Rust Monster Lovin'

[FireLance]

I don't like the changed rust ability because I can't wrap my head about metal weapons and armor recovering over time.

Eh? It's a supernatural ability. Yeah, I know the "corrode, warp and crack" text used doesn't quite gel with it, but consider the following: suppose there was a wizard spell "Soften metal" that messes with the normal physical integrity of metal weapons, shields and armor, and causes them to soften and weaken that has a duration of 10 minutes. The rust monster's attack could simply have a similar effect.

EDIT: Heh . Just noticed that Mike responded just before I posted that.

 

[FireLance]

Welcome to WOTC where nothing really "bad" is allowed to happen to the characters for fear that they may alienate 2 people and a chipmunk.

Works for me. Makes it easier to get the party back to baseline assumptions, which makes it easier for me as a DM to plan and prepare for a game. One man's laziness is another man's efficiency.

 

[Belen]

The question I have is this: if the 10 minute limit had a satisfactory explanation, would that be OK? Or is it just the idea that the rust monster has a very hard time destroying items?

Not really. It is not about the "encounter" or the "blast radius." It is about the cool effect on the game. By creating things that never really effect the PCs, you're eliminating consequences from the game.

It's like designers are walking on eggshells around players. I do not want the rules to reflect "ssshhh.....let'e not make the players mad." Making everything a temporary effect just to rush people through encounters and adventures is a bad thing!

A rust monster that destroys your sword or forces you to find someone to repair it is a cool encounter, a memorable encounter, something that he can tell his patrons at the local tavern after he retires.

A rust monster that gives the sword a -2 for ten minutes is an encounter that is easily forgotten and one that has zero story value.

Mike, the goal should not be to suck the life, the soul, and the wonder from the game, man.

 

[Stormborn]

Never seen a Rust Monster as a PC, never used one as a GM, likely never will. But I was thrilled to see the origins of the monster in the Dragon sidebar: I had that toy! I remember it, and the rest of the bag it came in, fondly.

 

[Knight Otu]

I kind of like it, but I'd have taken a somewhat different approach. One, the damage would have to be repaired, two, the rust monster should deal damage to a metal object, ignoring hardness.

 

[Belen]

Works for me. Makes it easier to get the party back to baseline assumptions, which makes it easier for me as a DM to plan and prepare for a game. One man's laziness is another man's efficiency.

Reminds me of a video game where the sword glows for ten minutes and you hear a clang sound for during the encounter.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

IMO, I think he's addressing a point I bring up from time to time in internet RPG discussions. A lot of the discussions tend to bring out points like "a really good DM can handle this." Most DMs, in the real world, are average or worse. They aren't necessarily "really good DMs." In design, WotC has to take that into account.

In this case, rust monsters tend to be no fun for the players because most DMs don't take the side effects into account when they design the encounter (which often is a random encounter).

An astute point.

In my book, the key to good game design is to make things generally fun and functional for mediocre DMs. Good or Great DMs know how to ignore things that will not work for them and make corrections on the fly.

Good game design should be about helping a bad DM become better by example and helping an otherwise good DM pressed for time avoid silly errors. Anything in the core game that is "not a problem for a good DM" is, in fact, probably bad game design.

It is not that a game should never push the boundaries. But things that can nuke your campaign should not lie hidden like mines. They should be labelled with appropriate warnings.

I would consider a low CR critter that can annihilate half a PC's wealth in a single attack akin to a nuclear weapon. It is not unrecoverable, but it could easily grind the game to a halt.

And for those who so like the Rust Monster, how about a creature that can permenantly suck spells out of the mind/spellbook of a Wizard/Sorceror as a ranged attack? Or can eat skill points? Sound like fun?

 

[The_Gneech]

One of the interesting things about design and development is that it's very hard to predict what people might find disagreeable.

The 10 minute thing is there to contain what I call the creature's "blast radius." A monster's blast radius is a measure of how much it affects an adventure beyond the encounter it appears in.

For instance, in a campaign I ran the PCs fought a demon that could dominate its victims and give them telepathic suggestions at a distance. That creature had a very large blast radius. While the party drove it off when they first fought it, it had secretly dominated the party's fighter during the encounter. For the rest of the campaign, the party had to cope with the fighter occasionally dumping out his potions instead of drinking them, refusing to attack a monster, and so on.

For the rust monster, I wanted to contain its blast radius to the encounter in which it appeared and a few encounters after it.

The question I have is this: if the 10 minute limit had a satisfactory explanation, would that be OK? Or is it just the idea that the rust monster has a very hard time destroying items?

I originally thought of the rust effect as a sort of curse, a temporary, magical transformation that the rust monster slowly makes real/permanent when it really starts gnawing on something. Note that the rust ability went from Ex to Su in the article, though I didn't call that out.

MarkB's idea is awesome. I really like the idea of giving a rust monster disarm.

To give you a slightly more detailed answer than I did in your LJ, I dislike the "goes away after 10 minutes" just in principle. I want the armor/sword/whatever to be eaten and gone. That's what makes the rust monster scary!

I don't mind the progressive damage; that certainly makes sense. -2 on the first hit, -4 on the second, destroyed on the third works beautifully for me. But the modifier, whatever it is, should stay until the item is repaired by an appropriate Craft check. HP damage doesn't fade after a few minutes; poison or disease don't fade after a few minutes. Sure as heck equipment damage shouldn't!

I agree that the disarm idea is a good one.

Don't nerf da rust monster!

-The Gneech

 

[Knight Otu]

Not really. It is not about the "encounter" or the "blast radius." It is about the cool effect on the game. By creating things that never really effect the PCs, you're eliminating consequences from the game.

Where do you see stuff like that? The bite damage has been increased, making the rust monster more likely to cause the ultimate consequence for adventuting - character death. The polymorph thing arguably hurt "those precious players." Save or die spells still exist. Honestly, the game is not "Take a step, then level up. Twice."

 

[Mycanid]

Err ... doesn't the Rust Monster EAT the things he turns to rust? What would be the point of a 10 minute restoral duration then? Do they restore in it's stomach too?

Sorry if this is a silly question - please correct me if I am wrong....