Wow, this thread moved on over the weekend
My initial comment at the beginning was intended to draw the readers in by using a common stereotype of a classic D&D monster. Over my career I've also created some nasty kobolds in 3.5 and earlier just to keep the characters on their toes.
The stereotype that I was referring to was that Kobolds are great monsters to push up against fragile 1st level players due to their low hitpoints and general *according to stereotype*cowardice.
Kobolds in 3.5 could be given intelligence and tactics, given a few levels, nasty magic weapons (which I saw happen in one older module for 16th level characters... kobold with a arrow of human slaying or a wand of disintegration? Yuck!).
These kobolds were stock kobolds from the 4e MM. Each type had characteristics that made them do their role well (stand up fighter, skirmisher, artillery, controller), so it made the feel of the battle that much better.Originally Posted by Dimthar
What I'm trying to make the point about is, that 4e just feels nice. Very smooth, streamlined, but still very interesting and challenging, right out of the gate with no modifications. Think about what a very experienced DM could do with this as a foundation... I don't think that you'll get it without giving it a fair trial with a reasonably good DM.