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

[pemerton]

I don't go around telling people who play with magic items as a reward that they're doing it wrong. I'm a bit sick of people telling me - someone who plays with magic items as an element of PC build - that I'm doing it wrong.

Presumably a unity edition will be written to support both styles of play. I would therefore be surprised if rust monsters - which push the issue to the front and centre - turn up in the first volume of rules, but I've been wrong before.

 

[Quickleaf]

Well, just having the ceiling collapse with no warning or no save was common enough that the 2e DMG felt a need to specifically point it out as an example of bad DMing.

Oh no, being entirely serious without a bit of cheek here, if you don't at least kill some PCs without a saving throw in a meaningless hazard, that's badwrongfun.

Presumably a unity edition will be written to support both styles of play. I would therefore be surprised if rust monsters - which push the issue to the front and centre - turn up in the first volume of rules, but I've been wrong before.

So...maybe rust monsters will convert new edition magical items to old edition throwbacks? Your Feyleaf Armor of Exploits is now a girdle of gender changing. Welcome to the rust monster, your new 5e overlords.

 

[Number48]

As an aside, we all know that real old school DMs laugh at save or die. Back in the day it was just "The cavern collapses on your head, you die. Roll up a new character Bobby."

That sounds quite a lot like a line from Dark Dungeons, the Jack Chick tract. *shudder*

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

That dungeon also featured a medusa with a slowly petrifying gaze - slowed and 10 ongoing damage (save ends); first failed save: immobilized and 10 ongoing damage (save ends); second failed save: restrained and 10 ongoing damage (save ends); third failed save: stunned and 10 ongoing damage (save ends). If a creature under the petrification effect was reduced to 0 hit points, it became permanently petrified.

IMO, 4E almost gets it right. I'd rather the gradual petrification be caused by the creature, not a string of failed saves. The above example is better than the ones I've seen in published sources since it triggers off of being reduced to zero hit points. But most I've seen are "three strikes and you're out" which might as well read "9% chance to be petrified not including any bonus to saves you might receive or additional chances to save granted by your party leader."

 

[hanez]

I think this post misses a lot of the point. Isn't there a person dedicated in EVERY group to make sure the dangerous monster doesn't ruin the fun of the game? Think about it, theres someone sitting at the table making sure the rust monster doesn't ruin everyones night uneccesarily.

The DM can do so in a TON of ways, like:

• not pitting the party up against the monster until they are ready
• ruling that every item gets a saving throw because this was a young monster
• ruling that "your fathers sword" was soooo strong it resisted the rust but now has mysterious marks on it
• finding a group of NPCs to save the day but now you owe them and they have a request...
• fudging some roles here and there (yeah DM Im looking at you, its your job to make sure the table has a good night)
• take the items and DESTROY them and as the parties whining like a bunch of babies stack the dungeon with a TON of magic items to reoutfit and reenergize the party

I really dislike the increasing attitude that DMs aren't responsible for keeping the game fun. Inevitably someone is going to say "I dont want to fudge numbers, break rules, or stack a dungeon with more items", instead they want to fudge what the basic definition of a rust monster IS. Instead of fudging a number you want to take the threat of random danger out of D&D.

 

[MarkChevallier]

Maybe your campaign isn't dangerous enough, if you have to contrive swingy situations to create tension. This reminds me of the healing surge thread, where a lone warrior in the woods with low hit points was offered as an example of a situation that created tension. In my campaign, the entire party, fully equipped and rested with spells prepared, alone in the woods, is a situation that is already highly tense. No need for rust monsters, save or die, or anything like that to create tension.

I have to ask, if they're by themselves and there's tension, are they usually at each other's throats, or is a sexual tension? ;-)

 

[Plane Sailing]

If you're walking around using wooden weapons, you're already hurting yourself enough.

Oh, wooden weapons aren't necessarily bad, if you know how to use them... Journal of Western Martial Art

Cheers

 

[Plane Sailing]

I have to ask, if they're by themselves and there's tension, are they usually at each other's throats, or is a sexual tension? ;-)

I'm rather hoping that Griego doesn't answer that...

 

[ferratus]

I really dislike the increasing attitude that DMs aren't responsible for keeping the game fun. Inevitably someone is going to say "I dont want to fudge numbers, break rules, or stack a dungeon with more items", instead they want to fudge what the basic definition of a rust monster IS. Instead of fudging a number you want to take the threat of random danger out of D&D.

I'll play any edition of D&D with any DM who cares about me having a good time, and knows how to be flexible enough to accomidate my sense of fun.

4e does indeed hard code fairness into its rules system, for better or for worse. A lot of the rules people object to as being "too easy" or "too unrealistic" are responses to bad DM's.

A DM who doesn't give players enough healing magic (potions or wands) to recover from previous battles gets fairness forced upon him with healing potions and the "restore to hp after a night's rest" rule. A DM who doesn't hand out replacement magical items in a timely fashion after a rust monster gets the residium to make new magical items put in the rust monster's belly. DM's who would use and abuse save or die monsters get versions of those monsters that aren't that instantly destructive.

I can sort of understand some DM's who want the "authenticity" of old D&D, or a DM who wants the drama of everything riding on a single die roll. But I think a lot of people want the return of these elements not specifically for those reasons, but because they want to spend and afternoon jerking people around. I have no sympathy for the latter group.

 

[Remathilis]

Last month in

Spoiler

Gardmore Abbey

a rust monster destroyed our 8th-level fighter's +2 greataxe (an uncommon level 10 item).

While it was nice to get the value of the item back, there was no way he could *replace* a weapon that powerful on his own. He'd either have to have our wizard enchant a lesser 7th-level item, wait *three* more level for the wizard to replace the axe, or hope he's lucky enough to find one in the next three levels of adventuring.

He made do with a +1 axe, by the way. Very unhappy.

You just made the best argument I've heard to removing +'d weapons from D&D....