Attacking a Rust Monster with a sword


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Would attacking a Rust Monster with a sword damage the weapon?

Quote:
Any metal touched by the rust monster's delicate antennae or armored hide corrodes and falls to dust within seconds,

Scarab Sages

Yes. It's why it's always a good idea to carry a backup club.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:
Yes. It's why it's always a good idea to carry a backup club.

Or to get your sword made out of voidglass.

Rust Monsters aren't really monsters, they're more like "traps with legs that you fight."


No, it doesn't.

The rules text only mentions the touch of the antennae.

Quote:

Rust (Su) A rust monster’s antennae are a primary touch attack that causes any metal object they touch to swiftly rust and corrode. The object

touched takes half its maximum hp in damage and gains the broken condition—a second hit destroys the item. A rust monster never provokes
attacks of opportunity by attempting to strike a weapon with its antennae.
Against creatures made of metal, a rust monster’s antennae deal 3d6+5 points of damage. An attended object, any magic object, or a metal creature can attempt a DC 15 Reflex save to negate this effect. The
save DC is Constitution-based.

There is nothing in there about any sort of passive "whenever you hit" ability.


Funny, I had just run my players through a fight with some (with some more to follow as they have occupied a strategic iron mine). As written, only their antennae attack would damage the sword, not attacking them with it. You'd end up with endless rolls if every attack (from the party and the monsters) required a save.


The Rust ability changed between 3.5 D&D and Pathfinder.

3.5 D&D wrote:

Rust (Ex)

A rust monster that makes a successful touch attack with its antennae causes the target metal to corrode, falling to pieces and becoming useless immediately. The touch can destroy up to a 10-foot cube of metal instantly. Magic armor and weapons, and other magic items made of metal, must succeed on a DC 17 Reflex save or be dissolved. The save DC is Constitution-based and includes a +4 racial bonus.

A metal weapon that deals damage to a rust monster corrodes immediately. Wooden, stone, and other nonmetallic weapons are unaffected.

The Pathfinder ability makes no mention of that (as GreyYeti posted), though the description of the monster still indicates it.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Just keep your sword in its scabbard and bludgeon it to death.


Yes, striking the creature with a metal weapon (or any metal object) causes rusting.

Rust monster wrote:
Any metal touched by the rust monster's delicate antennae or armored hide corrodes and falls to dust within seconds, ...

The description of the monster clearly says anything touched by the antennae or the hide. You can say that they specifically removed it from the monster's description because they wanted to change it, but if that was really the case... they would have actually removed it from the creature's description.

Also:

Quote:
Those who frequent areas infested with rust monsters quickly learn to keep a few stone or wooden weapons close at hand.

This pretty strongly implies that creatures dealing with rust monsters have to worry about their weapons rusting. If that line was just intended to mean 'because the rust monsters target their weapons,' that wouldn't make sense, because rust monsters target all metal. The line doesn't say 'Those who frequent areas infested with rust monsters quickly learn to keep a few stone or wooden weapons and leather or hide armor and gems instead of coins close at hand.

Most likely, they removed the line from the Rust ability description because it wasn't necessary, since the very nature of the creature is that it rusts things that touch its antennae and hide (which is exactly what it says) so there's no need to have it written in multiple places.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The antennae are a special attack. Just hitting the creature does not provoke the antennae. Jeraa would be correct. Swing away, but keep your sword high when it is the Rust Monster's turn.


Pizza Lord wrote:

Yes, striking the creature with a metal weapon (or any metal object) causes rusting.

Rust monster wrote:
Any metal touched by the rust monster's delicate antennae or armored hide corrodes and falls to dust within seconds, ...

The description of the monster clearly says anything touched by the antennae or the hide. You can say that they specifically removed it from the monster's description because they wanted to change it, but if that was really the case... they would have actually removed it from the creature's description.

Also:

Quote:
Those who frequent areas infested with rust monsters quickly learn to keep a few stone or wooden weapons close at hand.

This pretty strongly implies that creatures dealing with rust monsters have to worry about their weapons rusting. If that line was just intended to mean 'because the rust monsters target their weapons,' that wouldn't make sense, because rust monsters target all metal. The line doesn't say 'Those who frequent areas infested with rust monsters quickly learn to keep a few stone or wooden weapons and leather or hide armor and gems instead of coins close at hand.

Most likely, they removed the line from the Rust ability description because it wasn't necessary, since the very nature of the creature is that it rusts things that touch its antennae and hide (which is exactly what it says) so there's no need to have it written in multiple places.

I agree, I can't remember where or when did I read it but it was some kind of "In case of doubt Universal Monster Rules don't supersede specific monster entries".

Also this kind of monster should be well known in the area, so a propper Knowledge check would help the party to prepare accordinly.


The hide thing is in the flavor text, not the rules. When there's a conflict you have to follow the rules, which are spelled out in the special ability and only reference antennae attacks.


I don't have the manual at hand so you must be rigth about the text.

But we still have the same problem that Pizza Lord said.

Basically because the line about the hide was left outside the special attack entry and no special deffense entry was made, the flavour text about the hide corroding the metal with its touch has no combat significance at all, which it's weird. Legally correct, but weird nonetheless.

In other editions it was stated that when the monster was striked (damaged or not) the weapon suffers the effect of the corrosion. I know, this is PF , not other editions, but to me it seems more like a text errata.


What happened is they updated the rust monster's abilities by didn't update the description.

It's not the only place such has happened with Pathfinder.

Rust monsters don't damage weapons when they are struck by them, only when they use their antennae attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
The hide thing is in the flavor text, not the rules.

The Description is not flavor-text. This is a common mistake. A description may contain flavor-text, but when people constantly assert that a description is just disregard-able and invalid because it's not in a specific location in a stat-block that is incorrect.

Claxon wrote:
What happened is they updated the rust monster's abilities by didn't update the description.

You know this for a fact or you are assuming? If you're assertion is that they [the developers] changed the description of the ability but then.. forgot to change the description... but we're supposed to believe that they took the time to change the description... but didn't change the description I am going to offer an alternative that is equally plausible:

It's just as likely the decision was made to remove the extraneous and unnecessary line from one spot because it wasn't needed, since it was clearly stated in another. You don't need to specify that metal weapons corrode when they 'damage' the creature when the description already says that they (indeed any metal object, not just those classified as weapons) corrode just touching the creature (which takes away questions of if the rust monster were to have DR from a template or other modifier.) That's equally more reasonable then assuming they specifically changed things without changing what they were changing. They've had 15 years to correct this if that was the case. This is not a new thing.

If a description of a spell says it's an 'undulating green beam', 'smells like raisins' and 'sounds like a hawk screeching' that is an actual description of a property of the spell; it is not 'flavor-text'. 'Flavor-text' would be saying 'This spell is often used by cleric's of [whomever] because it's green, their deity's favorite color.' That's a statement that has nothing to do with a quality of the spell or creature specifically.

Similarly, if a description of a creature says that it is 'red' and 'has feathers' and has 'three claws on each toe' (even if it doesn't have a claw attack listed as an attack,) then the creatures are red, have feathers, and three claws on their toes. Flavor-text would be saying 'people like to keep them as pets because red is a soothing color' or 'Their feathers make nice stuffing for pillows' or 'halflings prefer their feathers for making feather-dusters.' Those would be 'flavor-text'. Just because being 'red' may not have any [current] game effects does not mean it can be discounted. For instance, if a character or monster is specifically red-green colorblind or a guardian or spell is set to trigger if a red creature tries to pass. That is all perfectly valid and does not need a specific 'skin color' ability or write-up section. They just say, 'These creatures are red in color,' in the Description. That's how it works.

There doesn't have to be a 'Feather' or 'Wings' special ability stat-block nor does there have to be a special 'Feather' or 'Winged' notation in the Speed listing or even beside the Fly speed. You can see it has a Fly speed, then you can check in the description and if you read that the creature has 'red, feathered wings' and nothing else saying otherwise... it flies using wings (and they red and they are feathered.) Now, if a spell effect targets feathered creatures by suddenly causing them to molt away, leaving them bare and denuded of downy covering, you know whether it will work or not on this creature. You don't need a whole section telling you what being feathered entails (it means they have feathers) or explaining that they can be used to fill pillows or make fletching for arrows, specifically red fletching so you don't have to find a dye.

A description of an actual property or quality of the creature is not flavor-text just because it's not a rule or doesn't apply to combat. When the book describes gnomes and says their skin-color ranges from x to y, that's not flavor-text, that's a description of a gnome. It's not flavor-text because it's an actual statement about a physical property of the creature.

Again, a Description may contain flavor-text, but claiming that because a statement of a creature's properties and quality happens to be in the Description means it dismissible flavor-text is incorrect.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

But if that three clawed creature doesn't have a claw attack in its stat block, it doesn't get to make one just because it is described as having claws.

So too does the rust monster no longer instantly corrode metal weapons that strike it.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
But if that three clawed creature doesn't have a claw attack in its stat block, it doesn't get to make one just because it is described as having claws.

No one is claiming it does, but you cannot claim that the creature does not have claws, or talons because it does not have a claw attack. Humans can bite, they have teeth (some have pointier teeth than others,) but we (humans) don't get a bite attack. Saying we can't bite things is blatantly incorrect. It is equally incorrect to dismiss a clear description of what happens when metal touches a rust monster's antennae or its hide just because that's not in section describing the creature Rust attack (specifically when that is linked from the attack section.)

If an ability, effect, or situation makes an allowance for clawed or taloned creatures (such as saying they can rip or dig out quicker than normal,) then they count. They do not need a specific claw attack to count as being clawed (unless the specific situation says 'claw attack'. Just like an object or magic item that can be placed on wings, like 'wing-guards' can be placed on a flightless bird, even if they don't have flight... they just need wings. And where do you find out if they have wings? In the description, sometimes not even there, but you still know they have wings, because its obvious from the description, like an Axe Beak. Just like we know they have 2 legs and talons.

You can claim the statement that metal rusts when touching the antennae and hide is an error, but none of the evidence or actions over 15 years support that. It is not hard to fix one word in 15 years.

If that is the case, then they have no explanation or excuse. There's carelessness and then there's flippant disregard and blatant incompetence. You can make that accusation, I am not about to; and I am the first one to point out idiotic errors like the warp metal spell only targeting wooden objects

Gomer:"Well goooo-lly! How do we know it's really s'posed to affect metal objects when the target line really and clearly says 'wooden'?"
GM:"Well... we read the goddamned description and see that it does, in fact... warp... metal!"

(Gomer: "Well how do we know that rust monsters actually rust stuff that just touches their hide?"
GM: "Well... we read the goddamned description and see that it does, in fact... rust... metal!"
)

The Rust description is a description of the Rust Monster's Rust Attack. It is linked from the Antennae attack in the Melee section, because listing it's damage against metal creatures and saving throws to resist would completely screw up the reason and brevity of that section. Another reason is because the creature doesn't have Improved Sunder or other abilities that would otherwise prevent AoO from attacking an object. So that section is to describe the attack. It should provide adequate information for a GM to adjudicate what happens when a metal object may be rusted by contact with a rust monster, so extraneous and unnecessary repetition of it shouldn't be required for basic, common sense reasons.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

You sure do seem to like insulting people and then saying you are not.

Either way, the ability does not give any stats for the hide, only the antennae. You are free to run it in your game to make it where the antennae apply to the hide, but that is houserules as nowhere in the statblock does it give rules for the hide.

Is this a place where a 3.5 hangover has occurred? Yes, and there are plenty of them. I'll stick to just not using them like normal because I don't quite like torturing my players, but should you want to make the torture extra juicy, making them need 2+ Reflex saves a round (Once when it hits you and another when you hit it) is your go to.

Personally, I feel that this better balances the creature and at least gives you a chance to walk away with more than your britches and that stone you found in the cave. And yes there are indeed times where the thematic aspects don't meet up with the mechanics.

But hey, I might be the rare GM that cares for my players fun.


Pizza Lord wrote:


Claxon wrote:
What happened is they updated the rust monster's abilities by didn't update the description.
You know this for a fact or you are assuming?

Well, if you look at 3.5 rust monster entry it says:

Quote:

Rust (Ex)

A rust monster that makes a successful touch attack with its antennae causes the target metal to corrode, falling to pieces and becoming useless immediately. The touch can destroy up to a 10-foot cube of metal instantly. Magic armor and weapons, and other magic items made of metal, must succeed on a DC 17 Reflex save or be dissolved. The save DC is Constitution-based and includes a +4 racial bonus.

A metal weapon that deals damage to a rust monster corrodes immediately. Wooden, stone, and other nonmetallic weapons are unaffected.

The Pathfinder rust monster entry says:

Quote:

Rust (Su)

A rust monster‘s antennae are a primary touch attack that causes any metal object they touch to swiftly rust and corrode. The object touched takes half its maximum hp in damage and gains the broken condition—a second hit destroys the item. A rust monster never provokes attacks of opportunity by attempting to strike a weapon with its antennae. Against creatures made of metal, a rust monster‘s antennae deal 3d6+5 points of damage. An attended object, any magic object, or a metal creature can attempt a DC 15 Reflex save to negate this effect. The save DC is Constitution-based.

They've obviously and deliberately changed the mechanics of how it worked, including removing the part about how weapons striking the rust monster corrode immediately.

So yes.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Pizza Lord wrote:
You can claim the statement that metal rusts when touching the antennae and hide is an error, but none of the evidence or actions over 15 years support that. It is not hard to fix one word in 15 years.

It has not been 15 years since Pathfinder changed the rules. We can very easily say that the leftover description is in error by comparing the 3.5 text to the PF text, as shown above.


If a Rust Monster's hide caused metal to rust when struck then that would be in it's special abilities, not in its fluff text.

This is clearly a fluff text error.

Rust Monsters only cause rusting when making attacks with their antennae.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was going from memory and must have pulled the 3.5 rust monster from my head. Like undead and constructs taking sneak attack damage, this is another change from 3.5. Good to know. It's still always a good idea to have a backup club though.


Quote:
It has not been 15 years since Pathfinder changed the rules.

Sorry, 2009. It's only been 8 years. I will own that error on my part. Obviously this is a subjective question but... 'How long would you consider to be reasonable? 10?

Guass wrote:
This is clearly a fluff text error.

Is it? Clearly? Then why hasn't it been fixed. That's not unreasonable. If you want to read the line 'Any metal touched by the rust monster's delicate antennae or armored hide corrodes and falls to dust within seconds,...' as meaning 'Any metal touched by the rust monster's delicate antennae or armored hide corrodes does not fall to dust within seconds,... or more specifically 'Any metal object touched by the rust monster's delicate antennae or armored hide does not fall to dust within seconds,... unless the object specifically touches the antennae... and that antennae has specifically and intentionally been activated by being used in a touch attack by the rust monster...' I can't stop you from reading a sentence exactly opposite of what it says. You can call it an error and maybe it is, but there's nothing elsewhere in the text or description that says it doesn't or that implies that metal armor, coins, doors, or any other object isn't rusted. All you have is a removed sentence... which is not needed and would, in fact, cause more confusion.

Again, look at the sentence that was removed, objectively. Take a breath, read it: 'A metal weapon that deals damage to a rust monster corrodes immediately. Wooden, stone, and other nonmetallic weapons are unaffected.

First off, we already have a text that says that metal objects striking the rust monster rust. It's not needed. The whole sentence is not needed. It's a waste of space. You can assume it was removed for a reason, and I'm not saying it wasn't, but that doesn't mean it was your reason.

Second, it specifically uses the word 'damages'. How would that work if one person strikes a rust monster and it has DR 5, for instance. One guy hits it for 5 or less damage, doesn't need to make a save. Another guy hits it for 6 and their weapon rusts. That's clumsy and unwieldy and problematic. It's too much of a disconnect and is another completely reasonable reason the line was removed.

Third, it uses a whole sentence to tell us that things that aren't metal don't rust... after already clearly indicating that metal is what rusts. There's absolutely no point in telling us that things that aren't metal don't rust after already telling us that the rust affects metal objects. We already know that stone, wood, other non-metallic items don't rust.

For any one of those reasons, that line could be omitted completely and reasonably.

What you are implying is akin to just saying that the line doesn't apply, because it's not in the Rust description and while the rust description says metals it might not mean metals that don't rust.:

Quote:
Rust monsters consume metal objects, preferring iron and ferrous alloys like steel but devouring even mithral, adamantine, and enchanted metals with equal ease.

This line is a perfectly valid clarification of what the Rust ability affects and the fact that it is in the Description does not mean it doesn't apply or is just 'fluff'. Similarly, describing that metal objects coming in contact with the creature's hide are affected is equally valid and permissible to be placed in a description which is clearly about how and what things are affected by the rust monster.

Look at the reasoning objectively and you will see that it is far more reasonable and understandable that the line which was removed could have been removed for any number of equally valid reasons. The result of peoples' opinions on why it was removed may be debatable but just claiming it's 'fluff-text' is faulty.

Imbicatus wrote:
I was going from memory and must have pulled the 3.5 rust monster from my head.

If you were thinking about a specific line about weapons in the Rust ability description (as has been quoted and no one is disagreeing with.) Then yes, that is what you are remembering.

However, you are not mistaken that there is a specific line in the description of the creature that specifically calls out that metal touching its hide rusts as well (and no one is denying that it says that either.) The debate seems to be whether there was a good reason or just carelessness.


Pizza Lord, it has been shown that they made changes to the Rust Monster in the move from 3.5 to PF that removed the defensive element of rusting from the Rust Monster.

The fact that the description still bears elements of the older version of the Rust Monster is not relevant. There are any number of archaic elements in Pathfinder which are holdovers. Some of them are in the fluff, some are in the rules.

This is one in the fluff and thus is barely worth notice let alone a FAQ.

Paizo has plenty of other errors in their work that they are slow to fix, the fact that this is in there is not surprising.

To summarize: it is not in the rules, it is in the description. If it were in the rules then you would have something. But, feel free to run your game how you want to. Feel free to ignore the rules.


Having actually read Pizza Lord's arguments (some of PL's critics obviously haven't), I find them convincing.


Claxon wrote:
They've obviously and deliberately changed the mechanics of how it worked, including removing the part about how weapons striking the rust monster corrode immediately.
Guass wrote:
it has been shown that they made changes to the Rust Monster in the move from 3.5 to PF that removed the defensive element of rusting from the Rust Monster.

Absolutely! Yes, they deliberately and purposefully changed the description. NOT just the Rust description, but the Rust Monster description.

3.5 Rust Monster: Description wrote:

Most fighters would rather face an army of orcs than confront a rust monster. These creatures corrode and eat metal objects and have ruined the armor, shields, and weapons of countless adventurers.

The hide of these creatures varies in color from a yellowish tan underside to a rust-red upper-back. A rust monster's prehensile antennae can rust metal on contact.
The typical rust monster measures 5 feet long and 3 feet high, weighing 200 pounds.

So you see, in the creature's original (3.5, which is what you claim is cut-and-paste,) The description only mentions items touching the antennae specifically. They placed the language about items touching the hide into the Rust section because otherwise there was no mention of touching the hide (and no one can argue that they intended for items touching the hide to be affected.)

In Pathfinder, they not only changed the Rust description (which you keep pointing out,) but you are completely ignoring that they also deliberately and purposefully rewrote the creature description. They ADDED in the part about the creature's antennae and hide. This was not cut-and-paste. This was a deliberate and intentional change and addition. As such, since they made it clear that it was both the antennae and the hide, there was no reason to have a confusing and unnecessary line in the Rust description.

This is not a 'hold-over', they did specifically write in that the creature's hide affects metal. All that changed from 3.5 to Pathfinder mechanically was that instead of only describing antennae and then adding the hide effect in the Rust section, was they put the antennae and hide effect in the same place, and thus had no reason to place it in the Rust section (for many reasons pointed out previously.


Ok, so lets do it this way.

We know the following:
1) Back in 3.5 the rules stated that a metal weapon striking the Rust Monster rusted.

2) In Pathfinder there is no corresponding rule.

3) In Pathfinder the description, which was not present in 3.5, includes a descriptive non-rule blurb about a metal weapon striking the Rust Monster rusting the weapon.

So, we could go by the rules, or by the non-rule blurb knowing that Pathfinder had many iterations from Alpha to publication and knowing that not all of the little descriptive blurb errors got caught (do we remember the APG Druid Eagle Shaman problem?).

Until they FAQ the descriptive blurb into the rules (like they did with the Druid Eagle Shaman) the rules are clear. You can feel free to houserule it of course. :)

Oh, PS, there were folks who noticed, back in Alpha, that the Rust Monster had been nerfed.


I'd like to take this moment to note I realize writing anything down here is a waste of time. Let's begin.

The Rust Lord specifically mentions having this ability to corrode metal weapons that touch it, destroying them instantly. It is the stat block, it exists as descriptor and as game mechanic.

Taking that knowledge, we know the ability does in fact exist in pathfinder. Since it doesn't exist on Rust Monster, we must assume that it was not put there on purpose, since the ability does in fact exist in pathfinder, did exist on this creature in 3.5, and it is absent on the monsters stat block.

Liberty's Edge

SorrySleeping wrote:

I'd like to take this moment to note I realize writing anything down here is a waste of time. Let's begin.

The Rust Lord specifically mentions having this ability to corrode metal weapons that touch it, destroying them instantly. It is the stat block, it exists as descriptor and as game mechanic.

Taking that knowledge, we know the ability does in fact exist in pathfinder. Since it doesn't exist on Rust Monster, we must assume that it was not put there on purpose, since the ability does in fact exist in pathfinder, did exist on this creature in 3.5, and it is absent on the monsters stat block.

d20PFSRD - Pathfinder Chronicles: Dungeon Denizens Revisited wrote:


Rust (Ex)

A rust lord that makes a successful touch attack with an antenna causes the target metal to corrode, falling to pieces and becoming useless immediately. The touch can destroy up to a 10-foot cube of metal instantly. Magic armor and weapons, and other magic items made of metal, must succeed on a DC 23 Reflex save or be dissolved. Against creatures made of metal, a rust monster’s antennae deal 6d6+10 points of damage. The save DC is Constitution-based and includes a +4 racial bonus. A metal weapon that deals damage to a rust lord corrodes immediately. Wooden, stone, and other nonmetallic weapons are unaffected.

It is a 2008 book, so 3.5, but the argument is still valid.

Being able to damage or destroy a weapon striking you is a Special Defense, and require rules on how it work.

If you strike a rust monster with a weapon, what happen?
You damage it and make a reflex save with a DC of 15 to save your weapon from the broken condition?
It is automatically broken because to deliver the damage you have to touch the creature?
As in the older edition it is the creature blood that count or simply touching its hide?

If we go with "how it was in previous editions" there are plenty of partially changed rules where some piece of text in the books don't fully acknowledge the changes.
We should go with what are clearly the rules and then if there are discrepancies between those parts, use the flavor text to see what is the RAI.

Example, the Warp metal spell that Pizza Lord cited:
Targets 1 Small wooden object/level, all within a 20-ft. radius; see text
You cause metal to bend and warp, permanently destroying its straightness, form, and strength. A warped door springs open (or becomes stuck, requiring a successful Strength check to open, at your option). A vehicle grinds to a halt and ceases to operate. Warped ranged weapons are useless. A warped melee weapon imposes a –4 penalty on attack rolls.

So the target line say both "Small wooden object" and "see text", while the text say "You cause metal to bend and warp,".
That "see text" give the same rule value to the target line and the whole text of the spell.
So, what flavor text can make it clearer? The name of the spell "Warp Metal".
The target line clearly is a copy/paste error.

For the rust moster we don't have a rule supporting the flavor text, we know that that was the text of previous versions of the creature that had in the ability description a description of the mechanics for destroying weapon hitting it.
Now the mechanics have been removed.
What is more logic? Assuming that the mechanics have been removed but the flavor text take the value of a rule, or that the removal of the mechanics mean that the ability has been removed and the flavor text is a simple copy/paste error.


Claxon wrote:

What happened is they updated the rust monster's abilities by didn't update the description.

It's not the only place such has happened with Pathfinder.

Rust monsters don't damage weapons when they are struck by them, only when they use their antennae attack.

Good to know then. I'll keep that in mind for further readings from now on.


William Werminster wrote:
Claxon wrote:

What happened is they updated the rust monster's abilities by didn't update the description.

It's not the only place such has happened with Pathfinder.

Rust monsters don't damage weapons when they are struck by them, only when they use their antennae attack.

Good to know then. I'll keep that in mind for further readings from now on.

Yeah, definitely focus on monster stat blocks. The description is descriptive, not the rules for how the monster functions. Many times the mechanics don't match the description, but that is it's own separate issue.


Nerding time:

"Rust" refers specifically to iron and its variants, so by default it only matters to certain metals. the description notes that the RM affects all metals, likely because to rule otherwise would need clarification on which metals are iron-like enough to qualify.

Now that we have generalized out of "rust," what does the process mean?
Well, almost all corrosion is oxidative. This implies that the RM produces an oxidizer in its antennae (and possibly hide). This in turn means that other oxidation-subsceptible materials, such as wood, must be spelled out as exemptions. So don't be too quick to dismiss "does not affect wood." Glass can corrode as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:


Yeah, definitely focus on monster stat blocks. The description is descriptive, not the rules for how the monster functions. Many times the mechanics don't match the description, but that is it's own separate issue.

The worst example of this is that Apocrisiarius Kyton in AP who can't tell a lie, then in the flavor text it describes it not being able to repeat someone else's lie, or any statement that is objectively untrue, whether or not the Kyton knows its truth. This leads to brain fevered people believing it's a font of universal truth, and you just ask it to repeat theories of (for example) Aroden's death nonstop to eliminate the ones that aren't true. If it ever manages to say something like "Pharasma killed him" then you'll know that's what happened.

Yeah, no.

Silver Crusade

Or it could just say "I don't know."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Or it could just say "I don't know."

Not if wants to help discover the secrets of the multiverse (on behalf of the Kyton race) or is magically compelled to do so. Which is why the flavor text is such an abomination on that one.

Silver Crusade

Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Or it could just say "I don't know."
Not if wants to help discover the secrets of the multiverse (on behalf of the Kyton race) or is magically compelled to do so. Which is why the flavor text is such an abomination on that one.

What?

If it doesn't know it can say it doesn't know. Or "I don't know yet."


Nah, you just planar bind the thing to just repeat everything the binder says for however long you can keep it there. Then you very slowly reap the secrets of the universe by process of elimination based on what it can/can't repeat.

It's all a load of hogwash, a lot like using Commune to binary search or the various exploitations of legalistic curses if you ask me.


Rysky wrote:
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Or it could just say "I don't know."
Not if wants to help discover the secrets of the multiverse (on behalf of the Kyton race) or is magically compelled to do so. Which is why the flavor text is such an abomination on that one.

What?

If it doesn't know it can say it doesn't know. Or "I don't know yet."

That's not what the flavor text says, its own knowledge has no impact on whether it can say a thing, just the objective truthfulness of a thing. It's really terrible and poorly thought out!

Quote:
Though apocrisiariuses are native to the Plane of Shadow, they frequent the Material Plane with distressing regularity. On occasion they hire themselves out to those who require the services of a skilled torturers and interrogators, but they are used most often as messengers and diplomats, particularly in the political mazes of Nidal. Those aware of apocrisiariuses know that they are incapable of uttering falsehoods, and so messages delivered by them are beyond corruption or confusion. If a noble’s conjured apocrisiarius reports to another an offer of alliance, the recipient can rest assured that the source has no duplicity in mind, at least for the moment. Others use these kytons as lie detectors, by either simply capitalizing on their truth auras when interrogating nearby subjects, or asking an allied apocrisiarius to repeat a phrase. If that phrase contains a lie, the kyton cannot repeat it. Of course, these kytons have no additional insights as to why such phrases are lies, and indeed, they have even been known to willfully ignore requests to repeat things they know to be true if doing so can further their own complex plans. To an apocrisiarius, strategically withholding a truth can be far more potent than a lie ever could be.

According to this, if I ask one of these critters to repeat "X has had sexual relations with [a list of 100 people]" you can find out everyone on that list that X has, in fact, had sexual relations with by learning which iterations the apocrisiarius is able or unable to say. The creature's own knowledge has no impact on its ability to state an untruth.

This has come up on these forums before specifically in the case of learning how Aroden died. If you buy this flavor text, it can state the negative of every single proposed theory ("Aroden was not killed by Asmodeus or at his order, nor does Asmodeus know how Aroden died or suspect the true killer." If he was able to say that, Asmodeus is exonerated and there's little point in asking him who he thinks did it) until you find one it cannot state. ("Aroden was not killed by authorial fiat." You can't say that!? Try "Aroden WAS killed by authorial fiat." Gadzooks, we've solved it! Or more efficiently, "Aroden was killed by someone whose name can be represented by the [specific alphabet]. Aroden was killed by someone whose name begins with [A-Z]. The second letter of Aroden's killer's name is [A-Z]. Repeat until his name is spelled out.)

The implication is that the Kytons can find out everything about the world they care to know, and anyone capable of putting a geas or dominate monster on one an exercising some patience can, too.

It's incredibly dumb and the poster child for "don't pay attention to rules implication of flavor text," which is why I bring it up in this thread trying to apply flavor text to rules.


Rysky wrote:
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Or it could just say "I don't know."
Not if wants to help discover the secrets of the multiverse (on behalf of the Kyton race) or is magically compelled to do so. Which is why the flavor text is such an abomination on that one.

What?

If it doesn't know it can say it doesn't know. Or "I don't know yet."

Not if it is actively interested in learning the answer to the question. That would be stupid, counterproductive, and against its own interests.

Or if, for some reason, it is magically compelled to answer only with "yes" or "no."

As an example of the former, let's say that the kyton has lost a valuable item that it wishes to recover. I ask it to say the words "the object is located on the northern hemisphere of the planet Golarion."

If it is able to say that, we now have an effective procedure for finding it with minimal effort. Ask it, now, to say the words "the object is located between the equator of Golarion and the north 45th parallel of latitude." If it can't actually say that, the next phrase is "the object is between the north 67th parallel of latitude and the north 45th parallel of latitude of the planet Golarion." Computer programmers will immediately recognize this as our old friend binary search. In a relative handful of statements, I can identify the location of this object to within inches, aiding the kyton in its recovery.

Why on earth would the kyton choose not to cooperate?


Stuff wrote:
Any metal touched by the rust monster’s delicate antennae or armored hide corrodes and falls to dust within seconds, making the beast a major threat to subterranean adventurers and those dwarven miners who must defend their forges and compete for ore.
Rust (Su) wrote:

A rust monster‘s antennae are a primary touch attack that causes any metal object they touch to swiftly rust and corrode. The object touched takes half its maximum hp in damage and gains the broken condition—a second hit destroys the item. A rust monster never provokes attacks of opportunity by attempting to strike a weapon with its antennae. Against creatures made of metal, a rust monster‘s antennae deal 3d6+5 points of damage. An attended object, any magic object, or a metal creature can attempt a DC 15 Reflex save to negate this effect. The save DC is Constitution-based.

Looking at the above there is a conflict if you believe that the flavour text means anything touching the armoured hide instantly corrodes to rust in seconds. It says "or" followed by "corrodes and falls to dust within seconds". So it's talking about both the antennae and hide yet there are only rules for the antennae.

The Rust Lord on the other hand has a rule for when it is hit in combat.

Plus the rules for the antennae don't say that the item instantly rusts. It has to get hit twice so even that contradicts the flavour text.

Therefore the hide on a Rust Monster does nothing.

Scarab Sages

The Sideromancer wrote:

Nerding time:

"Rust" refers specifically to iron and its variants, so by default it only matters to certain metals. the description notes that the RM affects all metals, likely because to rule otherwise would need clarification on which metals are iron-like enough to qualify.

Yeah, it's Saturday Morning Cartoon logic. Metal rusts, evil is ugly, and so forth. Thinking too hard about this game, mostly just pokes holes in it with no gain.


Lemartes wrote:
Looking at the above there is a conflict...

There is no conflict. You are reading it too strictly. You say that because a description says it corrodes and falls to dust in seconds... that somehow there's a conflict because the Antennae rust attack deals damage, which may not be enough to destroy the item.

Even people who don't agree with the hide thing, and just look at the specific Antennae Rust attack will tell you that it's pretty clear that if your weapon, armor, coins, etc. can be corroded and destroyed in less than half a minute, which is 5 rounds, and it only takes 2 hits which even at 1 a round is between 6 and 12 seconds... that can fairly be considered 'within seconds.' That would be a really (let's say 'specific kind of personality', we'll call him Pedantic Pete) that would hold up a game and force a GM to pander to that.

That's just if the rust monster attacks it himself. Now, you did politely leave the option open that the hide may corrode metal items, so consider if a fighter with two attacks per round can hit it twice, the first taking the weapon to half maximum (and broken) and the second destroying it. That is the literal definition of 'within seconds.' There is no conflict. It is accurate.

Pedantic Pete doesn't get to say 'Well... if he makes his save... then the object doesn't rust... so it didn't crumble away like the description said... so the description was lying! Nothing is real!
Rust monsters don't average 5 feet in length, weigh 200 lbs, and have an insatiable hunger for metal... that all just a Description describing rust monsters!"

In this case, they don't have to expressly say 'destroying it because it rusts and corrodes away in seconds,' that section clearly is about the objects rusting away. They can just say 'destroyed'. There is no conflict because one line says that metal objects 'corrode and fall to dust' and another line says 'destroyed'. Those really are the same things with different words.

Quote:
Plus the rules for the antennae don't say that the item instantly rusts. It has to get hit twice so even that contradicts the flavour text.

No, an object struck once will still take half its maximum hit points and be destroyed if that brings it to zero, like any other object. That means if your weapon has been damaged for any reason to 50% whether it was by you rolling a 1 against a fireball and it being damaged or it being hit by a sunder attack down to 50% or below. Any number of reasons that have no actual physical reason to make it more susceptible to rusting apart to dust, it will be destroyed... by the rust...

If your blade was melted... and had 1 hit point left... it is considered 'broken', that doesn't mean it's snapped in half, that just means its off-kilter, out-of-balance, whatever is reasonable. In the case of it being melted, it might be twisted and warped and in no way missing any more metal or being more corroded than a perfectly repaired blade... but if the rust monster hits it... it's destroyed. One hit. If the GM says, 'Your blade corrodes and rusts away within seconds...' Pedantic Pete screaming, 'But it only got hit once!' is inappropriate. Similarly, if a piece of paper gets 'destroyed' by a fireball, there is nothing illegal about the GM describing it as 'burning up within seconds.' Pedantic Pete doesn't get to say, "Oh, well it's immediately destroyed when it hit 0 hit points, but because you said it burned up in seconds, that means I have at least half a minute to save it before it's gone! Exact words!" No. That is not appropriate or correct.

Quote:
The object touched takes half its maximum hp in damage and gains the broken condition—a second hit destroys the item.

Now, you can read that as two hits will destroy an object no matter its hit points. Some people want to be pedantic like that. However, from the way its written (and was changed from 3.5, from just destroying things) it deals damage (a set amount depending on the object.) Meaning 2 hits will usually destroy one. There's no contingency, (nor should they be forced to spell out every one!) in there for if a character casts mend or make whole before the second hit. If they do, the item has more hit points... and will not be destroyed. They don't have to repeat the sunder item/destroy items/smashing objects rules for damaging items.

Pedantic Pete could try and read the above as it being some special two-stage attack that puts a 'rust counter' on the object so that if it is hit again... ever in its entire history, regardless of being repaired from the first hit, being reforged, or 700 years passing... it's just destroyed like a [death] effect... but if you're going to read it that way, you would also have to read it that each Rust attack is separate and keyed to one rust monster. "Oh, 7 rust monsters came in and hit your sword? Well... it's only technically destroyed (by corroding and falling away into rust) if it's the 2nd hit from the same rust monster! So it's just destroyed... by the Rust attack..." No, it is meant, like everything else, to be read with common sense, not judicial rigidity.

There is no contradiction. Pedantic Pete can try to claim "But it says it corrodes and falls into 'dust'! 'Dust'! Not 'rust'! It's WRONG! Dust isn't Rust! Dust Isn't Rust!" like this is some epic conspiracy of contradiction is only going to make him seem 'kooky'. I use that word playfully, not insultingly. That is not an attack, it is just taking things way beyond what they need to be.

Just relax and understand that one part is a mechanical description of the ability and the other part can be a defining description, hence the term 'Description', which can enhance, clarify, and also be completely reasonable. Description can be flavorful, they can contain 'flavor-text', they can be viewed as enhancements, but they can also be used to describe actual properties and abilities, such as clarifying that:

Quote:
Rust monsters consume metal objects, preferring iron and ferrous alloys like steel but devouring even mithral, adamantine, and enchanted metals with equal ease.

That doesn't say that they rust non-rusting metals... they just consume them with equal ease. Common sense tells us this means they can rust them... and consume them... because that's how they consume metals. Trying to claim that because it's in the Description means that it doesn't somehow apply specifically to the Antennae Rust Attack, meaning they can't effect adamantine or mithril with their attack, but instead only rust those metals in an out-of-combat, role-playing, eating scenario or something, is disingenuous and misleading.


Oo...
Thanks to Pizza Lord I've just read this thread's title as «Attacking a Rust Monster with a Pizza»


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks to Pizza Lord I've practiced my ability to scroll past walls of text quickly. The actual rules on how antenna and only antenna rust things are so much more concise.


*insert 'why not both?' meme here*

PF is more player friendly than other games/editions: no more save or die spells, no more experience cost for spells and items, soft death penalties...

The monster is more a nuisance than a deadly threat to the party. The poor guy only deals 1d3 dmg

If one goes the hard way, let the party be prepared before entering an infested mine with those monsters and let'em have fun killing them with non-metal weapons and proyectile weapons


Would you believe "Pedantic Pete" is already taken?

You fortunately assumed correctly, but you probably should have cited the source for specifically inflicting Broken:

UC, Broken condition and sundering wrote:
If a weapon gains the broken condition from an effect, that weapon is considered to have taken damage equal to half its hit points +1.


The Sideromancer wrote:

Would you believe "Pedantic Pete" is already taken?

You fortunately assumed correctly, but you probably should have cited the source for specifically inflicting Broken:

UC, Broken condition and sundering wrote:
If a weapon gains the broken condition from an effect, that weapon is considered to have taken damage equal to half its hit points +1.

Was that directed towards me? If Pedantic Pete is some well-known character, that wasn't intentional, it was just a fictitious character made up to prevent my post seeming like I was being mean to anyone in particular.

As for the citation, I was unaware of it myself. I was going by the direct quote about the rust monster's Rust ability (which has been quoted often enough here.) Typically specific (the ability) would trump general (the note on Broken effects,) It's nice to know about the rule you quoted from Ultimate Combat, however, it makes sense.
To be Broken, the item must have damage in excess of half its hit points, so that is different from how the rust monster's Rust works. While the ability itself specifically says the damage as half maximum, unlike the general rule of half maximum +1, that is something to keep in mind. The difference in 1 hit point seems unlikely to have altered most encounters with the creature, though, but it probably should be written to follow the notation you quoted. Good catch.


what about if a weapon is mithril or adamantine both are significantly more durable and both are probably a lot more resistant to corrosion than normal metal


Pizza Lord wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:

Would you believe "Pedantic Pete" is already taken?

You fortunately assumed correctly, but you probably should have cited the source for specifically inflicting Broken:

UC, Broken condition and sundering wrote:
If a weapon gains the broken condition from an effect, that weapon is considered to have taken damage equal to half its hit points +1.
Was that directed towards me? If Pedantic Pete is some well-known character, that wasn't intentional, it was just a fictitious character made up to prevent my post seeming like I was being mean to anyone in particular.

Since I was making an overly specific reference to your post, I thought it would be funny if I made an alias named "Pedantic Pete" and responded using that. Somebody already had an alias by that name.


Oh. I kept thinking the light-blue words were a link at first and I couldn't get it to work. (I realize now it was an OOC-type format,) but I was all like, 'Oh no! I'm going to the YouTube channel site of some gamer who has nothing to do with this but I apparently 'fortunately assumed correctly' about his reaction in this situation and nailed his personality exactly.'

So when the 'link' didn't work I went to Google... decided none of that looked like something I wanted to get into and was forced to finally ask straight out and risk looking like the one guy in the world who had no clue about the internet sensation that is Pedantic Pete.


Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Yeah, it's Saturday Morning Cartoon logic. Metal rusts, evil is ugly, and so forth.

What is this Saturday Morning Cartoons you speak of?

;)

1 to 50 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Attacking a Rust Monster with a sword All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.