Author Topic: On Kobolds and True Dragons  (Read 38129 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
« Reply #140 on: 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.

Quote
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).

Quote
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."

Quote
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.

Quote
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."

Quote
<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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Rules Compendium, Page 5, Order of Rules Application

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.

Quote
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. 

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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. 

Quote
This is truly the most annoying habit of JaronK.

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

Quote
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

weenog

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1706
Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
« Reply #141 on: 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.
"We managed to make an NPC puke an undead monster."
"That sounds like a victory to me."

BowenSilverclaw

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5337
  • Walking that fine line between genius and insanity
    • Email
Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
« Reply #142 on: 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.
"Weakness? Come test thy mettle against me, hairless ape, and we shall know who is weak!"

Quote from: J0lt
You caught a fish.  It was awesome.   :lol

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
« Reply #143 on: July 20, 2010, 07:30:38 PM »
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

carnivore

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1671
Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
« Reply #144 on: July 20, 2010, 07:40:58 PM »
Quote

Rebel7284

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1585
Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
« Reply #145 on: July 20, 2010, 07:43:47 PM »
Carnivore, look one table up. :)
Negative level on a chicken would make it a wight the next day.  Chicken the other wight meat. -borg286

weenog

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1706
Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
« Reply #146 on: 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.
"We managed to make an NPC puke an undead monster."
"That sounds like a victory to me."

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
« Reply #147 on: 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

weenog

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1706
Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
« Reply #148 on: 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.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2010, 08:52:40 PM by weenog »
"We managed to make an NPC puke an undead monster."
"That sounds like a victory to me."

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
« Reply #149 on: July 20, 2010, 08:56:29 PM »
Quote
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
« Last Edit: July 20, 2010, 09:07:27 PM by The_Mad_Linguist »
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

Surreal

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1430
    • Email
Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
« Reply #150 on: July 20, 2010, 09:00:42 PM »
Holy crap I don't even know which side people are arguing for anymore.
---
"The late, sedate, and no to great." ~Surreal

Some Handy Links for CO Work (WotC 339 version) - a compilation of links for base/prestige class handbooks, tactics, spellcasting, character builds, D&D databases, etc.
Archived version of the above with working links

The Mango Index - a giant index for all things D&D and where to find them
The Mango List Reborn! - rehosted by KellKheraptis

Lists of Stuff - listing of class features etc and how to get them, etc. sort of like above but a little more specific and sorted by category
Polymorph, Wildshape and Shapechange, oh my! (comparison charts) - side-by-side comparison of all the various form altering abilities
Alternative Class Features
alternative ways to get class skills

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
« Reply #151 on: 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
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

weenog

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1706
Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
« Reply #152 on: 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.
"We managed to make an NPC puke an undead monster."
"That sounds like a victory to me."

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
« Reply #153 on: 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.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
« Reply #154 on: 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.

Quote
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

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
« Reply #155 on: 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
« Last Edit: July 20, 2010, 09:24:04 PM by JaronK »

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
« Reply #156 on: 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
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

weenog

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1706
Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
« Reply #157 on: 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.
"We managed to make an NPC puke an undead monster."
"That sounds like a victory to me."

Agita

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5465
  • SFT is mai waifu.
Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
« Reply #158 on: 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.
It's all about vision and making reality conform to your vision. By dropping a fucking house on it.

Agita's Awesome Poster Compilation
Lycanthromancer's Awesome Poster Compilation

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: On Kobolds and True Dragons
« Reply #159 on: 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