Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons

[Kuroimaken]

Look we're almost at 50 pages!

All just to decide whether or not VDKs qualify for a handful of epic feats at level 1, or cast a Tier 2's spells one level before the Tier 1's. Even though any non-autistic DM is not going to allow any character to be venerable and still be level 1.

If gamers were to put their drive and mental energies to something other than gaming, they could probably cure diabetes, AIDS, and cancer by next week, and end war, world hunger, and counterproductive political policies by next month.

You assume gamers are in any position to do anything about such things.

[The_Laughing_Man]

fwiw

... A barghest advances in Hit Dice by consuming corpses in this
fashion. For every three suitable corpses a barghest devours, it
gains 1 Hit Die, and its Strength, Constitution, and natural
armor increase by +1. Its attack bonus and saves improve as
normal for an outsider of its Hit Dice, and it gains skill points,
feats, and ability score improvements normally. ...

[JaronK]

By that logic, I can add winged (MM...before the "known true dragons" part) to the definition of true dragons, since all non-winged UATD's that I'm aware of are explicitly stated as true dragons either in their entry, in races of the dragon, dragons of faerun or dragons of krynn.

No you can't, because "winged" isn't in a definition.  It's in a description that doesn't apply to most dragons.  You can't just arbitrarily grab the bits you want.  Furthermore, Lung Dragons are not described as True in their entry, and only one of them is winged.

Edit: Dragons of Krynn is better: All true dragons are extraordinary beings possessing
superior senses, intelligence, and the gift of flight (in the
case of the sea, amphi and aquatic dragons, this is replaced
by powerful swimming).

Brown Dragons have neither flight nor swimming... and that's still not phrased as a definition.

JaronK

[The_Laughing_Man]

Unfortunately Brown dragon's entry specifically state that it is wingless. Specific trumps general. No conflict.

[JaronK]

Unfortunately Brown dragon's entry specifically state that it is wingless. Specific trumps general. No conflict.

That wouldn't work.  It would have to say something like "it's wingless, and has no swim speed, yet is still a True Dragon" to be even close.

The exception is that it's a true dragon despite being explicitly wingless and without swim speed.

Of course, that still leaves Lung dragons, which are wingless and not an exception at all.

JaronK

[skydragonknight]

Unfortunately Brown dragon's entry specifically state that it is wingless. Specific trumps general. No conflict.

That wouldn't work.  It would have to say something like "it's wingless, and has no swim speed, yet is still a True Dragon" to be even close.

The exception is that it's a true dragon despite being explicitly wingless and without swim speed.

Of course, that still leaves Lung dragons, which are wingless and not an exception at all.

JaronK

Child's play.



General lung dragon entry:
"Dragons prefer to fight in the air (except for lu lungs and lung wangs, which cannot fly)"
So specific exceptions for flight (though both had swim speeds anyway, so sorta moot).

Li lung entry:
"li lungs are the only lung dragons with wings."
Ergo, the others are explicitly wingless.

[snakeman830]

Actually, I would just point out that the first paragraph in every monster entry is just fluff.  Does an unwllingness to attack a weaker creature make a Kython no longer a devil?  Would an Astral Deva that didn't "positively drip with goodness" no longer be an angel?  If we presented Red Dragons as massive cat-like mammals (which, physiologically, they aren't so different from as Draconomicon presents them), what mechanical difference would that make?

The answers are clearly "no", "no", and "none".  These "definitions" are all taken from the first paragraph of a Monster Manual entry.

[JaronK]

General lung dragon entry:
"Dragons prefer to fight in the air (except for lu lungs and lung wangs, which cannot fly)"
So specific exceptions for flight (though both had swim speeds anyway, so sorta moot).

Li lung entry:
"li lungs are the only lung dragons with wings."
Ergo, the others are explicitly wingless.

You seem to be missing the point.  Yes, they're explicitly wingless.  However, they're not explicitly True Dragons in their entry despite being wingless (they're just later mentioned as being True in every list of True Dragons ever).  Thus, they're not an explicit exception to the definition "True Dragons are creatures with wings."  With D&D's exception based design, this means having or lacking wings is not part of the definition of being a True Dragon.  Lungs simply fit into the category of True Dragons without any exceptions needed.

JaronK

[BeholderSlayer]

Taken to its logical conclusion, there would be no definition for true dragons at all.

No. You have already been shown what the logical conclusion for the definition of True Dragon is from this standpoint. And it includes DWK.

No, it doesn't. The standpoint has not been taken to its necessary conclusion. The necessary conclusion that the context of Draconomicon dictates that it is only talking about the MM10 means that the definition on p.4 is only talking about the MM10. It's even in the same paragraph, which denotes same topic.

You fail.

Find me where it says that a secondary source "cannot" contradict the primary. The rules, in fact, say the exact opposite of what you claim.

It appears the context of what I was saying was lost to you. Obviously it is possible for a secondary source to directly contradict the primary. For example: Eggs are square.

That's not what you said, and that's not what is necessary to qualify as contradictory.

I was talking about this situation, in which you claim that there is an indirect contradiction between the two, causing them to result in different outcomes despite there being no direct conflict between what they establish. That is the context in which my examples were given. And in that context, it makes no sense to assume a contradiction when it is entirely possible, by the rules themselves, for it to be an expansion.

You will not find support in the rules for only "direct" contradiction being required. ANY type of contradictions satisfies the requirements for a secondary source being overruled.

And it is indeed relevant, because you throw out the only good definition of True Dragon ever to be created by anyone (the only one that actually validly applies to what we know to be True Dragons that lack a specific case stating so and also to exclude what we know to be Lesser Dragons that lack a specific case stating so) on the grounds that there is a contradiction between the two rules used to create it.

No, wrong, my interpretation of the rules validly interprets the exact words on the page and actually results in a tacitly superior definition of True Dragons.

So much fail, so little time.

[BeholderSlayer]

And I think it's now pretty well established that "advance through" NEVER means "Advancement: by" as Beholderslayer has suggested.

Based on what?

Wrongfail

In order to prove that it NEVER means that, you'll have to prove it CAN'T, and that has not been accomplished nor will it ever be.

Face it, you definition results in numerous contradictions that you want to call "exceptions." My definition results in literally zero contradictions and requires zero exceptions.

You lose. I win.

Good find skydragonknight.

[The_Laughing_Man]

Perhaps it is time to restate the part in question from the Draconomicon:

The become more powerful as they grow older is part of the paragraph that talks only about the MM10. So it just restates that the MM true dragons become more powerful as they grow older.

The next paragraph talks about other true dragons than the MM10, which shows that the previous paragraph was only about the MM10.

So, all true dragons do not necessarily become more powerful as they grow older.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

And I think it's now pretty well established that "advance through" NEVER means "Advancement: by" as Beholderslayer has suggested.

Based on what?

Wrongfail

In order to prove that it NEVER means that, you'll have to prove it CAN'T, and that has not been accomplished nor will it ever be.

Very well, then my argument is as follows.

One lingering piece of knowledge that kobolds have never overlooked: They are kin to dragons.

[EjoThims]

General lung dragon entry:
"Dragons prefer to fight in the air (except for lu lungs and lung wangs, which cannot fly)"
So specific exceptions for flight (though both had swim speeds anyway, so sorta moot).

Li lung entry:
"li lungs are the only lung dragons with wings."
Ergo, the others are explicitly wingless.

Actually, iirc, they are implicitly wingless, as a specific exception could still trump that general rule.

Besides, there is nothing there that explicitly makes them True Dragons; nothing specific for them to be able to ignore the general rule.

[snakeman830]

Perhaps it is time to restate the part in question from the Draconomicon:

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.

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).
True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful
as they grow older.

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.

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).

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.

The become more powerful as they grow older is part of the paragraph that talks only about the MM10. So it just restates that the MM true dragons become more powerful as they grow older.

The next paragraph talks about other true dragons than the MM10, which shows that the previous paragraph was only about the MM10.

So, all true dragons do not necessarily become more powerful as they grow older.

An interesting point, which reduces the definition of a True Dragon to just being a Dragon with 12 age categories.  Guess Dragonwrought Kobolds are even less easily excluded.  Half-Dragon Kobolds are still excluded because of the specific note in Races of the Dragon.

So, in all of D&D 3.5, Dragon Magic is actually the only place where True Dragonhood is actually defined.  Lesser Dragons were defined in Draconomicon, but not True.  Ironic, all things considered, since the book is primarily about True Dragons.

So, recap time.
[spoiler]

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).
True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful
as they grow older.

Here we have Draconomicon's definition of True Dragons...or rather, it's definition of the MM10 (assuming Laughing Man's analysis would be correct).  Even if it does refer to ALL True Dragons, all we have is "become more powerful as they grow older".  No mention of Advancement at all.  Interestingly, the definition doesn't even require the Dragon type, although it is implied by context.

Then we have Dragon Magic stating that True Dragons are Dragons with 12 age categories.  Since in this case, the context doesn't give any preference to one type of True Dragon or another, and all True Dragons do fit this, it is safe to assume that it is a defining rule.  It does not conflict with Draconomicon, so Primary-Secondary does not come into play.  If it does, then we ignore that True Dragons must have 12 age categories (and indeed, must have the Dragon type!), which leads to far more creatures being True Dragons.

Dragons of Krynn has a similar, though less specific, definition as Dragon Magic.  It says nothing that Dragon Magic does not.

Lesser Dragons, on the other hand, are defined as thus in Draconomicon (and are not defined in any other source):

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).

Lesser Dragon PCs
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.

First off, "other creatures of the Dragon Type" already tells us that to be a Lesser Dragon, you cannot be a True Dragon.  To be a Lesser Dragon, you cannot advance through age categories and you cannot have a built-in progression due to age.

Note, however, that nowhere that True Dragons are defined are Lesser Dragons mentioned, nor are "advancing through age categories" or "built-in progressions due to age."  So, by what is actually written in the books, a particular creature's status on any of these aspects is irrelevant for determining if a creature is a True Dragon or not.  A True Dragon may "advance through age categories" or it may not, but a Lesser Dragon CANNOT.  A True Dragon may have "a built-in progression due to age" or it may not, but a Lesser Dragon CANNOT.  If a creature fits the requirements for a True Dragon, it can be a True Dragon, but it CANNOT be Lesser.[/spoiler]

[skydragonknight]

So an advanced dragon cannot be true because it has more than twelve age categories?

[skydragonknight]

Also:

"Lesser Dragon PCs
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."

Bold part is the definition, as it's in definition form. The first sentence is only context that we're talking about creatures of the dragon type...it's only a description after all. So a lesser dragon playable by PCs is defined as a dragon that has a fixed level adjustment and no built-in progression due to age.


So it's a true dragon by dragon magic and a lesser dragon by draconomicon. Also by draconomicon, a lesser dragon is not true, so there's a contradiction. Since Draconomicon is the primary source for dragons, it trumps the dragon magic definition and thus dragonwrought kobolds are lesser dragons, ergo not true dragons.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

It's not a definition of the term.  You're putting the cart before the horse.

Dragonbone Bow: A bow carved from a single bone of a dragon (a thigh bone or similarly large bone) displays superior tensile strength and power. Such a bow is considered a composite bow (short or long) with a strength rating set by the crafter.

Besides which, neither half-dragons nor draconic creatures have set level adjustments, as both have template classes.  It's at best a hasty generalization about lesser dragons.

[BeholderSlayer]

It's not a definition of the term.  You're putting the cart before the horse.

Dragonbone Bow: A bow carved from a single bone of a dragon (a thigh bone or similarly large bone) displays superior tensile strength and power. Such a bow is considered a composite bow (short or long) with a strength rating set by the crafter.

Besides which, neither half-dragons nor draconic creatures have set level adjustments, as both have template classes.  It's at best a hasty generalization about lesser dragons.

None of those quotes are remotely pertinent to his statement. That statement is, in fact, in definition form.

Half dragons and Draconic creatures don't have set LA? What are you smoking, and where can I get some?

[BeholderSlayer]

And I think it's now pretty well established that "advance through" NEVER means "Advancement: by" as Beholderslayer has suggested.

Based on what?

Wrongfail

In order to prove that it NEVER means that, you'll have to prove it CAN'T, and that has not been accomplished nor will it ever be.

Very well, then my argument is as follows.

One lingering piece of knowledge that kobolds have never overlooked: They are kin to dragons.

In order to prove that it doesn't mean "dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons", you will have to prove that it can't mean "dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons" and that has not been accomplished, nor will it ever be.

Now, if you want to present an argument that is not of the form "I claim that this text means X in this single case, and you can't prove me wrong", then I am all ears.  However, if you insist upon persists in this form of argument, note that it's just as easy for me to use the exact same structure to 'prove' the opposite point.  That should be a clue to you that your argument is not, perhaps, as valid as you think it is.

No, wrong, epic fail. I never said that. Straw man.

He made a sweeping, unsubstantiated statement that the words CANNOT mean what I claim. When you make an absolute claim such as this, you must be able to PROVE it without a doubt.

I claim that the words CAN mean what I claim, but am not claiming that they NECESSARILY mean what I claim only based on the words themselves.

However, based on the fact that the only other interpretation results in contradictions, and mine does not, therefore my interpretation is superior than the other and is correct.

Come back some time when you can make an actual case against things people are actually saying, instead of making shit up.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

Half dragons and Draconic creatures don't have set LA? What are you smoking, and where can I get some?

Did I not say they had template classes?  Perhaps you weren't reading my post thoroughly

Here, have a link for half-dragons.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20030912a

Also check RotD 71 for draconic creatures.

He made a sweeping, unsubstantiated statement that the words CANNOT mean what I claim. When you make an absolute claim such as this, you must be able to PROVE it without a doubt.

I claim that the words CAN mean what I claim, but am not claiming that they NECESSARILY mean what I claim only based on the words themselves.

My argument is as follows

By default, we do not consider two statements to be equivalent.  
* If this were not the case, I can claim "kobolds are kin to dragons" is equivalent to "kobolds are true dragons", or "humans dislike orcs" is equivalent to "human rangers must take favored enemy: orcs"

Therefore you may argue that statement X is the same as statement Y IF (and only if) you have some evidence for equivalence.  Any at all.  Any other use of statement X where statement Y would work.

In other words, the burden of proof is on you to show that the two statements are equivalent.  I am interested in seeing any evidence you can provide.