Rust Monster Lovin'

[Primitive Screwhead]

First, the OP.. Entertaining story about Rust Monsters in play...

Gots me two of them... The game, Ravenloft I. Upstairs in the second floor you get a wonderful wandering encounter table, the group had entered the study and was looking around for some clues because, well.. they were clueless at this point. They spend about half an hour leisurely reading through books and searching the room {but not the fireplace..} so I roll up a Random Encounter..and in strolls a terrier sized roach looking red-brown critter.
The Fighter screams 'Rust Monster' {RM} and flees to the opposite side of the room.. quickly followed by the critter. The other metal weilding characters all run ahead of the plate armored fighter in an attempt to keep the finest meal between them and little ole RM..meanwhile the Mage is standing in the middle of the room, nicely in character, saying 'whats going on? just kill the thing like you have done to everything else in this castle!!'

Finally the Mage was talked into clubbing the RM over the head with his stave, but not until the group had done a couple of laps around the study.. having dumped books, chairs, tables..and a fair supply of the Thieves throwing knives in the RM's way.

For the doomed party, this was one of the most memorable combats of the module!

========
The second encounter ended up a bit less as predicated... Deep inside a maze the group encounters ye freindly little RM.. which greedily leaps out to rust off the Fighters Chain mail. The Druid uses the Thieves throwing knives {different character.. same player } to satiate the RM and got it to follow relatively peacably along. At the end of the maze is this massive iron door with a virtually unbeatable lock.. my plan was for them to have the Thief deal with the trapped lock..giving him an opportunity to shine. Nope.. Druid sees the door and says 'hey little buddy.. check out *that* meal!'


Both encounters resulted in lost resources, put the Tanks into a supporting role and gave some other character types some time in the spotlight... The first one actually showed off some teamwork as the party worked at keeping each other {except the iron-less Mage} out of range of the RM's horrible grasp.

Second,

The rust monster should be an interesting encounter because it forces new tactics. And this one still forces new tactics. It just doesn't stop the game in it's tracks.

I would not be adverse to using either version in play, altho the new version would have a permanent effect on metal instead of the 'insta-heal' thing..but thats not why I quoted this.

IMHO the RM is only capable of stopping a game in it's tracks if the players are so convinced that they need thier goodies that they will quit when faced with the challenge of continuing without them. The example of Frodo is perfectly appropriate. PC's are the stories protaganists and its the DM's job to make thier adventures Heroic...

Last time I checked *every* standard 'Hero' story has the darkness before the dawn when the character is faced with a choice that seperates them from the rest of humanity..when they are Heroic in deed by continuing on despite setbacks.
So its not good to always have the setback be loss of equipment... but a little variety is good. Sometimes a DM needs to hit the PC's with pure attrition {lost HPS}, or frailty {lost STATs}, or wealth {lost funding}, or lost capability {lost equipment}.

Surely the loss of the Elvin waybread offered a chance for Frodo to up and quit..after all why adventure another day forward when you have no food? He didn't. Why? because his is a Heroic character.

The Rust Monster offers a party a fun and different twist.. and a player who can't handle losing a sword or two really needs to realize that there is more to the game than always getting what they want.

Sorry, I run a DnD game, not a wish fulfillment story hour.

It is okay to destroy equipment. An ogre smashing your puny sword with his greatclub ames the player angry *at the ogre*. A rust monster touching his antennae against the same sword and the DM telling that it's destroyed makes the player angry *at the DM*. It feels like an arbitrary decision, on par of a DM turning to an annoying player and saying "Your character has a heart attack and dies".[/b]

Umm.. why is is?

From the darkness, a dark form suddenly leaps at you to fast for you to react. In a split second its attack splinters your shield, its useless pieces falling to your feet....
{You failed the spot and missed the surprise round. You get a single dice check to avoid the destruction of your shield...}

Why is this an arbitrary decision? Why is the player angry at *me*?
I bet its because the player has decided that Rust Monsters are in the game only when the DM wants to remove equipment from the group.

Oh.. by the way, that was the Ogre leaping at you from the darkness... you still only get one roll, the opposed check against the Sunder. Is using the Sunder action 'unfair'? If not, then why is using the Rust Monster 'unfair'?

Don't bother answering. I read enough of this thread to know its because you have decided that the only reason the Rust Monster exists is because the horribly incompetant DM wants to 'win' and 'steal' your equipment from you.
The possibility that the DM is trying to create a different type of challenge through which your characters can prove thier heroic spirit is, of course, completely impossible.


YMMV , your game is your own, your opinion is your own.
My opinion is that my game works out pretty good for me

 

[MarkB]

But it's not ONE DIE ROLL.

you created your character, you chose its strengths or weaknesses. You chose not to take knowledge: dungeoneering or bardic lore or whichever other divinations might help.

No character - no party - can cover absolutely everything. And at low levels, the creature types covered by knowledge (dungeoneering) probably don't even make the top five of "things we're likely to run into often enough to read up on". And since you seem to be addressing individual characters, I hope you're not suggesting that the party fighter is culpable for not sinking cross-class skill points into obscure Knowledge skills.

You made the decision to not have back up weapons or armor.

Fair point - though is a character really likely to face armour-destroying critters often enough to make carrying a spare a priority, when it uses up both cash and encumbrance he could probably employ better elsewhere?

You lost initiative or foolishly entered combat with a creature you know absolutely nothing about.

Entering combat with creatures you know little or nothing about is pretty much in the 'adventurer' job description. And what's the alternative? You honestly think PCs should run back to town to do research the moment they see a weird-looking roach-monster?

You didn't buff your AC enough to avoid being hit.

It's a touch attack. Tell me how you buff your Touch AC significantly at level 3, or why you'd even try without knowing the creature has a massively-powerful touch attack. I don't think I've even seen 10th-level front-line fighters with touch ACs above 15 or so more than once or twice.

THEN after all these other things you failed a save. That roll doesnt exist in a vacuum.

Maybe not a vacuum, but the air's pretty thin up there.

I really don't get the story and pre-planned character concept thing. If you already know where you are and where you're gonna end up, what's the point? Isn't the fun part of d&d the bit where the players and the DM both react to the unexpected happenings? If you're just following a script then I'm not understanding the point.

I don't think it's quite that the players in this case are following a script - it's more that they have chosen some signature elements which define the nature of their character, and some of those elements are bound to that character's equipment.

Having to redefine one's character, not through the course of ongoing storyline events or as a result of a deadly struggle with fearsome foes, but simply as a result of a nigh-unavoidable strike by a seemingly-random monster that presents no physical threat whatsoever, can feel like a massive and arbitrary anticlimax.

It's the equivalent of James Bond being issued his shiny new car from Q-branch, the viewers getting to see all the cool gadgets demonstrated, their imaginations stimulated as they anticipate the inevitable chase sequence to come - and then having the car towed away for a parking violation five minutes later, never to be seen again.

 

[The_Gneech]

It is okay to destroy equipment. An ogre smashing your puny sword with his greatclub ames the player angry *at the ogre*. A rust monster touching his antennae against the same sword and the DM telling that it's destroyed makes the player angry *at the DM*. It feels like an arbitrary decision, on par of a DM turning to an annoying player and saying "Your character has a heart attack and dies".

Why? The ogre is a creature; the rust monster is a creature. The sword is destroyed either way. What's the difference?

-The Gneech

 

[Imp]

Having to redefine one's character, not through the course of ongoing storyline events or as a result of a deadly struggle with fearsome foes, but simply as a result of a nigh-unavoidable strike by a seemingly-random monster that presents no physical threat whatsoever, can feel like a massive and arbitrary anticlimax.

It's the equivalent of James Bond being issued his shiny new car from Q-branch, the viewers getting to see all the cool gadgets demonstrated, their imaginations stimulated as they anticipate the inevitable chase sequence to come - and then having the car towed away for a parking violation five minutes later, never to be seen again.

Don't Bond's cars usually wind up getting completely trashed?

Anyway, there's no reason at all that rust monsters have to be run without any warning or that skill checks in rarely-taken skills must be made to know the threat. You can run the original Rust Monster of Woe and provide the players warning in a number of ways without ruining the fun...

(My position? Have the rust monster do 2d8 damage to metal with a touch attack, ignoring hardness. More in line with sundering. Still going to plink out a lot of weapons easily. Not so much the heavy armor a 3rd-level character might have invested his precious fortune in. Burrow speed optional.)

 

[MarkB]

Why? The ogre is a creature; the rust monster is a creature. The sword is destroyed either way. What's the difference?

The ogre is a credible threat to a party. The rust monster doesn't actually do anything except instantly destroy items, and maybe nibble you a bit if it's feeling really brave.

That said, it's not going to feel immensely good coming from the ogre, either. It's okay saying that a creature with improved sunder can be as deadly to weapons as a rust monster, but funnily enough, my experience is that NPCs using Sunder are almost as rare as rust monsters.

 

[The_Gneech]

No character - no party - can cover absolutely everything. And at low levels, the creature types covered by knowledge (dungeoneering) probably don't even make the top five of "things we're likely to run into often enough to read up on". And since you seem to be addressing individual characters, I hope you're not suggesting that the party fighter is culpable for not sinking cross-class skill points into obscure Knowledge skills.

At low levels, no piece of equipment is "all that and a bag of chips" either.

Fair point - though is a character really likely to face armour-destroying critters often enough to make carrying a spare a priority, when it uses up both cash and encumbrance he could probably employ better elsewhere?

How about that dagger in the boot-top in case you get swallowed whole? That's a standard piece of equipment for most characters I've ever seen. For that matter, how about the light mace for when the skeletons show up?

Or in real life, how about when your sword breaks, as they commonly did in combat?

For that matter, what fighter worth his salt doesn't have at least a shortbow for when they're being shot at from the parapet?

Yes, carrying a spare weapon has a long pedigree, both in games and history.

Having to redefine one's character, not through the course of ongoing storyline events or as a result of a deadly struggle with fearsome foes, but simply as a result of a nigh-unavoidable strike by a seemingly-random monster that presents no physical threat whatsoever, can feel like a massive and arbitrary anticlimax.

It ain't nigh-unavoidable, that's one of the things that baffles me so much about this thread. In most situations I've seen, it's very easy to avoid with a little applied brainpower. And it's the rare (and badly designed) "one trick pony" who has to be "redefined" because they lost a single piece of equipment. AND the characters' profession is to kill monsters and take their stuff -- so new equipment lurks around (almost) every corner!

I suspect that's one of the reasons this floated revision has engendered such vehement disagreement and all the talk about being "videogamey," "coddling," and whatever else. The fact of the matter is that a very small minority of characters are going to be significantly hurt by the rust monster, and those characters are just as doomed by the first Improved Sunder feat that comes along. What you have here is the Rare Badly-Designed Or Foolish Fighter Tail, Wagging the Game Design Dog. The correct answer to this problem, in as much as it can be said to be a problem, is to fix the broken character, not to nerf the working monster.

-The Gneech

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

The article lays out its reasoning. If your group consists of...

1. A DM who "like a computer, heartlessly applies the rules" and can't be counted on to make good judgment calls.

2. A group of players who will complain they "aren't having any fun" when they lose some equipment.

...then the re-imagined rust monster is definitely the best approach for your game.

 

[BluSponge]

It is okay to destroy equipment. An ogre smashing your puny sword with his greatclub ames the player angry *at the ogre*. A rust monster touching his antennae against the same sword and the DM telling that it's destroyed makes the player angry *at the DM*. It feels like an arbitrary decision, on par of a DM turning to an annoying player and saying "Your character has a heart attack and dies".

That's a bit melodramatic, don't you think? Not to mention off base. We aren't talking about a catoblepas here. The party will certainly live to fight another day after a run in with a rust monster. That's a whole helluvalot different than saying "your character has a heart attack and dies." Apples and oranges in fact.

Remember, magic items get a save based on their plus (a percentile save -- yet another time one of those instances breaks the "elegant" mechanics of d20). So there is no gaurantee that the fighter's prized magic armor is going to go *poof*.

But I have to agree with what others have said in response to your comments. Characters are more than their equipment. But apparently that viewpoint doesn't jive with everyone's style of play. :/

Tom

 

[I'm A Banana]

That's a bit melodramatic, don't you think? Not to mention off base. We aren't talking about a catoblepas here. The party will certainly live to fight another day after a run in with a rust monster. That's a whole helluvalot different than saying "your character has a heart attack and dies." Apples and oranges in fact.

Level 3: "Make a Reflex save or have your AC cut by 9 points permenantly."
Level 6: "Make a Fortitude or turn to stone permenantly"
Level 10: "Make a Fortitude save or die."
Level 15: "Make a Will save or have your soul permenantly imprisoned in a machical scepter powered by it's destruction."

 

[Taraxia]

Level 3: "Make a Reflex save or have your AC cut by 9 points permenantly."
Level 6: "Make a Fortitude or turn to stone permenantly"
Level 10: "Make a Fortitude save or die."
Level 15: "Make a Will save or have your soul permenantly imprisoned in a machical scepter powered by it's destruction."

...You're operating from a bizarre definition of "permanently", given that shops to buy new armor do, in fact, exist. What you really mean is "Make a Fort save or be 'behind' a few thousand GP permanently", which, you know, I think is fine. People who keep track of wealth-by-level guidelines so slavishly that they really think of themselves as "deserving" to have X GP at level Y really will end up leeching all fun and flexibility and surprise out of the game.

An adventurer who isn't randomly ambushed without armor or weapons *once* has never really experienced D&D at its most fun. I had a DM who liked to sneak assassins into bedrooms when we were supposed to be off duty and safe. It was *fun*. Both in the sense of juggling game mechanics and of creating narrative tension. How exciting or badass would Batman possibly be if he literally really never were caught without his trusty utility belt? The most exciting session we ever had was the one where he pulled a Disjunction on us. I wouldn't remove effects like Sunder or MDJ or _shatter_ cast at the cleric's holy symbol for the world.