Post/Author/DateTime	Post
El_Machinae 11-09-06, 09:54 AM	In the MM it specifies that the Chromatic and Metallic Dragons are 'true' dragons. I assume this refers to Dragon PrCs that require being a 'true' dragon. Is there text elsewhere that indicates that there are other 'true' dragons? I might be missing it, I figure it should it should be in the Draconomicron, but I seem to be missing it.
obrysii 11-09-06, 10:49 AM	It says somewhere (likely the Draconomicon) that a "True Dragon" would be anything of the Dragon type that has age catagories.
Orchomenos 11-09-06, 11:01 AM	There are the Gem Dragons, who usually have psionic abilities and are neutral in the Good-Evil axis. Also, the WotC board has stats for the Steel, Mercury (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mm/20040103a), and Mist Dragons. Enworld (http://www.enworld.org/cc/converted/) has also stats for Cloud & Yellow Dragons.
Alder_Fiter_Galaz 11-09-06, 11:05 AM	There is a ton of creatures who are not true dragons but have the dragon descriptor like the elemental drakes.
Dunamin 11-09-06, 11:19 AM	It says somewhere (likely the Draconomicon) that a "True Dragon" would be anything of the Dragon type that has age catagories. Really? Never heard about that. I thought it only was the metallics and chromatics, possibly also the gem dragons.
Tequila_Sunrise 11-09-06, 11:31 AM	Really? Never heard about that. I thought it only was the metallics and chromatics, possibly also the gem dragons. Strictly speaking, "True Dragons" only encompass the ten varieties that are lumped together with each other in MM. I'm sure that the only reason for this is because of rules that refer to intelligent dragons like the Dragon Disciple PrC; WotC knew that more intelligent dragons would be presented to gamers in upcoming splatbooks and wanted to keep things simple. I find nothing wrong with playing 'fast and loose' with the idea of True Dragons, especially since it has changed since 2nd edition where gem dragons were also considered to be part of this prestigious group.
obrysii 11-09-06, 11:48 AM	Here is a passage from the SRD that lends favor to my thought that all true dragons are those beings with age catagories and are of the dragon type: All true dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age. (Other creatures that have the dragon type do not.)
El_Machinae 11-09-06, 12:48 PM	See, that text indicates that something like the Fang Dragon is a True Dragon. I'm inclined to agree; I just can't find anything that voids the 'only chromatics and metallics are true dragons' text.
obrysii 11-09-06, 12:55 PM	Well, yeah. Since Fang Dragons have age catagories, and they are of the Dragon type, they are therefore True Dragons. It's really not that hard: if it has age catagories, and is a dragon, then it is a True Dragon.
Freefall 11-09-06, 01:18 PM	Doesn't Draconomicon have a list of them in it? I believe, in addition to the metallics, chromatics, and gem dragons, it also includes the epic dragons (force and prismatic). Probably shadow too. I'm pretty sure that all the planar dragons are excluded. Not sure about the Fang Dragon.
Sorcen_Anenooata 11-09-06, 01:37 PM	Dracodex, The Index of Dragons (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=700508) has a very good listing of the dragons and the difference of true vs lesser dragons.
CzarGarrett 11-09-06, 01:41 PM	Perhaps it was an old 2E thing, but I remember there being a description of a True Dragon needing to have: Wings 2 breath weapons Age categories Arcane/Divine caster levels And some other stuff. But that Dracodex listing seems to be damn good.
Dunamin 11-09-06, 01:48 PM	Perhaps it was an old 2E thing, but I remember there being a description of a True Dragon needing to have: Wings 2 breath weapons Age categories Arcane/Divine caster levels Naturally, that definition isn't any good in 3.x, since chromatics don't have 2 types of breath weapons...
obrysii 11-09-06, 01:57 PM	Probably shadow too. I'm pretty sure that all the planar dragons are excluded. Not sure about the Fang Dragon. Does it have age catagories? Yes. Does it have the Dragon type? Yeah? Then it's a True Dragon. This applies to ALL dragons with age catagories. There should be no confusion, and there are no exceptions. Also, for further proof: Look at page 4 of the Draconomicon, in the sidebar at the bottom, labeled, "Different Kinds of Dragons" ...
Kothardarastrix 11-09-06, 02:20 PM	Psst... Obrysii, Fangs don't HAVE a breath weapon...
Tequila_Sunrise 11-09-06, 02:46 PM	There was never a definitive list of traits which a true dragon possesses, even in 2nd edition. Certainly crystals were considered true, but didn't even have wings which always bothered me. Anyway, an official book is yet again acting in contradiction to itself. Page 36 of Draconomicon reads: "True dragons fall into two broad categories: chromatic and metallic. The chromatics are black, blue, green, red and white. The metallics are brass, bronze, copper, gold and silver." So here we have THE BOOK telling us that there are only 10 trues...except on page 4 as someone pointed out it says there are more than these 10 listed in chaper 4. Turning to chapter 4, we find many dragons that advance in power as they age but no entries that begin with "Dragon, True". Not definitive for either argument. The moral of this story: THE BOOKS are not gospel. Take what you want from them, and invent the rest yourself.
BelRex 11-09-06, 03:55 PM	If I am not mistaken, Dragon Magic also defines a true dragon as a creature of the dragon type dragon that has age categories. So even by that definition, a dragonwrought kobold is a true dragon(if you use Races of the Dragon).
obrysii 11-09-06, 04:04 PM	Psst... Obrysii, Fangs don't HAVE a breath weapon... What's your point? Totally irrelevent. So we have three cases that state that a "true dragon is one that has advances in power as it ages and has the dragon type." Three examples, and nothing to contradict it.
Tequila_Sunrise 11-09-06, 06:18 PM	What's your point? Totally irrelevent. So we have three cases that state that a "true dragon is one that has advances in power as it ages and has the dragon type." Three examples, and nothing to contradict it. Like I said earlier, page 36 of the Draconomicon condradicts the 'true = presence of age categories' idea...and then contradicts itself.
BelRex 11-09-06, 07:45 PM	Why don't you both send the question directly to CustServ, and post the answers you get. It would be easier than continuing an argument within the thread.
RavinRay 11-09-06, 07:48 PM	There was never a definitive list of traits which a true dragon possesses, even in 2nd edition. Certainly crystals were considered true, but didn't even have wings which always bothered me. Or rather, they are depicted with stubby wings, which makes one ask how they can naturally fly? The flightless brown dragon was also drawn with vestigial wings (or winglets or whatever you wanna call 'em if we're gonna split hairs). Anyway, an official book is yet again acting in contradiction to itself. Page 36 of Draconomicon reads: "True dragons fall into two broad categories: chromatic and metallic. The chromatics are black, blue, green, red and white. The metallics are brass, bronze, copper, gold and silver." So here we have THE BOOK telling us that there are only 10 trues...except on page 4 as someone pointed out it says there are more than these 10 listed in chaper 4. I don't interpret the book that way. It's an acknowledgment by the authors that the 10 classic dragons are the focus of the book, and that other true dragon may not necessarily play as large a role in many worlds, or are even non-existent. Plus, it assumes that many readers have only the Monster Manual and not the Monster Manual II, Epic Level Handbook, Monsters of Faerūn, and what-have-you where other dragons are mentioned.
Kothardarastrix 11-09-06, 08:29 PM	Hmmm... I thought you said, Does it have a breath weapon, my bad!
Tequila_Sunrise 11-09-06, 09:03 PM	Why don't you both send the question directly to CustServ, and post the answers you get. It would be easier than continuing an argument within the thread. I've tried customer service before and they have yet to be helpful even once. Anyway, I'm sure that they could give us an answer one way or another but that's not my point. I'm just trying to get folks to realize that we don't need WotC to hold our hands thru everything we do; we have imaginations and common sense so let's use them!
El_Machinae 11-09-06, 09:30 PM	Naw, I don't need CustServ - any DM would agree, and it's not really important in the games I play. It's just something that leapt out at me.
runestar 11-09-06, 10:52 PM	Would this not imply that dragonwrought kobolds too are true dragons, since they get age categories as well?;)
BelRex 11-09-06, 10:55 PM	Yes, it's been running around the boards for a lil while now :P Take the dragon ascendant PrC and be worshipped :P See post #17.
Freefall 11-09-06, 11:23 PM	Okay, pg 287 has the actual list of "True Dragons," and includes which book they are found in. It includes all of the chromatic and metallic (big surprise), as well as the gem, planar, lung, and epic categories, and the Deep, Fang, Shadow, and Song dragons. This is all at the time of publication, of course. So basically, Obrysii was right.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 11-09-06, 11:26 PM	Would this not imply that dragonwrought kobolds too are true dragons, since they get age categories as well?;) Do they get 12?
obrysii 11-09-06, 11:55 PM	Do they get 12? Yes. They are even called the same thing as a True Dragon's age catagories. So, RAW, they are True Dragons. But there's a lot broken there (as a Great Wyrm Dragonwrought Kobold *random class* 1 can take epic feats), though.
runestar 11-10-06, 12:07 AM	So, RAW, they are True Dragons. But there's a lot broken there (as a Great Wyrm Dragonwrought Kobold *random class* 1 can take epic feats), though. Not to mention a free +3 to all mental stats(and they do not get the penalties for aging...) Only problem is that they are left with a few years left...now, where's that dracolich template...:D
RavinRay 11-10-06, 12:09 AM	Well, when the book came out, dragonwrought kobolds weren't known yet. And the only other group of dragons with age categories is the wurm from Dragon #296 with four instead if 12. The little sidebar about lesser dragons not growing in power as they age has to be qualified just a bit. And the three sea serpents from Dragon #345 have 12 age categories also (using the same names), but are not true dragons, though they came out after the book. Taking those examples, dragonwrought kobolds are not necessarily true dragons (dissect one and see if it has a draconis fundamentum).
El_Machinae 11-10-06, 08:38 AM	Okay, pg 287 has the actual list of "True Dragons," and includes which book they are found in. It includes all of the chromatic and metallic (big surprise), as well as the gem, planar, lung, and epic categories, and the Deep, Fang, Shadow, and Song dragons. This is all at the time of publication, of course. So basically, Obrysii was right. I didn't doubt it, but pg 287 was exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.
Tequila_Sunrise 11-10-06, 05:02 PM	So basically, Obrysii was right. Actually, nobody is "right". Or, everybody is "right", if you will. Even if we refuse to accept that THE BOOKS are not the Gospel of the game, an individual is free to contradict it without fear of being "wrong" because we each effectively have our own truths about the game.
obrysii 11-10-06, 06:30 PM	Actually, nobody is "right". Or, everybody is "right", if you will. Even if we refuse to accept that THE BOOKS are not the Gospel of the game, an individual is free to contradict it without fear of being "wrong" because we each effectively have our own truths about the game. You are free to rebuke the claims of others for purposes of this message board if, and only if, you can provide tangible proof of your own claim. As there are multiple, different, sources for the Age Catagories + Dragon type = True Dragon idea ... it will be tough to contradict it with regards to the message board.
Tequila_Sunrise 11-11-06, 10:01 PM	You are free to rebuke the claims of others for purposes of this message board if, and only if, you can provide tangible proof of your own claim. As the subject at hand is not a matter of game balance, I can rebuke another's claim at whim because there is no such thing as 'tangible proof' in this situation. Others have claimed that they have the 'right' solution, while I am pointing out that there is no 'right' solution. If you are invested in treating WotC books as the Bible of the game and in needing a cut-and-dry 'right' answer for every issue, that's fine for you. However, new players who may be reading the boards should not be subjected to this mentality; they need to know that it is acceptable and even commendable according to some of us, to disregard what a book might say on a particular subject.
obrysii 11-11-06, 11:05 PM	As the subject at hand is not a matter of game balance, I can rebuke another's claim at whim because there is no such thing as 'tangible proof' in this situation. Others have claimed that they have the 'right' solution, while I am pointing out that there is no 'right' solution. The Draconomicon, if you want to even consider that, provides proof. It contains a list of all True dragons, which happens to include all dragons that fit into the catagories of "age catagories; dragon type" at the time of printing. That is about as much proof as you can get.
runestar 11-12-06, 12:05 AM	LIES!!! There is only one truth! Everything else is a houserule...!!!:P
RavinRay 11-12-06, 01:49 AM	I'll just sum up the Draconomicon issue in one word: context. What did the sidebar at the introduction say?"For the most part, this book concerns itself with the ten varieties of dragons described in the Monster Manual—the five chromatic dragons (listed here) and the five metallic dragons (listed here). No other dragons, not even the three lesser dragons in MM, are mentioned by name even in passing in Chapter 1. (Edit: I now recall that the pseudodragon is mentioned, but only in reference to the smallest dragon form Io the Ninefold Dragon assumes.) So, no contradiction was intended, or is inferred, in any of the passages thus quoted so far. (I'm a big gem dragon fan, and though disappointed by the lack of gem dragon material, I appreciate the scope of the book.) To issue a blanket statement that WotC books are not gospel is pushing it too far for me, IMHO, because as rulebooks (even accessory rulebooks) they are supposed to be relied upon in the first place. A little leeway in interpretation, or quibbles in semantics here and there, or pointing out something implied but not explicit, is fine with me. And don't forget, we're talking about the default rules of the game. In other cases, use variant rules, and let other know when you are doing so.
Aeolius 11-12-06, 09:21 AM	Poor dragon turtles get no respect at all... ;)
Tequila_Sunrise 11-12-06, 03:29 PM	The Draconomicon, if you want to even consider that, provides proof. It contains a list of all True dragons, which happens to include all dragons that fit into the catagories of "age catagories; dragon type" at the time of printing. That is about as much proof as you can get. You're either not seeing my argument or you're intentionally ignoring it. I'm not arguing about the definition of the term 'true dragon'. I'm arguing that there is no true or right definition because it's purely a question of taste. Everybody keeps referencing the books; I don't care about the books. Part of the beauty of d&d is that every book, every chapter and every rule is effectively a house rule because the game is meant to be changed on a case-by-case basis (i.e. individual taste). And don't forget, we're talking about the default rules of the game. In other cases, use variant rules, and let other know when you are doing so. I will be Captain Obvious when others do the same; I'll announce when I'm speaking of a variant idea when you announce that you're speaking of a default idea.
RavinRay 11-12-06, 03:52 PM	By its very definition default rules don't need to be explicitly called out.
HolyGrenadeFrenzy 11-13-06, 10:09 PM	By its very definition default rules don't need to be explicitly called out. Any of the Descendants of Io would be a great definition..:D ...but alas Dragon as Type should do it right? Age Categories is a descent add however there may be exceptions for example...Are Tiamat and Bahamut before the Great Beginning of Temporal Reality and thus beyond Time?....What about Io or any of the Primordial Dragons especially these three? Is there any proof or record they every had to go through aging or did they form in a more primordial fashion? For the most part I agree however leaving an unknown questionmark and a definitions for "Most True Dragons" is fine enough to prevent difficulties if "another type of True Dragon" surfaces the Dweanomnevore comes to mind from Dragon Magazine.
Kothardarastrix 11-16-06, 04:39 PM	You're either not seeing my argument or you're intentionally ignoring it. I'm not arguing about the definition of the term 'true dragon'. I'm arguing that there is no true or right definition because it's purely a question of taste. Everybody keeps referencing the books; I don't care about the books. Part of the beauty of d&d is that every book, every chapter and every rule is effectively a house rule because the game is meant to be changed on a case-by-case basis (i.e. individual taste). No, Rule Zero is not a case-by-case basis, only a moron DM decides that, what it's supposed to do is allow you to change some of the rules if you and your group happen to not like or agree with a certain aspect of those rules. Again, we are speaking of what is defined in Core D&D and supplementary Sourcebooks, if you don't like it then you don't have to join the conversation (In fact I suggest you go and get some more PC XP and watch how a real DM actually deals with Rule Zero).
Atsettam 11-16-06, 05:03 PM	Dragon Magazine #313 Nameless (Template) Ravening (Template) Riddled (Template) Spellhoarding (Template) Wandering (Template) Dragon Magazine # 321 Adamantine Dragon Arboreal Dragon Axial Dragon Beast Dragon Concordant Dragon Archdragon (Template) Dragon Magazine #343 Hex Dragon Tome Dragon Magic of Incarnum Incarnum Dragon Sandstorm Sand Dragon :dragon: :dragon: :dragon: :dragon: :dragon: :dragon: :dragon: :dragon: :dragon:
El_Machinae 11-16-06, 07:49 PM	Man, I'd like to see stats for adamantine dragons ... What alignment are they?
RavinRay 11-16-06, 08:00 PM	They're NG, and reside in Bytopia.
forrestfire15 11-16-06, 08:15 PM	Dragon Magazine #313 Nameless (Template) Ravening (Template) Riddled (Template) Spellhoarding (Template) Wandering (Template) Dragon Magazine # 321 Adamantine Dragon Arboreal Dragon Axial Dragon Beast Dragon Concordant Dragon Archdragon (Template) Dragon Magazine #343 Hex Dragon Tome Dragon Magic of Incarnum Incarnum Dragon Sandstorm Sand Dragon :dragon: :dragon: :dragon: :dragon: :dragon: :dragon: :dragon: :dragon: :dragon: you forgot the Ozalmus, the 3 headed dragon from dragon #349 :dragon:
Tequila_Sunrise 11-16-06, 11:56 PM	No, Rule Zero is not a case-by-case basis, only a moron DM decides that, what it's supposed to do is allow you to change some of the rules if you and your group happen to not like or agree with a certain aspect of those rules. Again, we are speaking of what is defined in Core D&D and supplementary Sourcebooks, if you don't like it then you don't have to join the conversation (In fact I suggest you go and get some more PC XP and watch how a real DM actually deals with Rule Zero). I'm done here; see number 3 of my sig.
Kothardarastrix 11-17-06, 02:57 PM	I'm done here; see number 3 of my sig. Wow... nice one kid, come back when you learn how to debate!:rolleyes: Mind trying to actually defend your position by arguing my points?
HolyGrenadeFrenzy 03-23-07, 02:25 AM	Any of the Descendants of Io would be a great definition..:D ...but alas Dragon as Type should do it right? Age Categories is a descent add however there may be exceptions for example...Are Tiamat and Bahamut before the Great Beginning of Temporal Reality and thus beyond Time?....What about Io or any of the Primordial Dragons especially these three? Is there any proof or record they every had to go through aging or did they form in a more primordial fashion? For the most part I agree however leaving an unknown questionmark and a definitions for "Most True Dragons" is fine enough to prevent difficulties if "another type of True Dragon" surfaces the Dweanomnevore comes to mind from Dragon Magazine. Perhaps this" Any species which is denoted as descended from the first dragons and hold to the Draconic Form of the Type of Dragon Race they are descendant from. Any of the Primordial Dragons may appoint the name on any they claim as their own stock of dragons even if this is argued by others it will not stand in court." LOL:cool: