Dragonwrought Kobolds are? aren't? True Dragons

[Pippin]

Hi there.

There are quite a few threads about this issue, and some of them have many pages (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?511319-Dragonwrought-Kobolds). I was trying to find a somewhat definitive answer to this question, and Google took me there (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/17144/is-a-dragonwrought-kobold-a-true-dragon). The person who answered the question initially said no, and ultimately overturned his previous reply to yes.


Yes, Dragonwrought Kobolds are True Dragons

Races of the Dragon actually says so. On page 103, there is a table entitled “Draconic Heritage, Dragonwrought, and Draconic Legacy Options” – that is, dragonwrought kobolds get to choose which type of True Dragon (no Lesser Dragons appear in the list) they are. This doesn’t matter much to the Draconic Heritage and Draconic Legacy feats because those do not grant the Dragon type, but it very much does to Dragonwrought.

Thus, the reason that you don’t see dragonwrought kobolds in the Races of the Dragon list is because, like half-dragons, dragonwrought kobolds are versions of true dragons. That is, you don’t have dragonwrought kobold as a separate type of True Dragon, you have things like red dragonwrought kobolds and gold dragonwrought kobolds, being versions of red dragon and gold dragon, respectively. As versions of True Dragons, these are therefore also True Dragons.

Any reason to disregard the above ruling? I know that a few people like Psyren try to remain as objective as possible when it comes to cheese, I would love to hear their thoughts on this.

[ngilop]

Hi there.

There are quite a few threads about this issue, and some of them have many pages (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?511319-Dragonwrought-Kobolds). I was trying to find a somewhat definitive answer to this question, and Google took me there (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/17144/is-a-dragonwrought-kobold-a-true-dragon). The person who answered the question initially said no, and ultimately overturned his previous reply to yes.



Any reason to disregard the above ruling? I know that a few people like Psyren try to remain as objective as possible when it comes to cheese, I would love to hear their thoughts on this.

You are NOT going to find a definitive answer for this. As you already stated in your opening post.

[Pippin]

You are NOT going to find a definitive answer for this. As you already stated in your opening post.
Oh I see, thanks for the lightning reply. What a shame, I really was hoping that those 17 pages had reached a consensus.

[ngilop]

It is one of those not really thought out rule issues that are regularly argued about at length. For the most part people are cemented in one opinion, though a few do change their opinions.

[denthor]

Ok your a dragon say blue.

Do you claim kobolds that are blue tinged?

The kobolds will tell you they are dragon kind. Which is why they are Sorcerers in 3.5.

If I kill a baby dragon does the blue care? If I kill a blue kobold does the dragon care more, the same or less?

Each campaign is different.

This is great thing about D&D the DM gets to make all of those calls. Your job as a player is to figure it out before you get eaten or killed.

[Blue Jay]

Any reason to disregard the above ruling? I know that a few people like Psyren try to remain as objective as possible when it comes to cheese, I would love to hear their thoughts on this.

Well, the first step in the process is to determine which side of the debate has the burden of proof. And it seems straightforward to conclude that the burden of proof is on the side arguing that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons. What that means is that an objective observer should be assuming that dragonwrought kobolds are not true dragons until he has seen really good evidence to say they are.

What I see from the quote you mention is a pretty tenuous argument. I can't draw the connection between the observation, "kobolds can choose options from this table" to the conclusion, "kobolds must be true dragons." Consider that no other creature that is able to select options from that table is considered a true dragon. Also consider that no other true dragon is entitled to choose options from that table without the requisite feats.

So, if that table has anything to do with dragonwrought kobolds being (or not being) true dragons, then the dragonwrought kobold's interaction with the table must differ from the other feats' interaction with the table. But, there's nothing to suggest that that's the case other than the fact that the Dragonwrought feat itself makes a kobold into a dragon, which means the table has nothing to do with it in the first place.

So, even if it's true, it's a lousy argument.

[Troacctid]

Any reason to disregard the above ruling? I know that a few people like Psyren try to remain as objective as possible when it comes to cheese, I would love to hear their thoughts on this.
I mean...the fact that it's obviously nonsense? You don't even need to be a dragon at all to have a Draconic Heritage. All it shows is that kobolds are dragonblooded, which I think literally no one disputes. (They have the dragonblood subtype. It's pretty clear-cut.)

[OgresAreCute]

I mean...the fact that it's obviously nonsense? You don't even need to be a dragon at all to have a Draconic Heritage. All it shows is that kobolds are dragonblooded, which I think literally no one disputes. (They have the dragonblood subtype. It's pretty clear-cut.)

Dragonblood subtype, you say? Now let me tell you about how Silverbrow Humans are true dragons...

[Arael666]

To be called a true dragon a creature needs 3 things:

1 - Have the dragon type
2 - Have dragon age categories
3 - Gain HD as it progresses through said age categories

Dragonwhrought kobolds have everything except nº3. So no, they are not true dragons.

[Zombulian]

That quotation takes a bit of a logical leap for the fact that it says the book “says so.”

[Falontani]

To be called a true dragon a creature needs 3 things:

1 - Have the dragon type
2 - Have dragon age categories
3 - Gain HD as it progresses through said age categories

Dragonwhrought kobolds have everything except nº3. So no, they are not true dragons.

not disputing, just curious, where does n3 come from?

[Zombulian]

not disputing, just curious, where does n3 come from?

I would assume that the definition we’re working with is cobbled out of observations of True Dragons in the books vs. creatures of the Dragon type. All the dragons one the page “Dragon, True” on the SRD progress their HD along with their age category. This seems to be about as valid as the other two distinctions so why would it not be included?

[Doctor Awkward]

Hi there.

There are quite a few threads about this issue, and some of them have many pages (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?511319-Dragonwrought-Kobolds). I was trying to find a somewhat definitive answer to this question, and Google took me there (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/17144/is-a-dragonwrought-kobold-a-true-dragon). The person who answered the question initially said no, and ultimately overturned his previous reply to yes.



Any reason to disregard the above ruling? I know that a few people like Psyren try to remain as objective as possible when it comes to cheese, I would love to hear their thoughts on this.


No.

The list on that page is your options for which true dragon you are descended from. Not which one you are.

Furthermore, as the next paragraph, titled "Draconic Heritage for All True Dragons", that list is intended to be an exhaustive list of all true dragons published in all sources to date, which includes the Races of the Dragon book itself.

As dragonwrought kobolds are not on that list, they are not true dragons, QED.



To be called a true dragon a creature needs 3 things:

1 - Have the dragon type
2 - Have dragon age categories
3 - Gain HD as it progresses through said age categories

Dragonwhrought kobolds have everything except nº3. So no, they are not true dragons.

Also incorrect.

Dragonwrought kobolds do not have dragon age categories. They have Kobold Age Categories, as is indicated by table 3-2 on page 39.

Kobold age categories use the same names as true dragon ones, but the duration spent in them is far shorter.

[Arael666]

not disputing, just curious, where does n3 come from?

Draconomicon pg. 4 footnote "THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF DRAGONS"

[Arael666]

No.

Also incorrect.

Dragonwrought kobolds do not have dragon age categories. They have Kobold Age Categories, as is indicated by table 3-2 on page 39.

Kobold age categories use the same names as true dragon ones, but the duration spent in them is far shorter.

I had not realized that until now... they have the same name, I just assumed they were the same, thanks for the info.

well, another point to how they do not qualify to be called true dragons

[Zombulian]

Draconomicon pg. 4 footnote "THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF DRAGONS"

Ah, I don’t think I’ve seen that before, or at least for a long time. I tend to avoid these arguments these days.
That same passage, however, contains a clause that Kobold Dragon Truthers could probably use as ammunition (though probably fallaciously), “Other creatures of the Dragon type that do not advance through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons.” DWK’s are indeed creatures of the Dragon type that advance through age categories, and the fact that the writers did not specify advancing *their HD* through age categories it leaves the argument open. The RAI seems fairly clear though.

[Arael666]

Ah, I don’t think I’ve seen that before, or at least for a long time. I tend to avoid these arguments these days.
That same passage, however, contains a clause that Kobold Dragon Truthers could probably use as ammunition (though probably fallaciously), “Other creatures of the Dragon type that do not advance through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons.” DWK’s are indeed creatures of the Dragon type that advance through age categories, and the fact that the writers did not specify advancing *their HD* through age categories it leaves the argument open. The RAI seems fairly clear though.

That is incorrect. DW kobolds do not progress by those age categories, they progress by class levels. Progressing by age categories is ,strictly speaking, gaining HD by the simple passage of time. A 100 year kobold who does not overcome a single chalenge(thus not gaining xp) will have 1 HD. On the other hand, a 100 year dragon who does not overcome a single chalenge will have more than 1 HD.

[Chronos]

Dragonwrought kobolds are of the dragon type.
They have dragon age categories.
They advance through those categories.

They do not gain HD as a result of advancing through those age categories, but who ever said that was a requirement?

The "but they don't appear in that table!" argument is only valid if you start from the assumption that they're not true dragons. Absent that assumption (which is what you're trying to prove), you can't rule out the possibility that a gold dragonwrought kobold is included on the gold dragon line, and so on.

And it's mostly moot anyway, since most of the dragon cheese that dragonwrought kobolds are eligible for doesn't require them to be true dragons, anyway.

[Zombulian]

That is incorrect. DW kobolds do not progress by those age categories, they progress by class levels. Progressing by age categories is ,strictly speaking, gaining HD by the simple passage of time. A 100 year kobold who does not overcome a single chalenge(thus not gaining xp) will have 1 HD. On the other hand, a 100 year dragon who does not overcome a single chalenge will have more than 1 HD.

I was referencing the specific word Advance which has a slightly different semantic weight than Progress.

[magic9mushroom]

They advance through those categories.

They do not gain HD as a result of advancing through those age categories, but who ever said that was a requirement?

Because "advancement" is a word with a specific meaning in D&D 3e?


Advancement

The monster entry usually describes only the most commonly encountered version of a creature (though some entries for advanced monsters can be found). The advancement line shows how tough a creature can get, in terms of extra Hit Dice. (This is not an absolute limit, but exceptions are extremely rare.) Often, intelligent creatures advance by gaining a level in a character class instead of just gaining a new Hit Die.

Kobolds advance by class levels, not by age categories. Ergo, Dragonwrought Kobolds (which are Dragons) are Lesser Dragons.

(A Half-Dragon Phaerimm would be a True Dragon by Draconomicon's definition, though.)

[Doctor Awkward]

They have dragon age categories.

False.
They have Kobold Age Categories.


They do not gain HD as a result of advancing through those age categories, but who ever said that was a requirement?


The Monster Manual, and later the Draconnomicon:


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


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



The "but they don't appear in that table!" argument is only valid if you start from the assumption that they're not true dragons. Absent that assumption (which is what you're trying to prove), you can't rule out the possibility that a gold dragonwrought kobold is included on the gold dragon line, and so on.

That's a circular argument.

If a dragonwrought kobold were a true dragon, then it would be a valid choice of lineage for the dragonwrought kobold feat. But it isn't, so it's not.



And it's mostly moot anyway, since most of the dragon cheese that dragonwrought kobolds are eligible for doesn't require them to be true dragons, anyway.

Also mostly false. In particular, Loredrake, is a soverign archetype, which per Dragons of Eberron is explicitly a set of variant rules exclusively for true dragons.


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

[zergling.exe]

Hm, I think I found definitive proof that dragonwrought kobolds aren't true dragons:

RULES: DRAGON IMMUNITIES
Every kind of true dragon has immunity to at least one type of energy, as noted in the Monster Manual.

A true dragon ignores the detrimental effects of extreme heat (110°F to 140°F) and of extreme cold (0°F to –40°F). A true dragon in these conditions does not have to make a Fortitude save every 10 minutes to avoid taking nonlethal damage.

All creatures of the dragon type are immune to magic sleep and paralysis effects, also as noted in the Monster Manual.

True dragons develop damage reduction as they age, as noted in the Monster Manual. Damage reduction is a super natural ability and is ineffective in an antimagic field.

True dragons also develop spell resistance as they age, as noted in the Monster Manual.
Points 1, 4 and 5 say that true dragons all have an elemental immunity, damage reduction from age, and spell resistance from age respectively. Dragonwrought kobolds fail all 3 of these metrics.

[Crichton]

the definition we’re working with is cobbled out of observations of True Dragons in the books

Not disputing, as there's plenty of other evidence, but in a forum where we constantly hear things like 'statblocks aren't RAW' and 'table isn't RAW' etc, why in the world would we try to base a RAW argument/metric/litmus test on a cobbled together bunch of attributes taken from several different sources which also have omissions and/or contradictions with respect to each other on other parts of the same subject?

[Arael666]

They do not gain HD as a result of advancing through those age categories, but who ever said that was a requirement?

The draconomicon said it, and it's already been quoted. If a dragon does not advance through those age categories (gaining HD) they are lesser dragons.

[The Insanity]

(A Half-Dragon Phaerimm would be a True Dragon by Draconomicon's definition, though.)
It wouldn't because Half-Dragons are specifically categorized as Lesser Dragons.

[Blue Jay]

It wouldn't because Half-Dragons are specifically categorized as Lesser Dragons.

Most Half-Dragons aren't true dragons, of course: but since phaerimms have age categories that work the same as dragon age categories, a Half-Dragon Phaerimm technically meets all the requirements for "true dragon" by the Draconomicon definition. Then, it's a "which rule is more specific" battle between the table that calls Half-Dragons "lesser dragons" and the definition for "true dragon" that would include a half-dragon phaerimm. But it doesn't really matter which one is right, because Mushroom's point still stands: the definition could do with some additional clarity.

[lylsyly]

I am very surprised no-one has said this yet ;-)

"Breaks out Popcorn"

Let me give you THE definitive answer.

Dragonwrought Kobolds are whatever THE DM says they are.

[denthor]

Ok your a dragon say blue.

Do you claim kobolds that are blue tinged?

The kobolds will tell you they are dragon kind. Which is why they are Sorcerers in 3.5.

If I kill a baby dragon does the blue care? If I kill a blue kobold does the dragon care more, the same or less?

Each campaign is different.

This is great thing about D&D the DM gets to make all of those calls. Your job as a player is to figure it out before you get eaten or killed.


I am very surprised no-one has said this yet ;-)

"Breaks out Popcorn"

Let me give you THE definitive answer.

Dragonwrought Kobolds are whatever THE DM says they are.


I did nobody cared. Read the last paragraph.

[Gallowglass]

Nobody cares because its a completely useless and unhelpful reply.

You, me and McGee all have different DMS. We all play the same game with different rule-set makers. OF -COURSE- it all comes down to "whatever your DM rules". That's a given.

So, you telling us that in reply to every question isn't helpful. Its a waste of your time, my time and precious, precious board-space.

If someone comes on here, an internet board, and asks a question or posits a challenge to the rules they aren't looking for "whatever your DM says" as an answer because THEY ALREADY KNOW THAT ANSWER.

They are either A> A DM looking for advice on how to adjudicate it because they haven't decided for themselves yet and value other people's advice and opinions and guidance

or B> Interested in the debate for debate's sake. Interested in other's viewpoints for the sake of informing their own experience

or C> Just really want to tell everyone what they think and like fighting with people about it because, gosh darnit, they are right and you are so, so wrong.

Now, I personally, am super bored with the whole dragon-wrought kobold true dragon debate. (Or at least I think I am, but as soon as I saw this thread pop up I started reading it, and now I'm wasting my time replying to it, so I guess I'm lying to myself about how bored I am of it. )

But here's the deal. If you ever read a post on an internet board like this and your only reply is "just ask your DM" or "its the DM's call" then WHY ARE YOU BOTHERING TO REPLY? Because, i'll tell you right now, no one cares. No one is going to read your reply and be like "Oh why didn't I think of that." They've already done that, or they are looking for a discussion debate not an actual real-life solution.

As for myself? In games I DM, DWK are -not- true dragons. never will be. never were.

...until some player comes to me with a novel or clever idea that necessitates it, then they will be, at least for that game... :)

all the shenanigans I've seen so far on this board for why they have to be are not clever, nor novel.

Every post on this forum has both an objective and subjective rating of usefulness. I’m sure many will disagree with me, but I’m not interested. This is obviously my viewpoint and my opinion, but in my viewpoint and opinion, this is established truth.

So let’s look at a debate about DWKs being true dragons

Post 1: “are DWK true dragons?”

Post 2: “Yes. Because of (a bunch of points I’ve read a hundred times before)”

Post 3: “No. Because of (a bunch of points I’ve read a hundred times before)”

Post 4: “you all are idiots, lol.”

Post 5: “Well what about (something new I’ve not considered)”

Post 6: “Ask your DM”

Now, to me, post 1 and 5 are the ONLY subjectively useful posts. Any post asking a question, to me, is subjectively useful, even if I find the question banal and uninteresting. Because I value people looking for answers and seeking out knowledge. Post 5 is subjectively useful because it’s something new to me.

Now, to me, posts 1, 2, 3, and 5 are all objectively useful as well. Even though 2 and 3 were useless to me, I’m sure someone got some use out of them. And who knows, maybe someone will phrase something I already know in such a way to make me alter my perception. That’s always possible as long as I have an open mind.

Posts 4 and 6 are both subjectively and objectively useless. 4 Is just some jerk insulting people because he has nothing better to do with his time. 6 is also just some jerk insulting people because he has nothing better to do with time. It’s just couched differently and 6 probably doesn’t see himself as a jerk. But he is, because that’s a completely useless and insulting suggestion. Of course he could ask his DM, and he either has or will. This isn’t a thread about “duh, how do I play a roleplaying game with others instead of just thought-crafting 20 level power-studs for my own masturbatory joy?” This is a thread –about- the rules and the complexities and intricacies and how others –would- adjudicate and why they would. Saying “Ask your DM” is the same as saying “You are an idiot for asking this question” or “Go suck an egg.” Furthermore, it’s phrased in a condescending “why didn’t you think of this?” kind of fashion. Which is why it’s both subjectively and objectively useless.

[Arael666]

Nobody cares because its a completely useless and unhelpful reply.

You, me and McGee all have different DMS. We all play the same game with different rule-set makers. OF -COURSE- it all comes down to "whatever your DM rules". That's a given.

So, you telling us that in reply to every question isn't helpful. Its a waste of your time, my time and precious, precious board-space.

If someone comes on here, an internet board, and asks a question or posits a challenge to the rules they aren't looking for "whatever your DM says" as an answer because THEY ALREADY KNOW THAT ANSWER.

They are either A> A DM looking for advice on how to adjudicate it because they haven't decided for themselves yet and value other people's advice and opinions and guidance

or B> Interested in the debate for debate's sake. Interested in other's viewpoints for the sake of informing their own experience

or C> Just really want to tell everyone what they think and like fighting with people about it because, gosh darnit, they are right and you are so, so wrong.

Now, I personally, am super bored with the whole dragon-wrought kobold true dragon debate. (Or at least I think I am, but as soon as I saw this thread pop up I started reading it, and now I'm wasting my time replying to it, so I guess I'm lying to myself about how bored I am of it. )

But here's the deal. If you ever read a post on an internet board like this and your only reply is "just ask your DM" or "its the DM's call" then WHY ARE YOU BOTHERING TO REPLY? Because, i'll tell you right now, no one cares. No one is going to read your reply and be like "Oh why didn't I think of that." They've already done that, or they are looking for a discussion debate not an actual real-life solution.

As for myself? In games I DM, DWK are -not- true dragons. never will be. never were.

...until some player comes to me with a novel or clever idea that necessitates it, then they will be, at least for that game... :)

all the shenanigans I've seen so far on this board for why they have to be are not clever, nor novel.

You were correct so many times in a roll that you deserve not only one cookie but two cookies!

[The Kool]

I think there's a whole lot of people trying to define dragons by some abstract of the mechanics. This is one of those cases where you need to sit back and look at the bigger picture... or possibly just look at the picture. Place a True Dragon next to a Lesser Dragon, and the differences are fairly small but enough to make out. A Wyvern, for example, shares many of the traits of True Dragons but lacks their purity, and thus isn't a True Dragon. If a Wyvern can come so close to being a True Dragon and yet still not be one... what makes you believe that this measly creature known as the Kobold comes anywhere close? From a mechanical sense, True Dragons are not a defined type in D&D... In fact, if we look at the Monster Manual, we can see that "Dragon, True" is actually a kind of creature. Just like Elf, or Kobold. There are many subraces of True Dragon, just as there are many subraces of Kobold. However, in the same sense that a Kobold is not an Elf, I hold that a Kobold will never be a True Dragon (unless explicitly stated to be treated as such, like the Half-Elf is explicitly stated to be treated as an Elf).

Sidenote: Yes, I understand this doesn't hold up to the scrutiny of terminology in every book. Let's face it though, little does. I feel like it paints enough of a picture as to what is a True Dragon, though.

[Mato]

Yeahee another one of these threads where we can once again see which community members are worth listening to for rules advice and which ones are not. Well, let's make this as brief as always.


I would love to hear their thoughts on this.tl;dr the "kobold is a true dragon" side of the debate is based around what is called affirming the consequent. Also known as If A then B; B, therefor A. This is when you illogically assume that just because you have B you also have A.

In plain text.
* If (true dragon) then it (has age categories).
* Kobold (has age categories).
This applies for every single specific trait someone can come up with.
Also there is nothing in the rules that say a monster can quality as being another monster by obtaining a few traits.

While the country evidence is quite impressive.

(true dragon) 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.

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

Kobold
Advancement: By character class
Level Adjustment: +0

Dragonwrought
<A distinctive lack of text that says a kobold is a true dragon and that it's advancement and/or level adjustment has been changed.>

[Falontani]

Yeahee another one of these threads where we can once again see which community members are worth listening to for rules advice and which ones are not. Well, let's make this as brief as always. because these debates are where people should look to see whose worth listening to. Nine times out of ten you only follow the rai that you come to and ignore all other possible rai, arguing until it is moot.

tl;dr the "kobold is a true dragon" side of the debate is based around what is called affirming the consequent. Also known as If A then B; B, therefor A. This is when you illogically assume that just because you have B you also have A.

In plain text.
* If (true dragon) then it (has age categories).
* Kobold (has age categories).
This applies for every single specific trait someone can come up with.
Also there is nothing in the rules that say a monster can quality as being another monster by obtaining a few traits.

While the country evidence is quite impressive.

However today your argument is pretty good. I can still see other's arguments as valid, but that is pretty good.

A counter argument: Changeling Racial Emulation. They may qualify as any humanoid race from small to large for feats, classes, and equipment. From a single feat.
Just like Dragonwrought.



<A distinctive lack of text that says a kobold is a true dragon and that it's advancement and/or level adjustment has been changed.>
Your not wrong, however I don't believe there is a single feat anywhere that does change advancement and/or level adjustment, nor a reason that this feat would specifically need to call out that you become a True Dragon or not. It definitely would have been nice and saved much argument.

Now in my own RaI: the whole thing was specifically left ambiguous. They wanted each and every dm to decide for themselves and their group whether or not Dragonwrought Kobolds are True Dragons, because they are the closest things to true dragons that we have other than the creatures specifically labeled as Dragons, True.

[Doctor Awkward]

nor a reason that this feat would specifically need to call out that you become a True Dragon or not.

Because what counts as a true dragon is very specifically defined by several rules.

There are other creatures that do not appear to follow some of these rules that are also true dragons, but only because their specific entries state in some fashion, "these are also true dragons."

Because D&D is an exception-based ruleset. Ordinally true dragons have X, Y, and Z. These creatures are also true dragons, despite lacking Z, because this is an exception to the normal definition.

[OgresAreCute]

Because what counts as a true dragon is very specifically defined by several rules.

There are other creatures that do not appear to follow some of these rules that are also true dragons, but only because their specific entries state in some fashion, "these are also true dragons."

Because D&D is an exception-based ruleset. Ordinally true dragons have X, Y, and Z. These creatures are also true dragons, despite lacking Z, because this is an exception to the normal definition.

Yeah, the "it doesn't say I can't" argument should rarely, if ever, fly in a D&D discussion.
Also, using Racial Emulation as an example is a little disingenuous as that feat obviously and specifically in both RAW and RAI is meant to let you emulate other races. Dragonwrought kobold never says anything about emulating or counting as anything else.

[magic9mushroom]

Yeah, the "it doesn't say I can't" argument should rarely, if ever, fly in a D&D discussion.
Also, using Racial Emulation as an example is a little disingenuous as that feat obviously and specifically in both RAW and RAI is meant to let you emulate other races. Dragonwrought kobold never says anything about emulating or counting as anything else.

It does let you count as a dragon, although this is because it actually makes you a dragon ("your type is dragon rather than humanoid").