D&D 5E Unearthed Arcana: Draconic Options

SkidAce said:

I figured, even back then, that they were like platypus'.....

Egg laying, have venom, not a reptile. I mean I get your point, but different people view and conceive things differently.

View attachment 135814

Click to expand...

darjr said:

This WotC article about Kobolds notes the change from dog like to reptilian. Bonus it includes an article about Tuckers Kobolds.

TTRPG Products & Accessories | Roleplaying Games | Dungeons & Dragons

Browse the latest TTRPG products, accessories, and board games from Dungeons & Dragons.

dnd.wizards.com

Click to expand...

Whizbang Dustyboots said:

It's also a popular internet convention.

Click to expand...

Sacrosanct said:

Nothing about being reptilian. Nothing about laying eggs. But many comparisons to mammals (dogs)

Click to expand...

Faolyn said:

Neither of which are seriously reptilian to me. The person who said Synopsids was probably a lot closer to the mark.

Click to expand...

Sacrosanct said:

I literally showed you the actual passage from Moldvay's basic (that you originally cited) that does not say what you think it does, and yet you keep making these claims. I don't know what to tell you at this point. Of course it must seem like you're right when you ignore all the evidence that shows you're wrong. The weird thing is why you're so adamant to repeat false assumptions after the evidence shows the contrary. Also, it seems like you're bouncing your timelines all over the place. Citing 1989 as proof they were always that way when they weren't prior to that, then throwing in 1977 when it doesn't say what you're wanting it to say? I dunno, makes no coherent argument.

It's entirely reasonable for someone to look at a kobold, see it has nipples, and read the description, which says they are dog-like with scaly skin (not reptilian anywhere in that description), and think they are more mammal like than reptile. You didn't. Good for you. Entirely reasonable. But why you're so hard on telling others who did think that, that they are wrong, makes no sense when looking at how they were actually described.

Click to expand...

Sacrosanct said:

Let's look at how they are actually described in the books most people saw for the first two and a half decades of the game:

OD&D:
KOBOLDS: Treat these monsters as if they were Goblins except that they will
take from 1 - 3 hits (roll a six-sided die with a 1 or 3 equaling 1 hit, a 3 or 4
equaling 2 hits, etc.).

1e:
Description: The hide of kobolds runs from very dark rusty brawn to a rusty
black. They have no hair. Their eyes are reddish and their small horns are
tan to white. They favor red or orange garb (as an aside, when I first saw the image in the MM, I thought they were wearing mail armor, not scales, especially since the image of them fighting the green dragon in the DMG didn't have scales really at all, but were clearly mini dog men).

Moldvay Basic:
View attachment 135819

Mentzer Basic:
View attachment 135821


2e MM:
Barely clearing 3 feet in height, kobolds have scaly hides that range from dark, rusty brown to a rusty black. They smell of damp dogs and stagnant water. Their eyes glow like a bright red spark and they have two small horns ranging from tan to white. Because of the kobolds' fondness for wearing raggedy garb of red and orange, their non-prehensile rat-like tails, and their language (which sounds like small dogs yapping), these fell creatures are often not taken seriously.

Nothing about being reptilian. Nothing about laying eggs. But many comparisons to mammals (dogs)

edit the first real comparisons to reptiles were not kobolds per se, but urds, which are described as "distant relatives" of kobolds:

Urds are distant relatives of kobolds. Three feet tall, with short ivory horns, their bodies are frail and covered with mottled yellow to brick red scales. Their leathery, batlike wings span 8 feet

Click to expand...

dave2008 said:

Really? The repeated description of scales doesn't hint to a reptilian nature to you?

Click to expand...