Author Topic: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons  (Read 171406 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SorO_Lost

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • I'll kill you before you're born.
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #140 on: December 13, 2010, 03:19:30 AM »
The only way to come to this sort of a conclusion is through a fallacy called "wishful thinking."
+1. Been saying that for years and it keeps getting submitted as proof. Hell, virtually every super villain of the ancient ages claimed to be a god, what the hell did it prove then?

He's claiming that all shown uses are Oxford. It's really not outrageous. I can see the disagree but if you can't see the inherent ambiguity in the language then you're blind.
If he has proved such a claim, then why do I still see an Advancing Monsters section that talks about giving HD? Surly he woudl have debunked all claims as you said and such a thing would not be in my books.

Beholder don't be a retard. He is making much more of an argument then that.
Actully the core of his point is exception. As in I can find an exception (see PH) and therefor ALL CASES ARE TREATED AS SO. Which is a fallacy into it's self and falls though even the most basic form of logic.

Ad Hominem isn't the same thing as insulting. Learn the difference. And what did I Strawman?

I get the point you're making. I see the difference between "advance in power by means of the passage of time" and "have specially defined ages which lesser dragons do not." Both of which I see as legitimate interpretations of the original quote.
Quote from: Draconomicon Page 4
.....true dragons are those creatures that grow more powerful as they grow older...other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons
Even in context, both reading are legitimate.

This is the ambiguity I see as well.
Aye, what does it mean by more powerful? I know, lets read the other 300+ pages instead of a dozen words from an entire book.

And don't both apply to dragonwrought Kobolds?  They increase in power by means of the passage of time (wait a while and their mental stats go up, but unlike most other types they don't take penalties to go with it, so they clearly get stronger).  And they have the specifically defined ages that lesser dragons don't have.  So... this is rather moot.
I think I have a new name for that. Specific meets General.

Kobolds, not True Dragons. Lack everything.
DWK Kobolds, not True Dragons. Lack what every explanation of True Dragon has for traits.
DWK Kobold with Energy Immunity, wings, breath weapon, blindsight, yatta yatta yatta: is it a True Dragon?

Lets me drop the kobold crap your biaist with. If you give fire & acid immunity along with DR 10/silver & evil to an outsider is it a Devil? Or just an outsider with fire and acid immunity with DR 10/silver & evil? Oh I know the answer you would give but one since I'll just link it to the kobold and you can't have that.

Frankly, this debate won't be settled.  Ever.  No WotC employee is going to touch 3.5 again, so we're stuck without any sort of official answer one way or another.  We all agreed that, even if DWK's are True Dragons, they were not intended to have Epic feats early or any of that (although they still auto-qualify for anything requiring Dragonblood subtype).  The answer to wether or not they ARE True Dragons is, as this argument has shown, entirely up to the interpretation of one sentence which will vary from person to person and it willnever be settled.
But that is why it continues right there.

Example, the MM alone states: Damage Reduction: Young adult and older dragons have damage reduction. Their natural weapons are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. This is the general rule. Unless something that trumps it is called out as a True Dragon, which RotD never does for kobolds, it must inherit DR via aging for it to be a True Dragon. There are dozens of traits. Even trying to dodge the bullet but saying you are a Planar Dragon to skip spellcasting, you would still fall short of the DR/SR/Age gives HD/Breath Weapon, etc. The only two arguments against that are JaronK's exception replaces general which is the biggest failure since failing was invented, and ignoring everything but one certain line. Wither if be Dragon Magic's rules on who you can create a dragon pact with, or one line in a nonerule sidebar (which the DMG says you can ignore anyway). As long was one side continues based off ignoring things, the other will continually find more and more rules for them to ignore. Even when we think everything has reached a point of everything already being said this thread shows us otherwise.

It isn't even a question of balance since time and time again I've pointed out and proved how a Steel Dragon out preforms a DWK Kobold being treated as a True Dragon. It's human nature rearing it's head. You must be right, you are never wrong. The more you back the kobold claim, the more you must adhere to it and never give in no matter how many facts you ignore or fallacies you must believe in. Same with with Fighter vs Wizard threads.
Tiers explained in 8 sentences. With examples!
[spoiler]Tiers break down into who has spellcasting more than anything else due to spells being better than anything else in the game.
6: Skill based. Commoner, Expert, Samurai.
5: Mundane warrior. Barbarian, Fighter, Monk.
4: Partial casters. Adapt, Hexblade, Paladin, Ranger, Spelltheif.
3: Focused casters. Bard, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Martial Adapts, Warmage.
2: Full casters. Favored Soul, Psion, Sorcerer, Wu Jen.
1: Elitists. Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Wizard.
0: Gods. StP Erudite, Illthid Savant, Pun-Pun, Rocks fall & you die.
[/spoiler]

Littha

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2155
    • Email
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #141 on: December 13, 2010, 03:34:32 AM »
I think we can all agree this is wizards fault for not having a [True] subtype for dragons...

SorO_Lost

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • I'll kill you before you're born.
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #142 on: December 13, 2010, 05:05:10 AM »
I think we can all agree this is wizards fault for not having a [True] subtype for dragons...
Then they would have needed to do the same for Demons, Devils, Angels, Elder Evils, etc.

Which no one contests those types, even with FF's powerful devil feats.
Tiers explained in 8 sentences. With examples!
[spoiler]Tiers break down into who has spellcasting more than anything else due to spells being better than anything else in the game.
6: Skill based. Commoner, Expert, Samurai.
5: Mundane warrior. Barbarian, Fighter, Monk.
4: Partial casters. Adapt, Hexblade, Paladin, Ranger, Spelltheif.
3: Focused casters. Bard, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Martial Adapts, Warmage.
2: Full casters. Favored Soul, Psion, Sorcerer, Wu Jen.
1: Elitists. Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Wizard.
0: Gods. StP Erudite, Illthid Savant, Pun-Pun, Rocks fall & you die.
[/spoiler]

Littha

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2155
    • Email
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #143 on: December 13, 2010, 05:14:14 AM »
I think we can all agree this is wizards fault for not having a [True] subtype for dragons...
Then they would have needed to do the same for Demons, Devils, Angels, Elder Evils, etc.

Which no one contests those types, even with FF's powerful devil feats.

like [Tanar'ri] or [Baatazu]?

SorO_Lost

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • I'll kill you before you're born.
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #144 on: December 13, 2010, 05:23:17 AM »
More like [Devil].

Quote
As is, that listing is completely worthless. Everyone one of those traits is either included or not in a certain Devil, there is zero reason to check the traits area nor does anything really say it is or isn't a devil outside of their listing as such. Same with Demons, Angels, the Elder Evil's trait, etc. TDs are really the only monster trait that has to be used to figure out what you actually are trying to use against your players and also are the only ones to be detailed out so (horribly) well. It is almost as if TD's rules were written more for the authors than DMs, but then again it is Dungeons and Dragons.

Tiers explained in 8 sentences. With examples!
[spoiler]Tiers break down into who has spellcasting more than anything else due to spells being better than anything else in the game.
6: Skill based. Commoner, Expert, Samurai.
5: Mundane warrior. Barbarian, Fighter, Monk.
4: Partial casters. Adapt, Hexblade, Paladin, Ranger, Spelltheif.
3: Focused casters. Bard, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Martial Adapts, Warmage.
2: Full casters. Favored Soul, Psion, Sorcerer, Wu Jen.
1: Elitists. Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Wizard.
0: Gods. StP Erudite, Illthid Savant, Pun-Pun, Rocks fall & you die.
[/spoiler]

AndyJames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
  • Meep?
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #145 on: December 13, 2010, 05:33:26 AM »
I think we can all agree this is wizards fault for not having a [True] subtype for dragons...
Then they would have needed to do the same for Demons, Devils, Angels, Elder Evils, etc.

Which no one contests those types, even with FF's powerful devil feats.
That is because it is arbitrarily decided that outsiders like that aren't player characters, but dragons can be. At the end of the day, all this boils down to is just ONE instance where it is possible for a PC to be a dragon without an obscene LA, and the nerfbats come aflyin'.

Seriously, at the end of the day, the DM has the final say in whether Loredrake and/or epic feats can be done with DW Kobold. All the initial post does is... I don't know... a cry for attention? Who the hell cares about legalese when playing DnD? As if one fool's treatise on the subject is going to allow players to say to DMs, "Look! Xyz on the internet said that it is legal! You must let me have it!!!!" without getting the DMG in the face with no saving throw followed by a Hurl Ally out the door, resulting in an asphalt tattoo.

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #146 on: December 13, 2010, 08:08:26 AM »
Sor0, can you please give me a list of the true dragons that "can extend their lifespans by hibernating in
near-perfect stasis."

After all, it's listed along with energy resistance as a true dragon trait, so surely it's listed on their statblocks, right?

Question: do you assert that "[members of] X advance through Y" means "X gains hit dice due to Y" in all cases?

In fact, can you find a single reference anywhere that says "X advance through Y" that refers to racial hit dice advancement?  Given that it takes me like five minutes to find my references for any given post, it shouldn't take you more than half an hour to find out one way or another.  Heck, I'll even allow the singular "X advances through Y".  My precursory investigations have turned up mostly members who advance through ranks of various organizations, but you might turn up something
« Last Edit: December 13, 2010, 10:32:08 AM by The_Mad_Linguist »
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

snakeman830

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3494
  • BG's resident furry min/maxxer
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #147 on: December 13, 2010, 10:10:29 AM »
With rules QUOTES please.

That said, the fact that one reading of the "must advance through age categories" produces conflicts with "All dragons are either True or Lesser" and "Lesser dragons do not have age categories" when presented with the Dragonwrought Kobold, does force it into the view that "advance" must not mean "gains hit dice".  If it did, it would force Dragonwrought Kobolds to not be Lesser Dragons (they have the age categories), but not True Dragons either.  They are clearly Dragons (Dragonwrought feat is indisputable in this respect), so again, by Draconomicon, they MUST be Lesser or True.  Draconomicon eliminates one of those as a possibility in a seperate line (as Lesser Dragons cannot have age categories), so by the "advance=gaining HD" reading, we have contradictions in the rules.

Contradictions are bad for buisness, especially when another reading of the exact same text produces none and no logical impossibilities.

Yes, I just paraphrased.  Shoot me :p

Again, Soro, I challenge you.  Create a definition of True Dragon through rules quotes that includes every universally accepted True Dragon but not Dragonwrought Kobolds and I will concede to you.  Chances are, others will too.  However, I very much doubt you will be able to.
I am constantly amazed by how many DM's ban Tomb of Battle.  The book doesn't even exist!

Quotes:[spoiler]
By yes, she means no.
That explains so much about my life.
hiicantcomeupwithacharacterthatisntaghostwhyisthatamijustretardedorsomething
Why would you even do this? It hurts my eyes and looks like you ate your keyboard before suffering an attack of explosive diarrhea.
[/spoiler]

If using Genesis to hide your phylactry, set it at -300 degrees farenheit.  See how do-gooders fare with a liquid atmosphere.

skydragonknight

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3297
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #148 on: December 13, 2010, 10:31:06 AM »
One thing is clear: whoever wrote Races of the Dragon obviously didn't know what the definition of true dragons was.
It always seems like the barrels around here have something in them.

BeholderSlayer

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1258
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #149 on: December 13, 2010, 11:26:47 AM »
If this is true, it leads to contradictions in the rules.  It allows for some creatures to fit the definitions of both True and Lesser Dragons (DW Kobolds specifically) by the Draconomicon definition itself.  It creates an extra definition of True Dragon that likewise doesn't match Dragons of Kyrnn or Dragon Magic... the Dragons of Kyrnn feat would work on Dragonwrought Kobolds (because they're True by that definition) and you could make a Dragonpact with a Dragonwrought Kobold (because they're true by that definition too) but by Draconomicon they're both lesser (do not advance by age categories) and true (get more powerful as they get older), despite the fact that Draconomicon clearly is stating that a dragon must be one or the other, not both.
Dragons of Krynn and Dragon Magic are not primary sources. They are trumped by the Draconomicon. For this reason, were this to come up in game, you would defer to the Draconomicon for purposes of determining whether a dragon is True. The purpose of both topics in DoK and DM are to explain the abilities themselves, not to adjudicate what qualifies as a true dragon. As such, if there ever was the question of "will the extra damage affect this foe" or "can I make a dragonpact with this dragon" you defer to the primary source of differentiation of dragon type, which is the Draconomicon. You do not use the other sources, because they are not primary sources for that purpose.

By the interpretation that "advance through age categories" simply means the English language version (they pass through age categories over time), these contradictions vanish.  They're simply True.
This does not mean it is correct, and is irrelevant because the primary source trumps secondary sources.

When you have two possible interpretations of a rule, one of which creates contradictions and one of which does not, the latter is the correct definition.
Based on what evidence?

Here's a hint: DoK and DM do not give "rules" for determining the differences between dragons. They give rules for other stuff. If the issue were to come up in game, you defer to the primary source and not the secondary. Why is this? Because no author can guarantee that later writings by different authors will be consistent with the primary source. However, these inconsistencies do not matter because the primary sources trumps, period. Later writings by different authors that are writing on different topics have literally no affect on the original.

Beholder:  You should already realize your definition has problems when your opening argument is "here's why we should ignore 2/3 of the sources on this topic."  Dragon Magic may be talking about magic pacts, but it's a pact that requires you to find a True Dragon in general, not some specific sub case of True Dragon.  Likewise, the Dragons of Kyrnn feat is a feat that lets you harm True Dragons... all of them, not a specific subset (though one could argue the subset is "dragons in Krynn" but even that leads to Kobolds being potentially multiple mutually exclusive types in that setting).  And looking at the MM as a source on this is absolutely foolish.  The MM only talks about "known True Dragons" indicating there could be others outside its definition... and its definition doesn't even work for White Dragons (since they're too small to match the "grow to over 100 feet" part).
It doesn't really matter which book you look at, any book with dragons will do. I'm not talking about the definition given in the MM. I am talking about how every...single....true....dragon....ever...(except the debated DWK) has age categories listed in its Advancement section as how they progress through RHD. This is not by chance, this is by design.

There is a valid interpretation that leads to no contradictions, no rules ignored.  No other interpretation does this.  Thus, that interpretation is correct.

JaronK
This logic is where your argument is flawed. This logic completely ignores the statement already quoted that primary sources trump secondary. It would not matter if 500 secondary source books said what these two say. All that matters is the primary source, based on book content and topic therein. This is a logical fallacy, it is called an "appeal to consistency."

When considering context, we must consider not only the words on the page. We must consider the topic at hand, the general topic of the book, when it was written, and what other sources are available to us at the time of authorship. In order to determine meaning from an ambiguous statement, we must determine what it means from available information. If this question were to be asked in 2003, the meaning would be clear. What does advance mean? Oh, look here in the MM, there's a definition for advancement. "Through age categories...hmmm oh, True Dragons have their age categories in their advancement section! So obvious!"

It really is quite simple when you consider what "context" means and remember that consistency carries no weight over utilizing the primary source.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2010, 11:41:46 AM by BeholderSlayer »
Hi Welcome
[spoiler]
Allow me to welcome you both with my literal words and with an active display of how much you fit in by being tone deaf, dumb, and uncritical of your babbling myself.[/spoiler]

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #150 on: December 13, 2010, 11:38:32 AM »
General rule: most recent printing of a rule trumps earlier printings.

Prove to me that draconomicon would be considered a primary source on the topic.  There are a lot of books about dragons.  As is, the primary source would be the Monster Manual ("The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions,"), not the Draconomicon.

This is a disagreement between multiple secondary sources.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

PhaedrusXY

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8022
  • Advanced Spambot
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #151 on: December 13, 2010, 11:41:50 AM »
Wasn't the draconomicon also 3.0? (I can't believe I'm wading into this clusterfuck...)
[spoiler]
A couple of water benders, a dike, a flaming arrow, and a few barrels of blasting jelly?

Sounds like the makings of a gay porn film.
...thanks
[/spoiler]

BeholderSlayer

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1258
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #152 on: December 13, 2010, 11:47:25 AM »
General rule: most recent printing of a rule trumps earlier printings.

Prove to me that draconomicon would be considered a primary source on the topic.  There are a lot of books about dragons.  As is, the primary source would be the Monster Manual ("The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions,"), not the Draconomicon.

This is a disagreement between multiple secondary sources.
Monster Manual topic: monsters in general. This is a primary source for some things like terms, and other things like monsters not more thoroughly described in other literature. As an example, Lords of Madness is the primary source on Mind Flayers and Beholders. Races of the Dragon is the primary source on kobolds. etc.
Draconomicon topic: dragons
therein lies a subtopic called "The Different Types of Dragons" which describes the differences between True and Lesser Dragons.

No other book covers the dragon in as much detail as the Draconomicon. Various "Dragons of X" books describes dragons from particular campaign settings and how they fit in, but does not go into the detail of dragons themselves like does the Draconomicon.

In order to determine what is a primary source, consider the topic. The Monster Manual's topic is the general: monsters. The Draconomicon's topic is the specific: dragons.
Hi Welcome
[spoiler]
Allow me to welcome you both with my literal words and with an active display of how much you fit in by being tone deaf, dumb, and uncritical of your babbling myself.[/spoiler]

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #153 on: December 13, 2010, 12:03:03 PM »
1)Official errata are the highest point of the hierarchy of determining what is correct.
2)It's written in official errata that the MM is the primary source for monsters.
3)True dragons are monsters included in the MM.
4)Therefore, the primary source for true dragons is the MM.

The core three rulebooks occupy a special place in the hierarchy of precedence relative to other rulebooks.  Specifically, the top.  That's what being a primary source means.  You can argue and bitch about it all you like, but you can't get around that
Quote
The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

I have considered the topic.  It is a "monster".  If I considered it to be a "PC race", I'd look up the PHB as a primary source instead.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

BeholderSlayer

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1258
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #154 on: December 13, 2010, 12:06:15 PM »
1)Official errata are the highest point of the hierarchy of determining what is correct.
2)It's written in official errata that the MM is the primary source for monsters.
3)True dragons are monsters included in the MM.
4)Therefore, the primary source for true dragons is the MM.

The core three rulebooks occupy a special place in the hierarchy of precedence relative to other rulebooks.  Specifically, the top.  That's what being a primary source means.  You can argue and bitch about it all you like, but you can't get around that
Quote
The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

I have considered the topic.  It is a "monster".  If I considered it to be a "PC race", I'd look up the PHB as a primary source instead.
So, then, DWK are not true dragons, and nor are many other universally accepted True Dragons. Gotcha.

I am not "bitching," I am applying the definition of a primary source in its exact form. The core rulebooks were given as examples in the errata. They are not the only form of primary source.

Remember, specific trumps general. The MM is the primary source for "monsters," the Draconomicon is the primary source for "dragons."

Trying to get me worked up by lobbing words like "bitching" just makes your position all the more weaker. Watching you guys scramble to try and save your precious DWK has got me about as calm as ever. All the evidence and logic is in my corner.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2010, 12:12:14 PM by BeholderSlayer »
Hi Welcome
[spoiler]
Allow me to welcome you both with my literal words and with an active display of how much you fit in by being tone deaf, dumb, and uncritical of your babbling myself.[/spoiler]

snakeman830

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3494
  • BG's resident furry min/maxxer
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #155 on: December 13, 2010, 12:18:50 PM »
No.  What you are saying is "the other books don't agree with my interpretation of this sentence, so they don't count despite the fact they agree perfectly with another perfectly legitimate reading of the same exact sentence."  Sorry Beholderslayer, but you are just making a fool of yourself when confronted with evidence against your view.

Besides, we don't need to go any further than the Draconomicon to say DWK's are True Dragons.  They are Dragons and thus MUST be Lesser or True Dragons.  They have Age categories and therefore CANNOT be Lesser.  Ergo, they are True Dragons.
I am constantly amazed by how many DM's ban Tomb of Battle.  The book doesn't even exist!

Quotes:[spoiler]
By yes, she means no.
That explains so much about my life.
hiicantcomeupwithacharacterthatisntaghostwhyisthatamijustretardedorsomething
Why would you even do this? It hurts my eyes and looks like you ate your keyboard before suffering an attack of explosive diarrhea.
[/spoiler]

If using Genesis to hide your phylactry, set it at -300 degrees farenheit.  See how do-gooders fare with a liquid atmosphere.

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #156 on: December 13, 2010, 12:28:27 PM »
Anyway, since you're so fixated on the draconomicon quote, let's go through it.  Here it is, for reference.
Quote

Let's go through it bit by bit.

Quote
Cool beans.  Breaking this down.

* "Dragon" refers to a bunch of different kind of creatures, which may not be giant flying creatures with breath weapons.
* This book deals with ten different kinds of "true dragons".  Specifically, the ten kinds of "true dragon" in the monster manual.
* "True Dragons" are defined as "those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older." In context, 'creatures' probably is being treated as a subset of 'dragons' here.  Cool.

Quote
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.
OK, so there are more than 10 kinds of true dragons.  Those that have been already published are in an index in the back.

Quote
Other creatures of the dragon type
OK, so now we're talking about dragons that aren't true dragons.  I'll refer to these as "False Dragons" for the moment.
Quote
that do not advance through age categories
OK, so this is a subset of "false dragons"
Quote
are referred to as lesser dragons
OK, so our venn diagram looks like this
[spoiler][/spoiler]
Continuing onward.
Quote
(which should not be taken to mean that they are necessarily less formidable than true dragons).
OK, so the status as a lesser dragon does not imply a lack of combat prowess.  Got it.

Quote
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 rulebook or accessory.
So the monster manual has a few lesser dragons as well, and there's a big list of them.  Cool.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

BeholderSlayer

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1258
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #157 on: December 13, 2010, 12:29:27 PM »
No.  What you are saying is "the other books don't agree with my interpretation of this sentence, so they don't count despite the fact they agree perfectly with another perfectly legitimate reading of the same exact sentence."  Sorry Beholderslayer, but you are just making a fool of yourself when confronted with evidence against your view.
I am not using fiat to say they don't count, I am using an exact quote from the errata. There is a big difference. If I were merely saying they don't count with no evidence to back that up, you would be correct.

Besides, we don't need to go any further than the Draconomicon to say DWK's are True Dragons.  They are Dragons and thus MUST be Lesser or True Dragons.  They have Age categories and therefore CANNOT be Lesser.  Ergo, they are True Dragons.
This is ignoring the context, and is circular reasoning. Context is just as important as the words.
Hi Welcome
[spoiler]
Allow me to welcome you both with my literal words and with an active display of how much you fit in by being tone deaf, dumb, and uncritical of your babbling myself.[/spoiler]

archangel.arcanis

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
    • Email
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #158 on: December 13, 2010, 12:32:52 PM »
So TML is the DWK Rand or Logain?  :lmao

Sorry I couldn't pass up a "false dragon" pun.
Clerics and Druids are like the 4 and 2 in 42. Together they are the answer to the ultimate question in D&D.
Retire the character before the DM smacks you with the Table as the book will feel totally inadequate now.-Hazren

Kajhera

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1167
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #159 on: December 13, 2010, 12:33:27 PM »
- Dragonwrought Kobolds do not actually gain particular benefits for advancing between their age categories. Rather, they gain aging effects at Middle-Aged, Old, Venerable, like everyone else.
- Therefore, kobold aging descriptions are purely a matter of fluff, and they do not have age categories as dragons do (though I admit it says they use the same life cycles as dragons; that's why this is slightly questionable).
- Therefore, they are perfectly capable of being lesser dragons.

I offer this as an interpretation of the rules that allows a DM to define true dragons excluding kobolds without leading to a contradiction, not as the rules as they are in fact.