Rust Monster Lovin'

[Sejs]

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 "problem" with the rust monster is a problem with the CR and expected wealth systems, not with the monster.

You can strip a party of all their eq and still have a "balanced" encounter. It won't match up the the party's expected CR because those numbers were based on a combination of equipment and level.

joe b.

I'm going to have to disagree with some of your premise there. The problem of the rust monster is one that largely predates the whole wealth-by-level table issues. Rust monsters (as well as certain oozes, etc) were big asspains in previous editions just as much as they are now.

A large part of the issue stems from the How and Who of how the creature operates. Simply put, they destroy equipment (How) almost exclusivly of the people in a party that are largely dependent on their gear to fuel their abilities (Who). A fighter that's been denuded of their armor and weapons is only a touch more effective than a wizard that's been stripped of their spells and spellbooks.

And that problem transcends edition.

 

[Ashrum the Black]

Easily hand-waved by putting a bit of text into the Rust Monster 3.14 that says, "Assuming the item is not completely destroyed, this penalty can be removed by spending 10 minutes to make a DC 15 check on the appropriate Craft skill, or by a single casting of mending for each weapon or piece of armor damaged."

Which is exactly what I was suggesting when I mentioned it as an option. It's simple and if the party has a wizard then they have it. If they don't, well, then it is no different than if the party has no cleric to cast the heal spells or remove the poisons. You have the skills to help, or potions, or you treck back to town.

Now that being said, descibing the attack a on that softens the metal, and eventually turns it to rust with a liquide secreted by the mosters pores does work fine as well. Then saying that after ten minutes the reaction ceases, and the metal rehardens works fine. I just like the idea of some semi-permanent results for the critter.

-Ashrum

 

[jgbrowning]

And that problem transcends edition.

Then we do disagree. I don't see that as a problem. Wizards can lose their spellbooks, thieves their theives tools, clerics their holy symbol.

Every class is vulnerable in different ways and, regardless of which vulnerability we speak of, none of them really compare with PC death as a "problem" in the game.

joe b.

 

[Imp]

Perhaps in 4E characters will be given the standard option of taking out insurance policies on their "standard wealth," that they may not be inconvienced by any mobs that might damage the shinies to which they are entitled. Also they will be able to exchange loot for cash as a standard action without having to return to town.


... shouldn't the rust monster's rust inflict (a lot) of damage on metal, perhaps, instead of instantly poofing it? Green slime (mmm, green slime) inflicts damage now and used to zap metal as readily. There's already a mechanic for that sort of thing. You could institute a general -2 penalty for using an item damaged to half its hp or less, and that way you can extend it to sunders as well.

Rust monsters & oozes did suck, it's true. And there weren't so many good options for damaging them, it seems like. But they weren't as bad as the energy drainers!

 

[Sejs]

As much as I dislike the auto-repair, I don't think mending will help much with weapons or armor destroyed by a rust monster. Especially the target limitation is a killer in that regard. It'll have to be one of the higher-level spells. But the autorepair isn't that bad when you explain it similar to a spider's poison - the rust monster first creates a weakening effect so that its teeth can easier break the metal for swallowing.

But I still prefer permanent damage.

I think the easy way to deal with that would be to put a note in the revised Rust ability that specifically says that Mending is able to effect X amount of repair despite its normal target limitations, Make Whole is able to repair Y, and a Craft check (DC whatever) does Z.

 

[BlueBlackRed]

Am I the only person who loves the rust monster just the way it is?

Rust monster don't need nerfing, they just need to be used sparingly.

I tend to use one and one only in an entire campaign, early on - before any magic items are available.
It gives the fighters something to be really scared of, and gives the casters a few rounds to shine.

If your PCs cry and whine if you throw a single rust monster at them, tell them that their PCs are supposed to be adventurers and if losing 2 or 3 items is such a horrible thing, then they obviously don't have the stones to be an adventurer. Go home back to mommy.

Man, I'd hate to see how those same people would freak out when a Mordy's Disjunction is used against them.

The best picture in the AD&D 1E DMG was the plate-clad fighter jumping into the wizard's arms when a rust monster appeared.

 

[JohnSnow]

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!

Okay Val, the Iron Heroes pimp crown goes to you...for now...

Pimping in a rust monster thread...I'm impressed!

I mean, I thought about it, but you beat me to it...

Easily hand-waved by putting a bit of text into the Rust Monster 3.14 that says, "Assuming the item is not completely destroyed, this penalty can be removed by spending 10 minutes to make a DC 15 check on the appropriate Craft skill, or by a single casting of mending for each weapon or piece of armor damaged."

That's not bad at all. And it gives those characters with Craft skills something valuable to do. I mean, how often does the dwarf smith get to save the party's butt with his Craft (Weaponsmithing) skill? Something many PC fighter types take for FLAVOR. Letting the PCs benefit from good character concept is a good thing. And even a BAD smith could take 20...meaning it'd be about a 3 hour delay.

I actually had a thought on this. Maybe the rest of you can tell me what you think. I like Mike's idea of progressive deterioration of the weapon. That's good. The combat penalties, IMO, are the thing Mike's trying to prevent from having a "blast radius," I think. I'm all for having to institute consequences.

However, I think we're thinking too hard about this. Isn't the Rust Monster's special attack basically just an especially cool version of Sunder? It targets the equipment, not the character, right? So just use a similar mechanic. The attack should reduce the object's hardness (logical, rusted iron breaks more easily), and/or its hit points.

I think I'd prefer this ability to attack the hardness (Steel's is 10). Basically, the first hit reduces the hardness 1 point, and so on. When hardness drops to zero, it's rusted and useless. This way it takes 10 hits for the thing to eat your sword or armor. Unless you're stupid, repairing it is trivial, and the "blast radius" effect is minimal. A more severe rust monster might do 2 points. Heck, you could even have a 1d3 damage to the object's hardness. That way, 4-10 hits does in your gear.

Maybe hitting it does 1 point, and if it targets you it does 1d3 points. I'm not sure what the mechanical balance point is, but that's the general idea.

That way, multiple hits is BAD, but there's no combat penalty that has to "go away for no reason." Yes, in theory your weapon is vulnerable to sundering until you get it repaired. But if you're smart, it's not a big deal.

Obviously, in a higher-EL encounter, creatures with sundering skills might keep pet rust monsters...but that's just a cool interaction.

Thoughts?

 

[Sejs]

Then we do disagree. I don't see that as a problem. Wizards can lose their spellbooks, thieves their theives tools, clerics their holy symbol.

Every class is vulnerable in different ways and, regardless of which vulnerability we speak of, none of them really compare with PC death as a "problem" in the game.

joe b.

Nah I agree with you fully on the death not being the same ballpark thing. But in a way the statement relates. Everyone can die equally. The rust monster tends to gank your warrior types, but at the same time there arn't many monsters I can think of that are equal in their targeting of other character categories. A spell-'n-component stealer, a de-stealther, and so on.

Adversity is the heart of adventure, but rust monsters and their ilk seem largely one sided in who they lump that adversity on.

In any event, those other vulnerabilities we've both mentioned are likewise not hinged on a given edition or wealth-by-level charts. I think in a way we may be speaking to the same point by way of butting heads.

 

[reanjr]

My version of the rust monster causes object damage (2d4) that ignores hardness and on a failed save, hardness damage (2 points), permanently reducing the hardness of the item.

Addendum: Forgot to add that when hardness has been reduced to 0, next reduction breaks it immediately.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Am I the only person who loves the rust monster just the way it is?

Rust monster don't need nerfing, they just need to be used sparingly.

I tend to use one and one only in an entire campaign, early on - before any magic items are available.
It gives the fighters something to be really scared of, and gives the casters a few rounds to shine.

If your PCs cry and whine if you throw a single rust monster at them, tell them that their PCs are supposed to be adventurers and if losing 2 or 3 items is such a horrible thing, then they obviously don't have the stones to be an adventurer. Go home back to mommy.

Man, I'd hate to see how those same people would freak out when a Mordy's Disjunction is used against them.

The best picture in the AD&D 1E DMG was the plate-clad fighter jumping into the wizard's arms when a rust monster appeared.

A-freakin'-Men.

I mean it's a freakin' game decided by dice where players decend into dank pits of death to fight horrendous monsters for glory and treasure. Dangerous buisness, if that is too much then they should roll up some commoners and make crop planting checks. Sometimes you lose your precious sword/wand/cloak, etc. All the more reason to go back into the next forgotten temple to find a replacement.