Dragonwrought kobold

[Adrunkpotato5]

I've had my eye on dragonwrought kobolds for a while and I've been tallying up what they can do. Correct me I'm wrong but they

Qualify as true dragons(draconomicon states a creature with the dragon type and 12 age categories is a true dragon) allowing them to...

-form dragon pacts: burn hp for gold and spell slots

-use dragon auras: burn spell slots and spells known for constant effects

-take epic feats

Xorvintaal template: you lose racial spell casting but gain abilities based of age category (like potentially adding +20 to all of your saves for perspective)

Lore Drake: dragons of ebberon for straight up +2 sor level

Kobold ritual stuff: web enhancement straight up +1 sor level

Is there anything I missed? Fill me in on other things, preferably level one

[Nifft]

Gain benefits of age categories but not suffer penalties (so Venerable => +3 Int, +3 Wis, +3 Cha).

Gain access to [Epic] feats if Old age category or older. Since you're already Venerable for the free stats, this is gravy.

Arguably, gain access to anything that requires the (Dragonblood) subtype without needing to meet any of the prereqs. I don't personally favor that interpretation, but it does exist.

Get the web enhancement which gives you Claw/Claw/Bite, and you're qualified for Rapidstrike, which can be useful in certain builds.


As a True Dragon, you're eligible for a Draconic Psychosis like Spellhoarding, which replaces your Sorcerer casting with eidetic Wizard casting of the same level. So take Stalwart Battle Sorcerer and sell off your Sorcerer slots for whatever (Draconic Auras, Maneuvers through that other Sovereign Archetype, pact nonsense, ACFs which give you SLAs in trade for Sorc spells known or slots, etc.) -- then ignore your Sorcerer casting entirely and cast as a Wizard.

[ayvango]

Is there anything I missed?
rulebook the GM threw at your face

[Nifft]

rulebook the GM threw at your face

That's not what he missed -- that's what misses him.

[DarkSoul]

This is HIGHLY dependent on what your DM says. You're opening a thread that's going to immediately devolve into a massive difference of opinions. Kind of like this:


I've had my eye on dragonwrought kobolds for a while and I've been tallying up what they can do. Correct me I'm wrong but they

Qualify as true dragons(draconomicon states a creature with the dragon type and 12 age categories is a true dragon) allowing them to...No. They gain the dragon type, nothing more. True dragons have increases in power built into their age categories, including increases to ability scores, armor class, damage, hit dice/points, and more. Dragonwrought kobolds do not.


-form dragon pacts: burn hp for gold and spell slots
-use dragon auras: burn spell slots and spells known for constant effects
Xorvintaal template: you lose racial spell casting but gain abilities based of age category (like potentially adding +20 to all of your saves for perspective)
Lore Drake: dragons of ebberon for straight up +2 sor levelNot a true dragon, so no.


-take epic featsSure, at 21 levels and/or hit dice or higher, just like everything else. This isn't due to the kobold being a dragon, though, it's because the Epic Level Handbook explicitly states the only two ways a character can get epic feats. Old true dragons might get a pass but IIRC all true dragons have 21+ HD at old age anyway, so it's a moot point.


Kobold ritual stuff: web enhancement straight up +1 sor levelNothing there requires dragonwrought, just 6+ hit dice, among other things.

[ayvango]

Gain access to [Epic] feats if Old age category or older. Since you're already Venerable for the free stats, this is gravy.

True dragons have no "venerable" entry in age category lists. How should it be projected to true dragons age category scale? Xorvintaal adds +1 insight save for each two age categories. How much bonus would venerable dragonwrought kobold have?

[Nifft]

True dragons have no "venerable" entry in age category lists. How should it be projected to true dragons age category scale? Xorvintaal adds +1 insight save for each two age categories. How much bonus would venerable dragonwrought kobold have?

Dragonwrought Kobolds have humanoid age categories and dragon age categories: their humanoid age category (Venerable) gives them stat boosts, their dragon age category give them access to [Epic] feats.

I'm assuming that humanoid age categories go like: Child, Adolescent, Adult, Middle Age, Old, Venerable -- though only the latter 4 appear in the PHB.

Since they have Ancient Wyrm (for 2x 12) and Venerable (for 2x 6), that bonus could get pretty darn high.

[ayvango]

Dragonwrought Kobolds have humanoid age categories and dragon age categories: their humanoid age category (Venerable) gives them stat boosts, their dragon age category give them access to [Epic] feats.

I'm assuming that humanoid age categories go like: Child, Adolescent, Adult, Middle Age, Old, Venerable -- though only the latter 4 appear in the PHB.

Since they have Ancient Wyrm (for 2x 12) and Venerable (for 2x 6), that bonus could get pretty darn high.
I'm curious how exactly I should read RAW to come to same conclusion.

[Nifft]

I'm curious how exactly I should read RAW to come to same conclusion.

Character X is a Dragonwrought Kobold.

Character X has an age. This age is a number, which we will call N.

Character X is a kobold. To see the effect of aging, look up N on the kobold aging effects table (Races of the Dragon, p.39, table 3-3). The effects are listed as accruing to humanoid age categories, therefore Character X must have a humanoid age category.

Character X is a Dragonwrought Kobold. To see the character's age category, look up N on the kobold age category table (Races of the Dragon, p.39, table 3-2). Character X is a dragon, thanks to the Dragonwrought feat, so this age category is the age category of a dragon. Therefore, this character must have a dragon age category.

Table 3-2 and table 3-3 are literally on the same page. There's no subtle RAW interpretation necessary to see that both must be valid at the same time.

[ayvango]

Therefore, this character must have a dragon age category.
Counter-example. Draconians has type "dragon" but normal age categories. True dragons is subspecies of dragons that have different aging categories.

update: I looked into the Monster Manual, page 308, dragon type. It says nothing about aging. So I believe a dragonwraught kobold would keep his original aging mechanics since newly applied type says nothing about it.

[Nifft]

Counter-example. Draconians has type "dragon" but normal age categories. True dragons is subspecies of dragons that have different aging categories.

The Kobold has draconic age categories because table 3-2 specifically tells you to apply dragon age categories to a kobold.

There's no such table for Draconians, nor text telling you to apply dragon age categories.

The specific text for Kobolds trumps the general text.


You're not presenting a counter example, you're just showing that some non-Kobold isn't important enough to get a special rule. That's fine, since Kobolds are special.

[ayvango]

The Kobold has draconic age categories because table 3-2 specifically tells you to apply dragon age categories to a kobold.
I see. Races of the Dragon kobolds differs greatly from MM1 kobolds.

[Nifft]

I see. Races of the Dragon kobolds differs greatly from MM1 kobolds.

Kobolds vary even more with the web enhancements and UA terrain variants.

More sources, more choices, more power.

Welcome to D&D.

[Baby Gary]

Why do Kobolds get all the love? Did wizards of the coast think "should we give the little lizard man cool features OR ONE OF THE CORE RACES? Yep, lizard man it is" Humans get close to no love in D&D, stop the hate and accept humans into the getting cool features club.

[Gruftzwerg]

Dragonwrought Kobolds have humanoid age categories and dragon age categories

There are no "humanoid age categories"!

Only dragons have "Age Categories"

Anything else has "Age Effects"!

Age Categories != Age Effects

sry, but imho in 3.5 there is a clear distinction between those.

_________________

@topic:

you missed the part where the DM is enforced to make up LA+ advancement for any True Dragon who doesn't have any LA+ so far for the age categories. This may be LA+0 is your DM is nice (which should assume that you are "nice" too ;) or something else the DM sees more fit for a "true dragon" DWK.

So keep in mind to be nice to your DM ;)


_______________
edit:

Why do Kobolds get all the love?
I guess because of Deekin Scalesinger (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Deekin_Scalesinger)
and Tuckers Kobolds (https://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/TuckersKobolds.pdf)
imho it's like their secret mascot or something^^

[jdizzlean]

oh goody,

it's been at least a month since we had the "true dragons/not true dragons" DWK argument that usually lasts 20 pages and changes exactly zero opinions on the matter....

[Deophaun]

Yay, another one. Anyway, to correct an incorrect statement, it is not enough to have age categories. The creature must advance through them.

And since Draconomicon is referenced, there is a nice section under dragons as PCs that explains exactly how that works.

[Raendyn]

The true dragon discussion has been done in this very threat forum many times. And it has (always?) ended with a No as an answer.

Long story short, each creature that is a true dragon has in its monster manual entry " Dragon(True)". Kobolds dragonwrought or otherwise dont. The dragonomicon entry is correct up until its print date, and (ab)using it to make TO superbeasts is sad, And hence the "rulebook @face" thingy. The sage and "ask wizards" also disprooved the true dragon status of kobolds. ppl still cling onto the, books>sage, book>company/writer/support statements. cuz it suits em, that doesnt make it correct though.

And yes i know about that dragon in Sandstorm(?) that is a dragon without having true by its name. 1 typo doesnt make it a rule counterargument :D

[Gruftzwerg]

oh goody,

it's been at least a month since we had the "true dragons/not true dragons" DWK argument that usually lasts 20 pages and changes exactly zero opinions on the matter....

Yeah, I was afraid that the interest might have dropped in the community.. ^^

But sometimes.. just sometimes, a new pieces of info (for me at least) appear in those threads. Not that it would change the outcome of the discussion, but new info is new info. But somehow I feel this one will not be one of the threads. Most people are busy with Christmas now..

[ayvango]

Unfortunate enough, "adult/old/venerable" arent age categories, so you'll need to ignore this line of rules for them to qualify as true dragons.
As Nifft noticed kobold has both age effects and age categories, and when a kobold gets older, he progresses both ranks

[Shalist]

Is there anything I missed? Fill me in on other things, preferably level one'Dragon type' and 11 charisma gets you the 'awaken frightful presence' feat, which seems rather potent for a 1HD (CR 1/8) npc. For best results, multiply by an entire tribe, with a successive small groups of kobolds jump-scaring adventurers into traps.

[Malimar]

Yay, the Dumbest Argument rises again! It's a holiday miracle!

Ok, so here's the deal: kobolds have the relevant 12 age categories, as per RotD, but they don't advance through age categories.

Advancement: By character class

[Nifft]

There are no "humanoid age categories"!

Only dragons have "Age Categories"

Anything else has "Age Effects"!

Age Categories != Age Effects

sry, but imho in 3.5 there is a clear distinction between those.

This sounds like better terminology than I'd been using.

After a quick scan, I can't find anything which would contradict this -- is there anything that would explicitly support it?

Thanks.

[Gruftzwerg]

Yay, the Dumbest Argument rises again! It's a holiday miracle!

Ok, so here's the deal: kobolds have the relevant 12 age categories, as per RotD, but they don't advance through age categories.

That only proves that "regular" Kobolds are disqualified.
Note that a non DW-Kobold is already treated as Dragons for all effects related to race:


(Humanoid (dragonblood, reptilian): Kobolds are human-
oids with the dragonblood and reptilian subtypes. For all
effects related to race, a kobold is considered a dragon.


But may I ask if you have a stat-block for for a DWK anywhere? I guess not. So you can't be sure of that (they are treated as regular Kobolds with their Advancement).

Further Draconomicon adds for "Other True Dragons":

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

LA isn't a requirement to be a True Dragon, they get it for free if they don't have it.
That's why I said, be nice to the DM if you want him to set the LA on all age categories for DWK to LA+0 which is an valid option.
But he could also give you any other LA from any other dragon as he sees it fit, destroying any of the OP DWK builds and turning the DWK into a "Regular True Dragon" who just has wasted a feat to become what other True Dragons are just by choosing the right race and without wasting the feat..^^
It's all up to the DM interpretation if he wants DWK cheese or not.

[Nifft]

It's all up to the DM interpretation if he wants DWK cheese or not.

In my games, this is an in-setting debate.

Kobolds of course claim they are True Dragons.

Non-kobold True Dragons tend to be on the other side.

The universe sometimes permits Dragonwrought Kobolds to accrue the benefits of being a True Dragon, but not always. (The universe does so when the universe would tend to find it funny.)

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Dragon Magic page 87 is the most recently published source that weighs in on the matter, on page 87:
"...a true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon)."

There is no clear RAW that says dragonwrought kobolds are not true dragons. They absolutely do meet (or do not clearly not meet) all the actual qualifications for a true dragon. It's ultimately up to a given DM on whether or not they do qualify.

Instead of splitting hairs, I believe this thread was originally intended to discuss what's possible under the presumption that they do qualify as true dragons, not to nitpick about that qualification itself.


The Web Enhancement (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060420a) includes natural attacks, slight build, and a few other benefits. I especially like Slight Build when DMing, as they can squeeze through very small tunnels (a 15-inch diameter hole) which PCs will have no chance of pursuing them into.

A Dragonwrought Kobold Dracolich Warrior 1 with two flaws for Epic Toughness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#epicToughness) twice has 72 hp, AC 19 (chain shirt), SR 16, DR 5/Bludgeoning, a paralyzing gaze, gets three attacks per round each of which causes paralysis, and is only CR 1.

[ayvango]

The universe sometimes permits Dragonwrought Kobolds to accrue the benefits of being a True Dragon, but not always. (The universe does so when the universe would tend to find it funny.)
Are there any non-xorvintaal DWK in the universe? I could not see any drawback in sacrificing non-existing innate spell-casting for a few bonuses.

[Deophaun]

Dragon Magic page 87 is the most recently published source
Which means nothing, as date published is not a factor in source primacy.

[Nifft]

Are there any non-xorvintaal DWK in the universe? I could not see any drawback in sacrificing non-existing innate spell-casting for a few bonuses.

Are there any Xorvintaal anything in my games?

[Hellpyre]

Are there any non-xorvintaal DWK in the universe? I could not see any drawback in sacrificing non-existing innate spell-casting for a few bonuses.

It's probably unusual for a kobold to commit to xorvintaal as a young adult, so I would expect fluffwise most wouldn't be. Especially if the universe is capricious about the status of DWKs.

[Nifft]

It's probably unusual for a kobold to commit to xorvintaal as a young adult, so I would expect fluffwise most wouldn't be. Especially if the universe is capricious about the status of DWKs.

The optimal PC DWK might not take level 1 in a class before gaining the Venerable bonus to Int, so doing anything as a young adult might be taboo.

[Vaern]

Everyone is free to mix that little homebrew in there, but the rules don't support it that way. That was his own addition to the rules.
The table for kobold age categories is given in Races of the Dragon ranging from wyrmling to great wyrm along with the ages for which they qualify for each age category, specifically stating that kobolds use the same life cycle as dragons but mature and age much more rapidly.

[Adrunkpotato5]

Are there any non-xorvintaal DWK in the universe? I could not see any drawback in sacrificing non-existing innate spell-casting for a few bonuses.

The drawback is there are a bunch of real dragons playing the game with you and they don't want to compete with you. Taking the xorvintaal template means the GM has an infinite number of reasons to intervene with a killer dragon.

[Doctor Despair]

I've had my eye on dragonwrought kobolds for a while and I've been tallying up what they can do. Correct me I'm wrong but they...

-take epic feats


As I recall, the text discussing taking epic feats as a dragon never specifically says that it applies only to true dragons. It does say that it applies to dragons, however, so all dragons that are the appropriate age category can take epic feats regardless of which side of the fence you land on the "True Dragon DWK" debate.

[Deophaun]

As I recall, the text discussing taking epic feats as a dragon never specifically says that it applies only to true dragons.
It's in Draconomicon, which states in a sidebar in the introduction that it is "mostly" concerned with true dragons. I take this to mean that normal references to dragons in that book should be read as respecting only true dragons. YMMV.

[Mato]

I've had my eye on dragonwrought kobolds for a while and I've been tallying up what they can do.It won't help. Within a week or two someone else will just post a question/assumption anyway. Just like yours.


Correct me I'm wrongOk.


Advancement and Aging
A dragon PC begins at a specified age (in accordance with the current party level in the campaign) and gains character levels as the player wishes over the course of its adventures. As it ages from wyrmling to juvenile, a true dragon’s level adjustment varies between +2 and +6, depending on the age and dragon variety. For a dragon PC, the dragon’s Hit Dice and class levels plus this level adjustment is its effective character level (ECL). For a starting character of juvenile or younger age, this ECL is somewhere between 5 and 20.
As it ages, as shown on Table 3–21: Aging for Dragon PCs, the dragon is required to devote a level every few years to its dragon “class,” reflecting the extra Hit Die or level adjustment it gains from aging. The character must add this dragon level as the first level it gains after reaching an age shown on the table. It gains no benefit from reaching a new age category until it attains this level.

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, so after the character begins play there is no reason to advance the character as a monster again. For example, a wyvern character, with a level adjustment of +4 and 7 Hit Dice, has an ECL of 11 and joins a party of 11th-level characters to adventure. The wyvern continues advancing as a character, just like the other characters in the party.

[Gruftzwerg]

@Mato
you forgot the part that enforces the DM to make LA tables for those"other true dragons" that don't have it so far. LA ain't a requirement for beeing a true dragon, it's a free giveaway for true dragons.
The DM needs to make LA-age category tables for DWK.
He can set em all to LA+0 if he wants or enforce any other values he sees fitting for DWK.

LA doesn't help with DWK beeing true or not. so try again ;)

[Mato]

LA doesn't help with DWK beeing true or not. so try again ;)I don't think you understand given your excessive hubris, why would I need to try again?

The DM needs to make LA-age category tables for DWK.According to your circular logic, the DWK is already a true dragon. And because of that, as you've just admitted, the DM needs to make up unprinted house rules that allow a DWK to be a true dragon.

And I can't think of a better short summery of this decade long debate than the last two posts either.

[Malimar]

That only proves that "regular" Kobolds are disqualified.
Note that a non DW-Kobold is already treated as Dragons for all effects related to race:

But may I ask if you have a stat-block for for a DWK anywhere? I guess not. So you can't be sure of that (they are treated as regular Kobolds with their Advancement).
Feats don't change anything they don't say they change. Advancement remains the same because the feat doesn't say it changes it. The claim that this feat changes advancement is unsupported by the text.

[daremetoidareyo]

The drawback is there are a bunch of real dragons playing the game with you and they don't want to compete with you. Taking the xorvintaal template means the GM has an infinite number of reasons to intervene with a killer dragon.

Just get a chaotic Dragon to take you under his wing until you get good.

[Nifft]

According to your circular logic, the DWK is already a true dragon. And because of that, as you've just admitted, the DM needs to make up unprinted house rules that allow a DWK to be a true dragon.

Not that guy but that's not what he said at all.

LA is not a necessary ingredient for a creature to exist.

LA is a necessary ingredient for a powerful race that the DM allows as a PC.

Draconomicon says that any True Dragon which is allowed as a PC but which lacks a table showing LA per age category should have one drawn up by the DM.


Nobody says kobolds are ~forced~ to be a legal PC race. After all, they're from a monster book, just like all the other True Dragons.

But if you're using the Draconomicon and you want to allow Kobold PCs, then the DM is encouraged do what the book says and write up an LA-by-age-category table.

[Gruftzwerg]

I don't think you understand given your excessive hubris, why would I need to try again?
According to your circular logic, the DWK is already a true dragon. And because of that, as you've just admitted, the DM needs to make up unprinted house rules that allow a DWK to be a true dragon.

As Nifft has already pointed out, I was referring to:


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

I didn't admitted anything. I just thought that you would have read the "other true dragons" part which is right before the "lesser Dragon PC" on the same page as your quote..^^
Or at least page1 of this thread where I already quoted it..

It's nothing homebrew or even optional, the DM is enforced to that by RAW.

[Bartmanhomer]

*I'm eating popcorn while watching everybody arguing the most most funniest argument in this thread.*

[Gruftzwerg]

*I'm eating popcorn while watching everybody arguing the most most funniest argument in this thread.*

you're welcome =)
I enjoy these threads too. Almost everybody walks in and thinks he knows the outcome, just to find out how their believes have no ground in RAW (as seen with the Advancement/LA per age category argument..^^).


*btw, I prefer my popcorn salty*

[Bartmanhomer]

you're welcome =)
I enjoy these threads too. Almost everybody walks in and thinks he knows the outcome, just to find out how their believes have no ground in RAW (as seen with the Advancement/LA per age category argument..^^).


*btw, I prefer my popcorn salty*
Do you prefer regular salt or low-sodium salt?

[Gruftzwerg]

Do you prefer regular salt or low-sodium salt?

Regular salt. I don't believe in those pseudo healthy food ingredients. And IIRC low-sodium salt isn't even classified as food. Should give you something to thing about ;)
More fat & more salt is my way to cook. We Turkish people tend to overdose with salt & spices and are still all healthy ;)

[Bartmanhomer]

Regular salt. I don't believe in those pseudo healthy food ingredients. And IIRC low-sodium salt isn't even classified as food. Should give you something to thing about ;)
More fat & more salt is my way to cook. We Turkish people tend to overdose with salt & spices and are still all healthy ;)
Here your regular salt, dude. *I give a container of regular salt to Gruftzwerg.*

[Promethean]

Am now curious what a decent LA by Age Category chart for DWK would look like. Not to mention the fact that a DWK Can't actually use half of the cheese available to true dragons without additional "dragon" templates like Dragonspawn or Half-Dragon. Epic feats at old age also aren't worth much if your campaign setting doesn't use the Epic Level Handbook and caps off at ECL 20.

[Doctor Awkward]

Dragonwrought kobolds are not true dragons. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?511319-Dragonwrought-Kobolds&p=21598469#post21598469)

See the entirety of that thread for further details.

The short version: If the Dragonwrought feat made kobolds true dragons, it would say so explicitly in the feat description. Because that's how the rules work. Since it doesn't, they aren't.

[Promethean]

Dragonwrought kobolds are not true dragons. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?511319-Dragonwrought-Kobolds&p=21598469#post21598469)

See the entirety of that thread for further details.

The short version: If the Dragonwrought feat made kobolds true dragons, it would say so explicitly in the feat description. Because that's how the rules work. Since it doesn't, they aren't.

Eh, I really don't think it can be argued that they are. They have no Breath Weapon, Innate Spellcasting/psionics, innate Special Abilities, Frightful Presence or naturally growing stats/Racial HD. They don't qualify for 90% of the things afforded to true dragons off that fact alone. So for build purposes they need More "dragon" templates stacked on top of them to qualify.

Honestly undermines what I thought the original purpose of DWK was, that Kobolds weren't dragons, but were trying to realize their lost heritage Become Dragons. Which I find would be a great reason for a kobolds to strive for certain for that in play(Without taking things exclusive for dragons mind you, but actually look for some ancient magic that'd allow him to become a dragon).

For the purpose of said player I'd add things from that old encyclopedia arcane book on dragons. One Thing I liked and think would fit is the dragon ascendancy system, where a character trades xp and sorcerer spell slots to acquire draconic features they temporarily manifest at first, but become more innate as they acquire more and make them permanent. Combine that with dragon-pacts in Dragon Magic(WOTC), Dragon Exarcts(MMV), Dragon Vassals(Bestiary of Krynn, Revised), and Dragonspawn(Bestiary of Krynn, Revised) and you have an in story reason for your Players kobold(and all kobolds in general) too seek out a dragon master to aid their ascention. At the end of the adventure(Level 20) I thing I'd actually have the dragon NPC crown the creature as a respected member of the race, Thus transforming the lvl20 character into a 20HD adult dragon.

[Bartmanhomer]

*I stop eating my popcorn for a second.*

Ok, I'm going to say something. First of all Dragonwrought Kobolds are definitely not true dragons. They have no bloodlines or any connections of True Dragons. They're replitians. I don't know who started this silly debate but it's been going on forever. Ok I'm done finished talking.

*I continue to finished eating my popcorn.* :biggrin:

[daremetoidareyo]

Dragonwrought kobolds are not true dragons. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?511319-Dragonwrought-Kobolds&p=21598469#post21598469)

See the entirety of that thread for further details.

The short version: If the Dragonwrought feat made kobolds true dragons, it would say so explicitly in the feat description. Because that's how the rules work. Since it doesn't, they aren't.

That's the thread that convinced me that kobolds aren't true dragons. It's a painstaking read through.

[Promethean]

*I stop eating my popcorn for a second.*

Ok, I'm going to say something. First of all Dragonwrought Kobolds are definitely not true dragons. They have no bloodlines or any connections of True Dragons. They're replitians. I don't know who started this silly debate but it's been going on forever. Ok I'm done finished talking.

*I continue to finished eating my popcorn.* :biggrin:

While they definitely aren't true dragons, I'd definitely argue against them haven't no connection. They're treated as dragons rather than humaniods for the purpose of spell effects, Have multiple draconics rites for unlocking sorcerer related powers, and the dragonwrought feat changes their type to dragon, so while they don't qualify as True Dragons they're definitely descendant from them in some way. Like how a silverbrow human is descendant from silver dragons.

[Nifft]

True Kobolds > True Dragons, which are clearly just bigger, slower Kobolds.

Facts:
- The average True Kobold has more Sorcerer casting capacity per HD than the average True Dragon.
- A True Kobold can become Pun-Pun; a True Dragon can become a pair of high-end boots and a matching handbag.
- True Kobolds got a book which makes them more awesome as PCs; all True Dragons have gotten are books which make them more interesting encounters.

We all know what happens when PCs meet an encounter -- the PCs tend to walk out with a lot of loot, including body parts. The dragon tends to die like a female yeth hound.

[Bartmanhomer]

While they definitely aren't true dragons, I'd definitely argue against them haven't no connection. They're treated as dragons rather than humaniods for the purpose of spell effects, Have multiple draconics rites for unlocking sorcerer related powers, and the dragonwrought feat changes their type to dragon, so while they don't qualify as True Dragons they're definitely descendant from them in some way. Like how a silverbrow human is descendant from silver dragons.Ok. You got me there.

[Luccan]

Why do Kobolds get all the love? Did wizards of the coast think "should we give the little lizard man cool features OR ONE OF THE CORE RACES? Yep, lizard man it is" Humans get close to no love in D&D, stop the hate and accept humans into the getting cool features club.

To be fair, they get presented as a valid PC option in most books (because even Wizards realized that they weren't threatening to unbalance the game with *gasp* AC+1 and 30ft movement as a Small creature). Every race got to share a "Races of..." book, but since kobolds got an option to be dragons in theirs, it's less that "kobolds get all the nice things" and more "kobolds get kobold things and some get dragon things". Seriously, without Dragonwrought, you're looking at the above mentioned benefits, a -4 total stat change regardless of subrace, the ability to act as Tiny in a limited number of circumstances (useful, but not breaking), crappy natural weapons, darkvision, light sensitivity, and of course, picks. You can get a couple cool racial feats, but beyond that, Dragonwrought (and thus being a dragon) is where the true power of a kobold lay. Without it (and even with it, depending on what books you're using), there isn't too much more than most other races (and I would say probably less than most).

Plus, if you're concerned about the web enhancement, it literally exists because they wanted to make playing as the scaly underdogs more appealing and on a more equal footing without dipping into your feats. I'd say the most disappointing thing is that kobolds probably took up some room that could've been given to giving full-blooded orcs more specific options or goblinoids any specific options.

Also, humans already get some of the best +0 LA racial features in the game and several unique and useful feats.

[Gruftzwerg]

Dragonwrought kobolds are not true dragons. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?511319-Dragonwrought-Kobolds&p=21598469#post21598469)

See the entirety of that thread for further details.

The short version: If the Dragonwrought feat made kobolds true dragons, it would say so explicitly in the feat description. Because that's how the rules work. Since it doesn't, they aren't.

I'll quote some of your linked text and add my answers to it:


The Draconomicon states in no uncertain terms that there exist true dragons and lesser dragons. A true dragon will be explicitly called out as such. If it is not, it is a lesser dragon. Anything else is speculation.
And we have a rule for lesser dragons, that they lack the dragon age categories.. see where this is going?^^



Is not how the rules were ever intended to be read. Every single creature has age categories, if you want to count Middle, Old, Venerable, and Maximum as such.

Sry, but nope. Every creature has "Age/Aging Effects"(!), but only true dragons have "dragon age categories".

Aging Effects (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#age)!= Dragon Age Categories (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm)

Complete different things.


* btw, nice that you joined the discussion. I was already missing you and hoped you would join =)

[Deophaun]

My favorite DWK character was convinced that he was indeed a true dragon. He was a Dragonfire Adept and made copious use of the humanoid shape evocation because in his mind it suppressed his fearsome presence, which was so powerful that it broke the minds of lesser creatures, causing them to mistake the majestic dragon in front of them for a lowly lizardrat. He needed his minions with their faculties intact, so it took a few adventures before any other party member realized what he actually was.

[Doctor Awkward]

And we have a rule for lesser dragons, that they lack the dragon age categories.. see where this is going?^^

Nowhere.

A dragon is a true dragon if it is explicitly called as such in the rules.
If it is not called as such, then per those same rules it is automatically a lesser dragon.

All other similarities are irrelevant.

[Luccan]

Nowhere.

A dragon is a true dragon if it is explicitly called as such in the rules.
If it is not called as such, then per those same rules it is automatically a lesser dragon.

All other similarities are irrelevant.

While not their angle, that's what I read their point as. They seems to say a dragonwrought kobold does not have true dragon age categories and is thus not a true dragon.

[Gruftzwerg]

Nowhere.

A dragon is a true dragon if it is explicitly called as such in the rules.
If it is not called as such, then per those same rules it is automatically a lesser dragon.

All other similarities are irrelevant.

Would you be so kind to point me to where that rule is? That they have to be called out as such (TD) explicitly?

In the meanwhile have a look at this:



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

Since DWK have those age categories and advance thru em, they are automatically disqualified as "lesser dragons", and thus only "true dragon" is left if I follow base logic..
Keep in mind that you get Advancement for free as true dragon and that it isn't a requirement.

There are no lesser dragons with age categories. Imho "Dragon Age Categories" are the sole requirement that all other "true dragons" share. For everything else like appearance, we have enough example of true dragons that don't fit that kind of description.

[Doctor Awkward]

Would you be so kind to point me to where that rule is? That they have to be called out as such (TD) explicitly?
The exact same page as the rule you just quoted.


Since DWK have those age categories and advance thru em, they are automatically disqualified as "lesser dragons", and thus only "true dragon" is left if I follow base logic..
Keep in mind that you get Advancement for free as true dragon and that it isn't a requirement.

There are no lesser dragons with age categories. Imho "Dragon Age Categories" are the sole requirement that all other "true dragons" share. For everything else like appearance, we have enough example of true dragons that don't fit that kind of description.

Kobolds do not advance through age categories.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/kobold.htm
As their monster entry clearly states, they advance "By character class".
The Dragonwrought feat does not change this. It changes only the things that it says it changes, namely their typing (to dragon), and adding a few features and abilities that are common among draconic creatures.

[Deophaun]

Keep in mind that you get Advancement for free as true dragon and that it isn't a requirement.
It's funny, but my dictionary had this exact quote next to the entry for circular reasoning.

[Vaern]

They have no bloodlines or any connections of True Dragons.
When Io offered the secret of creating life to the first true dragons, each of them severed a limb and kobolds coalesced from their spilt blood. So, one might say that they are bloodlines of true dragons. Literally.

[Nifft]

Kobolds do not advance through age categories.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/kobold.htm
As their monster entry clearly states, they advance "By character class". You need to apply the Races of the Dragon update:


https://i.imgur.com/8aAOqOk.jpg




The Dragonwrought feat does not change this. Correct, it's Races of the Dragon which changes all Kobolds to use the same 12 Age Categories as all True Dragons do.

However, regular Kobolds are humanoids -- they're not the Dragon type, so they can't be True Dragons.

The Dragonwrought feat changes the type of some Kobolds to Dragon.

Dragon type + 12 Age Categories => True Dragon.

Or so the ancient prophecy seems to imply.

[Deophaun]

You need to apply the Races of the Dragon update
Which still does not give them advancement. For the umpteenth time simply having age categories is not sufficient. So you can talk about them having age categories, or possessing age categories, or being given age categories, or having gone to Costco and gotten a great deal on age categories all you want, and it will never matter because they do not advance through them.

[umbergod]

And here I thought this matter, and "dread sorcerers" had finally been put to rest on here. Time is a circle dammit

[lylsyly]

And here I thought this matter, and "dread sorcerers" had finally been put to rest on here. Time is a circle dammit

You are kidding, aren't you, LOL. And since you mentioned "him" he will probably pop up.

This is what settled it for me a few debates ago.
The most important difference between the two, however, is that kobolds are cold-blooded creatures, and dragons are warmblooded.

[Nifft]

This is what settled it for me a few debates ago.

But Dragonwrought Kobolds are both kobolds and dragons.

Therefore, Dragonwrought Kobolds are both cold-blooded and warm-blooded.

[Luccan]

But Dragonwrought Kobolds are both kobolds and dragons.

Therefore, Dragonwrought Kobolds are both cold-blooded and warm-blooded.

They're hot and they're cold? So are they both yes and they're no? Are they wrong when it's right?

[Celestia]

This is what settled it for me a few debates ago.
Really? I mean, really? This isn't some sort of joke? Now, I'm not going to weigh in on either side of this debate, but I simply must address this because it is wrong in so many ways.

First, and most importantly, there are no mechanical definitions or rules about blood warmth. How in the world can something that is purely fluff have any sway on mechanics? That'd be like trying to claim that my character is proficient in longswords because she really likes them. Or that she can cast Time Stop at will because of something in her backstory. Whether or not dragons are warm-blooded and kobold are cold-blooded is entirely irrelevant to anything because there are no rules for it.

Secondly, all dragons are warm-blooded, not just the "true" ones, so how in the world does that serve to define true dragons? What's your next great argument? "True dragons are immune to paralysis and kobolds aren't?" Christ.

Third, being warm-blooded isn't unique to dragons, true or otherwise, making it even more worthless as a defining characteristic. You may as well say that one of the requirements to be a true dragon is having two eyes. At least you'll be able to know for sure that monstrous spiders aren't true dragons then.

Fourth, who's to say that dragonwrought kobolds aren't warm-blooded? They aren't reptiles anymore, not really. They just look like reptiles, like dragons. Plus, as said above, all dragons are warm-blooded, so why would dragonwrought kobolds be any different? They are also declared to be the direct descendents of metallic or chromatic dragons and have enough of that dragonblood to be, you know, dragons. Dragonblood is warm, ergo, kobold dragonblood is warm. And trying to declare that the feat does not change the warmth level of the blood because it doesn't say it does is not only a pointless non-sequitur seeped in willful ignorance, but it is obviously wrong. A change in creature type must necessarily change discreet biological aspects. You wouldn't try claiming that a ghoul is still warm-blooded on the basis that nothing says they aren't, would you?

So ultimately, this is not only one of the most asinine arguments I've ever heard, it's not even correct.

[Nifft]

Really? I mean, really? This isn't some sort of joke? Now, I'm not going to weigh in on either side of this debate, but I simply must address this because it is wrong in so many ways.

First, and most importantly, there are no mechanical definitions or rules about blood warmth. How in the world can something that is purely fluff have any sway on mechanics? That'd be like trying to claim that my character is proficient in longswords because she really likes them. Or that she can cast Time Stop at will because of something in her backstory. Whether or not dragons are warm-blooded and kobold are cold-blooded is entirely irrelevant to anything because there are no rules for it.

Secondly, all dragons are warm-blooded, not just the "true" ones, so how in the world does that serve to define true dragons? What's your next great argument? "True dragons are immune to paralysis and kobolds aren't?" Christ.

Third, being warm-blooded isn't unique to dragons, true or otherwise, making it even more worthless as a defining characteristic. You may as well say that one of the requirements to be a true dragon is having two eyes. At least you'll be able to know for sure that monstrous spiders aren't true dragons then.

Fourth, who's to say that dragonwrought kobolds aren't warm-blooded? They aren't reptiles anymore, not really. They just look like reptiles, like dragons. Plus, as said above, all dragons are warm-blooded, so why would dragonwrought kobolds be any different? They are also declared to be the direct descendents of metallic or chromatic dragons and have enough of that dragonblood to be, you know, dragons. Dragonblood is warm, ergo, kobold dragonblood is warm. And trying to declare that the feat does not change the warmth level of the blood because it doesn't say it does is not only a pointless non-sequitur seeped in willful ignorance, but it is obviously wrong. A change in creature type must necessarily change discreet biological aspects. You wouldn't try claiming that a ghoul is still warm-blooded on the basis that nothing says they aren't, would you?

So ultimately, this is not only one of the most asinine arguments I've ever heard, it's not even correct.

Aw, man.

I was this close to convincing ghostshadow that humans are all True Dragons.

[lylsyly]

Aw, man.

I was this close to convincing ghostshadow that humans are all True Dragons.

They Are?

Yes, I decided at my table that they ARE NOT true dragons based on a piece of fluff, precisely because I was stuck in the middle and couldn't get out.

[Nifft]

They Are? Yes, humans are warm-blooded, and you said that's your criteria.


Yes, I decided at my table that they ARE NOT true dragons based on a piece of fluff, precisely because I was stuck in the middle and couldn't get out. But again, that fluff doesn't apply to kobolds who are dragons.

Humanoid kobolds are cold-blooded humanoids (and they are not dragons, therefore disqualified from being True Dragons).

Dragonwrought kobolds are dragons, and therefore... what kind of blood?

[umbergod]

You are kidding, aren't you, LOL. And since you mentioned "him" he will probably pop up.

This is what settled it for me a few debates ago.

If hewhomustnotbenamed shows up, itd serve us right bc we still have threads like this >.>

[ayvango]

what kind of blood?
Elemental energy flows through veins of dragons.

[Bartmanhomer]

*I finished eating my popcorn.*

This is got to be the most funniest thread that I ever read. :biggrin:

[Doctor Awkward]

You need to apply the Races of the Dragon update:


https://i.imgur.com/8aAOqOk.jpg



Correct, it's Races of the Dragon which changes all Kobolds to use the same 12 Age Categories as all True Dragons do.

However, regular Kobolds are humanoids -- they're not the Dragon type, so they can't be True Dragons.

The Dragonwrought feat changes the type of some Kobolds to Dragon.

Dragon type + 12 Age Categories => True Dragon.

Or so the ancient prophecy seems to imply.


Actually, no, kobolds do not use the same age categories as true dragons according to the picture provided.

True dragons use the following table for age categories, found in Monster Manual I, pg. 68, and also here on the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm):
http://i64.tinypic.com/1izwp3.jpg
As you can see, that table is titled "Dragon Age Categories", while the one from Races of the Dragon is titled "Kobold Age Categories". Also note a rather large difference in the span of each category.


...But I don't even need to get that pedantic to demonstrate why you are incorrect.

As Deophaun noted, there is a large difference between simply having age categories and "Advancing" through them, as is defined by the rules.

The concept of advancement is discussed exactly once in the Player's Handbook on page 58, under the heading "Level Advancement", which explains the changes that are made whenever a character gains a new level (Choosing a class, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, class features, etc.).

According to the sidebar on page 207 of the Dungeon Master's Guide, rules for advancing monsters can be found in the Monster Manual. The guidelines in that book for Improving Monsters state several times that monsters typically advance through their noted "Advancement" line in their respective monster entries (obviously noting that the DM is generally free to do whatever they want).

As is noted in this link (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm), certain monsters are capable of advancing by simply increasing their racial hit dice. And any additional abilities gained beyond the general increases their hit dice provide are noted in their individual entries (as is the case for all true dragons).

Do you get the difference now? In other words, if your dragon-type monster does not have tables that look like this:
http://i66.tinypic.com/301395j.jpg
...then it doesn't advance through age categories, and isn't a true dragon.

Show me anything remotely similar to that table for dragonwrought kobolds, and I will happily concede the argument that they are true dragons.

[daremetoidareyo]

Can I changeling with the racial emulation feat take dragonwrought and apply the true dragon subtype?

[Mato]

Not that guy but that's not what he said at all.Yes it is. The section he spoke of is for other true dragons, which means to use those rules he must first prove the kobold is a true dragon and that's the part neither of you understand.

Tony has a nice post on this he already linked to. Here is part of it.

This is the major problem with Camp A at this point: too many people have become so set in their interpretation as being the only correct one, that they are becoming tunnel-visioned on every possible scrap of information that could possibly be interpreted to support their presupposed conclusion, no matter how much context must be ignored and clear intent must be dismissed to make it so.And before you think that doesn't apply to you at all, I want you to reread this section over and over again until you are able to admit to your self what you did.

LA is not a necessary ingredient for a creature to exist.Because the last two quotes from the book proved that LA is such a necessary ingredient that you have already accepted it as truth even as you deny it. That's why you claimed the DM must add LA to kobolds.

But between you and me, I'm glad you think DWKs should be assigned up to +6 for their level adjustment. Because that's what that other entry does.



In the meanwhile have a look at this:


Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance
through age categories are referred to as lesser dragonsNothing I mentioned before disagrees with this, it simply partially extends on what that sentence means. And as it happens, you don't like what that entry means so you don't want any extra explanations and will ignore any provided to you. So, why are you here again?

[Boggartbae]

Really? I mean, really? This isn't some sort of joke? Now, I'm not going to weigh in on either side of this debate, but I simply must address this because it is wrong in so many ways.

First, and most importantly, there are no mechanical definitions or rules about blood warmth. How in the world can something that is purely fluff have any sway on mechanics? That'd be like trying to claim that my character is proficient in longswords because she really likes them. Or that she can cast Time Stop at will because of something in her backstory. Whether or not dragons are warm-blooded and kobold are cold-blooded is entirely irrelevant to anything because there are no rules for it.

For the record, I am firmly in the "Dragonwraught Kobolds are True Dragons" camp, because it's the best camp, but, just FYI, there is actually a mechanical effect of being endo/exothermic.

From RotD, PG 39:
"Being a cold-blooded humanoid has advantages and dis- advantages. Warm temperatures are comfortable to kobolds, who can sustain their bodies by literally soaking up heat. A kobold who inhabits a region with a temperature of 40°F or above for 24 hours can go for another three days after that time before having to eat normally. The downside is that kobolds feel the cold more profoundly. Sudden chilling temperatures, such as being struck by a cone of cold spell, do not affect kobolds more than normal, but prolonged cold increases their need for sustenance. After inhabiting a region with a temperature below 40°F for more than three days, kobolds must consistently consume three times as much food per day than is normal for their size."

So if your DM ever runs a desert campaign, play a kobold!

Also, is there anyway we could stop arguing, and just discuss the various options available to Dragonwraught Kobolds as though they were True Dragons, AS STATED IN THE OP? like seriously, this thread did not need to turn into an argument.

[Gruftzwerg]

Actually, no, kobolds do not use the same age categories as true dragons according to the picture provided.

True dragons use the following table for age categories, found in Monster Manual I, pg. 68, and also here on the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm):
http://i64.tinypic.com/1izwp3.jpg
As you can see, that table is titled "Dragon Age Categories", while the one from Races of the Dragon is titled "Kobold Age Categories". Also note a rather large difference in the span of each category.


...But I don't even need to get that pedantic to demonstrate why you are incorrect.

As Deophaun noted, there is a large difference between simply having age categories and "Advancing" through them, as is defined by the rules.

The concept of advancement is discussed exactly once in the Player's Handbook on page 58, under the heading "Level Advancement", which explains the changes that are made whenever a character gains a new level (Choosing a class, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, class features, etc.).

According to the sidebar on page 207 of the Dungeon Master's Guide, rules for advancing monsters can be found in the Monster Manual. The guidelines in that book for Improving Monsters state several times that monsters typically advance through their noted "Advancement" line in their respective monster entries (obviously noting that the DM is generally free to do whatever they want).

As is noted in this link (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm), certain monsters are capable of advancing by simply increasing their racial hit dice. And any additional abilities gained beyond the general increases their hit dice provide are noted in their individual entries (as is the case for all true dragons).

Do you get the difference now? In other words, if your dragon-type monster does not have tables that look like this:
http://i66.tinypic.com/301395j.jpg
...then it doesn't advance through age categories, and isn't a true dragon.

Show me anything remotely similar to that table for dragonwrought kobolds, and I will happily concede the argument that they are true dragons.

It doesn't need to look like that, cause the text for that table says (on the same page if you bothered to read the paragraph for that table..)

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

1) Specific trumps general. Kobold Age Categories still count as Dragon Age Categories.

2) The text talks about advancing thru your age categories. It's a simple verb and not the defined "Advancement". It's just simple advancing from one age category to the next. Or did you ever read something like "when you powerattack/teleport/fireball.." to refer to an explicit ability? No, 3.5 makes always exact use of the defined words when referring to them. e.g. "when you use Power Attack/ Teleport/Fireball...".

3) Advancement can't be a requirement to be a true dragon, when every true dragon who doesn't has it becomes it for free. Imho base logic. Otherwise that rule wouldn't make any sense and would never apply.
So if you are missing those tables, Draconomicon P144 - "Other True Dragons" enforces the DM to tailor em for DWK. The lack of the table can't disqualify you from being a true dragon. It can only prove that you are one, if you already have it.

Imho you think that the rule is " true dragons need Advancement for their age categories", but that ain't the chase here.
All you need is to "advance thru age categories" which is not the defined term you are looking for. It's "advance" like in processing thru your age categories, from one category to the next. Just the normal verb form of the word and therefor not the defined "Advancement".

advance & advancing != the defined "Advancement"

[Doctor Awkward]

1) Specific trumps general. Kobold Age Categories still count as Dragon Age Categories.

That's not what "Specific trumps general" means. Specific trumps general refers to the game rules being an exception-based system, in which there are defined a set of general truths, and then specific exceptions that break the general rules as noted (I.E.: A rapier's entry states that it is useable with the Weapon Finesse feat, even though the feat states that it can normally only be used with light weapons.)

If Kobold Age Categories were meant to count as Dragon Age Categories, then the text would explicitly say that.

...Again, not that this even matters, since kobolds, dragonwrought or otherwise, do not advance through age categories like true dragons do.


2) The text talks about advancing thru your age categories. It's a simple verb and not the defined "Advancement". It's just simple advancing from one age category to the next. Or did you ever read something like "when you powerattack/teleport/fireball.." to refer to an explicit ability? No, 3.5 makes always exact use of the defined words when referring to them. e.g. "when you use Power Attack/ Teleport/Fireball...".

...I'm trying to be understanding of the language barrier here, but none of this makes a lick of sense.

For one thing, I can't think of a single instance when the rules don't say "Power Attack" within the explicit context of the feat, such as the Frenzied Berserker ("+3 bonus on her melee damage rolls for every –2 penalty she takes on her melee attack rolls when using the Power Attack feat"), or Leap Attack ("you can double the extra damage dealt by your use of the Power Attack feat."), or Awesome Smite ("This feat allows the use of three tactical maneuvers, each of which requires that you make a smite attack while using the Power Attack feat"). And that's just off of the top of my head.

For another thing, every single time the game references any specific spell, it always... always... does so by stating "when casting <spell name>". There is no need at that point to explicitly call them "spells", because you don't cast anything in D&D except for spells.


3) Advancement can't be a requirement to be a true dragon, when every true dragon who doesn't has it becomes it for free. Imho base logic. Otherwise that rule wouldn't make any sense and would never apply.
So if you are missing those tables, Draconomicon P144 - "Other True Dragons" enforces the DM to tailor em for DWK. The lack of the table can't disqualify you from being a true dragon. It can only prove that you are one, if you already have it.

Imho you think that the rule is " true dragons need Advancement for their age categories", but that ain't the chase here.
All you need is to "advance thru age categories" which is not the defined term you are looking for. It's "advance" like in processing thru your age categories, from one category to the next. Just the normal verb form of the word and therefor not the defined "Advancement".

advance & advancing != the defined "Advancement"

Prove it.

No... really.

Provide any and all text which specifically backs up this claim. The exact words themselves, from the Draconomicon or anywhere else, which say anything even tangentially related to, "when we say 'advancing through age categories', we are not talking about 'Advancement' as defined in the Monster Manual, but rather something else".

Prove that this is not solely your personal interpretation. Prove that the rules specifically back up your claim, not just that they are in places a little vague and could maybe be read in such a way as to not specifically forbid your claim.

Because if you can't do that, you aren't arguing Rules As Written. You are arguing Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, So There!

To which, I will repeat Mato's question: Why are you still here?

[Doctor Awkward]

Also, is there anyway we could stop arguing, and just discuss the various options available to Dragonwraught Kobolds as though they were True Dragons, AS STATED IN THE OP? like seriously, this thread did not need to turn into an argument.

The OP said this:


I've had my eye on dragonwrought kobolds for a while and I've been tallying up what they can do. Correct me I'm wrong but they

Qualify as true dragons(draconomicon states a creature with the dragon type and 12 age categories is a true dragon) allowing them to...

He asked to be corrected if he was wrong.

He was wrong.

He is thus being corrected.

[Boggartbae]

The OP said this:

He asked to be corrected if he was wrong.

He was wrong.

He is thus being corrected.

I honestly don't think that THIS is what they wanted. As has been stated many times before, this has been argued already countless times. Everything that has been contributed to this thread is absolutely useless.

Y'all could have only included things that apply to dragons, or prefaced True Dragon only options with their prereqs, so that people could choose how to apply it in their games, but no, y'all decided to be massively obtuse and conceited.

Look, RAI, they're obviously not supposed to count, but WOTC was a little careless and they ended up fitting the definition of true dragon. This makes their status open to interpretation, and if someone wants to allow true dragon kobolds in their games, you really shouldn't be that upset about it.

I know that these forums should focus on RAW and RAI, because that keeps things applicable to all tables, but sometimes the answer is "ask your DM and do what's best for your group", and that's the case here.

So can we please go back to posting cool dragon options? I would do it myself, but I have literally no idea what any of them are.

[Vaern]

As far as true dragons are concerned, if they aren't listed as a subcategory "Dragon, True," they don't qualify. There's nothing within the dragonwrought description that is imply that a dragon kobold is Dragon, True.
They are dragons and they do have the same age categories as dragons, so as far as epic feats are concerned a dragonwrought kobold who is middle age by humanoid standards would qualify as a dragon of old age according to their age category table. Their character advancement is not determined by their age, though, so it does not qualify them for true dragon status.
(Though whether the bit about dragons of old age or higher qualifying for epic feats applies to lesser dragons may still be questioned, in accordance with the previously mentioned sidebar)

[Mato]

I honestly don't think that THIS is what they wanted.

Look, RAI, they're obviously not supposed to count, but WOTC was a little careless and they ended up fitting the definition of true dragon.I don't think you can argue the OP's intentions matter if you're dismissing the rulebook's. But people claiming DWKs are true dragons by any sort of misappropriated abbreviation without proof even through contrary evidence has already been submitted is one of things being discussed here and you really shouldn't try to reach for an appeal while contributing to that debate because it probably won't work.

You can also make a post asking what options a true dragon has if you're curious.


(Though whether the bit about dragons of old age or higher qualifying for epic feats applies to lesser dragons may still be questioned, in accordance with the previously mentioned sidebar)Something most people miss about that is the Draconomicon's entry tells you to check the epic level handbook for information on more epic feats.

In the ELH, much like the copypasta SRD entry, epic feats are technically allowed to nonepic characters. There is no level requirement for prerequisites and you can acquire them in one of two ways with one of those being by any class description that says you can. So the Draconomicon's exception that allows an old dragon of the 21st level of higher with no class levels to select feats makes quite a bit of sense.

Unfortunately the ELH is a 3.0 book and the 3.5 DMG has a small updated epic rule section in chapter six. One of the significant changes is the addition that the 3.5 epic feats are available only to epic characters. The Draconomicon isn't some kind of unnoted exception to the DMG's epic rules, it was clearly written using an outdated rule set that didn't really even have that limitation to begin with.

[Bartmanhomer]

This whole argument isn't getting anywhere. This thread isn't near it's 20 pages yet. :sigh:

[Gruftzwerg]

That's not what "Specific trumps general" means. Specific trumps general refers to the game rules being an exception-based system, in which there are defined a set of general truths, and then specific exceptions that break the general rules as noted (I.E.: A rapier's entry states that it is useable with the Weapon Finesse feat, even though the feat states that it can normally only be used with light weapons.)

If Kobold Age Categories were meant to count as Dragon Age Categories, then the text would explicitly say that.

...Again, not that this even matters, since kobolds, dragonwrought or otherwise, do not advance through age categories like true dragons do.


...I'm trying to be understanding of the language barrier here, but none of this makes a lick of sense.

For one thing, I can't think of a single instance when the rules don't say "Power Attack" within the explicit context of the feat, such as the Frenzied Berserker ("+3 bonus on her melee damage rolls for every –2 penalty she takes on her melee attack rolls when using the Power Attack feat"), or Leap Attack ("you can double the extra damage dealt by your use of the Power Attack feat."), or Awesome Smite ("This feat allows the use of three tactical maneuvers, each of which requires that you make a smite attack while using the Power Attack feat"). And that's just off of the top of my head.

For another thing, every single time the game references any specific spell, it always... always... does so by stating "when casting <spell name>". There is no need at that point to explicitly call them "spells", because you don't cast anything in D&D except for spells.


Prove it.

No... really.

Provide any and all text which specifically backs up this claim. The exact words themselves, from the Draconomicon or anywhere else, which say anything even tangentially related to, "when we say 'advancing through age categories', we are not talking about 'Advancement' as defined in the Monster Manual, but rather something else".

Prove that this is not solely your personal interpretation. Prove that the rules specifically back up your claim, not just that they are in places a little vague and could maybe be read in such a way as to not specifically forbid your claim.

Because if you can't do that, you aren't arguing Rules As Written. You are arguing Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, So There!

To which, I will repeat Mato's question: Why are you still here?

You did it yourself if you didn't notice..?

You proved that 3.5 always makes exact use of keywords/terms and don't use a verb instead of a subject to claim that this is the keyword/term.

So why should I prove now that you can interpret "advance/ing" as "Advancement"?? You should prove that to undermine your position imho. (and so far you have disproved your position..).


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).

"dragon type":
yeah DWK are dragons

"advance":
is not "Advancement".

"age categories":
Not "dragon age categories", just "age categories" (and not Age Effects..).

So is my DWK a dragon and adcances thru age categories?
I assume the answer is YES >>> which leads to the fact that DWK are not "lesser dragons".

And to your question about why I am still here..
Because I follow the discussion and try bring in my point of view like you I guess.

But let me ask you, why you did ask this? Are you frustrated having a normal peaceful non-offending discussion or what is your problem?

edit: I thought we would all be enjoying the discussion here, but somehow some people doesn't seem to enjoy it.. :(

[Gruftzwerg]

Unfortunately the ELH is a 3.0 book and the 3.5 DMG has a small updated epic rule section in chapter six. One of the significant changes is the addition that the 3.5 epic feats are available only to epic characters. The Draconomicon isn't some kind of unnoted exception to the DMG's epic rules, it was clearly written using an outdated rule set that didn't really even have that limitation to begin with.

But since Draconomicon ain't been updated it should still be in effect (unless you play strict 3.5) I guess or am I wrong here?
And by RAW it would still apply.

[Nifft]

But since Draconomicon ain't been updated it should still be in effect (unless you play strict 3.5) I guess or am I wrong here?
And by RAW it would still apply.

As far as I can tell, the 3.5e DMG was published in July 2003, and Draconomicon was published in November 2003 -- so Draconomicon was always 3.5e, and isn't superseded by the 3.5e DMG since it post-dates that book.

3.5e DMG is authoritative for non-dragons, of course, but Draconomicon ought to be authoritative for dragons in 3.5e.

[Doctor Awkward]

You did it yourself if you didn't notice..?

You proved that 3.5 always makes exact use of keywords/terms and don't use a verb instead of a subject to claim that this is the keyword/term.

So why should I prove now that you can interpret "advance/ing" as "Advancement"?? You should prove that to undermine your position imho. (and so far you have disproved your position..).

You are the one making a claim that flies in the face of clear and obvious intent, common sense, and basic dictionary definitions of words being used to explain the rules of the game. You are the one assuming that advancement must mean something other than what it clearly means. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that your interpretation meets the criteria of Rules As Written.

Thus far your "argument" has consisted entirely of saying "Well I think that text you quoted actually means this..." and then proceeding to make assumptions that are wholly inconsistent with the rest of the way the rules are printed (which is what I was demonstrating in my response.)



So is my DWK a dragon and adcances thru age categories?
Does it have a list or table indicating the abilities it gains as a result of additional non-class racial hit dice? No?
Then the answer is no, it does not advance through age categories. It advances "By character class".

As a further point of order, I would also direct you to the "Lesser Dragons as PC's" heading on page 144, where it states explicitly that "Such a creature has a set level adjustment and no built-in progression due to age". Hopefully we can both agree that that's much more direct, and that those are both things that are featured in dragonwrought kobolds, and that the rules even managed to avoid using the word "advancement" in further cementing their point, yes?


But let me ask you, why you did ask this? Are you frustrated having a normal peaceful non-offending discussion or what is your problem?
I have no problem. I am simply making straightforward and concise statements. If you are perceiving my candor as frustration, then you, my friend, are projecting your own feelings onto my words.




But since Draconomicon ain't been updated it should still be in effect (unless you play strict 3.5) I guess or am I wrong here?
And by RAW it would still apply.


As far as I can tell, the 3.5e DMG was published in July 2003, and Draconomicon was published in November 2003 -- so Draconomicon was always 3.5e, and isn't superseded by the 3.5e DMG since it post-dates that book.

3.5e DMG is authoritative for non-dragons, of course, but Draconomicon ought to be authoritative for dragons in 3.5e.

Draconomicon is a 3.5 book. The 3.5 DMG is the primary source for epic level information. The Draconomicon is the primary source for dragons.

As to the notion that things discussed in the Draconomicon pertain to all dragons any time the books doesn't specifically say "true":

For the most part, this book concerns itself with the ten
varieties of true dragon described in the Monster Manual—
the five chromatic dragons (black, blue, green, red, white) and
the five metallic dragons (brass, bronze, copper, gold, silver).
True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful
as they grow older.

The general rules in the Draconomicon pertain to true dragons. When it is discussing something that also applies to lesser dragons, the book will say so, such as under the Armor Class entry in the Advancing Dragons heading on page 100, where it notes you may use the same rule for lesser dragons if you wish.

So, yes, all true dragons are permitted to take epic feats once they reach old age. It's also no coincidence that all true dragons have well over 21 HD at that point in their lives either (with most of them reaching that point at the previous age category).

[Mato]

As far as I can tell, the 3.5e DMG was published in July 2003, and Draconomicon was published in November 2003 -- so Draconomicon was always 3.5e, and isn't superseded by the 3.5e DMG since it post-dates that book.

3.5e DMG is authoritative for non-dragons, of course, but Draconomicon ought to be authoritative for dragons in 3.5e.Doesn't matter Nfft. The order of rules application only applies if rules contradict each other and they don't.

The Draconomicon only creates an exception for old dragons without class levels. The rules do not disagree because the Draconomicon doesn't actually say none-epic characters can take epic feats, it actually enforces the concept that non-epics can't when it reminds you epic feats are available to 21st level characters. What you have is called a definist fallacy. If you're unfamiliar with the logical error it's when you define one thing based on the terms of something else. In this case you are defining DRAC's ability to override the DMG's specific entry that epic feats are not available to non-epic characters is not based on anything DRAC says, but based on a question asked about an example you created and the assumption that it works like you claim it does. It's not the rules that contradict each other, it's your incorrect opinion that contradicts the rules.

And as I said before the 3.5 DMG is the primary rules source on 3.5's epic progressions, not the Draconomicon and it's incorrect reference to the 3.0 ELH. The ELH may use more words and is focused on epic content, but as a 3.0 source it is secondary to anything the 3.5 DMG says.

[Gruftzwerg]

You are the one making a claim that flies in the face of clear and obvious intent, common sense, and basic dictionary definitions of words being used to explain the rules of the game. You are the one assuming that advancement must mean something other than what it clearly means. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that your interpretation meets the criteria of Rules As Written.
What has "obvious intend" & "common sense" to do with RAW? Not much unless we lack the rules for it. "Obvious intend" & common sense first belong into the land of RAI and not RAW.
RAW is the land of rule/word lawyers, where every rule will be looked at for potential abuse/weaknesses. That is RAW. But hey, if you are talking about the intention and RAI, sure have your opinion.

Cause I try to base my arguments on Rules As Written and not on some intentions (RAI..). Try to get the difference and we can talk.
Cause if you get the differece, they you'll understand that I did give you RAW based arguments, where I don't need to switch a word from its subject form into its verb from and still claim that it is the same keyword.
You are trying to convince my that you may interpret it that way. While RAW always makes exact use of the defined keyword as far as I am aware.

How should I prove that they don't do that? (e.g. switching from subject to verb if they want to use a keyword)
Should I quote all instances where they make exact use of keywords and don't change em somehow?

You could far more easily prove that 3.5 does make use of changed (subject>verb) keywords. Give me any instance where this is the chase. Than you could prove by RAW that TD need Advancement and that just "advancing" thru age categories ain't enough.

I presented to you that a DWK has everything to disqualify as a lesser dragon:
A dragon which advances thru age categories.

Since it seems you can't disprove it, you start claiming about intentions and common sense?

3.5 has RAW that can suppress common sense and intentions, which belong into RAI.



And as I said before the 3.5 DMG is the primary rules source on 3.5's epic progressions, not the Draconomicon and it's incorrect reference to the 3.0 ELH. The ELH may use more words and is focused on epic content, but as a 3.0 source it is secondary to anything the 3.5 DMG says.

primary also means general while secondary translates to specific.
So Draconomicon is still in effect when it comes to (specific) dragons, cause it trumps the general DMG source.

[umbergod]

I feel like the dnd 3.5 community needs to track down the author of the Dragonwrought feat, and show him/her the multitudes of threads like this one, that their accursed creation has caused.

[Boggartbae]

Oh. Em. Gee. Wow y’all must be fun at parties.

Dragonwrought kobolds count as true dragons by RAW. They meet the requirements.

Other funny RAW things include: hiding behind your own tower shiled, healing by drowning, and orcs being able to put both of their eyes out and still see normally. They’re funny, allow for some cheesy optimisation, and also, more importantly, no one will ever let it break their game.

Tony and Mato, why don’t any of the other absurd things in RAW upset you so much? Why are y’all being such sticks in the mud about DW kobolds? What did they ever do to you?

[umbergod]

Question for the participants: if DWK=True Dragon, can you show me where they gain new abilities and powers as they age? Slapping on class levels doesnt count, as those arent racially inherent.

[daremetoidareyo]

Question for the participants: if DWK=True Dragon, can you show me where they gain new abilities and powers as they age? Slapping on class levels doesnt count, as those arent racially inherent.

Aging effects? You get charisma bonus, and you're prolly a sorcerer.

[Bartmanhomer]

I feel like the dnd 3.5 community needs to track down the author of the Dragonwrought feat, and show him/her the multitudes of threads like this one, that their accursed creation has caused.

I agree. This whole argument is long overdue too long.

[daremetoidareyo]

I agree. This whole argument is long overdue too long.

While we're at it, can we get a ruling on the legality of our dragonwraught racial emulation changeling with a flaw taking the loredrake archetype?

[umbergod]

Aging effects? You get charisma bonus, and you're prolly a sorcerer.

Charisma bonus is not "new powers and abilities", also sorcerer levels are in no way, shape or form tied DWK and aging. So i will reiterate, where do they gain new powers and abilities based on age alone? Where are their wings? If the pro-"DWK are True Dragons" lot could explain how they fail to be true dragons as per the MM defintion, and the Draconomicon doesn't contradict it.....DWKs lack wings, which all true dragons have.....they also don't gain new powers and abilities based solely on what their age category is.

[daremetoidareyo]

Charisma bonus is not "new powers and abilities", also sorcerer levels are in no way, shape or form tied DWK and aging. So i will reiterate, where do they gain new powers and abilities based on age alone? Where are their wings? If the pro-"DWK are True Dragons" lot could explain how they fail to be true dragons as per the MM defintion, and the Draconomicon doesn't contradict it.....DWKs lack wings, which all true dragons have.....they also don't gain new powers and abilities based solely on what their age category is.

MM1 also states that the only known true dragons are chromatic and metallic. The gem dragons would like a word.

[umbergod]

MM1 also states that the only known true dragons are chromatic and metallic. The gem dragons would like a word.

Gem dragons are 3.0, and unless they got updated elsewhere, they may not be considered true dragons. Even Draconomicon calls all true dragons as being explicitly chromatic or metallic

[Scots Dragon]

Gem dragons are 3.0, and unless they got updated elsewhere, they may not be considered true dragons. Even Draconomicon calls all true dragons as being explicitly chromatic or metallic

The Draconomicon itself, page 287, lists the five varieties of gem dragon as being true dragons.

[Mato]

Dragonwrought kobolds count as true dragons by RAW. They meet the requirements.I wasn't aware that true dragon some kind of prestigious class with a requirement entry you can meet to enter it, can you provide a citation for that claim? :smallamused:


MM1 also states that the only known true dragons are chromatic and metallic. The gem dragons would like a word.The gem dragons say they are true dragons and true dragon compilations such as the draconomicon and post-ROTD dragons of faerun also list them as such.

Your kobolds don't, they would like a word with you.


While we're at it, can we get a ruling on the legality of our dragonwraught racial emulation changeling with a flaw taking the loredrake archetype?Why? The dragonwrought feat is a feat that must be taken during character creation (that is, before they actually exist), it's not a race so how can a changeling imitate it? Plus racial emulation only allows you to imitate being a member of the race but you don't gain their racial traits, now go read the kobold entry where their type is a racial trait. Even if you could imitate a feat, the changeling's actual type won't change to dragon anyway, they just pretend it does. You might as well claim the bluff skill works on the DM (side note, it works on gitp).

The two are simply incompatible and worse, it's a waste of time. If it did work why would you choose to be a DWK and listen to this debate instead of just choosing a red dragon which actually is a true dragon?

[umbergod]

The Draconomicon itself, page 287, lists the five varieties of gem dragon as being true dragons.

Funny, since its explicit text on what makes a true dragon earlier in the same book says chromatic/metallic only. Wouldnt this be a case of text trumps table?

[Mato]

Funny, since its explicit text on what makes a true dragon earlier in the same book says chromatic/metallic only.It never once says that.

And you would know this if you actually read it before commenting.

[umbergod]

It never once says that.

And you would know this if you actually read it before commenting.

Really? So then i must be hallucinating when i read the first sentence under Dragons By Kind on page 36?

[Mato]

Really? So then i must be hallucinating when i read the first sentence under Dragons By Kind on page 36?You're taking it out of context, that section is talk about the basic ten and it only says they fall into two broad categories. Besides, being a gem dragon doesn't prevent someone from referring to you by color.


In the D&D game, the term “dragon” encompasses a number of different creatures, some of which bear little resemblance to the great flying creatures with breath weapons that we commonly think of as dragons.
For the most part, this book concerns itself with the ten varieties of true dragon described in the Monster Manual— the five chromatic dragons (black, blue, green, red, white) and the five metallic dragons (brass, bronze, copper, gold, silver). True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older.
A number of other true dragons are described in Chapter 4 of this book. In addition, Appendix 2: Index of Dragons provides a complete list of all true dragons that have been presented in official sources.Appendix 2 clearly lists gem dragons along with the epic, lung, and planar types of true dragons.

[umbergod]

Appendix 2 clearly lists gem dragons.

Still contradicts itself on page 36, but good job ignoring that bit ;) i also see in the appendix that dragonwrought kobolds aren't listed, oh dear....

[Mato]

Still contradicts itself on page 36, but good job ignoring that bit ;) i also see in the appendix that dragonwrought kobolds aren't listed, oh dear....:smallsigh:
It's not a contradiction and I didn't ignore it. It's talking about the ten true dragons in the monster manual just like it said it did and the section that talks about all other true dragons mentions them just like it said it would. Should I attempt to find a special needs counselor to explain it to you?

And you know what else doesn't list a kobold as a true dragon? Races of the dragon. :smallsmile:

[umbergod]

:smallsigh:
It's not a contradiction and I didn't ignore it. It's talking about the ten true dragons in the monster manual just like it said it did and the section that talks about all other true dragons mentions them just like it said it would. Should I attempt to find a special needs counselor to explain it to you?

And you know what else doesn't list a kobold as a true dragon? Races of the dragon. :smallsmile:

Indeed it is a contradiction, as it states prior to page 36 that there are more true dragons than just the metallic and chromatic dragons, then page 36 states "true dragons fall into two broad categories: chromatic and metallic" thats a contradiction since Gem dragons are neither metallic or chromatic, and thus dont fall into either said category that true dragons fall under.

Theres a reason RotD doesnt mention DWK as true dragons ;)

[daremetoidareyo]

Your kobolds don't, they would like a word with you.


Your tone is offensively antagonistic. I already agree with the assertion that kobolds aren't true dragons, so the unnecessary sass just makes me dislike your contributions to the conversation.

You are condescending.

[DarkSoul]

Still contradicts itself on page 36, but good job ignoring that bit ;)


For the most part, this book concerns itself with the ten varieties of true dragon described in the Monster Manual—the five chromatic dragons (black, blue, green, red, white) and the five metallic dragons (brass, bronze, copper, gold, silver). True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older.

A number of other true dragons are described in Chapter 4 of this book. In addition, Appendix 2: Index of Dragons provides a complete list of all true dragons that have been presented in official sources.No contradiction there. Page 36 obviously falls into "for the most part..." while Appendix 2 explicitly lists more true dragons that may or may not be chromatic or metallic, but are definitely true dragons.

[umbergod]

No contradiction there. Page 36 obviously falls into "for the most part..." while Appendix 2 explicitly lists more true dragons that may or may not be chromatic or metallic, but are definitely true dragons.

If its so obvious to interpret, why do threads like this pop up all the damn time? Because RAI isnt RAW. By RAW, Draconomicon contradicts itself via inconsistencies on what is a true dragon.

[Deophaun]

"advance":
is not "Advancement".
So when the MM says "Often, intelligent creatures advance by gaining a level in a character class," that had nothing to do with Advancement, even if it's under a big bold heading that says "Advancement?"

This new science is fascinating. Tell me again how we know the Earth to be banana shaped.

[umbergod]

So when the MM says "Often, intelligent creatures advance by gaining a level in a character class," that had nothing to do with Advancement, even if it's under a big bold heading that says "Advancement?"

This new science is fascinating. Tell me again how we know the Earth to be banana shaped.

Does advancing a character class have anything to do with advancing age categories?

[Deophaun]

Does advancing a character class have anything to do with advancing age categories?
Creatures gain character classes. Character classes advance creatures.

[umbergod]

Creatures gain character classes. Character classes advance creatures.

Which doesnt advance age, nor are class levels racial hit dice.

[Deophaun]

Which doesnt advance age, nor are class levels racial hit dice.
All of what you said has nothing to do with anything.

[umbergod]

All of what you said has nothing to do with anything.

Sure it does, since the basis of the post you quoted has do to with DWKs "advancing" through their age categories as proof that theyre true dragons

[Deophaun]

{{scrubbed}}

[umbergod]

{{scrubbed}}

[Deophaun]

{{scrubbed}}

[umbergod]

{{scrubbed}}

Well, thats just, like, your opinion, man.

[DarkSoul]

If its so obvious to interpret, why do threads like this pop up all the damn time? Because RAI isnt RAW. By RAW, Draconomicon contradicts itself via inconsistencies on what is a true dragon.They pop up all the time because people refuse to believe or acknowledge the fact that each sentence of rules text in a book doesn't exist in a vacuum. That requires reading an entire book though, instead of just the few rules that apply to, or need to be ignored or reinterpreted for, their current concept.

[umbergod]

They pop up all the time because people refuse to believe or acknowledge the fact that each sentence of rules text in a book doesn't exist in a vacuum. That requires reading an entire book though, instead of just the few rules that apply to, or need to be ignored or reinterpreted for, their current concept.

Pretty much spot on, I've just been being pedantic b/c these threads are like rituals for summoning HeWhoMustNotBeNamed to start posting about his unbeatable dread mackerel

[Doctor Awkward]

What has "obvious intend" & "common sense" to do with RAW? Not much unless we lack the rules for it. "Obvious intend" & common sense first belong into the land of RAI and not RAW.
RAW is the land of rule/word lawyers, where every rule will be looked at for potential abuse/weaknesses. That is RAW. But hey, if you are talking about the intention and RAI, sure have your opinion.

Cause I try to base my arguments on Rules As Written and not on some intentions (RAI..). Try to get the difference and we can talk.
Cause if you get the differece, they you'll understand that I did give you RAW based arguments, where I don't need to switch a word from its subject form into its verb from and still claim that it is the same keyword.
You are trying to convince my that you may interpret it that way. While RAW always makes exact use of the defined keyword as far as I am aware.

How should I prove that they don't do that? (e.g. switching from subject to verb if they want to use a keyword)
Should I quote all instances where they make exact use of keywords and don't change em somehow?

You could far more easily prove that 3.5 does make use of changed (subject>verb) keywords. Give me any instance where this is the chase. Than you could prove by RAW that TD need Advancement and that just "advancing" thru age categories ain't enough.

I presented to you that a DWK has everything to disqualify as a lesser dragon:
A dragon which advances thru age categories.

Since it seems you can't disprove it, you start claiming about intentions and common sense?

3.5 has RAW that can suppress common sense and intentions, which belong into RAI.



primary also means general while secondary translates to specific.
So Draconomicon is still in effect when it comes to (specific) dragons, cause it trumps the general DMG source.

Of course intent matters. And so does common sense.
People are all wired differently, and all have different personal interpretations of things that we read. But there must always be a common ground, some core assumptions, upon which we can all agree or discussions regarding the rules of the game, not to mention the game itself, become meaningless.

The rules were designed to be read with a sensible and straightforward understanding of the basic structure of the English language, as well as the common definition of the words used to explain those rules. All your talk of "keywords" that must be present in order to know for certain that a particular word always holds the same meaning when used in different contexts is an irrelevant tangent. There is a glossary for commonly used words that have specific meanings to the game rules, in which is listed the the unusual definitions you are required to know to interpret them. The rules do not spell out the precise definition of every single word and phrase that they use at all times. If they did, they would be larger than a full volume set of encyclopedias, and likely cost more than a new car. And they don't need to be written that way because they were designed to be read and interpreted using common sense. Refusing to accept that fact, and trying to play the game strictly and solely by the rules as written will leave you with an unplayable game.

Using "RAW" as a defense-- holding up the notion as some sort of entity unto itself that renders your argument immune to any form of criticism-- is similarly meaningless. Especially when your claim actually rests upon your personal interpretation of the text. If you are going to claim that your interpretation is the Rules as Written, then you need to be absolutely certain that they specifically back up your claim, not just that they are vague and could be interpreted in one of several ways that doesn't forbid your claim.

Yes, the advice and builds produced by forums like this should adhere to the rules as written. This is only sensible as it creates results more likely to be accepted at any given table. But basing your argument on the precept that we can never really know the designer intent because common sense should not apply is not a useful construct, and will invariably cause more problems than it will solve.


The reason why you can't understand how the burden of proof still rests on you is because you aren't playing by the same rules as the rest of us.

-You made a positive claim that dragonwrought kobolds were true dragons, in spite of the fact that their source book does not specifically state they are.

-You then said that it doesn't have to state it directly, because they fit the Draconomicon defition of true dragons, which was in your words, "they have the dragon type and they advance through the same age categories that dragons do."

-When it was pointed out they technically don't advance through the same age categories, on account of having their own table that's different from the one used by true dragons, you attempted to move the goalposts by selectively applying another piece of text, and assuming that the word "life-cycle" meant that the tables were always meant to be the same (and you misapplied the WotC "Text Trumps Table" guideline for handling errors in creature statistic blocks while you did it.)

-You additionally attempted to move the goalposts even further by claiming that since the word "advance" is not specifically defined in all of the various places it is used that it must not mean the same thing in all of those places. Despite how irrational, needlessly complicated, and vague this would make not just the rules regarding dragons and kobolds, but countless other possible situations, you made this claim. As though the rulebooks were written by a bunch of morons, or aliens, who had only a tenuous grasp on the human language that they used to write them, rather than a group of talented professionals who quite literally write things for a living. You offered no justification for this line of thinking, only that it must be this way because it supports your presupposed conclusion.

-And then when it was pointed out to you that your arguments don't follow basic logic, you then tried to say that logic doesn't apply to the rules, and that because of that no one yet has been able to dispute your claim.

...Well when you put it that way? I guess not. After all, how could we? What's the point in making a logical argument to a person who thinks that logic is irrelevant?

[Vaern]

If its so obvious to interpret, why do threads like this pop up all the damn time? Because RAI isnt RAW. By RAW, Draconomicon contradicts itself via inconsistencies on what is a true dragon.
Threads like this don't pop up because of the Draconomicon saying "Here's a list of true dragons. They are true dragons, even though this book doesn't concern them." Threads like this pop up because people try piecing together loopholes using mechanics from one book and applying them to a specific set of rules in another book.

[umbergod]

Threads like this don't pop up because of the Draconomicon saying "Here's a list of true dragons. They are true dragons, even though this book doesn't concern them." Threads like this pop up because people try piecing together loopholes using mechanics from one book and applying them to a specific set of rules in another book.

Threads like this pop up because of RAW vs RAI, which is what i tried to explain in the post you quoted :p

[Promethean]

Does advancing a character class have anything to do with advancing age categories?

The same thing that Advancemt: by age Categories has to do with true dragons. Nothing. Dragons are listed as Advancement: by Hit Dice as monsters. Not agreeing on the DWK are true dragons thing, just pointing that out.

[Deophaun]

Dragons are listed as Advancement: by Hit Dice as monsters.
Black Dragon.

Advancement: Wyrmling 5-6 HD; very young 8-9 HD; young 11-12 HD; juvenile 14-15 HD; young adult 17-18 HD; adult 20-21 HD; mature adult 23-24 HD; old 26-27 HD; very old 29-30 HD; ancient 32-33 HD; wyrm 35-36 HD; great wyrm 38+ HD


That looks like an awful amount of text compared to what you posted. And I didn't know "mature adult" was a hit die.

[jdizzlean]

only 5 pages? those are rookie numbers people...

[umbergod]

only 5 pages? those are rookie numbers people...

To be fair, its NYE :p

[Promethean]

Black Dragon.

Advancement: Wyrmling 5-6 HD; very young 8-9 HD; young 11-12 HD; juvenile 14-15 HD; young adult 17-18 HD; adult 20-21 HD; mature adult 23-24 HD; old 26-27 HD; very old 29-30 HD; ancient 32-33 HD; wyrm 35-36 HD; great wyrm 38+ HD


That looks like an awful amount of text compared to what you posted. And I didn't know "mature adult" was a hit die.

Oops. Well, that was a derp. :smalleek:

[Nifft]

The same thing that Advancemt: by age Categories has to do with true dragons. Nothing. Dragons are listed as Advancement: by Hit Dice as monsters. Not agreeing on the DWK are true dragons thing, just pointing that out.

The "Advancement" qualification argument seems like a distortion from the most recent definition (from this post on page 1):


Dragon Magic page 87 is the most recently published source that weighs in on the matter, on page 87:
"...a true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon)."

Dragonwrought Kobolds, Epic Dragons, and other random True Dragons have a table that lists different numbers for their age categories. This difference doesn't disqualify Epic dragons because they still have the required 12 age categories. It shouldn't disqualify a Dragonwrought Kobold either.

== == ==


The Web Enhancement (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060420a) includes natural attacks, slight build, and a few other benefits. I especially like Slight Build when DMing, as they can squeeze through very small tunnels (a 15-inch diameter hole) which PCs will have no chance of pursuing them into.

A Dragonwrought Kobold Dracolich Warrior 1 with two flaws for Epic Toughness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#epicToughness) twice has 72 hp, AC 19 (chain shirt), SR 16, DR 5/Bludgeoning, a paralyzing gaze, gets three attacks per round each of which causes paralysis, and is only CR 1.

I feel like Tucker's Dracoliches would be an excellent dungeon experience for a mid-to-high optimization party.

Kudos to you, this may be the best idea to come out of the thread.

[ayvango]

What is full list of dragonwrought shenanigans suitable for a kobold sorcerer build?

[Nifft]

What is full list of dragonwrought shenanigans suitable for a kobold sorcerer build?

Read the first two posts of this thread.

Do you see any we missed?

[ayvango]

Loredrake (Dragons of Eberron) + kobold's ritual (web enhancement) = +3 caster level on sorcerer
Spellhoarding (DM) - switch useless sorcerer for godlike wizard.

Too little for a kobold

[Celestia]

Loredrake (Dragons of Eberron) + kobold's ritual (web enhancement) = +3 caster level on sorcerer
Spellhoarding (DM) - switch useless sorcerer for godlike wizard.

Too little for a kobold
Add in white dragonspawn, and you've got another +1 to that.

[Doctor Awkward]

The "Advancement" qualification argument seems like a distortion from the most recent definition (from this post on page 1):


Dragon Magic page 87 is the most recently published source that weighs in on the matter, on page 87:
"...a true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon)."

Dragonwrought Kobolds, Epic Dragons, and other random True Dragons have a table that lists different numbers for their age categories. This difference doesn't disqualify Epic dragons because they still have the required 12 age categories. It shouldn't disqualify a Dragonwrought Kobold either.

Dragon Magic is not the primary source for rules and information regarding dragons. The Draconomicon is. Whenever two sources offer information that might be in conflict, the primary source takes precedence.

The "most recently printed source takes precedence" is a line taken from the 3.5 FAQ, which has no authority over anything, and directly contradicts both the printed rules and every single errata ever written which weighs in on this matter.

The only book that was ever given explicit authority over previously printed books in the manner the FAQ suggests is the Rules Compendium, which states outright in it's introduction that it is intended to take precedence whenever a conflict arises between it and another source.

Dragonwrought kobolds do not meet any definition of true dragons, as printed in any book or as presented thus far in this thread. At least not without a willful misreading of the rules as written.




What is full list of dragonwrought shenanigans suitable for a kobold sorcerer build?

By RAW? Very little beyond what normal sorcerers.

There is the Greater Draconic Rite of Passage from the Races of the Dragon Web enhancement (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060420a) that grants a +1 effective sorcerer caster level for the cost of three a feat, and is available to all sorcerers, but you don't have to be dragonwrought for that.

There is also the Dragonspawn template out of the Dragonlance Campaign Setting sourcebook (page 222), which gives you another effective level increase of +1 (for only a 1 level offset if you choose to be a white dragonspawn).

However, if your DM is interested in house-ruling dragonwrought kobolds into counting as true dragons then the first few posts in this thread are pretty exhaustive of what can be accomplished. They qualify for epic feats once they reach Old age or older. The optional faith-based Sovereign Archetypes from Dragons the Eberron are available (most of them are interesting but Loredrake is far and away the most powerful for sorcerer builds). There are also the true dragon templates out of the Draconomicon (Xorvintaal is the most noteworthy one), as well as some less interesting true dragon prestige classes.

[Nifft]

Dragon Magic is not the primary source for rules and information regarding dragons. Draconomicon is not the primary source for True Dragon types which didn't exist as of its printing, or which weren't re-printed in its pages.


There is the Greater Draconic Rite of Passage from the Races of the Dragon Web enhancement (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060420a) that grants a +1 effective sorcerer caster level for the cost of three feats Would you mind listing the feats you think are required?

I don't think you've got a proper grasp of what is required to fulfill the prerequisites for the +1 Sorcerer level benefit.

[Doctor Awkward]

Draconomicon is not the primary source for True Dragon types which didn't exist as of its printing, or which weren't re-printed in its pages.

Which is fine, because other True Dragon types (off the top of my head I can think of Mercury, Steel, and Mist (Dragons of Faerun), and Orange and Purple (Dragon Compendium), are all either specifically called out or as such in their entries, or use the same progression charts and tables that true dragons use, leaving no doubt as to what they are.


Would you mind listing the feats you think are required?


I was under the impression that Draconic Rite of Passage also had a feat requirement, but it seems only the Draconic Reservoir feat is required. And you have to be level 6 to undergo the ritual.

[Gruftzwerg]

Would you be so kind to point me to where that rule is? That they have to be called out as such (TD) explicitly?The exact same page as the rule you just quoted.


I seem to be blind.. I have read P.4 of Draconomicon several times and coudn't find any text that claims that true dragons need to called out as such. You need to help me with a quote to convince me that this pice of text exists as you say..

So far the sole thing I found on P4 is what I have already posted. But I will quote the entire passage and explain my POV again, and you can point me to your text passage in the meanwhile..


In the D&D game, the term “dragon” encompasses a number of different creatures, some of which bear little resemblance to the great flying creatures with breath weapons that we commonly think of as dragons.
For the most part, this book concerns itself with the ten
varieties of true dragon described in the Monster Manual — the five chromatic dragons (black, blue, green, red, white) and the five metallic dragons (brass, bronze, copper, gold, silver).
True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older.
A number of other true dragons are described in Chapter 4
of this book. In addition, Appendix 2: Index of Dragons provides
a complete list of all true dragons that have been presented in official sources.
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).
The three kinds of lesser dragon described in the Monster Manual are the dragon turtle, the pseudodragon, and the wyvern.
Chapter 4 of this book contains a number of descriptions of other lesser dragons, and Appendix 2 lists every lesser dragon that has been described in a DUNGEONS & DRAGONS rulebook or accessory

DWK do become more "powerful" due to pure mental stat gains. They don't loose in power as they grow older like other non true dragons.
Powerful ain't a defined keyword and as such only the base english definition applies.
So imho they fit the requirements of being a true dragon.

DWK advance thru "age categories" and thus disqualify as lesser dragons.
Keep in mind that only "age categories" are required and not "dragon age categories". And don't mix it up with Age Effects which every character gets.
And to undermine my claim that "advance" here doesn't mean "Advancement":
1. How would you call it when you grew older and enter a new age category? Since I live in Germany I can give an example of german age categories for how long you have been married. Bronze, Silver & Gold. Which verb would you use to describe when you leave one age category and enter the next? 2 verbs come into my mind: progress or advance. And imho advance is the more fitting here. Progress sounds more like you are doing a job, at least for me.
And in our chase here they just used the verb "advance" in the same manner, to describe that you advance from one age category to the next.
2. d&d 3.5 makes always 100% exact use of keywords/terms. They don't change the words (e.g. a subject into a verb..). So "advance" can't refer to "Advancement" as you try to imply.

edit: just some typos and some gramma

[Doctor Awkward]

I seem to be blind.. I have read P.4 of Draconomicon several times and coudn't find any text that claims that true dragons need to called out as such. You need to help me with a quote to convince me that this pice of text exists as you say..

So far the sole thing I found on P4 is what I have already posted. But I will quote the entire passage and explain my POV again, and you can point me to your text passage in the meanwhile..



DWK do become more "powerful" due to pure mental stat gains. They don't loose in power as they grow older like other non true dragons.
Powerful ain't a defined keyword and as such only the base english definition applies.
So imho they fit the requirements of being a true dragon.

DWK advance thru "age categories" and thus disqualify as lesser dragons.
Keep in mind that only "age categories" are required and not "dragon age categories". And don't mix it up with Age Effects which every character gets.
And to undermine my claim that "advance" here doesn't mean "Advancement":
1. How would you call it when you grew older and enter a new age category? Since I live in Germany I can give an example of german age categories for how long you have been married. Bronze, Silver & Gold. Which verb would you use to describe when you leave one age category and enter the next? 2 verbs come into my mind: progress or advance. And imho advance is the more fitting here. Progress sounds more like you are doing a job, at least for me.
And in our chase here they just used the verb "advance" in the same manner, to describe that you advance from one age category to the next.
2. d&d 3.5 makes always 100% exact use of keywords/terms. They don't change the words (e.g. a subject into a verb..). So "advance" can't refer to "Advancement" as you try to imply.

edit: just some typos and some gramma

Draconomicon, pg. 144; Lesser Dragon Characters:

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, so after the character begins play
there is no reason to advance the character as a monster
again.

Dragonwrought kobolds have both a set level adjustment and no built-in progression due to age.

[Nifft]

Dragonwrought kobolds have both a set level adjustment and no built-in progression due to age.

Dragonwrought Kobolds get +1 Sorcerer level at 6 HD, which is potentially worth LA +1.

[Doctor Awkward]

Dragonwrought Kobolds get +1 Sorcerer level at 6 HD, which is potentially worth LA +1.

Please see table 3-21 on page 143 of the Draconomicon for an accurate definition of what a "variable" level adjustment looks like.

[Doctor Awkward]

And while you're at it, did you find that Dragonwrought Kobold Abilities By Age table yet?

[ayvango]

Add in white dragonspawn, and you've got another +1 to that.
Dragonspawn that get free killing his master become LA+2.
Dragonspawn could be made only from non-dragon species and DWK is indeed a dragon
Dragonspawn and Loredrake could not be used in the same time, because they are setting specific. Dragons of Krynn differs much from dragons of Eberron.

[daremetoidareyo]

I just looked at those other sovereign archetypes. They are awesome.

Why haven't we been talking about passionflame dragonwrought kobold master spellthief precocious apprentices/rage mages? Why haven't we been talking about wyrm of war dragonwrought tigerclaw sorcerers/bloodclaw masters with the draconic claw feat?

Someone should start a dragonwrought sovereign archtype optimization thread...

[Gruftzwerg]

1:

Draconomicon, pg. 144; Lesser Dragon Characters:
That was not what you where talking about and I asked for.



Nowhere.

A dragon is a true dragon if it is explicitly called as such in the rules.
If it is not called as such, then per those same rules it is automatically a lesser dragon.

All other similarities are irrelevant.

Would you be so kind to point me to where that rule is? That they have to be called out as such (TD) explicitly?
Do you remember now? You wanted to point me where it states that true dragons need to be called out as such. That was your statement.

2:

Dragonwrought kobolds have both a set level adjustment and no built-in progression due to age.
As said several times, when we can confirm that a DWK is a true dragon, than the DM needs to make tables for DWK Advancement since the "other true dragon" paragraph (on p144 Draconomicon) enforces him to do.
And since DWK are dragons who "advance" thru "age categories", they disqualify as lesser dragon, which leaves only True Dragons as possibility. Note that it's not Advancement what they are asking for, cause the same book gives it for all true dragons for free. So it can't help you to decide whether or not a dragon is true, when true dragons get it for free...

edit:

I just looked at those other sovereign archetypes. They are awesome.

Why haven't we been talking about passionflame dragonwrought kobold master spellthief precocious apprentices/rage mages? Why haven't we been talking about wyrm of war dragonwrought tigerclaw sorcerers/bloodclaw masters with the draconic claw feat?

Someone should start a dragonwrought sovereign archtype optimization thread...
Because every time any kind of DWK true dragon optimization comes up, it ends somewhat like this thread here. And normally at this time of the thread (9days old IIRC) we would have more than 40 pages of rule-wars..^^

[Doctor Awkward]

As said several times, when we can confirm that a DWK is a true dragon, than the DM needs to make tables for DWK Advancement since the "other true dragon" paragraph (on p144 Draconomicon) enforces him to do.


When the DM has to create rules for something that is not explicitly printed already, that is the dictionary definition of "house-ruling".

Therefore dragonwrought kobold, by RAW, are not true dragons.

[Gruftzwerg]

When the DM has to create rules for something that is not explicitly printed already, that is the dictionary definition of "house-ruling".

Therefore dragonwrought kobold, by RAW, are not true dragons.

sry but no, Draconomicon p144 "other true dragons" give you instruction how to create those.
Homebrew is created due to DM/player desires. But here we have a clear instruction given to the DM and enforcing him (unless he houserules, which he can. but than it is a houserule and not RAW).


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

So, there is no need to homebrew, you got instructions to follow. The DM needs to make a table as in 3-22. The values for the DWK doesn't need to fit to any other dragon. The DM is only enforced to use the same table as base, not the values presented for other true dragons.
>>> The DM may choose if a DWK just gets LA+0 and no additional abilities/bonuses related to it or if he loads up the DWK with LA+(X) and some bonuses added to those categories (e.g. the base dragon kind the DWK chooses on his feat could be an option for the DM.)
The first option (LA+0) would enable regular DWK True Dragon cheese as most optimizers would prefer it.
The second option (LA+X) would make most DWK true dragon builds unusable and even worse than starting with a regular true dragon, since the DWK wasted a feat compared to a regular true dragon.

IMHO DWK are true dragons. But if they are optimizer friendly is fully in the hands of the DM. The DM has the freedom how he prefers DWK, with LA+0 or with a bigger handicap.

edit: about RAW & Optimization
Optimizing with RAW is like hacking a program. You don't care about the intention of the programmer or what it is supposed to do.
You look how it interacts with the hardware and look for any kind of loophole in the code and try to exploit it as much as you can.
In terms of D&D this means, you read the rules as written and look for any kind of abuse potential only caring for how the rules interact with each other. You ignore designer intentions and just care about what you can achieve by abusing the rules in non-intended ways.

There is a reason why we differentiate between RAI & RAW.

Maybe we should all make a separate thread about the intentions to cover also the RAI part of DWK. We had a few arguments in one of the older threads about it, some even claiming that the RAI just has changed over the time/books. Other did point out that WotC just tried to buff True Dragons with later released material which did cause that DWK true dragons did get more power than originally intended.
Imho separate RAW and RAI discussions simultaneously would be the best solution to clear the situation.

[daremetoidareyo]

sry but no, Draconomicon p144 "other true dragons" give you instruction how to create those.
Homebrew is created due to DM/player desires. But here we have a clear instruction given to the DM and enforcing him (unless he houserules, which he can. but than it is a houserule and not RAW).



So, there is no need to homebrew, you got instructions to follow. The DM needs to make a table as in 3-22. The values for the DWK doesn't need to fit to any other dragon. The DM is only enforced to use the same table as base, not the values presented for other true dragons.
>>> The DM may choose if a DWK just gets LA+0 and no additional abilities/bonuses related to it or if he loads up the DWK with LA+(X) and some bonuses added to those categories (e.g. the base dragon kind the DWK chooses on his feat could be an option for the DM.)
The first option (LA+0) would enable regular DWK True Dragon cheese as most optimizers would prefer it.
The second option (LA+X) would make most DWK true dragon builds unusable and even worse than starting with a regular true dragon, since the DWK wasted a feat compared to a regular true dragon.

IMHO DWK are true dragons. But if they are optimizer friendly is fully in the hands of the DM. The DM has the freedom how he prefers DWK, with LA+0 or with a bigger handicap.

edit: about RAW & Optimization
Optimizing with RAW is like hacking a program. You don't care about the intention of the programmer or what it is supposed to do.
You look how it interacts with the hardware and look for any kind of loophole in the code and try to exploit it as much as you can.
In terms of D&D this means, you read the rules as written and look for any kind of abuse potential only caring for the rules interact with each other. You ignore designer intentions and just care about what you can achieve by abusing the rules in non-intended ways.

There is a reason why we differentiate between RAI & RAW.

Maybe we should all make a separate thread about the intentions to cover also the RAI part of DWK. We had a few arguments in one of the older threads about it, some even claiming that the RAI just has changed over the time/books. Other did point out that WotC just tried to buff True Dragons with later released material which did cause that DWK true dragons did get more power than originally intended.
Imho separate RAW and RAI discussions simultaneously would be the best solution to clear the situation.

Ahhh. But a changeling half-elf paragon with racial emulation and dragonwrought feats has no LA...

[Gruftzwerg]

Ahhh. But a changeling half-elf paragon with racial emulation and dragonwrought feats has no LA...

..and doesn't work, since the changeling doesn't have/gain access to "Age Categories" which would turn him only into a lesser dragon. Sorry..^^

[umbergod]

Still waiting for a Pro-True Dragon person to give any examples on how a dragonwrought kobold gains new powers and abilities strictly from age progression.....

[Gruftzwerg]

Still waiting for a Pro-True Dragon person to give any examples on how a dragonwrought kobold gains new powers and abilities strictly from age progression.....

Ability scores count as Natural Abilities IIRC. Gaining pure mental stats due to age accounts as pure power gain and as ability gain. While you don't get it on every age category, it still qualifies, since there is no mention that you need to gain them for every age category progression.
There you go, and btw.. If I am not mistaken I am repeating this argument already over and over. So, how comes that you missed it?^^

[daremetoidareyo]

..and doesn't work, since the changeling doesn't have/gain access to "Age Categories" which would turn him only into a lesser dragon. Sorry..^^

But if you emulate a kobold you are considered a member of that race for all other purposes. So if in your campaign Dragonrot kobolds are true dragons, your changeling is a true dragon

[Scots Dragon]

Ability scores count as Natural Abilities IIRC. Gaining pure mental stats due to age accounts as pure power gain and as ability gain. While you don't get it on every age category, it still qualifies, since there is no mention that you need to gain them for every age category progression.
There you go, and btw.. If I am not mistaken I am repeating this argument already over and over. So, how comes that you missed it?^^

Except, they don't gain those bonuses with age categories because they correspond to humanoid ageing effects. They also do not correspond to the age categories in question; while the bonuses for middle age and venerable respectively represent entering the 'very old' and 'great wyrm' age categories, the old bonus comes half-way through the 'ancient' age category. And it's also worth noting that these bonuses are half-bonuses of +1 where all true dragons have bonuses of +2 or more per age category.

It's also notable that actual true dragons are not subject to these ageing effects at all, but instead only gain the ability adjustments in line with age categories.


They also do not grow in size as they age past maturity; all true dragons do so.

They also do not gain hit dice as they age; all true dragons do so, with 3 HD per age category for most true dragons, and 5 HD per age category for epic dragons.

They also do not gain any additional abilities like breath weapons or wings without taking feats or templates to represent them.

Another fact of the matter is that dragonwrought kobolds are not their own isolated dragon type. Instead they rely on a bloodline from a pre-existing dragon type, specifically either of a chromatic or metallic dragon. This makes them into something more equivalent to half-dragons or dragon disciples than it does anything resembling a true dragon.

[Doctor Awkward]

Ability scores count as Natural Abilities IIRC. Gaining pure mental stats due to age accounts as pure power gain and as ability gain. While you don't get it on every age category, it still qualifies, since there is no mention that you need to gain them for every age category progression.
There you go, and btw.. If I am not mistaken I am repeating this argument already over and over. So, how comes that you missed it?^^

By this logic, every single dragon type creature qualifies as a true dragon, since gaining inherent bonuses to ability scores due to increase hit dice is a basic function of progression.

This includes wyverns, dragon turtles, Abyssal Drakes, and every other creature explicitly called out as a lesser dragon in the Draconomicon.

How do you justify this contradiction?

[daremetoidareyo]

if you're a wyrmling true dragon and you age to the next age category, but you are hit by Permenant level drain at every age category, do you lose true dragon status?

How important is the interpretation of the word "advancement" in light of this? Does a failure to advance while true dragon negate true dragon status?

[Gruftzwerg]

But if you emulate a kobold you are considered a member of that race for all other purposes. So if in your campaign Dragonrot kobolds are true dragons, your changeling is a true dragon

you count as member of that race for all "effects" realted to it. Having "Age Categories" ain't an "effect". It's a trait which you explicitly don't gain as Racial Emulation states.



By this logic, every single dragon type creature qualifies as a true dragon, since gaining inherent bonuses to ability scores due to increase hit dice is a basic function of progression.

This includes wyverns, dragon turtles, Abyssal Drakes, and every other creature explicitly called out as a lesser dragon in the Draconomicon.

How do you justify this contradiction?
No, "wyverns, dragon turtles, Abyssal Drakes, and every other creature explicitly called out as a lesser dragon in the Draconomicon" don't have "Age Categories" which puts them by default into the lesser dragon category, while DWK do have "Age Categories" and thus disqualify as lesser dragons.
Only "regular" true dragons and Kobolds have "Age Categories". But just Kobold lacks the dragon type & the pure gains which the DWK feat gives you.

[daremetoidareyo]

you count as member of that race for all "effects" realted to it. Having "Age Categories" ain't an "effect". It's a trait which you explicitly don't gain as Racial Emulation states.



No, "wyverns, dragon turtles, Abyssal Drakes, and every other creature explicitly called out as a lesser dragon in the Draconomicon" don't have "Age Categories" which puts them by default into the lesser dragon category, while DWK do have "Age Categories" and thus disqualify as lesser dragons.
Only "regular" true dragons and Kobolds have "Age Categories". But just Kobold lacks the dragon type & the pure gains which the DWK feat gives you.

A changeling doesn't need the age categories, if a dragonwrought kobold is a true dragon, you get that as a changeling.

[Promethean]

By this logic, every single dragon type creature qualifies as a true dragon, since gaining inherent bonuses to ability scores due to increase hit dice is a basic function of progression.

This includes wyverns, dragon turtles, Abyssal Drakes, and every other creature explicitly called out as a lesser dragon in the Draconomicon.

How do you justify this contradiction?

Not really, the explicitly stated lesser dragons still wouldn't have the 12 age categories kobolds do. So the statement isn't contradictory.


if you're a wyrmling true dragon and you age to the next age category, but you are hit by Permenant level drain at every age category, do you lose true dragon status?

How important is the interpretation of the word "advancement" in light of this? Does a failure to advance while true dragon negate true dragon status?

Said true dragon would still be a true dragon, would still grow in size categories, gain ability scores/nat armor/etc., gain natural spell-casting, and be pretty overpowered as it'd allow the pc access to all the true dragon options as a +1-6 race(which with LA buy off as described in the SRD: LA Buyoff (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/reducingLevelAdjustments.htm) Isn't nearly as bad.)

[Gruftzwerg]

A changeling doesn't need the age categories, if a dragonwrought kobold is a true dragon, you get that as a changeling.

Counting as DWK only gives you the "dragon" status and only if you have "Age Categories" you may call yourself a true dragon (see Draconomicon P4).


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).

Further they lack the pure power gain as they grow older:


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

Btw, notice that the power gain is not tied to the Age Categories and thus the pure beneficial "Age Effects" a DWK gets are enough to qualify.
A changeling might copy the pure beneficial "Age Effects" by some other mean (to ignore the physical "Age Effect" penalties: e.g. 17th lvl monk with Timeless Body), but he would still lack the "Age Categories".

Dunno if there exists any other kind or "Age Categories" in 3.5 than those of regular true dragons and kobold. But if there is any you could get for your Changeling, it would work. But without all of that, you would get a strict "no".

[Scots Dragon]

Not really, the explicitly stated lesser dragons still wouldn't have the 12 age categories kobolds do. So the statement isn't contradictory.

Actually they might have the same twelve age categories, we don't know either way. The actual wording doesn't forbid it.


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).

It would be entirely possible for basically any creature of the dragon type to possess those twelve age categories. It would be the advancement associated with those age categories that determine whether or not they're true dragons.

Also, if you're willing to expand to another edition, several of the listed lesser dragons explicitly do have those age categories because they were listed as true dragons in the previous edition. Specifically the various types of linnorm, which were true dragons in AD&D 2e but revised down into being lesser dragons in D&D 3e. If we accept that the lore is still the same, however, they would actually still have those age categories.

[umbergod]

Im just curious as to the logic of 1 race specific feat = true dragon, but a +3 LA template doesnt, despite making you literally half true dragon? Inquiring minds want to know

[Nifft]

Im just curious as to the logic of 1 race specific feat = true dragon, but a +3 LA template doesnt, despite making you literally half true dragon? Inquiring minds want to know

Same logic which allows a White Half-Dragon Red Dragon.

That is to say: it's not really any logic.

It's just how the rules are.

[ayvango]

Im just curious as to the logic of 1 race specific feat = true dragon, but a +3 LA template doesnt
It means that kobold as starting point is closer to the destination than any other generic race.

[Doctor Awkward]

Im just curious as to the logic of 1 race specific feat = true dragon, but a +3 LA template doesnt, despite making you literally half true dragon? Inquiring minds want to know

I was actually going to say the same thing once I got home.

Kobolds with the half-dragon template would count as true dragons under Gruft's rules. They are of the dragon type and advance through age categories. Kobolds that have 10 levels in Dragon Disciple would also be true dragons.

Assuming "Age Categories" is not explicitly defined as "12 age categories", then any playable race with explicitly written vital statistics and the half-dragon template would count as a true dragon.


Additionally:


sry but no, Draconomicon p144 "other true dragons" give you instruction how to create those.
Homebrew is created due to DM/player desires. But here we have a clear instruction given to the DM and enforcing him (unless he houserules, which he can. but than it is a houserule and not RAW).



Originally Posted by Draconomicon p144 - Other True Dragons
For true dragons other than those found in the Monster Manual, construct tables such as those above using the information on Table 3–22: Additional Level Adjustments.


So, there is no need to homebrew, you got instructions to follow. The DM needs to make a table as in 3-22.

That's not what the instructions are telling you at to do. At all.
It is instructing you to build tables just like those found in the previous section, using the values in Table 3-22 for the "other true dragon which are not found in the Monster Manual."

The entire rest of the section are instructions on how to interpret Table 3-22. The first sentence of the next paragraph after the table informs you that the Hit Dice and Level Adjustmens listed are for the wyrmling, very young, young, and juvenile age categories for the specific type of dragon they are listed after. It then notes as an example that a sapphire dragon has identical progression to a copper dragon. It then lists additional rules specific to lung dragons and what happens to them as they age.

The instructions are specific to the species listed in Table 3-22. They are not a blanket invitation to just make things up for anything you think should be a true dragon.

Next time read the entirety of the rules you quote to make sure they specifically back up your claim, rather than saying nothing whatsoever to support your claim.


IMHO DWK are true dragons.
You are certainly entitled to your incorrect opinions.
And free to run your own games however you see fit.


edit: about RAW & Optimization
Optimizing with RAW is like hacking a program. You don't care about the intention of the programmer or what it is supposed to do.

Bull****.
Vicious brazen mendacity.

If you go into a casino and get caught attempt to manipulate the rules to your advantage and achieve an unintended consequence, your best case scenario is to get banned from the establishment for life. Most D&D tables work exactly the same way.

You should always exercise sensible caution when encountering vague or unclear text. But it is another thing entirely to willfully ignore context and obvious intent, invent new interpretations for words, or assume that they mean something other than what they clearly mean because it would serve to prove or disprove your point. That isn't optimizing. It's rules-lawyering.

It's also terrible advice to give to new players, and promotes a line of thinking that has zero practical use at the vast majority of gaming tables.

Take this into the Homebrew forum if you want to experiment with builds that don't follow the rules.



There is a reason why we differentiate between RAI & RAW.

Maybe we should all make a separate thread about the intentions to cover also the RAI part of DWK. We had a few arguments in one of the older threads about it, some even claiming that the RAI just has changed over the time/books. Other did point out that WotC just tried to buff True Dragons with later released material which did cause that DWK true dragons did get more power than originally intended.
Imho separate RAW and RAI discussions simultaneously would be the best solution to clear the situation.

Except you aren't arguing RAW. You are, and always have been, arguing the Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, So There!

[Gruftzwerg]

I was actually going to say the same thing once I got home.

Kobolds with the half-dragon template would count as true dragons under Gruft's rules. They are of the dragon type and advance through age categories. Kobolds that have 10 levels in Dragon Disciple would also be true dragons.

Assuming "Age Categories" is not explicitly defined as "12 age categories", then any playable race with explicitly written vital statistics and the half-dragon template would count as a true dragon.
We have a specific rule for Half-Dragon that trumps the general definition of True Dragons. The rule puts a Half-Dragon automatically into the lesser dragon camp without any further debate.
The oddity is that this rule puts "a White Half-Dragon Red Dragon" into the lesser Dragon camp too by RAW.



Additionally:



That's not what the instructions are telling you at to do. At all.
It is instructing you to build tables just like those found in the previous section, using the values in Table 3-22 for the "other true dragon which are not found in the Monster Manual."

The entire rest of the section are instructions on how to interpret Table 3-22. The first sentence of the next paragraph after the table informs you that the Hit Dice and Level Adjustmens listed are for the wyrmling, very young, young, and juvenile age categories for the specific type of dragon they are listed after. It then notes as an example that a sapphire dragon has identical progression to a copper dragon. It then lists additional rules specific to lung dragons and what happens to them as they age.

The instructions are specific to the species listed in Table 3-22. They are not a blanket invitation to just make things up for anything you think should be a true dragon.

It's up to the DM how he sees it. The rule text only demands that the creature needs a table such as 3-22. This means there needs to be the same columns (names) but you don't need to copy any of the represented values of the other dragons. The DM could:
a) go with LA+0 for a optimizer friendly DWK
b) add LA+(X) as a penalty for a certain age (e.g. vernegeable to handicap the DWK true dragon cheese as he sees it fit.
c) add the same or more LA as for another true dragon (e.g. the one tied to the DWK feat) and thus ruining any DWK true dragon optimization attempt by just making it not worth anymore (since a DWK than wastes a feat compared to directly playing the true dragon tied to its feat).


That isn't optimizing. It's rules-lawyering.

It's also terrible advice to give to new players, and promotes a line of thinking that has zero practical use at the vast majority of gaming tables.

Take this into the Homebrew forum if you want to experiment with builds that don't follow the rules.




Except you aren't arguing RAW. You are, and always have been, arguing the Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, So There!

Nobody said that this is "practical optimization" for every table. We/I talk about a theoretical RAW optimization. Which optimization lvl a group/DM is prefering is sole up to them and not for the forum to decide.
Further nobody enforces you to play with it (or talk about RAW either since you always bring someones intentions into your arguments and demand that your opinion ain't RAI but RAW..). Do you play with "healing by drowning"? Do your players always abuse it every session? I guess not. So, you as almost everybody who plays a somewhat sane table doesn't play RAW (including myself here btw..). IMHO nobody plays full RAW cause its only fun for a single session or two until the people get bored of people pulling out one oddity after the other.

Same with DWK and their true dragon status. Nobody forces you to play RAW.

And yeah, this is rule-lawyering <3, finally you got what RAW optimization means. You try to abuse rules as the text present em. No sane intentions of the designers or someone else (like a real DM) will stop you for this theoretical discipline, cause you just care for the text of rules and nothing else. For "Theoretical RAW Optimization" you assume a DM that plays full RAW (which don't exist in real game sessions). It's just a theoretical discipline for theorycrafters like me who have fun with it. Or for those rare high OP and TO sessions you maybe play once in a while, but that's it.

But this doesn't mean that a RAW optimizer plays RAW at full strength. As said, nobody plays RAW on a regular base.

We all play RAI imho. Most people who claim that they play RAW either don't know the difference or use the term to imply a high and mostly free optimization lvl. But even they won't rely on "healing by drowning", for more than a single session imho..^^
And I bet nobody would try to attempt to play something like Pun-Pun or BoBaFeat, even if they are full legal by RAW.

People need to understand the difference between RAW and RAI and that nobody really plays full RAW.

_____

And regarding the impression on newbies to 3.5/the forum. Sorry but imho the very first thing a newbie in the forum needs to know is, how they can use the forum for their needs. Most often they request "the build with max optimization and *PEW PEW*". And guess what, 3.5 can make that possible. Only that the DM and the other teammates with suffer..
But how you want to approach this problem?
By denying "theoretical RAW discussion" (who are fun for some people imho, think of : healing by drowning, pun pun..)?
Or do you want to prevent newbies from knowing how unbalanced 3.5 build are (and sometimes dysfunctional as seen in our beloved dysfunctional rule series here in the forum)?
Imho it's something almost every newbie in the forum needs to experience himself, so that next time he will provide better optimization lvl info for his requests..^^

[Troacctid]

{Scrubbed}

[Promethean]

{scrubbed}

Which one? This is the internet, you'll have too be more specific on which radical baseless argument you're referring too.:smalltongue:

[AnonCastillo]

>DWK Loredrakes
>Loredrake requires a true dragon to reduce its racial hit dice from d12 to d10
>DWK don't have racial hit dice

Imagine believing that a DWK can be a Loredrake.

[ayvango]

>DWK Loredrakes
>Loredrake requires a true dragon to reduce its racial hit dice from d12 to d10
>DWK don't have racial hit dice

Imagine believing that a DWK can be a Loredrake.
That is all theoretical optimization.

When turning to practise any sane group would add little house rule loredrake, xorvintall and other cheese so it could not be taken by a kobold character despite being true dragon. Just like any group patches infinite wish loop and energy transformation field.

[Gruftzwerg]

{scrubbed}

Welcome back. And seems you haven't changed either. Discrediting others while making no statement/argument about the topic at all. But hey, I'm still happy to see you here. Was already missing you and asked myself where you are..^^
Do you feel like joining the discussion with some arguments? =)
We are only at page 6 after 10days. We need more people in this topic ;)


>DWK Loredrakes
>Loredrake requires a true dragon to reduce its racial hit dice from d12 to d10
>DWK don't have racial hit dice


Imagine believing that a DWK can be a Loredrake.

Simple to solve if you follow base RAW 3.5 logic:

The D12 Racial Hit Dice ain't a requirement. The requirement is to be a true dragon and nothing else.

The change from D12 >D10 RHD is part of the effect of Loredrake. It's just nonfunctional since it can't target any of the Kobolds RHD. Like when you cast an area spell, the magical-effect tries to affect everything in the area, even illegal targets. It doesn't become totally nonfunctional just because there is one invalid target in it. All legal targets get still affected. And the same chase is here. The RHD reduction just becomes a nonfunctional part for a DWK loredrake.
But the rest of the Loredrake effects still apply.

Now I try to imagine a DWK loredrake..
And...? Should something happen? Should I think how totally OP it is to be 1lvl in-front of wizard casting at the cost of 1 general and 4 metamagic/item creation feats (DWK loredrake vs. wizard over the course of 20lvls)?

Sure getting spells 1 lvl ahead of wizard is nice, but at the theoretical cost of up to 5 feats compared to a wizard ain't that OP imho.

Sure for some tables when your other party members don't optimize as much as your DWK, it's a bad thing. But when you are in a group of a Planar Shepherd, Codzilla and such builds, would it overshadow the others?

While most of us play on a more sane lvl (me including), we see posts of other people that try to play those TO builds that are totally OP. So do you really have a problem with imagining a loredrake DWK (maybe not at your table but on other tables with high optimization)? (I'm curious)


That is all theoretical optimization.

When turning to practise any sane group would add little house rule loredrake, xorvintall and other cheese so it could not be taken by a kobold character despite being true dragon. Just like any group patches infinite wish loop and energy transformation field.

I agree. Imho some people seem to have problems to realize that they aren't playing RAW at all and that it's a normal thing to houserule such things like "healing by drowning" or a "true dragon DWK" away.

Nobody is suggesting that all tables should work with RAW DWK ruling.

[ayvango]

things like "healing by drowning"
Had anyone already suggested aquarian frenzied berserker build?

[Gruftzwerg]

Had anyone already suggested aquarian frenzied berserker build?

No, I guess because the aquarian wouldn't drown in regular water and thus it would be a poor choice..^^

[ayvango]

I mean someone who carry aquarium in place of normal helm. Other way it be amphibian who can willingly turn off/on his breathing.

[Troacctid]

Welcome back. And seems you haven't changed either. Discrediting others while making no statement/argument about the topic at all. But hey, I'm still happy to see you here. Was already missing you and asked myself where you are..^^
Do you feel like joining the discussion with some arguments? =)
We are only at page 6 after 10days. We need more people in this topic ;)
You seemed content to jump in without any new arguments to offer. What's wrong with my doing the same? You've already handwaved away all the evidence against your position.


I agree. Imho some people seem to have problems to realize that they aren't playing RAW at all and that it's a normal thing to houserule such things like "healing by drowning" or a "true dragon DWK" away.

Nobody is suggesting that all tables should work with RAW DWK ruling.
I'll suggest it. Tables should work with the RAW DWK ruling, which is that they are lesser dragons.

[Remuko]

I'll suggest it. Tables should work with the RAW DWK ruling, which is that they are lesser dragons.

I can understand everyone saying that DWK by RAI don't belong as True Dragons. I can even believe that by RAW maybe they aren't as well. But they very explicitly by RAW are not lesser dragons. The description for lesser dragons requires the dragon to not have something that kobolds explicitly do, which means they cant be lesser dragons no matter what. Now if you want to argue this makes them some third undefined category that's neither lesser nor true, fine, but they absolutely cannot be lesser dragons, by RAW.

[Scots Dragon]

I can understand everyone saying that DWK by RAI don't belong as True Dragons. I can even believe that by RAW maybe they aren't as well. But they very explicitly by RAW are not lesser dragons. The description for lesser dragons requires the dragon to not have something that kobolds explicitly do, which means they cant be lesser dragons no matter what. Now if you want to argue this makes them some third undefined category that's neither lesser nor true, fine, but they absolutely cannot be lesser dragons, by RAW.

It does not say anywhere that lesser dragons cannot have those age categories, merely that they do not use them for advancement. This is the definition;

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).

The description of lesser dragons does not preclude the presence of those age categories. There really isn't a contradiction here with kobolds having those age categories. As they do not use those age categories to advance, they are lesser dragons. Those age categories existing in purely descriptive terms is irrelevant.

[Troacctid]

Also refer to the Dr 144 quote posted by Tonymitsu upthread.

[Nifft]

It does not say anywhere that lesser dragons cannot have those age categories, merely that they do not use them for advancement. It actually does say that in Dragon Magic, p.87:


a true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon).

As it turns out, this is the most recent definition of True Dragon, for whatever that's worth.

== == ==


The description of lesser dragons does not preclude the presence of those age categories. There really isn't a contradiction here with kobolds having those age categories. As they do not use those age categories to advance, they are lesser dragons. Those age categories existing in purely descriptive terms is irrelevant. The oft-repeated counterargument for that seems to be: "advance through" isn't a term of art, and it's not the keyword Advancement, so we have to fall back on the non-technical meaning.

By the non-technical English meaning of "advance through", increasing age does mean "advancing", and moving through the age categories as you age would be "advancing through", which Kobolds certainly do -- though Kobolds are not by default Dragons. This is most relevant because Dragonwrought Kobolds are both Dragons and Kobolds, therefore they are Dragons who "advance through" age categories.

Q.E.D. => Quiche-Quiche Est Draconis

[Troacctid]

The oft-repeated counterargument for that seems to be: "advance through" isn't a term of art, and it's not the keyword Advancement, so we have to fall back on the non-technical meaning.

By the non-technical English meaning of "advance through", increasing age does mean "advancing", and moving through the age categories as you age would be "advancing through", which Kobolds certainly do -- though Kobolds are not by default Dragons. This is most relevant because Dragonwrought Kobolds are both Dragons and Kobolds, therefore they are Dragons who "advance through" age categories.

Q.E.D. => Quiche-Quiche Est Draconis
This requires ignoring the section of Draconomicon that goes into great detail about how dragons advance.

[umbergod]

It actually does say that in Dragon Magic, p.87:

As it turns out, this is the most recent definition of True Dragon, for whatever that's worth.

Its also already been stated that the Draconomicon trumps Dragon Magic for true/lesser dragon definitons

[Doctor Awkward]

Here's another question:

Quoted from the SRD on True Dragons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm)

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

What additional abilities do dragonwrought kobolds acquire simply by getting older, rather than as a result of their character class?

[daremetoidareyo]

Here's another question:

Quoted from the SRD on True Dragons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm)


What additional abilities do dragonwrought kobolds acquire simply by getting older, rather than as a result of their character class?

aging effects on stats.

[Scots Dragon]

aging effects on stats.

Except that those do not include additional abilities, hit dice, or any growth in size.

Also they do not correspond to the twelve age categories, but instead to the humanoid ageing effects.

[Doctor Awkward]

aging effects on stats.

How do you know that requirement is looking for ability scores (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#abilityScores) and not special abilities (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/specialAbilities.htm)?

EDIT: It's also already been argued by Gruft that advancing through age categories =/= advancing through hit dice.
Ability score increases only happen when you advance through hit dice.
This requirement is that you gain abilities simply by "getting older"

[umbergod]

Except that those do not include additional abilities, hit dice, or any growth in size.

Also they do not correspond to the twelve age categories, but instead to the humanoid ageing effects.

Whoa there, making too much sense. Theyre already willfully interpretting humanoid aging effects to equate gaining "new power and abilities" as a true dragon would as it advance through its age category based HD

[daremetoidareyo]

Whoa there, making too much sense. Theyre already willfully interpretting humanoid aging effects to equate gaining "new power and abilities" as a true dragon would as it advance through its age category based HD

Be careful with your use of the word "they." The lack of a kobold statblock that has advancement categories for wyrmling - venerable kobolds demonstrates the designers don't intead a dragonwrought kobold to be a true dragon.

The humanoid aging effects represent gaining new power and abilities as far as I'm concerned, even if you have to piecemeal them into the races of the dragon age blocks. They don't define the words powers and abilities. So getting a +1 to spot checks through extra wisdom counts as more power and abilities. Boring power and abilities. But power and abilities nonetheless.

I disagree with the notion that draconomicon is primary source over a later dated splat.

[Doctor Awkward]

I disagree with the notion that draconomicon is primary source over a later dated splat.

Sure. Let's pretend this isn't the case.


In Races of the Dragon on page 69, it has rules for creating dragon-dragon characters, which says this:


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).

I actually found that when I was looking things up for a satirical post about dragonwrought kobold being a valid candidate for the half-dragon template, and thus it would be a half-dragonwrought dragonwrought kobold... trust me, it would have been hilarious...

Anyway, according the same book in which the Dragonwrought feat is printed, that is an exhaustive list of every true dragon to appear in every official D&D supplement.

Naturally, "dragonwrought kobold" does not appear on that list.


There's another table on pg. 103, which is for use with the Draconic Heritage, Draconic Legacy, and even the Dragonwrought feat itself, which also lists all varieties of true dragons you can choose from for specific benefits for those feats. Unsurprisingly, "dragonwrought kobold" isn't on that list either.

So are we done here?

EDIT: Incidentally, the reason why it specifically has to say that it supersedes previously published books is the same reason the Rules Compendium does. Because this is not normally the case.

[umbergod]

Sure. Let's pretend this isn't the case.


In Races of the Dragon on page 69, it has rules for creating dragon-dragon characters, which says this:



I actually found that when I was looking things up for a satirical post about dragonwrought kobold being a valid candidate for the half-dragon template, and thus it would be a half-dragonwrought dragonwrought kobold... trust me, it would have been hilarious...

Anyway, according the same book in which the Dragonwrought feat is printed, that is an exhaustive list of every true dragon to appear in every official D&D supplement.

Naturally, "dragonwrought kobold" does not appear on that list.


There's another table on pg. 103, which is for use with the Draconic Heritage, Draconic Legacy, and even the Dragonwrought feat itself, which also lists all varieties of true dragons you can choose from for specific benefits for those feats. Unsurprisingly, "dragonwrought kobold" isn't on that list either.

So are we done here?

If only. Someone will argue the wording of that

[Nifft]

In Races of the Dragon on page 69, it has rules for creating dragon-dragon characters, which says this:
That section is indeed definitive for half-dragons.

It's not definitive for any other topic.

RAW there is no such thing as a "half-Dragonwrought". That's valid and true, however it's also irrelevant for either side of the argument.


I actually found that when I was looking things up for a satirical post about dragonwrought kobold being a valid candidate for the half-dragon template, and thus it would be a half-dragonwrought dragonwrought kobold... trust me, it would have been hilarious... Indeed it would.


Anyway, according the same book in which the Dragonwrought feat is printed, that is an exhaustive list of every true dragon to appear in every official D&D supplement. False, it's missing a bunch -- including Yellow / Purple / Steel / etc.

That means there are a number of True Dragons for which RAW says there cannot be any corresponding half-dragons. That's valid and true, however it's also irrelevant for either side of the argument.


Naturally, "dragonwrought kobold" does not appear on that list. Naturally, since they'd be too OP.


There's another table on pg. 103, which is for use with the Draconic Heritage, Draconic Legacy, and even the Dragonwrought feat itself, which also lists all varieties of true dragons you can choose from for specific benefits for those feats. Unsurprisingly, "dragonwrought kobold" isn't on that list either. It would be false to claim that the list on p.103 is all True Dragons, of course, so (unsurprisingly) it's not relevant whether any specific True Dragon is or is not on that list. It's not even indirect evidence.

[Troacctid]

To recap, Dragonwrought Kobolds are true dragons by RAW, assuming that you take a specific reading of one line of the text and then overlook all contradictory RAW and ignore the obvious intent. Or, you could interpret them as not being true dragons by RAW, assuming that you take all the textual evidence into account in a logical, intuitive, and internally consistent reading of RAW that also matches the RAI. Since random people have argued both ways on the internet, they are of course equally valid and you should expect it to be 50/50 at any given table.

[umbergod]

To recap, Dragonwrought Kobolds are true dragons by RAW, assuming that you take a specific reading of one line of the text and then overlook all contradictory RAW and ignore the obvious intent. Or, you could interpret them as not being true dragons by RAW, assuming that you take all the textual evidence into account in a logical, intuitive, and internally consistent reading of RAW that also matches the RAI. Since random people have argued both ways on the internet, they are of course equally valid and you should expect it to be 50/50 at any given table.

Winner winner chicken dinner!

[Doctor Awkward]

That section is indeed definitive for half-dragons.

It's not definitive for any other topic.


Of course it is. Nowhere in the text does it state "For the purposes of the half-dragon template."


False, it's missing a bunch -- including Yellow / Purple / Steel / etc.

It would be false to claim that the list on p.103 is all True Dragons, of course, so (unsurprisingly) it's not relevant whether any specific True Dragon is or is not on that list. It's not even indirect evidence.

What is relevant is that it is a list of all true dragons at the time of the printing of Races of the Dragon.
It is in fact, the printing of the dragonwrought kobold feat.

If dragonwrought kodolds are true dragons, then why aren't they on that list, in the very book in which they are introduced?

[Nifft]

Of course it is. Nowhere in the text does it state "For the purposes of the half-dragon template." The topic of the section is literally HALF-DRAGONS BEYOND THE MONSTER MANUAL, as you correctly report in your quote.

That is the topic of the section. It is about half-dragons (... beyond the Monster Manual).

On that topic, it is authoritative.

On other topics, it is not.

This is good, because as mentioned several times, the list of half-dragon parents in that section is not a list of all True Dragons in all published sources. If it claimed to be authoritative on that topic, it would be a rule dysfunction, since the True Dragons from Dragon Compendium / Dragons of Faerun / etc. really are True Dragons, and they're not on that list. Since it's not claiming to contradict that, there's no rules dysfunction -- it's just that the section is authoritative over a smaller scope than you'd hoped.


What is relevant is that it is a list of all true dragons at the time of the printing of Races of the Dragon. At least this is a new argument, but unfortunately it's factually incorrect.

One example (which is sufficient to disprove a categorical claim such as this): the Incarnum Dragon, from Magic of Incarnum, which was published in 2005.


If dragonwrought kodolds are true dragons, then why aren't they on that list, in the very book in which they are introduced? Because the only consistent reading of the half-dragon list is that it's only authoritative over legal half-dragon types, and Dragonwrought Kobold is not a legal source for half-dragons.

... heh, or maybe they are, but the expression is as if the parent is the same type as the Dragonwrought Kobold's chosen heritage.

Dragonwrought Kobolds who choose a rare or powerful heritage would be very popular breeding partners if they could imbue their progeny with the blood of that dragon type.

That might be a fun dungeon: a heap of half-dragon beasts & giants, all the progeny of a very suave Kobold Bard.

[Doctor Awkward]

Because the only consistent reading of the half-dragon list is that it's only authoritative over legal half-dragon types, and Dragonwrought Kobold is not a legal source for half-dragons.

No the table on page 103 is the benefits given for true dragon heritages for the purposes of the Draconic heritage feats.

If dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons, why aren't they on that list?

[Nifft]

No the table on page 103 is the benefits given for true dragon heritages for the purposes of the Draconic heritage feats.

If dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons, why aren't they on that list? C'mon.


... heh, or maybe they are, but the expression is as if the parent is the same type as the Dragonwrought Kobold's chosen heritage.

Dragonwrought Kobolds who choose a rare or powerful heritage would be very popular breeding partners if they could imbue their progeny with the blood of that dragon type.

That might be a fun dungeon: a heap of half-dragon beasts & giants, all the progeny of a very suave Kobold Bard.

== == ==

Alternate answer:

If Incarnum Dragons are true dragons, why aren't they on that list?

If Greyhawk / Tome / Steel dragons are true dragons, why aren't they on that list?

If the stuff from Dragon Magazine -- the ones which were published before RotDr, and which were all official content according to the magazine's cover -- like Yellow Dragon, and Purple Dragon, and that Time dragon which had random duration age categories -- if all those critters are true dragons, why aren't they on that list?


Because neither of those lists can be what you seem to want them to be.

Each is a list of dragon types, but not the authoritative list of all official dragons -- and apparently there is no such list, because if there were such a list then it would be trivial to explicitly confirm (or refute) the Truthiness of the mighty Kobold.

[Doctor Awkward]

C'mon.



== == ==

Alternate answer:

If Incarnum Dragons are true dragons, why aren't they on that list?

If Greyhawk / Tome / Steel dragons are true dragons, why aren't they on that list?

If the stuff from Dragon Magazine -- the ones which were published before RotDr, and which were all official content according to the magazine's cover -- like Yellow Dragon, and Purple Dragon, and that Time dragon which had random duration age categories -- if all those critters are true dragons, why aren't they on that list?


Because neither of those lists can be what you seem to want them to be.

Each is a list of dragon types, but not the authoritative list of all official dragons -- and apparently there is no such list, because if there were such a list then it would be trivial to explicitly confirm (or refute) the Truthiness of the mighty Kobold.

You're side-stepping the issue.

Why would dragonwrought kobold, a "true dragon", not be included in either list of true dragons that appears in same book?

[Doctor Awkward]

Here's another question:



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

It's only the Draconomicon and the Monster Manual that explicitly call out half-dragons as lesser dragons.

If we are assuming that Races of the Dragon (or Dragon Magic) take precedence, why are half-dragons not considered true dragons?

That sentence right there explicitly states that half-dragons are "versions" of true dragons.
They additionally meet all other requirements such as advancing through age categories and having the dragon type.

[Nifft]

You're side-stepping the issue.

Why would dragonwrought kobold, a "true dragon", not be included in either list of true dragons that appears in same book? I'm not side-stepping the "issue", I'm calling into question the validity of your so-called "issue".

The fact is that unequivocal True Dragons are missing from both lists. Therefore, the lists cannot be used as evidence to support the idea that omission is meaningful.


So, the omission of Dragonwrought Kobolds on either list is indicative of nothing -- the choices are either:

1/ WotC intended to put every True Dragon on one (or both) list but WotC messed up; no information about WotC's intent can be derived from their omissions, since omissions were either accidental or not, and you can't tell which.

2/ WotC didn't intend to put every True Dragon on either list, and you're just trying to over-reach. Again, no information about WotC's intent can be derived from their omissions.



Interestingly, this brings up a bit of a side-topic:

If you allow another True Dragon to take the Draconic Heritage feat, which by default they can after taking a single Sorcerer level, there's a bit of a rules dysfunction -- The dragon is not required to take its own type as its heritage, while a Half-Dragon does face the sensible restriction of only having its dragon type as its dragon heritage.

Why is that dysfunction allowed?

Also, why do unequivocal True Dragons published before RotDr (like the Incarnum Dragon) not appear on either list?

[Doctor Awkward]

Again, no information about WotC's intent can be derived from their omissions.

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/smiley.gif


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).

No sir, we have no clue about their intentions whatsoever...
:smallbiggrin:

So! Seeing as dragonwrought kobolds do not appear on a list in the book in which they are introduced which is directly intended to be an exhaustive list of all true dragons... what does that tell us?

[Nifft]

So, the omission of Dragonwrought Kobolds on either list is indicative of nothing -- the choices are either:

1/ WotC intended to put every True Dragon on one (or both) list but WotC messed up; no information about WotC's intent can be derived from their omissions, since omissions were either accidental or not, and you can't tell which.

2/ WotC didn't intend to put every True Dragon on either list, and you're just trying to over-reach. Again, no information about WotC's intent can be derived from their omissions.


http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/smiley.gif

No sir, we have no clue about their intentions whatsoever...
:smallbiggrin: Look, you gotta at least make an attempt to appear like you're debating in good faith. What you just did is a ****post.

Again, the list of valid half-dragon parents doesn't include all True Dragons. That's a fact. That means the omission of any particular True Dragon is ... trivia, nothing more.

Also, the fact that you can't answer the arguments in my post is not something you can fix with a mocking image and some blue-text.



So! Seeing as dragonwrought kobolds do not appear on a list in the book in which they are introduced which is directly intended to be an exhaustive list of all true dragons... what does that tell us? Again, why do unequivocal True Dragons published before RotDr (like the Incarnum Dragon) not appear on either list?

Are you unable to answer the question?

[Doctor Awkward]

Look, you gotta at least make an attempt to appear like you're debating in good faith. What you just did is a ****post.

If you're having trouble finding good faith, it' probably because he got off about twelve exits back. Round about the time it was assumed that "advance through hit dice" doesn't mean Monster Advancement. Or any of the other times after that new definitions for words had to be invented in order to keep defending the indefensible.


Again, the list of valid half-dragon parents doesn't include all True Dragons. That's a fact. That means the omission of any particular True Dragon is ... trivia, nothing more.

Evidence
The phrase you are looking for is circumstantial evidence.


Also, the fact that you can't answer the arguments in my post is not something you can fix with a mocking image and some blue-text.


Again, why do unequivocal True Dragons published before RotDr (like the Incarnum Dragon) not appear on either list?

Are you unable to answer the question?

Hmm... as long as we are in the land of make-believe let's go with Incarnum Dragons are clearly not true dragons.

Seeing as that list is stated to be exhaustive of all true dragons printed in every single D&D product at the time of it's printing, it follows that Incarnum Dragons, Steel Dragons, Yellow, Purple, and Orange dragons must not be true dragons.

And neither are dragonwrought kobolds. :smallwink:







...Are we ready to stop playing pretend yet?

[umbergod]

Look, you gotta at least make an attempt to appear like you're debating in good faith. What you just did is a ****post.

Again, the list of valid half-dragon parents doesn't include all True Dragons. That's a fact. That means the omission of any particular True Dragon is ... trivia, nothing more.

Also, the fact that you can't answer the arguments in my post is not something you can fix with a mocking image and some blue-text.


Again, why do unequivocal True Dragons published before RotDr (like the Incarnum Dragon) not appear on either list?

Are you unable to answer the question?

Youre handwaving his question away, despite it being not only valid, but logical? If DWK os a true dragon, it definitely would have popped up on at least one of the true dragons lists in the very same book it was printed. Its quite easy to infer from WOTC's lack of inclusion. How they didnt see this cluster**** tho by fluffing kobolds to have draconic age categories is beyond me

[Nifft]

If you're having trouble finding good faith, it' probably because he got off about twelve exits back. If I understand this correctly, you're basically admitting that you've been participating in bad faith.


Seeing as that list is stated to be exhaustive of all true dragons printed in every single D&D product at the time of it's printing, it follows that Incarnum Dragons, Steel Dragons, Yellow, Purple, and Orange dragons must not be true dragons. Explicitly contradicted by WotC -- you are wrong, and your argument is invalid:
https://i.imgur.com/Gj1I6BM.png

The rule that you're trying to rely upon is clearly a dysfunction, since the specific text for these dragons contradicts the foundation of your argument.

Hope you got a better argument in your back pocket.


...Are we ready to stop playing pretend yet? This entire forum's purpose is literally about playing pretend.

If you're here for any other reason, son, ain't nobody can help you.



Youre handwaving his question away, despite it being not only valid, but logical? If DWK os a true dragon, it definitely would have popped up on at least one of the true dragons lists in the very same book it was printed. Its quite easy to infer from WOTC's lack of inclusion. How they didnt see this cluster**** tho by fluffing kobolds to have draconic age categories is beyond me Yeah, it's annoying that they'd make it so difficult to define something like True Dragon and then hang a bunch of rules off of it. But I have no expectation that WotC will recognize the implications of their own work -- they're pretty terrible at seeing the obvious implications of even their Core rules. I mean, they have explicitly said that Monk is the best-designed class in the game. I'm not going to expect coherence nor even understanding of the obvious from them -- to do so is to court disappointment.


But anyway, back to the discussion. What I did was present evidence that his question was founded on an incorrect assumption. That's not hand-waving, it's attacking his central premise, and so far he's unable to defend in any substantive way.

Posting a LOLZORZ gif is not a substantive defense. (Not even if it's animated.)

Either the lists he presented were in error (thanks to stuff like the Incarnum Dragon), or the lists were not intended to serve the purpose for which he needed them to serve.

One of those must be true, because evidence that I presented directly contradicts his central thesis -- the lists do not contain all True Dragons, regardless of the status of Dragonwrought Kobolds. Therefore, the omission of any particular True Dragon is either (a) accidental, just like the ones which aren't controversial; or (b) deliberate, because the list isn't intended to represent all True Dragons. One of those must be true, or else (c) there's a rules dysfunction and the rule which is dysfunctional can't be used as evidence because it's dysfunctional.

A, B, or C -- take your pick.

Looks like Tonymitsu is aiming at C -- he thinks the general rule must apply, therefore when it's explicitly contradicted, there's a dysfunction instead of a rule.

I'm not sure that's the most elegant position, but it's at least productive -- the dysfunction removes itself, and the remaining rules are more consistent for its removal.

[Gruftzwerg]

Here's another question:



It's only the Draconomicon and the Monster Manual that explicitly call out half-dragons as lesser dragons.

If we are assuming that Races of the Dragon (or Dragon Magic) take precedence, why are half-dragons not considered true dragons?

That sentence right there explicitly states that half-dragons are "versions" of true dragons.
They additionally meet all other requirements such as advancing through age categories and having the dragon type.

Because the rules in those books don't contradict each other directly. If RotD would say "half-dragons are true dragon" you would be right and RotD would suppress the other books. But this is not the chase here. RotD doesn't say anything about the status, whether being a true dragon or a lesser dragon. And thus the rules from the other books are still in effect. "Taking precedence" ain't a hard reset on all rules published so far.

___________
@why DWK don't appear on the heritage list:

Because the DWK is supposed to use the same list for his true dragon ancestor. Lets assume a DWK who had also DWK as gradfather. Do you think the DWK would need to choose his grandfather as heritage or the same heritage as the his grandfather? I assume the latter one and thus DWK don't appear on the heritage list.
Further DWK have no control of their true dragon DNA while breeding. If 2 DWK would breed an egg together, the result doesn't have to be a DWK at all. In fact the chance in game terms is still the same as any other 2 Kobolds would breed with each other. (don't take the last part to serious ;)

[Remuko]

The topic of the section is literally HALF-DRAGONS BEYOND THE MONSTER MANUAL, as you correctly report in your quote.

That is the topic of the section. It is about half-dragons (... beyond the Monster Manual).

On that topic, it is authoritative.

On other topics, it is not.

This is good, because as mentioned several times, the list of half-dragon parents in that section is not a list of all True Dragons in all published sources. If it claimed to be authoritative on that topic, it would be a rule dysfunction, since the True Dragons from Dragon Compendium / Dragons of Faerun / etc. really are True Dragons, and they're not on that list. Since it's not claiming to contradict that, there's no rules dysfunction -- it's just that the section is authoritative over a smaller scope than you'd hoped.

At least this is a new argument, but unfortunately it's factually incorrect.

One example (which is sufficient to disprove a categorical claim such as this): the Incarnum Dragon, from Magic of Incarnum, which was published in 2005.

Because the only consistent reading of the half-dragon list is that it's only authoritative over legal half-dragon types, and Dragonwrought Kobold is not a legal source for half-dragons.

... heh, or maybe they are, but the expression is as if the parent is the same type as the Dragonwrought Kobold's chosen heritage.

Dragonwrought Kobolds who choose a rare or powerful heritage would be very popular breeding partners if they could imbue their progeny with the blood of that dragon type.

That might be a fun dungeon: a heap of half-dragon beasts & giants, all the progeny of a very suave Kobold Bard.

Deekin? :D

[Promethean]

God, this is like watching two lawyers argue about the definitions of "good" and "evil".

The RAW contradicts itself in several places, therefore it's impossible to come away with a purely objective stance from just the rules, as the rule themselves require an interpretation by the one reading them. I'd say DWK is too incoherent to have a one true RAW thus all anyone has been arguing is their own personal RAI.

This subject has basically become as amorphous and strange as alignments, there is no point arguing as the only evidence to present is subject to interpretation by the viewer.

[Bartmanhomer]

God, this is like watching two lawyers argue about the definitions of "good" and "evil".

The RAW contradicts itself in several places, therefore it's impossible to come away with a purely objective stance from just the rules, as the rule themselves require an interpretation by the one reading them. I'd say DWK is too incoherent to have a one true RAW thus all anyone has been arguing is their own personal RAI.

This subject has basically become as amorphous and strange as alignments, there is no point arguing as the only evidence to present is subject to interpretation by the viewer.

Sounds like Court TV as well. :sigh:

[lylsyly]

God, this is like watching two lawyers argue about the definitions of "good" and "evil".

The RAW contradicts itself in several places, therefore it's impossible to come away with a purely objective stance from just the rules, as the rule themselves require an interpretation by the one reading them. I'd say DWK is too incoherent to have a one true RAW thus all anyone has been arguing is their own personal RAI.

This subject has basically become as amorphous and strange as alignments, there is no point arguing as the only evidence to present is subject to interpretation by the viewer.

And yet I am wrong for ...

This is what settled it for me

Originally Posted by RotD p. 39 The most important difference between the two, however, is that kobolds are cold-blooded creatures, and dragons are warmblooded.

ROFLMAO:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:: smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbig grin::smallbiggrin:

[Troacctid]

God, this is like watching two lawyers argue about the definitions of "good" and "evil".

The RAW contradicts itself in several places, therefore it's impossible to come away with a purely objective stance from just the rules, as the rule themselves require an interpretation by the one reading them. I'd say DWK is too incoherent to have a one true RAW thus all anyone has been arguing is their own personal RAI.

This subject has basically become as amorphous and strange as alignments, there is no point arguing as the only evidence to present is subject to interpretation by the viewer.
The lesser dragon interpretation is internally consistent and doesn't require the rules to contradict themselves at all. The contradictions only pop up once you start trying to read kobolds as being true dragons. Funny, that.

[Gruftzwerg]

The lesser dragon interpretation is internally consistent and doesn't require the rules to contradict themselves at all. The contradictions only pop up once you start trying to read kobolds as being true dragons. Funny, that.

Really? Do I need to post again that Draconomicon says that lesser dragons don't "advance" thru "age categories" which a DWK qualifies for by RAW. Remember that by RAW you may not treat "advance" as "Advancement", cause that would be RAI.

Reading RAW dosn't involve the change of words to get the desired keyword. 3.5 makes always exact use of their keywords. Or can you prove that any defined keyword is used in an other form later (e.g. subject > verb). Can you give an example to prove that "advance" by RAW is referring to "Advancement"? I guess not, so your interpretation remains RAI and not RAW.

Funny that the contradictions only comes, when people try to bring someones intentions (even if it is only about the use of the word "advance" as Advancement) into a RAW discussion.
Is it so hard to distinguish between RAW and RAI?
One is pure word/rule-lawyering (RAW), the other brings the intention and a small portion of common sense into play (RAI).

[Troacctid]

Really? Do I need to post again that Draconomicon says that lesser dragons don't "advance" thru "age categories" which a DWK qualifies for by RAW. Remember that by RAW you may not treat "advance" as "Advancement", cause that would be RAI.

Reading RAW dosn't involve the change of words to get the desired keyword. 3.5 makes always exact use of their keywords. Or can you prove that any defined keyword is used in an other form later (e.g. subject > verb). Can you give an example to prove that "advance" by RAW is referring to "Advancement"? I guess not, so your interpretation remains RAI and not RAW.

Funny that the contradictions only comes, when people try to bring someones intentions (even if it is only about the use of the word "advance" as Advancement) into a RAW discussion.
Is it so hard to distinguish between RAW and RAI?
One is pure word/rule-lawyering (RAW), the other brings the intention and a small portion of common sense into play (RAI).
Are you serious right now?

Here. "Advance" is used for advancement like a zillion times. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm

[Scots Dragon]

Really? Do I need to post again that Draconomicon says that lesser dragons don't "advance" thru "age categories" which a DWK qualifies for by RAW. Remember that by RAW you may not treat "advance" as "Advancement", cause that would be RAI.

Reading RAW dosn't involve the change of words to get the desired keyword. 3.5 makes always exact use of their keywords. Or can you prove that any defined keyword is used in an other form later (e.g. subject > verb). Can you give an example to prove that "advance" by RAW is referring to "Advancement"? I guess not, so your interpretation remains RAI and not RAW.

From the complete definitions given elsewhere both in the Draconomicon and in the Monster Manual, and even in Races of the Dragon and Dragon Magic, we get a more complete picture of what a true dragon is. It is a definition that, due to several critical features being missing, simply cannot include dragonwrought kobolds unless we ignore several important factors.

Not even under rules as written do dragonwrought kobolds qualify as true dragons because there are still fundamental differences. Not the least of which is that they do not actually have the same age categories. They have the same names, but a kobold's age categories are much shorter. They also do not contain any of the same rules-based effects as true dragons, such as advancing racial hit dice, providing frightful presence or spell resistance, automatic racial caster levels, spell-like abilities, damage resistance, increasing natural armour, increases to size, or in fact any draconic traits along those lines that are not provided by class levels or feats. Some true dragons lack one or two of these traits, or substitute them with similar traits, but all of them share the same tabular progression that is entirely lacking from the dragonwrought kobold.

Trying to declare that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons requires ignoring basically everything in the rules about true dragons, including the way that literally every true dragon works. It doesn't even work by rules-as-written. The only way this becomes a point of contention is by taking very quick and brief summations of what true dragons are from a couple of different sourcebooks and ignoring literally everything else.

[Doctor Despair]

Here's something that occurred to me. If the table accepts that the rules for taking epic feats at old age apply to all dragons and not just true dragons (which is another debate entirely, of course), then Dragonwrought Kobolds would indeed gain in power as a direct result of advancing according to their age categories. No need to fluff around with the mental stats; by becoming a Great Wyrm, they would become more powerful.

[umbergod]

Here's something that occurred to me. If the table accepts that the rules for taking epic feats at old age apply to all dragons and not just true dragons (which is another debate entirely, of course), then Dragonwrought Kobolds would indeed gain in power as a direct result of advancing according to their age categories. No need to fluff around with the mental stats; by becoming a Great Wyrm, they would become more powerful.

Negatory, as advancing age alone does not advance hit dice or levels, so no feats to spend

[Doctor Awkward]

If I understand this correctly, you're basically admitting that you've been participating in bad faith.


Actually, no. That was an accusation that I have been participating in a bad faith debate, which I was trying to assert started when we began inventing new definitions for obvious context.

My criteria for determining a bad faith argument is when I feel the other side is more invested in "winning" than they are at arriving at the truth of the matter. Seeing things like strawmanning, attempting to shift the focus onto irrelevant details, repeating arguments which have been long debunked, and throwing out dog whistles and "technically true" rebuttals are huge red flags for me. Just because I respond to one of your points with snark doesn't mean I am not taking your argument seriously. It just means that I found that particular argument to be incredibly lacking-- specifically, in this case, arguing that we have no clues as to whether the authors of Races of the Dragon intended the list of true dragons to be exhaustive, while quoting text which states unequivocally that they did.

I will endeavor to be less subtle with my accusations in the future.



Explicitly contradicted by WotC -- you are wrong, and your argument is invalid:
https://i.imgur.com/Gj1I6BM.png

The rule that you're trying to rely upon is clearly a dysfunction, since the specific text for these dragons contradicts the foundation of your argument.

Hope you got a better argument in your back pocket.

Great. That covers the dragons in the Dragon Compendium, but not any of the others.

Should I assume then that anything not listed in Races of the Dragon which appears to be a true dragon but does not have text explicitly calling it a true dragon or saying that it uses the rules for true dragon is not a true dragon?

...Like dragonwrought kobolds?




This entire forum's purpose is literally about playing pretend.

If you're here for any other reason, son, ain't nobody can help you.

Oh I meant shall I stop pretending that logic and common sense do not matter, and that the primary source guideline doesn't exist, and also stop standing by the FAQs incorrect assertion that the most recently published source takes precedence.

See I stated a couple pages ago that the reason why Gruft's arguments were falling flat was because he was not playing by the same rules as the rest of us. He confirmed my suspicions on that matter when he outright stated that his approach to optimization is to ignore common sense and focus on what the text could mean, rather than what it does mean.

My change in approach was meant to be lens through which you one could view what it would look like if the "Not True Dragon" viewpoint was argued through that same lens, and (hopefully) illustrate why such an approach is so unhelpful.




Yeah, it's annoying that they'd make it so difficult to define something like True Dragon and then hang a bunch of rules off of it. But I have no expectation that WotC will recognize the implications of their own work -- they're pretty terrible at seeing the obvious implications of even their Core rules. I mean, they have explicitly said that Monk is the best-designed class in the game. I'm not going to expect coherence nor even understanding of the obvious from them -- to do so is to court disappointment.

And that right there is part of the same problem Gruft has.

You seem to view the people who wrote and designed the 3rd Edition of Dungeons and Dragons as nothing more than a bunch of talentless hacks, or corporate sellouts who were only out to make money, rather than a group of fantasy authors who were mainly interested in creating a roleplaying system that they though people would have fun playing. They weren't interested in statistical experimentation or hot-wiring the mechanics by which an RPG was governed. Instead, you should be comparing optimizers who those people who create those sadistic Mario hacks. (https://youtu.be/ZwYwJLNIFCg) Like tabletop optimizers, they too are highly creative and have a far deeper understanding of the engine they are working with than its designers did. But that doesn't mean those original designers are somehow stupid for not seeing the potential abuse. They were just looking at things at an entirely different perspective.

3.5 isn't perfect, but it is far more robust and consistent than many of its detractors seem willing to admit.

It was also designed and built on a number of underlying assumptions, and understanding what those assumptions are is crucial to interpreting the rules. Luckily you don't have to look far, as many of them are spelled right out within the rules themselves. You just need to read them thoroughly or you risk missing things.


But anyway, back to the discussion. What I did was present evidence that his question was founded on an incorrect assumption. That's not hand-waving, it's attacking his central premise, and so far he's unable to defend in any substantive way.

Posting a LOLZORZ gif is not a substantive defense. (Not even if it's animated.)

Either the lists he presented were in error (thanks to stuff like the Incarnum Dragon), or the lists were not intended to serve the purpose for which he needed them to serve.

One of those must be true, because evidence that I presented directly contradicts his central thesis -- the lists do not contain all True Dragons, regardless of the status of Dragonwrought Kobolds. Therefore, the omission of any particular True Dragon is either (a) accidental, just like the ones which aren't controversial; or (b) deliberate, because the list isn't intended to represent all True Dragons. One of those must be true, or else (c) there's a rules dysfunction and the rule which is dysfunctional can't be used as evidence because it's dysfunctional.

A, B, or C -- take your pick.

Looks like Tonymitsu is aiming at C -- he thinks the general rule must apply, therefore when it's explicitly contradicted, there's a dysfunction instead of a rule.

I'm not sure that's the most elegant position, but it's at least productive -- the dysfunction removes itself, and the remaining rules are more consistent for its removal.

My assumption, is the same as it is in every single RAW thread I post in: D&D is an exception-based system. The rules define a set of general truths, and provide exceptions to them as the various situations dictate. And common sense and designer intent matter.

If I ever argue from a perspective that seems to contradict that, then that is me couching my argument in the same terms that I think the opposition is speaking from. Usually this boils down to some form of "logic doesn't apply. the rules are words on a page that do what I tell them to do." and "None may know the intent of the most holy game designers".

Speaking of which...



Because the rules in those books don't contradict each other directly. If RotD would say "half-dragons are true dragon" you would be right and RotD would suppress the other books. But this is not the chase here. RotD doesn't say anything about the status, whether being a true dragon or a lesser dragon. And thus the rules from the other books are still in effect. "Taking precedence" ain't a hard reset on all rules published so far.

Races of the Dragon directly contradicts the Draconomicon on this. The Draconomicon lists half-dragons as lesser dragons. Races of the Dragon states explicitly that half-dragons are "versions of true dragons".

The word version is not a defined keyword, and it means "1. a particular form of something differing in certain respects from an earlier form or other forms of the same type of thing."

Therefore that sentence is explicitly calling half-dragons a new form of true dragons. By the Races of the Dragon text, half-dragon kobolds have more support for being true dragons than dragonwrought kobolds do.

Since Races of the Dragon is the newer publication, does it or does it not have primacy on this issue?



___________
@why DWK don't appear on the heritage list:

Because the DWK is supposed to use the same list for his true dragon ancestor. Lets assume a DWK who had also DWK as gradfather. Do you think the DWK would need to choose his grandfather as heritage or the same heritage as the his grandfather? I assume the latter one and thus DWK don't appear on the heritage list.
Further DWK have no control of their true dragon DNA while breeding. If 2 DWK would breed an egg together, the result doesn't have to be a DWK at all. In fact the chance in game terms is still the same as any other 2 Kobolds would breed with each other. (don't take the last part to serious ;)

If dragonwrought kobolds really were true dragons they wouldn't need to choose the "heritage of their family" would they? They would be a heritage.

A non-kobold with the draconic heritage feat would be able to choose "dragonwrought kobold" as his heritage.

That's why not being on that list is a clear indication that they are not true dragons.

[Gruftzwerg]

Are you serious right now?

Here. "Advance" is used for advancement like a zillion times. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm

Yeah I am serious.

Do you see any instance of the verb "advance" being sole used in the text without directly referring to either "advance by class" or "advance by HD"?

Let me ask you, which verb you would use in a sentence with "Advancement" together? Maybe "advance"? And that is the chase here. The text always makes it clear to what it is referring to, either within the same sentence or the one right next to it or with the paragraph title to begin with.

now look up Draconomicon P.4 "The Different Dragon Kinds" and look what the definition of "true dragons" is:


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

No mentioning of "advancement", just the need of becoming "more powerful" as they grow older. DWK qualify for this by their pure mental stat gains.

an now lets see what they tell us about "lesser dragons":

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).
Only the verb "advance" without any reference that it means "Advancement by class/HD". Not in the paragraph and not on the entire page.
RAI I can see your point, but RAW you have no right to assume that the intention of the non defined verb "advance" is meant as "Advancement" here. Because for that you would need to "imply the intention" that it means "Advancement". And "intentions" belong into the land of RAI, not RAW...

work on your ability to differentiate between RAW and RAI.


________________________


Races of the Dragon directly contradicts the Draconomicon on this. The Draconomicon lists half-dragons as lesser dragons. Races of the Dragon states explicitly that half-dragons are "versions of true dragons".

The word version is not a defined keyword, and it means "1. a particular form of something differing in certain respects from an earlier form or other forms of the same type of thing."

Therefore that sentence is explicitly calling half-dragons a new form of true dragons. By the Races of the Dragon text, half-dragon kobolds have more support for being true dragons than dragonwrought kobolds do.

Since Races of the Dragon is the newer publication, does it or does it not have primacy on this issue?

Read the bold part pls and just think about it.
It opens up any sort of changes.
E.g. American Football is a version of Rugby. But it is so different that they ain't compatible anymore. It even has a different name and it its own rules.
The same we have with true dragons & half-dragons. Half-Dragons are a version of True Dragons, but it ain't one anymore.
You could also apply the same logic to music genres and their subgenre. E.g. Metal has it roots in Rock, but no one titles a metal song sole as rock song anymore. You call it metal because it has changed to much from its roots and become something of its own.

And if you now think of the heritage situation:
The DWK is only a Kobold with the luck of having enough true "true dragon blood" in him and not just a version of it. Cause as a version they would need to become a true dragon heritage themselves if they would still count as true dragon as "version".
But by just conserving the true dragon blood/dna without altering it into another version, they count as true dragons.
While Half-Dragons have altered their true dragon heritage to much to count as true dragon anymore.
This would be my interpretation of the situation.

PS: For those that have problems with differentiating RAW and RAI. The first part of this post is talking about RAW, while the second part is more about the RAI ;)

[Troacctid]

Yeah I am serious.

Do you see any instance of the verb "advance" being sole used in the text without directly referring to either "advance by class" or "advance by HD"?
Yes! Yes I do! On that same page! Come on.

[skunk3]

I don't really care about RAW on this matter. RAI is far more important. DWK's are stupid and no sane DM would ever allow them in a game.

[Doctor Despair]

I don't really care about RAW on this matter. RAI is far more important. DWK's are stupid and no sane DM would ever allow them in a game.

Unfortunately for you, these forums are more concerned with RAW than RAI most times.

[Doctor Awkward]

No mentioning of "advancement", just the need of becoming "more powerful" as they grow older. DWK qualify for this by their pure mental stat gains.

an now lets see what they tell us about "lesser dragons":

Only the verb "advance" without any reference that it means "Advancement by class/HD". Not in the paragraph and not on the entire page.
RAI I can see your point, but RAW you have no right to assume that the intention of the non defined verb "advance" is meant as "Advancement" here. Because for that you would need to "imply the intention" that it means "Advancement". And "intentions" belong into the land of RAI, not RAW...

The word advance, when used as an adverb like this, means "to move forward, typically in a purposeful way", as in "approach" or "proceed".

In what sense of "gaining power" does that make more sense than referring to Monster Advancement?



Read the bold part pls and just think about it.
It opens up any sort of changes.
E.g. American Football is a version of Rugby. But it is so different that they ain't compatible anymore. It even has a different name and it its own rules.
The same we have with true dragons & half-dragons. Half-Dragons are a version of True Dragons, but it ain't one anymore.
You could also apply the same logic to music genres and their subgenre. E.g. Metal has it roots in Rock, but no one titles a metal song sole as rock song anymore. You call it metal because it has changed to much from its roots and become something of its own.

And if you now think of the heritage situation:
The DWK is only a Kobold with the luck of having enough true "true dragon blood" in him and not just a version of it. Cause as a version they would need to become a true dragon heritage themselves if they would still count as true dragon as "version".
But by just conserving the true dragon blood/dna without altering it into another version, they count as true dragons.
While Half-Dragons have altered their true dragon heritage to much to count as true dragon anymore.
This would be my interpretation of the situation.

PS: For those that have problems with differentiating RAW and RAI. The first part of this post is talking about RAW, while the second part is more about the RAI ;)

I really hope you stretched first before all of those mental gymnastics up there.
I'd hate for you to have injured something with all of that reaching.

Do me a favor and re-read this entire section, except swap every instance of "DWK" with "half-dragon" (and vice versa) and see if it makes any more or less sense.

Seeing as the definition of version clearly states that two things are the "same type of thing" just differing in certain aspects...
How did you manage to arrive at the conclusion that they changed to much to count as the same thing... basically the opposite of the text of the book and the definition of the word version?



Also, I have some additional questions:

At the top of page 53, under Creating Kobold Characters, Races of the Dragon says this:


You should decide whether your character has undergone
the draconic Rite of Passage (see page 43), a cultural ritual
practiced since the days when the first dragons gave it to
kobolds. Moreover, 1st-level kobolds can choose the Dragonwrought
feat (see page 100), becoming a dragonwrought
kobold and enjoying the benefits of being a Small dragon.

Why would the authors pick the word "Small" dragon, instead of the word "true" dragon?
Small is capitalized there too, so that text is clearly referring to the size category to which kobolds belong, and not to any sort of age... something. So why choose that word instead of the more "obvious choice"?



Then on page 40, when discussing kobold physiology, the book says this:


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.

Why did they phrase it like that? Wouldn't it have made much more sense to say "the color of whichever other type of true dragon influences the dragonwrought kobold within"? Another missed opportunity to clearly call out dragonwrought kobolds as true dragons.

Curious, right?

[Gruftzwerg]

Yes! Yes I do! On that same page! Come on.

and would you be so kind to point out the text passage you are referring to?
What is your intent? Waste our time with provoking answers so that we need to ask you what you mean every time? Be more precise pls.


_____________



In what sense of "gaining power" does that make more sense than referring to Monster Advancement?
Does RAW ask what makes "most sense"? It sole asks what stands there. And as said, 3.5 is very precise in the use of keywords. Show me another defined keyword other than Advancement that is used in an different not 100% precise form.
And last but not least, where is the logic in the requirement of "Advancement" when every true dragon gets it for free?


If you assume that "advance" counts as "Advancement" you get something like this:

- "Hey you need Advancement when you wanna call yourself a true dragon".
- "Hey you are a true dragon without Advancement? No bro, here you get it for free. Take it and you are rdy to go."

How can this two arguments exist together without contradicting each other? Can you solve this riddle?


Seeing as the definition of version clearly states that two things are the "same type of thing" just differing in certain aspects...
How did you manage to arrive at the conclusion that they changed to much to count as the same thing... basically the opposite of the text of the book and the definition of the word version?

What is the type of a 3.5 True Dragon by RAW? "Dragon"
So a half-dragon is still the "same thing" just a lil different.
You might ask why they are talking about true dragons as base and not dragons overall: Cause only true dragons can produce half-dragons. Lesser dragons like half-dragons can not (produce half-dragon kids). So they couldn't have used just "dragon" as base for the half-dragon versions in the rule text.

Sure I could exchange the things as you mentioned in my RAI text. But the difference is that half-dragons have their specific rule to degrade them to lesser dragons while for DWK it is undefined by text and leaves it open to debate (otherwise we wouldn't have fun here? am I right?^^). The text was just my thoughts what the intentions and fluff may have been to explicitly degrade half-dragons while we lack a clear text statement for DWK, which could be count as true dragons with a RAW point of view.


Why would the authors pick the word "Small" dragon, instead of the word "true" dragon?
Small is capitalized there too, so that text is clearly referring to the size category to which kobolds belong, and not to any sort of age... something. So why choose that word instead of the more "obvious choice"?

Imho the intention is to specify Kobolds still as legal dragons. You could treat it as specific exception rule that Kobolds are Small dragons. Which would clear up the problem that Kobolds doN#t grow in size as some demands.

Or you could interpret it as the lost 3rd dragon category beside of true dragon and lesser dragon^^ Maybe we have found the missing part and DWK are "Small dragons"... ;)

[XionUnborn01]

Imho the intention is to specify Kobolds still as legal dragons.

Wait a second. I thought you can argue intentions. Or is it okay to talk about intentions when you try to use them for your own purposes?

[Doctor Awkward]

Does RAW ask what makes "most sense"?

Oh goodie.
I was wondering if we were still pretending.



It sole asks what stands there. And as said, 3.5 is very precise in the use of keywords. Show me another defined keyword other than Advancement that is used in an different not 100% precise form.

As you ignored earlier, the rules are very precise when using word that has a special glossary definition. It is also very precise when using contextual definitions. If a word has a special meaning in a certain context, and is not otherwise defined as being different somewhere elsewhere, then that word really only has one meaning according to the rules.

Lacking any evidence to the contrary, there is only one thing it can mean: monster advancement as defined in the 3.5 Monster Manual.


Often, intelligent creatures advance by gaining a level in a character class instead of just gaining a new Hit Die.


All you need to prove you still have some ground to stand on is provide one single instance, in any 3.5 book, of the phrase "advance through hit dice" being used in the context of referring to the inherent bonuses gained to ability scores.

Go ahead. Find that reference.

...I'll wait.



And last but not least, where is the logic in the requirement of "Advancement" when every true dragon gets it for free?

That argument was debunked back on page 2.
Advancing through age categories is a property that identifies a true dragon. It is not something handed out for being a true dragon.

That would be like assuming that dragonwrought feat also bestows to the kobold an elemental subtype of the player's choice, reasoning that they must get one since the Draconomicon states that all true dragons have an elemental subtype.

That's not what the sentences mean. If your interpretation was correct, the rules would state "all true dragons receive <item that true dragons have>"

The rules are telling you what identifies a true dragon, not what you get for being a true dragon.

Therefore, this:


If you assume that "advance" counts as "Advancement" you get something like this:

- "Hey you need Advancement when you wanna call yourself a true dragon".
- "Hey you are a true dragon without Advancement? No bro, here you get it for free. Take it and you are rdy to go."

How can this two arguments exist together without contradicting each other? Can you solve this riddle?


...is a wholly fallacious argument.

Your phrasing should have read,
-"Hey you need Advancement if you wanna call yourself a true dragon."
-"Hey you don't have Advancement? Then bro, you ain't a true dragon."

I eagerly await your next floor routine to handwave that one away.



What is the type of a 3.5 True Dragon by RAW? "Dragon"
So a half-dragon is still the "same thing" just a lil different.
Per Races of the Dragon, correct.
Half-dragons are "versions" of true dragons.
Other synonyms of version include form, kind, variety, type, and model.

Therefore according to Races of the Dragon, Half-dragons are explicitly a variety of true dragon. Just a little bit different. Much like how lung dragons are a little bit different. And fang dragons. And so on, ad infinitum.


You might ask why they are talking about true dragons as base and not dragons overall: Cause only true dragons can produce half-dragons. Lesser dragons like half-dragons can not (produce half-dragon kids). So they couldn't have used just "dragon" as base for the half-dragon versions in the rule text.

Quite. And in so doing they explicitly stated half-dragons are true dragons.
Remember: intent doesn't matter. All that matters is the words.


But the difference is that half-dragons have their specific rule to degrade them to lesser dragons
Nope. Not any more they don't.
The primacy guideline doesn't matter either.

Per request, we are assuming that as the new publication, Races of the Dragon takes precedence whenever it contradicts an older source.


while for DWK it is undefined by text and leaves it open to debate (otherwise we wouldn't have fun here? am I right?^^). The text was just my thoughts what the intentions and fluff may have been to explicitly degrade half-dragons while we lack a clear text statement for DWK, which could be count as true dragons with a RAW point of view.

The most fun part for me about all this (for me, at the moment) is that it's actually the specific omissions of certain text that doesn't leave it open for debate.

The dragonwrought feat does not say you become a true dragon. It just says your type changes to dragon.
Dragonwrought kobolds are not included in either list in its own book of true dragons. Lists specifically stated by the authors that they intended to be exhaustive.

So per your own logic (inherent ability score bonuses count as "Advancement", kobold age categories count as dragon age categories, and most importantly, nothing matters and everything is made up), dragonwrought kobolds have no specific claim to being true dragons.

Half-dragon kobolds on the other hand, do.




Imho the intention is to specify Kobolds still as legal dragons. You could treat it as specific exception rule that Kobolds are Small dragons. Which would clear up the problem that Kobolds doN#t grow in size as some demands.

Or you could interpret it as the lost 3rd dragon category beside of true dragon and lesser dragon^^ Maybe we have found the missing part and DWK are "Small dragons"... ;)

Translation: "Look guys, the words do what I tell them to do, okay?"

[Bartmanhomer]

I"m just curious, I want to know who's started this argument in the first place? I know that this argument was up to debate a long time ago. :confused:

[Doctor Awkward]

I"m just curious, I want to know who's started this argument in the first place? I know that this argument was up to debate a long time ago. :confused:

Many, many years ago, on the old 339 boards (the Optimization section of the official Wizards of the Coast message boards), it was pointed out that Races of the Dragon explicitly stated that the Dragonwrought feat removed the penalties for aging. As such an optimal sorcerer build involving kobolds was created by taking that feat at first level, and setting your age to "Venerable" to gain the +3 aging bonuses to mental stats (including the sorcerer casting stat, Charisma) at no penalty, as well making use of the Greater Draconic Rite of Passage that soon appeared in the RotD Web Enhancement.

Shortly afterwards, someone else noted that Races of the Dragon gives kobolds the same age categories as true dragons (it technically doesn't, but...). They then noted that since the Draconomicon states that since lesser dragons are creatures of the dragon type do not advance through age categories, dragonwrought kobolds must be true dragons.

A number of theoretical builds then sprang up around this idea, mostly using the rules in the Draconomicon, for all sorts of bonuses, templates, and classes that are unique to true dragons. Dracolich was involved. Sovereign archetypes. And so on.

Near as I can recall, it was around the time that epic feats at less than 20 HD entered the equation that a huge pushback against the idea sprang up, with many people noting that dragonwrought kobolds being true dragons was clearly against the intent of the rules, and that RAW support required very dubious interpretations of the text.

This created a pretty sharp divide, I imagine as a result of many of the people working with the concept being told all their hard work was pointless because all their builds were illegal.

I didn't participate much in the forums back then, but I was always pretty firmly in the "against" camp, for the reasons I've gone over in this thread.

[Gruftzwerg]

Wait a second. I thought you can argue intentions. Or is it okay to talk about intentions when you try to use them for your own purposes?

I try to make it more obvious if I talk about RAW or RAI. As I suggested earlier we should differentiate this.

Is there a rule that you either have to discuss RAW or RAI? Can't I use argument in both disciplines?


__________


As you ignored earlier, the rules are very precise when using word that has a special glossary definition. It is also very precise when using contextual definitions. If a word has a special meaning in a certain context, and is not otherwise defined as being different somewhere elsewhere, then that word really only has one meaning according to the rules.

Lacking any evidence to the contrary, there is only one thing it can mean: monster advancement as defined in the 3.5 Monster Manual.

And you ignore that your quote from MM p7 is the "Advancement" paragraph. So the used "verb" is referring/pointing to the title.
Now tell me to what the verb "advance" on p4 of Draconomicon is referring/pointing? Can you find "Advancement" on the page anywhere to claim that "advance" is referring to it by RAW? RAI, you can do this claim for sure, but RAW doesn't let you do this.


All you need to prove you still have some ground to stand on is provide one single instance, in any 3.5 book, of the phrase "advance through hit dice" being used in the context of referring to the inherent bonuses gained to ability scores.

RAI yeah, but that's what RAW demands.
You need to "gain in power as you grow older" is the demanding term, which is easily covered by the ability score gain by RAW.



That argument was debunked back on page 2.
Advancing through age categories is a property that identifies a true dragon. It is not something handed out for being a true dragon.

Drconomicon P144 "Other True Dragons" would like to have a word with you:

Other True Dragons
For true dragons other than those found in the Monster Manual, construct tables such as those above using the information on Table 3–22: Additional Level Adjustments.
What does this rule do in your opinion?
Imho it sounds like "Advancement" is handed out for being a true dragon.


Per request, we are assuming that as the new publication, Races of the Dragon takes precedence whenever it contradicts an older source.
But they don't contradict on this. If RotD is the primary source, then it sets the general rule that still gets trumped by the specific "half-dragons are lesser dragons" rule. It would contradict only if there would be actual text explicitly claiming "half-dragons are true dragon" (versions of ain't enough) by RAW. But this is not the chase here.


So per your own logic (inherent ability score bonuses count as "Advancement", kobold age categories count as dragon age categories, and most importantly, nothing matters and everything is made up), dragonwrought kobolds have no specific claim to being true dragons.
That's not what I said. If you really think this, maybe reread my posts..
I say, it only demandy "power as you grow older" and think when you imply that as "Advancement" you already left the RAW side and reached the RAI part.
The same when you imply that "advance" is referring to "Advancement". You need to imply this, cause the text (draconomicon p.4) doesn't explicitly say it.
Keep in mind that RAW is rule/word lawyering. Implying keywords into non-keywords without any reference/instance of the keyword itself is talking about RAI not RAW.


Translation: "Look guys, the words do what I tell them to do, okay?"
Seems like this is how it looks like when you have fun huh? I clearly make a statement regarding the intention of the designers imho and this is what I get for it?
What is wrong when I make RAW claims while still participate in the RAI discussion? Did it sounded like I would make RAW claims there? I tried to make it obvious and started with "Imho the intention is" and you still think it was a RAW argument?

Is it so hard to distinguish when I do make RAW claims and when I do talk about RAI?

[Nifft]

Actually, no. That was an accusation that I have been participating in a bad faith debate, which I was trying to assert started when we began inventing new definitions for obvious context. You may have been, but the bad faith wasn't brought by me.


My criteria for determining a bad faith argument is when I feel the other side is more invested in "winning" than they are at arriving at the truth of the matter. Seeing things like strawmanning, attempting to shift the focus onto irrelevant details, repeating arguments which have been long debunked, and throwing out dog whistles and "technically true" rebuttals are huge red flags for me. Just because I respond to one of your points with snark doesn't mean I am not taking your argument seriously. It just means that I found that particular argument to be incredibly lacking-- specifically, in this case, arguing that we have no clues as to whether the authors of Races of the Dragon intended the list of true dragons to be exhaustive, while quoting text which states unequivocally that they did. Not sure what "throwing out dog whistles" is supposed to mean. I must admit to never actually hearing one. Could you tell us what they sound like?

The fact of the matter is that the Half-Dragon table in RotDr is only claiming authority on the topic of Half-Dragons, which seems pretty explicit in context. It's only your own out-of-context snipping which enables your perception of rule overreach.

Here's the text in context:

https://i.imgur.com/ma1bg9B.png

The section is Half-Dragons.

The topic sentence talks about extending types of half-dragons -- that's the intention, to extend Half-Dragon to all types.

The only authority claimed is the authority over half-dragon types, and that authority is claimed over Draconomicon -- but no other authority is claimed.


Great. That covers the dragons in the Dragon Compendium, but not any of the others. If you're going to claim that you've been arguing in good faith, then you need to acknowledge when a counter-argument successfully overturns the foundation of your argument.

One counter-example is sufficient to disprove your claim. If you demand more evidence when proof is provided that torpedoes your central premise, then you're not arguing in good faith. You're currently trying to move the goalposts.


Should I assume then that anything not listed in Races of the Dragon which appears to be a true dragon but does not have text explicitly calling it a true dragon or saying that it uses the rules for true dragon is not a true dragon? You should not assume at all.

You should try to apply the rules in a consistent way.


Oh I meant shall I stop pretending that logic and common sense do not matter, and that the primary source guideline doesn't exist, and also stop standing by the FAQs incorrect assertion that the most recently published source takes precedence.

See I stated a couple pages ago that the reason why Gruft's arguments were falling flat was because he was not playing by the same rules as the rest of us. He confirmed my suspicions on that matter when he outright stated that his approach to optimization is to ignore common sense and focus on what the text could mean, rather than what it does mean. There is no such thing as "what it does mean", because RAW isn't an unambiguous nor unimpeachable bastion of clarity.

In fact it's downright confusing for many people, including yourself.

Logic does matter, quite explicitly -- that's why a single counter-example can disprove your entire conjectural foundation, because that's how logic works. That's why I don't need a preponderance of evidence, instead I must merely find a single instance of self-contradiction in your claim. That's why your arguments are failing to convince: because I am acquainted with logic.

"Common sense" is a strange argument -- neither kobolds nor feats that turn humanoids into dragons are common things, nor are they within the sphere of common human experience.


My change in approach was meant to be lens through which you one could view what it would look like if the "Not True Dragon" viewpoint was argued through that same lens, and (hopefully) illustrate why such an approach is so unhelpful. Ah so now you claim that you're not ****posting ~seriously~, you're just ironically ****posting because you think that will help everyone understand some deep truth that can somehow only be illustrated by you abandoning civil debate standards.

Unfortunately, ironic ****posting is still ****posting, and that's exactly what you've been doing.

Please just stop ****posting.



You seem to view the people who wrote and designed the 3rd Edition of Dungeons and Dragons as nothing more than a bunch of talentless hacks, or corporate sellouts who were only out to make money No, you're putting words in my mouth and that's not okay.

I'm saying that the rules are very complex, and written by a lot of people, and that they are often not coherent in their edge-cases.

This hateful crap you're trying to ascribe to me? Save it for whoever it was that hurt you so badly that you're trying to turn innocent strangers into a caricature of them.

If you want to argue in good faith, you need to attack my arguments, not my motivations.

Until you can do that, you're not actually presenting counter-arguments.

[Doctor Awkward]

The fact of the matter is that the Half-Dragon table in RotDr is only claiming authority on the topic of Half-Dragons, which seems pretty explicit in context. It's only your own out-of-context snipping which enables your perception of rule overreach.

Here's the text in context:

https://i.imgur.com/ma1bg9B.png

The section is Half-Dragons.

The topic sentence talks about extending types of half-dragons -- that's the intention, to extend Half-Dragon to all types.

The only authority claimed is the authority over half-dragon types, and that authority is claimed over Draconomicon -- but no other authority is claimed.

What point are you trying to make here?
So the text in Races of the Dragon which explicitly decries half-dragons as varieties of true dragons only has authority over half-dragons.

...Uh...
...Yes?
You do remember how exception-based rules work?



Or if your point was that the table has no ability to declare itself an authority on what is and is not a true dragon, well, don't blame me for that. Blame the text that precedes the table. The table is supposed to be an expanded list of true dragon varieties for the purposes of the half-dragon template. At a minimum, this proves that dragonwrought kobold is not a valid choice of heritage for that template.

Why, if dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons, is that the case?




If you're going to claim that you've been arguing in good faith, then you need to acknowledge when a counter-argument successfully overturns the foundation of your argument.

One counter-example is sufficient to disprove your claim. If you demand more evidence when proof is provided that torpedoes your central premise, then you're not arguing in good faith. You're currently trying to move the goalposts.

You should not assume at all.

You should try to apply the rules in a consistent way.

There is no such thing as "what it does mean", because RAW isn't an unambiguous nor unimpeachable bastion of clarity.

In fact it's downright confusing for many people, including yourself.

Logic does matter, quite explicitly -- that's why a single counter-example can disprove your entire conjectural foundation, because that's how logic works. That's why I don't need a preponderance of evidence, instead I must merely find a single instance of self-contradiction in your claim. That's why your arguments are failing to convince: because I am acquainted with logic.


You are really going to lecture me about "consistency"?

A. I made a positive claim that, "Here is a table claiming to list all varieties of true dragons."
B. You responded with, "Here is X, Y, and Z true dragons that are not on that list."
C. I asked, "How do you know know they are true dragons?"
D. You answered, "Because this text here in it's entry tells me it is."
E. I answered, "Ah ha! An exception for Z. Great. What about all of the others?"
F. You said the quoted text above.


...Seriously, are you sure you understand what being an "exception-based" ruleset means?

Because you know what would actually be inconsistent? Claiming that the text in the Dragon Compendium applies universally, after getting done arguing that the text in RotD with half-dragons only applies to half-dragons.


Once again, if I seem to be inconsistent, it's because I am playing by a completely different set of rules for Gruft because his "logic" demands it. From now on I'll address the two of you separately.



"Common sense" is a strange argument -- neither kobolds nor feats that turn humanoids into dragons are common things, nor are they within the sphere of common human experience.
Here you are taking my statements about basic grammar, sentence structure and reading comprehension and conflating it relate to game mechanics.
This is a strawman and a deliberate attempt to shift the focus away from the topic at hand.


Ah so now you claim that you're not ****posting ~seriously~, you're just ironically ****posting because you think that will help everyone understand some deep truth that can somehow only be illustrated by you abandoning civil debate standards.

Unfortunately, ironic ****posting is still ****posting, and that's exactly what you've been doing.

Please just stop ****posting.
And now you are attacking the messenger because you do not like the message.
FYI, accusations of ****-posting and trolling are against this boards TOS.

Please don't do it again.




No, you're putting words in my mouth and that's not okay.

I'm saying that the rules are very complex, and written by a lot of people, and that they are often not coherent in their edge-cases.

This hateful crap you're trying to ascribe to me? Save it for whoever it was that hurt you so badly that you're trying to turn innocent strangers into a caricature of them.

If you want to argue in good faith, you need to attack my arguments, not my motivations.

Until you can do that, you're not actually presenting counter-arguments.

Well what else am I supposed to think when you make a blanket statement like, " I have no expectation that WotC will recognize the implications of their own work -- they're pretty terrible at seeing the obvious implications of even their Core rules", and, "I'm not going to expect coherence nor even understanding of the obvious from them -- to do so is to court disappointment"? What other inference can I arrive at aside from, "This guy has zero faith in the authors' ability to construct a coherent piece of rules text"?

Everyone starts off arguing things from their own perspective, and all to often fail to consider the perspectives of other people. Difference in perspective are half the reason why we have we have disagreements at all; whether that difference is in the level of access to information, to different meanings of words, different values, or methods of processing said information. (The other half of the reason is self-interest and/or failures in logic, if you were wondering).

I'm sorry if you felt like that was a personal attack, but it had nothing at all to do with questioning your motivations. It was just me attempting to a) understand your underlying values and b) get you to look at things from another point of view.

Because here was my perspective after I read that initial post: "What good is it going to do me to quote rules text at this guy to try and prove my point if he thinks the rules are largely bull****?"

[Doctor Awkward]

And you ignore that your quote from MM p7 is the "Advancement" paragraph. So the used "verb" is referring/pointing to the title.
Now tell me to what the verb "advance" on p4 of Draconomicon is referring/pointing? Can you find "Advancement" on the page anywhere to claim that "advance" is referring to it by RAW? RAI, you can do this claim for sure, but RAW doesn't let you do this.



RAI yeah, but that's what RAW demands.
You need to "gain in power as you grow older" is the demanding term, which is easily covered by the ability score gain by RAW.

I thought RAW was also "advancing through hit dice", and "having age categories"?




Drconomicon P144 "Other True Dragons" would like to have a word with you:
What does this rule do in your opinion?
Imho it sounds like "Advancement" is handed out for being a true dragon.


I already explained to you why you were incorrect, and what that table is for. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?545587-Dragonwrought-kobold&p=22719302#post22719302)
I don't like repeating myself


But they don't contradict on this. If RotD is the primary source, then it sets the general rule that still gets trumped by the specific "half-dragons are lesser dragons" rule. It would contradict only if there would be actual text explicitly claiming "half-dragons are true dragon" (versions of ain't enough) by RAW. But this is not the chase here.

The problem is there is no such rule.
Not without the Draconomicon.

The phrase "lesser dragon" does not appear at all in Races of the Dragon.
And the only reason we know half-dragons are lesser dragons is because the Draconomicon has two separate tables that explicitly list the half-dragon template in their list of "Lesser Dragons".

So if Races of the Dragon has primacy, by virtue of being the newest publication, then it takes precedence over the contradiction between these two books.
Half-dragon kobolds count as true dragons by virtue of meeting every requirement: dragon type, "dragon" age categories, and gaining in power as they grow older. (Literally everything gets inherent ability score bonuses with increased hit dice)




That's not what I said. If you really think this, maybe reread my posts..
I say, it only demandy "power as you grow older" and think when you imply that as "Advancement" you already left the RAW side and reached the RAI part.
The same when you imply that "advance" is referring to "Advancement". You need to imply this, cause the text (draconomicon p.4) doesn't explicitly say it.
Keep in mind that RAW is rule/word lawyering. Implying keywords into non-keywords without any reference/instance of the keyword itself is talking about RAI not RAW.

...So, sort of like how you assume that "version" must mean they are too different to count as true dragons with zero contextual evidence to back up that point?




Seems like this is how it looks like when you have fun huh? I clearly make a statement regarding the intention of the designers imho and this is what I get for it?
What is wrong when I make RAW claims while still participate in the RAI discussion? Did it sounded like I would make RAW claims there? I tried to make it obvious and started with "Imho the intention is" and you still think it was a RAW argument?

Is it so hard to distinguish when I do make RAW claims and when I do talk about RAI?

Sometimes I wonder if you even understand the difference between them, based on your inability to recognize that every single argument you make is based solely on your own personal interpretation.

[Promethean]

Regardless of the fact that it's rather obvious that arguing is pointless, as neither side has any intention of conceding or meeting the other half way, both argue on relentless. :smallsigh:

BTW are there any templates that have age categories? Not specific to dragons or what counts as what, a previous comment made me curious if any template advanced by age(example: evolved undead.)

[Gruftzwerg]

I thought RAW was also "advancing through hit dice", and "having age categories"?
I never said that in this thread. I don't know where you are getting this? I always claimed that by RAW true dragons need to have "Age Categories" (note not Dragon Age Categories) and need to gain in power as they grow older. Further I still claim that true dragons who don't have any Advancement table, gets it for free by the DM. The DM needs to decide which kind of Advancement he sees fits the best.






I already explained to you why you were incorrect, and what that table is for. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?545587-Dragonwrought-kobold&p=22719302#post22719302)
I don't like repeating myself
And I already explained that your point was about RAI and not RAW. You admitted yourself that I was "rules-lawyering" which is the base for reading and thinking "RAW". While thinks like "intents" belong into the world of RAI. If you read a keyword into another word without any reference of the keyword itself, that is RAI and not RAW. The text doesn't support your claim by RAW, only by RAI (and RAI I agree for the most part, so don't misunderstand me at least on that point ;).
And yeah I don't like to repeat myself too, but I guess we have no choice here, when people think they debunked something while the other side thinks it ain't debunked. That's a big problem in threads like these and goes into both directions. We have to bear it I guess..^^



The problem is there is no such rule.
Not without the Draconomicon.

The phrase "lesser dragon" does not appear at all in Races of the Dragon.
And the only reason we know half-dragons are lesser dragons is because the Draconomicon has two separate tables that explicitly list the half-dragon template in their list of "Lesser Dragons".

So if Races of the Dragon has primacy, by virtue of being the newest publication, then it takes precedence over the contradiction between these two books.
Half-dragon kobolds count as true dragons by virtue of meeting every requirement: dragon type, "dragon" age categories, and gaining in power as they grow older. (Literally everything gets inherent ability score bonuses with increased hit dice)

1. Even if RotD has primacy for "half-dragons", but not for the rules that distinguish between true dragons and lesser dragons. These rules are still defined by Draconomicon (which has Primacy for True Dragons and thus the rules if something is a true dragon or a lesser one). RotD can't suppress the rules in Draconomicon for true dragon topics. Which results in the rule that half dragons are lesser dragons is still in effect. RotD as no clear textual claim that half-dragons count as true dragons and thus doesn't contradict the (true dragon or lesser dragon) rules presented in Draconomicon.

2.As said, by RAW: Anything that is a half-dragon is automatically degraded to a lesser one.
This means that even a "White Half-Dragon Red Dragon" would loose his true dragon status by strict RAW.
So a Half-Dragon Kobold is also treated as lesser dragon by RAW.






...So, sort of like how you assume that "version" must mean they are too different to count as true dragons with zero contextual evidence to back up that point?

We can either stretch the legal "difference" for "version" to a degree where the rules work, or be so nitpicky that it would be dysfunctional. So imho you pick the interpretation of "version" that doesn't cause dysfunctions.
And as said, if you follow the rule hierarchy, you have the contextual evidence in Draconomicon.


Sometimes I wonder if you even understand the difference between them, based on your inability to recognize that every single argument you make is based solely on your own personal interpretation.

I could say the same about you. RAW means you just take the words on the page/paragraph and don't imply other words (from other pages/books) into it. Unless a page/paragraph mentions "Advancement" it is illegal by RAW to claim that "advance" is referring to it. That is RAI. But you are claiming over several pages that it is RAW and don't seem to notice that you already left the RAW ground by implying keywords into nonkeywords in the absence of textual evidence (on the page).



_________________

A beg to everyone: I still hope that we all are still somehow enjoying this thread. So pls lets not get to stressed here. I know that discussion like these can heat up really fast, but we should all try to stay clam and friendly to each other. I hope nobody feels offended in any way of my posts. As said, I like to theorize all kind of games, and the RAW discipline of 3.5 is something I really enjoy. Have a nice Sunday, btw^^

[Luccan]

Regardless of the fact that it's rather obvious that arguing is pointless, as neither side has any intention of conceding or meeting the other half way, both argue on relentless. :smallsigh:

BTW are there any templates that have age categories? Not specific to dragons or what counts as what, a previous comment made me curious if any template advanced by age(example: evolved undead.)

I doubt it. Even evolved undead doesn't, it just has advancements that may occur every 100 years or so. If any should, it's Half-Dragon or maybe Draconic, from both of which it is notably absent.

Edit: For my money, whatever ways there are of giving True Dragons immense amounts of power (beyond what they already have), should just not be allowed to PCs except in games where the intent is to be as mind-bendingly powerful as early as possible. Just as a "here's how I think it should work in real games, regardless of RAI or RAW" perspective.

[Gruftzwerg]

Edit: For my money, whatever ways there are of giving True Dragons immense amounts of power (beyond what they already have), should just not be allowed to PCs except in games where the intent is to be as mind-bendingly powerful as early as possible. Just as a "here's how I think it should work in real games, regardless of RAI or RAW" perspective.

I agree, in games the DM should set the optimization and cheese lvl of a campaign. He is the one who has to bear/handle it after all.

But that still won't stop the discussion^^.
As said, we need these RAW debates for other things in the forum.
When TO builds emerge for fun or contests as example, it's easier to set the cheese lvl and discuss em when all view the rules in the same way, wether RAW or RAI.
While RAI may be open to several interpretations on the same topic, RAW tries to eliminate interpretation where it can. But thx due to some (not all, don't get me wrong) poor written rules, we have unclear situations like wether or not a DWK is a true dragon. Or dysfunctions like in the " Dysfunctional Rules IX: 1d3 Dysfunctions from the 8th Level List" thread. All that can heat up our lil discussions about RAW..^^

[Luccan]

I agree, in games the DM should set the optimization and cheese lvl of a campaign. He is the one who has to bear/handle it after all.

But that still won't stop the discussion^^.
As said, we need these RAW debates for other things in the forum.
When TO builds emerge for fun or contests as example, it's easier to set the cheese lvl and discuss em when all view the rules in the same way, wether RAW or RAI.
While RAI may be open to several interpretations on the same topic, RAW tries to eliminate interpretation where it can. But thx due to some (not all, don't get me wrong) poor written rules, we have unclear situations like wether or not a DWK is a true dragon. Or dysfunctions like in the " Dysfunctional Rules IX: 1d3 Dysfunctions from the 8th Level List" thread. All that can heat up our lil discussions about RAW..^^

Oh I know, but I wasn't really sure anyone had taken the stance that real games should just do what works. I'm aware this forum runs on RAW debate :smallsmile:.

[atemu1234]

Ah, GiantITP, never change.

[Nifft]

What point are you trying to make here?
So the text in Races of the Dragon which explicitly decries half-dragons as varieties of true dragons only has authority over half-dragons.

...Uh...
...Yes?
You do remember how exception-based rules work? Yes, they work like this:

- For the purpose of creating a Half-Dragon, this is what True Dragon means.
- For all other purposes, that list is meaningless, since plenty of other True Dragons exist.
- Yellow Dragons are True Dragons, but they're not on the list: HOW DO WE RESOLVE THIS?

Your (bad) idea: "The Half-Dragon specific list is general, and general trumps specific, so Yellow Dragons are not True Dragons. Therefore, neither are Dragonwrought Kobolds."

The correct idea: "Dragonwrought Kobolds are not valid Half-Dragon True Dragons, because that's what the Half-Dragon specific rule says. For all other purposes, they are (or they aren't) independently."



...Seriously, are you sure you understand what being an "exception-based" ruleset means? Heh.

Yes, and my interpretation works in a clear & simple way.

It's funny that you're trying to lecture me on exception-based design while simultaneously trying to use a specific rule as if it were general.



Or if your point was that the table has no ability to declare itself an authority on what is and is not a true dragon, well, don't blame me for that. Blame the text that precedes the table. The table is supposed to be an expanded list of true dragon varieties for the purposes of the half-dragon template. At a minimum, this proves that dragonwrought kobold is not a valid choice of heritage for that template.

Why, if dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons, is that the case? You have said something correct: Dragonwrought Kobold is not a valid choice of heritage for the Half-Dragon template.

Why, if Incarnum Dragons are true dragons, is it the case that they're also not a valid choice of heritage for the Half-Dragon template?

Why, if Yellow Dragons are true dragons, is it the case that they're also not a valid choice of heritage for the Half-Dragon template?

You can't answer those questions because there is no particular reason.

Same answer for Dragonwrought Kobolds.


You are really going to lecture me about "consistency"? No, that's what I did in the past.

What I'm going to do going forward is try to provide gently humorous entertainment for those poor unfortunate souls trying to glean insight from this thread, in spite of the turgid eddy that is your argument.


Because you know what would actually be inconsistent? Claiming that the text in the Dragon Compendium applies universally, after getting done arguing that the text in RotD with half-dragons only applies to half-dragons. Uh, nobody is claiming that Dragon Compendium applies universally.

Rather, I'm claiming that Dragon Compendium provides a clear exception which proves your list cannot actually mean what you want it to mean.

Exception-based design works perfectly. Your argument does not work. Your argument is not the same as exception-based design. Sorry if that's an unpleasant surprise for you.


And now you are attacking the messenger because you do not like the message.
FYI, accusations of ****-posting and trolling are against this boards TOS.

Please don't do it again.
I think you're the first person to mention trolling.

****posting is merely frowned upon here -- which is exactly what I said.

Ironically, by trying to threaten me with the ToS, you might be violating the ToS: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1 => Search that page for Vigilante Modding in the Major Infractions section.

Other than providing a link and text to search, I'm not going to discuss the ToS with you. Email a moderator for more specific guidance -- I ain't following you down that rabbit hole.

[Doctor Awkward]

Yes, they work like this:

- For the purpose of creating a Half-Dragon, this is what True Dragon means.
- For all other purposes, that list is meaningless, since plenty of other True Dragons exist.
- Yellow Dragons are True Dragons, but they're not on the list: HOW DO WE RESOLVE THIS?

Your (bad) idea: "The Half-Dragon specific list is general, and general trumps specific, so Yellow Dragons are not True Dragons. Therefore, neither are Dragonwrought Kobolds."

The correct idea: "Dragonwrought Kobolds are not valid Half-Dragon True Dragons, because that's what the Half-Dragon specific rule says. For all other purposes, they are (or they aren't) independently."

That last bit there? This is the entire point.

We have very clear definitions of what true dragons are. We have a manual of style established in the first Monster Manual for how stat blocks for true dragons are presented that is applied with universal consistency across every single 3.0/3.5 product. Whenever one of these entries contains even slight ambiguity on whether or not it might count as a true dragon, it contains text that explicitly says, "Yes it is."

...Except for dragonwrought kobolds...
They meet none of the established criteria:
Fluff
-Their physiology is completely different (they are humanoid in size and shape, and lack the wings, the elongated necks, and so on)
-Their biology is different (endothermic vs. exothermic, internal organs, and so on)

Crunch
-They do not advance through racial hit dice, they advance by character class

The only thing they have in common is their creature typing, and their life-cycle developmental stages use the same names. That's it.

But somehow they still must be true dragons...
I wonder why that is?

What truly boggles my mind about these assertions is that the exact same rules "dysfunctions" that are so frequently quoted as proof that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons also equally apply to half-dragon kobolds.

But for some reason they must not be.
I wonder why that is, as well?


Heh.

Yes, and my interpretation works in a clear & simple way.

It's funny that you're trying to lecture me on exception-based design while simultaneously trying to use a specific rule as if it were general.


You have said something correct: Dragonwrought Kobold is not a valid choice of heritage for the Half-Dragon template.

Why, if Incarnum Dragons are true dragons, is it the case that they're also not a valid choice of heritage for the Half-Dragon template?

Why, if Yellow Dragons are true dragons, is it the case that they're also not a valid choice of heritage for the Half-Dragon template?

You can't answer those questions because there is no particular reason.

Same answer for Dragonwrought Kobolds.

Do you really not see the difference between failing to include a true dragon on an exhaustive list from an entirely different printed source, and failing to include one from the same source?

They fail to appear on two separate lists.
The authors also fail on multiple opportunities to explicitly state they are true dragons.

By your own logic, this should, at best, create a rules dysfunction that leaves it ambiguous if they are or aren't.




No, that's what I did in the past.

What I'm going to do going forward is try to provide gently humorous entertainment for those poor unfortunate souls trying to glean insight from this thread, in spite of the turgid eddy that is your argument.

Oh are we going back to personal attacks again? Well that's disappointing. But I'll oblige you:

You're adorable when your sarcastic. You really are.

What you also are is part of a (thankfully) rapidly-shrinking demographic of 3.5 players who hold the 3.5 ruleset in such contempt that you take ambiguity as license to ignore context and intent when interpreting them.

That obnoxious approach to the game is not only annoying to your fellow players, but also intellectually dishonest and counter to the entire purpose of optimizing. Creating a mechanically optimal character is about working within the boundaries of the Rules as Written, and the parameters they establish. It's not about lawyering your way through them, using obvious editing mistakes to create new definitions that are so clearly beyond the original scope and designer intent that you might as well be ignoring the rules completely and making up your own. If you want a nickel's worth of free advice: you will always do your best work when you put limitations on yourself.

The bright spot in this is that you will eventually leave this "awful" system behind, and move on to another game where you will no doubt find further rules issues that will allow you to stoke your smug sense of superiority.

And message boards like these will be better off without you.

[XionUnborn01]

SNIP
Bro. My man. You must be pretty high level to cast a firestorm that potent. Hopefully he invested in fire immunity.

[Gruftzwerg]

That last bit there? This is the entire point.

We have very clear definitions of what true dragons are.

Yeah thx due to Draconomicon page 4 and not MM..




We have a manual of style established in the first Monster Manual for how stat blocks for true dragons are presented that is applied with universal consistency across every single 3.0/3.5 product. Whenever one of these entries contains even slight ambiguity on whether or not it might count as a true dragon, it contains text that explicitly says, "Yes it is."
universal consitency != RAW
That is extrapolated information and not actual rules. Nice that we talked about it..
By RAW (Draconomicon P4), DWK disqualify themselves as lesser dragons and even qualify as True Dragon. You need to imply text what is not there on the page to come to other conclusions = RAI


...Except for dragonwrought kobolds...
They meet none of the established criteria:
Fluff
-Their physiology is completely different (they are humanoid in size and shape, and lack the wings, the elongated necks, and so on)
-Their biology is different (endothermic vs. exothermic, internal organs, and so on)
As said, all these are just extrapolated things and no actual rules by RAW tied to being a true dragon. (Fluff is RAI, not RAW.) That is defined on Draconomicon p4. (btw, if you didn't notice, I am repeating myself until you will finally read P4 of Drac. and can separate between reading it RAW and RAI. I'll be gladly of help if you should have problems with any of the text part.)
And btw, since DWK are specified as "Small dragon", I guess that trumps any of the things you are demanding (by RAI).


Crunch
-They do not advance through racial hit dice, they advance by character class
Well, again... Draconomicon p4 doesn't demand "Advancement" by RAW. Cause Draconomicon p144 "Other True Dragons" enforces the DM to make tables for any True Dragon that lacks an Advancement-table. So "Advancement" can't be a requirement for being a true dragon by simple logic. The same simple logic even confirms that on Drac. p4 "advance" doesn't refer to "Advancement". Otherwise it would be a rule dysfunction.
But you are ignoring that it would cause a dysfunction for the sake of trying to disprove DWK true dragon status.


The only thing they have in common is their creature typing, and their life-cycle developmental stages use the same names. That's it.
And by RAW just having "Age Categories" of any kind is enough. And btw, I guess we can assume that no other creatures (other than DWK and true dragons) have "Age Categories" cause nobody else could provide any so far (due to the request a few pages ago). So it seems only DWK and other true dragons have age categories, which further proved the interpretation that DWK count as true dragons by RAW valid.



What truly boggles my mind about these assertions is that the exact same rules "dysfunctions" that are so frequently quoted as proof that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons also equally apply to half-dragon kobolds.

But for some reason they must not be.
I wonder why that is, as well?



Do you really not see the difference between failing to include a true dragon on an exhaustive list from an entirely different printed source, and failing to include one from the same source?

They fail to appear on two separate lists.
The authors also fail on multiple opportunities to explicitly state they are true dragons.

By your own logic, this should, at best, create a rules dysfunction that leaves it ambiguous if they are or aren't.


As I showed you earlier, the dysfunction only appears if you see it the RAI way and start to extrapolate infos and try to view it as some kind of general rule (RAI).
But RAW doesn't cause/have these problems. The problems comes from RAI if you take advance as Advancement and such things.

If you would/could once read page 4 of Draconomicon the RAW way, you would understand. But somehow you can't stop yourself from bringing intentions into play and references that aren't provided by the (RAW) text on the page itself.
Pls try it at least. Reading just the text as it is given, without switching words into keywords. It's really simple imho...

[Scots Dragon]

universal consitency != RAW
That is extrapolated information and not actual rules. Nice that we talked about it..

If the rules are written consistently so that things apply the same way in every case, is that not rules as written?

Does it need to be explicitly stated when it's explicitly shown?

[Gruftzwerg]

If the rules are written consistently so that things apply the same way in every case, is that not rules as written?

Does it need to be explicitly stated when it's explicitly shown?

For Rules As Intended, no you don't need to explicitly state it and may imply it.

For Rules As Written, yes. Without clear introductions, you may not extrapolate rules, just because it is consistent. RAW is word and rule lawyering as stated several times.
edit: have a look at draconomicon p144 "other true dragons". There you have explicit rules where you are forced to extrapolate infos from tables. The rules say so if you have to, otherwise you may not do it by RAW.
end of edit:


Again, RAW doesn't has to be how people actually play at tables, so don't mix these things up pls. We all play "how the DM sees the rules" and not RAW. Even if the DM is claiming that he wants to play RAW. Since most people fail at distinguishing between RAI and RAW and those who can know that it makes no sense to play RAW. Do you really want to play with things like "healing by drowning"? I guess not.
But that doesn't change this discussion. The forum prefers to make RAW claims since it makes other discussions more easy (e.g. TO threads). RAI can be often viewed from different positions and thus leaves to many problems when you want to discuss things in the forum in a competitive way. And thus people try to separate RAW and RAI.

[Doctor Awkward]

RAW is word and rule lawyering as stated several times.

No it isn't, as was explained several times.

There are many guidelines for interpreting the Rules As Written and how to approach the exact text that is stated. And they include contextual definitions, a glossary when needed, and a judicious application of common sense,

You are the only person here who operates under the assumption that rules-lawyering is appropriate for discussing character optimization.




Since most people fail at distinguishing between RAI and RAW and those who can know that it makes no sense to play RAW

This is by far the most ironic thing you have posted in this entire thread.

As you've admitted you operate under the assumption that rules-lawyering counts as RAW, and that term is by definition personal interpretation.

The whole point of having Rules As Written is so that we can leave personal interpretation out of the discussion when examining optimal character choices. Working from the same set of rules makes threads like these completely unnecessary.

You have never once argued the Rules As Written. You have, and continue to, argue the Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong.

[Gruftzwerg]

No it isn't, as was explained several times.

There are many guidelines for interpreting the Rules As Written and how to approach the exact text that is stated. And they include contextual definitions, a glossary when needed, and a judicious application of common sense,

You are the only person here who operates under the assumption that rules-lawyering is appropriate for discussing character optimization.





This is by far the most ironic thing you have posted in this entire thread.

As you've admitted you operate under the assumption that rules-lawyering counts as RAW, and that term is by definition personal interpretation.

The whole point of having Rules As Written is so that we can leave personal interpretation out of the discussion when examining optimal character choices. Working from the same set of rules makes threads like these completely unnecessary.
You seem to think that RAW is something supposed to free of bugs but ain't the chase. Have a look at the Rules Dysfunction series here in the forum.
If RAW ain't rule-lawyering, than what is "healing by drowning" as simple example again? Rules as intended? I bet not. It is RAW and it makes no sense at all (in real word terms) and no table would actually play with it (beside for a few fun sessions maybe..).
RAW ain't the holy grail of rules where everything stops making problems and start to harmonize everywhere. In fact, the opposite is the chase. 3.5 RAW is a mess (maybe only 5% is messed up, but that 5% is enough to cause problems like this one here..), and if you can't handle that, then I'm sorry for you.


There are many guidelines for interpreting the Rules As Written and how to approach the exact text that is stated. And they include contextual definitions, a glossary when needed, and a judicious application of common sense,
You only "fall back" to thinks like contextual definitions and common sense if the rules don't cover something up. But that is not the chase here. We can prove that DWK are not lesser dragons, and we can prove that DWK are true dragons by the definition of Dracoconicon P.4.
And this interpretation even harmonies with the "other true dragon" paragraph on p144. While your interpretation would cause a dysfunction. But you are still ignoring that fact and just focus on your attempt to disprove them DWK. Would you stop deciding the outcome in advance? You don't follow your own advices..
How about stopping your attempt to disprove DWK true dragon status for just a moment and try to explain the dysfuntion caused by your interpretation? Would you be so kind?


You have never once argued the Rules As Written. You have, and continue to, argue the Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong.

Imho it's you who is showing this behavior here.
While I am open for other interpretation and views (see the other thread where I was convinced that Whirlwind can be viewed in another way), you are sitting on your arguments and don't wanna change em as it seems. You assume that RAW has to work and involves common sense. Where is the common sense of "healing by drowning"? There is none. Only in the world of RAW & rule-lawyering. It has nothing to do with RAI.

You change word into keywords to make your point look more valid, but that is something that belongs to RAI and not to RAW. Get the difference. You are always talking about RAI and keep arguing that it is RAW.

If RAW involves common sense, then what in the word is RAI supposed to be??? How do you distinguish these two, if RAW already involves common sense, contextual definition & blaa...???
Explain it pls

[Doctor Awkward]

If RAW involves common sense, then what in the word is RAI supposed to be??? How do you distinguish these two, if RAW already involves common sense, contextual definition & blaa...???
Explain it pls

Rules As Intended are author recommendations for how a DM should rule in his game when encountering an actual ambiguity, or text that is otherwise unclear. It is something invoked during a game whenever you have text that does not otherwise clearly indicate author intent.

Here's an examples of a "rules-lawyered" ambiguity vs an actual rule ambiguity conveniently located within one piece of rules text:

-Iron Heart Surge-
The Fake ambiguity:
It's an uncommon, though not unheard of, interpretation of this maneuver that if you are currently subject to a status effect that is preventing you from taking standard actions, you technically cannot initiate this maneuver. This is quite clearly against the flavor and mechanical intent, which is for you to spend your standard action for the round eliminating something that otherwise impedes you in some way, regardless of what that way is.

Despite the fact that it does not contain text, "You may initiate this maneuver even if you are subject to a spell, effect, or condition that would otherwise prevent you from taking any actions.", you quite clearly can based solely on the wording that is present. Including that extra line of text would have been redundant and unnecessary.


The Actual ambiguity:
The exact text states "When you use this maneuver, select one spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds."

"Spell" is obvious. "Effect" is also fairly consistently defined, though still possibly open to interpretion. However, "condition" is very much an unknown quantity. Lacking any other context to go on, the scope of what what this maneuver is capable of working on seems to be almost entirely up to what the DM wishes to allow it to work on.

When I run games, I limit the maneuver's scope solely to what is present on the Condition Summary (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/conditions.htm) (aside from obvious things, like "Dead", and certain other ones of my choosing, like "Pinned" and "Prone"). Because, in my opinion, that is what the authors intended.

But that is my interpretation, and I have no way of proving that I am correct.




The concept of Rules As Written vs. Rules As Intended is not, and was never meant to be, license to ignore context and invent your own interpretations for text in which intent is blatantly obvious, but specific words and phrases that forbid alternate interpretations are not present. If you have ten tables attempting to interpret the 3.5 ruleset using rules technicalities, you will have ten tables playing ten entirely different games.

Even if such technicalities have their place in the theoretical, they are not useful constructs for the purposes of optimization. For reasons which at this point, I hope, are abundantly clear.