3.5e Kobolds are fodder

[nijineko]

it's all a matter of relative perception. don't forget that a 1st level kobold can technically qualify for epic level feats.

[Scifione]

In general Kobald are ment to be fodder. That is to say that kobald are monsters that are incountered in group for PC 1st-3rd level. If handled correctly with leaders, they pose a threat to 5th-6th level PC easily.

The formentioned is very true. I have experience such stories as DM and player. One of my favorite tricks is to let the fighter finnally have a wack at a kobald. He goes charging in only to find that the kobald is a half-dragon kobald barbarian with a full blade. "Ow that hurt! Run!"

[DMMike]

One of my favorite tricks is to let the fighter finnally have a wack at a kobald. He goes charging in only to find that the kobald is a half-dragon kobald barbarian with a full blade. "Ow that hurt! Run!"

Ah, the beautiful metagaming that ensues from such an encounter.

- Hopefully, all kobolds look like "barbarians."
- A full blade can be spotted from 150 feet, no?
- A half-dragon kobold would probably have wings, or maybe look a little different from most kobolds.

Scifone brings up the touchy subject that DMs love and PCs hate: how do I judge an adversary before I engage said adversary? A DM owes it to his players to confer at least a hint that an enemy is more challenging than the rest.

It's the same metagaming problem that traps bring up: how do I know there's not a horrible trap waiting for me in every dungeon room? Answer: the antagonists are just as practical (especially if they're dragons with 20+ intelligence) as the protagonists, which means that a little empathy goes a long way.

About the kobolds - I don't even use them, since I have way more than enough humanoids to fill the kill-me-please hordes.

[tesral]

It's the same metagaming problem that traps bring up: how do I know there's not a horrible trap waiting for me in every dungeon room? Answer: the antagonists are just as practical (especially if they're dragons with 20+ intelligence) as the protagonists, which means that a little empathy goes a long way.

"Hold it, I think I just failed a spot check." --Order of the Stick

[nijineko]

"Hold it, I think I just failed a spot check." --Order of the Stick

in which case they are seriously in trouble, as traps require a search check.

[Scifione]

Scifone brings up the touchy subject that DMs love and PCs hate: how do I judge an adversary before I engage said adversary? A DM owes it to his players to confer at least a hint that an enemy is more challenging than the rest.

Oh, so true!

I usually give some descriptive detail, allow a spot check, or a skill check to give the play a clue. But you know what they say, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

I hate metagaming.

[rabkala]

Metagamers tend to be a crunchy bunch. More rules orientated than the rest and the first to call foul! You would never get that past a self respecting meta-gamer or rules lawyer without a 2 hour 'discussion' of all the rules that might intersect the situation.

I love Kobolds! My last cohort was a Kobold Swashbuckler who was destroyed by a nasty Dracolich. I raised that poor guy from a pup....
My best cohort was a Kobold monk whom I converted to good and slowly taught him the art. He was a Karmic striking/tripping fool!

Kobolds can be anything you want in 3.5. Insert some goodies like templates or feats from the Dracnomonicon, and they can be truly incredible. I guess you just have to want to root for the underdog once in awhile.

[DMMike]

Or the underlizard.

[Jcosby]

Oh, so true!

I usually give some descriptive detail, allow a spot check, or a skill check to give the play a clue. But you know what they say, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

I hate metagaming.

I don't care for metagamers either. But they are oh so much fun to kill, even more so then rules lawyers. When I run a game I make sure that I confer two things to players. 1. Any house rules changes 2. That all rules are just guide lines and as such can be changed by me at anytime.

Again, if I made a standard rule change (Aka House Rule) I make that known before the first game is played. But, to say that all Kobolds are just straight out of the MM with standard AC, HPs, etc.. that's a huge mistake that most Metagamers make. They usually don't make that mistake twice. That also of course goes for any monster, npc, or what ever. It's good to change things up on players from time to time, it keeps them honest. Also I completely disagree with the fact that a "special" Kobold or any monster for that matter would look "different" at first glance then any other monster of it's kind.

Sure sometimes a Kobold Shaman might have a staff as a weapon which most "out of the book" Kobold's don't. The problem there is "Staff" to most metagamers equals caster which is usually the first target to go down. Even a lowly Kobold would figure this out after a couple of levels. "Hmm when I hold this staff the longshanks always attack me first." Next time you run into that Kobold he might be holding a club and one of the lower Kobold's is forced to hold the staff. Very Clever...

Adding, stat's, Hps, class levels, etc can make encoutners usually much more fun. One thing I have seen some DM's do though is play "low" INT creatures to smart. Those mindless automations (Zombies) aren't going to make perfect moves to create flanking etc all of the time. Some monsters are just mindless and attack what ever is closest or hit them last etc. Also another thing that can tip metaplayer gamers off is when the party of 4-5th level characters runs into Kobolds... Hmm maybe they are more then meets the eye.. (no not autobots.. They will automaticly expect them to be beefed up with levels, magic etc.

One thing I like to do is use them in the traditional fodder role in a combat with a higher level monster but have them work together with the higher level monster and as clever as they can be.

[Zeneak]

i love kobalds. if they didn't have that ever so slight problem of having no strength i would probably play one. just to be traptastic at game.

[tesral]

i love kobalds. if they didn't have that ever so slight problem of having no strength i would probably play one. just to be traptastic at game.

So do a sorcerer, and give the staff to the longshanks fighter.

[nijineko]

there is now a skill trick that can be used for the purpose of appraising an opponent. oriental adventures had something similar.

if we aren't using those rules, then i allow a bluff vs sense motive type check with an appropriate bonus based on level for characters to size each other up. ^^ it pretty much boils down to a level check. for climatic encounters, i impose a morale penalty for whomever fails the check. ^^ the stare-down across the bridge.

everyone has at least one fight on a rickety bridge above a chasm, right?

[Zeneak]

there is now a skill trick that can be used for the purpose of appraising an opponent. oriental adventures had something similar.

if we aren't using those rules, then i allow a bluff vs sense motive type check with an appropriate bonus based on level for characters to size each other up. ^^ it pretty much boils down to a level check. for climatic encounters, i impose a morale penalty for whomever fails the check. ^^ the stare-down across the bridge.

everyone has at least one fight on a rickety bridge above a chasm, right?

Actually i have never had a fight on a rickety bridge and there was no chasm either.

[Scifione]

Does anyone know where to find starting age, aging, or weight charts for kobalds as with like PC races? I have not seen any, so I had to ask.

[nijineko]

i don't recall seeing any, but one could certainly simply pick from any other player race that has a lifespan that seems similar enough to the dm. =D