Rust Monster Lovin'

[gizmo33]

1e and 2e had a sort of, "Close your eyes and pretend it isn't a problem" approach to magic items.

Are you sure? Maybe 1E/2E just thought it wasn't the *game systems* problem. I don't understand how DnD could, in part, be a "resource management" game and yet there's no variability (or over-regulated, illusionary "variability" based on the reputation gained from prior editions) in the resources character's possess.

Even if you drag out the rusting effects of the rust monster, over the long run players are still facing an X% chance of losing their magic sword to the monster.

So a player is still going to lose their sword to a rust monster. Or are they? Drag it out long enough and perhaps there winds up being a close to 0% chance that any rust monsters attack will actually be able to jump through all the hurdles necessary to destroy a sword. At this point you're really just coasting on a *reputation* of the rust monster to destroy items (reputation thanks to 1E). At some point, people will catch on to the idea that the actual mechanics make it not that much of a threat.

Same thing as character death. A DM can get by for so long fudging to keep characters alive. Sooner or later players will recognize that they're not going to die, and the "thrill" of risk taking will be gone. Now the game system seems to want to do the fudging for them.

I don't think that designers should think that removing the possibility for short-term failures in the game is going to make things more fun in the long term. That's what makes a Monty Haul game fun, probably, the first time you play, but less so each additional time.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Are you sure? Maybe 1E/2E just thought it wasn't the *game systems* problem. I don't understand how DnD could, in part, be a "resource management" game and yet there's no variability (or over-regulated, illusionary "variability" based on the reputation gained from prior editions) in the resources character's possess.

Huh?

Are you not playing a game in which killing stuff and taking its stuff -- which is unknown to anyone but the DM, who either selects it or rolls it on the random treasure tables in the DMG -- is a basic part of the game?

Even if the players beat everything in the area -- not guaranteed -- and even if they find every scrap of treasure -- not guaranteed -- the capricious whims of the DM and/or the random treasure tables ensure variability.

This sounds like a complaint from a D&D reader, and not a player/DM. Are you currently playing D&D? Do you receive a coupon good for a pro-rated piece of loot in lieu of actual treasure or something? And, if so, why would you imagine this is the norm?

 

[gizmo33]

The thing is, if the guy next to you is painting his orcs blue, don't hate on him.

I've seen your name on Dungeon Magazine articles and I VERY MUCH respect the work that you do. Anybody that riffs on the Lareth the Beautiful description for their author description is ok in my book.

However, to the degree that your decisions represent the design decisions of WotC for DnD, then you're really painting *all* of our orcs blue. If you were really the guy next to me then we'd both be writing for Dungeon. I can keep house-rules-ing things to change them (as I have already) but if some of these decisions keep going I'm going to find it increasingly hard to use published material in my game.

Sure, I could take some comfort in the idea that the "people" will vote with their wallets. It just seems IME with 2E that time-lapse between "bad ideas" and a game-system tanking could be many, many dreary years.

 

[stevelabny]

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.

Hmm, inventing an entire system of beliefs and goals?

But once your weapons and armor are rendered useless, the next encounter becomes that much more difficult.

Development's understanding of the game tells us that a monster who destroys your gear isn't fun. Simply put, it makes the next encounter prohibitively more difficult.

The rust monster carries a big sign that says, "Stop adventuring or die!"

One of development's goals is to facilitate play. We want people to get in multiple encounters each session, whether these are combat, roleplay, puzzles, or whatever. The rust monster brings any prospect of a balanced combat encounter to an end.

The problem with the rust ability is that it is far too punishing

As you can see, the effect is now much less punishing.

So the goals are pretty much right there. not invented.

subscribe these beliefs to a fictional group? Pretty sure that the stated design team is REAL, and that the posters on this thread (and others) who rally against negative effects and character death are real too. I suppose I could be wrong though. My apologies to any fake people.

And pouring hated? Or as Whizzbang said, being immature?

I'm pretty sure the phrase "big whiny babies" is a way to poke fun at people who disagree (translation: are wrong ) about how we, the 99% of us who just consider this a hobby, spend our leisure time and not HATRED or immaturity.

And for the 1% of you actually on the design team, to which D&D isn't just a game but a living, I'm giving yet more customer feedback for free. Too far down this "everything is temporary" path and you take all meaning out of the game. Did we read the beginning of my post where I clearly stated that I have never been on to react like this to D&D design choices? (I usually reserve my ranting for comic books and sucky comic movies) This article and this idea in particular has managed to get me riled up. THAT'S HOW BAD IT IS.

I'm not saying anything different than the other dissenters, I can't believe we got into a big hubbub over "big whiny babies" . What would've happened if I said something really vicious like "neener neener" or "meaniepants" ?

 

[gizmo33]

Even if the players beat everything in the area -- not guaranteed -- and even if they find every scrap of treasure -- not guaranteed -- the capricious whims of the DM and/or the random treasure tables ensure variability.

Exactly. Maybe I wrote something wrong here. My point is, that given the nature of the variability I think it's really a stretch to talk about any sort of idea that an X level character must have Y gp of possessions.

This sounds like a complaint from a D&D reader, and not a player/DM. Are you currently playing D&D? Do you receive a coupon good for a pro-rated piece of loot in lieu of actual treasure or something? And, if so, why would you imagine this is the norm?

Eh? I really think I either mis-typed or you misread because I completely agree with what you're saying. In fact you're making me want to flame myself.

IF (as some seem to suggest) it's true THAT people are entitled to X amount of equipment, THEN it hardly seems to follow that DnD is a resource management game in any part, because what meaning is there to gathering and managing resources if you're always going to have X amount of loot.

Yes, I play DnD. And I play it as a resources management game - partly of course, there are many dimensions to the game. The notion of a contract with players regarding the amount of loot that their characters must have, IMO, seriously lessens this aspect of the game.

 

[Confused Jackal Mage]

Mearls - Thanks for the feedback!

I think it would be *tremendously* helpful if you clarified in the monster text that the rusting effect is, at least initially, a magical weakening effect that can fade away. After an amount of time it stresses the material enough to cause it to actually rust away, which is when he eats it.

To everyone else - Jeez, crying about coddled players? What about coddled GMs? If you see a monster and the first thing you think is, "I couldn't ever use that! This monster/book/version is useless!" you're not very imaginative. The game is designed, by and large, for inexperienced DMs. Most of us are (raises hand). I've got good experience as both a player and pundit, but I'll be GMing my first game in a few weeks. As such, the easier the game is for the GM to run, the better.

If a rust monster kills a player's equipment, that makes it harder for the GM. Sure, it's a player disability temporarily, but the important thing is that the GM now needs to plan around the PCs being weakened, perhaps substantially. If they get lucky and kill it off with no damage, then the GM has overcompensated. If they get unlucky and lose every piece of metal they own (too bad for the chainmail-bikini warrior...), the GM has undercompensated.

With the new monster, though, the worst that happens is the players have some decent minuses to their equipment for a while. The effect fades, but in the meantime the PCs are struggling to continue (and you'd better press them so they can't just wait it off!).

If you are an experienced GM and can handle the effects of permanent equipment loss, it's a trivial change to make the Rust Attack more damaging and capable of instant equipment loss. But for those of us who aren't so advanced, it's nice to have a monster written with us in mind, who's damage is limited in space and time.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

I'm a player in my group. As far as I recall, I have NEVER faced a rust monster. Why? Because my DM doesn't particularly like 'save or die' type stuff. That's not to say we have never faced these items. Just last week we faced a save or die Wail of the Banshee trap (or something along those lines). I have lost weapons to monster's acid effects and such. It is simply a rare occurance when we face the single role vs doom stuff.

Also, my DM doesn't like the type of play that results in face a monster, retreat to town to recover, rinse, repeat ad nauseum so we almost always have time limits in game. We wouldn't have time to go back into town and restock. We wouldn't have time to rearm before the world is destroyed in our games. (As an aside, yes my characters have backup weapons. Every character has at least a dagger after I had one PC trapped in the belly of a shark).

That is where I am coming from. I like most of the changes. I like the climb and stealth aspects, makes it more of an insect (and I would definately add Improved Disarm). I also like the idea of non-instant-poof weapons. The fighter that is centered around one weapon so far attacks once and poof - no more swordaxe/etc and no chance to replace it before the big bad (how many extra great axes do you carry around?).

I think my favorite idea so far that has been listed here is attacking the hp or hardness of the weapon or armor (1dX damage per rust effect) and the skill check to repair it. This keeps the threat of it being destroyed in the PC's hands. The 1dX damage keeps the mystery about exactly when it will be destroyed. However, assuming the weapon survives the encounter chances are hardness and hp won't become an issue in next encounter.

I think there are pros and cons to the non-issue in the next encounter bit. Easier bookkeeping but no consequence. (I like consequence, not just from a single die roll). Maybe a -2 effect while the item is still damaged. So...

Rust Monster attacks the sword and gets a hit. 1dX damage to the sword's hp or hardness and the weapon has a -2 to attack and/or damage until the rest effect has been removed by a Craft skill check.

Pros: No insta-poof item loss. If the item survives the encounter it will likely survive the session but there are lingering affects from the encounter.

Cons: More bookkeeping and number crunching to keep track of the weakened weapon.

 

[mhensley]

I knew this kind of crap would happen when they started using feminine pronouns in the rulebooks...

Other examples-
orc 3.0: great axe
orc 3.5: falchon
orc 4.0: fluffy pillow

kobold 3.0: crossbow
kobold 3.5: javelin
kobold 4.0: harsh words

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm pretty sure the phrase "big whiny babies" is a way to poke fun at people who disagree (translation: are wrong ) about how we, the 99% of us who just consider this a hobby, spend our leisure time and not HATRED or immaturity.

Yes, because name-calling is the hallmark of maturity. Arguments are won with substance, not (attempted) style.

I'm not saying anything different than the other dissenters, I can't believe we got into a big hubbub over "big whiny babies" . What would've happened if I said something really vicious like "neener neener" or "meaniepants" ?

No, the rest of the folks on all sides are discussing the issue like adults. Step up to the plate.

 

[Valesin]

I had a couple of problems with Mike Mearls' re-design, actually. I like the idea of removing the "all-or-nothing" nature of ol' Rusty, but I don't like the idea of the rust's effects fading after 10 minutes. I understand the rationale of letting the characters get on with the adventure, but the idea of corrosion "healing" on its own bugs me.

I agree. 'Spontaneously healing metal' just makes the whole idea seem dumb; it forces a game mechanic that just has no place in the world, even a fantasy one. I have my rust monsters do permament (barring magic) hp and hardness damage in addition to penalties to hit/damage/AC/whatever. The player can still use it but at reduced efficiency and will choose to replace it asap.