>>95899814
Outside of the Monster Manuals weird pug thing and Di Terlizzis elongated gnome, all art of kobolds makes them out to be lizards.

>>95899914
>a goblin variant
In early editions, goblin wasn't a creature type but used the Old English meaning of small mischievous/evil humanoid "monster" basically the English version of Japanese youkai or Norse troll. Once the goblinoid type appeared kobolds very much stopped being goblins.

>>95899747
>rat dog lizard things
I hate these threads because a lot of people are fucking retarded when it comes to language.

Kobolds were described as having ratlike tails and doglike heads. A lot of really retarded people simply do not understand the difference between ratlike and rat. Or doglike and dog. Something that is "-like" means it is vaguely shaped like the thing it is referencing. It does not mean it has the exact thing being referenced. So a doglike head would mean a head vaguely shaped like a dogs, and not a literal dogs head, like the shitty Monster Manual pug head.

Kobolds are not rats or dogs, they merely have things vaguely shaped like either, but they are very much covered in rust red scales. Incidentally, they also lay eggs, something introduced many years before 3e, which indicates they are more lizardy than people here want to admit.

But if you take into account the fact they layed eggs (long before 3e), have scales, and generally look like a lizard, draconic kobolds make the most sense. The problem is that their art was handled by people who didn't respect the description and decided on some very stupid ideas (once again the fucking pugfaced thing and fucking DiTerlizzi).

Here, a kobold from a CYOA book called Return to Brookmere.