Rust Monster Lovin'

[BluSponge]

It's interesting to watch people take something they don't like, invent an entire system of beliefs and goals around that thing, ascibe those beliefs and goals to a fictional group, and then pour hatred at that group.

Actually, I think most of the critics here are simply taking you at your word. Here and in your article. I'll paraphrase: "Rust monsters are great for experienced DMs, but we want to make the game fun for novices." So instead of providing guidance for DMs on how to run an effective rust monster enounter (say, a sidebar), we instead make the encounter less special so as to significantly reduce the consequences of it. This sounds a lot like Sean Reynolds going on about how drow magic weapons disentigrating in sunlight was "bad game design": "the players should never be parted with something they've won for arbitrary reasons" (again, paraphrasing).

I'm always surprised at how people's first reaction is never to lift or educate, but to dumb down or blunt. As someone else mentioned earlier in the thread, most groups who don't enjoy encounters with rust monsters encounter mysteriously few for an uncommon creature. And that's how it should be. You seem to be fixing something that isn't really broken.

Now as a hypothetical example, this article is a great demonstration of how R&D will monkey with something sent up from design! It would probably have been less incendiary if you had used a completely new example, or perhaps a flumph. But since R&D is concerned with how people play the game, I don't see why you should be dismissive towards critics of your design philosophy. They are part of your market too, after all, right?

Tom

 

[hero4hire]

I am not going to add to the reasons to the pros and cons.

Simply put, revamping the Rust Monster to me in such a way as to have items "heal" would take away any coolness the creature ever had.

The whole point of the monster was to have metal bearing characters quake in fear at losing thier shiny stuff. Take that away, you take away the soul of the beast.

At least IMHO.

 

[Aaron L]

I never understood why the rust monster didnt just do hit point damage to metal ojects. That way magic weapons and armor with lots of hitpoints would be pretty safe, but common items would get munched pretty easily.

It just seems kind of obvious to me.

 

[Ourph]

As has been stated, flat-out destruction of an item (or more than one item) is a whole lot more potent than CR 3. Compare with magic items and spells that can do the same thing: A level 3 character's unlikely to be running into those.

That's just totally inaccurate. I haven't played 3.x D&D for almost 2 years now and I can still come up with at least 3 other challenges of around CR3 that can easily cause "flat-out destruction of an item".

Even a 1st level fighter (CR1) can have Improved Sunder. A 3rd level fighter (CR3) can make a pretty good Sundering specialist.

A 3rd level Bard, Cleric, Sorcerer or Wizard (CR3) has access to the Shatter spell, which can permanently destroy non-magical objects (masterwork weapons, magic items, etc.).

A Gray Ooze (CR4 but easily within the realm of challenge for level 3 characters) can dissolve metal weapons and armor (even magical ones).

There are all kinds of challenges at or around CR3 that can easily destroy PC's equipment. When did losing a magic sword become something that should only come attached to an Epic Level challenge rating?

 

[Knight Otu]

That's just totally inaccurate. I haven't played 3.x D&D for almost 2 years now and I can still come up with at least 3 other challenges of around CR3 that can easily cause "flat-out destruction of an item".

But do either of these have the same ability as the rust monster to easily destroy a magic item?

Even a 1st level fighter (CR1) can have Improved Sunder. A 3rd level fighter (CR3) can make a pretty good Sundering specialist.

A +1 weapon has a hardness of either 7 or 12, and at least 12 hit points. To destroy a weak +1 magic weapon in one strike, the attacker needs to deal 19 points of damage at once. Not impossible, true. The most hit points a +1 weapon may have is 30. Together with the hardness 12, that requires 42 damage in one strike. Also, the sunderer still needs to make an opposed attack roll, rather than a simple touch.

A 3rd level Bard, Cleric, Sorcerer or Wizard (CR3) has access to the Shatter spell, which can permanently destroy non-magical objects (masterwork weapons, magic items, etc.).

Shatter doesn't destroy magic items, as you said.

A Gray Ooze (CR4 but easily within the realm of challenge for level 3 characters) can dissolve metal weapons and armor (even magical ones).

Yep, that guy can do it. It is also much slower than a rust monster, doesn't have much more hit points than the rust monster, and is easier to hit. Also, the acid ability is pretty wonky. It can instantly destroy stuff as long as it is used in combat, but once the stuff lies around, it only deals damage, and must wait. Sounds like a candidate for reimagining.

There are all kinds of challenges at or around CR3 that can easily destroy PC's equipment. When did losing a magic sword become something that should only come attached to an Epic Level challenge rating?

Since no-one said that it has to be an epic level challenge, I'd say never. Losing stuff is ok at any level, as long as it uses reasonable mechanics.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

That's just totally inaccurate. I haven't played 3.x D&D for almost 2 years now and I can still come up with at least 3 other challenges of around CR3 that can easily cause "flat-out destruction of an item".

Even a 1st level fighter (CR1) can have Improved Sunder.

I don't think that would count as "easily." Said level 1 fighter would be hamburger by the time he got finished trying it.

A 3rd level fighter (CR3) can make a pretty good Sundering specialist.

A 3rd level Bard, Cleric, Sorcerer or Wizard (CR3) has access to the Shatter spell, which can permanently destroy non-magical objects (masterwork weapons, magic items, etc.).

So, which of these would be likely to be designed that way by the DM, other than a DM in the mind to specifically start destroying items? None of them, in my experience. Those third level characters will be loaded up with other spells and doing their best to kill the players and take their stuff.

A Gray Ooze (CR4 but easily within the realm of challenge for level 3 characters) can dissolve metal weapons and armor (even magical ones).

Countering a CR3 creature with a CR4 creature isn't a strong argument.

When did losing a magic sword become something that should only come attached to an Epic Level challenge rating?

Look at the magic items and spells that accomplish it best.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I never understood why the rust monster didnt just do hit point damage to metal ojects. That way magic weapons and armor with lots of hitpoints would be pretty safe, but common items would get munched pretty easily.

It just seems kind of obvious to me.

Yep, the Sunder mechanic again.

Heck, let the rust monster totally bypass hardness, and it's doing touch attack with full damage to metal items. That's nasty and pretty darn quick, in all likelihood, depending on how much damage our revised rust monster does per hit to metal.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Never have I seen a higher ratio of syllables-to-substance.

BITE ME TROLL!!!

 

[GSHamster]

I don't know, but carrying around multiple weapons was the norm among the 12-14 years olds I started playing D&D with...except for the wizards, of course. and we met our share of rust monsters, because the DM had plenty fun in trying to rust away our weapons and armor, and the wizard and archers/crossbowmen had plenty fun in doing away with them in other ways than straight hacking them with swords and axes. And what crazy tactics? If you meet a monster than rusts the fighter's sword with its first attack, you roll back to those weapons not made from iron and push the leather-clad folks in the foreground.
I don't know what kind of rust monster is bandied about here, but none of them caused a TPK ever, and none traumatized any of my fellow players, or me, into not playing anymore? Why are today's newbies portrayed as so thin-skinned that they will give up D&D because a low-level beastie ate the fighter's sword?

But we're a self-selecting group. None of the newbies who 'encountered a rust monster, got their equipment toasted by it, got TPK'd in the next room, and gave up because this game was stupid' bother to post on Enworld. They just silently stopped playing.

We are not the only people that WotC makes D&D for. Interpreting everything through the lens of our own personal experience is not good enough.

 

[Ourph]

Countering a CR3 creature with a CR4 creature isn't a strong argument.

You claimed 3rd level characters shouldn't be facing challenges that can "flat-out destroy an item". A CR4 creature is an appropriate challenge for a 3rd level party.