sometimes the rules contradict themselves. If a rule contradicts another rule then it doesn't count.


...I
God... how can I put this gently?

Did anyone still in Camp A actually read the relevant rules passages in the books for yourselves? Or did you just decide ahead of time what you thought the correct interpretation should be, and then focus exclusively on reading arguments that supported your presupposition?

The reason I ask this because, and I am being serious now, did you even notice way back on page three (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?511319-Dragonwrought-Kobolds&p=21575336#post21575336) when I deliberately and purposefully contradicted myself with my response to eggynack? I basically agreed that his example was exactly the type of example he said it was. All I did was phrase my response so that it looked like I was still arguing against him.

I'm not accusing anyone of not actually reading things.

I'm honestly and genuinely asking, do actually read and analyze the things that seem like they might not support your conclusion...?

[Gruftzwerg]

There is no in game definition for "Advance". By the English defining, kobolds do in fact move forward thru their age categories. In addition, there is a section of Draconomicon with general guidelines for creating an age advancement table for dragons which do not have one. Kobolds could easily have an advancement table that consists "HD +0, LA +0" at every stage and the increases to mental stats slotted in at approximate points.

^this

I pulled a similar argument a few DWK threads ago.

The rules are written really poorly in terms of "advance(ing)".
Which leaves us with this messed up RAW rules.

Further, Draconomicon p144 gives the DM the option (or maybe duty?) to give all "Other True Dragons" Advancement by Age.

In the end, the absence of Advancement by/thru Age can't disqualify anybody from being a True Dragon. Cause it isn't a requirement, it's a cheesy gift given for free for anybody that can "qualify" for being a true dragon.

So the real question is how the DM will rule this:

a) HD +0 & LA +0 : would be much in favor for any regular optimized DWK build out there

b) anything else would disqualify any regular high cheese DWK build

imho it's up to the DM (by RAW) to decide how much cheese he allows for DWKs without even touching his "true dragon" status.

[Aegis013]

Did anyone still in Camp A actually read the relevant rules passages in the books for yourselves? Or did you just decide ahead of time what you thought the correct interpretation should be, and then focus exclusively on reading arguments that supported your presupposition?

I believe the answer is "Yes, they did." and "Yes, they did." However, the same can be said of camp B.
Both sides came in already knowing their positions with no intent to change it. We've had this thread many times before.



The reason I ask this because, and I am being serious now, did you even notice way back on page three (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?511319-Dragonwrought-Kobolds&p=21575336#post21575336) when I deliberately and purposefully contradicted myself with my response to eggynack? I basically agreed that his example was exactly the type of example he said it was. All I did was phrase my response so that it looked like I was still arguing against him.

I'm not accusing anyone of not actually reading things.

I'm honestly and genuinely asking, do actually read and analyze the things that seem like they might not support your conclusion...?

I assumed you were confused or it was unintended miscommunication. Eggynack even said he thought you were agreeing with him after asking for further clarification.

Revealing that it was intended miscommunication and trying to use it to discredit one group doesn't seem like an intellectually honest tactic. It comes across as underhanded, just in case that matters to you.

I'm hoping we can set up that disco ball over the lake in camp ryu, personally. I'm just having a good time enjoying the show here.

[Doctor Awkward]

Revealing that it was intended miscommunication and trying to use it to discredit one group doesn't seem like an intellectually honest tactic. It comes across as underhanded, just in case that matters to you.

...Yeah, sure.
Let's go with that...

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/b5/e9/46/b5e946fd3c44fb224930594d79dc4e32.gif


Another honest (and completely rhetorical) question... given the relative coherence of my previous posts, what exactly was it that led you to assume I was the one that was confused?

[AnachroNinja]

Presumably it was that if you weren't confused, you were being deliberately difficult to understand for some unknown purpose? Seems like a pretty solid assumption with people who are trying to have a discussion in good faith...

[Aegis013]

Another honest (and completely rhetorical) question... given the relative coherence of my previous posts, what exactly was it that led you to assume I was the one that was confused?

This post included below, which didn't appear to have any relevant counter point to the discussion, but I assumed there was intended to be one, but was presumably accidentally omitted (what I was referring to as confusion). You appear to have just admitted there wasn't intended to be a relevant counter point.


True enough, however, the introduction for the chapter that lists the statistics for those creatures also says this:

"The dragons here are presented in the format used in the Monster Manual. For further details on dragon combat and abilities not detailed here, see MM 68-70."

The first heading on the page in question is the start of category "Dragon, True".
So while they aren't explicitly stated to be true dragons in their own entry, the context of the book is pretty unambiguous that they are.

AnachroNinja covered it pretty well too, imo.

Edit: Admittedly, I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. I just thought it best to let you know that your frustration is reasonable, and that your tactic wasn't likely to be effective due to appearing underhanded in case you found that beneficial.

[Nifft]

Another honest (and completely rhetorical) question... given the relative coherence of my previous posts, what exactly was it that led you to assume I was the one that was confused?

Well, there's the fact that it took you two pages and a lot of repetition to understand basically anything in my posts.

That was frustrating.

I hope that was not deliberate, too.

[Troacctid]

^this

I pulled a similar argument a few DWK threads ago.

The rules are written really poorly in terms of "advance(ing)".
Which leaves us with this messed up RAW rules.

Further, Draconomicon p144 gives the DM the option (or maybe duty?) to give all "Other True Dragons" Advancement by Age.

In the end, the absence of Advancement by/thru Age can't disqualify anybody from being a True Dragon. Cause it isn't a requirement, it's a cheesy gift given for free for anybody that can "qualify" for being a true dragon.

So the real question is how the DM will rule this:

a) HD +0 & LA +0 : would be much in favor for any regular optimized DWK build out there

b) anything else would disqualify any regular high cheese DWK build

imho it's up to the DM (by RAW) to decide how much cheese he allows for DWKs without even touching his "true dragon" status.
Right, exactly, and in fact it's a similar story for half-dragons. After all, it is true that they are dragons, so they're not false dragons, which means that just based on the English definition of the word (since there's no definitive in-game definition of "true" or "true dragon"), they are in fact true dragons as well. And they even age, so, there you go, QED.

Of course since this is all dealing with ambiguities and things that aren't stated directly or explicitly, there is some DM discretion involved, but it's definitely debatable, and people have argued it many times, and it really could go one way or another. So ask your DM.

[zergling.exe]

Also missing are Orange and the rest from Dragon Compendium -- which was published in 2005, and RotD was 2006.

I bet there are others missing, too.

And any missing from the list are not True Dragons. That's the way the rules work. Races of the Dragon became the primary source of all True Dragons published before January 2006, and any not listed as a possible half-dragon sire is not a True Dragon.

Not even going to touch on how it interacts with Dragonwrought Kobolds though.

[Nifft]

And any missing from the list are not True Dragons. That's the way the rules work. Races of the Dragon became the primary source of all True Dragons published before January 2006, and any not listed as a possible half-dragon sire is not a True Dragon.

Not even going to touch on how it interacts with Dragonwrought Kobolds though.

This must be why the "lost dragons" are so infrequently seen.

They're still upset about being demoted.

Not sure if I buy the argument.

I'd prefer something more explicit, like: "ERRATA: Purple Dragons are no longer considered to be True Dragons. Instead, they are a type of pie. They are very delicious and orcs seek them out."

[The Insanity]

I've decided that's fluff text and therefore doesn't count as a rule. Real rules text doesn't say that half-dragons aren't true dragons.
Lol. Then I'm deciding that what you decided is an opinion and therefore doesn't count as a rule.
Plus, you know, there's the fact that the Draconomicon (or RotD, don't remember which) has a list of True Dragons and Half-Dragons aren't listed.

[Doctor Despair]

And any missing from the list are not True Dragons. That's the way the rules work. Races of the Dragon became the primary source of all True Dragons published before January 2006, and any not listed as a possible half-dragon sire is not a True Dragon.

Not even going to touch on how it interacts with Dragonwrought Kobolds though.

Wouldn't the specific of the book saying "these dragons are true dragons" trump the general insinuation that all true dragons appear in the true dragons table?

[Troacctid]

Lol. Then I'm deciding that what you decided is an opinion and therefore doesn't count as a rule.
Plus, you know, there's the fact that the Draconomicon (or RotD, don't remember which) has a list of True Dragons and Half-Dragons aren't listed.
Well of course there's some degree of judgement involved. It could go either way. You'll have to ask your DM about whether half-dragons are considered true dragons or not, since the RAW isn't clear on the matter.

[The Insanity]

Well of course there's some degree of judgement involved. It could go either way. You'll have to ask your DM about whether half-dragons are considered true dragons or not, since the RAW isn't clear on the matter.
The RAW is perfectly clear. Half-Dragons aren't listed as True Dragons, therefore they're not.

[Troacctid]

The RAW is perfectly clear. Half-Dragons aren't listed as True Dragons, therefore they're not.
Ah, but they also aren't listed as not true dragons, therefore you can't prove it one way or another. And they kind of look like they ought to be true dragons, since, after all, they are both true and dragons. So it's ultimately a DM call.

[D&DPrinceTandem]

wait...i thought true dragons are dragons who never tell lies....
but come on guys, who wouldn't want a line of Colossal dragons in Ultimate power of the multiverse.. then have a Kobold.... Who rules over them all because reasons....

[zergling.exe]

Wouldn't the specific of the book saying "these dragons are true dragons" trump the general insinuation that all true dragons appear in the true dragons table?

Well it also says this:
It supersedes any other previously published information on this topic (such as from Draconomicon).
Which would mean those specific entries that say the dragon is a True Dragon would effectively be errata'd out by it, being superseded by RotD not saying they are True Dragons.

[The Insanity]

Ah, but they also aren't listed as not true dragons, therefore you can't prove it one way or another. And they kind of look like they ought to be true dragons, since, after all, they are both true and dragons. So it's ultimately a DM call.
They're not listed as True Dragons, therefore they're not.

[Kelb_Panthera]

And any missing from the list are not True Dragons. That's the way the rules work. Races of the Dragon became the primary source of all True Dragons published before January 2006, and any not listed as a possible half-dragon sire is not a True Dragon.

Not even going to touch on how it interacts with Dragonwrought Kobolds though.

Dragon compendium may have been excluded deliberately, being a paizo product with WotC liscensing. However, its weren't the only true dragons excluded from the RotD list. So make of that what you will.

[Gruftzwerg]

The RAW is perfectly clear. Half-Dragons aren't listed as True Dragons, therefore they're not.

imho is (the same in regarding to DWK), do they need to be in the list? Cause the "Half-Dragon" chooses his half-dragon-part by the same list of true dragons (as do DWK for their draconic heritage).

and if you look for other "Half-Races": Half- Drows, Orks, Elves.. all share that they also count as a member for the specific race. So why shouldn't a Half-(Red)Dragon count as true dragon?
Further the talent "Half-Dragon Form" (D. of Ebberon) would cause the true dragon (requirement for the talent) to loose his true dragon status in half-dragon form (which his untalented humoid shape clearly doesn't) if that would work like you said.
I don't think that RAW is clear at all. The more you read RAW, the more problems occur. When you have debated 3.5 issues like this at least 100 times (or a few 1000 times in my case..), you'll get why RAW is a mess.

[Heliomance]

Okay, to try and straighten out this mess, I'm going to do something insane and attempt to isolate the main points in the thread. Wish me luck.

By the way, Troacctid, is there any chance you could stop trolling? You're not arguing in good faith, and it's really quite annoying, reading through the thread.


Dragonwrought kobolds are not listed in the Draconomicon list of true dragons

Counterpoint: The Draconomicon was published before Races of the Dragon and thus there is no way for it to contain them.
Additional counterpoint: Orange dragons, from the Dragon Magazine Compendium, were printed before this list, are explicitly called out in their entry as being true dragons, but are not on the list. Thus the list cannot be comprehensive.


Dragonwrought kobolds do not advance through age categories

Counterpoint: Kobolds do have a list of draconic age categories supplied, also "advance" is never defined in game
However, "advancement" is, and kobolds do not gain HD through aging.

Evidence to resolve: Is there a monster that is unambiguously a true dragon but does not gain HD from aging?



True dragons gain spellcasting power as they age

Counterexample: Planar dragons are unambiguously true dragons, but do not gain spellcasting


All true dragons have the potential to use arcane spellcasting

Kobolds are as able as anyone to become wizards or sorcerers


"For all effects related to race, a kobold is considered a dragon". Also, dragonwrought kobolds are of Dragon type.

Seems to be largely uncontested, but obviously is not sufficient evidence for true dragonhood.


True dragons gain in power as they age, lesser dragons don't. Dragonwrought kobolds do not gain HD through aging, as noted above.

Counterpoint: Dragonwrought kobolds gain physical stats as they age, and do not lose mental stats. This can be considered gaining in power.


Draconomicon: "All true dragons are endothermic." RotD: "kobolds are cold-blooded creatures, and dragons are warmblooded."

Uh... what? If we take this as valid, this would mean that dragonwrought kobolds are the only true dragons, and that nothing else is. I think we can safely write this off as writers not talking to each other, and dismiss it.


Monster Manual: "True dragons are winged, reptile-like creatures of ancient lineage." Draconomicon: "At first glance, a true dragon resembles a reptile. It has a muscular body, a long, thick neck, a horned or frilled head with a toothy mouth, and a sinuous tail. The creature walks on four powerful legs with clawed feet, and it flies using its vast, batlike wings. Heavy scales cover a dragon from the tip of its tail to end of its snout." Dragonwrought kobolds do not meet these descriptions.

Counterexamples: Oriental Adventures contains several creatures that do not meet these descriptions, which are included on the list of true dragons in the Draconomicon.


Draconomicon: All true dragons can swin. Dragonwrought kobolds do not have a swim speed.

Counterpoint: Many other unambiguous true dragons do not have a swim speed. Kobolds are able to take ranks in Swim.


Draconomicon: All true dragons are immune to at least one energy type.

Counterexample: Fang dragons, printed in the Draconomicon and listed in the table of true dragons, are not immune to any energy type.


Draconomicon: All true dragons gain DR and SR as they age.

Counterexample: None yet. Does anyone know of one?


Draconomicon: True dragons fall into two broad categories, chromatic and metallic.

Counterpoint: No they don't. There are probably more true dragons by this point that aren't either metallic or chromatic that ones that are.
Mist dragons have been found as an example of something that can clearly be considered a true dragon, are not chromatic or metallic, and are not explicitly listed as true dragons anywhere.


Dragonwrought kobolds are not listed in the Races of the Dragon list of half-dragon ancestors/true dragons. This list explicitly claims primacy over all previous sources.

Counterpoint: Mercury, Mist, and Steel dragons do not appear on this list either, yet they seem unambiguously true dragons. Orange dragons also do not appear, and they are explicitly true dragons.

Counter-counterpoint: Given RotD's claims of primacy, the stance that Mercury, Mist, Steel, and Orange dragons are not true dragons is an intellectually consistent one, I think. That said, no-one seems to be defending that position.




Have I missed any arguments? I think I caught them all.

One thing I've noticed - there's an awful lot of debunked reasons why dragonwrought kobolds aren't true dragons, but I don't think anyone's offered a positive argument as to why they are. Anyone?

[eggynack]

Draconomicon: "All true dragons are endothermic." RotD: "kobolds are cold-blooded creatures, and dragons are warmblooded."

Uh... what? If we take this as valid, this would mean that dragonwrought kobolds are the only true dragons, and that nothing else is. I think we can safely write this off as writers not talking to each other, and dismiss it.
Endothermic is the warm blooded one.


Draconomicon: All true dragons gain DR and SR as they age.

Counterexample: None yet. Does anyone know of one?
All I got off a quick check is the yu lung, which is super sketchy as a basis for argument. It doesn't gain SR or DR while it's a yu lung, but it inevitably ages into something that does gain those things, which could itself be considered aging into those things. Still, it's apparently a full on true dragon while it's failing to gain DR and SR, so it merits a bit of consideration.

[Heliomance]

Endothermic is the warm blooded one.


Ah - I have more chemistry than biology knowledge, so I assumed it was endothermic in that they require energy input, as opposed to exothermic, producing energy.

[Nifft]

All true dragons have the potential to use arcane spellcasting

Kobolds are as able as anyone to become wizards or sorcerers


Kobolds also get the Rite of Draconic Passage (in RotD) which allows each Kobold to use a spell-like ability 1/day.




Draconomicon: True dragons fall into two broad categories, chromatic and metallic.

Counterpoint: No they don't. There are probably more true dragons by this point that aren't either metallic or chromatic that ones that are.
Mist dragons have been found as an example of something that can clearly be considered a true dragon, are not chromatic or metallic, and are not explicitly listed as true dragons anywhere.


Also: Gem dragons, Lung dragons (from OA), Planar dragons, Shadow dragons.

Ironically, dragonwrought kobolds do get special mechanical perks for being of metallic or chromatic ancestry. That's under table 3-3 of RotD, p.39.




Dragonwrought kobolds are not listed in the Races of the Dragon list of half-dragon ancestors/true dragons. This list explicitly claims primacy over all previous sources.

Counterpoint: Mercury, Mist, and Steel dragons do not appear on this list either, yet they seem unambiguously true dragons. Orange dragons also do not appear, and they are explicitly true dragons.

Counter-counterpoint: Given RotD's claims of primacy, the stance that Mercury, Mist, Steel, and Orange dragons are not true dragons is an intellectually consistent one, I think. That said, no-one seems to be defending that position.


Counter-counter-counterpoint: D&D rules rely on specific-trumps-general. This argument relies on general-trumps-specific.



One thing I've noticed - there's an awful lot of debunked reasons why dragonwrought kobolds aren't true dragons, but I don't think anyone's offered a positive argument as to why they are. Anyone?

IIRC, the argument went something like:
- Dragonwrought Kobolds have age categories.
- And they're of the Dragon type.
- What exactly qualifies a dragon for "True Dragon"-hood?
- ... apparently the only consistent thing is the age categories.
- Which kobolds get.
- Huh.
- That's hilarious.

[AnachroNinja]

IIRC it mostly stems from the fact that the main section that directly describes true dragons focuses on "advances thru age categories" and "gains in power as it ages". Most of the other requirements being listed are scattered about the book in various sections rather then any sort of conglomerated section. Kobolds meet the primary two, and the rest are all riddled with exceptions and contradictions.

Granted, most of the argument is moot since Kobolds gain almost all the bug benefits, including sovereign archetypes, just for being dragons. So the guys who like the optimization options can let it go because they get those anyway. The guys who think it's all stinky cheese have pretty much all admitted that they would refuse to allow people access to that kind of stuff anyway... So I don't really see what the point is.

[Gruftzwerg]

Dragonwrought kobolds do not advance through age categories

Counterpoint: Kobolds do have a list of draconic age categories supplied, also "advance" is never defined in game
However, "advancement" is, and kobolds do not gain HD through aging.

Evidence to resolve: Is there a monster that is unambiguously a true dragon but does not gain HD from aging?




see my post on page 5 (#130). "Advancement by Age" is a free giveaway for anyone who can qualify for being "true dragon". It isn't a requirement. Draconomicon p.144 "other true dragons"-paragraph is the source. It encourages (or forces, depending on personal interpretation of the text) the DM to give all "other true dragons" Advancement by Age and refers to tables to how the DM should implement it.

[Heliomance]

see my post on page 5 (#130). "Advancement by Age" is a free giveaway for anyone who can qualify for being "true dragon". It isn't a requirement. Draconomicon p.144 "other true dragons"-paragraph is the source. It encourages (or forces, depending on personal interpretation of the text) the DM to give all "other true dragons" Advancement by Age and refers to tables to how the DM should implement it.

Could you post rules text on that?

[AnachroNinja]

He pretty much covered it. It goes...


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

"Tables such as those above" refer to Table 3-21 Aging for Dragon PCs, which provides the ECL information for each dragon age category. It only provides that for the ten base dragons however. Table 3-22 provides LA information to support the aforementioned directive to construct similar tables for other dragons. Obviously Table 3-22 does not include Dragonwrought Kobolds since they did not exist yet. It does however provide an explicit statement that if a true dragon does not have an Age Advancement table that addresses ECL, the DM should use it's stat block to construct one. This seems to me to directly indicate that if a dragon meets all other qualifications and has age categories (as DWKs do) the DM can and should create an appropriate advancement table for them.

[Troacctid]

By the way, Troacctid, is there any chance you could stop trolling? You're not arguing in good faith, and it's really quite annoying, reading through the thread.
I'm not trolling! I'm being sarcastic. It's different.

Although apparently at least one person missed the memo and is totally unironically on board with half-dragons being true dragons now, so that's cool.


One thing I've noticed - there's an awful lot of debunked reasons why dragonwrought kobolds aren't true dragons, but I don't think anyone's offered a positive argument as to why they are. Anyone?
There aren't any.

[Gruftzwerg]

There aren't any.

Dragon Age Categories. The only thing that is not contradicted somewhere else, at least as I know.

Can anybody show me that there is at least another lesser dragon with Dragon Age Categories? I guess not. And therefor I can't see any logical way (RAW & RAI) to assume why DWK should be an exception without further mentioning. The DWK feat doesn't say that they become lesser dragons. They don't say that they become true dragons either, but give them all they need to count as true dragons.


mho on the RAI on the DWK feat:
At the moment when DWK where introduced dragons (incl. true) in 3.5 where non overwhelming enemies (and maybe still are..^^). And I guess the guy that came up with the DWK feat thought it was totally ok and balanced (and maybe it was at that time).
Later Wizards did take notice of the weak dragons status and felt bad, cause we play D&D right. So dragons, especially true dragons, should become more powerful. And they released further true dragon material to power them up and totally forgot about the DWK fitting into the true dragon description. And at the point where DWK builds started to be a problem, they already knew how hard they failed with 3.5 and already started to work on d&d 4.
That is my theory how this messed up RAW status of True Dragons and DWKs came into existence.

[Troacctid]

Dragon Age Categories. The only thing that is not contradicted somewhere else, at least as I know.
Having age categories, even "dragon" age categories, doesn't make you a true dragon. You have to advance through age categories, which kobolds do not do. We've covered this.

Oh wait, I forgot, anything can be a true dragon as long as the rules don't explicitly say they're not. I guess I should probably ask my DM if my halfling character can take sovereign archetypes.

[Mato]

I like how everyone is shouting rules at each other and claiming the other guy's rules are taken out of context.

But two things bug me.
A) Since when could we qualify for a subcategory?
Like can I qualify as a Human if I cast Heroics and gain a bonus feat?
B) However everyone repertory of rule quotes do not include page 142~144?
A TD's LA increases as they grow older and lesser dragons do not.

It seems like you have to assume one of those to be true and the other doesn't exist to even start an argument that ignores everything the text intends. But w/e, this is GitP and you people love arguing over nothing more than anything else.

[Gruftzwerg]

Having age categories, even "dragon" age categories, doesn't make you a true dragon. You have to advance through age categories, which kobolds do not do. We've covered this.

Oh wait, I forgot, anything can be a true dragon as long as the rules don't explicitly say they're not. I guess I should probably ask my DM if my halfling character can take sovereign archetypes.

Your sarcastic and post ignoring behavior is starting to provoke me.
Already in the last 2 thread where we two discussed this topic, you always ignore that Draconomicon page 144 "other true dragons" give Advance by Age Categories for all "other true dragons" for free. So you can't disprove DWK true dragon status just with the absence of it at all. Cause it isn't a requirement for True Dragons, its a FREE GIVE AWAY!

And pls, don't ignore this argument again and don't try to be sarcastic, cause to me it feels trollish and provoking without any real statement.

[Troacctid]

Your sarcastic and post ignoring behavior is starting to provoke me.
Already in the last 2 thread where we two discussed this topic, you always ignore that Draconomicon page 144 "other true dragons" give Advance by Age Categories for all "other true dragons" for free. So you can't disprove DWK true dragon status just with the absence of it at all. Cause it isn't a requirement for True Dragons, its a FREE GIVE AWAY!

And pls, don't ignore this argument again and don't try to be sarcastic, cause to me it feels trollish and provoking without any real statement.
Their LA and RHD don't increase as they get older. The text is very clear that this makes them a lesser dragon with no need for such a progression.

And since that rule you just quoted requires you to be a true dragon, it does nothing for creatures that do not already advance by age category without it. Kobolds, who are not true dragons, gain no benefit from it.

[eggynack]

A) Since when could we qualify for a subcategory?
Like can I qualify as a Human if I cast Heroics and gain a bonus feat?
Generally speaking, the way you qualify for a specific subcategory without that being explicitly stated is by, first, explicitly having the category, second, that category being partitioned by the subcategories, and, third, there being sufficient evidence that all but one subcategory will fail to admit you. Notably, if lesser dragon and true dragon do partition the dragon type, then this dragonwrought kobold is absolutely qualifying for one subcategory or the other. It's just semi-ambiguous which one is being qualified for.

[Troacctid]

Generally speaking, the way you qualify for a specific subcategory without that being explicitly stated is by, first, explicitly having the category, second, that category being partitioned by the subcategories, and, third, there being sufficient evidence that all but one subcategory will fail to admit you. Notably, if lesser dragon and true dragon do partition the dragon type, then this dragonwrought kobold is absolutely qualifying for one subcategory or the other. It's just semi-ambiguous which one is being qualified for.
Is it, though? Seems to me it's only ambiguous if you ignore the rules that say they're lesser dragons.

[eggynack]

Is it, though? Seems to me it's only ambiguous if you ignore the rules that say they're lesser dragons.
Semi-ambiguous. Don't really want my break-down of the role of partitions in rules structures to get too entangled with an actual position in the thread.

[Doctor Awkward]

Okay, one last question that occurred to me this morning on my way in to work.


IIRC, the argument went something like:
- Dragonwrought Kobolds have age categories.
- And they're of the Dragon type.
- What exactly qualifies a dragon for "True Dragon"-hood?
- ... apparently the only consistent thing is the age categories.
- Which kobolds get.
- Huh.
- That's hilarious.

Ooh, perfect. that was the question, thank you.

If the status of a Dragonwrought kobold being a true dragon hinges entirely on being of the dragon type that has the same age categories as true dragons, then would it not follow that, if another creature could be found in D&D that also has the age categories of true dragons, but is most assuredly not a true dragon, would that creature then serve as a counterexample to the potential candidacy of a Dragonwrought kobold's true dragon-hood?

[zergling.exe]

Okay, one last question that occurred to me this morning on my way in to work.



Ooh, perfect. that was the question, thank you.

If the status of a Dragonwrought kobold being a true dragon hinges entirely on being of the dragon type that has the same age categories as true dragons, then would it not follow that, if another creature could be found in D&D that also has the age categories of true dragons, but is most assuredly not a true dragon, would that creature then serve as a counterexample to the potential candidacy of a Dragonwrought kobold's true dragon-hood?

Nope, there are a number of formerly True Dragons that possess age categories that are no longer True Dragons, so even that metric is not consistent.

[Doctor Awkward]

Nope, there are a number of formerly True Dragons that possess age categories that are no longer True Dragons, so even that metric is not consistent.

...

Such as?

[zergling.exe]

...

Such as?

Orange, Purple, Mist, Steel. In their original publications (or at least at some point) they were explicitly called True Dragons. However, all of them were printed before RotD, and are not included in RotD's list of True Dragons. Ergo, they are no longer True Dragons.

Edit: Actually, Mist may never have been explicitly called out as being a True Dragon. The other three however, were.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Orange, Purple, Mist, Steel. In their original publications (or at least at some point) they were explicitly called True Dragons. However, all of them were printed before RotD, and are not included in RotD's list of True Dragons. Ergo, they are no longer True Dragons.

Critical logical failure: by this logic, the exclusion of DWK's from the same list means they are not true dragons. Either the list is incomplete and those are still true dragons or it's exhaustive and kobolds are not. You can't have it both ways.

[lylsyly]

Nope, there are a number of formerly True Dragons that possess age categories that are no longer True Dragons, so even that metric is not consistent.

Dang, I am gonna hate this but .... Now we are talking about "formerly?" True Dragons ...... Where is the emoticon for TRULY confused?

[Gruftzwerg]

And since that rule you just quoted requires you to be a true dragon, it does nothing for creatures that do not already advance by age category without it. Kobolds, who are not true dragons, gain no benefit from it.

you read the text in Draconomicon like this:

True Dragon requirement = need Advancement by Age

now.. how does this fit in your stroy?

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

how can the absence of Advancement by Age disqualify something from being a true dragon (if he qualifies otherwise for that) and give him access to Advancement by Age for being a true dragon at the same time?
if you can't see your own paradox you did create here, I don't know what else to say..


Adcanvement by Age isn't a requirement, it's more a trait of true dragons, since all true dragons get it. It can't be used as measurement to disqualify something from the question if it is a true dragon or not.

- If you have it, you are sure a true dragon.

- If you don't have it by default but can prove that your a legit true dragon otherwise, you get it for free (thx due to Draconomicon p144 "Other True Dragons")

That's how it works.

As stated in dozens of other DWK threads, the only thing at the end which can be taken as requirement for ALL True Dragons, without any (!) exception, are the Dragon Age Categories (cause none of the lesser Dragons have them).

[Troacctid]

you read the text in Draconomicon like this:

True Dragon requirement = need Advancement by Age

now.. how does this fit in your stroy?

how can the absence of Advancement by Age disqualify something from being a true dragon (if he qualifies otherwise for that) and give him access to Advancement by Age for being a true dragon at the same time?
if you can't see your own paradox you did create here, I don't know what else to say..
Sure, exactly. Anything that has age categories can advance by age category as long as the DM creates a an advancement progression, even if they're not a true dragon. Then, once they advance by age, they now qualify as true dragons. This is why dwarves, for example, are actually considered true dragons.

[lylsyly]

As stated in dozens of other DWK threads, the only thing at the end which can be taken as requirement for ALL True Dragons, without any (!) exception, are the Dragon Age Categories (cause none of the lesser Dragons have them).

Yet Kobolds (all, not just Dragonwrought) do have them. and for "For all effects related to race, a kobold is considered a dragon".


To me, whom did not participate in earlier threads on this issue, these two things resolve it quite clearly in my mind.

Maybe I'm just crazy! (don't go there)

[Troacctid]

Yet Kobolds (all, not just Dragonwrought) do have them. and for "For all effects related to race, a kobold is considered a dragon".


To me, whom did not participate in earlier threads on this issue, these two things resolve it quite clearly in my mind.

Maybe I'm just crazy! (don't go there)
I'm quite sure there's no rule that equates merely having dragon age categories with being a true dragon.

[lylsyly]

Their LA and RHD don't increase as they get older. The text is very clear that this makes them a lesser dragon with no need for such a progression.

And since that rule you just quoted requires you to be a true dragon, it does nothing for creatures that do not already advance by age category without it. Kobolds, who are not true dragons, gain no benefit from it.

Huh.......

[Doctor Awkward]

As stated in dozens of other DWK threads, the only thing at the end which can be taken as requirement for ALL True Dragons, without any (!) exception, are the Dragon Age Categories (cause none of the lesser Dragons have them).

But that was my question.

What if someone found a creature with the dragon type that had true dragon age categories, but was definitely not a true dragon?

...Actually, do we at least agree that if you are of type dragon, and are not explicitly a "true" dragon, you are automatically a lesser dragon? At least that's how I read the Draconomicon?

[ryu]

Yet Kobolds (all, not just Dragonwrought) do have them. and for "For all effects related to race, a kobold is considered a dragon".


To me, whom did not participate in earlier threads on this issue, these two things resolve it quite clearly in my mind.

Maybe I'm just crazy! (don't go there)

You also need dragon type which is why you need the feat. True dragon isn't an effect. It's a label. A useless, pointless label that wouldn't change things altogether much if every living thing in a given setting qualified. No more than everything qualifying as a dragon in general at any rate.

[lylsyly]

But I have the Dragon type, I have a table that shows my age categories and I have a statement that says "For all effects related to race, a kobold is considered a dragon".

once again, huh.....

[ryu]

But I have the Dragon type, I have a table that shows my age categories and I have a statement that says "For all effects related to race, a kobold is considered a dragon".

once again, huh.....

Pretty sure base kobold is humanoid type with that line fore effects. You're not dragon type unless you take dragonwrought. You can be effected by spells and similar as if you were a dragon without it, but need the feat if you wish to qualify for things that require actually being a dragon.

[lylsyly]

Did I really have to add that I have the dragon type "because I took the feat"? :shakingheadwhileholdingnoseagain:

Your right Kelb.

Bye now.

[remetagross]

But that was my question.

What if someone found a creature with the dragon type that had true dragon age categories, but was definitely not a true dragon?

...Actually, do we at least agree that if you are of type dragon, and are not explicitly a "true" dragon, you are automatically a lesser dragon? At least that's how I read the Draconomicon?

This does seem to be sound reasoning to me. Now, we just have to wait no more than a few dozen minutes before someone pops up with said answer, ans thus destroys the last remaining thing that gave a semblance of uniformity to the "True Dragon" notion :smallbiggrin:

[Troacctid]

But that was my question.

What if someone found a creature with the dragon type that had true dragon age categories, but was definitely not a true dragon?

...Actually, do we at least agree that if you are of type dragon, and are not explicitly a "true" dragon, you are automatically a lesser dragon? At least that's how I read the Draconomicon?
We have a creature like that already: kobolds. And as you can see, some people believe that their age categories qualify them as true dragons regardless of everything else.

[eggynack]

...Actually, do we at least agree that if you are of type dragon, and are not explicitly a "true" dragon, you are automatically a lesser dragon? At least that's how I read the Draconomicon?
Not really, no. At the very least, mist dragons seem to be true dragons in spite of not explicitly being true dragons. Something would have to explicitly not be a true dragon in order to automatically be a lesser dragon. Not explicitly being a true dragon would be insufficient. One could maybe argue that mist dragons are lesser dragons, but it's not a position I necessarily agree with.

[Doctor Awkward]

We have a creature like that already: kobolds. And as you can see, some people believe that their age categories qualify them as true dragons regardless of everything else.

Actually, I was going to say kobolds with the half-dragon template. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/halfDragon.htm)

They have the dragon type, and they have the same age categories as true dragons.

the half-dragon template is also listed apart from the rest of the true dragons in the Monster Manual, and three separate times in the Draconomicon: Once under the level adjustment table for Lesser Dragons as PCs, once under the Lesser Dragons by CR table under Template, Special, and again at the last appendix under Dragon-Related templates.

So since there exists a creature of the dragon type that uses the same age categories as a true dragon, but doesn't appear to be a true dragon, isn't that a counter-example to the qualifier of Dragonwrought kobold?

[ryu]

Actually, I was going to say kobolds with the half-dragon template. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/halfDragon.htm)

They have the dragon type, and they have the same age categories as true dragons.

the half-dragon template is also listed apart from the rest of the true dragons in the Monster Manual, and three separate times in the Draconomicon: Once under the level adjustment table for Lesser Dragons as PCs, once under the Lesser Dragons by CR table under Template, Special, and again at the last appendix under Dragon-Related templates.

So since there exists a creature of the dragon type that uses the same age categories as a true dragon, but doesn't appear to be a true dragon, isn't that a counter-example to the qualifier of Dragonwrought kobold?

Nope. Only reason that's not considered a true dragon is because half dragons are actively called out as not being true dragons.

[Doctor Awkward]

Nope. Only reason that's not considered a true dragon is because half dragons are actively called out as not being true dragons.

Okay. But then the only reason orange dragons are considered true dragons is because they are actively called out as being true dragons.

So wouldn't Dragonwrought kobolds need that as well?

[eggynack]

Okay. But then the only reason orange dragons are considered true dragons is because they are actively called out as being true dragons.

So wouldn't Dragonwrought kobolds need that as well?
They're also considered true dragons cause they look a whole hell of a lot like true dragons. Arguably dragonwrought kobolds don't, but, y'know, that's the core of the argument.

[Nifft]

Critical logical failure: by this logic, the exclusion of DWK's from the same list means they are not true dragons. Either the list is incomplete and those are still true dragons or it's exhaustive and kobolds are not. You can't have it both ways.

IIRC the argument (not my argument mind you) was that a Dragonwrought Kobolds acquires the coloration & associated energy type of a(nother) True Dragon, therefore they don't get their own entry on the Half-Dragon table because there'd be no point -- a Half-Dragon (red, from a kobold) is identical to any other Half-Dragon (red).

Not sure if this argument is valid.


They're also considered true dragons cause they look a whole hell of a lot like true dragons. Arguably dragonwrought kobolds don't, but, y'know, that's the core of the argument.

Indeed.

It would have been a lot cleaner if WotC had simple slapped a "(true)" subtype on True Dragons.

At least they could have used a less awful word (e.g.: "Greater Dragons"), since now we're stuck with a batch of recurring No True True Dragon fallacies.

[Mato]

They're also considered true dragons cause they look a whole hell of a lot like true dragons.I thought it was because they "use all the standard rules for true dragons given on pages 68-10 of the monster manual" but I suppose using poor definitions instead of the text says is what got you all into this mess in the first place.

Guys, I made a half dragon phaerimm dragonfire adept. He has a breath weapon, flight, spells, resistances, age categories, and the dragon type.
http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/6/64/Phaerimm.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20060515194712Isn't he cute true dragon?

[Doctor Awkward]

IIRC the argument (not my argument mind you) was that a Dragonwrought Kobolds acquires the coloration & associated energy type of a(nother) True Dragon, therefore they don't get their own entry on the Half-Dragon table because there'd be no point -- a Half-Dragon (red, from a kobold) is identical to any other Half-Dragon (red).

Not sure if this argument is valid.



Indeed.

It would have been a lot cleaner if WotC had simple slapped a "(true)" subtype on True Dragons.

At least they could have used a less awful word (e.g.: "Greater Dragons"), since now we're stuck with a batch of recurring No True True Dragon fallacies.


So half-dragons are not true dragons because they are explicitly called lesser dragons.

Orange dragons are true dragons because they are explicitly called as such.

Dragonwrought kobolds are not explicitly called either way... which also makes them true dragons.


... I don't get it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

IIRC the argument (not my argument mind you) was that a Dragonwrought Kobolds acquires the coloration & associated energy type of a(nother) True Dragon, therefore they don't get their own entry on the Half-Dragon table because there'd be no point -- a Half-Dragon (red, from a kobold) is identical to any other Half-Dragon (red).

Not sure if this argument is valid.

Entirely irrelevant. Either the list is exhaustive or it's not. If it is, kobolds are not true dragons. If it is not; mist, steel, and purple dragons are true dragons.

The only way around this is to argue that, for example, a dragonwrought kobold with red dragon heritage is, in fact, a red dragon; an utterly absurd position. To be prefectly clear: not a dragon that is red but a red dragon; the creature described in the MM on pages 75-77.

[Nifft]

Dragonwrought kobolds are not explicitly called either way... which, when considered alongside the features that they share with other True Dragons, makes them true dragon candidates.
Edited for accuracy.


... I don't get it.
Okay?

EDIT:

The only way around this is to argue that, for example, a dragonwrought kobold with red dragon heritage is, in fact, a red dragon; an utterly absurd position. To be prefectly clear: not a dragon that is red but a red dragon; the creature described in the MM on pages 75-77.

Absolutely true.

Also: it's not my argument, and I cannot support it.

However: if this position could be supported, then I'd find it quite interesting.

Specifically: It would be neat to allow a PC to have access to those cute little spell-riders in Dragon Magic, stuff like, "A white dragon capable of casting 3rd level spells ..."

[zergling.exe]

Critical logical failure: by this logic, the exclusion of DWK's from the same list means they are not true dragons. Either the list is incomplete and those are still true dragons or it's exhaustive and kobolds are not. You can't have it both ways.

I'll start by saying that I'm in the 'DWKs are not True Dragons' camp (more specifically in the 'ban them on sight' camp). Now that that's out of the way, that list is indeed exhaustive, at least until January 2006. Anything printed before then is subject to RotD's claim of primary source for True Dragons.

[Doctor Awkward]

Dragonwrought kobolds are not explicitly called either way... which, when considered alongside the features that they share with other True Dragons, makes them true dragon candidates.

Half-dragon kobolds share all of those same features.

They are also not explicitly called lesser dragons. They even have their own separate tables.

[eggynack]

I thought it was because they "use all the standard rules for true dragons given on pages 68-10 of the monster manual"

That too. But what I'm saying is, if these DrC dragons didn't have that text, we'd still probably call them true dragons, because they have all those qualities of true dragons. Especially if the dragons included a bunch of the abilities associated with true dragons, manually instead of by inheritance. They'd pick up that likely status the same way mist dragons do.

[The Insanity]

"Advance" might not be defined per se, but it is used in the description of Advancement. At least on the SRD.

[Troacctid]

I mean, they advance by age category, right? That's what separates true dragons from lesser dragons, as long as you're not ignoring Draconomicon.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'll start by saying that I'm in the 'DWKs are not True Dragons' camp (more specifically in the 'ban them on sight' camp). Now that that's out of the way, that list is indeed exhaustive, at least until January 2006. Anything printed before then is subject to RotD's claim of primary source for True Dragons.

Then dragonwrought kobolds cannot be true dragons. They weren't published -after- the list, they are not called such in the racial write up or the feat's description, and they aren't included on the list. Discussion over.

Now, I'm not inclined to accept the list as exhaustive because of the creatures that are painfully obviously true dragons that aren't on it, such as the three recurring examples in this thread. My denial of DWK's true dragon-ness lies elsewhere.

[Nifft]

I mean, they advance by age category, right? That's what separates true dragons from lesser dragons, as long as you're not ignoring Draconomicon.

In Draconomicon, dragons advance by hit dice and level adjustment, just like any other monstrous progression.

Many of these progressions are spelled out.


If dragons were required to literally advance by age categories, not hit dice or LA, then there would be much sharper delineations between "levels".

This is not the case, and therefore "advance by age categories" cannot be literally applied.

[Zanos]

For what it's worth, true dragons do actually have their age categories in their advancement block.

[Troacctid]

In Draconomicon, dragons advance by hit dice and level adjustment, just like any other monstrous progression.

Many of these progressions are spelled out.


If dragons were required to literally advance by age categories, not hit dice or LA, then there would be much sharper delineations between "levels".

This is not the case, and therefore "advance by age categories" cannot be literally applied.
Not sure what you mean.

Advancement: Wyrmling 8-9 HD; very young 11-12 HD; young 14-15 HD; juvenile 17-18 HD; young adult 20-21 HD; adult 23-24 HD; mature adult 26-27 HD; old 29-30 HD; very old 32-33 HD; ancient 35-36 HD; wyrm 38-39 HD; great wyrm 41+ HD
What other monsters besides true dragons have an advancement line that uses that format? And how are the "levels" not clearly delineated?

[Kelb_Panthera]

http://i.imgur.com/5ekOiAl.png


Here's another wrench for this nonsense;

Dr says that true dragons have 12 age categories but the above image shows that kobolds clearly have 15.

I mean, if we're making logically nonsensical arguments anyway, that one belongs in here somewhere.

[Nifft]

For what it's worth, true dragons do actually have their age categories in their advancement block.

It's true, they do!

But they appear several times each, because they are not units of advancement.

The units of advancement are: racial HD and level adjustment.

[Nifft]

Dr says that true dragons have 12 age categories but the above image shows that kobolds clearly have 15.

I mean, if we're making logically nonsensical arguments anyway, that one belongs in here somewhere.

I have $15, and I want to buy something for $12.

Do I have $12?

Yes.


More rigorously: the 12 things that we need to qualify for True Dragon are a proper subset of the 15 things that Dragonwrought Kobolds get.

[Zanos]

Dr says that true dragons have 12 age categories but the above image shows that kobolds clearly have 15.
No, they have 12 age categories and 3 aging effects. A 121 year old kobold is venerable and a great wyrm.

It's true, they do!

But they appear several times each, because they are not units of advancement.

The units of advancement are: racial HD and level adjustment.
I only see them once each.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I have $15, and I want to buy something for $12.

Do I have $12?

Yes.


More rigorously: the 12 things that we need to qualify for True Dragon are a proper subset of the 15 things that Dragonwrought Kobolds get.

Hey, absurd pedantry is how we got here in the first place so I deny this argument.

Dr says they have 12. Not at least 12, not 12 or more; 12. If you have 15, you have too many.

@zanos

If you're between 60 and 89, you're in the middle aged category. It's true that only 3 of the 15 has any mechanical effect (unless you're using the other 12 as an excuse to say you're a true dragon) but that doesn't make them not categories for kobolds of a certain age.

[zergling.exe]

Then dragonwrought kobolds cannot be true dragons. They weren't published -after- the list, they are not called such in the racial write up or the feat's description, and they aren't included on the list. Discussion over.

Now, I'm not inclined to accept the list as exhaustive because of the creatures that are painfully obviously true dragons that aren't on it, such as the three recurring examples in this thread. My denial of DWK's true dragon-ness lies elsewhere.

I believe that the list uses 'supersedes' for the express purpose of leaving some varieties out of True Dragon-dom. Otherwise, they could have said it was in addition to other lists.

[Doctor Despair]

I felt like Heliomance had a good idea by summarizing talking points from the thread to keep it on-topic and focused on unresolved issues; with that said, I took the liberty of drawing some responses to various points on the list in the last two pages. Cheers.


Okay, to try and straighten out this mess, I'm going to do something insane and attempt to isolate the main points in the thread. Wish me luck.


Dragonwrought kobolds are not listed in the Draconomicon list of true dragons

Counterpoint: The Draconomicon was published before Races of the Dragon and thus there is no way for it to contain them.
Additional counterpoint: Orange dragons, from the Dragon Magazine Compendium, were printed before this list, are explicitly called out in their entry as being true dragons, but are not on the list. Thus the list cannot be comprehensive.


Dragonwrought kobolds do not advance through age categories

Counterpoint: Kobolds do have a list of draconic age categories supplied, also "advance" is never defined in game
However, "advancement" is, and kobolds do not gain HD through aging.

Evidence to resolve: Is there a monster that is unambiguously a true dragon but does not gain HD from aging?





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

"Tables such as those above" refer to Table 3-21 Aging for Dragon PCs, which provides the ECL information for each dragon age category. It only provides that for the ten base dragons however. Table 3-22 provides LA information to support the aforementioned directive to construct similar tables for other dragons. Obviously Table 3-22 does not include Dragonwrought Kobolds since they did not exist yet. It does however provide an explicit statement that if a true dragon does not have an Age Advancement table that addresses ECL, the DM should use it's stat block to construct one. This seems to me to directly indicate that if a dragon meets all other qualifications and has age categories (as DWKs do) the DM can and should create an appropriate advancement table for them.


Their LA and RHD don't increase as they get older. The text is very clear that this makes them a lesser dragon with no need for such a progression.

And since that rule you just quoted requires you to be a true dragon, it does nothing for creatures that do not already advance by age category without it. Kobolds, who are not true dragons, gain no benefit from it.


you read the text in Draconomicon like this:

True Dragon requirement = need Advancement by Age...

how can the absence of Advancement by Age disqualify something from being a true dragon (if he qualifies otherwise for that) and give him access to Advancement by Age for being a true dragon at the same time?
if you can't see your own paradox you did create here, I don't know what else to say..


Adcanvement by Age isn't a requirement, it's more a trait of true dragons, since all true dragons get it. It can't be used as measurement to disqualify something from the question if it is a true dragon or not.

- If you have it, you are sure a true dragon.

- If you don't have it by default but can prove that your a legit true dragon otherwise, you get it for free (thx due to Draconomicon p144 "Other True Dragons")

That's how it works.

As stated in dozens of other DWK threads, the only thing at the end which can be taken as requirement for ALL True Dragons, without any (!) exception, are the Dragon Age Categories (cause none of the lesser Dragons have them).

True dragons gain spellcasting power as they age

Counterexample: Planar dragons are unambiguously true dragons, but do not gain spellcasting


All true dragons have the potential to use arcane spellcasting

Kobolds are as able as anyone to become wizards or sorcerers



Kobolds also get the Rite of Draconic Passage (in RotD) which allows each Kobold to use a spell-like ability 1/day.

"For all effects related to race, a kobold is considered a dragon". Also, dragonwrought kobolds are of Dragon type.

Seems to be largely uncontested, but obviously is not sufficient evidence for true dragonhood.


True dragons gain in power as they age, lesser dragons don't. Dragonwrought kobolds do not gain HD through aging, as noted above.

Counterpoint: Dragonwrought kobolds gain physical stats as they age, and do not lose mental stats. This can be considered gaining in power.


Draconomicon: "All true dragons are endothermic." RotD: "kobolds are cold-blooded creatures, and dragons are warmblooded."

Uh... what? If we take this as valid, this would mean that dragonwrought kobolds are the only true dragons, and that nothing else is. I think we can safely write this off as writers not talking to each other, and dismiss it.



Endothermic is the warm blooded one.


Perhaps cold vs warm-bloodedness is tied to the racial traits lost or gained by becoming dragonwrought. Perhaps it is tied to creature type, also lost or gained by becoming dragonwrought.

Monster Manual: "True dragons are winged, reptile-like creatures of ancient lineage." Draconomicon: "At first glance, a true dragon resembles a reptile. It has a muscular body, a long, thick neck, a horned or frilled head with a toothy mouth, and a sinuous tail. The creature walks on four powerful legs with clawed feet, and it flies using its vast, batlike wings. Heavy scales cover a dragon from the tip of its tail to end of its snout." Dragonwrought kobolds do not meet these descriptions.

Counterexamples: Oriental Adventures contains several creatures that do not meet these descriptions, which are included on the list of true dragons in the Draconomicon.


Draconomicon: All true dragons can swim. Dragonwrought kobolds do not have a swim speed.

Counterpoint: Many other unambiguous true dragons do not have a swim speed. Kobolds are able to take ranks in Swim.


Draconomicon: All true dragons are immune to at least one energy type.

Counterexample: Fang dragons, printed in the Draconomicon and listed in the table of true dragons, are not immune to any energy type.


Draconomicon: All true dragons gain DR and SR as they age.

Counterexample: None yet. Does anyone know of one?



All I got off a quick check is the yu lung, which is super sketchy as a basis for argument. It doesn't gain SR or DR while it's a yu lung, but it inevitably ages into something that does gain those things, which could itself be considered aging into those things. Still, it's apparently a full on true dragon while it's failing to gain DR and SR, so it merits a bit of consideration.

Draconomicon: True dragons fall into two broad categories, chromatic and metallic.

Counterpoint: No they don't. There are probably more true dragons by this point that aren't either metallic or chromatic that ones that are.
Mist dragons have been found as an example of something that can clearly be considered a true dragon, are not chromatic or metallic, and are not explicitly listed as true dragons anywhere.



Also: Gem dragons, Lung dragons (from OA), Planar dragons, Shadow dragons.

Ironically, dragonwrought kobolds do get special mechanical perks for being of metallic or chromatic ancestry. That's under table 3-3 of RotD, p.39.

Dragonwrought kobolds are not listed in the Races of the Dragon list of half-dragon ancestors/true dragons. This list explicitly claims primacy over all previous sources.

Counterpoint: Mercury, Mist, and Steel dragons do not appear on this list either, yet they seem unambiguously true dragons. Orange dragons also do not appear, and they are explicitly true dragons.

Counter-counterpoint: Given RotD's claims of primacy, the stance that Mercury, Mist, Steel, and Orange dragons are not true dragons is an intellectually consistent one, I think. That said, no-one seems to be defending that position.





Counter-counter-counterpoint: D&D rules rely on specific-trumps-general. This argument relies on general-trumps-specific.

Have I missed any arguments? I think I caught them all.

One thing I've noticed - there's an awful lot of debunked reasons why dragonwrought kobolds aren't true dragons, but I don't think anyone's offered a positive argument as to why they are. Anyone?


Generally speaking, the way you qualify for a specific subcategory without that being explicitly stated is by, first, explicitly having the category, second, that category being partitioned by the subcategories, and, third, there being sufficient evidence that all but one subcategory will fail to admit you. Notably, if lesser dragon and true dragon do partition the dragon type, then this dragonwrought kobold is absolutely qualifying for one subcategory or the other. It's just semi-ambiguous which one is being qualified for.


IIRC, the argument went something like:
- Dragonwrought Kobolds have age categories.
- And they're of the Dragon type.
- What exactly qualifies a dragon for "True Dragon"-hood?
- ... apparently the only consistent thing is the age categories.
- Which kobolds get.
- Huh.
- That's hilarious.


I'm quite sure there's no rule that equates merely having dragon age categories with being a true dragon.

Editor's Note: Given there are no hard and fast rules regarding categorizing dragons of ambiguous truth, it may be useful to consider how many elements a dragon in question (in this case a Dragonwrought Kobold) has that would make it more kin to one category or another and to gauge the relative poignancy of each element in relation to each other. Given that each element on this list thusfar has appeared to fall on the side of DK's being True Dragons, then an evaluation by quantity would suggest they are TDs, barring a contest over one of the above or an unmentioned element.

[Deophaun]

The question is: why would you want them to be True Dragons? Do you hate them that much?

If they advance by age categories, then, as per Draconomicon, that means that they need to take a dead dragon level every time they get to the next age category before they either gain the benefit of that age category and before they can take another class level (for some reason, people don't like to read the section on dragons as PCs: this is also why casting bestow curse to make your dragon familiar ancient doesn't actually do anything).

That would make dragonwrought kobolds pretty much the worst thing ever.

[Doctor Despair]

The question is: why would you want them to be True Dragons? Do you hate them that much?

If they advance by age categories, then, as per Draconomicon, that means that they need to take a dead dragon level every time they get to the next age category before they either gain the benefit of that age category and before they can take another class level (for some reason, people don't like to read the section on dragons as PCs).

That would make dragonwrought kobolds pretty much the worst thing ever.

Iirc dragon hitdie bestow some pretty decent stats, much like outsider hitdie, but I'm sure that would be quite painful for casters. With that said, you can always drain the racial hitdie off or just retrain them if you do it when you only have one and there are no enervating creatures nearby.

[Heliomance]

The thing is, while the RAW may be thoroughly ambiguous, I'm not really sure how there's any confusion over RAI. Dragonwrought kobolds are clearly not supposed to be considered true dragons (or greater dragons, as someone pointed out might have been a better term). True dragons are like porn - we all know it when we see it. Dragonwrought kobolds aren't great mythological beasts that grow vastly bigger and more powerful with age, they don't gain HD by age category. Yes, we can find another exception to most of the requirements to be considered a true dragon - but nothing else is an exception to as many of them as DWKs are.

Strict RAW? Who knows, but then that's hardly an uncommon situation with strict RAW. RAI? Not a chance in the nine hells.

[pupaeted]

By strict RAW RotD 69 is the beginning and end of what is and what isn't a true dragon at its date of publication; specifically, explicitly, exhaustively. The thread continues to lumber on because there's too much artificial drama surrounding the question for the recreational debaters to resist counting coup on each other.

[Celestia]

I think the problem here is that most people are trying to look at dragonwrought kobolds as their own, independent dragons when that is simply not the case. Kobolds are outright stated as being descended from dragons and have had a long association with the chromatics, specifically. Dragonwrought kobolds aren't dragons in their own right; they're dragons because that chromatic heritage has come to the forefront like a recessive gene. They are not independent dragons. They are whatever their heritage is.

Now, whether or not this puts them into the same camp as half-dragons is uncertain, but that's the angle we should be taking. Are dragonwrought kobolds dragon-decended or real dragons? After all, half-dragins have the dragon type but aren't "real" dragons because they're dragon-decended. If kobolds are real dragons, then they are indisputably true dragons because they are simply a dragon of whatever kind they inherited. If they are dragon-decended like half-dragons, then they are not true dragons.

To this, I'm uncertain. Traditional genetics would put them as dragon-decended, but we're talking about a fantasy world and magical creatures. Dragons, especially, have funky genetics. I mean, there's even a ritual to change Your dragon ancestry which is all kinds of impossible in real biology. Clearly, we can't rely on that.

Unfortunately, that's about all we have to go on. Dragonwrought kobolds are not mention in RotD's dragon-decended section, but nor are they listed among the true dragons. And they are not lesser dragons due to their true dragon heritage making them either true dragons or dragon-decended by default. The thing is, dragonwrought kobolds are barely mentioned anywhere outside that one feat. They're not even the red-headed stepchild of dragons; they're the twin who died at birth and who your parents never ever mentioned, and then one day you found a birth certificate hidden away in a box deep in the attic. But were they your identical or fraternal twin? Who knows. Your parents still refuse to acknowledge it.

[Nifft]

I only see them once each.
This is the table we're talking about:


http://i.imgur.com/zsyftub.png

Note that some levels are pure LA boost, no HD at all:


http://i.imgur.com/EEX0whz.png



Hey, absurd pedantry is how we got here in the first place so I deny this argument.

Dr says they have 12. Not at least 12, not 12 or more

That's now how D&D works. If you need 4 skill ranks to enter a class, then having 5 skill ranks does not disqualify you from that class.

Don't be upset that someone was able to bring more advance pedantry than you had anticipated.

You're not being a pedant about this, you're just plain wrong.

[eggynack]

That's now how D&D works. If you need 4 skill ranks to enter a class, then having 5 skill ranks does not disqualify you from that class.

Don't be upset that someone was able to bring more advance pedantry than you had anticipated.

You're not being a pedant about this, you're just plain wrong.
Y'know, I was on this page with you, the 15 is fine even under pedantry page, and was thinking of a post to that effect, but the opposing argument might have some merit to it. If something is asking whether you have a certain amount of something, as a requirement or as a request, then more is fine. More is always fine. But this true dragon thing could be considered less requirement and more quality. As in, it's an intrinsic definitional quality of dragons that they have twelve age categories. In that context, more could be considered too much.

Consider normal real world humans as an example. We, at the baseline, have one heart. In the list of human qualities, one could write, "Humans have one heart." Now, if you introduce some arbitrary creature, and one of its baseline qualities is, "This creature has two hearts," would that not be an immediately disqualifying factor? Would you say, "The text lists one heart, and this creature has that one heart, and just happens to have another one,"? Would you then conclude that this creature is human unless something else fails to line up (which may well happen, of course)? I'd say no.

What's clear to me from this is that the highest level of pedantry dictates that the meaning of, "Do you have X whatevers, such that you can be this thing?" is fundamentally contextual. If we're working with a threshold, requirement, barrier, or something else of that variety, then "X or more" is implied. No one asking you for a certain number of apples cares that you have way more than that. If we're working with a quality though, something writ deep within the rhetorical DNA of the thing, then the text probably does care about the exact number.

Of course, kobolds might just have 12 age categories. The text doesn't call them categories, so they're probably not. What I care about here, though, is that the highest standard of pedantry is upheld.

[Doctor Despair]

What I care about here, though, is that the highest standard of pedantry is upheld.

This is sig' gold. Would you mind?

[eggynack]

This is sig' gold. Would you mind?
Sure, is fine.

[ryu]

Y'know, I was on this page with you, the 15 is fine even under pedantry page, and was thinking of a post to that effect, but the opposing argument might have some merit to it. If something is asking whether you have a certain amount of something, as a requirement or as a request, then more is fine. More is always fine. But this true dragon thing could be considered less requirement and more quality. As in, it's an intrinsic definitional quality of dragons that they have twelve age categories. In that context, more could be considered too much.

Consider normal real world humans as an example. We, at the baseline, have one heart. In the list of human qualities, one could write, "Humans have one heart." Now, if you introduce some arbitrary creature, and one of its baseline qualities is, "This creature has two hearts," would that not be an immediately disqualifying factor? Would you say, "The text lists one heart, and this creature has that one heart, and just happens to have another one,"? Would you then conclude that this creature is human unless something else fails to line up (which may well happen, of course)? I'd say no.

What's clear to me from this is that the highest level of pedantry dictates that the meaning of, "Do you have X whatevers, such that you can be this thing?" is fundamentally contextual. If we're working with a threshold, requirement, barrier, or something else of that variety, then "X or more" is implied. No one asking you for a certain number of apples cares that you have way more than that. If we're working with a quality though, something writ deep within the rhetorical DNA of the thing, then the text probably does care about the exact number.

Of course, kobolds might just have 12 age categories. The text doesn't call them categories, so they're probably not. What I care about here, though, is that the highest standard of pedantry is upheld.

Humans with a rare multiple organ mutation don't disqualify as humans same as all those examples of frogs with significantly more than four legs. Now if the human candidate shows now signs of natural aging, and changes appearance instead of dying, you may well have a case.

[eggynack]

Humans with a rare multiple organ mutation don't disqualify as humans same as all those examples of frogs with significantly more than four legs. Now if the human candidate shows now signs of natural aging, and changes appearance instead of dying, you may well have a case.
I was explicit about this being a baseline assessment. Humans definitionally have one heart if nothing weird is going on. This arbitrary other species definitionally has two hearts if nothing weird is going on. That an instantiated human might have two hearts, or that an instantiated creature X might have one, is irrelevant compared to what we know to be true outside of exceptional circumstances.

[ryu]

I was explicit about this being a baseline assessment. Humans definitionally have one heart if nothing weird is going on. This arbitrary other species definitionally has two hearts if nothing weird is going on. That an instantiated human might have two hearts, or that an instantiated creature X might have one, is irrelevant compared to what we know to be true outside of exceptional circumstances.

I'm just saying you need to at least check for weird birth mutations before making the call. Let's be real here. In the actual world which are you more likely to assume? That you have a human with a weird mutation which is extremely rare but not unheard of, or that you've discovered an entirely new species that looks almost exactly like a human with a few interesting details tacked on that speaks our language and could easily pass as a member of the species in all scenarios not involving an X-Ray or very long term surveillance?

[eggynack]

I'm just saying you need to at least check for weird birth mutations before making the call. Let's be real here. In the actual world which are you more likely to assume? That you have a human with a weird mutation which is extremely rare but not unheard of, or that you've discovered an entirely new species that looks almost exactly like a human with a few interesting details tacked on that speaks our language and could easily pass as a member of the species in all scenarios not involving an X-Ray or very long term surveillance?
Not really my point. We're not strictly making a call on an individual creature here. After all, in the analogy back to 3.5, we can consider both dragons and kobolds in a broad sense without needing to consider some particular kobold that happens to have fewer age categories. We're not necessarily looking at some animal we found and put in a lab, but are instead, say, landing on some island, and finding a whole collective of two-hearted beings. We could plausibly be working with some human offshoot, but it strikes me as unlikely that we'd just toss them in the human bucket without a second thought.

And, critically, no matter how you look at the situation, the second heart is fundamentally a disqualifying rather than qualifying factor. You don't look at this two hearted being and say, "Yep, the heart box is checked. Let's find out what other human qualities this creature has." Instead, you toss the being into the probably not human pile and possibly let a confluence of other factors convince you otherwise. The former method is taking a decidedly Zim-like approach to species classification.

[Zanos]

This is the table we're talking about:
Ah, I was just looking at the ones in the SRD. Fair enough.

[The Insanity]

But they appear several times each, because they are not units of advancement.

The units of advancement are: racial HD and level adjustment.
For Dragons as PCs.

[Mato]

If dragons were required to literally advance by age categories, not hit dice or LA, then there would be much sharper delineations between "levels". This is not the case, and therefore "advance by age categories" cannot be literally applied.

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.I guess you didn't finish reading the books before making your post.


The thing is, while the RAW may be thoroughly ambiguous,See above and...

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,A +3 bonus to mental scores is not progression and obtaining a template does not produce a variable LA. There is no ambiguity.


The question is: why would you want them to be True Dragons? Do you hate them that much?It's for lore drake.

Most GitP users are not familiar with google, how to search, or the actual methods to increase your spellcasting above your hit dice in both theoretical and practical manners. Then you have the ones that are purely selfishly motivated by refusing to ever admit they are wrong and the ones that know they are wrong but enjoy pointless arguing. Finally you have your crowd of people that are seemingly neutral but as they argue everyone else's points, rather than the rules, so they engage in a displaced strawman argument that proves nothing and they don't even realize it.

[AnachroNinja]

It's for lore drake.

Most GitP users are not familiar with google, how to search, or the actual methods to increase your spellcasting above your hit dice in both theoretical and practical manners. Then you have the ones that are purely selfishly motivated by refusing to ever admit they are wrong and the ones that know they are wrong but enjoy pointless arguing. Finally you have your crowd of people that are seemingly neutral but as they argue everyone else's points, rather than the rules, so they engage in a displaced strawman argument that proves nothing and they don't even realize it.

Actually it was already shown that loredrake does not actually require true dragon. It's somewhat implied but never stated.

[lylsyly]

...Most GitP users are not familiar with google, how to search, ...

I was going to keep my trap shut till I saw this. How how I bow to your superior skills sir. :smallyuk:

The Dragonwrought debate as I see it.

Draconomicon
Page 4 (boxed text)


“True Dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older”

If a Kobold ages with the same categories as a dragon … isn’t an adult kobold more powerful than a wyrmling?



“Other creatures of the Dragon type that do not advance through age categories are referred to as Lesser Dragons”

Kolbold can’t be a lesser Dragon because of this … note that it doesn’t say “gains HD or ECL or CR or anything else, just “advances through age categories”

Page 5 (plain text)


“At first glance, a true dragon resembles a reptile”

Kobolds DO look somewhat Reptilian, they even have the reptilian subtype!

Races of the Dragon
Page 39 (plain test)


“For all effects related to race, a kobold is considered a dragon.”


Doesn’t say for “some effects” does it? And they cannot be Lesser dragons because of #2 above.



“kobolds mature at a breakneck pace, using the same life cycle as dragons,”


More proof for 1 and 2 above, don’t you think?

Page 40 (plain text)



On rare occasions, a kobold female lays what kobolds call a dragonwrought egg (see the Dragonwrought feat,

Page 100). These eggs are spotted with the color of whichever true dragon influences the dragonwrought kobold within, with such mottles increasing in number and size as the wyrmling inside grows.

Color of whichever TRUE dragon influences … and wyrmling is further proof for #s 1 and 2

Page 100 (plain text)



“You are a dragon wrought kobold. Your type is dragon rather than humanoid, and you lose the dragonblood

subtype. You retain all your other subtypes and your kobold racial traits. Your scales become tinted with a color that matches that of your draconic heritage. As a dragon, you are immune to magic sleep and paralysis effects. You have darkvision out to 60 feet and low-light vision. You gain a +2 racial bonus on the skill indicated for your draconic heritage”

Type changes from Humanoid to Dragon and you even LOSE the dragonblood subtype, so you must be a dragon! (yet you can’t be a lesser dragon, see #2 above), you gain the color that matches your heritage (your true dragon Heritage, see #6 above), and you gain immunities and skill bonuses of your true dragon heritage (again see # 6 above).

[Troacctid]

“True Dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older”

If a Kobold ages with the same categories as a dragon … isn’t an adult kobold more powerful than a wyrmling?
Congratulations, I'm pretty sure you just proved that Monks are true dragons.



“Other creatures of the Dragon type that do not advance through age categories are referred to as Lesser Dragons”

Kolbold can’t be a lesser Dragon because of this … note that it doesn’t say “gains HD or ECL or CR or anything else, just “advances through age categories”
Except they don't advance through age categories, so they are lesser dragons.

[AnachroNinja]

Except they don't advance through age categories, so they are lesser dragons.

So just to clarify, are you categorically stating the opinion that there is absolutely no definition of "advance" that would be correctly used in describing the way kobolds age progressively thru their twelve draconic age categories?

[Mato]

So just to clarify, are you categorically stating the opinion that there is absolutely no definition of "advance"

The advancement rules in the Monster Manual allow dragons theoretically infinite progression even beyond the statistics of great wyrm.Well according to the book that brought up the term, "advance" is actually so well defined that it is a rule and it is located in the MM.

Class Levels: Intelligent creatures that are reasonably humanoid in shape most commonly advance by adding class levels. Creatures that fall into this category have an entry of “By character class” in their Advancement line. When a monster adds a class level, that level usually represents an increase in experience and learned skills and capabilities.

Increased Hit Dice: Intelligent creatures that are not humanoid in shape, and nonintelligent monsters, can advance by increasing their Hit Dice. Creatures with increased Hit Dice are usually superior specimens of their race, bigger and more powerful than their run-of-the-mill fellows.

Templates: Both intelligent and nonintelligent creatures with an unusual heritage (such as draconic or fiendish blood) or an inflicted change in their essential nature (undeath or lycanthropy) may be modified with a template. Templates usually result in tougher monsters with capabilities that differ from those of their common kin.

Each of these three methods for improving monsters is discussed in more detail below.And here it says creatures advance by gaining levels, either class or hit dice depending on their shape or as defined by their advancement entry, and obtaining a template is not a form of advancement. I just said this in my last post too, I guess you missed it. And unfortunately for you, playing devil's advocate to claim kobolds are "uncommon" actually requires proof.

This is also the second time today someone's claimed that something isn't in the rule books and I found the entries within seconds. So let's back up to my previous post for a moment.

Finally you have your crowd of people that are seemingly neutral but as they argue everyone else's points, rather than the rules, so they engage in a displaced strawman argument that proves nothing and they don't even realize it.

[Doctor Despair]

Congratulations, I'm pretty sure you just proved that Monks are true dragons.

Except that they become outsiders, not dragons. Everything else used to detail true dragons that we've discussed would preclude monks from being them without further qualification.

[AnachroNinja]

Well according to the book that brought up the term, "advance" is actually so well defined that it is a rule and it is located in the MM.
And here it says creatures advance by gaining levels, either class or hit dice depending on their shape or as defined by their advancement entry, and obtaining a template is not a form of advancement. I just said this in my last post too, I guess you missed it. And unfortunately for you, playing devil's advocate to claim kobolds are "uncommon" actually requires proof.

This is also the second time today someone's claimed that something isn't in the rule books and I found the entries within seconds. So let's back up to my previous post for a moment.

Can you cite the glossary definition of the word advance? You know, instead of claiming that using the word "advance" within the definition of the similar but entirely seperate game term "advancement", somehow inextricably ties the two words together forever?

For example, I'll point to a section from the Heirophant PRC...


Spells and Caster Level
Levels in the hierophant prestige class, even though they do not advance spell progression in the character’s base class, still stack with the character’s base spellcasting levels to determine caster level.

That sure seems like a issue of advance that has nothing to do with HD or ECL... I guess that means that you can't just blithely state that advance is a specific in game term that only refers to advancing HD/LA/ECL... Unless you found that glossary citation? No?

Oh, I guess you're wrong then.

[lylsyly]

Congratulations, I'm pretty sure you just proved that Monks are true dragons.


Except they don't advance through age categories, so they are lesser dragons.


Except that they become outsiders, not dragons. Everything else used to detail true dragons that we've discussed would preclude monks from being them without further qualification.

One part got answered for me. wheeee!

If they don't advance through age categories then how do they age? come on, ante up! Especially since lesser dragons explicitly do not even use the age categories!

hmmm...... change cannot me think.

[Doctor Awkward]

Can you cite the glossary definition of the word advance? You know, instead of claiming that using the word "advance" within the definition of the similar but entirely seperate game term "advancement", somehow inextricably ties the two words together forever?

For example, I'll point to a section from the Heirophant PRC...



That sure seems like a issue of advance that has nothing to do with HD or ECL... I guess that means that you can't just blithely state that advance is a specific in game term that only refers to advancing HD/LA/ECL... Unless you found that glossary citation? No?

Oh, I guess you're wrong then.

Honestly, requiring a glossary definition of the word advance in light of the wholly unambiguous context provided by the rules for improving monsters requires a level of willful misinterpretation and ignorance of basic precepts that would render D&D 3.5 unplayable.


If you think that the definition of gaining power by advancing through age categories is covered solely by mental stat increases, then please outline how how a 200 year old venerable dragonwrought kobold Barbarian 1 is more powerful in every way than a 75 year old regular Kobold Sorcerer 15?

[Doctor Despair]

If you think that the definition of gaining power by advancing through age categories is covered solely by mental stat increases, then please outline how how a 200 year old venerable dragonwrought kobold Barbarian 1 is more powerful in every way than a 75 year old regular Kobold Sorcerer 15?

It said advance, not advance more quickly than anything else. Don't move the goalposts for the text. A 200 year DK Barbarian 1 is quantifiably more powerful in objective ways than a 75 year old DK Barbarian 1.

[lylsyly]

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. So you are saying that getting older and going through the age categories (regardless of HD, class level, or whatever) is not advancement?

[Doctor Despair]

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. So you are saying that getting older and going through the age categories (regardless of HD, class level, or whatever) is not advancement?

They could try to value innocence and say the Kobold is regressing through age categories ;)

[lylsyly]

Just for fun (and more proof although it IS fluff (or is it?):


wherever the dragons’ blood had spilled, little creatures began to emerge out of the ground with alert, crimson eyes, already looking up at their creators for guidance. Thus were kobolds born, witnesses to the moments during which the immortality of the true dragons slipped away.

[Technetium43]

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. So you are saying that getting older and going through the age categories (regardless of HD, class level, or whatever) is not advancement?

Yes. Yes we are. Because it's not. I'm glad we can finally agree.

[lylsyly]

Draconomicon, page 4

“Other creatures of the Dragon type that do not advance through age categories are referred to as Lesser Dragons”

I guess you are now going to tell me that "through" and "by" are the same thing?

Is English your primary language?

[Doctor Awkward]

Draconomicon, page 4

“Other creatures of the Dragon type that do not advance through age categories are referred to as Lesser Dragons”

I guess you are now going to tell me that "through" and "by" are the same thing?

Is English your primary language?

Well, they are both synonyms for "via" (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/via).
And saying Advance via age categories would also make sense in this context.

so... yes...

[lylsyly]

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.

[Doctor Awkward]

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.

Half-dragon kobolds also have age categories. Half-dragons are widely agreed to be lesser dragons.

[Doctor Despair]

Half-dragon kobolds also have age categories. Half-dragons are widely agreed to be lesser dragons.

Half-Dragons are actually explicitly tagged as Lesser Dragons, iirc, avoiding this debate entirely.

[lylsyly]

Half-dragon kobolds also have age categories. Half-dragons are widely agreed to be lesser dragons.

The thread is actually about DRAGONWROUGHT KOBOLDS. Isn't it?

I'll be back tomorrow for more punishment. :smallbiggrin:

[AnachroNinja]

We've established Advance is not a glossary defined in game term. That it does not have to be used to relation to HD or ECL in any manner. It doesn't even have to have anything to do with gaining power since it was used in a statement entirely seperate from the *gaining power as they age* section.

Question 1: Do DWKs have draconic age categories? Yes, yes they do.

Question 2: Do they move forward through them in a linear manner, IE advance, progress, and etc? Yes, yes they do.

Question 3: Do lesser dragons have age categories or advance through them? No, thru explicitly do not.

Do what you will with that, but until you can prove that they were using anything but the same English standard definition of "advance" that they utilize in the other instances that the word occurs, you're wrong.

Edit: Half dragon kobolds take physical age penalties so they can not make the unambiguous claim of "gaining power" as they age, so they are twice lesser dragons.

[Doctor Awkward]

The thread is actually about DRAGONWROUGHT KOBOLDS. Isn't it?

I'll be back tomorrow for more punishment. :smallbiggrin:

...Right then.


Unless anyone has anything else, isn't it about time we put this topic to its eternal rest?

Dragonwrought kobolds are not true dragons.

[Doctor Despair]

...Right then.


Unless anyone has anything else, isn't it about time we put this topic to its eternal rest?

Dragonwrought kobolds are not true dragons.

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"

[Doctor Awkward]

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"

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"?

[Red Fel]

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"?

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.