New kobolds


Second Edition

1 to 50 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So goblins evolved in one year being able to integrate with humanoid societies and even being core races, that means mean they are quite a bit popular and common in the realm of Golarion. But now i need to know... What happened to kobolds, don't get me wrong i am not in the 'Kobolds suck now' camp or the 'I love their cute new faces' one. I am still conflicted about my favorite little dragon boys so i need to know, did something happen for the change? Is it just visual? Will there be new kobold abilities to show?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I believe it's just visual, which is a great upgrade. Kobolds were already pretty interesting in Pathfinder because they got some cool exposure (Specially those PFS scenarios). I don't see where they could put a huge ecology update like with the goblins.


ChibiNyan wrote:
I believe it's just visual, which is a great upgrade. Kobolds were already pretty interesting in Pathfinder because they got some cool exposure (Specially those PFS scenarios). I don't see where they could put a huge ecology update like with the goblins.

I see, well i don't play PFS and since here in brasil 'Devir'(PF publisher) didn't really deliver much, i mostly purchased the core books. Thought i did hear about the kobold that worshiped dinos, and the ones that created tunnels so well built under cities that they were hired to build the sewers xD


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Look for the Scenarios "Sewer Dragons of Absalom" and "True Dragons of Absalom" on this site!


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

I recall reading that Paizo wanted yo make more races recognizable as "Pathfinder Monster". We saw it with Goblins back when PF first released- a distinctive look that anyone can recognize as a Paizo original, which brought em a lot of brand recognition! They're now doing it with more monsters too. They've mentioned orcs, and we saw Hobgoblins (now much more like PF goblins, with long gangly limbs- terrifying!), and now Kobolds.

This is, from a design POV, a good move from Paizo. It's certainly convinced me to buy the Bestiary! Hell yeah I wanna see all the new designs! What's next? Who's next? Personally, I'd be pumped to see some other iconic monsters like Tieflings get a definitive "This is Paizo" look- pump up the variety between DnD monsters and PF ones! Get that sick brand recognition going!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So one thing I'm wondering about in PF2 is whether we're going to do ancestries that have just better stat arrays than the standard ones or ones that are just worse.

Like a PF1 Merfolk would have bonuses to 3 stats and penalties to none, supposedly counterbalanced by "no legs". By contrast a Strix has a bonus to one stat and a penalty to another, supposedly counterbalanced by "wings".

Since Goblins went from ++Dex/-Str/-Cha to +Dex/+Cha/-Wis (which fits better IMO), could Kobolds go from like ++Dex/-Str/-Con to +Dex/+Int/-Str?


PossibleCabbage wrote:

So one thing I'm wondering about in PF2 is whether we're going to do ancestries that have just better stat arrays than the standard ones or ones that are just worse.

Like a PF1 Merfolk would have bonuses to 3 stats and penalties to none, supposedly counterbalanced by "no legs". By contrast a Strix has a bonus to one stat and a penalty to another, supposedly counterbalanced by "wings".

Since Goblins went from ++Dex/-Str/-Cha to +Dex/+Cha/-Wis (which fits better IMO), could Kobolds go from like ++Dex/-Str/-Con to +Dex/+Int/-Str?

I am hopping for kobolds to get +dex/+cha/-str or con(Dex for being small annoying rapid things, and cha for the draconic background). But since goblins already get +dex/+cha, it might be fun to give bolds +dex/+int making them less draconic inspired and showing that they compensate by being smart. Maybe making a wizard kobold cool xD


6 people marked this as a favorite.

PF1 had so many Dex/Cha races (Musetouched Aasimar, Halflings, Kitsune, Gathlain, Drow, Dhampir, Faultspawn and Beastbrood tieflings, Catfolk, Fetchlings, Ifrits, Weretiger Skinwalkers, Vishkanaya etc.). I would like to stay away from that particular combination as much as possible.

But it might fit best with Kobolds. I personally like clever Kobolds.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

PF1 had so many Dex/Cha races (Musetouched Aasimar, Halflings, Kitsune, Gathlain, Drow, Dhampir, Faultspawn and Beastbrood tieflings, Catfolk, Fetchlings, Ifrits, Weretiger Skinwalkers, Vishkanaya etc.). I would like to stay away from that particular combination as much as possible.

But it might fit best with Kobolds. I personally like clever Kobolds.

Yeah agreed. Even in the playtest we got two of them already... Making +int kobolds would be fun specially since they should get some kind of bonus with traps in their ancestries.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
oholoko wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

PF1 had so many Dex/Cha races (Musetouched Aasimar, Halflings, Kitsune, Gathlain, Drow, Dhampir, Faultspawn and Beastbrood tieflings, Catfolk, Fetchlings, Ifrits, Weretiger Skinwalkers, Vishkanaya etc.). I would like to stay away from that particular combination as much as possible.

But it might fit best with Kobolds. I personally like clever Kobolds.

Yeah agreed. Even in the playtest we got two of them already... Making +int kobolds would be fun specially since they should get some kind of bonus with traps in their ancestries.

Agree with all of this.

EDIT: for what it's worth, the playtest bestiary has three kobolds:

Kobold Warrior
Str -1 Dex +3 Con +0 Wis +2 Cha -1

Kobold Scout
Str -1 Dex +4 Con +0 Int +0 Wis +2 Cha -1

Kobold Dragon Mage
Str -2 Dex +2 Con -1 Int +2 Wis +0 Cha +4

The Dragon Mage is a cha-based spontaneous caster, in keeping with the kobold sorcerers of PF1. But I'd still love a potential Kobold ancestry to be Int boosted rather than Cha, given everything y'all have pointed out.

No more small -Str +Dex +Cha Ancestries, please!!


I wish the inevitable playable version (and NPCs in unison with its feat options) gets flight and breath weapons (cantrip-power if at-will), even if it gets pushed up to higher levels.

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!


Lucas Yew wrote:

I wish the inevitable playable version (and NPCs in unison with its feat options) gets flight and breath weapons (cantrip-power if at-will), even if it gets pushed up to higher levels.

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!

I would say small amounts of flight being granted at level 9, a full blow breath weapon level 12 and full flight at level 17. Maybe a kobold-like cat-fall feat for early levels to simbolize they got wings.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
oholoko wrote:
Lucas Yew wrote:

I wish the inevitable playable version (and NPCs in unison with its feat options) gets flight and breath weapons (cantrip-power if at-will), even if it gets pushed up to higher levels.

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!

I would say small amounts of flight being granted at level 9, a full blow breath weapon level 12 and full flight at level 17. Maybe a kobold-like cat-fall feat for early levels to simbolize they got wings.

This is definitely a good example of how adding ancestry feats to characters in PF2 opens up a lot of fun/interesting design space for cool character options.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Indeed, Kobolds can become more dragony as they get more powerful makes a lot more sense to me than "elves become more elfy".

I guess that's because there is a tradition of Kobold feats that require, like, level 10 to qualify for.


A lot of problems can be solved by reverting to proper kobolds, yipping little dog/rat things.

There's more than enough support for boring old dragonish and lizard races.

Silver Crusade

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Voss wrote:

A lot of problems can be solved by reverting to proper kobolds, yipping little dog/rat things.

There's more than enough support for boring old dragonish and lizard races.

Hey, you missed a ship that sailed. Want me to check when the next one comes around?


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.

There's more than enough support for boring old dragonish and lizard races.

I like them as lizards, and I always found lizard races more interesting than the standard elves and halflings.

btw, the playtest bestiary seems to suggest that wisdom is the kobold's main mental stat, but that seems rather odd to me. I think charisma and intelligence make more sense (the former because kobold sorcerers were always an iconic type of spellcaster).

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

Joe M. wrote:
oholoko wrote:


I would say small amounts of flight being granted at level 9, a full blow breath weapon level 12 and full flight at level 17. Maybe a kobold-like cat-fall feat for early levels to simbolize they got wings.
This is definitely a good example of how adding ancestry feats to characters in PF2 opens up a lot of fun/interesting design space for cool character options.

I've been mucking around with homebrewed ancestries using the playtest rules and this is a big perk of the new system. You can brew up ancestries that would have required the use of racial hit dice or level adjustments previously. I've even got a PC playing a young dragon with the understanding that most of her powerful dragon-y things will come online at later levels.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I look at it as a welcome sign of Paizo getting a bit bolder with their creature designs to make things recognizably "theirs," even when they're inherited in whole or in part from 3rd edition D&D.

Which I support, in general.

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Indeed, Kobolds can become more dragony as they get more powerful makes a lot more sense to me than "elves become more elfy".

Agreed. This is the sort of concept that got me excited about the ancestry feat track. ^_^

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Also, Paizo has been quite clear in that they're moving away from WotC interpretation of how things look and are named unless there's very solid unicorn-and-medusa-level grounding in public domain. As much as anybody can like doggy kobolds, they've been introduced by TSR, aren't explicitly covered by the OGL and just like it is the case with Tiamat and several other names from mythology whom TSR/WotC gave a distinct appearance that was developed by them, you could easily build a copyright infringement case. You might not win it on merits, but if you've bankrupted your opponent by legal costs, who cares?


Gorbacz wrote:
Also, Paizo has been quite clear in that they're moving away from WotC interpretation of how things look and are named unless there's very solid unicorn-and-medusa-level grounding in public domain. As much as anybody can like doggy kobolds, they've been introduced by TSR, aren't explicitly covered by the OGL and just like it is the case with Tiamat and several other names from mythology whom TSR/WotC gave a distinct appearance that was developed by them, you could easily build a copyright infringement case. You might not win it on merits, but if you've bankrupted your opponent by legal costs, who cares?

Even WoTC has moved past the dog-kobolds. I think that was just 1st edition AD&D wasn't it? I mean, back in 1st ed we had Orcs that looked like this too. Besides, Paizo has described Kobolds as dragony for over a decade. They might update the art, but they're not going to change them to a completely different type of creature with a totally different culture than they've done before.

Silver Crusade

Gorbacz wrote:
Also, Paizo has been quite clear in that they're moving away from WotC interpretation of how things look and are named unless there's very solid unicorn-and-medusa-level grounding in public domain. As much as anybody can like doggy kobolds, they've been introduced by TSR, aren't explicitly covered by the OGL and just like it is the case with Tiamat and several other names from mythology whom TSR/WotC gave a distinct appearance that was developed by them, you could easily build a copyright infringement case. You might not win it on merits, but if you've bankrupted your opponent by legal costs, who cares?

Aside re Copyright:
I'm no IP expert, but my understanding as far as copyright goes is that:

* copyright protects a specific form of expression not the idea expressed

* the supreme court decided a couple weeks ago that you can't sue for copyright infringement unless your copyright has been registered

So brand concerns are probably in play here (and, great: I like Pathfinder, um, finding its own path—more creativity in the world is better for all gamers). But legal worries almost surely aren't an issue in this regard.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I could see Kobolds getting the Troglodyte treatment. In prior editions they were just another boring lizard monster, with their not so specific niche being "underground." Instead Pathfinder created a whole new background, history and culture around them, renaming them Xulgaths and making them three dimensional creatures instead of another boring run of the mill monster.

The Developers have said that many (all?) monsters will have lore side-bars, this a great place to seed a whole new Kobold mythos to the Lost Omens campaign setting.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Joe M. wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Also, Paizo has been quite clear in that they're moving away from WotC interpretation of how things look and are named unless there's very solid unicorn-and-medusa-level grounding in public domain. As much as anybody can like doggy kobolds, they've been introduced by TSR, aren't explicitly covered by the OGL and just like it is the case with Tiamat and several other names from mythology whom TSR/WotC gave a distinct appearance that was developed by them, you could easily build a copyright infringement case. You might not win it on merits, but if you've bankrupted your opponent by legal costs, who cares?
** spoiler omitted **

Copyright protects expression, not ideas. Sure, that's true!

So, what's the idea of a SRD kobold and what is its expression?

The SRD says that kobolds are "short, reptilian humanoids". That's a broad characterization. Now as to particular expressions of that ...

Also, Wayne Reynolds spilled the beans on his Facebook page by stating that the art order was to create a new look for kobolds that is different from any existing IP.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Also, Wayne Reynolds spilled the beans on his Facebook page by stating that the art order was to create a new look for kobolds that is different from any existing IP.

Yep. Erik also talked in reference to the new kobolds about wanting to create more distinctively Pathfinder looks with the monsters. Which I like. I was just rather needlessly quibbling about whether doglike kobolds would be legally questionable. /shrug


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait... Will the Bestiary be Golarion-focused this time around!? (PLS SAY YES). Reading PF bestiaries is so lame because can hardly figure out their place or ecology in the campaign setting.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Wait... Will the Bestiary be Golarion-focused this time around!? (PLS SAY YES). Reading PF bestiaries is so lame because can hardly figure out their place or ecology in the campaign setting.

I think "this is for Golarion" is a base assumption of PF2, since "figure out how to change this thing to work in my custom setting" is hardly more work than "figure out how this fits in my custom setting" anyway.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Wait... Will the Bestiary be Golarion-focused this time around!? (PLS SAY YES). Reading PF bestiaries is so lame because can hardly figure out their place or ecology in the campaign setting.
I think "this is for Golarion" is a base assumption of PF2, since "figure out how to change this thing to work in my custom setting" is hardly more work than "figure out how this fits in my custom setting" anyway.

Pretty much, no cost to get rid of "How does this fit in GOLARION? Why do I have to ask this question in the first place!?"


4 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Wait... Will the Bestiary be Golarion-focused this time around!? (PLS SAY YES). Reading PF bestiaries is so lame because can hardly figure out their place or ecology in the campaign setting.
I think "this is for Golarion" is a base assumption of PF2, since "figure out how to change this thing to work in my custom setting" is hardly more work than "figure out how this fits in my custom setting" anyway.
Pretty much, no cost to get rid of "How does this fit in GOLARION? Why do I have to ask this question in the first place!?"

I agree with every nested bit of these quotes.

Pathfinder was always straddling the line between being its own thing and trying to keep a setting neutral accessibility.

Both approaches might have suffered in this way. Hopefully focusing on one thing over the other will mean a better product.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stone Dog wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Wait... Will the Bestiary be Golarion-focused this time around!? (PLS SAY YES). Reading PF bestiaries is so lame because can hardly figure out their place or ecology in the campaign setting.
I think "this is for Golarion" is a base assumption of PF2, since "figure out how to change this thing to work in my custom setting" is hardly more work than "figure out how this fits in my custom setting" anyway.
Pretty much, no cost to get rid of "How does this fit in GOLARION? Why do I have to ask this question in the first place!?"

I agree with every nested bit of these quotes.

Pathfinder was always straddling the line between being its own thing and trying to keep a setting neutral accessibility.

Both approaches might have suffered in this way. Hopefully focusing on one thing over the other will mean a better product.

Yeah. And the setting is close enough to standard fantasy settings for there to be minimal work to work out things in a different world. It's not like a really weird one like Dark Sun that doesn't fit other standard fantasy settings. And this way lets things tie into Golarion better without having to wait until a later setting book explains just where the Whosits and Whatsis live.

Not bestiary, but I remember this being a bit of an issue with the Advanced Race Guide and then requiring Inner Sea Races to fit them into the world, because it's not quite the same as the generic assumption of the first book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Stone Dog wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Wait... Will the Bestiary be Golarion-focused this time around!? (PLS SAY YES). Reading PF bestiaries is so lame because can hardly figure out their place or ecology in the campaign setting.
I think "this is for Golarion" is a base assumption of PF2, since "figure out how to change this thing to work in my custom setting" is hardly more work than "figure out how this fits in my custom setting" anyway.
Pretty much, no cost to get rid of "How does this fit in GOLARION? Why do I have to ask this question in the first place!?"

I agree with every nested bit of these quotes.

Pathfinder was always straddling the line between being its own thing and trying to keep a setting neutral accessibility.

Both approaches might have suffered in this way. Hopefully focusing on one thing over the other will mean a better product.

Yeah. And the setting is close enough to standard fantasy settings for there to be minimal work to work out things in a different world. It's not like a really weird one like Dark Sun that doesn't fit other standard fantasy settings. And this way lets things tie into Golarion better without having to wait until a later setting book explains just where the Whosits and Whatsis live.

Not bestiary, but I remember this being a bit of an issue with the Advanced Race Guide and then requiring Inner Sea Races to fit them into the world, because it's not quite the same as the generic assumption of the first book.

I have not read EVERY Adventure Path, but I've yet to see a single official Catfolk NPC in Golarion. It's like this race was added and supported just for setting neutral purposes.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
I have not read EVERY Adventure Path, but I've yet to see a single official Catfolk NPC in Golarion. It's like this race was added and supported just for setting neutral purposes.

Catfolk are apparently a major race (or ancestry) of Southern Garund. An area the folks at Paizo simply haven't detailed yet.

Much like, say, Wayang, they're not common in the Inner Sea region that the vast majority of NPCs are from, and unlike Wayang the region they're common to hasn't had books published about it yet...so we haven't seen too many of them, but they have a defined place in the world nonetheless.

That said, they do still come up a bit. Indeed, one comes up as a villain in Chapter 3 of Shattered Star, and there's a fair number living in Anuli (including another official NPC) in the Distant Shores book (not coincidentally, this is a city in Southern Garund).

Paizo Employee Creative Director

10 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:


I have not read EVERY Adventure Path, but I've yet to see a single official Catfolk NPC in Golarion. It's like this race was added and supported just for setting neutral purposes.

Just off the top of my head, I know there's a catfolk NPC in Shattered Star, part 3. I believe we've used them here and there since then as well.

On to the larger topic: The assumption for EVERY Bestiary we've ever done is that if the monster doesn't exist in Golarion, it doesn't belong in the Bestiary, though. Even though we don't use many proper nouns from our setting in the book, the flavor text for all monsters is curated and designed to represent how they function in our campaign setting.

For the past several hardcovers, this line has blurred even more. Bestiary 6 makes explicit use of several Pathfinder setting proper nouns, for example. And going forward into 2nd edition, we'll be assuming Golarion as the baseline for all our products—when we need to or want to include flavor text for anything, it'll draw from Golarion.

But just as D&D did the same thing in 1st edition by drawing from Greyhawk, that doesn't mean that you have to set your Pathfinder game (regardless of the edition you favor) on Golarion. It just means that Golarion is both our favorite setting and the one we know the best, so it's logical for us to use it as the baseline for the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Kobolds are excessively weak.

Removing their light-blindness would strengthen them considerably.

I also don't see why they require minuses to 2 attributes.

Gliding wings and breath weapons would be nice...but not absolutely necessary.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

7 people marked this as a favorite.

The game needs things that are excessively weaker than a 1st level character, so that there are options for 1st or 2nd level adventures to present a variety of encounters. Kobolds are one of the things that have classically filled that niche, which is why they're not as powerful on average as any of the core races.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeaaaaah, kobolds weren't balanced around idea they were PC race, they were balanced around idea they are low level trap using monster enemy race :p


4 people marked this as a favorite.

But in separating the rules for "monsters" and "player characters" we are able to keep bestiary kobolds as "considerably weaker than PCs" without needing a player character kobold to be inherently weaker than the rest of the party due to their choice of ancestry. After all, a Kobold who leaves the group and goes on to save the world is by definition kind of exceptional.

I mean, we always kind of did this but it was more common in the other direction (e.g. PC Cecaelias in PF1 did not get Grab, which all bestiary ones had.)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

11 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

But in separating the rules for "monsters" and "player characters" we are able to keep bestiary kobolds as "considerably weaker than PCs" without needing a player character kobold to be inherently weaker than the rest of the party due to their choice of ancestry. After all, a Kobold who leaves the group and goes on to save the world is by definition kind of exceptional.

I mean, we always kind of did this but it was more common in the other direction (e.g. PC Cecaelias in PF1 did not get Grab, which all bestiary ones had.)

Absolutely; and that separation will allow us to do ancestries for things like kobolds MUCH easier and MUCH more elegantly in 2nd edition than we ever could in 1st edition.

But the Bestiary isn't the place for ancestries—that book needs to focus with laser precision on getting GMs and adventure creators as many monsters as possible out on day 1.

We'll have plenty of chances and opportunities to expand the available ancestries in other areas and products and stuff, never fear. It's just not part of the Bestiary's job.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
The game needs things that are excessively weaker than a 1st level character, so that there are options for 1st or 2nd level adventures to present a variety of encounters. Kobolds are one of the things that have classically filled that niche, which is why they're not as powerful on average as any of the core races.

Yeah, like goblins


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

I’m planning on homebrewing the races my friends need for the first bit until we get some more options there. Very excited for the new ancestry system’s flexibility!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

8 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
The game needs things that are excessively weaker than a 1st level character, so that there are options for 1st or 2nd level adventures to present a variety of encounters. Kobolds are one of the things that have classically filled that niche, which is why they're not as powerful on average as any of the core races.
Yeah, like goblins

Not sure what you're getting at here, but yes, exactly like goblins. Or mites or muckdwellers or ratfolk or sprites, for that matter. There's several "weaker than human" monster types out there, because we do a LOT of adventures and need to have more than one option.

The fact that goblins can more easily exist as both a PC ancestry and a monster in 2nd edition is one of my favorite elements of the new edition. Since that also extends to similar roles for other things.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

That’s been one of my big hopes- while I’m not particularly a fan of goblins specifically, I am a fan of some other comparable humanoids that I’m sure other people aren’t specifically fans of (gnolls and kobolds in my case). Having some of those be more accessible would be pretty nifty for me.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
The game needs things that are excessively weaker than a 1st level character, so that there are options for 1st or 2nd level adventures to present a variety of encounters. Kobolds are one of the things that have classically filled that niche, which is why they're not as powerful on average as any of the core races.
Yeah, like goblins

Not sure what you're getting at here, but yes, exactly like goblins. Or mites or muckdwellers or ratfolk or sprites, for that matter. There's several "weaker than human" monster types out there, because we do a LOT of adventures and need to have more than one option.

The fact that goblins can more easily exist as both a PC ancestry and a monster in 2nd edition is one of my favorite elements of the new edition. Since that also extends to similar roles for other things.

I was just being cheeky

Paizo Employee Creative Director

11 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
The game needs things that are excessively weaker than a 1st level character, so that there are options for 1st or 2nd level adventures to present a variety of encounters. Kobolds are one of the things that have classically filled that niche, which is why they're not as powerful on average as any of the core races.
Yeah, like goblins

Not sure what you're getting at here, but yes, exactly like goblins. Or mites or muckdwellers or ratfolk or sprites, for that matter. There's several "weaker than human" monster types out there, because we do a LOT of adventures and need to have more than one option.

The fact that goblins can more easily exist as both a PC ancestry and a monster in 2nd edition is one of my favorite elements of the new edition. Since that also extends to similar roles for other things.

I was just being cheeky

Fair enough.

The internet tends to make me assume antagonism, for better or worse, is all. Nice to know that wasn't the intent! :-)


James Jacobs wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
The game needs things that are excessively weaker than a 1st level character, so that there are options for 1st or 2nd level adventures to present a variety of encounters. Kobolds are one of the things that have classically filled that niche, which is why they're not as powerful on average as any of the core races.
Yeah, like goblins

Not sure what you're getting at here, but yes, exactly like goblins. Or mites or muckdwellers or ratfolk or sprites, for that matter. There's several "weaker than human" monster types out there, because we do a LOT of adventures and need to have more than one option.

The fact that goblins can more easily exist as both a PC ancestry and a monster in 2nd edition is one of my favorite elements of the new edition. Since that also extends to similar roles for other things.

The game needs threats weaker than 1st level characters.

Surely there is a better way than condemning a race (goblin, kobold, mite, ratfolk, sprites, etcetera) to being permanently pathetic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
scary harpy wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
The game needs things that are excessively weaker than a 1st level character, so that there are options for 1st or 2nd level adventures to present a variety of encounters. Kobolds are one of the things that have classically filled that niche, which is why they're not as powerful on average as any of the core races.
Yeah, like goblins

Not sure what you're getting at here, but yes, exactly like goblins. Or mites or muckdwellers or ratfolk or sprites, for that matter. There's several "weaker than human" monster types out there, because we do a LOT of adventures and need to have more than one option.

The fact that goblins can more easily exist as both a PC ancestry and a monster in 2nd edition is one of my favorite elements of the new edition. Since that also extends to similar roles for other things.

The game needs threats weaker than 1st level characters.

Surely there is a better way than condemning a race (goblin, kobold, mite, ratfolk, sprites, etcetera) to being permanently pathetic.

I'm pretty sure no one wants to go back to the good ole days of slaying rats in the basement for your L1 quest.


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
scary harpy wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
The game needs things that are excessively weaker than a 1st level character, so that there are options for 1st or 2nd level adventures to present a variety of encounters. Kobolds are one of the things that have classically filled that niche, which is why they're not as powerful on average as any of the core races.
Yeah, like goblins

Not sure what you're getting at here, but yes, exactly like goblins. Or mites or muckdwellers or ratfolk or sprites, for that matter. There's several "weaker than human" monster types out there, because we do a LOT of adventures and need to have more than one option.

The fact that goblins can more easily exist as both a PC ancestry and a monster in 2nd edition is one of my favorite elements of the new edition. Since that also extends to similar roles for other things.

The game needs threats weaker than 1st level characters.

Surely there is a better way than condemning a race (goblin, kobold, mite, ratfolk, sprites, etcetera) to being permanently pathetic.

I'm pretty sure no one wants to go back to the good ole days of slaying rats in the basement for your L1 quest.

After all this time, that's still the only other option??

Paizo Employee Creative Director

11 people marked this as a favorite.
scary harpy wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
The game needs things that are excessively weaker than a 1st level character, so that there are options for 1st or 2nd level adventures to present a variety of encounters. Kobolds are one of the things that have classically filled that niche, which is why they're not as powerful on average as any of the core races.
Yeah, like goblins

Not sure what you're getting at here, but yes, exactly like goblins. Or mites or muckdwellers or ratfolk or sprites, for that matter. There's several "weaker than human" monster types out there, because we do a LOT of adventures and need to have more than one option.

The fact that goblins can more easily exist as both a PC ancestry and a monster in 2nd edition is one of my favorite elements of the new edition. Since that also extends to similar roles for other things.

The game needs threats weaker than 1st level characters.

Surely there is a better way than condemning a race (goblin, kobold, mite, ratfolk, sprites, etcetera) to being permanently pathetic.

Which brings me back to my comment that the new edition solves this a lot more elegantly than 1st edition Pathfinder did. It's MUCH easier to have weak kobolds or goblins or anything serve as 1st level PC foes while simultaneously having balanced ancestry options using the same races for player character use. This is one of several advantages we have gained by decoupling the PC creation rules from the monster creation rules.

Whether or not any one person deems our attempt a success will have to wait several months to find out, and will invariably differ from person to person of course. All I can day at this point is that I, personally, am much more pleased with how 2nd edition handles the question of making a weak race suitable for foes at 1st level while simultaneously being usable as a potential ancestry for PCs—or conversely, making a powerful race suitable for higher level PC foes and still working as a PC ancestry.

ADDED BY THE OFFICE OF EXPECTATION MANAGEMENT: 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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
scary harpy wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
scary harpy wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
The game needs things that are excessively weaker than a 1st level character, so that there are options for 1st or 2nd level adventures to present a variety of encounters. Kobolds are one of the things that have classically filled that niche, which is why they're not as powerful on average as any of the core races.
Yeah, like goblins

Not sure what you're getting at here, but yes, exactly like goblins. Or mites or muckdwellers or ratfolk or sprites, for that matter. There's several "weaker than human" monster types out there, because we do a LOT of adventures and need to have more than one option.

The fact that goblins can more easily exist as both a PC ancestry and a monster in 2nd edition is one of my favorite elements of the new edition. Since that also extends to similar roles for other things.

The game needs threats weaker than 1st level characters.

Surely there is a better way than condemning a race (goblin, kobold, mite, ratfolk, sprites, etcetera) to being permanently pathetic.

I'm pretty sure no one wants to go back to the good ole days of slaying rats in the basement for your L1 quest.
After all this time, that's still the only other option??

If you're removing the option for any intelligent races to fill that option all that's really left is the local flora/fauna (aka rats) and maybe some real chaff tier undead. If you want to get spicy, I guess you could oppose a bunch of Sickly/Weak/Old *insert race here*

1 to 50 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / New kobolds All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.