Dragonwrought kobold

[Gruftzwerg]

Nowhere.

A dragon is a true dragon if it is explicitly called as such in the rules.
If it is not called as such, then per those same rules it is automatically a lesser dragon.

All other similarities are irrelevant.

Would you be so kind to point me to where that rule is? That they have to be called out as such (TD) explicitly?

In the meanwhile have a look at this:

Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance
through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons

Since DWK have those age categories and advance thru em, they are automatically disqualified as "lesser dragons", and thus only "true dragon" is left if I follow base logic..
Keep in mind that you get Advancement for free as true dragon and that it isn't a requirement.

There are no lesser dragons with age categories. Imho "Dragon Age Categories" are the sole requirement that all other "true dragons" share. For everything else like appearance, we have enough example of true dragons that don't fit that kind of description.

[Doctor Awkward]

Would you be so kind to point me to where that rule is? That they have to be called out as such (TD) explicitly?

The exact same page as the rule you just quoted.

Since DWK have those age categories and advance thru em, they are automatically disqualified as "lesser dragons", and thus only "true dragon" is left if I follow base logic..
Keep in mind that you get Advancement for free as true dragon and that it isn't a requirement.

There are no lesser dragons with age categories. Imho "Dragon Age Categories" are the sole requirement that all other "true dragons" share. For everything else like appearance, we have enough example of true dragons that don't fit that kind of description.

Kobolds do not advance through age categories.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/kobold.htm
As their monster entry clearly states, they advance "By character class".
The Dragonwrought feat does not change this. It changes only the things that it says it changes, namely their typing (to dragon), and adding a few features and abilities that are common among draconic creatures.

[Deophaun]

Keep in mind that you get Advancement for free as true dragon and that it isn't a requirement.

It's funny, but my dictionary had this exact quote next to the entry for circular reasoning.

[Vaern]

They have no bloodlines or any connections of True Dragons.

When Io offered the secret of creating life to the first true dragons, each of them severed a limb and kobolds coalesced from their spilt blood. So, one might say that they are bloodlines of true dragons. Literally.

[Nifft]

Kobolds do not advance through age categories.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/kobold.htm
As their monster entry clearly states, they advance "By character class".

You need to apply the Races of the Dragon update:

Spoiler: Races of the Dragon

Show

The Dragonwrought feat does not change this.

Correct, it's Races of the Dragon which changes all Kobolds to use the same 12 Age Categories as all True Dragons do.

However, regular Kobolds are humanoids -- they're not the Dragon type, so they can't be True Dragons.

The Dragonwrought feat changes the type of some Kobolds to Dragon.

Dragon type + 12 Age Categories => True Dragon.

Or so the ancient prophecy seems to imply.

[Deophaun]

You need to apply the Races of the Dragon update

Which still does not give them advancement. For the umpteenth time simply having age categories is not sufficient. So you can talk about them having age categories, or possessing age categories, or being given age categories, or having gone to Costco and gotten a great deal on age categories all you want, and it will never matter because they do not advance through them.

[umbergod]

And here I thought this matter, and "dread sorcerers" had finally been put to rest on here. Time is a circle dammit

[lylsyly]

And here I thought this matter, and "dread sorcerers" had finally been put to rest on here. Time is a circle dammit

You are kidding, aren't you, LOL. And since you mentioned "him" he will probably pop up.

This is what settled it for me a few debates ago.

The most important difference between the two, however, is that kobolds are cold-blooded creatures, and dragons are warmblooded.

[Nifft]

This is what settled it for me a few debates ago.

But Dragonwrought Kobolds are both kobolds and dragons.

Therefore, Dragonwrought Kobolds are both cold-blooded and warm-blooded.

[Luccan]

But Dragonwrought Kobolds are both kobolds and dragons.

Therefore, Dragonwrought Kobolds are both cold-blooded and warm-blooded.

They're hot and they're cold? So are they both yes and they're no? Are they wrong when it's right?

[Celestia]

This is what settled it for me a few debates ago.

Really? I mean, really? This isn't some sort of joke? Now, I'm not going to weigh in on either side of this debate, but I simply must address this because it is wrong in so many ways.

First, and most importantly, there are no mechanical definitions or rules about blood warmth. How in the world can something that is purely fluff have any sway on mechanics? That'd be like trying to claim that my character is proficient in longswords because she really likes them. Or that she can cast Time Stop at will because of something in her backstory. Whether or not dragons are warm-blooded and kobold are cold-blooded is entirely irrelevant to anything because there are no rules for it.

Secondly, all dragons are warm-blooded, not just the "true" ones, so how in the world does that serve to define true dragons? What's your next great argument? "True dragons are immune to paralysis and kobolds aren't?" Christ.

Third, being warm-blooded isn't unique to dragons, true or otherwise, making it even more worthless as a defining characteristic. You may as well say that one of the requirements to be a true dragon is having two eyes. At least you'll be able to know for sure that monstrous spiders aren't true dragons then.

Fourth, who's to say that dragonwrought kobolds aren't warm-blooded? They aren't reptiles anymore, not really. They just look like reptiles, like dragons. Plus, as said above, all dragons are warm-blooded, so why would dragonwrought kobolds be any different? They are also declared to be the direct descendents of metallic or chromatic dragons and have enough of that dragonblood to be, you know, dragons. Dragonblood is warm, ergo, kobold dragonblood is warm. And trying to declare that the feat does not change the warmth level of the blood because it doesn't say it does is not only a pointless non-sequitur seeped in willful ignorance, but it is obviously wrong. A change in creature type must necessarily change discreet biological aspects. You wouldn't try claiming that a ghoul is still warm-blooded on the basis that nothing says they aren't, would you?

So ultimately, this is not only one of the most asinine arguments I've ever heard, it's not even correct.

[Nifft]

Really? I mean, really? This isn't some sort of joke? Now, I'm not going to weigh in on either side of this debate, but I simply must address this because it is wrong in so many ways.

First, and most importantly, there are no mechanical definitions or rules about blood warmth. How in the world can something that is purely fluff have any sway on mechanics? That'd be like trying to claim that my character is proficient in longswords because she really likes them. Or that she can cast Time Stop at will because of something in her backstory. Whether or not dragons are warm-blooded and kobold are cold-blooded is entirely irrelevant to anything because there are no rules for it.

Secondly, all dragons are warm-blooded, not just the "true" ones, so how in the world does that serve to define true dragons? What's your next great argument? "True dragons are immune to paralysis and kobolds aren't?" Christ.

Third, being warm-blooded isn't unique to dragons, true or otherwise, making it even more worthless as a defining characteristic. You may as well say that one of the requirements to be a true dragon is having two eyes. At least you'll be able to know for sure that monstrous spiders aren't true dragons then.

Fourth, who's to say that dragonwrought kobolds aren't warm-blooded? They aren't reptiles anymore, not really. They just look like reptiles, like dragons. Plus, as said above, all dragons are warm-blooded, so why would dragonwrought kobolds be any different? They are also declared to be the direct descendents of metallic or chromatic dragons and have enough of that dragonblood to be, you know, dragons. Dragonblood is warm, ergo, kobold dragonblood is warm. And trying to declare that the feat does not change the warmth level of the blood because it doesn't say it does is not only a pointless non-sequitur seeped in willful ignorance, but it is obviously wrong. A change in creature type must necessarily change discreet biological aspects. You wouldn't try claiming that a ghoul is still warm-blooded on the basis that nothing says they aren't, would you?

So ultimately, this is not only one of the most asinine arguments I've ever heard, it's not even correct.

Aw, man.

I was this close to convincing ghostshadow that humans are all True Dragons.

[lylsyly]

Aw, man.

I was this close to convincing ghostshadow that humans are all True Dragons.

They Are?

Yes, I decided at my table that they ARE NOT true dragons based on a piece of fluff, precisely because I was stuck in the middle and couldn't get out.

[Nifft]

They Are?

Yes, humans are warm-blooded, and you said that's your criteria.

Yes, I decided at my table that they ARE NOT true dragons based on a piece of fluff, precisely because I was stuck in the middle and couldn't get out.

But again, that fluff doesn't apply to kobolds who are dragons.

Humanoid kobolds are cold-blooded humanoids (and they are not dragons, therefore disqualified from being True Dragons).

Dragonwrought kobolds are dragons, and therefore... what kind of blood?

[umbergod]

You are kidding, aren't you, LOL. And since you mentioned "him" he will probably pop up.

This is what settled it for me a few debates ago.

If hewhomustnotbenamed shows up, itd serve us right bc we still have threads like this >.>

[ayvango]

what kind of blood?

Elemental energy flows through veins of dragons.

[Bartmanhomer]

*I finished eating my popcorn.*

This is got to be the most funniest thread that I ever read.

[Doctor Awkward]

You need to apply the Races of the Dragon update:

Spoiler: Races of the Dragon

Show

Correct, it's Races of the Dragon which changes all Kobolds to use the same 12 Age Categories as all True Dragons do.

However, regular Kobolds are humanoids -- they're not the Dragon type, so they can't be True Dragons.

The Dragonwrought feat changes the type of some Kobolds to Dragon.

Dragon type + 12 Age Categories => True Dragon.

Or so the ancient prophecy seems to imply.

Actually, no, kobolds do not use the same age categories as true dragons according to the picture provided.

True dragons use the following table for age categories, found in Monster Manual I, pg. 68, and also here on the SRD:

Spoiler

Show

As you can see, that table is titled "Dragon Age Categories", while the one from Races of the Dragon is titled "Kobold Age Categories". Also note a rather large difference in the span of each category.


...But I don't even need to get that pedantic to demonstrate why you are incorrect.

As Deophaun noted, there is a large difference between simply having age categories and "Advancing" through them, as is defined by the rules.

The concept of advancement is discussed exactly once in the Player's Handbook on page 58, under the heading "Level Advancement", which explains the changes that are made whenever a character gains a new level (Choosing a class, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, class features, etc.).

According to the sidebar on page 207 of the Dungeon Master's Guide, rules for advancing monsters can be found in the Monster Manual. The guidelines in that book for Improving Monsters state several times that monsters typically advance through their noted "Advancement" line in their respective monster entries (obviously noting that the DM is generally free to do whatever they want).

As is noted in this link, certain monsters are capable of advancing by simply increasing their racial hit dice. And any additional abilities gained beyond the general increases their hit dice provide are noted in their individual entries (as is the case for all true dragons).

Do you get the difference now? In other words, if your dragon-type monster does not have tables that look like this:

Spoiler

Show

...then it doesn't advance through age categories, and isn't a true dragon.

Show me anything remotely similar to that table for dragonwrought kobolds, and I will happily concede the argument that they are true dragons.

[daremetoidareyo]

Can I changeling with the racial emulation feat take dragonwrought and apply the true dragon subtype?

[Mato]

Not that guy but that's not what he said at all.

Yes it is. The section he spoke of is for other true dragons, which means to use those rules he must first prove the kobold is a true dragon and that's the part neither of you understand.

Tony has a nice post on this he already linked to. Here is part of it.

This is the major problem with Camp A at this point: too many people have become so set in their interpretation as being the only correct one, that they are becoming tunnel-visioned on every possible scrap of information that could possibly be interpreted to support their presupposed conclusion, no matter how much context must be ignored and clear intent must be dismissed to make it so.

And before you think that doesn't apply to you at all, I want you to reread this section over and over again until you are able to admit to your self what you did.

LA is not a necessary ingredient for a creature to exist.

Because the last two quotes from the book proved that LA is such a necessary ingredient that you have already accepted it as truth even as you deny it. That's why you claimed the DM must add LA to kobolds.

But between you and me, I'm glad you think DWKs should be assigned up to +6 for their level adjustment. Because that's what that other entry does.

In the meanwhile have a look at this:

Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance
through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons

Nothing I mentioned before disagrees with this, it simply partially extends on what that sentence means. And as it happens, you don't like what that entry means so you don't want any extra explanations and will ignore any provided to you. So, why are you here again?

[Boggartbae]

Really? I mean, really? This isn't some sort of joke? Now, I'm not going to weigh in on either side of this debate, but I simply must address this because it is wrong in so many ways.

First, and most importantly, there are no mechanical definitions or rules about blood warmth. How in the world can something that is purely fluff have any sway on mechanics? That'd be like trying to claim that my character is proficient in longswords because she really likes them. Or that she can cast Time Stop at will because of something in her backstory. Whether or not dragons are warm-blooded and kobold are cold-blooded is entirely irrelevant to anything because there are no rules for it.

For the record, I am firmly in the "Dragonwraught Kobolds are True Dragons" camp, because it's the best camp, but, just FYI, there is actually a mechanical effect of being endo/exothermic.

From RotD, PG 39:
"Being a cold-blooded humanoid has advantages and dis- advantages. Warm temperatures are comfortable to kobolds, who can sustain their bodies by literally soaking up heat. A kobold who inhabits a region with a temperature of 40°F or above for 24 hours can go for another three days after that time before having to eat normally. The downside is that kobolds feel the cold more profoundly. Sudden chilling temperatures, such as being struck by a cone of cold spell, do not affect kobolds more than normal, but prolonged cold increases their need for sustenance. After inhabiting a region with a temperature below 40°F for more than three days, kobolds must consistently consume three times as much food per day than is normal for their size."

So if your DM ever runs a desert campaign, play a kobold!

Also, is there anyway we could stop arguing, and just discuss the various options available to Dragonwraught Kobolds as though they were True Dragons, AS STATED IN THE OP? like seriously, this thread did not need to turn into an argument.

[Gruftzwerg]

Actually, no, kobolds do not use the same age categories as true dragons according to the picture provided.

True dragons use the following table for age categories, found in Monster Manual I, pg. 68, and also here on the SRD:

Spoiler

Show

As you can see, that table is titled "Dragon Age Categories", while the one from Races of the Dragon is titled "Kobold Age Categories". Also note a rather large difference in the span of each category.


...But I don't even need to get that pedantic to demonstrate why you are incorrect.

As Deophaun noted, there is a large difference between simply having age categories and "Advancing" through them, as is defined by the rules.

The concept of advancement is discussed exactly once in the Player's Handbook on page 58, under the heading "Level Advancement", which explains the changes that are made whenever a character gains a new level (Choosing a class, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, class features, etc.).

According to the sidebar on page 207 of the Dungeon Master's Guide, rules for advancing monsters can be found in the Monster Manual. The guidelines in that book for Improving Monsters state several times that monsters typically advance through their noted "Advancement" line in their respective monster entries (obviously noting that the DM is generally free to do whatever they want).

As is noted in this link, certain monsters are capable of advancing by simply increasing their racial hit dice. And any additional abilities gained beyond the general increases their hit dice provide are noted in their individual entries (as is the case for all true dragons).

Do you get the difference now? In other words, if your dragon-type monster does not have tables that look like this:

Spoiler

Show

...then it doesn't advance through age categories, and isn't a true dragon.

Show me anything remotely similar to that table for dragonwrought kobolds, and I will happily concede the argument that they are true dragons.

It doesn't need to look like that, cause the text for that table says (on the same page if you bothered to read the paragraph for that table..)

Once hatched, kobolds mature at a breakneck pace, using
the same life cycle as dragons, but only living one-tenth
as long.

1) Specific trumps general. Kobold Age Categories still count as Dragon Age Categories.

2) The text talks about advancing thru your age categories. It's a simple verb and not the defined "Advancement". It's just simple advancing from one age category to the next. Or did you ever read something like "when you powerattack/teleport/fireball.." to refer to an explicit ability? No, 3.5 makes always exact use of the defined words when referring to them. e.g. "when you use Power Attack/ Teleport/Fireball...".

3) Advancement can't be a requirement to be a true dragon, when every true dragon who doesn't has it becomes it for free. Imho base logic. Otherwise that rule wouldn't make any sense and would never apply.
So if you are missing those tables, Draconomicon P144 - "Other True Dragons" enforces the DM to tailor em for DWK. The lack of the table can't disqualify you from being a true dragon. It can only prove that you are one, if you already have it.

Imho you think that the rule is " true dragons need Advancement for their age categories", but that ain't the chase here.
All you need is to "advance thru age categories" which is not the defined term you are looking for. It's "advance" like in processing thru your age categories, from one category to the next. Just the normal verb form of the word and therefor not the defined "Advancement".

advance & advancing != the defined "Advancement"

[Doctor Awkward]

1) Specific trumps general. Kobold Age Categories still count as Dragon Age Categories.

That's not what "Specific trumps general" means. Specific trumps general refers to the game rules being an exception-based system, in which there are defined a set of general truths, and then specific exceptions that break the general rules as noted (I.E.: A rapier's entry states that it is useable with the Weapon Finesse feat, even though the feat states that it can normally only be used with light weapons.)

If Kobold Age Categories were meant to count as Dragon Age Categories, then the text would explicitly say that.

...Again, not that this even matters, since kobolds, dragonwrought or otherwise, do not advance through age categories like true dragons do.

2) The text talks about advancing thru your age categories. It's a simple verb and not the defined "Advancement". It's just simple advancing from one age category to the next. Or did you ever read something like "when you powerattack/teleport/fireball.." to refer to an explicit ability? No, 3.5 makes always exact use of the defined words when referring to them. e.g. "when you use Power Attack/ Teleport/Fireball...".

...I'm trying to be understanding of the language barrier here, but none of this makes a lick of sense.

For one thing, I can't think of a single instance when the rules don't say "Power Attack" within the explicit context of the feat, such as the Frenzied Berserker ("+3 bonus on her melee damage rolls for every –2 penalty she takes on her melee attack rolls when using the Power Attack feat"), or Leap Attack ("you can double the extra damage dealt by your use of the Power Attack feat."), or Awesome Smite ("This feat allows the use of three tactical maneuvers, each of which requires that you make a smite attack while using the Power Attack feat"). And that's just off of the top of my head.

For another thing, every single time the game references any specific spell, it always... always... does so by stating "when casting <spell name>". There is no need at that point to explicitly call them "spells", because you don't cast anything in D&D except for spells.

3) Advancement can't be a requirement to be a true dragon, when every true dragon who doesn't has it becomes it for free. Imho base logic. Otherwise that rule wouldn't make any sense and would never apply.
So if you are missing those tables, Draconomicon P144 - "Other True Dragons" enforces the DM to tailor em for DWK. The lack of the table can't disqualify you from being a true dragon. It can only prove that you are one, if you already have it.

Imho you think that the rule is " true dragons need Advancement for their age categories", but that ain't the chase here.
All you need is to "advance thru age categories" which is not the defined term you are looking for. It's "advance" like in processing thru your age categories, from one category to the next. Just the normal verb form of the word and therefor not the defined "Advancement".

advance & advancing != the defined "Advancement"

Prove it.

No... really.

Provide any and all text which specifically backs up this claim. The exact words themselves, from the Draconomicon or anywhere else, which say anything even tangentially related to, "when we say 'advancing through age categories', we are not talking about 'Advancement' as defined in the Monster Manual, but rather something else".

Prove that this is not solely your personal interpretation. Prove that the rules specifically back up your claim, not just that they are in places a little vague and could maybe be read in such a way as to not specifically forbid your claim.

Because if you can't do that, you aren't arguing Rules As Written. You are arguing Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, So There!

To which, I will repeat Mato's question: Why are you still here?

[Doctor Awkward]

Also, is there anyway we could stop arguing, and just discuss the various options available to Dragonwraught Kobolds as though they were True Dragons, AS STATED IN THE OP? like seriously, this thread did not need to turn into an argument.

The OP said this:

I've had my eye on dragonwrought kobolds for a while and I've been tallying up what they can do. Correct me I'm wrong but they

Qualify as true dragons(draconomicon states a creature with the dragon type and 12 age categories is a true dragon) allowing them to...

He asked to be corrected if he was wrong.

He was wrong.

He is thus being corrected.

[Boggartbae]

The OP said this:

He asked to be corrected if he was wrong.

He was wrong.

He is thus being corrected.

I honestly don't think that THIS is what they wanted. As has been stated many times before, this has been argued already countless times. Everything that has been contributed to this thread is absolutely useless.

Y'all could have only included things that apply to dragons, or prefaced True Dragon only options with their prereqs, so that people could choose how to apply it in their games, but no, y'all decided to be massively obtuse and conceited.

Look, RAI, they're obviously not supposed to count, but WOTC was a little careless and they ended up fitting the definition of true dragon. This makes their status open to interpretation, and if someone wants to allow true dragon kobolds in their games, you really shouldn't be that upset about it.

I know that these forums should focus on RAW and RAI, because that keeps things applicable to all tables, but sometimes the answer is "ask your DM and do what's best for your group", and that's the case here.

So can we please go back to posting cool dragon options? I would do it myself, but I have literally no idea what any of them are.

[Vaern]

As far as true dragons are concerned, if they aren't listed as a subcategory "Dragon, True," they don't qualify. There's nothing within the dragonwrought description that is imply that a dragon kobold is Dragon, True.
They are dragons and they do have the same age categories as dragons, so as far as epic feats are concerned a dragonwrought kobold who is middle age by humanoid standards would qualify as a dragon of old age according to their age category table. Their character advancement is not determined by their age, though, so it does not qualify them for true dragon status.
(Though whether the bit about dragons of old age or higher qualifying for epic feats applies to lesser dragons may still be questioned, in accordance with the previously mentioned sidebar)

[Mato]

I honestly don't think that THIS is what they wanted.

Look, RAI, they're obviously not supposed to count, but WOTC was a little careless and they ended up fitting the definition of true dragon.

I don't think you can argue the OP's intentions matter if you're dismissing the rulebook's. But people claiming DWKs are true dragons by any sort of misappropriated abbreviation without proof even through contrary evidence has already been submitted is one of things being discussed here and you really shouldn't try to reach for an appeal while contributing to that debate because it probably won't work.

You can also make a post asking what options a true dragon has if you're curious.

(Though whether the bit about dragons of old age or higher qualifying for epic feats applies to lesser dragons may still be questioned, in accordance with the previously mentioned sidebar)

Something most people miss about that is the Draconomicon's entry tells you to check the epic level handbook for information on more epic feats.

In the ELH, much like the copypasta SRD entry, epic feats are technically allowed to nonepic characters. There is no level requirement for prerequisites and you can acquire them in one of two ways with one of those being by any class description that says you can. So the Draconomicon's exception that allows an old dragon of the 21st level of higher with no class levels to select feats makes quite a bit of sense.

Unfortunately the ELH is a 3.0 book and the 3.5 DMG has a small updated epic rule section in chapter six. One of the significant changes is the addition that the 3.5 epic feats are available only to epic characters. The Draconomicon isn't some kind of unnoted exception to the DMG's epic rules, it was clearly written using an outdated rule set that didn't really even have that limitation to begin with.

[Bartmanhomer]

This whole argument isn't getting anywhere. This thread isn't near it's 20 pages yet.

[Gruftzwerg]

That's not what "Specific trumps general" means. Specific trumps general refers to the game rules being an exception-based system, in which there are defined a set of general truths, and then specific exceptions that break the general rules as noted (I.E.: A rapier's entry states that it is useable with the Weapon Finesse feat, even though the feat states that it can normally only be used with light weapons.)

If Kobold Age Categories were meant to count as Dragon Age Categories, then the text would explicitly say that.

...Again, not that this even matters, since kobolds, dragonwrought or otherwise, do not advance through age categories like true dragons do.


...I'm trying to be understanding of the language barrier here, but none of this makes a lick of sense.

For one thing, I can't think of a single instance when the rules don't say "Power Attack" within the explicit context of the feat, such as the Frenzied Berserker ("+3 bonus on her melee damage rolls for every –2 penalty she takes on her melee attack rolls when using the Power Attack feat"), or Leap Attack ("you can double the extra damage dealt by your use of the Power Attack feat."), or Awesome Smite ("This feat allows the use of three tactical maneuvers, each of which requires that you make a smite attack while using the Power Attack feat"). And that's just off of the top of my head.

For another thing, every single time the game references any specific spell, it always... always... does so by stating "when casting <spell name>". There is no need at that point to explicitly call them "spells", because you don't cast anything in D&D except for spells.


Prove it.

No... really.

Provide any and all text which specifically backs up this claim. The exact words themselves, from the Draconomicon or anywhere else, which say anything even tangentially related to, "when we say 'advancing through age categories', we are not talking about 'Advancement' as defined in the Monster Manual, but rather something else".

Prove that this is not solely your personal interpretation. Prove that the rules specifically back up your claim, not just that they are in places a little vague and could maybe be read in such a way as to not specifically forbid your claim.

Because if you can't do that, you aren't arguing Rules As Written. You are arguing Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, So There!

To which, I will repeat Mato's question: Why are you still here?

You did it yourself if you didn't notice..?

You proved that 3.5 always makes exact use of keywords/terms and don't use a verb instead of a subject to claim that this is the keyword/term.

So why should I prove now that you can interpret "advance/ing" as "Advancement"?? You should prove that to undermine your position imho. (and so far you have disproved your position..).

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).

"dragon type":
yeah DWK are dragons

"advance":
is not "Advancement".

"age categories":
Not "dragon age categories", just "age categories" (and not Age Effects..).

So is my DWK a dragon and adcances thru age categories?
I assume the answer is YES >>> which leads to the fact that DWK are not "lesser dragons".

And to your question about why I am still here..
Because I follow the discussion and try bring in my point of view like you I guess.

But let me ask you, why you did ask this? Are you frustrated having a normal peaceful non-offending discussion or what is your problem?

edit: I thought we would all be enjoying the discussion here, but somehow some people doesn't seem to enjoy it.. :(

[Gruftzwerg]

Unfortunately the ELH is a 3.0 book and the 3.5 DMG has a small updated epic rule section in chapter six. One of the significant changes is the addition that the 3.5 epic feats are available only to epic characters. The Draconomicon isn't some kind of unnoted exception to the DMG's epic rules, it was clearly written using an outdated rule set that didn't really even have that limitation to begin with.

But since Draconomicon ain't been updated it should still be in effect (unless you play strict 3.5) I guess or am I wrong here?
And by RAW it would still apply.