Dragonwrought kobold

[Nifft]

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

As far as I can tell, the 3.5e DMG was published in July 2003, and Draconomicon was published in November 2003 -- so Draconomicon was always 3.5e, and isn't superseded by the 3.5e DMG since it post-dates that book.

3.5e DMG is authoritative for non-dragons, of course, but Draconomicon ought to be authoritative for dragons in 3.5e.

[Doctor Awkward]

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

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

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

You are the one making a claim that flies in the face of clear and obvious intent, common sense, and basic dictionary definitions of words being used to explain the rules of the game. You are the one assuming that advancement must mean something other than what it clearly means. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that your interpretation meets the criteria of Rules As Written.

Thus far your "argument" has consisted entirely of saying "Well I think that text you quoted actually means this..." and then proceeding to make assumptions that are wholly inconsistent with the rest of the way the rules are printed (which is what I was demonstrating in my response.)

So is my DWK a dragon and adcances thru age categories?

Does it have a list or table indicating the abilities it gains as a result of additional non-class racial hit dice? No?
Then the answer is no, it does not advance through age categories. It advances "By character class".

As a further point of order, I would also direct you to the "Lesser Dragons as PC's" heading on page 144, where it states explicitly that "Such a creature has a set level adjustment and no built-in progression due to age". Hopefully we can both agree that that's much more direct, and that those are both things that are featured in dragonwrought kobolds, and that the rules even managed to avoid using the word "advancement" in further cementing their point, yes?

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

I have no problem. I am simply making straightforward and concise statements. If you are perceiving my candor as frustration, then you, my friend, are projecting your own feelings onto my words.

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

As far as I can tell, the 3.5e DMG was published in July 2003, and Draconomicon was published in November 2003 -- so Draconomicon was always 3.5e, and isn't superseded by the 3.5e DMG since it post-dates that book.

3.5e DMG is authoritative for non-dragons, of course, but Draconomicon ought to be authoritative for dragons in 3.5e.

Draconomicon is a 3.5 book. The 3.5 DMG is the primary source for epic level information. The Draconomicon is the primary source for dragons.

As to the notion that things discussed in the Draconomicon pertain to all dragons any time the books doesn't specifically say "true":

For the most part, this book concerns itself with the ten
varieties of true dragon described in the Monster Manual—
the five chromatic dragons (black, blue, green, red, white) and
the five metallic dragons (brass, bronze, copper, gold, silver).
True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful
as they grow older.

The general rules in the Draconomicon pertain to true dragons. When it is discussing something that also applies to lesser dragons, the book will say so, such as under the Armor Class entry in the Advancing Dragons heading on page 100, where it notes you may use the same rule for lesser dragons if you wish.

So, yes, all true dragons are permitted to take epic feats once they reach old age. It's also no coincidence that all true dragons have well over 21 HD at that point in their lives either (with most of them reaching that point at the previous age category).

[Mato]

As far as I can tell, the 3.5e DMG was published in July 2003, and Draconomicon was published in November 2003 -- so Draconomicon was always 3.5e, and isn't superseded by the 3.5e DMG since it post-dates that book.

3.5e DMG is authoritative for non-dragons, of course, but Draconomicon ought to be authoritative for dragons in 3.5e.

Doesn't matter Nfft. The order of rules application only applies if rules contradict each other and they don't.

The Draconomicon only creates an exception for old dragons without class levels. The rules do not disagree because the Draconomicon doesn't actually say none-epic characters can take epic feats, it actually enforces the concept that non-epics can't when it reminds you epic feats are available to 21st level characters. What you have is called a definist fallacy. If you're unfamiliar with the logical error it's when you define one thing based on the terms of something else. In this case you are defining DRAC's ability to override the DMG's specific entry that epic feats are not available to non-epic characters is not based on anything DRAC says, but based on a question asked about an example you created and the assumption that it works like you claim it does. It's not the rules that contradict each other, it's your incorrect opinion that contradicts the rules.

And as I said before the 3.5 DMG is the primary rules source on 3.5's epic progressions, not the Draconomicon and it's incorrect reference to the 3.0 ELH. The ELH may use more words and is focused on epic content, but as a 3.0 source it is secondary to anything the 3.5 DMG says.

[Gruftzwerg]

You are the one making a claim that flies in the face of clear and obvious intent, common sense, and basic dictionary definitions of words being used to explain the rules of the game. You are the one assuming that advancement must mean something other than what it clearly means. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that your interpretation meets the criteria of Rules As Written.

What has "obvious intend" & "common sense" to do with RAW? Not much unless we lack the rules for it. "Obvious intend" & common sense first belong into the land of RAI and not RAW.
RAW is the land of rule/word lawyers, where every rule will be looked at for potential abuse/weaknesses. That is RAW. But hey, if you are talking about the intention and RAI, sure have your opinion.

Cause I try to base my arguments on Rules As Written and not on some intentions (RAI..). Try to get the difference and we can talk.
Cause if you get the differece, they you'll understand that I did give you RAW based arguments, where I don't need to switch a word from its subject form into its verb from and still claim that it is the same keyword.
You are trying to convince my that you may interpret it that way. While RAW always makes exact use of the defined keyword as far as I am aware.

How should I prove that they don't do that? (e.g. switching from subject to verb if they want to use a keyword)
Should I quote all instances where they make exact use of keywords and don't change em somehow?

You could far more easily prove that 3.5 does make use of changed (subject>verb) keywords. Give me any instance where this is the chase. Than you could prove by RAW that TD need Advancement and that just "advancing" thru age categories ain't enough.

I presented to you that a DWK has everything to disqualify as a lesser dragon:
A dragon which advances thru age categories.

Since it seems you can't disprove it, you start claiming about intentions and common sense?

3.5 has RAW that can suppress common sense and intentions, which belong into RAI.

And as I said before the 3.5 DMG is the primary rules source on 3.5's epic progressions, not the Draconomicon and it's incorrect reference to the 3.0 ELH. The ELH may use more words and is focused on epic content, but as a 3.0 source it is secondary to anything the 3.5 DMG says.

primary also means general while secondary translates to specific.
So Draconomicon is still in effect when it comes to (specific) dragons, cause it trumps the general DMG source.

[umbergod]

I feel like the dnd 3.5 community needs to track down the author of the Dragonwrought feat, and show him/her the multitudes of threads like this one, that their accursed creation has caused.

[Boggartbae]

Oh. Em. Gee. Wow y’all must be fun at parties.

Dragonwrought kobolds count as true dragons by RAW. They meet the requirements.

Other funny RAW things include: hiding behind your own tower shiled, healing by drowning, and orcs being able to put both of their eyes out and still see normally. They’re funny, allow for some cheesy optimisation, and also, more importantly, no one will ever let it break their game.

Tony and Mato, why don’t any of the other absurd things in RAW upset you so much? Why are y’all being such sticks in the mud about DW kobolds? What did they ever do to you?

[umbergod]

Question for the participants: if DWK=True Dragon, can you show me where they gain new abilities and powers as they age? Slapping on class levels doesnt count, as those arent racially inherent.

[daremetoidareyo]

Question for the participants: if DWK=True Dragon, can you show me where they gain new abilities and powers as they age? Slapping on class levels doesnt count, as those arent racially inherent.

Aging effects? You get charisma bonus, and you're prolly a sorcerer.

[Bartmanhomer]

I feel like the dnd 3.5 community needs to track down the author of the Dragonwrought feat, and show him/her the multitudes of threads like this one, that their accursed creation has caused.

I agree. This whole argument is long overdue too long.

[daremetoidareyo]

I agree. This whole argument is long overdue too long.

While we're at it, can we get a ruling on the legality of our dragonwraught racial emulation changeling with a flaw taking the loredrake archetype?

[umbergod]

Aging effects? You get charisma bonus, and you're prolly a sorcerer.

Charisma bonus is not "new powers and abilities", also sorcerer levels are in no way, shape or form tied DWK and aging. So i will reiterate, where do they gain new powers and abilities based on age alone? Where are their wings? If the pro-"DWK are True Dragons" lot could explain how they fail to be true dragons as per the MM defintion, and the Draconomicon doesn't contradict it.....DWKs lack wings, which all true dragons have.....they also don't gain new powers and abilities based solely on what their age category is.

[daremetoidareyo]

Charisma bonus is not "new powers and abilities", also sorcerer levels are in no way, shape or form tied DWK and aging. So i will reiterate, where do they gain new powers and abilities based on age alone? Where are their wings? If the pro-"DWK are True Dragons" lot could explain how they fail to be true dragons as per the MM defintion, and the Draconomicon doesn't contradict it.....DWKs lack wings, which all true dragons have.....they also don't gain new powers and abilities based solely on what their age category is.

MM1 also states that the only known true dragons are chromatic and metallic. The gem dragons would like a word.

[umbergod]

MM1 also states that the only known true dragons are chromatic and metallic. The gem dragons would like a word.

Gem dragons are 3.0, and unless they got updated elsewhere, they may not be considered true dragons. Even Draconomicon calls all true dragons as being explicitly chromatic or metallic

[Scots Dragon]

Gem dragons are 3.0, and unless they got updated elsewhere, they may not be considered true dragons. Even Draconomicon calls all true dragons as being explicitly chromatic or metallic

The Draconomicon itself, page 287, lists the five varieties of gem dragon as being true dragons.

[Mato]

Dragonwrought kobolds count as true dragons by RAW. They meet the requirements.

I wasn't aware that true dragon some kind of prestigious class with a requirement entry you can meet to enter it, can you provide a citation for that claim?

MM1 also states that the only known true dragons are chromatic and metallic. The gem dragons would like a word.

The gem dragons say they are true dragons and true dragon compilations such as the draconomicon and post-ROTD dragons of faerun also list them as such.

Your kobolds don't, they would like a word with you.

While we're at it, can we get a ruling on the legality of our dragonwraught racial emulation changeling with a flaw taking the loredrake archetype?

Why? The dragonwrought feat is a feat that must be taken during character creation (that is, before they actually exist), it's not a race so how can a changeling imitate it? Plus racial emulation only allows you to imitate being a member of the race but you don't gain their racial traits, now go read the kobold entry where their type is a racial trait. Even if you could imitate a feat, the changeling's actual type won't change to dragon anyway, they just pretend it does. You might as well claim the bluff skill works on the DM (side note, it works on gitp).

The two are simply incompatible and worse, it's a waste of time. If it did work why would you choose to be a DWK and listen to this debate instead of just choosing a red dragon which actually is a true dragon?

[umbergod]

The Draconomicon itself, page 287, lists the five varieties of gem dragon as being true dragons.

Funny, since its explicit text on what makes a true dragon earlier in the same book says chromatic/metallic only. Wouldnt this be a case of text trumps table?

[Mato]

Funny, since its explicit text on what makes a true dragon earlier in the same book says chromatic/metallic only.

It never once says that.

And you would know this if you actually read it before commenting.

[umbergod]

It never once says that.

And you would know this if you actually read it before commenting.

Really? So then i must be hallucinating when i read the first sentence under Dragons By Kind on page 36?

[Mato]

Really? So then i must be hallucinating when i read the first sentence under Dragons By Kind on page 36?

You're taking it out of context, that section is talk about the basic ten and it only says they fall into two broad categories. Besides, being a gem dragon doesn't prevent someone from referring to you by color.

In the D&D game, the term “dragon” encompasses a number of different creatures, some of which bear little resemblance to the great flying creatures with breath weapons that we commonly think of as dragons.
For the most part, this book concerns itself with the ten varieties of true dragon described in the Monster Manual— the five chromatic dragons (black, blue, green, red, white) and the five metallic dragons (brass, bronze, copper, gold, silver). True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older.
A number of other true dragons are described in Chapter 4 of this book. In addition, Appendix 2: Index of Dragons provides a complete list of all true dragons that have been presented in official sources.

Appendix 2 clearly lists gem dragons along with the epic, lung, and planar types of true dragons.

[umbergod]

Appendix 2 clearly lists gem dragons.

Still contradicts itself on page 36, but good job ignoring that bit ;) i also see in the appendix that dragonwrought kobolds aren't listed, oh dear....

[Mato]

Still contradicts itself on page 36, but good job ignoring that bit ;) i also see in the appendix that dragonwrought kobolds aren't listed, oh dear....

It's not a contradiction and I didn't ignore it. It's talking about the ten true dragons in the monster manual just like it said it did and the section that talks about all other true dragons mentions them just like it said it would. Should I attempt to find a special needs counselor to explain it to you?

And you know what else doesn't list a kobold as a true dragon? Races of the dragon.

[umbergod]

It's not a contradiction and I didn't ignore it. It's talking about the ten true dragons in the monster manual just like it said it did and the section that talks about all other true dragons mentions them just like it said it would. Should I attempt to find a special needs counselor to explain it to you?

And you know what else doesn't list a kobold as a true dragon? Races of the dragon.

Indeed it is a contradiction, as it states prior to page 36 that there are more true dragons than just the metallic and chromatic dragons, then page 36 states "true dragons fall into two broad categories: chromatic and metallic" thats a contradiction since Gem dragons are neither metallic or chromatic, and thus dont fall into either said category that true dragons fall under.

Theres a reason RotD doesnt mention DWK as true dragons ;)

[daremetoidareyo]

Your kobolds don't, they would like a word with you.

Your tone is offensively antagonistic. I already agree with the assertion that kobolds aren't true dragons, so the unnecessary sass just makes me dislike your contributions to the conversation.

You are condescending.

[DarkSoul]

Still contradicts itself on page 36, but good job ignoring that bit ;)

For the most part, this book concerns itself with the ten varieties of true dragon described in the Monster Manual—the five chromatic dragons (black, blue, green, red, white) and the five metallic dragons (brass, bronze, copper, gold, silver). True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older.

A number of other true dragons are described in Chapter 4 of this book. In addition, Appendix 2: Index of Dragons provides a complete list of all true dragons that have been presented in official sources.

No contradiction there. Page 36 obviously falls into "for the most part..." while Appendix 2 explicitly lists more true dragons that may or may not be chromatic or metallic, but are definitely true dragons.

[umbergod]

No contradiction there. Page 36 obviously falls into "for the most part..." while Appendix 2 explicitly lists more true dragons that may or may not be chromatic or metallic, but are definitely true dragons.

If its so obvious to interpret, why do threads like this pop up all the damn time? Because RAI isnt RAW. By RAW, Draconomicon contradicts itself via inconsistencies on what is a true dragon.

[Deophaun]

"advance":
is not "Advancement".

So when the MM says "Often, intelligent creatures advance by gaining a level in a character class," that had nothing to do with Advancement, even if it's under a big bold heading that says "Advancement?"

This new science is fascinating. Tell me again how we know the Earth to be banana shaped.

[umbergod]

So when the MM says "Often, intelligent creatures advance by gaining a level in a character class," that had nothing to do with Advancement, even if it's under a big bold heading that says "Advancement?"

This new science is fascinating. Tell me again how we know the Earth to be banana shaped.

Does advancing a character class have anything to do with advancing age categories?

[Deophaun]

Does advancing a character class have anything to do with advancing age categories?

Creatures gain character classes. Character classes advance creatures.

[umbergod]

Creatures gain character classes. Character classes advance creatures.

Which doesnt advance age, nor are class levels racial hit dice.

[Deophaun]

Which doesnt advance age, nor are class levels racial hit dice.

All of what you said has nothing to do with anything.