Should he recognize a rust monster? (Savage Tide Mild Spoiler)

[prospero63]

I've decided to start throwing stuff that does lasting damage at these guys, oozes, diseases, shatter spells, sunder attempts and rust monsters. It's a breath of fresh air, I tell you!

To be honest, it's not that they'd be angry, more that they would suddenly announce rule 11b(iv) subsection 3 whereby he should have had (for example) an untrained knowledge check to recognize it from stories since he worked in a bar for two years as noted on page 11 of his character background.

An exaggeration, but I'd hate to have to retcon a dramatic scene becase I missed a rule somewhere.

The rules are firmly on your side here. When one goes to paladin school, they learn all kinds of skills and feats. Just because someone went to school, doesn't mean they studied up on rust monsters. They might have focused on spotting or searching. An untrained knowledge check can only be made against a DC10 or less. To know about a creature is a DC 10+HD (15 in the case of a rust monster). There is no way, untrained, to have the knowledge that they haven't obtained through direct role playing.

Let me turn it around on you. Would you grant a spot bonus to the character beyond the skill points they have invested? What about listen? Search? Hide? If no, then why would you do that for knowledge? Characters (and players) can choose what skills to have/not have. If a character (player) has chosen not to have a skill, well, that's the choice they made.

Yeah, I know, I'm beating this thread up. One more note. I can't find the post referenced, but to the person that said "maybe the first hit they notice flakes or rust coming off it". Nope. Per SRD:

Rust (Ex)

A rust monster that makes a successful touch attack with its antennae causes the target metal to corrode, falling to pieces and becoming useless immediately

 

[Doug McCrae]

There shouldn't be rust monsters at all. Fighters get the screw job ten times too much as it is.

 

[Bladesong]

Yeah, I know, I'm beating this thread up. One more note. I can't find the post referenced, but to the person that said "maybe the first hit they notice flakes or rust coming off it". Nope. Per SRD:

Rust (Ex)

A rust monster that makes a successful touch attack with its antennae causes the target metal to corrode, falling to pieces and becoming useless immediately

Actually, he was referring to an alternate rust monster I posted back on page one.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

I agree

I agree that in general 'use the skills' is a good approach.

The problem is, in 3E the knowledge skill mechanism for identifying monsters just doesn't work.

They don't work because they scale difficulty with hit dice (or is it CR?). This is a terrible way to adjudicate whether a PC has heard of a monster.

In the real world, the critters you learn about first are the ones that are dangerous, and common. In our world, people have heard about all large predators that live in their area by the time they are adolescents. How many Inuit don't know what a polar bear is? How many Masai can't identify a lion?

The 3.5 rules make it so that the more dangerous a monster is, the less likely it is that you'll know anything about it. This flies in the face of reason.

The 3.5 rules don't address how common monsters are at all. By the rules, how common a monster is has no bearing whatsoever on how likely a PC is to know anything about it.

So, while I generally agree with the adage that DMs shoudn't nerf the role of skills , this is an area where I make an exceptionl . So I would give the figher the check, untrained.

Ken

 

[prosfilaes]

Let me turn it around on you. Would you grant a spot bonus to the character beyond the skill points they have invested? What about listen? Search? Hide? If no, then why would you do that for knowledge?

All of those can be used untrained, and the DM is pretty much free to set the DC. If that were true for Knowledge, this wouldn't be a problem.

I think part of the problem here is that the DC has always struck me as a little high; DC 15 just to recognize a rust monster? DC 10+HD always felt a little silly; in the real world, endless varieties of small creatures are harder to study than the few big ones, and some species just get special attention. A fighter may feel free to lump all sorts of medium humanoids together--"Orc, ogre, lizardman, human--stab them in the chest enough times, they all die."--but know enough to at least recognize those things that can cause problems--e.g. rust monster, umber hulk. ("Okay, there's these things called a beholder; they're tricky, you've got to stab them in the eye.")

 

[rkanodia]

As much as I also dislike the pre-4E version of a Rust Monster, I do agree with the sentiment that, according to the RAW, your player is out of luck.

This whole scenario is actually making me wish for a short reference in the Monster Manual listing 'monsters of similar description'. It would give you something convenient to call the monster if the player fails their Knowledge check. Or you could give 'red herring' clues when you are giving the physical description of the monster which, while not false, might cause the player (who is trying to use his metagame knowledge of the Monster Manual) to think that it's something else - emphasize its number of legs, or the shape of its eyes, or something else that a different monster. I suppose something informal could be put together on the message boards.

 

[Imp]

I think part of the problem here is that the DC has always struck me as a little high; DC 15 just to recognize a rust monster? DC 10+HD always felt a little silly; in the real world, endless varieties of small creatures are harder to study than the few big ones, and some species just get special attention.

Eh, but there's endless varieties of big creatures in D&D worlds and presumably much much less accessible documentation... it all depends on rarity, really, and that's why I agree that DC 10+HD is a stupid, stupid, stupid abstraction. I would lean towards providing some sort of contextual information unless I was playing extremely easy-come-easy-go with magic items in the game, in which case, if you set the PC up with another handy item in the next session then this will just be a learning experience and not "screwing the fighter" or whatever...

I don't like rust monsters as gotchas. As plagues, however...

 

[Reynard]

The 3.5 rules make it so that the more dangerous a monster is, the less likely it is that you'll know anything about it. This flies in the face of reason.

Maybe it would be better if failed checks provided false information. After all, the more dangerous a creature is, the more likely its abilities have been exaggerated and confused through tall-tale-telling. This check of course would have to be made in secret by the DM.

DM: You see a smallish, brown colored anteater thing with little fin things on its antennae.
Player: What is it?
DM: ::rolls dice:: A pixie.

 

[delericho]

Give a description, don't show a picture, give the PCs advance warning of the monster. Like the normal signs I suspect the monster would leave: rusted stuff in previous rooms / places.

With this combo they might get an idea before hand by metagame (from the description), in-game (rust), or maybe not. It's not the end of the world if they aren't surprised by the rust attack, and you'll cover your behind by having the possibility of warning beforehand.

I agree with this. If you just tell them it's a Rust Monster, or show the picture, they'll know exactly how to deal with it, and you might as well not bother with the creature at all. Run things as Numion suggests, though, and the players have the clues they need to deal with the encounter without it being an automatic cakewalk.

If your players complain at losing that shiny new magic shield, you can point out to them that (1) their characters had never encountered this creature before, and (2) they had the opportunity to invest in Knowledge skills, but decided to spent the skill points in something else instead.

If, however, complaining players is going to be a really troublesome issue for you, then don't use the Rust Monster! Or level-draining undead, large bodies of water, or anything else that will permanently remove something from PCs.

 

[Klaus]

If you're in a dungeon, does the rust monster stop to nibble on the door hinges?

That's actually a really good point.

If the dungeon has metal doors rusted into scraps, and trails of rust on the floor, you are foreshadowing the monster. And when the party encounters it, the monster is chewing on a door's hinges. So you don't have to describe it, name it or require a roll. You have, in-game, made the players aware that this creature will be the end of their metal equipment.