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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lord Zardoz" data-source="post: 4618956" data-attributes="member: 704">I disagree with rounser.  I concede the idea is not exactly new, and that it has been examined and picked apart many times.  However, like anything else in D&D, as long as the players at the table get something worthwhile from it, its worth considering.The basic idea behind Tuckers Kobolds is to try to kill the PC's without relying on any of the normal means which put them well beyond the Kobolds in tactical terms.  The article made a point of several things. - The Kobolds stayed well out of melee using murder holes and constrictive corridors. - The Kobolds would break line of sight by using smoke screens and obstructions - The Kobolds would get around high AC by using traps to inflict damage.What you have to keep in mind is that this is not a the PC's vs Kobolds in normal combat.  This is more akin to being placed in a very difficult skill challenge like situation where the PC's have to use realtime problem solving instead of skill rolls.  How do you kill Kobolds that you cannot establish line of sight with?  How do you avoid burning to death when the oil soaked corridors are set on fire?  How do you avoid suffocation from the smoke?  How do you keep your very weak pack mules alive, or do you just abandon them and much of your equipment?More to the point, Tuckers Kobolds can be seen as a challenge to the DM.  Is it possible to challenge a reasonably high level party without simply using bigger monsters at them?  Its not about the monsters.  Its about creating a dungeon that is very dangerous without putting Spheres of Annihilation in dark doorways or relying on save or die effects.END COMMUNICATION</blockquote>

Verification