I did a few searches through old posts and it looks mixed as to if this is legal.
If you can just post a yes/no ... would appreciate it.
Does an aged Dragonwrought Kobold qualify for Epic feats?
Not by RAW, no.
But there is a line in Draconomicon, that if take out of context can be twisted to say something it clearly doesn't say. The line explains that True Dragons can take Epic feats with no class levels if they have sufficient Racial HD to do so.
On page 66, under Epic Feats, it says the following:
Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even if they have no class levels.
It doesn't matter how many racial hit dice they do or do not have. You have to ask the questions
1. Are they a dragon.
2. Are they old age or older.
A dragonwrought kobold who's at least 'old' meets both qualifications.
So the correct answer is, yes, by RAW, they can take epic feats, even at first level, assuming they meet all other pre-requisites.
Loredrake increases caster level (including spells known/spells per day) by +2. I think it lowers BAB and Hit-dice (racial) in return.
It doesn't lower BAB.
Racial HD to d10s, and like all sovereign archetypes, the dragon loses their ability to cast clerical (or other classes's) spells as arcane (if they have any).
As for the true dragon/lesser dragon thing, there is also the part in Draconomicon where it says "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)."
(and Kobolds use the True Dragon age categories)
That's a direct quote of the sentence. It doesn't say anything about 'true'. It's on page 66 of the draconomicon, at the top, I'm looking at it right now. I don't see a published errata for the book.
I'm looking at the distinction of dragon vs true dragon in the SRD:
The known varieties of true dragons (as opposed to other creatures that have the dragon type) fall into two broad categories: chromatic and metallic. The chromatic dragons are black, blue, green, red, and white; they are all evil and extremely fierce. The metallic dragons are brass, bronze, copper, gold, and silver; they are all good, usually noble, and highly respected by the wise.
All true dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age. (Other creatures that have the dragon type do not.)
Emphasis mine. Does the Dragonwrought feat that you're looking at say 'true dragon', or 'dragon'? It's important because the SRD clearly delineates a difference. Alternately, does the Dragon Turtle qualify for Epic feats? It's an important question because the SRD specifically separates them from true dragons.
Emphasis mine. Does the Dragonwrought feat that you're looking at say 'true dragon', or 'dragon'? It's important because the SRD clearly delineates a difference. Alternately, does the Dragon Turtle qualify for Epic feats? It's an important question because the SRD specifically separates them from true dragons.
The SRD doesn't say anything about dragons, true or otherwise, qualifying for epic feats before character level 21, the draconomicon does, and it only says 'dragons'. So, according to it, Dragon Turtles that are 'old' would qualify (assuming they have age categories), as would dragonwrought kobolds (which do have age categories).
The question was, simply, do they qualify, to which the answer, by RAW is, yes (assuming you're using the rules for dragons from the draconomicon).
1) They get more powerful as they get older (mental stats)
2) They go through the True Dragon age catagories
Against:
1) They do not get more abilities from age, therefore do not fulfil both qualification of a True Dragon.
I tend to allow Loredrake, but not epic feats, which is sort of the reverse of RAW-ness, but whatever.
So the correct answer is, yes, by RAW, they can take epic feats, even at first level, assuming they meet all other pre-requisites.
That is the "Rules say what I wish them to say, not way they say" answer.
The RAW says otherwise.
Dcn p66 "Epic Feats: These feats are available to characters of 21st level or higher. Dragons of at least old ..." In context, this is explicitly saying you can take epic feats if you have 21 HD even if you have no class levels.
Dcn p4 "for the most part, this books concerns itself with the ten variety of true dragon."
Dcn p59 chapter (which contains page 66) is "Running a Dragon Encounter" is about true dragons.
Dcn many pages have definitions of true dragons in ways that exclude Dragonwrought Kobolds of Dragon Type from the definition of true dragons.
Any other reading of the book Dcn is taking it out of context and willfully misinterpreting the rules as written.
What was Loredrake used for then? I own no Ebberon books.
Loredrake doesn't work for Kobolds either, since it is in a chapter about True Dragons of Eberron.
That is the "Rules say what I wish them to say, not way they say" answer.
Do not pretend to know my intentions nor my desires. I've never once, even in theoretical builds, tried to use the trick, nor have I recommended it to others. I aggreed, explicitly, that I didn't think it was RAI, and I've said multiple times I wouldn't allow it as a DM.
The RAW says otherwise.
Dcn p66 "Epic Feats: These feats are available to characters of 21st level or higher. Dragons of at least old ..." In context, this is explicitly saying you can take epic feats if you have 21 HD even if you have no class levels.
Umm...no. the whole sentence says, "Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even if they have no class levels. " I.E. "Ignore the normal limitation of 21st level mentioned in the previous sentence, instead, only worry about age category."
There are dragons with 21 or more hit-dice that are not 'old' and therefore cannot take epic feats. There are dragons that are 'old' but don't have more than 21 hit-dice, but still can. Hit-dice do not play into the function of the ruling, according to the raw, only age category.
If they're old, and they're a dragon, they get to take epic feats. End of sentence.
Dcn p4 "for the most part, this books concerns itself with the ten variety of true dragon."
Now who's taking things out of context. Nice to be able to ignore 'for the most part' at the beginning of that sentence, or the two hundred pages in the book that have nothing to do with true dragons.
Dcn p59 chapter (which contains page 66) is "Running a Dragon Encounter" is about true dragons.
Quit putting words in the book's mouth. Nothing in the text from page 59 adds any exclusivity to the section being about true dragons.
The only adjectives added to the word 'dragon' on that whole page are about size categories and have nothing to do with what color or subset of 'dragon', true or otherwise, you're running.
Dcn many pages have definitions of true dragons in ways that exclude Dragonwrought Kobolds of Dragon Type from the definition of true dragons.
Quote one. So far, you've provided nothing.
EDIT: Wait. Don't bother. I'm not contending, now or ever, that DW Kobold's are 'true dragons'. I'm contending that the rule in question doesn't specify that it only applies to 'true dragons'. Nor does it state it's limited to hit-dice in any way shape or form. Quote a rule that says that it does exclusively apply, either way, and you win, otherwise, admit that you're wrong or walk away.
Any other reading of the book Dcn is taking it out of context and willfully misinterpreting the rules as written.
Ummm, no. Reading the sentence, in fact, the entire chapter, as it is written in context never makes a distinction implicitly or explicitly limiting the rules they provide for dragons to 'true dragons'. You are adding that in your own head to the RAW.
I think it's obvious that much of it was intended to only apply to true dragons, and I certainly would add it in my head if a player tried to abuse it, but RAI is not RAW.
Dcn p66 "Epic Feats: These feats are available to characters of 21st level or higher. Dragons of at least old ..." In context, this is explicitly saying you can take epic feats if you have 21 HD even if you have no class levels.
The part you quoted is not "explicitly saying you can take epic feats if you have 21 HD even if you have no class levels."
Please point at where it says "21 hit dice."
Do you perhaps mean "implicitly"? Because that's almost the opposite of what you wrote.
Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even if they have no class levels.
This grants a benefit only when the PC/NPC has no class levels (so the Kobold would need to have his 1st level Dragon Racial HD and no others.) The "even if" qualifier is a requirement for this benefit.
This benefit disappears when you gain your first class level (since you no longer have "no class levels.") Since you no longer have "no class levels."
This benefit doesn't have the required "A monk need not have any of the prerequisites normally required for these feats to select them" line that is present when Prereqs are ignore (like the Epic feat 21st character level prereq.)
I didn't think it was RAI
I.E. "Ignore the normal limitation of 21st level mentioned in the previous sentence, instead, only worry about age category."
There are dragons with 21 or more hit-dice that are not 'old' and therefore cannot take epic feats
There are dragons that are 'old' but don't have more than 21 hit-dice, but still can.
I don't care about RAI, only about RAW. Leave RAI at the door.
You can't ignore the previous line, as it provides a context for the second line.
Epic Feats require 21st character level, by definition 21 Racial HD is 21 Character Level, and Epic feats are allowed.
Name one dragon of Old type that doesn't have 21 HD.
Please point at where it says "21 hit dice."
If you choose to take a single line in a paragraph out of context, you can do many exciting things the rules don't allow.
"Even if" is in no way an exclusive qualifier in that statement, as you're describing; it's an inclusive qualifier. "Only if" would be a proper exclusion in that sentence, as you're describing.
EDIT:
Epic Feats require 21st character level, by definition 21 Racial HD is 21 Character Level, and Epic feats are allowed.
Name one dragon of Old type that doesn't have 21 HD.
If there weren't dragons that are 'old' with less than 21 character levels, and 21 Hit-dice automatically qualifies you for epic feats, why would they need the sentence allowing them to qualify? Racial Hit-dice do not normally qualify you for epic feats, it's character level, not ECL that applies.
Old Age Dragonwrought Kobolds are old dragons with (potentially) less than 21hd. Really, until you can prove they don't qualify, with an actual rules quote that overrules the one that they do qualify under, that's the only example needed.
A followup, since I expect this issue isn't proved to the satisfaction of some, is reading the rule very literally.
This grants a benefit only when the PC/NPC has no class levels (so the Kobold would need to have his 1st level Dragon Racial HD and no others.) The "even if" qualifier is a requirement for this benefit.
http://www.ingilizceci.net/GrammarMaryAns/Yeni%20Klas%F6r/gramch28.html
Even if
1. in spite of a possibility: I am going out even if it rains.
...
If
1. on condition that: If she is here, we will see her.
(Actually, it looks as though I've been ninja'd, so I'm just going to stop here. That's probably what I deserve for leaving so many tabs open.)
Therefore:
Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even if they have no class levels.
So dragons of at least old age also can choose these (epic) feats. It's not dependent on their lack of class levels.
edited for clarity
Now you're just being intentionally obtuse.
Racial Hit-dice do not normally qualify you for epic feats, it's character level, not ECL that applies.
I could level the same behaviour on you, ignoring context to allow them a benefit they clearly are not allowed by RAW.
Racial Hit Dice are part of Character Level, but here is an explicit contradiction to your position:
DMG p209:
"The epic rules in this section also work for monsters with character levels, using the creature’s effective character level (ECL)"
MM p7:
"Level Adjustment: Add this number to the creature’s total Hit Dice, including class levels, to get the creature’s effective character level (ECL)"
It is very clear Character Level equals Racial HD + Class Levels.
Character Level OR ECL can be used for Epic Feats.
Dragons of 21 HD or more are Epic by two rules and Dragons of less than 21 HD with Class Levels and a LA to make their ECL >=21 are also Epic.
The rule in Draconomicon isn't a new rule as much of a reminder.
I could level the same behaviour on you, ignoring context to allow them a benefit they clearly are not allowed by RAW.
This is the last time I am going to say this.
Quote the text where it says, explicitly, what you are saying. Don't just say that it says it. Quote it.
All you've got so far is your belief that the rule doesn't apply to non-true dragons or dragons with 21 or more racial hit-dice. Nothing in the actual text of the rule limits it. Nothing in the surrounding text limits it. I've quoted the text. I've re-read the chapter in question. I don't see any explicit or implicit limiters in the actual rules text. I've pointed out where thing you said the book said weren't in the actual text.
DMG p209:
"The epic rules in this section also work for monsters with character levels, using the creature’s effective character level (ECL)"
That'll teach me to check the ELH and not the 3.5 update in the DMG. It's still true that Dragons that aren't old still do not qualify without the page 66 rule, though, without character (I.E. class) levels.
The rule in Draconomicon isn't a new rule as much of a reminder.
Umm, no, it is a new rule:
"The epic rules in this section also work for monsters with character levels"
"Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even if they have no class levels."
Emphasis mine.
Normally, a monster still has to have character (I.E. class) levels, to qualify for epic feats, regardless of their racial hit-dice. Dragons of age category old or older do not. That's the rule.
I don't see any explicit or implicit limiters in the actual rules text.
It's still true that Dragons that aren't old still do not qualify without the page 66 rule, though, without character (I.E. class) levels.
You choose to ignore the written limiter, by selecting a single sentence out of context.
Another point is Old by definition means 21 or more HD (since each age category is a minimum of 3 HD.)
Another point is Old by definition means 21 or more HD (since each age category is a minimum of 3 HD.)
Where does it say this?
Don't just say that it says it. Quote it.
EPIC FEATS
These feats are available to characters of 21st level or higher.
Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even
if they have no class levels. A selection of epic feats appropriate
for dragons is presented here. See the Epic Level Handbook
for more epic feats.
There is the whole paragraph. It looks to me like Risner is taking things out of context. The first line appears to be shortened definition of the title. It simply explains what epic feats are. The second sentence states that Dragons of old age category or greater also qualify for epic feats. The second sentence is there to say that dragons of age old or older do not need to abide by the first sentence. This is most likely because several dragons (such as the drakes and the landwyrms) advance in age but their abilities do not advance as they do so. Nowhere in the paragraph does it say it only applies to true dragons. Therefore it applies not to just true dragons, but all dragons. Therefore it would apply to dragonwrought kobalds.
What Epic feats are available to a low level stinky cheese dragonwrought kobold?
Not the first time I've seen this... but...
What Epic feats are available to a low level stinky cheese dragonwrought kobold?
Very few.
You choose to ignore the written limiter, by selecting a single sentence out of context.
Another point is Old by definition means 21 or more HD (since each age category is a minimum of 3 HD.)
Quote? Page Number? Book?
Until you provide an actually written limiter, you're just making **** up.
Quote it, or drop it.
Not the first time I've seen this... but...
What Epic feats are available to a low level stinky cheese dragonwrought kobold?
When the argument started, I looked through the list and the first one I came to that any 1st level kobold could take (with a flaw) was Epic Toughness. I'm sure it isn't the only one, but there are probably only a couple that could be taken before 6th.
At higher levels, though, there are some others that only require other non-epic feats, like a few of the Archery ones, or Dire Charge (which is just pounce with the pre-req of improved init).
I think HD is irrelevant, because if it was relevant, Adult Silver, Gold and Red dragons and few others should already qualify for Epic feats.
If it was by ECL, a Young Red should qualify... except for:
- A monster’s total Hit Dice, not its ECL, govern its acquisition of feats and ability score increases.
However, ECL only exists for PLAYER CHARACTERS
AND
Many dragons qualify for epic feats WAY BEFORE old age.
What this amounts to is this: level adjustment doesn't give feats (duh!), but counts towards the point when you start gaining epic feats by HD.
So it is what it is - As per Draconomicon Old Dragons qualify for epic feats.
Outside that, Epic feats:
- Epic characters—those whose character level is 21st or higher ...
- At 21st level, and every three levels thereafter, the character may select an epic feat in place of a nonepic feat.
(the line above prevents Embrace/Shun from granting Epic feats on levels besides 21st and 24th, btw. Consequently, it alllows trading your NORMAL feats for epic feats on those levels. RAW, that is.)
Now, let's not speak of True Dragons...
Are dragonwrought kobolds - or, for that matter, Dragon Disciple 10:s, Dragons? Yep. Without a doubt.
Frankly, the relevant Draconomicon block
These feats are available to characters of 21st level or higher.
Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even
if they have no class levels. A selection of epic feats appro-
priate for dragons is presented here. See the Epic Level Hand-
book for more epic feats.
is more than odd - as a character, ANY creature with 21 HD qualifies for epic feats. If we take this to be an exception - which makes sense in an exception-based game - would mean that either NPCs without class levels do not qualify for epic feats - or that dragons do not qualify for epic feats unless they have at least 21 levels in a PC class, or are of Old age.
Do note it doesn't even refer to age categories. Just to Old age.
IF we presume RAI means true dragons, then we need to ask if Dragonwrought Kobolds are True Dragons.
What are True Dragons?
this book concerns itself with the ten
varieties of true dragon described in the Monster Manual
This does not mean ONLY those described in MM are true dragons, BTW.
True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful
as they grow older.
...
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).
ALL kobolds advance through age categories NOT all kobolds are Dragons.
No kobold who is a dragon is a lesser dragon.
However, "Grows more powerful" is rather vague, as Kobolds do NOT for an example,
gain racial HD by age, even if they gain stat boosts sans penalties.
Do note that Dracoliches and other templated dragons which have retarded aging before Old age,
may or may not be True dragons, or even dragons at all - in which case their access to epic feats gets interesting, to say the least--- but, I digress.
Now, if you could, by hook or crook, bind a power advancement effect to your aging process, a dragon would definitely count as true. I wonder if a simple contingency + wish would qualify.
When the argument started, I looked through the list and the first one I came to that any 1st level kobold could take (with a flaw) was Epic Toughness. I'm sure it isn't the only one, but there are probably only a couple that could be taken before 6th.
At higher levels, though, there are some others that only require other non-epic feats, like a few of the Archery ones, or Dire Charge (which is just pounce with the pre-req of improved init).
How about this one?
Binder Cheese
Kobold
Binder 6 / Ardent 1 / Knight of Sacred Seal 5 / Scion of Dantalion 2 / Tenebrous Apostate 2 / Anima Mage 1 / Bloodline 3
Could have EBL of 21 @ 14th level
1,f,f Dragonwrought, Improved Binding, Practiced Manifestor
3 Extend Power
4b Rapid Pact-Making
6 Weapon Focus
9 Expel Vestige
12 free?
15 Epic Rapid Pact Making
18 Epic Expel Vestige
EBL 30 @ 20th level, capable of binding 6 vestiges at once, and takes 2 rounds to trade them out, any number of times per day.
Quote? Page Number? Book?
Quote it, or drop it.
It is in a chapter about True Dragons in a book about True Dragons, and it doesn't use "any Dragon" or "any creature with Dragon type." It said simply "Dragons" and interpreting that as anything other than saying "True Dragons" is willfully misreading the rules. All throughout the book, when they means "all Dragons" they say "Dragon type."
Kobolds are not True Dragons, they are simply Dragons with age categories.
Ever wonder why they said Old dragons by age category? Because the 7th age category (Old) requires a minimum of 21 HD to become in True Dragons.
ask if Dragonwrought Kobolds are True Dragons.
What are True Dragons?
Dcn p9 "All True Dragons are endothermic"
Dcn p21 "All True Dragons can swim"
Dcn p22 "Every True Dragon is immune to one type of energy"
Dcn p22 "True Dragons develop ... [DR and SR]"
Dcn p136 "True Dragons possess Blindsense"
That are a rather hard list of requirements to be considered True Dragon for a lowly Kobold.
Gaining +1 mental stats from aging isn't considered "growing more powerful with age", since Humans, True Dragons, and everyone else gain this benefit without even considering this a qualifying example of becoming "more powerful."
It is in a chapter about True Dragons in a book about True Dragons
Not really, and you quoted the relevant passage yourself: "for the most part, this books concerns itself with the ten variety of true dragon."
This is, in no way, restricting any of the following rules to true dragons (at least by RAW). If "for the most part" was replaced with "Exclusively," you might have had a point.
If fact, you bring plenty of examples contradicting your stance:
Dcn p9 "All True Dragons are endothermic"
Dcn p21 "All True Dragons can swim"
Dcn p22 "Every True Dragon is immune to one type of energy"
Dcn p22 "True Dragons develop ... [DR and SR]"
Dcn p136 "True Dragons possess Blindsense"
If you were right, they would not need to use "true dragon" - it would be obvious. In fact, spelling it out would only cause confusion.
It said simply "Dragons" and interpreting that as anything other than saying "Dragons" is willfully misreading the rules.
I corrected the above sentence for you.
Last time, I swear... Quote where it limits the rule in question to 'true dragons'. Otherwise, admit that you are arguing for a stance based on your feelings about the author's intent.
Draconomicon is not limited to "True Dragons" only, as there's entire sections that deal with non-dragons, and "Dragons" (notice the lack of 'true').
Aside from that, make whatever judgements you like, since most DM's won't allow this cheese, and most people are not looking to gain benefit from this cheese.
Ever wonder why they said Old dragons by age category? Because the 7th age category (Old) requires a minimum of 21 HD to become in True Dragons.
Where do you get this 3HD per category thing, outside observation?
Dcn p9 "All True Dragons are endothermic"
Dcn p21 "All True Dragons can swim"
Dcn p22 "Every True Dragon is immune to one type of energy"
Are Dragonwrought kobolds endothermic or exothermic? Not sure. If not, how can we change that? Normal kobolds are exothermic, for the record...
Ranks in Swim
Energy immunity --- mildly tricky, but doable - say, with Flame's Blessing at level 16. Would push gaining epic feats to late game, so...
Energy Immunity(SpC)?
Dcn p22 "True Dragons develop ... [DR and SR]"
Dcn p136 "True Dragons possess Blindsense"
These we can ignore since it doesn't say "All".
Gaining +1 mental stats from aging isn't considered "growing more powerful with age", since Humans, True Dragons, and everyone else gain this benefit without even considering this a qualifying example of becoming "more powerful."
Well, ALL adventurers grow more powerful with age, albeit not with aging.
It's that or dead. It is also possible to bind other benefits to age categories via, say, Craft Contingent Spell + Wish.
That being said, gaining stat boosts with age sans penalties not being growing more powerful? That's interpreting the rules quite a lot.
What if it was +20 per age category, would you accept it then? If so, then we're just haggling about the scope of power gain, in which case +1 is entirely valid. You're basically advocating "Rules as you'd like them to be" there.
Are Dragonwrought kobolds endothermic or exothermic? Not sure. If not, how can we change that? Normal kobolds are exothermic, for the record...
Ranks in Swim
Energy immunity --- mildly tricky, but doable - say, with Flame's Blessing at level 16. Would push gaining epic feats to late game, so...
Energy Immunity(SpC)?
Mantle of the fiery soul and it's cold counter part make you have the fire or cold subtype which make you immune to fire or cold respectively.
Thats the charOP boards for ya. If somebody comes with an argument why our cheese arent working, we just keep doing silly stuff until it works. even if that means tampering with fluff-defined categories.
There isn't a valid RAW argument for it not working. The rule doesn't add any fluff to the equation, it says 'dragons' and 'old'.
I am sure they didn't mean to include 1st level kobold pc's, but intent and fluff don't come into the equation unless they're explicitly stated to do so in the rules text.
The Dragonwrought improves some short time, immediately after poking his head out of the egg; as clearly described in it's entry.
Then it improves some more at the old and up, age categories, but with no ability score reductions to Str, Dex or Con.
Those are improvements.
(iirc) ... Dragon Pacts in Dragon Magic made all Kobolds into True Dragons.
I never had access to that one, so I can't provide any references.
Ever wonder why they said Old dragons by age category? Because the 7th age category (Old) requires a minimum of 21 HD to become in True Dragons.
Hey, remember when I said you should provide a quote for that?
Heh yeah that was fun. Good times.
You should still do it.
This grants a benefit only when the PC/NPC has no class levels (so the Kobold would need to have his 1st level Dragon Racial HD and no others.) The "even if" qualifier is a requirement for this benefit.
Okay. Question for you. Do you really speak the English language? Buddy, in English, "even if" is an inclusive statement, not an exclusive one. Take the following statement, for example:
"I would eat Taco Bell tacos even if they put smelly rat poop in the meat."
Does this statement explicitly say that if Taco Bell does not put smelly rat poop in your taco meat, that you would cease to eat Taco Bell tacos? Hell no! It just states that in the case that Taco Bell decided to shove hordes of smelly rat poop in your meat, that you would still eat it.
Obviously yes, this is a highly exaggerated example. Nobody in their right mind would want to eat hordes of smelly rat poop just because Taco Bell gave it to you. But the point has been made: "even if" is not a requirement, it is a statement saying that something will happen or will continue to happen regardless of qualifications.
For the record, nothing I have seen within this thread supports risner's argument of the theory not working by RAW. I agree wholeheartedly about how it doesn't work by RAI, as no sane DM will allow this to work. But then, Pun-Pun works by RAW, but not RAI, so how is his situation any different then here? I don't see risner complaining about him...
But yeah, risner? Until you actually bring forth proof, rather then opinionated statements, you're just eating Taco Bell's smelly rat poop.
Hey, remember when I said you should provide a quote for that?
Heh yeah that was fun. Good times.
You should still do it.
He is horribly misinterpreting a rule found in the SRD and ELH, used for advancing dragons into epic and beyond.
Like dragons in the Monster Manual—and the new varieties
presented in this chapter—have twelve age categories,
from wyrmling to great wyrm. The advancement
rules in the Monster Manual allow dragons
theoretically infinite progression even beyond the
stage of great wyrm. This book lets dragons improve
more than their Hit Dice as they progress to epic heights
of power.
Age Category: A standard dragon (including all the
dragons in the Monster Manual and Monster Compendium:
Monsters of Faerûn) gains one “virtual age category” for
every 3 Hit Dice it gains beyond the great wyrm stage. A
61-HD red dragon, with 21 more Hit Dice than a standard
great wyrm, has gained seven virtual age categories,
meaning its effective age category is nineteen. Abilities
that function once per day per age category or otherwise
use the dragon’s age category as part of a calculation use
this adjusted number.
Dragons gain bonus 'Virtual Age Catagories' as they advance, giving more uses or bonuses to their special abilities. However, there are no Hit Dice restrictions on Age Categories for any creature.
If you're looking for early energy immunity, Fiery/Frozen Berserker from Sandstorm/Frostburn respectively will grant you the relevant Fire/Cold subtypes(and immune to both).
unfortunately that is only while raging. That is why I suggested mantle of the fiery soul as it is a spell that is permanent.
Hey, remember when I said you should provide a quote for that?
Heh yeah that was fun. Good times.
You should still do it.
We should throw a 'waiting on a quote' party.
We should throw a 'waiting on a quote' party.
about 3 posts up.
He's wrong, but the rule it seems he was trying to use is there.
Dragons get extra age categories for each 3HD past Great Wyrm.
Hey, remember when I said you should provide a quote for that?
Heh yeah that was fun. Good times.
You should still do it.
"Didn't we have some fun though? Remember when the platform was sliding into the fire pit and I was like, "Goodbye" and you were like "NOOO WAAAY" and I was all "we pretended we were going to murder you" That was great..."
This thread should be titled "An Exercise in Trolling"
1 risner says something mildly interesting
2 Someone quotes him, cajoling for ...
3 Someone quotes him, cajoling for ...
4 Someone quotes him, cajoling for ...
5 Someone quotes him, cajoling for ...
6 Someone quotes him, cajoling for ...
7 Someone quotes him, cajoling for ...
8 Someone quotes him, cajoling for ...
...
Toco Bell apparently serves rat poop...
... Dragon virtual age categories make everything messy
Except it's not "1 risner says something that is mildly interesting", it's "1 risner attempts to rewrite the rules and call it RAW"
No, it is more like "a select few just chooses to misread the RAW any way they wish for fun and profit."
The word "Dragon" is used in Dcn few thousand times, and in the vast majority of times refers to True Dragons. There are a select few cases referring to Lesser Dragons (defined on page 4.) So any time Dragon is used in an ability or passage in that book, it refers to True Dragons unless otherwise specified.
I can appreciate the "it doesn't say I can't" mentality where a passage that can be deliberately misinterpreted is fun to poke fun, but there isn't any reasonable interpretation of that passage for anything other than "True Dragons".
No, it is more like "a select few just chooses to misread the RAW any way they wish for fun and profit."
The word "Dragon" is used in Dcn few thousand times, and in the vast majority of times refers to True Dragons. There are a select few cases referring to Lesser Dragons (defined on page 4.) So any time Dragon is used in an ability or passage in that book, it refers to True Dragons unless otherwise specified.
Quote where it says it means true dragons. I see nothing in that book that says when it says dragons it really means true dragons. If they meant only true dragons they would say it. It isn't like one extra word is a problem.
No, it is more like "a select few just chooses to misread the RAW any way they wish for fun and profit."
The word "Dragon" is used in Dcn few thousand times, and in the vast majority of times refers to True Dragons. There are a select few cases referring to Lesser Dragons (defined on page 4.) So any time Dragon is used in an ability or passage in that book, it refers to True Dragons unless otherwise specified.
I can appreciate the "it doesn't say I can't" mentality where a passage that can be deliberately misinterpreted is fun to poke fun, but there isn't any reasonable interpretation of that passage for anything other than "True Dragons".
If what you say were true, they would specifically say that unless otherwise stated, Dragon refers to True Dragon. Show me where they state this. Bring forth proof. "Dragon" refers to anything with the "Dragon" type, which includes both Lesser Dragons and True Dragons.
Once again, you fail to see that there is no debate as to whether or not the initial post is plausible by RAI. I don't really believe that any of us are under the impression that it is. But strictly by RAW, which is rather faulty in many cases, it is possible. Unless, of course, you have more proof (real proof, not opinionated arguments) that Draconomicon specifically says "no this doesn't work, and this is why..."
Wait... did I say MORE proof? I'm sorry, I meant proof in the first place, because you haven't actually proven anything as of yet. I'm sorry if I seem a bit harsh, but I quickly lose patience with situations like this, and it tends to make me a bit sarcastic.
Edit: An actual example of proof. Real proof, that is:
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.
There it is, quoted word-for-word (emphasis mine). They specifically state that "dragon" means more then just "true dragon". There is absolutely nothing in the book that states otherwise, and I challenge you to bring forth officially published material that specifically states that "dragon" refers only to "true dragon".
The SRD doesn't say anything about dragons, true or otherwise, qualifying for epic feats before character level 21, the draconomicon does, and it only says 'dragons'. So, according to it, Dragon Turtles that are 'old' would qualify (assuming they have age categories), as would dragonwrought kobolds (which do have age categories).
Versus:
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.
They specifically state that "dragon" means more then just "true dragon". There is absolutely nothing in the book that states otherwise
Anything in that book is about True Dragons with the exception of Chapter 4.
Anything in that book is about True Dragons with the exception of Chapter 4.
Im trying to make the same arguments as you risner in my group. But i need something to help me back it up, course my GM wont accept "some guy on the internet told me" as a valid argument.
Could you point me to a place in the book where it tells me that the book is only about true dragons, and not dragons in general, and it would be a great help.
Could you point me to a place in the book where it tells me that the book is only about true dragons, and not dragons in general, and it would be a great help.
Page 4 intro section says "this book concerns itself with ... true dragons", combined with the few examples of the use of the term "dragon type" specifically and the Hidecarved Dragon PrC goes out of it's way to make it clear any dragon can join (not just True Dragons; using the logic of the posters in here they could have just said "Dragon" instead of needing to say Any Dragon.
Any reasonable reading of the book (Dcn) would conclude that unless it says "Lesser Dragon", "Dragon Type", "Any Dragon" or is in the Lesser Dragon chapter, the use of the word "Dragon" refers to "True Dragon".
Page 4 intro section says "this book concerns itself with ... true dragons",
Would you mind quoting the entire paragraf, and i can send it to him, to check in the book.
And thanks for the quick reply.
Would you mind quoting the entire paragraf, and i can send it to him, to check in the book.
And thanks for the quick reply.
It has been previously quoted in this thread.
Ahh this part.
Bugger, im sure he wont accept that as an argument, since it's "for the most part".
Ohh well, was worth a try.
The word "Dragon" is used in Dcn few thousand times, and in the vast majority of times refers to True Dragons. There are a select few cases referring to Lesser Dragons (defined on page 4.) So any time Dragon is used in an ability or passage in that book, it refers to True Dragons unless otherwise specified.
Risner, it's actually pretty simple. Your argument hinges on your assertion that the non-restrictive sentence on page 4 ("For the most part, this book concerns itself with the ten varieties of true dragon described in the Monster Manual") means that all mentioning of "dragon" in the Draconomicon are to be read exclusively (!) as "true dragons" (unless otherwise specified on page 4).
It has been pointed out already that the sentence is in no way as exclusive as you make it out to be (hint: "for the most part"). As ridiculous as your claim is, however, let's assume that it could really be read that way (if only for for the sake of argument).
Were that really the case, than all other mentions of "dragon" need to be "true dragon" as well (with the exceptions specifiedon page 4). That is clearly not the case, and can - thanks to the absolute nature of your claim - be refuted with a single counterexample.
Here's one (actually two): chapter 3 (which is not cited as an exception on page 4) has rules for "dragons" as cohorts/mounts, which include the non-true pseudodragon. It also lists the non-true dragonnel as a "dragon". Clearly, your claim ("any time Dragon is used in an ability or passage in that book, it refers to True Dragons unless otherwise specified.") is wrong.
No, it is more like "risner just chooses to place his feelings about the RAW before the actual words being used and continues to refuse to provide any quote to back his stance up about the rule in question."
I fixed the above sentence for you, again.
Interesting....
Versus:
The quote you provide has nothing to do with the rule in question, or what I was saying, and doesn't disprove anything. I completely caveated the statement about dragon turtles, which you conveniently ignored, with "(assuming they have age categories)".
The rule, again, for those that aren't paying attention is on page 66 under Epic Feats:
"Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even if they have no class levels."
Provide a quote where it says that that particular instance of the word 'dragon' refers only to 'true dragons'. Otherwise, the fact stands. Any creature of the dragon type that is said to be 'old' (assuming by age category), including kobolds with the dragonwrought feat, qualify for epic feats regardless of their class levels. That's RAW until someone quotes a rule that says otherwise.
You put emphasis on one half of the sentence, saying I was wrong by quoting a rule that disagreed with me, even though I pointed out the same thing in the second half of the sentence in a section you did not put emphasis on.
There is no RAW. There is no RAI. Lift the planks from your eyes.
I'm no longer interested in the discussion at hand (I wasn't really to begin with :embarrass) since JWM is totally rocking the house with dnd's version of 'there is no spoon'
Page 4 intro section says "this book concerns itself with ... true dragons", combined with the few examples of the use of the term "dragon type" specifically and the Hidecarved Dragon PrC goes out of it's way to make it clear any dragon can join (not just True Dragons; using the logic of the posters in here they could have just said "Dragon" instead of needing to say Any Dragon.
Any reasonable reading of the book (Dcn) would conclude that unless it says "Lesser Dragon", "Dragon Type", "Any Dragon" or is in the Lesser Dragon chapter, the use of the word "Dragon" refers to "True Dragon".
Risner, isn't the REAL quote the following:
"For the most part, this book concerns itself with ... true dragons"
With the first part of the quote (which you missed) invalidating the above?
Risner, isn't the REAL quote the following:
"For the most part, this book concerns itself with ... true dragons"
With the first part of the quote (which you missed) invalidating the above?
Yea, pretty much everything except chapter 4. That is "pretty much."
Do you have a point?
Yea, pretty much everything except chapter 4. That is "pretty much."
Do you have a point?
The point of saying "For the most part", is that it is not exclusive ... which invalidates using that quote to prove anything.
OK ... let me say it differently ...
Per Races of Dragon -- Kobolds are dragons ... They are either True Dragons or Lesser Dragons -- right?
Per appendix 2 (draconomicon), they are listed as neither true nor lesser -- which is to be expected as Dracononicon was printed 3 years prior to Races of Dragon.
So, it seems safe to assume that 3 years after the definition of True Dragons (dragons that have age categories), the rules change that turned Kobolds into dragons AND gave them age categories ... had to know about the dragonomicon.
Therefore, Kobolds = True Dragons -- right?
Therefore, Kobolds = True Dragons -- right?
No for a ton of reasons, first being Kobolds don't get more powerful thru age categories.
Dcn also had a huge list of things that only true dragons have, the majority of which don't apply to DW Kobolds.
I suggest you don't go down the road of DW are True Dragons, as it isn't going to be one even very liberal interpretations of the rules (like the one in this thread) isn't going to support.
Your best bet is to stick with the path this thread has now, that the whole book has 4200+ mentions of dragons and every one that doesn't spell out "True Dragon" must also mean Pseudodragons right? It's a stretch of reality, but it makes for good fun intentionally misinterpreting the rules of the game.
What is the HUGE list of things that true dragons have? Could you write it out, please?
for example
Races of the Dragon: Dragonborn, spellscale, kobold, draconic creatures, half-dragons
yada yada yada
Monster Manual: True Dragons, behir, dragon turtle, kobold, pseudodragon, ravid, wyvern
I think this is the nail in the coffin if you think that kobolds can ever be "true Dragons" as they clearly differentiate between every other dragonkind and True dragons. Before responding to this post read page 4 of races of dragons
Edit: I win right?
Your best bet is to stick with the path this thread has now, that the whole book has 4200+ mentions of dragons and every one that doesn't spell out "True Dragon" must also mean Pseudodragons right? It's a stretch of reality, but it makes for good fun intentionally misinterpreting the rules of the game.
It has been shown that your "RAW" interpretation that dragon = true dragon (except for the exceptions listed on page 4) is wrong in post #64.
I don't know if this has been pointed out yet. Page 4 of Races of Dragon explains "the Dragonkind Races" in it they list out where the dragonkind races are found and in what various books they are in
for example
Races of the Dragon: Dragonborn, spellscale, kobold, draconic creatures, half-dragons
I think this is the nail in the coffin if you think that kobolds can ever be "true Dragons" as they clearly differentiate between every other dragonkind and True dragons. Before responding to this post read page 4 of races of dragons
Edit: I win right?
This is very telling ... I think you win the internet.
Benefit: You are a dragonwrought kobold. Your type is dragon rather than humanoid, and you lose the dragonblood subtype.
So, yes, kobolds can indeed be dragons.
Kobolds get mental stats. That is more powerful.
What is the HUGE list of things that true dragons have? Could you write it out, please?
Every creature gets mental stats, so Kobolds don't get more powerful with age. To suggest that mental stats are "getting more powerful" is simply silly.
I posted this in post #34 I think. Here is a few of the many descriptions of True Dragons present in the book:
Dcn p9 "All True Dragons are endothermic"
Dcn p21 "All True Dragons can swim"
Dcn p22 "Every True Dragon is immune to one type of energy"
Dcn p22 "True Dragons develop ... [DR and SR]"
Dcn p136 "True Dragons possess Blindsense"
It has been shown that your "RAW" interpretation that dragon = true dragon (except for the exceptions listed on page 4) is wrong in post #64.
You didn't prove anything by post 64. Specific trumps general. The general rules on Cohorts and Mounts talk about Dragon age categories, when the dragons leave your service (due to aging), and etc. Having a few specific lesser dragons (called out by name on page 4) in a table of True Dragons doesn't make the chapter relevant to any other non True Dragon.
So, yes, kobolds can indeed be dragons.
Dragons sure, no argument here. True Dragons, no.
In order for kobolds to be in the True Dragon category the feat would have to specifically say that they do.
It doesn't. As my calculus teacher says; QED
is this discussion really that complex can we argue about bloodines or something..
can kobalds be dragons, yes.
can kobald dragons become more powerfull w/ age, yes.
can gnomes become more powerfull with age, yes. but who cares... it dosnt effect kobalds dragons..
Show
These feats are available to characters of 21st level or higher.
Dragons of at least old age also can choose these feats even
if they have no class levels. A selection of epic feats appro-
priate for dragons is presented here. See the Epic Level Hand-
book for more epic feats.
It specifically says in Races of Dragons that the true dragons in the MM I are a separate category then every other dragon.
In order for kobolds to be in the True Dragon category the feat would have to specifically say that they do.
It doesn't. As my calculus teacher says; QED
Actually, your calculus teacher would tell you that you have an unsupported assertion between line one and line two. It specifically says that True Dragons are dragons that get more powerful as they age... the fact that MM1 dragons are a separate category of true dragons is irrelevant. Line two should read "in order for kobolds to be in the True Dragons category the feat would have to allow them to be dragons that get more powerful with age." Since this is true (they gain stat boosts as they age), they are in fact true dragons. QED.
Was this intended? No. Is it RAW? Yes.
JaronK
Actually, your calculus teacher would tell you that you have an unsupported assertion between line one and line two. It specifically says that True Dragons are dragons that get more powerful as they age... the fact that MM1 dragons are a separate category of true dragons is irrelevant. Line two should read "in order for kobolds to be in the True Dragons category the feat would have to allow them to be dragons that get more powerful with age." Since this is true (they gain stat boosts as they age), they are in fact true dragons. QED.
Was this intended? No. Is it RAW? Yes.
JaronK
Um.. No as a matter of fact in races of dragons which was released after Draconomicon it specifically says
"The sidebar at the bottom of this page goes into detail about how dragons and those related to dragons are classified in the game"
Gem dragons are not true dragons according to Races of Dragons, but ARE true dragons according to Draconomicon.
This is incompatible with what is presented in Draconomicon. One must take precedence over the other. Which one was released later?
You didn't prove anything by post 64. Specific trumps general. The general rules on Cohorts and Mounts talk about Dragon age categories, when the dragons leave your service (due to aging), and etc. Having a few specific lesser dragons (called out by name on page 4) in a table of True Dragons doesn't make the chapter relevant to any other non True Dragon.
Let me walk you through it again:
1. You claim that the book means "true dragon" whenever (*) it says "dragon", based on the sentence on page 4 (except for the parts explicitly excluded). (**)
2. Chapter 3 (feats) clearly refers (also) to non-true dragons when the word "dragon" in several instances. Chapter 3 is not one of the explicit exceptions mentioned on page 4.
Examples (selected)
- Dragons as Cohorts: "...you can use the Leadership feat to try attracting a dragon to be your cohort." The listed options include multiple non-true-dragons, as one would expect.
- Dragons as Mounts: "She then selects anappropriate dragon from Table 3-15 ...". The table contains multiple non-true-dragons, as one would expect.
- Raising a Dragon: Refers to both true and lesser dragons with the word "dragon", as one would expect.
- Dragons as Fiendish Servants: includes both true and lesser dragons with the word "dragon", as one would expect.
- Dragons as Player Characters: includes both true and lesser dragons (e.g., non-dragons with the half-dragon template, but even has an entire section on non-true dragon PCs) with the word "dragon", as one would expect.
lol this is a funny thread. Risner has clearly lost the argument and yet is still trying to prove everyone wrong without any proof
Yeah, it's sad that they said Dragons qualify for epic feats if they are old age instead of saying true dragons. If any of my players wanted to try it I would just point out it's in the chapter "Dm's guide to Dragons" as opposed to "the player's perspective"
If any of my players wanted to try it I would just point out it's in the chapter "Dm's guide to Dragons" as opposed to "the player's perspective"
The chapter doesn't matter much, monstrous/dragon PCs still qualify for [monstrous] / dragon feats in there (or those in the MM, for that matter) as long as the PCs meet the prerequisites.
Of course, as a DM you are free to rule otherwise for your games.
Yeah, it's sad that they said Dragons qualify for epic feats if they are old age instead of saying true dragons. If any of my players wanted to try it I would just point out it's in the chapter "Dm's guide to Dragons" as opposed to "the player's perspective"
Are you perhaps implying that the DM wins all his players? What a groundbreaking opinion.
JaronK
Loredrake White Dragonspawn Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer / Incanatrix w/ the Greater Rite of Passage, LA bought off, ECL 9, using the spell point system
Phrenic Whispergnome w/ the Magic-in-the-Blood feat Binder 10 using 3rd part Binder material LA bought off, ECL 10
Cleric of Mystra w/ some weirdo template LA bought off, DMM: Persistant Spell cheeze, and a house-rule that gives all Cleric spells known as spontaneously cast spells.
The characters are fairly well-balanced w.r.t. each other. It'll get sicker at higher levels, though. I'm trying to convince the Sorcerer to go ahead and pick some epic feats in a few levels - in this game, it would still be balanced.)
If one of my players tried to pull this on me, I'd let him/her play it. And then I'd have a Dragon cleanse the abomination from the earth. Bad player, at least try to hide your cheese.:D
That's messed up. Allow a player to play something, then kill him for it? Let him invest in a character like that, then destroy it? That's petty. How about just say "no, that's too powerful for my game" and let him fix his character so he can actually play?
JaronK
It seems like its harder to disprove than (attempt) to prove, so perhaps if the count goes 10:1 that will help persuade some of the ... more determined people
As for allowing it... well, depends. The only optimizer in my group is gone (besides me, anyway) so I'd probably allow it.
I'm saying we should see what kind of power level we're talking about. If its broken, then its best to think of in terms of TO, if it isn't that bad (which is what I suspect), then it could be thought of in terms of normal optimization.
or Fiend-Blooded, which... Knowledge(planes), yeah.
Badly written rules are indeed annoying.
then i changed that to epics you can get before 20th lvl.
2 or 3 stand out..
most of these require very high ability score, but since we are cheesing the feats.. the scores should not be a problem..
somewhere there is a sneak attacking / smiting / raging kobald that can lay down a whoopen..
Additional Magic Item Space [Epic]
Armor Skin [Epic]
Blinding Speed [Epic]
Damage Reduction [Epic]
Dire Charge [Epic] (pounce?)
Energy Resistance [Epic]
Enhance Spell [Metamagic][Epic]
Epic Endurance [Epic]
Epic Fortitude [Epic]
Epic Prowess [Epic]
Epic Reflexes [Epic]
Epic Reputation [Epic]
Epic Speed [Epic]
Epic Spell Penetration [Epic]
Epic Toughness [Epic]
Epic Will [Epic]
Exceptional Deflection [Epic]
Extended Life Span [Epic]
Familiar Spell [Epic]
Fast Healing [Epic]
Great ability score [Epic]
Great Smiting [Epic]
Holy Strike [Epic]
Improved Aura Of Courage [Epic]
Improved Aura Of Despair [Epic]
Improved Combat Reflexes [Epic]
Improved Darkvision [Epic]
Improved Death Attack [Epic]
Improved Heighten Spell [Epic]
Improved Ki Strike [Epic]
Improved Low-Light Vision [Epic]
Improved Sneak Attack [Epic]
Improved Spell Capacity [Epic] (ok this one is special.. very feat intensive (5th lvl char 9th lvl spells (if my assumptions are right) unless you can get more free feats sooner..))
Improved Spell Resistance [Epic]
Improved Stunning Fist [Epic]
Improved Whirlwind Attack [Epic]
Incite Rage [Epic]
Infinite Deflection [Epic]
Instant Reload [Epic]
Intensify Spell [Metamagic][Epic]
Keen Strike [Epic]
Legendary Wrestler [Epic]
Lingering Damage [Epic]
Master Staff [Epic]
Master Wand [Epic]
Multispell [Epic]
Multiweapon Rend [Epic]
Negative Energy Burst [Divine][Epic]
Overwhelming Critical [Epic]
Penetrate Damage Reduction [Epic]
Perfect Health [Epic]
Perfect Multiweapon Fighting [Epic]
Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting [Epic]
Planar Turning [Epic]
Polyglot [Epic]
Positive Energy Aura [Epic]
Reflect Arrows [Epic]
Righteous Strike [Epic]
Ruinous Rage [Epic]
Sneak Attack Of Opportunity [Epic]
Spectral Strike [Epic]
Spell Knowledge [Epic]
Spellcasting Harrier [Epic]
Storm Of Throws [Epic]
Superior Initiative [Epic]
Swarm Of Arrows [Epic]
Tenacious Magic [Epic]
Thundering Rage [Epic]
Two-Weapon Rend [Epic]
Uncanny Accuracy [Epic]
Undead Mastery [Divine][Epic]
Unholy Strike [Epic]
Vorpal Strike [Epic]
Widen Aura Of Courage [Epic]
Widen Aura Of Despair [Epic]
Zone Of Animation [Divine][Epic]
What you really want is something that automatically knows all the spells on it's list, gets a lot of bonus feats and has a relatively short list. Then, you shun to get up to 9th level improved spell capacity, and use various tricks to add known spells to your list.... Something that uses a book should qualify, too, but a spontaneous caster with an extremely wide spell list is very attractive.
Oy... This means, Versatile + Heighten + Earth Spell will net you top access 4 levels early. Say, XYZ 5/Assassin 3. Of course, you need to take ISC five times, which is tricky, especially with no Shun/Embrace on your list.
I think better cheese can be acquired via Subchord or Nar DB. Nar is not a bad idea since it naturally gets up to 8th, from a decent list. Also, you could qualify by level 10, getting your first 9th level spells at level 12 (or whenever you get a bonus feat or two.)
So, Arcane Disciple gets you more spells on your list, you have a 9th level slot, so all you need is Extra Spell. Miracle or Gate at L10 with sufficient Shunning should be breaky enough.
Of course, this brand of cheese gets more fun with one of the classes saying something like,
When you gain
access to a new level of spells, you automatically know all
the spells for that level on the xyz’s spell list.
which does strange things with just Versatile and Heighten.
A loredrake cheesebold pure sorcerer should be able to get this at level 13.
But, enough of that. This is old stuff, anyway...
That's messed up. Allow a player to play something, then kill him for it? Let him invest in a character like that, then destroy it? That's petty. How about just say "no, that's too powerful for my game" and let him fix his character so he can actually play?
JaronK
Guess you don't pick up on humor too good :D
Best quote for that: "Rocks fall, everyone dies." "But we're on a faceless plain with no..." "ROCKS FALL, EVERYONE DIES!"
In all seriousness I would be thrilled to no end if one of my players put that in my campaign. It'd let me use some of the monsters with more entertaining abilities. It's rough when the only min/maxer is the dm
BTW, sorry about the late reply. Been way too busy at work lately.
So.. did people come to a consensus then ?
Not really.
I don't believe it is RAW, but more people believe it is RAW.
I think the only consensus available is "this won't fly in most any game" because the DM will either interpret it my way, house rule it my way, or otherwise forbid 1st level Kobolds with crappy Epic feats.
So.. did people come to a consensus then ?
In short: RAW has been shown to allow it; no conclusive RAW evidence has been presented to disallow it.
Summary of the discussion:
The main (actually: only) arguments against it is risner's assertion that the entire Draconomicon (except for explicitly exempted sections) deals exclusively with True Dragons. Since Dragonwrought kobolds are not (believed to be) true dragons, the rule for epic feats does not apply.
This argument can be disproven it two ways: either by (a) showing that Dragonwrought kobolds are in fact True Dragons, or (b) by showing that the relevant section of the Draconomicon does not have such a restriction to True Dragons.
(a) is up for debate, but (b) has been demonstrated several times (in addition, the sentence it refers to is not absolute).
Thus, the argument against it doesn't stand and thus it works by RAW.
Of course, whether that means that a sane DM will allow it is an entirely different issue.
Don't wanna lose this one.
iirc - some of the source threads for this, have been [archive] dumped, by the recent changes. Boo.
Interesting. I got tired of Loredrake Kobolds being bandied around recently so I went to check the evidence and independently found much of the evidence quoted in this thread.
My personal conclusion about the RAW is that DW Kobolds are not True Dragons and so can't become Loredrakes. But the epic feat part (which I didn't read) apparently doesn't have the True Dragon requirement, so DW Kobolds of a certain age can access them.
I think the only thing being overlooked in this entire discussion is that the only RAW for starting age of ANY Kobold (dragonwrought or otherwise) is 6 years + between 1d3 and 2d4 years old. That's an awfully long way away from "Old category"
Yes, there are rules for magically aging any character, but there are also rules for becoming an avatar of any deity. I don't have to allow either of those things to a 1st or even a 10th level character.
I think the only thing being overlooked in this entire discussion is that the only RAW for starting age of ANY Kobold (dragonwrought or otherwise) is 6 years + between 1d3 and 2d4 years old. That's an awfully long way away from "Old category"
Yes, there are rules for magically aging any character, but there are also rules for becoming an avatar of any deity. I don't have to allow either of those things to a 1st or even a 10th level character.
Funny, I don't see "Starting Age", I see "Random Starting Age" on that table.
From the PHB:
In the D&D game, every player character starts as an adult. You can choose or randomly generate your character's age. If you choose it, it must be at least the minimum age for the character's race and class (see Table 6-4 Random Starting Ages).
Now, again, with the relevant parts emphasized.
In the D&D game, every player character starts as an adult. You can choose or randomly generate your character's age. If you choose it, it must be at least the minimum age for the character's race and class (see Table 6-4 Random Starting Ages).
So no, you can start off as Old or older.
Actually, the relevant section is this: "In the D&D game, every player character starts as an adult."
"Adult" is two categories lower than "Old" on the Dragon Age Categories table. Considering the word "Every" is used there, RAW is they start out at age category "Adult", not age category "Old".
So, grandparents aren't adults? Sorry, I think they still fall into that category.
Notice that the word "adult" was not capatalized in the sentence, but it is on every aging table in D&D. Thus, "Adult" refers to the metagame tag and "adult" refers to the real-world label (which is anyone of Ault age and older).
The only requirements in choosing your age are being at least minimum age for your race and starting class. Usually, you can't be beyond your race's maximum age, but in D&D, there are so many things that can change maximum age that it really doesn't mean much (i.e., undeath, Cloud Anchorite, Ruathar).
So, grandparents aren't adults? Sorry, I think they still fall into that category.
That's a perfectly reasonable common sense interpretation of the definition of adult. Sadly, it isn't RAW. Just like it's common sense to think that the designers never intended for first level kobolds to qualify for Epic feats. Nowhere in the rules as written can you show me that "Adult" =/= "adult". That's just happy dreamwork on your part.
RAW says that EVERY player character starts play as an adult. Table 3-2 on page 39 of Races of Dragon specifically defines adult Kobolds as 11 to 20 years of age. No other player character race is specifically defined in this manner. If table 3-2 is integral to the argument that Kobolds can be defined as True Dragons, then it also limits the definition of an adult Kobold in the same manner.
You can't argue RAW in one case and common sense in the other. In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it RAW.
Check and mate. No epic feat Kobolds until they live through at least 21 years of game time.
So, grandparents aren't adults? Sorry, I think they still fall into that category.
That's a perfectly reasonable common sense interpretation of the definition of adult. Sadly, it isn't RAW. Just like it's common sense to think that the designers never intended for first level kobolds to qualify for Epic feats. Nowhere in the rules as written can you show me that "Adult" =/= "adult". That's just happy dreamwork on your part.
RAW says that EVERY player character starts play as an adult. Table 3-2 on page 39 of Races of Dragon specifically defines adult Kobolds as 11 to 20 years of age. No other player character race is specifically defined in this manner. If table 3-2 is integral to the argument that Kobolds can be defined as True Dragons, then it also limits the definition of an adult Kobold in the same manner.
You can't argue RAW in one case and common sense in the other. In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it RAW.
Check and mate. No epic feat Kobolds until they live through at least 21 years of game time.
So sorry, but wrong
You can choose or randomly generate your character’s age. If you
choose it, it must be at least the minimum age for the character’s
race and class (see Table 6–4: Random Starting Ages). Your
character’s minimum starting age is the adulthood age of his or her
race plus the number of dice indicated in the entry corresponding to
the character’s race and class on Table 6–4: Random Starting Ages.
For example, an elf ranger must be at least 116 years old (adulthood
age 110 plus 6, because the entry for an elf ranger is +6d6).
Alternatively, refer to Table 6–4: Random Starting Ages and roll
dice to determine how old your character is. An elf ranger’s randomly
generated starting age, for example, is 110+6d6 years.
This is the relevant passage. Note the bolded part. it says nowhere that you can only be an adult. It says the minimum age is adult hood. MINIMUM. That implies it can be exceeded. Therefore you can start out with an old character.
Implication is not RAW. It says in the sentence before that "Every player character starts as an adult".
Not "adulthood", "adult". The table used to give dragonwrought kobolds "True Dragon" status (and by extension, access to Epic feats) specifically defines "adult" as the range between 11 and 21 years. You are glossing over RAW in this particular instance because it destroys the possibility of a 1st level Dragonwrought Kobold with Epic Feats. Note, no other race has "adult" specifically defined as an exact range of ages. Your example of a half-elf would be correct. It would not follow through with a Kobold because of Table 3-2 on page 39 of Races of Dragon.
Incidently, RAW also states that later publshed books have precednt over previously published material. That means RoD rules have higher priority than PHB rules. That's what supposedly allowed Dragonwrought Kobolds to gain Epic Feats in the first place.
In D&D books, capatalization of terms makes all the difference. "dragon" refers to any dragon-like creature, whether it is actually of the Dragon type or not while "Dragon" specifically refers to the Dragon type. Likewise, "giant" doesn't necessarily mean "Giant" type and "archmage" does not necessarily refer to someone with levels in the Archmage prestige class. I promise you, that whenever a reference is made to mechanics, the term is capatalized.
For characters and aging, the same restrictions apply; "Adult" means the Age Category and "adult" means someone who has reached adulthood.
If the sentence you keep pointing to was "Every Player Character starts out as an Adult," then your argument would have some basis, but it doesn't. The sentence reads "Every Player Character starts out as an adult."
Oh, and True Dragon status isn't necessary for epic feats. Just "Dragon of at least Old age". The word "True" never appears in that paragraph.
Implication is not RAW. It says in the sentence before that "Every player character starts as an adult".
Where? I do not see anything that says that anywhere on the page that talks about aging.
Implication is not RAW. It says in the sentence before that "Every player character starts as an adult".
Where? I do not see anything that says that anywhere on the page that talks about aging.
First sentence of the Age section on page 109.
"In the D&D game, every player character starts out as an adult."
However, since the word "adult" is not capatalized, it is referring to the real-world term and not the mechanical.
Is there any chart in any 3.5 book that does not have all row headers capitalized? That weakens your argument that the "Adult" in the Kobold age category chart refers to something different than the first sentence of the aging discussion.
Is there any chart in any 3.5 book that does not have all row headers capitalized? That weakens your argument that the "Adult" in the Kobold age category chart refers to something different than the first sentence of the aging discussion.
There is no argument. You are just wrong. There is only one reasonable interpretation. Your interpretation is self-contradictory (one line completely contradicts what you're saying). The other interpretation is not.
If we're discussing reasonable interpretation, it's reasonable to believe that the designers never intended for 1st level Kobolds to get Epic feats.
If we're discussing reasonable interpretation, it's reasonable to believe that the designers never intended for 1st level Kobolds to get Epic feats.
That without a doubt is true. It doesn't mean they can't by the rules, though. There are lots of odd combinations and loopholes they never foresaw.
Also, just because something is legal per the rules doesn't mean any DM is obligated to allow it in a real game. Pun-Pun is without a doubt legal per the rules, but you're not going to find anyone playing him.
Pun-Pun is without a doubt legal per the rules, but you're not going to find anyone playing him.
I thought (generic) you played pun-pun every time you DM'd? Isn't that what rule-0 is for?