3.5 RotD "dragon exception clause" for Singer of Concordance

[Alyara]

Where to start...

I'm doing a rebuild of my half-dragon character and I want to go down the Cleric and Singer of Concordance route, to my knowledge the best way of getting my third level divine spells is by having Cleric 5. However there is a post on the minmax forum that discusses the "'dragon exception clause' baked into RotD." that essentially allows for you to take Singer of Concordance at level 2. How? I have no idea.


I can't post a link but it's called "The Absolute Guide to Cleric Prestige Classes" by MoonCrow. And his notes on Singer of Concordance is located on the first post, about 2/3 of the way down.
>>minmaxforum/index.php?topic=1344.msg11548#msg11548<<

I have tried looking everywhere for additional posts on this subject or even by the person credited to 'finding it' I guess, but I haven't found much. I've even read over a good chunk of the RotD today and I'm wondering I am missing something or if this theory simply doesn't exist.

My DM suggested I actually sign up and start seeking answers here since he's also confused by this.

Any help is greatly appreciated. ^w^

[Sleven]

Dragons automatically qualify for any classes, prestige classes, racial substitution levels, feats, powers, or spells that require the dragonblood subtype. Races presented in this book that have the dragonblood subtype include dragonborn, spellscale, kobold, and draconic creatures. Should a creature acquire the dragon type, it loses the dragonblood subtype.

Basically, all you need to have is the Dragon type, which half-dragons do.

EDIT: Also, archivists are more fun than clerics in my opinion.

[Nifft]

Dragon Magic, page 4:

https://i.imgur.com/NAgc12z.png

The intention seems to be -- and the non-broken reading is -- is that you can qualify for (Dragonblood) stuff even if you're a Dragon, which is more dragon-blood-y than a (Dragonblood) by way of being a whole Dragon. In other words, you can ignore the (Dragonblood) prereq if you're a Dragon.

There's also a TO ("theoretical optimization") reading which says that instead of ignoring the (Dragonblood) prereq, you're allowed to ignore EVERY prereq. This is clearly insane, but in the absence of a real live DM, insanity is a viable tactic.

[Sleven]

The intention seems to be -- and the non-broken reading is -- is that you can qualify for (Dragonblood) stuff even if you're a Dragon, which is more dragon-blood-y than a (Dragonblood) by way of being a whole Dragon. In other words, you can ignore the (Dragonblood) prereq if you're a Dragon.

There's also a TO ("theoretical optimization") reading which says that instead of ignoring the (Dragonblood) prereq, you're allowed to ignore EVERY prereq. This is clearly insane, but in the absence of a real live DM, insanity is a viable tactic.

Nothing TO about it, it's just straight RAW. There are far more insane rules in core than easy entry into a few (fairly average) prestige classes.

Point is, talk to your DM and see what he/she is/isn't willing to allow. I personally don't allow a lot of RAW when I DM, but this isn't something I would consider to need change.

[Nifft]

Nothing TO about it, it's just straight RAW. There are far more insane rules in core than easy entry into a few (fairly average) prestige classes.

Point is, talk to your DM and see what he/she is/isn't willing to allow. I personally don't allow a lot of RAW when I DM, but this isn't something I would consider to need change.

Nope, the sane reading is 100% RAW.

If there are two ways to read the text, and one of those ways is insane, you ought to prefer the non-insane reading.

Well, unless the insane reading is beneficial to your build, and there's no DM to impose sanity from the outside. This is ONLY the case when discussing TO, which is why I make the distinction.

[Sleven]

Nope, the sane reading is 100% RAW.

If there are two ways to read the text, and one of those ways is insane, you ought to prefer the non-insane reading.

Well, unless the insane reading is beneficial to your build, and there's no DM to impose sanity from the outside. This is ONLY the case when discussing TO, which is why I make the distinction.

There aren't two ways to read it. It's in the simplest English. Perhaps you're pulling information from somewhere else when you read that sentence?

[Nifft]

There aren't two ways to read it. It's in the simplest English. Perhaps you're pulling information from somewhere else when you read that sentence?

There very plainly are.

You're seeing the one you like, and then you stop looking.

That's just your confirmation bias -- it's the simplest form of bias, since all it requires is the ability to recognize, and a lack of curiosity or intellectual rigor.



Anyway, I've given the OP (@Alyara) the information she'd requested.

I'm really not interested in "proving" something obvious to someone with an apparent vested interest in not seeing the obvious.

Is there anything else to discuss on this topic? Other than "nuh-uh" vs. "yuh-huh", obviously.

[Sleven]

There very plainly are.

You're seeing the one you like, and then you stop looking.

That's just your confirmation bias -- it's the simplest form of bias, since all it requires is the ability to recognize, and a lack of curiosity or intellectual rigor.



Anyway, I've given the OP (@Alyara) the information she'd requested.

I'm really not interested in "proving" something obvious to someone with an apparent vested interest in not seeing the obvious.

Is there anything else to discuss on this topic? Other than "nuh-uh" vs. "yuh-huh", obviously.

There's your attitude, which largely elucidates your immaturity.

[weckar]

No reading of that part of the text supports the Dragon => Dragonblood ONLY reading. Sorry.

[Khedrac]

English is, by its nature, a lot more ambiguous than most people realise.

In this example, there is a real problem with trying to argue that the RAW is that 'a creature with the "Dragon" type can ignore all the other pre-requisites of any prestige class that requires the "dragonblood type"', and that is that nowhere in the text does it say the "dragon type", it just says "dragon". So a really strict RAW ruling is that a "half-dragon" is not a "dragon" (by its very name, it is a half-dragon).
Yes, one can look at other rules where use of a creaure type's name indicates the type, but those are other rules.
So perhaps Nifft is reading more into the passage than is there when closely dissected (though it looks to be the RAI), but those of you who say the RAW is absolutely clear are also wrong, just for a different reason.

A huge amount of English language use depends on conventions, but legalistic RAW analysis tends to ignore the conventions that it doesn't like and this is where the inherent ambiguity of English gets in the way.

Consider:
The opposite of "ascending" is "descending".
The opposite of "is" is "is not".
The opposte of "one" is "minus one" mathematically speaking (which isn't grammatically speaking but is the sort of logic often used in RAW arguments).
Does "person" have an opposite?

So, what is the opposite of "One person is ascending"?
a) Minus one person is ascending.
b) One person is descending.
c) One person is not ascending.
d) One person is not descending.
e) Minus one person is descending.
f) Minus one person is not ascending.
g) Minus one person is not descending.
Obviously the answer is probably (b) or (c), but it depends on the context. Logically however, the answer is a, b, c, or g (d, e and f come out as double negatives - probably).
A better question is "what does 'opposite' mean?" And this is where we usually sit with RAW discussion, which is why I usually avoid it - there often is no "right" answer.

[Luccan]

I mean, RAW seems to be Dragons (maybe the type, maybe not) auto-qualify for those classes. But RAI might have meant the dragon-blood part can be ignored by actual dragons. Whether or not one reading is insane is up for debate.

[Albions_Angel]

So I am going to wade into the ring a sec, with a word of caution.

Written and spoken english are contextual. We all know this inherently. The phrase "Can you get that for me?" doesnt require a physical gesture to point to something, if the previous context (written or spoken) referenced a particular object. In fact, it doesnt even require that, just an acknowledgement of something.

For example, you are sat in the room with someone. A phone goes off. One of you says "Can you get that for me?" You would, in almost all circumstances, understand that the phone is the object you need to get.

Therefore, I would say, given that the entire boxtext is talking about the dragonblood subtype, I would say that a real english reading of that text COULD say that Dragon removes the requirement for Dragonblood. Only if you read each paragraph in isolation can you remove the Dragonblood context.

However, given the standard way that RAW is interpreted on this site, I would say most people here would take the contextless reading.

[Bronk]

Well, it looks like this is already captured over in the dysfunction threads, under the 'monsters' heading.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?267985-Completely-Dysfunctional-Handbook-3-5

[daremetoidareyo]

English is, by its nature, a lot more ambiguous than most people realise.

In this example, there is a real problem with trying to argue that the RAW is that 'a creature with the "Dragon" type can ignore all the other pre-requisites of any prestige class that requires the "dragonblood type"', and that is that nowhere in the text does it say the "dragon type", it just says "dragon". So a really strict RAW ruling is that a "half-dragon" is not a "dragon" (by its very name, it is a half-dragon).
Yes, one can look at other rules where use of a creaure type's name indicates the type, but those are other rules.
So perhaps Nifft is reading more into the passage than is there when closely dissected (though it looks to be the RAI), but those of you who say the RAW is absolutely clear are also wrong, just for a different reason.

A huge amount of English language use depends on conventions, but legalistic RAW analysis tends to ignore the conventions that it doesn't like and this is where the inherent ambiguity of English gets in the way.

Consider:
The opposite of "ascending" is "descending".
The opposite of "is" is "is not".
The opposte of "one" is "minus one" mathematically speaking (which isn't grammatically speaking but is the sort of logic often used in RAW arguments).
Does "person" have an opposite?

So, what is the opposite of "One person is ascending"?
a) Minus one person is ascending.
b) One person is descending.
c) One person is not ascending.
d) One person is not descending.
e) Minus one person is descending.
f) Minus one person is not ascending.
g) Minus one person is not descending.
Obviously the answer is probably (b) or (c), but it depends on the context. Logically however, the answer is a, b, c, or g (d, e and f come out as double negatives - probably).
A better question is "what does 'opposite' mean?" And this is where we usually sit with RAW discussion, which is why I usually avoid it - there often is no "right" answer.

just name your character Dragon. Boom! now you can be a trollblooded anthropomorphic Scorpion/were-manta-ray singer of concordance.

[Necroticplague]

In this example, there is a real problem with trying to argue that the RAW is that 'a creature with the "Dragon" type can ignore all the other pre-requisites of any prestige class that requires the "dragonblood type"', and that is that nowhere in the text does it say the "dragon type", it just says "dragon". So a really strict RAW ruling is that a "half-dragon" is not a "dragon" (by its very name, it is a half-dragon).
Yes, one can look at other rules where use of a creaure type's name indicates the type, but those are other rules.
Yes, but some of those other rules are definitions. The Dragon Type rules uses the word Dragon to mean 'a creature of the Dragon type'. Therefore, the definition of 'dragon' is DnD includes 'creatures of the Dragon type". It doesn't need to be repeated in this portion of the clause because it's already inherent in the definition of the words used, just like how it doesn't explain what exactly a 'prerequisite' is, or any of the other half-dozen game terms it uses. Because it's already defined to have the needed meanings.

A huge amount of English language use depends on conventions, but legalistic RAW analysis tends to ignore the conventions that it doesn't like and this is where the inherent ambiguity of English gets in the way.

Consider:
The opposite of "ascending" is "descending".
The opposite of "is" is "is not".
The opposte of "one" is "minus one" mathematically speaking (which isn't grammatically speaking but is the sort of logic often used in RAW arguments).
Does "person" have an opposite?This is only ambiguous because you're intentionally equivocating, taking advantage of not/ill-defined terms. You never define which definition of 'opposite' you're using. The first is true under one definition of opposite, the second is true under a different one (synonym: 'inverse' in logic), and the third is true under yet another definition of it (synonym for 'additive inverse' in mathematics under a specific vector space. You could equally as well say the opposite of 1 is 1, since 1*1=1, much like 2*.5=1 for a different inverse in the same space.), and you never specify which meaning you're trying to apply to the statement as a whole. Don't blame your own lack of precision on the language, blame it on sloppy lack of specificity on your part.

[Alyara]

Thanks so much for the help guys! Silly me, I asked a question then traveled for a few days so I'm just getting to this.

My DM and I spoke after I asked him to check this post for me.

Basically we had a very long discussion clarifying if Half-Dragons are Dragonblooded (I argue yes based on the lit in RotD and that Half Dragons are listed under Draconic Creatures blah blah).
Further once we in fact read this clause, he agreed with my character being able to take it at level 2. So I have everything written down and figured out so that when I am asked how I managed all this in the future I can hand over my 7+ pages of notes that I currently have at the moment.

Huge thank you to Nifft and Sleven. :tongue:

(And I agree that the wording throughout RotD *coughANYSOURCEBOOKcough* can be weird. My DM and I have been reading some stuff lately and have been coming to different conclusions. I believe this is just the nature of 3,5).

[Alyara]

Basically, all you need to have is the Dragon type, which half-dragons do.

EDIT: Also, archivists are more fun than clerics in my opinion.

While an Archivist might be more fun, Cleric and Singer of Concordance is more appropriate for my Character and roleplaying her. I will give consideration to playing an Archivist in the future though.:smallbiggrin: