New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 241 to 270 of 328
  1. - Top - End - #241
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Sovereign State of Denial

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    Ah, GiantITP, never change.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Hall View Post
    There's a reason why we bap your nose, not crucify you, for thread necromancy.

  2. - Top - End - #242
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Nifft's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    Quote Originally Posted by Tonymitsu View Post
    What point are you trying to make here?
    So the text in Races of the Dragon which explicitly decries half-dragons as varieties of true dragons only has authority over half-dragons.

    ...Uh...
    ...Yes?
    You do remember how exception-based rules work?
    Yes, they work like this:

    - For the purpose of creating a Half-Dragon, this is what True Dragon means.
    - For all other purposes, that list is meaningless, since plenty of other True Dragons exist.
    - Yellow Dragons are True Dragons, but they're not on the list: HOW DO WE RESOLVE THIS?

    Your (bad) idea: "The Half-Dragon specific list is general, and general trumps specific, so Yellow Dragons are not True Dragons. Therefore, neither are Dragonwrought Kobolds."

    The correct idea: "Dragonwrought Kobolds are not valid Half-Dragon True Dragons, because that's what the Half-Dragon specific rule says. For all other purposes, they are (or they aren't) independently."


    Quote Originally Posted by Tonymitsu View Post
    ...Seriously, are you sure you understand what being an "exception-based" ruleset means?
    Heh.

    Yes, and my interpretation works in a clear & simple way.

    It's funny that you're trying to lecture me on exception-based design while simultaneously trying to use a specific rule as if it were general.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tonymitsu View Post
    Or if your point was that the table has no ability to declare itself an authority on what is and is not a true dragon, well, don't blame me for that. Blame the text that precedes the table. The table is supposed to be an expanded list of true dragon varieties for the purposes of the half-dragon template. At a minimum, this proves that dragonwrought kobold is not a valid choice of heritage for that template.

    Why, if dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons, is that the case?
    You have said something correct: Dragonwrought Kobold is not a valid choice of heritage for the Half-Dragon template.

    Why, if Incarnum Dragons are true dragons, is it the case that they're also not a valid choice of heritage for the Half-Dragon template?

    Why, if Yellow Dragons are true dragons, is it the case that they're also not a valid choice of heritage for the Half-Dragon template?

    You can't answer those questions because there is no particular reason.

    Same answer for Dragonwrought Kobolds.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tonymitsu View Post
    You are really going to lecture me about "consistency"?
    No, that's what I did in the past.

    What I'm going to do going forward is try to provide gently humorous entertainment for those poor unfortunate souls trying to glean insight from this thread, in spite of the turgid eddy that is your argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tonymitsu View Post
    Because you know what would actually be inconsistent? Claiming that the text in the Dragon Compendium applies universally, after getting done arguing that the text in RotD with half-dragons only applies to half-dragons.
    Uh, nobody is claiming that Dragon Compendium applies universally.

    Rather, I'm claiming that Dragon Compendium provides a clear exception which proves your list cannot actually mean what you want it to mean.

    Exception-based design works perfectly. Your argument does not work. Your argument is not the same as exception-based design. Sorry if that's an unpleasant surprise for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tonymitsu View Post
    And now you are attacking the messenger because you do not like the message.
    FYI, accusations of ****-posting and trolling are against this boards TOS.

    Please don't do it again.
    I think you're the first person to mention trolling.

    ****posting is merely frowned upon here -- which is exactly what I said.

    Ironically, by trying to threaten me with the ToS, you might be violating the ToS: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1 => Search that page for Vigilante Modding in the Major Infractions section.

    Other than providing a link and text to search, I'm not going to discuss the ToS with you. Email a moderator for more specific guidance -- I ain't following you down that rabbit hole.

  3. - Top - End - #243
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Doctor Awkward's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Collegeville, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    Quote Originally Posted by Nifft View Post
    Yes, they work like this:

    - For the purpose of creating a Half-Dragon, this is what True Dragon means.
    - For all other purposes, that list is meaningless, since plenty of other True Dragons exist.
    - Yellow Dragons are True Dragons, but they're not on the list: HOW DO WE RESOLVE THIS?

    Your (bad) idea: "The Half-Dragon specific list is general, and general trumps specific, so Yellow Dragons are not True Dragons. Therefore, neither are Dragonwrought Kobolds."

    The correct idea: "Dragonwrought Kobolds are not valid Half-Dragon True Dragons, because that's what the Half-Dragon specific rule says. For all other purposes, they are (or they aren't) independently."
    That last bit there? This is the entire point.

    We have very clear definitions of what true dragons are. We have a manual of style established in the first Monster Manual for how stat blocks for true dragons are presented that is applied with universal consistency across every single 3.0/3.5 product. Whenever one of these entries contains even slight ambiguity on whether or not it might count as a true dragon, it contains text that explicitly says, "Yes it is."

    ...Except for dragonwrought kobolds...
    They meet none of the established criteria:
    Fluff
    -Their physiology is completely different (they are humanoid in size and shape, and lack the wings, the elongated necks, and so on)
    -Their biology is different (endothermic vs. exothermic, internal organs, and so on)

    Crunch
    -They do not advance through racial hit dice, they advance by character class

    The only thing they have in common is their creature typing, and their life-cycle developmental stages use the same names. That's it.

    But somehow they still must be true dragons...
    I wonder why that is?

    What truly boggles my mind about these assertions is that the exact same rules "dysfunctions" that are so frequently quoted as proof that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons also equally apply to half-dragon kobolds.

    But for some reason they must not be.
    I wonder why that is, as well?

    Heh.

    Yes, and my interpretation works in a clear & simple way.

    It's funny that you're trying to lecture me on exception-based design while simultaneously trying to use a specific rule as if it were general.


    You have said something correct: Dragonwrought Kobold is not a valid choice of heritage for the Half-Dragon template.

    Why, if Incarnum Dragons are true dragons, is it the case that they're also not a valid choice of heritage for the Half-Dragon template?

    Why, if Yellow Dragons are true dragons, is it the case that they're also not a valid choice of heritage for the Half-Dragon template?

    You can't answer those questions because there is no particular reason.

    Same answer for Dragonwrought Kobolds.
    Do you really not see the difference between failing to include a true dragon on an exhaustive list from an entirely different printed source, and failing to include one from the same source?

    They fail to appear on two separate lists.
    The authors also fail on multiple opportunities to explicitly state they are true dragons.

    By your own logic, this should, at best, create a rules dysfunction that leaves it ambiguous if they are or aren't.



    No, that's what I did in the past.

    What I'm going to do going forward is try to provide gently humorous entertainment for those poor unfortunate souls trying to glean insight from this thread, in spite of the turgid eddy that is your argument.
    Oh are we going back to personal attacks again? Well that's disappointing. But I'll oblige you:

    You're adorable when your sarcastic. You really are.

    What you also are is part of a (thankfully) rapidly-shrinking demographic of 3.5 players who hold the 3.5 ruleset in such contempt that you take ambiguity as license to ignore context and intent when interpreting them.

    That obnoxious approach to the game is not only annoying to your fellow players, but also intellectually dishonest and counter to the entire purpose of optimizing. Creating a mechanically optimal character is about working within the boundaries of the Rules as Written, and the parameters they establish. It's not about lawyering your way through them, using obvious editing mistakes to create new definitions that are so clearly beyond the original scope and designer intent that you might as well be ignoring the rules completely and making up your own. If you want a nickel's worth of free advice: you will always do your best work when you put limitations on yourself.

    The bright spot in this is that you will eventually leave this "awful" system behind, and move on to another game where you will no doubt find further rules issues that will allow you to stoke your smug sense of superiority.

    And message boards like these will be better off without you.
    Resident Mad Scientist...

    "It's so cool!"

    Spoiler: Contests
    Show
    VC I: Lord Commander Conrad Vayne, 1st place
    VC II: Lorna, the Mother's Wrath, 5th place
    VC XV: Tosk, Kursak the Marauder, Vierna Zalyl; 1st place, 6th/7th place
    Kitchen Crashers Protocol for Peace

    Quote Originally Posted by Troacctid View Post
    But that's one of the things about interpreting RAW—when you pick a reading that goes against RAI, it often has a ripple effect that results in dysfunctions in other places.

  4. - Top - End - #244
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Jan 2012

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    Quote Originally Posted by Tonymitsu View Post
    SNIP
    Bro. My man. You must be pretty high level to cast a firestorm that potent. Hopefully he invested in fire immunity.

  5. - Top - End - #245
    Troll in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    Quote Originally Posted by Tonymitsu View Post
    That last bit there? This is the entire point.

    We have very clear definitions of what true dragons are.
    Yeah thx due to Draconomicon page 4 and not MM..



    We have a manual of style established in the first Monster Manual for how stat blocks for true dragons are presented that is applied with universal consistency across every single 3.0/3.5 product. Whenever one of these entries contains even slight ambiguity on whether or not it might count as a true dragon, it contains text that explicitly says, "Yes it is."
    universal consitency != RAW
    That is extrapolated information and not actual rules. Nice that we talked about it..
    By RAW (Draconomicon P4), DWK disqualify themselves as lesser dragons and even qualify as True Dragon. You need to imply text what is not there on the page to come to other conclusions = RAI

    ...Except for dragonwrought kobolds...
    They meet none of the established criteria:
    Fluff
    -Their physiology is completely different (they are humanoid in size and shape, and lack the wings, the elongated necks, and so on)
    -Their biology is different (endothermic vs. exothermic, internal organs, and so on)
    As said, all these are just extrapolated things and no actual rules by RAW tied to being a true dragon. (Fluff is RAI, not RAW.) That is defined on Draconomicon p4. (btw, if you didn't notice, I am repeating myself until you will finally read P4 of Drac. and can separate between reading it RAW and RAI. I'll be gladly of help if you should have problems with any of the text part.)
    And btw, since DWK are specified as "Small dragon", I guess that trumps any of the things you are demanding (by RAI).

    Crunch
    -They do not advance through racial hit dice, they advance by character class
    Well, again... Draconomicon p4 doesn't demand "Advancement" by RAW. Cause Draconomicon p144 "Other True Dragons" enforces the DM to make tables for any True Dragon that lacks an Advancement-table. So "Advancement" can't be a requirement for being a true dragon by simple logic. The same simple logic even confirms that on Drac. p4 "advance" doesn't refer to "Advancement". Otherwise it would be a rule dysfunction.
    But you are ignoring that it would cause a dysfunction for the sake of trying to disprove DWK true dragon status.

    The only thing they have in common is their creature typing, and their life-cycle developmental stages use the same names. That's it.
    And by RAW just having "Age Categories" of any kind is enough. And btw, I guess we can assume that no other creatures (other than DWK and true dragons) have "Age Categories" cause nobody else could provide any so far (due to the request a few pages ago). So it seems only DWK and other true dragons have age categories, which further proved the interpretation that DWK count as true dragons by RAW valid.


    What truly boggles my mind about these assertions is that the exact same rules "dysfunctions" that are so frequently quoted as proof that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons also equally apply to half-dragon kobolds.

    But for some reason they must not be.
    I wonder why that is, as well?



    Do you really not see the difference between failing to include a true dragon on an exhaustive list from an entirely different printed source, and failing to include one from the same source?

    They fail to appear on two separate lists.
    The authors also fail on multiple opportunities to explicitly state they are true dragons.

    By your own logic, this should, at best, create a rules dysfunction that leaves it ambiguous if they are or aren't.
    As I showed you earlier, the dysfunction only appears if you see it the RAI way and start to extrapolate infos and try to view it as some kind of general rule (RAI).
    But RAW doesn't cause/have these problems. The problems comes from RAI if you take advance as Advancement and such things.

    If you would/could once read page 4 of Draconomicon the RAW way, you would understand. But somehow you can't stop yourself from bringing intentions into play and references that aren't provided by the (RAW) text on the page itself.
    Pls try it at least. Reading just the text as it is given, without switching words into keywords. It's really simple imho...

  6. - Top - End - #246
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Scots Dragon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Trapped in England
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    Quote Originally Posted by Gruftzwerg View Post
    universal consitency != RAW
    That is extrapolated information and not actual rules. Nice that we talked about it..
    If the rules are written consistently so that things apply the same way in every case, is that not rules as written?

    Does it need to be explicitly stated when it's explicitly shown?

  7. - Top - End - #247
    Troll in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    Quote Originally Posted by Narsil View Post
    If the rules are written consistently so that things apply the same way in every case, is that not rules as written?

    Does it need to be explicitly stated when it's explicitly shown?
    For Rules As Intended, no you don't need to explicitly state it and may imply it.

    For Rules As Written, yes. Without clear introductions, you may not extrapolate rules, just because it is consistent. RAW is word and rule lawyering as stated several times.
    edit: have a look at draconomicon p144 "other true dragons". There you have explicit rules where you are forced to extrapolate infos from tables. The rules say so if you have to, otherwise you may not do it by RAW.
    end of edit:


    Again, RAW doesn't has to be how people actually play at tables, so don't mix these things up pls. We all play "how the DM sees the rules" and not RAW. Even if the DM is claiming that he wants to play RAW. Since most people fail at distinguishing between RAI and RAW and those who can know that it makes no sense to play RAW. Do you really want to play with things like "healing by drowning"? I guess not.
    But that doesn't change this discussion. The forum prefers to make RAW claims since it makes other discussions more easy (e.g. TO threads). RAI can be often viewed from different positions and thus leaves to many problems when you want to discuss things in the forum in a competitive way. And thus people try to separate RAW and RAI.

  8. - Top - End - #248
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Doctor Awkward's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Collegeville, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    Quote Originally Posted by Gruftzwerg View Post
    RAW is word and rule lawyering as stated several times.
    No it isn't, as was explained several times.

    There are many guidelines for interpreting the Rules As Written and how to approach the exact text that is stated. And they include contextual definitions, a glossary when needed, and a judicious application of common sense,

    You are the only person here who operates under the assumption that rules-lawyering is appropriate for discussing character optimization.



    Since most people fail at distinguishing between RAI and RAW and those who can know that it makes no sense to play RAW
    This is by far the most ironic thing you have posted in this entire thread.

    As you've admitted you operate under the assumption that rules-lawyering counts as RAW, and that term is by definition personal interpretation.

    The whole point of having Rules As Written is so that we can leave personal interpretation out of the discussion when examining optimal character choices. Working from the same set of rules makes threads like these completely unnecessary.

    You have never once argued the Rules As Written. You have, and continue to, argue the Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong.
    Resident Mad Scientist...

    "It's so cool!"

    Spoiler: Contests
    Show
    VC I: Lord Commander Conrad Vayne, 1st place
    VC II: Lorna, the Mother's Wrath, 5th place
    VC XV: Tosk, Kursak the Marauder, Vierna Zalyl; 1st place, 6th/7th place
    Kitchen Crashers Protocol for Peace

    Quote Originally Posted by Troacctid View Post
    But that's one of the things about interpreting RAW—when you pick a reading that goes against RAI, it often has a ripple effect that results in dysfunctions in other places.

  9. - Top - End - #249
    Troll in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    Quote Originally Posted by Tonymitsu View Post
    No it isn't, as was explained several times.

    There are many guidelines for interpreting the Rules As Written and how to approach the exact text that is stated. And they include contextual definitions, a glossary when needed, and a judicious application of common sense,

    You are the only person here who operates under the assumption that rules-lawyering is appropriate for discussing character optimization.





    This is by far the most ironic thing you have posted in this entire thread.

    As you've admitted you operate under the assumption that rules-lawyering counts as RAW, and that term is by definition personal interpretation.

    The whole point of having Rules As Written is so that we can leave personal interpretation out of the discussion when examining optimal character choices. Working from the same set of rules makes threads like these completely unnecessary.
    You seem to think that RAW is something supposed to free of bugs but ain't the chase. Have a look at the Rules Dysfunction series here in the forum.
    If RAW ain't rule-lawyering, than what is "healing by drowning" as simple example again? Rules as intended? I bet not. It is RAW and it makes no sense at all (in real word terms) and no table would actually play with it (beside for a few fun sessions maybe..).
    RAW ain't the holy grail of rules where everything stops making problems and start to harmonize everywhere. In fact, the opposite is the chase. 3.5 RAW is a mess (maybe only 5% is messed up, but that 5% is enough to cause problems like this one here..), and if you can't handle that, then I'm sorry for you.

    There are many guidelines for interpreting the Rules As Written and how to approach the exact text that is stated. And they include contextual definitions, a glossary when needed, and a judicious application of common sense,
    You only "fall back" to thinks like contextual definitions and common sense if the rules don't cover something up. But that is not the chase here. We can prove that DWK are not lesser dragons, and we can prove that DWK are true dragons by the definition of Dracoconicon P.4.
    And this interpretation even harmonies with the "other true dragon" paragraph on p144. While your interpretation would cause a dysfunction. But you are still ignoring that fact and just focus on your attempt to disprove them DWK. Would you stop deciding the outcome in advance? You don't follow your own advices..
    How about stopping your attempt to disprove DWK true dragon status for just a moment and try to explain the dysfuntion caused by your interpretation? Would you be so kind?

    You have never once argued the Rules As Written. You have, and continue to, argue the Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong.
    Imho it's you who is showing this behavior here.
    While I am open for other interpretation and views (see the other thread where I was convinced that Whirlwind can be viewed in another way), you are sitting on your arguments and don't wanna change em as it seems. You assume that RAW has to work and involves common sense. Where is the common sense of "healing by drowning"? There is none. Only in the world of RAW & rule-lawyering. It has nothing to do with RAI.

    You change word into keywords to make your point look more valid, but that is something that belongs to RAI and not to RAW. Get the difference. You are always talking about RAI and keep arguing that it is RAW.

    If RAW involves common sense, then what in the word is RAI supposed to be??? How do you distinguish these two, if RAW already involves common sense, contextual definition & blaa...???
    Explain it pls

  10. - Top - End - #250
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Doctor Awkward's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Collegeville, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    Quote Originally Posted by Gruftzwerg View Post
    If RAW involves common sense, then what in the word is RAI supposed to be??? How do you distinguish these two, if RAW already involves common sense, contextual definition & blaa...???
    Explain it pls
    Rules As Intended are author recommendations for how a DM should rule in his game when encountering an actual ambiguity, or text that is otherwise unclear. It is something invoked during a game whenever you have text that does not otherwise clearly indicate author intent.

    Here's an examples of a "rules-lawyered" ambiguity vs an actual rule ambiguity conveniently located within one piece of rules text:

    -Iron Heart Surge-
    The Fake ambiguity:
    It's an uncommon, though not unheard of, interpretation of this maneuver that if you are currently subject to a status effect that is preventing you from taking standard actions, you technically cannot initiate this maneuver. This is quite clearly against the flavor and mechanical intent, which is for you to spend your standard action for the round eliminating something that otherwise impedes you in some way, regardless of what that way is.

    Despite the fact that it does not contain text, "You may initiate this maneuver even if you are subject to a spell, effect, or condition that would otherwise prevent you from taking any actions.", you quite clearly can based solely on the wording that is present. Including that extra line of text would have been redundant and unnecessary.


    The Actual ambiguity:
    The exact text states "When you use this maneuver, select one spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds."

    "Spell" is obvious. "Effect" is also fairly consistently defined, though still possibly open to interpretion. However, "condition" is very much an unknown quantity. Lacking any other context to go on, the scope of what what this maneuver is capable of working on seems to be almost entirely up to what the DM wishes to allow it to work on.

    When I run games, I limit the maneuver's scope solely to what is present on the Condition Summary (aside from obvious things, like "Dead", and certain other ones of my choosing, like "Pinned" and "Prone"). Because, in my opinion, that is what the authors intended.

    But that is my interpretation, and I have no way of proving that I am correct.




    The concept of Rules As Written vs. Rules As Intended is not, and was never meant to be, license to ignore context and invent your own interpretations for text in which intent is blatantly obvious, but specific words and phrases that forbid alternate interpretations are not present. If you have ten tables attempting to interpret the 3.5 ruleset using rules technicalities, you will have ten tables playing ten entirely different games.

    Even if such technicalities have their place in the theoretical, they are not useful constructs for the purposes of optimization. For reasons which at this point, I hope, are abundantly clear.
    Resident Mad Scientist...

    "It's so cool!"

    Spoiler: Contests
    Show
    VC I: Lord Commander Conrad Vayne, 1st place
    VC II: Lorna, the Mother's Wrath, 5th place
    VC XV: Tosk, Kursak the Marauder, Vierna Zalyl; 1st place, 6th/7th place
    Kitchen Crashers Protocol for Peace

    Quote Originally Posted by Troacctid View Post
    But that's one of the things about interpreting RAW—when you pick a reading that goes against RAI, it often has a ripple effect that results in dysfunctions in other places.

  11. - Top - End - #251
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Scots Dragon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Trapped in England
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    Quote Originally Posted by Tonymitsu View Post
    "Spell" is obvious. "Effect" is also fairly consistently defined, though still possibly open to interpretion. However, "condition" is very much an unknown quantity. Lacking any other context to go on, the scope of what what this maneuver is capable of working on seems to be almost entirely up to what the DM wishes to allow it to work on.

    When I run games, I limit the maneuver's scope solely to what is present on the Condition Summary (aside from obvious things, like "Dead", and certain other ones of my choosing, like "Pinned" and "Prone"). Because, in my opinion, that is what the authors intended.
    I'd actually argue that pinned can qualify for Iron Heart Surge. Prone makes no sense 'cause it's just a move action to stand up, but pinned actually makes plenty of sense. At least in my own opinion.

    Your valiant warrior hero mustering up their effort and willpower to escape the grapple of an otherwise stronger or more skilled foe is one of the classical heroic manoeuvres that would be covered under Iron Heart Surge.

  12. - Top - End - #252
    Troll in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    Quote Originally Posted by Tonymitsu View Post
    Rules As Intended are author recommendations for how a DM should rule in his game when encountering an actual ambiguity, or text that is otherwise unclear. It is something invoked during a game whenever you have text that does not otherwise clearly indicate author intent.

    *snip*

    The concept of Rules As Written vs. Rules As Intended is not, and was never meant to be, license to ignore context and invent your own interpretations for text in which intent is blatantly obvious, but specific words and phrases that forbid alternate interpretations are not present. If you have ten tables attempting to interpret the 3.5 ruleset using rules technicalities, you will have ten tables playing ten entirely different games.

    Even if such technicalities have their place in the theoretical, they are not useful constructs for the purposes of optimization. For reasons which at this point, I hope, are abundantly clear.
    Yeah, when we talk about RAI, we try to guess what the intention of the designer(s) might have been.
    RAI is used to correct RAW in the errata. But that doesn't change the limits of RAW.

    When we talk about context in 3.5 terms, it's the presence and absence of keywords what limits us. And you may not interpret keywords into non keywords.
    Otherwise it would become a problem, if the intent is to talk about something that sounds like / is similar to a keyword, but has nothing to do with it. Everybody would imply the keyword and it would end in a mess. That's the reason behind the exact use of keywords/-terms.

    Draconomicon P4 had 2 (!) opportunities to use "Advancement".
    First for counting as true dragon and the other is to disqualify as lesser dragon. But for some reason (as it seems to me) they avoided the use of "Advancement".
    The reason is "Other True Dragons" on P144. Advancement can't be a requirement if the same book tells you that those true dragons who lack it, have to gain it by the DM.

    I'm still waiting for your explanation how your interpretation works with the "other true dragons" gain Advancement rule without causing rule dysfunctions...

  13. - Top - End - #253
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    Quote Originally Posted by Gruftzwerg View Post
    The reason is "Other True Dragons" on P144. Advancement can't be a requirement if the same book tells you that those true dragons who lack it, have to gain it by the DM.

    I'm still waiting for your explanation how your interpretation works with the "other true dragons" gain Advancement rule without causing rule dysfunctions...
    The rule on page 144 of the Draconomicon that you continue to refer to applies only to true dragons as player characters and tells the DM that if someone wants to play a true dragon type other than the ten listed in the Monster Manual, whose advancement tables are compiled in table 3-21 on the previous page of the book, then the DM will have to create these LA- and HD-advancement tables themselves, using the information in table 3-22.

    Furthermore, if you'd continue to read the entirety of the rules rather than cherry-picking those you think help you make your case, you'd see that ALSO on page 144 there's an entire other section of rules entitled "Lesser Dragon PCs", which explicitly states:
    Quote Originally Posted by Draconomicon pg. 144
    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.
    So in light of these rules, a few quick questions neatly resolve this issue, and (spoiler alert) not in your favor:


    1. Do DWK's have the Dragon type? Yes.
    2. Do they have a set (that means unchanging) level adjustment? Yes.
    3. Do they have built-in progression due to age? No.
    4. Is there any reason (or for that matter, ability) to advance the DWK as a kobold? No.


    Thus, by the letter of the rules, Dragonwrought Kobolds meet any and every criteria for being a lesser dragon, and one of the criteria for being a true dragon (having the dragon type, BFD ).

    Seriously, give it up. We all know you won't though, and will likely try to find some way to refute this. Before you do, though, please be so kind as to succinctly restate your reasoning so those just tuning in can catch up.

  14. - Top - End - #254
    Troll in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2014

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    I don't understand why people are trying to argue each other into submission. The edifice of Ego cannot stand with such low quality building supplies.

    I think DW kobolds were left ambiguous on the true dragon point. You really have to look for the ambiguity though.

    Each piece of supporting evidence of DWkolbolds being true dragons is carried by a low percentage chance that the argument can prevail.

    1. DWkobolds are dragon type. 100% agreement.
    a. No. Go to 3.
    b. Yes. Go to 2.

    2. DWkobolds have age 12 age categories
    a. No. Go to 3
    b. Yes. Go to 4.

    3. DWkobolds are not true dragons. You're done arguing.

    4. DWkobolds advance through those 12 age categories
    a. No. Go to 3.
    b. Yes. age bonuses, class level powers, size, etc. all "advance a creature" go to 5.

    5. DWkobolds are true dragons.


    The sub arguments about tables being exhaustive and true dragon advance through vs. advancement all come down to whether the rules are capable of being interpreted in such a way, with good faith arguments that DWkobolds are indeed true dragons. And arguments about DWkobolds do absolutely make this cut. Look at how the conversation turned towards defined terms and source primacy. The argument that DWKobolds aren't true dragons isn't unassailable. The mishmash and poor editorial standards (or willful imposition of nonclarity) does carve out space where one can, by RAW, have a true dragon kobold, but it is atypical of all other true dragons.

  15. - Top - End - #255
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    Quote Originally Posted by daremetoidareyo View Post
    SNIP......
    You should save this and post it at the start of the next DWK thread, may save everyone some time!
    Currently Playing: Aire Romaris Chaotic Good Male Half Celestial Gray Elf Duskblade 13 / Swiftblade 7 /// Elven Generallist Wizard 20

  16. - Top - End - #256
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Troacctid's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    California
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    The only way we can have that debate is if we ignore the more detailed rules on advancement by age in the Draconomicon, which disqualify kobolds pretty unambiguously. (Gruftzwerg's claim that kobolds can meet those criteria provided the DM houserules them to have completely different stats is of course obviously absurd.)
    Last edited by Troacctid; 2018-01-16 at 06:41 PM.

  17. - Top - End - #257
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    Quote Originally Posted by ghostshadow View Post
    You should save this and post it at the start of the next DWK thread, may save everyone some time!
    I think the ship have already been sailed at that point.

  18. - Top - End - #258
    Troll in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkSoul View Post
    The rule on page 144 of the Draconomicon that you continue to refer to applies only to true dragons as player characters and tells the DM that if someone wants to play a true dragon type other than the ten listed in the Monster Manual, whose advancement tables are compiled in table 3-21 on the previous page of the book, then the DM will have to create these LA- and HD-advancement tables themselves, using the information in table 3-22.
    The text ain't sole limited for dragons in table 3-21. The text targets:
    For true dragons other than those found in the Monster Manual
    So, try again pls. Show me how your interpretation doesn't cause a dysfunction pls.. How you can require something to count as true dragon, when you give it for free for being a true dragon..


    Furthermore, if you'd continue to read the entirety of the rules rather than cherry-picking those you think help you make your case, you'd see that ALSO on page 144 there's an entire other section of rules entitled "Lesser Dragon PCs", which explicitly states:
    So in light of these rules, a few quick questions neatly resolve this issue, and (spoiler alert) not in your favor:


    1. Do DWK's have the Dragon type? Yes.
    2. Do they have a set (that means unchanging) level adjustment? Yes.
    3. Do they have built-in progression due to age? No.
    4. Is there any reason (or for that matter, ability) to advance the DWK as a kobold? No.


    Thus, by the letter of the rules, Dragonwrought Kobolds meet any and every criteria for being a lesser dragon, and one of the criteria for being a true dragon (having the dragon type, BFD ).
    I'm cherry-picking? Let me show you where you are cherry-picking.

    First thing Draconomicon tells you about Lesser Dragons is on P4 and in this first sentence DWK already disqualify as Lesser Dragons due to having Age Categories. That is first class cherry-picking imho.

    1. Do DWK's have the Dragon type? Yes.
    2. Do they have a set (that means unchanging) level adjustment? Being a true dragon they get LA determined by the DM as "Other True Dragons" enforces him.
    3. Do they have built-in progression due to age? You extrapolate requirements for not being a lesser dragon into rules of requirement for being a true dragon. But that's wrong. Having built-in progression only disqualifies you as lesser dragon, but is not a requirement for being a true dragon (which would cause a rule dysfunction if it would be, but happily this ain't the chase here). It's your extrapolated rules that cause a dysfunction, while we have an interpretation of the RAW text that doesn't cause a dysfunction.
    4. Is there any reason (or for that matter, ability) to advance the DWK as a kobold? Depends on the DM and what kind of Advancement he sees fit for a DWK..



    Seriously, give it up. We all know you won't though, and will likely try to find some way to refute this. Before you do, though, please be so kind as to succinctly restate your reasoning so those just tuning in can catch up.
    How about you give up on give me up and provoking me and talking like you can talk for the entire forum. I don't think you have the right to demand that someone give up a discussion, just because you feel so nor have you the right to speak for everyone in the forum. What kind of attitude is this?

  19. - Top - End - #259
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Scots Dragon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Trapped in England
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    Quote Originally Posted by Gruftzwerg View Post
    First thing Draconomicon tells you about Lesser Dragons is on P4 and in this first sentence DWK already disqualify as Lesser Dragons due to having Age Categories.
    Actually they do not, and I've already said this.
    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 specific wording is that they do not advance through age categories. Not that they do not necessarily have them, and the word advance here is actually important because it actually does seem to refer to advancement given that this is the primary reason why true dragons are as they are.

    For instance, let's look at the advancement for a true dragon according to the Monster Manual, the black dragon in this case;
    Advancement: Wyrmling 5–6 HD; very young 8–9 HD; young 11–12 HD; juvenile 14–15 HD; young adult 17–18 HD; adult 20–21 HD; mature adult 23–24 HD; old 26–27 HD; very old 29–30 HD; ancient 32–33 HD; wyrm 35–36 HD; great wyrm 38+ HD

    In contrast, let's look at the advancement for a lesser dragon according to the same, the wyvern in this case...
    Advancement: 8–10 HD (Large); 11–21 HD (Huge)
    .. and for a humanoid whose type has been changed to dragon, the sample example of a half-dragon, which uses a 4th-level human fighter as the base;
    Advancement: By character class
    If a creature with the dragon type were to have age categories but not use them for advancement in terms of hit dice or effective 'level', or for any other form of advancement or increase in power, then they would not be quantified as true dragons but instead as lesser dragons. This is the spot that dragonwrought kobolds occupy, thus they are lesser dragons. Perhaps not even that, given that they're not even a template but a feat taken at first level that changes creature type and allows for taking certain feats that furnish them with certain extra abilities. There is literally nothing more to the dragonwrought kobold than that, and the only reason to argue that they're true dragons is in order to gain access to theoretical optimisation garbage that would get the DMG thrown at your head at any reasonable table.

  20. - Top - End - #260
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Troacctid's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    California
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    Also—
    For true dragons other than those found in the Monster Manual
    Kobolds are in the Monster Manual, Gruftzwerg. So how are you applying this rule to them?

  21. - Top - End - #261
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Remuko's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    New York
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    Quote Originally Posted by Troacctid View Post
    Also—

    Kobolds are in the Monster Manual, Gruftzwerg. So how are you applying this rule to them?
    Kobolds are there, but Dragonwrought Kobolds arent. Dragonwrought Kobolds are Dragons (even if not true), normal Kobolds aren't.

  22. - Top - End - #262
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Troacctid's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    California
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    Dragonwrought is a feat, not a separate race.

  23. - Top - End - #263
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Remuko's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    New York
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    Quote Originally Posted by Troacctid View Post
    Dragonwrought is a feat, not a separate race.
    Irrelevant. DW Kobolds are not the same thing as Kobolds. Their type is even different. If we assume (whether you believe it or not) that DW Kobolds are a True Dragon, either way Normal Kobolds are not, so of course DW Kobolds as True Dragons arent in the Monster Manual. Normal Kobolds being there means literally nothing.

  24. - Top - End - #264
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    So let me get this straight: Your response to me quoting the RAW, which you're so fond of, is (at least in part) "It's up to the DM."? That's almost the opposite of following the Rules As Written.

    Do keep in mind that you're one of a very few people (two, that I can remember in this thread) who's defended the idea that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons, in spite of RAW evidence to the contrary, that you can't refute without saying "It depends on the DM." So I feel pretty confident that I'm saying what a majority of the forum believes, or at least those who've chimed in here.

    Also, there is no rules dysfunction. The Dragonwrought feat changes a Kobold's type to Dragon. That's it. If it made it count as a true dragon, it would say so. If kobolds gained even one hit point per age category, I'd completely agree, but they don't. The only thing on their age category table is the span of years that comprise each category. Compare that table to every single true dragon's aging table, and if you still think they somehow become stronger due to their age in the same manner as a true dragon does... well, I don't know what to tell you other than you've progressed beyond following your vaunted Rules As Written.

    Finally, I'm not demanding that you give up a discussion, but your reasoning thus far has been refuted (several times, and ways), so continuing to rehash the same arguments is very likely going to end up with you feeling "provoked" again. But we're not here to protect your feelings and you've done little to nothing to prove your interpretation of the rules in any way follows what's actually printed in the books, without cherry-picking lines of text that support your position when read with no context, instead of within the entire framework of the rules.

    I'll agree to disagree with you and leave it at that, unless you decide to quote me again.

  25. - Top - End - #265
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Troacctid's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    California
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    Quote Originally Posted by Remuko View Post
    Irrelevant. DW Kobolds are not the same thing as Kobolds. Their type is even different. If we assume (whether you believe it or not) that DW Kobolds are a True Dragon, either way Normal Kobolds are not, so of course DW Kobolds as True Dragons arent in the Monster Manual. Normal Kobolds being there means literally nothing.
    While "Kobold with feat A" is technically not the exact same thing as "Kobold with feat B," they are both still kobolds. They just have different feats.

  26. - Top - End - #266
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Luccan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    The Old West

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    Quote Originally Posted by Troacctid View Post
    While "Kobold with feat A" is technically not the exact same thing as "Kobold with feat B," they are both still kobolds. They just have different feats.
    Them both being kobolds (and one, at least, obviously not being a true dragon) doesn't mean the one that literally changes its type to Dragon is automatically not a true dragon. Personally, I've said my piece on not caring either way, but just because regular kobolds aren't listed as true dragons doesn't mean that Dragonwrought kobolds (which at least have the dragon type) can't be. They may not be, but it seems to me that that would have very little to do with them being kobolds and more to do with what the Dragonwrought feat ultimately does. Which again, should probably be more subject to what effect a table wants it to have than what some potential rules weirdness causes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nifft View Post
    All Roads Lead to Gnome.

    I for one support the Gnoman Empire.
    Avatar by linklele

    Spoiler: Build Contests
    Show

    E6 Iron Chef XVI Shared First Place: Black Wing

    E6 Iron Chef XXI Shared Second Place: The Shadow's Hand


  27. - Top - End - #267
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Troacctid's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    California
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    Quote Originally Posted by Luccan View Post
    Them both being kobolds (and one, at least, obviously not being a true dragon) doesn't mean the one that literally changes its type to Dragon is automatically not a true dragon. Personally, I've said my piece on not caring either way, but just because regular kobolds aren't listed as true dragons doesn't mean that Dragonwrought kobolds (which at least have the dragon type) can't be. They may not be, but it seems to me that that would have very little to do with them being kobolds and more to do with what the Dragonwrought feat ultimately does. Which again, should probably be more subject to what effect a table wants it to have than what some potential rules weirdness causes.
    I think you may have missed some of the previous citations. To recap:

    True dragons have advancement by age; dragonwrought kobolds do not. And there's no meaningful ambiguity in that definition, because Draconomicon expounds upon it at great length in Chapter 3, explaining that true dragons increase their HD and LA as they get older, while lesser dragons have a set level adjustment and no built-in progression due to age.

    The reason I'm talking about kobolds being in the Monster Manual is because Gruftzwerg has repeatedly insisted that the DM can use this rule

    ...to construct a table for dragonwrought kobolds and give them a variable level adjustment and progression due to age, thereby qualifying them as true dragons. Setting aside the obvious circularity of this argument (in order for that rule to be relevant, they'd need to already be true dragons without it, or it wouldn't apply to them) and the absurdity of calling in houserules that don't appear in the book and claiming them as RAW—kobolds are in the Monster Manual, so even if you were to grant all that nonsense, that passage still isn't relevant for them.
    Last edited by Troacctid; 2018-01-19 at 12:18 AM.

  28. - Top - End - #268
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Luccan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    The Old West

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    Quote Originally Posted by Troacctid View Post
    I think you may have missed some of the previous citations. To recap:

    True dragons have advancement by age; dragonwrought kobolds do not. And there's no meaningful ambiguity in that definition, because Draconomicon expounds upon it at great length in Chapter 3, explaining that true dragons increase their HD and LA as they get older, while lesser dragons have a set level adjustment and no built-in progression due to age.

    The reason I'm talking about kobolds being in the Monster Manual is because Gruftzwerg has repeatedly insisted that the DM can use this rule

    ...to construct a table for dragonwrought kobolds and give them a variable level adjustment and progression due to age, thereby qualifying them as true dragons. Setting aside the obvious circularity of this argument (in order for that rule to be relevant, they'd need to already be true dragons without it, or it wouldn't apply to them) and the absurdity of calling in houserules that don't appear in the book and claiming them as RAW—kobolds are in the Monster Manual, so even if you were to grant all that nonsense, that passage still isn't relevant for them.
    Ah, thanks, that makes more sense. I see the issue now.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nifft View Post
    All Roads Lead to Gnome.

    I for one support the Gnoman Empire.
    Avatar by linklele

    Spoiler: Build Contests
    Show

    E6 Iron Chef XVI Shared First Place: Black Wing

    E6 Iron Chef XXI Shared Second Place: The Shadow's Hand


  29. - Top - End - #269
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2007

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    Quote Originally Posted by Luccan View Post
    Ah, thanks, that makes more sense. I see the issue now.
    I think you are still missing part of it through. Take a step back and realize that Luccan and the ever verbal Gruftzwerg are essentially arguing the DM needs to make up their exact level adjustment. In any other debate, claiming houserules are required for something to work is a red herring for a lost argument but their personal bias blinds them to this and it is likely affecting you too.

    And since the level adjustment is based on age category. Do you really think the misinterpretation that venerable kobold's ability to select (but not use, see phb/cw) an epic feat is really worth starting with up to six levels of adjustment? Even if your DM also misinterpreted who can actually use lore drake and use that as well you are still giving up access to 9th, and even 8th, level spells. No one actively commits fallacy after fallacy following or obeying anything either, they are here to validate their desired result. And their result as they have defined it is such a terrible choice it's virtually unplayable. Most sorcerers could take odd levels in fighter and still end up a better spellcaster.
    Last edited by Mato; 2018-01-19 at 04:03 PM.

  30. - Top - End - #270
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Luccan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    The Old West

    Default Re: Dragonwrought kobold

    Quote Originally Posted by Mato View Post
    I think you are still missing part of it through. Take a step back and realize that Luccan and the ever verbal Gruftzwerg are essentially arguing the DM needs to make up their exact level adjustment. In any other debate, claiming houserules are required for something to work is a red herring for a lost argument but their personal bias blinds them to this and it is likely affecting you too.

    And since the level adjustment is based on age category. Do you really think the misinterpretation that venerable kobold's ability to select (but not use, see phb/cw) an epic feat is really worth starting with up to six levels of adjustment? Even if your DM also misinterpreted who can actually use lore drake and use that as well you are still giving up access to 9th, and even 8th, level spells. No one actively commits fallacy after fallacy following or obeying anything either, they are here to validate their desired result. And their result as they have defined it is such a terrible choice it's virtually unplayable. Most sorcerers could take odd levels in fighter and still end up a better spellcaster.
    Excuse me? I'm not arguing whether or not it is or should be a true dragon, I was simply attempting to make clear my thoughts on someones point (which I now admit I should have gone back and read through again to fully understand before posting, because I find I agree with what troacctid was saying). I have nothing to do with this LA stuff and frankly I stand by my point that the potential ambiguity of this argument means it should be decided by what is best for each group. I have almost nothing to do with this devolving debate.
    Last edited by Luccan; 2018-01-19 at 04:03 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nifft View Post
    All Roads Lead to Gnome.

    I for one support the Gnoman Empire.
    Avatar by linklele

    Spoiler: Build Contests
    Show

    E6 Iron Chef XVI Shared First Place: Black Wing

    E6 Iron Chef XXI Shared Second Place: The Shadow's Hand


Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •