Rust Monster Lovin'

[Ranes]

With regard to to a rust monster's taste for metal, consider two things:

It goes for the largest item available.

It has Int 2.

A few caltrops 5' away are more available than plate mail 10' away, surely. But if the fighter in the front row (who has never seen a rust monster before) comes face to antenae with a rust monster and the rust monster wins initiative, it's going to go for the mundane (or m/w) plate before the +1 longsword, because the plate is the larger item (in fact the creature's entry says armour first, then shield, then smaller items).

The rust monster attacks, hits, and the fighter's plate crumbles. The fighter looks at his sword and thinks, "Mmm, maybe I shouldn't hit it with this."

The unknowing fighter who wins initiative stands a greater chance of losing his sword than the one who fails.

I like rust monsters and happy players. I do not believe the two are mutually exclusive.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You're misreading things. If I put a 10 ft deep covered pit in a 10 ft wide hallway, is that "do things smart or I will punish you" design? Or do we take for granted these days that the party rogue will be actively checking for traps. And if he doesn't, do I ignore the obstacle because I don't want to make it a me v. them scenario? C'mon, KM. You're better than that.

We can probably take for granted that the rogue is checking for traps. I don't think we can take for granted that the characters know what a rust monster is and exactly how to overcome it.

Is it really a game stopper? Does it draw the game to a screeching halt? I can see where it can pose some unforseen difficulties to the party. But does that necessitate a complete overhaul? From what you suggest, 90% of all traps should be eliminated from the game (because they don't facilitate the award of phloot). I know that's not really what you are suggesting, but that's the logical conclusion. Again, if that works for your style of play, that's fine. But I wouldn't call that good game design necessarily.

People like to overcome challenges to get their phloot. If the rust monster *challenges* them to hold onto their equipment, it's good. If it just destroys their equipment, it's bad. Traps are challenges to be overcome -- they don't stop everything just because they were triggered. A rust-monster will mean that the party will want/need to get re-equiped as soon as possible. Re-equipping them involves going back to town (or even a bigger town) and getting what they need, if such a thing is even possible. Or waiting for treasure to drop.

That does stop the game. Just as it would stop the game, if, say, the cleric just died. Or if the entire party did. All these things grind the adventure to a halt. Thus, they are to be avoided.

No, as someone else pointed out, you just have your biggest tank go up and swat the thing, then break for 10 minutes. That's not a new tactic. That's an encounter the spellcasters get to kick back and relax during.

The fighter doesn't want to hit it (it'll munch his armor and shield, leaving him helpless, and those things are PRICEY). This leaves maybe the barbarian or the monk. Which means that, lo, the strategy for defeating it is basically the same before and after the revision.

It does the same thing in a less binary way.

We revamp the rust monster so mediocre DMs can employ it without unintentionally (or maybe intentionally) of ruining the scenario, and then when folks complain that it was done because of whiny players, THOSE people are criticized in turn.

My criticism is reserved for one thing (or if it's not, it should be, and I apologize) in this thread: The save vs. stopping the adventure. I think some of the people defending it either don't realize or don't care about the dramatic effect. And it strikes me as weird given how many people dislike the save-or-die mechanic, which is, game-mechanically, nearly identical.

But it ISN'T a gauranteed loss.

There are four major ways I can think of that would make sure it's not a guaranteed loss:

#1: Metagame knowledge.
#2: NPC's who know about the creatures (whether or not these things exist is iffy)
#3: PC's with Knowledge (dungeoneering) (again, depends on the campaign/DM)
#4: Evidence of the creature's power before the encounter (again, depends on many things)

Unless you meet one of those three criteria, the first time you know it can rust your stuff is when it does it, virutally guaranteeing you're losing your best weapon and/or armor.

Because when that 2nd level mage dies falling down a 10" pit, inadvertantly screwing the rest of the party, that's just as big a game breaker.

It is, and the fragility of mages vs. everyone else is something that design has struggled with (and mearls and monte cook have even remedied).

Of the gradual deterioration of DnD to a series of challenges that take 25% of your resources and send you on your way. Of challenges that aren't really challenges.

It's good to have a baseline so that you can deviate from it. If CR didn't work like this, I couldn't reliably take a monster of party level+2 and use it as my big boss.

What could happen and what actually do rarely have any similarity. Then again, your anecdotal evidence seems to support the stupid whiny player theory.

No, things very similar to this happen fairly regularly depending upon the players I'm with. Some of my friends can be quite mercurial. And by calling my friends names, you're missing my point. It's not fun. My friends don't enjoy it.

People have alternatives to D&D. If D&D stops being fun, people will stop playing it. It shouldn't be the elite purview of the gentlemently, intelligent, and tough. Stupid whiny players are friends, too, and D&D is very much a game about sitting around having fun with your friends.

 

[stevelabny]

that's one way it could go Kamikaze Midget, here's another...

"I strike at the vile beast with the great axe of my dwarven fathers, soaked in the blood of a thousand orcs!" -snip rest of story leading to player anger-

At a loss, without his ancestral blade, Tordek has a choice of a path of atonement where he tries to make up for his loss to his tribe. This could lead to many interesting adventures as he is booted out of his clan and eventually finds an even better, more important axe to his dwarven history. Or maybe he takes this as a sign to give up the ways of the blade, and turn to Moradin for guidance. Or maybe he "goes rogue" and loses his moral center (either permanently or until another big moment). the story choices WITHOUT the blade are so much more interesting and varied.

"This legendary greatsword was forged from a meteor by a master gnomish smith, weighted and sized for a creature twice is size! Surely it can slay this beast!"

This reeks of stupidty and overconfidence. But this is no ancestral blade, why is this guy so attached? It can't be too legendary at mid-levels, and by higher-levels someone in the party should know what a rust monster is.

"Yes, but I DREW my character with the meteor-sword, all gray-green and savage. It was COOL."

Sure. It still is a cool drawing. Hang it on your wall. But first scan it and photoshop it (or trace it and re-color it) If you want to go in search of another greatsword from the same meteor, then you can re-use the original again.

"That's the suit of magical full plate I've been saving since level 1 for! I scrimp, I save, I go without healing potions...we had to travel to the capital city to get it after it was specially made for me!"

This guy has no case at all. He lost a store-bought item and he cries? I don't get it. Now that he's more experienced, money is easier to find. And if someone really went without healing potions, theyd be dead.

But what about the mayor's daughter who is held captive under here?"
"Is she now? Well, she just cost us 3k. She'll have to wait."

Wow. A brave and courageous group. Still can't believe they dont have backup weapons or armor, or an extra casting of Mage Armor from the wizard, or the understanding that if the princess dies there's no reward to help buy some new stuff. Even 800 GP is better than none. And legendary orc warlord? Apparently everything in your world is legendary except rust monsters. How does that work?

Do these guys also give up everytime they fight stirges or shadows or ghosts or any other ability draining monster?

You're still basically saying that some whiny spoiled players should be coddled. So the only disagreement seems to be whether this is good or bad. And if a player wants to walk from the table because he lost an item...I don't want to play with him. He's the same guy who will flip over the table when he loses a board game or start a fist-fight when he's palying softball.

 

[Fishbone]

Why would somebody pitch a hissy fit and scream at the DM because they lost a suit of armor or a weapon to a Rust Monster? Its a fairly easy skill check to figure out what a Rust Monster is. Even if somebody were to use outside experience and knowledge and sic the Archivist with the Shillelaughed club or the Monk or the Barbarian with his Greatclub on the thing I don't think its really metagaming that much. Its a fairly infamous creature, in the game and to the players, that has existed for nearly 3 decades. Also, Kamikaze Midget those examples really ring false. An Ancestral weapon at level 3 soaked in the blood of a thousand orcs? A weapon forged from a meteor by the most skilled smith of any era who happens to come from an extinct race of demihumans at level 3? Give me a break.
If players can't handle weapon loss then maybe Dungeons and Dragons isn't for them because there are plenty of critters and spells that do it besides the Rust Monster. Also, if I were a DM I would think twice before siccing a weapon destroying monster on somebody whose backstory is heavily about that weapon. Whatever. The rust monster isn't that big of a deal.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You're still basically saying that some whiny spoiled players should be coddled.

When people complain about something, they have a good reason. Heck, this is the Internet. I assume you're complaining about the re-write not because you're a sour old grognard who is affraid of change and likes to pretend to be superior, but because you have good reasons to have beef with it. Don't you think it's maybe just a bit dismissive to assume that my friends are spoiled and not, I dunno, actually not having fun getting their stuff destroyed?

If the game is not fun for me and my friends, the game will not be played. In effect, if D&D does not give me and my friends what we want, we will take our business elsewhere. And guess what? We don't want to have our rewards taken out from under us because of one die roll.

I don't want to have my story hinge on that either -- my reward in seeing my world played out. That's why I don't like save-or-die effects. This applies to PC's as well as on the other side of the screen, to me.

Also, Kamikaze Midget those examples really ring false. An Ancestral weapon at level 3 soaked in the blood of a thousand orcs? A weapon forged from a meteor by the most skilled smith of any era who happens to come from an extinct race of demihumans at level 3? Give me a break.

Plus:

Apparently everything in your world is legendary except rust monsters. How does that work?

I tend to run under the philosophy that every magic item should be at least a little special. Sometimes, that description becomes important to someone for one reason or another. And I also tend to believe that just because something is low-level, that doesn't mean it has to be un-important.

If players can't handle weapon loss then maybe Dungeons and Dragons isn't for them because there are plenty of critters and spells that do it besides the Rust Monster. Also, if I were a DM I would think twice before siccing a weapon destroying monster on somebody whose backstory is heavily about that weapon. Whatever. The rust monster isn't that big of a deal.

It's not that they "can't handle weapon loss." It's that the weapon loss strikes out of left field, demands one roll, and that affects the fate of their investment. It gives them one chance to save a significant portion of their personal wealth, and if they don't make it, it's gone.

At a loss, without his ancestral blade, Tordek has a choice of a path of atonement where he tries to make up for his loss to his tribe. This could lead to many interesting adventures as he is booted out of his clan and eventually finds an even better, more important axe to his dwarven history. Or maybe he takes this as a sign to give up the ways of the blade, and turn to Moradin for guidance. Or maybe he "goes rogue" and loses his moral center (either permanently or until another big moment). the story choices WITHOUT the blade are so much more interesting and varied.

All that would be great, but you're missing one big component from this: what does the PLAYER want to do?

Turns out, the player wants to kill things with an ancestral axe just like his ancestors did. Not change his character concept because of a hungry bug.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

...
And that's just a quick survey of what could happen.

Wow...and here I thought I was bitter and pessimistic about roleplayers.

 

[buzz]

I was using it as an illustration of mentality, which transcends the D&D ruleset. There is a very specific point to the analogy.

Gotcha. It was less my intent to be snarky than to point out that fictional characters like Frodo have an "out" unavailable to D&D PCs: the author. It holds up as an example of what you'd prefer to see D&D emulate, but is useless in making a statement about D&D itself. The point of Mearls' article was to show the process that goes into development, and that quaity of play is just as important, if not mroe so, than plausibility or ficitonal verisimilitude.

 

[The_Gneech]

Gotcha. It was less my intent to be snarky than to point out that fictional characters like Frodo have an "out" unavailable to D&D PCs: the author. It holds up as an example of what you'd prefer to see D&D emulate, but is useless in making a statement about D&D itself.

Except that it's not useless at all. D&D PCs have players.

-The Gneech

 

[Knight Otu]

With regard to to a rust monster's taste for metal, consider two things:

It goes for the largest item available.

It has Int 2.

Thinking about it - the rust monster acts on a similar instictual level as wolves or dogs, rather than crocodiles or cockroaches. Pack tactics in a pair are tough to pull off, but still somewhat possible. Rather than immediately striking out, one circles the group with metal to cut off the nearest exit, while the other waits in the cavern the creatures call home. If rust monsters were packforming creatures, even if just four...

 

[BluSponge]

Thinking about it - the rust monster acts on a similar instictual level as wolves or dogs, rather than crocodiles or cockroaches. Pack tactics in a pair are tough to pull off, but still somewhat possible. Rather than immediately striking out, one circles the group with metal to cut off the nearest exit, while the other waits in the cavern the creatures call home. If rust monsters were packforming creatures, even if just four...

Well you could drop the fiendish, mind flayer, and swarm template on them too. At some point you're just being mean.

Personally, I would see them as acting more like bugs that pack animals. Sure, some level of cooperation probably occurs, but I'll leave that up to the individual encounter.

Tom
who thinks a kobold calvary mounted on rust monsters would be a huge laugh for everyone but the players...