Essentials Rust Monster

[captainspud]

This topic came up back in September, but everyone decided on a "wait and see" policy to see how the remaining Essentials books changed things. Now that the core stuff is out, it seems appropriate to broach the subject again.

In a nutshell: The original MM Rust Monster eats items, but players can harvest the residuum back when it dies, letting them Enchant Magic Item their possessions back. This prompted the question about what happens with an Essentials party; even if you give them the residuum back, they don't have access to Rituals, and even if they did, they (debatably) can't make anything beyond basic Commons.

Cut to today: the Rust Monster is among the creatures listed in the Monster Vault, and its schtick works exactly the same as it used to. This seems really odd to me; why bother returning the materials if players can't use them? At least with the MM version, it was an unintended side effect of mixing game versions. But this is an Essentials monster, designed to fight Essentials heroes. Essentials heroes can't use Residuum, and the DM's Guide pretty clearly states that nobody in this age of the world can make Uncommon+ items. So, what are they supposed to do with the dust from a dead rare? Use it to buy a same-level POS common? That seems like a pretty cruel thing to inflict on a player.

The recent errata to the Creation rituals (in the November update) further muddies the waters; they changed Brew Potion to be Common-only, but didn't appear to make the same change to Enchant Magic Item. There was some debate on whether that was an oversight or not-- did they

1. not change it on purpose?
2. not change it because the DM's Guide restriction already stops them from crafting U+ items?
3. forget to change it?

This whole situation is a bit of a mess. On the one hand: if you're the DM just don't put Rust Monsters in your campaign unless a) you WANT it to be a huge d***-punch to the players, or b) you intend to give them a mechanism to retrieve the item. On the other hand: that solution marginalizes a legendary D&D monster. What happens when an author wants to write a Rust Monster into LFR, or a published module, or, hell, an Encounters session?

There are a dozen possible solutions, and ultimately the "correct" answer is, "do whatever's right for your group". But that's a pretty unsatisfactory answer. Personally, I figure they could've just waited it out until June's reintroduction of rituals if they just selectively left the Rust Monster out of the MV; but since they included it, they really do seem to have a responsibility to present an official solution.

Et vous?

 

[keterys]

Rust Monsters can damage equipment, news at 11?

The old version was sometimes considered a _benefit_. The new one is an actual loss, and not even all that big of a one. People overblow the whole common vs uncommon thing.

Rust monsters don't really actually destroy that much equipment, either. It gets one chance to destroy an item that is already rusting, that can miss, and it takes a standard action. That said... groups may want to act paranoid for a rust monster, swapping to backup weapons, or making it difficult to get at certain PCs, much like they did in previous editions.

 

[DarkLord Of DForce]

Rust Monsters can damage equipment, news at 11?

The old version was sometimes considered a _benefit_. The new one is an actual loss, and not even all that big of a one. People overblow the whole common vs uncommon thing.

Rust monsters don't really actually destroy that much equipment, either. It gets one chance to destroy an item that is already rusting, that can miss, and it takes a standard action. That said... groups may want to act paranoid for a rust monster, swapping to backup weapons, or making it difficult to get at certain PCs, much like they did in previous editions.

Assuming your DM plays it "by the book". Ours doesn't, most of the time. Last time our group faced a "rust-monster" class creature, any melee weapon was automatically destroyed if you hit the thing. Period.

 

[Almacov]

they really do seem to have a responsibility to present an official solution.

I really don't even see a problem that needs solving.
Magic items are now something players are likely to prize and care about because many are hard to find/make and because there's a chance they will lose them.

If players are distressed over the possibility of Rust Monsters taking away their magic items, they should take better care of / take risks to protect their stuff.

A little dramatic tension and some stakes never hurt my games.

As for "do whatever's right for your group"... I find that entirely satisfactory, and kindof core to the game.
If your decision on the matter of rust monsters needs to feel more "official", then draft up a hard copy, age it, make it look like some old-timey royal decree. There are some nice gold leafing pens on the market which can fancy it up for you.

I'm not trying to be snarky or sarcastic, but how you deal with a potential game element that doesn't suit your tastes is up to you. Which is beautiful, if you ask me.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Its not a bug: it is a feature!

Don´t you remember the screaming that you use rust monsters to free transform magic items. I don´t know who told it, but someone said, that essentials rust monsters are something to fear, now that it can really destroy unique items... (So you better have a backup weapon to kill it)

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Et vous?

My knight will run away from rust monsters. Screaming.

 

[keterys]

My knight will run away from rust monsters. Screaming.

As well he should.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In AD&D (and earlier), the Rust Monster was one of the least fearsome and most feared of monsters. It was comical looking, and the effect it had on 'brave' armored Fighters and Clerics was just as comical. The reason was that magic items were rare, very hard to make, and were really the only thing that made your non-caster character worthwhile. Without magic armor you'd get beaten to death in no time. Without your trusty magic weapon - your golf-bag of trusty magic weapons - you couldn't 'hit' half the monsters you were exected to fight. It was silly, it was fun at the time, but I think it's nice that D&D has gotten away from that sort of thing.

Essentials, of course, is trying oh so hard to be retro, so, yes, magic items are 'rare' can't be made/bought, and are more character-defining. A few, precious, 'uncommon' and 'rare' ones, that is. Enough like the olden days to be retro, not /quite/ enough like the olden days to completely ruin the game. Your Essential Slayer or Knight doesn't exactly have a whole lot of interesting and different things to do based on his basic-attack-spamming class, either, so he /needs/ a nice cool rare sword or something to make him stand out a little. All very retro. Your brave Knight running and whimpering like a little girl at the sight of a goofy-looking rustmonster? Also retro. Hey, you signed up for this abuse when you bought HotFL. Don't say WotC never listened to customer feedback.


If, as a DM, you don't want to turn back the clock all the way to 1980, you can simply decide that the 'redisuum' harvested from a Rust Monster that has eaten a Rare item is a 'unique re-agent' suitable for re-creating /that specific Rare item/. The character is deprived of the item until the Mage deigns to re-create it for him using said re-agents, and that could take time (and not just because the Mage likes watching the Knight whimper like a little girl - Enchant an Item doesn't have a short casting time), so there's certainly enough 'risk' and 'consequence' to go around.


If you really want a game with goofy looking monsters that send players into paroxysm of fear and laughter - play Gamma World. It's a hoot.

 

[Shin Okada]

even if you give them the residuum back, they don't have access to Rituals

Nothing prevent Essentials PCs from taking feats for gaining rituals. On the other hand, even before Essentials, not all the pre-essentials parties have Enchant Magic Item ritual available. So this is not a new issue.

As a DM, you can always let appear some NPC who can use that. As a player, if your party has no one who can use Enchant Magic Item, it can be a good idea to have some extra armor or weapon.

Also note that even if you have some PC with Enchant Magic Item, you can't restore you beloved magic armor/weapon if that item's level is higher than yours, unless the ritual caster has specific feat such as Mark of Making, Pupil of the All-Father, and Master Crafter.

, and even if they did, they (debatably) can't make anything beyond basic Commons.

Yep, that is still debatable. While Brew Potion got an update to indicate that you cannot create uncommon/rare elixirs and potions, Enchant Magic Item didn't get such an update. At least, unless it is clearly banned so, as a DM I will just let PCs create uncommon/rare items.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Thing is:

you can use it, but you need special reagents for uncomon and rares...