Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BoldItalic" data-source="post: 6919188" data-attributes="member: 6777052">For people worried about the physics, colliding with planets and so on, I offer this theory: immovable rods work by changing the ratio of their gravitational mass to inertial mass when energised, and back again when de-energised. Instead of them being equal, the gravitational mass becomes vanishingly small and the inertial mass becomes much larger. That explains why <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">the rod doesn't fall down if released </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">it continues having whatever velocity through space that it had when you switched it on </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">it is very hard to impart additional motion to it. </li> </ul>Conservation of energy and conservation of momentum are broken, but that's only a problem for post-Newtonian physicists; in medieval times they didn't have to be conserved.Think of it like a very large ship floating in a calm sea. It doesn't fall down and if you swim over and try to push it with your hands, you will find it very hard to move. But it still goes up and down with the tide.Now, back to the original problem: the player is being really dumb. You don't need two immovable hammers to trap a creature by the neck, you just need one rod with a big snap hook on the end. Personally, I would make the rod quite long, like a polearm, with the button on the opposite end to the hook. That way, I can snatch the victim from a short distance away and, once it is caught, its arms aren't long enough to reach the button to release itself.Of course, it still needs two actions: one to hook the victim and another to activate the rod. It's best used by a fighter with Action Surge; it's definitely not a monk weapon. The player is playing the wrong class.</blockquote>

Verification