Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7739539" data-attributes="member: 42582">I've heard of Dragon Mountain but never read it or played in it.Personally, I don't find the trap you describe that engaging as a piece of AD&D play. It seems more like an exploit of a gap in the rules - we have saving throws to avoid posion and petrification, and we have hit points to avoid dying from falling damage, but because these are all somewhat ad hoc mechanics rather than systematised, there is no robust and level-based mechanic to avoid or escape from quicksand (or similar).But the self-fireball to get rid of kobolds is the same as what I proposed in the post just upthread of yours, only I think it is more effective done proactively (to clear the first level of the dungeon of kobolds) rather than reactively, which does create a higher degree of vulnerability to killing oneself.As far as Tucker's kobolds are concerned, there now seem to be three suggestions in this thread as to what they're for:* An amusing nuisance for high level PCs, which might be surprsingly effective given they're only kobolds; * A serious challenge to higher level PCs; * A punishment or "moral education" for hack and slashers.The first is my understanding of what dave2008 is saying - you turn up to the dungeon, the first level is "only kobolds", and it turns out they're a much bigger headache than you figured. Personally, it is also the flavour I get from Roger E Moore's original editorial (with his comic descriptions of the party leader, etc). The second is what Roger E Moore seems to actually assert in his article. (Although it's different from the implicit flavour of what he writes.) This is what I have trouble making sense of - as I've already posted, I think there's many effective strategies available to a high(-ish) level party to clear that first level of kobolds if they actually turn their minds to it, and the primary challenge wil be logicistical (ie choosing a spell load out and applying it systematically while blockading the kobolds).The third is something different again, and I don't really get this from what Roger E Moore wrote. I guess if someone wants to use Tucker's kobolds as a teaching tool, they might work for that.I've read the editorial. The PCs enter the 1st level knowing the kobolds are there. They have a 12th level MU with them. The article discusses his non-use of fireball but doesn't discuss why he didn't just summon an earth elemental and clear out all the kobolds before the PCs enter the dungeon at all. (Or if the kobolds are that bad, why can't the PCs Passwall themselves an emergency exit; etc.)Roger E Moore is a good writer, and it seems fairly clear that the editorial involves a degree of dramatic licence (eg in his descriptions of the party leader, and more generally in his description of Tucker's dungeon). I've got no doubt that Tucker ran a dungeon which had challenging kobolds on the first level, but I still don't think they pose a serious challenge to a high level party that actually sets out to eliminate them.Maybe the point of the essay is that the solution to high-level play isn't more monsters but to pose logistical challenges that will require clever spell load-out (plus ancillary palnning around that). In which case it wouldn't be a unique suggestion - ToH is essentially the same thing.</blockquote>

Verification