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

[Arial Black]

Among the many things that are wrong is the fact that hitting to do damage with a hammer would be done differently than using a hammer to restrain.

When you want to do damage, you hit with the head (it also does bludgeoning damage, not piercing, so no 'pinning to the ground'). But that would not restrain, that would bounce the target away.

To restrain, you'd have to get the shaft of the hammer on the target's neck, and position the head of the hammer past the neck (so it couldn't slide out). You cannot have a single attack that would both do damage AND be part of any restraining.

But, yeah, simple solutions are: it's an action to use one, two actions to use both, and these are separate actions to the one's used to attack. And, on the rare occasions that it actually worked, the target would activate the rod itself and walk away with the rod.

As for the social implications, it's in black and white in the description of the rod that it takes an action to activate. He cannot argue that it doesn't. He has no leg to stand on, and the group will have to agree when you show them the book.

He might not like it, but he cannot accuse you of being unfair because you use the rules for the item exactly as described.

 

[Staccat0]

Action economy aside, "placing them in the perfect spot" against an unwilling target is probably a contested roll not unlike a grapple in my book. Adding in the fact that he needs an action to hit the button mean he needs to essentially restrain the enemy for a round getting them into position.

So to me, a contested roll like a grapple vs Acrobatics or Athletics for an action followed by a second action to hit the button is a perfectly reasonable way to establish a DC 30 magical restraint on an enemy. So, the player still has a path to doing their cool thing. It just won't make sense against every foe.

 

[Felicitas27]

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.

You've given the straightforward, adult way of handling the situation for sure; but I am imagining myself as another player at this DM's table. I am a crabby old lady who would never think of abusing the rules in such a way and in any kind of game. I really dislike it when players try to get cute and show off to give themselves their own little "I WIN!" button, and since I've played MMOs pretty extensively, this behavior is very familiar to me.

Seeing the DM put a stop to the player's shenanigans using the actual game rules and maybe just a tiny little story hook would be oh, so satisfying.

 

[CapnZapp]

You've given the straightforward, adult way of handling the situation for sure; but I am imagining myself as another player at this DM's table. I am a crabby old lady who would never think of abusing the rules in such a way and in any kind of game. I really dislike it when players try to get cute and show off to give themselves their own little "I WIN!" button, and since I've played MMOs pretty extensively, this behavior is very familiar to me.

Seeing the DM put a stop to the player's shenanigans using the actual game rules and maybe just a tiny little story hook would be oh, so satisfying.

I think that ship has sailed.

It is rather probable the player went there with every effort to use and abuse those rods for everything its worth. Already the part where the player asked "can I have two uncommon items instead of one rare" tipped me off, and sure enough, he picked two rods right away.

Since an experienced DM like me knows you need two to truly wreck the gameworld, I figured the OP needed to hear the truth as plainly and bluntly as possible.

I think it is unfair to expect the OP to spend time and resources on a problem that didn't need to be there. The real problem is the player and how he puts a higher priority on the use and abuse of items that, frankly, aren't well thought out.

And while we're frank and honest - let me confess that I am not in the slightest interested in trying to fix those rods with in-game solutions. I don't want to waste even a single minute on talk about immovable rods. Yes, they're that easy to abuse.

No. I'm too old in this game to not cut to the chase and simply say:

"The fastest, easiest and simplest way of resolving this issue is for you to hand back those rods. Trust me on that. If you can't accept that this is the most expedient way of letting me get back to creating an enjoyable experience for you and your fellow players, you will have to pass this campaign by. There is no way I will have immovable rods in my campaign, now that you and the enworld posters have shown me it was an honest mistake to ever let you have them."

 

[Sunseeker]

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

Pretty much solved right here. If he asks why you didn't enforce it before, say you forgot or that you just didn't really care until he started making it into a headache for you.

 

[seebs]

Okay, the problem here isn't the immovable rod, or the cleverness. It's him making rulings like "if I make two hits they're immobilized". That's not a feature the rod has. The rod just stops moving. You can't use it to immobilize something most of the time. It's just gonna sit there. It doesn't change shape, it doesn't wrap around things, it has NOTHING to let you use it to immobilize a creature. (Normally. In a game under slightly different rules, I did once take out an immovable rod, push the button, let go of the rod, and teleport out of the creature that had just swallowed me...)

 

[dagger]

Okay, the problem here isn't the immovable rod, or the cleverness. It's him making rulings like "if I make two hits they're immobilized". That's not a feature the rod has. The rod just stops moving. You can't use it to immobilize something most of the time. It's just gonna sit there. It doesn't change shape, it doesn't wrap around things, it has NOTHING to let you use it to immobilize a creature. (Normally. In a game under slightly different rules, I did once take out an immovable rod, push the button, let go of the rod, and teleport out of the creature that had just swallowed me...)

Pretty much this....

Also, bad guys can push buttons too.

 

[mpwylie]

I would say I am on the other side of the fence, I love it when my players come up with clever stuff. The monk using his rods to restrain 1 bad guy is no different than a caster casting a crowd control spell. I would however make it less of a sure thing. Pushing the button is an action and I see no reason why he couldn't push both buttons at once. He does however need to get them in position and the monster is not just gonna stand still to let this happen so I would treat it similar to a grapple. I would tell him that as his action he can attempt to get the rods in place and push the button but the creature is going to grab his arms or the rods and try to stop him. I would have them make an opposed Acrobatics or Athletics check (the monsters choice). It would at that point have nothing to do with the rods so it's his str/dex vs the monsters str dex. If he succeeds the check he is able to get the rods into position and activate them and the creature is restrained. If he fails, he cannot attempt the same thing on the same creature again until the start of the next day as the creature will know what he is up to. Once restrained I would give the creature a check, likely an int or wis check each round to figure out he can press the button to get free.

This allows him to use his clever tactic but puts the tactic in line with other crowd control spells and abilities. Past that I would factor this in to my encounter building. In my game I have a stunning fist monk and a wizard that both work hard to stun/paralyze/deal with creatures so I just factor that in and they NEVER fight a solo monster. In the end the player gets rewarded for his cleverness and gets to use their tactic to help win the fight which makes them happy and the encounters are still challenging. Sure, you can stack up the rules to stop it in a totally plausible way but in the end all you have is an upset player that not having fun. Make it reasonable and factor it in and everyone is happy.

just my 2cp...

 

[Prakriti]

Homebrew ruins D&D, especially when DMs allow players to engage in it without any oversight. It's the DM's job to reel these things in and make sure they're balanced BEFORE they come into play.

 

[CapnZapp]

Pretty much solved right here. If he asks why you didn't enforce it before, say you forgot or that you just didn't really care until he started making it into a headache for you.

Sorry but this is naive.

A pair of immovable rods are eminently abusable even if you don't forget to have the character press the button.