Rust Monster Lovin'

[MerricB]

See, I don't know about the above. I get that those are famous for being cool monsters, but do people really use them as often as you think they do? I've never used a mind flayer in 25 years of running D&D, and I hardly ever use drow (and haven't in 3rd edition). Mind flayers are so awful I'm literally scared to use them in any campaign of mine, and drow don't have any place in most of the campaigns I've run (Birthright, Dragonlance, etc).

I'm probably not the average gamer by any means, but seriously man - sticky seems to be entirely subjective.

Cheers,
Cam

Cam,

Do you use draconians throughout your DL campaigns?

Although there is subjectivity in which monsters are "sticky" for each group, over the entire D&D playing community there are *definitely* monsters that get used more often than others.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

A couple of notes:

Sunder & Rusting: I prefer the rusting mechanic Mike came up with significantly more than the sunder mechanic. The reason for this is that it has an immediate effect on the PCs. It also doesn't require play to stop as people work out how many HP a weapon has, which always irritates me. Hey, I *like* destroying items, but the way it works in 3e irritates me. Especially when I'm trying to work out the result of a 1 on a save vs fireball...

Should the rust monster be able to just destroy items? I think it should be able to. I appreciate the reasoning Mike's uses for why item-destroying is bad, but I think that, as long as the PCs have a chance to escape it, it should be possible. I'd think -2/-4/-6/destroyed would be great.

Save or Die vs CR: When I did my d20 conversion of RJK's "Eight Kings", there was a monster there that gave me immense irritations: the Balu Eye. For only a couple of hit dice (it had 2 or 4), it had a save or die gaze attack. I don't like Save or Die at the best of times, but for this monster it was so divergent from whatever CR I could give it... eventually, I changed it into a Paralysis + Con drain gaze; you saved again every round, and if you failed you remained paralysed and lost more Con. That's the sort of design I like: where a low-level monster is deadly (or significant), but does give you the chance to escape it.

(Mind you, if I revisited that adventure, there are few things I'd change with the Balu Eye and its context within the adventure to make it more like the original conception, but not as problematic as a low HD, high lethality monster).

Cheers!

 

[Cam Banks]

Do you use draconians throughout your DL campaigns?

I used a lightning draconian as an NPC, but the heroes haven't run into any of the standard ones too often, no. Dragonlance is a lot more than draconians.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Knight Otu]

Dragonlance is a lot more than draconians.

And the same goes for other worlds and monsters, which I guess was Merric's point.

I think we should once more think about why this theoretical recreation of the rust monster has a gradual weakening effect that evaporates, rather than a puff-steel-gone effect.

Is it to somehow coddle players? That's really unlikely - the DM is the only person who can really coddle players. Everyone, including themselves, can make it hard on the players, but only the DM is the one with the power to coddle.

Why is the effect now gradual? It gives a warning. Much like statues in a medusa's lair. Much like the stories about the local forest, with a deadly fey, or the local sea with its horrid hag.

Why does the effect evaporate? To ease the flow for the DM, if he wants that. He could state the next encounter after the effect evaporated, or directly after the last rust monster is killed. It is notable that the same thing would apply if the effect was permanent, but repairable. Give the players the knowledge that they can do something about the status of their equipment, and they may be willing to continue on with their sub-par equipment for a bit until they can rest and repair.

Is that different from the scenario that they "could just find and rough up a few kobolds" that has been proposed for destroyed equipment with the old rust monster? Yes, and extremely so. For that scenario to work, the DM must coddle the players. Maybe even going so far as to include those kobolds/goblins/convenently forgotten armory that the rust monster ignored for some reason. Realistically, the players should also be worried that they might encounter something they would need their equipment for. Perhaps they encounter a few giants, rather than kobolds? A stalking assassin? The characters can't really know, can they?

 

[Henry]

Realistically, the players should also be worried that they might encounter something they would need their equipment for. Perhaps they encounter a few giants, rather than kobolds? A stalking assassin? The characters can't really know, can they?

The only way I CAN see the redeveloped rust monster as being any sort of threat is to deliberately pair it with a tougher monster (say, a tribe of hill or stone giants keeps these things as live-in pets.) Otherwise, it's as harmful as keeping a pet tarantula.

I will say, though, that you gave me a very nasty idea for a climactic encounter involving regular rust monsters and hill giants....

 

[BluSponge]

When you speak of "educate" what you really seem to mean is to teach your particular preferred style of gaming. And by "dumbing down" you really seem to mean is to build a game that also accomodates any other style of gaming.

Absolutely not! How exactly would a sidebar talking about how to use rust monster encounters effectively be forcing my style of gaming on other people? There are million ways to use the monster effectively, and probably a million more that will cause problems. Some have been covered in this thread. And in this case, the dumbing down doesn't accomodate more styles of play. But it does make the creature a very different adversary, as many here have pointed out.

While I am less than enamored with Mike's revision of the Rust Monster for reasons of mechanical complexity already mentioned, I think the general approach is attractive for a particular reason that transcends the details of preferred gaming style: it is a more interesting monster than can with accomodate a vast array of gaming style with very minor tweaks.

Hmmm...not really sure how. But then, I don't bother trying to figure out the motivations of a rust monster. Like so many beasties, they are pretty much a trap you can fight. This one is different in two ways. The rusting power is significantly blunted to be temporary in all but the worst case scenario, and the creature combat prowess has been drummed up to make the options of dealing with it much more limited. I fail to see how that makes it a more interesting creature, except that it undermines previous play experience, changing the ground rules for players. That's fine and all, but unnecessary IMHO.

The original Rust Monster was like a creaky V-8 truck with no brakes and no seat belts -- fine for some specific tasks for those people who are happy to overlook some shortcomings, but inappropriate for general consumption.

The new Rust Monster is like a modern sedan with air conditioner and a good stereo system. This Rust Monster has more insectoid style, has more abilities, and fits easily into an ecology (if that floats your boat). It is trivial to imagine more dangerous variants that dish out more killing damage. It trivial to tweak up the item destruction qualities back to 1e levels. Or to push it down further and throw entire herds at those knights in shining armor and have it be bad enough to make them nervous but weak enough to not inconveniently disrupt the pace of the campaign.

Now whose imposing their style of play on all others?

What we have now is a Rust Monster that can be put into anyone's campaign out of the box. And it can be changed to fit more kinds of campaign style.

That the other one was not is simply your opinion. Since you began this by chiding me about preaching to a style of play, I find this all kind of ironic and funny.

The bottom line is that is better game design.

So who needs educating?

Nice try at being clever. Feel better now?

The new design is only better if you buy into Mike's logic. I don't. As a hypothetical, I think it's a great example. In practice, I believe the changes are superfluous and unnecessary.

Tom

 

[BluSponge]

The MM's rust monster isn't a challenge. It doesn't have a warning shot, it just comes in, eats your stuff, and then laughs about it. It's not a hill to be climbed over, it's a roadblock. It doesn't say "if you use clever tactics you will escape without harm," it says "if you don't use metagame knowledge, I'm going to cost you about $2,000 GP. More if you don't use clever tactics. Or if the occasion favors me."

Same thing can be said of green slime. Or gelatinous cubes. Or many varieties of monsters. Rust monsters are more of a trap than regular opponents. Also see mimics, lurkers above, rot grubs, ear seekers, gas spores, piercers, shriekers, trappers, and a whole variety of other critters. And, contrary to what you claim, they do force the party to take on special tactics. All of these do. People who get complacent, who leap before looking, who don't look both ways before crossing the street, get hurt the worst by these critters. That was the original goal of their design.

And, just to point out that rust monsters didn't just run in and eat your stuff regardless of tactics, allow me to quote a bit from the 1st ed MM (since I have it on hand):

Rust monsters can smell metal at 9" distance. They will stop for a melee round to devour such objects as a handful of iron spikes or a mace if a fleeing party throws them away, but they will go after ferrous metal in preference to copper, silver, etc.

So it's pretty clear rust monsters aren't all that discriminating, intelligent, or even that dangerous to a party that is prepared for their presence (and after your first encounter with a few, who wouldn't carry around some old iron spikes...just in case).

Granted, D&D was a very different game then than it is now. And since 3rd edition, the developers have been getting rid of these trap monsters a few at a time. This new rust monster is second cousin to the darkmantle. Is anyone really surprised?

Tom

 

[I'm A Banana]

Same thing can be said of green slime. Or gelatinous cubes. Or many varieties of monsters. Rust monsters are more of a trap than regular opponents. Also see mimics, lurkers above, rot grubs, ear seekers, gas spores, piercers, shriekers, trappers, and a whole variety of other critters

Re-read my post. Green slime doesn't force a Save-Or-Die ( or save-or-destroy) nor do gelatinous cubes, mimics, lurkers above, piercers, rot grubs, ear seekers, gas spores, shierkers, or a while variety of other critters. These are sneaky, but they are still a challenge. You take damage, you see the threat, you have a chance to thwart it. When fighting a core Rust Monster, it eats your stuff and that's it.

And, contrary to what you claim, they do force the party to take on special tactics. All of these do. People who get complacent, who leap before looking, who don't look both ways before crossing the street, get hurt the worst by these critters. That was the original goal of their design.

The usefulness of D&D to teach a lesson instead of be a game would have to be in a different thread, but you're right, these monsters force the party to adopt special tactics. Where the rust monster is divergent is that the damage it causes is total, absolute, and not easily repairable. If a cleric could cast a 2nd level spell and make a new +1 sword, not big deal (like they can cure wounds and ability score damage). But the rust monster, unique out of all those you mentioned, brings the game to a screeching halt, because there's no way to recover from it's damage other than running away to the town (assuming you can even replace them in town, which is hardly a guarantee). After 1 attack. One attack and the adventure's over.

So it's pretty clear rust monsters aren't all that discriminating, intelligent, or even that dangerous to a party that is prepared for their presence (and after your first encounter with a few, who wouldn't carry around some old iron spikes...just in case).

That's just it. To be aware of their presence is often meta-game knowledge. And if it isn't, then the encounter is really far, far too easy (if a handful of iron spikes can get me XP, where can I find the mine?).

 

[Ourph]

It also doesn't require play to stop as people work out how many HP a weapon has, which always irritates me.

A good optional rule of thumb I picked up somewhere (can't remember who posted this, sorry whoever you are) ... a weapon has HP equal to its maximum damage. So a longsword (1d8 damage) has 8hp and a human sized greatsword (2d6 damage) has 12 x 2 = 24hp.

It's not by the book, but it's really easy to use and it's not THAT far off what the btb values are.

 

[buzz]

It's amazing the vitriol (page 7 as of this posting) one not-even-canon-in-the-least article can spawn.