Wandering Monsers: The Little Guys

When and how do you use kobolds and goblins?

For the most part I agree with the article when it comes to the bulleted basic elements, though I would expand the list to include a draconic heritage and sorcerer elements for kobolds, and goblins lairing in the wilderness (not necessarily just in caves or ruins). If a setting associates goblins with fey (or just makes them fey), then I would also make them adept at illusion or “shadow” magic to further differentiate them from kobolds.

“I’ve got a case of kobolds.”
I really do not like the idea of an innkeeper comparing kobolds to rats. If kobolds manage to tunnel into a cellar and start raiding your food stores that is nothing to shrug at, while waiting for two copper-piece adventurers to show up and tackle. After all rats are not going to prepare traps and ambushes for anyone that comes after them, nor will they sneak into your home at night and eat your face off.

Most of the time.

I am also not too keen on the comic relief angle; if anything having goblins be the violent product of excessive abuse seems more tragic than anything else.

While I do not deliberately play them up as comedic, natural 1’s happen and I do not mind having them trip up, hit someone else, or cause something to explode. However I extend that possibility to every monster, as well as across the screen. It just depends on what you were trying to do and what is going on. Making this a trope for either just unnecessarily downplays the threat they pose.

The example of goblins trussing up a farmer and pelting him with apples is both confusing and pretty tame, especially for a monster that is also evil. It almost sounds like something George Lucas would do if he were to rewrite an adventure module, right up there with naming the bad guy Count Grimevildark and having the skeletons say ow as the characters bash them to pieces.

No, the goblins do not dress up a farmer like a hobgoblin and bully him; they use him for target practice, carve patterns into his flesh, or subject him to a variety of other goblin “games” before he eventually dies. When his body is discovered the characters are more likely to see a grim reminder of the destruction they can inflict, than they are to shake their fist at the sky and proclaim, “Oooh, those blasted goblins are at it again!”

I am fine with goblins riding wolves. It gives them something else to team up with and add variety to encounters, though I think it would also be cool for them to also ride Medium-sized spiders, bats, rats, and similar creatures.

Or rat creatures.

Kobolds should also have mounts, like dire weasels, giant lizards, or felldrakes. What about kobolds on a rage drake howdah?

The classic/traditional goblin and kobold gods are alright. Nothing to write home about, but I think there is the start of something interesting. James mentions that not every setting will feature them, and I think that rather than try to cram in some cliff notes in the monster entries it would be better to relegate them to specific settings where they can be properly fleshed out.

Ultimately a lot of the defining features are fine, but both creatures need more depth beyond being evil for evil’s sake (without a compelling reason), living underground, and just existing to be killed. I do not think that goblins should exist to be bullied, and neither deserves to be the assumed butt of jokes.

Dragon’s-Eye View: Re-imagining Kobolds

The new year kicks off with a monster that low-level parties everywhere love kicking, kobolds. There seems to be two camps on kobolds: one wants them to have a dog/rat-like look, while the other prefers the more recent draconic association. I guess it largely depends on whichever kobold you saw first (which for me, if you are not counting D&D, would have been the red blobs from Hydlide).

I have no idea.

Though I owned the Basic set most of my earliest D&D memories stem from 2nd Edition, which mentions them having scaly skin, small horns, and a rat-like tail, but that is about it. No mention of an otherwise rat- or dog-like appearance, though if it were not for Tony DiTerlizzi’s drawing—which I feel were the best in the book—I would have probably assumed a tiny, reptilian creature (especially because, yapping-language or no, not all animals make the noises you assume they would).

Maybe that is why I did not mind the change to their appearance in 3rd Edition, and in fact felt that it made them more visually interesting. I also enjoyed their new-found association with dragons, and have used this on numerous occasions to add young dragons to kobold lairs, flavor their spellcasters, and create champions and variants with more draconic properties, like breath weapons and wings.

Given all of this it is probably no surprise that I have almost no issues with Jon’s mission statement. Almost.

First, I do not see why the eyes need to be particularly large. Does that mean that drow are going to have larger-than-normal eyes? Duergar? Darkvision is not a “real-world” thing, so unless the look fits the theme they are going for I would not bother adhering too closely.

While I like that they are sticking with the draconic essence, I think that WotC should go a step further and give them the same scale colors, horns, and crests that dragons have, something that I wished that they would have done this with the dragonborn (which, had they made dragonborn metallic-only could have made for a nice dichotomy…hint hint).

Some people are against the idea of prehensile tails, but I actually dig them, if for no other reason than it is not something I have really seen in D&D. I mean, tieflings could take the Clever Tail feat to nab items and make Thievery checks with them, so why not kobolds?

Wandering Monsters: The Scaly Things

As with the article on goblins, this one gives us a brief overview on three monsters: the kobold, lizardfolk, and troglodytes. Likewise the overviews we get match up with what I expect; kobolds are reptilian, set traps, and have an affinity for dragons, lizardfolk live in swamps, use blowguns, clubs, and turtle-shell shields, and troglodytes live underground and smell bad.

It even has the scaly skin.

Though I got into D&D back when kobolds looked like this, I prefer their latest incarnation, which has all the benefits of the previous one, but with dragons.

I like that lizardfolk are not inherently evil, especially considering that there are plenty of evil humanoids out there.  While I remember Semuanya–as he/she/it was featured several times in 3rd Edition–I had to look up Sess’Innek, which I guess was a tanar’ri lord originally from 2nd Edition’s Monster Mythology (getting an update in 3rd Edition’s Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss).

The article also mentions half-demonic lizard kings, which could make for a solid adventure hook when raiders start abducting humanoids for sacrifices and/or giant fiendish snakes start slithering about. No mention of khaasta or hermaphrodites (which I recall being a big deal).

As for troglodytes, well…I vaguely recall maybe running into one in a published adventure, but mostly I remember them throwing stuff at me in the D&D arcade game.

Probably poop.

In all seriousness, I prefer the 2nd and 3rd Edition looks to 4th’s.

As for the aquatic fare, though I have only really used sahuagin in Eberron campaigns I am not opposed to locathah and merfolk appearing in the initial run (in fact, I have plans for merfolk and the Court of Coral in an upcoming campaign). I guess this is largely because they never got a lot of, ahem, depth. In 3rd Edition I recall a monster entry and…that is it. In Eberron sahuagin were a bigger part, often serving as guides for ships heading to Xen’drik.

In other words, none of the poll choices work for me. I do not think that they all belong in a supplement, though if they are best served there then go for it. If they can be delivered with some compelling flavor and adventure hooks (or even an adventure) in the initial run, all the better. Just do not give us a merfolk stat block and call it good.