Rust Monster Lovin'

[Sleepy Voiced]

I don't really think this is a nostalgia issue. My first response when reading the new rust monster was not, "that's not the rust monster I grew up with!", but rather, "oh great, more record keeping." Do we really need to tack on more bonuses and penalties on the fly like this? If there is a fault with 3.X it is the large amount of tiny modifiers to keep track of.

The 10 minute regeneration didn't sit well either. This seems an unnecessary change. Like most monsters, if the DM doesn't care for the effect it will have on a game, that DM won't use it. I really don't think this has much todo with being a newbie or grognard either. It is pretty clear in the MM write-up what a rust monster does. Hell, its name is RUST MONSTER!

 

[Sleepy Voiced]

I also just want to mention a thanks to Mike for keeping us in the conversation and engaging us in the R&D experience. This is a great thread to read, and has great points both pro and con for this issue.

 

[el-remmen]

Gelatinous cube doesn't have an instant destructo effect.

True, but two round engulfed by it and I lost my studded leather armor, the haft on my military fork, my shortbow, my boots, my undershirt, my quiver and arrows, my lute (I was playing a fighter/bard), my character's journal and a songbook (kind of like a spellbook for bards).

The funny thing is - this was the same dungeon as the one I described in my first post with the rust monsters.

We were the most haphazardly equiped party ever! And it made crossing a bridge guarded by an ogre and his pet stirges (we were 3rd to 4th level) a lot more interesting, that's for sure!

 

[Scribble]

I don't really think this is a nostalgia issue. My first response when reading the new rust monster was not, "that's not the rust monster I grew up with!", but rather, "oh great, more record keeping." Do we really need to tack on more bonuses and penalties on the fly like this? If there is a fault with 3.X it is the large amount of tiny modifiers to keep track of.

The 10 minute regeneration didn't sit well either. This seems an unnecessary change. Like most monsters, if the DM doesn't care for the effect it will have on a game, that DM won't use it. I really don't think this has much todo with being a newbie or grognard either. It is pretty clear in the MM write-up what a rust monster does. Hell, its name is RUST MONSTER!

Yeah, but most of the responses I've seen in this thread have seemed to be along the lines of: "You're weakening the game because my group never had a problem with loosing equipment..." etc...

And the 10 minute auto heal thing.

But I think the 10 minute auto heal anger is motivated by the nostalgia... Because there are other nonsensical in the real world effects in D&D that people never seem to take issue with. That's why I was wondering if he had created an entirely new bug, would it have garnered the "UGG response..."

 

[hong]

Why is the base assumption that there will be only one rust monster? While perhaps not common, it's not out of line to have two. Or, an enterprising lizardfolk could keep one as a pet. Heck, why not capture a couple, send them forward first and then wipe out those pesky adventurers?

Why the big blow up though? If you don't like the change, don't change it. It's not a case of coddling players to say that a single encounter should not screw up my entire adventure. A bit of bad luck and the fighter loses his armor and his weapon. At 3rd level, that's a major soak of wealth.

This is an AHA GOTCHA monster. It's not a threat to the party as written. As has been mentioned, people toss the wizard at it and let the wizzie beat it to death with a club. How is that a memorable encounter? It's a joke. Poof, oh sorry, you have no armor any more. Ha ha. (Insert Nelson tone)

Because it's funny.

Like the time we were in this dungeon in one of the AoW modules. We found this symbol on the floor, and we're all arguing over which symbol it is ("why don't you have a look?" "ARE YOU KIDDING??/!1") and the wiz finally cast detect magic. It turns out the symbol radiates Illusion, and the ceiling above radiates Transmutation. So the cleric of Wee Jas sends a skeleton out to poke the ceiling with a 10' pole to set off the trap. Nothing happens. Eventually my character gets angry, strides forward, grabs the pole off the skeleton and starts poking the ceiling himself: "this is how you do it, you stupid Int-score-lacking skeleton!"

I had enough time to hold up the Wile E. Coyote "in gods name, what am I DOING?" sign before the acid rained down.

The original rust monster is funny.

 

[Scribble]

True, but two round engulfed by it and I lost my studded leather armor, the haft on my military fork, my shortbow, my boots, my undershirt, my quiver and arrows, my lute (I was playing a fighter/bard), my character's journal and a songbook (kind of like a spellbook for bards).

The funny thing is - this was the same dungeon as the one I described in my first post with the rust monsters.

We were the most haphazardly equiped party ever! And it made crossing a bridge guarded by an ogre and his pet stirges (we were 3rd to 4th level) a lot more interesting, that's for sure!

Hah! you got ate up by an Ogre! munch munch munch!

But, again... With the cube, you have a bit of time. You have the ability to either kill it or get out of it before it destroys your stuff...

With the rustomatic monster bamf, stuff is rusted and gone before you can even take a moment to realize the Rust Monster can do that!

Kind of like an Ethreal Filcher against a party that can't travel the planes, that shows up ganks a few things and then jets... What I like to call an A-Hole monster tactic.

And even if your party is mature enough to handle it... it still almost always garners a "Dude... that was lame." response.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Heh, funny how easy the "it's all rose-colored nostalgia" explanation is brought up towards those posters who simply object against changing a monster in order to minimize the "risk" that facing said monster entails.

There's simply a few completely different game philosophies at play here. One is largely composed of older players who have learned, and are used to, taking any situation and try to adapt their characters to it. Rust monster? Let those without iron deal with it, distract it, avoid it, charm it. Lost your sword/shield/armor to it? Grab a new weapon, improvise armor or shield, work with what you got, or re-equip by taking stuff from other inhabitants of the dungeon you're in. Or retreat to town and get new equipment. All part and parcel of standard dungeon crawling back then. So most of them don't see a problem in the rust monster as is.

Another is composed of those players who see an inherent fun-ruining factor in losing your equipment (more so than losing your PC in some cases ), and who'd rather have the game designer or the DM deal with the "problem", either by offering "amendments" for the lost equipment, or by changing the effect the monster (spell effect/special ability) has in the first place.

I don't see much nostalgia in those two differing points of view. And yes, I realize that one simply can choose to ignore that one monster, but it was offered as a demonstration of the direction WotC R&D takes, too...and since 3.5, that direction didn't appeal to many, and those are simply giving their feedback about what they feel is pulling the teeth from their favorite game.

 

[FireLance]

I just realized, I once had a character "go naked" due to a gelatinous cube. Maybe that monster should be changed, too

It's a bit of a tangent, but I once had the idea for an gelatinous cube-like monster that teleported the weapons, armor and other gear of the characters it fought into its centre whenever it hit them (Will save negates), and if it engulfed a character, he would basically have to make a Will save for each item of equipment or it gets taken away from him.

I guess it's a good thing I never statted it out, because it seems that a number of people in this thread wouldn't like it, because of the recordkeeping needed whenever a character lost a piece of equipment, and because the PCs get their gear back when they finally defeat it.

 

[Greg K]

This is an AHA GOTCHA monster. It's not a threat to the party as written. As has been mentioned, people toss the wizard at it and let the wizzie beat it to death with a club. How is that a memorable encounter? It's a joke. Poof, oh sorry, you have no armor any more. Ha ha. (Insert Nelson tone)

If the DM does it for "HA ha", then the DM is probably a jerk with a me vs. them mentality. However, I can see a DM using for less malevolent reasons.
1) as a set up for an interesting event/encounter/challenge
2) as a temporary character setback before finding that nifty new armor or weapon.

 

[hong]

If the DM does it for "HA ha", then the DM is probably a jerk with a me vs. them mentality.