Rust Monster Lovin'

[Philotomy Jurament]

Not when it's still going on because it devolved into some sort of an edition war. The beginning was fine. The discussion of rust monsters is fine. The discussion of how 3rd editon doesn't allow DMs to excercise their judgement

That criticism arises directly from the article's statement: "In many ways, development assumes that an individual DM is like a computer who heartlessly applies the rules."

or how old school DMs are all about screwing the players over I'm not fine about.

While that criticism comes from...somewhere else.

 

[Mycanid]

Yeah Glyfair ... I was noticing that as I have been reading the thread after I just posted.

::sigh::

Best laid plans of mice and men and all that....

 

[EricNoah]

The discussion of how 3rd editon doesn't allow DMs to excercise their judgement, or how old school DMs are all about screwing the players over I'm not fine about.

Edition wars suck. Utterly. It's particularly grating on the many of us who have experienced most if not all major editions of the game.

 

[Glyfair]

That criticism arises directly from the article's statement: "In many ways, development assumes that an individual DM is like a computer who heartlessly applies the rules."

Assuming the DM won't use judgement applying the rules and disallowing the DM from breaking the rules are two different things.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

One thing about this thread, all the impliations and ideas put out about how D&D is designed make me want to check out Iron Heroes. Even C&C has over dependency on gear, though not to the level of 3.x.

 

[gizmo33]

I feel that it has been explained - most of the other stuff tends to be harder to pull off than a touch attack. Mordy's Disjunction is a notable exception here, and I've seen many whines about it, and many people were surprised that it wasn't changed in 3.5.

The arguments of people on the anti-old school side of the argument suggest that destroying equipment in any way is bad for the game, period. It doesn't seem to be a matter of frequency. The bulk of people are NOT saying "just make it 20% instead of 100% and that's cool." They're saying "don't ever take away PC equipment". So "being hard to do" doesn't really seem to address these folks concerns.

 

[Garnfellow]

But one could argue that WotC is trying to change the types of bad things that can happen to PCs to a relatively short list. It's not just Mike's article - there are plenty of other cases of this already happening in the rules.

One could argue that, but I think they'd be wrong.

There are more ways to kill PCs right now then there have been in any edition, ever. And the number is growing all the time. As I wrote over in the Tomb of Horrors thread, I've killed more PCs in 3e than in all of 1st and 2nd edition combined. (And you could probably throw in the 4 years we played basic D&D, too.)

I sure don't think that every change WotC makes to the game is the right change. But I'm pretty sure of one thing: they AREN'T trying to make the game less lethal. If they have one overarching goal, it seems to be to make the game play better at the table. Sometimes this means reducing or changing the impact of an effect on PCs, but these changes usually also work the other way, as well: nerfing harm, for example, effects PC and NPCs alike.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Assuming the DM won't use judgement applying the rules and disallowing the DM from breaking the rules are two different things.

Eh? I'm not following you, here. What are you talking about when you say "disallowing the DM from breaking the rules?"

Edit: Never mind. I guess you were referring to the fact that a DM need not use a rule if he doesn't like it. If, so I agree completely. However, I stand by my criticism of WotC development's approach (i.e. DM as a computer applying the rules). I think the approach (and the "fixes" arising from it) is unnecessary.

 

[Ourph]

The problem with a CR 3 Ogre is that the player gets to DO stuff to prevent their death.

One touch from a rust monster and the weapon or armor is kaput.

One hit from an Ogre and many 3rd level adventurers are kaput.

There is just as much chance of the player having no options with the Ogre as with the Rust Monster. You seem to be assuming that the Rust Monster appears and immediately attacks with the players having no time to respond. This is possible. It's also possible with an Ogre (in fact, considering that the Ogre is more intelligent than the Rust Monster, I would say it is more likely that the Ogre will have the advantage of surprise). In both cases the PCs stand the chance of suffering negative consequences, except that in the case of the Ogre the negative consequences are MORE dire and MORE costly in terms of resources, yet no one seems to have a problem with that encounter.

The Ogre has just as much chance of hitting a 3rd level character wearing a Breastplate as does the Rust Monster, so it's not as if the Touch Attack gives it that great an advantage. The only advantage the rust monster has in terms of negative consequences if that if the PC hits it with a weapon, the weapon is harmed (if the PCs hit the Ogre, there are no consequences). But guess what? That weapon is going to be the only one lost, because as soon as the rest of the PCs see what happened they're going to stop using metal weapons against the thing (at the very least, they're going to stop using their good ones). Yeah, the first round against a Rust Monster may be an "Oh fudge" moment, but to me it seems like a much bigger deal if the party is saying "Oh fudge! Lidda just got creamed by that Ogre." than if they're saying "Oh fudge! Redgar's +1 sword just disintegrated."

So why isn't the Ogre unfair and game-breaking?

 

[gizmo33]

There are more ways to kill PCs right now then there have been in any edition, ever.

Only if you consider each weapon and each monster as a way of killing a PC, which is almost beside the point. I'm talking about the Rust Monster - not a monster known for killing PCs (directly at least). What I'm actually talking about is "bad things happening to PCs."

Besides, how many of the PCs that you killed actually stayed dead? It's easier to come back to life in 3E than in any other edition of the game, ever

Here's the list of additional "bad things" that have been ramped down in 3E (off the top of my head):
1. surviving at below zero hitpoints
2. energy drain
3. system shock
4. ressurrection survival
5. constitution loss for death
6. aging for some spells and monster attacks
7. getting lost
8. wandering monsters
9. henchman loyalty
10. save-or-die poison.

XP loss is just a speed-bump on the power-up highway.

I sure don't think that every change WotC makes to the game is the right change.

And by the same token I don't think every one of the changes I listed above was the wrong decision. But they have removed some of the adversity faced by players in the game. Adversity is not everyone's cup of tea - many players are happy in competing with each other (eg. Legolas and Gimli counting the number of orcs they kill) and don't expect to be challenged by the DM in this way. I just think that WotC should think harder about removing adversity.

nerfing harm, for example, effects PC and NPCs alike.

If someone were to say that the rust monster attack should be less effective against magic weapons I'd have no problem. But implicit in the argument would be that under certain circumstances, it's ok to destroy a +5 weapon - which is what really seems to cause the problem.

Most people against rust monsters seem to object to destroying a +5 weapon under ANY circumstances because,

a. players are entitled to a certain amount of wealth per level
b. some equipment are plot elements
c. it's not fun to having to struggle to get to the BBEG.
d. there's something wrong with carrying a backup weapon (?)