|
3 months ago ::
Feb 27, 2013 - 11:09PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2010
|
I asked the following in the ToF thread. Although I asked it of another poster, perhaps you would be good enough to answer it (in the ToF thread please; there's no reason to co-opt this one).
Done.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 12:33AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
These monsters are an archaic part of the game and from an age where DM's felt the need to humiliate players in order to feel better about their system-supported DM entitlement.
And Next is clearly trying very hard to harken back to those days.
Really, though, you're being (a little) harsh. Classic D&D had lots of very cool, but not always that carefully explained, magic items, and DMs were often tempted to give out a few too many, or one that was more than a bit too powerful, and regret the decision later. Various 'gotchyas' like the rust monster, let them un-do such mistakes.
5e does not consider magic items in level progression or encounter balance, so it could be quite easy for a DM to find himself in the position of needing to remove items to restore some semblance of balance to his campaign. Thus, he'll need rust monsters, disenchanters, Mordenkainen's Disjunction and so forth.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 12:39AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2011
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Good DMs do not screw over the players, but he does impose a certain level of tension. Creatures such as the rust monster are great for this. Unfortunately, they are easy to abuse. While I have no doubt that the rust monster will show up in 5E (along with mimics, piercers, and other such candidates), if they don't for some reason, they'll be in my games.
Maybe the rust monster was a bad example here. While I doubt that the devs will really bring them back, there WERE a few things in earlier editions that were just plain unfair: for example, that worm that lived in doors, waiting to insta-kill anyone who pressed their ear against the surface?
"Ha! Rock beats scissors!" "Darn it! Rock is overpowered! I'm not playing this again until the next edition is released!" "C'mon, just one more." "Oh, all right..." "Wait, what is that?" "Its 'Dynamite' from the expanded rules." "Just because you can afford to buy every supplement that comes out..." "Hey, it's completely balanced! You're just a bad DM for not accommodating it." Spoiler:
Show
RPGs are getting more popular, and whenever something gets more popular, it inevitably changes, usually becoming more palatable to the masses. Nintendo is the perfect example. In the old days their games coined the term "Nintendo hard" to extend play time, but they knew their fans were dedicated enough to play anyway. Now they mostly make stuff a five year old can master. That's not necessarily bad, though. Most of those old Nintendo games were infuriating. Likewise, a lot of old RPGs were too complex and irritating for the average person to really get into. Rules light systems are going to get more popular as more people enter the hobby, simply because the new people aren't bound by nostalgia, and would rather play something easy and fun than something that takes a huge amount of effort to learn.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 12:58AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
Maybe the rust monster was a bad example here. While I doubt that the devs will really bring them back, there WERE a few things in earlier editions that were just plain unfair: for example, that worm that lived in doors, waiting to insta-kill anyone who pressed their ear against the surface?
Molds. They were pretty unfair, though there was a right way to DM them and if the players were paying attention they'd know that the rotted, yellowed door would probably kill them if they opened it or otherwise disturbed it without fire.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 1:00AM
#25
|
|
|
These monsters are an archaic part of the game and from an age where DM's felt the need to humiliate players in order to feel better about their system-supported DM entitlement.
And Next is clearly trying very hard to harken back to those days.
Really, though, you're being (a little) harsh. Classic D&D had lots of very cool, but not always that carefully explained, magic items, and DMs were often tempted to give out a few too many, or one that was more than a bit too powerful, and regret the decision later. Various 'gotchyas' like the rust monster, let them un-do such mistakes.
5e does not consider magic items in level progression or encounter balance, so it could be quite easy for a DM to find himself in the position of needing to remove items to restore some semblance of balance to his campaign. Thus, he'll need rust monsters, disenchanters, Mordenkainen's Disjunction and so forth.
Wouldn't simply talking with your players be a better sollution to the problem? It is not as if you can setup the situation so that you are guaranteed to hit the item you want to remove, and the harder you try the more contrived the situation will bne...
Personally the rust monster that is announced is never an issue. It was easy to deal with. It is the new DM that runs the risk of using them as a gotcha quite easily. So they do require a 'be aware' section 
The most fun use I have seen is when the PCs used a rust monster (which they could summon once, but not control directly) to escape from a prison cell and disable the prison guards. They themselves had been stripped, so why not use that rustmonster to remove the bars and dangerous weapons?
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 1:12AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2011
|
Rust monsters were pretty lame. "Gotcha" type monsters and traps need to be eliminated from Next.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 1:13AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
5e does not consider magic items in level progression or encounter balance, so it could be quite easy for a DM to find himself in the position of needing to remove items to restore some semblance of balance to his campaign. Thus, he'll need rust monsters, disenchanters, Mordenkainen's Disjunction and so forth.
Wouldn't simply talking with your players be a better sollution to the problem?
It would be a more rational solution to the problem, but it would be 'breaking verisimilitude,' rather like having players give you a magic item wish list did. Not salting the game with broken items just because they're 'cool' or 'classic' would also be a solution. Neither of these solutions are in line with that 'classic D&D feel' that 5e is striving for, though. Rust Monsters are.
Someone also mentioned ear seakers. There's another good example of the style of game design and DMing in classic D&D. D&D tried to emulate a genre. In that genre, a character might wisely listen at a door, and hear something that moves the plot along. When there's nothing that moves the plot along, /he doesn't listen at the door/ (or maybe he does, but off-screen). It's a matter of storytelling. Characters in fiction don't listen at every door, it's boring. One a player figures out that he can sometimes gain a benefit by listening at a door, he listens at every door. It gets boring. Rather than change the mechanic so the check is only made when it matters, the classic D&D solution is to introduce a risk to listening at doors too often.
There are many examples. Cursed magic items, for instance. Rather than present a list of balanced magic items that don't break the game, put in some cursed items that look just like the game-breaking ones.
That's what the 'gotchyas' are all about, goosing the risk side of the players' risk/reward calculations.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 1:21AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
5e does not consider magic items in level progression or encounter balance, so it could be quite easy for a DM to find himself in the position of needing to remove items to restore some semblance of balance to his campaign. Thus, he'll need rust monsters, disenchanters, Mordenkainen's Disjunction and so forth.
Wouldn't simply talking with your players be a better sollution to the problem?
It would be a more rational solution to the problem, but it would be 'breaking verisimilitude,' rather like having players give you a magic item wish list did. Not salting the game with broken items just because they're 'cool' or 'classic' would also be a solution. Neither of these solutions are in line with that 'classic D&D feel' that 5e is striving for, though. Rust Monsters are.
As long as I'm not making it obvious, my players tend to respond a lot better to losing equipment as a result of an in game occurance than through some process of negotiation. There are lots of ways of taking gear away, rust monsters going won't stop gear from being lost.
I quite like the rust monster and other creatures like them, but they're a challenge to DM. I think maybe some kind of colour code might be useful next to the options that are listed next to a mob. Green = smallest reprocussions, amber = lasting reprocussions but nothing permanent or character changing, red = lasting reprocussions that change the character in some way. The rust monster ability would be red (permanent destruction of the item in question). The green version might be a disadvantage when attacking it with metal weapons and the amber version might be hitting the rust monster imposes disadvantage on all uses of that item until they can get it repaired.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 1:30AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
I quite like the rust monster and other creatures like them, but they're a challenge to DM. I think maybe some kind of colour code might be useful next to the options that are listed next to a mob. Green = smallest reprocussions, amber = lasting reprocussions but nothing permanent or character changing, red = lasting reprocussions that change the character in some way.
The rust monster ability would be red (permanent destruction of the item in question). The green version might be a disadvantage when attacking it with metal weapons and the amber version might be hitting the rust monster imposes disadvantage on all uses of that item until they can get it repaired.
More "crystal clear guidance," yeah. This brings up another point - character development. In classic D&D, character development is much more in the hands of the DM than the player. Finding a potent or quixotic magic item could completely change your character. A fighter with a hammer of thunderbolts is very different from a fighter with Wings of Flying is very different from one with a Helm of Underwater Action. Give an item, change the character, take the item away, change it back. It wasn't strange for DMs to put environmental 'magic' in dungeons that permanently changed them, too. The old magic pool - drinking from it might act like a random potion, or turn your skin purple, or change your sex... All under at whim of the DM (and his dice). In modern D&D, the trend was for character development to be more and more in the hands of the player. 3e characters could be customized and tweaked into complex 'builds,' including custom-made/bought items. In 4e, builds were toned down a little, and items items were toned down a lot, but players could even put appropriate-to-concept magic items on a 'wish list.'
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 1:40AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Dec 19, 2007
|
I like variety in monsters, as Arithezoo said - 'They can be an interesting challenge that forces the party to come up with a new way of dealing with a fight.'
just like beholders, slimes, oozes and fungus, you can't just charge in weapons/spells blazing. You have to think about what you are doing.
sure sometimes its good to just charge in and carve up the orks and take their shinies, but sometimes a curve ball is good too.
yes they can be over used, so they should be balanced with other more regular encounters
on the other hand, they are often underplayed in how they affect the area, for example a rust monster might be harrassing the local silver mine, affecting trade etc. a gelatenous cube might have started cleaning the sewers, but soon its gibbering around the foreign quarter and a visiting noble goes missing...
you could also tie in other monsters, eg a mimic's presence could attract dopplegangers, so the the party have to find it and deal with it before things get far worse, or mimics could evolve into dopplegangers, so this way it becomes an ongoing plot or nemesis instead of just a neat one off encounter.
|
|
|
