"Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

[TypoNinja]

See, what you're doing there is applying common sense to the rules. But you're assuming the rules will be read in the common sense way, while I believe the very point of this thread is to write down what the common sense rules should say so that they're always interpreted in the common sense way.

Its not a common sense application, its a RAW application. I just finished telling you where all the listed bits were.

Where the rules are written can be as important as what they say. Chapter headings, sidebars, even a separate paragraph can serve to separate a thought, clause or statement. This serves as delineation of the scope any particular phrase or ruling.

Something printed in the MM is giving you rules about monsters, something printed in the Types and subtypes section is giving you rules on types and subtypes, something printed under the aberration heading is giving you rules on aberrations. Something printed under the dragonblood sidebar is talking only about dragonblooded.

Rules are written in English, English also has its own rules of operation that influence how you understand D&D's rules, if applied correctly. For example, the Epic advancement rules say they are an expansion on the monster advancement rules from the MM, therefor the same rules on advancing monsters introduced in the MM still apply, the Epic rules are an add on, not a replacement. And the MM (in multiple places) indicates that advancing monstrous HD is done by Type.

The ELH didn't say it, but the MM did. Stop taking rules out of context, and divorced from the rest of their supporting material and you'll find there are a lot less common sense holes that need plugging than you thought.

[JaronK]

Even if you want to drop the Advanced Dragons rules (which, if you're not looking at MM, don't have any other context and never state anything about racial hit dice), at the very least the Kobolds/Sovereign Archetypes thing is important.

JaronK

[TypoNinja]

Even if you want to drop the Advanced Dragons rules (which, if you're not looking at MM, don't have any other context and never state anything about racial hit dice), at the very least the Kobolds/Sovereign Archetypes thing is important.

JaronK

Yea I just skimmed through my races of Dragon, and can't find what your talking about, I may just be having a blind moment, can you gimme a page number?

Also, you are forgetting the Primary source rules, the MM is the primary source for all rules on creating monsters. Its rules always apply.

[TuggyNE]

See, what you're doing there is applying common sense to the rules. But you're assuming the rules will be read in the common sense way, while I believe the very point of this thread is to write down what the common sense rules should say so that they're always interpreted in the common sense way.

Otherwise there's no point in this thread... for each rule, you could just say "common sense dictates people will read this rule right, so we don't need to do anything."

This is a pretty good summary.

As far as DWK, can we please stop arguing about whether RAW should be enough to fix it and just patch in a possibly-redundant RACSD entry already!

[JaronK]

Yea I just skimmed through my races of Dragon, and can't find what your talking about, I may just be having a blind moment, can you gimme a page number?

Source for which part? Page 39 has that table in the top right that shows that Kobolds have True Dragon age categories, and right under it it says that Dragonwrought Kobolds never take penalties for aging (but they do get the benefits). Is that the part you wanted?

Also, you are forgetting the Primary source rules, the MM is the primary source for all rules on creating monsters. Its rules always apply.

Creating Monsters isn't what we're doing here.

JaronK

[Zeful]

To be clear, every interpretation I've stated here (except some of the technical bits about why Kobolds count as True Dragons) is something I've heard from multiple other players.

And? Just because an opinion is popular doesn't mean it's correct. Asserting that it is anyway is something called "The Appeal to Popularity" and is a logical fallacy.

Besides, lot's of people making incorrect leaps of deduction is the reason for the saying "common sense isn't". So a lot of people holding the same intuition does not make that intuition sensible.

Yes, yes it does. Races of the Dragon does this. Repeatedly. And No, Races of the Dragon does NOT list all true dragons at the time of printing. That was Draconomicon... which was printed long before Races of the Dragon (it's Races of the Dragon that created the Dragonwrought feat and gave Kobolds age categories and made them get stronger as they get older and all that).

So the phrase "Dragonwrought Kobolds are True Dragons" exists in the text?

Races of the Dragon made it so that Dragonwrought Kobolds gain stat boosts as they get older and take no aging penalties. And since the DMG explicitly states that characters with higher stats are more powerful, they clearly qualify.

And how do they advance through age categories? Given the racial advancement line is "By Class" and I know Dragonwrought doesn't change that.

Seriously, it's not that hard to fix the issue.

Yeah, apparently Races of Dragon is a terrible book. Ban it. All problems solved.

[JaronK]

And? Just because an opinion is popular doesn't mean it's correct. Asserting that it is anyway is something called "The Appeal to Popularity" and is a logical fallacy.

The whole point of this thread is to take rules that get interpreted badly sometimes (or which are otherwise unclear) and make a common sense, clearly stated rule out of them. It's not a fallacy, it's proof that this rule can be interpreted badly.

So the phrase "Dragonwrought Kobolds are True Dragons" exists in the text?

It does say that Kobolds have all the requirements to be True Dragons, and states that they're made of nothing but True Dragon blood (created when all the rest of the True Dragons were created, out of the same original dragons), and it says that they're all either Chromatic or Metallic. Good enough?

And how do they advance through age categories? Given the racial advancement line is "By Class" and I know Dragonwrought doesn't change that.

They advance through age categories by getting older (see Races of the Dragon, which lists their age categories and when they reach them). In fact, a Kobold that just gets old enough actually can advance by age categories via those virtual age category rules... that would, in fact, be their only racial HD. A Great Wyrm Dragonwrought Kobold could theoretically gain 3 racial HD and then become an advanced dragon as per the Advanced Dragon rules, because all Dragons that have those 12 age categories do that. The only problem is that the current rules state that this happens for all hit dice, not just racial ones.

Yeah, apparently Races of Dragon is a terrible book. Ban it. All problems solved.

Core has far worse problems. But banning whole books isn't the goal here. The goal is to clarify individual problem areas.

JaronK

[TypoNinja]

Source for which part? Page 39 has that table in the top right that shows that Kobolds have True Dragon age categories, and right under it it says that Dragonwrought Kobolds never take penalties for aging (but they do get the benefits). Is that the part you wanted?

I see the table, I don't see any listed benefits at each age category. I think we may have stumbled upon the first ever fluff table.

Right below that table it has the other table, showing the more usual middle age, old, and venerable table. called ageing effects. Its got a foot note saying dragonwrought don't suffer aging penalties, refer to feat pg 100.

Dragonwrought says you become a Dragon Type. But there is more to True Dragons than their HD. I remain unconvinced.

Creating Monsters isn't what we're doing here.

JaronK

Any advanced moster is "Created" using the rules listed in the MM for advancement.

[JaronK]

I see the table, I don't see any listed benefits at each age category. I think we may have stumbled upon the first ever fluff table.

Right below that table it has the other table, showing the more usual middle age, old, and venerable table. called ageing effects. Its got a foot note saying dragonwrought don't suffer aging penalties, refer to feat pg 100.

Dragonwrought says you become a Dragon Type. But there is more to True Dragons than their HD. I remain unconvinced.

Each age category itself doesn't give you a benefit, but as you progress through the table you get steady increases to your mental stats, totaling +3 at the end. Unlike other creatures, you don't take any penalties. The rule is that they have to get more powerful as they get older and have 12 age categories (Dragon Magic specifies that it's the 12 draconic age categories, by the way), not that you get more powerful with each age category.

Is +3 to all mental stats with no other penalties more powerful? Yes, according to the DMG.

And just in case you've missed it, Dragon Magic page 87 contains this line: "...with a true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon)." It's pretty darn clear. Kobolds are True Dragons. There's no way around it. Where the clarification is needed is to keep them away from being Sovereign Archetypes.

Any advanced moster is "Created" using the rules listed in the MM for advancement.

Well, it's advancing, not creating, but it's a special case. Specific always overrides general. That's why there's new base classes despite the fact the DMG says there's only the PHB base classes... new books that add a specific base class override the DMG's more general statement (even though the DMG is the primary source). Same thing here.

JaronK

[Zeful]

The whole point of this thread is to take rules that get interpreted badly sometimes (or which are otherwise unclear) and make a common sense, clearly stated rule out of them. It's not a fallacy, it's proof that this rule can be interpreted badly.

You misunderstand, your statement that you were reflecting other players is an Appeal to Popularity. Popular opinion states something thus it must be true. That's a logical fallacy.

And the rules will always "be unclear" due to one of three reasons.

1.)The rules are not written in plain, unambiguous English
2.)The rules are not written in obtrusive, hard to understand legalize
3.)Theoretical Optimizers, the reason why both previous reasons also become bad game design.

It does say that Kobolds have all the requirements to be True Dragons, and states that they're made of nothing but True Dragon blood (created when all the rest of the True Dragons were created, out of the same original dragons), and it says that they're all either Chromatic or Metallic. Good enough?

No. I want the citing that "Kobolds are true dragons" as a definitive statement in the text. After all you've stated that there are definitive factual statements that say such in the book. Cite them.

They advance through age categories by getting older (see Races of the Dragon, which lists their age categories and when they reach them). In fact, a Kobold that just gets old enough actually can advance by age categories via those virtual age category rules... that would, in fact, be their only racial HD. A Great Wyrm Dragonwrought Kobold could theoretically gain 3 racial HD and then become an advanced dragon as per the Advanced Dragon rules, because all Dragons that have those 12 age categories do that. The only problem is that the current rules state that this happens for all hit dice, not just racial ones.

And how does that fit common sense at all? You seem to be starting at the end goal and justifying rules to prove it. Especially when concerning issues of common sense. What does the phrase "advance through age categories" mean? By your reasoning, it just means growing older, which would make any creature with the dragon type and a listed set of age categories a true dragon, so of course Kobolds qualify.

Except, that's not how the language is presented in the Monster Manual, other wise you wouldn't have a chapter dedicated to making sure the DM uses the "Advancement" line properly. Heck, you wouldn't even call the advancement line in the book "advancement" if that was how it was intended to be read. It would also make the line in the case of the true dragons redundant, as they age, have age categories and are dragons, so why didn't they just do what the other entries do and just list hit dice range for each size and keep age to text dump stuff? Well, the answer is to set precedent. By linking the age categories to the monster's advancement in the stat block, you create a very firm context as to what "Advance through age categories" means. And that requires accepting that the people that wrote Races of Dragon got it wrong. After all with two competing theories, the one that makes the least assumptions is often the correct one. Accepting Dragonwrought Kobolds as true dragons requires not only assuming things about how true dragons work, the meaning of "grow more powerful with age", but also that the True Dragon entry in the monster manual is gibberish, and that the "advancement" line for every true dragon in the book is meaningless. Accepting them as not, only requires assuming that "advance by age category" is intended to be linked to the "advancement" line in the stat block of the true dragons.

[JaronK]

You misunderstand, your statement that you were reflecting other players is an Appeal to Popularity. Popular opinion states something thus it must be true. That's a logical fallacy.

No. I was stating that the rules could be misinterpreted. I then used the fact that people had misinterpreted them as proof that it could be misinterpreted. This is not about saying what ruling is correct, it's about saying that they can be interpreted multiple ways. It's called an example, and it's not a fallacy.

No. I want the citing that "Kobolds are true dragons" as a definitive statement in the text. After all you've stated that there are definitive factual statements that say such in the book. Cite them.

Page 87, Dragon Magic, states that all creatures of the Dragon type that have twelve age categories are True Dragons. Page 39 of Races of the Dragon says that Kobolds have twelve age categories, and Dragonwrought makes them dragons. It also says that they're Metallic or Chromatic (which are two types of True Dragons). Is that sufficient? I mean really, how many sources do we need to pull out here? They all agree unless you try to interpret them in some strange way (by weirdly parsing out "advancing" or "more powerful" or something).

JaronK

[Zeful]

(by weirdly parsing out "advancing" or "more powerful" or something).

Pointing out how the language we use to communicate works is "weird"?

Well, no point bothering with this any longer.

[JaronK]

Pointing out how the language we use to communicate works is "weird"?

Well, no point bothering with this any longer.

Well, considering the DMG straight up says that characters with higher stats are more powerful, and Kobolds get higher stats just by getting older, you have to parse things pretty weirdly to claim that Kobolds don't get more powerful as they get older.

Likewise, trying to argue that they're not True Dragons even though they have 12 age categories and are of the Dragon type and Dragon Magic says True Dragons are creatures of the Dragon type with 12 age categories requires some really weird parsing as well.

And claiming that a creature doesn't advance through age categories as it ages when it has age categories that it passes through as it ages is even more weird parsing.

Like I said... you need to do some convulted, weird parsing to make it not fit.

JaronK

[Zeful]

{scrubbed}

[JaronK]

In what context, precisely, does that Dragon Magic (page 87) quote not answer the question once and for all? In context, it's about making Dragon Pacts, which can only be made with True Dragons. It then says, and I quote:

To make a dragonpact, a sorcerer of 4th level or higher (that is, a character with at least four levels of sorcerer) must undertake a mystic ceremony in which he establishes mental contact with a true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon).

I think any reasonable reading there would say that the requirements are that you A) be of the dragon type and B) have twelve age categories. Feel free to check the source material to make sure nothing's out of context there.

Now... do Kobolds have twelve age categories? Are Dragonwrought Kobolds of the Dragon type?

Are they then True Dragons?

Is there any other interpretation of Dragon Magic's definition, Draconomicon's definition, and Races of the Dragon's rules that does not create needless contradictions?

JaronK

[TypoNinja]

In what context, precisely, does that Dragon Magic (page 87) quote not answer the question once and for all? In context, it's about making Dragon Pacts, which can only be made with True Dragons. It then says, and I quote:



I think any reasonable reading there would say that the requirements are that you A) be of the dragon type and B) have twelve age categories. Feel free to check the source material to make sure nothing's out of context there.

Now... do Kobolds have twelve age categories? Are Dragonwrought Kobolds of the Dragon type?

Are they then True Dragons?

Is there any other interpretation of Dragon Magic's definition, Draconomicon's definition, and Races of the Dragon's rules that does not create needless contradictions?

JaronK

Ok, first off, you are using expository text to try and find a hard rule, iffy, but we'll let that one slide.

You still haven't examined the example Dragon as a PC from the Draconomicon it sounds like, because that example shows something intresting.

A Dragon PC is REQUIRED to take extra HD and LA as his dragon ages. A True dragon automatically gains the HD and LA for his age. This does not happen for any other creature.

That's the definition of getting stronger as it ages, this bad boy picks up ECL just by breathing.

Your definition of getting stronger is .. feeble. A creature that follows the same ageing progressions as the other 99% of the D&D world and simply took a feat to mitigate a penalty is on an entirely different level (way below) than a creature who gets as a bonus for simply growing old;

Breath weapon, SR, spells, every stat increasing, SLA's, Frightful Presence, size category increases.

That's getting stronger as you age, what Kobolds have achieved is "not getting weaker"

You want a common sense ruling to plug this problem you've invented? How about this. I define "Stronger" in this context as an increase large enough to trigger LA changes.

[JaronK]

Ok, first off, you are using expository text to try and find a hard rule, iffy, but we'll let that one slide.

Which? They straight up define True Dragon.

You still haven't examined the example Dragon as a PC from the Draconomicon it sounds like, because that example shows something intresting.

A Dragon PC is REQUIRED to take extra HD and LA as his dragon ages. A True dragon automatically gains the HD and LA for his age. This does not happen for any other creature.

So... how does that change what happens by RAW as far as Kobolds, vs what should happen by common sense?

Your definition of getting stronger is .. feeble.

It's the definition of powerful as defined by the DMG. Seriously. Page 170, "High Powered Characters."

A creature that follows the same ageing progressions as the other 99% of the D&D world and simply took a feat to mitigate a penalty is on an entirely different level (way below) than a creature who gets as a bonus for simply growing old;

It's a feat that removes the penalty and changes their type to dragon. And by RAW, we know what that means.

That's getting stronger as you age, what Kobolds have achieved is "not getting weaker"

Also it's becoming a "high powered character" according to the DMG.

You want a common sense ruling to plug this problem you've invented? How about this. I define "Stronger" in this context as an increase large enough to trigger LA changes.

Okay, but then you have to ignore the Dragon Magic ruling, and the DMG, plus you ignore the fact that non true dragons aren't supposed to have age categories (Draconomicon). That created contradictions, and is therefor wrong. If you can have an interpretation that creates no contradictions, and another that creates some, the first one is correct and the latter is false. Your definition of powerful (not stronger, it doesn't say stronger) contradicts the DMG and creates issues in Draconomicon and Dragon Magic. No good. Not common sense. Not sense at all.

JaronK

[TypoNinja]

snippity

And I'm out.

[toapat]

Are they then True Dragons?

JaronK

Not without a Draconis Fundamentum and nano-tube Skeletons.

unfortunately, we are missing a Dragonwrought Kobold to dissect.

[TuggyNE]

I'm trying to figure out why there's so much resistance to calling DWK true dragons and then slapping some restrictions on that to make sure the worst abuses aren't possible.

Fluff-wise, it seems plausible enough; mechanics-wise, it has been fairly convincingly argued in the past that they technically are not, but that this slight lack only restricts their cheesiness a little; it's rather obviously something that has often been misinterpreted in practice, and even rather often abused. So reducing the amount of cheese and preventing the fluff/mechanics opposition both seem like good goals.

Or, to put it another way: this is a real problem, and the common-sense solution seems plain. What's the holdup?

[JaronK]

I truly have no idea. It's one of those things that people get emotional about for some reason.

But I see nothing wrong with simply disallowing Kobolds having access to Sovereign Archetypes, explicitly dealing with the dragonblood auto qualification stuff, and explicitly stating that advanced dragon rules apply to racial hit dice only. It preserves the original intent of the rules while removing all abuse.

JaronK

[Zeful]

Or, to put it another way: this is a real problem, and the common-sense solution seems plain. What's the holdup?

Dragons, as depicted in the books, are creatures that inspire awe. Kobolds, by contrast are pretty magic special snowflakes that are now descended from dragons because people would not shut the ever loving hell up about how "special" they are. They're either loved by people who love their specialness, or hated by people that are tired of ****ing hearing about them.

Dragons, true dragons especially, are diminished by the inclusion of kobolds amongst their number.

[TuggyNE]

Dragons, as depicted in the books, are creatures that inspire awe. Kobolds, by contrast are pretty magic special snowflakes that are now descended from dragons because people would not shut the ever loving hell up about how "special" they are. They're either loved by people who love their specialness, or hated by people that are tired of ****ing hearing about them.

Dragons, true dragons especially, are diminished by the inclusion of kobolds amongst their number.

I see. I suppose I haven't been jaded by endless Kobold Sue backstories, because I figure the whole "kobolds are the red-headed stepchild of the dragon kind, except DWK, which are throwbacks that are almost vaguely up to dragon standards" thing is more funny than sad or annoying.

There's also the fact that, honestly, there's a lot of Mary Sue-ish races out there, and kobolds are nowhere near the worst of the lot, to my knowledge. Drow, and regular elves, and some elf variants, and dwarves, and halflings, and kender, and illumians, and azurins, and mephlings, and pixies, and thri-kreen, and illithids, and succubi, and on and on.

Still, I can understand the irrational and primal loathing overexposure to some stupidity brings. It's just that, well, it is irrational.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Thread locked. It's halfway to being a necro anyway and it's kind of a hostile mess in need of review. Don't expect this one to return.