Dragonwrought kobold

[Remuko]

The topic of the section is literally HALF-DRAGONS BEYOND THE MONSTER MANUAL, as you correctly report in your quote.

That is the topic of the section. It is about half-dragons (... beyond the Monster Manual).

On that topic, it is authoritative.

On other topics, it is not.

This is good, because as mentioned several times, the list of half-dragon parents in that section is not a list of all True Dragons in all published sources. If it claimed to be authoritative on that topic, it would be a rule dysfunction, since the True Dragons from Dragon Compendium / Dragons of Faerun / etc. really are True Dragons, and they're not on that list. Since it's not claiming to contradict that, there's no rules dysfunction -- it's just that the section is authoritative over a smaller scope than you'd hoped.

At least this is a new argument, but unfortunately it's factually incorrect.

One example (which is sufficient to disprove a categorical claim such as this): the Incarnum Dragon, from Magic of Incarnum, which was published in 2005.

Because the only consistent reading of the half-dragon list is that it's only authoritative over legal half-dragon types, and Dragonwrought Kobold is not a legal source for half-dragons.

... heh, or maybe they are, but the expression is as if the parent is the same type as the Dragonwrought Kobold's chosen heritage.

Dragonwrought Kobolds who choose a rare or powerful heritage would be very popular breeding partners if they could imbue their progeny with the blood of that dragon type.

That might be a fun dungeon: a heap of half-dragon beasts & giants, all the progeny of a very suave Kobold Bard.

Deekin? :D

[Promethean]

God, this is like watching two lawyers argue about the definitions of "good" and "evil".

The RAW contradicts itself in several places, therefore it's impossible to come away with a purely objective stance from just the rules, as the rule themselves require an interpretation by the one reading them. I'd say DWK is too incoherent to have a one true RAW thus all anyone has been arguing is their own personal RAI.

This subject has basically become as amorphous and strange as alignments, there is no point arguing as the only evidence to present is subject to interpretation by the viewer.

[Bartmanhomer]

God, this is like watching two lawyers argue about the definitions of "good" and "evil".

The RAW contradicts itself in several places, therefore it's impossible to come away with a purely objective stance from just the rules, as the rule themselves require an interpretation by the one reading them. I'd say DWK is too incoherent to have a one true RAW thus all anyone has been arguing is their own personal RAI.

This subject has basically become as amorphous and strange as alignments, there is no point arguing as the only evidence to present is subject to interpretation by the viewer.

Sounds like Court TV as well.

[lylsyly]

God, this is like watching two lawyers argue about the definitions of "good" and "evil".

The RAW contradicts itself in several places, therefore it's impossible to come away with a purely objective stance from just the rules, as the rule themselves require an interpretation by the one reading them. I'd say DWK is too incoherent to have a one true RAW thus all anyone has been arguing is their own personal RAI.

This subject has basically become as amorphous and strange as alignments, there is no point arguing as the only evidence to present is subject to interpretation by the viewer.

And yet I am wrong for ...

This is what settled it for me

Originally Posted by RotD p. 39 The most important difference between the two, however, is that kobolds are cold-blooded creatures, and dragons are warmblooded.

ROFLMAO

[Troacctid]

God, this is like watching two lawyers argue about the definitions of "good" and "evil".

The RAW contradicts itself in several places, therefore it's impossible to come away with a purely objective stance from just the rules, as the rule themselves require an interpretation by the one reading them. I'd say DWK is too incoherent to have a one true RAW thus all anyone has been arguing is their own personal RAI.

This subject has basically become as amorphous and strange as alignments, there is no point arguing as the only evidence to present is subject to interpretation by the viewer.

The lesser dragon interpretation is internally consistent and doesn't require the rules to contradict themselves at all. The contradictions only pop up once you start trying to read kobolds as being true dragons. Funny, that.

[Gruftzwerg]

The lesser dragon interpretation is internally consistent and doesn't require the rules to contradict themselves at all. The contradictions only pop up once you start trying to read kobolds as being true dragons. Funny, that.

Really? Do I need to post again that Draconomicon says that lesser dragons don't "advance" thru "age categories" which a DWK qualifies for by RAW. Remember that by RAW you may not treat "advance" as "Advancement", cause that would be RAI.

Reading RAW dosn't involve the change of words to get the desired keyword. 3.5 makes always exact use of their keywords. Or can you prove that any defined keyword is used in an other form later (e.g. subject > verb). Can you give an example to prove that "advance" by RAW is referring to "Advancement"? I guess not, so your interpretation remains RAI and not RAW.

Funny that the contradictions only comes, when people try to bring someones intentions (even if it is only about the use of the word "advance" as Advancement) into a RAW discussion.
Is it so hard to distinguish between RAW and RAI?
One is pure word/rule-lawyering (RAW), the other brings the intention and a small portion of common sense into play (RAI).

[Troacctid]

Really? Do I need to post again that Draconomicon says that lesser dragons don't "advance" thru "age categories" which a DWK qualifies for by RAW. Remember that by RAW you may not treat "advance" as "Advancement", cause that would be RAI.

Reading RAW dosn't involve the change of words to get the desired keyword. 3.5 makes always exact use of their keywords. Or can you prove that any defined keyword is used in an other form later (e.g. subject > verb). Can you give an example to prove that "advance" by RAW is referring to "Advancement"? I guess not, so your interpretation remains RAI and not RAW.

Funny that the contradictions only comes, when people try to bring someones intentions (even if it is only about the use of the word "advance" as Advancement) into a RAW discussion.
Is it so hard to distinguish between RAW and RAI?
One is pure word/rule-lawyering (RAW), the other brings the intention and a small portion of common sense into play (RAI).

Are you serious right now?

Here. "Advance" is used for advancement like a zillion times. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm

[Scots Dragon]

Really? Do I need to post again that Draconomicon says that lesser dragons don't "advance" thru "age categories" which a DWK qualifies for by RAW. Remember that by RAW you may not treat "advance" as "Advancement", cause that would be RAI.

Reading RAW dosn't involve the change of words to get the desired keyword. 3.5 makes always exact use of their keywords. Or can you prove that any defined keyword is used in an other form later (e.g. subject > verb). Can you give an example to prove that "advance" by RAW is referring to "Advancement"? I guess not, so your interpretation remains RAI and not RAW.

From the complete definitions given elsewhere both in the Draconomicon and in the Monster Manual, and even in Races of the Dragon and Dragon Magic, we get a more complete picture of what a true dragon is. It is a definition that, due to several critical features being missing, simply cannot include dragonwrought kobolds unless we ignore several important factors.

Not even under rules as written do dragonwrought kobolds qualify as true dragons because there are still fundamental differences. Not the least of which is that they do not actually have the same age categories. They have the same names, but a kobold's age categories are much shorter. They also do not contain any of the same rules-based effects as true dragons, such as advancing racial hit dice, providing frightful presence or spell resistance, automatic racial caster levels, spell-like abilities, damage resistance, increasing natural armour, increases to size, or in fact any draconic traits along those lines that are not provided by class levels or feats. Some true dragons lack one or two of these traits, or substitute them with similar traits, but all of them share the same tabular progression that is entirely lacking from the dragonwrought kobold.

Trying to declare that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons requires ignoring basically everything in the rules about true dragons, including the way that literally every true dragon works. It doesn't even work by rules-as-written. The only way this becomes a point of contention is by taking very quick and brief summations of what true dragons are from a couple of different sourcebooks and ignoring literally everything else.

[Doctor Despair]

Here's something that occurred to me. If the table accepts that the rules for taking epic feats at old age apply to all dragons and not just true dragons (which is another debate entirely, of course), then Dragonwrought Kobolds would indeed gain in power as a direct result of advancing according to their age categories. No need to fluff around with the mental stats; by becoming a Great Wyrm, they would become more powerful.

[umbergod]

Here's something that occurred to me. If the table accepts that the rules for taking epic feats at old age apply to all dragons and not just true dragons (which is another debate entirely, of course), then Dragonwrought Kobolds would indeed gain in power as a direct result of advancing according to their age categories. No need to fluff around with the mental stats; by becoming a Great Wyrm, they would become more powerful.

Negatory, as advancing age alone does not advance hit dice or levels, so no feats to spend

[Doctor Awkward]

If I understand this correctly, you're basically admitting that you've been participating in bad faith.

Actually, no. That was an accusation that I have been participating in a bad faith debate, which I was trying to assert started when we began inventing new definitions for obvious context.

My criteria for determining a bad faith argument is when I feel the other side is more invested in "winning" than they are at arriving at the truth of the matter. Seeing things like strawmanning, attempting to shift the focus onto irrelevant details, repeating arguments which have been long debunked, and throwing out dog whistles and "technically true" rebuttals are huge red flags for me. Just because I respond to one of your points with snark doesn't mean I am not taking your argument seriously. It just means that I found that particular argument to be incredibly lacking-- specifically, in this case, arguing that we have no clues as to whether the authors of Races of the Dragon intended the list of true dragons to be exhaustive, while quoting text which states unequivocally that they did.

I will endeavor to be less subtle with my accusations in the future.

Explicitly contradicted by WotC -- you are wrong, and your argument is invalid:


The rule that you're trying to rely upon is clearly a dysfunction, since the specific text for these dragons contradicts the foundation of your argument.

Hope you got a better argument in your back pocket.

Great. That covers the dragons in the Dragon Compendium, but not any of the others.

Should I assume then that anything not listed in Races of the Dragon which appears to be a true dragon but does not have text explicitly calling it a true dragon or saying that it uses the rules for true dragon is not a true dragon?

...Like dragonwrought kobolds?

This entire forum's purpose is literally about playing pretend.

If you're here for any other reason, son, ain't nobody can help you.

Oh I meant shall I stop pretending that logic and common sense do not matter, and that the primary source guideline doesn't exist, and also stop standing by the FAQs incorrect assertion that the most recently published source takes precedence.

See I stated a couple pages ago that the reason why Gruft's arguments were falling flat was because he was not playing by the same rules as the rest of us. He confirmed my suspicions on that matter when he outright stated that his approach to optimization is to ignore common sense and focus on what the text could mean, rather than what it does mean.

My change in approach was meant to be lens through which you one could view what it would look like if the "Not True Dragon" viewpoint was argued through that same lens, and (hopefully) illustrate why such an approach is so unhelpful.

Yeah, it's annoying that they'd make it so difficult to define something like True Dragon and then hang a bunch of rules off of it. But I have no expectation that WotC will recognize the implications of their own work -- they're pretty terrible at seeing the obvious implications of even their Core rules. I mean, they have explicitly said that Monk is the best-designed class in the game. I'm not going to expect coherence nor even understanding of the obvious from them -- to do so is to court disappointment.

And that right there is part of the same problem Gruft has.

You seem to view the people who wrote and designed the 3rd Edition of Dungeons and Dragons as nothing more than a bunch of talentless hacks, or corporate sellouts who were only out to make money, rather than a group of fantasy authors who were mainly interested in creating a roleplaying system that they though people would have fun playing. They weren't interested in statistical experimentation or hot-wiring the mechanics by which an RPG was governed. Instead, you should be comparing optimizers who those people who create those sadistic Mario hacks. Like tabletop optimizers, they too are highly creative and have a far deeper understanding of the engine they are working with than its designers did. But that doesn't mean those original designers are somehow stupid for not seeing the potential abuse. They were just looking at things at an entirely different perspective.

3.5 isn't perfect, but it is far more robust and consistent than many of its detractors seem willing to admit.

It was also designed and built on a number of underlying assumptions, and understanding what those assumptions are is crucial to interpreting the rules. Luckily you don't have to look far, as many of them are spelled right out within the rules themselves. You just need to read them thoroughly or you risk missing things.

But anyway, back to the discussion. What I did was present evidence that his question was founded on an incorrect assumption. That's not hand-waving, it's attacking his central premise, and so far he's unable to defend in any substantive way.

Posting a LOLZORZ gif is not a substantive defense. (Not even if it's animated.)

Either the lists he presented were in error (thanks to stuff like the Incarnum Dragon), or the lists were not intended to serve the purpose for which he needed them to serve.

One of those must be true, because evidence that I presented directly contradicts his central thesis -- the lists do not contain all True Dragons, regardless of the status of Dragonwrought Kobolds. Therefore, the omission of any particular True Dragon is either (a) accidental, just like the ones which aren't controversial; or (b) deliberate, because the list isn't intended to represent all True Dragons. One of those must be true, or else (c) there's a rules dysfunction and the rule which is dysfunctional can't be used as evidence because it's dysfunctional.

A, B, or C -- take your pick.

Looks like Tonymitsu is aiming at C -- he thinks the general rule must apply, therefore when it's explicitly contradicted, there's a dysfunction instead of a rule.

I'm not sure that's the most elegant position, but it's at least productive -- the dysfunction removes itself, and the remaining rules are more consistent for its removal.

My assumption, is the same as it is in every single RAW thread I post in: D&D is an exception-based system. The rules define a set of general truths, and provide exceptions to them as the various situations dictate. And common sense and designer intent matter.

If I ever argue from a perspective that seems to contradict that, then that is me couching my argument in the same terms that I think the opposition is speaking from. Usually this boils down to some form of "logic doesn't apply. the rules are words on a page that do what I tell them to do." and "None may know the intent of the most holy game designers".

Speaking of which...

Because the rules in those books don't contradict each other directly. If RotD would say "half-dragons are true dragon" you would be right and RotD would suppress the other books. But this is not the chase here. RotD doesn't say anything about the status, whether being a true dragon or a lesser dragon. And thus the rules from the other books are still in effect. "Taking precedence" ain't a hard reset on all rules published so far.

Races of the Dragon directly contradicts the Draconomicon on this. The Draconomicon lists half-dragons as lesser dragons. Races of the Dragon states explicitly that half-dragons are "versions of true dragons".

The word version is not a defined keyword, and it means "1. a particular form of something differing in certain respects from an earlier form or other forms of the same type of thing."

Therefore that sentence is explicitly calling half-dragons a new form of true dragons. By the Races of the Dragon text, half-dragon kobolds have more support for being true dragons than dragonwrought kobolds do.

Since Races of the Dragon is the newer publication, does it or does it not have primacy on this issue?

___________
@why DWK don't appear on the heritage list:

Because the DWK is supposed to use the same list for his true dragon ancestor. Lets assume a DWK who had also DWK as gradfather. Do you think the DWK would need to choose his grandfather as heritage or the same heritage as the his grandfather? I assume the latter one and thus DWK don't appear on the heritage list.
Further DWK have no control of their true dragon DNA while breeding. If 2 DWK would breed an egg together, the result doesn't have to be a DWK at all. In fact the chance in game terms is still the same as any other 2 Kobolds would breed with each other. (don't take the last part to serious ;)

If dragonwrought kobolds really were true dragons they wouldn't need to choose the "heritage of their family" would they? They would be a heritage.

A non-kobold with the draconic heritage feat would be able to choose "dragonwrought kobold" as his heritage.

That's why not being on that list is a clear indication that they are not true dragons.

[Gruftzwerg]

Are you serious right now?

Here. "Advance" is used for advancement like a zillion times. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm

Yeah I am serious.

Do you see any instance of the verb "advance" being sole used in the text without directly referring to either "advance by class" or "advance by HD"?

Let me ask you, which verb you would use in a sentence with "Advancement" together? Maybe "advance"? And that is the chase here. The text always makes it clear to what it is referring to, either within the same sentence or the one right next to it or with the paragraph title to begin with.

now look up Draconomicon P.4 "The Different Dragon Kinds" and look what the definition of "true dragons" is:

True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older.

No mentioning of "advancement", just the need of becoming "more powerful" as they grow older. DWK qualify for this by their pure mental stat gains.

an now lets see what they tell us about "lesser dragons":

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).

Only the verb "advance" without any reference that it means "Advancement by class/HD". Not in the paragraph and not on the entire page.
RAI I can see your point, but RAW you have no right to assume that the intention of the non defined verb "advance" is meant as "Advancement" here. Because for that you would need to "imply the intention" that it means "Advancement". And "intentions" belong into the land of RAI, not RAW...

work on your ability to differentiate between RAW and RAI.

________________________

Races of the Dragon directly contradicts the Draconomicon on this. The Draconomicon lists half-dragons as lesser dragons. Races of the Dragon states explicitly that half-dragons are "versions of true dragons".

The word version is not a defined keyword, and it means "1. a particular form of something differing in certain respects from an earlier form or other forms of the same type of thing."

Therefore that sentence is explicitly calling half-dragons a new form of true dragons. By the Races of the Dragon text, half-dragon kobolds have more support for being true dragons than dragonwrought kobolds do.

Since Races of the Dragon is the newer publication, does it or does it not have primacy on this issue?

Read the bold part pls and just think about it.
It opens up any sort of changes.
E.g. American Football is a version of Rugby. But it is so different that they ain't compatible anymore. It even has a different name and it its own rules.
The same we have with true dragons & half-dragons. Half-Dragons are a version of True Dragons, but it ain't one anymore.
You could also apply the same logic to music genres and their subgenre. E.g. Metal has it roots in Rock, but no one titles a metal song sole as rock song anymore. You call it metal because it has changed to much from its roots and become something of its own.

And if you now think of the heritage situation:
The DWK is only a Kobold with the luck of having enough true "true dragon blood" in him and not just a version of it. Cause as a version they would need to become a true dragon heritage themselves if they would still count as true dragon as "version".
But by just conserving the true dragon blood/dna without altering it into another version, they count as true dragons.
While Half-Dragons have altered their true dragon heritage to much to count as true dragon anymore.
This would be my interpretation of the situation.

PS: For those that have problems with differentiating RAW and RAI. The first part of this post is talking about RAW, while the second part is more about the RAI ;)

[Troacctid]

Yeah I am serious.

Do you see any instance of the verb "advance" being sole used in the text without directly referring to either "advance by class" or "advance by HD"?

Yes! Yes I do! On that same page! Come on.

[skunk3]

I don't really care about RAW on this matter. RAI is far more important. DWK's are stupid and no sane DM would ever allow them in a game.

[Doctor Despair]

I don't really care about RAW on this matter. RAI is far more important. DWK's are stupid and no sane DM would ever allow them in a game.

Unfortunately for you, these forums are more concerned with RAW than RAI most times.

[Doctor Awkward]

No mentioning of "advancement", just the need of becoming "more powerful" as they grow older. DWK qualify for this by their pure mental stat gains.

an now lets see what they tell us about "lesser dragons":

Only the verb "advance" without any reference that it means "Advancement by class/HD". Not in the paragraph and not on the entire page.
RAI I can see your point, but RAW you have no right to assume that the intention of the non defined verb "advance" is meant as "Advancement" here. Because for that you would need to "imply the intention" that it means "Advancement". And "intentions" belong into the land of RAI, not RAW...

The word advance, when used as an adverb like this, means "to move forward, typically in a purposeful way", as in "approach" or "proceed".

In what sense of "gaining power" does that make more sense than referring to Monster Advancement?

Read the bold part pls and just think about it.
It opens up any sort of changes.
E.g. American Football is a version of Rugby. But it is so different that they ain't compatible anymore. It even has a different name and it its own rules.
The same we have with true dragons & half-dragons. Half-Dragons are a version of True Dragons, but it ain't one anymore.
You could also apply the same logic to music genres and their subgenre. E.g. Metal has it roots in Rock, but no one titles a metal song sole as rock song anymore. You call it metal because it has changed to much from its roots and become something of its own.

And if you now think of the heritage situation:
The DWK is only a Kobold with the luck of having enough true "true dragon blood" in him and not just a version of it. Cause as a version they would need to become a true dragon heritage themselves if they would still count as true dragon as "version".
But by just conserving the true dragon blood/dna without altering it into another version, they count as true dragons.
While Half-Dragons have altered their true dragon heritage to much to count as true dragon anymore.
This would be my interpretation of the situation.

PS: For those that have problems with differentiating RAW and RAI. The first part of this post is talking about RAW, while the second part is more about the RAI ;)

I really hope you stretched first before all of those mental gymnastics up there.
I'd hate for you to have injured something with all of that reaching.

Do me a favor and re-read this entire section, except swap every instance of "DWK" with "half-dragon" (and vice versa) and see if it makes any more or less sense.

Seeing as the definition of version clearly states that two things are the "same type of thing" just differing in certain aspects...
How did you manage to arrive at the conclusion that they changed to much to count as the same thing... basically the opposite of the text of the book and the definition of the word version?



Also, I have some additional questions:

At the top of page 53, under Creating Kobold Characters, Races of the Dragon says this:

You should decide whether your character has undergone
the draconic Rite of Passage (see page 43), a cultural ritual
practiced since the days when the first dragons gave it to
kobolds. Moreover, 1st-level kobolds can choose the Dragonwrought
feat (see page 100), becoming a dragonwrought
kobold and enjoying the benefits of being a Small dragon.

Why would the authors pick the word "Small" dragon, instead of the word "true" dragon?
Small is capitalized there too, so that text is clearly referring to the size category to which kobolds belong, and not to any sort of age... something. So why choose that word instead of the more "obvious choice"?



Then on page 40, when discussing kobold physiology, the book says this:

On rare occasions, a kobold female lays what kobolds call
a dragonwrought egg (see the Dragonwrought feat, page
100). These eggs are spotted with the color of whichever
true dragon influences the dragonwrought kobold within,
with such mottles increasing in number and size as the
wyrmling inside grows.

Why did they phrase it like that? Wouldn't it have made much more sense to say "the color of whichever other type of true dragon influences the dragonwrought kobold within"? Another missed opportunity to clearly call out dragonwrought kobolds as true dragons.

Curious, right?

[Gruftzwerg]

Yes! Yes I do! On that same page! Come on.

and would you be so kind to point out the text passage you are referring to?
What is your intent? Waste our time with provoking answers so that we need to ask you what you mean every time? Be more precise pls.

_____________

In what sense of "gaining power" does that make more sense than referring to Monster Advancement?

Does RAW ask what makes "most sense"? It sole asks what stands there. And as said, 3.5 is very precise in the use of keywords. Show me another defined keyword other than Advancement that is used in an different not 100% precise form.
And last but not least, where is the logic in the requirement of "Advancement" when every true dragon gets it for free?


If you assume that "advance" counts as "Advancement" you get something like this:

- "Hey you need Advancement when you wanna call yourself a true dragon".
- "Hey you are a true dragon without Advancement? No bro, here you get it for free. Take it and you are rdy to go."

How can this two arguments exist together without contradicting each other? Can you solve this riddle?

Seeing as the definition of version clearly states that two things are the "same type of thing" just differing in certain aspects...
How did you manage to arrive at the conclusion that they changed to much to count as the same thing... basically the opposite of the text of the book and the definition of the word version?

What is the type of a 3.5 True Dragon by RAW? "Dragon"
So a half-dragon is still the "same thing" just a lil different.
You might ask why they are talking about true dragons as base and not dragons overall: Cause only true dragons can produce half-dragons. Lesser dragons like half-dragons can not (produce half-dragon kids). So they couldn't have used just "dragon" as base for the half-dragon versions in the rule text.

Sure I could exchange the things as you mentioned in my RAI text. But the difference is that half-dragons have their specific rule to degrade them to lesser dragons while for DWK it is undefined by text and leaves it open to debate (otherwise we wouldn't have fun here? am I right?^^). The text was just my thoughts what the intentions and fluff may have been to explicitly degrade half-dragons while we lack a clear text statement for DWK, which could be count as true dragons with a RAW point of view.

Why would the authors pick the word "Small" dragon, instead of the word "true" dragon?
Small is capitalized there too, so that text is clearly referring to the size category to which kobolds belong, and not to any sort of age... something. So why choose that word instead of the more "obvious choice"?

Imho the intention is to specify Kobolds still as legal dragons. You could treat it as specific exception rule that Kobolds are Small dragons. Which would clear up the problem that Kobolds doN#t grow in size as some demands.

Or you could interpret it as the lost 3rd dragon category beside of true dragon and lesser dragon^^ Maybe we have found the missing part and DWK are "Small dragons"... ;)

[XionUnborn01]

Imho the intention is to specify Kobolds still as legal dragons.

Wait a second. I thought you can argue intentions. Or is it okay to talk about intentions when you try to use them for your own purposes?

[Doctor Awkward]

Does RAW ask what makes "most sense"?

Oh goodie.
I was wondering if we were still pretending.

It sole asks what stands there. And as said, 3.5 is very precise in the use of keywords. Show me another defined keyword other than Advancement that is used in an different not 100% precise form.

As you ignored earlier, the rules are very precise when using word that has a special glossary definition. It is also very precise when using contextual definitions. If a word has a special meaning in a certain context, and is not otherwise defined as being different somewhere elsewhere, then that word really only has one meaning according to the rules.

Lacking any evidence to the contrary, there is only one thing it can mean: monster advancement as defined in the 3.5 Monster Manual.

Often, intelligent creatures advance by gaining a level in a character class instead of just gaining a new Hit Die.

All you need to prove you still have some ground to stand on is provide one single instance, in any 3.5 book, of the phrase "advance through hit dice" being used in the context of referring to the inherent bonuses gained to ability scores.

Go ahead. Find that reference.

...I'll wait.

And last but not least, where is the logic in the requirement of "Advancement" when every true dragon gets it for free?

That argument was debunked back on page 2.
Advancing through age categories is a property that identifies a true dragon. It is not something handed out for being a true dragon.

That would be like assuming that dragonwrought feat also bestows to the kobold an elemental subtype of the player's choice, reasoning that they must get one since the Draconomicon states that all true dragons have an elemental subtype.

That's not what the sentences mean. If your interpretation was correct, the rules would state "all true dragons receive <item that true dragons have>"

The rules are telling you what identifies a true dragon, not what you get for being a true dragon.

Therefore, this:

If you assume that "advance" counts as "Advancement" you get something like this:

- "Hey you need Advancement when you wanna call yourself a true dragon".
- "Hey you are a true dragon without Advancement? No bro, here you get it for free. Take it and you are rdy to go."

How can this two arguments exist together without contradicting each other? Can you solve this riddle?

...is a wholly fallacious argument.

Your phrasing should have read,
-"Hey you need Advancement if you wanna call yourself a true dragon."
-"Hey you don't have Advancement? Then bro, you ain't a true dragon."

I eagerly await your next floor routine to handwave that one away.

What is the type of a 3.5 True Dragon by RAW? "Dragon"
So a half-dragon is still the "same thing" just a lil different.

Per Races of the Dragon, correct.
Half-dragons are "versions" of true dragons.
Other synonyms of version include form, kind, variety, type, and model.

Therefore according to Races of the Dragon, Half-dragons are explicitly a variety of true dragon. Just a little bit different. Much like how lung dragons are a little bit different. And fang dragons. And so on, ad infinitum.

You might ask why they are talking about true dragons as base and not dragons overall: Cause only true dragons can produce half-dragons. Lesser dragons like half-dragons can not (produce half-dragon kids). So they couldn't have used just "dragon" as base for the half-dragon versions in the rule text.

Quite. And in so doing they explicitly stated half-dragons are true dragons.
Remember: intent doesn't matter. All that matters is the words.

But the difference is that half-dragons have their specific rule to degrade them to lesser dragons

Nope. Not any more they don't.
The primacy guideline doesn't matter either.

Per request, we are assuming that as the new publication, Races of the Dragon takes precedence whenever it contradicts an older source.

while for DWK it is undefined by text and leaves it open to debate (otherwise we wouldn't have fun here? am I right?^^). The text was just my thoughts what the intentions and fluff may have been to explicitly degrade half-dragons while we lack a clear text statement for DWK, which could be count as true dragons with a RAW point of view.

The most fun part for me about all this (for me, at the moment) is that it's actually the specific omissions of certain text that doesn't leave it open for debate.

The dragonwrought feat does not say you become a true dragon. It just says your type changes to dragon.
Dragonwrought kobolds are not included in either list in its own book of true dragons. Lists specifically stated by the authors that they intended to be exhaustive.

So per your own logic (inherent ability score bonuses count as "Advancement", kobold age categories count as dragon age categories, and most importantly, nothing matters and everything is made up), dragonwrought kobolds have no specific claim to being true dragons.

Half-dragon kobolds on the other hand, do.

Imho the intention is to specify Kobolds still as legal dragons. You could treat it as specific exception rule that Kobolds are Small dragons. Which would clear up the problem that Kobolds doN#t grow in size as some demands.

Or you could interpret it as the lost 3rd dragon category beside of true dragon and lesser dragon^^ Maybe we have found the missing part and DWK are "Small dragons"... ;)

Translation: "Look guys, the words do what I tell them to do, okay?"

[Bartmanhomer]

I"m just curious, I want to know who's started this argument in the first place? I know that this argument was up to debate a long time ago.

[Doctor Awkward]

I"m just curious, I want to know who's started this argument in the first place? I know that this argument was up to debate a long time ago.

Many, many years ago, on the old 339 boards (the Optimization section of the official Wizards of the Coast message boards), it was pointed out that Races of the Dragon explicitly stated that the Dragonwrought feat removed the penalties for aging. As such an optimal sorcerer build involving kobolds was created by taking that feat at first level, and setting your age to "Venerable" to gain the +3 aging bonuses to mental stats (including the sorcerer casting stat, Charisma) at no penalty, as well making use of the Greater Draconic Rite of Passage that soon appeared in the RotD Web Enhancement.

Shortly afterwards, someone else noted that Races of the Dragon gives kobolds the same age categories as true dragons (it technically doesn't, but...). They then noted that since the Draconomicon states that since lesser dragons are creatures of the dragon type do not advance through age categories, dragonwrought kobolds must be true dragons.

A number of theoretical builds then sprang up around this idea, mostly using the rules in the Draconomicon, for all sorts of bonuses, templates, and classes that are unique to true dragons. Dracolich was involved. Sovereign archetypes. And so on.

Near as I can recall, it was around the time that epic feats at less than 20 HD entered the equation that a huge pushback against the idea sprang up, with many people noting that dragonwrought kobolds being true dragons was clearly against the intent of the rules, and that RAW support required very dubious interpretations of the text.

This created a pretty sharp divide, I imagine as a result of many of the people working with the concept being told all their hard work was pointless because all their builds were illegal.

I didn't participate much in the forums back then, but I was always pretty firmly in the "against" camp, for the reasons I've gone over in this thread.

[Gruftzwerg]

Wait a second. I thought you can argue intentions. Or is it okay to talk about intentions when you try to use them for your own purposes?

I try to make it more obvious if I talk about RAW or RAI. As I suggested earlier we should differentiate this.

Is there a rule that you either have to discuss RAW or RAI? Can't I use argument in both disciplines?

__________

As you ignored earlier, the rules are very precise when using word that has a special glossary definition. It is also very precise when using contextual definitions. If a word has a special meaning in a certain context, and is not otherwise defined as being different somewhere elsewhere, then that word really only has one meaning according to the rules.

Lacking any evidence to the contrary, there is only one thing it can mean: monster advancement as defined in the 3.5 Monster Manual.

And you ignore that your quote from MM p7 is the "Advancement" paragraph. So the used "verb" is referring/pointing to the title.
Now tell me to what the verb "advance" on p4 of Draconomicon is referring/pointing? Can you find "Advancement" on the page anywhere to claim that "advance" is referring to it by RAW? RAI, you can do this claim for sure, but RAW doesn't let you do this.

All you need to prove you still have some ground to stand on is provide one single instance, in any 3.5 book, of the phrase "advance through hit dice" being used in the context of referring to the inherent bonuses gained to ability scores.

RAI yeah, but that's what RAW demands.
You need to "gain in power as you grow older" is the demanding term, which is easily covered by the ability score gain by RAW.

That argument was debunked back on page 2.
Advancing through age categories is a property that identifies a true dragon. It is not something handed out for being a true dragon.

Drconomicon P144 "Other True Dragons" would like to have a word with you:

Other True Dragons
For true dragons other than those found in the Monster Manual, construct tables such as those above using the information on Table 3–22: Additional Level Adjustments.

What does this rule do in your opinion?
Imho it sounds like "Advancement" is handed out for being a true dragon.

Per request, we are assuming that as the new publication, Races of the Dragon takes precedence whenever it contradicts an older source.

But they don't contradict on this. If RotD is the primary source, then it sets the general rule that still gets trumped by the specific "half-dragons are lesser dragons" rule. It would contradict only if there would be actual text explicitly claiming "half-dragons are true dragon" (versions of ain't enough) by RAW. But this is not the chase here.

So per your own logic (inherent ability score bonuses count as "Advancement", kobold age categories count as dragon age categories, and most importantly, nothing matters and everything is made up), dragonwrought kobolds have no specific claim to being true dragons.

That's not what I said. If you really think this, maybe reread my posts..
I say, it only demandy "power as you grow older" and think when you imply that as "Advancement" you already left the RAW side and reached the RAI part.
The same when you imply that "advance" is referring to "Advancement". You need to imply this, cause the text (draconomicon p.4) doesn't explicitly say it.
Keep in mind that RAW is rule/word lawyering. Implying keywords into non-keywords without any reference/instance of the keyword itself is talking about RAI not RAW.

Translation: "Look guys, the words do what I tell them to do, okay?"

Seems like this is how it looks like when you have fun huh? I clearly make a statement regarding the intention of the designers imho and this is what I get for it?
What is wrong when I make RAW claims while still participate in the RAI discussion? Did it sounded like I would make RAW claims there? I tried to make it obvious and started with "Imho the intention is" and you still think it was a RAW argument?

Is it so hard to distinguish when I do make RAW claims and when I do talk about RAI?

[Nifft]

Actually, no. That was an accusation that I have been participating in a bad faith debate, which I was trying to assert started when we began inventing new definitions for obvious context.

You may have been, but the bad faith wasn't brought by me.

My criteria for determining a bad faith argument is when I feel the other side is more invested in "winning" than they are at arriving at the truth of the matter. Seeing things like strawmanning, attempting to shift the focus onto irrelevant details, repeating arguments which have been long debunked, and throwing out dog whistles and "technically true" rebuttals are huge red flags for me. Just because I respond to one of your points with snark doesn't mean I am not taking your argument seriously. It just means that I found that particular argument to be incredibly lacking-- specifically, in this case, arguing that we have no clues as to whether the authors of Races of the Dragon intended the list of true dragons to be exhaustive, while quoting text which states unequivocally that they did.

Not sure what "throwing out dog whistles" is supposed to mean. I must admit to never actually hearing one. Could you tell us what they sound like?

The fact of the matter is that the Half-Dragon table in RotDr is only claiming authority on the topic of Half-Dragons, which seems pretty explicit in context. It's only your own out-of-context snipping which enables your perception of rule overreach.

Here's the text in context:



The section is Half-Dragons.

The topic sentence talks about extending types of half-dragons -- that's the intention, to extend Half-Dragon to all types.

The only authority claimed is the authority over half-dragon types, and that authority is claimed over Draconomicon -- but no other authority is claimed.

Great. That covers the dragons in the Dragon Compendium, but not any of the others.

If you're going to claim that you've been arguing in good faith, then you need to acknowledge when a counter-argument successfully overturns the foundation of your argument.

One counter-example is sufficient to disprove your claim. If you demand more evidence when proof is provided that torpedoes your central premise, then you're not arguing in good faith. You're currently trying to move the goalposts.

Should I assume then that anything not listed in Races of the Dragon which appears to be a true dragon but does not have text explicitly calling it a true dragon or saying that it uses the rules for true dragon is not a true dragon?

You should not assume at all.

You should try to apply the rules in a consistent way.

Oh I meant shall I stop pretending that logic and common sense do not matter, and that the primary source guideline doesn't exist, and also stop standing by the FAQs incorrect assertion that the most recently published source takes precedence.

See I stated a couple pages ago that the reason why Gruft's arguments were falling flat was because he was not playing by the same rules as the rest of us. He confirmed my suspicions on that matter when he outright stated that his approach to optimization is to ignore common sense and focus on what the text could mean, rather than what it does mean.

There is no such thing as "what it does mean", because RAW isn't an unambiguous nor unimpeachable bastion of clarity.

In fact it's downright confusing for many people, including yourself.

Logic does matter, quite explicitly -- that's why a single counter-example can disprove your entire conjectural foundation, because that's how logic works. That's why I don't need a preponderance of evidence, instead I must merely find a single instance of self-contradiction in your claim. That's why your arguments are failing to convince: because I am acquainted with logic.

"Common sense" is a strange argument -- neither kobolds nor feats that turn humanoids into dragons are common things, nor are they within the sphere of common human experience.

My change in approach was meant to be lens through which you one could view what it would look like if the "Not True Dragon" viewpoint was argued through that same lens, and (hopefully) illustrate why such an approach is so unhelpful.

Ah so now you claim that you're not ****posting ~seriously~, you're just ironically ****posting because you think that will help everyone understand some deep truth that can somehow only be illustrated by you abandoning civil debate standards.

Unfortunately, ironic ****posting is still ****posting, and that's exactly what you've been doing.

Please just stop ****posting.

You seem to view the people who wrote and designed the 3rd Edition of Dungeons and Dragons as nothing more than a bunch of talentless hacks, or corporate sellouts who were only out to make money

No, you're putting words in my mouth and that's not okay.

I'm saying that the rules are very complex, and written by a lot of people, and that they are often not coherent in their edge-cases.

This hateful crap you're trying to ascribe to me? Save it for whoever it was that hurt you so badly that you're trying to turn innocent strangers into a caricature of them.

If you want to argue in good faith, you need to attack my arguments, not my motivations.

Until you can do that, you're not actually presenting counter-arguments.

[Doctor Awkward]

The fact of the matter is that the Half-Dragon table in RotDr is only claiming authority on the topic of Half-Dragons, which seems pretty explicit in context. It's only your own out-of-context snipping which enables your perception of rule overreach.

Here's the text in context:



The section is Half-Dragons.

The topic sentence talks about extending types of half-dragons -- that's the intention, to extend Half-Dragon to all types.

The only authority claimed is the authority over half-dragon types, and that authority is claimed over Draconomicon -- but no other authority is claimed.

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?



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?

If you're going to claim that you've been arguing in good faith, then you need to acknowledge when a counter-argument successfully overturns the foundation of your argument.

One counter-example is sufficient to disprove your claim. If you demand more evidence when proof is provided that torpedoes your central premise, then you're not arguing in good faith. You're currently trying to move the goalposts.

You should not assume at all.

You should try to apply the rules in a consistent way.

There is no such thing as "what it does mean", because RAW isn't an unambiguous nor unimpeachable bastion of clarity.

In fact it's downright confusing for many people, including yourself.

Logic does matter, quite explicitly -- that's why a single counter-example can disprove your entire conjectural foundation, because that's how logic works. That's why I don't need a preponderance of evidence, instead I must merely find a single instance of self-contradiction in your claim. That's why your arguments are failing to convince: because I am acquainted with logic.

You are really going to lecture me about "consistency"?

A. I made a positive claim that, "Here is a table claiming to list all varieties of true dragons."
B. You responded with, "Here is X, Y, and Z true dragons that are not on that list."
C. I asked, "How do you know know they are true dragons?"
D. You answered, "Because this text here in it's entry tells me it is."
E. I answered, "Ah ha! An exception for Z. Great. What about all of the others?"
F. You said the quoted text above.


...Seriously, are you sure you understand what being an "exception-based" ruleset means?

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.


Once again, if I seem to be inconsistent, it's because I am playing by a completely different set of rules for Gruft because his "logic" demands it. From now on I'll address the two of you separately.

"Common sense" is a strange argument -- neither kobolds nor feats that turn humanoids into dragons are common things, nor are they within the sphere of common human experience.

Here you are taking my statements about basic grammar, sentence structure and reading comprehension and conflating it relate to game mechanics.
This is a strawman and a deliberate attempt to shift the focus away from the topic at hand.

Ah so now you claim that you're not ****posting ~seriously~, you're just ironically ****posting because you think that will help everyone understand some deep truth that can somehow only be illustrated by you abandoning civil debate standards.

Unfortunately, ironic ****posting is still ****posting, and that's exactly what you've been doing.

Please just stop ****posting.

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.

No, you're putting words in my mouth and that's not okay.

I'm saying that the rules are very complex, and written by a lot of people, and that they are often not coherent in their edge-cases.

This hateful crap you're trying to ascribe to me? Save it for whoever it was that hurt you so badly that you're trying to turn innocent strangers into a caricature of them.

If you want to argue in good faith, you need to attack my arguments, not my motivations.

Until you can do that, you're not actually presenting counter-arguments.

Well what else am I supposed to think when you make a blanket statement like, " I have no expectation that WotC will recognize the implications of their own work -- they're pretty terrible at seeing the obvious implications of even their Core rules", and, "I'm not going to expect coherence nor even understanding of the obvious from them -- to do so is to court disappointment"? What other inference can I arrive at aside from, "This guy has zero faith in the authors' ability to construct a coherent piece of rules text"?

Everyone starts off arguing things from their own perspective, and all to often fail to consider the perspectives of other people. Difference in perspective are half the reason why we have we have disagreements at all; whether that difference is in the level of access to information, to different meanings of words, different values, or methods of processing said information. (The other half of the reason is self-interest and/or failures in logic, if you were wondering).

I'm sorry if you felt like that was a personal attack, but it had nothing at all to do with questioning your motivations. It was just me attempting to a) understand your underlying values and b) get you to look at things from another point of view.

Because here was my perspective after I read that initial post: "What good is it going to do me to quote rules text at this guy to try and prove my point if he thinks the rules are largely bull****?"

[Doctor Awkward]

And you ignore that your quote from MM p7 is the "Advancement" paragraph. So the used "verb" is referring/pointing to the title.
Now tell me to what the verb "advance" on p4 of Draconomicon is referring/pointing? Can you find "Advancement" on the page anywhere to claim that "advance" is referring to it by RAW? RAI, you can do this claim for sure, but RAW doesn't let you do this.



RAI yeah, but that's what RAW demands.
You need to "gain in power as you grow older" is the demanding term, which is easily covered by the ability score gain by RAW.

I thought RAW was also "advancing through hit dice", and "having age categories"?

Drconomicon P144 "Other True Dragons" would like to have a word with you:
What does this rule do in your opinion?
Imho it sounds like "Advancement" is handed out for being a true dragon.

I already explained to you why you were incorrect, and what that table is for.
I don't like repeating myself

But they don't contradict on this. If RotD is the primary source, then it sets the general rule that still gets trumped by the specific "half-dragons are lesser dragons" rule. It would contradict only if there would be actual text explicitly claiming "half-dragons are true dragon" (versions of ain't enough) by RAW. But this is not the chase here.

The problem is there is no such rule.
Not without the Draconomicon.

The phrase "lesser dragon" does not appear at all in Races of the Dragon.
And the only reason we know half-dragons are lesser dragons is because the Draconomicon has two separate tables that explicitly list the half-dragon template in their list of "Lesser Dragons".

So if Races of the Dragon has primacy, by virtue of being the newest publication, then it takes precedence over the contradiction between these two books.
Half-dragon kobolds count as true dragons by virtue of meeting every requirement: dragon type, "dragon" age categories, and gaining in power as they grow older. (Literally everything gets inherent ability score bonuses with increased hit dice)

That's not what I said. If you really think this, maybe reread my posts..
I say, it only demandy "power as you grow older" and think when you imply that as "Advancement" you already left the RAW side and reached the RAI part.
The same when you imply that "advance" is referring to "Advancement". You need to imply this, cause the text (draconomicon p.4) doesn't explicitly say it.
Keep in mind that RAW is rule/word lawyering. Implying keywords into non-keywords without any reference/instance of the keyword itself is talking about RAI not RAW.

...So, sort of like how you assume that "version" must mean they are too different to count as true dragons with zero contextual evidence to back up that point?

Seems like this is how it looks like when you have fun huh? I clearly make a statement regarding the intention of the designers imho and this is what I get for it?
What is wrong when I make RAW claims while still participate in the RAI discussion? Did it sounded like I would make RAW claims there? I tried to make it obvious and started with "Imho the intention is" and you still think it was a RAW argument?

Is it so hard to distinguish when I do make RAW claims and when I do talk about RAI?

Sometimes I wonder if you even understand the difference between them, based on your inability to recognize that every single argument you make is based solely on your own personal interpretation.

[Promethean]

Regardless of the fact that it's rather obvious that arguing is pointless, as neither side has any intention of conceding or meeting the other half way, both argue on relentless.

BTW are there any templates that have age categories? Not specific to dragons or what counts as what, a previous comment made me curious if any template advanced by age(example: evolved undead.)

[Gruftzwerg]

I thought RAW was also "advancing through hit dice", and "having age categories"?

I never said that in this thread. I don't know where you are getting this? I always claimed that by RAW true dragons need to have "Age Categories" (note not Dragon Age Categories) and need to gain in power as they grow older. Further I still claim that true dragons who don't have any Advancement table, gets it for free by the DM. The DM needs to decide which kind of Advancement he sees fits the best.

I already explained to you why you were incorrect, and what that table is for.
I don't like repeating myself

And I already explained that your point was about RAI and not RAW. You admitted yourself that I was "rules-lawyering" which is the base for reading and thinking "RAW". While thinks like "intents" belong into the world of RAI. If you read a keyword into another word without any reference of the keyword itself, that is RAI and not RAW. The text doesn't support your claim by RAW, only by RAI (and RAI I agree for the most part, so don't misunderstand me at least on that point ;).
And yeah I don't like to repeat myself too, but I guess we have no choice here, when people think they debunked something while the other side thinks it ain't debunked. That's a big problem in threads like these and goes into both directions. We have to bear it I guess..^^

The problem is there is no such rule.
Not without the Draconomicon.

The phrase "lesser dragon" does not appear at all in Races of the Dragon.
And the only reason we know half-dragons are lesser dragons is because the Draconomicon has two separate tables that explicitly list the half-dragon template in their list of "Lesser Dragons".

So if Races of the Dragon has primacy, by virtue of being the newest publication, then it takes precedence over the contradiction between these two books.
Half-dragon kobolds count as true dragons by virtue of meeting every requirement: dragon type, "dragon" age categories, and gaining in power as they grow older. (Literally everything gets inherent ability score bonuses with increased hit dice)

1. Even if RotD has primacy for "half-dragons", but not for the rules that distinguish between true dragons and lesser dragons. These rules are still defined by Draconomicon (which has Primacy for True Dragons and thus the rules if something is a true dragon or a lesser one). RotD can't suppress the rules in Draconomicon for true dragon topics. Which results in the rule that half dragons are lesser dragons is still in effect. RotD as no clear textual claim that half-dragons count as true dragons and thus doesn't contradict the (true dragon or lesser dragon) rules presented in Draconomicon.

2.As said, by RAW: Anything that is a half-dragon is automatically degraded to a lesser one.
This means that even a "White Half-Dragon Red Dragon" would loose his true dragon status by strict RAW.
So a Half-Dragon Kobold is also treated as lesser dragon by RAW.

...So, sort of like how you assume that "version" must mean they are too different to count as true dragons with zero contextual evidence to back up that point?

We can either stretch the legal "difference" for "version" to a degree where the rules work, or be so nitpicky that it would be dysfunctional. So imho you pick the interpretation of "version" that doesn't cause dysfunctions.
And as said, if you follow the rule hierarchy, you have the contextual evidence in Draconomicon.

Sometimes I wonder if you even understand the difference between them, based on your inability to recognize that every single argument you make is based solely on your own personal interpretation.

I could say the same about you. RAW means you just take the words on the page/paragraph and don't imply other words (from other pages/books) into it. Unless a page/paragraph mentions "Advancement" it is illegal by RAW to claim that "advance" is referring to it. That is RAI. But you are claiming over several pages that it is RAW and don't seem to notice that you already left the RAW ground by implying keywords into nonkeywords in the absence of textual evidence (on the page).

_________________

A beg to everyone: I still hope that we all are still somehow enjoying this thread. So pls lets not get to stressed here. I know that discussion like these can heat up really fast, but we should all try to stay clam and friendly to each other. I hope nobody feels offended in any way of my posts. As said, I like to theorize all kind of games, and the RAW discipline of 3.5 is something I really enjoy. Have a nice Sunday, btw^^

[Luccan]

Regardless of the fact that it's rather obvious that arguing is pointless, as neither side has any intention of conceding or meeting the other half way, both argue on relentless.

BTW are there any templates that have age categories? Not specific to dragons or what counts as what, a previous comment made me curious if any template advanced by age(example: evolved undead.)

I doubt it. Even evolved undead doesn't, it just has advancements that may occur every 100 years or so. If any should, it's Half-Dragon or maybe Draconic, from both of which it is notably absent.

Edit: For my money, whatever ways there are of giving True Dragons immense amounts of power (beyond what they already have), should just not be allowed to PCs except in games where the intent is to be as mind-bendingly powerful as early as possible. Just as a "here's how I think it should work in real games, regardless of RAI or RAW" perspective.

[Gruftzwerg]

Edit: For my money, whatever ways there are of giving True Dragons immense amounts of power (beyond what they already have), should just not be allowed to PCs except in games where the intent is to be as mind-bendingly powerful as early as possible. Just as a "here's how I think it should work in real games, regardless of RAI or RAW" perspective.

I agree, in games the DM should set the optimization and cheese lvl of a campaign. He is the one who has to bear/handle it after all.

But that still won't stop the discussion^^.
As said, we need these RAW debates for other things in the forum.
When TO builds emerge for fun or contests as example, it's easier to set the cheese lvl and discuss em when all view the rules in the same way, wether RAW or RAI.
While RAI may be open to several interpretations on the same topic, RAW tries to eliminate interpretation where it can. But thx due to some (not all, don't get me wrong) poor written rules, we have unclear situations like wether or not a DWK is a true dragon. Or dysfunctions like in the " Dysfunctional Rules IX: 1d3 Dysfunctions from the 8th Level List" thread. All that can heat up our lil discussions about RAW..^^

[Luccan]

I agree, in games the DM should set the optimization and cheese lvl of a campaign. He is the one who has to bear/handle it after all.

But that still won't stop the discussion^^.
As said, we need these RAW debates for other things in the forum.
When TO builds emerge for fun or contests as example, it's easier to set the cheese lvl and discuss em when all view the rules in the same way, wether RAW or RAI.
While RAI may be open to several interpretations on the same topic, RAW tries to eliminate interpretation where it can. But thx due to some (not all, don't get me wrong) poor written rules, we have unclear situations like wether or not a DWK is a true dragon. Or dysfunctions like in the " Dysfunctional Rules IX: 1d3 Dysfunctions from the 8th Level List" thread. All that can heat up our lil discussions about RAW..^^

Oh I know, but I wasn't really sure anyone had taken the stance that real games should just do what works. I'm aware this forum runs on RAW debate .