Rust Monster Lovin'

[Ourph]

The issue isn't that PC death and equipment loss is verboten. It's whether or not they occur in unfair or unfun ways. I'm not arguing for or against the current rust monster; I'm just saying that it's Mearls' job to look at ways it might implact play of the game and how it can possibly be done better. That a rust mnster can make all your gear go "poof!" is, IMO, something worth examining.

My issue with the article is that Mike doesn't bother to examine whether it's unfair or unfun or a "game stopper" but asserts those things as true and then bases the "fix" on those assertions. First, those things aren't true for all users of the product; and second, that analysis occurs in a vacuum without addressing the question of the Rust Monster's unique paradigm as a role-breaker (where the back-row types get a chance to stand in front of and protect the front-row types) and whether that paradigm is worth preserving despite any drawbacks that might come along with it.

There are LOTS of monsters that fill the role of a standard encounter (melee types melee, ranged types range, caster types cast, sneaky types sneak, etc.). IMO it's very very shortsighted to assert that the Rust Monster will be better if it becomes more generic and more standard when there are already plenty of monsters to fill the generic roles and very few that take PCs "outside the box". It may be true that not every outlier in the monster spectrum is going to be useful for every group, but it seems like a HUGE leap to assert that outliers are inherently bad and should be "fixed" (as the article does). In fact, I would say that the outliers are tools that help many groups keep the game interesting and exciting after the average encounters get a little dull and ho-hum.

 

[jesseghfan]

I'm rather new at stat blocks, so please be kind, but why is the new Mearl's rust monster +7 to hit with his antennae? I see BAB +3 and Weapons Finesse (Dex 17) +3 and Medium size. I am sure I am missing something quite obvious, but I'm not sure what?

Or should he be +6 antennae and +4 bite?

Thanks,

John

 

[The_Gneech]

I'm rather new at stat blocks, so please be kind, but why is the new Mearl's rust monster +7 to hit with his antennae? I see BAB +3 and Weapons Finesse (Dex 17) +3 and Medium size. I am sure I am missing something quite obvious, but I'm not sure what?

Or should he be +6 antennae and +4 bite?

I think you are correct; the +7 may be a typo (or a relic of a higher Dex version). As far as I can make out, it's got way too many skill points, too, although that may be species bonuses that aren't called out as such (like the +5 AC Natural Armor that isn't explicitly listed).

The stat block I whipped up in E-Tools came to:

Mearls' Monster (CR 3, HD 5d8+5)
N Medium Aberration
Init +3 Spd 40 or Climb 40
Senses Darkvision (Ex): 60 ft.; Scent (Ex) | Listen +1, Spot +1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AC 18 (FF 15, Touch 13)
hp 27 (5 hit dice)
Saves: Fort +2, Ref +4, Will +5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atk +5 base melee, +6 base ranged; Grapple +5;
+6 Melee (touch) (Antennae Touch, rust) and +4 Melee (Bite 1d6+1/crit 20/x2);
SA: Rust (Ex)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abilities STR 14, DEX 17, CON 13, INT 2, WIS 13, CHA 8
Feats: Multiattack, Weapon Finesse.
Skills: Climb + 6, Hide + 5, Jump + 6, Move Silently + 5

-The Gneech

 

[rounser]

Just an idle observation. Does it strike anyone else as weird that DMs like to use kobolds as the scourge of the dungeon, employing all sorts of unsavory tactics from murder holes, poison, flaming pitch, crawlspaces to small for anyone but maybe a halfling or gnome, and guerilla tactics that would make Ho Chi Minh proud

Yeah, it's a very old (and arguably very tired) convention. There's always new people that find Tucker's Kobolds (from a dragon editorial) novel, amusing and clever. It's since had multiple dungeon adventures and an entire boxed set devoted to it, and is still the race of choice to add very powerful "builds" to. There are no signs that this dead horse will cease to be beaten.

 

[buzz]

I think a design approach which assumes a non-creative and judgment-challenged DM is probably not the best way to do that.

Well, I don't agree that's what we're (or Mearls) is talking about here. I don't see "solid rules foundation" = "non-creative and judgement-challeneged"; that's actually somewhat offensive.

 

[buzz]

My issue with the article is that Mike doesn't bother to examine whether it's unfair or unfun or a "game stopper" but asserts those things as true and then bases the "fix" on those assertions.

Given that this is Mearls, and he probably has access to a lot of data we don't, I'm willing to allow his assumption. Proving his assumption would probably be fodder for an article in itself.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Given that this is Mearls, and he probably has access to a lot of data we don't, I'm willing to allow his assumption.

There's been quite a bit of substantiating evidence in this thread. You can't say it isn't a game-stopper. At most, you can disagree with the evidence (contradiction), say that those who disagree are whiny players who need coddling (personal attack), or say that your experience doesn't back up that finding (subjectivity). But it's as reliable a finding as there really can be on the internet. It has brought games to a screeching halt in a way that an ogre's greatclub doesn't.

 

[Ourph]

Given that this is Mearls, and he probably has access to a lot of data we don't, I'm willing to allow his assumption. Proving his assumption would probably be fodder for an article in itself.

It's one thing to do research and find that people don't like the Rust Monster and change it so that it still serves the same purpose but within a more workable framework. It's another thing to find out that people don't like it and change it so that it no longer fulfills the same purpose. IMO, it's just a bad redesign because it negates the one thing that makes the Rust Monster a cool, iconic monster in the first place (i.e. - the plate-clad fighter jumping into the magic-user's arms for safety).

 

[rounser]

I'm willing to allow his assumption.

My problem with some of these design assumptions is that sometimes they're oversimplifications. At the outset of 3E, seemingly one of them was that "crunch good, fluff bad", another was "design the need for DM fiat out of the game"..."back to the dungeon" was another. When taken with a pinch of salt, these are probably good assumptions. When taken to the extremes of what they imply, and are treated as axioms rather than ideas, I think that's where they cause trouble.

In this case, I'm quite happy to accept the axiom of "equipment loss = not fun". What annoys me is the flavour compromise of rust "getting better" in order to humour a design need. Surely the design need can be met without compromising what players know about "how rust works" with just a bit more effort?

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's another thing to find out that people don't like it and change it so that it no longer fulfills the same purpose.

This position makes no sense to me.

Old Rust Monster:
Fighter: "Aah! It killed my weapon!"
Monk: "Let me handle it!"
....after combat....
"Let's go back to town and get new weapons."

New Rust Monster:
Fighter: "Aaah! My sword!"
Monk: "Let me handle it!"
....after combat...
"Onward! To ADVENTURE!"

What purpose are you looking for it to fill? It still serves as an interesting combat where the typical fighter or cleric won't be able to beat on it in melee, giving the second-rankers time to shine.

It does the same thing.

Either way.

The new one does away with the whole "Let's stop the adventure to go back to town and resupply" angle. Which means more adventure, and (generally speaking) more fun.

I'm not trying to be snippy, I'm trying to understand what purpose the original 3e rust monster was meant to fullfill that the new one doesn't. I don't understand. I'd like to.