View Full Version : Monks are true dragons?
Are monks true dragons?
Really I did read some threads and now I am confused.
If they somehow were would it is balanced?
Babale
2020-10-26, 01:57 PM
Why would they be?
Was it maybe a dragonwrought kobold monk?
As far as how balanced those are - not.
Lvl 2 Expert
2020-10-26, 01:59 PM
Some of them can be hidden dragons...
Crouching tigers too.
GrayDeath
2020-10-26, 03:03 PM
Some of them can be hidden dragons...
Crouching tigers too.
Fixed that for you.
As for the OP: Aside from having all High Saves I can for the heck of it see not a single similarity between them.
How did you get the idea (eg what where said threads about?, maybe Dragonwrought Kobol Theoriecrafting?).
Doctor Despair
2020-10-26, 03:07 PM
Fixed that for you.
As for the OP: Aside from having all High Saves I can for the heck of it see not a single similarity between them.
How did you get the idea (eg what where said threads about?, maybe Dragonwrought Kobol Theoriecrafting?).
Maybe a misinterpreted discussion on Martial Monks being able to take epic feats?
Batcathat
2020-10-26, 03:12 PM
My theory is that all monks are actually dragons cosplaying as adventurers and their draconic arrogance is the reason their idea of a puny human (or whatever) end up so weak. :smallamused:
Unavenger
2020-10-26, 03:16 PM
Monks are true dragons because they grow more powerful as they age, according to Troacctid's reading of ghostshadow's argument (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=21583267&postcount=228).
Congrats to Doctor Despair and eggynack for leading me there as I went to check out what the former's sig quote was about and happened to find the answer to this question.
MaxiDuRaritry
2020-10-26, 03:25 PM
As for the OP: Aside from having all High Saves I can for the heck of it see not a single similarity between them.They can both qualify for feats they wouldn't otherwise qualify for. For instance, martial monks qualify for taking fighter feats without prereqs, while adult dragons qualify as being epic for feat qualifications, regardless of their HD.
Lvl 2 Expert
2020-10-26, 04:45 PM
It's quite a coincidence that this thread about 3.5 monks being dragons was posted at the same day as new Unearthed Arcana content for 5e, with a dragon based monk subclass (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?621173-New-Unearthed-Arcana-10-26-2020).
Doctor Awkward
2020-10-26, 04:47 PM
Monks are true dragons because they grow more powerful as they age, according to Troacctid's reading of ghostshadow's argument (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=21583267&postcount=228).
Congrats to Doctor Despair and eggynack for leading me there as I went to check out what the former's sig quote was about and happened to find the answer to this question.
Monks are not a creature type. They are a class.
Monks are not a creature type. They are a class.
And monsters are classes too right?
ixrisor
2020-10-26, 05:42 PM
A monk isn’t a dragon, so can’t be a true dragon. At 20th level they become an outsider, so a dragon can’t become a monk either.
Particle_Man
2020-10-26, 06:04 PM
There is a prestige class for monks that goes on about dragon ancestors.
I suppose a true dragon could take up to 19 levels in monk but it would be suboptimal.
A monk isn’t a dragon, so can’t be a true dragon. At 20th level they become an outsider, so a dragon can’t become a monk either.
They don't gain the outsider type. Perfect-self only mentions that the monk is considered an outsider in relation to spells and effects; with the single exception for being raised from the dead as they aren't actually outsiders.
Doctor Awkward
2020-10-27, 03:56 PM
And monsters are classes too right?
No. Monsters are creatures, as is made plain by the Monster Manual.
A dragon is a specific type of creature. A true dragon is a specific creature of the dragon type.
A class, as defined by the Player's Handbook, is a profession or vocation that determines what a creature is able to do. It represents abilities gained through experience.
Monk is a class. No one is ever born a monk. It is something that is learned.
True dragons are born true dragons. As they age, they gain racial hit dice, which automatically grant them more powerful abilities. Every true dragon ever has been printed with an accompanying table spelling out exactly what those abilities are and at what age they are gained.
When considering the entire body of written work that is The Rules As Written, they are remarkably clear on what is and is not a true dragon. It is only when parsing specific individual phrases out of the context in which they appear that confusion starts to arise.
DarkSoul
2020-10-28, 04:43 PM
No. Monsters are creatures, as is made plain by the Monster Manual.
A dragon is a specific type of creature. A true dragon is a specific creature of the dragon type.
A class, as defined by the Player's Handbook, is a profession or vocation that determines what a creature is able to do. It represents abilities gained through experience.
Monk is a class. No one is ever born a monk. It is something that is learned.
True dragons are born true dragons. As they age, they gain racial hit dice, which automatically grant them more powerful abilities. Every true dragon ever has been printed with an accompanying table spelling out exactly what those abilities are and at what age they are gained.
When considering the entire body of written work that is The Rules As Written, they are remarkably clear on what is and is not a true dragon. It is only when parsing specific individual phrases out of the context in which they appear that confusion starts to arise.All of this. The last two paragraphs, incidentally, sum up why another persistent (around these boards anyway) true dragon argument is also not true, but that's a sh*tshow for another day.
All of this. The last two paragraphs, incidentally, sum up why another persistent (around these boards anyway) true dragon argument is also not true, but that's a sh*tshow for another day.
So the monks are true dragons argument is a persistent argument?(else you would not say "another persistent argument")
Vaern
2020-10-29, 09:20 AM
So the monks are true dragons argument is a persistent argument?(else you would not say "another persistent argument")
The persistent argument, where monks being true dragons was originally called out in jest, is the argument regarding whether Dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons. They have dragon age categories spelled out for kobolds, but these age categories are merely for flavor with no mechanical effect. They still gain stat bonuses and penalties according to standard humanoid age categories - adult, middle age, old, venerable - rather than their draconic age category.
Doctor Awkward
2020-10-29, 05:37 PM
The persistent argument, where monks being true dragons was originally called out in jest, is the argument regarding whether Dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons. They have dragon age categories spelled out for kobolds, but these age categories are merely for flavor with no mechanical effect. They still gain stat bonuses and penalties according to standard humanoid age categories - adult, middle age, old, venerable - rather than their draconic age category.
Kobolds do not have Dragon Age Categories. They have Kobold Age Categories, as their table in Races of the Dragon is clearly labeled as such. That's actually argument one in my DWK are not True Dragons thesis.
Doctor Despair
2020-10-29, 06:08 PM
I can't recall, was the argument about Dragonwrought Kobolds being true dragons simply academic, or do you need to be a true dragon to take an archetype? You just have to be a dragon (true or otherwise) to take epic feats, as per the Draconomicon, so apart from maybe dragon archetypes, I'm not sure what other cheese there is for being a true dragon.
Vaern
2020-10-29, 06:27 PM
I can't recall, was the argument about Dragonwrought Kobolds being true dragons simply academic, or do you need to be a true dragon to take an archetype? You just have to be a dragon (true or otherwise) to take epic feats, as per the Draconomicon, so apart from maybe dragon archetypes, I'm not sure what other cheese there is for being a true dragon.
The intro to the Draconomicon includes a footnote on types of dragon, saying that "dragon" as a game term includes a large number of creatures but the book in question concerns itself primarily with True Dragons. This bit of the intro tells us that, unless "lesser dragons" are specifically called out, when the Draconomicon refers to dragons it's talking about True Dragons specifically. When it says that old dragons qualify for epic feats, what it really means is old True Dragons qualify for epic feats. That's why DWKs qualifying as True Dragons is important for any theorycrafting that would have them abusing epic feats at level 1.
Incidentally, this is the same footnote that defines a True Dragon as one that advances through age categories rather than by HD or class levels.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.