Dragonwrought Kobolds and epic dragon cheese?

[Katie Boundary]

I'm designing a kobold sorcerer pre-gen for some one-shots that I'd like to start running, and damn if this isn't confusing...

The Draconomicon's description of epic-level dragon cheese states:


These feats are available to characters of 21st level or higher. Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even if they have no class levels.

Meanwhile, the description for Kobolds in Races of the Dragon says:


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

Supposedly, this doesn't entitle old Kobolds to take the epic-level dragon cheese. However, the description for the dragonwrought feat states:


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

Some people claim that this DOES entitle old Kobolds to take epic-level dragon cheese. So my questions are:

1) If neither of these entitles old Kobolds to take epic cheese, then... why not? The cheese doesn't specify that it's exclusive to "true" dragons, just old ones, and Kobolds can be old (they have an age chart and everything)

2) If the latter entitles kobolds to epic cheese but the former does not, then why? What's the difference between being counting as a dragon for all intents and purposes, and actually being one?

3) If the former entitles Kobolds to epic cheese, then what's the point of the Dragonwrought feat? Is it just to cancel out the negative modifiers from being old?

4) Some feats in RotD, like "Dragon Trainer", require the "dragonblood" subtype. Does taking Dragonwrought prevent you from taking these other feats?

[Mato]

Is it Tuesday already?

Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

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).

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.

Further reading
Why context matters in writing (https://writingcooperative.com/why-context-matters-in-writing-f52ad075c07a)
Clear Examples of Why Context Matters (https://www.smartling.com/blog/clear-examples-context-matters/)
The Five Elements of Context That Most Impact Senior Leader Success (https://www.spencerstuart.com/research-and-insight/context-matters)
Why Being Wrong Is the Best Thing for You (https://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-5960/Why-Being-Wrong-Is-the-Best-Thing-for-You.html)
Why being wrong is good for you (http://rkenedy.info.yorku.ca/online-links/critical-skills-for-students/why-is-it-great-to-be-able-to-make-mistakes/)
Beating a dead horse (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=beating%20a%20dead%20horse)

[Katie Boundary]

But RotD added age progression for Kobolds, and their ability scores change with age.

To clarify, my question is the result of finding this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?240789) on accident while googling for something only vaguely related to kobolds.

[Mato]

But RotD added age progression for Kobolds
*Ahem*



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.
1. I'd like it if you actually read my post or D&D's rules.
2. I'd like you to prove your statement in the context of D&D's rules, not your own, as already outlaid by the official rulebook about true dragons.


Draconic Heritage for All True Dragons
The table above provides the benefits of the Draconic Heritage feat for all the kinds of true dragons published in D&D products to date.
3. Please find "Kobold" on RotD's official list of all true dragons that were printed as of 01/2006 in the very book you are trying to claim that supports your argument. And do us all a personal favor and remember affirming the consequent only proves one thing, and it's not that your point is correct.


To clarify, my question is the result of finding this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?240789) on accident while googling for something only vaguely related to kobolds.Most of us are well aware that it's possible to google wrong or incorrect answers on GitP. I wish, as a community, that we could perform better. That the user based knows what an ill advised opinion is and how it is not part of the rule set WotC created when discussing the rules. And that our community as a whole to truly have a grasp and understanding of what logic is and how fallacies and cognitive bias are detrimental to rational discussion. But for that to happen, we must all do our part and not contribute to the problem and attempt to provide solutions or educational materials to those how are less fortunate.

Further reading
Why Some People Always Need to Be Right (https://www.menshealth.com/trending-news/a19548571/why-some-people-need-to-be-right/)
Why we don’t do what we should be doing? (https://medium.com/personal-growth/why-we-dont-do-what-we-should-be-doing-cbb8ca2dd456)
What is logic? (https://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/whatislogic.php)

[PrismCat21]

-snip-
1. The epic feats part refers to True Dragons, not to those with the Dragon type.

2. Again, it's the difference between True Dragon, and the Dragon type.

3. The point if the feat is to officially turn you into a Dragon.
You become a True Dragon thanks to meeting the qualifications from Dragonomicon.

4. Being type Dragon allows you to qualify for dragonblood subtype requirements.


Kobolds are not naturally Dragons. Just Dragon-like creatures.
Dragonwrought turns them into Dragons, both RAW and RAI.
Dragonomicon makes them True Dragons by RAW, and potentially RAI.
What likely was not RAI is all the extra cheese available to them from various other source books.

Feel free to completely ignore people on these forms that treat you less than respectfully.
They often just want an excuse to prove how much knowledge they have and just have to be right.
They like to bully people, often intentionally.
Remember to not feed the trolls.


-bunch of patronizing trash-

1. I'd like it if you would not be condescending to people.
Especially to people who simply want clarification on a potential problem.

3. Why would Kobold be on any list of True Dragons? I've not heard or read anywhere where someone believes Kobolds are True Dragons.
Dragonwrought Kobolds on the other hand... or Kobolds simply with the Dragon type....

The list you reference is not a comprehensive list of all True Dragons.
Not finding a specific Dragon on there only proves one thing, and it's not that your point is correct..., simply that they are not on this particular list.
It's the absence of proof. Not the proof of absence.

Do us all a personal favor and at least 'try' to act like a decent person. There's no reason to be mean.

[Deophaun]

Dragonomicon makes them excludes them from being True Dragons by RAW
You had a typo there.

Some people focus on where it says that true dragons get more powerful as they age, but then, as Mato states in a non-diplomatic fashion, they ignore every other feature listed by Draconomicon as constituting a true dragon that DWKs lack. Then, surprise surprise, they get all these questions about how true dragon kobolds work because the rules don't make sense.

[Crow_Nightfeath]

My response to an "old" age drahonwrought kobold taking epic feats just for being old would be a no. Because it has everything to do with HD, name an age category dragon other than kobold who has less than 21 HD at Old. And even if it's not that there's also the idea that an old age dragon is 400-600 years old where a kobold that is 3-5 times their great wyrm age of 121+

[DarkSoul]

But RotD added age progression for Kobolds, and their ability scores change with age.No they don't. Compare the draconic age categories chart in RotD with the age category chart for an actual true dragon. DWKs don't get more powerful based on their age like true dragons do.

[liquidformat]

My response to an "old" age drahonwrought kobold taking epic feats just for being old would be a no. Because it has everything to do with HD, name an age category dragon other than kobold who has less than 21 HD at Old. And even if it's not that there's also the idea that an old age dragon is 400-600 years old where a kobold that is 3-5 times their great wyrm age of 121+

its 5x for chromatic and 10x for metallic actually, the last time I saw this argument crop up someone was claiming that Dragonwrought Kobolds gain full strength frightful presence and breath weapons once they hit old age because 'true dragon'. I always took the wording of Dragonwrought Kobolds to be that you loose dragonblood subtype and become a 'true' dragon, as in true=real. Rather than the interpretation of you become a 'true dragon'.

D&D really could have used the concept of flood dragons vs true dragons it would have made everything a lot more simple. anyways I say let the smurfs have their 'true dragon' Dragonwrought Kobolds, just make them take extra dragon 3-5 rhd every time they gain an age catagory that only gain +1 cha for old age+. That should fix everything right?

[lylsyly]

*breaks out the popcorn*

[DarkSoul]

*breaks out the popcorn*Go easy on the butter though. I'm sure there'll be enough cheese around shortly to make up for it.

[lylsyly]

Go easy on the butter though. I'm sure there'll be enough cheese around shortly to make up for it.

But I put butter on my cheese popcorn too. Makes it easier to "slide" past the DM ;D

[eggynack]

1. The epic feats part refers to True Dragons, not to those with the Dragon type.

Do you have a citation on that?

[flappeercraft]

A thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?523620-Kobold-Caster-Level-cheese-(3-5)) I posted about a year ago has some details you might like.

[flappeercraft]

Do you have a citation on that?

While not asked of me I found the citation.


"Epic Feats
These feats are available to characters of 21st level or higher. Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even if they have no class levels. A selection of epic feats appropriate for dragons is presented here. See the Epic Level Handbook for more epic feats. "

You might notice it never says the word true in the whole parragraph. If you argue that the chapter of the book is dedicated to dragons, it specifically says these rules are for dragons, never mentioned for true dragons except possibly on specific excerpts referring to true dragons but in this case when discussing the qualification for Epic Feats that is untrue.

[Kalkra]

On the topic of stinky, stinky, cheese, I don't know if somebody mentioned this, but it says in RoTD that "Dragons automatically qualify for any classes, prestige classes, racial substitution levels, feats, powers or spells that require the dragonblood subtype." By RAW, this means that you don't need to meet any of the other prerequisites either. Hello, Practical Metamagic. Normally no DM would allow this, but given that you're talking about kobolds, all cheese is fair cheese.

[eggynack]

You might notice it never says the word true in the whole parragraph. If you argue that the chapter of the book is dedicated to dragons, it specifically says these rules are for dragons, never mentioned for true dragons except possibly on specific excerpts referring to true dragons but in this case when discussing the qualification for Epic Feats that is untrue.
Exactly. I do not discount the possibility that there is some text somewhere in the book that makes this specification, but it is not directly within the text. As I recall, there's a whole bunch of weird stuff you can do with just the dragon type.

So, @Mato: Maybe try reading some of those links yourself. Especially given that this general argument was already in the OP's post.

[DarkSoul]

The Draconomicon establishes a precedent from the first page of the book, and specifically in the sidebar at the bottom of page 4, where it says for the most part the book concerns itself with the 10 types of true dragons. It also says that creatures of the dragon type that don't advance through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons. It then goes on to refer to true dragons as "dragons" for the rest of the book, including the section where it defines the age ranges for each age category (which lesser dragons don't have), the section on dragon physiology (many aspects of which lesser dragons don't share), and pretty much every other part of the book refers to "dragons" when discussing some aspect of true dragons.

Here's something to consider: Page 22 of the Draconomicon says "All dragons develop innate magical abilities as they age. Among these is the ability to cast arcane spells." So what does the wyvern get? They didn't reprint it in the book, so it's a safe bet that the wyvern in the Monster Manual is not included in the "All dragons" reference. How about the Spiked Felldrake? That one IS in the Draconomicon. What innate magical abilities does it develop as it gets older? What arcane spells can it cast? Again, not included in the "All dragons" reference.

It's the same through the entire book. When the Draconomicon says "dragon", unless it specifically says "lesser dragon" then it's referring to true dragons. The fact that so many people think it needs to say "true dragon" every single time the word "dragon" appears is pretty depressing.

To the OP: If you're creating pre-gen characters, then I feel pretty safe in assuming they're going to be played by new players. Why are you worried about dragonwrought at all when the person playing the character will likely have no idea what any of it means anyway?

[flappeercraft]

The Draconomicon establishes a precedent from the first page of the book, and specifically in the sidebar at the bottom of page 4, where it says for the most part the book concerns itself with the 10 types of true dragons. It also says that creatures of the dragon type that don't advance through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons. It then goes on to refer to true dragons as "dragons" for the rest of the book, including the section where it defines the age ranges for each age category (which lesser dragons don't have), the section on dragon physiology (many aspects of which lesser dragons don't share), and pretty much every other part of the book refers to "dragons" when discussing some aspect of true dragons.

Here's something to consider: Page 22 of the Draconomicon says "All dragons develop innate magical abilities as they age. Among these is the ability to cast arcane spells." So what does the wyvern get? They didn't reprint it in the book, so it's a safe bet that the wyvern in the Monster Manual is not included in the "All dragons" reference. How about the Spiked Felldrake? That one IS in the Draconomicon. What innate magical abilities does it develop as it gets older? What arcane spells can it cast? Again, not included in the "All dragons" reference.

Exactly for the most part. Also the page 22 can be poor editing as far as we know for which Wizards is known to have on basically every book, for example the Rainbow Servant and Sacred Fist Prestige Classes having the different spellcasting progressions on the table and text and the fact that the gem in trap the soul is instantly destroyed as it's a material component instead of a focus which makes it useless.

There is also something else to consider, kobolds do advance through age categories as per RotD page 39 which gives the exact same age categories for kobolds as for dragons, now this would usually not be useful since they don't have the dragon type but the Dragonwrought feat grants them the type. Also it should be noted that the life cycle of a kobold and dragon is one and the same as per RotD which makes it equivalent for all senses.


"Once hatched, kobolds mature at a breakneck pace, using the same life cycle as dragons, but only living one-tenth as long. By the time a kobold reaches the age of eight or nine (on average), she is mentally and physically capable to assist her tribe in any capacity."

Edit: Also a precedent is set for rules that are explicitly about true dragons. If you had further checked page 22, you could have also seen on immunities and defenses section the following.

"Every true dragon is immune to at least one type of elemental energy (acid, cold, electricity or fire)"
Chaos dragons from the same book are a Planar Dragon species which is stated to be a group of True Dragons and it has no elemental immunity. Also Battle Dragons don't have the ability to cast arcane spells although they do have spell-like abilities which are explicitly not spells and are not cast.

[DarkSoul]

Also the page 22 can be poor editing as far as we knowThen it's "poor editing" for the entire book. I'm going with no, it's not poor editing.

There is also something else to consider, kobolds do advance through age categories as per RotD page 39 which gives the exact same age categories for kobolds as for dragons, now this would usually not be useful since they don't have the dragon type but the Dragonwrought feat grants them the type. Also it should be noted that the life cycle of a kobold and dragon is one and the same as per RotD which makes it equivalent for all senses.The problem is that kobolds don't get more powerful as they age through those categories like true dragons do, which is a requirement for being a true dragon. So no, kobold age categories and true dragon age categories are not equivalent beyond their names.

Abrasive as his post's tone may have been, Mato's quotes of the relevant rules text were spot-on in showing the various ways kobolds aren't true dragons, no matter how much they want to be.

[flappeercraft]

I edited my last post and here is what I added in for reference. It shows that rules have exceptions and not all true dragons need have spell casting innately and that even then the book is rather inconsistent with itself, also that if you remove DWK from being True Dragons due to the no innate spellcasting then you also have to remove battle dragons since they don't either and they are explicitly True Dragons. If you take the elemental immunity would remove the DWK then you have to remove Chaos dragons which ar ealso explicitly stated as True Dragons.



Edit: Also a precedent is set for rules that are explicitly about true dragons. If you had further checked page 22, you could have also seen on immunities and defenses section the following.

Chaos dragons from the same book are a Planar Dragon species which is stated to be a group of True Dragons and it has no elemental immunity. Also Battle Dragons don't have the ability to cast arcane spells although they do have spell-like abilities which are explicitly not spells and are not cast.


Then it's "poor editing" for the entire book. I'm going with no, it's not poor editing.
The problem is that kobolds don't get more powerful as they age through those categories like true dragons do, which is a requirement for being a true dragon.

Abrasive as his post's tone may have been, Mato's quotes of the relevant rules text were spot-on in showing the various ways kobolds aren't true dragons, no matter how much they want to be.

Well kobolds might not get more powerful as they age but dragonwrought kobolds do, as part of the dragon type they take no aging penalties and retain the bonuses to mental scores and therefore do grow more powerful.

[DarkSoul]

When someone can show me a printed draconic age category table for a DWK that shows them gaining any benefit from advancing through that table, I'll believe they can be counted as a true dragon.

...now where'd that popcorn go?

[lylsyly]

Here, have some of mine. I participated a bit in a couple of these, even started one myself. Then I made up my own mind for the games i DM and now I just sit back and watch because it's so much fun ...

[flappeercraft]

When someone can show me a printed draconic age category table for a DWK that shows them gaining any benefit from advancing through that table, I'll believe they can be counted as a true dragon.

...now where'd that popcorn go?

Kobolds again as per RotD page 39 gain the benefits and penalties of aging at age 60, 90 and 120 as per the regular aging bonuses and penalties as per the middle age, old and venerable respectively but due to the dragon type do not incur any of the penalties. This means that they do get aging bonuses at the Old, Ancient and Wyrm categories of their life cycle.

Pass me some of that popcorn please

[liquidformat]

There is also something else to consider, kobolds do advance through age categories as per RotD page 39 which gives the exact same age categories for kobolds as for dragons, now this would usually not be useful since they don't have the dragon type but the Dragonwrought feat grants them the type. Also it should be noted that the life cycle of a kobold and dragon is one and the same as per RotD which makes it equivalent for all senses.
Please see below:


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.

So we are in agreement with my earlier post then? You get your epic feats as long as you add on 3-5rhd per age category, yes?

[flappeercraft]

Please see below:


So we are in agreement with my earlier post then? You get your epic feats as long as you add on 3-5rhd per age category, yes?

I guess so but why 3-5 per age category? I can’t see a reason for more than 1 per age category

[eggynack]

The Draconomicon establishes a precedent from the first page of the book, and specifically in the sidebar at the bottom of page 4, where it says for the most part the book concerns itself with the 10 types of true dragons.
As was noted, this is meaningless. It's actually double meaningless. The primary way it's meaningless is that the text says it applies only sometimes, and then gives no means of determining where it applies or does not apply. The second way it's meaningless is that, if we're using that text to determine how the epic feat text functions somehow, then we'd actually have to exclude a ton of true dragons. Tarterian dragons, after all, are not of the ten types from the monster manual. Unless you're claiming that tarterian dragons cannot take epic feats, this text cannot possibly have any bearing on this rules analysis.




Here's something to consider: Page 22 of the Draconomicon says "All dragons develop innate magical abilities as they age. Among these is the ability to cast arcane spells."


So what does the wyvern get? They didn't reprint it in the book, so it's a safe bet that the wyvern in the Monster Manual is not included in the "All dragons" reference. How about the Spiked Felldrake? That one IS in the Draconomicon. What innate magical abilities does it develop as it gets older? What arcane spells can it cast? Again, not included in the "All dragons" reference.

Then it's "poor editing" for the entire book. I'm going with no, it's not poor editing.
I don't really care what you call that chunk of rules text. It's blatantly wrong. As was already noted, there are a lot of exceptions to the "rule" that all dragons develop magical abilities, even among provably true dragons. There are exceptions to most of these supposed rules of true dragons. Which is okay, to some extent, because they're not much in the way of rules. The "rule" that says dragons have arcane magic does not render gem dragons not dragons, or not true dragons, in spite of the fact that they lack arcane magic.




Abrasive as his post's tone may have been, Mato's quotes of the relevant rules text were spot-on in showing the various ways kobolds aren't true dragons, no matter how much they want to be.
Mato's argument was fundamentally irrelevant from the moment it arrived. The OP's claim was that dragons, not necessarily true dragons, have access to epic feats. Dragonwrought kobolds are dragons, true or not, and thus they have access to epic feats. Mato's claim that they are not true dragons thus has no bearing whatsoever on what the OP was saying, until and unless he (or someone else) proves that that text only applies to true dragons. Which is, y'know, probably impossible. You can say, "The writers probably meant true dragons there, based on context," but the thing they wrote was dragon, and so it's at the absolute least an ambiguous situation. At most, it's anything but ambiguous. By RAW, dragons have this capacity, and dragonwrought kobolds are dragons.

[Katie Boundary]

I deeply apologize for starting this thread. However, based on the responses so far, I agree with the following:

1) the Draconomicon does use "dragon" and "true dragon" interchangeably. The authors figured that "dragons of at least old age" was specific enough because they did not anticipate any dragon other than a true dragon being allowed to progress through the same age categories as true dragons.

2) Although DWKs progress through the same age categories as true dragons, and get more powerful as they do, they don't get more powerful in the same way as true dragons do. True dragon aging is a lot more sophisticated than "normal aging without the drawbacks".

At this time, I am not likely to believe that DWKs were intended to be eligible for epic dragon cheese... at least not without some Alter Self shenanigans.

[Katie Boundary]

I don't know if somebody mentioned this, but it says in RoTD that "Dragons automatically qualify for any classes, prestige classes, racial substitution levels, feats, powers or spells that require the dragonblood subtype."

Found it. Page 4. Domo arigato!

[eggynack]

I deeply apologize for starting this thread.
Eh, this argument is pretty low key, all things considered. We're still on one page, and, with the exception of some Mato posts, things've been relatively civil. Dragon cheese is always going to be a somewhat contentious topic, but until we hit double digit pages with a million crazy side topics, I hesitate to consider the thread problematic.


1) the Draconomicon does use "dragon" and "true dragon" interchangeably. The authors figured that "dragons of at least old age" was specific enough because they did not anticipate any dragon other than a true dragon being allowed to progress through the same age categories as true dragons.
I'm honestly not sure that I even buy this anymore. There are so many weird exceptions, where they say, "Dragons operate like this," when dragons listed as true in that very book operate differently. I'm almost inclined to think that they sometimes use "dragon" interchangeably with "those ten dragons from the monster manual". Those dragons all operate pretty similarly. All that in mind, I take a lot of issue with the idea that dragon is strictly used as a shorthand for true dragon. And, given that a self consistent reading of the terms used is more or less impossible (and I assume, again, that people don't think that only those ten dragons can take epic feats), I think we must default to what the text says.


At this time, I am not likely to believe that DWKs were intended to be eligible for epic dragon cheese... at least not without some Alter Self shenanigans.
Quite possibly not. However, trying to discern creator intent by near any means is super tricky and ambiguous at best, and totally impossible at worst. What you find most often in RAI discussion, in my experience, is people who think the rules ought to behave in a certain way, perhaps because they think the actual rules absurd, perhaps because they just happen to have played that way in the past, or for any number of other reasons, and then project that thinking onto the creators with limited evidence supporting that intent. We generally have no idea why they wrote things the way they wrote them, and assuming otherwise tends to strike me as hubris. RAW is good because it does not demand of us that we be mind readers. It's not perfect by any means, as constant unresolved rules arguments show, but I think it's better than just about any alternative. And I think RAW here is pretty clear.

[liquidformat]

I guess so but why 3-5 per age category? I can’t see a reason for more than 1 per age category

Looking at srds I supposed just 3rhd per age category, I thought I saw some that had more per age category. Anyways they are saying gain an rhd every few years and every srd dragon goes up by 3 rhd per age category so seems pretty straight forward that all our little munchkins out their with their great wyrm Dragonwrought Kobolds with epic feats should be starting the game with 30 rhd with a net gain of only +3 cha,int,wis. I think they are entitled to some epic feats for that, though shouldn't be in a ecl 1 game...

[Katie Boundary]

There are so many weird exceptions, where they say, "Dragons operate like this," when dragons listed as true in that very book operate differently. I'm almost inclined to think that they sometimes use "dragon" interchangeably with "those ten dragons from the monster manual". Those dragons all operate pretty similarly. All that in mind, I take a lot of issue with the idea that dragon is strictly used as a shorthand for true dragon. And, given that a self consistent reading of the terms used is more or less impossible (and I assume, again, that people don't think that only those ten dragons can take epic feats)...

The question is not whether they were always using "dragon" as shorthand for "true dragon". The question is, were they using "dragons of at least old age" as shorthand for "true dragons of at least old age", or did they mean "true dragons of at least old age plus anything else which, through sufficient application of cheese that hasn't been written yet, manages to acquire both the Dragon type and the Old age category"? I'm strongly inclined toward the former.

[noob]

Anyway since the rules contradicts themselves and that they are always true in dnd logic then it means that everything in dnd logic is both true and false so all the discussions about dragon-wrought kobolds are coherent and have only people saying true things about kobolds and dragons and also all the kobolds are pun pun and are not pun pun and also are sponges and tables and true dragons and truer dragon and faker dragons.

[eggynack]

The question is not whether they were always using "dragon" as shorthand for "true dragon". The question is, were they using "dragons of at least old age" as shorthand for "true dragons of at least old age", or did they mean "true dragons of at least old age plus anything else which, through sufficient application of cheese that hasn't been written yet, manages to acquire both the Dragon type and the Old age category"? I'm strongly inclined toward the former.
At this point then, we're looking at this text in more or less a total vacuum. It's just this rule without any significant evidence either way for how we're supposed to read it. And, in that contextless environment, I find it hard to accept that dragon doesn't just mean dragon. Dragon is a term that means a thing. The thing that term means is, in no sense, "true dragon". The reason people were bringing all this context into it was because they needed it. The text basically just means the one thing, the thing it says it means. And dragonwrought kobolds, going by that strict text reading, are dragons. You're saying that we should read dragon in one place, and read dragon in another place, and just kinda assume that they're referring to two totally different classes of object. Without context. It just doesn't seem like a particularly correct reading.

[Mato]

I edited my last post and here is what I added in for reference. It shows that rules have exceptions and not all true dragons need have spell casting innately and that even then the book is rather inconsistent with itselfA monk with improved disarm doesn't prove that a kobold does not provoke attack of opportunity for disarming his opponent with an unarmed strike any more than a planar dragon not having spellcasting proves kobolds are true dragons.

You are not going to like this part, but please reread that statement until the absurdity of your claim sinks in.

Well kobolds might not get more powerful as they age but dragonwrought kobolds do, as part of the dragon type they take no aging penalties and retain the bonuses to mental scores and therefore do grow more powerful.
https://i.imgflip.com/2evcqv.jpg
What definitively makes a true dragon by RAW is the entry says it is a true dragon.
Everything else is your imagination.


As was noted, this is meaningless.
I don't really care what you call that chunk of rules text. It's blatantly wrong.
Mato's argument was fundamentally irrelevant from the moment it arrived.
Hi Eggy, nice to see that you are still the worst person on the forum to discuss rules with and somehow can make my seemingly abrasive points seem like rainbows and sunshine. I'm sure there are plenty of things you like to ignore because you don't like it, like friction perhaps, but until you learn how to use the rule books instead of your opinion you really shouldn't participate in a lot of things.


Some people focus on where it says that true dragons get more powerful as they age, but then, as Mato states in a non-diplomatic fashion, they ignore every other feature listed by Draconomicon as constituting a true dragon that DWKs lack. Then, surprise surprise, they get all these questions about how true dragon kobolds work because the rules don't make sense.And this is the main reason I had to reply. Deophaum reiterates, in a much nicer way, what I tried to say before. We have certain people in this community that set some very bad examples on how to not read the rule books and other illogical debate points should be allowed. It's a self perpetuating cycle based on addictive hatred whose only end result is spreading intended inaccuracies that I feel we could do without.

Further reading
Certain behavior is a gateway drug (https://tinyurl.com/y8l63y39)
But it makes me happy (https://www.news.com.au/technology/it-just-makes-me-happy-when-i-can-make-someone-angry-a-special-investigation-into-the-dark-world-of-trolling/news-story/96db89fd56cef7024ef2c65bb2f48f73)
What it's like to be better (https://kotaku.com/10-former-internet-trolls-explain-why-they-quit-being-j-1722649439)

[eggynack]

Hi Eggy, nice to see that you are still the worst person on the forum to discuss rules with and somehow can make my seemingly abrasive points seem like rainbows and sunshine. I'm sure there are plenty of things you like to ignore because you don't like it, like friction perhaps, but until you learn how to use the rule books instead of your opinion you really shouldn't participate in a lot of things.
You acted like the OP was an idiot for not understanding the details of some incredibly obscure rules interaction, while yourself fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of her argument. The claim was never that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons, and therefore get epic feats. It was that epic feats are accessible to any dragon of old age, true or not, and that dragonwrought kobolds meet that requirement. Your citations relating to what makes a dragon true were therefore not relevant.

And I must ask, aside from calling your argument not relevant to the claim at hand (which was true), what is it about my posts that you take issue with? The first quotation was saying that a piece of text is meaningless. Do you have some issue with me insulting pieces of text for not being applicable? The second quote, too, was in reference to some rules text. Do you have some bizarre attachment to rule books that causes you to see any attack on them as a vicious personal attack on whoever presented said rules?

[OgresAreCute]

Are there even any old-or-higher category dragons that don't already qualify for epic feats by virtue of having over 20 hit dice? If each age category gives +3 RHD, then a 1 RHD wyrmling would have 22 hit dice by the time it is in the "old" category.

[noob]

Are there even any old-or-higher category dragons that don't already qualify for epic feats by virtue of having over 20 hit dice? If each age category gives +3 RHD, then a 1 RHD wyrmling would have 22 hit dice by the time it is in the "old" category.

I believe that in the rules if you have no class levels hit dice never makes you epic.

[umbergod]

I believe that in the rules if you have no class levels hit dice never makes you epic.

By that thought process arent all but true dragon epic lvl monsters illegal if they have epic feats in their statblocks?

Example: Atropals have 4 epic feats and no class levels

[noob]

By that thought process arent all but true dragon epic lvl monsters illegal if they have epic feats in their statblocks?

Example: Atropals have 4 epic feats and no class levels

I believed that usually their epic feats were racial bonus epic feats.
Now we need to count their total of feats.
But if having more than 20 hd did entitle you to take epic feats then atropals would have way more than 4 epic feats.

[OgresAreCute]

Usually their epic feats are racial bonus epic feats.
Now we need to count their total of feats.
But if having more than 20 hd did entitle you to take epic feats then atropals would have way more than 4 epic feats.

Atropals have 23 feats, exactly as many as a 66th level creature should have. Many more of these feats could be epic feats, but it's not like they have to be.

[noob]

Atropals have 23 feats, exactly as many as a 66th level creature should have. Many more of these feats could be epic feats, but it's not like they have to be.
We have no proof of anything as far as we know each manual was written by people which did read none of the other manuals.
So maybe epic monsters have the right to take epic feats because the one who wrote the epic manual is not the same person who wrote in the master manual the rules for epic characters and so they did not concert or think too hard to what the other wrote.
It is already hard to be coherent within one manual but being coherent between two manuals is impossible.

[daremetoidareyo]

Let us not forget that I discovered during my appraise guide building that creatures of the Dragon type get plus two competence bonus to appraise checks. Yea ha!

[lylsyly]

Let us not forget that I discovered during my appraise guide building that creatures of the Dragon type get plus two competence bonus to appraise checks. Yea ha!

Just one more notch in the Dragonwrought Kobold belt ;D Be right back, ran out of popcorn.

[Scots Dragon]

Kobolds again as per RotD page 39 gain the benefits and penalties of aging at age 60, 90 and 120 as per the regular aging bonuses and penalties as per the middle age, old and venerable respectively but due to the dragon type do not incur any of the penalties. This means that they do get aging bonuses at the Old, Ancient and Wyrm categories of their life cycle.

It does not, however, match up to the ageing categories.


The kobold gains the benefits of 'middle age' at the end of the old age category for dragons, at age 60, rather than lining up with that age category's beginning at 41, or the beginning of the next age category at 61.

The kobold gains the benefits of 'old age' part way through the ancient age category for dragons, at age 90, rather than at that age category's beginning age of 81 or even its end of 100. Or for that matter at the beginning of the wyrm category of 101.

The kobold gains the benefits of 'venerable' part at the end of the wyrm age category for dragons, at age 120, rather than at that age category's beginning age of 101, or the beginning of the great wyrm age category of 121.

Even if you were to be really generous and say that these qualify, they don't really gain any explicit age benefits from wyrmling, very young, young, or juvenile. The 'young adult' age at least vaguely matches up to the starting age, but even then not really as they also have to add the starting age tendencies for their class, which ranges from +1d3 to +2d4. From that point on there is nothing that matches up to the adult, mature adult, or great wyrm categories.

And this itself actually precludes them being true dragons. A true dragon wyrmling is a fully-sapient and playable character. A kobold wyrmling is not.


A dragonwrought kobold is not a true dragon. The rules simply do not match up in any real sense and do not function if you try and pretend like they do.

[DarkSoul]

Truth.Great reiteration of the obvious (to everyone but the willfully ignorant, anyway); hopefully it finally sinks in.

[Katie Boundary]

Are there even any old-or-higher category dragons that don't already qualify for epic feats by virtue of having over 20 hit dice? If each age category gives +3 RHD, then a 1 RHD wyrmling would have 22 hit dice by the time it is in the "old" category.

Whoa, good catch.

[Arael666]

Kobolds again as per RotD page 39 gain the benefits and penalties of aging at age 60, 90 and 120 as per the regular aging bonuses and penalties as per the middle age, old and venerable respectively but due to the dragon type do not incur any of the penalties. This means that they do get aging bonuses at the Old, Ancient and Wyrm categories of their life cycle.

Pass me some of that popcorn please

And what does that have to do with actually progressing by said age categories? Not receveing the penalties from old age is not the same as progressing by age categories.

[Doctor Awkward]

Kobolds do not have Dragon Age Categories (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm). They have Kobold Age Categories.

You can see this as the table on page 39 in Races of the Dragon is clearly labeled "Table 3-2: Kobold Age Categories" at the top.
In addition to the names being different, the number of years spent in each stage varies greatly between the two tables as well.

Thus a dragonwrought kobold is a dragon that has Kobold Age Categories, and therefore not a true dragon.

[eggynack]

I'm still not sure why any of this is pertinent. We're working with an old dragon. Those are the only two requirements for getting epic feats. Thus, they get epic feats. It seems rather unambiguous from where I'm standing.

[Doctor Awkward]

I'm still not sure why any of this is pertinent. We're working with an old dragon. Those are the only two requirements for getting epic feats. Thus, they get epic feats. It seems rather unambiguous from where I'm standing.

Please cite the text which clearly states the Draconomicon is referring to "dragon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#dragonType)" the creature type, and not "dragon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm)" the specific category of monsters that are drawn from a specific and definitive list whose members each adhere to a specific set of unique rules that are laid out in the early chapters of the Draconomicon.

[eggynack]

Please cite the text which clearly states the Draconomicon is referring to "dragon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#dragonType)" the creature type, and not "dragon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm)" the specific category of monsters that are drawn from a specific and definitive list whose members each adhere to a specific set of unique rules that are laid out in the early chapters of the Draconomicon.
Please cite the text that clearly indicates that that is a definition of dragon.

[Doctor Awkward]

Please cite the text that clearly indicates that that is a definition of dragon.

Draconomicon, pg. 4 Sidebar: "The Different Kinds of 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.

This is the default setting of the book. Any time the book is discussing something that does not pertain to true dragons, it says as such. Like on page 100 where it discusses the rules for Advancing Dragons and says this:

Armor Class: An advanced dragon’s natural armor bonus
increases by +1 for every Hit Die it gains beyond the great
wyrm stage. (You can use this rule for lesser dragon advancement
as well, since natural armor and Hit Dice always
increase at the same rate.)

When the Draconomicon says "dragons", in general it is talking about "true dragons". This is a clear manual of style repeated throughout the text. It's how the book was meant to be read. If it ever is not talking about something unique to true dragons, that fact will be made clear by the text.

[eggynack]

Draconomicon, pg. 4 Sidebar: "The Different Kinds of 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.

This is the default setting of the book. Any time the book is discussing something that does not pertain to true dragons, it says as such. Like on page 100 where it discusses the rules for Advancing Dragons and says this:
Literally nothing here implies any other definition for the term "dragon".




When the Draconomicon says "dragons", in general it is talking about "true dragons". This is a clear manual of style repeated throughout the text. It's how the book was meant to be read. If it ever is not talking about something unique to true dragons, that fact will be made clear by the text.
This is indicative of a way the book generally presents itself. It is, in no way, indicative of a definition of dragon separate from the actual definition of dragon.

Edit: This is doubly true because, if this is to constitute a second definition of dragon, then it is incredibly unclear how it is being defined.

[umbergod]

We have no proof of anything as far as we know each manual was written by people which did read none of the other manuals.
So maybe epic monsters have the right to take epic feats because the one who wrote the epic manual is not the same person who wrote in the master manual the rules for epic characters and so they did not concert or think too hard to what the other wrote.
It is already hard to be coherent within one manual but being coherent between two manuals is impossible.

Both of your previous statements start with "i believe" if youve got a source that states epic feats require class level 21+ (and that 21+ HD doesn't qualify) that'd be great

[Doctor Awkward]

Both of your previous statements start with "i believe" if youve got a source that states epic feats require class level 21+ (and that 21+ HD doesn't qualify) that'd be great

Acquiring Epic Feats: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#acquiringEpicFeats)

Characters gain epic feats in the following ways:

At 21st level, and every three levels thereafter, the character may select an epic feat in place of a nonepic feat.

Each character class gains bonus epic feats according to the class description. These feats must be selected from the list of bonus epic feats for that class.

Additonally on the DMG, pg. 206:

Epic characters—those characters whose character level is 21st
or higher—are handled slightly differently than nonepic characters.

EDIT
And on DMG, pg. 209:

MONSTERS AS EPIC CHARACTERS
The epic rules in this section also work for monsters with character
levels, using the creature’s effective character level (ECL)
instead of just its class levels.

Per RAW, getting to character level 21+, or having class levels and an ECL higher than 20, is the only way to acquire epic feats.

[Doctor Awkward]

Literally nothing here implies any other definition for the term "dragon".



This is indicative of a way the book generally presents itself. It is, in no way, indicative of a definition of dragon separate from the actual definition of dragon.

Edit: This is doubly true because, if this is to constitute a second definition of dragon, then it is incredibly unclear how it is being defined.

It's only unclear if you ignore the context in which the book was written, which is spelled out in black and white in the sidebar on page 4.

The main topic of the book is true dragons.

Whenever something also applies to lesser dragons, the text will say so.

If the text does not otherwise indicate, you can safely assume that the topic in question is meant to pertain to true dragons only. Which dragonwrought kobolds aren't.

[umbergod]

Acquiring Epic Feats: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#acquiringEpicFeats)


Additonally on the DMG, pg. 206:


EDIT
And on DMG, pg. 209:


Per RAW, getting to character level 21+, or having class levels and an ECL higher than 20, is the only way to acquire epic feats.

Except for ECL doesnt require class levels to function. You can have ECL 21+ without a single class level, that, per the lines you quoted, would allow any monster with over 20 HD, which is one of the factors for ECL, to qualify for epic feats

[eggynack]

It's only unclear if you ignore the context in which the book was written, which is spelled out in black and white in the sidebar on page 4.

The main topic of the book is true dragons.
Nope. If you go by that sidebar, the main topic of the book is the ten true dragons from the monster manual. It says that other true dragons are presented in the book as well, but specifically in a chapter that isn't the one we're discussing. So, are you asserting that these ten dragons, and only these ten dragons, are granted special dispensation to take epic feats at old age by the text we are discussing?

[Doctor Awkward]

Nope. If you go by that sidebar, the main topic of the book is the ten true dragons from the monster manual

Plus other ones as noted by the sidebar:

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.

If you have to ignore part of the text to make your point, you are probably changing the text to support your conclusion, instead of drawing your conclusion from the text.

[Doctor Awkward]

Except for ECL doesnt require class levels to function. You can have ECL 21+ without a single class level, that, per the lines you quoted, would allow any monster with over 20 HD, which is one of the factors for ECL, to qualify for epic feats

While you can have ECL 21+ without class levels, that's not what the text in the DMG supports.

It states that the epic rules only function for "monsters with character levels".

Arguably this is why the Dracnomicon (and previously the Epic Level Handbook) bothered to create an exception for true dragons. They wanted the iconic game creature to have access to epic feats without having to take a level in a random class.

[eggynack]

Plus other ones as noted by the sidebar:


If you have to ignore part of the text to make your point, you are probably changing the text to support your conclusion, instead of drawing your conclusion from the text.
I literally addressed that point in the post you quoted. Here's that: "It says that other true dragons are presented in the book as well, but specifically in a chapter that isn't the one we're discussing." This text is irrelevant, because it only supports this book being about other dragons in that specific chapter. I mean, are you going to ignore the fact that the very next two paragraphs also place lesser dragons within the domain of this book to the exact same extent? If we are to take your citation as evidence that the book, and thus the term dragon in this context, refers to all true dragons, then I can use the following citation to imply that lesser dragons are also included:


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 rule-book or accessory.

[noob]

Except for ECL doesnt require class levels to function. You can have ECL 21+ without a single class level, that, per the lines you quoted, would allow any monster with over 20 HD, which is one of the factors for ECL, to qualify for epic feats

If you have a level adjustment of _ your ecl is of hd+class level + _ which is equal to _ and it is not allowed to compare _ to 20.

[Doctor Awkward]

I literally addressed that point in the post you quoted. Here's that: "It says that other true dragons are presented in the book as well, but specifically in a chapter that isn't the one we're discussing." This text is irrelevant, because it only supports this book being about other dragons in that specific chapter. I mean, are you going to ignore the fact that the very next two paragraphs also place lesser dragons within the domain of this book to the exact same extent? If we are to take your citation as evidence that the book, and thus the term dragon in this context, refers to all true dragons, then I can use the following citation to imply that lesser dragons are also included:

My assertion is exactly what I said it was on the previous page.

The primary topic of the book is true dragons. All rules discussed in the book pertain to true dragons. If a rule also applies to lesser dragons then the book will say so.

What constitutes a true dragon is also clearly defined in several ways. If a creature does not seem to meet all of the established criteria, it will say somewhere in its description that it counts as a true dragon. Otherwise it doesn't.

The Draconomicon is not a book about the "dragon" creature type in general. It is about the category of monsters after which the game is named.

[eggynack]

The primary topic of the book is true dragons. All rules discussed in the book pertain to true dragons. If a rule also applies to lesser dragons then the book will say so.
Your citation does not indicate this. Either only that earlier part is relevant, in which case your citation indicates that the primary topic of the book is the ten true dragons from the monster manual, or the entire sidebar is relevant, in which case the primary topic is both true and lesser dragons. There is no reading by which your citation matches up with your claims. If you have a different citation for this idea, then that could support your position, but as is it has been utterly unsupported.

[umbergod]

If you have a level adjustment of _ your ecl is of hd+class level + _ which is equal to _ and it is not allowed to compare _ to 20.

And the epic monsters with an actual listed LA? Ya know, the ones with an ECL of over 20 and with statblocks containing epic feats?

[Doctor Awkward]

Your citation does not indicate this. Either only that earlier part is relevant, in which case your citation indicates that the primary topic of the book is the ten true dragons from the monster manual, or the entire sidebar is relevant, in which case the primary topic is both true and lesser dragons. There is no reading by which your citation matches up with your claims. If you have a different citation for this idea, then that could support your position, but as is it has been utterly unsupported.

Try reading the entire rest of that page. The Introduction goes into great detail explaining that it is intended to be a resource for the "iconic creature that is a central part of the game."

I'm pretty sure that the authors weren't talking about kobolds...

[eggynack]

Try reading the entire rest of that page. The Introduction goes into great detail explaining that it is intended to be a resource for the "iconic creature that is a central part of the game."

I'm pretty sure that the authors weren't talking about kobolds...
Might have been talking about standard lesser dragons though, and there's really not much in the way of specifics in that introduction to create a strong basis for this alternative definition. Or maybe they were talking about kobolds. They're pretty iconic and central as far as I can tell. Definitely more iconic and central than, I dunno, li lungs. You're saying that we should read the word dragon in a way that goes against the only way that word is defined, and your basis for that is that the book says dragons are cool.

[Doctor Awkward]

Might have been talking about standard lesser dragons though, and there's really not much in the way of specifics in that introduction to create a strong basis for this alternative definition. Or maybe they were talking about kobolds. They're pretty iconic and central as far as I can tell. Definitely more iconic and central than, I dunno, li lungs. You're saying that we should read the word dragon in a way that goes against the only way that word is defined, and your basis for that is that the book says dragons are cool.

When considered along with the clarifying text in the sidebar, the topic of the book is made abundantly clear.

-"Most of this book is about the ten true dragons in the MM."
-"If something is not about true dragons, the text will say so."
-"If something pertains to lesser dragons as well, the book will say so."
-"These things listed here also count as true dragons."

That is the context in which the book is written, and that is how it is meant to be read.

The one insisting that the word "dragon" must mean something else is you, and you are doing so because your assumptions would not otherwise fit the text.

I'd advise you to pick better assumptions rather than argue that the text must be wrong.

[eggynack]

-"Most of this book is about the ten true dragons in the MM."
-"If something is not about true dragons, the text will say so."
-"If something pertains to lesser dragons as well, the book will say so."
-"These things listed here also count as true dragons."
Where, precisely, are the second and third things stated? It's certainly not in the sidebar, and it's doubly certainly not in the introduction.


The one insisting that the word "dragon" must mean something else is you, and you are doing so because your assumptions would not otherwise fit the text.
On the contrary, I've looked at all of the text you've cited, and seen nothing that does not match up to my claim. You say that "dragon" in this book means true dragon. You've given literally zero evidence, let alone proof, for this. All you have thus far is a piece of text saying that the book is focused on a specific set of true dragons, and an intro that talks about how cool dragons are. From this I am to derive some vast redefinition of a relatively well defined term? And I am the one letting my initial assumptions blur my reading?

[Doctor Awkward]

Where, precisely, are the second and third things stated? It's certainly not in the sidebar, and it's doubly certainly not in the introduction.

On the contrary, I've looked at all of the text you've cited, and seen nothing that does not match up to my claim. You say that "dragon" in this book means true dragon. You've given literally zero evidence, let alone proof, for this. All you have thus far is a piece of text saying that the book is focused on a specific set of true dragons, and an intro that talks about how cool dragons are. From this I am to derive some vast redefinition of a relatively well defined term? And I am the one letting my initial assumptions blur my reading?

Yes. You are.

Read the introduction assuming that the word "dragon" refers to the creature type.

Then read it again assuming that it refers to the specific creature category of "true dragons" (like the sidebar says).

See which context makes more sense.

Now apply that context to the rest of the book.

[eggynack]

Yes. You are.

Read the introduction assuming that the word "dragon" refers to the creature type.

Then read it again assuming that it refers to the specific creature category of "true dragons" (like the sidebar says).

See which context makes more sense.

Now apply that context to the rest of the book.
The sidebar does not tell me to assume that, first of all. Second, if true dragon makes more sense, then the difference is pretty marginal. The only thing that's all that indicative is that it repeatedly refers to true dragon age categories. After all, while the intro does talk about epic dragons sweeping over the land, it also talks about not so epic dragons raiding sheep. This is especially true because the intro specifically references the dragon feats section as a thing to make dragon encounters more exciting, and then most of the feats in question are allowed on anything of the dragon type, meaning that the text implicitly calls lesser dragons "dragon". Third, even if true dragon did make a significant amount more sense in this context, that would not a new definition make. You're trying to override an actual definition here. True dragons fitting in somewhat better is nowhere near sufficient.

[Katie Boundary]

This thread has brought dishonor on my whole family, dishonor on me, and dishonor on my cow. I must now commit sudoku.

[Doctor Awkward]

The sidebar does not tell me to assume that, first of all. Second, if true dragon makes more sense, then the difference is pretty marginal. The only thing that's all that indicative is that it repeatedly refers to true dragon age categories. After all, while the intro does talk about epic dragons sweeping over the land, it also talks about not so epic dragons raiding sheep. This is especially true because the intro specifically references the dragon feats section as a thing to make dragon encounters more exciting, and then most of the feats in question are allowed on anything of the dragon type, meaning that the text implicitly calls lesser dragons "dragon". Third, even if true dragon did make a significant amount more sense in this context, that would not a new definition make. You're trying to override an actual definition here. True dragons fitting in somewhat better is nowhere near sufficient.

First of all, yes it does. That's exactly what the text, "For the most part, this book concerns itself with the ten varieties of true dragon described in the Monster Manual", means. That is the book topic spelled out as directly as possible without using the phrase "book topic".

Second, I'm glad we seem to agree that true dragon makes more sense. While the difference in the Introduction is marginal, it becomes far more pronounced the further you head into the book. And yes, stealing sheep does not make for an epic dragon, but the youngest of wyrms has to eat something. That passage is merely illustrating that one of the highlights of true dragons is that they are capable of filling many types of antagonistic roles in the story depending on the age category you choose. Furthermore, repeatedly mentioning Dragon Age Categories are far from the only oblique reference the book text routinely makes to true dragons. It also makes mention of ageless beings of great intelligence and wisdom, immensely powerful magic, breath weapons, elemental weaknesses and invulnerabilities, the hoarding of treasure-- all characteristics which, when counted together, are exclusively the hallmarks of true dragons.

And thirdly, I am not the one inventing anything. The text is assigning the meanings and definitions of words through context. It repeatedly and routinely uses "dragon" and "true dragon" interchangeably, especially when discussing Dragon Tactics and Running a Dragon Encounter in Chapter 2. And throughout the text there are repeated footnotes to the effect of what is found on page 100: that whenever a particular general rule regarding "dragons" (a phrase which we have been told is meant to be read as "true dragons") also applies to lesser dragons the text will say so. In fact, the text goes out of it's way to note that several things which appear in this book are not exclusive to true dragons:


METABREATH FEATS
Dragons (and other creatures) have developed ways to control
their breath weapons to produce varying degrees of
effects, from the subtle to the conspicuous.

DRAGON SPELLS
Over the millennia, dragons have developed a number of
spells that take their special abilities and qualities into
account. Despite the origin of these spells, any spellcaster
can learn and use them if he or she is capable of casting
spells of the indicated class and level.

DRAGON MAGIC ITEMS
This section describes magic items made particularly for
use by dragons. Many of them can be used by other creatures
as well.

The book isn't doing this to be redundant. It's doing this because the chapter in which this material appears is concerned entirely with true dragons. All of this indicates a clear manual of style with which the book was written. Even the templates in the Appendix are subject to this, what with the line of text that reads, "(referred to hereafter as the base dragon)", rather than "base creature" like every other supplement of D&D, ever
(even the undead-only templates from Libris Mortis aren't given this treatment). The templates in the Draconomicon also make assumptions about the abilities of the base "dragon" that are all unique to true dragons, as though it is a foregone conclusion that they won't be applied to anything else. Because they aren't supposed to be.

My conclusions regarding the nature of text in the Draconomicon aren't an opinion. They are the results of a comprehensive reading of the entire book. In some instances, a selective reading of the text can create ambiguities, but those are not license to ignore obvious author intent. Particularly when that intent is spelled out for you within the first two pages of the text.

When the book says, "Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even if they have no class levels.", they aren't referring to creatures of the dragon type who might also happen to have an "Aging Effects" table. They are talking about true dragons of at least the Old Age category or older.

Dragonwrought kobolds do not use this rule any more than any race from the PHB with the Half-dragon template would.

[eggynack]

First of all, yes it does. That's exactly what the text, "For the most part, this book concerns itself with the ten varieties of true dragon described in the Monster Manual", means. That is the book topic spelled out as directly as possible without using the phrase "book topic".
That's the first point. Your second and third points do not follow, however. The points that follow would be, "If something is not about these ten true dragons, the text will say so," and, "If something pertains to dragons besides these ten as well, the book will say so." This, however, is not what you've been trying to prove. As I continually say, the position that "dragon" is defined for this book as specifically these ten dragons is a far more self consistent and well supported one. Of course, it's also super weird.



And yes, stealing sheep does not make for an epic dragon, but the youngest of wyrms has to eat something. That passage is merely illustrating that one of the highlights of true dragons is that they are capable of filling many types of antagonistic roles in the story depending on the age category you choose.
Of course true dragons make sense in the context of the introduction. My contention, however, is that lesser dragons fit in this context about as well. You cited the epic presentation of dragons as evidence that true dragons are the topic, and the presence of significantly lower key dragon references refute this idea.


Furthermore, repeatedly mentioning Dragon Age Categories are far from the only oblique reference the book text routinely makes to true dragons. It also makes mention of ageless beings of great intelligence and wisdom, immensely powerful magic, breath weapons, elemental weaknesses and invulnerabilities, the hoarding of treasure-- all characteristics which, when counted together, are exclusively the hallmarks of true dragons.
And yet, they are not all the hallmark of all true dragons. Many of the citations made have exceptions scattered throughout the piles of true dragons in existence, including ones listed at the end of the book. Thus, these references do not particularly support your conclusion about what the word dragon means in these contexts.


It repeatedly and routinely uses "dragon" and "true dragon" interchangeably, especially when discussing Dragon Tactics and Running a Dragon Encounter in Chapter 2.
Chapter 2 actually doesn't really use dragon and true dragon interchangeably. It mostly just says dragon. The first usage of the word "true" in that chapter is on the feat draconic knowledge, as a prerequisite. This is well after the dragon tactics section. The other uses in the chapter are not particularly meaningful either, in terms of establishing the interchangeable use of the terms.


And throughout the text there are repeated footnotes to the effect of what is found on page 100: that whenever a particular general rule regarding "dragons" (a phrase which we have been told is meant to be read as "true dragons") also applies to lesser dragons the text will say so.
We have never been told it is meant to be read as true dragons. As far as I can tell, you've yet to provide a citation for this claim.

In fact, the text goes out of it's way to note that several things which appear in this book are not exclusive to true dragons:

These citations do not support your point. They all use the word "dragon", and creatures that aren't dragons at all can make use of some of them. Thus, while a meaning of the citations could theoretically be, "True dragons and everything else," the meaning could equally be, "Dragons and everything else".


Even the templates in the Appendix are subject to this, what with the line of text that reads, "(referred to hereafter as the base dragon)", rather than "base creature" like every other supplement of D&D, ever
(even the undead-only templates from Libris Mortis aren't given this treatment). The templates in the Draconomicon also make assumptions about the abilities of the base "dragon" that are all unique to true dragons, as though it is a foregone conclusion that they won't be applied to anything else. Because they aren't supposed to be.

What abilities, precisely, are you referring to? As far as I can tell, nothing in the text of any of the templates precludes the use of a lesser dragon. The text allows the dragon to retain things that true dragons would generally only be in the wheelhouse of true dragons, but obviously the book had to account for the possibility of true dragons accessing the templates.


My conclusions regarding the nature of text in the Draconomicon aren't an opinion. They are the results of a comprehensive reading of the entire book. In some instances, a selective reading of the text can create ambiguities, but those are not license to ignore obvious author intent. Particularly when that intent is spelled out for you within the first two pages of the text.
Your conclusions are absolutely opinion. The text you use to support the idea that this is a true dragon thing can ultimately only support two conclusions entirely distinct from that one. First, that dragon refers specifically to dragons from the monster manual, or second, that dragon refers to, y'know, dragons. Your introduction based argument specifically tells us to look at those ten dragons, and references throughout the book exclude some true dragons. These citations are too narrow in their scope to support your reading. And, honestly, I don't have a great argument against this particular reading at the moment. It's an incredibly risky position, because a single dragon besides those ten that uses a thing that the book says only a dragon is allowed access to would defeat that argument. But I've yet to find such a dragon. Ultimately, I think either position is defensible. The one you hold is not, in my opinion.

[lylsyly]

This thread has brought dishonor on my whole family, dishonor on me, and dishonor on my cow. I must now commit sudoku.

Only three pages in six days is nothing for this controversial subject. If you go back and search for previous threads you will see. And you'll see a lot of the same people rehashing the same old arguments
with no resolution. Occasionally you will actually find a person swayed one way or another, but it's rare.

When you DM, it's YOUR call, as long as you and your player's are having fun. After all, that is why we play the game.

Actually, I would rather spend my time figuring out the most convoluted RPG in history than play *shudder* sudoku ;D

There is no Dishonor in asking questions ... how else do we learn?

[Mato]

This thread has brought dishonor on my whole family, dishonor on me, and dishonor on my cow. I must now commit sudoku.Don't let eggy drag you down with him.

Use the thread for the obvious lesson that it is. The words in the books serve one and only one purpose, to explain the author's ideas to you. They have to translate their ideas into words and you have to translate their words back into an idea and if you're every lived in the real world you know how messages can change every single time they are retold. It at any point you find your self quoting one sentence above all else then you have absolutely failed to understand the idea.

And never, ever, launch into a rhetorical point designed to claim that it is generally impossible to discern the idea. People only do that to limit the replies that oppose their agenda and that is called plurium interrogationum, or fallacy of too many questions. Some specific cases may be had to understand, but that doesn't mean every case is. Like one of eggy's posts a page ago where he claimed he doesn't know what "dragon" means or what RAI is. I think everyone in this thread knows eggy does not know what they are, but that does not mean you cannot learn about them yourself.

[AnonymousPepper]

Is it Tuesday already?

*pulls up lawnchair*

[eggynack]

Snip
Well, this is a bunch of nonsense right here.

[Bullet06320]

I got a fresh batch of popcorn to give away, the butter costs extra tho

[eggynack]

I got a fresh batch of popcorn to give away, the butter costs extra tho
I mean, I'm still reasonably engaged by the actual argument here, but I will partake of this forum popcorn with regard to Mato's odd... writings. Really not sure where his aggression is coming from.

[Bullet06320]

Eggy, you usually know what your talking about, and can make reasonable well cited arguments for your point of view

unfortunately every one around here doesn't always agree with the way things are written in the books or merely read them from a different point of view based on their own preconceived notions, not saying they are wrong, just that we all see things differntly and some things that fly at one table may not fly at another

and it doesn't help that things from one book mesh weirdly with things from other books, or combined with 8 different sources

things like dragonwrought kobold, makes a kobold a dragon, and eligible for dragon things

so if by your reading of the rules its an old kobold that's also a dragon, have all the epic cheese you want, if not, well...NO CHEESE FOR YOU!!!!!

this is one of those arguments that your for one side or other, and no amount of rationale rules debate and citations will convince the other side.

at any given table, ask the DM when in doubt

[eggynack]

Snip
I'm honestly on a bit of a different thing right now. I do think dragonwrought kobolds have access to epic feats, but what I find more interesting are those odd inconsistencies in the true dragon interpretation. This stance opposing my own relies on a ton of weird citations that don't quite add up to that conclusion. In spite of how well trod this topic is as a whole, I'm not sure this tack, that a reading that removes dragonwrought kobolds from epic feat access necessarily removes, say, song dragons as well, has been taken on before. It's a weirdly well supported argument, as citations like, "All dragons get arcane spellcasting," suddenly make some variety of sense when applied to only the ten core true dragons. Of course, as I keep noting, it's a thoroughly weird position, particularly because it implies that the designers meant this strange specific thing when using a super broad term, but I think it's possibly the only self consistent position aside from anything of the dragon type.

As I side note, here's a weird question I just thought of. What does dragon wild shape allow you to become? According to this "all true dragons" position, can someone with the feat become a plains landwyrm? By my strange alternate position, can they become a sapphire dragon?

[Bullet06320]

As I side note, here's a weird question I just thought of. What does dragon wild shape allow you to become? According to this "all true dragons" position, can someone with the feat become a plains landwyrm? By my strange alternate position, can they become a sapphire dragon?

so...you could dragon wildshape into a dragonwrought kolbold? its a small dragon, so why not?

[umbergod]

so...you could dragon wildshape into a dragonwrought kolbold? its a small dragon, so why not?

Thats pure genius!

[eggynack]

so...you could dragon wildshape into a dragonwrought kolbold? its a small dragon, so why not?
Probably not, as it demands you make feat selections for your target forms.

[liquidformat]

so...you could dragon wildshape into a dragonwrought kolbold? its a small dragon, so why not?

Ya pretty sure that is a no go since dragonwrought is too close to being a template to pass that litmus test...

[Bullet06320]

but...but...but...its a dragon, lol

I honestly wasn't sure, but it sounded good, without delving into the mechanics of wildshape

I guess I'll put a new batch of popcorn in, maybe some nachos, so everyone can has cheese too

[Arael666]

Just want to add something to the discussion, have you guys noticed that certain dragon feats require "dragon type" (such as endure blows), others just require "Dragon" (such as Tails Constrict, capital "d"), and we even have a feat that requires "true dragon" (draconic knowledge)?

[eggynack]

Just want to add something to the discussion, have you guys noticed that certain dragon feats require "dragon type" (such as endure blows), others just require "Dragon" (such as Tails Constrict, capital "d"), and we even have a feat that requires "true dragon" (draconic knowledge)?
Yeah, I think I noted that awhile back. It's truly inexplicable, and lends credence to the general position that the book was just super poorly edited, at least in this regard.

[liquidformat]

Yeah, I think I noted that awhile back. It's truly inexplicable, and lends credence to the general position that the book was just super poorly edited, at least in this regard.

No it was magic! We all know dragons are magic, the book was altered by them so we can't completely understand them there by keeping their true secrets hidden under a cloud of wtf what were these writers on! If you don't believe me then just talk to the race of lizard people who live under Denver International Airport! They know the truth!

[Scots Dragon]

Yeah, I think I noted that awhile back. It's truly inexplicable, and lends credence to the general position that the book was just super poorly edited, at least in this regard.

Or perhaps, like most things in D&D 3.5E, it wasn't broken until some people went about deliberately reading it in such a manner as to break it. It's the same reason behind ninety percent of supposedly broken things actually working well enough at the table.

D&D 3.5E seems to have been written with the assumption that the players and DM would take some degree of common sense into account.

[eggynack]

Or perhaps, like most things in D&D 3.5E, it wasn't broken until some people went about deliberately reading it in such a manner as to break it. It's the same reason behind ninety percent of supposedly broken things actually working well enough at the table.

D&D 3.5E seems to have been written with the assumption that the players and DM would take some degree of common sense into account.
This isn't a broken thing. It's a poorly edited thing. The term "dragon" is used in the exact same table as the two likely meanings of that term, rendering it completely unclear who is supposed to be getting this feat. Are you telling me that someone seeing "dragon", no context whatsoever, and assuming that their huge half-dragon whatever can take it is a silly thing? Especially when the feat prerequisites are clearly fair game? Moreover, some of the lines in the book just don't make much sense. For example, the thing about all dragons being arcane spellcasters. It's a statement that's not even true when you limit it to true dragons.

What, precisely, is the natural reading of this text that avoids your claimed deliberate misreading? What is the "common sense" resolution to this issue? This is why I dislike RAI readings. They so often find themselves coming into conflict with what the books actually and straightforwardly say. It reveals that this divining of intent, this supposed common sense, is in truth just whatever a person happens to think anyway. They've played it that way in the past, or just happened to think it worked that way on first approach, so anything that goes against that reading must equally go against designer intent, or against the mighty common sense as established by a single person.

On top of all of that, this idea that 90% of broken stuff got there by way of misreading, deliberate or otherwise, is blatantly false. The vast majority of broken things in the game are broken in unambiguous fashion. Sure, there's weird junk out there, like using IHS on the sun, but those things are few and far between compared to stuff like aberration wild shape, divine metamagic, arcane thesis, shapechange, or even something as basic as frigging web. Let's get real here; most epic feats suck, most epic feats have prerequisites that make them unrealistic pre-epic, and the list that is restricted in neither way is pretty short. This dragonwrought kobold thing is a drop in the bucket compared to the ridiculously powerful and obviously totally intended stuff out there. And, in the context of all that intentional absurdity, it's obvious common sense to assume that a given piece of absurdity was unintentional? Seems like a stretch, even if this particular thing probably was not intentional.

[Troacctid]

I think it's preeetty clear here that someone misread the rule as saying "true dragon" instead of "dragon" and then didn't want to back down and lose face when the misreading was pointed out, so they came up with some cockamamie argument to cover up the mistake.

[lylsyly]

No it was magic! We all know dragons are magic, the book was altered by them so we can't completely understand them there by keeping their true secrets hidden under a cloud of wtf what were these writers on! If you don't believe me then just talk to the race of lizard people who live under Denver International Airport! They know the truth!

Off topic but I cannot resist. Those are NOT lizard people, those are the ghosts of the army of baggage handlers they hired when they realized their billion dollar baggage system did not work (I was stationed at Fort Carson at the time).

On topic; There is really no sense in trying to get certain people to change their views on this subject. They never will, period. WoTC could update the danged book to make it CLEAR and the argument would continue.

@MATO: Do you have any sensitivity towards new players at all?

[lylsyly]

This isn't a broken thing. It's a poorly edited thing. The term "dragon" is used in the exact same table as the two likely meanings of that term, rendering it completely unclear who is supposed to be getting this feat. Are you telling me that someone seeing "dragon", no context whatsoever, and assuming that their huge half-dragon whatever can take it is a silly thing? Especially when the feat prerequisites are clearly fair game? Moreover, some of the lines in the book just don't make much sense. For example, the thing about all dragons being arcane spellcasters. It's a statement that's not even true when you limit it to true dragons. Snip ....


What I bolded is how I decided to run my own games. If you have the Dragon type PERIOD, and you meet the prereqs, your good.


Yes, I know, many of you disagree with me. You know what? When you are ready to come run my game for me let me know, otherwise stay off my table. My group is fine with how I run my games, as I am fine with how they choose to run theirs (and two of the six of us are on the other side of the debate).


Sigh ... at least the good ones stick to arguing in an reasonable manner instead of try to stick it to new players that are just trying to learn or clarify.

[Doctor Awkward]

Or perhaps, like most things in D&D 3.5E, it wasn't broken until some people went about deliberately reading it in such a manner as to break it. It's the same reason behind ninety percent of supposedly broken things actually working well enough at the table.

D&D 3.5E seems to have been written with the assumption that the players and DM would take some degree of common sense into account.

There is no "seems to" involved in this.
The rules flat-out tell you that is how they are meant to be read:


Let’s face it: No set of rules can cover every possible
circumstance in a game meant to mimic life in a fantasy
world. The rules clear up as much as possible, assuming the
DM can make a judgment in a situation that the rules don’t
cover or that they don’t cover adequately. DMs are expected
to use knowledge of existing rules, common sense, realworld
knowledge, and a sense of fun when dealing with
such special cases. Knowledge of the existing rules is key,
because the rules often do cover similar cases or combine
to make such judgment calls unnecessary.

And that last part regarding knowledge of existing rules being key?
That means, "context matters".


Yeah, I think I noted that awhile back. It's truly inexplicable, and lends credence to the general position that the book was just super poorly edited, at least in this regard.


This isn't a broken thing. It's a poorly edited thing. The term "dragon" is used in the exact same table as the two likely meanings of that term, rendering it completely unclear who is supposed to be getting this feat. Are you telling me that someone seeing "dragon", no context whatsoever, and assuming that their huge half-dragon whatever can take it is a silly thing? Especially when the feat prerequisites are clearly fair game? Moreover, some of the lines in the book just don't make much sense. For example, the thing about all dragons being arcane spellcasters. It's a statement that's not even true when you limit it to true dragons.

What, precisely, is the natural reading of this text that avoids your claimed deliberate misreading? What is the "common sense" resolution to this issue? This is why I dislike RAI readings. They so often find themselves coming into conflict with what the books actually and straightforwardly say. It reveals that this divining of intent, this supposed common sense, is in truth just whatever a person happens to think anyway. They've played it that way in the past, or just happened to think it worked that way on first approach, so anything that goes against that reading must equally go against designer intent, or against the mighty common sense as established by a single person.

On top of all of that, this idea that 90% of broken stuff got there by way of misreading, deliberate or otherwise, is blatantly false. The vast majority of broken things in the game are broken in unambiguous fashion. Sure, there's weird junk out there, like using IHS on the sun, but those things are few and far between compared to stuff like aberration wild shape, divine metamagic, arcane thesis, shapechange, or even something as basic as frigging web. Let's get real here; most epic feats suck, most epic feats have prerequisites that make them unrealistic pre-epic, and the list that is restricted in neither way is pretty short. This dragonwrought kobold thing is a drop in the bucket compared to the ridiculously powerful and obviously totally intended stuff out there. And, in the context of all that intentional absurdity, it's obvious common sense to assume that a given piece of absurdity was unintentional? Seems like a stretch, even if this particular thing probably was not intentional.


The main difference is that there are some players out there who think that ambiguity and poor editing is a license to ignore obvious intent.

And then there are other players who are correct.


Common sense is easily defined as what a reasonable person would expect to understand with a given situation. Given that the text of a book is meant to be judged as a whole, and that context matters greatly with interpretation, it is not unreasonable to assume the authors of the Draconomicon intended "Dragon" to be read as "true dragon". There is far more circumstantial evidence of that interpretation than there is of any other, and it is that interpretation that allows the greatest majority of the text to make sense.

[liquidformat]

Off topic but I cannot resist. Those are NOT lizard people, those are the ghosts of the army of baggage handlers they hired when they realized their billion dollar baggage system did not work (I was stationed at Fort Carson at the time).

On topic; There is really no sense in trying to get certain people to change their views on this subject. They never will, period. WoTC could update the danged book to make it CLEAR and the argument would continue.

@MATO: Do you have any sensitivity towards new players at all?

Offtopic: No the ghost army is from the Indian graveyard the airport was built on top of, that is always why they had Indian tribes come and try to bless the place when it was built...

On topic: Yes please to WoTC making new 3.5 books, I put my vote down for Races of ___ devoted to orcs, goblins, and giants!

[eggynack]

The main difference is that there are some players out there who think that ambiguity and poor editing is a license to ignore obvious intent.
The issue is that "obvious" intent is frequently not nearly so obvious as it may seem. We come into the game, and to rules discussions, with a bunch of baggage, and that influences how we read and understand the rules. I think my favorite example of this sort of reading going awry is arcane thesis. People occasionally claim that arcane thesis only applies once to a given spell, regardless of the quantity of metamagics on that spell. When proved wrong, those people often claim some intent. And they are mistaken. The errata structures a precise example that shows that it should be applied multiple times. We are not mind readers.



Common sense is easily defined as what a reasonable person would expect to understand with a given situation.
A big problem with that is that what a reasonable person would expect out of the game is frequently at odds with what the game explicitly says. It's a weird game. Sometimes it operates in a way that you wouldn't expect.


Given that the text of a book is meant to be judged as a whole, and that context matters greatly with interpretation, it is not unreasonable to assume the authors of the Draconomicon intended "Dragon" to be read as "true dragon". There is far more circumstantial evidence of that interpretation than there is of any other, and it is that interpretation that allows the greatest majority of the text to make sense.
That assumption is indeed not unreasonable. It's just that there are a bunch of other pretty reasonable assumptions. For example, a fair assumption is that they really didn't mean much of anything. They wrote the word dragon all over the book, failing to recognize that "dragon" is short for a lot of different things, and they meant different things in different contexts. Keep in mind here, you are, as far as I can tell, mistaken when you say that this interpretation allows the greatest majority of the text to make sense. My weird "ten true dragons" interpretation, unless I'm missing something, makes sense with the entirety of the text. That it's thoroughly silly doesn't stop that from being the case.

The issue here isn't that we can't make decent guesses about intent, or that we have no common sense whatsoever. It's that there's often multiple competing views about intent, and when that's the case there's typically no way whatsoever to resolve the discrepancy.

[Doctor Awkward]

For example, a fair assumption is that they really didn't mean much of anything. They wrote the word dragon all over the book, failing to recognize that "dragon" is short for a lot of different things, and they meant different things in different contexts.

No, that's not a fair assumption.

Because that assumption requires you to believe that the authors of the Draconomicon-- which include Skip Williams, one of the main designers of 3rd Edition, and James Wyatt, one of the most prolific writers for 3rd Edition; plus the editors, the R&D director, and all the other people whose names appear in virtually every 3E book-- are a bunch of hacks that either don't actually understand the game they themselves designed or are all aliens with only a tenuous grasp of the English language rather than a group of talented professionals who quite literally get paid to write things for a living as the most likely of possibilities.

And on a personal note, "the author is probably bad at their job" is not an argument designed to resolve a discrepancy. It's an ad hominem that's intended to shut down the discussion by reducing it to entirely subjective terms. It's also a profoundly disgusting way to even approach the rules text at all.

[eggynack]

No, that's not a fair assumption.

Because that assumption requires you to believe that the authors of the Draconomicon-- which include Skip Williams, one of the main designers of 3rd Edition, and James Wyatt, one of the most prolific writers for 3rd Edition; plus the editors, the R&D director, and all the other people whose names appear in virtually every 3E book-- are a bunch of hacks that either don't actually understand the game they themselves designed or are all aliens with only a tenuous grasp of the English language rather than a group of talented professionals who quite literally get paid to write things for a living as the most likely of possibilities.
First of all, no, it doesn't necessarily require that. Maybe different writers had different intentions in different sections of the book. Second, jeez dude, the writers of this game have written some pretty dumb stuff. This is the company that brought us IHS, with its insane ambiguities. Drown healing. Venomfire. Druids dual wielding scimitars. Monks without proficiency in their own weapons. We've had so many ridiculous arguments on this forum about issues that are sometimes so fundamental to the game's structure so as to be irreconcilable. They weren't necessarily the best at knowing stuff about their own game.



And on a personal note, "the author is probably bad at their job" is not an argument designed to resolve a discrepancy. It's an ad hominem that's intended to shut down the discussion by reducing it to entirely subjective terms. It's also a profoundly disgusting way to even approach the rules text at all.
This is not an ad hominem. My claim is premised on nothing but the text that is before me. It has nothing to do with the people behind the text. You're the one appealing to their prolificness and talent. Which is, of course, the inverse of an ad hominem: an appeal to authority. You claim that the true dragon interpretation is the correct one, and admit simultaneously that it can only account for part of the text. They literally wrote "dragon" on the exact same table as a bunch of other prerequisites that were precisely written. How else are we to account for this? Ultimately, the way you can tell this is not an ad hominem argument is because of the way it directly refutes an argument you were making. You say, "The writers knew exactly what they were doing, and had a grand design for the usage of the word dragon." Saying that there's a bunch of evidence that neither of those things are true is a directed and fair argument.

[Doctor Awkward]

First of all, no, it doesn't necessarily require that. Maybe different writers had different intentions in different sections of the book. Second, jeez dude, the writers of this game have written some pretty dumb stuff. This is the company that brought us IHS, with its insane ambiguities. Drown healing. Venomfire. Druids dual wielding scimitars. Monks without proficiency in their own weapons. We've had so many ridiculous arguments on this forum about issues that are sometimes so fundamental to the game's structure so as to be irreconcilable. They weren't necessarily the best at knowing stuff about their own game.

Since I don't know which nonsensical interpretation you are referring to, I'll address the two most common ones:
It doesn't function because you can't take a standard action to initiate it.
As is made clear by the quote from the Rules Compendium, context matters as does common sense. The flavor text, while having nothing to do with the mechanical effect of something, generally goes a long way to give clues to the author's intent. The IHS flavor text reads, "By drawing on your mental strength and physical fortitude, you break free of a debilitating state that might otherwise defeat you." So while the maneuver does not explicitly state "You may use this even if under an effect that would otherwise prevent you from taking actions, it quite clearly does not need to state this as the intent is made abundantly clear when considering the fluff and the crunch together: Spend your standard action for the round recovering from something that is crippling you.

It works on everything because "condition" is not a defined game term. I can IHS away the sun.
This hilariously foolish interpretation ignores both the common sense which one is expected to make use of when approaching the rules, and also the fact that there is an entire appendix labeled "Condition Summary (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/conditions.htm)" prominently featured in the Dungeon Master's Guide on page 300 that is quite clearly what the author had in mind when writing this maneuver. Even the absurdity of ending the conditions of "Unconscious" or "Dead" can be explained as those ones simply not having a duration attached to them at all and thus are ineligible for the maneuver; much like the difference between having a zero in an ability and having a dash in one. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#nonabilities)

This is not a thing.
This is an absurd combination of several separate effects and the sort of deliberate misreading of the rules text that the Rules Compendium and the DMG explicitly caution you against as a Dungeon Master.
The correct answer to the question, "Can I drown myself when reduced to <arbitrarily negative> hit points while under the effects of delay death to set my HP to -1 for easier healing?", is "The rules do not cover this situation, but since you cannot be 'reduced' to -1 when you are starting off at something far lower than that, the answer is obviously, 'No'."
There is no rules dysfunction here because no matter how this situation is adjudicated you are house-ruling.

This spell is only a threat when matched with a fleshraker dinosaur animal companion. The clause requiring the target to "naturally produce poison" makes it all but unusable by the player character's directly (unless the game is featuring particularly exotic races). Furthermore, creatures with sufficient damage reduction (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#poison) (Stoneskin will generally do) are immune to the spell since a target must first be subject to the poison of the creature before they will take the additional acid damage:

Injury
This poison must be delivered through a wound. If a creature has sufficient damage reduction to avoid taking any damage from the attack, the poison does not affect it.
And even then the damage can be mitigated through either resist energy or protection from energy, occasionally down to nothing. This is yet another example of something that is only "dumb" if you specifically rule it that way in your game.


I'm... not sure how this qualifies as "dumb".
The origins of the scimitar proficiency came from the original source of the Druid: a cleric subclass from Eldritch Wizardy, supplement number 3 for the original D&D where it said this with regards to druid weapon proficiencies:

Daggers, sickles, or crescent shaped swords, spears, slings, and oil.
This list was drawn from the ancient Celtic ritual of the oak and mistletoe as described by Pliney the Elder in the book Natural History, which is largely responsible for shaping the popular imagery of druids throughout history. Most players went with the only curved sword they were familiar with: a scimitar. This expediency was codified in the 1st Edition AD&D Permitted Weapons table, and is still used today as a matter of tradition.
...Unless this is somehow a complaint about Drizz't? But that makes even less sense to me because he wasn't a druid. He was a ranger.

Monks do not use the Unarmed Strike simple weapon that is listed in the chapter under equipment. They are using a class feature that grants an ability unique to them which is something else entirely. This ability uses the normal combat rules for attacking and damaging opponents, including the ability to deal nonlethal damage, in addition to explicitly adding the monks full strength bonus to all damage rolls. It is also considered both a manufactured and natural weapon for the purposes of spells and effects which enhance such things. But as it is ultimately not a "weapon", it does not use the general rules for weapons, and thus is not subject to the standard nonproficiency penalty.
I'm told that, for the sake of simplicity, most groups simply choose to add "unarmed strike" to the list of weapons with which monk is proficient, and consider all the rules under the monk's class feature to apply to it. Certainly a reasonable house-rule considering the circumstances.

But for real though, if 3rd Edition is such an awful game, why play it?



This is not an ad hominem. My claim is premised on nothing but the text that is before me. It has nothing to do with the people behind the text. You're the one appealing to their prolificness and talent. Which is, of course, the inverse of an ad hominem: an appeal to authority. You claim that the true dragon interpretation is the correct one, and admit simultaneously that it can only account for part of the text. They literally wrote "dragon" on the exact same table as a bunch of other prerequisites that were precisely written. How else are we to account for this? Ultimately, the way you can tell this is not an ad hominem argument is because of the way it directly refutes an argument you were making. You say, "The writers knew exactly what they were doing, and had a grand design for the usage of the word dragon." Saying that there's a bunch of evidence that neither of those things are true is a directed and fair argument.

First off, my claim that the writers aren't a bunch of talentless hacks has nothing to do with the text interpretation. It is specifically directed at your claim that the writers didn't know what they were doing when they wrote the book. It's pointing out that since several of them were on the original 3E design team your belief is likely misplaced. Attempting to repurpose that statement into a defense of the book itself is strawmanning.

Second, your idea of a "fair argument" to support your interpretation of the text is to claim that the writer's are probably bad at their job is the literal definition of ad hominem. You are directing an attack at the author of the message rather than providing evidence to refute the message itself.

Thirdly, do you really think that the three of them simply divided up the chapters among themselves, went off into their own separate corners, and didn't communicate at all for two or three months until they turned their sections in to the editor? That's basically the opposite of how the creative process works.

You want to claim that the word "dragon" as is used in the Draconomicon refers to the creature type instead of the true dragon category? Fine. Start by citing text passages from the book to back up that claim.

[eggynack]

It works on everything because "condition" is not a defined game term. I can IHS away the sun.[/B]
This hilariously foolish interpretation ignores both the common sense which one is expected to make use of when approaching the rules, and also the fact that there is an entire appendix labeled "Condition Summary (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/conditions.htm)" prominently featured in the Dungeon Master's Guide on page 300 that is quite clearly what the author had in mind when writing this maneuver. Even the absurdity of ending the conditions of "Unconscious" or "Dead" can be explained as those ones simply not having a duration attached to them at all and thus are ineligible for the maneuver; much like the difference between having a zero in an ability and having a dash in one.
See, this is another of those cases where the "common sense" reading is 100% wrong. Your claim is that the term "condition" is strictly referring to that chart, but that reading doesn't actually match up with the text at all. See, IHS doesn't say, "One spell, effect, or condition." It says, "One spell, effect, or other condition." Thus, spells are a subset of conditions. The condition summary doesn't contain all, most, or even all that many spells, so it cannot be what is referred to by the term "condition".


Drown healing snip
I kinda just meant that as a shortened version of the fact that drowning is just generally weird. It does not operate in a particularly logical way. Not my hill to die on though.


This spell is only a threat when matched with a fleshraker dinosaur animal companion. The clause requiring the target to "naturally produce poison" makes it all but unusable by the player character's directly (unless the game is featuring particularly exotic races).
It's a threat with anyone with natural poison production. It's a limited list, but that's really not an excuse. It's an incredibly powerful spell if you can use it, and the fact that said usage is relatively rare is not a good balancing factor.


Furthermore, [URL="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#poison"]creatures with sufficient damage reduction (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#nonabilities) (Stoneskin will generally do) are immune to the spell since a target must first be subject to the poison of the creature before they will take the additional acid damage:
I've gotta think that enough DR to totally prevent damage is relatively rare. Do all that many character's that'd theoretically use venomfire have so little damage that DR 10 is enough to stop them?


And even then the damage can be mitigated through either resist energy or protection from energy, occasionally down to nothing.
It deals a full fireball on every hit. Yeah, protections exist, but that's a lot of damage to be mitigating.


This is yet another example of something that is only "dumb" if you specifically rule it that way in your game.
What? There's no ruling involved in it being dumb.

I'm... not sure how this qualifies as "dumb".
The design of the character builds in general indicates a lack of understanding of what is even reasonably optimal.


Monks do not use the Unarmed Strike simple weapon that is listed in the chapter under equipment. They are using a class feature that grants an ability unique to them which is something else entirely. This ability uses the normal combat rules for attacking and damaging opponents, including the ability to deal nonlethal damage, in addition to explicitly adding the monks full strength bonus to all damage rolls. It is also considered both a manufactured and natural weapon for the purposes of spells and effects which enhance such things. But as it is ultimately not a "weapon", it does not use the general rules for weapons, and thus is not subject to the standard nonproficiency penalty.
Infinite arguments in the past indicate that they are, in fact, weapons. I dunno that it's worthwhile rehashing this stuff.

But for real though, if 3rd Edition is such an awful game, why play it?

Who said it was an awful game? Occasionally stupid, poorly edited in places, super imbalanced, sure, but that doesn't mean I don't like it. The rough edges are part of what attract me to it.



First off, my claim that the writers aren't a bunch of talentless hacks has nothing to do with the text interpretation. It is specifically directed at your claim that the writers didn't know what they were doing when they wrote the book. It's pointing out that since several of them were on the original 3E design team your belief is likely misplaced. Attempting to repurpose that statement into a defense of the book itself is strawmanning.
You're expanding out what I said quite a bit. I just said that they weren't paying particular attention to how they were using the word "dragon". It's not exactly unheard of for a writer to be loose with language in that way. After all, there're all the crazy arguments about whether SM/SNA can summon anything of the elemental type (within size limitations). The writers aren't talentless hacks, by and large. They're just sometimes careless with how they use language, and sometimes careless as regards how powerful a given option is.


Second, your idea of a "fair argument" to support your interpretation of the text is to claim that the writer's are probably bad at their job is the literal definition of ad hominem. You are directing an attack at the author of the message rather than providing evidence to refute the message itself.
I'm not attacking the authors at all. Until you mentioned it, I don't think I'd ever looked at who the authors of this book even were. I just think that the way the book is written implies a lack of care for this matter. An ad hominem is when you use a fact about the author to support a claim about their writings. What I've done is the exact opposite. I used facts about the writings to make plausible claims about the writers.


Thirdly, do you really think that the three of them simply divided up the chapters among themselves, went off into their own separate corners, and didn't communicate at all for two or three months until they turned their sections in to the editor? That's basically the opposite of how the creative process works.
I have no doubt that they communicated. They just didn't necessarily communicate about every last detail. You're acting like not being consistent with how "dragon" is used is the greatest crime a writer could be guilty of, and that failure in this regard consigns said writer to D&D hell. For all the argument that error has produced, it's really not a big deal.


You want to claim that the word "dragon" as is used in the Draconomicon refers to the creature type instead of the true dragon category? Fine. Start by citing text passages from the book to back up that claim.
In a vacuum, that is just what "dragon" means. Wyverns are dragons. It is your claim that they are not to be considered dragons as regards this specific rule. That implicit in the rule under consideration is the follow up text, "Unless they're lesser dragons." That is the claim that requires textual citations. If there were no surrounding text, I would just be right. It is my contention that there isn't much if any support for your reading. This means one of three things. First, it could mean there's more support that you haven't mentioned, which would render you correct. Second, there could be another interpretation that actually does have textual support, like the ten true dragon interpretation, which would make that the correct reading. Or, third, in the absence of either of those two things, the answer is anything that is a dragon. There hasn't yet been enough support to get us to the first possibility, and you don't seem to cotton to the second, so that leaves the third.

[Mato]

On top of all of that, this idea that 90% of broken stuff got there by way of misreading, deliberate or otherwise, isTrue. Yes we know, but you didn't have to cite things that don't work (IHS the sun) or spend such a huge paragraph on such a wasteful appeal.

I feel like sarcasm is the medium you should have used. Something like, "You should treat DWKs as True Dragons so they can get a ton of free stuff and epics cus it's totally not as broken as something else! And while we're at it, the cleric, druid, and wizard suck compared to pun-pun and/or epic deities. You should like, totally allow them all thirty extra feats too. The forums say the DM can make up a rule, so doing this is totally RAW too." would work perfectly and wouldn't set you up to a rebuttal that points out how ridiculous any sort of appeal like that is.


I think it's preeetty clear here that someone misread the rule as saying "true dragon" instead of "dragon" and then didn't want to back down and lose face when the misreading was pointed out, so they came up with some cockamamie argument to cover up the mistake.I tried to click on the upvote arrow but I could not find it.


@MATO: Do you have any sensitivity towards new players at all?New accounts reposting old arguments is not conclusive proof they are a new player, through it is suggestive that they are more than familiar with the basics.


There is no "seems to" involved in this.
The rules flat-out tell you that is how they are meant to be read:

Let’s face it: No set of rules can cover every possible circumstance in a game meant to mimic life in a fantasy world. The rules clear up as much as possible, assuming the DM can make a judgment in a situation that the rules don’t cover or that they don’t cover adequately. DMs are expected to use knowledge of existing rules, common sense, realworld knowledge, and a sense of fun when dealing with such special cases. Knowledge of the existing rules is key, because the rules often do cover similar cases or combine to make such judgment calls unnecessary.
And that last part regarding knowledge of existing rules being key?
That means, "context matters".
Where have I seen this before?

Is it Tuesday of the following week already?
Further reading
Why context matters in writing (https://writingcooperative.com/why-context-matters-in-writing-f52ad075c07a)
Clear Examples of Why Context Matters (https://www.smartling.com/blog/clear-examples-context-matters/)
The Five Elements of Context That Most Impact Senior Leader Success (https://www.spencerstuart.com/research-and-insight/context-matters)
Why Being Wrong Is the Best Thing for You (https://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-5960/Why-Being-Wrong-Is-the-Best-Thing-for-You.html)
Why being wrong is good for you (http://rkenedy.info.yorku.ca/online-links/critical-skills-for-students/why-is-it-great-to-be-able-to-make-mistakes/)
Beating a dead horse (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=beating%20a%20dead%20horse)



Iron Heart Surge
Drown healing
Venomfire
Druids dual wielding scimitars.
Monks without proficiency in their own weapons
Just a heads up here. He has successfully baited you off topic. Fact is, even if X is broken it cannot be used to prove Y is as well. In other words, it is entirely irrelevant even if every single one of those things were some how incorrectly typed, none of them are capable of proving a partially quoted sentence without context being incorrectly interpreted out of a completely different book is or isn't like them.

But remember setting a value to X doesn't inherently count as healing. People think it is, under a formal fallacy of affirming the consequent, but D&D never says suffocation is healing. To better explain this, when you look at other games like MtG or mod commands on Minecraft, if you invoke an effect that sets someone's HP to a certain value, say -1, even if their HP was lower it is not considered healing and effects that interact or block healing are not triggered. You should probably go reread deathless frenzy now... :smallsmile:

[DarkSoul]

To better explain this, when you look at other games like MtG or mod commands on Minecraft, if you invoke an effect that sets someone's HP to a certain value, say -1, even if their HP was lower it is not considered healing and effects that interact or block healing are not triggered. You should probably go reread deathless frenzy now... :smallsmile:Regarding M:tG, you're actually incorrect. Setting someone's life total to X causes a gain or loss of life, so effects that trigger off of either of those do go off. Comprehensive rules 118.5 ;)

/nitpick off. Gonna get some drinks, the popcorn made me thirsty. Who wants one?

[eggynack]

True. Yes we know, but you didn't have to cite things that don't work (IHS the sun) or spend such a huge paragraph on such a wasteful appeal.
IHS'ing the sun specifically is a bit of a challenge, because semantically setting up the sun as a condition is tricky. The general trick, however, where you structure something weird as a condition and make it not exist, is somewhere between ambiguous and definite RAW. I'm not really sure why you care about the size of my paragraphs. I trend wordy. Such is life.


I feel like sarcasm is the medium you should have used. Something like, "You should treat DWKs as True Dragons so they can get a ton of free stuff and epics cus it's totally not as broken as something else! And while we're at it, the cleric, druid, and wizard suck compared to pun-pun and/or epic deities. You should like, totally allow them all thirty extra feats too. The forums say the DM can make up a rule, so doing this is totally RAW too." would work perfectly and wouldn't set you up to a rebuttal that points out how ridiculous any sort of appeal like that is.
This is not an effective counterargument to what I was saying. The claim I was arguing against was that it's common sense that something as silly as this isn't legal. My argument was that plenty of intentional stuff is as silly or more silly than this is, thus meaning that there isn't necessarily a designer intent/common sense approach to be had here. Your sarcastic rhetorical construct, where you stick powerful intentional stuff at the bottom of the scale and way more powerful unintentional stuff at the top is the precise inverse of my argument, and thus doesn't really function as an example of said argument.


Just a heads up here. He has successfully baited you off topic. Fact is, even if X is broken it cannot be used to prove Y is as well. In other words, it is entirely irrelevant even if every single one of those things were some how incorrectly typed, none of them are capable of proving a partially quoted sentence without context being incorrectly interpreted out of a completely different book is or isn't like them.

It is not remotely off-topic. Well, the specific arguments about the legality of this stuff is, but the general claim is not. The argument put forth was that the game designers are far too competent to make an error like using the word dragon weirdly. My counterargument was that, hey, look, there's tons of weird incompetence when it comes to making a consistent product.

[Mato]

Regarding M:tG, you're actually incorrect. Setting someone's life total to X causes a gain or loss of life, so effects that trigger off of either of those do go off. Comprehensive rules 118.5 ;)You're right. MtG doesn't really even use the term "heal" to begin with, it's losing life is not considered damage, and I should have thought of that instead of including it.

[Troacctid]

I tried to click on the upvote arrow but I could not find it.
Okay but you realize it was about you, right?


IHS'ing the sun specifically is a bit of a challenge, because semantically setting up the sun as a condition is tricky. The general trick, however, where you structure something weird as a condition and make it not exist, is somewhere between ambiguous and definite RAW.
Iron Heart Surge ends the effect. It doesn't destroy the source of the effect. I can't think of any way to make it do what you're describing.

[Doctor Awkward]

IHS'ing the sun specifically is a bit of a challenge, because semantically setting up the sun as a condition is tricky. The general trick, however, where you structure something weird as a condition and make it not exist, is somewhere between ambiguous and definite RAW. I'm not really sure why you care about the size of my paragraphs. I trend wordy. Such is life.

This is not an effective counterargument to what I was saying. The claim I was arguing against was that it's common sense that something as silly as this isn't legal. My argument was that plenty of intentional stuff is as silly or more silly than this is, thus meaning that there isn't necessarily a designer intent/common sense approach to be had here. Your sarcastic rhetorical construct, where you stick powerful intentional stuff at the bottom of the scale and way more powerful unintentional stuff at the top is the precise inverse of my argument, and thus doesn't really function as an example of said argument.

It is not remotely off-topic. Well, the specific arguments about the legality of this stuff is, but the general claim is not. The argument put forth was that the game designers are far too competent to make an error like using the word dragon weirdly. My counterargument was that, hey, look, there's tons of weird incompetence when it comes to making a consistent product.


My entire point with the spoiler rants was that the designers aren't nearly as inconsistent as most people claim they are, and that the vast majority of rules dysfunctions are a result of a flawed understanding of the general rules that the supposedly dysfunctional thing uses (or a misunderstanding of the structure of formal English). IHS is a prime example where people claim that "condition" is an unknowable non-defined term when that clearly isn't the case.

And incidentally, the word other in that sentence isn't denoting an inclusive set. It is noting a thing that is distinct and different from what has already been mentioned... thus "conditions" that are effecting you even if they are not the result of spells or effects. If it were meant to be an inclusive set then the text would have read "spell, effect, or any other condition."

I'm not claiming that the designers are perfect and that if something doesn't seem to make sense then it's your fault for not comprehending what the author wrote. I'm simply saying that it's likely that is the case. In fact, one of the only places I've consistently seen dysfunctional mechanics is in the Dragon Compendium and material from Dragon Magazine. The stuff that hasn't undergone any rigorous editing or playtesting.

Here's one of my favorite feats as an example:

MERCURIAL STRIKE [GENERAL]
With a single motion, you draw your weapon and slash
at an opponent.
Prerequisite: Quick Draw, base attack bonus +5.
Benefit: Any time an opponent provokes an attack
of opportunity from you but you are unarmed, you
may draw a melee weapon and make your attack
of opportunity with it. The target of your attack of
opportunity is caught flat-footed for that attack.
Author: Mike Mearls and Jeff Quick. Source: #310.

As written, this feat doesn't do anything because of how the general rules for Attacks of Opportunity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm) work. Opponents only generate attacks of opportunity by taking specific actions in squares you threaten. And you only threaten squares when you are armed. Mercurial Strike requires you to be unarmed in order to utilize the feat. Even if you have Improved Unarmed Strike you are considered armed when unarmed and still cannot use the feat since you must be unarmed when the attack is provoked.

In order for this feat to function the way the designers intended, it would have to be written like this:

Benefit: Choose a melee weapon. Any time you are unarmed, and an opponent takes an action that would have normally provoked an attack of opportunity if you had been wielding the chosen weapon, you may draw that weapon and take an attack of opportunity with it. The target of your attack is considered flat-footed for this attack.
Normal: Opponents only provoke attacks of opportunity from you while in squares that you threaten.

This is how the DM agreed to house-rule it in the first game I used it in.


Going back to the Draconomicon, the text in question is, "Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even if they have no class levels.", with "these" referring to Epic feats in this context. On it's own, you can only assume that "dragons" in this sentence is referring to the creature type. When considering the context in which this was written, it's far more likely the author was referring to true dragons.

A) The structure of the sentence implicitly assumes that the dragon in question will not have class levels, which true dragons frequently don't. This would normally make them ineligible for Epic feats, as per RAW they require the creature to have class levels. This text would create an exception to that rule for true dragons.
B) The beginning of the chapter in which this text appears says this:
This chapter offers guidelines to the Dungeon Master
for running the actual mechanics of an encounter
with a dragon, incorporating dragons into the campaign,
and developing dragons as characters with new
feats, spells, magic items, and prestige classes designed
specifically for dragons.
Since it has already been established by the sidebar in the introduction that the book "largely concerns itself with the ten true dragons found in the Monster Manual", that is what you are to assume the author had in mind when writing this chapter. None of the rest of the chapter makes sense if you assume that "dragon" refers to the creature type rather than the category of true dragons.


For example:

THE MECHANICS OF MELEE
As a dragon gets larger, not only does it gain additional Hit
Dice, better natural armor, and increased ability scores, it
gains new physical attack forms. As a result, a dragon’s tactics
are necessarily dependent, at least to some extent, on its size.
Only true dragons do this

FIGHTING ON THE WING
...Only Tiny and Small dragons have
even average maneuverability, which forces them to move
at least half their flying speed (50–75 feet) forward every
round and prevents them from turning more than 90
degrees in a single move...
...Medium, Large, and Huge dragons have poor maneuverability...
There are many lesser dragons that don't follow this rule.

USING SPECIAL ATTACK FORMS
Compared to the effectiveness of a breath weapon for a
Huge or larger dragon, the big dragons’ special melee attack
forms—crush and tail sweep—are almost insignificant,
There are also lesser dragons that don't get these by default.

It is more than clear that the chapter is written entirely with true dragons in mind. So in order for your assertion to be correct, the author would have to either have forgotten what the chapter was about when he reached the section concerning feats, or just have been so terrible at his job that he thinks all creatures of the dragon type function like this.

Isn't the much more likely that, as text from a chapter concerned primarily with true dragons in a book concerned primarily with true dragons that this is a piece of rules text directed specifically at true dragons?

[eggynack]

Iron Heart Surge ends the effect. It doesn't destroy the source of the effect. I can't think of any way to make it do what you're describing.
You generally want to classify the object itself as a condition. More or less plausible, depending on the thing we're talking about.

My entire point with the spoiler rants was that the designers aren't nearly as inconsistent as most people claim they are, and that the vast majority of rules dysfunctions are a result of a flawed understanding of the general rules that the supposedly dysfunctional thing uses (or a misunderstanding of the structure of formal English). IHS is a prime example where people claim that "condition" is an unknowable non-defined term when that clearly isn't the case.
It very much is the case. The game is really wonky in places. This stuff doesn't always resolve in the most reasonable possible way.


And incidentally, the word other in that sentence isn't denoting an inclusive set. It is noting a thing that is distinct and different from what has already been mentioned... thus "conditions" that are effecting you even if they are not the result of spells or effects. If it were meant to be an inclusive set then the text would have read "spell, effect, or any other condition."
I'm really not sure what you're saying here. "X or another Y" implies that X is a subset of Y. There is no need for the word "any" in there.



A) The structure of the sentence implicitly assumes that the dragon in question will not have class levels, which true dragons frequently don't. This would normally make them ineligible for Epic feats, as per RAW they require the creature to have class levels. This text would create an exception to that rule for true dragons.
Not really sure why that's the case. A lot of lesser dragons also lack class levels.


B) The beginning of the chapter in which this text appears says this:
Since it has already been established by the sidebar in the introduction that the book "largely concerns itself with the ten true dragons found in the Monster Manual", that is what you are to assume the author had in mind when writing this chapter. None of the rest of the chapter makes sense if you assume that "dragon" refers to the creature type rather than the category of true dragons.

I honestly have no idea whatsoever why you keep starting with a premise that can only support "dragon" as "those ten true dragons" and then concluding with the claim that true dragons as a whole are what we are talking about. On what basis are you broadening the category? Besides which, I have to point out that a lot of the book really explicitly concerns itself with those ten true dragons. Like, information about the specific dragons, stat blocks for the dragons, all kindsa stuff like that. The book would still be mostly about those dragons even if only stuff explicitly about those dragons counted. As such, the presence of this sidebar doesn't necessarily imply anything about sections not explicitly about those dragons.


Only true dragons do this

There are many lesser dragons that don't follow this rule.

There are also lesser dragons that don't get these by default.

Yes, there are rules, stated to apply to dragons, that do not apply to everything with the dragon type. However, there are also rules, stated to apply to dragons, that do not apply to all true dragons. If these citations render my citation untenable, they must, by extension, render yours untenable as well.


It is more than clear that the chapter is written entirely with true dragons in mind. So in order for your assertion to be correct, the author would have to either have forgotten what the chapter was about when he reached the section concerning feats, or just have been so terrible at his job that he thinks all creatures of the dragon type function like this.

Isn't the much more likely that, as text from a chapter concerned primarily with true dragons in a book concerned primarily with true dragons that this is a piece of rules text directed specifically at true dragons?
The chapter barely even explicitly mentions true dragons by name, as I recall. Also, I could say the same of you, that the writers are terrible at their job for thinking all true dragons function like this.

[Troacctid]

You generally want to classify the object itself as a condition. More or less plausible, depending on the thing we're talking about.
Uh...objects aren't conditions.

[eggynack]

Uh...objects aren't conditions.
Well, you can say you are in the condition of being surrounded by walls, for the sake of example. However it happens, you will wind up not surrounded by walls, which means moving either you or the walls. Either way, pretty weird thing.

[Doctor Awkward]

Well, you can say you are in the condition of being surrounded by walls, for the sake of example. However it happens, you will wind up not surrounded by walls, which means moving either you or the walls. Either way, pretty weird thing.

That assumption again requires you to pretend that the rules do not at any point define what "conditions" are, which is incorrect.




It very much is the case. The game is really wonky in places. This stuff doesn't always resolve in the most reasonable possible way.
Most of the time it does resolve in a reasonable way. Sometimes it doesn't.


I'm really not sure what you're saying here. "X or another Y" implies that X is a subset of Y. There is no need for the word "any" in there.

The text doesn't say "X or another Y". It's says, "X or other Y".


another
əˈnəT͟Hər
determiner & pronoun
1. used to refer to an additional person or thing of the same type as one already mentioned or known about; one more; a further.

other
ˈəT͟Hər
adjective & pronoun
1. used to refer to a person or thing that is different or distinct from one already mentioned or known about.


Reading comprehension will take you far.




Not really sure why that's the case. A lot of lesser dragons also lack class levels.
And none of them have age categories.



I honestly have no idea whatsoever why you keep starting with a premise that can only support "dragon" as "those ten true dragons" and then concluding with the claim that true dragons as a whole are what we are talking about. On what basis are you broadening the category? Besides which, I have to point out that a lot of the book really explicitly concerns itself with those ten true dragons. Like, information about the specific dragons, stat blocks for the dragons, all kindsa stuff like that. The book would still be mostly about those dragons even if only stuff explicitly about those dragons counted. As such, the presence of this sidebar doesn't necessarily imply anything about sections not explicitly about those dragons.

So now the sidebar doesn't really mean much because there are large parts of the book that are refer to true dragons and are "explicitly notated as such"?
Way to move the goalposts.

As was stated before (repeatedly) the sidebar is there to explain author intent.
Just because it's evidence that your interpretation is incorrect doesn't mean its irrelevant.


However, there are also rules, stated to apply to dragons, that do not apply to all true dragons.
Such as?
I've listed many to prove my position. You've responded with, "Nope", to prove yours.



The chapter barely even explicitly mentions true dragons by name, as I recall. Also, I could say the same of you, that the writers are terrible at their job for thinking all true dragons function like this.

All true dragons do function like that because the authors also included this in the sidebar:

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.

That's the author telling you, "These creatures don't share some of the commonalities with the true dragons from the MM, but we are telling you explicitly that they also count as true dragons."

That's why difference between true dragon and lesser dragon is not a mystery. If it's a true dragon, it will be called out as such. If it's not, it's a lesser dragon.

[eggynack]

That assumption again requires you to pretend that the rules do not at any point define what "conditions" are, which is incorrect.
I disagree. Obviously.



Most of the time it does resolve in a reasonable way. Sometimes it doesn't.

Sure. Sometimes is a lot, though, when talking about crazy rules dysfunctions.


The text doesn't say "X or another Y". It's says, "X or other Y".

Reading comprehension will take you far.

I'm going to lay out some phrases for you to illustrate how you are mistaken regarding those definitions.

"Shepherds, collies, or other dogs."
"Shepherds, collies, or other cats."
"German shepherds, border collies, or other collies."
"Shepherds, collies, or other poodles."

I ask now, which of these phrases makes sense? The only one that makes sense is the first. "Other dogs" in the first sentence refers to a class of objects which shepherds and collies are a subset of. The term "dogs", in connection with the word "other", implies a set of dogs that are not shepherds or collies. Shepherds and collies are two types of dog, and the other dogs are dogs distinct from those dogs. But the first two types of dogs are, y'know, dogs.



And none of them have age categories.
Least one of them does.




So now the sidebar doesn't really mean much because there are large parts of the book that are refer to true dragons and are "explicitly notated as such"?
Way to move the goalposts.
That's not moving the goalposts. I'm just making a new argument. Say you have a math book that says, "This book is mostly about the number 5." Then there are seven chapters about the number 5. An eighth chapter just kinda talks about numbers. Is that chapter secretly about the number 5? We can assume that that opening text was just referring to those other chapters.


As was stated before (repeatedly) the sidebar is there to explain author intent.
Not necessarily. It could also just, y'know, be telling you what the book is about. It's an introduction. That's how introductions roll. They give you some info about what's gonna happen.


Just because it's evidence that your interpretation is incorrect doesn't mean its irrelevant.

Of course. It's probably irrelevant because of the things I said. Such is how arguments work.
Such as?

I've listed many to prove my position. You've responded with, "Nope", to prove yours.
Your listed arguments have pretty obvious counterarguments, which I provided. My position is proved in the negation of your arguments. If I successfully negate them all, that in itself represents the success of my position.




All true dragons do function like that because the authors also included this in the sidebar:


That's the author telling you, "These creatures don't share some of the commonalities with the true dragons from the MM, but we are telling you explicitly that they also count as true dragons."
That citation doesn't mean that at all. It literally just means, "This book has other true dragons." It represents literally no opening whatsoever in terms of discrepancies about how dragons function.

[Doctor Awkward]

I disagree. Obviously.
Well I certainly cannot force you to be correct.




I'm going to lay out some phrases for you to illustrate how you are mistaken regarding those definitions.

"Shepherds, collies, or other dogs."
"Shepherds, collies, or other cats."
"German shepherds, border collies, or other collies."
"Shepherds, collies, or other poodles."

I ask now, which of these phrases makes sense? The only one that makes sense is the first. "Other dogs" in the first sentence refers to a class of objects which shepherds and collies are a subset of. The term "dogs", in connection with the word "other", implies a set of dogs that are not shepherds or collies. Shepherds and collies are two types of dog, and the other dogs are dogs distinct from those dogs. But the first two types of dogs are, y'know, dogs.

Dogs is explicity defined as a group of animals further organized by many different breeds, of which shepherds and collies are two examples.

Is your position then that "conditions" is a group of which "spells" and "effects" are members? Because if so, provide a rules citation to back up that point.
Otherwise that's a false equivalence.



Least one of them does.
Kobolds do not have Dragon Age Categories.
They have Kobold Age Categories.
Unless you have a citation that proves the text in that chapter was specifying otherwise?



That's not moving the goalposts. I'm just making a new argument. Say you have a math book that says, "This book is mostly about the number 5." Then there are seven chapters about the number 5. An eighth chapter just kinda talks about numbers. Is that chapter secretly about the number 5? We can assume that that opening text was just referring to those other chapters.

Ah, well then...
I mean, if you're willing to concede that the information of Chapter 2 of the Draconomicon is strictly for use by true dragons, then that's basically conceding the only point I was still arguing for.



Of course. It's probably irrelevant because of the things I said. Such is how arguments work.

Your listed arguments have pretty obvious counterarguments, which I provided. My position is proved in the negation of your arguments. If I successfully negate them all, that in itself represents the success of my position.
Opinions generally aren't suitable to refute facts. You also have to provide some sort of logical evidence to substantiate them.
Simply repeating your belief over and over doesn't cause it to stop being an opinion.

[eggynack]

Is your position then that "conditions" is a group of which "spells" and "effects" are members?
Yes, because of the citation I just provided.


Because if so, provide a rules citation to back up that point.
Otherwise that's a false equivalence.
It's not a false equivalence. The sentence structure implies this subset relationship. Do you think any of those phrases, besides the first, makes any sense? If they don't make sense, and the cause of that is that the phrasing implies the subset relationship, then that logic extends over to this situation.



Kobolds do not have Dragon Age Categories.
They have Kobold Age Categories.
Where's the thing that demands "dragon age categories" here? If we're still talking about the basic rule under consideration, then the only thing demanded is "old". Not necessarily this specific type of "old".





Ah, well then...
I mean, if you're willing to concede that the information of Chapter 2 of the Draconomicon is strictly for use by true dragons, then that's basically conceding the only point I was still arguing for.
Not at all. I'm talking primarily about chapter one, with the "dragons by kind" section, concerned near entirely with these ten dragons, and chapter five, which does the same.



Opinions generally aren't suitable to refute facts. You also have to provide some sort of logical evidence to substantiate them.
Simply repeating your belief over and over doesn't cause it to stop being an opinion.
I have provided logical evidence. You're just calling that an opinion or a belief to justify that. In a vacuum, without strict identification otherwise, the text we are discussing would apply to everything of the dragon type. It is my contention that there is nothing within the text whatsoever that does particularly identify otherwise. Thus, the text we are discussing does apply to everything of the dragon type. It is literally physically impossible to provide a citation for the claim that a thing is not present in the text, besides just citing the book in its entirety. So, there ya go. I cite all of the book, which does not evidence this thing you're claiming.

[Troacctid]

Well, you can say you are in the condition of being surrounded by walls, for the sake of example. However it happens, you will wind up not surrounded by walls, which means moving either you or the walls. Either way, pretty weird thing.
You could certainly argue that if it's, for example, a wall of sand that is currently blinding you. But if it's, say, a wall of stone, then you're not a subject of the spell. It's not affecting you. And if it's just a regular old wall, then it's not an effect at all (it's just an object), nor does it have a duration.

[eggynack]

You could certainly argue that if it's, for example, a wall of sand that is currently blinding you. But if it's, say, a wall of stone, then you're not a subject of the spell. It's not affecting you. And if it's just a regular old wall, then it's not an effect at all (it's just an object), nor does it have a duration.
That doesn't necessarily matter. IHS removes conditions affecting you, and the condition of being surrounded by walls is certainly a condition you can be in that affects you. Most anything can, really. Even more generally, being within 20 feet of a given wall can also be considered a condition that you are in. Doesn't change your life drastically, but things'd certainly be different were said wall not there. As for duration, the spell does not have duration, but the wall itself does. As long as the thing isn't going to exist until the end of time, it has a duration associated with it.

[Troacctid]

That doesn't necessarily matter. IHS removes conditions affecting you, and the condition of being surrounded by walls is certainly a condition you can be in that affects you. Most anything can, really. Even more generally, being within 20 feet of a given wall can also be considered a condition that you are in. Doesn't change your life drastically, but things'd certainly be different were said wall not there. As for duration, the spell does not have duration, but the wall itself does. As long as the thing isn't going to exist until the end of time, it has a duration associated with it.
"Being surrounded by walls" is not a condition, it's a description. Conditions are described in the DMG, pp300–301, and in RC, pp34–35.

It also doesn't have a duration of 1 or more rounds.

[Doctor Awkward]

It's not a false equivalence. The sentence structure implies this subset relationship. Do you think any of those phrases, besides the first, makes any sense? If they don't make sense, and the cause of that is that the phrasing implies the subset relationship, then that logic extends over to this situation.

It does nothing of the sort. The reason only your first example sentence makes sense to you is because you know what the words dogs, shepherds, and collies mean. And that definition is not supplied by the sentence itself, any more than the sentence in IHS defines what spells, effects, and conditions are.



Where's the thing that demands "dragon age categories" here? If we're still talking about the basic rule under consideration, then the only thing demanded is "old". Not necessarily this specific type of "old".
I'm still waiting for the thing that states "dragon" refers to the creature type instead of the specific category of creatures, as the rest of the chapter suggests.
If this one sentence out of the whole chapter were meant to be the creature type, then why doesn't the sentence read, "Creatures that are of at least old age or older and of the dragon type may take epic feats, even if they don't have class levels"?



Not at all. I'm talking primarily about chapter one, with the "dragons by kind" section, concerned near entirely with these ten dragons, and chapter five, which does the same.
I suppose that means you have no doubt that the sidebar on page 58 is referring to wyverns, and Table 2-1 could easily be talking about dragon turtles, and the chart on page 60 is rules for different varieties of half-dragons...


I have provided logical evidence. You're just calling that an opinion or a belief to justify that. In a vacuum, without strict identification otherwise, the text we are discussing would apply to everything of the dragon type. It is my contention that there is nothing within the text whatsoever that does particularly identify otherwise. Thus, the text we are discussing does apply to everything of the dragon type. It is literally physically impossible to provide a citation for the claim that a thing is not present in the text, besides just citing the book in its entirety. So, there ya go. I cite all of the book, which does not evidence this thing you're claiming.

We aren't working with a vacuum. We are working with the Draconomicon and everything under discussion is within the context of that book. None of the text in the entire first half of Chapter 2 logically applies to any creature of the dragon type other than true dragons, and there is no reason to assume the author abandoned this precept when they arrived at the section describing feats. The feats themselves distinctly list "dragon type", except for one that is restricted to true dragons only, so clearly the author is aware of the difference. The book also makes clear (in this and many other chapters) when material that applies to "dragons" also applies to "lesser dragons", which would be completely unnecessary if "dragon" referred to the creature type instead of the category.
So, there ya go. I cite all of the book, which contains a great deal of evidence of this thing I am claiming.

"Not everything needs to be directly stated in the rules. Some things just are. If the rules spelled out every single thing to you at all times, including the blatantly obvious, they would be larger than a full volume set of Encyclopedia Britannica, and cost more than a Ferrari." --Caelic

[eggynack]

"Being surrounded by walls" is not a condition, it's a description. Conditions are described in the DMG, pp300–301, and in RC, pp34–35.
As I've noted already, that list cannot possibly function as the definition of condition, at least for the purposes of this maneuver, due to the fact that the phrasing logically implies that both


It also doesn't have a duration of 1 or more rounds.

Anything that lasts more than one round and fewer than infinity rounds has a duration of one or more rounds.


It does nothing of the sort. The reason only your first example sentence makes sense to you is because you know what the words dogs, shepherds, and collies mean. And that definition is not supplied by the sentence itself, any more than the sentence in IHS defines what spells, effects, and conditions are.
Do the other sentences make sense to you? Even if we know beforehand that collies are not cats, the phrase, "Collies and other cats," should not be agrammatical if the phrase does not denote a subset relationship.



I'm still waiting for the thing that states "dragon" refers to the creature type instead of the specific category of creatures, as the rest of the chapter suggests.
And you will not be provided it. Type is the default state of things. A citation does not need to be provided.


If this one sentence out of the whole chapter were meant to be the creature type, then why doesn't the sentence read, "Creatures that are of at least old age or older and of the dragon type may take epic feats, even if they don't have class levels"?
Who says it's necessarily the only such sentence? I do not agree that the term "dragon" is universally, or even near universally, meant to refer to true dragons.



I suppose that means you have no doubt that the sidebar on page 58 is referring to wyverns, and Table 2-1 could easily be talking about dragon turtles, and the chart on page 60 is rules for different varieties of half-dragons...
The sidebar explicitly lists several dragons, and grants no apparent allowance for changing any other dragons. It is not referring to true dragons, the dragon type, or even the ten true dragons. It is specifically talking about exactly seven dragons. As for the chart, it is describing information we already know. If a given lesser dragon does not operate this way, then that is simply an exception, just as it would be for a true dragon that happens to operate weirdly. In fact, your very sidebar is specifically about possible variants to some true dragons that makes them an exception to this chart. The chart definitely does not refer to only half-dragons. I do not claim that only half-dragons are dragons, as that would be insanity.



We aren't working with a vacuum. We are working with the Draconomicon and everything under discussion is within the context of that book. None of the text in the entire first half of Chapter 2 logically applies to any creature of the dragon type other than true dragons, and there is no reason to assume the author abandoned this precept when they arrived at the section describing feats.
As I have already noted though, there is text in the first half of chapter two that does not apply to all true dragons. Thus, it doesn't make sense for the term "dragon" to apply to true dragons universally within your framework. Also, what do you mean, "The entire first half of chapter 2,"? Where does the first half end? Is it before or after the text we're talking about?


The feats themselves distinctly list "dragon type", except for one that is restricted to true dragons only, so clearly the author is aware of the difference. The book also makes clear (in this and many other chapters) when material that applies to "dragons" also applies to "lesser dragons", which would be completely unnecessary if "dragon" referred to the creature type instead of the category.
The feats distinctly list "true dragon" one of the times it's applicable as well, indicating that that's a thing they'll say when it's required. And also just says "dragon" another time, in a context where it makes perfect sense for the feat to apply to everything of the dragon type.


So, there ya go. I cite all of the book, which contains a great deal of evidence of this thing I am claiming.
All of the book? So does that include the dragon prestige classes section, in which all of the prestige classes except dragon ascendent have "any dragon" as a prerequisite, and that remaining class has "any true dragon", directly implying that "any dragon" covers all things of the dragon type?

[umbergod]

This thread needs more popcorn and grognards to argue their points without considering the opposition's rebuttals 😂

[Doctor Awkward]

As for the chart, it is describing information we already know. If a given lesser dragon does not operate this way, then that is simply an exception...

That is not how exceptions work in the 3E ruleset.

When the text within a product
contradicts itself, our general policy is
that the primary source (actual rules
text) is correct and any secondary
reference (such as a table or
character's statistics block) is
incorrect. Exceptions to the rule will be
called out specifically.

The reason you know something is an exception to a general rule is that the text specifically calls it out as an exception. This is how the rules work and how they have always worked. That's how you know the creatures listed as true dragons are also true dragons, even though they don't share things in common with the ten varieties in the Monster Manual. Because there exists text that explicitly says says, "These things are also true dragons".
If something appears to be breaking an established rule and it is not noted in the text as an exception then it is an editing mistake.


As I have already noted though, there is text in the first half of chapter two that does not apply to all true dragons.

List one.
Starting on the beginning of Chapter 2 (page 57) and ending just before the section under discussion (page 66), list one single piece of text that unambiguously applies only to lesser dragons without being explicitly noted as such, thus proving that my assertion regarding the manual of style for how this chapter is written is incorrect.

[Vizzerdrix]

Everyone knows that the only acceptable way to beat big T is with the power of seduction. Anything else is wrongbadfun.

[eggynack]

That is not how exceptions work in the 3E ruleset.


The reason you know something is an exception to a general rule is that the text specifically calls it out as an exception. This is how the rules work and how they have always worked. That's how you know the creatures listed as true dragons are also true dragons, even though they don't share things in common with the ten varieties in the Monster Manual. Because there exists text that explicitly says says, "These things are also true dragons".
If something appears to be breaking an established rule and it is not noted in the text as an exception then it is an editing mistake.
I'm pretty sure your bolded text is talking about the rule as a whole. As in, the game will tell you if a secondary source is to be superseded by a primary source. And, y'know, the description of a monster is the primary source for how that monster operates, not some chart or table. If a monster says its claws stick out so far, then that's how the monster operates, regardless of some majig saying creatures of that type or category only stick out this other distance.



List one.
Starting on the beginning of Chapter 2 (page 57) and ending just before the section under discussion (page 66), list one single piece of text that unambiguously applies only to lesser dragons without being explicitly noted as such, thus proving that my assertion regarding the manual of style for how this chapter is written is incorrect.
That is not what I said. I said there was text that does not apply to all true dragons there. And there is, which is the text I keep citing. In particular, the dragons as spellcasters section, which states that dragons are spellcasters. Not all true dragons are spellcasters, so your assertion that dragon means true dragon is inaccurate in this context. The better reference is on page 22, with "All dragons develop innate magical abilities as they age. Among these is the ability to cast arcane spells," a section I would assume you also think is about just true dragons, but the chapter two version does also indicate this capacity.

[Doctor Awkward]

I'm pretty sure your bolded text is talking about the rule as a whole. As in, the game will tell you if a secondary source is to be superseded by a primary source. And, y'know, the description of a monster is the primary source for how that monster operates, not some chart or table. If a monster says its claws stick out so far, then that's how the monster operates, regardless of some majig saying creatures of that type or category only stick out this other distance.

You can believe whatever you want, but that's not what is written.



That is not what I said. I said there was text that does not apply to all true dragons there. And there is, which is the text I keep citing. In particular, the dragons as spellcasters section, which states that dragons are spellcasters. Not all true dragons are spellcasters, so your assertion that dragon means true dragon is inaccurate in this context. The better reference is on page 22, with "All dragons develop innate magical abilities as they age. Among these is the ability to cast arcane spells," a section I would assume you also think is about just true dragons, but the chapter two version does also indicate this capacity.

That's not the answer to the questioned that was asked.
There are true dragons which are spellcasters, and that section was written with them in mind. In order for my assertion regarding the manual of style to be wrong, the text in the chapter in question has to unambiguously apply only to lesser dragons.

[eggynack]

You can believe whatever you want, but that's not what is written.
Yes, it is. Or, y'know, it might be. The text is a bit ambiguous. The question is what "the rule" being referred to is. Is it this rule, meaning the overall rule we're talking about right now, or is it in reference to whatever lower level game rule is being discussed? Could refer to either.




That's not the answer to the questioned that was asked.
There are true dragons which are spellcasters, and that section was written with them in mind. In order for my assertion regarding the manual of style to be wrong, the text in the chapter in question has to unambiguously apply only to lesser dragons.
Your manual of style dictates that the word "dragon" refers to "all true dragons" within the confines of this section of the book. If "dragon" cannot possibly refer to "all true dragons", then that is a fair challenge to said manual of style. This argument does not support the idea that your claimed definition is too restrictive. It supports the idea that the definition is not restrictive enough. In order to be consistent with the entire body of text, with the underlying notion of a single meaning of this term in play, you need something less broad than "all true dragons". The alternative to this is abandoning a perfectly consistent single meaning, which would mean defaulting to the dragon type where possible.

[hamishspence]

The prestige classes with "Any dragon" as a prerequisite, tend to make it clear that lesser dragons do qualify. Dispassionate Watcher, Hidecarved Dragon, for example.

"Age category as a prerequisite" doesn't automatically restrict it to True Dragons either. Brimstone, the Vampiric Dragon Smoke Drake, got to take the Vampiric Dragon template, which is restricted to "Any dragon of at least adult age".

So "Any dragon of at least old age" not being restricted to True Dragons, has some precedent to support it.

[Nifft]

Could a Dragonwrought Kobold Warblade who discovers in-character that his or her True Dragon-ness is under contention use Iron Heart Surge to end the "Under Contention" condition?

[Scots Dragon]

Could a Dragonwrought Kobold Warblade who discovers in-character that his or her True Dragon-ness is under contention use Iron Heart Surge to end the "Under Contention" condition?

As a DM I'd say that they could.

It is now entirely settled that dragonwrought kobolds are not true dragons.

[Nifft]

As a DM I'd say that they could.

It is now entirely settled that dragonwrought kobolds are not true dragons.

Huh, you're taking something neutral & funny and trying to make it politically one-sided. That's kinda bad taste.


I guess that means now the kobold wants to IHS the "not-true-dragons" condition, which means you as a DM are now required to support the opposite of what you prefer. Which might be poetic justice, but not particularly useful to people who aren't playing with you.

[DarkSoul]

Huh, you're taking something neutral & funny and trying to make it politically one-sided. That's kinda bad taste.You realize you were asking if the neutral situation could be resolved with IHS, which is kinda the definition of "make it one-sided"? Careful what you wish for, I guess.

[eggynack]

Could a Dragonwrought Kobold Warblade who discovers in-character that his or her True Dragon-ness is under contention use Iron Heart Surge to end the "Under Contention" condition?
I'd go with no on that. The fact that their dragon status is under contention comes from outside of their universe (or multiverse, even), and is therefore outside their purview. I mean, by any metric I think we exist here on a plane of existence, and yet a character is not allowed to plane shift here. You're obviously joking here (cause you said so, if nothing else), but questions of the degree to which characters can exert control within our reality when an ability could theoretically say they can have been raised in the past. Not as a serious thing characters can do, but as a sort of reductio ad absurdum argument. Notably, while the kobold cannot change their own status this way, were we able to access IHS then we would presumably be capable of doing this on the kobold's behalf, and so too would the kobold be able to change the status of their kobold PC in their own D&D game.

[Scots Dragon]

Huh, you're taking something neutral & funny and trying to make it politically one-sided. That's kinda bad taste.

I'm really not sure how to respond to this. The hell is even remotely 'politically one-sided' about making a literal genie joke?


I guess that means now the kobold wants to IHS the "not-true-dragons" condition, which means you as a DM are now required to support the opposite of what you prefer. Which might be poetic justice, but not particularly useful to people who aren't playing with you.

And now your dragonwrought kobold warblade has spontaneously transformed into a full on true dragon of whatever draconic heritage they favoured. Possibly also becoming an NPC in the process.

[Deophaun]

And now your dragonwrought kobold warblade has spontaneously transformed into a full on true dragon of whatever draconic heritage they favoured. Possibly also becoming an NPC in the process.
That assumes the "under contention" condition resolves to the True-Dragon side's favor. It could just as easily resolve to the warblade having to resign himself to the fact that he is just a lowly kobold.

I recommend he work out his disappoint by slaughtering gnomes. It's what I do.

[Scots Dragon]

That assumes the "under contention" condition resolves to the True-Dragon side's favor. It could just as easily resolve to the warblade having to resign himself to the fact that he is just a lowly kobold.

I recommend he work out his disappoint by slaughtering gnomes. It's what I do.

In this case he's trying to Iron Heart Surge away not being a true dragon. Which means Iron Heart Surging away his status as a Dragonwrought Kobold.

[Nifft]

You realize you were asking if the neutral situation could be resolved with IHS, which is kinda the definition of "make it one-sided"? Careful what you wish for, I guess. I didn't say which way it would resolve, which makes the humor neutral in regards to the argument at hand. Careful not making assumptions, I guess.


In this case he's trying to Iron Heart Surge away not being a true dragon. Which means Iron Heart Surging away his status as a Dragonwrought Kobold. If feat selection is a condition which IHS can negate, that would make IHS another way to implement Dark Chaos Shuffle... unless you just lose the feats, rather than merely un-choosing the feat and being allowed to chose a new one.

Being allowed to swap a feat as a standard action would even kinda fit with the Warblade's ability set, given that they can swap out weapon-specific feats already, without needing cheese.

Iron Heart Shuffle.


But taking your post seriously for a moment, the PC would presumably not choose to IHS away his Dragon type -- he did voluntarily take the Dragonwrought feat, after all. So if the player is allowed to make choices for the PC, you're going to see IHS optionality exercised in only one direction.

[Deophaun]

In this case he's trying to Iron Heart Surge away not being a true dragon. Which means Iron Heart Surging away his status as a Dragonwrought Kobold.
Well, you don't need to be a kobold, Dragonwrought or otherwise, to do that then, do you?

Are you a lowly human and not an outsider? IHS your "not an outsider" condition.

Do you not have enough XP to reach the next level? IHS away the gap and roll your Hit Die.

Don't meet the prerequisites for that PrC? IHS and become a beholder mage!

Is that Epic +Arbitrary sword out of your price range? IHS away poverty.

DM not letting you IHS? IHS your DM!

Get on this train. Ain't nothing IHS can't solve.

[Nifft]

DM not letting you IHS? IHS your DM!

The most fun way to suddenly stop having fun.

[Deophaun]

The most fun way to suddenly stop having fun.
You know what fixes not having fun? IHS.

[umbergod]

You know what fixes not having fun? IHS.

This needs to be a signature!

[lylsyly]

Huh, you're taking something neutral & funny and trying to make it politically one-sided. That's kinda bad taste.


I guess that means now the kobold wants to IHS the "not-true-dragons" condition, which means you as a DM are now required to support the opposite of what you prefer. Which might be poetic justice, but not particularly useful to people who aren't playing with you.


You realize you were asking if the neutral situation could be resolved with IHS, which is kinda the definition of "make it one-sided"? Careful what you wish for, I guess.


I'm really not sure how to respond to this. The hell is even remotely 'politically one-sided' about making a literal genie joke?



And now your dragonwrought kobold warblade has spontaneously transformed into a full on true dragon of whatever draconic heritage they favoured. Possibly also becoming an NPC in the process.


That assumes the "under contention" condition resolves to the True-Dragon side's favor. It could just as easily resolve to the warblade having to resign himself to the fact that he is just a lowly kobold.

I recommend he work out his disappoint by slaughtering gnomes. It's what I do.


In this case he's trying to Iron Heart Surge away not being a true dragon. Which means Iron Heart Surging away his status as a Dragonwrought Kobold.


I didn't say which way it would resolve, which makes the humor neutral in regards to the argument at hand. Careful not making assumptions, I guess.

If feat selection is a condition which IHS can negate, that would make IHS another way to implement Dark Chaos Shuffle... unless you just lose the feats, rather than merely un-choosing the feat and being allowed to chose a new one.

Being allowed to swap a feat as a standard action would even kinda fit with the Warblade's ability set, given that they can swap out weapon-specific feats already, without needing cheese.

Iron Heart Shuffle.


But taking your post seriously for a moment, the PC would presumably not choose to IHS away his Dragon type -- he did voluntarily take the Dragonwrought feat, after all. So if the player is allowed to make choices for the PC, you're going to see IHS optionality exercised in only one direction.


Well, you don't need to be a kobold, Dragonwrought or otherwise, to do that then, do you?

Are you a lowly human and not an outsider? IHS your "not an outsider" condition.

Do you not have enough XP to reach the next level? IHS away the gap and roll your Hit Die.

Don't meet the prerequisites for that PrC? IHS and become a beholder mage!

Is that Epic +Arbitrary sword out of your price range? IHS away poverty.

DM not letting you IHS? IHS your DM!

Get on this train. Ain't nothing IHS can't solve.


The most fun way to suddenly stop having fun.


You know what fixes not having fun? IHS.

Absolutely Priceless ;D


This needs to be a signature!

The whole thing, but it ain't gonna be me ;D

[Deophaun]

Absolutely Priceless ;D
The truly priceless thing?

We Iron Heart Surged away a Dragonwrought Kobold thread.

[lylsyly]

And in only five pages!! Either that or Eggy and Tony are just getting their ducks in a row for round two, lol.

I do enjoy these threads.

[eggynack]

And in only five pages!! Either that or Eggy and Tony are just getting their ducks in a row for round two, lol.
I still gots last response, yo. Also, Tony's recent arguments have been addressing surprisingly few of my points. I don't think anyone's offered any sort of counter to, "Those ten true dragons constitutes a significantly more self consistent definition of 'dragon' than does true dragon, in spite of how absurd that seems." One of my favorite points, too. My ducks always be rowed.

I also really like the true dragon prestige class thing. I feel like it pretty well establishes that, no, this book does not use this one definition of dragon in any sort of consistent way, even in this chapter. What's even the opposing viewpoint by this point? That the book somehow establishes a new definition of dragon right at the beginning of chapter two, without ever explicitly saying so, and that definition just kinda stops operating right after the section of text we're talking about so that the prestige class section, and, to a lesser extent, the dragon feat section, can function properly?


I do enjoy these threads.

Yeah, I haven't actually done the dragon argument thing all that much out of apathy. My entry to the topic comes from someone else, maybe Tippy, noting that a lot of the stupid dragon stuff possibly accessible through dragonwrought kobold doesn't even require true dragon, meaning that the combo is still pretty borked even under strict readings. Argument threads aren't always fun, but I like it whenever I get to try out arguments or even argument forms that I've never used. Some of them might never have been taken on in the past. Wouldn't be surprised if the ten true dragons thing is wholly original, though I also wouldn't be surprised were it secretly super old. Either way, this has been a pretty good one, in my opinion.

[lylsyly]

LOL, like i said upthread, I participated slightly in a couple, actually started one. But I also went back thru everyone I could find. I am always open to learning more. Love the handbook BTW, even though I rarely play tier ones ( and I personally consider Druids to be the most powerful).

[Gemini476]

Yeah, I haven't actually done the dragon argument thing all that much out of apathy. My entry to the topic comes from someone else, maybe Tippy, noting that a lot of the stupid dragon stuff possibly accessible through dragonwrought kobold doesn't even require true dragon, meaning that the combo is still pretty borked even under strict readings.

IIRC the only really big ones are Dragon Magazine's Dragon Psychosises or whatever it was called (i.e. the article with the Spellhoarding template) and Eberron's stuff with the Loredrake and whatnot.

There's more True Dragon Only stuff out there, of course, but I don't know if any of it is actually useful.

[Troacctid]

IIRC the only really big ones are Dragon Magazine's Dragon Psychosises or whatever it was called (i.e. the article with the Spellhoarding template) and Eberron's stuff with the Loredrake and whatnot.

There's more True Dragon Only stuff out there, of course, but I don't know if any of it is actually useful.
There's a cool Alternate Form feat line in Dragons of Eberron.

Interestingly, Draconomicon has a rule allowing old or older dragons to take epic feats even without any class levels, but that rule applies to any creature with the dragon type, not just true dragons. Oh wait, did we just go full circle?

[Vizzerdrix]

There's a cool Alternate Form feat line in Dragons of Eberron.

Interestingly, Draconomicon has a rule allowing old or older dragons to take epic feats even without any class levels, but that rule applies to any creature with the dragon type, not just true dragons. Oh wait, did we just go full circle?

Im so confused. :smalleek:

I... I think it will just be easier yo erase every mention of dragon from every book in the game. Yeah, thats what Ill do. Maybe replace it with something else...

[umbergod]

Im so confused. :smalleek:

I... I think it will just be easier yo erase every mention of dragon from every book in the game. Yeah, thats what Ill do. Maybe replace it with something else...

Replace it with kobolds, so you can have koboldwrought kobolds

[Nifft]

Replace it with kobolds, so you can have koboldwrought kobolds

Then use Iron Heart Surge to remove the "kobold" condition.

[umbergod]

Then use Iron Heart Surge to remove the "kobold" condition.

Exactly! My favorite use of IHS is to remove the condition "dead"

[lylsyly]

So, Koboldborn Koboldwrought Kobold anyone? ;D
Wanted to say this much earlier but my junk phone isn't made for posting.

[Nifft]

Exactly! My favorite use of IHS is to remove the condition "dead"


So, Koboldborn Koboldwrought Kobold anyone? ;D
Wanted to say this much earlier but my junk phone isn't made for posting.

This is one step on the road to become a True Kobold, which frankly leaves dragons in the dust.

[umbergod]

So, Koboldborn Koboldwrought Kobold anyone? ;D
Wanted to say this much earlier but my junk phone isn't made for posting.

:o i hadnt thought about that. Can we finangle white koboldspawn into it as well?

[Mato]

So, Koboldborn Koboldwrought Kobold anyone? ;D
Wanted to say this much earlier but my junk phone isn't made for posting.
:o i hadnt thought about that. Can we finangle white koboldspawn into it as well?
But then it's abbreviation wouldn't be so fitting. :smallwink:

[lylsyly]

Koboldwrought is a feat.
Koboldborn is a ritual.
White Koboldspawn is a +1 Template.

Why ever not! ;D

[DarkSoul]

...who spiked the popcorn, and with what?

[lylsyly]

...who spiked the popcorn, and with what?

LOL, I've said it other places but never here.......

My group is very old school. Three of us have been together since 1976 and the baby of the group since 1998, plus two members who joined in the 80s.

WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE ABLE TO PLAY WITHOUT A GOOD BUZZ ON ;D

[Deophaun]

Obviously, this critter needs to be a koboldfire adept or kobold shaman.

[umbergod]

Koboldwrought is a feat.
Koboldborn is a ritual.
White Koboldspawn is a +1 Template.

Why ever not! ;D

How did we gloss right over half-kobold?!

[lylsyly]

How did we gloss right over half-kobold?!

LOL, In my case it's because I am 60 and starting to have memory problems :smallconfused:

[Nifft]

How did we gloss right over half-kobold?!

Other half also Kobold, amirite?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Dragons can ignore prereqs for feats and take [Epic] feats pre-epic.

Who wants pre-epic Epic Spellcasting?

[eggynack]

Dragons can ignore prereqs for feats and take [Epic] feats pre-epic.

Who wants pre-epic Epic Spellcasting?
Where does the prerequisite skipping come from?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Where does the prerequisite skipping come from?Well, if you can qualify for epic feats pre-epic, that means you'd kind of have to be able to skip the prereqs, right?

[InvisibleBison]

Well, if you can qualify for epic feats pre-epic, that means you'd kind of have to be able to skip the prereqs, right?

No, because the requirement that you have to be an epic character to take an epic feat isn't a prerequisite for any feats.

[eggynack]

Well, if you can qualify for epic feats pre-epic, that means you'd kind of have to be able to skip the prereqs, right?
It presumably lets you skip what it says you can skip, which is the requirement to be epic. I dunno why that'd kill the other prerequisites.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

For Epic Spellcasting, you could use one of the ways to gain skill points beyond your level, such as using shapechanging magic to qualify for illithid savant, then eat the skill ranks of an ice assassin of an epic character.

[DarkLegion]

>Reads first page
>Goes to last page to see where conversation went before posting
>"Koboldborn Koboldwrought Kobold"
>Oh.

[umbergod]

>Reads first page
>Goes to last page to see where conversation went before posting
>"Koboldborn Koboldwrought Kobold"
>Oh.

Isnt it glorious?