Author Topic: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?  (Read 74058 times)

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 #100 on: June 13, 2012, 03:04:11 PM »
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?
1. The "advance through 12 age categories" and "grow more powerful as they age" are independent rules.  Nowhere does it state that they must grow more powerful as they advance through the age categories, just that they must advance through them, and as they get older, they get more powerful.

2. You're looking at this wrong.  Only the individual matters.  Let's say you had someone with great ideas, but never spoke out (high Intelligence, low Charisma).  Now, let's say that something happened that inspired that person to become less shy and start sharing their great ideas (Charisma got boosted).  That person is more powerful now.  Nothing changed except his Charisma, but now he's capable of more and better things.
"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 #101 on: June 13, 2012, 03:13:26 PM »
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?
1. The "advance through 12 age categories" and "grow more powerful as they age" are independent rules.  Nowhere does it state that they must grow more powerful as they advance through the age categories, just that they must advance through them, and as they get older, they get more powerful.

2. You're looking at this wrong.  Only the individual matters.  Let's say you had someone with great ideas, but never spoke out (high Intelligence, low Charisma).  Now, let's say that something happened that inspired that person to become less shy and start sharing their great ideas (Charisma got boosted).  That person is more powerful now.  Nothing changed except his Charisma, but now he's capable of more and better things.

1.) I know they're independent rules, I'm just saying that none of the other dragons function that way.

2.) It still isn't really much of a power increase.
(click to show/hide)

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 #102 on: June 13, 2012, 03:26:23 PM »
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?
1. The "advance through 12 age categories" and "grow more powerful as they age" are independent rules.  Nowhere does it state that they must grow more powerful as they advance through the age categories, just that they must advance through them, and as they get older, they get more powerful.

2. You're looking at this wrong.  Only the individual matters.  Let's say you had someone with great ideas, but never spoke out (high Intelligence, low Charisma).  Now, let's say that something happened that inspired that person to become less shy and start sharing their great ideas (Charisma got boosted).  That person is more powerful now.  Nothing changed except his Charisma, but now he's capable of more and better things.

1.) I know they're independent rules, I'm just saying that none of the other dragons function that way.

2.) It still isn't really much of a power increase.

The magnitude of the power increase was never defined.  It could be as low as a single skill point in Profession: Cook or as high as the difference between a wyrmling and a great wyrm.  It's a different interpretation and can be technically correct because the base is way too ambiguous.

Offline darqueseid

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 593
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #103 on: June 13, 2012, 03:51:34 PM »
not to throw a wrench into things, but dragons don't actually have exactly "12" specific age categories, they gain virtual age categories as they go into epic levels (and continue to gain hd, and such)

its outlined in the SRD here:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/dragonAdvanced.htm

Not sure how much that affects the arguments, but true dragons don't really have a "set" number of age categories

Offline betrayor

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 474
  • Monitoring...
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #104 on: June 13, 2012, 03:55:57 PM »
Well these virtual age categories are not gained by age advanchement,according to Draconomicon a True Dragon can only reach Great Wyrm Status if his only means of advancment is aging......
To reach these virtual age categories it would have to use either a skull Totem(from Age of mortals) or maybe an Epic Spell,unless of course they were born that way......

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #105 on: June 13, 2012, 04:06:23 PM »
The magnitude of the power increase was never defined.
But it is demonstrated by what it means.

Again, stop half quoting one partial line of text.
Quote from: MMI, pg69
All true dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age. (Other creatures that have the dragon type do not.) They range in length from several feet upon hatching to more than 100 feet after attaining the status of great wyrm. The size of a particular dragon varies according to age and variety.
That's all part of one paragraph. In case you forgot a paragraph  is a self-contained unit of a discourse in writing dealing with a particular point or idea[1].

The line in full context is actually only discussing the size changes from age more than anything else. Even the acclamation of SLAs and such isn't actually part of it (that comes from other rules, like the "more abilities" of Draco). Like fuck-all-else-page-but-4-of-Draco, the notation of 100ft is used to disregard the entire entry.

Except, disregarding the entire entry leaves out the line of usefulness that omg you can't live without. So again you become forced to back up and change how you are arguing. You need to partially quote one entry invalidating the rest and still have a reason why you ignore all of the entry in another area. It's a fundamental concept in DWK Kobold is TD, it boils down to using a dozen flimsy so called validations that amount to 'because I said so' rather than having any rule or logic behind them.


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 #106 on: June 13, 2012, 05:11:49 PM »
The magnitude of the power increase was never defined.
But it is demonstrated by what it means.

Again, stop half quoting one partial line of text.

Quote from: Draconomicon
True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older.

Within that sentence there is nothing to explicitly demonstrate what the magnitude of power increase is.  It -only- says they become more powerful with age.  The "partial line of text" happens to be the relevant part by the way since we all know this is a discussion about true dragons and whether DWKs qualify.  As for the entire paragraph:
Quote from: Draconomicon
For the most part, this book concerns itself with the ten varieties of true dragon described in the Monster Manual— the five chromatic dragons (black, blue, green, red, white) and the five metallic dragons (brass, bronze, copper, gold, silver). True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older.

There is still nothing within that to define what they mean by becoming more powerful as they grow older.

Adding on the other paragraphs from that sidebar that have relevance:
Quote
A number of other true dragons are described in Chapter 4 of this book. In addition, Appendix 2: Index of Dragons provides a complete list of all true dragons that have been presented in official sources.
Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons (which should not be taken to mean that they are necessarily less formidable than true dragons).

The first part about all true dragons up to that point being listed does not include DWKs, and wouldn't anyway because the feat was published in a later book.  So far I have not found it has been updated, and even if it has since RotDr has been published there is no guarantee they would have added DWKs to the list because, let's be honest, WotC isn't THAT organized or mindful of their products.  That list isn't relevant here because it's not reliable for this part of the discussion.

The second paragraph better defines the power not only as obtained by growing older, but also specifically by advancing through age categories.  Again, there is nothing defining -what- the power gained actually is within that section.  It is entirely up for interpretation as such.  Personally, I do interpret gaining power to mean true dragons gaining HD through aging due to reasons already mentioned.  If I need to repeat those reasons I will.

But despite my own beliefs about it, I can see how others would come to a different opinion because they could be technically correct from interpreting things differently.  They are not stupid or wrong for doing so precisely because it is up for interpretation.  Could you please state explicitly why you believe it cannot be up for interpretation?  So far your arguments have not shown a definite "winner" for this.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #107 on: June 13, 2012, 10:02:54 PM »
So you mean I should revise "read the rest of the sentence" to "read the rest of the rules"? No biggy. Been saying that for awhile now, like that quote of all TDs have DR/SR I keep referencing and you keep ignoring.

Anyway, I had a sudden flash of insight? Why the hell am I on the defense against idiots?
Quote from: Draco, pg144
Lesser Dragon PCs
Using another creature of the dragon type as a player character is rather less complicated than using a true dragon. Such a creature has a set level adjustment and no built-in progression due to age, so after the character begins play there is no reason to advance the character as a monster again.
DWK Kobold has a set level adjustment (+0) and no progression from age.

This shall be my new repeated quote. As not only can I prove a DWK Kobold isn't a TD but you refuse to read the damn book.
I can prove that it is a lesser dragon.
 :cool

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 #108 on: June 13, 2012, 10:31:48 PM »
Just one problem, you determine if something is a True Dragon or not before you can call it "Lesser".  If something fits the requirements for TD, then it is not LD, even if it meets requirements for LD, since LD has the additional requirement of "not a TD".

As for the "SR/DR" rule, I'm sorting through the books.  Not finding it as a definition anywhere, though, just a description of what traits metallics and chromatics have.  For that matter, so was the Blindsense mention.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2012, 10:33:43 PM by snakeman830 »
"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 #109 on: June 14, 2012, 12:11:44 AM »
Just one problem, you determine if something is a True Dragon or not before you can call it "Lesser".  If something fits the requirements for TD, then it is not LD, even if it meets requirements for LD, since LD has the additional requirement of "not a TD".

As for the "SR/DR" rule, I'm sorting through the books.  Not finding it as a definition anywhere, though, just a description of what traits metallics and chromatics have.  For that matter, so was the Blindsense mention.

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.
It's in a side bar with that stated RULES part, but above that is another entry.

Also I commented before on Draco updating the immunity part but I was wrong, it is the MM1 not the Draco. What I meaning is MM1 states a TD is immune to at least once form of attack. Draco overrides this to one type of energy, however as the book and your quote readily admits, it is focuses on the ten basic TDs. All of which do have energy based immunities. It's certainly very accurate to say the MM1's stand point remains in effect with all other dragons, as it 100% correct. All TDs do have some sort of additional immunity.

"One outstanding example of a dragon’s sensory prowess is its blindsense—the ability to “see” things that are invisible or completely obscured." is on Page 18, but I think you mentioned Lung Dragons lack it, only because Blindsight is a superior upgrade.

FP, SLA's Innate casting and such all sit on side bars with RULE entries and can also be found in the text, just as you can find them in the original MM1 entry and many others. All TDs do gain FP and SLAs as well.

And as for the beginning part? No. I. Don't.
The very concept that we start at TD and prove otherwise? What has four letters, starts with an F, and ends with a second word "you"?
You have failed to prove a DWK Kobold is a TD, just as everyone else has failed. Hell last page I can quote you for stating that racially DWK Kobolds do no ignore aging penalties, or providing more proof of concept. We start at Kobold and prove form there. I have a direct line stating the Kobold is a Lesser and not some bullshit murder English interpretation, intent from RotD, and the DWK Kobold failing to every qualify for a TD under any excuse other than "because I said so". No, I'm going to stick to that entry like the rest of the morons, because I might as well go all the way into this stupid argument.

Edit - Also, want a list of TDs?

Offline linklord231

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3352
  • The dice are trying to kill me
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #110 on: June 14, 2012, 01:22:19 AM »
Quote from: Draco, pg144
Lesser Dragon PCs
Using another creature of the dragon type as a player character is rather less complicated than using a true dragon. Such a creature has a set level adjustment and no built-in progression due to age, so after the character begins play there is no reason to advance the character as a monster again.
DWK Kobold has a set level adjustment (+0) and no progression from age.

This shall be my new repeated quote. As not only can I prove a DWK Kobold isn't a TD but you refuse to read the damn book.
I can prove that it is a lesser dragon.
 :cool

Yet again a rule that can be interpreted two different ways.  You interpret the second sentence as taking precedence; defining a Lesser Dragon as "a creature with a set level adjustment and no built-in progression due to age."  I interpret the second sentence as a clarification of the first, explaining [/i]why[/i] a Lesser Dragon is less complicated.  Under your interpretation, a creature cannot be a lesser dragon unless it has a set level adjustment and no progression due to age.  Under my interpretation, anything that has a set level adjustment and no built-in progression due to age is less complicated than playing one of the examples of True Dragons as Characters given in the chapter.
I'm not arguing, I'm explaining why I'm right.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #111 on: June 14, 2012, 01:43:13 AM »
I interpret the second sentence as a clarification of the first, explaining [/i]why[/i] a Lesser Dragon is less complicated.
As you just said. Second sentence is clarification the first sentence's less complicated part which certainly sounds valid.

But even after saying that, you're going to just shove in that the second line ALSO makes mention to ignore the Dragon type because it's expanding on those other two words. So it's totally ambiguous despite being in the Draconomicon that likes to talk about dragons, in an area that is only talking about dragon typed PCs, in a section talking about Lesser Dragons which can only be of the Dragon type, because because because.

God, I think you just made my head hurt. Please slam you head into concrete till I feel better.
Then keep going till you hit tonsils.

Edit - Oh, and the paragraph links and comment are on this page too. Wow...
« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 01:46:24 AM by SorO_Lost »

Offline darqueseid

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 593
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #112 on: June 14, 2012, 11:47:25 AM »
My question is why didn't the designers say that it counted as a "true dragon" in the dragonwrought feat?  it specifically states that the kobold is counted as "dragon". 

Given the fact that there was a differentiation of the dragon type and "true dragon", doesn't that clearly show that DWKs aren't true dragons?  Why would there be a differentiation at all? why wouldn't the feat specify TD? isn't it the same book that the TD list was in?  wouldn't they have specified it right there if that's what they intended?

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 #113 on: June 14, 2012, 03:32:42 PM »
Incarnum Dragon: A True Dragon that lacks any form of immunity to attacks beyond those inherent in the dragon type.  Also lacks any spell-like abilities or spellcsting.

Well, that's two of your "definitions of all true dragons" gone out the window...  Yes, this dragon was printed after those definitions, but its very printing made them no longer definitions of all True Dragons.

Given the context of Draconomicon page 22 stating that all True Dragons have immunity to a type of energy (many, many don't), that sidebar is most likely only referring to chromatics and metallics, as otherwise, it is just wrong.  This means the ENTIRE sidebar is referring only to chromatics and metallics.  Every location in the rules regarding True Dragons, Frightful Presence, Damage Reduction, or Spell Resistance has similar context, meaning they ONLY describe the dragons in MM1. You can't pick and choose rules from the same context.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 03:38:49 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 #114 on: June 14, 2012, 04:11:41 PM »
Incarnum Dragon: A True Dragon that lacks any form of immunity to attacks beyond those inherent in the dragon type.  Also lacks any spell-like abilities or spellcsting.

Well, that's two of your "definitions of all true dragons" gone out the window...  Yes, this dragon was printed after those definitions, but its very printing made them no longer definitions of all True Dragons.

Given the context of Draconomicon page 22 stating that all True Dragons have immunity to a type of energy (many, many don't), that sidebar is most likely only referring to chromatics and metallics, as otherwise, it is just wrong.  This means the ENTIRE sidebar is referring only to chromatics and metallics.  Every location in the rules regarding True Dragons, Frightful Presence, Damage Reduction, or Spell Resistance has similar context, meaning they ONLY describe the dragons in MM1. You can't pick and choose rules from the same context.

Where does it call the Incarnum Dragon a true dragon?
(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 #115 on: June 14, 2012, 04:26:00 PM »
Interestingly, it never is explicitly called out as a True Dragon.  My mistake, I guess I just assumed it was since its entry has the exact same formatting as every single universally accepted True Dragon out there, as well as meeting the definitions that aren't in the context of chromatics/metallics.
"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 #116 on: June 14, 2012, 04:39:01 PM »
Interestingly, it never is explicitly called out as a True Dragon.  My mistake, I guess I just assumed it was since its entry has the exact same formatting as every single universally accepted True Dragon out there, as well as meeting the definitions that aren't in the context of chromatics/metallics.
Yeah, I agree they probably meant it to be one, but the dang thing's so funky I'm not sure.
(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 #117 on: June 14, 2012, 04:47:18 PM »
You should know by now I don't really pick and mismatch. I use them all and work out the exceptions from there.

The Draconomicon, as specific source what is says hold a level of priority above the MM1 overshadowing it's rules.
Every true dragon is immune to at least one type of elemental energy (acid, cold, electricity, or fire), usually the same type of energy as the dragon uses for its breath weapon. This immunity stems from the dragon’s elemental nature. The same power that allows it to belch forth a blast of energy also keeps that energy from harming the dragon. Which is pretty inaccurate. Draco is the book that added the Planar TDs to official 3.5, really none of them are elemental based, it's kind of the point of the sub category. The resonable hash up is elementals are immune to same type while all others are immune to at least one form. After all, if you did say hurr durpa Styx dragon says remove the rule, then the MM1's rules are no longer being overshadowed and retakes priority. Exactly like if you were to drop below 13 Str and lost Power Attack, no more Cleve altering your rules of combat for freebie attacks. The rules never went away just because you were using an applied higher set.

This stack of rules is what I've always dealt with and what I've always worked with. You can say I learned it from object oriented programming and apply those fundamentals to D&D, after all it's structured the same and it's rules even say to handle things as such. So if you were to wondered if Styx should have some type of immunity given it's lack of elemental nature, I'd say yes. See MM1.

Offline EjoThims

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 531
  • The Ferret
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #118 on: June 17, 2012, 06:31:54 PM »
The problems here are these:

A) An attempt to use a non-exhaustive list to exclude something not on that list.

B) An attempt to parse "advance through" as only meaning "advance because of" instead of potentially also "move through."

C) Acknowledging exceptions that are not explicitly defined as exceptions and thinking both that the rule is therefor unchanged but all other exceptions must be explicit.

All of these are entirely illogical and not at all supported by legitimate rules text, and if they are given up there is nothing stopping DWKs from counting as True Dragons.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?
« Reply #119 on: June 17, 2012, 08:16:40 PM »
The problems here are these:

A) An attempt to use a non-exhaustive list to exclude something not on that list.

B) An attempt to parse "advance through" as only meaning "advance because of" instead of potentially also "move through."

C) Acknowledging exceptions that are not explicitly defined as exceptions and thinking both that the rule is therefor unchanged but all other exceptions must be explicit.

All of these are entirely illogical and not at all supported by legitimate rules text, and if they are given up there is nothing stopping DWKs from counting as True Dragons.
I recall last time you posted you didn't read anything.

Not much has changed since.