Tucker's Kobolds -- really that tough a challenge?

[roguerouge]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[timbannock]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.