On Kobolds and True Dragons

[KellKheraptis]

Is this shit turning into the new Deepwarden debate? 

 

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

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...)

[snakeman830]

Ugh, this cheese again.   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.

[awaken DM golem]

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.

[Negative Zero]

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.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

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.

[wotmaniac]

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.

[JaronK]

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?     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

[EjoThims]

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.

[wotmaniac]

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.}}

[JaronK]

"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

[EjoThims]

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.

[wotmaniac]

"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  

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  ).

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)  




_{edit: corrected grammer}

[The_Mad_Linguist]

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",

[wotmaniac]

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 
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.

[JaronK]

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

[EjoThims]

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  ).

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)  

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.

[wotmaniac]

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)  

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 " " -- 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 

[SorO_Lost]

[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 and this 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.

[PhaedrusXY]

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?

[Surreal]

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?