|
According to the SRD, when the rust monster uses its Rust(Ex) ability on magical armor, the magical armor must make a constitution based reflex save that includes a +4 racial bonus. My questions are:
1) How can armor make a reflex save? Or does the character make the save?
2) How can a reflex save be constitution based? I thought reflex saves used dex. Do you make the base save for the character and add the constitution modifier?
3) What is the +4 racial bonus? Is armor a race for purposes of this save? Or does it use the character's race?
Thanks for the help.
According to the SRD, when the rust monster uses its Rust(Ex) ability on magical armor, the magical armor must make a constitution based reflex save that includes a +4 racial bonus. My questions are:
1) How can armor make a reflex save? Or does the character make the save?
2) How can a reflex save be constitution based? I thought reflex saves used dex. Do you make the base save for the character and add the constitution modifier?
3) What is the +4 racial bonus? Is armor a race for purposes of this save? Or does it use the character's race?
Thanks for the help.
Ok here's the problem. You've taken a full on statement about a power then condensed it down without looking at what it was saying.
The Rust(EX) ability is extra ordinary that allows a reflex save, the DC for that save is based on the Rust Monster's Con Modifier, and the DC has an adjustment of + 4 as a racial bonus (as opposed to an enhancement bonus on DC or competence bonus). The armor if magical gets a Save Throw with a bonus equal to 1/2 its caster level (as per the magic items rules).
Quote of the ability in question:
"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. "
Quote from the rules of items making save throws:
"A magic item doesn’t need to make a saving throw unless it is unattended, it is specifically targeted by the effect, or its wielder rolls a natural 1 on his save. Magic items should always get a saving throw against spells that might deal damage to them— even against attacks from which a nonmagical item would normally get no chance to save. Magic items use the same saving throw bonus for all saves, no matter what the type (Fortitude, Reflex, or Will). A magic item’s saving throw bonus equals 2 + one-half its caster level (round down). The only exceptions to this are intelligent magic items, which make Will saves based on their own Wisdom scores.
Magic items, unless otherwise noted, take damage as nonmagical items of the same sort. A damaged magic item continues to function, but if it is destroyed, all its magical power is lost."
A metal weapon that deals damage to the rust monster corrodes immediately.
Does this allow attacks against the rust monster to get a reflex save? The text allows a save for attacks FROM the monster, but does not list if attacks AGAINST the monster get the same save.
I am wanting to throw some of these critters at my players tonight, and would be gratefull for any feedback. Thanks!
It doesn't say it does. For a fluff reason for this I present the following:
When the rust monster reaches out and hits the item it takes a few seconds for the power to work, the PC has a chance to move the item in question before it goes completely, however when you swing the item to deal damage you by definition have to stick it to the monster giving it the time to corrode the weapon in the same time it takes for the item to deal its damage. Meaning no save throw as you are already choosing to fail and let the item touch the monster to deal its damage.
Rust Monsters: making druids with the shillelagh spell feel valued since 1979!
Monks
|
According to the SRD, when the rust monster uses its Rust(Ex) abilityForget the SRD or MM and use this Rust Monster instead.
HTH,
Rez
(checks to see what forum he's in...yup 3.5!)
uh, no...I'll use the Pathfinder one when it comes out. I don't want to use a Rust Monst4er
I have to kinda agree with 4e on handling rust monsters. Losing your holy avenger because you struck the creature is retarded and lame. So then the DM either fudges it or doesn't use the creature.... so then there's no rust monsters anyway.. which defeats the point of them existing in the first place.
Anything that destroys equipment irrevocably (such as black puddings) is a major bummer and let-down for most players. I hope this issue is addressed in Pathfinder.
Creative Director
|
I have to kinda agree with 4e on handling rust monsters. Losing your holy avenger because you struck the creature is retarded and lame. So then the DM either fudges it or doesn't use the creature.... so then there's no rust monsters anyway.. which defeats the point of them existing in the first place.
Anything that destroys equipment irrevocably (such as black puddings) is a major bummer and let-down for most players. I hope this issue is addressed in Pathfinder.
It is.
Monsters can still break your stuff, but fixing broken objects is a LOT easier.
|
According to the SRD, when the rust monster uses its Rust(Ex) abilityForget the SRD or MM and use this Rust Monster instead.
HTH,
Rez
(checks to see what forum he's in...yup 3.5!)
uh, no...I'll use the Pathfinder one when it comes out. I don't want to use a Rust Monst4er
I might be wrong, but since the article linked is from 2006, I think that IS a 3.5 Rust Monster variant.
Destroyer monsters are fine to use, but they take finesse, and skill. You can't just plop them in willy nilly and expect it all to be fine.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Destroyer monsters are fine to use, but they take finesse, and skill. You can't just plop them in willy nilly and expect it all to be fine.
I agree, Abraham, and this in particular against Crowheart's contention that Rust Monsters are lame or un-fun.
Rust Monsters are scary, insofar as they can hit a PC where it hurts, in his magical loot.
As Mr. Mearls notes in the article, a prolonged encounter with a Rust Monster might very well change all the rest of the encounters the party experiences until the PCs can re-stock. An encounter with two werewolves might be CR4, but if the party doesn't have any silver or magic weapons left, then it can be much more difficult.
A little rant follows the spoiler cut.
Which is why I disagree with both Mearls' rust monster variant, and with any Pathfinder RPG rules that make repairing the damage a Rust Monster does simpler. It nullifies the reason to stick a Rust Monster encounter in an adventure in the first place.
Abraham, I think you're right: that's a design decision, and not to be made lightly. But that doesn't mean it can't be made at all. Obvious Rust Monster encounters reward PC's who have a variety of battle strategies. Surprise RM encounters ("This time, the werewolf wizard hides in the shadows and casts an illusion of a large half-wolf quadruped on the Rust Monster") set the party on edge, adding tension to the rest of the adventure.
A fighter without armor is a sitting duck, and a party that faces one of these things ends up either seriously outclassed for the rest of the adventure or forced to return to town to buy more armor. Neither of those situations screams epic, fantasy adventure.
I disagree. Continuing on, even after you realize you're "seriously outclassed for the rest of the adventure" is exactly what a real hero would do. And as for tromping back into town, shrug, sometimes D&D is about being normal people.
There is a lot of talk these days, by designers and developers, that role-playing games have to be "fun", all the time. Keeping track of provisions or spell components isn't fun. Encounters that disable the party or threaten their loot aren't fun. Going to find a mentor and train to learn a new class isn't fun. Presenting rogues with undead opponents immune to precision damage isn't fun. Taking steps to protect your familiar from area-effect spells isn't fun. Pretty soon, people will decide that keeping track of encumbrance isn't fun.
But overcoming those hurdles and still succeeding in an adventure? That's satisfying. And give me satisfying, with a side dish of good stories, over continuous fun.
Lets not forget the trust issue here either. A player that sits at a table is giving his trust to the DM to present an adventure that, even if deadly, isn't insurmountable... that doesn't mean it is going to be easy. The player must have this trust in the DM and the game he is playing or he'll be second guessing the entire time.
Does this mean that your PC won't die? No, but if the PC does die it will be in a situation that makes sense, is according to the rules, and hopefully furthers some important goal, or is "curable".
Equipment is one of the least solid things in my games. Usually a PC will have a piece that is "character driven" (a weapon for a fighter for example) that generally is safe from most DM influence, but beyond that I expect as a DM (and a player) that even "permanent" equipment will get used up. I also expect to replace that equipment over time with better gear, or more gear as the case maybe, so that I continue to function in a working game.
|
|
Also, just a small point I'd like to bring up......
Any fighter that isn't packing some backup weapons of lesser quality deserves to run around without his uber-weapon after a rust monster encounter. Most PCs I run have 1-2 ranged weapons(usually a main one and something to throw, either one-use items or a dagger or something) and 2-3 melee weapons (their main one, and 2 lesser ones that deal different types of damage or if the main is 2handed, then some one handed backups).
You don't use your bestest, shiniest, newbie magical pig-sticker on a rust monster! If you do, you are too stupid to survive in a D&D world.
Armor is a different story....I've seen parties barracade in a RM and return several minutes later after stripping down to their skivvies to protect their armor and that is good, practical thinking I say. It's almost a shame to have the greatclub wielding, power-attacking barbarians ambush them immediately after the battle........almost.
Ah, I'll never forget my brave adventurers that would wade into almost any situation cower in fear and beg the scout that their employer had sent with them to stand between them and the rust monster they ran into.
And for the record, I really don't want any nerfing to occur to the Rust Monster. Honestly, I'd rather it be left out than changed so that its not really as scary to the players as it currently is.
Count me in with the "no nerfs to the rust monster" crowd as well. To my mind, just about anything that actively encourages (or requires) innovative plans and novel solutions is good for the game. Things that discourage them may not be actively bad, but they're usually not as good.
Rust monsters are good. Bottomless chasms are good. Fly and wind walk without limitations are bad -- which is why I think adding a Fly skill is good. YMMV.
The fly skill works... if the various methods of magical flight come with some built in skill bonus, which they kind of do thanks to the maneuverability mechanic...
However it all feels clumsy to me (not that it matters now). I mean I can remember how to walk without a skill...
:: runs back to the other side ::
However we do have swim, climb, and balance (which could be argued as a form of a walk skill)...
:: Starts spinning in circles, then returns to the monster conversation ::
Overall I like the players and characters to worry about what they are facing at times. I present different monsters at different points for different reasons. If I want to remind my players that they are powerful strong adventurers that can handle things other people can I through some mild mooks at them... if I want to have them remember that the world is a big and scary place that they don't know everything about, Ithillids or some other abberation may appear. Monsters need to be different for these reasons... otherwise you end up playing 3D galagxa.