Is the Monster Manual 3.5 true dragon chapter only about the 10 dragons (chromatic and metallic) described there, or is it about all true dragons?
After researching the subject for some time I have come to a conclusion that it is valid for all true dragons. So MM is the general description for them.
...you realize the MM description invalidates all True Dragons outside the Monster Manual, right? Your quotes could also be used to say that the MM is a jumping off point for other True Dragons. In fact, that works a LOT better, and fails to lead to contradictions that way.
Right, so they're similar in this way. However, Deep Dragons are neither metallic nor chromatic, and lack any energy immunity, so by the Monster Manual they're not True Dragons and thus the Monster Manual can't be talking about them. Instead, it's saying that for any ability Deep Dragons share with the Monster Manual True Dragons, you should look at the Monster Manual entry.
...
The dragons here are presented in the format used in the Monster Manual. For further details on dragon combat and abilities not detailed here, see MM 68-70.
...
Once again, Brown Dragons from this same book lack wings. Others fail to qualify for other reasons. The Monster Manual isn't talking about these guys... but rather these guys are referencing the Monster Manual as a baseline. Monster Manual is a jumping off point.
...
Arcane Dragons possess all the standard true dragon traits (see page 68 of the Monster Manual), plus they gain the following pecial qualities.
...
Standard true dragons are the ones in the Monster Manual. Then there are other True Dragons found elsewhere that lack those traits. For example, all the dragons not found in the Monster Manual (except, evidently, Arcane dragons. Are they metallic or chromatic?).
...
Epic dragons share all the combat charasteristics of standard dragons, as described in the Monster Manual.
...
But they're not metallic or chromatic either, they just have the
combat characteristics, which is to say stuff like claw damage.
...
The chromatic and metallic dragons of the Material Plane by no means account for the entirety of the draconic races. Nearly every plane of existence has at least one unique breed of dragon to claim as its own. Most of these planar dragons reflect their home planes in some fashion, often through their abilities but sometimes merely through their alignments. Sages and explorers occasionally find a new breed of planar dragon, with the four most recently discovered kinds detailed herein.
Planar dragons lack the innate spell-casting ability of other true dragons. They do, however, often posses a variety of spell-like abilities. A planar dragon uses its age category as its caster level for all spell-like abilities. Although native to planes other than the Material Plane, these creatures nonetheless have the dragon type and are not outsiders. Instead, they all possess the extraplanar subtype.
...
Right, so this right here is talking about how planar dragons are
different from the Monster Manual definition. Clearly the Monster Manual definition isn't talking about them. Also, they're not metallic or chromatic.
Ferrous Dragons
The return of the heavy metal-dragons.
Not all that glitters is golden. When it comes to dragons, metallic does not necessarily mean good and righteous. While most adventures have heard of the chromatic and metallic dragons, few have encountered ferrous dragons. These dragons constitute the lawful branch of dragonkind. Although their influence has dimished in the past millenium, they are proud and determined to regain their former glory. This article presents five such rarities: the chromium, cobalt, nickl, and tungsten dragons, each one ready to mystify and terrify your players.
Ferrous Dragon Qualities
Ferrous dragons possess all of the abilities of true dragons, plus the following ability.
...
Once again, they use MM as a jumping off point. That doesn't mean Monster Manual is talking about them. It means MM is a baseline that others then differ from. But, nice job finding metallic dragons outside the Monster Manual!
...we can keep going on this, but you get the idea.
Contradictions?
If the description for a true dragon in a source contradicts the MM description then specific trumps general. E.g. White dragon can be under 100 ft if it is specifically stated so i.e. size gargantuan when Great Wyrm. This rule can be applied to every contradiction. So the MM description is never invalid.
Except the lack of elemental immunity in Deep Dragons is never stated as a contradiction. It's just there. Same for the lack of Metallic or Chromatic on most other dragons, or the lack of wings on Brown Dragons and most Lung dragons, and a host of other things. This indicates it's not a stated exception at all.
And Draconomicon?
Draconomicon incorporates/inherits everything from MM. This means that everything in Draconomicon is about all true dragons generally.
Page 4. It specifically says that when it talks about True Dragons in general, it usually is just talking about the Monster Manual 10. This is explicitly stated in that same sidebar we keep looking at. Read that, it clearly invalidates your point completely on the topic of Draconomicon and what it's talking about. The fact that the DR/SR section is the same section that's talking about how all true dragons have an elemental immunity (which most of the ones you've just cited lack) and you should figure out pretty quickly what's going on.
Your quotes just show that the basic known True Dragons are the one in the Monster Manual, and that that's what's being usually referred to by default when we mention True Dragons. When new True Dragons are made, they will often (but by no means always) reference those as a basic concept, then show the other traits they want. This is simply shorthand. They'll also leave off the traits they don't want (for example, Deep Dragons not having elemental immunity). This by no means implies that the Monster Manual is giving a definition of all True Dragons (especially when it explicitly states it's talking about "known true dragons"), especially when that definition fails to fit for so many even when exceptions are not, as you say, specifically stated.
JaronK
