I don't DM 4th edition, but when I do

[thedungeondelver]

I take an arrow to the knee.

Now that my mixed memes are out of the way...

something I'd like to see returned to D&D in N are non-nerfed monsters, specifically the rust monster.

Now, I can take an AD&D rust monster, call it a dire Rust Monster, and put it in 4e. Keep the rust monster effects, just use the 4e stats, and dispense with that "hey kids, if it eats your don't worry, just carve it open, and voila! Powdered magic item inside, just add water!"

It's just that the old 4e rules tell me I'm a bad DM for doing that, and tell players I'm a bad DM for doing that.

If I'm at a con and I want to run some D&Dn for a group, I'd really like to not have to deal with the baggage of "You're being a jerk! Rust monsters," (or gelatinous cubes (are they still there?), or yellow mold, or green slime, or ochre jelly, or drow weapons, or whatever the teeth was taken from over the years) "don't do that anymore!"

At least leave the option in and make it known that this can happen, and no I'm not a colossal for running a game with those things.

Also the same to magic-item shopping lists but I'll stop lest this be perceived as a broad-front "I don't like 4e and here's why" post ('cause it ain't.)

 

[harlokin]

Nice trolling bro.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Permanent effects make for terrible defeats, but they also make for a great game, for those who like to play it hard mode. I believe some monsters used to be for those willing to play like that; rust monsters and basilisks come to my mind.

In my ideal D&DN those monsters would come with no nerf, but a clear disclaimer about what it means for your game to have the risk of permanent effects fall upon your party. As a DM, use at your own discretion.

Cheers,

 

[SKyOdin]

Next time, could you write a post like this in a manner that is less edition war bait?

Anyways, what was wrong with the residium being found in the stomach of the rust monster? Thats perfectly logical!

 

[ExploderWizard]

Anyways, what was wrong with the residium being found in the stomach of the rust monster? Thats perfectly logical!

Whats wrong with rust being found in the stomach of a rust monster?

 

[thedungeondelver]

Permanent effects make for terrible defeats, but they also make for a great game, for those who like to play it hard mode. I believe some monsters used to be for those willing to play like that; rust monsters and basilisks come to my mind.

In my ideal D&DN those monsters would come with no nerf, but a clear disclaimer about what it means for your game to have the risk of permanent effects fall upon your party. As a DM, use at your own discretion.

Cheers,

Yeah, exactly what I'm after.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Nice trolling bro.

Negative.

 

[Wormwood]

Anyways, what was wrong with the residium being found in the stomach of the rust monster? Thats perfectly logical!

Good point.

Cutting a rust monster open and *not* finding residuum (essentially magical rust) would strain my disbelief to the breaking point.

Verisimili-dude.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Good point.

Cutting a rust monster open and *not* finding residuum (essentially magical rust) would strain my disbelief to the breaking point.

Verisimili-dude.

Is residium a new buzzword for oxidized ferrous metal?

 

[billd91]

Anyways, what was wrong with the residium being found in the stomach of the rust monster? Thats perfectly logical!

It makes sense for something to be there. But what's at stake? Why negligible loss? If the dog eats my homework, I'm expecting to get it back as poop, not something I can remake into something equivalent to (or even equal to) my homework.

It's been a while since I've looked it up, but didn't 4e's economy allow selling or disenchanting something for 20% of its value? And while the base metal may be gone, the magic (the vast bulk of the expense) is saved at a 1:1 ratio by the rust monster. So, why would the rust monster be less of a cost to the heroes than selling metal magic items on the market or disenchanting them?