Author Topic: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?  (Read 66900 times)

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #40 on: June 08, 2012, 09:22:49 PM »
What you fail to understand is D&D. That's you're first problem.

Take this scenario.
Rule: Drawing a weapon requires a move action, and it may also be done as part of a move action spent moving.
I don't like that rule, hurr durr dupa durr doesn't say unless otherwise noted blah blah blah. I see a Samurai example with Quick Draw, he explicitly gets to draw his weapon as a free action. The above rule is abolished, I ignore it.

You are that guy, and you sound like an idiot to me. This isn't how D&D works and never has, the entire feat concept is based off making exceptions that only apply to certain people or things to begin with.

The DMG notes it somewhere, but my RC is OCRed so you'll have to take that.
Quote from: RC, page 5
ORDER OF RULES APPLICATION
The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application: General to specific to exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity. For instance, a monster description is more specific than any general rule about monsters, so the description takes precedence. An exception is a particular kind of specific rule that contradicts or breaks another rule (general or specific). The Improved Disarm feat, for instance, provides an exception to the rule that an attacker provokes an attack of opportunity from the defender he’s trying to disarm (see Disarm, page 45).
So True Dragon is literately the first set of rules to what is or isn't a TD. All 8 natural weapons, breath, FP, spells, SLAs DR, immunities, etc. The Fang Dragon is a specific monster description and it says flat out it is a True Dragon so regardless it is one. Likewise, "a fang dragon does not have a breath weapon but it's bite permanently drains Constitution" only trumps the base rules in the same activity (being a fang dragon).

Since the argument is based on the DWK Kobold being a True Dragon, the Fang is of no value to even talk about. Specially since the concept of finding an exception to a rule in order to ignore it is total bullshit to begin with.

This has no real value to say since the exception argument shouldn't exist to begin with. But if you did humor it, every single TD listed as a TD in official sources does in fact gain Spell Resistance, Damage Reduction, Frightful Presence, and pretty sure Blindsense. I like bringing it up, because no single argument is capable of supporting it's self. Even if you demand exception replaces general, you still need to make up another excuse to validate your kobold opinion.

Quote
What does this even mean?  Yes, I assume that Dragonwrought Kobolds qualify as the Dragon race - that's literally what the feat does.  I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make.
And this comment. Wow. Just wow. You're pretty special huh?

DWK changes your type to Dragon, your race is still Kobold. You say you are a "dragon", then bank on ambiguity that "dragon" can also mean True Dragon. Reminds me of how to escape from jail, I pee in the bucket, then I look in the bucket and I see what I saw. I take that saw and cut my bed in half. To halves make a whole. So I crawl out through that hole and escape., which while pretty entertaining it's nothing more than a play on sounds.

I gave better examples in my first post, which was then quoted by Plz so you missed it twice or forty times prior to this thread give or take. But expanding on that, a Cleric obtaining Smite Evil can't qualify for being a Paladin to use a Holy Avenger. A Sorcerer casting Devil's Ego (changes type to outsider) can't qualify to become a Devil to take Devil feats, a Barbarian with bonus feats isn't a Fighter and won't be taking Weapon Specialization, a humanoid changing his type to dragon isn't a true dragon, a Aassmir with a Belt of Dwarvenkind can't take levels in Stone Warden, an Elven Wizard using Polymorph isn't a Changling to take levels in Recaster, hey is any of this sinking in yet? There is no rules to qualify for another race (or class) at a base level. Specific exceptions exist (UMD for items, reincarnation which changes race, casts as a X level this, etc) but you cannot simply obtain a similar ability found in another race or class and say you are that race or class. IE changing your type to Dragon and having three functioning age categories listed as 12 doesn't mean you are a True Dragon. Even if you did obtain SR, DR, FP, Blindsense, Breath Weapon(s), innate casting, and so on you're still just a guy wishing he was something else.

In case you've lost count here. I've shot down your argument in three different ways. How you are using two house rules and how each doesn't work like you think it does. And the fact that even in your set of house rules you still fail to make your point and need to add more bullshit to make your opinion function. Like you're last post where you just pick stuff that seems similar (kobolds have arms and dragons do too!) and ignore all text that disagrees with you. As stupid as it is, at least you were consistent.

Offline strider24seven

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #41 on: June 09, 2012, 01:16:20 AM »
*snip*

To translate from SorO's obscure dialect of asinine to normal English:
1)  "Dragon, True" is listed as a race in the MM1. 
2)  Nowhere in the Dragonwrought feat does it state that the creature's race (Kobold in this case) changes to Dragon, True.
3)  Ergo, Kobolds are not True Dragons. 

Walls of Text condensed to 47 words.  50 if you count numerals. 

 

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #42 on: June 09, 2012, 02:28:00 AM »
*snip*

To translate from SorO's obscure dialect of asinine to normal English:
1)  "Dragon, True" is listed as a race in the MM1. 
2)  Nowhere in the Dragonwrought feat does it state that the creature's race (Kobold in this case) changes to Dragon, True.
3)  Ergo, Kobolds are not True Dragons. 

Walls of Text condensed to 47 words.  50 if you count numerals.
Ahh you're so nice. ty.

Offline strider24seven

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #43 on: June 09, 2012, 04:59:32 PM »
*snip*

To translate from SorO's obscure dialect of asinine to normal English:
1)  "Dragon, True" is listed as a race in the MM1. 
2)  Nowhere in the Dragonwrought feat does it state that the creature's race (Kobold in this case) changes to Dragon, True.
3)  Ergo, Kobolds are not True Dragons. 

Walls of Text condensed to 47 words.  50 if you count numerals.
Ahh you're so nice. ty.

My pleasure  :D.  It pains me to see when someone is correct, but the other parties involved are obstructed from the truth by the vigor of that someone's argument. 

And now I think we can safely go the rest of our lives without mentioning DWK's and True Dragons in the same thread again so that we can avoid derailments.

Offline snakeman830

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1091
  • BG's resident furry min/maxer
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #44 on: June 09, 2012, 06:43:21 PM »
*snip*

To translate from SorO's obscure dialect of asinine to normal English:
1)  "Dragon, True" is listed as a race in the MM1. 
2)  Nowhere in the Dragonwrought feat does it state that the creature's race (Kobold in this case) changes to Dragon, True.
3)  Ergo, Kobolds are not True Dragons. 

Walls of Text condensed to 47 words.  50 if you count numerals.

Doesn't this kind of logic draw the conclusion that Planar Dragons, Gem dragons, and Epic Dragons are not True Dragons, because their entry does not state that their race is "Dragon, True"?

Yes, other sources include them as True Dragons, but as for their entry, that's not the case.
"When life gives you lemons, fire them back at high velocity."

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #45 on: June 10, 2012, 01:14:02 AM »
No.

A. In Draco/RotD's list of official TDs they are included.
B. Exact wording on Planar Dragon entry is: "Unlike most other true dragons" which carries the implication that they are TDs. Lungs are the same. Honestly Gems really don't attempt to claim as much as they are mostly a copy/paste entry of True Dragon but "true" is replaced with "gem" so they were kind of on the outside looking in. But they are 3.0 material and two sources of 3.5 giving a list of all official TDs does in fact include them so no one can really argue that (see a).

Really helps to think object oriented programming.
Creature
-True Dragon
--Planar Dragon
---Battle Dragon
So a type check (battledragon is truedragon) would always return true because it's part of it's hierarchy. Similarly, Battle Dragon inherent all rules from Planar Dragon it doesn't override, and all rules form True Dragons that it or Planar don't override, and all rules from creatures the rest don't override such as living, breathing, dies at -10hp, etc. These building blocks allow the authors to write a "Battle Dragon" without having to redetail the list of natural attacks and such. You have been using this for quite some time as well, for instance how do you think you know you get a feat at level 3 if Wizard isn't granting one?

Offline zook1shoe

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Feeling the Bern
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #46 on: June 10, 2012, 02:42:24 AM »
what about the Mist Dragon from Dragons of Faerun?

it says nowhere in the text that it is a True Dragon in the book.

once near the beginning of the chapter, there is a reference that the Mercury and Steel Dragons are both Metallic dragons (which you can infer that they are TDs from that) and also the see the Monster Manual for the proper abilities, but never strictly says any of the three dragons are (otherwise) specifically TDs.

at the end of each of the Mercury and Steel dragon's stats the words True Dragon come up ONLY due to their spellcasting.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2012, 03:06:23 AM by zook1shoe »
add me on Steam- zook1shoe
- All Spells
- playground

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #47 on: June 10, 2012, 04:08:36 AM »
what about the Mist Dragon from Dragons of Faerun?

it says nowhere in the text that it is a True Dragon in the book.

once near the beginning of the chapter, there is a reference that the Mercury and Steel Dragons are both Chromatic dragons (which you can infer that they are TDs from that) and also the see the Monster Manual for the proper abilities, but never strictly says any of the three dragons are specifically TDs.

at the end of each of the Mercury and Steel dragon's stats the words True Dragon come up ONLY due to their spellcasting.
Hey, you're right.

I mean, yeah. Wow.
It's not like Draco, Ebeeron's DoE, and this Faerun DoF book seem to be notorious for just plain using "dragon", canonically only using "true dragon" is only used in so far enough to know that is the subject at hand. And what's this stuff on three new dragons? Two are metallic dragons but the mist is a neutral dragon, pfft. It's not like all metallics are good and all chromatics are evil so something more neutral based just blows my mind on why it's not either of those. Well like I said, it's a good thing DoF isn't pretty much only talking about TDs, it doesn't have a TD list on page 12, or list these dragons in the chapter of TDs in the world, and it doesn't have a roll call of dragons that only lists TDs and these new dragons. I mean, if it had anything like that I might just have go on to say they are TDs.

I'm sure glad you noticed the lack of "true" being used man. Thread over. Thread-fucking-over.

(click to show/hide)

Offline betrayor

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 474
  • Monitoring...
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #48 on: June 10, 2012, 05:09:26 AM »
Oh come on.....
Why should the thread be over?
I want to explore the rivarly between the Dragonwrought Kobolds and Force Dragons,maybe Force Dragons do stand a chance......
 :) :)

Offline EjoThims

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 531
  • The Ferret
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #49 on: June 10, 2012, 09:28:44 PM »
ITT: Soro continues to argue that sense, reason, and fluff be used to interpret a rules inconsistency while everyone else discusses the implications of attempting to resolve the inconsistency by applying mere logic to the actual rules.

To clarify: Soro's only legitimate rules base argument (as opposed to those based on descriptions instead of rules) rests on reading "advance through age categories" as "advance due to age categories" even though this is not the only possible meaning of the sentence. Other meanings perfectly allow for TDDWKs, so he rejects them because the interaction was obviously unintended. This is reasonable and makes sense, but in doing so he misses the entire point of discussing the actual RaW.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #50 on: June 10, 2012, 10:56:29 PM »
I just wanted you to know, I farted.

That's really all the retort you need too. I mean seriously, "hurburble baburble SorO isn't talking RAW when he says things like *deep breath* Darco/RotD/MoF states THIS IS A LIST OF ALL TDs and Kobolds are not on it, or when MM1/Draco state all TDs have X, or DMG/RC/application of use (called example being feats) invalidate concept of exception replaces base rules for all, or even the fact having similar abilities to something doesn't mean you qualify as that something as DWK Kobolds are TDs per RAW despite my inability to reference a single fracking rule in my post."?  :clap

I farted, and it makes a better point than you apparently ever will.

Offline zook1shoe

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Feeling the Bern
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #51 on: June 11, 2012, 01:12:12 AM »
ITT: Soro continues to argue that sense, reason, and fluff be used to interpret a rules inconsistency while everyone else discusses the implications of attempting to resolve the inconsistency by applying mere logic to the actual rules.

To clarify: Soro's only legitimate rules base argument (as opposed to those based on descriptions instead of rules) rests on reading "advance through age categories" as "advance due to age categories" even though this is not the only possible meaning of the sentence. Other meanings perfectly allow for TDDWKs, so he rejects them because the interaction was obviously unintended. This is reasonable and makes sense, but in doing so he misses the entire point of discussing the actual RaW.

Interesting way of putting that :)


Soro, would you please try to be a little less childish with your responses?
add me on Steam- zook1shoe
- All Spells
- playground

Offline linklord231

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3346
  • The dice are trying to kill me
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #52 on: June 11, 2012, 01:35:43 AM »
We've talked about the list thing before.  The reason Kobolds aren't on it is because most Kobolds aren't dragons, so the designers didn't feel the need to include them.  I can't speak on the Dragons of Faerun list because I don't have that book, but you'll notice that the RotD one doesn't include templated True Dragons either - why should it include such a niche case like kobolds with a certain feat?  That, and they specify that only True Dragons published in an official D&D product are included - there has never been a Dragonwrought Kobold published by WotC. 

I'm not arguing, I'm explaining why I'm right.

Offline Lo77o

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 102
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #53 on: June 11, 2012, 12:07:42 PM »
Iv been under the impression that DWK is not true dragons for ages now, but SorO's posts have changed my minds. Now i can see both sides.

Thanks for the awakening.

Offline Pencil

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 446
  • - your advertisement could stand here -
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #54 on: June 11, 2012, 12:24:03 PM »
We've talked about the list thing before.  The reason Kobolds aren't on it is because most Kobolds aren't dragons, so the designers didn't feel the need to include them.  I can't speak on the Dragons of Faerun list because I don't have that book, but you'll notice that the RotD one doesn't include templated True Dragons either - why should it include such a niche case like kobolds with a certain feat?  That, and they specify that only True Dragons published in an official D&D product are included - there has never been a Dragonwrought Kobold published by WotC.

Can you post the source through what the designer told you his intention?
Movie Quote of the Week (Brazil):
Sam Lowry: Is that one of your triplets?
Jack Lint: Yeah, probably.

Offline zook1shoe

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Feeling the Bern
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #55 on: June 11, 2012, 01:49:49 PM »
Hey, you're right.

I mean, yeah. Wow.
It's not like Draco, Ebeeron's DoE, and this Faerun DoF book seem to be notorious for just plain using "dragon", canonically only using "true dragon" is only used in so far enough to know that is the subject at hand. And what's this stuff on three new dragons? Two are metallic dragons but the mist is a neutral dragon, pfft. It's not like all metallics are good and all chromatics are evil so something more neutral based just blows my mind on why it's not either of those. Well like I said, it's a good thing DoF isn't pretty much only talking about TDs, it doesn't have a TD list on page 12, or list these dragons in the chapter of TDs in the world, and it doesn't have a roll call of dragons that only lists TDs and these new dragons. I mean, if it had anything like that I might just have go on to say they are TDs.


the problem with the list in the back of the the Dragons of Faerun is... its not ALL true dragons. there are is a smoke drake, five faerie dragons, a pseudodragon, a dragon turtle, and even a lamia! so the list doesn't even consist of all dragon-type creatures. so how does that help your argument?

Iv been under the impression that DWK is not true dragons for ages now, but SorO's posts have changed my minds. Now i can see both sides.

Thanks for the awakening.

which side?
add me on Steam- zook1shoe
- All Spells
- playground

Offline darqueseid

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 593
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #56 on: June 11, 2012, 02:07:53 PM »
Kobolds aren't true-dragons.  The list in races of the dragon was meant to be comprehensive(even though it didn't end up being so).  if they intended the dragonwrought kobold to be one of the "true-dragons" they would have included them there-its the same book after all. 

I'm not sure the argument matters, because to qualify for epic feats and ignore penalties for aging, by raw, you only need to be "dragon"... soits not like they aren't still broken, just maybe a little bit less-so..

Offline zook1shoe

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Feeling the Bern
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #57 on: June 11, 2012, 03:42:02 PM »
Kobolds aren't true-dragons.  The list in races of the dragon was meant to be comprehensive(even though it didn't end up being so).  if they intended the dragonwrought kobold to be one of the "true-dragons" they would have included them there-its the same book after all. 

I'm not sure the argument matters, because to qualify for epic feats and ignore penalties for aging, by raw, you only need to be "dragon"... soits not like they aren't still broken, just maybe a little bit less-so..

the one from page 69-72?  that is clearly only published  true dragons, like others said, they never published a dragonwrought kobold

edit: the Ectoplasmic, Incarnum, Obsidian and Rattelyr Dragons apparently are not true dragons since they are not on the RotD list, nor do they say TD in their descriptions either.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2012, 03:55:49 PM by zook1shoe »
add me on Steam- zook1shoe
- All Spells
- playground

Offline RedWarlock

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 628
  • Crimson-colored caster of calamity
    • View Profile
    • Red Blade Studios
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #58 on: June 11, 2012, 03:49:52 PM »
the one from page 69-72?  that is clearly only published  true dragons, like others said, they never published a dragonwrought kobold
What counts as published? Does it have to have a stat-block in a monsters book/chapter to be 'published'? What are you arguing for, exactly?
WarCraft post-d20: A new take on the World of WarCraft for tabletop. I need your eyes and comments!

Offline zook1shoe

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Feeling the Bern
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #59 on: June 11, 2012, 03:53:05 PM »
published = stat block in a official source
add me on Steam- zook1shoe
- All Spells
- playground