Rust Monster Lovin'

[Ridley's Cohort]

We're re-writing monsters because we've written in the expected levels of wealth so much than the idea of being under the "reccomended" decreases ejoyment of the game?

The short answer is "YES! Absolutely friggin' yes!"

The long answer is...

As Mike said:

There's basically two things competing against each other with the rust monster:

1. It's cool when the party is worried that they'll lose their stuff.
2. When they lose their stuff... what happens next?

It is fine if the DM considers the possible consequences and how it will effect game play in the short, medium, and long term. I generally give the DM the benefit of the doubt and assume he has thought throught these things.

But suggesting that the monster was written that way so it should stay written that way without scrutinizing in the context of how most people actual play this game is good why?

I am not particularly against having the original beastie in the MM. I strongly believe it should come strong warning labels, at the very least.

 

[francisca]

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?

Oh hells yes. That's brilliant!

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?

Ssshhhhh....don't wreck the versimilitude of it all.

 

[jgbrowning]

Or you can play Iron Heroes and not worry about losing your weapons because they cost 350 gp or less. At 20th level.

Thanks Mike!

Indeed. I found that to be the best part of Iron Heroes. Base the game around the concept that any items are additive and you only have player's whine about being "underpowered" when you cut off one of their limbs.

joe b.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Craft
mending
going back to town to get an NPC to repair
going without a weapon for an encounter or two and beating up a monster to get one
chilling out for 10 minutes while nanites repair the weapon


Sorry Mike. I admire your stuff, but I'm not with you on this one.

As for not having the skill, you can make that argument for balance, survival, heal, heck ... even spot. That's why we have the skills to begin with.

 

[Vanye]

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....

Here's the revised ability from the aritcle:

Rust (Su): A rust monster that makes a successful touch attack with its antennae causes the target metal to corrode, warp, and crack. Any metal weapons, armor, and shields carried by a creature struck are weakened by this effect. The bonus to AC provided by an armor or shield drops by 2, to a minimum of 0. Weapons suffer a –2 penalty on attacks and damage, with a maximum penalty of –6. Magic armor and weapons, and other magic items made of metal, must succeed on a DC 17 Reflex save to resist this effect. The save DC is Constitution-based and includes a +4 racial bonus.

These penalties last for 10 minutes. A rust monster that spends 5 minutes devouring a metal object (whether magical or mundane) transforms it into rust, destroying it permanently.

A metal weapon that deals damage to a rust monster also suffers this warping and corroding effect. Wooden, stone, and other nonmetallic weapons are unaffected.

If the rustmonster gets an extended crack at something, it destroys it.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

And this result is different than a wandering monster killing a PC how?

IME most DMs as a matter of policy do not put in wandering monsters that are likely to kill PCs, although sometimes the dice do the strangest things. While it is very common to have a climatic final battle where one or more PC deaths are likely.

To suggest there is some equivalence between the two makes it sound like you play a very poorly written computer game rather than anything that resembles my play experience under good, great, and indifferent DMs.

Edit:
Or perhaps you play a very different game style from the norm. Which suggests your opinions do not apply to most campaigns in any useful way.

 

[jgbrowning]

I strongly believe it should come strong warning labels, at the very least.

The monster contained herein may cause your players to whine about the destruction of their equipment. If this occurs, give the player back their destroyed equipment and instead destroy the character. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

joe b.

 

[MarkB]

Even a skill check to restore the damage makes me a little nervous, as there's no promise that the party has access to the right skill. This is where a DM is a much better judge of what's right for a particular campaign.

In a Forgotten Realms campaign I played in, a rust monster that required a skill check to repair damaged equipment would've been great. My dwarf fighter maxed out his Craft (weapons and armor) skill and had built the paladin's suit of plate during our downtime in Waterdeep. That take on the rust monster woud've been really fun, and it would've given Bjorn another chance to shine.

On the other hand, in the Eberron campaign I play in that change would really, really hurt. We're in the middle of Xen'drick, hundreds of miles from civilization. No one in the party has Craft. If our equipment gets hosed, we're simply screwed.

If you keep the DC reasonable and require, say, a minute per check, it's still workable. Model it after the warforged self-repair ability, where the damaged item regains one hitpoint (or point of bonus if you're doing it that way) for every point by which you beat DC 15. Craft can be used untrained, and practically every party will have some means to make DC 16 or better. If you don't build in a downside for failed checks, people can just take 20. That makes it a trivial check for someone with ranks, so he gets a chance to really shine as he gets everyone's equipment back up to scratch, but still a doable check for a party with absolutely no aptitude, requiring maybe an hour of downtime.

 

[francisca]

One of the big challenges that R&D faces is keeping experienced players happy while fostering new players into the game.

You're not the first to try to please everyone all of the time. I salute your efforts, but I think you're tilting at windmills to a large degree.

Veteran DMs like to bend, fold, and mutilate the game. Newbies might like to think they can do that, but more often than not they simply get into trouble.

There is no substitute for experience. No amount of game balance, ability tweaking, and proper assignment of CR is going to change that.

 

[jgbrowning]

IME most DMs as a matter of policy do not put in wandering monsters that are likely to kill PCs, although sometimes the dice do the strangest things. While it is very common to have a climatic final battle where one or more PC deaths are likely.

To suggest there is some equivalence between the two makes it sound like you play a very poorly written computer game rather than anything that resembles my play experience under good, great, and indifferent DMs.

Ok, let me rephrase,

And this result is different than a planned encounter killing a PC how? Having a PC die is much more of a game killer than having a PC loose some eq.

joe b.