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

[ImperatorK]

However, I'm not 100% convinced that "advance through age categories" can only mean "gains HD through aging."  There are numerous places where the authors used "advance" to mean "progress through in order" and not Monster Advancement.  But I will definitely respect anyone who says "I do not consider DWKs to be True Dragons by RAW because they do not gain HD by aging."  All I ask is for those people to also accept the claim that "DWKs can be considered to be True Dragons by RAW because 'advance through age categories' might not mean 'gains HD by aging.'"

I'm not saying it only means that. But if it also does, then DWKs don't qualify, so it has to be proven that it doesn't.
BTW. Could you point me to some examples of "advance" meaning "progress through in order" AS A RULE that is relevant to monsters? Because we should look at RULES that are (most) relevant to what we are discussing. Saying "advance through age categories" RotD referred to (True) Dragons. That much is clear. So we should look at rules that are relevant to Dragons. Gaining HD is. Advancement is. Rules of English language or how authors used "advance" in non-dragon related books aren't.

[Kethrian]

Or that Dragonwrought Kobolds meet the requirement, but yes. 
However, I'm not 100% convinced that "advance through age categories" can only mean "gains HD through aging."  There are numerous places where the authors used "advance" to mean "progress through in order" and not Monster Advancement.  But I will definitely respect anyone who says "I do not consider DWKs to be True Dragons by RAW because they do not gain HD by aging."  All I ask is for those people to also accept the claim that "DWKs can be considered to be True Dragons by RAW because 'advance through age categories' might not mean 'gains HD by aging.'"

Can you accept that because DWKs don't have innate magical abilities, don't have SR, don't have heightened senses, and don't have an immunity to something that they're not TDs regardless?

[linklord231]

Whoa whoa whoa.  Before I answer that question, can we take a moment to collaborate on a definition of "True Dragon" that includes every single TD ever printed, with no exceptions?  I'm also going to stick to my guns and use only the exact rules text of the books to create this definition.  As a baseline, is everyone ok with my list of requirements so far?  Is there anything that needs to be added (again, if there is something, please provide the exact rules text and a book/page number for reference)?  After we establish everything that the rules have to say about True Dragons, we can go through and cross off the things that don't belong in the definition.  At the end, if there is anything on the list that Dragonwrought Kobolds don't meet, I will freely admit that they are not True Dragons. 

[ImperatorK]

Point #1 should be split into two subpoints:
a) "advance" means "gains HD";
b) "advance" means "progress through in order";
Subpoint a) has basis in rules that are more related to dragons.

[Kethrian]

Then #3 needs to be broken down into each individual component, and not grouped into one category.  After all, you put #4 separate.
#6 is only acceptable when theoretical unlimited increases to charisma are not allowed.
#11 must account for psionics-magic transparency, which as the EPH explains, is the default assumption, due to making psionics is different an option.
#16 should be split into 2 points, as they are separate sentences.

[littha]

How about:

Kobolds have close biological ties to dragons. The most important difference between the two, however, is that kobolds are cold-blooded creatures, and dragons are warm-blooded.

[Cyclone Joker]

How about:

Kobolds have close biological ties to dragons. The most important difference between the two, however, is that kobolds are cold-blooded creatures, and dragons are warm-blooded.

Dragonwroughts are dragons, and are thus endothermic(Or possibly lukewarm-blooded).

[Mister Lamp]

Whoa whoa whoa.  Before I answer that question, can we take a moment to collaborate on a definition of "True Dragon" that includes every single TD ever printed, with no exceptions?  I'm also going to stick to my guns and use only the exact rules text of the books to create this definition.  As a baseline, is everyone ok with my list of requirements so far?  Is there anything that needs to be added (again, if there is something, please provide the exact rules text and a book/page number for reference)?  After we establish everything that the rules have to say about True Dragons, we can go through and cross off the things that don't belong in the definition.  At the end, if there is anything on the list that Dragonwrought Kobolds don't meet, I will freely admit that they are not True Dragons.

The DR, SR, and Endure Elements ones should be separate points.

EDIT: We should also make a list of the "subtypes" of True Dragons (Planar, Ferrous, Gem, Metallic, Chromatic, etc. . .) and compare abilities that all of those get, because IMO, the fact that *none* of the planar dragons get spellcasting shouldn't be an exception, as Specific (Planar) > General (True)

[Halinn]

If you start claiming that the rule is there, but X type is an exception, it's easy to claim that DWKs are exceptions as well.

[ImperatorK]

Anything that's not in a TDs statblock should be excluded. That's the simplest way.
But really, we only need one point to prove that DWKs aren't TDs, and I think that "DWK doesn't gain HDs through aging" should be the biggest one.

[Mister Lamp]

If you start claiming that the rule is there, but X type is an exception, it's easy to claim that DWKs are exceptions as well.

Claiming "the rule is there, but these 19* dragons that all have the same type and are specifically called out as being TDs (despite the exception) are an exception" is completely different from saying "the rule is there, but I'm arbitrarily declaring this one character type generated only through a feat is an exception, despite not being listed as an exception." What I was saying is to list the types where it specifically says that ALL dragons of that type follow this one exception, because those dragons are intended to be outside the traditional definition, as you can tell by the wording.

(*According to Dr 344 there are 19 Planar Dragons)

[Mister Lamp]

Anything that's not in a TDs statblock should be excluded. That's the simplest way.
But really, we only need one point to prove that DWKs aren't TDs, and I think that "DWK doesn't gain HDs through aging" should be the biggest one.

I'd say the biggest one will be the SR/DR. I do not believe there are any dragons which are exceptions.

[SorO_Lost]

(*According to Dr 344 there are 20 Planar Dragons)

Hellfire isn't a TD. All through it sports things like the Dragon type, Flight, DR/SR/FP+Extra_Immunity, SLAs, Keen Senses, and so on. Draco says it is a LD.

LESSER DRAGONS BY CR
Following is a list, in ascending order, of the Challenge Ratings for all lesser dragons. The table on page 288 provides CRs for all true dragons.
<snip>
CR 25: linnorm, dread
CR 26: hellfire wyrm
CR 28: linnorm, corpse tearer

Draco > 3rd party material.

Through I suppose it certainly helps show proof of concept, this guy has all of this but lacks the Age Advancement so guess what Draco says it is. Like that Age thing is the biggest deciding factor...
Which would certainly explain why the Rattelry was canonized.

[ImperatorK]

Hellfire Wyrm is kinda weird. It is from another plane like all the other planar dragons, but planar dragons are called out as having age categories and the extraplanar subtype. Hellfire Wyrm doesn't have both. Maybe the list in Dr 344 lists dragons from other planes and not "planar dragons"? Or it's a mistake? Who knows.
SorO, just to be clear, because sometimes it's hard to understand your train of thought: Are you agreeing or disagreeing that the Age Advancement thingy is the biggest point?

[SorO_Lost]

SorO, just to be clear, because sometimes it's hard to understand your train of thought: Are you agreeing or disagreeing that the Age Advancement thingy is the biggest point?

It is the huge point to me. One that picked who I jpeg'ed or not too .

I mean Draco separates the classification of TD and LD as advancing by aging and not. MM1's entry boils down to the same, age begets HD, size, DR/SR, etc. It's the core fundamental explained in several books, to a point Draco even flat out says having it is TD and not is LD. If anyone is going to 'qualify' for being a TD, a Phaerimm who obtains the Dragon type is several miles closer than a DWK Kobold.

Even so, the nitty and gritty bitchfests that are "RAW" discussions has made me create two lists. Primary are the ones noted as being a TD and in a RAW discussion those are undebatable. Secondary are more of what I consider to be TDs based on the Age mechanic which would allow for Dragon Mag & DL dragons to be added to the list but I avoid talking about them. For instance a RAW debate would get bogged down with the Incarnum, it's not a TD it doesn't say so and is excluded form all lists vs it has Age advancement per Draco it is. I'd rather dodge that stupid strawman and there certainly is enough in this thread already. So I bounce back and forth with the Incarnum and avoid the non-officials.

[ImperatorK]

Concerning Incarnum Dragon: It isn't listed as TD, BUT it also isn't listed as LD. That means that it simply was missed or the book really wasn't finished before Draco (despite being published months earlier).

[Mister Lamp]

Through I suppose it certainly helps show proof of concept, this guy has all of this but lacks the Age Advancement so guess what Draco says it is. Like that Age thing is the biggest deciding factor...
Which would certainly explain why the Rattelry was canonized.

Did I just accidentally give you a new argument? cool.

[SorO_Lost]

Through I suppose it certainly helps show proof of concept, this guy has all of this but lacks the Age Advancement so guess what Draco says it is. Like that Age thing is the biggest deciding factor...
Which would certainly explain why the Rattelry was canonized.

Did I just accidentally give you a new argument? cool.

It's an example of "Look at all these matching traits but it's missing Age advancement, it's an LD."

Which is better than the Rattelyr side of things.
"This thing has no real matching traits but it has Age advancement and a listed TD" which would prompt the question "What about the Incarnum?" Which honestly only has the Draco's rule of advancement and intent favoring it, little less than absolute RAW to work with.

[Halinn]

Is there a reading lenient enough to allow the DWK to be a true dragon, but strict enough to disallow the incarnum dragon? I am merely curious here.

[SorO_Lost]

Is there a reading lenient enough to allow the DWK to be a true dragon, but strict enough to disallow the incarnum dragon? I am merely curious here.

Against
The Incarnum Dragon was left out of the list of "all TDs" in Draco, RotD, and DoF. It's entry also never says it is a TD.

For
It has the Age advancement, per Draco it's not a LD and LD/TD is a binary thing, there is no 3rd option. Incarnum's example likewise assumes it inherits the TD's entry on attacks as it has claws, bite, and I think two wing attacks but the entry never states what it has for natural weapons. Intent says yes, if qualifying exists the Incarnum can give it a shot.

Kobold has always had nothing but a single line pulled from a single paragraph on the basic 10 dragons pulled from a single page interpreted to mean exactly what you wish it to be rather than any coherency from the book. Further reading always proves it's not a TD, like the Incarnum concept. For pits the Incarnum on the TD side and the Kobold on the LD side whereas the Against side excludes them both. Either way, the DWK Kobold never mattered and it's an LD of undeserving attention. So it is really relevant to the topic about DWK Kobolds?