I probably would have just run it as rusting gold not thinking about it but it is one of those IRL exceptions a GM could easily have with it not rusting gold/similar metals like it doesn't rust non-metals.
Absolutely, a GM could easily do that and be well within their purview, the key is that it's done from a good faith standpoint because, unlike some people, when shown that the ability says 'any metal' and the descriptions also indicate that the rust monster isn't limited to just ferrous, iron metals, they realize that's how it works. Just like if it said it rusted wood instead of metal. Most GMs would say, "Wow, that's certainly a different and fantastical creature and is the kind of thing out of some kind of... fantasy world," and that would be the proper mindset and open-mindedness for participating in Pathfinder rather than one that wails, "Wood doesn't rust! How can there be a power in this fantasy world of magic that does something science can't explain!?"
----------------------------------------------------
Look, I get it. You don't agree with how a creature's ability works. That's fine, but your constant harping on things that aren't the point of the topic is getting tedious and not furthering the discussion. If you want to say that rust monsters can't rust metal, go ahead. Go right ahead. But somewhere along the line here, you've gone off on some crusading tangent where you aren't contributing to the topic and are just railing against how the game system and mechanics are written.
I PROMISE YOU! I SWEAR TO GOD! If you create a topic asking if mending can fix a broken or destroyed object, rather than one that has pieces missing or gone, I SWEAR TO GOD, everyone including myself will tell you 'yes'. They might even quote mending, especially the part where it says it does just that. Your arguments here are in the wrong topic and unrelated to the question, whether that was Yqatuba's intention or not (I don't know if english is their first language or not).
Temperans wrote:
So you are indeed using 3pp material as evidence that Paizo should have added the full list of physical and chemical properties of every element in case an ability targetted that specific material and people needed to know the immunities...
No, if you actually read the post, you'd see that it was an example of the wording used, not only by 3PP sources, BUT ALSO PAIZO SOURCES, since there are numerous examples of protecting objects from rust, including a gauntlet of rust or the rusting property. Either you are being purposefully insulting or you are not reading what you claim to be replying to.
For someone that keeps talking about descriptions being important you sure like to ignore the physical description and properties of IRL objects.
And you seem to ignore the ACTUAL WORDING of what spells and abilities do IN THIS GAME SETTING. People here have very patiently, and I believe in good faith, continued to treat you like you are debating in good faith and post quote and quote and rule after rule only to have you come back with more and more bizarre excuses which, may hold some water in a debate club, but are not valid for how PATHFINDER works.
A player and a GM, before anything else, are aware that common sense is a thing... but also that magical, mystical, fantastic things will be in this game that subvert, reverse, or even fly in the face of the laws of reality and physics, both as we know them and even, at times, how the very inhabitants of the game world know them.
In the game rules, there's only stats for one type of wood (other than world specific variant, like darkwood). The hardness and hit points are listed whether an object is oak, cedar, pine, or balsa. Common sense tells us that there are countless types of woods of varying properties and hardness, each used for different projects and products as suited. If you encounter a balsa wood door... you do not expect it to be as strong,dense, or durable as an equivalent door of oak or Australian buloke or quebracho (some of the hardest wood IRL). Yet... the devs didn't bother listing every possible wood that might exist in a fantasy world for some reason. That doesn't mean that everything is the same, BUT it only matters when those difference actually make a difference. For example, warp wood doesn't care what kind of wood it is, what its hardness or hit points are or what color it is, or whether it's smooth, rough and splintery, or just full of knotholes. It affects it just like any other, even darkwood, which is its own category of wood. Even wood known for being knot-free, straight, and resistant to normal warping won't matter unless it actually has a property (or the GM houserules that it does) that says 'Objects made from this wood are resistant to both normal and magical warping, like warp wood,' then it affects them.
It is the same with a rust monster's rust attack. It doesn't care what metal it is, it doesn't care if it's iron, steel, mithral, adamantine, tin, or living steel. It doesn't care the metal's hardness, hit points, cost, or even magical properties (unless those specific properties make it immune to rust attacks, like the rusting property, obviously). It will destroy the metal parts and they will crumble to dust in seconds.
A rust monster, rusts metals. Not because metals are prone to rust, but because its ability says it does that. It would do the exact same thing to any material put in the ability's description in place of metal; wood, bone, hair, stone. If it said it turned leather into rust and then ate it... that's what it would do. You can rant about how leather doesn't rust IRL all you want.
I have to imagine a game with a GM that ascribes to your logic (note, not you, of course, because this isn't some attack) as something like:
PC: I cast fly on myself.
Temperans-inspired GM: Ok, you still have a move action.
PC: Then I fly up 10 feet and 30 feet closer to my ally.
TI GM: Sorry, people can't fly.
PC: Umm... the fly spell, though. I mean... it's literally called 'fly'. It says you can fly... gives speeds and everything...
TI GM: Yeah... but that's just for creatures that can already fly... they might get better speeds or maneuverability or something. Everyone knows humans IRL can't fly.
PC: I'm an elf...
TI GM: They can't fly either. Sorry, specific trumps general...
PC: You keep saying that a lot... I don't think it means what you think it means...
This discussion is not about whether leather rusts, or copper rusts, or even if iron rusts. This is about whether mending will work on an object, that has its metal parts rusted away; not damaged, broken, or destroyed (because the non-metal parts aren't affected by the rust monster attack, which is the basis of this topic, and is common sense).
I probably would have just run it as rusting gold not thinking about it but it is one of those IRL exceptions a GM could easily have with it not rusting gold/similar metals like it doesn't rust non-metals.
There is a surprising amount of stuff people don't think much about but become quite silly once they start.
For someone that keeps talking about descriptions being important you sure like to ignore the physical description and properties of IRL objects.
And you seem to ignore the ACTUAL WORDING of what spells and abilities do IN THIS GAME SETTING....
You keep saying that I would rule that way but keep ignoring the parts where I say or imply, "if we use your logic", "assuming your logic is true", "if we take your logic to the extreme", etc. My stance has always been that you are wrong about mending, make whole, and greater make whole.
Not to mention that you are trying to say abilities are able to freely bypass immunity because of the word "any" which is not how Pathfinder work. Pathfinder is an "exception-based" system and if something is immune an attack cannot bypass it unless it has an exception for it. This is why Golems have "immunity magic that target SR, except: X" no magic that targets SR, is not X, and has no exception will ever hit the golem. But you keep saying the opposite and the game does not work that way. That example with the Fly spell is blatantly obvious that you don't understand that principle since you are trying to push it onto me despite me actively calling out that type of logic to be bad. Even if you placed another material, if the ability does not say it bypasses immunity it cannot bypass immunity. Rusting property and Gauntlets of Rust are great if the metal is not already immune to rust, guess what? They don't invalidate metals that are innately immune.
The original question was entirely about rust monster and make whole. Which was answered as "yes" which is correct OP got their answer in the 1st response. Than you stated, no because transmutation, which rust monster attack is not transmutation. Then it was, no because you need all the parts, which rust monster attack does not delete or move any part of the item. Then it was, the attack works on everything regardless of any innate immunity, despite the ability never saying it bypasses immunity. Now you say, it works because there is no wood that is immune to warp wood so this ability that is not transmutation or warping must work; There is no wood immune to warp wood, but that has nothing to do with metals being immune to rust.
But then you say, "but also that magical, mystical, fantastic things will be in this game that subvert, reverse, or even fly in the face of the laws of reality and physics...". But you are the same person saying that none of the spells that outright says you can fix DESTROYED ITEMS can fix an item that got too rusty because it was DESTROYED.
Temperans, it is very clear that you are sure you are right, and that other people rule citations don't matter, because you are right, but that isn't how rules citations work.
You don't know at all how Pathfinder works. Pathfinder is "exception-based", but you are unable to recognize the exception and the specific rule.
"Gold doesn't rust" isn't a rule, it is how it works in RL.
That RL "rule" applies to the game until the game presents an exception.
Enter the Rust ability of the Rust monster:
Bestiary wrote:
Rust (Su) A rust monster’s antennae are a primary touch attack that causes any metal object they touch to swiftly rust and corrode.
Any metal, not any ferrous metal, not any metal that rusts in RL.
And, just to point it out, gold oxidize even in RL. Gold oxide, some novelty shops even sell gold oxide crystals.
But then you say, "but also that magical, mystical, fantastic things will be in this game that subvert, reverse, or even fly in the face of the laws of reality and physics...". But you are the same person saying that none of the spells that outright says you can fix DESTROYED ITEMS can fix an item that got too rusty because it was DESTROYED.
False.
People say it can't be restored because:
1) rusting changes the nature of the metal beyond the destroyed/broken part. The metal bonds with oxygen and iron in the steel change to iron oxide, and the carbon and other metals do whatever they do when the iron oxidizes.
2) when metal rust parts fall away, you have very little chance to gather all the parts. We aren't speaking of micro-particles, but instead of substantial, visible parts of the item.
- * - * -
Looking Rust to see what steel does when it rust gave me a little gem that resolves the "gold don't rust"problem too:
Quote:
The terms "rust" and "rusting" only mean oxidation of iron and its resulting products. Many other oxidation reactions exist which do not involve iron or produce rust. But only iron or alloys that contain iron can rust. However, other metals can corrode in similar ways.
Quote:
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.
So, gold doesn't rust but it corrodes in gold oxide. Happy now?
1) It says [any metal] not [any metal and this bypasses immunity to rust]. Iron is not the only metal that rusts, each metal that does rust reacts different iron is not the only "type of metal". Just because you don't like it does not mean you can bypass immunity just like a normal ray of fire cannot harm a fire elemental.
2) I already show how the logic of "destroyed means you lose pieces" doesn't make any sense when the ability does not say that and even according to you two the spell doesn't care if you are missing a small amount of molecule sized pieces. Either the spell cares about absolutely every single piece and it will never work or it ignores inconsequential pieces and it does; Either way the rust attack is no different than an item going to 0 HP due to acid/fire damage or being bashed in and those don't negate the spells.
3) So you read the name but didn't care to check what gold oxide is. Gold oxide is a material created by heating gold hydroxide. Gold hydroxide is made when creating creating gold metalization in the precense of water, or using chloroauric acid with alkali. Chloroauric acid being made from evaporating gold dissolved in Aqua Regia (concentrated nitric with cloride acid).
So your "gold oxide" is not corroded gold, but a product of gold acid vs chemistry/alchemy.
3) I read all the article. You are now arguing that the process can't happen because it requires special conditions? Can you explain under what "normal" condition iron rust in 6 seconds?
It is magic, it rust and corrodes, but no, Temperans would accept only what he wants to accept, rules be damned.
I am not the one flip flopping between "you need every piece and you don't need every piece". But sure call my logic faulty for showing how bad the argument is.
Quote:
3) I read all the article. You are now arguing that the process can't happen because it requires special conditions? Can you explain under what "normal" condition iron rust in 6 seconds?
It is magic, it rust and corrodes, but no, Temperans would accept only what he wants to accept, rules be damned.
Ah so its magic now and the process of the ability doesn't matter. So its fair to say that the process by which mending and make whole can repair destroyed objects doesn't matter so they can repair any items turned to dust just fine even when you dont have all the dust.
It is magic, it repairs destroyed items, but no, Diego would accept only what he wants to accept, rules be damned.
I prefer to use common sense.
Rust monster turns metal to rust (or for older versions, something similar to disintegrate).
Mend won't work on a pile of dust.
As a bit of an aside, I took the liberty of checking thru both the Rules Cyclopedia and Moldvay's Basic and they both state that when a Rust Monster attacks with it's antennae/feelers, non-magical armor and weapons immediately crumbles into rust and is rendered worthless [do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars, as Tom Lehrer might sing]; only magical weapons and armor have a percentage chance of 10% for each given plus [+1, etc.] to resist an attack and if it fails, is instantly reduced by -1 in magical pluses.
The only real difference between the Rules Cyclopedia and Moldvay's Basic is that in Basic, any attacks upon the Rust Monster with metal weapons also is enough to cause the rust damage whereas the Cyclopedia does allow for only successful hits upon the Rust Monster to avoid the rusting effect. :)
As a bit of an aside, I took the liberty of checking thru both the Rules Cyclopedia and Moldvay's Basic and they both state that when a Rust Monster attacks with it's antennae/feelers, non-magical armor and weapons immediately crumbles into rust and is rendered worthless [do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars, as Tom Lehrer might sing]; only magical weapons and armor have a percentage chance of 10% for each given plus [+1, etc.] to resist an attack and if it fails, is instantly reduced by -1 in magical pluses.
The only real difference between the Rules Cyclopedia and Moldvay's Basic is that in Basic, any attacks upon the Rust Monster with metal weapons also is enough to cause the rust damage whereas the Cyclopedia does allow for only successful hits upon the Rust Monster to avoid the rusting effect. :)
And in pathfinder it is only attacks made by the antennae that causes it. Attacking the rust monster has no effect on the weapon what so ever, its holdover text from 3.5e that the designers forgot to remove.
And in pathfinder it is only attacks made by the antennae that causes it. Attacking the rust monster has no effect on the weapon what so ever, its holdover text from 3.5e that the designers forgot to remove.
Citation needed.
This is most definitely not true. By simply reading the 3.0 and 3.5 descriptions we can see that they specifically added the wording into the Rust monster description for Pathfinder.
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 metals on contact.
The typical rust monster measures 5 feet long and 3 feet high, weighing 200 pounds.
Note, no mention of rusting items in its description.
Rust (Ex) wrote:
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.
Note that in the special attack section it's mentioned.
Typically 5 feet long and weighing almost 200 pounds, the lobster-like rust monster would be frightening enough even without the alien feeding process that gives it its name. Rust monsters consume metal objects, preferring iron and ferrous alloys like steel but devouring even mithral, adamantine, and enchanted metals with equal ease. 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.
Note here that they specifically ADDED it into the creature's description. It is more likely and believable that the editors, when streamlining Pathfinder, realized they could just state what happens in the description and keep the actual affects in the Rust category. Pathfinder went hard to try and cut down on extraneous and repeating wording.
In order for any of us to believe that an editor looked at the Rust Monster's Rust ability and said, "We're getting rid of rusting objects that touch its armored hide,"" and then removed it from the SA Rust entry... we'd have to then believe that same person, IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS, said, "Now I am just going to change the description and SPECIFICALLY ADD in that any metal objects touching its armored hide corrodes," I think we'd all find that very, very hard to believe.
Most likely, the editor just said, "It says what it does.... what it always did (other than making it much less brutal than earlier rust monsters), and it's right there in the description... which I clearly added and didn't exist earlier because it was in the Rust entry."
Yeah, that is not how editing books happens, usually you have a team doing multiple passes over a period of time with the team having various priority like spell checking and major components. There is a lot of stuff that can and does go through erroneously and often not corrected. Just look at the number of errata that each book needs, and that is just the documented errata. Also, no matter how much you try to say it, the description test has no mechanical weight on the actual rules.
This is especially true back then where the books were half 3.5 half Pathfinder. It is even more true when Paizo released the Rust Lord, which actually does what you claim a regular rust monster can do. The most likely case is that the person who was editing the monsters sent the wrong description and that was printed, since the description which happens quite often.
Seriously, descriptions of monsters do not change their abilities. If they did there are some monsters that would be a lot more broken than they really are.
And in pathfinder it is only attacks made by the antennae that causes it. Attacking the rust monster has no effect on the weapon what so ever, its holdover text from 3.5e that the designers forgot to remove.
Citation needed.
This is most definitely not true. By simply reading the 3.0 and 3.5 descriptions we can see that they specifically added the wording into the Rust monster description for Pathfinder.
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 metals on contact.
The typical rust monster measures 5 feet long and 3 feet high, weighing 200 pounds.
Note, no mention of rusting items in its description.
Rust (Ex) wrote:
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.
Note that in the special attack section it's mentioned.
Typically 5 feet long and weighing almost 200 pounds, the lobster-like rust monster would be frightening enough even without the alien feeding process that gives it its name. Rust monsters consume metal objects, preferring iron and ferrous alloys like steel but devouring even mithral, adamantine, and enchanted metals with equal ease. Any metal
...
That's not the special attack description I've got mine say's . . .
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.
Everything else describes how that attack works nothing in it about attacking the monster itself.
Also on rereading the descriptive fluff I'm going to come down on the side of them being able to rust gold.
Rust monsters consume metal objects, preferring iron and ferrous alloys like steel but devouring even mithral, adamantine, and enchanted metals with equal ease.
It doesn't list gold or silver but I imagine Mithril and Adamantium aren't known for being rust prone metals and it can consume them just fine. It just has a preference for the more rustable types.
And in pathfinder it is only attacks made by the antennae that causes it. Attacking the rust monster has no effect on the weapon what so ever, its holdover text from 3.5e that the designers forgot to remove.
Citation needed.
This is most definitely not true. By simply reading the 3.0 and 3.5 descriptions we can see that they specifically added the wording into the Rust monster description for Pathfinder.
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 metals on contact.
The typical rust monster measures 5 feet long and 3 feet high, weighing 200 pounds.
Note, no mention of rusting items in its description.
Rust (Ex) wrote:
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.
Note that in the special attack section it's mentioned.
Typically 5 feet long and weighing almost 200 pounds, the lobster-like rust monster would be frightening enough even without the alien feeding process that gives it its name. Rust monsters consume metal objects, preferring iron and ferrous alloys like steel but devouring even mithral, adamantine, and enchanted metals
...
You see that to me read more like it eats those metals not corrodes them. I see no reason why it wouldn't eat silversheen/sunmetal even though they are immune. Adamantine and Mithril are surprisingly not immune to rust despite being high tech aviation materials.
That's not the special attack description I've got mine say's . . .
There's a link posted right there in the post you quoted. I don't know how you're reading it any different. One is 3.X rust monster. The other is the Pathfinder version (from AoN). They both clearly state that metals touching the rust monster's armored hide corrode immediately (or fall to dust in seconds).
In order for us to believe they wanted to remove the ability, we'd have to believe they removed the ability and then added in the description that it can do that, which makes no sense.
You can also clearly see (from the link to 3.X) that the rust monster's description did not mention metal objects touching its hide, and it was SPECIFICALLY ADDED in PF.
Yeah, that is not how editing books happens, usually you have a team doing multiple passes over a period of time with the team having various priority like spell checking and major components. There is a lot of stuff that can and does go through erroneously and often not corrected. Just look at the number of errata that each book needs, and that is just the documented errata. Also, no matter how much you try to say it, the description test has no mechanical weight on the actual rules.
Okay, so now you've turned the topic of mending into how the Paizo team completely messed up rust monsters and got it all wrong? Sure, they make mistakes. I've seen them. But before you go definitively stating that was their intention in this case, maybe you should actually get some citation or evidence. Because it's highly unlikely that they specifically added in a phrase describing something about the rust monster, which matches all the phrases in previous versions, with the full intention of making it not do that.
Temperans wrote:
Seriously, descriptions of monsters do not change their abilities. If they did there are some monsters that would be a lot more broken than they really are.
The description can affect creatures and what they do. You're claiming that if a description says a creature has 4 or more legs that's not important? You gonna see an entry for that in the stat block? What about a creature with a fly speed? How does it fly? If the description says it has wings, that's different that one that flies without wings, because different things affect a winged flier than a non-winged flier. Yet you're not gonna see a 'winged' quality in the stat block.
Thick bony plates armor the domelike back of this quadrupedal dinosaur, its powerfully muscled tail ending in a bony club.
An [creature] is 30 feet long and weighs 6,000 pounds.
Mystery Creature 2 wrote:
This bipedal dinosaur’s front arms seem small compared to the rest of its bulk, but its enormous head is all teeth.
The [creature] is an apex predator that measures 40 feet long and weighs 14,000 pounds.
Mystery Creature 3 wrote:
This herbivore is 30 feet long and weighs 10,500 pounds. It is notable for the long, curved crest atop its skull.
Even without knowing what either creature is, the description gives important, mechanics effecting information about the creature; its qualities, abilities, or capabilities. One, we see that they are both dinosaurs, that's not a creature type, but that's an aspect and quality that could come into play for certain spells, items, or feats that affect dinosaurs specifically.
We also see they have weights listed. That can be really important if a PC says they wanna pick one up or drag its body back to town.
We also see that one's listed as an herbivore and one's an apex predator. There are effects that affect predators, prey animals, herbivores and carnivores differently, including how they react to them.
We also see that one is a quadruped and the other is bipedal. That will effect things like tripping and carrying capacity, just to name two obvious, important mechanics.
Not one of those aspects or qualities has any listing or special catchphrases, but claiming they have NO EFFECT or importance or influence on game mechanics is a FLAT OUT LIE!
Start your own new topic ranting about how Paizo and Gary Gygax got rust monsters all wrong, a creature he made up himself, and stop trying to derail this topic.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The rust monster tells you it rusts and corrodes metals touching its hide. It's very specific. It was specifically written that way.
Adamantine and Mithril are surprisingly not immune to rust despite being high tech aviation materials.
Oh dear. Temperans, they're not real. AFAIK (and I could be wrong) Mithril is an invention of Tolkien and Adamantine is Marvel's with Wolverine's exoskeleton.
Adamantine and Mithril are surprisingly not immune to rust despite being high tech aviation materials.
Oh dear. Temperans, they're not real. AFAIK (and I could be wrong) Mithril is an invention of Tolkien and Adamantine is Marvel's with Wolverine's exoskeleton.
Mithril is indeed originally from tolkien. There it has somewhat different properties, but generally the same "this metal is very light but as strong as steel".
Adamantine however is much much older. That term was originally before the discovery of steel to classify metals that at the time could not be damaged. That is where the words "adamant" and "diamond" comes from. There are various theories as to what metal was adamantine, but at least 1 suggests that what was call "adamantine" was just early forms of steel when it was still being created almost accidentally. Honestly the IRL history is quite fun.
In Golarion, Adamantine is a space metal (sky metal) harvested from elven spaceships in numeria and a few other places, it is in fact nicknamed "numerian steel". Mithral is harvested from veins and is a really popular metal for obvious reasons, also connected with elves due to Jininese elves. Did you know that mithral is magnetic?
Yeah, that is not how editing books happens, usually you have a team doing multiple passes over a period of time with the team having various priority like spell checking and major components. There is a lot of stuff that can and does go through erroneously and often not corrected. Just look at the number of errata that each book needs, and that is just the documented errata. Also, no matter how much you try to say it, the description test has no mechanical weight on the actual rules.
Okay, so now you've turned the topic of mending into how the Paizo team completely messed up rust monsters and got it all wrong? Sure, they make mistakes. I've seen them. But before you go definitively stating that was their intention in this case, maybe you should actually get some citation or evidence. Because it's highly unlikely that they specifically added in a phrase describing something about the rust monster, which matches all the phrases in previous versions, with the full intention of making it not do that.
Temperans wrote:
Seriously, descriptions of monsters do not change their abilities. If they did there are some monsters that would be a lot more broken than they really are.
The description can affect creatures and what they do. You're claiming that if a description says a creature has 4 or more legs that's not important? You gonna see an entry for that in the stat block? What about a creature with a fly speed? How does it fly? If the description says it has wings, that's different that one that flies without wings, because different things affect a winged flier than a non-winged flier. Yet you're not gonna see a 'winged' quality in the stat block.
** spoiler omitted **...
You want evidence, how about the fact that there was 10 years to fix the stat block they never did it. Nor did they offer an errata on it, nor stated that the ability is wrong. You want it to be the same, but it is not. You can rule it in your games to be that way, but by the rules it is not.
Also the descriptions being important for what effects what does not mean that the descriptions have a mechanical impact on what something can do. Specially if there is another ability that specifically does what you want it to do. Your example of wings fails for that reason, because having wings doesn't matter unless an ability says "do X to creatures with wings". Legs do have a mechanical representation in the form of increased DC to trip and higher land speed.
The fact it states it affects metals still does not let it bypass immunity. I don't understand what is so hard to understand about that? An ability that says it can burn anything touched cannot burn elementals because they are immune. An ability saying you can heal any damage cannot heal damage that is immune to magical healing (plenty of sources for that type of effect). You cannot bypass resistance and immunity willy nilly as if it didn't exist that is not how the game works.
That's not the special attack description I've got mine say's . . .
There's a link posted right there in the post you quoted. I don't know how you're reading it any different. One is 3.X rust monster. The other is the Pathfinder version (from AoN). They both clearly state that metals touching the rust monster's armored hide corrode immediately (or fall to dust in seconds).
In order for us to believe they wanted to remove the ability, we'd have to believe they removed the ability and then added in the description that it can do that, which makes no sense.
You can also clearly see (from the link to 3.X) that the rust monster's description did not mention metal objects touching its hide, and it was SPECIFICALLY ADDED in PF.
I didn't follow the link what I posted is from my beastiary 1 3rd printing page 238. I'm not arguing what that link has just that the beastiary I have has a different description to that, as does Nethys's entry on it which I just checked.
Also I find the revelation Mithril and Adamantium can rust disturbing.
That's not the special attack description I've got mine say's . . .
There's a link posted right there in the post you quoted. I don't know how you're reading it any different. One is 3.X rust monster. The other is the Pathfinder version (from AoN). They both clearly state that metals touching the rust monster's armored hide corrode immediately (or fall to dust in seconds).
In order for us to believe they wanted to remove the ability, we'd have to believe they removed the ability and then added in the description that it can do that, which makes no sense.
You can also clearly see (from the link to 3.X) that the rust monster's description did not mention metal objects touching its hide, and it was SPECIFICALLY ADDED in PF.
I didn't follow the link what I posted is from my beastiary 1 3rd printing page 238. I'm not arguing what that link has just that the beastiary I have has a different description to that, as does Nethys's entry on it which I just checked.
Also I find the revelation Mithril and Adamantium can rust disturbing.
It is in it, in the creature description, second column, 11th row.
Quote:
Typically 5 feet long and weighing almost 200 pounds,
the lobster-like rust monster would be frightening
enough even without the alien feeding process that
gives it its name. Rust monsters consume metal objects,
preferring iron and ferrous alloys like steel but devouring
even mithral, adamantine, and enchanted metals with
equal ease. 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.
Also I find the revelation Mithril and Adamantium can rust disturbing.
The interesting part is that it is not written anywhere, and the rust dust I cited above says the opposite for Mithral.
That is Temperans opinion, there is no rule or text saying that, like there is no rule or text that says that gold doesn't corrode.
As the only common acid that affects gold is Aqua Regia, I suppose that in Temperans world the breath weapons of black dragons and other acidic attacks will do nothing to it, as their abilities don't say that they breathe or secrete Acqua Regia.
Also I find the revelation Mithril and Adamantium can rust disturbing.
The interesting part is that it is not written anywhere, and the rust dust I cited above says the opposite for Mithral.
That is Temperans opinion, there is no rule or text saying that, like there is no rule or text that says that gold doesn't corrode.
As the only common acid that affects gold is Aqua Regia, I suppose that in Temperans world the breath weapons of black dragons and other acidic attacks will do nothing to it, as their abilities don't say that they breathe or secrete Acqua Regia.
I mean I wouldn't mind if mithral is counted as silver for more than just bypassing DR. But neither alchemical silver (iron plated in silver) or mithral (silvery) say that they do so I went for the more conservative stance. Rusting powder not working on mithral does not negate my argument, I think it reinforces it given that it specifies this text you conveniently omitted.
rusting powder wrote:
This flaky brown powder derived from rust monster fluids causes iron and similar metals to corrode and fall apart.
Considering that dragons love their gold, it is kind of fitting to be honest. But my argument has always been that paizo did not write down the minutia of what gets harmed by what and its up to the GM to determine that, its why there are things like this:
Damaging objects wrote:
Energy Attacks: Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object’s hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects.
Ineffective Weapons: Certain weapons just can’t effectively deal damage to certain objects. Likewise, most melee weapons have little effect on stone walls and doors, unless they are designed for breaking up stone, such as a pick or hammer.
That's not the special attack description I've got mine say's . . .
There's a link posted right there in the post you quoted. I don't know how you're reading it any different. One is 3.X rust monster. The other is the Pathfinder version (from AoN). They both clearly state that metals touching the rust monster's armored hide corrode immediately (or fall to dust in seconds).
In order for us to believe they wanted to remove the ability, we'd have to believe they removed the ability and then added in the description that it can do that, which makes no sense.
You can also clearly see (from the link to 3.X) that the rust monster's description did not mention metal objects touching its hide, and it was SPECIFICALLY ADDED in PF.
I didn't follow the link what I posted is from my beastiary 1 3rd printing page 238. I'm not arguing what that link has just that the beastiary I have has a different description to that, as does Nethys's entry on it which I just checked.
Also I find the revelation Mithril and Adamantium can rust disturbing.
It is in it, in the creature description, second column, 11th row.
Quote:
Typically 5 feet long and weighing almost 200 pounds,
the lobster-like rust monster would be frightening
enough even without the alien feeding process that
gives it its name. Rust monsters consume metal objects,
preferring iron and ferrous alloys like steel but devouring
even mithral, adamantine, and enchanted metals with
equal ease. 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.
Ah yes in the fluff description I was looking specifically at its rusting special attack my bad.
Ah yes in the fluff description I was looking specifically at its rusting special attack my bad.
As Pizza Lord points out, the "fluff" description often has plenty of relevant information.
Generally, it is the location where you find if a creature has wings, legs (and how many), head, weight, length, height, sometimes even mundane equipment is listed there, or incidental treasure.
Ah yes in the fluff description I was looking specifically at its rusting special attack my bad.
As Pizza Lord points out, the "fluff" description often has plenty of relevant information.
Generally, it is the location where you find if a creature has wings, legs (and how many), head, weight, length, height, sometimes even mundane equipment is listed there, or incidental treasure.
Notice how all of that is incidental to the actual mechanics? There is no monster description that I know off that has a mechanic that is not also listed and detailed in its special abilities section. You have special abilities not listed in the description, but not the opposite.
Case and point the previously mentioned Rust Lord, which as I stated previously does have that mechanic listed as part of its "Rust" special ability.
Dragon fly and have poor or clumsy maneuvrability, generally.
Special ability section(for the whole category in the Bestiary 1)
"Fly Speed: A dragon’s fly speed increases as indicated, according to its size."
CRB Fly skill:
"Attacked While Flying: You are not considered flat-footed while flying. If you are flying using wings and you take damage while flying, you must make a DC 10 Fly check to avoid losing 10 feet of altitude. This descent does not provoke an attack of opportunity and does not count against a creature’s movement.
Collision While Flying: If you are using wings to fly and you collide with an object equal to your size or larger, you must immediately make a DC 25 Fly check to avoid plummeting to the ground, taking the appropriate falling damage."
"Try Again: Varies. You can attempt a Fly check to perform the same maneuver on subsequent rounds. If you are using wings and you fail a Fly check by 5 or more, you plummet to the ground, taking the appropriate falling damage (see Chapter 13).
3 instances where using wings matters.
A Wyrmling or Very young dragon from Bestiary 1 is Tiny to medium.
My druid in his medium Air Elemental form can try to bump in them to force a fly check at 25 to have them fall?
Where do we check if it has wings?
1) its picture. Not even the fluff text, an artist rendering of the creature.
2) the Dragon attacks and speed table, which says that dragons get a Wing attack when they become medium-sized.
So, what we should do? We go with the rule that gives us the information that dragons have wings when they are medium-sized or larger or do we infer from the picture that they have wings even when they are tiny or small?
It is one example that was easy to find, but there are plenty.
Pteranodon: it has a fly speed. Where do we find out if it has wings?
The fluff text:
"A pteranodon has a wingspan of 30 feet but only weighs 40 pounds."
Werewolf: the example werewolf is CE.
Fluff text:
"This isn’t to say that good-aligned werewolves are unknown, but they’re certainly a minority among their kind, and most werewolves are evil murderers who delight in the hunt and the succulent taste of raw meat."
So, werewolves are CE or they can have any alignment?
A tanglefoot bag is a small sack filled with tar, resin, and other sticky substances. When you throw a tanglefoot bag at a creature (as a ranged touch attack with a range increment of 10 feet), the bag comes apart and goo bursts out, entangling the target and then becoming tough and resilient upon exposure to air. An entangled creature takes a –2 penalty on attack rolls and a –4 penalty to Dexterity and must make a DC 15 Reflex save or be glued to the floor, unable to move. Even on a successful save, it can move only at half speed. Huge or larger creatures are unaffected by a tanglefoot bag. A flying creature is not stuck to the floor, but it must make a DC 15 Reflex save or be unable to fly (assuming it uses its wings to fly) and fall to the ground. A tanglefoot bag does not function underwater.
...
The target’s feathers thicken and fluff up to ward against winter’s chill. ...
A description may contain flavor text (or 'fluff'), but that does not mean that descriptive text or a description is just fluff text (in the dismissive and negative connotation some are attempting to portray it in).
You will not find a 'winged' or a 'feathered' quality listed. If the description states a quality, ability, or property of the creature, then it is not fluff or ignorable. Whether you can think of how it might work in your game or not, does not make it inconsequentual. Does a couatl have wings? Does it have feathers? How do you know? Where do you find that out? How does a tanglefoot bag affect a couatl's flight?
Also note that just because something isn't specifically listed or spelled out, you still don't get to ignore a creature's properties. Paizo and Pathfinder don't even have to put such a description if the creature is considered commonly known, such as most actual real world animals. They don't have to put that chickens have wings or that they're feathered in their description, because wordcount is a thing and any GM that is going to put a cat or a chicken in their game should either know what a chicken is/looks like (does it have wings? Is it feathered?) or what a cat looks like (how many legs does it have? does it have hair?) These are considered easy enough for someone to look up themselves or Google an image of and get an accurate enough picture with just a few examples, and not require them to bloat their database with massive lists of all dog and cat breeds and descriptions that can easily be referenced elsewhere.
"But what if it's a hairless cat?!" Then it doesn't have hair. A spell or effect that affects such a cat's hair won't work.
Same for the rust monster. It tells you it rusts things touched by its antenna or that touch its armored hide. What form does that rusting take? It tells you the rusting isn't just some light coating, it crumbles to dust in seconds. Is there an example of how a such items are affected or save somewhere? Yes, the Rust ability is considered a common sense reference point for it, and is in the creature's entry.
It is what is considered a self-evident reference. It doesn't matter whether there's a 'rusted', or 'corroded' condition in the universal rules, because it's clear in the creature's actual entry how and what it does, whether the rust monster's Rust ability has any actual relation, similarity, or correlation to natural, real world rusting or its effects or not.
A tanglefoot bag is a small sack filled with tar, resin, and other sticky substances. When you throw a tanglefoot bag at a creature (as a ranged touch attack with a range increment of 10 feet), the bag comes apart and goo bursts out, entangling the target and then becoming tough and resilient upon exposure to air. An entangled creature takes a –2 penalty on attack rolls and a –4 penalty to Dexterity and must make a DC 15 Reflex save or be glued to the floor, unable to move. Even on a successful save, it can move only at half speed. Huge or larger creatures are unaffected by a tanglefoot bag. A flying creature is not stuck to the floor, but it must make a DC 15 Reflex save or be unable to fly (assuming it uses its wings to fly) and fall to the ground. A tanglefoot bag does not function underwater.
...
The target’s feathers thicken and fluff up to ward against winter’s chill. ...
A description may contain flavor text (or 'fluff'), but that does not mean that descriptive text or a description is just fluff text (in the dismissive and negative connotation some are attempting to portray it in).
You will not find a 'winged' or a 'feathered' quality listed. If the description states a quality, ability, or property of the creature, then it is not fluff or ignorable. Whether you can think of how it might work in your game or not, does not make it inconsequentual. Does a couatl have wings? Does it have feathers? How do you know? Where do you find that out? How does a tanglefoot bag affect a couatl's flight?
Also note that just because something isn't specifically listed or spelled out, you still don't get to ignore a creature's properties. Paizo and Pathfinder don't even have to put such a description if the creature is considered commonly known, such as most actual real world...
Ah so now you accept that Paizo wouldn't write the immunity of every single element.
Ah so now you accept that Paizo wouldn't write the immunity of every single element.
LOL. You are stating an immunity to something that affects ANY metal. To bypass that any you need a specific immunity, not "in RL this specific metal doesn't rust and don't oxidize".
Ah so now you accept that Paizo wouldn't write the immunity of every single element.
LOL. You are stating an immunity to something that affects ANY metal. To bypass that any you need a specific immunity, not "in RL this specific metal doesn't rust and don't oxidize".
I see it the other way around. The ability that says "any" needs to specifically say it bypasses immunity. Otherwise you get things like "this fire spell damages creatures/objects thus it can ignore creature's/object's immunity to fire": Abilities don't just bypass immunity without declaring that they do, and any is not a statement to bypass immunity any more than target a creature is.
Ah so now you accept that Paizo wouldn't write the immunity of every single element.
LOL. You are stating an immunity to something that affects ANY metal. To bypass that any you need a specific immunity, not "in RL this specific metal doesn't rust and don't oxidize".
I see it the other way around. The ability that says "any" needs to specifically say it bypasses immunity. Otherwise you get things like "this fire spell damages creatures/objects thus it can ignore creature's/object's immunity to fire": Abilities don't just bypass immunity without declaring that they do, and any is not a statement to bypass immunity any more than target a creature is.
Where in your example appear the word any?
And where in the rules it says that gold is immune to corrosion?
You are following a chain of thought that goes:
1) Gold is resistant (not immune, as specific things can corrode it) to corrosion in real life.
2) Being resistant in RL, it is immune to any in game form of corrosion.
3) Something in-game that corrodes any kind of metal isn't specific enough to corrode something that is resistant to normal corrosion in RL.
The right chain of thought, as far as rules go, is:
1) Gold is resistant (not immune, as specific things can corrode it) to corrosion in real life.
2) That gives it the same kind of resistance in-game.
That generates problems with some strong in-game acid attacks that don't specify what kind of acid they are. As the rules are silent about that the GM should decide what acid attack can affect gold, and when gold gets extra hardness against acid attacks.
3) If something says that it corrodes any meta, it corrodes any metal that hasn't a specific, in-game, immunity to corrosion. That any is meant to bypass RL resistances, you need in-game resistances to stop it.
Ah so now you accept that Paizo wouldn't write the immunity of every single element.
LOL. You are stating an immunity to something that affects ANY metal. To bypass that any you need a specific immunity, not "in RL this specific metal doesn't rust and don't oxidize".
I see it the other way around. The ability that says "any" needs to specifically say it bypasses immunity. Otherwise you get things like "this fire spell damages creatures/objects thus it can ignore creature's/object's immunity to fire": Abilities don't just bypass immunity without declaring that they do, and any is not a statement to bypass immunity any more than target a creature is.
Where in your example appear the word any?
And where in the rules it says that gold is immune to corrosion?
You are following a chain of thought that goes:
1) Gold is resistant (not immune, as specific things can corrode it) to corrosion in real life.
2) Being resistant in RL, it is immune to any in game form of corrosion.
3) Something in-game that corrodes any kind of metal isn't specific enough to corrode something that is resistant to normal corrosion in RL.
The right chain of thought, as far as rules go, is:
1) Gold is resistant (not immune, as specific things can corrode it) to corrosion in real life.
2) That gives it the same kind of resistance in-game.
That generates problems with some strong in-game acid attacks that don't specify what kind of acid they are. As the rules are silent about that the GM should decide what acid attack can affect gold, and when gold gets extra hardness against acid attacks.
3) If something says that it corrodes any meta, it corrodes any metal that hasn't a specific, in-game, immunity to corrosion. That any is meant to bypass RL resistances, you need in-game resistances to stop it.
More like:
1) Gold is immune to corrosion, but aqua regia bypasses that immunity. Gold is I repeat [immune] to corrosion. Saying otherwise is not understanding the properties of the metal.
2) GM can determine how they wish to represent immunity. But immune is immune no matter how you try to spin it. (A bad ruling is still bad).
3) An ability that says it corrodes any metal still needs the line saying this ability bypasses immunity to corrosion. The any does not bypass any resistance IRL or otherwise it is functionally no different from this ability targets objects.
4) RL immunities and resistance have the same weight in game as any immunity writen in the game. The game makes no distintion between the two at any point and infering such a difference from a single word is purely a GM fiat (one I disagree with). I get it that you want rust monsters to destroy all metals, but you cannot use the word any as a silver bullet against any immunity you want.
