New kobolds


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 213 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

One thing I like about the new kobolds- they have horns. Horns are excellent for hanging jewelry (or magic items!) from, fastening a cool veil to, etc. Wealthy worshipper of Mammon? Don’t mind if I do!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The new kobolds are cute and I love them. They are like little dragon Spuds Mackenzie boys.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Saedar wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
I kind of prefer the long snout look so I hope it isn't completely gone.
But what happens when you boop a troll snoot?
You probably lose a limb. So I wouldn't recommend it, unless you're also a troll and can regrow it.

It's a common game among young trolls.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
A lot of problems can be solved by reverting to proper kobolds, yipping little dog/rat things.

Kobolds have been illustrated as scaly since AD&D 1st ed, and described as scaly since at least the red box version of Basic D&D.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Saedar wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
I kind of prefer the long snout look so I hope it isn't completely gone.
But what happens when you boop a troll snoot?
You probably lose a limb. So I wouldn't recommend it, unless you're also a troll and can regrow it.
It's a common game among young trolls.

So that's where the game "Got Your Nose" came from.


I... actually kind of don't like the new kobolds, personally. They look weirdly... toad-like? I don't know. I always liked the spindly, thin design of kobolds, these guys actually look fairly muscular for being so small, I always imagined them scrabbling around and up walls on all fours like geckos, almost, and I thought the thinner snout looked better than the... I guess turtle-like head?

Also, and I know this was by no means a consistent trait in art, but I really liked the sort of ear frills or fins they have in the odd picture. I always imagine them with those, even though they aren't really common. I just like the visual of them moving those things around based on fear or aggression or alertness, or whatever, kind of like dog ears.

Still, I'll probably get used to them?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Getting kobolds out as a foe race for PCs to fight is a day 1 necessity for us. Getting a player ancestry for playing kobolds is not. We'll get there eventually, I suspect, because kobolds are a popular player choice... but we can't do everything all at once.

Day one Kobold ancestry CONFIRMED! ;-)

Seriously though, I'm of two minds about the kobold change. I appreciate why they'd want to put a unique spin on more monsters, but that does tend to make things like the Bestiary Box (assuming we get one for 2E) less useful if you're trying to use it for other fantasy games.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Count me among the rising ranks of the Kobold Plushie cultists.

I love that all these ancestries and monsters will get makeovers in 2e, they look awesome and very distinctive.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Getting kobolds out as a foe race for PCs to fight is a day 1 necessity for us. Getting a player ancestry for playing kobolds is not. We'll get there eventually, I suspect, because kobolds are a popular player choice... but we can't do everything all at once.

Day one Kobold ancestry CONFIRMED! ;-)

Seriously though, I'm of two minds about the kobold change. I appreciate why they'd want to put a unique spin on more monsters, but that does tend to make things like the Bestiary Box (assuming we get one for 2E) less useful if you're trying to use it for other fantasy games.

I'm not entirely sure I buy that, at least as far as things like kobolds and hobgoblins are concerned. You could tell most generic fantasy folks that every hobgoblin pictured in Ironfang Invasion was an orc or half orc and they would believe it. And between kobolds, troglodytes,and Iruxi the bestiary box will have no shortage of reptilians. At least one is bound to check the generic fantasy box.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lucas Yew wrote:
Even 5E has Medium playable dragons from the start (albeit without wings and breath severely limited), PF2 should have at least a Small one as soon as possible!

Dragonborn are the single worst thing in D&D. They're nothing but an appeasement of whiny nerds crying that they couldn't play a dragon PC without taking a 10-level prestige class. I don't want that sh*t anywhere near Pathfinder.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ClanPsi wrote:
Lucas Yew wrote:
Even 5E has Medium playable dragons from the start (albeit without wings and breath severely limited), PF2 should have at least a Small one as soon as possible!
Dragonborn are the single worst thing in D&D. They're nothing but an appeasement of whiny nerds crying that they couldn't play a dragon PC without taking a 10-level prestige class. I don't want that sh*t anywhere near Pathfinder.

Dragonborn are indeed terrible. But it's because they're so bad at being dragons. Kobolds get closer to playing a dragon than dragonborn do.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
ClanPsi wrote:
Lucas Yew wrote:
Even 5E has Medium playable dragons from the start (albeit without wings and breath severely limited), PF2 should have at least a Small one as soon as possible!
Dragonborn are the single worst thing in D&D. They're nothing but an appeasement of whiny nerds crying that they couldn't play a dragon PC without taking a 10-level prestige class. I don't want that sh*t anywhere near Pathfinder.

Their race features are rather lacking compared to the other races, and the race could have more flavor, to say it's the worst thing in d&d is rather harsh. I always viewed them more as an option for players that like playing reptile/scaly characters (I'll admit, I'm one of them).


14 people marked this as a favorite.
BluLion wrote:
ClanPsi wrote:
Lucas Yew wrote:
Even 5E has Medium playable dragons from the start (albeit without wings and breath severely limited), PF2 should have at least a Small one as soon as possible!
Dragonborn are the single worst thing in D&D. They're nothing but an appeasement of whiny nerds crying that they couldn't play a dragon PC without taking a 10-level prestige class. I don't want that sh*t anywhere near Pathfinder.
Their race features are rather lacking compared to the other races, and the race could have more flavor, to say it's the worst thing in d&d is rather harsh. I always viewed them more as an option for players that like playing reptile/scaly characters (I'll admit, I'm one of them).

Exactly this. Just because you don't like a thing doesn't mean it is bad that other people do. Let people like the things they like without attacking them as "whiny nerds crying".


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I was firmly in support of goblin ancestry as core and really didn’t get the kobold appeal.
That was then, this is now.
These guys (and presumably girls, because non-mammalian humanoids probably really oughtn’t have mammalian mammary glands) are awesome; cute yet competent looking, full of character and without child eating baggage.
Kobold ancestry ASAP, please.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I want a Kender ancestry, or a Kender heritage for halfling ;-P

I know, I know. Too late by a week


8 people marked this as a favorite.
ClanPsi wrote:
Lucas Yew wrote:
Even 5E has Medium playable dragons from the start (albeit without wings and breath severely limited), PF2 should have at least a Small one as soon as possible!
Dragonborn are the single worst thing in D&D. They're nothing but an appeasement of whiny nerds crying that they couldn't play a dragon PC without taking a 10-level prestige class. I don't want that sh*t anywhere near Pathfinder.

Is it Respecting Others' Roleplaying Preferences Day on the forums already!? Gosh, how time flies.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, the inclusion of Dragonborns in core D&D was pretty terrible, but that’s because they were pretty much tackled on from Dragonlance’s setting and a lot of players associated them with that. It’s a bit like someone telling you that Absalom is secretly controlled by a group of Ventrue.
Once you make something core, it’s a part of the system. Which means settings are assumed to have them. Slipping a very specific kind of creature in every game where it didn’t exist before gave many players a bad feel - whether it was done to appease some is of little consequence.
Goblins and kobolds, however?
Yeah, they belong pretty much everywhere. Pls giev.


17 people marked this as a favorite.

As Ediwir says, the way dragonborn were tacked onto all D&D settings in 4e was rather s&~$ty. That doesn't mean the ancestry sucks in all possible ways or if you want to play one you're... what? A whiny nerd?...

... a whiny nerd?...

... ClanPsi, you do realize you're posting on the forums of a fantasy tabletop rpg with lists of imaginary spells and magic items where the players try to win against a variety of fictional monsters... right? Also, in a completely fictional setting with fictional deities and ancestries and cities and...

... Anyways. Let's please tone it down.

And I can't wait for the wyvarans' return as an ancestry ;P


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:

you do realize you're posting on the forums of a fantasy tabletop rpg with lists of imaginary spells and magic items where the players try to win against a variety of fictional monsters... right? Also, in a completely fictional setting with fictional deities and ancestries and cities and...

That's exactly the response that comes to mind when there is some nerd-calling on these boards. Especially in the PF2 section that adds "discussing speculated rules that aren't published yet" to the list :D


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Consider me part of the kobold plushie cult fan club!


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I mean, Kobolds >>>>>> Dragonborn, but I'm not militant about it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

YMMV, but for my money the old kobolds were cuter. *shrug*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:
YMMV, but for my money the old kobolds were cuter. *shrug*

GASP!!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:
YMMV, but for my money the old kobolds were cuter. *shrug*

.

I wouldn't say cuter, but the older ones don't scream "the art director said make them cute and marketable," to me.

TBH, I've never really been a fan of that set of proportions. It works for comedic and it works for being creepy but outside of that I have almost never come across it working.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Chakat Firepaw wrote:
Crayon wrote:
YMMV, but for my money the old kobolds were cuter. *shrug*

.

I wouldn't say cuter, but the older ones don't scream "the art director said make them cute and marketable," to me.

TBH, I've never really been a fan of that set of proportions. It works for comedic and it works for being creepy but outside of that I have almost never come across it working.

It's a bit weird... I just can't see those new kobolds as well... Kobolds, i love their design but somehow they don't seem like the guys who are weak and smart, coward but proud... They feel more animalistic than before.

New kobolds are literally new kobolds to me, not just new art. I doubt i will use these new kobolds same way as i did before due to the way they look even if the lore is the same.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
oholoko wrote:


New kobolds are literally new kobolds to me, not just new art. I doubt i will use these new kobolds same way as i did before due to the way they look even if the lore is the same.

I know what you mean; I am already thinking of them less like yappy, scaled little humans, and more like the raptors from Jurassic Park. I love it.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I like it mainly because Kobolds actually look like Tiny Dragons now...not what happens when a Ysoki and Lizardfolk get frisky.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe it's because I really latched on to the whole clan aspect of their lore in the 5e handbook, but I love dragonborn. And in my experience, they're very commonly played. They're just cool. (Though even I hate their base stats. Like, a single breath weapon per long rest, and that's it? Wtf WotC)

Kind of like Argonians, but with more dnd flavor. I plan on making some Dragonborn homebrew asap for PF2, even if I likely will never play it thanks to being the ever-DM

Regardless, I like the Kobold art. They cute af. Maybe a bit too cute tbh, kinda makes them less of a threat, when they're small enough to punt.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Honeybee wrote:
Is it Respecting Others' Roleplaying Preferences Day on the forums already!? Gosh, how time flies.

It's not that time flies...it's that every day is that day.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
RoastCabose wrote:
Regardless, I like the Kobold art. They cute af. Maybe a bit too cute tbh, kinda makes them less of a threat, when they're small enough to punt.

Galaxy Quest has some advice on that subject...


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Cole Deschain wrote:
Galaxy Quest has some advice on that subject...

Jesus that was scary O___O

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Making judgements about groups of people or insulting a playstyle is not a tone we want to see from our community. Please remember to flag and move on from content that you feel it needs moderation attention, as it is hard to remove or moderate when a considerable amount of content derives its context from posts which may need review. I appreciate the efforts to restore a more accepting tone. One reply was just not quite in line with improving the tone, and was removed.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I don't even need to click that link to know what it is... XD

PS: I just realized, Chakat Firepaw, are you on NAR also? Small world, you are the second person I have "met" both on these forums and elsewhere.

I don't use my real name here, but over there I recently asked for your opinion on my opinion, for reference. :)

Back on topic, I see what you and others are saying about how they almost look "marketing cute". I guess it doesn't bother me because I've always kinda seen kobolds as cute. Doesn't help that my Kingmaker PC who played a kobold gave him the most adorable voice and mannerisms, and kobolds definitely held a more comedic role in that AP for my group. Well, "comedic but don't underestimate them" - an army of kobolds literally saved the kingdom at one point with absolutely devastating lay traps-lure-retreat tactics.

...and I still want a plushie. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
PS: I just realized, Chakat Firepaw, are you on NAR also? Small world, you are the second person I have "met" both on these forums and elsewhere.

Yes, that is almost certainly me, (while there is another chakat named Firepaw, shi isn't someone's fursona).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chakat Firepaw wrote:

I wouldn't say cuter, but the older ones don't scream "the art director said make them cute and marketable," to me.

TBH, I've never really been a fan of that set of proportions. It works for comedic and it works for being creepy but outside of that I have almost never come across it working.

The old kobolds had an awkward gangly appearance that I found endearing while the new ones look more muscular and imposing to me...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:
The old kobolds had an awkward gangly appearance that I found endearing while the new ones look more muscular and imposing to me...

More muscular and imposing...hmmm.

Maybe they aren't -4 to strength anymore.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
scary harpy wrote:
Maybe they aren't -4 to strength anymore.

Considering the comparative value of a +1 or -1 in PF2 compared to its predecessor, I do not think we will see any ancestries with a +4 or a -4 to anything.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As an Ancestry, they will most assuredly get the same +2/+2/-2 stat distribution as everyone else.

As monsters, those stats aren't controlling but they may well have higher Str than in PF1 anyway.


I am really wondering how we're going to do Strix (+2/-2, but you can fly) and Merfolk (+2/+2/+2 but you cannot walk) in PF2.

Since almost every other PF1 race will fit into a +2/+2/-2 array pretty easily.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
scary harpy wrote:
Crayon wrote:
The old kobolds had an awkward gangly appearance that I found endearing while the new ones look more muscular and imposing to me...

More muscular and imposing...hmmm.

Maybe they aren't -4 to strength anymore.

It'd be really interesting if they became one of very few small races to not have the automatic -2 to Strength, heh. Like, if they were +Dex, +Int, -Wis, or something?

But not having either -2 Str or Con would be pretty different from pretty much everything we know about kobolds!

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mosquit0 wrote:

It'd be really interesting if they became one of very few small races to not have the automatic -2 to Strength, heh. Like, if they were +Dex, +Int, -Wis, or something?

But not having either -2 Str or Con would be pretty different from pretty much everything we know about kobolds!

Goblins already have no Str penalty, suffering a Wis penalty instead. Making Kobolds too similar to Goblins is definitely a bad call.

Besides which, Kobolds are the low level foes most likely to avoid direct conflict and use things like traps. That says high Wisdom to me rather than low Wisdom.

My personal bet would be +2 Dex, -2 Str, and then +2 to either Int or Wis, though -2 Str, +2 Int, +2 Wis, would also be an interesting array.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

They could theoretically do a +2/+2/+2/-2/-2 race without much trouble. In which case a Kobold might be -2Str/-2Con/+2Dex/+2Int/+2Cha

I think Charisma is fitting for their dragon blood, their teamwork, and their penchant for trying to lure enemies into their traps.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
They could theoretically do a +2/+2/+2/-2/-2 race without much trouble. In which case a Kobold might be -2Str/-2Con/+2Dex/+2Int/+2Cha

I think two penalties and three bonuses is probably a bad idea mechanically allowing more stat dumping than they seem to want. It strikes me as unlikely to occur.

WatersLethe wrote:
I think Charisma is fitting for their dragon blood, their teamwork, and their penchant for trying to lure enemies into their traps.

Based on their monster stats, I'm pretty sure they'll be more likely to get a Wis bonus than a Cha one. All listed Kobold enemies have middling to high Wis, while only the Sorcerer has high Cha (indeed, the rest have penaltirs). To me that says they might have a Heritage or Ancestry Feat aiding in being a Draconic Sorcerer specifically...but you'll need to take your floating bonus in Cha to really make the most of it.

Now, literally all of them have Str penalties, so that's clearly their bad stat, but Cha is not really one of their good ones collectively.

Silver Crusade

15 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Plushies don't tend to have a high strength score, I'll agree.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Plushies don't tend to have a high strength score, I'll agree.

But they must have high Con to handle all the squish!


Deadmanwalking wrote:

As an Ancestry, they will most assuredly get the same +2/+2/-2 stat distribution as everyone else.

As monsters, those stats aren't controlling but they may well have higher Str than in PF1 anyway.

That makes me very happy.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Saedar wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Plushies don't tend to have a high strength score, I'll agree.
But they must have high Con to handle all the squish!

*nods*


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I can't wait to see what the Plushie Heritage choice gets you.

Liberty's Edge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Loreguard wrote:

I can't wait to see what the Plushie Heritage choice gets you.

Soft underbelly is really quite good but the Weakness 5 Fire is one hell of a tradeoff.... still worth it for the Expert prof in Snuggle Checks.

101 to 150 of 213 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / New kobolds All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.