7 Easy Mechanics for B/X

In B/X D&D, PCs often try things that aren’t covered in the rules. If they come from later editions, they might expect there to be a pre-existing rule that says exactly what dice to roll and exactly what their chances are. There isn’t. Instead, the DM has to make something up on the spot. Here are some options for DMs, and some guidelines how to use them.

Mechanic #1: It Just Works

I can’t count the times I’ve had players say, “I want to do X, what do I roll?” when there are absolutely no stakes at all. But when all the characters have to lose is time, it’s a good idea just to let their plan work. The loss of time itself drains resources and imposes the risk of wandering monsters. That’s enough.

 

Mechanic #2: Flip a Coin (or something like it)

This is a recommended method from the Basic Rule Book (p. B60). You can just decide on odds of success and roll dice to see if the character succeeds.

 

This method works best for things that pretty much anyone, no matter their class or level, would have similar chances of succeeding at. It’s also best for situations that won’t come up a lot. The more you start trying to take into account various particularities of the situation and the person who is trying to accomplish something, the more you might need to look to other mechanics.

 

Mechanic #3: Ability Check 

This mechanic, also described on B60, is similar in many ways to a skill check. In the roll-under style, a player rolls d20 (or 3d6) and compares the result to an ability score related to the task. They succeed if the result is less than or equal to the ability score. The target number might be modified as much as +/- 3 for difficulty. In the roll-over version, the target number is 21 – the relevant ability score, and it’s still a d20 roll.

 

This mechanic is best for cases when one of the abilities is clearly relevant to what the character is doing, but adventuring experience is not relevant. Characters with different abilities will have different success chances, but their class and level don’t influence their chances.

 

Mechanic #4: Reaction-like Rolls

This mechanic is similar to the ability check mechanic. The player rolls 2d6, with a modifier based on one of their ability scores. The modifiers might range from -3 to +3 or, in line with the way Charisma affects reaction rolls, -2 to +2.

 

You can extrapolate from the table for reaction rolls that there are 5 different results of a check like this. A generic version of the table might look like:

 

2: Failure, loss of resources.

3-5:  Probable failure, loss of resources.

6-8: Neutral, but resources can be expended for further attempts.

9-11: Probably success, expenditure of resources can guarantee success.

12: Complete success.

 

This mechanic is best when it’s fairly clear what the five outcomes mean, character abilities matter, and class and level don’t matter.

 

Mechanic #5: Saving Throws

You can pick a saving throw that seems related to the task and have the player roll a saving throw of that type. If it’s especially easy or hard, you can apply a bonus or penalty to the roll.

 

This is, in some ways, the opposite of an ability check. It’s for tasks that any character of any class might be able to attempt and succeed at, but for which class and level are relevant to their chances of success.

 

I confess I don’t like this very popular mechanic very much. The differences in classes’ saving throws are not very systematic, and the saving throw categories are not organic at all. There are various rules of thumb people use for deciding which saving throw to apply, but I think the underlying question of why saving throws are being used at all is too-often ignored.

 

Mechanic #6: Attack Rolls

A lot of what people want to do is, ultimately, a matter of grabbing, striking, throwing, or aiming. For grabbing and striking, you can just set an AC and resolve it with a melee attack roll. For throwing or aiming, you can set an AC and resolve it with a missile attack roll. These rolls incorporate Strength or Dexterity, as well as class and level. It’s fine to use them.

 

This kind of mechanic is best for the tasks that are attack-like, in that they involve trying to affect a specific target, and either Strength or Dexterity is clearly relevant. The hard part is figuring out what AC to assign. But if you just keep in mind that a normal human hits AC 9 half the time, that’s a good starting place. 

 

Mechanic #7: Opposed Rolls

This is really several different ways to handle cases when one character or monster is trying to do something and another character or monster is trying to stop them. When class, level, and toughness should matter, you can have each side roll their Hit Dice; high total wins. When those things don’t matter, you can have both sides make one of the other kinds of checks and let the “best success” win. For example, you could have opposed ability checks where the winner is whoever rolls highest without going over their ability score.

 

For that to work, though, both sides have to have ability scores, and monsters usually don’t.

 

The “opposed rolls” approach is best for things that are not attack-like, but where it’s fairly clear what each side should be rolling. In other cases, you might just pick one side or the other to be the side who has to roll and fall back on a different method.

 

A Final Note

Players cannot assume that everything they try will be resolved with a specific type of mechanic. This is good. It means they have to make decisions based on the world and the situation they are in, rather than based on the pre-determined bonuses on their character sheet.

 

But as the DM, it is your job to make sure the players are as clear about their odds of success as their characters would be. When they want to do something and it might fail, you must tell them as much as their character knows about their chances of success. That’s not just pointing out the consequences of failure, but actually giving them a sense of the odds. And don’t be vague about it. Don’t say, “It’ll be hard.” Say, “You’ll have a 1-in-6 chance of success.” Then there won’t be misunderstandings, and players can do better to manage their risks, make meaningful decisions, and have a fun game.

Kobolds - B/X Monster Tactics

Kobold Basics

Kobolds are very, very weak individually. Their ½ hit die means that they’ll usually go down in just one hit, and it also gives them the worst possible attack rolls. They have the worst possible saving throws too, saving as normal humans. They attack with weapons, but their damage is pitiful: either 1-4 or by weapon with a -1 penalty. Their speed is 60’ (20’), so they are as slow as PCs in metal armor. They are susceptible to charm person, hold person, and sleep.

 

Kobolds have only three things going for them statistically. First, their AC is equivalent to leather armor. This could be because they wear leather armor or due to their scaly skin. That’s still not great, but we can file it under “at least they aren’t AC 9!”

Second, they have 90' infravision, without the daylight penalties goblins have.

 

Third, they have high numbers appearing, coming in groups of 4-16 in dungeons outside their lairs. Their large numbers mitigate their individual weakness somewhat.

Though they are individually weaker than goblins, dungeon encounters with kobolds can be more dangerous than dungeon encounters with goblins. In the dungeon, kobolds move in groups twice as large as goblin groups. That gives them twice as many attacks, and it also toughens them in some surprising ways. An average goblin has 3.5 hit points, but a pair of average kobolds have 5 between them. A single goblin with 5 hp can still be killed in one hit, but it takes two hits to kill two kobolds, even if they each have but 1 hp.

The combination of their numbers and 1/2 HD also make kobolds surprisingly resilient against sleep spells, compared to goblins. An average goblin encounter group includes five goblins, and a sleep spell will disable them all about 90% of the time. An average kobold encounter group included ten kobolds, and a sleep spell will disable them all only about 44% of the time. This is because 1/2-HD creatures count as 1-HD creatures for the sleep spell. That's not to say you shouldn't go ahead and cast sleep against a kobold group, though. The average casting will eliminate 9 of them, and the tenth one is very likely to surrender or run away, as kobold morale is only 6.

Kobolds are described "small, evil, dog-like men" with "scaly rust-brown skin and no hair." The nature of their "evil" is not well-defined, but we know they hate gnomes, attacking them on sight, and that they steal gnomes' precious gold. Neanderthals hate them, and dwarves speak their language.

In my Blacknight campaign, kobolds are manifestations of hatred for gnomes, and they are inversions of much that is distinctive about gnomes. Gnomes love metalwork and machinery. Kobolds love breaking things. Gnomes mine and hoard gold and gems, delighting in possessing them. Kobolds sabotage mining operations, and they don't even bother to keep the treasure they steal. For kobolds, the point isn't to possess others' treasures. It is to deprive others of them. Instead of hoarding what they steal, kobolds will destroy their loot or hide it somewhere. The point of the hiding, though, isn't to keep the treasure safe from thieves. It is to ensure that whatever they have stolen becomes lost. If someone finds it, all the better; the kobolds can steal it from its new owners too!

Kobolds speak their own language, and they have the usual 20% chance of speaking Common. It makes sense also to give them a 20% chance each of speaking Gnomish and Dwarvish. They might speak goblin, but they can easily communicate with goblins in Chaotic, so that isn't very necessary.

Despite depending on large numbers, kobolds' Chaotic nature means they still prioritize themselves over the group. Their chiefs, and their chiefs' bodyguards, are much tougher than normal kobolds, and that is the only thing that keeps them in charge. Kobolds work in groups, not out of loyalty, but as a necessary means of survival. Kobolds are happy to sell each other out for their own benefit.

Scales, Eggs, and Metabolism

In B/X, kobolds are described as having "scaly skin," but they are also described as dog-like. There is no mention of their being related to dragons or lizard men or troglodytes or anything reptilian. Indeed, they are described as dog-like men, so they are much more likely related to humans and demi-humans than to any other monsters.

In the 1e Monster Manual, kobolds are much more explicitly reptilian. If your kobolds are reptilian, you need to decide whether they are cold-blooded or not. There are some nice possibilities if your kobolds are cold-blooded. First, their cold-bloodedness might make them harder to spot with infravision, and that is a great advantage for subterranean ambushers who are enemies of gnomes (who also have 90' infravision). It would also explain why kobolds are so slow and deal such pitiful damage. Cold-blooded creatures living underground may not be able to get their muscles warm enough to move fast or strike hard.

In my Blacknight campaign, though, kobolds are warm-blooded, and they don't hatch from eggs. They look like hairless humans with chihuahuah heads and eczema. Like the other Chaotic human-like monsters, they need food, water, and sleep, but they don't reproduce biologically. Some are gnomes who become hopelessly corrupted. Some are made by Chaotic magicians or cultists. And some simply happen or appear in areas where there are gnomes or where there are those who hate them.

Encountering Kobolds

Kobold Reactions

Kobolds know they need large numerical advantages to win a fight. They prefer an advantage of at least 4 to 1. If they don't have such an advantage, they will try to avoid fights or escape and return in larger numbers.

If the PCs have any gnomes with them, kobold reactions will be immediately hostile. If numbers are on their side, the kobolds will attack. Otherwise, they will begin work gathering the necessary numbers and setting up an ambush to attack the group later.

If there aren't any gnomes in the group, kobold reactions are normal. Here are some suggestion for reaction roll results:

• Immediate attack. The kobolds take immediate hostile action, but they won't charge a superior force in a more defensible position. They will instead move to set up an ambush (possibly gathering reinforcements first). They may even let enemies pass by them, intending to ambush them when the enemies come back from where they are going.
• Hostile, possible attack. The kobolds make threats and try to get concessions from the PCs. They might issue a warning, and they might preemptively send one or more of their number to alert reinforcements. One possibility is for the kobolds to sound an alarm and warn the PCs that reinforcements are on the way to attack unless the PCs do as they are told.
• Uncertain. The kobolds don't know how much of a threat the PCs are, but they want to find out. When they have a clearer idea whether the party is worth attacking, they will decide whether to attack or to establish a working relationship.
• No attack, leaves or considers offers. The kobolds are afraid of the PCs. They will most likely leave, unless the PCs offer them a good reason to stay. When they leave, they will fall back to join additional kobolds and preparing to defend if attacked.
• Enthusiastic friendship. The kobolds are certain they are outclassed, and so they try to make the best of the situation, even bribing the PCs or offering their services in exchange for safety.

Kobolds in the Dungeon

Kobolds wander in groups of 4-16 on the first level of a dungeon. They might also be found on the second or third level, but only in much greater numbers.

These groups of wandering kobolds are most likely looking for trouble. They may be waiting to ambush enemies, looking for a place to set up an ambush, looking for food, or on a raiding expedition.

A dungeon lair includes 6-60 kobolds. It should be well-hidden, with access to food and water, as well as multiple, hidden ways in and out known only to the kobolds.

Especially in the dungeons, kobolds should always have escape plans. Even in the presence of their chief, the odds are almost even that they will fail a morale check. Their lairs have negligible treasure, so they have little to protect other than their own lives. On the hunt, their strategy is to ambush and overwhelm with numbers, and to leave as quickly as possible. In their lair, their strategy is to get away. When they flee, kobolds are apt to split up and go in several directions, hoping that their pursuers go after others rather than them. 

Apart from hiding their lairs, kobolds will frequently change their ambush locations, not returning to a previously-used site for some time. This makes it harder to catch them; you usually can't just go to the site of a recent ambush and hope to find kobolds waiting there to strike again.

Kobolds in the Wilderness

Kobolds wander the wilderness in groups of 6-60, and their lairs consist of 30-300. As in dungeons, their lairs will be hidden, and they will have escape routes. Wandering groups are engaged in much the same activities as those who wander in dungeons—typically either setting up ambushes or conducting raids against vulnerable targets for the purpose of destroying whatever their targets love.

Even when wandering, kobolds in the wilderness might be carrying Treasure Type J. If they are, it's just the worthless leftovers of whatever their most recent raids have brought them. They are likely not to be carrying actual copper and silver coins, but rather foodstuffs or trade goods of similar value and encumbrance.

In the standard encounter tables, kobolds appear only in the Barren/Hills/Mountains terrain, where they account a little more than 2% of all encounters. Gnomes occur in that terrain as well, and it is likely that any kobolds encountered are at war with them.

Ambushes

Their description says that kobolds often set ambushes, but the B/X rules aren't explicit about how ambushes should work. There are a few schools of thought on this, and I'm just going to describe my favorite.

Unlike bugbears, kobolds don't get a bonus to their chance of surprising enemies. But their 90' infravision will make them hard to sneak up on underground or at night. So, kobolds will set up their ambushes with 90' sight lines, in the dark. Even with only a 2-in-6, the kobolds chance of surprising their targets, their targets have little chance to suprise the kobolds.

Check for surprise as soon as the either the kobolds decide to spring their ambush or the PCs are in a place where they might be able to see the kobolds. When the kobolds spring the ambush will depend on whether they have missile weapons or not.

If the kobold ambushers have missile weapons, they will attack as soon as enemies come within medium range. Otherwise, they will position themselves around corners so that they might be able to surprise enemies who have unwittingly moved to a position 25' away from the waiting monsters.

Kobold Combat

Kobolds are too small for longbows. Their ideal ranged weapon would be the crossbow, whose 80' short range suits the kobolds' 90' infravision and mere 20' of movement. Against melee enemies 80' away, with a speed of 40', the kobolds could get several shots in before the enemies are close enough to attack.

However, I don't give kobolds crossbows. Crossbows are gnomish weapons, and so my kobolds hate them.  For ranged attacks, then, my kobolds have to rely on short bows, slings, spears, or javelins. That means they have to wait let enemies come a little closer before springing their ambushes.

In melee, kobolds will most often use spears, dealing 1d6-1 points of damage when they hit. They despise a toe-to-toe, one-on-one fight, though. They know they need to gang up on targets to have any hope of surviving, much less of actually defeating an enemy. So, they will try to fight only in terrain that allows them gang up on their enemies. They want to draw their enemies through choke points and mob them. For example, kobolds don't want to fight someone standing in a doorway. They want the person to come through the door to a position where at least four kobolds can attack them.

Kobolds will retreat or surrender when their morale breaks. Their first choice is to retreat, with several kobolds going in several different directions if possible. But if their enemies are faster or if they have taken a lot of losses, the kobolds would rather surrender than die. Having surrendered, the kobolds will cooperate with their captors in hopes of being released, and they will certainly run away at the first opportunity.

What about Traps?

As I've said before, kobolds are best used as nuisance monsters, not primary enemies. Their purpose is to enhance the challenge of something else. The "something else" might be another monster population or whatever other challenges are present in the dungeon or wilderness of the adventure. That could be traps, but that's a cliché. Try to make your kobolds more interesting than that.

It isn't easy to do, but you should think about how you can use kobolds to create interesting choices for your players to make. As they pursue their primary goal, the characters should find that there are kobolds demanding their attention and resources. They should get a sense that they have two options.

One is to try to locate and eliminate the source of the problem—the kobold lair. That requires commitment of time and resources, however, which should complicate their accomplishment of their ultimate goal. The players should be able to see how going down the sidetrack of dealing with the kobolds will increase the difficulty of what they are trying to accomplish in their adventure.

Their other option is to ignore the kobold threat, dealing with the kobolds as they encounter them, and staying focused on their final objective. It should be clear to them that this will also make it harder to accomplish their goal. The kobold encounters cost them some hit points and spells, at least, which they might prefer to have available when they reach their objective.

It's up to the players to decide what the best use of their resources will be. Is it more efficient to just eliminate the kobold lair once and for all, or to soak up a few encounters with kobolds in pursuit of their ultimate goal? This is how a nuisance monster can make a game interesting, whether its lair is a deathtrap dungeon or not.

Encumbrance and Inventory Limits

I have a little bit of an obsession with encumbrance systems. It's a pretty common aspect of the D&D to house rule and hack, and a lot of people are dissatisfied with it no matter what.

This is just a quick post to point out one reason people are dissatisfied with every encumbrance system everywhere. Everyone knows some sort of system is needed, but no one is clear enough on why it's needed to be happy that what they have does it what needs doing.

Before you even start to think about encumbrance in your games, though, you need to think about the differences among three sorts of rules.

Inventory limits are rules that say you can only have a certain amount stuff in your character's inventory.

Encumbrance rules impose consequences on characters based on how much stuff they are carrying at any given time.

Carrying capacity rules concern how much weight or bulk a character can pick up and move around with.

These are not the same things! A game doesn't have to have all of them. Most versions of D&D have a set of rules that do all three jobs at once. But games such as the wonderful roguelike, Brogue, get by with just inventory limits, and they don't just work, they work really, really well.

If you have carrying capacity rules, they probably indirectly determine inventory limits. You can't have more in your inventory than you can lift or carry. I've played in many games, especially 5e games, where that's the only limitation on you inventory. The rules say what the maximum weight you can carry is, and your inventory is limited only by that weight, containers be damned.

But carrying capacity and inventory rules serve slightly different functions. Carrying capacity is an aid to verisimilitude. It's just too silly not to have some limits on how much a character can lift, especially when all characters have a Strength score sitting there to tell you exactly that.

Inventory limits are constrained by verisimilitude, but that's not their main point. Their main point is to create interesting decisions—times when you would like to be able to carry both A and B, but you only have room in your inventory for one of them. You must weigh the pros and cons and decide which you will carry.

That's why Brogue works so well with no more than just the rule that you can only carry 20 things at once. You want to carry more than that. At a certain point, you must decide what to drop to make room for new items you really want. You start to think about where to cache supplies you can't carry but want access to. Those are all interesting decisions, but there is no nod to verisimilitude here. A maul and a potion and a ring are each 1 "thing," and each takes up the same amount of inventory.

Carrying capacity rules are only needed if the characters bump against the limits from time to time, so that they have to make decisions. Inventory limits are only needed if characters are picking things up and putting them down frequently enough that decisions about what to pick up or put down can be interesting. In a game where characters aren't running into anything too heavy for them to lift, and they aren't finding treasures that will take up limited inventory space, there's no need for carrying capacity or inventory limit rules.

Then what does encumbrance do? There are two versions.

One version of encumbrance rules is to add a dimension to the sorts of decisions inventory limits impose. Rather than just saying you can only carry so many things, the rules give you consequences for carrying more stuff, even before you reach your limit. This should lead to decisions about whether to take the penalties or drop something and, if the latter, what to drop. In a good set of rules, the penalties might increase as one carries more and more, but they shouldn't be immediately crippling. There should be some temptation to soak up the penalties for the sake of carrying what you want.

That first version of encumbrance rules is much less interesting if characters aren't often picking things up and putting them down. If characters' gear is fairly static, and they aren't hauling around a lot of heavy treasure, there's not much point to a detailed set of penalties for carrying more and more. They won't come into play.

The second version of encumbrance rules is aimed mostly at simulating the idea that some equipment, especially armor, makes you move slower. So, it simply assigns movement rates based on armor and leaves it at that. This version is independent carrying capacity or inventory limits. It can exist without either.

So, before you can decide if the inventory management rules of your game are doing their job, you need to think about what job you want them to do and what sorts of rules can do that job. Don't expect inventory limits to give you a satisfying simulation of how strength affects carrying capacity. Don't expect rules for lifting and carrying to make inventory decisions more interesting. And whatever rules you wind up going for, don't use a detailed and fiddly system to track something that almost never changes!

The promised article on kobold tactics is coming soon. Stay tuned.

Reflections on Kobolds

It's time to round out our tour of the Neanderthals' enemies with the famous, infamous, kobolds. This isn't the main monster tactics post for them, though. Instead, I want to reflect for a minute about what kobolds are and what they have been in the game.

Some History

Perhaps more than any other monsters, including dragons, kobolds have had an eventful history in D&D and its relatives.

In Chainmail, kobolds are all but indistinguishable from goblins. OD&D differentiates them by making kobolds weaker, and AD&D 1e continues the differentiation by depicting them as reptilian and mentioning that they hatch from eggs.

The 1981 Basic Rulebook has an illustration that might be reptilian, but it describes kobolds as "dog-like," with rust-brown skin and no hair. Apart from mentioning that they attack gnomes on sight, this is the earliest source for actual kobold tactics I can find. It says they prefer to attack from ambush.

In 1987, a letter in Dragon introduced "Tucker's Kobolds" to the world, and along came the idea that kobolds fill their lairs with ridiculously deadly traps. That becomes official with second edition. In third edition, kobolds stop speaking their own language and start speaking Draconic. From there, it's a short hop to the current iteration of kobolds as trap-building dragon-lovers who may even be related to dragons in some way. Which is a far cry from the old description of kobolds as basically the same thing for gnomes that goblins are for dwarves.

So, What Are Kobolds?

Now, I'll be the first to admit that "just like goblins, but weaker," is a boring monster. But I'm also bored of "these ones make traps!", and the whole connection between kobolds and dragons seems forced to me. Once you see it, it's hard to unsee: 3e made everything with scales speak Draconic to cut down the number of languages in the game. Kobolds have scales but they're also boring. So we can make them an iota more interesting by really leaning in to having them speak Draconic. Let's make kobolds love dragons! Because, you know, we don't want to have too many languages in the game.

But if we confine our attention to (non-advanced) D&D of 1981 and earlier, kobolds are really a blank slate. Why should your kobolds, in your D&D game, be the same as what they became in 2nd through 5th editions? What if we try something else?

For inspiration, I strongly recommend the Wikipedia page on kobolds. It's chock full of neat possibilities that are decidedly not what you get in any edition of D&D.

One thing that stands out to me from that page is the idea of kobolds as "mine spirits." I also want to incorporate them into my treatment of Chaotic humanoids as embodiments of terrible things. Just like goblins are dwarf-hatred, kobolds are living, breathing incarnations of hate for gnomes. But it's bigger than just that. Kobolds are also connected to greed and the kind of contempt and hatred it can engender.

Yeah, Yeah, but What Are Kobolds?

Kobolds happen when people hate gnomes. They especially happen when gnomes hate and resent other gnomes as threats to their wealth. They emerge from the mines where the gnomes get their treasures, making war on them. That doesn't explain everything about kobolds, such as their paltry treasure. But I want to set that aside for now and think about what kobolds are as part of the game. What's the point of them?

Kobolds are individually weak antagonists. An average sleep spell will neutralize nine of them, and their only hope against a well-prepared first-level party is to have surprise and numbers on their side. 

Their treasure is an insult. A typical dungeon lair will have 33 kobolds, plus a 2 HD chief and 3 bodyguards with 1 + 1 HD each. That's 200 XP worth of monsters. They'll be carrying 14 cp each, for a total of 518 cp, or 5 XP of treasure carried. Their lair treasure, if there is any at all, is 3000 cp and 200 sp. So that's another 50 XP worth of treasure. But 68% of the time, they won't have any lair treasure at all. So call the horde's average XP value 16. That's 200 XP of monsters with 21 XP of treasure on average — in a game that should be giving out about three times as much XP for treasure as for monsters!

Giant rats have better treasure than kobolds.

So, call it 221 XP per 37-kobold lair, or 6 XP per kobold, including treasure. A party of four first level characters would have to 833 kobolds for their thief to reach second level.

Obviously, kobolds aren't there for PCs to fight and loot. It's a waste of the players' time. But if that's so, what are they for?

I think kobolds have two main functions.

First, they are nuisance monsters. They are the quintessential wandering monster. One of their best uses is to pose a strategic question to the players: Do we ignore the kobolds harassing us and focus our resources on our main goal, or do we divert some resources from our main objective to eliminating the kobold threat? The point isn't that the kobolds are a real threat to the party. The point is that they can be a consistent, minor resource drain until they're eliminated, but eliminating them requires diverting resources (including time) away from the main task.

Kobolds are like the bandits in Slay the Spire. Bandits ask the player: your money or your life? You can keep them from doing much damage to you, but they may well get away with some of your money. Or you can keep them from taking your money, but they'll probably deal you a bunch of damage. You often can't protect both your money and your life, so you have to choose. 

As nuisance monsters, kobolds can slowly bleed off party resources, until the party spends expends resources to get rid of them. The trick for the players is to figure out whether to tolerate the slow bleeding. Will it cost them more than just getting rid of the kobolds altogether? Maybe. As a dungeon designer, it's your job to make that an interesting question for the players.

The point of nuisance monsters like this isn't to be a threat. It's to change the resource calculation players have to make.

Second, kobolds can be used to challenge player expectations about the challenge curve of an adventure. 

Always remember that this is a resource management game. One good adventure structure involves PCs trying to make it to their objective with enough resources left to actually accomplish it. But that structure actually has at least THREE different shapes.

• Shape 1 - Even Challenge. Every challenge is of about equal intrinsic difficulty. The final challenge, to accomplish the objective, is intrinsically just as tough as the first challenge, but it is harder because the PCs have expended resources to get to it. Although the rule books recommend against it, this is very easy to do with the encounter-building tools provided from 3rd edition onward.
• Shape 2 - Increasing Challenge. The challenges get intrinsically tougher as the PCs get close to the objective. Maybe each level of the dungeon has tougher monsters than the previous level, and the objective is on the bottom level. Or maybe there are a bunch of easy challenges to warm the players up before a big, tough, climactic challenge.
• Shape 3 - Decreasing Challenge. The challenges become intrinsically easier as the PCs get close their objective. The final objective may not be very difficult in itself at all, but getting to it could be deadly.

What DM Tucker knew is that Shape 3 can be very tough and challenging too. You can start with a challenges that put the PCs in great peril and pose, even more urgently than Shape 1 and Shape 2, the question of whether resources are better spent to overcome this challenge now or conserved for later. You can stack up a bunch of really hard challenges to see if the PCs can get through them with enough resources to deal with a bunch of mere kobolds. Or whatever. And if most adventures follow Shape 1 or Shape 2, then players will probably find this terrifying.

So, from an adventure-design perspective, kobolds are seasoning for an adventure. They are either annoyances that waste party time and resources as they try to accomplish their main goal, or they can help challenge player expectations about the shape of an adventure's challenge curve.

Kobolds are a good example, but there's nothing really special about them. Other weak monsters can be, and should be, put to the same uses. Bats, giant centipedes, goblins, kobolds, normal humans, rats, and sprites are all Basic Rulebook monsters with under 1 HD and not much threat. Any of them can fill the niche of nuisance monster of easy-ending to a Shape 3 adventure.

Next: Kobold Tactics