Maybe an end to the dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons debate?

[Kethrian]

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?

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.
 

Right here, it's proven that DWKs are lesser dragons.  They meet all the requirements without any finagling of exceptions or exclusions.  Can anyone show a single TD that would also count as a lesser dragon by this rule?  If no, then DWKs must be lessers, as there are no TDs that can qualify to be lessers.

[linklord231]

A bit of relevant text from a thread on the old boards:

Lesser Dragons, on the other hand, are defined as thus in Draconomicon (and are not defined in any other source):

Quote from: Draconomicon, pg. 4

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).

Quote from: Draconomicon, pg. 144

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. For example, a wyvern character, with a level adjustment
of +4 and 7 Hit Dice, has an ECL of 11 and joins a
party of 11th-level characters to adventure. The wyvern
continues advancing as a character, just like the other characters
in the party.

First off, "other creatures of the Dragon Type" already tells us that to be a Lesser Dragon, you cannot be a True Dragon.  To be a Lesser Dragon, you cannot advance through age categories and you cannot have a built-in progression due to age.

Note, however, that nowhere that True Dragons are defined are Lesser Dragons mentioned, nor are "advancing through age categories" or "built-in progressions due to age."  So, by what is actually written in the books, a particular creature's status on any of these aspects is irrelevant for determining if a creature is a True Dragon or not.  A True Dragon may "advance through age categories" or it may not, but a Lesser Dragon CANNOT.  A True Dragon may have "a built-in progression due to age" or it may not, but a Lesser Dragon CANNOT.  If a creature fits the requirements for a True Dragon, it can be a True Dragon, but it CANNOT be Lesser.

The full post can be found here; the second to last post on the page.

[Kethrian]

A bit of relevant text from a thread on the old boards:

Quote from: Draconomicon, pg. 144

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.

First off, "other creatures of the Dragon Type" already tells us that to be a Lesser Dragon, you cannot be a True Dragon.  To be a Lesser Dragon, you cannot advance through age categories and you cannot have a built-in progression due to age.

This is false, see the bolded portion.  It does not exclude the viability of having age categories, just that progression is not derived from age categories.

Note, however, that nowhere that True Dragons are defined are Lesser Dragons mentioned, nor are "advancing through age categories" or "built-in progressions due to age."  So, by what is actually written in the books, a particular creature's status on any of these aspects is irrelevant for determining if a creature is a True Dragon or not.  A True Dragon may "advance through age categories" or it may not, but a Lesser Dragon CANNOT.  A True Dragon may have "a built-in progression due to age" or it may not, but a Lesser Dragon CANNOT.  If a creature fits the requirements for a True Dragon, it can be a True Dragon, but it CANNOT be Lesser.

Since DWKs do not have "a built-in progression due to age" any more than a typical humanoid's stat increases at middle-aged, old, and venerable, and nothing at all to do with their 12 age categories, they very much qualify for LD status.  And since you have yet to find a TD that has a fixed LA and no progression from age, there is no exception loophole available for DWKs to escape the LD status, since the whole DWK is TD thing relies completely upon having exceptions to nearly every rule to qualify for TD status.

[EjoThims]

I recall last time you posted and I didn't address any of your points.

Not much has changed since.

I fixed that for you Soro.

Until you can actually answer and overcome these criticisms instead of just brushing them aside your arguments will never hold water.

These are the same issues that have plagued your stance on this every time this debate comes up and you never address them.

I'm just hoping you might find it in your heart to actually, for once, answer the issues with your own arguments instead of merely insulting anyone who brings them up.



The LD argument is much better, however... So I can see why you simply abandoned trying to fix your other arguments. The problem is, however, that "another creature of the dragon type" means the first prerequisite for being DL is being not TD. So if DWKs fit definition for TD, they cannot be LD.

Of course, if you were able to actually provide a TD definition that matched with the printed ambiguous one, fit all dragons explicitly shown as TD, and excluded DWK (something you have not yet done), then DWK would automatically be LD.

[strider24seven]

Okay, you guys can argue in circles around "what constitutes a true dragon" and include such various things as energy immunity, spellcasting, HD advancement, age category advancement, and blindsense.

However, that is all irrelevant. 
The only creatures which can be considered True Dragons are those who have their monster entry listed as "Dragon, True."  Just as the only creature that can be considered a Blue Goblin are those who have their monster entry listed as "Goblin, Blue" (barring race manipulation shenanigans via Racial Emulation etc that allow them to be counted as that race for specific prerequisites). 

So one can say that a creature is a True Dragon if it has the Dragon type, and energy immunity, blindsense, and spellcasting.  And then I will ask him if a Dracotaur with sorcerer levels who casts energy immunity and dragonsight on himself is considered a True Dragon. 

And the answer, of course, will be "no," because the Dracotaur is not listed as a "Dragon, True."

Now, one might point out the sheer absurdity of my assertion that a creature's race is as listed, in such a manner as:
"Well, strider, if the only True Dragons are those listed as 'Dragon, True', then, by your definition, an Incarnum Dragon is not a True Dragon despite having all the characteristics of a True Dragon like Age Categories, etc, etc, etc... How can this be?!"

And I would respond,
"Incarnum Dragons are not True Dragons because they are not listed as 'Dragon, True,' regardless of what they look like.  Viceroy Butterflies are not Monarch Butterflies just because they have the major characteristics of one:  their DNA (monster entry) determines their race, not their shape (blindsense and spellcasting) nor their colour (energy immunity and age categories)."  Perhaps a Batesian metaphor is stretching credulity, but I believe it to be a very accurate depiction of what is going on here.

It really is that simple... one doesn't need an exhaustive list of True Dragons to recognize one- those lists and tables are for convenience.  Since the Dragonwrought feat does not change a kobold's race to "Dragon, True", a DWK is not a true dragon.  Period.  Unless he PAO's himself into a red dragon or something. But that's another story altogether.   

[Bauglir]

That's not so.

Unlike most other true dragons, planar dragons are not innate spellcasters; though they have a variety of spell-like powers, they don’t have the natural affinity for sorcery that their Material Plane relatives have.

Bolded for emphasis. A true dragon not listed under the entry Dragon, True.

EDIT: If you want my actual opinion, it's that the rules are contradictory and arguing over what is or is not RAW is as futile as arguing over whether or not you can TWF with Unarmed Strikes according to RAW. If you want to talk houserules, I'd recommend trashing all the special stuff True Dragons get simply by virtue of being True Dragons, make the grandfather clause say that True Dragons count as Dragonblooded, make Sovereign Archetypes require actually having whatever needs to be sacrificed, and let Dragonwrought Kobolds be True Dragons.

EDIT REDUX: Oh, and the Greater Rite of Draconic Ascendance or whatever the +1 level of sorcerer casting thing is can burn for all I care.

[SorO_Lost]

These are the same issues that have plagued your stance on this every time this debate comes up and you never address them.

Umm, yes I have. See the basic 3.

1. You cannot qualify for a Race.
2. Leading argument is exception based (all TDs have blindsense is ignored via lung dragon!) which is against the order of rules.
3. Exception fails (all TDs have DR/SR/etc, no exceptions). // Snakeman is trying to disprove this, please hold for additional confirmation.

The other point, page 4 says this and I grammatically rewrite the meaning for this, is literately based on not reading ANY OTHER PAGE. Sorry, but as I explained before, I don't out of quote one sentence and use it to argue against several hundred pages of rules.


Your Kobold argument again is stupid and nothing new: Kobolds are the exception. Old news, boring *yawn* blah blah blah.
You have two categories.
TD: Grow more powerful as they age, and that' all (or so you claim).
LD: Such a creature has a set level adjustment and no built-in progression due to age.
Kobolds can be TD, but they certainly are LD.
hurr durpa hurr, kobolds are TD!1!11111!11


And finally, new concept. You're post got dumber the longer you typed it. It went form ignore the thread, to my opinion only, to gee willy if someone made up a requirement table for TDs that would prove things eh? 

What do you think this argument is based on? People using the books to say this is how things works, and people like you saying no this is how things works. To define the 'requirements' is to decide if a Kobold is TD. But this is where I'm a head of you, you could literately pen in TDs are those with the Dragon Type and gain a positive Ability Modifier. I've already pointed out you cannot simply qualify for it, and as a matter of a fact a DWK Kobold is always a LD and the books treat that as a binary state (ie can't be both). So you'd still have to continue the argument based on ignoring that entry (and I'm sure there are others) on top of the assumption (and you're penned in interpretation). Or you know, you're just wrong.

[strider24seven]

That's not so.

Unlike most other true dragons, planar dragons are not innate spellcasters; though they have a variety of spell-like powers, they don’t have the natural affinity for sorcery that their Material Plane relatives have.

Bolded for emphasis. A true dragon not listed under the entry Dragon, True.

EDIT: If you want my actual opinion, it's that the rules are contradictory and arguing over what is or is not RAW is as futile as arguing over whether or not you can TWF with Unarmed Strikes according to RAW. If you want to talk houserules, I'd recommend trashing all the special stuff True Dragons get simply by virtue of being True Dragons, make the grandfather clause say that True Dragons count as Dragonblooded, make Sovereign Archetypes require actually having whatever needs to be sacrificed, and let Dragonwrought Kobolds be True Dragons.

EDIT REDUX: Oh, and the Greater Rite of Draconic Ascendance or whatever the +1 level of sorcerer casting thing is can burn for all I care.

For the record, I agree with your edits wholeheartedly.

As for the Planar Dragons, I would still assert that, RAW, they are not True Dragons because that text is from fluff text and not crunch text (the text you pulled from contains notes, annotations, and explanations.. even such text as "They all possess the extraplanar subtype" is superfluous because it appears in the creaturess stat blocks)... they are not listed as "Dragon, True" but as "Planar Dragon." I realize that that may sound, and, indeed is, quite absurd, but I'm trying to stick to RAW here- any DM with half a brain will try to make sure that Planar Dragons, etc are True Dragons, and that TDDWK's never see the light of day (at least in the form of the horrors that BG have developed over the years). 

And yes, I believe that for a purely mechanical discussion (i.e. one whose conclusions will never see gameplay), one can, and indeed must, ignore fluff text entirely. 

I reiterate, however, that if you try to classify True Dragons in a backwards fashion, e.g. according to their stats like DR/SR/etc, that you will fail, as such an approach is inherently fallacious since ANY character could then be considered a true dragon, simply by conforming to those requirements... such as a Pseudodragon (whose name literally means "false" or "fake" dragon) with sorcerer levels.  You cannot make requirements such as these specific enough as to hedge out every possible false case and every possible shenanigan. 

And SorO, you can qualify for a race, on a technicality:
Dragonborn of Bahamut counts as a separate race and the template has prerequisites. 

[snakeman830]

The issue with pointing to the "Lesser Dragon as PC's" rules is that Lesser Dragons are defined by not being True Dragons.  That is, you have to determine that something is not a True Dragon before those rules apply to it.

What you are doing by pointing to a DWK's conforming of that short description is akin to, when asked if a square is a rectangle, saying "It's a rhombus."  The question was not if the square was a rhombus, but if it was a rectangle.

The rules specifically ask if something is a rectangle (True Dragon), not about its rhomboid status (Lesser Dragon).

While there do not appear to be any UATD's that lack DR, Frightful Presence, or Spell Resistance (I don't have access to Dragon Magazine, where there may be outliers), it is worth mentioning that those rules are in the same context that is describing chromatics/metallics.  For example, on Damage Reduction, the rule states

Young and Older Dragons have damage reduction.  Their natural weapons are treated as magic weapons for overcoming damage reduction.

Or at least, that's what Soro is trying to say.  What that section actually says is everything under "Combat" on pages 68-69 of MM1 (which is WAY more than I am willing to type).  A number of those "definitions" don't apply to some, or even a majority (in the case of spellcasting) of UATD's, but it is all the same section.  Context is just as important as the rules themselves.  By Context, those rules only apply to the Chromatics/Metallics.  Yes, every other UATD also has some of those features, but there is no rule stating that a creature must have them to be a True Dragon, just that every Chromatic/Metallic has them.

[Mister Lamp]

The issue with pointing to the "Lesser Dragon as PC's" rules is that Lesser Dragons are defined by not being True Dragons.  That is, you have to determine that something is not a True Dragon before those rules apply to it.

What you are doing by pointing to a DWK's conforming of that short description is akin to, when asked if a square is a rectangle, saying "It's a rhombus."  The question was not if the square was a rhombus, but if it was a rectangle.

The rules specifically ask if something is a rectangle (True Dragon), not about its rhomboid status (Lesser Dragon).

I would like to take a moment to say this analogy makes no sense. For this analogy to work, it has to be possible  to be both Lesser and True.

[snakeman830]

The issue with pointing to the "Lesser Dragon as PC's" rules is that Lesser Dragons are defined by not being True Dragons.  That is, you have to determine that something is not a True Dragon before those rules apply to it.

What you are doing by pointing to a DWK's conforming of that short description is akin to, when asked if a square is a rectangle, saying "It's a rhombus."  The question was not if the square was a rhombus, but if it was a rectangle.

The rules specifically ask if something is a rectangle (True Dragon), not about its rhomboid status (Lesser Dragon).

I would like to take a moment to say this analogy makes no sense. For this analogy to work, it has to be possible  to be both Lesser and True.

It's not a perfect analogy, but it's better than the pickup-truck analogy I had in mind.  Easier to explain as well.

[Kethrian]

The issue with pointing to the "Lesser Dragon as PC's" rules is that Lesser Dragons are defined by not being True Dragons.  That is, you have to determine that something is not a True Dragon before those rules apply to it.

What you are doing by pointing to a DWK's conforming of that short description is akin to, when asked if a square is a rectangle, saying "It's a rhombus."  The question was not if the square was a rhombus, but if it was a rectangle.

The rules specifically ask if something is a rectangle (True Dragon), not about its rhomboid status (Lesser Dragon).

I would like to take a moment to say this analogy makes no sense. For this analogy to work, it has to be possible  to be both Lesser and True.

Exactly.  It's much more like LDs are triangles.  People are desperately trying to find the 4th corner to prove DWKs are "rectangles".

[Kethrian]

Here's another thought:  How many exceptions to the TD rules does any one known TD make?  2?  DWKs need far more than 2 exceptions to fit.

And no one has still shown a single known TD that can also qualify to be a LD.  That's one important distinction that DWKs can't find an exception for.

[linklord231]

It's more like WotC has given us some facts about a certain triangle:  2 of the sides are the same length, and one of the angles measures to 30 degrees. 
It's possible to make an Equilateral triangle (a True Dragon, in this metaphor) using the given information, but it's also possible to make an isosceles triangle (Lesser Dragon). 

Here's another thought:  How many exceptions to the TD rules does any one known TD make?  2?  DWKs need far more than 2 exceptions to fit.

The number of "exceptions" is entirely irrelevant.  In order for a definition of something to be valid, it must be true in all circumstances.  Much of the definition of "True Dragon" is not true, therefor those parts are not valid.  There is no such thing as an "exception" to a definition.

[Kethrian]

It's more like WotC has given us some facts about a certain triangle:  2 of the sides are the same length, and one of the angles measures to 30 degrees. 
It's possible to make an Equilateral triangle (a True Dragon, in this metaphor) using the given information, but it's also possible to make an isosceles triangle (Lesser Dragon). 

Here's another thought:  How many exceptions to the TD rules does any one known TD make?  2?  DWKs need far more than 2 exceptions to fit.

The number of "exceptions" is entirely irrelevant.  In order for a definition of something to be valid, it must be true in all circumstances.  Much of the definition of "True Dragon" is not true, therefor those parts are not valid.  There is no such thing as an "exception" to a definition.

It's more like this: people think the rules are declaring all TDs to be rectangles.  But then they find exceptions, where some are rhombuses, trapezoids, parallelograms.  So they think DWKs can be TDs as well, when they've already proven to fit as LDs, which are triangles.  But note that TDs are still all quadrilaterals, and not a one is a triangle, so DWKs can't be TDs.

[snakeman830]

Kethrian, you are doing it BACKWARDS.  You MUST determine if a Dragon is a True Dragon before you say it is a Lesser Dragon.  Lesser Dragons are defined by the fact they are not True Dragons.  It's like saying that because something is a laptop, it's not a computer.  It's defined by the fact it is a computer.

So, you can't say that a DWK is proven to be a Lesser Dragon until you have proven it is not a True Dragon.

The only definitions for True Dragons that actually define all True Dragons also describe Dragonwrought Kobolds if "Advance through 12 age categories" means "passes through 12 age categories in order"(which is the most common meaning of the phrase "advance through" in D&D books).  Since they meet the definition of a True Dragon, they cannot possibly be Lesser Dragons, no matter how much they resemble one.

If True Dragons are quadrilaterals and Lesser Dragons are Triangles, then a Dragonwrought Kobold has angle measures of 60, 60, 60.1, and 179.9 degrees.  If you don't look at it closely, it looks like an equilateral triangle, but on close examination, you see it is a quadrilateral.  Doesn't matter how much it resembles a triangle, since it meets the definition of a quadrilateral.

[Kethrian]

No, you're the one with it backwards.  Just because you can sit a laptop (LD) on a desk doesn't make it a desktop (TD).  Desktops won't fit on your lap, but laptops do.  Just because you can fit part of the desktop on your lap doesn't mean you can therefore call laptops desktops.

[snakeman830]

A laptop is defined by how it is not a desktop just as a Lesser Dragon is defined by how it is not a True Dragon.

Draconomicon states

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).

"Other creatures of the dragon type."  Pretty hard to argue with that.  Since this is right after the Draconomicon's definition of a True Dragon, clearly "other creatures" means "creatures that don't meet the True Dragon definition".  If it meets the True Dragon definition, it's a True Dragon.  You determine that first.  You are trying to define something as an "other creature of the dragon type" before seeing if it's True, when the rules state you go the other way around.

[Kethrian]

Even with that reading, DWKs still don't advance through age categories.  They have them, but the age catecories advance nothing.  Therefore, they do not qualify.

[snakeman830]

Even with that reading, DWKs still don't advance through age categories.  They have them, but the age catecories advance nothing.  Therefore, they do not qualify.

"Advance through", everywhere else it is used in D&D 3.5 manuals, means "pass through in order."

All you managed to do is come back to the same point: How is "Advance through age categories" meant to be read?  There is more than enough precedent for the interpretation that would have DWK's meet that criteria.

While I easily see how some (including you) would read that to mean "Advancement: By Age" instead of "pass through the age categories in order."  I choose to read it as the phrase "advance through" is used literally everywhere else in D&D manuals.