Rust Monsters

[Scott]

Rust monsters get two attacks/round. The descriptive text states,
"If the rust monster touches the metal with its two antennae (roll "to hit" die) it rusts and corrodes the metal."
Does the rust monster get two chances per round to rust and corrode metal, or do both attacks have to hit in order for the metal to get destroyed?

[geneweigel]

You know I hate questions like this... STOP ASKING THEM!



Seriously, that would seem like it should be because the experiment where you make something rust with electrodes however, it doesn't specifically state that. That doesn't mean you can't have it either way. For example, there are two types of fireflies that look the same. You could have one rust monster need two "leads" with two succesful attacks for the rust effect or you could have it (the way I've played it at least) as the "leads" are miniaturized on the ends of the antennaes with one attack doing a rust effect for each.

[Scott]

I've been doing it your way too, but I re-read it recently, and it struck me that I may have beefed up the critters much more than was intended.
In the last encounter with them I can remember, two characters had +4 armor, the armor got hit, the magic gave it a 40% chance of saving. The first d10 rolled a 0, almost a sure thing, the second d10 rolled another 0, heartbreak, and then the exact same thing happened to the next guy with +4 armor.

[geneweigel]

I just peaked in "GREYHAWK" and it says "one touch" and "HOLMES" reads "1 attack".

Note my previous suggestions for a derivative of the text falls apart because "rust" happens if the creatures is attacked on its body as well. You'd have to remove that as well.

But you know? Why not? Its an old fucking barnacle that is always expected. There should be alternative approaches to discover its pattern at a price, right?

[geneweigel]

BTW, I was just joking these are the kinds of questions we should be bringing up.

So the difference in AD&D is two attacks compared to one attack for OD&D and Basic. Weird. That is a big difference. There should be more "rust beasts" like the "rust invisible air cloud" and the "rust tavern".

[Scott]

I know you well enough by now to spot your 'just kidding' moments.

[GT]

I always just assumed since the critter runs so quick, it had a quick metabolism and reflexes, and thus the attacks... A fighter of Tony's named Marzbul had a very bitter encounter with his sword and armor in the D1 module, and then ranted as he fired arrows at the now-fleeing beast (fleeing from Kato wielding Blackrazor, which I deemed non-corrodable as it was an entity...). They did not catch the beast, but wandered into Beholder territory. ^__^

[ghul]

Just so happens I threw some of these critters at my group last week. I took out a short sword and two suits of chain mail. Sure the rust monsters were killed, but two adventurers were without armor. That is a small victory for the DM, where I come from.

[GT]

Marzbul (aka: "the walking tank") lost a suit of plate mail and a +2 two-handed sword; so needless to say he was very angry! He was forced to wear an ill-fitting suit of chain mail and wield a common longsword for a time! Heh!!

[Merkholz]

There is a bit of a difference between having just one special attack per round, two such attacks per round or having to hit a victim twice in a round in order to get 1 special attack. Perhaps 1 attack, 1 rusting is the best way to go?

M

[ghul]

May 8, 2009 1:41:40 GMT -5 Merkholz said:

There is a bit of a difference between having just one special attack per round, two such attacks per round or having to hit a victim twice in a round in order to get 1 special attack. Perhaps 1 attack, 1 rusting is the best way to go?

M

This is actually how I handle it.

[GT]

I dunno... even though they have that nasty-looking "prop" on their tail, they get no "damaging" attack... two rust-attacks keeps the PC's (rightfully) fearful, so why not? [GT: Evil DM!! ;D ]

[Scott]

Yes, I'm going to keep giving them the two attacks/round.

[ghul]

When I picture them attacking, I imagine both antennae lashing out and touching the same thing at the same time. Either both will miss or both will hit. Just my take, of course, and likely not btb. I also like to have them recognize danger -- they are not fearless monsters to keep going after metal once they have consumed some; rather, they will flee to escape from harm. However, I will have them keep trying to get that plate mail or chain mail armor, even when seriously injured, if they have failed to score a hit. A good idea is to have them emerge from some burrow in the ground that they can subsequently escape through, leaving the PCs unsure about passing by the encounter area again, especially the fighter-heavy party (that picture of the fighter in the wizard's arms comes to mind!).

[Scott]

Yes, that is how I've been running them. but reading the MM entry recently caused me to rethink how I handled their attacks.

[GT]

I use them as ambush attackers--they lurk around corners or behind rock formations and wait until a large metal source presents itself. Then, they run out(at 50% faster than the average human), get off several lashes (of which two might do "telling" blows) in a minute's time. Whether they stay to do more damage/feeding or hightail it outta there depends on what if any damage they receive. If they are given heavy damage, they run for it and don't look back!

[GT]

You know, they left rust monster out of 2E in the beginning and 4E so far, and had to modify it in 3E--because it was considered too much... a "screw the player" monster!! HAR!!! And a Beholder isn't?? Here's a message to coddled players: life's a bitch, and then you die! If there's any question about the hostility of the fantasy environment, talk to Gronan. He'll kill you and take your stuff! Heh!