What book is lore drake in?

[Aemoh87]

Lore Drake, what book is it in?

[Jarian]

Loredrake, along with the other Sovereign Archetypes, is detailed in Dragons of Eberron.

[The Rabbler]

Unless you plan on making a dragon more powerful, please refrain from using loredrake. It tends to upset campaigns rather easily.

[Coidzor]

Unless you plan on making a dragon more powerful, please refrain from using loredrake. It tends to upset campaigns rather easily.

On a dragonwrought kobold, sure, but it should be fine on a regular True Dragon. Unless it's not meant to be a fearsome opponent or sommat.

[Aspenor]

{Scrubbed}

[Greenish]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Oh, for the Host's sake, how often does this bloody debate have to raise it's ugly head?

[Jarian]

Oh, for the Host's sake, how often does this bloody debate have to raise it's ugly head?

Too often.

To sum up the "for" side of the debate: *click*

{Scrubbed}

[Aspenor]

Now, if people would actually read those rules, instead of pretending to understand and spouting off "IT DOESN'T WORKZ BECAUSE IT'S BROKENZ" then we wouldn't have this discussion as much.

Believe me, I've read those rules, and more pertinent rules, more times than you have.

I'm not going to get into the argument either, but suffice to say you are wrong.

[Jarian]

I have my doubts as to whether you've read them more often, and about your impartiality if that's true, but we'll just have to agree to disagree, and let everyone else make up their own minds.

[Aemoh87]

amongst all this arguing no one notices that in The Rabbler's signature it says awesome avatar by so and so... but he has no avatar... good joke!

DAMMIT it was just my internet being lame he does have an avatar :(

well I TM that joke, see you all in court.

Also, not to spark debate but can I see something in writing (from WotC) that says this can't be done, just to show my players if they attempt to do this? I keep a running list of bookmarks to rulings that I know I will need eventually.

[The Rabbler]

amongst all this arguing no one notices that in The Rabbler's signature it says awesome avatar by so and so... but he has no avatar... good joke!

DAMMIT it was just my internet being lame he does have an avatar :(

well I TM that joke, see you all in court.

Also, not to spark debate but can I see something in writing (from WotC) that says this can't be done, just to show my players if they attempt to do this? I keep a running list of bookmarks to rulings that I know I will need eventually.

My understanding of why this can't be done is because you can't add templates to an already-created character without something specific saying that you can (PrCs for example). When you pick your race, you also pick templates to go along with that race. Because the feat itself requires you to be a kobold (therefore requiring you to have picked a race) and also turns you into a dragon and then makes you eligible for loredrake, loredrake can't be added to the character.

EDIT: grammar/wording stuff.

[Flickerdart]

my understanding of why this can't be done is because you can't add templates to an already-created character without something specific saying that you can (PrCs for example). When you pick your race, you also pick templates to go along with that race. Later on in character creation, you pick feats. Because the feat itself turns you into a dragon and therefore makes you eligible for loredrake, and you have to pick feats after race (and template) selection, loredrake can't be added to the character.

So you create a character that's not 1st level and none of this has any bearing on the situation. Soblem prolved.

[Aspenor]

Also, not to spark debate but can I see something in writing (from WotC) that says this can't be done, just to show my players if they attempt to do this? I keep a running list of bookmarks to rulings that I know I will need eventually.

Draconomicon p. 144

Lesser dragons as PC's:

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.

Dragonwrought Kobolds have no built-in progression due to age. They are not True Dragons.

You must be a True Dragon to get a Sovereign Archetype.

[The Rabbler]

So you create a character that's not 1st level and none of this has any bearing on the situation. Soblem prolved.

If you think about it one step at a time, it makes no sense at all. But, that's a debate that I don't want to start and my Rules-fu is far too weak to argue my side effectively, so let's drop it there.

[Flickerdart]

Hell, with judicious application of negative levels, you could even have a 1st level character that also works this way. Is there anything backstory can't solve?

[Aemoh87]

No matter what level you start at the rules state you must start building from scratch. I don't think the true dragon ruling works, but it makes sense that you cannot apply a template after a feat if it is an inherent one. Now the question is, is lore drake inherent. It's likely it is, but I do not own Dragons of Eberron so it's a mystery for me.

[Aemoh87]

But I did think of a fool proof way to become a lore drake :) but it involves reincarnate and alot of luck :(

[Flickerdart]

No matter what level you start at the rules state you must start building from scratch. I don't think the true dragon ruling works, but it makes sense that you cannot apply a template after a feat if it is an inherent one. Now the question is, is lore drake inherent. It's likely it is, but I do not own Dragons of Eberron so it's a mystery for me.

The sovereign archetypes are not templates, inherent or otherwise. The only thing the book says about acquiring an archetype is that the dragon must seek to emulate the behaviour of the appropriate Sovereign.

[Aemoh87]

I really need that damn book so I can read it for myself. Also this thread as well as all the other threads should be mandatory readying for authors. Not because they are full of useful information, but just to show how important key words are and how clear they need to be in rulings.

[CycloneJoker]

Draconomicon p. 144

Lesser dragons as PC's:

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.

Dragonwrought Kobolds have no built-in progression due to age. They are not True Dragons.

You must be a True Dragon to get a Sovereign Archetype.

If P then Q, Q, therefore P? Really?

[Jarian]

It's a Loredrake discussion. People have been scraping the bottom of the barrel for proof one way or the other for ages. You can't really have expected more concrete of an argument, surely.

[Coidzor]

Also, not to spark debate but can I see something in writing (from WotC) that says this can't be done, just to show my players if they attempt to do this? I keep a running list of bookmarks to rulings that I know I will need eventually.

Just houserule it, you're the DM. Casting at 3 levels above one's HD(loredrake + greater draconic rite of passage + being a no-CL loss sorcerer type) is broken by most games standards, after all.

Now, the Greater Draconic Rite of Passage is an obvious patch to their mistake when they decided to gimp spontaneous casters with delayed progression, so that's much more palatable.


Edit: Say, what is the effect of loredrake on a dragon that doesn't have sorcerer casting yet? Just lowers the HD and other stuff and then adds the sorcerer level boost once they normally gain sorcerer casting? Or do they get sorcerer casting early as a sorcerer 2 from their youngest age category and then just add sorcerer levels from aging or leveling to that?

[Tenebris]

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.

Dragonwrought Kobolds have no built-in progression due to age. They are not True Dragons.

May Ao have mercy on you, dragonwrought kobolds DO HAVE progression through age categories. As a 121 year old dragonwrought kobold you can proudly and loudly call yourself a Great Wyrm. (EDIT: and apparently take epic feats. Kobolds are awesome ).

[Aspenor]

If P then Q, Q, therefore P? Really?

It is stated in the rules that being a lesser dragon is mutually exclusive with being a true dragon. For this reason, this is sound logic. The logic goes this way, not the way you just said:

If A then not B.
If C, then A.
C, therefore not B.

May Ao have mercy on you, dragonwrought kobolds DO HAVE progression through age categories. As a 121 year old dragonwrought kobold you can proudly and loudly call yourself a Great Wyrm. (EDIT: and apparently take epic feats. Kobolds are awesome ).

No, wrong. "Progression" has a very set meaning. Google "SRD progression" and see what it means.

[2xMachina]

I get....

Epic class lvls?

EDIT: If you mean, improvement... it is argued that the free mental stats without drawback is improvement.

You might want to look at old arguments. You might have read the rules a lot, but I don't think you've read the arguments itself.

[Aspenor]

I get....

Epic class lvls?

You get epic class progressions. Progression means gaining HD. Dragonwrought kobolds do not do this.

It's simple. To check to see if something is a true dragon, look at the "advancement" entry in its monster entry. If it does not have age categories listed, it is not a true dragon. Dragonwrought kobolds only progress by class levels.

{Scrubbed}

[Greenish]

Edit: Say, what is the effect of loredrake on a dragon that doesn't have sorcerer casting yet? Just lowers the HD and other stuff and then adds the sorcerer level boost once they normally gain sorcerer casting? Or do they get sorcerer casting early as a sorcerer 2 from their youngest age category and then just add sorcerer levels from aging or leveling to that?

I think the latter one is correct.

[Cog]

I think the latter one is correct.

Nope. Once they would have casting anyway, then they gain the boost. Taking a level of sorcerer early on is enough to trigger it, though; it doesn't require racial casting.

[drakir_nosslin]

If A then not B.
If C, then A.
C, therefore not A.

That makes no sense at all. Did you mean:
A =/=> B
C => A
C =/=> B

??

[Aspenor]

That makes no sense at all. Did you mean:
A =/=> B
C => A
C =/=> B

??

Yes, I mistyped. Thank you for the correction, I'll fix it. Too many dang letters.