Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Shadwlore 01-09-06, 06:26 PM	Is cold iron subject to the effects of a rust monster attack? I seem to be having troubles using the search forums option. If so why, if not why? Thanks p.s. does this also apply to other 'special' metals? Some of them do not rust as they are not ferrous.
StevenO 01-09-06, 06:41 PM	Yes, cold iron is still affected by a rust monster. Cold iron is still iron, it just had a different manufacturing process applied. Note that all ferrous materials contain iron (Fe) but other metals corrode (oxidize=iron rust) as well. Just look at copper to see how a non-iron metal will rust. The rust monster is even worse than normal oxidation and can affect even metals that we normally believe can't rust such as gold.
masterofmayhem 01-09-06, 08:43 PM	In fact, the description of the rust monster's rust attack states nothing of the metal needing to be ferrous (although such could easily be inferred from the name). Also, its rust attack does not rust; it the name is a misnomer. It actually corrodes. And since the ability says that it destroys "target metals," it can destroy any metal, including adamantine. Rust (Ex) A rust monster that makes a successful touch attack with its antennae causes the target metal to corrode, falling to pieces and becoming useless immediately. The touch can destroy up to a 10-foot cube of metal instantly. Magic armor and weapons, and other magic items made of metal, must succeed on a DC 17 Reflex save or be dissolved. The save DC is Constitution-based and includes a +4 racial bonus. A metal weapon that deals damage to a rust monster corrodes immediately. Wooden, stone, and other nonmetallic weapons are unaffected
Surreal 01-10-06, 04:11 AM	It's scary to think that a Rust Monster can rip up an Iron Golem just like that. It's even scarier to think that advancing a Rust Monster and slapping on a couple templates can jack that rust DC into the 30's around CR 8 :D
RaspK FOG 01-10-06, 10:08 AM	In fact, the description of the rust monster's rust attack states nothing of the metal needing to be ferrous (although such could easily be inferred from the name). Also, its rust attack does not rust; it the name is a misnomer. It actually corrodes. And since the ability says that it destroys "target metals," it can destroy any metal, including adamantine. It still is debatable... If a supplement comes around with rules for golden weapons (for example) which rules corrosion out, then there would be no chance for a rust monster's attack to actually corrode it. However, gold can actually be corroded; you just have to use something like as aqua regia (a potent acid; read here (http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCESoft/CCA/CCA3/MAIN/AQREGIA/PAGE1.HTM)).
Bob Loblaw 01-10-06, 11:17 AM	It still is debatable... If a supplement comes around with rules for golden weapons (for example) which rules corrosion out, then there would be no chance for a rust monster's attack to actually corrode it. It's not debatable at all. The rust monster's ability, as it is written, corrodes all metals in comes in contact with. There are other abilities that can counter act this (e.g., gauntlets of rust). Magic of Fearun has rules for golden weapons (and other metals as well) on page 179, and there is nothing stating that corrosion is ruled out. While it may be a 3.0 supplement, there seems to be nothing that contradicts this in 3.5.
Tyler Do'Urden 01-10-06, 12:02 PM	Yeah. Mechanics first, realism second. A rust monster's antennae instantly destroy up to one cubic foot of any metal, including steel, iron, bronze, mithral, adamantine, shadesteel, cold iron, silver and gold, silver and gold, copper, platinum, aluminum, pewter, and NASA-grade titanium. They're abberations; they don't have to listen to chemistry and physics if they don't want to.
RaspK FOG 01-10-06, 01:20 PM	Yeah. Mechanics first, realism second. A rust monster's antennae instantly destroy up to one cubic foot of any metal, including steel, iron, bronze, mithral, adamantine, shadesteel, cold iron, silver and gold, silver and gold, copper, platinum, aluminum, pewter, and NASA-grade titanium. They're abberations; they don't have to listen to chemistry and physics if they don't want to. That makes my forward statement even more sound; you did not pay attention to what I wrote, that, should a supplement suggest that golden weapons are immune to corrosion, they would not be corroded by a rust monster's attack; there are some armours and/or armour abilities, I think, that specifically mention how they, aside from acid resistance, also are immune to acid and corrosion. Think of it this way: while the rust monster's entry says that all metals are vulnerable to it, the entry of an item or property of an item that makes it immune to corrosion overrides the earlier entry and thus grants protection to that item, even from a rust monster's attack. ;)
masterofmayhem 01-10-06, 02:50 PM	Yeah. Mechanics first, realism second. They're abberations; they don't have to listen to chemistry and physics if they don't want to. :) Thank you, Tyler. I am glad to know there are other people who disagree with "but physics say this, so you have to allow me my brokenness!" Not saying this is broken in any way, though. :angel: That makes my forward statement even more sound; you did not pay attention to what I wrote, that, should a supplement suggest that golden weapons are immune to corrosion, they would not be corroded by a rust monster's attack; there are some armours and/or armour abilities, I think, that specifically mention how they, aside from acid resistance, also are immune to acid and corrosion. Think of it this way: while the rust monster's entry says that all metals are vulnerable to it, the entry of an item or property of an item that makes it immune to corrosion overrides the earlier entry and thus grants protection to that item, even from a rust monster's attack. He likely misinterpreted your previous post. It still is debatable... If a supplement comes around with rules for golden weapons (for example) which rules corrosion out, then there would be no chance for a rust monster's attack to actually corrode it. The way you phrased it made it sound as if golden weapons were already not published, and that they would automatically be immune to corrosion of any form. But, yes, you are right. The rust monster can destroy any metal . . . except for those metals that specifically state that they are immune to corrosion or rust. Simply being "ultra-hard," or "nigh unbreakable" is not good enough.
Izzak 01-10-06, 03:32 PM	To me a good descion is to once you encounter one of these little buggers whip out your great club or a quarter staff and beat on the this thing
masterofmayhem 01-10-06, 04:35 PM	Yeah, that works perfectly. At least, it would, if only you A) knew that it was a rust monster, and know what it does (knowledge check for a fighter? Ha!), and B) aren’t wearing any metal armor or shield. Because if you are, your friendly neighborhood rust monster will likely make the large, fifty pound suit of food on your back his first meal. :) Really, all people involved in a rust monster fight that have any metal on them should just run . . .
WhiteHarness 01-10-06, 07:22 PM	I hate rust monsters. It's blatantly obvious that Gygax invented them just to discomfit the metal armour wearing PCs in a game. I never include them, and would leave a group if the DM ever threw one in. Some D&D monsters are just stupid.
Neodymium 01-10-06, 08:17 PM	just cover your armor with cloth or leather. if it can't touch the metal it can't effect it. wrap the hilt of your entirely with leather and keep it in the sheath and just use it as a club.
Bob Loblaw 01-10-06, 09:37 PM	RaspK FOG, sorry if I came across wrong. As masterofmayhem said, I misunderstood what you were saying. Neodymium, your tactic really wouldn't work. In a battle, the leather or cloth you covered your armor with would be torn apart. Claws, bites, swords, fire, etc. would tear it to the point that the rust monster would easily be able to corrode your gear. At least that's how I would rule.
Tyler Do'Urden 01-10-06, 10:15 PM	God, don't you people carry a club? Quarterstaff? Pike? Monk? Anything? Rust monsters really aren't that big a deal. you did not pay attention to what I wroteNope.
Finfreeze 01-10-06, 11:16 PM	Rust monsters really aren't that big a deal.Unless, of course, they're 69+ HD rust monsters with Improved Unarmed Strike... ...oh, and the Leadership chain.
Emeramber 01-10-06, 11:18 PM	Disturbingly, I've always thought that the rust monster was cute. (What do you expect from a woman with nightgaunt and shoggoth plushies...) Sadly, one of the players (and often GM) in my group has many painful experiences with the poor wee beasties, so my pleas to keep one as a pet fall on deaf ears.
Neodymium 01-11-06, 01:25 AM	RaspK FOG, sorry if I came across wrong. As masterofmayhem said, I misunderstood what you were saying. Neodymium, your tactic really wouldn't work. In a battle, the leather or cloth you covered your armor with would be torn apart. Claws, bites, swords, fire, etc. would tear it to the point that the rust monster would easily be able to corrode your gear. At least that's how I would rule. this isn't like a permanent perfect solution. just have the stuff packed up so if you have any prep time after spotting the beast you can make it happen. and hopefully, the rust monster won't claw through your cover before your team bludgeons it to death.
Tyler Do'Urden 01-11-06, 02:15 AM	Unless, of course, they're 69+ HD rust monsters with Improved Unarmed Strike.That's completely rediculous.
Surreal 01-11-06, 03:53 AM	Rust monsters really aren't that big a deal. Advanced rust monsters being used a mounts can be annoying though.
Finfreeze 01-11-06, 07:26 AM	That's completely rediculous.Well, "completely ridiculous" is certainly a big deal, right? Well, at least we both agree that rust monsters make the best leaders. Either way, colossi have HD from 64 (stone) to 100 (flesh) and their CRs are only in the 20s. A 69 HD rust monster is only CR 20. All it gets are (less, compared to the intelligent and thus supposedly featworthy colossi) feats and the ability to rust things. Unarmed Strike's just there to give it a couple more attacks. I just find it funny that a 69 HD monster, its ECL 67 cohort (say, a wizard with epic spells), and its 6 level 13-15 followers (not to mention the other 56,399 followers of below 13th level) could be considered a CR 20 encounter in any stretch of the rules.
Kraleck 01-11-06, 09:01 AM	God, don't you people carry a club? Quarterstaff? Pike? Monk? Anything? Rust monsters really aren't that big a deal. You forgot Druid. :cool:
jasper 01-11-06, 09:25 AM	I hate rust monsters. It's blatantly obvious that Gygax invented them just to discomfit the metal armour wearing PCs in a game. I never include them, and would leave a group if the DM ever threw one in. Some D&D monsters are just stupid. bye see you. Sorry some monsters and they are "monsters" (said with a bugs bunny accent) are created just to counter certain PCs who are always distrubing an evil genius rest.
RaspK FOG 01-11-06, 11:58 AM	RaspK FOG, sorry if I came across wrong. As masterofmayhem said, I misunderstood what you were saying. Neodymium, your tactic really wouldn't work. In a battle, the leather or cloth you covered your armor with would be torn apart. Claws, bites, swords, fire, etc. would tear it to the point that the rust monster would easily be able to corrode your gear. At least that's how I would rule. Thank you for apologising, and sorry if I sounded harsh. ;) An idea a friend of mine had still strikes me as ludicrously vicious: a dwarven character who befriends a rust monster (Handle Animal or some spell, perhaps), trained it as a mount, and rode on it to battle while wielding a rock hammer or mace and wearing a suit of stone plate armour! Can this be done with a paladin or animal companion, I ask? :D
WhiteHarness 01-11-06, 12:19 PM	I wouldn't penalize a PC for being creative. A surcoat should prevent a Rust Monster from destroying your armour. So should paying a little extra to have the armour painted, enamelled, etc. to ward off rust. I mean, if the monster can't touch the metal, it can't rust it. Furthermore, I don't think any metal item should be automatically, arbitrarily, and instantly totally destroyed just because one of these beasties merely touches it. Why not have it deal damage to the metal item? D&D has statistics for hit points of armour/weapons/etc. for a reason...
Chachi 01-11-06, 12:40 PM	Thank you for apologising, and sorry if I sounded harsh. ;) An idea a friend of mine had still strikes me as ludicrously vicious: a dwarven character who befriends a rust monster (Handle Animal or some spell, perhaps), trained it as a mount, and rode on it to battle while wielding a rock hammer or mace and wearing a suit of stone plate armour! Can this be done with a paladin or animal companion, I ask? :D So, your friend read the entry on rust monsters in the Arms and Equipment Guide? :rolleyes: Also, transmute rock to mud could hose our hypothetical dwarven rust-rider pretty easily. A rust monster couldn't be used as an animal companion, since their type is aberration. A paladin might be able to use one as a mount, but what deity would link their paladins to rust monsters? In any event, the DM would have to determine how many effective paladin levels a rust monster removes for the purpose of special mount abilities.
jasper 01-11-06, 02:02 PM	using the rust monster as mount is interesting. But I would have the player roleplay it out. Ex Dwarf " I hop on rust monster and try to break it as bronco." dice rolling. DM, " the rust monster bucks you off and while you are in the air tags your plate.".... " The rest of party notes you wear little bunny foo foo under wear." etc.
RaspK FOG 01-11-06, 05:12 PM	So, your friend read the entry on rust monsters in the Arms and Equipment Guide? :rolleyes: Actually, he mentioned it before the book was published; it was a tactic he had used once as a DM under AD&D 2e... had a whole bunch of those guys, really! Also, transmute rock to mud could hose our hypothetical dwarven rust-rider pretty easily. Read this: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/transmuteRocktoMud.htm) the spell affects only uncut or unworked stone. ;) A rust monster couldn't be used as an animal companion, since their type is aberration. Indeed; that part of the question was a bit of a joke, really. A paladin might be able to use one as a mount, but what deity would link their paladins to rust monsters? In any event, the DM would have to determine how many effective paladin levels a rust monster removes for the purpose of special mount abilities. One that hates metal, I guess... In any case, the latter is obviously true, but using other special mounts as reference could help a lot! ;)
Vahenir 01-11-06, 05:45 PM	I hate rust monsters. It's blatantly obvious that Gygax invented them just to discomfit the metal armour wearing PCs in a game. I never include them, and would leave a group if the DM ever threw one in. Some D&D monsters are just stupid. Don't worry - you're not the only one that thinks so. I've never used Rust Monsters, and never will. Too contrived and downright silly. But then, there are -lots- of monsters that I don't ever use in my games. I also almost never use uber-spellcaster-talking-mega-Dragons.
RaspK FOG 01-11-06, 08:30 PM	Don't worry - you're not the only one that thinks so. I've never used Rust Monsters, and never will. Too contrived and downright silly. But then, there are -lots- of monsters that I don't ever use in my games. I also almost never use uber-spellcaster-talking-mega-Dragons. I would also generally avoid using the blasted creature ever... I once made the mistake of doing so (only due to the fact that I was running a published adventure and it was the one part I did not really want to have to change, using mostly standard monsters [converting 2e adventure books to 3e can be a real pain in the neck, what with their 75 minimum page count!]), and to this day I truly feel that was a lack of judgement. Luckily and, because it was found to be a little unfair to have a cherissed magic adamantine axe made by the wielder himself (The Craftsmachine, I'd dare call him, given his skill modifier) be broken down for delivering a fine killing blow to the bedamned beast, a Fortitude saving throw was granted for the weapon. I can still recall our relief when the die came up just right. ;)
masterofmayhem 01-11-06, 08:57 PM	Unless, of course, they're 69+ HD rust monsters with Improved Unarmed Strike... ...oh, and the Leadership chain. There is a reason that rust monsters have a HD cap of 15, and it is precisely to avoid the situation you alluded to. Most monsters simply become too powerful with too many hit dice, since their hit dice increase much more quickly than does their CR. This is especially true for creatures with instant kill attacks, and while not as serious without an instant kill, for anything that has any kind of ability based upon its hit dice (any sort of special ability, rather than a simple spell), it can get quite, well, ridiculous. ;) Also, it could be debated as to whether or not a normal rust monster could take the Leadership feat, as it requires a character level of six. A character level is defined as "A character's total level. For a character with levels in only one class, class level and character level are the same thing." This seems to imply that you must be a character to have a character level, and rust monsters are not characters (barring the strange occurrence where a DM allows such.