Why are some weapon-wielding monsters so foolishly armed?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 248 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Because the Paizo guys understand that Pen & Paper RPGs are about world building and atmosphere and not about min-max'ing / finding the cookie-cutter-build


Tryn wrote:
Because the Paizo guys understand that Pen & Paper RPGs are about world building and atmosphere and not about min-max'ing / finding the cookie-cutter-build

That would be a fine excuse if there were a world building reason for them to be using a spear. There is not. The world building reasons suggests they should be using Picks or Crossbows.

There's not one line in the Bestiary, ARC, or Monster Codex about Kobold society functioning by hunting boar. . .


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Find the narrowest hallway in your house, and try to swing something akin to a pick or a sword with good effect.

You'll probably switch to something with more of a stabbing motion. You know... like a spear.

Now, imagine you are in a windy network of warrens, and you are trying to defend it from invaders that may or may not be your size. You point your crossbow, but wait! The tunnel curves away, giving you no line of sight until your enemies are right on top of you!!!

Why don't we mount this crossbow and have it go off when they come around the bend? We can put a trigger in the floor, and we don't have to be anywhere near it!

There's plenty of reasons why kobolds are the way they are. A racial bonus to mining doesn't mean that they're all expert miners. It means they are small, cave-dwelling, cold-blooded, darkvision-having, natural tunnelers that could be very good at mining if they made it their profession... usually as slave labor at the direction of a much more powerful entity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps after a bad year the kobold tribe had to sell off (or give up as tribute) most of their looted shortbows and lucerne hammers to goblins. Living dirt poor may not leave you any good choices in that situation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Gilfalas wrote:
In the end it comes down to CR. Something had to be crappy. Something had to be CR 1/4. It just happens that it is kobolds.

But being armed with a spear has nothing to do with them being CR 1/4-- having 1 level in an NPC class and taking massive stat penalties do.

A 1st level warrior Kobold with a two handed sword is still CR 1/4

A kobold with a great axe, four mirror armor, and a potion of enlarge is also technically CR1/4. It's not the same level of threat, though.

That's why CR are a guideline. A group of first lvl kobold sorcereres with Spell Specialist Magic Missile doing focus fire against your lvl 1 party witch hace the same CR than first lvl sorcererers with skill focus (craft: basketweaving) and ibdentify and comprehend languages as their first lvl spells.

Kobolds hace crap gear because they are cannon fodder.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

KOBOLD CR 1/4
XP 100
Kobold warrior 1
LE Small humanoid (reptilian)
Init +1; Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +3
DEFENSE
AC 18, touch 12, flat-footed 17 (+5 armor, +1 Dex, +1 natural, +1 size)
hp 5 (1d10)
Fort +2, Ref +1, Will +0
Weaknesses light sensitivity
OFFENSE
Speed 20 ft.
Melee lucerne hammer +1 (1d10–1)
Ranged shortbow +3 (1d4-1/x3)
STATISTICS
Str 9, Dex 13, Con 10, Int 9,Wis 10, Cha 8
Base Atk +1; CMB –1; CMD 10
Feats Precise Strike
Skills Craft (trapmaking) +1, Perception +3, Stealth +1; Racial Modifiers +2 Craft (trapmaking), +2 Perception, +2 Profession (miner)
Languages Common, Draconic
SQ crafty
ECOLOGY
Environment temperate underground or deep forest
Organization solitary, gang (2–4), nest (5–30 plus equal number of noncombatants, 1 sergeant of 3rd level per 20 adults, and 1 leader of 4th–6th level), or tribe (31–300 plus 35% noncombatants, 1 sergeant of 3rd level per 20 adults, 2 lieutenants of 4th level, 1 leader of 6th–8th level, and 5–16 dire rats)
Treasure NPC gear (horn lamellar armor, lucerne hammer, shortbow, 20 arrows, other treasure)
SPECIAL ABILITIES
Crafty (Ex) Craft (trapmaking) and Stealth are always class skills for a kobold.

This was the best I could do for now, I suppose other people could optimize it further.
AC 18, just a mere 3 points higher than that of a regular Kobold Warrior. Lucerne hammer and Precise Strike gives it an average of 8 damage when flanking and a +3 on attack rolls. I bumped up its will save by 1.
By no means is this still a CR 1/4.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"The crusader" has a good point:
Kobolds live in narrow small tunnels and caves.
If you fight in a close enviroment you will not use weapons which need a lot of space to be used effectivly (like most bludgeoning or slashing weapons). Also ranged weapons loose their biggest benefit (the range) as most fights are close/melee combat.
You will also use a relative compact weapon so you don't get stuck if you run thru the tunnels.

Based on this the best weapon would be a relative small stabbing (piercing) weapon >> aka shortspear.

So the weapon choice is logical (and "world building")


the David wrote:

KOBOLD CR 1/4

XP 100
Kobold warrior 1
LE Small humanoid (reptilian)
Init +1; Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +3
DEFENSE
AC 18, touch 12, flat-footed 17 (+5 armor, +1 Dex, +1 natural, +1 size)
hp 5 (1d10)
Fort +2, Ref +1, Will +0
Weaknesses light sensitivity
OFFENSE
Speed 20 ft.
Melee lucerne hammer +1 (1d10–1)
Ranged shortbow +3 (1d4-1/x3)
STATISTICS
Str 9, Dex 13, Con 10, Int 9,Wis 10, Cha 8
Base Atk +1; CMB –1; CMD 10
Feats Precise Strike
Skills Craft (trapmaking) +1, Perception +3, Stealth +1; Racial Modifiers +2 Craft (trapmaking), +2 Perception, +2 Profession (miner)
Languages Common, Draconic
SQ crafty
ECOLOGY
Environment temperate underground or deep forest
Organization solitary, gang (2–4), nest (5–30 plus equal number of noncombatants, 1 sergeant of 3rd level per 20 adults, and 1 leader of 4th–6th level), or tribe (31–300 plus 35% noncombatants, 1 sergeant of 3rd level per 20 adults, 2 lieutenants of 4th level, 1 leader of 6th–8th level, and 5–16 dire rats)
Treasure NPC gear (horn lamellar armor, lucerne hammer, shortbow, 20 arrows, other treasure)
SPECIAL ABILITIES
Crafty (Ex) Craft (trapmaking) and Stealth are always class skills for a kobold.

This was the best I could do for now, I suppose other people could optimize it further.
AC 18, just a mere 3 points higher than that of a regular Kobold Warrior. Lucerne hammer and Precise Strike gives it an average of 8 damage when flanking and a +3 on attack rolls. I bumped up its will save by 1.
By no means is this still a CR 1/4.

If you've got 5 gp left to spend, trade the shortbow for a light crossbow. d6 damage, no strength penalty. Move action to reload, but that shouldn't be a big deal. It's not like they get multiple attacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Monsters generally don't have Internet access to go troll CharOp forums all day.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would totally love to fight these optimized kobolds by the wave at level 1

Who doesn't love getting TPK'ed on their first session?

/sarcasm


Opuk0 wrote:

I would totally love to fight these optimized kobolds by the wave at level 1

Who doesn't love getting TPK'ed on their first session?

/sarcasm

I'd prefer to think of a TPK on your first session to be called a one-shot.

If character death isn't a relevant factor, even at first level, then why even have monsters or combat in the game?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why would you be more likely to be TPK'd by these kobolds than the default? Either monster will TPK players if the GM is inclined to TPK you. It's not the build that matters, it's what you do with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Why would you be more likely to be TPK'd by these kobolds than the default? Either monster will TPK players if the GM is inclined to TPK you. It's not the build that matters, it's what you do with it.

That's silly. They're much tougher and still rate at CR1/4, so you'd face the same numbers. Sure, GM tactics matter and some GMs would give you break to a avoid a TPK, but all other things being equal tougher monsters are more likely to be a TPK.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Opuk0 wrote:

I would totally love to fight these optimized kobolds by the wave at level 1

Who doesn't love getting TPK'ed on their first session?

/sarcasm

I'd prefer to think of a TPK on your first session to be called a one-shot.

If character death isn't a relevant factor, even at first level, then why even have monsters or combat in the game?

The question is not so much 'getting killed', but rather 'getting killed in 1 hit by a 1/4 cr enemy'.

I have always advocated skipping level 1- far, far too swingy. If you were starting off with a bit higher level (and thus a bit more hp), then better equipped kobolds would not be as big a problem.

Basically- the nature of level 1 requires the 'you will all most likely survive this' enemies to be.... well kobolds with spears and 9 str.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Because it would get pretty boring if every Kobold used a scimitar and was building for Dervish Dance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Why would you be more likely to be TPK'd by these kobolds than the default? Either monster will TPK players if the GM is inclined to TPK you. It's not the build that matters, it's what you do with it.
That's silly. They're much tougher and still rate at CR1/4, so you'd face the same numbers. Sure, GM tactics matter and some GMs would give you break to a avoid a TPK, but all other things being equal tougher monsters are more likely to be a TPK.

And orcs are CR 1/3, despite being insanely deadly. It still comes down to GM prowess.

That said, CRs aren't a super RAW business. Note that encounters raise in CR if there are effects that give the monsters an advantage—terrain, equipment, attacking the group in their sleep, that sort of thing. And that field isn't very solid. It's intentionally left vague. Following the CRs like a set-in-stone mandate is dangerously "silly".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Opuk0 wrote:

I would totally love to fight these optimized kobolds by the wave at level 1

Who doesn't love getting TPK'ed on their first session?

/sarcasm

I'd prefer to think of a TPK on your first session to be called a one-shot.

If character death isn't a relevant factor, even at first level, then why even have monsters or combat in the game?

The question is not so much 'getting killed', but rather 'getting killed in 1 hit by a 1/4 cr enemy'.

I have always advocated skipping level 1- far, far too swingy. If you were starting off with a bit higher level (and thus a bit more hp), then better equipped kobolds would not be as big a problem.

Basically- the nature of level 1 requires the 'you will all most likely survive this' enemies to be.... well kobolds with spears and 9 str.

CR, especially for the beginning levels, is a shaky system. Using CR for the lower levels to determine how effective a creature is, is misleading to say the least. Putting a party of 1st level Adventurers against a Wraith is actually an equal APL encounter, but 1st level PCs are so unable to defend themselves properly against, much less effectively hurt, the Wraith, that it becomes an extremely powerful boss encounter as a best-case scenario. At the worst-case scenario, it's a TPK within 3-4 turns.

You can take about a dozen Kobolds, give them extremely useful tactics (i.e. Tucker's Kobolds), and they'll make a 1st level party into a bloodsplot. But they're about equal in APL.


Tryn wrote:

"The crusader" has a good point:

Kobolds live in narrow small tunnels and caves.
If you fight in a close enviroment you will not use weapons which need a lot of space to be used effectivly (like most bludgeoning or slashing weapons). Also ranged weapons loose their biggest benefit (the range) as most fights are close/melee combat.
You will also use a relative compact weapon so you don't get stuck if you run thru the tunnels.

Based on this the best weapon would be a relative small stabbing (piercing) weapon >> aka shortspear.

So the weapon choice is logical (and "world building")

A "Short"spear isn't very short - it's about a meter long. If you are getting to the point where it is so cramped that you are unable to swing a mace effectively. then a meter long stick is not going to be much of a usable weapon. Morningstars can be made with a nasty spike on it's head so it can be thrust with if need be, so that justification is pretty much moot in any case.

The only good justification for using a shortspear over a morningstar is that the spear is much cheaper - better for an underground tribe with little access to the facilities and materials necessary to make a good morningstar or mace. Of course, a club is about as good a weapon as a shortspear, and is even cheaper (it costs nothing, in fact). The crappy CR1/4 kobolds should be running around with clubs instead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just realized one answer to my question that no one has mentioned. At least, I don't think anyone's mentioned it; this is a longer thread than most I get going.

When PF was first conceived, as far as I know, most APs were generated for a 15 Pt buy with CRB created characters. 4 level 1 PCs, w/a 15 Pt buy, starting gold by class and no access to Ultimate Campaign/Magic Capital plus birchbark scroll paper could be expected, at best, to have basic weapons and armor and maybe about 2-4 scrolls, if they're lucky.

For this party, four kobolds as written in the Beastiary WOULD be an average challenge.

Now I'm just talking about the kobolds. Or goblins. Or whatever is armed with simple, weak weapons. I'm NOT talking about things like Cover, Small space, Difficult Terrain, natural Hazards or whatever. Those are supposed to add to the CR of the encounter.

At higher levels I might see a GM custom-arming their monsters. Respectfully though I'd like to say this to the posters in this thread:

I'm only suggesting optimizing the weapons carried.

Because of this I respectfully disagree that changing the weapons changes the CR. If you take 4 kobolds, change nothing else, but make their spears longspears and their slings into crossbows, they'll deal more damage but they still have the same chances to hit, same HP, same defenses and weaknesses, etc. Therefore I'd postulate that arming them thusly doesn't magically transform an encounter with 4 of them from a CR 1 to a CR 2.

Now if instead you made the average kobold warrior 1 with Kobold Sniper, gave them leather armor, rebuilt them with the Heroic array of stats, armed them with a crossbow and a greatsword and finally put them in natural caves with plenty of rocky outcrops from behind which they might crouch and snipe, then yes, their CR should change.

Now you're talking about an AC 16 creature with Stealth +11 firing a crossbow +5 (1d6) potentially denying your Dex bonus and further potentially hiding that same round to do it all over again next round and if you get close to them they've got a greatsword +2 (1d10) if cornered. That's far more lethal than a typical CR 1/4 creature.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
Tryn wrote:

"The crusader" has a good point:

Kobolds live in narrow small tunnels and caves.
If you fight in a close enviroment you will not use weapons which need a lot of space to be used effectivly (like most bludgeoning or slashing weapons). Also ranged weapons loose their biggest benefit (the range) as most fights are close/melee combat.
You will also use a relative compact weapon so you don't get stuck if you run thru the tunnels.

Based on this the best weapon would be a relative small stabbing (piercing) weapon >> aka shortspear.

So the weapon choice is logical (and "world building")

A "Short"spear isn't very short - it's about a meter long. If you are getting to the point where it is so cramped that you are unable to swing a mace effectively. then a meter long stick is not going to be much of a usable weapon. Morningstars can be made with a nasty spike on it's head so it can be thrust with if need be, so that justification is pretty much moot in any case.

The only good justification for using a shortspear over a morningstar is that the spear is much cheaper - better for an underground tribe with little access to the facilities and materials necessary to make a good morningstar or mace. Of course, a club is about as good a weapon as a shortspear, and is even cheaper (it costs nothing, in fact). The crappy CR1/4 kobolds should be running around with clubs instead.

Spears are long, but pokey. You can use them in a tight corridor more easily than a weapon you're swinging around.

Thrusting with a morningstar is barely feasible - definitely not how the weapon is designed to be used, even if it does have a spike on it.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Why would you be more likely to be TPK'd by these kobolds than the default? Either monster will TPK players if the GM is inclined to TPK you. It's not the build that matters, it's what you do with it.

unless your talk about GM cheat (look! The kobold crits you! Again!), then no, by no means that's true. Your can play tactically sound with your orcs and flank and focus fire and whatever, but an orc with a club and skill focus is not goibg to be as dangerous as an orc with a great axe and power attackattack that is equally tactically sound


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Hoover wrote:

I just realized one answer to my question that no one has mentioned. At least, I don't think anyone's mentioned it; this is a longer thread than most I get going.

When PF was first conceived, as far as I know, most APs were generated for a 15 Pt buy with CRB created characters. 4 level 1 PCs, w/a 15 Pt buy, starting gold by class and no access to Ultimate Campaign/Magic Capital plus birchbark scroll paper could be expected, at best, to have basic weapons and armor and maybe about 2-4 scrolls, if they're lucky.

For this party, four kobolds as written in the Beastiary WOULD be an average challenge.

Now I'm just talking about the kobolds. Or goblins. Or whatever is armed with simple, weak weapons. I'm NOT talking about things like Cover, Small space, Difficult Terrain, natural Hazards or whatever. Those are supposed to add to the CR of the encounter.

At higher levels I might see a GM custom-arming their monsters. Respectfully though I'd like to say this to the posters in this thread:

I'm only suggesting optimizing the weapons carried.

Because of this I respectfully disagree that changing the weapons changes the CR. If you take 4 kobolds, change nothing else, but make their spears longspears and their slings into crossbows, they'll deal more damage but they still have the same chances to hit, same HP, same defenses and weaknesses, etc. Therefore I'd postulate that arming them thusly doesn't magically transform an encounter with 4 of them from a CR 1 to a CR 2.

Now if instead you made the average kobold warrior 1 with Kobold Sniper, gave them leather armor, rebuilt them with the Heroic array of stats, armed them with a crossbow and a greatsword and finally put them in natural caves with plenty of rocky outcrops from behind which they might crouch and snipe, then yes, their CR should change.

Now you're talking about an AC 16 creature with Stealth +11 firing a crossbow +5 (1d6) potentially denying your Dex bonus and further potentially hiding that same round to do it all over again next...

Others have suggested the same reasoning for upgrading weapons applies to armor, so you can upgrade both offence and defence without changing stats or feats or worrying about terrain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Hoover wrote:

I just realized one answer to my question that no one has mentioned. At least, I don't think anyone's mentioned it; this is a longer thread than most I get going.

When PF was first conceived, as far as I know, most APs were generated for a 15 Pt buy with CRB created characters. 4 level 1 PCs, w/a 15 Pt buy, starting gold by class and no access to Ultimate Campaign/Magic Capital plus birchbark scroll paper could be expected, at best, to have basic weapons and armor and maybe about 2-4 scrolls, if they're lucky.

For this party, four kobolds as written in the Beastiary WOULD be an average challenge.

Now I'm just talking about the kobolds. Or goblins. Or whatever is armed with simple, weak weapons. I'm NOT talking about things like Cover, Small space, Difficult Terrain, natural Hazards or whatever. Those are supposed to add to the CR of the encounter.

At higher levels I might see a GM custom-arming their monsters. Respectfully though I'd like to say this to the posters in this thread:

I'm only suggesting optimizing the weapons carried.

Because of this I respectfully disagree that changing the weapons changes the CR. If you take 4 kobolds, change nothing else, but make their spears longspears and their slings into crossbows, they'll deal more damage but they still have the same chances to hit, same HP, same defenses and weaknesses, etc. Therefore I'd postulate that arming them thusly doesn't magically transform an encounter with 4 of them from a CR 1 to a CR 2.

Now if instead you made the average kobold warrior 1 with Kobold Sniper, gave them leather armor, rebuilt them with the Heroic array of stats, armed them with a crossbow and a greatsword and finally put them in natural caves with plenty of rocky outcrops from behind which they might crouch and snipe, then yes, their CR should change.

Now you're talking about an AC 16 creature with Stealth +11 firing a crossbow +5 (1d6) potentially denying your Dex bonus and further potentially hiding that same round to do it all over again next...

Saying weapon damage isn't relevant to a creature's CR is a little silly. Although CR calculations do not factor in weapon type or damage (much), it's still an important factor, one that is especially true in the beginning levels, where your static bonuses from your stat modifiers or your feats or items or whatever, are low, or even non-existent. The increased damage dice in the lower levels are a lot more prevalent because they consist of a larger portion of the damage dealt.

Let's take your hypothesis, and instead of that Kobold having a Spear, he has a Greatsword. That 2D6 not only has a higher minimum damage in comparison to the Spear, but also a higher average and higher maximum damage, and it bypasses Slashing DR (the only creatures I know of that have Piercing DR are Rakshasas, and there's an equally powerful weapon for that occasion). His melee attacks have received a very clear and obvious upgrade, though not in his to-hit department.

If the chances for each kobold to hit are exactly the same, any logical player would tell you that the kobold that has the Greatsword is a much larger threat than those with the Spears, because consistently speaking, he is much more likely to down a PC than those with a Spear.

Hell, let's make the upgrade even more basic, and say that instead of a Spear, they have a Longspear. That creature having Reach is perhaps even more powerful, because the only safe ways to engage them are with successful Acrobatics checks for melee (otherwise they get attacked, potentially hit, and therefore killed without any sort of reprisal), or with Ranged Weapons like Bows, and those sorts of attacks can easily be defended with Quilted Armor, providing DR/3 against those ranged attacks. A very deadly-geared Kobold if I ever saw one.

So you can say that changing weapons doesn't change CR all you want, and you're probably right. But that doesn't mean it doesn't change the inherent difficulty of the encounter at all either, especially when CR itself is a flawed system (and in the beginning levels, a very fragile and inconsistent one too).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Improved gear does affect CR. If you give an ordinary kobold the type of equipment a level 20 PC has, they're going to slaughter the average level 1 party. I've seen adventure paths where the book mentions that someone is one CR higher than they otherwise would be because they have twice the normal gear for an NPC of their level.
How much it affects CR in the case of marginally improved weapons for a kobold is a GM judgment call.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I may have lost the thread here...

Has anyone said that you, the DM, can't give kobolds different weapons and armor? Because I've not seen that post. And frankly, I would laugh at the person who posted it.

I thought the question was more thematic. Why does the average bestiary kobold wield such weapons? Because they are small, weak, cave-dwellers with a penchant for traps over frontal assaults.

If you want all of your kobolds to be dervish-snipers with tanglefoot bags and poisoned bolts, I really don't have an issue with that...

(Your players might, though...)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Crusader wrote:

I may have lost the thread here...

Has anyone said that you, the DM, can't give kobolds different weapons and armor? Because I've not seen that post. And frankly, I would laugh at the person who posted it.

Apparently his group did.

Which... I honestly did find pretty hilarious.


kestral287 wrote:
The Crusader wrote:

I may have lost the thread here...

Has anyone said that you, the DM, can't give kobolds different weapons and armor? Because I've not seen that post. And frankly, I would laugh at the person who posted it.

Apparently his group did.

Which... I honestly did find pretty hilarious.

It's not a question of the DM can or can't do this or that.

The question is-- why is the default Kobold listed as something that's only possible purpose is to be slaughtered?

Or maybe another way to look at it--

How are there still Kobolds left on Golarian or any of these other worlds where they arm themselves as a rule with such poor choices of weapons>?

I assume that the last Kobold was slaughtered 14,000 years ago and no one has seen one since?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
The Crusader wrote:

I may have lost the thread here...

Has anyone said that you, the DM, can't give kobolds different weapons and armor? Because I've not seen that post. And frankly, I would laugh at the person who posted it.

Apparently his group did.

Which... I honestly did find pretty hilarious.

It's not a question of the DM can or can't do this or that.

The question is-- why is the default Kobold listed as something that's only possible purpose is to be slaughtered?

Or maybe another way to look at it--

How are there still Kobolds left on Golarian or any of these other worlds where they arm themselves as a rule with such poor choices of weapons>?

I assume that the last Kobold was slaughtered 14,000 years ago and no one has seen one since?

Commoners are hardly any stronger, and we still have those. Take the pig farmer npc- armed with mostly a club, 9 AC, and only a few more hp than the kobold.


Ummm.... In that case, are all the human commoners extinct too?

EDIT: Ninja'd by lemeres.


The Crusader wrote:

Ummm.... In that case, are all the human commoners extinct too?

EDIT: Ninja'd by lemeres.

Except there are whole litanies of heroes to protect human kind?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Kobolds live in small sized tunnels that they've usually trapped. Their enemies have trouble getting at them.

They also likely have some more skilled, better equipped leaders of their own.

Even with slightly better gear, the base kobold is still very weak in a dangerous world. Wouldn't really make much difference in the long run.

But yeah, feel free to arm them better if you like. Hell, create the Glorious Kobold Empire in your world where they're not mostly isolated tribes, but world conquering soldiers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
The Crusader wrote:

Ummm.... In that case, are all the human commoners extinct too?

EDIT: Ninja'd by lemeres.

Except there are whole litanies of heroes to protect human kind?

Who says there aren't 'litanies' of kobold heroes too?


Well, you are comparing the human commoners to the kobold warriors. The humans have standard human warriors to protect them.

While i think there is some hyperbole going on, i dont think a human commoner should have a decent chance against an armed kobold warrior.

Now, kobolds have -1 CR because of their stat array. Personally id rather see they optimize their tactics to bypass their frailness and thus also skip the penalty.

Hence, enslaved warriors might be similar to the current kobold, but the actual warriors of the tribe should have stuff that works fir them and CR 1/3.

This thread is far off the rails, so ill probably start a new one on some kobold demographics and equipment and tactics tomorrow.

While the point on stabby stuff being better than swingy weapons is a good point for spears over picks, it is also a good argument for crossbows and over slings.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kestral287 wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
The Crusader wrote:

Ummm.... In that case, are all the human commoners extinct too?

EDIT: Ninja'd by lemeres.

Except there are whole litanies of heroes to protect human kind?
Who says there aren't 'litanies' of kobold heroes too?

Or they could have villains.

Like dragons. Kobolds do tend to serve dragons. It would be a general unspoken rules that there is a trade of valuable things (like mined gold) in return for protection.

Or maybe it is something more passive. The dragon allows kobolds to stay in his territory in return for worship and praise (because dragons just love inflating their egos) and the area is generally safe otherwise because the dragon would have cleared out any major dangers anyway (because owlbears go great with some bay leaf). When there is only one really dangerous dominant predator in the area, and it is generally cool with you being there, then it is a fairly safe area.

Of course, the amount of prey that a kobold tribe can hunt while being safe in a dragon's territory can be rather limited. Eventually, when the tribe grows too large, a portion of it must break off and try to find a new warren. And that is where adventurers come in- a tribe of kobolds have moved into the old mines, and have clogged up the supply of ore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
The Crusader wrote:

Ummm.... In that case, are all the human commoners extinct too?

EDIT: Ninja'd by lemeres.

Except there are whole litanies of heroes to protect human kind?

The bestiary kobold is baseline version of a kobold. Just like the human commoner is the baseline version of a human. Just like every other creature is the baseline of its kind. If you want something harder, you can add templates, or class levels, or terrain challenges, or traps, or *du-dududuuuuhh* EQUIPMENT!

I am almost completely lost as to why you are so passionate about this, when all you're talking about is adding 1-3 AC and switching a d6 to a d8 with reach.

There couldn't possibly be an easier adjustment for a DM to make....

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

you want foolishly armed?

The marilith in charge of the Worldwound's standard armies.

F/4 or something.

Exotic WP in SIX DIFFERENT EXOTIC WEAPONS.

Just...ugh.

==Aelryinth


4 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Why would you be more likely to be TPK'd by these kobolds than the default? Either monster will TPK players if the GM is inclined to TPK you. It's not the build that matters, it's what you do with it.
unless your talk about GM cheat (look! The kobold crits you! Again!), then no, by no means that's true. Your can play tactically sound with your orcs and flank and focus fire and whatever, but an orc with a club and skill focus is not goibg to be as dangerous as an orc with a great axe and power attackattack that is equally tactically sound

Except I'm not talking about cheating, nor about tactics. I'm talking about what the GM does with a monster.

That orc with the greataxe is nasty, but a good GM would send him in alone, or in very small numbers. The club-wielding orcs would likely be more numerous.

It's about ethics in encounter design. (God, some phrases just feel ruined for me at this point.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael wrote:
The question is-- why is the default Kobold listed as something that's only possible purpose is to be slaughtered?

Because that is its purpose. The game developers have literally said as much. That kobold is fodder for the smarter kobolds more valued by their tribe. That kobold is sent in en masse to overrun the adventurers. That kobold is left as bait for the hilarious badger trap. That kobold is strapped to our hornet nest bag and fired from the catapult.

Nathanael wrote:
Except there are whole litanies of heroes to protect human kind?

And there are whole litanies of traps, trained monsters, and kobolds with PC class levels to protect koboldkind. Seriously, how are we still on that? I can't count the amount of times someone's cited traps/Monster Codex kobolds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

you want foolishly armed?

The marilith in charge of the Worldwound's standard armies.

F/4 or something.

Exotic WP in SIX DIFFERENT EXOTIC WEAPONS.

Just...ugh.

==Aelryinth

I think marilith is only half foolishly armed. The other three are okay.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Why would you be more likely to be TPK'd by these kobolds than the default? Either monster will TPK players if the GM is inclined to TPK you. It's not the build that matters, it's what you do with it.
unless your talk about GM cheat (look! The kobold crits you! Again!), then no, by no means that's true. Your can play tactically sound with your orcs and flank and focus fire and whatever, but an orc with a club and skill focus is not goibg to be as dangerous as an orc with a great axe and power attackattack that is equally tactically sound

Except I'm not talking about cheating, nor about tactics. I'm talking about what the GM does with a monster.

That orc with the greataxe is nasty, but a good GM would send him in alone, or in very small numbers. The club-wielding orcs would likely be more numerous.

It's about ethics in encounter design. (God, some phrases just feel ruined for me at this point.)

Yeah. That's the point.

The argument is that the common kobold is still CR 1/4 even with better gear, so it would just replace the common kobold with lousy stuff. If you just make there be less of the better kobolds, you won't be more likely to TPK.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While we're at it, why don't we rearrange their stat array. And let's adjust their racial ability scores. And some of these racial traits aren't that useful, so let's exchange them for something else. I don't really need them to be undergound. And frankly, I've never really cared for the name kobolds... can we just call them something else?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is the most racist post ever like oh my god guys seriously.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Crusader wrote:
While we're at it, why don't we rearrange their stat array. And let's adjust their racial ability scores. And some of these racial traits aren't that useful, so let's exchange them for something else. I don't really need them to be undergound. And frankly, I've never really cared for the name kobolds... can we just call them something else?

Yeah, why can't Kobolds be on level with real PC races?

+2 Charisma, +2 Dexterity,–2 Strength seems right-- small/weak, but nimble and draconic related CHR bump.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
The Crusader wrote:
While we're at it, why don't we rearrange their stat array. And let's adjust their racial ability scores. And some of these racial traits aren't that useful, so let's exchange them for something else. I don't really need them to be undergound. And frankly, I've never really cared for the name kobolds... can we just call them something else?

Yeah, why can't Kobolds be on level with real PC races?

+2 Charisma, +2 Dexterity,–2 Strength seems right-- small/weak, but nimble and draconic related CHR bump.

You mean scaly halflings. Bah.

Anyway, if we were changing the stats (and I still say bah to that) I think int is more appropriate. CHA is for plucky little heroes that overcome adversity with their can do attitude. It is for chaotic little fools.

No, INT is for kobolds, who realize the cost of trying to rise up without a plan. INT is for those that are smart enough find a way to win, even if they do not have outside force boosting them because they think a kobold can't survive unless it is physically stronger. INT makes silly things like strength and constitution not matter when enemies fall into spike traps, get crushed under carefully prepared cave ins, and feed the caged beasts let loose when some do gooders try to interfere with their home.


Nathanael Love wrote:
The Crusader wrote:
While we're at it, why don't we rearrange their stat array. And let's adjust their racial ability scores. And some of these racial traits aren't that useful, so let's exchange them for something else. I don't really need them to be undergound. And frankly, I've never really cared for the name kobolds... can we just call them something else?

Yeah, why can't Kobolds be on level with real PC races?

+2 Charisma, +2 Dexterity,–2 Strength seems right-- small/weak, but nimble and draconic related CHR bump.

Hmmm... I must not be laying the sarcasm on thickly enough. I'll work on that.

Suffice to say, if you want a stronger base creature to challenge your PC's, without adding any templates or adjusting any starting equipment... Instead of reprinting all of the core bestiaries, why don't you just use the goblin, orc, hobgoblin, gnoll, bugbear, ogre, minotaur, or cyclops?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or just give all your kobolds the half-dragon template, thematic AND deadly!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The whole cool thing about kobolds is that they suck but fight dirty. We shouldn't be trying to take that away. That's like saying, "Y'know, why do orcs have to be stupid? Let's give them +4 Intelligence and make them feral mutagen alchemists." And then we have extra-strong hobgoblins!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tryn wrote:

"The crusader" has a good point:

Kobolds live in narrow small tunnels and caves.
If you fight in a close enviroment you will not use weapons which need a lot of space to be used effectivly (like most bludgeoning or slashing weapons). Also ranged weapons loose their biggest benefit (the range) as most fights are close/melee combat.
You will also use a relative compact weapon so you don't get stuck if you run thru the tunnels.

Based on this the best weapon would be a relative small stabbing (piercing) weapon >> aka shortspear.

So the weapon choice is logical (and "world building")

Except it's not. Slings take more space to use than bows or crossbows and have a higher arc, meaning they'll be obstructed more by the ceiling in caves. Crossbows have the flattest arc of non-firearm weapons in the game and are the appropriate ranged weapon for cavern dwellers.

Axes, picks and maces are very short and take very little space to use. If picks took too much space to swing in a tunnel mining with them would be impossible. Swords tend to be longer for a given weight, but short swords are a thing. And short swords in PF are thrusting weapons. Spears have two big problems. First, they're long. Even if you stab when you fight with them you swing them around when carrying them. Second, they use wood. Kobolds are not known for their woodsmen. Wood should be either an expensive import or an expensive product of rare surface acclimated kobolds.

Imagine a game of Dwarf Fortress in which you aren't allowed to perform any tasks outside. There are giant mushrooms growing in the underdark you can use as fuel and for shoring up mine tunnels, but they're softer than surface growing softwoods and completely useless for spear shafts or bows. Any spears would need to have all metal shafts. Long metal poles are heavy and kobolds have a huge strength penalty. Axes would need all metal shafts too. Military picks and maces, often do have all metal shafts and short swords are metal. Crossbows are made with metal prods and could have metal stocks. Composite bows may also be possible (and composite construction can be used for crossbows instead of steel prods). Underdark giant fungus may have lousy material properties, but it's just a spacer between the bone back and sinew belly that are the real strength of the bow.

By your own setting logic the appropriate weapons for kobolds are short swords and crossbows. Absolutely not spears or slings. Especially not slings. Slings are absolfreakinglutely useless in tunnels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Crossbows would be logical for cramped spaces. Bludgeoning and slashing weapons...not really? It's easier to stab in a cramped space than it is to swing. Shortspears aren't much taller than the average kobold and deal more damage than a shortsword—plus, even kobold commoners can use them, making them a great "mass production" weapon for fodder and slightly superior fodder.

As for the "got wood?" problem: Fungus. Fungus solves all problems. Fungus solves Coruscant's food shortage. Fungus solves kobold wood deficits.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
That creature having Reach is perhaps even more powerful, because the only safe ways to engage them are with successful Acrobatics checks for melee (otherwise they get attacked, potentially hit, and therefore killed without any sort of reprisal)

This is the most spectacular leap of logic I've ever seen. We're still talking about kobolds, right? 9 Strength, CR 1/4 kobolds? "Hit and therefore killed"? At +1 to hit for 2.5 average damage I'd hardly think so. Maybe if the kobolds use the brace function and a PC is foolish enough to charge in, but even then the kobolds have such a dismal hit chance that it's almost a non-factor.

If our kobolds are ranked four spaces wide (any deeper and they forgo attacks of opportunity due to soft cover), they'll each get a single attack of opportunity against whoever approaches (in this case, likely a heavily armored fighter with upwards of 17AC (i.e., they only hit on a 16 or higher, a 1 in 4 chance to hit. Against our foolhardy charging fighter, those odds are improved somewhat, they can now hit on a 14 or higher. Not great odds.). The rest of the party are free to move in and cut them to ribbons at their leisure, as the kobolds have spent their attack of opportunity for the round (that is, if they haven't already been incapacitated by a sleep, burning hands, acid flask, ranged attack or anything else that takes advantage of their dismal saves and 5 hit points. Finally once our fighters are within their reach they're forced to withdraw and forgo their attacks for the round.

This is the only context I can see these longspear toting kobolds being deadly. Leading the PC's deeper into the complex where they'll be beset with other hazards. They're still hopelessly ineffective in melee even with the better equipment. They're there to serve as an annoyance and distraction. They don't become instagibbing death machines the second you give them reach. Weapon Finesse and Precise Strike are fair suggestions for giving kobold warriors a bit more bite, but it doesn't make them any less disposable. I say they're still representative of the CR.

101 to 150 of 248 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why are some weapon-wielding monsters so foolishly armed? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.