Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dr_Ruminahui" data-source="post: 5742587" data-attributes="member: 81104">I'm well familiar with Tucker's kobolds, I just don't think it works with in 4e without throwing the math out the window - because, by its design, almost every attack requires a to hit roll, something that was much less the case in previous editions.&nbsp;Basically, to be a threat, the kobolds have to be able to hit.&nbsp; So either you make them a level where they can, give them huge bonuses, or make them auto hit.&nbsp; And neither of the last two make much sense - why should they have abilities over and above the PCs (bonuses/autohitting that the PCs couldn't get even using the same tactics) just because they are weak - its inherently contradictory.&nbsp;Not to mention the issue of defences - if they are 8 levels below the PCs, even if they have superior cover and concealment, the PCs are still hitting them on 3s. Again, why should they get better bonuses than the PCs would from the same terrain for being weaker?&nbsp;IMHO, Tucker's kobolds could work in previous editions because the math was much &quot;flatter&quot;, damage without hit rolls were the norm for certain manners of attacks and the tight quarters required that either spell casters forgo their most powerful spells (fireball, lightning bolt) or risk damaging themselves.&nbsp; None of the same presumptions apply to the same extent in 4e.&nbsp;In other words, Tucker's kobolds worked because they exploited the existing rules and expectation.&nbsp; In 4e, the rules and expectations that allowed this to work simply don't exist or are much weaker.&nbsp; As such, IMHO, they don't win because they are &quot;mean and sneaky&quot; but because the DM is using his fiat to allow them to break the rules.&nbsp; And sure, that's something the DM can do, but to me it seems forced.&nbsp;As such, my suggestions are directed at remedying the math problem within the rules themselves... that is, of course, not the only option.&nbsp;Incidentally, to build in the &quot;players hurting themselves&quot; issue, you may want to design hazardous terrain that reflects area effects back at their caster - for example, terrain that if a blast/burst were to expand X squares past the edge of the terrain, it expands the blast X squares in the opposite direction.&nbsp; Just make sure to give the PCs a way of telling when/where that might occur, even if the first time catches them by surprise.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dr_Ruminahui, post: 5742587, member: 81104"] I'm well familiar with Tucker's kobolds, I just don't think it works with in 4e without throwing the math out the window - because, by its design, almost every attack requires a to hit roll, something that was much less the case in previous editions. Basically, to be a threat, the kobolds have to be able to hit. So either you make them a level where they can, give them huge bonuses, or make them auto hit. And neither of the last two make much sense - why should they have abilities over and above the PCs (bonuses/autohitting that the PCs couldn't get even using the same tactics) just because they are weak - its inherently contradictory. Not to mention the issue of defences - if they are 8 levels below the PCs, even if they have superior cover and concealment, the PCs are still hitting them on 3s. Again, why should they get better bonuses than the PCs would from the same terrain for being weaker? IMHO, Tucker's kobolds could work in previous editions because the math was much "flatter", damage without hit rolls were the norm for certain manners of attacks and the tight quarters required that either spell casters forgo their most powerful spells (fireball, lightning bolt) or risk damaging themselves. None of the same presumptions apply to the same extent in 4e. In other words, Tucker's kobolds worked because they exploited the existing rules and expectation. In 4e, the rules and expectations that allowed this to work simply don't exist or are much weaker. As such, IMHO, they don't win because they are "mean and sneaky" but because the DM is using his fiat to allow them to break the rules. And sure, that's something the DM can do, but to me it seems forced. As such, my suggestions are directed at remedying the math problem within the rules themselves... that is, of course, not the only option. Incidentally, to build in the "players hurting themselves" issue, you may want to design hazardous terrain that reflects area effects back at their caster - for example, terrain that if a blast/burst were to expand X squares past the edge of the terrain, it expands the blast X squares in the opposite direction. Just make sure to give the PCs a way of telling when/where that might occur, even if the first time catches them by surprise. [/QUOTE]

Verification