Is it bad form to have rust monsters in games?

[Jon_Dahl]

It is a simple question: yes/no/maybe/I don't know/it's complicated. It would be great if you could elaborate on your answer.

[Oberron]

It is a simple question: yes/no/maybe/I don't know/it's complicated. It would be great if you could elaborate on your answer.

I would say it depends. Mainly on how they are used by the dm. If they act outside their intelligence and fight "smart" it can be problematic. But in general I don't see a problem with them.

[St Fan]

Is it bad form to push the players into breaking from basic hack-n-slash game? That's the real question.

Tricky monsters such as rust monsters force PCs to not rely on basic strategies and actually act smart. There are various way to fight them without losing precious weapons and armors (at least if you have preparation), like leaving metal item behind and fighting with wood or with spells.

And even if stumbling upon them unprepared, it's a always good reminder that there are other tactics than fighting -- namely, fleeing in blind panic while calling your mommy. In other words, it adds spice to the game.

What is definitely bad form would be to get rust monsters to do a surprise attack and destroy some precious items without the PCs having the possibility to do anything about it. THIS is bad gaming; any other situation is fair in my book.

[Blackhawk748]

It is a simple question: yes/no/maybe/I don't know/it's complicated. It would be great if you could elaborate on your answer.

Depends on context honestly. I don't like Rust Monsters (and by extension, Disenchanters) as if the monster doesn't die RIGHT NOW, I'm taking away my player's loot, and I don't much like that. So it does this annoying thing of reinforcing Nova Tactics which favors SPellcasters and we don't need to do that anymore.

Maybe if they did more than just brutally punish martial characters because the Item Save mechanics suck I would be less leery of them, but as they stand... ya, don't much care for them.

[Shpadoinkle]

I agree with Blackhawk748. Rust Monsters completely screw over martial characters, who get plenty of that already, while having no effect (or at least a VERY significantly reduced effect) on casters, who are already overpowered enough as it is.

As far as disenchanters - again, martial characters rely a LOT more on their gear than casters do, so again, throwing disenchanters at the party is only going to wind up screwing the fighters, or at least they're going to get it a lot harder than the party's casters.

I might include these creatures in a game I ran, but it would be common knowledge in the area that "rust monsters live around there, don't take anything metal there if you don't want them to eat it."

[Droid Tony]

No. They are no better or worse then any other monster.

A lot of people have an odd view that characters must have tons of stuff, and that it's wrong for anything ever to be done to that stuff ever. And that is right up there with characters have hit points but must never loose them.

The game has a ton of monsters, and other things, that effect equipment. Not to mention even the most basic story can effect equipment too.

So this really comes down to how the game is played:

1.Game Safe: All the characters stuff and equipment is safe at all times.

2.Anything, except the above.

In my game, for example, many foes use actions like disarm and sunder or the spell Shatter. And should a character say fall off a bridge down like 20 feet into a river, they will likely loose whatever they are holding. The same way a character can't climb a rope with a sword in each hand.

As a side note, I'd point out a rust monster is just as much a problem to magic using characters that have magic items. A lot of magic items are made of metal, so they would be a target.

[Psyren]

I don't think they're inherently bad, but I do think springing them on the players with no chance to predict and plan accordingly is bad. Knowledge checks, divinations, even rumors should provide warnings to players who might run into them.

[Rynjin]

Over-using item destruction effects is adversarial, IMO, but it's a viable tactic to use on occasion.

Mind, I use effects like Automatic Bonus Progression in my games, so it's typically not "Big 6" items that get destroyed by this, save weapons and armor (which is fixed by re-attuning another random weapon or set of armor after a rest).

I think the only one I've felt bad about is in my Elder Scrolls game there's a Moth Priest with Vow of Poverty who ended up being the only viable target for the boss of the story arc they were on, whose whole schtick was sundering (Dremora, worshiper of Mehrunes Dagon, gotta have that Destruction flair), so her uber magic item (the only one she was allowed to own, a suped up Monk's Robe) got shredded and incinerated.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Not inherently, no. You can overuse them or use them when the players are already behind on the WBL chart and -that- is probably bad form unless you're regularly or just about to dump a huge load of cash on the PCs to make up the loss but they're just a monster good at a particular tactic: destroying gear. You can accomplish the same thing with virtually any foe and using the sunder rules to varying degrees of effectiveness.

Personally, I use them when I notice that the PCs are trying to take advantage of my over-generous treasure handouts to try and substantially exceed the WBL for their level in gear. That extra is supposed to be for expendables, luxuries, and swaying NPCs and that's something I've told my players beforehand. If not rust monsters or disenchanters then ethereal filchers or even just sunder-happy foes and humanoid theives.

[Tvtyrant]

I think they are okay if they aren't just there to take gear away. If the goblins/kobolds/whatever have rust monsters to break people's stuff so they can kill them, great. If its just an animal that can't really hurt the party for the heck of removing their stuff it seems adversarial.

[Aegis013]

Not inherently bad, but they have a higher risk for causing a bad time than some creatures of similar strength that don't break loot.

In some cases, it's sensible for enemies to use tactics like trying to destroy a character's bag of holding, which is something I've done to a player in my current RL game, but there was a lot of set up:

It was made clear to the PCs that it was a trap. The enemy they encountered they had encountered a couple of times before, so the enemy was aware of their capabilities and generally preferred tactics. Then the enemy witnessed one of them putting the remains of NPCs that the bad guy had killed and was using to bait the PCs into the trap into a bag of holding. He attacked and successfully destroyed said bag of holding so the PCs couldn't Raise Dead on the NPCs and undo the bad guy's progress since it was clear that the PCs were going to escape once they'd collected the remains of said friendly NPCs.

[rel]

depends on the game.

If equipment destruction is a legitimate part of the game; If falling into a pool of water can result in your scrolls getting blanked and your potions diluted.
Then a rust monster is fine, just another example of that mechanism.

If equipment destruction is not part of the game and the party has waded through 10 levels of rains of acid and dragon fire without losing so much as a single ration from their starting equipment then a rust monster seems a lot like the GM going out of their way to pick on the party fighter.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Using them? No.
Bad from would be to either minimize your party's ability to defend vs them or not making sure your party has an out to try to undo the damage the rust monster did. Don't say "you have 3 days to do this... OR ELSE" and then throw down a gauntlet of equipment destroying monster so your players just lose by default (that was hyperbolic, but I hope it underscores the point).

[Zhorn]

As long as they are being played honestly; then they are fine.

Example of dishonest play: pursuing martials as priority targets over the closest and easiest source of metal.

Example of honest play: if the rust monster has not been attacked by any of the living party members, it will happily ignore them in favour of feasting on a freshly rusted metal.

Rust monsters are not intelligent creatures, and will mostly operate on instinct and impulse. Mainly safety, food, and reproduction, in that order.
Like Oberron has already said; they are only a problem if played outside their intended intelligence.

[Elkad]

Going after the party's gear is perfectly legit.
Rust monsters, disjunction, stealing their spellbooks, sunder, disarm, pickpocket, or whatever else.
No, not every encounter, but it should be in the mix.

Rust monsters aren't that hard to defeat. They are damn near mindless in the presence of metal. Throw down some chainmail you got off the last hobgoblin to distract them. (or cast some crowd control, or fling a bag of copper pieces out) Switch to clubs/javelins and kill them.
Or just ubercharge them before they get a swing in, hitting them is perfectly safe in this edition.

Compared to something like a Shadow, they are rather tame. Same CR, but a shadow destroys your whole character instead of your armor.

[Pugwampy]

I recall getting into an encounter with a Digestor. and well the DM played him spitting lots of acid which ruined or destroyed all our magic gear if we rolled bad . I rolled bad for every magic weapon and armour I owned . Thats was not fun for me . The worst game i ever experienced . I just scored a +3 warmace the last session and it melted .

Death is preferable to losing my fave magic goodies as far as i am concerned . DM felt horrible and over compensated by giving me Half Orc Barbarian a +8 katana of earth elemental and golem slaying ............ and that caused heaps of trouble too as you can well imagine .

As a DM i would say those monsters are fine as long as they destroy non magic weapons and armour thats easily replaced and i will pretend i rolled for that target . I dont drop magic items for players only to destroy them in the next session .

[nedz]

They are a very old school monster, but can be distracted with some mundane junk, e.g. iron spikes, so aren't that tricky to defeat. I would consider using them, but haven't for quite some time — the question for me wouild be: can I fashion an interesting encounter with them ?

[Elkad]

They are a very old school monster, but can be distracted with some mundane junk, e.g. iron spikes, so aren't that tricky to defeat. I would consider using them, but haven't for quite some time — the question for me wouild be: can I fashion an interesting encounter with them ?

I used one recently.

It was a mini-boss in a lair filled with some particularly pathetic goblins who didn't possess anything metal, so they didn't have to actually train it. Just get the adventurers in the vicinity and it would do the rest.

Watching the party try to kite it while goblins pelted them with rocks and sticks was pretty entertaining from my side of the screen.

Party was still wearing mostly-scavenged junk, so the loss of some gear wasn't terrible.

[St Fan]

A more interesting question would be, "Is it bad form to have a rust monster as player character?" (http://rustyandco.com/comic/1/)

[skunk3]

I don't think that rust monsters are a problem because any metal armor I have made, I have made with the Durable property, which is only an extra 500 GP and it protects against rust and acid. Also, when it comes to weapons there is Everbright and Blueshine that do more or less the same thing. About 2,000 GP total to ensure your weapon and armor aren't destroyed, which is reasonable to me.

[NotASpiderSwarm]

Here's the thing: Whenever you use a tactic in-game, you have created that problem as something that exists in-universe. Expect your players to be more prepared for it next time. Rust monsters are a thing? Expect more Druids or Warforged as the tanks in future parties. Kidnap a PCs brother to force them to go on a quest they've been avoiding? All future chars are now orphans. The potion-seller sold them water with mint? Congrats, they now use an Artificer's Monocle to Identify every single magic item they encounter.

Every tactic mentioned so far in here has various counters by both RAW and RAI, but players often don't do them because either they're too much trouble to bother or because the players find them less fun. You can use these tactics if you want, but doing so will change how people play your game. Now, maybe that's a change you want. Maybe it will make the game more fun and interesting in your opinion. But just make sure that your players feel the same way.

[Elkad]

Here's the thing: Whenever you use a tactic in-game, you have created that problem as something that exists in-universe. Expect your players to be more prepared for it next time.

They don't have to use mechanics to fix the problem. They can use preparation instead. At least for the encounter stuff.
Kidnapping their relatives or otherwise manipulating their backstory is a different issue.

I don't need to reroll as a warforged, I just need to carry a bag of caltrops. Throw them in rusty's path and he'll waste time nibbling on them. It's no different than carrying that cold-iron Morningstar as a backup to your greatsword. 3 kinds of DR bypass in one cheap weapon. Hell, I could throw the morningstar, it's only a few GP. Rusty is fast, but he's not tough. I only need to delay him a couple rounds to shoot him, or setup an ubercharge with my greatclub, or whatever.

I believe in being prepared. Sure, a fly spell works most of the time, but have a rope anyway. Same with iron spikes, holy water, a bag of copper coins (or gold-washed copper coins), another bag of costume jewelry and/or glass beads, caltrops, net, 4 kinds of backup weapon, 2 kinds of missile weapon, mirror, 11' pole, actual rations in case my Ring/Cloak stops working (or I just need to feed a hungry bear), torches, sunrods, water, sacks, wolfsbane, garlic, a sap to knockout the rogue when he gets possessed, and a million other things.

Shax's list (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?148101-3-x-Shax-s-Indispensible-Haversack-(Equipment-Handbook)) is more complete than anything I ever came up with, but I was carrying about as much way back in my 1e days, and I sure haven't changed.

Oh, and Knowledge skills. So you can identify all those beasties.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Here's the thing: Whenever you use a tactic in-game, you have created that problem as something that exists in-universe.

Well, yes and no. The mechanics were already there. They players can choose to avail themselves of them or not but if they don't prepare to deal with them, that's just asking for trouble.


Expect your players to be more prepared for it next time. Rust monsters are a thing? Expect more Druids or Warforged as the tanks in future parties.

Warforged are actually vulnerable to -direct- harm from rust monsters, not just losing their stuff. That aside, ironwood and bronzewood are things. There's a couple magical enhancements that render your gear proof against rust too. And what's good for the goose is good for the gander; complete scoundrel has a non-magical rod that has rust monster young in it that allow the players to rapid-rust objects.


Kidnap a PCs brother to force them to go on a quest they've been avoiding? All future chars are now orphans.

First off, how? Finding someone's family in a world like a D&D world is -far- from trivial. Yes, there are divinations but having access to them is -very- non-trivial in itself and it's not like there's extensive birth records for everyone unless you're doing an awfully modern mage-punk type setting.

That aside, "oprhaned only child" is probably the laziest answer to this. Simply hailing from a distant land can put them out of the reach of any but the most powerful of foes. Even still, orphan isn't exactly a bad call. Happy, well adjusted people with close family ties rarely plumb mutsy tombs and nasty sewers to dig for the treasures of the long and recently dead.

Finally, giving the DM an easy hook isn't necessarily a bad thing. Conflict is the essence of story-telling and the game doesn't excatly work if you're unwilling to bite on the plot hooks. Adding that touch of personal importance can really enhance the drama. The trick, on the DM side, is to not overuse it rather than avoid using it altogether.


The potion-seller sold them water with mint? Congrats, they now use an Artificer's Monocle to Identify every single magic item they encounter.

... Why would you not already be doing that? No seriously, why would you not want a way to identify items reliably and cheaper than buying identify scrolls or commissioning and trusting experts? I mean, the only other alternative is blind activation and that's how you get cursed and/or exploded.


Every tactic mentioned so far in here has various counters by both RAW and RAI, but players often don't do them because either they're too much trouble to bother or because the players find them less fun.

If you don't find problem solving entertaining, why are you even playing a game? Read and/or write a book if all you want is storytelling. It's one thing if the DM is playing "read my mind" with a ridiculously convoluted "puzzle" or sequence of such but "rust monsters exist" ain't exactly a headscratcher nor is it difficult to deal with.


You can use these tactics if you want, but doing so will change how people play your game. Now, maybe that's a change you want.

It literally is. Puzzle solving is the -entire- reason to use game mechanics. Testing my ability to make encounters that are difficult but solvable is one of the best parts of being a DM and testing my wit and system mastery against the DM is the best part of being a player.


Maybe it will make the game more fun and interesting in your opinion. But just make sure that your players feel the same way.

They do, else we probably wouldn't be playing together. The simple hack-n-slash thing can be fun often enough but if that's all your encounters ever are it gets dull after a while. Same with plots; "quest giver offers cash for do the thing" definitely works but you gotta twist it at least once in a while to keep things fresh.

[Hackulator]

Well, yes and no. The mechanics were already there. They players can choose to avail themselves of them or not but if they don't prepare to deal with them, that's just asking for trouble.

I mean, it sounds like you expect players to prepare for things THEY know about as opposed to things their characters know about.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I mean, it sounds like you expect players to prepare for things THEY know about as opposed to things their characters know about.

To a certain extent, yes. Do you expect them to pretend that every new character knows nothing of the world they live in beyond what they've directly witnessed since they were introduced? Rust monsters should be pretty infamous in adventuring circles.

[NigelWalmsley]

Just houserule the rusting to be temporary and let the PCs fix it after the encounter. That makes the fight the same, but without the campaign-warping strategic implications. Permanent equipment destruction is stupid. Worse, unlike a lot of the things about how 3e handles equipment, it actually gets worse as you fix the underlying problems.


If you don't find problem solving entertaining, why are you even playing a game? Read and/or write a book if all you want is storytelling. It's one thing if the DM is playing "read my mind" with a ridiculously convoluted "puzzle" or sequence of such but "rust monsters exist" ain't exactly a headscratcher nor is it difficult to deal with.

You're missing the point here. Not all problems are created equal. The (RAW) Rust Monster isn't a particularly interesting tactical puzzle (pretty much any number of melee critters with contact debuffs behave largely the same), it's just one that's overwhelmingly strategically punishing to fail. Rust Monsters turn the game into "guess what number the DM was thinking", and while that's technically a problem for you to solve, it's a stupid problem that it's not actually satisfying for you to have solved. The fact that he said 5 and you guessed 5 doesn't demonstrate any great talent on your part, it's just dumb luck.

[MoiMagnus]

To a certain extent, yes. Do you expect them to pretend that every new character knows nothing of the world they live in beyond what they've directly witnessed since they were introduced? Rust monsters should be pretty infamous in adventuring circles.

The fact is, it can be very unclear, as a player, if rust monsters even exists in-universe just because they are in the monster-manual. And if they exists, how known their existence is / how frequent they are. This is reinforced by the fact that a significant portion of DMs will specifically not use them.
As such, it would be fair to actually warn your players that rust monsters are actually infamous in adventuring circles in your universe, since that's a knowledge their character have [and de-factor something a reasonable adventurer should be prepared to].

Players very frequently lacks in-universe common sense (when they don't also lack it IRL), and preying on it without warning is more frustrating than fun or interesting. [Unless you're making a parody-like campaign, where the joke is that the adventuring team is actually totally unprepared to the adventuring life]



In my game, for example, many foes use actions like disarm and sunder or the spell Shatter. And should a character say fall off a bridge down like 20 feet into a river, they will likely loose whatever they are holding. The same way a character can't climb a rope with a sword in each hand.


I think that's a very good point.
Do you, as a DM, occasionally make your players lose their weapons and gear through "mundane" circumstances?
+ Yes -> Rust monsters are fair game. Your players are already prepared to losing stuff, that's just another way.
+ No -> You've trained your players to think of your world as a world where important stuff doesn't break or get lost. Using a rust monster without warning would be unfair. Though well done, you can really put a tension with "this fight is special because you can actually lose stuff".

In most D&D tables I was in, nobody had backup weapons, because it was assumed that you would never lose your main weapon. [And those were tables with no encumbrance rules]. Had the DM got a rust monster out of nowhere, that would have feel unfair.

[Elkad]

In most D&D tables I was in, nobody had backup weapons, because it was assumed that you would never lose your main weapon. [And those were tables with no encumbrance rules]. Had the DM got a rust monster out of nowhere, that would have feel unfair.

That seems like such an odd way to play. To each his own I guess, but in 40 years of play, I've never been at a table like that.
Even if you don't lose your weapon, surely you need different damage types, ranged damage, a light weapon (for use while grappling or hanging from a rope), backups for if you get disarmed, etc.

[nedz]

For those complaining that the rusting effect is unfair then these three spells would also need banning :

Rust Ray (SpC p178) Sorcerer 3, Wizard 3

Rusting Fog (The Forge of War p115) Druid 6

Rusting Grasp (PH p273) Druid 4, Blighter 4, Wu Jen 4 (Metal), Urban Druid 4, Metal 4, Slime 4

[Silly Name]

It's no more bad form than having monsters that can cause permanent ability damage/level drain. The end result is that the characters risk losing a part of their power and must invest resources in gaining it back.

The thing with rust monsters is that they shouldn't be run as a straightforward battle encounter like you would with an owlbear. They are made for tactical encounters, to serve as puzzles and obstacles. Ideally, when players see a rust monster they should consider how to avoid/debilitate them without losing their precious metallic equipment. But this requires both a party willing to engage in different tactics and a DM who can communicate well that there are options available.

Take creating an encounter involving rust monsters as an exercise in good encounter building: anybody can plop down a CR-appropriate monster in a square, 30 feet per side, featureless room. A good DM does more than that and uses all resources he has available to make stimulating encounters.

[Aotrs Commander]

Don't care for them particularly; I not only do I not find what they do interesting, I just don't like them on the aethetic design, flavour or conceptual levels, either. I don't, like hate them or anything, they just do absolutely nothing for me.

I might have used them in the past if the module I was running had them in; but only as throw-away encounters that the PCs must have blitzed through, but they are not a monster I would ever use for choice.

Though that honestly says very little, since these days, if I'm writing my own quest it's ALL going to be homebrew and NPCs and if I'm adding something to an adventure path, it's going to be mostly NPCs (because things with class levels just make for better fights anyway), so it's more a case of generally not being interested in stock monsters in the first place, so a niche one like the Rust Monster is even further out.



Is it bad form to use them? As usual, only if you are being a [Richard] about it, I think. If the party's one and only fighter is already feeling hard-done to by all the casters, then making his time worse by breaking the few toys he has is kinda bad form, for instance.

(I personally generally do not inflict anything on the party they cannot recover from, myself.)

[NigelWalmsley]

It's no more bad form than having monsters that can cause permanent ability damage/level drain. The end result is that the characters risk losing a part of their power and must invest resources in gaining it back.

Except those things are actually much easier to deal with than Rust Monsters. Restoration removes both negative levels and ability drain, and by the time those effects are common, most parties will have easy access. If there was a spell that repaired rusted items fully, people would have no problem with Rust Monsters.

[St Fan]

Except those things are actually much easier to deal with than Rust Monsters. Restoration removes both negative levels and ability drain, and by the time those effects are common, most parties will have easy access. If there was a spell that repaired rusted items fully, people would have no problem with Rust Monsters.

What make you say there's no such spell? Have you checked all the (extremely lengthy) lists of spells for 3rd and 3.5th editions within all the splatbooks? I'm pretty sure one can be found.

And even if not, this should probably falls within the boundary of a limited wish anyway.

[Vaern]

It all depends of how and when they're used.
Their base challenge rating is 3. A level 3 party isn't going to have a lot of terribly expensive gear, and probably has the gold to replace any mundane gear that gets eaten. They present a unique challenge that forces the party to think outside the box and use tactics they normally wouldn't consider to fend off the encounter.
On the other hand, say you have a party at, say, level 10 and decide that one of them is a bit overpowered. You scale up a rust monster to 12 HD and throw a pair of them at the party with the sole intention of eating a bit of that player's gear to knock him down a few pegs. That would be in bad form.

[NigelWalmsley]

What make you say there's no such spell? Have you checked all the (extremely lengthy) lists of spells for 3rd and 3.5th editions within all the splatbooks? I'm pretty sure one can be found.

I'm sorry, I thought the "that was as cheap and easily accessible as Restoration" was sort of implied there. So let's make that explicit: if there was a spell that was as cheap and easily accessible (which, yes, includes "not in some splatbook you've never heard of") as Restoration that mitigated the effects of Rust Monsters as cheaply and effectively as it does negative levels and ability drain, Rust Monsters would not be a problem.

So, do you have something useful to contribute, or are you just being a pedant for the sake of pedantry?

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm sorry, I thought the "that was as cheap and easily accessible as Restoration" was sort of implied there. So let's make that explicit: if there was a spell that was as cheap and easily accessible (which, yes, includes "not in some splatbook you've never heard of") as Restoration that mitigated the effects of Rust Monsters as cheaply and effectively as it does negative levels and ability drain, Rust Monsters would not be a problem.

So, do you have something useful to contribute, or are you just being a pedant for the sake of pedantry?

Rebirth of iron, complete mage; sorc/wiz 4.

As long as you have at least 1/4 of the rusted item remaining, you can restore its phyical form. Magic, if any, is still gone but it'll save a fair amount of cash on replacing gear made of special metallic materials.

More obscure is the rebuild item utterance from the lexicon of the crafted tool. Since it's a truenamer thing, I don't expect it to be commonplace but it will completely restore a destroyed item, regardless of material, to full functionality as though it had never been harmed.


Of course, I'm in the camp that stealing and/or destroying gear is a perfectly legitimate thing to do in general and a useful tool for maintaining WBL so make of that what you will.

[NigelWalmsley]

Neither of those is remotely as effective as Restoration. Rebirth of Iron, as you note does not return magic. Rebuild Item doesn't work if the item has been destroyed for more than one round, so it does not do anything at all unless you have a Truenamer in your party. At which point you have a Truenamer in your party, so you still lose.


Of course, I'm in the camp that stealing and/or destroying gear is a perfectly legitimate thing to do in general and a useful tool for maintaining WBL so make of that what you will.

Why? Maintaining WBL disproportionately hurts Fighters, and destroying gear hurts the kinds of stories people like about magic items while doing nothing to the magic item christmas tree. I mean, like what you like, but I think you'll be very hard pressed to make a meaningful case that any of that is a good idea.

[NotASpiderSwarm]

Rebirth of iron, complete mage; sorc/wiz 4.

As long as you have at least 1/4 of the rusted item remaining, you can restore its phyical form. Magic, if any, is still gone but it'll save a fair amount of cash on replacing gear made of special metallic materials.

More obscure is the rebuild item utterance from the lexicon of the crafted tool. Since it's a truenamer thing, I don't expect it to be commonplace but it will completely restore a destroyed item, regardless of material, to full functionality as though it had never been harmed.


Of course, I'm in the camp that stealing and/or destroying gear is a perfectly legitimate thing to do in general and a useful tool for maintaining WBL so make of that what you will.

In other words, you get a spell that partially restores what was destroyed a mere 4 levels after it gets eaten. That's helpful.

Look, Rust Monsters are CR3. At that level, a masterwork sword or a suit of full-plate is a big chunk of a char's WBL. Even a slight misplay ends up with a character significantly weaker for the next few sessions, which will likely make the game less fun for that player. There's a reason players find that sort of thing annoying.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Neither of those is remotely as effective as Restoration. Rebirth of Iron, as you note does not return magic. Rebuild Item doesn't work if the item has been destroyed for more than one round, so it does not do anything at all unless you have a Truenamer in your party. At which point you have a Truenamer in your party, so you still lose.

Actually, utterances can be made into pots. The truenamer that made it made the check at that time and it can work on anything he cleared the check for. There's also various methods of suspending objects in time if you didn't have the foresight to buy a pot or two of "fix it quick words." :smalltongue:

That said, truenamer gets crapped on a bit more than it deserves, IMO. It's a perfectly servicable support/auxiliary character. It just looks like a caster in the same way a warlock also looks like a caster but fits better in the "thief" space of the "warrior, priest, mage, thief" paradigm. The optimization necessary to be able to hit target DCs isn't much different from what's necessary to make sure a warrior hits reliably.



Why? Maintaining WBL disproportionately hurts Fighters, and destroying gear hurts the kinds of stories people like about magic items while doing nothing to the magic item christmas tree. I mean, like what you like, but I think you'll be very hard pressed to make a meaningful case that any of that is a good idea.

Frankly, I just plain disagree with the premise of the question. Falling under WBL does a -lot- more harm than going over helps and both casters and non need (yes, need) gear to cover their weaknesses and augment their strengths. Going way over allows -both- to exceed the power-curve they ought to be on by enough to become a problem. In any case If it's true that either everyone has to be on WBL or no one does, I choose the former. And those -are- the choices since you can't force one archetype of character to follow the guidelines while letting another ignore them because it will (rightly or not) be seen as favoritism and the logistics of doing so are both absurd on the face of it and require player buy-in.

As for telling the stories that center on specific magic items, that's what artifacts and legacy items are for. The former laughs in a rust monster or sundering foes face while the latter is inherently repairable from even the likes of disintegration.

Finally, the infamous christmas tree is an underlying assumption of the game's design. I don't see it as a problem that even needs fixing. It's typically an ancient world in which magic items have been made, carried into varies wild and inaccessible places, and lost for millenia. Actually justifying magic item rarity is -more- difficult to my mind than justifying the adventurers' market unless the world is -very- young.



In other words, you get a spell that partially restores what was destroyed a mere 4 levels after it gets eaten. That's helpful.

Look, Rust Monsters are CR3. At that level, a masterwork sword or a suit of full-plate is a big chunk of a char's WBL. Even a slight misplay ends up with a character significantly weaker for the next few sessions, which will likely make the game less fun for that player. There's a reason players find that sort of thing annoying.

Few sessions? Doubtful. If we're still in non-magical gear territory, level wise, then common enemies are dropping approximate replacements.

And -a- rust monster is EL 3. Two are EL 5, and you get to EL 7 when you have 4. Probably wouldn't push much past that if I expect them to actually be fought rather than avoided.

[StSword]

A more interesting question would be, "Is it bad form to have a rust monster as player character?" (http://rustyandco.com/comic/1/)

Actually, if you're interested in that, the book Little Red Goblin Games Racial Guide 5: Traditional Races includes a rust monster based PC race for Pathfinder, the Rustmen.

Their bite can ignore a certain amount of hardness of metal objects, level dependent, and they can communicate with rust monsters.

[Mystral]

It is a simple question: yes/no/maybe/I don't know/it's complicated. It would be great if you could elaborate on your answer.

I wouldn't treat rust monsters like a normal monster. More like a puzzle to spice things up. There has to be some warning and some possibility to get around it. And if you plan on using the rust monster in a way that destroy some stuff, make sure to replace those things. Don't hose mundanes more than they already are.

[Calthropstu]

I once had a wizard with an improved familiar rust monster. The party ran in terror from the flying monstrosity. After giving it mage armor, shield, energy protection, haste, protection from good, fly and a couple other buffs the creature posed a truly significant threat. Add the heightened intelligence for being a familiar and things got real.

When they finally killed it, I was called an *******. When they killed the wizard, his trove more than made up for it. My advice on this: If you use rust monsters, make sure there is enough treasure available to make up for the losses the party takes.

[Vaern]

If they act outside their intelligence and fight "smart" it can be problematic.

...improved familiar rust monster...

...I was called an *******.
I think these two quotes basically summarize what constitutes bad form when it comes to rust monsters.

[Jon_Dahl]

I will tell you what I did and why I decided to ask the question.

I wanted the players to simply use their PCs' abilities and make tactical decisions. Over half of the group has teleport spells always ready, so I have no problem making them face any kinds of monsters that do not insta-kill them.

The PCs were climbing down a very tight, slippery, and steep stairway. They had almost gone all the way down the stairs to an intersection of two 10-ft-wide corridors when they heard creatures approaching. I told them that they were quadrupeds (not a large group). They decided to halt and see what was coming. They faced the rust monsters, but their knowledge checks were not high enough, so I wasn't able to explain how the rust(ex) ability works. They were rather clueless as to what these monsters were. The fighter attacked the first monster and lost his spiked chain, which resulted in the fighter pushing his way upstairs past his comrades in a very tight space, and the party wizard did the same thing. Each square cost a lot to move and the movement was ridiculously slow. The party cleric faced the monsters alone and lost his armor. Several rounds passed until the wizard and the fighter had managed to go all the way up the stairs. Meanwhile the first rust monster had destroyed almost everything the party cleric had. At this point, the PCs concentrated their fire on the monsters and killed them.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I think these two quotes basically summarize what constitutes bad form when it comes to rust monsters.

On the former, certainly. Same goes for any creature being played beyond its capacity. Moronic, nevermind animal level creatures coming at you with as much tactical acumen the GM can muster is something that demands extraordinary explanation, typically in the form of -something- smarter guiding them from nearby. If there is no such explanation then the GM is just being adversarial for the sake of it. That's okay if it's what you signed up for but most of the time it's just bad form.


On Calthropsu's handling though, I applaud. Substantial resource drain before the major boss fight makes the boss fight more challenging and I -want- to be challenged. It's entirely justified both within the rules and within the logic of the game world, and he even compensated for the losses pretty much immediately after. That's -exactly- the kind of game I run and want to play in.

[Telonius]

I would generally only use Rust Monsters against low-ish level parties. I don't feel too bad about destroying a non-magical weapon. But if someone's sunk a significant chunk of their wealth into their armor (which is what the monster is supposed to target first) or their weapon (which unsuspecting parties will use to attack it first), then it's right up there with Sunder for Jerk DM Moves. It also comes close to breaking immersion for this kind of a creature to exist (at least as a non-intelligent thing) in any kind of big numbers. It's a menace to all adventuring races; they'd have been clubbed to extinction if they were encountered regularly.

[Psychoalpha]

Over half of the group has teleport spells always ready,


but their knowledge checks were not high enough

...what? This party is high enough level to have teleport spells always ready, but nobody could make a DC 15 Knowledge (Dungeoneering) check? o.O

I am so confused.

Also, while the above is technically how the game works, I'm kind of with whoever said earlier that Rust Monsters are so very specifically dangerous to low level parties that even requiring a knowledge check seems unnecessary. YMMV, obviously, and I get that some people are more strict about knowledge stuff. Still, though: They're at least level 7 and nobody beat a DC 15? >_<

[Kelb_Panthera]

...what? This party is high enough level to have teleport spells always ready, but nobody could make a DC 15 Knowledge (Dungeoneering) check? o.O

I am so confused.

Also, while the above is technically how the game works, I'm kind of with whoever said earlier that Rust Monsters are so very specifically dangerous to low level parties that even requiring a knowledge check seems unnecessary. YMMV, obviously, and I get that some people are more strict about knowledge stuff. Still, though: They're at least level 7 and nobody beat a DC 15? >_<

To beat DC 15 you have to have -at least- 1 rank in the skill. Knowledge checks are otherwise limited to check results of 10 or less unless you have a feat, feature, or spell effect that says different.

If everybody could teleport, I'mma guess they're the kind of players that all have at least one PrC in mind from CharGen. May simply not have had the points to put any in know (dungeoneering).

[Silly Name]

...what? This party is high enough level to have teleport spells always ready, but nobody could make a DC 15 Knowledge (Dungeoneering) check? o.O

I am so confused.

I don't think any of my players has ever invested in Knowledge (dungeoneering) unless they were interested in a PrC which had ranks in that skill as a requisite. It's the kind of skill which doesn't really come up regularly in games and tends to get ignored as a result. If the same is true for this party, it's not that surprising.

[Psychoalpha]

To beat DC 15 you have to have -at least- 1 rank in the skill. Knowledge checks are otherwise limited to check results of 10 or less unless you have a feat, feature, or spell effect that says different.

I promise, Kelb, I do know how Knowledge checks work. ^_^


If everybody could teleport, I'mma guess they're the kind of players that all have at least one PrC in mind from CharGen. May simply not have had the points to put any in know (dungeoneering).


I don't think any of my players has ever invested in Knowledge (dungeoneering) unless they were interested in a PrC which had ranks in that skill as a requisite. It's the kind of skill which doesn't really come up regularly in games and tends to get ignored as a result. If the same is true for this party, it's not that surprising.

I mean, I guess any Wizard who can't find the skill points to put at least 1 into the Knowledge skills that govern knowing about the monsters they'll face deserves whatever they get, but it still blows my mind. Dungeoneering is used for knowledge bout Aberrations, a group of monsters with some of the absolute worst special abilities to face without knowing how they work or even recognizing the danger. If your DMs just don't make much use of Aberrations it makes more sense, but just... yikes.

Arcana, Dungeoneering, Local, Nature, Religion, The Planes. It's 6 skill points to put 1 in each. Find a way, yeesh. Ideally by even mid level a party should have plenty in all of them, at least as a group.

[Jon_Dahl]

The cleric is a cloistered cleric and he has ranks in knowledge (dungeoneering). He rolled exactly 15 in the knowledge check, which meant he knew that these were aberrations called rust monsters, but the roll wasn't high enough to know the reason as to why they are called rust monsters. The roll should have been higher to know the mechanics of the rust ability.

[Silly Name]

I mean, I guess any Wizard who can't find the skill points to put at least 1 into the Knowledge skills that govern knowing about the monsters they'll face deserves whatever they get, but it still blows my mind. Dungeoneering is used for knowledge bout Aberrations, a group of monsters with some of the absolute worst special abilities to face without knowing how they work or even recognizing the danger. If your DMs just don't make much use of Aberrations it makes more sense, but just... yikes.

Arcana, Dungeoneering, Local, Nature, Religion, The Planes. It's 6 skill points to put 1 in each. Find a way, yeesh. Ideally by even mid level a party should have plenty in all of them, at least as a group.

I know! I tried early on to encourage them to invest in those skills, but they never ask to roll for them. :smallsigh: I used to ask if anybody wanted to roll for Knowledge when they first met new monsters, but now I tend to forget.

[Mordaedil]

Reminds me when I was researching for one of my characters and came across "Power Gamer's 3.5 Wizards Guide" pdf online (just Google it, not linking in case). It's chock-full of really outdated advice that are horribly underpowered, but there was a handful of hints in it in the skills section that I've taken to following still, from skills to avoid to one point wonders. It also provides a rough guideline to how many ranks is optimal in various knowledge skills for identifying monsters.

I think it'd be a fun book to tear down in a thread, but I don't really know enough to effectively do it. Maybe also update the suggestions to cover expanded knowledge, but at that point maybe we'd just repeat the Batman wizard thread.

[Elkad]

Arcana, Dungeoneering, Local, Nature, Religion, The Planes. It's 6 skill points to put 1 in each. Find a way, yeesh. Ideally by even mid level a party should have plenty in all of them, at least as a group.

This. By L2 the party should have all of them covered, at least with a single point.

By L9? (teleport online). The wizard should have something between +8 and +20 on all of them, almost accidentally. And he gets to roll twice.
Plus the rest of the party...

[Kelb_Panthera]

I promise, Kelb, I do know how Knowledge checks work. ^_^

I don't know what you know and it's never a bad idea to go over basics, for new onlookers if not for either of us. :smallsmile:




I mean, I guess any Wizard who can't find the skill points to put at least 1 into the Knowledge skills that govern knowing about the monsters they'll face deserves whatever they get, but it still blows my mind. Dungeoneering is used for knowledge bout Aberrations, a group of monsters with some of the absolute worst special abilities to face without knowing how they work or even recognizing the danger. If your DMs just don't make much use of Aberrations it makes more sense, but just... yikes.

Arcana, Dungeoneering, Local, Nature, Religion, The Planes. It's 6 skill points to put 1 in each. Find a way, yeesh. Ideally by even mid level a party should have plenty in all of them, at least as a group.

Wizard that plans to only ever be a straight arcane magic monster, sure, maybe.

Wizards are hardly the only class that gets teleport and most classes don't get all knowledges as class skills. Some of those are just about a wasted point if you only ever get the one too. If the highest you're ever gonna get on, for example, a know (religion) check is 22 or so, there's a -lot- of undead creatures you're gonna fail to even name, much less pick out anything important about them. Several other types tend to be pretty HD heavy for their CR too but I'm pretty sure undead are the worst about it.

I very much understand the importance of information in tactical and strategic decision making but the simple fact is that you're gonna be flying blind a -lot- more often than not in the majority of games. I expect arcanists to have ranks in arcana, divine types to have ranks in religion, and both to have ranks in spellcraft but past that, I wouldn't take any knowledge as a granted feature of any character.

[Sinner's Garden]

I'll say that it's not only not bad to have rust monsters in the world, but that it's good. Puzzle monsters really fell out of favor during 3e, but that makes the world a lot less interesting, because it means that every encounter essentially boils down to a stat block and all the nuance comes down to how the situation unfolds rather than what is there. Rust monsters are a great way to introduce this early on, because they're a very simple monster for the characters to deal with, being low level animals, but engage the players by making them consider how to best approach instead of just waving a sword again. Plus, people keep talking about how expensive they are, but again, rust monsters are pretty low level. You could lose a sword easily if you're incautious, but in the rust monster's typical environment of a dungeon, a non-magical sword is really easy to replace.

I also once played in a game where the wizard decided he wanted to tame the rust monster, since he thought it was pretty novel both in and out of character, which is an unusual approach that wouldn't happen with a typical monster encounter of "web, stab, loot."