Dragonwrought kobold

[umbergod]

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

Sure it does, since the basis of the post you quoted has do to with DWKs "advancing" through their age categories as proof that theyre true dragons

[Deophaun]

{{scrubbed}}

[umbergod]

{{scrubbed}}

[Deophaun]

{{scrubbed}}

[umbergod]

{{scrubbed}}

Well, thats just, like, your opinion, man.

[DarkSoul]

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.

They pop up all the time because people refuse to believe or acknowledge the fact that each sentence of rules text in a book doesn't exist in a vacuum. That requires reading an entire book though, instead of just the few rules that apply to, or need to be ignored or reinterpreted for, their current concept.

[umbergod]

They pop up all the time because people refuse to believe or acknowledge the fact that each sentence of rules text in a book doesn't exist in a vacuum. That requires reading an entire book though, instead of just the few rules that apply to, or need to be ignored or reinterpreted for, their current concept.

Pretty much spot on, I've just been being pedantic b/c these threads are like rituals for summoning HeWhoMustNotBeNamed to start posting about his unbeatable dread mackerel

[Doctor Awkward]

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.



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.

Of course intent matters. And so does common sense.
People are all wired differently, and all have different personal interpretations of things that we read. But there must always be a common ground, some core assumptions, upon which we can all agree or discussions regarding the rules of the game, not to mention the game itself, become meaningless.

The rules were designed to be read with a sensible and straightforward understanding of the basic structure of the English language, as well as the common definition of the words used to explain those rules. All your talk of "keywords" that must be present in order to know for certain that a particular word always holds the same meaning when used in different contexts is an irrelevant tangent. There is a glossary for commonly used words that have specific meanings to the game rules, in which is listed the the unusual definitions you are required to know to interpret them. The rules do not spell out the precise definition of every single word and phrase that they use at all times. If they did, they would be larger than a full volume set of encyclopedias, and likely cost more than a new car. And they don't need to be written that way because they were designed to be read and interpreted using common sense. Refusing to accept that fact, and trying to play the game strictly and solely by the rules as written will leave you with an unplayable game.

Using "RAW" as a defense-- holding up the notion as some sort of entity unto itself that renders your argument immune to any form of criticism-- is similarly meaningless. Especially when your claim actually rests upon your personal interpretation of the text. If you are going to claim that your interpretation is the Rules as Written, then you need to be absolutely certain that they specifically back up your claim, not just that they are vague and could be interpreted in one of several ways that doesn't forbid your claim.

Yes, the advice and builds produced by forums like this should adhere to the rules as written. This is only sensible as it creates results more likely to be accepted at any given table. But basing your argument on the precept that we can never really know the designer intent because common sense should not apply is not a useful construct, and will invariably cause more problems than it will solve.


The reason why you can't understand how the burden of proof still rests on you is because you aren't playing by the same rules as the rest of us.

-You made a positive claim that dragonwrought kobolds were true dragons, in spite of the fact that their source book does not specifically state they are.

-You then said that it doesn't have to state it directly, because they fit the Draconomicon defition of true dragons, which was in your words, "they have the dragon type and they advance through the same age categories that dragons do."

-When it was pointed out they technically don't advance through the same age categories, on account of having their own table that's different from the one used by true dragons, you attempted to move the goalposts by selectively applying another piece of text, and assuming that the word "life-cycle" meant that the tables were always meant to be the same (and you misapplied the WotC "Text Trumps Table" guideline for handling errors in creature statistic blocks while you did it.)

-You additionally attempted to move the goalposts even further by claiming that since the word "advance" is not specifically defined in all of the various places it is used that it must not mean the same thing in all of those places. Despite how irrational, needlessly complicated, and vague this would make not just the rules regarding dragons and kobolds, but countless other possible situations, you made this claim. As though the rulebooks were written by a bunch of morons, or aliens, who had only a tenuous grasp on the human language that they used to write them, rather than a group of talented professionals who quite literally write things for a living. You offered no justification for this line of thinking, only that it must be this way because it supports your presupposed conclusion.

-And then when it was pointed out to you that your arguments don't follow basic logic, you then tried to say that logic doesn't apply to the rules, and that because of that no one yet has been able to dispute your claim.

...Well when you put it that way? I guess not. After all, how could we? What's the point in making a logical argument to a person who thinks that logic is irrelevant?

[Vaern]

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.

Threads like this don't pop up because of the Draconomicon saying "Here's a list of true dragons. They are true dragons, even though this book doesn't concern them." Threads like this pop up because people try piecing together loopholes using mechanics from one book and applying them to a specific set of rules in another book.

[umbergod]

Threads like this don't pop up because of the Draconomicon saying "Here's a list of true dragons. They are true dragons, even though this book doesn't concern them." Threads like this pop up because people try piecing together loopholes using mechanics from one book and applying them to a specific set of rules in another book.

Threads like this pop up because of RAW vs RAI, which is what i tried to explain in the post you quoted :p

[Promethean]

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

The same thing that Advancemt: by age Categories has to do with true dragons. Nothing. Dragons are listed as Advancement: by Hit Dice as monsters. Not agreeing on the DWK are true dragons thing, just pointing that out.

[Deophaun]

Dragons are listed as Advancement: by Hit Dice as monsters.

Black Dragon.

Advancement: Wyrmling 5-6 HD; very young 8-9 HD; young 11-12 HD; juvenile 14-15 HD; young adult 17-18 HD; adult 20-21 HD; mature adult 23-24 HD; old 26-27 HD; very old 29-30 HD; ancient 32-33 HD; wyrm 35-36 HD; great wyrm 38+ HD


That looks like an awful amount of text compared to what you posted. And I didn't know "mature adult" was a hit die.

[jdizzlean]

only 5 pages? those are rookie numbers people...

[umbergod]

only 5 pages? those are rookie numbers people...

To be fair, its NYE :p

[Promethean]

Black Dragon.

Advancement: Wyrmling 5-6 HD; very young 8-9 HD; young 11-12 HD; juvenile 14-15 HD; young adult 17-18 HD; adult 20-21 HD; mature adult 23-24 HD; old 26-27 HD; very old 29-30 HD; ancient 32-33 HD; wyrm 35-36 HD; great wyrm 38+ HD


That looks like an awful amount of text compared to what you posted. And I didn't know "mature adult" was a hit die.

Oops. Well, that was a derp.

[Nifft]

The same thing that Advancemt: by age Categories has to do with true dragons. Nothing. Dragons are listed as Advancement: by Hit Dice as monsters. Not agreeing on the DWK are true dragons thing, just pointing that out.

The "Advancement" qualification argument seems like a distortion from the most recent definition (from this post on page 1):

Dragon Magic page 87 is the most recently published source that weighs in on the matter, on page 87:
"...a true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon)."

Dragonwrought Kobolds, Epic Dragons, and other random True Dragons have a table that lists different numbers for their age categories. This difference doesn't disqualify Epic dragons because they still have the required 12 age categories. It shouldn't disqualify a Dragonwrought Kobold either.

== == ==

The Web Enhancement includes natural attacks, slight build, and a few other benefits. I especially like Slight Build when DMing, as they can squeeze through very small tunnels (a 15-inch diameter hole) which PCs will have no chance of pursuing them into.

A Dragonwrought Kobold Dracolich Warrior 1 with two flaws for Epic Toughness twice has 72 hp, AC 19 (chain shirt), SR 16, DR 5/Bludgeoning, a paralyzing gaze, gets three attacks per round each of which causes paralysis, and is only CR 1.

I feel like Tucker's Dracoliches would be an excellent dungeon experience for a mid-to-high optimization party.

Kudos to you, this may be the best idea to come out of the thread.

[ayvango]

What is full list of dragonwrought shenanigans suitable for a kobold sorcerer build?

[Nifft]

What is full list of dragonwrought shenanigans suitable for a kobold sorcerer build?

Read the first two posts of this thread.

Do you see any we missed?

[ayvango]

Loredrake (Dragons of Eberron) + kobold's ritual (web enhancement) = +3 caster level on sorcerer
Spellhoarding (DM) - switch useless sorcerer for godlike wizard.

Too little for a kobold

[Celestia]

Loredrake (Dragons of Eberron) + kobold's ritual (web enhancement) = +3 caster level on sorcerer
Spellhoarding (DM) - switch useless sorcerer for godlike wizard.

Too little for a kobold

Add in white dragonspawn, and you've got another +1 to that.

[Doctor Awkward]

The "Advancement" qualification argument seems like a distortion from the most recent definition (from this post on page 1):

Dragon Magic page 87 is the most recently published source that weighs in on the matter, on page 87:
"...a true dragon (that is, a dragon with twelve age categories, such as a red dragon)."

Dragonwrought Kobolds, Epic Dragons, and other random True Dragons have a table that lists different numbers for their age categories. This difference doesn't disqualify Epic dragons because they still have the required 12 age categories. It shouldn't disqualify a Dragonwrought Kobold either.

Dragon Magic is not the primary source for rules and information regarding dragons. The Draconomicon is. Whenever two sources offer information that might be in conflict, the primary source takes precedence.

The "most recently printed source takes precedence" is a line taken from the 3.5 FAQ, which has no authority over anything, and directly contradicts both the printed rules and every single errata ever written which weighs in on this matter.

The only book that was ever given explicit authority over previously printed books in the manner the FAQ suggests is the Rules Compendium, which states outright in it's introduction that it is intended to take precedence whenever a conflict arises between it and another source.

Dragonwrought kobolds do not meet any definition of true dragons, as printed in any book or as presented thus far in this thread. At least not without a willful misreading of the rules as written.

What is full list of dragonwrought shenanigans suitable for a kobold sorcerer build?

By RAW? Very little beyond what normal sorcerers.

There is the Greater Draconic Rite of Passage from the Races of the Dragon Web enhancement that grants a +1 effective sorcerer caster level for the cost of three a feat, and is available to all sorcerers, but you don't have to be dragonwrought for that.

There is also the Dragonspawn template out of the Dragonlance Campaign Setting sourcebook (page 222), which gives you another effective level increase of +1 (for only a 1 level offset if you choose to be a white dragonspawn).

However, if your DM is interested in house-ruling dragonwrought kobolds into counting as true dragons then the first few posts in this thread are pretty exhaustive of what can be accomplished. They qualify for epic feats once they reach Old age or older. The optional faith-based Sovereign Archetypes from Dragons the Eberron are available (most of them are interesting but Loredrake is far and away the most powerful for sorcerer builds). There are also the true dragon templates out of the Draconomicon (Xorvintaal is the most noteworthy one), as well as some less interesting true dragon prestige classes.

[Nifft]

Dragon Magic is not the primary source for rules and information regarding dragons.

Draconomicon is not the primary source for True Dragon types which didn't exist as of its printing, or which weren't re-printed in its pages.

There is the Greater Draconic Rite of Passage from the Races of the Dragon Web enhancement that grants a +1 effective sorcerer caster level for the cost of three feats

Would you mind listing the feats you think are required?

I don't think you've got a proper grasp of what is required to fulfill the prerequisites for the +1 Sorcerer level benefit.

[Doctor Awkward]

Draconomicon is not the primary source for True Dragon types which didn't exist as of its printing, or which weren't re-printed in its pages.

Which is fine, because other True Dragon types (off the top of my head I can think of Mercury, Steel, and Mist (Dragons of Faerun), and Orange and Purple (Dragon Compendium), are all either specifically called out or as such in their entries, or use the same progression charts and tables that true dragons use, leaving no doubt as to what they are.

Would you mind listing the feats you think are required?

I was under the impression that Draconic Rite of Passage also had a feat requirement, but it seems only the Draconic Reservoir feat is required. And you have to be level 6 to undergo the ritual.

[Gruftzwerg]

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

The exact same page as the rule you just quoted.

I seem to be blind.. I have read P.4 of Draconomicon several times and coudn't find any text that claims that true dragons need to called out as such. You need to help me with a quote to convince me that this pice of text exists as you say..

So far the sole thing I found on P4 is what I have already posted. But I will quote the entire passage and explain my POV again, and you can point me to your text passage in the meanwhile..

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.
Other creatures of the dragon type that do not advance through age categories are referred to as lesser dragons (which should not be taken to mean that they are necessarily less formidable than true dragons).
The three kinds of lesser dragon described in the Monster Manual are the dragon turtle, the pseudodragon, and the wyvern.
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 rulebook or accessory

DWK do become more "powerful" due to pure mental stat gains. They don't loose in power as they grow older like other non true dragons.
Powerful ain't a defined keyword and as such only the base english definition applies.
So imho they fit the requirements of being a true dragon.

DWK advance thru "age categories" and thus disqualify as lesser dragons.
Keep in mind that only "age categories" are required and not "dragon age categories". And don't mix it up with Age Effects which every character gets.
And to undermine my claim that "advance" here doesn't mean "Advancement":
1. How would you call it when you grew older and enter a new age category? Since I live in Germany I can give an example of german age categories for how long you have been married. Bronze, Silver & Gold. Which verb would you use to describe when you leave one age category and enter the next? 2 verbs come into my mind: progress or advance. And imho advance is the more fitting here. Progress sounds more like you are doing a job, at least for me.
And in our chase here they just used the verb "advance" in the same manner, to describe that you advance from one age category to the next.
2. d&d 3.5 makes always 100% exact use of keywords/terms. They don't change the words (e.g. a subject into a verb..). So "advance" can't refer to "Advancement" as you try to imply.

edit: just some typos and some gramma

[Doctor Awkward]

I seem to be blind.. I have read P.4 of Draconomicon several times and coudn't find any text that claims that true dragons need to called out as such. You need to help me with a quote to convince me that this pice of text exists as you say..

So far the sole thing I found on P4 is what I have already posted. But I will quote the entire passage and explain my POV again, and you can point me to your text passage in the meanwhile..



DWK do become more "powerful" due to pure mental stat gains. They don't loose in power as they grow older like other non true dragons.
Powerful ain't a defined keyword and as such only the base english definition applies.
So imho they fit the requirements of being a true dragon.

DWK advance thru "age categories" and thus disqualify as lesser dragons.
Keep in mind that only "age categories" are required and not "dragon age categories". And don't mix it up with Age Effects which every character gets.
And to undermine my claim that "advance" here doesn't mean "Advancement":
1. How would you call it when you grew older and enter a new age category? Since I live in Germany I can give an example of german age categories for how long you have been married. Bronze, Silver & Gold. Which verb would you use to describe when you leave one age category and enter the next? 2 verbs come into my mind: progress or advance. And imho advance is the more fitting here. Progress sounds more like you are doing a job, at least for me.
And in our chase here they just used the verb "advance" in the same manner, to describe that you advance from one age category to the next.
2. d&d 3.5 makes always 100% exact use of keywords/terms. They don't change the words (e.g. a subject into a verb..). So "advance" can't refer to "Advancement" as you try to imply.

edit: just some typos and some gramma

Draconomicon, pg. 144; Lesser Dragon Characters:

Using another creature of the dragon type as a player character
is rather less complicated than using a true dragon.
Such a creature has a set level adjustment and no built-in
progression due to age, so after the character begins play
there is no reason to advance the character as a monster
again.

Dragonwrought kobolds have both a set level adjustment and no built-in progression due to age.

[Nifft]

Dragonwrought kobolds have both a set level adjustment and no built-in progression due to age.

Dragonwrought Kobolds get +1 Sorcerer level at 6 HD, which is potentially worth LA +1.

[Doctor Awkward]

Dragonwrought Kobolds get +1 Sorcerer level at 6 HD, which is potentially worth LA +1.

Please see table 3-21 on page 143 of the Draconomicon for an accurate definition of what a "variable" level adjustment looks like.

[Doctor Awkward]

And while you're at it, did you find that Dragonwrought Kobold Abilities By Age table yet?

[ayvango]

Add in white dragonspawn, and you've got another +1 to that.

Dragonspawn that get free killing his master become LA+2.
Dragonspawn could be made only from non-dragon species and DWK is indeed a dragon
Dragonspawn and Loredrake could not be used in the same time, because they are setting specific. Dragons of Krynn differs much from dragons of Eberron.

[daremetoidareyo]

I just looked at those other sovereign archetypes. They are awesome.

Why haven't we been talking about passionflame dragonwrought kobold master spellthief precocious apprentices/rage mages? Why haven't we been talking about wyrm of war dragonwrought tigerclaw sorcerers/bloodclaw masters with the draconic claw feat?

Someone should start a dragonwrought sovereign archtype optimization thread...