Rust Monster Lovin'

[mearls]

Eh? I'm not following you, here. What are you talking about when you say "disallowing the DM from breaking the rules?"

Edit: Never mind. I guess you were referring to the fact that a DM need not use a rule if he doesn't like it. If, so I agree completely. However, I stand by my criticism of WotC development's approach (i.e. DM as a computer applying the rules). I think the approach (and the "fixes" arising from it) is unnecessary.

I think that you're embracing the first part of that statement, but not the second.

The rules are built to be applied by DM as computer so that newbies can trust the rules and experienced DMs can deviate from a stable rules set.

We want DMs to change rules to make the game work in a way that the DM wants. If DMs have to fix the rules because they simply don't work for anyone, then the rules have failed.

As a corollary, we want the rules to work in such a way that when a DM makes changes, he has the knowledge and understanding necessary to create a change that has the effect he wants.

 

[Knight Otu]

The arguments of people on the anti-old school side of the argument suggest that destroying equipment in any way is bad for the game, period.

Apart from a few vocal posters, I don't get that impression. Besides, I don't think the discussion is divided among old school/new school.

It doesn't seem to be a matter of frequency. The bulk of people are NOT saying "just make it 20% instead of 100% and that's cool." They're saying "don't ever take away PC equipment". So "being hard to do" doesn't really seem to address these folks concerns.

To be honest, I've seen the argument more from the "old rust monster" side, in a way just like you said it - that surely, if the rust monster is a problem, then sunder etc must be as well. The majority of those who like the new rust monster also appear to advocate that it should still be able to destroy the item, and that the effect should be permanent unless repaired. I don't remember any voices who like the auto-repair, though there have been attempts to explain the auto-repair.

 

[Garnfellow]

Show me a redesign that makes you want to make the creature a boss encounter. Not all monsters are boss encounters.

Absolutely, but I think one of my major points here would be that the rust monster has a boss monster impact on the game -- even though it's not a boss monster type of encounter.

If you gave an ability of similar impact as the rust monster's rusting to a true boss monster, I don't think this would seem nearly as disruptive to the game flow. Those are the encounters where you are really SUPPOSED to lose your kewl stuff. Imagine a big, climatic encounter with some kind of corruption mummy that rusts metal and carries tomb rot.

 

[BluSponge]

One thing about this thread, all the impliations and ideas put out about how D&D is designed make me want to check out Iron Heroes. Even C&C has over dependency on gear, though not to the level of 3.x.

Or just toss it all in the heap and join us in Savage Worlds country. Where the water is always warm, the beer is always cold, and players don't wear their hearts on their character sheets.

Tom

 

[spectre72]

Rust Monsters This Last Weekend

Over the last weekend we were playing our regular campaign and happened to have an encounter with 3 rust monsters.

The party ranged in levels from 2nd to 4th level due to various deaths, level drains, ...etc.

They is a highwayman, a muskateer, a witch, and an artificer.

The game is set in Eberron with a League of Extrordinary Gentlemen feel.

Everyone except the artificer is human, and the artificer is a warforged.

The highwayman opens a door during the adventure and sees the three creatures approaching from about 10' away.

He immediately shoots with his blunderbuss and does a small amount of damage.

The creatures advance and miss on their first attacks.

The highwayman quick draws his pistol and drops his blunderbuss (fairly standard tactic for him) and shoots wounding one of the creatures badly.

Everyone else is getting into position, and attacking but are ineffective.

The creatures advance. One of them munches the blunderbuss, and one attacks highwayman hitting his pistol.

Both of them are destroyed.

At this point the warforged sees what is going on and starts backing up.

The Highwayman starts to back off as the creatures digest their meal.

The muskateer sees what happens to his companion and rushes in to start bashing them with the butt of his musket (which is wooden).

The witch casts sleep and evens the odds.

The Monsters were then clubbed to death one at a time.

After the encounter everyone shares weapons and goes on with the adventure.

Maybe not the cost of magic armor, but still several hundred GP down the drain.

No complaining and the party was happy that more items had not been destroyed.

And the look on the artificers players face was priceless.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Sorry, Geron. While this isn't as bad, it accomplishes much the same thing as Mike's redesign, albeit with permanent side effects instead of being temporary. That keeps the encounter style relatively consistent, forcing the PCs to change tactics, but allows the PCs to weigh their options a bit. Hedge their bets as it were. A rogue and barbarian can make short work of this critter before it's init even comes up. My point is, if we must have a kinder, gentler rust monster, this puppy is from the same school as Mike's redesign, and there's no point in complaining about the one while advocating the other. It would only be a point of taste.

Well, you're known to quote the 1E MM on the rust monster, so you'll probably recognize that my suggestion is a rough 3E translation of the old 1E version of Rusty, sans the "rust upon being hit" ability...which makes it the old Basic D&D rust monster in 3E guise. I have to be honest here and admit that I never noticed AD&D granting its rust monster the ability to rust stuff that hits it, neither in 1E, 2E or in 3E, so I was a bit surprised to see that in my old MM1 as well as the new MM1. Hence I used the version I am used to, which is the same you are used to, without the ability to rust stuff it hasn't specifically targeted.

And to be totally frank, I admit that this ability to destroy equipment just by being touched by it is a bit over the top for me, too.

 

[gizmo33]

Apart from a few vocal posters, I don't get that impression. Besides, I don't think the discussion is divided among old school/new school.

Ok, thanks Otu, I'll try to keep an open mind. It's not so much the actual proposed changes (I'm actually in favory of Rust Monsters doing something like acid damage to weapons - the idea that Excalibur would dissolve from a rust monster seems strange to me).

It's the reasoning given to support the changes that I object to. For example:

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 requires a lot more DM skill and a deeper understanding of the game than other creatures in its CR range.

One would assume then that anything that "development" perceives to set back the power/abilities of the PCs would be treated in the same way as the rust monster. Yes, if you're a railroad DM and you have a problem with PCs going back to town to buy some weapons, get healed, raised, or whatever then I agree - there should be a warning next to everything in the game that could set PCs back from their power level or hamper their ability to charge forward and complete their goal.

I just don't see how the Rust Monster is uniquely in this situation other than: it's hard to fudge a player missing a rust monster with his sword - whereas DMs can fudge to keep the ogre from hitting/killing the party wizard. Maybe people have been fudging for so long that they've forgotten that a dead PC or two ALSO makes the next encounter prohibitively more difficult. (In fact, IME it's a LOT easier to find a weapon in a dungeon than a new cleric that will join your party.)

 

[buzz]

I just don't see how losing equipment is such a game breaking thing if the major consequence is that the PC might die in a later encounter or might be out some cash; or has it come to the point where it's just a given that PC death is something to be avoided and now we're chipping away at the remainder of the potential threats to "story continuity"?

"Story continuity" is irrelevant, as D&D is not a story; it's a game. That was my main point above, ergo why providing Frodo as an example is pointless, save for talking about issues of genre emulation.

The issue isn't that PC death and equipment loss is verboten. It's whether or not they occur in unfair or unfun ways. I'm not arguing for or against the current rust monster; I'm just saying that it's Mearls' job to look at ways it might implact play of the game and how it can possibly be done better. That a rust mnster can make all your gear go "poof!" is, IMO, something worth examining.

That the rust monster "has always been like that" doens't matter; if it did, we'd all still be playing with the three little brown books, and this site would be called dialgoworld.org.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

The rules are built to be applied by DM as computer so that newbies can trust the rules and experienced DMs can deviate from a stable rules set.

Yes, I understand. I think it's well-intentioned, I just don't agree that it's a good approach.

For one, I think that the "DM-as-rules-computer" approach encourages "rules creep" and the attendant "record-keeping creep," because there's a tendency to want to supply a rule for the computer so it "knows what to do."

I also think it boxes in DMs by providing a de facto standard of how things "should work," rules-wise. Now, providing such examples is a good thing, in one sense, but it's a bad thing if there are no examples of "edge cases" in the rules. If every monster, every trap, and every threat fits neatly into the homogenized formula, then that implies that there shouldn't be a threat that doesn't follow the formula. And if that's the case, woe to the DM who does something outside the established norm; judging by some of the posts, here, he'd be accused of trying to screw their characters and not playing "by the rules." I think it would be better to keep some of the "edge case" threats and include some suggestions on how to use them, rather than forcing them into the box that is "the formula." In other words, teach the DM how to use his judgment, rather than assuming he doesn't have any.

Anyone a fan of The Prisoner? "I am not a computer, I am a free DM!"

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I don't mind the idea of "removing plusses," though. There just has to be some way to replenish them (a mending spell, a magic weapon/vestment spell, a Craft check, something).

I'd suggest the usual way to add plusses to a magical weapon, which is similar to upgrading the weapon in question, but I guess that would be pinned down as "too costly and too long-winded" again.

On the other hand, if I hit characters with a magic-eating monster (like the CR4 Thrullg of Iron Kingdoms fame) that devours charges from magical items, spell slots from magic-users' brains, I don't feel I have to offer a "quick" way to replenish those lost magics either beside the standard methods of regaining them.