Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons

[The_Mad_Linguist]

You know why it's a red herring?  Because this is a true dragon, bitch
[spoiler][/spoiler]

sadly enough its not... gyrados is water/flying

You've found me out.

The magikarp was a...


red herring

[BeholderSlayer]

Come on, keep it up guys. I'm really hoping somebody will convince me I'm wrong, that way I can go back to making Loredrake DWK kobold characters and not feel like I'm willingly breaking the rules.

But I'm still gonna fight tooth and nail.  

Oh, and JaronK, lighten up a bit. I can tell your blood pressure is getting up there. When I say something is fallacious it's not like I'm insulting your mother.

I always think of myself when I see this picture, I'm on BOTH sides of that computer, causing it, and experiencing it:
[spoiler][/spoiler]
 

I probably won't post for the rest of the night. Dinner and girlfriend time.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that the mac/windows analogy is a good one.  If you're going solely by draconomicon, any dragon that gains power as it ages is a true dragon.

Since kobolds gain power as they age, they're true dragons.  Done deal.

We can argue, if we like, about how we are to divide up the "dragons that are not true dragons" into "lesser dragons" and "non-true dragons that are also not lesser dragons", but that's completely tangential to the topic of dragonwrought kobolds.

[skydragonknight]

Oddly enough we have carnivore to thank.
[spoiler]

heres an interesting note:

Phaerimm (p187 Lost Empires of Faerun)

"a Phaerimms Innate magical Ability develops with Age. A Hatchling casts spells as a 1st lvl Sorceror, while a centuries old Revered Elder casts spells as a 19th lvl Sorceror "

it also has Age categories, and can Advance by Age(increasing racial HD+spellcasting+racial abilities) or by taking Class levels

it has many Racial features that are just like dragons .... but they are Not Dragons

 

[/spoiler]

Half-Dragon Phaerimm meets ALL the Draconomicon criteria of a True Dragon and fails the definition of a lesser dragon. It only fails to be a true dragon when you add in "12 age categories"

So the two most prominent conclusions:
12 age categories definition  = accepted true dragons + dragonwrought kobolds.
Draconomicon definition alone = accepted true dragons + half-dragon phaerimms

There is now no definition that only yields only accepted true dragons.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

By Monsters of Faerun Phaerimm "gain levels as sorcerers over lives that span centuries", and advance "by character class".

EDIT: Ah, that's older.  Doesn't matter, though, since draconomicon defines all "half-dragons" as being lesser dragons.  As lesser dragons are a subset of "Dragons that are not true dragons", half-dragon phaerimms are explicitly defined as being not true.  Same argument applies to half-dragon kobold druids.

[JaronK]

I'm not ignoring what's said in the primary source (as True dragons advance in HD, they become more powerful).

It says any dragon that gets more powerful as it ages is a True Dragon.  Done.  That's it.  If you do that, you're a True Dragon.  That's ALL Draconomicon says on being a True Dragon.  And, as TML has now shown, D&D specifically references higher stats as more powerful, so there you go.  That's what the primary source says... the opposite of what you're claiming.

What you're stuck on is that by your interpretation, Dragonwrought Kobolds are also lesser dragons.  This is not possible, as Draconomicon defines Lesser Dragons as being other than (and thus exclusively not) True dragons.

Specificity gets the 12 age categories in (maybe), but doesn't get merely having them to qualify (advancing in HD through age is more specific than simply progressing in age),

Except you made up that "advancing in HD through age" definition.  That's not how D&D always uses the term.  In fact, I would state that that's NEVER how D&D uses the term.  When they mean that, they say "Advancement: By Age.  "Advances" always means "passes through" or "travels through" or a similar meaning.

you assume that advances means what you want it to mean despite every True Dragon advancement entry ever written.

No, every True Dragon table says "Advancement: By Age" which is NOT what the Draconomicon says.  And what I want is to clarify RAW.  It doesn't matter to me which it is, as long as the correct interpretation is used.

My argument is that YOU are using "advances" incorrectly. Merely stating it is so reminds me of this:

I'm pretty sure Argumentum Ad Windmillum is a fallacy.  And while you can claim it, you're still creating a contradiction in the primary source by that claim.

Additionally, if Dragon Magic or DoK (secondary sources) were meant to update the primary source (the Draconomicon) it would be explicitly stated as such. That is also RAW.

No, like your "strict definition" you just made that up.  The DMG gives prestige classes.  Other books add PrCs.  Few or none say "this explicitly adds to the number of PrCs available."  Unless you'd like to quote the rule that says "updates of primary sources must explicitly state that they are updates."  Go for it.

You're also missing the fact that Dragons of Kyrnn and Dragon Magic both don't contradict Draconomicon.  As such, primary sources aren't even relevant.  Primary source ONLY applies to contradictions.  True Dragons needing 12 age categories is not a contradiction of True Dragons gaining power as they get older.

RAW already allows for certain rules texts to be thrown out entirely when they do not agree with the primary source. Your antithesis to the concept that certain rules statements may just be flat out WRONG is hilarious.

This is only true when A) the secondary source directly contradicts the primary source and B) the secondary source is not more specific.  Since Draconomicon only says that True Dragons are those that get more powerful as they get older, neither of the two other sources are contradictory.  Thus, they CANNOT BE THROWN OUT.  You may find it funny, but he who laughs last thinks slowest.

Remember, the definition you're using for True Dragons is actually just inverting the definition of Lesser Dragons.  You're claiming that DW Kobolds are both Lesser and True with your logic at this time.

Also, appeal to consistency IS a fallacy. Try googling a little harder. Or a philosophy class.

It's "Appeal to Inconsistency."  You've got it backwards.  Appeal to consistency is a valid logical tactic... ESPECIALLY when discussing rule systems. 

JaronK

[EjoThims]

The rules themselves are meaningless without other rules to which to apply them.

This would then make all of the rules meaningless, as since each one is meaningless until applied to another meaningless rule, you will still end up with a meaningless result. Which, while an opinion some may hold, is assumed to be untrue for the sake of having such lengthy discussions on them.

You are trying to claim that because two things can be used in different ways by outside data, that they are incompatible (which would be necessary for the secondary source to be unable to clarify the primary). A perfect example of this type of thinking is, indeed, assuming that a day cannot be both warm and rainy, because taken individually with other outside data one would respond differently to each. But the idea that they are actually incompatible is simply hogwash. A day which is warm can be clarified later to also be rainy, and age categories can latter be clarified to enumerate 12. Both without contradicting the first source of information.

Do you truly think that because a Thri-kreen can use a sword made for a four handed user that the standard power attack rules would ever change?

You are actually (in this vein you take of saying the two definitions are incompatible) trying to define the general by using specific examples, when we explicitly know that is not how DnD rules work. Specific defies general, overruling it. It does not shape the guidelines for which the general is used.

[SorO_Lost]

So if the MM says, Damage Reduction: Young adult and older dragons have damage reduction. Their natural weapons are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

Then when Draco says: True dragons develop damage reduction as they age, as noted in the Monster Manual. Damage reduction is a supernatural ability and is ineffective in an antimagic field.

It is an expansion.

That would be an example of the principle in question, yes. Sadly I can't find my copy of Draconomicon to see if that quote is actually a definition of True Dragon or an explanation of the presented stat blocks, as it is in the MM.

I can save you some time.

And for reference

Damage Reduction: Young adult and older dragons have damage reduction. Their natural weapons are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

Immunities (Ex): All dragons have immunity to sleep and paralysis effects. Each variety of dragon has immunity to one or two additional forms of attack no matter what its age, as given in its description.

Spell Resistance (Ex): As dragons age, they become more resistant to spells and spell-like abilities, as indicated in the variety descriptions.

The Fors side has always been 'ignore it'. Which I've bought up the concept of other rules and stuff outside of one line of text you people are at ends with almost every page. 13 pages in and you are the closest thing to someone other than me talking about them.
As an expansion, can we still go by the MM's immunity to one attack form rather than Draco's focus Energy type. After all, immunity to one attack form is accurate in all listed TDs, but Energy immunity get's bogged down by the fact Negative & Positive Energy are not actually energy. Such a tweak in priority would maintain accuracy.

**

They introduced fluff to support it ... But I have no idea why people are quoting the Monster Manual's definition... considering it's obviously a description, not a definition.

Hi Welcome. Fluff about wanting to be a true dragon and statements of them being dragon descendants falls short of the fluff of a half breed is still a lesser dragon.

Srsly, are you still going on about description != definition? Do I have to beat every stupid idea you come up with out of you? One would have thought your failed thread (the one were I was trying to help you) was enough. If you really wish to continue creating definitions out of descriptions, necro your thread and we'll work on it some more.

***

@The_Mad_Linguist, (lost your post to hit quote on it)
If we accept your idea, then we can debate the meaning of more powerful from aging. Intent is flat out easy to see since TDs gain HD from aging, further more drawing from EjoThims, the MM's All true dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age. is fully intact. Likewise, clearly it references the TD's trait of obtaining DR, SR, Sps, and various other effects as direct cause of obtaining age. And even if, and I do say if, you have the balls to just ignore it with some flimsy excuse, those traits are later stated in the draco as fact.
True dragons develop damage reduction as they age
True dragons also develop spell resistance as they age
You can't get more direct than that.

***

And out of lazyness, I'm so not going though the three new pages to quote and reply to. Except of course, a reminder about HAlf-Dragon being noted as a lesser dragon, half-dragons can have age categories.

[snakeman830]

RULES: DRAGON IMMUNITIES
Every kind of true dragon has immunity to at least one type of energy, as noted in the Monster Manual. A true dragon ignores the detrimental effects of extreme heat (110°F to 140°F) and of extreme cold (0°F to –40°F). A true dragon in these conditions does not have to make a Fortitude save every 10 minutes to avoid taking nonlethal damage. All creatures of the dragon type are immune to magic sleep and paralysis effects, also as noted in the Monster Manual. True dragons develop damage reduction as they age, as noted in the Monster Manual. Damage reduction is a supernatural ability and is ineffective in an antimagic field. True dragons also develop spell resistance as they age, as noted in the Monster Manual.

And for reference

Damage Reduction: Young adult and older dragons have damage reduction. Their natural weapons are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

Immunities (Ex): All dragons have immunity to sleep and paralysis effects. Each variety of dragon has immunity to one or two additional forms of attack no matter what its age, as given in its description.

Spell Resistance (Ex): As dragons age, they become more resistant to spells and spell-like abilities, as indicated in the variety descriptions.

The Fors side has always been 'ignore it'. Which I've bought up the concept of other rules and stuff outside of one line of text you people are at ends with almost every page. 13 pages in and you are the closest thing to someone other than me talking about them.
As an expansion, can we still go by the MM's immunity to one attack form rather than Draco's focus Energy type. After all, immunity to one attack form is accurate in all listed TDs, but Energy immunity get's bogged down by the fact Negative & Positive Energy are not actually energy. Such a tweak in priority would maintain accuracy.

This is not correct.  Incarnum Dragons, Fang Dragons, and Rust Dragons have no such extra immunity beyond those inherent in the Dragon type.  I'm sure there are more, but those three took less than a minute of research.  Also, niether have any specific note.  While most True Dragons have an additional immunity, it's apparent that not all do.  Therefore, the absolute definition fails as it declares at least 3 varieties of True Dragon are not True Dragons.

The Draconomicon description also fails with many dragons in Draconomicon.  The Immunity to Complusions of the Chaos Dragon is most definitely not an energy type, nor is the Immunity to Blindness of the Radiant Dragon.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

@The_Mad_Linguist, (lost your post to hit quote on it)
If we accept your idea, then we can debate the meaning of more powerful from aging.

Fortunately, I already quoted the rules text that states having higher ability scores = more powerful.  So we're clear on that.

[Bauglir]

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

There is room to argue about age category-based stuff, I suppose, but just about everything else fails due to the extreme variability of true dragons.

EDIT:

Further, it is strongly arguable that DWK fit the only known definitions of True Dragons by the above metric. They have 12 age categories, and thus have age categories. They get more powerful as they age (as now shown by the quote which is not contradicted in any source with higher priority, since all higher priority sources are utterly silent). Half-Dragon X's are specifically excluded from taking advantage of this logic, so that route of reductio ad absurdum cannot succeed. The only remaining argument is based on the word "advance". This is something Beholder won't be budged from because he's already concluded that DWKs are not True Dragons and so he needs to maintain an arbitrary, strict definition that's made clear by "context" and thus can never be disproven.

[archangel.arcanis]

Some fuel for the fire:

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

It explicitly calls out what energy types just above that side bar.
Planar Dragons presented in Draco. and their listed immunities that don't fit:
Battle Dragon Immunity to sonic
Chaos Dragon Immunity to compulsion effects
Ethereal Dragon Immunity to ether cyclones
Howling Dragons Immunity to sonic
Radiant Dragon Immunity to light effects
Rust Dragon Metal resistant (no immunity listed)
Styx Dragon immunity to poison and disease
Tarterian Dragon (no immunity listed) Freedom of movement (close enough  )
Shadow Dragon Energy drain immunity

Those that actually had the defined elemental immunity in some way:
Oceanus Dragon Immunity to electricity
Pyroclastic Dragon immunity to fire and sonic

Last page of Draco lists all of these and more on their list of "true dragons" despite not fitting their own rule concerning true dragon immunities.

A bit of help to the other side:
All of the lung dragon in OA don't have 12 age categories and are listed as well. They all have 9 except Yu Lung which has 3. The Yu Lung serves as the first 3 age categories for the others who all have 9. So while the individual dragon goes through 12 age categories it actually changes what kind of dragon it is. Not a solid case but a corner case that may help.

[JaronK]

Lung dragons do have 12 categories, they just do it differently, so that fits (barely).  Honestly, they're more debatable than Kobolds... or they would be if they weren't explicitly called out as True.

But excluding Dragonwrought Kobolds based on any metric that would exclude another known true dragon is an example of exactly the kind of contradiction I was talking about earlier.  This is the primary flaw of the against case: they have STILL yet to provide a definition with actual rules backing that actually fits True Dragons, without contradictions, that doesn't also get Dragonwrought Kobolds.  The "advance through age categories" thing is not only a shaky position at best (relying on a usage of the word "advance" that is not standard in D&D, treating it instead as "Advancement: by age" which is a different wording), it more to the point is never found in an actual definition of True Dragons.  Instead, it's in the definition of Lesser Dragons... which are in the "Other" category. 

JaronK

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

You know why it's a red herring?  Because this is a true dragon, bitch
[spoiler][/spoiler]

sadly enough its not... gyrados is water/flying

You've found me out.

The magikarp was a...


red herring

Sorry for absolutely ignoring the conversation (I already said something useful but as usual...) but here goes.

Magikarp/gyrados was actually a dragon. The last of the elite four said he only uses dragons... Not a dragon type, sure but the games were never very good at being consistent. (the only 3 ghost pokemon are poisonous? wtf ghosts don't poison people)

Trivia: Besides Charizard, what original fire type pokemon was a dragon?

[The_Mad_Linguist]

You know why it's a red herring?  Because this is a true dragon, bitch
[spoiler][/spoiler]

sadly enough its not... gyrados is water/flying

You've found me out.

The magikarp was a...


red herring

Sorry for absolutely ignoring the conversation (I already said something useful but as usual...) but here goes.

Magikarp/gyrados was actually a dragon. The last of the elite four said he only uses dragons... Not a dragon type, sure but the games were never very good at being consistent. (the only 3 ghost pokemon are poisonous? wtf ghosts don't poison people)

Trivia: Besides Charizard, what original fire type pokemon was a dragon?

You see, this is exactly the type of reaction I wanted to elicit.

Can we retitle this "Challenging Gyrados = True Dragons"?  Because that would make my day.

[Kaville]

Trivia: Besides Charizard, what original fire type pokemon was a dragon?

Define 'Original,' as in the first generation the only fire types were Charmander line, Growleth line, Vulpix line, Ponyta line, Magmar, Flareon, and Moltres...

As for the topic at hand, I was always under the impression that advancing by age categories meant the advancement line in the stat block. Not to go with the fact that of the 12 age categories, DWK only 'gain power' by advancing in the normal three that most races get modified. Problem with that however, is that the rules only say gain power by advancing through age categories, not gain power in each one.

[The_Laughing_Man]

If the monster is explicitly stated to be a true dragon, then surely it is, regardless of the "true dragon" definition(s).

Can that be agreed upon?

[skydragonknight]

If the monster is explicitly stated to be a true dragon, then surely it is, regardless of the "true dragon" definition(s).

Can that be agreed upon?

Specific trumps general, so yeah.

[skydragonknight]

CONGRATS TO BEHOLDER SLAYER ON HIS 666 POST COUNT.

That is all.

[Shiki]

Kinda off topic but I need to rant somewhere and interestingly half of it started 'cause of dragonwrought, so 'nyway;
[rant][spoiler]I'm currently playing a Dragonwrought Kobold DFA with Draconic Knowledge^Draco and my DM nerfed it in half in the middle of the game because he didn't wanted me to be able to guess too much about what could happen. I mean, like, yeah, Dragonwrought kinda lets you do OP things, but this use of it is debatedly low powered. Admittedly, my guess is he wouldn't accept Loredrake cheese at his table, and that's fine, but annoyingly he would probably not nerf druids or clerics or wizards and also, he doesn't allow ToB because, hey, swordsages can teleport himself and other shiat etc, warblades can pummel anything into the ground, and crusaders looks okay but they still get maneuvers so its OP! Okay .[/spoiler][/rant]

Decidedly, when rules are sloppy and you use something legal but weird and/or a bit powerful you get hit by your buddy nerf-stick. ):