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

[seebs]

I should point out, the character did not INTENTIONALLY jump into the monster. The monster made a swallow-whole attack. On a wizard who typically had multilayer defense plans for all sorts of things (such as, say, a ring of freedom of movement). That was maybe a poor choice on the monster's part.

But what I don't see is why this is "unwelcome". We were all having fun, and it was a really cool combat.

This feels like "but you can't ever, ever, have peanut butter in a kitchen, or someone might make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich". "... yes, they might, so?" "So those sandwiches are just one manifestation of what goes wrong when you have peanut butter in a kitchen."

I'm not seeing what the problem is.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

[MENTION=61529]seebs[/MENTION], you get a laugh because you made a point and me hungry at the same time - so I'm going to go see what kind of problem I can make between two slices of bread.

 

[robus]

That having rods encourage you to think about the world in ways it really can't handle is perhaps less so. Rods enable you to put great weights above where a monster is expected to appear. Then the DM must wrestle with unwelcome mixes between game data (such as hp damage) and common sense expectations (such as the expectation that no matter the monster, it will be crushed by a large boulder falling on top of it). Then you can use a rod to utterly wreck something large travelling towards it (like how space dust wrecks space ships) - abusing how D&D isn't set up to handle real-world physics such as potential, mass and acceleration. The "get swallowed, then leave an activated rod inside the monster" strategy is just one such manifestation of the unwelcome invitation to mix gameplay with engine physics.

Perhaps this is more of a problem for simulationists but we're making physics rulings all the time aren't we? Can you lift that thing? Can you jump that distance Y if you get a boost from X?

in the case of the immovable roof activated inside some creature I'm reminded of the fun scene in Pirates of the Caribbean when a bomb(?) is stashed inside one of the baddies when he's a skeleton and then he's turned back into flesh. That would be awesome creativity to have happen in a session surely?

 

[robus]

I should point out, the character did not INTENTIONALLY jump into the monster. The monster made a swallow-whole attack. On a wizard who typically had multilayer defense plans for all sorts of things (such as, say, a ring of freedom of movement). That was maybe a poor choice on the monster's part.

But what I don't see is why this is "unwelcome". We were all having fun, and it was a really cool combat.

This feels like "but you can't ever, ever, have peanut butter in a kitchen, or someone might make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich". "... yes, they might, so?" "So those sandwiches are just one manifestation of what goes wrong when you have peanut butter in a kitchen."

I'm not seeing what the problem is.

The problem is surely mixing bacon with dessert?!

 

[Yunru]

The problem is surely mixing bacon with dessert?!

Hmm, what?

 

[MarkB]

The problems aren't with the action economy, or made-up ways to auto-kill foes; it's with the potential to abuse the "game engine" to use videogame language.

That you can use two rods to climb any distance is hopefully obvious, granting you a slow but sure way of reaching any height and pass over any obstacle. Barring a doorway becomes easy, when the door or gate won't budge no matter what.

That having rods encourage you to think about the world in ways it really can't handle is perhaps less so. Rods enable you to put great weights above where a monster is expected to appear. Then the DM must wrestle with unwelcome mixes between game data (such as hp damage) and common sense expectations (such as the expectation that no matter the monster, it will be crushed by a large boulder falling on top of it). Then you can use a rod to utterly wreck something large travelling towards it (like how space dust wrecks space ships) - abusing how D&D isn't set up to handle real-world physics such as potential, mass and acceleration. The "get swallowed, then leave an activated rod inside the monster" strategy is just one such manifestation of the unwelcome invitation to mix gameplay with engine physics.

Then comes the block and tackle engineering, where your player could start reasoning you could set up counterbalances or other contraptions to project immense amounts of force. And the worst part is, he would be right. Being able to have two fixed points in space that will never yield really opens the pandora's box of abuse.

I'm getting a headache just by thinking about it

Others have pointed out where you're overstating the case. I'll just add that none of these things would particularly wreck my game, and the majority of them are precisely why characters would want to have the item, and why I as a DM would want them to. It's a magic item, giving you options that wouldn't otherwise be available is exactly what it's supposed to do.

And one last point: You have vehemently insisted, on multiple occasions during this thread, that it's only when you allow two rods to be used in conjunction that the really major abuses occur. Aside from your painstakingly-slow-ascent-to-the-heavens example, none of those you listed require mutliple rods. So what are these game-breaking multi-rod abuses you had in mind?

 

[seebs]

I should clarify a thing. It's nothing personal about CapnZapp that made me say "no" to "trust me".

Gary Gygax, Monte Cook, Sean Reynolds, and Skip Williams could sign a statement that there are serious problems with immovable rods, and they should not be allowed or they will be abused, and if they didn't give concrete examples of what the abuses are, I would not accept the claim.

Part of this is because a great deal of this clearly has to do with personal taste and gameplay style. We have had endless fun with people using immovable rods in interesting ways. We've had them placed in the location where a creature was coming-into-existence, we've had them left inside creatures which swallow targets whole, we've used them for block and tackle, we've blocked doors... And it's always been a fun thing for the group. I love it when players do things like that with immovable rods, or decanters of endless water, or any other magic item with interesting effects that aren't just a matter of doing damage and making ability checks. And that's been welcome at every table I've been at.

And that's why I want to know what the specific objections are -- because sometimes it comes down to "my table wouldn't enjoy that". And if your table wouldn't, and mine would, that's completely fine. We are not required to like the same play style! But it would be a grave error for me to assume that the immovable rod must be banned because it wouldn't fit someone else's playstyle, just as it would be a grave error for them to assume that it should be fine because it fits mine.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Luckily this thread isn't about you.

My advice to the OP and everybody else reading is "lose the rods".

That's really it.


Zapp

It's bad advice, so I doubt anyone is going to just walk away from it. Instead, you will continue to get pushback on it, because, it seems, most of us have used immovable rods without it causing any problems.

There are 1st level spells that have given me headaches as a DM. Not to mention cantrips and class abilities. Even some race abilities, although not in 5e or 4e. But immovable rods? Nope.

My advice, and the advice of many others apparently, is to require checks to try to do the thing, question the whole hammer part of the equation, and remember that being stuck in place by a magic stick doesn't mean a creature can use it's hands, squeeze itself out of the bind, etc, and that creatures can have allies, and allies can work the rods even if the bound creature can't.

All of which is vastly easier to do at the table than it is to describe doing on a forum. Far from a headache.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I'm really curious what the OP thinks about all this and what comes about at his table after talking to the player.

 

[Thateous]

Not going to read through 13 pages of text but since when do the PCs get to choose where their hits land? Unless he's doing some called shots with a penatly to hit then no sorry you hit him in the thigh and shoulder.

I as the DM usually narrate where hits land as necessary for effect. Ribs broken, pelvis shattered, head smashed, etc.