Community

Oct 17, 2011 -- 10:18PM, Salla wrote:

Oct 17, 2011 -- 10:16PM, jonathan_sicari wrote:

Can I point out I still don't want to see the return of monsters like Ear Mites?

I agree.

I'm quite good with abandoning stupid monsters to the pits of oblivion (or Gamma World).  I certainly was not happy to see the return of the Rust Monster, one of the flagship stupid monsters of all time.

T_T

I kinda feel like some people are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Yes, some monsters were really stupid in previous incarnations. No, that does not mean that we should toss them in a fire and never look back.

Take me, for example. I dislike how Rust Monsters were done in 4E, as well as previously. We cause long-lasting and harsh effects to only a particular type of character. As responses to your post showed, some people view thinking of that as bad design as "LOL YOU WANT BABBYS 1ST DND IM SO HARDCORE LOLOLOL", but it isn't even because it is unfair to players of those characters. It is also bad design because while one character must deal with this terrible threat, there are other characters to which we are like large armoured hamsters with toothpicks. 1d4 bite attacks with a -5 to hit aren't a threat, and even a Wizard would eventually stab you to death. The ONLY THING we were good for was not even so much be deadly to metal-users, but making OTHER THINGS more of a threat. We might as well have been a magic trap or something!

But to say "This incredibly iconic monster had crappy mechanics! Let's leave it in the trash and never ever look at it again!" is closed-minded. Rust Monsters are iconic, and that should be respected even if the mechanics were bad. It seems "looking back for ideas" is often met by some as if it meant "look back for ideas and graft them exactly as is into the game", which it doesn't need to be (although sadly this is how they used me in 4E).

How can the Rust Monster be fixed? Well, the big problems we have is 1) Effecting only one type of character, and 2) Destruction of tools. We have to make the Rust Monster effect all characters, and we need to make it not destroy valuable character tools. But how can we effect everyone and still be the RUST Monster? Well, what if, although rust is the only thing we eat, the power we have that turns metal to rust effects more than just metal? The whole "metal instantly oxidizes" thing didn't ever really make sense other than magic (if it was because of some sort of super oxygen infusion, the metal would probably explode into flames, which although rad is not what we want when hunting for food). So if we already see it as some sort of magic, why can't it effect impliments or non-metal armour? Give us an ability that gives -2 to hit (save ends) on a hit and one that gives -2 AC (save ends) on a hit or something like that and you're done. Say it is some effect that warps the object and makes it less effective. Voila.

But what about that old ability to INSTANTLY destroy metal objects? Again, that's bad, but we need to have some way for Rust Monsters to create and eat rust. It's what we do. Why not just make it take more time to rust things into oblivion? Perhaps a short rest worth of time (although it's arbitrary) working on an unattended object is needed to destroy and consume it? Basicly, make it a flavour thing (pun intended). The intent, like the Mind Flayer's ability to eat brains in combat, was probably that the monster needed to tell you everything about itself in its short life before the PCs killed it, so they had abilities best reserved for out of combat shoehorned into fast acting, nonsensical combat abilities. But just because they USED to work like that doesn't mean they have to NOW. And I think that is the stumbling block. Looking to the past for ideas and respecting what came before doesn't mean you need to have a slavish devotion to it or can't innovate.

And Salla? I forgive you for your hurtful comments. We coo'.

Oct 17, 2011 -- 9:29PM, Hocus-Smokus wrote:

"I also think there's value in being true to one's roots. History is important. If we don't know what the game was like 10, 20, or 30 years ago, we're refusing to learn from any of those years of design and play, and that's just short sighted. Plus, ignoring history is just going to cause us to trip over what we've already done."

For what it's worth, I like this statement. It shows that he knows that past editions had their pitfalls, and he's making a concious decision to look for them so as to not repeat them. What he considers pitfalls of prior editions, though, might be drastically different than what some of us consider pitfalls.

But, the entire rest of the article is just fishing for permission to re-hash the past.  Include every lame/broken/stupid monster/class/item because someone might've liked it - and make it just as broken/stupid/lame, because otherwise it isn't 'true' to the original.  That's not learning from the past, that's repeating the mistakes of the past.  It's exactly what Mearls has been doing since Essentials, and exactly what Cook seems to have been brought back on board to do:  return D&D to the way it sucked when it was a successful fad.  They should be trying to make it a better game.