Rust Monster Lovin'

[JohnSnow]

For me the thing is that this re-tooling of the rust monster reinforces my problem with baseline 3.x, which is the emphasis on the importance of your stuff - which personally I cannot stand.

I think that's a bigger, more interesting point.

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

3e regulated magic items, but perhaps too much, or it made magic items too much of a percentage of a PC's power.

I think that's the heart of it, right there! Magic in 3e IS too much of a percentage of a PC's power. I'm all for cool magical trinkets. Characters getting a few gee-whiz items that allow them to do things that not everyone can.

I think the WotC guys hit on this concept a little when they changed monster DR in 3.5e. Escalating numerical bonuses are BOR-ING. They're boring at the table, and they're boring "in-game" as well. Those are precisely the things that should be built in to the PC's power. Maybe I become less effective if I lose my "magic" sword because now I can't bypass DR/Magic. However, I don't become UN-effective. 3.5 addressed this with the whole magic, material, alignment, epic and so forth stuff. Golfbag issues aside, it's a huge step forward to think of all magic weapons as just "magic."

Bonuses in general are also a little runaway at the moment. The fact that the game needs to change the "formula" when it goes Epic is another way of saying there's something wrong with the formula itself, because it doesn't scale well. So you have basically two options:

1) Don't let anyone go past the point where it scales well.
2) Rewrite it so that it DOES scale well.

All that said, here's my suggestion. Magic shouldn't (for the most part) grant numerical bonuses that dwarf the character's intrinsic abilities. It's fine for my magic gear to give me an edge. But if it could be handed to a low-level nobody and make him nearly my equal, that stinks.

Basically I think D&D characters should be comparable to Batman or Captain America, rather than Iron Man or Green Lantern. And until that's fixed in D&D, I'll be over there playing Iron Heroes instead.

Yea, and who cares if he IS useless for the moment? Somebody in the party better think of something, even if it's just to sharpen a stick. Isn't the game about solving problems? Isn't it about teamwork?

His player does. The DM may not (after all, HE is still having fun) but if he cares about his group, he should.

This brings up a somewhat different point. Since D&D is combat-oriented, each class should have something to do in combat and every character should always have something they can do in a situation. Otherwise, it's unfun for the person playing the ineffective character. Old school design theory was to spread around the periods of "un-fun." Actually, why should this apply only to combat? Why can't the game be fun for every player ALL the time? Shouldn't that be the goal?

The same rationale should mean that the game rules try to minimize "accidental" character death. In my opinion, it IS fun to choose to take the "big hit" so the group can win. It's fine to have a PC die (and, um, stay dead) in the ultimate confrontation at the end of an adventure. And the player doesn't have to sit out any "game time" because he can make a new character between sessions.

What's "unfun" is dying randomly in a stupid set-up fight. Sure, it COULD happen. But most of those should end fast enough that the PC can be treated by his friends before he actually dies. That begs a suggestion for how the mechanic could work.

For starters, rather than save or die, it's "save or 'dying.'" If you can be treated before a certain amount of time passes (as you could be in a short fight), you don't die. If you stay behind to let the party escape, it could happen, but again, that's the "heroic death" thing that the player can brag about. If the other PCs just abandon a dying friend to save their own skins...well, then they suck.

By the way, predictability is also unfun. So the game should stay unpredictable. But the whole "class party role" thing needs some serious rethinking, in my not-so-humble opinion.

WotC can't make better DMs. They can try to help us become better, but they can't package a great DM with every set of Core Rules. I'm actually very much in favor of anything they produce that helps us to understand where they're coming from in design. Articles like this are great. Unearthed Arcana was great. Guidelines to help DMs do what many DMs have had to houserule (e.g. the character rebuilding rules in Player's Handbook II) are great.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Rust Monster = Shiny metal death...period! How do you handle this in game, observe:

DM: You spy a small insectoid creature with feathery antenea and a strangle paddle-like tail.
Player #1: I swat it with my sword
DM: Roll a REF save
Player #1: *rolls 1*, Darn I blew it, what happens?
DM: Your sword immediately turns to rust in your hands, the monster waves its antenea and *rolls* your armor is also rusting away
Player #1: But, that was my favorite weapon and armor!
DM: Suck it up meat-bag!

See, it all works out in the end. The fact that there are risks is A MAJOR PART OF THE GAME!!!! If you can't deal with loss, buy a PS2, not a RPG book!

 

[MarkB]

Depends on the character and the dungeon. But yes, I keep spare equipment around if I can.

On top of which, if I'm wearing +1 plate and I see rust monsters, I RUN!

Did you make your Knowledge (dungeoneering) check?

 

[JohnSnow]

See, it all works out in the end.

Actually, you're right. Try this exchange.

DM: You spy a small insectoid creature with feathery antenea and a strange paddle-like tail.
Player #1: I swat it with my sword
DM: Roll a REF save
Player #1: *rolls 1*, Darn I blew it, what happens?
DM: Your sword immediately turns to rust in your hands, the monster waves its antenea and *rolls* your armor is also rusting away
Player #1: But, that was my favorite weapon and armor!
DM: Suck it up meat-bag!
Player #1: Piss off jerk! I'll go play with someone else! *gets up and leaves table*

This could be fixed by changing this as follows...

DM: You spy a small insectoid creature with feathery antenea and a strange paddle-like tail.
Player #1: I swat it with my sword
DM: Roll a REF save
Player #1: *rolls 1*, Darn I blew it, what happens?
DM: Your sword becomes pitted with rust. You suspect that another couple hits, and your sword will be damaged beyond repair.
DM: The monster also bites you *rolls* and hits for 6 points of damage. You notice your armor starts to corrode just like your sword.
Player #1: What the $%#^! So it's like a metal-rust monster? Ah crap! I pull back before it gets my armor again, and sheathe my favorite sword...
DM: The monster skitters toward you, waving its antennae.
Player #1: Damn it's fast! Since I can't run, I pull my mace and use that. *rolls* I hit!
DM: *rolls* Although the creature takes some damage, your mace also becomes pitted with rust. *rolls* The thing's antennae strike your armor. The corrosion spreads.
Player #1: I need to end this before I lose my armor! I take another swing with the mace and Power Attack for all I'm worth.*rolls*
DM: Your blow splits open the creature's carapace. However, your mace starts to disintegrate, crumbling into red dust in your hands. You hear skittering as three more creatures come out through a hole in the opposite corner.
Player #1: I RUN!!!

The player here has lost a weapon and his armor's been degraded. His sword is damaged but repairable. He was given a chance to save his favorite weapon. If he had friends, they could have stepped in to "share the burden." He'll probably run from a rust monster in the future. And he still got to have fun!

To me, that's a WHOLE lot more satsifying. He can CHOOSE to take the hit to his gear and go for the fight. Or not.

That's what should determine the outcome in an encounter. Choice, not chance.

My opinion.

 

[Mycanid]

Hey there John -

Seems to me the scenario you are giving is for a person being introduced to the game. But even so my experience and what others have told me haven't born out the example you have given as being common.

But what about all the old schoolers who were introduced to the rust monster in almost exactly the same way? I mean, I, or the others, didn't get up and storm away from the game table because I had lost my armor and weapons. We just said "AHHHHH!!!!" and then retreated, coming back to attack the beastie in a different way. I was playing a thief back then and hung back and riddled the thing with my trusty short bow! (Actually it was our wizard who beat the thing to death with his quarterstaff, as I posted before.)

We had some pretty rude DM's back then too. I think people are a little "tougher" than how you portrayed it.

But to change a monster around to not discourage or "offend" players who are being introduced to the game, to somehow make it more safe or palatable ... I honestly don't see a need for it. After all the DM can just not include one if need be.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I think that's the heart of it, right there! Magic in 3e IS too much of a percentage of a PC's power. I'm all for cool magical trinkets. Characters getting a few gee-whiz items that allow them to do things that not everyone can.

This is hardly a concept new to 3e. Quite the opposite.

IME 1e/2e PCs would have a much greater portion of their power come directly from magic items than is the norm in 3e.

I was once playing in a long running campaign that adhered reasonably close to the vanilla 1e/2e rules, about as much as most such games did anyway. Losing all your stuff was considered a signficantly worst fate than dying. Death -- A little cash, loss of one point Con, and you are back in the game. Stripped -- You are so ineffective that you cannot contribute to the party. The DM would have to let you create new PC one level behind everyone else and at ~20% of the wealth because that was the minimum that could plausibly contribute to the party enough to justify a share of the XP and moolah in a non-stupid way -- the stripped PC simply could not.

But maybe this situtation only arose because we were playing with those wimpy rules written by that hack Gary.

In fact, the consequences for dying in vanilla 3e seem to be worse on average than in vanilla 1e/2e. YMMV on that one.

3e merely codified magic item power in a way that is easy for a DM to decide for himself how/if he will handle the wealth in a consistent manner. That is all.

 

[Ourph]

In 1e and 2e, the rust monster caused problems, but the game just ignored them. In 3e, the game tries to address them.

No, in 1e (and to some extent 2e) encounters that forced the players to think laterally were considered a strength of the game, not a "problem". Only 3e adheres to the design philosophy that every problem that can't be solved with a mindless frontal attack or a skill check requires a rules fix and a new rulebook sale to keep the game fun.

The rust monster (especially the pre-3e versions) is a perfect example of a lateral-thinking challenge for the players. The people whose characters usually whack away at things with shiny metal weapons learn immediately that their normal tactics are not going to work and are, in fact, going to lead to disaster. At that point it is up to the players to overcome the challenge and avoid disaster by thinking outside the box and changing up their normal roles. For approximately 25 years of the history of this game, the idea of occasionally challenging the players was not anathema as it seems to be today.

The "old school" design philosophy says that the Rust Monster is great because it breaks up the tedium of repetitious tactics and forces players to be creative. The "new school" apparently ascribes to the philosophy that, while tedious repetition may be boring, actually thinking and being creative is for suckers who can't afford the latest splatbook.

"Oh. My. God. Becky, this game is, like, SOOOOO hard! Let's just go shoppping." Is this the new D&D demographic?

 

[Fishbone]

I never had a problem with the Rust Monster's all-or-nothing approach. The problem I have is with the insane difficulty of the Reflex save. A 15 HD Rust Monster with increased size is challenge rating 7 with a 22 Constitution score. The +4 modifier, large dice amount, and high constitution makes it a DC 27 reflex save. The Rust Monster landing 2 touch attacks is near guaranteed against a character like this and passing that reflex save if you are a low dexterity character in full plate, a "clanger", is nearly impossible. Antenna attack, lose 10 grand in gear and take 1d8+9 damage is a real spirit breaker. Also, the creature is so iconic, so infamous that there are really only 2 outcomes.
Outcome 1: Somebody gets surprise mauled by the thing and loses gear.
Outcome 2: The players, who weren't born yesterday, know full well what a Rust Monster means. The ranged specialist turns it into a pincussion, the mage flame broils it, and the monk wails the living bejeesus out of it. Easier XP is a rare thing.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

The question I have is this: if the 10 minute limit had a satisfactory explanation, would that be OK?

Yes, and here's how I would work it - after the fight, the affected armor must be repaired, taking an hour, this time can be cut in half by a DC 20 Craft:Armorsmithing check, and by 75% with a DC 25 check. It can be eliminated by a Make Whole spell, or a number of applications of Mending equal to the the points of damage done divided by two. Exact numbers fungible, but the idea is the PC's have to DO something to fix it.

 

[Knight Otu]

No, in 1e (and to some extent 2e) encounters that forced the players to think laterally were considered a strength of the game, not a "problem". Only 3e adheres to the design philosophy that every problem that can't be solved with a mindless frontal attack or a skill check requires a rules fix and a new rulebook sale to keep the game fun.

You have noticed that a mindless frontal attack against this wholly optional provided for free result of a thought experiment is still a bad idea, right?