Save or suck Medusa petrification

[Rogue Agent]

With a single, broadly applicable rule, you have every table making roughly the same ruling. If you want to jump, it gets lumped in with anything that resembles a test of strength - thus a strength check. You don't need fifteen different skills, each one covering a small subset or, worse yet, no rules at all, thus leaving it to DM fiat to determine success.

In your original post you stated that one DM could call for a Strength check while another might call for a Dexterity check. Now you're claiming that both DMs would just naturally call for a Strength check because, obviously, a Strength check is what you'd call for in this situation.

 

[pemerton]

since Rust Monsters are usually found in dungeons with other critters who do carry weapons the solution would be for PCs to go back and use the poor quality weapons against it, to protect their heirlooms and masterwork weapons and armour.

<snip>

Next time, allow them intelligence checks to give them hints. Seriously they couldnt throw a couple of scrap equipment/rusty daggers at the monster one way, to distract it, and then rush past it as it moves away?

<snip>

I cant see the big deal of using the Rust Monster. It's a state of mind. If the players are rigid in their thinking and unimaginative, sometimes they need that int check for that DM hint, but to blame a Rust Monster for poor roleplaying, thats just sad.

I can't speak for WalkingDad, but personally I have close to zero interest in running the encounters you describe here. If the PCs have to strip themselves of their heirlooms to tackle a challenge, it will be cause the challenge is something epic and destructive - maybe they're about to dive into a whirlpool of acid on the Elemental Chaos - and not because there's a 5HD monster that they're having trouble handling.

I'm also not a big fan of intelligence checks for GM hints. If you want to give them hints, give them hints. If you don't, don't. What does interposing a die roll add to the game?

 

[Walking Dad]

... Can we get any agreement that those of us who like those powers should have ones available to support our style of game?

Sure, but can I get (additional) "watered down" version of iconic monsters, too? I still want to use a medusa or a beholder as deadly as in 4e. Ok?

 

[pemerton]

I drift towards DM judgment on this. Yes, the player now knows how far they can jump, but if there are conditions that make that particular jump more difficult or less of a given then I need a way to present a chance of failure.

Jumping across a 10' gap on a sunny, breezeless day is much different than making the same jump in a heavy thunderstorm at night.

Maybe in D&Dnext you're meant to treat the chance of failing an auto jump in the thunderstorm at night the same way you treat the possibility of getting struck by lightning in a thunderstorm while wearing full plate. I'm not sure exactly what the mechanic is, mind you - maybe a saving throw of some sort?

Or should the jump be a check, as you suggest - like a check to open a door - and the lightning be a save - like a save to dodge a trap? I'm not entirely sure what's at stake in the check vs save distinction.

 

[Sadras]

I can't speak for WalkingDad, but personally I have close to zero interest in running the encounters you describe here.

Its A Rust Monster in one adventure over an entire campaign, I didnt say characters are too face Rust Monster race as part of the campaign hook. But as JamesCourage says 'play what you like'.

If the PCs have to strip themselves of their heirlooms to tackle a challenge, it will be cause the challenge is something epic and destructive - maybe they're about to dive into a whirlpool of acid on the Elemental Chaos - and not because there's a 5HD monster that they're having trouble handling.

Anyways I dont see it that way, I see it as problem solving. I find PCs these days place too much value on their equipment/items and far less on actual roleplay, which might also be an indication of todays DMing style. Its this eternal safety net - like they are hiding behind their mother's skirts. Item breakage and PC death are the big 'forbidden'.

My PCs have no trouble stripping down to their jocks armed only with a dagger and swimming within the city sewers to get to an underwater door lever. There is nothing epic or destructive about that. They just dont want their clothing getting dirty or their armour wet and cannot imagine themselves swimming underwater with armour and all their equipment.

So if I did throw in a Rust Monster (which I havent as yet, probably because I have forgotten about it, since its not in my 4E MM) I'd imagine theyd become creative enough to defeat it.
The mage in the party might be interested in the creatures corrosive capabilities and attempt to utilise them in an interesting way in future adventures, if at all possible (I have actually forgotten most details about this creature since we havent come across it since our 2E days).

And with new players, imagine the shock/horror of facing this beast that seems drawn to the fighters/clerics and suddenly begins eating away at their armour/weapons. Its rare to surprise PCs these days, especially the experienced ones. Throwing in the odd beast to mix things up a little adds that little sense of wonder. I'm not saying a Rust Monster is the only way to do it - but Id welcome it as a nice change, especially since its been over 15 years since we've seen one. They hopefully might not even recognise it at first.

I'm also not a big fan of intelligence checks for GM hints. If you want to give them hints, give them hints. If you don't, don't. What does interposing a die roll add to the game?

True, the roll adds nothing. I feel the same way about Monster Lore, I usually drop the DCs and use their Passive Score. If a player invested enough resources into the knoweldge, or specified as such during downtime - then I generally provide them the information I am comfortable the PCs might have learned.

 

[LostSoul]

Or should the jump be a check, as you suggest - like a check to open a door - and the lightning be a save - like a save to dodge a trap? I'm not entirely sure what's at stake in the check vs save distinction.

What I'm going with is that a Saving Throw is a special type of Contest: where one party - the one making the save - is completely reactive.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I noticed something in the How to Play pdf that is relevant to your recurring conversation about staring contests with medusae: in the discussion of stats, it says that CON can be used as a save to withstand the petrifying gaze of a medusa.

So apparently D&Dnext medusae are like those of earlier editions of D&D: you can lock eyes with them and not be petrified.

 

[IronWolf]

Maybe in D&Dnext you're meant to treat the chance of failing an auto jump in the thunderstorm at night the same way you treat the possibility of getting struck by lightning in a thunderstorm while wearing full plate. I'm not sure exactly what the mechanic is, mind you - maybe a saving throw of some sort?

Or should the jump be a check, as you suggest - like a check to open a door - and the lightning be a save - like a save to dodge a trap? I'm not entirely sure what's at stake in the check vs save distinction.

Yeah, for the situation I described I would simply call for a Strength check most likely to make the jump. As the DM I would have no issue making the decision to handle it that way and the rules as they are now provide me a consistent framework to resolve that situation.

 

[Imaro]

Even in a sandbox adventure, the DM is still placing encounters. Unless, of course, you're running randomly generated adventures.

So, even in a sandbox campaign, the DM is still setting pace and determining when and where certain creatures are encountered.

This is not a "tailored" vs "sandbox" issue.

This isn't true. The DM may set the creature in a specific place, or on a specific wandering monster table at the creation of the sandbox... but the when (and even the where) are determined by random chance and the actions of the players. The DM doesn't set the pace in a sandbox as most people recognize it... the players, and chance do.

 

[Hussar]

This isn't true. The DM may set the creature in a specific place, or on a specific wandering monster table at the creation of the sandbox... but the when (and even the where) are determined by random chance and the actions of the players. The DM doesn't set the pace in a sandbox as most people recognize it... the players, and chance do.

Meh, if you're running adventures and all you use is a random encounter table, well, more power to you. Not something I think that occurs all that often though. Randomly generated adventures might be fun for a one shot, but, hey, I could be wrong.

It's certainly not a prerequisite of a sandbox adventure to do so. I mean, The Caves of Chaos are often touted as a sandbox adventure, yet every single room is keyed and, while there are random encounters, the overwhelming majority of encounters will be pre-placed.

The DM always sets the pace. How often does he roll random encounters, even in an entirely randomly determined adventure? He sets that encounter rate (1 in X per Y time), creates the random encounter table (or chooses which one to use) and then runs each encounter.

Sure, in a sandbox, the players have greater control over pacing, but, then again, not so much as you seem to be claiming. After all, the players have no idea what's behind door number one or two. Most of the time, they're flying blind - exploring the setting as it were. So, no, the players are not setting the pace - random chance is.