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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 9736750" data-attributes="member: 7006">One of the downsides of doing a Tucker-esque type of scenario is that you end up having to use so many, many low-powered enemies on the field just to counteract the odds of those enemies ever actually hitting.  That was one of the main points about the Tucker's Kobolds concept... that players who thought they could never be harmed by lowly kobolds after a certain character level (back in the AD&D/2E era) found that not to be true when so many got thrown at them continuously throughout the entire dungeon that they WERE finding themselves getting hit (and they being unable to hit any of them back because they were all behind arrow slits and the like.)But all that means is you as the DM just have to roll so many gosh-darned attack rolls all the time, just to see if like you can manage any hits when you need like nothing but 19s or 20s because the kobolds are so low-powered.  And then you are stuck with these rare hits doing extremely minor attack damage... slowly plinking away at the PCs hit points.  The whole Tucker's thing very much becomes a battle of attrition over round after round after round after round... the PCs unable to escape the dungeon, but 90% of all the kobolds unable to actually hit.Now if you decide to up the power of the scenario by making it all trap-based, where you are no longer using the kobold stats for attack and damage but instead raising the CR by using more powerful traps that can actually do significant damage to the PCs, then it probably wouldn't be the same sort of slog.  But it also would no longer be a true Tucker's Kobolds scenario at that point (if that actually even matters, which it probably shouldn't.)</blockquote>

Verification