Brilliant Gameologists Forum

The Thinktank => Min/Max It! => : JaronK January 02, 2010, 08:51:56 PM

: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK January 02, 2010, 08:51:56 PM
This is a repost from another debate, but I'm putting here so as to spell out the RAW proof that Kobolds count as True Dragons.  Note that I am by no means arguing that it's intended or balanced that they do so, or that DMs shouldn't houserule against it, only that the rules state as much.  Mostly it's here because it's nice to gather up all the source information so people can see a quick summary of how this works.

Okay, so next up is Dragonwrought Kobolds as True Dragons.  First let's note that there's a lot of contradictory information on True Dragons.  The Monster Manual states:

"True Dragons are winged, reptilelike creatures of ancient lineage.  They are known and feared for their size, physical prowess, and magical abilities.  The oldest dragons are among the most powerful creatures in the world.

The known varieties of true dragons (as opposed to other creatures that have the dragon type) fall into two broad categories: chromatic and metallic. The chromatic dragons are black, blue, green, red, and white; they are all evil and extremely fierce. The metallic dragons are brass, bronze, copper, gold, and silver; they are all good, usually noble, and highly respected by the wise.

All true dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age. (Other creatures that have the dragon type do not.) They range in length from several feet upon hatching to more than 100 feet after attaining the status of great wyrm. The size of a particular dragon varies according to age and variety.

A dragon’s metabolism operates like a highly efficient furnace and can metabolize even inorganic material. Some dragons have developed a taste for such fare. "

This is full of incorrect information.  Not all True Dragons are Chromatic or Metallic (Gem Dragons, Lung Dragons, Shadow Dragons, Planar Dragons, and so on are neither).  White Dragons never grow to over 100 feet.  Furthermore, in some places there is the statement that True Dragons are Endothermic, while Races of the Dragon on page 39 agrees with the above quote that dragons are in fact warm blooded (this quote calls them a furnace).  Some Lung Dragons don't even all have wings.  Clearly, this definition does not fit for many creatures listed as True Dragons, and doesn't even fit for all True Dragons in core.  So we pretty much have to assume it's just generalizations that do not fit for all True Dragons.  It's trumped by later book printings anyway.  We need a rock solid statement of what a True Dragon is in D&D, and this isn't it.  Don't worry, we'll get one.

We can find it in Draconomicron on page 4, in a handy sidebar entitled "The Different Kinds of Dragons":

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

Okay, now that's a nice solid definition that we can work with.  Note that the sidebar claims to list every True and Lesser Dragon printed to date, but doesn't list Kobolds in either one, so that part isn't terribly helpful.  Also note that every Dragon is either True or Lesser, so they're just left out (probably because Kobolds aren't usually Dragons anyway).  So, as per RAW, any creature that has the following attributes is in fact a True Dragon:

1:  Must be of the Dragon type.
2:  Must advance through Age Catagories.
3:  Must "become more powerful as they grow older."

And at this point we must go over what Dragonwrought actually does.  According to page 39 of Races of the Dragon "Ability penalties due to age do not apply to Dragonwrought Kobolds."  Page 100 of Races of the Dragon has the actual feat, and it sets your type to Dragon.  Okay, cool.

So, point 1:  Are Dragonrought Kobolds dragons?  Of course.  The feat explicitly makes them so.

Point 2: Do Dragonwrought Kobolds advance through age catagories?  In context, this part doesn't mean they get stronger via age catagories, only that they go through them (point 3 will get to getting stronger).  As per page 39 of Races of the Dragon, Table 3-2 "Kobold Age Catagories", they indeed do.  Note that non Kobolds do NOT have age catagories.  The Players Handbook has table 6-5 "Aging Effects" on page 109, but says nothing about age catagories.  This is why a Half Dragon Half Orc is not a True Dragon... he has no age catagories.  Only Kobolds and things listed explicitly as True Dragons elsewhere have Age Catagories.

Point 3:  Do Dragonwrought Kobolds "become more powerful as they grow older?"  Absolutely.  They in fact slowly gain bonuses to their mental stats, up to +3 when they gain Great Wyrm status.

Thus, Dragonwrought Kobolds meet all the requirements on page 4 of the Draconomicron, which is the only book to give a clear and non contradictory definition (in a convenient sidebar, no less) of True Dragons.  While there is contradictory fluff in the various online sources and in campaign setting specific books (claiming that all True Dragons grow over 100 feet when White Dragons clearly don't, or that True Dragons are both Endo and Exothermic), this is the only clear and concise definition.  Note that no race other than Dragonwrought Kobolds and things listed as True Dragons actually matches the True Dragon definition... not Half Orcs, not Half Dragons (who are not Kobolds), not anything.

Hopefully that should clear everything up, with source material.  And let's all remember that the primary source material (the books) is what is important.  When books contradict the SRD, the books always trump.  The primary sources here are the Draconomicron and Races of the Dragon, which are the primary source books on the topics of True Dragons and Kobolds, respectively.

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Havok4 January 02, 2010, 08:56:11 PM
I remember this debate. Good job summarizing and moving this information.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Prime32 January 02, 2010, 09:04:58 PM
On point 3, they may become "more powerful" as they age, but in a way not shared by any existing True Dragon (which gain size, HD, natural armour, caster levels and SLAs). The way they become more powerful is one shared by every living creature. True, most creatures take penalties to their physical ability scores as they age, but True Dragons lose Dex and AC too. The list could not be referring to this, as if any creature whose ability scores change due to age is counted then there would be no need for point 3 in the first place.

I forget, do all kobolds have age categories or just dragonwrought ones? If the former, would a half-dragon kobold monk with Timeless Body count as a True Dragon?
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK January 02, 2010, 09:16:13 PM
On point 3, they may become "more powerful" as they age, but in a way not shared by any existing True Dragon (which gain size, HD, natural armour, caster levels and SLAs). The way they become more powerful is one shared by every living creature. True, most creatures take penalties to their physical ability scores as they age, but True Dragons lose Dex and AC too. The list could not be referring to this, as if any creature whose ability scores change due to age is counted then there would be no need for point 3 in the first place.

In all fairness, that listing was mostly talking about monsters, not PCs, and monsters don't have age penalties anyway.  A horse, for example, doesn't get venerable.  So the "more powerful" thing actually applies only to standard True Dragons, PC races, and a few other select things.  Either way, that part of the definition does fit.

I forget, do all kobolds have age categories or just dragonwrought ones? If the former, would a half-dragon kobold monk with Timeless Body count as a True Dragon?

All kobolds have age catagories (see page 39, RoD).  So yes, any Kobold of the Dragon type is a True Dragon, regardless of why.  With that said, only Dragonwrought Kobolds get to ignore the usual penalties to stats via aging.  But IIRC a Monk would be an outsider eventually, disqualifying them as a Dragon.

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Runestar January 02, 2010, 09:29:19 PM
Been following the debate at gianttip, eh?  ;)

: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK January 02, 2010, 09:33:19 PM
Been in it.  But I think it started because someone didn't fully understand the argument, and while I'm fine with people debate something, it's just not fun if they don't actually understand what they're talking about.  So, I thought it useful to summarize the full thing clearly as a helpful example of how it works.

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Surreal January 02, 2010, 09:46:25 PM
For making builds as a theoretical exercise, sure. In game use, feh.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: The_Mad_Linguist January 02, 2010, 10:25:10 PM
IIRC Dragonlance more specifically defines True Dragons as being creatures with the dragon type and age categories... I think it's DragonLance Campaign Setting, but can't recall exact reference.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK January 02, 2010, 10:47:12 PM
IIRC Dragonlance more specifically defines True Dragons as being creatures with the dragon type and age categories... I think it's DragonLance Campaign Setting, but can't recall exact reference.

I don't have that book.  If you can quote that, that would be awesome, though admittedly I feel that anything from the Draconomicron would trump anything from Dragonlance.

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK January 03, 2010, 12:22:28 AM
For making builds as a theoretical exercise, sure. In game use, feh.

Well, as I said, I don't think it's balanced for most games.

With that said, I'm playing one right now (a Cleric with the archtype that gives bonus feats, in a game where most of the PCs are SA Kobolds.  But it's WLD and that dungeon is really hard anyway, and we're intentionally playing in character stupid, so it balances out).

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: TheEndIsNear January 03, 2010, 02:10:11 AM
For making builds as a theoretical exercise, sure. In game use, feh.

Well, as I said, I don't think it's balanced for most games.

With that said, I'm playing one right now (a Cleric with the archtype that gives bonus feats, in a game where most of the PCs are SA Kobolds.  But it's WLD and that dungeon is really hard anyway, and we're intentionally playing in character stupid, so it balances out).

JaronK

Grats on psot 2000
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK January 03, 2010, 02:10:52 AM
Holy crap.  I post too much.

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: The_Mad_Linguist January 03, 2010, 02:11:40 AM
Shit, he's gaining on me.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Negative Zero January 03, 2010, 02:15:33 AM
RUN, MAN, RUN. Go answer some simple questions or something!
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Phaenix January 03, 2010, 09:11:40 PM
I have to take issue with some of the contradictions you point out from the Monster Manual.

The Monster Manual states:

All true dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age. (Other creatures that have the dragon type do not.) They range in length from several feet upon hatching to more than 100 feet after attaining the status of great wyrm. The size of a particular dragon varies according to age and variety.

This is full of incorrect information.  Not all True Dragons are Chromatic or Metallic (Gem Dragons, Lung Dragons, Shadow Dragons, Planar Dragons, and so on are neither).  White Dragons never grow to over 100 feet. 
[snip]

I think that those sentences from the MM could be read to refer to the set of all true dragons. That is, that set of creatures has members whose lengths range from several feet to over 100 feet. It even points out that a particular dragon's size "varies according to age and variety." Kobolds still fit just fine into that range.

For that matter, it also lists the chromatic and metallic dragons as "known varieties" of true dragons. At the time the MM was published, Gem dragons and Lung Dragons and Dragonwrought Kobolds weren't yet "known" to the world of 3.5. Sure, with a little bit of foresight, the WotC writers could probably have worked out that they'd eventually be publishing more dragons in supplements (but that's setting the bar a little high for WotC writers).

I'm not disagreeing with the interpretation the Kobolds are True Dragons. RotD and Draconomicon both provide succinct information that supports that claim. I just don't think the MM is necessarily wrong. And whether or not true dragons have body heat is mostly a fluff question, until some wizard develops a thermal vision spell.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: KellKheraptis January 03, 2010, 09:17:15 PM
Not to nitpick, but A)I'm pretty sure there's such a spell somewhere, and B)getting into the really powerful entities, deities with the Divine Fire Mastery SDA can perceive any living being automatically by the disturbance in heat they create.  And really, anything, by the disturbance in ambient heat :P  Gogo DnD Doplar!
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: bearsarebrown January 03, 2010, 09:21:49 PM
Not to nitpick, but A)I'm pretty sure there's such a spell somewhere, and B)getting into the really powerful entities, deities with the Divine Fire Mastery SDA can perceive any living being automatically by the disturbance in heat they create.  And really, anything, by the disturbance in ambient heat :P  Gogo DnD Doplar!

Even cold blooded creatures will be seen with the SDA though. Cold blooded makes you less hot.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: KellKheraptis January 03, 2010, 09:23:34 PM
Not to nitpick, but A)I'm pretty sure there's such a spell somewhere, and B)getting into the really powerful entities, deities with the Divine Fire Mastery SDA can perceive any living being automatically by the disturbance in heat they create.  And really, anything, by the disturbance in ambient heat :P  Gogo DnD Doplar!

Even cold blooded creatures will be seen with the SDA though. Cold blooded makes you less hot.

Hence use of the term ANY living being :D  And as I said, any object too, since everything has a unique heat signature (yay physics class).
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: bearsarebrown January 03, 2010, 09:25:45 PM
Not to nitpick, but A)I'm pretty sure there's such a spell somewhere, and B)getting into the really powerful entities, deities with the Divine Fire Mastery SDA can perceive any living being automatically by the disturbance in heat they create.  And really, anything, by the disturbance in ambient heat :P  Gogo DnD Doplar!

Even cold blooded creatures will be seen with the SDA though. Cold blooded makes you less hot.

Hence use of the term ANY living being :D  And as I said, any object too, since everything has a unique heat signature (yay physics class).

I had no idea this SDA existed. Now I need to figure out how to hide from it....

And here I thought a pimped Hide modifer + Darkstalker + Mind Blank + Vecna Blooded + Telekinetic Static was enough to hide from anything!
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: KellKheraptis January 03, 2010, 09:37:00 PM
Not to nitpick, but A)I'm pretty sure there's such a spell somewhere, and B)getting into the really powerful entities, deities with the Divine Fire Mastery SDA can perceive any living being automatically by the disturbance in heat they create.  And really, anything, by the disturbance in ambient heat :P  Gogo DnD Doplar!

Even cold blooded creatures will be seen with the SDA though. Cold blooded makes you less hot.

Hence use of the term ANY living being :D  And as I said, any object too, since everything has a unique heat signature (yay physics class).

I had no idea this SDA existed. Now I need to figure out how to hide from it....

And here I thought a pimped Hide modifer + Darkstalker + Mind Blank + Vecna Blooded + Telekinetic Static was enough to hide from anything!

I'm guessing you'd added the last after I mentioned Transdimensional Touchsight?
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: The_Mad_Linguist January 03, 2010, 09:44:10 PM
You might want to put levels in charlatan as well.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: bearsarebrown January 03, 2010, 09:46:30 PM
I'm guessing you'd added the last after I mentioned Transdimensional Touchsight?

No actually, just for extra redundancy. I figured out how to block it. You gotta be Incorporeal.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: The_Mad_Linguist January 03, 2010, 09:49:38 PM
I'm guessing you'd added the last after I mentioned Transdimensional Touchsight?

No actually, just for extra redundancy. I figured out how to block it. You gotta be Incorporeal.
Yeah, but if someone can make the knowledge check about you, they can turn off your vecna bloodedness for a minute (knowlede domain affiliation).
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: bearsarebrown January 03, 2010, 09:51:07 PM
I'm guessing you'd added the last after I mentioned Transdimensional Touchsight?

No actually, just for extra redundancy. I figured out how to block it. You gotta be Incorporeal.
Yeah, but if someone can make the knowledge check about you, they can turn off your vecna bloodedness for a minute (knowlede domain affiliation).

Don't I get a fort save? EDIT: Yes I do, with a save of 10 + CL + Int. That's a save in the mid 40s. Jesus that's going to be hard to stop...!
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: The_Mad_Linguist January 03, 2010, 09:53:30 PM
I'm guessing you'd added the last after I mentioned Transdimensional Touchsight?

No actually, just for extra redundancy. I figured out how to block it. You gotta be Incorporeal.
Yeah, but if someone can make the knowledge check about you, they can turn off your vecna bloodedness for a minute (knowlede domain affiliation).

Don't I get a fort save?
Can you make a DC 40?
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: KellKheraptis January 03, 2010, 09:54:50 PM
Also note : Transdimensional Touchsight.  Being incorporeal won't help you one bit :)
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: bearsarebrown January 03, 2010, 09:58:57 PM
Also note : Transdimensional Touchsight.  Being incorporeal won't help you one bit :)

The incorporeal bit was to hide fro the SDA. I didn't give as much thought to that Touchsight has I should have. I... I don't know how to hide from that! Blocking LoE is the only way... I could walk around in a levitating box of lead :P

EDIt: But really, let's brainstorm how to hide from that.  You generate a subtle telekinetic field of mental contact... MAYBE lets Telekinetic Static block it. negating the telepathy ability of all creatures.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: The_Mad_Linguist January 04, 2010, 01:24:50 AM
Ah, found the reference.

The Draconic Vampirism feat from Dragons of Krynn, 169

"If you strike the killing blow against a true dragon (a creature of the dragon type that possesses an age
category)"
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: KellKheraptis January 04, 2010, 01:28:37 AM
Ah, found the reference.

The Draconic Vampirism feat from Dragons of Krynn, 169

"If you strike the killing blow against a true dragon (a creature of the dragon type that possesses an age
category)"

What does that do again?  Please say it lets one become a True Dragon...
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Havok4 January 04, 2010, 02:09:02 AM
I apparently does as that definition fits a dragonborn kobold just fine.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: The_Mad_Linguist January 04, 2010, 02:20:22 AM
Ah, found the reference.

The Draconic Vampirism feat from Dragons of Krynn, 169

"If you strike the killing blow against a true dragon (a creature of the dragon type that possesses an age
category)"
What does that do again?  Please say it lets one become a True Dragon...
Nah, there's a will save to absorb it's soul, then you just get one temporary hit die per age category it's a spellcasting true dragon (Temp HD lost at a rate of one per week).  Otherwise, you just recover some HP.

Prereqs are being a true dragon, but the defintion is at least there.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK January 04, 2010, 06:46:30 AM
Holy crap, nice!

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Prime32 January 04, 2010, 11:05:00 AM
Also note : Transdimensional Touchsight.  Being incorporeal won't help you one bit :)

The incorporeal bit was to hide fro the SDA. I didn't give as much thought to that Touchsight has I should have. I... I don't know how to hide from that! Blocking LoE is the only way... I could walk around in a levitating box of lead :P

EDIt: But really, let's brainstorm how to hide from that.  You generate a subtle telekinetic field of mental contact... MAYBE lets Telekinetic Static block it. negating the telepathy ability of all creatures.
So how do you hide the hole in their sight? :p
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: KellKheraptis January 04, 2010, 11:59:29 AM
Also note : Transdimensional Touchsight.  Being incorporeal won't help you one bit :)

The incorporeal bit was to hide fro the SDA. I didn't give as much thought to that Touchsight has I should have. I... I don't know how to hide from that! Blocking LoE is the only way... I could walk around in a levitating box of lead :P

EDIt: But really, let's brainstorm how to hide from that.  You generate a subtle telekinetic field of mental contact... MAYBE lets Telekinetic Static block it. negating the telepathy ability of all creatures.
So how do you hide the hole in their sight? :p

That's what I was wondering, since that means autotarget with MDJ :P  Especially for my spellthief, who then laughs if you're also in a self-immune AMF :D
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: bearsarebrown January 04, 2010, 02:59:13 PM
Also note : Transdimensional Touchsight.  Being incorporeal won't help you one bit :)

The incorporeal bit was to hide fro the SDA. I didn't give as much thought to that Touchsight has I should have. I... I don't know how to hide from that! Blocking LoE is the only way... I could walk around in a levitating box of lead :P

EDIt: But really, let's brainstorm how to hide from that.  You generate a subtle telekinetic field of mental contact... MAYBE lets Telekinetic Static block it. negating the telepathy ability of all creatures.
So how do you hide the hole in their sight? :p

:P You pray that he doesn't guess the right square.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: awaken DM golem January 04, 2010, 08:10:18 PM
Point 3 --- has an additional blippy that helps. At some point after popping out of it's Egg, the Dragonwrought gains a stat or two.
I don't have the book, so I have no reference for it. But this was a detail, in the original arguments.
The deep original thread included Tsuyo at his best.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Keldar January 05, 2010, 05:54:35 AM
Ugh, this cheese again. :banghead  It gets me that this is sincerely suggested time and time again as RAW, and reasonable.  Pointing people in the direction of a dubious reading of the rules based on flavor text with no mechanical effects is a disservice.
:sherlock
"True Dragons are those creatures that become 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."
Take a look at all established true dragons, they all have something in common: Their Advancement line specifically mentions age categories. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm)

Kobolds on the other hand have "By character Class" as their advancement line. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/kobold.htm (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/kobold.htm)  Furthermore the Age Categories presented in Races of the Dragon have no mechanical effect, as the benefits of aging come from the standard aging rules.  At no time does a Dragonwrought Kobold gain a benefit from entering one of the 12 age categories.

This means Dragonwrought Kobolds must be Lesser Dragons, as they gain no advancement from their age categories, and lack the age reference in the Advancement line.
:beathorse
By the RAW argument for True Dragon Kobolds, anything that can claim a bonus for aging and the dragon type would qualify.  Warforged Dragon Disciple as a True Dragon?  :rollseyes   Heck, any creature of the Dragon type would qualify if it had any age related bonuses, even if they came from a class, feat, spell, or template, or unearthed generic aging rules.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: EjoThims January 05, 2010, 09:28:32 AM
At no time does a Dragonwrought Kobold gain a benefit from entering one of the 12 age categories.

This is, I believe, false.

Iirc, some of the Kobold Age categories match up to when the Kobold would be gaining bonuses from the standard aging rules.

And the 'advancement' line in the MM is not a definition, it's a guide. SS goes into this in far greater detail, including how to advance monstrous races in different ways than through their advancement line. As well, you can give any dragon from the MM class levels, so to think that the advancement line is restrictive is just silly.

By the RAW argument for True Dragon Kobolds, anything that can claim a bonus for aging and the dragon type would qualify.

This is false, as other creatures tend to lack Age Categories, as noted in the OP.

Please, actually read what you are attempting to respond to before you post next time.

The RAW on this is entirely unintended and underhanded, but it is solidly the most literal reading of the rules as written.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: BowenSilverclaw January 05, 2010, 09:33:02 AM
Is this shit turning into the new Deepwarden debate?  :rollseyes


:lol
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: EjoThims January 05, 2010, 09:52:47 AM
Is this shit turning into the new Deepwarden debate?  :rollseyes


:lol

 :fo

I can't help but want to educate stupid people, no matter how stubborn they are...  :banghead
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: KellKheraptis January 05, 2010, 09:54:08 AM
Is this shit turning into the new Deepwarden debate?  :rollseyes


:lol

 :fo

I can't help but want to educate stupid people, no matter how stubborn they are...  :banghead

You gotta admit, if there was a RAW argument for having the dragon type and being capable of aging, it would make a LOT of builds even more borked than they already are (hello Ritual of Association...)
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: snakeman830 January 05, 2010, 01:44:27 PM
Ugh, this cheese again. :banghead  It gets me that this is sincerely suggested time and time again as RAW, and reasonable.  Pointing people in the direction of a dubious reading of the rules based on flavor text with no mechanical effects is a disservice.
me from a class, feat, spell, or template, or unearthed generic aging rules.

Read the OP
This is a repost from another debate, but I'm putting here so as to spell out the RAW proof that Kobolds count as True Dragons.  Note that I am by no means arguing that it's intended or balanced that they do so, or that DMs shouldn't houserule against it, only that the rules state as much
JaronK
This is not presented as reasonable or even that it should ever be applied to a game, just that it's RAW.  That Dragonwrough Kobolds are True dragons is correct by RAW, though we are pretty sure it was not RAI.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: awaken DM golem January 06, 2010, 07:36:33 PM
DW Kobolds improve as they age: (1) shortly after popping out of the egg , (2) the three oldest age categories
They also age according to the Dragon age category chart.

**

RAW --- well you are locked into Dragonwrought at level 1. That by itself is not a very powerful feat at level 1, and is in NO build on these boards at level, and won't be because its not very good at level 1. Even being Ancient only gives you +3 to the mental stats, but nothing else. That doesn't do all that much relative to CO-board 1st level builds.

Then it can only utilize the Epic feats on the every 3 levels regular feat slots. None of the Epic feats are on any bonus feat list. Additionally you HAVE to take one to get any mileage out of it. This is very restrictive, and the CO-board hasn't built anything around Epic feats early. You are on your own.

Tsuyoshikentsu's noticing of the Martial Monk's loose wording, offers the only real obvious build approach ... Monk 2. Light your freakin' socks on fire for that.
Infinite followers at level 1 is not a playable build.

Infinite Deflection feat at level 3, otoh, is playable especially given the unhelpfulness of the level 1 feat, excepting the qualifying part.
But can you hit the prereq's ??

**

Perhaps an actual build guide might be in order.

: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Negative Zero January 06, 2010, 08:01:15 PM
I like to think of Kobolds as Anti-humans. They get one less feat (because, really, are you going to not take Dragonwrought?) than normal, and they get a host of random racial abilities (claw-claw-bite, slight build, small size, racial bonus to profession:mining, pick proficiency, etc..), compared to the Human's extra feat and baseline lack of interesting racial traits.

But yeah, playing a venerable Dragonwrought Kobold from level 1 is... an interesting experience, for sure.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: The_Mad_Linguist January 06, 2010, 08:33:05 PM
There are a couple of other interesting things you can do, though, provided you allow flaws.

Getting energy resistance: fire, and hugging people while on fire is a decent grappling build.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: wotmaniac January 06, 2010, 08:56:09 PM
DW Kobolds improve as they age: (1) shortly after popping out of the egg , (2) the three oldest age categories
They also age according to the Dragon age category chart.

**
<snip>

Then it can only utilize the Epic feats on the every 3 levels regular feat slots.

<snip>
and herein lies the problem that I have had with the whole dragonwrought kobold CO concept (not that I have a problem with anything inherent in the dw kobold; just the interpretation of feat availability).

I see it as a gross misreading of RAW, to the point of just completely ignoring the inconvenient part about needing to be 21th level.
The issue is that when new rules come out related to a basic concept (in this case, epic feat availability), those new rules stack on top of the older rules, unless the new rule explicitly states that it is replacing the old one.
Here's the break-down:
- epic feats require a character/creature to be 21st level or higher for eligibility
- the "epic feats" entry from Draconomicon (which is the genesis of this dw kobold tomfoolery) is clearly a clarification of what constitutes "21st level"
- nowhere in the age categories description from RoD (the 3rd leg of this shenanigan-trifecta) does the it address anything but how a dw kobold ages

While the RoD page on aging is, in-and-of itself, innocuous; it does provide a catalyst for the abusing of the Draconomicon entry (which is where my real issue lies).
the only thing that entry says is that old dragons can also take these feats despite not having any actual "class" levels.  Consider this:
- it has been previously established that racial HD serve as "levels" for the purposes of qualifying for epic feats;
- every single true dragon that has ever been published (i.e., ones that have a listed age progression) has at least 21 HD by time they reach "old" age.
Yes, this all makes the Draconomicon entry redundant -- but this is not the first instance of redundancy of rules publishing (it is yet just another example).

While this may seem to be merely an argument for RAI, I challenge anyone to demonstrate how anything published RAW supersedes the 21st level/21 HD requirement.  The Draconomicon entry only restates what had already been established -- nowhere in the entry does it state anything to the effect of "old dragons can ignore level/HD requirements for epic feats".  The only thing it did -- RAW or RAI -- was consolidate the existing rules for ease-of-use.

: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK January 06, 2010, 09:08:24 PM
By the RAW argument for True Dragon Kobolds, anything that can claim a bonus for aging and the dragon type would qualify.  Warforged Dragon Disciple as a True Dragon?  :rollseyes   Heck, any creature of the Dragon type would qualify if it had any age related bonuses, even if they came from a class, feat, spell, or template, or unearthed generic aging rules.

Your logic is all wrong.  Read the rules again.  I does NOT say you get more powerful with age catagories.  It says you must have age catagories, and you must get more powerful as you get older.  Age related bonuses do work, IF you have age catagories.

In fact, Dragons of Krynn makes it clear that having age catagories alone gets the job done.  Half Dragons of other races do not have age catagories.

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: EjoThims January 06, 2010, 10:03:38 PM
he issue is that when new rules come out related to a basic concept (in this case, epic feat availability), those new rules stack on top of the older rules, unless the new rule explicitly states that it is replacing the old one.

This is correct, but you are misunderstanding the application of it.

It works like this:

21 levels/HD for epic is the baseline.

We then stack on "True Dragons of Old or older for epic."

So the rule is now "21 levels/HD OR True Dragon of Old of Older for epic."

Not only would your reading make the Draconomicon redundant, it isn't actually supported by the text involved. Nowhere does it mention that the Draconomicon statement is a clarification or consolidation; it is an additional rule that did not exist before stacked onto the old rules. It cannot, by the words written, be anything else.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: wotmaniac January 06, 2010, 10:57:32 PM
he issue is that when new rules come out related to a basic concept (in this case, epic feat availability), those new rules stack on top of the older rules, unless the new rule explicitly states that it is replacing the old one.

So the rule is now "21 levels/HD OR True Dragon of Old of Older for epic."

Not only would your reading make the Draconomicon redundant, it isn't actually supported by the text involved. Nowhere does it mention that the Draconomicon statement is a clarification or consolidation; it is an additional rule that did not exist before stacked onto the old rules. It cannot, by the words written, be anything else.
well, my conclusion that the entry is a clarification/consolidation is simply what I inferred (to answer for myself the question "why is this even here?") -- I know it isn't stated; this is simply my personal conclusion as to RAI (which, as I very well know, is not RAW).
However, there is simply no other context wherein that paragraph even makes any kind of sense (at least, not to me).

now to the meat of it:
There is nothing in that paragraph that indicates that it is an either/or situation.  To the contrary, the way that it is worded indicates that it is an "in addition to" or a "for clarification" situation.  The entry's opening sentence explicitly reiterates the level requirement for epic feat availability.  The next sentence only says that "old"+ dragons  "also" can take epic feats en lieu of having the actual class levels (as per the American Heritage Dictionary, the word "also" means "in addition" -- when something is "in addition", that means that the previous still applies).  It specifically mentions "class levels" -- for that entry to completely remove all level/HD requirement, it would have said so.  

Besides, for the RAW to even be a coherent thought (let alone be a valid rule), RAI has to come in to it.

oh, and just to make sure -- this debate is only on the RAW, right?  there isn't actually anybody out there that discounts my interpretation of RAI, is there?  like I said, I just want to make sure.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK January 06, 2010, 11:15:53 PM
"In Lieu Of" means "instead; in place of; as a substitute for."

It's not in addition, you've got the entire meaning backwards.  It does not mean in addition, it does not mean the old thing still applies.  It specifically mean it does not apply. 

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: EjoThims January 06, 2010, 11:21:11 PM
To the contrary, the way that it is worded indicates that it is an "in addition to" or a "for clarification" situation.

I beg to differ. The Draconomicon on epic feats, page 66:

"These feats are available to characters of 21st level or higher. Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even if they have no class levels."

Emphasis mine, of course.

The underlined is quite clear.

Incidentally, it doesn't even state True Dragons.

Unless, of course, you can bring out some actual text with a page reference that disputes this.

And I do discount your RaI, it is quite clear to me that it is intended for Dragons to be able to access epic feats based on age, just not that it is intended for such an ability to see play in a 0 LA character race.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: wotmaniac January 07, 2010, 02:14:42 AM
"In Lieu Of" means "instead; in place of; as a substitute for."

It's not in addition, you've got the entire meaning backwards.  It does not mean in addition, it does not mean the old thing still applies.  It specifically mean it does not apply.  

JaronK
I think you misunderstand what I was saying --
the specific text of the second sentence of the "epic feats" paragraph of the Draconomicon says: "Dragons of old age also can choose these feats even if they have no class levels" (emphasis mine).  
I know what "en lieu" means -- within the context of the sentence, the dragon's age (and thus the corresponding racial HD -- look what section of the book it is in) substitutes for those class levels.  This should be a no-brainer, given that it has long been established that creatures with 21+ racial HD also qualify for epic feats even if they have no class levels.  
If you care to discuss why they made the distinction based on age category, as opposed to HD, then I'm open to that (something I have already thought about).

so, my reference to "also" was to the first part of the sentence; my use of "en lieu" was pertaining to the second part of the sentence.

To the contrary, the way that it is worded indicates that it is an "in addition to" or a "for clarification" situation.

I beg to differ. The Draconomicon on epic feats, page 66:

"These feats are available to characters of 21st level or higher. Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even if they have no class levels."

Emphasis mine, of course.

The underlined is quite clear.

Incidentally, it doesn't even state True Dragons.

Unless, of course, you can bring out some actual text with a page reference that disputes this.

And I do discount your RaI, it is quite clear to me that it is intended for Dragons to be able to access epic feats based on age, just not that it is intended for such an ability to see play in a 0 LA character race.
first -- FTFY  :p

you're right -- it doesn't specifically state "true" dragons -- but "true" dragons are the only ones that ever have a listed age progression; thus, making any other dragon-types irrelevant to the discussion.

also, it appears that we somewhat agree (at least in part) -- nobody at WotC has ever intended to give 1st-lvl, 0-LA characters access to epic feats (well, at least it's a start  :shrug).

However, lets look at the RAI a little closer (as my RAW bit has already been covered; I don't know how else to explain it -- I know what I'm thinking, I'm just not sure in what order to put what words to make it more clear) --
Draconomicon pre-dates RoD by over 2 years -- this is of some importance when trying to see what's going on here:
Draconomicon -- November 2003
- the paragraph in question is in the chapter concerning how a DM should present/run these dragons
- true dragons are the only dragons that have ever been given an age progression
- every single dragon published that has an age progression has at least 21 HD by time they hit "old" age (at least up until January '06)

RoDrag -- January 2006
- finally, an age progression for kobolds
- introduction of the "dragonwrought" feat -- this is the first time that we have a dragon other than a "true" dragon that has an age progression.  this is also the first time that we have a dragon age progression that does not gain HD simply as a function of it's age
So, is it the intent of the dragonwrought feat to give epic feat access to sub-epic characters (as this would be the proper order-of-operations)?  I think not.  Additionally, the very concept of "dragonwrought" or the concept of the possibility of sub-21 HD "old" dragons did not even exist at the time of Draconomicon's printing.

Anything else seems like teapot-dance-healing reasoning.  Now where have I gone wrong?


PS --
Ejo -- you are being inconsistent in how you adjudicate descriptive text.  this is reminiscent of our discussion over leadership. (well, there is consistency -- you ignore context when convenient)   :P




edit: corrected grammer
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: The_Mad_Linguist January 07, 2010, 02:31:49 AM
Honestly, from a game balance standpoint it's really no real biggie.  The only decent epic feats (without epic prereqs like BAB 21, or spellcraft 24 ranks, or whatever) aren't nearly as good as, say, divine metamagic.  I mean, sure, epic toughness gives a lot of hp for a first level character, but a two-feat investment is probably about right - after all, toughness sucks majorly, and improved toughness is hardly better. 

For comparison, Troll-blooded does "staying alive" far better, and the combination of "tomb tainted soul" and charnel touch isn't too far behind.

On the other end of the scale, we have real stinkers like "improved low light vision",
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: wotmaniac January 07, 2010, 03:08:33 AM
Honestly, from a game balance standpoint it's really no real biggie.  The only decent epic feats (without epic prereqs like BAB 21, or spellcraft 24 ranks, or whatever) aren't nearly as good as, say, divine metamagic.  I mean, sure, epic toughness gives a lot of hp for a first level character, but a two-feat investment is probably about right - after all, toughness sucks majorly, and improved toughness is hardly better. 

For comparison, Troll-blooded does "staying alive" far better, and the combination of "tomb tainted soul" and charnel touch isn't too far behind.

On the other end of the scale, we have real stinkers like "improved low light vision",
well, now, that's a different issue entirely  :p
never mind that half those feats have been since either reduced to regular feats or turned in to ACFs or but in to PrCs (e.g., lion totem pounce is way better than "dire charge").  of course, this is all due to "power creep" with each successive splatbook.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK January 07, 2010, 03:14:14 AM
Indeed, other than Distance Shot (which still isn't as good as Divine Metamagic) and Epic Toughness (Which again I wouldn't take as there are better options) pretty much all good epic feats require such high skill ranks that you can't take them very early anyway.

But as written, D. Kobolds (and Half Dragon Kobolds) can indeed use Epic feats early if they so desire by being old enough.  It just doesn't matter much.  Really the whole "Kobolds as True Dragons" thing is only powerful because of Dragons of Eberron.

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: EjoThims January 07, 2010, 07:48:36 AM
you're right -- it doesn't specifically state "true" dragons -- but "true" dragons are the only ones that ever have a listed age progression; thus, making any other dragon-types irrelevant to the discussion.

Except for Kobolds, of course, which apparently don't even actually need to be True Dragons.

also, it appears that we somewhat agree (at least in part) -- nobody at WotC has ever intended to give 1st-lvl, 0-LA characters access to epic feats (well, at least it's a start  :shrug).

I know what I'm thinking, I'm just not sure in what order to put what words to make it more clear

What you think is clear. It is just (also) incorrect.

Ejo -- you are being inconsistent in how you adjudicate descriptive text.  this is reminiscent of our discussion over leadership. (well, there is consistency -- you ignore context when convenient)   :P

Please back up such wild accusations if you feel like tossing them around.

It would appear that you seem to think I am inconsistently applying 'fluff' because you fail to understand the difference between a usually meaningless rule and information that is not a rule.

The Kobold Age categories are a mechanic given to them (with a chart no less) that would normally have little to no meaning. The descriptive text of a feat, on the other hand, is information outside of how it interacts mechanically with the rules. Not to mention that if you are mentioning what I believe you are, I also provided a quite valid argument for why you were incorrect even when taking the fluff into account. Middle management exists even though it sucks balls, as anyone stuck in it (myself included) can tell you.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: wotmaniac January 07, 2010, 09:30:41 AM
Ejo -- you are being inconsistent in how you adjudicate descriptive text.  this is reminiscent of our discussion over leadership. (well, there is consistency -- you ignore context when convenient)   :P

Please back up such wild accusations if you feel like tossing them around.

It would appear that you seem to think I am inconsistently applying 'fluff' because you fail to understand the difference between a usually meaningless rule and information that is not a rule.
well, I was hoping that you would have realized that I was being facetious, with the inclusion of the " :P" -- it was simply meant as playful banter.
look -- I've said all that I know to say on the subject, and have already argued this ad nauseum -- as such, I see no need to continue (at least not until I can come up with a better way to present my argument); otherwise, we're just gonna continue to go around in circles.  We're simply gonna have to agree to disagree.

however, I will at least give you this much (http://www.tonyskansascity.com/tonyskansascity/internetfight.jpg)  ;)
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: SorO_Lost January 07, 2010, 12:57:12 PM
[spoiler]
1. Mostly it's here because it's nice to gather up all the source information so people can see a quick summary of how this works.

2. First let's note that there's a lot of contradictory information on True Dragons. ... This is full of incorrect information.  ... We need a rock solid statement of what a True Dragon is in D&D, and this isn't it.  Don't worry, we'll get one.

3. We can find it in Draconomicron on page 4, in a handy sidebar entitled "The Different Kinds of Dragons":  ... Okay, now that's a nice solid definition that we can work with.  Note that the sidebar claims to list every True and Lesser Dragon printed to date, but doesn't list Kobolds in either one, so that part isn't terribly helpful.

4. Point 3:  Do Dragonwrought Kobolds "become more powerful as they grow older?"  Absolutely.  They in fact slowly gain bonuses to their mental stats, up to +3 when they gain Great Wyrm status.

5. Hopefully that should clear everything up, with source material.


1. Some how I enjoy JaronK's propaganda and I dunno why. Maybe it's the proposal to set everyone square with facts, then riddles everything with his opinion of stuff and completely skips covering any counter point at all.

2. The more abilities as they age single handled shuts down the entire dragonwrought thing. Nice move by saying 'ignore this because it's bad' as your defense against it. Ignoring some things is how to get the job done in a thread covering the facts right?

3. You dash off saying the fact the list doesn't include kobolds is meanlingless as RotD wasn't out then, but reach in and nab 'more powerful' to replace MM's 'more abilities', again for some reason I just like the style and I'm not speaking on a condescending or insulting way. The voice in my head saying what you wrote doesn't come off at all like a mentally handicapped guy, theres just some quirk to it like it's so unreal you would post something like that I cannot accept any other idea than you meant some form of mockery yet your are serious which makes it entertaining to me Like an lol cat or something.
Side question: Are/Were you Catholic?

4. So do undead, every 100 years they have new spell-like abilities and a boost to charisma. So? Srsly, your entire post could have been sumed down to 'kobolds are dragon's because I said so' rather than being so lengthy.

5. Sure you did. And as a follow up I shall mimic your style in my own presentation as intimation is the best form of flattery.
Hitler is awesome.
Point 1: He built the autoban and laid the concept of the modern road out.
Point 2: 6mil people were given jobs thanks to his economic management in his country alone.
Point 3: 90% of the people voted that he was doing a great job.
So, conclusively, based on all the facts I have presented and my claim that this is all the facts and I am presenting them all for you to read and quell all flame wars. Based on History Hitler was a great Germen and model citizen. You should try to be more like him.

Hmm, I have a knock for it too, scary.

***[/spoiler]

So, here is my contribution to what should be the rest of JaronK's post.

1. MM's rules are not replaced, more abilities is still required and kobolds don't gain new abilities based solely off aging. Unless they are undead, but then your not living so you are not really aging either.

2. Draconomicon doesn't list Kobolds as dragons as at the time no D&D writer working on the project felt kobolds were more than bottom dwelling lizard-servants to real dragons. In fact, they aren't even lessor dragons, just scum. As a side note, Draconomicon features an entire section dedicated to advancing dragons and as it turns out. Every 4 HD a true dragon advances in size so you're 20th level Kobold would be Gargantuan creature if you really paid attention to the rules. Also, the true dragon's breath weapon advances too. ... Well at least your str/dex goes up as your kobold ages right?

3. RotD does list aging categories and aging effects for kobolds. As pointed out in the posts before hand all True Dragons lack aging effects, make of this what you will.

4. RotD has an entire section of rules on kobolds. They get glanced over due to being flavor however it one were to look in the section kobolds and other races lo and bohold True Dragons are still considered to be an entirely separate race by the writers of the book so claimed to say they are one and the same. Again, make of that what you will since the tables totally override the descriptions right?

5. Page 4 of RotD lists kobolds and true dragons separately for the MM and completely lacks true dragons in it's own RotD listing suggesting of course nothing presented in RotD is a true dragon. Foreshadowing the intent of the kobold chapter perhaps?

6. Draconic Heritage's table on page 103 lists all true dragons to date by it's own admittance. RAW is flat out not including kobolds as true dragons even in the RotD, which of course is why JaronK had to ignore entire sections of content for his thread.

I think that's enough for now. I really don't pay too much attention to the kobold thing ever since WotC replied they don't care, buy 4E. I will recommend reading this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-expectancy_effect) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer-expectancy_effect) if you have a chance and keep that in mind when people start whipping out highlighted text or completely skipping sections entirely searching for exactly the right combination of facts.

: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: PhaedrusXY January 07, 2010, 01:19:04 PM
3. RotD does list aging categories and aging effects for kobolds. As pointed out in the posts before hand all True Dragons lack aging effects, make of this what you will.
All monster races that don't explicitly have detailed write-ups for use as PCs lack aging tables. It doesn't mean anything at all. Gnolls don't have aging tables, either. Does this mean they don't gain bonuses and penalties as in the aging tables?
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Surreal January 07, 2010, 04:02:04 PM
So I haven't bothered to read this ridiculous thread, but could someone tell me what's the point to this whole thing from a CO perspective? There's the mental stat boosts, epic feats, what else?
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: PhaedrusXY January 07, 2010, 04:04:27 PM
So I haven't bothered to read this ridiculous thread, but could someone tell me what's the point to this whole thing from a CO perspective? There's the mental stat boosts, epic feats, what else?
Dragon archtypes (or whatever the hell they're called) from Eberron. Mainly the one that adds +2 to your sorcerer levels.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Agita January 07, 2010, 04:08:19 PM
Any good Dragon forms for Alter Self?
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: PhaedrusXY January 07, 2010, 04:11:13 PM
Any good Dragon forms for Alter Self?
Here is the list of them from my Alter Self thread. Lilt compiled them, though. In general, they're good for flight speed and natural armor.

:
Some Dragon-typed forms:
Crested Felldrake (MM2), 2HD, 4 NA, s, 40ft, Bite (1d8)
Spitting Felldrake (MM2), 3HD, 4 NA, m, 30ft, Bite (1d6)
Fang Dragon (MoF), 3HD, 2 NA, t, 60 + Fly 90 (Average) Trip*
Horned Felldrake (MM2), 4HD, 7 NA, m, 30ft, Horn (2d6), Charge* (4d6+2*Strength)
Wyrmling Ethereal Dragon (Drac), 4HD, 3 NA, t, 60 + Fly 60 (poor)
Wyrmling Shadow Dragon (Drac), 4HD, 7 NA, t, 80 (Capped at 60) + Fly 150 (Capped at 120) (Average)
Wyrmling Battle Dragon (Drac), 5HD, 5NA, t, 40, Fly 100 (average)
The above come with 2 claws and a bite for 1d3 and 1d4 respectively.
Wyrmling Styx Dragon (Drac), 5HD, 4 NA, s, 60ft + Swim 60ft + Burrow 20ft, 2 Tail Blades (1d6) + Bite (1d6), Improved Grab* Constrict* (For 2*Tail Blade Damage)
Portal Drake (Underdark), 5HD, 4 NA, s, 40ft + Burrow 20ft + Fly 90 (Average), Bite (1d6) + 2 Claws (1d4), +4 Hide and Move Silently
Wyrmling Crystal Dragon (MM2), 5HD, 4 NA, s, 40ft + Fly 100ft (average) + Burrow 5ft + Swim 40ft
Wyrmling Sapphire Dragon (MM2), 5HD, 3 NA, t, 40ft + Fly 100ft (average) + Burrow 15ft + Swim 10ft

Sources:
BoED = Book of Exalted Heeds
Drac = Draconomicon
FRCS/MoF = Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting or Monsters of Feyrun
MiniHB = Miniatures Handbook
MM2 = Monster Manual 2
PlanarHB = Planar Handbook

Wyrmling shadow dragon looks best, which is the one I've heard people talk about on other threads.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: bearsarebrown January 07, 2010, 04:25:13 PM
So I haven't bothered to read this ridiculous thread, but could someone tell me what's the point to this whole thing from a CO perspective? There's the mental stat boosts, epic feats, what else?

sovereign archetypes are the big thing. free spell  list added, CL=IL, 2 free sorcerer levels...
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: snakeman830 January 07, 2010, 04:53:09 PM
3. RotD does list aging categories and aging effects for kobolds. As pointed out in the posts before hand all True Dragons lack aging effects, make of this what you will.
All monster races that don't explicitly have detailed write-ups for use as PCs lack aging tables. It doesn't mean anything at all. Gnolls don't have aging tables, either. Does this mean they don't gain bonuses and penalties as in the aging tables?
See Races of the Wild for Gnolls, but the point stands. Show me the aging table for Goblins.  What?  There isn't one?  How about Minotaurs?  Nope?  Trolls or Pixies?  Nada.

Dragonwrought Kobolds are True Dragons RAW becuase they meet the 3 criteria.  If you can show any of us how they do not meet one of the criteria, then you have a point.  Not being included in a certian table means nothing (for one, Kobolds aren't normally dragons, so they wouldn't be included).  Not being inclued in Draconoicon is not surprising since the age categories for Kobolds and the Dragonwrought feat had not been printed yet.

You may be correct in saying this was not RAI (in fact, most of us agree with you on that point), but it is RAW.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: The_Mad_Linguist January 07, 2010, 04:53:59 PM
So I haven't bothered to read this ridiculous thread, but could someone tell me what's the point to this whole thing from a CO perspective? There's the mental stat boosts, epic feats, what else?
Dragons of krynn offers draconic vampirism, which is an incredible feat for thrallherds.  Temp hit dice equal to your cha bonus.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK January 07, 2010, 06:18:37 PM
2. The more abilities as they age single handled shuts down the entire dragonwrought thing. Nice move by saying 'ignore this because it's bad' as your defense against it. Ignoring some things is how to get the job done in a thread covering the facts right?

Ignored because other explicitly True Dragons don't use it.  This means it must be a general description of True Dragons, not a strict definition.  If you claim it's a strict definition, then all Gem Dragons and Lung Dragons aren't True (they're neither Chromatic nor Metallic) and neither are White Dragons (they're too short when they get old).  So that can't be right.

3. You dash off saying the fact the list doesn't include kobolds is meanlingless as RotD wasn't out then, but reach in and nab 'more powerful' to replace MM's 'more abilities', again for some reason I just like the style and I'm not speaking on a condescending or insulting way. The voice in my head saying what you wrote doesn't come off at all like a mentally handicapped guy, theres just some quirk to it like it's so unreal you would post something like that I cannot accept any other idea than you meant some form of mockery yet your are serious which makes it entertaining to me Like an lol cat or something.

Cute and all, but it should be obvious as to why I picked Draconomicon's definition of True Dragon over MMs.  The MM definition doesn't actually match up to the majority of True Dragons, and Draconomicon is the primary source on True Dragons (and it DOES match up to ALL True Dragons).  I should hope that makes it clear.  When choosing between two contradictory sources, one should pick the primary source, and one should pick the one that isn't already proven false (or at least proven not to be a strict definition). 

Side question: Are/Were you Catholic?

No.  You're clearly reading information into my statements that isn't there.

4. So do undead, every 100 years they have new spell-like abilities and a boost to charisma. So? Srsly, your entire post could have been sumed down to 'kobolds are dragon's because I said so' rather than being so lengthy.

Undead are not of the Dragon type.  You must be of the Dragon type to even get to the part where we test to see if you get more powerful with age.  I'm only using RAW here, it's not because I said so.  I'm sorry if I came off as flippant... I'd been arguing with people in another thread who were using logical gems like "the designers clearly meant otherwise, therefor my definition is RAW" and "why bias against impossible definitions?"

As to your next part, don't godwin.  It's stupid.

1. MM's rules are not replaced, more abilities is still required and kobolds don't gain new abilities based solely off aging. Unless they are undead, but then your not living so you are not really aging either.

Then White Dragons are not True Dragons, Gem and Lung Dragons are not True Dragons, and Planar Dragons are not True Dragons (each of those violate the MM description in at leat one way).  Since your ruling leads to impossible conclusions (namely that over half the True Dragons are not in fact True Dragons), your ruling is wrong.  Clearly, MM must not be a strict definition, but rather a general description.  Considering MM itself even says that it describes True Dragons that are already known, the MM itself is implying there are more options that don't match the definition.

Meanwhile, Undead are irrelevant to this discussion as being of the Dragon type is required before even testing for "True."

2. Draconomicon doesn't list Kobolds as dragons as at the time no D&D writer working on the project felt kobolds were more than bottom dwelling lizard-servants to real dragons.

That's one possibility.  The other is that Kobolds weren't even dragons at the time, because Races of the Dragon hadn't come out (and wouldn't for years, so it wasn't even in development at the time).  Only the Dragonwrought feat changed that.  I'm going to go with "because the designers couldn't see the future."  But your definition is amusing too.

In fact, they aren't even lessor dragons, just scum.

More to the point, just humanoids.  Kobolds, at the time of Draconomicon, were humanoids. Races of the Dragon put in rules to match up Kobolds with the Draconomicon, not the other way around.

As a side note, Draconomicon features an entire section dedicated to advancing dragons and as it turns out. Every 4 HD a true dragon advances in size so you're 20th level Kobold would be Gargantuan creature if you really paid attention to the rules. Also, the true dragon's breath weapon advances too. ... Well at least your str/dex goes up as your kobold ages right?

That's how to advance dragons via racial HD.  Kobolds advance via class levels. 

3. RotD does list aging categories and aging effects for kobolds. As pointed out in the posts before hand all True Dragons lack aging effects, make of this what you will.

"All True Dragons lack aging effects" is your statement, not any rulebook statement.  Yes, Kobolds are different from other True Dragons, but they're the same where it counts, just like Li Lung Dragons (which have fur and look like Manticores!).

4. RotD has an entire section of rules on kobolds. They get glanced over due to being flavor however it one were to look in the section kobolds and other races lo and bohold True Dragons are still considered to be an entirely separate race by the writers of the book so claimed to say they are one and the same. Again, make of that what you will since the tables totally override the descriptions right?

That's because True Dragons are separate from most Kobolds.  You keep acting like the argument is that all Kobolds are True Dragons.  They're not, they're humanoids.  Dragonwrought Kobolds are very special Kobolds that are very different (they're of the dragon type and take no penalties when aging so they only get stronger).  So forget about what Kobolds in general are (and yeah, they're separate but closely related to True Dragons, in fact by mythology they're made from True Dragon blood) and focus on what Dragonwrought Kobolds are (all of the above, plus they're actually Dragons).  If you're going into the fluff, remember that point:  Dragonwrought Kobolds are mini dragons made entirely from True Dragon blood.

5. Page 4 of RotD lists kobolds and true dragons separately for the MM and completely lacks true dragons in it's own RotD listing suggesting of course nothing presented in RotD is a true dragon. Foreshadowing the intent of the kobold chapter perhaps?

Your argument is still flawed because you're talking about Kobolds in general.  Dragonwrought Kobolds are special.  Yes, regular Kobolds are listed separately. 

6. Draconic Heritage's table on page 103 lists all true dragons to date by it's own admittance. RAW is flat out not including kobolds as true dragons even in the RotD, which of course is why JaronK had to ignore entire sections of content for his thread.

Because when it talks about Kobolds, it's talking about regular Kobolds, not Dragonwrought Kobolds.  Dragonwrought Kobolds are only mentioned twice, once in the feat itself (which says they're now dragons) and once right under the ages table where it says they don't take aging penalties).  They're never mentioned in any list of True or Lesser dragons anywhere.

At the end of the day, your arguments were not thought out.  You've spent most of them arguing that regular Kobolds aren't True Dragons (which is true, they're not even dragons) and base a lot on arguing that the MM definition is strict (which it's not, because it doesn't even apply to most True Dragons).   Plus a random godwin, a claim that it's meaningful that Draconomicon didn't list Kobolds as Dragons years before they had the ability to be dragons, and some weird attempt to figure out if I'm Catholic.  Read the source material.  Find the places where True Dragons are defined, not just described (Page 4 of Draconomicon, and Dragons of Krynn, for the record).  Then start arguing this stuff.

JaronK 
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Omen of Peace January 07, 2010, 06:44:33 PM
When choosing between two contradictory sources, one should pick the primary source, and one should pick the one that isn't already proven false (or at least proven not to be a strict definition).
Well, if you truly want to use logic here you can simply state that you have an inconsistent system (i.e. with some statements contradicting others). The rest is you picking the ones that say what you like. :)
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK January 07, 2010, 07:09:58 PM
Well, if you truly want to use logic here you can simply state that you have an inconsistent system (i.e. with some statements contradicting others). The rest is you picking the ones that say what you like. :)

Well, I'm trying to interpret all the rules possible without dropping any, but the MM makes it clear that it's talking about "known" dragons implying that there could be others that don't match.  That combined with the fact that most dragons don't follow the MM guidelines make it clear at least to me that it's a description, not a definition.  Plus, there's the primary source issue... is anyone trying to argue that Races of the Dragon is not the primary source on Kobolds and that Draconomicon is the primary source on Dragons?

After all, what I'd like is that Kobolds NOT be able to have massively overpowered abilities.  Even without Lore Drake, Wyrm of War is obviously potent as heck.  So this has nothing to do with what I'd like.

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: awaken DM golem January 07, 2010, 07:44:05 PM

The Draconomicon on epic feats, page 66:

"These feats are available to characters of 21st level or higher. Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even if they have no class levels."

Emphasis mine mine, of course.


I'd forgotten this detail, but it is key. A less-than Old Dragonwrought Kobold doesn't get Epic feats. Right. Old and up get them.

: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: The_Mad_Linguist January 07, 2010, 08:19:03 PM
A less-than Old Dragonwrought Kobold

They exist(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/Interrobang.svg/20px-Interrobang.svg.png)
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK January 07, 2010, 08:21:39 PM
Hey look, more abilities as they age.  Heh.  Though most of those epic feats either aren't worth it or require too many skill ranks anyway.

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: EjoThims January 07, 2010, 10:41:20 PM
as it turns out. Every 4 HD a true dragon advances in size so you're 20th level Kobold would be Gargantuan creature if you really paid attention to the rules. Also, the true dragon's breath weapon advances too.

Those are properties of the listed True Dragons, but not necessarily of True Dragons themselves.

If I gave you a list of 40 rectangles and all happened to be squares, and I also gave you the definition of a rectangle, would it be reasonable for you to assume that all rectangles must also be squares, even though such was not included in the definition?

Of course not.

As pointed out in the posts before hand all True Dragons lack aging effects, make of this what you will.

See above.

The entirety of your arguments rest on this poor (and backwards) logic and on RaI.

Remember, we all know that it was never intended for Kobolds to be True Dragons. But that does not change the fact that, by the rules as presented, they can be.

Also:

I was hoping that you would have realized ... it was simply meant as playful banter.

I apologize for having missed that  :banghead
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK January 07, 2010, 11:05:07 PM
Remember, we all know that it was never intended for Kobolds to be True Dragons. But that does not change the fact that, by the rules as presented, they can be.

Well, I'd actually contest that.  What I think we can all agree to is the fact that Kobolds were never intended to have early Epic qualification or Sovereign Archtypes.  It's my belief from reading Races of the Dragons that the authors intended that Dragonwrought Kobolds be True Dragons... all the fluff indicates that's exactly what they'd love to be, and frankly a Dragonwrought Kobold running around telling everyone how technically he's a True Dragon would be hilarious and awesome and totally fitting the Kobold mindset as defined in Races of the Dragon.  It's just that Dragons of Eberron wasn't out yet and the designers didn't notice the part about epic qualification in Draconomicon.  So yeah, I'll totally buy that the designers might have fully intended that Kobolds be True Dragons (why else have the age catagories and the bit about Dragonwrought Kobolds not getting weaker with age?), but that the actual crunch reprocusions of that were unintended.

It's kind of like Genesis.  I'm pretty darn sure they intended that you get to screw with Planar Traits and thus chose how gravity works, most likely so that Wizard NPCs could create wacky home planes that the PCs could adventure through in their quest to defeat them.  They just didn't notice that time traits were also available... and making superspeed planes available to PCs was certainly NOT intended.

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: PhaedrusXY January 07, 2010, 11:12:46 PM
and frankly a Dragonwrought Kobold running around telling everyone how technically he's a True Dragon would be hilarious and awesome and totally fitting the Kobold mindset as defined in Races of the Dragon. 
I was in an (unfortunately short) PbP with a kobold sorcerer who did just that. He even said "Just call me Dragon. That's right, just Dragon." It was hilarious. :D
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK January 07, 2010, 11:18:22 PM
I'm in an all dragon game in WLD in fact, with 90% Kobolds (and a few Dragonborn).  Our standard strategy is to kick in the door while shouting "STAND BACK BEFORE THE MIGHT OF DRAGONS!"  Then we ran into an encounter that was full of Kobolds.  They said "Okay!"  And then we went on our way.  It was awesome.

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: wotmaniac January 07, 2010, 11:32:19 PM
I'm in an all dragon game in WLD in fact, with 90% Kobolds (and a few Dragonborn).  Our standard strategy is to kick in the door while shouting "STAND BACK BEFORE THE MIGHT OF DRAGONS!"  Then we ran into an encounter that was full of Kobolds.  They said "Okay!"  And then we went on our way.  It was awesome.

JaronK
:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Havok4 January 08, 2010, 12:20:55 AM
I would love to see a dragonwrought kobold who acted like that encounter a more traditional true dragon. Especially if the kobold wins the fight which is not unlikely.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: The_Mad_Linguist January 08, 2010, 12:24:04 AM
I would love to see a dragonwrought kobold who acted like that encounter a more traditional true dragon. Especially if the kobold wins the fight which is not unlikely.
As I believe I've mentioned before on these forums, in my campaign setting dragons were made in the image of kobolds, rather than the other way around.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: PhaedrusXY January 08, 2010, 12:24:32 AM
I would love to see a dragonwrought kobold who acted like that encounter a more traditional true dragon. Especially if the kobold wins the fight which is not unlikely.
As I believe I've mentioned before on these forums, in my campaign setting dragons were made in the image of kobolds, rather than the other way around.
:lol
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Operation Shoestring January 08, 2010, 03:58:05 AM
I would love to see a dragonwrought kobold who acted like that encounter a more traditional true dragon. Especially if the kobold wins the fight which is not unlikely.
As I believe I've mentioned before on these forums, in my campaign setting dragons were made in the image of kobolds, rather than the other way around.
:lol
+1 to that
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: bayar January 08, 2010, 05:44:57 PM
Seriously JaronK, stop feeding that troll on GiantITP. It's not worth it...
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: awaken DM golem January 08, 2010, 05:52:30 PM
A less-than Old Dragonwrought Kobold

They exist(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/Interrobang.svg/20px-Interrobang.svg.png)

Heh, nice.
And any DM can RAW say the DW Kobold is pressed into service B E F O R E all the fun stuff kicks in.

The DWK just has to survive until Old age,
and then have a convenient PsyRef item sitting around waiting for the Happy Birthday Celebration Kobold style.
(egad what a weird party)
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: awaken DM golem January 08, 2010, 05:55:44 PM
I would love to see a dragonwrought kobold who acted like that encounter a more traditional true dragon. Especially if the kobold wins the fight which is not unlikely.
As I believe I've mentioned before on these forums, in my campaign setting dragons were made in the image of kobolds, rather than the other way around.
:lol
+1 to that

Me too.
"I believe in Pun-pun Almighty, maker of my D&D heaven and earth (etc)"
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK January 08, 2010, 06:27:36 PM
Seriously JaronK, stop feeding that troll on GiantITP. It's not worth it...

Actually, I think at this point each person who's tried to champion the cause of Kobolds not being true has in turn dropped out, usually admitting that by RAW they are.  Then a new one jumps in.  It's like whackamole.

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: wotmaniac January 08, 2010, 06:51:08 PM
Seriously JaronK, stop feeding that troll on GiantITP. It's not worth it...

Actually, I think at this point each person who's tried to champion the cause of Kobolds not being true has in turn dropped out, usually admitting that by RAW they are.  Then a new one jumps in.  It's like whackamole.

JaronK
either that, or they just figure that it's not worth the effort to continue the argument  :p
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK January 08, 2010, 07:07:52 PM
Actually, a number have outright said "okay, nevermind, it's RAW."  So, it's not just giving up and getting bored.  And hey, it's education!

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: bayar January 24, 2010, 12:32:01 PM
These discussions have become more frequently over in GitP...thinking about creating some image macros specifically for those threads.

Most recent one: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7755285#post7755285.

Also, it was meant to be a discussion about Dragonwrought kobold + Spellhoarding template from Dragon #313.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: wotmaniac January 28, 2010, 09:35:57 AM
(don't know if this has been discussed or not ...)

I just thought of something --
so, by the arguments presented declaring dragonwrought kobolds as "true dragons", that means that getting the materials for making dragonhide armor is now a whole lot easier and less dangerous (as a matter of fact, any hodge-podge group of basic warriors could do some serious mining).

: SRD
DRAGONHIDE

Armorsmiths can work with the hides of dragons to produce armor or shields of masterwork quality.
and the MM specifically references the "special materials" section of the DMG


just a thought.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: The_Mad_Linguist January 28, 2010, 09:58:58 AM
Yeah, but given that kobolds are small, and have slight build, you can only get enough hide for extremely tiny armor.

We're talking a hat for your familiar small.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: wotmaniac January 28, 2010, 12:24:43 PM
Yeah, but given that kobolds are small, and have slight build, you can only get enough hide for extremely tiny armor.

We're talking a hat for your familiar small.
that's why you get a whole platoon of them.
or put them in breeding pits, and farm them.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: bayar January 28, 2010, 02:21:15 PM
You kinda need a collosal dragon for a medium heavy armor, no ?
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: wotmaniac January 28, 2010, 03:56:16 PM
You kinda need a collosal dragon for a medium heavy armor, no ?
well, to start with, the idea was stated tongue-in-cheek, based out of the silliness of my wandering, unoccupied mind. (I probably should have said so -- sorry)

the idea that I was going from was perhaps:
- 4 small creatures = 1 medium creatures
- 4 medium = 1 large
- ......
- 1024 small = 1 colossal
you know, and patch it all together, or whatever.
like I said, I was just being facetious.

of course, I find the mechanics based around size categories to be a bit contrived at times.  lets look at the dragonhide bit for a minute:
- a colossal dragon could be used to make a single suit of half-plate for a single large creature; whether that creature is:
 --- a frost giant (15 feet tall, 2800 lbs)  --or--
 --- a minotaur (half as tall, and 1/4 the weight)
go figure.  given those dimensions, logic would dictate that it could make 1 suit for the frost giant or 2 suits for the minotaur.

just an observation.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: bearsarebrown January 28, 2010, 04:18:26 PM
Go buy Dragonhide armor then cast Resurrection on it.  ;)
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: wotmaniac January 28, 2010, 04:34:41 PM
Go buy Dragonhide armor then cast Resurrection on it.  ;)
:o
alright, my players are now banned from coming to this site. (especially the one who likes to take Mother Cyst)
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: The_Mad_Linguist January 28, 2010, 04:53:00 PM
Go buy Dragonhide armor, hauntshift yourself into it, then cast Resurrection on it.  ;)
fixed
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: PhaedrusXY January 28, 2010, 05:05:41 PM
Go buy Dragonhide armor then cast Resurrection on it.  ;)
:o
alright, my players are now banned from coming to this site. (especially the one who likes to take Mother Cyst)
:lmao :lol
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: BowenSilverclaw January 28, 2010, 05:48:29 PM
Go buy Dragonhide armor then cast Resurrection on it.  ;)
:o
alright, my players are now banned from coming to this site. (especially the one who likes to take Mother Cyst)
:lmao :lol
Made a note for my Core only Cleric :P
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: bayar January 30, 2010, 03:40:49 PM
You know, people say that Dragonwrought kobolds were not meant to be true dragons saying that they dont fit in the dragon fluff and are not like dragons in general...

Then I realised that Dragonwrought kobolds have their maximum age increased depending on their heritage. X5 CHA mod for cromatic heritage and X10 CHA mod for metallic heritage.

Is this another nail in the "Was not meant to be a true dragon" coffin ?
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: awaken DM golem January 30, 2010, 03:47:02 PM

X5 CHA mod for cromatic heritage and X10 CHA mod for metallic heritage.


But but ... that's just the good looking ones. And some of them might live longer than true dragons, which means they cay-yant be real true dragons.
 ;)
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: SorO_Lost January 30, 2010, 05:13:33 PM
You know, people say that Dragonwrought kobolds were not meant to be true dragons saying that they dont fit in the dragon fluff and are not like dragons in general...

Then I realised that Dragonwrought kobolds have their maximum age increased depending on their heritage. X5 CHA mod for cromatic heritage and X10 CHA mod for metallic heritage.

Is this another nail in the "Was not meant to be a true dragon" coffin ?
No. What does categorizing your self to age like a gold dragon have over categorizing your self to age like a true dragon?
A nail it like Dracnomicon's page 62 sidebar stating all true dragons are immune to at least one energy type. Look I can say by RAW the trick fails yet again, not that it matters since no one cares.

Anyway, have you guys seen this video yet? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON0tUATUeP8)

: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: snakeman830 January 30, 2010, 05:47:39 PM
No. What does categorizing your self to age like a gold dragon have over categorizing your self to age like a true dragon?
A nail it like Dracnomicon's page 62 sidebar stating all true dragons are immune to at least one energy type. Look I can say by RAW the trick fails yet again, not that it matters since no one cares.
Force Dragons, Prismatic Dragons, Radiant Dragons, Shadow Dragons, most Lung Dragons...

Sorry, your objection fails because it says numerous true dragons are not true dragons.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Negative Zero January 30, 2010, 06:14:35 PM

X5 CHA mod for cromatic heritage and X10 CHA mod for metallic heritage.


But but ... that's just the good looking ones. And some of them might live longer than true dragons, which means they cay-yant be real true dragons.
 ;)

But a given Dragonwrought Kobold lives exactly as long as a true dragon.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: The_Mad_Linguist January 30, 2010, 06:27:26 PM
No. What does categorizing your self to age like a gold dragon have over categorizing your self to age like a true dragon?
A nail it like Dracnomicon's page 62 sidebar stating all true dragons are immune to at least one energy type. Look I can say by RAW the trick fails yet again, not that it matters since no one cares.
Force Dragons, Prismatic Dragons, Radiant Dragons, Shadow Dragons, most Lung Dragons...

Sorry, your objection fails because it says numerous true dragons are not true dragons.

Also

"Bitch!  I'm immune to Positive Energy!"
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: SorO_Lost January 31, 2010, 11:59:14 AM
No. What does categorizing your self to age like a gold dragon have over categorizing your self to age like a true dragon?
A nail it like Dracnomicon's page 62 sidebar stating all true dragons are immune to at least one energy type. Look I can say by RAW the trick fails yet again, not that it matters since no one cares.
Force Dragons, Prismatic Dragons, Radiant Dragons, Shadow Dragons, most Lung Dragons...

Sorry, your objection fails because it says numerous true dragons are not true dragons.
I knew the only retort back would be "ignore it as I can find an exception to prove it's not true to all!" and I figured since the RC doesn't list force as an Energy damage type, even though the acid sidebar makes it known why acid is even considered Energy and thus tells the reason force isn't listed, would get used. You may note the capitalization of my use of the word Energy to avoid mistake of grouping positive and negative energy or even the force and light subtypes that deal damage into the same category as Energy as the writers of the draconmicon were not but I not saying I know more than they did of the rules or that they committed a horrendous yet fairly easy to understand why mistake of what Energy is. So instead let me offer a much more manageable compensation towards you guys. If you stop ignoring 289 pages telling what the intent is to stretch "more power" in your own god complexion of your interpretation trumps all to cover ability adjustments from aging then I will ignore a quarter page of rules that exist within a sidebar. Which would also mean you wouldn't have to deal with the all true dragons have spell resistance & damage reduction as well, isn't that great?

Given JaronK has a habit of when proven wrong to spend countless hours nitpicking over tiny details, such as this threads idea of finding a single dragon that doesn't seem to follow the all compressing rules of true dragons to invalidate everything in order to squeeze in some meandering detail of munchkinzation, I'm sure if much better point that kobolds are true dragons can be found it will be and I will then either refute or accept that point when it comes.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: wotmaniac January 31, 2010, 03:23:40 PM
If you stop ignoring 289 pages telling what the intent is to stretch "more power" in your own god complexion of your interpretation trumps all to cover ability adjustments from aging then I will ignore a quarter page of rules that exist within a sidebar.
:clap  QFT.   

sigged (if you don't mind)
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: awaken DM golem January 31, 2010, 04:27:46 PM


Dracnomicon's page 62 sidebar stating all true dragons are immune to at least one energy type.


Ah ... that's a new one.

I don't have access to that book anymore, just like "we" don't have access to Tsuyo's best arguments for it, from the original original thread.
So, supposing this objection is real, one just has to gain: Immunity to at least one energy type.
And until that happens, the Kobold isn't a true true dragon.
Sounds reasonable enough, and of course obtaining Immunity to one energy type is within reach at some point.

Since I can't confirm this objection, does someone want to 2nd it ??
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: PlzBreakMyCampaign January 31, 2010, 04:42:57 PM
Since I can't confirm this objection, does someone want to 2nd it ??
I don't normally dig up things for people, but you've always been helpful so I looked.

Chapter 2 runs pages 57-100. Tables 2-1 and 2-2 run pages 59-65. However there are no sidebars within those pages. Page 62 in Draconomicon, book of Dragons, does not have any sidebar. It discusses manueverability. I didn't see 'True Dragon' mentioned in the text upon a skim. So its not there (nor in p62 RoD either).

And be nice to JaronK. I don't care about this thread one way or the other (aside from one funny build of mine that proves the cheesiest +sorc casting reaches level 9 spells slower than fast casting), but I do care about fairness. And JaronK has always (that I have seen) been fair. So, um ya, be fair people.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: The_Mad_Linguist January 31, 2010, 04:44:01 PM
If you're going to use generalized descriptions as rules text, then apparently no true dragon can take the Vow of Poverty feat.  

The "range in length" statement sets some upper and lower bounds.  Oh, look, dragonwrought kobolds are between several feet and more than 100 feat.  Surprise!

Capitalizing "Energy" gets you nowhere.  It ain't capitalized in the rules.  We also have an explicitly true chromatic dragon that has no immunity to fire, acid, cold, sonic or electricity.  But yet, and I quote, "its status as a true dragon is without doubt."


You aren't really helping your case by resorting to ad hominen attacks either.


If we're talking about intent, it's pretty obvious the intent was to have a kobold character able to say "you know guys, I'm technically a true dragon.  Nyaaa!  Draconic pride!  Let's start a racial awareness campaign!  True dragon history month!"  It's not the designers' fault that there were abilities keyed off truedragonhood.  
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: snakeman830 January 31, 2010, 04:47:20 PM
Page 62 of Draconomicon has no sidebars.  It's discussing ariel combat for dragons.  Now, if you missed a number in there and meant page 162, then you're in the middle of the Ghostly Dragon entry.  No dice there either.

Now, it might be fair to say that all True Dragons are immune to Sleep and Paralysis (Dragonwrought kobolds are still included) and at least one other form of attack (Dragonwrought Kobolds are not included.)  Unfortunately, even this falls flat as Incarnum Dragons have no special immunity.  Thus, even that definition cannot be correct, so Dragonwrought Kobolds still qualify.  Spell Resistance and Damage Reduction are not on the younger True Dragons (save Force and Prismatic), so saying that all True Dragons have those would mean that wyrmlings are not True Dragons until they reach a certian point in their life.  That makes no sense whatsoever.

In fact, the ONLY definition I've seen that encompasses all True Dragons is as JaronK presented:

1. Must be of the Dragon Type
2. Must have age categories
3. Must grow stonger as it ages

Dragonwrought Kobolds do meet this criteria, although it is pretty obvious that the benefites of such were NOT what the designers intended.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Havok4 January 31, 2010, 06:40:39 PM

If we're talking about intent, it's pretty obvious the intent was to have a kobold character able to say "you know guys, I'm technically a true dragon.  Nyaaa!  Draconic pride!  Let's start a racial awareness campaign!  True dragon history month!"  It's not the designers' fault that there were abilities keyed off truedragonhood.  
That is hilarious.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK January 31, 2010, 07:03:24 PM
He's right though, Races of the Dragon makes it pretty clear that that was EXACTLY their intent.  It keeps going off about how much Kobolds want to brag about being dragons.  But Dragons of Eberron wasn't out yet, so the implications weren't in place...

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: rypta January 31, 2010, 07:26:23 PM
The energy immunity line is on page 22 of Draconomicon.

EDIT: On the same page, it also says true dragons gain damage reduction and spell resistance as they age, though that is not qualified with "every true dragon" like energy immunity is.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK January 31, 2010, 07:49:01 PM
Though again a bunch of True Dragons don't have energy immunity, so claiming that a dragon isn't true because it lacks energy immunity is hardly useful.  The actual line, by the way, is "Every true dragon is immune to at least one type of elemental energy (acid, cold, electricity, or fire), usually the same type of energy as the dragon uses for its breath weapon.  This immunity stems from the dragons elemental nature.  The same power that allows it to belch forth a blast of energy also keeps that energy from harming the dragon."

This statement of course does not hold true for a significant number of dragons already listed in that same book as being true dragons (many of which also lack any "elemental nature").  So clearly, using that statement to rule out True Dragons doesn't work, as any logic that creates a false conclusion must itself be false.

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: awaken DM golem February 01, 2010, 08:03:04 PM
I hadn't seen the Immunity descript-o, as an argument against DWK's being True Dragons before.
So now that that's over ...  :)
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: rypta March 30, 2010, 11:20:27 PM
I know this thread is a little old, however I came across a line in Dragon Magic that I thought might be significant to this issue.  I know this issue is awfully heated, so I apologize if this was meant to stay dead!

: Dragon Magic, pg. 87
To make a dragonpact, a sorcerer of 4th level or higher (that is, a character with at least four levels of sorcerer) must undertake a mystical ceremony in which he establishes mental contact with a true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon).
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK March 30, 2010, 11:22:46 PM
Wow, nice quote.  Very handy.

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: snakeman830 March 30, 2010, 11:27:29 PM
I know this thread is a little old, however I came across a line in Dragon Magic that I thought might be significant to this issue.  I know this issue is awfully heated, so I apologize if this was meant to stay dead!

: Dragon Magic, pg. 87
To make a dragonpact, a sorcerer of 4th level or higher (that is, a character with at least four levels of sorcerer) must undertake a mystical ceremony in which he establishes mental contact with a true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon).
The information has also already been taken into account.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: rypta March 30, 2010, 11:31:11 PM
I know this thread is a little old, however I came across a line in Dragon Magic that I thought might be significant to this issue.  I know this issue is awfully heated, so I apologize if this was meant to stay dead!

: Dragon Magic, pg. 87
To make a dragonpact, a sorcerer of 4th level or higher (that is, a character with at least four levels of sorcerer) must undertake a mystical ceremony in which he establishes mental contact with a true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon).
The information has also already been taken into account.
Oh.  I searched the thread and it didn't look like anyone had mentioned it here.  If that is the case, I apologize for repeating it.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Solo March 30, 2010, 11:34:53 PM
The general issue of 12 age categories has been mentioned, though not that specific line.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK March 31, 2010, 04:20:32 PM
It's helpful to see how many books have a line like that, though.  It looks like all the books on Dragons agree with the definition that you need to be a dragon with age categories, but the specific "has to be 12" thing is relevant because the disguise skill refers to adult, old, and venerable as age categories (though the main description of those ages does not).

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK July 17, 2010, 12:04:33 PM
Since I was asked to bring this back up, at this point there are four sources on what a True Dragon is.  One is a description (it talks about what "known" True Dragons are, and the description given does not match most True Dragons) and three are definitions (they say "this is what a True Dragon is" basically).  The description (MM1) does not match the definitions (Dragons of Krynn, Dragon Magic, Draconomicon), nor does it match the vast majority of defined True Dragons.  All three definitions match up.  Dragon Magic says that a True Dragon is any Dragon with 12 age categories.  Dragons of Krynn says a True Dragon is any Dragon with age categories.  Draconomicon says that True Dragons are any dragons that get more powerful as they get older and have age categories.  The most clear entries (Dragon Magic and Dragons of Krynn) are the ones where the definition is critical for rules purposes (since Draconomicon and Monster Manual don't actually have special rules that deal with True Dragons, they just talk about them).

Frankly, I don't see why this is even open for debate still, especially once you read those books on the topic.  The only question is the bit about energy immunity... which still doesn't hold true for a number of known True Dragons.

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: awaken DM golem July 17, 2010, 04:43:54 PM

The only question is the bit about energy immunity... which still doesn't hold true for a number of known True Dragons.

In any case, energy immunity can be obtained by (long list).
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Agita July 17, 2010, 04:48:36 PM

The only question is the bit about energy immunity... which still doesn't hold true for a number of known True Dragons.

In any case, energy immunity can be obtained by (long list).
Perhaps the easiest way is having Mantle of the Icy Soul (the one that wasn't nerfed in SpC) cast on yourself by an NPC.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: SorO_Lost July 17, 2010, 05:38:45 PM
Dragons of Krynn

page 15, True Dragon chapter
1. 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).
2. Some or all of these are absent in dragonkin and lesser dragon types.
3. In addition, dragons gain power and abilities as they age,

Page 15 again
4. Draconic magic is, strictly speaking, ambient in nature. It is not dependent on Chaos, unlike the sorcerers and mystics of the Age of Mortals

Page 155, Book Three Kindred Of The Dragon, 2nd chapter, page 155
5. No dragonwrought kobolds listed.

page 168
6.
Draconic Vampirism [General]
You are able to absorb the fleeing life energy from a dying dragon using the energy to temporarily increase your own strength.
Prerequisites: Juvenile or older true dragon, caster level 1st.
Benefits: If you strike the killing blow against a true dragon (a creature of the dragon type that possesses an age category), you can attempt to absorb the dragon’s soul as it departs its body. The spirit of the deceased dragon is allowed to make a Will save (equal to the DC of your breath weapon). If successful, you are unable to absorb the dragon’s spirit. If the saving throw is failed, you absorb the dragon’s essence. The dragon killed must be able to cast spells (typically of adult age or higher) in order to enjoy the full benefits of draconic vampirism. For every age category of the dragon killed, you gain one temporary Hit Die. These temporary Hit Dice increase your abilities just as if you had gained age, increasing your power and your size, although you do not age any. Each week, you lose one temporary Hit Die and decrease in power. Without a skull totem, the loss cannot be halted by any means, and the maximum number of additional temporary Hit Dice you may gain cannot exceed your Charisma bonus.

If the dragon you killed does not cast spells, you instead recover a number of hit points equal to 1d12 times the dragon’s age category. Hit points recovered this way may not increase your hit point total past its normal maximum.

***

1. Darkvision or did they intend Blindsight & Keen Senses?
2. Well all dragons have darkvision so probably not.
3. Not more powerful as they age where you shove your intent into a book ignoring somewhere around 500 pages of the book's intent which trumps yours but gain abilities. Dragonwrought age isn't gaining more abilities its only increasing existing ones.
4. True Dragon casting != Sorcerer casting. Greater Draconic Rite doesn't meet True Dragon spellcasting requirements. See also the order of rules.
5. I recall you had a huge block of text detailing some excuse why the draconomicon didn't list Kobolds. Heres a book printed after RotD to counter that.
6. Brought to light by one of your followers where he half quoted it. I finished his quote and he dropped it. You're turn.

7. Of all the true dragon rules (outside of dragon magic's out of place line) there is one trait never made an exception to. Directly gaining HD from aging. Disprove that using your against the rules methods if you want, I'd like to see what excuse you come up with.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: The_Mad_Linguist July 17, 2010, 05:39:57 PM
Also, requiring every generality in worldbuilding sections to be true results in no true dragons existing

: Dragons of Krynn
Longer-lived than any other race, dragons can also extend their lifespans by hibernating in near-perfect stasis.  

No dragon has that ability in its statblock.  In addition, Elans are immortal, and you can't live longer than 'immortal'.  So therefore there is no such thing as a true dragon. :p
The clan dragons are those most recognizable as dragons; they are also known as “true dragons” to differentiate them from their lesser cousin
However, that "known as" refers to the in-character terminology.  The entire chapter is all flavor with no mechanics;
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Lo77o July 17, 2010, 05:51:57 PM

The clan dragons are those most recognizable as dragons; they are also known as “true dragons” to differentiate them from their lesser cousin
However, that "known as" refers to the in-character terminology.  The entire chapter is all flavor with no mechanics;

God dammit... I had to run to the store to get the book. By the time iv read the chapter and i was about to point this out, you had already done it.

Well.. +1
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK July 17, 2010, 08:09:16 PM
Dragons of Krynn

page 15, True Dragon chapter
1. 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).

Dragonwrought Kobolds can indeed take Dragon Wings for flight (I believe there's actually an underground dragon that lacks both swimming and flight.   Not totally sure though).  They also have boosted intelligence (higher than White Dragons).  Superior senses?  Why yes, they get darkvision and low light vision, in addition to a wisdom boost.  Neat.  Not hard to get swimming either.  Besides, isn't this talking about known true dragons, implying there could be others?  It's not like the part where they strictly define True Dragons in this very book as ones with age categories.  I notice you neglected to quote that despite its being the one time they strictly define it mechanically.

2. Some or all of these are absent in dragonkin and lesser dragon types.

So, since White Dragons lack superior intelligence, they're lesser?  Is that your statement?  Because you seem to be claiming here that Kobolds can't be true due to potentially missing energy immunity and flight.  So White Dragons are out?

3. In addition, dragons gain power and abilities as they age,

DKobolds definitely get this one.  +3 to all mental stats is certainly more powerful.  They also get the ability to take epic feats when they get old enough.

Page 15 again
4. Draconic magic is, strictly speaking, ambient in nature. It is not dependent on Chaos, unlike the sorcerers and mystics of the Age of Mortals

Some dragons don't even have casting.  Interestingly, Dragons are, in fact, Sorcerers (many of them).

Page 155, Book Three Kindred Of The Dragon, 2nd chapter, page 155
5. No dragonwrought kobolds listed.

Wait, a book that came out before Dragonwrought existed didn't list Dragonwrought?  My god, those foolish developers!  How could they not see the future?

Seriously, you're reaching so hard it hurts at this point.

page 168
6.
Draconic Vampirism [General]
You are able to absorb the fleeing life energy from a dying dragon using the energy to temporarily increase your own strength.
Prerequisites: Juvenile or older true dragon, caster level 1st.
Benefits: If you strike the killing blow against a true dragon (a creature of the dragon type that possesses an age category), you can attempt to absorb the dragon’s soul as it departs its body. The spirit of the deceased dragon is allowed to make a Will save (equal to the DC of your breath weapon). If successful, you are unable to absorb the dragon’s spirit. If the saving throw is failed, you absorb the dragon’s essence. The dragon killed must be able to cast spells (typically of adult age or higher) in order to enjoy the full benefits of draconic vampirism. For every age category of the dragon killed, you gain one temporary Hit Die. These temporary Hit Dice increase your abilities just as if you had gained age, increasing your power and your size, although you do not age any. Each week, you lose one temporary Hit Die and decrease in power. Without a skull totem, the loss cannot be halted by any means, and the maximum number of additional temporary Hit Dice you may gain cannot exceed your Charisma bonus.

If the dragon you killed does not cast spells, you instead recover a number of hit points equal to 1d12 times the dragon’s age category. Hit points recovered this way may not increase your hit point total past its normal maximum.

So, yeah.  Let's just point that out again:  a true dragon (a creature of the dragon type that possesses an age category).  Hey look, a clear definition.  No exceptions exist, actually.  Unlike all the other ones, this definition actually holds true.  I notice you failed to underline it, despite it being the one part of this that actually applies as a mechanical definition.  Nothing else you've put in here does so.

***

See, you have a bunch of general descriptions, many of which don't even apply to many True Dragons (White Dragons lack superior intelligence, younger dragons don't even have magic, etc).  You've even reached really far with the statement that Dragonwrought Kobolds aren't listed as True Dragons in a book printed before they were even thought of as though that means anything.  Plus you list the HD thing as though it gave that as a definition of True Dragon (it didn't though it assumed you would have it if you were, that's not the same thing). And yet there's one definition in all that fluff, one thing that directly says what a True Dragon is.  I'll restate it, in case you somehow lost track of it in fluff:

a true dragon (a creature of the dragon type that possesses an age category)

Now let's quote Dragon Magic on the topic, and again I'm going to cite actual mechanical rules, not just fluff about what specific people know of True Dragons.  Page 87 here:

a true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon).

Hey look!  Mechanics!  And perfect agreement!

Now, since you think general descriptive summaries count as definitions, let's make general descriptive summaries of all known true dragons.  Do they all have energy immunity?  No, some Lung Dragons do not.  Do they all grow to over 100 feet long?  No, White Dragons do not.  Are they all of superior intelligence?  No, White Dragons cap out at 12 Int (lower than a Venerable Dragonwrought Kobold's average 13).  Are they all Metallic or Chromatic?  No, Lung Dragons and Gem Dragons and Planar Dragons and Ferrous Dragons are not (but Dragonwrought Kobolds are, as per the table in the Kobolds section of Races of the dragon).  Are they all listed in Dragons of Krynn or Draconomicon?  No, Ferrous Dragons are not (and neither is any dragon printed after those two books, because the designers aren't actually prophetic).  Do they live a long time?  No, Rattelyr dragons live a rather short time.  Okay, so none of that stuff.  But all of the ones listed as True Dragons, they have the following:

They have 12 age catagories (Li Lungs have fewer, but they mature into another kind of Lung dragon, and the sum total is 12).
They're of the dragon type, with all the usual dragon type abilities.
They do in fact get more powerful as they get older

Funny how those are pretty much exactly what the primary source (Draconomicon) says.  And guess how Dragonwrought Kobolds stack up?  Bingo.  While we're at it, remember the definition of a Lesser Dragon in Draconomicon is one that lacks age categories.  Any dragon that's not lesser is true.  Are DKobolds lesser dragons?  Do they lack age categories?  Think carefully about how to define them as such.

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK July 17, 2010, 08:17:16 PM
It's also worth mentioning that while Dragons of Eberron is clearly talking about True Dragons in the paragraph where it states who gets to take Sovereign Archtypes, the way it's written any dragon can do it (it's just that only certain specific True Dragons lose their ability to cast certain types of spells with their innate casting).  So, it's all pretty academic anyhow.  Certainly, if we're going for technicalities like "Dragonwrought Kobolds weren't listed as True Dragons in a book written before the Dragonwrought feat was created" then a technicality like "it says any dragon can do it" is reasonable.

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: The_Mad_Linguist July 17, 2010, 08:55:17 PM
And let's say we have a half-white-dragon red dragon, or a paragon red dragon, or a red dragon of legend.  It's not listed on any list of true dragons, yet saying it wouldn't qualify as one because of that would be stupid.

You could argue that it's a list of all true dragons that have statblocks, but as far as I can tell WotC never bothered to actually stat out a dragonwrought kobold, so that's out too.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Littha July 17, 2010, 09:04:17 PM
Draconic Vampirism [General]
You are able to absorb the fleeing life energy from a dying dragon using the energy to temporarily increase your own strength.
Prerequisites: Juvenile or older true dragon, caster level 1st.
Benefits: If you strike the killing blow against a true dragon (a creature of the dragon type that possesses an age category), you can attempt to absorb the dragon’s soul as it departs its body. The spirit of the deceased dragon is allowed to make a Will save (equal to the DC of your breath weapon). If successful, you are unable to absorb the dragon’s spirit. If the saving throw is failed, you absorb the dragon’s essence. The dragon killed must be able to cast spells (typically of adult age or higher) in order to enjoy the full benefits of draconic vampirism. For every age category of the dragon killed, you gain one temporary Hit Die. These temporary Hit Dice increase your abilities just as if you had gained age, increasing your power and your size, although you do not age any. Each week, you lose one temporary Hit Die and decrease in power. Without a skull totem, the loss cannot be halted by any means, and the maximum number of additional temporary Hit Dice you may gain cannot exceed your Charisma bonus.

If the dragon you killed does not cast spells, you instead recover a number of hit points equal to 1d12 times the dragon’s age category. Hit points recovered this way may not increase your hit point total past its normal maximum.
Fang Dragon
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: wotmaniac July 19, 2010, 02:36:25 AM
Here's the deal -- this whole issue is basically just to try to justify early access to epic feats (i.e., at 1st level), right?
That being the case, then this whole thing is being argued from the wrong end; and, thus, is largely irrelevant. 

Okay, sure .... let's just go ahead and call dragonwrought kobolds "true dragons" (as I think that argument has already been made, ad nauseum).  But that still doesn't mean that you can get early access to epic feats, and here's why:
Sure, there's that paragraph in Draconomicon that says that dragons of a old age can take epic feats, but that is an addition to the rules in ELH, not a replacement.  If you look, you'll see that every single "true" dragon ever printed already has at least 21 HD by time they hit old age.  Let's break-down that paragraph to see what is really going on:
The first sentence simply restates the original rule from ELH.  Before this, there was never anything that said that HD could qualify for epic feats; up to this point, only class/character levels were mentioned.
Next, you have the sentence that has spurred all of this debate; the thing is, you have to read the whole sentence -- you can't just look at the "Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats" part and leave it at that.  The rest of that sentence, "even if they have no class levels", is a reference back to the first sentence -- this is the first place in 3.5 that establishes that creature HD count for the purposes of epic feats; that is all this does.  Interpreting this to mean that a quirky 1st-level character can take epic feats is completely ignores context (not just of the whole paragraph, but the rule-set as a whole)
This was November '03 (very early in the 3.5 cycle)

Fast forward 26 months -- enter Races of the Dragon -- drop one designer and add 4 more, and you have a completely different dynamic.  Given that, do you think it might be possible, in all of their dragon/kobold obsession, that they might have forgotten about the specific verbiage of a single paragraph in 300-page book that was put out over 2 years prior?  Given the design philosophy, I think that the most probable answer is that they would have thought that injecting a sentence to the effect of "you still can't take epic feats until you have at least 21 HD" would be excessively redundant (if the thought even occurred to them at all -- which it probably didn't).

Yea, you found a silly, quirky, unintentional loophole that involved a 2 different sets of designers and is separated by 2+ years and 10k+ pages of disjointed development -- congratulations.  It was funny -- at first.  Now it is time to move on to something a little less ridiculous.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Bastian July 19, 2010, 03:12:30 AM
Here's the deal -- this whole issue is basically just to try to justify early access to epic feats (i.e., at 1st level), right?
That being the case, then this whole thing is being argued from the wrong end; and, thus, is largely irrelevant.
No, there's quite a bit more riding on True Dragonhood. Clearly you are an expert on this topic.  

Okay, sure .... let's just go ahead and call dragonwrought kobolds "true dragons" (as I think that argument has already been made, ad nauseum).  But that still doesn't mean that you can get early access to epic feats, and here's why:
Sure, there's that paragraph in Draconomicon that says that dragons of a old age can take epic feats, but that is an addition to the rules in ELH, not a replacement.
So you claim but the text indicates otherwise. Where does it say it's not an exception?
If you look, you'll see that every single "true" dragon ever printed already has at least 21 HD by time they hit old age.
I'll take your word for this, though I wouldn't be surprised to find an exception besides Dragonwrought Kobolds.
Let's break-down that paragraph to see what is really going on:
The first sentence simply restates the original rule from ELH.  Before this, there was never anything that said that HD could qualify for epic feats; up to this point, only class/character levels were mentioned.
Next, you have the sentence that has spurred all of this debate; the thing is, you have to read the whole sentence
I have to READ the whole sentence? Really? But that would be hard and might make you look foolish.

If only "Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even if they have no class levels" meant that old aged dragons could choose epic feats regardless of class levels. But sadly no, apparently it means, following the rules in the epic level handbook with no exceptions, dragons of at least old age can take epic feats since their HD count will always be higher than 21 and their dragon HD counts in place of class levels when determining whether you qualify for prerequisites for epic feats. That must be the
sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-text

because it's almost like it isn't there. :rollseyes

-- you can't just look at the "Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats" part and leave it at that.  The rest of that sentence, "even if they have no class levels", is a reference back to the first sentence -- this is the first place in 3.5 that establishes that creature HD count for the purposes of epic feats; that is all this does.  Interpreting this to mean that a quirky 1st-level character can take epic feats is completely ignores context (not just of the whole paragraph, but the rule-set as a whole)
This was November '03 (very early in the 3.5 cycle)

Fast forward 26 months -- enter Races of the Dragon -- drop one designer and add 4 more, and you have a completely different dynamic.  Given that, do you think it might be possible, in all of their dragon/kobold obsession, that they might have forgotten about the specific verbiage of a single paragraph in 300-page book that was put out over 2 years prior?  Given the design philosophy, I think that the most probable answer is that they would have thought that injecting a sentence to the effect of "you still can't take epic feats until you have at least 21 HD" would be excessively redundant (if the thought even occurred to them at all -- which it probably didn't).

Yea, you found a silly, quirky, unintentional loophole that involved a 2 different sets of designers and is separated by 2+ years and 10k+ pages of disjointed development -- congratulations.  It was funny -- at first.  Now it is time to move on to something a little less ridiculous.
See above for why this is all gibberish.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK July 19, 2010, 07:25:49 AM
Here's the deal -- this whole issue is basically just to try to justify early access to epic feats (i.e., at 1st level), right?

No.  It's trying to find out what the rules actually say.  Trying to justify would imply trying to bend the truth in some way... this is not so.  To be clear, I'm not currently playing any Kobolds, and I'd ask in advance before trying something like this anyway.  This is kind of like Pun Pun... you figure out what the rules let you do, regardless of what you play.

Besides, access to epic feats early doesn't help much.  Most epic feats require skills or other prerequisites so high you have to be epic (or nearly so) anyway, and most of those that you can qualify for early suck.  The only exception is Epic Toughness which grants +30hp... useful for a low level tank, but otherwise unimpressive.  The powerful thing here is access to Sovereign Archtypes (which don't technically require being a True Dragon anyway).  I don't think epic feats have even been mentioned in quite some time, mostly because access to them really doesn't get you anything interesting (you can't take Epic Spellcasting, for example).

So, no, not even close to correct.

Yea, you found a silly, quirky, unintentional loophole that involved a 2 different sets of designers and is separated by 2+ years and 10k+ pages of disjointed development -- congratulations.  It was funny -- at first.  Now it is time to move on to something a little less ridiculous.

No, we found what the rules say.  That's all.  No one here is claiming it was intended that Kobolds get epic feats early or that they were supposed to get Sovereign Archtypes.  It's clearly an example of one set of designers acting without the knowledge of another set.  Reading Races of the Dragon it's painfully obvious that Dragonwrought Kobolds were intended to be True Dragons... everything about their lore, from their religion to their values indicates that being like proper dragons is their primary goal and the various things they added in (like age categories, and saying that they count as Chromatic or Metallic, and their religion stating they're made from the pure blood of True Dragons) all are set up for that.  But it's likewise obvious that the people who wrote Dragons of Eberron didn't know about this when they made Sovereign Archtypes, and the people writing Races of the Dragon didn't know about the line in Draconomicon that does indeed say Old dragons get epic feats (and yes, we know, it's because at the time Old dragons always had 21+HD).

To be clear, this is just "what do the rules say?"  It is not a justification for anything.  It is not a discussion of what the designers intended.  It's not a statement of how anyone should play.  It's just what they say.  And right now what they say is that a True Dragon is "a creature of the dragon type that possesses an age category" or "a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon."  Thus, they're True Dragons.  Pretty straight forward, with a lot of people trying VERY hard to justify that they're not (check out the recent reaching with comments about books not mentioning items that didn't even exist when they were written). It then says "Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even if they have no class levels" (implied True Dragons, though it doesn't actually say that) and that any dragon can take Sovereign Archtypes with an implication that you should be a True Dragon to do it.  Cool.  That's just what it says.  Are either of those supposed to be for Kobolds?  Almost certainly not.  But it's what they say.

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: SorO_Lost July 20, 2010, 12:07:44 PM
Took me awhile to respond, been busy while I'm motivated on True Dragons. Plus the storms keep knocking my net out blocking my submissions which is really annoying. The bottom of my post has a tangent for some information farming if you would like to take a look and answer some of it for me.

Post #1
[spoiler]
Let's just point that out again:  a true dragon (a creature of the dragon type that possesses an age category).  Hey look, a clear definition.  No exceptions exist, actually.  Unlike all the other ones, this definition actually holds true.  I notice you failed to underline it, despite it being the one part of this that actually applies as a mechanical definition.
Because it's useless. PHB's Alter Self spell says everyone has age categories and races with the dragon type are still considered lesser races.

a true dragon (a creature of the dragon type that possesses an age category)
Also useless for you. If you say newest only applies then you cannot use Dragon Magic's rules. If you don't use newest applies then MMI, MMII, DoF, MoF, and Draconomicon's rules can be used.[/spoiler]

Post #2
[spoiler]
1. Reading Races of the Dragon it's painfully obvious that Dragonwrought Kobolds were intended to be True Dragons... 2. everything about their lore, from their religion to their values indicates that being like proper dragons is their primary goal and the various things they added in (like age categories, and saying that they count as Chromatic or Metallic, and their religion stating they're made from the pure blood of True Dragons) all are set up for that.
1. Quote please, I've looked for something that said Kobolds are meant to be a True Dragon rather than a dragon but I can't see past the glaring separation of True Dragons & Kobolds in all RotD's Other Races sections blocking my view.

2. Oh their desire to be a dragon or page 41's "The two races are related"? Yeah, theres a lot of that in the flavor.
Speaking of wants and flavor I want some true dragon innate spellcasting abilities with my half-dragon (direct parentage>ancestry) warblade and unobtainium flavored ice cream in my hand. Guess that means I have it.

To be clear, this is just "what do the rules say?"  It is not a justification for anything.  It is not a discussion of what the designers intended.
eh?
This coming for the guy who inserts his meaning into a word as a method of proving kobolds are a True Dragon. Well right there you have it, this is not a discussion of what JaronK intends things to mean.

<sniped revision>look I don't allow it so it's cool for it to be true.</snip>
Newest low I've seen.
[/spoiler]

Post #3
[spoiler]The methods JaronK uses to say kobolds are True Dragons are...

1. Specific replaces General
Fang Dragons don't have a breath weapon there for you do not need a breath weapon to be a True Dragon.
Chaos Dragons don't have innate spellcasting there for you do not need innate spellcasting to be a True Dragon.
???
My kobold is a True Dragon!

I'll use the Fang & Improved Disarm for example in a true Lost style explaination. A Fang Dragon's Ability Drain description states "a fang dragon does not have a breath weapon", it is an exception to the general rule that all True Dragon's have a breath weapon and since the Fang is listed as a True Dragon and since it is a more specific entry it takes precedence over True Dragon rules allowing the Fang to be a True Dragon. Now look at Improved Disarm, would you say everyone has +4 to disarm checks?

Missing the linkage I used? Yeah, no one ever gets them. Create a stat block of a character with the Improved Disarm feat. He has a +4 bonus to disarm checks instead of +0, an exception to the rules of combat. Just as a Fang Dragon has a bite attack instead of a breath weapon, an exception fo the rules of True Dragons. Trying to say Bob doesn't need a breath weapon to be a True Dragon is like saying Tim don't need Improved Disarm for the same +4 bonus to disarm checks. Apply train of thought to how monsters aqcuire spells without class levels if you desire.

Fang Dragons are an exception to requiring a Breath Weapon to be a True Dragon, however unless you are a Fang Dragon you don't get it's rules. Not only am I speaking from a several thousand example generated view but it just so happens the DMG/RC has a rule on this.

Rules Compendium, Page 5, Order of Rules Application
The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application: General to specific to exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity. For instance, a monster description is more specific than any general rule about monsters, so the description takes precedence. An exception is a particular kind of specific rule that contradicts or breaks another rule (general or specific). The Improved Disarm feat, for instance, provides an exception to the rule that an attacker provokes an attack of opportunity from the defender he’s trying to disarm (see Disarm, page 45).

A Fang Dragon can be a True Dragon simply by saying it is, thats just how it is. At no point does a kobold get the same exception.

*

2. Ignoring the above, specific does replace general
durr, dur, durpa durrrr. HHHUUUUURRRRR! *drools*
Aka in the next post JaronK posts no less than 0 words to refute that but instead 450 words about how he makes exceptions to what he uses. So following his method...

His method, find an exception to ignore it, isn't enough to work either. Every True Dragon listed as such gains Dragon HD Size Increases as a direct result of aging. At the young adult age (or older) they all gain Damage Reduction, Frightful Presence, and Spell Resistance.. Finally they all also have the Keen Senses & Blindsense abilities. All of them have those abilties, even the Yu since all Yu dragons inherit one the other Lung Dragon stat blocks. I suppose a Kobold could obtain all those traits given all the feats, classes, and spells out there. But by that the cost is beyond the gain and JaronK refuses to follow up on this route since he is set on trying to make Loredrake obtainable at level 1.

*

3. Newest Only
Draconomicon, Dragons Of Faerun, Magic of Incarnum, Monsters of Faerun, Monster Manual I, Monster Manual II, Sandstorm, & Shining South rules are older than Dragon Magic. They don't count, ignored.
Actully, Dragons of Krynn was the last 3rd/3.5 edition book printed to say what a dragon is (that I've found). It restablishes many but not all of the rules from the books before it. For example, True Dragon innate casting, which is material component free reguardless of gp cost putting it far beyond the abilities of Eschew Materials. Breath weapons and flight make a comeback as requirements as well and so on.

*

4. Flavor
Dragonwrought is a state brought on my True Dragon ansetory, it's so pure I am a True Dragon. P.S. Kobold flavor says they wish to be a dragon so ha.
Half-Dragon is a state brought on by ten levels in a worthless PrC or having direct linage to a True Dragon (ie one parent was one). Half-Dragon's are not pure enough to be a True Dragon nor is your mutt whos twice removed great great grandfather was a True Dragon. There is zero text supporting the generic haritage of True Dragons is capable of skipping generations and plently suggesting it don't.

Speaking of wants and flavor I want some true dragon innate spellcasting abilities with my half-dragon (direct parentage>ancestry) warblade and unobtainium flavored ice cream in my hand. ... Hmm, for some reason that didn't work.

*

5. I say so.
As you know, words are a way of expressing meaning. It isn't the words them selves that have any real bearing, it's the intent. It's also subject to personal interpretation so of course JaronK immediately leap on that like a fly on pie.

Take for example "In addition, dragons gain power and abilities as they age" To me I see they must gain new abilities not simply increase exsisting ones. Kobolds are out. To others +3 int is more power, kobolds are in. And more importently, crack open a book with any True Dragons and see what it means by gaining power & abilitites from aging. So JaronK has a stance nothing but his opinion matters.

Well I have an opinion and we're both login names on a chat board, it would be a tie prompting me to ask about boobs except the books do matter and should have been the answer a long time ago if not for Internet egos.

*

6. With my rules combined, I am True Dragon kobold! Go Kobold, hes a hero...
This is truly the most annoying habit of JaronK.

Core problem with this method, besides the fact it's just as easy to mix up methods to create points against as well, is it don't take into account all of the rules so it's like saying the world is flat becuase you choose to ignore a geography and then trying to prove it by falling off the edge of Earth. You can't ignore everything and selectively pin a half of a sentence as a point.

Oh, I need more analogies. I shall do one better and selectively pick letters! (not going anywhere with this other than poking fun btw, not giving you an idea here)
In all fairness, that listing
was mostly talking about monsters, not PCs, and monsters don't have age penalties anyway.  A horse, for example, doesn't get venerable.  So the "more powerful" thing actually applies only to standard True Dragons, PC races, and a few other select things.  Either way, that part of the definition does fit.[/i]
K, bored now. Only Radiant Dragon's lose dex as they age. 4 points in total even though size growth is supposed to remove 2 dex per increase.





*

7. Big blocks of text no one really reads
for ( int i - 0; i < 65535; i++ ) { document.Write( "blah " ); }

All he posts are blocks of of the repeated text against any post against him. He doesn't address anything really. Take any post he has made in here in response to another. He only refutes half of it and bounces inbetween methods using huge chunks of text as a way to distract you. Take an example from the last one of my posts, I speak of how True Dragons have innate casting and he fails to refute it by saying True Dragons can and have taken sorcerer levels. I'm torn over it, am I suppose to believe he is that stupid or just trolling?

*
8. And finally, I'm Mr Nice Guy
Allow this because I don't think it should work like this either

Well it's not like he ever used any kinda of rules anyway so asking nicely is a perfectly valid argument for him.

Note: I tried this one at work yesterday, I didn't get a raise like I wanted :(
[/spoiler]

***
***
***

True Dragon questions (that has nothing to do with kobolds!)
[spoiler]
The True Dragon innate spellcasting trait allows many to cast cleric spells as divine spells and material free casting. Got any good examples of abuse for this? Apocalypse From The Sky withstanding of course. The Resurrection chain looks very promising. Also my PDF of Dragon Magazine is corrupted or something. The Tome Dragon's Precognition ability isn't detailed. Could someone PM the information if you have it please?
[/spoiler]
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Littha July 20, 2010, 12:37:59 PM
Actually, as far as I am aware the vast majority of dragons dont have spellcasting...
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Rebel7284 July 20, 2010, 01:07:59 PM
boobs

Best part of your post.  

You make some good points but your post is full of personal attacks at JaronK.  Why would I want to listen to your points when you are being so mean spirited?
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: zaulsiin July 20, 2010, 01:45:48 PM
Post #3
[spoiler]The methods JaronK uses to say kobolds are True Dragons are...

1. Specific replaces General
Fang Dragons don't have a breath weapon there for you do not need a breath weapon to be a True Dragon.
Chaos Dragons don't have innate spellcasting there for you do not need innate spellcasting to be a True Dragon.
???
My kobold is a True Dragon!

I'll use the Fang & Improved Disarm for example in a true Lost style explaination. A Fang Dragon's Ability Drain description states "a fang dragon does not have a breath weapon", it is an exception to the general rule that all True Dragon's have a breath weapon and since the Fang is listed as a True Dragon and since it is a more specific entry it takes precedence over True Dragon rules allowing the Fang to be a True Dragon. Now look at Improved Disarm, would you say everyone has +4 to disarm checks?

Missing the linkage I used? Yeah, no one ever gets them. Create a stat block of a character with the Improved Disarm feat. He has a +4 bonus to disarm checks instead of +0, an exception to the rules of combat. Just as a Fang Dragon has a bite attack instead of a breath weapon, an exception fo the rules of True Dragons. Trying to say Bob doesn't need a breath weapon to be a True Dragon is like saying Tim don't need Improved Disarm for the same +4 bonus to disarm checks. Apply train of thought to how monsters aqcuire spells without class levels if you desire.

Fang Dragons are an exception to requiring a Breath Weapon to be a True Dragon, however unless you are a Fang Dragon you don't get it's rules. Not only am I speaking from a several thousand example generated view but it just so happens the DMG/RC has a rule on this.

Rules Compendium, Page 5, Order of Rules Application
The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application: General to specific to exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity. For instance, a monster description is more specific than any general rule about monsters, so the description takes precedence. An exception is a particular kind of specific rule that contradicts or breaks another rule (general or specific). The Improved Disarm feat, for instance, provides an exception to the rule that an attacker provokes an attack of opportunity from the defender he’s trying to disarm (see Disarm, page 45).

A Fang Dragon can be a True Dragon simply by saying it is, thats just how it is. At no point does a kobold get the same exception.

*
[/spoiler]

This is actually a good point, but the rest of it is near incomprehensible vitriol. I really don't understand where the hostility is coming from, and it makes it difficult to take any arguments seriously.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: The_Mad_Linguist July 20, 2010, 02:04:49 PM
Sor0, give me a full list of what you believe to be the necessary criteria for a true dragon with text citations.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Agita July 20, 2010, 04:05:37 PM
I'm pretty tired of the whole debate, so I hope you'll forgive me for ignoring your post except for this.
True Dragon questions (that has nothing to do with kobolds!)
[spoiler]
The True Dragon innate spellcasting trait allows many to cast cleric spells as divine spells and material free casting. Got any good examples of abuse for this? Apocalypse From The Sky withstanding of course. The Resurrection chain looks very promising. Also my PDF of Dragon Magazine is corrupted or something. The Tome Dragon's Precognition ability isn't detailed. Could someone PM the information if you have it please?
[/spoiler]
Favorable Sacrifice could have some wacky interaction depending on how you read it. It gives out benefits depending on how expensive your material component was. Depending on your interpretation, it might either not work at all or give you the most expensive version (normally 10k a pop) for free.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK July 20, 2010, 07:00:57 PM
Let's just point that out again:  a true dragon (a creature of the dragon type that possesses an age category).  Hey look, a clear definition.  No exceptions exist, actually.  Unlike all the other ones, this definition actually holds true.  I notice you failed to underline it, despite it being the one part of this that actually applies as a mechanical definition.
Because it's useless. PHB's Alter Self spell says everyone has age categories and races with the dragon type are still considered lesser races.

Here's where you and I differ.  I'm not calling rules "useless" when they're clear.  We know this is talking about the 12 age categories that all True Dragons have.  How do we know?  Well for one thing Dragon Magic straight up says that it's 12.

a true dragon (a creature of the dragon type that possesses an age category)
Also useless for you. If you say newest only applies then you cannot use Dragon Magic's rules. If you don't use newest applies then MMI, MMII, DoF, MoF, and Draconomicon's rules can be used.

I've never said newest only applies.  That rule does not exist anywhere.  The reason I don't use the MM1 definition is because it's talking about known true dragons... in other words, it's not actually a list of traits of all true dragons.  It's just describing the MM1 True Dragons.  It's description in fact does not match up to the vast majority of True Dragons (mostly because Chromatics and Metallics are only a minority of True Dragons.  There's nothing even relevant in MMII or MoF.  And since I regularly quote the Draconomicon rules (the ones that say a True Dragon is one with age categories and that gets more powerful as it gets older) your assumption that I'm ignoring it makes no sense.

I don't ignore any rules.  I'm interpreting all of them. 

The main thing here is that we have two spots where it's critical for mechanical rules purposes that True Dragon be defined, because we have a mechanical ability that only works with True Dragons.  In those situations, the rule given is that a True Dragon is a dragon with age categories (and more specifically, with 12 of them).

1. Reading Races of the Dragon it's painfully obvious that Dragonwrought Kobolds were intended to be True Dragons... 2. everything about their lore, from their religion to their values indicates that being like proper dragons is their primary goal and the various things they added in (like age categories, and saying that they count as Chromatic or Metallic, and their religion stating they're made from the pure blood of True Dragons) all are set up for that.
1. Quote please, I've looked for something that said Kobolds are meant to be a True Dragon rather than a dragon but I can't see past the glaring separation of True Dragons & Kobolds in all RotD's Other Races sections blocking my view.

I've actually quoted it a number of times in this very thread.  Dragonwrought Kobolds being Chromatic or Metallic is on page 39 ("Dragonwrought kobolds with chromatic dragon ancestry multiply this number by 5.  Dragonwrought kobolds with metallic dragon ancestry multiply this number by 10."). The religion thing on page 50.  "Furthermore, wherever the dragons' blood had spilled, little creatures began to emerge out of the ground with alert, crimson eyes, already looking up at their creators for guidance.  Thus were kobolds born..."  So yeah, they're actually made of pure True Dragon blood (the dragons being discussed were the original True Dragons, and in fact all the first dragons were born out of the bodies of the first True Dragons).  The being the Kobolds worship is Kurtulmak, who was "the first kobold to take form out of her [Caesinsjach, the first green dragon's] blood."

2. Oh their desire to be a dragon or page 41's "The two races are related"? Yeah, theres a lot of that in the flavor.
Speaking of wants and flavor I want some true dragon innate spellcasting abilities with my half-dragon (direct parentage>ancestry) warblade and unobtainium flavored ice cream in my hand. Guess that means I have it.

Sorry, but Half Dragons aren't True Dragons.  Kobolds do get the innate spellcasting, in the form of the Draconic Rite of Passage (later the Greater Draconic Rite of Passage), in which they can indeed awaken their inner dragon.  So Kobolds that are actual Dragons (the Dragonwrought ones) actually do have that innate spellcasting.  Heck, they've got more than most dragons of their actual age, since most younger dragons can't cast anything.

To be clear, this is just "what do the rules say?"  It is not a justification for anything.  It is not a discussion of what the designers intended.
eh?
This coming for the guy who inserts his meaning into a word as a method of proving kobolds are a True Dragon. Well right there you have it, this is not a discussion of what JaronK intends things to mean.

What meaning do you think I'm inserting?  I'm quoting rules and discussing how they interact.  I'm taking rules that say "a true dragon (a creature of the dragon type that possesses an age category)" and "a true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon)." and assuming that means true dragons are dragons with 12 age categories.  Then I'm referencing Draconomicon which states the same thing (though in a funny phrasing, it says True Dragons get more powerful as they get older and Lesser Dragons don't have age categories, but this works fine).  What's the problem?

What I'm not doing is taking rules that would eliminate many True Dragons as a reason to eliminate Kobolds as the same.  Luckily, none of the direct definitions of True Dragon do either of these. 

Your entire argument has boiled down to "there are various descriptions of True Dragons (not definitions, which is an important point) that Kobolds don't match up to... which also don't match up to other True Dragons.  This means Kobolds aren't True Dragons."  I'm pointing out that the descriptions you're using must be flawed (usually because they say they're what people know of True Dragons, not what True Dragons are) since they eliminate known members of the category.  My argument boils down to "in a few specific locations, True Dragons are strictly and clearly defined.  Kobolds match up perfectly to this definition."

<sniped revision>look I don't allow it so it's cool for it to be true.</snip>
Newest low I've seen.

New low from you here.  I don't even know what you're referencing here, you're just making personal attacks.  This is usually the last refuge of someone who no longer has an argument but just wants to win.

This is just a game.  We're just people online discussing the rules of that game.  There's nothing to be won here.  No umbrella girls will give you smooches for winning, there will be no toaster or luggage given out.

The methods JaronK uses to say kobolds are True Dragons are...

1. Specific replaces General
Fang Dragons don't have a breath weapon there for you do not need a breath weapon to be a True Dragon.
Chaos Dragons don't have innate spellcasting there for you do not need innate spellcasting to be a True Dragon.
???
My kobold is a True Dragon!

Actually, I never mentioned Fang dragons, that was someone else.  I didn't even see Chaos Dragons getting mentioned directly.  The main thing here is that there are a few given straight forward definitions (Dragons of Krynn, Dragon Magic, Draconomicon side bar).  Then there's a bunch of random descriptions throughout the books.  The definitions actually match up to all True Dragons.  The descriptions do not.  Your argument of "Kobolds do not match up to some of the True Dragon descriptions, therefor they are not True Dragons" fails because that same argument would eliminate virtually all actual True Dragons."  When your logical train leads to a false conclusion, it must be false.  But my logic, that True Dragons are all creatures who follow the definition of True Dragons, actually works.  All listed True Dragons meet the given definitions of True Dragons.  Kobolds also fit this.  That's the ??? you seem to have missed.

Rules Compendium, Page 5, Order of Rules Application
The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application: General to specific to exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity. For instance, a monster description is more specific than any general rule about monsters, so the description takes precedence. An exception is a particular kind of specific rule that contradicts or breaks another rule (general or specific). The Improved Disarm feat, for instance, provides an exception to the rule that an attacker provokes an attack of opportunity from the defender he’s trying to disarm (see Disarm, page 45).

All of this is irrelevant, because you long ago missed why I don't use the definitions you're using and instead stick to the actual definitions.  See above.

2. Ignoring the above, specific does replace general
durr, dur, durpa durrrr. HHHUUUUURRRRR! *drools*
Aka in the next post JaronK posts no less than 0 words to refute that but instead 450 words about how he makes exceptions to what he uses. So following his method...

Reportable personal attacks.  You're still missing the main point, which is that there are definitions of True Dragons (Draconomicon side bar, Dragons of Kyrnn feat, Dragon Magic Dragonpact section) and there are descriptions of True Dragons (MM1, Dragons of Kyrnn in another section, etc).  The former straight up says "this is what a True Dragon is" and that actually does apply to all True Dragons.  The latter says "this is what some people know about True Dragons" or "True Dragons are generally like X" and does not match up to all True Dragons... usually in fact they don't match up to even the majority.

Your current claim is that True Dragons essentially are just anything on a list that says they're True Dragons, since you would, by your ruling, eliminate Fang Dragons and Lung Dragons and Chaos Dragons and Planar Dragons and Gem Dragons if they weren't already on the lists that say they're true (Fang Dragons lack breath weapons and IIRC immunities, Lung Dragons often lack wings and are too small, Chaos Dragons can't cast, and all of the above are neither Chromatic nor Metallic).  But this definition is useless because Dragonwrought Kobolds didn't exist when either of the two lists (Dragons of Krynn and Draconomicon) were printed. 

His method, find an exception to ignore it, isn't enough to work either.

No, it's to show the problem with using descriptions instead of definitions, by showing that doing so leads to a false conclusion (that a known True Dragon is Lesser).  The definitions never have this problem.

Every True Dragon listed as such gains Dragon HD Size Increases as a direct result of aging.

But this is never given as a rule anywhere.

At the young adult age (or older) they all gain Damage Reduction, Frightful Presence, and Spell Resistance.. Finally they all also have the Keen Senses & Blindsense abilities. All of them have those abilties, even the Yu since all Yu dragons inherit one the other Lung Dragon stat blocks. I suppose a Kobold could obtain all those traits given all the feats, classes, and spells out there. But by that the cost is beyond the gain and JaronK refuses to follow up on this route since he is set on trying to make Loredrake obtainable at level 1.

See how you're still using descriptions of True Dragons, not rule given Definitions?  No where does it say "True Dragons: any dragon that gains HD increases as a direct result of aging, gains damage reduction, etc."  This is all your particular decision about what True Dragons should be, but it's not backed up by the actual rules.  It does say "true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon)."  That's not my particular decision... that's a straightforward definition.

And I'm not trying to make Loredrake obtainable at level 1.  I'm trying to state what the rules say, no more, no less.

3. Newest Only
Draconomicon, Dragons Of Faerun, Magic of Incarnum, Monsters of Faerun, Monster Manual I, Monster Manual II, Sandstorm, & Shining South rules are older than Dragon Magic. They don't count, ignored.
Actully, Dragons of Krynn was the last 3rd/3.5 edition book printed to say what a dragon is (that I've found). It restablishes many but not all of the rules from the books before it. For example, True Dragon innate casting, which is material component free reguardless of gp cost putting it far beyond the abilities of Eschew Materials. Breath weapons and flight make a comeback as requirements as well and so on.

Newest only is not a rule.  I have never said anything similar to it.  In fact, you made this up entirely.  Try and prove that I ever said anything like it or retract your clearly false statement.  Honestly, this sounds like the kind of argument Ubernoob would make... you're just making something up without any evidence at all that I actually said it.  And Dragons of Krynn is still describing, not defining, True Dragons in that section.  It does define them somewhere else, and you and I both know what it says.

4. Flavor
Dragonwrought is a state brought on my True Dragon ansetory, it's so pure I am a True Dragon. P.S. Kobold flavor says they wish to be a dragon so ha.
Half-Dragon is a state brought on by ten levels in a worthless PrC or having direct linage to a True Dragon (ie one parent was one). Half-Dragon's are not pure enough to be a True Dragon nor is your mutt whos twice removed great great grandfather was a True Dragon. There is zero text supporting the generic haritage of True Dragons is capable of skipping generations and plently suggesting it don't.

At this point it's a discussion of RAI, which isn't really relevant.  Yes, I think D Kobolds were intended to be True Dragons in Races of the Dragon, but RAI is not RAW anyway.  There's certainly no rule that says "True Dragon: one who is related to a True Dragon."  So it's all fluff anyway.

Speaking of wants and flavor I want some true dragon innate spellcasting abilities with my half-dragon (direct parentage>ancestry) warblade and unobtainium flavored ice cream in my hand. ... Hmm, for some reason that didn't work.

Yes, because your Half Dragon isn't a True Dragon.  If it was a Dragonwrought Kobold Half Dragon, you'd get innate spellcasting by awakening your inner dragon as a racial thing.  Nifty, huh?

5. I say so.
As you know, words are a way of expressing meaning. It isn't the words them selves that have any real bearing, it's the intent. It's also subject to personal interpretation so of course JaronK immediately leap on that like a fly on pie.

Nope, the rules say X is my argument.  You're the one who's gone with "I say so" arguments such as "At the young adult age (or older) they all gain Damage Reduction, Frightful Presence, and Spell Resistance.. Finally they all also have the Keen Senses & Blindsense abilities. All of them have those abilties."  That's your definition, but no part of the rules says that's what a True Dragon is.

Take for example "In addition, dragons gain power and abilities as they age" To me I see they must gain new abilities not simply increase exsisting ones. Kobolds are out.

See?  You just made up a new definition.  Evidently the ability to take Epic feats early isn't an ability.

6. With my rules combined, I am True Dragon kobold! Go Kobold, hes a hero...

No, with the the three definitions of True Dragon listed in the books combined, all of which agree with each other and fit for all listed True Dragons, Kobolds are True Dragons.  Pretty straightforward. 

This is truly the most annoying habit of JaronK.

Yes, taking all the sources and laying them out clearly is annoying.

All he posts are blocks of of the repeated text against any post against him. He doesn't address anything really. Take any post he has made in here in response to another. He only refutes half of it and bounces inbetween methods using huge chunks of text as a way to distract you. Take an example from the last one of my posts, I speak of how True Dragons have innate casting and he fails to refute it by saying True Dragons can and have taken sorcerer levels. I'm torn over it, am I suppose to believe he is that stupid or just trolling?

I've just picked apart your post and showed where you're wrong.  But you want the innate casting thing?  Sure.

1)  At no point are True Dragons defined by having innate casting.  You made that up.  Furthermore, some True Dragons don't have innate casting.

2)  Kobolds DO have innate casting, in that they have a racially gained ability (Draconic Rite) that awakens their inner dragon and gives them innate casting.

So your innate casting argument fails on two levels... first that it's irrelevant (it's not a requirement of being a True Dragon) and second that Kobolds have it anyway.

Now, do you feel I've skipped over your arguments, or addressed them logically? 

But here, since you seem to have missed the main point, I'll restate it clearly:

Throughout the books there are descriptions and definitions of True Dragons.  The difference is actually pretty easy... for descriptions they're talking about what people know of True Dragons, or talking about a trait that True Dragons usually have.  In these cases, the description doesn't actually match all True Dragons... for example, it might say that True Dragons all grow to over 100 feet long, despite the fact that White Dragons don't, or it might say that all True Dragons are metallic or chromatic, even though Gem, Lung, and Planar Dragons aren't.  Also, these never say "A True Dragon is a dragon that is X."  While these are handy, these descriptions are all fluff, not rules, and if we used them to define True Dragons we'd get erroneous findings such as that White Dragons aren't True Dragons. 

Definitions are different.  They're all phrased quite clearly as "a True Dragon is one that X."  For example, Dragon Magic says "true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon). "  Dragons of Krynn says "a true dragon (a creature of the dragon type that possesses an age category)."  Draconomicon has a sidebar giving a straight forward definition of True Dragons, which states that True Dragons are ones that get more powerful and gains more abilities as they get older and have age categories.  These definitions are always in agreement with each other (though some are more or less specific) and putting them together gets us a definition that actually applies to all True Dragons on any list of True Dragons anywhere, namely "A True Dragon is a creature of the Dragon type with twelve age categories that gets more powerful and gains more abilities as it gets older."

Now, the obvious thing to note here is that that definition, which is nothing but a sum of the listed definitions in those three books, actually applies to every single True Dragon ever listed.   It also does not apply to anything that's not a True Dragon.  Thus, using that definition does not lead to any logical contradictions, which using the descriptions would do.  That means it's good logic.

And Dragonwrought Kobolds fit that definition perfectly.

TL;DR:  "A True Dragon is a creature of the Dragon type with twelve age categories that gets more powerful and gains more abilities as it gets older" is the only definition of True Dragons that actually uses the book definitions and actually applies to all known True Dragons.  Any other definition either isn't using what the books describe as a True Dragon or doesn't actually apply to all (or usually even to most) True Dragons.

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: weenog July 20, 2010, 07:25:23 PM
Where, specifically, are the kobolds getting 12 age categories from?  Include page numbers please.  I'm starting to notice proof that an awakened dog rogue is a true dragon, and I'd certainly like some evidence to shut it down.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: BowenSilverclaw July 20, 2010, 07:27:20 PM
Where, specifically, are the kobolds getting 12 age categories from?  Include page numbers please.  I'm starting to notice proof that an awakened dog rogue is a true dragon, and I'd certainly like some evidence to shut it down.
I'm AFB right now, so I can't give you a page number. All I can say is it's in the Kobold section of Races of the Dragon.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: The_Mad_Linguist July 20, 2010, 07:30:38 PM
Races of the Dragon, Table 3–2: Kobold Age Categories, page 39, upper right hand corner.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: carnivore July 20, 2010, 07:40:58 PM
Table 3–3: Aging Effects
 

Race     Middle Age     Old        Venerable     Maximum Age

Kobold    60 years    90 years   120 years     +Cha years1

1 Dragonwrought kobolds with chromatic dragon ancestry
multiply this number by 5. Dragonwrought kobolds with
metallic dragon ancestry multiply this number by 10.
Ability penalties due to age do not apply to dragonwrought
kobolds. See the Dragonwrought feat, page 100.

where are the other 12 Age categories? , these seem to be the same age categories for regular Races .... i thought True Dragons advanced by Age categories as per MM:


Dragon Age Categories

Category Age (Years)
1 Wyrmling 0–5
2 Very young 6–15
3 Young 16–25
4 Juvenile 26–50
5 Young adult 51–100
6 Adult 101–200
7 Mature adult 201–400
8 Old 401–600
9 Very old 601–800
10 Ancient 801–1,000
11 Wyrm 1,001–1,200
12 Great wyrm 1,201 or more


how is this different for Dragonwrought Kobolds? what is the Age category for a Wyrmling Dragonwrought Kobold? ... what is thier HD when they are Old?

i dont see the reasoning behind it ..... the Feat Dragonwrought does indeed make them Dragons ... but not True Dragons... maybe Lesser Dragons but not True

 :D
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Rebel7284 July 20, 2010, 07:43:47 PM
Carnivore, look one table up. :)
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: weenog July 20, 2010, 07:47:38 PM
Well that's interesting, and also somewhat disturbing.  It seems an awakened dog Rogue 10 can use the rogue bonus feat for which it need not meet the prerequisites to grab Dragonwrought.  According to the feat, this awakened dog is of the Dragon type and is a kobold.

Being a kobold by way of the feat, this awakened dog can complete the draconic rite of passage, and later the greater draconic rite of passage if he dips sorcerer and grabs Draconic Reservoir.  He also has 12 age categories as it seems all kobolds do.  He can gain more power by advancing monster HD, or class levels, and could even grab epic feats early with more rogue levels if he really wanted to.  He even has innate spellcasting from the rites, though we don't need it because if that's part of the definition of true dragon, than most true dragons aren't true dragons.

"A True Dragonn awakened dog is a creature of the Dragon type with twelve age categories that gets more powerful and gains more abilities as it gets older."  It works.  Something seems off, here.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK July 20, 2010, 08:37:09 PM
Well that's interesting, and also somewhat disturbing.  It seems an awakened dog Rogue 10 can use the rogue bonus feat for which it need not meet the prerequisites to grab Dragonwrought.  According to the feat, this awakened dog is of the Dragon type and is a kobold.

No, it can't.  Bonus feats from class levels do require prerequisites (see the beginning of the feats section, PHB).  I know there's some people that argue otherwise, but they're taking out of context quotes from the Monster Manual.  In context, those quotes are clearly talking about racial bonus feats, since it's talking about creating new creatures.  The entry in the PHB is VERY clear that prerequisites are required, and the dog does not meet the prerequisites for Dragonwrought.

And yeah, the table in the beginning of the Kobold section in Races of the Dragon is quite clear about the 12 age categories, in addition to defining D Kobolds are Chromatic or Metallic.

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: weenog July 20, 2010, 08:47:14 PM
Well that's interesting, and also somewhat disturbing.  It seems an awakened dog Rogue 10 can use the rogue bonus feat for which it need not meet the prerequisites to grab Dragonwrought.  According to the feat, this awakened dog is of the Dragon type and is a kobold.

No, it can't.  Bonus feats from class levels do require prerequisites (see the beginning of the feats section, PHB).  I know there's some people that argue otherwise, but they're taking out of context quotes from the Monster Manual.  In context, those quotes are clearly talking about racial bonus feats, since it's talking about creating new creatures.  The entry in the PHB is VERY clear that prerequisites are required, and the dog does not meet the prerequisites for Dragonwrought.

This from the guy that grabs an out of context line that says Old or older true dragons can take epic feats, takes it to mean kobolds can take epic feats early because they're true dragons, and then uses the alleged ability to take epic feats early to support them being true dragons.  I'm all for bootstrapping where applicable, but that's just circular reasoning.

Hello, Mr. Kettle?  This is Mr. Pot.  You're black, dude.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: The_Mad_Linguist July 20, 2010, 08:56:29 PM
Table 3–3: Aging Effects
 

Race     Middle Age     Old        Venerable     Maximum Age

Kobold    60 years    90 years   120 years     +Cha years1

1 Dragonwrought kobolds with chromatic dragon ancestry
multiply this number by 5. Dragonwrought kobolds with
metallic dragon ancestry multiply this number by 10.
Ability penalties due to age do not apply to dragonwrought
kobolds. See the Dragonwrought feat, page 100.

where are the other 12 Age categories? , these seem to be the same age categories for regular Races .... i thought True Dragons advanced by Age categories as per MM:


Dragon Age Categories

Category Age (Years)
1 Wyrmling 0–5
2 Very young 6–15
3 Young 16–25
4 Juvenile 26–50
5 Young adult 51–100
6 Adult 101–200
7 Mature adult 201–400
8 Old 401–600
9 Very old 601–800
10 Ancient 801–1,000
11 Wyrm 1,001–1,200
12 Great wyrm 1,201 or more


how is this different for Dragonwrought Kobolds? what is the Age category for a Wyrmling Dragonwrought Kobold? ... what is thier HD when they are Old?

i dont see the reasoning behind it ..... the Feat Dragonwrought does indeed make them Dragons ... but not True Dragons... maybe Lesser Dragons but not True

 :D
That's table 3-3.  Not table 3-2.

I don't know why people keep making that mistake, which is why I was very clear about the table number, page number, and the location on the page.



I'm personally of the "epic feats suck too much to actually matter" school of thought, and ignore the [epic] tag.  Then again, I removed toughness, improved toughness, and epic toughness altogether and replaced it with a version that gives 10+1/level hp.  Enough hp at low levels to give you a reputation as "that guy who is tough", and enough scaling to avoid it being completely wasted when any semblance of balanced gameplay ends (IE: level 10 or so with most PCs).  If you want your first level human ranger to have energy resistance[epic], go ahead.  It's not like fire resistance 10 is really going to unbalance the game.

Honestly, not really worth arguing about.  As an optimization tool, it has negligible value (anyone can get epic feats early with dusk giant cheese).

Rogue bonus feat stuff I allow for sheer rule of cool.  Omnomnomonom
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Surreal July 20, 2010, 09:00:42 PM
Holy crap I don't even know which side people are arguing for anymore.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: The_Mad_Linguist July 20, 2010, 09:07:56 PM
Holy crap I don't even know which side people are arguing for anymore.

I'm arguing for the INSIDE.

Those OUTSIDE bastards have it coming
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: weenog July 20, 2010, 09:09:46 PM
Holy crap I don't even know which side people are arguing for anymore.
I'm more or less on the "if kobolds are true dragons if when they work at it, everything is a true dragon if when it works at it" side.

If didn't look like a word anymore.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: The_Mad_Linguist July 20, 2010, 09:11:29 PM
Well, duh.  Get yourself a PaO.

Not like people can't be beholders if they work at it either.  Kobolds just have it easier being true dragons than other guys because they have a leg in already.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK July 20, 2010, 09:14:58 PM
This from the guy that grabs an out of context line that says Old or older true dragons can take epic feats, takes it to mean kobolds can take epic feats early because they're true dragons, and then uses the alleged ability to take epic feats early to support them being true dragons.  I'm all for bootstrapping where applicable, but that's just circular reasoning.

Ad Hominim.  Do you disagree with the logic, or are you just attacking me?  Did you bother to actually read the PHB entry in the beginning of the feats section?  I'll quote it for you.  "Additionally, members of some classes get bonus feats as class features... Some feats have prerequisites.  Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat."

Do you disagree that they're talking about bonus feats from class features?  Do you disagree that they require prerequisites?  It's on page 87 by the way.  The Acquiring feats section says what kinds of feats they're talking about (level gained feats, class based bonus feats, and the human bonus feat) and then the prerequisites section says how prerequisites work.  They're back to back.  Note the one thing they don't talk about is racial bonus feats.  

Did you bother reading the Monster Manual entries on the topic?  They're in two places, both talking about the creation of new races of monsters.  In other words, they're talking about racial bonus feats.  Racial bonus feats ignore prerequisites.  Class feature bonus feats DO NOT.  At no point in any book does it say that class feature bonus feats ignore prerequisites, except in specific exemptions (such as Monks getting certain feats without prerequisites).  

To sumarize:  In the FEATS section of the PHB it says class bonus feats need prerequisites.  In the CREATING NEW MONSTERS section of the Monster Manual it says bonus feats don't need prerequisites.  Which one of those do you think is talking baout class bonus feats, and which is talking about racial bonus feats?

Meanwhile, the simple fact is that the primary definition of True Dragon is a dragon with Age Categories.  The abilities thing is a sideline, and for good reason... it's impossible by the rules in Draconomicon (the same book that mentions abilities) to be a Lesser Dragon with Age Categories.  If Kobolds are Lesser Dragons with Age Categories, then you're claiming that Draconomicon is straight up wrong.  Kobolds also get +3 to all mental stats as they get older, which can in fact give even more abilities (ability to cast higher level spells, qualify for specific feats, etc).  That's not the strongest argument, but since the other option leads to logical impossibilities, it's the best one to go on.

For anyone still clinging to the idea that Kobolds aren't True Dragons, I challenge them to come up with a definition of True Dragon that is directly supported by the rules, doesn't include Kobolds, and does include all other True Dragons, without creating any logical impossibilities.  I've already done so of course, but it shows Kobolds are True.

Hello, Mr. Kettle?  This is Mr. Pot.  You're black, dude.

Interestingly enough, kettles are shiny, pots are black.  The pot calling the kettle black means you're looking at your own reflection and seeing black.  You're very accurate here, but I don't think you meant to be...

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK July 20, 2010, 09:18:09 PM
I'm more or less on the "if kobolds are true dragons if when they work at it, everything is a true dragon if when it works at it" side.

If didn't look like a word anymore.

That's great and all, but you're not actually saying they're not True.  You're just saying to don't like the implications if they are.  And yeah, there's absolutely ways for everyone else to do it, mostly via Polymorph style effects.  I don't like the implications of Flowing Time Genesis or Planar Binding Wish Loops, but that doesn't mean they're against the rules... just that I need to regulate their use in my games.

But the dog example doesn't work because you need prerequisites to get class bonus feats.

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: The_Mad_Linguist July 20, 2010, 09:19:13 PM
Let's not get onto the bonus feat tangent in this thread, shall we?  Let's keep our laser-like focus on oooh sihany
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: weenog July 20, 2010, 09:33:19 PM
I'm more or less on the "if kobolds are true dragons if when they work at it, everything is a true dragon if when it works at it" side.

If didn't look like a word anymore.

That's great and all, but you're not actually saying they're not True.  You're just saying to don't like the implications if they are.  And yeah, there's absolutely ways for everyone else to do it, mostly via Polymorph style effects.

But the dog example doesn't work because you need prerequisites to get class bonus feats.

JaronK

I'm saying by your definition and reasoning, they're true, but so is anything else that cares to be, which makes your definition bullplop for just lumping kobolds in with true dragons.  And no, you really don't need prerequisites to get class bonus feats unless the class specifically says you do.

The Acquiring Feats section of the Feats chapter mentions getting bonus feats, and it also mentions needing to qualify for a feat, but only in a different paragraph in the context of the human bonus feat.  The Prerequisites section of the Feats chapter mentions needing to qualify, and makes no mention of bonus feats.  Neither one contradicts the monster manual's general statement that "It is acceptable for a creature to have a bonus feat for which it does not meet the prerequisites."  Nor does the bonus feat entry within the rogue class.

You could say only racial bonus feats (with the exception of those that explicitly require prerequisites) ignoring prerequisites is the intention, and I'd agree with you, but the rules don't say that.  You made that up.  Sort of like you got after SorO_Lost for doing.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Agita July 20, 2010, 09:33:35 PM
Holy crap I don't even know which side people are arguing for anymore.
I'm more or less on the "if kobolds are true dragons if when they work at it, everything is a true dragon if when it works at it" side.

If didn't look like a word anymore.
That's not so much a problem with Dragonwrought as it is a problem with the wording on the Rogue's bonus feats feature.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: EjoThims July 20, 2010, 09:36:06 PM
Yea, if bonus feats work that way (an argument for another thread), a Rogue 10 anything could certainly pull it off.

Anyone can be anything by working at it; this has been known for some significant time.

But it's quite clear that the only actual definitions of True Dragons include Dragonwrought Kobolds.

It's also quite clear that the implications of this are not RaI, despite being RaW.

I happen to agree that the flavor of this is RaI, though.

Now... Play nice or we will start talking about Deepwardens...  :banghead
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: awaken DM golem July 20, 2010, 09:36:23 PM
As TML said PaO, there's also a very limited set of "Any" feat slots, out there.
Savage Species rituals for the dog.
Wish via the same thing.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: weenog July 20, 2010, 09:37:56 PM
That's not so much a problem with Dragonwrought as it is a problem with the wording on the Rogue's bonus feats feature.

I think it's also a problem of giving true dragons powers and trying to define them as a group when there are so many different kinds.  How much of this mess could be avoided if every dragon had a True flag that was either on or off, and couldn't be changed by magic, feat, or anything else short of a total and permanent race change, I wonder.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK July 20, 2010, 09:46:17 PM
I think it's also a problem of giving true dragons powers and trying to define them as a group when there are so many different kinds.  How much of this mess could be avoided if every dragon had a True flag that was either on or off, and couldn't be changed by magic, feat, or anything else short of a total and permanent race change, I wonder.

There are straight up lists in Draconomicon and Dragons of Krynn that actually effectively do this... they just say "all these are True Dragons."  That makes it a lot easier.  Unfortunately, these lists don't help for anything published after these books, which is why that doesn't just handle Dragonwrought Kobolds.

And it would certainly be nice if all True Dragons just had that as a subtype, so they were listed as Dragon (True) just like you can have Outsider (Native).  But surely you don't expect clear rules from WotC do you...?

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK July 20, 2010, 09:48:56 PM
I'm saying by your definition and reasoning, they're true, but so is anything else that cares to be, which makes your definition bullplop for just lumping kobolds in with true dragons.  And no, you really don't need prerequisites to get class bonus feats unless the class specifically says you do.

I've put that argument about class bonus feats in a separate thread, and it can be debated there.  But I never accept the argument "that can't be RAW because that's broken."  If that argument worked, Planar Binding couldn't summon Effreetis.  But it can, you just have to house rule to stop your players getting endless wishes. 

You could say only racial bonus feats (with the exception of those that explicitly require prerequisites) ignoring prerequisites is the intention, and I'd agree with you, but the rules don't say that.  You made that up.  Sort of like you got after SorO_Lost for doing.

Again, please see the other thread.  I actually showed where they did that very thing by RAW, but it's a matter of context.  I only work off rules quotes.  I don't make things up based on how I want things to be.

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: weenog July 20, 2010, 09:50:11 PM
And it would certainly be nice if all True Dragons just had that as a subtype, so they were listed as Dragon (True) just like you can have Outsider (Native).
  I was actually thinking it should be handled like this myself, at first, but subtype changing is (relatively) easy to come by.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK July 20, 2010, 09:54:16 PM
In the end wishes and the like can do anything anyway.  It's not impossible to just turn into a Steel Dragon or something.  That's more of a problem with Polymorph and similar abilities than with the True Dragon definition.

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: Sohala July 21, 2010, 12:04:23 AM
Well that's interesting, and also somewhat disturbing.  It seems an awakened dog Rogue 10 can use the rogue bonus feat for which it need not meet the prerequisites to grab Dragonwrought.  According to the feat, this awakened dog is of the Dragon type and is a kobold.
But if the dog took the Dragonwrought feat wouldn't he longer be a dog, but would instead be a dragonwrought kobold, losing all his dog racials and shifting form to a kobold?
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: carnivore July 21, 2010, 03:44:51 PM
i dont know why i missed the table 3.2, or the section before it ... i retract my previous position .... Dragonwrought Kobolds are indeed True Dragons(really weak Dragons... but still true Dragons) they simply dont gain as much as other True Dragons do from age ....

 :D

: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: SorO_Lost July 21, 2010, 05:10:23 PM
Somewhere in you post you complain and ran some tandom on me saying useless towards something about simply having age categories. Everyone has age categories and everyone isn't a true dragon. Inserting DM's comment? See below.

I've never said newest only applies.
I tackled every separate method you use.

When someone refutes your plugged in intent you say dragon magic (newest).
When someone refutes newest you use I'm innocent, ignore, strawmans, spoke of flavor, insulted and finally start talking about exceptions.
When someone points out exceptions don't work you insert intent.
And loop till people get tired.

The main thing here is that we have two spots where it's critical for mechanical rules purposes that True Dragon be defined, because we have a mechanical ability that only works with True Dragons.
And what about Draconic Vampirism(DoK) a feat for True Dragons killing True Dragons? What about Advancing Dragons(Draco) where true dragons gain HD as a result of aging? Or magic, or size, etc.

Dragonwrought Kobolds being Chromatic or Metallic is on page 39 ("Dragonwrought kobolds with chromatic dragon ancestry multiply this number by 5.  Dragonwrought kobolds with metallic dragon ancestry multiply this number by 10."). <snip> Sorry, but Half Dragons aren't True Dragons.
Why not you branch into obtaining a feat to gain a level of spellcasting in a class but don't go into why a Half-Dragon can't. What about a Half-Dragon Rakasha, they also have virtual levels of sorcerer spellcasting just like kobolds, and their linage if a thousand times more pure.

Beating you to the punch about your response which will be about dragon magic. Well then drop the flavor argument and stop reciting it.

One two skip a few...

New low from you here.  I don't even know what you're referencing here, you're just making personal attacks.  This is usually the last refuge of someone who no longer has an argument but just wants to win.
It's not winning I want. My personally attacks are really just a lack of being subtle, which isn't something I do anyway, and are a response from yours. You disguise it as your arguments are stupid, stop posting and read the books, your trying to hard it's embarrassing, you ignore rules but I better because I claim to read them all, and finally trolling for smooches. Yeah I really don't use innuendos with the lack of tones and body language being able to be used nor do I hide behind them.

1. Actually, I never mentioned Fang dragons, that was someone else.  I didn't even see Chaos Dragons getting mentioned directly.  2. The main thing here is that there are a few given straight forward definitions (Dragons of Krynn, Dragon Magic, Draconomicon side bar).  Then there's a bunch of random descriptions throughout the books.  The definitions actually match up to all True Dragons.  The descriptions do not. 3. Your argument of "Kobolds do not match up to some of the True Dragon descriptions, therefor they are not True Dragons" fails because that same argument would eliminate virtually all actual True Dragons."  When your logical train leads to a false conclusion, it must be false.  But my logic, that True Dragons are all creatures who follow the definition of True Dragons, actually works.  All listed True Dragons meet the given definitions of True Dragons.  Kobolds also fit this.  That's the ??? you seem to have missed.
Finally something worth reading.
1. Who cares who mentioned what dragon? It is following your concept, stay on topic.
2. What what? Every True Dragon matches up to the True Dragon definitions but every True Dragon doesn't match up to True Dragon descriptions.
See what I mean? You run off on tangent lines like that that serve no real purpose but you claim it matters. Why don't you try explaining things like that instead of trying to come up with some contradictory thing others are supposed to get and spend less time swapping about methods to make claims.
3. Another subtle put down to me. You jump right into using exceptions and further claim I am using them.
No I'm don't, please read the post and stop trying to hard, also insults are a sign of being on your last straw.
Anyway, I don't use exceptions to prove anything, like wise see Method #2 where it highlights that the exception method doesn't clear enough for kobolds anyway.

Rules Compendium, Page 5, Order of Rules Application
The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application: General to specific to exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity. For instance, a monster description is more specific than any general rule about monsters, so the description takes precedence. An exception is a particular kind of specific rule that contradicts or breaks another rule (general or specific). The Improved Disarm feat, for instance, provides an exception to the rule that an attacker provokes an attack of opportunity from the defender he’s trying to disarm (see Disarm, page 45).

All of this is irrelevant,
Here's where you and I differ.  I'm not calling rules "useless" when they're clear.  :)

You're still missing the main point, which is that there are definitions of True Dragons (Draconomicon side bar, Dragons of Kyrnn feat, Dragon Magic Dragonpact section) and there are descriptions of True Dragons (MM1, Dragons of Kyrnn in another section, etc).  The former straight up says "this is what a True Dragon is" and that actually does apply to all True Dragons.  The latter says "this is what some people know about True Dragons" or "True Dragons are generally like X" and does not match up to all True Dragons... usually in fact they don't match up to even the majority.
Descriptions are the definitions. At least you cleared up what you meant before though.

Where are Spellcasting rule for each class defined? In the spellcasting descriptions.
Where is kobolds gaining a level of sorcerer spellcasting defined? In Greater Draconic Rite's description.
Where is bullrush defined? In it's description.
Where is raging defined? In it's description.
Where is creating a dragonpact defined? In it's description.
Where is True Dragon defined? Where JaronK says it is, or so he says.
Worded like that it comes off like a good point, but not one I'd use outside of pointing the absurdity of what JaronK is trying to tell me.

Draconomicon says what a dragon is and provides the highest degree of description short of the monsters them selves making it according to the DMG/RC the priority. Dragon Magic's comment does augment that but does not replace it. And while I won't argue it, rules for who you can create a dragon pact are way outside the same activity of act of defining what a true dragon is.

Your current claim is that True Dragons essentially are just anything on a list that says they're True Dragons, since you would, by your ruling, eliminate Fang Dragons and Lung Dragons and Chaos Dragons and Planar Dragons and Gem Dragons
Proof of ignoring. Monster descriptions > general type descriptions. See all my posts because I can remain consistent.

His method, find an exception to ignore it, isn't enough to work either.
No, it's to show the problem with using descriptions instead of definitions, by showing that doing so leads to a false conclusion (that a known True Dragon is Lesser).  The definitions never have this problem.
Every True Dragon listed as such gains Dragon HD Size Increases as a direct result of aging.
But this is never given as a rule anywhere.
Neither is a rule saying Kobolds are True Dragons. Guess you can't keep following up on that route huh.

Three four skip some more.

Take for example "In addition, dragons gain power and abilities as they age" To me I see they must gain new abilities not simply increase exsisting ones. Kobolds are out.
See?  You just made up a new definition.
Nah, I had that one long before you made up yours, yours is the new one to me.
Also I see you edited my quote without any notation of doing so. Perfect example of that method in action.

Evidently the ability to take Epic feats early isn't an ability.
No more than being alive is. Follow up on it if you want, it's a dead end. Either you're wanting to define the word ability there and word arguments never bold well or you can lose to the D&D terms which define the ability scores & special abilities which in turn lists ex, su, sp and the like with no concern about qualifying for feats.

Five six to lazy to keep posting quote tags.
Gaining a level of sorcerer spellcasting != innate spellcasting. Being granted a level of sorcerer spellcasting as if you have taken a level in sorcerer is much like PrC spellcasting advancement. Ok it's the same exact thing but still there is a difference in it being a feat instead of class level. Innate spellcasting may or may not require somatic components depending on the creature (MM>Special Abilities>Spells), Draco further states True Dragon innate casting ignore material components.

Seven eight forgot taking to him.

Sor0, give me a full list of what you believe to be the necessary criteria for a true dragon with text citations.
Mine? In which way, thanks to the cop out for authors simply publishing something saying it is a true dragon works.

Now if you were to ask if I were to design a dragon or several, which abilities would I say were required. I'd avoid the cop out and I'd have to include; Gaining HD directly from aging, Innate Spellcasting gained at some age category, Frightful Presence gained somewhere at or past young adult, Spell Resistance probably at the same time it gains Damage Reduction. Blindsight, Keen Senses, Wings & a fly speed, and a breath weapon along with immunity to whatever it is. Like a breath weapon that bestows negative levels would mean protection from energy drain. Only they last few are every made an exception to in the D&D books but I have a little better quality control here.

How about I just go with something simple for a definition? True dragons gain power and abilities as they age though their aging categories. It don't even have to be DR/SR/FP that it gains at young adult+ as long as it's something, they can skip having wings or a breath weapon for something else as a change up. But the moment you drop that age gives HD, new abilities, size changes, and so on you have nothing more than a lesser dragon. Yes, this only applies to creatures with the Dragon type and is 100% accurate in all the D&D rules including the exception idea. It wouldn't work in this thread as a rule though. True dragons gain power and abilities as they age though their aging categories. would be quoted the the poster would say his intent trumps mine and ignore the text afterwards. Take the recent use of saying all dragons can gain the archtypes even though the passage talks about true dragons. You can say your intent in the same paragraph and someone will ignore it.
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK July 21, 2010, 05:54:06 PM
Somewhere in you post you complain and ran some tandom on me saying useless towards something about simply having age categories. Everyone has age categories and everyone isn't a true dragon. Inserting DM's comment? See below.

Not everyone has 12 age categories.  Furthermore, there are clearly two types of age categories in the game.  Disguise and Alter Self talk about age categories, and there's the dragon ones.  We have an entry that clarifies which one we're talking about.

I've never said newest only applies.
I tackled every separate method you use.

When someone refutes your plugged in intent you say dragon magic (newest).

I never speak to intent as an argument for RAW.  I have only stated that I think it's likely Races of the Dragon intended Kobolds to be True Dragons, but that True Dragons were never intended to have Epic Feats or Sovereign Archtypes.  That's a guess at RAI, not an argument for RAW.  Note how it's different from what I'm saying RAW is (namely that they get both).

I also never say Dragon Magic over the others.  I use all three given definitions together (Draconomicon, Dragon Magic, Dragons of Krynn).  If you look at all of my posts you'll find this is true.  I have NEVER used the newest argument.  That's a strawman. 

When someone refutes newest you use I'm innocent, ignore, strawmans, spoke of flavor, insulted and finally start talking about exceptions.

No, that's you.  YOU have made up strawmen like "newest."  I have never said anything about innocence.  You have been firing off insults.  And so on.  And no one ever "refuted" this newest argument, because I never made it (it's a strawman).

When someone points out exceptions don't work you insert intent.
And loop till people get tired.

I never use intent as an argument for RAW, only a tangent of "this is probably what they're aiming for, but it's not RAW."

Your entire argument is nothing but strawmen, as shown clearly here.  I summarized my argument for you quite nicely and it didn't have anything you state here.

And what about Draconic Vampirism(DoK) a feat for True Dragons killing True Dragons?

The one that states a True Dragon is a Dragon with Age Categories?  I've been quoting it directly.  It refers to dragon HD, but does not give that as a requirement for being a True Dragon.  It DOES say the requirement for being a True Dragon is a Dragon with Age Categories.  So... yeah.  I don't ignore entries, I just look at what they say.

What about Advancing Dragons(Draco) where true dragons gain HD as a result of aging? Or magic, or size, etc.

Read it again.  Does it state that to be a True Dragon you need to gain HD as a result of aging?  It does not.

Dragonwrought Kobolds being Chromatic or Metallic is on page 39 ("Dragonwrought kobolds with chromatic dragon ancestry multiply this number by 5.  Dragonwrought kobolds with metallic dragon ancestry multiply this number by 10."). <snip> Sorry, but Half Dragons aren't True Dragons.
Why not you branch into obtaining a feat to gain a level of spellcasting in a class but don't go into why a Half-Dragon can't. What about a Half-Dragon Rakasha, they also have virtual levels of sorcerer spellcasting just like kobolds, and their linage if a thousand times more pure.

What is this about a feat to gain spellcasting?  The Draconic Rite is not a feat, it's a racial ability of Kobolds.  And Half Dragon Rakshasa don't have draconic age categories (namely, 12 of them).  Notice how you're trying to use fluff to argue RAW right now ("their linage if a thousand times more pure") which is exactly what you JUST accused me of.  Strawman, then appeal to intent. 

Beating you to the punch about your response which will be about dragon magic. Well then drop the flavor argument and stop reciting it.

You just made a flavor argument, then told me to stop doing it.  Are you even listening to yourself at this point?  And yes, Dragon Magic tells you why Half Dragon Rakshasa aren't True Dragons.  So does Draconomicon (they don't get more powerful by getting older, nor do they gain new abilities by getting older).  Beating me to the punch by saying "see, I know where the rules tell me I'm wrong" doesn't exactly help your case.

One two skip a few...

This would be the ignoring you accused me of earlier, right? 

It's not winning I want. My personally attacks are really just a lack of being subtle, which isn't something I do anyway, and are a response from yours.

Here's the insults you accused me of, which you admit to making.  Everything you've accused me of you do yourself (and I don't).

You disguise it as your arguments are stupid,

I said they were wrong, and quite frankly, your argument about Dragonwrought not being listed in Draconomicon (when it wasn't even released then)  was quite foolish.  You have to know that.  But it's true, I attack your arguments.  You attack me.  Big difference.

stop posting and read the books,

I never said stop posting.  I encourage everyone to read the source material before debating.

your trying to hard it's embarrassing, you ignore rules but I better because I claim to read them all, and finally trolling for smooches. Yeah I really don't use innuendos with the lack of tones and body language being able to be used nor do I hide behind them.

What is this trolling for smooches thing?  I think you're reading in a lot that's just not there.

Finally something worth reading.
1. Who cares who mentioned what dragon? It is following your concept, stay on topic.

You said I mentioned fang dragons.  I didn't.  I corrected you, and now you say who cares? 

2. What what? Every True Dragon matches up to the True Dragon definitions but every True Dragon doesn't match up to True Dragon descriptions.

Correct, because the descriptions are of True Dragons in general, and the definitions say what they are.  For example, adult humans are 5'-6'2" tall, have five fingers on each hand, and are bipedal.  That's a description.  Does this mean midgets aren't human?  What about polydactyle people?  What about people in wheel chairs?   Those are all still human.  I was giving a general description of humans, not the definition.  Descriptions do not generally include the outliers. 

The descriptions of True Dragons don't match every single True Dragon, and thus cannot be used to eliminate something from the category, just like you can't say midgets aren't human.  A White Dragon doesn't match the description in the Monster Manual of True Dragons, even though it's under the True Dragon category.  Nor do Lung Dragons, Gem Dragons, and Planar Dragons.  But it IS a True Dragon, because it DOES meet the definition... a creature of the Dragon Type that gains more power and abilities as it gets older.  ALL True Dragons meet that.  Tryign to eliminate Kobolds from the category based on the descriptions doesn't work, for the same reason you can't eliminate any of the other outliers by the same method.

See what I mean? You run off on tangent lines like that that serve no real purpose but you claim it matters. Why don't you try explaining things like that instead of trying to come up with some contradictory thing others are supposed to get and spend less time swapping about methods to make claims.

I thought that was a pretty clear explanation, actually.  And I still haven't swapped methods. 

3. Another subtle put down to me. You jump right into using exceptions and further claim I am using them.

I don't understand what you're missing here.  The exceptions are demonstrating the problem with attempting to use descriptions to remove members of the True Dragon group.  It shows that your logic leads to a contradiction and is thus false. 

No I'm don't, please read the post and stop trying to hard, also insults are a sign of being on your last straw.
Anyway, I don't use exceptions to prove anything, like wise see Method #2 where it highlights that the exception method doesn't clear enough for kobolds anyway.

You're refusing to use evidence.  That's the first sign of being wrong.


Here's where you and I differ.  I'm not calling rules "useless" when they're clear.  :)

Yes, this is where you and I differ.  I'm talking about Dragons, so you're tangenting with Improved Disarm.  Improved Disarm is in no way related to the topic at hand.  How we categorize things is relevant.  What dragons are is relevant.  Improved Disarm... not so much.

Descriptions are the definitions. At least you cleared up what you meant before though.

False.  If Descriptions were definitions, then White Dragons, Gem Dragons, and Lung Dragons would not be True Dragons, because by definition they would not be.  They'd also not be Lesser Dragons due to Draconomicon, which makes them neither Lesser nor True, and this does not make sense.  Your inability to differenciate descriptions from definitions is the logical flaw that makes your position result in nonsense. 

Where are Spellcasting rule for each class defined? In the spellcasting descriptions.
Where is kobolds gaining a level of sorcerer spellcasting defined? In Greater Draconic Rite's description.
Where is bullrush defined? In it's description.
Where is raging defined? In it's description.
Where is creating a dragonpact defined? In it's description.
Where is True Dragon defined? Where JaronK says it is, or so he says.
Worded like that it comes off like a good point, but not one I'd use outside of pointing the absurdity of what JaronK is trying to tell me.

Now this is all just nonsense.  Bullrush, for example, does have a definition.  It is also described. 

Draconomicon says what a dragon is and provides the highest degree of description short of the monsters them selves making it according to the DMG/RC the priority. Dragon Magic's comment does augment that but does not replace it. And while I won't argue it, rules for who you can create a dragon pact are way outside the same activity of act of defining what a true dragon is.

Draconomicon does indeed have a nifty sidebar that defines True Dragons.  It also describes them at other times, but that sidebar says what they are.  And I've been using the definition from that sidebar for ages now.  Note that Draconomicon is also what makes a contradiction in your logic.  It states clearly that Lesser Dragons are those dragons that don't have age categories.  Since Kobolds do have age categories, they CANNOT be Lesser.  Since all Dragons must be Lesser or True, Draconomicon has yet another way of showing this.

If you can't differentiate between definitions and descriptions, Draconomicon becomes contradictory... Kobolds aren't Lesser (they have age categories) and they are True (they gain power and abilities by aging) but there are descriptions that talk about True Dragons being 100ft+ and having innate spellcasting (which Kobolds only sort of have).

Your current claim is that True Dragons essentially are just anything on a list that says they're True Dragons, since you would, by your ruling, eliminate Fang Dragons and Lung Dragons and Chaos Dragons and Planar Dragons and Gem Dragons
Proof of ignoring. Monster descriptions > general type descriptions. See all my posts because I can remain consistent.

That's not ignoring, it's showing what you're doing.  Lung Dragons do NOT have "True Dragon" anywhere in their monster description.  The only consistency you have is making stuff up at this point, as you just did.  The ONLY things that make Lung Dragons True is their listing in the two lists of True Dragons and the fact that they hit the definitions I've pointed out.

His method, find an exception to ignore it, isn't enough to work either.
No, it's to show the problem with using descriptions instead of definitions, by showing that doing so leads to a false conclusion (that a known True Dragon is Lesser).  The definitions never have this problem.
Every True Dragon listed as such gains Dragon HD Size Increases as a direct result of aging.
But this is never given as a rule anywhere.
Neither is a rule saying Kobolds are True Dragons. Guess you can't keep following up on that route huh.

Yes, there IS a rule saying Kobolds are True Dragons.  Dragon Magic, Dragons of Kyrnn, Draconomicon. 

Three four skip some more.

This would be that ignoring right?

Take for example "In addition, dragons gain power and abilities as they age" To me I see they must gain new abilities not simply increase exsisting ones. Kobolds are out.
See?  You just made up a new definition.
Nah, I had that one long before you made up yours, yours is the new one to me.
Also I see you edited my quote without any notation of doing so. Perfect example of that method in action.

What?  Yes, you made it up a while ago, congrats.  You're still making stuff up.  And I didn't edit your quote.  I copied it from a larger quote just above, showing context.

Evidently the ability to take Epic feats early isn't an ability.
No more than being alive is. Follow up on it if you want, it's a dead end. Either you're wanting to define the word ability there and word arguments never bold well or you can lose to the D&D terms which define the ability scores & special abilities which in turn lists ex, su, sp and the like with no concern about qualifying for feats.

Just because qualifying for feats isn't listed as an ability doesn't mean it's not one.  Sneak Attack isn't listed as an ability either.

Gaining a level of sorcerer spellcasting != innate spellcasting. Being granted a level of sorcerer spellcasting as if you have taken a level in sorcerer is much like PrC spellcasting advancement.

Gaining a level of Sorcerer spellcasting due to your race IS innate spellcasting.  Either way, you're still hitting that contradiction that Kobolds CAN'T be lesser if they have Age Categories (Draconomicon)... even if this logic made sense you'd still hit a fallacy.

Ok it's the same exact thing but still there is a difference in it being a feat instead of class level.

It's not a feat.  It's a ritual you can only do if you're a Kobold.

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: awaken DM golem July 21, 2010, 06:10:10 PM
i dont know why i missed the table 3.2, or the section before it ... i retract my previous position .... Dragonwrought Kobolds are indeed True Dragons(really weak Dragons... but still true Dragons) they simply dont gain as much as other True Dragons do from age ....

 :D


(http://www.theofficialsoulpatrol.com/forum/Smileys/Lots_O_Smileys/cheerleader.gif)

Now just don't abandon your Pixies quite yet, to leave some fun for the rest of us.
 :)

: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: carnivore July 21, 2010, 06:14:04 PM
not abandoning Pixies[spoiler]NEVER[/spoiler]  :smirk ... but will admit when i am corrected .... if i see evidence to the contrary i will admit it ....

 :D

: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: awaken DM golem July 21, 2010, 06:22:46 PM
I had a hard time finding that old smiley face.
Feeling nostalgic ... (sigh)
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: JaronK July 21, 2010, 06:48:34 PM
At least the last post clarified the problem here... some folks don't know the difference between descriptions and definitions.

A definition is a form of description that must describe all members of the set, and not members not of the set.  For example, the definition of an even number is one divisible by 2 such that the result will be an integer.  All even numbers match that definition.  No odd numbers match that exception.  If there was a single number that was even but not divisible by 2, it would not be a definition.

This is why exceptions that SorO keeps ignoring are important... a single exception to the rule means it's not a definition. 

Descriptions aren't so strict.  "Human beings have five fingers on each hand and four limbs" is a valid description of human beings.  But it's not a definition... it describes things that aren't human (like gorillas) and there are some humans that don't fit it (polydactyls, amputees).  Something that describes other things outside the set could be part of a definition, but could not by itself be one.  Something that fails to describe even one member of the set is not a definition.

Note however that D&D has a specific rule that is worth noting here: the specific overrides the general.  As such, all D&D definitions have a built in extra clause "unless the entry says otherwise."  You could have a definition for humanoids that would be perfectly valid, and then have purple worms not match that definition but specifically say they're humanoid, and that would be fine.

In short: If you have properties X, Y, and Z, then you are A is a definition.  A's generally have X is a description.

This is why "True Dragons are Chromatic or Metallic" isn't a definition, but rather a description.  Gem Dragons aren't, therefor it can't be a definition.  "True Dragons have innate spellcasting" isn't a definition either... many things have innate spellcasting that aren't even dragons, and some True Dragons don't have innate spellcasting.  But "True Dragons are creatures of the Dragon Type that have 12 age categories" is a definition.  It's true for all True Dragons, and false for all Lesser Dragons (as well as all non dragons).  "True Dragons are creatures of the Dragon type that have age categories" is only good when we understand the type of age categories they mean (the 12 draconic ones) because technically disguise and alter self refer to the standard PC ages as being "age categories" despite the fact that the ages section doesn't refer to them as such.  That's sloppy writing, since it leads to all kinds of problems (mostly because of what happens with the Draconomicon definition if you read it that way... but even then, you still end up with Kobolds as True.  You just also lump in every other draconic PC  The Draconomicon definition also works nicely.

It's also important to note what Draconomicon says about Lesser Dragons, namely it defines lesser dragons as being creatures of the Dragon type that lack age categories.  You CANNOT be lesser if you have age categories.  That reinforces the idea that age categories are alone what is important, as anything else leads to a logical contradiction

This is why SorO's definition cannot be true... it leads to a logical contradiction to have anything more than age categories.   The only definition of True Dragon that doesn't lead to contradictions is "A True Dragon is a creature of the Dragon type that has 12 age categories."  This uses all listed definitions, located in Draconomicon, Dragon Magic, and Dragons of Kyrnn.  It does NOT use descriptions, as those are not the same as definitions.  SorO's description (not definition) is generally true, as true as my description of humans as four limbed creatures with five fingers per hand.   Unfortunately, no rule actually states what he said.  No rule says you have to gain racial HD or size as you get older to be a True Dragon.  While I can quote the page that says dragons need 12 age categories to be True, he can't quote a page that says the same about gaining size or HD.

JaronK
: Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
: The_Mad_Linguist July 21, 2010, 07:50:24 PM
At least the last post clarified the problem here... some folks don't know the difference between descriptions and definitions.

A definition is a form of description that must describe all members of the set, and not members not of the set.  For example, the definition of an even number is one divisible by 2 such that the result will be an integer.  All even numbers match that definition.  No odd numbers match that exception.  If there was a single number that was even but not divisible by 2, it would not be a definition.

This is why exceptions that SorO keeps ignoring are important... a single exception to the rule means it's not a definition. 

Descriptions aren't so strict.  "Human beings have five fingers on each hand and four limbs" is a valid description of human beings.  But it's not a definition... it describes things that aren't human (like gorillas) and there are some humans that don't fit it (polydactyls, amputees).  Something that describes other things outside the set could be part of a definition, but could not by itself be one.  Something that fails to describe even one member of the set is not a definition.

Note however that D&D has a specific rule that is worth noting here: the specific overrides the general.  As such, all D&D definitions have a built in extra clause "unless the entry says otherwise."  You could have a definition for humanoids that would be perfectly valid, and then have purple worms not match that definition but specifically say they're humanoid, and that would be fine.

In short: If you have properties X, Y, and Z, then you are A is a definition.  A's generally have X is a description.

This is why "True Dragons are Chromatic or Metallic" isn't a definition, but rather a description.  Gem Dragons aren't, therefor it can't be a definition.  "True Dragons have innate spellcasting" isn't a definition either... many things have innate spellcasting that aren't even dragons, and some True Dragons don't have innate spellcasting.  But "True Dragons are creatures of the Dragon Type that have 12 age categories" is a definition.  It's true for all True Dragons, and false for all Lesser Dragons (as well as all non dragons).  "True Dragons are creatures of the Dragon type that have age categories" is only good when we understand the type of age categories they mean (the 12 draconic ones) because technically disguise and alter self refer to the standard PC ages as being "age categories" despite the fact that the ages section doesn't refer to them as such.  That's sloppy writing, since it leads to all kinds of problems (mostly because of what happens with the Draconomicon definition if you read it that way... but even then, you still end up with Kobolds as True.  You just also lump in every other draconic PC  The Draconomicon definition also works nicely.

It's also important to note what Draconomicon says about Lesser Dragons, namely it defines lesser dragons as being creatures of the Dragon type that lack age categories.  You CANNOT be lesser if you have age categories.  That reinforces the idea that age categories are alone what is important, as anything else leads to a logical contradiction

This is why SorO's definition cannot be true... it leads to a logical contradiction to have anything more than age categories.   The only definition of True Dragon that doesn't lead to contradictions is "A True Dragon is a creature of the Dragon type that has 12 age categories."  This uses all listed definitions, located in Draconomicon, Dragon Magic, and Dragons of Kyrnn.  It does NOT use descriptions, as those are not the same as definitions.  SorO's description (not definition) is generally true, as true as my description of humans as four limbed creatures with five fingers per hand.   Unfortunately, no rule actually states what he said.  No rule says you have to gain racial HD or size as you get older to be a True Dragon.  While I can quote the page that says dragons need 12 age categories to be True, he can't quote a page that says the same about gaining size or HD.

JaronK

Or, to put it another way


Hey, Sor0, out of curiosity, do you have "an innate understanding of mercantile matters", "access to magic whatever its source", "a practical attitude toward divine magic", or "always held an af?nity for the sea."

See, races of destiny lists all of those under the 'human' section.  However, there is no list of 'humans' in any d20 product that lists you as human.