Ridureyu
Underboss
1622 Posts
    
 | | 07/14/2006 3:11 PM |
| http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060714a
Oh - after looking at the 1st edition artwork... I OWNED THAT RUST MONSTER TOY! | |
Owner of The Original Rust Monsters!
DDM: Harbinger: 76/80 Dragoneye: 60/60 Archfiends: 56/60 GoL: 72/72 Aberrations: 60/60 Deathknell: 60/60 Angelfire: 60/60 Underdark: 60/60 War Drums: 60/60 War of the Dragon Queen: 60/60 Blood War: 60/60, Unhallowed: 60/60 Night Below: 60/60 Desert of Desolation: 60/60 Dungeons of Dread: 60/60 Against the Giants: 60/60
Dreamblade: All | |
|
mordulin
Skirmisher
37 Posts
| | 07/14/2006 3:14 PM |
| I love that Gygax came up with the monster after picking up the toy.
I have long loved the rust monster as a DM and hated them as a player. I think I will use the new rust monster stats in future games though.
| |
| |
|
Most Edumacated
zenthrus
Warlord
5132 Posts
SLC, UT
| | 07/14/2006 3:21 PM |
| Love the tail-propeller....
Rust Monsters are tons o' fun when you and your friends dedice to play a party of druids. DMs just don't know what to do with the poor critters [:D] | |
Knight Warlord a.k.a. Commander (#32) in only 6 months. Where's my pie?
Champion of Dwarven Thunderlashers
Knight of the Large Dire Chicken
Have/Want List
Trade References | |
|
Ridureyu
Underboss
1622 Posts
| | 07/14/2006 3:23 PM |
| | I just feel bad that I lost mine. | |
Owner of The Original Rust Monsters!
DDM: Harbinger: 76/80 Dragoneye: 60/60 Archfiends: 56/60 GoL: 72/72 Aberrations: 60/60 Deathknell: 60/60 Angelfire: 60/60 Underdark: 60/60 War Drums: 60/60 War of the Dragon Queen: 60/60 Blood War: 60/60, Unhallowed: 60/60 Night Below: 60/60 Desert of Desolation: 60/60 Dungeons of Dread: 60/60 Against the Giants: 60/60
Dreamblade: All | |
|
Snappa
Sneak
77 Posts
| | 07/14/2006 4:42 PM |
| My only complaint about the article is that the change proposed to the rust monster's special ability is a temporary warping of the metal which lasts for 10 minutes. If we're going to have rules for item hardness and hit points, I would have rather seen an ability which dealt straight damage to a metal item, ignoring hardness. This would keep the nastiness of the ability but temper it somewhat by potentially requiring multiple attacks to destroy an item.
I rarely use rust monsters, maybe once or twice in a campaign, but the rust monster has the ability to strike fear in a player's heart in a way that even a great wyrm fails to do. After all, it's a lot cheaper to bring somebody back to life than it is to replace that +2 intelligent holy bastard sword of uberness.
| |
| |
|
Knight of Argenis
Corim Danex
Warlord
6842 Posts
West Valley City, Utah
| | 07/14/2006 4:54 PM |
| It looks to me like the rust monster was overly weakened. While I agree that weakening it is a fairly good idea, I feel it was overdone. I like the climbing aspect.
I think warforged should have taken more damage that what is shown. | |
"Look to God and live." Alma 37:47
Vindicated Champ of Hippogriff (Arcadian Hippogriff) and Uncommon Horse | |
|
Talistran
Warrior
310 Posts
| | 07/14/2006 5:17 PM |
| I like the Rust Monster how it is.... no need to nerf it.
Leave it to the DM instead of nerfing a creature that fulfills a great purpose.
Kent | |
Fun little game...
http://www.mgcluster.net/?ac=vid&vid=11028679ac=vid&vid=11028679 | |
|
Benimoto
Underboss
1125 Posts
| | 07/14/2006 5:32 PM |
| I see why they'd want to change the Rust Monster. For the most part, D&D is a hit-point based system. If a 10th level barbarian could care less about falling off a 50-foot building, why should his sword be instantly destroyed by a rust monster? Even disintegrate does damage these days.
Still, I think the equipment HP system could stand to be revised before things like rust monsters use it. | |
Champion of the Rakshasa. Check out my Mini Terrain Maker, or my new Dungeon Map Maker (under development). | |
|
IanB
Commander
3112 Posts
| | 07/14/2006 7:31 PM |
| I liked the article and I like the changes to the rust monster. I'd be far more likely to use that version in a game.
Although really the highlight for me is that he used the description of Lareth the Beautiful from T1 as the "About the Author" section. ΖD] | |
Anson on WotC boards | |
|
Kithmaker
Commander
3926 Posts
| |
Knight of Argenis
Corim Danex
Warlord
6842 Posts
West Valley City, Utah
| | 07/14/2006 8:36 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Corim Danex
It looks to me like the rust monster was overly weakened. While I agree that weakening it is a fairly good idea, I feel it was overdone. I like the climbing aspect.
I think warforged should have taken more damage that what is shown.
As I think about it more, I see no reason why they felt the need to fix it. When there are no real consequences, where is the squirming? D&D isn't very fun when the party *knows* the DM is going to follow certain patterns like, "Gee, the PC's would be set back too much it would annoy them, so we can't have that happen." It ruins some of the fun of the game to neuter the rust monster. | |
"Look to God and live." Alma 37:47
Vindicated Champ of Hippogriff (Arcadian Hippogriff) and Uncommon Horse | |
|
DarkWhite
Warrior
185 Posts
| | 07/15/2006 8:25 AM |
| I much prefer the gradual weakening effect, rather than instant disintegration. It still strikes fear into the fighter's heart, and gives the group good reason to change tactics, without being too brutal.
However I'm not sure I like the temporary nature of the weakening effect? a) Metal doesn't "uncorrode" after 10 mins, even in a magical world, this seems a bit contrived; and b) it removes some of the fear and consequence that an encounter with a rust monster should evoke. | |
http://www.maxminis.com/hwlist.asp?user=DarkWhite
[for trade only within Australia, no overseas trade thanks] | |
|
orcdoubleax
Sergeant
694 Posts
| | 07/15/2006 8:50 AM |
| I will use the existing rust monster as is.
I write my entire campaign anyway so there no reason I can't adjust if the party losses all their equipment. | |
Yes I am Gelatinous.
www.gelatinousdudes.com
| |
|
PaSquall
Underboss
1399 Posts
| | 07/15/2006 8:51 AM |
| Just posted in the other thread. Duh.
quote:
Originally posted by Kithmaker
They've ruined it! What next?
Yeah, agreed 100%. I understand they had to adapt it skirmish-wise, but they ruined it rpg-wise. I can't see the new rust monster instilling fear in anyone with gradual and 10-minute lasting damage [V].
I'm sticking with the full-damage 1st ed. one. My players can handle loosing an armor (even a +4 one), they're not whining babies. | |
Vindicated Champion of the PSEUDODRAGON
(Unhappy) vindicated champion of the DRYAD
Against the giants called shot : huge cloud giant female
Demonweb called shot : ghost | |
|
Knight of Argenis
Corim Danex
Warlord
6842 Posts
West Valley City, Utah
| | 07/15/2006 10:17 AM |
| The only time I encountered a rust monster, our party didn't recognize it. It sure was a nice time for (a) the ranger to crit successfully with bow/arrow, (b) the two arcane casters to use magic missile, and (c) whichever melee combatant(s) who swung to miss. The rust monster was dead without rusting anything except arrowheads. Boy, were we relieved.
The party should easily be able to handle the rust monster before they neutered it. Grab bows and arrows, cast magic missiles, etc. and move away from it. If someone loses a weapon or armor, then that should create some interesting situations to deal with.
I think I will be rejecting whatever the *new* rust monster is and using the old one. | |
"Look to God and live." Alma 37:47
Vindicated Champ of Hippogriff (Arcadian Hippogriff) and Uncommon Horse | |
|
DarkWhite
Warrior
185 Posts
| | 07/16/2006 1:05 AM |
| I prefer the gradual weakening effect, because it draws out the fear/suspense/loss over several rounds, rather than instant loss, and gives players a chance to deal with it.
I have played RPGA encounters at Cons where the DM asks if any of our characters have encountered a Skeleton before? Even though we as players know to swap our piercing/slashing weapons for bludgeoning weapons, due to many years gaming experience, or simply having read the entry for Skeleton in the MM, the DM stated that low-level characters wouldn't have such knowledge, unless that same character had already fought Skeletons in a prior RPGA adventure, and ruled that no-one could swap their weapons until their characters had a chance to notice that their strikes weren't doing full damage.
For every 5 points your Knowledge (Religion) check succeeds, the DM can reveal one specific piece of information from the MM, such as a creature's special attack, whether it has damage resistance, etc. Otherwise your character cannot use that knowledge.
Knowledge (Religion) is for Undead; however other Knowledge checks are required for other creature types, eg:
Knowledge (Arcana) for Constructs, Dragons and Magical Beasts;
Knowledge (Dungeoneering) for Aberrations and Oozes;
Knowledge (Nature) for Animals, Fey, Giants, Monstrous Humanoids, Plants and Vermin;
Knoweldge (the Planes) for Outsiders and Elementals.
Some DMs may not be aware of this rule, or may dispense with it for commonly encountered creatures, saving it only for creatures the players aren't familiar with. Some DMs, however, apply this rule across the board.
Given this approach, a party's first encounter with a rust monster (regardless of player knowledge) would be unfairly brutal without a successful Knowledge (Arcana) check. At least the gradual weakening effect allows characters to observe the effect initially with some consequence, but not overwhelming loss, and gives them a chance to regroup and reconsider their actions. | |
http://www.maxminis.com/hwlist.asp?user=DarkWhite
[for trade only within Australia, no overseas trade thanks] | |
|
FeranEldritchKnight
Sergeant
385 Posts
Kansas City, MO USA
| | 07/16/2006 10:26 AM |
| | I also posted in the main forum, but this bears repeating, I think. I feel the rust monster should have a chance to destroy a party's metal armor/weapons during an encounter, but slowly is better than instantly. I think once a weapon has taken a penalty equal to its max die roll (dagger -4, short sword -6, etc) the weapon is destroyed. Similarly, if armor has it's armor bonus reduced to 0 by the rust monster's ability, the armor is destroyed. Include magic/masterwork bonuses when determining maximum damage/armor bonus. Also, all damage is permanent until repaired using the appropriate craft check. This mechanic has two effects. First, it reduces the effect of the rust monster without removing all threat. Second, better/heavier/larger equipment lasts longer before being destroyed. | |
Completed trades: Gausse, Mazra, Pagansexy, Galerians, Lord_Raven, Drakkengi, Temujinn x2, Random Sasquatch, elf_ranger, Azuretide, Hung4treason, Griffrat (face2face), Nasamonkey
Carpe Forum! | |
|
Weaponbreaker
Skirmisher
47 Posts
| | 07/17/2006 3:53 AM |
| Frankly I love the rust monster the way it is, with a gentle hand a DM forces the party to think and play harder. I think the new version is ridiculous, non-sensicle, and unnecessary all at the same time. I think that some people hate the rust monster more becuase of the 2nd ed version that was horribly overpowered and overused. I think the MM4 and many of the new things I see coming out of R&D(including the RM nerf) seem to show a general decline in the standards presented to us the consumer. Over the last year I have seen atleast four books without a purpose that expand or change things that did not need a change. I mean Honestly how many different ways to cast lightning bolt do we need? And now a new fighter book that looks as though it is a new combat style. I remember when I began to play 2nd ed and began my ascent of the dork tower and every allowance day, then pay day became new book day, soon I had a collection of books for various RP's that all had different character creation/combat/magic sytems, some of which made no sense or were overly complicated. This is precisely what I liked about the d20 sytem, with the open content and the ability to use books and ideas from other publishers without trying to convert them. Now WotC seems to mucking up the system with unneeded or requested books that I have truthfully seem very few peopel use or buy.
Sorry end rant. | |
Hunter of CE d20's. Destroyer of false hope and punisher evil dice across the planes. | |
|
MechaKingGhidra
Sergeant
632 Posts
| | 07/17/2006 4:20 AM |
| | Personally, I like the current way it is written in the Monster Manual 3.5 but everyone is obviously entitled to their own opinion about it. But really the only reasons I like it are because of classic fear when I'm the only one not using metal except my signature weapon(the scythe, but only when I play a medium or larger character) and I'm the only spellcaster in our party of usually 5 or 6 people. Nothing says gratitude better than taking out a monster like that by yourself and the other players not even minding the fact I get all of the experience. To each their own, I guess. | |
Champion of the Prismatic Golem
MechaKingGhidra: Infamous for his absolute despisement of Red Dragons and devout worshipper of all Black Dragons. | |
|
DarkWhite
Warrior
185 Posts
| | 07/17/2006 7:13 AM |
| The consensus here seems to be that they went too far with the Rust Monster revision. Sometimes I think they post these Design and Development articles to deliberately stir a reaction, before making an official change in a future product. If this is so, I hope they hear the community feedback.
Certainly, there are some heavy cautions to be aware of before throwing a Rust Monster at your group, and I think the article adequately highlights these.
Perhaps a better way of dealing with the issue, is to revise "immediate rust" to "gradual but permanent corrosion", then drop a "behind the scenes" or "developer's notes" sidebar next to the monster entry to alert unwary DMs of the affect this attack may have on their game.
WotC have said they will be using such sidebars more frequently in their products. I think most of us would prefer this cautionary approach than nerfing such a classic creature to the extent that they have. | |
http://www.maxminis.com/hwlist.asp?user=DarkWhite
[for trade only within Australia, no overseas trade thanks] | |
|