Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hanez" data-source="post: 5793328" data-attributes="member: 82160">I never advocated sending monsters the players couldn't handle.  In fact I specifically started my list of options to the DM with "not pitting the party up against the monster until they are ready".   You picked one of my last options, without mentioning the first.  I am in no way advocating a hard core adventure where players constantly lose what they just gained.  In fact players in my campaigns rarely die, and I've only used a rust monster once in 10+ years of campaigning.  What I am advocating is NOT removing dangerous and central features from monsters when there is a perfectly capable adjucator (the DM) at the table who is charged to keep the danger AND the fun at the table.  At one table (not mine) perhaps item loss, and risk is central to the story, another group may have different conventions and expectations. BOTH groups have a DM who can choose to add a dangerous monster into an adventure or leave that monster out.  Why do we need to remove/modify  dangerous types of monsters out of the official rules, when a DM can simply choose not to use them if he so wishes.  What exactly is the point of a rust monster that doesn't destroy items, how different and memorable is it from another monster?  If people don't want challenging and dangerous monsters like a rust monster, leave it for MM2 or something.  Just dont take its DEFINING and MOST INTERESTING feature away and call it a rust monster.</blockquote>

Verification