# Rust Monster Lovin'



## Glyfair (Jul 14, 2006)

This seems to be the month of the rust monster:

Mike Mearls tackles a theoretical redesign of the rust monster in a Design & Development column.

Dragon Magazine contains "The Ecology of the Rust Monster."

Now all we need is a D&D miniature of one (should it be common?  uncommon?  rare?)


----------



## MarkB (Jul 14, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> This seems to be the month of the rust monster:
> 
> Mike Mearls tackles a theoretical redesign of the rust monster in a Design & Development column.



I rather liked the final version he came up with. The only thing I'd change would be to tone down its Climb speed and give it Improved Disarm as a bonus feat, so it can try and snatch things to take away and snack on. That would keep just enough of the original's "It's eating my precious equipment!" vibe.



> Dragon Magazine contains "The Ecology of the Rust Monster."
> 
> Now all we need is a D&D miniature of one (should it be common?  uncommon?  rare?)



As a player: Rare. Very rare.

Some DMs I've known would prefer them as a Common, though.


----------



## el-remmen (Jul 14, 2006)

This is how I responded on his blog:



> I take issue with your assertion that an encounter where your equipment is destroyed is "no fun". It might be the way my group tends to play, but that risk and fear is what makes it fun, and the chance for clever thinking to work around the loss of equipment mid-adventure is great. I think a more apt description might have been, encounters where your equipment is destroyed are no fun if _overused, just like most specific kinds of encounters that cause a long-term disadvantages for the PCs._
> Anyway, I did like some of the changes to the monster, the climbing and hiding and the increase bite damage. It seems like you were emphasizing their insectoid qualities. In the last campaign I played in we faced a bunch of these (dwarves had bred them for the tactic you ascribed to the orcs in your example). As usual, always role-playing our ignorance and never having heard of rust monsters in-character, we named them "caustic cockroaches" - the DM had run them with insect-like behaviors.
> 
> I don't like the changed rust ability because I can't wrap my head about metal weapons and armor recovering over time. Also, that kind of piece-meal ability that slowly deteriorates stuff is a pain in the ass to keep track of with all the usual crap you have to keep track of mid-combat. I prefer an all-or-nothing approach for such things if just for simplicity's sake.


----------



## Ilium (Jul 14, 2006)

I had a couple of problems with Mike Mearls' re-design, actually.  I like the idea of removing the "all-or-nothing" nature of ol' Rusty, but I don't like the idea of the rust's effects fading after 10 minutes.  I understand the rationale of letting the characters get on with the adventure, but the idea of corrosion "healing" on its own bugs me.  I would have preferred a quick repair rule and maybe a low-level spell to restore damaged equipment.  Maybe even a magical "oil rag of spiffy cleaning." 

As to a D&D mini...yeesh.  I have no idea how they'd do that one.   You'd need special consideration for whether or not the opponent uses metal equipment, etc.  What a pain.


----------



## Megatron (Jul 14, 2006)

I don't dig the whole 10 minute auto-repair thing either, no sir.

My solution: Simple Craft check to repair.


----------



## MarkB (Jul 14, 2006)

Megatron said:
			
		

> I don't dig the whole 10 minute auto-repair thing either, no sir.



Yes, that part does feel rather wonky. If something of that nature is going to be used, it needs to be backed up by a decent reason for it.


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 14, 2006)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> I take issue with your assertion that an encounter where your equipment is destroyed is "no fun".




IMO, I think he's addressing a point I bring up from time to time in internet RPG discussions.  A lot of the discussions tend to bring out points like "a really good DM can handle this."  Most DMs, in the real world, are average or worse.  They aren't necessarily "really good DMs."  In design, WotC has to take that into account.

In this case, rust monsters tend to be no fun for the players because most DMs don't take the side effects into account when they design the encounter (which often is a random encounter).

BTW, the link to the discussion on Mike's blog is here.

Regarding a point brought out in this discussion, apparently he subtlety isn't as good as he thinks since he trumpets his acts in his *About the Author* blurb 



			
				Ilium said:
			
		

> like the idea of removing the "all-or-nothing" nature of ol' Rusty, but I don't like the idea of the rust's effects fading after 10 minutes.



I'd tie the recovery to the mending oriented spells, or the weaponsmithing rules (given time to repair it).  No permanent damage, but it must be fixed (even magical items).



> As to a D&D mini...yeesh.  I have no idea how they'd do that one.   You'd need special consideration for whether or not the opponent uses metal equipment, etc.  What a pain.



Not necessarily.  IIRC, they already have a unit with a _Rusting Grasp_ spell.

As for rarity, I'd make it uncommon.  Common means far too many will be floating around.  Rare means the price will be through the roof for them (probably just below beholder level).


----------



## Ilium (Jul 14, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Not necessarily.  IIRC, they already have a unit with a _Rusting Grasp_ spell.




Well if that's the case then I'm all for it.  I'd love to have one or two of those little things for my regular D&D game.


----------



## Belen (Jul 14, 2006)

Yet another "design" where you have to keep track of modifiers on the fly.  I detest this type of attitude, especially combined with the "take the DM out of the equation" attitude.

And it only affects the weapon for 10 minutes?  I do not see how these changes increase the fun factor and it certainly turns an interesting encounter into a numbers game.  

Welcome to WOTC where nothing really "bad" is allowed to happen to the characters for fear that they may alienate 2 people and a chipmunk.


----------



## mearls (Jul 14, 2006)

One of the interesting things about design and development is that it's very hard to predict what people might find disagreeable.

The 10 minute thing is there to contain what I call the creature's "blast radius." A monster's blast radius is a measure of how much it affects an adventure beyond the encounter it appears in.

For instance, in a campaign I ran the PCs fought a demon that could dominate its victims and give them telepathic suggestions at a distance. That creature had a very large blast radius. While the party drove it off when they first fought it, it had secretly dominated the party's fighter during the encounter. For the rest of the campaign, the party had to cope with the fighter occasionally dumping out his potions instead of drinking them, refusing to attack a monster, and so on.

For the rust monster, I wanted to contain its blast radius to the encounter in which it appeared and a few encounters after it.

The question I have is this: if the 10 minute limit had a satisfactory explanation, would that be OK? Or is it just the idea that the rust monster has a very hard time destroying items?

I originally thought of the rust effect as a sort of curse, a temporary, magical transformation that the rust monster slowly makes real/permanent when it really starts gnawing on something. Note that the rust ability went from Ex to Su in the article, though I didn't call that out.

MarkB's idea is awesome. I really like the idea of giving a rust monster disarm.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 14, 2006)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> I don't like the changed rust ability because I can't wrap my head about metal weapons and armor recovering over time.



Eh? It's a supernatural ability. Yeah, I know the "corrode, warp and crack" text used doesn't quite gel with it, but consider the following: suppose there was a wizard spell "Soften metal" that messes with the normal physical integrity of metal weapons, shields and armor, and causes them to soften and weaken that has a duration of 10 minutes. The rust monster's attack could simply have a similar effect.

EDIT: Heh . Just noticed that Mike responded just before I posted that.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 14, 2006)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Welcome to WOTC where nothing really "bad" is allowed to happen to the characters for fear that they may alienate 2 people and a chipmunk.



Works for me. Makes it easier to get the party back to baseline assumptions, which makes it easier for me as a DM to plan and prepare for a game. One man's laziness is another man's efficiency.


----------



## Belen (Jul 14, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> The question I have is this: if the 10 minute limit had a satisfactory explanation, would that be OK? Or is it just the idea that the rust monster has a very hard time destroying items?




Not really.  It is not about the "encounter" or the "blast radius."  It is about the cool effect on the game.  By creating things that never really effect the PCs, you're eliminating consequences  from the game.  

It's like designers are walking on eggshells around players.  I do not want the rules to reflect "ssshhh.....let'e not make the players mad."  Making everything a temporary effect just to rush people through encounters and adventures is a bad thing!

A rust monster that destroys your sword or forces you to find someone to repair it is a cool encounter, a memorable encounter, something that he can tell his patrons at the local tavern after he retires.

A rust monster that gives the sword a -2 for ten minutes is an encounter that is easily forgotten and one that has zero story value.

Mike, the goal should not be to suck the life, the soul, and the wonder from the game, man.


----------



## Stormborn (Jul 14, 2006)

Never seen a Rust Monster as a PC, never used one as a GM, likely never will.  But I was thrilled to see  the origins of the monster in the Dragon sidebar:  I had that toy!  I remember it, and the rest of the bag it came in, fondly.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jul 14, 2006)

I kind of like it, but I'd have taken a somewhat different approach. One, the damage would have to be repaired, two, the rust monster should deal damage to a metal object, ignoring hardness.


----------



## Belen (Jul 14, 2006)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Works for me. Makes it easier to get the party back to baseline assumptions, which makes it easier for me as a DM to plan and prepare for a game. One man's laziness is another man's efficiency.




Reminds me of a video game where the sword glows for ten minutes and you hear a clang sound for during the encounter.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jul 14, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> IMO, I think he's addressing a point I bring up from time to time in internet RPG discussions.  A lot of the discussions tend to bring out points like "a really good DM can handle this."  Most DMs, in the real world, are average or worse.  They aren't necessarily "really good DMs."  In design, WotC has to take that into account.
> 
> In this case, rust monsters tend to be no fun for the players because most DMs don't take the side effects into account when they design the encounter (which often is a random encounter).




An astute point.

In my book, the key to good game design is to make things generally fun and functional for mediocre DMs.  Good or Great DMs know how to ignore things that will not work for them and make corrections on the fly.

Good game design should be about helping a bad DM become better by example and helping an otherwise good DM pressed for time avoid silly errors.  Anything in the core game that is "not a problem for a good DM" is, in fact, probably bad game design.

It is not that a game should never push the boundaries.  But things that can nuke your campaign should not lie hidden like mines.  They should be labelled with appropriate warnings.  

I would consider a low CR critter that can annihilate half a PC's wealth in a single attack akin to a nuclear weapon.  It is not unrecoverable, but it could easily grind the game to a halt.

And for those who so like the Rust Monster, how about a creature that can permenantly suck spells out of the mind/spellbook of a Wizard/Sorceror as a ranged attack?  Or can eat skill points?  Sound like fun?


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 14, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> One of the interesting things about design and development is that it's very hard to predict what people might find disagreeable.
> 
> The 10 minute thing is there to contain what I call the creature's "blast radius." A monster's blast radius is a measure of how much it affects an adventure beyond the encounter it appears in.
> 
> ...




To give you a slightly more detailed answer than I did in your LJ, I dislike the "goes away after 10 minutes" just in principle. I want the armor/sword/whatever to be eaten and gone. That's what makes the rust monster scary!

I don't mind the progressive damage; that certainly makes sense. -2 on the first hit, -4 on the second, destroyed on the third works beautifully for me. But the modifier, whatever it is, should _stay_ until the item is repaired by an appropriate Craft check. HP damage doesn't fade after a few minutes; poison or disease don't fade after a few minutes. Sure as heck equipment damage shouldn't!

I agree that the disarm idea is a good one. 

Don't nerf da rust monster!

-The Gneech


----------



## Knight Otu (Jul 14, 2006)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Not really.  It is not about the "encounter" or the "blast radius."  It is about the cool effect on the game.  By creating things that never really effect the PCs, you're eliminating consequences  from the game.



Where do you see stuff like that? The bite damage has been increased, making the rust monster more likely to cause the ultimate consequence for adventuting - character death. The polymorph thing arguably hurt "those precious players." Save or die spells still exist. Honestly, the game is not "Take a step, then level up. Twice."


----------



## Mycanid (Jul 14, 2006)

Err ... doesn't the Rust Monster EAT the things he turns to rust? What would be the point of a 10 minute restoral duration then? Do they restore in it's stomach too?

Sorry if this is a silly question - please correct me if I am wrong....


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 14, 2006)

The problem with the metal items recovering is one of flavor. Change it to the rust monster spitting out a goo that slowly corrodes metal over time -- 10 minutes, for instance -- but which can be wiped/washed off out of combat (or by sacrificing a standard action), and it's all good.

Heck, if you changed it to let players take a standard action to reset an item, you could drop the corrosion time quite a bit, since the metal folks would be greatly impacted or face a very real chance of losing their items, which is the point of the rust monster.

For what it's worth, I do hope the rust monster is revised in 4E. While I have an enormous amount of 1E nostalgia, some sacred cows need another look. (I don't mind that the catoblepas is both no longer a core monster nor has its over the top death powers now, for instance.)


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 14, 2006)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Not really.  It is not about the "encounter" or the "blast radius."  It is about the cool effect on the game.  By creating things that never really effect the PCs, you're *eliminating consequences  from the game*.
> 
> It's like designers are walking on eggshells around players.  I do not want the rules to reflect "ssshhh.....let'e not make the players mad."  Making everything a temporary effect just to rush people through encounters and adventures is a bad thing!
> 
> ...




Yes, exactly! Emphasis mine.

-The Gneech


----------



## Ashrum the Black (Jul 14, 2006)

I can't speak for the rest of the folks, but I'd say a valid reason for the item to "self repair" would definitly make it more reasonable to me. I think folks just see the critter as using some natural ability to disolve the metal and once a metal starts to rust, they don't get better without work. Spelling out the curse ability and why they have it, (created critter from an escaped mad wizards lab?) would would remove the objection for me.

But at the same time I don't see a problem with making folks work to repair the items though either. Possibly linking the ability to the smothing like the mending spell. A zero level spell all wizards have access to, but may not have memorized. One casting could repair the entire damage, and remove the rusting curse on one item. Means folks may need to step back and rest after the encouter to recover their full potential, but means they won't need to go all the way back to town. And that response can happen from any encounter.

-Ashrum


----------



## Belen (Jul 14, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> And for those who so like the Rust Monster, how about a creature that can permenantly suck spells out of the mind/spellbook of a Wizard/Sorceror as a ranged attack?  Or can eat skill points?  Sound like fun?




That would be cool.  A parasite creature that fed off of spell energy causing a mage to have to seek some mental healing etc.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 14, 2006)

I like the idea of a mending spell working to repair rust monster 2.0 damage.

And I would have no problem with a "spelleater" or the like that does damage to spell slots.


----------



## Cam Banks (Jul 14, 2006)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> That would be cool.  A parasite creature that fed off of spell energy causing a mage to have to seek some mental healing etc.




I came up with a monster like that for Sovereign Press' _Towers of High Sorcery_. It's called a thaumavore. Thaumavores naturally occur out in the deep ethereal, but occasionally one gets summoned or trapped on the Material Plane and spends all of its time trying to get back. It has a number of minor innate abilities, including _plane shift_, but in order to power them it has to drain spell slot energy from targets (and items). As soon as the thaumavore has drained enough spell energy to power the _plane shift_, it leaves, but in the mean time it's chasing after arcane casters and heavily-equipped characters, sucking them dry.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Nellisir (Jul 14, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, I do hope the rust monster is revised in 4E. While I have an enormous amount of 1E nostalgia, some sacred cows need another look. (I don't mind that the catoblepas is both no longer a core monster nor has its over the top death powers now, for instance.)




I feel like we may have just gotten a look at 4e.  A new edition doesn't have to be a total redesign, after all.  Just a streamlining.  Tweak a few monsters, finetune a few difficult mechanics, add some new core classes, and redo the formatting. Best of all, the 3.5 material still works.
I know Mearls has been over at WotC for awhile now, but I can't remember seeing his name on anything.  What HAS he been working on?


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 14, 2006)

Ashrum the Black said:
			
		

> Possibly linking the ability to the something like the mending spell. A zero level spell all wizards have access to, but may not have memorized. One casting could repair the entire damage, and remove the rusting curse on one item. Means folks may need to step back and rest after the encouter to recover their full potential, but means they won't need to go all the way back to town. And that response can happen from any encounter.




That's true; _mending_ combined with the "progressive damage leading to disintegration" model would work well for groups that don't have Craft: Armorsmithing on hand.

-The Gneech


----------



## Ilium (Jul 14, 2006)

With apologies to Mr. Mearls I've compiled some of the suggestions from this thread with my own ideas and written a modified stat block for your perusal.  It's a Word document (forgive me open source purists ).  Let me know what you think.

Also fixed what I think is a minor error.  I think its grapple modifier should be +5 (+3 BAB, +2 STR) right?


----------



## Belen (Jul 14, 2006)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I feel like we may have just gotten a look at 4e.  A new edition doesn't have to be a total redesign, after all.  Just a streamlining.  Tweak a few monsters, finetune a few difficult mechanics, add some new core classes, and redo the formatting. Best of all, the 3.5 material still works.
> I know Mearls has been over at WotC for awhile now, but I can't remember seeing his name on anything.  What HAS he been working on?




Well, if this is the general attitude and design that 4e takes, I will not be switching.  Life is too short to play a game where all the effects are +/- numbers that last for finite periods of time.  D&D is one game that should be designed to be played without technical support and that should allow the imagination to expand.

They have a card game that does +/- well.


----------



## Mycanid (Jul 14, 2006)

S'okay Ilium ... open source purists can use openoffice, which will open word docs.


----------



## mearls (Jul 14, 2006)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> To give you a slightly more detailed answer than I did in your LJ, I dislike the "goes away after 10 minutes" just in principle. I want the armor/sword/whatever to be eaten and gone. That's what makes the rust monster scary!
> 
> I don't mind the progressive damage; that certainly makes sense. -2 on the first hit, -4 on the second, destroyed on the third works beautifully for me. But the modifier, whatever it is, should _stay_ until the item is repaired by an appropriate Craft check. HP damage doesn't fade after a few minutes; poison or disease don't fade after a few minutes. Sure as heck equipment damage shouldn't!




There's basically two things competing against each other with the rust monster:

1. It's cool when the party is worried that they'll lose their stuff.
2. When they lose their stuff... what happens next?

Eventually, the party has to get new stuff. With HP, poison, disease, and so on, the effects are either hampering but not immediately fatal (disease, poison) or the staggering majority of parties can repair it (HP).

Even a skill check to restore the damage makes me a little nervous, as there's no promise that the party has access to the right skill. This is where a DM is a much better judge of what's right for a particular campaign.

In a Forgotten Realms campaign I played in, a rust monster that required a skill check to repair damaged equipment would've been great. My dwarf fighter maxed out his Craft (weapons and armor) skill and had built the paladin's suit of plate during our downtime in Waterdeep. That take on the rust monster woud've been really fun, and it would've given Bjorn another chance to shine.

On the other hand, in the Eberron campaign I play in that change would really, really hurt. We're in the middle of Xen'drick, hundreds of miles from civilization. No one in the party has Craft. If our equipment gets hosed, we're simply screwed. If the DM handles it right, that can be a lot of fun, but I think that the game is better served if a skilled DM knowingly deviates from the rules and builds and interesting scenario.

This is how I think of it: a skilled DM who thinks about taking away the party's gear also considers the ramifications of that choice. If that option is simply presented in a book without comment, a less experienced DM might toss it into an adventure without really thinking about it. It might wreck his game.

We spend a lot of time thinking about neophytes. The more fun that n00bs have playing D&D, the more likely they are to keep playing. That doesn't mean that you design a game where PCs walk all over everything in their path. What we try to do is make the game easy to run and handle.

One of the big challenges that R&D faces is keeping experienced players happy while fostering new players into the game. Veteran DMs like to bend, fold, and mutilate the game. Newbies might like to think they can do that, but more often than not they simply get into trouble.

The idea of allowing a rust monster to destroy items after X hits is a good one, and it illustrates why development works in groups. Multiple, diverse perspectives are great to have. They yield ideas that the individual would never think of.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 14, 2006)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Not really.  It is not about the "encounter" or the "blast radius."  It is about the cool effect on the game.  By creating things that never really effect the PCs, you're eliminating consequences from the game.



I don't think it's a matter of eliminating consequences, but making serious consequences more rare and thus more memorable. If every single encounter has serious consquences that the PC can only undo with a great deal of effort, the game starts looking more and more hopeless with every session. This might be fine if you're playing Call of Cthulu, but most D&D players expect a different experience.



> It's like designers are walking on eggshells around players.  I do not want the rules to reflect "ssshhh.....let'e not make the players mad."  Making everything a temporary effect just to rush people through encounters and adventures is a bad thing!



I think the designers have to walk a fine line between making challenges too easy, which makes the game boring, and making challenges too difficult, which makes the game no fun for anyone without masochistic tendencies. I think the Improved Disarm idea proposed by MarkB is a great solution that preserves the danger that equipment is destroyed permanently without making the consequences of a single encounter too severe.



> A rust monster that destroys your sword or forces you to find someone to repair it is a cool encounter, a memorable encounter, something that he can tell his patrons at the local tavern after he retires.



Frankly, it's not for nothing that rust monsters and disenchanters and other equipment-destroying creatures get called "grudge monsters". If they are poorly handled, the game can become one of player vs DM, which is seldom, if ever, healthy. As Glyfair pointed out, good DMs can handle it, but many DMs are not good.



> Mike, the goal should not be to suck the life, the soul, and the wonder from the game, man.



I agree, but the life, soul and wonder in a game does not solely depend on whether the characters face permanent consquences. It's one factor, but not the only one.



> Reminds me of a video game where the sword glows for ten minutes and you hear a clang sound for during the encounter.



By the way, I have no problem with "videogamy".


----------



## Kerrick (Jul 14, 2006)

I have to chime in here, too - the thing about weapons and armor magically repairing themselves after ten minutes is just too hard to swallow. Whizbang had a really good idea with his acidic bite thing (how _does_ a rust monster dissolve metal, anyway?), as did Gneech with the "-2, -4, gone" thing. 

That said, I think being able to dissolve a 10-ft. CUBE of metal is just way over the top - that's several TONS of metal. Rusting grasp affects a 3-ft. radius from the point of contact; why isn't the rust monster similar? 

Here, take a look:



> You may employ rusting grasp in combat with a successful melee touch attack. Rusting grasp used in this way instantaneously destroys 1d6 points of Armor Class gained from metal armor (to the maximum amount of protection the armor offered) through corrosion.
> 
> Weapons in use by an opponent targeted by the spell are more difficult to grasp. You must succeed on a melee touch attack against the weapon. A metal weapon that is hit is destroyed.
> 
> ...




This is balanced - it deals 1d6 points of AC damage to armor (or it could deal hp damage); striking a weapon provokes an AoO. Hitting a metal creature (an iron golem, e.g.) deals 3d6+1/level (or, in this case, HD) instead of completely destroying it with one hit. Magic items are immune to this spell; I'd either rule it the same way for rust monsters, or give them a +1 bonus to the save per plus, like they used to have. If you go with the rusting attack dealing hp damage to armor, you can use the repair spells from the Spell Compendium, or a Craft check to fix x amount of damage based on the check (say, DC 15 check fixes 1 hp; for each point over that, you fix an additional hp of damage).



> A metal weapon that deals damage to a rust monster also suffers this warping and corroding effect. Wooden, stone, and other nonmetallic weapons are unaffected.




Why? I can see this for oozes, since their entire surface is acidic, but why a rust monster? Where's the justification for this?

On another point: I think you beefed it up a little too much. The bite damage was low to offset the rusting attack, IMO (and really, if it eats metal, why would it be biting people?). Weapon Finesse makes sense, since it attacks with the tentacles, but I'd leave Track (it follows the scent of metal) and ditch Multiattack. Maybe give it the ability to "smell" metal in a 50-foot radius, also? And giving it a Climb speed means it can attack from more than one angle, making it able to dissolve helms or get flanking/flat-footed attack bonuses for attacking from above/behind.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2006)

We're re-writing monsters because we've written in the expected levels of wealth so much than the idea of being under the "reccomended" decreases ejoyment of the game?

The "problem" with the rust monster is a problem with the CR and expected wealth systems, not with the monster.

You can strip a party of all their eq and still have a "balanced" encounter. It won't match up the the party's expected CR because those numbers were based on a combination of equipment and level.

joe b.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 14, 2006)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> We're re-writing monsters because we've written in the expected levels of wealth so much than the idea of being under the "reccomended" decreases ejoyment of the game?
> 
> The "problem" with the rust monster is a problem with the CR and expected wealth systems, not with the monster.
> 
> You can strip a party of all their eq and still have a "balanced" encounter. It won't match up the the party's expected CR because those numbers were based on a combination of equipment and level.



The problem comes when a DM doesn't realize or anticpate how much of an effect a rust monster could have on the PCs. If he planned the climactic encounter to be difficult based on how the PCs performed when well-equipped, he either has to replace the equipment (which kind of misses the point mentioned earlier about "permanent consequences") or he could be looking at a TPK.


----------



## mhensley (Jul 14, 2006)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> That would be cool.  A parasite creature that fed off of spell energy causing a mage to have to seek some mental healing etc.




You mean something like this?:

Memory Moss 

or perhaps this:

Magebane


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 14, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> There's basically two things competing against each other with the rust monster:
> 
> 1. It's cool when the party is worried that they'll lose their stuff.
> 2. When they lose their stuff... what happens next?
> ...




The majority of parties have access to _mending_, too, actually, now that it's entered the conversation.  It's a sor/wiz cantrip.



			
				mearls said:
			
		

> Even a skill check to restore the damage makes me a little nervous, as there's no promise that the party has access to the right skill. This is where a DM is a much better judge of what's right for a particular campaign.
> 
> In a Forgotten Realms campaign I played in, a rust monster that required a skill check to repair damaged equipment would've been great. My dwarf fighter maxed out his Craft (weapons and armor) skill and had built the paladin's suit of plate during our downtime in Waterdeep. That take on the rust monster woud've been really fun, and it would've given Bjorn another chance to shine.
> 
> ...




Well, the same is true of poisons and diseases; _restoration_ doesn't show up for quite some time, so if nobody in the party has a decent Heal check and you throw dire rats at them, there's a good possibility that someone in the party is gonna be screwed. But dire rats in the cellar is the archetypal cliché neophyte encounter.

The rust monster, by contrast, is a CR 3 monster -- still early in the game, to be sure, but not "first session" early. If the destruction of equipment is that big a worry, then by all means, put in a "ramifications" sidebar. For that matter, maybe the standard treasure for rust monsters should be a little higher and consist of gear that they've collected and stashed in their lair -- so that if they eat your chain shirt, you can still find a suit of MW leather that they couldn't digest.



> One of the big challenges that R&D faces is keeping experienced players happy while fostering new players into the game. Veteran DMs like to bend, fold, and mutilate the game. Newbies might like to think they can do that, but more often than not they simply get into trouble.
> 
> The idea of allowing a rust monster to destroy items after X hits is a good one, and it illustrates why development works in groups. Multiple, diverse perspectives are great to have. They yield ideas that the individual would never think of.




ENWorld is particularly awesome in this regard. 

-The Gneech


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jul 14, 2006)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> You can strip a party of all their eq and still have a "balanced" encounter. It won't match up the the party's expected CR because those numbers were based on a combination of equipment and level.



Or you can play Iron Heroes and not worry about losing your weapons because they cost 350 gp or less.  At 20th level.

Thanks Mike!


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2006)

FireLance said:
			
		

> The problem comes when a DM doesn't realize or anticpate how much of an effect a rust monster could have on the PCs. If he planned the climactic encounter to be difficult based on how the PCs performed when well-equipped, he either has to replace the equipment (which kind of misses the point mentioned earlier about "permanent consequences") or he could be looking at a TPK.




And this result is different than a wandering monster killing a PC how?

What you're talking about the part of the game and, I would venture to say, the *heart* of the game:



			
				the heart of role-playing games said:
			
		

> Anything can happen. What are you going to do?




joe b.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jul 14, 2006)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> We're re-writing monsters because we've written in the expected levels of wealth so much than the idea of being under the "reccomended" decreases ejoyment of the game?




The short answer is "YES!  Absolutely friggin' yes!"

The long answer is...

As Mike said:


> There's basically two things competing against each other with the rust monster:
> 
> 1. It's cool when the party is worried that they'll lose their stuff.
> 2. When they lose their stuff... what happens next?




It is fine if the DM considers the possible consequences and how it will effect game play in the short, medium, and long term.  I generally give the DM the benefit of the doubt and assume he has thought throught these things.

But suggesting that the monster was written that way so it should stay written that way without scrutinizing in the context of how most people actual play this game is good why?

I am not particularly against having the original beastie in the MM.  I strongly believe it should come strong warning labels, at the very least.


----------



## francisca (Jul 14, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> And for those who so like the Rust Monster, how about a creature that can permenantly suck spells out of the mind/spellbook of a Wizard/Sorceror as a ranged attack?  Or can eat skill points?  Sound like fun?



Oh hells yes.  That's brilliant!



			
				Mycanid said:
			
		

> Err ... doesn't the Rust Monster EAT the things he turns to rust? What would be the point of a 10 minute restoral duration then? Do they restore in it's stomach too?




Ssshhhhh....don't wreck the versimilitude of it all.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2006)

ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> Or you can play Iron Heroes and not worry about losing your weapons because they cost 350 gp or less.  At 20th level.
> 
> Thanks Mike!




Indeed. I found that to be the best part of Iron Heroes. Base the game around the concept that any items are additive and you only have player's whine about being "underpowered" when you cut off one of their limbs. 

joe b.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jul 14, 2006)

Craft
_mending_
going back to town to get an NPC to repair
going without a weapon for an encounter or two and beating up a monster to get one
chilling out for 10 minutes while nanites repair the weapon 


Sorry Mike.  I admire your stuff, but I'm not with you on this one.

As for not having the skill, you can make that argument for balance, survival, heal, heck ... even spot.  That's why we have the skills to begin with.


----------



## Vanye (Jul 14, 2006)

Mycanid said:
			
		

> Err ... doesn't the Rust Monster EAT the things he turns to rust? What would be the point of a 10 minute restoral duration then? Do they restore in it's stomach too?
> Sorry if this is a silly question - please correct me if I am wrong....





Here's the revised ability from the aritcle:



> Rust (Su): A rust monster that makes a successful touch attack with its antennae causes the target metal to corrode, warp, and crack. Any metal weapons, armor, and shields carried by a creature struck are weakened by this effect. The bonus to AC provided by an armor or shield drops by 2, to a minimum of 0. Weapons suffer a –2 penalty on attacks and damage, with a maximum penalty of –6. Magic armor and weapons, and other magic items made of metal, must succeed on a DC 17 Reflex save to resist this effect. The save DC is Constitution-based and includes a +4 racial bonus.
> 
> These penalties last for 10 minutes. A rust monster that spends 5 minutes devouring a metal object (whether magical or mundane) transforms it into rust, destroying it permanently.
> 
> A metal weapon that deals damage to a rust monster also suffers this warping and corroding effect. Wooden, stone, and other nonmetallic weapons are unaffected.




If the rustmonster gets an extended crack at something, it destroys it.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jul 14, 2006)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> And this result is different than a wandering monster killing a PC how?




IME most DMs as a matter of policy do not put in wandering monsters that are likely to kill PCs, although sometimes the dice do the strangest things.  While it is very common to have a climatic final battle where one or more PC deaths are likely.

To suggest there is some equivalence between the two makes it sound like you play a very poorly written computer game rather than anything that resembles my play experience under good, great, and indifferent DMs.

Edit:
Or perhaps you play a very different game style from the norm.  Which suggests your opinions do not apply to most campaigns in any useful way.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I strongly believe it should come strong warning labels, at the very least.






			
				Rust Monster Warning Label said:
			
		

> The monster contained herein may cause your players to whine about the destruction of their equipment. If this occurs, give the player back their destroyed equipment and instead destroy the character. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.






joe b.


----------



## MarkB (Jul 14, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> Even a skill check to restore the damage makes me a little nervous, as there's no promise that the party has access to the right skill. This is where a DM is a much better judge of what's right for a particular campaign.
> 
> In a Forgotten Realms campaign I played in, a rust monster that required a skill check to repair damaged equipment would've been great. My dwarf fighter maxed out his Craft (weapons and armor) skill and had built the paladin's suit of plate during our downtime in Waterdeep. That take on the rust monster woud've been really fun, and it would've given Bjorn another chance to shine.
> 
> On the other hand, in the Eberron campaign I play in that change would really, really hurt. We're in the middle of Xen'drick, hundreds of miles from civilization. No one in the party has Craft. If our equipment gets hosed, we're simply screwed.



If you keep the DC reasonable and require, say, a minute per check, it's still workable. Model it after the warforged self-repair ability, where the damaged item regains one hitpoint (or point of bonus if you're doing it that way) for every point by which you beat DC 15. Craft can be used untrained, and practically every party will have some means to make DC 16 or better. If you don't build in a downside for failed checks, people can just take 20. That makes it a trivial check for someone with ranks, so he gets a chance to really shine as he gets everyone's equipment back up to scratch, but still a doable check for a party with absolutely no aptitude, requiring maybe an hour of downtime.


----------



## francisca (Jul 14, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> One of the big challenges that R&D faces is keeping experienced players happy while fostering new players into the game.



You're not the first to try to please everyone all of the time.  I salute your efforts, but I think you're tilting at windmills to a large degree.



> Veteran DMs like to bend, fold, and mutilate the game. Newbies might like to think they can do that, but more often than not they simply get into trouble.



There is no substitute for experience.  No amount of game balance, ability tweaking, and proper assignment of CR is going to change that.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> IME most DMs as a matter of policy do not put in wandering monsters that are likely to kill PCs, although sometimes the dice do the strangest things.  While it is very common to have a climatic final battle where one or more PC deaths are likely.
> 
> To suggest there is some equivalence between the two makes it sound like you play a very poorly written computer game rather than anything that resembles my play experience under good, great, and indifferent DMs.





Ok, let me rephrase,

And this result is different than a planned encounter killing a PC how? Having a PC die is much more of a game killer than having a PC loose some eq.

joe b.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jul 14, 2006)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> The majority of parties have access to _mending_, too, actually, now that it's entered the conversation.  It's a sor/wiz cantrip.






> Mending
> Transmutation
> Level: Brd 0, Clr 0, Drd 0, Sor/Wiz 0
> Components: V, S
> ...




As much as I dislike the auto-repair, I don't think mending will help much with weapons or armor destroyed by a rust monster. Especially the target limitation is a killer in that regard. It'll have to be one of the higher-level spells. But the autorepair isn't that bad when you explain it similar to a spider's poison - the rust monster first creates a weakening effect so that its teeth can easier break the metal for swallowing.

But I still prefer permanent damage.


----------



## Mycanid (Jul 14, 2006)

Hmm ... well thanks for the quote Vanye. I still don't like it though. 

It's as if corrosion of metal is on the same level as being able to heat or chill the metal (as per the spell) and then revert back to it's "original" state as if nothing had been wrong?

Nope. I don't buy it.

Now the idea of armor and weapons having "hit points" and the Rust Monster having a more limited effect on them makes a little more sense to me rationale-wise, but I still don't see it as worthwhile to re-write the whole beastie. Some encounters are just TOUGH. Period. Take it out by other means, like magic or whatnot.


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 14, 2006)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> That would be cool.  A parasite creature that fed off of spell energy causing a mage to have to seek some mental healing etc.




And what exactly is the spell that allows you to heal your magic item from the rust monster's attack?


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 14, 2006)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> As much as I dislike the auto-repair, I don't think mending will help much with weapons or armor destroyed by a rust monster. Especially the target limitation is a killer in that regard. It'll have to be one of the higher-level spells. But the autorepair isn't that bad when you explain it similar to a spider's poison - the rust monster first creates a weakening effect so that its teeth can easier break the metal for swallowing.
> 
> But I still prefer permanent damage.




Easily hand-waved by putting a bit of text into the Rust Monster 3.14 that says, "Assuming the item is not completely destroyed, this penalty can be removed by spending 10 minutes to make a DC 15 check on the appropriate Craft skill, or by a single casting of _mending_ for each weapon or piece of armor damaged."

Or something to that effect, anyway.  Point is, call it out as a specific exception ... which will also give the neophyte GM a pointer on how to mitigate the potentially-game-killing effect.

-The Gneech


----------



## gizmo33 (Jul 14, 2006)

There are many intelligent creatures with the capability of capturing people and taking their stuff.  All those creatures should come with a warning label too.

In fact, it's possible to roll nothing but 1's on a 20 sided dice.  20-sided dice come with a warning label or be removed from the game.  It's no fun to roll a 1 - therefore, there should be no 1s.

The fact that monsters do damage, combined with the insistence that damage be randomized, means that some encounters cause more damage than expected.  Damage should not be randomized.  DnD 4.0 should include a mechanic whereby when PCs meet a monster, they are considered to have automatically defeated it, and must scratch 25% of their "resources" from their character sheet.

In fact the whole "site-based adventure" is built on the idea that PCs have to go out and find things.  This is an extremely risky design decision when the idea of a players enjoyment revolves around them finding stuff.  Even a linear dungeon that makes you search for treasure is a bad idea.

In fact, a recent survey indicates that 100% of people surveyed don't have fun when things aren't going their way and yet people consider activites to be "exciting" when the chance exists when things won't go their way.  Scientists continue to puzzle over this paradox.  

DnD 4.0 should be designed by all the DMs who can't predict the impact to their game of destroying the party's weapons.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 14, 2006)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> And this result is different than a planned encounter killing a PC how? Having a PC die is much more of a game killer than having a PC loose some eq.



Well, I do try to avoid either, as a matter of course. There is also a bit more leeway with respect to a PC actually dying from a melee attack, and I use "save or die" monsters very carefully for the same reason.


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 14, 2006)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I know Mearls has been over at WotC for awhile now, but I can't remember seeing his name on anything.  What HAS he been working on?




My understanding is that he's a developer.  This job it to take products and clean them up the mechanics (and probably related non-mechanics).  So he has his fingers in a number of different things at a time.

Lest anyone think I like this version, I don't.  Personally, I don't like the 10 minute duration.

However, this does address a major issue with the rust monster.  A CR 3 monster that just has to make a single attack to destroy a 20th level fighter's +5 plate mail is a problem.  It's along the lines of the 1d4 hit point creature who can cast wish at will.  Either the party gets initiative and wins, or else dies quickly.

I like keeping the permanent effect, but making it less automatic.  Multiple attacks being required meets this.  An effect that players can reverse or prevent if they take time in combat does as well.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2006)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Well, I do try to avoid either, as a matter of course. There is also a bit more leeway with respect to a PC actually dying from a melee attack, and I use "save or die" monsters very carefully for the same reason.




We have very different play styles then. For me, PC death is a matter of choice and luck. Sometimes you choose poorly and live, sometimes you choose wisely and die.

joe b.


----------



## Garnfellow (Jul 14, 2006)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> We're re-writing monsters because we've written in the expected levels of wealth so much than the idea of being under the "reccomended" decreases ejoyment of the game?




I am pretty sure I read somewhere that the original 3e designers worked on the assumption that magic items would regularly be destroyed in play . . . something like 1 item every 5 encounters. Anyone else remember this?


----------



## Mycanid (Jul 14, 2006)

Amazing Glyfair ... you and I are in agreement on this one too. You haven't been sitting in the circles of my people and melding for long periods of time in your travels throughout the Underdark have you?   

Anyway - sorry for the aside. Back to the thread topic, eh?


----------



## Sejs (Jul 14, 2006)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> We're re-writing monsters because we've written in the expected levels of wealth so much than the idea of being under the "reccomended" decreases ejoyment of the game?
> 
> The "problem" with the rust monster is a problem with the CR and expected wealth systems, not with the monster.
> 
> ...




I'm going to have to disagree with some of your premise there.  The problem of the rust monster is one that largely predates the whole wealth-by-level table issues.  Rust monsters (as well as certain oozes, etc) were big asspains in previous editions just as much as they are now.

A large part of the issue stems from the How and Who of how the creature operates.  Simply put, they destroy equipment (How) almost exclusivly of the people in a party that are largely dependent on their gear to fuel their abilities (Who).  A fighter that's been denuded of their armor and weapons is only a touch more effective than a wizard that's been stripped of their spells and spellbooks.

And that problem transcends edition.


----------



## Ashrum the Black (Jul 14, 2006)

> Easily hand-waved by putting a bit of text into the Rust Monster 3.14 that says, "Assuming the item is not completely destroyed, this penalty can be removed by spending 10 minutes to make a DC 15 check on the appropriate Craft skill, or by a single casting of mending for each weapon or piece of armor damaged."




Which is exactly what I was suggesting when I mentioned it as an option. It's simple and if the party has a wizard then they have it. If they don't, well, then it is no different than if the party has no cleric to cast the heal spells or remove the poisons. You have the skills to help, or potions, or you treck back to town. 

Now that being said, descibing the attack a on that softens the metal, and eventually turns it to rust with a liquide secreted by the mosters pores does work fine as well. Then saying that after ten minutes the reaction ceases, and the metal rehardens works fine. I just like the idea of some semi-permanent results for the critter.

-Ashrum


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> And that problem transcends edition.




Then we do disagree. I don't see that as a problem. Wizards can lose their spellbooks, thieves their theives tools, clerics their holy symbol.

Every class is vulnerable in different ways and, regardless of which vulnerability we speak of, none of them really compare with PC death as a "problem" in the game.

joe b.


----------



## Imp (Jul 14, 2006)

Perhaps in 4E characters will be given the standard option of taking out insurance policies on their "standard wealth," that they may not be inconvienced by any mobs that might damage the shinies to which they are entitled.  Also they will be able to exchange loot for cash as a standard action without having to return to town.


... shouldn't the rust monster's rust inflict (a lot) of damage on metal, perhaps, instead of instantly poofing it?  Green slime (mmm, green slime) inflicts damage now and used to zap metal as readily.  There's already a mechanic for that sort of thing.  You could institute a general -2 penalty for using an item damaged to half its hp or less, and that way you can extend it to sunders as well.

Rust monsters & oozes did suck, it's true.  And there weren't so many good options for damaging them, it seems like.  But they weren't as bad as the energy drainers!


----------



## Sejs (Jul 14, 2006)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> As much as I dislike the auto-repair, I don't think mending will help much with weapons or armor destroyed by a rust monster. Especially the target limitation is a killer in that regard. It'll have to be one of the higher-level spells. But the autorepair isn't that bad when you explain it similar to a spider's poison - the rust monster first creates a weakening effect so that its teeth can easier break the metal for swallowing.
> 
> But I still prefer permanent damage.




I think the easy way to deal with that would be to put a note in the revised Rust ability that specifically says that Mending is able to effect X amount of repair despite its normal target limitations, Make Whole is able to repair Y, and a Craft check (DC whatever) does Z.


----------



## BlueBlackRed (Jul 14, 2006)

Am I the only person who loves the rust monster just the way it is?

Rust monster don't need nerfing, they just need to be used sparingly.

I tend to use one and one only in an entire campaign, early on - before any magic items are available.
It gives the fighters something to be really scared of, and gives the casters a few rounds to shine.

If your PCs cry and whine if you throw a single rust monster at them, tell them that their PCs are supposed to be adventurers and if losing 2 or 3 items is such a horrible thing, then they obviously don't have the stones to be an adventurer. Go home back to mommy.

Man, I'd hate to see how those same people would freak out when a Mordy's Disjunction is used against them.

The best picture in the AD&D 1E DMG was the plate-clad fighter jumping into the wizard's arms when a rust monster appeared.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 14, 2006)

ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> Or you can play Iron Heroes and not worry about losing your weapons because they cost 350 gp or less. At 20th level.
> 
> Thanks Mike!




Okay Val, the _Iron Heroes_ pimp crown goes to you...for now...

Pimping in a rust monster thread...I'm impressed!  

I mean, I thought about it, but you beat me to it...



			
				The gneech said:
			
		

> Easily hand-waved by putting a bit of text into the Rust Monster 3.14 that says, "Assuming the item is not completely destroyed, this penalty can be removed by spending 10 minutes to make a DC 15 check on the appropriate Craft skill, or by a single casting of mending for each weapon or piece of armor damaged."




That's not bad at all. And it gives those characters with Craft skills something valuable to do. I mean, how often does the dwarf smith get to save the party's butt with his Craft (Weaponsmithing) skill? Something many PC fighter types take for FLAVOR. Letting the PCs benefit from good character concept is a good thing. And even a BAD smith could take 20...meaning it'd be about a 3 hour delay.

I actually had a thought on this. Maybe the rest of you can tell me what you think. I like Mike's idea of progressive deterioration of the weapon. That's good. The combat penalties, IMO, are the thing Mike's trying to prevent from having a "blast radius," I think. I'm all for having to institute consequences. 

However, I think we're thinking too hard about this. Isn't the Rust Monster's special attack basically just an especially cool version of Sunder? It targets the equipment, not the character, right? So just use a similar mechanic. The attack should reduce the object's hardness (logical, rusted iron breaks more easily), and/or its hit points.

I think I'd prefer this ability to attack the hardness (Steel's is 10). Basically, the first hit reduces the hardness 1 point, and so on. When hardness drops to zero, it's rusted and useless. This way it takes 10 hits for the thing to eat your sword or armor. Unless you're stupid, repairing it is trivial, and the "blast radius" effect is minimal. A more severe rust monster might do 2 points. Heck, you could even have a 1d3 damage to the object's hardness. That way, 4-10 hits does in your gear.

Maybe hitting it does 1 point, and if it targets you it does 1d3 points. I'm not sure what the mechanical balance point is, but that's the general idea.

That way, multiple hits is BAD, but there's no combat penalty that has to "go away for no reason." Yes, in theory your weapon is vulnerable to sundering until you get it repaired. But if you're smart, it's not a big deal.

Obviously, in a higher-EL encounter, creatures with sundering skills might keep pet rust monsters...but that's just a cool interaction.

Thoughts?


----------



## Sejs (Jul 14, 2006)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Then we do disagree. I don't see that as a problem. Wizards can lose their spellbooks, thieves their theives tools, clerics their holy symbol.
> 
> Every class is vulnerable in different ways and, regardless of which vulnerability we speak of, none of them really compare with PC death as a "problem" in the game.
> 
> joe b.




Nah I agree with you fully on the death not being the same ballpark thing.  But in a way the statement relates.  Everyone can die equally.  The rust monster tends to gank your warrior types, but at the same time there arn't many monsters I can think of that are equal in their targeting of other character categories.  A spell-'n-component stealer, a de-stealther, and so on.

Adversity is the heart of adventure, but rust monsters and their ilk seem largely one sided in who they lump that adversity on.  

In any event, those other vulnerabilities we've both mentioned are likewise not hinged on a given edition or wealth-by-level charts.  I think in a way we may be speaking to the same point by way of butting heads.


----------



## reanjr (Jul 14, 2006)

My version of the rust monster causes object damage (2d4) that ignores hardness and on a failed save, hardness damage (2 points), permanently reducing the hardness of the item.

Addendum: Forgot to add that when hardness has been reduced to 0, next reduction breaks it immediately.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 14, 2006)

BlueBlackRed said:
			
		

> Am I the only person who loves the rust monster just the way it is?
> 
> Rust monster don't need nerfing, they just need to be used sparingly.
> 
> ...




A-freakin'-Men. 

I mean it's a freakin' game decided by dice where players decend into dank pits of death to fight horrendous monsters for glory and treasure.  Dangerous buisness, if that is too much then they should roll up some commoners and make crop planting checks.  Sometimes you lose your precious sword/wand/cloak, etc.   All the more reason to go back into the next forgotten temple to find a replacement.


----------



## el-remmen (Jul 14, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> And for those who so like the Rust Monster, how about a creature that can permenantly suck spells out of the mind/spellbook of a Wizard/Sorceror as a ranged attack?  Or can eat skill points?  Sound like fun?




I'd love it.  I am all for things that cause PCs to improvise and think outside of the box to handle the adversity of adventuring.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> I think in a way we may be speaking to the same point by way of butting heads.




There's another way to agree? Mind-boggling. 

joe b.


----------



## Mycanid (Jul 14, 2006)

Well John ... my first thought was that a sundered item could be "blowtorched" back together to work fairly well. A metal item reduced to a pile of rust could not. So the effects may be rather different. I think the Rusting Grasp spell mechanics may be a more reliable way to go....


----------



## frankthedm (Jul 14, 2006)

Wimpy player coddling from wotc, what else is new?


I LOVE the advanced rust monster in dragon magazine that is accompanied by samurai wraiths that commited seppuku after loosing thier Katanas to the beasty.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jul 14, 2006)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Wimpy player coddling from wotc, what else is new?



Of course, with the added climb speed, the skill point and feat shuffle, and the increased bite damage, one could make a point that the rust monster is now much more dangerous to those "wimpy players." With all this whining that the rust monster is no longer instantly item-wrecking, that shouldn't be forgotten.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 14, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> And for those who so like the Rust Monster, how about a creature that can permenantly suck spells out of the mind/spellbook of a Wizard/Sorceror as a ranged attack? Or can eat skill points?




Obliviax?  Disenchanter?  Anyone remember these?



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Sound like fun?




Heck yes it does!

BTW - Nerfed Rust Monster?  Blech!

The rust monster provides an encounter where the non-melee guys (thieves, magic-users) get to whack the stuffing out of something in melee while the usual melee guys hide in the back ranks.  Upping the damage capacity and reducing the rusting ability totally misses the point of the creature and reduces it to "just another monster" instead of the unusual and mold-breaking encounter that it's supposed to be.  Possibly the Worst Gaming Article Evertm.


----------



## Mycanid (Jul 14, 2006)

To give one instance. In one of my adventures way back when when the party encountered a rust monster deep in a series of caverns the magic user walked right up to it and held it at bay with his staff while the fighters and such filled it full of arrows and crossbow bolts. What are missile weapons for anyway, eh? And the wizard took great delight in being the front line against the fearsome beastie, desperately trying to beat the stuffing out of it with his staff!


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 14, 2006)

I concur.  Worst Article EVAR!  Everythign must fit the same mold these days and be explained or codified in comparison with everything else or the whole thing falls apart.  

This has just inspiried me to put a rust monster in my next session, they are only 1st and 2nd level so it will be fun.


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 14, 2006)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> Of course, with the added climb speed, the skill point and feat shuffle, and the increased bite damage, one could make a point that the rust monster is now much more dangerous to those "wimpy players." With all this whining that the rust monster is no longer instantly item-wrecking, that shouldn't be forgotten.




Unfortunately, that also turns it into just another damage-dealing melee machine. Kinda destroys the whole point of the critter.

-The Gneech


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jul 14, 2006)

I've never seen a Rust Monster in play before.  Why?  Because everyone I've ever played with has found the Rust ability to be absolutely no fun.  As a player I've had a first level barbarian have to solo a displacer beast (she barely pulled it off, too) and I've had fourth level characters that had to fight a purple worm (we barely one) but I have never had to fight a Rust Monster and will never fight the Monster Manual 3.5 Rust Monster because no one in any of my groups finds it to be fun.

The proprosed Rust Monster in the article is a challenge that I'd actually like to face as a player and that I'd like to use as a DM.  It would allow for a creature that is fearsome and dangerous without ruining the fun of both myself and the rest of the table as we try to work around the complete lack of some very unique gear.

Obviously some groups are composed of very different people and find the existing Rust Monster to be interesting, fun and exciting.  More power to them.  It doesn't work for my games and I'm glad to see a version that I'd actually enjoy playing.


----------



## Voadam (Jul 14, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> The rust monster tends to gank your warrior types, but at the same time there arn't many monsters I can think of that are equal in their targeting of other character categories.  A spell-'n-component stealer, a de-stealther, and so on.




Stealth Nerfer, anything with scent or blindsight/sense.

Magic blaster Nerf, anything with SR.

Funny enough, check out the Castigoran Manavore I wrote for the Penumbra Fantasy Bestiary, for a magic eater. It is a modified rust monster that works on spells (and spell slots) and metal magic items but not mundane metal items. 

I know I've come across things that target spellbooks (some type of worm I think) but can't remember the names or souces off the top of my head.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 14, 2006)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, that also turns it into just another damage-dealing melee machine. Kinda destroys the whole point of the critter.
> 
> -The Gneech




Very true.  

Hail to the Rust Monster!  Foe of fighters for 30+ years.  Let it never be turned into a carebear.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 14, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> This has just inspiried me to put a rust monster in my next session, they are only 1st and 2nd level so it will be fun.



Even with all leather and wooden weapons, that sounds like a probable TPK to me, since it can soak up a lot of damage while having a pretty good chance to hit those (lightly armored) characters.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 14, 2006)

Well there are six players, with a first level Knight in the mix.  And I can just make it a 3HD version with a 16 AC.  The runt of the litter so to speak.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jul 14, 2006)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Stealth Nerfer, anything with scent or blindsight/sense.
> 
> Magic blaster Nerf, anything with SR.




None of which are the least bit analogous to the question at hand.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jul 14, 2006)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Wizards can lose their spellbooks, thieves their theives tools, clerics their holy symbol.




Most of those items you listed can be replaced, or multiple spares purchased, for a handful of loose change.  Only the Wizard's spellbook would be comparable.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jul 14, 2006)

_The small group followed the tunnel, somewhat nervous about the skittering sounds from ahead, outside the area of the light spell. "There's a large cavern ahead," the elf said, who saw farther than the rest. "The skittering sounds come from there." Cautiously, they entered. The elven priest. The halfling mage. And then, the human warrior, in half-plate, wielding a greatsword. The torchlight revealed only parts of the cavern, with its uneven walls, with large holes and outcroppings, good hiding places for something that could climb. The ground, nearly as uneven. Just then, the warrior felt something jumping on him, seeing ripples start to run through his armor. It is softening, he realized with surprise. Only then he managed to turn his eyes towards the odd creature that tackled him, a large, somewhat insectile creature with red chitinous plates covering its body, two feathery antennae adorning its small, mandibled head. The mandibles teared into the armor, but failed to penetrate it. The warrior struck against it, and after he gleefully noted the green blood squirting from the creature's wound, he shockedly realized that the same ripples began to run across his sword, and its balance changed for the worse. The mage shot some magic at the creature, and it skittered away, vanishing on the uneven walls. Then, the skittering sounds multiplied. There were more creatures like that in the cavern..._

I think it could work. But I still would prefer the damage to be permanent.


----------



## stevelabny (Jul 14, 2006)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> I LOVE the advanced rust monster in dragon magazine that is accompanied by samurai wraiths that commited seppuku after loosing thier Katanas to the beasty.




Oooh. sounds fun. what issue?

As for the conversation, when I read the rust monster article last night, I almost threw my laptop at the wall.  I always mock messageboard threads that contain rants about people hating different styles and always seeing what they hate creep into the game. And I would NEVER have dreamed of using video-gamey as a bad word. 

But this is ridiculous. So I guess I've become what I hate. This is sooo videogamey.

Presumably this is hitting me different, cuz it's not just the assumption of why the mechanic exists, but an actual explanation of from the designer that says

"Sorry, negative consequences suck for whiny spoiled players."

Screw that.  I was just commenting the other day to my player how every negative effect seems much much much more easy to avoid long term effects of in 3e, and this disaster walks right along? Target practice.

Without the risk of serious negative consequences, there's NO FUN.

Why bother playing if you know you're going to win and you're just going through the motions?  And this "game is about the story" nonsense makes no sense. Part of the story is CHARACTERS HAVE BAD THINGS HAPPEN OR DIE.   Now lets see how good a storyteller you are and how you continue your story. If you can't change the story, that means its always been a railroad from the start. 

The most important word when it comes to RPGs isnt combat or story or roleplaying.
The most important word is GAME. 
Let the dice fall where they may. And sometimes you're gonna LOSE.
And you can still have fun when you lose you big whiny babies.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 14, 2006)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> And you can still have fun when you lose you big whiny babies.



Well, at least the conversation is remaining on a mature level.


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 14, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Most of those items you listed can be replaced, or multiple spares purchased, for a handful of loose change.  Only the Wizard's spellbook would be comparable.




Er? A longsword is 15 gp. A chain shirt is 100 gp. A MW longsword is 315 gp. By the time you're encountering CR 3 critters, most characters have probably got older equipment they can fall back on if one of their items goes up in green smoke -- or at least have the funds to pick up a new one if they don't. It's not _that_ debilitating!

-The Gneech


----------



## mearls (Jul 14, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Well, at least the conversation is remaining on a mature level.




It's interesting to watch people take something they don't like, invent an entire system of beliefs and goals around that thing, ascibe those beliefs and goals to a fictional group, and then pour hatred at that group.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 14, 2006)

There can still be negative consequences. If the Rust Monster 2.0 (what is he, Brainiac?) gets a bonus Improved Disarm feat, it can disarm the fighter of his weapon/shield, scuttle away with the item, then eat it at its leisure for 10 minutes. That is, *unless the characters can get to it first*. So now you have a race against the clock before the damned thing eats away your beloved holy avenger!

Besides giving the beast Improved Disarm, I'd have the penalty fade after a while (the character adjusts to the loss in edge or whatever), but the rust monster's attack also reduces an item's hardness by 1d3 points. If it reaches 0, the item breaks the next time it is used successfully. Craft, mending, make whole and repair damage spells can restore the hardness back to what it was.

In fact, I'd not only give the rust monster Improved Disarm, but I'd also give it Improved Sunder (both with a +4 racial bonus to the check).


----------



## hellbender (Jul 14, 2006)

WotC does such a wonderful job of promoting other rpgs by offering articles like the one on the rust monster. Do I regret selling my DND books to focus on C&C? No, and especially not after this.


----------



## Archade (Jul 14, 2006)

I think this is interesting -- how bad can the consequences be, before you are a rat-bass-curd DM?

I joined another game, to get some player time.  And I was shocked to hear the players whining when they took *damage*.  Not a lot of damage, but 10hp at 3rd level!  A mere scratch!  They pouted and complained that the DM was being too harsh.

I use nightwalkers that crumple intelligent swords on round 1.  I squish characters under 10d6 falling block traps at 4th level.  I am happy to hand out curses, cursed items, high-EGO intelligent items, and have evil NPCs use geas, baleful polymorph, and save-or-die spells.  When I really want to scare a player I'll throw a critter 3-4 CR's above their level.  I believe that characters should run sometimes.

Now, I do agree that a *poof -- no weapon for you* idea is a bit harsh.  How about a radical concept of having the rust monster do hardness and hp damage to a weapon?  If it hits 0 hp, it rusts away.  What do you think of that idea?


----------



## cildarith (Jul 14, 2006)

hellbender said:
			
		

> WotC does such a wonderful job of promoting other rpgs by offering articles like the one on the rust monster. Do I regret selling my DND books to focus on C&C? No, and especially not after this.




I was thinking a very similar thought....  "I'm sooo glad I don't play this version of the game any longer."


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jul 14, 2006)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> Why bother playing if you know you're going to win and you're just going through the motions?  And this "game is about the story" nonsense makes no sense. Part of the story is CHARACTERS HAVE BAD THINGS HAPPEN OR DIE.   Now lets see how good a storyteller you are and how you continue your story. If you can't change the story, that means its always been a railroad from the start.



Do you still use rez spells in your games?  Do you have Restoration, Stone to Flesh, Remove Poison, Remove Disease and Heal?  Do you subscribe to the (officially debunked) theory that Sunder is a standard action instead of a melee attack?

If yes:
How is this change to the Rust Monster any different from having those spells in the game?  All of them remove "permanent" effects that can seriously hamper players.  That sunder interpretation makes it very unlikely that anyone will every have their favorite weapon broken, removing some great story elements as they get it repaired.  If you're going to moan and groan about having Bad Things go away then how about removing the major culprits?

If no:
Sweet!  Hardcore play!  Dead is dead, ability drain is gone forever, and petrification is a statue.  Sounds like a PC slaughter when the big meanies come out, which can make for some really fun game sessions.  
Just remember, being on the edge of death all the time gets very frustrating and unfun, exactly the same as never being challenged gets boring.


----------



## mearls (Jul 14, 2006)

I really like (most    ) of the conversation generated by this thread. It's really cool to get feedback.

Like I say in the article, designing D&D stuff is a conversation between R&D and gamers. TSR's inability to listen to gamers killed it. That's not something we're interested in repeating. I have a few more monsters to re-develop, then I think I'll go back and do a letters column where I go over feedback from various people.

Keep in mind that these aren't official changes. They're just a look at what dev would do to a beast.

The really interesting thing is looking at how people approach the game in different ways. R&D sort of has to pick one way to look at the game and then design to that approach, leaving individual DMs to veer from that approach as they wish. It would be interesting to do web articles on how you can play D&D variants. I can imagine "hardcore D&D" being something like:

1. PCs are dead at zero hit points.
2. All treasure is random.
3. You can't buy magic items other than potions.

That'd be a pretty fun campaign.

There's also an interesting lesson that falls out of this thread: the worse thing that can happen to players is not to have their characters die. The worst thing that can happen is to have a boring game.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jul 14, 2006)

I don't really like Rusty having bite damage.  See, back in the days of the Basic set, Rusty was a peaceful, harmless little critter, that never did harm to any living thing.  And PCs hated and feared it and sought to exterminate it or flee in terror from it.  I loved that.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jul 14, 2006)

Archade said:
			
		

> How about a radical concept of having the rust monster do hardness and hp damage to a weapon?  If it hits 0 hp, it rusts away.  What do you think of that idea?



It's quite a popular idea, I think. It has been bandied around a few times already. I'd certainly sign the move to such a rust monster.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 14, 2006)

I think personally, at issue was the fact that a CR 3 creature has such an insane power, and not so much the power itself. It instantly konks out the fighters deffense and ability to do damage, without much in the way of a save. That really doesn't sound like a CR 3 power...

It's fine (somewhat) if you're playing with old hats with a lot of metagame knowledge... "I uhh... decide now would be a great time to practice my 10 foot pole skills..."

But with newbs who will only discover the ability AFTER their gear has been wonked? Big effect. If the figther suddenly looses his damage ability, suddenly every other CR in the dungeon just gets higher.

Now, I realise that in a dungeon yeah, hit sappens sometimes... But again, is that power a CR 3 power?

Thus, the redesign. Not to make the game any less challenging, but instead to make the rules flow a little more orderly... (A CR 3 is always a CR 3 and a CR 20 is always a CR 20... if you wanna go ahead and tack on a CR 20 ability to an Orc, that's all you... but the rules should be safely assumed to be what they say they are...)


As for the 10 minute thing... At first I had a similar reaction to a number of people in the thread "What??? How do you explain that!?!"  But then I thought, ok so durring those 10 minutes the sword (or whatever) is brittle, but not enough that it cannot be used. The fighter just has to compensate, and thus the penalties. 

Afterwards, when the effect is gone, the fighter has simply resharpened the blade or similar to fix the weapon. (Sort of how the rules assume characters in their down time clean and oil their weapons and stuff...)

If the Rust Monster gets enough of it's saliva or whatever it is that does the rusting, on the thing, then the damage is irreperable (is that spelled right?) and Rustie the Rust Monster has himself some lunch. Yum.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jul 14, 2006)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> Er? A longsword is 15 gp. A chain shirt is 100 gp. A MW longsword is 315 gp. By the time you're encountering CR 3 critters, most characters have probably got older equipment they can fall back on if one of their items goes up in green smoke -- or at least have the funds to pick up a new one if they don't. It's not _that_ debilitating!




+1 Platearmor is 2950gp.  Might be your prized possession and the bulk of your wealth on that day you encountered 2 Rust Monsters -- one died quickly enough but the other got some hits in.  Do you carry some spare chainmail around a dungeon so you can continue?


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 14, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> There's also an interesting lesson that falls out of this thread: the worse thing that can happen to players is not to have their characters die. The worst thing that can happen is to have a boring game.




Definitely. 

-The Gneech


----------



## Henry (Jul 14, 2006)

With due respect, Mike, I hope that version never catches hold with the rest of the R&D team.  I just don't like it, because I'm not a fan of easily removable conditions and effects. I can understand it, within the context of the game placing more importance on a player sticking with one character throughout the run of a campaign, but it's too light of an effect for it to be a meaningful encounter. Only the most foolhardy of players would ever let that thing live long enough to seriously destroy a suit of plate, or a sword. They could play with the thing for five or six rounds (changing positions, beating it unconscious, etc.) before it ever did anything really harmful. A first level Barbarian would have the thing for dinner by himself before it destroyed his greataxe.


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 14, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> +1 Platearmor is 2950gp.  Might be your prized possession and the bulk of your wealth on that day you encountered 2 Rust Monsters -- one died quickly enough but the other got some hits in.  Do you carry some spare chainmail around a dungeon so you can continue?




Depends on the character and the dungeon. But yes, I keep spare equipment around if I can.

On top of which, if I'm wearing +1 plate and I see rust monsters, I *RUN*!

There's a quote from Thomas Jefferson (I think it is) which says "the result of protecting men from their own folly, is to create a nation of fools." Similarly, the result of protecting adventurers from negative encounters, is to create 20th level wimps.

-The Gneech


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 14, 2006)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> Oooh. sounds fun. what issue?




The issues subscribers are just getting. #346 (probably a week or two before it hits stores).

Interestingly it has a sidebar from Gary explaining the monsters design.  Essentially, they grabbed a bunch of cheap figures from a store and were statting them for Chainmail.  The bulette and owlbear were pretty easty to stat, but when they go to what would become the Rust Monster nothing came to them that made this monster dangerous.  Gary then decided it would be interesting if the feelers rusted things and destroyed armor and weapons (even enchanted armor & weapons).


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 14, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> My understanding is that he's a developer.  This job it to take products and clean them up the mechanics (and probably related non-mechanics).  So he has his fingers in a number of different things at a time.
> 
> Lest anyone think I like this version, I don't.  Personally, I don't like the 10 minute duration.
> 
> ...




Before I read on...does anybody have a good idea why they changed the "classic" rust monster from "rust normal weapons upon hit, take a plus from a magical weapon/armor/shield upon hitting, with those having a 10% chance per plus to resist the effect" to the 3E "hit a metal thing, it rusts, hit a magical metal thing, it must succed a save or be dissolved"?


----------



## Gansk (Jul 14, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> +1 Platearmor is 2950gp.  Might be your prized possession and the bulk of your wealth on that day you encountered 2 Rust Monsters -- one died quickly enough but the other got some hits in.  Do you carry some spare chainmail around a dungeon so you can continue?




Why did the designers think of spells like magic weapon, greater magic weapon, align weapon, bless weapon, magic vestment, mage armor, shield, barkskin, etc, if the focus is only on equipment?


----------



## Scribble (Jul 14, 2006)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Before I read on...does anybody have a good idea why they changed the "classic" rust monster from "rust normal weapons upon hit, take a plus from a magical weapon/armor/shield upon hitting, with those having a 10% chance per plus to resist the effect" to the 3E "hit a metal thing, it rusts, hit a magical metal thing, it must succed a save or be dissolved"?




Probably amounts to about the same thing. (percentage wise) Don't magic weapons get a bonus to save = to their bonus?  

And it fell more in line with how other magic stuff resists gettin busted.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 14, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> It's interesting to watch people take something they don't like, invent an entire system of beliefs and goals around that thing, ascibe those beliefs and goals to a fictional group, and then pour hatred at that group.




I'd say the core belief of not inconviencing a player too much is part of the 3.x system.  It sure seemed that way when I ran it for 2 years.  Good or bad that depends on what you want out of the game.


----------



## el-remmen (Jul 14, 2006)

For me the thing is that this re-tooling of the rust monster reinforces my problem with baseline 3.x, which is the emphasis on the importance of your _stuff_ - which personally I cannot stand.

But anyway, this article is just a bit of mental exercise and even if it were to "officially" change - well, D&D rules an organic and living thing like a language - it changes over time - but it doesn't keep you from talking the way you like.


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 14, 2006)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> But anyway, this article is just a bit of mental exercise and even if it were to "officially" change - well, D&D rules an organic and living thing like a language - it changes over time - but it doesn't keep you from talking the way you like.




True, but you can get to a point where you are rarely understood because very few people use language the way you do.  Of course, that takes a long, long time.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 14, 2006)

And how come people are claiming the fighter is suddenly useless because he lost his sword?  I wasn't aware that characters are only allowed to carry one weapon on them during a dungeon crawl. I kinda remember dragging around secondary and tertiary weapons with my fighters, not to mention ranged weapons and spears. This thread is a bit weird, and the revision of the good old rust monster is a bit weird, too.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jul 14, 2006)

Perhaps 10 rounds after I purchase the Monster Manual 4.0, the rust monster's stats will revert themselves to the traditional ones.  In this case, I can see the benefits of not making bad things permanent.


----------



## mearls (Jul 14, 2006)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> For me the thing is that this re-tooling of the rust monster reinforces my problem with baseline 3.x, which is the emphasis on the importance of your _stuff_ - which personally I cannot stand.




I think that's a bigger, more interesting point.

1e and 2e had a sort of, "Close your eyes and pretend it isn't a problem" approach to magic items.

3e regulated magic items, but perhaps too much, or it made magic items too much of a percentage of a PC's power.

In 1e and 2e, the rust monster caused problems, but the game just ignored them. In 3e, the game tries to address them.

There's a sweet spot between making the rust monster pointlessly easy and making it overpowering. There's something cool about striking fear in the warrior's heart for his weapons and armor. It's fun to have that fear play out in the game, but you don't want it to be a binary thing. Once you've lost your armor, the tension is gone.

That's why I really like the idea of tying destruction to the penalty. It keeps the threat around for a bit and keeps the issue in question for several rounds.

Anyway, like I mentioned before there will be a future column where I go back and look at the feedback and talk about it. If I can think of an easy way to put together a development by gamers sort of thing, that'd be cool too.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 14, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I'd say the core belief of not inconviencing a player too much is part of the 3.x system.  It sure seemed that way when I ran it for 2 years.  Good or bad that depends on what you want out of the game.



I'd say that's a problem with your players.

My group seems to go out of its way to put themselves in mortal peril and worse, even when metagame knowledge tells them to run like hell.


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 14, 2006)

One thing I will say Mike, I think this series has done it's job very well (and it's miniatures counterpart).  It's encouraged discussion, and has people thinking of issues from a design POV. They might disagree with the conclusions or suggestions, but it certainly makes for interesting discussion.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jul 14, 2006)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> And how come people are claiming the fighter is suddenly useless because he lost his sword?




Yea, and who cares if he IS useless for the moment?  Somebody in the party better think of something, even if it's just to sharpen a stick.  Isn't the game about solving problems?  Isn't it about teamwork? 

In my day (which could have been last week), the party cleric might fall in a big pit, the party wizard could be feebleminded, someone could fall into a river and have to shuck off their armor.  

PCs equipment is some sort of sacred cow?  In fact, by implication it seems that "set-backs" to a characters effectiveness (confusion, wandering monsters, getting lost, bad combat choices) could all be called into question.  

This is the point at which 3E design principles are running amok.  This already happened in several places in the rules, I guess this is just another step.  All adversity seems capable of being defined as "un-fun" and I can't figure out where this will stop before all adversity has been sanitized out of the rules.  

I'll try to stop now since I don't want to solo-adventurer through the edition wars dungeon.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 14, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I'd say that's a problem with your players.
> 
> My group seems to go out of its way to put themselves in mortal peril and worse, even when metagame knowledge tells them to run like hell.





Hey did you steal my group?

I run a game where sometimes there will be encounters that they just shouldn't deal with yet. 

3rd level, and they are in an area close to where a black dragon lives...  It flies over head but they manage to stay hidden... But then:

"Dude... dragons have a lot of treasure..."

"Yeah... but also a lot of damage dealin..."

"Yeah... But I'm just sayin."

"Dude... we do not want to fight a dragon! But... yeah... They DO have a lot of treasure..."

"I know you're right. We shouldnt... I'm just sayin..."

"I guess it wouldn't hurt to... look..."


Luckily thry didn't find it.


----------



## mearls (Jul 14, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> One thing I will say Mike, I think this series has done it's job very well (and it's miniatures counterpart).  It's encouraged discussion, and has people thinking of issues from a design POV. They might disagree with the conclusions or suggestions, but it certainly makes for interesting discussion.




Thanks. That really is the point of this series of articles. People should think about their campaigns, think about what they find fun, and use that to improve their games.

DMing is an art, craft, and science. I'd really love to foster a culture of DM as game designer, where proficiency in design knowledge is valued just as much as rules knowledge, roleplay ability, and so on. I want people to understand why they like stuff. I want expert DMs to bend and fold the game as they wish, and I want them to do that in a way that makes the game more fun.

I like to think of it as analogous to painting miniatures. A big part of the fun in miniatures gaming is learning how to paint, developing new painting techniques, and taking pride in that cool miniature you painted. D&D is a game of the imagination. It's a chance for the average person to do something really creative and share it with others. That's not something modern society leaves much room for.

The thing is, if the guy next to you is painting his orcs blue, don't hate on him.


----------



## cildarith (Jul 14, 2006)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I'll try to stop now since I don't want to solo-adventurer through the edition wars dungeon.




It will be okay, gizmo.  This dungeon has been certified as safe by OSHA _and_ Mike Mearls.  You have nothing to fear.  The monters won't bite you, and you (or your gear) won't be inconvenienced or harmed in any way...


----------



## gizmo33 (Jul 14, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> 1e and 2e had a sort of, "Close your eyes and pretend it isn't a problem" approach to magic items.




Are you sure?  Maybe 1E/2E just thought it wasn't the *game systems* problem.  I don't understand how DnD could, in part, be a "resource management" game and yet there's no variability (or over-regulated, illusionary "variability" based on the reputation gained from prior editions) in the resources character's possess.

Even if you drag out the rusting effects of the rust monster, over the long run players are still facing an X% chance of losing their magic sword to the monster.  

So a player is still going to lose their sword to a rust monster.  Or are they?  Drag it out long enough and perhaps there winds up being a close to 0% chance that any rust monsters attack will actually be able to jump through all the hurdles necessary to destroy a sword.  At this point you're really just coasting on a *reputation* of the rust monster to destroy items (reputation thanks to 1E).  At some point, people will catch on to the idea that the actual mechanics make it not that much of a threat.

Same thing as character death.  A DM can get by for so long fudging to keep characters alive.  Sooner or later players will recognize that they're not going to die, and the "thrill" of risk taking will be gone.  Now the game system seems to want to do the fudging for them.  

I don't think that designers should think that removing the possibility for short-term failures in the game is going to make things more fun in the long term.  That's what makes a Monty Haul game fun, probably, the first time you play, but less so each additional time.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 14, 2006)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Are you sure?  Maybe 1E/2E just thought it wasn't the *game systems* problem.  I don't understand how DnD could, in part, be a "resource management" game and yet there's no variability (or over-regulated, illusionary "variability" based on the reputation gained from prior editions) in the resources character's possess.



Huh?

Are you not playing a game in which killing stuff and taking its stuff -- which is unknown to anyone but the DM, who either selects it or rolls it on the random treasure tables in the DMG -- is a basic part of the game?

Even if the players beat everything in the area -- not guaranteed -- and even if they find every scrap of treasure -- not guaranteed -- the capricious whims of the DM and/or the random treasure tables ensure variability.

This sounds like a complaint from a D&D reader, and not a player/DM. Are you currently playing D&D? Do you receive a coupon good for a pro-rated piece of loot in lieu of actual treasure or something? And, if so, why would you imagine this is the norm?


----------



## gizmo33 (Jul 14, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> The thing is, if the guy next to you is painting his orcs blue, don't hate on him.




I've seen your name on Dungeon Magazine articles and I VERY MUCH respect the work that you do.  Anybody that riffs on the Lareth the Beautiful description for their author description is ok in my book.

However, to the degree that your decisions represent the design decisions of WotC for DnD, then you're really painting *all* of our orcs blue.  If you were really the guy next to me then we'd both be writing for Dungeon.      I can keep house-rules-ing things to change them (as I have already) but if some of these decisions keep going I'm going to find it increasingly hard to use published material in my game.

Sure, I could take some comfort in the idea that the "people" will vote with their wallets.  It just seems IME with 2E that time-lapse between "bad ideas" and a game-system tanking could be many, many dreary years.


----------



## stevelabny (Jul 14, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> It's interesting to watch people take something they don't like, invent an entire system of beliefs and goals around that thing, ascibe those beliefs and goals to a fictional group, and then pour hatred at that group.




Hmm, inventing an entire system of beliefs and goals?



			
				Monster Makeover said:
			
		

> But once your weapons and armor are rendered useless, the next encounter becomes that much more difficult.
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...




So the goals are pretty much right there. not invented.

subscribe these beliefs to a fictional group?  Pretty sure that the stated design team is REAL, and that the posters on this thread (and others) who rally against negative effects and character death are real too. I suppose I could be wrong though. My apologies to any fake people.

And pouring hated? Or as Whizzbang said, being immature?

I'm pretty sure the phrase "big whiny babies" is a way to poke fun at people who disagree (translation: are wrong   ) about how we, the 99% of us who just consider this a hobby,  spend our leisure time and not HATRED or immaturity. 

And for the 1% of you actually on the design team, to which D&D isn't just a game but a living, I'm giving yet more customer feedback for free.  Too far down this "everything is temporary" path and you take all meaning out of the game. Did we read the beginning of my post where I clearly stated that I have never been on to react like this to D&D design choices? (I usually reserve my ranting for comic books and sucky comic movies) This article and this idea in particular has managed to get me riled up. THAT'S HOW BAD IT IS.

I'm not saying anything different than the other dissenters, I can't believe we got into a big hubbub over "big whiny babies" . What would've happened if I said something really vicious like "neener neener"  or "meaniepants" ?


----------



## gizmo33 (Jul 14, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Even if the players beat everything in the area -- not guaranteed -- and even if they find every scrap of treasure -- not guaranteed -- the capricious whims of the DM and/or the random treasure tables ensure variability.




Exactly.  Maybe I wrote something wrong here.  My point is, that given the nature of the variability I think it's really a stretch to talk about any sort of idea that an X level character must have Y gp of possessions.



			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> This sounds like a complaint from a D&D reader, and not a player/DM. Are you currently playing D&D? Do you receive a coupon good for a pro-rated piece of loot in lieu of actual treasure or something? And, if so, why would you imagine this is the norm?




Eh?  I really think I either mis-typed or you misread because I completely agree with what you're saying.  In fact you're making me want to flame myself.

IF (as some seem to suggest) it's true THAT people are entitled to X amount of equipment, THEN it hardly seems to follow that DnD is a resource management game in any part, because what meaning is there to gathering and managing resources if you're always going to have X amount of loot.

Yes, I play DnD.  And I play it as a resources management game - partly of course, there are many dimensions to the game.  The notion of a contract with players regarding the amount of loot that their characters must have, IMO, seriously lessens this aspect of the game.


----------



## Confused Jackal Mage (Jul 14, 2006)

Mearls - Thanks for the feedback!

I think it would be *tremendously* helpful if you clarified in the monster text that the rusting effect is, at least initially, a magical weakening effect that can fade away.  After an amount of time it stresses the material enough to cause it to actually rust away, which is when he eats it.  

To everyone else - Jeez, crying about coddled players?  What about coddled GMs?  If you see a monster and the first thing you think is, "I couldn't ever use that!  This monster/book/version is useless!" you're not very imaginative.  The game is designed, by and large, for inexperienced DMs.  Most of us are (raises hand).  I've got good experience as both a player and pundit, but I'll be GMing my first game in a few weeks.  As such, the easier the game is for the GM to run, the better.

If a rust monster kills a player's equipment, that makes it harder for the GM.  Sure, it's a player disability temporarily, but the important thing is that the GM now needs to plan around the PCs being weakened, perhaps substantially.  If they get lucky and kill it off with no damage, then the GM has overcompensated.  If they get unlucky and lose every piece of metal they own (too bad for the chainmail-bikini warrior...), the GM has undercompensated.

With the new monster, though, the worst that happens is the players have some decent minuses to their equipment for a while.  The effect fades, but in the meantime the PCs are struggling to continue (and you'd better press them so they can't just wait it off!).  

If you are an experienced GM and can handle the effects of permanent equipment loss, it's a trivial change to make the Rust Attack more damaging and capable of instant equipment loss.  But for those of us who aren't so advanced, it's nice to have a monster written with us in mind, who's damage is limited in space and time.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Jul 14, 2006)

I'm a player in my group.  As far as I recall, I have NEVER faced a rust monster.  Why?  Because my DM doesn't particularly like 'save or die' type stuff.  That's not to say we have never faced these items.  Just last week we faced a save or die Wail of the Banshee trap (or something along those lines).  I have lost weapons to monster's acid effects and such.  It is simply a rare occurance when we face the single role vs doom stuff.

Also, my DM doesn't like the type of play that results in face a monster, retreat to town to recover, rinse, repeat ad nauseum so we almost always have time limits in game.  We wouldn't have time to go back into town and restock.  We wouldn't have time to rearm before the world is destroyed in our games.  (As an aside, yes my characters have backup weapons.  Every character has at least a dagger after I had one PC trapped in the belly of a shark).

That is where I am coming from.  I like most of the changes.  I like the climb and stealth aspects, makes it more of an insect (and I would definately add Improved Disarm).  I also like the idea of non-instant-poof weapons.  The fighter that is centered around one weapon so far attacks once and poof - no more swordaxe/etc and no chance to replace it before the big bad (how many extra great axes do you carry around?).

I think my favorite idea so far that has been listed here is attacking the hp or hardness of the weapon or armor (1dX damage per rust effect) and the skill check to repair it.  This keeps the threat of it being destroyed in the PC's hands.  The 1dX damage keeps the mystery about exactly when it will be destroyed.  However, assuming the weapon survives the encounter chances are hardness and hp won't become an issue in next encounter.

I think there are pros and cons to the non-issue in the next encounter bit.  Easier bookkeeping but no consequence.  (I like consequence, not just from a single die roll).  Maybe a -2 effect while the item is still damaged.  So...

Rust Monster attacks the sword and gets a hit.  1dX damage to the sword's hp or hardness and the weapon has a -2 to attack and/or damage until the rest effect has been removed by a Craft skill check.

Pros: No insta-poof item loss.  If the item survives the encounter it will likely survive the session but there are lingering affects from the encounter.

Cons:  More bookkeeping and number crunching to keep track of the weakened weapon.


----------



## mhensley (Jul 14, 2006)

I knew this kind of crap would happen when they started using feminine pronouns in the rulebooks...   

Other examples-
orc 3.0: great axe
orc 3.5: falchon
orc 4.0: fluffy pillow

kobold 3.0: crossbow
kobold 3.5: javelin
kobold 4.0: harsh words


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 14, 2006)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure the phrase "big whiny babies" is a way to poke fun at people who disagree (translation: are wrong   ) about how we, the 99% of us who just consider this a hobby,  spend our leisure time and not HATRED or immaturity.



Yes, because name-calling is the hallmark of maturity. Arguments are won with substance, not (attempted) style.



> I'm not saying anything different than the other dissenters, I can't believe we got into a big hubbub over "big whiny babies" . What would've happened if I said something really vicious like "neener neener"  or "meaniepants" ?



No, the rest of the folks on all sides are discussing the issue like adults. Step up to the plate.


----------



## Valesin (Jul 14, 2006)

Ilium said:
			
		

> I had a couple of problems with Mike Mearls' re-design, actually.  I like the idea of removing the "all-or-nothing" nature of ol' Rusty, but I don't like the idea of the rust's effects fading after 10 minutes.  I understand the rationale of letting the characters get on with the adventure, but the idea of corrosion "healing" on its own bugs me.




I agree.  'Spontaneously healing metal' just makes the whole idea seem dumb; it forces a game mechanic that just has no place in the world, even a fantasy one.  I have my rust monsters do permament (barring magic) hp and hardness damage in addition to penalties to hit/damage/AC/whatever.  The player can still use it but at reduced efficiency and will choose to replace it asap.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 14, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> el-remmen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I think that's the heart of it, right there! Magic in 3e IS too much of a percentage of a PC's power. I'm all for cool magical trinkets. Characters getting a few gee-whiz items that allow them to do things that not everyone can.

I think the WotC guys hit on this concept a little when they changed monster DR in 3.5e. Escalating numerical bonuses are BOR-ING. They're boring at the table, and they're boring "in-game" as well. Those are precisely the things that should be built in to the PC's power. Maybe I become less effective if I lose my "magic" sword because now I can't bypass DR/Magic. However, I don't become UN-effective. 3.5 addressed this with the whole magic, material, alignment, epic and so forth stuff. Golfbag issues aside, it's a huge step forward to think of all magic weapons as just "magic."

Bonuses in general are also a little runaway at the moment. The fact that the game needs to change the "formula" when it goes Epic is another way of saying there's something wrong with the formula itself, because it doesn't scale well. So you have basically two options:

1) Don't let anyone go past the point where it scales well.
2) Rewrite it so that it DOES scale well.

All that said, here's my suggestion. Magic shouldn't (for the most part) grant numerical bonuses that dwarf the character's intrinsic abilities. It's fine for my magic gear to give me an edge. But if it could be handed to a low-level nobody and make him nearly my equal, that stinks. 

Basically I think D&D characters should be comparable to Batman or Captain America, rather than Iron Man or Green Lantern. And until that's fixed in D&D, I'll be over there playing _Iron Heroes_ instead.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Yea, and who cares if he IS useless for the moment? Somebody in the party better think of something, even if it's just to sharpen a stick. Isn't the game about solving problems? Isn't it about teamwork?




His player does. The DM may not (after all, HE is still having fun) but if he cares about his group, he should.

This brings up a somewhat different point. Since D&D is combat-oriented, each class should have something to do in combat and every character should always have something they can do in a situation. Otherwise, it's unfun for the person playing the ineffective character. Old school design theory was to spread around the periods of "un-fun." Actually, why should this apply only to combat? Why can't the game be fun for every player ALL the time? Shouldn't that be the goal?

The same rationale should mean that the game rules try to minimize "accidental" character death. In my opinion, it IS fun to choose to take the "big hit" so the group can win. It's fine to have a PC die (and, um, stay dead) in the ultimate confrontation at the end of an adventure. And the player doesn't have to sit out any "game time" because he can make a new character between sessions.

What's "unfun" is dying randomly in a stupid set-up fight. Sure, it COULD happen. But most of those should end fast enough that the PC can be treated by his friends before he actually dies. That begs a suggestion for how the mechanic could work.

For starters, rather than save or die, it's "save or 'dying.'" If you can be treated before a certain amount of time passes (as you could be in a short fight), you don't die. If you stay behind to let the party escape, it could happen, but again, that's the "heroic death" thing that the player can brag about. If the other PCs just abandon a dying friend to save their own skins...well, then they suck.

By the way, predictability is also unfun. So the game should stay unpredictable. But the whole "class party role" thing needs some serious rethinking, in my not-so-humble opinion.

WotC can't make better DMs. They can try to help us become better, but they can't package a great DM with every set of Core Rules. I'm actually very much in favor of anything they produce that helps us to understand where they're coming from in design. Articles like this are great. _Unearthed Arcana_ was great. Guidelines to help DMs do what many DMs have had to houserule (e.g. the character rebuilding rules in _Player's Handbook II_) are great.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Jul 14, 2006)

Rust Monster = Shiny metal death...period!  How do you handle this in game, observe:

DM: You spy a small insectoid creature with feathery antenea and a strangle paddle-like tail.
Player #1: I swat it with my sword
DM: Roll a REF save
Player #1: *rolls 1*, Darn I blew it, what happens?
DM: Your sword immediately turns to rust in your hands, the monster waves its antenea and *rolls* your armor is also rusting away
Player #1: But, that was my favorite weapon and armor!
DM: Suck it up meat-bag!

See, it all works out in the end.  The fact that there are risks is *A MAJOR PART OF THE GAME*!!!! If you can't deal with loss, buy a PS2, not a RPG book!


----------



## MarkB (Jul 14, 2006)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> Depends on the character and the dungeon. But yes, I keep spare equipment around if I can.
> 
> On top of which, if I'm wearing +1 plate and I see rust monsters, I *RUN*!



Did you make your Knowledge (dungeoneering) check?


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 14, 2006)

Thunderfoot said:
			
		

> See, it all works out in the end.




Actually, you're right. Try this exchange.

DM: You spy a small insectoid creature with feathery antenea and a strange paddle-like tail.
Player #1: I swat it with my sword
DM: Roll a REF save
Player #1: *rolls 1*, Darn I blew it, what happens?
DM: Your sword immediately turns to rust in your hands, the monster waves its antenea and *rolls* your armor is also rusting away
Player #1: But, that was my favorite weapon and armor!
DM: Suck it up meat-bag!
Player #1: Piss off jerk! I'll go play with someone else! *gets up and leaves table*

This could be fixed by changing this as follows...

DM: You spy a small insectoid creature with feathery antenea and a strange paddle-like tail.
Player #1: I swat it with my sword
DM: Roll a REF save
Player #1: *rolls 1*, Darn I blew it, what happens?
DM: Your sword becomes pitted with rust. You suspect that another couple hits, and your sword will be damaged beyond repair. 
DM: The monster also bites you *rolls* and hits for 6 points of damage. You notice your armor starts to corrode just like your sword.
Player #1: What the $%#^! So it's like a metal-rust  monster? Ah crap! I pull back before it gets my armor again, and sheathe my favorite sword...
DM: The monster skitters toward you, waving its antennae.
Player #1: Damn it's fast! Since I can't run, I pull my mace and use that. *rolls* I hit!
DM: *rolls* Although the creature takes some damage, your mace also becomes pitted with rust. *rolls* The thing's antennae strike your armor. The corrosion spreads.
Player #1: I need to end this before I lose my armor! I take another swing with the mace and Power Attack for all I'm worth.*rolls*
DM: Your blow splits open the creature's carapace. However, your mace starts to disintegrate, crumbling into red dust in your hands. You hear skittering as three more creatures come out through a hole in the opposite corner.
Player #1: I RUN!!!

The player here has lost a weapon and his armor's been degraded. His sword is damaged but repairable. He was given a chance to save his favorite weapon. If he had friends, they could have stepped in to "share the burden." He'll probably run from a rust monster in the future. And he still got to have fun!

To me, that's a WHOLE lot more satsifying. He can CHOOSE to take the hit to his gear and go for the fight. Or not.

That's what should determine the outcome in an encounter. Choice, not chance.

My opinion.


----------



## Mycanid (Jul 14, 2006)

Hey there John -

Seems to me the scenario you are giving is for a person being introduced to the game. But even so my experience and what others have told me haven't born out the example you have given as being common.

But what about all the old schoolers who were introduced to the rust monster in almost exactly the same way? I mean, I, or the others, didn't get up and storm away from the game table because I had lost my armor and weapons. We just said "AHHHHH!!!!" and then retreated, coming back to attack the beastie in a different way. I was playing a thief back then and hung back and riddled the thing with my trusty short bow! (Actually it was our wizard who beat the thing to death with his quarterstaff, as I posted before.)

We had some pretty rude DM's back then too.  I think people are a little "tougher" than how you portrayed it.

But to change a monster around to not discourage or "offend" players who are being introduced to the game, to somehow make it more safe or palatable ... I honestly don't see a need for it. After all the DM can just not include one if need be.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jul 14, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I think that's the heart of it, right there! Magic in 3e IS too much of a percentage of a PC's power. I'm all for cool magical trinkets. Characters getting a few gee-whiz items that allow them to do things that not everyone can.




This is hardly a concept new to 3e.  Quite the opposite.

IME 1e/2e PCs would have a much greater portion of their power come directly from magic items than is the norm in 3e.

I was once playing in a long running campaign that adhered reasonably close to the vanilla 1e/2e rules, about as much as most such games did anyway.  _Losing all your stuff_ was considered a signficantly worst fate than dying.  Death -- A little cash, loss of one point Con, and you are back in the game.   Stripped -- You are so ineffective that you cannot contribute to the party.  The DM would have to let you create new PC one level behind everyone else and at ~20% of the wealth because that was the minimum that could plausibly contribute to the party enough to justify a share of the XP and moolah in a non-stupid way -- the stripped PC simply could not.

But maybe this situtation only arose because we were playing with those wimpy rules written by that hack Gary.    

In fact, the consequences for dying in vanilla 3e seem to be worse on average than in vanilla 1e/2e.  YMMV on that one.

3e merely codified magic item power in a way that is easy for a DM to decide for himself how/if he will handle the wealth in a consistent manner.  That is all.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 15, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> In 1e and 2e, the rust monster caused problems, but the game just ignored them. In 3e, the game tries to address them.




No, in 1e (and to some extent 2e) encounters that forced the players to think laterally were considered a strength of the game, not a "problem".  Only 3e adheres to the design philosophy that every problem that can't be solved with a mindless frontal attack or a skill check requires a rules fix and a new rulebook sale to keep the game fun.

The rust monster (especially the pre-3e versions) is a perfect example of a lateral-thinking challenge for the players.  The people whose characters usually whack away at things with shiny metal weapons learn immediately that their normal tactics are not going to work and are, in fact, going to lead to disaster.  At that point it is up to the players to overcome the challenge and avoid disaster by thinking outside the box and changing up their normal roles.  For approximately 25 years of the history of this game, the idea of occasionally challenging the players was not anathema as it seems to be today.

The "old school" design philosophy says that the Rust Monster is great because it breaks up the tedium of repetitious tactics and forces players to be creative.  The "new school" apparently ascribes to the philosophy that, while tedious repetition may be boring, actually thinking and being creative is for suckers who can't afford the latest splatbook.   

"Oh.  My.  God.  Becky, this game is, like, SOOOOO hard!  Let's just go shoppping."  Is this the new D&D demographic?


----------



## Fishbone (Jul 15, 2006)

I never had a problem with the Rust Monster's all-or-nothing approach. The problem I have is with the insane difficulty of the Reflex save. A 15 HD Rust Monster with increased size is challenge rating 7 with a 22 Constitution score. The +4 modifier, large dice amount, and high constitution makes it a DC 27 reflex save. The Rust Monster landing 2 touch attacks is near guaranteed against a character like this and passing that reflex save if you are a low dexterity character in full plate, a "clanger", is nearly impossible. Antenna attack, lose 10 grand in gear and take 1d8+9 damage is a real spirit breaker. Also, the creature is so iconic, so infamous that there are really only 2 outcomes.
Outcome 1: Somebody gets surprise mauled by the thing and loses gear.
Outcome 2: The players, who weren't born yesterday, know full well what a Rust Monster means. The ranged specialist turns it into a pincussion, the mage flame broils it, and the monk wails the living bejeesus out of it. Easier XP is a rare thing.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jul 15, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> The question I have is this: if the 10 minute limit had a satisfactory explanation, would that be OK?




Yes, and here's how I would work it - after the fight, the affected armor must be repaired, taking an hour, this time can be cut in half by a DC 20 Craft:Armorsmithing check, and by 75% with a DC 25 check.  It can be eliminated by a Make Whole spell, or a number of applications of Mending equal to the the points of damage done divided by two.  Exact numbers fungible, but the idea is the PC's have to DO something to fix it.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jul 15, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> No, in 1e (and to some extent 2e) encounters that forced the players to think laterally were considered a strength of the game, not a "problem".  Only 3e adheres to the design philosophy that every problem that can't be solved with a mindless frontal attack or a skill check requires a rules fix and a new rulebook sale to keep the game fun.



You have noticed that a mindless frontal attack against this wholly optional provided for free result of a thought experiment is still a bad idea, right?


----------



## Klaus (Jul 15, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Actually, you're right. Try this exchange.
> 
> DM: You spy a small insectoid creature with feathery antenea and a strange paddle-like tail.
> Player #1: I swat it with my sword
> ...



 I agree with this post.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jul 15, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> +1 Platearmor is 2950gp.  Might be your prized possession and the bulk of your wealth on that day you encountered 2 Rust Monsters -- one died quickly enough but the other got some hits in.  Do you carry some spare chainmail around a dungeon so you can continue?




No but an inventive player can probably figure out a way to come up with a solution, and a good DM can work with that.

Way back in the 1st edition days, I had a PC lose a TON of magic to a Black Dragon's breath weapon - I rolled horribly and lost my armor, 2 swords, a magic cloak, and a couple of other things.  The party was travelling to another city, but I remembered having bypassed a treasure vault in a much earlier adventure - we couldn't manage it at the time, but at the level I was, I thought I could probably handle it solo.  I asked the DM if I could do a short solo game before the next session to try and tackle it.  He said OK, I arranged to meet my party a few days later, and did the job.  Got some armor and a weapon out of it, and at least felt like I was back close to par.


----------



## mearls (Jul 15, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I agree with this post.




That's a good way to summarize what the rust monster should look like.

The threat of losing your equipment has a very interesting effect on the encounter. The thinking behind such effects deserves its own column, so I'm tossing it on to the stack of stuff to write about.

A better rust monster re-design would allow for the destruction of armor and weapons within the scope of an encounter. The history of the rust monster is important to preserve, as is its impact on the game.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 15, 2006)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> You have noticed that a mindless frontal attack against this wholly optional provided for free result of a thought experiment is still a bad idea, right?




When did critiqueing bad ideas become a bad idea?


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 15, 2006)

One thing is definitely fascinating...that players would send their characters into fights up to the last few hit points, unto death even, while they'd run as soon as the precious equipment is threatened.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jul 15, 2006)

_"The popular name rust monster comes from the common legend that it turns metal into rust, but that is an understandable misconception of the creature's feeding habits. In fact, it feeds in a way that is reminiscent of a spider. Its antennae excude a reddish liquid on contact with metal. This liquid weakens the structural integrity of any metal, but is mostly harmless to other materials. Once the metal object is weakened enough, it can start eating by using its impressive mandibles to break off chunks just big enough to devour.
The reddish liquid, which leaves 'poxs' on the metal looking much like iron rust, is highly unstable. While the initial reaction weakens the metal, the resulting 'rust' and any remaining ilquid slowly deflagrate in contact with air, returning the material to its original strength if the rust monster is incapable of devouring the metal object in time."_


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jul 15, 2006)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> One thing is definitely fascinating...that players would send their characters into fights up to the last few hit points, unto death even, while they'd run as soon as the precious equipment is threatened.



The first is heroic, and we all want to see ourselves as heroes.
The second is just a pain in the kiester.


----------



## MarkB (Jul 15, 2006)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> One thing is definitely fascinating...that players would send their characters into fights up to the last few hit points, unto death even, while they'd run as soon as the precious equipment is threatened.



Hitpoints can be replaced in minutes. Death, at higher character levels, lasts overnight. Equipment carefully selected over months of gameplay, optimised to your character and vice versa, costing a large percentage of your total wealth, is not nearly so replaceable.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jul 15, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> When did critiqueing bad ideas become a bad idea?



Uhhm, look, a Demogorgon! Good thing it's not a dragon!

As noted earlier, I do think the rust monster, possible explanations aside for the autorepair, should deal permanent damage to weapons. I'm with many more people on that. I just don't think it is some sort of change to protect poor players with no sense for risks - the risks are still there, especially if the rust monster has company that can make use its unique abilities. It is no longer a creature you simply throw against players for a challenging encounter, but one you combine with other creatures, or send in multiples, for a challenging encounter.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jul 15, 2006)

Mycanid said:
			
		

> But to change a monster around to not discourage or "offend" players who are being introduced to the game, to somehow make it more safe or palatable ... I honestly don't see a need for it. After all the DM can just not include one if need be.




That is a matter of game design philosopher and priorities.

IMNSHO good RPG design should provide a fairly comprehensible baseline of sensible risk vs. reward.  It is not as if the DM is required to adhere to any such formula.  And, in fact, vanilla 3e suggests that a typical mix of encounters should _not_ only include level equivalent challenges.

Arbitrariness as some vague approximation of realism, if that floats you boat, is easy enough to add to any game.  But it is more difficult to retrofit if it was not designed in in the first place.


----------



## Imp (Jul 15, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I was once playing in a long running campaign that adhered reasonably close to the vanilla 1e/2e rules, about as much as most such games did anyway.  _Losing all your stuff_ was considered a signficantly worst fate than dying.  Death -- A little cash, loss of one point Con, and you are back in the game.   Stripped -- You are so ineffective that you cannot contribute to the party.  The DM would have to let you create new PC one level behind everyone else and at ~20% of the wealth because that was the minimum that could plausibly contribute to the party enough to justify a share of the XP and moolah in a non-stupid way -- the stripped PC simply could not.



That's crazy.  1 point of Con was huge in 1e, if you were getting bonuses from it, or on the edge of a penalty.  And very hard to recover or make up for.  I'd toss the equipment, easily – assuming of course the party was friendly enough to let me get my hands on the next +1 or +2 whatever I was proficient in.  Or buy it from them, or something.  By no means did 1e characters have all their wealth concentrated in baubles they were wearing, in my experience!  Once they got to a respectable level they usually had big money in the bank.


----------



## Kishin (Jul 15, 2006)

Fishbone said:
			
		

> . A 15 HD Rust Monster with increased size is challenge rating 7 with a 22 Constitution score. The +4 modifier, large dice amount, and high constitution makes it a DC 27 reflex save. The Rust Monster landing 2 touch attacks is near guaranteed against a character like this and passing that reflex save if you are a low dexterity character in full plate, a "clanger", is nearly impossible. Antenna attack, lose 10 grand in gear and take 1d8+9 damage is a real spirit breaker.




The fact that the save DC on the Rust Monster's Rust ability is almost always out of reach of the types of character its designed to target is what has always made me dislike the creature.

Basically, where are you metal-plated melee specialists? At the front of the party. Their movement' is reduced because they're in heavy armor, so they're not outrunning it, and their reflex save is generally terrible, so they're not gonna save successfully. Under these circumstances, you will almost certainly get chased down, and you -will- lose an item. Lateral thinking is great to encourage in a game, but you can do it without stacking the deck to the degree the rust monster does against the average melee character. Its a rather heavy handed approach to the concept,


----------



## jmucchiello (Jul 15, 2006)

My question is why did you invent a new rule system for destroying objects when the sunder rules already exist? (Especially after the design elegance discussion earlier this week.)

Shouldn't a change to the rust monster (and the rusting grasp spell) just change them so they cause damage to weapons/armor as sundering does. You compare the CR 3 rust monster to the Ogre. So a good way to see how good a rust monster should be at destroying weapons would be to swap out the ogre's existing feats and replace them with Power Attack and Improved Sunder. Play ogre like he hates weapons and see how the encounters go.

(I know you can't sunder armor by the RAW, but obviously the rust monster would be the exception.)


----------



## GSHamster (Jul 15, 2006)

I thought it was generally accepted wisdom that "save or die" attacks were not good design.  That's essentially what the rust monster is.  Save, or your best weapon dies. This new rust monster spreads out the dying over several rounds, giving the players a chance to react.  

I will agree that the weapon mystically returning to normal is a bit weird, but I'm sure you could come up with some new flavor to cover it.

Also, you guys with your crazy tactics, and carrying multiple weapons on you, are pretending you are the sole audience for D&D.  Imagine a group of 12-year-olds working through a low-level D&D adventure for the first time.  A rust monster is going to rock them hard, and possibly make it impossible for them to keep going without a TPK.  WotC needs to design for newbies just as much as the hardcore.  In some ways it's _more_ important to design for the newbies.

I think the biggest problem with the rust monster is that it's CR is way too low.  That means a new person could encounter it long before they are really ready to deal with it. If it was a CR 10 or so monster (with CR 10 HD, etc), it would work much better, as it is more probable that player will be experienced at that point.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jul 15, 2006)

Hey, I just can't wait to see some of the reactions when Mike and the devs tackle another horribly-designed (but cool-looking!) monster: the Beholder.


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 15, 2006)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> Also, you guys with your crazy tactics, and carrying multiple weapons on you, are pretending you are the sole audience for D&D.  Imagine a group of 12-year-olds working through a low-level D&D adventure for the first time.  A rust monster is going to rock them hard, and possibly make it impossible for them to keep going without a TPK.  WotC needs to design for newbies just as much as the hardcore.  In some ways it's _more_ important to design for the newbies.




I was a 12-year-old working through a low-level D&D adventure for the first time, once. So were all of my friends.

None of us were traumatized by the rust monster.

Designing for newbies by giving them false impressions is not a good idea. Nor is designing for newbies by weeding out the hardcore.

-The Gneech


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 15, 2006)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> Hey, I just can't wait to see some of the reactions when Mike and the devs tackle another horribly-designed (but cool-looking!) monster: the Beholder.



Yeah, I'd love to see all the sacred cows go under the microscope. Heck, I'd love to see the results published as variant species in a future MM, for those who prefer them and don't want to tote around printed out Web pages.


----------



## Fishbone (Jul 15, 2006)

Amen. I've always hated the Beholders and thought they were overCRd and needlessly complicated.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jul 15, 2006)

Well, they tend to be, paraphrased from another poster, "magical vending machines of save-or-die". They're about as exciting as toast.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jul 15, 2006)

Ilium said:
			
		

> I had a couple of problems with Mike Mearls' re-design, actually.  I like the idea of removing the "all-or-nothing" nature of ol' Rusty, but I don't like the idea of the rust's effects fading after 10 minutes.




I agree- I thought it would be better to use a variation of the standard Sunder rules for equipment, with the Rust Monster's attack dealing a variable amount of damage to the equipment. The variation would allow for partial damage (number of hp dmg by RM attack) which could then be repaired using the Craft skill (or Craft skill and Item Crafting feat if a magical item).


----------



## Greg K (Jul 15, 2006)

I'll throw my support with those against the 10 minute duration.  I saw that and thought the revision had gone too far


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 15, 2006)

MarkB said:
			
		

> Did you make your Knowledge (dungeoneering) check?




Okay, if I'm wearing +1 plate, see rust monsters, and know what they are, I *run*!

Man, I'm gettin' nitpicked to death today.

-The Gneech


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jul 15, 2006)

I just don't see the spectre of the "denuded" fighter here.  Why would any sensible party _let_ their fighter throw away his armor?

I mean, this is a thing that has a decent chance of being successfully grappled by the party _mage_.

Nerfing the rust monster just strikes me as a way to suck an interesting tactical problem out of the game.


----------



## Greg K (Jul 15, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> IMO, I think he's addressing a point I bring up from time to time in internet RPG discussions.  A lot of the discussions tend to bring out points like "a really good DM can handle this."  Most DMs, in the real world, are average or worse.  They aren't necessarily "really good DMs."  In design, WotC has to take that into account.




Yet, imo, this does nothing to help those DMs improve their skills. Rather than rewriting everything to protect players from average or worse DMs, how about WOTC begins taking steps to help those DMs improve their skills.  For example, what about using sidebars that teach DMs about the the potential pitfalls of using certain monsters by providing advice and consideration regarding the use of said monster.  Hopefully, by the time you repeat similar advice for "screw the player" monsters (e.g., rust monsters and disenchanters), the DM learns that you limit their use for certain situations/effects and need to have planned ahead for  the consequences (or at least realize the potential consequences).


----------



## stevelabny (Jul 15, 2006)

unless the rust monster is in the first room a new player EVER enters in a dungeon...

they will have backup weapons.

cuz every new player knows the basics

1> kill things

2> take their stuff

and any kobold, goblin, orc ,etc will have a weapon.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 15, 2006)

Just on the point of death vs losing your equipment.

If my PC dies, it takes about an hour at the outside to create a new PC, and, as an added bonus, he comes fully equiped. 

If my PC gets his armor and sword shredded by the rust monster, it will take several sessions, probably 8-10 hours of real time to regain my equipment.

If I get turned to stone, feebleminded, whatever, by the time we face creatures that can do this, we likely have the counters.  30 seconds of real time to fix the problem.  I get to sit out one encounter.  No big problem.

I have a naked fighter, assuming 4 man party, and the entire party may very well have to stop and wait until I'm re-equipped since they no longer have a tank.  Effectively, the creature has now wasted collectively several hours of everyone's time, not doing anything fun like whack the critter or advancing the adventure, but, "Let's watch Biff the fighter go shopping."

Item destruction critters are probably the biggest nukes in my game.  I don't use the for the same reason that my players don't sunder.  We just don't want to.


----------



## coyote6 (Jul 15, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> I think that's a bigger, more interesting point.
> 
> 1e and 2e had a sort of, "Close your eyes and pretend it isn't a problem" approach to magic items.
> 
> ...




One thing that might help, if it's possible -- explain/detail/quantify how magic items affect the power of PCs. E.g., provide some guideline or rule (of thumb, or with numbers, or whatever) that would allow a GM to say, "Ah, this party of level X PCs has no gear; that makes them effectively level X-Z [for this sort of encounter]."

I don't know how you could do it without basically turning magic items into a character/power point system, which would probably be too complicated & counterproductive (an entire new system to min-max!). But, hey, y'all are the game designers & developers that get all the big bucks -- you figure it out! 

(This would probably further what Hong calls "the creeping HEROization of D&D".)


----------



## Hussar (Jul 15, 2006)

At lower levels, actually, if you look at the difference between a loaded PC and a non-magic PC, there isn't a huge difference.

A 7th level Fighter has 19k in goods.  That's a pair of +1 weapons (4700 gp), +1 armor (2000 gp (ish)), +1 shield (1300 gp), a +2 stat boost item (say str) (4000 gp), a ring of swimming (2500 gp), assorted potions and such (2000 gp) and non-magical gear (the rest).  I know, this is rough, but, it works as a fair guideline.

Now, how much stronger is this fighter than a fighter with only masterwork?  He's got +1 to hit, +2 to damage, +2 AC, a skill bonus and buffing options.  Sure, he's superior.  But, how superior?  Let's compare him to an 8th level fighter.

Vs an 8th level figher, he's +2 to damage, +2 AC, less of a skill bonus and same buffing options.  However, his saves are lower, he's down a level for various effects, he's missing a feat and he's got 1d10 hp's less.  Is he more powerful?  IMO, no.  He's close, but, I wouldn't say he's stronger than the 8th level fighter.

So, effectively, equipment (other than for affecting DR) is less of a change than a full level.  At higher levels, the difference is more pronounced.  Jump up to 14th level, and I would say that it's certainly more than a full level difference.  But not two.  

Really, except in the case of creatures with DR, magic items don't make THAT much of a difference before double digit levels.  For at least half the game, the difference is small enough that it can be more or less ignored except in the case of DR.  

I'm sure I'm going to get blasted for this.  OTOH, I would LOVE to see a more comprehensive examination of this.  Baseline say 7th and 14th level characters and do the comparisons.  IMO, I don't think the differences are as much as people think they are.  Not if you follow the wealth guidelines.


----------



## Vanuslux (Jul 15, 2006)

Fascinating conversation.  All the snide sarcastic remarks from both side of the fence aside, it's interesting to see the various points of view on the matter.  Personally, I do believe that the rust monster could use some revising, but I don't like neutering it as much as the makeover did.  After reading this thread I think I will let the rust monster destroy mundane items as easily as the MM version, while applying Mearl's version of the _Rust_ ability to magical items, which should be much more resistant to destruction that mundame weapons and the getting better in 10 minutes effect could be explained by the magic in the item healing it.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 15, 2006)

Yes, but compare that 7th-level fully loaded Fighter with an 8th-level fighter who had to make do with that dead orc's leather armor, wooden shield and a spear.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 15, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Just on the point of death vs losing your equipment.
> 
> If my PC dies, it takes about an hour at the outside to create a new PC, and, as an added bonus, he comes fully equiped.
> 
> If my PC gets his armor and sword shredded by the rust monster, it will take several sessions, probably 8-10 hours of real time to regain my equipment.




If the latter seems like such an insurmountable problem, just have your naked fighter run full-bore at the next nasty think with teeth and claws he sees.  Roll up new, fully-equipped character.  Problem solved.


----------



## Imp (Jul 15, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I have a naked fighter, assuming 4 man party, and the entire party may very well have to stop and wait until I'm re-equipped since they no longer have a tank.  Effectively, the creature has now wasted collectively several hours of everyone's time, not doing anything fun like whack the critter or advancing the adventure, but, "Let's watch Biff the fighter go shopping."



Either you run the subsequent encounters with less meat to carve through; provide some replacement equipment for, say, the rogue to steal; or you green-slime the cleric, have a thief run off with the mage's spellbook, and have a couple giants mug the rogue.  Problem solved!


----------



## barrowwight (Jul 15, 2006)

i assume the mini for ol' rusty will be plastic...cause if it was metal he'd eat himself to death.
or half to death and then repair after 10 mins


----------



## A'koss (Jul 15, 2006)

It's been a long day and I'm pretty beat so forgive me if this rambles on a bit...

Seeing the rust monster revision reminded me that one area of design I would like to see touched upon down the line is one of complexity. Looking at the supernatural rust ability I can't help but feel it could have been made simplier yet. Right now you have to keep track of attack/damage/AC penalties, item saving throw rules (if a magic item is struck), tracking the time you got hit...

My first thought was... _why not just have straight item (HP) damage?_ Metallic items taking a rusting hit are damaged for 1dX HP. 

Done.

No penalty tracking, no saving throws, no time tracking. Your gear if fine until it runs out of HPs after which it's ruined. Use spells/craft to fix afterward.

I think rules should always be looked at as simply and as consistantly as possible (at first), then start adding complexity only if it really, _really_ needs it.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jul 15, 2006)

> Fascinating conversation. All the snide sarcastic remarks from both side of the fence aside, it's interesting to see the various points of view on the matter.




I agree.  There may be a few unuseful remarks, but there are also many insightful thoughts here as well--if we continue at this pace, this thread may well be worth archiving


----------



## Thunderfoot (Jul 15, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Actually, you're right. Try this exchange.
> 
> DM: You spy a small insectoid creature with feathery antenea and a strange paddle-like tail.
> Player #1: I swat it with my sword
> ...



What you mean fixed, this works for me.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 15, 2006)

> For me, PC death is a matter of choice and luck. Sometimes you choose poorly and live, sometimes you choose wisely and die.




This sounds deeply, deeply unsatisfying to me. I want my choices to have an impact on my survivability, and I want my ideas to be present in the game. If the only reason my ancestral sword that I, personally, had an investment in, is because the dice roll a certain way, why don't I just go gambling? 

Life gives me little enough control over the events in it. I want to be able to control events in a fantasy! 



> No, in 1e (and to some extent 2e) encounters that forced the players to think laterally were considered a strength of the game, not a "problem". Only 3e adheres to the design philosophy that every problem that can't be solved with a mindless frontal attack or a skill check requires a rules fix and a new rulebook sale to keep the game fun.




No, 3e is changing to try and adhere to the idea that sudden, unwanted, permenant hiccups in the campaign are bad. Generally speaking, this is true. If you use one as-is Rust Monster, you're paying for it for WEEKS of real-life time. That's a long time for one monster to dominate the game, and it's generally not fun to have to just suffer for a couple of sessions because people like rewards.



> What you mean fixed, this works for me.




For most people, though, it's going to be a problem. People game with friends, people game as a social activity, having fun with a couple of buds is key to the game's appeal, and has to be emphasized going forward. If the game's rules anger someone enough to just abandon the game, then the game is going to suffer, wither, and die.


----------



## Imp (Jul 15, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> For most people, though, it's going to be a problem. People game with friends, people game as a social activity, having fun with a couple of buds is key to the game's appeal, and has to be emphasized going forward. If the game's rules anger someone enough to just abandon the game, then the game is going to suffer, wither, and die.



But tolerance for ups and downs is not a set quality and the gaming environment really influences it.  You can run a life-is-cheap campaign where characters are expected to die horribly and maybe the goal becomes who can survive the longest and suffer the most hideous death.  That's an experience of a sort.  You can run things as easy come easy go and losing a sword or a treasure hoard isn't such a big deal if there's a chance at another one around the corner.  Or you can be very very careful not to anger your players and perhaps everyone has a nice even-keeled character development session or perhaps you watch as their tolerance for setbacks grows thinner.  

There's tons of ways for a DM to deal with the fighter losing his sword!  They don't all have to involve trudging back to town to spend a gp allotment that Negatively Impacts A Character's Wealth.  You can have sudden hiccups, plus generous contingency plans...  but you do have to have an understanding with your players that their luck may well turn for the better if they hang in there.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 15, 2006)

> But tolerance for ups and downs is not a set quality and the gaming environment really influences it. You can run a life-is-cheap campaign where characters are expected to die horribly and maybe the goal becomes who can survive the longest and suffer the most hideous death. That's an experience of a sort. You can run things as easy come easy go and losing a sword or a treasure hoard isn't such a big deal if there's a chance at another one around the corner. Or you can be very very careful not to anger your players and perhaps everyone has a nice even-keeled character development session or perhaps you watch as their tolerance for setbacks grows thinner.




A lot of those are unspoken contracts between the DM and players when the campaign begins. If you expect to have a gritty, bashed, vulnerable campaign, or one that is odly lucky, people don't walk out because they're going to expect that kind of treatment.

However, it takes even an above-par DM to try to run a D&D game with a "life-is-cheap" kind of feel. Most DMs run the game more or less straight. And in that respect, the Rust Monster is out of the realm of expected challenges and totally destroys some of the key aspects of fun in D&D (the acquisition of sweet loot). It disrupts more than it adds. Mearls's revision is to reduce the disruption without removing what it adds. He does so, and thus makes the Rust Monster fit better in a D&D game.



> There's tons of ways for a DM to deal with the fighter losing his sword! They don't all have to involve trudging back to town to spend a gp allotment that Negatively Impacts A Character's Wealth. You can have sudden hiccups, plus generous contingency plans... but you do have to have an understanding with your players that their luck may well turn for the better if they hang in there.




It's still a major disruption. What if the PC's manage to get lucky and their equipment isn't damaged? Suddenly that windfall is potentially game-breaking. What if they get unlucky and get damaged far beyond what that windfall was to compensate for? Suddenly, they're giving up on the game and calling it too hard. 

Major disruptions have a big chance to make people angry, at either their lack of power (And slavery to DM's whims), or at the amount of work that needs to go into "fixing the problem." As a DM who doesn't want to spend more work than nessecary on a fun night's game, the revised rust monster is a whole lot better than the one that came before.

Yeah, it still has issues. It's inelegant (it routes around the way the system already handles item damage because it thinks it can do it better). The "10 minute recovery" thing makes little sense (though it could still be easily removed with a Craft check or Mending spell). But the issue is no longer "If I include this monster in an encounter, I will have to prepare the next month's adventures around the PC's rusted items."


----------



## Hussar (Jul 15, 2006)

> Either you run the subsequent encounters with less meat to carve through; provide some replacement equipment for, say, the rogue to steal; or you green-slime the cleric, have a thief run off with the mage's spellbook, and have a couple giants mug the rogue. Problem solved!




So, because of one creature, I now have to rewrite my entire adventure?  And, if the party goes back and buys new equipment, I have to then change it back?  For one creature?  

Hrm, I have two choices.  A.  I use the creature knowing that a poor roll on the part of the party can pretty much pitch several hours of work down the toilet or B. I can just not use the creature.

I'm pretty sure which choice I'm going to make.  Sorry, I spend enough time prepping games as it is.  The presence of creatures which force me to amend, at the very least, an large portion of an adventure is not a plus for me as a DM.


----------



## Greg K (Jul 15, 2006)

Occasionally, I read certain threads and realize how much I appreciate the members of my group.  If one of them loses an item, there is no animosity or temper tantrums. The worst reaction is to smile and jokingly say, "you suck" before returning their attention to the game and having a good time.


----------



## Vanuslux (Jul 15, 2006)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Occasionally, I read certain threads and realize how much I appreciate the members of my group.  If one of them loses an item, there is no animosity or temper tantrums. The worst reaction is to smile and jokingly say, "you suck" before returning their attention to the game and having a good time.




No kidding.  I've been DMing over ten years and I can count on one hand the number of times that I've seen a player get upset over something that happened to their character, much less something happening to their stuff, and pretty much all those times were the same 14 year old boy.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 15, 2006)

Truth be told, I'm the same as you two.  My players wouldn't blow up about this.

However, the  internet is no place to be reasonable.  

OTOH, I was honest in that I don't use rust monsters for the reason I gave.  They're a nuclear weapon.  It would take away far more from the game than it adds, IMO.  Particularly if you play with some of the variants out there.  

Imagine, for a second, that you are using Legacy weapons and items.  The point of these is that the player gets attached to the item to the point where he identifies part of his character with that item.  It's not just a +1 sword that's getting torched.  It's hours of game time that is now chucked out the window.

From my point of view, while it might be fun, once in a long while, to strip the party naked and send them through the maze, it's not particularly something I enjoy very often.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 15, 2006)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> Also, you guys with your crazy tactics, and carrying multiple weapons on you, are pretending you are the sole audience for D&D.  Imagine a group of 12-year-olds working through a low-level D&D adventure for the first time.  A rust monster is going to rock them hard, and possibly make it impossible for them to keep going without a TPK.  WotC needs to design for newbies just as much as the hardcore.  In some ways it's _more_ important to design for the newbies.




I don't know, but carrying around multiple weapons was the norm among the 12-14 years olds I started playing D&D with...except for the wizards, of course. and we met our share of rust monsters, because the DM had plenty fun in trying to rust away our weapons and armor, and the wizard and archers/crossbowmen had plenty fun in doing away with them in other ways than straight hacking them with swords and axes. And what crazy tactics? If you meet a monster than rusts the fighter's sword with its first attack, you roll back to those weapons not made from iron and push the leather-clad folks in the foreground.
I don't know what kind of rust monster is bandied about here, but none of them caused a TPK ever, and none traumatized any of my fellow players, or me, into not playing anymore? Why are today's newbies portrayed as so thin-skinned that they will give up D&D because a low-level beastie ate the fighter's sword?


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 15, 2006)

This thread is giving scenarios that are completely out of proportion, too. No rust monster ever gets to strike effectively more than once. The usual reactions I've seen from players after they first experienced a rust monster run along the following:

- avoid the rust monster
- send the characters with light armor and non-metal weapons forward to take care of it
- cast _Charm Monster_
- distract it by throwing it some coins, a disposable dagger, or any other scrap metal. Some even collected the weaponry from slain monsters to that effect.

Not once in the last 18 years have I seen a fighter go "naked" after a rust monster encounter, and I use that little classic more than others, because I actually like it. They might have lost a sword, or their shield, but those were all losses that were easily remedied. Shopping trips to the nearest village that take 8-10 hours of real-time gaming, or even more than one session?  Makes me wonder if I'm not simply playing a totally different game. If it's not the whole group that goes shopping, and each for rare stuff, shopping doesn't even take 30 minutes of real time. And if it's a low-level dungeon crawl, it's usually satisfied with "Okay, it takes you 2 hours to trek back to the village. The weaponsmith is all too happy to sell you a new longsword, since you pay with good gold. You decide to rest at the local inn for the night, and after your morning activities (cue wizards learning spells, clerics praying, etc.) and 2 hours of marshing back, you've returned to the entrance."

Another thing...it's patently funny to read people complaining about "save or die" effects being no fun, but at the same time seeing D&D turn characters into more and more effective death-dealing killing machines. Mid-level characters that can dish out 50 to 70 points of damage are effectively the same as a magical "save or die" effect, except that you don't get a saving throw, the attacker must hit you with an attack roll. If insta-kill is "no fun", and lost equipment is "no fun", and inconveniencing the character beyond one encounter is "no fun", it really makes me think D&D has turned into a game that's focussed on the "one encounter" philosophy. And it's no surprise that a lot of players and DMs feel that new players are being coddled. "Hey, I wanna go up against dragons, ogres and other monsters, evil wizards and supernatural horrors...but if that includes the risk of being incinerated with one puff of flame, or losing my precious weapon, or being afflicted by some permanent nastyness that takes special measures and long time to cure again, count me out."  

Of course it's nice to have a new variant of the rust monster than works in different ways...but if that is a demonstration of the new design philosophy, why don't we simply integrate Save Points into the game where people can save their current game status before they continue down the dungeon? Should be easy enough to do with computer RPG software as it is by now. Simply save the character files, make a snapshot, and if the encounter wasn't satisfying enough, return to the snapshot and repeat with better knowledge of what lies beyond.

To quote the NPC with the most silly name ever, Bargle the Infamous: "We all take our risks here, down in the dungeon."

Edit: At least one good thing came out of this thread...I've read up on the 3E version of my beloved monster, and decided to simply go back to the older version of the monster. If it hits something metal, it rusts it away. If the metal is magical, it gets a chance at resisting the effect. And if the monster was successful in rusting something away, it simply stops its attacks and starts feeding. Because inherently, it's a peaceful little creature that simply wants some food.


----------



## Melan (Jul 15, 2006)

I don't have the time to read all these posts, but I have to say this redesign is just sad and pathetic. A good testament to how creativity and energy is sucked out of the game under the aegis of "balance" by an incomptent and inbred design culture. I don't care if it comes across as a personal attack, but the so-called "R&D staff" at Wizards isn't worth the salary they are paid. From non-decaying drow weapons through restricting the Command spell to this lameness, every interesting bit which stood out from the game has been replaced by bland, "balance-correct" pap.


----------



## Soel (Jul 15, 2006)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> Hey, I just can't wait to see some of the reactions when Mike and the devs tackle another horribly-designed (but cool-looking!) monster: the Beholder.




I was just wondering the same thing about the same creature (not that its horribly-designed, I'd just like to see some new thoughts about them.)


----------



## MarkB (Jul 15, 2006)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> Okay, if I'm wearing +1 plate, see rust monsters, and know what they are, I *run*!
> 
> Man, I'm gettin' nitpicked to death today.
> 
> -The Gneech



Oh, it wasn't a nitpick. The fact is, when most groups first encounter a rust monster, they will not know, in-character, what it is or what it does. IME Knowledge (dungeoneering) is not one of the highest-priority Knowledges a group takes, and without it they have little chance of figuring out what they're facing.

So unless you abandon role-playing in favour of metagaming at that point, all the lateral thinking in the world won't save the front-liners' equipment at that point, because they won't even know it's at risk until it's too late.


----------



## hong (Jul 15, 2006)

MarkB said:
			
		

> Oh, it wasn't a nitpick. The fact is, when most groups first encounter a rust monster, they will not know, in-character, what it is or what it does. IME Knowledge (dungeoneering) is not one of the highest-priority Knowledges a group takes, and without it they have little chance of figuring out what they're facing.
> 
> So unless you abandon role-playing in favour of metagaming at that point, all the lateral thinking in the world won't save the front-liners' equipment at that point, because they won't even know it's at risk until it's too late.



 See, you can fix this by vaccinating your characters. Have them fight a rust monster at 1st level, thus gaining metagaming immunity to its future effects.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 15, 2006)

Melan said:
			
		

> I don't care if it comes across as a personal attack, but the so-called "R&D staff" at Wizards isn't worth the salary they are paid. From non-decaying drow weapons through restricting the Command spell to this lameness, every interesting bit which stood out from the game has been replaced by bland, "balance-correct" pap.



You should care - personal attacks have a tendency to get people suspensed from the site. In addition, it's almost always best to preface personal opinions like yours with "I think" or something similar. 

Please avoid blanket insults in the future. It's entirely possible to criticize ideas without critizing people.


----------



## Belen (Jul 15, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> It's interesting to watch people take something they don't like, invent an entire system of beliefs and goals around that thing, ascibe those beliefs and goals to a fictional group, and then pour hatred at that group.




Your beliefs were very clear in the article., Mike.


----------



## BlueBlackRed (Jul 15, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Try this exchange.
> 
> DM: You spy a small insectoid creature with feathery antenea and a strange paddle-like tail.
> Player #1: I swat it with my sword
> ...



I would love to see player #1 at my table one day, just once, if simply to laugh at and mock him.
Whiners like that do nothing to help the game.

Unless you're the kind of DM who loves to mistreat the PCs and players in a masochistic manner, Player #1 is not worth arguing with.
Show him the door.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jul 15, 2006)

It's a balanced monster.  Doesn't move too fast, has no missile weapon, so intelligent players should be able to kill it fairly easily.

Why balance the game for players who don't understand basic tactics?  These changes strike me as very strange.


----------



## Belen (Jul 15, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> That's why I really like the idea of tying destruction to the penalty. It keeps the threat around for a bit and keeps the issue in question for several rounds.
> 
> Anyway, like I mentioned before there will be a future column where I go back and look at the feedback and talk about it. If I can think of an easy way to put together a development by gamers sort of thing, that'd be cool too.




Again.  You're only turning the game even more into a recordkeeping numbers game, but I could live with it as long as they rust did not go away in 10 minutes.  

I really have to wonder at the dev process at wizards.  I just do not think the game is fun when everything is turned into a -2 to this stat or a +2 to this other stat.  

Honestly, the redesign of the rust monster is just boring.  If it has to be changed, then at least keep some cool factor, which is what 3e rules lacks.

A level playing field is fine, but it is not exciting.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 15, 2006)

Why is the base assumption that there will be only one rust monster?  While perhaps not common, it's not out of line to have two.  Or, an enterprising lizardfolk could keep one as a pet.  Heck, why not capture a couple, send them forward first and then wipe out those pesky adventurers?

Why the big blow up though?  If you don't like the change, don't change it.  It's not a case of coddling players to say that a single encounter should not screw up my entire adventure.  A bit of bad luck and the fighter loses his armor and his weapon.  At 3rd level, that's a major soak of wealth.  

This is an AHA GOTCHA monster.  It's not a threat to the party as written.  As has been mentioned, people toss the wizard at it and let the wizzie beat it to death with a club.  How is that a memorable encounter?  It's a joke.  Poof, oh sorry, you have no armor any more.  Ha ha.  (Insert Nelson tone)


----------



## Scribble (Jul 15, 2006)

I'm kind of wondering what would have been the reaction if Mr Mearls had written this as an entirely new monster?  Maybe called it a Warper Bug, or something, and taken away all refferences to "rusting."  Would it have caused such an outcry? 

Is it really a problem with the creature, or is it a "Don't touch my nostalgia!" problem?


----------



## shilsen (Jul 15, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> I'm kind of wondering what would have been the reaction if Mr Mearls had written this as an entirely new monster?  Maybe called it a Warper Bug, or something, and taken away all refferences to "rusting."  Would it have caused such an outcry?
> 
> Is it really a problem with the creature, or is it a "Don't touch my nostalgia!" problem?



 By George, I think he's got it!


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jul 15, 2006)

With stuff like this, it's often a case of older players(who already have a more difficult time adjusting to new stuff due to brain chemistry) seeing something from 20-30 years ago changed and flipping out because of it.

So yeah, it's a "don't touch my nostalgia".

That's not to say there aren't legit reasons to dislike it -- I for one don't like the 10 minutes thing, but even with that, I'm not flipping out. 

Don't be hatin' just because WotC R&D actually thought about _gameplay_ and altered a GG creation to make it actually fun to fight.


----------



## el-remmen (Jul 15, 2006)

I just realized, I once had a character "go naked" due to a gelatinous cube.  Maybe that monster should be changed, too


----------



## Scribble (Jul 15, 2006)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> I just realized, I once had a character "go naked" due to a gelatinous cube.  Maybe that monster should be changed, too




Gelatinous cube doesn't have an instant destructo effect.


----------



## Sleepy Voiced (Jul 15, 2006)

I don't really think this is a nostalgia issue.  My first response when reading the new rust monster was not, "that's not the rust monster I grew up with!", but rather, "oh great, more record keeping."  Do we really need to tack on more bonuses and penalties on the fly like this?  If there is a fault with 3.X it is the large amount of tiny modifiers to keep track of.

The 10 minute regeneration didn't sit well either.  This seems an unnecessary change.  Like most  monsters, if the DM doesn't care for the effect it will have on a game, that DM won't use it.  I really don't think this has much todo with being a newbie or grognard either.  It is pretty clear in the MM write-up what a rust monster does.  Hell, its name is RUST MONSTER!


----------



## Sleepy Voiced (Jul 15, 2006)

I also just want to mention a thanks to Mike for keeping us in the conversation and engaging us in the R&D experience.  This is a great thread to read, and has great points both pro and con for this issue.


----------



## el-remmen (Jul 15, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Gelatinous cube doesn't have an instant destructo effect.




True, but two round engulfed by it and  I lost my studded leather armor, the haft on my military fork, my shortbow, my boots, my undershirt, my quiver and arrows, my lute (I was playing a fighter/bard), my character's journal and a songbook (kind of like a spellbook for bards).

The funny thing is - this was the same dungeon as the one I described in my first post with the rust monsters.  

We were the most haphazardly equiped party ever!  And it made crossing a bridge guarded by an ogre and his pet stirges (we were 3rd to 4th level) a lot more interesting, that's for sure!


----------



## Scribble (Jul 15, 2006)

Sleepy Voiced said:
			
		

> I don't really think this is a nostalgia issue.  My first response when reading the new rust monster was not, "that's not the rust monster I grew up with!", but rather, "oh great, more record keeping."  Do we really need to tack on more bonuses and penalties on the fly like this?  If there is a fault with 3.X it is the large amount of tiny modifiers to keep track of.
> 
> The 10 minute regeneration didn't sit well either.  This seems an unnecessary change.  Like most  monsters, if the DM doesn't care for the effect it will have on a game, that DM won't use it.  I really don't think this has much todo with being a newbie or grognard either.  It is pretty clear in the MM write-up what a rust monster does.  Hell, its name is RUST MONSTER!



Yeah, but most of the responses I've seen in this thread have seemed to be along the lines of: "You're weakening the game because my group never had a problem with loosing equipment..." etc... 

And the 10 minute auto heal thing.  

But I think the 10 minute auto heal anger is motivated by the nostalgia... Because there are other nonsensical in the real world effects in D&D that people never seem to take issue with.  That's why I was wondering if he had created an entirely new bug, would it have garnered the "UGG response..."


----------



## hong (Jul 15, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Why is the base assumption that there will be only one rust monster?  While perhaps not common, it's not out of line to have two.  Or, an enterprising lizardfolk could keep one as a pet.  Heck, why not capture a couple, send them forward first and then wipe out those pesky adventurers?
> 
> Why the big blow up though?  If you don't like the change, don't change it.  It's not a case of coddling players to say that a single encounter should not screw up my entire adventure.  A bit of bad luck and the fighter loses his armor and his weapon.  At 3rd level, that's a major soak of wealth.
> 
> This is an AHA GOTCHA monster.  It's not a threat to the party as written.  As has been mentioned, people toss the wizard at it and let the wizzie beat it to death with a club.  How is that a memorable encounter?  It's a joke.  Poof, oh sorry, you have no armor any more.  Ha ha.  (Insert Nelson tone)




Because it's funny.

Like the time we were in this dungeon in one of the AoW modules. We found this symbol on the floor, and we're all arguing over which symbol it is ("why don't you have a look?" "ARE YOU KIDDING??/!1") and the wiz finally cast detect magic. It turns out the symbol radiates Illusion, and the ceiling above radiates Transmutation. So the cleric of Wee Jas sends a skeleton out to poke the ceiling with a 10' pole to set off the trap. Nothing happens. Eventually my character gets angry, strides forward, grabs the pole off the skeleton and starts poking the ceiling himself: "this is how you do it, you stupid Int-score-lacking skeleton!"

I had enough time to hold up the Wile E. Coyote "in gods name, what am I DOING?" sign before the acid rained down.

The original rust monster is funny.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 15, 2006)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> True, but two round engulfed by it and  I lost my studded leather armor, the haft on my military fork, my shortbow, my boots, my undershirt, my quiver and arrows, my lute (I was playing a fighter/bard), my character's journal and a songbook (kind of like a spellbook for bards).
> 
> The funny thing is - this was the same dungeon as the one I described in my first post with the rust monsters.
> 
> We were the most haphazardly equiped party ever!  And it made crossing a bridge guarded by an ogre and his pet stirges (we were 3rd to 4th level) a lot more interesting, that's for sure!



Hah! you got ate up by an Ogre! munch munch munch! 

But, again... With the cube, you have a bit of time. You have the ability to either kill it or get out of it before it destroys your stuff...  

With the rustomatic monster bamf, stuff is rusted and gone before you can even take a moment to realize the Rust Monster can do that!

Kind of like an Ethreal Filcher against a party that can't travel the planes, that shows up ganks a few things and then jets...  What I like to call an A-Hole monster tactic. 

And even if your party is mature enough to handle it... it still almost always garners a "Dude... that was lame." response.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 15, 2006)

Heh, funny how easy the "it's all rose-colored nostalgia" explanation is brought up towards those posters who simply object against changing a monster in order to minimize the "risk" that facing said monster entails.

There's simply a few completely different game philosophies at play here. One is largely composed of older players who have learned, and are used to, taking any situation and try to adapt their characters to it. Rust monster? Let those without iron deal with it, distract it, avoid it, charm it. Lost your sword/shield/armor to it? Grab a new weapon, improvise armor or shield, work with what you got, or re-equip by taking stuff from other inhabitants of the dungeon you're in. Or retreat to town and get new equipment. All part and parcel of standard dungeon crawling back then. So most of them don't see a problem in the rust monster as is.

Another is composed of those players who see an inherent fun-ruining factor in losing your equipment (more so than losing your PC in some cases  ), and who'd rather have the game designer or the DM deal with the "problem", either by offering "amendments" for the lost equipment, or by changing the effect the monster (spell effect/special ability) has in the first place.

I don't see much nostalgia in those two differing points of view. And yes, I realize that one simply can choose to ignore that one monster, but it was offered as a demonstration of the direction WotC R&D takes, too...and since 3.5, that direction didn't appeal to many, and those are simply giving their feedback about what they feel is pulling the teeth from their favorite game.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 15, 2006)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> I just realized, I once had a character "go naked" due to a gelatinous cube.  Maybe that monster should be changed, too



It's a bit of a tangent, but I once had the idea for an gelatinous cube-like monster that teleported the weapons, armor and other gear of the characters it fought into its centre whenever it hit them (Will save negates), and if it engulfed a character, he would basically have to make a Will save for each item of equipment or it gets taken away from him.

I guess it's a good thing I never statted it out, because it seems that a number of people in this thread wouldn't like it, because of the recordkeeping needed whenever a character lost a piece of equipment, and because the PCs get their gear back when they finally defeat it.


----------



## Greg K (Jul 15, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> This is an AHA GOTCHA monster.  It's not a threat to the party as written.  As has been mentioned, people toss the wizard at it and let the wizzie beat it to death with a club.  How is that a memorable encounter?  It's a joke.  Poof, oh sorry, you have no armor any more.  Ha ha.  (Insert Nelson tone)




If the DM does it for "HA ha", then the DM is probably a jerk with a me vs. them mentality.  However, I can see a DM using for less malevolent reasons. 
1) as a set up for an interesting event/encounter/challenge 
2) as a temporary character setback before finding that nifty new armor or weapon.


----------



## hong (Jul 15, 2006)

Greg K said:
			
		

> If the DM does it for "HA ha", then the DM is probably a jerk with a me vs. them mentality.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 15, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> As has been mentioned, people toss the wizard at it and let the wizzie beat it to death with a club. How is that a memorable encounter?




Throwing the wizard at it is what makes it a memorable encounter.  How many times does the rest of the party stand back and tell the wizard to "get in there and kick some a**"?

Upping the damage and hp plus nerfing the rusting effect takes away that aspect of the creature.  Yes, it may be more "utilitarian" as a general encounter, but it completely negates its special purpose as a role-breaker.



			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> I'm kind of wondering what would have been the reaction if Mr Mearls had written this as an entirely new monster? Maybe called it a Warper Bug, or something, and taken away all refferences to "rusting." Would it have caused such an outcry?
> 
> Is it really a problem with the creature, or is it a "Don't touch my nostalgia!" problem?




If this had appeared as a new monster I would have ignored it completely.  However, it's not a "nostalgia problem" it's a "why not create something new rather than wrecking something that's not broken to begin with by 'fixing' it problem".  The rust monster is quite functional as-is (actually the current version is less functional than the original ca. 1970s version, but it will do) and serves its purpose well.  The proposed "fix" demonstrates an attitude that is (IMO and apparently quite a few others) bad for the game and bad for the hobby.

The motto for 3e in 2000 was supposed to be "Back to the Dungeon", not "Back to the Cradle".  I'm not sure the folks at WotC completely "got it" even in 2000 and time seems to have made matters, if anything, much worse.


----------



## hong (Jul 15, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Throwing the wizard at it is what makes it a memorable encounter.  How many times does the rest of the party stand back and tell the wizard to "get in there and kick some a**"?




Exactly. It's funny.


----------



## el-remmen (Jul 15, 2006)

Sorry for the long post - but I was able to find a story that is related from a series some friends of mine wrote from back when there was a DIY Aquerra print 'zine.  It was called, "_In the Palm of Harlin Half-hand_, and each feature had a gronard type character teaching a lesson to a more "modern" imaginary player character (Theodore of Thoth) - using a lot hypebole and comedy to get the point across.

Anyway, I though some of you might enjoy it:



> In the Palm of Harlin Half-Hand​
> I am Theodore of Thoth. May Thoth bless this, the third document of the recorded wisdom of Harlin Half-hand. This tale was recorded upon my return from searching for the headpiece of the legendary Staff of Thoth. My party and I were returning from the Northern Reaches, where our efforts to find the headpiece had taken us. The map we had been sold turned out to be a fake. It really led to a lair of a hellish beast in the mountains. The beast was like a huge man, but covered in stringy white fur and had a mouth more befitting a shark's than a human's. During the battle with the creature, Percival the Dandy, a friend and party member, was slain. We were back where we started and now down one treasured companion. We resolved to return to Verdun and find some new leads. While there we would bury Percival in accordance with this wishes. I presided over the ceremony the same morning that our ship docked and afterward we split up to get supplies and find what we could in the so-called Heart of Aquerra.
> 
> I headed through the Port District to go to the market in the Temple District to get new chainmail, as my old suit was showing signs of wear. It was already past noon and Ra's Glory had reached its apex and was beginning its slow descent back to Anubis' Realm. As I walked, I heard a familiar voice boom from an alleyway. ".. An' stay out, ya dang cheat!" It was followed by a yelp and a crash. I immediately recognized the voice of Harlin Half-hand and decided to talk to him, thinking he might have words to help with the sorrow I felt at losing a friend.
> ...




"_In the Palm of Harlin Half-hand_" created by Dan Silberger and Christopher Cutts.  This first appeard in _Thoth's Libram Vol. I Issue #32 - January/February 1998
_


----------



## BlueBlackRed (Jul 15, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> I'm kind of wondering what would have been the reaction if Mr Mearls had written this as an entirely new monster?  Maybe called it a Warper Bug, or something, and taken away all refferences to "rusting."  Would it have caused such an outcry?
> 
> Is it really a problem with the creature, or is it a "Don't touch my nostalgia!" problem?



No, nothing to do with any kind of nostalgia.

A new creature would have been fine, but rewriting the existing one just because it ruins the PC's precious equipment makes the rust monster bland and boring. You've ruined the reason the creature even exists.

If you're going to do this to the rust monster are you going to modify the oozes and other monsters that eat precious equipment?

If this is where the game is heading then you can bet on seeing more threads like this.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Jul 15, 2006)

Frankly, this is just another example of video game mentality, I can't ever die as long as I have quarters and eventually I will win the game.  The original concpet was that the game was a fun version of warped reality with a focus in reality.  How is a game fun if there is no risk, no danger.

Let's just rename this to "The Monty Hall and His Amazing Slice Up Defensless Monsters Game".  If you can't deal with a rust monster what about the disenchanter, a dragon, a tarassaque?  Grow-up people, characters die, monsters sometimes win and even epic campaigns have major characters die - anyone remeber Boromir in the LotR, wasn't looking too good by the end of that first book was he?  Sheesh.

No, it's not nostalgia, its "nerfing" a monster that has no really teeth but has one amazingly wicked ability.  There has been a lot of nerfing of certain rules and concepts that really shouldn't have been changed in the first place.  No DM should start ouot with the concept of a TPK in mind, but if it happens, that is the fault of the players, not the DM (in theory anyway).  Yes, maybe I'm an old fart, maybe I have a problem with seeing things changed, but more over is the fact that all you young folks (I sound like my grandfather) can't deal with loss.  No wonder Prozac is so widespread.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jul 15, 2006)

I guess I'm just blind, because I don't see how the re-imagined rust monster takes away the DM's responsibility for his own encounters. The only one who can coddle the players is the DM. The DM is the only person who can put in the "new" rust monster into an adventure for his group. If he put it into a 40x40 room with torches and no hiding place, and a warning sign, he is coddling his players. If he places it in a dark cavern with lots of hiding places, he might challenge his players. If he adds a few more rust monsters, and an intelligent master that takes advantage from the weakened state of the party tank, he is challenging them.


----------



## hong (Jul 15, 2006)

Thunderfoot said:
			
		

> Frankly, this is just another example of video game mentality, I can't ever die as long as I have quarters and eventually I will win the game.  The original concpet was that the game was a fun version of warped reality with a focus in reality.  How is a game fun if there is no risk, no danger.
> 
> babble, babble




Never have I seen a higher ratio of syllables-to-substance.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 15, 2006)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> There's simply a few completely different game philosophies at play here. One is largely composed of older players who have learned, and are used to, taking any situation and try to adapt their characters to it. Rust monster? Let those without iron deal with it, distract it, avoid it, charm it. Lost your sword/shield/armor to it? Grab a new weapon, improvise armor or shield, work with what you got, or re-equip by taking stuff from other inhabitants of the dungeon you're in. Or retreat to town and get new equipment. All part and parcel of standard dungeon crawling back then. So most of them don't see a problem in the rust monster as is.



Characterizing what sort of people hold an opinion is always trouble. First off, you tend to be wrong more often than you're right, and secondly, it's inevitably going to look like you're making judgements about people who hold certain sorts of opinions, such as "play a little longer, newbie, and you'll see it's no big deal."

As has been stated, flat-out destruction of an item (or more than one item) is a whole lot more potent than CR 3. Compare with magic items and spells that can do the same thing: A level 3 character's unlikely to be running into those.

Now, while it's always OK to mix things up -- one of my two campaign groups, level 1-2 each, will be encountering a CR 15 giant soon -- having it properly labelled as such wouldn't hurt.

Frankly, I'm thinking giving the rust monster a sunder attack makes the most sense, since it works based on an existing rule set, instead of inventing something new. Building onto sunder (with a special ability that lets it work against armor, too) would make it easier to adjust the damage a rust monster could do, at the discretion of the DM. Those who want items to be gone, gone, gone could just throw a "greater rust monster" at them. Those who want a more graduated way of approaching it could go with a "lesser rust monster" or something.

One size does not fit all and options are a good thing.


----------



## Vanuslux (Jul 15, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Why is the base assumption that there will be only one rust monster?  While perhaps not common, it's not out of line to have two.  Or, an enterprising lizardfolk could keep one as a pet.  Heck, why not capture a couple, send them forward first and then wipe out those pesky adventurers?
> 
> Why the big blow up though?  If you don't like the change, don't change it.  It's not a case of coddling players to say that a single encounter should not screw up my entire adventure.  A bit of bad luck and the fighter loses his armor and his weapon.  At 3rd level, that's a major soak of wealth.
> 
> This is an AHA GOTCHA monster.  It's not a threat to the party as written.  As has been mentioned, people toss the wizard at it and let the wizzie beat it to death with a club.  How is that a memorable encounter?  It's a joke.  Poof, oh sorry, you have no armor any more.  Ha ha.  (Insert Nelson tone)




People aren't generally blowing up about the rust monster itself but rather the design philosophy that a PCs possessions are more valuable than his life and the threat that this is the direction that designers are going to be pushing the future of D&D into.  Some of the people who are supportive of the rust monster have outright said that the loss of their stuff is more traumatizing to them than the loss of their character's life and some people are really upset about the idea of D&D getting neutered in favor of not upsetting those kinds of players.  A lot of people are assuming that this redesign is going to become a part of the D&D4 MM and underneath a lot of the melodramatization of the situation is a serious concern that WotC is going to market towards the lowest common denominator, which is how we get boy bands.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 15, 2006)

Thunderfoot said:
			
		

> Frankly, this is just another example of video game mentality, I can't ever die as long as I have quarters and eventually I will win the game.  The original concpet was that the game was a fun version of warped reality with a focus in reality.  How is a game fun if there is no risk, no danger.



This is an awfully big pronouncement to make about a monster that no one is claiming is particularly often-used and it's silly to extrapolate from reactions to one monster how people feel about the rest of the game, especially since _no one_ uses these monsters very often.

Instead of making personal characterizations about people who disagree about a design issue, why not focus on the design issue itself? Using this as an excuse to attack the playstyle of people who you will never play with and likely never meet is pointless and off-topic.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 15, 2006)

> Frankly, I'm thinking giving the rust monster a sunder attack makes the most sense, since it works based on an existing rule set, instead of inventing something new. Building onto sunder (with a special ability that lets it work against armor, too) would make it easier to adjust the damage a rust monster could do, at the discretion of the DM. Those who want items to be gone, gone, gone could just throw a "greater rust monster" at them. Those who want a more graduated way of approaching it could go with a "lesser rust monster" or something.




This is The Correct Answer. You get a "I'm Not Affraid of Change" merit badge.  



> I don't really think this is a nostalgia issue. My first response when reading the new rust monster was not, "that's not the rust monster I grew up with!", but rather, "oh great, more record keeping." Do we really need to tack on more bonuses and penalties on the fly like this? If there is a fault with 3.X it is the large amount of tiny modifiers to keep track of.
> 
> The 10 minute regeneration didn't sit well either. This seems an unnecessary change. Like most monsters, if the DM doesn't care for the effect it will have on a game, that DM won't use it. I really don't think this has much todo with being a newbie or grognard either. It is pretty clear in the MM write-up what a rust monster does. Hell, its name is RUST MONSTER!




I agree with much of this. I don't see the change as unnessecary though. As written, the rust monster is a very bad, very petty, very "A-Hole" kind of monster. It has a huge blast radius, it stops parties in their tracks, and it has nothing threatening about it. The revised rust monster preserves the interesting encounter angle (having the mage or barbarian or rogue beat up on it) without making it an all-or-nothing, rock-paper-scissors kind of battle. It's not a perfect revision, but it's heaps better than the one given already.



> No, it's not nostalgia, its "nerfing" a monster that has no really teeth but has one amazingly wicked ability.




The monster wan't nerfed. A single ability was. The monster is actually tougher than it was before. It forces a hard choice, because when the wizard goes up to wail on it, it's potent bite will mean he can't stay up there for long. And you better hope the rogue can climb and listen and spot, because otherwise, the thing is going to sneak up on you five minutes later and smack you around a bit, too. 

The monster is a harder beast to defeat. However, it's not as likely to bring the game to a screeching halt. And that is WONDERFUL. That's why this new rust monster is going to see itself in my games tomorrow.


----------



## Mycanid (Jul 15, 2006)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Heh, funny how easy the "it's all rose-colored nostalgia" explanation is brought up towards those posters who simply object against changing a monster in order to minimize the "risk" that facing said monster entails.
> 
> There's simply a few completely different game philosophies at play here. One is largely composed of older players who have learned, and are used to, taking any situation and try to adapt their characters to it. Rust monster? Let those without iron deal with it, distract it, avoid it, charm it. Lost your sword/shield/armor to it? Grab a new weapon, improvise armor or shield, work with what you got, or re-equip by taking stuff from other inhabitants of the dungeon you're in. Or retreat to town and get new equipment. All part and parcel of standard dungeon crawling back then. So most of them don't see a problem in the rust monster as is.
> 
> ...




I think this is a stunning analysis of the whole issue being batted about in this thread!

Many thanks Raven!  

Hey there Whizbang - I posted earlier that I don't think a sunder feat really would work with what a rust monster is doing, and I still hold to that, but I DO like the idea being tossed around of different types of Rust Monsters.

I think this may be a good "in between" road for many of the Dm's and players out there. Heck, they have different types of lots of other types of monsters, why not variation in the species of the Rust Monster? Or even worse, magically altered/breeding techniqued Rust Monsters?


----------



## Fishbone (Jul 15, 2006)

The only time I've ever seen one was a Huge one. They have a bite attack that does 1d8+12 damage a pop. Thats not something I sic Mr 7d4+21 on, no sir. I don't have problems with other monsters that destroy gear like oozes, destrachans, disenchanters etc.
Check out the DC on a Gargantuan Black Pudding, DC 27 for Challenge Rating 10.  What I have a problem with, as stated before, is the ludicrously high Reflex save needed to avoid losing a 4-6000 GP piece of equipment. DC 27, DC 29 with Ability Focus, is just about impossible for a level 6 to 8 clanger or sword and boarder to overcome. If they don't roll a 19 or 20 they are boned.
I just don't see why this fix is needed. Maybe take away the +4 to the DC but leave it as it is. Was there some outcry to nerf the Rust Monster into the ground and add even more titchy plus this minus that to the game that I just wasn't aware of?


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 15, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> No, 3e is changing to try and adhere to the idea that sudden, unwanted, permenant hiccups in the campaign are bad. Generally speaking, this is true. If you use one as-is Rust Monster, you're paying for it for WEEKS of real-life time. That's a long time for one monster to dominate the game, and it's generally not fun to have to just suffer for a couple of sessions because people like rewards.




Whaaaat?  

A rust monster is going to, on a really good day, eat at the most two pieces of equipment, unless the players are so dense as to stand there and keep letting it get them. And all you have to do is wander down the hall until you find a pack of kobolds and snag their equipment, fer crying out loud. This idea that a rust monster is in any way a game breaker is just nuts.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> For most people, though, it's going to be a problem. People game with friends, people game as a social activity, having fun with a couple of buds is key to the game's appeal, and has to be emphasized going forward. If the game's rules anger someone enough to just abandon the game, then the game is going to suffer, wither, and die.




A player who is enough of a spoiled brat to storm out of the house because a rust monster ate his shield, is a player you're better off not inviting back to the table. Seriously.

-The Gneech


----------



## Fishbone (Jul 15, 2006)

An item destroying creature with a high DC isn't without precedent or peers. The rust monster is just the most egregious because it is hard for somebody in the low levels, 4-7, to find an equal weapon. I sincerely doubt that Kobolds are going to have medium +1 or +2 greatswords or medium +1 full plate or medium sized metal shields of decent enchantment.
Edit: Kobold are bad mothers, now. Every DM I've played under either runs the things as cannon fodder or reptilian Rambos. With Races of the Dragon and a DM set out to "prove" that he can kick your candy backsides with the lowly Kobold you are in for a long night. I ran a session like that and the players will never look at kobolds the same way ever again.


----------



## el-remmen (Jul 15, 2006)

I wonder if the split of opinion on this issue can be split along the same lines of those prefer time adventuring working towards a numerical improvement in their character and those who like adventure for the sake of adventure and the advancement is just a common result of that.

The reason I say this is because when I see "it will take weeks in game or a few sessions to recover from that and we won't be advancing, just moving to catch back up" (I used quotes, but I am paraphrasing, sue me ) given as a reason why the rust monster as is is not a good thing, while I see those extra sessions as more opportunity to explore my character and have the DM create more twists and turns and adversity to overcome, it leads me to conclude that.

Neither one is better than the other, I just prefer the latter.


----------



## Imp (Jul 15, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It's still a major disruption. What if the PC's manage to get lucky and their equipment isn't damaged? Suddenly that windfall is potentially game-breaking. What if they get unlucky and get damaged far beyond what that windfall was to compensate for? Suddenly, they're giving up on the game and calling it too hard.



Then you make the windfall vanish prior to the PCs happening upon it and save it for another time perhaps!  That's the beauty of D&D, you aren't a robot and you haven't programmed a module where you can't change things as necessary.  And you don't necessarily have to re-write entire adventures, statblocks and all: just add more loot to the next encounter, have the something lay there on the freshly-killed corpses of another group somewhere if you want things to be easier, etc., etc.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jul 15, 2006)

Imp said:
			
		

> And you don't necessarily have to re-write entire adventures, statblocks and all: just add more loot to the next encounter, have the something lay there on the freshly-killed corpses of another group somewhere if you want things to be easier, etc., etc.



So in essence, the "old" rust monster coddled players by ensuring more loot?


----------



## Mycanid (Jul 15, 2006)

The mushroom alchemist agrees with the frog bard on this one.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 15, 2006)

The save is too easy as is.  I'd bump the save to dc 30 or something.  Or just get rid of the save altogether.  if I was going to mess with the rust monster.  Even 20th level characters should fear the rust monster.  Is it fair?  No, but there's nothing fair about venturing into an undeground setting full of beholders and dragons and rust monsters with a pointy stick to begin with.


----------



## BluSponge (Jul 15, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> It's interesting to watch people take something they don't like, invent an entire system of beliefs and goals around that thing, ascibe those beliefs and goals to a fictional group, and then pour hatred at that group.




Actually, I think most of the critics here are simply taking you at your word.  Here and in your article.  I'll paraphrase: "Rust monsters are great for experienced DMs, but we want to make the game fun for novices."  So instead of providing guidance for DMs on how to run an effective rust monster enounter (say, a sidebar), we instead make the encounter less special so as to significantly reduce the consequences of it.  This sounds a lot like Sean Reynolds going on about how drow magic weapons disentigrating in sunlight was "bad game design": "the players should never be parted with something they've won for arbitrary reasons" (again, paraphrasing).

I'm always surprised at how people's first reaction is never to lift or educate, but to dumb down or blunt.  As someone else mentioned earlier in the thread, most groups who don't enjoy encounters with rust monsters encounter mysteriously few for an uncommon creature.  And that's how it should be.  You seem to be fixing something that isn't really broken.  

Now as a hypothetical example, this article is a great demonstration of how R&D will monkey with something sent up from design!  It would probably have been less incendiary if you had used a completely new example, or perhaps a flumph.    But since R&D _is_ concerned with how people play the game, I don't see why you should be dismissive towards critics of your design philosophy.  They are part of your market too, after all, right?

Tom


----------



## hero4hire (Jul 15, 2006)

I am not going to add to the reasons to the pros and cons.

Simply put, revamping the Rust Monster to me in such a way as to have items "heal" would take away any coolness the creature ever had.

The whole point of the monster was to have metal bearing characters quake in fear at losing thier shiny stuff. Take that away, you take away the soul of the beast.

At least IMHO.


----------



## Aaron L (Jul 15, 2006)

I never understood why the rust monster didnt just do hit point damage to metal ojects.  That way magic weapons and armor with lots of hitpoints would be pretty safe, but common items would get munched pretty easily.

It just seems kind of obvious to me.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 15, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> As has been stated, flat-out destruction of an item (or more than one item) is a whole lot more potent than CR 3. Compare with magic items and spells that can do the same thing: A level 3 character's unlikely to be running into those.




That's just totally inaccurate.  I haven't played 3.x D&D for almost 2 years now and I can still come up with at least 3 other challenges of around CR3 that can easily cause "flat-out destruction of an item".

Even a 1st level fighter (CR1) can have Improved Sunder.  A 3rd level fighter (CR3) can make a pretty good Sundering specialist.

A 3rd level Bard, Cleric, Sorcerer or Wizard  (CR3) has access to the _Shatter_ spell, which can permanently destroy non-magical objects (masterwork weapons, magic items, etc.).

A Gray Ooze (CR4 but easily within the realm of challenge for level 3 characters) can dissolve metal weapons and armor (even magical ones).

There are all kinds of challenges at or around CR3 that can easily destroy PC's equipment.  When did losing a magic sword become something that should only come attached to an Epic Level challenge rating?


----------



## Knight Otu (Jul 15, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> That's just totally inaccurate.  I haven't played 3.x D&D for almost 2 years now and I can still come up with at least 3 other challenges of around CR3 that can easily cause "flat-out destruction of an item".



But do either of these have the same ability as the rust monster to easily destroy a magic item?



> Even a 1st level fighter (CR1) can have Improved Sunder.  A 3rd level fighter (CR3) can make a pretty good Sundering specialist.



A +1 weapon has a hardness of either 7 or 12, and at least 12 hit points. To destroy a weak +1 magic weapon in one strike, the attacker needs to deal 19 points of damage at once. Not impossible, true. The most hit points a +1 weapon may have is 30. Together with the hardness 12, that requires 42 damage in one strike. Also, the sunderer still needs to make an opposed attack roll, rather than a simple touch.



> A 3rd level Bard, Cleric, Sorcerer or Wizard  (CR3) has access to the _Shatter_ spell, which can permanently destroy non-magical objects (masterwork weapons, magic items, etc.).



Shatter doesn't destroy magic items, as you said.



> A Gray Ooze (CR4 but easily within the realm of challenge for level 3 characters) can dissolve metal weapons and armor (even magical ones).



Yep, that guy can do it. It is also much slower than a rust monster, doesn't have much more hit points than the rust monster, and is easier to hit. Also, the acid ability is pretty wonky. It can instantly destroy stuff as long as it is used in combat, but once the stuff lies around, it only deals damage, and must wait. Sounds like a candidate for reimagining. 



> There are all kinds of challenges at or around CR3 that can easily destroy PC's equipment.  When did losing a magic sword become something that should only come attached to an Epic Level challenge rating?



Since no-one said that it has to be an epic level challenge, I'd say never.  Losing stuff is ok at any level, as long as it uses reasonable mechanics.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 15, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> That's just totally inaccurate.  I haven't played 3.x D&D for almost 2 years now and I can still come up with at least 3 other challenges of around CR3 that can easily cause "flat-out destruction of an item".
> 
> Even a 1st level fighter (CR1) can have Improved Sunder.



I don't think that would count as "easily." Said level 1 fighter would be hamburger by the time he got finished trying it.



> A 3rd level fighter (CR3) can make a pretty good Sundering specialist.
> 
> A 3rd level Bard, Cleric, Sorcerer or Wizard  (CR3) has access to the _Shatter_ spell, which can permanently destroy non-magical objects (masterwork weapons, magic items, etc.).



So, which of these would be likely to be designed that way by the DM, other than a DM in the mind to specifically start destroying items? None of them, in my experience. Those third level characters will be loaded up with other spells and doing their best to kill the players and take their stuff.



> A Gray Ooze (CR4 but easily within the realm of challenge for level 3 characters) can dissolve metal weapons and armor (even magical ones).



Countering a CR3 creature with a CR4 creature isn't a strong argument.



> When did losing a magic sword become something that should only come attached to an Epic Level challenge rating?



Look at the magic items and spells that accomplish it best.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 15, 2006)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> I never understood why the rust monster didnt just do hit point damage to metal ojects.  That way magic weapons and armor with lots of hitpoints would be pretty safe, but common items would get munched pretty easily.
> 
> It just seems kind of obvious to me.



Yep, the Sunder mechanic again. 

Heck, let the rust monster totally bypass hardness, and it's doing touch attack with full damage to metal items. That's nasty and pretty darn quick, in all likelihood, depending on how much damage our revised rust monster does per hit to metal.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Jul 15, 2006)

hong said:
			
		

> Never have I seen a higher ratio of syllables-to-substance.



BITE ME TROLL!!!


----------



## GSHamster (Jul 15, 2006)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> I don't know, but carrying around multiple weapons was the norm among the 12-14 years olds I started playing D&D with...except for the wizards, of course. and we met our share of rust monsters, because the DM had plenty fun in trying to rust away our weapons and armor, and the wizard and archers/crossbowmen had plenty fun in doing away with them in other ways than straight hacking them with swords and axes. And what crazy tactics? If you meet a monster than rusts the fighter's sword with its first attack, you roll back to those weapons not made from iron and push the leather-clad folks in the foreground.
> I don't know what kind of rust monster is bandied about here, but none of them caused a TPK ever, and none traumatized any of my fellow players, or me, into not playing anymore? Why are today's newbies portrayed as so thin-skinned that they will give up D&D because a low-level beastie ate the fighter's sword?




But we're a self-selecting group.  None of the newbies who 'encountered a rust monster, got their equipment toasted by it, got TPK'd in the next room, and gave up because this game was stupid' bother to post on Enworld.  They just silently stopped playing.

We are not the only people that WotC makes D&D for.  Interpreting everything through the lens of our own personal experience is not good enough.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 15, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Countering a CR3 creature with a CR4 creature isn't a strong argument.




You claimed 3rd level characters shouldn't be facing challenges that can "flat-out destroy an item".  A CR4 creature is an appropriate challenge for a 3rd level party.


----------



## MarkB (Jul 16, 2006)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> Whaaaat?
> 
> A rust monster is going to, on a really good day, eat at the most two pieces of equipment, unless the players are so dense as to stand there and keep letting it get them. And all you have to do is wander down the hall until you find a pack of kobolds and snag their equipment, fer crying out loud. This idea that a rust monster is in any way a game breaker is just nuts.



For a fighter with a tight focus, 2 pieces of equipment could easily comprise the majority of his current character wealth. Most kobolds I've met aren't that rich.


----------



## mearls (Jul 16, 2006)

BluSponge said:
			
		

> Now as a hypothetical example, this article is a great demonstration of how R&D will monkey with something sent up from design!  It would probably have been less incendiary if you had used a completely new example, or perhaps a flumph.    But since R&D _is_ concerned with how people play the game, I don't see why you should be dismissive towards critics of your design philosophy.  They are part of your market too, after all, right?




Sorry, I should have been much clearer with that quote. I don't mind criticism of my work in the least. It's a big part of learning what people like. The entire point of the column is to generate discussion.

What I do mind is this sort of assumption that the changes have something to do with dumbing down D&D for 14 year olds. I've seen this repeated attitude that young players are too dumb or whiney. That bugs me, because in my experience stupidity and whinining are distributed across age categories. It bugs me even more because it seems like a convenient excuse for older gamers to hate on younger ones.


----------



## mearls (Jul 16, 2006)

hero4hire said:
			
		

> I am not going to add to the reasons to the pros and cons.
> 
> Simply put, revamping the Rust Monster to me in such a way as to have items "heal" would take away any coolness the creature ever had.
> 
> ...




I think you're right. Someone else wondered if people would react the same way if the monster was a new creation, and I think the answer is no.

There's a lot of talk in R&D about making monsters sticky. We think of it in terms of mind flayers, drow, and other "cool" monsters that show up a lot in campaigns.

I think the rust monster is a demonstration of another kind of stickiness: a rust monster has a big effect on the campaign and how you play the game. When you fight a rust monster, the game is radically different for at least one encounter. The redesign fumbles that away.

This entire thread has provided some very interesting food for thought.

I'll try to follow up when I can, but I'm busy tonight and tomorrow, plus I suspect I'll have a lot more work this week than last. Friday was (for a variety of reasons) an exceptionally slow day. Still, I'll read upon the thread when I can.

BTW, apologies again if anyone interpreted my snarkiness as resentment towards people who dislike the ideas I had. It was directed towards the resentment I saw towards the alleged attitude of younger players. I'm making prototypes here, so to speak - they're meant to get dirty.

EDIT: One other thing - I'm curious to see the reaction to the next two monsters I mess with. In both cases, they become significantly tougher at a lower or same CR. If anyone thinks I want to make D&D safer for PCs, I challenge you to play through The Three Faces of Evil from Dungeon magazine.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 16, 2006)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> But we're a self-selecting group.  None of the newbies who 'encountered a rust monster, got their equipment toasted by it, got TPK'd in the next room, and gave up because this game was stupid' bother to post on Enworld.  They just silently stopped playing.
> 
> We are not the only people that WotC makes D&D for.  Interpreting everything through the lens of our own personal experience is not good enough.




a) I have yet to see a player stop playing silently instead of stopping with a loud display of disgust and a tirade of why he thinks the game was dumb and silly.  

b) If I have to take a representative statistical sample every time before I post something on ENWorld, I guess I won't get more posts in for the next 2 years or so. Everybody here is posting from or interpreting through the lens of his/her own experience, and I doubt that is going to change soon (or at all  ). 

c) The same newbie would have stopped playing when his character gets killed and eaten by a carrion crawler (6-8 saves vs. paralyzation anybody?), dismembered by the ogre, or bloodsucked dry by a swarm of stirges. Some people think Monopoly bland or silly, too, and stop playing because they habitually land in jail. Still no reason to change it from "Go directly to jail, don't cross Start, don't get any cash" to "Go to jail, collect any cash you are due while crossing the playing field, and if you roll a 1 on 1d6, you're scott free".  

Whizybang, I agree with your suggestion of a few variant rust monsters...or simply new monsters with a comparable ability. If this suggestion had been a new monster, I wouldn't have given it a second thought, it was more about the direction some design decisions went in remaking it that drew my attention.

Mr Mearls, this was not meant as a criticism that you were trying to "dumb down D&D for young newbies", just so I'm not misunderstood. I actually welcome any attempt to simplify D&D as it is for new starting players of younger ages. But even then it's easier to go with "monster hits, rusts your sword and starts eating it" than "monster hits, puts your sword under a magical curse that weakens it with time until it can eat it, if you don't get it out of reach in time". Less bookkeeping and a more immediate effect create a more memorable impression of the threat a monster represents, in my opinion.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 16, 2006)

I have to admit, the Gray Ooze did flit through my mind.  Difficult to spot - practically impossible in many cased - a single hit followed by a grapple and you might lose your shirt quite literally.

Then again, how often do people use them?

IMO, a creature that is almost never used is not a well designed creature.  Who cares how groovy it is?  If it never sees the light of day, then it might as well not be there.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 16, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I have to admit, the Gray Ooze did flit through my mind.  Difficult to spot - practically impossible in many cased - a single hit followed by a grapple and you might lose your shirt quite literally.
> 
> Then again, how often do people use them?
> 
> IMO, a creature that is almost never used is not a well designed creature.  Who cares how groovy it is?  If it never sees the light of day, then it might as well not be there.




Last time I used it was in the second-to-last Iron Kingdoms adventure with my group, when they were clearing out the crypts beneath the church in Corvis. Was great fun when that innocent puddle suddenly attacked them. Although, I admit, it was the same game that saw me using the Face Sucker from the _Munchkin Monster Manual_ on the elven ranger/wizard. But that's another story, and shall be told another time.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jul 16, 2006)

BluSponge said:
			
		

> I'm always surprised at how people's first reaction is never to lift or educate, but to dumb down or blunt.




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.

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.

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.

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.

The bottom line is that is better game design.

So who needs educating?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 16, 2006)

I suppose that's what it comes down to.  Is an Aha Gotcha (tm) monster a good design or not.  The whole idea behind it is that it will be very sparingly used.  However, that means that you're taking up a spot in the Monster Manual for a creature you KNOW will only be used once or maybe twice in any given campaign.

Most campaigns are played at lower levels, if the anecdotal evidence is to be believed.  There are only so many low CR creatures in the Monster Manual.  Is it an example of good design to include such a monster among the limited space?  Shouldn't a well designed monster be available for use pretty much whenever the DM wishes?  An ogre is CR 3 as well.  I can chuck in ogres pretty much whenever I please and no one will bat an eye.

If I chuck in rust monsters as often as ogres, my players would get a trifle miffed I believe.  I know as a player, I'd be considering taking a monk in a campaign which featured hordes of rust monsters.   

There are a number of nuclear weapon style monsters out there.  Oozes, rust monsters, demi-liches, that sort of thing.  Monsters whose footprint lasts a long time.  Now, in the demi-lich case, that might be fine.  It depends.  But, again, you're not going to use more than one in an entire campaign in all likelyhood.

Maybe rust monsters, oozes and the like should go the way of green slime.  Traps instead of monsters.  Remove any attack from the rust monster, make it act as a trap to whack one or two items.  Since this is likely the effect of a standard rust monster, why go through the entire process of having the naked guy with a club beat it to death?

If a monster has effectively the same result as a trap, shouldn't it be a trap and not a monster?


----------



## Cam Banks (Jul 16, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> There's a lot of talk in R&D about making monsters sticky. We think of it in terms of mind flayers, drow, and other "cool" monsters that show up a lot in campaigns.




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


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 16, 2006)

I notice that a lot of "cool", sticky monsters also have surprisingly Rock/Paper/Scissors, All-or-Nothing, Party-Nuking abilities.

Mind flayers have Mind Blast and an instant death effect.

Rust monsters ('till recently) dissolved all of your equipment.

Githyanki can kill people in the Astral.

I will say that I would never use those abilities. But because they are XTREME, they stand out. They deviate radically from the norm, do their effects relatively simply, and leave players either unharmed or totally handicapped depending upon preparation and knowledge.

I wouldn't use 'em, but I'd never forget 'em.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jul 16, 2006)

KM -- it looks like the Beholder belongs on that list as well. _Disintegration, flesh to stone, finger of death_....


----------



## mhensley (Jul 16, 2006)

hong said:
			
		

> I had enough time to hold up the Wile E. Coyote "in gods name, what am I DOING?" sign before the acid rained down.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 16, 2006)

Good point, Kunimatyu.

I wonder if part of the reason people have such a love of them is because they are isntant death machines.

DM's love 'em because they scare players.
Players love 'em because they feel good when they get lucky.

They're some of the most overt DM vs. Player competition there is. And there's a lot of love for 'em, even though people keep saying they hate that kind of play. Those same spells and effects are the same things that make people on these very boards complain because they're anticlimactic and they can undo an enemy in just one blow.

At the same time, people seem to like undoing the players in just one blow, and like to get angry when it is suggested that this isn't very much fun.

Hmmm....


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 16, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I have to admit, the Gray Ooze did flit through my mind.  Difficult to spot - practically impossible in many cased - a single hit followed by a grapple and you might lose your shirt quite literally.
> 
> Then again, how often do people use them?
> 
> IMO, a creature that is almost never used is not a well designed creature.  Who cares how groovy it is?  If it never sees the light of day, then it might as well not be there.




I've used grey ooze to good effect, both as a hazard (one player lost a beloved magic axe to it) and as a great plot hook (the same player disposed of a cursed weapon that had been making his life miserable by tossing it at a different grey ooze later). These were both at 4th level, and the (now disarmed except for an old handaxe) player went out adventuring with renewed vigor to find himself a cool new weapon that he now likes much better than the old one.

In all cases, the "OMG it ate my equipment" encounter _enhanced_ the story and the game.

-The Gneech


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 16, 2006)

MarkB said:
			
		

> For a fighter with a tight focus, 2 pieces of equipment could easily comprise the majority of his current character wealth. Most kobolds I've met aren't that rich.




Then go on another adventure and replace it! Why is there so much resistance to this idea? That's the whole concept the game is built on -- kill monsters and take their stuff! Being at reduced effectiveness for a while is not the end of the friggin' world.

-The Gneech


----------



## rounser (Jul 16, 2006)

> Someone else wondered if people would react the same way if the monster was a new creation, and I think the answer is no.



The only problem with your design as I see it is that the flavour (a Monty Pythonesque result of "my sword rusted, but it got better") is being compromised for a design need, therefore you've sided with rules whilst compromising flavour.  

Most of my problems with 3E design stem from this; a lot of the monsters I don't like in the MM were obviously created to fulfil a rules need, and I find their flavour poor.  With bad flavour, a lot of what makes D&D cool disappears in a puff of smoke.

I think rusty would be fine if the design need was met without changing how oxidisation works; it's a bit too difficult to swallow.


----------



## Vanuslux (Jul 16, 2006)

I like rust monsters and I'm definitely not a DM vs. Player style gamer on either side of the DM screen.  Just because a lot of those style DMs use them doesn't mean that's the limit of their utility.  I like them because they rock the status quo.  Few things in the lower CRs makes the PCs wake up and smell the coffee like something annihilating their weapon.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jul 16, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The monster wan't nerfed. A single ability was. The monster is actually tougher than it was before. It forces a hard choice, because when the wizard goes up to wail on it, it's potent bite will mean he can't stay up there for long. And you better hope the rogue can climb and listen and spot, because otherwise, the thing is going to sneak up on you five minutes later and smack you around a bit, too.
> 
> The monster is a harder beast to defeat. However, it's not as likely to bring the game to a screeching halt. And that is WONDERFUL. That's why this new rust monster is going to see itself in my games tomorrow.



I like your analysis and your encounter desing ideas.  Do you have a newsletter I may subscribe to?


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jul 16, 2006)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> Being at reduced effectiveness for a while is not the end of the friggin' world.



But it is often the end of an adventurer's career.
I've been really distressed, as a player, at how 97% of the time I am unable to do anything less than maximum effectiveness and hope for victory.  I can't do something cool but ineffective, or intentionally take a penalty because my character doesn't yet consider it a worthy challenge, because doing so will result in character death within one round.  
There have been a number of fights where I had to apply metagame knowledge about monster abilities because not using this entirely out of character knowledge would have resulted in a total party kill.

As a player I find this frustrating because there are a large number of times when I'd rather have my character be stylish but I don't want him/her to die, and so I have to sacrifice fun style for boring maximum efficiency.
Sure, this is usually a fault of the encounter design.  Yes, I have had encounters where I could have been stylish and ineffective for several rounds and it wouldn't have altered the victorious outcome.  Oddly enough, I can't think of a single one of those encounters that I've had as a player where my characters would have wanted to be stylish.  The desire for style over efficiency shows up most, from an RP perspective, in those fights where I can least afford it.

As a GM, I applaud style and encourage my players to seek it.  It's more interesting and more fun when cool things are being done.  I often try and ad hoc rules so that not only is the action cool but it is also effective because my players enjoy having that combination in their characters and I enjoy using that combination with my special NPCs.


----------



## Uder (Jul 16, 2006)

Why not just get it over with and call it the Slight Tarnish Monster?


----------



## Henry (Jul 16, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> ...The monster is actually tougher than it was before. It forces a hard choice, because when the wizard goes up to wail on it, it's potent bite will mean he can't stay up there for long. And you better hope the rogue can climb and listen and spot, because otherwise, the thing is going to sneak up on you five minutes later and smack you around a bit, too.




Having read it, I have to disagree. With a poor AC and twenty-plus hit points, a first level barbarian would beat this thing to death by himself with his limped up -2 to -6 greatsword and not think twice about it, because the limped-up greatsword will come right back to normal in 10 minutes. The bite damage and attack bonus is not enough to deter him in the least. That doesn't strike me as a CR 3 challenge, much less a challenge at all. Even ability damage takes a day or so to heal without spells - this is like ability damage that never takes you below a 10 ability score, and goes away in 10 minutes.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 16, 2006)

> I like them because they rock the status quo. Few things in the lower CRs makes the PCs wake up and smell the coffee like something annihilating their weapon.




So you like them because they scare the players. Perhaps the whole "save or die" mechanic is fun. The whole D&D-style shock-and-awe.

In what way does the revised rust monster not still scare players? It's now "save or get damaged." Damaged doesn't have the finality of death, but it does introduce and enhance the fear of it, the creeping awareness that it's breathing down your back.

This creature, translated to a higher CR, might be something like a Death Monster. If you attack it, you get to make one save, or die. In higher-level D&D, death is no more a problem then destroyed equipment. I don't think I'd use the monster either way.

Part of me wonders also what the reaction would be if this "rust destruction" was a level 3 PC ability. What if my level 3 wizard could do a touch attack and destroy armor, and, at the same time, could have an effect where if a weapon hit him, the weapon was detroyed? Would that be balanced? Would the enemies send in their spellcasters to grapple him? I think I'd have a problem allowing such an effect into the game (especially if there was no limit on the times he could do it). 

All of the above issues make me think that people are getting too caught up in the WHAM-O factor to really understand that the majority of people play D&D to go on adventures, beat up things, take their stuff, save the day, and get the girl. People want to be challenged, and challenged well. 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."

Yes, rust monsters have their place, but I don't see how the revised rust monster doesn't still fit that place? It seems like people are not upset because it doesn't rust anymore, but upset because it doesn't do it instantly after one save to anything. 



> Having read it, I have to disagree. With a poor AC and twenty-plus hit points, a first level barbarian would beat this thing to death by himself with his limped up -2 to -6 greatsword and not think twice about it, because the limped-up greatsword will come right back to normal in 10 minutes. The bite damage and attack bonus is not enough to deter him in the least. That doesn't strike me as a CR 3 challenge, much less a challenge at all. Even ability damage takes a day or so to heal without spells - this is like ability damage that never takes you below a 10 ability score, and goes away in 10 minutes.




True but there's a few assumptions nestled in there. The barbarian won't nessecarily know his weapon will be back to normal in 10 minutes. And the barbarian wouldn't have much to fear from a rust monster in the first place, anyway ("fine, I put my axe away and take out my greatCLUB. Then I hit it 'till it stops wigglin'."). So the original rust monster isn't a challenge against a barbarian, and neither is this guy. They're equal in that respect.

It's more challenging, however, in a fighter-wizard/sorc scenario, when armor and (most likely) metal weapons are involved, and the next in line to beat the crap out of it has an STR of 8-12 and d4 or d6 for hit points. In which case the bite is still scary. And the ability to avoid detection and move on the walls is even scarier. 



> I like your analysis and your encounter desing ideas. Do you have a newsletter I may subscribe to?




Hehehe, thanks.  No newsletter, but I've got a little pet project going.


----------



## rounser (Jul 16, 2006)

Sunder has been discussed; what about making the rust monster's attack a sunder which only works on metal weapons?  The "rules philosophy" is happy with sunder, right?  That leaves other metal stuff out, though.


> Part of me wonders also what the reaction would be if this "rust destruction" was a level 3 PC ability. What if my level 3 wizard could do a touch attack and destroy armor, and, at the same time, could have an effect where if a weapon hit him, the weapon was detroyed? Would that be balanced?



You might need to take into account the following: There are design assumptions regarding the difference between a cameo involving a creature with a powerful ability like invisibility at will (like an NPC pixie) which lasts for one combat encounter perhaps before dying, and a PC with innate invisibility, which gets used _every_ combat encounter, all campaign long (or say at least once a day in the case of a spell or ability) and thus has a lot more effect on the game.  In other words, a monster's abilities aren't really to be judged in the same way as a PC's abilities.


----------



## Sejs (Jul 16, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> Sunder has been discussed; what about making the rust monster's attack a sunder which only works on metal weapons?  The "rules philosophy" is happy with sunder, right?  That leaves other metal stuff out, though.
> 
> You might need to take into account the following: There are design assumptions regarding the difference between a cameo involving a creature with a powerful ability like invisibility at will (like an NPC pixie) which lasts for one combat encounter perhaps before dying, and a PC with innate invisibility, which gets used _every_ combat encounter, and thus has a lot more effect on the game.  In other words, a monster's abilities aren't really to be judged in the same way as a PC's abilities.




What about, say, the ability to summon a celestial or fiendish rust monster via your average lv 2 or so spell?

Sure you're only getting old rusty for three rounds at a go, but that's still plenty long enough.


----------



## Vanuslux (Jul 16, 2006)

People who can't discuss things without being vitriolic towards those with a different point of view aren't worth having discussions with.


----------



## rounser (Jul 16, 2006)

> Sure you're only getting old rusty for three rounds at a go, but that's still plenty long enough.



To destroy a lot of potential treasure, yeah.  Same reason sunder doesn't show much popularity with PCs I guess.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Jul 16, 2006)

IMO, the reimagined rust monster offers a fix for a problem that doesn't exist, applying a rules band-aid where none is needed.  That seems to be a trend.  I'm one of those guys who thinks trusting DM's to have some judgment is a better approach than creating detailed rules for everything under the sun.  I know the standard response to that: "most DM's aren't good DMs," implying that the players need lots of rules to protect their PCs from bad DMing.  I don't have much to say to that, other than to point out a poor DM isn't going to get any better at judgment calls if he never gets to make any.  Personally, I don't like (or need) the hand holding, and my players don't need coddling or protection from me.  I like using my judgment, and I think it makes for a more fun game, all around.  Rules are great and necessary, but not ALL rules are necessary, or even a good idea.  

Ah well, this isn't anything that hasn't been endlessly thrashed out, debated, and ridiculed (from both points of view), before.  What can I say?  If it's working for you, run with it and have fun.  If it's grating on you, there're lots of other options.

*shrugs and goes back to working on an adventure for one of those other options*


----------



## rounser (Jul 16, 2006)

> IMO, the reimagined rust monster offers a fix a problem that doesn't exist, applying a rules band-aid where none is needed.



What about that ethereal filcher?  It steals something and buggers off to another plane.  Never liked that thing, lacks the aesthetic appeal of rusty.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Jul 16, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> What about that ethereal filcher?  It steals something and buggers off to another plane.  Never liked that thing, deus ex machinery and lacks the aesthetic appeal of rusty.



Never used one.  I don't like them, either.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 16, 2006)

I wonder if the medusa (or the Gorgon) is next on the list. It certainly fits the bill some brought up here...an instant petrification effect that, at the stated CR, is not easily remediable by the characters, and most certainly takes a character out of the adventure for the rest of the session, except if the group takes up with "hours" of backtracking to get to a wizard who can turn the character back to flesh. Might even take a few sessions, heh...  

Or the mummy? CR 3 in my book, and only needs one hit to force a DC 20 save on you or inflict you with mummy rot, which won't stop until your character is at 0 Constitution and turns into a mummy himself? And I've yet to see a 2nd or 3rd level character cast _Cure Disease_ by himself. So, another hours-long trek back to the village to get a character healed.

The chaos beast is CR 7, and can turn characters into slimy puddles of spongy goo....I'd say that's the higher form of the common rust monster, affecting characters instead of metal objects. And if your cleric doesn't happen to have _Restoration_ in his memorized list that day, you're history if you don't make a DC 15 save.

How about the sea hag? _Evil Eye_, save DC 11, 25% chance of instant death, 75% of 3 days of catatonia that can't be cured without magic from outside at the stated CR of 4 for one hag.

The CR 6 Nymph with her _Unearthly Beauty_ ability that forces a Will save DC 17 or slays you instantly.

Somehow I can't fathom how all those, and more, monsters can be tolerated in a game where "save or nasty long-term effect" seems to be the phobia #1.  

What I wonder is how a rust monster can be described as a campaign-wrecking monster that throws a group back for hours or sessions of game-play. If it really cost the fighter his +1 sword, that's too bad, but nothing that will turn him into a helpless bystander for the rest of the adventure, especially as most published (and plenty homebrewed) adventures will have another +1 weapon sitting around in the same dungeon he met the rust monster. For the most groups, it won't be more than that one weapon that gets lost...except if the characters are slow on their mental feet and simply stand around giggling in glee as the fighter is rusted down to nudeness.  And yeah, this monster will hurt weapon specialists that only run around and train with that one weapon more than the general fighter...which is bad why? Being a weapon specialist gives most characters plenty bonuses on fighting with that one weapon, and one of the few disadvantages those characters have IS when they lose their weapon and have no fast replacement in sight. Ergo, they make themselves more vulnerable to weapon loss in the first place, so they have the least reason to complain when that actually happens.


----------



## MerricB (Jul 16, 2006)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Jul 16, 2006)

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 (Jul 16, 2006)

MerricB said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 16, 2006)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 16, 2006)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 16, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 16, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> 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):



			
				monster manual said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 16, 2006)

> 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 (Jul 16, 2006)

MerricB said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 16, 2006)

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


----------



## NilesB (Jul 16, 2006)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> Okay, if I'm wearing +1 plate, see rust monsters, and know what they are, I *run*!
> 
> Man, I'm gettin' nitpicked to death today.
> 
> -The Gneech




It chases you down and eats your armor. You are move 20' and run at x3, it is move 40' and runs at x4. I see people advocating flight from dangerous encounters all the time without considering the monsters ability or likelyhood of chasing down the party. There is no point in fleeing if all it means is that the monster gets free whacks at you.

Quite often even at high level the rust monster wins initiative and gets your equipment before you can do anything at all.

The rust monster targets fighter types who are more than any other characters dependent on their equipment to contribute to the party.

To say nothing of what happens when a poor to mediocre DM thinks they have a good idea for an encounter with a rust monster...


----------



## BluSponge (Jul 16, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> 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.




Rust monsters don't force a save or die either.  And if you handle the encounter right, you'll come out without a scratch.  Rust monsters don't distinguish between a +2 sword and a metal spike.

(Oh, and coincidentally you are right, green slime doesn't force a saving throw.  In fact, it doesn't offer a save at all.  You either get it off (in 1 round sometimes) or hand over your character.  No save, no ressurection possible.)



> The usefulness of D&D to teach a lesson instead of be a game would have to be in a different thread...




WHOA THERE!  Hold on.  Before you go off half cocked, I never said this was to "teach the players a lesson."  Only that in any dangerous environment (like your average dungeon), the player that barges in without thinking is going to get smacked.  Don't turn this into a Dm vs. player issue when it isn't.



> 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.




But isn't that what makes the rust monster what it is?  Take that away, and you pretty much neuter the thing, which is what I've been saying all along.  Like green slime, where originally you had 1d4 rounds after contact to get it off or resign yourself to puddledom, rust monsters are impactful and "dangerous" because of what they can do.  If a cleric could whip up a +1 sword at a moment's notice, then the result remains the same as the redesign.  But you have to remember that magical weapons get a save (10% per plus) and that the creature doesn't distinguish between magical and mundane metal items.  So it is as likely to go after the fighter in full plate as a handful of nails.  A player can easily distract the creature for a round by tossing a regular dagger on the ground between him and it.

If there is no risk of loss in the game, where does the challenge lie?  Or is the only challenge DnD presents result in the loss of hit point or attribute scores?  With the redesign, the rust monster has gone from an "Oh crap!  Circle the wagons!" encounter to barely an annoyance.  And that may have been Mike's goal.  But I wouldn't hail it as the ten commandments of game design.



> 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?).




Not really.  It's an uncommon creature, which means players may well have heard rumors of them.  I mean, I've never encountered a brown recluse spider, but I know what they can do and have a vague idea what they look like and where they live.  Characters in a fantasy game should have access to the same base of knowledge of their natural (and supernatural) world.  And regardless, they will only be unprepared once.  Magic item have always gotten a save and the monster has never specifically targeted them, so I don't see what any of the fuss was about to begin with.  Hence, superfluous and unnecessary change.

Tom


----------



## BluSponge (Jul 16, 2006)

NilesB said:
			
		

> It chases you down and eats your armor. You are move 20' and run at x3, it is move 40' and runs at x4. I see people advocating flight from dangerous encounters all the time without considering the monsters ability or likelyhood of chasing down the party. There is no point in fleeing if all it means is that the monster gets free whacks at you.




And yet, if you drop a handful of nails, a dagger, or a crowbar in its path, it stops for a round to eat it.  That immediately buys you three rounds of running before it can catch up.



> Quite often even at high level the rust monster wins initiative and gets your equipment before you can do anything at all.




It's got a +3 initiative bonus.  At high level, the rogue is going to be all over that.

Also remember that rust monsters only smell metal when it comes within 9" (something the revised description omits, I've noticed).  They have no notice skill, and a fairly low Wis score.



> The rust monster targets fighter types who are more than any other characters dependent on their equipment to contribute to the party.




Target is a loaded term.  They don't "target" any one person over another, no more than a roach goes after your plate of food because you have a burrito and your friend has a salad.  They work their way down the line.  If that line has a few tastey morsels between it and the party, it's not smart enough to ignore those for the big armored guy.



> To say nothing of what happens when a poor to mediocre DM thinks they have a good idea for an encounter with a rust monster...




Who is this imaginary group of mediocre DMs you are referring to?  :\  I think you are just advocating your own game style over everyone elses.    

Tom


----------



## Knight Otu (Jul 16, 2006)

BluSponge said:
			
		

> Rust monsters don't force a save or die either.  And if you handle the encounter right, you'll come out without a scratch.  Rust monsters don't distinguish between a +2 sword and a metal spike.



Depends on the size of the spike. They always go for the biggest metal object.



> (Oh, and coincidentally you are right, green slime doesn't force a saving throw.  In fact, it doesn't offer a save at all.  You either get it off (in 1 round sometimes) or hand over your character.  No save, no ressurection possible.)



Where does it say that resurrection is impossible? Raise Dead, sure, but resurrection?


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *Green Slime (CR 4):* This dungeon peril is a dangerous variety of normal slime. Green slime devours flesh and organic materials on contact and is even capable of dissolving metal. Bright green, wet, and sticky, it clings to walls, floors, and ceilings in patches, reproducing as it consumes organic matter. It drops from walls and ceilings when it detects movement (and possible food) below.
> 
> A single 5-foot square of green slime deals 1d6 points of Constitution damage per round while it devours flesh. On the first round of contact, the slime can be scraped off a creature (most likely destroying the scraping device), but after that it must be frozen, burned, or cut away (dealing damage to the victim as well). Anything that deals cold or fire damage, sunlight, or a remove disease spell destroys a patch of green slime. Against wood or metal, green slime deals 2d6 points of damage per round, ignoring metal’s hardness but not that of wood. It does not harm stone.






> Also remember that rust monsters only smell metal when it comes within 9" (something the revised description omits, I've noticed). They have no notice skill, and a fairly low Wis score.



90 feet, slightly above-human Wisdom, scent ability.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> A rust monster can scent a metal object from up to 90 feet away. When it detects one, it dashes toward the source and attempts to strike it with its antennae. The creature is relentless, chasing characters over long distances if they still possess intact metal objects but usually ceasing its attacks to devour a freshly rusted meal.
> 
> The creature targets the largest metal object available, striking first at armor, then at shields and smaller items. It prefers ferrous metals (steel or iron) over precious metals (such as gold or silver) but will devour the latter if given the opportunity.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 16, 2006)

> Rust monsters don't force a save or die either. And if you handle the encounter right, you'll come out without a scratch. Rust monsters don't distinguish between a +2 sword and a metal spike.




It's not save-or-die, but it's roughtly the 3rd level equivalent and it brings the adventure to a halt just as effectively.



> (Oh, and coincidentally you are right, green slime doesn't force a saving throw. In fact, it doesn't offer a save at all. You either get it off (in 1 round sometimes) or hand over your character. No save, no ressurection possible.)






			
				the SRD said:
			
		

> A single 5-foot square of green slime deals 1d6 points of Constitution damage per round while it devours flesh. On the first round of contact, the slime can be scraped off a creature (most likely destroying the scraping device), but after that it must be frozen, burned, or cut away (dealing damage to the victim as well). Anything that deals cold or fire damage, sunlight, or a remove disease spell destroys a patch of green slime. Against wood or metal, green slime deals 2d6 points of damage per round, ignoring metal’s hardness but not that of wood. It does not harm stone.




No, green slime does not instantly kill you, it deals Con damage. Which looks like you'll last at least the first round most of the time (I guess your odds aren't good if your CON is 3, but a CON of 3 is definately an exceptionally abberant score). And it's CR 4. 



> Only that in any dangerous environment (like your average dungeon), the player that barges in without thinking is going to get smacked. Don't turn this into a Dm vs. player issue when it isn't.




Maybe I'm mis-reading things, but this sounds like "Do things smart or I will punish you." Which isn't nessecarily DM-vs.-player (some players like being punished), but it's definately in the realm of "teaching them a lesson" about not being so reckless.



> But isn't that what makes the rust monster what it is?




A game-stopper? No, to me, it's a chance for the non-heavily-armored, blunt-weapon-trauma characters to shine. The barbarian, the monk, even a clever enough rogue. And the new version preserves that. If one of the nessecary components for a rust monster is that it draw the game to a screeching halt, I submit that it's a fundamentally bad monster because there should be things that facilitate the enjoyment of D&D (one of the most basic of which is overcoming challenges to get phloot), not things that STOP the enjoyment of D&D.

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.



> If there is no risk of loss in the game, where does the challenge lie? Or is the only challenge DnD presents result in the loss of hit point or attribute scores? With the redesign, the rust monster has gone from an "Oh crap! Circle the wagons!" encounter to barely an annoyance. And that may have been Mike's goal. But I wouldn't hail it as the ten commandments of game design.




You don't see anyone else hailing it, either. It still has some flaws (the 10 minute heal, the descision not to use existing weapon damage rules, and, as you point out, the impermenance). But the rust monster, as written, isn't the risk of loss, it's virtually the guarantee of loss. That's not a challenge, it's just a huge headache. 



> Not really. It's an uncommon creature, which means players may well have heard rumors of them. I mean, I've never encountered a brown recluse spider, but I know what they can do and have a vague idea what they look like and where they live. Characters in a fantasy game should have access to the same base of knowledge of their natural (and supernatural) world. And regardless, they will only be unprepared once. Magic item have always gotten a save and the monster has never specifically targeted them, so I don't see what any of the fuss was about to begin with. Hence, superfluous and unnecessary change.




But this is a descision that varies depending on the campaign. A standard D&D campaign may know of adventurers, but what if we're cleaving more closely to history and having the horrible monsters be rare and special and unknown? That's using flavor to balance mechanics, and it doesn't work because the flavor depends on the campaign and DM. 

Being unprepared once is enough to leave a bad taste in your mouth forever, and, depending on what is fun about D&D for you, enough to ruin your fun for that night and for a long time to come ("Yeah, I'd be able to afford this passage accross the styx at level 60.....IF YOU HADN'T MADE ME PAY FOR A REPLACEMENT +1 GREATSWORD AT LEVEL 3!"). And when, in the future, they ARE prepared, they barely earn their XP award for overcoming that challenge (toss some nails at it and then poke it's face in).

So there's the problem of universality. You can't say what the monster will behave like and what the adventurers will know in every campaign. There's the problem of all-or-nothing, where either the creature draws everything to a sudden stop because of the devestation it wroughts, or the creature is almost not worth the effort to consider an encounter. Solving the all-or-nothing solves also the problem of universality, because when it's less of a binary mosnter, it's easier for it to fit a variety of roles.


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 16, 2006)

ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> But it is often the end of an adventurer's career.




Only if you let it be. See also my player's gray-ooze-eaten dwarven waraxe mentioned earlier.

To use a literary example, did Frodo and Sam say "Screw Mt. Doom, I'm going home!" when Sting was wrapped up in Shelob's webs? How heroic is somebody who just gives up the moment they encounter a temporary setback?



			
				ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> I've been really distressed, as a player, at how 97% of the time I am unable to do anything less than maximum effectiveness and hope for victory.  I can't do something cool but ineffective, or intentionally take a penalty because my character doesn't yet consider it a worthy challenge, because doing so will result in character death within one round.  There have been a number of fights where I had to apply metagame knowledge about monster abilities because not using this entirely out of character knowledge would have resulted in a total party kill.




In that case, your DM is not running baseline _D&D_ and you might want to discuss this with them.

The "normal" encounter should be a bit of a challenge but winnable; that's what CR is intended to measure. Thus, a party of four 3rd-level characters encountering a single rust monster will probably beat it, but expend about 25% of their resources in doing so -- which may very well be the fighter's sword. Or a pile of silver dumped out across the floor. Or a bag of caltrops.

-The Gneech


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 16, 2006)

> Only if you let it be. See also my player's gray-ooze-eaten dwarven waraxe mentioned earlier.
> 
> To use a literary example, did Frodo and Sam say "Screw Mt. Doom, I'm going home!" when Sting was wrapped up in Shelob's webs? How heroic is somebody who just gives up the moment they encounter a temporary setback?




The analogy doesn't really fly for a few reasons. One of the major ones is that Sting is just out of reach, not destroyed. Steal a mage's spellbook and it can be a challenge. Burn a mage's spellbook and now you're just using WHAM-O tactics.

The other one is that Sting was not the main hinge of the adventure or of the characters, but merely a useful tool. If there were things that Sting could do that nothing else could, it would be a lot more cruel for it to be dangled just out of reach. Sting was valuable, but disposable. Much of the time, in D&D, adventurer's equipment is NOT disposable. Because your enjoyment of reading Lord of the Rings doesn't depend on Sting, it's a challenge, not a cruelty. A large portion of the enjoyment of D&D depends on the awesome stuff you get. Once you have a critter that just exists to deprive you of that stuff, you're working at cross-purposes to the enjoyment of the game.

Now, if the critter just had a CHANCE to deprive you of that stuff, or could deprive you of that stuff eventually, it becomes more of a challenge, less of a simple cruelty.


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 16, 2006)

NilesB said:
			
		

> It chases you down and eats your armor. You are move 20' and run at x3, it is move 40' and runs at x4. I see people advocating flight from dangerous encounters all the time without considering the monsters ability or likelyhood of chasing down the party. There is no point in fleeing if all it means is that the monster gets free whacks at you.




Not if the wizard, monk, or druid jump in the way to cover me. This _is_ a team effort, after all.

(Actually, when I'm a player, I'm usually the one in leather and armed with a bow who jumps in front of the rust monster so the fighter can get away. The only times we've had equipment go up in smoke is when the fighter knew the risk and decided to go hammer on the beastie anyway -- in which case I say they're bringing it on themselves.)



			
				NilesB said:
			
		

> Quite often even at high level the rust monster wins initiative and gets your equipment before you can do anything at all.




I have never seen this happen, nor to be honest have I heard of it happening either. What leads you to make this statement? And again, at high level, the average encounter nets you a big pile of treasure anyway; a little bit of extra-careful play while your equipment is sub-par will quickly solve the problem.

Honestly, I'd never in a million years have thought of myself as "hard core" ... but after this thread I feel like I could take on the _Tomb of Horrors_ with confidence, if my baseline of what you suck up and go on is so much higher than normal.   

-The Gneech


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 16, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> 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.




Hyperbole much?  

Sorry, KM, but by now I really wonder what kind of rust monster encounters you had in your past to make such statements. Care to elucidate a little on that statement? Since when is there no other way to recover from a lost sword than to run back to town? And since when does a lost sword mean the adventure is over? What kind of player stands up after he loses his weapon, armor or shield and drops out of the adventure? What fighter/cleric/ranger/paladin is so totally useless that he quits the adventure because he lost his sword/mace/shield/armor because he cannot do anything without it?


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 16, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The analogy doesn't really fly for a few reasons. One of the major ones is that Sting is just out of reach, not destroyed. Steal a mage's spellbook and it can be a challenge. Burn a mage's spellbook and now you're just using WHAM-O tactics.




Okay: Mithril shirt, taken away in Cirith Ungol and never returned.

"Sorry, Sam, I quit. Without my shiny armor, I'm pointless now. Let's go home."

-The Gneech


----------



## BluSponge (Jul 16, 2006)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> Depends on the size of the spike. They always go for the biggest metal object.




Which edition is that in?



> Where does it say that resurrection is impossible? Raise Dead, sure, but resurrection?






			
				monster manual said:
			
		

> Green slime will attach itself to living flesh, and in 1-4 melee rounds thereafter turn the creature into green slime (no ressurection possible).




Granted, this has probably been changed too by now.  But my 3e books are packed away.



> 90 feet, slightly above-human Wisdom, scent ability.




Ah!  My bad.  I haven't gotten used to WotC's new statblock scheme.    They also have darkvision (which makes sense, but has also been tacked on over the years).  I'm starting to wonder if the rust monster isn't suffering from _too many cooks syndrome_.

Tom


----------



## Knight Otu (Jul 16, 2006)

BluSponge said:
			
		

> Which edition is that in?



3rd Edition. It's also in the SRD (I only have a 3.0 MM to check, but the SRD is 3.5). I've also got my AD&D books somewhere, but I'm too lazy to dig them out and check.



> Granted, this has probably been changed too by now.  But my 3e books are packed away.



The SRD is your friend (unless you cannot access it, such as from work).  



> Ah!  My bad.  I haven't gotten used to WotC's new statblock scheme.    They also have darkvision (which makes sense, but has also been tacked on over the years).  I'm starting to wonder if the rust monster isn't suffering from _too many cooks syndrome_.



Might be. Darkvision definitely makes sense, though it is likely an addition from the aberration type.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jul 16, 2006)

OK, I take it back. The MM does say everything I quoted above, but also mentions the possibilty to distract the rust monster by "tossing it some metal objects."

Now the question is, what takes precedence? It being a relentless hunter that goes after the biggest morsel, or a hunter that relents for a few scraps?


----------



## buzz (Jul 16, 2006)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> Okay: Mithril shirt, taken away in Cirith Ungol and never returned.
> 
> "Sorry, Sam, I quit. Without my shiny armor, I'm pointless now. Let's go home."



If Tolkein's work actually adhered to the D&D 3.x ruleset, there might be a point to this analogy.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 16, 2006)

> Sorry, KM, but by now I really wonder what kind of rust monster encounters you had in your past to make such statements. Care to elucidate a little on that statement? Since when is there no other way to recover from a lost sword than to run back to town? And since when does a lost sword mean the adventure is over? What kind of player stands up after he loses his weapon, armor or shield and drops out of the adventure? What fighter/cleric/ranger/paladin is so totally useless that he quits the adventure because he lost his sword/mace/shield/armor because he cannot do anything without it?




"I strike at the vile beast with the great axe of my dwarven fathers, soaked in the blood of a thousand orcs!"
"Reflex save"
"Uh....I'm a fighter so....12"
"It dissolves into pitted rust as it strikes the creature's carapace."
"It....what? My ancestral axe? It doesn't deal damage or attempt to sunder or..."
"It dissolves. That's what the reflex save was for."
"Oh. Well, that sucks, and you suck for using it. You suck long and hard."
"It'll be an interesting character challenge."
"No, an interesting character challenge would have been soaking it in the blood of a thousand MORE orcs, not watching a cockamaroach eat it. You suck."

OR

"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!"
"Reflex save"
"Uh...I'm a fighter, so.....15"
"It dissolves into pitted rust as it strikes the creature's carapace."
"But....it's forged of a meteor!"
"It dissolves."
"You son of a.....how long is it going to take me to get this back?!"
"Well, you'll need to find another one of those exceptionally rare meteors, another master gnomish smith...and the gnomes are extinct now."
"Screw you!"
"Trust me, there's repayment in the treasure."
"Yes, but I DREW my character with the meteor-sword, all gray-green and savage. It was COOL."
"Less complaining, more rolling dice!"
"Yeah, I think I have to work next weekend....not that I'll be missing more than you killing us now that you're going to eat all our equipment."

OR

"It touches your armor with it's antennae, and the ornate suit collapses into fine red particles."
"I just GOT that suit!"
"...and?"
"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!"
"And now it's rust."
"Screw you!"
"Not my call, man, that's the way they work."
"I break it's effin' neck."
"It dies without complaint."
"Wait, that was it?"
"Yes."
"So you're telling me, the entire purpose of that encounter, with it's 3 points of damage and piddly hp critter, was to destroy my armor that I had saved since level 1 to get?"
"Uhm...I guess that's how it worked out, eh?"
"Why the hell did you let me get it if you were just going to take it away?"
"The dice just fell..."
"BS, you knew that thing was going to HIT the party TANK. What's your problem?"
"What if this treasure has a new one?"
"I didn't WORK for this one. Jackarse."

OR

"FINALLY. Now that it's dead, we need to head into town and get our stuff back."
"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."
"But what if she's executed?"
"Whatever's going to execute her could do the same thing to us. Three times to me with my AC."
"You may fail your mission!"
"Well, sometimes the bad guys win. I'm not facing that legendary orc warlord in my underpants with my bare fists. Besides, the old codger's only paying us 800 GP anyway. We should charge him for these expenses."
"He can't afford that!"
"He should've thought about that before signing our contract. Anyway, we head back into town and re-fuel for free."
"Actually, you can't even do that, the GP limit of this town is only 200 GP."
"So we can't buy new weapons and armor? Can we make some? From your bones?"
"Maybe you'd prefer to DM?"
"Nah, screw this. Life's to short to argue about imaginary armor. I'ma go play some WoW now."

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


----------



## BluSponge (Jul 16, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm mis-reading things, but this sounds like "Do things smart or I will punish you." Which isn't nessecarily DM-vs.-player (some players like being punished), but it's definately in the realm of "teaching them a lesson" about not being so reckless.




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.



> A game-stopper? No, to me, it's a chance for the non-heavily-armored, blunt-weapon-trauma characters to shine. The barbarian, the monk, even a clever enough rogue. And the new version preserves that. If one of the nessecary components for a rust monster is that it draw the game to a screeching halt, I submit that it's a fundamentally bad monster because there should be things that facilitate the enjoyment of D&D (one of the most basic of which is overcoming challenges to get phloot), not things that STOP the enjoyment of D&D.




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. 



> 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.




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.



> You don't see anyone else hailing it, either. It still has some flaws (the 10 minute heal, the descision not to use existing weapon damage rules, and, as you point out, the impermenance). But the rust monster, as written, isn't the risk of loss, it's virtually the guarantee of loss. That's not a challenge, it's just a huge headache.




But it ISN'T a gauranteed loss. 



> But this is a descision that varies depending on the campaign. A standard D&D campaign may know of adventurers, but what if we're cleaving more closely to history and having the horrible monsters be rare and special and unknown? That's using flavor to balance mechanics, and it doesn't work because the flavor depends on the campaign and DM.




Everything depends on the campaign and the DM.  But what we have here is game design based on the lowest common denominator.  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. 



> Being unprepared once is enough to leave a bad taste in your mouth forever, and, depending on what is fun about D&D for you, enough to ruin your fun for that night and for a long time to come ("Yeah, I'd be able to afford this passage accross the styx at level 60.....IF YOU HADN'T MADE ME PAY FOR A REPLACEMENT +1 GREATSWORD AT LEVEL 3!"). And when, in the future, they ARE prepared, they barely earn their XP award for overcoming that challenge (toss some nails at it and then poke it's face in).




::sigh::  I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree then.  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.  And if this party hadn't had to cough up for that raise dead spell, they would have been able to afford passage across the River Styx, too! And I could also argue that the experience reward includes keeping that same +1 greatsword the second time you run into the little critters.  What's the CR of a 10" deep pit?



> So there's the problem of universality. You can't say what the monster will behave like and what the adventurers will know in every campaign. There's the problem of all-or-nothing, where either the creature draws everything to a sudden stop because of the devestation it wroughts, or the creature is almost not worth the effort to consider an encounter. Solving the all-or-nothing solves also the problem of universality, because when it's less of a binary mosnter, it's easier for it to fit a variety of roles.




It's not a problem of universality, its a problem of getting the critter to fit into a narrowly quantified challenge rating system.  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.  

Some critters should bend the rules a little.  It keeps life interesting.  This goes for the rust monster and plenty of others.

Tom


----------



## BluSponge (Jul 16, 2006)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> 3rd Edition. It's also in the SRD (I only have a 3.0 MM to check, but the SRD is 3.5). I've also got my AD&D books somewhere, but I'm too lazy to dig them out and check.




Yeah, I went and dug it up for just that reason.  No point in making arguments about 3rd edition material with the first edition MM.  However, in this case, it sounds to me as though this was an addition Skip Williams made for flavor.  Easy enough to remove.  BAM-O!!!  Problem solved with no need to redesign the rust monster.

It could have slipped in during 2nd ed.  But there is no mention of it going after the largest piece of metal in 1st ed certainly.



> OK, I take it back. The MM does say everything I quoted above, but also mentions the possibilty to distract the rust monster by "tossing it some metal objects."
> 
> Now the question is, what takes precedence? It being a relentless hunter that goes after the biggest morsel, or a hunter that relents for a few scraps?




Seems likely the solution is to track down Skip and beat him about the head and shoulders with a dead trout.    Or, when in doubt, blame the WotC R&D department!  

Tom


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 16, 2006)

buzz said:
			
		

> If Tolkein's work actually adhered to the D&D 3.x ruleset, there might be a point to this analogy.




Please.

I could have said the same thing of Conan (who loses *all* of his equipment on a regular basis, sometimes two or three times per adventure) or Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser (whose equipment is never important except as fluff) or any number of other examples.

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

-The Gneech


----------



## painandgreed (Jul 16, 2006)

My main problem is the design philosophy that seems to be behind it which I see as the main problem with D&D currently. People are designing to the CR rather than using a CR as a tool to judge how powerful a certain creature is. Everything is being designed to a medium bland flavor where the only thing that matters is the CR, and all CRs pretty much have the same effect on the party. Personally, I think this makes for a lackluster game and poor DMs and players.

Part of it is me being an old grognard. I like my old 1E monsters the way they were. "Stop destroying my childhood Mr Lucas!" If you really want to change the system that much, then just create a brand new monster and see which one people use. Not too many people really complain about having more monsters. You can call it a Psuedo-rust monster, or perhaps just make it a different type of rust monster such as a "wester purple spotted rust monster", but while the old stuff may need to be converted to the new system, it doesn't need to have 3E crappy design philosophies imposed on it.


----------



## BluSponge (Jul 16, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

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




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

Now anyone else want to pipe up with tales where their players actually encountered a rust monster?  How did they respond?  I know there are at least a few of you out there.  

Tom


----------



## Ranes (Jul 16, 2006)

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 (Jul 16, 2006)

> 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 (Jul 16, 2006)

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




			
				KamikazeMidget said:
			
		

> "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.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> "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.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> "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. 



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> "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. 



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 16, 2006)

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 (Jul 16, 2006)

> 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 (Jul 16, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

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




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


----------



## buzz (Jul 16, 2006)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 16, 2006)

buzz said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 16, 2006)

Ranes said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 16, 2006)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> 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...


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 16, 2006)

BluSponge said:
			
		

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




Actually, that would be a pretty neat scenario hook, and I'm gonna yoink it!

Leather armor and fire-sharpened spears, trained by feeding them railroad spikes as treats ... yeah, that's cool!

You definitely want to warn the players what they're going up against beforehand in that case. Maybe they've been raiding villages, and the villagers call for help.

Thanks, BluSponge!

-The Gneech


----------



## Knight Otu (Jul 16, 2006)

BluSponge said:
			
		

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



Nah, I'd use the new, sneaky version (well, with permanent, repairable damage). That cancels out any possible meanness.  



> 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...



Don't forget to have the kobolds dangle metal carrots just out of reach of the antennae.


----------



## BluSponge (Jul 16, 2006)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> Leather armor and fire-sharpened spears, trained by feeding them railroad spikes as treats ... yeah, that's cool!




Kinda puts a whole new spin on the whole "carrot and the stick" thing, eh?  EDIT: Damn!  Knight Otu beat me to it.



> You definitely want to warn the players what they're going up against beforehand in that case. Maybe they've been raiding villages, and the villagers call for help.




The dwarves are up in arms!  The kobolds' mounts have devoured the famed statue of the dwarfish overlord, leading to plummeting morale and troops abandoning their posts.  The vault of ancestral weapons is under heavy guard, and the dwarves just can't figure out why the gold baited traps aren't working.  After all...IT'S GOLD!    



> Thanks, BluSponge!




Have fun.  Give my best to your players.  

Tom


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 16, 2006)

BluSponge said:
			
		

> What could happen and what actually do rarely have any similarity.  Then again, your anecdotal evidence seems to support the stupid whiny player theory.
> 
> Now anyone else want to pipe up with tales where their players actually encountered a rust monster?  How did they respond?  I know there are at least a few of you out there.
> 
> Tom




Just one...the most fun one, actually. Was with a group of mid-to-high level characters. One of them had been transformed in a way earlier adventure from a dwarf into an iron statue in the form of a minotaur. At some point, they met a friendly halfling druid who invited them into his home. What he forgot to mention was that he had a rust monster mom around his home, together with a bunch of pups. They immediately came running out to greet him, smelled the iron statue, and commenced to chase the character around the place, until he found a tree sturdy enough to actually climb it and wait them out. In due course, the talk was moved to the base of the tree, and everybody had plenty fun, the player of the iron statue involved.


----------



## MarkB (Jul 16, 2006)

BluSponge said:
			
		

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



My own encounter with rust monsters was in a 12th-level game, in which the DM sicced two fiendish rust monsters on us in the basement of one of the BBEGs' front operations. We knew what they were, I think the party wizard even made his Knowledge check in-character, but there was no room to manouever. Before we could nail them both, they'd eaten my cleric's enchanted dwarven full plate, and the paladin's holy avenger.

Fortunately, the DM wasn't being totally cruel - this was _in_ one of the largest metropolitan areas in the setting, with major temples to both our characters' deities, so we had some resources to call upon for replacement equipment - which didn't stop it making a major dent in our finances, and more specifically stopped us dead in our exploration of that building (as in "okay, wizard, teleport us the hells out of here before some more come along!").

Just as well we stopped, too - the two rust monsters had come through the same portal that the guy we were tracking left via. When we scryed on the destination, the DM's description was "You see a very large room. The area you're looking at is illuminated out to 30 feet, and you see a large number of rust monsters with glowing red eyes. Further back, beyond the light, more identical sets of eyes can be seen glowing as far back as you can see."

Actually, I don't think we ever did visit there, not even after I bought a set of dragonhide full plate, and the paladin and I both bought gauntlets of rust.


----------



## stevelabny (Jul 16, 2006)

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.  You made the decision to not have back up weapons or armor. You lost initiative or foolishly entered combat with a creature you know absolutely nothing about. You didn't buff your AC enough to avoid being hit. THEN after all these other things you failed a save. That roll doesnt exist in a vacuum.

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.


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 16, 2006)

MarkB said:
			
		

> My own encounter with rust monsters was in a 12th-level game, in which the DM sicced two fiendish rust monsters on us in the basement of one of the BBEGs' front operations. We knew what they were, I think the party wizard even made his Knowledge check in-character, but there was no room to manouever. Before we could nail them both, they'd eaten my cleric's enchanted dwarven full plate, and the paladin's holy avenger.
> 
> Fortunately, the DM wasn't being totally cruel - this was _in_ one of the largest metropolitan areas in the setting, with major temples to both our characters' deities, so we had some resources to call upon for replacement equipment - which didn't stop it making a major dent in our finances, and more specifically stopped us dead in our exploration of that building (as in "okay, wizard, teleport us the hells out of here before some more come along!").
> 
> ...




That sounds to me like the DM saying "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!"

My own experiences with rust monsters were long ago (like two editions ago), but conceptually they were much the same. We did the classic "Ranger in leather and wizard go get 'em, fighter flee to the back shrieking like a cheerleader all the way!" approach and bashed on it until it got frustrated and fled.

I've already related the basics of my gray ooze stories, tho, which are very similar creatures in many ways. Of course, the gray ooze has a movement of 10' IIRC ... the easiest way to defeat is to simply walk away!

-The Gneech


----------



## buzz (Jul 16, 2006)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

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



But they don't have plot immunity.

Frodo losing his chain shirt doesn't matter, because we know that Tolkein has plans for him beyond that event. A D&D PC has no such story importance; losing that shirt in a context where they can't just go back to town and get a new one has game impact. It could very well mean that their likelihood of dying dramatically increases, and dying means the player has to sit on their hands until in-game events (resurrection, a new PC) allow them to get back in the game.

Ergo, it's entirely valid to be concerned about the play effects of the rust monster. Far more so than whether they would make sense within the context of a novel. D&D is (and has always been) a game, and we can't forget that.

This doesn't mean that PCs get coddled. It just means that, as a developer, Mearls has to give thought to this sort of issue.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 17, 2006)

buzz said:
			
		

> It could very well mean that their likelihood of dying dramatically increases, and dying means the player has to sit on their hands until in-game events (resurrection, a new PC) allow them to get back in the game.
> 
> Ergo, it's entirely valid to be concerned about the play effects of the rust monster.




I just don't get that connection.  A 3rd level PC has a lot better chance of dying against a CR3 Ogre than a CR3 Rust Monster.  So if the problem is "rust monsters increase the chance of my PC dying later on" then why isn't every CR3 creature that's tougher than a rust monster undergoing revision because "monster _X_ increases the chances of my PC dying right now?".  At least with the rust monster, the danger is something that's in the future and therefore something that the PC (or player) can compensate for and plan around.

If we're talking draining PCs resources, the same thing stands.  Isn't purchasing the casting of a _Raise Dead_ spell costing the PC way more than a new +1 sword?

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"?


----------



## Klaus (Jul 17, 2006)

The problem with a CR 3 Ogre is that the player gets to DO stuff to prevent their death. But for the CR 3 Rust Monster, barring metagame knowledge (and my players over the past 15 years wouldn't have any, because I've never used a rust monster for precisely the reasons the article was written), they get no warning. One touch from a rust monster and the weapon or armor is kaput.

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".


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jul 17, 2006)

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, 







			
				KM said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Klaus said:
			
		

> 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?
> 
> ...


----------



## MarkB (Jul 17, 2006)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 17, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 17, 2006)

MarkB said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 17, 2006)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 17, 2006)

MarkB said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				MarkB said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 17, 2006)

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 (Jul 17, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 17, 2006)

> 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 (Jul 17, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Soel (Jul 17, 2006)

Somewhat realted to this thread....

A couple of sessions ago, my players ran afoul of some Metallivore Grick. (template from Book of Templates 3.5 that eats metal as does a rust monster, except it has a breath weapon that affects metal items.) On the pc's approach, I had one of the gricks breathe a "warning" blast onto the metal floor, basically to display their capabilties, and also to try and convey that the gricks were more afraid of them than otherwise.

The pcs still advanced, and one of them found out, the hard way, that he should've left well enough alone. He only lost his armor. I didn't get any complaints out of character. He was still effective for the rest of the adventure.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 17, 2006)

Apologies if this particular concept has been mentioned somewhere between pages 2 and 8, because I've not read the entire thread.

But if *I* were going to redesign the rust monster, I'd make one very simple change to it.

It only affects non-magical metal.

At CR3 the party would probably have very little in the way of magical armour and weapons, but they would have some - the destruction of nonmagical armour and weapons is a costly setback, but OK. It also means that the CR3 rust monster basically is no threat to a 10th level party (which is as it should be).

If it is designed to be a low-level threat, make it a low level threat. That would be my Occams Razor solution.

(plus it gives the rat-bastard DMs the opportunity to team up a rust monster with targetted dispel magics to bring back fear to cocky high level adventurers )


----------



## Belen (Jul 17, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Apologies if this particular concept has been mentioned somewhere between pages 2 and 8, because I've not read the entire thread.
> 
> But if *I* were going to redesign the rust monster, I'd make one very simple change to it.
> 
> ...





Now that is an excellent suggestion and something that feels right.  A magical blade is immune to a natural ability because it is an unnatural weapon.


----------



## BlueBlackRed (Jul 17, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> But if *I* were going to redesign the rust monster, I'd make one very simple change to it.
> 
> It only affects non-magical metal.



This is the best alternate option I've seen yet.
It allows you to create larger versions of the rust monster without having to worry much about sucking too much gp-value from the party's coffers.

Also, if everyone is so worried about the party's resources being seriously hurt by a rust monsters, then change their treasure listing from "none" to 200% gems.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 17, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Apologies if this particular concept has been mentioned somewhere between pages 2 and 8, because I've not read the entire thread.
> 
> But if *I* were going to redesign the rust monster, I'd make one very simple change to it.
> 
> ...





Or simply recycle the Basic D&D rust monster, which doesn't rust metal things that hit it, but only those it hits, which steals plusses from enchanted stuff if they don't make their "saving throw" (10% per plus back then) to avoid the effect. Change the Reflex save to a Fortitude save (it's about transformation effets after all) and grant enchanted stuff a +2 bonus per +1 of magical bonus to the saving throw, and reduce the save DC from 20 (slightly overblown anyway) to 15. If the save is failed, the enchanted thingie loses one +1 bonus, if it's made, it suffers no ill effects whatsoever.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Jul 17, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> But if *I* were going to redesign the rust monster, I'd make one very simple change to it.
> 
> It only affects non-magical metal.




That I like.  The monster should still have a Sidebar of Warning since my main problem with the critter is the lack of a warning shot.  The ogre is itself the warning shot.  The big bug isn't and the city guard that got sent with the adventurerers by his captain is very unlikely to have odd knowledge skills.

The DM is going to have to know that (assuming the Rust Monster isn't the 'big bad' of the session) the final encounter of the session may swing wildly if the Rust Monster encounter... doesn't go well for the PCs.  They may have all metal weapons and metal armor can easily be heavy and/or expensive to have many backups carried with you.

I'm not that concerned about the player that complains about the standard long sword that was bought at the last town.  I'm not worried about the player that complains because they don't have a backup weapon.  

I will be the player that complains about having lost the weapon that was attached to the Ancestral Relic feat, the devine relic attached to the True Believer feat or the Kensai that just lost the weapon the entire PrC is based around and I will speak the DM if my Item Familar goes *poof*.  I put feats and class abilities into those items and lost them without a warning shot.  There are lot more class featers/abilities ties to weapons in 3.X than there were in earlier additions.

Before I get called a coddled player - My first choice would actually be hp damage on the weapon and even giving the critter Improved Disarm.  Still keep the finality of the item's fate but still give the PC the chance to 'not use the good stuff' for this encounter.  You can bet I will be beating on the critter with my non-Improved Unarmed Strike fists if it came to that to... not save my weapon but save my Ancestral Relic.



			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> (plus it gives the rat-bastard DMs the opportunity to team up a rust monster with targetted dispel magics to bring back fear to cocky high level adventurers )




Ouch.  That I do like.  By the time the party gets to that level and encounter in the session the group will likely recognise the critters (I am assuming that a few stray Rust Monsters will have been run into in that adventure here).  That will be the critter's warning shot.


----------



## BluSponge (Jul 17, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> But if *I* were going to redesign the rust monster, I'd make one very simple change to it.
> 
> It only affects non-magical metal.




Eh.  This change still misses the point, and fundamentally changes the nature of the encounter.  In fact, I'd go as far as to say if Mike's redesign is "guilty of coddling whiny players," this version is doubly so.  It means there will come a time when rust monsters are no threat at all.  The fighter just hands the rogue his +1 sword and *poof*.  The party doesn't really have to change tactics at all.  It's just another monster to be killed with the standard roll init, roll to hit formula.  ::YAWN::



			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Or simply recycle the Basic D&D rust monster, which doesn't rust metal things that hit it, but only those it hits, which steals plusses from enchanted stuff if they don't make their "saving throw" (10% per plus back then) to avoid the effect. Change the Reflex save to a Fortitude save (it's about transformation effets after all) and grant enchanted stuff a +2 bonus per +1 of magical bonus to the saving throw, and reduce the save DC from 20 (slightly overblown anyway) to 15. If the save is failed, the enchanted thingie loses one +1 bonus, if it's made, it suffers no ill effects whatsoever.




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.

Really (and Mike could answer this), did no one ever think of...oh, I dunno, RAISING THE CR?  First ed rust monsters are 5 hit die critters, which means they are aimed at moderate level adventurers and not newbies.  If the problem with the rust monster is it's "blast radius" than that seems like the most logical conclusion.  Or what about raising the weapon save to 20% per plus (which would make that +5 holy avenger pretty resistant to its effects, but +1-2 weapons would still have a significant chance of being snuffed).  Neither makes the rust monster more fun, but do change the weight of the encounter significantly.

Tom


----------



## Knight Otu (Jul 17, 2006)

BluSponge said:
			
		

> Really (and Mike could answer this), did no one ever think of...oh, I dunno, RAISING THE CR?  First ed rust monsters are 5 hit die critters, which means they are aimed at moderate level adventurers and not newbies.  If the problem with the rust monster is it's "blast radius" than that seems like the most logical conclusion.



While I'm sure that is a possibility - it would likely involve far more work than the article had space for. Increasing the CR without making the creature tougher effectively turns it into a wimpy, harmless critter for its CR. It probably would involve giving more HD, reach, perhaps even a fly speed (rust fly).


----------



## gizmo33 (Jul 17, 2006)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> I will be the player that complains about having lost the weapon that was attached to the Ancestral Relic feat, the devine relic attached to the True Believer feat or the Kensai that just lost the weapon the entire PrC is based around and I will speak the DM if my Item Familar goes *poof*.  I put feats and class abilities into those items and lost them without a warning shot.  There are lot more class featers/abilities ties to weapons in 3.X than there were in earlier additions.




Your weapons can still be broken/lost from all kinds of situations - having them knocked out of your hands when you fall into a bottomless lake, taken from you when you're captured, having them sundered, etc.

I don't see a problem with redesigning rust damage so that it takes into account a weapon's magical properties (doing damage to hitpoints and/or hardness, for example).  I don't see a problem with reconsidering what sorts of metal the rust monster damages (does a +5 sword really rust?)  I also wouldn't object to an "Appendix:  Statements of the Obvious" that warned DMs that a rust monster could destroy plot-items such as ancestral weapons.  I'd also like to see a spell that reverses rust damage to weapons.  

Otherwise, I'd like to say that it's NOT NOSTALGIA that makes some of us consider DnD to be, in part, a resource management game.  Plenty of us still enjoy the part of the game where you find AND lose stuff, carry back up items and equipment, etc.  This idea of a guarranteed X gp value of equipment is incompatible with this type of DnD game.

Not all DnD games have to be resources management games of this type.  Oriental Adventures, for example, recommends that the DM reconsider the "loot the body" pattern in typical DnD - that's fine.  But the Rust Monster comes from this style of gaming.  I don't see the point in redesigning the rust monster.  If you don't like rust, don't use the rust monster.    

It's as if WotC decided they didn't like sex in their game and rather than make the Nymph optional, they decide to make the Nymph a clothes-wearing creature with good knowledge skills and an interesting personality.  What is the point?


----------



## Henry (Jul 17, 2006)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> ...You chose not to take knowledge: dungeoneering or bardic lore or whichever other divinations might help.  You made the decision to not have back up weapons or armor. You lost initiative or foolishly entered combat with a creature you know absolutely nothing about. You didn't buff your AC enough to avoid being hit.




I swear someone could make one fantastic Flash animation from this in the form of one of those drunk driving "60 seconds" commercials. 

A bunch of adveturers are running around silly, the camera is pivoting chaotically, profanities flying, someone in the background screaming, *"MY SWORD! MY SWORD!  IT, MY SWORD!!!"* It ends with a dead rust monster, an exhausted mage, and a fighter weeping in the foreground...


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 17, 2006)

Raising the CR unfortunately raises the likelihood that something actually valuable will get eaten. At CR 3, the most valuable thing likely to be lost is either MW or _maybe_ +1; at CR 5, there's more danger of the characters being tricked out in mostly magic gear, giving the "Argh! My expensive magic equipment!" complaint a little more weight.

Of all the options discussed, I think the "degrade, degrade, GONE" model is the best one for the stated redesign purpose. It keeps the threat meaningful, without that "Zap your stuff is gone before you even get an action, ha-ha" possibility that has so many folks up in arms.

Still, I'm not convinced the stated redesign purpose is actually a real "problem" rather than being a lot of worry about fragile players that don't exist. I have noticed that the pattern seems to be that people who've actually encounted rust monsters think they're fine as written, while the people who are so sure that they're game breakers haven't tried 'em (on the grounds that they're sure to be game breakers). 

-The Gneech


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 17, 2006)

> Now that is an excellent suggestion and something that feels right. A magical blade is immune to a natural ability because it is an unnatural weapon.




I'm actually going to be on BlueSponge's side in saying that this isn't a very good solution.

Why's that?

Because it doesn't force you to use different tactics to overcome the monster. In only being able to eat non-magical metal, it's a pretty laughable encounter. And even if it were made weaker, so that the party has less magical items, you still face the "brings the game to a screeching halt" effect.

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).


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 17, 2006)

BluSponge said:
			
		

> Eh.  This change still misses the point, and fundamentally changes the nature of the encounter.  In fact, I'd go as far as to say if Mike's redesign is "guilty of coddling whiny players," this version is doubly so.  It means there will come a time when rust monsters are no threat at all.  The fighter just hands the rogue his +1 sword and *poof*.  The party doesn't really have to change tactics at all.  It's just another monster to be killed with the standard roll init, roll to hit formula.




Doesn't miss the point at all. In fact you are missing the point here. There comes a time when ogres are no threat at all. There comes a time when all low CR creatures are no threat at all. What is a threat for one level of adventurers doesn't affect adventurers at other levels at all (although with cunning play it can, but it seems that you didn't read to the end of my post).

Even with no change to the monster, the typical party will be dealing with the rust monster with missile weapons anyway if they have any sense. Those fighters who haven't equipped themselves with any kind of missile weapon kinda get whats coming to them sooner or later anyway ("I attack the remorhaz with my two handed sword". "WHAT happens?")

Cheers


----------



## BluSponge (Jul 17, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Doesn't miss the point at all. In fact you are missing the point here. There comes a time when ogres are no threat at all. There comes a time when all low CR creatures are no threat at all. What is a threat for one level of adventurers doesn't affect adventurers at other levels at all (although with cunning play it can, but it seems that you didn't read to the end of my post).




No, no.  I fully understand that.  And sure, there will come a time when the mage will just nuke the little runts with a magic missile spell and be done with it.  Such is the nature of the game (and why templates were a good idea!).  However, the rust monster is one of those beasties (much like green slime, rot grubs, ear seekers, and a bunch of other nasties) that don't fit well into the whole CR system that 3e introduced.  Under the right circumstances, they can always be a threat.  Even a lvl 20 barbarian can run afoul of a rust monster if he isn't thinking.  Not to drudge up the whole me vs. them argument again, but that's one of the cool things about ole rusty.  Even with a high level bunch, the suggestion of a rust monster will make them squirm.  

Here's an exercise for you who don't believe me.  Next time you run a high level dungeon crawl, throw in an abandoned rust monster breeding room (ala the coccon room from Aliens).  The floor is stained with rust.  Scattered about are the unfinished remains of an item or two (like the ornate sheath of a sword).  The husks of dead rust monsters are found here and there, say about 12 of them.  There are piles of old straw and debris, with broken eggs and the like, and a few unhatched ones.  Put the room on a choke point in the dungeon (not THE choke point, but certainly one of them).  Now the exit from the room is a dark, unfinished corridor leading into somewhat of a wet labyrinth, with lots of dripping water and mysterious splashes.  Even without a single living rust moster encounter, I can almost gaurantee you'll have your players jumping at their own shadows for the next 2 hours! 

Would rust monsters get that sort of respect if they couldn't eat magical weapons?  Nope.

Game on,
Tom


----------



## BluSponge (Jul 17, 2006)

Just an idle observation.  Does it strike anyone else as weird that DMs like to use kobolds as the scourge of the dungeon, employing all sorts of unsavory tactics from murder holes, poison, flaming pitch, crawlspaces to small for anyone but maybe a halfling or gnome, and guerilla tactics that would make Ho Chi Minh proud, but rust monsters are somehow beyond the pale?

I guess making the players feel like chumps is ok as long as it doesn't result in the loss of their stuff.

Hmmm.

Tom


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jul 17, 2006)

Well, I've certainly enjoyed this thread a lot. When I use a rust monster in the future, it'll reduce something by -2,-4,-6, gone, have a nondamaging bite attack that it uses with Improved Disarm to grab metal items, have a climb speed and possibly a slow burrow, and its damage can only be repaired with Craft, _mending_, or _make whole_.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 17, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> But if *I* were going to redesign the rust monster, I'd make one very simple change to it.
> 
> It only affects non-magical metal.




And there is precedence for this. The spell Rusting Grasp only affects non-magical metals. The RM's ability could be an extraordinary ability based on the Rusting Grasp spell:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Rusting Grasp
> Transmutation
> Level: Drd 4
> Components: V, S, DF
> ...




I like the balancing factors. No magical items, but no saving throw. Destroys weapons upon touch, but only reduces armor bonus by 1d6 points per attack.

If the rusting ability is kept when the RM is struck by metal weapons I would keep the saving throw in that instance. Effectivly the save would be a measure of attempting to strike the RM without accidentally touching its attennae.


----------



## ehren37 (Jul 17, 2006)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> The save is too easy as is.  I'd bump the save to dc 30 or something.  Or just get rid of the save altogether.  if I was going to mess with the rust monster.  Even 20th level characters should fear the rust monster.  Is it fair?  No, but there's nothing fair about venturing into an undeground setting full of beholders and dragons and rust monsters with a pointy stick to begin with.




Spoken like a true grognard. Screw the players having a good time, running a balanced game or whatever. D&D is about the DM power tripping! Your ass is mine, and I'll rip up your sheet whenever I feel like it! 

Every day this site becomes more and more antagonistic to anyone but the traditional "screw you" DM of the early 80's, with its typical oppositional style of running a game. Its sad how few of us actually grew beyond that.


----------



## painandgreed (Jul 17, 2006)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Spoken like a true grognard. Screw the players having a good time, running a balanced game or whatever. D&D is about the DM power tripping! Your ass is mine, and I'll rip up your sheet whenever I feel like it!
> 
> Every day this site becomes more and more antagonistic to anyone but the traditional "screw you" DM of the early 80's, with its typical oppositional style of running a game. Its sad how few of us actually grew beyond that.




Hardly. With the old game, it could be played however anybody wanted. With new design policies, it is increasingly forcing the new style of play consisiting of bland encounters with level adjusted DPS on everybody. What people (me anyway) are becoming antogonistic to is a certain style of play forced upon them by design rather than a robust set of tools so each group can play as they see fit.


----------



## Henry (Jul 17, 2006)

> Originally Posted by ehren37
> Spoken like a true grognard. Screw the players having a good time, running a balanced game or whatever. D&D is about the DM power tripping! Your ass is mine, and I'll rip up your sheet whenever I feel like it!
> 
> Every day this site becomes more and more antagonistic to anyone but the traditional "screw you" DM of the early 80's, with its typical oppositional style of running a game. Its sad how few of us actually grew beyond that.






			
				painandgreed said:
			
		

> Hardly. With the old game, it could be played however anybody wanted. With new design policies, it is increasingly forcing the new style of play consisiting of bland encounters with level adjusted DPS on everybody. What people (me anyway) are becoming antogonistic to is a certain style of play forced upon them by design rather than a robust set of tools so each group can play as they see fit.




Here's the two opposite sides of the issue, never spelled out more clearly. The truth is more somewhere in the middle. My take on something like the rust monster is: _Don't use it, if its existing powers don't fit the style of play you prefer._ There's bound to be other players using it as written, and they're the ones who'll benefit. If anything, a redesign should include quick fixes for optional levels of deadliness. Something like: Standard Rust monster does -2 per hit to limit of -6. Sidebar: CR 5 = Reflex save DC 17 or item loses half hit points, and then gone on next hit; CR 6 = Reflex save or gone; CR 7 = no save. Basically, scaling monsters, the same way Dungeon magazine scales adventures.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jul 17, 2006)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Every day this site becomes more and more antagonistic to anyone but the traditional "screw you" DM of the early 80's, with its typical oppositional style of running a game. Its sad how few of us actually grew beyond that.




I respect my players - that's WHY there's a chance of bad stuff happening.  Expecting them to consider to treat the dungeon like it's dangerous is an insult to their intelligence if the dungeon is not dangerous!  What I'm arguing for is to design an adventure game that has more than the illusion of risk built into it.  

Besides, talking about how this site is "more and more antagonistic" and then presuming that some people's gaming style is something you "grow beyond" is not constructive.

How is this different than orcs wanting to kill PCs?  Isn't that adversarial too?  What exactly is your list of "bad things that can happen to PCs" if it does not include negative modifications to their equipment inventory?  Haven't people "grown beyond" getting upset at the DM when El Ravager loses his +12 hackmaster?


----------



## Garnfellow (Jul 17, 2006)

I think this has been a pretty interesting thread coming off a pretty interesting article. I’m not sure I agree completely with the redesign, but then again I think some folks are completely missing the point of Mike’s piece -- this is not an actual, suggested change to the official rules but a purely theoretical exercise, designed to walk us through an example process of contemporary game design. No need to get too worked up about it.

One thing about this thread that is really bugging me, though, is the straw man argument that these changes to the rust monster are done just to those coddle poor, whiny, 3rd edition players. This charge seems to get repeated again and again -- and frankly, it’s pure bunkum. Nowhere in the article does Mike state this is his goal.

The reason to consider -- consider! -- redesigning the rust monster is that its one signature ability is extremely disruptive to the flow of the game. Period. No need to read anything more into it. No one at WotC is worried about anyone’s self-esteem or making a player cry. 

For better or worse, in 3e a PC’s equipment is an vital component of that PC’s power. Permanently destroy that equipment, and you significantly weaken that character, making subsequent encounters far more difficult. I’ve loved the rust monster ever since I saw the Bill Willingham illustration in the old red D&D book. I even have one of the original plastic toys that inspired the critter. And yeah, I’ve laughed as players ran in stark terror from one. 

But let’s face it: the rust monster is a gimmick encounter and I haven’t used one in years. Its sole, solitary purpose is to serve as an annoyance that must be overcome to get to a “real” encounter. I dare say few people have never built a dungeon with the rust monster as the boss monster. And in that light, its ability can greatly hamper -- out of all proportion to the nature of the encounter -- the ability of a group to get to the real meat of the adventure. 

Say that an intrepid band of adventurers were exploring the Dread Manse of Impenetrable Evil, in search of the vampire lord’s lost crypt. After many brave deeds and heart-pounding battles, they were drawing near to the second level and the supposed location of crypt. 

But then that dang rust monster went and ate the paladin’s armor, shield, and his magic sword, as well as the barbarian’s favorite axe. Now the whole group has to pull out and make for town so folks can reequip, or else that vampire will massacre them. This could easily kill a session of game time. Does this sound like a cool diversion? Is this really advancing the plot? Is this a lot of fun for anyone, including the DM?

Another reason to consider changing the rust monster is that it is the quintessential one trick pony monster. The first time someone gets nailed with one of those antennae, it’s a wonderful thing. But after that? Not so much. Unless you specifically engineer a real railroad situation that forces the PCS into close quarters with a rust monster, when experienced PCs see a rust monster they either run or nuke it from orbit or both.


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 17, 2006)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Spoken like a true grognard. Screw the players having a good time, running a balanced game or whatever. D&D is about the DM power tripping! Your ass is mine, and I'll rip up your sheet whenever I feel like it!
> 
> Every day this site becomes more and more antagonistic to anyone but the traditional "screw you" DM of the early 80's, with its typical oppositional style of running a game. Its sad how few of us actually grew beyond that.




1) Facing dangerous foes and overcoming them is _how_ my players have a good time. Facing a monster from which the negative effects "reset" after 10 minutes would bore them to tears.

2) The rust monster is an encounter; it's not the GM. The GM can want the players to win, and still put them up against creatures that could hurt them. In fact, he pretty much HAS to.

3) "Grew beyond that?" Who's antagonistic here?

-The Gneech


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 17, 2006)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Spoken like a true grognard. Screw the players having a good time, running a balanced game or whatever. D&D is about the DM power tripping! Your ass is mine, and I'll rip up your sheet whenever I feel like it!
> 
> Every day this site becomes more and more antagonistic to anyone but the traditional "screw you" DM of the early 80's, with its typical oppositional style of running a game. Its sad how few of us actually grew beyond that.




 :\


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jul 17, 2006)

Hm.. I guess I am one of them grognards who never outgrew such a messed up gaming style..

 Example of the most recent use of a RM in my game...which was quite a while ago 

Group adventuring on an anti-fairy tale, with a princess who hired them to rescue the prince who is captured by an evil coven of Hags...I will skip all the entertainment in between with half the party wanting to kill the princess..who had forced them to accept her as a party member..and get to the RM encounter.. In a cavern leading to the Coven's lair they find the darling prince locked up in a wooden cage.. inside a permanent 'Silence' zone. He was accompanied by this nicely shaped buxom elf who, as it happens, was missing most of her cloths. The Palidon seemed to completely miss that the Prince was not quite occupied with the fair young lass..and rushed foward to free them.. faster to getting the Princess off his back I think.
  He cut through the ropes tying the cage and was immediately embraced by the lass..whose skin started rusting through his plate mail... she was really a poly-other RM.
 Not being a total RBDM, I was giving the armor some time as the rusting ability was supressed somewhat in the new form....
Besides, the entertainment of the Palidon trying to get the lass off of him.. while silenced an unable to explain his actions to the others.. 

 Made for a great encounter..and his armor was destroyed before he got to fight the Coven..who came to investigate the howling laughter coming from near the prison 



Anyway, I think the -2/-4/-6/gone could work very well.. but I also figure the RM is quiet useful as is. I susggest using the varient that fits your playstyle, or ignore the poor little critter as appropriate.. and let us grognards who need to 'grow up' enjoy the game we like it


----------



## gizmo33 (Jul 17, 2006)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> One thing about this thread that is really bugging me,




But there's no reason to get worked up, as you say.



			
				Garnfellow said:
			
		

> though, is the straw man argument that these changes to the rust monster are done just to those coddle poor, whiny, 3rd edition players. This charge seems to get repeated again and again -- and frankly, it’s pure bunkum. Nowhere in the article does Mike state this is his goal.




True.  Saying that players are coddle and whiny is insulting.  I agree that people shouldn't say that.  But one could argue that WotC is trying to change the types of bad things that can happen to PCs to a relatively short list.  It's not just Mike's article - there are plenty of other cases of this already happening in the rules.



			
				Garnfellow said:
			
		

> The reason to consider -- consider! -- redesigning the rust monster is that its one signature ability is extremely disruptive to the flow of the game. Period.




What the heck does "disruptive to the flow of the game" really mean?  Does somebody have a rust monster miniature that actually rusts the players dice or rips up his character sheet?  I think you're making an assumption here about how the game ought to flow that IMO should be explicitly stated.   I've never seen a monster keep people from playing the game.



			
				Garnfellow said:
			
		

> For better or worse, in 3e a PC’s equipment is an vital component of that PC’s power. Permanently destroy that equipment, and you significantly weaken that character, making subsequent encounters far more difficult.




Why does this side of the argument keep saying this over and over without addressing the fundemental issue?  One would have to assume that you guys NEVER capture PCs and take their stuff.  That no one EVER sunders, disjoins, uses acid, fire, pick pockets - or MYRIADS of other ways to divest players of their stuff.  PLEASE, SOMEONE on that side of the argument explain this.



			
				Garnfellow said:
			
		

> But let’s face it: the rust monster is a gimmick encounter and I haven’t used one in years.




I don't find this statement entirely unreasonable.  It's just that what's the point of redesigning a monster when you object to it's premise.  It's as I said in my nymph analogy above.



			
				Garnfellow said:
			
		

> Its sole, solitary purpose is to serve as an annoyance that must be overcome to get to a “real” encounter.




The same thing is true of pretty much every other encounter in DnD - relatively few have a real chance of killing PCs.  Managing your resources so that the rust monster does not incapacitate the party is it's challenge.



			
				Garnfellow said:
			
		

> I dare say few people have never built a dungeon with the rust monster as the boss monster. And in that light, its ability can greatly hamper -- out of all proportion to the nature of the encounter -- the ability of a group to get to the real meat of the adventure.




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



			
				Garnfellow said:
			
		

> After many brave deeds and heart-pounding battles,




What brave deeds?  After the brave adventurers nearly suffered the catastrophe of a -2 penalty on their attack rolls?  OH the horror!  Seriously, I can't figure out why any of the previous battles would be heart-pounding unless the players were naive.  THEY'RE GUARANTEED TO GET TO THE BBEG ENCOUNTER.  Anything else would be disruptive to the game flow AFAICT.  So they should just chill and wait for the train to arrive.



			
				Garnfellow said:
			
		

> Is this a lot of fun for anyone, including the DM?




When your players realize that they're on a railroad, and that fighting the minions of the vampire is going to have absolutely no effect on their ability to reach and fight the BBEG, then the minion encounters will be pointless.  IMO story teller DMs rely on the reputation of other DMs to make the minion encounters plausibly dangerous.  As a player I would quickly catch on as to the pointlessness of anything but the BBEG encounters in that particular game.



			
				Garnfellow said:
			
		

> Unless you specifically engineer a real railroad situation that forces the PCS into close quarters with a rust monster, when experienced PCs see a rust monster they either run or nuke it from orbit or both.




You don't have to "engineer" an ecounter to take into account encounter distance and other factors.  Experienced players will see a monster and either kill it, or run from it, or both.  

A rust monster with a smidgin of cunning will probably figure out a way to minimize it's vulnerability.  The hawks in your campaign don't walk around on the ground looking for food, do they?  It's hardly "railroading" to assume some level of cunning from creatures.


----------



## Mycanid (Jul 17, 2006)

Amazing ... the thread is still going on. Glyfair must be proud!

Anyway - but to the topic at hand. Post on!


----------



## lkj (Jul 17, 2006)

Henry said:
			
		

> Here's the two opposite sides of the issue, never spelled out more clearly. The truth is more somewhere in the middle. My take on something like the rust monster is: _Don't use it, if its existing powers don't fit the style of play you prefer._ There's bound to be other players using it as written, and they're the ones who'll benefit. If anything, a redesign should include quick fixes for optional levels of deadliness. Something like: Standard Rust monster does -2 per hit to limit of -6. Sidebar: CR 5 = Reflex save DC 17 or item loses half hit points, and then gone on next hit; CR 6 = Reflex save or gone; CR 7 = no save. Basically, scaling monsters, the same way Dungeon magazine scales adventures.





This suggestion falls much in the same general line of my own thinking. I'd put it this way-- I really like having some monsters, like the rust monster, that have scary-- even arbitrary-- effects. It adds danger and flavor to the game. I certainly wouldn't want all, or even most, of the monsters in the game to be that way. But I'd hate if all the monsters were 're-designed' to 'smooth out' the potentially bad effects of the occasional 'crazy' monster, like good old rusty. It'd take a lot of the fun of the game for me.

The problem seems to be the fear that these monsters will be used by 'mediocre' DM's too frequently or in such a way as to ruin player enjoyment (rather than using them sparingly and in situations that add an element of random mystery to the game). I understand both sides of this argument. I agree that it's a very real possibility, albeit I'd think it a pretty rare event regardless. But the way I'd handle it is a bit different. Rather than re-design the creature, simply add a DM's note to the monster description.

"DM Note: The rust ability of this creature can cause serious damage to the PC's abilities. While this monster can be a very enjoyable and memorable encounter, it should be used sparingly or, perhaps, with a modified rust ability that only makes the metal item unuseable for a temporary period."

I realize that could be written more effectively, but you get the idea.

AD


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 17, 2006)

Mycanid said:
			
		

> Amazing ... the thread is still going on. Glyfair must be proud!




Not when it's still going on because it devolved into some sort of an edition war.   The beginning was fine.  The discussion of rust monsters is fine.  The discussion of how 3rd editon doesn't allow DMs to excercise their judgement, or how old school DMs are all about screwing the players over I'm not fine about.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jul 17, 2006)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> BWhy does this side of the argument keep saying this over and over without addressing the fundemental issue?  One would have to assume that you guys NEVER capture PCs and take their stuff.  That no one EVER sunders, disjoins, uses acid, fire, pick pockets - or MYRIADS of other ways to divest players of their stuff.  PLEASE, SOMEONE on that side of the argument explain this.



I feel that it has been explained - most of the other stuff tends to be harder to pull off than a touch attack. Mordy's Disjunction is a notable exception here, and I've seen many whines about it, and many people were surprised that it wasn't changed in 3.5.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Jul 17, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Not when it's still going on because it devolved into some sort of an edition war.   The beginning was fine.  The discussion of rust monsters is fine.  *The discussion of how 3rd editon doesn't allow DMs to excercise their judgement*



That criticism arises directly from the article's statement: "In many ways, development assumes that an individual DM is like a computer who heartlessly applies the rules."  



> *or how old school DMs are all about screwing the players over* I'm not fine about.



While that criticism comes from...somewhere else.


----------



## Mycanid (Jul 17, 2006)

Yeah Glyfair ... I was noticing that as I have been reading the thread after I just posted.

::sigh:: 

Best laid plans of mice and men and all that....


----------



## EricNoah (Jul 17, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> The discussion of how 3rd editon doesn't allow DMs to excercise their judgement, or how old school DMs are all about screwing the players over I'm not fine about.




Edition wars suck.  Utterly.  It's particularly grating on the many of us who have experienced most if not all major editions of the game.


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 17, 2006)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> That criticism arises directly from the article's statement: "In many ways, development assumes that an individual DM is like a computer who heartlessly applies the rules."




Assuming the DM won't use judgement applying the rules and disallowing the DM from breaking the rules are two different things.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 17, 2006)

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.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jul 17, 2006)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> I feel that it has been explained - most of the other stuff tends to be harder to pull off than a touch attack. Mordy's Disjunction is a notable exception here, and I've seen many whines about it, and many people were surprised that it wasn't changed in 3.5.




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.  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.


----------



## Garnfellow (Jul 17, 2006)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> But one could argue that WotC is trying to change the types of bad things that can happen to PCs to a relatively short list.  It's not just Mike's article - there are plenty of other cases of this already happening in the rules.




One could argue that, but I think they'd be wrong. 

There are more ways to kill PCs right now then there have been in any edition, ever. And the number is growing all the time. As I wrote over in the Tomb of Horrors thread, I've killed more PCs in 3e than in all of 1st and 2nd edition combined. (And you could probably throw in the 4 years we played basic D&D, too.)

I sure don't think that every change WotC makes to the game is the right change. But I'm pretty sure of one thing: they AREN'T trying to make the game less lethal. If they have one overarching goal, it seems to be to make the game play better at the table. Sometimes this means reducing or changing the impact of an effect on PCs, but these changes usually also work the other way, as well: nerfing _harm_, for example, effects PC and NPCs alike.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Jul 17, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Assuming the DM won't use judgement applying the rules and disallowing the DM from breaking the rules are two different things.



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.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 17, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> The problem with a CR 3 Ogre is that the player gets to DO stuff to prevent their death.





			
				Klaus said:
			
		

> One touch from a rust monster and the weapon or armor is kaput.




One hit from an Ogre and many 3rd level adventurers are kaput.

There is just as much chance of the player having no options with the Ogre as with the Rust Monster.  You seem to be assuming that the Rust Monster appears and immediately attacks with the players having no time to respond.  This is possible.  It's also possible with an Ogre (in fact, considering that the Ogre is more intelligent than the Rust Monster, I would say it is more likely that the Ogre will have the advantage of surprise).  In both cases the PCs stand the chance of suffering negative consequences, except that in the case of the Ogre the negative consequences are MORE dire and MORE costly in terms of resources, yet no one seems to have a problem with that encounter.  

The Ogre has just as much chance of hitting a 3rd level character wearing a Breastplate as does the Rust Monster, so it's not as if the Touch Attack gives it that great an advantage.  The only advantage the rust monster has in terms of negative consequences if that if the PC hits it with a weapon, the weapon is harmed (if the PCs hit the Ogre, there are no consequences).  But guess what?  That weapon is going to be the only one lost, because as soon as the rest of the PCs see what happened they're going to stop using metal weapons against the thing (at the very least, they're going to stop using their good ones).  Yeah, the first round against a Rust Monster may be an "Oh fudge" moment, but to me it seems like a much bigger deal if the party is saying "Oh fudge!  Lidda just got creamed by that Ogre." than if they're saying "Oh fudge!  Redgar's +1 sword just disintegrated."

So why isn't the Ogre unfair and game-breaking?


----------



## gizmo33 (Jul 17, 2006)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> There are more ways to kill PCs right now then there have been in any edition, ever.




Only if you consider each weapon and each monster as a way of killing a PC, which is almost beside the point.  I'm talking about the Rust Monster - not a monster known for killing PCs (directly at least).  What I'm actually talking about is "bad things happening to PCs."  

Besides, how many of the PCs that you killed actually stayed dead?  It's easier to come back to life in 3E than in any other edition of the game, ever   

Here's the list of additional "bad things" that have been ramped down in 3E (off the top of my head):  
1.  surviving at below zero hitpoints
2.  energy drain
3.  system shock
4.  ressurrection survival
5.  constitution loss for death
6.  aging for some spells and monster attacks
7.  getting lost
8.  wandering monsters
9.  henchman loyalty
10.  save-or-die poison.

XP loss is just a speed-bump on the power-up highway.



			
				Garnfellow said:
			
		

> I sure don't think that every change WotC makes to the game is the right change.




And by the same token I don't think every one of the changes I listed above was the wrong decision.  But they have removed some of the adversity faced by players in the game.  Adversity is not everyone's cup of tea - many players are happy in competing with each other (eg. Legolas and Gimli counting the number of orcs they kill) and don't expect to be challenged by the DM in this way.  I just think that WotC should think harder about removing adversity.



			
				Garnfellow said:
			
		

> nerfing _harm_, for example, effects PC and NPCs alike.




If someone were to say that the rust monster attack should be less effective against magic weapons I'd have no problem.  But implicit in the argument would be that under certain circumstances, it's ok to destroy a +5 weapon - which is what really seems to cause the problem.  

Most people against rust monsters seem to object to destroying a +5 weapon under ANY circumstances because, 

a.  players are entitled to a certain amount of wealth per level 
b.  some equipment are plot elements 
c.  it's not fun to having to struggle to get to the BBEG.
d.  there's something wrong with carrying a backup weapon (?)


----------



## mearls (Jul 17, 2006)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 17, 2006)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 17, 2006)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 17, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 17, 2006)

*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 (Jul 17, 2006)

BluSponge said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 17, 2006)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> 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:



			
				Monster Makeover said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 17, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 17, 2006)

mearls said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 17, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## buzz (Jul 17, 2006)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> 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 tend to disagree, as I have a bunch of RPGs on my shelf that were specifically designed to be run as-written, and they range from thin folios (_Gods in the Vineyard_) to thick volumes (_Spycraft 2.0_).

Building into an RPG the idea that, in order to run it, you already have to know how to run it, is fraught with peril. You don't build houses on quicksand and expect them to be there the next morning.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Jul 17, 2006)

buzz said:
			
		

> I tend to disagree, as I have a bunch of RPGs on my shelf that were specifically designed to be run as-written, and they range from thin folios (_Gods in the Vineyard_) to thick volumes (_Spycraft 2.0_).



Designed to be run as-written isn't the same as DM-assumed-to-be-a-computer.  Rules are good -- we need them to play.  And playing the rules-as-written is fine, too.  However, some rules don't need to be written.  I think the DM-as-a-computer approach encourages unnecessary rules.



> Building into an RPG the idea that, in order to run it, you already have to know how to run it, is fraught with peril.



I'm not suggesting that approach.  I'm suggesting that a better approach is to view the DM as a creative person with judgment, rather than a rules-computer.  You need to provide the necessary rules, but also teach them why the rules exist (e.g. Behind the Curtain stuff), and give examples of how to bend (or even break) the rules.  Again, nurture the DM's judgment, rather than assuming it doesn't exist.

Really, I don't think this is far off from what WotC is trying to do.  It's just a change in emphasis and perspective.  But it's a worthy change, IMO.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 17, 2006)

> 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.




Draining charges isn't so bad, because if they don't come back (if they're a finite number rather than x/dy), it's still a small portion of the character's overall power. Being able to use a want of CLW 30 times rather than 50 isn't going to stop the adventure. Similarly, though spell-slots are harsher, they aren't as harsh as equipment destruction because those all come back the next morning -- it usually wouldn't end the adventure, just force a rest earlier than normal.

In all cases, it's damage (which can build to death or destruction) rather than instant death (or destruction). And that means that there can be interesting tactics without a binary system -- rather than being about what you CAN'T do, it's about which option is better.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 17, 2006)

That's why I was a bit surprised at the 3E rust monster, as I said.  I prefer the old version for the simple reason that it can make short work of normal metal stuff, if you let it, but magical metal has chances of resisting the effect, and if it doesn't, it first loses all its magic bit by bit. A +2 weapon had to be hit thrice to be utterly destroyed. With 3E, it might even take 4 successful hits if you count masterwork as another level to be taken away before destruction. And if it's just about giving a masterwork blade a +1 back during a fight, a _Magic Weapon_ or two should see the group through its CR 3 dungeon until they can return to town and either reenchant the old blade, or sell it because a better one was found in the local dungeon (maybe put there by the DM after he saw that the loss of the magical weapon *really* hurt the group, or simply because D&D adventures have the habit of overequipping people with magical gear anyway since its first days  ).


----------



## buzz (Jul 17, 2006)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> Designed to be run as-written isn't the same as DM-assumed-to-be-a-computer.  Rules are good -- we need them to play.  And playing the rules-as-written is fine, too.  However, some rules don't need to be written.  I think the DM-as-a-computer approach encourages unnecessary rules.



I'm not sure I understand the difference you're making between "as computer" and "as written." I thought Mearls' point was that a ruleset shouldn't _require_ you to be creative; it should _encourage_.



			
				Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> I'm not suggesting that approach.  I'm suggesting that a better approach is to view the DM as a creative person with judgment, rather than a rules-computer.  You need to provide the necessary rules, but also teach them why the rules exist (e.g. Behind the Curtain stuff), and give examples of how to bend (or even break) the rules.  Again, nurture the DM's judgment, rather than assuming it doesn't exist.



I don't think it's an issue of assuming the DM's judgement doesn't exist. It's trying to minimize its _necessity_. As a sapient creature, I can ignore/adapt/change rules willy-nilly when I GM. I tend to prefer it when the system doesn't force me to, though.

Monte Cook has self-described _Arcana Unearthed_ as a game for expereinced players/GMs. Why? Because it does require (and encourage) more on-the-fly DM calls and interpretation. This is okay, because Monte can focus on selling to (comparatively) niche markets. D&D needs to worry about a much bigger fanbase.

Thing is, nothing that Mearls is suggesting prevents you, as an experienced DM, from flexing your creativity. He's just trying to make sure that all levels of player are being accomodated.


----------



## BluSponge (Jul 17, 2006)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> 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.




Yeah, I caught that part.  The only reason for my disagreement here is that I don't see going backwards in this case is any different from going forwards.  The fundamental argument behind this whole thing is, after all, _why do you change established elements of the game?_  Given the differences between 3e and the other editions, I have no problems making changes and am a full advocate of dropping scared cows (which are now more window dressing than anything else).  But the logic of Mike's hypothesis is what gave me pause.  I don't agree that it's bad game design just because it gives the players some unexpected hardship or makes them think outside the box.  If anything, I see the problem here as a failure of the CR system, and the folly of relying too heavily upon it.



> 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.




Right.  



> 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.




Bah.  Not I.  I've seen the amount of loot in 1st ed modules, and seen the lists of stuff players carry in their bags of holding.  Not everyone plays that way, of course, but then no one has to include a rust monster in their adventures.  I'm here advocating for old rusty and yet I don't think in 20 years of playing that I've ever used one in an adventure.  

Tom


----------



## Knight Otu (Jul 17, 2006)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 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:



What I got from the article was - and Mike can correct me if I'm wrong - Instant equipment destruction is generally fine, at a certain CR. It appears that the CR of 3 was an important issue - at that level, a 3.5 fighter might just have saved up for his brand new +1 weapon or armor, and not have the reserves to get even a non-masterwork replacement, whereas a higher level character may have spare equipment, the coin to buy spare equipment, or even enough coin to feed it to the rust monster.
And, being ~3rd level, the character may be more powerful than any of the commoners he encounters, but he doesn't have the assurance that he can take what still lurks around without the piece of equipment he lost. He cannot wrestle ogres into the ground with his bare hands yet (well, he might, but might not be willing to risk it). A 7th level character may easily have the guts to continue, where the 3rd level character is afraid to thread further.


----------



## BluSponge (Jul 17, 2006)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> the idea that Excalibur would dissolve from a rust monster seems strange to me.




Actually, one could make the argument that Excalibur was an artifact.  Therefore, a rust monster wouldn't be able to effect it.



> 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.)




Word!

Tom


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 17, 2006)

BluSponge said:
			
		

> Yeah, I caught that part.  The only reason for my disagreement here is that I don't see going backwards in this case is any different from going forwards.  The fundamental argument behind this whole thing is, after all, _why do you change established elements of the game?_  Given the differences between 3e and the other editions, I have no problems making changes and am a full advocate of dropping scared cows (which are now more window dressing than anything else).  But the logic of Mike's hypothesis is what gave me pause.  I don't agree that it's bad game design just because it gives the players some unexpected hardship or makes them think outside the box.  If anything, I see the problem here as a failure of the CR system, and the folly of relying too heavily upon it.




I guess I'll have to answer that with an "I look at where they took it, and wonder why they did".  I might actually find myself arguing for the *old* version of Rusty, too, because it was less brutal to characters that encountered it than its 3E cousin, yet still had enough of a fear-factor for them to make it into stories told around a pub table like "remember when we met that rust monster family under Old Grimfang's lair, and Stubby the Dwarf had to throw them his handaxes in order to escape with his plate mail and his father's axe? The look on his face when we rounded that corner and the little critters were picking up the scent of his armor and happily pounced to greet him?"  

I happen to have the same problems you have with the assumption that something that inconveniences characters for more than a few rounds or maybe hours game time is bad game design and should be smoothed out like a bad wrinkle in a pair of trousers. Adverse and inconvenient effects that cannot be pushed aside after a few minutes or an hour pose a challenge all by themselves, and are a part of D&D that should not be written out of the game in my opinion. As far as a "believable background" goes, a lot of the monsters in D&D are "utility monsters" that were presumably created by weird or mad wizards for some task that is as long forgotten as the creator of the monsters. Gelatinous Cube, the iconic dungeon cleaner, is a good example of that. Rusty, as the monster that robs heavily armed and armored intruders of their best advantages, is another...I always envisioned it as being created by a magic-user who kept heavily armed mercenaries and robbers out of his "lair" by disarming them enough for them to not want to go any further.




> Bah.  Not I.  I've seen the amount of loot in 1st ed modules, and seen the lists of stuff players carry in their bags of holding.  Not everyone plays that way, of course, but then no one has to include a rust monster in their adventures.  I'm here advocating for old rusty and yet I don't think in 20 years of playing that I've ever used one in an adventure.
> Tom




I've seen similar lists in Basic D&D, had some myself even...and rusty was still a terror, no matter what level. No other was reduced to ash and cinder so fast when it reared its antennae...or charmed, tamed and taken along. For some reason, it has a cuddle factor few others have, at least in my experience.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Jul 17, 2006)

buzz said:
			
		

> I thought Mearls' point was that a ruleset shouldn't _require_ you to be creative; it should _encourage_.



I think a design approach which assumes a non-creative and judgment-challenged DM is probably not the best way to do that.



> Thing is, nothing that Mearls is suggesting prevents you, as an experienced DM, from flexing your creativity. He's just trying to make sure that all levels of player are being accomodated.



Sure, I understand that.  I agree with the goal.  I just don't think the DM-as-computer assumption is a good one, for the reasons I listed, earlier.  I think a different approach would serve better.

I'm not saying have so few rules that DM's whim is the only law.  I'm saying that you need to know when enough-is-enough.  You can't have everything pre-defined, and the more you head that direction, the more you weigh down your ruleset and the more you straightjacket expectations of "how to run this game."  That's especially true if the rules (e.g. monsters built for the ruleset) are always lowest-common-denominator, and never step outside the formula.  We need some monsters outside the forumla; if they're not "balanced" like the rest, then provide some instruction and suggestions on how to use them.  Again, encourage judgment and creativity.

I think the DM-as-computer assumption encourages a heavy, homogenzied, lowest-common-denominator approach.  I think D&D would be better served by a different approach.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 17, 2006)

buzz said:
			
		

> 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.




My issue with the article is that Mike doesn't bother to examine whether it's unfair or unfun or a "game stopper" but asserts those things as true and then bases the "fix" on those assertions.  First, those things aren't true for all users of the product; and second, that analysis occurs in a vacuum without addressing the question of the Rust Monster's unique paradigm as a role-breaker (where the back-row types get a chance to stand in front of and protect the front-row types) and whether that paradigm is worth preserving despite any drawbacks that might come along with it.

There are LOTS of monsters that fill the role of a standard encounter (melee types melee, ranged types range, caster types cast, sneaky types sneak, etc.).  IMO it's very very shortsighted to assert that the Rust Monster will be better if it becomes more generic and more standard when there are already plenty of monsters to fill the generic roles and very few that take PCs "outside the box".  It may be true that not every outlier in the monster spectrum is going to be useful for every group, but it seems like a HUGE leap to assert that outliers are inherently bad and should be "fixed" (as the article does).  In fact, I would say that the outliers are tools that help many groups keep the game interesting and exciting after the average encounters get a little dull and ho-hum.


----------



## jesseghfan (Jul 17, 2006)

I'm rather new at stat blocks, so please be kind, but why is the new Mearl's rust monster +7 to hit with his antennae?  I see BAB +3 and Weapons Finesse (Dex 17) +3 and Medium size.  I am sure I am missing something quite obvious, but I'm not sure what? 

Or should he be +6 antennae and +4 bite?

Thanks,

John


----------



## The_Gneech (Jul 18, 2006)

jesseghfan said:
			
		

> I'm rather new at stat blocks, so please be kind, but why is the new Mearl's rust monster +7 to hit with his antennae?  I see BAB +3 and Weapons Finesse (Dex 17) +3 and Medium size.  I am sure I am missing something quite obvious, but I'm not sure what?
> 
> Or should he be +6 antennae and +4 bite?




I think you are correct; the +7 may be a typo (or a relic of a higher Dex version). As far as I can make out, it's got way too many skill points, too, although that may be species bonuses that aren't called out as such (like the +5 AC Natural Armor that isn't explicitly listed).

The stat block I whipped up in _E-Tools_ came to:



			
				ETools said:
			
		

> Mearls' Monster          (CR 3, HD 5d8+5)
> N Medium Aberration
> Init +3 Spd 40 or Climb 40
> Senses Darkvision (Ex): 60 ft.; Scent (Ex) | Listen +1, Spot +1
> ...




-The Gneech


----------



## rounser (Jul 18, 2006)

> Just an idle observation. Does it strike anyone else as weird that DMs like to use kobolds as the scourge of the dungeon, employing all sorts of unsavory tactics from murder holes, poison, flaming pitch, crawlspaces to small for anyone but maybe a halfling or gnome, and guerilla tactics that would make Ho Chi Minh proud



Yeah, it's a very old (and arguably very tired) convention.  There's always new people that find Tucker's Kobolds (from a dragon editorial) novel, amusing and clever.  It's since had multiple dungeon adventures and an entire boxed set devoted to it, and is still the race of choice to add very powerful "builds" to.   There are no signs that this dead horse will cease to be beaten.


----------



## buzz (Jul 18, 2006)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> I think a design approach which assumes a non-creative and judgment-challenged DM is probably not the best way to do that.



Well, I don't agree that's what we're (or Mearls) is talking about here. I don't see "solid rules foundation" = "non-creative and judgement-challeneged"; that's actually somewhat offensive.


----------



## buzz (Jul 18, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> My issue with the article is that Mike doesn't bother to examine whether it's unfair or unfun or a "game stopper" but asserts those things as true and then bases the "fix" on those assertions.



Given that this is Mearls, and he probably has access to a lot of data we don't, I'm willing to allow his assumption. Proving his assumption would probably be fodder for an article in itself.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 18, 2006)

> Given that this is Mearls, and he probably has access to a lot of data we don't, I'm willing to allow his assumption.




There's been quite a bit of substantiating evidence in this thread. You can't say it isn't a game-stopper. At most, you can disagree with the evidence (contradiction), say that those who disagree are whiny players who need coddling (personal attack), or say that your experience doesn't back up that finding (subjectivity). But it's as reliable a finding as there really can be on the internet. It has brought games to a screeching halt in a way that an ogre's greatclub doesn't.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 18, 2006)

buzz said:
			
		

> Given that this is Mearls, and he probably has access to a lot of data we don't, I'm willing to allow his assumption. Proving his assumption would probably be fodder for an article in itself.




It's one thing to do research and find that people don't like the Rust Monster and change it so that it still serves the same purpose but within a more workable framework.  It's another thing to find out that people don't like it and change it so that it no longer fulfills the same purpose.  IMO, it's just a bad redesign because it negates the one thing that makes the Rust Monster a cool, iconic monster in the first place (i.e. - the plate-clad fighter jumping into the magic-user's arms for safety).


----------



## rounser (Jul 18, 2006)

> I'm willing to allow his assumption.



My problem with some of these design assumptions is that sometimes they're oversimplifications.  At the outset of 3E, seemingly one of them was that "crunch good, fluff bad", another was "design the need for DM fiat out of the game"..."back to the dungeon" was another.  When taken with a pinch of salt, these are probably good assumptions.  When taken to the extremes of what they imply, and are treated as axioms rather than ideas, I think that's where they cause trouble.

In this case, I'm quite happy to accept the axiom of "equipment loss = not fun".  What annoys me is the flavour compromise of rust "getting better" in order to humour a design need.  Surely the design need can be met without compromising what players know about "how rust works" with just a bit more effort?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 18, 2006)

> It's another thing to find out that people don't like it and change it so that it no longer fulfills the same purpose.




This position makes no sense to me.

Old Rust Monster: 
Fighter: "Aah! It killed my weapon!"
Monk: "Let me handle it!"
....after combat....
"Let's go back to town and get new weapons."

New Rust Monster:
Fighter: "Aaah! My sword!"
Monk: "Let me handle it!"
....after combat...
"Onward! To ADVENTURE!"

What purpose are you looking for it to fill? It still serves as an interesting combat where the typical fighter or cleric won't be able to beat on it in melee, giving the second-rankers time to shine.

It does the same thing.

Either way.

The new one does away with the whole "Let's stop the adventure to go back to town and resupply" angle. Which means more adventure, and (generally speaking) more fun.

I'm not trying to be snippy, I'm trying to understand what purpose the original 3e rust monster was meant to fullfill that the new one doesn't. I don't understand. I'd like to.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 18, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> There's been quite a bit of substantiating evidence in this thread. You can't say it isn't a game-stopper.




I don't think the game-stopper accusation has been anywhere NEAR proven.  If the Rust Monster eats your armor there are work-arounds for that just as their are work-arounds for HP loss, ability score damage, curses, diseases, etc.

Say a fighter loses his armor.  You would argue he's no longer able to continue adventuring, he's dead in the water until he can buy new armor.  IMO that's completely untrue.  The Wizard casts _Mage Armor_ and _Cat's Grace_ on him to boost his AC and he is ready to go (maybe not with the same exact AC as he had before, but it's not like he simply can't function).

Say a fighter loses his magic sword.  You would argue he can no longer contribute to the party.  Again, I think that's completely misrepresenting the truth.  Someone in the group has an extra weapon (most likely the fighter himself) he can use.  _Magic Weapon_, _Divine Favor_, _Align Weapon_, _Bull's Strength_, _Heroism_, _Rage_, _Keen Edge_, etc. all go a long way toward helping the Fighter stay effective.

Using spells to help make up for equipment loss is no different than using spells to ameliorate HP loss or to reverse ability damage or to remove curses and diseases.  It's all a matter of utilizing resources, it's just that the Rust Monster requires players to use their resources in different ways than the normal, average encounter.

I think the problem here really IS "whiny player syndrome" because it's not that the character can't go on, it's that the character can't go on at the same maximum level of effectiveness he was functioning at before the equipment was lost.  To me that's just another way of saying "I won't play unless the deck is stacked in my favor" and I can't see why anyone would want the game to be designed around players who approach the game with that attitude.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Jul 18, 2006)

buzz said:
			
		

> Well, I don't agree that's what we're (or Mearls) is talking about here. I don't see "solid rules foundation" = "non-creative and judgement-challeneged"



Not what I said.  I think you can supply a solid rules foundation without adopting a "DM-as-a-rules-computer" approach.  The two things are not mutually exclusive.



> that's actually somewhat offensive.



Uh oh...today's ultimate sin...   

Seriously, though, if the design approach assumes a DM that heartlessly applies the rules like a computer, then the approach assumes the DM is not going to exercise judgment or creativity  in his application of the rules -- he's going to heartlessly apply the rules, like a robot.  If you find that offensive, I don't think your beef lies with me.  Not sure what else to say to this.


----------



## hong (Jul 18, 2006)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> 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."




There's nothing wrong with that, because *experienced DMs can deviate from a stable rules set.*


----------



## hong (Jul 18, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> To me that's just another way of saying "I won't play unless the deck is stacked in my favor" and I can't see why anyone would want the game to be designed around players who approach the game with that attitude.




Because they have more money than you.


----------



## rounser (Jul 18, 2006)

> There's nothing wrong with that, because experienced DMs can deviate from a stable rules set.



Yeah.  Maybe the "In Eberron" and "In Faerun" columns in monster descriptions could be replaced with "If You're Stupid" and "If You're Deluded" columns, with suggestions for the clueless and the overconfident respectively.


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 18, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> Yeah.  Maybe the "In Eberron" and "In Faerun" columns in monster descriptions could be replaced with "If You're Stupid" and "If You're Deluded" columns, with suggestions for the clueless and the overconfident respectively.




Is this sort of comment necessary at all?


----------



## hong (Jul 18, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> Yeah.  Maybe the "In Eberron" and "In Faerun" columns in monster descriptions could be replaced with "If You're Stupid" and "If You're Deluded" columns, with suggestions for the clueless and the overconfident respectively.




Indeed.


----------



## rounser (Jul 18, 2006)

> Is this sort of comment necessary at all?



Was meant as a joke; will go back put in winky.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Jul 18, 2006)

hong said:
			
		

> There's nothing wrong with that, because *experienced DMs can deviate from a stable rules set.*



Okay, I'll concede that (again), because it's tangential to my main argument.  The DM is certainly free to cut out any rules he doesn't like, replace them new ones, and otherwise spindle, fold, and mutilate to his heart's content.

My main concern is this one (since we're going in circles, already, I'm going to be lazy and copy it from the same post you quoted):



> 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.




In other words, IMO, it's not so much that "the new rust monster sucks and is nerfed" vs. "the old rust monster rocks."  Rather, it's "this design approach encourages homogenized, neatly conforming challenges...wouldn't it be better to have some 'edge cases' in the rules?  Wouldn't it be better to provides some examples of how a creative DM can use his judgment to bend or break the established norms and enhance his game."    

IMO, that's just a better approach.  You can provide stable rules without assuming the DM acts like a rules-computer.  And when you think about the DM as a creative judge, rather than a computer, it's a lot easier to come up with approaches that help him *be* a creative DM that exercises good judgment.  If you think about the DM as a computer, you're not really thinking about ways to help him grow along those lines.


----------



## BluSponge (Jul 18, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> There's been quite a bit of substantiating evidence in this thread. You can't say it isn't a game-stopper. At most, you can disagree with the evidence (contradiction), say that those who disagree are whiny players who need coddling (personal attack), or say that your experience doesn't back up that finding (subjectivity). But it's as reliable a finding as there really can be on the internet. It has brought games to a screeching halt in a way that an ogre's greatclub doesn't.




Actually, I haven't seen any evidence that its a game breaker, have done my absolute best not to call the nay-sayers whiny players, and frankly have never used the thing in an adventure so have no anecdotal evidence to cloud my judgement.  All the rust monster stories posted here (anecdotal evidence, so it's worth exactly that) has gone CONTRARY to what you've been espousing.  Nothing posted thus far, from Mike or anyone else here, has convinced me that the rust monster does anything other than what it and a dozen other monsters are *designed* to do (be a trap for uncautious PCs).  Nothing posted from Mike, you, or anyone else has convinced me the redesign does anything but turn the encounter into just another run of the mill obstacle with all the flavor of an open 10" pit.  The MAJORITY of the people here who have commented on the redesign (again, small, biased sample), even those who LIKE the redesign, have stated that the new "temporary" weapon damage factor is broken -- moreso than the original version, perhaps.

You can bend to the gospel of Mearls all you want.  That's fine.  But please don't just dismiss all the criticism because others of us don't agree.  Your characterization of us is about as insulting as me calling you a whiny git who can't play a character who isn't surgically attached to his equipment and stomps off when the DM tells you you've run out of arrows.  It's inaccurate and irritating.

Tom


----------



## hong (Jul 18, 2006)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> In other words, IMO, it's not so much that "the new rust monster sucks and is nerfed" vs. "the old rust monster rocks."  Rather, it's "this design approach encourages homogenized, neatly conforming challenges...wouldn't it be better to have some 'edge cases' in the rules?  Wouldn't it be better to provides some examples of how a creative DM can use his judgment to bend or break the established norms and enhance his game."




IME, people want what they like. And what they like, they also tend to be good at. I like crunchy bits with which to build monsters, encounters, PCs, etc. I also want crunchy bits, and I tend to be good at using crunchy bits. You want edge cases because you like edge cases. You are probably also good at coming up with edge cases. You don't need a ruleset pointing out exceptions for you.



> IMO, that's just a better approach.  You can provide stable rules without assuming the DM acts like a rules-computer.  And when you think about the DM as a creative judge, rather than a computer, it's a lot easier to come up with approaches that help him *be*, a creative DM that exercises good judgment.  If you think about the DM as a computer, you're not really thinking about ways to help him grow along those lines.




If I wanted a self-help book, I know where to get them.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Jul 18, 2006)

hong said:
			
		

> IME, people want what they like. And what they like, they also tend to be good at. I like crunchy bits with which to build monsters, encounters, PCs, etc. I also want crunchy bits, and I tend to be good at using crunchy bits. You want edge cases because you like edge cases. You are probably also good at coming up with edge cases. You don't need a ruleset pointing out exceptions for you.



I don't see it as an either/or proposition.  



> If I wanted a self-help book, I know where to get them.



Seven Habits of Highly Effective Dungeon Masters?


----------



## Ourph (Jul 18, 2006)

hong said:
			
		

> Because they have more money than you.




I doubt that, although I will concede that their money is probably a much easier target.  A fool and his money are soon parted.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 18, 2006)

> I think the problem here really IS "whiny player syndrome" because it's not that the character can't go on, it's that the character can't go on at the same maximum level of effectiveness he was functioning at before the equipment was lost. To me that's just another way of saying "I won't play unless the deck is stacked in my favor" and I can't see why anyone would want the game to be designed around players who approach the game with that attitude.




I had written a rather long explanation of why some people play D&D in the first place, but I think it would somehow be pointless to post it because apparently, according to the above quote, investing your fun in your equipment is badwrongfun that D&D, in it's infinite wisdom, should aspire to be better than.

I know people who play D&D in part because they like the idea of getting magical trinkets and ancient doodads and mystical mcguffins to help them overcome their adversaries. Anything that walks around destroying them would mean that these people would not have fun. Now, if that same thing walked around *threatening* them, that's a lot of fun. The original rust monster's RUST ability walks around destroying stuff. The new one fights characters for it. 

If posters want to continue to insult anyone who has fun like that as stupid and whiny, I'm affraid I don't share the condescension, nor do I see such an attitude as healthy for the growth of D&D, which, in order to compete in a crowded gaming marketplace, MUST provide as much fun to as many people as it possibly can. Including people who thought that the coolest part of the Lord of the Rings was the magical doodads.

It's not an attitude problem, as fun as it is to judge those who do things different. It is merely that playing D&D and enjoying your ancestral +1 axe is FUN. Which makes MM rust monsters a BUZZKILL. What do you do to a buzzkill at a party? You either kick him out or tell him to shape up. Mearls did a very nice job making the monsters shape up. It has some issues (maybe it seems a bit forced), but at least it's not making a scene. It gets an invite to my party now (with some reservations....like, it can't have 10-minute-auto-heal). 



> Actually, I haven't seen any evidence that its a game breaker,




If you want to disregard, for example, my scenarios above as not realistic, that would fall under disagreeing with the evidence (contradiction). To which I can only say, if you'd like to prove it, come into town and run a rust monster encounter with my friends and see how well you fare. People have better things to do than suffer through a D&D session where they're not enjoying themselves. And my group will (it's not about what we do, it's about who we're with). I assume my group is not entirely unique in this regard, as it's happened in every group I've ever been a part of since 2e. D&D is not some sort of special unique snowflake we're going to play because we feel obligated to suffer through it's presence. It has a job to do. If watching the game on TV or playing videogames would do the job better, we do that.

I have no reason to believe anyone else would sit through a session in which they're not having fun. And for a large chunk of players, getting your stuff (the stuff they have so much fun getting) eradicated on one die roll is so not fun that it would affect book sales. 

Don't believe some people have fun with stuff? Don't believe people have better things to do than a non-fun session of D&D? Fine. But that's dismissing the evidence.



> You can bend to the gospel of Mearls all you want. That's fine. But please don't just dismiss all the criticism because others of us don't agree. Your characterization of us is about as insulting as me calling you a whiny git who can't play a character who isn't surgically attached to his equipment and stomps off when the DM tells you you've run out of arrows. It's inaccurate and irritating.




I don't hear anyone bending to the gospel of mearls, nor do I hear criticism dismissed (unless you count the idea that having fun with stuff is badwrongfun). I'm merely making a case from the facts available to me. Which include the fact that some of my players have a lot of fun with their stuff and would effectively mutiny if I ran the core MM rust monster, but won't  if I run the revised version. So it is factually inaccurate to say that the rust monster is not a game-stopper. Maybe not for you. Maybe not even for most people. But certainly for my current group. Assuming that my group is not some sort of mutant anomoly and that there are other people out there who have fun with their stuff, my case is not unique.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but the fact that WotC design seems to share my concerns would indicate that I'm not (they have the best market research in the industry, after all). But hey, maybe they got their facts wrong, or maybe they wouldn't care about my gaming dollar because they get enough from other sources.

But that doesn't make the "rust monster is a game-stopper" inaccurate. It's not. It's the truth. Saying "no it isn't!" and claiming that I'm insulting you by saying it is strikes me as over-reactionary.

Look at the evidence. Feel free to dismiss any part of it, but at least get the facts straight before assuming I'm talking out of my rump.

1. People play D&D to have fun.
2. I know what helps my friends have fun in D&D, like any DM should.
3. Given that, I can say with some reliability that my friends have fun with their stuff. This may or may not be unique to my friends, but the fact that every edition of D&D has had cool stuff is certainly a point to say that it may not be.
4. Given that, I can reliably predict that making them roll a die to see if their stuff is destroyed would be something that wouldn't be fun for them.
5. If my group doesn't have fun, it does something else. Like #3, this may not be typical. But the general wisdom that people do what they want would indicate that it's at least somewhat typical.
6. WotC wants to keep people playing D&D. Presumably, as much people, as often as possible, because that would maximize their profits.
7. The re-design of the rust monster to do damage rather than completely eradicate means that if I use it, I don't have a problem of rolling once and then destroying items. Which means I can use it in my game. Which means the game is that much more fun for me, that my investment in the MM is worth that much more, and that I am likely, happy as I am, to continue buying D&D books, making everyone happy.
8. Thus, the re-design was a good one.

Counter to that seem to be people who either don't have as much fun with stuff as my players, or who would play D&D even if they're not having much fun doing it. If either segement is bigger than my little subset, then the re-deisgn wasn't good for the game.

The fact that WotC has crack market research (a "listen to the players" philosophy that mearls demonstrated even in this thread!), and apparently hires people who think similar to the way I do in order to keep their market and grow it, is evidence that my view is not an exceptional one.

Now, can you disagree? Sure, why not. Does that make your dismissal of my position as coddling and insulting accurate? I don't think so.


----------



## Melan (Jul 18, 2006)

Meh. I am absolutely, 100% positive that if WotC "R&D" (bwah hah hah) were removing classes, levels and hit points from the game, there would be a bunch of apologists here hailing it as the new pinnacle of good game design. Screw that. This change sucks, and there is no overwhelming need to elucidate any further. Sometimes you just have to say no to a stupid concept, and this revised critter is one.


----------



## Rel (Jul 18, 2006)

Thread closed at the request of the OP.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 18, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> Was meant as a joke; will go back put in winky.




My little sister used to say "I don't mean to be rude but..." and would proceed to be rude.

A winky doesn't automatically make something that is rude and dismissive of other peoples favoured settings (+2 bluff, spot, listen etc) un-rude.

In other words, be more careful with your words, don't aim to cause offence please.

Regards


----------

