Kobolds - canine vs reptilian

[Tanarii]

Anyone else still portray Kobolds the old way, as dog-men, albeit scaly ones?

They've had a long history of being a weird blend of little dog-men and reptilian, the species even being called Canis Minor in Orcs of Thar. But 3e made made them reptilian subtype, and in 5e I've seen them not only portrayed as dragon allies/worshipers, but even as little dragon-men.

I know my Kobold descriptions have thrown, including the growls and barks they make in combat, have thrown off some players from properly identifying what they are at first. :smallamused: I don't hide what common enemy creatures even first level adventurers would be aware of, of course. If they're confused I just tell them. But still, it's interesting the direction that Kobolds have gone.

[stoutstien]

I've used both and a third option that is closer to gremlins than anything else.

[Naanomi]

I liked the lap-dog men, even played as one in those humanoid-handbook days, but I've adopted them as dragon servitor species in my own setting and so tend to envision them as little lizardmen anymore

[Kuulvheysoon]

I'm kind halfway between the two? They've got their yapping and barking, but they've also got the nice development that Races of the Dragon gave 'em.

[DeadMech]

I think I prefer the reptilian version. If for no other reason than because I actually know lore and interesting things about them that way.

Not that little dog people isn't interesting in it's own right. It would just require me to do more leg work in research or coming up with things myself.

[Dienekes]

Honestly, I portray them as halfling-sized naked mole rats more than dog-men or mini-dragons. Having them be eusocial burrowers more or less explained their warriors near suicidal tactics.

But then I pretty much always use D&D lore as more of a suggestion than anything else.

[SLOTHRPG95]

I'm kind halfway between the two? They've got their yapping and barking, but they've also got the nice development that Races of the Dragon gave 'em.

Same. My kobolds always yip and snarl in combat, but they've got a mix of canine and reptilian features. In my campaign setting, the reason is they were basically small, burrowing dog-men but dragons shaped them over time with magic into a more reptilian form. Dragonwrought kobolds are the ultimate expression of this, but all kobolds still lay eggs and have scales.

[Segev]

Perhaps they are to dragons what dogs are to humans?

[Mastikator]

I'd consider both dragons and kobolds to be featherless and sapient dinosaurs rather than reptiles.

[Cheesegear]

Anyone else still portray Kobolds the old way, as dog-men, albeit scaly ones?

Nah. Gnolls exist.


But 3e made made them reptilian subtype, and in 5e I've seen them not only portrayed as dragon allies/worshipers, but even as little dragon-men.

Races of the Dragon gave them a significant update, and Volo's reinforces it.
The only thing I don't like about their ant-like society, is that they're indirectly tied to Tiamat. Which kind of annoys me since Tiamat already has Her stuff. Kurtulmak, the Kobold God, is also trapped forever, by Gnomes. You don't need to tie Kobolds to Tiamat, because they already have the exact same God in the exact same situation. Tiamat doesn't need more lore.

Additionally, Tucker's Kobolds has been leaned into hard in recent editions. I think more in order to separate them from Goblins.

[Hytheter]

This is tangential, but I noticed recently that the art 5e uses for kobolds depicts them with a very distinct black nose reminiscent of a dog's, which I presume to a be a nod to their dog-man origins.

[Kane0]

I prefer them reptilian/draconic, ive already got plenty of beast-man races in my setting

[Luccan]

Nah. Gnolls exist.


Gnolls are hyena-folk, though.

I like the little reptilian kobolds, but that's mostly a familiarity thing. I grew up mostly with 3e, when I was more obsessed with dragons and kobolds seemed the PC friendly way to be a little dragon-y from the beginning, at least in core. I don't think I've ever seen anything really inspiring about the old scaly dog-men version, so I don't have a strong opinion on it other than it seems like they were even more redundant with goblins.

[wilhelmdubdub]

I've been leaning into the draconic bloodline. I was thinking about next time Im DM im going to make them the standard red/brown color, but if they are worshipping a particular dragon they kinda change color and chameleon to the color of the dragon they worship.

[Cheesegear]

but if they are worshipping a particular dragon they kinda change color and chameleon to the color of the dragon they worship.

I do that when I want tie Winged Kobolds, Dragonshields and Scale Sorcerers to a bigger storyline. Certain Kobolds have been explicitly blessed by Tiamat (:smallyuk:), and Kobold Sorcerers have the Draconic Bloodline. But certain egg clutches in Races of the Dragon got breathed on by Chromatics, to create Dragonwrought. The closest thing in 5e to that are Dragonshields. To that end I strongly approve giving Kobolds chromatic scales around their head and shoulders, because that's what I do.

[LudicSavant]

Nah. Gnolls exist.

Hyenas are more closely related to cats than dogs.

[Unoriginal]

I mean both are good, but I've always found the "kobolds are a dragon subspecies" idea much more interesting in the D&D context.

[Millstone85]

Not only do I prefer draconic kobolds to canine one, but I also prefer them to dragonborn.

It is the contrast between their diminutive stature and the pride they take in their mighty relatives.

[Ettina]

"You no take candle!"

[Imbalance]

Personal headcanon has DB and half-dragon sorts as descendants of dragons, direct offspring in the case of the latter. Whether kobolds were initially created as such is something of a mystery, but in their generations of servitude they have become draconic, leaving them as a mix of their likely original dog-like form with pronounced dragon-like features.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Draconic.

Setting canon--

kobolds are to dragons what gnomes are to the inner planes--the product of influence on goblins[1]. A tribe of goblins that lives in the territory of a legendary-class dragon and (especially) swears allegiance to it find that within a generation, "blessed" individuals start being born. Within 3-5 generations (short ones, because goblins), basically all are "blessed" (ie kobolds). Scaled, vaguely draconic features, elemental powers (more rarely). If the dragon leaves or dies, the tribe starts slowly reverting back to regular goblins, but with a high chance of "throwback" being born in perpetuity.

There are "artificial" kobolds, but only one group. Made by fusing fragments of dragon souls into cloned gnome bodies. They breed true even without dragon influence, but are only one small tribe that runs the Little Dragon brewery/distillery, makers of some of the finest spirits on the continent.

[1] my goblins are a highly mutable species and are the base for ~80% of the "strange" races. Including humans. Is it small and humanoid? It's probably a goblin derivative. Is it medium and humanoid (and not an elf, a dwarf, or a goliath)? Then it's likely a hobgoblin derivative. But since hobgoblins are one of the three forms that goblins can take (being temporarily-transformed goblins created as an instinctive measure by a tribe under stress), it's goblins all the way down.

[Tanarii]

I liked the lap-dog men, even played as one in those humanoid-handbook days, but I've adopted them as dragon servitor species in my own setting and so tend to envision them as little lizardmen anymoreI was going to object to lap-dog, but I thought about it and terrier is technically a lapdog, and that's probably what most of the dog-faced-kobold art I've seen for them resembles. Especially Scottish terriers.

Bulldog faced is traditionally hobgoblins. (Or toad-faced.)

Pekingese is one kind of Orc in Mystara, but elsewhere I've pretty universally seen them described as porcine.


Perhaps they are to dragons what dogs are to humans?Maybe. Humans and other humanoids in general are often like favored slave/servant/pets to dragons (and giants) in tons of fantasy, including early D&D.

Kobolds specifically have transitioned to dragon-worshippers along the way though.


Nah. Gnolls exist.
Besides the hyena point already made, Kobolds and other non-gnoll humanoids are often described as animal-faced , not animal headed. Although in the case of Kobolds they're more reliably shown the entire head shaped like a combo terrier/lizard (and more recently draconian) kind of head.

[Dork_Forge]

I use them as a kind of dragonfolk, like Dragonborn.

As for the Hyena taxonomy, I'm sorry but I don't knw anyone that would look at a hyena and say it was closer to a cat than a dog. Both in general appearance and more subtle differences (non retractable claws, lack of tree climbing physiology in general and they're famous for being scavengers rather than hunters) they scream more dog than cat regardless what the structure of their inner ear is.

[Unoriginal]

As for the Hyena taxonomy, I'm sorry but I don't knw anyone that would look at a hyena and say it was closer to a cat than a dog. Both in general appearance and more subtle differences (non retractable claws, lack of tree climbing physiology in general and they're famous for being scavengers rather than hunters) they scream more dog than cat regardless what the structure of their inner ear is.

How an animal look has little to do their taxonomy. The T. Rex is closer to the chicken that it is to the crocodile.

Hyenas do look like dogs to an extent, but they're from the sub-order Feliformia.

[Dork_Forge]

How an animal look has little to do their taxonomy. The T. Rex is closer to the chicken that it is to the crocodile.

Hyenas do look like dogs to an extent, but they're from the sub-order Feliformia.

I'm aware of their taxonomy and addressed it in what I said, however I stand by what I said:

I doubt that anyone that didn't know their taxonomy would lean cat over dog, especially since they lack multiple traits (like the claws) that typically (but not universally) characterise Feliformia. Typically D&D players don't care about the inner ear structure of something in game, and I don't know anyone that would not say dog like for Gnolls (unless they preferred to specify Hyena like).

[hamishspence]

Yup - cats are extremely specialised and derived feliforms - hyenas branched off from cats very early in the evolution of the Feliforma group.

Hyenas and mongooses (another feliform) are much closer related to each other, than either are to cats.

[Witty Username]

I mean if you go back far enough what is the difference between a cat and a dog?
As for appearances, I like my scaly kind kobolds. I like the races of the dragon take on a weak species with proud lineage, untapped power, and savage cunning. But that may be memories of my old kobold wizard rogue, my third paper d&d character.

[Sigreid]

Honestly, I think the whole yapping thing comes from the Baluder's Gate game using that sound for the kobolds.

This is my kobold though: https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/3/3a/Monster_manual_1_-_Kobold_-_p57.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150930024349

[Tanarii]

Honestly, I think the whole yapping thing comes from the Baluder's Gate game using that sound for the kobolds.

This is my kobold though: https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/3/3a/Monster_manual_1_-_Kobold_-_p57.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150930024349Yup, that's the classic dog-headed with scales piece of art. There were a few other ones that were this 1e style iirc.

The tapping comes from the 2e edition MM description of the language.

The 2e monstrous manual one was okay too. Although a bit more rat-like.
http://www.mojobob.com/roleplay/monstrousmanual/images/kobold.gif

But the 2e monstrous compendium art was an abomination. And not just for the kobold. For everything. It was worse than 1e art, in that it clearly took intentional effort from skilled artists and it was still horrible. Highly disappointing in an edition of otherwise amazing art. :smallyuk: The only worse art in 2e I can think of was Planescape /shudder

[PhoenixPhyre]

But the 2e monstrous compendium art was an abomination. And not just for the kobold. For everything. It was worse than 1e art, in that it clearly took intentional effort from skilled artists and it was still horrible. Highly disappointing in an edition of otherwise amazing art. :smallyuk: The only worse art in 2e I can think of was Planescape /shudder

I'm probably a heretic. I can't stand any of the art from 2e and before. It's all horrible, like a cross between a fever dream and a bad trip, illustrated by a child. 3e is ok...sometimes. 4e is decent, if very much overdone. 5e is...ok. But not great.

[Tanarii]

I can't stand any of the art from 2e and before. It's all horrible, like a cross between a fever dream and a bad trip, illustrated by a child.
Larry Elmore, Jeff Easley, and Keith Parkinson. Of course, good stuff was usually cover art. But 2e was when they started (sometimes even full page) color art inside the books.

Just not for the monsters. And they went for a "make them look nasty" style for evil creatures, which ended up mostly making them look indistinguishable for the humanoids.

[Sigreid]

I'm probably a heretic. I can't stand any of the art from 2e and before. It's all horrible, like a cross between a fever dream and a bad trip, illustrated by a child. 3e is ok...sometimes. 4e is decent, if very much overdone. 5e is...ok. But not great.

Eh, I like the drawings in the original monster manual a lot better than the current art. But it's art, preferences are personal.

[JellyPooga]

I'm probably a heretic. I can't stand any of the art from 2e and before. It's all horrible, like a cross between a fever dream and a bad trip, illustrated by a child.

That's one of the reasons I *like* 2e art...the crude "childlike" style gives you the impression that what you're looking at isn't a photorealistic depiction, but a crude rendition drawn by someone that's seen something far worse than their artistic style is capable of rendering, or the best an artist could do based on a feverish ravings of a man driven mad by the visions he's seen. It lends fuel to the fire of imagination rather than limiting the possibilities. The kobold being an ambiguous combination of lizard, rat and dog on a spindly childlike frame is not an accurate description any more than the descriptions of "donkey-headed men" and "gold-digging ants" from Herodotus; it's a travellers interpretation brought home and vaguely or inaccurately remembered and inexpertly documented. Imagine a scene in a barroom full of travellers and adventurers;
"I came across the Kobolds of Derren-Vos! Horrible ratlike creatures that barked like a dog and claws longer than a kitchen knife!"
"Pah! I've been there and that's rubbish. They're miniature lizardfolk and nothing more. Friendly enough if you've something to trade."
"What are you raving about? My caravan was ambushed by them like we was being harvested like grain. Military precision and a cruel streak. I wouldnae dare go back to Derren-Vos, no sir."
"I heard they've got whisker and tail like a rat, but are covered in scales. They ride giant bugs, too. No doubt."
"They're demons from the pits of hell, I tell you. I saw one disappear in a puff of sulphurous smoke! Their eyes glow in the dark and they eat babbies"

Now imagine you're Volothamp Geddarm sitting in that barroom trying to piece together exactly what a Kobold looks like, what they are and how they behave.

So yes. Kobolds are, in my headcanon, something of a Schrödinger's Cat; both reptilian and dog-like and rat-like and demonic and draconic and whatever else you can imagine in between, because that's what the stories about them tell...until the Player Characters actually encounter some in one of my games, at which point they're whatever I need them to be at that time for that story.

[Mith]

I generally use the lore that Kobolds are descendents of goblins who swore service to dragons. They are then comparable to dragonborn who are descended from Bigfolk who made similar pacts (Humans, hobgoblins, dwarves, elves).

I also have a bit of lore that kobold tribes that are not a following a dragon can appoint a leader that suitably impress the kobolds as the head of the clan. This ritual acts like a reincarnation that turns the individual into a Dragonborn. I like to have the two races strongly interconnected.

[MaxWilson]

Anyone else still portray Kobolds the old way, as dog-men, albeit scaly ones?

... But still, it's interesting the direction that Kobolds have gone.

I don't really use kobolds much but I do still think of them as doglike little lizards, and I don't do the dragon connection. (Stirges, on the other hand, are larval dragons IMG.)

[Kuulvheysoon]

I don't really use kobolds much but I do still think of them as doglike little lizards, and I don't do the dragon connection. (Stirges, on the other hand, are larval dragons IMG.)

...okay, you can't drop that on us and not explain. Now you've caught my attention.

[stoutstien]

I don't really use kobolds much but I do still think of them as doglike little lizards, and I don't do the dragon connection. (Stirges, on the other hand, are larval dragons IMG.)

Lol. Stirges are larval trolls in my games.

[Joe the Rat]

Personally, I prefer the 1st ed scaly horned dog-men aesthetic. I was a big champion of the "Kobolds are related to dragons" in 2e era, particularly in their being longer-lived, egg-laying "goblin" types, and appearing in settings and scenarios tends to correlate with dragons without a humanoid cotype (Draconians supplant for Dragonlance, the lack of traditional dragons - and kobolds - in Dark Sun being examples). I might have seeded the pot on that idea, which makes me somewhat sorrowful.

The aesthetic shift aligns with 3rd ed's obsession with having weird mix-and-match-monsters somehow make sense (see the nightmare that is the hippogriff)

But I have a thought to that...

I generally use the lore that Kobolds are descendents of goblins who swore service to dragons. They are then comparable to dragonborn who are descended from Bigfolk who made similar pacts (Humans, hobgoblins, dwarves, elves).
...and it's something like that. 3+ Kobolds are pacted to Tiamat - whether through Kurtulmak, or if Kurtulmak's representation changes to fit the views of the subset. And their appearance reflects this connection.

So a tribe whose ancestors bonded or pacted with different entities could produce different morphisms. A historical connection with an Arcanoloth or Glabrezu could produce a distinctly dog-like appearance.

[KorvinStarmast]

Anyone else still portray Kobolds the old way, as dog-men, albeit scaly ones? Yeah, but that's due to long habits in Pre WoTC stuff.

but even as little dragon-men. I have gotten used to it. But all that makes Dragonborn is kobold's on steroids. :smallbiggrin:

[Cicciograna]

#TeamReptilians. In a way, I see them as part of a trio with Lizardfolks and Troglodytes, kind of like Goblins, Hobgoblins and Bugbears (even though I still consider the three reptilian races as separated, unlike goblinoids).

[MaxWilson]

...okay, you can't drop that on us and not explain. Now you've caught my attention.

Short version:

Dragons in my game are an r-strategist species (lots of cheap offspring, like mosquitos or frogs, as opposed to K-strategist species like humans with small numbers of expensive and valuable offspring), and there's only one dragon race instead of every dragon type being a different race. Dragons lay eggs which hatch into stirges, but they don't consider stirges to be dragons yet and feel no attachment or emotion whatsoever towards them (just as humans generally feel no particular emotion towards egg and sperm cells, as opposed to babies) until they eventually drink enough blood to become wyrmlings--and even then, adult dragons are still pretty cold-blooded about wyrmlings compared to human parents.

A dragon's color is determined by its personality, and it's at least theoretically possible for behavioral changes to manifest as color changes. Stupid, brutal dragons become white. Friendly, benevolent dragons become silver. Ruthless, tyrannical dragons become red; ruthless but individualistic dragons become blue; cruel, malicious dragons become black; crafty, sneaky dragons become green; kind but reclusive dragons become gold. (And I just don't use the other metallic dragon colors at all.)

Dragon names also get shorter as they age.

I imagine my take on dragons is partially influenced by Fred Saberhagen's Book of Swords, where dragons are likewise r-strategists.

[deljzc]

I've grown to like the new Kobolds.

I've built their entire race into the mythology of Dragons and dragonborn.

In my mythology, long ago (like 250,000 years), was the age of super beasts (i.e. dinosaurs and the like), but also the beginning of both Giants and Dragons (which basically fed on dinosaurs and the like). This was long before elves, humans, etc.

During the first war of Giants and Dragons, Annam slew the first Dragon, Io with his ax, cutting the "World Dragon" in half. At this point almost all of Annam's and Io's children were unique beings. Giants and Dragons didn't have need to "procreate", they were so great nothing in the world could harm them except each other.

But the first war changed that. Io being cut in half became Bahamut (the head) and Tiamat (the tail). The rift of how to respond to the Giants' aggression caused the division between Metallic and Chromatic Dragons. Bahamut wanted caution, Tiamat wanted immediate revenge.

Eventually, Tiamat won and led most of the great unique dragons of the age into a massive war against the Giants that destroyed Ostaria. Annam was so disgusted his "offspring" lost the war that he abandoned his people (it is possible Annam roams the Concordant Crossroads now). But the loss of unique life on both sides actually caused and opened the door for the other races to emerge. Most of the dragons and giants died.

This war lasted tens of thousands of years. The rift between metallic and chromatic dragons widened.

Eventually, about 100,000 years ago, a further extinction event happens on the planet (probably an asteroid or something). It mostly wipes out the dinosaurs and the large mammoth creatures of the age. Further losses in Giant and Dragon populations.

Once Tiamat sees the rise of other races (after the extinction event, elves, dwarves, humans, etc. start to populate the planet), she has to find a way to repopulate her dragons (she's not strong enough to just birth unique dragons like Io did). Tiamat's method is to create Kobolds (remember this is a time when many deities are creating races of sentient beings in their images).

Kobolds "appear" to be just a weak race of dragon servants and peasants, but the reality (and this is a highly kept secret) is that Kobold eggs very, very, rarely hatch a chromatic dragon. And since chromatic dragons are almost always so evil they would eliminate their young, the true purpose of the Kobold is to hide newborn dragons, taking them to remote locations and layers, where they raise them during those first decades until the dragons are old enough and strong enough to survive on their own.

Kobold eggs also occasionally hatch into winged kobolds, different color kobolds and of course, all the dragonborn. Kobolds, dragonborn and dragons are all the same species. In my campaign, only chromatic dragons are part of this culture. And only chromatic dragons are dragonborn.

Once Tiamat started this secret method of spawning dragons, Bahamut granted the normal ability to procreate to the metallic dragons as a "checks and balances" to Tiamat's evil plot. So metallic dragons actually have to mate and spawn and have eggs on their own (although very rarely) and also protect their young from evil dragons (who can think of nothing better than to kill a young metallic dragon).

Kobolds are really, really important. And no one really knows it except a select few in each Kobold community what their true purpose is. And their sole purpose is to protect that one, very rare kobold egg (like 1 in 100,000) that hatches as a dragon.

[Nifft]

Yup, that's the classic dog-headed with scales piece of art. There were a few other ones that were this 1e style iirc.

My experience with dogs doesn't really match this head.

- Dogs don't have horns.

- Dog ears do NOT work like that guy's ears.

- Scales, etc.

The only feature which seems dog-like on that head is the nose, and perhaps the jaw but that's not uniquely dog-like. The nose is very dog-like, though, and isn't a good fit for non-dog noses.

It's mostly just the nose which is dog-like.

Contrast that with reptile-like features (horns, scales over entire body, total lack of hair) and it's not surprising to me that kobolds are not considered dog-like, but rather reptile-like.


That said, the ears look obviously elfin, which could make them some kind of Fey -- and if they were Fey, then their body features would just be cosmetic with no necessary biological justification. Make them some kind of chaotic mischief spirits which sabotage the incursions of civilization into nature (e.g. mining infrastructure).

[Grim Portent]

I just scrapped them being a race of humanoids entirely and went more folkloric, instead they're Fey who look like tiny ugly men with bad beards, or less commonly like tiny ugly women with bad beards. Despite being willfully unpleasant to look at, rude, and generally odious, they take great offense if anyone calls them ugly or is generally rude when talking to them or about them. They can go invisible at will, fly and scare things in a similar manner to quasits.

They live in places mortals live or work, and basically exist to play cruel, sometimes deadly, pranks. Stuff like killing mine canaries to make miners panic, hiding tools or other important objects in dangerous places to look, breaking things, leaving things like nails or shoes for people to step on or trip over, poisoning food, frightening pets and livestock, framing people for various kinds of wrongdoing. It gets worse the more people react, and they act much worse to new people or guests than they do to long time residents or employees of their place of residence.

If they get properly malicious they might go full poltergeist and start throwing things, physically assaulting people, sometimes outright murdering people. Usually in response to being insulted or someone trying to force them to leave.

They, along with many Fey in my games, can't be killed and can't be banished because they are from the Material Plane, so there's nowhere to send them. Generally the best bet is to beat them round the head with something made of iron until they're knocked out, then stick them in an iron kettle, lock the lid on somehow and then throw it into a hole, river or the ocean. By the time the fey gets out everyone it has beef with is probably dead and it likely very lost.



There's so many humanoids races in D&D that none of them really have space to breathe, so I just got rid of a bunch or turned them into more magical things that don't need to fit into more normal stuff like politics, wars and farming. Do I need gnomes, halflings, goblins, kobolds, dwarves, and a dozen or so other races whose main gimmick is being short and frequently living underground to greater or lesser extent? The answer is a firm no, basically anything I want to do with any of those races can be done with a single one split into multiple groups, which has the side benefit of changing how players interact with the 'bad guys'. Kobolds have more interesting qualities than most of the short races in D&D, but ultimately I don't need a race of tiny dragon worshippers with a superiority complex anymore than I need a race of tiny green guys trapped in the stone age with a religion based around bullying.

[Dragonsonthemap]

I generally lean much more into either kobolds being specifically dragon-like or generally reptilian, but I'm the sort of person who always plays an Argonian in Elder Scrolls games, so.

It also helps that dragons tend to play some sort of precursors role in my settings, so having some species that are directly tied to them is generally thematically useful.

[Nifft]

The only feature which seems dog-like on that head is the nose, and perhaps the jaw but that's not uniquely dog-like. The nose is very dog-like, though, and isn't a good fit for non-dog noses.

It's mostly just the nose which is dog-like.

Actually looking around the internet a bit I see that the mouth & nose might not be uniquely dog-like.

Here for example is a bear:

https://i.imgur.com/980q6N5.jpg

That's not quite identical to a Kobold's jawline, but it's darn close.

The nose is a perfect fit, which I hadn't expected.

So... now the best I can see is that a Kobold combines features of both mammal (not specifically dog) and reptile.

[Ettina]

Actually looking around the internet a bit I see that the mouth & nose might not be uniquely dog-like.

Here for example is a bear:

https://i.imgur.com/980q6N5.jpg

That's not quite identical to a Kobold's jawline, but it's darn close.

The nose is a perfect fit, which I hadn't expected.

So... now the best I can see is that a Kobold combines features of both mammal (not specifically dog) and reptile.

Fun fact: the mammalian order Carnivora has been subdivided into Feliformia (cat-like carnivores) and Caniformia (dog-like carnivores), and bears are in Caniformia.

Also, when people say hyenas are closer to cats than dogs, what they mean is that hyenas are in Feliformia.

[hamishspence]

The nose is a perfect fit, which I hadn't expected.

So... now the best I can see is that a Kobold combines features of both mammal (not specifically dog) and reptile.

Yup. Just like dragons, which have a very catlike build - dragons have physical traits of both mammals and reptiles.

[Willie the Duck]

Looking at skull features might be going too far into the weeds on this. Kobolds probably don't need to be either dragons or dogmen anymore than tabaxi are actually cats or pre-5e gnolls were actually hyena-related -- they just need to be reminiscent of a thing enough to remind people in-world of the thing.

In my gameworld, kobolds are humanoids-- mammalian humanoids. With scaly skin, perhaps pangolin-like, or maybe just scale like in the descriptive and without any homology. I liked 3e's idea of them believing themselves to be dragon adjacent, but with actual dragonborn, half-dragons, sorcerers, Dragon Disciples, and PrCs of dragon-worshippers and the like, I always thought it was too many entries fighting for the same role. Kobolds as 'lowest in the hierarchy amongst the normally adversary races' actually seemed like there was more room for them to exist, although I understand those who think that means it is hard to distinguish between them and goblins.

[Segev]

Here for example is a bear:

https://i.imgur.com/980q6N5.jpg

That's not quite identical to a Kobold's jawline, but it's darn close.

The nose is a perfect fit, which I hadn't expected.

So kobolds are ancestors of owlbears!

[Imbalance]

So kobolds are ancestors of owlbears!

Urds are bearowl cubs?

[stoutstien]

Urds are bearowl cubs?

Planted in kobold nests like American cockoo egg?

[Nifft]

Fun fact: the mammalian order Carnivora has been subdivided into Feliformia (cat-like carnivores) and Caniformia (dog-like carnivores), and bears are in Caniformia.

Also, when people say hyenas are closer to cats than dogs, what they mean is that hyenas are in Feliformia.


Yup. Just like dragons, which have a very catlike build - dragons have physical traits of both mammals and reptiles.

Oh my, that really cramps the Kobold's backstory -- if the Kobold is a reptile-Caniformia mix and the Dragon is a reptile-Feliformia blend, then the Kobold's ancestral claim about Dragons are in serious jeopardy.

This needs to be a plot-point in my next game.


Urds are bearowl cubs?

Urds are the other half of Owlbears.

They're where the Wizard-to-blame threw all the useless parts of that unholy amalgamation.

[hamishspence]

Some caniforms are pretty feline-looking (foxes) and some feliforms are pretty canine-looking (hyenas). Basically, a dragon's skeleton looks more like mammals, especially carnivorans, in general, than lizards, crocodiles, dinosaurs, etc.

[Naanomi]

This was always my classic (pre-dragonizing) image of them...

https://1d4chan.org/images/2/25/Goblinoid_Kobold.jpg

[Forum Explorer]

Reptilian every time. Mostly because I have dragons actually create kingdoms, and Kobolds are their primary subjects, who do all the tedious trading, tax collecting, and all the other gears of bureaucracy that make civilization work. I basically lift their lore directly from 3.5's Kobolds.

Dragonborn however are slightly different. They aren't a natural species, but a creation of dragons who decided their armies needed shock troops. In my lore, Dragonborn are extremely long lived, but effectively sterile. However the creation of Dragonborn is a well known ritual that only needs a tooth of a dragon and a kobold egg to complete, so they can kinda reproduce via magic.

Basically I thought of them as the Space Marine version of Kobolds, though with more personality and no 'nothing but war' brainwashing.

[Hytheter]

This was always my classic (pre-dragonizing) image of them...

Is that not just a goblin?

[Dragonsonthemap]

Is that not just a goblin?

I mean, there's a reason they decided kobolds needed a different appearance...

[Mabbly]

I like the canine-dragon cross look! It helps set them apart from the many other reptile-adjacent creatures. And there aren't many dog-like peoples so it fills that niche too. Here's a portrait I did of one of my player's kobold characters: https://www.instagram.com/p/B0gb1kSnCJp/?utm_medium=copy_link

[Tanarii]

I like the canine-dragon cross look! It helps set them apart from the many other reptile-adjacent creatures. And there aren't many dog-like peoples so it fills that niche too. Here's a portrait I did of one of my player's kobold characters: https://www.instagram.com/p/B0gb1kSnCJp/?utm_medium=copy_link
That one looks kinda like a eastern dragon. Which often have dog-like faces anyway.

[Nifft]

I like the canine-dragon cross look! It helps set them apart from the many other reptile-adjacent creatures. And there aren't many dog-like peoples so it fills that niche too. Here's a portrait I did of one of my player's kobold characters: https://www.instagram.com/p/B0gb1kSnCJp/?utm_medium=copy_link

Would you be amenable to hosting that somewhere we could see it without logging in to Instagram?

[Mabbly]

Would you be amenable to hosting that somewhere we could see it without logging in to Instagram?

Sure!
https://imgur.com/BHcxdgI
Wish I could figure out how to just embed images in these posts, but this will do.

[TyGuy]

I like the 5e portrayal, likely because that's when I joined the D&D party.
But I've seen kobolds in WoW. Killed some in ToA. I didn't fall in love with them until I watched Mrrhexx's lore video. Now they're my favorite D&D humanoid.
I really like the juxtaposition of kobolds and dragons. One of the weakest creatures, that makes it in the world by shear numbers, grit, and suicidal sacrifice for the tribe; which leads to fleeting short lives. Versus one of the most long lived and powerful mortal creatures.

[rel]

I make them dog like. Draconic and reptilian elements are deleted.
They look, Act and sound like particularly annoying and aggressive bipedal small yappy dogs.

[Chalkarts]

I play by the 3.5 Races of the Dragon version.
Draconic and proud. A lot of bluster but will recoil and cower at any pushback. Kind of like a Small Draconic Chihuahua that talks.

[Riarra]

Ever since I saw this tumblr post (https://neogeen.tumblr.com/post/148399181826/awhile-back-someone-threw-the-prompt-of) kobolds have been stem-mammals to me.

Just sticking to official portrayals of them, I really prefer the small yappy dragon version. I'm a sucker for draconic creatures that just aren't as magical or majestic as true dragons usually are--wyverns, drakes, kobolds, etc.

[Nifft]

Sure!
https://imgur.com/BHcxdgI
Wish I could figure out how to just embed images in these posts, but this will do.

Interesting! Thanks.

If you click the [...] in the upper-right of your image, you get a "links" option which should give you BBCode to embed.

You can also "View image in another tab" and then use the URL of that tab between [img] tags.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Definetly more on the draconic side aesthetically, but in terms of how they act, kind of like puppies, dangerous.. explosive... angry.. puppies.

[sandmote]

I don't see anything about tails here. I have trouble taking kobolds with long, reptilian tails seriously. They stick out behind you when you're trying to sneak, and you risk having your tail get caught in a trap you would have otherwise avoided just fine. 4e and 5e art also seems to depicts the tails as long enough to reach the ground, which makes the problem worse.

As such, I like to think of kobolds as having dog-like tails about the length of their head. Solves most of the danger that comes from living in cramped spaces full of traps and dealing with larger creatures eager to grab you. With a dog-like tail, they could also be used for simple communication. They could whack their tails against each other to make sure their partner is still there or to signal they see enemies without being heard or when they need their hands for something else (like keeping a trap secure).

On the other side of it, I don't really associate dogs (or carnivorans in general) with scrambling through hazardous terrain, and "they're the weakest humanoids" isn't really a niche lore wise. So I still keep the scales and generally draconic builds, partially as an origin story for Kobolds. If I had to pick one or the other though, I'd drop the draconic elements.

[Dork_Forge]

I don't see anything about tails here. I have trouble taking kobolds with long, reptilian tails seriously. They stick out behind you when you're trying to sneak, and you risk having your tail get caught in a trap you would have otherwise avoided just fine. 4e and 5e art also seems to depicts the tails as long enough to reach the ground, which makes the problem worse.

As such, I like to think of kobolds as having dog-like tails about the length of their head. Solves most of the danger that comes from living in cramped spaces full of traps and dealing with larger creatures eager to grab you. With a dog-like tail, they could also be used for simple communication. They could whack their tails against each other to make sure their partner is still there or to signal they see enemies without being heard or when they need their hands for something else (like keeping a trap secure).

On the other side of it, I don't really associate dogs (or carnivorans in general) with scrambling through hazardous terrain, and "they're the weakest humanoids" isn't really a niche lore wise. So I still keep the scales and generally draconic builds, partially as an origin story for Kobolds. If I had to pick one or the other though, I'd drop the draconic elements.

You could also argue that longer tails could benefit them in balancing as they set up some traps and are more useful than a shorter, less mobile dog like tail for pretty much anything.

[sandmote]

You could also argue that longer tails could benefit them in balancing as they set up some traps and are more useful than a shorter, less mobile dog like tail for pretty much anything. Pathfinder Kobolds have tails long, powerful, and controllable enough that they can learn to attack with them, so I can buy this argument there. Some of the 5e Kobolds' tails are depicted with enough mass I could see them serving for balance above and beyond simply moving the tail around.

Otherwise I'm not clear what a reptilian tail could allow that a dog-like tail couldn't. Particularly given that crocodilian and lizard tails aren't very flexible at the base, and instead swing like a whip (whether or not they're used to attack). Maybe a prehensile tail would be more useful, but I've never kobold tails portrayed as such.

[Joe the Rat]

Ever since I saw this tumblr post (https://neogeen.tumblr.com/post/148399181826/awhile-back-someone-threw-the-prompt-of) kobolds have been stem-mammals to me.

Just sticking to official portrayals of them, I really prefer the small yappy dragon version. I'm a sucker for draconic creatures that just aren't as magical or majestic as true dragons usually are--wyverns, drakes, kobolds, etc.

Hmm, that's actually making me rethink my "Dragons are Monotremes" hypothesis. By pushing the divergence back to early synapsid, you carry more reptilian aspects while weaving in a whole platter of differing 'mammal-like' traits. Like Dragon skeletons having a distinctly catlike aspect, and Dragonborn having boobs.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Like Dragon skeletons having a distinctly catlike aspect,

I thought cats were really shapeshifted dragons (hence the arrogance)? In which case it's more like cats have draconic aspects to their skeletons?

[Wintermoot]

I've been playing D&D since pre 2nd edition and for me Kobolds will always feel like dog men.

In fact, they look like the Troggles from Disney Adventures of the Gummi bears in my hearts of heart. You'll have to google image search that.

[TyGuy]

I've been playing D&D since pre 2nd edition and for me Kobolds will always feel like dog men.

In fact, they look like the Troggles from Disney Adventures of the Gummi bears in my hearts of heart. You'll have to google image search that.
But I thought the lizard creatures were kobolds (:

https://youtu.be/nvc86zOrOEE
0:13

Never did find the episode with those guys...

[Jophiel]

I make them dog-men, based on the old Everquest model where they were colored like African wild dogs. They're not particularly close to gnolls in my game since my kobolds are more primitive, lope around on all fours like apes and are burrowing whereas gnolls are taller, walk upright, more advanced in their culture (and not stupid plague-bombs) and live a more nomadic lifestyle up above ground. Both are "dog like" to some extent but then you might as well say you don't need reptilian kobolds because lizardfolk exist.

I rather dislike the aspect of later D&D where you have so much "dragon" in everything: kobolds, PC races, sorcerers, etc. To me it cheapens the idea of dragons as some legendary thing which is how I like to imagine them in my worlds. So most things "draconic" that aren't actually dragons tend to get reskinned or excluded in my games.