Dragonwrought kobolds are not True Dragons. The common sense, in context essay.

[redking]

Here we go. Point by point.


1. Draconomicon deals with true dragons in the main. Often it simply uses the word ‘dragon’ when the context is obvious, but sometimes, especially when explaining how a true dragon is different to lesser dragons with the dragon type, it spells it out. This is what true dragons are in context.


2. All true dragons are endothermic. (Draconomicon page 9).

Kobolds are cold blooded, dependent on the surrounding temperature of their environment, and so are dragonwrought kobolds, which keep all the kobold traits.


3. All true dragons can swim, though only a few kinds can be considered truly aquatic. (Draconomicon page 21).

True dragons have a swim speed in their statblocks. Dragonwrought kobolds do not.


4. The draconis fundamentum (7) is a gland possessed only by true dragons. Attached to the heart, it is the center of elemental activity inside the dragon’s body. (Draconomicon page 8).

You would have to do an autopsy on a dragonwought kobold to find out and because it is not stated that dragonwrought kobolds have a draconis fundamentum, there is no reason to believe that it has one.


5. Every true dragon, no matter how large or small, has exactly 13 cervical vertebrae, 12 thoracic vertebrae, 7 lumbar vertebrae, and 36 caudal vertebrae. (Draconomicon page 8).

Unknown if kobolds have these bones in these numbers, but it isn’t stated anywhere that they do.


6. Every true dragon is immune to at least one type of elemental energy (acid, cold, electricity, or fire), usually the same type of energy as the dragon uses for its breath weapon. (Draconomicon page 22).

Dragonwought kobold does not get any elemental energy immunity. A dragonwrought kobold gains +2 racial bonus on the skill with its associated dragon colour due its ‘draconic heritage’.


7. True dragons have superb internal temperature regulation and seldom suffer from the effects of excessive heat or cold. 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. (Draconomicon page 22).

A dragonwrought kobold cannot ignore the detrimental effects of extreme cold and extreme heat.


8. True dragons also develop a supernatural resistance to physical blows, which can prevent nonmagical weapons from harming them at all. Bards’ tales about marauding dragons enduring hails of arrows from defending archers without suffering so much as a scratch are all too true. True dragons develop damage reduction as they age, as noted in the Monster Manual. Damage reduction is a supernatural ability and is ineffective in an antimagic field. (Draconomicon page 22).

Dragonwrought kobolds do not develop damage reduction as they age.


9. Thanks to their innately magical nature, true dragons also develop the power to shrug off the effects of spells. Older dragons ignore spell assaults from all but the most powerful magical practitioners. True dragons also develop spell resistance as they age, as noted in the Monster Manual. (Draconomicon page 22).

Dragonwrought kobolds do not develop spell resistance as they age.


10. Guillaume and Cirjon established that the shortest-lived true dragon, the white, can live as long as 2,100 years. The true dragon species that lives the longest is the gold; Guillaume and Cirjon put the gold’s maximum age at 4,400 years. (Draconomicon page 15).

True dragons advance via ‘dragon age categories’ and dragonwrought kobolds use ‘kobold age categories’. A kobold great wyrm is as little as 121 years old. A true dragon great wyrm is at least 1201 years old. The age categories of true dragons and kobolds are different.


11. In normal light, a dragon sees twice as well has a human. In game terms, this means that a dragon can detect the presence of a potential encounter at twice the distance given in the Dungeon Master’s Guide (see Stealth and Detection in a Forest, page 87, and other similar sections). Also, when a dragon makes a Spot check, it takes only half the penalty for distance: a –1 penalty per 20 feet of distance rather than the standard –1 per 10 feet of distance. (Draconomicon page 17).

Dragonwrought kobolds see the same as humans in normal daylight, and have light sensitivity (Ex) in bright sunlight.


12. In complete darkness, a dragon relies on darkvision and blindsense. Both are exactly like the standard abilities, except for the dragon’s exceptional range: 120 feet for darkvision and 60 feet for blindsense. (Draconomicon page 17).

A dragonwrought kobolds does not have blindsense and only 60 feet for darkvision.


13. All true dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age. (Other creatures that have the dragon type do not.) They range in length from several feet upon hatching to more than 100 feet after attaining the status of great wyrm. The size of a particular dragon varies according to age and variety (Monster Manual 1 page 68).

Dragonwrought kobolds do not gain hit dice as they advance through kobold age categories and are certainly not several feet long upon hatching. As we will see, advancement is synonymous with gaining hit dice.


14. Dragons rarely adopt character classes. Their perspective on the passing of time, their enormous natural abilities, and their essentially bestial nature together incline them to a patient stance of allowing time to advance their abilities, rather than the sort of frantic adventuring and training typical of creatures with character classes. (Draconomicon page 86).

Dragonwrought kobolds have no option but to advance via character classes and the passing of time does little to increase their power.


15. Dragons who devote themselves to the service of the primary dragon deities frequently advance as sacred watchers of Bahamut or unholy ravagers of Tiamat. (Draconomicon page 86).

‘Advance’ and ‘advancement’ is used in Draconomicon to mean gaining levels.


16. 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. (Draconomicon page 142).

Dragonwrought kobolds do not gain hit dice from aging. Advancement means increasing racial hit dice for true dragons.


17. Lesser Dragon PCs: Using another creature of the dragon type as a player character is rather less complicated than using a true dragon. Such a creature has a set level adjustment and no built-in progression due to age, so after the character begins play there is no reason to advance the character as a monster again. For example, a wyvern character, with a level adjustment of +4 and 7 Hit Dice, has an ECL of 11 and joins a party of 11th-level characters to adventure. The wyvern continues advancing as a character, just like the other characters in the party. (Draconomicon page 142).

Dragonwrought kobolds have no set level adjustment and no built-in progression due to age, just like the other lesser dragon PCs.

Finally, dragonwrought kobolds are not called out as true dragons anywhere. There is no RAW or RAI argument to be made for dragonwrought kobolds. The benefits of being a dragonwrought kobold are specified in the feat itself.

Written in the spirit of -

https://www.mattcutts.com/images/duty_calls.png

[Buufreak]

{Scrubbed}

[Beni-Kujaku]

-snip-

Yeah, yeah, but...

Specific trumps general :smallbiggrin:


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Absolutely.

[pabelfly]

The real question - has anyone actually had a DM that would let them play a Dragonwrought Kobold and get Epic feats before level 20? Because it's not as if it's going to be acceptable in a build competition and I can't imagine what other context it might be a relevant question.

A build competition with Dragonwrought Kobold and explicit allowance of Epic feats before Level 20 would be pretty cool, now I think about it.

[LunaticChaos]

The real question - has anyone actually had a DM that would let them play a Dragonwrought Kobold and get Epic feats before level 20? Because it's not as if it's going to be acceptable in a build competition and I can't imagine what other context it might be a relevant question.

Believe it or not. Yes.
But ONLY because the rest of the party made nothing but fighters, rangers, and a barbarian and we desperately needed an arcane/divine/rogue character and I could make a character that could fill all those roles relatively well. So I got away with it because of necessity for the game. I used it on Epic Toughness cause I needed the health.

Though really, its not like getting epic feats that early really is that broken. Most of the good ones require you to be level 20+ to even select due to skill rank requirements or have such high requirements you're unlikely to get it till late game anyway. For the most part there's only a few epic feats you can pick at low levels that this ruling is really that useful for. And none of them compare to some feats like Shocktrooper.

[Ramza00]

• True Dragons are "social constructs."
• Dragons as beings they simply "are,"
• Yet what we call True Dragons is a "metaphysics" ,

◦ instead of knowing each individual dragon we create an "analytical" category, a collection of traits where you do not need to know about the individual trees and its properties instead you can search for many of the properties by talking about the forest. The properties of individual dragons is not just localized in the individual it also belong to a meta, and thus we have meta-physics.
• People arguing about "metaphysics" and "social constructs" will need to realize when this analytical "game" we play is no longer useful and we need to abandon the game and do a fallback for we do not like the results.
• Why we do not like the results is a "social" phenomenon.
• The agreed upon rules that everyone in the social group can agree upon is its own form of metaphysics called "social constructs."

Repeat steps 1 to 6 until it sinks in, for it is a loop by design.

[RandomPeasant]

Though really, its not like getting epic feats that early really is that broken. Most of the good ones require you to be level 20+ to even select due to skill rank requirements or have such high requirements you're unlikely to get it till late game anyway. For the most part there's only a few epic feats you can pick at low levels that this ruling is really that useful for. And none of them compare to some feats like Shocktrooper.

Honestly, even ignoring pre-reqs entirely, relatively few Epic Feats are all that powerful. "You can use Bardic Music to Deafen people" is not exactly breaking the bank. It's just that the ones that are powerful are really, absurdly powerful (looking at you, Epic Spellcasting), and that overshadows the "you get five rounds of haste per day"-tier ones in people's minds.

[LunaticChaos]

Honestly, even ignoring pre-reqs entirely, relatively few Epic Feats are all that powerful. "You can use Bardic Music to Deafen people" is not exactly breaking the bank. It's just that the ones that are powerful are really, absurdly powerful (looking at you, Epic Spellcasting), and that overshadows the "you get five rounds of haste per day"-tier ones in people's minds.

Pretty much yeah.

The real concern with Dragonwrought Kobolds counting as True Dragons isn't Epic Feats. Its Sovereign Archetypes from Dragons of Eberron that are the real balance breaker.

[ThanatosZero]

Yeah, yeah, but...

Specific trumps general :smallbiggrin:


Indeed, the same reason why sea serpents are no true dragons, despite that they fullfill all conditions for to be so.

[Chronos]

Eh, the epic feats Exceptional Deflection and Infinite Deflection, between them, make you pretty much immune to everything with a ranged attack roll (including attack-roll spells), and neither has a hard level limit. Both do have ability score requirements, but those could be met well before 20th level, with the help of items.

And the other thing with the "True Dragon" debate is that it mostly doesn't even matter. Most of the dragonwrought cheese depends only on having the "Dragon" creature type, which they unambiguously do, and not on being a "True" dragon.

[LunaticChaos]

Eh, the epic feats Exceptional Deflection and Infinite Deflection, between them, make you pretty much immune to everything with a ranged attack roll (including attack-roll spells), and neither has a hard level limit. Both do have ability score requirements, but those could be met well before 20th level, with the help of items.

And the other thing with the "True Dragon" debate is that it mostly doesn't even matter. Most of the dragonwrought cheese depends only on having the "Dragon" creature type, which they unambiguously do, and not on being a "True" dragon.

This is really only useful to monks though as everyone else is going to spend 4-5 feats on this (depending on ACFs). Plus super high ability requirements, all just to be immune to ranged attack rolls. While significant number of attacks can be thwarted by this, it provides no protection against anything else. Is that really enough to justify sinking so much of your build into it?

Ultimately this argument about Dragonwrought Kobolds being True Dragons is pointless to get worked up over. Its not that powerful. It makes you a bit stronger at low levels and evens out at mid to high levels. Its nothing compared to that ludicrous Lightning Maces Aptitude weapon argument, or the Valorous Charging Pounce Shocktrooper Power Attack, or the Dragoon Spear jump charge, or half the things Wizards/Clerics/Druids can do.

[AvatarVecna]

The only thing in the OP that jumped out to me as inherently incorrect is seeing "all true dragons can swim" and reading that as "all true dragons have a swim speed". You are fully capable of swimming without a swim speed, and a number of inarguably true dragons don't have a swim speed (e.g. Blue Dragons). So "ability to swim" is at most "ability to at least theoretically succeed on swim checks", which most anything is capable of.

But that's a minor correction for a single point.

[hamishspence]

Fang Dragons (Draconomicon) have no elemental energy immunity. There's a few others like that, too.

[Elves]

It's pretty simple. The last published statement on what constitutes a true dragon was in Dragon Magic:

...a true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon).
Kobolds have 12 age categories per ROTD, and a kobold with the Dragonwrought feat is a dragon (a creature with the dragon type). Thus, a dragonwrought kobold fulfills the most recently printed definition of true dragon.

[Emperor Tippy]

The real question - has anyone actually had a DM that would let them play a Dragonwrought Kobold and get Epic feats before level 20? Because it's not as if it's going to be acceptable in a build competition and I can't imagine what other context it might be a relevant question.

A build competition with Dragonwrought Kobold and explicit allowance of Epic feats before Level 20 would be pretty cool, now I think about it.

Being honest, while the Epic feats that a Dragonwrought Kobold can qualify for are often better than pre-epic feats; they can't really qualify for any of the true game changers. Dragonwrought Kobolds don't get to ignore prerequisites, they just get to ignore the HD issue.

Infinite and Exceptional Deflection is the only truly potent combination that Dragonwrought Kobolds could theoretically get access to early. A DK Monk 2/ Fighter 1 could meet all of the feat prerequisites and qualify once they hit 25 Dex and 19 Wis. And the end result is that they get to no-sell ranged attacks against them. Potent yes, but not really out of line for Tier 3.

Letting a Martial Monk grab those two feats at the start of the game isn't actually a balance problem for a Monk build. Invisible Fist Martial Monk with Infinite and Exceptional Deflection is a solid Tier 3 with reasonable optimization/playing to its strengths but that is about it. The balance issue with Martial Monk is the dip combined with other builds. Even then the actual balance issues are overblown but at least more relevant.

---
Basically, DWK builds that can actually capitalize on seriously early Epic feat acquisition are basically non existent. It only becomes a thing when someone is already building a relatively near epic character and thus can afford the Attribute and feat prerequisites. Even then, the feats tend not to be that extraordinary.

Feats are generally best used to extend what a character can do, while the epic feats that a DWK can actually take tend to be of the "plus some static number to something" type. With most builds already being relatively feat starved, fitting in epic feats is pretty meh.

[Doctor Despair]

Being honest, while the Epic feats that a Dragonwrought Kobold can qualify for are often better than pre-epic feats; they can't really qualify for any of the true game changers. Dragonwrought Kobolds don't get to ignore prerequisites, they just get to ignore the HD issue.


Music of the Gods is pretty potent if you cheese the skill rank requirement with temporary hitdie. There aren't a lot of ways in 3.5 to straight-up no-sell an immunity.

[hamishspence]

It's pretty simple. The last published statement on what constitutes a true dragon was in Dragon Magic:

Kobolds have 12 age categories per ROTD, and a kobold with the Dragonwrought feat is a dragon (a creature with the dragon type). Thus, a dragonwrought kobold fulfills the most recently printed definition of true dragon.

While they have slightly less in the way of age categories, a half-dragon phaerimm fits the "grows more powerful with age" and "gains hit dice with age" thing a lot better.

[Elves]

While they have slightly less in the way of age categories, a half-dragon phaerimm fits the "grows more powerful with age" and "gains hit dice with age" thing a lot better.
If they don't have 12 age categories it's no dice. I think we can cut through the Gordian knot here by looking at that clear statement from the last published source: dragon type, 12 age categories.

Only objection I could see is if you claim Draconomicon is primary source for all things relating to dragons. But then as mentioned above we have some examples of true dragons that aren't true dragons by Dr's criteria.

[Emperor Tippy]

Music of the Gods is pretty potent if you cheese the skill rank requirement with temporary hitdie. There aren't a lot of ways in 3.5 to straight-up no-sell an immunity.

I would submit that the bigger issue in that case is the ability to use temporary HD to exceed skill rank limits. Avoiding the skill limit allows early entry to a large swath of content, most of which is at least as good as any given Epic Feat.

Even then, getting Bardic Music through mind-affecting immunity is nice but its not anything game breaking.

Don't get me wrong, Epic feats are nice. Even the +1 Attribute feats can be grand, especially if you roll and have to deal with odd numbers or to manipulate PB.

It's just that people see "Epic Feat" and automatically think "this must be game breaking" without bothering to actually look at what DWK means in practice or what feats they can actually qualify for and at what cost(s).

In practice, what DWK really lets you do is take Tenacious Spell: Permanency, get the benefits of actually Permanent buffs, and then Psychic Reformation it and Permanency into more consistently useful things.

Or Familiar Spell to give your Familiar a 1/day SLA of an 8th level or lower spell you know (that lacks expensive material components or XP costs). These are things that are good. But they aren't good in the same way that Infinite+Exceptional Deflection is good, or the Epic magic related feats can be good, or Self-Concealment can be good, or Permanent Emanation can be good.

There are epic feats that materially and substantially alter how a character interacts with the setting. The Deflection line letting the character have a basically absolute ability to no-sell ranged attacks against them fundamentally alters how the character interacts with the setting. Self-Concealment is just straight up, always on, miss-chance that can't really be negated and can be stacked up to 50% miss-chance. Permanent Emanation means Selective Antimagic Fields or Repulsion (as two of many examples), which again fundamentally change how that character interacts with the world in substantial ways.

Bardic Music being able to also affect normally immune creatures is nice but it doesn't fundamentally change how that character interacts. They can use more of their class features against Undead, Plants, and Constructs basically. Would how you play the character or how you DM for such a character be materially or substantially altered? I doubt it, it would instead just be something to account for.

Contrast with a Monk who gets Infinite Deflection, Exceptional Deflection, and Reflect Arrows. With Martial Monk that is a level 6 Monk and now he is functionally immune to all ranged attacks (including spells) and gets to toss them back on anyone who uses them against him. That is going to change how you build and play the character and fundamentally alter how the DM engages with your character (less because of pure raw power and more because of how it impacts basically everything).

[Doctor Despair]

I would submit that the bigger issue in that case is the ability to use temporary HD to exceed skill rank limits. Avoiding the skill limit allows early entry to a large swath of content, most of which is at least as good as any given Epic Feat.

Even then, getting Bardic Music through mind-affecting immunity is nice but its not anything game breaking.

...

Bardic Music being able to also affect normally immune creatures is nice but it doesn't fundamentally change how that character interacts. They can use more of their class features against Undead, Plants, and Constructs basically. Would how you play the character or how you DM for such a character be materially or substantially altered? I doubt it, it would instead just be something to account for.


I agree that it's less game-breaking than the Infinite Deflection usage offered; however, it's definitely substantial. Getting access to bardic buffs isn't significant; there are a few things that are more substantial, however. Bardic fascination/suggestion gets a lot more powerful as a means to control targets protected by Mind Blank or other immunities (again, a rare feat); more potent is the Seeker of the Song's Hymn of Spelldeath which, when combined with Subsonics, makes a very subtle anti-caster defense. Assuming you've pumped that perform-check sky-high, it effectively precludes casting from anyone that can hear (but with no ability to notice) your music. Much larger range than AMF, fewer means to bypass it except by intentionally deafening yourself all the time, and allows you to keep permanent long-term buffs up (and still use your other Seeker songs as per the class's features).

[redking]

Fang Dragons (Draconomicon) have no elemental energy immunity. There's a few others like that, too.

Fang Dragons are specifically called out as true dragons and have everything else in common with true dragons.


It's pretty simple. The last published statement on what constitutes a true dragon was in Dragon Magic:

Kobolds have 12 age categories per ROTD, and a kobold with the Dragonwrought feat is a dragon (a creature with the dragon type). Thus, a dragonwrought kobold fulfills the most recently printed definition of true dragon.

The 'kobold age categories' (and note, they are only 1/10th the years of 'dragon age categories') are not the same. Furthermore, dragonwrought kobolds do not get more powerful as they advance in their kobold age categories. They are mock categories. All true dragons gain various powers as they advance up their age categories. Not so the dragonwrought. Also, nowhere does it say that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons. Nowhere.

[Darg]

If they don't have 12 age categories it's no dice. I think we can cut through the Gordian knot here by looking at that clear statement from the last published source: dragon type, 12 age categories.

Only objection I could see is if you claim Draconomicon is primary source for all things relating to dragons. But then as mentioned above we have some examples of true dragons that aren't true dragons by Dr's criteria.

My objection is that one is roleplay specific, and the other has mechanical relevance.

Well, that and the fact that the book that introduced DWKs specifically tells you that they are not:


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.

A single parenthetical in a single book that references a red dragon as the example of age categories which a kobold doesn't match sounds like strong evidence sure.

[LunaticChaos]

Well, that and the fact that the book that introduced DWKs specifically tells you that they are not:

Quote Originally Posted by RotD, pg 103
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.


Because normal Kobolds are not true dragons, but they are treated as Dragonspawn. Lore explicitly calls them out as having an innate connection to dragons.

And the feat Dragonwrought is referenced as Proof of that connection.

You were born a dragonwrought kobold, proof of your race’s innate connection to dragons.


And the benefits of the feat go on to say you take on the traits of one of the indisputable true dragons. The Feat doesn't say all Kobolds are True Dragons. Its treated more as an ancestral reversion than their own unique species.
If you want to be pedantic, the argument is that Dragonwrought Kobolds can count as Gold Dragons, can count as Red Dragons, can count as White Dragons, so on and so forth. They'd be the least of their kind, but that is the argument.

[Jack_Simth]

If they don't have 12 age categories it's no dice. I think we can cut through the Gordian knot here by looking at that clear statement from the last published source: dragon type, 12 age categories.The Lost Empires of Faerun version of Phaerimm do have 12 age categories (and yes, they get progressively stronger as you go up in categories - more hit dice, more stats, more abilities, more casting) even if they don't pick up any class levels at all.

I've never seen any actual aging tables for them, though (as in, the number of years spent in each category). But they do have 12 age categories.

[Darg]

And the benefits of the feat go on to say you take on the traits of one of the indisputable true dragons.

Yeah, no it doesn't. You get the dragon type and your scales become tinted the color of your heritage (it's not even fully the color of your heritage.) Nothing comes close to saying you get traits specific to a specific type of dragon.


If you want to be pedantic, the argument is that Dragonwrought Kobolds can count as Gold Dragons, can count as Red Dragons, can count as White Dragons, so on and so forth. They'd be the least of their kind, but that is the argument.

Extrapolating something is not necessarily evidence of a rule and there is a plethora of evidence lacking for compared to the amount of evidence against DWK true dragon status.

[hamishspence]

The Lost Empires of Faerun version of Phaerimm do have 12 age categories (and yes, they get progressively stronger as you go up in categories - more hit dice, more stats, more abilities, more casting) even if they don't pick up any class levels at all.

I've never seen any actual aging tables for them, though (as in, the number of years spent in each category). But they do have 12 age categories.

My copy of Lost Empires only lists 8 age categories.


Fang Dragons are specifically called out as true dragons and have everything else in common with true dragons.


If they don't have 12 age categories it's no dice. I think we can cut through the Gordian knot here by looking at that clear statement from the last published source: dragon type, 12 age categories.

Only objection I could see is if you claim Draconomicon is primary source for all things relating to dragons. But then as mentioned above we have some examples of true dragons that aren't true dragons by Dr's criteria.


The point is that the MM listing of true dragon abilities isn't absolute - it's not a case of "anything with no elemental immunities, cannot be a true dragon".


The same logic may apply to age categories. Yes, anything with 12 age categories and the dragon type is a true dragon (Dragon Magic) - but that doesn't necessarily mean that anything with less categories, but still some, isn't. Draconomicon is the primary source here.

[redking]

Yeah, no it doesn't. You get the dragon type and your scales become tinted the color of your heritage (it's not even fully the color of your heritage.) Nothing comes close to saying you get traits specific to a specific type of dragon.

Now hold on a moment. A red dragon heritage dragonwrought kobolds get a +2 racial bonus to appraise checks. Surely that means that a dragonwrought kobold with red dragon ancestry is a true dragon.

[LunaticChaos]

CREATING A DRAGONPACT
To make a dragonpact, a sorcerer of 4th level or higher (that is, a character with at least four levels of sorcerer) must undertake a mystical ceremony in which he establishes mental contact with a true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon).

This is our last official source for what constitutes a True Dragon. To qualify as a True Dragon, unless directly contradicted by a text that is published after this book or the text of a monster's entry, the only thing you require is the Dragon Type and for your species to have 12 age categories by the rules of the game.
Dragon Magic was published September 2006
Races of the Dragon was published January 2006
Draconomicon was published November 2003
Dragon Magic is the primary source for what constitutes a True Dragon in this case. If it required every other trait it would have referenced Draconomicon or listed other traits for this.

As for the argument that Kobold age categories don't match up to Dragon's age categories. Not all Dragons have the same lifespan. The Draconomicon also happens to list the maximum age of all dragons, and it can vary by thousands of years between the species that no one disputes are true dragons.
And it is interesting to note this line here that is specifically being mentioned in reference to True Dragons.

A dragon’s maximum age is a function of its Charisma score.
This is a trait all Kobolds share as well, its only equal to it but their age is determined by their Charisma. And Dragonwrought Kobolds have it even stronger at 5 times their charisma. Kobolds maximum age bonus is not as potent as Chromatic or Metallic Dragons, but there is also a difference between Chromatic and Metallic Dragons as well.

End of the day, the point is, there is a legitimate argument for Dragonwrought Kobolds to be True Dragons. And balance wise, counting as True Dragons is not that big a deal. They already get the most broken thing about Dragonwrought with or without that status which is the +3 to all mental stats at Venerable age with no penalties.

What few epic feats they could qualify for prior to being epic characters are not a big deal. Cheese to get Higher Skill Ranks or the like to qualify early is not that big a deal as there is precedence that when you no longer qualify for something you no longer have access to it.

Sovereign Archetypes are very good this is true as I've said. But that still pales in comparison to things that no one here is going to argue about being rules legal or not. And its easy to ban Sovereign Archetypes by just not playing in Eberron and not homebrewing an adaptation.

It comes down to a DM Ruling at the end of the day. And if you ask me, it makes for a compelling story to allow it. Either as a Villain or as a PC.

[redking]

As for the argument that Kobold age categories don't match up to Dragon's age categories. Not all Dragons have the same lifespan. The Draconomicon also happens to list the maximum age of all dragons, and it can vary by thousands of years between the species that no one disputes are true dragons.

All true dragons share the same age categories. They advance in age categories and gain hit dice and other benefits at the same rate. The maximum age in years is a different matter altogether. As has been noted, kobold age categories do not match dragon age categories and dragonwrought kobolds gain no benefits for advancing in their kobold age categories.


End of the day, the point is, there is a legitimate argument for Dragonwrought Kobolds to be True Dragons. And balance wise, counting as True Dragons is not that big a deal. They already get the most broken thing about Dragonwrought with or without that status which is the +3 to all mental stats at Venerable age with no penalties.

I'm not concerned about balance when a 'true dragon' dragonwrought kobold will never see play in most gaming tables. What concerns me is that there are people that conflate a true red dragon with a dragonwrought kobold. "That is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon". Why someone would see this example and think 'yeah, dragonwrought are true dragons' beggars belief.



It comes down to a DM Ruling at the end of the day. And if you ask me, it makes for a compelling story to allow it. Either as a Villain or as a PC.

Why doesn't the dragonwrought kobold feat say that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons?

[Particle_Man]

It fails the RAI test for me. If they wanted dragonwrought kobolds to be true dragons they would say “dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons” in the feat’s description, and not hide it in the description of creating a dragon pact. This is stretching things in a legalistic fashion beyond what the designers intended.

[redking]

It fails the RAI test for me. If they wanted dragonwrought kobolds to be true dragons they would say “dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons” in the feat’s description, and not hide it in the description of creating a dragon pact. This is stretching things in a legalistic fashion beyond what the designers intended.

It's definitely not RAI. It isn't RAW either. Normally these disputes come down to RAW vs RAI but in this case it's RAW + RAI vs wishful thinking.

[LunaticChaos]

Just because you don't like the argument doesn't mean its not legitimate. This is why the job of the Dungeon Master is described as:

Dungeon Mastering involves writing, teaching, acting, refereeing, arbitrating, and facilitating.
The difference between Kobolds and Dragons in general was made more blurry through Races of the Dragon, which is made even blurrier by Dragonwrought. Requiring something like that to be arbitrated.



I'm not concerned about balance when a 'true dragon' dragonwrought kobold will never see play in most gaming tables. What concerns me is that there are people that conflate a true red dragon with a dragonwrought kobold. "That is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon". Why someone would see this example and think 'yeah, dragonwrought are true dragons' beggars belief.

I find it concerning that anyone argues Aptitude Weapon applies to the feat Lightning Maces.

It beggars belief that anyone can look at the Enchantment Aptitude Weapon and see the example feats like Weapon Focus (whose rules text states you select a weapon when taking the feat) and then think that Lightning Maces (which specifically mentions Light Maces in the rules text and only Light Maces) works with it.

But people do and I do see the argument, but I'll rule against it because I disagree with the argument. Because that is what a DM does. They look at murky rules questions and referee it.



Why doesn't the dragonwrought kobold feat say that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons?

Because the book was written by imperfect people that have had to go back numerous times to rewrite rules and had to rewrite the entire 3rd edition once because of their failings as imperfect people.

[redking]

Because the book was written by imperfect people that have had to go back numerous times to rewrite rules and had to rewrite the entire 3rd edition once because of their failings as imperfect people.

So you mean that despite the designers of dragonwrought kobold not specifying that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons and failing do so thoughout Races of the Dragon, the designers intended for dragonwrought kobolds to be true dragons.

That's a new one. Thanks for the chuckle.

[LunaticChaos]

So you mean that despite the designers of dragonwrought kobold not specifying that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons and failing do so thoughout Races of the Dragon, the designers intended for dragonwrought kobolds to be true dragons.

That's a new one. Thanks for the chuckle.

Its an unintentional consequence of what they wrote. Because by the rules of what they wrote its a possibility to rule it as such.
Its why you need a DM for a game to arbitrate such things.

Lawmakers in government all the time make laws that have consequences they have no ability to realize are possible. Its why Lawyers exist to bring up the arguments and judges exist to make a ruling.

Sides, are you telling me that a Dragonwrought Kobold who becomes obsessed with the truth of its nature but denied by its bigger elitist cousins would not be an absolutely fascinating villain for a campaign as it either seeks to bring all to its level or purify its blood further at any cost?

[redking]

Its an unintentional consequence of what they wrote. Because by the rules of what they wrote its a possibility to rule it as such.
Its why you need a DM for a game to arbitrate such things.


The benefits of the dragonwrought kobold feat are written right there in the feat. You don't need any adjudication. If you don't want to follow RAW or RAI both, you can make a ruling that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons and that's cool.

[Darg]

If DWK is a true dragon, then they must advance through age categories just like other true dragons when played by players as exemplified in Draconomicon. This includes getting RHD and an LA of a minimum +2.

[Elves]

This is our last official source for what constitutes a True Dragon. To qualify as a True Dragon, unless directly contradicted by a text that is published after this book or the text of a monster's entry, the only thing you require is the Dragon Type and for your species to have 12 age categories by the rules of the game.
Dragon Magic was published September 2006
Races of the Dragon was published January 2006
Draconomicon was published November 2003
Dragon Magic is the primary source for what constitutes a True Dragon in this case. If it required every other trait it would have referenced Draconomicon or listed other traits for this.
+1. There's no need to compare and scrutinize all these different quotes from various books. It's a simple question: is the most recently printed ruling eminent (a), or does Draconomicon count as primary source for all things dragon (b)?

(A) matches protocol in other areas so it's a very plausible reading.
Quotes from sources other than Dragon Magic and Draconomicon aren't relevant.

[LunaticChaos]

+1. There's no need to compare and scrutinize all these different quotes from various books. It's a simple question: is the most recently printed ruling eminent (a), or does Draconomicon count as primary source for all things dragon (b)?

(A) matches protocol in other areas so it's a very plausible reading.
Quotes from sources other than Dragon Magic and Draconomicon aren't relevant.

Honestly I only brought up the other stuff as supporting evidence for (A).

I'm in the middle, I believe both arguments have merit. RAW could go either way, and so could RAI. I do ere that RAI is probably that they aren't True Dragons. But the 12 age categories added to Kobolds, the way dragonwrought kobolds work, and the understanding that Races of the Dragon's authors have of what constitutes a True Dragon does make that murky and leaves an argument there to be made.
So to me this is a DM call at any given table. Its not broken even with Draconomicon's Epic Feat Rule or Sovereign Archetypes from Dragons of Eberron. Its definitely powerful, but hardly broken. And those like any book is optional at any given table.

But I think we've run out this topic, as Buufreak said on page 1 there. No one's going to shift their opinion on this matter. I only joined in cause I saw epic feats being brought up in relation to this topic and that being a reason to not allow it, and I had experience to the contrary for it not being that bad. Then I got carried away into the base argument a bit I admit.

[redking]

But I think we've run out this topic, as Buufreak said on page 1 there. No one's going to shift their opinion on this matter. I only joined in cause I saw epic feats being brought up in relation to this topic and that being a reason to not allow it, and I had experience to the contrary for it not being that bad. Then I got carried away into the base argument a bit I admit.

I wrote much the same thing on another thread.


As for Dragonwrought Kobold, most of the epic feats have prerequisites that the Dragonwrought Kobold will not be able to meet pre-epic. The epic feats without prerequisites are of a lesser nature, so it should not matter too much even if it had access to those feats.

The epic feats are not much of a big deal, especially the epic feats without prerequisites. Epic feats without prerequisites like Great Strength, which provides a +1 increase in Strength, should have been a normal, non-epic feat. I don't have a problem with kobolds taking them, or any other creature.

The problem isn't the dragonwrought kobold per se, but the grasping at straws that creates the dragonwrought kobold controversy and similar controversies.

[Remuko]

Has anyone, on either side of this debate, ever considered that "RAI" was that the devs intentionally left it murky because they wanted DMs to be able to have it either way instead of there being RAW that says its "only this way because the rules say so"?

Just something I thought of while reading these most recent comments.

[LunaticChaos]

The problem isn't the dragonwrought kobold per se, but the grasping at straws that creates the dragonwrought kobold controversy and similar controversies.

That's just kind of how 3.0 and 3.5 ended up being designed. It rewards that sort of searching and thinking. There are so many thing that you have to scour the books for, so many little obscure rules/features/etc that can completely upend how one builds characters. Especially because the writers are imperfect and will not account for everything the things they write will allow, especially over multiple books written by other writers. Or even the same book.
There are plenty of examples of mistakes going both ways in multiple books. Things that they wrote but they didn't intend and went back to fix it in errata. As well as things that they intended but it wasn't written correctly and they went back to fix it in errata.

Its why it comes down to the DM to decide how to rule whatever murky rules question comes their way.

And different DMs rule things different ways. No way is inherently inferior, even if we might think like that sometimes.

[RandomPeasant]

Has anyone, on either side of this debate, ever considered that "RAI" was that the devs intentionally left it murky because they wanted DMs to be able to have it either way instead of there being RAW that says its "only this way because the rules say so"?

If you want people to decide for themselves, tell them they need to decide for themselves. Don't create an intractable debate that people will have to cut through. I don't have a whole lot of respect for RAI arguments to begin with, but if the RAW debate was the point, I have zero respect for it in this case.

[Ramza00]

That's just kind of how 3.0 and 3.5 ended up being designed. It rewards that sort of searching and thinking. There are so many thing that you have to scour the books for, so many little obscure rules/features/etc that can completely upend how one builds characters. Especially because the writers are imperfect and will not account for everything the things they write will allow, especially over multiple books written by other writers. Or even the same book.
There are plenty of examples of mistakes going both ways in multiple books. Things that they wrote but they didn't intend and went back to fix it in errata. As well as things that they intended but it wasn't written correctly and they went back to fix it in errata.

Its why it comes down to the DM to decide how to rule whatever murky rules question comes their way.

And different DMs rule things different ways. No way is inherently inferior, even if we might think like that sometimes.
Some people remember this, but other peoples do not, but how people played 2000’s 3.0 vs 2003’s 3.5 vs later 2006 and 2007 end of life 3.5 were different, and even more since then with the rise of the internet, people having online srds of all feats, digital PDFs etc.

It was a reward for buying books and reading them all these new feats and prestige classes. It was not about looking at a database of 800+ feats and choosing the most elite. How game designers designed, how DMs managed, and how players played was different 20 years ago.

[Darg]

There isn't even a merit for DWK to be a true dragon other than becoming a dragon ascendant once you get 40-60HD. Epic feats only require that the character be a dragon and of an old age. If a DWK reaches old age without going epic, then I guess they deserve epic feats. Though they aren't the only dragons that can do it.

[LunaticChaos]

Some people remember this, but other peoples do not, but how people played 2000’s 3.0 vs 2003’s 3.5 vs later 2006 and 2007 end of life 3.5 were different, and even more since then with the rise of the internet, people having online srds of all feats, digital PDFs etc.

It was a reward for buying books and reading them all these new feats and prestige classes. It was not about looking at a database of 800+ feats and choosing the most elite. How game designers designed, how DMs managed, and how players played was different 20 years ago.

Heh, oldschoolers represent here. I miss the days when people were always discovering new stuff. You still get it every now and then. But much less.


There isn't even a merit for DWK to be a true dragon other than becoming a dragon ascendant once you get 40-60HD. Epic feats only require that the character be a dragon and of an old age. If a DWK reaches old age without going epic, then I guess they deserve epic feats. Though they aren't the only dragons that can do it.

I've said it once, I've said it twice, and I'll say it Thrice. The real advantage, and certainly a bit balance breaking (but not more than something like Icantatrix, or an Archivist/Artificer getting access to a steady stream of gold, resources and time) is the Sovereign Archetypes the ruling would qualify a Dragonwrought for.

Wyrm of War granting all simple/martial proficiencies with all armor and shield proficiencies plus a bonus fighter or dragon feat every 4 HD. And being able to sub Sorcerer spells known for Tiger Claw maneuvers and count your Sorcerer level as Initiator levels.
Loredrakes getting +2 Sorcerer Levels for free (or CL depending on how you want to read that or rule that. I do believe the former is the more common reading)
Lightkeeper granting access to Extra Turning and Turn as Cleric = your caster level. Plus access to spells from some pretty good domains as a Sorcerer.
Child of Eberron getting access to Druidic language and Druid spells.

You can come up with some interesting builds using those archetypes. And as I've mentioned, the ruling can make for great villains. I've played one under the ruling like I've mentioned. And I've used them as a DM before with a cadre of them as villains

Like anything in 3.5, its all about how you use them and what you know about.

[Lorddenorstrus]

This has been discussed up and down for years. The answer is obvious it isn't RAI. In a generalized sense it will very rarely if ever see play.

Disagreeing with RAW doesn't make it any less real. That's why we have to use our thinking caps for things like Drown Healing.

Finding convoluted ways to try and make RAW not be RAW just causes a **** show that isn't necessary. You don't allow it at your table because you applied your thinking cap and ran RAI vs RAW.

[redking]

Finding convoluted ways to try and make RAW not be RAW just causes a **** show that isn't necessary. You don't allow it at your table because you applied your thinking cap and ran RAI vs RAW.

I agree with that but the RAW argument for dragonwrought kobolds being 'true dragons' doesn't hold up. For one, they are never called true dragons. Secondly, the benefits of being dragonwrought are specified in the feat itself.

This isn't an ice assassin situation, where the designers dropped the ball and allowed a massive exploit by RAW.

[RandomPeasant]

Finding convoluted ways to try and make RAW not be RAW just causes a **** show that isn't necessary. You don't allow it at your table because you applied your thinking cap and ran RAI vs RAW.

I don't think RAW v RAI is the right frame. The designers intent isn't necessarily any better than what they actually wrote. What you should really be asking is "how should this work" not "how can I contort the words on the page into making this work a way I like" or "how do I think people who weren't able to write something that worked properly wanted this to work". But generally I agree with you that these kinds of convoluted RAW arguments aren't a good idea. For example, as someone in this thread points out, by the argument OP has presented, Fang Dragons aren't True Dragons. That's a worse outcome than just accepting that RAW allows you to do some broken stuff with Kobolds (and, frankly, there's fairly little of it that I'd call truly broken, the largest being Loredrake).

[Remuko]

I don't think RAW v RAI is the right frame. The designers intent isn't necessarily any better than what they actually wrote. What you should really be asking is "how should this work"

In that case, its not broken and I think its cool, so DWK should work as True Dragons.

[redking]

In that case, its not broken and I think its cool, so DWK should work as True Dragons.

The rule of cool applies to a gaming group individually, but can hardly be the basis for an online discussion about the rules of the game.


For example, as someone in this thread points out, by the argument OP has presented, Fang Dragons aren't True Dragons. That's a worse outcome than just accepting that RAW allows you to do some broken stuff with Kobolds (and, frankly, there's fairly little of it that I'd call truly broken, the largest being Loredrake).

Fang dragons do not have an energy immunity and they do not have a breath weapon, which is usually connected to that immunity. If you look at the following quote out of context, then fang dragons would seem to be excluded from being true dragons.


6. Every true dragon is immune to at least one type of elemental energy (acid, cold, electricity, or fire), usually the same type of energy as the dragon uses for its breath weapon. (Draconomicon page 22).

Page 4 of Draconomicon puts it into context. I put the emphasis in bold.


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. (Draconomicon page 4).

Other true dragons such as the fang dragons, which are also explicitly named as true dragons. While fang dragons appear to not meet the standard of not having an energy immunity and breath weapon, they are just like true dragons in every other respect. Fang dragons gain hit dice as they advance through dragon age categories. They gain frightful presence which continues to improve. Their spellcasting abilities improve. They gain spell-like abilities, damage reduction and spell resistance. They increase in size. They have the excellent eye sight of true dragons.

Compare the fang dragon to a dragonwrought kobold. The only thing remarkable about the dragonwrought kobold are all the ways in which it is unlike a true dragon.

Some of the true dragons are not listed by Draconomicon, but Draconomicon gives us guidelines by which we can tell what dragon type creature is a true dragon and what isn't a true dragon.

For example, Dragon Magazine #356 details ferrous dragons. Using the guidelines from Draconomicon, we work out whether they are true dragons or not.

They have everything that fang dragons have and also have a breath weapon and energy immunity. Additionally, half ferrous dragons exist, another indication that ferrous dragons are true dragons. Using the guidelines from Draconomicon, we can determine that ferrous dragons are true dragons.

One look at a 'great wyrm' dragonwrought kobold is sufficient to know that it isn't a true dragon. Context matters.

[loky1109]

In that case, its not broken and I think its cool, so DWK should work as True Dragons.
Cool? Maybe. But not enough cool to overlap how it is silly. This isn't result of logic or flaff, it is result of "pulling an owl on the globe".

Giving to commoner ability to shoot laser beams with 2d6 damage from eyes isn't broken, too, but this doesn't mean we should do it.

[redking]

Fang Dragons vs Dragonwrought Kobolds

Because fang dragons and dragonwrought kobolds are conflated as both not meeting the standards of being a true dragon, its worth taking a deep dive to see if that is true and to what extent it is true.

I have left out a number of things that are never accepted by proponents of dragonwrought kobolds being true dragons, such as gaining hit dice being essential to gaining power, dragon eyesight and implicitly stated things like growth in size.

At the end we will calculate how many ‘true dragon’ points apply to each.

Does the creature have a breath weapon and energy immunity like “every true dragon”?
Fang dragon: No. Fang dragons have an ability drain bite instead.
Dragonwrought kobold: No.

Does the creature have damage reduction, increasing through age categories?
Fang dragon: Yes.
Dragonwrought kobold: No.

Does the creature have frightful presence, increasing through age categories?
Fang dragon: Yes.
Dragonwrought kobold: No

Does the creature have special abilities and spell-like abilities, increasing through age categories?
Fang dragon: Yes.
Dragonwrought kobold: No

Does the creature gain magical power, increasing through age categories?
Fang dragon: Yes. It gains power similar to a sorcerer.
Dragonwrought kobold: No

Does the creature have spell resistance, increasing through age categories?
Fang dragon: Yes.
Dragonwrought kobold: No

Does the creature have natural armor, increasing through age categories?
Fang dragon: Yes.
Dragonwrought kobold: No

When a creature reaches a new age category, its “ability scores improve across the board” (Draconomicon page 142)?
Fang dragon: Yes.
Dragonwrought kobold: No. In fact, the mock 12 kobold age categories have no statistical effect at all. The aging effects table is completely disconnected from the kobold age categories.

Is the creature referred to as a true dragon explicitly?
Fang dragon: Yes.
Dragonwrought kobold: No.

Results out of 9 'true dragon points'.
Fang dragon: 8 out of 9 true dragon points.
Dragonwrought kobold: 0 out of 9 true dragon points.

Oft-compared, the fang dragon is nothing like the dragonwrought kobold and is clearly a true dragon.

[loky1109]

Fang Dragons vs Dragonwrought Kobolds

When a creature reaches a new age category, its “ability scores improve across the board” (Draconomicon page 142)?
Fang dragon: Yes.
Dragonwrought kobold: No. In fact, the mock 12 kobold age categories have no statistical effect at all. The aging effects table is completely disconnected from the kobold age categories.

Even if we say "Yes" for DWK this still will be 1 out of 9. Too little. Looks like accidental.

[hamishspence]

I'd count Breath Weapon and Energy immunity separately - some dragons have a breath weapon but no elemental energy immunity. Usually this is when the breath weapon isn't elemental either.

[redking]

I'd count Breath Weapon and Energy immunity separately - some dragons have a breath weapon but no elemental energy immunity. Usually this is when the breath weapon isn't elemental either.

I know but Draconomicon conflated the two so I kept the breath weapon and energy immunity together. Even separate, fang dragon has 8 out of 10 true dragon points, while dragonwrought kobold has 0 out of 10.

This list of true dragon traits can be used to figure out what is a true dragon and what isn't a true dragon. The incarnum dragon was overlooked by Races of the Dragon, the mistake of which is used to 'prove' that dragonwrought kobolds were not listed as true dragons by mistake. But if you look at the incarnum dragon statblock, they get 9 out of 10 true dragon points (with separate breath weapon and immunity). Incarnum dragons are true dragons by definition, and dragonwrought kobolds are dragon type kobolds, as the dragonwought feat clearly states.

[Elves]

Redking, I think your point-by-point misunderstands why people argue dw counts as true dragon. The argument is not that they are identical in every respect, but that they fulfill the stated criteria, whether or not there are other dissimilarities. The problem is we get multiple definitions of true dragon in different books, so it's about which definition you see as pre-eminent. You're right that if you consider Draconomicon primary source they probably aren't, but there is also a strong argument for later definitions superseding earlier ones, in which case they are. There's no clear answer to that question and every group has to choose which to use.

[redking]

You're right that if you consider Draconomicon primary source they probably aren't, but there is also a strong argument for later definitions superseding earlier ones, in which case they are. There's no clear answer to that question and every group has to choose which to use.

If I rely strictly on Races of the Dragon in which the dragonwrought feat appears, dragonwrought kobolds still aren't true dragons.

My point is that dragonwrought kobolds = true dragons involves cherry picking and ignoring the overwhelming evidence against it.

[Elves]

If I rely strictly on Races of the Dragon in which the dragonwrought feat appears, dragonwrought kobolds still aren't true dragons.

That's actually not true. ROTD doesn't offer any definition of true dragon the way Drc and Dragon Magic do.


ROTD alone puts Dragonwrought kobolds in the same position as half-dragons: they're dragons descended from true dragons. According to ROTD, half dragons are "versions of true dragons". So it's ambiguous, but by ROTD alone it's possible that both dw kobolds and half-dragons are true dragons.

By contrast, with the DrM definition, drw kobolds would be true dragons because they have 12 age categories but half-dragons would not because they don't (unless as someone pointed out earlier they were a half-dragon phaerimm).

[Remuko]

The rule of cool applies to a gaming group individually, but can hardly be the basis for an online discussion about the rules of the game.

yup that was my point. my comment you replied to, in context was no longer talking about "rules".


Cool? Maybe. But not enough cool to overlap how it is silly. This isn't result of logic or flaff, it is result of "pulling an owl on the globe".

Giving to commoner ability to shoot laser beams with 2d6 damage from eyes isn't broken, too, but this doesn't mean we should do it.

thats subjective. i dont think its silly at all unless you play it that way. i dont know what "flaff" means or what "pulling an owl on the globe" means.

giving a commoner the ability to shoot laser beams for 2d6 damage (a round? every d4 rounds?) isnt broken, I agree, but I disagree that that means we "shouldnt do it". Why not? If you think its fun in a given game since its not broken theres no good reason not to other than "i dont think this fits". Now not every commoner should have it, but any given one that you decide you want to? Sure if its not broken, why not?

[redking]

That's actually not true. ROTD doesn't offer any definition of true dragon the way Drc and Dragon Magic do.

RotD states exactly the benefits of the dragonwrought feat. It does not say that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons anywhere and there is no reason to think so.


ROTD alone puts Dragonwrought kobolds in the same position as half-dragons: they're dragons descended from true dragons. According to ROTD, half dragons are "versions of true dragons". So it's ambiguous, but by ROTD alone it's possible that both dw kobolds and half-dragons are true dragons.

That is a comprehension fail. Look at the text immediately preceding "versions". It refers to the various versions of half dragons according to their draconic ancestry, and then goes on list and detail them. It doesn't mean that they are versions of true dragons.


By contrast, with the DrM definition, drw kobolds would be true dragons because they have 12 age categories but half-dragons would not because they don't (unless as someone pointed out earlier they were a half-dragon phaerimm).

The kobold age categories are not the same as the dragon age categories. Dragon Magic is not referring to the same thing, but even if it was, dragonwrought kobolds have few if any of the traits of true dragons. Likewise, we know that Draconomicon is not referring to phaerimm age categories, even though they have age categories.

Have a lineup of all the true dragons and a dragonwrought kobold and have a child pick the lesser dragon out of the lineup. Nothing about dragonwrought kobolds says true dragon.

[loky1109]

Sure if its not broken, why not?
Because this is condition necessary but not sufficient.


Now not every commoner should have it, but any given one that you decide you want to?
Why not every? You tell about every DWK, don't you? So I tell about all commoners.




i dont know what "flaff" means or what "pulling an owl on the globe" means.
"Flaff" is fluff with mistake. Sorry.
"Pulling an owl on the globe" is Russian internet idiom. Its meaning is: "Manipulate the facts and the sources to justify their point."

[RandomPeasant]

The rule of cool applies to a gaming group individually, but can hardly be the basis for an online discussion about the rules of the game.

I would argue that "Rule of Cool" is a better way of reaching conclusions about the game than "what Linnean classification does this fall into based on my understanding of fluff text".


Page 4 of Draconomicon puts it into context. I put the emphasis in bold.

None of that context solves your problem. Your definition has a list of criteria. Fang Dragons do not meet one of those criteria. That means that either A) Fang Dragons are not True Dragons or B) meeting the criteria on that is not the only way to be a True Dragon. There is no third option.


Fang dragon: 8 out of 9 true dragon points.
Dragonwrought kobold: 0 out of 9 true dragon points.

Okay, how do we know you need 8 True Dragon Points to be a True Dragon and not 9? Where do the rules say that?

[Khatoblepas]

Oh ho, is this a challenge to get as many True Dragon points as we can? Let's do it!!

For this, let's create a very special kobold. A Multiheaded Amphibious Dragonborn White Dragonspawn Dragonwrought Aquatic Kobold. Multiheaded is there for the racial hit die, and we apply the templates in this order:
Multiheaded Amphibious Aquatic Kobold > Dragonborn > White Dragonspawn > Dragonwrought (via Embrace/Shun the Dark Chaos).
For Feats, we choose Awaken Frightful Presence and Awaken Spell Resistance.
We take the Rite of Draconic Passage + Greater.
For Dragonborn, we take the Mind aspect for those draconic senses as we have the breath weapon from Dragonspawn.

Does the creature have a breath weapon and energy immunity like “every true dragon”?
Fang dragon: No. Fang dragons have an ability drain bite instead.
Dragonwrought kobold: No.
Our Kobold: Yes. Our kobold has a breath weapon, and the cold subtype.

Does the creature have damage reduction, increasing through age categories?
Fang dragon: Yes.
Dragonwrought kobold: No.
Our Kobold: No.

Does the creature have frightful presence, increasing through age categories?
Fang dragon: Yes.
Dragonwrought kobold: No
Our kobold: Yes. Due to Cha increases, it does get more powerful.

Does the creature have special abilities and spell-like abilities, increasing through age categories?
Fang dragon: Yes.
Dragonwrought kobold: No
Our kobold: Yes. Due to Cha increases, it does get more powerful.

Does the creature gain magical power, increasing through age categories?
Fang dragon: Yes. It gains power similar to a sorcerer.
Dragonwrought kobold: No
Our kobold: Yes. Due to Cha increases, it does get more powerful.

Does the creature have spell resistance, increasing through age categories?
Fang dragon: Yes.
Dragonwrought kobold: No
Our kobold: Yes, but it doesn't get more powerful.

Does the creature have natural armor, increasing through age categories?
Fang dragon: Yes.
Dragonwrought kobold: No
Our kobold: Yes, but it doesn't get more powerful.

When a creature reaches a new age category, its “ability scores improve across the board” (Draconomicon page 142)?
Fang dragon: Yes.
Dragonwrought kobold: Yes. At Middle Aged and Venerable, it lines up with the kobold age catagories, giving us +1 to our mental scores. Not ALL stats need to increase, as almost no true dragons increase their Dexterity, and not all stats go up at the same rate in true dragons. +1 is enough.
Our kobold: Yes, same as above.

Is the creature referred to as a true dragon explicitly?
Fang dragon: Yes.
Dragonwrought kobold: No.
Our kobold: If we get enough other kobolds to call us a true dragon, yes.

Does the creature have a swim speed?
Fang dragon: No.
Dragonwrought kobold: No.
Our kobold: Yes.


Results out of 10 'true dragon points'.
Fang dragon: 8 out of 10 true dragon points.
Dragonwrought kobold: 1 out of 10 true dragon points.
Our kobold: 6 out of 10 true dragon points.

I'm sure there are ways to increase that, for instance if we can get a source of Spell Resistance that keys itself to our charisma. But ARE WE NOT A TRUE DRAGON?? How many more things do we need to do to qualify as a true dragon?

[Elves]

RotD states exactly the benefits of the dragonwrought feat. It does not say that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons anywhere
If something is a logical consequence of what it says, it doesn't have to say so for it to be true.

One past argument for dragonwroughts not being true dragons was that they don't appear on the table in ROTD, but since they're descendants of true dragons on that table, there would be no reason for them to appear as a separate entry. That means ROTD doesn't tell us anything one way or the other.

So we're left with 2 definitions: one from 2003 (Draconomicon) according to which they aren't dragons, and one from 2007 (DrM) according to which they are. Which one takes precedence is up in the air.

The yes interpretation isn't based on cherry picking. It's the direct conclusion of DrM.


The kobold age categories are not the same as the dragon age categories. Dragon Magic is not referring to the same thing, but even if it was, dragonwrought kobolds have few if any of the traits of true dragons. Likewise, we know that Draconomicon is not referring to phaerimm age categories, even though they have age categories.
It just says "age categories". You may think that doesn't make sense, but that's when we have a conversation about how it should be instead of trying to frame it as a RAW discussion. Again, if we are talking RAW, the only relevant question is whether DrM or Drac has authority here.

[hamishspence]

If you're using the full list of "true dragon traits" in Chapter One of Draconomicon, they might not qualify, and nor might half-dragon phaerimm.

But if you're restricting yourself to the stuff on page 4 of Draconomicon

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

and

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


treating them as far more important than "Has an elemental immunity" or "has a breath weapon"



then it becomes harder to justify excluding half-dragon phaerimm especially - since they don't fit with how lesser dragons are described.

[Darg]

Um, are we forgetting that kobold half dragons do exist? By loose application of the line in DM, they would be a true dragon just as DWK. Regardless of the status of the incarnum dragon (which is off topic and is used to obfuscate), the reality is that true dragons advance through age categories gaining HD and lesser dragons do not. The evidence overwhelmingly supports this.

In Draconomicon there are rules for advancement beyond great wyrm. DWK cannot ever benefit from this rule.

The line in DM about "12 age categories" is literally the only evidence for DWK being a true dragon and it is on extremely shaky ground as it references a red dragon. Later it even provides rules for creating new dragon pacts for "any kind of dragon." This literally opens the door for dragon turtle dragon pacts and takes even more out from under the DWK.


then it becomes harder to justify excluding half-dragon phaerimm especially - since they don't fit with how lesser dragons are described.

It's easy enough to say that they aren't dragon age categories, just like kobold age categories aren't dragon age categories. Not to mention, the insanity to mate with a phearimm *shudder*

[Elves]

The line in DM about "12 age categories" is literally the only evidence for DWK being a true dragon and it is on extremely shaky ground as it references a red dragon.
🤔 Red dragons aren't true dragons?

Yes, that quote is the central evidence...it's also a direct prescriptive statement of what it means to be a true dragon. Not something you can brush aside if you want to answer this question.

[RandomPeasant]

The evidence overwhelmingly supports this.

That's not really how it works. This question is not answered by tallying up the ways in which Dragonwrought Kobolds are like things we know are True Dragons and the ways in which they are unlike them and seeing which pile is bigger. It's answered by looking at the definition of True Dragon and seeing Dragonwrought Kobolds meet it. There could be a thousand properties all other True Dragons have that DWKs don't, but if those properties aren't part of the definition, they don't matter. It's like seeing someone say "lions, tigers, cheetahs, jaguars, and leopards are cats" and concluding that "large" is a fundamental component of being a cat and therefore housecats aren't cats.

[loky1109]

Does the creature have frightful presence, increasing through age categories?
Fang dragon: Yes.
Dragonwrought kobold: No
Our kobold: Yes. Due to Cha increases, it does get more powerful.

First. Cha doesn't increase with twelve "dragon" age categories.
Second. Talk is about direct increasing.


Does the creature have special abilities and spell-like abilities, increasing through age categories?
Fang dragon: Yes.
Dragonwrought kobold: No
Our kobold: Yes. Due to Cha increases, it does get more powerful.

Same.


When a creature reaches a new age category, its “ability scores improve across the board” (Draconomicon page 142)?
Fang dragon: Yes.
Dragonwrought kobold: Yes. At Middle Aged and Venerable, it lines up with the kobold age catagories, giving us +1 to our mental scores. Not ALL stats need to increase, as almost no true dragons increase their Dexterity, and not all stats go up at the same rate in true dragons. +1 is enough.
Our kobold: Yes, same as above.

No, kobold improve mental stats not with the twelve "dragon" age categories.


Is the creature referred to as a true dragon explicitly?
Fang dragon: Yes.
Dragonwrought kobold: No.
Our kobold: If we get enough other kobolds to call us a true dragon, yes.

Anyone can do same.


How many more things do we need to do to qualify as a true dragon?
Need to be a true dragon.

[Darg]

🤔 Red dragons aren't true dragons?

Yes, that quote is the central evidence...it's also a direct prescriptive statement of what it means to be a true dragon. Not something you can brush aside if you want to answer this question.

The point is that reds are true dragons. It's also misleading calling the parenthetical prescriptive when it doesn't directly state that it is the only qualifier.


That's not really how it works. This question is not answered by tallying up the ways in which Dragonwrought Kobolds are like things we know are True Dragons and the ways in which they are unlike them and seeing which pile is bigger. It's answered by looking at the definition of True Dragon and seeing Dragonwrought Kobolds meet it. There could be a thousand properties all other True Dragons have that DWKs don't, but if those properties aren't part of the definition, they don't matter. It's like seeing someone say "lions, tigers, cheetahs, jaguars, and leopards are cats" and concluding that "large" is a fundamental component of being a cat and therefore housecats aren't cats.

If we want to go by the rules, they are permissive. True dragons are stated as such. DWK isn't stated as such and is excluded from any such statement.

True Dragons are never actually defined. We are told which dragons are true. We are told what kind of characteristics they possess. We are also told when there are exceptions such as lung dragons not having immunities or a breath weapon.

When people think DWK is a true dragon it's because they fit the "12 age categories." The thing is, they fit "lesser dragons" much better.


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


Lesser Dragon PCs
Using another creature of the dragon type as a player char-
acter 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

Possessing age categories doesn't disqualify a creature from being a lesser dragon. The statement, "true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon)," does not inherently overwrite the quality of advancement through age categories either. The statement, "true donut (that is, a pastry in the shape of a ring, such as from Krispy Kreme)", doesn't change the fact that donuts are fried. You can bake the pastry, but then it isn't, by established definition, a donut.

[redking]

That's not really how it works. This question is not answered by tallying up the ways in which Dragonwrought Kobolds are like things we know are True Dragons and the ways in which they are unlike them and seeing which pile is bigger.


Why isn't that how it works? We have a general description of true dragons. The exceptions to the rule are explicitly stated as being true dragons, and still meet almost all the salient parts of the description of true dragons, while dragonwrought meet none of them.



It's answered by looking at the definition of True Dragon and seeing Dragonwrought Kobolds meet it. There could be a thousand properties all other True Dragons have that DWKs don't, but if those properties aren't part of the definition, they don't matter.

I can't think of any definition that dragonwrought kobolds meet above other lesser dragon. They have kobold age categories and are racially kobolds. None of the true dragons belong to any other race.

All you've got is out of context statements and trying to piece then together like Frankenstein's monster.


It's like seeing someone say "lions, tigers, cheetahs, jaguars, and leopards are cats" and concluding that "large" is a fundamental component of being a cat and therefore housecats aren't cats.

Funny you say that because they are classified as "big cats" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_cat) so it's kind of like the true dragon definition. Yes, they are cats, but a housecat is not a big cat in the same way that a dragonwrought kobold is not a true dragon.

[RandomPeasant]

When people think DWK is a true dragon it's because they fit the "12 age categories." The thing is, they fit "lesser dragons" much better.

Again, totally not how it works. If you fit the definition of a category, you are in the category. That's how categories work. If the definition of even is "divisible by two with no remainder", it doesn't matter how much better you think 537190 "fits" as an odd number, it's an even number.


Possessing age categories doesn't disqualify a creature from being a lesser dragon.

I mean, if we're going by "it sure seems similar to this other category" can you name any other Lesser Dragon with the twelve age categories? Because it sure looks to me like you're splitting hairs between "possess" and "advance through" in a way the text doesn't support (or at least, that you have not demonstrated it to support).


Why isn't that how it works?

Because the rules don't say that's how it works? The normal way definitions work is that if you meet the definition of a category, you're in that category. If you want to claim that the rules for being a True Dragon instead follow some kind of distance metric, you need to provide evidence that proves that proactively, not tell me to prove a negative.


All you've got is out of context statements and trying to piece then together like Frankenstein's monster.

"I" don't have anything. I don't actually care either way. I just think the arguments you and Darg are making in favor of your position are really bad. You started this off with demonstrably false claims like "DWKs aren't True Dragons because True Dragons have swim speeds in their statblocks" (fun fact: Red Dragons do not) and "DWKs can't be True Dragons because they don't have a breath weapon and corresponding energy immunity" (fun fact: Fang Dragons do not), and it hasn't really improved from there. If you want to talk about people Frankenstein-ing things together, I suggest you start with yourself.


Funny you say that because they are classified as "big cats" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_cat) so it's kind of like the true dragon definition. Yes, they are cats, but a housecat is not a big cat in the same way that a dragonwrought kobold is not a true dragon.

I agree that if you define the problem differently, you reach a different conclusion. I find this result less interesting than you seem to.

[Elves]

The statement, "true donut (that is, a pastry in the shape of a ring, such as from Krispy Kreme)", doesn't change the fact that donuts are fried. You can bake the pastry, but then it isn't, by established definition, a donut.
If you say "true donut (that is, a pastry in the shape of a ring)", yes any ring-shaped pastry would count. You're saying, "that's obviously not a donut". True, but by the definition given it technically is.

That's why I don't get what this thread is trying to do. It wants to be common sense but also wants to be RAW. In a game like 3.5 it's often one or the other.


]All you've got is out of context statements and trying to piece then together like Frankenstein's monster.
I don't know what you're seeing there man. The argument for it is based on a single, clear statement: "a true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories)". No puzzle pieces.

In Draconomicon, there is also one, and only one, definitional statement: "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".
In the trivial sense, kobolds do "advance through" age categories in the sense of passing through them. And they do become more powerful as they grow older, because they gain bonuses to their ability scores but no penalties. So there is a rules lawyer argument that this statement is not incompatible with them being true dragons. But the more likely reading, I agree, is that it means advancing HD as you reach new age categories, which would disqualify kobolds. So it comes down to which book you choose to trust. There is a strong argument that Drac should be considered primary source for everything about dragons, but there is also a strong argument that the most recent definition has precedence. What's inaccurate is to call the drw=true dragon argument illegitimate. It's a possible reading.


Edit: Looking into this it seems the statement about most recent printing comes from the official FAQ while the primary source rule is from the errata. The main game FAQ is the devs, it's not just some custserv ruling, so in my view it counts as an official source -- but between it and the errata, probably loses out. So I could see the Draconomicon primary source argument winning out. Maybe you could check if it has any statement that seems to assert itself as PS for dragons.

[redking]

I don't know what you're seeing there man. The argument for it is based on a single, clear statement: "a true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories)". No puzzle pieces.

"Don't be so paranoid, man. I'm not taking anything out of context".

Context: in creating a dragon pact, a creature "establishes mental contact with a true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon). Doesn't sound like they are talking about a creature with 'kobold age categories'. Sounds like they are talking about true dragons, like red dragons and other explicit true dragons, such as fang dragons.


In the trivial sense, kobolds do "advance through" age categories in the sense of passing through them. And they do become more powerful as they grow older, because they gain bonuses to their ability scores but no penalties.

A true dragon's “ability scores improve across the board” (Draconomicon page 142), including physical scores.

[Elves]

"Don't be so paranoid, man. I'm not taking anything out of context".

Context: in creating a dragon pact, a creature "establishes mental contact with a true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon). Doesn't sound like they are talking about a creature with 'kobold age categories'.
It says "age categories". Not dragon age categories or anything else.

Check the edit to my post above, I think this is a more relevant question.

[redking]

It says "age categories". Not dragon age categories or anything else.

When the topic of true dragons is under discussion, what age categories do you suppose that they are talking about?


Check the edit to my post above, I think this is a more relevant question.

When you read in context there is no need for any rules lawyering about authority of publications. There is no publication that says that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons.

[icefractal]

While the perspective of "should" is obviously non-universal, I can't really see any positive effects from them being true dragons. Like, Venerable DWK is actually balanced fine with other power-options like Necropolitan Gray/Star Elf, and flavor-wise I like Kobolds being well-suited as Sorcerers, but the true dragon stuff is strictly overkill.

The feat or draconic archetype to gain an extra Sorcerer level is ... ok, in the sense of two wrongs making a right. But it's a shoddy way to do it. Just give spontaneous casters the same spellcasting progression as prepared casters, done - and now people aren't forced into being one specific race for a Sorcerer.

[RandomPeasant]

A true dragon's “ability scores improve across the board” (Draconomicon page 142), including physical scores.

Okay, so now White Dragons aren't True Dragons? Because a White Dragon's Dexterity doesn't improve as it gains age categories. Clearly "across the board" doesn't mean "every single one", so where does it say that physical ability scores have to improve as well?


When the topic of true dragons is under discussion, what age categories do you suppose that they are talking about?

"Wyrmling", "Very Young", and so on, which DWKs do have. You're the one who needs to show an affirmative distinction between the age categories with those names that Fang Dragons and Green Dragons and Rust Dragons have and the age categories with those names that DWKs have.


There is no publication that says that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons.

There's no publication that explicit says... I think it was Incarnum Dragons (christ, there are too many types of Dragon) are True Dragons either. "True Dragon" is a category with membership requirements, not a defined list.


The feat or draconic archetype to gain an extra Sorcerer level is ... ok, in the sense of two wrongs making a right. But it's a shoddy way to do it. Just give spontaneous casters the same spellcasting progression as prepared casters, done - and now people aren't forced into being one specific race for a Sorcerer.

Yeah. And/or give the Sorcerer enough spells known that their shtick of "more versatile during the adventuring day" means anything. The idea of tactical flexibility trading off with strategic flexibility is a lot less compelling when that tactical flexibility is "you can cast whatever collection of three 4th level spells you want as long as all of them are orb of fire".

[Remuko]

Because this is condition necessary but not sufficient.


Why not every? You tell about every DWK, don't you? So I tell about all commoners.




"Flaff" is fluff with mistake. Sorry.
"Pulling an owl on the globe" is Russian internet idiom. Its meaning is: "Manipulate the facts and the sources to justify their point."

this is a game. the fun IS the point.

Every DWK is about as common as "very rare commoners" most kobolds arent Dragonwrought. Again my comments have nothing to do with rules, if its fun and doesn't imbalance the game I saw why not?

Ah fluff typo, that makes sense

ah yeah im not familiar with russian idioms. that said im not manipulating facts because everything I've been talking about is subjective. the debate has been done to death so im not gonna argue the RAW on it, just whether I, in my games think its level of cool/fun makes it worth allowing in a game, and to me, that answer is unequivocally yes.


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


To me this has always been the most damning point, imo. There are only two categories to fall into. True Dragon and Lesser Dragon. Lesser Dragons do not advance thru age categories. DWKs are Dragons that DO do this, as they age, this explicitly mean they are not Lesser Dragons. Which only leaves one option.

[Elves]

When the topic of true dragons is under discussion, what age categories do you suppose that they are talking about?
When the topic of toast is under discussion, what grain do you suppose they're talking about?
Could be wheat, could be rye. It's toast.


When you read in context there is no need for any rules lawyering about authority of publications. There is no publication that says that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons.
From a RAW standpoint that's my take on it. If trying to get to a solution using the rules is what you consider rules lawyering I'm not sure what your goal here is.

[LunaticChaos]

this is a game. the fun IS the point.

Every DWK is about as common as "very rare commoners" most kobolds arent Dragonwrought. Again my comments have nothing to do with rules, if its fun and doesn't imbalance the game I saw why not?

Definitely my take on it. Its just a DM ruling issue. Its admittedly an obscure rules line, but the logic is consistent with all True Dragons. Unlike the Draconomicon as has been pointed out.
I'll rule for and against it based on the setting. Sometimes it makes for a better game if they are True Dragons. Sometimes it doesn't.



From a RAW standpoint that's my take on it. If trying to get to a solution using the rules is what you consider rules lawyering I'm not sure what your goal here is.

You know, all things considered, I'm curious what both sides of this debate feel about the Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness on the definition of Good and Evil. Given they do give a RAW answer to what both are.

[RandomPeasant]

You know, all things considered, I'm curious what both sides of this debate feel about the Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness on the definition of Good and Evil. Given they do give a RAW answer to what both are.

I have never seen a published D&D product for any edition that defined alignment in terms that made it less dumb than not using alignment. I do not expect this to change.

[Darg]

Edit: Looking into this it seems the statement about most recent printing comes from the official FAQ while the primary source rule is from the errata. The main game FAQ is the devs, it's not just some custserv ruling, so in my view it counts as an official source -- but between it and the errata, probably loses out. So I could see the Draconomicon primary source argument winning out. Maybe you could check if it has any statement that seems to assert itself as PS for dragons.

The problem with using the most recent printing rule in this case is that it isn't a declaration that invalidates anything or further clarifies anything that hasn't already been written. What is the reasoning behind believing it does? It's an off-hand remark making a reference to a quality that true dragons share, not that it's the only thing that makes them true dragons.


I mean, if we're going by "it sure seems similar to this other category" can you name any other Lesser Dragon with the twelve age categories? Because it sure looks to me like you're splitting hairs between "possess" and "advance through" in a way the text doesn't support (or at least, that you have not demonstrated it to support).

Half-dragon kobolds, which by the way are explicitly lesser dragons even though they fullfill every criteria a DWK does in exactly the same way. I'm not splitting hairs. The book explicitly says that true dragons advance (a defined term by the way)/progress through age categories.


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


ADVANCED DRAGONS
The advancement rules in the Monster Manual allow dragons theoretically infinite progression even beyond the statistics of great wyrm. This book lets dragons improve more than their Hit Dice as they progress to unparalleled heights of power.


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.

If DWK is a true dragon, they possess a +2 LA when born to +6 at juvenile. Must be nice having an ECL of 7 at level 1.

[redking]

Let's address one of the funniest red herrings in this debate and assign true dragon points (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25150391&postcount=52) to the mist dragon (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mm/20031226a).

Does the creature have a breath weapon and energy immunity like “every true dragon”?
No. Mist dragons have a breath weapon but not an associated energy immunity.

Does the creature have damage reduction, increasing through age categories?
Yes.

Does the creature have frightful presence, increasing through age categories?
Yes.

Does the creature have special abilities and spell-like abilities, increasing through age categories?
Yes.

Does the creature gain magical power, increasing through age categories?
Yes.

Does the creature have spell resistance, increasing through age categories?
Yes.

Does the creature have natural armor, increasing through age categories?
Yes.

When a creature reaches a new age category, its “ability scores improve across the board” (Draconomicon page 142)?
Yes.

Is the creature referred to as a true dragon explicitly?
No.

Results out of 9 'true dragon points'.
The mist dragon has 7 out of 9 true dragon points. The mist dragon is assuredly a true dragon.

The method for determining the status of unmentioned true dragons from Draconomicon is quite elegant when you allow the system to work. True dragons have much in common with each other. Dragonwrought kobolds have almost nothing in common with true dragons.


Half-dragon kobolds, which by the way are explicitly lesser dragons even though they fullfill every criteria a DWK does in exactly the same way. I'm not splitting hairs. The book explicitly says that true dragons advance (a defined term by the way)/progress through age categories.

That's right. It's also worth noting that there is no true dragon ever published that has a race other than dragon. Dragonwrought kobolds are dragon type kobold race. That makes dragonwrought kobolds dissimilar from every true dragon. If someone desperately wants dragonwrought kobolds to be true dragons they have better have more than a fist full of straws as evidence.


If DWK is a true dragon, they possess a +2 LA when born to +6 at juvenile. Must be nice having an ECL of 7 at level 1.

Quiet now. That is the RAW that dragonwrought kobold playing social climbers are trying to ignore.

[Khatoblepas]

If DWK is a true dragon, they possess a +2 LA when born to +6 at juvenile. Must be nice having an ECL of 7 at level 1.

That means the Tome Dragon Wyrmling is only ECL5 instead of ECL8! Fantastic! Time to know every conjuration and divination spell and give him the Loredrake archetype! Full casting here we come! What a chassis!

Thanks to your tireless efforts we don't need the kobolds anymore, you've just cracked the code.

[loky1109]

this is a game. the fun IS the point.

Every DWK is about as common as "very rare commoners" most kobolds arent Dragonwrought. Again my comments have nothing to do with rules, if its fun and doesn't imbalance the game I saw why not?

I have no problems with fun. I have problems with contending that "DWK is TD" is RAW.



ah yeah im not familiar with russian idioms. that said im not manipulating facts because everything I've been talking about is subjective. the debate has been done to death so im not gonna argue the RAW on it, just whether I, in my games think its level of cool/fun makes it worth allowing in a game, and to me, that answer is unequivocally yes.
I told not about you, I told about starting point. The idea that DWK is TD is RAW bases on manipulating facts.

[RandomPeasant]

If DWK is a true dragon, they possess a +2 LA when born to +6 at juvenile. Must be nice having an ECL of 7 at level 1.

Okay, so the Black Dragon, which has a LA of +3 as a Wyrmling and a LA of +4 as a Juvenile isn't a True Dragon?


The mist dragon has 7 out of 9 true dragon points. The mist dragon is assuredly a true dragon.

You're still missing a step. How do we know that it's 7 True Dragon Points that means "assuredly a True Dragon" and not 8 or 9? You can fill out the scorecard for as many True Dragons as you want, but it doesn't mean anything until you tell us what a winning score is.


True dragons have much in common with each other.

Again, where does it say the definition is a distance metric?

[redking]

You're still missing a step. How do we know that it's 7 True Dragon Points that means "assuredly a True Dragon" and not 8 or 9? You can fill out the scorecard for as many True Dragons as you want, but it doesn't mean anything until you tell us what a winning score is.

Some number greater than zero is an indicator of something. Dragonwrought kobold is a big fat zero.


Again, where does it say the definition is a distance metric?

Draconomicon is replete with examples of the things that true dragons have in common with each other. There are certain exceptions, like fang dragons lacking a breath weapon, but Draconomicon explicitly declares fang dragons to be true dragons. Fang dragons have much in common with the rest of the true dragons, 8 out of 9 points of commonality. Since we are talking about a category of creature with specific traits, it stands to reason that true dragons must have much in common with each other.

[RandomPeasant]

Some number greater than zero is an indicator of something. Dragonwrought kobold is a big fat zero.

It seems pretty clear to me from the examples other people give in this thread that this is not the case. Even your opening post was only able to give them a zero by making unsupported assumptions about their anatomy (and, yes, the other assumptions are equally unsupported, but maybe that means it's a bad metric).


Since we are talking about a category of creature with specific traits, it stands to reason that true dragons must have much in common with each other.

"It stands to reason" is not a rules argument. A rules argument is "the rules on page X of book Y say Z". So how do I fill out those values to find the place that says that True Dragon-ness is determined in the way you are trying to determine it?

[redking]

A rules argument is "the rules on page X of book Y say Z". So how do I fill out those values to find the place that says that True Dragon-ness is determined in the way you are trying to determine it?

Its 100% clear if you read Draconomicon wherein true dragons are given a description. Its clearly written and understandable context unless you want to play a kobold with delusions of grandeur.

[Khatoblepas]

Some number greater than zero is an indicator of something. Dragonwrought kobold is a big fat zero.

So what about the kobold I posted, which has a nonzero amount of true dragon traits?

[redking]

So what about the kobold I posted, which has a nonzero amount of true dragon traits?

2 out of 9. You are heavily relying on charisma increases in your TO kobold, and the dragonwrought kobold does not get those increases advancing through age categories nor is it across the board. If you pay attention carefully to the true dragon statblocks, their dexterity does increase whenever they increase a size category. If their dexterity did not increase, their dexterity would go down. See dexterity loss for increasing size.

[Darg]

That means the Tome Dragon Wyrmling is only ECL5 instead of ECL8! Fantastic! Time to know every conjuration and divination spell and give him the Loredrake archetype! Full casting here we come! What a chassis!

Thanks to your tireless efforts we don't need the kobolds anymore, you've just cracked the code.

Tome dragons are from dragon magazine and have no place in this discussion.


Okay, so the Black Dragon, which has a LA of +3 as a Wyrmling and a LA of +4 as a Juvenile isn't a True Dragon?

You obviously weren't paying attention when reading the quote. The fact that the black dragon has an LA that varies with age category is proof that it is a true dragon.

[redking]

You obviously weren't paying attention when reading the quote. The fact that the black dragon has an LA that varies with age category is proof that it is a true dragon.

Yes. And this from another thread.


This is the table we're talking about:


http://i.imgur.com/zsyftub.png

Note that some levels are pure LA boost, no HD at all:


http://i.imgur.com/EEX0whz.png


Although it says "aging for dragon PCs", it means true dragon PCs (because of the context). Weird how no one says that these rules should apply to their 'true dragon' dragonwrought kobolds.

[Khatoblepas]

2 out of 9. You are heavily relying on charisma increases in your TO kobold, and the dragonwrought kobold does not get those increases advancing through age categories nor is it across the board. If you pay attention carefully to the true dragon statblocks, their dexterity does increase whenever they increase a size category. If their dexterity did not increase, their dexterity would go down. See dexterity loss for increasing size.

Huh, didn't you just say


Some number greater than zero is an indicator of something.

So what's the cutoff for being a true dragon? I'm sure I can come up with something to raise those points.

[RandomPeasant]

Its 100% clear if you read Draconomicon wherein true dragons are given a description. Its clearly written and understandable context unless you want to play a kobold with delusions of grandeur.

It seems to me that if it was, in fact, "100% clear", this debate would not have outlasted the game that spawned it for 10 years. Like, maybe every single person who has ever disagreed with you on this has bee illiterate of a liar, but it sort of seems more likely to me that things are not as obvious as you're making them out to be and you should provide specific sources that agree with your specific claims.


2 out of 9.

This still doesn't mean anything. Maybe the threshold is 1 True Dragon Point. Until you can tell us what the threshold is, your argument that we can use it to determine what things are or aren't True Dragons doesn't hold water.


You obviously weren't paying attention when reading the quote. The fact that the black dragon has an LA that varies with age category is proof that it is a true dragon.

I mean, here's the thing you actually said:


If DWK is a true dragon, they possess a +2 LA when born to +6 at juvenile.

So if that's not what you meant, maybe you could post a clarification instead of accusing me of not understanding you when I respond directly to the exact words you say.

[Darg]

I mean, here's the thing you actually said:



So if that's not what you meant, maybe you could post a clarification instead of accusing me of not understanding you when I respond directly to the exact words you say.

And here is what you said:


Okay, so the Black Dragon, which has a LA of +3 as a Wyrmling and a LA of +4 as a Juvenile isn't a True Dragon?

I said something with the context of the quote from Draconomicon. You said something that ignored that context of the quote simply to disagree with me in a nonconstructive manner. We already know that a black dragon is a true dragon. It has a LA that varies between +2 and +6 depending on its variety and age. In this case it's +3 and +5.

We also know that DWK does not have a LA. If it were a true dragon, it must have one to be played by a player. Whether it goes from +2 to +3 or +5 to +6 or +2 to +6, it must have a changing LA.

You can think this argument is "really bad," but rules are rules. If you want to say that it doesn't apply, then you are saying that one off-hand parenthetical throws out everything about true dragons in two books because they can no longer be true. There is no stated exception, therefor it must be.

[RandomPeasant]

I said something with the context of the quote from Draconomicon.

Well, the question is what that text means. It's the same text for everyone, we're just arguing about interpretation. And the interpretation you presented was not "it varies in this range". It was "If DWK is a true dragon, they possess a +2 LA when born". Not "at least +2", just "+2". If you would like to revise your claim, that's fine, and I can acknowledge that the revised position does not exclude Black Dragons. But don't accuse me of arguing in bad faith when I assumed that you meant the thing you said and not something else.


We also know that DWK does not have a LA.

DWK does, in fact, have a LA. It's +0.


If you want to say that it doesn't apply, then you are saying that one off-hand parenthetical throws out everything about true dragons in two books because they can no longer be true. There is no stated exception, therefor it must be.

Or, maybe the text that describes the level adjustments that True Dragons have is descriptive and not proscriptive. That way, we don't have to throw out the Tome Dragon (or whatever other obscure True Dragon someone wants to dig up with a LA of +1 or +8) for baseless reasons.

[Darg]

Well, the question is what that text means. It's the same text for everyone, we're just arguing about interpretation. And the interpretation you presented was not "it varies in this range". It was "If DWK is a true dragon, they possess a +2 LA when born". Not "at least +2", just "+2". If you would like to revise your claim, that's fine, and I can acknowledge that the revised position does not exclude Black Dragons. But don't accuse me of arguing in bad faith when I assumed that you meant the thing you said and not something else.

Except what I said is not what you say I said. DWK doesn't have a LA that varies between +2 and +6. So I made one.


DWK does, in fact, have a LA. It's +0.

That's a little... You do realize that 0 is equivalent to nothing right? What you said is equivalent to saying that my saying there are no chickens is wrong as there are 0 chickens. It sounds facetious.


Or, maybe the text that describes the level adjustments that True Dragons have is descriptive and not proscriptive. That way, we don't have to throw out the Tome Dragon (or whatever other obscure True Dragon someone wants to dig up with a LA of +1 or +8) for baseless reasons.

The exact same thing could be said of the parenthetical in dragon magic which would invalidate any claim for DWK to be a true dragon.

I could create a nuclear dragon with LA +1 to +100. It doesnt invalidate the rule, I just need to declare it an exception. Dragon magazine content is pretty notorious for not always following the established rules and creating their own. The only official dragon not mentioned in RotD is the incarnum dragon. Unofficial dragons can do what ever they want. It's equivalent to a houserule to add them anyway.

[RandomPeasant]

Except what I said is not what you say I said. DWK doesn't have a LA that varies between +2 and +6. So I made one.

It may not be what you meant, but it is in fact what you said. When I quote you as saying "If DWK is a true dragon, they possess a +2 LA when born", I'm not summarizing your post, those are the exact words that you posted. And the implication of those words are that things that do not possess a LA of +2 when born are not True Dragons. Again, you are welcome to walk that back and adopt a different position, but blaming me for assuming that you mean the things you say is entirely unfair.


That's a little... You do realize that 0 is equivalent to nothing right?

No, it isn't. Not having a LA (LA: -) means you can't be played as a PC. Having an LA of 0 is a different thing, in the same way that a null pointer and a pointer to an integer with the value 0 are different things in a C program.


It's equivalent to a houserule to add them anyway.

To my knowledge, Dragon Magazine content was considered official content at the time it was released. You may consider it disreputable (and I would not necessarily disagree), but it was categorically different from houserules. This really seems like you trying anything you can to be allowed to ignore examples that cause problems for your argument.

[Lorddenorstrus]

Tome dragons are from dragon magazine and have no place in this discussion.

This is called dismissing evidence because it doesn't fit your narrative. Congratulations on your confirmation bias. I see now that if I close my eyes and don't look at certain things the narrative magically fits this world where reading comprehension is no longer necessary to reach a conclusion.

Why do you people feel it's necessary to argue something as not RAW. Just ban it at your table. Just because something works that you don't like doesn't mean anything.

Also Op your 0/9 point scale is meaningless and has no value. It's an arbitrary creation you've made with no relation to the rules as the RAW doesn't have a scale and doesn't state "how dragony" one has to be to be a true dragon. Sure 4,6,8 and 10 are pretty and divide by 2 nicely as even numbers. You can't say 10,000 is an ugly number and isn't an even number just because you want to. That's what you're effectively arguing.

To further this you state "By raw DRKs aren't True Dragons." Then plop a NON raw argument in front of everyone. Peasant btw has made a well structured counter argument that apparently wasn't read.

[LunaticChaos]

Also Op your 0/9 point scale is meaningless and has no value. It's an arbitrary creation you've made with no relation to the rules as the RAW doesn't have a scale and doesn't state "how dragony" one has to be to be a true dragon. Sure 4,6,8 and 10 are pretty and divide by 2 nicely as even numbers. You can't say 10,000 is an ugly number and isn't an even number just because you want to. That's what you're effectively arguing.

To add to this point, the Force and Prismatic Dragons also don't pass all the those tests. And the tests they do pass they completely crush the scale on it.

They also fail the LA +2 through +6 test that has been brought up. As neither has LA at all as they are utterly inappropriate as player characters. And even if they did, I doubt it'd be +6 or lower.

Plus they fail the age category test that has been derived from the Draconomicon, as they age SLOWER than that. Meaning not all True Dragons age at the same rate through the age categories.

Unless of course one wants to try and argue that the two are not True Dragons even when Races of the Dragon does explicitly state they are.

So I'd say those two are pretty good proof not all True Dragons are created equal.


But as has been said. If it was so cut and dry, this debate would not have continued to exist over a decade, a 3rd party spinoff and second edition of said spinoff, and two 1st party editions after the game ceased 1st party production.
So..

Just ban it at your table.
Your attitude is the correct one. Its a DM call thing.

[Khatoblepas]

2 out of 9. You are heavily relying on charisma increases in your TO kobold, and the dragonwrought kobold does not get those increases advancing through age categories nor is it across the board. If you pay attention carefully to the true dragon statblocks, their dexterity does increase whenever they increase a size category. If their dexterity did not increase, their dexterity would go down. See dexterity loss for increasing size.

Something was bothering me about this one, so I checked out White Dragons. Going from Very Young to Young their stats change like so:
Str +2, Dex +0, Con +2, Int +0, Wis +0, Cha +0.
But they also gain a size catagory, which means, according to your ruling that they lose dexterity due to size and regain it (Going from Small to Medium gives you +4 Str, -2 Dex, +2 Con), their stat changes are this:
Str -2, Dex +2, Con +0, Int +0, Wis +0, Cha +0.
Which means their Str stat goes down with age, and all the stats certainly don't raise across the board. Which means, according to you, White Dragons aren't True Dragons.

I don't think these rules are prescriptive at all!

[Darg]

It may not be what you meant, but it is in fact what you said. When I quote you as saying "If DWK is a true dragon, they possess a +2 LA when born", I'm not summarizing your post, those are the exact words that you posted. And the implication of those words are that things that do not possess a LA of +2 when born are not True Dragons. Again, you are welcome to walk that back and adopt a different position, but blaming me for assuming that you mean the things you say is entirely unfair.

Again, you ignore the context in which my words were said. What's unfair is your assumption that I'm taking a different position from where I started which is wholly untrue. If the context is that true dragons have a LA of +2 to +6 that varies between age and variety, then the outcome of a true dragon DWK must be that it has a variable LA between +2 and +6 depending and age. You aren't constructively arguing the topic when all you are doing is nitpicking my choice of words.


No, it isn't. Not having a LA (LA: -) means you can't be played as a PC. Having an LA of 0 is a different thing, in the same way that a null pointer and a pointer to an integer with the value 0 are different things in a C program.

You are being petty over a turn of phrase.


To my knowledge, Dragon Magazine content was considered official content at the time it was released. You may consider it disreputable (and I would not necessarily disagree), but it was categorically different from houserules. This really seems like you trying anything you can to be allowed to ignore examples that cause problems for your argument.

Even still, There are plenty of dragons released in dragon well before races of the dragon and draconomicon that were not included in the rule books despite the books saying they possess all the dragons of D&D products to date. Examples are the adamantine dragon and brainstealer. Brainstealer and incarnum are forgivable considering they were released only a few months prior to RotD, but adamantine, arboreal, axial, etc were all released over a year prior. It's probably because Paizo obtained the license to publish the magazine, and it's likely there were copyright issues that WotC didn't want to deal with (such as sharing profits). It also helps clarify that the dragons published in Races of the Dragon were from rulebooks only: Dr: Draconomicon, Mon: Monsters of Faerûn, ELH: Epic Level Handbook, OA: Oriental Adventures, MM: Monster Manual, Sa: Sandstorm, and MM2: Monster Manual II (as shown for the table on pg 103).


This is called dismissing evidence because it doesn't fit your narrative. Congratulations on your confirmation bias. I see now that if I close my eyes and don't look at certain things the narrative magically fits this world where reading comprehension is no longer necessary to reach a conclusion.

Why do you people feel it's necessary to argue something as not RAW. Just ban it at your table. Just because something works that you don't like doesn't mean anything.

I'm not dismissing evidence because it doesn't fit my narrative. It doesn't fit the narrative of the books. RotD says that it has all the true dragons of D&D products to date which are specifically from the rulebooks.

Before abasing others for an action, maybe not do the exact thing you are abasing...

[redking]

To add to this point, the Force and Prismatic Dragons also don't pass all the those tests. And the tests they do pass they completely crush the scale on it.

Ridiculous. Prismatic Dragon is 8/9 on my test, failing only the energy immunity, which is the case for a number of verified true dragons, and Force Dragon is 9/9 on the test.


They also fail the LA +2 through +6 test that has been brought up. As neither has LA at all as they are utterly inappropriate as player characters. And even if they did, I doubt it'd be +6 or lower.

True dragons PCs have variable LA that changes as they progress through age categories, per Draconomicon. Dragonwrought Kobold has a fixed level adjustment that doesn't change as they age.


Plus they fail the age category test that has been derived from the Draconomicon, as they age SLOWER than that. Meaning not all True Dragons age at the same rate through the age categories.

Yes. What are these age categories called? "Epic Dragon Age Categories". Dragonwrought kobolds have "Kobold Age Categories". Dragonwrought kobolds are racial kobolds. Name a true dragon that belongs to a race other than dragon.


Unless of course one wants to try and argue that the two are not True Dragons even when Races of the Dragon does explicitly state they are.

No dispute. They also pass the description of true dragons and the test that I created. There is no doubt.


So I'd say those two are pretty good proof not all True Dragons are created equal.

Yes and its nothing to do with kobolds.


But as has been said. If it was so cut and dry, this debate would not have continued to exist over a decade, a 3rd party spinoff and second edition of said spinoff, and two 1st party editions after the game ceased 1st party production.

It is cut and dry in practice. Dragonwrought kobolds that are 'true dragons' simply do not see any action in real play. {scrubbed}.


Something was bothering me about this one, so I checked out White Dragons. Going from Very Young to Young their stats change like so:
Str +2, Dex +0, Con +2, Int +0, Wis +0, Cha +0.
But they also gain a size catagory, which means, according to your ruling that they lose dexterity due to size and regain it (Going from Small to Medium gives you +4 Str, -2 Dex, +2 Con), their stat changes are this:
Str -2, Dex +2, Con +0, Int +0, Wis +0, Cha +0.
Which means their Str stat goes down with age, and all the stats certainly don't raise across the board. Which means, according to you, White Dragons aren't True Dragons.

A better argument would be to harp on the INT, WIS and CHA of White Dragons that do not change at all within the first three age categories. They do eventually pick up, however. Other True Dragons more accurately reflect an across the board increase in ability scores, barring DEX, which is net zero increase.


I don't think these rules are prescriptive at all!

See Advancement and Aging header on page 142 of Draconomicon and keep reading until you have read that and all of page 143. It is totally prescriptive. If you are a 'true dragon red dragonwrought kobold', for example, it sets your level adjustment based on your age category. If you want to be a True Dragon, take the bad with the good.

[LunaticChaos]

Ridiculous. Prismatic Dragon is 8/9 on my test, failing only the energy immunity, which is the case for a number of verified true dragons, and Force Dragon is 9/9 on the test.

Neither have Swim Speeds. Which drops both down one as well. You stated True Dragons have one. Prismatic and Force Dragons do not. In fact many True Dragons in Draconomicon and the MM do not, nor do many even have a 3rd form of movement at all. And if you want to argue that they can swim because they can have swim skill ranks, so can Kobolds.

Neither passes the elemental test, as the Draconomicon specifies its an Energy Type and even lists what counts. Force is not a type of Energy, it is untyped. This criteria disqualifies a lot of True Dragons, including most definitively the Fang Dragon as has been pointed out. But Rust Dragons also fail this test as they have no immunity as well, only a resistance. Styx Dragons don't pass as its not elemental in nature, their breath being acid and an int draining breath, but their immunity being poison and disease. This means its a bad criteria as it is not universal and has many exceptions.


True dragons PCs have variable LA that changes as they progress through age categories, per Draconomicon. Dragonwrought Kobold has a fixed level adjustment that doesn't change as they age.

And that variable has been stated to be +2 to +6 by your side of the argument. This does not apply to Either as they are simple "-", this does not change as they age.


Yes. What are these age categories called? "Epic Dragon Age Categories". Dragonwrought kobolds have "Kobold Age Categories". Dragonwrought kobolds are racial kobolds. Name a true dragon that belongs to a race other than dragon.

Define Race. As I'd say Undead Dragons would qualify given they aren't even dragons anymore by type.



It is cut and dry in practice. Dragonwrought kobolds that are 'true dragons' simply do not see any action in real play. {scrub the post, scrub the quote}.

How about you cut back the self-important condescension if you want to continue the discussion?
Or shall we just let this topic drop as should have happened already as no one's going to change their opinion on the matter.

[Darg]

To add to this point, the Force and Prismatic Dragons also don't pass all the those tests. And the tests they do pass they completely crush the scale on it.

They also fail the LA +2 through +6 test that has been brought up. As neither has LA at all as they are utterly inappropriate as player characters. And even if they did, I doubt it'd be +6 or lower.

Force and prismatic dragons are not supposed to be played by players. DWK is. It's simply a difference in category. You could say that they aren't true dragons because they aren't supported as player characters, but that isn't what was written in the book.

[Lorddenorstrus]

How about you cut back the self-important condescension if you want to continue the discussion?
Or shall we just let this topic drop as should have happened already as no one's going to change their opinion on the matter.

That was my point when this thread was made. It serves no purpose.

A some people allow it ingames. I do and don't care, it isn't the worst thing in the world. It will not change the balance of my gamestate the majority of my players op-fu is so much worse than mine a trick or 2 they grab from here won't massively let them change things.

B you don't allow it in your game. COOL that's the entire point of tables deciding allowed content and play levels. That's your decision which I support.

C Here we have internet arguing over "raw" legality and attacking people. It's been proven by RAW it works, so now OP is making up charts to try ... nothing really? You can't make a chart to decide the "Raw" legality. That isn't how RAW works. That's RAI inherently by using your own interpretation. Which great this is a table to table RAI kind of topic. But, if you're gonna talk RAW. Actually bother to put some effort in to making sure the argument is centered ON RAW. It's very frustrating to see people think they have some magical point and it's like watching a kid run in circles waving his arms. It's amusing but you know it's utterly pointless.

[LunaticChaos]

Force and prismatic dragons are not supposed to be played by players. DWK is. It's simply a difference in category. You could say that they aren't true dragons because they aren't supported as player characters, but that isn't what was written in the book.

Or that LA is not a good indicator of True Dragon status.
Just an indicator that its suitable to be played by a player under the circumstance that they are counted as a certain number of levels higher than their HD indicates.

Draconomicon is an early book, early books are riddled with errors. Not all of which were fixed. Even in its own confines there are numerous exceptions and flaws in its own definition of what a True Dragon is. It shouldn't be taken as a bible.



C Here we have internet arguing over "raw" legality and attacking people. It's been proven by RAW it works, so now OP is making up charts to try ... nothing really? You can't make a chart to decide the "Raw" legality. That isn't how RAW works. That's RAI inherently by using your own interpretation. Which great this is a table to table RAI kind of topic. But, if you're gonna talk RAW. Actually bother to put some effort in to making sure the argument is centered ON RAW. It's very frustrating to see people think they have some magical point and it's like watching a kid run in circles waving his arms. It's amusing but you know it's utterly pointless.

Hilarious part of this? It feels I keep getting singled out in this thread by the against side. When I've stated that I'm firmly in the middle and even lean towards it being a no as well. I've just been arguing for because I do believe the for side has a legitimate argument and I want to point out the flawed arguments or arguments that have additional points.

I enjoy chiming in when a debate has something interesting to say. I pick my topics based on how interesting the topic is.

[hamishspence]

Lung dragons from Oriental Adventures, bend the "12 age categories" rule, due to metamorphosis.


A Yu lung does not have 12 age categories, it has 3. Then it metamorphoses.
A Lung wang does not have 12 age categories, it has 9.


Should it be possible to do a Dragon Pact with either a Yu lung, or a Lung wang? Don't they prove that a true dragon does not need 12 age categories, to be "true"?

How about with a half-dragon phaerimm, with its 8 age categories?

My opinion is that Dragon Magic's "12 age categories" bit is not proscriptive - yes, a dragon with 12 age categories is a true dragon, but that doesn't mean that a dragon with less than 12 age categories is, automatically, not.




5. Every true dragon, no matter how large or small, has exactly 13 cervical vertebrae, 12 thoracic vertebrae, 7 lumbar vertebrae, and 36 caudal vertebrae. (Draconomicon page 8).

Unknown if kobolds have these bones in these numbers, but it isn’t stated anywhere that they do.

IMO Lung dragons may be bending these too:

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/8/8c/Lung_dragons2.jpg

The Li lung (sphinx-shaped one) is so cat-shaped, and the lung wang (turtle-shaped one) so turtle-shaped, that I could believe that they're supposed to have the normal number of cervical (neck) vertebrae for such-creatures (7 for a cat, albeit one with a human head, and wings, 8 for a turtle).


It's possible that they have the normal number, but massively compressed, but it seems to me like it this was not what the artist was going for.

[redking]

Lung dragons from Oriental Adventures, bend the "12 age categories" rule, due to metamorphosis.


A Yu lung does not have 12 age categories, it has 3. Then it metamorphoses.
A Lung wang does not have 12 age categories, it has 9.


Should it be possible to do a Dragon Pact with either a Yu lung, or a Lung wang? Don't they prove that a true dragon does not need 12 age categories, to be "true"

Yu Lung dragons benefit from an in depth explanation in Draconomicon and are explicitly named as true dragons. Fang Dragon is also explicitly named as a true dragon. The true dragons that deviated from the chromatic and metallic dragon norms are nonetheless true dragons according to the same publication. Dragonwrought kobold does not receive the same treatment, even in the publication in which it was introduced.

Dragonwrought kobolds deviate wildly from the true dragons that we know are true dragons. All the true dragons are very similar to each other, including the outliers like fang dragons and Yu Lung. If you use the details about true dragons in Draconomicon sensibly, it's very easy to figure out what dragon type creature is a true dragon. By applying my 9 points from the true dragon test (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25150391&postcount=52) you can weed out creatures like drakes, which on the surface can easily be mistaken for true dragons.

Test it out on verified lesser dragons and verified dragons and you'll see that it predicts lesser and true dragons with 100% accuracy. Then test it on the widely acknowledged to be true dragons, like incarnum dragon and mist dragon and you'll see it comes out with the correct result in that case too.

[hamishspence]

When I test it on the half-dragon phaerimm, many of the points come up positive.

A half-dragon phaerimm has growing magical power (sorcerer casting that increases with hit dice), growing Spell Resistance, stats that increase with hit dice and size, it gains more spell-like abilities with age, and so on.

And some true dragons don't grow in magical power, having no sorcerer casting whatsoever (the planar dragons)



The "true dragon" vs "lesser dragon" divide can be summed up in two lines in Draconomicon:


"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"

[redking]

When I test it on the half-dragon phaerimm, many of the points come up positive.

A half-dragon phaerimm has growing magical power (sorcerer casting that increases with hit dice), growing Spell Resistance, stats that increase with hit dice and size, it gains more spell-like abilities with age, and so on.

All these things can be summed up in two lines in Draconomicon:


"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"

Well, write your half dragon phaerimm up then using the 9 point test. Then we can compare it to the true dragons with the greatest divergence from the norm. Your phaerimm does have one crushing impediment, of course. Half dragons are explicitly not true dragons. So this edge case is dead on arrival.

[hamishspence]

Half dragons are explicitly not true dragons. So this edge case is dead on arrival.
The half-dragon phaerimm cannot be a lesser dragon, because it both has the dragon type, and "advances through age categories".

Creatures of the dragon type come in only two classes - lesser dragons, and true dragons. If something can't be a lesser dragon, then logically, it must be a true dragon.

As demonstrated by the exceptions, many of the "dragon test" points are not strictly essential. So it's not the be-all and end-all of true dragon definition.

[RandomPeasant]

I don't understand why people are trying to convince redking by pointing out things that get a bunch of True Dragon Points. He hasn't committed to how many of those you need to be a True Dragon, so he can just move the goalposts to wherever they need to be for your thing not to count unless you can find something that explicitly beats a True Dragon.


Again, you ignore the context in which my words were said.

The context of the words you said are some rules which I believe support neither the position that True Dragons must start with a LA of +2 and eventually reach an LA of +6 nor the position that True Dragons must have a LA that varies between values in that range. Since the context, in my view, does not support your position at all, I'm forced to simply take you at your word. And that word was not "it must vary in this range", but "it must vary between these values".


You are being petty over a turn of phrase.

You are making inaccurate claims, then attacking people who call you out on them.


Force and prismatic dragons are not supposed to be played by players. DWK is. It's simply a difference in category. You could say that they aren't true dragons because they aren't supported as player characters, but that isn't what was written in the book.

Yes, that category being "True Dragon", at least by your accounting. Either DWKs aren't excluded from being True Dragons because they have a fixed LA, or Force Dragons are because they don't have a LA at all. You cannot have it both ways.

[hamishspence]

Indeed, the same reason why sea serpents are no true dragons, despite that they fullfill all conditions for to be so.


Given that sea serpents can't be lesser dragons by Draconomicon's description,


I'd suggest that the comment about them not being true dragons is flavour text rather than rules text - in the eyes of the sages who've observed them, they're not true dragons, but they're true dragons for mechanical purposes.


So a sea serpent, using the "if it's a dragon, and not a lesser dragon, then it's a true dragon" argument, becomes eligible for the Dragon Ascendent prestige class, as well Dragon Pacts, and all the Eberron True Dragon Archetypes.

[redking]

Creatures of the dragon type come in only two classes - lesser dragons, and true dragons. If something can't be a lesser dragon, then logically, it must be a true dragon.

I 💯% agree with you that a creature cannot be both a true dragon and a lesser dragon. Fortunately, we have guidance from the designers. First is that half-dragons are lesser dragons. Secondly, anything called "half-dragon" is a silly to call a true dragon. Thirdly, while phaerimm does advance through age categories, they advance due to being phaerimm, not dragons. The draconic traits that they get from the half-dragon template do not advance.

[hamishspence]

"Half-dragons are lesser dragons" is certainly the standard, but that's based on the presumption that the base creature to which the template is attached, does not "advance through age categories".

It might be silly to have a "half-dragon true dragon" but sometimes RAW is silly.

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Let's cool the temperature in here a bit, please.

[hamishspence]

Something worth considering - it may be possible for something to have the race "true dragon" without having the type (dragon) at all - dracoliches and so forth.

An orc lich is an Undead (augmented humanoid [orc]) - but its race is still orc, so it can still take orc-only prestige classes.

Wouldn't the same apply to dragons, unless the whatever-it-is with prerequisites, specifically says "Dragon type" rather than "Race - dragon" or "Race - true dragon"?


If so - then a red dragon dracolich would be a Undead (augmented dragon [true dragon- red dragon]) and eligible for the Dragon Ascendant prestige class.

A red dragon top-level Disciple of Ashardolon would be an Outsider (augmented dragon [true dragon - red dragon]) and eligible for Dragon Ascendant.

Where would the "true dragon" bit go (if it were ruled that they were true dragons) for the aforementioned phaerimm and kobolds? It would have to be on the outside.

Dragonwrought Kobold: Dragon (true dragon) [augmented humanoid (kobold)]
Half-Dragon Phaerimm: Dragon (true dragon) [augmented aberration (phaerimm)]


And for non-true dragons, also with templates:


Dracolich Seadrake: Undead [augmented dragon (lesser dragon)]
Half-Fiend Dragon Turtle: Outsider (native) [augmented dragon (lesser dragon)]



A possible "True Dragon determination flowchart" could go:

Does it have: "Race - Dragon"? Anything with the dragon type, or the (augmented dragon) subtype, is "Race - Dragon"

If yes, proceed to step two.

Does it meet any of the criteria for "Race - True Dragon" ?

These criteria are:

1: Grows more powerful as it grows older (Draconomicon)
2: Advances through age categories (Draconomicon)
3: Has 12 age categories (Dragon Magic)

If yes - add "True Dragon".
If no - add "Lesser Dragon".

A half-dragon phaerimm meets 1 and 2, but not 3.
A dragon dracolich meets 3, but no longer meets 1 and 2, strictly speaking.
A lung dragon meets 1 and 2, but not 3.
A half-dragon kobold (without Dragonwrought) meets 3.
A dragonwrought kobold meets 3. May meet 1, if "+3 to mental stats" and "-0 to physical stats" from age alone, fits "more powerful as it grows older".
A Sea Serpent (Dragon Magazine) meets 1, 2, and 3.