Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons

[archangel.arcanis]

Everything under that header, since it is all one section.

As an aside, does anyone else find it odd that Draconomicon mentions Damage Reduction and Spell Resistance under the section titled "Immunities"?

That is exactly where I was going with my question. I did find it odd, I'm guessing they intended it to have "and defenses" but didn't want it to be identical to the descriptive header above that on the same page.

[JaronK]

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this: the MM is only talking about the particular true dragons in it for one paragraph. Then it changes topics to "all true dragons." The paragraph of "all true dragons" can be used as a suitable description of ALL true dragons.

Just in one paragraph?  What about the paragraph before that?  You know, the one that says they're all winged?  Is that talking about all true dragons, even though almost all Lung Dragons (and a few others, such as Brown Dragons) lack them?  Hey, what about the later part that talks about claw attacks and wing attacks?  Some Lung dragons don't even have claws, let along wings.  Clearly, the claim that it's only talking about those particular true dragons "for one paragraph" is completely nonsensical.

Nobody has "proved" my assertions wrong. How is it wrong? Enlighten me. So far nobody has proved that I am wrong at all, they may think they have, but they haven't.

I proved a while back that you were using an Affirming the Consequent Fallacy ( http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/affirming-the-consequent ) in your primary argument.  You remember, the one that you said was your whole argument, and even quoted it a second time to be clear?  That one?  You claimed that because "advancing by HD" counted as being "more powerful" that being "more powerful" must always mean the same thing as "advancing by HD."  Specifically, you said the two were equal.   Thus, you were claiming that if A->B, B->A.  That's simply false.  

And because of this, your assertion that More Powerful=Advancing by HD was proved wrong.  Do I have to go back and reference that argument?  And since that was the jumping off point for your entire argument, the whole thing was trashed.

JaronK

[archangel.arcanis]

Jaron I figure you probably have missed it since it is 2 pages back now. But today I asked for a full write up of your definition of TD. I have done the same from Beholder and I will do my best to poke holes in each as well as get a firm understanding of any implications of each.

[JaronK]

Jaron I figure you probably have missed it since it is 2 pages back now. But today I asked for a full write up of your definition of TD. I have done the same from Beholder and I will do my best to poke holes in each as well as get a firm understanding of any implications of each.

Okay, here goes.

There's a lot of confusion about the True Dragon type, mostly because when it was created it wasn't terribly important.  At the time of the MM's printing being a True Dragon was just one monster category you could be in, much like Dire Animals or Dinosaurs.  Nothing in the rules cared whether you were one or weren't, so it wasn't necessary to have a proper definition and the designers saw no need for a (True) subtype on dragons (if they had, this would all be easy).  Instead, True Dragons were loosely defined in that book... the book was only talking about the dragons listed in itself.  This is obvious from the line about "known True Dragons" which implies there might be other unknown ones, as well as the fact that it mentions all dragons being winged (when many aren't) and all true dragons being metallic or chromatic (when virtually all True Dragons found outside the Monster Manual are neither).  Other books added dragons to the True Dragon category, making the occasional references back to the MM entry because there wasn't need to reprint the exact claw damage tables or exact age category times. 

But then a few books started having a need to have a strict mechanical definition of True Dragons, since they had mechanics that required being one as a prerequisite.  Dragons of Kyrnn has a feat that requires being a True Dragon to take the feat, and only works on True Dragons.  Draconomicon has True Dragon only PrCs.  Dragon Magic has Dragon Pacts, where one person must not be a True Dragon and the other must be one.  And Dragons of Eberron has abilities available only to True Dragons, some of which are a bit powerful... so it became necessary to have strict rules on what, precisely, was a True Dragon.  Clearly the MM stuff wouldn't work, as that had already said it was only about "known true dragons" and the description there didn't actually match virtually any other True Dragon printed in any other book.  So each of those new books had to use a consistent definition.  Here's what each of those books said.

Dragons of Krynn, after saying the feat only works on true dragons, says "true dragon(a creature of the dragon type that possesses an age category).

Dragon Magic, after saying you have to find a true dragon to make the pact with, says "true dragon (a creature of the dragon type with 12 age categories)"

Draconomicon, in the sidebar on page 4 that defines true dragons for the rest of the book, says "True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older."

And Dragons of Eberron just states that it uses the rules from Draconomicon.

Now, note that these are the only times the game is clearly defining the term for rules purposes.  The Monster Manual is only talking about what's in its own book.  Draconomicon even says "For the most part, this book concerns itself with the ten varieties of true dragon described in the Monster Manual" so we know that when it's talking about True Dragons in general it just means those (but it has that clarification right underneath that defines what a True Dragon is, so you're not confused).  But here we have actual solid definitions.  None of them contradict each other (so primary-secondary sources is irrelevant).  And putting these together, the definition we get is the following:

"A True Dragon is a creature of the dragon type that becomes more powerful as it gets older, and has 12 age categories." 

That's nice and simple.  Do Dragonwrought Kobolds qualify?  Absolutely.  They certainly have 12 age categories (given on page 39 of Races of the Dragon).  They're of the dragon type (The Dragonwrought Feat does this explicitly).  And they get more powerful as they get older (they get a total of +3 to all mental stats, and DMG page 170 specifically states that characters with higher stats are "high powered characters.").  For further evidence of what "more powerful" means (I can't believe I actually have to show this) try an SRD search for the word "powerful."  You'll see it's basically following the dictionary definition, and the majority of the time in context it could not possibly mean "advances by HD" by any reasonable reading of the text.

So, why the confusion?  Well, first off you've got the fact that Draconomicon spends pages and pages talking about the True Dragons in the Monster Manual, but does so as if it could be talking about all True Dragons, even those outside the Monster Manual.  If you missed the bit on page 4 that specifically says it's primarily talking about the Monster Manual 10, it's easy to get confused on this point.  But if you read the sidebar completely, it's clear that the definition in the sidebar is the actual definition to be used when figuring out if something counts as a true dragon, while the descriptions everywhere else are just talking about the Monster Manual dragons.  The other obvious clue is that a lot of what's said outside that sidebar doesn't apply to a huge number of True Dragons... for example, it says all true dragons are immune to at least one energy type, even though Chaos Dragons (from that same book) are not.

Likewise, somehow some folks are thinking that the Monster Manual is talking about all true dragons, not just the ones in that book.  But notice how few dragons actually fit the Monster Manual's definition.  It states the following things about all true dragons (and in parenthesis, I'll leave in which True Dragons don't match).

*True Dragons have wings (all but one Lung Dragon, Brown Dragons)
*True Dragons are reptilelike (Li Lung dragons)
*True Dragons are among the most powerful creatures in the world (This doesn't apply to any of them, since only two are epic creatures and there's plenty of stronger things out there.  But it does apply if you're only looking in the Monster Manual)
*True Dragons are all chromatic or metallic (Lung Dragons, Gem Dragons, Planar Dragons, and IIRC a few Faerun Dragons)
*True Dragons only get to more than 100 feet long after attaining the status of Great Wyrm (Epic Dragons, which are bigger than that from nearly wyrmling status)
*A True Dragon attacks with its powerful claws and bite (Pan Lungs, which don't even have claws)
*True Dragons cast spells as a sorcerer (Lung Dragons, Incarnum Dragons, Gem Dragons)

We've just eliminated over 2/3s of the True Dragons.  Obviously, this is not a definition of True Dragons.  You'll find the same thing happens with the general descriptions of True Dragons in Draconomicon... but not in that sidebar, which is actually giving a definition.  I'm not saying you should ignore either book, but that what they say should be read in context.  If one's talking about "known true dragons" then that doesn't mean every true dragon out there.  If one says it's mostly just talking about Monster Manual true dragons, then one shouldn't assume it's talking about every true dragon either.  And certainly, claiming it's talking about all true dragons in the paragraphs where it hasn't specifically said "known true dragons" is silly... it says they're all winged and reptile like in the first sentence of the paragraph before it, and that alone would eliminate all lung dragons if we followed it as a definition.

Note also that Dragon Magic was written later, which means the summary "a dragon with 12 age categories" was intended to be a summation of the Draconomicon rules.  This actually works, because all dragons with 12 age categories also get more powerful as they age, so there's no contradiction there.

The other point of confusion is targeted on Draconomicon's page 4 sidebar definition of Lesser Dragons, by taking a specific interpretation of "advance through age categories," claiming that it means "Advancement: by Age", then saying that anything that doesn't do this must be Lesser, and therefor can't be True (implying that being lesser trumps being true).  This is false on a number of levels.

First of all, if we read the sidebar, it actually says the following (I'm cutting out irrelevant text, but feel free to read it over in context to confirm):

"True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older...  Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance though age categories are referred to as lesser dragons."

Now, reading this we can see that first you check to see if something is a True Dragon, then if it's not (if it's an "other creature of the dragon type") you check if it's lesser.  If something somehow got more powerful as it grew older but also didn't advance through age categories, it would still not be an "other creature of the dragon type that do[es] not advance through age categories."  It's not an "other creature" at all.  So even looking at the "advance through age categories" is doing it wrong, if you've already established that they're a True Dragon.

Second, it assumes "advance through age categories" must be the same as the keywords "Advancement: by age."  This is equivalent to saying that "powerful attacks" is the same as the keywords "power attack."  It's not.  The fact that Dragon Magic summarizes the definition of True Dragon later on as just being "a creature of the dragon type with 12 age categories" indicates that "advances through age categories" just means that it passes through age categories as it ages, nothing more.  All creatures with age categories would advance through them.

Third, it then claims that because of the "other" statement that we had to ignore just to get to this definition, a dragon can't be lesser and true, therefor it's lesser if it qualifies for lesser and can't be true.  But this is backwards.  That same "other" line clearly states that if you're a true dragon (and thus not an "other creature of the dragon type") you don't even look at the lesser dragon category, so actually being True trumps lesser.  Furthermore, considering the other places where True Dragons are referenced don't even reference lesser dragons at all, clearly what matters more is whether you meet the definition of "True."  There is no evidence anywhere in the rules that Lesser trumps True, and everything points the opposite way. 

Fourth, if you read it that way, you get a bunch of contradictions.  Kobolds would count as both lesser (via the "do not advance by age categories" version) and true (they get more powerful as they get older) in Draconomicon.  They would count as True in Dragon Magic and Dragons of Kyrnn.  And since Dragons of Eberron just inherits from Draconomicon, they'd be both Lesser and True in that book as well.  In any rules interpretation situation, if there are two possible readings of the rules, where one fits with other rules and the other creates a bunch of contradictions, the one that fits is the correct one.

So that's four reasons why that interpretation is completely nonsensical.

So why does this get debated at all?  Because Dragons of Eberron decided that all the PC options for being a True Dragon were really weak (for the most part, that's true, mostly due to the LA and racial HD) and decided to buff True Dragons significantly.  And while that book was being written, another book (Races of the Dragon) was being written where the authors thought it would be cool to have Kobolds actually count as miniature True Dragons (read over the fluff in that book, it's obvious they were aiming for it).  And the two groups weren't talking to one another, so suddenly it overpowered Kobolds like crazy.  But just because something's broken doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Now to be clear, none of this is saying "you should totally let me play a dragonwrought kobold in your game and let me break it!"  This is just a discussion on what RAW says, nothing more.  I'd generally recommend not allowing any of the Dragons of Eberron nonsense in most games unless you really wanted a super high powered game.



TL;DR version:

Dragons of Krynn, after saying the feat only works on true dragons, says "true dragon(a creature of the dragon type that possesses an age category).

Dragon Magic, after saying you have to find a true dragon to make the pact with, says "true dragon (a creature of the dragon type with 12 age categories)"

Draconomicon, in the sidebar on page 4 that defines true dragons for the rest of the book, says "True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older."

So a True Dragon is a Creature of the Dragon type that gets more powerful as it gets older and has 12 age categories.  That's it.  Clean, precise, and with no contradictions or rules made up out of nowhere.

JaronK

[skydragonknight]

Races of the Dragon page 69-72. I basically copy-pasted the rules text so the context is present:

[spoiler]HALF-DRAGONS BEYOND
THE MONSTER MANUAL
The half-dragon template presents special attacks and
special qualities for half-dragon versions of the ten varieties
of true dragons described in the Monster Manual. The information
here expands that list to include all true dragons
published in DUNGEONS & DRAGONS products to date. It
supersedes any other previously published information
on this topic (such as from Draconomicon).Some dragons lack a breath weapon, an immunity, or
both.all true dragons
published in DUNGEONS & DRAGONS products to date.
It supersedes any other previously published information
on this topic (such as from Draconomicon)."

Races of the Dragon is D&D product up to the date of Races of the Dragon. Dragonwrought Kobolds are not on this list. Ergo, Dragonwrought Kobolds are explicitly not true dragons. Since Races of the Dragon is the primary source for dragonwrought kobolds in general, this is pretty solid, imho.

And the second line highlighted solves the immunity gap:
"Some dragons lack a breath weapon, an immunity, or
both."

It goes on to describe what benefits half-dragons of those types get. But basically breath weapons and immunities are not requirements to being a true dragon. Good to know in general.

[archangel.arcanis]

Races of the Dragon page 69-72. I basically copy-pasted the rules text so the context is present:

[spoiler]HALF-DRAGONS BEYOND
THE MONSTER MANUAL
The half-dragon template presents special attacks and
special qualities for half-dragon versions of the ten varieties
of true dragons described in the Monster Manual. The information
here expands that list to include all true dragons
published in DUNGEONS & DRAGONS products to date. It
supersedes any other previously published information
on this topic (such as from Draconomicon).Some dragons lack a breath weapon, an immunity, or
both.all true dragons
published in DUNGEONS & DRAGONS products to date.
It supersedes any other previously published information
on this topic (such as from Draconomicon)."

Races of the Dragon is D&D product up to the date of Races of the Dragon. Dragonwrought Kobolds are not on this list. Ergo, Dragonwrought Kobolds are explicitly not true dragons. Since Races of the Dragon is the primary source for dragonwrought kobolds in general, this is pretty solid, imho.

And the second line highlighted solves the immunity gap:
"Some dragons lack a breath weapon, an immunity, or
both."

It goes on to describe what benefits half-dragons of those types get. But basically breath weapons and immunities are not requirements to being a true dragon. Good to know in general.

Best argument I've seen so far.

[snakeman830]

I think that's better evidence that the designers didn't know what they were doing more than that DWK's aren't True Dragons.  Which, from what we've seen on these boards, is nothing new.

[archangel.arcanis]

I think that's better evidence that the designers didn't know what they were doing more than that DWK's aren't True Dragons.  Which, from what we've seen on these boards, is nothing new.

Well I figured it was understood that the designers had no clue what the hell they were doing.

[JaronK]

That's the list of types of Half Dragon you can be.  When Dragonwrought Kobolds become dragonwrought, they chose a true dragon type (representing their ancestry) as noted on page 39 of that same book.  Of course they wouldn't be on that list... a Half dragon human created from the union of a Dragonwrought Kobold (that was descended from red dragons) and a human would be a Half Red Dragon Human.

Of course Dragonwrought Kobolds wouldn't be on that list.  It would make no sense to put them there.  Look at the context!   It's actually very clear in context what's going on here.

Furthermore, Kobolds themselves aren't True Dragons.  Only Kobolds with a specific feat are.  Dragonwrought Kobolds are a weird category... they're not a race of their own, just a special version of an existing race.  It's definitely not surprising for them to be there.  If there was a wizard spell that just said "you become a True Dragon" I wouldn't expect an entry on that list to say "Wizards that cast 'become true dragon'" either.

JaronK

[Nachofan99]

Not only that, but why reprint DWK in the very book that they come from?  Seems like a very simple oversight and not conclusive, at all.  Especially since the entire section is really talking about Half-Dragons.

It "...supersedes...information on this topic."  So when using Half-Dragon template, only, is when this information supersedes other sources...hardly conclusive at all.

[skydragonknight]

That's the list of types of Half Dragon you can be.  When Dragonwrought Kobolds become dragonwrought, they chose a true dragon type (representing their ancestry) as noted on page 39 of that same book.  Of course they wouldn't be on that list... a Half dragon human created from the union of a Dragonwrought Kobold (that was descended from red dragons) and a human would be a Half Red Dragon Human.

Of course Dragonwrought Kobolds wouldn't be on that list.  It would make no sense to put them there.  Look at the context!   It's actually very clear in context what's going on here.

Furthermore, Kobolds themselves aren't True Dragons.  Only Kobolds with a specific feat are.  Dragonwrought Kobolds are a weird category... they're not a race of their own, just a special version of an existing race.  It's definitely not surprising for them to be there.  If there was a wizard spell that just said "you become a True Dragon" I wouldn't expect an entry on that list to say "Wizards that cast 'become true dragon'" either.

JaronK

So basically, you're arguing intent in a RAW discussion?

"That only applies to Half Dragons" is logically equivalent to "That only applies to dragonpacts." Either they both apply to only one or they both apply to everything. No double standards.

[Kajhera]

Oddly we've had the breeding question of half-dragon kobold + dark whisper gnome wight come up in game before.

Which is generally not a thing that should happen. But sometimes things that should not happen do.

[JaronK]

So basically, you're arguing intent in a RAW discussion?

"That only applies to Half Dragons" is logically equivalent to "That only applies to dragonpacts." Either they both apply to only one or they both apply to everything. No double standards.

It's not about intent, it's about mechanical implementation.  It's saying that, as a half dragon, you have your choice of the following True Dragons to be your ancestry.  Since Dragonwrought Kobolds also end up just having the ancestry of another True Dragon, there's no reason a Half Dragon would have "Dragonwrought Kobold" as its ancestry dragon.  There is thus an obvious reason why they wouldn't be in that particular list.  For purposes of Half Dragon ancestry, a Dragonwrought Kobold with Black Dragon ancestry is the same as a Black Dragon.  So in a way, Dragonwrought Kobolds are on the list... as every other True Dragon listed.

However, there's no reason in particular to remove any give True Dragon from the Dragon Magic list, so that logic would not apply, and thus is not logically equivalent.

Further, note that there's a number of True Dragons not on that list.  For example, Dark Black Dragons.  Or any other templated True Dragon.  That's a list of base races which are True Dragons.  Kobolds, the base race, are not True Dragons.

JaronK

[The_Laughing_Man]

That is a lot of text and references LaughingMan. I wanted to point out that there is an error though. You said Draco. doesn't mention the immunities section but it does:

RULES: DRAGON IMMUNITIES
Every kind of true dragon has immunity to at least one type of
energy, as noted in the Monster Manual.

Obviously this is a clarification of the MM

I gather that in Draconomicon that quote only clarifies the immunities for the 10 MM dragons as it mostly will be discussing about them. I think that I did not say that Draconomicon does not mention immunities, but if I gave that impression, apologies, it was not intended.

Races of the Dragon page 69-72. I basically copy-pasted the rules text so the context is present:

...

Focus is on two lines: "The information
here expands that list to include all true dragons
published in DUNGEONS & DRAGONS products to date.
It supersedes any other previously published information
on this topic (such as from Draconomicon)."

Races of the Dragon is D&D product up to the date of Races of the Dragon. Dragonwrought Kobolds are not on this list. Ergo, Dragonwrought Kobolds are explicitly not true dragons. Since Races of the Dragon is the primary source for dragonwrought kobolds in general, this is pretty solid, imho.

And the second line highlighted solves the immunity gap:
"Some dragons lack a breath weapon, an immunity, or
both."

It goes on to describe what benefits half-dragons of those types get. But basically breath weapons and immunities are not requirements to being a true dragon. Good to know in general.

Must say, bravo skydragonknight for finding that piece of information. I must read through that book again.

[JaronK]

But basically breath weapons and immunities are not requirements to being a true dragon. Good to know in general.

Right, these are not requirements because the sections that say all true dragons get them are not sections giving requirements for being a true dragon (definitions), but rather talking about what the MM dragons get.  This is kinda what I've been saying all along...

[BeholderSlayer]

I proved a while back that you were using an Affirming the Consequent Fallacy ( http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/affirming-the-consequent ) in your primary argument.  You remember, the one that you said was your whole argument, and even quoted it a second time to be clear?  That one?  You claimed that because "advancing by HD" counted as being "more powerful" that being "more powerful" must always mean the same thing as "advancing by HD."  Specifically, you said the two were equal.   Thus, you were claiming that if A->B, B->A.  That's simply false.  

And because of this, your assertion that More Powerful=Advancing by HD was proved wrong.  Do I have to go back and reference that argument?  And since that was the jumping off point for your entire argument, the whole thing was trashed.

JaronK

I didn't say it that way, you just think I did.

I showed that more powerful CAN mean advancing HD, and my argument is that the context of Draco. p. 4 points toward using that for the purpose of determining the meaning of "more powerful" in the case of this definition.

This has consistently been my argument. Nice try though. If you really bothered to take the time to understand what I am arguing, it would really help you create actual arguments against me rather than just spewing random bullshit.

[snakeman830]

You still have yet to prove that "advance through" ever refers to gaining HD in a D&D book.  We have already proven that it does mean "go through each level in succession" in D&D books.

[BeholderSlayer]

@archangel.arcanis

In addition to the post where I created links between terms:

I argue that the context of the statement in the Draconomicon makes "more powerful" and "advance through age categories" synonymous. The post you have quoted supplies evidence that advancing through (via) age categories does in fact make a dragon more powerful.

The issue here is that many people want to ignore context. The definition of context is:
1. the parts of a piece of writing, speech, etc., that precede and follow a word or passage and contribute to its full meaning it is unfair to quote out of context
2. the conditions and circumstances that are relevant to an event, fact, etc.

Based on both of these we can determine that there are two types of dragons: true and lesser. There cannot be dragons that are not one or the other.

The entire section where the definition can be found is called "The Different Kinds of Dragons." This lends credence to my previous statement. Also, this means that the entire section is devoted to determining the differences between True and Lesser dragons, this makes it the primary source.

I argue that "advance through age categories" gives meaning to "grows more powerful." It is meant to create context for the statement and clarify its meaning and not to be taken as a separate rule than the definition of a True Dragon. They are, in fact, one definition with two sides (or results). As shown in the definition of context, it is unfair to quote out of context. Quoting that "true dragons become more powerful as they age" without including the context is both unfair and it is ignoring important context that gives meaning to "become more powerful." As has been stated by JaronK before, context is just as much a part of RAW as the words of any particular rule. The word "Other" is not meant to create precedence in definition application. It is rather generating context for the definition of True Dragons, utilizing the "opposite, contrary, or reverse" definition of other. Rather than state the same thing twice, the authors chose to have each part play off the other to give context to the meaning of each. Neither can be viewed in a vacuum as isolated because ignoring context is practicing poor reading.

The claim that my interpretation leads to contradictions is false. JaronK wants to apply his interpretation that "Other" gives precedence to one over the other in order to generate a contradiction. This is unfair, as I explained in a previous post that applying HIS interpretation to MY logic will of course result in a contradiction. However, when you apply MY interpretation to MY logic there is no contradiction, since the TD/LD definition is one and the same definition with two possible results. I claim the context inherent in the Draconomicon, explicit in the books that had been published before, and implicit within Draco. p. 4. itself shows that we must only look at the "Advancement" entry of a dragon to determine whether it is True or Lesser. If it does not have age categories listed here as advancing its hit dice, it is not a true dragon.

Basically, the rules for reading rules are just as important as the rules written on the page. Ignoring the rules of reading while reading a ruleset will inevitably result in poor adjudication.

Later in the Draconomicon, "advance through age categories" is restated. However, it is restated in a different way. It says that lesser dragons "have no built in progression due to age." Context. This gives context to "advance through age categories." As I've shown already, progression is considered advancing HD whether through racial HD or character levels. This second statement, on p. 144, cements the meaning of "advance through age categories" as meaning "to advance racial HD by aging."

Further context can be found on p. 142 where the book discusses Advancement and Aging for true dragons inside the section for Dragons as PCs. This section discusses the advancement of dragon RHD and application of LA. In this section gaining power is noted several times such as:

This method of transitioning between age categories ensures that a dragon PC does not make rapid jumps in power out of proportion to its ECL by reaching
a new age category and gaining the benefits of as many as three effective character levels at once (as, for example, a young white dragon with 11 HD and a level adjustment of +3 would do when advancing to the juvenile age category with 12 HD and a level adjustment of +5).

Importantly, this quote gives context to the degree of power that the p. 4 definition is talking about. It is not merely talking about a +3 to 3 mental stats, it is talking about fairly radical increases in power as it ages sometimes equivalent to 3 entire character levels.

Furthermore, let us take a look at the circumstantial context (which is every bit as important). The Draconomicon is one of the oldest books available still pertinent to 3.5. When it was written, I believe there was only the PHB, DMG, MM, and MMII (possibly). The Draconomicon authors based their definition on the True Dragons found in the 3 books that have them. At the time the Draconomicon was published only UATD were dragons that gained power (through RHD) as they aged. This is quite explicit in the Advancement lines found in all the monster entries.

JaronK notably ignored many contradictions that arise when you use his definition. A half dragon X Monk 20 qualifies as a True Dragon, thus you will never check if it is a Lesser Dragon, despite being stated to be a lesser dragon (this is a contradiction not an exception). This results in whatever number of contradictions that there are PC races that can take both the Monk and Druid class. That's a whole lot.

Also, all creatures have age categories. Therefore, all dragons that age through age categories would not be lesser. Applying his definition of a lesser dragon results in more contradictions than I care to count. Every explicitly stated lesser dragon would not be lesser, and would rather be some third kind of dragon that does not exist as shown in the context of Draco. p. 4. This entire interpretation results in one, big, huge contradiction.

He then argues that the definition MUST incorporate 12 categories, this is fine and it results in the exact outcome that he wants. I won't argue that, but I will state that his definition still ignores the context on Draco. p. 4.

Also, interestingly enough, the DoK description generates an insane number of contradictions. All creatures possess age categories. All creatures of the dragon type would be described as True if we are to follow this description.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. When you apply my interpretation and logic together (for the Draconomicon alone) there becomes just one contradiction: the half dragon phaerimm. However, the Dragon Magic 12 age categories thing puts this one to rest when added to my definition.

Application of the Dragon Magic description does generate a minor issue (it would seem, but not in reality) in the case of Dragonwrought kobolds. However, DM is just describing, it is not summarizing nor creating a definition. The primary source for adjudication of what is and is not a True Dragon is the Draconomicon. When determining whether one can make a dragonpact with a certain creature, by the rules you must consult the Draconomicon.

Technically, the two sources do not disagree directly. You must apply a 3rd set of rules to get them to disagree. For this reason, instead, you take them together to produce an augmented definition. This argument was used by the opposition earlier in the thread, and is thus completely fair for me to use. It does not matter that the conclusions disagree, it only matters that the rules themselves disagree. They do not, so you use them together as a supplement.

When one considers what a rule says, one must consider the context. Context is the words surrounding it, the words in the same book, and all the circumstances of the time of authorship. My reading results in a strong definition with no contradictions until The Lost Empires of Faerun was printed in 2005. Later, when printing Dragon Magic, the authors clarified this contradiction by adding the 12 age categories to the definition. Whereas JaronK's definition results in numerous contradictions throughout the entirety of the existence of the Draconomicon, up until Dragon Magic was published in 2007 (near the end of the life of 3.5 itself). Time of authorship is important.

In the end, when you allow for utilization Dragon Magic's 12 age categories as a supplement, both definitions work. However, it is my opinion that the context inherent in the Draconomicon dictates that we utilize my interpretation. Also, based on time of authorship, my definition just plain works better. JaronK's definition and logic only work when Dragon Magic is published in 2007.

[BeholderSlayer]

You still have yet to prove that "advance through" ever refers to gaining HD in a D&D book.  We have already proven that it does mean "go through each level in succession" in D&D books.

I don't have to prove it. It's right there in the definition of the word. This whole "where else was it used that way" is a made up goalpost that is not relevant.

[archangel.arcanis]

lots of reading to do.