YAY!!! I was very upset that the Rust Monster was not in MMI, but am ecstatic that it will be in MMII, AND it has a mini! Finally! Rust Monsters are one of my all time favorite critters and I am so excited that I won't have to use those stupid beetle minis to represent them anymore. *Does dance of joy*
Ugh. Source?
Rust monsters are totally fun, in a "ruin-your-player's-session" kind of way.
Ugh. Source?
Rust monsters are totally fun, in a "ruin-your-player's-session" kind of way.
There was an article late in 3rd's life where Mike Mearls redid the Rust Monster to where it wasn't such a roadblock to an adventurer; instead of auto-destroying your stuff, it gave you penalties to either attack or AC depending on what it was attacking. Odds are, it'll work like that, so it won't be a total hosejob.
It will be interesting to see how it was converted into 4E - its abilities were basically a save or die effect that destroyed equipment. Neither concept translates into 4E at all, so it probably underwent heavy-duty modification (somewhere along the line of beholders losing their anti-magic eye).
Yeah, I was happy that the rust monster was not included in 4th Edition. It's inclusion in the Monster Manual II means that I will not buy the Monster Manual II.
You'll have to pardon my language, but that's kinda a bull-**** response. "X has one thing I don't like, so I'm going to avoid the whole lot of it." I mean, if you have some better reasons, I could understand - but that standing alone is just... bewildering to me.
That all said, yeah, I noticed the Rust Monster mini too. I've never used the little blighter in the past, but if the mechanics stay in line with the rest of 4th (so, essentially, they neuter the bugger), it might actually see the light of play.
Maybe.
I'm sorry if I like to put things in my games that challenge my players in different ways. It seems to me that my players enjoy encounters where they have to improvise or use a litte creativity to succeed. But, I guess some people just aren't into that sort of thing....
To each his own.
A rust monster encounter has never been about challenge and innovation. It's always been just an incredibly limiting annoyance. The spellcasters get to play, and everybody else runs in dread hoping that their gear doesn't vanish.
Including them to begin with was poor game design. Pouting about everybody else not sharing your enthusiasm and casting aspersions at their gameplay style is sort of silly.
There are plenty of ways to challenge a player without wrecking their gear, Dazmiuth. Players get really upset when their prized weapons and armor are suddenly monster chow. Martial or other melee characters are more or less completely useless in an encounter with a rust monster, as it has classically operated, and an unexpected or lucky attack by one can drop their combat effectiveness for the next several encounters.
A rust monster encounter has never been about challenge and innovation. It's always been just an incredibly limiting annoyance. The spellcasters get to play, and everybody else runs in dread hoping that their gear doesn't vanish.
Including them to begin with was poor game design. Pouting about everybody else not sharing your enthusiasm and casting aspersions at their gameplay style is sort of silly.
Actually, I'm pretty sure everyone else was pouting about it being in the MMII. You must play with some cognitively challenged players if the martial charcters have to "sit out" against rust monsters. That would be where the improvising and adaptation comes in to play. But hey, my players are smart enough to examine their environment to find weapons or terrain that can assist them.
Actually, I'm pretty sure everyone else was pouting about it being in the MMII. You must play with some cognitively challenged players if the martial charcters have to "sit out" against rust monsters. That would be where the improvising and adaptation comes in to play. But hey, my players are smart enough to examine their environment to find weapons or terrain that can assist them.
So in short, martial characters need to resort to improvised actions entirely to somehow damage it without using their equipment and staying out of it's range? Of course, because forsaking all class abilities to use scripted terrain features is a privelige for Martial classes to enjoy (/sarcasm)
If you'd like to defend your position with examples, I'd love to hear them.
There are always encounters that are easier on some classes than others, look at old school magic immune constructs.... in those cases, casters are the ones who have to think outside of the box.
I find that if the players have to use their imagination every now and then, they tend to have more fun than just using the same ole "I attack with my sword" 8762493247269 times in a row.
Variety is the spice of life.
You might considering this "a refreshing change of pace" but its also "being unable to play as a member of your class". If you player wanted to do unusual things in battle, I'm all for giving them the option and the opportunity. It's creating a situation where they don't have a choice to act normally that can lead to the problems 4e is designed to avoid.
But this is 4e. Martial classes have interesting sword swings, and table legs are very weak unless you do some houseruling (not to mention their armor is still at risk). Likewise, a magicless caster shot arrows or hid in the past.
You might considering this "a refreshing change of pace" but its also "being unable to play as a member of your class". If you player wanted to do unusual things in battle, I'm all for giving them the option and the opportunity. It's creating a situation where they don't have a choice to act normally that can lead to the problems 4e is designed to avoid.
Indeed, and we don't even know how the rust monster works in 4E....
I'm sure they have nerfed the rust monster quite a bit.
Indeed, and we don't even know how the rust monster works in 4E....
I'm sure they have nerfed the rust monster quite a bit.
'nerfed' made it where it doesn't screw martial power source out of its abilities...its close to the same thing.
Seriously, just like Beholders lost anti-magic rays I expect the Rust monster to lose its Sword NOM! NOM NOM! powers.
Either way, even if they totally blow the mechanic on the Rust Monster, MMII will have plenty of things that make it worth getting. I'm not going to use the title pages in encounters either, doesn't mean I won't get the book.
-Drillboss
"immediate interrupt. Trigger: when hit in melee whit a weapon. Effect: the target get a -2 cumulative to hit whit the weapon used until the end of the encounter."
and
"Rust Attack: xxx vs.FOR. Hit: dX+X, and the target get a -1 cumulative to AC until the end of the encounter."
"Munch Munch attack: xxx vs. AC: 2dX+X"
Anyway, I always loved it. Once, a 3.5th 24lvl party encountered one:
"What? A rust monster at our level?"
"Hey let me check to be sure" *roll knowledge*
DM: "It's The Rust Monster"
"ho... ok. Hey, WAIT! What do ou mean whit "THE rust monster"...?"
DM (smile): "It's the Paragon Rust Monster. The perfect one. The first the gods have created."
all: "Run for your armors!"
The end-question is not the degree of "nerf" it needs; it's a question of how many choices the players can take to fighting it, and are those choices fun? Perhaps it can destroy one piece of equipment thru a series of failed saves (as opposed to automatically destroying one with every hit). Is rust something that is always a threat or only from one of its attacks? Is it fully vulnerable to weapons or does it have resistance to certain attacks? It's a great monster, and I hope it can be realized well.
(...but then I think flumphs being reborn as an enemy that, when flipped over, is more vulnerable but changes to a nastier & different set of attacks, is a cool idea too.)
It appears to be a miniature in the upcoming Dangerous Delves booster set, although I can't find an official reference for it.
It will be interesting to see how it was converted into 4E - its abilities were basically a save or die effect that destroyed equipment. Neither concept translates into 4E at all, so it probably underwent heavy-duty modification (somewhere along the line of beholders losing their anti-magic eye).
The Paint master at DDXP, unfortunatly the tail had been broken off and had to be glued on later.
Also, taking away some of the PCs standard modes of attack is a great way to shake things up. If the fighter is less effective and has to stay in the back, all the better. He can play support for one battle, and the wizard has to be up front taking the hits. You don't want this every fight, but unless you are invading a nest of Rust Monsters, these situations will be few and far between, just enough to keep things interesting.
And it's just not DnD without the rust monster.
Each time they change the rules, it's a different game. As long as they keep the rust monster, the beholder, the ethereal filcher, the flumph, and other unique D&D creatures, and call the game D&D, each different game they come out with is still D&D.
As for those who cry a little at the coming of the metal eatin' bug, and whine that they can't pway dere widdle cwass cuz the mean ol' monstah ate all their toys... eh. Suck it up, crybabies. Gosh, how horrible, sometimes monsters make things difficult.
D&D is a brand name, and a mythology, and about 13 different games.
Each time they change the rules, it's a different game. As long as they keep the rust monster, the beholder, the ethereal filcher, the flumph, and other unique D&D creatures, and call the game D&D, each different game they come out with is still D&D.
As for those who cry a little at the coming of the metal eatin' bug, and whine that they can't pway dere widdle cwass cuz the mean ol' monstah ate all their toys... eh. Suck it up, crybabies. Gosh, how horrible, sometimes monsters make things difficult.
Rust Monsters are cool because they add a new kind of fear to the players. Against most monsters they take damage, and they get healed. If they die, they get raised. But the fear of losing precious magic gear is great. It is a threat that can be followed up on, and so is much more terrifying to the players. It is a rare and precious situation when the PCs fear extends to the players.
Also, taking away some of the PCs standard modes of attack is a great way to shake things up. If the fighter is less effective and has to stay in the back, all the better. He can play support for one battle, and the wizard has to be up front taking the hits. You don't want this every fight, but unless you are invading a nest of Rust Monsters, these situations will be few and far between, just enough to keep things interesting.
And it's just not DnD without the rust monster.
Thank you guys! I was beginning to think no one else see things the way I do.
Yeah, I was happy that the rust monster was not included in 4th Edition. It's inclusion in the Monster Manual II means that I will not buy the Monster Manual II.
Oh please. One monster you don't like and suddenly the whole work is tainted. That's childishness on an epic level. Honestly, this is 4th Edition. The critter won't be as abusive as it once was but still be a useful pest. And it's Iconic.
Redneck moron wins the lottery. Goes to the office, says "Gimme mah money!"
Official says: You get one million now, one million a year for the next thirty years."
Redneck moron says: No! I won it, gimme mah money Naow!
Official says: No. You get one million now, one million a year for the next thirty years.
Redneck moron says: Screw you, then! Either gimme mah money naow, or gimme back mah Dollah!
---
Yeah... I totally understand how you'll not buy the MMII because it has one monster in it you don't like.
Rust Monsters are cool because they add a new kind of fear to the players. Against most monsters they take damage, and they get healed. If they die, they get raised. But the fear of losing precious magic gear is great. It is a threat that can be followed up on, and so is much more terrifying to the players. It is a rare and precious situation when the PCs fear extends to the players.
Also, taking away some of the PCs standard modes of attack is a great way to shake things up. If the fighter is less effective and has to stay in the back, all the better. He can play support for one battle, and the wizard has to be up front taking the hits. You don't want this every fight, but unless you are invading a nest of Rust Monsters, these situations will be few and far between, just enough to keep things interesting.
And it's just not DnD without the rust monster.
How exactly do you propose to have the Fighter play a support role? What sort of abilities does the Fighter have to facilitate a non-melee support role in combat? In fact, how do you propose any class of any role suddenly adopt another role? They're just not built that way. Rust monsters don't just make melee characters change and adapt - they make them useless.
How do you compensate characters for the sudden catastrophic drop in effectiveness that the loss of their gear? If they get their stuff replaced immediately, why should they fear in the first place? If not, you've just forced them to play catch-up, throwing a major wrench into the balance of power via wealth distribution, and until they replace their gear, they'll be either seriously handicapped or completely useless. Sounds like fun, eh?
I'm taking it on faith that the 4E creators will change the rust monster so that it doesn't work like this. Because that flies in the face of everything 4E has done so far.
How exactly do you propose to have the Fighter play a support role? What sort of abilities does the Fighter have to facilitate a non-melee support role in combat? In fact, how do you propose any class of any role suddenly adopt another role? They're just not built that way. Rust monsters don't just make melee characters change and adapt - they make them useless.
The fact that fighter can't use his usual powers is what makes it interesting. He can used ranged weapons, or use the Heal skill to help out. The encounter will probably have other monsters to fight, with the fighter running around to avoid the rust monster. It's not a permanent change, it is just for one fight. One monster even.
How do you compensate characters for the sudden catastrophic drop in effectiveness that the loss of their gear? If they get their stuff replaced immediately, why should they fear in the first place? If not, you've just forced them to play catch-up, throwing a major wrench into the balance of power via wealth distribution, and until they replace their gear, they'll be either seriously handicapped or completely useless. Sounds like fun, eh?
A clever DM can place other items to make up for it, either better or worse than those lost. Even if they end up with a better item in the end, they will still be sweating a little until then. I hope no loss of item is enough to make a PC useless, as long as they are willing to adapt. It also serves to get rid of old items, in lieu of the "melt it down" disenchant ritual. A DM who wants to can make it work, and it can be as detrimental or ultimately beneficial as they want.
I'm taking it on faith that the 4E creators will change the rust monster so that it doesn't work like this. Because that flies in the face of everything 4E has done so far.
I agree that the 4e version will probably be different than the predecesors. But I hope that it retains the terror it had in previous editions.
Like any game element, the rust monster is a tool for a willing DM to add excitement to an adventure.
How exactly do you propose to have the Fighter play a support role? What sort of abilities does the Fighter have to facilitate a non-melee support role in combat? In fact, how do you propose any class of any role suddenly adopt another role? They're just not built that way. Rust monsters don't just make melee characters change and adapt - they make them useless.
How do you compensate characters for the sudden catastrophic drop in effectiveness that the loss of their gear? If they get their stuff replaced immediately, why should they fear in the first place? If not, you've just forced them to play catch-up, throwing a major wrench into the balance of power via wealth distribution, and until they replace their gear, they'll be either seriously handicapped or completely useless. Sounds like fun, eh?
I'm taking it on faith that the 4E creators will change the rust monster so that it doesn't work like this. Because that flies in the face of everything 4E has done so far.
So I suppose you just prefer all of your games to consist of a group of players who assume the exact same position and role in every battle every time.... I bet that is exciting! "Alright guys, the fight is about to begin, everyone assume the tactical wedge.... again."
I'm sorry but it's this kind of thinking that blows my mind, maybe you cut your rpg teeth on MMO's, but you know wizards are capable of hitting things with their staff, and fighters are capable of using ranged weapons or improvised weapons.
If a rust monster ever runs rampant over a party and destroys a majority of one player's equipment, it is both the DM's and the party's responsibility to help him obtain equivalent gear. Perhaps in your games players are selfish, but in every group I have ever played in, the other party members gladly offer to help purchase equipment for a character who has lost his. Last time I checked DnD was a team oriented game.
I guess some people like DnD on easy mode with little risk for the reward. I prefer a challenge.
Ugh. Source?
Rust monsters are totally fun, in a "ruin-your-player's-session" kind of way.
To answer your question, D&D Podcast, latest cast. Being a somewhat n00b, I've never encountered one (being that I've only played 4e). It sounds very nerve-racking for the players. I would bust one out if I was replacement DM or something. Or maybe... 5 of them! :evillaugh
The fact that fighter can't use his usual powers is what makes it interesting. He can used ranged weapons, or use the Heal skill to help out. The encounter will probably have other monsters to fight, with the fighter running around to avoid the rust monster. It's not a permanent change, it is just for one fight. One monster even.
How many ranged weapons does a Fighter generally have? How many ranged powers? And how, exactly, do you expect to have melee characters running from the rust monster while standing up to hypothetical other monsters? It doesn't work.
A clever DM can place other items to make up for it, either better or worse than those lost. Even if they end up with a better item in the end, they will still be sweating a little until then. I hope no loss of item is enough to make a PC useless, as long as they are willing to adapt. It also serves to get rid of old items, in lieu of the "melt it down" disenchant ritual. A DM who wants to can make it work, and it can be as detrimental or ultimately beneficial as they want.
4E design assumes that equipment stays relatively current. The loss of armor or a weapon severely handicaps a character. I don't see the merit in doing this if you're going to replace it soon after, and I really don't see the point in forcing the players to carry around backup gear in case you decide to screw them out of their actual gear. If you want to replace their equipment, give them something they like better and let them dispose of the previous.
I agree that the 4e version will probably be different than the predecesors. But I hope that it retains the terror it had in previous editions.
That precise terror is the same thing that the 4E designers promised us early on wouldn't happen - monsters that made certain classes useless.
Like any game element, the rust monster is a tool for a willing DM to add excitement to an adventure.
It's always been a very bad tool, used more to screw players than help construct an enjoyable encounter.
So I suppose you just prefer all of your games to consist of a group of players who assume the exact same position and role in every battle every time.... I bet that is exciting! "Alright guys, the fight is about to begin, everyone assume the tactical wedge.... again."
I'm sorry but it's this kind of thinking that blows my mind, maybe you cut your rpg teeth on MMO's, but you know wizards are capable of hitting things with their staff, and fighters are capable of using ranged weapons or improvised weapons.
If a rust monster ever runs rampant over a party and destroys a majority of one player's equipment, it is both the DM's and the party's responsibility to help him obtain equivalent gear. Perhaps in your games players are selfish, but in every group I have ever played in, the other party members gladly offer to help purchase equipment for a character who has lost his. Last time I checked DnD was a team oriented game.
I guess some people like DnD on easy mode with little risk for the reward. I prefer a challenge.
Wow, a post full of pathetic insults. How surprising.
It's not my fault if you need to shut down members of your party in order to create variety in your encounters. I do it with clever enemy tactics, terrains, and situations.
I have nothing against encouraging players to come up with ways to respond to unusual situations. But this can be done without screwing the characters or trivializing their equipment. My group likes having names and background stories for their weapons and armor, so 'buck up, we'll buy you a new one' doesn't really work so well.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060714a
A few quotes of relevance:
"Unfortunately, the rust monster's mechanics could use some work. Within the context of a single encounter, they're a lot of fun. But once your weapons and armor are rendered useless, the next encounter becomes that much more difficult. If you’ve invested thousands of gp into metal items, you better hope your DM is ready to hand over a ton of extra treasure to make up for your losses. At the very least, he needs to understand that the party's power level (especially for the fighter-types) is now behind the curve."
"Development's understanding of the game tells us that a monster who destroys your gear isn't fun."
"The rust monster carries a big sign that says, "Stop adventuring or die!""
Rust monster encounters might be memorable, but they're memorable not because they're cool, but because they're frustrating, annoying, unfair, and unfun.
Ludicrous. And just because a designer says something? Means nothing. They've been making umpteen predictions, and they change on a daily basis. They're corporate employees, and completely exchangeable. Unless a lawyer comes out and says "We will never have a rust monster in 4E, you have our corporate guarantee." Rustmonster's coming. It's going to have some kind of ability that targets metal weapons. Deal, or Just. Don't. Use. It.
Rust monster encounters might be memorable, but they're memorable not because they're cool, but because they're frustrating, annoying, unfair, and unfun.
I've had fun as a player, using metal weapons, in an encounter with a rustmonster. Then, in the encounter after that, I also had fun. Therefore, that statement is untrue. They can say whatever they like, doesn't mean it's true.
"Development's understanding of the game tells us that a monster who destroys your gear isn't fun."
Well, gosh. "Development's" understanding of the game might be... human? Flawed? Specific to their own experience? Hrm.
"Development's" understanding of the game brought us cascading ability damage in 3rd edition. That was toootally fun.
Here's the interesting part, and mind you we have been playing as a group for a little over 20 years; nobody remembers anything about that barbarian, except for his use of the axe handle. When we are sitting around discussing old games, we don't seem to remember how his barbarian destroyed things with his great axe, but we all remember how he went on a killing spree with his axe handle.
The last time it was brought up the conversation went: "oh and remember Matt's barbarian with the axe handle?" "Oh yeah, that was totally sweet, his wooden stick o'death."
Ten years from now, nobody is going to remember the stupid encounters where everyone played their characters in standard fashion. But everyone remembers the crazy barbarian with the axe handle or the monk with two broken hands (another story completely)!
Ten years from now, nobody is going to remember the stupid encounters where everyone played their characters in standard fashion. But everyone remembers the crazy barbarian with the axe handle or the monk with two broken hands (another story completely)!
But, but, but! He wasn't mechanically optimal! He didn't get to play with his favorite toys! He didn't get to waltz through the game having everything go exactly like he wanted!
However did he manage? How did you keep him from slamming down his pencil, bursting into tears, and running off home, when he couldn't have any fun playing without his favorite piece of equipment? Overcoming adversity is soooo 1980's. Let's try to keep that out of OUR games.
Heh.
But we don't let that DM run games anymore. Because he made the experience unfun.
My friends laugh and joke about our time in Basic Training and SERE training. Doesn't mean the experiences were actually fun enough to want to do again.
You're seriously right. Nothing is enjoyable unless it's done exactly how you want to do it, with all the things you want to do it with. You've changed my mind, and I totally agree with you.
Because I've been gaming for twelve years. I remember the fun games and characters very well, and completely forget the ones that weren't entertaining. Apparently, the barbarian and the game he was in was completely unremarkable except for when he got screwed over.
Absolutely, you're entirely right. Having bad things happen that make you less able to do exactly what you want really does ruin the game for everyone. You couldn't be more correct.
Sarcasm aside, yes. Being completely unable to do what the DM approved your character to be able to do when you made him sucks.
Absolutely, you're entirely right. Having bad things happen that make you less able to do exactly what you want really does ruin the game for everyone. You couldn't be more correct.
Are you familiar with the Straw Man fallacy?
Sorry, stupid question. Of course you are.
Maybe you should stick with 3.5. You appear to agree with its basic design and reject some of the fundamental reasons why 4E was developed.
Being able to use your character's abilities is fun. Not being able to use them is no fun. Therefore, encounters in which some characters have to avoid combat are no fun. 4E monsters and encounters, by the book, are designed to avoid situations where party members have nothing to do. Monsters that some characters have to flee to avoid serious long-term reductions in their effectiveness effectively nullify that character for that encounter, and perhaps longer.
Putting some players at a disadvantage compared to the others is no fun. That's why experience points and levels can't be lost or expended any longer. Rust monsters in past editions have worked by causing just this sort of disparity by destroying magical equipment, which often can't just be picked up at the store.
I like providing creative challenges with lasting consequences for my players. But this is not the way to do it.
Why do the posts of all the pro-rust monster folks revolve around insulting the intelligence, creativity, and play style of the people who don't like rust monsters? We're "crybabies" just because we don't like this monster?
I like to play characters in heavy metal armour. I like the "knight in shining armour" archetype. I don't get to enjoy playing a knight in shining armour if said armour is destroyed by an adversarial DM throwing these things at me because he mistakenly thinks it'll be "fun" and "challenging" and "different." DMs who go out of their way to antagonize their players so deserve no Chee-tos.
And it's just not DnD without the rust monster.
I beg to differ. I enjoy D&D just fine without the rust monster, thank you.
And it's Iconic.
But not as iconic as knights in armour.
Rust monster encounters might be memorable, but they're memorable not because they're cool, but because they're frustrating, annoying, unfair, and unfun.
Exactly.
Having made a Rust Monster for 4e. I used powers/attacks like this...
Slam (Standard; At-Will) [] Melee
+X vs. AC; 1D10+X damage; push the target 1 square
Special: This attack can be used in place of a basic attack when making a charge.
Rusting Antenna (Minor; At-Will) [] Melee 2
+X vs. Reflex; until the end of your next turn, the target cannot use powers with the Weapon keyword. The target may still make basic attacks using a weapon.
Corrode Armour (Standard; At-Will; recharge 5,6) [] Melee 2
+X vs. AC; the target loses any bonus to defences from Heavy Armour and shield (save ends).
and when making the Rust Monster a solo... I upped the Slam damage and creature size, scattered some nice terrain around to push PCs into, then added...
Scour Enchantment (Minor; Encounter)
Close Burst 3; +X vs. Reflex; Target's magical items are considered to have spent their daily or encounter powers until the end of the encounter.
Effect: The Target receives no benefit from any properties from any magical items they possess (save ends).
Special: The Target suffers a penalty to save against this power equal to -1 per magical item they are carrying.
I think that Rust Monsters will go down that track and just hinder you using your gear, rather than wiping it out.
Basically what they reduce down to, is two sides, "Challenge means bad stuff happening, you should enjoy a challenge by my definition." vs "Challenge does not mean ruining a player's options for one or more encounters. You should enjoy my definition of a challenge."
We have people who think players should enjoy losing their armor, their weapons, because that is challenging to them.
Then we have people that think that removing player's armor, weapons, is not challenging, but just being an ******* DM.
The simple fact is, not everyone will be happy with what WotC comes up with for the Rust Monster. There is no simple solution that will please both sides, so here's a better solution: if you think the rust monster should be tougher than WotC makes it, make it tougher; and if you think the rust monster is too tough, make it weaker!
Not everyone can be pleased, but WotC will try to please the most people. The people that use these forums are a tiny minority, and their playtest groups and focus groups are probably a better indication of enjoyment than any rant on this forum.
True. My group still laughs about the time one of our guys played a Wizard and was denied access to his spellbook from levels 1-7. Wizard with no spells. We'd laugh and call him a "level 5 Sarcastic Guy". It was great. The player got good at fast-talking his way around situations and hiding behind other characters when fast-talking wasn't enough.
But we don't let that DM run games anymore. Because he made the experience unfun.
My friends laugh and joke about our time in Basic Training and SERE training. Doesn't mean the experiences were actually fun enough to want to do again.
I hope you were never in any of my units, I would hate to have been deployed with you and you completely freak out because your weapon jammed or your kevlar strap broke.
It's called adversity, you deal with it.
I'm glad I play with the group I do. It seems like a lot of you people run games where the monsters are nothing more than cuttouts holding xp signs with mad loots to make your characters uber.
I bet you guys get all kinds of upset when your characters die too...
It's an imaginary game, if you can't handle loosing an imaginary piece of armor, well, that's just sad.
We have people who think players should enjoy losing their armor, their weapons, because that is challenging to them.
I think you are mistaken here. I never said I want my players to enjoy losing anything, I want the to enjoy an encounter where there is a risk of losing some of there gear. It's just like an encounter when they risk losing their character's life, except in this case the risk is equipment. Just a little variety. If they play it smart, there is a good chance they won't lose anything. Just like in regular encounters in which they play it smart, they won't die.
Maybe some of these people never have characters die, cause it seems like they are more worried about losing a +1 sword then they are their character's life.
In terms of risk and too-much risk, if you look at board games, video games, whatever, beyond just D&D, you can see some certain patterns. Take Munchkin. You lose levels and equipment all the time. But its also very easy to regain them. So the risk of going all the way back to level 1 with nothing is mitigated by the fact you can still come out ahead with luck and wits.
If instead it takes hours and hours to gain those levels and equipment, they become worth a lot more. Then when they are lost, there is a much greater sense of grief. Because it takes so long to regain, this sense of grief is not mitigated quickly. If its not mitigated quickly, or happens several times, they will leave the game. Even if the player is mature, it is a huge loss.
Lets take the example of memory cards and a game like... FF7. Huge amount of hours to invest in it. Something like 30-40 to beat the game. Imagine you've spent 20 hours on it, you've gotten to the second disc. You save, you go to bed. You wake up, fire up the game... and find the save file is corrupted. All the copies are corrupted. Would you go, "Well, this is fun, redoing 20 hours worth of work, just to get to where I was before, with the risk hanging over me that this'll happen all over again?" Or would you go, "Fsck it!"? Granted that is a very binary choice, and I do acknowledge there is a whole range of values from grudging frustration to resignation of the inevitable.
However, the adversity camp sees losing weapons as just like losing levels in Munchkin. It happens, you will regain them, get over it. In contrast the "too-much adversity is not fun" camp sees it like the case with FF7. There is a large amount of investment in the armors and weapons, personalities, names, histories, and it will take time to get back to where you were.
You guys are arguing different definitions and goals. Thats why it keeps on going in circular directions.
Because I've been gaming for twelve years. I remember the fun games and characters very well, and completely forget the ones that weren't entertaining. Apparently, the barbarian and the game he was in was completely unremarkable except for when he got screwed over.
Really? You really think that?
I've played three characters and I can explain them all by the biggest thing they ever pulled. A Bard who inspired a whole army from atop a tower as a battle raged around him. A Warlock who went into a demented rage after being built up as a coward. Oh and the last one has two moments, a Ranger who killed a Dragon riding Knight at an early level and later broke a Balrog's whip and used it as a belt.
It doesn't mean that those characters or those games weren't fun to play. I loved every second of every moment of each one of those games. Those are just the big moments; those are just the things you remember the most. A bad character you don't remember at all or you remember because they were so bad.
Now I've been gaming for six years. I have never once encountered a rust monster but I have only played a grand totally of three characters after all.
I have on the other hand been at the mercy of a sadistic DM. How sadistic you ask? Once, two friends were fighting a Black Dragon. One was a Paladin running full tilt at the dragon with a big glowing great sword. The other was a Rouge hiding in a bush 20 squares away. Guess which one the dragon attacked.
So I know what I'm talking about when I say that encounters can still be fun when they are difficult and even when they are unfair because we still laugh about that one.
Sometimes a moment in the game changes everything the players know. As a Bard I had a lute that was given to me as a child but when I was captured by a goblin army it was smashed in front of me. The lute was irreplaceable but did that ruin my game. Well that moment that I remember the most, atop the tower with the massive end game battle going on around me; I wasn't playing that lute.
I'm sorry Dazmiuth, thats what it looked to me, with all the insults and name-calling going on. ;) If however, you'd like to discuss the effect of risk on player enjoyment, and how much risk is too far, I would love to do so. But all the name-calling by the "adversity" camp does not help your argument. Whereas the "too-much adversity" camp has actually worked to explain why they don't like the Rust Monster.
In terms of risk and too-much risk, if you look at board games, video games, whatever, beyond just D&D, you can see some certain patterns. Take Munchkin. You lose levels and equipment all the time. But its also very easy to regain them. So the risk of going all the way back to level 1 with nothing is mitigated by the fact you can still come out ahead with luck and wits.
If instead it takes hours and hours to gain those levels and equipment, they become worth a lot more. Then when they are lost, there is a much greater sense of grief. Because it takes so long to regain, this sense of grief is not mitigated quickly. If its not mitigated quickly, or happens several times, they will leave the game. Even if the player is mature, it is a huge loss.
Lets take the example of memory cards and a game like... FF7. Huge amount of hours to invest in it. Something like 30-40 to beat the game. Imagine you've spent 20 hours on it, you've gotten to the second disc. You save, you go to bed. You wake up, fire up the game... and find the save file is corrupted. All the copies are corrupted. Would you go, "Well, this is fun, redoing 20 hours worth of work, just to get to where I was before, with the risk hanging over me that this'll happen all over again?" Or would you go, "Fsck it!"? Granted that is a very binary choice, and I do acknowledge there is a whole range of values from grudging frustration to resignation of the inevitable.
However, the adversity camp sees losing weapons as just like losing levels in Munchkin. It happens, you will regain them, get over it. In contrast the "too-much adversity is not fun" camp sees it like the case with FF7. There is a large amount of investment in the armors and weapons, personalities, names, histories, and it will take time to get back to where you were.
You guys are arguing different definitions and goals. Thats why it keeps on going in circular directions.
I just see things different, and maybe it's just because I am "old-school" or maybe I'm just "old." In today's world, I see kids on losing sports teams getting gold medals, and kids sports leagues doing away with scoring completely. It seems like society is getting more individualistic and it is becoming a "me" world. We don't want anyone to get their feelings hurt or have their self-esteem injured. These people are in for a rude awakening in the real world. I think it's a bad sign when these "I want everything I want and have it exactly how I say" starts creeping into an imaginary game. It's a game people, sometimes you lose, sometimes you die. Guess what, re-roll and start over.
I hope you were never in any of my units, I would hate to have been deployed with you and you completely freak out because your weapon jammed or your kevlar strap broke.
It's called adversity, you deal with it.
Dazmiuth, I think your comparison is a bit unbalanced. A jammed M-16 takes about 2 to 3 seconds to clear. Not that much trouble, pretty much the equivalent of being stunned in combat. On the other hand, what a rust monster does is closer to taking away a soldier's assault rifle and body armor and telling them to clear buildings full of insurgents with a knife.
I'm glad I play with the group I do. It seems like a lot of you people run games where the monsters are nothing more than cuttouts holding xp signs with mad loots to make your characters uber.
I bet you guys get all kinds of upset when your characters die too...
It's an imaginary game, if you can't handle loosing an imaginary piece of armor, well, that's just sad.
Sounds like in your games the PCs are the cardboard cutouts. :P
Maybe some of these people never have characters die, cause it seems like they are more worried about losing a +1 sword then they are their character's life.
If a Raise Dead cost something like 1000 GP and a +1 sword cost 2000 GP which would you rather pay?
Dazmiuth, I think your comparison is a bit unbalanced. A jammed M-16 takes about 2 to 3 seconds to clear. Not that much trouble, pretty much the equivalent of being stunned in combat. On the other hand, what a rust monster does is closer to taking away a soldier's assault rifle and body armor and telling them to clear buildings full of insurgents with a knife.
My best friend's MK-19 went down in a pretty serious fire-fight in Iraq. Not jammed, but completely went down. You know what he did, he used the vehicles secondary weapon and got things done. Adapt and overcome.
My best friend's MK-19 went down in a pretty serious fire-fight in Iraq. Not jammed, but completely went down. You know what he did, he used the vehicles secondary weapon and got things done. Adapt and overcome.
But he had access to that 240/M1/etc so he wasn't going without an effective weapon. If a rust monster or disenchanter eats a character's weapon and armor most of the time the PC is forced to run naked until he can replace it.
It is possible for people to discuss things without it falling into rhetoric and ideals.
I'm merely trying to make each side understand where the other side comes from.
Take a look at the solution I proposed above. I'll even quote it again.
if you think the rust monster should be tougher than WotC makes it, make it tougher; and if you think the rust monster is too tough, make it weaker!
It is possible for people to discuss things without it falling into rhetoric and ideals.
I'm merely trying to make each side understand where the other side comes from.
Compromise and understanding is impossible when one side is completely insane. It's even more impossible when all their arguments are logical fallacies and insults. Sorry, Dazmiuth, but all you've done in this thread is insult and mock other points of view.
Even if I have a non magic weapon avalible (My LFR Swordmage does have daggers) then what I lose +3 to hit...the use of three feats, and am in general a liability in combat...
some one explain to me it this happened in encounter 2 of 6...should I just sit the rest of the game out...
In the real world if I was military (I am not) I assume if I had no weapons I would not be in battles...
With the way 4e works, I don't think anyone has any worries about losing equipment to a Rust Monster...
Having made a Rust Monster for 4e. I used powers/attacks like this...
Slam (Standard; At-Will) [] Melee
+X vs. AC; 1D10+X damage; push the target 1 square
Special: This attack can be used in place of a basic attack when making a charge.
Rusting Antenna (Minor; At-Will) [] Melee 2
+X vs. Reflex; until the end of your next turn, the target cannot use powers with the Weapon keyword. The target may still make basic attacks using a weapon.
Corrode Armour (Standard; At-Will; recharge 5,6) [] Melee 2
+X vs. AC; the target loses any bonus to defences from Heavy Armour and shield (save ends).
and when making the Rust Monster a solo... I upped the Slam damage and creature size, scattered some nice terrain around to push PCs into, then added...
Scour Enchantment (Minor; Encounter)
Close Burst 3; +X vs. Reflex; Target's magical items are considered to have spent their daily or encounter powers until the end of the encounter.
Effect: The Target receives no benefit from any properties from any magical items they possess (save ends).
Special: The Target suffers a penalty to save against this power equal to -1 per magical item they are carrying.
I think that Rust Monsters will go down that track and just hinder you using your gear, rather than wiping it out.
Nice! I've always liked Rust Monsters because of the added dimension/threat they offered. This is an awfully nice update for them. Well done.
...I like providing creative challenges with lasting consequences for my players. But this is not the way to do it.
Whereas I disagree. This type of weird, "strip off your arms and armor, pick up a stick and beat it to death" is just the kind of 'creative challenge' that I like. So, I want to have the option. There are people currently playing the game who seem horribly offended that the option for rust-monster-like powers could even exist. They're trying to prevent anything like these monsters from seeing the light of day, apparently out of some perverse desire to have everyone play the game their way, or not at all. I want my rust monster. You don't like it? Don't. Use. It.
Compromise and understanding is impossible when one side is completely insane. It's even more impossible when all their arguments are logical fallacies and insults. Sorry, Dazmiuth, but all you've done in this thread is insult and mock other points of view.
I have to agree with stogoe. But not so far as saying anyone is insane.
Lets describe it in less emotional terms, without logical fallacies like all the quotes of "friends" in the iraq war.
You have capability A. You also have capability B and C, but they are nowhere near as effective as A. In addition, B and C are nowhere near as fun as A.
Situation 1: If you lose only A for an encounter, then you have to use B and C, which does contribute fun and challenge.
Situation 2: If however, you lose A for several encounters, until you earn enough money to buy it again, then suddenly, it isn't as much fun anymore.
Situation 3: If instead, you have an option D, which is only a little bit less as good as A, then of course you will have more fun.
Situation 4: You lose A, B, and C for the entire encounter. You spend entire encounter running or hiding.
One side keeps arguing by using situation 1 as the only possible situation. Another side argues Situation 2 as being what happens. A few argue that Situation 4 is what happens. Guess what? All four situations happen, and they have different effects on a player's happiness. Now, one time it happens? Whatever, deal with it. But being forced repeatedly to deal with Situation 1 or 4, over and over again, would **** anyone off. Even you die-hard "adversity" fans. This is what the "too-much adversity" side is afraid of, of DMs being evil to players repeatedly. It is not fun for anyone.
Whereas I disagree. This type of weird, "strip off your arms and armor, pick up a stick and beat it to death" is just the kind of 'creative challenge' that I like. So, I want to have the option. There are people currently playing the game who seem horribly offended that the option for rust-monster-like powers could even exist. They're trying to prevent anything like these monsters from seeing the light of day, apparently out of some perverse desire to have everyone play the game their way, or not at all. I want my rust monster. You don't like it? Don't. Use. It.
So, you often design encounters where the non-intelligent predators politely sit and wait for ten minutes while the armored PCs strip down and then go find a suitable club to beat them with?
The rust monster was a bad design choice to begin with. The version that is going to exist will surely be a much weakened version that does not provide the effect you like, and most of us are happy with that state of affairs, because it means the 4E design team is being consistent with the principles they've told us they're following. If you want contrived reasons to force the PCs to fight without their normal gear, you're going to have to come up with something else. Perhaps a formal event where armor and swords are forbidden, or something of that nature.
So, you often design encounters where the non-intelligent predators politely sit and wait for ten minutes while the armored PCs strip down and then go find a suitable club to beat them with?
Okay, Matthias. You win. From now on, all PCs will be exactly alike in my games, to make certain that not one of them is ever more effective than any other in any situation. I see your point, now.
Also, I'm going to get rid of any ability a monster has to reduce the effectiveness of any character. So, those abilities that can kill PCs have to go, because nothing reduces effectiveness like a TPK.
No more traps, because characters without high Perception aren't effective at seeing them. No more brute melee monsters, because characters without armor and surges aren't as effective at killing them. No more damage auras, because melee characters aren't as effective at dealing with them. No more rust monsters, because characters without metal armor are better at killing them.
Whereas I disagree. This type of weird, "strip off your arms and armor, pick up a stick and beat it to death" is just the kind of 'creative challenge' that I like. So, I want to have the option. There are people currently playing the game who seem horribly offended that the option for rust-monster-like powers could even exist. They're trying to prevent anything like these monsters from seeing the light of day, apparently out of some perverse desire to have everyone play the game their way, or not at all. I want my rust monster. You don't like it? Don't. Use. It.
Kaldric, what a lot of people are trying to point out is that the old style rust monster is not viable in 4e. The rust monster that is appearing in the MM2 will most likely not cause permanent equipment loss and focus more on temporarily removing the benefits of equipment for the encounter. Any powers that do destroy equipment may have mechanics similar to the 4e Medusa's petrifying gaze (i.e. it takes several failed saving throws before anything permanent happens).
Kaldric, what a lot of people are trying to point out is that the old style rust monster is not viable in 4e. The rust monster that is appearing in the MM2 will most likely not cause permanent equipment loss and focus more on temporarily removing the benefits of equipment for the encounter. Any powers that do destroy equipment may have mechanics similar to the 4e Medusa's petrifying gaze (i.e. it takes several failed saving throws before anything permanent happens).
Seems likely. But the main argument is that it makes certain characters ineffective for that combat. Which is an argument for total homogenization, which I'm not really ready to fall in line with.
Okay, Matthias. You win. From now on, all PCs will be exactly alike in my games, to make certain that not one of them is ever more effective than any other in any situation. I see your point, now.
Also, I'm going to get rid of any ability a monster has to reduce the effectiveness of any character. So, those abilities that can kill PCs have to go, because nothing reduces effectiveness like a TPK.
No more traps, because characters without high Perception aren't effective at seeing them. No more brute melee monsters, because characters without armor and surges aren't as effective at killing them. No more damage auras, because melee characters aren't as effective at dealing with them. No more rust monsters, because characters without metal armor are better at killing them.
THIS, This is the problem. Look at your rhetoric. Think. THINK. If a character of mine dies, yes, I would be sad. BUT. But, I would be able to roll up a new character. I'm able to keep playing.
However, if the DM decides to target me, for whatever reason, and my characters die for crap reasons, I would be ******. For example, "Rocks fall, only you die."
That is what the Rust Monster was like in 3e. It punished melee characters severely, as if the DM went out of their way to take you out.
Okay, Matthias. You win. From now on, all PCs will be exactly alike in my games, to make certain that not one of them is ever more effective than any other in any situation. I see your point, now.
Also, I'm going to get rid of any ability a monster has to reduce the effectiveness of any character. So, those abilities that can kill PCs have to go, because nothing reduces effectiveness like a TPK.
No more traps, because characters without high Perception aren't effective at seeing them. No more brute melee monsters, because characters without armor and surges aren't as effective at killing them. No more damage auras, because melee characters aren't as effective at dealing with them. No more rust monsters, because characters without metal armor are better at killing them.
I asked a question. Do you usually design encounters where the monsters sit and wait patiently while your players prepare themselves to handle your 'creative challenge'? Because it takes five minutes to get out of heavy armor, and rust monsters, if I recall, like to spring out from hiding to ensure that people can't see them coming and protect their gear.
You suggested that you expected players to deal with the rust monster challenge in a specific way. I pointed out that this was not a viable method. So how do you expect players to deal with a rust monster? Because so far, all I'm seeing is a bunch of pouting that it should be a good idea, and anyone who says it isn't just wants to coddle the PCs.
There are hundreds of ways to create new and different situations and challenges for PCs that don't exclude anyone from participating effectively or destroy their ability to contribute to further encounters. This is a specific design goal of 4E, because a lack of such consideration in previous editions led to a lot of players being bored as their characters, suddenly useless through no fault of their own, saw no point in paying attention to the game. It's why they eliminated Save-or-Dies, so I don't see why one poorly conceived monster should be sacrosanct.
That is what the Rust Monster was like in 3e. It punished melee characters severely, as if the DM went out of their way to take you out.
By this logic, having monsters that attack AC is picking on the low-armored characters.
By the way, the argument that a character will be ineffective for long periods of time? The rust monster has always been a low-level challenge. CR 3 in 3.5. An appropriate monster vs. quite low level adventurers. So, the argument that it constitutes a long-term drop in effectiveness? Not really valid. Equipment at the level you're likely to meet a rust monster is easily replaceable.
By this logic, having monsters that attack AC is picking on the low-armored characters.
By the way, the argument that a character will be ineffective for long periods of time? The rust monster has always been a low-level challenge. CR 3 in 3.5. An appropriate monster vs. quite low level adventurers. So, the argument that it constitutes a long-term drop in effectiveness? Not really valid. Equipment at the level you're likely to meet a rust monster is easily replaceable.
Funny, I've know 2E players with medium-high level characters who would rather face the Tarrasque than a rust monster. Plus in 3E those CR 3 monsters were still effective even against high level characters because of how touch ACs worked.
I asked a question. Do you usually design encounters where the monsters sit and wait patiently while your players prepare themselves to handle your 'creative challenge'?
Sure, why not. The rust monster's got a little chair that he waits in, until it's time for him to fight. Ask a serious question, get a serious answer. Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
Because it takes five minutes to get out of heavy armor, and rust monsters, if I recall, like to spring out from hiding to ensure that people can't see them coming and protect their gear.
You don't recall at all. Rust monsters are bugs, they rush blindly in to eat metal. Throw some metal of any kind down, they'll stop to eat it while you prepare to do whatever you want. They're low-level, stupid monsters.
You suggested that you expected players to deal with the rust monster challenge in a specific way. I pointed out that this was not a viable method. So how do you expect players to deal with a rust monster?
They can run from it. They can used ranged powers. They can drop something for it to eat and prepare to fight it, they can throw a net over it, shove it into a pit... any number of possible options. Just not "I hit it with my metal weapon while standing toe-to-toe in metal armor.
Because so far, all I'm seeing is a bunch of pouting that it should be a good idea, and anyone who says it isn't just wants to coddle the PCs.
Whereas all I see is you being snarky, and not actually reading up on the monster we're talking about. Saying "it's going to destroy stuff they took a long time to get" when it's an appropriate level 1 encounter. Saying they jump out at people, when in truth they run in from 90' feet with no regard for surprise or tactics, and can be distracted by thrown metal, according to the monster manual.
There are hundreds of ways to create new and different situations and challenges for PCs that don't exclude anyone from participating effectively or destroy their ability to contribute to further encounters.
Any 'challenge' can kill a PC, thus destroying their ability to contribute to further encounters. It's a non-argument. Any monster can prohibit someone not prepared to deal with its specific type of combat from participating effectively.
This is a specific design goal of 4E, because a lack of such consideration in previous editions led to a lot of players being bored as their characters, suddenly useless through no fault of their own, saw no point in paying attention to the game.
Because they were dead, or something?
It's why they eliminated Save-or-Dies, so I don't see why one poorly conceived monster should be sacrosanct.
Well, let's get rid of any way to kill the PCs, because that certainly seems to fall under your criteria for a bad rule.
Actually, I use the monsters as they're suggested. Rust monsters are animals that go after metal. They're not ambush hunters, either, not sure where you came up with that. They rush straight towards a metal clad figure, and try to eat his armor. Hold them off with a stick, or toss a metal shield, or any metal object at one, and they stop to eat the rusted item. And you can walk away. Or, I dunno. Have the wizard walk up and hit it with a stick. And they didn't eliminate save or dies. They just added a save. So now it's save/save/die. Not a really significant design change. All sorts of things can kill characters, leaving the player bored for the session, whether it was their fault or not. It's not a valid argument.
In 4e, long-term penalties include the following:
- Loss of healing surges and the use of daily powers, which carry over through multiple encounters, but replenish at the start of each day.
- Diseases (and similar effects), which have a condition track- these effects can last for multiple days, although their relatively low DCs and the ability to roll twice to remove them (Endurance and Heal) means they rarely last longer than a single day or two.
- The consumption of potions and other consumables, costing the party some of their treasure. The geometric progression of monetary awards suggested for 4e means that the effects of burning through such items will become negligible after a few character levels.
- Character death. The cost of a raise dead ritual is similar to that of other consumables of similar level. In addition, there is a -1 penalty to all rolls that lasts for three milestones- either a single very long adventuring day, or (more likely) two or more in-game days.
Permanently removing a character's equipment has a much larger monetary cost than the lost consumables, a much larger mechanical penalty than character death, and has the added effect of affecting melee-type characters (particularly those in heavy armor) almost to the exclusion of all other classes.
Including a biased, long-term penalty that is mechanically worse than character death is bad game design. It worked better in previous editions, since there was a wider array of methods to replace the "lost" attack bonus or armor class. In addition, a lot of magical equipment replaced to-hit bonuses with additional benefits: a fighter that loses his prized +1 flaming burst longsword (worth 18,000 gp) would only have to pay 2,000 gp to replace it with a standard-issue +1 longsword, which grants all the same bonuses to hit, ability to penetrate DR, and most other effects.
I will bet anything that rust monsters won't function in 4e the way the did in prior additions. However, there's no reason you couldn't create a version of them with all their old abilities, provided you also included a house rule that granted characters a bonus to hit and their defenses based on their level rather than on their equipment. This would reduce the risk associated with rust monsters back down to a level similar to that found in prior additions, with the added benefit of reducing the mechanical need to stay somewhere close to the character wealth suggested by the parcel system in the DMG.
Anyone who would seriously consider using "old school" rust monsters in an unmodified 4e campaign has not fully considered the mathematics behind the current set of rules. But with a few minor changes, there's no reason you couldn't do it.
For the record, I'm excited that a new version of the rust monster is coming back for 4e!
Lets describe it in less emotional terms, without logical fallacies like all the quotes of "friends" in the iraq war.
I brought up my friend in Iraq to illustrate the fighting/combat doesn't always go the way you script it, and oftentimes you have to improvise or adapt to overcome.
The way you put friends in quotes rubs me the wrong way for some reason. I brought up my friend who I served with during my entire enlistment. I myself am a disabled Marine vet and I brought him up because he is someone who was put in a situation where he had to do the best with what he had.
This discussion isn't really going anywhere. I am very glad to to have the gaming group that I have, as we all look at most things the same way. I couldn't imagine being in a group where people whine cause they can't use every power in their arsenal for ONE WHOLE ENCOUNTER. These people can't hack losing an imaginary sword or suit of armor, I can't imagine the crying when they have a character die.
So the argument that they cost you tons and tons of money, and permanent loss due to missing equipment, is fallacious. You're level 1, or 2, or 3. You lost a set of mundane armor, and a non-magic sword. It's an inconvenience, not a horrific, non-recoverable loss.
Because I've been gaming for twelve years. I remember the fun games and characters very well, and completely forget the ones that weren't entertaining. Apparently, the barbarian and the game he was in was completely unremarkable except for when he got screwed over.
Ooh, colour me impressed. A twelve year RPG vet that only remembers the interesting bits....
Well, I've got you beat. I've been doing this for 30 years, and remember both good & bad bits.
As for the fighters (& maybe others) becoming useless in the face of rust monsters? That's only true when those PCs are run by bad players. There's all sorts of ways to remain effective.
Besides, we're talking about rust monsters here. They're not generally the most dangerous beasts that could be encountered. So if you shed your metal armour & leave it and your sword back with the mage, beating it to death with a club/rock/etc is still a viable (if not flashy) solutution - and one that's been used many a time.
Also, a rust monster killing you at level 3 or so (which is where they're intended to be used, they're not high-level monsters) is not going to permanently remove anything. A group of kobolds that kills the character is going to do far more monetary damage, because it's a thousand gold to get them raised.
Not when you could roll up a new character toss the dead one's equipment on him and play on. Which happened most of the time prior to the cleric getting raise dead.
So the argument that they cost you tons and tons of money, and permanent loss due to missing equipment, is fallacious. You're level 1, or 2, or 3. You lost a set of mundane armor, and a non-magic sword. It's an inconvenience, not a horrific, non-recoverable loss.
Yeap, losing a 15gp longsword or 40gp chainmail wasn't a bad when rust monsters were used as intended. AC 10 and -1 damage wasn't so bad because you only had to wait until you finished "persuading" the orcs in the next room to give you a new suit and blade. But that was not how long time players remember them being used. They remember their level 7 characters losing suits of 1000gp full plate to them.
Not when you could roll up a new character toss the dead one's equipment on him and play on. Which happened most of the time prior to the cleric getting raise dead.
Not in my experience. Don't see where it says you get to strip your friend's bodies and give their items to new PCs. That would massively unbalance things quite quickly, really.
Yeap, losing a 15gp longsword or 40gp chainmail wasn't a bad when rust monsters were used as intended. AC 10 and -1 damage wasn't so bad because you only had to wait until you finished "persuading" the orcs in the next room to give you a new suit and blade. But that was not how people remember them being used most often. They remember their level 7 characters losing suits of 1000gp full plate to them.
A level 7 character could FART and kill the rustmonster without it ever getting close. Or you know, one of the other 3 or 5 party members could blow it up, probably without noticing. A party of level 7 characters could take out a rust monster in less than a round, easily. Rust monster's not likely to get surprise, because as soon as the party gets within 90 feet, it makes a beeline for the armored character. It's an insect, it has an intelligence of 2. It doesn't play smart. If you can't kill it with a massively overleveled party... heck, if you're even fighting Rust Monsters at this level, your DM is being a douche, and trying to mess with you. No matter how the designers try to stop them, some DMs will always be douches, and they will always be able to mess with you. As you said, used as intended, rust monsters aren't a problem.
For a low-level party it's an interesting fight, because you can't just use your metal stuff, you have to find some other way to overcome it (there have been several ways suggested, down to just beating it up with bare hands). For a high-level party, it's not a credible threat. They'd just turn it into goo with a single ranged attack, so it never has a chance to really cause large amounts of monetary loss.
Seems likely. But the main argument is that it makes certain characters ineffective for that combat. Which is an argument for total homogenization, which I'm not really ready to fall in line with.
Wrong. It's an argument for the elimination of "Haha, Gotcha!" mechanics. The removal of Save-or-Dies was thankfully just the beginning.
I hope you were never in any of my units, I would hate to have been deployed with you and you completely freak out because your weapon jammed or your kevlar strap broke.
Lol because that's even similar to what I was describing, right?
I talk about how I dealt with, but didn't enjoy the situation, and you read that as freaking out.
A better comparison would be; after being deployed and having your weapon break down, would you voluntarily go back if you knew you wouldn't be given a weapon at all?
Some of the 4e mechanics help me in that life dangering fear. I created an NPC with a power called Mortal Danger, an attack that forces the player to check off one of thir death saving throw boxes when it hits. I had encounters on a sinking ship with enemies, hostages, and treasure on board, forcing tough choices. There are tons of ways of making encounters that challenge and force the players to adapt without making them erase things from their character sheets. YMMV but I've never found that I've needed to use equipment destruction or the threat of it to make interesting or fear inspiring encounters.
I'll never forget the time my 3rd level fighter had just finally saved up enough gold to buy his first set of full plate. I had finally achieved a goal that I had set for the character when I rolled him up. Then the DM throws several rust monsters at us, and I lost it the same session I bought it. When I had finally saved up enough to buy another set, I attempted to pay extra in order to rust-proof my new armour according to authentic medieval means for rust-proofing armour (painting, tinning, etc.). The DM smiled smugly and said, "Won't work! Rust monsters are magic! I can throw them at you again and again and take your armour anytime I want and there's nothing you can do about it, so nyaah!" I wanted to punch him in the face.
That's what rust monsters mean to me in this game--sheer frustration. Sure, I like challenges, but this is a game after all, and the challenges are supposed to be fun, not frustrating. If I wanted that kind of nail-biting frustration, I'd go take honors calculus instead of play D&D. I'm not having fun if I'm frustrated. No rust monsters in my games. Ever. Period.
Wrong. It's an argument for the elimination of "Haha, Gotcha!" mechanics. The removal of Save-or-Dies was thankfully just the beginning.
... Save or Dies haven't been removed. They've been modified to Save, Save, then Die. The fundamental nature of the thing doesn't seem to have changed. Before, you'd compare your modified saving throw to the result. Fail, die. Now, you roll your unmodified save twice. Fail twice, die. It's still save or die.
Rust monster in 3.5 has an intelligence of 2, and is either going to come up and dissolve your fundamentally worthless non-magical armor at low level, or it's going to try to get close to a high-level character and get recognized before it can. Or it's not going to get recognized, but will be killed before it gets close. Or, it won't be recognized, won't be killed before it gets close, and will miss the attack. Or won't be recognized, or killed, and won't miss, but then the armor will save against the attack. CL 20 armor would have to roll a 2 on the save to fail.
Whereas a beholder at appropriate level is going to hit your fort save without a problem, (unless you've been stacking con), and then you have a 1 in 5 or so chance of failing the saves and dying. A beholder has a 22 int, and will most likely target low fort-defense characters every round with that death ray.
It seems like the people who are saying the like rust monsters are arguing that the beasties aren't that difficult are presuming that that characters will have the opportunity to take off (and hid!) their precious armour before they encounter the rust monster(s). That doesn't always happen.
I'll never forget the time my 3rd level fighter had just finally saved up enough gold to buy his first set of full plate. I had finally achieved a goal that I had set for the character when I rolled him up. Then the DM throws several rust monsters at us, and I lost it the same session I bought it. When I had finally saved up enough to buy another set, I attempted to pay extra in order to rust-proof my new armour according to authentic medieval means for rust-proofing armour (painting, tinning, etc.). The DM smiled smugly and said, "Won't work! Rust monsters are magic! I can throw them at you again and again and take your armour anytime I want and there's nothing you can do about it, so nyaah!" I wanted to punch him in the face.
That's what rust monsters mean to me in this game--sheer frustration. Sure, I like challenges, but this is a game after all, and the challenges are supposed to be fun, not frustrating. If I wanted that kind of nail-biting frustration, I'd go take honors calculus instead of play D&D. I'm not having fun if I'm frustrated. No rust monsters in my games. Ever. Period.
This isn't an argument against rust monsters. It's an argument against your DM. Should've just punched him in the face, instead of displacing your anger at his douchebaggery onto the innocent instrument of his will.
... Save or Dies haven't been removed. They've been modified to Save, Save, then Die. The fundamental nature of the thing doesn't seem to have changed. Before, you'd compare your modified saving throw to the result. Fail, die. Now, you roll your unmodified save twice. Fail twice, die. It's still save or die.
Those are for death saving throws, which are still better than save or dies effect of 3e cause you have a chance to respond to the threat. There is no effect that if it hits, your character is done. Character death is fine. I've had many characters die before. It's certainly not fun to have no say in the matter, or not be able to get helped out. I've had a sorcerer die 3 times in the same campaign through no fault of his own in a single round, 100% to nothing, whilst doing my best to stack up as many defenses as possible. That's not fun and it really killed some of my roleplaying experience having to get raised so many times (I really liked this character concept). You might call me names for wanting to see my character do well and that I should stop crying about a imaginary character dying an imaginary death or losing an imaginary item, but I just don't see the fun in getting hosed like I have been.
This isn't an argument against rust monsters. It's an argument against your DM. Should've just punched him in the face, instead of displacing your anger at his douchebaggery onto the innocent instrument of his will.
But that behavior is exactly what the rust monster was designed for.
It was brilliant. I think the discrepancy on people's views is based on parties that basically play a "roll-play" hack n' slash campaign or an actual roleplaying/exploration game, where not everything is there to die...
Regards,
Sanjay
The 4e rustie won't permanently zap people's equipment. That's a given, so anyone objecting to its inclusion on the assumption it will do this is mistaken.
Personally I think there'll be two or three variants: a basic rustie with a melee attack that weakens/suppresses metal items, and bigger/elite versions that can do more sophisticated tricks.
The trouble with the old rust monster was that it was the very definition of a "Gotcha!" creature. A novice D&D group could plausibly engage it without knowing what it could do, and lose an important suit of armor or weapon through no fault of their own. Once that group had wised up and remembered to tote around iron spikes, subsequent rust monsters became irrelevant. When one shows up, toss it some spikes to neutralise the threat. A monster that screws you or does nothing, depending on whether you have the 'antidote', has no reason to exist.
The rust monster in 4th Edition needs to be one which provides a credible challenge to PCs who've fought it before, but doesn't unduly punish those encountering it for the first time. By all means, have its ability be one that disconcerts the metal-clad PCs, making them say "How the heck do we deal with this?" Just not one which leads to "The strange armadillo-like creature swipes you with its antenna, hits your Reflex Defence, and - Gotcha! No more plate mail!"
Yeah, I was happy that the rust monster was not included in 4th Edition. It's inclusion in the Monster Manual II means that I will not buy the Monster Manual II.
In earlier editions vampires, with their level draining slams, were much, much more un-fun than rust monsters. I have a deep, abiding hatred of anything and everything that involves level draining. I still picked up the 4E Monster Manual I, though, and was very pleased to see what had been done with vampires, wights, and the like. I imagine that 4E rust monsters will be much more fair to the player than what we've seen in previous editions.
But that behavior is exactly what the rust monster was designed for.
Was it? Then it had plenty of company - early edition drainers, beholder, disenchanter, Githyanki silver-swords etc. But they didn't HAVE to be used in such a manner (none of these did though, personally, I never liked disenchanter). They made a nice added dimension threat .... though they were easy to abuse as a GM (Ha Ha. level 12 encounter have X rust monsters.......).
Like several people have said. Don't like'em? Don't us'em. The parralel GM advice is "Don't be a jerk" (with or without rust monsters).
Those are for death saving throws, which are still better than save or dies effect of 3e cause you have a chance to respond to the threat. There is no effect that if it hits, your character is done. Character death is fine. I've had many characters die before. It's certainly not fun to have no say in the matter, or not be able to get helped out. I've had a sorcerer die 3 times in the same campaign through no fault of his own in a single round, 100% to nothing, whilst doing my best to stack up as many defenses as possible. That's not fun and it really killed some of my roleplaying experience having to get raised so many times (I really liked this character concept). You might call me names for wanting to see my character do well and that I should stop crying about a imaginary character dying an imaginary death or losing an imaginary item, but I just don't see the fun in getting hosed like I have been.
Er... sorry, not quite.
Stone-Eye Basilisk (Save, Save, Petrify) pg. 26
Beholder Eye Tyrant (Save, Save, Petrify/Die) pg. 32
Gibbering Orb (Save, Save, Die) pg. 127
Gorgon (Save, Save, Petrify) pg. 143
Medusa Archer/Medusa Shroud of Zehir (Save, Save, Petrify) pg. 186/187
Mummy Rot Disease (Save, Save, Die) pg. 192
Chaos Phage Disease (Save, Save, Die) pg. 239
Petrify was included because the Remove Affliction ritual has a decent chance of killing the recipient. Certain powers later on may be able to remove such effects without the danger involved (Cleric comes to mind), but before then such effects are quite fatal.
Also, there is one effect in the Monster Manual that has a near instant-death effect: Orcus' Touch of Death. Follow that with the death saving throws (taking 10 or 20 damage per turn while in his Aura of Death) and you've got an "Okay, that hurt. Alot. I'm not getting up from that for a while."
That said, however, I'm not exactly against your opinions regarding a character, heavily buffed and everything, suddenly dying. It is a harsh lesson to learn that buffs only go so far and that the DM can override them with a single spell (with some unlucky rolling on your part). The fact that we actually have two (or three, depending on your POV) saves to fail now makes PC life a little more bearable.
I agree that you should cry about your character dying. Well, maybe not "cry" per se, but you should feel extreme disappointment when your character concept, though cool, isn't working out due to unforeseen circumstances such as the DM, unlucky rolls, or even fellow PCs (getting overshadowed happens). You built that character, you had fun with them and you spent TIME on them. You should very well be attached to the character that you've devoted yourself to over the course of a large period. After all, it is time you are not going to get back...
Er... sorry, not quite.
Stone-Eye Basilisk (Save, Save, Petrify) pg. 26
Beholder Eye Tyrant (Save, Save, Petrify/Die) pg. 32
Gibbering Orb (Save, Save, Die) pg. 127
Gorgon (Save, Save, Petrify) pg. 143
Medusa Archer/Medusa Shroud of Zehir (Save, Save, Petrify) pg. 186/187
Mummy Rot Disease (Save, Save, Die) pg. 192
Chaos Phage Disease (Save, Save, Die) pg. 239
Petrify was included because the Remove Affliction ritual has a decent chance of killing the recipient. Certain powers later on may be able to remove such effects without the danger involved (Cleric comes to mind), but before then such effects are quite fatal.
Also, there is one effect in the Monster Manual that has a near instant-death effect: Orcus' Touch of Death. Follow that with the death saving throws (taking 10 or 20 damage per turn while in his Aura of Death) and you've got an "Okay, that hurt. Alot. I'm not getting up from that for a while."
"That hurt a lot" and "Save, Save, Die" are vastly different effects than "Save or Die" effects.
On the first 2, there are actually 3 rolls involved - an attack, the two saves, then death, which could possibly happen at the same rate if the creature involved was just using its other attacks on the target.
In a "Save or Die" effect, there often is no attack roll - a caster chooses to cast, wham - make a save or die.
There's a world, if not a universe, of difference between them.
Was it? Then it had plenty of company - early edition drainers, beholder, disenchanter, Githyanki silver-swords etc. But they didn't HAVE to be used in such a manner (none of these did though, personally, I never liked disenchanter). They made a nice added dimension threat .... though they were easy to abuse as a GM (Ha Ha. level 12 encounter have X rust monsters.......).
Like several people have said. Don't like'em? Don't us'em. The parralel GM advice is "Don't be a jerk" (with or without rust monsters).
There were lots of them. The problem with "don't be a jerk" advice is that it's new. It was totally in vogue to be antagonistic and competitive with your players. The BBS back in the 2e days was flooded with "how can I warp this wish?" or "what's the deadliest no-escape trap you can think of?" or any of a dozen other ways of thinking up ways to destroy your PCs. The only difference between that playstyle and "rock falls, you all die" is the sleight of hand involved. I was still in my early teens at the time so the "gotcha" sense of superiority was right up my ally in those days, and I didn't just pulll that out of my own ass. The whole "rust monster charges straight at you" thing is partially accurate, except the most common use of rust monsters I saw, at all levels, was "you fall into the pit trap, there's a half dozen rust monsters waiting for you at the bottom. Because you can't avoid making contact with them all your gear is magically turned into rust. They begin biting you, roll for initiative." These kinds of traps using oozes, rust monsters, level draining undead, and whatnot weren't that uncommon in published adventures.
In a lot of ways older editions of D&D focused heavily on Denial Challenges. It's where you 'challenge' your players by stripping them of their things, be they items, spellcasting powers, or whatever. It is a valid form of challenge, but it's not a flavor most people are looking for since the general nature of it tend to leave the participants feeling impotent and frustrated, especially if it's not done well. In general these get worse the less time the participants have to adapt as abstract solutions typically aren't at the beck and call of most humans.
Usually badly designed denial challenges are shrouded with the phrase "think outside the box" but since the actual challenge is a defined box it's not actually "think outside the box" it's "think inside my box" as these will often center around obtuse logic or assumptions. This is where you get "I don't care that it was a PL+10 encounter that got a surprise round and home turf advantage, they should have scry'd the inconspicuous hole in the ground or gone to the nearby hidden village that they never asked me about in order to do some research on what might be in the mysterious hole. Then they would have known that the creature is immune to anything except weapons carved from Petrified Sea Oak."
Other forms of challenge are Opportunity and Adequacy challenges.
Opportunity challenges provide more choices than resources to complete those choices. This isn't just "three doors, pick two" as that's not a challenge, it's a lottery. This is "you have three people to save, but only time to save two" though the possibility exists that exceptional performance or outside-the-box thinking could yield higher returns. The participants have a reasonable idea of how to perform all needed functions and what the cost/reward of each choice will be. A good example of what I mean by outside-the-box in this case is "we can save the prisoners and leave the loot. Loot doesn't drown, we can come back later (outside the box of the challenge, which is the imposition of a time limit) and recover the loot from the bottom of the lagoon."
Adequacy challenges are like Denial challenges except they don't take anything away. All normal methods the participants have access to are available and at or near full potency, but they're just not enough. These are a fairly common challenge and tend to be a good way to encourage participants to use under-used or often-forgotten resources. Where Denial challenges work best when the participants know what they'll be lacking and have some time to formulate a plan, these work best if the challenge lasts long enough for the situation to sink in and for experimentation to be effective. Good example is a creature that doesn't do an exceptional amount of damage but has 4-5 times the normal hit points. If the party doesn't try something else to gain an upper hand or disable the thing in some way then eventually they'll run out of hit points and fail. Maybe they're sitting on a stack of Reagents and Elixirs you've given them that they never use.
The real question is how good it is at dealing damage.
The Disenchanter, The Bebelith (hated that one); Black Pudding, etc.
Point is, saying that in 3.5 the rust monster was low level is kinda wrong. He existed after a fashion well into epic. And it wasn't just DMs being jerks that used them. It was inexperienced DMs too. Quite frankly you had to go way out of your way (in 3.5) to make sure such item strippers worked in an encounter. It took a skilled DM who knew the system to not make it a Melle character CF. And even then you might get a player who has a brain fart, or gets bored, or casts fate to the wind, or decides that is how his player would act, or refuses to metagame, or whatever and so they loose their item anyway.
Quite frankly equipment loss in 4th is even worse. At least in 3rd the DM was supposed to audit the PCs equipment. (HORROR! The 3.5 DM had to cater to the PCs whims. Kids these days!) You get no such consideration in 4th, just set parcel distribution. So if you happen to remove equipment you can really, really screw up your players, to the point where your game can become unplayable without the DM putting way more time into game mechanics than is warranted.
Where as in 4E, you need a +X/5 Armor/Weapon(Implement)/Neck item where X is your level.
Perhaps the magic pixie dust (I forget the actual name) used in magic item creation isn't consumed by the rust monster and a portion can be recovered by the player and used in the enchant magic weapon ritual for a new weapon. Say they get 80% of the value back in magic pixie dust. This makes it more of an inconvenience than a debilitating effect.
Problem is, you'd then have players lobbing obsolete magic weapons at the rust monsters to get better than the 20% they'd receive from the shops. Or perhaps that isn't such a problem -- it might work out as the encounter's treasure value. It'd certainly be a gamble that the rust monsters would only attack your unwanted items.
Any thoughts?
They normally recover 20% of residium or GP cost
recovering 80% is such a degree better, you would have a black market of rust monsters.
Though that would explain why they hang out in dungeons.
There were lots of them. The problem with "don't be a jerk" advice is that it's new. ............If the party doesn't try something else to gain an upper hand or disable the thing in some way then eventually they'll run out of hit points and fail. Maybe they're sitting on a stack of Reagents and Elixirs you've given them that they never use.
You may well be right at that about "Don't be a jerk." I remember some of those articles too. Afraid I'll have to take your word on the store boughts though as I have never used many. But I HAVE run across some "competitive GMs" over years who couldn't deal with "losing." Given all of this perhaps "GMs not acting like a jerk is some of the best advice yet" (Yul gives an unhumble bow but is probably facing the wrong way).
Seriously, the GM attitude is far more important than ANY monster (defective or otherwise).
How about an alternative mechanic, then? Make the item retain it's form but be so pitted/decrepit that it looses it's proficiency and enhancement bonuses. Then have the enchant magic item ritual restore the item fully at 10-20% of the item's cost.
Not too terrible if it took save/save/rust to get the item into that condition in the first place.
True. I often underestimate the unnatural bent of the optimizers. Hamster eating beastmasters, and all that.
How about an alternative mechanic, then? Make the item retain it's form but be so pitted/decrepit that it looses it's proficiency and enhancement bonuses. Then have the enchant magic item ritual restore the item fully at 10-20% of the item's cost.
Not too terrible if it took save/save/rust to get the item into that condition in the first place.
That could work. But it still cripples a character in the middle of an adventure without killing them, which essentially means it penalizes people who view their characters as willing to push on despite hardships.
Rust should be an encounter long penalty at most.
+X vs Reflex; damage and a weapon the target is wielding is rusted and all attacks with it suffer a -2 penalty to attack rolls and damage rolls (save ends both) or the target's armor is rusted and the target suffers a -2 penalty to AC (save ends both).
Consume Rust (melee, standard; at will; targets only creatures wearing rusted armor or wielding rusted weapons)
+X vs AC; damage and one rusted weapon or armor item the target is consumed by the rust monster. The Rsut mosnter may spend a healing surge.
When a rust monster is killed, items it has consumed within the past day can be recovered from it's body.
Here's my take on the rust monster-it'd have an ability which weakens armor or weapons, perhaps reducing the proficiency bonus they grant or decreasing the damage they deal for the duration of one encounter. This could also use the attack/save/save method suggested earlier. Then it has a recharge ability that allows it to grab a weapon from a creature's hand, allowing it to drag the weapon off to feed on it (which would take 10 rounds, and after that destroy the weapon). This evokes the flavor of a creature that has little interest in fighting adventurers-it just wants their delicious metal, and creates a "count down" during which the PC's strive to get the Rust monster to drop the weapon (whether by killing it, stunning it, putting it to sleep, distracting it with something bigger, or pushing it away from the object).
In 1d12 years, the eggs hatch.
This sounds pretty much like the way it would go if I redesigned the thing. Then again, I guess we'll all have to wait and see, won't we?
That could work. But it still cripples a character in the middle of an adventure without killing them, which essentially means it penalizes people who view their characters as willing to push on despite hardships.
What about something like this.
What about something like this.
Antennae: melee; minor; at-will; targets creature wearing metal armor or wielding metal weapons or implements.
+X vs Reflex; damage and a weapon the target is wielding is rusted and all attacks with it suffer a -2 penalty to attack rolls and damage rolls (save ends both) or the target's armor is rusted and the target suffers a -2 penalty to AC (save ends both).
Consume Rust (melee, standard; at will; targets only creatures wearing rusted armor or wielding rusted weapons)
+X vs AC; damage and one rusted weapon or armor item the target is consumed by the rust monster. The Rsut mosnter may spend a healing surge.
When a rust monster is killed, items it has consumed within the past day can be recovered from it's body.
wow...that is the best idea yet...
Destroyed items can be recovered by using the Enchant Magic Item ritual on the rust residue of the item (this satisfies the component cost).
In 97 I ran a 2e game that was getting to level 11, and I wanted 'challenge' my PCs...
this is bad
Background: The ****** off an Archmage (level 21 wizard useing highlevel campaings) who made it his personal goal to destroy them...but he didn't want to risk dieing...
so he launched a 4 wave assulat
first wave: 4 level uped Kobolds with pittraps with rust monsters in them...
Second Wave: Hobgoblins with pudding in globes being launched at PCs
third wave: teleport w/out error in, Mord's Disjunction , teleport out with 12 hits of stoneskin on...
fourth: wave 30 wights infected with diseases, and poisin coated claws...
I destroyed every item the wizard and ranger owned, I disjoined every magic item in the party, and the only person with any armor or weapons was the rouge with studded laether and a dagger
I drained more then 9 levels that game (spread between 5 PCs)
I infected 2 PCs (Including the rouge with armoe and weapons) with killer disases...
I killed the party cleric out right...
that game everyone loved, and spent the next month (we played once a month) planning there revenge, they went back to an NPC wizard and had him protect them welll they regained gear and levels and a new PC
so he launched a 4 wave assulat
first wave: 4 level uped Kobolds with pittraps with rust monsters in them...
Second Wave: Hobgoblins with pudding in globes being launched at PCs
third wave: teleport w/out error in, Mord's Disjunction , teleport out with 12 hits of stoneskin on...
fourth: wave 30 wights infected with diseases, and poisin coated claws...
I destroyed every item the wizard and ranger owned, I disjoined every magic item in the party, and the only person with any armor or weapons was the rouge with studded laether and a dagger
I drained more then 9 levels that game (spread between 5 PCs)
I infected 2 PCs (Including the rouge with armoe and weapons) with killer disases...
I killed the party cleric out right...
that game everyone loved, and spent the next month (we played once a month) planning there revenge, they went back to an NPC wizard and had him protect them welll they regained gear and levels and a new PC
The rust monster presents a logical problem to me-on one side there's the fact that the Rust monster (and similar "I destroy your toys!" monsters) are often unfun to fight because it drastically reduces melee class's effectiveness. On the other hand, it's sort of ridiculous to turn a rustmonster's signature ability into "I weaken your weapons for a little bit...but they get better"-I don't know about the rest of you, but my players would laugh at that-the idea of rust just going away because you've waited five minutes would make the rust monster a joke.
If they aren't already rolling on the ground with side splitting laughter over the idea of being attacked by a pony sized crawdad that instantly turns any metal into rust simply by wiggling its antennae over it... then eating it.
Rust Monsters and Ethereal Filchers (amongst others) are just there to remove player items from the game. Yeah, it's a different kind of challenge, but I can think of a lot of things I can do in a D&D game that's more exciting than playing keep away with a giant bug that wants to eat my scimitar.
First of all, as a DM who has liberally employed rustmonsters in the past, i can assure you that it was done in good fun. As a player who enjoyed 3.x polymorph into a rustmonster to terrorize town guards, or just about anyone else, it was always in good fun.
The axe story makes me giggle a bit, how the barb kept going with the axe haft. Nice.
I would never ever destroy my PCs prize longsword, but then again, all of my players fled the rustmonster combat and returned without metal. Also at the time i employed them it was late enough that the PCs had random magical items in their bags of holding to fight them off with.
Let's face it, the ugly propeller oddity cheese is iconic to say the least. Gygax is dead, and so is any discussion that has theme "rustmonster no more". ITs a legacy, like someone mentioned earlier, beholders, illithyds, rustmonsters.
There is a play by post website called rustmonster, that once played 3.5 rules games.
All that aside however, if i ever run a rustmonster again, it will prolly be straight out the book; but i really liked the ideas that floated around this thread. Taking armor out for an encounter, or using up an objects daily power.
I even liked John the DM (7k)'s suggestion that it could carry items off. Although, i also like the idea that this new generation of rustmonster is ruthless, almost as badass as "The Rustmonster, Prototype of the Gods" that showed up earlier in this thread.
Since it is iconic, you dont have to even tell the players, let their PCs figure it out... "you hear a strange sound emaniating from the corridor. The swoof, swoof, swoof, of something spinning through the air (old school, in 3.x the art made its tail look more like a whale's tail-fin). Suddenly around the corner you see two huge insectlike arms reach around the stone, as antennae seem to point at your armor. Uniformly the color of rust, you immediately realize you face the bane of Erathis (or whatever god is civilization)."
Hell, you don't need a rust mechanic anymore, just make the rustmonster a hardcore elite solo mob, and tell your players that after he TPKs you all, he is going to feast on your arms and armor! :D
I have never been malicious in my use of rustmonsters (i tell my players that i don't attempt to actively kill them until they are 16th lvl, now i guess its 26), nor have they ever truly terrified anyone, not really, they were always kinda pushover, and in 3.5 there was always a grappler and a wizard running amuck.
Long Live the Rustmonster!
In 3.5, however, it might be a little less fun to deal with them. Still, if you have over a hundred copper/silver pieces with you, you can easily distract a rust monster for a while, as you hightail out of there. It would be a lesser loss than your expensive armors and weapons...
Also kind of makes me think back when I was fighting a Rust Monster with my Golden Sword :P
Fortunately, they can't eat gold, so we had plenty of money to get some new basic gear. Unfortunately, that meant we were a group of very wealthy people on a fairly long journey on bandit-infested roads in our skivvies. We didn't cry too much when the party wiped, but we never played under that DM again. All subsequent DMs in that group treated the Rust Monster as if it didn't exist, because they knew what was good for them.
"That hurt a lot" and "Save, Save, Die" are vastly different effects than "Save or Die" effects.
On the first 2, there are actually 3 rolls involved - an attack, the two saves, then death, which could possibly happen at the same rate if the creature involved was just using its other attacks on the target.
In a "Save or Die" effect, there often is no attack roll - a caster chooses to cast, wham - make a save or die.
There's a world, if not a universe, of difference between them.
I think you misunderstood where the intention of my post was coming from >.> CateranEnforcer77 was stating that death saving throws were the only "multi-save" options in the game (at least, looking at his post and the post he responded to). I was clarifying that there are others.
I understand the "Save or Die" effect quite clearly and agree -- they simply suck. Wham, bam, thank you ma'am suckiness. Although, to clarify, the "attack" is not so much a part of the saves section. True, it dictates whether we even get to the saves or not, but it's not as if we actually have a say in if it does or not.
I understand the "Save or Die" effect quite clearly and agree -- they simply suck. Wham, bam, thank you ma'am suckiness. Although, to clarify, the "attack" is not so much a part of the saves section. True, it dictates whether we even get to the saves or not, but it's not as if we actually have a say in if it does or not.
The "to hit" is a very important factor. Pretty much all Save or Suck spells from 3E were autohit. No amount of AC, dodging, or other defenses could really help you. A spellcaster just had to look at you funny (sometimes literally) and you're screwed. There was really no defense against having to make the roll, aside from Magic Resistance, which didn't scale well.
Now that they have to roll to hit (before savinbg throws are even made) you open up a lot more options. The attack can miss, and there are loads of powers from classes, races, and items that allow you to lower your odds of being hit. They all scale more or less with level. Even after you get hit, there are lots of powers that let you make additional saving throws, grant bonuses to saving throws, or simply end effects that are based on saving throws.
And they all scale with level.
The "to hit" is a very important factor. Pretty much all Save or Suck spells from 3E were autohit. No amount of AC, dodging, or other defenses could really help you. A spellcaster just had to look at you funny (sometimes literally) and you're screwed. There was really no defense against having to make the roll, aside from Magic Resistance, which didn't scale well.
Now that they have to roll to hit (before savinbg throws are even made) you open up a lot more options. The attack can miss, and there are loads of powers from classes, races, and items that allow you to lower your odds of being hit. They all scale more or less with level. Even after you get hit, there are lots of powers that let you make additional saving throws, grant bonuses to saving throws, or simply end effects that are based on saving throws.
And they all scale with level.
Again, yeah. But we have no control over whether they hit or miss--the dice do. We can increase stats to boost our defenses and hope that the [virtual] -1 or -2 to hit will keep us safe, but all it takes is a lucky roll (multiple enemies of the same type also have higher chances of causing said save/save-or-die effects), but it still comes down to that one little die roll that we are not making.
(There's also the insatiable DM out to kill his or her players... but I certainly hope those are few and far between)
Also, as listed above, I mentioned that certain powers/abilities could later be reached that allowed the saving throw to succeed far more often or auto-succeed. It all depends on the levels that such powers/items are available compared to the deadly abilities of the monsters being fought, on the whim of DM distribution (as well as how he or she handles magical item availability in their worlds) and on whether or not you've used your allotment of daily item powers for the day (including milestones reached). There are a whole slew of factors that we have control over, as well as an almost equal number of those we don't.
Right now, it seems as if there is no way to restore equipment lost to the Rust Monster. This would make it very unattractive to many players, as you might lose very valuable equipment with no chance of recovery (and many magic items cost MORE than it costs to Raise the Dead).
However, what if a Ritual (like perhaps Make Whole), could restore rusted equipment to new condition? Perhaps Rust Monster blood could even be used as an Arcane component in lieu of the needed components? This would both allow the Rust Monster to have long-lasting "Save or Die" style effects, but also fit those effects into the general design philosophy of 4e (which retains some SoD elements, but also retains methods of reversing them). We probably won't know until the book comes out.
If they don't go the disease route, it could just be an ongoing save deal much like petrification and many other things in 4E are. X amount of failed saves leads to Y horrible effect. I suppose it would be odd to describe how an item suddenly stops rusting and goes back to being fully functional, but I don't really see that being a problem for 4E design.
Also, the 3E rust monster really wasn't that bad. It sucked to lose items, but it was just as easy to use weapons and/or armor which aren't made out of metal against one. You could also choose to just not fight it and avoid it.
But that behavior is exactly what the rust monster was designed for.
No, actually, the rust monster was designed in the 1st edition game and just carried over into the 3rd edition game. The origional design was to allow the DM to remove items from characters in 1st edition that had a nasty habit of keeping EVERY single item they ran across and overpowering the character. The reason you needed to remove items from players was because the way the old game worked, magic items could make you so powerful nothing could touch you. It was one of many creatures that could take things from characters. The origional Quicklings were also able to steal things from PC's as well as Brownies and many other monsters.
However, with the way 4th edition is designed I would not want the rust monster to work exactly the way it has in the past. I would rather it did something like immobilized a character in plate by rusting the pieces of armor to one another, or some effect like that.
Personally I like the idea of the rust monster coming back into 4th edition d&d and I know they will do a good job with it. I'm not at all concerned that it will destroy equipment because nothing else in the game does that I know of.
I also think that killing it will probably be pretty easy. With the new alchemical substances in the Adventurers Vault, melee based classes now have a very valid way of remaining effective without getting too close.
"Rustmonster" is just a common term derived from the fact that it can decrease the usefulness and effectiveness of magical objects (which are most commonly metal)- not that it literally turns them to rust.
Like how the Bulette is sometimes called a "Land Shark" even though it isn't a shark, "Bugbears" are neither bugs nor bears, "Halflings" are not actually half the size of Humans, and "Night Hags" don't gain any actual powers at night. They're all terms that play off the creature's true abilities, like the Landshark's and Bugbear's shark and bear-like appearance, the Halflings small stature, or the Night Hag's dream related powers (since most people dream while they're sleeping, and most people sleep at night).
Hit: XdY+Z necrotic damage and one item receives a -1 unnamed penalty on any numerical benefits it gives (attack, damage, AC adjustment, etc.) until the end of the encounter. These effects accumulate with successive hits.
Now here are some powers to give the monster...
Immediate Reaction: Once a round, the rust monster can hit an attacker who successfully hits it with a melee attack with its Rusting Attack. The rust monster must choose to place the rusting effect on the weapon that hit it.
Special: During a short rest, the rust monster may destroy any metallic item that was effected by its Rusting Attack. This causes it to heal hit points as if it spent a healing surge.
There. While the rust monster does not put any items in direct jeopardy (unless the monster defeats the party), it will simulate the rusting effect we all know and love. It no longer punishes only metal-wearers. Ranged attacks are more effective, but melee attackers need no longer run away in fear.
It's still very, very nasty, though not permanently so. As long as you defeat it, the worst that can happen is you'll be forced to take a trip back to town. ;)
It is 6th level creature so it will see a lot of use in heroic levels, time for characters to get smart and carry a club around.
To be honest I miss that a little, you used to carry different types of weapons to beat immunities/DR, this is no different.
time for characters to get smart and carry a club around.
Or they could carry extra non-magical copies of their armor and weapons, so they could re-enchant whatever was destroyed after the fight. That's assuming they can take a 1 hour time out wherever they are, ofc... :P
Wow.
The designers failed me big-time on this one. Why are they so cruel?
What an awful job, I hope my DM doesn't try using them.
L
And the look of real fear you see when players realize it's a rust monster and they have to think around what to do to avoid getting their equipment eaten is priceless.
This wicked sentiment is the very reason I didn't want to see a 4th edition rust monster. This guy is actually thrilled with the prospect of tormenting his players--having his fun at their expense. D&D is a game. It's supposed to be fun. "Real fear" is not fun.
WotC, I was with you until this. Shame on you.
But seriously, the Rust Monster was a fearsome iconic D&D creature. Its good to see its return, in my opinion.
It also opens up a "rust monster residuum factory" issue, where enterprising players breed rust monsters to turn items into residuum to avoid the 80% markdown.
I have to agree with those disappointed with the rust monster. I don't like the return of the "Save or Suck" effect and I don't like the idea that players have to continue to carry around back-up weapons and implements. I thought this edition was past that.
It is, as one of the early posters in this thread pointed out, in the 3.5 Monster Makeover articles by Mike Mearls (I believe?), he redid the Rust Monster, so it just weakened your weapon for a brief period, not a total screw-job, so I'm sure the Rust Monster will be just as balanced, and non-save or suck as other monsters and powers are in 4th Ed.
I wish Mike Mearls' guidance had been followed, but, as it currently appears, it hasn't. I can only hope that the rust monster will be errata'ed as it is one of my favorite monster concepts.
TY Wizards!
The stat block in the current Ampersand article (which is more recent than Mearls' 3.5 rust monster rewrite) has the rust monster destroying armor, a weapon or an implement of 11th level or lower with a single hit against a Reflex Defense.
Well if that turns out to be the case for the 4th Ed Rust Monster, then yes, that will suck donkey ass.
I have to agree with those disappointed with the rust monster. I don't like the return of the "Save or Suck" effect and I don't like the idea that players have to continue to carry around back-up weapons and implements. I thought this edition was past that.
It also opens up a "rust monster residuum factory" issue, where enterprising players breed rust monsters to turn items into residuum to avoid the 80% markdown.
I have to disagree. This is a long ways from a "save or suck", and its really no different than any power that disarms the target. Once per encounter, it can render a weapon or suit of armor worthless. So long as you successfully overcome the encounter, you get the weapon back (a party lacking a ritual caster or the appropriate scrolls may have to take a walk back to town). I've already run encounters against a "blademaster" type enemy who did essentially the same thing, except that he didn't eat the item, he stole it and used it against them. My party really enjoyed that encounter because it was something a little bit different and original. This is really no different from a mechanics standpoint (and is actually considerably less potent), except that there is a "party-screw" preconception of the rust monster.
It's really a temporary inconvenience at worst, and is only truly debilitating against a "one-trick-pony" that is entirely reliant on a single magical item. I thought this edition was past that. ;)
As for setting up a "residuum factory", I actually think that its an interesting idea. Of course breeding the little fellas wont be easy, nor will "harvesting". Also, with an Intelligence of 2 it would be hard to train them to not eat the wrong items. The idea of a residuum factory was the first thing I thought of when I saw them, but instead of thinking "poo-poo" I thought "plot hook".
I have to disagree. This is a long ways from a "save or suck", and its really no different than any power that disarms the target. Once per encounter, it can render a weapon or suit of armor worthless. So long as you successfully overcome the encounter, you get the weapon back (a party lacking a ritual caster or the appropriate scrolls may have to take a walk back to town).
This is no different than save or suck. Many martial characters are weapon dependent. If they lose their melee weapon, they lose the ability to use powers with the martial keyword. If they don't have a ritual caster who can restore their weapon, they are in the same situation as the 3e folks who ran into a medusa without access to a stone to flesh spell. Drag your petrified friend back to town.
It's really a temporary inconvenience at worst, and is only truly debilitating against a "one-trick-pony" that is entirely reliant on a single magical item. I thought this edition was past that. ;)
On the contrary, this edition was all about the item-reliant character, because it was implicit that DMs weren't going to yoink your item from you.
Moreover, it was utterly unnecessary to the monster concept! Half a dozen suggestions on this thread proposed rust monsters that were thematically appropriate without the Save or Suck element.
As for setting up a "residuum factory", I actually think that its an interesting idea. Of course breeding the little fellas wont be easy, nor will "harvesting". Also, with an Intelligence of 2 it would be hard to train them to not eat the wrong items.
Intelligence of 2 makes it bestial Intelligence. Stick them behind a stone pen like really big pigs. They'll eat only what you give them.
The problem is that it opens up an avenue for players to break the wealth system, like 3e's Wall of Iron factories. That's another thing I thought this edition was beyond.
This is no different than save or suck. Many martial characters are weapon dependent. If they lose their melee weapon, they lose the ability to use powers with the martial keyword. If they don't have a ritual caster who can restore their weapon, they are in the same situation as the 3e folks who ran into a medusa without access to a stone to flesh spell. Drag your petrified friend back to town.
They can still use their powers. They'll be drastically depowered, but unarmed attacks do count as weapons for use of weapon powers(.....if I recall correctly).
Intelligence of 2 makes it bestial Intelligence. Stick them behind a stone pen like really big pigs. They'll eat only what you give them.
The problem is that it opens up an avenue for players to break the wealth system, like 3e's Wall of Iron factories. That's another thing I thought this edition was beyond.
Yes, but the DM has complete control over the rust monsters. Rust monsters escaping from a breeding pen and destroying the town while the heroes are aware would certainly not help their PR. Or alternatively, the rust monster mating details are likely not in the MM. Therefore the DM can do many things to limit this "get rich" quick scheme. Such as it taking a century for a rust monster to reach sexual maturity, it takes a decade for the gestation to complete, and it eats its mate after giving birth. Or they can only mate in the wild/certain area. Or maybe they don't even reproduce sexually. Maybe they are just creatures that randomly come into existence as the result of random magic.
will have any rust monster accompanied by a dweomer eater, also present in MM2. 
Bel
They can still use their powers. They'll be drastically depowered, but unarmed attacks do count as weapons for use of weapon powers(.....if I recall correctly).
Actually, I'm pretty sure that's not true for most martial powers, which are often restricted by weapon class.
Yes, but the DM has complete control over the rust monsters.
And the DM also had control over the 3rd edition economy, by dictating that the Iron Guild sent assassins after wizards who sold walls of iron. the point is that the game should not be designed in a way that opens itself up to this sort of abuse.
These are the same arguments made in 3rd edition to defend the economy-breaking mechanics.
If they don't have a ritual caster who can restore their weapon, they are in the same situation as the 3e folks who ran into a medusa without access to a stone to flesh spell. Drag your petrified friend back to town.
Actually, 4e medusas (medusae?) are still pretty dangerous. More so than the Rust Monster, I would say.
Show
The one in the Pyramid of Shadows is a potential game-breaker, since in that situation the party has no outside access to rituals (or any resource, really).
Actually, I'm pretty sure that's not true for most martial powers, which are often restricted by weapon class.
The only restriction might be requiring a melee, two melee, or a ranged weapon. Other than that there are no restrictions by weapon class (just some bonuses from using the correct weapon class).
And yes, an unarmed attack counts as a melee weapon so you can use any powers requiring a melee weapon or two melee weapons while being unarmed. Only powers requiring an ranged weapon can't be used unarmed
Rogues would have a word with you, unless fists count as Light blades, which they don't. You need a class feature to use wooden clubs.
Any rogue worth his salt carries at least one spare dagger. If your +1 Reckless Dagger gets eaten, it's your own fault. Use the spare instead and at worst you're out a gold.
In fact, a rogue is probably the best person to tank a rust monster.
Any rogue worth his salt carries at least one spare dagger. If your +1 Reckless Dagger gets eaten, it's your own fault. Use the spare instead and at worst you're out a gold.
In fact, a rogue is probably the best person to tank a rust monster.
I'm sure all those players who try to be "good" and don't read "DM books" will know all about that when nothing else in the game merits having a replacement PRIMARY weapon. I play with 3 of them in my group, one has never done old editions either- he's screwed.
I'm sure all those players who try to be "good" and don't read "DM books" will know all about that when nothing else in the game merits having a replacement PRIMARY weapon. I play with 3 of them in my group, one has never done old editions either- he's screwed.
Rogues at low levels use extra daggers for throwing or as an offhand weapon. At least the rogue in my group does, and every rogue I've ever played with has.
In fact every melee character I've ever had has had a backup ranged weapon of some sort.
As for knowing what the rust monster can do, that's what knowledge checks are for.
You can roll low on monster knowledge checks and I presume you aren't allowed to try them again since they are supposed to be recall and not actions.
Edit: All that said, I won't use the rust monster if it's anything like previous editions. However, if magical items are immune...
People are entitled to their opinion here and if for some reason you don't like a creature, telling the WotC folks what's wrong with it is a good idea. My opinion is the occassional "save or die" effect isn't a terrible thing, especially in a game that makes it generally very easy to come back to life. And here with the rust monster we're talking about equipment, not characters. What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?
L
It's not a question that people won't buy the book, it's a problem that the monster is far more dangerous than a normal creature of it's level when matched against certain players. Nostalgia is an AWFUL reason to keep things that had bad effects on the game.
Once you have a magic dagger, you don't get spares- it boomerangs, spares would cost a fortune. There's a difference between having a backup ranged weapon (that non-rogues martials can't use their powers with) and having your primary weapon getting eaten.
You can roll low on monster knowledge checks and I presume you aren't allowed to try them again since they are supposed to be recall and not actions.
I have learned through the years of playing this game and its editions. (especially with my DM: Dazmiuth) It's always better to have some type of backup. Ie: plan, weapon, or if all else fails, character.
A good DM will always keep his players happy and give them some challenges all while keeping the game fun. A great DM will keep the game fun while throwing in some real character challenges (ie take away the prime strengths of a group and make the players overcome a challenge using something other than hack n' slash be it spells, skills, or tactics) and reward those that survive with a sizeable reward, lots of xp and some nice gifts. If we lose an item or weapon, we swallow the pain and find some type of replacement. We borrow a weapon from someone else, mages dagger or staff - if he isn't getting close enough to use it, or clerics weapon - if he is staying back and using ranged attacks. This game may be item based for some, but weapons come and go, there is usually better ones out there. If you are afraid to lose your weapon then leave it back at the inn.
For example: I was the barbarian who dazmiuth talked about earlier in this thread. I lost my Great axe to the rust monster because I refused to metagame and my half-orc wasn't known for being the brains. He smashed the axe over the head of the monster losing it as we all have read. But in the end when it was all over, we got to have more fun when the dwarf cleric in the party made him a masterwork version with engravings that said "ugly smelly orc" in dwarven. My character couldn't read and nobody told him what it said other than telling him it was a blessing on his axes blade. My character loved the axe and would not part with it even though he later found a magic great axe. He carried them both. (Yes I said two great axes) He had custom straps made for them so he could carry them across his back. I almost lost my magic one due to a wizard casting some type of grease spell causing me to drop it during combat. I didn't cry. Instead of receiving an attack of opportunity against me for picking it back up, I pulled my spare and cut my opponent literally in half (critical)
It pays to carry spare gear if you can handle carrying the extra weight.