Dragonwrought Kobolds and epic dragon cheese?

[Doctor Awkward]

Except for ECL doesnt require class levels to function. You can have ECL 21+ without a single class level, that, per the lines you quoted, would allow any monster with over 20 HD, which is one of the factors for ECL, to qualify for epic feats

While you can have ECL 21+ without class levels, that's not what the text in the DMG supports.

It states that the epic rules only function for "monsters with character levels".

Arguably this is why the Dracnomicon (and previously the Epic Level Handbook) bothered to create an exception for true dragons. They wanted the iconic game creature to have access to epic feats without having to take a level in a random class.

[eggynack]

Plus other ones as noted by the sidebar:


If you have to ignore part of the text to make your point, you are probably changing the text to support your conclusion, instead of drawing your conclusion from the text.

I literally addressed that point in the post you quoted. Here's that: "It says that other true dragons are presented in the book as well, but specifically in a chapter that isn't the one we're discussing." This text is irrelevant, because it only supports this book being about other dragons in that specific chapter. I mean, are you going to ignore the fact that the very next two paragraphs also place lesser dragons within the domain of this book to the exact same extent? If we are to take your citation as evidence that the book, and thus the term dragon in this context, refers to all true dragons, then I can use the following citation to imply that lesser dragons are also included:

Chapter 4 of this book contains a number of descriptions of other lesser dragons, and Appendix 2 lists every lesser dragon that has been described in a DUNGEONS & DRAGONS rule-book or accessory.

[noob]

Except for ECL doesnt require class levels to function. You can have ECL 21+ without a single class level, that, per the lines you quoted, would allow any monster with over 20 HD, which is one of the factors for ECL, to qualify for epic feats

If you have a level adjustment of _ your ecl is of hd+class level + _ which is equal to _ and it is not allowed to compare _ to 20.

[Doctor Awkward]

I literally addressed that point in the post you quoted. Here's that: "It says that other true dragons are presented in the book as well, but specifically in a chapter that isn't the one we're discussing." This text is irrelevant, because it only supports this book being about other dragons in that specific chapter. I mean, are you going to ignore the fact that the very next two paragraphs also place lesser dragons within the domain of this book to the exact same extent? If we are to take your citation as evidence that the book, and thus the term dragon in this context, refers to all true dragons, then I can use the following citation to imply that lesser dragons are also included:

My assertion is exactly what I said it was on the previous page.

The primary topic of the book is true dragons. All rules discussed in the book pertain to true dragons. If a rule also applies to lesser dragons then the book will say so.

What constitutes a true dragon is also clearly defined in several ways. If a creature does not seem to meet all of the established criteria, it will say somewhere in its description that it counts as a true dragon. Otherwise it doesn't.

The Draconomicon is not a book about the "dragon" creature type in general. It is about the category of monsters after which the game is named.

[eggynack]

The primary topic of the book is true dragons. All rules discussed in the book pertain to true dragons. If a rule also applies to lesser dragons then the book will say so.

Your citation does not indicate this. Either only that earlier part is relevant, in which case your citation indicates that the primary topic of the book is the ten true dragons from the monster manual, or the entire sidebar is relevant, in which case the primary topic is both true and lesser dragons. There is no reading by which your citation matches up with your claims. If you have a different citation for this idea, then that could support your position, but as is it has been utterly unsupported.

[umbergod]

If you have a level adjustment of _ your ecl is of hd+class level + _ which is equal to _ and it is not allowed to compare _ to 20.

And the epic monsters with an actual listed LA? Ya know, the ones with an ECL of over 20 and with statblocks containing epic feats?

[Doctor Awkward]

Your citation does not indicate this. Either only that earlier part is relevant, in which case your citation indicates that the primary topic of the book is the ten true dragons from the monster manual, or the entire sidebar is relevant, in which case the primary topic is both true and lesser dragons. There is no reading by which your citation matches up with your claims. If you have a different citation for this idea, then that could support your position, but as is it has been utterly unsupported.

Try reading the entire rest of that page. The Introduction goes into great detail explaining that it is intended to be a resource for the "iconic creature that is a central part of the game."

I'm pretty sure that the authors weren't talking about kobolds...

[eggynack]

Try reading the entire rest of that page. The Introduction goes into great detail explaining that it is intended to be a resource for the "iconic creature that is a central part of the game."

I'm pretty sure that the authors weren't talking about kobolds...

Might have been talking about standard lesser dragons though, and there's really not much in the way of specifics in that introduction to create a strong basis for this alternative definition. Or maybe they were talking about kobolds. They're pretty iconic and central as far as I can tell. Definitely more iconic and central than, I dunno, li lungs. You're saying that we should read the word dragon in a way that goes against the only way that word is defined, and your basis for that is that the book says dragons are cool.

[Doctor Awkward]

Might have been talking about standard lesser dragons though, and there's really not much in the way of specifics in that introduction to create a strong basis for this alternative definition. Or maybe they were talking about kobolds. They're pretty iconic and central as far as I can tell. Definitely more iconic and central than, I dunno, li lungs. You're saying that we should read the word dragon in a way that goes against the only way that word is defined, and your basis for that is that the book says dragons are cool.

When considered along with the clarifying text in the sidebar, the topic of the book is made abundantly clear.

-"Most of this book is about the ten true dragons in the MM."
-"If something is not about true dragons, the text will say so."
-"If something pertains to lesser dragons as well, the book will say so."
-"These things listed here also count as true dragons."

That is the context in which the book is written, and that is how it is meant to be read.

The one insisting that the word "dragon" must mean something else is you, and you are doing so because your assumptions would not otherwise fit the text.

I'd advise you to pick better assumptions rather than argue that the text must be wrong.

[eggynack]

-"Most of this book is about the ten true dragons in the MM."
-"If something is not about true dragons, the text will say so."
-"If something pertains to lesser dragons as well, the book will say so."
-"These things listed here also count as true dragons."

Where, precisely, are the second and third things stated? It's certainly not in the sidebar, and it's doubly certainly not in the introduction.

The one insisting that the word "dragon" must mean something else is you, and you are doing so because your assumptions would not otherwise fit the text.

On the contrary, I've looked at all of the text you've cited, and seen nothing that does not match up to my claim. You say that "dragon" in this book means true dragon. You've given literally zero evidence, let alone proof, for this. All you have thus far is a piece of text saying that the book is focused on a specific set of true dragons, and an intro that talks about how cool dragons are. From this I am to derive some vast redefinition of a relatively well defined term? And I am the one letting my initial assumptions blur my reading?

[Doctor Awkward]

Where, precisely, are the second and third things stated? It's certainly not in the sidebar, and it's doubly certainly not in the introduction.

On the contrary, I've looked at all of the text you've cited, and seen nothing that does not match up to my claim. You say that "dragon" in this book means true dragon. You've given literally zero evidence, let alone proof, for this. All you have thus far is a piece of text saying that the book is focused on a specific set of true dragons, and an intro that talks about how cool dragons are. From this I am to derive some vast redefinition of a relatively well defined term? And I am the one letting my initial assumptions blur my reading?

Yes. You are.

Read the introduction assuming that the word "dragon" refers to the creature type.

Then read it again assuming that it refers to the specific creature category of "true dragons" (like the sidebar says).

See which context makes more sense.

Now apply that context to the rest of the book.

[eggynack]

Yes. You are.

Read the introduction assuming that the word "dragon" refers to the creature type.

Then read it again assuming that it refers to the specific creature category of "true dragons" (like the sidebar says).

See which context makes more sense.

Now apply that context to the rest of the book.

The sidebar does not tell me to assume that, first of all. Second, if true dragon makes more sense, then the difference is pretty marginal. The only thing that's all that indicative is that it repeatedly refers to true dragon age categories. After all, while the intro does talk about epic dragons sweeping over the land, it also talks about not so epic dragons raiding sheep. This is especially true because the intro specifically references the dragon feats section as a thing to make dragon encounters more exciting, and then most of the feats in question are allowed on anything of the dragon type, meaning that the text implicitly calls lesser dragons "dragon". Third, even if true dragon did make a significant amount more sense in this context, that would not a new definition make. You're trying to override an actual definition here. True dragons fitting in somewhat better is nowhere near sufficient.

[Katie Boundary]

This thread has brought dishonor on my whole family, dishonor on me, and dishonor on my cow. I must now commit sudoku.

[Doctor Awkward]

The sidebar does not tell me to assume that, first of all. Second, if true dragon makes more sense, then the difference is pretty marginal. The only thing that's all that indicative is that it repeatedly refers to true dragon age categories. After all, while the intro does talk about epic dragons sweeping over the land, it also talks about not so epic dragons raiding sheep. This is especially true because the intro specifically references the dragon feats section as a thing to make dragon encounters more exciting, and then most of the feats in question are allowed on anything of the dragon type, meaning that the text implicitly calls lesser dragons "dragon". Third, even if true dragon did make a significant amount more sense in this context, that would not a new definition make. You're trying to override an actual definition here. True dragons fitting in somewhat better is nowhere near sufficient.

First of all, yes it does. That's exactly what the text, "For the most part, this book concerns itself with the ten varieties of true dragon described in the Monster Manual", means. That is the book topic spelled out as directly as possible without using the phrase "book topic".

Second, I'm glad we seem to agree that true dragon makes more sense. While the difference in the Introduction is marginal, it becomes far more pronounced the further you head into the book. And yes, stealing sheep does not make for an epic dragon, but the youngest of wyrms has to eat something. That passage is merely illustrating that one of the highlights of true dragons is that they are capable of filling many types of antagonistic roles in the story depending on the age category you choose. Furthermore, repeatedly mentioning Dragon Age Categories are far from the only oblique reference the book text routinely makes to true dragons. It also makes mention of ageless beings of great intelligence and wisdom, immensely powerful magic, breath weapons, elemental weaknesses and invulnerabilities, the hoarding of treasure-- all characteristics which, when counted together, are exclusively the hallmarks of true dragons.

And thirdly, I am not the one inventing anything. The text is assigning the meanings and definitions of words through context. It repeatedly and routinely uses "dragon" and "true dragon" interchangeably, especially when discussing Dragon Tactics and Running a Dragon Encounter in Chapter 2. And throughout the text there are repeated footnotes to the effect of what is found on page 100: that whenever a particular general rule regarding "dragons" (a phrase which we have been told is meant to be read as "true dragons") also applies to lesser dragons the text will say so. In fact, the text goes out of it's way to note that several things which appear in this book are not exclusive to true dragons:

METABREATH FEATS
Dragons (and other creatures) have developed ways to control
their breath weapons to produce varying degrees of
effects, from the subtle to the conspicuous.

DRAGON SPELLS
Over the millennia, dragons have developed a number of
spells that take their special abilities and qualities into
account. Despite the origin of these spells, any spellcaster
can learn and use them if he or she is capable of casting
spells of the indicated class and level.

DRAGON MAGIC ITEMS
This section describes magic items made particularly for
use by dragons. Many of them can be used by other creatures
as well.

The book isn't doing this to be redundant. It's doing this because the chapter in which this material appears is concerned entirely with true dragons. All of this indicates a clear manual of style with which the book was written. Even the templates in the Appendix are subject to this, what with the line of text that reads, "(referred to hereafter as the base dragon)", rather than "base creature" like every other supplement of D&D, ever
(even the undead-only templates from Libris Mortis aren't given this treatment). The templates in the Draconomicon also make assumptions about the abilities of the base "dragon" that are all unique to true dragons, as though it is a foregone conclusion that they won't be applied to anything else. Because they aren't supposed to be.

My conclusions regarding the nature of text in the Draconomicon aren't an opinion. They are the results of a comprehensive reading of the entire book. In some instances, a selective reading of the text can create ambiguities, but those are not license to ignore obvious author intent. Particularly when that intent is spelled out for you within the first two pages of the text.

When the book says, "Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even if they have no class levels.", they aren't referring to creatures of the dragon type who might also happen to have an "Aging Effects" table. They are talking about true dragons of at least the Old Age category or older.

Dragonwrought kobolds do not use this rule any more than any race from the PHB with the Half-dragon template would.

[eggynack]

First of all, yes it does. That's exactly what the text, "For the most part, this book concerns itself with the ten varieties of true dragon described in the Monster Manual", means. That is the book topic spelled out as directly as possible without using the phrase "book topic".

That's the first point. Your second and third points do not follow, however. The points that follow would be, "If something is not about these ten true dragons, the text will say so," and, "If something pertains to dragons besides these ten as well, the book will say so." This, however, is not what you've been trying to prove. As I continually say, the position that "dragon" is defined for this book as specifically these ten dragons is a far more self consistent and well supported one. Of course, it's also super weird.

And yes, stealing sheep does not make for an epic dragon, but the youngest of wyrms has to eat something. That passage is merely illustrating that one of the highlights of true dragons is that they are capable of filling many types of antagonistic roles in the story depending on the age category you choose.

Of course true dragons make sense in the context of the introduction. My contention, however, is that lesser dragons fit in this context about as well. You cited the epic presentation of dragons as evidence that true dragons are the topic, and the presence of significantly lower key dragon references refute this idea.

Furthermore, repeatedly mentioning Dragon Age Categories are far from the only oblique reference the book text routinely makes to true dragons. It also makes mention of ageless beings of great intelligence and wisdom, immensely powerful magic, breath weapons, elemental weaknesses and invulnerabilities, the hoarding of treasure-- all characteristics which, when counted together, are exclusively the hallmarks of true dragons.

And yet, they are not all the hallmark of all true dragons. Many of the citations made have exceptions scattered throughout the piles of true dragons in existence, including ones listed at the end of the book. Thus, these references do not particularly support your conclusion about what the word dragon means in these contexts.

It repeatedly and routinely uses "dragon" and "true dragon" interchangeably, especially when discussing Dragon Tactics and Running a Dragon Encounter in Chapter 2.

Chapter 2 actually doesn't really use dragon and true dragon interchangeably. It mostly just says dragon. The first usage of the word "true" in that chapter is on the feat draconic knowledge, as a prerequisite. This is well after the dragon tactics section. The other uses in the chapter are not particularly meaningful either, in terms of establishing the interchangeable use of the terms.

And throughout the text there are repeated footnotes to the effect of what is found on page 100: that whenever a particular general rule regarding "dragons" (a phrase which we have been told is meant to be read as "true dragons") also applies to lesser dragons the text will say so.

We have never been told it is meant to be read as true dragons. As far as I can tell, you've yet to provide a citation for this claim.

In fact, the text goes out of it's way to note that several things which appear in this book are not exclusive to true dragons:

These citations do not support your point. They all use the word "dragon", and creatures that aren't dragons at all can make use of some of them. Thus, while a meaning of the citations could theoretically be, "True dragons and everything else," the meaning could equally be, "Dragons and everything else".

Even the templates in the Appendix are subject to this, what with the line of text that reads, "(referred to hereafter as the base dragon)", rather than "base creature" like every other supplement of D&D, ever
(even the undead-only templates from Libris Mortis aren't given this treatment). The templates in the Draconomicon also make assumptions about the abilities of the base "dragon" that are all unique to true dragons, as though it is a foregone conclusion that they won't be applied to anything else. Because they aren't supposed to be.

What abilities, precisely, are you referring to? As far as I can tell, nothing in the text of any of the templates precludes the use of a lesser dragon. The text allows the dragon to retain things that true dragons would generally only be in the wheelhouse of true dragons, but obviously the book had to account for the possibility of true dragons accessing the templates.

My conclusions regarding the nature of text in the Draconomicon aren't an opinion. They are the results of a comprehensive reading of the entire book. In some instances, a selective reading of the text can create ambiguities, but those are not license to ignore obvious author intent. Particularly when that intent is spelled out for you within the first two pages of the text.

Your conclusions are absolutely opinion. The text you use to support the idea that this is a true dragon thing can ultimately only support two conclusions entirely distinct from that one. First, that dragon refers specifically to dragons from the monster manual, or second, that dragon refers to, y'know, dragons. Your introduction based argument specifically tells us to look at those ten dragons, and references throughout the book exclude some true dragons. These citations are too narrow in their scope to support your reading. And, honestly, I don't have a great argument against this particular reading at the moment. It's an incredibly risky position, because a single dragon besides those ten that uses a thing that the book says only a dragon is allowed access to would defeat that argument. But I've yet to find such a dragon. Ultimately, I think either position is defensible. The one you hold is not, in my opinion.

[lylsyly]

This thread has brought dishonor on my whole family, dishonor on me, and dishonor on my cow. I must now commit sudoku.

Only three pages in six days is nothing for this controversial subject. If you go back and search for previous threads you will see. And you'll see a lot of the same people rehashing the same old arguments
with no resolution. Occasionally you will actually find a person swayed one way or another, but it's rare.

When you DM, it's YOUR call, as long as you and your player's are having fun. After all, that is why we play the game.

Actually, I would rather spend my time figuring out the most convoluted RPG in history than play *shudder* sudoku ;D

There is no Dishonor in asking questions ... how else do we learn?

[Mato]

This thread has brought dishonor on my whole family, dishonor on me, and dishonor on my cow. I must now commit sudoku.

Don't let eggy drag you down with him.

Use the thread for the obvious lesson that it is. The words in the books serve one and only one purpose, to explain the author's ideas to you. They have to translate their ideas into words and you have to translate their words back into an idea and if you're every lived in the real world you know how messages can change every single time they are retold. It at any point you find your self quoting one sentence above all else then you have absolutely failed to understand the idea.

And never, ever, launch into a rhetorical point designed to claim that it is generally impossible to discern the idea. People only do that to limit the replies that oppose their agenda and that is called plurium interrogationum, or fallacy of too many questions. Some specific cases may be had to understand, but that doesn't mean every case is. Like one of eggy's posts a page ago where he claimed he doesn't know what "dragon" means or what RAI is. I think everyone in this thread knows eggy does not know what they are, but that does not mean you cannot learn about them yourself.

[AnonymousPepper]

Is it Tuesday already?

*pulls up lawnchair*

[eggynack]

Snip

Well, this is a bunch of nonsense right here.

[Bullet06320]

I got a fresh batch of popcorn to give away, the butter costs extra tho

[eggynack]

I got a fresh batch of popcorn to give away, the butter costs extra tho

I mean, I'm still reasonably engaged by the actual argument here, but I will partake of this forum popcorn with regard to Mato's odd... writings. Really not sure where his aggression is coming from.

[Bullet06320]

Eggy, you usually know what your talking about, and can make reasonable well cited arguments for your point of view

unfortunately every one around here doesn't always agree with the way things are written in the books or merely read them from a different point of view based on their own preconceived notions, not saying they are wrong, just that we all see things differntly and some things that fly at one table may not fly at another

and it doesn't help that things from one book mesh weirdly with things from other books, or combined with 8 different sources

things like dragonwrought kobold, makes a kobold a dragon, and eligible for dragon things

so if by your reading of the rules its an old kobold that's also a dragon, have all the epic cheese you want, if not, well...NO CHEESE FOR YOU!!!!!

this is one of those arguments that your for one side or other, and no amount of rationale rules debate and citations will convince the other side.

at any given table, ask the DM when in doubt

[eggynack]

Snip

I'm honestly on a bit of a different thing right now. I do think dragonwrought kobolds have access to epic feats, but what I find more interesting are those odd inconsistencies in the true dragon interpretation. This stance opposing my own relies on a ton of weird citations that don't quite add up to that conclusion. In spite of how well trod this topic is as a whole, I'm not sure this tack, that a reading that removes dragonwrought kobolds from epic feat access necessarily removes, say, song dragons as well, has been taken on before. It's a weirdly well supported argument, as citations like, "All dragons get arcane spellcasting," suddenly make some variety of sense when applied to only the ten core true dragons. Of course, as I keep noting, it's a thoroughly weird position, particularly because it implies that the designers meant this strange specific thing when using a super broad term, but I think it's possibly the only self consistent position aside from anything of the dragon type.

As I side note, here's a weird question I just thought of. What does dragon wild shape allow you to become? According to this "all true dragons" position, can someone with the feat become a plains landwyrm? By my strange alternate position, can they become a sapphire dragon?

[Bullet06320]

As I side note, here's a weird question I just thought of. What does dragon wild shape allow you to become? According to this "all true dragons" position, can someone with the feat become a plains landwyrm? By my strange alternate position, can they become a sapphire dragon?

so...you could dragon wildshape into a dragonwrought kolbold? its a small dragon, so why not?

[umbergod]

so...you could dragon wildshape into a dragonwrought kolbold? its a small dragon, so why not?

Thats pure genius!

[eggynack]

so...you could dragon wildshape into a dragonwrought kolbold? its a small dragon, so why not?

Probably not, as it demands you make feat selections for your target forms.

[liquidformat]

so...you could dragon wildshape into a dragonwrought kolbold? its a small dragon, so why not?

Ya pretty sure that is a no go since dragonwrought is too close to being a template to pass that litmus test...

[Bullet06320]

but...but...but...its a dragon, lol

I honestly wasn't sure, but it sounded good, without delving into the mechanics of wildshape

I guess I'll put a new batch of popcorn in, maybe some nachos, so everyone can has cheese too

[Arael666]

Just want to add something to the discussion, have you guys noticed that certain dragon feats require "dragon type" (such as endure blows), others just require "Dragon" (such as Tails Constrict, capital "d"), and we even have a feat that requires "true dragon" (draconic knowledge)?

[eggynack]

Just want to add something to the discussion, have you guys noticed that certain dragon feats require "dragon type" (such as endure blows), others just require "Dragon" (such as Tails Constrict, capital "d"), and we even have a feat that requires "true dragon" (draconic knowledge)?

Yeah, I think I noted that awhile back. It's truly inexplicable, and lends credence to the general position that the book was just super poorly edited, at least in this regard.