The World of Layonara  Forums

Author Topic: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?  (Read 1801 times)

jrizz

Re: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?
« Reply #40 on: October 23, 2008, 02:59:02 pm »
Well I would not say it was a death trap but the combination of tight quarters and the expanded personal space issue that came with 1.69 do make it a tricky spot.

Now about rust monsters. Behind doors, under rocks, hiding in holes/cracks/crevasses is where they have always been found sine the dawn of rust monsters. Yes they scare the hell out of my PC (and me OOC). But as to why we get surprised by them here is a note on rust monsters:

Quote
A rust monster can smell a metal object from up to 90 feet away. When it detects one, it dashes toward the source and attempts to strike it with its antennae. The creature is relentless, chasing characters over long distances if they still possess intact metal objects but usually ceasing its attacks to devour a freshly rusted meal. The creature targets the largest metal object available, striking first at armor, then at shields and smaller items. It prefers ferrous metals (steel or iron) over precious metals (such as gold or silver) but will devour the latter if given the opportunity.


Of course this brings up the issue of why it did not try to eat the weapons of the bad guys we were fighting.


I cant imagine losing say my mithril shield to one or my armor. Things like that at this point in the world are close to irreplaceable. What gets me is that a rust monster can eat mithy as easy as it can eat copper. There is something wrong in that. Mithy is supposed to be the end all of metals the ultimate material for weapons and armor. It really should be immune to rust monsters. The other metal should have a graduated save with things like coatings and enhancements adding to the save throw.
 

jrizz

Re: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?
« Reply #41 on: October 23, 2008, 03:15:56 pm »
Quote from: Dorganath

The more accurate statement here has nothing to do with the 14-19 split and has everything to do with the level 14 characters getting access to creatures who drop from the "High" loot list. It wouldn't have mattered if they were all level 14.


That is where party loot split guides come into play. No one should walk away with an item that they cannot use within at least the next 2 levels or so unless they are 24 or 25 plus. What I mean is if you are in the mid to high twenties and you find a item the is 29+ level req and no other person in the group can use it and it is meant for your class then you can take it. But if you are below that and especially if you are below 20 you really should not even ask to roll for items that are epic level. I am sure that we would have handled this in this way as we are sensitive to the drop access issue. I will admit that we made a mistake in allowing one of the under 20th levels to do the looting.
 

Hellblazer

Re: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?
« Reply #42 on: October 23, 2008, 03:20:33 pm »
I personally never lost anything to a rust monster, but that idea of a gradual resisitance by metal types, sounds like something very good and logical.
 
 
Quote from: jrizz
I will admit that we made a mistake in allowing one of the under 20th levels to do the looting.
 
 I personally don't feel too bad in letting that particular person loot since i know who it is. That said, it would clearly be something that would be consider favoritism and not a good thing at all.

Hellblazer

Re: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?
« Reply #43 on: October 23, 2008, 03:25:54 pm »
Quote from: jrizz
I will admit that we made a mistake in allowing one of the under 20th levels to do the looting.
 
 I personally don't feel too bad in letting that particular person loot since i know who it is and he gms here. That said, it would be clearly something that would be consider favoritism and not a good thing at all.

Stephen_Zuckerman

Re: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?
« Reply #44 on: October 23, 2008, 03:31:16 pm »
I came along on an RP trip with a bunch of high-level characters, as my 6th level Bard, Felix. I didn't figure it would be very bashy to start, and when it GOT bashy, well - I was only getting 1 XP for the things that were killed.*** As to loot? Dorganath poses a grand point. I did pick up a weapon that was Level Requirement 17, and some 1600 gold... (1k of which was lost when I died.)

At first, I'd felt a bit sketchy about running around with the high-levels, doing their looting, letting them stand in front while I hucked Bardsong and arrows, but then I just kicked up what I was contributing by a few notches. As to loot? Well.

Considering the nature of the trip, I feel that that should be handled on an in-character level (though those of you who know me know how I'll handle it in that case, anyway). I was also REALLY hoping to see the later, cooler stuff, but didn't get the chance (though some of the things I did see were AWESOME! Roar!). The joys of AoE. :)

But to get back on-topic...

Perhaps Rust Monsters should be used less by DMs in an "I DROP IT AND WATCH 'EM SQUEAL AHAHAHAH" manner (yes, that's a bit of jest); putting them right next to folks, or just around a corner... Sure. I think we can all agree that due to the nature of just what they can do, they should be something the party can at least see before it hits them.

As to the case in this instance? From what I'm reading, it was a builder's mistake. It happens. It's even reimbursable! Things move on.

[/Stephen]

*** (I actually got about ten times as much XP from DM-granted RP rewards as I did from combat, so I don't think XP could be the issue.)
 

jrizz

Re: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?
« Reply #45 on: October 23, 2008, 04:52:50 pm »
Felix was great, writing poems and songs as we went and giving great descriptions of what we were seeing. I thought the RP was top shelf. It was like bring along a scribe that was recording the adventure for story telling later on. Thanks :)
 

ycleption

Re: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?
« Reply #46 on: October 23, 2008, 05:54:50 pm »
Couple of points... the "way too high item level" idea doesn't take into account the number of items which have a disproportionately low item level... think about + to save cloaks, +con boots, or +str/dex bracers. Often, if a lower level is tagging along with a higher level group, they will get this kind of item, which creates incentives to go to higher level areas. As far as true, most low to mid levels can make far more in a group of 2-3 on west then with a larger, higher level group in high level areas, so I personally don't see that as a problem.

Second, with regards to xp, IMO, a very high level spread going to high level areas isn't usually a problem. Characters will earn very low experience, and it's typically not worth the danger. Likewise, if a higher level is helping lower levels in a low level area, (so long as everyone's contributing) it's fine because they aren't getting more xp than they would otherwise, and the level requirements are there to prevent characters from getting the benefits of areas they shouldn't be able to go to with a group at their level.

The problem occurs when characters (completely within the level/area guidelines) travel in parties -a bit- too high for their level... Typically this is level 8s going with a mid-level party and killing giants endlessly, or maybe a couple levels later going to the misted village - places a reasonable sized party of level 8s, or level 10s would have a great deal of difficulty with (my definition of reasonable sized may differ from yours, and I may not have as well-built characters to judge from - substitute other areas/levels if you wish), but still give very good XP. IMO, that kind of thing is more against the spirit of the server then what is technically too high of a level spread when it's for IC reasons, and little risk of unfairly benefiting low level.

So... bottom line, in those pesky level spread situations, ask yourself what your character would do, is it resonable IC, and would your character be gaining anything they shouldn't be able to get at their level.


Oh, and rust monsters... Glad I play a monk and a druid ;)
 

Chongo

Re: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?
« Reply #47 on: October 23, 2008, 06:58:17 pm »
LordCove:
 
 The recommendation for this region is still under discussion, but the initial proposal was:
 
 5) Travel beyond K'halziras is 17+, and it is advised that travel into K'halziras is limited for anyone under 17.
K'halziras is technically 17+. RP specific or exploratory forays into K'halziras are appropriate for lower levels on rare occasions. Travel beyond K'halziras is most assuredly 17+ however regardless of the occasion.
 
 Hope that clarifies things.  The group in question died at K'halziras.
 
 My opinion is that if something new opens, then people should be allowed the exploratory venture.  Spirit of the law and whatnot when coupled with the notion of exclusivity in new higher level areas.
 

 

anything