Are Dragonwrought Kobolds really cheesy? [Archive]

narukaze

2023-04-20, 02:36 PM

So, I've seen a lot of people comment about how Dragonwrought Kobolds are super cheesy, especially if you decide they count as True Dragons. The thing is, looking at everything people seem to have posted about them over the years... I don't think they're as cheesy as their reputation implies.

Here's a list of all the cheesy aspects of Dragonwrought Kobolds that I've been able to find:

Venerable for +3 to mental stats
This is probably the cheesiest part of the feat. Since Dragonwrought Kobolds don't get ability score penalties for aging, you can choose to be a Venerable Dragonwrought Kobold and get +3 to all mental ability scores for free.
That being said, though, this is an intended part of the feat, given that it's actually in the feat's text rather than being some kind of side-effect of the Dragon type. So I'm not sure whether I'd count it as truly cheesy, or just not well-thought-out by the designers.
Auto-qualification
Per page 4 of Races of the Dragon, a dragon "automatically qualifies" for pretty much anything that requires the dragonblood subtype. WotC probably meant for dragons to qualify as having dragonblood for anything that requires that subtype, but due to the wording, a Dragonwrought Kobold can automatically take anything that requires the dragonblood subtype, ignoring all other requirements.
I feel like this part doesn't actually matter that much, though, because there aren't that many things in the game that require the dragonblood subtype in the first place. The only specific "cheese" I've seen is taking dragonblood racial substitution levels to count as a 9th-level sorcerer or a 7th-level cleric at level 2, but that isn't actually possible: you can only take a racial substitution level when you're taking the corresponding normal class level, so qualifying for it is irrelevant until you've actually reached that level.
There's certainly some cheese here, but not a whole lot.
White Dragonspawn (Dragonlance Campaign Setting): I have a bone to pick with this one.
First off, this isn't a Dragonwrought Kobold thing, or even a Dragon thing; White Dragonspawn is a template that can be applied to humanoid or monstrous humanoid creatures.
Fluff-wise, being a White Dragonspawn Dragonwrought Kobold makes no sense, because a Dragonwrought Kobold is Dragonwrought by birth, and White Dragonspawn is applied later in life; however, such a thing is technically permitted by RAW, due to the order of operations in character creation. Since you select your race (and any templates) before taking your first feat, you count as a humanoid when applying White Dragonspawn, and you still count as a kobold when taking Dragonwrought.
But this leads into my other problem with this "cheese": it's almost entirely pointless. The big thing that people always point to is +1 level of Sorcerer casting... for +1 LA. In a game without LA buyoff, this is essentially just another level of Sorcerer with a bunch of extra features. While those features certainly make it better than just taking another level of Sorcerer, and it gets you a free level of Sorc casting when LA buyoff is used, I still don't consider it truly cheesy, especially since it actually makes more sense on a human sorcerer than a Dragonwrought Kobold.
Epic feats
OK, now we're getting into the stuff where whether Dragonwrought Kobolds count as True Dragons actually matters. Per Draconomicon, dragons of Old age or older can take epic feats, which normally require whoever takes them to be an epic-level character. There have been endless debates about this particular phrasing, because while it was probably meant as an affirmation that all True Dragons from the Monster Manual can take Epic feats (which they definitely can, since they all have over 20 Hit Dice at that point), it can easily be interpreted to mean that a Venerable Dragonwrought Kobold (which you already want to be for the reasons described above) can take epic feats starting at level 3 (when they get their first feat after Dragonwrought).
But well... what does it matter, really? The majority of epic feats have requirements besides just being an epic-level character, like having high-level spellcasting or martial abilities; Dragonwrought Kobolds won't meet those requirements at level 1. And the few feats which don't have prereqs like that are generally gigantic wastes of your six remaining feat slots after taking Dragonwrought.
Sovereign Archetypes (Dragons of Eberron)
By taking a Sovereign Archetype, true dragons can give up their inherent domain spells in exchange for receiving great bonuses; this is almost always a worthwhile tradeoff. Specifically, taking the Loredrake archetype gives you +2 levels of sorcerer casting, in exchange for dropping your Dragon HD to d10s... but Dragonwrought Kobolds don't actually have dragon HD, so there's essentially no drawback for them.
... but even if Dragonwrought Kobolds count as True Dragons (which is always a debate), it's still questionable whether they can even take Sovereign Archetypes. As noted above, a dragon gives up their domain access to take up a Sovereign Archetype; that means that if a dragon has access to e.g. the Air and Law domains, they lose access to the spells of those domains, which normally count as part of their sorcerer spell list. Dragonwrought Kobolds don't have that inherent domain access, so whether they can give it up to access Sovereign Archetypes is extremely questionable. For (semi-obscure) context, this is sorta like someone Polymorphing into a Beholder and automatically qualifying for Beholder Mage, even though they don't have the antimagic eye to sacrifice. It's usually agreed on this forum that you need to somehow have the antimagic eye and eye ray abilities to take Beholder Mage, so the same would probably apply for Sovereign Archetypes.
Dragon Psychoses (Dragon Magazine)
This is another True Dragon thing which DWKs theoretically qualify for. A dragon with a mental disorder can have very interesting abilities; the one which is usually referenced is Spellhoarding, which converts all your sorcerer spellcasting into wizard spellcasting, and lets you cast spells with expensive material components for free in exchange for sacrificing one of your spellscales. (I don't recall the exact details, but basically it's much much better than just having the sorcerer casting.) For LA +0, it's definitely a great trade.
... but again, even if DWKs count as True Dragons, it's questionable whether they can take Dragon Psychoses. The problem here is that Dragon Psychoses don't have any Level Adjustment in their stat block. Many people have interpreted this to mean that the templates are LA +0, but it would be completely valid to say that the template has no Level Adjustment at all, and cannot be used by players.
Also, as I realized while typing this up, you can't actually take Dragon Psychoses in character creation, for the exact same reason that you can take White Dragonspawn. You select your race before you take your first feat, meaning that at the time you can select templates, you count as a humanoid and not a dragon. Your DM could rule otherwise... but they could also rule that Dragon Psychoses are LA --, instead of LA +0.

Does anyone else have any notable Dragonwrought Kobold cheese? Because from what I'm seeing, they really don't live up to the hype. The biggest bit of cheese they really have (the free +3 to all mental ability scores) is something inherent to the feat, rather than any complicated rules nonsense involving True Dragons.

Frankly, as far as I can tell, being a Wizard is more cheesy than being a Dragonwrought Kobold, when you get down to it.

Also, while I don't particularly want this thread to turn into yet another debate about whether DWKs count as True Dragons or not (especially since part of the point is to explain how that distinction really isn't all that important), I'm well aware that that will probably happen regardless of my wishes. So if anyone has any notable cheese to share that I haven't covered... it's probably best if you do it quickly.

(... I don't know what it says about me that this monstrosity is my first post on this site.)

MaxiDuRaritry

2023-04-20, 02:56 PM

Chronos

2023-04-20, 03:46 PM

pabelfly

2023-04-20, 04:01 PM

(... I don't know what it says about me that this monstrosity is my first post on this site.)

Looks like you'll fit right in here.

narukaze

2023-04-20, 04:06 PM

I think that the reason why dragon psychoses don't have an LA attached is that they aren't actually templates. A crazy human isn't a human with the Paranoid template; they're just a crazy human. Which means you could take it at any point in character creation or advancement.
Dragon psychoses are templates, though, because the highly magical nature of dragons causes genuine physiological changes when they go crazy.

Also, it's not a Dragonwrought thing specifically, but kobolds can also take the greater draconic rite of passage, which gives another +1 to sorcerer spellcasting.

I know, I was mostly listing off stuff specifically for Dragonwrought. Plus I don't think of the Greater Rite as cheesy, because it was specifically written that way by the designers.

... Also, it costs a feat, so I probably wouldn't do it myself with a Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer. Feats are too valuable to use one like that.

And don't look at any of these benefits in isolation. If you take White Dragonspawn and Loredrake and the Greater Draconic Rite of Passage and buy off your LA, you're getting four free levels of sorcerer casting. Or, with Spellhoarding, four free levels of wizard casting, which is even better.
I suppose that's true, though I still say White Dragonspawn is silly, because it makes no sense in the fluff. A Dragonwrought Kobold is Dragonwrought from birth, and White Dragonspawn can only be acquired after birth, specifically by humanoids and monstrous humanoids. Constantly seeing it associated specifically with Dragonwrought Kobold cheese is aggravating, because if anything it should be associated with all other sorcerers.

Darg

2023-04-20, 04:14 PM

Yes, welcome. Like any cheese, it requires at the very minimum extremely loose application of the rules. The point is to ignore the other parts/evidence that refutes a claim or apply rules not meant to be applied to one area of the game to that area.

It's not that I don't like cheese. I love cheese. The problem comes when it has to be all greased up to get through the wrong shaped hole.

Gruftzwerg

2023-04-20, 10:00 PM

Sovereign Archetypes (Dragons of Eberron)
By taking a Sovereign Archetype, true dragons can give up their inherent domain spells in exchange for receiving great bonuses; this is almost always a worthwhile tradeoff. Specifically, taking the Loredrake archetype gives you +2 levels of sorcerer casting, in exchange for dropping your Dragon HD to d10s... but Dragonwrought Kobolds don't actually have dragon HD, so there's essentially no drawback for them.
... but even if Dragonwrought Kobolds count as True Dragons (which is always a debate), it's still questionable whether they can even take Sovereign Archetypes. As noted above, a dragon gives up their domain access to take up a Sovereign Archetype; that means that if a dragon has access to e.g. the Air and Law domains, they lose access to the spells of those domains, which normally count as part of their sorcerer spell list. Dragonwrought Kobolds don't have that inherent domain access, so whether they can give it up to access Sovereign Archetypes is extremely questionable. For (semi-obscure) context, this is sorta like someone Polymorphing into a Beholder and automatically qualifying for Beholder Mage, even though they don't have the antimagic eye to sacrifice. It's usually agreed on this forum that you need to somehow have the antimagic eye and eye ray abilities to take Beholder Mage, so the same would probably apply for Sovereign Archetypes.
Dragon Psychoses (Dragon Magazine)
This is another True Dragon thing which DWKs theoretically qualify for. A dragon with a mental disorder can have very interesting abilities; the one which is usually referenced is Spellhoarding, which converts all your sorcerer spellcasting into wizard spellcasting, and lets you cast spells with expensive material components for free in exchange for sacrificing one of your spellscales. (I don't recall the exact details, but basically it's much much better than just having the sorcerer casting.) For LA +0, it's definitely a great trade.
... but again, even if DWKs count as True Dragons, it's questionable whether they can take Dragon Psychoses. The problem here is that Dragon Psychoses don't have any Level Adjustment in their stat block. Many people have interpreted this to mean that the templates are LA +0, but it would be completely valid to say that the template has no Level Adjustment at all, and cannot be used by players.
Also, as I realized while typing this up, you can't actually take Dragon Psychoses in character creation, for the exact same reason that you can take White Dragonspawn. You select your race before you take your first feat, meaning that at the time you can select templates, you count as a humanoid and not a dragon. Your DM could rule otherwise... but they could also rule that Dragon Psychoses are LA --, instead of LA +0.
[/LIST]

Sovereign Archetypes

It doesn't have any "requirement/prerequisites" besides being a true dragon. It's "part" of the "effect" of the template that you lose "X". And just because a partial effect doesn't find a valid target, doesn't make the entire effect ineffective/invalid.

Take "Chasing Perfection" as an example here. It gives +4 to all ability scores. Assume you cast it on an undead without a CON score. Does the entire effect become ineffective because of the lack of the CON score? No, anything that has a valid target applies.

Same with Sovereign Archetypes. Just because parts of its effect doesn't apply doesn't stop the rest of the effect to apply. Anything valid applies.

Sovereign Archetypes + Dragon Pyschosis and CR/LA

I'm not aware of any general rule for CR and LA that is excluding creatures from stuff.

- Just because something has a +CR doesn't exclude it as player option
- Just because something has +LA doesn't exclude it as NPC option
- Just because something has no +LA doesn't exclude it as player option.

Character Creation

Since we ain't talking about inherit but acquired templates, they can be added at any point in your background. Sole inherit templates have a fixed order in the character creation, because those rely you to be born as such.

Dragon psychoses are templates, though, because the highly magical nature of dragons causes genuine physiological changes when they go crazy.

I know, I was mostly listing off stuff specifically for Dragonwrought. Plus I don't think of the Greater Rite as cheesy, because it was specifically written that way by the designers.

... Also, it costs a feat, so I probably wouldn't do it myself with a Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer. Feats are too valuable to use one like that.

I agree that the feat investment makes this tradeoff compared to a pure wizard kinda balanced. While the wizard gets 5 extra feats (scribe scrolls and 4 meta) the DWK needs to invest 2 feats to get all the cheese.
This means you effectively give up 7 feats for not going pure wizard, but do get a broken spell lvl progression.

Is this entirely broken? Kinda yes and kinda no.
Sure it is strong as hell and shouldn't be taken to lightly. Yeah it will break at least 95% of regular games.
But we are in a world where Planar Sheepherds are RAW legal with the option to build em with a 1:10 time ratio. And lets better not talk about stuff like Healing By Drowning or Pun Pun.

The final questions are imho always:
How does it affect the party balance?
Is it fitting for you and your current game/table? (plot balance)
Can the DM handle it? (world balance^^)

and while we are talking about feats..

Epic Feats

As you said, most epic feats are still not accessible due to high skill rank requirements (or high BAB/Saves/..).

The few legal options are not really strong for the most part.

Sole exception I found so far is "Perfect Two Weapon Fighting". But then again, we are talking about a lil kobold here (-4STR) that now has locked 5 of his 7 feats (DWK + P. TWF chain). Try not to suck^^
I know you can make it work if you again apply enough cheese (e.g. Ravening Psychosis for +4STR -4 WIS), but your build options are still very limited here. If you can make it work, you definitively have my appreciation as optimizer ;)

Saintheart

2023-04-21, 12:58 AM

It's not that I don't like cheese. I love cheese. The problem comes when it has to be all greased up to get through the wrong shaped hole.

Mmmmm ... cheese and grease ... I'm getting hungry. :smalltongue:

Crichton

2023-04-21, 09:56 AM

Epic feats
[list] OK, now we're getting into the stuff where whether Dragonwrought Kobolds count as True Dragons actually matters. Per Draconomicon, dragons of Old age or older can take epic feats, which normally require whoever takes them to be an epic-level character. There have been endless debates about this particular phrasing, because while it was probably meant as an affirmation that all True Dragons from the Monster Manual can take Epic feats (which they definitely can, since they all have over 20 Hit Dice at that point), it can easily be interpreted to mean that a Venerable Dragonwrought Kobold (which you already want to be for the reasons described above) can take epic feats starting at level 3 (when they get their first feat after Dragonwrought).

It should be clarified that Draconomicon does NOT say you have to be a True dragon to qualify for epic feats by being at least old age. Any dragon of at least old age qualifies, so on this point, the debate about 'are DWK true dragons' doesn't matter at all. Whether or not they're true, they are still dragons, and qualify for epic feats at old age. As you point out here, most epic feats are still beyond their reach due to other prerequisites, so it's not a very big deal, anyway.

tyckspoon

2023-04-21, 11:01 AM

B]Epic Feats[/B]

As you said, most epic feats are still not accessible due to high skill rank requirements (or high BAB/Saves/..).

The few legal options are not really strong for the most part.

Sole exception I found so far is "Perfect Two Weapon Fighting". But then again, we are talking about a lil kobold here (-4STR) that now has locked 5 of his 7 feats (DWK + P. TWF chain). Try not to suck^^
I know you can make it work if you again apply enough cheese (e.g. Ravening Psychosis for +4STR -4 WIS), but your build options are still very limited here. If you can make it work, you definitively have my appreciation as optimizer ;)

The Great (Stat) feats and Armor Skin can be kind of interesting, since they're stackable, repeatable stat and AC bonuses (season to taste with your preferred X Stat To Y Thing converter) but you really need a much greater than standard number of feats to make them really relevant. Gets fun in conjunction with Chaos Shuffling.

narukaze

2023-04-21, 11:56 AM

Sovereign Archetypes

It doesn't have any "requirement/prerequisites" besides being a true dragon. It's "part" of the "effect" of the template that you lose "X". And just because a partial effect doesn't find a valid target, doesn't make the entire effect ineffective/invalid.

Take "Chasing Perfection" as an example here. It gives +4 to all ability scores. Assume you cast it on an undead without a CON score. Does the entire effect become ineffective because of the lack of the CON score? No, anything that has a valid target applies.

Same with Sovereign Archetypes. Just because parts of its effect doesn't apply doesn't stop the rest of the effect to apply. Anything valid applies.

To me, when an effect specifically requires the target to sacrifice something in order to receive something else, it shouldn't be possible to acquire the effect if you don't have the thing you need to sacrifice. It's like a prestige class, if you don't have the prerequisite, you can't enter the class.

I'm aware that the rules do not back me up here, though.

Sovereign Archetypes + Dragon Pyschosis and CR/LA

I'm not aware of any general rule for CR and LA that is excluding creatures from stuff.

- Just because something has a +CR doesn't exclude it as player option
- Just because something has +LA doesn't exclude it as NPC option
- Just because something has no +LA doesn't exclude it as player option.

That last point is where you're wrong. If a monster has no Level Adjustment (LA -), it is explicitly not suitable for player use, so the general consensus is that you can't take races and templates with LA - as a player character. (I don't know if it's explicitly spelled out in the rules anywhere, but even most TO agrees on this much.) This is why Beholder Mage builds have to BS their way into being a Beholder via polymorphing; you cannot choose to play as a Beholder in character creation, because they have LA -.

Character Creation

Since we ain't talking about inherit but acquired templates, they can be added at any point in your background. Sole inherit templates have a fixed order in the character creation, because those rely you to be born as such.

The thing is, in order to get an acquired template, you need to qualify to gain the template in question. Dragonwrought Kobolds do not qualify for White Dragonspawn, because they count as dragons and not humanoids or monstrous humanoids, and they do so from birth. So the only way they can acquire the template is by exploiting the order-of-operations in character creation to get the template while they still qualify as humanoid.

That being said, Dragon Psychoses can still be acquired by Dragonwrought Kobolds, if they count as true dragons, and if they don't count as LA - (as noted above).

Epic Feats

As you said, most epic feats are still not accessible due to high skill rank requirements (or high BAB/Saves/..).

The few legal options are not really strong for the most part.

Sole exception I found so far is "Perfect Two Weapon Fighting". But then again, we are talking about a lil kobold here (-4STR) that now has locked 5 of his 7 feats (DWK + P. TWF chain). Try not to suck^^
I know you can make it work if you again apply enough cheese (e.g. Ravening Psychosis for +4STR -4 WIS), but your build options are still very limited here. If you can make it work, you definitively have my appreciation as optimizer ;)
If you took a few Fighter levels, you'd have a much easier time with it by taking the TWF chain as fighter bonus feats. Besides that... well, I don't have my books handy, so you'll have to wait before I can really try my hand at optimizing this.

It should be clarified that Draconomicon does NOT say you have to be a True dragon to qualify for epic feats by being at least old age. Any dragon of at least old age qualifies, so on this point, the debate about 'are DWK true dragons' doesn't matter at all. Whether or not they're true, they are still dragons, and qualify for epic feats at old age. As you point out here, most epic feats are still beyond their reach due to other prerequisites, so it's not a very big deal, anyway.
I've seen arguments that that phrasing is referring to true dragons, due to the general topic of the book, but yes, the rules-as-written do technically permit this regardless. I had honestly forgotten about that part.

The Great (Stat) feats and Armor Skin can be kind of interesting, since they're stackable, repeatable stat and AC bonuses (season to taste with your preferred X Stat To Y Thing converter) but you really need a much greater than standard number of feats to make them really relevant. Gets fun in conjunction with Chaos Shuffling.
Yeah, I'm not sure how you'd get enough feats for that to be practical, even with Chaos Shuffling. At least, I'm not sure how you'd do so without crippling the rest of your build.

Telonius

2023-04-21, 11:59 AM

Plus I don't think of the Greater Rite as cheesy, because it was specifically written that way by the designers.

The rites and other "counts as a caster level" boosters are generally where I think the cheese comes from. Personally I think that the fact that it's intended to do that makes it worse, not better, from a DM's perspective. For most of the rest of the stuff, you can make an argument that the writers didn't intend (or didn't realize) everything would work together like that. You can't really say that about the Greater Draconic Rite of Passage. It does one thing, and it's pretty clear the devs wanted it to do that one thing. Intentional cheese is still cheese (imo).

MaxiDuRaritry

2023-04-21, 12:00 PM

Yeah, I'm not sure how you'd get enough feats for that to be practical, even with Chaos Shuffling. At least, I'm not sure how you'd do so without crippling the rest of your build.That one is easy. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?400840-List-of-Feat-Granting-Items-Locations-Grafts)

Rebel7284

2023-04-21, 12:15 PM

Venerable for +3 to mental stats: +9 total to stats is WAY out of proportion with what other feats do. I am unclear about what about designer intent would make it less cheesy. Intentional cheese is exactly as cheesy as unintentional cheese.
Auto-qualification: I usually see this being used to enter Singer of Concordance at level 2, which by itself is not broken, sure, but again, it's an advantage in BIG list of potential advantages. Practical Metamagic is something I see less often, but also nifty. With that said, this is such an obvious case of "you know EXACTLY what they meant!" that I suspect that many DMs who care about RAI would remove this benefit.
White Dragonspawn (Dragonlance Campaign Setting): [Note that this is probably used without Dragonwraught to just enable sorcerer level stacking]. This template is definitely broken with or without LA buyoff. Of course, this has nothing to do with Kobolds specifically and Spawn template was stealth nerfed in Bestiary of Krynn p. 24 and can only be applied to humans and half-elves so again no Kobolds if you allow that book. Bestiary of Krynn is in a weird place licensing-wise so that might complicate things for some. On related cheese, if you DO allow Bestiary of Krynn and take the Abomination template on a Kobold, it gives you abilities based on die rolls. If you roll a certain way, you have a tiny chance of getting +2 sorcerer levels for +1 LA. But again, nothing specifically to do with Kobolds and still incompatible with Dragonwraught.
Epic feats: This is definitely build dependent. While there are not many Epic feats that are universally broken for every character (Well maybe Epic Leadership), there are definitely some that are VERY good for certain builds and sometimes even getting a feat just a few levels early is a huge boost in power.
- Distant Shot: Being able to attack from extreme range at level 16/17 is nice.
- Epic Reputation: for diplomancers.
- Epic Toughness/Fast Healing/Damage Reduction: great for low-level games, and depending on the specifics of the build/game, much longer.
- Exceptional Deflection: is a VERY good defensive ability if you can meet the prereqs.
- Gargantuan Wild Shape: is VERY good at level 15 for a druid or level 11 for Master of Many Forms
- Colossal Wild Shape: see above, but possibly less good since there are less colossal animals
- Improved Elemental Wild Shape: Druid 16/MoMf 15 You gain all SU abilities of forms you take, so Shapechange a few levels early and with longer duration, admittedly only into creatures with elemental subtypes (such as many dragons...)
- Improved Combat Reflexes: exceptional for AOO builds
- Devastating Critical: Adding a save or die to your critical hits at level 8 ain't nothing.
- Improved Heighten Spell: Saves Shadowcraft Mage a few feat slots.
- Improved Spell Capacity: Takes some shenanigans to break, but extremely broken if done right. (Nar Demonbinder + Domains comes to mind for early 9s)
- Instant Reload
- Multispell: start abusing action economy several levels early.
- Perfect Multiweapon Fighting: A dizzying number of extra attacks starting at level 15
- Spellcasting Harrier: Useful if you don't want to lose caster levels to Mage Slayer
- Undead Mastery: Necromancer

Many of these are not broken, but they are great feats for the right character and can give a notable power boost.

Sovereign Archetypes (Dragons of Eberron): If I recall correctly, not ALL dragons have domain access to begin with, are those banned from archetypes too? Not to mention, getting domain access is pretty easy for a sorcerer. But yes, Loredrake is utterly broken if allowed. Wurm of war I think is the one that allows memorizing Maneuvers in addition to spells which is nifty and unique, but... Loredrake is right there. Of course this one definitely relies on the "true" dragon question if I recall correctly.

Dragon Psychoses (Dragon Magazine) the whole no listed LA is a pretty big deal, while the article does say that ANY dragon can take it (apparently mental illness can happen to anyone) that doesn't mean the dragon will stay a PC...

In addition to the big ones, there are also small benefits such as being able to Alter Self into wyrmings early on and the immunities that are inherent to the Dragon type, not to mention immunity to Hold Person and such. Also the Kobold Web Article gives all Kobolds natural attacks and proficiency in Heavy Pick which can be helpful for some builds.

Also DWK with web article access are an excellent candidate for Improved Rapidstrike feat. Having claws in their natural form they can take the feats, but then they can get better claws from various effects
- Wildshape
- Psychic Warrior Powers
- Eldritch Claws
etc.

Kobold sub-races are very nice for customizing the builds even further, especially Desert Kobolds/Jungle Kobolds that lose the Con penalty

Overall:
While there are definitely questionable things, such as Dragon Psychoses, even at the most conservative estimation Dragonwraught often brings more to the table than any other race in the game by a HUGE margin. The only drawback is being one feat behind (two if we are also going for the free sorcerer level.)
Is it broken? Well that depends on many factors.
- Specific rulings are key (are Dragon Psychoses and/or Sovereign Archetypes allowed, etc.)
- HOW you are using it? If you're using early Epic feats access to optimize Devastating Critical, it's going to be a very different built power-wise than if you're going for early Multispell on a full caster...
- What is the rest of the party doing?

Kobolds (dragonwraught or otherwise) have a TON of powerful and unique abilities which can lead both to fun, interesting builds or incredible cosmic power. How will you build yours?

Darg

2023-04-21, 12:17 PM

Crichton

2023-04-21, 09:02 PM

Draconomicon only says they are available to characters of 21 level and that old age dragons qualify without class levels. So basically it's just saying that dragon monster levels allow it to qualify being 21st or higher.

No, that's not quite what it says. What Draconomicon says is:
"These feats are available to characters of 21st level or higher.
Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even if they have no class levels."

You're (mis)paraphasing it. Pretty hard to read the words "Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats" and not think it's saying that, well, dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats. That's it. No stated reasoning for it, it just has the words that give the permission. That's all

While it's true that (most?) dragons of old age or higher have enough HD ('monster levels' aren't a thing in this context), it doesn't say anything at all about that being the reason they can take these feats. It would have to say something to the effect of 'dragons of at least old age have enough HD to be considered epic, and so they also qualify to take these feats' but it doesn't.

Darg

2023-04-21, 11:02 PM

No, that's not quite what it says. What Draconomicon says is:
"These feats are available to characters of 21st level or higher.
Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even if they have no class levels."

You're (mis)paraphasing it. Pretty hard to read the words "Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats" and not think it's saying that, well, dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats. That's it. No stated reasoning for it, it just has the words that give the permission. That's all

While it's true that (most?) dragons of old age or higher have enough HD ('monster levels' aren't a thing in this context), it doesn't say anything at all about that being the reason they can take these feats. It would have to say something to the effect of 'dragons of at least old age have enough HD to be considered epic, and so they also qualify to take these feats' but it doesn't.

The second line doesn't negate the first. They don't conflict on their own. That would be like saying fighter bonus feats aren't required to be picked from feats noted as fighter feats because the last sentence says they don't have to be.

Gruftzwerg

2023-04-22, 02:47 AM

That last point is where you're wrong. If a monster has no Level Adjustment (LA -), it is explicitly not suitable for player use, so the general consensus is that you can't take races and templates with LA - as a player character. (I don't know if it's explicitly spelled out in the rules anywhere, but even most TO agrees on this much.) This is why Beholder Mage builds have to BS their way into being a Beholder via polymorphing; you cannot choose to play as a Beholder in character creation, because they have LA -.
That is a specific rule from "Reading the Monster Entries (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm#Attack)". It ain't a global rule and thus can't affect templates.

Finally, a templates list those things that it chances. And if "LA" ain't mentioned, it simply means no change and ain't the same as "LA: - ".

No matter how I look at it, I don't see that rule should affect our situation here. (If I am missing something, pls point it out for me or quote it).

The thing is, in order to get an acquired template, you need to qualify to gain the template in question. Dragonwrought Kobolds do not qualify for White Dragonspawn, because they count as dragons and not humanoids or monstrous humanoids, and they do so from birth. So the only way they can acquire the template is by exploiting the order-of-operations in character creation to get the template while they still qualify as humanoid.

And what is wrong with exploiting the order of operations?

The conflict sole occurs if you start to use fluff as a rule argument. While the DWK feat implies that you where born as dragon and never was a humanoid, mechanically speaking you have been a humanoid at a point (even if that can't be pinpointed in actual game time) before adding the feat. And while the fluff of the Dragonspawn template implies that it happened after birth thus after becoming a DWK, it has no meanings by the rules to stop you from taking this combination. It's just dysfunctional fluff and nothing more (from a sole rule focused point of view)

If you are looking for a scapegoat, imho DWK shouldn't have been a feat. Because the way feats are depicted in general, they aren't "inherit" effects like in the case of the DWK.
This becomes even more silly if you consider that you get your stats in 3.5 as a grown adult and didn't get to pick your feat before...

Really, lets avoid the fluff here. The authors haven't been all on the same page here imho.

If you took a few Fighter levels, you'd have a much easier time with it by taking the TWF chain as fighter bonus feats. Besides that... well, I don't have my books handy, so you'll have to wait before I can really try my hand at optimizing this.

Yeah as said, there are options, but those are still limited. While most mundanes opt for the human bonus feat, the DWK has to invest a feat for the cheese. It can be done for sure, but with limitations.

Chronos

2023-04-22, 08:14 AM

Just how does a "feat taken at 1st level" work in the world, anyway? It can't always be at birth: A half-orc barbarian can take Power Attack as their first-level feat, but that half-orc certainly didn't have 13 Str as a newborn. Maybe there's some rite of passage where you're officially no longer a child and now count as an adult, and that's when you gain your first level and feat: That'd make the Power Attacking half-orc reasonable, and would also open up the possibility of the kobold awakening their inner draconic nature at that point.

Darg

2023-04-22, 08:16 AM

And what is wrong with exploiting the order of operations?

The conflict sole occurs if you start to use fluff as a rule argument. While the DWK feat implies that you where born as dragon and never was a humanoid, mechanically speaking you have been a humanoid at a point (even if that can't be pinpointed in actual game time) before adding the feat. And while the fluff of the Dragonspawn template implies that it happened after birth thus after becoming a DWK, it has no meanings by the rules to stop you from taking this combination. It's just dysfunctional fluff and nothing more (from a sole rule focused point of view)

If you are looking for a scapegoat, imho DWK shouldn't have been a feat. Because the way feats are depicted in general, they aren't "inherit" effects like in the case of the DWK.
This becomes even more silly if you consider that you get your stats in 3.5 as a grown adult and didn't get to pick your feat before...

Really, lets avoid the fluff here. The authors haven't been all on the same page here imho.

Yeah as said, there are options, but those are still limited. While most mundanes opt for the human bonus feat, the DWK has to invest a feat for the cheese. It can be done for sure, but with limitations.

A character doesn't exist prior to being 1st level. The game doesn't differentiate between a feat you're born with and one gained through training as you grow up. Fluff is a made up term to say "I don't like that so it isn't a rule." If it breaks the setting, it's against the rules as set by the DM. Simple as that. The only time setting is not necessarily a valid limitation is theorycrafting builds on the internet.

Crichton

2023-04-22, 11:02 AM

The second line doesn't negate the first. They don't conflict on their own. That would be like saying fighter bonus feats aren't required to be picked from feats noted as fighter feats because the last sentence says they don't have to be.

Who said anything about negating anything? There is no conflict at all. It's two separate sentences, and two separate ways to qualify. It's Option 1 OR Option 2, not Option 1 but Option 2 also is essentially the same as Option 1 as well so it can also qualify. That's you inserting rules that aren't there.

Any dragon of at least old age can take epic feats (that it meets the other prerequisites for), not because they have enough HD to be considered epic, but because the rules say they can. No mention of a minimum HD requirement, so they can have any number of HD, many or few, and still qualify.

Gruftzwerg

2023-04-22, 06:47 PM

A character doesn't exist prior to being 1st level. The game doesn't differentiate between a feat you're born with and one gained through training as you grow up. Fluff is a made up term to say "I don't like that so it isn't a rule." If it breaks the setting, it's against the rules as set by the DM. Simple as that. The only time setting is not necessarily a valid limitation is theorycrafting builds on the internet.

If I did get the intention of the thread, we are asked to present "any DWK cheese that ain't mentioned in the opening post". This calls for a RAW perceptive and not how you or I would rule it in a real session. The question was not, "which cheese do you allow at your table". This is for me an indicator that a RAW response is desired here.

Fero

2023-04-22, 07:21 PM

Cheese is a function of: (1) OP; and (2) a lack believable RP justification. In other words, if a player makes a design choice that hurts RP solely to increase power, that choice stinks like cheese.

For example, wizards, though very powerful, are also an iconic fantasy class. As such, playing a wizard is not typically seen as inherently cheesy. Many players let the power follow the RP.

On the flip side, many players are not interested in exploring kobold culture or the question of what it means to be a dragon. When these players play a dragonwrought kobold, the resulting character is not believable and the choice of race seems like nothing but an unabashed power grab.

Of course, this all depends on the player and the character. I was recently in a game with an excellently RPd dragonwrought kobold. On the flipside, I have seen plenty of people play t1 classes purely for power.

To summarize, I think most people consider dragonwrought kobolds cheesy b/c they suspect the player is not actually interested in rping a kobold.

narukaze

2023-04-22, 08:54 PM

The rites and other "counts as a caster level" boosters are generally where I think the cheese comes from. Personally I think that the fact that it's intended to do that makes it worse, not better, from a DM's perspective. For most of the rest of the stuff, you can make an argument that the writers didn't intend (or didn't realize) everything would work together like that. You can't really say that about the Greater Draconic Rite of Passage. It does one thing, and it's pretty clear the devs wanted it to do that one thing. Intentional cheese is still cheese (imo).
Here's the thing: the Greater Draconic Rite of Passage grants you a level of free sorcerer spellcasting. Sorcerers are very deliberately gimped compared to wizards, to the point where they're constantly one level behind wizards in spell levels. (I believe this is because some of the game designers (coughSkipWilliamscough) were outright disgusted by the idea of the sorcerer.) The Greater Draconic Rite simply levels the playing field between the two. So I would argue that it's less "cheesy", and more "balancing".

No, that's not quite what it says. What Draconomicon says is:
"These feats are available to characters of 21st level or higher.
Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even if they have no class levels."

You're (mis)paraphasing it. Pretty hard to read the words "Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats" and not think it's saying that, well, dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats. That's it. No stated reasoning for it, it just has the words that give the permission. That's all

While it's true that (most?) dragons of old age or higher have enough HD ('monster levels' aren't a thing in this context), it doesn't say anything at all about that being the reason they can take these feats. It would have to say something to the effect of 'dragons of at least old age have enough HD to be considered epic, and so they also qualify to take these feats' but it doesn't.
As I noted, while the author likely meant to simply clarify that Old true dragons could do something that they could already do by the rules (since all MM true dragons have over 20 HD by Old age, and the book states upfront that it mostly covers those ten true dragons), the wording does technically allow an Old Dragonwrought Kobold to take epic feats.

That is a specific rule from "Reading the Monster Entries". It ain't a global rule and thus can't affect templates.

Finally, a templates list those things that it chances. And if "LA" ain't mentioned, it simply means no change and ain't the same as "LA: - ".

No matter how I look at it, I don't see that rule should affect our situation here. (If I am missing something, pls point it out for me or quote it).
Templates are listed under monster entries, which means that rules for reading monster entries apply to templates as well. And every other LA +0 template in the game is explicitly LA +0.

As I noted from the beginning, it could really go either way, and is up to DM interpretation. The comment in the initial post was more trying to point out that Dragon Psychoses aren't explicitly LA +0, a point which I haven't seen many people make.

If I did get the intention of the thread, we are asked to present "any DWK cheese that ain't mentioned in the opening post". This calls for a RAW perceptive and not how you or I would rule it in a real session. The question was not, "which cheese do you allow at your table". This is for me an indicator that a RAW response is desired here.
I originally made the thread because I was curious if there was any DWK cheese that I had missed over my years of on-and-off researching the subject. It... kind of morphed into something else while I was typing up the initial post.

And yes, I am looking for RAW here, but if there's an obvious counterargument that a DM can make (like "That's ****ing insane"), I don't mind that being brought up as well.

Cheese is a function of: (1) OP; and (2) a lack believable RP justification. In other words, if a player makes a design choice that hurts RP solely to increase power, that choice stinks like cheese.

For example, wizards, though very powerful, are also an iconic fantasy class. As such, playing a wizard is not typically seen as inherently cheesy. Many players let the power follow the RP.

On the flip side, many players are not interested in exploring kobold culture or the question of what it means to be a dragon. When these players play a dragonwrought kobold, the resulting character is not believable and the choice of race seems like nothing but an unabashed power grab.

Of course, this all depends on the player and the character. I was recently in a game with an excellently RPd dragonwrought kobold. On the flipside, I have seen plenty of people play t1 classes purely for power.

To summarize, I think most people consider dragonwrought kobolds cheesy b/c they suspect the player is not actually interested in rping a kobold.
I think most people consider DWKs as cheesy because everyone else says they are, lol. Regardless, a very insightful comment, because yeah, it's only considered "cheesy" when it's outside the game's "normal."

Darg

2023-04-22, 09:38 PM

Who said anything about negating anything? There is no conflict at all. It's two separate sentences, and two separate ways to qualify. It's Option 1 OR Option 2, not Option 1 but Option 2 also is essentially the same as Option 1 as well so it can also qualify. That's you inserting rules that aren't there.

Except there's one problem with your misunderstanding. Monsters without class levels don't have levels. Instead, epic feat qualification is based on their ECL. The second sentence is a reminder of this rule while providing the latest age a dragon can qualify from. It's why it mentions class levels. Without that rule, monsters without 21 character levels couldn't qualify for epic feats.

Chronos

2023-04-23, 07:07 AM

But isn't there already a rule that racial HD count as a kind of class level for anything that cares about a creature's total class levels?

Gnaeus

2023-04-23, 08:03 AM

Here's the thing: the Greater Draconic Rite of Passage grants you a level of free sorcerer spellcasting. Sorcerers are very deliberately gimped compared to wizards, to the point where they're constantly one level behind wizards in spell levels. (I believe this is because some of the game designers (coughSkipWilliamscough) were outright disgusted by the idea of the sorcerer.) The Greater Draconic Rite simply levels the playing field between the two. So I would argue that it's less "cheesy", and more "balancing".

I would argue that intentionally taking an obscure option for purposes of subverting designer intent is the definition of cheesy. If your DM agrees that sorcerers are gimped, the solution should be to fix sorcerers, not to make the only way to play effective sorcerer to be a DWK.

Also, be very clear that sorcerers is already one of the strongest classes in the game and wizard one of the few stronger. That last line is could just as easily be Planar Shepherd isn't cheesy, it's balancing with Beholder mage. It presumes that game balance is around the top 5 classes and not the bottom 40. It is, for example, making sorcerer less balanced compared with all the fixed list casters.

To the extent that opinion comes in, mine is very smelly cheese. The kind that gets you not invited back to games because you are rank because of the cheese in your pocket and other players don't want to sit near you.

Crake

2023-04-23, 09:58 AM

Gruftzwerg

2023-04-23, 10:51 AM

Templates are listed under monster entries, which means that rules for reading monster entries apply to templates as well. And every other LA +0 template in the game is explicitly LA +0.

As I noted from the beginning, it could really go either way, and is up to DM interpretation. The comment in the initial post was more trying to point out that Dragon Psychoses aren't explicitly LA +0, a point which I haven't seen many people make.

The rules to read Templates can be found in the "Improving Monsters" chapter at page MM p291-293:

Level Adjustment: This entry is a modifier to the base creature’s level adjustment. Any level adjustment is meaningless unless the creature retains a high enough Intelligence (minimum 3) to gain class levels after applying the template.
As said, it's sole a modifier to the base stat and not the base stat itself.
Again.., the rules from "Reading the Monster Entries" don't carry over to "Reading a Template".
"Reading a Template" ain't a more specific way to "Reading the Monster Entries".
While these topics are related and overlap to some degree, neither is more specific than the other here. They both have their own rules.
The absence of the "LA: +X" line in a template just means no change to the base "LA:" a creature has.

I originally made the thread because I was curious if there was any DWK cheese that I had missed over my years of on-and-off researching the subject. It... kind of morphed into something else while I was typing up the initial post.

And yes, I am looking for RAW here, but if there's an obvious counterargument that a DM can make (like "That's ****ing insane"), I don't mind that being brought up as well.
Well.. power and cheese lvl are things that a DM and the table needs to decide on their own. It's a subjective choice that doesn't needs to be set into stone, but can even vary from campaign to campaign. There is nothing wrong with experimenting with different power and cheese levels.

From a fluff point of view, there are many arguments against DWK being True Dragons. But those "fluff requirement of True Dragons" aren't good measurement tools here, since we have enough evidence of True Dragons that break those "fluff requirements".

From a RAW point of view, you need to be a dragon with age categories to be a TD. And you need to gain power from aging somehow (age categories aren't specified in this part of the requirement). The pure mental stat gain (no penalties on the physical stats) qualifies as gain in power from aging.

I think most people consider DWKs as cheesy because everyone else says they are, lol. Regardless, a very insightful comment, because yeah, it's only considered "cheesy" when it's outside the game's "normal."

Yeah, DWK are cheesy as hell, but the same can be said about Planar Shepherds (with a 1:10 time ratio build).

Imho the silliness here is, that the DWK has to justify his RAW power but the Planar Shepherd doesn't need to.

Because in the end the DM/table should decide on their intended power & cheese level if they allow these thing or not and how "shady" the RAW arguments may sound like. Would anyone allow a Planar Shepherd cheese build more likely than DWK cheese just because RAW is more clear on it? I doubt that.
Imho people should decide these things on how problematic they might see the power level of the cheese for their table.

Crichton

2023-04-23, 11:04 AM

Except there's one problem with your misunderstanding. Monsters without class levels don't have levels. Instead, epic feat qualification is based on their ECL. The second sentence is a reminder of this rule while providing the latest age a dragon can qualify from. It's why it mentions class levels. Without that rule, monsters without 21 character levels couldn't qualify for epic feats.

This is incorrect, pretty much entirely.

With regard to monsters, Epic Level Handbook has this to say: ECL is "equal to the creature's Hit Dice and class levels (if any) plus its level adjustment. This replaces the rule in the Monster Manual that states a creature's "Monster Level" is equal to its Hit Dice"

It then goes on to say: "In any other place in this book where "character level is indicated, you can use effective character level instead" and then proceeds to list an example of that that explicitly says it qualifies for epic feats.

So yes, characters at level 21+ can take epic feats. 21 monster HD also qualify any monster to take epic feats, without any class levels. Or any combined total of HD/class levels/LA that equals or exceeds 21 works too. That's already the general rule on epic feats.

As for dragons, the Draconomicon rule doesn't anywhere state that it's merely 'reminding' us of anything. It's a rule. It does what it says it does. Which is enable any dragon, of any HD, who is at least Old age, to qualify for epic feats. Without that sentence, they'd need a combined total of 21 HD/levels/LA, just like any other monster. Instead they don't count their ECL at all, only their age category (well technically either/or, whichever comes first)

But isn't there already a rule that racial HD count as a kind of class level for anything that cares about a creature's total class levels?

Pretty much. It's on page 25 of Epic Level Handbook, in the sidebar. It counts HD, class levels if they have any, and LA, towards their ECL, and aside from pre-epic bab and saves only if they have class levels(they write out a special process for that in that sidebar), that ECL calculation counts for anything, including feats

Gnaeus

2023-04-23, 11:16 AM

Something by itself is never cheesy. Broken, maybe, but cheesy no. That's because cheesy is, by definition, a (willfully or otherwise) disingenuous intepretation of the rules in such a way as to create an unintended or unwanted outcome, usually in the pursuit of personal betterment, generally at the expense of others' enjoyment at the table.

Nobody will proudly admit to being cheesy, and some draw the line in different places, but by that definition, any content on it's own is not cheesy, it's the way that any given content is interpreted.

This is not true. There are certainly games and groups that pride themselves on being cheesy. I played for years in the Dragoncon cheese grinder tournament. If someone ran a game and said "All RAW, go nuts"DWK would be appropriate, but still cheesy. It would just be cheesy in a Gouda rich environment. There are things that are cheesy that aren't unbalanced (like bears doing martial arts, or a truenamer with a masterwork throat lozenge.) and things that are unbalanced that aren't cheesy (like a Druid turning into a bear and casting a bunch of buffs). DWK has the benefits of being both cheesy and unbalanced in common play environments.

Darg

2023-04-23, 10:46 PM

This is incorrect, pretty much entirely.

With regard to monsters, Epic Level Handbook has this to say: ECL is "equal to the creature's Hit Dice and class levels (if any) plus its level adjustment. This replaces the rule in the Monster Manual that states a creature's "Monster Level" is equal to its Hit Dice"

It then goes on to say: "In any other place in this book where "character level is indicated, you can use effective character level instead" and then proceeds to list an example of that that explicitly says it qualifies for epic feats.

So yes, characters at level 21+ can take epic feats. 21 monster HD also qualify any monster to take epic feats, without any class levels. Or any combined total of HD/class levels/LA that equals or exceeds 21 works too. That's already the general rule on epic feats.

As for dragons, the Draconomicon rule doesn't anywhere state that it's merely 'reminding' us of anything. It's a rule. It does what it says it does. Which is enable any dragon, of any HD, who is at least Old age, to qualify for epic feats. Without that sentence, they'd need a combined total of 21 HD/levels/LA, just like any other monster. Instead they don't count their ECL at all, only their age category (well technically either/or, whichever comes first)

Pretty much. It's on page 25 of Epic Level Handbook, in the sidebar. It counts HD, class levels if they have any, and LA, towards their ECL, and aside from pre-epic bab and saves only if they have class levels(they write out a special process for that in that sidebar), that ECL calculation counts for anything, including feats

It's a Core rule on page 209 of the DMG.

Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even if they have no class levels.

It does not say that old dragons can select the feats even if their ECL isn't yet 21. All it says is that they don't need class levels.

Crake

2023-04-24, 07:33 AM

This is not true. There are certainly games and groups that pride themselves on being cheesy. I played for years in the Dragoncon cheese grinder tournament. If someone ran a game and said "All RAW, go nuts"DWK would be appropriate, but still cheesy. It would just be cheesy in a Gouda rich environment. There are things that are cheesy that aren't unbalanced (like bears doing martial arts, or a truenamer with a masterwork throat lozenge.) and things that are unbalanced that aren't cheesy (like a Druid turning into a bear and casting a bunch of buffs). DWK has the benefits of being both cheesy and unbalanced in common play environments.

I don't think we agree on the definition of cheese, if you think DWK on it's own is cheesy. DWK, on it's own, does nothing more than grant the dragon type, a +2 bonus to a particular skill, and no aging penalties. This, on it's own is not cheesy, and is arguably unbalanced, though considering the rather miserable state of kobold ability score bonuses, and the fact that many have suggested that kobolds should actually be -1 level adjustment in the past, I would say that this is less unbalanced and more just bringing kobolds more in line with other races.

Now, anything BEYOND that, such as trying to read the age table and use that as a means to declare DWK as true dragons, THAT is cheesy, however that is not actually explicitly written anywhere, and is pure inference. THAT is what makes it cheesy. DWK itself, however, is not, it's never the content that is cheesy, it's the interpretation of the rules around the content that turns something otherwise innocuous into cheese.

Rebel7284

2023-04-24, 11:18 AM

There is both unbalanced content and unbalanced interpretations in this game...

Mordante

2023-04-25, 05:50 AM

Crake

2023-04-25, 07:46 AM

Making a venerable DWK isn't cheesy to me. Since Kobolds are really weak as a race.

Since the Kobold rituals use feat slots if I remember correctly, doing, Draconic Rite of Passage --> Draconic Reservoir --> Greater Draconic Rite of Passage doesn't seem so cheesy either.

Yeah, none of these things are cheesy, they all function exactly as stated and there's nothing ambiguous about them. Now, whether they're too strong or not is a different discussion, but cheese wise? Nothing cheesy about it.

Vaern

2023-04-25, 11:15 AM

It should be clarified that Draconomicon does NOT say you have to be a True dragon to qualify for epic feats by being at least old age. Any dragon of at least old age qualifies, so on this point, the debate about 'are DWK true dragons' doesn't matter at all. Whether or not they're true, they are still dragons, and qualify for epic feats at old age. As you point out here, most epic feats are still beyond their reach due to other prerequisites, so it's not a very big deal, anyway.

I believe there is a footnote at the beginning of Draconomicon stating that the book largely concerns true dragons, and that any rules and mechanics therein referring to dragons can be assumed to refer to true dragons rather than the creature type as a whole unless otherwise specified.

It also defines "true dragons" as a dragon creature who advances by age category. Kobolds are given a table of dragon age categories in Races of the Dragon, but these have no mechanical impact on them. They advance by class levels, not by age; and, they gain bonuses and penalties according to standard humanoid age categories rather than by their given dragon age categories.

MaxiDuRaritry

2023-04-25, 11:24 AM

I believe there is a footnote at the beginning of Draconomicon stating that the book largely concerns true dragons, and that any rules and mechanics therein referring to dragons can be assumed to refer to true dragons rather than the creature type as a whole unless otherwise specified.

It also defines "true dragons" as a dragon creature who advances by age category. Kobolds are given a table of dragon age categories in Races of the Dragon, but these have no mechanical impact on them. They advance by class levels, not by age; and, they gain bonuses and penalties according to standard humanoid age categories rather than by their given dragon age categories.Um, Dragonwrought kobolds very specifically do advance by age categories, which you just mentioned, and they gain power by aging, if only through their mental stat increases.

loky1109

2023-04-25, 11:37 AM

Um, Dragonwrought kobolds very specifically do advance by age categories, which you just mentioned, and they gain power by aging, if only through their mental stat increases.

They gain power by aging only two times of eleven.

MaxiDuRaritry

2023-04-25, 11:39 AM

They gain power by aging only two times of eleven.And yet it still happens as a direct result. Just because fighters only gain class features 55% of the time doesn't mean that they aren't gaining levels or power therefrom.

Crake

2023-04-25, 11:56 AM

Um, Dragonwrought kobolds very specifically do advance by age categories, which you just mentioned, and they gain power by aging, if only through their mental stat increases.

Ladies and gentlemen, exhibit A: an example of cheese.

loky1109

2023-04-25, 12:07 PM

And yet it still happens as a direct result. Just because fighters only gain class features 55% of the time doesn't mean that they aren't gaining levels or power therefrom.

We shall not make an agreement.

Darg

2023-04-25, 12:41 PM

Ladies and gentlemen, exhibit A: an example of cheese.

Exactly. It's taking a description of specific creatures mentioned in the MM and extrapolating it to DWK. They like to ignore the description that contradicts them according to the MM "all true dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age. (Other creatures of the dragon type do not.)" The only way DWKs gain more abilities and power is through class progression, not aging. The way they improve matches 100% to "other creatures." All descriptions have 0 conflict for actual true dragons; DWK has conflict. We could also bring up the book that introduces DWK but leaves them off their list of true dragons.

Vaern

2023-04-25, 05:48 PM

Um, Dragonwrought kobolds very specifically do advance by age categories, which you just mentioned, and they gain power by aging, if only through their mental stat increases.

Advancement refers to a creature becoming stronger by means of gaining hit dice. A creature's stat block tells you how they advance.

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

Advancement: By character class

The true dragon's hit dice are intrinsically linked to its age. The kobold's are not.
The true dragon gains BAB, saving throws, skill points, and additional feats simply by growing older. The kobold does not.

They gain power by aging only two times of eleven.

This isn't entirely accurate. The table which adjusts a kobold's ability scores based on its age doesn't actually line up with the table of kobold age categories.
When a kobold becomes "middle age" and would have its ability scores adjusted accordingly, it has already been on the "old" stage of its age category table for 19 years and is still a year off from becoming "very old." This adjustment does not coincide with the kobold reaching a new stage on its dragon-equivalent age category table.
When its ability scores are adjusted for being "old," it's halfway through the "ancient" stage of its dragon-equivalent life cycle. This adjustment does not coincide with the kobold reaching a new stage on its dragon-equivalent age category table.
A freshly "venerable" kobold is in the same boat as the middle age kobold, being 19 years into one age category and a year away from their next. At no point does a kobold's adjustments due to age actually coincide with reaching a new stage on the kobold age category table.
So, to be precise: A kobold gains power zero out of eleven times as a direct result of ascending their ladder of dragon-equivalent age categories.

Also, my previous post was not entirely accurate either. Having been away from my books at the time, I stated that kobolds "gain bonuses and penalties according to standard humanoid age categories rather than by their given dragon age categories," which I can no amend having reviewed the relevant text regarding aging bonuses and penalties in the PHB. It now seems necessary to note (for some reason) that the ages at which standard PC races gain bonuses and penalties to ability scores (middle age, old, and venerable) are never referred to as being "categories" at any point, meaning that "standard humanoid age categories" are simply not a thing.
So, to be crystal clear: Kobolds do not advance by and are otherwise mechanically unaffected by the dragon-equivalent age categories listed in Races of the Dragon[/B]; and, [B]the ages listed on the table that actually determines the effects of age on a kobold are not "age categories."

Just because fighters only gain class features 55% of the time doesn't mean that they aren't gaining levels or power therefrom.

I don't see how this point is relevant, what argument you're trying to make, or why you think it's helpful to your argument. A fighter gains hit dice by advancing his class levels which grants increased BAB, saving throws, skill points, and the occasional bonus feat outside those allotted by his class. Even levels of commoner, which grants no class features at any level, is a clear form of advancement as it still grants all of the benefits associated with increased hit dice. A kobold's age categories do not confer these benefits. Or any benefits at all, since it's been established that not even the kobold's adjustments to ability scores are connected to age categories in any way.

Gruftzwerg

2023-04-25, 11:07 PM

Oh, a "are DWK True Dragons by RAW?" debate and I'm late to the party^^

(I did just pick 2 quotes to point out the most common mistakes here (regarding RAW))

Exactly. It's taking a description of specific creatures mentioned in the MM and extrapolating it to DWK. They like to ignore the description that contradicts them according to the MM "all true dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age. (Other creatures of the dragon type do not.)" The only way DWKs gain more abilities and power is through class progression, not aging. The way they improve matches 100% to "other creatures." All descriptions have 0 conflict for actual true dragons; DWK has conflict. We could also bring up the book that introduces DWK but leaves them off their list of true dragons.

1. All rule debates should start with the Primary Source Rule (PSR)
2. Draconomicon calls out topic supremacy for dragons. As such it has book & topic supremacy for "dragons".
3. Since MM doesn't create a more specific subtopic for True Dragons (TD), it lacks the permission to trump any rules presented in the Draconomicon (the primary source).

Conclusion:
It doesn't matter what MM has to say about what qualifies as True Dragons.
But note that DWK is a specific exception and not the norm. (more on that below in my response to Vaern's quote)

Advancement refers to a creature becoming stronger by means of gaining hit dice. A creature's stat block tells you how they advance.

The true dragon's hit dice are intrinsically linked to its age. The kobold's are not.
The true dragon gains BAB, saving throws, skill points, and additional feats simply by growing older. The kobold does not.

This isn't entirely accurate. The table which adjusts a kobold's ability scores based on its age doesn't actually line up with the table of kobold age categories.
When a kobold becomes "middle age" and would have its ability scores adjusted accordingly, it has already been on the "old" stage of its age category table for 19 years and is still a year off from becoming "very old." This adjustment does not coincide with the kobold reaching a new stage on its dragon-equivalent age category table.
When its ability scores are adjusted for being "old," it's halfway through the "ancient" stage of its dragon-equivalent life cycle. This adjustment does not coincide with the kobold reaching a new stage on its dragon-equivalent age category table.
A freshly "venerable" kobold is in the same boat as the middle age kobold, being 19 years into one age category and a year away from their next. At no point does a kobold's adjustments due to age actually coincide with reaching a new stage on the kobold age category table.
So, to be precise: A kobold gains power zero out of eleven times as a direct result of ascending their ladder of dragon-equivalent age categories.

Also, my previous post was not entirely accurate either. Having been away from my books at the time, I stated that kobolds "gain bonuses and penalties according to standard humanoid age categories rather than by their given dragon age categories," which I can no amend having reviewed the relevant text regarding aging bonuses and penalties in the PHB. It now seems necessary to note (for some reason) that the ages at which standard PC races gain bonuses and penalties to ability scores (middle age, old, and venerable) are never referred to as being "categories" at any point, meaning that "standard humanoid age categories" are simply not a thing.
So, to be crystal clear: Kobolds do not advance by and are otherwise mechanically unaffected by the dragon-equivalent age categories listed in Races of the Dragon[/B]; and, the ages listed on the table that actually determines the effects of age on a kobold are not "age categories."

I don't see how this point is relevant, what argument you're trying to make, or why you think it's helpful to your argument. A fighter gains hit dice by advancing his class levels which grants increased BAB, saving throws, skill points, and the occasional bonus feat outside those allotted by his class. Even levels of commoner, which grants no class features at any level, is a clear form of advancement as it still grants all of the benefits associated with increased hit dice. A kobold's age categories do not confer these benefits. Or any benefits at all, since it's been established that not even the kobold's adjustments to ability scores are connected to age categories in any way.

Let us reread the passage in Draconomicon (p.4) that differentiates between TD and Lesser Dragons (LD):
I added some numbers "(X)... (/X)" , so that we can later talk easier about the passages.

[B]THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF DRAGONS
In the D&D game, the term “dragon” encompasses a number of different creatures, some of which bear little resemblance to the great flying creatures with breath weapons that we commonly think of as dragons.
(1)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).(/1)
(2) True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older.(/2)
(3) 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.(/3)
(4) Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons (which should not be taken to mean that they are necessarily less formidable than true dragons).(/4)
(5) The three kinds of lesser dragon described in the Monster Manual are the dragon turtle, the pseudodragon, and the wyvern. Chapter 4 of this book contains a number of descriptions of other lesser dragons, and Appendix 2 lists every lesser dragon that has been described in a DUNGEONS & DRAGONS rule-book or accessory.(/5)
(1): Most things refer to the 10 specific examples in the MM, but not all!

(2): TD need to become more powerful as they grow older.
Neither "(more) powerful" nor "(grow) older" are defined by RAW in 3.5.
This means we fall back to common English definitions and have no permission to interpret any defined keywords into it to artificially narrow down the common English definition:

"growing older" != "Age Categories"
"Aging Effects" qualify, since those happen as a result of "growing older".

"more powerful" != Advancement
A pure mental stat gain without any (physical stat) penalties qualifies as "more powerful".

To give you a lil example what you are trying here:
Imaging an attack is described as "you make a powerful attack". You are basically claiming that the ability is referring to "Power Attack". You may not do such things for a pure RAW interpretation. That would be more fitting for a RAI interpretation, and even then you need to be very carefully with such assumptions.

(3): A "general" list of TD that may be trumped by specific exception (like DWK).
Since specific exceptions may trump general rules/lists, this doesn't stop a DWK from possibly being a TD. Nobody claims that DWK become their own TD type. They just have enough TD blood in em from their ancestor that lets em still count as TD. This is supported by the fluff and the mechanics of the DWK feat. You pick your heritage. Also see (5)

(4): "do not advance" trough "age categories" = lesser dragon
Let us first again note that we may not read defined words into a regular non-defined word of the English language:

"do not advance" != Advancement
This ain't talking about the defined "Advancement" by RAW. It doesn't say "dragons that lack Advancement from their Age Categories". It just requires you to be able to advance trough "age categories"

Now let us talk about the things that are defined in 3.5, like "Age Categories".
But let me remind you shouldn't mix up "Age Categories" with "Aging Effects".
Every playable creature can have "Aging Effects", but sole True Dragons have "Age Categories".
Kobolds are the sole exception besides the general True Dragons that have "Age Categories". This is a clear point for DWK to count as TD and not as Lesser Dragons. Because they can "advance trough Age Categories". "Advance" is used here to describe the transition form one age category to another. The rule doesn't require you to gain "Advancement" from your Age Categories. That is not what RAW is talking about here.

(5): List of Lesser Dragons
For all those that like to clinch to the argument that DWK are not on the TD list, he ain't on the list for LD either. General list can't be taken as measurement for specific exceptions. And as said above. Nobody claims that they become their own TD variety. They are just specific exceptions to the norm.

By RAW a DWK qualifies for those things required to be a TD and clearly disqualifies himself as a LD.

And for those that still want to bash on the "Advancement", I have a bonus argument: (maybe the most important here)

(6): Dragons as Player Characters (starts at p.141 of Draconomicon)
After a short overview over the topic we a given a lengthy explanation of "Advancement & Aging" (p142+).
Right after that comes the paragraph:"Other True Dragons" (p. 144)

For true dragons other than those found in the Monster Manual, construct tables such as those above using the information on Table 3–22: Additional Level Adjustments.
The DM has the "duty" (!) for other True Dragons (like the DWK) to construct a table as shown in "3-22".

Advancement can't be a requirement to qualify as TD, if the DM has the duty to construct tables for those TD who lack one.

How the progression of a DWK looks like is totally in the hands of the DM.
The DM sole has to follow the layout presented by the table. He can make a progression similar to those presented (to make DWK totally useless, because than you could have played straight a TD and wouldn't need to waste a feat on it..) or just fill the DWK's table with "-" (or +0) for no changes (as a specific exception).

The DM has the freedom to decide how the Advancement of Other True Dragons looks like. And with that, he has the tool by RAW to make DWK TD cheese either effective (no extra HD or LA) or just a waste of resources at his table (+HD & +LA). No special houserules needed. I repeat, "the DM has the duty to construct a table for other TD like the DWK."

So, if the player wants to much cheese, the DM can always easily say "try again".
And if the player's cheese attempt is in line with the rest of the party & plot, he can make it happen.
Don't forget to bring drinks and snacks to bribe the DM :smallwink:

Crake

2023-04-25, 11:14 PM

Oh, a "are DWK True Dragons by RAW?" debate and I'm late to the party^^

(I did just pick 2 quotes to point out the most common mistakes here (regarding RAW))

1. All rule debates should start with the Primary Source Rule (PSR)
2. Draconomicon calls out topic supremacy for dragons. As such it has book & topic supremacy for "dragons".
3. Since MM doesn't create a more specific subtopic for True Dragons (TD), it lacks the permission to trump any rules presented in the Draconomicon (the primary source).

Conclusion:
It doesn't matter what MM has to say about what qualifies as True Dragons.
But note that DWK is a specific exception and not the norm. (more on that below in my response to Vaern's quote)

Let us reread the passage in Draconomicon (p.4) that differentiates between TD and Lesser Dragons (LD):
I added some numbers "(X)... (/X)" , so that we can later talk easier about the passages.

(1): Most things refer to the 10 specific examples in the MM, but not all!

(2): TD need to become more powerful as they grow older.
Neither "(more) powerful" nor "(grow) older" are defined by RAW in 3.5.
This means we fall back to common English definitions and have no permission to interpret any defined keywords into it to artificially narrow down the common English definition:

"growing older" != "Age Categories"
"Aging Effects" qualify, since those happen as a result of "growing older".

"more powerful" != Advancement
A pure mental stat gain without any (physical stat) penalties qualifies as "more powerful".

To give you a lil example what you are trying here:
Imaging an attack is described as "you make a powerful attack". You are basically claiming that the ability is referring to "Power Attack". You may not do such things for a pure RAW interpretation. That would be more fitting for a RAI interpretation, and even then you need to be very carefully with such assumptions.

(3): A "general" list of TD that may be trumped by specific exception (like DWK).
Since specific exceptions may trump general rules/lists, this doesn't stop a DWK from possibly being a TD. Nobody claims that DWK become their own TD type. They just have enough TD blood in em from their ancestor that lets em still count as TD. This is supported by the fluff and the mechanics of the DWK feat. You pick your heritage. Also see (5)

(4): "do not advance" trough "age categories" = lesser dragon
Let us first again note that we may not read defined words into a regular non-defined word of the English language:

"do not advance" != Advancement
This ain't talking about the defined "Advancement" by RAW. It doesn't say "dragons that lack Advancement from their Age Categories". It just requires you to be able to advance trough "age categories"

Now let us talk about the things that are defined in 3.5, like "Age Categories".
But let me remind you shouldn't mix up "Age Categories" with "Aging Effects".
Every playable creature can have "Aging Effects", but sole True Dragons have "Age Categories".
Kobolds are the sole exception besides the general True Dragons that have "Age Categories". This is a clear point for DWK to count as TD and not as Lesser Dragons. Because they can "advance trough Age Categories". "Advance" is used here to describe the transition form one age category to another. The rule doesn't require you to gain "Advancement" from your Age Categories. That is not what RAW is talking about here.

(5): List of Lesser Dragons
For all those that like to clinch to the argument that DWK are not on the TD list, he ain't on the list for LD either. General list can't be taken as measurement for specific exceptions. And as said above. Nobody claims that they become their own TD variety. They are just specific exceptions to the norm.

By RAW a DWK qualifies for those things required to be a TD and clearly disqualifies himself as a LD.

And for those that still want to bash on the "Advancement", I have a bonus argument: (maybe the most important here)

(6): Dragons as Player Characters (starts at p.141 of Draconomicon)
After a short overview over the topic we a given a lengthy explanation of "Advancement & Aging" (p142+).
Right after that comes the paragraph:"Other True Dragons" (p. 144)

The DM has the "duty" (!) for other True Dragons (like the DWK) to construct a table as shown in "3-22".

Advancement can't be a requirement to qualify as TD, if the DM has the duty to construct tables for those TD who lack one.

How the progression of a DWK looks like is totally in the hands of the DM.
The DM sole has to follow the layout presented by the table. He can make a progression similar to those presented (to make DWK totally useless, because than you could have played straight a TD and wouldn't need to waste a feat on it..) or just fill the DWK's table with "-" (or +0) for no changes (as a specific exception).

The DM has the freedom to decide how the Advancement of Other True Dragons looks like. And with that, he has the tool by RAW to make DWK TD cheese either effective (no extra HD or LA) or just a waste of resources at his table (+HD & +LA). No special houserules needed. I repeat, "the DM has the duty to construct a table for other TD like the DWK."

So, if the player wants to much cheese, the DM can always easily say "try again".
And if the player's cheese attempt is in line with the rest of the party & plot, he can make it happen.
Don't forget to bring drinks and snacks to bribe the DM :smallwink:

If you need a 3 page essay to explain why this rule that you're inferring from other rules about why another rule is in fact applicable to a circumstance in which it's never mentioned... then it's cheese.

Mechalich

2023-04-25, 11:46 PM

The DM has the "duty" (!) for other True Dragons (like the DWK) to construct a table as shown in "3-22".

There are nearly 100 True Dragons, meaning ones with 12 age categories, presented across the 3.0 and 3.5 editions of D&D, including varieties published in setting supplements (ex. Steel Dragons), online web articles (ex. Obsidian Dragons), or in Dragon Magazine (ex. Purple Dragons). That's the kind of thing that instruction was referring too. The Dragonwrought Kobold demonstrates an extremely clear difference in kind from all of them. In fact, it's not even an especially 'draconic' form of dragon, compared to something like a Linnorm or Hellfire Wyrm.

Yes, it is possible to put together a gaming legalese case wherein somehow Dragonwrought Kobolds qualify as True Dragons on a technicality, but that is some stinky cheese indeed.

Vaern

2023-04-26, 04:09 AM

First of all, I think this snippet should be sufficient to discredit the entire thesis.

(4): "do not advance" trough "age categories" = lesser dragon
Let us first again note that we may not read defined words into a regular non-defined word of the English language:

"do not advance" != Advancement
This ain't talking about the defined "Advancement" by RAW.

Secondly,

This book usually describes only the most commonly encountered version of a creature (though some entries for advanced monsters can be found). The advancement line shows how tough a creature can get, in terms of extra Hit Dice. Some intelligent creatures advance by gaining a level in a character class instead of just gaining a new Hit Die.

"Advance," and all conjugations of the word including "advances," "advanced," and "advancing," are all defined as and used in the same context as "advancement," throughout several books, meaning to gain hit dice or class levels.

Kobolds grow through age categories. In defined game terms, they do not advance through them.

Your entire argument in contingent on reading defined words into a regular non-defined word of the English language, which you stated in literally the previous sentence that you may not do. You're reaching, grasping, and twisting RAW into RAI to try justifying an argument that simply doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

InvisibleBison

2023-04-26, 11:26 AM

All rule debates should start with the Primary Source Rule (PSR)

I don't think this is correct. The primary source rule is quite useful when it's applicable, but most of the time it's not applicable. For one thing, it only determines how to adjudicate disagreements between different rules. Many rules debates don't involve such a disagreement. For example, the issue of whether or not dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons is founded on how to interpret the absence of specific rules text, not how to resolve a contradiction between two rules texts. And even when there is a rules contradiction, it's often impossible to actually apply the primary source rule, because except for the handful of examples explicitly laid out in the rule itself there is no way to resolve which of the contradictory rules is the primary source.

Gruftzwerg

2023-04-26, 10:16 PM

If you need a 3 page essay to explain why this rule that you're inferring from other rules about why another rule is in fact applicable to a circumstance in which it's never mentioned... then it's cheese.

What did you expect from a rule lawyer that has already discussed this topic in multiple threads over years where some reached up to 50 pages...

Did you expect me to play hide and seek with the dozen arguments regarding the debate?

I tried to address anything that comes up in DWK RAW debates and tried to give a complete RAW overview of the topic.

And yeah, it is stinky cheese. But as in real life, "some people like the odor" of what others consider as stinky cheese. ;)

There are nearly 100 True Dragons, meaning ones with 12 age categories, presented across the 3.0 and 3.5 editions of D&D, including varieties published in setting supplements (ex. Steel Dragons), online web articles (ex. Obsidian Dragons), or in Dragon Magazine (ex. Purple Dragons). That's the kind of thing that instruction was referring too. The Dragonwrought Kobold demonstrates an extremely clear difference in kind from all of them. In fact, it's not even an especially 'draconic' form of dragon, compared to something like a Linnorm or Hellfire Wyrm.

Yes, it is possible to put together a gaming legalese case wherein somehow Dragonwrought Kobolds qualify as True Dragons on a technicality, but that is some stinky cheese indeed.
The debate is about the question if DWK are cheesy. I guess we can sum it up with a clear yes..^^

The point is that DWK clearly disqualify as Lesser Dragons and qualify as True Dragons. All mechanical requirements are fulfilled.

First of all, I think this snippet should be sufficient to discredit the entire thesis.

Secondly,

"Advance," and all conjugations of the word including "advances," "advanced," and "advancing," are all defined as and used in the same context as "advancement," throughout several books, meaning to gain hit dice or class levels.

Kobolds grow through age categories. In defined game terms, they do not advance through them.

Your entire argument in contingent on reading defined words into a regular non-defined word of the English language, which you stated in literally the previous sentence that you may not do. You're reaching, grasping, and twisting RAW into RAI to try justifying an argument that simply doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
You seem to be mixing up RAW and RAI.
RAW sole relies on a pure reading of the rule text. Defined keywords remain so and undefined keywords don't turn into defined keywords.

"Advancement" is defined in the MM at page 7.

Show me where the conjugations are defined?
Or where the rule is that allows you to interpret conjugations as keywords.

If the original keyword would have been mentioned at least once, I would maybe agree with you.
But the entire page 4 of Draconomicon doesn't spell out "Advancement" once.
There is no reason to assume that it is talking about Advancement here. It sole uses "advance" to describe the transition from one age category to another. Like in : "You advance from 3rd to 4th grade." It's a simple verb and not the keyword you are trying to see here.

And as said, p 144 of Draconomicon gives the DM the duty to construct tables for "other true dragons". How can it be a rule to add Advancement to those TD that lack it, when it is a requirement to qualify as such. This is logically impossible. A DM can sole add it if it ain't a requirement to count as True Dragon.

I don't think this is correct. The primary source rule is quite useful when it's applicable, but most of the time it's not applicable. For one thing, it only determines how to adjudicate disagreements between different rules. Many rules debates don't involve such a disagreement. For example, the issue of whether or not dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons is founded on how to interpret the absence of specific rules text, not how to resolve a contradiction between two rules texts. And even when there is a rules contradiction, it's often impossible to actually apply the primary source rule, because except for the handful of examples explicitly laid out in the rule itself there is no way to resolve which of the contradictory rules is the primary source.

Let me explain how you always make use of the Primary Source Rule without noticing it:

Simple Power Attack example:
1. When you use PA, it tries to alter the general attack rules.
2. As such, it differs from the regular attack rules and thus in conflict with em.
3. Since it creates a more specific (sub-)topic, it gets supremacy over its own niche topic: Power Attack
4. With that, it can now Trump any general rules that differ from it.

You always use the PSR without noticing it. As soon as there is any rule alteration due to multiple rules affecting each other, you are using it.
It's just that the rule situation between Power Attack and the general attack rules are so simple to solve that we forget that we rely on the PSR to do it.

Without the PSR even such simple things like PA would create a dsyfunction with the general rules presented.

Note that the phrase/tool "Specific Trumps General" thrives from the PSR. It's hidden into the two simple words "topic supremacy".
Since 3.5 lacks a definition for "topic", anything that creates either a new (general) topic or a more specific subtopic is a topic of its own.
This is the entire base of all rule interactions in 3.5

Without the PSR you can't solve any rule interaction. Not even the most basic ones. Everything stays or falls with the PSR.

Crake

2023-04-27, 01:13 AM

What did you expect from a rule lawyer that has already discussed this topic in multiple threads over years where some reached up to 50 pages...

Did you expect me to play hide and seek with the dozen arguments regarding the debate?

I tried to address anything that comes up in DWK RAW debates and tried to give a complete RAW overview of the topic.

And yeah, it is stinky cheese. But as in real life, "some people like the odor" of what others consider as stinky cheese. ;)

Except my point from the start has been that content on it’s own is never cheesy, it may be overpowered or underpowered or poorly tuned, but never cheesy. It is interpretations like this that are cheesy.

So no, DWK are not cheesy, but trying to claim that DWK are true dragons IS cheesy.

loky1109

2023-04-27, 02:27 AM

Let me explain how you always make use of the Primary Source Rule without noticing it:

Simple Power Attack example:

Your example doesn't work. Both Power Attack and regular attack rules are in the same source. PSR has nothing to do here.

pabelfly

2023-04-27, 02:45 AM

For all the terms that are ill-defined in DnD 3e, True Dragon isn’t one of them. Draconomicon has whole chapters dedicated to describing what features a True Dragon should have.

Let’s go through some of the points and compare it with a Dragonwrought Kobold.

All true dragons are endothermic

As reptiles, kobolds are hatched from hard-shelled eggs

That’s really different.

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.

Kobolds, even Dragonwrought Kobolds, don’t come with a breath weapon or energy immunity. These can be picked up with class levels or feats, true, but at best, that would make the argument that you need to get the Dragonwrought Kobold feat as one single component of becoming a True Dragon, and that’s ignoring so many other parts of Draconomicon that exclude a Kobold, even if they had a breath weapon and energy immunity.

True dragons also develop spell resistance as they age

Another feature that a Dragonwrought Kobold doesn’t have. They can pick up spell resistance from class levels, yes, but even if one did, that is not the same as developing spell resistance as they age.

True dragons possess blindsense

Kobolds don’t have Blindsense. Another trait that can be picked up with feats and/or class features, but, again, at best that’s an argument that the Dragonwrought Kobold feat is the first step in becoming a True Dragon, .and we ignore everything that deliberately excludes Kobolds, even with the Dragonwrought feat.

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

It’s strange how everyone that wants a Kobold to become a True Dragon forgets to add the level adjustment. Well, now I’ve reminded them of this, I’m sure it will be added in any time someone wants to make a Dragonwrought Kobold build to get access to all of the goodies True Dragons get.

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.

This looks more like a description of a Dragonwrought Kobold. It has a set level adjustment (0), and no advancement of the character as a monster, only through class levels, just like all other characters in the party.

At best, you can maybe say that there is some tenuous links between Dragons and Dragonwrought Kobolds, but there is plenty of evidence completely against the idea that DWK are True Dragons.

Vaern

2023-04-27, 04:53 AM

"Advancement" is defined in the MM at page 7.

Show me where the conjugations are defined?
Or where the rule is that allows you to interpret conjugations as keywords.

If the original keyword would have been mentioned at least once, I would maybe agree with you.
But the entire page 4 of Draconomicon doesn't spell out "Advancement" once.
There is no reason to assume that it is talking about Advancement here. It sole uses "advance" to describe the transition from one age category to another. Like in : "You advance from 3rd to 4th grade." It's a simple verb and not the keyword you are trying to see here.

The Draconomicon doesn't have to spell it advancement. The Primary Source Rule only applies when two books disagree on a rule. The Core rules define advancement. The fact that Draconomicon doesn't define the keyword doesn't mean it has no definition in the context of Draconomicon; the primary source does not redefine a rule and does not go out of its way to explicitly remove it, so the Core definition stands. In terms of growing stronger, advancement and all variables are only ever used in the context to gaining hit dice or class levels.
If a term is not properly defined, the proper way to interpret it would be to look at the context in which the rules use it to determine what it actually means. In terms of growing stronger, advancement and all variations are always used in the same way, meaning to gain hit dice or class levels. Your entire argument hinges on interpreting "advance" to mean something different exactly one time in exactly one instance than how it's used in literally every other time it's used. Even if I was to agree that "advances" is not a properly defined word, that is still an astoundingly weak defense for your argument, and not by any means definitive evidence that kobolds are true dragons.

If there's one thing I've learned from arguing with you in the past, it's that convincing you that you are wrong - no matter how creatively you have to interpret the rules to make your arguments, or how many assumptions you have to make about what certain words could be interpreted to mean other than their defined meaning, or how how solidly rooted in RAW other people's evidence against you may be - is in exercise in patience and endurance that is beyond the scope of most people.
You may claim that you have years of rules lawyering on the topic to back you up, but don't take the fact that most people just give up and stop trying to argue against you as proof that you're actually right about it.

lylsyly

2023-04-27, 07:17 AM

And here I thought we had skipped this debate for the year ;-))))

DWK is NOT cheesy. Nothing in the rules is actually cheesy. What is cheesy is what people try to do with it

Malphegor

2023-04-27, 07:42 AM

My thoughts on dragonwrought kobold is, if done right, it can be overpowered for the game’s expected level of balance particularly where it comes to epic abilities and spell access. The hoops to get through to explain it in a way to make it seem reasonable make it seem very cheesey.
However.

Is it fun for the game? If you can be a ‘new’ kind of dragon in your world, a kobold who became a true dragon and shook up the status quo of the grand xoorvintal games dragons play… Then go for it. I want to hear your character’s story, see you grow and fall.

It sounds fun. Do it, if you want to. Don’t be boring. Have an adventure. Make sure it’s fun for your fellow players too.

Beni-Kujaku

2023-04-27, 08:06 AM

1. All rule debates should start with the Primary Source Rule (PSR)
2. Draconomicon calls out topic supremacy for dragons. As such it has book & topic supremacy for "dragons".
3. Since MM doesn't create a more specific subtopic for True Dragons (TD), it lacks the permission to trump any rules presented in the Draconomicon (the primary source).

Conclusion:
It doesn't matter what MM has to say about what qualifies as True Dragons.
But note that DWK is a specific exception and not the norm. (more on that below in my response to Vaern's quote)

Eh, if DWK is a specific exception and not the norm, then Races of the Dragon becomes the primary source for DWK. RotD hence has the final say about if DWK are true dragons. However, RotD says, in "half-dragon beyond the monster manual", that it lists "all true dragons published in DUNGEONS & DRAGONS products to date.". And most surprisingly, it doesn't list DWK as a true dragon there. It sure feels like that means RotD is saying that DWK are not true dragons. I mean, sure Draconomicon may be the primary source for true dragons in general, but specific trumps general, right? :smallbiggrin:

lylsyly

2023-04-27, 09:24 AM

Where exactly is this so called "Primary Source Rule" published?

Gruftzwerg

2023-04-27, 10:38 AM

Except my point from the start has been that content on it’s own is never cheesy, it may be overpowered or underpowered or poorly tuned, but never cheesy. It is interpretations like this that are cheesy.

So no, DWK are not cheesy, but trying to claim that DWK are true dragons IS cheesy.

I would agree with you, if I would be doing something unexpected by the rules.

But as soon as DWK gets the dragon type, we are forced (by the rules) to check if they are True or Lesser Dragons.
Draconomicon p4 sets the rules for this. And as I have shown, they clearly disqualify as Lesser Dragon and qualify as True Dragons by RAW.

It's the application of the general rules that lead to the "cheesy" outcome: to count as True Dragon
That is the can of worms here.

It's not that I'm pulling of rules from obscure sources here. I just applied the rules for the situation, which lead us to a very exploitable outcome. So, imho DWK is cheesy by default.

Your example doesn't work. Both Power Attack and regular attack rules are in the same source. PSR has nothing to do here.

We have book supremacy and topic supremacy.

1. Draconomicon has (general book) supremacy over the topic "dragons".
2. The box at p.4 of Draconomicon provides the (specific topic) rules to distinguish between lesser and true dragons. Thus it has supremacy over the topic "true or lesser dragon".

A more specific source within a source. That's how the Primary Source Rule functions.

Everything topic is tied to a "book" and a "specific section for that topic within that book".
We have both, book and topic supremacy in 3.5, not sole book supremacy.

For all the terms that are ill-defined in DnD 3e, True Dragon isn’t one of them. Draconomicon has whole chapters dedicated to describing what features a True Dragon should have.

Let’s go through some of the points and compare it with a Dragonwrought Kobold.

That’s really different.

....

I'm well aware of those descriptions. But remind you...

(1)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).(/1)
There it is describing the 10 base true dragons presented in the MM. You can look up any lengthy older discussion to see that there are a bunch of dragons marked as True Dragons by their rule text, that don't fit into this description.

And to give you the full RAW response:
The checkbox at the bottom of Draconomicon p.4 has supremacy over "what is a lesser or a true dragon".
The quotes you posted can sole create a specific suptopic (e.g. the 10 True Dragons in the MM I) and not provide global rules for the topic "lesser or true dragon".
If we want to check if a DWK is a lesser or true dragon, we still have to rely on the infobox at the bottom of p.4 of Draconomicon.

And also remind you that the DM has to create an advancement table for the DWK. So, if he wants, he can theoretically overload a DWK with RHD and LA and give him many of those abilities. "Other True Dragons" on p144 of Draconomicon gives him the duty to make up something. Be it "-" (HD) & +0LA or whatever else he sees fit.

The Draconomicon doesn't have to spell it advancement. The Primary Source Rule only applies when two books disagree on a rule. The Core rules define advancement. The fact that Draconomicon doesn't define the keyword doesn't mean it has no definition in the context of Draconomicon; the primary source does not redefine a rule and does not go out of its way to explicitly remove it, so the Core definition stands. In terms of growing stronger, advancement and all variables are only ever used in the context to gaining hit dice or class levels.
If a term is not properly defined, the proper way to interpret it would be to look at the context in which the rules use it to determine what it actually means. In terms of growing stronger, advancement and all variations are always used in the same way, meaning to gain hit dice or class levels. Your entire argument hinges on interpreting "advance" to mean something different exactly one time in exactly one instance than how it's used in literally every other time it's used. Even if I was to agree that "advances" is not a properly defined word, that is still an astoundingly weak defense for your argument, and not by any means definitive evidence that kobolds are true dragons.

If there's one thing I've learned from arguing with you in the past, it's that convincing you that you are wrong - no matter how creatively you have to interpret the rules to make your arguments, or how many assumptions you have to make about what certain words could be interpreted to mean other than their defined meaning, or how how solidly rooted in RAW other people's evidence against you may be - is in exercise in patience and endurance that is beyond the scope of most people.
You may claim that you have years of rules lawyering on the topic to back you up, but don't take the fact that most people just give up and stop trying to argue against you as proof that you're actually right about it.

Yeah Draconomicon doesn't need to redefine "Advancement". But that is not my argument here.
Drconomicon p.4 needs to at least mention the keyword once, if it wants to refer to those rules. Just simple similar words of the english language ain't enough. If it would be at least mentioned once on the page, I would agree that all alterations of the word later used would refer to the defined keyword. But that is not the case here.

"Advancement" ain't used to determine if something is a lesser or true dragon.

And to to repeat it all over again..
"Other True Dragons" would make no sense if "Advancement" would be a requirement. This is a proof within the same primary source (Draconomicon) that "advance" on p.4 is used to show the transition form one age category to another and ain't referring to "Advancement".

If you disagree, try to explain how this all makes sense without creating any dysfunctions pls.

And if I have learned something from the discussions in the past, that is that people like attack functional interpretations, while they themselves often don't provide or check their interpretation for functionality by RAW.
I can without error show how they qualify as True and disqualify as Lesser. Can you say the same about your interpretation? (kindly asking: how does your rule explanation look like? What happens to the general rules for the topic at page 4 of Draconomicon under your interpretation? How do you stop DWK from disqualifying as Lesser Dragons due to their Age Categories?..)

Eh, if DWK is a specific exception and not the norm, then Races of the Dragon becomes the primary source for DWK. RotD hence has the final say about if DWK are true dragons. However, RotD says, in "half-dragon beyond the monster manual", that it lists "all true dragons published in DUNGEONS & DRAGONS products to date.". And most surprisingly, it doesn't list DWK as a true dragon there. It sure feels like that means RotD is saying that DWK are not true dragons. I mean, sure Draconomicon may be the primary source for true dragons in general, but specific trumps general, right? :smallbiggrin:
No..^^ The DWK rules provided in Races of Dragon are the Primary Source for "DWK". Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't affect the general rules for what is a True and what is a Lesser Dragon. It just follows those general rules. The DWK rules never show any intent to change the TD or LD rules.

Finally as said..
.. they still don't become their own distinct True Dragon variety. It is not intended by the rules nor the fluff that a DWK picks a DWK as his heritage. 2 DWK parents don't produce a DWK by default. They have the same low chance to give birth to a DWK as any other non DWK parents have.

As such, you will never find a DWK on any TRUE or LESSER dragon list. Because it is never the norm, but always an exception to the norm. As said, nobody is claiming that they become their own TD variety. They justify themselves as still qualifying as TD due to their heritage. This is true for fluff and rule mechanics.

Nice try but sorry.. No ;)

edit:

Where exactly is this so called "Primary Source Rule" published?
They are hidden in the ERRATAs. Here a quote:

Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two... rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

This is the rule base for "Specific Trumps General".

lylsyly

2023-04-27, 11:17 AM

So which errata are they in? You giving me a quote isn't the same as providing the source.

Vaern

2023-04-27, 11:25 AM

And to to repeat it all over again..
"Other True Dragons" would make no sense if "Advancement" would be a requirement. This is a proof within the same primary source (Draconomicon) that "advance" on p.4 is used to show the transition form one age category to another and ain't referring to "Advancement".

I don't see how it doesn't make sense. "Other true dragons" is referring to true dragons other than the chromatic and metallic dragons in the PHB mentioned in the previous sentence. Gem dragons. Faerun dragons. Planar dragons. Epic dragons. All of these are referenced as true dragons in the Draconomicon, and all of them have an advancement table that describes how they gain hit dice and grow more powerful as they age. Unless you can provide am example of the Draconomicon referencing something as a true dragon which does not have hot dice intrinsically linked to its age, using the word in the same way it's consistently used throughout the rest of the book, meaning to gain hit dice or class levels, does not create a dysfunction. All established true dragons remain true dragons, because this is how they work. The only reason to use any other definition is to force it to specifically include certain creatures that would otherwise be excluded.
The only way to see a dysfunction here if you have already decided that dragonwrought kobolds must be true dragons and that any ruling preventing that must be an error.

InvisibleBison

2023-04-27, 01:47 PM

Without the PSR you can't solve any rule interaction. Not even the most basic ones. Everything stays or falls with the PSR.

The primary source rule was first published in the errata. Are you saying that in the period of time between the publishing of the core rules and the release of the first errata the game simply didn't function?

The notion that specific rules trump general rules is a foundational aspect of how rules interpretation works. It doesn't need to be explicitly laid out anywhere because it's inherent to having a system of rules at all. The primary source rule is not the foundation of specific trumps general but just a specific case of it, a delineation of how rules that at first glance might not seem to be more specific than other rules actually are.

pabelfly

2023-04-27, 02:23 PM

There is no reason that p4 of Draconomicon somehow has supremacy over all the other pages of Draconomicon. You can't ignore the rest of the book, which spends a great deal of time and effort conceptualizing what exactly a "true dragon" is, both mechanically and thematically, has multiple, explicit points as to what a True Dragon is and why a Kobold is not a True Dragon.

Remuko

2023-04-27, 02:37 PM

i personally dont care if its cheesey or not. i think something being cheesey or not is totally irrelevant. i care about the following: do I (or my player intending to play it) find it cool/suit their idea? is it balanced as its being used, not as it could be abused, as it is being used? if the answer to both is yes, that's all i care about. if abuse cases are known about they will be dealt with via talking to the player and making sure they stay balanced to the table rather than caring about semantics and quibbles over if something is "too cheesey" or not.

Chronos

2023-04-27, 03:23 PM

Quoth Beni-Kujaku:

However, RotD says, in "half-dragon beyond the monster manual", that it lists "all true dragons published in DUNGEONS & DRAGONS products to date.". And most surprisingly, it doesn't list DWK as a true dragon there.
But it does. White dragonwrought kobolds are in the list, under "white dragons". Gold dragonwrought kobolds are in the list, under "gold dragons". Red dragonwrought kobolds are in the list, under "red dragons", and so on.

lylsyly

2023-04-27, 04:15 PM

loky1109

2023-04-27, 04:35 PM

Where exactly is this list?

Races of the Dragon, p. 69-72

InvisibleBison

2023-04-27, 04:45 PM

But it does. White dragonwrought kobolds are in the list, under "white dragons". Gold dragonwrought kobolds are in the list, under "gold dragons". Red dragonwrought kobolds are in the list, under "red dragons", and so on.

"White dragons" only includes white dragonwrought kobolds if you assume that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons before you look at the list. If you don't make that assumption, the list doesn't contain dragonwrought koblolds.

Vaern

2023-04-27, 04:48 PM

So which errata are they in? You giving me a quote isn't the same as providing the source.

It's actually at the start of the errata for all three of the core rulebooks. I can only find 5E errata from WotC (who I'm fairly certain no longer officially support or host any 3rd edition material on their site), but Google does turn up several second-hand PDFs of the relevant 3.5 errata documents.

lylsyly

2023-04-27, 04:59 PM

i looked at those 3 pdfs on my hard drive. none of them included the psr. found it on a 2006 dated pdf of phb errata on the wayback machine. only makes my doubt more real.

pabelfly

2023-04-27, 05:07 PM

i looked at those 3 pdfs on my hard drive. none of them included the psr. found it on a 2006 dated pdf of phb errata on the wayback machine. only makes my doubt more real.

Rules Compendium has this on P5: "The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application: General to specifi c to exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specifi c rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity. For instance, a monster description is more specific than any general rule about monsters, so the description takes precedence. An exception is a particular kind of specific rule that contradicts or breaks another rule (general or specific). The Improved Disarm feat, for instance, provides an exception to the rule that an attacker provokes an attack of opportunity from the defender he’s trying to disarm (see Disarm, page 45)"

Does this answer the question?

DigoDragon

2023-04-27, 05:23 PM

Frankly, as far as I can tell, being a Wizard is more cheesy than being a Dragonwrought Kobold, when you get down to it.

I play a Dragonwrought Kobold wizard in my weekend game and my experience has been that being a specialist Conjurer taking levels in Master Specialist has been way more powerful than anything the DWK part of my character delivers. I didn't even attempt the Venerable stat cheese. The wings are nice, but once I got the Fly spell I just cast that if I need to not be on the ground (if I even need the Fly spell when I am summoning lots of flying critters I can hitch a ride on). :smallcool:

JNAProductions

2023-04-27, 05:25 PM

I play a Dragonwrought Kobold wizard in my weekend game and my experience has been that being a specialist Conjurer taking levels in Master Specialist has been way more powerful than anything the DWK part of my character delivers. I didn't even attempt the Venerable stat cheese. The wings are nice, but once I got the Fly spell I just cast that if I need to not be on the ground (if I even need the Fly spell when I am summoning lots of flying critters I can hitch a ride on). :smallcool:

I don't think anyone is saying "Being a DWK is inherently cheesy," it's the various shenanigans that are arguably rules-legal for DWK that come off as cheesy.

Crake

2023-04-27, 06:49 PM

i looked at those 3 pdfs on my hard drive. none of them included the psr. found it on a 2006 dated pdf of phb errata on the wayback machine. only makes my doubt more real.

Its literally the first thing in the first column “Errata Rule: Primary Sources”. Thats from my 2004 players handbook errata.

Darg

2023-04-27, 11:29 PM

But it does. White dragonwrought kobolds are in the list, under "white dragons". Gold dragonwrought kobolds are in the list, under "gold dragons". Red dragonwrought kobolds are in the list, under "red dragons", and so on.

So DWK kobolds become the "kind" of true dragon of their heritage. If that were true, why don't they gain HD and LA as their kind demands mechanically? Nothing says they don't, and yet the rules say they must if they are that kind of dragon.

kind: A subcategory of creature type. For example, giant is a creature type, and hill giant is a kind of giant.

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.

icefractal

2023-04-28, 12:30 AM

I originally thought the mental stat boost from Dragonwrought was quite strong. But after considering it more, I don't think so. It's not a racial bonus, it's an age bonus. Which everyone (except unaging races I guess) has access to. And it comes on a Kobold, which have bad stats to start with.

Let's compare:
DWK: -4 Str, +2 Dex, -2 Con, +3 Int/Wis/Cha, -1 feat
Old Human: -3 Str/Dex/Con, +2 Int/Wis/Cha, +1 feat
Not as good, but not that far off either and two feats ahead.

But that's really the shallow end of the pool. Consider Reincarnate (or better, Last Breath)
Venerable Gray Elf -> Wood Elf: +2 Str/Dex, -2 Con, +5 Int, +3 Wis/Cha
VGE -> Bugbear: +4 Str, +2 Dex/Con, +5 Int, +3 Wis/Cha

And that's not even costing a feat. Yes, DWK is available earlier on - most GMs wouldn't ok a 1st level character having had a 7th+ level ally reincarnate them in their backstory. But at the point when you can easily have allies (or minions) able to reincarnate you, it's a lot cheaper than a feat is.

Now I think DWK is still cool - the Greater Rite is a huge boost for Sorcerers (only not broken because Sorcerers have no good reason to be a level behind), and qualifying for dragon stuff is nice even without Epic feats or sovereign archetypes. But stat-wise it's not doing anything you couldn't do by other methods.

Vaern

2023-04-28, 07:16 AM

But that's really the shallow end of the pool. Consider Reincarnate (or better, Last Breath)

If we consider Reincarnate and similar spells, it's important to note that dragonwrought kobolds are dragons and may therefore require a new reincarnation table consisting of dragons to be created. I can't think of any dragon type creatures that don't come with a fairly steep level adjustment off hand, but this could open up some fun possibilities.

This is a bit of a coin flip, though. The dragonwrought kobold still has the (augmented humanoid) subtype, after all. Since humanoid is the creature's base type your DM might decide that it's still appropriate to just use the provided humanoid reincarnation table. It really depends on how much your DM appreciates the rule of cool.

Gruftzwerg

2023-04-28, 07:46 AM

So which errata are they in? You giving me a quote isn't the same as providing the source.
&

i looked at those 3 pdfs on my hard drive. none of them included the psr. found it on a 2006 dated pdf of phb errata on the wayback machine. only makes my doubt more real.

As others said, it is in multiple errata, mainly the CORE but iirc some other book errata also include it.

Dunno what kind of pdf you have, but have a look at this PHB ERRATA (https://dtdnd.neocities.org/books/player/Player%27s%20Handbook%20I%20[Errata].pdf).

The primary source rule was first published in the errata. Are you saying that in the period of time between the publishing of the core rules and the release of the first errata the game simply didn't function?

The notion that specific rules trump general rules is a foundational aspect of how rules interpretation works. It doesn't need to be explicitly laid out anywhere because it's inherent to having a system of rules at all. The primary source rule is not the foundation of specific trumps general but just a specific case of it, a delineation of how rules that at first glance might not seem to be more specific than other rules actually are.
If we go full RAW here, the short answer is: "Yes"

If you want my personal opinion on this:
The rules (books) where written with the PSR in mind. Because all rules, laws and code are based on the same logic behind: (you could call it the "unwritten rule of rules")

1. Set a default language in which the rules are written.
2. Define keywords if needed. The definition has to be obvious. Just using a word in a sentence is not defining it. You need to show a clear visual intention that you are redefining words.
3. Default to the chosen language in the absence of defined keywords.
4. Set topics and subtopics to create a hierarchy

While the PSR doesn't say anything about the points 1-3, it addresses point 4. As soon as you have more complex stuff to explain you make use of this. Be it laws, science, program code or whatsoever.

The problem is, that most people aren't well trained in reading RAW/LAW (Rules As Written / Laws As Written). Unless you study "Jura/Law" there is lil chance that you will learn this at school. (because the upper class doesn't want you to be able to read laws like a lawyer can do.. I mean what would they do if the mob would actually know their rights.. (but lets not dive into real world politics here..))

Before the ERRATA:
The official 3.5 forums where a mess. Without the PSR people wouldn't get the hierarchy between the rules and pull out rules from anywhere.
Like: "Because a monk's unarmed strike does work like an natural weapon, so can my non-monk's Unarmed Strike". (ignoring that it is a monk specific rule and not a global rule for Unarmed Strikes)
Or: "This ability doesn't mention that "it doesn't stack with other size changing effects", thus it stacks" (totally ignoring that we have general rules that define what you may stack and what not..)

WotC realized their mistake and included the PSR into the ERRATA. But the damage was already done. Multiple years without the PSR caused an almost irreversible mess. Even now 20 years later we struggle with it since easily 90%+ of the community don't even know that it exists (remind you that most 3.5 players aren't that active online on forums. We are the old generation and most of us don't visit forums for stuff. Form all the people I play 3.5 with, sole 1 other person has 3.5 related online traffic on a common base).

So, here we are, 20 years later.. still explaining other fellows that the most important rule of 3.5 ain't in any book. And to make it worse, it's written in such a minimalistic and cryptic way, that you need multiple years to gasp it without help.
It took me about 10+years to notice the PSR in the first place.
And then it took me another 3-5 years to get the full extend of the PSR, because barely anyone cared for it at that time. That is now about 5 years ago. Since then I'm trying to make people aware of the PSR and how important it is for 3.5
With the help of the PSR we could even understand some FAQ responses which without the PSR didn't make any sense. (e.g. that you may not stack size-changing effects, because of the general stacking rules)

Conclusion:
Strict RAW speaking, 3.5 was clearly dysfunctional until we got the PSR with the ERRATA.
But it was never intended that way. It was always intended with the PSR in mind. Because with the PSR many things in the core books suddenly make sense and don't create strange outcomes.

There is no reason that p4 of Draconomicon somehow has supremacy over all the other pages of Draconomicon. You can't ignore the rest of the book, which spends a great deal of time and effort conceptualizing what exactly a "true dragon" is, both mechanically and thematically, has multiple, explicit points as to what a True Dragon is and why a Kobold is not a True Dragon.

1: Draconomicon has book supremacy. I never said anything contrary.
2: "THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF DRAGONS" on p.4 is the topic that handles "the different kinds of dragons". It's more specific than the overall topic "dragons" and is in the right book (since Draconomicon has supremacy over the topic dragon).

Would you argue that any spell in the PHB can create new general combat rules (outside of spells)?
I hope not. Because that is what you are basically doing here. You sole look for book precedency and ignore topic precedency. You have to check for both, not sole one.

The infobox on p4 has supremacy over the topic and nothing else can change that. Other sources can sole refer to it (if they quote correctly) or make specific exceptions for their specific niche (subtopic).

I'm not ignoring the rest of the book. I'm just looking up the Primary Source of the topic.
The things (quotes) you mentioned can't create global rules for differentiating between the "different kinds of dragons". They could at best create a specific niche to trump the general rules, but they never become general rules.
And since DWK ain't part of that specific niche, it doesn't need to deal with it. The DWK sole needs to care for the general rules (Draconomicon p4) and the specific rules it provides itself for its niche topic (DWK). (almost forgot p144 Other True Dragons: DWK also have to follow what the DM decides/says here)

As said, the stuff you mentioned is related to the 10 TD variates mentioned in the MM and not to TD overall. (Remind you that Draconomicon is defined as talking about those 10 TD for the most part)

i personally dont care if its cheesey or not. i think something being cheesey or not is totally irrelevant. i care about the following: do I (or my player intending to play it) find it cool/suit their idea? is it balanced as its being used, not as it could be abused, as it is being used? if the answer to both is yes, that's all i care about. if abuse cases are known about they will be dealt with via talking to the player and making sure they stay balanced to the table rather than caring about semantics and quibbles over if something is "too cheesey" or not.

100% agree on this with you Remuko.

It's just that as always the forum wants to have a common ground for RAW due to contests and TO build showcases. And for that, we need these discussions.

Gnaeus

2023-04-28, 07:49 AM

the Greater Rite is a huge boost for Sorcerers (only not broken because Sorcerers have no good reason to be a level behind).

Only broken because Sorcerers have no good reason to be a level ahead of Beguilers, Warmages and Dread Necromancers. Seriously, IF NOT WIZARD=NERFED is about as broken an outlook as it is possible to have. I mean lets obviously base all of our standards on the worst balanced class in the game, rather than the multiple, later, better designed classes.

Vaern

2023-04-28, 08:18 AM

100% agree on this with you Remuko.

It's just that as always the forum wants to have a common ground for RAW due to contests and TO build showcases. And for that, we need these discussions.

Absolutely. In many cases that turn up here, strict RAW is really only useful in theorycrafting. In practice, I know of at least one DM who loves cheese in his games and would absolutely let a DWK take epic feats just because he finds the whole discussion amusing, regardless of whether or not it's RAW. I could probably roll up to his table with a DWK barbarian with 2 flaws for 2 instances of Epic Toughness to start with 54 HP at level 1, tell him, "I don't think this is entirely rules-legal, but there are some arguments in favor of it online and some people maintain that it is RAW," and he'd have a laugh and say "Go for it." I'm sure he'd also end up calculating encounters as though the whole party was a level or two higher to compensate for the extra 40 HP, but he'd 100% let me play it.

pabelfly

2023-04-28, 08:56 AM

1: Draconomicon has book supremacy. I never said anything contrary.
2: "THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF DRAGONS" on p.4 is the topic that handles "the different kinds of dragons". It's more specific than the overall topic "dragons" and is in the right book (since Draconomicon has supremacy over the topic dragon).

Would you argue that any spell in the PHB can create new general combat rules (outside of spells)?
I hope not. Because that is what you are basically doing here. You sole look for book precedency and ignore topic precedency. You have to check for both, not sole one.

The infobox on p4 has supremacy over the topic and nothing else can change that. Other sources can sole refer to it (if they quote correctly) or make specific exceptions for their specific niche (subtopic).

I'm not ignoring the rest of the book. I'm just looking up the Primary Source of the topic.
The things (quotes) you mentioned can't create global rules for differentiating between the "different kinds of dragons". They could at best create a specific niche to trump the general rules, but they never become general rules.
And since DWK ain't part of that specific niche, it doesn't need to deal with it. The DWK sole needs to care for the general rules (Draconomicon p4) and the specific rules it provides itself for its niche topic (DWK). (almost forgot p144 Other True Dragons: DWK also have to follow what the DM decides/says here)

As said, the stuff you mentioned is related to the 10 TD variates mentioned in the MM and not to TD overall. (Remind you that Draconomicon is defined as talking about those 10 TD for the most part)

Races of the Dragon uses the phrase "True Dragon" five times. There's exactly one point where it's mentioned for Kobolds., on p40: "These eggs are spotted with the color of whichever true dragon influences the dragonwrought kobold within, with such mottles increasing in number and size as the wyrmling inside grows"

Okay, the Dragonwrought Kobold has some influence from a True Dragon, but that doesn't make it in of itself a True Dragon, otherwise every offspring of a True Dragon would also be a True Dragon, which makes no sense. There are no other mentions of the phrase "True Dragon" in Races of the Dragon that refer to Kobolds or Dragonwrought Kobolds. There's no attempt to redefine the idea of True Dragon, create a specific exception, nor make the claim that a Dragonwrought Kobold is a True Dragon. So we solely need to refer to Draconomicon for the definition of what a True Dragon is, and it's here that Dragonwrought Kobold fails on multiple points - not endothermic, no progressive spell resistance, no breath weapon, no energy immunity, and so forth. All claims that are made of True Dragons in Draconomicon, that Races of the Dragon fails to change or circumvent.

EDIT: I'd also point out the phrase: "Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons" does not automatically mean the reverse is true, that creatures of the dragon type that do advance through age categories must be True Dragons, nor does it mean that this is the sole rule as to what a True Dragon is or is not.

thatothersting

2023-04-28, 05:25 PM

So we solely need to refer to Draconomicon for the definition of what a True Dragon is, and it's here that Dragonwrought Kobold fails on multiple points - not endothermic, no progressive spell resistance, no breath weapon, no energy immunity, and so forth. All claims that are made of True Dragons in Draconomicon, that Races of the Dragon fails to change or circumvent.

Okay, sorry, this is gonna drive me absolutely nuts if I don't say something but...

Kobolds laying hard shelled eggs has nothing to do with whether or not they are endothermic, as all birds lay hard shelled eggs and produce plenty of their own body heat. Likewise, being a reptile doesn't disqualify them, either; certain sea turtles are known to be endothermic, for example, and there are more than a few fish that also qualify if that helps. Neither element has any intrinsic connection with being (or not being) "warm blooded". Hell, the "hard shelled eggs" part of their description actively works AGAINST the argument, as the cold blooded types like snakes are usually laying SOFT-shelled eggs!

pabelfly

2023-04-28, 05:42 PM

Okay, sorry, this is gonna drive me absolutely nuts if I don't say something but...

Kobolds laying hard shelled eggs has nothing to do with whether or not they are endothermic, as all birds lay hard shelled eggs and produce plenty of their own body heat. Likewise, being a reptile doesn't disqualify them, either; certain sea turtles are known to be endothermic, for example, and there are more than a few fish that also qualify if that helps. Neither element has any intrinsic connection with being (or not being) "warm blooded". Hell, the "hard shelled eggs" part of their description actively works AGAINST the argument, as the cold blooded types like snakes are usually laying SOFT-shelled eggs!

Thanks for clarifying this.

Fero

2023-04-28, 07:06 PM

Absolutely. In many cases that turn up here, strict RAW is really only useful in theorycrafting. In practice, I know of at least one DM who loves cheese in his games and would absolutely let a DWK take epic feats just because he finds the whole discussion amusing, regardless of whether or not it's RAW. I could probably roll up to his table with a DWK barbarian with 2 flaws for 2 instances of Epic Toughness to start with 54 HP at level 1, tell him, "I don't think this is entirely rules-legal, but there are some arguments in favor of it online and some people maintain that it is RAW," and he'd have a laugh and say "Go for it." I'm sure he'd also end up calculating encounters as though the whole party was a level or two higher to compensate for the extra 40 HP, but he'd 100% let me play it.

That sounds like a really fun DM. Out of curiosity, how often do the players actually go full on cheese?

Crake

2023-04-28, 10:57 PM

Chronos

2023-04-29, 06:51 AM

Who made the argument that them laying eggs says anything about their body temperature?

pabelfly

2023-04-29, 07:05 AM

Who made the argument that them laying eggs says anything about their body temperature?

I though that reptiles weren't endothermic. Apparently there are some exceptions to this, so thank you for the correction.

loky1109

2023-04-29, 07:33 AM

I though that reptiles weren't endothermic. Apparently there are some exceptions to this, so thank you for the correction.

Reptiles is polyphyletic group. Actually, they should include birds.

Vaern

2023-04-29, 08:25 AM

That sounds like a really fun DM. Out of curiosity, how often do the players actually go full on cheese?
Not terribly often, tbh. Cheese is allowed, but the ways he can counterbalance said cheese can be... unpredictable. The occasional homebrew shenanigan turns up, but for my part I do try to keep everything I create balanced against existing content (to such an extent as balance exists).

mehs

2023-04-30, 02:57 AM

Where does it say in the dragonwrought feat that they become immune to penalties from age categories?

sreservoir

2023-04-30, 04:07 AM

Where does it say in the dragonwrought feat that they become immune to penalties from age categories?

It's in the footer of Table 3-3: Aging Effects, on page 39.

Gruftzwerg

2023-04-30, 11:06 PM

Races of the Dragon uses the phrase "True Dragon" five times. There's exactly one point where it's mentioned for Kobolds., on p40: "These eggs are spotted with the color of whichever true dragon influences the dragonwrought kobold within, with such mottles increasing in number and size as the wyrmling inside grows"

Okay, the Dragonwrought Kobold has some influence from a True Dragon, but that doesn't make it in of itself a True Dragon, otherwise every offspring of a True Dragon would also be a True Dragon, which makes no sense. There are no other mentions of the phrase "True Dragon" in Races of the Dragon that refer to Kobolds or Dragonwrought Kobolds. There's no attempt to redefine the idea of True Dragon, create a specific exception, nor make the claim that a Dragonwrought Kobold is a True Dragon. So we solely need to refer to Draconomicon for the definition of what a True Dragon is, and it's here that Dragonwrought Kobold fails on multiple points - not endothermic, no progressive spell resistance, no breath weapon, no energy immunity, and so forth. All claims that are made of True Dragons in Draconomicon, that Races of the Dragon fails to change or circumvent.
Races of the Dragon has no permission to make any global changes to differentiate between the two dragon types. It could sole produce a specific exception for the content it provides. But it doesn't do that.

And while the entire Draconomicon has book supremacy, sole the infobox at page 4...
"The Different Kinds of Dragons"
...has topic supremacy. Can you show me any "topic" in draconomicon that is more precise or specific when it comes to differentiating dragons? ( I assume a NO here )

Anything else in Draconomicon lacks (general) topic supremacy to make any changes to "how to differentiate what is a true dragon and what is a lesser dragon".

Rule to Differentiate Dragons != General Abilities for True Dragons
Sole the infobox on p4 provides the tools to "differentiate between dragon varieties".
The other stuff you mentioned (spell resistance, breath weapon, energy immunity,..) aren't part of the requirements to count as True Dragon. There are just common/general abilities for dragons which can be trumped by specific exceptions as always.

A DWK is such a specific case. It lacks an advancement table. "Other True Dragons" (p144 draconomicon) gives the DM the duty to construct such a table for DWK as he sees it fit. And as said, it's in the DM's hands if he lets a DWK remain +0 RHD & +0 LA and none of the common advancement abilities (specific exception), or if he buries any cheesy attempt under a load of RHD, LA and special abilities accordingly.

We have rules to differentiate between True and Lesser Dragons (p4 Draconomicon)..
.. and we have rules what kind of advancement and abilities dragons have on a general base.

As far as I see it, DWK still clearly qualify as True Dragon. The question that remains is, will you find a DM that is willing to not overload the DWK with RHD and LA? (basically giving you a free pass for cheese)

EDIT: I'd also point out the phrase: "Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons" does not automatically mean the reverse is true, that creatures of the dragon type that do advance through age categories must be True Dragons, nor does it mean that this is the sole rule as to what a True Dragon is or is not.
And then what? Don't you see the dysfunction such a point of view creates?
Are DWK no True nor Lesser Dragons now?
That would be dysfunctional unless it is explicitly called out as specific exception that a DWK is neither.

And there are sole 2 dragon varieties. The wording in the infobox doesn't allow for more varieties on a global level. It sole gives 2 options and doesn't indicate the option for more. As such, again you would need a specific call out to create another specific dragon variety.

Trying to deny DWK the True Dragon tag sole creates dysfunctions on all ends.
But if you put em into the True Dragon category, you don't get any dysfunctions.
And you give the DM the duty/choice to decide how the advancement table looks like. He doesn't even need houserules to allow or deny DWK cheese. He can just determine their RHD and LA (non)progression as he sees fit.

Imho, while irritating, a very elegant way how RAW gives the DM all the power he needs here. ^^

Okay, sorry, this is gonna drive me absolutely nuts if I don't say something but...

Kobolds laying hard shelled eggs has nothing to do with whether or not they are endothermic, as all birds lay hard shelled eggs and produce plenty of their own body heat. Likewise, being a reptile doesn't disqualify them, either; certain sea turtles are known to be endothermic, for example, and there are more than a few fish that also qualify if that helps. Neither element has any intrinsic connection with being (or not being) "warm blooded". Hell, the "hard shelled eggs" part of their description actively works AGAINST the argument, as the cold blooded types like snakes are usually laying SOFT-shelled eggs!
Animal documentary enjoyer spotted! ^^

Thx for the nice info drop. Reminds me of the discussion "if a beholder has a head". As we proceeded to squids and octopus as arguments, suddenly a biology professor dropped some nice info (was that maybe you??^^)

I mean, you could have just brought up the fact that regular true dragons lay eggs…

D&D nerd spotted ;)

You say that as if everybody would know that ..^^

pabelfly

2023-04-30, 11:52 PM

There's nothing in Races of the Dragon that overrides how the concept of True Dragon in Dracomicon is supposed to be interpreted.

There's nothing to indicate that the text on page 4 of Draconomicon overrides any of the other text in Draconomicon, especially other text written in sidebars that rules what features and abilities True Dragons have.

For example, p22 of Draconomicon states, under "Rules: Dragon Immunities": "every kind of true dragon has immunity to at least one type of energy, as noted in the monster manual." There's nothing on P4 of Draconomicon that states that potential True Dragons don't have to be measured against this criteria, nor is there anything in Races of Dragon that states that Dragonwrought Kobolds are somehow immune to this rule. It's directly written as a rule, a True Dragon is supposed to meet this rule, Dragonwrought Kobolds do not. This rule for Dragon Immunities also states that True Dragons develop damage reduction as they age, while Dragonwrought Kobolds do not, that True Dragons develop Spell Resistance as they age, and again, Dragonwrought Kobolds do not.

I don't know why we're picking and choosing which rules to follow and which rules to ignore, other than so we can say that Dragonwrought Kobolds are True Dragons, because to follow your interpretation, we're not just ignoring all of the flavour text that says they are not, but also ignoring all the Rules that say they are not.

redking

2023-05-01, 12:41 AM

We've been over the dragonwrought kobold "true dragon" thing a million times (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?302899-True-Dragons-and-Dragonwrought-Kobolds-A-Guide-to-Interpretation). People that want to be believe that a kobold is a true dragon will never be convinced otherwise. Any general statement about true dragons, like immunities, will be met with an example of a true dragon (which is stated to be a true dragon in its description) without an immunity, therefore, some true dragons do not have immunities, and so the DWK is a true dragon.

Darg

2023-05-01, 03:29 PM

redking

2023-05-01, 07:35 PM

Specific exceptions exist, but they have to be explicitly stated to be such a thing for the exception to take place. DWK was never explicitly stated to be a True dragon, ergo, DWK does not recieve exemption status.

There are dozens of points in which DWK = true dragon fails. You've got a detailed description of what a true dragon looks like in Draconmicon. Every other true dragon broadly meets the appearance criteria detailed there. Only DWK looks nothing like a true dragon.

I think the absurdity can be sidestepped once you nip the exploit that is being sought by DWK = true dragons people in the bud. That is, even if DWK are true dragons, properly understanding the line about true dragons at the old age category, can take epic feats even if they do not have class levels relates only to RHD of dragons of over 21, of which all true dragons have. Before this, it was unclear about whether dragon RHD over 21 counted as epic. The rules are now telling us that 21 dragon RHD + old age category = epic character status. As a DWK has no RHD, this rule does not apply to DWK, even if it was somehow a "true dragon".

Additionally, in order to take abilities like dragon psychosis, the DWK must have the relevant abilities of true dragons to give up or replace. As they do not, they are ineligible.

With no exploits available, players are demotivated to claim that DWK = true dragons.

As for 12 age categories, the DWK are categories are labelled "kobold are categories", and are different to dragon age categories in the number of years in each category. While Dragon Magic calls out a true dragon as having 12 age categories, it should properly be understood as 12 dragon age categories. Additionally, as DWK progress through these age categories, they do not gain power, not even ability score adjustments. Instead, they use regular humanoid aging effects for ability score adjustments.

Darg

2023-05-01, 08:46 PM

Vaern

2023-05-01, 10:04 PM

There are dozens of points in which DWK = true dragon fails. You've got a detailed description of what a true dragon looks like in Draconmicon. Every other true dragon broadly meets the appearance criteria detailed there. Only DWK looks nothing like a true dragon.

I think the absurdity can be sidestepped once you nip the exploit that is being sought by DWK = true dragons people in the bud. That is, even if DWK are true dragons, properly understanding the line about true dragons at the old age category, can take epic feats even if they do not have class levels relates only to RHD of dragons of over 21, of which all true dragons have. Before this, it was unclear about whether dragon RHD over 21 counted as epic. The rules are now telling us that 21 dragon RHD + old age category = epic character status. As a DWK has no RHD, this rule does not apply to DWK, even if it was somehow a "true dragon".

Additionally, in order to take abilities like dragon psychosis, the DWK must have the relevant abilities of true dragons to give up or replace. As they do not, they are ineligible.

With no exploits available, players are demotivated to claim that DWK = true dragons.

As for 12 age categories, the DWK are categories are labelled "kobold are categories", and are different to dragon age categories in the number of years in each category. While Dragon Magic calls out a true dragon as having 12 age categories, it should properly be understood as 12 dragon age categories. Additionally, as DWK progress through these age categories, they do not gain power, not even ability score adjustments. Instead, they use regular humanoid aging effects for ability score adjustments.

Trying to invoke the actual intention of the writers or any semblance of common sense in a discussion of RAW is futile. Hell, half the time it seems like trying to invoke RAW in a discussion of RAW is futile. Here's an example of how a typical RAW debate tends to go, in my experience:

I could pop into a monk thread and suggest that enhancing unarmed strikes is as simple as wearing gauntlets (listed as an unarmed attack, with a description clearly stating that it's an unarmed attack that allows an unarmed strike to deal lethal damage), quote the glossary entries defining an unarmed attack as an attack without a weapon, and an unarmed strike as a successful result of an unarmed attack, and quote the flurry of blows rules text saying that it can be used with unarmed strikes or special monk weapons.
Someone would still pop into that discussion and try spouting their "rules lawyering" about gauntlets not being special monk weapons and therefore not working, despite having already clarified that they are effectively unarmed strikes which precludes them from needing to be a special monk weapon for the purpose of flurry of blows. Then they'd argue that they're unarmed attacks and not unarmed strikes despite me having already clarified that an unarmed strike is defined as the result of an unarmed attack - the two defined game terms, both of which are used to describe the function of the gauntlet within its own rules text, are so intrinsically linked that they are literally used interchangeably within the descriptions of individual monk class features. They might then fall back on the FAQ, which is not recognized as being RAW. Everything within the monk class entry and the gauntlet's description points towards the gauntlet functioning for the monk just as if it were his bare fist. With no concrete RAW evidence against me they'd simply circle back to arguments that I've already established as being wrong until I simply give up, at which point they likely take the lack of response to mean that they've won the debate.
Some time later, a similar thread inevitably pops up. Make the same suggestion. The same opposition pops up making the same arguments, having chosen to ignore RAW and learn nothing from the previous thread.
Rinse and repeat the entire process, ad infinitum.

When it comes to this "Dragonwrought Kobold = True Dragon?" debate, this is exactly the kind of people you're arguing with: The kind of people who, for some reason, need so desperately to be right that they will ignore every shred of evidence, logic, or common sense placed before, instead clinging to literal scraps of potentially vague wording to hinge their entire argument on. Sometimes you're lucky if they have that much - sometimes people are perfectly happy to argue that their own opinion is in fact RAW despite having absolutely nothing to back it up with.

Anyway, in this case, Draconomicon does say that an old dragon qualifies for epic feats but it does not clarify that it's because of their RHD. It is true that every true dragon of old age already meets the additional criteria required to qualify as epic and this may have been the intention, but this line in Draconomicon can - and usually is - ruled as precluding an old dragon from actually needing to meet those other prerequisites, unnecessary as that preclusion is.

The draconomicon also doesn't specify "dragon age categories," only "age categories." This actually can't be referring specifically to a singular core set of Dragon Age Categories, as there are some true dragons which follow differently named age category progressions (in particular, Epic Dragon Age Categories, which also progress over 12 stages but take twice as long to do so). Since dragons can follow differently named age categories, however slightly differently they may be named, you can't risk writing off Kobold Age Categories quite so easily.
The main issue with kobold age categories is that kobolds do not advance through them in any defined game terms the way dragons do; they have no mechanical function, and only exist for the sake of describing kobold culture. This whole discussion is still going on right now because it seems impossible to convince exactly one person that exactly one word is being used in exactly one spot in the same way that it is consistently used literally every other time throughout an entire book, because apparently reading that one word any way other than his own would cause some dysfunction which causes the entire game to fall apart by simply excluding kobolds from being true dragons. To that end, even if a rule would create some sort of dysfunction, that is not evidence against it being RAW. There are literally threads full of collections of dysfunctional rules because RAW can be dysfunctional.

Darg

2023-05-02, 05:57 PM

Rinse and repeat the entire process, ad infinitum.

UMD cheese with staves/monk's belt/etc and all powers being PLAs have a similar ring to it.

Anyway, in this case, Draconomicon does say that an old dragon qualifies for epic feats but it does not clarify that it's because of their RHD. It is true that every true dragon of old age already meets the additional criteria required to qualify as epic and this may have been the intention, but this line in Draconomicon can - and usually is - ruled as precluding an old dragon from actually needing to meet those other prerequisites, unnecessary as that preclusion is.

No, it does not say that a dragon of old age qualifies for epic feats. It only says they can take them without class levels. The passage does not remotely hint or suggest that it somehow bypasses the ECL requirement monsters have to be epic which is a separate rule entirely from requiring 21 class levels.

Gruftzwerg

2023-05-02, 06:33 PM

There's nothing in Races of the Dragon that overrides how the concept of True Dragon in Dracomicon is supposed to be interpreted.

Agreed.

There's nothing to indicate that the text on page 4 of Draconomicon overrides any of the other text in Draconomicon, especially other text written in sidebars that rules what features and abilities True Dragons have.

Already disagreeing here.

The infobox on p4 has the title: " The Different Kinds of Dragons"
The infobox has supremacy over its topic.

So unless you create a specific exception, you may not alter the global rules (and even then it would be sole for that niche and not a global rule for this topic).

Stop ignoring topic precedence please. You always have to check for both. Book & Topic precedence, and not sole cherry pick the one that fits your argument.

For example, p22 of Draconomicon states, under "Rules: Dragon Immunities": "every kind of true dragon has immunity to at least one type of energy, as noted in the monster manual."

Remind you that the book is declared as talking mostly about the 10 true dragon varieties in the MM. Those things are specific to those dragons in the MM (I) and not global rules for all true dragons.
Your quote doesn't tell what you think it is telling.
It doesn't create additional rules to qualify as true dragon. It talks about the True Dragons in the MM. Nothing else.

There's nothing on P4 of Draconomicon that states that potential True Dragons don't have to be measured against this criteria, nor is there anything in Races of Dragon that states that Dragonwrought Kobolds are somehow immune to this rule. It's directly written as a rule, a True Dragon is supposed to meet this rule, Dragonwrought Kobolds do not. This rule for Dragon Immunities also states that True Dragons develop damage reduction as they age, while Dragonwrought Kobolds do not, that True Dragons develop Spell Resistance as they age, and again, Dragonwrought Kobolds do not.

TOPIC PRECEDENCE! (sorry, but it gets annoying to repeat the same rule over and over again..)

Draconomicon p4 provides the rules how you can differentiate between "the different kinds of dragons".

This is the topic when you want to know what kind of dragon a specific dragon is.

P22 of Draconomicon talks about the abilities True Dragons commonly have (in the MM I).

requirements to count as a true dragon != abilities True Dragons commonly have

You are trying to rule the abilities true dragons (in the MM) have (generally) in common as a requirement to count as a true dragon. But that is not RAW.

You can't just mix requirements with abilities as you see it fit.
Are the abilities a prc provides part of the requirements? NO
The same is true here. The abilities true dragons have in common are not the requirements to count as such...

I don't know why we're picking and choosing which rules to follow and which rules to ignore, other than so we can say that Dragonwrought Kobolds are True Dragons, because to follow your interpretation, we're not just ignoring all of the flavour text that says they are not, but also ignoring all the Rules that say they are not.

Sorry to be so direct, but you "don't know" how to choose which rule to follow, because you struggle with the Primary Source Rule and keep forgetting Topic Precedence all the time.

The PSR sets a hierarchy that defines when rules can trump each other and when not. If you ignore the tools we are given, you sure don't know which rule takes precedence and will struggle with it...

We've been over the dragonwrought kobold "true dragon" thing a million times (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?302899-True-Dragons-and-Dragonwrought-Kobolds-A-Guide-to-Interpretation). People that want to be believe that a kobold is a true dragon will never be convinced otherwise. Any general statement about true dragons, like immunities, will be met with an example of a true dragon (which is stated to be a true dragon in its description) without an immunity, therefore, some true dragons do not have immunities, and so the DWK is a true dragon.

So we stopped providing arguments and proceed to attacking the opposition?..

People who ignore/struggle with the Primary Source Rule will never get that they ain't talking about RAW.. (see above).

Specific exceptions exist, but they have to be explicitly stated to be such a thing for the exception to take place. DWK was never explicitly stated to be a True dragon, ergo, DWK does not recieve exemption status.
It's the other way around...

We have general rules to distinguish between True and Lesser Dragons found on Draconomicon page 4 in the infobox.

The DWK feat would need to make an explicit call out to not follow those general rules.
I don't see the DWK calling out that it is a Lesser Dragon.

As such it follows the general rules for that topic.

And those general rules designate DWK into the True Dragons category as shown.

There are dozens of points in which DWK = true dragon fails. You've got a detailed description of what a true dragon looks like in Draconmicon. Every other true dragon broadly meets the appearance criteria detailed there. Only DWK looks nothing like a true dragon.
Remind you that Draconomicon is defined as talking mainly about the 10 true dragons in the MM (I) and that those "descriptions" you mentioned is constantly referring to the MM.

It talks about those specific dragons, and doesn't provide additional rules to differentiate between True and Lesser Dragons. Show me where the rules mention that these are additional requirements to count as True Dragons. Where is that explicit statement? (short answer: it doesn't exist)

The rules never show any intention to add more requirements than mentioned on p4 of the same book..

I think the absurdity can be sidestepped once you nip the exploit that is being sought by DWK = true dragons people in the bud. That is, even if DWK are true dragons, properly understanding the line about true dragons at the old age category, can take epic feats even if they do not have class levels relates only to RHD of dragons of over 21, of which all true dragons have. Before this, it was unclear about whether dragon RHD over 21 counted as epic. The rules are now telling us that 21 dragon RHD + old age category = epic character status. As a DWK has no RHD, this rule does not apply to DWK, even if it was somehow a "true dragon".

You are extrapolating info to make up a rule here. That is RAI at best and not RAW.

And to make it even worse, Draconomicon is a 3.5 book and not 3.0
Thus by RAW we can't argument with conversion anymore. (RAI may do that, RAW not)

RAI you have a solid argument. But RAW doesn't care for that.

Additionally, in order to take abilities like dragon psychosis, the DWK must have the relevant abilities of true dragons to give up or replace. As they do not, they are ineligible.
The problem with that argument is that the things you "give up/replace" aren't requirements.
They are part of the effect you get.

And sole because an effect partially doesn't apply, doesn't stop the entire effect from applying.

If you Chain Enlarge Person and one of your targets is invalid, does that mean that all other targets are also not affected? No, everybody else is still affected.

Does "Casing Perfection" (+4 enhancement bonus to all ability scores) not work on constructs and undead, because of their lack of a CON score? No, everything except the CON bonus still applies.

The same is true here. Just because part of the effect where you give up something doesn't apply, doesn't stop the rest of the ability to apply.

With no exploits available, players are demotivated to claim that DWK = true dragons.
It that would be true we wouldn't discussing it so repetitively. ;)

As for 12 age categories, the DWK are categories are labelled "kobold are categories", and are different to dragon age categories in the number of years in each category. While Dragon Magic calls out a true dragon as having 12 age categories, it should properly be understood as 12 dragon age categories. Additionally, as DWK progress through these age categories, they do not gain power, not even ability score adjustments. Instead, they use regular humanoid aging effects for ability score adjustments.

Are you arguing about RAI or RAW here?

Because RAW doesn't support your claims. RAI I see your point. But as said, RAW doesn't care for that.

RAW:

1: True Dragons "..become more powerful as they grow older."
You don't need to become "more powerful" from advancing to the next age category. That is not the requirement here. This rule is not attached to the Age Categories by RAW.
As such, Aging Effects qualify, since DWK sole become "more powerful" from "growing older"! (they don't get penalties to physical ability scores)

2: Lesser Dragons "do not advance through age categories".
A DWK "advances" from one age category to another. That is the requirement here. To have "Age Categories" where you can "advance" from one age category to another.
It is not talking about "Advancement".

Stop reading keywords into similar words of the English language. The entire page 4 doesn't mention "Advancement" a single time. And it can't be a requirement if it is something that is handed out to True Dragons that lack it (see p144 of Dragonomicon: Other True Dragons).

The kind of people who, for some reason, need so desperately to be right that they will ignore every shred of evidence, logic, or common sense placed before, instead clinging to literal scraps of potentially vague wording to hinge their entire argument on.
As someone else long ago said:

"Because we have rules that can suppress common sense".

Thus your so called evidence is futile until it holds water against the Primary Source Rule.

If we would be talking about RAI, you have a point. But this thread requested a RAW response, thus we don't care for that. We are rule-lawyering here.

If you have a hard time to abandon "common sense", RAW may not be the right discipline for you. This is not an offense, but a simple observation. There is nothing wrong if you don't care for RAW. But stop pretending that you do, if you actually aren't willing to give up your "common sense".

pabelfly

2023-05-02, 07:16 PM

narukaze

2023-05-02, 09:39 PM

Agreed.

Already disagreeing here.

The infobox on p4 has the title: " The Different Kinds of Dragons"
The infobox has supremacy over its topic.

So unless you create a specific exception, you may not alter the global rules (and even then it would be sole for that niche and not a global rule for this topic).

Stop ignoring topic precedence please. You always have to check for both. Book & Topic precedence, and not sole cherry pick the one that fits your argument.

Remind you that the book is declared as talking mostly about the 10 true dragon varieties in the MM. Those things are specific to those dragons in the MM (I) and not global rules for all true dragons.
Your quote doesn't tell what you think it is telling.
It doesn't create additional rules to qualify as true dragon. It talks about the True Dragons in the MM. Nothing else.

TOPIC PRECEDENCE! (sorry, but it gets annoying to repeat the same rule over and over again..)

Draconomicon p4 provides the rules how you can differentiate between "the different kinds of dragons".

This is the topic when you want to know what kind of dragon a specific dragon is.

P22 of Draconomicon talks about the abilities True Dragons commonly have (in the MM I).

requirements to count as a true dragon != abilities True Dragons commonly have

You are trying to rule the abilities true dragons (in the MM) have (generally) in common as a requirement to count as a true dragon. But that is not RAW.

You can't just mix requirements with abilities as you see it fit.
Are the abilities a prc provides part of the requirements? NO
The same is true here. The abilities true dragons have in common are not the requirements to count as such...

Sorry to be so direct, but you "don't know" how to choose which rule to follow, because you struggle with the Primary Source Rule and keep forgetting Topic Precedence all the time.

The PSR sets a hierarchy that defines when rules can trump each other and when not. If you ignore the tools we are given, you sure don't know which rule takes precedence and will struggle with it...

So we stopped providing arguments and proceed to attacking the opposition?..

People who ignore/struggle with the Primary Source Rule will never get that they ain't talking about RAW.. (see above).

...

If we would be talking about RAI, you have a point. But this thread requested a RAW response, thus we don't care for that. We are rule-lawyering here.

If you have a hard time to abandon "common sense", RAW may not be the right discipline for you. This is not an offense, but a simple observation. There is nothing wrong if you don't care for RAW. But stop pretending that you do, if you actually aren't willing to give up your "common sense".
You seem to have completely misunderstood both the PSR that you keep citing, and the point of this thread.

First off, here is the full text of the PSR, reproduced from the PDF you provided:

When you find a disagreement between two D&D ® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

The second paragraph covers the "book and topic precedence" that you keep using. Here's the problem: If you actually read the examples, it's clear that this works on a whole-book basis. That is, the rule states that the PHB provides "all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions". Therefore, if anything in the DMG or MM disagree with the PHB on one of these topics, you are supposed to give the PHB rules precedence, because the PHB is the primary source.

By this rule, the Draconomicon is the primary source for information about the 10 true dragons in the MM (and potentially most other true dragons as well), and so if another book disagrees with it about something in this particular topic, you are supposed to give the Draconomicon rules precedence. This rule does not make it so a single infobox on page 4 has supremacy over the entire rest of the book.

Second, the point of this thread. Speaking as the one who made the thread, the point was expressly not for it to turn into the Nth debate about whether Dragonwrought Kobolds count as true dragons or not. Rather, the point was to collect all of the cheese that is available through being a Dragonwrought Kobold, including the cheese available specifically by being counted as a True Dragon. Essentially, I'd like to know about the options available thanks to Dragonwrought Kobolds being playable True Dragons, not hear yet another debate about whether they count or not.

And well, I don't particularly like being rude about things, but... drop the ****ing debate already. It's derailed the thread for a few days already.

Vaern

2023-05-02, 10:18 PM

No, it does not say that a dragon of old age qualifies for epic feats. It only says they can take them without class levels. The passage does not remotely hint or suggest that it somehow bypasses the ECL requirement monsters have to be epic which is a separate rule entirely from requiring 21 class levels.

These feats are available to characters of 21st level or higher.
Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even if they have no class levels.
It does, though. Dragons of at least old age can choose epic feats. There is no mention that they must be old and have at least 21 HD. This does imply that they qualify via age category simply by being old, precluding other factors which would normally qualify a character as being epic. Which, again, is a moot point because all old true dragons also have 21+ HD already and would still qualify even without this line.

2: Lesser Dragons "do not advance through age categories".
A DWK "advances" from one age category to another. That is the requirement here. To have "Age Categories" where you can "advance" from one age category to another.
It is not talking about "Advancement".

Stop reading keywords into similar words of the English language. The entire page 4 doesn't mention "Advancement" a single time.

You are the one reading keywords as similar words in the English language. Advancement is a noun. Advance is a verb. The rules regarding advancement say that a creature advances by adding class levels or increasing Hit Dice, and the word is consistently used throughout the rules text to describe the process of advancement. There may not be a glossary entry to quote, but the rules tell us what it means for a creature to advance and consistently uses it in the described way. To say that they advance in other ways as not described in the rules is RAI, and to insist that your personal interpretation is not only definitely what was intended but also the only way it could possibly be functional, and that anyone who disagrees is absolutely 100% wrong is asinine. Kobolds do not have advancement through age categories, and therefore do not advance through age categories in any way that the rules recognize a creature as advancing.

And it can't be a requirement if it is something that is handed out to True Dragons that lack it (see p144 of Dragonomicon: Other True Dragons).

How exactly is this section handing anything out to anyone?
This page is part of a section on playing true dragons as characters.
Preceding this page is a number of tables of core True Dragons.
The tables detail how a dragon's age category, HD, and LA advance over time to determine the ECL of a dragon character of that age.
The section "Other True Dragons" tells you to make similar tables for True Dragons found in non-core sources.
The text of the section describes how you might do this, what such tables may look like, and at what point the table should end for non-core True Dragons such as a sapphire dragon, a howling dragon, or lung dragons.
The table, again, details how a dragon's age category, HD, LA advance as it ages for the sake of making it easier for players to track the.
If a creature does not already have these traits, this section does not tell you to give them these traits.
If a creature does not already have these traits, the section is not applicable because that creature is not a True Dragon.
This section neither grants nor tells you to grant any traits of a True Dragon to a creature that does not already have these traits.
This section is not "handing out" age-based advancement to creatures that do not already have it.
This section is not applicable to creatures who do not advance by age category, as creatures that do not have advancement based on age categories are not True Dragons.
This section neither bestows "True Dragon" status on nor permits the DM to apply "True Dragon" status to creatures who do not already meet the criteria of being a true dragon.

Please tell me how you've arrived at the conclusion of, "This section tells me to grant advancement by age categories to True Dragons that do not already have it" while looking at a section which never mentions the existence of True Dragons without advancement by age category, nor tells you to grant advancement by age category to a creature who do not already have it.

If you have a hard time to abandon "common sense", RAW may not be the right discipline for you. This is not an offense, but a simple observation. There is nothing wrong if you don't care for RAW. But stop pretending that you do, if you actually aren't willing to give up your "common sense".

RAW doesn't particularly care for common sense, but common sense is also not directly inherently opposed to RAW. "Maybe I should read this word in the way it's used throughout literally the entire rest of this book to determine what it means," is common sense. Considering that maybe rules text should be consistent with itself is common sense. Applying your own definition to a word, hinging your entire argument on your personal interpretation of literally that one word, maintaining that it is in fact RAW, and sustaining that argument for literally years shows that you care for neither RAW nor common sense.

Second, the point of this thread. Speaking as the one who made the thread, the point was expressly not for it to turn into the Nth debate about whether Dragonwrought Kobolds count as true dragons or not. Rather, the point was to collect all of the cheese that is available through being a Dragonwrought Kobold, including the cheese available specifically by being counted as a True Dragon. Essentially, I'd like to know about the options available thanks to Dragonwrought Kobolds being playable True Dragons, not hear yet another debate about whether they count or not..

Sorry, it can't be helped. It's nearly impossible mention dragonwrought kobolds and not have it devolve into the exact same debate every time. It isn't exactly off-topic, though, since determining whether kobolds are true dragons is relevant to what dragon-related cheese is actually applicable to them, right?

Darg

2023-05-03, 01:07 AM

It does, though. Dragons of at least old age can choose epic feats. There is no mention that they must be old and have at least 21 HD. This does imply that they qualify via age category simply by being old, precluding other factors which would normally qualify a character as being epic. Which, again, is a moot point because all old true dragons also have 21+ HD already and would still qualify even without this line.

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

The base rule is that epic level requires class levels as that is the only official non-variant way to have levels. Monster HD does not qualify without the quoted rule. Kobold PCs have character levels and fall under it. So they need 21+ ECL, not class levels.

Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even if they have no class levels.

The bolded part of the sentence exists. It alters the meaning of the sentence with its existence. The exemption is in bold. There is no stated exemption for needing ECL to qualify; therefore, it provides no such exemption. You have to take the sentence as a whole. You can't just dice it up into pieces and ignore the cast offs. The reason this line is needed is because the book references the ELH, not the DMG which is updated in 3.5 changing/clarifying the epic rules and LA and ECL. The ELH uses the 3.0 rules for LA and ECL which completely ignores HD in the calculation. For example a 3.0 werebear character has LA +4 and with 6 fighter levels would be considered a 10th level character even though it has 12 HD. With this style of ad hock application of LA, according to the ELH dragons can't select epic feats until they reach great wyrm status.

Crake

2023-05-03, 03:44 AM

The bolded part of the sentence exists. It alters the meaning of the sentence with its existence. The exemption is in bold. There is no stated exemption for needing ECL to qualify; therefore, it provides no such exemption. You have to take the sentence as a whole. You can't just dice it up into pieces and ignore the cast offs. The reason this line is needed is because the book references the ELH, not the DMG which is updated in 3.5 changing/clarifying the epic rules and LA and ECL. The ELH uses the 3.0 rules for LA and ECL which completely ignores HD in the calculation. For example a 3.0 werebear character has LA +4 and with 6 fighter levels would be considered a 10th level character even though it has 12 HD. With this style of ad hock application of LA, according to the ELH dragons can't select epic feats until they reach great wyrm status.

This is even more apparent when you consider that the draconomicon is almost pseudo 3.0, it was written very early on during the 3.5 lifecycle, meaning the majority if it's production cycle would have been during 3.0

redking

2023-05-03, 09:59 AM

Second, the point of this thread. Speaking as the one who made the thread, the point was expressly not for it to turn into the Nth debate about whether Dragonwrought Kobolds count as true dragons or not. Rather, the point was to collect all of the cheese that is available through being a Dragonwrought Kobold, including the cheese available specifically by being counted as a True Dragon. Essentially, I'd like to know about the options available thanks to Dragonwrought Kobolds being playable True Dragons, not hear yet another debate about whether they count or not.

And well, I don't particularly like being rude about things, but... drop the ****ing debate already. It's derailed the thread for a few days already.

I don't think there is any new cheese, but here is some innovative cheese that takes DWK "true dragon" inferences further than most people are willing.

Since true dragons gain HD, damage reduction, and increased spell casting ability (and possibly other abilities - it's been a while since I read Draconmicon), then your DWK true dragon should get these things too as they progress through their age categories (if you consider the kobold age categories to be the same as the dragon age categories).

You could ascertain the chromatic dragon ancestry of the DWK and infer how much HD, DR, and spell casting ability they should get at each age category.

narukaze

2023-05-03, 10:04 AM

Sorry, it can't be helped. It's nearly impossible mention dragonwrought kobolds and not have it devolve into the exact same debate every time. It isn't exactly off-topic, though, since determining whether kobolds are true dragons is relevant to what dragon-related cheese is actually applicable to them, right?
Yeah, I kinda knew this would happen, it's just irritating to see it happen anyway. But to be clear, I wanted to see if anyone else had any DWK cheese that I didn't know about, even if said cheese required them to count as True Dragons, which they may or may not by RAW.

Basically, for the purposes of this thread, I'd prefer if everyone just assumed that DWKs were ruled to count as True Dragons, and to proceed with describing potential cheese based on that assumption. Because like I said, about the only DWK cheese that actually seems to be TD-exclusive is Sovereign Archetypes and Dragon Psychoses, and while they're both useful (and I fully plan to use a Sovereign Archetype in my planned Perfect TWF Kobold build), I feel like it's not as cheesy as the stuff DWKs get without questionable RAW. (+3 to all mental stats, +1 level of sorcerer casting, etc.)

Crichton

2023-05-03, 10:18 AM

The base rule is that epic level requires class levels as that is the only official non-variant way to have levels. Monster HD does not qualify without the quoted rule. Kobold PCs have character levels and fall under it. So they need 21+ ECL, not class levels.

This is completely false, and we've already been over it in this same thread. The base rule does not require any class levels, and Monster HD very much do qualify.

The base rule from ELH: ECL is "equal to the creature's Hit Dice and class levels(if any) plus its level adjustment"
The base rule from DMG3.5: "Add a monster's level adjustment to its Hit Dice and class levels to get the creature's effective character level, or ECL"

The reason this line is needed is because the book references the ELH, not the DMG which is updated in 3.5 changing/clarifying the epic rules and LA and ECL. The ELH uses the 3.0 rules for LA and ECL which completely ignores HD in the calculation. For example a 3.0 werebear character has LA +4 and with 6 fighter levels would be considered a 10th level character even though it has 12 HD.

Again, this is entirely false. Where are you getting this information? See above quotations from that selfsame ELH that directly contradicts everything you just said.

According to ELH, a creature's ECL=RHD+LA+Class levels (if any), which is the exact same calculation that the DMG3.5 uses

according to the ELH dragons can't select epic feats until they reach great wyrm status.

This part is true, and as long as we're making stuff up about the 'reason' they worded it how they did, I guess I can wildly claim that this is the real reason the sentence in Draconomicon was needed. Dragons used to have a special exception that restricted them from epic feats until great wyrm age, and Draconomicon changed the rule from 'ECL 21 OR great wyrm age' to 'ECL21 OR old age'

Thus the word 'also' in 'dragons of at least old age can also choose these feats, even if they have no class levels'

Even without that sentence, they ALREADY COULD choose them if they were ECL21, even without class levels, even in the old 3.0 rules from ELH.

And as long as we're discussing not dissecting sentences and cherry picking the parts we want, the ACTUAL exemption in the sentence is the one I'm bolding here, not the one you bolded above:

'dragons of at least old age can also choose these feats, even if they have no class levels'

It doesn't add any 'because their age gives them enough HD to already qualify' restrictions (nevermind that that would be entirely redundant), nor add any other qualifiers or limiting clauses. They simply 'can' take them. Because rules do what they say they do.

redking

2023-05-03, 11:38 AM

Here is the full quote from Draconmicon page 66.

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

Gruftzwerg

2023-05-03, 01:59 PM

Kobolds are monsters in the Monster Manual.

Kobolds do not meet the rules given for what features Dragons in the Monster Manual have, partially defined on p22 of Draconomicon.

The Dragonwrought feat does not change, negate or allow them to meet the rules on p22 of Draconomicon.

It's quite clear that they're not True Dragons. As per RAW.
Who talks about "Kobolds" here? We talk about "Dragonwrought Kobolds" here (a specific exception), and there is no MM statblock for em. And even if we had one. The statblock won't change how draconomicon p4 will designate the DWK. The DWK still gain power from becoming older (qualifies as true dragon) and still has Age Categories to advance trough.

You seem to have completely misunderstood both the PSR that you keep citing, and the point of this thread.

First off, here is the full text of the PSR, reproduced from the PDF you provided:

The second paragraph covers the "book and topic precedence" that you keep using. Here's the problem: If you actually read the examples, it's clear that this works on a whole-book basis. That is, the rule states that the PHB provides "all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions". Therefore, if anything in the DMG or MM disagree with the PHB on one of these topics, you are supposed to give the PHB rules precedence, because the PHB is the primary source.

By this rule, the Draconomicon is the primary source for information about the 10 true dragons in the MM (and potentially most other true dragons as well), and so if another book disagrees with it about something in this particular topic, you are supposed to give the Draconomicon rules precedence. This rule does not make it so a single infobox on page 4 has supremacy over the entire rest of the book.
You are sole describing book as primary source and not topics. Remind you that the PSR is talking about "primary and secondary sources" mainly. Then it gives multiple non exclusive examples of how primary vs secondary source may look like.
1. "text trumps table"
2. "individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees"
3. "book and topic precedence" with some core book examples.
As you can see with 1 & 2, the PSR also applies within a book. Even as specific as a single spell's descriptions. And as said, these examples are not exclusive.
Whenever you have contradiction statements, you apply the Primary Source Rule and simply ask which one of the rules is more primary/global.

Apply that to our current situation. Which rules are primary when it comes to differentiation between dragons? The infobox on page 4 which is explicitly called as such, or a section that explains the common traits of the 10 MM True Dragons?
Imho it is obvious that the infobox on p4 is the Primary source for the topic and not the section talking about the 10 MM true dragons.

Second, the point of this thread. Speaking as the one who made the thread, the point was expressly not for it to turn into the Nth debate about whether Dragonwrought Kobolds count as true dragons or not. Rather, the point was to collect all of the cheese that is available through being a Dragonwrought Kobold, including the cheese available specifically by being counted as a True Dragon. Essentially, I'd like to know about the options available thanks to Dragonwrought Kobolds being playable True Dragons, not hear yet another debate about whether they count or not.

And well, I don't particularly like being rude about things, but... drop the ****ing debate already. It's derailed the thread for a few days already.

I'm sorry if this has become bothersome for you. That is not my intention here.

But you was aware of this "problem", so you can't say you didn't know what you are getting into here^^

I agree with redking that we seem to have provided all the cheese we are aware of.

And as soon as the original request of a DWK has been fulfilled.... I guess I don't need to explain what happens ..

Don't think that I forgot about the original request. I'm ( and I believe most of us) still trying to think about stuff that we maybe have forgotten about.
But as as of now the rule debate keeps the topic hot and maybe this helps to remember maybe some lesser known cheese, dunno.

And why do I get to be the sole scapegoat here? I didn't start the rule debate but just inserted the end state of the last debate (imho). There are enough others who are at least as responsible as me here.
And if you want to end the debate, you shouldn't add fuel to the fire by providing arguments for a topic that you say that you didn't want.
And why are you so stressed? We are all friendly discussing the topic. No one got hurt. And expect me, no one else was personally attacked. So if someone should be crying here, that should have been me. But I don't care for such small personal pokes.

You are the one reading keywords as similar words in the English language. Advancement is a noun. Advance is a verb.
Yeah, I know that the noun "Advancement" is defined while the verb "advance" is not.

If the keyword "Advancement" is used in a passage at least once, you are right to assume that the undefined "verb" is still referring to it by RAW.
But that is not the case for p4 of Draconomicon. The entire page (not sole the infobox) doesn't mention the defined keyword once. And "advance" is a fitting verb to describe the transition from one age category to another. There is no reasons by RAW to assume that the verb "advance" is referring to a keyword mentioned in a totally other topic. That's like saying any instance of a "powerful attack" anywhere refers to Power Attack. That is not RAW.

You are the one reading the defined "Advancement" keyword into the undefined "advance" verb and not me.

SillySymphonies

2023-05-03, 05:30 PM

Tell me, why are we pretending the "infobox" on page 4 of Draconomicon is anything other than a sidebar as defined on page 4 of the Dungeon Master's Guide? 🤔

Vaern

2023-05-03, 05:37 PM

If the keyword "Advancement" is used in a passage at least once, you are right to assume that the undefined "verb" is still referring to it by RAW.
But that is not the case for p4 of Draconomicon. The entire page (not sole the infobox) doesn't mention the defined keyword once. And "advance" is a fitting verb to describe the transition from one age category to another.

The rules text which states that a creature advances by gaining hit dice or class levels is repeated in separate sections regarding improving monsters or creating new monsters, sometimes independent of the word "advancement." The rules tell us several times that this is what they mean when they use the words "advance," "advances," or "advanced;" a creature gaining or having already gained additional hit dice or class levels. The rules establish the meaning of the word independently from "advancement." The presence of the word "advancement" is not necessary for "advance" to maintain its established meaning within the rules in relation to creatures gaining hit dice or class levels.

There is no reasons by RAW to assume that the verb "advance" is referring to a keyword mentioned in a totally other topic.

There is absolutely no reason by RAW to assume that the verb "advance" is referring to simply growing older and passing through age categories.
There is reason by RAW to assume that the verb "advance" is referring to gaining hit dice and class levels, because the rules tell us that that's what it means to advance. The word is very frequently used with this meaning throughout RAW. This definition has precedence and grounding within RAW, and using the word in this way is consistent with existing RAW. If the rules don't go out of their way to define a specific word or tell you specifically how it's being used in a single particular instance, there is much more reason to assume that it's being used the same way RAW already uses it than to instead pull a completely different definition out of a dictionary and assume that that is what was actually intended.

That's like saying any instance of a "powerful attack" anywhere refers to Power Attack. That is not RAW.

This hypothetical argument regarding Power Attack is not comparable.
There is no rules text saying that "A creature makes a powerful attack by utilizing the Power Attack feat," the way that there is rules text saying that "A creature advances by gaining hit dice or class levels."
The rules text does not continually use the phrase "powerful attack" in reference to using the Power Attack feat in the same way that it continually uses "advance" in reference to gaining hit dice.
If these were true, then this argument might be comparable.

You are the one reading the defined "Advancement" keyword into the undefined "advance" verb and not me.

I am not applying the definition of another word to this one. I am looking at the way the rules use the word "advance," what the rules tell us it means for a creature to "advance," and using the context and usage of multiple instances of RAW using the word "advance" to determine what the rules are telling us when it uses the word. RAW comes from looking at what the rules tell us, not from the damn dictionary. You are reading your own definition into the word. I am only assuming that the word means what existing rules text tells us the word means.

Tell me, why are we pretending the "infobox" on page 4 of Draconomicon is anything other than a sidebar as defined on page 4 of the Dungeon Master's Guide? 🤔

I would guess primarily that this is because the debate mostly involves Draconomicon and, to some extent, the Monster Manual, so nobody has actually bothered to look closely enough at the DMG in the context of this discussion to see the "Sidebars are not part of the rules" clause that would shut this whole thing down.
And I would guess secondarily that it is because this particular sidebar is seen as a foothold for cheese, and people just love cheese. Viewing this box as more than just a sidebar is essential for shenanigans.

Crake

2023-05-03, 08:35 PM

And why do I get to be the sole scapegoat here? I didn't start the rule debate but just inserted the end state of the last debate (imho). There are enough others who are at least as responsible as me here.

Its probably because you’re by far the most insistent on the debate, and also post the most long winded, unnecessarily overcomplicated posts to the point where it genuinely feels like you’re trying to win the argument through attrition rather than merit, which really grates on people.

Theres a saying, if you cant explain it simply, then you don’t understand it well enough.

redking

2023-05-04, 12:52 AM

Essentially, I'd like to know about the options available thanks to Dragonwrought Kobolds being playable True Dragons, not hear yet another debate about whether they count or not.

Back to this again. Since DWK "true dragon" exploits are based on inference, not Rules As Written (it doesn't say that DWK are true dragons anywhere), then all you can do is take inference further. At that point, it's just making up rules. Just give the DWK all the abilities of its chromatic dragon colour. It may seem crazy, but it's no less crazy than considering DWK to be a true dragon in the first place.

What I suspect you want is DWK true dragon exploits that are permitted at a gaming table. I don't think that you will find many. Even the ability to take epic feats, if you consider an old DWK under 21 HD eligible, is not such a big deal because it applies only to a few epic feats. Most of them have prerequisites, which you must still meet.

BTW, if you consider DWK to be a "true dragon", then being a half-dragon DWK with a dragon parent means that you lose your "true dragon" status, because half-dragons are explicitly "lesser dragons".

DigoDragon

2023-05-04, 06:02 AM

I don't think anyone is saying "Being a DWK is inherently cheesy," it's the various shenanigans that are arguably rules-legal for DWK that come off as cheesy.

I'm not saying DWK is cheesy either. I'm just agreeing with the idea that being a wizard is more power than whatever tricks you do with DWK is.

redking

2023-05-04, 06:39 AM

I'm not saying DWK is cheesy either. I'm just agreeing with the idea that being a wizard is more power than whatever tricks you do with DWK is.

What if your trick was that your DWK is a Great Wyrm red dragon, with all the HD, abilities and attacks of that creature?

Crake

2023-05-04, 08:39 AM

BTW, if you consider DWK to be a "true dragon", then being a half-dragon DWK with a dragon parent means that you lose your "true dragon" status, because half-dragons are explicitly "lesser dragons".

Right, but this is also true of any actual true dragon that gains the half dragon template. If you had a half-red gold dragon for example, this apparently would apply.

redking

2023-05-04, 08:59 AM

Right, but this is also true of any actual true dragon that gains the half dragon template. If you had a half-red gold dragon for example, this apparently would apply.

You are right. That said, only the DM can apply templates, and then only the DM can determine how templates function.

Back to DWK and half-dragons. It's clear that half-dragons are more draconic than DWK. Both have the dragon type, but half-dragons are evidently powerful and closer to dragons than DWK in their abilities. One of their parents is a true dragon. There are no half-dragons with the draconic side of the ancestry being DWK. If DWK were true dragons, they would be producing entire tribes of half-dragons. As it is, DWK do not even produce DWK when breeding with regular kobolds or other DWK. It appears to be a rare genetic anomaly.

Darg

2023-05-04, 09:39 AM

This is completely false, and we've already been over it in this same thread. The base rule does not require any class levels, and Monster HD very much do qualify.

The base rule from ELH: ECL is "equal to the creature's Hit Dice and class levels(if any) plus its level adjustment"
The base rule from DMG3.5: "Add a monster's level adjustment to its Hit Dice and class levels to get the creature's effective character level, or ECL"

Again, this is entirely false. Where are you getting this information? See above quotations from that selfsame ELH that directly contradicts everything you just said.

According to ELH, a creature's ECL=RHD+LA+Class levels (if any), which is the exact same calculation that the DMG3.5 uses

This part is true, and as long as we're making stuff up about the 'reason' they worded it how they did, I guess I can wildly claim that this is the real reason the sentence in Draconomicon was needed. Dragons used to have a special exception that restricted them from epic feats until great wyrm age, and Draconomicon changed the rule from 'ECL 21 OR great wyrm age' to 'ECL21 OR old age'

Thus the word 'also' in 'dragons of at least old age can also choose these feats, even if they have no class levels'

Even without that sentence, they ALREADY COULD choose them if they were ECL21, even without class levels, even in the old 3.0 rules from ELH.

And as long as we're discussing not dissecting sentences and cherry picking the parts we want, the ACTUAL exemption in the sentence is the one I'm bolding here, not the one you bolded above:

'dragons of at least old age can also choose these feats, even if they have no class levels'

It doesn't add any 'because their age gives them enough HD to already qualify' restrictions (nevermind that that would be entirely redundant), nor add any other qualifiers or limiting clauses. They simply 'can' take them. Because rules do what they say they do.

What page is your quote on? I've been literally all over my printing and this is what it has on ECL in my book:

Nonstandard races that are candidates for player characters possess (or can be assigned) a racial trait called level adjustment. This concept is touched on in Chapter 2: Characters in the DUNGEON MASTER’s Guide. In a way, level adjustment can be thought of as the race’s “monster class.” Thus, player characters using one of these races who pick up their first level of a standard class are actually multiclassing in a way, though multiclass rules and restrictions are not invoked (except for one, noted below), nor do these characters gain Hit Dice or other special powers from their “monster class” other than the special abilities naturally attributed to that race.
When creating a character using a nonstandard race, add that race’s level adjustment to the character’s class level (or levels) to determine its actual character level. In this special circumstance, the character level is now referred to as effective character level (ECL). For instance, a winterwight with a level adjustment of +25 who is also a 1st-level sorcerer has an ECL of 26. Player characters who have level adjustments of +1 or higher (humans and other standard races can be said to have a level adjustment of +0) indicate that their class levels do not accurately reflect their power.

HD are not levels:

character level: A character’s total level. For a character with levels in only one class, class level and character level are the same thing.

level: A measure of advancement or power applied to several areas of the game. See caster level, character level, class level, and spell level.

Hit Die/Dice (HD): In the singular form, a die rolled to generate hit points. In the plural form, a measure of relative power that is synonymous with character level for the sake of spells, magic items, and magical effects that affect a certain number of Hit Dice of creatures.

Playing monster's is not a base rule. In fact the DMG explicitly calls it a variant.

And, why are you adding a comma that doesn't exist in your draconomicon quote? It's not a separate part of the sentence or a parenthetical. It's meaning is intrinsic to the meaning of the sentence. The way you read the sentence it makes an entire part of the sentence superfluous, and it's quite illogical to assume they would mention something for it to have no meaning.

loky1109

2023-05-04, 10:00 AM

You are right. That said, only the DM can apply templates, and then only the DM can determine how templates function.

Back to DWK and half-dragons. It's clear that half-dragons are more draconic than DWK. Both have the dragon type, but half-dragons are evidently powerful and closer to dragons than DWK in their abilities. One of their parents is a true dragon. There are no half-dragons with the draconic side of the ancestry being DWK. If DWK were true dragons, they would be producing entire tribes of half-dragons. As it is, DWK do not even produce DWK when breeding with regular kobolds or other DWK. It appears to be a rare genetic anomaly.

I'm not sure if you could take DW feat on half-dragon kobold.

Crichton

2023-05-04, 10:24 AM

What page is your quote on? I've been literally all over my printing and this is what it has on ECL in my book:

Page 25, Monsters as Epic Characters, as I already mentioned upthread when I quoted it before.

The quote you provide explicitly says characters don't gain the HD of their monster race, so yeah, obviously they wouldn't use the creature's HD in the ECL calculation when you don't have those HD.

I'm not sure *how* a player can get a monster character without their listed RHD(aside from savage progressions), but according to that quote, they can? That sounds like a whole different can of worms, really

And, why are you adding a comma that doesn't exist in your draconomicon quote? It's not a separate part of the sentence or a parenthetical. It's meaning is intrinsic to the meaning of the sentence. The way you read the sentence it makes an entire part of the sentence superfluous, and it's quite illogical to assume they would mention something for it to have no meaning.

To illustrate that it IS a subordinate clause in the sentence. 'Even if' is an adverb phrase, subordinate to the main phrase. But even if I didn't put the comma there to illustrate it, the meaning is the same:

'dragons of at least old age can also choose these feats even if they have no class levels'

Even if they had no class levels, if they were ECL21 they already could take epic feats, even if this sentence wasn't ever printed. Now, with this sentence, even if they aren't ECL21, they can take epic feats if they're old age or older, because that's what this sentence says they can do. Even if the devs never envisioned a scenario where an old age dragon might be lower than ECL21, the rule as written says they can.

You're reading it as if it says 'Since all dragons of at least old age have enough Hit Die to be ECL21 already, they too can take these feats' but it doesn't say that.

Vaern

2023-05-04, 04:02 PM

Its probably because you’re by far the most insistent on the debate, and also post the most long winded, unnecessarily overcomplicated posts to the point where it genuinely feels like you’re trying to win the argument through attrition rather than merit, which really grates on people.

To be fair, though, there is always the option of just not replying. To that end, most of us, myself included, are at least as much to blame.

BTW, if you consider DWK to be a "true dragon", then being a half-dragon DWK with a dragon parent means that you lose your "true dragon" status, because half-dragons are explicitly "lesser dragons".

Right, but this is also true of any actual true dragon that gains the half dragon template. If you had a half-red gold dragon for example, this apparently would apply.

If a gold dragon is explicitly a true dragon and half-dragons are called out as being a lesser dragon, how do you determine which state takes priority?

I'm not sure if you could take DW feat on half-dragon kobold.

I don't see why not. The character is still a kobold, which is all the feat requires. The character doesn't get much out of the feat besides a skill bonus, having already gained the type change and relevant dragon qualities from the template, but I don't see anything preventing them from taking the feat as a prerequisite for further feats.

Darg

2023-05-04, 04:49 PM

To illustrate that it IS a subordinate clause in the sentence. 'Even if' is an adverb phrase, subordinate to the main phrase. But even if I didn't put the comma there to illustrate it, the meaning is the same:

'dragons of at least old age can also choose these feats even if they have no class levels'

Even if they had no class levels, if they were ECL21 they already could take epic feats, even if this sentence wasn't ever printed. Now, with this sentence, even if they aren't ECL21, they can take epic feats if they're old age or older, because that's what this sentence says they can do. Even if the devs never envisioned a scenario where an old age dragon might be lower than ECL21, the rule as written says they can.

You're reading it as if it says 'Since all dragons of at least old age have enough Hit Die to be ECL21 already, they too can take these feats' but it doesn't say that.

You put too much emphasis on the "can" instead of the combo of "also can." It's not "can choose these feats." It's "also can choose these feats." If, as you want us to believe, that both fragments have the same meaning, it would be wrong. "Also" is important, and it's being left out.

Dragons of at least old age, in addition, can choose these feats even if they have no class levels.
Dragons of at least old age, too, can choose these feats even if they have no class levels.
Dragons of at least old age, besides, can choose these feats even if they have no class levels.
Dragons of at least old age, as well, can choose these feats even if they have no class levels.
Dragons of at least old age, likewise, can choose these feats even if they have no class levels.
Dragons of at least old age, in the same manner, can choose these feats even if they have no class levels.

I'm reading it as it's written. It's referencing additional information through the use of the word "also." That connection should not be ignored; which it must be for your understanding to be accurate.

Crichton

2023-05-04, 07:40 PM

You put too much emphasis on the "can" instead of the combo of "also can." It's not "can choose these feats." It's "also can choose these feats." If, as you want us to believe, that both fragments have the same meaning, it would be wrong. "Also" is important, and it's being left out.

I'm reading it as it's written. It's referencing additional information through the use of the word "also." That connection should not be ignored; which it must be for your understanding to be accurate.

There's no functional difference between '...can take these feats' and '...also can take these feats'.
Especially not in the context of the preceding line of text, and the context of the general rule for epic feat qualification (which is ECL21, which they would already be qualified for even without this line of text)

If anything, 'also' is a point in opposition to your argument, since 'also' (and every one of your helpfully provided synonyms) is an additive adverb in this sentence. It indicates that in addition to the previous sentence with a method of qualifying for epic feats, dragons of at least old age can, too. It's a sentence that adds that permission, which an ECL21 would already have based on the previous sentence. So what could it possibly be adding to, if they already had it? To illustrate via rephrasing, as you helpfully did above: 'In addition (to the previous method of qualifying), dragons of at least old age also can take these feats even if they have no class levels'

There'd be no need for 'also' if it wasn't contrasting this method of qualifying with the method in the sentence before.

It doesn't say they have to be ECL21 AND old age, as you claim (without textual evidence). It says they can qualify with ECL21, and also dragons of at least old age can take these feats even if they have no class levels.

redking

2023-05-04, 10:00 PM

It doesn't say they have to be ECL21 AND old age, as you claim (without textual evidence). It says they can qualify with ECL21, and also dragons of at least old age can take these feats even if they have no class levels.

No, it doesn't.

The text implies that a dragon with 21 Hit Dice (HD) might not be eligible to take epic feats if it is below old age. The text states:

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

The first sentence specifies that epic feats are available to characters of 21st level or higher, but the second sentence adds an exception for dragons of at least old age, allowing them to choose these feats even if they have no class levels.

This additional exception for old dragons could be interpreted as a requirement, meaning that dragons below old age must still meet the 21st-level requirement to take epic feats. In this case, a dragon with 21 HD that is below old age would not be eligible for epic feats unless it has class levels that bring its Effective Character Level (ECL) to 21 or higher.

The text implies that a dragon with 21 RHD cannot take epic feats if it is below old age, as it would not meet the old age requirement for dragons or the general 21st-level requirement for characters.

That said, the designers ensured that even the lowliest true dragon was at least 21 RHD at the old age category. In short, you could have a 50 RHD under the old age category could not qualify for epic feats without class levels.

I believe this oddity is due to Draconomicon coming on the heels of the Epic Level Handbook, possibly in development around the same time.

Crichton

2023-05-05, 12:12 AM

No, it doesn't.

The text implies that a dragon with 21 Hit Dice (HD) might not be eligible to take epic feats if it is below old age. The text states:

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

The first sentence specifies that epic feats are available to characters of 21st level or higher, but the second sentence adds an exception for dragons of at least old age, allowing them to choose these feats even if they have no class levels.

This additional exception for old dragons could be interpreted as a requirement, meaning that dragons below old age must still meet the 21st-level requirement to take epic feats. In this case, a dragon with 21 HD that is below old age would not be eligible for epic feats unless it has class levels that bring its Effective Character Level (ECL) to 21 or higher.

The text implies that a dragon with 21 RHD cannot take epic feats if it is below old age, as it would not meet the old age requirement for dragons or the general 21st-level requirement for characters.

That said, the designers ensured that even the lowliest true dragon was at least 21 RHD at the old age category. In short, you could have a 50 RHD under the old age category could not qualify for epic feats without class levels.

I believe this oddity is due to Draconomicon coming on the heels of the Epic Level Handbook, possibly in development around the same time.

I don't think the text is implying, nor can imply, what you're saying, as it is written there. In order for it to mean that an ECL21 dragon below old age can't take epic feats, it would instead have to say something like: 'These feats are available to characters of 21st level or higher. Dragons must also be of at least old age in order to choose these feats even if they have no class levels'

But it doesn't say, nor even imply, that. The words '[they] can also take these feats' CANNOT mean 'they must also meet this other requirement in order to take these feats'. There is no such restriction. It's ECL21 OR old age, not ECL21 AND old age.

The text, as written, doesn't and can't support that claim.

So yes, an old age dragon can take epic feats. Even if it had most of it's HD level-drained away or some such, and is no longer ECL21 or higher.

Mechalich

2023-05-05, 12:57 AM

So yes, an old age dragon can take epic feats. Even if it had most of it's HD level-drained away or some such, and is no longer ECL21 or higher.

This is my read of what that passage was intended to imply, that any dragon of Old age or greater could take Epic Feats irrespective of its HD total. As it happens, there are no true dragons that possess less than 21 HD upon reaching old age, but this is merely an artifact of publication. A True Dragon with an exceptionally low HD progression is perfectly possible, in theory.

Crichton

2023-05-05, 08:37 AM

This is my read of what that passage was intended to imply, that any dragon of Old age or greater could take Epic Feats irrespective of its HD total. As it happens, there are no true dragons that possess less than 21 HD upon reaching old age, but this is merely an artifact of publication. A True Dragon with an exceptionally low HD progression is perfectly possible, in theory.

Right, but this rule isn't specified to apply only to True dragons. It applies to all dragons, true or otherwise. I'm not gonna engage on the ongoing DWK-True debate, but for the purposes of this epic feat qualification rule, that debate doesn't matter.

Darg

2023-05-05, 09:34 AM

Right, but this rule isn't specified to apply only to True dragons. It applies to all dragons, true or otherwise. I'm not gonna engage on the ongoing DWK-True debate, but for the purposes of this epic feat qualification rule, that debate doesn't matter.

And here is where the disconnect happens. The sentence does not give permission for old level 1 half-dragons to take epic feats. It does not override the general rule that epic feats are only available to characters of 21st level. The rules break down if complimentary rules are taken as adverse to each other. Especially when stated right after.

These bonus feats must be drawn from the feats noted as fighter bonus feats.

A fighter is not limited to the list of fighter bonus feats when choosing these feats.

The same logic applies here.

Crichton

2023-05-05, 09:45 AM

And here is where the disconnect happens. The sentence does not give permission for old level 1 half-dragons to take epic feats. It does not override the general rule that epic feats are only available to characters of 21st level. The rules break down if complimentary rules are taken as adverse to each other. Especially when stated right after.

Listen, we've been back and forth and back and forth over this. The text says what it says, and what it says it that they can. In addition to the normal method of qualifying (ECL21), Old dragons can take epic feats. Full stop. I've shown you where you were incorrect in your rules citations, I've shown you where you were mistaken about how 'also' means it's adding a method of qualifying, and cannot mean it's adding a restriction or restating an existing one. I understand that you're invested heavily in it working the way you want it to work, and I even freely admit that the way you say would make for a less-exploitable ruleset. In a 'normal' game with a 'normal' DM adjudicating and adjusting the rules for implementation at their table, it would be better for game balance overall. But the text itself doesn't support that. You can keep posting responses that make claims about how you *wish* it worked, but the text says something else.

Edit for your sneaky edit:

The same logic applies here

You're very good at bringing in examples that don't apply, or that don't say what you think they do. If you hadn't conveniently deleted the sentences between your two supposedly conflicting lines of text, it would be entirely clear that there's no conflict, and no rules problem here, nevermind that it has nothing to add to the discussion on dragons and epic feat qualification.

These bonus feats must be drawn from the feats noted as fighter bonus feats. A fighter must still meet all prerequisites for a bonus feat, including ability score and base attack bonus minimums.

These bonus feats are in addition to the feat that a character of any class gets from advancing levels. A fighter is not limited to the list of fighter bonus feats when choosing these feats.

Darg

2023-05-05, 01:20 PM

Edit for your sneaky edit:

You're very good at bringing in examples that don't apply, or that don't say what you think they do. If you hadn't conveniently deleted the sentences between your two supposedly conflicting lines of text, it would be entirely clear that there's no conflict, and no rules problem here, nevermind that it has nothing to add to the discussion on dragons and epic feat qualification.

Don't call it sneaky when it's the forum rules not to double post. I have to edit instead of creating a new post or the moderators can get engaged if it happens too often.

Of course I removed the context between the 2 sentences just like how you remove the context within which the line in draconomicon exists. Rules that don't have to conflict don't. Your assertion that they do conflict goes against the framework of how the rules have been written. Old dragons qualifying for epic feats can coexist with with 21 character levels as a requirement. Assuming it doesn't requires more than just "it says it can." Do you have a similar example of rules interacting with each other as you say this single line must be?

My citations weren't wrong, they are accurate quotes. Just because I didn't see a side bar that is randomly placed in a location that has literally nothing to do with the the content of the side bar doesn't mean that my assertion was inaccurate either. Prior to the FRCS level equivalents ignored creature HD when determining appropriate play level, in both directions.

Crichton

2023-05-09, 11:02 AM

Don't call it sneaky when it's the forum rules not to double post. I have to edit instead of creating a new post or the moderators can get engaged if it happens too often.
That's fair. Didn't mean it to sound accusing or anything. Just said sneaky because the edit appeared between me reading your post, and when I submitted my reply.

Of course I removed the context between the 2 sentences just like how you remove the context within which the line in draconomicon exists.

There's a huge difference between removing large swaths of text to sculpt an 'example' into appearing to show some contradiction that isn't really there to attempt to prove a point(this is what shady politicians, and manipulative 'news' outlets, and clickbait headline authors do), and using two adjacent sentences of rules without removing anything at all, and in fact couching those sentences in the general rules context they apply to by quoting the general rules from other sources, as I've done here multiple times.

Rules that don't have to conflict don't. Your assertion that they do conflict goes against the framework of how the rules have been written.

Don't misrepresent my claims, please. I've repeatedly said there's no conflict, merely an addition. 'Here's how it works in general. Also, these guys who meet this criteria can also use these feats'

My citations weren't wrong, they are accurate quotes. Just because I didn't see a side bar that is randomly placed in a location that has literally nothing to do with the the content of the side bar

I never said you inaccurately quoted the text. I said you were wrong in your rules citations. And I quoted the correct rule multiple times, including a page number all the way back on page one of the thread, so you either missed both the text in the book and the reference here to the page number it's on, or you continued to misconstrue the text intentionally. I'm gonna choose to believe the former, because I'm not going to assume a bad-faith discussion.

doesn't mean that my assertion was inaccurate either. Prior to the FRCS level equivalents ignored creature HD when determining appropriate play level, in both directions.

You repeatedly and vehemently asserted that "The base rule is that epic level requires class levels as that is the only official non-variant way to have levels. Monster HD does not qualify without the quoted rule" and "The ELH uses the 3.0 rules for LA and ECL which completely ignores HD in the calculation. For example a 3.0 werebear character has LA +4 and with 6 fighter levels would be considered a 10th level character even though it has 12 HD."

None of this is true, as shown by the rules quoted earlier. ELH and DMG3.5 are in agreement about what adds in to ECL, and how it relates to qualifying for epic feats.

So yes, your assertion was wildly inaccurate, and you continued in multiple responses to espouse it despite being told multiple times that it wasn't how the rules in the book you referenced worked, and being shown quotations and page references.

And again, we've been back and forth over this more than enough already. It's clear that you and I disagree on this point, and have gone to lengths to show why. I don't think any more repetitions of rephrasing the same points over and over is going to change anything. All it will do is derail the rest of the discussions in the thread.

Condé

2023-05-09, 11:19 AM

Crake

2023-05-09, 11:26 AM

redking

2023-05-09, 06:55 PM

Every time this subject come, it ends the same.
You guys are never going to agree. This argument has been the same for years, don't you think if there was a definitive and clear answer, this kind of thread would exist?

No one is changing their mind but there are undecided people or people that never heard of it that should know that it is highly controversial and likely will not allowed to see play. That's the important thing - people act as if they can just take this to the DM and expect the DM to accept it as "RAW", despite the fact that it doesn't say anywhere that DWK are "true dragons".

Gnaeus

2023-05-09, 07:21 PM

No one is changing their mind but there are undecided people or people that never heard of it that should know that it is highly controversial and likely will not allowed to see play. That's the important thing - people act as if they can just take this to the DM and except the DM to accept it as "RAW", despite the fact that it doesn't say anywhere that DWK are "true dragons".

While undeniably true, there is virtually nothing about dragonwrought kobolds I would expect a typical DM to accept. It would have to be a pretty high op game before I would consider asking a DM about pretty much anything in this entire thread, starting with the unambiguously RAW parts. I don't see a lot of games (and less games I would want to play in) where the DM's primary criteria for what is allowable is strict RAW. I mean I'd probably put a big * by TO builds that use it. But anyone admiring a TO build on a forum probably has an opinion already.

Darg

2023-05-09, 07:55 PM

Don’t bother, I’m pretty sure they argue for the sheer masochism of it.

The best way to prove or disprove a hypothesis is to send it into the grinder and see if it comes out unscathed. I'm relatively new to the discussion considering I only joined the internet community in 2019.

That's fair. Didn't mean it to sound accusing or anything. Just said sneaky because the edit appeared between me reading your post, and when I submitted my reply.

That's fair too. Thank you for clarity.

Don't misrepresent my claims, please. I've repeatedly said there's no conflict, merely an addition. 'Here's how it works in general. Also, these guys who meet this criteria can also use these feats'

That wasn't my intention. If I'm understanding you correctly, your argument is that the sentence is giving permission to take the feats without the epic level prerequisite. From my perspective, I don't see how it wouldn't let them also ignore epic feat prerequisites on the whole. An excellent example of this the general rule for dragon type qualifying for anything that requires the dragonblood subtype.

I'm gonna choose to believe the former, because I'm not going to assume a bad-faith discussion.

I appreciate that. I did indeed miss the page number being under a quote addressed to another so I had nothing to compare your quote to. The sidebar being located in a location that has no relation to the subject of the sidebar made it relatively hard to find in a 300+ page book.

You repeatedly and vehemently asserted that "The base rule is that epic level requires class levels as that is the only official non-variant way to have levels. Monster HD does not qualify without the quoted rule" and "The ELH uses the 3.0 rules for LA and ECL which completely ignores HD in the calculation. For example a 3.0 werebear character has LA +4 and with 6 fighter levels would be considered a 10th level character even though it has 12 HD."

None of this is true, as shown by the rules quoted earlier. ELH and DMG3.5 are in agreement about what adds in to ECL, and how it relates to qualifying for epic feats.

So yes, your assertion was wildly inaccurate, and you continued in multiple responses to espouse it despite being told multiple times that it wasn't how the rules in the book you referenced worked, and being shown quotations and page references.

Monsters as races is indeed a variant rule:

In contrast to the way the rest of the Dungeon Master’s Guide is structured, this chapter is composed of alternative rules, concepts, and ways of doing things. So, in this chapter, you won’t find variant rules set off in sidebars—the variant rules are actually the meat of the chapter.

It isn't wrong that level equivalents in the 3.0 DMG do ignore HD for level equivalent calculation.

And again, we've been back and forth over this more than enough already. It's clear that you and I disagree on this point, and have gone to lengths to show why. I don't think any more repetitions of rephrasing the same points over and over is going to change anything. All it will do is derail the rest of the discussions in the thread.

I do see how it can be read the way you argue it can. I just don't see how it can be understood that way under the context of the rules it exists within. Anyways, thank you for the discussion. I've learned new things.

Crake

2023-05-09, 07:58 PM

No one is changing their mind but there are undecided people or people that never heard of it that should know that it is highly controversial and likely will not allowed to see play. That's the important thing - people act as if they can just take this to the DM and except the DM to accept it as "RAW", despite the fact that it doesn't say anywhere that DWK are "true dragons".

I dunno, 5 page long semantic arguments seem to me more like something that would just drive away new people who havent heard of this discussion before. It is discussions like this that turned the majority of my players off 3.5.

Dont get me wrong, 3.5 has lots of amazing strengths, but to be frank, absurd arguments like this are not one of them, and with the prevalence of discussions like this it’ll only slowly kill the dwindling community that still plays this edition, as new players dont join, and old players eventually move on.

redking

2023-05-09, 08:52 PM

Dont get me wrong, 3.5 has lots of amazing strengths, but to be frank, absurd arguments like this are not one of them, and with the prevalence of discussions like this it’ll only slowly kill the dwindling community that still plays this edition, as new players dont join, and old players eventually move on.

I think it's more likely that people will point to DWK and give that as an example of why 3.5e doesn't work.

Crake

2023-05-09, 09:07 PM

I think it's more likely that people will point to DWK and give that as an example of why 3.5e doesn't work.

Yeah, they point at it because its an example of where nobody can decide on a ruling for it, despite it being painfully obvious to anyone who even has a cursory glance at the arguments what the ruling should be. When you see that much controversy over something that should be obvious, your first assumption will be “well, the system must be broken then, if they cant even resolve this one obvious thing”

redking

2023-05-09, 09:13 PM

Yeah, they point at it because its an example of where nobody can decide on a ruling for it, despite it being painfully obvious to anyone who even has a cursory glance at the arguments what the ruling should be. When you see that much controversy over something that should be obvious, your first assumption will be “well, the system must be broken then, if they cant even resolve this one obvious thing”

I believe that it's resolved in practice because they do not see play as "true dragons". What has happened is that there are a lot less actual players and DMs of 3.5e than before. When people has skin on the game, that is when 3.5e was still being published, there was no doubt about the ruling at all. The doubt only emerged later, with rules bending "theoretical optimisation", which relies on dodgy readings.

Crake

2023-05-09, 10:03 PM

Remuko

2023-05-09, 10:45 PM

Crake

2023-05-09, 10:53 PM

i think its cool to rule that they do and dont see why people are so against it. i see no reason most DMs shouldnt just allow it and then just disallow any potential stuff from it that might be unbalanced at the table. that should be all that matters "is this balanced for the table?" and as the start of the thread before it went off the rails showed, its really not that strong outside the most optimized stuff which can only be done intentionally. so "dont break the game" as a gentlemans agreement and a "sure why not, its cool" seems to make a lot more sense than the endless "RAW" wars.

i feel this way about most rules debates tbh. if its not unbalanced for the table and someone finds it cool, stop trying (unless they explicitly ask about RAW) to drone on and on about whether or not its RAW. maybe it is, maybe its not but if they find it cool and its not imbalanced that's all that matters.

my 2 coppers.

Nobody cares if you wanna homebrew something (though why you think homebrewing kobolds to be true dragons is cool, i have no idea, personally i think that just degrades the whole notion of true dragons), the issue is when people bring it up as fact, and talk like other people are straight up wrong for ruling otherwise.

Fact is, if you want to introduce cool homebrew, I’m all for it, but come up with something cool and unique, not some twisted edge case rule, or if you’re gonna do the latter, at least just call it for what it is, a homebrew.

Mechalich

2023-05-09, 11:15 PM

though why you think homebrewing kobolds to be true dragons is cool, i have no idea, personally i think that just degrades the whole notion of true dragons

Indeed. I'm pretty sure the general perspective is that making Dragonwrought Kobolds count as True Dragons is broadly understood as ridiculous, absurd, and other pejorative terms. That's perhaps why this particular piece of cheese is considered so egregious. Whatever the RAW ruling, it is very clear that the intent is Dragonwrought Kobolds do not count as true dragons. This is not a case where the RAI is the least bit nebulous.

Attempts to justify Dragonwrought Kobolds as True Dragons have basically nothing to do with adding an absurdly anomalous entry to the list of true dragons as part of some complex point of fantasy taxonomy and absolutely everything to do with trying to stack additional cheese onto various character builds.

redking

2023-05-10, 12:23 AM

Attempts to justify Dragonwrought Kobolds as True Dragons have basically nothing to do with adding an absurdly anomalous entry to the list of true dragons as part of some complex point of fantasy taxonomy and absolutely everything to do with trying to stack additional cheese onto various character builds.

This is what does it for me. I am not in some Quixotic fight against Dragonwrought Kobolds being used in games as "true dragons" because it never happens. Rather, calling these little fellows "true dragons" is a total affront to common sense, not to mention the rules. The claim that they are true dragons by RAW is just the cherry on top.

Crake

2023-05-10, 12:52 AM

Attempts to justify Dragonwrought Kobolds as True Dragons have basically nothing to do with adding an absurdly anomalous entry to the list of true dragons as part of some complex point of fantasy taxonomy and absolutely everything to do with trying to stack additional cheese onto various character builds.

And its also annoying for anyone who wants to just use a regular dragonwrought kobold, as is, with no cheese, because they think the idea is cool, only to get labelled as cheesy minmaxers by people who have only heard of things like this in passing, and dont really understand the nuance, instead just scattershotting the whole thing by saying no.

That issue spreads beyond dwk, it was famous for 3.5 psionics inheriting the bad name of psionics from earlier editions, but longwinded raw debates on topics that seemingly should be clear as day just make the whole thing seem worthless

Gruftzwerg

2023-05-10, 01:12 AM

Tell me, why are we pretending the "infobox" on page 4 of Draconomicon is anything other than a sidebar as defined on page 4 of the Dungeon Master's Guide? 🤔
Because if you carefully read the definition on page 4 of the Dungeon Master's Guide...

THE PURPOSE OF SIDEBARS
You’ll see blocks of text that look like this one frequently throughout this book. The information in these sidebars is not part of the rules per se, but you’ll find them useful and interesting in their own right. Most sidebars in this book serve either to introduce rules variants or to give you a glimpse “behind the curtain” into how some aspect of the D&D game was created
...you should realize that this rule is sole meant for the sidebars in the DMG. Further it sole talks about "most sidebars" and thus ain't a hard rule for "all sidebars in the DMG".
It ain't even a real/hard rule, but is sole informative.

The rules text which states that a creature advances by gaining hit dice or class levels is repeated in separate sections regarding improving monsters or creating new monsters, sometimes independent of the word "advancement." The rules tell us several times that this is what they mean when they use the words "advance," "advances," or "advanced;" a creature gaining or having already gained additional hit dice or class levels. The rules establish the meaning of the word independently from "advancement." The presence of the word "advancement" is not necessary for "advance" to maintain its established meaning within the rules in relation to creatures gaining hit dice or class levels.

Neither the introduction, nor the topic "The Different Kinds of Dragons" has referred to "Advancement" once by RAW.

What you are doing here is RAI, because you apply context that ain't provided by RAW.

There is absolutely no reason by RAW to assume that the verb "advance" is referring to simply growing older and passing through age categories.
Why not? Does the sentence become unreadable gibberish? I don't think so. It still makes sense to me.

You can argue that the authors didn't mange to express their thoughts right by RAW. But that is as said a RAI argument to assume context that ain't explicitly called out by RAW.

This hypothetical argument regarding Power Attack is not comparable.
There is no rules text saying that "A creature makes a powerful attack by utilizing the Power Attack feat," the way that there is rules text saying that "A creature advances by gaining hit dice or class levels."
So you are requiring a statement where the "verb is used along the keyword" but don't provide one yourself?
Sorry, but neither do I don't see the statement "A dragon's Advancement is progressed by advancing trough age categories".

And even if we would have such sentences, it wouldn't change the outcome. Because sole "Advancement" is defined by RAW and not "advance". By RAW draconomicon page 4 ain't referring to Advancement. You have to rely on context that ain't provided by RAW, thus giving a RAI argument here.

I am not applying the definition of another word to this one. I am looking at the way the rules use the word "advance," what the rules tell us it means for a creature to "advance," and using the context and usage of multiple instances of RAW using the word "advance" to determine what the rules are telling us when it uses the word. RAW comes from looking at what the rules tell us, not from the damn dictionary. You are reading your own definition into the word. I am only assuming that the word means what existing rules text tells us the word means.

That is RAI. Nothing wrong with using RAI. But pls stop pretending that it is RAW at the same time. Try to see the difference here.

Its probably because you’re by far the most insistent on the debate, and also post the most long winded, unnecessarily overcomplicated posts to the point where it genuinely feels like you’re trying to win the argument through attrition rather than merit, which really grates on people.

Theres a saying, if you cant explain it simply, then you don’t understand it well enough.
Just because the length of my posts is related to the amount of (imho) wrong assumptions I'm replying to, shouldn't have any affect on the arguments.
And also keep in mind the nature of "Proving" and "Debunking" something. You can "Debunk" something with a single argument. But to be able to "Prove" something, you need to defend your theory against any argument that is being brought up.
Thus if I intend to prove that DWK are True Dragons (due to experience from years of RAW debates in this topic), I need to defend it against multiple arguments. Sorry, but you can't use that as an argument or proof for anything.

Also I would like out to point out something about the problems I see right in the Opening Post of this thread:
1. The Intention here should be to "measure" the cheese and not to turn this into a "rule" debate
2. The Opening Post moves on to use "rule arguments" to shut down the cheese instead of "measuring" the cheese.

I'm not responsible if the Opening Post is inconsistent with its own request and effectively sole baits people into a rule discussion. If the OP's intention really was sole to measure cheese, it should have sole sticked to that and shouldn't have used rule arguments to deny the cheese.

This was clear to me from the first reading, since I pay attention to such things (don't ask me why, I don't know why I have an eye for such inconsistency. Maybe because these kind of inconsistency leads to exploits and you know how I like to exploit things. Not saying that my intention here was to exploit the thread, just saying that it was clear to me that this thread will escalate the way the Opening Post is set up).

If a gold dragon is explicitly a true dragon and half-dragons are called out as being a lesser dragon, how do you determine which state takes priority?

By using "Specific Trumps General", the tool provided by the Primary Source Rule.

A "half-dragon" is more specific since it thrives from "dragons" as base. You logically simply can't have half-dragons without dragons in the first place.

Thus the half-dragon rules trumps any general True Dragon rules.

And since half dragon is inherit, effectively the creature was born as lesser dragon and remains one for its entire life.

Every time this subject come, it ends the same.
You guys are never going to agree. This argument has been the same for years, don't you think if there was a definitive and clear answer, this kind of thread would exist?
&

Don’t bother, I’m pretty sure they argue for the sheer masochism of it.

Pretty sure that it is not sheer masochism for the most participants.

But I can sole talk for myself. I enjoy rule discussion as long as we keep it friendly (and I don't have anything to complain about that^^).

And when it comes to the DWK debate, imho it is a good measuring tool to see how close our perception of "how to read RAW" is in line with each other in the forum. This topic goes to the deepest levels of rule debates 3.5 has to offer.

Imho if the day should come that we can agree upon the DWK topic, we won't have any problems to sole any other RAW debate with very high efficiency.

But until then, its a long road. But I do see progress over the years. So it's definitively not all going into vain.

Indeed. I'm pretty sure the general perspective is that making Dragonwrought Kobolds count as True Dragons is broadly understood as ridiculous, absurd, and other pejorative terms. That's perhaps why this particular piece of cheese is considered so egregious. Whatever the RAW ruling, it is very clear that the intent is Dragonwrought Kobolds do not count as true dragons. This is not a case where the RAI is the least bit nebulous.

Attempts to justify Dragonwrought Kobolds as True Dragons have basically nothing to do with adding an absurdly anomalous entry to the list of true dragons as part of some complex point of fantasy taxonomy and absolutely everything to do with trying to stack additional cheese onto various character builds.

I feel like people totally ignore the uniqueness of Kobolds in general and don't give it any credit when it comes to their first feelings if this was ever intended or not.

Kobolds are the sole "race" that has "Age Categories". Not even the other True Dragon varieties/races have it attached to their race, but have them from being a "True Dragon"(not a "race").

From a power gaming potential this was sure never really intended to be abused. But imho there is evidence that the intention (to let DWK count as true dragons) was there at least at some point.

I mean, why make "Age Categories" as mechanical rule for Kobolds, if it shouldn't have any impact on the rules? They could have referred to this in the fluff section if it shouldn't have any impact on the rules.

But for some reason Kobolds have Age Categories as rule mechanic.
And as soon as they acquire the "dragon" type, those Age Categories exclude em from being Lesser Dragons.
I mean, what else I have to say here...
Sure, the author was clearly not seeing the full scale of the picture here. But RAW doesn't care for that.

Crake

2023-05-10, 02:03 AM

Thus if I intend to prove that DWK are True Dragons (due to experience from years of RAW debates in this topic), I need to defend it against multiple arguments. Sorry, but you can't use that as an argument or proof for anything.

Im not using it as an argument in the dwk debate, I’m explaining to you why you were the scapegoat for the OP’s anger.

Regardless of why, or if you think its justified or not, thats how it comes across.

redking

2023-05-10, 02:22 AM

Well, maybe a dragonwrought kobold can be a true dragon if you ignore the feat that makes a kobold dragonwrought.

You are a dragon wrought kobold. Your type is dragon rather than humanoid, and you lose the dragonblood subtype. You retain all your other subtypes and your kobold racial traits. Your scales become tinted with a color that matches that of your draconic heritage. As a dragon, you are immune to magic sleep and paralysis effects. You have darkvision out to 60 feet and low-light vision. You gain a +2 racial bonus on the skill indicated for your draconic heritage on the table on page 103

True dragons on the other hand -

Blindsense (Ex)
Dragons can pinpoint creatures within a distance of 60 feet. Opponents the dragon can’t actually see still have total concealment against the dragon.

Keen Senses (Ex)
A dragon sees four times as well as a human in shadowy illumination and twice as well in normal light. It also has darkvision out to 120 feet.

These, among the hundreds of other facts that make dragonwrought kobolds inconsistent with being true dragons.

SillySymphonies

2023-05-10, 05:40 AM

...you should realize that this rule is sole meant for the sidebars in the DMG.
The very caption is "THE PURPOSE OF SIDERBARS", not "THE PURPOSE OF SIDEBARS "; it doesn't say "The information in [i]these sidebars [but not others] is not part of the rules per se, but you’ll find them useful and interesting in their own right."

Further it sole talks about "most sidebars" and thus ain't a hard rule for "all sidebars in the DMG".
The information in [all] these sidebars is not part of the rules per se, but you'll find them useful and interesting in their own right. Most sidebars in the Dungeon Master's Guide serve either to introduce new rules or to give you a glimpse "behind the curtain" into how some aspect of the D&D game was created.

Darg

2023-05-10, 09:50 AM

redking

2023-05-10, 10:00 AM

Even if someone plays DWK as a true dragon, they still have to advance exactly like one per the rules for playing a dragon. Meaning it's no longer cheese because they inherit LA and HD which is basically a turn off to the power gamers who want DWK to be a True dragon in the first place. DWK is a powerful option as a lesser dragon, but it isn't so rules bending.

Maybe if we present the actual consequences of DWK being a true dragon, people will stop insisting they are. LA, HD, and being old equals not playable as a standard.

I've seen them resist it in a previous discussion. That was raised. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25129293&postcount=8) Apparently irrelevant, because it only applies to dragons with RHD (ie, true dragons). Contradictory, I know.

Also ignored is the fact that while the kobolds have age categories, they are not dragon's age categories, but kobold age categories (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25130416&postcount=20), and the number of years between each category is different. They are different things.

And as you point out, true dragons increase RHD with each age category. Specifically, it is 3HD per age category, and all true dragons follow this pattern (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25130580&postcount=22) (there might be an outlier in Dragon Magazine - I don't know). DWK should follow this pattern if they are true dragons.

DWK are in a list of creatures with Draconic Heritage (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25130655&postcount=26), and left out of the true dragon list.

Dragonwrought kobold is never called a true dragon in Races of the Dragon. Draconomicon goes into length describing what a true dragon is, and these kobolds accord with none of the descriptions.

Draconomicon describes the traits of true dragons repeatedly. Dragonwrought kobold doesn't meet any of them. "You have darkvision out to 60 feet and low-light vision". - Dragonwrought kobold feat.

Keen senses description from page 136 of Draconomicon.

Keen Senses (Ex)
A dragon sees four times as well as a human in shadowy illumination and twice as well in normal light. It also has darkvision out to 120 feet.

'Dragon' in Draconomicon is shorthand for 'true dragon', as the book tells you in the introduction.

"Lesser dragons can’t see in the dark better than a dwarf or a half-orc, nor in low light better than an elf or a half-elf, but simply having both forms of vision makes them the best at spotting hidden foes and the like". Dragonwrought kobolds "have darkvision out to 60 feet and low-light vision", no better than dwarf, half-orc, elf or half-elf. True dragons have low light vision and "darkvision out to 120 feet". True dragons can see in the dark better than a dwarf or a half-orc, nor in low light better than an elf or a half-elf. Dragonwrought kobold cannot.

Not a true dragon.

Darg

2023-05-10, 10:29 AM

It's part of the rule that allows players to play any dragon at all.

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.

As it ages, as shown on Table 3–21: Aging for Dragon PCs, the dragon is required to devote a level every few years to its dragon “class,” reflecting the extra Hit Die or level adjustment it gains from aging. The character must add this dragon level as the first level it gains after reaching an age shown on the table. It gains no benefit from reaching a new age category until it attains this level.

It isn't until after all this talk that it differentiates lesser dragons by saying they have a set level adjustment and don't progress by age. There are only 2 types of dragons, true or lesser. PCs can only be one or the other. So either they follow the rules presented for true dragons, or they follow the rule for lesser dragons making them lesser dragons.

redking

2023-05-10, 10:50 AM

It's part of the rule that allows players to play any dragon at all.

It isn't until after all this talk that it differentiates lesser dragons by saying they have a set level adjustment and don't progress by age. There are only 2 types of dragons, true or lesser. PCs can only be one or the other. So either they follow the rules presented for true dragons, or they follow the rule for lesser dragons making them lesser dragons.

Obviously I agree with you, but when pressed DWK = true dragon people will quote this sidebar:

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

They claim that even if DWK is not a true dragon, it is a dragon, and old age, and therefore eligible for the epic feats, even though Draconomicon says that it is talking about true dragons throughout the text.

Darg

2023-05-10, 12:18 PM

Obviously I agree with you, but when pressed DWK = true dragon people will quote this sidebar:

They claim that even if DWK is not a true dragon, it is a dragon, and old age, and therefore eligible for the epic feats, even though Draconomicon says that it is talking about true dragons throughout the text.

21 character levels is a prerequisite. Epic feats have prerequisites. Why would it allow old dragons to bypass one and not the other? If they bring up that feats are more specific than a general rule like that, then ask them if that comparison applies to dragons bypassing the dragonblood subtype prerequisite.

Remuko

2023-05-10, 12:48 PM

Indeed. I'm pretty sure the general perspective is that making Dragonwrought Kobolds count as True Dragons is broadly understood as ridiculous, absurd, and other pejorative terms.

maybe thats the difference, for me at least then. i dont take games or the hobby as a whole that seriously. like i dont prefer games to be pure slapstick but its fantasy and the fact that DWK being true dragons is absurd is WHY i find it cool, just like in anime I love when children overpower adults in nonsensical ways (the younger and more nonsensical the better!). i dont find "ridiculous, absurd..." as a bad thing, I literally find it as one of the primary "cool" factors.

SillySymphonies

2023-05-10, 01:00 PM

The very caption is "THE PURPOSE OF SIDERBARS", not "THE PURPOSE OF SIDEBARS [IN THIS BOOK]"; it doesn't say "The information in these sidebars [but not others] is not part of the rules per se, but you’ll find them useful and interesting in their own right."
I'll have to retract this particular point: apparently, animal companions, special mounts, and familiars are detailed in sidebars, and are part of the rules (as per the SRD).

Theres a saying, if you cant explain it simply, then you don’t understand it well enough.
I believe the reasoning goes like this: there are twelve kobold age categories (page 39 of Races of the Dragon); a dragonwrought kobold's type is dragon (page 100 of Races of the Dragon); a true dragon is a dragon with twelve age categories (page 87 of Dragon Magic); therefore, a dragonwrought kobold must be a true dragon; dismiss all evidence to the contrary with increasingly convoluted invocations of Errata Rule: Primary Sources (Player's Handbook v.3.5 Errata).

Chronos

2023-05-10, 02:45 PM

sreservoir

2023-05-10, 03:59 PM

I believe that it's resolved in practice because they do not see play as "true dragons". What has happened is that there are a lot less actual players and DMs of 3.5e than before. When people has skin on the game, that is when 3.5e was still being published, there was no doubt about the ruling at all. The doubt only emerged later, with rules bending "theoretical optimisation", which relies on dodgy readings.

This seems ahistorical, and, to my understanding, exactly backward. CO board culture back when 3.5e was still being published was far more willing to entertain tricks based on dodgy readings (and heck, outright misreadings) than we are here today. Most of the threads from back then aren't exactly well-preserved, but like, if you think rules-bending TO is a post-run thing, uh, the Wish and the Word are well-preserved and feature hilariously blatant misreadings at every step of the way.

As for DWK stupidity in particular, even searching on these forums reveals posts from late 2007 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=3370792&postcount=12) and mid 2008 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=4567418&postcount=24) speaking of early epic feat qualification and DWKs being true dragons as a passing aside. For context, Dragons of Eberron, one of the big reasons people want DWKs to count as true dragons, released in October 2007 (same month as RC, incidentally).

Darg

2023-05-10, 04:58 PM

I think that part of what fuels endless debates like this is that people are debating on different terms. One person will say "By applying this rule, this rule, and this rule, RAW, we come to this conclusion", but someone else will interpret that as a statement about what the rules should[/b] be, and since it's blatantly obvious that the rule shouldn't be that, they argue with the first poster... even though the first poster never said anything about what the rule should be, only about what it is.

RAW, dragonwrought kobolds are True Dragons. RAW, they can take epic feats at any level, if they're old enough. RAW, they gain RHD and LA (in an unspecified amount that the DM must determine) as they age. None of these things [i]should be the rules, and any sensible DM would houserule all of them away, but as it stands, they are the rules, until the (very likely) case that the DM changes the rules (which the DM is allowed to do).

That's the problem, RAW would be that the rules declare they are true dragons as that is how every other true dragon becomes a true dragon and every other rule is established. People want to take descriptions and statements about true dragons and apply them to DWK and say they are a true dragon because they sort of fit. A pizza pie and an apple pie have a lot of similarities and just because they are similar and are both pies does not make them the same type of pie.

Just like how old dragons can take epic feats regardless of level, what prevents them from ignoring any epic feat prerequisite?

Vaern

2023-05-10, 05:35 PM

Neither the introduction, nor the topic "The Different Kinds of Dragons" has referred to "Advancement" once by RAW.

What you are doing here is RAI, because you apply context that ain't provided by RAW.

You're missing literally the entire point of the bit you quoted. It doesn't need to use the word "advancement" because what it means for a creature to "advance" is defined within the rules independently from the word "advancement." This context is literally derived from rules text, ie RAW.

Why not? Does the sentence become unreadable gibberish? I don't think so. It still makes sense to me.

You can argue that the authors didn't mange to express their thoughts right by RAW. But that is as said a RAI argument to assume context that ain't explicitly called out by RAW.

It doesn't become unreadable gibberish, but it is inconsistent with the word's typical usage and established meaning within the rules. Using a word to mean what it means within the context of the rules is RAW. Using a word to mean what it means in the context of a particular dictionary definition is RAI.

So you are requiring a statement where the "verb is used along the keyword" but don't provide one yourself?
Sorry, but neither do I don't see the statement "A dragon's Advancement is progressed by advancing trough age categories".

You're missing literally the entire point of the bit you quoted. I'm not requiring one word to be used along side the other. I'm only requiring the things to have some established meaning within the rules. What it means for a creature to advance is spelled out in the rules, being to add class levels or gain Hit Dice. What a "powerful attack" consists of is not defined, and therefore can not be assumed to refer to the use of the Power Attack feat. You can see in the bit you quoted that I am literally comparing rules text that does exist to rules text that does not exist. One of the two things is a word with established meaning within RAW; the other is not.

Class levels: Intelligent creatures... most commonly advance by adding class levels.
Increased Hit Dice: Intelligent creatures... and nonintelligent monsters, can advance by increasing their Hit Dice.

The meaning of the verb "advance" is established independently of the word "advancement." The verb does not need to be used in conjunction with the noun, because the verb is given meaning its own through the rules.
Monster Manual tells us how creatures advance. Monster Manual tells us what it means when it says "advance" in relation to creatures.
"Creatures of the dragon type that do not advance through age categories..." should, by RAW, be read as "Creatures of the dragon type that do not [add class levels/increase their Hit Dice] through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons."

Now please, stop obsessing over whether or not the word "Advancement" is used. It doesn't matter. "Advance" has meaning on its own, independently of "Advancement."

Because if you carefully read the definition on page 4 of the Dungeon Master's Guide...

...you should realize that this rule is sole meant for the sidebars in the DMG. Further it sole talks about "most sidebars" and thus ain't a hard rule for "all sidebars in the DMG".
It ain't even a real/hard rule, but is sole informative.

The very caption is "THE PURPOSE OF SIDERBARS", not "THE PURPOSE OF SIDEBARS "; it doesn't say "The information in [i]these sidebars [but not others] is not part of the rules per se, but you’ll find them useful and interesting in their own right."

The information in [all] these sidebars is not part of the rules per se, but you'll find them useful and interesting in their own right. Most sidebars in the Dungeon Master's Guide serve either to introduce new rules or to give you a glimpse "behind the curtain" into how some aspect of the D&D game was created.

I'm going to have to side with Gruftzwerg on this one. I was going to point out the same wording myself, but then I decided that I'd be throwing fuel on the fire and kind of just wanted the whole discussion to die already. But now that it's out in the open, let me highlight Gruftzwerg's point with a few extra details:

First, the sidebar in question notes that its sidebars contain variant rules and behind the curtain tidbits. Every sidebar within the DMG that fits these categories is clearly labeled as such. There is, as far as I can tell with a brief skimming, one sidebar describing hidden doors which does not call itself out as a "variant" or "behind the curtain."

Second, there are sidebars in other books - namely the PHB, which has already been pointed out - which hold details for significant game mechanics. These are not labeled as "variant" or "behind the curtain." Writing off these sidebars along with those in the DMG removes mechanics for animal companions, special mounts, familiars, school specialization, critical hits, and the entirety of the Combat Basics section on page 135 which is literally a single giant sidebar.

Third, much like DMG's sidebars are clearly labeled as "Variant" or "Behind The Curtain," Draconomicon has several sidebars clearly labeled as "Rules." DMG does not prevent sidebars outside of itself from being rules, and Draconomicon is explicitly using its sidebars as a way to detail rules relevant to dragons. Note that this is not a completely solid defense for the sidebar on page 4, as it is not labeled as being "Rules," but just give me a sec- I'm getting there.

Fourth, if we disregard the frequently-referenced sidebar on page 4, this entire debate is completely pointless. We can't specifically disregard just the bit about dragons advancing through age categories; we'd have to agree to disregard the entire sidebar, which can land us in dangerous territory.
The sidebar on page 4 is what tells us that the book mainly concerns itself with true dragons. This establishes important context for the rest of the book, and removing the sidebar removes that context. Without this context, it wouldn't matter if kobolds were true dragons or not. They wouldn't have to be true dragons, because without this sidebar there is nothing stopping the rules and mechanics within the book from being applied to lesser dragons as well (unless those specific rules or mechanics specifically call out true dragons; in this case, the cheese in question does not).

Chronos

2023-05-10, 06:13 PM

Crake

2023-05-10, 06:25 PM

I believe the reasoning goes like this: there are twelve kobold age categories (page 39 of Races of the Dragon); a dragonwrought kobold's type is dragon (page 100 of Races of the Dragon); a true dragon is a dragon with twelve age categories (page 87 of Dragon Magic); therefore, a dragonwrought kobold must be a true dragon; dismiss all evidence to the contrary with increasingly convoluted invocations of Errata Rule: Primary Sources (Player's Handbook v.3.5 Errata).

Oh, I know how the reasoning goes well enough, I’ve been here long enough to see this debate many times.

My point was more for people who post 5 page summaries in response to a handful of points. If you need to jump through that many hoops, then perhaps consider if your point is correct, or if you’re just arguing semantics on a sinking ship

Fero

2023-05-10, 06:37 PM

This thread sure has inspired a great deal of passion. Just for fun, I think everyone should try to argue the opposite of what they have argued thus far and show their true rule lawyer skills.

Vaern

2023-05-10, 06:52 PM

My point was more for people who post 5 page summaries in response to a handful of points.

Yep, we're the worst. Don't worry, though, I hate myself at least as much as you hate me for it. I'd hate myself a lot more for it, though, if I actually brought this kind of pedantic debate to the table rather than keeping it reserved to a forum where people can just ignore the thread and scroll past if they're not interested.

And in Gruftzwerg's defense, he does tend to respond to a lot all at once when he drops in. His last post was responding to 7 separate posts. I would expect that to be quite a long post in any circumstance, even if one of those 7 posts wasn't also an unreasonably long, multi-point post that had to be responded to in multiple segments.

Mechalich

2023-05-10, 06:58 PM

Crake

2023-05-10, 07:07 PM

And in Gruftzwerg's defense, he does tend to respond to a lot all at once when he drops in. His last post was responding to 7 separate posts. I would expect that to be quite a long post in any circumstance, even if one of those 7 posts wasn't also an unreasonably long, multi-point post that had to be responded to in multiple segments.

The problem isnt how many posts he responds to, the problem is how many hoops he tries go jump through to achieve the mental gymnastics required to justify his arguments, which just inflates the size of his posts.

Doesnt help that he never really addresses any points, but argues around them, and just ends up arguing in circles, hence the notion that his win condition is attrition, not actually convincing his peers.

Darg

2023-05-10, 08:45 PM

Right, the rules should say "True dragons are the things that specifically say they're true dragons". But that's not what they say. What the rules actually say is "True dragons are dragons with twelve age categories". Which is a category that includes dragonwrought kobolds. And then the rules also say other things about true dragons (some of which are very inconvenient for optimization), and with the way the rules are written, those things also become true of dragonwrought kobolds.

The rules don't have to say that, they explicitly list what is a true dragon and classify everything else as lesser dragons. The MM never had to say that "true dragons are the things that specifically say they are true dragons."

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.

Perfectly describes DWK: set level adjustment AND no built-in progression due to age.

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

What sets the true dragons in the MM apart from the other dragons in the MM? They advance by aging. DWK doesn't advance by aging.

Draconomicon repeats this.

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

And then

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

Again we see that advancement from age categories is the defining characteristic of true dragons. But then the argument is that it says "advance" not "advancement" and because they wanted to use proper grammer for something that shouldn't even need defining because it's simply a regular English word it gets dismissed as inconclusive.

There's more evidence that DWK simply isn't a true dragon than there is of DWK being a true dragon. Which wholly hinges on deliberate misattribution of one reference in dragon magic. If allowed, it completely ignores the fact that kobold half-dragons fit exactly in the same way which goes against the rules. The only difference is that half-dragon kobolds are explicitly lesser dragons and DWK doesn't have a mention at all.

redking

2023-05-10, 09:45 PM

There's more evidence that DWK simply isn't a true dragon than there is of DWK being a true dragon. Which wholly hinges on deliberate misattribution of one reference in dragon magic. If allowed, it completely ignores the fact that kobold half-dragons fit exactly in the same way which goes against the rules. The only difference is that half-dragon kobolds are explicitly lesser dragons and DWK doesn't have a mention at all.

DWK are also of the kobold subtype. No true dragons in the game have another racial subtype. How can a creature be a "true dragon" while holding an incompatible subtype? I am waiting for anyone claiming that DWK = true dragon to answer that one.

SillySymphonies

2023-05-11, 07:55 AM

As for DWK stupidity in particular, even searching on these forums reveals posts from late 2007 and mid 2008 speaking of early epic feat qualification and DWKs being true dragons as a passing aside. For context, Dragons of Eberron, one of the big reasons people want DWKs to count as true dragons, released in October 2007 (same month as RC, incidentally).
I believe this is what the OP was looking for: do we have any notable dragonwrought kobold cheese involving Dragons of Eberron?

I'm going to have to side with Gruftzwerg on this one. I was going to point out the same wording myself, but then I decided that I'd be throwing fuel on the fire and kind of just wanted the whole discussion to die already. But now that it's out in the open, let me highlight Gruftzwerg's point with a few extra details:
I already conceded the point:

I'll have to retract this particular point: apparently, animal companions, special mounts, and familiars are detailed in sidebars, and are part of the rules (as per the SRD).

Does it though? Yes, Kobolds have an amusing table in Races of the Dragon that divides their lives up into twelve age categories, but the table that immediately follows it on the same page presents kobolds as progressing through aging in exactly the same fashion as every other humanoid species. The obvious, to me, interpretation, is that the kobold 'age categories' are a point of amusing fluff reflecting how kobolds see themselves but having absolutely no relationship to biological reality. The 'twelve age categories' for kobolds are arbitrary, while the ones for true dragons reflect actual biological processes.
This. ☝️

DWK are also of the kobold subtype. No true dragons in the game have another racial subtype. How can a creature be a "true dragon" while holding an incompatible subtype? I am waiting for anyone claiming that DWK = true dragon to answer that one.
Per Races of the Dragon, a kobold is a humanoid (dragonblood, reptilian), and a dragonwrought kobold a dragon (reptilian). Given that (reptilian) is a humanoid subtype, a dragonwrought kobold should in fact be a dragon (sans subtype).

redking

2023-05-11, 09:10 AM

Per Races of the Dragon, a kobold is a humanoid (dragonblood, reptilian), and a dragonwrought kobold a dragon (reptilian). Given that (reptilian) is a humanoid subtype, a dragonwrought kobold should in fact be a dragon (sans subtype).

I am not sure what you are inferring or implying with that. Here is the feat in question:

Dragonwrought

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

Prerequisite
1st level only, Kobold,

Benefit
You are a dragon wrought kobold. Your type is dragon rather than humanoid, and you lose the dragonblood subtype. You retain all your other subtypes and your kobold racial traits. Your scales become tinted with a color that matches that of your draconic heritage. As a dragon, you are immune to magic sleep and paralysis effects. You have darkvision out to 60 feet and low-light vision. You gain a +2 racial bonus on the skill indicated for your draconic heritage on the table on page 103.

Special
Unlike most feats, this feat must be taken at 1st level, during character creation. Having this feat allows you to take the Dragon Wings feat at 3rd level.

It keeps its other subtypes (sans dragonblood) according to the only rules that matter in relation to dragonwrought. This may be an exception to the rules about the hierarchy of types and subtypes in general.

SillySymphonies

2023-05-11, 10:12 AM

It keeps its other subtypes (sans dragonblood) according to the only rules that matter in relation to dragonwrought. This may be an exception to the rules about the hierarchy of types and subtypes in general.
My bad: missed the part on retaining all other subtypes. :smallredface:

Vaern

2023-05-11, 01:29 PM

I already conceded the point:

Sorry, I must not have been paying attention to names while skimming posts and missed that it was you that pointed out how PHB uses sidebars the way it does :p

I believe my third and fourth points may still be worth consideration, though: The Draconomicon goes out of its way to label sidebars explicitly concerning rules as "Rules" and the sidebar in question is not labeled as such, so we may be able to get away with simply regarding it as being not actual rules text; but, removing the contents of the sidebar from our current rule set would have a significant impact on the entire rest of the book.

Which way would you go if you had the choice? Keep the sidebar to preserve the context of the book, and let the whole dumb kobold debate drag on for eternity? Or scrap the sidebar and end the whole thing by opening a veritable floodgate for cheese?

Darg

2023-05-11, 02:30 PM

A DM will find information here on the powers and tactics of dragons, as well as a wealth of new feats, spells, magic items, and prestige classes designed to make dragon encounters more interesting, challenging, and unusual. In case the dragons already described in the Monster Manual and other books are not enough, this book also presents a variety of new dragon-related monsters of all types to include in the game. Players, meanwhile, can unearth dragonslaying tactics and take advantage of new feats and spells, magic items, and prestige classes to make their characters the ultimate dragon slayers, dragon riders, or even dragon servants.

You don't need the side bar to relate the book to dragons, at all.

Vaern

2023-05-11, 03:44 PM

You don't need the side bar to relate the book to dragons, at all.

The book is clearly about dragons, yes, but the sidebar is what specifies that the book is mainly concerned with true dragons. That's the specific bit I'm referring to. The line you quoted makes no such distinction between true and lesser dragons. Without the context provided by the sidebar one could assume that any mention of "dragons" within the book is generally referring to creatures of the dragon type rather than a certain subset of dragons, except when it goes out of its way to specify.

sreservoir

2023-05-11, 07:54 PM

I believe this is what the OP was looking for: do we have any notable dragonwrought kobold cheese involving Dragons of Eberron?

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

In particular, loredrake gives another +2 effective sorcerer level.

Gruftzwerg

2023-05-12, 02:28 AM

Sorry again for the lengthy post, but I'm to short on time to reply more frequently atm. And you keep heating up the thread by posting frequently..^^

I'll try to be as short as possible here (given the circumstances of being in the defending position in this argument).

Well, maybe a dragonwrought kobold can be a true dragon if you ignore the feat that makes a kobold dragonwrought.

True dragons on the other hand -

These, among the hundreds of other facts that make dragonwrought kobolds inconsistent with being true dragons.
Common traits and abilities dragons share aren't requirements to count as such. Pls stop mixing em together as you please.

To give an example what you are basically doing here, lets apply the logic to "count/be a rogue".

1. The sole requirement to count as a rouge is to have at least one level in it.

2. It doesn't matter if you have e.g. Evasion like most rouges do.
You can even trade it away (ACF) and still be a rogue.

Finally stop ignoring the definition of the Draconomicon book itself:

It talks mainly about the 10 True Dragon varieties presented in the MM. NOT SOLE!

Pls don't make the same mistake like with the Sidebar rule in the DMG.

Just because Draconomicon mainly talks about the 10 TDs in the MM, doesn't mean that those common traits become additional requirements to count as a true dragon. That is not how the rules work.

Even if someone plays DWK as a true dragon, they still have to advance exactly like one per the rules for playing a dragon. Meaning it's no longer cheese because they inherit LA and HD which is basically a turn off to the power gamers who want DWK to be a True dragon in the first place. DWK is a powerful option as a lesser dragon, but it isn't so rules bending.

Maybe if we present the actual consequences of DWK being a true dragon, people will stop insisting they are. LA, HD, and being old equals not playable as a standard.
I have presented the consequences long ago:
The DM has the duty to make an Advancement table according to the rule presented by "Other True Dragons" on p144 of draconomicon. That is the sole binding rule/duty the DM has. And while the book presents the common options used for Advancement, the rule doesn't force the DM to give everything to DWK.
He just needs to set the values into the table "as he sees fit".
He has the freedom to overload the DWK with RHD and LA (and prevent any DWK cheese) or he can give em 0 RHD and +0LA if he wants to allow DWK cheese.

Imho, if you really think about it: What better rule could we possibly have?
The DM has the choice here by RAW.
What else you could ask for as a DM?

Also ignored is the fact that while the kobolds have age categories, they are not dragon's age categories, but kobold age categories (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25130416&postcount=20), and the number of years between each category is different. They are different things.

And as you point out, true dragons increase RHD with each age category. Specifically, it is 3HD per age category, and all true dragons follow this pattern (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25130580&postcount=22) (there might be an outlier in Dragon Magazine - I don't know). DWK should follow this pattern if they are true dragons.

DWK are in a list of creatures with Draconic Heritage (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25130655&postcount=26), and left out of the true dragon list.
1. The rule to differentiate between TD and LD sole asks for "Age Categories".
If "Dragon Age Categories" are valid, so are "Kobold Age Categories".

2. Extrapolated information aren't valid arguments for RAW. Nowhere did the rules allow you to do that. Thus the argument can sole be used for RAI at best.

3. Nobody claims that DWK become their own true dragon variety. They are specific exceptions due be being reliant on a feat. You won't find any true dragon, nor a lesser dragon list with DWK. Because that is not how it works, nor how it is intended by the mechanics here. And remind you that "specific" stuff can always trump "general" rules. The question that remains is still: Do DWK have enough of their heritage left to count as a true dragon? And for that you consult draconomicn p4.

It's part of the rule that allows players to play any dragon at all.

It isn't until after all this talk that it differentiates lesser dragons by saying they have a set level adjustment and don't progress by age. There are only 2 types of dragons, true or lesser. PCs can only be one or the other. So either they follow the rules presented for true dragons, or they follow the rule for lesser dragons making them lesser dragons.
1. Not part of the general rules to differentiate between dragons.
2. Specific exceptions may still trump those general rules.

I believe the reasoning goes like this: there are twelve kobold age categories (page 39 of Races of the Dragon); a dragonwrought kobold's type is dragon (page 100 of Races of the Dragon); a true dragon is a dragon with twelve age categories (page 87 of Dragon Magic); therefore, a dragonwrought kobold must be a true dragon; dismiss all evidence to the contrary with increasingly convoluted invocations of Errata Rule: Primary Sources (Player's Handbook v.3.5 Errata).
I would just like to point the most important things that the PSR does here for this discussion:
1. grant draconomicon book supremacy over the topic dragons
2. gives draconomicon p4 topic supremacy when it comes to differentiate TD and LD.
3. marks most part of the draconomicon as related sole to the 10 TD in the MM.

Especially point 3 is still getting overlooked by most people.
People are doing the same mistake as with the Sidebar rule from the DMG by not carefully reading what it actually does. Due to point 3, most stuff in draconomicon doesn't apply to all TD but sole to those 10 in mentioned in the MM. If you ignore that, no wonder that it will lead you to different outcomes...

I think that part of what fuels endless debates like this is that people are debating on different terms. One person will say "By applying this rule, this rule, and this rule, RAW, we come to this conclusion", but someone else will interpret that as a statement about what the rules should[/b] be, and since it's blatantly obvious that the rule shouldn't be that, they argue with the first poster... even though the first poster never said anything about what the rule should be, only about what it is.

RAW, dragonwrought kobolds are True Dragons. RAW, they can take epic feats at any level, if they're old enough. RAW, they gain RHD and LA (in an unspecified amount that the DM must determine) as they age. None of these things [i]should be the rules, and any sensible DM would houserule all of them away, but as it stands, they are the rules, until the (very likely) case that the DM changes the rules (which the DM is allowed to do).
Imho as said, the entire debate checks "how much the forums agrees how you are supposed to read RAW at all".
If we can't settle on the same rules how reading RAW "works", we will always have different outcomes.

This is why imho the DWK debate is very important to develop some common ground regarding this.
If we can solve the DWK debate in the forum, most other stuff will become easy to find some common ground by RAW.

This seems ahistorical, and, to my understanding, exactly backward. CO board culture back when 3.5e was still being published was far more willing to entertain tricks based on dodgy readings (and heck, outright misreadings) than we are here today. Most of the threads from back then aren't exactly well-preserved, but like, if you think rules-bending TO is a post-run thing, uh, the Wish and the Word are well-preserved and feature hilariously blatant misreadings at every step of the way.

As for DWK stupidity in particular, even searching on these forums reveals posts from late 2007 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=3370792&postcount=12) and mid 2008 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=4567418&postcount=24) speaking of early epic feat qualification and DWKs being true dragons as a passing aside. For context, Dragons of Eberron, one of the big reasons people want DWKs to count as true dragons, released in October 2007 (same month as RC, incidentally).
One of the major problems 3.5 has is that the supplements have sole been playtested (if at all) with the core rules and not been tested with other supplements along.

So by default there is always a balance concern when using multiple supplements.

The authors of 3.5 haven't all been on the same page. I believe that authors of Races of the Dragons tried to push Kobolds in general and especially DWK a bot more towards true dragons.
"Was it really intended to let DWK count as true dragon?" - Who knows.. maybe, maybe not.
But what we can say is, that the authors didn't need to take other supplements into account when it comes to balancing their stuff.

You're missing literally the entire point of the bit you quoted. It doesn't need to use the word "advancement" because what it means for a creature to "advance" is defined within the rules independently from the word "advancement." This context is literally derived from rules text, ie RAW.
..
...

The meaning of the verb "advance" is established independently of the word "advancement." The verb does not need to be used in conjunction with the noun, because the verb is given meaning its own through the rules.
Monster Manual tells us how creatures advance. Monster Manual tells us what it means when it says "advance" in relation to creatures.
"Creatures of the dragon type that do not advance through age categories..." should, by RAW, be read as "Creatures of the dragon type that do not [add class levels/increase their Hit Dice] through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons."

Now please, stop obsessing over whether or not the word "Advancement" is used. It doesn't matter. "Advance" has meaning on its own, independently of "Advancement."
(shortened due to length. be assured that I read the entire thing)

As said that is not how you read RAW. You are relying on extrapolated information to come to such a conclusion.
Extrapolated Information is not a valid tool for pure RAW interpretations. RAW does sole care for the rules that are affected by the hierarchy created by the PSR. And the rules to differentiate between dragons don't refer to "Advancement" by RAW.
Again you are ignoring the logical dysfunction that such a reading would cause with the rule presented in "Other True Dragons". How can something be a requirement if the DM is forced to hand it out to anyone qualifying?
Can you can explain me how that is supposed to work under your interpretation?
I suppose not, thus defaulting to the general English definition of "advance" (on draconomicon p4) is sole natural for me here. RAW and RAI alike

redking

2023-05-12, 05:44 AM

Extrapolated Information is not a valid tool for pure RAW interpretations.

Extrapolation and inferences the only reason why people say DWK is a true dragon. Nowhere does it say that DWK is a true dragon.

Vaern

2023-05-12, 08:20 AM

RAW does sole care for the rules that are affected by the hierarchy created by the PSR.
Here is how the hierarchy created by the PSR applies to this case:
Monster Manual has priority when it comes to creatures and rules relating to them.
Draconomicon has priority regarding dragons, specifically.
Draconomicon takes precedence over Monster Manual in instances when Draconomicon presents a rule that conflicts with Monster Manual.
The rules that differentiate dragons do not tell us that "advance" means something other than what the Monster Manual says it means and does not detail any other meaning for the word.
There is no disagreement between the two sources in this case, so "advance" retains its meaning as established in Monster Manual, whose rules are applicable to creatures which includes dragons.

Again you are ignoring the logical dysfunction that such a reading would cause with the rule presented in "Other True Dragons". How can something be a requirement if the DM is forced to hand it out to anyone qualifying?
Can you can explain me how that is supposed to work under your interpretation?

You keep pointing at this section and going on about some dysfunction, but you have not explained what this dysfunction is. I don't know what requirement you're talking about, when a DM is being asked to give this requirement to anyone, what someone is supposed to be qualifying for, or how they're qualifying for something that they don't already meet the requirements for.
I have already given a detailed response on that entire section in general, so if it still seems like I'm ignoring this dysfunction you keep referring to it's because I don't see any such dysfunction and thus have literally no idea what the hell you're talking about.

This page is part of a section on playing true dragons as characters.
Preceding this page is a number of tables of core True Dragons.
The tables detail how a dragon's age category, HD, and LA advance over time to determine the ECL of a dragon character of that age.
The section "Other True Dragons" tells you to make similar tables for True Dragons found in non-core sources.
The text of the section describes how you might do this, what such tables may look like, and at what point the table should end for non-core True Dragons such as a sapphire dragon, a howling dragon, or lung dragons.
The table, again, details how a dragon's age category, HD, LA advance as it ages for the sake of making it easier for players to track the.
If a creature does not already have these traits, this section does not tell you to give them these traits.
If a creature does not already have these traits, the section is not applicable because that creature is not a True Dragon.
This section neither grants nor tells you to grant any traits of a True Dragon to a creature that does not already have these traits.
This section is not "handing out" age-based advancement to creatures that do not already have it.
This section is not applicable to creatures who do not advance by age category, as creatures that do not have advancement based on age categories are not True Dragons.
This section neither bestows "True Dragon" status on nor permits the DM to apply "True Dragon" status to creatures who do not already meet the criteria of being a true dragon.

Please tell me how you've arrived at the conclusion of, "This section tells me to grant advancement by age categories to True Dragons that do not already have it" while looking at a section which never mentions the existence of True Dragons without advancement by age category, nor tells you to grant advancement by age category to a creature who do not already have it.

I've already given an explanation and asked you to point out where the dysfunction is once before and never got a response.

Here is a complete, detailed rundown of how this section relates to kobolds under an interpretation which defines "advance" in the way it is defined within the rules:
This section applies to true dragons
Kobolds do not qualify as true dragons
This section does not apply to kobolds
The end

Here's how the section works under your interpretation:
The meaning of "advance" is stretched to apply to creatures that do not advance in a way that is defined by the rules
Kobolds qualify as true dragons on a loose technicality, despite not advancing in a mechanically significant way that the game recognizes
As true dragons, the DM must make a table for a kobold detailing how its HD, LA, and ECL progress as it ages, despite the fact that none of these things advance as it ages
By detailing these categories, even if the table only consists of 0/0/0 across all ages, the DM is effectively being asked to hand out requirements to a creature that qualifies

Again, please tell me where the dysfunction is in my interpretation instead of gesturing vaguely at this section and insisting that there is, in fact, a dysfunction there, because the only way I can manage to arrive at the "logical dysfunction" you've described is by applying your interpretation.
Even your argument itself that a DM must hand out requirements to qualifying creatures is a logical dysfunction.
If a creature does not have a requirement for something, it does not qualify for that thing.
A requirement does not need to be handed out to qualifying creatures, because a creature must meet a requirement to qualify for something.
If it would be necessary to hand out a requirement for something, then the creature does not qualify for it.
You need to be jump through a lot of hoops and do some serious mental gymnastics to create a dysfunction that involves creatures qualifying for something that they don't meet the requirements for, which is what your ruling somehow manages to achieve.

If this is not what you're referring to then again, please, for the love of every god in Deities and Demigods, explain what this dysfunction you keep talking about is and how you think it's supposed to be doing what you think it does. I can't think of anything more irritating than trying to argue against something when I don't even know what in the nine hells it is that I'm supposed to be arguing against. If all you're going to do is gesture vaguely at an entire section as a whole saying there's a dysfunction somewhere in there, the only possible way to argue against you is to literally break down the entire section trying to illustrate that no such dysfunction exists and hoping that this explanation is simple enough for you that it actually sinks in.

Chronos

2023-05-12, 03:30 PM

Quoth redking:

DWK are also of the kobold subtype. No true dragons in the game have another racial subtype. How can a creature be a "true dragon" while holding an incompatible subtype? I am waiting for anyone claiming that DWK = true dragon to answer that one.
So red dragons (with the [Fire] subtype), and white dragons (with the [Cold] subtype) aren't true dragons, either?

JNAProductions

2023-05-12, 03:31 PM

So red dragons (with the [Fire] subtype), and white dragons (with the [Cold] subtype) aren't true dragons, either?

They did say racial subtype, not elemental subtype.

redking

2023-05-12, 07:28 PM

So red dragons (with the [Fire] subtype), and white dragons (with the [Cold] subtype) aren't true dragons, either?

Are fire and cold subtypes incompatible with being a true dragon, or part of true dragon elemental nature?

IMMUNITIES AND DEFENSES
Though most forms of attack have at least a slim chance of
working against a dragon, some attacks prove useless.
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. This immunity stems from the dragon’s elemental
nature. The same power that allows it to belch forth a blast
of energy also keeps that energy from harming the dragon.

What part of retaining kobold racial traits is indicative of being a "true dragon"? How come no other true dragons are also another race?

kintaro

2023-05-12, 08:45 PM

DWK are also of the kobold subtype. No true dragons in the game have another racial subtype. How can a creature be a "true dragon" while holding an incompatible subtype? I am waiting for anyone claiming that DWK = true dragon to answer that one.

Is this an actual rule somewhere? That True Dragons can't have subtypes, or racial ones, or that some are 'incompatible'?? Or is this you making something up out of the fallacy of thinking that a lack of an example can serve as a counterexample or binding precedent or something? Lack of an example isn't proof of anything, or even evidence for one side or the other of a debate. it's merely the lack of an example.

Vaern

2023-05-12, 09:22 PM

Is this an actual rule somewhere? That True Dragons can't have subtypes, or racial ones, or that some are 'incompatible'??

It's not, and to that end it was already established earlier in this thread that a creature with a true dragon subtype can be a lesser dragon.
It's a fairly trivial issue to be arguing against, though, since kobolds fail to meet basically every defining characteristic of a true dragon short of sharing a creature type.

redking

2023-05-12, 10:04 PM

Is this an actual rule somewhere? That True Dragons can't have subtypes, or racial ones, or that some are 'incompatible'?? Or is this you making something up out of the fallacy of thinking that a lack of an example can serve as a counterexample or binding precedent or something? Lack of an example isn't proof of anything, or even evidence for one side or the other of a debate. it's merely the lack of an example.

It's not, and to that end it was already established earlier in this thread that a creature with a true dragon subtype can be a lesser dragon.
It's a fairly trivial issue to be arguing against, though, since kobolds fail to meet basically every defining characteristic of a true dragon short of sharing a creature type.

True Dragon: A true dragon is a dragon that possesses certain unique traits as described in the Draconomicon, a comprehensive guide to dragons.

Size: True dragons are known for their enormous size, which is typically much larger than other dragon species.

Elemental Subtype: True dragons possess an elemental subtype that provides them with specific immunities and vulnerabilities.

True Dragon Eyes: These dragons have special eyes that grant them exceptional eyesight, superior to that of lesser dragon species.

Skeleton Structure: A true dragon's skeleton is comprised of over 500 bones.

Brain Growth: True dragons have unusually large brains that continue to grow as the dragon ages, reaching its maximum size when the dragon becomes a great wyrm.

Draconis Fundamentum: This is a unique internal organ found in true dragons. The draconis fundamentum is responsible for the production of a true dragon's breath weapon.

Warm-Blooded: Unlike dragonwrought kobolds and some other dragon species that are cold-blooded, true dragons are warm-blooded.

Dragonwrought to the contrary meet almost none of the specifications to be a true dragon. When certain dragons do not meet one of the above specs, they are specifically labelled "true dragons". Dragonwrought kobolds are kobolds with the dragon type.

Vaern

2023-05-13, 12:54 AM

Dragonwrought to the contrary meet almost none of the specifications to be a true dragon.

I think you may have misread my post. I said that they fail to meet basically every criteria. That's why their subtype is a fairly trivial thing to be nitpicking. There are huge swaths of evidence pointing at "Kobolds are not true dragons." More than enough that there's absolutely no reason - no good reason, anyway - why this argument should have to progress to this point.
Even if there was a rule somewhere saying that true dragons can't have a racial subtype other than its own, it would only be a grain of sand on the mountain of evidence that we already have that says that kobolds are not dragons.
That won't be enough to change the mind of someone who believes that, when a book with priority on a specific topic doesn't define a particular word well enough, the Primary Source Rule tells you to defer priority to the dictionary rather than the next actual rulebook relevant to topic to determine what a word means. And as far as I can tell at this point, the entire argument of "dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons" is being perpetuated by that exactly one someone: A self-proclaimed rules lawyer who will insist that a ruling which only works by cherry-picking definitions out of a dictionary is RAW and insists that any argument supported by the actual rules of the game is RAI.

redking

2023-05-13, 01:17 AM

I think you may have misread my post. I said that they fail to meet basically every criteria.

Apparently I did. I don't see this an an unimportant point, however. The claim isn't that this is simply a dragon that is also a kobold, but a "true dragon" that is also a kobold. The evidence against "true dragon" dragonwrought kobolds, and the evidence in favour is highly contested (to say the least) interpretations of snippets of text, along with lots of dumpster diving for anything to support the argument. Races of the Dragon, the publication in which the DWK was introduced, says nothing about DWK true dragons and doesn't even hint of it.

Chronos

2023-05-13, 06:39 AM

Quoth redking:

Size: True dragons are known for their enormous size, which is typically much larger than other dragon species.
So wyrmling white dragons, which are smaller than kobolds, aren't true dragons.

Elemental Subtype: True dragons possess an elemental subtype that provides them with specific immunities and vulnerabilities.
So white dragons, without an elemental subtype, and green dragons, with the [air] subtype which doesn't provide any specific immunities or vulnerabilities, aren't true dragons.

Skeleton Structure: A true dragon's skeleton is comprised of over 500 bones.
Cite for the number of bones in a kobold skeleton?

Brain Growth: True dragons have unusually large brains that continue to grow as the dragon ages, reaching its maximum size when the dragon becomes a great wyrm.
Cite for kobold brain size?

Draconis Fundamentum: This is a unique internal organ found in true dragons. The draconis fundamentum is responsible for the production of a true dragon's breath weapon.
Cite that dragonwrought kobolds don't have this?

Warm-Blooded: Unlike dragonwrought kobolds and some other dragon species that are cold-blooded, true dragons are warm-blooded.
Cite that dragonwrought kobolds are cold-blooded?

Crake

2023-05-13, 08:22 AM

Cite that dragonwrought kobolds are cold-blooded?

Page 39 of races of the dragon, under physiology, states that kobolds are cold blooded. Dragonwrought makes no mention of changing this fact, ergo dragonwrought kobolds are also cold blooded.

redking

2023-05-13, 08:29 AM

So wyrmling white dragons, which are smaller than kobolds, aren't true dragons.

Per Draconomicon, they continue to grow beyond adulthood, while kobolds do not.

So white dragons, without an elemental subtype, and green dragons, with the [air] subtype which doesn't provide any specific immunities or vulnerabilities, aren't true dragons.

They are true dragons, per Draconomicon. When a true dragon proves an exception to some general rule, they are clearly denoted as true dragons.

Cite for the number of bones in a kobold skeleton?

There is no cite for the kobold skeleton. The cite is for true dragons. There is no affirmative information saying that the kobolds have over 500 bones. Asking this isn't the way logic or argumentation works. The burden of proof is on you.

Cite for kobold brain size?

See above.

Cite that dragonwrought kobolds don't have this?

See above.

Cite that dragonwrought kobolds are cold-blooded?

Kobolds are cold blooded, and dragonwrought kobolds retain kobold racial traits, per the Dragonwrought Kobold feat.

Dragonwrought

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

Prerequisite
1st level only, Kobold,

Benefit
You are a dragon wrought kobold. Your type is dragon rather than humanoid, and you lose the dragonblood subtype. You retain all your other subtypes and your kobold racial traits. Your scales become tinted with a color that matches that of your draconic heritage. As a dragon, you are immune to magic sleep and paralysis effects. You have darkvision out to 60 feet and low-light vision. You gain a +2 racial bonus on the skill indicated for your draconic heritage on the table on page 103.

Special
Unlike most feats, this feat must be taken at 1st level, during character creation. Having this feat allows you to take the Dragon Wings feat at 3rd level.

Note that they get the eyesight of lesser dragons, not true dragons. Note that they aren't called true dragons, and indeed, merely have the draconic heritage described on page 103.

Remuko

2023-05-13, 02:15 PM

So wyrmling white dragons, which are smaller than kobolds, aren't true dragons.

So white dragons, without an elemental subtype

White Dragons have the (Cold) subtype, which last I checked is an elemental subtype?

SillySymphonies

2023-05-13, 02:55 PM

Which way would you go if you had the choice? Keep the sidebar to preserve the context of the book, and let the whole dumb kobold debate drag on for eternity? Or scrap the sidebar and end the whole thing by opening a veritable floodgate for cheese?

The authors of 3.5 haven't all been on the same page. I believe that authors of Races of the Dragons tried to push Kobolds in general and especially DWK a bot more towards true dragons.
"Was it really intended to let DWK count as true dragon?" - Who knows.. maybe, maybe not.
But what we can say is, that the authors didn't need to take other supplements into account when it comes to balancing their stuff.
If I had the choice, I would clarify that the rules aren't code to be parsed, or an equation or logic puzzle to be solved: context matters. (IOW, if it doesn't look like a true dragon, doesn't fly like a true dragon, and doesn't have a breath weapon like a true dragon, then it probably isn't a true dragon.)

PS Let me put my money where my mouth is and provide such a piece of context (page 40 of Races of the Dragon): "On rare occasions, a kobold female lays what kobolds call a dragonwrought egg (see the Dragonwrought feat, page 100). These eggs are spotted with the color of whichever true dragon influences the dragonwrought kobold within, with such mottles increasing in number and size as the wyrmling inside grows." To insist a dragonwrought kobold is a true dragon, would render this paragraph nonsensical: "These eggs are spotted with the color of whichever true dragon influences the true dragon within." 🤷

PPS A question of conscience for the "true dragonwrought kobold" camp: RAW, a character does not retroactively get additional skill points for their previous levels (page 10 of the Player's Handbook), and a 1st-level kobold has a starting age of 7 to 14 years (page 39 of Races of the Dragon). Does your venerable dragonwrought kobold retroactively get additional skill points for their first level?

Darg

2023-05-13, 07:57 PM

White Dragons have the (Cold) subtype, which last I checked is an elemental subtype?

White Dragon. (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm#whiteDragon)

Yes it is.

To insist a dragonwrought kobold is a true dragon, would render this paragraph nonsensical

It renders the rules as a whole more nonsensical and requires active DM homebrew and adjudication to even function.

PPS A question of conscience for the "true dragonwrought kobold" camp: RAW, a character does not retroactively get additional skill points for their previous levels (page 10 of the Player's Handbook), and a 1st-level kobold has a starting age of 7 to 14 years (page 39 of Races of the Dragon). Does your venerable dragonwrought kobold retroactively get additional skill points for their first level?

They think half-dragon dragons actually exist just because the template doesn't say it can't be applied to dragons. What they don't realize is that the MM only gives permission to modify the entries to the DM. The DM can make up any rule they want. Also, the MM says has this to say on templates:

A templated creature can represent a freak of nature, the individual creation of a single experimenter, or the first generation of offspring from parents of different species.

What makes you think they can't play an venerable DWK in the face of that? A DM?

redking

2023-05-13, 10:36 PM

PPS A question of conscience for the "true dragonwrought kobold" camp: RAW, a character does not retroactively get additional skill points for their previous levels (page 10 of the Player's Handbook), and a 1st-level kobold has a starting age of 7 to 14 years (page 39 of Races of the Dragon). Does your venerable dragonwrought kobold retroactively get additional skill points for their first level?

If they thought they could get away with it I guess. After all, true dragons get retroactive skill points, an exception to the general rule. They may say no, however, saying that not all true dragons have to be the same. They say no to gaining +3 RHD per age category even though all true dragons have this.

Chronos

2023-05-14, 07:35 AM

Quoth redking:

There is no cite for the kobold skeleton. The cite is for true dragons. There is no affirmative information saying that the kobolds have over 500 bones. Asking this isn't the way logic or argumentation works. The burden of proof is on you.
So the argument is that DWK aren't true dragons, because they don't have over 500 bones, and we know that they don't have over 500 bones, because they're not true dragons. That's a circular argument.

I don't have to provide a cite for the number of bones a DWK has, for the same reason that you don't have to provide a cite for the number of bones any other dragon has. If that count of bones is taken to be an actual absolute rule rather than just a general description, then once you know something is a true dragon, then you know it must have over 500 bones.

Crake

2023-05-14, 09:26 AM

So the argument is that DWK aren't true dragons, because they don't have over 500 bones, and we know that they don't have over 500 bones, because they're not true dragons. That's a circular argument.

That's not the argument at all. The argument is "DWK aren't stated directly to be true dragons anywhere, so here is a list of criteria that the must meet to be considered true dragons, one of which is, do they have over 500 bones." The onus is on the true dragon camp to provide evidence that they meet the criteria. Having over 500 bones ALONE does not make them meet true dragon status anyway, so it's largely a moot point, but that's a disingeuous take on the argument, ngl.

I don't have to provide a cite for the number of bones a DWK has, for the same reason that you don't have to provide a cite for the number of bones any other dragon has.

That's not true, because other true dragons are explicitly stated as being true dragons, and so they inherit the criteria of having 500+ bones. Meanwhile, you are trying to prove that DWK meet the criteria, since they are never explictly stated as being true dragons, so therefore you need to show evidence that they meet the criteria.

Blue Jay

2023-05-14, 10:35 AM

The ELH uses the 3.0 rules for LA and ECL which completely ignores HD in the calculation. For example a 3.0 werebear character has LA +4 and with 6 fighter levels would be considered a 10th level character even though it has 12 HD. With this style of ad hock application of LA, according to the ELH dragons can't select epic feats until they reach great wyrm status.

I know this portion of the debate has moved on from here, but I thought it would be useful to mention that "Level Adjustment" wasn't invented until late in 3.0e. They had "Level Equivalent" in the 3.0e DMG, and when the distinct concept of "Level Adjustment" started to appear later in 3.0e, the authors of the various sourcebooks all got confused about how to apply the different formulas and terminologies.

So, in the 3.0e DMG, "Level Equivalent" was a single number that decided what level of character you counted as. For example, from MM2, we have the Ocean Strider, which has 32 RHD, but was considered the equivalent of a 35th-level character. In 3.0e terms, it has a "Level Equivalent" of 35 + class levels. In 3.5e terms, this monster has 32 RHD and LA +3.

The section you're quoting from in ELH (p. 155) seems to be trying (and failing) to explain the concept of "Level Equivalent", but incorrectly referring to it as "Level Adjustment." It also makes several other blunders that further confuse things, such as the example it offers: a winterwight, which it presents as having an ECL (which it also refers to as "Level Adjustment") of 25. However, the table on the next page lists the winterwight's ECL as 32 and the winterwight's stat block later in the book gives it 32 RHD.

It also has this statement: "...nor do these characters gain Hit Dice or other special powers from their 'monster class' other than the special abilities naturally attributed to that race." To me, this seems like it's either just wrong (monsters actually do get Hit Dice from their 'monster class'), or it's making very poor use of the word "special abilities".

And of course, all of this conflicts with the information Crichton quoted from the sidebar on ELH p.25. Ultimately, you just have to accept that 3.0e was a rules mess, and you probably shouldn't try to hinge any arguments about RAW on anything written during the "transitional period" between 3.0e and 3.5e.

Crake

2023-05-14, 12:28 PM

Ultimately, you just have to accept that 3.0e was a rules mess, and you probably shouldn't try to hinge any arguments about RAW on anything written during the "transitional period" between 3.0e and 3.5e.

Which just so happens to include the draconomicon and it’s line about old dragons being able to select epic feats

redking

2023-05-14, 09:25 PM

So, in the 3.0e DMG, "Level Equivalent" was a single number that decided what level of character you counted as. For example, from MM2, we have the Ocean Strider, which has 32 RHD, but was considered the equivalent of a 35th-level character. In 3.0e terms, it has a "Level Equivalent" of 35 + class levels. In 3.5e terms, this monster has 32 RHD and LA +3.

You raise a good point. That sidebar about old dragons being able to take epic feats is redundant if there wasn't any doubt about that before. Actually, when I first read it, I even thought that it could be a nerf, because the white dragons, which have the lowest HD by age category, are already 21 HD at mature age.

Darg

2023-05-15, 10:37 AM

So, in the 3.0e DMG, "Level Equivalent" was a single number that decided what level of character you counted as. For example, from MM2, we have the Ocean Strider, which has 32 RHD, but was considered the equivalent of a 35th-level character. In 3.0e terms, it has a "Level Equivalent" of 35 + class levels. In 3.5e terms, this monster has 32 RHD and LA +3.

3.0e doesn't have LA as a concept. Bugbears are LE +3 while 3.5e has them at ECL 4. As shown by the lycanthrope examples, LE can actually be lower than the given HD. With all the LA reassignment resources available, LE seems like the superior rule with its flexibility.

Then again if a fighter level 10 is CR 10 which is equal to its ECL, wouldn't the logical conclusion be that the equivalent level/ECL be based on a creature's CR? It makes sense to me, though the normal ECL rules have worked just fine at my tables.

Chronos

2023-05-15, 04:01 PM

Quoth Crake:

That's not true, because other true dragons are explicitly stated as being true dragons, and so they inherit the criteria of having 500+ bones.
A true dragon is not defined as a dragon with 500+ bones, so I have no need to say anything about kobold bones. A true dragon is defined as a dragon with twelve age categories. That's the definition. And dragonwrought kobolds are dragons with twelve age categories, so they meet the definition.

Everything else that's said about true dragons is descriptive, not definitional. And so we either conclude that those descriptions are just in general and have a lot of exceptions (seriously, most true dragons don't have an elemental subtype that gives them immunities and vulnerabilities), in which case DWK are just another exception, or we conclude that they're absolute, in which case we must conclude that, despite it not being mentioned elsewhere, DWK must have those traits, too.

(oh, and since when is "cold" an element in D&D?)

Darg

2023-05-15, 11:02 PM

A true dragon is defined as a dragon with twelve age categories. That's the definition.

And where does it say this? Dragon Magic, in a parenthetical. That's hardly defining being a reference to another source. Draconomicon tells us what they are: "True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older." It then goes on to compare them to lesser dragons which don't advance through age categories. Which exactly mirrors the MM: "All true dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age. (Other creatures that have the dragon type do not.)"

The parenthetical in DM isn't even a whole statement/complete sentence. How can it fully define something if it doesn't even fully finish a thought?

(oh, and since when is "cold" an element in D&D?)

It's short hand for what the Draconomicon terms as "elemental energy."

redking

2023-05-15, 11:33 PM

And where does it say this? Dragon Magic, in a parenthetical.

Specifically it says on page 87 "To make a dragon pact [SNIP] (that is a dragon with 12 age categories, such as a red dragon". Hardly an endorsement that any creature with the dragon type and 12 kobold age categories of different lengths to dragons (like dragonwrought kobolds) are "true dragons".

Dumpster diving for context free quotes won't make the dragonwrought kobold a true dragon.

Blue Jay

2023-05-15, 11:34 PM

3.0e doesn't have LA as a concept. Bugbears are LE +3 while 3.5e has them at ECL 4. As shown by the lycanthrope examples, LE can actually be lower than the given HD. With all the LA reassignment resources available, LE seems like the superior rule with its flexibility.

Well, Level Equivalents did get changed and recalculated when Savage Species came out, and most monsters ended up with higher ECLs after SS, but the fundamental logic was still roughly the same: Level Equivalent includes RHD and some adjustment factor. They just hadn't defined a term for that adjustment factor yet.

And, I think you've misunderstood how Level Equivalents were applied to lycanthropes. In 3.0e, a lycanthrope's animal HD didn't stack with its class levels: you got animal HD or class HD, whichever was higher. You didn't get both. There's a note in the 3.0e DMG (p. 23) that explains how to handle this: "Lycanthropes are a special case. A lycanthrope should start with a least a number of class levels equal to its animal form's Hit Dice. A PC lycanthrope whose class levels are lower than that is a problem because the ability to assume the animal form's Hit Dice is out of balance with the character's normal abilities."

So, you gave the example of a werebear with 6 levels of fighter, and claimed that this character would have 12 HD, and ECL 10. But in fact, this character would have only 6 HD, and ECL 10.

I suppose it's possible that there's an official 3.0e monster somewhere with a Level Equivalent lower than its HD, but I don't know of any examples of that, and I don't think WotC intended for that to be possible: Level Equivalent was always supposed to be equal to or greater than HD, and they later coined the term "Level Adjustment" for the difference.

Darg

2023-05-16, 10:31 AM

Well, Level Equivalents did get changed and recalculated when Savage Species came out, and most monsters ended up with higher ECLs after SS, but the fundamental logic was still roughly the same: Level Equivalent includes RHD and some adjustment factor. They just hadn't defined a term for that adjustment factor yet.

And, I think you've misunderstood how Level Equivalents were applied to lycanthropes. In 3.0e, a lycanthrope's animal HD didn't stack with its class levels: you got animal HD or class HD, whichever was higher. You didn't get both. There's a note in the 3.0e DMG (p. 23) that explains how to handle this: "Lycanthropes are a special case. A lycanthrope should start with a least a number of class levels equal to its animal form's Hit Dice. A PC lycanthrope whose class levels are lower than that is a problem because the ability to assume the animal form's Hit Dice is out of balance with the character's normal abilities."

So, you gave the example of a werebear with 6 levels of fighter, and claimed that this character would have 12 HD, and ECL 10. But in fact, this character would have only 6 HD, and ECL 10.

I suppose it's possible that there's an official 3.0e monster somewhere with a Level Equivalent lower than its HD, but I don't know of any examples of that, and I don't think WotC intended for that to be possible: Level Equivalent was always supposed to be equal to or greater than HD, and they later coined the term "Level Adjustment" for the difference.

That quote doesn't say anything about lycanthropes not getting the HD and in fact supports that it does: "A PC lycanthrope whose class levels are lower than that is a problem because the ability to assume the animal form's Hit Dice is out of balance with the character's normal abilities." What the DMG is saying is that you shouldn't allow a character to play a lycanthrope until their character level equals the HD of the animal because gaining that many HD is too strong for too low level of a character.

Blue Jay

2023-05-16, 06:58 PM

That quote doesn't say anything about lycanthropes not getting the HD and in fact supports that it does: "A PC lycanthrope whose class levels are lower than that is a problem because the ability to assume the animal form's Hit Dice is out of balance with the character's normal abilities." What the DMG is saying is that you shouldn't allow a character to play a lycanthrope until their character level equals the HD of the animal because gaining that many HD is too strong for too low level of a character.

Apologies that I wasn't clear. What I quoted was the rule citing the requirements/recommendations for a lycanthrope PC, not the rule for how to calculate a lycanthrope's HD. For some reason, I didn't imagine that I'd have to quote the basic rule. For that rule, you have to go to the primary source: the "Lycanthrope" entry in the 3.0e Monster Manual (pg. 217):

"Lycanthrope" is a template that can be added to any humanoid creature (referred to hereafter as the "character")...

Hit Dice: Same as the character or animal, whichever produces the higher hit point total. If the lycanthrope's number of Hit Dice is important, as with a sleep spell, use the character's or animal's number of Hit Dice, whichever is greater.

So, your werebear would get his 6 fighter HD or his 6 bear HD, but not both. So, he would not have 12 HD: he would have only 6 HD, and his ECL would not be lower than his HD.

We're kind of veering farther from the topic than I'd intended, though. So, I'm sorry about that. The original point I wanted to make was simply that 3.0e rules were kind of baroque, and the writing style wasn't very tight or consistent, so understanding 3.0e rules takes a more effort on the part of the reader. And when they shifted to 3.5e rules in 2003 without really slowing down the publication cycle, they introduced a whole lot of new communication challenges for content writers, and created a period of "vulnerability" in the rules. So players really ought to be extra diligent and circumspect about how we interpret and apply rules from that time period.

It's no surprise that a large amount of controversial TO content (like dragonwrought kobolds and the "true dragon" argument) comes from sourcebooks and supplements written in 2003. And even though I don't necessarily think dragonwrought kobolds are terribly overpowered or problematic on their own, they do leave a sour taste in my mouth, because it feels like the primary appeal there is circumventing rules for the sake of circumventing rules.

Darg

2023-05-16, 09:00 PM

Apologies that I wasn't clear. What I quoted was the rule citing the requirements/recommendations for a lycanthrope PC, not the rule for how to calculate a lycanthrope's HD. For some reason, I didn't imagine that I'd have to quote the basic rule. For that rule, you have to go to the primary source: the "Lycanthrope" entry in the 3.0e Monster Manual (pg. 217):

So, your werebear would get his 6 fighter HD or his 6 bear HD, but not both. So, he would not have 12 HD: he would have only 6 HD, and his ECL would not be lower than his HD.

We're kind of veering farther from the topic than I'd intended, though. So, I'm sorry about that. The original point I wanted to make was simply that 3.0e rules were kind of baroque, and the writing style wasn't very tight or consistent, so understanding 3.0e rules takes a more effort on the part of the reader. And when they shifted to 3.5e rules in 2003 without really slowing down the publication cycle, they introduced a whole lot of new communication challenges for content writers, and created a period of "vulnerability" in the rules. So players really ought to be extra diligent and circumspect about how we interpret and apply rules from that time period.

It's no surprise that a large amount of controversial TO content (like dragonwrought kobolds and the "true dragon" argument) comes from sourcebooks and supplements written in 2003. And even though I don't necessarily think dragonwrought kobolds are terribly overpowered or problematic on their own, they do leave a sour taste in my mouth, because it feels like the primary appeal there is circumventing rules for the sake of circumventing rules.

Honestly, I like this version of lycanthropy better. It doesn't give players a huge amount of unearned HD that can screw up the rules.

Dragon Magic was released in Dec 2006 and is the single weak linchpin holding the whole DWK is a true dragon theory together. I don't have a problem with it being real either. I just don't like that the argument is based around "the rules say this" instead of "I think it's a cool character concept" because the ones making the argument want to make a cheat character.

hamishspence

2023-05-17, 01:07 AM

A true dragon is defined as a dragon with twelve age categories. That's the definition.

Oriental Dragons only have 9 age categories, or 3 - yet they are explicitly (Draconomicon) true dragons. Though the yu-lung is intended to be thought of as the juvenile version of the others, it's a 3-age-category dragon, and the others are 9-age-category ones.

So exact number of age categories is not important - the being only has to have them, with them growing more powerful with each category (as opposed to PC races, that grow weaker in at least physical respects with each age category).

(IOW, if it doesn't look like a true dragon, doesn't fly like a true dragon, and doesn't have a breath weapon like a true dragon, then it probably isn't a true dragon.)

Some true dragons don't fly (for example, the brown dragon, of Monsters of Faerun) and some don't have a breath weapon or an elemental subtype (for example, the fang dragon, of Monsters of Faerun and of Draconomicon).

Crake

2023-05-17, 03:55 AM

Though the yu-lung is intended to be thought of as the juvenile version of the others

im pretty sure it's not just intended, it's outright stated as such. They all evolve from the same starting dragon, and so the life cycle of each individual still has 12 categories.

SillySymphonies

2023-05-18, 03:23 PM

Q:

So, I've seen a lot of people comment about how Dragonwrought Kobolds are super cheesy, especially if you decide they count as True Dragons. The thing is, looking at everything people seem to have posted about them over the years... I don't think they're as cheesy as their reputation implies.
A:

And even though I don't necessarily think dragonwrought kobolds are terribly overpowered or problematic on their own, they do leave a sour taste in my mouth, because it feels like the primary appeal there is circumventing rules for the sake of circumventing rules.

I don't have a problem with it being real either. I just don't like that the argument is based around "the rules say this" instead of "I think it's a cool character concept" because the ones making the argument want to make a cheat character.

Though the yu-lung is intended to be thought of as the juvenile version of the others, it's a 3-age-category dragon, and the others are 9-age-category ones.
Like I said, context matters.

Some true dragons don't fly (for example, the brown dragon, of Monsters of Faerun) and some don't have a breath weapon or an elemental subtype (for example, the fang dragon, of Monsters of Faerun and of Draconomicon).
If it doesn't look like a true dragon, doesn't fly like a true dragon, and doesn't have a breath weapon like a true dragon, then it probably isn't a true dragon.

redking

2023-05-18, 03:34 PM

Q:
If it doesn't look like a true dragon, doesn't fly like a true dragon, and doesn't have a breath weapon like a true dragon, then it probably isn't a true dragon.

There are exceptions to the true dragon rule here or there, where a true dragon fails in one or two respects to hold all of the classic traits of the chromatic and metallic true dragons. In a situation like this, they are specified as "true dragons" in their monster entry.

That isn't the same as the dragonwrought kobold, which fails to meet the criteria for true dragon in hundreds of respects. It's a figurative mountain of failure. Nor is a dragonwrought kobold ever called a "true dragon", and it's abilities, lore, and features are consistent with being a lesser dragon.

Gruftzwerg

2023-05-19, 03:48 AM

Extrapolation and inferences the only reason why people say DWK is a true dragon. Nowhere does it say that DWK is a true dragon.
Using explicit call outs is one way to define something as a true dragon.

Using the general rules for the topic: "THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF DRAGONS" to differentiate between true and lesser dragons in the absence of an explicit call out, is the other option here.

Defaulting to general rules ain't the same as what you describe here. The Primary Source Rule may not be ignored.

Here is how the hierarchy created by the PSR applies to this case:
Monster Manual has priority when it comes to creatures and rules relating to them.
Draconomicon has priority regarding dragons, specifically.
Draconomicon takes precedence over Monster Manual in instances when Draconomicon presents a rule that conflicts with Monster Manual.
The rules that differentiate dragons do not tell us that "advance" means something other than what the Monster Manual says it means and does not detail any other meaning for the word.
There is no disagreement between the two sources in this case, so "advance" retains its meaning as established in Monster Manual, whose rules are applicable to creatures which includes dragons.

You still lack a 3.5 specific definition for "advance" and may not assume that it refers to "Advancement" by default if we talk about strict RAW.
If you want to draw that conclusion, you are talking about RAI.
I have no issue with RAI arguments, and I see your point. But stop pretending that these are RAW arguments.

RAW strictly applies the hierarchy created be the Primary Source Rule. And as long as "Advancement" wasn't mentioned (on the entire page 4..) you can't pretend by RAW that advance sole means Advancement. Especially if the sentence still makes logically sense. The sentence about "advancing trough age categories" still makes full sense without artificially narrowing it down.

PS: RAW is not a play advice. Nor is it some kind of holy grail. RAW is messy. Especially stuff from the transition as some pointed it out. But that doesn't change what "RAW" says. But thank god RAW is not the sole tool to talk about rules we have. We also have RAI (rules as intended) or more balanced house rule approaches. You are free to choose the fitting tool for your table. But stop mixing em up as you see it fit. The categories are intended to have up to 3 layers of different discussions for the same topic. Not to pretend to one is the other.

You keep pointing at this section and going on about some dysfunction, but you have not explained what this dysfunction is. I don't know what requirement you're talking about, when a DM is being asked to give this requirement to anyone, what someone is supposed to be qualifying for, or how they're qualifying for something that they don't already meet the requirements for.
I have already given a detailed response on that entire section in general, so if it still seems like I'm ignoring this dysfunction you keep referring to it's because I don't see any such dysfunction and thus have literally no idea what the hell you're talking about.

**shortened due to space**

If this is not what you're referring to then again, please, for the love of every god in Deities and Demigods, explain what this dysfunction you keep talking about is and how you think it's supposed to be doing what you think it does. I can't think of anything more irritating than trying to argue against something when I don't even know what in the nine hells it is that I'm supposed to be arguing against. If all you're going to do is gesture vaguely at an entire section as a whole saying there's a dysfunction somewhere in there, the only possible way to argue against you is to literally break down the entire section trying to illustrate that no such dysfunction exists and hoping that this explanation is simple enough for you that it actually sinks in.
as said above, when we are talking about strict RAW, the rule to differentiate between true and lesser dragons don't call out Advancement once. Thus any interpretation of the verb "advance" as the defined keyword "Advancement" is invalid.

If you want to know if a dragon is true or lesser, the Primary Source Rule points you to the main topic for that. And that is the infobox on Draconomicon: "THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF DRAGONS". Because its label is the most fitting topic for our rule problem here, to differentiate between "true or lesser dragon". Because the entire purpose of this section is explicitly that and nothing else.
Nowhere does the PSR pull out the Advancement rules, neither does the infobox on p4 of Draconomicon. By RAW the Advancement rules are not part of this rule discussion at all. They have never been called out. And kind of arguments in that regard ain't RAW. You can argue that it is RAI and I might agree with you. But it ain't a RAW argument.

Regarding the dysfunction it would create with "Other True Dragons":
The rule gives all True Dragons an Advancement table if they lack one. From this point on, you know that a true dragon gains Advancement if it lacks it. It doesn't matter if the DM makes a specific exception and gives them effectively no progression by adding +0 HD and +0 LA, or sticks to a more common approach with +3 HD and +X LA per advanced age category. The fact that the true dragon get a table with values is all that matters.
And if a true dragon gets the advancement, it can't be a requirement.
This is just further proving/confirming that "advance" on p4 of the Draconomicon is sole used as simple verb to describe the transition from one age category to another. You can't require it and hand it out to those who lack it at the same time. This kind of reading is dysfunctional.

If I had the choice, I would clarify that the rules aren't code to be parsed, or an equation or logic puzzle to be solved: context matters. (IOW, if it doesn't look like a true dragon, doesn't fly like a true dragon, and doesn't have a breath weapon like a true dragon, then it probably isn't a true dragon.)

PS Let me put my money where my mouth is and provide such a piece of context (page 40 of Races of the Dragon): "On rare occasions, a kobold female lays what kobolds call a dragonwrought egg (see the Dragonwrought feat, page 100). These eggs are spotted with the color of whichever true dragon influences the dragonwrought kobold within, with such mottles increasing in number and size as the wyrmling inside grows." To insist a dragonwrought kobold is a true dragon, would render this paragraph nonsensical: "These eggs are spotted with the color of whichever true dragon influences the true dragon within." 🤷

PPS A question of conscience for the "true dragonwrought kobold" camp: RAW, a character does not retroactively get additional skill points for their previous levels (page 10 of the Player's Handbook), and a 1st-level kobold has a starting age of 7 to 14 years (page 39 of Races of the Dragon). Does your venerable dragonwrought kobold retroactively get additional skill points for their first level?
As said above, we have 3 different options to talk about rules:
1: RAW
Rules As Written follows strictly the hierarchy between the rules created by the Primary Source Rule. You may not rely on rules or (extrapolated) information outside of this hierarchy structure.

2: RAI
Rules As Intended acknowledges that authors are also humans and that not all authors have been always on the same boat. Thus is allows to break the wall created by the Primary Source Rule and tries to read between the lines what the original intention might have been.

3: "balanced" House rules (balanced as in, fits your table)
These may look different from table to table or even from game to game.

RAW is supposed to be that strict and sole tries to see the rules as some kind of code. That is the entire purpose of it. It ain't more right or wrong when compared to RAI or more balanced house rules. The differentiation is not about which discipline is the best. Because that will always be "3", what fits you current game the best.

Which just so happens to include the draconomicon and it’s line about old dragons being able to select epic feats

The problem is that while we know that it is a transition book, RAW doesn't care for that. For RAW draconomicon is a 3.5 book.

Any argument in that direction assumes that the authors have failed to provide the intended rules. Thus it is a RAI argument and not RAW.

As said; RAW is messy and not the holy grail as some people want it to be.

Crake

2023-05-19, 03:57 AM

The problem is that while we know that it is a transition book, RAW doesn't care for that. For RAW draconomicon is a 3.5 book.

Thats not THE problem, thats YOUR problem. Rest of us have reconciled that issue over a decade ago

redking

2023-05-19, 07:06 AM

Using explicit call outs is one way to define something as a true dragon.
Using the general rules for the topic: "THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF DRAGONS" to differentiate between true and lesser dragons in the absence of an explicit call out, is the other option here.
Defaulting to general rules ain't the same as what you describe here. The Primary Source Rule may not be ignored.

It doesn't say in Races of the Dragon that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons, to the contrary, it is clear that they are lesser dragons. If its not written anywhere that dragonwrought kobolds are "true dragons", then it isn't RAW or RAI, it is just inference from a line in Dragon Magic, which is telling people that dragons like red dragons are true dragons.

In terms of the age categories, here are the kobold age categories and dragon age categories side by side.

Dragon and Kobold Age Categories

Kobolds
True Dragons

Wyrmling: Up to 6 months
Wyrmling: 0-5 years

Very young: 7 to 18 months
Very young: 6-15 years

Young: 19 to 30 months
Young: 16-25 years

Juvenile: 31 months to 5 years
Juvenile: 26-50 years

Young adult: 6 to 10 years
Young adult: 51-100 years

Adult: 11 to 20 years
Adult: 101-200 years

Mature adult: 21 to 40 years
Mature adult: 201-400 years

Old: 41 to 60 years
Old: 401-600 years

Very old: 61 to 80 years
Very old: 601-800 years

Ancient: 81 to 100 years
Ancient: 801-1,000 years

Wyrm: 101 to 120 years
Wyrm: 1,001-1,200 years

Great wyrm: 121 years or older
Great wyrm: 1,201 or more years

Now, without resorting to convoluted tangents about "PSR", tell me: to which table to dragonwrought kobolds apply? To the table for true dragons, or the table for kobolds?

hamishspence

2023-05-19, 07:34 AM

redking

2023-05-19, 08:09 AM

There's at least one much more "true dragon-ish" (attacks include tail slap, crush, etc, advances via lots of Hit Dice increase, naturally gains spell-like abilities)) in stats dragon, from Shining South (the rattlyr) that doesn't age like a regular dragon - it ages much faster.

An interesting exception to the rule, of which there are a handful that are specifically called out as true dragons. In the case of the rattlyr, its status as a true dragon was confirmed on page 12 of Dragons of Faerun. When there is an exception to the general rule, it is stated, such as fang dragons. It does not provide any support for dragonwrought kobolds at all.

SillySymphonies

2023-05-19, 09:06 AM

You may not rely on rules (...) outside of this hierarchy structure.
You keep quoting the "Primary Source Rule" as if it were to allow you to ignore entire passages of text. That is not what it does. It just tells you how to resolve a disagreement between two rules:

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.
Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

RAW is supposed to be that strict and sole tries to see the rules as some kind of code.
And this is where we fundamentally disagree: the rules as written are all the actual rules appearing in the rulebook, as opposed to house rules, or to rules that might have been intended (in the event of a mistake in the rulebook). (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/RAW#Noun)

As said; RAW is messy and not the holy grail as some people want it to be.
So by your own admission, you are defending what amounts to a semantic point? :smallconfused:

Vaern

2023-05-19, 12:08 PM

You still lack a 3.5 specific definition for "advance" and may not assume that it refers to "Advancement" by default if we talk about strict RAW.
If you want to draw that conclusion, you are talking about RAI.
I have no issue with RAI arguments, and I see your point. But stop pretending that these are RAW arguments.

I've already said, quite clearly, that I'm not assuming that it's referring to "Advancement." I've quoted exact lines from the rules that tell us what it means for a creature to advance, independent of "Advancement." I've told you that the meaning of "advancement" doesn't matter, because the rules tell us what "advance" means outside of the definition of "advancement." Apparently it's not possible to write something clearly and carefully enough that it prevents you from completely missing the point and inferring your own meaning from it. I went out of my way to not use the word "advancement" a single time in the post you quoted specifically to not give you the opportunity to accuse me of mistaking one definition for another, but clearly there's nothing I can do to stop you from circling back to the same irrelevant argument you keep falling back on.

You, on the other hand, still lack a 3.5 specific definition for "advance" and may not assume that it refers to "transitioning from one age category to another" by default if we talk about strict RAW.
If you want to draw that conclusion, you are talking about RAI.
I have no issue with RAI arguments, but stop pretending that these are RAW arguments.

RAW strictly applies the hierarchy created be the Primary Source Rule. And as long as "Advancement" wasn't mentioned (on the entire page 4..) you can't pretend by RAW that advance sole means Advancement. Especially if the sentence still makes logically sense. The sentence about "advancing trough age categories" still makes full sense without artificially narrowing it down.

Your definition may make sense grammatically in the context that the word is used on page 4, but it results in mechanics breaking down outside of the sidebar to accommodate for it. Using "advance" in a way that is already defined within Core is not "artificially narrowing it down." It would be more appropriate to say that the sentence about "advancing through age categories" still makes full sense without artificially expanding it beyond definitions presented in the Monster Manual.

Regarding the dysfunction it would create with "Other True Dragons":
The rule gives all True Dragons an Advancement table if they lack one. From this point on, you know that a true dragon gains Advancement if it lacks it. It doesn't matter if the DM makes a specific exception and gives them effectively no progression by adding +0 HD and +0 LA, or sticks to a more common approach with +3 HD and +X LA per advanced age category. The fact that the true dragon get a table with values is all that matters.
And if a true dragon gets the advancement, it can't be a requirement.
This is just further proving/confirming that "advance" on p4 of the Draconomicon is sole used as simple verb to describe the transition from one age category to another. You can't require it and hand it out to those who lack it at the same time. This kind of reading is dysfunctional.

This dysfunction simply doesn't exist the way I've described. If a dragon must advance [gain hit dice] by aging to be classified as a True Dragon then there is no True Dragon which lacks advancement by age categories. The section doesn't give them anything they don't already have and causes no dysfunction. The section only grants a form of advancement to a creature that doesn't already have it under your interpretation. Your definition may make sense grammatically in the context that the word is used on page 4, but it results in mechanics breaking down outside of the sidebar to accommodate for it.

RAW is messy. Especially stuff from the transition as some pointed it out.

Absolutely. I looked at the ELH section on level adjustment when it was mentioned earlier and saw some gnarly things that came out of the 3.5 update as a result. I just don't think this particular case, regarding what advancing through age categories means for dragons, is one where the rules are unclear about what they means.

Now, without resorting to convoluted tangents about "PSR", tell me: to which table to dragonwrought kobolds apply? To the table for true dragons, or the table for kobolds?

Clearly, they age via the kobold table. But, that isn't the open-and-shut argument you're hoping for. Nothing specifically requires advancing through dragon age categories, and as far as I'm aware the age category table isn't directly referenced or presented at all in Draconomicon.

As a counterpoint to your example, epic dragons are never called out as being true dragons within their descriptions, and advance via a separate table with a unique heading and with categories which progress at a different rate from the standard Dragon Age Categories table. Draconomicon still recognizes them as being true dragons - the name of their age categories and the rate at which they advance doesn't affect that. Kobolds may not be called out as true dragons, and they may age according to a different table with a different name at a different rate, but epic dragons create a precedence for creatures being categorized as true dragons under similar circumstances.
The key difference between the two, as far as the rule in question is concerned, is that epic dragons advance through age categories in a way that the rules define and recognize as advancing, while kobolds do not advance in a way that is described within the rules.

If convincing people that kobolds are not true dragons was as simple as pointing out that kobolds have basically nothing in common with true dragons and are therefore clearly not true dragons, this debate wouldn't be dragging on for so long. Only the most obnoxiously pedantic of arguments will suffice here.

redking

2023-05-19, 05:55 PM

Clearly, they age via the kobold table. But, that isn't the open-and-shut argument you're hoping for. Nothing specifically requires advancing through dragon age categories, and as far as I'm aware the age category table isn't directly referenced or presented at all in Draconomicon.

As a counterpoint to your example, epic dragons are never called out as being true dragons within their descriptions, and advance via a separate table with a unique heading and with categories which progress at a different rate from the standard Dragon Age Categories table. Draconomicon still recognizes them as being true dragons - the name of their age categories and the rate at which they advance doesn't affect that. Kobolds may not be called out as true dragons, and they may age according to a different table with a different name at a different rate, but epic dragons create a precedence for creatures being categorized as true dragons under similar circumstances.
The key difference between the two, as far as the rule in question is concerned, is that epic dragons advance through age categories in a way that the rules define and recognize as advancing, while kobolds do not advance in a way that is described within the rules.

The key difference is that if there was any doubt about epic dragons being true dragons because it does not appear in their monster entry, the matter has been cleared up in multiple publications since. It's not a precedent for kobolds with the dragon type because exceptions to the rule are clearly labelled as true dragons. The difference between the chromatic/metallic, epic and rattlyr true dragons is some differences in the number of years between age categories, but they are functional age categories that advance the classic true dragon features. Kobold age categories do nothing.

If convincing people that kobolds are not true dragons was as simple as pointing out that kobolds have basically nothing in common with true dragons and are therefore clearly not true dragons, this debate wouldn't be dragging on for so long. Only the most obnoxiously pedantic of arguments will suffice here.

It's not necessary to convince proponents of dragonwrought kobold = true dragon since most of them admit that they aren't interested in context. Readers that haven't heard of the issue (and yes, they exist), are another matter.

Gruftzwerg

2023-05-28, 02:13 AM

Thats not THE problem, thats YOUR problem. Rest of us have reconciled that issue over a decade ago
"rest of us"? If the rest already settled on this debate, how comes that this topic repeatedly comes up and we are discussing it over and over?

Pretending that everybody has your opinion as argument... Did I provoke you in any kind that you are getting upset here?

It doesn't say in Races of the Dragon that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons, to the contrary, it is clear that they are lesser dragons. If its not written anywhere that dragonwrought kobolds are "true dragons", then it isn't RAW or RAI, it is just inference from a line in Dragon Magic, which is telling people that dragons like red dragons are true dragons.

In terms of the age categories, here are the kobold age categories and dragon age categories side by side.

Dragon and Kobold Age Categories

Kobolds
True Dragons

Wyrmling: Up to 6 months
Wyrmling: 0-5 years

Very young: 7 to 18 months
Very young: 6-15 years

Young: 19 to 30 months
Young: 16-25 years

Juvenile: 31 months to 5 years
Juvenile: 26-50 years

Young adult: 6 to 10 years
Young adult: 51-100 years

Adult: 11 to 20 years
Adult: 101-200 years

Mature adult: 21 to 40 years
Mature adult: 201-400 years

Old: 41 to 60 years
Old: 401-600 years

Very old: 61 to 80 years
Very old: 601-800 years

Ancient: 81 to 100 years
Ancient: 801-1,000 years

Wyrm: 101 to 120 years
Wyrm: 1,001-1,200 years

Great wyrm: 121 years or older
Great wyrm: 1,201 or more years

Now, without resorting to convoluted tangents about "PSR", tell me: to which table to dragonwrought kobolds apply? To the table for true dragons, or the table for kobolds?
Manipulation of keywords to get the desired outcome is RAI and not RAW.
Labeling the Dragon Age Categories additionally as True Dragons in your custom table won't change anything here.

3.5 has 2 "age categories":
1) Dragon Age Categories
2) Kobold Age Categories

The rule to differentiate between true and lesser dragon sole asks for "age categories". No matter how many times you present this argument won't change that it is a RAI argument and not a RAW argument.

Is it so hard to accept that it is not a RAW argument but sole a RAI argument? As soon as you assume that the authors have failed to precisely express their thoughts it is a RAI argument.
Does the argument lose any weight if it is RAI and not RAW?
Are you one of those guys that pretend to play 100% RAW and need to protect your RAW holy grail or what?
What is the purpose of pretending that a RAI argument is RAW?

RAI I totally accept what you all are saying and have zero complaints. But I won't accept RAI arguments as RAW just because we are talking about DWK cheese. And I have somehow the feeling that when it comes to DWK debates half of the community starts to ignore the difference between RAW and RAI for whatsoever reason. Why this sole happens in DWK debates is a riddle to me. When I explain the difference between RAW and RAI in any other debate most people will agree. But when it comes to DWK, hell no, we must stop the devil...

(sorry for the lil rant - not personal. It just hit you quote. So pls don't take it personal)

You keep quoting the "Primary Source Rule" as if it were to allow you to ignore entire passages of text. That is not what it does. It just tells you how to resolve a disagreement between two rules:

And this is where we fundamentally disagree: the rules as written are all the actual rules appearing in the rulebook, as opposed to house rules, or to rules that might have been intended (in the event of a mistake in the rulebook). (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/RAW#Noun)

So by your own admission, you are defending what amounts to a semantic point? :smallconfused:
When we say that the PSR "ignores those rules" it doesn't mean that those rules become totally irrelevant for the entire game. They are sole irrelevant for that specific rule comprehension since "those rules" and not primary for that topic.

So, when it comes to the True or Lesser Dragon debate, the primary source is the infobox on p4 of draconomicon. Any secondary sources may not add to the general rules for that topic. Secondary sources can sole create their specific exception niche. Like "the 10 True Dragons in the MM" which Draconomicon is mostly talking about (as defined by the book itself). But those rules sole apply to that niche and don't become General Rules.

It's Specific Trumps General and not Specific Becomes General !

You can't use specific rules which are meant for the 10 TD in the MM and pretend that they are general rules for all true dragons. That is the exact opposite of what is allowed by the rules.

I've already said, quite clearly, that I'm not assuming that it's referring to "Advancement." I've quoted exact lines from the rules that tell us what it means for a creature to advance, independent of "Advancement." I've told you that the meaning of "advancement" doesn't matter, because the rules tell us what "advance" means outside of the definition of "advancement." Apparently it's not possible to write something clearly and carefully enough that it prevents you from completely missing the point and inferring your own meaning from it. I went out of my way to not use the word "advancement" a single time in the post you quoted specifically to not give you the opportunity to accuse me of mistaking one definition for another, but clearly there's nothing I can do to stop you from circling back to the same irrelevant argument you keep falling back on.

Your definition may make sense grammatically in the context that the word is used on page 4, but it results in mechanics breaking down outside of the sidebar to accommodate for it. Using "advance" in a way that is already defined within Core is not "artificially narrowing it down." It would be more appropriate to say that the sentence about "advancing through age categories" still makes full sense without artificially expanding it beyond definitions presented in the Monster Manual.
Fishing for words in sentences and using that as a base to artificially create a pseudo definition for 3.5 ain't RAW.

"advance" ain't defined by RAW and any attempt to make it look like it did, belongs into a RAI debate.
The simple use of a word within rules doesn't create a 3.5 specific definition by RAW. If you want to treat it that way it is a RAI argument. The intention of a definition needs to be clearly visible in some kind of form:
1) Title of a paragraph
2) Title of an entire table (not a single column, since a single value doesn't explain anything)
3) "Bold Written Name:" with an explanation to it
4) Glossary
5) ...

Fishing for words in a sentence is not a definition. If definitions would work that way, it would cause a total mess. Since you would need to read the entire rules for every rule debate to see if any of the used words are somehow "defined by just simply use withing the rules somewhere else". That is why a definition has to be clearly visible by nature (no matter if we talk about rules, laws or program code. All need clearly visible definitions and not just some random use in some kind of text).

You are using RAI-tools to create and argument and think that you are still arguing about RAW. Pls try to see the fine difference here (no offense).

This dysfunction simply doesn't exist the way I've described. If a dragon must advance [gain hit dice] by aging to be classified as a True Dragon then there is no True Dragon which lacks advancement by age categories. The section doesn't give them anything they don't already have and causes no dysfunction. The section only grants a form of advancement to a creature that doesn't already have it under your interpretation. Your definition may make sense grammatically in the context that the word is used on page 4, but it results in mechanics breaking down outside of the sidebar to accommodate for it.
I'll ignore that this is still part of a RAI argument for a moment to give a response to this:
So we have a rule that does nothing? What kind of logic is that to have a rule that gives something if you lack it, but you can't lack it in the first place? If you don't see the logical error here I don't now how else to respond..

Absolutely. I looked at the ELH section on level adjustment when it was mentioned earlier and saw some gnarly things that came out of the 3.5 update as a result. I just don't think this particular case, regarding what advancing through age categories means for dragons, is one where the rules are unclear about what they means.
As said: RAI I agree with your arguments about "advance", but that doesn't mean that they are valid as RAW arguments..

The key difference is that if there was any doubt about epic dragons being true dragons because it does not appear in their monster entry, the matter has been cleared up in multiple publications since. It's not a precedent for kobolds with the dragon type because exceptions to the rule are clearly labelled as true dragons. The difference between the chromatic/metallic, epic and rattlyr true dragons is some differences in the number of years between age categories, but they are functional age categories that advance the classic true dragon features. Kobold age categories do nothing.

It's not necessary to convince proponents of dragonwrought kobold = true dragon since most of them admit that they aren't interested in context. Readers that haven't heard of the issue (and yes, they exist), are another matter.
Labeling something in 3.5 servers multiple purposes:

1) Specific Exception
This is used if something doesn't strictly follow the "general rules" (found in the infobox on p4 of Draconomicon).

2) Friendly Reminder
The rules in 3.5 often just (friendly) reminds you of general rules in a specific situation. (e.g. "size increasing effects don't stack" is a friendly reminder of the stacking rules; or Special Ability tags like EX, SLA & SU are also friendly reminders in most cases).

But you don't need those "labels" to differentiate between true and lesser dragons. For that we have the general rules on p4 of Draconomicon. In the absence of labels you default to the general rules from the primary source (and don't pull out rules from secondary sources).

Vaern

2023-05-28, 04:19 PM

What kind of logic is that to have a rule that gives something if you lack it, but you can't lack it in the first place? If you don't see the logical error here I don't now how else to respond..

Again, it seems impossible to be clear enough that you can't completely miss the point I'm trying to make.

The section doesn't give them anything they don't already have and causes no dysfunction.

The section only grants a form of advancement to a creature that doesn't already have it under your interpretation.
How have you read my post and somehow come out of it thinking that I've somehow suggested that the section gives something to someone that lacks it?

Monster Manual tells us that a young black dragon between the ages of 16 and 25 years old begins with 10 HD and a +3 LA, can advance to have 11-12 HD while remaining within that age category, eventually has 13 HD and a +4 LA upon reaching juvenile at 26 years old. While Monster Manual tells us that a young black dragon can have between 10 and 12 HD, it does not tell us exactly when its HD increases from 10 to 11, or from 11 to 12. Theoretically, a player who has decided to roll up a black dragon PC looking strictly at the stat blocks in the Monster Manual could completely ignoring the smaller increments of advancement and run around at ECL 13 for 10 in-game years, only to immediately jump straight to ECL 17 upon reaching juvenile at 26 years old.

The section regarding Dragons as Player Characters in Draconomicon is essentially just telling you to prevent massive spikes in ECL like that from happening to a dragon PC by breaking down that advancement into smaller steps: Break a dragon's age categories down into individual Hit Dice, determine exactly when the dragon gains each Hit Die, and ensure a player's ECL is only increasing in increments of 1 to prevent erratic jumps in power and XP gain. The section tells us how and why it does this, and provides the tables for us to follow for the intended effect on page 143: The black dragon has 10 HD when it first reaches young at 16 years old; it has 11 HD at 18 years old; it has 12 HD at 21 years old; its LA increases by 1 at 24 years old to ensure that when it gains an additional HD upon reaching juvenile at 26 years old its ECL is only increasing by 1 instead of 2.

The section Other True Dragons on page 144 tells you to construct tables similar to those on page 143 for true dragons other than those presented in the Monster Manual. If we were to roll up a Faerunian shadow dragon, the provided table tells us it has progression comparable to that of the Core black dragon. Since they have the same advancement, we simply write up a table for the shadow dragon that matches the black dragon's table.

This section has not given either the black dragon or the shadow dragon anything. Both of these creatures already had the advancement that has been broken down on their respective tables. All the section has asked you to do is add detail to each creature's existing progression to smooth out their growth over time. The section applies to true dragons, and all true dragons advance by aging in this way. No true dragon gains anything they lack out of this section, except greater detail for progression that they already have. The only way for a dysfunction or logical error to come out of this section is by interpreting the rules in such a way that the section applies it to creatures that it is not meant to apply to.

Again, the section does not tell you to give anything to to something that lacks it; it tells you to add detail to something that a specific subset of creatures already has. That is all it does. To suggest it's suggesting that it does anything more than this is to completely miss the entire point of the section, but at this point that's just par for the course for you.
The section applies only to creatures which have the mechanic, which it asks you to detail further.
The section does not apply to creatures that do not have that mechanic.
The section does not tell you to give that mechanic to creatures that do not have it so that you can apply the section to that creature and add additional detail to the mechanic that they don't have.
There is no dysfunction.
There is no logical error.