Author Topic: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?  (Read 66896 times)

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 #80 on: June 12, 2012, 04:47:10 PM »
My big question for all of this, why does it matter? Purely for justifying some TO player-character combinations originally designed for high-level monsters?

In my case, I see no harm granting age categories to kobolds, they're pure fluff that fits with the kobold's me-too characterization. It's only when we get into stuff about dragons of a certain category qualifying for epic feats that the whole thing goes to pot, and I would solve the whole thing by just stripping that qualifying rule out to begin with.

it does matter... the rules are the entire basis of the game. this particular topic might not matter very much to YOU ;)

The fact still stands that they don't gain hit dice from aging, just a handful of mental stats.  So far I'm seeing true dragons are listed with hit dice and stats explicitly based on the twelve distinct age categories.  Kobolds are given the twelve age groups, and then there's the table underneath those stating the only times a kobold's stats change due to aging is the exact same way most other player races do: by going through middle age, old, and venerable.  Those three noted age transitions are the only ones that mean a damn thing.

did you read that sidebar in the Draconomicon (pg4), about dragons being split into two categories?

True Dragons and Lesser Dragons

"True Dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older"
"Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons..."

Based on the actual stats I'd have to say that DWKs are definitely not true dragons.  If they had given an actual progression just like the true dragons' stat blocks then I'd be inclined to say DWK's are true dragons

but they were never given a Dragonwrought Kobold character to give the actual stat block, so this point completely doesn't matter


The problem is that the "Advance through 12 age categories" is separate from "grows more powerful with age".  Dragonwrought Kobolds definitely do the later, it's the former that is the major sticking point.

agreed

If you read "Advance through 12 age categories" to mean "Advancement: By age", then DWK's are not.  If you read it to mean "must pass through 12 age categories in order", then they are.  The books themselves are silent on this distinction, and the fluff suggests that it may have been intended for DWK's to fit all the criteria for True Dragons, leaving RAI equally ambiguous.

of course, since DWK don't have a true stat block to have the "Advancement" row, and if they did, it would have been "by class"
add me on Steam- zook1shoe
- All Spells
- playground

Offline Jackinthegreen

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 6176
  • I like green.
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #81 on: June 12, 2012, 07:38:22 PM »

The fact still stands that they don't gain hit dice from aging, just a handful of mental stats.  So far I'm seeing true dragons are listed with hit dice and stats explicitly based on the twelve distinct age categories.  Kobolds are given the twelve age groups, and then there's the table underneath those stating the only times a kobold's stats change due to aging is the exact same way most other player races do: by going through middle age, old, and venerable.  Those three noted age transitions are the only ones that mean a damn thing.

did you read that sidebar in the Draconomicon (pg4), about dragons being split into two categories?

True Dragons and Lesser Dragons

"True Dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older"
"Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons..."

Based on the actual stats I'd have to say that DWKs are definitely not true dragons.  If they had given an actual progression just like the true dragons' stat blocks then I'd be inclined to say DWK's are true dragons

but they were never given a Dragonwrought Kobold character to give the actual stat block, so this point completely doesn't matter


of course, since DWK don't have a true stat block to have the "Advancement" row, and if they did, it would have been "by class"

Kobolds have the Advancement: By character class line.  Dragonwrought does not change this just as improved initiative wouldn't change it just as half-dragon wouldn't change it.

Yes, I do see the sidebar in Draconomicon.  I can also see the argument for DWK being true dragons from them because all that's needed to qualify as being a true dragon is the creature having the dragon type and "[becoming] more powerful as [it] grows older" by "[advancing through age categories.]"

The problem I have with that is it's still too open-ended to be unarguably concrete.  First of all, there is no measure of exactly what "powerful" means in that context other than aging will provide it.  It is subjectively defined and we need it to be objectively defined to actually put an end to the debate.  Second, even though it is heavily implied based on the subject matter to be the twelve dragon age categories, implications aren't enough for the rigorous analysis apparently needed to end this debate.  It could mean -any- age categories given to the creature, which includes middle-age, old, and venerable for the kobold.  In which case a DWK -might- qualify as a true dragon assuming the "becomes more powerful" can reference getting a handful of mental stats from aging.  It could mean the twelve categories given to true dragons with actual stat blocks, in which case the DWK wouldn't work because they gain their "power" from a different set of age categories.

I'm inclined to believe they mean "become more powerful" to mean gaining actual hit dice and "advancing through age categories" to mean the twelve age categories given to dragons and eventually kobolds.  Kobolds cannot gain more HD through aging, thus I personally do not consider DWKs to be true dragons.  If someone else interprets "becoming more powerful" to mean any degree of measurable power and "advancing through age categories" to mean any age categories given to any creature in question, then I can see how they'd come to the conclusion that DWKs are true dragons.  I don't agree with that point of view but I can see how one might come to that conclusion.

The reason I believe they meant only true dragons gain hit dice through aging because every true dragon entry I have seen has them listed as such.  Every age category has its set of stats and as they age their hit dice increase, thus gaining more power.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2012, 07:40:11 PM by Jackinthegreen »

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 #82 on: June 12, 2012, 08:47:44 PM »
The issue is that "gaining power by aging" and "advance through age categories" are two different requirements.  DWKs literally can just sit around and do nothing for a hundred years and become more powerful - even if only marginally so.  At the same time, they will advance through the 12 age categories of the Dragon life cycle. 
I'm not arguing, I'm explaining why I'm right.

Offline Jackinthegreen

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 6176
  • I like green.
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #83 on: June 12, 2012, 11:59:45 PM »
The issue is that "gaining power by aging" and "advance through age categories" are two different requirements.  DWKs literally can just sit around and do nothing for a hundred years and become more powerful - even if only marginally so.  At the same time, they will advance through the 12 age categories of the Dragon life cycle.

I already covered this:
Quote from: Jackinthegreen
If someone else interprets "becoming more powerful" to mean any degree of measurable power and "advancing through age categories" to mean any age categories given to any creature in question, then I can see how they'd come to the conclusion that DWKs are true dragons.  I don't agree with that point of view but I can see how one might come to that conclusion.

The rules are ambiguous and as such there's no way to get a concrete answer, much less an answer everyone will agree upon.  I gave my reasons for thinking as I do, but I fully admit it's just an informed opinion instead of concrete evidence that DWKs are not true dragons because there is nothing to unarguably prove either side.  It is all up to interpretation.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #84 on: June 13, 2012, 12:48:17 AM »
Did two 13 hour shifts in the last two days and the thread grew a page an a half.

But to hit up what I recall.
Yeah I meant Dragons of Faerun (DoF) not Monsters of Faerun (MoF). And as mentioned it canonizes the Ratterlyr or however it's spelled. This is the only TD outside of the Gems (which were canonized in Draco) that makes no mention of being a TD and is even entered as a "Dragon, Ratterlyr" yet was reclassified as a TD in a later update.

On one hand, you can say a circle around it saying this is exactly what you need for be accepted into part of the list of TDs, ALL of it but flight. On the other hand, you can quote the Incarnum's all but spellcasting is still not enough (spells more important than flight?). Either ruling doesn't favor DWK (can never qualify or lacks 95% of the traits for <5%). If the attempt is to invalidate the list, well you know my opinion on bullshit like that and if you weren't such a biaist person you're likely agree that it's error is based on author knowledge of those sideways rule books. But it doesn't matter, because we're already detracting from RAW anyway.

***

On Templates, they do not change your race. A Mineral Warrior Red Dragon is still a Red Dragon with all none-replaced abilities (such as flight), a Human Necropoliton still has his Human Bonus feat and bonus Skill Points. The only template that I know if that is a race is Dragonborn (it's called exactly that in it's chapter). And if you look at it, you lose all racial traits, no Stonecunning and keep your land speed under a heavy load of Dwarves, no Skill Points of Humans, no Trace rest of Elves, etc. It's not hard to understand what entails for the repercussions of altering your Race, for instance a Kobold would lose his Exotic Weapon Proficiencies, Slight build, Natural Weapons, and so on. But all that has changed is his Type, spells do that already kthx.

***

Now onto a more direct rebuttal.
Page 4 isn't the only rule in the Draconomicon and it does not meaning your bullshit

1.
Advancing can mean Monster Advancement is just one thing I've already mentioned. More is the other part. "More Abilities" has one and only possible interpretation, you increased the sum of 'abilities' or the acquisition of new ones as to change the total array of the collection. To increase the value of an ability is not to gain more abilities, simply as that. It's bad English mixed with personal intent to come up with the mockery of a valid ruling that you have.

B.
Quote from: Draco, pg22
RULES: DRAGON IMMUNITIES
Every kind of true dragon has immunity to at least one type of energy, as noted in the Monster Manual.

A true dragon ignores the detrimental effects of extreme heat (110°F to 140°F) and of extreme cold (0°F to –40°F). A true dragon in these conditions does not have to make a Fortitude save every 10 minutes to avoid taking nonlethal damage.

All creatures of the dragon type are immune to magic sleep and paralysis effects, also as noted in the Monster Manual.

True dragons develop damage reduction as they age, as noted in the Monster Manual. Damage reduction is a supernatural ability and is ineffective in an antimagic field.

True dragons also develop spell resistance as they age, as noted in the Monster Manual.
You're typical retard goes into that exception based argument so say the immunity to one type of energy is incorrect, then the ignore the rest of the entry, like you are now. However, I don't like you, I don't like the exception point at all. And fact of the matter is, not only do all TDs gain DR/SR, but it is in fact a rule and that they damn well better. To quote page 4 the one and only rule to what is or isn't a TD is a failure to look at all the rules. Instead you only focus on parts that (don't) agree with you.

In fact, given the desire to be a TD rather than say a Ratterlyr you've kind of doomed your self into requiring Wings as TDs have them not Ratterlyrs, or to become a TD you need Innate Spellcasting where as attempting to qualify for the Battle Dragon it's self would skip spellcasting and so on. You've absolutely set your self up for anything that comes close to "all TDs" (like the MM1's entry) is something you need.

**

Now, as Snakeman says, and this is just yet another facet to me. The DWK Kobold's avoidance of physical penalties stems from a Feat, not their Race, not their Template, but a Feat. Nice point, but the best comes from zook1shoe. His rebuttal? Well I consider -1 to Physical scores for +1 Mental to be powerful as spellcaster. That's right, one age teir of three, one certain class type, and very much self inflated interpretation of grossly limited application. It reminds me of all those Tier threads where Giacomle would argue his one Monk build proved that all Monks were Tier 1.


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 #85 on: June 13, 2012, 01:02:49 AM »
My big question for all of this, why does it matter? Purely for justifying some TO player-character combinations originally designed for high-level monsters?

In my case, I see no harm granting age categories to kobolds, they're pure fluff that fits with the kobold's me-too characterization. It's only when we get into stuff about dragons of a certain category qualifying for epic feats that the whole thing goes to pot, and I would solve the whole thing by just stripping that qualifying rule out to begin with.
it does matter... the rules are the entire basis of the game. this particular topic might not matter very much to YOU ;)
Yeah, but you miss why I'm saying. Whether or not this IS true or not is entirely distinct from why some people want it to be true.

Some mechanics-interactions are deliberately placed, others are fortunate combinations derived from different sources, and SOME interactions are entirely unanticipated by their creators, create massively-powerful results, and make up a significant portion of the TO material we see on these boards.

That's what I'm getting at. Do some people want DWKs as true dragons for flavor, for decent mechanics, or for TO-borked combos?
WarCraft post-d20: A new take on the World of WarCraft for tabletop. I need your eyes and comments!

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 #86 on: June 13, 2012, 01:16:14 AM »
SorO, the whole point of my huge post a couple pages back was to find a definition for a True Dragon, because the rules don't give us an exact, plain-as-day definition that is true in all cases. 
If the definition isn't true in all cases, then it's not a very good definition.  Therefore, we throw out all the parts of it that aren't true. 
Only after we have a perfect definition - one that includes every single dragon explicitly stated to be a True Dragon - can we test each possible True Dragon candidate against it, and see if the dragon in question is True. 
So please, if you don't think the definition based on pg 4 of the Draconomicon is good enough, present a good one.  We will then test it against all the published True Dragons and see if it holds up. 

That being said, I don't think anyone here has put forth a perfect argument for DWKs being True Dragons.  As I mentioned earlier (and many others besides me), it all depends on the meaning of "advances through age categories."  Read one way, DWKs are not True Dragons.  Read the other way, they are.  It is literally impossible to determine the designers' intent on this issue.  Everyone freely admits this.  So there you go, you have a perfectly valid reason for believing DWKs are not True Dragons.  Have a nice day.
I'm not arguing, I'm explaining why I'm right.

Offline Bauglir

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 629
  • Constrained
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #87 on: June 13, 2012, 01:58:45 AM »
I mean, the table seems to clinch it pretty well. Obviously, it was intended only for half-dragon purposes. Probably, "Dragonwrought Kobolds" do not appear on the table because the authors either though it was a pointlessly niche case. Nevertheless, a strict reading, which is what we rely on to get to "Dragonwrought Kobolds can get +6 BAB at level 1" and similar shenanigans involving that True Dragon exception clause, indicates that anything not on that list is not a True Dragon, and Dragonwrought Kobolds aren't on it. You can make an exception for dragons not yet published (they remain ambiguous and subject to the pre-existing, extraordinarily vague, definitions of what constitutes a True Dragon), but Dragonwrought Kobolds were in the same book.

I don't think you can argue about what the authors' intent was with that table while, in the same breath, arguing that some kobolds can ignore prerequisites as long as one of them is "Dragon-blooded subtype". You can't rely on reductio ad absurdum to show stupid conclusions, because you're already arguing in favor of a stupid conclusion. There's even a plausible argument to be made that if the authors wanted kobold true dragons, they'd have pointed it out in the feat instead of relying on players to piece together 3 or 4 rules sources to come to the conclusion.

Full disclosure: before this thread, I actually thought they had inadvertently stumbled into making them True Dragons (with all the goodies that entails).

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 #88 on: June 13, 2012, 02:29:08 AM »
i'm not going to bother dealing with this topic anymore since Soro has decided to resort to name-calling and other abusive tactics, and i have better things to do with my time.

like Link said, whatever, you "win"
add me on Steam- zook1shoe
- All Spells
- playground

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 #89 on: June 13, 2012, 10:53:50 AM »
i'm not going to bother dealing with this topic anymore since Soro has decided to resort to name-calling and other abusive tactics, and i have better things to do with my time.

like Link said, whatever, you "win"
Soro is usually reasonable.  It's just this topic that turns him into a three year old that can't quit yelling.

@Bauglir: To be perfectly honest, the abuse of Dragonblood Subtype rules only say "Dragon", the word "True" never appears, so the Dragon type is all that's necessary for that abuse.  This debate has no implications on that abuse, but it does on Epic feats at level 2 and Sovereign Archtypes.
"When life gives you lemons, fire them back at high velocity."

Offline darqueseid

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 593
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #90 on: June 13, 2012, 11:33:38 AM »
I personally think the designers' RAI was to make Soro angry  :D

Offline Mister Lamp

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • **
  • Posts: 140
  • Meh. . .
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #91 on: June 13, 2012, 11:42:27 AM »
I try to avoid these things but I thought this was interesting:
"True Dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older"

With just this quote, If gaining +1 to mental stats counts as growing powerful, then a 9th level alienist is a TD.
(click to show/hide)

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 #92 on: June 13, 2012, 12:03:02 PM »
I try to avoid these things but I thought this was interesting:
"True Dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older"

With just this quote, If gaining +1 to mental stats counts as growing powerful, then a 9th level alienist is a TD.
They still would have to have the Dragon type and 12 age categories.
"When life gives you lemons, fire them back at high velocity."

Offline Mister Lamp

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • **
  • Posts: 140
  • Meh. . .
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #93 on: June 13, 2012, 12:06:51 PM »
I try to avoid these things but I thought this was interesting:
"True Dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older"

With just this quote, If gaining +1 to mental stats counts as growing powerful, then a 9th level alienist is a TD.
They still would have to have the Dragon type and 12 age categories.

Not by that quote.

So a Half-Dragon(by MMI) Kobold with 9 levels in Alienist is a TD? That meets those requirements.
(click to show/hide)

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 #94 on: June 13, 2012, 12:17:08 PM »
Indeed it would.  It's not a new point you're bringing up, by the way.  The same is true with high level half-dragon kobold Monks and Druids.

Yes, it's stupid.  Yes, it is a perfectly legitimate interpretation of the rules.  No, we don't think the designers intended a class/template/race interaction to allow one to get TD benefits, although at those levels, it means pretty much jack shit.
"When life gives you lemons, fire them back at high velocity."

Offline Mister Lamp

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • **
  • Posts: 140
  • Meh. . .
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #95 on: June 13, 2012, 12:21:41 PM »
Indeed it would.  It's not a new point you're bringing up, by the way.  The same is true with high level half-dragon kobold Monks and Druids.

Yes, it's stupid.  Yes, it is a perfectly legitimate interpretation of the rules.  No, we don't think the designers intended a class/template/race interaction to allow one to get TD benefits, although at those levels, it means pretty much jack shit.

This is where I don't understand the "Dragonwrought Kobolds are TD" argument. If your interpretation, applied to the whole game, makes no sense, why does it work here? I'm open to believing they are, or at least I would be, if I saw a reasonable argument for it.
(click to show/hide)

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #96 on: June 13, 2012, 01:47:35 PM »
For the record, the reason I behave like a 3 year old is because of the morons that I have to deal with.

Me: Exception is bullshit and not how the rules work or written as working.
Me: And all TDs have DR/SR/FP/Blindsense (and w/e else I listed) anyway.
Moron: I am using exception to ignore everything that disagrees with me. Eer... To come up with a list of things all TDs have, and the rules state so. See only page 4.
Me:  :banghead Page 4 isn't the only rule and I've said this before moron. See rules on all TDs have DR, see list of TDs in Draco, RotD, DoF, or hell my folder of pngs which has like 90 different 'TD's, the exact list used doesn't matter. They all have DR. And SR. And SLAs. And Blindsense, And Frightful Presence. And so on. Why? Because 3rd party authors are smarter than you and knew to include them. Your exception crap doesn't prove DWK Kobolds are TDs and it's against the rules so drop it already. <- Repeated, in a quite a few dozen ways since page 1, of damn near every thread that ever appeared on here or BG unless I was just too damn sick of hearing about it at the time.

And still the same old stupid argument using the some stupid failing point.
So yeah, I have no patience. Don't like it? Tough, people like you made me this way.

Offline kitcik

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 63
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #97 on: June 13, 2012, 02:03:27 PM »
Do you watch "Bering Sea Gold"?

What do you think of Captain Meisterheim?

Truthfully, there can be opinions on both sides of this one...

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 #98 on: June 13, 2012, 02:43:45 PM »
Indeed it would.  It's not a new point you're bringing up, by the way.  The same is true with high level half-dragon kobold Monks and Druids.

Yes, it's stupid.  Yes, it is a perfectly legitimate interpretation of the rules.  No, we don't think the designers intended a class/template/race interaction to allow one to get TD benefits, although at those levels, it means pretty much jack shit.

This is where I don't understand the "Dragonwrought Kobolds are TD" argument. If your interpretation, applied to the whole game, makes no sense, why does it work here? I'm open to believing they are, or at least I would be, if I saw a reasonable argument for it.
Simply put, it's because only three definitions of "True Dragon" apply to all varieties of universally accepted True Dragons (despite Soro's claims, the only rule regarding "true Dragons have X for senses involves Blindsense, which Lung Dragons lack, and never mentions Blindsight, which they have).  These are as follows

1. Dragon type (duh)
2. Advance through 12 age categories (Wyrmling-Great Wyrm)
3. Grow more powerful with age.

Dragonwrought Kobolds explicitly fulfill definition 1 and 3 and they have the 12 age categories.  The only point of contention is whether "Advance through" means "Advancement:" or the common English definition of "pass through in order".  Both are legitimate interpretations of the rules. (As a side point, when "advance through" is used elsewhere in D&D manuals, it means "pass through in order")

The Half Dragon Kobold with numerous levels in Alienist/Druid/Monk also meets these criteria in the same way.  It makes no sense, but neither does the Trouserfang Dwarf or a number of other rules interactions.  We've known the designers rarely paid attention to interactions and even if they did intend DWK to be True Dragons, I can practically guarantee they didn't remember what Timeless Body did.

If you add "True Dragons are Warm-blooded" to the list of definitions, then another question pops up.  Kobolds are cold-blooded, but what about Dragonwrought?  Clearly, they're very different from the average kobold (since they have a different type), so once again, it's ambiguous.

Of course, the first thing we have to do is determine what is a good definition to use and what isn't.  To try and exclude DWK's from being True Dragons, you first have to make sure the definition you use doesn't exclude any UATD's.  If there's one exception, then what stops the DWK from being a second?

In addition to the three mechanical definitions above, here are the others used to define "True Dragon".

1. All True Dragons are Metallic or Chromatic.
Exception: the vast majority of dragons.

2. All True Dragons develop spellcasting ability as they age.
Exception: All Planar Dragons, Incarnum Dragons, and Lung Dragons

3. All True Dragons have Blindsense.
Exception: Lung Dragons

4. All True Dragons have Immunity to Sleep and Paralysis effects and one or two additional attack forms.
Exception: Incarnum Dragons (no additional immunity).  Also, the Sleep/Paralysis immunity is a part of the dragon type, not True Dragons.

5. All True Dragons have spell-like abilities
Exception: Incarnum Dragons

6. All True Dragons have a breath weapon
Exception: Fang Dragons

will continue with more when I have time.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2012, 02:59:39 PM by snakeman830 »
"When life gives you lemons, fire them back at high velocity."

Offline Mister Lamp

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • **
  • Posts: 140
  • Meh. . .
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #99 on: June 13, 2012, 02:51:29 PM »
Indeed it would.  It's not a new point you're bringing up, by the way.  The same is true with high level half-dragon kobold Monks and Druids.

Yes, it's stupid.  Yes, it is a perfectly legitimate interpretation of the rules.  No, we don't think the designers intended a class/template/race interaction to allow one to get TD benefits, although at those levels, it means pretty much jack shit.

This is where I don't understand the "Dragonwrought Kobolds are TD" argument. If your interpretation, applied to the whole game, makes no sense, why does it work here? I'm open to believing they are, or at least I would be, if I saw a reasonable argument for it.
Simply put, it's because only three definitions of "True Dragon" apply to all varieties of universally accepted True Dragons (despite Soro's claims, the only rule regarding "true Dragons have X for senses involves Blindsense, which Lung Dragons lack, and never mentions Blindsight, which they have).  These are as follows

1. Dragon type (duh)
2. Advance through 12 age categories (Wyrmling-Great Wyrm)
3. Grow more powerful with age.

Dragonwrought Kobolds explicitly fulfill definition 1 and 3 and they have the 12 age categories.  The only point of contention is whether "Advance through" means "Advancement:" or the common English definition of "pass through in order".  Both are legitimate interpretations of the rules. (As a side point, when "advance through" is used elsewhere in D&D manuals, it means "pass through in order")

The Half Dragon Kobold with numerous levels in Alienist/Druid/Monk also meets these criteria in the same way.  It makes no sense, but neither does the Trouserfang Dwarf or a number of other rules interactions.  We've known the designers rarely paid attention to interactions and even if they did intend DWK to be True Dragons, I can practically guarantee they didn't remember what Timeless Body did.

The problems I have are:
1.) While they *technically* have 12 age categories, every other true dragon's age benefits are based on those. Kobold's "benefits" are based off of separate age levels. (They become Old in the middle of being Ancient)
2.) I don't consider getting a total of +3 to mental stats "gaining power as they age". I'm more intelligent than some of my friends, am I more powerful? Others are wiser than me, does that make them more powerful? If I have no common sense, am I powerless?
(click to show/hide)