If you're like me some of your childhood memories are of kobolds. Whether you were playing 1st edition D&D, Wizardry by Sir-Tech on your Apple II, or any number of other things, the kobold has the distinction of being the squishiest of D&D monsters in terms of statistics. In many ways I remember them being like popcorn...you took your adventurers and they swallowed up as many of them as they could to try and get to level 2 with minimal risk. In my personal experience I never remembered them having very much personality; they seemed like something forgettable the campaign designer would fuel you on to get your characters more powerful, so that the designer could then throw you into more intense situations without risking a TPK by accident.

Heh, to make an agricultural metaphor for those of you who may have some knowledge of raising pigs, I guess that kobolds are effectively for many like adventurer starter feed.

However, it turns out that there's a lot of ambiguity about kobolds. They have less basis in world mythology than many other monsters. One article reveals how the official descriptions of them have kept changing and taken as a whole don't make a lot of sense: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=...4dreye/2013end1

Now I have just been reading another article that states the following:



Source: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20120820

This paragraph kind of takes me back to the idea of OSR "Fantasy Fucking Vietnam". It kind of reminds me of the Vietcong. The Vietcong were local insurgents who had problems with the Saigon government and decided to assist North Vietnam. Individually they were probably skinny and protein deficient; being rather provincial they also tended to be most effective when working around the area where they grew up, whereas they could be less effective if they were operating outside of that area. It seems evident that the North Vietnamese government didn't value them too highly considering that they were almost all sacrificed during the Tet Offensive, after which the VC ceased to be an effective fighting force due to the massive losses.

At the same time they go down in history for their booby traps, especially "traps that inflict a great deal of pain and torment" like various types of spike traps with shit smeared on the spikes to cause infection and disease.



Makes me think of North Vietnamese tunnel networks.


It might be a lot more interesting to recast kobolds as the enemies you never see. Maybe all they do is booby trap certain areas the party is going to be operating in, or wait until they can safely sabotage the party.

For example, let's say that the party decides to explore a dungeon and leave their horses at the mouth of the cave. In a situation like that if kobolds are active in the area and if the characters didn't safeguard the horses in some way, it's pretty much a given that the kobolds will kill and eat the horses or something. Then the characters will be stuck in the middle of the woods with hundreds of pounds of loot they can't carry. Stuff like that.

I think for this to work you need traps to actually be dangerous. In computer D&D there's the tendency for traps to do X HP of damage which becomes negligible with high level characters. You would want traps to cause CON damage or reduce DEX or something depending on the kind of injury caused.

And then in order to keep things fair, the DM could award EXP if the party succeeds in avoiding the various pitfalls laid by the kobolds. Otherwise it would just be a lot of risk with no EXP potential, if EXP is strictly related to killing things in combat.

People have run kobolds as sneaky and dangerous adversaries, Tucker's kobolds being the most infamous example.

The 2nd ed picture has one armed with a scorpion on a fishing pole how can you not love them.

I like the article, but at the same time wonder how the guy came up with his "new kobold" opinions. Imma break this down how I read it, addressing the author:

>They sound like yapping dogs and smell of damp dogs—yet they don't look like dogs?

You claim to include the pictures presented, and in those pictured the kobold sometimes resembles a dog, albeit a scaly dog. I don't understand the question.

>They have scaly hide (in most versions) yet none of them are shown with scaly hide, and in fact the 2E version looks downright furry.

The 2E is the only one who doesn't have very obvious scales. I don't understand this question either.

>They love devious and cruel traps, yet most of them have clawlike hands that don't really look capable of deft and nuanced movements that trap building might call for. Speaking of traps, 2E makes particular reference to mechanical traps—if they can fashion mechanical traps, don't you think they could fashion something nicer than ragged clothing? I can create a mechanical trap, but I can't sew or make cool accessories to wear? Does anyone else see an issue with this?

This is actually two questions, but I will address them both.
1: You mention traps, and then say the claws don't look like they could manipulate a trap. Well, apparently they can. There are real animals who mimic this, I might add. Many birds, for instance, can use their claws and beak to make simple versions of the traps mentioned. Sure, teh demonstrations have all been of the bird making complex tools in search of food, but the4 principle is indeed there. What could a bird do with a more devious mind, and a pair of thumbs?
2: Nowhere does it say they are incapable of fashioning complex clothing or accessories, it merely stated they don't. The cultural section, however, sheds a little light on this, an it's more believable that they choose not to adorn themselves in "human finery" (or whatever) than the idea that they're simply incapable. Elves are capable of traveling to a magical land, but choose not to until they are of a VERY advanced age, and tired of the realm of mortals. Kobolds, similarly, might have a cultural or religious prohibition against "opulence" (or however the kobolds see it).

>The tail. Is it scaly, is it ratlike, or is it something altogether different? Seems like it should tie in with the rest of the body...and dang it, I wish it were prehensile. Can you imagine how useful that would be in creating traps? Can you imagine how hard a trap would be to disable if it required you to have two hands and a tail to disable?

Well, the pics show a very clearly ratlike tail on three of the four pics, so... Even so, I never did understand how the tail was not prehensile in these things, especially since it's clearly a dexterity aid. I personally would make it such in a game where kobolds and their traps figured in prominently, but I must admit I never bothered to DM a D&D game with kobolds that wasn't a pregenerated adventure module. But yes, for a species known for their cunning and deadly traps, but with such small, weak bodies, it seems more likely that the tail would be required in their construction.

>Little red eyes that hate the light. Most creatures that exist in the dark don't have little bitty eyes. They either have big eyes to suck in as much light as possible, or they have no eyes at all.

1: You're comparing a magical world to the real world. That's bad form, at best.
2: It might be uncommon, but it's not unheard of. Neither is it a serious detriment when it happens. Ever seen a mole?

>Ears...do they have them, or not?

The pictures you claim to reference ALL show ears (though in one pic the ears are simply holes with no outer structures), and the references all say they have a spoken language. I don't understand the question.

I'll be back in a bit to post my responses to his house rules.

His "new design":

>Three-foot-tall humanoid (as in two arms, two legs, upright) form that has been infused with the draconic essence of a god. Slight skeletal frame. More about intelligence and agility than strength or brute force. Furtive and cowardly alone, but ferocious and dangerous in a crowd. This would drive all major design decisions.

This sounds like one interpretation of the exact kobold already invented. Sure, it's novel, but it's not new.

>Hairless, scaly hides that range from dark brown to black.

This also resembles what's already been created. I personally would have changed "scaly" to "mangy" and made the thing more doglike. People would often call them scaly because of the mange, which would resemble scales of psoriasis or eczema. This would resolve the conflict between the doglike features and the lizard features: the lizard features would simply be a misunderstanding propagated by panic stricken people.

>Large intelligent eyes that are suited to life underground.

This is terrible. It would turn a kobold into a lemur. No thanks. The eyes as described are neither inappropriate, nor detracting form their visual persona. Making them have big owl eyes would turn them silly.

>A long tail (prehensile) that integrates with the rest of the body.

Agreed.

>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?

The things live in some of the most treacherous land there is" cave systems. The fact that they would routinely be required to grasp a wall while shimmying along a thin cliff, or while climbing up to another part of town, would imply that they are indeed dexterous in their hands. Further compounding this is the fact that they would have had to do all this while building whatever "sidewalk" structures were necessary to make their town into an efficient social area.

>Small white or beige horns.

Pretty sure they have this already.

>Affinity to, and reverence of, dragons.

I know for a fact that they already have this.

The article was a good read, but I must admit, I'm confused as to what the author is actually driving at. Some of his internal contradictions make me wonder if he was high when he wrote this.