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. 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 (), 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 anymore

I 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:

[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:

Yup, 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.


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. 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. 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.