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

[Kethrian]

Literally everywhere outside of TDs, sure.  But within, it is never used for that meaning.  In fact, on p. 144 of the same book, it further clarifies it as "built-in progression due to age".  Therefore your interpretation is proven incorrect.  DWKs have no progression due to age, and are therefore not TDs.

[snakeman830]

Literally everywhere outside of TDs, sure.  But within, it is never used for that meaning.  In fact, on p. 144 of the same book, it further clarifies it as "built-in progression due to age".  Therefore your interpretation is proven incorrect.  DWKs have no progression due to age, and are therefore not TDs.

Check again.  It says "Lesser Dragons have no built-in progression due to age."  It is silent on whether True Dragons do or not.  If you're looking at those rules, it means you have already determined that a dragon is not True.

[Kethrian]

It doesn't need to go any further, because there are no TDs that don't, and it explained that on p. 4 like you pointed out.  Both are referencing the same thing.

[Mister Lamp]

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.

I can just as easily define a Desktop as how it is not a laptop. Also, on something you brought up later, you said:

Literally everywhere outside of TDs, sure.  But within, it is never used for that meaning.  In fact, on p. 144 of the same book, it further clarifies it as "built-in progression due to age".  Therefore your interpretation is proven incorrect.  DWKs have no progression due to age, and are therefore not TDs.

Check again.  It says "Lesser Dragons have no built-in progression due to age."  It is silent on whether True Dragons do or not.  If you're looking at those rules, it means you have already determined that a dragon is not True.

My question here is if a lesser dragon is everything that isn't a true dragon, and "Lesser Dragons have no built-in progression due to age", then doesn't that mean that all true dragons do?

After all, If I told you that all 4 sided shapes with equal sides were either Rhombuses or Squares, and that to be a rhombus, a shape must a.) not be a square, and b.) have at least 1 non-90 degree angle, could you not say from that that all squares must have only 90 degree angles?

[SorO_Lost]

Kethrian, you are doing it BACKWARDS.  You MUST determine if a Dragon is a True Dragon before you say it is a Lesser Dragon. 
...
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.
..

Umm no.

For one, everyone fails to make a real point that the DWK Kobold is a TD. In fact, look at your bullshit post from before. You know, the one where you finally revealed your big answer on what exceptions can be found to definitively prove if DKW Kobold can meet the list of canonical traits observed in all TDs, which I'd like to remind you WAS A BIG NO.

So you went with debluffing the MM1's entry citing it only applies to Chromatic/Metallic. In fact you went so far as to name copy/paste versions of it only describe such as well despite Gems, Lungs, Fearunian/Others not being Chromatic/Metallic and claim that those should be ignored as well. Ironically, if you were to pursue this statement, the very page 4 quote being  out of context is part of a paragraph stating the book is about the 10 Chromatic/Metallic dragons in the MM1 would be abolished leaving you with precisely squat diddly dick.

Secondly. As stated before, even in the perimeters of all these stupid assumptions, house rules, and half-assed readings. A DWK Kobold can never achieve anything beyond it may be a TD, it is and forever will be a Lesser Dragon due to no built in Age-Progression and static LA.

There is no prove the Kobold isn't a TD first, it's a Lesser and that's exactly what the rules in Draco says it is. It's exactly how RotD treats it. It's exactly how Dragons of Faerun treats it.They are a foot note to real dragons as exactly as Dragons of Eberron treat them. And it's exactly how someone without their head shoved up a hippo's rear would see things since changing your type to Outsider doesn't make you a Devil or Angel because you're alignment agrees with them. This is the base line. And you're failing to prove it's a TD.

***

Check again.  It says "Lesser Dragons have no built-in progression due to age."  It is silent on whether True Dragons do or not.  If you're looking at those rules, it means you have already determined that a dragon is not True.

Checking...

Advancement and Aging
A dragon PC begins at a specified age (in accordance with the current party level in the campaign) and gains character levels as the player wishes over the course of its adventures. As it ages from wyrmling to juvenile, a true dragon’s level adjustment varies between +2 and +6, depending on the age and dragon variety. For a dragon PC, the dragon’s Hit Dice and class levels plus this level adjustment is its effective character level (ECL). For a starting character of juvenile or younger age, this ECL is somewhere between 5 and 20.

As it ages, as shown on Table 3–21: Aging for Dragon PCs, the dragon is required to devote a level every few years to its dragon “class,” reflecting the extra Hit Die or level adjustment it gains from aging. The character must add this dragon level as the first level it gains after reaching an age shown on the table. It gains no benefit from reaching a new age category until it attains this level.

Trivial fact. Page 144's right hand side contains the LD quote, it's left hand side is the end of this TD aging concept that includes a table of TDs from other sources. It names the Gems, Lungs, Planars, Fearunian (called 'other' in DoF) and the Fiendish (descriptions are actually listed under planar) dragons which means at the time of printing it only lacks the Sand Dragon (which wasn't canonized until DoF). You can't say this section is Chromatic/Metallic only if your life depended on it.

[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.

I can just as easily define a Desktop as how it is not a laptop. Also, on something you brought up later, you said:

Literally everywhere outside of TDs, sure.  But within, it is never used for that meaning.  In fact, on p. 144 of the same book, it further clarifies it as "built-in progression due to age".  Therefore your interpretation is proven incorrect.  DWKs have no progression due to age, and are therefore not TDs.

Check again.  It says "Lesser Dragons have no built-in progression due to age."  It is silent on whether True Dragons do or not.  If you're looking at those rules, it means you have already determined that a dragon is not True.

My question here is if a lesser dragon is everything that isn't a true dragon, and "Lesser Dragons have no built-in progression due to age", then doesn't that mean that all true dragons do?

After all, If I told you that all 4 sided shapes with equal sides were either Rhombuses or Squares, and that to be a rhombus, a shape must a.) not be a square, and b.) have at least 1 non-90 degree angle, could you not say from that that all squares must have only 90 degree angles?

Considering the definition of a Rhombus is "a quadrilateral with all four sides of equal length", a Square is very much a Rhombus, so I would call you out on that.

Besides, I can name a few "Lesser Dragons" that have built-in progressions due to age.  They may not be listed anywhere as to at what ages it occurs, but they do exist (Half Dragon Arrowhawks, Phaerim (which have a listed LA and as such would follow the "Lesser Dragons as PC's" rules), Kurthiks, etc.).

@Soro: Sidebar on page 4 of Draconomicon states that while the book mostly concerns itself with the 10 True Dragons in the MM, the definition is given to define what exactly constitutes a True Dragon for other cases.  That is the ENTIRE POINT of that sidebar.  The MM description has a shitload more exceptions than you like admitting.  It says all True Dragons have breath weapons, an immunity, Blindsense, flight, wing attacks, spell-like abilities, and spellcasting.  If it were defining anything beyond the 10 in the MM1 (for which it is true), then there are exceptions all over the place, including Gem, Lung, Faerunian, Planar...oh wait, everything you just said it perfectly describes.  Guess what?  It doesn't.

Now, as for those "True Dragons as PC's" rules, there is another issue.  That is rules of how to handle something, not a definition.  At the time, those rules held true for all True Dragons (Races of the Dragon was printed several years later) and even in that, there are at least two exceptions (Force and Prismatic dragons, who never have an LA, so it doesn't vary from Wyrmling to Juvenile or from +2 to +6)  Again, you can't point to the list and say that the absence of Kobolds means anything because at the time, they weren't even Dragonblood, let alone having 12 age categories and being able to gain the dragon type.


Seriously, neither side is ever going to convince the other.  It all comes down to the reading of the line "advance through age categories."  If read like it appears everywhere else in D&D, DWK's fit the definition.  If read as "Advancement: By Age", then they don't.  Both are valid readings and we can't tell one way or another how the designers even wanted it due to the fluff suggesting that it may have been intentional.

Truthfully, though, how much does it unbalance by letting them be True Dragons?  The only thing I can think of is the whole "Old age Epic feats" thing.  Sovreign Archtypes?  I would let a Sorcerer trade spells known for Tiger Claw maneuvers any day (spells are more powerful).  Loredrake is the only one that really leads to a problem.  Dragon Ascendant?  Considering the guy has to be level 39 before he meets the prerequisites (and his pre-epic levels had to be in a full BAB class), then let him.  The feat in Draconomicon that gives them a bardic Knowledge-esque ability?  Need to check on the eratta to see if they can even take it before its bonus is outclassed by standard knowledge methods (prerequisites just say "any three knowledge skills" with no regards to ranks), but even so, it's Knowledge checks.

[Mister Lamp]

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.

I can just as easily define a Desktop as how it is not a laptop. Also, on something you brought up later, you said:

Literally everywhere outside of TDs, sure.  But within, it is never used for that meaning.  In fact, on p. 144 of the same book, it further clarifies it as "built-in progression due to age".  Therefore your interpretation is proven incorrect.  DWKs have no progression due to age, and are therefore not TDs.

Check again.  It says "Lesser Dragons have no built-in progression due to age."  It is silent on whether True Dragons do or not.  If you're looking at those rules, it means you have already determined that a dragon is not True.

My question here is if a lesser dragon is everything that isn't a true dragon, and "Lesser Dragons have no built-in progression due to age", then doesn't that mean that all true dragons do?

After all, If I told you that all 4 sided shapes with equal sides were either Rhombuses or Squares, and that to be a rhombus, a shape must a.) not be a square, and b.) have at least 1 non-90 degree angle, could you not say from that that all squares must have only 90 degree angles?

Considering the definition of a Rhombus is "a quadrilateral with all four sides of equal length", a Square is very much a Rhombus, so I would call you out on that.

Besides, I can name a few "Lesser Dragons" that have built-in progressions due to age.  They may not be listed anywhere as to at what ages it occurs, but they do exist (Half Dragon Arrowhawks, Phaerim (which have a listed LA and as such would follow the "Lesser Dragons as PC's" rules), Kurthiks, etc.).

@Soro: Sidebar on page 4 of Draconomicon states that while the book mostly concerns itself with the 10 True Dragons in the MM, the definition is given to define what exactly constitutes a True Dragon for other cases.  That is the ENTIRE POINT of that sidebar.  The MM description has a shitload more exceptions than you like admitting.  It says all True Dragons have breath weapons, an immunity, Blindsense, flight, wing attacks, spell-like abilities, and spellcasting.  If it were defining anything beyond the 10 in the MM1 (for which it is true), then there are exceptions all over the place, including Gem, Lung, Faerunian, Planar...oh wait, everything you just said it perfectly describes.  Guess what?  It doesn't.

Now, as for those "True Dragons as PC's" rules, there is another issue.  That is rules of how to handle something, not a definition.  At the time, those rules held true for all True Dragons (Races of the Dragon was printed several years later) and even in that, there are at least two exceptions (Force and Prismatic dragons, who never have an LA, so it doesn't vary from Wyrmling to Juvenile or from +2 to +6)  Again, you can't point to the list and say that the absence of Kobolds means anything because at the time, they weren't even Dragonblood, let alone having 12 age categories and being able to gain the dragon type.

Hey, it was like midnight when I wrote that. Be glad it was readable.

If it specifically says that lesser dragons don't have "built in progression due to age" then those technically wouldn't be lesser dragons. Also, how do those have a progression?

edit: While on the subject of epic dragons, from the ELH: "their longer life span (with correspondingly
greater increases in power as they age),"

edit edit: "Except as noted here, epic dragons conform to the general information that applies to all dragons given in the
Monster Manual." This is interesting. and open to multiple interpretations. hm. . .

[snakeman830]

Ah, but they would be Lesser Dragons.  For two major reasons:

1. They lack the 12 age categories.
2. Half Dragons are explicitly Lesser Dragons (either Draconomicon or Races of the Dragon states this).

So, we have some explicitly Lesser Dragons that have a built-in progression due to age.

[Mister Lamp]

Ah, but they would be Lesser Dragons.  For two major reasons:

1. They lack the 12 age categories.
2. Half Dragons are explicitly Lesser Dragons (either Draconomicon or Races of the Dragon states this).

So, we have some explicitly Lesser Dragons that have a built-in progression due to age.

once again, What progression?

[Kethrian]

Considering the definition of a Rhombus is "a quadrilateral with all four sides of equal length", a Square is very much a Rhombus, so I would call you out on that.

All squares may be rhombuses, but not all rhombuses are squares.  Therefore they are not the same thing, even if one is a sub-category of the other.

Besides, I can name a few "Lesser Dragons" that have built-in progressions due to age.  They may not be listed anywhere as to at what ages it occurs, but they do exist (Half Dragon Arrowhawks, Phaerim (which have a listed LA and as such would follow the "Lesser Dragons as PC's" rules), Kurthiks, etc.).

And none of those progress due to their draconic heritage.  Hey, that's just like DWKs!  I guess you just (further) proved they're still LDs!

@Soro: Sidebar on page 4 of Draconomicon states that while the book mostly concerns itself with the 10 True Dragons in the MM, the definition is given to define what exactly constitutes a True Dragon for other cases.  That is the ENTIRE POINT of that sidebar.  The MM description has a shitload more exceptions than you like admitting.  It says all True Dragons have breath weapons, an immunity, Blindsense, flight, wing attacks, spell-like abilities, and spellcasting.  If it were defining anything beyond the 10 in the MM1 (for which it is true), then there are exceptions all over the place, including Gem, Lung, Faerunian, Planar...oh wait, everything you just said it perfectly describes.  Guess what?  It doesn't.

Yes?  And?  Every one of those TDs that have exceptions are still explicitly stated as being TDs.  DWKs are not.

Now, as for those "True Dragons as PC's" rules, there is another issue.  That is rules of how to handle something, not a definition.  At the time, those rules held true for all True Dragons (Races of the Dragon was printed several years later) and even in that, there are at least two exceptions (Force and Prismatic dragons, who never have an LA, so it doesn't vary from Wyrmling to Juvenile or from +2 to +6)  Again, you can't point to the list and say that the absence of Kobolds means anything because at the time, they weren't even Dragonblood, let alone having 12 age categories and being able to gain the dragon type.

No LA=/= set LA.  And I can point to Races of the Dragon explicitly omitting DWKs from any TD lists.

Seriously, neither side is ever going to convince the other.  It all comes down to the reading of the line "advance through age categories."  If read like it appears everywhere else in D&D, DWK's fit the definition.  If read as "Advancement: By Age", then they don't.  Both are valid readings and we can't tell one way or another how the designers even wanted it due to the fluff suggesting that it may have been intentional.

Truthfully, though, how much does it unbalance by letting them be True Dragons?  The only thing I can think of is the whole "Old age Epic feats" thing.  Sovreign Archtypes?  I would let a Sorcerer trade spells known for Tiger Claw maneuvers any day (spells are more powerful).  Loredrake is the only one that really leads to a problem.  Dragon Ascendant?  Considering the guy has to be level 39 before he meets the prerequisites (and his pre-epic levels had to be in a full BAB class), then let him.  The feat in Draconomicon that gives them a bardic Knowledge-esque ability?  Need to check on the eratta to see if they can even take it before its bonus is outclassed by standard knowledge methods (prerequisites just say "any three knowledge skills" with no regards to ranks), but even so, it's Knowledge checks.

Then why is it such a problem to admit that since they are never acknowledged as being TDs in any book, they simply are not TDs?  It's not like you're really losing anything.

[snakeman830]

Progressing via draconic heritage or not, they are Lesser Dragons with a built-in progression due to age.  That is all the rule cares about.

No LA=/=Variable LA=/=Set LA.  The "True Dragon PC's" rules state that True Dragons have variable LA.

Please, point out to me where the various dragons (especially Sand and Incarnum dragons, since they don't show up on the lists in either Races of the Dragon or Draconomicon, Sand were printed before both, so there is no excuse) state that they are explicitly True Dragons?  Huh, can't do it?  Funny thing...

Dragonwrought Kobolds are a niche case and even so would not be suitable for use with the Half Dragon template or Draconic Heritage feat (which is what those tables are actually listing) because feats are not inherited.

[Mister Lamp]

Progressing via draconic heritage or not, they are Lesser Dragons with a built-in progression due to age.  That is all the rule cares about.

No LA=/=Variable LA=/=Set LA.  The "True Dragon PC's" rules state that True Dragons have variable LA.

Please, point out to me where the various dragons (especially Sand and Incarnum dragons, since they don't show up on the lists in either Races of the Dragon or Draconomicon, Sand were printed before both, so there is no excuse) state that they are explicitly True Dragons?  Huh, can't do it?  Funny thing...

Dragonwrought Kobolds are a niche case and even so would not be suitable for use with the Half Dragon template or Draconic Heritage feat (which is what those tables are actually listing) because feats are not inherited.

quoted from RotD:
"The table above provides the benefits of the Draconic Heritage feat for all the kinds of true dragons published in D&D products to date."

That covers everything on that list. Strictly according to the books, Incarnum isn't a TD (but unlike kobolds, admits it). Now, Incarnum Dragons should be true, but RAW they aren't. Which is something I believe I've already said in this thread.

[Kethrian]

Progressing via draconic heritage or not, they are Lesser Dragons with a built-in progression due to age.  That is all the rule cares about.

No LA=/=Variable LA=/=Set LA.  The "True Dragon PC's" rules state that True Dragons have variable LA.

Please, point out to me where the various dragons (especially Sand and Incarnum dragons, since they don't show up on the lists in either Races of the Dragon or Draconomicon, Sand were printed before both, so there is no excuse) state that they are explicitly True Dragons?

Incarnum dragons aren't TDs, because nothing says they are.  Just because they "fit the mould" doesn't mean they get an automatic pass.

Sand dragons are TDs, stated in DoF p. 12.

Huh, can't do it?  Funny thing...

Just did for the Sand.  You can't for the DWK, not in their race chapter, not in their feat.  Not in the all-encompasing list to that point in RotD.  And not in any later works.  I guess if Incarnums aren't TDs, DWKs have no chance.

Dragonwrought Kobolds are a niche case and even so would not be suitable for use with the Half Dragon template or Draconic Heritage feat (which is what those tables are actually listing) because feats are not inherited.

Doesn't matter.  The list explicitly declares that all TDs to that point are on the list.  DoF came 7 months later, which is how Sands are TDs.

[SorO_Lost]

I'm too lazy to go back and quote it. But I'm pretty sure snakeman tried to say the rules on handling TD progressions in a campaign isn't rules. Pretty sure he is still going on about that Chromatic/Metallic thing too, which is hilarious because as mentioned it puts page 4's quote out of reach. And I'm pretty sure he refuted the MM1 on the bases that there is simply too many things there. Seriously, too many things. Some dragons lack flight, some have blindsight, too much stuff there let's ignore the entire thing.

No, no, no, for the exception method you have to prove each and every one of those things. You set out to do this, and after doing so posted a second opinion I can quote. I like this, it's great. Just like the Chromatic/Metallic only take on page 4 is great, since pg144 talks about all the rest, I've added ways to say "read the book" and it's done in the very same way you're attempting to argue.

So what I guess I could say is thanks. You're still a moron for arguing like you are, but the new view(s) only gives me more material to use later.

P.S. LA is 3.5 only material, it does not exist in 3.0 at all. They were never updated outside of their DR change and were completely unmentioned in Draco. Based on examples of updated material and all examples show proof that if they did have an LA entry, it would be variable. Citing Epic dragon's lacking LA is a poor poor excuse to try to create an exception based point against them, likewise if you go into exceptions we know where that ends. You failing. As you already said so your so in a manner of speaking.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

... All squares may be rhombuses, but not all rhombuses are squares.  Therefore ...

Is somebody studying for the GREs right now ?

[Kethrian]

... All squares may be rhombuses, but not all rhombuses are squares.  Therefore ...

Is somebody studying for the GREs right now ?

Nope.  I'm not American, and I've been out of school for about 15 years now.

[ImperatorK]

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.

The problem here, as I see it, is that "advance through age categories" refers to Dragon Rules, which means that we should only look at that sentence in context of Dragon Rules, but for some reason you cite rules irrelevant to dragons. BTW, please cite the rules that say "advance" means "pass through in order".
In Dragon Rules the only parts relevant to "advance through age categories" are "Advancement: age categories" that all official TDs share, and table "X Dragons by Age" that, again, all TDs have. To prove that those two parts are not relevant as a TD qualifier you would have to find an official TD that lacks at least one of them.
Another thing. Half-dragon kobold. It's a dragon and, by your interpretation, it advances through age categories. It qualifies as a TD, but WotC says that half-dragons are LD even though they share with TDs much more than DW kobolds (an immadiate ancestor, which is huge in comparison to DWKs). Ever thought about WHY?
There's also this little quote from SRD: "All true dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age."
I dunno if it's a qualifier or not, but I'm going to assume that it is.
In order to figure out what that exactly means many people searched all over the SRD and other books. But I'm asking myself - what for? The quote is talking about dragons. True Dragons, to be exact. And it is written in a section about True Dragons. Then why not search here? You'll notice that every dragon here has two tables. First says "X Dragons by Age", the second says "X Dragon Abilities by Age". Couldn't that be what they meant by "All true dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age"? you'll also notice that all later TDs also have those two tables. That has to mean something. I mean, I know that there are TDs that are different than the others and still are officially TD,  but those two tables can be very consistently found in every TDs statblock.

I think that's all. I don't expect to convince anyone or even be noticed, but I had to drop it of my chest.

[linklord231]

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.

The problem here, as I see it, is that "advance through age categories" refers to Dragon Rules, which means that we should only look at that sentence in context of Dragon Rules, but for some reason you cite rules irrelevant to dragons. BTW, please cite the rules that say "advance" means "pass through in order".
In Dragon Rules the only parts relevant to "advance through age categories" are "Advancement: age categories" that all official TDs share, and table "X Dragons by Age" that, again, all TDs have. To prove that those two parts are not relevant as a TD qualifier you would have to find an official TD that lacks at least one of them.
Another thing. Half-dragon kobold. It's a dragon and, by your interpretation, it advances through age categories. It qualifies as a TD, but WotC says that half-dragons are LD even though they share with TDs much more than DW kobolds (an immadiate ancestor, which is huge in comparison to DWKs). Ever thought about WHY?
There's also this little quote from SRD: "All true dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age."
I dunno if it's a qualifier or not, but I'm going to assume that it is.
In order to figure out what that exactly means many people searched all over the SRD and other books. But I'm asking myself - what for? The quote is talking about dragons. True Dragons, to be exact. And it is written in a section about True Dragons. Then why not search here? You'll notice that every dragon here has two tables. First says "X Dragons by Age", the second says "X Dragon Abilities by Age". Couldn't that be what they meant by "All true dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age"? you'll also notice that all later TDs also have those two tables. That has to mean something. I mean, I know that there are TDs that are different than the others and still are officially TD,  but those two tables can be very consistently found in every TDs statblock.

I think that's all. I don't expect to convince anyone or even be noticed, but I had to drop it of my chest.

All this has been brought up before.  "Advance through age categories" could mean either, and neither side has conclusive evidence that would make the other side an invalid reading.  It could mean Advance as in Monster Advancement, or it could mean "advance" as in "to pass though in order" like it does in normal English.
A Half-Dragon Kobold is explicitly a Lesser Dragon, even if it meets the criteria for True Dragonhood.  A DWK is not explicitly a LD.
DWKs do gain more abilities and greater power as they age, even if they don't have a fancy chart for it.

[Kethrian]

A Half-Dragon Kobold is explicitly a Lesser Dragon, even if it meets the criteria for True Dragonhood.  A DWK is not explicitly a LD.

Citation please?  Half-dragon kobolds meet more TD prerequisites than DWKs...

DWKs do gain more abilities and greater power as they age, even if they don't have a fancy chart for it.

And where do they get them from their draconic age categories?  Nowhere, that's where.  Gaining class levels or standard so-common-even-humans-have-it stat adjustments from the non-draconic age categories are not the same.  Not even close.  Otherwise, all half-dragons could be TDs.

[ImperatorK]

like it does in normal English

But that isn't normal English. It's "WotC rules English".

DWKs do gain more abilities and greater power as they age

The "greater power" part is debatable, but they do not gain more abilities. Maybe higher (thus "greater power"), but not more.
Lets see. A DWK ages to Wyrmling age category. It doesn't gain more abilities nor greater power. Then it ages to Very Young age category. Again, it doesn't gain more abilities nor greater power. Then it ages to Young age category. And once again, it gains nothing. Yeah, sure, it gains a little power when it reaches Middle Age, Old and Venerable, but it doesn't gain more abilities, so that's moot.

Hm. Does any of the books say something like "true dragons become more powerful as they grow older"? If it does then DWKs can't be TDs, because they don't grow.