Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons

[bearsarebrown]

@skydragonknight, that's obviously talking about non-DWK.

[Nachofan99]

@skydragonknight: I think you've actually helped DWK a lot with your quote.  Tell me, which category do DWK fit in?  The most obvious one is "True-Dragon."  They have lost the subtypes that other kobolds have, so you know they aren't the same anymore.  DWK's aren't spellscales or dragonborn or dragon-descended.  "True-Dragon" is the only one that makes sense.

[skydragonknight]

Are dragonwrought kobolds under the umbrella of "kobolds"?

[Nachofan99]

Are dragonwrought kobolds under the umbrella of "kobolds"?

I don't mean to be cute 

Are dragonwrought kobolds under the umbrella of "dragons"?

[skydragonknight]

Are dragonwrought kobolds under the umbrella of "kobolds"?

I don't mean to be cute 

Are dragonwrought kobolds under the umbrella of "dragons"?

Dragons are not necessarily true, so it doesn't contradict my quote. Now before you go off on a rail from that, answer my question. I'll forgive a breach in etiquette for answering a question with a question, but not for ignoring the first question altogether. ^_^

[Nachofan99]

I don't see why they can't be both.

Nothing says that True Dragons can't have other types/subtypes, or are restricted to "one" type/subtype/supertype/"whatever" - AFAIK.   Oh I hope I can also add "you know what I mean?" because really, I'm not trying to be super serial.  I think we can make this a relaxed debate on an issue that, more or less, will always come down to DM interpretation and the vagueness of the rules so I can't get upset over that.

Oh, and for purposes of that section of the text in RotD - they only had "True Dragons" as one of the listed options.  Kobolds isn't even on the list.  Of course, I'm not saying that counts for anything.  You brought up that section, though.

[skydragonknight]

Then dragonwrought kobolds, being themselves also kobolds, inherit any text regarding kobolds, except for specific exceptions such as those listed in the feat itself and those scattered throughout Races of the Dragon.

Therefore, given my quote from "Other Races", True Dragons are considered an "other race" to kobolds. There is no exclusion of dragonwrought kobolds mentioned.

Under True Dragon (how they view True Dragons)
"In the presence of an actual dragon, kobolds are servile,
doing anything required of them."

There is no exclusion of dragonwrought kobolds in this statement. Therefore, using context, dragonwrought kobolds are not true dragons, unless you're willing to argue that actual dragons =/= true dragons.

This is RAW. "It obviously was intended for non-dragonwrought kobolds" is an RAI statement. I therefore dismiss it.

[Nachofan99]

PG. 39 Races of the Dragon states: "Kobolds are humanoids with the dragonblood and reptilian subtype."

PG. 100 Races of the Dragon states: "Your type is dragon rather than humanoid, and you lose the dragonblood subtype."

DWK are not Kobolds; they are DWK.  They are a specific exception.

[bearsarebrown]

@sdk, RAW includes context. The entire chapter differentiates between Kobolds and DWK, even when it is irrelevant.

[Havok4]

DWK are dragons by type, so they would have to be servile to themselves by skydragonknight's logic, which sounds moderately creepy.

[Nachofan99]

I am definitely servile to myself i.e. I do what I want!

[Kajhera]

Other kobolds are most certainly servile to dragonwrought. Who's claiming otherwise now? 

[skydragonknight]

Oh, and for purposes of that section of the text in RotD - they only had "True Dragons" as one of the listed options.  Kobolds isn't even on the list.  Of course, I'm not saying that counts for anything.  You brought up that section, though.

Sorry I missed this. Kobold isn't on the list because it's talking about "other races". I'll mention Dragonwrought kobold isn't on the list either, although I'm willing to dismiss that.

But no, dragonwrought kobolds are a type of kobold much like gray elves are a type of elf.
If DWKs weren't kobolds, they couldn't do fun things like the (Greater) Draconic Rite of Passage:

Draconic Rite of Passage
The Draconic Rite of Passage awakens the sorcerous power
within the blood of kobolds.
Prerequisites: Only kobolds can undergo the Draconic
Rite of Passage. A kobold requires no one else to perform
the rite; it is a solitary activity.

Note that that was the "Appeal to the Power Gamer" fallacy. I believe it's fairly self-explanatory that DWKs are a type of kobold and a type of dragon (true or not). I just want those who argue "DWKs are not kobolds" to have some personal investment in retracting that statement.  

@sdk, RAW includes context. The entire chapter differentiates between Kobolds and DWK, even when it is irrelevant.

Correct. My argument is also context-based. And if the entire chapter has differentiations between the two subraces of kobold, then why is there no differentiation here? Unless there's an explicate exception (and they weren't afraid to use them), dragonwrought kobolds are still, at their core, kobolds.

[snakeman830]

Not to mention that the entire section that quote is found in is undeniably fluff.  It isn't too hard to believe that a Kobold will get along well with a Dwarf, but that isn't what that section says.  Kobolds have no racial ability like

Subserviant to Dragons (Ex): Whenever a Kobold is in the presence of a Dragon, they do whatever the Dragon tells them to do.

So, anything that says something to that effect must be fluff as it has no mechanical impact.

@Beholderslayer: I have not seen JaronK and TML change their arguments at all.  Consistency is necessary for Logical Argument.  That said, they have still provided more rules quotes than you supporting their stance, frequently finding multiples in seperate books as well as dictionary definitions and even quoting parts from the same paragraph you're using that you're ignoring.  Meanwhile, you keep changing what the "primary source" is and ignoring any evidence that goes against your argument.  As an example of moving goalposts, you switched from using Draconomicon to the MM as the "primary source" as well as claiming to be following the rules while throwing 80% of them out the window (as a rough estimate) because they lead to a conclusion that you are arguing against.  Your reasoning for this is that they aren't the primary source.  While this isn't entirely true (you've thrown out arguments from the exact paragraph you were holding so closely to, for example) the Primary/Secondary rule only comes into play when there is a disagreement and none of the sources have disagreed with each other, you are simply claiming that they do because you apparently don't like the result.

[The_Laughing_Man]

PG. 39 Races of the Dragon states: "Kobolds are humanoids with the dragonblood and reptilian subtype."

PG. 100 Races of the Dragon states: "Your type is dragon rather than humanoid, and you lose the dragonblood subtype."

DWK are not Kobolds; they are DWK.  They are a specific exception.

Kobolds == Humanoid (dragonblood, reptilian)
DWK == Dragon (reptilian)

"Monsters by type (and subtype) ... (Reptilian): kobold, lizardfolk, troglodyte." MM 3.5 p.5

Right?

[snakeman830]

I still don't see an issue with a DWK being a True Dragon and a Kobold simultaneously.  As I pointed out, the part with them being subserviant is fluff (most of the "Races of" books is fluff).  Even if it wasn't, that kobold would just do whatever he says.  Not that big an issue.

[Nachofan99]

Right.  It doesn't even matter.  If anything it only makes them better!

Also Laughing Man, Races of the Dragon clearly replaces certain features about Kobolds that are in the Monster Manual, so you can't just use 1 source and be certain about anything with 3.5.  Granted, it doesn't even matter.  Also "True Dragons" don't even appear in that sidebar so what use is it?

[SorO_Lost]

1.

This is not correct.  Incarnum Dragons, Fang Dragons, and Rust Dragons have no such extra immunity beyond those inherent in the Dragon type.

2.

Short version: The only consistent thing about accepted True Dragons is having the Dragon type and 12 age categories. All other metrics have at least one (often implicit; due to a lack of a feature in a statblock or something, rather than a line explicitly stating, "Despite being a True Dragon, this creature lacks feature X") exception, thus setting a precedent that the DWK can follow and still be considered a True Dragon under.

3.

Some fuel for the fire:

Every true dragon is immune to at least one type of elemental energy (acid, cold, electricity, or fire),....

It explicitly calls out what energy types just above that side bar.
Planar Dragons presented in Draco. and their listed immunities that don't fit:

Look, I can name three people who never paid attention to the arguments but love to jump in and claim kobolds are.
Let's see.
A.

See also

I can name several varieties of True Dragon that have no more potential to use arcane magic than most any given creature printed-as in, they don't have any innate ability and must turn to class levels.

I believe you scraping from those exception > rules posts.

Why?
1. Lack of any rules quote or idea of what you are talking about. Gem, Planar, Lung. Three words would have made is sound like you did some personal research.
2. X dragon lacks this. THERE FOR ALL TRUE DRAGONS DO NOT NEED IT!. Big sign right there.
3. Saying it is illogical. Take a programming class, or just plain read a book on it w/e.
4. You only refute a third of my point but consider it the perfect rebuttal.

The True Dragon entry states all gain spellcasting and most gain additional spell choices. All inherited types have that unless explicable written otherwise. This is D&D's rules. This is object based logic used in programming. Fact is, that method never had a point. Now what happened to waiting till page 6?

B.
BtW, your exception based logic fails even if you follow it's premise and not D&D rules. All listed TDs gain DR, SR, and HD via Aging. There is no exception to those three traits.

In short, I already said it.

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.

**

New find:

1. By context, Actual Dragon = True Dragon
Also by context, Kobolds aren't Actual Dragons.
Therefore, Kobolds aren't true Dragons.

(This is my first DWK argument, so I apologize if this is already well known)

Now it's not well known (more ignored material infact). When I told JaronK about it he called it fluff and ignored it. because fluff doesn't mean anyth...

I strongly disagree.  I think it's very clearly intended by the authors of that book that DW Kobolds be True Dragons.  They introduced fluff to support it (Kobolds formed from the blood of the first True Dragons, plus the constant references to how much kobolds wanted to be counted as proper dragons).

Oh right. See ignoring everything that disagrees with you.

***

Srsly this thread gets a lot of posts. I can't keep up. I eat, shower, work, bed your sister, sleep, and the thread jumps five or six pages. If I directly asked someone something and missed it, point me back to it via PM.

[skydragonknight]

Although, if DWK are True Dragons, they'd also be subserviant to each other, which would make for interesting relationships....

[snakeman830]

Although, if DWK are True Dragons, they'd also be subserviant to each other, which would make for interesting relationships....

BDSM?

@Soro: If there are exceptions to the definition, then nothing is stopping Dragonwrought Kobolds from being another exception.  You keep saying "All True Dragons have X" and then we present you with a universally accepted True Dragon that lacks X, despite not having a specific note on the matter.  Likewise, we can continue to argue that dragonwrought Kobolds are another exception, since apparently we don't need rules text saying that they are.

So, in order to claim that Dragonwrought Kobolds are NOT True Dragons, we need to eliminate any exceptions from the definition we use of a True Dragon (exceptions, of course, referring to the universally accepted True Dragons) or else it can easily be claimed that Dragonwrought Kobolds are just another exception.  Once you can get this through your apparently very thick skull, then we can make real progress on eliminating Dragonwrought Kobolds as True Dragons.  So long as one exception among the UATDs exists for the definition, nothing is stopping DWK's from being another.

While there is no UATD that does not gain HD via aging, there also is no rule saying they must do so either.  Just because 47 rectangles I show you also happen to be squares does not mean the 48th will also be a square.

DR and SR I'll get back to you on.