PDA

View Full Version : Kobolds as PCs...Why?!



Tequila Sunrise
2009-01-07, 11:41 PM
I don't know if this fad has passed, or if it existed prior or since the end of the 3e era, but help me out here...what exactly is the appeal? In terms of their in-game/rp situation, they're cannon fodder. The lowest of the low. They're like high school jock wanna-bes; they think they have a claim to fame because they're scaly like dragons, but even the dragons use them as trainable maggots. In terms of their mechanical situation...well in earlier editions they're blatantly inferior to literally everyone else. In 4e they're roughly balanced with other PC races, but still...meh.

Please, help me understand. I just don't get it.

TS

togapika
2009-01-08, 12:03 AM
In terms of their in-game/rp situation, they're cannon fodder. The lowest of the low. They're like high school jock wanna-bes; they think they have a claim to fame because they're scaly like dragons, but even the dragons use them as trainable maggots.

TS

You answered your own question. If there's some kind of race in a game that's the one always being picked on, sooner or later someone will want to champion it...

The Neoclassic
2009-01-08, 12:13 AM
I'm sorry, but it sounds like your only rationale is "I don't like kobolds because I personally do not find them cool." If that's wrong, correct me, but I'm sure anyone could say the same about any other race. Some of us just like kobolds, and that's why we play them- like why people tend to play any race.

monty
2009-01-08, 12:20 AM
In terms of their in-game/rp situation, they're cannon fodder. The lowest of the low.

Clearly, you've never read Races of the Dragon.


No one ever suspected that being underestimated was the kobolds’ goal...Only the foolish overlook the threat that kobolds actually pose.

nightwyrm
2009-01-08, 12:25 AM
Personally, I blame Meepo.

xPANCAKEx
2009-01-08, 12:44 AM
Some people still build characters based on flavour. Flawed, unoptimised characters... characters with 'quirks'....but goshdarnit they're just fun to play

chiasaur11
2009-01-08, 12:50 AM
Plus, Deekin and Pun-pun.

And the Oracle.

Erk
2009-01-08, 12:57 AM
Play a campaign with intelligent enemy kobolds, rather than cannon fodder. The ones so fondly nicknamed "tucker's kobolds".

Then come back and tell me they are the weakest enemy race. :D


Seriously, though, when I a DMing (ie. always) I see kobolds as a plucky, misunderstood wild race mostly trying to eke out an existence as, essentially, sentient vermin. They don't make grandiose plots to wipe out civilization, they just live on the fringes. Sure, their morals often don't match those of the more mainstream races, but they're not as evil as propaganda makes them out to be. Just savage.

I like 'em.

Danzaver
2009-01-08, 12:59 AM
I remember back in 2nd edition skills and powers was when I first was drawn to the kobold. Kobold pcs had an absolutely awesome ability called 'attacked last' which meant that no enemy would bother attacking them unless they had drawn particular attention to themselves, or there were no better targets.

This led too Ooglin Ratlicker, one of my longest running characters. A kobold fighter who believed he was a paladin... laying on hands was always fun. In 3rd edition when paladins were no longer restricted to humans he really became one... good times.

It's sort of a silly question as to why people play them. People love an underdog, fanboys and girls will go nuts over the fact that they are supposedly related to dragons, some people find them adorable, and most of us have a shrieking little midget inside us that we enjoy bringing out from time to time.

EDIT: oh, and in my games, Kobolds are NEVER cannon fodder. They are the wiliest tricksiest little sods. I mean come on, an entire race of creatures with the craft(traps) skill...

Roderick_BR
2009-01-08, 01:21 AM
My first character ever in D&D, back in AD&D, was a kobold. It was funny. But then again, in a group of 8, there had only 3 or 4 races from the Player's Handbook.

Bosh
2009-01-08, 01:24 AM
Some people still build characters based on flavour. Flawed, unoptimised characters... characters with 'quirks'....but goshdarnit they're just fun to play

Kobolds really aren't that weak mechanically in 3.5ed. As long as you don't care at all about Strength +2 Dex, natural armor and being a 30' movement small creature more than makes up for -2 Con. For wizards and sorcerers they're one of the best races out there bar none.

Callos_DeTerran
2009-01-08, 01:29 AM
Plus, Deekin and Pun-pun.

And the Oracle.

Maybe Deekin, Meepo, and the Oracle. If anything Pun-pun has made me want to play kobolds less out of sheer disgust. That's right..I dislike Pun-pun enough that I somehow find a kobold with a magical pump-action shotgun less cool.

Random NPC
2009-01-08, 01:36 AM
Kobolds really aren't that weak mechanically in 3.5ed. As long as you don't care at all about Strength +2 Dex, natural armor and being a 30' movement small creature more than makes up for -2 Con. For wizards and sorcerers they're one of the best races out there bar none.

Sorcerer Kobolds are the shizzle. Forget about the Dragonwrought cheese. Kobolds have access to the spells meant for Dragons and the cool sorcerer spells (wings of cover, anyone?).

monty
2009-01-08, 01:44 AM
Also, look at the Kobold domain. Kobold clerics are mean enemies.

Bayar
2009-01-08, 01:44 AM
Artificiers have acces to them too...

Limos
2009-01-08, 02:04 AM
I've always felt that the Kobolds got seriously shafted when they put the world together.

They are stuck with the monster races, even though they are probably on par intellectually with all the civilized races. They are always shown to be cunning engineers and trapmakers. They try so hard and adventurers just come along and slaughter them for daring to be born short and scaly.

I keep waiting for a new edition to come out where the Kobolds rise up with Steampunk technology and exterminate every one of the civilized races.

Seriously, Elves have had how long to perfect their technology? And they are still basically medievil?

The Humans caught up in no time flat compared to the Elves, and the Kobolds have even shorter lifespans yet they are just as skilled, if not more so, than many human artisans.

As the Humans surpass the long lived races so too will the monster races surpass the Humans.

monty
2009-01-08, 02:10 AM
The Humans caught up in no time flat compared to the Elves, and the Kobolds have even shorter lifespans yet they are just as skilled, if not more so, than many human artisans.

Actually, kobolds have long lifespans. They hit old age at 120.

Prometheus
2009-01-08, 02:17 AM
I've always thought of PC race as something much more important to the fluff, background, RP-aspect of the character than it ever was on the mechanical part. So when people seek out dragonwrought kobolds for the same reason they seek out strongheart halflings and whisper gnomes, it makes me sad. Don't get me wrong, kobolds are a legitimate choice for a PC race, but I really think that they get too much attention. If we are talking alternative races, I much prefer goblins and lizardfolk.

monty
2009-01-08, 02:20 AM
I've always thought of PC race as something much more important to the fluff, background, RP-aspect of the character than it ever was on the mechanical part. So when people seek out dragonwrought kobolds for the same reason they seek out strongheart halflings and whisper gnomes, it makes me sad. Don't get me wrong, kobolds are a legitimate choice for a PC race, but I really think that they get too much attention. If we are talking alternative races, I much prefer goblins and lizardfolk.

Well, dragonwrought kobolds are pretty special, to be fair.

And I do prefer goblins, too.

The Neoclassic
2009-01-08, 02:25 AM
Don't get me wrong, kobolds are a legitimate choice for a PC race, but I really think that they get too much attention. If we are talking alternative races, I much prefer goblins and lizardfolk.

You will get no argument about the excellence of goblins from me. They are similarly undervalued (apparently kobold-mania missed my locale), but that's a topic for another thread. :smallwink:

Thurbane
2009-01-08, 02:27 AM
I've always thought of PC race as something much more important to the fluff, background, RP-aspect of the character than it ever was on the mechanical part. So when people seek out dragonwrought kobolds for the same reason they seek out strongheart halflings and whisper gnomes, it makes me sad. Don't get me wrong, kobolds are a legitimate choice for a PC race, but I really think that they get too much attention. If we are talking alternative races, I much prefer goblins and lizardfolk.
Seconded. On all counts, including goblins and especially lizard men (they get all the babes) :smallbiggrin:

http://i44.tinypic.com/abjrde.jpg

Samakain
2009-01-08, 02:55 AM
Theres no doubt about the level of optimization in 3.5, and kobolds exist as a polar opposite of this trend. The weakest, the weediest, the meekest, the perpetual underdog! They have the blood of freaking /dragons/ in there veins and they still come up short to most everything else. (Races of the Dragon not included *cough*)

You can't see the fun of taking that perpetual vermin and sticking of 10 levels of barbarian with a medium creatures greatsword? (penalties be damned)

epic fun even if ineffectual in comparison to other builds

Goblins, Lizardfolk also.

I ran a Lizardfolk Paladin of Bahamut for 18 levels, freaking rocked, Hazark Shineytooth! Slayer of Things!

Khanderas
2009-01-08, 03:00 AM
I don't care about scaliness or related to dragons, but my appeal to play a kobold would stem from them being underdogs.
The game world basically thinks of them as sentient rats, scutting in at night stealing food and crap on the tables and justly scheduled for extermination.

They are problebly horrible statswise, but I never cared about that. My first character was a dwarven arcanist, before that actually was viable with max str. The str came useful exactly once, in a barroom armwrestle without wagering... so I guess it never was useful. (no joke, rolled stats and lowest changed to a 6. Dwarven chars in that system got 4d6 for str instead of the normal 3d6... rolled 3 6'es and one 5...).

I kinda toyed with the idea of a world where Kobolds are the civilized race, building empires largely in peace (with heavier races as muscle). Would be a fun thing to toss normal humans from a universe where humans are dominant into such a world where humans are the vermin race who raid kobold villages with excessive force. :smallamused:

kpenguin
2009-01-08, 03:05 AM
Play a campaign with intelligent enemy kobolds, rather than cannon fodder. The ones so fondly nicknamed "tucker's kobolds".

Then come back and tell me they are the weakest enemy race. :D

You know, any small race could do what Tucker's kobolds did.

Khanderas
2009-01-08, 03:17 AM
You know, any small race could do what Tucker's kobolds did.
Yes, that is the point, atleast as how I interpreted it. Tuckers kobolds are not based on a "race: Kobold" ability, but just smart playing in a world that (at best) try to enslave the race for cheap labour.
Nonetheless, it was kobolds that did it so it stuck.

Keld Denar
2009-01-08, 03:29 AM
Personally, I blame Meepo.

Dude, Meepo = Win. Especially in Pub games. Its not uncommon to hear cries of MEEPOWNED in a game where a Meepo gets a triple kill with beyond godlike status. Rawr DotA!

Besides, this, like some other threads that TS starts, are just opinion, flavored with some kind of personal bias. So TS, please show us on the doll where the bad kobald's trap hit you.

That is all.

Skaven
2009-01-08, 04:30 AM
Because Kobolds are simply awesome, in short.

in long..

1, They're the Underdogs. Many like to root for the underdog. In game terms, you're doing far more than your min-maxed brethren PC's. You are making the most out of a bad situation and still persevering.

2, related to 1: many find vanilla D&D too easy. Kobolds let you challenge yourself.

3, Kobolds -look- awesome.

4, Before races of the dragon, they were very interesting potentially, lore wise as they had a connection of dragons. After races of the Dragon, they have some of the best and more interesting lore of all, imo.

5, Many find them 'cute'. possibly related to 3, but appeals to a different crowd.

6, Thematic reasons. Many see them as verminous, which makes them very awesome for many of those who like rogueish type characters. Same reason I love Skaven. Nothing as cool to me as a Rat-man rogue! Kobolds feel kinda this way to me, except they have a thematic magical tint as well.


Anyway.

What this all boils down to, is that everyone likes the feel of different races and characters. I fail to see why anyone cannot see that others just enjoy different things.

bosssmiley
2009-01-08, 05:54 AM
I blame it on Roger Moore and Tucker's Kobolds myself. :smallamused:

That said: Dragon #141. The article "Hey, want to be a Kobold?" (also included rules Goblin and Orc PCs) was my first introduction to humanoids as playable characters in AD&D.
I understand BECMI D&D did similar with monster progressions (heck, you could play anything up to a sphinx IIRC!). So this goes back quite a way in D&D history (certainly pre-dating this johnny-come-lately Meepwho?).

Humanoid love was even more pronounced in Runequest, the Uz (Trolls and Trollkin) and Ducks were fan favourites and had whole sourcebooks dedicated to their cultures.

As to why: who doesn't want to hop the fence and play the bad guys now and then?

Grail
2009-01-08, 06:57 AM
Ok, lets look at this a bit more.
Kobolds = generally weak and cowardly, poor choice for characters, especially powerful ones.

Anime and hollywood has a fascination with having weak or normally fragile individuals as killing machines and surprisingly physical powerhouses. Children, young teen girls, effeminete androgynous males who have about as many muscles as most posters on here would.... (ie, not many). Yet we see these figures again and again take on and defeat (often brutally and with little to no effort) individuals that they have no right to even challenge.

This is the lure of the Kobold. The weak made strong. Be underestimated but have ultimate power.

That, and there's another reason.... a simple two words.

Why not?

toasty
2009-01-08, 07:25 AM
Dude, Meepo = Win. Especially in Pub games. Its not uncommon to hear cries of MEEPOWNED in a game where a Meepo gets a triple kill with beyond godlike status. Rawr DotA!

That is what I thought to... then I realized that this must be some DnD thing that I've never heard of. A bit of search-fu confirmed this.

As to the topic... I probably wouldn't let my players play as Kobolds, since they are considered well... monsters...

jcsw
2009-01-08, 07:54 AM
As to the topic... I probably wouldn't let my players play as Kobolds, since they are considered well... monsters...

Like Gnomes?

Bayar
2009-01-08, 08:10 AM
@^ RAWR !

Kobolds are not monsters, they are just misunderstood.


Plus, they are cute !!! Ever read the first adventure from Urban Arcana ? Yeah, Marty is like Roland the clown, only cuter and not gay.

Baxbart
2009-01-08, 09:15 AM
most of us have a shrieking little midget inside us that we enjoy bringing out from time to time.

Sig'ed... had to be done.

d12
2009-01-08, 10:26 AM
I'm with the OP here. I just don't see any kind of appeal. They're little yipping monsters with delusions of grandeur that exist so mooks have something to beat up. The whole "we are so like dragons!!" thing is alright as some kind of racial mass delusion, but actually taking steps to implement that really struck me as some of the worst Mary Sue-ification I've ever seen. And I fail to understand how people can reconcile the absurd kind of overhauling they've gotten with their claims that they're little underdogs (the word "Scrappy" comes to mind, and not in any remotely positive connotation) and that therein lies their appeal. All of the "no they're actually really powerful" and "no they're just misunderstood" noise I hear really does nothing to improve my impressions of them and in fact only leads me to the conclusion that they were appropriately handled in the first place as a second-order mook race (ie, mooks consider them mooks). So yeah, all of that power-up rot is apocryphal as far as I'm concerned. Give me some good old-fashioned beating-on-little-runts-while-laughing-at-their-quaint-little-fantasies over the little yipping Mary Sues they've been turned into.

Sometimes I like to wonder what things would be like if the devs spent half the effort they sunk into their kobold wharrgarbl (sp?) on..well..just about anything else. But the boat on that has apparently sailed and I can only be left feeling somewhat empty inside that the D&D-verse has been made just a bit more one-dimensional by their focus on those little mongrels to such an irrational degree.

Tengu_temp
2009-01-08, 10:55 AM
I like goblins more than kobolds. Probably due to the fact that when you say "kobold", I imagine a small, wrinkled tunnel-dwelling humanoid, not a mini-lizardman. I liked Deekin, though.


You know, any small race could do what Tucker's kobolds did.

Not to mention that any mid-to-high level party that gets wiped out by Tucker's kobolds either consists of people with absolutely no strategic ability, has an ass DM who likes to use DM fiat ("no, you cannot shoot back at the kobolds!"), or has very bad luck.

lisiecki
2009-01-08, 10:55 AM
Sometimes I like to wonder what things would be like if the devs spent half the effort they sunk into their kobold wharrgarbl (sp?) on..well..just about anything else. But the boat on that has apparently sailed and I can only be left feeling somewhat empty inside that the D&D-verse has been made just a bit more one-dimensional by their focus on those little mongrels to such an irrational degree.

So, You think 3.X would have been vastly different if the developers had added 8 extra pages of content, 4 extra racial variants, and half of an "ecology of" artical?

DAMN

That is a lot of potential gone to waste

Morty
2009-01-08, 11:00 AM
Well, some people prefer to play a race that's not "OMG so kewl" but modest, or even an "underdog" race. And kobolds fit that description. They're neither elves who get praised about how absolutely awesome they are every time they appear nor warforged who lack only Lazorz to fit their image. But they're shifty, sneaky and smart. An equal amount of people despise the whole idea of races being "cannon fodder" for adventurers.
Of course, I should note that I tend to ignore the whole dragon-related nonsense WoTC dumped on kobolds. And that goblins are much cooler anyway.

Paramour Pink
2009-01-08, 12:26 PM
I just don't appreciate kobolds. This could really easily be because I've never read their fluff, but in my defence, they seem incredibly boring to me at a glance. That doesn't encourage me to correct that. The stats change seem fine and dandy to me. I tend to be more attracted to races that give a plus to charisma...and oddly those that give a penalty. I'm never really happy (short of choosing the human race) unless that stat is being messed with somehow. Because they're boring to me, I just can't easily imagine anything entertaining about kobolds (which is silly, considering an entertaining character is more likely defined by themself, not their race). Maybe I just unfairly have a thing against smaller races (I don't like gnomes or halflings much). D:

Irreverent Fool
2009-01-08, 12:37 PM
Actually, kobolds have long lifespans. They hit old age at 120.

This is incorrect. The average kobold lifespan is 1-2 rounds.

obnoxious
sig

Tequila Sunrise
2009-01-08, 12:55 PM
Thanks everyone! I still think kobolds are ugly dirty little villains, but at least now I get why they're popular.

TS

JMobius
2009-01-08, 12:59 PM
Add another one to the completely uninterested list.

I dislike the fantasy kitchen sink, and generally only allow a fairly narrow set of races from which to draw from. Kobolds will never be on that list. They simply don't offer any point of interest that isn't better filled by someone else.

Surfing HalfOrc
2009-01-08, 12:59 PM
I used to underutalize (meaning: allowed PCs to mindlessly slaughter!) kobolds in my game, then I saw "Home Alone."

After that, I don't use the "Turns, screeches, throws spear, dies horribly" script anymore. Kobolds have tramaking skills, some have spells, and have the advantage of knowing their lairs like the backs of their scaly little hands.

As for playing as PCs, I also sometimes like playing the weak, but clever, characters. Kobold sorceror, goblin assassin, halfling rogue. (Yeah, I know the last is the standard. So do you!)

The Neoclassic
2009-01-08, 01:23 PM
Thanks everyone! I still think kobolds are ugly dirty little villains, but at least now I get why they're popular.

And you are entirely entitled to that opinion. :smallsmile:


Add another one to the completely uninterested list.

I dislike the fantasy kitchen sink, and generally only allow a fairly narrow set of races from which to draw from. Kobolds will never be on that list. They simply don't offer any point of interest that isn't better filled by someone else.

I never, ever have a kitchen sink approach. All my races are carefully chosen and I am that evil DM who will burn your splatbooks in front of you. That said, I tweaked the kobolds' fluff a bit and found an excellent place for them in my campaign. For me, it is about the fluff, and since I usually write my own, there's no race that is the "best" for any one role, really.


I just don't appreciate kobolds. This could really easily be because I've never read their fluff, but in my defence, they seem incredibly boring to me at a glance.

Yeah, well, I find halflings extraordinarily boring. It's all in what interests us and what doesn't. Again, I write my own fluff, so I don't care that much about the "official" info about the race, heh.

FMArthur
2009-01-08, 01:33 PM
I happen to currently have a DM with a great love of "Tucker's Kobolds". That is, trap-making jerks who've specifically designed their lairs to murder adventurers. We spent three sessions in some Kobolds' ridiculously large labyrinthine caves. The session he made after hearing about sovereign glue (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/WondrousItems.htm#sovereignGlue) was hellish, featuring screams made by players and not their characters. Picture this: the four remaining party members (of seven), all with extremely low health, are being chased through a natural cave by an enormous swarm of kobolds trying to finish them off. The chase ends at a rapidly-flowing cave river with a small dock and a rowboat with exactly enough room for four people. We thought it was salvation, but it was a TPK because the boat contained a trap that broke a bottle of sovereign glue and affixed us helplessly to it.

monty
2009-01-08, 02:22 PM
As to the topic... I probably wouldn't let my players play as Kobolds, since they are considered well... monsters...

How so? They form stable societies, their mental abilities are the same as a human, and they're humanoid. What about that says "monster"?

Zaphrasz
2009-01-08, 02:44 PM
I am always hearing about these "Tucker's Kobolds," can anyone tell me what exactly they are? From what I gathered, they are kobolds that will massacre groups of unprepared PCs. A link would be nice if possible.

Morty
2009-01-08, 02:46 PM
How so? They form stable societies, their mental abilities are the same as a human, and they're humanoid. What about that says "monster"?

Because PC races say so, apparently.

Ecalsneerg
2009-01-08, 02:58 PM
Because PC races say so, apparently.

In 3.5, if you go by the Monster Manual, only humans aren't monsters.

Jayngfet
2009-01-08, 03:03 PM
Because PC races say so, apparently.

This is the same for every monster race, anyone who's read cityscape knows that the only reason orcs, goblinoids, lizardfolk, kobolds, and just about every "evil" group that isn't some sort of "evil mirror" of the "good guys" have few permanent civilizations is that the good guys raid their villages regularly and act shocked by retaliation. They specifically mentioned adventurers being fond of this.

Waspinator
2009-01-08, 03:08 PM
Because you no take candle?

Morty
2009-01-08, 03:10 PM
This is the same for every monster race, anyone who's read cityscape knows that the only reason orcs, goblinoids, lizardfolk, kobolds, and just about every "evil" group that isn't some sort of "evil mirror" of the "good guys" have few permanent civilizations is that the good guys raid their villages regularly and act shocked by retaliation. They specifically mentioned adventurers being fond of this.

Wait, they actually wrote that? Wasn't it a joke or something?:smallconfused:

JMobius
2009-01-08, 03:15 PM
Wait, they actually wrote that? Wasn't it a joke or something?:smallconfused:

I hope not. That would be awesome. I love deconstructing D&D.

Totally using that. :smallbiggrin:

Morty
2009-01-08, 03:19 PM
I hope not. That would be awesome. I love deconstructing D&D.

Totally using that. :smallbiggrin:

Well, I'm not saying it's not totally great. It's just that it seems on contrary to all other WoTC material except maybe Eberron.

Bryn
2009-01-08, 03:26 PM
I am always hearing about these "Tucker's Kobolds," can anyone tell me what exactly they are? From what I gathered, they are kobolds that will massacre groups of unprepared PCs. A link would be nice if possible.
http://www.tuckerskobolds.com/
Google!

archmage45
2009-01-08, 03:31 PM
http://www.tuckerskobolds.com/


*edit*
Bah!! Ninja-ed!!

Zaphrasz
2009-01-08, 03:36 PM
Thanks for the link. I assumed it was a board joke and did a search of the forums. This would explain why I didn't find it. Kind of disappointing, actually. "Throw a billion of them at the players and give them no retaliation" actually seems like a fairly badly designed encounter.

Zeful
2009-01-08, 03:56 PM
Thanks for the link. I assumed it was a board joke and did a search of the forums. This would explain why I didn't find it. Kind of disappointing, actually. "Throw a billion of them at the players and give them no retaliation" actually seems like a fairly badly designed encounter.

1 Kobold is 1/4CR. So it's more like throw 12-18 (a CR3 to 3-1/2 roughly) at them, in confined passages, with their own small tunnels. The rest is simple knowledge of the rules. You can make 1 attack as a standard action and move in the same turn, so with some planning your players won't actually have a chance to respond.

KKL
2009-01-08, 04:12 PM
That's it?

Color me utterly unimpressed. I was expecting something other than idiots running around willy nilly getting frequently hit by vastly inferior opponents.

Zeful
2009-01-08, 04:16 PM
That's it?

Color me utterly unimpressed. I was expecting something other than idiots running around willy nilly getting frequently hit by vastly inferior opponents.

Would 4 marines run when confronted by 20 guerrillas warriors? Same principle applies.

KKL
2009-01-08, 04:23 PM
Would 4 marines run when confronted by 20 guerrillas warriors? Same principle applies.

Apples and oranges, my friend.

Inyssius Tor
2009-01-08, 04:29 PM
Apples and oranges, my friend.

Yeah, what kind of dumbass tunnel rat could possibly be afraid of the Viet Cong?

Bayar
2009-01-08, 04:30 PM
Well, some people prefer to play a race that's not "OMG so kewl" but modest, or even an "underdog" race. And kobolds fit that description. They're neither elves who get praised about how absolutely awesome they are every time they appear nor warforged who lack only Lazorz to fit their image. But they're shifty, sneaky and smart. An equal amount of people despise the whole idea of races being "cannon fodder" for adventurers.
Of course, I should note that I tend to ignore the whole dragon-related nonsense WoTC dumped on kobolds. And that goblins are much cooler anyway.

They could be WARFORGED DRAGONFIRE ADEPTS ! IMMA CHARGING MY ENTANGLING EXHALATION !!!!


You know, Tucker's Kobolds are some tipical tactics. But a smart guy might use a twinked out white dragonspawn dragonwrought kobold with that thing from the Eberron book and the races of the dragon web enhancement II to get ...oh about +4 to their effective sorcerer caster level (spells per day / spells known). And just nuke the whole party from orbit. Or go UAN and create undead warriors from your fallen comrades that get healed by cold nukes. Nukes that nuke PC's and heal the undead "mooks".


Yeah, I always tell people, dont underestimate the little bastards because they will **** you so hard, your grandchildren and your ancestors will feel it.

Zenos
2009-01-08, 04:34 PM
Yeah, I always tell people, dont underestimate the little bastards because they will **** you so hard, your grandchildren and your ancestors will feel it.

Or just so hard you won't have any children. You may, for example, die young (and unloved of course).

Bayar
2009-01-08, 04:38 PM
Or just so hard you won't have any children. You may, for example, die young (and unloved of course).

Kobolds force-breed the PC's with experimental gnomes to create unholy abominations ?

Zenos
2009-01-08, 04:39 PM
Kobolds force-breed the PC's with experimental gnomes to create unholy abominations ?

They'd never do that, that is just digusting.

I mean, Half-PC's? Do you know the WIS and CHA penalties they'd get?! :smalltongue:

Bayar
2009-01-08, 04:42 PM
They'd never do that, that is just digusting.

I mean, Half-PC's? Do you know the WIS and CHA penalties they'd get?! :smalltongue:

What was I thinking ? :eek:

Walken
2009-01-08, 04:45 PM
My friend is playing a Kobold Cleric right now just to spite me (as I am a Gnome).

Our characters were not yet amicable (I didn't consider him my ally and nor did he) and we were in a battle, so I was attacking him for pure roleplay as a gnome and opportunist. My DM threatened to dock XP if I attacked him again. Mind you we were fighting 6 Kobolds at 2nd level with 4 people (not scary or urgent).

Gotta love railroading RP.

JackMage666
2009-01-08, 04:47 PM
It bears mentioning that Kobolds do have mental stats identical to a human. Strictly from PHB races alone -
Kobolds are smarter than Half-Orcs. Not much of a feat, but when you consider that Half-Orcs are considered "civilized" (This may not hold true for all campaigns of course.)
Kobolds are more influential than Dwarves and Half-Orcs. This means that, people are more likely to go see a Kobold who's Juggling than a Dwarf who's reciting poetry.
If you include the MM subraces -
Kobolds are more intelligent than a fair number of elf-subraces.
Kobolds are better liked than Deep Gnomes

Now, I'm not saying that Kobolds are the end all-be all, just that their mental stats show that they're not just some worthless vermin that no one can possibly like - WotC even seemed to plant in that Kobolds shouldn't be treated as utter vermin, as most other monstrous races at least have Cha penalties.

Zenos
2009-01-08, 04:52 PM
What was I thinking ? :eek:

This makes me want to sig those two lines.

Zeful
2009-01-08, 05:10 PM
Apples and oranges, my friend.

Explain. I really want to hear read this.

Vortling
2009-01-08, 05:52 PM
Explain. I really want to hear read this.
It's simple enough. Your comparisons are off based off mechanical differences between the real world and D&D. 20 level 1 kobolds will have much less chance to hit 4 mid level PCs than the 20 guerilla fighters will have to hit the 4 marines. It also looks like any sort of fire resistance on the PCs part would have turned the encounter from scary, deadly to simply annoying. It also would have helped if the PCs didn't run around screaming like chickens with their heads cut off.

Grail
2009-01-08, 06:18 PM
That's it?

Color me utterly unimpressed. I was expecting something other than idiots running around willy nilly getting frequently hit by vastly inferior opponents.

Completely agree. And it also sounded like the DM was just being an ass as well.



This dungeon had corridors that changed all of your donkeys into huge flaming demons


..................right

Jayngfet
2009-01-08, 11:37 PM
Wait, they actually wrote that? Wasn't it a joke or something?:smallconfused:

Yes, they wrote that in all seriousness, pointing out adventurers in particular. Going to lengths to explain how everything is crude because they don't expect it to last after some adventuring party comes along. That's why most of their buildings are simply made and their doors are just strips of leather over the portal.

Thurbane
2009-01-09, 12:46 AM
That's it?

Color me utterly unimpressed. I was expecting something other than idiots running around willy nilly getting frequently hit by vastly inferior opponents.
Ditto. I was expecting much more from the vaunted Tucker's Kobolds. :smalleek:

Ramza00
2009-01-09, 12:54 AM
Kobolds are the Tyrion Lannisters of the D&D world, that is why they are awesome

FMArthur
2009-01-09, 01:35 AM
"Tucker's Kobolds" isn't really about the kobolds, or any creature at all. It isn't by default extremely difficult or easy, it's just a style of dungeon; a trap-focused dungeon, usually geared towards efficient use of as little resources as possible. Granted, a DM who invokes the name Tucker's Kobolds is certainly going to try his hardest to make it extremely difficult, but it's more about the traps than anything else.

FoE
2009-01-09, 01:44 AM
http://www.tuckerskobolds.com/
Google!

That's a neat link, but it doesn't really describe the original incident that inspired "Tucker's Kobolds." It's actually a sequel to Tucker's Kobolds with a different moral altogether: don't let fear turn you into a screaming idiot. It doesn't say why they were scared in the first place.

In the original version, the PCs hadn't expected ANY trouble. The eponymous Tucker, a DM with some military experience, had built a multi-level dungeon with kobolds on the first level and some far more nastier things on subsequent lower levels. His players were all fairly high-level PCs with a number of hirelings; in other words, they were a well-armed and extremely tough group.

But the kobolds were extremely well-prepared. That link largely describes what happened: they used hit-and-run tactics on the PCs, shooting arrows through tiny murder-holes and then immediately moving on. They led the PCs into traps and flooded the tunnels with flaming oil. Eventually, the party was GLAD to get to the basement level with the vicious demons.

Back in 1E, the flavour of kobolds was just "scaly dog-men with 1-4 hit points." There was really nothing to them. They were the kind of monster that even a first-level wizard could defeat one-on-one if he had no spells and was only armed with a dagger. Granted, it was a close match, but they were cheap XP bait for first-level heroes. Giant rats were scarier because they at least could give you diseases. And sure enough, the PCs had expected to mop the floor with the kobolds, but these one hit point wonders ended up kicking their collective asses.

But this story isn't about killer kobolds in particular; hell, switch "kobolds" with "goblins" or "leprechauns" and you've got the same tale. Tucker was able to turn it into one of the most memorable encounters of their lives simply by being inventive. It's a good lesson for DMs that you don't necessarily have to throw the biggest and baddest monsters at a party in order to challenge them.

But more importantly, Tucker's Kobolds shows us that, with the right tactics and preparation, even an inferior opponent can defeat a superior one.

SoD
2009-01-09, 02:27 AM
This is incorrect. The average kobold lifespan is 1-2 rounds.

obnoxious
sig

That's correct. Because every single kobold is a 1st level warrior who tries to melee. When I DM, kobolds encountered out of their lairs are typical as humans, or elves, or orcs. Usually played as smart as they are meant to be. When encountered in their lair, I ask myself; how would they defend their lair? Hmm...with smart kobold made traps.

from
SoD

Khanderas
2009-01-09, 02:42 AM
In 3.5, if you go by the Monster Manual, only humans aren't monsters.And sometimes, they are the worst monsters of all...:smallwink:

Zen Master
2009-01-09, 03:34 AM
People often fail to grasp that kobolds are the leaders of the greenskins.

I'll leave that standing there for a moment or two.

Of all that lot of evil guys who populate our underground - orcs and goblins and all of them - kobolds have the highest intelligence, and are by far the most likely to have magical ability.

If a kobold (with class levels) isn't a mage or sorcerer - well then he's most likely a rogue. If anyone has ample opportunity to have flanking, then it's a kobold. Being swarmed by kobold rogues can be quite remarkably deadly.

Of course, being clever little gits, they often let bigger greenskins believe they are in charge. That helps on many levels - for instance, when someone wants to challenge for leadership, he will go an challenge the big, stupid orc the kobold sorcerer lets belive he calls the shots. When adventurers come to kill the BBE, they will slaughter the big stupid orc - while the kobold sorcerer slips quietly out the back.

They are out there. Lurking. Making plans. To a kobold, everyone is either a pawn, or an enemy. But at least the pawns are relatively safe.

=D

kamikasei
2009-01-09, 03:48 AM
People often fail to grasp that kobolds are the leaders of the greenskins.

Yeah, 'cause all greenskins know each other, you know. They have meetings, man.

FatR
2009-01-09, 04:35 AM
Would 4 marines run when confronted by 20 guerrillas warriors? Same principle applies.
Marines aren't superhumans that can cut stone and shoot lightning out of every orifice.

Anyway, count me among people who think that this is just party being dumb.
Maybe they were used to being coddled, with monsters never using any tactics and never trying to actually kill the party at all. Because, you know, powerful opponents also can be smart and use dirty tactics, except they often are so much better at this than 1 HD mooks, that any less-than-ideal party will just die if they do so.

FatR
2009-01-09, 04:43 AM
Yes, they wrote that in all seriousness, pointing out adventurers in particular. Going to lengths to explain how everything is crude because they don't expect it to last after some adventuring party comes along. That's why most of their buildings are simply made and their doors are just strips of leather over the portal.
Exaggerate much? "Such cities are crudely functional, with little thought
for aesthetics. Decoration is minimal: trophies from prior kills, or walls daubed with bright colors, with little sculpture or artwork. Other races assume that
these primitive humanoids have no interest in beauty. Although this is true to an extent, the main factor is that orcs and goblinoids expect their communities—even the larger cities—to be temporary. They constantly struggle with other races, other tribes of their own kind, and marauding adventurers. Thus, they view any effort beyond providing the necessities of life as a waste of time and energy."

Skaven
2009-01-09, 05:23 AM
Given the option in D&D, I will almost always be a Kobold.

Morty
2009-01-09, 08:40 AM
Yes, they wrote that in all seriousness, pointing out adventurers in particular. Going to lengths to explain how everything is crude because they don't expect it to last after some adventuring party comes along. That's why most of their buildings are simply made and their doors are just strips of leather over the portal.

Awesome. I don't know how yet, but I must get this book.

RebelRogue
2009-01-09, 12:06 PM
In general, I hate the "fantasy zoo" tendency some players/parties tend towards: just because there's rules that allow you to play just about anything in the game, it doesn't mean you should consider character creation an "anything-goes" situation. The considerations of style and general party composition should take priority. In certain evil campaigns, I'd think kobolds were appropriate, but in your general heroic band of adventures: never! Yes, I know that kobolds aren't "always Lawful Evil", but come on: good kobolds is about as stylish as doing a Drizzt clone character...

I don't hate kobolds as a race as such, but they should be used where appropriate!


5, Many find them 'cute'.
Kobolds are sadistic, cowardly, nasty little backstabbing creatures. That's cool with me for a LE race. But if you consider it cute, something's wrong with you:smalltongue:

JMobius
2009-01-09, 12:21 PM
In general, I hate the "fantasy zoo" tendency some players/parties tend towards: just because there's rules that allow you to play just about anything in the game, it doesn't mean you should consider character creation an "anything-goes" situation. The considerations of style and general party composition should take priority. In certain evil campaigns, I'd think kobolds were appropriate, but in your general heroic band of adventures: never! Yes, I know that kobolds aren't "always Lawful Evil", but come on: good kobolds is about as stylish as doing a Drizzt clone character...

I don't hate kobolds as a race as such, but they should be used where appropriate!

Seriously, I hate that "fantasy zoo" phenomenon.

I had a potential GM ask me last night if I needed to know about the setting and campaign hook before I made a character. I can't imagine doing it any way else!

Prometheus
2009-01-09, 12:26 PM
People often fail to grasp that kobolds are the leaders of the greenskins.
1) Kobolds don't have green skin, therefore are out of the club
2) Kobolds live in the mountains and therefore are not suited for commanding the overwhelming legions of greenskins that exist everywhere else
3) Level 0 Ogre can still crush a level 2 Kobold, Level 0 Bugbear can still crush a level 1 Kobold, and any level 0 greenskin can crush a level 0 Kobold.
4) While there are probably more kobolds than there are of any one type of greenskin, there are more greenskins than there are kobolds

monty
2009-01-09, 02:18 PM
In our current campaign, my current DM wouldn't let me play a kobold because he was worried I'd overshadow the rest of the party (I was making a swordsage).

Morty
2009-01-09, 02:46 PM
I don't hate kobolds as a race as such, but they should be used where appropriate!


So, I take it you wouldn't allow your players to play Evil or Neutral elves or dwarves? And you'd complain to your GM if faced with dwarven or elven villain? I mean, statistically, there's about as big chance for an Evil elf as there's for a Good kobold.

mangosta71
2009-01-09, 03:09 PM
It's simple enough. Your comparisons are off based off mechanical differences between the real world and D&D. 20 level 1 kobolds will have much less chance to hit 4 mid level PCs than the 20 guerilla fighters will have to hit the 4 marines. It also looks like any sort of fire resistance on the PCs part would have turned the encounter from scary, deadly to simply annoying. It also would have helped if the PCs didn't run around screaming like chickens with their heads cut off.

That's not all, though. A smart player would have taken advantage of his options. Ready an action and pop those kobold bastards the second they show their filthy little faces. Or, if the tunnels were as extensive as the DM claimed, the walls had to have been paper thin. Bust 'em down and clean out the vermin. If the party was killing "huge flaming demons on level ten" it wasn't a bunch of lowbies. They had to have been in their teens, which means gear and special abilities. A fireball through a murderhole would have worked wonders. Or disintegrate the wall and let the whole party get in on the action. Frankly, the fact that the players were incapable of coping is more impressive than anything the kobolds did. Really just a case of simple incompetence.

The Neoclassic
2009-01-09, 03:18 PM
I had a potential GM ask me last night if I needed to know about the setting and campaign hook before I made a character. I can't imagine doing it any way else!

Yeah, any player or DM who thinks characters can be made without any knowledge of the setting is not my sort to play with (no offense to anyone). I like versimilitude; "fantasy zoo" or "kitchen sink" lacks it.


In certain evil campaigns, I'd think kobolds were appropriate, but in your general heroic band of adventures: never! Yes, I know that kobolds aren't "always Lawful Evil", but come on: good kobolds is about as stylish as doing a Drizzt clone character...

I strongly disagree. If you are using usual fluff, then you need quite a good reason why your kobold is good or neutral. While "Because he felt unloved in his evil society and possessed a strong innate desire to make the world a better place" is very Drizz't-like and (in my opinion) lame, there are in fact some plausible explanations. Cliche ones? Perhaps. But I think it is an unfair and inaccurate representation to say that all good kobolds are as tacky as Drizz't clones.

I'd also like to point out that if you are in, oh, a homebrewed setting with unique fluff, good or neutral kobolds may in fact be appropriate. In my primary homebrew setting, there are feral kobolds, who tend to be vicious and immoral, but also those who live in their own nation to the north. While still evil as a society, a neutral or even good kobold from this land would not be at all unrealistic, provided there was a bit of background to back it up. Also, such good kobolds would be much more likely drawn to a life of adventure, since the general culture and leadership of the nation does not have good(-aligned) values.


So, I take it you wouldn't allow your players to play Evil or Neutral elves or dwarves? And you'd complain to your GM if faced with dwarven or elven villain? I mean, statistically, there's about as big chance for an Evil elf as there's for a Good kobold.

Exactly. Unless humanoids are far more likely to stray from good than from evil, or evil races have a far more ingrained alignment (which seems unlikely since in the 3.5 MM both elves and kobolds have a "Usually" alignment), good members of evil races and evil members of good races are similar in likelihood.

chiasaur11
2009-01-09, 03:41 PM
Also, Kobolds have a society where a few neutral folks could get by.

I mean, if a guy seems less than 100% dedicated to evil, fine. Just put him on the frontlines when adventurers come.

Plus, Kobolds suck up to dragons in general. A group goforing for a metallic, from what I've read, doesn't seem impossible.

Bayar
2009-01-09, 03:56 PM
In general, I hate the "fantasy zoo" tendency some players/parties tend towards: just because there's rules that allow you to play just about anything in the game, it doesn't mean you should consider character creation an "anything-goes" situation. The considerations of style and general party composition should take priority. In certain evil campaigns, I'd think kobolds were appropriate, but in your general heroic band of adventures: never! Yes, I know that kobolds aren't "always Lawful Evil", but come on: good kobolds is about as stylish as doing a Drizzt clone character...
I don't hate kobolds as a race as such, but they should be used where appropriate!


Kobolds are sadistic, cowardly, nasty little backstabbing creatures. That's cool with me for a LE race. But if you consider it cute, something's wrong with you:smalltongue:

They say that kobolds can be LE, NE or LN. So I dont see the problem in a LN kobold...


Oh, and claiming that kobolds are evil and stuff...I dont remember KOBOLDS crushing down the mines of GNOMES when GNOMES were working off their ass...if i think better, GNOMES NEVER DID work off their asses. But Garl Glittergold, like the joker he is, decides to CRUSH THEM FOR THE LULZ. And say "LOL, JOKE !" .


This is why gnomes are monsters in 4th edition :cool: (the little ****ers)

chiasaur11
2009-01-09, 03:58 PM
They say that kobolds can be LE, NE or LN. So I dont see the problem in a LN kobold...


Oh, and claiming that kobolds are evil and stuff...I dont remember KOBOLDS crushing down the mines of GNOMES when GNOMES were working off their ass...if i think better, GNOMES NEVER DID work off their asses. But Garl Glittergold, like the joker he is, decides to CRUSH THEM FOR THE LULZ. And say "LOL, JOKE !" .


This is why gnomes are monsters in 4th edition :cool: (the little ****ers)

I agree. The Kobold crusade of genocide against gnomes feels quite reasonable, as these things go.

FoE
2009-01-09, 05:19 PM
That's not all, though. A smart player would have taken advantage of his options. Ready an action and pop those kobold bastards the second they show their filthy little faces. Or, if the tunnels were as extensive as the DM claimed, the walls had to have been paper thin. Bust 'em down and clean out the vermin. If the party was killing "huge flaming demons on level ten" it wasn't a bunch of lowbies. They had to have been in their teens, which means gear and special abilities. A fireball through a murderhole would have worked wonders. Or disintegrate the wall and let the whole party get in on the action. Frankly, the fact that the players were incapable of coping is more impressive than anything the kobolds did. Really just a case of simple incompetence.

Travel back in time 25 years. Tell a D&D player to ready an action. Get ready for the confused look he gives you.

The article does mention a 12th-level wizard. However, even at 12th level in First Edition, I'm not even sure a pure magic-user would even have access to Disintegrate. I was a 14th-level magic user and I could cast it once. As for Fireball, it was a fairly dangerous spell to use and a sure way to fry your entire party in an enclosed space.

The problem with you guys is that you assume that the players in that scenario are working with the same knowledge and gaming system that you are today. This was a 1E scenario, and that system was quite a bit different than 3.5E or even 4E.

monty
2009-01-09, 05:42 PM
They say that kobolds can be LE, NE or LN. So I dont see the problem in a LN kobold...

No, kobold clerics of Kurtulmak can be any of those. Regular kobolds can be whatever they want, and anybody who says otherwise doesn't understand the alignment system.

Zeful
2009-01-09, 05:48 PM
Plus, this party had never heard of Tucker's Kobolds. They never knew what to expect."When I joined the gaming group, some of the PCs had already met Tucker's kobolds, and they were not eager to repeat the experience."




That's not all, though. A smart player would have taken advantage of his options. Ready an action and pop those kobold bastards the second they show their filthy little faces.Reading an action didn't exist.
Or, if the tunnels were as extensive as the DM claimed, the walls had to have been paper thin.True, but only near the openings.
Bust 'em down and clean out the vermin. If the party was killing "huge flaming demons on level ten" it wasn't a bunch of lowbies. They had to have been in their teens, which means gear and special abilities. A fireball through a murderhole would have worked wonders.Ignoring the fact that fireball created cubes that filled the area from the point of impact, and the area was small enough so the party would have been caught in the blast. So says the wizard with "'What, in these narrow corridors?' he yelled back. 'You want I should burn up[sic] all up instead of them?'"
Or disintegrate the wall and let the whole party get in on the action. Frankly, the fact that the players were incapable of coping is more impressive than anything the kobolds did. Really just a case of simple incompetence.Alternatively the DM intelligently set up the encounter to be as hard as possible using simple enemies.

Twilight Jack
2009-01-09, 05:53 PM
That's not all, though. A smart player would have taken advantage of his options. Ready an action and pop those kobold bastards the second they show their filthy little faces. Or, if the tunnels were as extensive as the DM claimed, the walls had to have been paper thin. Bust 'em down and clean out the vermin. If the party was killing "huge flaming demons on level ten" it wasn't a bunch of lowbies. They had to have been in their teens, which means gear and special abilities. A fireball through a murderhole would have worked wonders. Or disintegrate the wall and let the whole party get in on the action. Frankly, the fact that the players were incapable of coping is more impressive than anything the kobolds did. Really just a case of simple incompetence.

One thing that should probably be noted is that Tucker's Kobolds come to us from the hoary days of 1st edition. In the olden days, things weren't always as clearly defined as they later became. DMs had a tremendous amount of leeway to guide the action as they saw fit, and the tactical options we take for granted in 3.x were not always clearly spelled out in the rules as written.

Also, AC and THaC0 in those days, not to mention the fact that even high-level characters had far fewer hit points, meant that even kobolds had a decent chance of landing telling blows on a mid-level PC, given enough of them.

Lastly, the various "obvious" tactics of today's D&D were not yet nearly so well-defined and codified amongst the player community. Using disintegrate to redefine the parameters of the dungeon? A nifty trick, but not one that most casual players would have thought of or prepared for in 1987 (surely, many would have, but the point stands). Sending a fireball back into the kobold's smaller tunnel system? Back in 1E, fireballs expanded to fill the space given if cast into too small a space. What happens when those kobolds close a door behind them within their tiny tunnels? That's right, the fireball comes right back into the main passageway to finish taking up its space and fries the party (see above regarding DMs having way more leeway).

In short, you're right. Tucker's Kobolds as written would hardly be the challenge in 3.5 that they were in the old days, at least without giving some of those kobolds some class-levels and making some serious changes to the ways in which the dungeon was constructed. But let's not deride a group of players from the days of the killer Gygax dungeon for panicking and running for their lives. It was a different world back then.

only1doug
2009-01-09, 06:22 PM
*sigh*

I dislike the defense of Tuckers Kobolds.

Yes the Kobolds were a threat but the PC response made them much worse.


We turned to our group leader for advice.

"AAAAAAGH!!!" he cried, hands clasped over his face to shut out the tactical situation.

We abandoned most of our carried items and donkeys to speed our flight toward the elevators, but we were cut off by kobold snipers who could split-move and fire, ducking back behind stones and corners after launching steel-tipped bolts and arrows, javelins, hand axes, and more flaming oil bottles. We ran into an unexplored section of Level One, taking damage all the time. It was then we discovered that these kobolds had honeycombed the first level with small tunnels to speed their movements.

When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

If PC take the threat seriously and work to eliminate it as soon as they identify it they won't have unpleasant surprises.

Yulian
2009-01-09, 06:31 PM
Kobolds really aren't that weak mechanically in 3.5ed. As long as you don't care at all about Strength +2 Dex, natural armor and being a 30' movement small creature more than makes up for -2 Con. For wizards and sorcerers they're one of the best races out there bar none.

The AEG d20 supplement Monsters showed just how dangerous a fairly high-level Kobold Sorceress could be.

Also, and this is something a lot of players and some DMs forget...Kobolds have a racial INT of 10. This means that as a race, they are on par with humans. Now, if you know that in any fight, your foes are pretty much always going to be both larger and stronger than you, you adjust your tactics accordingly. They also have a +2 racial bonus for Trapmaking.

Get the picture? If their INT is average, then there are going to be dumb ones, and there are going to be smart ones, and smart ones with Character Class levels, too.

Here's the deal:

Kobold characters possess the following racial traits.

–4 Strength, +2 Dexterity, –2 Constitution.

Small size: +1 bonus to Armor Class, +1 bonus on attack rolls, +4 bonus on Hide checks, –4 penalty on grapple checks, lifting and carrying limits 3/4 those of Medium characters.

A kobold’s base land speed is 30 feet.

Darkvision out to 60 feet.

Racial Skills: A kobold character has a +2 racial bonus on Craft (trapmaking), Profession (miner), and Search checks.

Racial Feats: A kobold character gains feats according to its character class.

+1 natural armor bonus.

Special Qualities (see above): Light sensitivity.

Automatic Languages: Draconic. Bonus Languages: Common, Undercommon.

Favored Class: Sorcerer.

Level adjustment +0.

That's not really very crippling, is it? 0 level adjustment, in fact. If the PCs expect to just wander in and wipe out a village of these things, they better be able to wipe out a human village with the same ease, because that's more-or-less the same odds they're facing.

Too often, I see players and especially DMs forget that certain monsters have INT scores that indicate an ability to plan. It's like the sort of DM who has an Illithid stand in the center of the party trying to Mind Blast everyone instead of fighting like the genius it is.

Kobold tend towards Law, they have average intelligence...what's to keep them from being PCs? They may be a bit uncivilized, but they are portrayed in no way as mindless. Really, the argument should be from the other direction for any sort of monster race. To wit: why should this not be a PC? Just be prepared for IC prejudice, disturst, and all that and it should be fun.

- Yulian

Twilight Jack
2009-01-09, 06:33 PM
*sigh*

I dislike the defense of Tuckers Kobolds.

Yes the Kobolds were a threat but the PC response made them much worse.



When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

If PC take the threat seriously and work to eliminate it as soon as they identify it they won't have unpleasant surprises.

You'll get no arguments from me that the party could have handled the situation better.

On the other hand, trying to minimize Tucker's Kobolds by pointing out all the ways a competent 3.x party would have eliminated them without blinking is doing them a bit of disservice.

RebelRogue
2009-01-09, 11:04 PM
So, I take it you wouldn't allow your players to play Evil or Neutral elves or dwarves? And you'd complain to your GM if faced with dwarven or elven villain? I mean, statistically, there's about as big chance for an Evil elf as there's for a Good kobold.
I'd allow evil elves or dwarves, if that was what the campaign called for! I still generally hate the "fantasy zoo" as mentioned above! As for dwarven or elven villains, well, I've used such before (though rarely), and I generally still don't like the idea of a good kobold (or whatever evil race) PC! To some extent, it's the old principle that opponents gets less showtime than PCs (which spurred the difference between CR and ECL, for instance): anomalies that happen for a limited period of time (story arc or even just encounter) are less "weird" than some that happens all the time (PC). Mostly though, I guess it does boil down to my personal tastes.

monty
2009-01-09, 11:09 PM
I'd allow evil elves or dwarves, if that was what the campaign called for! I still generally hate the "fantasy zoo" as mentioned above! As for dwarven or elven villains, well, I've used such before (though rarely), and I generally still don't like the idea of a good kobold (or whatever evil race) PC! To some extent, it's the old principle that opponents gets less showtime than PCs (which spurred the difference between CR and ECL, for instance): anomalies that happen for a limited period of time (story arc or even just encounter) are less "weird" than some that happens all the time (PC). Mostly though, I guess it does boil down to my personal tastes.

All right then. Describe a situation where your players couldn't play an evil elf, and then explain why a good kobold wouldn't be appropriate either. And using race-specific campaigns doesn't count (for example, no "you are a bunch of humans trying to do X").

Llama231
2009-01-09, 11:14 PM
Kobalds seem to have the most fluff options, even more than humans.

RebelRogue
2009-01-09, 11:33 PM
All right then. Describe a situation where your players couldn't play an evil elf, and then explain why a good kobold wouldn't be appropriate either. And using race-specific campaigns doesn't count (for example, no "you are a bunch of humans trying to do X").
Why should a race-specific campaign not be allowed as an example? That would be an excellent, real-gaming reason to limit the races available. But anyway: Your basic heroic, good-aligned adventuring party would qualify. Evil characters wouldn't really fit, and as I've stated a few times by now: I generally dislike when people see the Monster Manual as an extension of the PHB! Therefore, I mostly stick with standard adventuring races.

To be honest, in actual play, I rarely set down hard and fast rules like that, mostly because most people I play with have the same idea of what "D&D party aesthetics" is. So usually, I'm open to player suggestions/exceptions. I just hate the situation when everybody plays something outageously non-iconic!

monty
2009-01-09, 11:42 PM
Why should a race-specific campaign not be allowed as an example? That would be an excellent, real-gaming reason to limit the races available. But anyway: Your basic heroic, good-aligned adventuring party would qualify. Evil characters wouldn't really fit, and as I've stated a few times by now: I generally dislike when people see the Monster Manual as an extension of the PHB! Therefore, I mostly stick with standard adventuring races.

There's nothing wrong with a race campaign, but it's no argument against kobolds, because the same argument could be used for any other race. Furthermore, you could play a kobold campaign just as easily as any other.

So a good kobold wouldn't fit in a good-aligned party? I have to admit, you lost me there.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/kobold.htm
See the "Kobold Characters" section? That's there for a reason. They're meant to be a playable race.


To be honest, in actual play, I rarely set down hard and fast rules like that, mostly because most people I play with have the same idea of what "D&D party aesthetics" is. So usually, I'm open to player suggestions/exceptions. I just hate the situation when everybody plays something outageously non-iconic!

You only play cliches? I'm glad I'm not in your group.

RebelRogue
2009-01-09, 11:59 PM
You only play cliches?
No, but we don't need to use a thousand different races in order to make interesting characters.

woodenbandman
2009-01-10, 12:01 AM
Dude kobolds are CUTE. I love them soooooo much. Also, they're, like, the strongest race ever, because they can achieve the broken power of the game more efficiently than anyone else. But mostly, they're just really freakin' fun to play as. I would personally love to see a kobold swordsage, or better, an ARCANE KOBOLD SWORDSAGE.

Zeful
2009-01-10, 12:01 AM
See the "Kobold Characters" section? That's there for a reason. They're meant to be a playable race.
Point. Counterpoint: If they were meant to be a Player Character race, they would have been included in the PHb. The Kobold Character section is for DMs to build enemies from scratch.

The Neoclassic
2009-01-10, 12:11 AM
I think this has hit a point of:

Person A: I like kobolds.
Person B: I don't.

We have different tastes and different campaign worlds. If you are running a game and good kobolds don't fit, peachy. If you are running a campaign and they do, fantastic. But lobbing back and forth whether they are appropriate as PCs, at this point, seems to be boiling down to just what fits in a certain setting; it's silly to argue (and I don't think anyone would) that good kobold PCs would fit in nearly all settings or nearly none.

monty
2009-01-10, 12:26 AM
No, but we don't need to use a thousand different races in order to make interesting characters.

And I don't like being arbitrarily limited to seven. Not everybody plays like you.

RebelRogue
2009-01-10, 12:28 AM
I think this has hit a point of:

Person A: I like kobolds.
Person B: I don't.

We have different tastes and different campaign worlds. If you are running a game and good kobolds don't fit, peachy. If you are running a campaign and they do, fantastic. But lobbing back and forth whether they are appropriate as PCs, at this point, seems to be boiling down to just what fits in a certain setting; it's silly to argue (and I don't think anyone would) that good kobold PCs would fit in nearly all settings or nearly none.
I pretty much agree, although my point is not limited to kobolds. My gripe is about the general idea of every damn monster ever created being viable as PCs. If you like/use kobold PCs, more power to you. I generally don't, but whatever floats (or sinks :smallwink: ) your boat!

Prometheus
2009-01-10, 12:35 AM
I believe I missed my opening in the conversation, but I don't think people mind being redirected at this point. 3.0 MMI doesn't list the stats for playing Kobolds, but I believe some point in 3.x kobolds were listed with -1 LA. It was favored among underdogs, because they were less the average character, but it was also favored by munchkins because it was so much more worthwhile to have another PC level than whatever benefits racial benefits and ability scores were lacked (especially with casters not hurt by the stats). Later they errata'd it out, but then felt bad that kobolds sucked so they errata'd kobolds again and put them in Dragonomicon. So that is the history of the two sided kobold coin.

Unless you want to get into dog-headed kobolds again...

Jayngfet
2009-01-10, 12:52 AM
I pretty much agree, although my point is not limited to kobolds. My gripe is about the general idea of every damn monster ever created being viable as PCs. If you like/use kobold PCs, more power to you. I generally don't, but whatever floats (or sinks :smallwink: ) your boat!

The thing is that people want variety, and like using race or class X(someone wrote a way to overpower commoners and a viable aristocrat is even admitted by WOTC). Playing an average kobold is different from an average elf, like an average elf is an average dwarf or halfling. Lots of people like the roleplay opportunities kobolds specifically have and the racial backstory overall.

RebelRogue
2009-01-10, 01:01 AM
The thing is that people want variety, and like using race or class X(someone wrote a way to overpower commoners and a viable aristocrat is even admitted by WOTC). Playing an average kobold is different from an average elf, like an average elf is an average dwarf or halfling. Lots of people like the roleplay opportunities kobolds specifically have and the racial backstory overall.
I understand, I just see the general idea that you as a player somehow have the right to plunge anything into any campaign as flawed. Also, it seems to me, that "the average kobold" is not what people want to play...

monty
2009-01-10, 01:06 AM
I understand, I just see the general idea that you as a player somehow have the right to plunge anything into any campaign as flawed. Also, it seems to me, that "the average kobold" is not what people want to play...

Of course, the DM always has the final say. I'm arguing from that end; there's no reason for the DM to limit it in many cases.

And of course not. Would you want to play "the average human"? Probably not.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-01-10, 01:07 AM
I know that citing TV Tropes is highly unfashionable and. . .
Well, you've been forewarned.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheWoobie

The Woobie's appeal lies in how it allows the audience to experience catharsis. The Greek philosopher Aristotle proposed that tragedy is popular because it allows people to experience and let out their negative emotions, "cleansing" themselves. The Woobie is popular for this same reason. A story with The Woobie allows the audience to vicariously experience relief from some pain by fantasizing about relieving The Woobie's pain. (No, not that way! Well, Okay, sometimes.)

Fantasy roleplayers love their big tall glass of catharsis. Sometimes they favor the "underdog" flavor. End of story.

The Neoclassic
2009-01-10, 01:10 AM
I understand, I just see the general idea that you as a player somehow have the right to plunge anything into any campaign as flawed.

Agreed. Many DMs like to have settings well-fleshed out ahead of time and tossing in new races or extraordinarily unrealistic race/class/AL combinations without a very strong rationale (not to mention, whether they'd realistically be accepted by the other PCs) is not peachy with them. I am one such DM. A lot of the players I know like the sense of consistency and direction this gives them. It's not a ban on the fun, it's a ban on the broken kitchen sink that will drown all the world's versimilitude.

That said, I am one of those DMs who allows kobold PCs (and goblins and dark elves) in many of my campaigns.

Jayngfet
2009-01-10, 01:40 AM
I understand, I just see the general idea that you as a player somehow have the right to plunge anything into any campaign as flawed. Also, it seems to me, that "the average kobold" is not what people want to play...

Which is why people generally don't do that, there are lots of stat wise reasons not to. Ignoring LA there's still all these races weak against light and these races who have no opposable thumbs or specialized weaknesses or conditions. There's a reason I have yet to play a zietegiest or a blink dog(though I've wanted to do both).

KKL
2009-01-10, 01:49 AM
Which is why people generally don't do that, there are lots of stat wise reasons not to. Ignoring LA there's still all these races weak against light and these races who have no opposable thumbs or specialized weaknesses or conditions. There's a reason I have yet to play a zietegiest or a blink dog(though I've wanted to do both).

Blink Dog campaign would be the best.

Ganurath
2009-01-10, 02:01 AM
I'm seeing a lot of people cite "kobolds as outcasts" in that they want to RP a downtrodden race to champion. Apparently being a champion doesn't need a Strength score, but can't survive -2 to Int and Cha, if you get my meaning. If you don't: If they want to champion a downtrodden race, why wouldn't they champion one that has more RP depth and less 'shoot on sight' like half orcs?

The Neoclassic
2009-01-10, 02:06 AM
I'm seeing a lot of people cite "kobolds as outcasts" in that they want to RP a downtrodden race to champion. Apparently being a champion doesn't need a Strength score, but can't survive -2 to Int and Cha, if you get my meaning. If you don't: If they want to champion a downtrodden race, why wouldn't they champion one that has more RP depth and less 'shoot on sight' like half orcs?

Why do half-orcs necessarily have more roleplaying depth? I'm not saying they are not equally interesting as kobolds; I am disputing that in all/most circumstances they are notably more so. People pick what they will based on what they are interested in. I've never liked to play half-orcs (though I love them in OotS), but I'm guessing you do; again, this all goes back to that weird little quirk we like to call "Personal preference."

monty
2009-01-10, 02:08 AM
I'm seeing a lot of people cite "kobolds as outcasts" in that they want to RP a downtrodden race to champion. Apparently being a champion doesn't need a Strength score, but can't survive -2 to Int and Cha, if you get my meaning. If you don't: If they want to champion a downtrodden race, why wouldn't they champion one that has more RP depth and less 'shoot on sight' like half orcs?

Half-orcs aren't cute. You know, Charisma penalty and all that.

KKL
2009-01-10, 02:10 AM
If they want to champion a downtrodden race, why wouldn't they champion one that has more RP depth and less 'shoot on sight' like half orcs?

I believe you have mixed up your races, sirrah.

Jayngfet
2009-01-10, 02:18 AM
I'm seeing a lot of people cite "kobolds as outcasts" in that they want to RP a downtrodden race to champion. Apparently being a champion doesn't need a Strength score, but can't survive -2 to Int and Cha, if you get my meaning. If you don't: If they want to champion a downtrodden race, why wouldn't they champion one that has more RP depth and less 'shoot on sight' like half orcs?

Because humans are accepted and orcs just got their own accepted empire, and then there's prolly elitists who don't like that orcs are so popular thanks to WOW(since the warcraft kobold is completely different).