Rust Monster(s)

[Corey_Austin]

You're right, nothing permanent should ever happen to the PCs.

They can die, lose stuff, etc, just not to 1-2 random dice rolls. Heroes should be heroic in the average D&D game, not falling to random chance. Now in a lower magic or power setting (like WHFRP or a "realism" game) I would agree with upping the lethality drastically (including but not limited to locational damage, battle fatigue and disabilities, etc).

 

[hazardousindex]

Very nice builds! I'm taking a semi-permanent weapon damage road. I like the weakened idea, but I feel the loss of a proficiency bonus has no precedent in the ruleset. So, I'm saying that an initial hit weakens the weapon (save ends). A second failed save renders the weapon useless until a short rest can be used to repair it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Generally in my view denying the players their hard-earned loot is poor GMing and only feeds into the "DM is the enemy" perspective. I made my version intentionally less gear-breaky because it provides an interesting mechanic for the fight that doesn't inflict permanent harm (unless they decide to let the monster play with their items for a round or two).

Well, remember what the original OD&D rust monster was FOR. Back in those days a fighter had nothing. Leveling up gave them a to-hit advantage and some extra hp. So basically your fighter WAS his magic armor/weapon/shield in terms of doing anything special. Throw a rust monster against him and that is pretty much the most dangerous opponent he could ever face...

The real REASON for it was simply 'loot reduction'. If your pesky characters had maybe somehow ended up with some stuff you decided maybe they shouldn't have? Simple, sic a rust monster on 'em!

These days there is not a whole lot of reasons for rust monsters with 4e making magic items much more limited and clearly defining what you would give away and when. But being a true classic monster it is still fun to have. I really don't see too much problem with them just disintegrating metal on the spot either. Items are always replaceable. Plus there is always that chance you still might want to actually get rid of someone's over-powerful magic sword or whatever.

 

[Garthanos]

If you have magic items that are only subtly better than mundane ones and are rarer, then I like the idea of using a rust monster to point out the magic device is more powerful... you could have them resist the beasts powers completely. It can be fun to show this gear is of heroic stature, instead of whoops "I gave you too powerful of gear", its "wow look that gear of yours must be powerful". In the baseline D&D setting this is less viable. You need "red shirts" around whose gear is gobbled by the beast for this to be done.

Are minions todays D&D red shirts or will any npc do the trick.

 

[JoeNotCharles]

These days there is not a whole lot of reasons for rust monsters with 4e making magic items much more limited and clearly defining what you would give away and when. But being a true classic monster it is still fun to have. I really don't see too much problem with them just disintegrating metal on the spot either. Items are always replaceable. Plus there is always that chance you still might want to actually get rid of someone's over-powerful magic sword or whatever.

To that end, maybe normal metal decays into rust, but magic items decay into residuum? So if the rust monster takes your precious sword, you can always gather the dust and enchant something else.

 

[the Jester]

To that end, maybe normal metal decays into rust, but magic items decay into residuum? So if the rust monster takes your precious sword, you can always gather the dust and enchant something else.

Have you seen the official preview (rusty is going to be in MM2)? This is precisely how it works.