Somewhere in you post you complain and ran some tandom on me saying useless towards something about simply having age categories. Everyone has age categories and everyone isn't a true dragon. Inserting DM's comment? See below.
Not everyone has 12 age categories. Furthermore, there are clearly two types of age categories in the game. Disguise and Alter Self talk about age categories, and there's the dragon ones. We have an entry that clarifies which one we're talking about.
I've never said newest only applies.
I tackled every separate
method you use.
When someone refutes your plugged in intent you say dragon magic (newest).
I never speak to intent as an argument for RAW. I have only stated that I think it's likely Races of the Dragon intended Kobolds to be True Dragons, but that True Dragons were never intended to have Epic Feats or Sovereign Archtypes. That's a guess at RAI, not an argument for RAW. Note how it's different from what I'm saying RAW is (namely that they get both).
I also never say Dragon Magic over the others. I use all three given definitions together (Draconomicon, Dragon Magic, Dragons of Krynn). If you look at all of my posts you'll find this is true. I have NEVER used the newest argument. That's a strawman.
When someone refutes newest you use I'm innocent, ignore, strawmans, spoke of flavor, insulted and finally start talking about exceptions.
No, that's you. YOU have made up strawmen like "newest." I have never said anything about innocence. You have been firing off insults. And so on. And no one ever "refuted" this newest argument, because I never made it (it's a strawman).
When someone points out exceptions don't work you insert intent.
And loop till people get tired.
I never use intent as an argument for RAW, only a tangent of "this is probably what they're aiming for, but it's not RAW."
Your entire argument is nothing but strawmen, as shown clearly here. I summarized my argument for you quite nicely and it didn't have anything you state here.
And what about Draconic Vampirism(DoK) a feat for True Dragons killing True Dragons?
The one that states a True Dragon is a Dragon with Age Categories? I've been quoting it directly. It refers to dragon HD, but does not give that as a requirement for being a True Dragon. It DOES say the requirement for being a True Dragon is a Dragon with Age Categories. So... yeah. I don't ignore entries, I just look at what they say.
What about Advancing Dragons(Draco) where true dragons gain HD as a result of aging? Or magic, or size, etc.
Read it again. Does it state that to be a True Dragon you need to gain HD as a result of aging? It does not.
Dragonwrought Kobolds being Chromatic or Metallic is on page 39 ("Dragonwrought kobolds with chromatic dragon ancestry multiply this number by 5. Dragonwrought kobolds with metallic dragon ancestry multiply this number by 10."). <snip> Sorry, but Half Dragons aren't True Dragons.
Why not you branch into obtaining a feat to gain a level of spellcasting in a class but don't go into why a Half-Dragon can't. What about a Half-Dragon Rakasha, they also have virtual levels of sorcerer spellcasting just like kobolds, and their linage if a thousand times more pure.
What is this about a feat to gain spellcasting? The Draconic Rite is not a feat, it's a racial ability of Kobolds. And Half Dragon Rakshasa don't have draconic age categories (namely, 12 of them). Notice how you're trying to use fluff to argue RAW right now ("their linage if a thousand times more pure") which is exactly what you JUST accused me of. Strawman, then appeal to intent.
Beating you to the punch about your response which will be about dragon magic. Well then drop the flavor argument and stop reciting it.
You just made a flavor argument, then told me to stop doing it. Are you even listening to yourself at this point? And yes, Dragon Magic tells you why Half Dragon Rakshasa aren't True Dragons. So does Draconomicon (they don't get more powerful by getting older, nor do they gain new abilities by getting older). Beating me to the punch by saying "see, I know where the rules tell me I'm wrong" doesn't exactly help your case.
One two skip a few...
This would be the ignoring you accused me of earlier, right?
It's not winning I want. My personally attacks are really just a lack of being subtle, which isn't something I do anyway, and are a response from yours.
Here's the insults you accused me of, which you admit to making. Everything you've accused me of you do yourself (and I don't).
You disguise it as your arguments are stupid,
I said they were wrong, and quite frankly, your argument about Dragonwrought not being listed in Draconomicon (when it wasn't even released then) was quite foolish. You have to know that. But it's true, I attack your arguments. You attack me. Big difference.
stop posting and read the books,
I never said stop posting. I encourage everyone to read the source material before debating.
your trying to hard it's embarrassing, you ignore rules but I better because I claim to read them all, and finally trolling for smooches. Yeah I really don't use innuendos with the lack of tones and body language being able to be used nor do I hide behind them.
What is this trolling for smooches thing? I think you're reading in a lot that's just not there.
Finally something worth reading.
1. Who cares who mentioned what dragon? It is following your concept, stay on topic.
You said I mentioned fang dragons. I didn't. I corrected you, and now you say who cares?
2. What what? Every True Dragon matches up to the True Dragon definitions but every True Dragon doesn't match up to True Dragon descriptions.
Correct, because the descriptions are of True Dragons in general, and the definitions say what they are. For example, adult humans are 5'-6'2" tall, have five fingers on each hand, and are bipedal. That's a description. Does this mean midgets aren't human? What about polydactyle people? What about people in wheel chairs? Those are all still human. I was giving a general description of humans, not the definition. Descriptions do not generally include the outliers.
The descriptions of True Dragons don't match every single True Dragon, and thus cannot be used to eliminate something from the category, just like you can't say midgets aren't human. A White Dragon doesn't match the description in the Monster Manual of True Dragons, even though it's under the True Dragon category. Nor do Lung Dragons, Gem Dragons, and Planar Dragons. But it IS a True Dragon, because it DOES meet the definition... a creature of the Dragon Type that gains more power and abilities as it gets older. ALL True Dragons meet that. Tryign to eliminate Kobolds from the category based on the descriptions doesn't work, for the same reason you can't eliminate any of the other outliers by the same method.
See what I mean? You run off on tangent lines like that that serve no real purpose but you claim it matters. Why don't you try explaining things like that instead of trying to come up with some contradictory thing others are supposed to get and spend less time swapping about methods to make claims.
I thought that was a pretty clear explanation, actually. And I still haven't swapped methods.
3. Another subtle put down to me. You jump right into using exceptions and further claim I am using them.
I don't understand what you're missing here. The exceptions are demonstrating the problem with attempting to use descriptions to remove members of the True Dragon group. It shows that your logic leads to a contradiction and is thus false.
No I'm don't, please read the post and stop trying to hard, also insults are a sign of being on your last straw.
Anyway, I don't use exceptions to prove anything, like wise see Method #2 where it highlights that the exception method doesn't clear enough for kobolds anyway.
You're refusing to use evidence. That's the first sign of being wrong.
Here's where you and I differ. I'm not calling rules "useless" when they're clear.
Yes, this is where you and I differ. I'm talking about Dragons, so you're tangenting with Improved Disarm. Improved Disarm is in no way related to the topic at hand. How we categorize things is relevant. What dragons are is relevant. Improved Disarm... not so much.
Descriptions are the definitions. At least you cleared up what you meant before though.
False. If Descriptions were definitions, then White Dragons, Gem Dragons, and Lung Dragons would not be True Dragons, because by definition they would not be. They'd also not be Lesser Dragons due to Draconomicon, which makes them neither Lesser nor True, and this does not make sense. Your inability to differenciate descriptions from definitions is the logical flaw that makes your position result in nonsense.
Where are Spellcasting rule for each class defined? In the spellcasting descriptions.
Where is kobolds gaining a level of sorcerer spellcasting defined? In Greater Draconic Rite's description.
Where is bullrush defined? In it's description.
Where is raging defined? In it's description.
Where is creating a dragonpact defined? In it's description.
Where is True Dragon defined? Where JaronK says it is, or so he says.
Worded like that it comes off like a good point, but not one I'd use outside of pointing the absurdity of what JaronK is trying to tell me.
Now this is all just nonsense. Bullrush, for example, does have a definition. It is also described.
Draconomicon says what a dragon is and provides the highest degree of description short of the monsters them selves making it according to the DMG/RC the priority. Dragon Magic's comment does augment that but does not replace it. And while I won't argue it, rules for who you can create a dragon pact are way outside the same activity of act of defining what a true dragon is.
Draconomicon does indeed have a nifty sidebar that defines True Dragons. It also describes them at other times, but that sidebar says what they are. And I've been using the definition from that sidebar for ages now. Note that Draconomicon is also what makes a contradiction in your logic. It states clearly that Lesser Dragons are those dragons that don't have age categories. Since Kobolds do have age categories, they CANNOT be Lesser. Since all Dragons must be Lesser or True, Draconomicon has yet another way of showing this.
If you can't differentiate between definitions and descriptions, Draconomicon becomes contradictory... Kobolds aren't Lesser (they have age categories) and they are True (they gain power and abilities by aging) but there are descriptions that talk about True Dragons being 100ft+ and having innate spellcasting (which Kobolds only sort of have).
Your current claim is that True Dragons essentially are just anything on a list that says they're True Dragons, since you would, by your ruling, eliminate Fang Dragons and Lung Dragons and Chaos Dragons and Planar Dragons and Gem Dragons
Proof of ignoring. Monster descriptions > general type descriptions. See all my posts because I can remain consistent.
That's not ignoring, it's showing what you're doing. Lung Dragons do NOT have "True Dragon" anywhere in their monster description. The only consistency you have is making stuff up at this point, as you just did. The ONLY things that make Lung Dragons True is their listing in the two lists of True Dragons and the fact that they hit the definitions I've pointed out.
His method, find an exception to ignore it, isn't enough to work either.
No, it's to show the problem with using descriptions instead of definitions, by showing that doing so leads to a false conclusion (that a known True Dragon is Lesser). The definitions never have this problem.
Every True Dragon listed as such gains Dragon HD Size Increases as a direct result of aging.
But this is never given as a rule anywhere.
Neither is a rule saying Kobolds are True Dragons. Guess you can't keep following up on that route huh.
Yes, there IS a rule saying Kobolds are True Dragons. Dragon Magic, Dragons of Kyrnn, Draconomicon.
Three four skip some more.
This would be that ignoring right?
Take for example "In addition, dragons gain power and abilities as they age" To me I see they must gain new abilities not simply increase exsisting ones. Kobolds are out.
See? You just made up a new definition.
Nah, I had that one long before you made up yours, yours is the new one to me.
Also I see you edited my quote without any notation of doing so. Perfect example of that method in action.
What? Yes, you made it up a while ago, congrats. You're still making stuff up. And I didn't edit your quote. I copied it from a larger quote just above, showing context.
Evidently the ability to take Epic feats early isn't an ability.
No more than being alive is. Follow up on it if you want, it's a dead end. Either you're wanting to define the word ability there and word arguments never bold well or you can lose to the D&D terms which define the ability scores & special abilities which in turn lists ex, su, sp and the like with no concern about qualifying for feats.
Just because qualifying for feats isn't listed as an ability doesn't mean it's not one. Sneak Attack isn't listed as an ability either.
Gaining a level of sorcerer spellcasting != innate spellcasting. Being granted a level of sorcerer spellcasting as if you have taken a level in sorcerer is much like PrC spellcasting advancement.
Gaining a level of Sorcerer spellcasting due to your race IS innate spellcasting. Either way, you're still hitting that contradiction that Kobolds CAN'T be lesser if they have Age Categories (Draconomicon)... even if this logic made sense you'd still hit a fallacy.
Ok it's the same exact thing but still there is a difference in it being a feat instead of class level.
It's not a feat. It's a ritual you can only do if you're a Kobold.