Author Topic: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons  (Read 171423 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

archangel.arcanis

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
    • Email
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #720 on: December 21, 2010, 07:15:44 PM »
I can at least answer the age progression part, as he has stated it many times.

DWK unlike pretty much everything else does not take penalties to its physical stats as it ages, thus only has a net gain. That is the reasoning for gaining power as it ages. If the templated creatures you are talking about don't take aging penalties and aren't already true dragons you have point that can help the against case. This was also mentioned as anyone with the timeless body feature.

It is up to Jaron to address the LA portion as I don't recall his answer to it, though i'm fairly certain it has been brought up.
Clerics and Druids are like the 4 and 2 in 42. Together they are the answer to the ultimate question in D&D.
Retire the character before the DM smacks you with the Table as the book will feel totally inadequate now.-Hazren

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #721 on: December 21, 2010, 07:51:52 PM »
I'd be curious to see how JaronK incorporates the relevant rules text from the Draconomicon concerning lesser dragons.

Quote
Using another creature of the dragon type as a player character is rather less complicated than using a true dragon. Such a creature has a set level adjustment and no built-in progression due to age, so after the character begins play there is no reason to advance the character as a monster again.

This passage defines lesser dragons by virtue of the ways in which they differ from true dragons--one of which is that they have "no built-in progression due to age."  True dragons have built-in progression due to age; lesser dragons do not.

Now: JaronK has pointed out that DW Kobolds gain mental attributes as they get older.  However, I respectfully submit that this cannot constitute "built-in progression due to age," because there are other lesser dragons that can also gain increased mental attributes as they age.  (This applies in particular to many of the templated lesser dragons.)

Thus, I don't think a clear case can be made for DW Kobolds having the built-in progression due to age which is a hallmark of true dragons.

The biggest issue is that the "built in progression due to age" is not in that page four sidebar.  And that same sidebar makes two critically important points clear... first of all, that any description of True Dragons outside that sidebar in that book is talking primarily about the Monster Manual 10, and second of all that the True Dragon definition trumps the Lesser Dragon definition (because you only look to see if something is lesser if it's "other" than true).  So in context, that quote is saying that the Monster Manual 10 has a non set level adjustment and a built in progression due to age, whereas Lesser Dragons tend to have a set level adjustment and no built in progression.  This does not mean that everything other than a progression due to age disqualifies you.

Again, everything about True vs Lesser Dragons outside that page 4 sidebar is talking in generalities, not definitions.  That same sidebar says this.  By the sidebar's own definition, what makes you a True Dragon is getting more powerful as you age, while what makes you a Lesser dragon is being an "other creature of the dragon type" that doesn't "advance through age categories."  Anything outside the sidebar is generally talking about the Monster Manual 10, and the comparisons to Lesser Dragons are comparing them to the Monster Manual 10, not all True Dragons.

Note that, IIRC, Incarnum dragons have a single LA 0, adult dragons only.  So they'd be an obvious exception to this.  I could be wrong though, as I lack that book.  Epic dragons have LA--, instead of a stepped LA like the other True Dragons.  So a stepped LA pattern is not a True Dragon thing, it just happens to be common.  Much like wings, damage reduction, spell resistance, etc.

JaronK

Caelic

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 979
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #722 on: December 21, 2010, 08:03:05 PM »
The biggest issue is that the "built in progression due to age" is not in that page four sidebar.

True, but the page four sidebar is not the sum totality of the rules concerning true dragons.


Quote
And that same sidebar makes two critically important points clear... first of all, that any description of True Dragons outside that sidebar in that book is talking primarily about the Monster Manual 10, and second of all that the True Dragon definition trumps the Lesser Dragon definition (because you only look to see if something is lesser if it's "other" than true).  So in context, that quote is saying that the Monster Manual 10 has a non set level adjustment and a built in progression due to age, whereas Lesser Dragons tend to have a set level adjustment and no built in progression.  


Not so at all!  The section on pages 141-144 explicitly references true and lesser dragons outside the Monster Manual, and affirms the principles mentioned for them, as well!


Quote
By the sidebar's own definition, what makes you a True Dragon is getting more powerful as you age, while what makes you a Lesser dragon is being an "other creature of the dragon type" that doesn't "advance through age categories."  Anything outside the sidebar is generally talking about the Monster Manual 10, and the comparisons to Lesser Dragons are comparing them to the Monster Manual 10, not all True Dragons.


Again, see my above point; the rules on pages 141-144 are inclusive of both true and lesser dragons outside the Monster Manual 10.  In fact, they explicitly state that it will be necessary to construct tables similar to the MM10 tables for true dragons other than those found in the Monster Manual.  (Note that the rules in question do not say that it may be necessary to do so in some cases; they take it as a given that it WILL be necessary to construct such tables.)


Quote
Note that, IIRC, Incarnum dragons have a single LA 0, adult dragons only.  So they'd be an obvious exception to this.  I could be wrong though, as I lack that book.  Epic dragons have LA--, instead of a stepped LA like the other True Dragons.  So a stepped LA pattern is not a True Dragon thing, it just happens to be common.  Much like wings, damage reduction, spell resistance, etc.


Well, here we go back to a principle that I think holds firm: in D&D terms, exceptions to a rule simply prove that D&D is not very consistent about its rules.  If we attempt to apply the standards of formal logic--i.e., that a single exception disproves the rule--I don't think we'll have any rules left.   Parsing rules in D&D is far more like Bible exegesis than formal logic.

That said, Incarnum Dragons do, indeed, have stepped LA, and epic dragons are simply beyond the purview of the stepped-LA system discussed on pages 141-144.

Now, let's be clear here: I think your overall position ("The designers of the DW kobold meant for it to count as a true dragon because they thought it would be cute and didn't realize it would open the door for abuse later on") is probably entirely correct.

However, I don't think the case for whether they ARE true dragons by RAW is as clear-cut as EITHER side of the debate maintains.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2010, 08:08:26 PM by Caelic »

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #723 on: December 21, 2010, 08:39:43 PM »
The biggest issue is that the "built in progression due to age" is not in that page four sidebar.

True, but the page four sidebar is not the sum totality of the rules concerning true dragons.

It certainly seems to be.  There's a lot of scattered info on True Dragons, but that one seems to be a set up definition.

Quote
Not so at all!  The section on pages 141-144 explicitly references true and lesser dragons outside the Monster Manual, and affirms the principles mentioned for them, as well!

 It doesn't seem to reaffirm many principles there, it's just telling you how to set up level adjustments and racial HD for dragons printed to date.  It's not very useful,then, for edge case dragons printed at a later time.

Quote
Again, see my above point; the rules on pages 141-144 are inclusive of both true and lesser dragons outside the Monster Manual 10.  In fact, they explicitly state that it will be necessary to construct tables similar to the MM10 tables for true dragons other than those found in the Monster Manual.  (Note that the rules in question do not say that it may be necessary to do so in some cases; they take it as a given that it WILL be necessary to construct such tables.)

An issue here is that at the time of the printing of Draconomicon, there were no creatures with the 12 dragon age categories who got more powerful as they got older, that didn't also have wildly different HD and such.  That was added later.  So, at the time of printing, that was true... for all existing True Dragons, you needed such tables constructed.  Later on, that became no longer the case. 

But nothing in this section lists needing to do that as a REQUIREMENT for being a true dragon, nor does it say anything like "if a creature has an LA that changes, it's not a Lesser Dragon."  So, again, this isn't a definition.  It's just a description of Lesser Dragons and True Dragons printed to date.

If it said something like "lesser dragons are those creatures that have a static LA" you'd be a bit more on to something.  Likewise, if it said something like "True dragons are those creatures that have Advancement: by age in their stat block" that would have meaning too.  And that's actually the type of phrasing that you get with a definition.  But that's very different from what we see here.

A great example of the difference: "British people speak English" is a descriptive statement, but it doesn't mean that everyone who speaks English is British, or that babies in Britain aren't British because they can't speak yet.  But "British people are those people that are citizens of Great Britain" is a definition (not a perfect one, but you get the idea).  It's something you could use to determine who's actually British and who's not.

Quote
Well, here we go back to a principle that I think holds firm: in D&D terms, exceptions to a rule simply prove that D&D is not very consistent about its rules.  If we attempt to apply the standards of formal logic--i.e., that a single exception disproves the rule--I don't think we'll have any rules left.   Parsing rules in D&D is far more like Bible exegesis than formal logic.

But people are trying to claim that there are all these rules with unstated exceptions (Brown Dragons are true, except that they lack wings; chaos dragons are true, except that they lack elemental immunity; Li Lung dragons are true, except they are nothing like reptiles), and then trying to apply all of those rules to DWKs, saying that there can be no unstated exception there.  That's not holding DWKs to the same standard as the rest of the True Dragons.  The only way to have a judgment of whether DWKs are True or not without leaving that hanging "but they could be exceptions just like every other dragon outside the MM" is to use rules that have no exceptions.  And not only do we have such rules, we have them stated in a way that it becomes clear it was supposed to be a definition.  And by those rules, DWKs fit. 

JaronK

skydragonknight

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3297
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #724 on: December 21, 2010, 08:53:57 PM »
Huh. The only dragons on this list, they are hatched from eggs
as wyrmlings and reach great wyrm status given time. This
chapter details these minor clans
, some of whom are wicked
and predatory, others beneficial and beatific."

The chapter details Amphi, Aquatic, Fire Frost, Sea and Shadow Dragons.

This leaves Magic of Incarnum, Dragons of Faerun and Shining South

Page 12 of Dragons of Faerun covers the Mercury, Steel, Mist and Rattleyr dragons.


So the only universally accepted true dragon that even NEEDS a definition is the Incarnum Dragon. So just a rules-based definition that includes the Incarnum Dragon but excludes Dragonwrought Kobold will suffice.

[spoiler]Monster Manual 1 -all covered by RotD
Black
Blue
Green
Red
White
Brass
Bronze
Copper
Gold
Silver

Monster Manual 2 -all covered by RotD
Amethyst
Crystal
Emerald
Saphire
Topaz

Oriental Adventures -all covered by RotD
Chiang Lung
Li Lung
Lung Wang
Pan Lung
Shen Lung
T'ien Lung
Tun Mi Lung
Yu Lung

Draconomicon -all covered by RotD
Battle
Chaos
Ethereal
Fang
Howling
Oceanus
Pyroclastic
Radiant
Rust
Shadow
Styx
Tarterian

Races of the Dragon
Dragonwrought Kobolds(maybe)

Drow of the Underdark -all covered by RotD (originally in Monsters of Faerun)
Deep

Magic of Incarnum
Incarnum

Sandstorm -all covered by RotD
Sand

Epic Level Handbook -all covered by RotD
Prismatic
Force

Monsters Of Faerun -all covered by RotD
Brown
Song

Dragons of Faerun -all covered by DoF
Mercury -covered in Dragons of Faerun
Steel -covered in Dragons of Faerun
Mist

Shining South -all covered by DoF
Rattelyr

Bestiary of Krynn -all covered by DoK
Amphi
Aquatic
Fire
Frost

Dragonlance:The age of mortals -all covered by DoK
Sea[/spoiler]

And yes, that is moving the goalpost. But what are you going to do about it? ;)

Edit:
In case anyone cares about the Wizard logo on Dragon Compendium...page 195:
[spoiler]Some sages believe that these five icons of evil
are but the most common of dragons. A radical
and oft derided theory holds that the chromatic
dragons have three "lost" siblings, the orange, purple,
and yellow dragons. According to this theory, the
chromatic dragon Tiamat once had a long forgotten
sister and rival. Tiamat's sister, her name long since
lost to history, spawned the three forgotten dragons
shortly before her demise at her sister's fangs and
claws. Between the depredations of Tiamat's true
children and their own small numbers, the three
dragons teetered on the edge of extinction. Yet, as
true dragons they were too mighty to suffer an easy
defeat
. Over the millennia, they have slowly clawed
their way back from oblivion.[/spoiler]
« Last Edit: December 21, 2010, 09:00:50 PM by skydragonknight »
It always seems like the barrels around here have something in them.

BeholderSlayer

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1258
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #725 on: December 21, 2010, 09:05:01 PM »
My definition results in Incarnum Dragons being true and DWK not.

Unfortunately I don't have time this evening to go through Jaron's post for a rebuttal. I'll see what I can do tomorrow, but no promises. You know how the holidays get, and for me it's no different. I'm leaving town on Friday to visit the gal's family for Christmas in Long Island, and I'll be there for a week until New Year's Eve. It is uncertain how much time I'll have for a while. I hope everyone understands.
Hi Welcome
[spoiler]
Allow me to welcome you both with my literal words and with an active display of how much you fit in by being tone deaf, dumb, and uncritical of your babbling myself.[/spoiler]

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #726 on: December 21, 2010, 09:34:57 PM »
Wait, did that just say undead dragons are true dragons?  Aren't those undead, and thus not of the dragon type?

Anyway, I'm not seeing why this goalpost change needs to happen.  Why do you suddenly not need to include most True Dragons in your definition of true dragons?  Why does that even make sense?

JaronK
« Last Edit: December 21, 2010, 09:38:35 PM by JaronK »

betrayor

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 522
    • Email
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #727 on: December 21, 2010, 09:39:39 PM »
Wait, did that just say undead dragons are true dragons?  Aren't those undead, and thus not of the dragon type?

JaronK

I don't think that's a problem.....
What about a half-celestial Gold Dragon?
Wouldn't his type change to outsider?
He still would be a true Dragon ,yes?

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #728 on: December 21, 2010, 09:50:58 PM »
According to Dragon Magic, absolutely not (must be of the Dragon type).  According to Draconomicon, it seems no as well (strongly implies you need the dragon type).  According to Dragons of Krynn, absolutely not (must be of the dragon type).  So... no, any True Dragon that changes type wouldn't be a True Dragon anymore, because he's not even a Dragon at all.

JaronK

betrayor

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 522
    • Email
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #729 on: December 21, 2010, 09:55:37 PM »
According to Dragon Magic, absolutely not (must be of the Dragon type).  According to Draconomicon, it seems no as well (strongly implies you need the dragon type).  According to Dragons of Krynn, absolutely not (must be of the dragon type).  So... no, any True Dragon that changes type wouldn't be a True Dragon anymore, because he's not even a Dragon at all.

JaronK

But wouldn't they have the augmented dragon subtype?
That has to count for something.....

Caelic

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 979
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #730 on: December 21, 2010, 10:03:19 PM »
So then what happens to a true dragon (with a true dragon specific template or prestige class) that becomes undead?

What happens to a DWK sorcerer that becomes a lich?

skydragonknight

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3297
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #731 on: December 21, 2010, 10:20:59 PM »
Anyway, I'm not seeing why this goalpost change needs to happen.  Why do you suddenly not need to include most True Dragons in your definition of true dragons?  Why does that even make sense?

JaronK

Oh, it would still be good to include as many true dragons as possible with a definition, but as long as the outliers are explicitly stated as true dragons, we don't have to worry about gaps: they are true dragons regardless of definition. Specific >> General. Just as a Half-Dragon Kobold fits your definition of true dragon but is explicitly disqualified, so too can certain dragons be explicitly qualified.

Though a definition that defines less than half is probably a poor definition, since a "rule" should be more true than untrue. I can allow that much common sense. I basically wanted to kill the notion that we needed to fit every single UATD into a single definition, since only one on the list even needs a definition to be a true dragon. The definition we'd want would basically end with "dragons explicitly mentioned as being true dragons but not meeting these standards are also true dragons" or something similar and be a complete definition.
It always seems like the barrels around here have something in them.

skydragonknight

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3297
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #732 on: December 21, 2010, 10:32:44 PM »
So then what happens to a true dragon (with a true dragon specific template or prestige class) that becomes undead?

What happens to a DWK sorcerer that becomes a lich?

Dragons of Faerun has a section titled "Undead True Dragons" which includes some dracoliches and one ghost of a dragon, implying that true dragons that become undead do not lose their status as true dragons. So "currently being the dragon type" is not a completely accurate criteria. If we look at true dragons as "if you are a member of this base race, you are a true dragon", then changing type wouldn't matter, since their base race is the same.
It always seems like the barrels around here have something in them.

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #733 on: December 21, 2010, 11:41:33 PM »
I guess if you ever were a True Dragon, you remain as such regardless of later type changes.

JaronK

skydragonknight

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3297
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #734 on: December 21, 2010, 11:45:47 PM »
I guess if you ever were a True Dragon, you remain as such regardless of later type changes.

JaronK

Hmm. A little more specific than that or a Kobold Druid 17 who shapechanges into a creature with the dragon type becomes and stays a "true dragon" even after the spell ends.
It always seems like the barrels around here have something in them.

AndyJames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
  • Meep?
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #735 on: December 22, 2010, 03:30:13 AM »
Actually, I think you will find that most templates that turn you to undead means that your type changes to undead (augmented <<initial type>>). For example, a necropolitan turns you into Undead (augmented humanoid). IIRC, anyway.

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #736 on: December 22, 2010, 04:28:01 AM »
So... do these creatures in Dragons of Faerun have that type?  Or are they just undead?  I don't have that book.

JaronK

BeholderSlayer

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1258
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #737 on: December 22, 2010, 10:37:33 AM »
According to Savage Species, the Undead type trumps all (as AndyJames said). I don't know of the pyramid is still used, though.
Hi Welcome
[spoiler]
Allow me to welcome you both with my literal words and with an active display of how much you fit in by being tone deaf, dumb, and uncritical of your babbling myself.[/spoiler]

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #738 on: December 22, 2010, 10:48:14 AM »
Then again, Draconomicon doesn't list Dracoliches and the like as True Dragons in the master list.  So perhaps when the Faerun book says "Undead True Dragons" what it means is "creatures that were True Dragons, but have now become Undead" as opposed to "Undead creatures that count as True Dragons."  I don't have the appropriate book to look at it and see if that's actually how it's used.   

But that being the case, I'd say that a Dracolich is indeed not a True Dragon anymore, due to not being a dragon at all (basically, the same reason regular Kobolds aren't True Dragons).  Nor would any other templated True Dragon that changes type to something else.  This would mean that you can't use Draconic Vampirism on True Dragons (which makes sense, you have to kill them and drain some of their spirit, which doesn't work if they were already dead) but then again you can't take that feat either if you were an undead True Dragon... which is a shame, as it would be pretty flavorful.  For the other uses of True Dragon, it doesn't matter hugely.  As a DM, you could just claim the Dracolich became a Loredrake or whatever before turning undead...  players most likely won't be playing as Dracoliches anyhow.

However, if it does mean that Dracoliches are True Dragons... well, it's overruled by Draconomicon anyway, which listed the Faerun True Dragons and didn't list Dracoliches (it put them separately as a "Dragon Only Template").  So following my usual philosophy of "the reading that provides the least contradictions is probably correct" I'd guess that "Undead True Dragons" just means creatures that were True Dragons, but are now undead."  Unless, of course, there's something in that book that says otherwise.  I don't know, I don't have the book.

JaronK

skydragonknight

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3297
Re: Challenging Dragonwrought Kobolds = True Dragons
« Reply #739 on: December 22, 2010, 10:52:54 AM »
So... do these creatures in Dragons of Faerun have that type?  Or are they just undead?  I don't have that book.

JaronK

There are four specific undead dragons mentioned (important ones in the setting.) Two of these have full stat blocks in addition to long descriptions (others just have the long descriptions).

Here's their types as listed in the stat blocks:

One of the two has the "augmented" type, the other doesn't. I consider the odds of accidentally forgetting it to be much higher than the odds of accidentally including it, so my interpretation is: yes, undead dragons are augmented dragons.


« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 11:17:30 AM by skydragonknight »
It always seems like the barrels around here have something in them.