1E/2E/OD&D Tucker's Kobolds -- really that tough a challenge?

[roguerouge]

Originally Posted by S'mon

I avoid silly stuff like ... readied actions that beat an exploding fireball (WTF?!).

I'm curious as to why you find tactics to defeat fireball, the second most generic of all arcane spells, to be silly? Especially when it's as low tech as sliding defensive plate and an extra kobold. And it prevents using spears or sword back through the arrow slit. It's essentially a murder hole on a side wall, instead of on the ceiling. What's so wrong about that?

I mean, all the wizard or fighter has to do is think to ready an action for when the arrow slit opens again, then win the opposed check to act first. It's all using the initiative rules.

Edit: For the record, I agree with you on anti-cloud kill tactics, which are simply too rare for the kobolds to prepare for ahead of time.

[Piratecat]

Originally Posted by S'mon

The worst Tucker-inspired cheese I ever saw was a Dungeon magazine module where the kobold tribe was armed with dozens and dozens of globes from Necklaces of Fireballs. I wanted to strangle the author.

That was the otherwise-glorious adventure about the resurrected red dragon, that took place in a giant floating diamond. It got bonus points for a cool setting, but lost points for the kamikaze kobolds.

I think the true value of the "Tucker Kobold" is that it teaches DMs that you don't necessarily need to use bigger and badder monsters to challenge a group of high level PCs. If the players aren't ready for them, any less powerful monster using great tactics and good prep can be a threat. I think that's a wonderful lesson, even if it hasn't always been applied correctly.

[S'mon]

Originally Posted by roguerouge

I'm curious as to why you find tactics to defeat fireball, the second most generic of all arcane spells, to be silly? Especially when it's as low tech as sliding defensive plate and an extra kobold.

It's your specific tactic of readying an action so that when the fireball explodes the kobolds then shut the plate and trap the fireball with the PCs, that is silly and an abuse of the readied-action rules. Generic tactics like using murder holes (AC 20 touch attack to shoot fireball through) or in 1e/2e just getting in close, would be fine.

An acceptable middle-ground would be: readied Kobold sorcerer makes spellcraft check, identifies spell being cast as fireball, has plate shut - before it goes off. Usually though anyone with Spellcraft to ID a spell has better things to do than ready an action like that. Exception would be if PC Sorcerer was 'spamming' fireballs, then I could see it.

[S'mon]

Originally Posted by Piratecat

That was the otherwise-glorious adventure about the resurrected red dragon, that took place in a giant floating diamond. It got bonus points for a cool setting, but lost points for the kamikaze kobolds.

Yup, it was a very fine adventure, apart from the kobolds.

[neuronphaser]

Originally Posted by S'mon

It's your specific tactic of readying an action so that when the fireball explodes the kobolds then shut the plate and trap the fireball with the PCs, that is silly and an abuse of the readied-action rules. Generic tactics like using murder holes (AC 20 touch attack to shoot fireball through) or in 1e/2e just getting in close, would be fine.

An acceptable middle-ground would be: readied Kobold sorcerer makes spellcraft check, identifies spell being cast as fireball, has plate shut - before it goes off. Usually though anyone with Spellcraft to ID a spell has better things to do than ready an action like that. Exception would be if PC Sorcerer was 'spamming' fireballs, then I could see it.

As long as it's not the first action the kobolds take in the entire dungeon, I don't see the issue here: If the PCs use any kind of ranged attack, why wouldn't one of the (presumably many) kobolds ready an action to close the grate REGARDLESS of what they expect to have flung at them.

In other words, if the kobolds suspect that the PCs have ANY means of returning fire through the murder hole/window/whatever, why wouldn't one of them want to control the opening so that they could block whatever that attack might be?

Though I definitely agree there's a huge potential for abuse in this situation, I think the initial idea is that these kobolds had probably either experienced adventurers before or had heard stories and knew that adventurers might come to wherever they are. Fighting on your home turf if you're prepared at all should provide some huge benefits, thus the term "home field advantage."

I think it's interesting that people think the abuse might come from DMs giving the kobolds too many resources (and potentially endlessly renewable ones at that). I totally agree that such a situation is likely. But if you look back at older modules (Temple of Elemental Evil for one) and at Gygax's Castle Zagyg, there's actually tons of info on how the enemies replenish resources once assaulted. I think that's something that's missing from most of the new adventures, and it's glossed over a lot by DMs (notably because sometimes it seems a little crazy and unrealistic, such as ToEE's case).

Worth noting, however.

[S'mon]

Originally Posted by neuronphaser

In other words, if the kobolds suspect that the PCs have ANY means of returning fire through the murder hole/window/whatever, why wouldn't one of them want to control the opening so that they could block whatever that attack might be?

Fine to have eg one kobold fire through the hole then another kobold shut the plate, all on the kobolds' turn. My complaint was directed at the idea that the PC Wizard casts fireball, the readied kobold sees it coming and shuts the plate, the fireball impacts on the plate.

[Celebrim]

Originally Posted by Piratecat

I think the true value of the "Tucker Kobold" is that it teaches DMs that you don't necessarily need to use bigger and badder monsters to challenge a group of high level PCs. If the players aren't ready for them, any less powerful monster using great tactics and good prep can be a threat. I think that's a wonderful lesson, even if it hasn't always been applied correctly.

I think that is very true.

'Tucker's Kobolds' in their own way teach a similar lesson to 'Tomb of Horrors' and it is a very important lesson. I think every DM needs to encounter at least the idea of 'Tomb of Horrors' and 'Tucker's Kobolds'. Every DM needs to mature past the largely empty 30'x40' room and 'roll initiative'. Seeing how to challenge the players with things that would in the context of a straight up fight is an important part of that maturation.

For me this experience was with longbow equipped Gnolls in a forest. The DM took a wandering encounter with Gnolls, which we would have easily defeated in a straight up fight, and instead of grouping them together, liberally sprinkled them about a forest setting and had them snipe at the party. Although we eventually triumphed, I still remember the initial confusion bordering on panic when we players were thrown this unexpected twist. What were we supposed to do? Here we were, 7th level characters, huddled on the ground behind the boles of trees completely terrified by mere 2HD monsters. We actually had to interact with the environment, instead of just picking up dice and throwing them, and the enemy was actually resisting effectively instead of just trading blows with us. It was novel, and it was exciting.

But 'Tucker's Kobolds' goes way beyond that toward some really antagonist DMing if you aren't careful about it. If you aren't careful, 'Tucker's Kobolds' or something similar will end up being a DM PC in a small distributed disguise. The problem I get with reading about 'Tucker's Kobolds' is at somepoint I get the feeling that DM is so vested in his creation, that he simply won't let them lose.

[roguerouge]

Originally Posted by S'mon

It's your specific tactic of readying an action so that when the fireball explodes the kobolds then shut the plate and trap the fireball with the PCs, that is silly and an abuse of the readied-action rules. Generic tactics like using murder holes (AC 20 touch attack to shoot fireball through) or in 1e/2e just getting in close, would be fine.

An acceptable middle-ground would be: readied Kobold sorcerer makes spellcraft check, identifies spell being cast as fireball, has plate shut - before it goes off. Usually though anyone with Spellcraft to ID a spell has better things to do than ready an action like that. Exception would be if PC Sorcerer was 'spamming' fireballs, then I could see it.

Ah. I see that I've miscommunicated. No, what I meant was:

Archer fires.
Kobold B uses readied action to close door.
Wizard shoots fireball at place where arrows were coming from. Ka-boom!

Basically, given how fast all of this is going, I'd probably call for a spot check to see whether the wizard saw where the attack came from and whether it was still viable for targeting.

Perhaps a second kobold to open the door for the archer first would be best for optimum repeat action in round two. Which would be:

Kobold A re-opens door
Kobold B fires
Kobold C closes door

If the wizard did something last round, they can't ready an action. If they did nothing except ready an action for this round, then it's going to depend on what they stated their readied action was. If it's "I blast the archer the next time he shoots," then it's going to be a race between simultaneous actions of fireball and door closing.

[Drowbane]

Baldur's Gate (2e) had a good version of "Tucker's Kobolds". Those lil bastards would TPK ya if you weren't careful.

[Piratecat]

Originally Posted by Celebrim

For me this experience was with longbow equipped Gnolls in a forest.

For me, it was siccing the PCs against a number of orcish archers mounted on ponies. They did the Mongol thing; with greater mobility, they simply rode away each round and all fired their arrows. The PCs couldn't catch up with them easily, and the concentrated arrow fire was brutal. The group won, but learned not to charge into a wall of archers.

The problem I get with reading about 'Tucker's Kobolds' is at somepoint I get the feeling that DM is so vested in his creation, that he simply won't let them lose.

That? That's a problem. I agree.

[Achan hiArusa]

No, the real silly thing is having a world with magic and not having sentient beings who know how to counter those tactics. Its ridiculous to assume that somebody is going to build a castle without knowing about magic that can counter it. Anyone in a D&D fantasy world who builds defenses will have ranks in Knowledge (Arcana) and will build to his capabilities.

As for the Kobolds. A 1st/2nd edition kobold village will have 693 adults (400 fighting males, 10 leaders, 40 bodyguards, 1 chieftain, 8 guards, 1 Shaman, probably 2 shaman apprentices, 231 females, plus 46 young). With a CR 1/4 encounter multiplied by about 8 factors of 2 the village will have about 2,600 gp in goods. That will buy 26,000 vials of oil. Say they trade with Drow (or trade with people who trade with Drow) then the could buy drow poison (75 gp), that would buy 34 vials of sleep poison. In my estimation, screw the PCs, if the monsters have resources they should use them, and the PCs should be lucky if they get anything out of the encounter.

Its not always just kobolds. When fiends were reintroduced into 2e one of the quotes was to the tune of: a Pit Fiend is not bigger ogre with scads of hit points and magical abilities, fiends are subtle manipulators, with high intelligences, and millenia to plot. But most people use them as bigger, dumb Ogres with magical abilities.

[Gentlegamer]

Originally Posted by Belphanior

Dragon Mountain had a lot of this as well, with kobolds throwing essentially endless amounts of save-or-die poisoned darts at you.

Oh god! I remember them! Our party survived because we had a gnome illusionist/psionicist to create illusions and whatnot to trick the kobolds into attacking phantasmal parties and so on. He was the MVP of that adventure by far. That player received mucho extra shares of treasure when all was said and done.

Tucker's Kobolds is an idea that should be dead and left in the past. It sets out to prove that even weak opponents are dangerous if played intelligently. But instead it proves that monsters are irrelevant if you're willing to cheat enough damage onto the PCs.

Strongly disagree. There's no such thing a DM cheating (at least not as described here).

To paraphrase a current film:

"When the Dungeon Master does it, it's not illegal."

[Gentlegamer]

Originally Posted by Celebrim

But 'Tucker's Kobolds' goes way beyond that toward some really antagonist DMing if you aren't careful about it. If you aren't careful, 'Tucker's Kobolds' or something similar will end up being a DM PC in a small distributed disguise. The problem I get with reading about 'Tucker's Kobolds' is at somepoint I get the feeling that DM is so vested in his creation, that he simply won't let them lose.

I agree with this. The DM should be an impartial participant. In fact, the good DM is secretly rooting for the players to win.

But it ain't gonna be easy, cupcake.

[Celebrim]

Originally Posted by Gentlegamer

There's no such thing a DM cheating (at least not as described here).

To paraphrase a current film:

"When the Dungeon Master does it, it's not illegal."

I agree in one sense, in as much as I agree that it's the DM's prerogative to break or rewrite the rules if necessary. But, in another sense, if the DM is not being a fair arbitrator and his motives are selfish, then a DM breaking the rules is morally the same as any other sort of cheating in a game.

[neuronphaser]

Originally Posted by S'mon

Fine to have eg one kobold fire through the hole then another kobold shut the plate, all on the kobolds' turn. My complaint was directed at the idea that the PC Wizard casts fireball, the readied kobold sees it coming and shuts the plate, the fireball impacts on the plate.

I don't see the problem there.

From a purely rules standpoint, isn't a readied action an "interrupt" based on its trigger. So, one kobold could say "I ready my action to close the gate as soon as I hear casting from the PCs." Thus, no matter what spell is being cast, the gate is closed at the very moment casting becomes audible, and thus before the fireball launches out at the kobold. I might be wrong in this interpretation, but that's how I've run it...let me know if I'm wrong!

Now, from a non-rules standpoint, the same situation is still true. I watch out the grate while my buddies are shooting through it. If one of the guys we're shooting at begins waving bat guano around and saying words I don't understand (maybe he's just taunting me in Common, which I don't know because I speak Draconic, but maybe he's casting a spell), I close the door pronto. If he was casting a spell (something I've heard of before, and my friendly neighborhood Kobold shaman does repeatedly), I live because I closed the grate. If he wasn't, well, I'm still alive, and we can always open the grate again and open fire.

If the kobolds never heard of magic, didn't expect return fire, or just weren't organized at all (which is fine), then yeah, this would be poor playing. But if the kobolds ever heard of magic attack spells, or expected any kind of return fire (bows, arrows, slings), then why isn't this a totally valid -- and even very smart! -- tactic?

[Bullgrit]

Three things that jumped out at me when reading the tale:

"The kobolds caught us about 60' into the dungeon and locked the door behind us and barred it." A party of level 6-12 (including a 12th level magic-user) couldn't get through a locked and barred door? I thought "getting through doors" was covered in the first week of Dungeoneering 101.

The author mentions three times that the party was expecting/had encountered "huge flaming demons". Were they not prepared for fire? The kobolds' simple flaming oil seemed to really be a problem -- AD&D1 fire did, what, 1d6 damager/round?

"...kobold snipers who could split-move and fire, ducking back behind stones and corners ..." Seems like a special gimme gimmick making the kobolds a little more than the stock variety.

Again, the story shows a pretty poorly run party of adventurers. Especially considering that this party had already run into these kobolds before.

Bullgrit

[Voadam]

Originally Posted by rounser

If you must do it, at least use jermlaine, who actually have an affinity for traps.

That's the first time I've ever heard anyone assert kobolds have no affinity for traps.

[Corathon]

Originally Posted by Achan hiArusa

Ballistas are deadly in corridors and Protection from Normal Missiles will only slow them down.

Not that deadly. Damage is 2d6, fire rate is once per 2 rounds, maximum.

Cloudkill always sinks so it can't get into murder holes,

It won't get into holes on the ceiling (the classic murder hole), but it will get into lateral holes (from which kobolds are sniping).

passwall can only get to so many and iron bars embedded in the walls is an old trick to avoid that one.

Sure, but if it does get into one, the party can kill the exposed kobolds and leave. Then return the next day, rinse, repeat.
I grant you that embedded iron bars inside the walls would block the passwall, but it seems unlikely that the kobolds will have an encyclopedic knowledge of every spell and have prepared countermeasures to each and every one.

Fireball might be a bit of a problem but doesn't cover provide bonuses to reflex saves?

Yes, hefty bonuses in fact. But it doesn't matter if the kobolds save or not, they have 4 HP at most and will die anyway.

Find Traps still requires a search check and eventually the cleric will fail a big one.

According to OP, this is an AD&D1E question. There is no "search check", the spell simply works.

If the kolbolds are everywhere then detect evil is useless.

True enough.

And flour on the floor or tripwires will catch that invisible thief.

If the disturbed flor would be visible to the kobold's infravison, it will be visible to the thief's infravison also, so that he can avoid it in the dark. The trip wires might get him, but he has a good chance to find traps.

Originally Posted by WayneLigon

Your 9th level wizard with cloudkill has to get that spell off first. All it takes is a couple kobolds with a wire noose that drops from the ceiling and your wizard is helpless and unable to cast spells while they jab a couple 1E save-or-die poisoned spears in him. Cloudkill? They see it kill a couple kobolds and then they pull back to higher tunnels, letting the heavier-than-air cloudkill pool into the lowest room they have. If this has been used on them before, then they also rig a trapdoor in that room so that when you pass under it two levels down it opens and the party chokes to death on it's own cloudkill.

Remember that the party in question, as posed in the OP, knows that they're hunting tricksy kobolds. Use of detect invisible (which automatically finds secret doors) and a modicum of brains means that the MUs will not be standing on/under/next to any secret doors when they cast.

And there's lots of other tactics at the disposal of 9th level characters, too. Send in a conjured air elemental (which can pass through small openings, doesn't care about poison, and which the kobolds can't harm). Or have the cleric take the party ethereal (using the plane shift spell) and materialize on the other side of the kobold defenses.

The premise here is that an intelligently-run monster group is vastly more dangerous than it's hit dice would suggest. Kobolds are a great example because people assume that they're worthless monsters, fit only to give some 1st level PCs some XP. They're jokes. Except when you take the time to make them not jokes.

I actually agree with this. A party of well-prepared monsters can give much higher level PCs a run for their money. Tucker's Kobolds might even be a nasty surprise for 9th level PCs. But a 9th level party that is prepared to fight such kobolds will stomp them. Not a fight, just a slaughter.

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Well, I certainly agree with many of you all on a number of points. However, as far as critiquing *Tucker's Kobolds* goes, I think some of you are forgetting a few things, and perhaps meta-gaming to some extent.

First off, the players do not know, and generally will never know *exactly* how the Kobold tribe gains the wealth to store/stockpile/utilize all the oil, traps, poisons, and so on. Most don't, and are unlikely to find out the exact details.

Next, while the resources and tactics used may in fact annoy many of you, I think there's some meta-gaming thought going on here.

To wit: Why is it so pervasive to believe that every group of monsters are somehow encountering *you, your PC group* for the very first time? The player group is quite likely not the first adventuring group the monsters have encountered, and certainly in many campaigns, groups of adventurers making raids into various cavern systems, etc in the local area may be in fact a routine aspect of life, and it could be a fairly common reality for many years up to the present.

Therefore, many such groups and tribes of humanoid monsters would develop tactics over time and make it a priority to gain and gather resources in which to defeat such roving bands of marauding adventurers. That's part of having an intelligent, interactive world, yes?--rather than a static, simplistic world of dumb creatures that--despite some common level of intellectual ability, and capacity for warfare and to learn from their experiences--never seem to respond to maruading bands of adventurers?

Still, I also know that after awhile, lets face it--whether it is 1ED, or 3rd, the group of players already have lots of experience with mowing down whole caverns full of dumb monsters that are often ultimately helpless against the players. Thus, it is certainly refreshing to have them meet up with a group or tribe of monsters that are quite different from what they have smugly been accustomed to dealing with for most of their adventuring careers.

In my own campaigns, I often use the typical dumb monsters, beastmen, orcs, goblins, and so on.

But I also often spike the environments with locations of tribes of the same kind of creatures that--as the players know and love to hate--will quite readily make life a living hell for them in a *blink*

"What kind of Hobgoblins did you say they were, Probus? Were they light green-skinned Hobgoblins with ram-horned bronze helmets? Yeah? Oh, no...guys, it's a tribe of Bloodfist Hobgoblins that have moved into the mountain fortress in to the north of the town....oh, damn...we have our work cut out for us for sure..."

I think it's good for the DM to make their dungeons special, and make their tribes of otherwise routine, dumb humanoids into something more interesting, and entertaining. Admittedly, if every tribe of orcs, kobolds, beastmen, goblins and so on were *always* tribes of uber-equipped, U.S. Marines/SAS Commando's, living inside a Fortress of Sauron--that too, would get boring. But it's nice to know that sometimes--that's what they are!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[neuronphaser]

Originally Posted by SHARK

Greetings!

snip

SHARK

Good points. Looking at some of the Castle Zagyg: Upper Works stuff, it specifically notes that the creatures have seen adventurers plenty of times before.

Also think of dungeon ecology, however realistic or not it is in your campaign. If you have a dungeon with lots of levels, and each level is tougher than the next (the usual megadungeon), think about how those 1st level monsters might interact with the higher level creatures. Maybe they are enemies, in which case the kobolds would have to get smart fast. Maybe they're friends, and so the kobolds have heard stories of high level adventurers, and figured out some tactics.

This is doubly true if the kobolds guard the Main Gates(TM) to the dungeon. If every adventurer of every level walks through those doors, the kobolds get to greet them. They won't live long if they don't adapt to fighting smart, on the run, and with lots of traps.

It's worth noting that we don't know the exact context of Tucker's Kobolds. The PCs might have faced 'em before, but were the kobolds more "standard fare" then? Was their deadliness a response to being blasted with fireballs and cloudkills constantly?

If the campaign focused on this dungeon, then it's great to see some of the monsters smarten up and change up their tactics. Hopefully it wasn't a case of the DM giving them unlimited resources to do so with, but there's certainly room to explain some resources (trade with lower-level-of-the-dungeon denizens for dead PC loot, raiding the nearby village for barrels of oil, etc.).