I would actually really not mind seeing Dragonborn and Kobolds integrated into the same "family", like we have with the various types of Lizardfolk, or (with more dramatic differences) like we have with goblinoids (goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears).
I would actually really not mind seeing Dragonborn and Kobolds integrated into the same "family", like we have with the various types of Lizardfolk, or (with more dramatic differences) like we have with goblinoids (goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears).
I would actually really not mind seeing Dragonborn and Kobolds integrated into the same "family", like we have with the various types of Lizardfolk, or (with more dramatic differences) like we have with goblinoids (goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears).
Having some distant connection would be fine, but I wouldn't want to see them integrated into the same social structure.
Having some distant connection would be fine, but I wouldn't want to see them integrated into the same social structure.
I would actually really not mind seeing Dragonborn and Kobolds integrated into the same "family", like we have with the various types of Lizardfolk, or (with more dramatic differences) like we have with goblinoids (goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears).
I would actually really not mind seeing Dragonborn and Kobolds integrated into the same "family", like we have with the various types of Lizardfolk, or (with more dramatic differences) like we have with goblinoids (goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears).
While we're at it, let's make Halflings part of the human "family".
While we're at it, let's make Halflings part of the human "family".
In many tales of kobolds found thru Wikipedia, kobolds have a rather black sense of humor and a prankster bent. This could mesh well with their D&D counterparts; kobolds in some editions have an animosity toward gnomes, humorous considering both species' popular penchant for mining, tinkering (mainly traps in kobolds' case), and supernatural household upkeep. They're like the gnomes' sinister cousin or natural enemy.
Making them another short human, as well as the halfling equivalent of a dragonborn/draconian, would be disappointingly redundant, don't you think?
In many tales of kobolds found thru Wikipedia, kobolds have a rather black sense of humor and a prankster bent. This could mesh well with their D&D counterparts; kobolds in some editions have an animosity toward gnomes, humorous considering both spec
I am a big fan of the idea that kobolds are related to dragons. Basically, they should look like what dragons would look like if they were three feet tall, humanoid, and generally primitive. Given their connection with dragons, having them be an 'early offshoot' that never developed the way dragons did is really compelling to me, and gives them a good reason to worship dragons as well. Physical traits should reference dragons, but focused on their current state. Scales the same colors, a tail that's useful for more than just balance, no ears. They're unquestionably reptiloid, treat them as such.
I am a big fan of the idea that kobolds are related to dragons. Basically, they should look like what dragons would look like if they were three feet tall, humanoid, and generally primitive. Given their connection with dragons, having them be an 'e
"Creature design would be based upon the following:"
"Three-foot-tall humanoid (as in two arms, two legs, upright) form that has been infused with the draconic essence of a god.”
I don’t like the “Infusion of draconic essence”; they are not lesser cousins of the dragonborn, but perhaps a reptilian race with delusions of grandeur.
I never cared for creatures under 4’ as they are nothing more than ankle-biters. At 3’ the kobold is the equivalent of an “average size boy” of the whopping age of 2 and a half, I’d prefer to be attacked by kindergarteners or 1st graders instead (i.e. < 48 inches).
“Slight skeletal frame.”
Disagree here they should have an “average” skeletal frame as they are a warlike race capable of attacking or defending themselves against beings of equal size (e.g. gnomes). The Dragonshield would look awfully humorous (much like the Tiny Warrior from Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls).
“More about intelligence and agility than strength or brute force.”
Against larger creatures and their traditional enemies (e.g. small fey) they need to develop both, but again I think an average strength is sufficient. The race is noted for having individuals of great intelligence (i.e. the alchemist).
“Furtive and cowardly alone, but ferocious and dangerous in a crowd. This would drive all major design decisions.”
I would prefer stealthy and cunning when alone, a master of improvised traps and bushcraft (e.g. MacGyver or Dutch from Predator). Again as a warlike race a group is always more dangerous than one.
“Hairless, scaly hides that range from dark brown to black.”
More specifically an earth tone scheme are muted and flat in an emulation of the natural colors found in dirt, moss, trees and rocks. Many earth tones originate from clay earth pigments, such as umber, ochre, and sienna.
“Large intelligent eyes that are suited to life underground.”
More like cat eyes (including shades too) suitable for night time raids (not darkvision, but low-light).
“A long tail (prehensile) that integrates with the rest of the body.”
Again like a cat, the tail is used for balance and agile movement. But absolutely not prehensile, they are not monkeys or opossums!
“Hands that are quite deft and capable of intricate actions. This would also indicate an ability to craft and make culturally appropriate clothing and accessories—perhaps draconic in theme? “
As an intelligent race they should have the ability to craft items suitable to their environs and culture. 1E had them using wicker shields, swords, axes, javelins and spears – so did many of the ancient Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cultures.
It should also be noted that they are capable of taming wild boars and giant weasels as guardians, which considering RW boars is no small feat.
“Affinity to, and reverence of, dragons.”
As stated earlier they have issues and claims of dragon-blood running through their veins makes them feel better. A social order and worship based on admiration of draconic traits and service to infamous dragons would be a way of proving their claim of kinship.
The dragons don’t mind the cannon fodder and no sane enemy would think of them as cowards, especially if they have no clue if a dragon is around or not.
“Small white or beige horns.”
This is a whole different can of worms without more details
Age was not a factor listed by you, but the kobold’s lifespan of 135 years and their lairs having up to ~640 individuals and 300 eggs indicate a race of survivors.
Habitat was also not factored, while Mr. Wyatt claims when they cannot live near dragons, they live like rats in warrens. I prefer the original idea where they live “in dank, dark places such as dismal overgrown forest or subterranean settings”, which considering their hatred of the fey creatures (e.g. brownies, pixies, sprites, and gnomes) gives the kobold a wider range of artistic possibilities.
Also will there be a definitive artistic difference between male and female kobolds?
IMHO kobolds should be a feared adversary and not the Jar Jar Binks of D&D!!
"Creature design would be based upon the following:""Three-foot-tall humanoid (as in two arms, two legs, upright) form that has been infused with the draconic essence of a god.” I don’t like the “Infusion of draconic essence”
In reallife, “Kobold”, “Gnome”, “Leperchaun”, “Brownie”, and so on, are moreorless synonyms. They all refer to a “House Sprite”, albeit according to different cultures.
The D&D Kobold has little to do with the reallife meaning of the word, but making it explicitly Draconic surprisingly solves the dissonance.
Analogous to calling the creature a “Pygmy Dragon”, calling it a “Kobold Dragon” makes a lot of sense.
The Kobold Dragon is quite different from the typical Dragon. The name “Kobold” illustrates vividly these differences. • Childlike size • Domestic qualities, such as wearing clothes, using tools. • Hiddeness, albeit by stealth rather than ethereality. • Prankster, trickster qualities. • Inhabiting mines.
And so on. The name “Kobold Dragon” is apt.
It seems to me, what makes the Kobold Dragon so popular is it is quintessentially a Geek.
In reallife, “Kobold”, “Gnome”, “Leperchaun”, “Brownie”, and so on, are moreorless synonyms. They all refer to a “House Sprite”, albeit according to different cultures.The D&D Kobold has lit
The "dragonblood" kobold from "Races of Dragons" can be a optional subrace. If you don´t like it you don´t add to your settin.
I imagine D&D kobolds like reptilian dog-like creatures, a mixture of velocirraptor and evil fays. They aren´t only canon fodder for low level PCs.
Do you rebember the kobolds from AD&D capcom arcade?
I imagine my kobolds like from the videogame, but more reptilians, like a mixture of bulldog-like furry and velociraptors.
Do you rembember Gremlins movies?
Munchies was a serie B horror movie from 80´s
I mean I imagine D&D kobolds like creatures from horror subgenre of little monsters (gremlins, ghoulies, munchies, critters).
The "dragonblood" kobold from "Races of Dragons" can be a optional subrace. If you don´t like it you don´t add to your settin.I imagine D&D kobolds like reptilian dog-like creatures, a mixture of velocirraptor and evil fays. They aren&acu
One important element that needs to be kept in mind that he doesn't mention is that Kobolds are moderately humorous monsters. They not joke monsters or entirely ignorable, but they are not a serious threat to any but the least experienced adventurers. Trying to make Kobolds too serious looking is likely to get in the way of their character. It would also be bad to overplay the connection to dragons, D&D doesn't need two dragon-kin races.
Other then that, I'm fine with reworking kobold's apperance. Other then being small and having somewhat lizard like appearance, they have not really had a consistent look across editions.
One important element that needs to be kept in mind that he doesn't mention is that Kobolds are moderately humorous monsters. They not joke monsters or entirely ignorable, but they are not a serious threat to any but the least experienced adventurers
We can have 340935230459 human-kin races, but 2 dragon-kin races is a problem in Dungeons and Dragons?
Particularly if those two races are nothing at all alike, except for being related to dragons. Different aspects of draconicness are emphasized, they're quite distinct. I can't possibly imagine thinking "Nah, there's no point to having kobolds because there's a Dragonborn in the party." They're two completely different worlds. It'd be like saying there's no point to having demons and devils if we also have Tieflings.
Why?[/quote]I agree. Why?We can have 340935230459 human-kin races, but 2 dragon-kin races is a problem in Dungeons and Dragons? [/quote]Particularly if those two races are nothing at all alike, except for being related to dragons. Different aspects
We can have 340935230459 human-kin races, but 2 dragon-kin races is a problem in Dungeons and Dragons?
Particularly if those two races are nothing at all alike, except for being related to dragons. Different aspects of draconicness are emphasized, they're quite distinct. I can't possibly imagine thinking "Nah, there's no point to having kobolds because there's a Dragonborn in the party." They're two completely different worlds. It'd be like saying there's no point to having demons and devils if we also have Tieflings.
Plus, it would be fun to have the Kobold secretly worship or maybe resent the Dragonborn for being more "dragon-like".
We know that's wrong though. Kobolds rule.
Why?[/quote]I agree. Why?We can have 340935230459 human-kin races, but 2 dragon-kin races is a problem in Dungeons and Dragons? [/quote]Particularly if those two races are nothing at all alike, except for being related to dragons. Different aspects
New, higher level kobolds would be awesome. We have a few different versions of goblins. So why not a few different versions of kobolds?
Leave the old kobolds to be the weak ones. With crude cloths and crude traps. And the smaller early edition sizes.
Then make new ones who are more crafty, and have prehensile tales, and like magical traps as well. They would be commonly mistaken for kobolds, but are slightly larger (4e's size). These can be a PC version.
And a third version, closer to dragons. They have wings and elemental bites, if not breath. Some run around on all 4's though they can still wield weapons. They still make traps, but rely on them less. Their pride tend to be more solo, only grouping under a strong leader, like a real dragon.
And there can be half-breeds between them as well.
Red beady eyes are fine. Large eyes are for low light vision. You need something different for darkvision.
New, higher level kobolds would be awesome. We have a few different versions of goblins. So why not a few different versions of kobolds?Leave the old kobolds to be the weak ones. With crude cloths and crude traps. And the smaller early edition si
I would actually really not mind seeing Dragonborn and Kobolds integrated into the same "family", like we have with the various types of Lizardfolk, or (with more dramatic differences) like we have with goblinoids (goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears).
I do so like monster families.
While I'm not a fan of how kobolds do not resemble historical lore (they are germanic house sprites, not scaly underground dogs), I'd be happy with a similar family grouping for Lizardfolk and Dragonfolk. If dwarves can have their "gully" version, then I guess kobolds could be the "gully dragon" of D&D.
I do so like monster families. :) [/quote]While I'm not a fan of how kobolds do not resemble historical lore (they are germanic house sprites, not scaly underground dogs), I'd be happy with a similar family grouping for Lizardfolk and Dragonfolk. If
It should be made clear that those of us in favor of a stronger kobold-dragon connection and a family of Dragonfolk that Lizardfolk and Dragonfolk are not the same thing.
We are in agreement, yes?
Just checking.
It should be made clear that those of us in favor of a stronger kobold-dragon connection and a family of Dragonfolk that Lizardfolk and Dragonfolk are not the same thing.We are in agreement, yes?Just checking.
The key word for kobolds is cunningly. They are weak and they know it, but they make up for it with slyness. They are the evil McGyver of D&D.
I have found this image:
I like that ape snout.
I don´t like those ridiculous lizard heads like from children cartoons. Kobolds aren´t evil cousins of Wally Wator (Hanna-Barbera´s character). I imagine D&D kobolds like reptilians baboons, closer to AD&D look, like a mixture of gremlims (80´s movie) and kobolds from capcom AD&D arcades (tower of doom and shadow over mystara).
The key word for kobolds is cunningly. They are weak and they know it, but they make up for it with slyness. They are the evil McGyver of D&D. I have found this image: I like that ape snout.I don´t like those ridiculous lizard heads like from
It should be made clear that those of us in favor of a stronger kobold-dragon connection and a family of Dragonfolk that Lizardfolk and Dragonfolk are not the same thing.
We are in agreement, yes?
Just checking.
*shrug*
I could see them in the tree somewhere. Something like...
Dragon -> missing link -> dragonborn -> missing link -> kobolds -> missing link -> lizardfolk.
Thus lizard folk are very far removed from dragons, but not too far from kobolds.
*shrug*I could see them in the tree somewhere. Something like...Dragon -> missing link -> dragonborn -> missing link -> kobolds -> missing link -> lizardfolk.Thus lizard folk are very far removed from dragons, but not too far from kobolds.
See, I don't like the "missing link" connection between kobolds and lizardfolk, because it implies a more direct evolution. I would rather it be more branching, like how we humans are actually fairly closely related to lemurs, but the common ancestor is still a good ways back.
See, I don't like the "missing link" connection between kobolds and lizardfolk, because it implies a more direct evolution. I would rather it be more branching, like how we humans are actually fairly closely related to lemurs, but the common ancesto
I would actually really not mind seeing Dragonborn and Kobolds integrated into the same "family", like we have with the various types of Lizardfolk, or (with more dramatic differences) like we have with goblinoids (goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears).
I do so like monster families.
While I'm not a fan of how kobolds do not resemble historical lore (they are germanic house sprites, not scaly underground dogs), I'd be happy with a similar family grouping for Lizardfolk and Dragonfolk. If dwarves can have their "gully" version, then I guess kobolds could be the "gully dragon" of D&D.
Agreed. Lizardfolk, kobolds, and dragonborn should be one (albeit dysfunctional) family. I would love it if all 3 were options for characters. dragonborn would be the noble and intelligent ones. lizardfolk would be the dumb powerful brutes. kobolds would be the small, cunning, sneaky ones. of course a character could break the mold and escape the stereotype with any of them.
i like it when races are type cast to certain classes but the rules are built so characters can escape stereotypes (dwarf wizards, halfling fighters, Orc bards, etc.)
I do so like monster families. :) [/quote]While I'm not a fan of how kobolds do not resemble historical lore (they are germanic house sprites, not scaly underground dogs), I'd be happy with a similar family grouping for Lizardfolk and Dragonfolk. If
I would actually really not mind seeing Dragonborn and Kobolds integrated into the same "family", like we have with the various types of Lizardfolk, or (with more dramatic differences) like we have with goblinoids (goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears).
I do so like monster families.
While I'm not a fan of how kobolds do not resemble historical lore (they are germanic house sprites, not scaly underground dogs), I'd be happy with a similar family grouping for Lizardfolk and Dragonfolk. If dwarves can have their "gully" version, then I guess kobolds could be the "gully dragon" of D&D.
Agreed. Lizardfolk, kobolds, and dragonborn should be one (albeit dysfunctional) family. I would love it if all 3 were options for characters. dragonborn would be the noble and intelligent ones. lizardfolk would be the dumb powerful brutes. kobolds would be the small, cunning, sneaky ones. of course a character could break the mold and escape the stereotype with any of them.
i like it when races are type cast to certain classes but the rules are built so characters can escape stereotypes (dwarf wizards, halfling fighters, Orc bards, etc.)
I wouldn't lump lizardfolk in with dragons, because they are distinctly different, IMO. My suggestion was to have a separate "lizardfolk" family, AND a "dragonfolk" family, with kobolds and dragonborn being related, following a similar pattern as the goblins. I liked how the Draconomicon (I think that was 2e) described dragons as more akin to felines than lizards. Hmm, maybe the catfolk should have its own family as well...
I do so like monster families. :) [/quote]While I'm not a fan of how kobolds do not resemble historical lore (they are germanic house sprites, not scaly underground dogs), I'd be happy with a similar family grouping for Lizardfolk and Dragonfolk. If
I wouldn't lump lizardfolk in with dragons, because they are distinctly different, IMO. My suggestion was to have a separate "lizardfolk" family, AND a "dragonfolk" family, with kobolds and dragonborn being related, following a similar pattern as the goblins. I liked how the Draconomicon (I think that was 2e) described dragons as more akin to felines than lizards. Hmm, maybe the catfolk should have its own family as well...
I would actually really not mind seeing Dragonborn and Kobolds integrated into the same "family", like we have with the various types of Lizardfolk, or (with more dramatic differences) like we have with goblinoids (goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears).
I do so like monster families.
While I'm not a fan of how kobolds do not resemble historical lore (they are germanic house sprites, not scaly underground dogs), I'd be happy with a similar family grouping for Lizardfolk and Dragonfolk. If dwarves can have their "gully" version, then I guess kobolds could be the "gully dragon" of D&D.
Agreed. Lizardfolk, kobolds, and dragonborn should be one (albeit dysfunctional) family. I would love it if all 3 were options for characters. dragonborn would be the noble and intelligent ones. lizardfolk would be the dumb powerful brutes. kobolds would be the small, cunning, sneaky ones. of course a character could break the mold and escape the stereotype with any of them.
i like it when races are type cast to certain classes but the rules are built so characters can escape stereotypes (dwarf wizards, halfling fighters, Orc bards, etc.)
I wouldn't lump lizardfolk in with dragons, because they are distinctly different, IMO. My suggestion was to have a separate "lizardfolk" family, AND a "dragonfolk" family, with kobolds and dragonborn being related, following a similar pattern as the goblins. I liked how the Draconomicon (I think that was 2e) described dragons as more akin to felines than lizards. Hmm, maybe the catfolk should have its own family as well...
I like the elegance of larger more inclusive groupings.
I would like the following character options: human: + halfling and dwarf Elven: drow, high, wood Dragonic: lizardfolk, kobold, dragonborn Goblinoid: goblin, Orc + system for making hybrids (half elves, half orcs, mongrelfolk)
I do so like monster families. :) [/quote]While I'm not a fan of how kobolds do not resemble historical lore (they are germanic house sprites, not scaly underground dogs), I'd be happy with a similar family grouping for Lizardfolk and Dragonfolk. If
Option A: Kobolds linked with dragonblood family: dracoborn, dracotaurs, dracokins, draconians.......(and spellcalles?). Maybe goblinoid ancestors who got dragonblood traits like the spellcales from "Races of dragons".
Option C: two subraces, one would be A and the other B. (and both hate each other).
The kobolds´ jaw and snout should be like a reptilian badoon. Those too big nasal holes are too ridiculous. Is there any real world reptile with a snout like it? I would rather the AD&D reptilian ape.
* Some humanoid monsters should be designed to be nemesis or achenemy of some PC races. Goblins, kobolds and springans should be favorite antagonist of little PC races (halflings and gnomes).
* Some DMs could say kobolds from their setting were a goblinoid comunity who were transformed by dragons (to use them like slaves) or some deity...or kobolds ancestors used magic to transform themself to survive, a softer version of prestige class disciple of dragon.
Option A: Kobolds linked with dragonblood family: dracoborn, dracotaurs, dracokins, draconians.......(and spellcalles?). Maybe goblinoid ancestors who got dragonblood traits like the spellcales from "Races of dragons".Option B: Kobolds linked with re
Option A: Kobolds linked with dragonblood family: dracoborn, dracotaurs, dracokins, draconians.......(and spellcalles?). Maybe goblinoid ancestors who got dragonblood traits like the spellcales from "Races of dragons".
Because the range of dragon related creatures is over crowded in D&D and the total range of dragon/lizard/serpent related is even worse.
Plus, what makes Kobolds useful isn't dragon related. They are useful because they are wimpy, the race that even a 1st level character can take on when out numbered. When you make them dragon-kin, people start expecting them have dragon-like powers, and that gets in the way of their in game utility. ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />
Why?[/quote]Because the range of dragon related creatures is over crowded in D&D and the total range of dragon/lizard/serpent related is even worse.Plus, what makes Kobolds useful isn't dragon related. They are useful because they are wimpy, the race
I'll add my voice to what a few others are saying, I really like the idea of kobolds being in the same "family" as Dragonborn. Further, I would like halflings to be included in the same family as humans. I don't think this would make much mechanical difference, but we have had the idea of monster families (gob, hobgob, bugbear) for a while now, and it always seemed to make a fair bit of sense.
I'll add my voice to what a few others are saying, I really like the idea of kobolds being in the same "family" as Dragonborn. Further, I would like halflings to be included in the same family as humans. I don't think this would make much mechanical
When you make them dragon-kin, people start expecting them have dragon-like powers
...huh?
Since when do all dragonkin have dragon-like powers? Why are people expecting that, particularly when it's very clearly explained that while they're related, they don't have nearly any of that awesomeness to them? That that's the point?
Why?[/quote]Because the range of dragon related creatures is over crowded in D&D[/quote]...huh?We've got dragons, and....dragonborn. And not kobolds, apparently.What are all the others?...huh?Since when do all dragonkin have dragon-like powers? Why
It should be made clear that those of us in favor of a stronger kobold-dragon connection and a family of Dragonfolk that Lizardfolk and Dragonfolk are not the same thing.
That I agree with, if only because people who like Dragonfold and those that like Lizardfold tend to dislike them being associated with each other. There is enough space for both a lizard-folk and dragon-folk PC race, and both sides are happier if the two are no more related then lizards and dragons. Which is to say, very distantly but both legend and observation suggests that there is some connection somewhere even if it isn't clear which came first or how they are related.
That I agree with, if only because people who like Dragonfold and those that like Lizardfold tend to dislike them being associated with each other. There is enough space for both a lizard-folk and dragon-folk PC race, and both sides are happier if th
See, I don't like the "missing link" connection between kobolds and lizardfolk, because it implies a more direct evolution. I would rather it be more branching, like how we humans are actually fairly closely related to lemurs, but the common ancestor is still a good ways back.
Well i can't do a good tree with just text. But yea, i think there should be some sort of connection both ways.
What if kobolds where the offspring of lizardfolk and dragonborn?
Thus more like...
Dragons -> missing link -> Dragonborn -> kobolds <- lizardfolk <- missing link <- newt.
I actually wouldn't mind if every creature (except far realm) was releated in some super tree. Though not really a tree, since there would be more then 1 start point. And lot's of inter-species mating and magic tinkering...
Well i can't do a good tree with just text. But yea, i think there should be some sort of connection both ways.What if kobolds where the offspring of lizardfolk and dragonborn?Thus more like...Dragons -> missing link -> Dragonborn -> kobolds
Because the range of dragon related creatures is over crowded in D&D and the total range of dragon/lizard/serpent related is even worse.
Psst.
Just because it's printed doesn't mean you have to use them, and even if you use them, you can re-skin them and change the lore any way you want.
Why?[/quote]Because the range of dragon related creatures is over crowded in D&D and the total range of dragon/lizard/serpent related is even worse.[/quote]Psst.Just because it's printed doesn't mean you have to use them, and even if you use them, yo
Which would make any discussion of what lore in the books should be pretty worthless, in your opinion, along with this entire article series.
What's the point of your contribution here, beyond implying that none of what we're discussing is worth discussing?
Which would make any discussion of what lore in the books should be pretty worthless, in your opinion, along with this entire article series. What's the point of your contribution here, beyond implying that none of what we're discussing is worth disc
To me the relationship is not important in the D&D game. The game could just leave it as vague and let each campaign flesh out the relationship.
The mechanics is the important thing that the gamemakers need to be worried about.
As someone who has played PC kobolds, dragonborn, and lizardfolk, I want all three as playable PC races. Leave their history out. I don't care how they are linked if it is going to bother some people.
I like reptilian races. I would rather have 3 reptiles than gnomes.
Cool races: Drow, lizardfolk, minotaur, undead
Uncool races: Half-elves, gnomes, half-orcs
If we must have hybrids, can we just have a mechanic for creating hybrids instead of making them a separate race?
To me the relationship is not important in the D&D game. The game could just leave it as vague and let each campaign flesh out the relationship.The mechanics is the important thing that the gamemakers need to be worried about.As someone who has play
I prefer the older scaly dogish ratlike tailed Kobold of AD&D. I fear Jon's description will look too much a 3 feet tall lizardfolk.
Id like something like this: (perhaps with a little more fur)
I prefer the older scaly dogish ratlike tailed Kobold of AD&D. I fear Jon's description will look too much a 3 feet tall lizardfolk.Id like something like this: (perhaps with a little more fur)
I like my kobolds lizardy and nt automatically dragon blooded. But many kobolds COULD be dragon blooded as many are deluded into thinking so, seeking out dragons, and becoming mates for younger dragons with lesser resources.
The common kobolds isn't draconic but some tribes have dragon heritage.
This could be shown as kobold dragonshields and maybe urds have draconic features while the main kobolds pics lack them and look more lizard-rat people.
I like my kobolds lizardy and nt automatically dragon blooded. But many kobolds COULD be dragon blooded as many are deluded into thinking so, seeking out dragons, and becoming mates for younger dragons with lesser resources.The common kobolds isn't d
Which would make any discussion of what lore in the books should be pretty worthless, in your opinion, along with this entire article series.
What's the point of your contribution here, beyond implying that none of what we're discussing is worth discussing?
That was about it, really.
Which would make any discussion of what lore in the books should be pretty worthless, in your opinion, along with this entire article series. What's the point of your contribution here, beyond implying that none of what we're discussing is worth disc
Which would make any discussion of what lore in the books should be pretty worthless, in your opinion, along with this entire article series.
What's the point of your contribution here, beyond implying that none of what we're discussing is worth discussing?
That was about it, really.
Let campaigns create their own lore. Books might provide some options for lore but should be more focused on mechanics. I am less interested in the relationship between lizardfolk, kobolds, and dragonborn than in the availability of all 3 to be played as a PC race and their stats and abilities.
I never read all the pages of history, lore, and culture in the Races of the Dragon, Serpent Kingdom, and Draconomicon. I skipped to the stats and created characters.
Which would make any discussion of what lore in the books should be pretty worthless, in your opinion, along with this entire article series. What's the point of your contribution here, beyond implying that none of what we're discussing is worth disc
Why waste time trying to define the lore? WOTC should be more concerned about mechanics and whether they improve the game or not. Lore might add to the enjoyment of roleplaying but it is campaign specific. No reason to argue over whether a kobold is a mammal or a reptile. Better to discuss whether it is a playable race and if so how to balance its stats so it will be an option some people might choose while others do not.
Why waste time trying to define the lore? WOTC should be more concerned about mechanics and whether they improve the game or not. Lore might add to the enjoyment of roleplaying but it is campaign specific. No reason to argue over whether a kobol
* Dragonblood kobolds should be a optional subrace, let´s allow a open door. Do you rembember the first chapter (dragobound heroes) of "Dragon Magic" (one of last 3.5 books) with new subraces with draconic lineage?
* Antrophomorphic reptiles aren´t so cool like antrophomorphic dinosaurs.
*Kobolds with dog snout (like from warcraft) are horrible, I would rather badoon-like snouts, like reptilian apes with scales.
Ssi-ruu, reptilian race from Star Wars.
Esral´sa´Nikto, other reptilian race from Star Wars.
Zilla´s (= American godzilla) offspring. I know they are stupier that D&D kobolds, but more terrorific, aren´t they?
D&D kobolds should be like mini antropomorphic zillas, or like Joe Dante´s gremlins.
* Dragonblood kobolds should be a optional subrace, let´s allow a open door. Do you rembember the first chapter (dragobound heroes) of "Dragon Magic" (one of last 3.5 books) with new subraces with draconic lineage? * Antrophomorphic reptiles ar
I'm not a fan of yet another dragonkin. I like the smelly rat/dog connections of 2E. If they have to belong to a 'family', design them to be laughable little cousins of the gnoll.
I'm not a fan of yet another dragonkin. I like the smelly rat/dog connections of 2E. If they have to belong to a 'family', design them to be laughable little cousins of the gnoll.
Maybe so those that NEED/WANT assistance in that area can get it?
Right, and because otherwise, all you have is a bunch of stat blocks with no context to them. It's impossible to separate the abilities of a monster from a baseline purpose for the monster. Purpose requires some assumptions about the nature of the monster, and that's where the connection gets made to fluff.
Besides, some of us like the fluff. Some of us also don't have the time to create everything from scratch. If I can flip through a book and say "that looks like a cool bad guy" and use it as-is, I can spend more time playing rather than doing monster-creation homework.
As for the actual topic - I'm not really that concerned about evolutionary connections and missing links with lizards, dragons, kobolds, trogs, etc. What I want from a kobold is a shifty little bugger who's sneaky, makes devious traps, pokes you in the knees with a javelin, and has delusions of grandeur that they are related to dragons. They don't actually HAVE to be related to dragons; the fact that they THINK they are is all the comedy fodder I need.
For me, D&D kobolds fill the same general humor niche as Paizo or Warhammer goblins - you just can't take them seriously by themselves, but en masse, they are a veritable mob of chaos that you better darn well be scared of.
Maybe so those that NEED/WANT assistance in that area can get it?[/quote]Right, and because otherwise, all you have is a bunch of stat blocks with no context to them. It's impossible to separate the abilities of a monster from a baseline purpose for
I don´t like the canon background of gnolls, too bloodthirsthy, wild and savage. The cult of Yeenoghu can be like this but I would like a optional subrace with different background like furry na´vi from Pandora (but with very much worse temper).
Gnolls aren´t really so fearsome (very daredevil, sadist and cruel, but no so dangerous like others), I think aremy of Shaka Zulu´s (real History character from XIX century South Africa) could kick-**s complete gnolls tribes or commit a total genocide againts gnolls.... (in the real world chaotic aligment isn´t useful to survive worst crysis)
Could any gnolls be werehyenas?
* Can tree trolls (dragon magazine 299) be a gnoll (=mixture gnome +troll?)
---
Why not kobolds face are like dragonkins from "Monster of Faerun"? Different kobold subraces could have got totally different face traits, as different as Husky Siberian and bullmastiffs. Ones would be like reptilian apes and others like antropomorhic zillas babes. Subraces could allow different versions of kobolds from different editions be canon at the same time in the next D&D.
Rev Rem, magog character from sci-fi teleserie Andromeda.
I don´t like the canon background of gnolls, too bloodthirsthy, wild and savage. The cult of Yeenoghu can be like this but I would like a optional subrace with different background like furry na´vi from Pandora (but with very much worse t
For the whole "dragon or lizard family" thing, they could take the approach of:
Kobolds think kobolds are related to dragons. Dragons think kobolds are related to lizards (edit: or other "lesser" creatures - they don't really care). Lizardfolk think kobolds are related to rats, vermin, and other pests.
... and make their design kind of reflect that any of those attitudes might be the "correct" one. They're kind of draconic (and certainly like to act and dress as though they are), kind of lizard-like (in a way distinct from being draconic), but also something else.
EDIT: It would also be a neat little plot hook if Dragonborn - having no reason to doubt the claims of the Kobolds themselves - view them as misguided cousins, of a sort.
For the whole "dragon or lizard family" thing, they could take the approach of:Kobolds think kobolds are related to dragons.Dragons think kobolds are related to lizards (edit: or other "lesser" creatures - they don't really care).Lizardfolk think kob
For the whole "dragon or lizard family" thing, they could take the approach of:
Kobolds think kobolds are related to dragons. Dragons think kobolds are related to lizards (edit: or other "lesser" creatures - they don't really care). Lizardfolk think kobolds are related to rats, vermin, and other pests.
... and make their design kind of reflect that any of those attitudes might be the "correct" one. They're kind of draconic (and certainly like to act and dress as though they are), kind of lizard-like (in a way distinct from being draconic), but also something else.
For the whole "dragon or lizard family" thing, they could take the approach of:
Kobolds think kobolds are related to dragons. Dragons think kobolds are related to lizards (edit: or other "lesser" creatures - they don't really care). Lizardfolk think kobolds are related to rats, vermin, and other pests.
... and make their design kind of reflect that any of those attitudes might be the "correct" one. They're kind of draconic (and certainly like to act and dress as though they are), kind of lizard-like (in a way distinct from being draconic), but also something else.
EDIT: It would also be a neat little plot hook if Dragonborn - having no reason to doubt the claims of the Kobolds themselves - view them as misguided cousins, of a sort.
I like this approach to the story, as it gives some nice stuff to work with, without being definitive. This allows individual games to fill in the details as they see fit. However, I am not sure how well this translates into a visual direction.
I like this approach to the story, as it gives some nice stuff to work with, without being definitive. This allows individual games to fill in the details as they see fit. However, I am not sure how well this translates into a visual direction.
I like this approach to the story, as it gives some nice stuff to work with, without being definitive. This allows individual games to fill in the details as they see fit. However, I am not sure how well this translates into a visual direction.
I imagine it would look something like a blending of pre- and post-3e versions of kobolds. Keep the more "draconic" facial features and head shape, and maybe feet and hands. Maybe have more "lizard(folk)-like" tails and feet and hands. But have an overall body shape (and size) more akin to the "rat/dog-like" kobolds.
They would come out looking like (pathetic) mongrel-lizard-humanoid-things - but that's pretty appropriate.
I imagine it would look something like a blending of pre- and post-3e versions of kobolds. Keep the more "draconic" facial features and head shape, and maybe feet and hands. Maybe have more "lizard(folk)-like" tails and feet and hands. But have an
For the whole "dragon or lizard family" thing, they could take the approach of:
Kobolds think kobolds are related to dragons. Dragons think kobolds are related to lizards (edit: or other "lesser" creatures - they don't really care). Lizardfolk think kobolds are related to rats, vermin, and other pests.
... and make their design kind of reflect that any of those attitudes might be the "correct" one. They're kind of draconic (and certainly like to act and dress as though they are), kind of lizard-like (in a way distinct from being draconic), but also something else.
Perfect, my thoughts exactly.
This is what I mean by not needing everything defined. Produce some vague ideas and rumors and allow each campaign to decide where to go from there.
I like all three races and have played all of them at various points. They are certainly more interesting in my mind than races that are often included.
We don't need 40 pages for any race. 2 pages is enough. I would rather have more races than more fluff about each race.
New races are enjoyable because they look different and often act different than humans. The mechanical differences can be minor (and perhaps should be to preserve balance).
I would think that every race that shares similarities with dragons might imagine that they are descended from dragons. If dragons can adopt humanoid forms, perhaps this is more true than most people realize.
Perfect, my thoughts exactly.[/quote]This is what I mean by not needing everything defined. Produce some vague ideas and rumors and allow each campaign to decide where to go from there.I like all three races and have played all of them at various po
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conductPlease keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal a
But where do they get their increadible, total imunity to arrows?
Jan 2, 2013 -- 4:21AM, mellored wrote: Well i can't do a good tree with just text. But yea, i think there should be some sort of connection both ways.What if kobolds where the offspring of lizardfolk and dragonborn?Thus more like...>trent -> Gazee
As entertaining as thinking of dragons as monstrous kobolds is, given as we already have dragonspawn, dragonborn, half-dragons, and draconians, why should kobolds, which were derived from goblins and brownies, also be dragon-like? I don't think we need more human-like or goblin-like races either, mind you.
Rather than thinking of a monster by thinking of its relatives, why may result in a lot of unfortunately similar monsters, what most makes a kobold ...a kobold?
Imagine goblins aren't related to bugbears at all. Would bugbears become more monstrous and be able to change shape and shadowstep, for instance? This is assuming your entire understanding of the word bugbear isn't limited to D&D's definition of a big, hairy goblinoid.
As entertaining as thinking of dragons as monstrous kobolds is, given as we already have dragonspawn, dragonborn, half-dragons, and draconians, why should kobolds, which were derived from goblins and brownies, also be dragon-like? I don't think we ne
Maybe a alternative kobold origin is possible but retcon wouldn´t be necesary.
The original kobold race was a goblonoid miner comunity (like from 1st edition) who were protected (enslaved) by dragons. Some dragons used kobolds to create a new subrace by means of magic ..(do you rebember reptilian template from "Savage Species"?), something like dragonspwans created by dragon overlods from Krynn.. (or subraces with draconic lineage from first chapter of "Dragon Magic" (3.5. sourcebook).
Maybe a alternative kobold origin is possible but retcon wouldn´t be necesary.The original kobold race was a goblonoid miner comunity (like from 1st edition) who were protected (enslaved) by dragons. Some dragons used kobolds to create a new su
Given the propensity for magic displayed by dragons, it's not out of the realm of possibility that they simply created more than one type of servant to suit their needs. Kobolds and dragonborn could fill two entirely different niches, and I like the idea of having two distinct draconic servitor races.
Why?[/quote]Given the propensity for magic displayed by dragons, it's not out of the realm of possibility that they simply created more than one type of servant to suit their needs. Kobolds and dragonborn could fill two entirely different niches, an
Given the propensity for magic displayed by dragons, it's not out of the realm of possibility that they simply created more than one type of servant to suit their needs. Kobolds and dragonborn could fill two entirely different niches, and I like the idea of having two distinct draconic servitor races.
The reason to have multiple races/monsters with some type of draconic connection (even if it is tenuous or dubious, as with the Kobold) is very simple. The name of the game is Dungeons & Dragons.
Why?[/quote]Given the propensity for magic displayed by dragons, it's not out of the realm of possibility that they simply created more than one type of servant to suit their needs. Kobolds and dragonborn could fill two entirely different niches, an
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the Kobolds portrayed like the mountain goblins from the new The Hobbit movie, other than being scaly dragon-people rather than ugly midgets. After all, as Tolkien said of his orcs and goblins, "They make no beautiful things, but they make many clever ones", and that part of the movie really nailed that for me.
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the Kobolds portrayed like the mountain goblins from the new The Hobbit movie, other than being scaly dragon-people rather than ugly midgets. After all, as Tolkien said of his orcs and goblins, "They make no beautif
Given the propensity for magic displayed by dragons, it's not out of the realm of possibility that they simply created more than one type of servant to suit their needs. Kobolds and dragonborn could fill two entirely different niches, and I like the idea of having two distinct draconic servitor races.
The reason to have multiple races/monsters with some type of draconic connection (even if it is tenuous or dubious, as with the Kobold) is very simple. The name of the game is Dungeons & Dragons.
Because most things in this imaginative game should be either a Dungeon or a Dragon.
I'd like to bridge some real-world lore to D&D lore. Kobolds are fairly the sinister version of gnomes and other household/mine spirits (some D&D editions referenced this by saying the two had an animosity toward each other). If kobolds are household and mine keepers, why not dungeon keepers?
They build and upkeep traps, prune poison molds, and are indignant with house-wrecking adventurers; however, if the party is respectful and gift-giving, they have a clan of dungeoneers to give them tips. (If kobolds are used by dragons in your campaign for such upkeep, this makes kobolds both Dungeons- AND Dragons- related, if you're into titulars.)
Why?[/quote]Given the propensity for magic displayed by dragons, it's not out of the realm of possibility that they simply created more than one type of servant to suit their needs. Kobolds and dragonborn could fill two entirely different niches, an
For the dog lover…I’d like to point out the “Golden Jackal”, which actually matches many of the original descriptions of the kobold. This creature is not related to true jackals, but more akin to grey wolves and coyotes, wary of the lion [adventurers] yet able to compete against powerful hyena [gnolls] intruders; they even try to kill hyena young when they are able.
They are able to thrive in a wide variety of environmental conditions and can make use of a variety of different resources; often taking over abandoned subterranean burrows [e.g. surface caves and sewers] of others or building their own in concealed areas such as below tree roots or dense thickets.
They are an omnivorous and opportunistic forager; their diet varies according to season and habitat; they are capable of hunting alone or in small family packs, taking out prey three times their own weight (size); often taking prey by ambush by ripping their guts out. As mentioned above they are natural rivals of the plain dwelling hyena, but their territory includes forest, mountains, and coastal deserts, the same region where one might find gnomes or other fey, dwarves, halflings, and humans.
Their fur is generally either of a dirty reddish-grey color, strongly highlighted with blackish tones due to the black guard hairs, or a brighter, rusty-reddish color [as in clothing]. Occasionally, it develops a horny growth on the skull which is associated with magical powers. This horn usually measures half an inch in length, and is concealed by their fur.
Just discard the egg-lying, scaly reptilian aspects and you are closer to the original “yipping-smelly dog” variant of the kobold.
For the dog lover…I’d like to point out the “Golden Jackal”, which actually matches many of the original descriptions of the kobold. This creature is not related to true jackals, but more akin to grey wolves and coyotes, war
Kobolds are fairly the sinister version of gnomes and other household/mine spirits (some D&D editions referenced this by saying the two had an animosity toward each other).
Yeah, I always liked that connection (Garl Glittergold and Kurtulmak being enemies).
I like the dog-lizard, not so keen on playing up the draconic aspect (except as boasts from kobolds).
Yeah, I always liked that connection (Garl Glittergold and Kurtulmak being enemies).I like the dog-lizard, not so keen on playing up the draconic aspect (except as boasts from kobolds).
I would prefer to keep the history and specifics of each monster as relatively vague. The core D&D does not need to state the origin story of every monster. Stick with the stat sheet and a vague description.
Allow individual campaigns to define the other aspects of their existence.
Have one stat line for use as an NPC and one stat line for use as a PC race. That is all that is needed. Keep it simple. If they want later splat books to include specific setting information keep it separate from the mechanical development.
in one campaign kobolds can be dog-like and descended from gnolls or hyenas. In another they might be lizard like and descended from lizardfolk. In another they might be degenerate gnomes. In another they might be dragonspawned servants.
The more generic the core description, the more inclusive this next edition can be.
The only difficulty I see with this approach is that racial abilities are often determined by specifics so that creating a PC kobold might need some of these historical cues to be defined unless they can truly find racial abilities that can link all of these concepts together.
I would prefer to keep the history and specifics of each monster as relatively vague. The core D&D does not need to state the origin story of every monster. Stick with the stat sheet and a vague description.Allow individual campaigns to define the o
I have thought about create my own concept art about kobolds. I wish create a variant, with hair, closer to the (reptlinian goblin) kobold from 1st and 2nd edition, the reptomammals, no the mini-lizardmen.
I have thought about create my own concept art about kobolds. I wish create a variant, with hair, closer to the (reptlinian goblin) kobold from 1st and 2nd edition, the reptomammals, no the mini-lizardmen.
This is my second sketch or concept art for my own version of kobolds (or hipotetical subrace). I want show a possible retcon of kobold from 1st and 2nd Ed.
It looks a mixture of pseudodragon and monkey, doesn´t it?, or the good and evil version of "gremlins" (movie).
The skin has got scales and hair (and spines). The snout is shorter that the 3rd-4th kobolds, more like apes, but not too much, because we don´t want it looks (half-dragon) ape-like goblin. Let´s say a mixture between 3rd kobold and goblin, no too long, not too short snout/jaw.
I am not a good drawer and I don´t try being it, only I wish do a suggestion for a cooler design. If you would find a fantasy rpg where kobolds had got this look... would you like?
* Once I read the D&D canon said the mixture of a kobold and a goblin was a "D&D gremlin".
* Could a kobold subrace be furry, having got hair like mammals? Could a kobold subrace have got the subtype "goblinoid"?
This is my second sketch or concept art for my own version of kobolds (or hipotetical subrace). I want show a possible retcon of kobold from 1st and 2nd Ed. It looks a mixture of pseudodragon and monkey, doesn´t it?, or the good and evil versio
Of course, they are as different as (D&D) gnomes and elves. I am not changing the canon background.
But I am trying "recover" the furry version of kobold from 1st and 2nd Edition..(with a little touch of retcon). It could be a subrace. Do you rebember the feral and reptilian template from "Savage Species"?
Are kobolds a goblinoid race whith reptilian traits by dragons, or my suggestion is a dragonblood race with added goblinoid traits?
Other option is using the name for two race with different origin. (something with the word "Indian". Indians from Northamerican or from Asia?)
My own version is the 3rd-4th version of kobolds, the dragonblood, is a "transgenic" evolution from ones of 1st-2nd by dragon magic.
...or maybe my subrace is like shifters, descendent of werebeasts or a secondary effect when they survived raids by goblins wereweasels, or a goblinoid tribe who don´t know they are descendent of kobolds spies (with shapeshifter powers by magic of their dragon lord).
Kobolds use dire weasels like mounts.
Of course, they are as different as (D&D) gnomes and elves. I am not changing the canon background.But I am trying "recover" the furry version of kobold from 1st and 2nd Edition..(with a little touch of retcon). It could be a subrace. Do you rebember
For me, Personally, the Kobold was always my favorite race out of any contained within the D&D mythos. The lore and the stats never mattered particulary, it was there actual physiology that i found interesting. I always pictured them as having a mixture of Oppossum/Shrew/Weasel features (as oppossed to rat features) combined with Mastiff/Crocodillian Features with an Anthropormorphosized Spider-Monkeys' frame, all wraped up inside of a Dragon-skin Hide.
My thought is that what Kobolds actually are is one of the oldest races around, being a race that is the end result of the evil of others. Originally being the product of the interbreeding of a multitude of cast-off offspring, the result of slaves being raped or the children of prostitutes, as well as failed attempts at cross-breeding creatures that shouldn't really be mixed by wizards, warlocks, and other assorted "Learn-ed People", the Kobold is the stabilized form of the hodge-podge from which it originates from. this would explain there horrible smell, like there there own personal lower east side.
The smell could be attributed to all those different races the kobold is made up of mixing together, kind of like mixing together everything in your fridge at the same time, (i'm pretty sure that the smells would be similar.)
My guess would be that they resemble dragons due to the potency of Dragons blood and it's ability to dominate a life-form even at a concentration of 1%.
I don't offer this as alternative lore, but rather a rational explanation based upon the facts that are presented.
The Kobolds and other races can all argue about Kobold lore till there blue in the face, for me, this explination strikes me as being the most plausable.
For me, Personally, the Kobold was always my favorite race out of any contained within the D&D mythos. The lore and the stats never mattered particulary, it was there actual physiology that i found interesting. I always pictured them as having a mixt
