Results 241 to 270 of 328
Thread: Dragonwrought kobold
-
2018-01-08, 02:08 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2014
- Location
- Sovereign State of Denial
Re: Dragonwrought kobold
Ah, GiantITP, never change.
-
2018-01-12, 01:15 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- NYC
- Gender
Re: Dragonwrought kobold
Yes, they work like this:
- For the purpose of creating a Half-Dragon, this is what True Dragon means.
- For all other purposes, that list is meaningless, since plenty of other True Dragons exist.
- Yellow Dragons are True Dragons, but they're not on the list: HOW DO WE RESOLVE THIS?
Your (bad) idea: "The Half-Dragon specific list is general, and general trumps specific, so Yellow Dragons are not True Dragons. Therefore, neither are Dragonwrought Kobolds."
The correct idea: "Dragonwrought Kobolds are not valid Half-Dragon True Dragons, because that's what the Half-Dragon specific rule says. For all other purposes, they are (or they aren't) independently."
Heh.
Yes, and my interpretation works in a clear & simple way.
It's funny that you're trying to lecture me on exception-based design while simultaneously trying to use a specific rule as if it were general.
You have said something correct: Dragonwrought Kobold is not a valid choice of heritage for the Half-Dragon template.
Why, if Incarnum Dragons are true dragons, is it the case that they're also not a valid choice of heritage for the Half-Dragon template?
Why, if Yellow Dragons are true dragons, is it the case that they're also not a valid choice of heritage for the Half-Dragon template?
You can't answer those questions because there is no particular reason.
Same answer for Dragonwrought Kobolds.
No, that's what I did in the past.
What I'm going to do going forward is try to provide gently humorous entertainment for those poor unfortunate souls trying to glean insight from this thread, in spite of the turgid eddy that is your argument.
Uh, nobody is claiming that Dragon Compendium applies universally.
Rather, I'm claiming that Dragon Compendium provides a clear exception which proves your list cannot actually mean what you want it to mean.
Exception-based design works perfectly. Your argument does not work. Your argument is not the same as exception-based design. Sorry if that's an unpleasant surprise for you.
I think you're the first person to mention trolling.
****posting is merely frowned upon here -- which is exactly what I said.
Ironically, by trying to threaten me with the ToS, you might be violating the ToS: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1 => Search that page for Vigilante Modding in the Major Infractions section.
Other than providing a link and text to search, I'm not going to discuss the ToS with you. Email a moderator for more specific guidance -- I ain't following you down that rabbit hole.I want you to PEACH me as hard as you can.
-
2018-01-14, 04:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2013
- Location
- Collegeville, PA
- Gender
Re: Dragonwrought kobold
That last bit there? This is the entire point.
We have very clear definitions of what true dragons are. We have a manual of style established in the first Monster Manual for how stat blocks for true dragons are presented that is applied with universal consistency across every single 3.0/3.5 product. Whenever one of these entries contains even slight ambiguity on whether or not it might count as a true dragon, it contains text that explicitly says, "Yes it is."
...Except for dragonwrought kobolds...
They meet none of the established criteria:
Fluff
-Their physiology is completely different (they are humanoid in size and shape, and lack the wings, the elongated necks, and so on)
-Their biology is different (endothermic vs. exothermic, internal organs, and so on)
Crunch
-They do not advance through racial hit dice, they advance by character class
The only thing they have in common is their creature typing, and their life-cycle developmental stages use the same names. That's it.
But somehow they still must be true dragons...
I wonder why that is?
What truly boggles my mind about these assertions is that the exact same rules "dysfunctions" that are so frequently quoted as proof that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons also equally apply to half-dragon kobolds.
But for some reason they must not be.
I wonder why that is, as well?
Heh.
Yes, and my interpretation works in a clear & simple way.
It's funny that you're trying to lecture me on exception-based design while simultaneously trying to use a specific rule as if it were general.
You have said something correct: Dragonwrought Kobold is not a valid choice of heritage for the Half-Dragon template.
Why, if Incarnum Dragons are true dragons, is it the case that they're also not a valid choice of heritage for the Half-Dragon template?
Why, if Yellow Dragons are true dragons, is it the case that they're also not a valid choice of heritage for the Half-Dragon template?
You can't answer those questions because there is no particular reason.
Same answer for Dragonwrought Kobolds.
They fail to appear on two separate lists.
The authors also fail on multiple opportunities to explicitly state they are true dragons.
By your own logic, this should, at best, create a rules dysfunction that leaves it ambiguous if they are or aren't.
No, that's what I did in the past.
What I'm going to do going forward is try to provide gently humorous entertainment for those poor unfortunate souls trying to glean insight from this thread, in spite of the turgid eddy that is your argument.
You're adorable when your sarcastic. You really are.
What you also are is part of a (thankfully) rapidly-shrinking demographic of 3.5 players who hold the 3.5 ruleset in such contempt that you take ambiguity as license to ignore context and intent when interpreting them.
That obnoxious approach to the game is not only annoying to your fellow players, but also intellectually dishonest and counter to the entire purpose of optimizing. Creating a mechanically optimal character is about working within the boundaries of the Rules as Written, and the parameters they establish. It's not about lawyering your way through them, using obvious editing mistakes to create new definitions that are so clearly beyond the original scope and designer intent that you might as well be ignoring the rules completely and making up your own. If you want a nickel's worth of free advice: you will always do your best work when you put limitations on yourself.
The bright spot in this is that you will eventually leave this "awful" system behind, and move on to another game where you will no doubt find further rules issues that will allow you to stoke your smug sense of superiority.
And message boards like these will be better off without you.Resident Mad Scientist...
"It's so cool!"
Spoiler: ContestsVC I: Lord Commander Conrad Vayne, 1st place
VC II: Lorna, the Mother's Wrath, 5th place
VC XV: Tosk, Kursak the Marauder, Vierna Zalyl; 1st place, 6th/7th place
Kitchen Crashers Protocol for Peace
-
2018-01-14, 08:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
-
2018-01-14, 10:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
Re: Dragonwrought kobold
Yeah thx due to Draconomicon page 4 and not MM..
We have a manual of style established in the first Monster Manual for how stat blocks for true dragons are presented that is applied with universal consistency across every single 3.0/3.5 product. Whenever one of these entries contains even slight ambiguity on whether or not it might count as a true dragon, it contains text that explicitly says, "Yes it is."
That is extrapolated information and not actual rules. Nice that we talked about it..
By RAW (Draconomicon P4), DWK disqualify themselves as lesser dragons and even qualify as True Dragon. You need to imply text what is not there on the page to come to other conclusions = RAI
...Except for dragonwrought kobolds...
They meet none of the established criteria:
Fluff
-Their physiology is completely different (they are humanoid in size and shape, and lack the wings, the elongated necks, and so on)
-Their biology is different (endothermic vs. exothermic, internal organs, and so on)
And btw, since DWK are specified as "Small dragon", I guess that trumps any of the things you are demanding (by RAI).
Crunch
-They do not advance through racial hit dice, they advance by character class
But you are ignoring that it would cause a dysfunction for the sake of trying to disprove DWK true dragon status.
The only thing they have in common is their creature typing, and their life-cycle developmental stages use the same names. That's it.
What truly boggles my mind about these assertions is that the exact same rules "dysfunctions" that are so frequently quoted as proof that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons also equally apply to half-dragon kobolds.
But for some reason they must not be.
I wonder why that is, as well?
Do you really not see the difference between failing to include a true dragon on an exhaustive list from an entirely different printed source, and failing to include one from the same source?
They fail to appear on two separate lists.
The authors also fail on multiple opportunities to explicitly state they are true dragons.
By your own logic, this should, at best, create a rules dysfunction that leaves it ambiguous if they are or aren't.
But RAW doesn't cause/have these problems. The problems comes from RAI if you take advance as Advancement and such things.
If you would/could once read page 4 of Draconomicon the RAW way, you would understand. But somehow you can't stop yourself from bringing intentions into play and references that aren't provided by the (RAW) text on the page itself.
Pls try it at least. Reading just the text as it is given, without switching words into keywords. It's really simple imho...Extended Signature with Links to all my build showcases in the forum
My latest build showcases:
Gaive'Ur, the last Eldritch Knight of Bane (✝)
PACMAN, the Southern Beholder Mage (accelerated spell progression + double 9s)
Optimus Urbana Hierophantus - a Mobile Suit Gundam / Mech / Transformers build
Orko, He-man & Battlecat (a Dragonfire Mount's Ubermount and its Ubermount)
Giant Dwarf, the Rock Superstar (a War Chanter build)
-
2018-01-14, 11:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Trapped in England
- Gender
-
2018-01-15, 12:23 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
Re: Dragonwrought kobold
For Rules As Intended, no you don't need to explicitly state it and may imply it.
For Rules As Written, yes. Without clear introductions, you may not extrapolate rules, just because it is consistent. RAW is word and rule lawyering as stated several times.
edit: have a look at draconomicon p144 "other true dragons". There you have explicit rules where you are forced to extrapolate infos from tables. The rules say so if you have to, otherwise you may not do it by RAW.
end of edit:
Again, RAW doesn't has to be how people actually play at tables, so don't mix these things up pls. We all play "how the DM sees the rules" and not RAW. Even if the DM is claiming that he wants to play RAW. Since most people fail at distinguishing between RAI and RAW and those who can know that it makes no sense to play RAW. Do you really want to play with things like "healing by drowning"? I guess not.
But that doesn't change this discussion. The forum prefers to make RAW claims since it makes other discussions more easy (e.g. TO threads). RAI can be often viewed from different positions and thus leaves to many problems when you want to discuss things in the forum in a competitive way. And thus people try to separate RAW and RAI.Last edited by Gruftzwerg; 2018-01-15 at 01:04 AM.
Extended Signature with Links to all my build showcases in the forum
My latest build showcases:
Gaive'Ur, the last Eldritch Knight of Bane (✝)
PACMAN, the Southern Beholder Mage (accelerated spell progression + double 9s)
Optimus Urbana Hierophantus - a Mobile Suit Gundam / Mech / Transformers build
Orko, He-man & Battlecat (a Dragonfire Mount's Ubermount and its Ubermount)
Giant Dwarf, the Rock Superstar (a War Chanter build)
-
2018-01-15, 10:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2013
- Location
- Collegeville, PA
- Gender
Re: Dragonwrought kobold
No it isn't, as was explained several times.
There are many guidelines for interpreting the Rules As Written and how to approach the exact text that is stated. And they include contextual definitions, a glossary when needed, and a judicious application of common sense,
You are the only person here who operates under the assumption that rules-lawyering is appropriate for discussing character optimization.
Since most people fail at distinguishing between RAI and RAW and those who can know that it makes no sense to play RAW
As you've admitted you operate under the assumption that rules-lawyering counts as RAW, and that term is by definition personal interpretation.
The whole point of having Rules As Written is so that we can leave personal interpretation out of the discussion when examining optimal character choices. Working from the same set of rules makes threads like these completely unnecessary.
You have never once argued the Rules As Written. You have, and continue to, argue the Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong.Resident Mad Scientist...
"It's so cool!"
Spoiler: ContestsVC I: Lord Commander Conrad Vayne, 1st place
VC II: Lorna, the Mother's Wrath, 5th place
VC XV: Tosk, Kursak the Marauder, Vierna Zalyl; 1st place, 6th/7th place
Kitchen Crashers Protocol for Peace
-
2018-01-15, 11:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
Re: Dragonwrought kobold
You seem to think that RAW is something supposed to free of bugs but ain't the chase. Have a look at the Rules Dysfunction series here in the forum.
If RAW ain't rule-lawyering, than what is "healing by drowning" as simple example again? Rules as intended? I bet not. It is RAW and it makes no sense at all (in real word terms) and no table would actually play with it (beside for a few fun sessions maybe..).
RAW ain't the holy grail of rules where everything stops making problems and start to harmonize everywhere. In fact, the opposite is the chase. 3.5 RAW is a mess (maybe only 5% is messed up, but that 5% is enough to cause problems like this one here..), and if you can't handle that, then I'm sorry for you.
There are many guidelines for interpreting the Rules As Written and how to approach the exact text that is stated. And they include contextual definitions, a glossary when needed, and a judicious application of common sense,
And this interpretation even harmonies with the "other true dragon" paragraph on p144. While your interpretation would cause a dysfunction. But you are still ignoring that fact and just focus on your attempt to disprove them DWK. Would you stop deciding the outcome in advance? You don't follow your own advices..
How about stopping your attempt to disprove DWK true dragon status for just a moment and try to explain the dysfuntion caused by your interpretation? Would you be so kind?
You have never once argued the Rules As Written. You have, and continue to, argue the Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong.
While I am open for other interpretation and views (see the other thread where I was convinced that Whirlwind can be viewed in another way), you are sitting on your arguments and don't wanna change em as it seems. You assume that RAW has to work and involves common sense. Where is the common sense of "healing by drowning"? There is none. Only in the world of RAW & rule-lawyering. It has nothing to do with RAI.
You change word into keywords to make your point look more valid, but that is something that belongs to RAI and not to RAW. Get the difference. You are always talking about RAI and keep arguing that it is RAW.
If RAW involves common sense, then what in the word is RAI supposed to be??? How do you distinguish these two, if RAW already involves common sense, contextual definition & blaa...???
Explain it plsExtended Signature with Links to all my build showcases in the forum
My latest build showcases:
Gaive'Ur, the last Eldritch Knight of Bane (✝)
PACMAN, the Southern Beholder Mage (accelerated spell progression + double 9s)
Optimus Urbana Hierophantus - a Mobile Suit Gundam / Mech / Transformers build
Orko, He-man & Battlecat (a Dragonfire Mount's Ubermount and its Ubermount)
Giant Dwarf, the Rock Superstar (a War Chanter build)
-
2018-01-16, 01:15 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2013
- Location
- Collegeville, PA
- Gender
Re: Dragonwrought kobold
Rules As Intended are author recommendations for how a DM should rule in his game when encountering an actual ambiguity, or text that is otherwise unclear. It is something invoked during a game whenever you have text that does not otherwise clearly indicate author intent.
Here's an examples of a "rules-lawyered" ambiguity vs an actual rule ambiguity conveniently located within one piece of rules text:
-Iron Heart Surge-
The Fake ambiguity:
It's an uncommon, though not unheard of, interpretation of this maneuver that if you are currently subject to a status effect that is preventing you from taking standard actions, you technically cannot initiate this maneuver. This is quite clearly against the flavor and mechanical intent, which is for you to spend your standard action for the round eliminating something that otherwise impedes you in some way, regardless of what that way is.
Despite the fact that it does not contain text, "You may initiate this maneuver even if you are subject to a spell, effect, or condition that would otherwise prevent you from taking any actions.", you quite clearly can based solely on the wording that is present. Including that extra line of text would have been redundant and unnecessary.
The Actual ambiguity:
The exact text states "When you use this maneuver, select one spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds."
"Spell" is obvious. "Effect" is also fairly consistently defined, though still possibly open to interpretion. However, "condition" is very much an unknown quantity. Lacking any other context to go on, the scope of what what this maneuver is capable of working on seems to be almost entirely up to what the DM wishes to allow it to work on.
When I run games, I limit the maneuver's scope solely to what is present on the Condition Summary (aside from obvious things, like "Dead", and certain other ones of my choosing, like "Pinned" and "Prone"). Because, in my opinion, that is what the authors intended.
But that is my interpretation, and I have no way of proving that I am correct.
The concept of Rules As Written vs. Rules As Intended is not, and was never meant to be, license to ignore context and invent your own interpretations for text in which intent is blatantly obvious, but specific words and phrases that forbid alternate interpretations are not present. If you have ten tables attempting to interpret the 3.5 ruleset using rules technicalities, you will have ten tables playing ten entirely different games.
Even if such technicalities have their place in the theoretical, they are not useful constructs for the purposes of optimization. For reasons which at this point, I hope, are abundantly clear.Resident Mad Scientist...
"It's so cool!"
Spoiler: ContestsVC I: Lord Commander Conrad Vayne, 1st place
VC II: Lorna, the Mother's Wrath, 5th place
VC XV: Tosk, Kursak the Marauder, Vierna Zalyl; 1st place, 6th/7th place
Kitchen Crashers Protocol for Peace
-
2018-01-16, 03:01 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Trapped in England
- Gender
Re: Dragonwrought kobold
I'd actually argue that pinned can qualify for Iron Heart Surge. Prone makes no sense 'cause it's just a move action to stand up, but pinned actually makes plenty of sense. At least in my own opinion.
Your valiant warrior hero mustering up their effort and willpower to escape the grapple of an otherwise stronger or more skilled foe is one of the classical heroic manoeuvres that would be covered under Iron Heart Surge.
-
2018-01-16, 09:18 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
Re: Dragonwrought kobold
Yeah, when we talk about RAI, we try to guess what the intention of the designer(s) might have been.
RAI is used to correct RAW in the errata. But that doesn't change the limits of RAW.
When we talk about context in 3.5 terms, it's the presence and absence of keywords what limits us. And you may not interpret keywords into non keywords.
Otherwise it would become a problem, if the intent is to talk about something that sounds like / is similar to a keyword, but has nothing to do with it. Everybody would imply the keyword and it would end in a mess. That's the reason behind the exact use of keywords/-terms.
Draconomicon P4 had 2 (!) opportunities to use "Advancement".
First for counting as true dragon and the other is to disqualify as lesser dragon. But for some reason (as it seems to me) they avoided the use of "Advancement".
The reason is "Other True Dragons" on P144. Advancement can't be a requirement if the same book tells you that those true dragons who lack it, have to gain it by the DM.
I'm still waiting for your explanation how your interpretation works with the "other true dragons" gain Advancement rule without causing rule dysfunctions...Extended Signature with Links to all my build showcases in the forum
My latest build showcases:
Gaive'Ur, the last Eldritch Knight of Bane (✝)
PACMAN, the Southern Beholder Mage (accelerated spell progression + double 9s)
Optimus Urbana Hierophantus - a Mobile Suit Gundam / Mech / Transformers build
Orko, He-man & Battlecat (a Dragonfire Mount's Ubermount and its Ubermount)
Giant Dwarf, the Rock Superstar (a War Chanter build)
-
2018-01-16, 09:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
- Gender
Re: Dragonwrought kobold
The rule on page 144 of the Draconomicon that you continue to refer to applies only to true dragons as player characters and tells the DM that if someone wants to play a true dragon type other than the ten listed in the Monster Manual, whose advancement tables are compiled in table 3-21 on the previous page of the book, then the DM will have to create these LA- and HD-advancement tables themselves, using the information in table 3-22.
Furthermore, if you'd continue to read the entirety of the rules rather than cherry-picking those you think help you make your case, you'd see that ALSO on page 144 there's an entire other section of rules entitled "Lesser Dragon PCs", which explicitly states:
Originally Posted by Draconomicon pg. 144
- Do DWK's have the Dragon type? Yes.
- Do they have a set (that means unchanging) level adjustment? Yes.
- Do they have built-in progression due to age? No.
- Is there any reason (or for that matter, ability) to advance the DWK as a kobold? No.
Thus, by the letter of the rules, Dragonwrought Kobolds meet any and every criteria for being a lesser dragon, and one of the criteria for being a true dragon (having the dragon type, BFD ).
Seriously, give it up. We all know you won't though, and will likely try to find some way to refute this. Before you do, though, please be so kind as to succinctly restate your reasoning so those just tuning in can catch up.
-
2018-01-16, 10:43 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
Re: Dragonwrought kobold
I don't understand why people are trying to argue each other into submission. The edifice of Ego cannot stand with such low quality building supplies.
I think DW kobolds were left ambiguous on the true dragon point. You really have to look for the ambiguity though.
Each piece of supporting evidence of DWkolbolds being true dragons is carried by a low percentage chance that the argument can prevail.
1. DWkobolds are dragon type. 100% agreement.
a. No. Go to 3.
b. Yes. Go to 2.
2. DWkobolds have age 12 age categories
a. No. Go to 3
b. Yes. Go to 4.
3. DWkobolds are not true dragons. You're done arguing.
4. DWkobolds advance through those 12 age categories
a. No. Go to 3.
b. Yes. age bonuses, class level powers, size, etc. all "advance a creature" go to 5.
5. DWkobolds are true dragons.
The sub arguments about tables being exhaustive and true dragon advance through vs. advancement all come down to whether the rules are capable of being interpreted in such a way, with good faith arguments that DWkobolds are indeed true dragons. And arguments about DWkobolds do absolutely make this cut. Look at how the conversation turned towards defined terms and source primacy. The argument that DWKobolds aren't true dragons isn't unassailable. The mishmash and poor editorial standards (or willful imposition of nonclarity) does carve out space where one can, by RAW, have a true dragon kobold, but it is atypical of all other true dragons.
-
2018-01-16, 02:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2016
Re: Dragonwrought kobold
Currently Playing: NICELA LASERIE (Neutral Good) Female Gray Elf Fire Souled Half Nymph Elven Generalist Wizard 20 /// PF Bard 1 / Paladin of Freedom 2 /PF Bard +17
AND .......
FERGUS MADROAR (Chaotic Good) Male Dwarf Half Earth Elemental
Cloistered Cleric (Hanseath) 5 / Divine Oracle 6 / Contemplative 9 /// Paladin of Freedom 20
-
2018-01-16, 06:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
- Location
- California
- Gender
Re: Dragonwrought kobold
The only way we can have that debate is if we ignore the more detailed rules on advancement by age in the Draconomicon, which disqualify kobolds pretty unambiguously. (Gruftzwerg's claim that kobolds can meet those criteria provided the DM houserules them to have completely different stats is of course obviously absurd.)
Last edited by Troacctid; 2018-01-16 at 06:41 PM.
Rhymes with "Protracted."
Handbooks: The Warlockopedia | The Warmagepedia (WIP) | Tier List (2019 Update)
Spreadsheets: Spellcasting classes | Deities | Useful items
Homebrew: Gestalt Theurge | Fighter and Monk fixes | Warlock stuff | Houserules and quick fixes
Original Fiction: The Wizard's Familiar
-
2018-01-16, 06:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
-
2018-01-18, 09:08 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
Re: Dragonwrought kobold
The text ain't sole limited for dragons in table 3-21. The text targets:
For true dragons other than those found in the Monster Manual
Furthermore, if you'd continue to read the entirety of the rules rather than cherry-picking those you think help you make your case, you'd see that ALSO on page 144 there's an entire other section of rules entitled "Lesser Dragon PCs", which explicitly states:
So in light of these rules, a few quick questions neatly resolve this issue, and (spoiler alert) not in your favor:
- Do DWK's have the Dragon type? Yes.
- Do they have a set (that means unchanging) level adjustment? Yes.
- Do they have built-in progression due to age? No.
- Is there any reason (or for that matter, ability) to advance the DWK as a kobold? No.
Thus, by the letter of the rules, Dragonwrought Kobolds meet any and every criteria for being a lesser dragon, and one of the criteria for being a true dragon (having the dragon type, BFD ).
First thing Draconomicon tells you about Lesser Dragons is on P4 and in this first sentence DWK already disqualify as Lesser Dragons due to having Age Categories. That is first class cherry-picking imho.
- Do DWK's have the Dragon type? Yes.
- Do they have a set (that means unchanging) level adjustment? Being a true dragon they get LA determined by the DM as "Other True Dragons" enforces him.
- Do they have built-in progression due to age? You extrapolate requirements for not being a lesser dragon into rules of requirement for being a true dragon. But that's wrong. Having built-in progression only disqualifies you as lesser dragon, but is not a requirement for being a true dragon (which would cause a rule dysfunction if it would be, but happily this ain't the chase here). It's your extrapolated rules that cause a dysfunction, while we have an interpretation of the RAW text that doesn't cause a dysfunction.
- Is there any reason (or for that matter, ability) to advance the DWK as a kobold? Depends on the DM and what kind of Advancement he sees fit for a DWK..
Seriously, give it up. We all know you won't though, and will likely try to find some way to refute this. Before you do, though, please be so kind as to succinctly restate your reasoning so those just tuning in can catch up.Extended Signature with Links to all my build showcases in the forum
My latest build showcases:
Gaive'Ur, the last Eldritch Knight of Bane (✝)
PACMAN, the Southern Beholder Mage (accelerated spell progression + double 9s)
Optimus Urbana Hierophantus - a Mobile Suit Gundam / Mech / Transformers build
Orko, He-man & Battlecat (a Dragonfire Mount's Ubermount and its Ubermount)
Giant Dwarf, the Rock Superstar (a War Chanter build)
-
2018-01-18, 10:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Trapped in England
- Gender
Re: Dragonwrought kobold
Actually they do not, and I've already said this.
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).
For instance, let's look at the advancement for a true dragon according to the Monster Manual, the black dragon in this case;
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
In contrast, let's look at the advancement for a lesser dragon according to the same, the wyvern in this case...
Advancement: 8–10 HD (Large); 11–21 HD (Huge)
Advancement: By character class
-
2018-01-18, 03:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
- Location
- California
- Gender
Re: Dragonwrought kobold
Also—
For true dragons other than those found in the Monster ManualRhymes with "Protracted."
Handbooks: The Warlockopedia | The Warmagepedia (WIP) | Tier List (2019 Update)
Spreadsheets: Spellcasting classes | Deities | Useful items
Homebrew: Gestalt Theurge | Fighter and Monk fixes | Warlock stuff | Houserules and quick fixes
Original Fiction: The Wizard's Familiar
-
2018-01-18, 05:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
- Location
- New York
- Gender
-
2018-01-18, 05:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
- Location
- California
- Gender
Re: Dragonwrought kobold
Dragonwrought is a feat, not a separate race.
Rhymes with "Protracted."
Handbooks: The Warlockopedia | The Warmagepedia (WIP) | Tier List (2019 Update)
Spreadsheets: Spellcasting classes | Deities | Useful items
Homebrew: Gestalt Theurge | Fighter and Monk fixes | Warlock stuff | Houserules and quick fixes
Original Fiction: The Wizard's Familiar
-
2018-01-18, 08:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
- Location
- New York
- Gender
Re: Dragonwrought kobold
Irrelevant. DW Kobolds are not the same thing as Kobolds. Their type is even different. If we assume (whether you believe it or not) that DW Kobolds are a True Dragon, either way Normal Kobolds are not, so of course DW Kobolds as True Dragons arent in the Monster Manual. Normal Kobolds being there means literally nothing.
-
2018-01-18, 08:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
- Gender
Re: Dragonwrought kobold
So let me get this straight: Your response to me quoting the RAW, which you're so fond of, is (at least in part) "It's up to the DM."? That's almost the opposite of following the Rules As Written.
Do keep in mind that you're one of a very few people (two, that I can remember in this thread) who's defended the idea that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons, in spite of RAW evidence to the contrary, that you can't refute without saying "It depends on the DM." So I feel pretty confident that I'm saying what a majority of the forum believes, or at least those who've chimed in here.
Also, there is no rules dysfunction. The Dragonwrought feat changes a Kobold's type to Dragon. That's it. If it made it count as a true dragon, it would say so. If kobolds gained even one hit point per age category, I'd completely agree, but they don't. The only thing on their age category table is the span of years that comprise each category. Compare that table to every single true dragon's aging table, and if you still think they somehow become stronger due to their age in the same manner as a true dragon does... well, I don't know what to tell you other than you've progressed beyond following your vaunted Rules As Written.
Finally, I'm not demanding that you give up a discussion, but your reasoning thus far has been refuted (several times, and ways), so continuing to rehash the same arguments is very likely going to end up with you feeling "provoked" again. But we're not here to protect your feelings and you've done little to nothing to prove your interpretation of the rules in any way follows what's actually printed in the books, without cherry-picking lines of text that support your position when read with no context, instead of within the entire framework of the rules.
I'll agree to disagree with you and leave it at that, unless you decide to quote me again.
-
2018-01-18, 09:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
- Location
- California
- Gender
Re: Dragonwrought kobold
Rhymes with "Protracted."
Handbooks: The Warlockopedia | The Warmagepedia (WIP) | Tier List (2019 Update)
Spreadsheets: Spellcasting classes | Deities | Useful items
Homebrew: Gestalt Theurge | Fighter and Monk fixes | Warlock stuff | Houserules and quick fixes
Original Fiction: The Wizard's Familiar
-
2018-01-19, 12:00 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2016
- Location
- The Old West
Re: Dragonwrought kobold
Them both being kobolds (and one, at least, obviously not being a true dragon) doesn't mean the one that literally changes its type to Dragon is automatically not a true dragon. Personally, I've said my piece on not caring either way, but just because regular kobolds aren't listed as true dragons doesn't mean that Dragonwrought kobolds (which at least have the dragon type) can't be. They may not be, but it seems to me that that would have very little to do with them being kobolds and more to do with what the Dragonwrought feat ultimately does. Which again, should probably be more subject to what effect a table wants it to have than what some potential rules weirdness causes.
Avatar by linklele
Spoiler: Build Contests
E6 Iron Chef XVI Shared First Place: Black Wing
E6 Iron Chef XXI Shared Second Place: The Shadow's Hand
-
2018-01-19, 12:15 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
- Location
- California
- Gender
Re: Dragonwrought kobold
I think you may have missed some of the previous citations. To recap:
True dragons have advancement by age; dragonwrought kobolds do not. And there's no meaningful ambiguity in that definition, because Draconomicon expounds upon it at great length in Chapter 3, explaining that true dragons increase their HD and LA as they get older, while lesser dragons have a set level adjustment and no built-in progression due to age.
The reason I'm talking about kobolds being in the Monster Manual is because Gruftzwerg has repeatedly insisted that the DM can use this rule
...to construct a table for dragonwrought kobolds and give them a variable level adjustment and progression due to age, thereby qualifying them as true dragons. Setting aside the obvious circularity of this argument (in order for that rule to be relevant, they'd need to already be true dragons without it, or it wouldn't apply to them) and the absurdity of calling in houserules that don't appear in the book and claiming them as RAW—kobolds are in the Monster Manual, so even if you were to grant all that nonsense, that passage still isn't relevant for them.Last edited by Troacctid; 2018-01-19 at 12:18 AM.
Rhymes with "Protracted."
Handbooks: The Warlockopedia | The Warmagepedia (WIP) | Tier List (2019 Update)
Spreadsheets: Spellcasting classes | Deities | Useful items
Homebrew: Gestalt Theurge | Fighter and Monk fixes | Warlock stuff | Houserules and quick fixes
Original Fiction: The Wizard's Familiar
-
2018-01-19, 01:38 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2016
- Location
- The Old West
Re: Dragonwrought kobold
Avatar by linklele
Spoiler: Build Contests
E6 Iron Chef XVI Shared First Place: Black Wing
E6 Iron Chef XXI Shared Second Place: The Shadow's Hand
-
2018-01-19, 03:44 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
Re: Dragonwrought kobold
I think you are still missing part of it through. Take a step back and realize that Luccan and the ever verbal Gruftzwerg are essentially arguing the DM needs to make up their exact level adjustment. In any other debate, claiming houserules are required for something to work is a red herring for a lost argument but their personal bias blinds them to this and it is likely affecting you too.
And since the level adjustment is based on age category. Do you really think the misinterpretation that venerable kobold's ability to select (but not use, see phb/cw) an epic feat is really worth starting with up to six levels of adjustment? Even if your DM also misinterpreted who can actually use lore drake and use that as well you are still giving up access to 9th, and even 8th, level spells. No one actively commits fallacy after fallacy following or obeying anything either, they are here to validate their desired result. And their result as they have defined it is such a terrible choice it's virtually unplayable. Most sorcerers could take odd levels in fighter and still end up a better spellcaster.Last edited by Mato; 2018-01-19 at 04:03 PM.
-
2018-01-19, 04:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2016
- Location
- The Old West
Re: Dragonwrought kobold
Excuse me? I'm not arguing whether or not it is or should be a true dragon, I was simply attempting to make clear my thoughts on someones point (which I now admit I should have gone back and read through again to fully understand before posting, because I find I agree with what troacctid was saying). I have nothing to do with this LA stuff and frankly I stand by my point that the potential ambiguity of this argument means it should be decided by what is best for each group. I have almost nothing to do with this devolving debate.
Last edited by Luccan; 2018-01-19 at 04:03 PM.
Avatar by linklele
Spoiler: Build Contests
E6 Iron Chef XVI Shared First Place: Black Wing
E6 Iron Chef XXI Shared Second Place: The Shadow's Hand