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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5835664" data-attributes="member: 4937">Your assumptions are assuming peer or near peer level foes, and would be perfectly valid in the real world.  They just don't apply here if we assume that the PC's are high level, and the kobolds are well, kobolds.   Remember, Rambo was a 6th level fighter.  You suggest 'hit and fade'.   Exactly what good does that do in context?  The kobolds generally get one shoted by attacks; the PC's don't.   The kobolds can't split fire and move; the PC archer probably can.   The kobolds may set ambushes, but the PC's with advantages in superior alertness compared to the kobolds stealth (made even worse in 4e because PC's level up all skills as they level), are unlikely to be surprised as a party, and even less likely to lose initiative as a party.   All the 'hit and face' is doing is letting the party concentrate its force while picking off the kobolds one at a time.   'Tucker's Kobolds' work because Tucker was awarding the kobolds surprise essentially by fiat.  If we take away their fiat super stealth, then the advantage goes back to the PC's.  Let's just do the simpliest case of a kobold archer hiding behind an arrow loop waiting to ambush a PC party, take a single shot, and run.   His expected damage with this tactic is about 1/8th of a hitpoint, and that's if it works!   However, to succeed as you note he needs as a prerequisite to either achieve surprise, or win initiative and survive a round, or lose initiative and survive two rounds.   All these cases are unlikely against a competent group of players with say 6 6th level characters (to say nothing of the 6-8 12th level characters plus their hechmen and retainers in the original Tucker's Kobold scenario).   First, he must hope that the whole party rolls lower than about a ~22 on a spot check, and that he is alerted to their presence (and they aren't scouting ahead with say an invisible dwarf rogue).   Then, he must hope that the whole party rolls lower than his ~11 initiative.   If he fails on either count, he'll probably die.   In exchange for his weak missile attack, he's facing 6:1 odds where the PC party has either things like Wands of Magic Missile (near autokills) or +9 to +12 to hit bonuses on a missile attack that probably only fails to kill him out right if the PC rolls a 1 for damage.  Using this tactic of a single sniper, the whole tribe of 400 kobolds will probably die without seriously inconviencing the party (expected damage is probably ~75 hitpoints, spread across the party, and reduced by magical healing).    Run the math.   I might be off by a little, but not enough to matter.You say that the arrow loop is an access point, not a choke point, but its hard to be one without the other.  A door is an access point, but its also a choke point where you can force a larger force to come at you one at a time.  A window is an access point, but its also a choke point in the sense that it offers a limited field of vision.  An arrow loop is even more so, especially when we are talking about a typical dungeon environment of small rooms and narrow tunnels.   An arrow loop in the side of a 100' long 10' wide corridor, probably only covers 20% of the corridor at best, and while an arrow loop at the end of the corridor covers the whole thing, it would be hard to put more than 2-4 such access points in the 10'x10' wall while stil having any kind of nod to realism.   So, while these tactics would give an advantage to a peer level foe perhaps, for kobolds all you are doing is ensuring that they are outgunned and outnumbered.Think about the typical shooter video game.   If you think about it, all that favorable terrain does for the computer is ensure you can take out your virtual enemies peice meal.   If you had to face every foe in Half-Life 2 or Call of Duty 3 in the same large room without cover, then the red force would probably do much better than the do in the carefully crafted single player games.Only if you allow the kobolds to have perfect intelligence about PC movements, and perfect command and control.  But a quick look at the kobold stat sheet shows nothing that suggests that they should have these advantages.   Where do you see the Track feat on the kobold stat sheet?  Would you allow the PC's to perfectly track kobold movements without the skills to do so?  Why allow the kobolds to do so?   I mean, I suppose you could give the kobolds a few 1st level hunters/rangers, but now the PC's simply have to eliminate the few 'officers' to leave the kobolds helpless and you are putting the officers essentially on the front lines.   It's a relatively easy matter for the PC's to evade kobolds and protect themselves from harassment because the PC's just have so many more resources and are so much more skilled than the kobolds.   The PC's probably have higher skill at setting and disabling traps than the kobolds do.  They can fade away and hide more easily than the kobolds can, and trap the approaches to their temporary camps as easily or more easily than the kobolds.   Do you see Trap Finding on the kobold stat sheet?  The PC's can out ambush the kobolds scouts and sentries. And that's before we get into the problem of the PC's employing magic, like 'pass without trace' or 'rope trick' (much less high level magic).You see, part of your problem here is you are just making a fiat assumption: "In Kobold Country, the PC's can't hide because well it's Kobold Country."   or "In Kobold Country, the kobolds achieve ambush because well, it's Kobold Country".   If you actually follow the rules and dice for these things, it works out differently.  'Tucker's Kobolds' could exploit the ambuigities in the 1e rules, but even when I encountered the concept back then I realized Tucker wasn't playing fair.</blockquote>

Verification