D&D 5E I'm the DM and a player is trying to abuse the Immovable Rod. Advice?

[BoldItalic]

The problem seems to be solved, but a few stray ideas:

(1) There is a chance that the hammerhead breaks loose from its rod if the opponent makes a strength check to break free. Only the rod is immovable, not the hammerhead. So far, you've been making the rolls behind the screen and the monk has been lucky.

(2) The monk traps an opponent with the two rods but its bellows of rage trigger a trap. On its turn, the floor descends 30ft taking the party with it but leaving the rods and the opponent suspended high above them.

(3) An encounter with a seven-headed hydra might prove interesting.

(4) On its turn, a trapped opponent can use its action to press one of the buttons itself, then grab the freed rod.

 

[Dausuul]

So I'm afraid that it will piss him off if I either take away those rods, or make a dm ruling that he can't use it in combat that way.

Anyone have advice?

Yeah. Make a DM ruling that he can't use it in combat that way. If it pisses him off, tough. What he's doing is absurd.

I'm with JackOfAllTirades. To heck with "Say yes or roll dice." It's an okay guideline in general, but this is a prime example of when the correct DM response is "Hell no."

 

[Harzel]

I did not notice that part about requiring an action to press the button. I think that might just be the solution. I would require him to first make an athletics check (Maybe DC 15 for the average creature?) to place the hammers/rods in the perfect spot. Then on his next turn (assuming the creature doesn't move away or try to break his form) he could use his action to press the button. And then give the creature a high dexterity check to try and slip out, or investigation check to deactivate them.

So upon further reflection, it seems to me that you have two issues: ruling on the mechanics, and the RL social repercussions. Since I don't know you or the player, I can't say much about how to handle the social issue, except that it might be the harder and more important of the two issues, and I hope that you succeed in maintaining a good relationship.

On the mechanical front, IMO, your player's proposed tactics try to blow by so many mechanical difficulties that this goes way past the bounds where you want to "find a way to say yes" to player ingenuity. Let's think about this.

1. On his first turn, the PC has to get both hammers into the precisely correct position.
2. Between his first and second turns, he must maintain the hammers in position on a moving opponent, probably while enduring an attack from that opponent.
3. On his second turn, the PC has to press the button on one hammer while continuing to hold both hammers in place.
4. Between his second and third turns, the PC must continue to hold the one still movable hammer in place while somehow preventing the opponent from changing position with respect to the one now immovable hammer. While probably enduring another attack from the opponent.
5. On his third turn, the PC finally gets to press the button on the second hammer.

If a player insisted on trying this anyway, my rulings would be:

1. Two called shots. Minimum of -4 penalty to each attack roll.
2. Opponent gets advantage on its attack (if made against this PC). PC has to make a DC 15 DEX check to keep the hammers in place; if the PC is hit, he has disadvantage on the check.
3. I don't see how this is physically possible (three hands?), but in the spirit of allowing heroic things to happen, I'll allow it if he makes another DC 15 DEX check.
4. This gets ugly. The opponent must make a DC 15 WIS or INT check (whichever is better for it) to realize that it ought to move away from the one immovable hammer. If it passes that, it gets a DC 5 DEX check to succeed in moving. If all of that goes well for the PC, he still has to make a DC 10 DEX check to keep the one movable hammer in place, again at disadvantage if he gets hit.
5. Automatically succeeds, because everybody is tired of rolling dice.

Which is to say nothing of MJ's astute observation that an intelligent opponent might know enough to toggle the rods' immovability button.

Or maybe I'm just a jerk. Dunno.

 

[DMCF]

Like others have mentioned there are some social issues to be worked out here. I'd like to hear how it turned out with this person both as a player and as a DM.

 

[rgoodbb]

I know its a little different but a Tentacle Rod with a slight variation that you are in charge of designing, might seem enticing after giving your player the bad news on actions and checks and possible theft of the rods.

 

[Lehrbuch]

Anyone have advice?

I think that, in general, the idea actually is OK. It is a reasonably "clever" idea, although a bit degenerate if it is the only thing that he ever attempts. The main problem is it isn't that good, following the RAW, I think.

This is the way that I think it should work:

• As others have noted, the character needs to take an action to activate each rod while the victim is being reasonably stationary. Grappling the victim would be one option, but the character/player might think of other options.
• The effect of locking the victim with the rods should normally simply be that the victim is Restrained. See the Restrained condition (PHB, page 292). In some circumstances, being Restrained is going to be a real pain. But it doesn't in and of itself prevent the victim from continuing to fight and so forth.
• Even though it is a STR DC30 check to move the rods, it seems like it would be easier to break the hammer-heads off (although still obviously a high STR DC check).

It seems that being attacked by more than one opponent at a time would also make problems for this tactic.

 

[Shasarak]

I would probably just give the enemy a save to wriggle free, leaving the hammer still locked in the air.

 

[CapnZapp]

In my campaign I had the party start at lvl 10 and allowed them each to start with 1 rare magical item. One player (A monk) asked if he could instead have 2 uncommon items, and I said that would be fine (A rare magical item can cost much more than 2 uncommon items). It turns out the player chose to have 2 immovable rods, and had a hammer head attached to the end to make them a light hammer that he can also use as a weapon. This at first didn't seem like a problem, I was wrong.

Yep. You've been had.

The "pair of immovable rods" is a classic trap for well-meaning DMs to fall into. They're hugely abusable, but this is not apparent at first blush.

My only recommendation is to remove them. Especially since your player likely knows all this already.

Talk to your player. Explain you made a mistake, and that you asked for advice on the forums. They told you the secret: they they are a DM's worst nightmare as a never-ending source of abusing the world physics, and that there really is no way of stopping that.

Then tell him you will have to ask him or her to make another selection. Then take those rods away, explaining that he will have to find another DM if he absolutely must have them.

 

[CapnZapp]

Boom. Problem solved. It takes an action to attack, it takes an action to press the button.

Oh you innocent creature...

There is never "problem solved" when it comes to immovable rods.

The ways you can abuse them simply are neverending. The only true solution is to never allow a party to have more than one (preferably zero).

They're simply not worth the DM headaches.

Take them away and instead focus on items that work with the game rather than against it.

 

[DeltaEcho]

Two hammers shouldn't be able to pin anything, (pickaxe through a limb to the floor, then yes)
'the monster should be able to wrestle free if pinned, (you sound like an easy going DM, but don't let him run amok, you're in charge)

1) it would be very hard to pin someone without them being cornered in a room, (add difficulty, lots)
2) the wiggly monsters break free,
3) a rust monster (or fire/acid attack) removes it from play...