Rust Monster Lovin'

[Knight Otu]

The majority of parties have access to mending, too, actually, now that it's entered the conversation. It's a sor/wiz cantrip.

Mending
Transmutation
Level: Brd 0, Clr 0, Drd 0, Sor/Wiz 0
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 10 ft.
Target: One object of up to 1 lb.
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless, object)Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless, object)
Mending repairs small breaks or tears in objects (but not warps, such as might be caused by a warp wood spell). It will weld broken metallic objects such as a ring, a chain link, a medallion, or a slender dagger, providing but one break exists.
Ceramic or wooden objects with multiple breaks can be invisibly rejoined to be as strong as new. A hole in a leather sack or a wineskin is completely healed over by mending. The spell can repair a magic item, but the item’s magical abilities are not restored. The spell cannot mend broken magic rods, staffs, or wands, nor does it affect creatures (including constructs).

As much as I dislike the auto-repair, I don't think mending will help much with weapons or armor destroyed by a rust monster. Especially the target limitation is a killer in that regard. It'll have to be one of the higher-level spells. But the autorepair isn't that bad when you explain it similar to a spider's poison - the rust monster first creates a weakening effect so that its teeth can easier break the metal for swallowing.

But I still prefer permanent damage.

 

[Mycanid]

Hmm ... well thanks for the quote Vanye. I still don't like it though.

It's as if corrosion of metal is on the same level as being able to heat or chill the metal (as per the spell) and then revert back to it's "original" state as if nothing had been wrong?

Nope. I don't buy it.

Now the idea of armor and weapons having "hit points" and the Rust Monster having a more limited effect on them makes a little more sense to me rationale-wise, but I still don't see it as worthwhile to re-write the whole beastie. Some encounters are just TOUGH. Period. Take it out by other means, like magic or whatnot.

 

[Glyfair]

That would be cool. A parasite creature that fed off of spell energy causing a mage to have to seek some mental healing etc.

And what exactly is the spell that allows you to heal your magic item from the rust monster's attack?

 

[The_Gneech]

As much as I dislike the auto-repair, I don't think mending will help much with weapons or armor destroyed by a rust monster. Especially the target limitation is a killer in that regard. It'll have to be one of the higher-level spells. But the autorepair isn't that bad when you explain it similar to a spider's poison - the rust monster first creates a weakening effect so that its teeth can easier break the metal for swallowing.

But I still prefer permanent damage.

Easily hand-waved by putting a bit of text into the Rust Monster 3.14 that says, "Assuming the item is not completely destroyed, this penalty can be removed by spending 10 minutes to make a DC 15 check on the appropriate Craft skill, or by a single casting of mending for each weapon or piece of armor damaged."

Or something to that effect, anyway. Point is, call it out as a specific exception ... which will also give the neophyte GM a pointer on how to mitigate the potentially-game-killing effect.

-The Gneech

 

[gizmo33]

There are many intelligent creatures with the capability of capturing people and taking their stuff. All those creatures should come with a warning label too.

In fact, it's possible to roll nothing but 1's on a 20 sided dice. 20-sided dice come with a warning label or be removed from the game. It's no fun to roll a 1 - therefore, there should be no 1s.

The fact that monsters do damage, combined with the insistence that damage be randomized, means that some encounters cause more damage than expected. Damage should not be randomized. DnD 4.0 should include a mechanic whereby when PCs meet a monster, they are considered to have automatically defeated it, and must scratch 25% of their "resources" from their character sheet.

In fact the whole "site-based adventure" is built on the idea that PCs have to go out and find things. This is an extremely risky design decision when the idea of a players enjoyment revolves around them finding stuff. Even a linear dungeon that makes you search for treasure is a bad idea.

In fact, a recent survey indicates that 100% of people surveyed don't have fun when things aren't going their way and yet people consider activites to be "exciting" when the chance exists when things won't go their way. Scientists continue to puzzle over this paradox.

DnD 4.0 should be designed by all the DMs who can't predict the impact to their game of destroying the party's weapons.

 

[FireLance]

And this result is different than a planned encounter killing a PC how? Having a PC die is much more of a game killer than having a PC loose some eq.

Well, I do try to avoid either, as a matter of course. There is also a bit more leeway with respect to a PC actually dying from a melee attack, and I use "save or die" monsters very carefully for the same reason.

 

[Glyfair]

I know Mearls has been over at WotC for awhile now, but I can't remember seeing his name on anything. What HAS he been working on?

My understanding is that he's a developer. This job it to take products and clean them up the mechanics (and probably related non-mechanics). So he has his fingers in a number of different things at a time.

Lest anyone think I like this version, I don't. Personally, I don't like the 10 minute duration.

However, this does address a major issue with the rust monster. A CR 3 monster that just has to make a single attack to destroy a 20th level fighter's +5 plate mail is a problem. It's along the lines of the 1d4 hit point creature who can cast wish at will. Either the party gets initiative and wins, or else dies quickly.

I like keeping the permanent effect, but making it less automatic. Multiple attacks being required meets this. An effect that players can reverse or prevent if they take time in combat does as well.

 

[jgbrowning]

Well, I do try to avoid either, as a matter of course. There is also a bit more leeway with respect to a PC actually dying from a melee attack, and I use "save or die" monsters very carefully for the same reason.

We have very different play styles then. For me, PC death is a matter of choice and luck. Sometimes you choose poorly and live, sometimes you choose wisely and die.

joe b.

 

[Garnfellow]

We're re-writing monsters because we've written in the expected levels of wealth so much than the idea of being under the "reccomended" decreases ejoyment of the game?

I am pretty sure I read somewhere that the original 3e designers worked on the assumption that magic items would regularly be destroyed in play . . . something like 1 item every 5 encounters. Anyone else remember this?

 

[Mycanid]

Amazing Glyfair ... you and I are in agreement on this one too. You haven't been sitting in the circles of my people and melding for long periods of time in your travels throughout the Underdark have you?

Anyway - sorry for the aside. Back to the thread topic, eh?