What is your view of gear-destroying monsters?

[Jon_Dahl]

Generally speaking, I would like know your views on 'gear destroyers'. As the DM, I had a slasrath in my session today, and it took out the party druid's 24k magic armor. The loot gained from the adventure is not much compared to this lost resource.

[Biggus]

I wouldn't want to play in a campaign where it was a regular occurrence, but if used sparingly I don't have a problem with it. PCs shouldn't drop significantly below their expected WBL for long periods (if you're going to run a campaign where they do, I feel you should warn the players of this before the game starts).

I personally prefer games where really nasty things happen to the PCs occasionally, it makes combat much more exciting.

[Twurps]

In a vacuum:
I would expect seriously negative events to be sparse, and therefore impactfull.
That includes level loss, gear loss, character loss. None of these are particularly fun, but all should be a posibilty, and for any possibility to remain credible, it needs to happen at least occasionally.

within context:
It depends. Were the players aware what they were getting into? Was the payoff worth it in terms of objectives achieved?

If I knew in character something needed to be done to save the world/princess etc, and risking my gear was the way to do it. Sure.
Am I just going from locationA to LocationB over a well travelled road I've travelled dozens of times in the past, only to now be randomly ambushed by a group of rust monsters? Not fun!

[Remuko]

Not a fan, in concept. In practice, never played in a group that used any of them.

[Cortillaen]

Unless there's some sort of payoff, I don't like them as a GM or player. Even with a payoff, not a fan. And this goes double for anything related to Disjunction, especially a certain trap in a certain Pathfinder AP. Destroying gear is 1) too lopsided against gear-dependent classes that are usually already behind the curve, 2) too random and prone to causing resentment from the victims toward those less-/un-affected, 3) screwing with too many balancing knobs in unpredictable, and sometimes catastrophic, ways, and 4) just anti-fun in most cases. I'm sure there are some people who enjoy feeling like Sisyphus in a game. I'm equally sure they are uncommon.

[47948201]

Much like level draining monsters, I think the existence of them can flesh out the "nasty, scary" side of the world (especially in a lower level campaign) but as a player I'd really only like them if I knew I was getting into a game where that's how we'd treat "progression". As was mentioned above, it punishes some characters much more than others, and typically the ones getting punished are the ones who were already struggling to keep up. Even if not, it can potentially get pretty lopsided without blatant DM fiat, with one character losing massive amounts of wealth while the rest remain untouched. Not all players care about "keeping up" with the rest of the table, but in my limited experience, the vast, vast majority do.

[ngilop]

If the druid spent 24K on armor.. then i would wager the druid is 13th - 15th level, at the minumum.

Which passing a DC 19 reflex check should have been rather trivial (not roll a 1). Let alone the creature getting to act because one of the party members already kill it.

I see nothing wrong with creatures hat destroy gear

its a lot less worse than creatures that destroy characters. I guess it just me not being focused on material things as much as other people. But, I would rather lose my super cool magic mace than get obliterated as my character.

[Harrow]

I can think of two reasons you might want to use gear destroying monsters, and I don't like either of them.

First, you've accidentally over-geared your players and now normally CR'd challenges don't pose a threat to them, so you want to balance the scales some by giving them a setback. I don't like gear-destroying monsters in this case because your fighter having a +3 sword instead of a +2 sword is not really going to have that much of an effect. Maybe your characters can afford some more consumables than normal, but that's a problem that solves itself with time. Maybe the casters did get some nice things. Pearls of power, metamagic rods, new spells in the wizard's spellbook. The thing with these items is that they take a bit more than just a rust monster to deal with, and the players are going to feel like you're targeting them specifically if you try and take them away. Which either isn't valid because you also took away the noncasters' toys too, which you shouldn't do because they probably weren't a problem, or are valid because you didn't take away the noncasters' toys and you actually are targeting the casters, which may be the right option for balance but just feels bad. Targeting a wizard's spellbook in particular feels vindictive. It's a class feature, you may as well be That Guy forcing the paladin into no-win, only-fall situations. A better solution to appropriately CR'd encounters getting steamrolled is to not use appropriately CR'd encounters. You could play the enemies smarter, setting up traps and ambushes and using high levels of group tactics. You could hand-craft some NPCs that technically have a lower CR than they feel like they should (remember, druid 15 and monk 15 have the same CR!) or you could just, you know, use higher CR opponents. Your players will get more XP, but I generally don't see why that would be a problem. If you're running a pre-built module, you can arrange circumstances so that the party skips over parts, to rush them to the level-appropriate stuff without getting bogged down in a bunch of fights that they have very little chance of losing.

The other reason I can think of wanting these creatures is merely the threat. You don't actually want to turn the party into paupers, but the threat of that potentially happening can lead to some tense, exciting moments. In theory. In practice, the objects that are easier to destroy are the ones like weapons and armor. You know, stuff characters generally need to function at a base level. Again, having a monster that eats swords feels to me like having a monster with the ability to shoot rays that make paladins fall or the ability to telepathically learn druidic from an unwilling target.

Now, I also tend to pull punches when it comes to killing my players. If they get into a tough fight, I try to make sure they knew that it was going to be dangerous and that they potentially had some kind of other option. A character dying can be fun and dramatic, but when it feels like it happened randomly and there was nothing you could do to prevent it, that's not fun to me.

[Kurald Galain]

I wouldn't want to play in a campaign where it was a regular occurrence, but if used sparingly I don't have a problem with it.
I personally prefer games where really nasty things happen to the PCs occasionally, it makes combat much more exciting.

That's my opinion as well.

[icefractal]

Depends on the circumstances of encountering them -

Forced encounter with no warning, like they suddenly enter the fray in a situation where we're not able to retreat (and/or not able to retreat before they've already destroyed some stuff) - not a fan, wouldn't include this myself and would count it as a negative for the session.

Random encounter with no warning, but with the threat known and the ability to retreat - sure. I mean, IDK if I'd like this kind of encounter being common, but as an occasional thing I see no issue.

Known threat - no problem at all. If there's a ruin that's known to be infested with Rust Monsters, then just don't go there using metal armor/weapons. Sure, that makes it harder for some characters - much like many threats do, it's not like every foe is equally challenging to everybody.

[Morphic tide]

The thing they're best for, that I'm surprised nobody's mentioned yet, is medium-term debuffs without risk of being trivially magick'd away the way Negative Levels or Ability Damage tend to be late in a campaign. They get replacements "soon" but have to face an encounter or two without the bonus. Having those encounters be equipped with non-equivalent magic items both buffers the raw wealth concerns and serves as an excellent signpost that the party will be getting replacements.

The other thing is forced sidegrades to shake up the details so players don't stick to exactly the same gear-dependent gimmick the entire time. The Artificer who's been using a Clouting War Sling with Explosive Skiprocks ought to get the message after being mono-focused by the Disenchanter who was sitting on enhancement materials instead of just making the same silly thing again.

[Curse]

If I would use monsters with such abilities I would try to use them cinematically.
Imagine scene 1 - the fight starts. Druid is hit. DM rolls. Armor is broken.
Imagine scene 2 - a splash of acid hits the druid in the chest and as he recovers from the impact he hears something fizzling. As he looks down he watches the acid starting to dissolve parts of his armor.
Now he can react to the situation and maybe try to act quickly to save parts of his armor that may be repairable or if he shrugs it off more and more of his stuff will be damaged.
Maybe there is even a situation where a character has to choose between, say, his armor or some treasure. Maybe if he tries to save his armor he is prone to further attacks and his party needs to step in.

Having agency seems to be an important part to me.

[Biggus]

Unless there's some sort of payoff, I don't like them as a GM or player. Even with a payoff, not a fan. And this goes double for anything related to Disjunction, especially a certain trap in a certain Pathfinder AP. Destroying gear is 1) too lopsided against gear-dependent classes that are usually already behind the curve, 2) too random and prone to causing resentment from the victims toward those less-/un-affected, 3) screwing with too many balancing knobs in unpredictable, and sometimes catastrophic, ways, and 4) just anti-fun in most cases. I'm sure there are some people who enjoy feeling like Sisyphus in a game. I'm equally sure they are uncommon.

1) the character mentioned in the OP is a Druid
2) do they get resentful if their character is killed too? If they object whenever something seriously bad happens to them, it seems to me the problem here is the people you play with, not the game
4) what's anti-fun to me is a game where there are no consequences. Combat loses all of its tension. Occasional gear loss doesn't make me feel like Sisyphus, a game where nothing really bad ever happens makes me feel like I'm in a cartoon aimed at five-year olds

[Darg]

Ok, the druid lost 24k in armor. The druid has other options to make up for the loss for a while such as wild shape and at level 11 they could make themselves ironwood armor.

Yeah, it sucks losing things. The issue is really whether you have prepared your players to lose items or their lives. If they never really face existential threat by DM fiat then it's cruel to suddenly make them face it in the middle of a game. However, there are ways to make this worth while. They are currently in a slump having lost a big chunk of wealth and value. This means that something tailor made to benefit them would very likely have an outsized effect in satisfaction even if it isn't replacement armor. If you did want to replace the armor, making it memorable would also do the trick. Like maybe a command word item that creates an ironwood armor of the type/weight of the user's choice with the wild enhancement. Not quite the same monetary value, but the emotional value could be higher and it would provide a feeling of safety vs losing their armor again.

[Thunder999]

Really not a fan, there's usually very little most characters can do other than perhaps "Run away and fail this adventure, screw the plot I'm not fighting that thing."
They're a relic from the frankly miserable sounding GM style of Gygax.
Only they're actually even worse now than back then since magic items are mandatory for most classes to even function past the early levels.

Level loss is also miserable, but at least there's easy counterplay in the form of Death Ward, which is one of those things you're forced to get from items unless you happen to be a cleric/druid, funnily enough.

[Gnaeus]

Personally, I would prefer character permadeath to gear loss. Death has IC impacts to the world and other players, and then resolves with me getting to play the Chargen minigame. Gear loss just makes me feel bad. There won't be great RP coming from (and then his armor got destroyed). But I will just be annoyed until I replace it. So, yeah, kill my character, don't break my toys.

[pabelfly]

Never dealt with it myself, but would begrudingly accept it as long as I felt that their use and the items they destroyed were random or made sense for the monster (I was the closest target, for example). If I felt that I was targeted without a reasonable in-world explanation, I'd be a lot less happy about it.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Massively dislike them.
WBL is part of your ECL and gear-destroyers hurt the non-casters (already the weakest classes) the most, because they're more gear-dependent and more likely to be the ones getting their gear destroyed (being on the front line; having stuff like weapons and armor to melt/rust/dissolve/etc... in the first place).

I had a campaign once where the party visited a mages' college. A student was showing them around the dormitory and asked if they wanted to see his pet, "Russel". Russel was a Rust Monster. The fighter and cleric ran screaming down the hall like their lives depended on it, we all had a good laugh, and moved on.
That's the only purpose such creatures should serve: a harmless joke, while the players silently are thankful you're not a rat bastard DM that actually uses such monsters for real.

[Curse]

There won't be great RP coming from (and then his armor got destroyed). But I will just be annoyed until I replace it. So, yeah, kill my character, don't break my toys.

Why wouldn't there be great RP? Your character (& group) is forced to solve situations without one or more of his/her precious toys and needs to deal with struggle and loss. Destroying gear shows that you cannot rely on anything being present for eternity ...

[Amidus Drexel]

In most of the games I've run, I've used gear-destroying enemies sparingly. They can be an interesting challenge if telegraphed well (i.e. "You know this destroys metal on contact - can you beat the rust monster without using your sword or armor?"), but in a heroic game they don't really have much use beyond that. If your PCs are only getting a pittance in treasure (relative to what they could lose), destroying difficult-to-replace parts of their build (their gear) is going to feel like a punishment - and if the fight was unavoidable (either effectively or in actuality) it'll feel unfair too.

In other genres, though, gear-destroying enemies can be used to great effect. Horror games (including old-school dungeon crawlers) love to give PCs a sense of powerlessness and fear, and there's not much scarier than being easier to kill for the rest of the dungeon delve because you lost your suit of full-plate, or having to switch to your backup weapon because a slime corroded your axe.

[Gnaeus]

Why wouldn't there be great RP? Your character (& group) is forced to solve situations without one or more of his/her precious toys and needs to deal with struggle and loss. Destroying gear shows that you cannot rely on anything being present for eternity ...

For the same reason a facebook post about "My car broke" doesn't have the emotional impact of "my friend died". My character is not going to be emotionally wrenched by the loss of the barbarians sword. The population of Victimia will not sing songs about the heroic sacrifice of the druid's leather armor. Solving situations is not RP. RP is RP. Solving situations is problem solving. Unless the druid's relationship as a person with his leather armor was REALLY BIZARRE, its not a character defining event.

[exelsisxax]

I don't like the WBL-altering effects of losing gear, but that's been pretty explained already.

Another issue is more instant and cannot be post-facto addressed: destroying gear can be a bookkeeping nightmare, especially when it happens many times in a fight through AoE/passive effects of a monster. Needing to refactor large parts of a sheet is a huge logistical slowdown that adds nothing to the game.

[Curse]

For the same reason a facebook post about "My car broke" doesn't have the emotional impact of "my friend died". My character is not going to be emotionally wrenched by the loss of the barbarians sword. The population of Victimia will not sing songs about the heroic sacrifice of the druid's leather armor. Solving situations is not RP. RP is RP. Solving situations is problem solving. Unless the druid's relationship as a person with his leather armor was REALLY BIZARRE, its not a character defining event.

I am not entirely sure if I get your point and I suspect that there are different perspectives at play. Of course "my car broke" has a different impact to YOU - but to ME it can be the difference between a great day and a personal crisis. If I die my story is over. No character development possible anymore. But if I am prone to hardship and crisis I have to deal with it and have the opportunity to grow. To my companions it is a different story and my death can lead to their development. Killing off a part of the main cast is always a tricky thing though so it should (in my personal opinion) not be taken lightly and not happen on a daily basis.
Therefore including scenes where characters have to fear for their gear CAN be a great source of RP - but of course only within a carefully balanced setting that most definitely does not include non-avoidable battles with [dice roll] YOUR gear is broken [dice roll] and YOUR gear is broken [a flurry of dice] and EVERYONES gear is broken ;-)

[NichG]

In 3.5e D&D, either telegraph it very clearly (not just in a 'you could have scouted and found this out' sense, in an OOC if necessary 'are you sure you want to do this? this is what will happen' sense) or don't use it.

As a concept for a game to have? It could theoretically be very good, but the game needs to be designed either around gear not being a significant store of player effort, or gear being ultimately possible to repair but 'just not right now'. Additionally as mentioned, its best if the way gear works makes it easy to subtract from a character sheet without a bunch of interactions needing to be recalculated. 'I lost my sword, so I have to use this other damage formula for this other sword' is ok; 'I lost my shirt, and it was buffing a stat that enables me to qualify for this feat which is a dependency of my prestige class so, wait, what things get disabled when you no longer qualify for stuff again?' is not.

My preference when homebrewing D&D or making my own systems is to have 'Damaged' and 'Broken' status conditions that apply to objects and reduce their functionality rather than just 'delete object from sheet and recalculate', and which can be reversed by a small material cost, an appropriate skill check, and a day or so of downtime (or paying labor fees for someone else to do it, or spells/powers/effects that interact with it). So something that dissolves part of your plate mail means it only gives you +3 AC rather than +8 AC, but the enchantments and whatnot could still have their effects, and you can fix it up like new once you're out of danger.

An alternate method which is also good (and has some advantages when it comes to other ways of losing gear than just 'damage') is to have gear be a sort of loadout type system rather than specific items you have. This obviously works better when PCs are members of organizations with huge cash flows rather than being personally wealthy. The idea being, your rank or whatever entitles you to start any given mission or adventure with X amount of gear, which you can select from the organization's armory. If you lose something or have it destroyed, its no big deal - next time you return to a guild hall you can swap out your kit for a new kit.

You can do this without necessarily having the organizational structure, but in that case you have to do some even harder pivots and make it so that the 'wealth' of a PC is cash flow rather than cash, and the majority cost of gear is a *maintenance* cost (e.g. 'while keeping this item usable, reduce your cash flow by X; whenever you stop maintaining it, your cash flow recovers back to what it was') rather than up-front costs. I think that works a lot better for sci-fi settings though - it makes sense to me that you might have some flimsy 3d printed laser gun only designed to survive firing a hundred shots before it has to be re-printed, or that your ship hull suffers permanent metal fatigue just from the act of flying it and you really do need to totally replace the plating every month of flight time or things like that.

[Elkad]

You can use them as an upgrade tool for the party's gear.

Sunder the Paladin's +4 Holy Flaming sword, watch him struggle on the boss mob without it, and have a Holy Avenger in the loot.

That way they aren't selling off the old one.

[Bohandas]

The problem is it's kind of ridiculous that magic gear being destroyed is more permanent than a character being killed. There ought to be some spell like BOB's Appliance Healing or something like that that would come on line around the same time as raise dead.


For the same reason a facebook post about "My car broke" doesn't have the emotional impact of "my friend died". My character is not going to be emotionally wrenched by the loss of the barbarians sword. The population of Victimia will not sing songs about the heroic sacrifice of the druid's leather armor.

What about Narsil?

(and now that I think of it, Narsil also illustrates my initial point about how items being straight-up broken and staying that way is incongruous)

[Darg]

The problem is it's kind of ridiculous that magic gear being destroyed is more permanent than a character being killed. There ought to be some spell like BOB's Appliance Healing or something like that that would come on line around the same time as raise dead.

It's not permanent. Anyone that could have crafted the item can fix it for half xp cost, half materials, and half the time to craft. To fix OP's 24k armor, as long as it wasn't disintegrated or unrecoverable, you either need to hire someone for 8.4k gold and 12 days or have the Craft Magic Arms And Armor feat yourself and spend 12 days, 480 xp, and 6k gold. It really just depends on the players. If the party has a communal war chest where everyone is made whole before individuals profit then it's really not a big deal to lose items. It's mostly when players are being selfish that you have to watch out.

[NullInternet]

Unless I know ahead of time that I'll get replacement gear that's at least as strong as the gear I lost and that I get said gear very soon, I'm not a fan, especially if one of the destroyed items was a stat booster I needed to qualify for feats and prepare spells above a certain level. At least in PF1e, rust monsters just inflict the broken condition on their first attack; they have to hit your gear a second time to actually destroy it. Plus, PF1e's version of make whole can make destroyed magic items magic again if your CL is high enough.

[Tzardok]

I'm pretty sure by RAW you can't qualify for feats and prestige classes with temporary boni (like the ones from items) in the first place, so that is no consideration.

[King of Nowhere]

The important question very few people are asking is, how difficult is the loot to replace?
Sure, if you run a strict wbl campaign where loot is strictly rationed, then losing something will put you BEHIND THE CURVE FOREVER!

I don't know how common is that style. My style is that every high level enemy party will throw disjunction at the party. Generally followed by a quickened disjunction too. The party will do the same. It's just good common sense in a fight of prepared high level parties. A fully buffed high level pc is nigh invulnerable, without buffs you can kill him easily.
But in a fight of high level parties, winning means getting the full gear of the enemies as loot, so you have no problems replacing any lost item. My players never complained, because they knew replacing their gear was easy enough.
Just like they never complained about getting killed, because getting the diamonds for resurrection was never a big deal. They generally even persuaded their patrons to pay on their behalf.

So the thing with loot destruction, level drain, character death, should always be "how hard it actually is to revert this stuff?"

[Morphic tide]

I'm pretty sure by RAW you can't qualify for feats and prestige classes with temporary boni (like the ones from items) in the first place, so that is no consideration.
There actually isn't a distinction made in the core rules between your "actual" ability score and assorted bonuses, including for anything's Prerequisite text. Which means there's nothing in the way of the non-binding FAQ's take that +2 Gloves of Dexterity allow a "normally" 13 Dexterity character to take Two-Weapon Fighting. It's frequently necessary to get Greater Two-Weapon Fighting the "proper" way, as Dex 19 is only possible at maximum focus in that case.

[Elves]

Remember, objects can be sundered or damaged by normal attacks and spells; this isn't an issue of monster design, but one of the inherent kinks in the WBL paradigm. There are basically 3 answers you can go with:

1) If PCs fall behind WBL, reward more treasure until they meet it again. Broken gear is a temporary power penalty that decreases until they get back to WBL parity.

2) Allow broken gear to be repaired at a fraction of the cost. Broken gear becomes a small wealth tax, essentially part of the 10% of WBL that assumed to be spent on consumables, and is a temporary power penalty that lasts until you "get back to town". However, this solution doesn't cover cases where gear is simply lost/stolen rather than broken.

3) Attempt a gear-independent system like 5e claims to have, so that losing magic items takes away an advantage but doesn't make your incompetent, and it's OK if items come and go.


In practice in 3e you will go with 1), although it would be nice to have standardized guidelines on how to do this in the loot calculation. From a wider viewpoint the best solution is probably a combination of two or three of these answers.

[icefractal]

IME, 3.x isn't that fragile in terms of WBL, especially if you set things on the generous side. Due to the quadratic nature of item prices, giving even 2x the normal WBL isn't going to be a big power boost (smaller than the difference that optimization variance makes), and then there's some buffer to lose items without falling too far behind.

And honestly - and I expect to take some flames for this - being under-WBL isn't the end of the world. When you factor in the substantial power differences that already exists in the set of "all possible PCs", the GM is going to need to do more than look at CRs anyway if they're trying to balance foes to the party. And if they're not (as in, a pure sandbox world) then w/e, it just changes what order you're able to do things. One of the groups I'm in is facing such a situation (semi-sandbox AP, no chance to buy items yet despite being 5th level, due to the order that things have happened) and we manage fine, it just makes the challenges a little harder but still very much beatable.

That said, IME PCs also really hate losing items, regardless of whether it seriously impacts them or not. So even if you balanced things perfectly, most groups wouldn't be happy with Rust Monsters every couple sessions. Something to use as a rare spice, not the primary content.

[JNAProductions]

IME, 3.x isn't that fragile in terms of WBL, especially if you set things on the generous side. Due to the quadratic nature of item prices, giving even 2x the normal WBL isn't going to be a big power boost (smaller than the difference that optimization variance makes), and then there's some buffer to lose items without falling too far behind.

And honestly - and I expect to take some flames for this - being under-WBL isn't the end of the world. When you factor in the substantial power differences that already exists in the set of "all possible PCs", the GM is going to need to do more than look at CRs anyway if they're trying to balance foes to the party. And if they're not (as in, a pure sandbox world) then w/e, it just changes what order you're able to do things. One of the groups I'm in is facing such a situation (semi-sandbox AP, no chance to buy items yet despite being 5th level, due to the order that things have happened) and we manage fine, it just makes the challenges a little harder but still very much beatable.

That said, IME PCs also really hate losing items, regardless of whether it seriously impacts them or not. So even if you balanced things perfectly, most groups wouldn't be happy with Rust Monsters every couple sessions. Something to use as a rare spice, not the primary content.

Being under WBL isn't the end of the world... For some classes.

A level 10 Druid with 1,000 GP of equipment should be able to contribute just fine.
A level 10 Fighter with the same... They're gonna struggle a hell of a lot more.

The issue isn't just it affecting different classes unequally, it's that it places the biggest penalties on those who already fall behind.

[Morphic tide]

Being under WBL isn't the end of the world... For some classes.

A level 10 Druid with 1,000 GP of equipment should be able to contribute just fine.
A level 10 Fighter with the same... They're gonna struggle a hell of a lot more.

The issue isn't just it affecting different classes unequally, it's that it places the biggest penalties on those who already fall behind.
The point being made is that the difference between a well-kitted and competently-built 10th-level Fighter and a 10th-level Fighter who lost their magic sword is surprisingly small and temporary, because getting an almost as good replacement is considerably less expensive than full investment and thus a quick recovery of basic functions. This is doubly so when your weapon investment is split in parts, as with TWF or ammo-using ranged weapons, or when using Dragonshard Pommel Stones and Weapon Augment Crystals.

[King of Nowhere]

Being under WBL isn't the end of the world... For some classes.

A level 10 Druid with 1,000 GP of equipment should be able to contribute just fine.
A level 10 Fighter with the same... They're gonna struggle a hell of a lot more.

The issue isn't just it affecting different classes unequally, it's that it places the biggest penalties on those who already fall behind.

yeah, but we're not talking of the level 10 fighter being naked. we're talking the level 10 fighter having a +2 weapon instead of a +3 one. and indeed, in this case the difference is small.
besides, a lot depends on the party casters. if they go like "sorry you lost your stuff, have a greater magic weapon. have a barkskin. have a bull's strenght" then the fighter will be in good shape. if they go like "i don't want to spend spell slots on you", that's an entirely different scenario

[icefractal]

Also, even only comparing different Fighter 10 characters, the power difference between a fairly optimized Fighter 10 and a "I picked feats by what names looked good" Fighter 10 is larger than the difference between having full WBL and, say, half WBL. And the power difference between a Fighter 10 and a Druid 10 is greater still (unless the players intentionally match them).

So already, the fact that somebody is playing "Fighter 10" doesn't guarantee they can handle CR 10 challenges well (or conversely, that CR 10 challenges aren't cakewalks), the GM already needs to either take the specific character into account or accept that difficulty will be imprecise. I'm not saying I'd advise deviating hugely from WBL, but it's not an impossibility to balance any more than numerous other factors.

[King of Nowhere]

Also, even only comparing different Fighter 10 characters, the power difference between a fairly optimized Fighter 10 and a "I picked feats by what names looked good" Fighter 10 is larger than the difference between having full WBL and, say, half WBL. And the power difference between a Fighter 10 and a Druid 10 is greater still (unless the players intentionally match them).

i have seen druids getting outpowered by fighters many times.
optimization matters a lot more than tier. in fact, in my experience druid is the single worst class for newbs, because all of your options are weak if not properly supported - and many of them can be traps. a weak animal companion that's more of a liability than an asset, a wild shape that makes you lose your equipment, and weaker spells than other classes. and all those options do look very good on paper, further confusing the unexperienced.
even at high optimization, a druid is a jack of all trades, meaning that in a fast combat, where you only have a couple of rounds worth of actions to make your impact, the specialized melee will deal critical damage, the specialized caster will have more powerful spells, and whether you beat people up in wildshape or cast spells, you're going to be weaker than they are.
but i'm going on a bit of a tangent here. if i have to rank what makes combat power, i'd say
1) player experience (only because you have to know how to use your overpowered character)
2) cheesyness (how much you can push the boundaries of optimization depends on how many of the crazier combos are not banned at your table)
3) optimization
4) optimization
5) wealth
6) character tier (downgraded also because the bans on cheesyness will already hit the high tier classes more)
7) party propensity to teamplay (fighters benefit if the casters are willing to buff them, wizards benefit if they don't have to waste spells for mop up)

and true to this list, for the purpose of party balance, player experience is not an issue because the rest of the table can help the new guy until he learns. my main effort to ensure a balanced party is to work on cheesyness, what is allowed and what is not. once established that boundary, it's not hard to ensure everyone is optimized enough to have some trick that can contribute. and that's all, if those conditions are respected there's enough balance to make for a functional table.
for the purpose of encounter balance, i haven't really looked at the cr system in a long, long time. except maybe in a "let's look at all the high cr monsters and see if something seem effective". my players are experienced and well optimized, throwing cr-appropriate stuff at them would be an excercice in futility. as a rough guideline, something 5 levels above them can be a passable challenge, but it's far from guaranteed, one would have to look for specific interactions.

[Beheld]

I love to destroy players gear. The best way is when an enemy drinks a potion right in front of them, but a Rust Monster can be fine.

Well I lied, the best way is when the Wizard faces an enemy who explicitly destroys their spellbook, and they have to pull out their backup spellbook and then go hunt them down with extreme prejudice, but that one requires a certain amount of player buy in since some players make Wizards with exactly one spellbook and count on social contract to avoid being forever crippled the first time a fireball hits them and they roll a 1 or they fall down a pit, and you can't really destroy a spellbook unless the player painfully explains to you their backup strategy so you know they are cool with their main book being destroyed.

I agree that D&D does have a "WBL problem" which is what all games end up having when they aren't heist games where the players define their engagement with enemies and also the game has expensive gear. I mostly solve that problem by shifting my encounters up and down based on player experience and feedback, so it doesn't matter if they get Rust Monstered except that they feel bad, which is a valid kind of feeling.

[Pugwampy]

Generally speaking, I would like know your views on 'gear destroyers'. As the DM, I had a slasrath in my session today, and it took out the party druid's 24k magic armor. The loot gained from the adventure is not much compared to this lost resource.

Worst thing you can do to a player.

I myself experienced it . DM attacked with a digester and its acid destroyed magic goodies . We all had to roll all our stuff . I think DM counted on at worst only half my equipment would be toast . I rolled low for everything . I was very much demoralized . DM felt uber guilty , i dont think digesters acid can destroy +3 magic items .

As a DM i destroy nothing special and if stolen they get it back later.

[Darg]

Well I lied, the best way is when the Wizard faces an enemy who explicitly destroys their spellbook, and they have to pull out their backup spellbook and then go hunt them down with extreme prejudice, but that one requires a certain amount of player buy in since some players make Wizards with exactly one spellbook and count on social contract to avoid being forever crippled the first time a fireball hits them and they roll a 1 or they fall down a pit, and you can't really destroy a spellbook unless the player painfully explains to you their backup strategy so you know they are cool with their main book being destroyed.

If their spellbook is destroyed by a fireball, it was their fault for being naked and/or holding their spellbook on the field of battle. Any time you roll a 1 and expose items to a spell, you select the 4 most likely hit items going down the Items Affected by Magical Attacks (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrow) table. As long as the spellbook is stowed away or hanging on a flashy tome chain it'll be one of the last things on the list.

[threefivearchve]

Rust monsters are acceptable in small groups against a level 10 party. Or a lower-level party if they have advance warning. Or at level 1 since they won't have much gear of note yet.

[GeoffWatson]

Too random.
It's not unlikely for one PC to lose multiple items, while others don't lose anything.
Closest to the destroyers, or slowest to run away, etc.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

They're a tool in the box that I won't hesitate to use if it makes sense for them to be in an encounter. If the party lacks the ability to get their stuff repaired afterward, it's likely they'll find a replacement for anything major that gets broken reasonably soon afterward though.

[arkieNork]

For this, I use Pathfinder's easy fix

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/make-whole/
>Make Whole, Greater
>Greater make whole can fix destroyed magic items or technological items (items at 0 hit points or fewer), and restores the magic properties of the item if your caster level at least equal to that of the item. This spell otherwise functions as make whole.

Make whole also does it but CL has to be 2x the item.

[ShurikVch]

That's one of rarer instances where Truenamer can be more useful than most other classes


Rebuild Item
Level: 3
Range: Touch
Target: Destroyed item touched
Duration: Instantaneous
You reconstitute a destroyed item, instantly putting it back together into one functional piece.
With this utterance, you instantly restore an item destroyed within the last round to its normal, undamaged state. Essentially, by reminding the item of its truename, you unmake its destruction. Magic items affected by this power retain all their magical properties, unlike items restored with a make whole spell. The reconstituted item has full hit points.
This utterance has no effect on any item that has been destroyed for more than 1 round. You cannot restore a destroyed artifact with this utterance.

[Boci]

2) do they get resentful if their character is killed too? If they object whenever something seriously bad happens to them, it seems to me the problem here is the people you play with, not the game

In my experience typically no, because dying doesn't make you weaker. You roll up a replacement character that is just as strong. But losing a significant piece of gear does make you weaker.

[Aquillion]

Each progressive edition has had fewer and fewer of them for a reason. It's the same reason the Deck of Many Things isn't popular and has slowly faded away.

Ultimately they're an artifact of really early D&D design, which was heavily focused on a certain sort of dungeon crawl where worrying about resources was a big deal. Gear-eating monsters were intended to be part of that larger resource game - when the main goal of the players is to extract treasure from dungeons, stuff that eats their gear fits logically into that as a possible failure state (ie. your expedition can lose more money than it makes.) The story often was supposed to be defined by the progression and success or failure of this resource-extraction mission.

As the game has progressed it has shifted to a more narrative heroic fantasy sort of thing where treasure and loot and resources play a smaller role. In this setup, it's assumed that the DM is telling a broader story and that the players are taking part in it.

Monsters that can inflict devastating long-term consequences can sometimes fit into that sort of game with the right DM and group, especially if the DM is good at adapting and the group enjoys the sort of chaotic outcomes they can cause... but by default it's not as good of a fit because you don't really want a random roll of the dice to dramatically impact the players' progression, since that, in turn, ends up dramatically impacting the story.

Of course you don't want to remove the impact of that randomness entirely! To some extent it's what makes D&D what it is. Dying is still a thing, and there's all sorts of other consequences. Even 5e has a small handful of monsters that can cause devastating outcomes. But generally the game has shifted towards making it harder for one roll of the die or one bad encounter to completely change the direction of the story, especially in a way that may not give the players much of a chance to do anything about it, because that doesn't fit as well with what people are coming to D&D for nowadays.

3.5e is sort of at an odd place in that progression, so it still has a bunch of those monsters but generally has rules that shift things towards a "smoother" sort of storytelling. It's not a surprise that gear-destroying monsters wouldn't be popular there. That doesn't make them bad but whether you'd want to use them depends on your group, the sort of game you want to run, and the sort of story you'd want to tell.

Hence the comparison to the Deck of Many Things. Can they fit in the right game and sometimes make for memorable stories? Sure. But if you use them carelessly they can absolutely derail or ruin games.

[cython]

I think the "destroy equipment" is a fair game, provided that the players are aware of the danger in advance.

For example, the party, despite having listened to the stories of the shield and sword breaking of giants in the heat of the battle by the bard back at the inn, decides to enter a fire giant's stronghold.

If a monster has "Improved Sunder" and the DM does not use it, then the challenge of the encounter drops, and I dare say, it also becomes more one-dimensional. This will teach (unprepared) players to have only one weapon.

Of course, the DM should, at the end of the quest, come up with some treasure for the players.

My two cents.

[holbita]

I see it as an important mechanic.

Not only does it allow you to increase tension and higher risks on an adventure, which I love doing, it's also the mechanic that justifies the existence of classes like monk or soulknife. If no gear is going to ever be lost/stolen... then they are losing a lot of their meaning of existense.

A risk of this is always present in our table, and that makes it so players having to invest on backup items and such turns into consumables being more valued, power levels less spiked and classes that can circunvent this issue more coveted.

Basically, you can skip the mechanic completely if you don't like that side of the game... but keep in mind that many things are balanced around that existing, so if you do this... you should also skip those.

[Gnaeus]

I see it as an important mechanic.

Not only does it allow you to increase tension and higher risks on an adventure, which I love doing, it's also the mechanic that justifies the existence of classes like monk or soulknife. If no gear is going to ever be lost/stolen... then they are losing a lot of their meaning of existense.

A risk of this is always present in our table, and that makes it so players having to invest on backup items and such turns into consumables being more valued, power levels less spiked and classes that can circunvent this issue more coveted.

Basically, you can skip the mechanic completely if you don't like that side of the game... but keep in mind that many things are balanced around that existing, so if you do this... you should also skip those.

So, 1. Monk is absolutely one of the most gear dependent classes in the game. It requires not just a lot of gear, but a lot of really specific gear. If a monk and a barbarian are captured by slavers and their gear gets taken, or they are hit with a disjunction or otherwise gear stripped, the barbarian just needs a 2 handed magic weapon, a wildly common drop. Honestly, I once saw a frenzied berserker who had lost his weapon, and we handed him a free quarterstaff and he immediatly began outdamaging typical monks. The monk needs a rare amulet. Which costs twice as much as the weapon if they are replacing it with cash. Look at the tier system. One thing it rates, pretty effectively, is how well classes function without gear. Where are monk and Soulknife? Right there at the bottom.

2. Soulknife is, very marginally, a class that benefits from low or destroyed gear. It is nice to have a level appropriate weapon guaranteed. Soulknife's problem is that its weapon only manages to catch up with the problems of being a melee class with a bad chassis. And every decent melee class has class features on top of their better base. I can't argue that one of the benefits of soulknife is that you can't be effectively disarmed, sundered, robbed, disenchanted, etc. Its kind of a neat gestalt class for that reason. But its still worse (if worse by a smaller margin) than a fighter or barbarian who had their treasure destroyed and are fighting with a backup or looted +1 or GMW 2h weapon. And fighter or barbarian are worse than a Martial Adept or Duskblade in the same circumstances, who are themselves worse than a Cleric or Druid in the same condition.

[holbita]

You are referring to more of a "outside of battle" thing, right? I completely agree with you there.

But I thought the question here was for in-battle encounters, where a monk can shrugg off a sunder or disarm attempt, a barbarian for example will have to spend their next turn getting another weapon ready (I don't expect to have many barbarian taking quick draw) and even then they must be careful with their second weapon.

An encounter where you risk your gear can be extremely scary for everyone that is gear reliant. Both in future consequences and in action economy. Classes like monk or soulknife shine there. They don't care you are fighting a fire giant, and while they are in the front line doing their job, the rest will be staying away in fear for their gear.

[Gnaeus]

You are referring to more of a "outside of battle" thing, right? I completely agree with you there.

But I thought the question here was for in-battle encounters, where a monk can shrugg off a sunder or disarm attempt, a barbarian for example will have to spend their next turn getting another weapon ready (I don't expect to have many barbarian taking quick draw) and even then they must be careful with their second weapon.

An encounter where you risk your gear can be extremely scary for everyone that is gear reliant. Both in future consequences and in action economy. Classes like monk or soulknife shine there. They don't care you are fighting a fire giant, and while they are in the front line doing their job, the rest will be staying away in fear for their gear.

A monk is better off against a sunder attempt. Worse against a Disjunction or a disenchanter. And the problem is that a better class is better off swinging the unenchanted mace they carried as a backup weapon at level 1 than Monk or Soulknife is doing their thing. For this to be a real argument, weapon destroying stuff would have to be a really significant % of encounters, so that the barbarian doesn't shrug, pick up a weapon off a dead mook, and say "Well, at least I'm not a soulknife". And even THAT wouldn't be a good reason to play a monk or soulknife, it would be a good reason to play a duskblade or a cleric and spend a fight casting spells, and go back to being a better melee than a monk in the next fight. A druid has less reason to fear losing gear than a monk, has more combat options than the monk, and also better mechanisms for fixing lost gear than the monk. Its a ribbon ability. Like immunity to sleep spells or non magical diseases. Its nice if the DM has a fight where maybe it matters but it would be odd if it was a character defining advantage.

TLDR, it would be a freakish game in which Melee who can't be sundered is a niche which needs to be protected, and even if you somehow got there you still don't want to play a monk or soulknife.

Its like, I was once in a game where the DM LOVED crit fumbles, and one player rolled so many 1s that he made a monk with prone fighting so that he couldn't fall prone or be disarmed. And then it became apparent that he was still one of the worst fighters in the game and all the casters who never made attack rolls never rolled 1s on the attack rolls they didn't make, and they just said, ok, nothing requiring touch attacks, got it.

[Darg]

A monk is better off against a sunder attempt. Worse against a Disjunction or a disenchanter. And the problem is that a better class is better off swinging the unenchanted mace they carried as a backup weapon at level 1 than Monk or Soulknife is doing their thing. For this to be a real argument, weapon destroying stuff would have to be a really significant % of encounters, so that the barbarian doesn't shrug, pick up a weapon off a dead mook, and say "Well, at least I'm not a soulknife". And even THAT wouldn't be a good reason to play a monk or soulknife, it would be a good reason to play a duskblade or a cleric and spend a fight casting spells, and go back to being a better melee than a monk in the next fight. A druid has less reason to fear losing gear than a monk, has more combat options than the monk, and also better mechanisms for fixing lost gear than the monk. Its a ribbon ability. Like immunity to sleep spells or non magical diseases. Its nice if the DM has a fight where maybe it matters but it would be odd if it was a character defining advantage.

TLDR, it would be a freakish game in which Melee who can't be sundered is a niche which needs to be protected, and even if you somehow got there you still don't want to play a monk or soulknife.

Its like, I was once in a game where the DM LOVED crit fumbles, and one player rolled so many 1s that he made a monk with prone fighting so that he couldn't fall prone or be disarmed. And then it became apparent that he was still one of the worst fighters in the game and all the casters who never made attack rolls never rolled 1s on the attack rolls they didn't make, and they just said, ok, nothing requiring touch attacks, got it.

I'd say the barbarian and the monk are on pretty even ground after a disjunction if we are talking about fighting capability. Sure, the barbarian has their rage bonuses, but it's not like the monk lost their unarmed damage or flurry.

[King of Nowhere]

A monk is better off against a sunder attempt. Worse against a Disjunction or a disenchanter.


I'd say the barbarian and the monk are on pretty even ground after a disjunction if we are talking about fighting capability.

what are you talking about? a monk is infinitely better than a barbarian against a disjunction.
because the monk has high wisdom and high will save, while the barbarian has crap for both. the barbarian is likely to lose most of his gear, while the monk will mostly be spared.

besides, comparing monks with barbarians purely by damage dealt completely misses the point of monks. barbarians win big time in that contest, no doubt about it. monks have other advantages, which include a lot of good defences. especially against magic. which comes especially handy if somebody is throwing disjunction at the party.
in addition to better saves against the disjunction, the monk also has a better spot check, which will be handy to see the enemy caster first and avoid the disjunction. he has a better hide, which may be useful to not be seen and targeted by the wizard with the disjunction. he has a personal teleportation, which he could use to sneak up to the enemy caster and prevent him from casting disjunction - or to escape if the disjunction has left him powerless. he has a higher move speed, which will be of use to engage or disengage if he needs to.
monks are not barbarians and should not be played and judged as such. monks have strenghts and weaknesses, and they can be pretty powerful if properly built and properly used.

that said, in order to make the most of his potential, a monk needs as much gear as anyone else. the amulet of mighty fists is actually not worth its ludicrous cost, and besides, you'll want a periapt of wisdom; you're better off getting a greater magic weapon out of the party wizard - buy him a pearl of power if you must. but to make good on your defensive potential, while also having a decent attack, you still need a lot of stuff. partially because you're multiple attribute dependent, so you'll want to get enhancement bonuses for a lot of different stats, and partially because you're not wearing armor or shield, but you'll still want to get an armor and shield bonus somewhat. and you'll run out of item slots on your body.