If WOTC gave us a preview from MM1...?
- Thread starter catsclaw227
- Start date
FATDRAGONGAMES
First Post
Either a dragon or a beholder.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
A beholder would really fit the bill. It's a complex monster, from a high-ish level, gives us a real sense of how simple they're making the game. 
A bit. The argument was that loosing your equipment is an IMMENSE killjoy, and that the rust monster isn't a challenge except for the fact that it can destroy your equipment. So the Mearls redesign beefed it up physically, while weakening it's rust attack. So it became a bit more dangerous in combat, and the rust became kind of a general weakening effect (I just think a -2 penalty or something) that went away after the encounter.
My main issue was that the rust magically vanished for no reason. Others took issue with the fact that the rust attack was weakened. Others had problems with the initial argument, seeing the focus on items as an excuse to coddle crybabies.
My guess is that, since 4e has less reliance on equipment, the rust monster might not loose much potency. It might not be as able to affect magical equipment -- your ancestral magic sword won't just poof away -- but it probably will be able to soften, weaken, and eventually destroy other stuff. I don't think the attack will be one-hit-poofing, because that's basically Save-Or-Die, and I don't think that the effect will magically go away (a Craft check might be enough to fix it, though).
A bit. The argument was that loosing your equipment is an IMMENSE killjoy, and that the rust monster isn't a challenge except for the fact that it can destroy your equipment. So the Mearls redesign beefed it up physically, while weakening it's rust attack. So it became a bit more dangerous in combat, and the rust became kind of a general weakening effect (I just think a -2 penalty or something) that went away after the encounter.
My main issue was that the rust magically vanished for no reason. Others took issue with the fact that the rust attack was weakened. Others had problems with the initial argument, seeing the focus on items as an excuse to coddle crybabies.
My guess is that, since 4e has less reliance on equipment, the rust monster might not loose much potency. It might not be as able to affect magical equipment -- your ancestral magic sword won't just poof away -- but it probably will be able to soften, weaken, and eventually destroy other stuff. I don't think the attack will be one-hit-poofing, because that's basically Save-Or-Die, and I don't think that the effect will magically go away (a Craft check might be enough to fix it, though).
catsclaw227
First Post
StarFyre said:what is this thing of Mike's rust monster? did they nerf or change it so that it has to be house ruled by us to make it make sense?
Here's the link to the article: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060714a
There was a rather heated thread about this when it came out. Personally, I didn't have a big problem with it because it made it more useful to me in my game. I never liked the game altering effect of ruining a PCs items. It was often called out as deus ex machina.
I do agree that the ending of the effect after the encounter was lame, so I houseruled it to last until a repair or magic could be used to fix it.
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
the Jester
Legend
Hmm, I've always felt that 3.x assumes a certain amount of item destruction. Sundering... rust monsters... oozes... nightwalkers... hell, there are quite a few ways for items to get destroyed!
I love the rust monster as one of the means of item destruction out there. I really don't like making its effects temporary. Yuck.
I love the rust monster as one of the means of item destruction out there. I really don't like making its effects temporary. Yuck.
