-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Dragon's-Eye View - Reimagining Kobolds
- Thread starter howandwhy99
- Start date
howandwhy99
Adventurer
The original MM pic is the kobold with a scaly hide. That isn't armor. It's a pair of gauntlets, vest, kilt?, and possibly shin guards. The feet, face, and hands give it away.
I'd agree that their trap building is limited, but they shouldn't be building high level traps either. They can (and do) steal stuff. And some of it can be used to dig pits (which they conceal), carve stakes (covered with leaves as a path trap), and set tree snares for big game (like PCs). This isn't the pharaoh's tomb we're talking about. Of course there are more than 3 trap options, but you're on the right path. Intelligent monsters have a culture and that defines much of what they do (at start).
I think kobolds are kind of lizard / dog. Tails and ears doesn't have to be all one or the other. This is a monster species, not a clone army. Agreed on the eyesight issue. Subterranean reptiles don't look like kobolds at all. I think they are nocturnal creatures, so they simply see poorly during the day, like other natural cave dwellers. And those caves they probably stole from something else (like an animal) rather than dug themselves. These guys aren't industrious.
I can't say I care at all or the whole dragon heritage or 'infused draconic essence', but it is a lot easier to remove material than to add it. I'd definitely dig into:
I'd agree that their trap building is limited, but they shouldn't be building high level traps either. They can (and do) steal stuff. And some of it can be used to dig pits (which they conceal), carve stakes (covered with leaves as a path trap), and set tree snares for big game (like PCs). This isn't the pharaoh's tomb we're talking about. Of course there are more than 3 trap options, but you're on the right path. Intelligent monsters have a culture and that defines much of what they do (at start).
I think kobolds are kind of lizard / dog. Tails and ears doesn't have to be all one or the other. This is a monster species, not a clone army. Agreed on the eyesight issue. Subterranean reptiles don't look like kobolds at all. I think they are nocturnal creatures, so they simply see poorly during the day, like other natural cave dwellers. And those caves they probably stole from something else (like an animal) rather than dug themselves. These guys aren't industrious.
I can't say I care at all or the whole dragon heritage or 'infused draconic essence', but it is a lot easier to remove material than to add it. I'd definitely dig into:
- How smart are they?
- What do they do collectively?
- What are their cultural learnings? (tribal practices)
- What do they build and craft, if anything? (clothes, shelter, tools, art)
- How do they typically engage in combat?
- What religious practices are they partial too?
- To what extent do they have a magical tradition? And so on.
Stormonu
NeoGrognard
I think Jon's way off in left field for this one.
- no prehensile tail. These are not phanatons.
- leaving the yapping language, it fits their small size
- leave any draconic connections up to DMs/campaign worlds. Possibly mention it, but I'd like to see some variations as well, perhaps them being starspawn (The platapus of humanoids?) or a fiendish humanoid offshoot.
- They don't need to be great tailors or master smiths to make traps. These are entities that prefer to quickly cobble together traps rather than spend a lot of time fashioning quality items; their clothes are tacky, for example, because perhaps they divvy up the scraps of victims they slew with a scorpion-on-stick trap, instead of taking the time to build a loom...
- no prehensile tail. These are not phanatons.
- leaving the yapping language, it fits their small size
- leave any draconic connections up to DMs/campaign worlds. Possibly mention it, but I'd like to see some variations as well, perhaps them being starspawn (The platapus of humanoids?) or a fiendish humanoid offshoot.
- They don't need to be great tailors or master smiths to make traps. These are entities that prefer to quickly cobble together traps rather than spend a lot of time fashioning quality items; their clothes are tacky, for example, because perhaps they divvy up the scraps of victims they slew with a scorpion-on-stick trap, instead of taking the time to build a loom...
steeldragons
Steeliest of the dragons
Yeah, there is very little in that article I can say I would agree with. Interestingly, there was no poll for various elements discussed/proposed.
I've never liked the whole "draconic heritage" thing. Big surprise, look when that was blown up.
Kobolds are scaly little (3' tall) dog-like guys (which, yes they WERE portrayed with scales AND dog-like in 1e before later folks started feeling the need to "fix" them
)
...with little rat-like tails (NON-PREHENSILE!...fer cryin' out loud <where's that rolling eyes smiley when I need it?>).
They are dim-witted but sneaky/cunning and prone to PRIMITIVE/SIMPLE traps (which can be mechanical...tripwire that looses a set of spikes that drops down from behind some cover is mechanical, but not complex. "Mechanical traps" does not equate -nor even suggest- things en par with a "pharoh's tomb"
) ...dangerous in large numbers and anything from a nuisance to comedic relief in lesser numbers.
What's the problem with that? Where's the need for yet ANOTHER look for kobolds in D&D? There's concern for how nimble their hands look or the quality of their clothes? Why, exactly, is whether their tail "matches" their scaly or furry or leathery looking skin (take your pick, they've had them all. I prefer a scales AND furry look myself.) something that needs mulling? D&D has plenty of mangled mish-mashed chimeric creatures.
I am becoming disappointed that the more 5e articles I read, the more I find myself at odds with the attitudes/opinions/preferences expressed.
I've never liked the whole "draconic heritage" thing. Big surprise, look when that was blown up.
Kobolds are scaly little (3' tall) dog-like guys (which, yes they WERE portrayed with scales AND dog-like in 1e before later folks started feeling the need to "fix" them
)...with little rat-like tails (NON-PREHENSILE!...fer cryin' out loud <where's that rolling eyes smiley when I need it?>).
They are dim-witted but sneaky/cunning and prone to PRIMITIVE/SIMPLE traps (which can be mechanical...tripwire that looses a set of spikes that drops down from behind some cover is mechanical, but not complex. "Mechanical traps" does not equate -nor even suggest- things en par with a "pharoh's tomb"
) ...dangerous in large numbers and anything from a nuisance to comedic relief in lesser numbers. What's the problem with that? Where's the need for yet ANOTHER look for kobolds in D&D? There's concern for how nimble their hands look or the quality of their clothes? Why, exactly, is whether their tail "matches" their scaly or furry or leathery looking skin (take your pick, they've had them all. I prefer a scales AND furry look myself.) something that needs mulling? D&D has plenty of mangled mish-mashed chimeric creatures.
I am becoming disappointed that the more 5e articles I read, the more I find myself at odds with the attitudes/opinions/preferences expressed.
JeffB
Legend
If you search the Gary threads here, you can read the discussion I had with him about Kobolds. The original depiction was Sutherlands and not what Gary wanted..it slipped through the cracks into the MM. Gary wanted them to look closer to the mythological versions, i.e. evil, twisted gnome like things.
steeldragons
Steeliest of the dragons
Yeah, here's mine from a year or two (?) ago. (ignore the orc and bugbear, I've retooled those looks.) But the kobold works for me just fine. Like yours too, Claudio.
http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/280/1/b/height_study_4_by_steeldragons-d308r4j.jpg
http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/280/1/b/height_study_4_by_steeldragons-d308r4j.jpg
Ed_Laprade
Adventurer
I want evil gnomes with red eyes and BLUE!!! skin. If they ain't blue, they ain't Kobolds. That's where the name of the mineral and color come from, dag nabbit! But D&D has never done them right, and I don't expect they ever will.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
I DON'T see an issue with clever trap-builders who don't make good clothes or accessories. What, just because I can build a car from scratch must mean that I also have lovely couture? It speaks to their psychology: they're not well-dressed not because they COULDN'T be, but because they don't value it. They value making blundering idiots impale themselves on nefariously designed traps.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
Indeed, being skilled at making one thing doesn't mean they have interest in making another.
I've always sort of regarded Kobolods as an almost chimerical creature. It's like some gnome asked to be blessed by a dragon, and the dragon consented, but turned it into a cruel joke. Sort of like the whole Drider deal, it's both a boon and a punishment. In this case the dragon throught it would be horribly funny to turn them into dog-rat-lizard freakshows and then convince them that their new, twisted bodies were quite the gift. Being rather dim-witted, they believed it, and now a very well-spread creature, kobolds remain the eternal running joke of all dragon kind.
Anyway, I don't think they should be particularly dog, rat, or lizard-like, it should be a little bit of all of those things. Small, hunched, annoying, clever, cruel, evil. I mean every bit of the worst aspects of these things is what should make a kobold.
Similar Threads
