The Rod is immovable in relation to what?

[Chalkarts]

I'm about to give my group an Immovable rod.
It's an airship campaign.
What I'm wondering is what the rod is anchored to. Is it anchored to the planet or is it anchored to the location. If I'm in an airship and I set an immovable rod does it stay immovable in relation to my surroundings(the ship), allowing me to use it as a handhold in a duct; or in relation to the ground, ripping through the hull of the ship in motion and hanging in the air.

If it's the latter, a fun random event might be to collide with a stationary immovable rod, doing some damage but nothing major, just a time setback to patch the holes

[Segev]

I'm about to give my group an Immovable rod.
It's an airship campaign.
What I'm wondering is what the rod is anchored to. Is it anchored to the planet or is it anchored to the location. If I'm in an airship and I set an immovable rod does it stay immovable in relation to my surroundings(the ship), allowing me to use it as a handhold in a duct; or in relation to the ground, ripping through the hull of the ship in motion and hanging in the air.

If it's the latter, a fun random event might be to collide with a stationary immovable rod, doing some damage but nothing major, just a time setback to patch the holes

DM's call, really. Personally, I would tend to make it relative to the scene. If you're on a moving vehicle that encompasses enough of the scene to BE the scene, it is relative to that. So inside a coach, on a ship, on a train, etc., it would affix relative to the surroundings. On a horse, out in the field on foot, falling through the air, or flying personally, it would be relative to the larger world.

I'd let it be the DM's call every time, really, but I'd accept argument as long as it didn't get silly, and probably let it work as the user "thinks" it should unless there's good reason not to. There might be some underlying rules that I can't or won't articulate that I'd let an Intelligence (Arcana) check (or even no check at all, just stopping to think about it) tell the PC how it would work in a given situation, even if I couldn't tell them "why."

[Greywander]

I can definitely see some DMs running it as relative to your surroundings, e.g. on a ship, but that's something that only works as long as you don't think about it too hard or try to abuse or exploit it. It's a verisimilitude problem. How big does a ship need to be in order for an immovable rod to anchor to it? What happens if the ship is destroyed? Why couldn't you build a vehicle out of immovable rods in order to make it sturdy and more secure, or to have free-floating structures as part of that vehicle? Basically, there are too many unanswered questions and potential loopholes to exploit. The simplest and most straightforward way to run an immovable rod is for it to be anchored relative to the plane/planet. There are some "interesting" things you can do with this, like activating the immovable rod in order to escape a moving vehicle, or leaving it as a barrier for a chasing vehicle to run into, but all of those are internally consistent with the rules of how the rod is being run.

TL;DR, running it as anchored to the planet is the simplest way, making it anchor to something like a ship leaves a lot of unanswered questions about how the rod functions and opens a lot of potential loopholes.

Basically, it comes down to the question of, "Do I want the rod to work the same way every time, so the players know what to expect when they/an NPC uses one? Or do I want to have to make a judgement call every time one is used based on the circumstances?" Neither way is wrong, there are valid reasons to run it either way, but different people will have their preference.

[Kane0]

One DM i had a novel answer to this question, it was in relation to 'most' objects within 60' of it. So if you activated it on the ground, it was motionless relative to the ground within 60' of it (theoretically if you could excavate all the earth in a 60' radius of the rod you could move the rod with it). If you activated it on a ship, it was relative to the ship. If you activated it while falling, it would keep moving with you until some objects came within 60' of it then it would suddenly become motionless to those objects (say a nearby cliff face or 60 feet from the ground).

[dafrca]

One DM i had a novel answer to this question, it was in relation to 'most' objects within 60' of it. So if you activated it on the ground, it was motionless relative to the ground within 60' of it (theoretically if you could excavate all the earth in a 60' radius of the rod you could move the rod with it). If you activated it on a ship, it was relative to the ship. If you activated it while falling, it would keep moving with you until some objects came within 60' of it then it would suddenly become motionless to those objects (say a nearby cliff face or 60 feet from the ground).

So their house rule was in order for it to remain immobile it required something to be within 60 feet or something other than a living being? I mean if I activate it am I not within 60 feet of it?

Just curious because I find this answer interesting. :smallsmile:

[kazaryu]

I can definitely see some DMs running it as relative to your surroundings, e.g. on a ship, but that's something that only works as long as you don't think about it too hard or try to abuse or exploit it. It's a verisimilitude problem. How big does a ship need to be in order for an immovable rod to anchor to it? What happens if the ship is destroyed? Why couldn't you build a vehicle out of immovable rods in order to make it sturdy and more secure, or to have free-floating structures as part of that vehicle? Basically, there are too many unanswered questions and potential loopholes to exploit. The simplest and most straightforward way to run an immovable rod is for it to be anchored relative to the plane/planet. There are some "interesting" things you can do with this, like activating the immovable rod in order to escape a moving vehicle, or leaving it as a barrier for a chasing vehicle to run into, but all of those are internally consistent with the rules of how the rod is being run.

TL;DR, running it as anchored to the planet is the simplest way, making it anchor to something like a ship leaves a lot of unanswered questions about how the rod functions and opens a lot of potential loopholes.

Basically, it comes down to the question of, "Do I want the rod to work the same way every time, so the players know what to expect when they/an NPC uses one? Or do I want to have to make a judgement call every time one is used based on the circumstances?" Neither way is wrong, there are valid reasons to run it either way, but different people will have their preference.

i think you're overestimating the verisimilitude problems.

'How big does a ship need to be in order for an immovable rod to anchor to it?'

does it matter? if you rule that the rod is relative whatever functions as the 'ground' at that moment then it could be as small as a flying carpet. you could also just say that when you click the rod, you can mentally designate what it retains its position relative to.

'What happens if the ship is destroyed?'
the ships body still exists, if its an air ship the rod would, presumably, fall relative to the ship. or sink relative ot the ship. if the ship is disintegrated then either the rod switches to being relative to the next nearest 'ground' (likely the actual ground) and stay midair. or it would become un attached and just fall.

'Why couldn't you build a vehicle out of immovable rods in order to make it sturdy and more secure'

seems like an overly expensive way to make a more secure vehicle....why not just...make a more secure vehicle? why do it in 2 stages. it'd be hella expensive, as all enchanting is, but like...go ahead. i genuinely don't understand what the exploit is here.

'or to have free-floating structures as part of that vehicle?'
you can. better question is, why would you not be able to have a free-floating structure as part of the vehicle?


in general the fact that there are questions raised by the interaction isn't really a problem. and if the party can think of cool ways to use those rules, so long as they're consistent, i don't think there's a problem.

[MoiMagnus]

IMO, most interpretations are possible.
And by "most interpretations are possible", I mean "Out of the multitude of objects that are called 'immovable rod', there is no guaranty all of them follow the same interpretation. Magic items are not mass produced in factories, the behaviour of a rod will depends on what the crafter had in mind when crafting the rod, and on what the crafter actually knew how to make. Knowing 'which kind is your immovable rod' require extensive testing of those corner cases."

[Kane0]

So their house rule was in order for it to remain immobile it required something to be within 60 feet or something other than a living being? I mean if I activate it am I not within 60 feet of it?

Just curious because I find this answer interesting. :smallsmile:

It needed something nearby to anchor to (not physically), though creatures, their carried gear and other items the same size or smaller than the rod didnt count. So it was mostly vehicles, buildings and terrain.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'm going to be the stickler and say it remains in the exact position you placed it, relative to when you clicked the button. It is not your friend in a moving vehicle.

[MoiMagnus]

I'm going to be the stickler and say it remains in the exact position you placed it, relative to when you clicked the button. It is not your friend in a moving vehicle.

Which reasonably works in fantasy world where the world is "static".

It's a little more problematic for an immovable rod to remain in its "exact position" in a more realistic universe where you live on a "planet" rotating around a sun, itself rotating around a galactic center, etc.
And I believe that's the reason why some GMs prefer it to be relative to your moving vehicle, as there isn't that much difference between being on a moving vehicle on the road and being on a moving planet through space.

[Note: the same problem happen with time travel that doesn't include space travel. And yet again, having a "static" world is a very practical and simple solution that fantasy offers.]

[Kvess]

TL;DR, running it as anchored to the planet is the simplest way, making it anchor to something like a ship leaves a lot of unanswered questions about how the rod functions and opens a lot of potential loopholes.
That’s all well and good, but some planes are just plain weird. How would you handle an immovable rod while standing on a gear within Mechanus or the clashing cube planets of Acheron?

[EggKookoo]

We play it mostly as the rod is immovable in relation to whatever the user would be immovable to. Typically we mean that to be the ground. If you stop moving, you're immobile in relation to the ground. Sure, you're also immobile in relation to that chair, but if the chair gets moved you don't move with it. If the ground moves under your feet, you move with it.

This means if you use the rod on a boat in the water, it's immovable in relation to the boat itself, since that serves as your ground. If there's any conflict or ambiguity, we work it out but I tend to defer to what the rod-user wants it to be.

[Cybren]

That’s all well and good, but some planes are just plain weird. How would you handle an immovable rod while standing on a gear within Mechanus or the clashing cube planets of Acheron?
Once we introduce enough epicycles we can explain how the rod works anywhere in any fashion

[Saint-Just]

That’s all well and good, but some planes are just plain weird. How would you handle an immovable rod while standing on a gear within Mechanus or the clashing cube planets of Acheron?

I would make it immovable relative to the cog/cube, but those have a big difference with a ship:

They are gravity sources.

I suppose I could make some elaborate justification, but even without it "relative to locally dominant gravity source" sounds like a good rule of thumb.

[kaoskonfety]

I'd likely make this trait a variable if I found a need to? Most items I generate, even random ones in hordes, get bit of thought:
- who made it
- why did they make it
- what problem was it intended to solve
- what were the creators limitations

Answers to these inform any quirks I'm tossing on a thing, be it a boot knife that is "magical" in that it never needs sharpening and doesn't rust, or a specialist rope trick rope for ship use.

The default rod anchors to the "World/Plane" and holds a fixed position relative to the ground, planets core, or whatever. It is stationary for the purpose of overland movement in all but the weirdest worlds. This serves the purpose of functioning as somewhere anchor a line, a pair to form a crude free air ladder, and the rest of the generally "normal" uses.

As an example of a setting where this function would leave them mostly useless for the "normal" uses: all land masses are Dragon Turtles of astonishing size swimming around. Their intended function might change, or they might get keyed to the local turtles relative position... or or or. Similarly a rod made for ship board use might link to the mast or other local fixed point. Maybe this effect has a range of "on deck", or maybe you can set the rod 2 miles from the ship and have a life boat dragged along in the distant wake of the ship or pushed in front? Donno, all sounds fun though.

I'd strongly suggest establishing how it works as exactly as you can before giving it out, especially if you like me, don't tell them exactly how it works.

[Spiritchaser]

So I once had a scholarly dragon engage a PC to perform a study to establish what, exactly, an immovable rod anchored itsself to… or at least she had him start the process.

You could be straightforward and say the reference point is the centre of mass of a sufficiently large objects, and is baked into the rod when the rod is created (most would be the world), and most would be rotationally locked with the crust because <whatever>

But if the players are genuinely interested, and if you have room in the plot of your campaign, perhaps the rod they have is locked to something else, something interestingly magical, and about which slight motion of the rod relative to the surface of the world might be a subtle hint.

I once set this kind of thing up but the players never got around to doing much of anything about it.

[Imbalance]

The item specifically mentions defying gravity, and it can also be moved by a creature on a DC 30 strength check. Thus, I've always reasoned that if a giant could reasonably move the thing 10' as an action, so could a sufficiently sturdy vessel. I've considered, should it come up, that the magic that fixes it in place is woven by the nearest massive object. The item says it can hold up to 8,000 lbs, beyond that it deactivates. So, really, anything bigger than a full sized pickup truck is enough to be the relative object of fixation, IMO, if the one who activates it is also on board. Otherwise, it fixes relative to the plane(t) or gravitational source that you are on, which, to me, makes it useless in the Astral Plane. I would not, however, allow it to be fixed relative to a creature, no matter how massive.

This isn't a set-in-stone house rule, just my thoughts in case it comes up, and would most likely poll my table for concensus before holding fast to anything beyond RAW.

[Chad.e.clark]

I know this won't make everyone happy, but why not have two buttons to press on the item? Or perhaps two versions of the rod: a minor and a major?

One minor activation, which makes it immovable to a "scene", whether that be the ground, a carriage, or an airship. Functioning as door stopper or climbing hand-hold but no damage to the moving vehicle as it becomes a "part" of the vehicle.

The other is a major activation, which makes it immovable relative to the plane. So it would not harm stationary objects, but could cause some chaos to moving objects. In the above example regarding being set off in the gears of Mechanus, I would imagine such a "plane-relative-set"-rod could cause quite the headache, to say the least. I could even see such a magic item as being completely forbidden and any Modron or any other citizen of Mechanus to respond quite forcefully to any party who would bring such a potentially chaotic item to their plane.

However, I could see "plane-set"-rods being very well recieved in the the Outer Planes the Abyss, Limbo, and Pandemonium.

[Imbalance]

As far as crashing an airship into a stationary rod, I would say the amount of damage would be relative to the mass of the vessel. You would have to ballpark the weight of the ship and it's velocity, but if it's easy to say whether or not the impact generated 8,000 lbs of force then you'll know if it was akin to a hatchback being skewered by a guiderail end or more like a duck in a jet engine. In the latter case, the rod deactivates and either falls free or ends up embedded in the hull; in the former, it stays fixed until someone retrieves it.

[loki_ragnarock]

DM call.

If he calls relative to the scene, then the annoying player will bring up inconsistencies that might spring forth to try and justify the other.

If he calls it relative to the planet, then the annoying player will bring up rotational spin to try and justify the other.

The annoying player will be annoying regardless, and the only answer is that it's magic; it doesn't follow logical consistency.

[Saint-Just]

If he calls it relative to the planet, then the annoying player will bring up rotational spin to try and justify the other.


What rotational spin? The planet is not rotating relative to itself.

[KorvinStarmast]

To get at a ruling, I will remind you that Magic and a flat earth got together conceptually. There isn't 'outer space' as we know it. There are planes. D&D and Real Earth Physics do not match one for one. There is overlap, but they are not identical sets.

If you go forward with the assumption that Play in D&D 5e does not assume a rotating world, you avoid damage from teleporting to somewhere else and having to deal with the speed of the world's sufrace, and so on.

The sun rises and sets by whatever means the cosmos sees fit. It does not need a world turning to do it.

As above, I'd suggest choosing a frame of reference (the minor and major idea from Chad E. Clark is a grand one, discuss with DM) and making the rod immovable in reference to that. (Yes, a slight nod to Newtonian physics there, but it makes the game playable).

The frame of reference can't be a creature; that's all I'd suggest.

[DigoDragon]

TL;DR, running it as anchored to the planet is the simplest way, making it anchor to something like a ship leaves a lot of unanswered questions about how the rod functions and opens a lot of potential loopholes.

This is how I run it, and it works fine even on spherical planets that rotate on an axis (just don't think about it too much). Well, it works up until you get into Spelljammer and you have PCs taking their rods up into space for shenanigans.

I had one GM be salty about Spelljammer and ruled the rod is stationary relative to the galactic core. Yeah, there was no getting that rod back. XD



[Note: the same problem happen with time travel that doesn't include space travel. And yet again, having a "static" world is a very practical and simple solution that fantasy offers.]

I can't remember the title of the novel, but there was a weapon that did this exact thing. It time-shifted the target forward a few seconds, but without the space-travel component. Thus, you end up floating in space trailing the planet by several thousand miles.

[Segev]

I really like, personally, the solution/reminder that "it depends on the Rod," on the basis that these aren't "standardized" items, but individual bespoke magic items created by different master craftsmen.

How THIS one works may not be the same as how THAT one works wrt what it's immobile.

[Sigreid]

Unless it's a special rod, I'd say it's locked with regard to the surface of the planet. So activating one on a ship could be really, really bad.

[dafrca]

Unless it's a special rod, I'd say it's locked with regard to the surface of the planet. So activating one on a ship could be really, really bad.

This feels like a GM punishing the players for finding a magic item they want to use. I would stick to the relative "ground" the player is on.

[Sigreid]

This feels like a GM punishing the players for finding a magic item they want to use. I would stick to the relative "ground" the player is on.

Eh, it could be really really good to.

[KorvinStarmast]

This feels like a GM punishing the players for finding a magic item they want to use. I would stick to the relative "ground" the player is on. And much more playable. :smallsmile:

[Darth Credence]

This feels like a GM punishing the players for finding a magic item they want to use. I would stick to the relative "ground" the player is on.

I would not consider that "punishing". I think there are likely just as many uses for one that is frozen relative to the planet as relative to the vehicle.

[Greywander]

As long as the item is properly identified, they should know how it works. If the DM neglects to inform them, and then deliberately screws them over when they try to use it, yeah, that's punishing the players for no reason. If it's part of a houserule where they don't know exactly how it works until they use it and the players are aware of this fact, then the players know what they're getting into.

If a player tries to activate any kind of magic item, or cast a spell, or whatever, but it doesn't work the way they think it will, and the character should know that, then the DM has a responsibility to inform the player of what their character knows, and give them a chance to backtrack and do something else. This does get trickier if it's part of a more complex plan that has already been half-executed, but you can take a moment to discuss with the DM if it's better to retcon the whole thing or to improvise a new plan based on what's already happened. Edit: Or just allow it to work the way you thought it did just that one time.

[Sigreid]

As long as the item is properly identified, they should know how it works. If the DM neglects to inform them, and then deliberately screws them over when they try to use it, yeah, that's punishing the players for no reason. If it's part of a houserule where they don't know exactly how it works until they use it and the players are aware of this fact, then the players know what they're getting into.

If a player tries to activate any kind of magic item, or cast a spell, or whatever, but it doesn't work the way they think it will, and the character should know that, then the DM has a responsibility to inform the player of what their character knows, and give them a chance to backtrack and do something else. This does get trickier if it's part of a more complex plan that has already been half-executed, but you can take a moment to discuss with the DM if it's better to retcon the whole thing or to improvise a new plan based on what's already happened. Edit: Or just allow it to work the way you thought it did just that one time.

I've mentioned before that my group has been together for a very long time. If there's disagreement about how something works, we talk it out real quick.

[Segev]

I've mentioned before that my group has been together for a very long time. If there's disagreement about how something works, we talk it out real quick.

How long are the regulation knives for the ritual combat in your group? Mine prefers a nice 13-inch straight or slightly shorter curved.

[Sigreid]

How long are the regulation knives for the ritual combat in your group? Mine prefers a nice 13-inch straight or slightly shorter curved.

Dealer's choice. I prefer my backsword, while another prefers his katana.

[dafrca]

As long as the item is properly identified, they should know how it works. If the DM neglects to inform them, and then deliberately screws them over when they try to use it, yeah, that's punishing the players for no reason. If it's part of a houserule where they don't know exactly how it works until they use it and the players are aware of this fact, then the players know what they're getting into.
Good point, the table houserules could impact how I feel about the action. :smallsmile:

[Chronos]

What if two ships are moored next to each other, and I'm stepping from one to the other as I activate the rod? What if I'm using the rod to avoid going down with the sinking ship I'm on? What if I'm flying high in the air (say, on a griffon), and I fall off my mount, and want to use the rod to avoid a long fall? Anchored to "the World", whatever that is, makes a lot more sense.

Now, that said, I probably would rule that a rod in Mechanus anchors to the gear it's on, because the gears of Mechanus aren't just separate things within the World; they're an inherent part of the nature of the World itself.

[Chalkarts]

As long as the item is properly identified, they should know how it works. If the DM neglects to inform them, and then deliberately screws them over when they try to use it, yeah, that's punishing the players for no reason. If it's part of a houserule where they don't know exactly how it works until they use it and the players are aware of this fact, then the players know what they're getting into.

If a player tries to activate any kind of magic item, or cast a spell, or whatever, but it doesn't work the way they think it will, and the character should know that, then the DM has a responsibility to inform the player of what their character knows, and give them a chance to backtrack and do something else. This does get trickier if it's part of a more complex plan that has already been half-executed, but you can take a moment to discuss with the DM if it's better to retcon the whole thing or to improvise a new plan based on what's already happened. Edit: Or just allow it to work the way you thought it did just that one time.

I was thinking about going with planetary anchoring and setting it stationary to the ground. They're about to steal a classy airship. I was thinking of having a switch sticking out of the wall at the rear of the ship with a ""Flip if Falling" sign. If flipped the switch would trigger two immovable rods attached to the rear of the vessel with chains or magic tethers to keep the ship from falling all the way to the ground and suspending it in the air.

[Quietus]

I was thinking about going with planetary anchoring and setting it stationary to the ground. They're about to steal a classy airship. I was thinking of having a switch sticking out of the wall at the rear of the ship with a ""Flip if Falling" sign. If flipped the switch would trigger two immovable rods attached to the rear of the vessel with chains or magic tethers to keep the ship from falling all the way to the ground and suspending it in the air.

Keep in mind that 8,000 lb limit. How big is the airship?


Personally, I think if someone truly pushed me to declare something, I'd probably just say "relative to the planet". If it's someone I trust, then I'm much more willing to work with them and let it be flexible, with a rule of thumb somewhere around "It anchors relatively to the nearest 8,000 lb+ object". So if you're on a stagecoach, it'll anchor to the planet. If you're on a galley ship, or a large enough airship, it anchors relative to that ship. This also neatly plays into the thing I think several people were alluding to earlier, which is, is the object in question a feature of the battlemap, or is it the battlemap itself? If the latter, then the rod anchors relative to it.

[Greywander]

I was thinking about going with planetary anchoring and setting it stationary to the ground. They're about to steal a classy airship. I was thinking of having a switch sticking out of the wall at the rear of the ship with a ""Flip if Falling" sign. If flipped the switch would trigger two immovable rods attached to the rear of the vessel with chains or magic tethers to keep the ship from falling all the way to the ground and suspending it in the air.

Keep in mind that 8,000 lb limit. How big is the airship?
Yeah, I think you'd need more than two rods. You can probably use standard engineering techniques to distribute the weight between them, however, so it's just a matter of using more rods and properly distributing the weight.

[Imbalance]

What if two ships are moored next to each other, and I'm stepping from one to the other as I activate the rod?
One will be bigger, or be carrying a greater payload. The character may not know it the first time they try it, but can figure it out in twelve seconds. The boats are moored, so they're not going anywhere.


What if I'm using the rod to avoid going down with the sinking ship I'm on?
Once you're in the water, you're no longer on the ship.


What if I'm flying high in the air (say, on a griffon), and I fall off my mount, and want to use the rod to avoid a long fall? Anchored to "the World", whatever that is, makes a lot more sense.
Agreed.


I was thinking about going with planetary anchoring and setting it stationary to the ground. They're about to steal a classy airship. I was thinking of having a switch sticking out of the wall at the rear of the ship with a ""Flip if Falling" sign. If flipped the switch would trigger two immovable rods attached to the rear of the vessel with chains or magic tethers to keep the ship from falling all the way to the ground and suspending it in the air.

Two would just about hold the weight of an uninflated blimp, but if we're talking magic the airship might be made of soarwood or something that makes the vessel lighter than air. Sounds like a worthy piece of safety equipment.

[Saint-Just]

Two would just about hold the weight of an uninflated blimp, but if we're talking magic the airship might be made of soarwood or something that makes the vessel lighter than air. Sounds like a worthy piece of safety equipment.

Interestingly, soarwood is treated inconsistently, sometimes being called "lighter-than-air" and sometimes being noted as just being on the lighter side (I do not have 5e Eberron books, but 3.5 stuff just says it's 75% of the normal weight, which is nothing when IRL the densest wood is more then times denser than the lightest wood)

This thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?474620-Eberron-Soarwood-vs-Darkwood-What-s-the-deal) has a (claimed, second-hand) Word of Keith that soarwood is only lighter-than-air when the bound elemental is active, so going by that you'd definitely need more than two rods to use as safety measure as opposed to brake for crazy maneuvres with normally functioning engine.

Nothing says you can't ignore that, of course.

[Greywander]

Nothing says you can't ignore that, of course.
Hey, it worked for the Titanic, right? Nothing like having poorly thought out safety mechanisms that only provide a false sense of security and don't actually prevent a disaster.

I'm only half joking, by the way. Implementing a safety mechanism that doesn't work could make for an interesting bit of tense drama. Definitely allow a player to notice something is off about it if they have the right proficiencies/a high enough passive Perception/Investigation.

Edit: For example, perhaps this was a safety regulation that was implemented when airships were smaller and lighter, and it never got updated. It's the law, so manufacturers still have to implement it, but it's never/rarely been an issue, so they've never updated it for the newer airship specs, and when anyone asks about it, they convince them that it will work and there's nothing to worry about.

[Segev]

Hey, it worked for the Titanic, right? Nothing like having poorly thought out safety mechanisms that only provide a false sense of security and don't actually prevent a disaster.

I'm only half joking, by the way. Implementing a safety mechanism that doesn't work could make for an interesting bit of tense drama. Definitely allow a player to notice something is off about it if they have the right proficiencies/a high enough passive Perception/Investigation.

Edit: For example, perhaps this was a safety regulation that was implemented when airships were smaller and lighter, and it never got updated. It's the law, so manufacturers still have to implement it, but it's never/rarely been an issue, so they've never updated it for the newer airship specs, and when anyone asks about it, they convince them that it will work and there's nothing to worry about.

While that's great drama, humor comes from it going the opposite direction, I think: safety measures that were important on older specifications but are utterly pointless now.

As a supremely-exaggerated example, regulations may have once required all shipboard personnel and passengers to wear life preservers that have a certain floatation rating...and so now guests on cruise starliners must wear life vests - not space suits - on the ship because nobody has ever updated the regulation. (Space suits are actively built to accommodate these.)

[da newt]

I've always assumed the rod was linked to it's world, so that the ground was it's reference point, but that is an assumption. As DM, I'd let the Player define how it works the first time they use it, and then make that cannon so that it always functioned 'that' way.

As others have noted, it can only support 8000 lbs and if 8001 lbs of force are applied to it, it deactivates. I love the idea that you could activate it in the stomach of a flying dragon and it would either suspend the dragon there or the dragon would have to rip itself free leaving a rod sized gash from it's stomach to the exit point, but it's not 8000 lbs/sqinch of force ...

Of note if the rod is linked to the earth, it would be hell on a ship as they are never completely stationary - waves, wind, tides, current, etc. I assume airships move similarly (air is never really stationary)?

[Argis13]

This has happened a few times, and I generally go with whatever is convenient for the situation, make something up about how the local weave is being dragged along with this or that reference frame, and then act confident until my players go along with it.

[Darth Credence]

I've always assumed the rod was linked to it's world, so that the ground was it's reference point, but that is an assumption. As DM, I'd let the Player define how it works the first time they use it, and then make that cannon so that it always functioned 'that' way.

As others have noted, it can only support 8000 lbs and if 8001 lbs of force are applied to it, it deactivates. I love the idea that you could activate it in the stomach of a flying dragon and it would either suspend the dragon there or the dragon would have to rip itself free leaving a rod sized gash from it's stomach to the exit point, but it's not 8000 lbs/sqinch of force ...

Of note if the rod is linked to the earth, it would be hell on a ship as they are never completely stationary - waves, wind, tides, current, etc. I assume airships move similarly (air is never really stationary)?

There is nothing in it about psi, just weight. Based on sage advice from Ed Greenwood, a young dragon averages at 9000 pounds, so if it just began to fall, it would deactivate the rod.

[Peelee]

Which reasonably works in fantasy world where the world is "static".

It's a little more problematic for an immovable rod to remain in its "exact position" in a more realistic universe where you live on a "planet" rotating around a sun, itself rotating around a galactic center, etc.


I've never understood the appeal to "realism" when you have 10,000 lb flying lizards who spit fire and can rewrite reality itself on a whim.

When I DM, an immovable rod is exactly what is says on the tin - immovable. It's not relative to anything, as the planet is the galactic center and all stars, other planets, et al all rotate around the planet. You want time travel? No worries about silly things like "planetary rotation" or "orbits", you stay in exactly the same place. Immovable rod is locked into one position in space, which is convenient since the exact same is true of the planet. Want to activate it in an airship? Hope you're prepared for either line of sight damage/small-scale destruction or a surprisingly effective anchor.

[Tanarii]

Spelljammer rules. Relative to local gravity.

Which would be really bad if you had it turned on when your Spelljammer approached a planet. :smallamused:
OTOH so is flying upside down.

[Greywander]

I've never understood the appeal to "realism" when you have 10,000 lb flying lizards who spit fire and can rewrite reality itself on a whim.
I think appeals to "realism" generally fall into two categories: "like the real world" and "internally consistent". In a world with giant flying lizards that breathe fire, "like the real world" doesn't make a lot of sense. The idea that planets move through space, orbiting around a sun, which in turn orbits around a galactic core, which in turn is in motion relative to other galaxies, none of that necessarily needs to be true. Heliocentric theory is relatively recent, and a setting based on medieval Europe is more likely (and would more accurately) use a geocentric model anyway. Science as we know it doesn't really apply, rather, the world runs on old ideas of alchemy and humors. These ideas were all attempts to explain the real world, so they already have a decent degree of internal consistency, even if they were ultimately incorrect and don't line up with future predictions that have been made and verified with modern theories.

It makes way more sense to me to look for internal consistency in a fantasy setting. Yes, it's fantasy, yes, you have giant flying lizards, but all the rules of the setting are internally consistent with there being giant flying lizards. Basically, if A, then B, and if B, then C, so we would expect that A would lead to C. If A leads to D instead, then that's a break in internal consistency. Building an internally consistent set of rules often relies on exploring emergent properties of a more limited ruleset. If we have certain rules in place, what would those rules lead to? This is how we can arrive at the conclusion that something like Simulacrum abuse can't be a thing, otherwise every wizard would do it. Likewise, any type of shenanigans that might allow one to make dangerous Wishes at no risk (e.g. having your simulacrum cast Wish for you) must not be allowed, otherwise every wizard would do it. If everyone would do a thing, and yet no one does, then it's clearly because they can't. One thing leads to another, and if you don't like what it leads to, then you have to assume that the original assumption was wrong. You have to change that fundamental rule in order to get a different set of emergent properties.

This is a world building problem. You could say that Wish-Simulacrum abuse does work in your world, but that's going to have consequences. Anyone who becomes a high level wizard becomes basically a god, almost instantly. And they won't want competition. Expect the world to be ruled over by god-wizards who ban the practice and study of wizardry by anyone else, for example. And these god-wizards would be nigh unbeatable; just imagine the types of wishes a player would make if they could completely bypass any backlash. Immune to all damage, immortal, regenerates when killed, infinite spell slots, know every spell, additional actions, all the features of every class, etc. The only way they could be killed is if, out of fear of immutable immortality, they left open one way for them to die, just in case they got tired of living. But when you have infinite wishes, that's probably not an issue. And this isn't the setting most people want to play in, which is why we have to assume that such an exploit doesn't work, unless this is the setting you want to play in.

When it comes to immovable rods, it's not really as earth-shattering. But it's still important. I still think the simplest and most straightforward way to run it is to make the rod stationary relative to the plane or planet, assuming a cosmology where plants are the center of their respective universes (a geocentric model) and don't move or rotate. But that's not the only way to do it. If you do it differently, it will have an impact on how the rest of your world works, and you need to think those through. Internal consistency is vital for verisimilitude and the suspension of disbelief.

[EggKookoo]

This question is similar to the various discussions around Thor's hammer. In the first Avengers movie, Hulk can't lift it off the deck of the helicarrier. Yet the carrier itself is traveling through the air, arguably "lifting" the hammer. But it's explained simply: Thor decides the context for mobility. Thor is in the moving helicarrier, and he wants the carrier deck to serve as the ground, so it does. Another way of looking at it is no one can move the hammer without Thor's approval.

When you activate the rod, you're Thor.

[Greywander]

When you activate the rod, you're Thor.
This is a good out of context quote.

[Peelee]

I think appeals to "realism" generally fall into two categories: "like the real world" and "internally consistent". In a world with giant flying lizards that breathe fire, "like the real world" doesn't make a lot of sense. The idea that planets move through space, orbiting around a sun, which in turn orbits around a galactic core, which in turn is in motion relative to other galaxies, none of that necessarily needs to be true. Heliocentric theory is relatively recent, and a setting based on medieval Europe is more likely (and would more accurately) use a geocentric model anyway. Science as we know it doesn't really apply, rather, the world runs on old ideas of alchemy and humors. These ideas were all attempts to explain the real world, so they already have a decent degree of internal consistency, even if they were ultimately incorrect and don't line up with future predictions that have been made and verified with modern theories.

It makes way more sense to me to look for internal consistency in a fantasy setting. Yes, it's fantasy, yes, you have giant flying lizards, but all the rules of the setting are internally consistent with there being giant flying lizards. Basically, if A, then B, and if B, then C, so we would expect that A would lead to C. If A leads to D instead, then that's a break in internal consistency. Building an internally consistent set of rules often relies on exploring emergent properties of a more limited ruleset. If we have certain rules in place, what would those rules lead to? This is how we can arrive at the conclusion that something like Simulacrum abuse can't be a thing, otherwise every wizard would do it. Likewise, any type of shenanigans that might allow one to make dangerous Wishes at no risk (e.g. having your simulacrum cast Wish for you) must not be allowed, otherwise every wizard would do it. If everyone would do a thing, and yet no one does, then it's clearly because they can't. One thing leads to another, and if you don't like what it leads to, then you have to assume that the original assumption was wrong. You have to change that fundamental rule in order to get a different set of emergent properties.

This is a world building problem. You could say that Wish-Simulacrum abuse does work in your world, but that's going to have consequences. Anyone who becomes a high level wizard becomes basically a god, almost instantly. And they won't want competition. Expect the world to be ruled over by god-wizards who ban the practice and study of wizardry by anyone else, for example. And these god-wizards would be nigh unbeatable; just imagine the types of wishes a player would make if they could completely bypass any backlash. Immune to all damage, immortal, regenerates when killed, infinite spell slots, know every spell, additional actions, all the features of every class, etc. The only way they could be killed is if, out of fear of immutable immortality, they left open one way for them to die, just in case they got tired of living. But when you have infinite wishes, that's probably not an issue. And this isn't the setting most people want to play in, which is why we have to assume that such an exploit doesn't work, unless this is the setting you want to play in.

When it comes to immovable rods, it's not really as earth-shattering. But it's still important. I still think the simplest and most straightforward way to run it is to make the rod stationary relative to the plane or planet, assuming a cosmology where plants are the center of their respective universes (a geocentric model) and don't move or rotate. But that's not the only way to do it. If you do it differently, it will have an impact on how the rest of your world works, and you need to think those through. Internal consistency is vital for verisimilitude and the suspension of disbelief.
I agree with all of this. For the most part, things working relative to a planet/plane keeps things simple, but if someone wants to play with relativity then I can just skip that headache by having a egocentric universe and the rod isn't really relative to anything, it just stays in place. Sure, it's not the only way to do it, but it's simple, and both easy and fast to explain and understand.

Things like "relative to whatever is within 60 feet" could have problems - for example, my character fell out of the airship and has no magic, but has an immovable rod. Problem is, there's nothing but me and my gear within 60 feet in any direction - falling from an airship tends to suck like that. Activating it makes it immovable relative to me, which means I'm probably going to die instead of use it as an impromptu mid-air ledge to hang on while the airship circles back around to rescue me.

Or that could be a feature, depending on how you enjoy stuff like that. :smallwink:

[Tvtyrant]

Once we introduce enough epicycles we can explain how the rod works anywhere in any fashion
Fairo point.

[quindraco]

I'm about to give my group an Immovable rod.
It's an airship campaign.
What I'm wondering is what the rod is anchored to. Is it anchored to the planet or is it anchored to the location. If I'm in an airship and I set an immovable rod does it stay immovable in relation to my surroundings(the ship), allowing me to use it as a handhold in a duct; or in relation to the ground, ripping through the hull of the ship in motion and hanging in the air.

If it's the latter, a fun random event might be to collide with a stationary immovable rod, doing some damage but nothing major, just a time setback to patch the holes

An immovable rod is immovable with respect to spacetime, which is why it's so good that in 5E it can be moved with only 500 pounds of force - in prior editions you could mess up a planet with one, since it won't move in space as a planet hurtles through it.

It usually won't rip through an airship hull unless you make the rod you hand out OP by shrinking it, so the pounds per square inch pile up. It would definitely rip through a canvas sail, though, if that's how you're flavoring the ship's top.

[Gurgeh]

it can be moved with only 500 pounds of force
Eh? Needs a fair bit more than that. It can support up to 8000 pounds of weight (remember, weight is force and not mass - don't let those non-SI units fool you) without being moved, or moved 10 feet with a DC 30 strength check. If your value of 500 comes from the DC 30 check, then I'm not sure how you derived it, since all of the direct weight values for pushing, lifting, etc. are for situations that don't involve ability checks.

[Saint-Just]

This question is similar to the various discussions around Thor's hammer. In the first Avengers movie, Hulk can't lift it off the deck of the helicarrier. Yet the carrier itself is traveling through the air, arguably "lifting" the hammer. But it's explained simply: Thor decides the context for mobility. Thor is in the moving helicarrier, and he wants the carrier deck to serve as the ground, so it does. Another way of looking at it is no one can move the hammer without Thor's approval.

When you activate the rod, you're Thor.

Very open to shenanigans, this way rod easily becomes a flying broom, an animate people-pusher and many other things, if you really go for "user defines context". And "user defines context but it must make sense" just opens the way for endless arguments.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Eh? Needs a fair bit more than that. It can support up to 8000 pounds of weight (remember, weight is force and not mass - don't let those non-SI units fool you) without being moved, or moved 10 feet with a DC 30 strength check. If your value of 500 comes from the DC 30 check, then I'm not sure how you derived it, since all of the direct weight values for pushing, lifting, etc. are for situations that don't involve ability checks.

A DC 30 strength check is no joke either. This is a straight ability check, no proficiency, so without any magical influence to grant a bonus you'd need a strength score of 30 for it to even be possible. Assuming you take that value for a characters ability to push or drag, that makes it at least 900lbs of force to move it.

I don't think the weight limitation off intended to have any correlation with a creatures physical ability to move weight however, as (assuming such a strength score were possible) you'd only need the capacity to drag 2100lbs at a strength score of 70 to guarantee the check.

For a more realistic perspective (at least from what can feasibly happen in game) a Tarrasque or the aspects of Tiamat and Bahamut being gargantuan only has a push/drag value of 7200lbs. Even the they are not physically powerful enough to deactivate the rod, though it can potentially be moved.

Or long story short - there's no chance that 500lbs of force is anywhere close to moving the rod.

Very open to shenanigans, this way rod easily becomes a flying broom, an animate people-pusher and many other things, if you really go for "user defines context". And "user defines context but it must make sense" just opens the way for endless arguments.
I'm not sure how thematically appropriate it would be either, anchoring your immovable rod 60ft from the ship and having it move to remain unmoving from the ship it's anchored to would be an indication to me that there's something off about that interaction.

It should be unmoving in the widest possible scope, the more minute you allow it the more abusable it becomes. I'm not super concerned about the ramifications of it being unmoving from a single point in space relative to the entire universe because that's unlikely to have disastrous consequences (it's not going to go though a passing planet like a hot knife through butter) and keeps the item working about how I expect it to.

[Gurgeh]

A DC 30 strength check is no joke either. This is a straight ability check, no proficiency, so without any magical influence to grant a bonus you'd need a strength score of 30 for it to even be possible.
A high-level character with enough levels in Bard or Champion Fighter can manage with as little as 24 strength thanks to JoAT/Remarkable Athlete - but yes, well beyond what PCs could be expected to accomplish without very specifically building for it.

[Segev]

Eh? Needs a fair bit more than that. It can support up to 8000 pounds of weight (remember, weight is force and not mass - don't let those non-SI units fool you) without being moved, or moved 10 feet with a DC 30 strength check. If your value of 500 comes from the DC 30 check, then I'm not sure how you derived it, since all of the direct weight values for pushing, lifting, etc. are for situations that don't involve ability checks.

I am amused that this at least suggests that a DC 30 strength check is in the same ballpark as exerting 8000 pounds of force.

[Greywander]

I am amused that this at least suggests that a DC 30 strength check is in the same ballpark as exerting 8000 pounds of force.
For reference, 30 STR means you can lift up to 450 lbs, or drag 700 lbs., assuming a medium or small creature. Which... seems kind of pitiful, to me. 30 STR is supposed to be godly physique; normal humans cap out at 20, which should correspond to Olympic athlete level physique, maybe slightly higher (Olympic level might be more like 18). This becomes even more ridiculous with variant encumbrance, where you could only lift 150 lbs. with no penalty with 30 STR. Make me wonder if carry capacity shouldn't use some kind of exponential scaling with STR (which could be recorded in a table so it doesn't have to be calculated).

Now, that's with no roll. If you try to lift more than your carry limit, it's not supposed to be impossible, you just need to make an Athletics check, and you'll definitely be encumbered until you put down whatever you're lifting. That's also sustained lifting, rather than instantaneous force. You wouldn't try to lift/push an immovable rod, you're more likely punch/kick it to try and dislodge it. It's closer to breaking down a door than lifting something heavy.

[Tanarii]

I am amused that this at least suggests that a DC 30 strength check is in the same ballpark as exerting 8000 pounds of force.
Requires +10 to have a very small chance of success at a Nearly Impossible check, without bonuses. Or Str 30.

With bonuses ...

Str 20 level 7 champion with a cleric and bard buddy would have +7+1d4+1d8 for a 25% chance of success. https://anydice.com/program/2592d
Str 20 raging Barbarian with the same would have +5+1d4+1d8 (advantage) for a 27.42% chance of success. https://anydice.com/program/2592e

I like it.

[Burley]

I'm not going to pretend to know what realm your games may take place in, and every setting is different.

But, it's generally accepted that there are elemental planes and circles of hell and all that stuff in the D&D cosmos, right? D&D cosmos aren't orbs spinning around in space, they're "planes of existence." Given that there are "planes" of existence, it's fair to assume that magic functions on what I call "planar physics," or flat physics.

If we used an immovable rod on Earth, you'd lock the button and ZOOM! You'd never see the rod again, because we're whizzing through space. Earth is rotating on it's axis, orbiting the Sun, which is itself orbiting at the edge of the Milky Way galaxy, which is spinning around some other massive event, maybe the center of the universe, which could be orbiting around the center of a megaverse.

If we think of D&D world as the science-proved-it-wrong Flat Planet of our ancient world, an immovable rod locked into specific coordinates X,Y,Z (in relation to, let's say, sea level) would maintain those coordinates, because planar physics require planes to stay put. So... If you accept my fantastic planar physics, the rod's magic works pretty okay.

In your specific circumstance, with an airship, I'll posit this thought exercise. If I jump up in the air, holding the rod and push the button, I'd be hanging in the air, not moving, because I'm holding an immovable rod. The ship, which isn't holding the rod, would continue moving under me, eventually leaving me hanging by one arm in the clouds. If the rod locks in relation to the ship, I'd jump up and, though there's no connection, I'd be towed by the ship somehow.

Now, if the campaign is centered around airship travel, I think having it function in relation to the ship would be awesome! I'm imagining that metal-boomerang-surfing thing from the TailSpin cartoon. You could tie somebody to the rod, lock it 10ft off the port bough and you've got sky keelhauling (kinda).
There's a lot more interesting stuff you can do, if you decide that immovable rods don't work how they do. :smalltongue:

[Segev]

For reference, 30 STR means you can lift up to 450 lbs, or drag 700 lbs., assuming a medium or small creature. Which... seems kind of pitiful, to me. 30 STR is supposed to be godly physique; normal humans cap out at 20, which should correspond to Olympic athlete level physique, maybe slightly higher (Olympic level might be more like 18). This becomes even more ridiculous with variant encumbrance, where you could only lift 150 lbs. with no penalty with 30 STR. Make me wonder if carry capacity shouldn't use some kind of exponential scaling with STR (which could be recorded in a table so it doesn't have to be calculated).

Now, that's with no roll. If you try to lift more than your carry limit, it's not supposed to be impossible, you just need to make an Athletics check, and you'll definitely be encumbered until you put down whatever you're lifting. That's also sustained lifting, rather than instantaneous force. You wouldn't try to lift/push an immovable rod, you're more likely punch/kick it to try and dislodge it. It's closer to breaking down a door than lifting something heavy.To be fair, strength 30 is only a +10 bonus to Strength Checks. Notably, Immovable Rod calls for Strength, not Strength(Athletics), so by the RAW you cannot use anything but raw Strength to move it.

So, a Strength 30 creature still has to roll a natural 20 to move it! This is beyond any PC's capabilities, because nothing in the game gives access to a strength of 30. Maybe if they have the right wild shape or polymorph form?

Though Tanarii does point some things out:


Requires +10 to have a very small chance of success at a Nearly Impossible check, without bonuses. Or Str 30.

With bonuses ...

Str 20 level 7 champion with a cleric and bard buddy would have +7+1d4+1d8 for a 25% chance of success. https://anydice.com/program/2592d
Str 20 raging Barbarian with the same would have +5+1d4+1d8 (advantage) for a 27.42% chance of success. https://anydice.com/program/2592e

I like it.The Barbarian could have up to a 24 strength at level 20. Anybody could have a 29 if they have the Legendary Storm Giant Strength belt.

Bardic Inspiration, Jack of All Trades, guidance, and other things that add to raw ability checks would work here.

I also like it, assuming I am interpreting the assumptions you put into the anydice program correctly.

We can potentially use this to interpolate backwards what kind of force other DCs equate to. (We can probably adjudicate that Athletics applies to some of these, but not others, with the idea behind the immovable rod being that you can't generally get into a position to use your training and have to rely on pure muscle rather than on any stacking or other techniques.)

[Lupine]

We play it mostly as the rod is immovable in relation to whatever the user would be immovable to. Typically we mean that to be the ground. If you stop moving, you're immobile in relation to the ground. Sure, you're also immobile in relation to that chair, but if the chair gets moved you don't move with it. If the ground moves under your feet, you move with it.

This means if you use the rod on a boat in the water, it's immovable in relation to the boat itself, since that serves as your ground. If there's any conflict or ambiguity, we work it out but I tend to defer to what the rod-user wants it to be.

This is how I would rule. It seems to cover all the bases pretty well.

[Tanarii]

We can potentially use this to interpolate backwards what kind of force other DCs equate to. (We can probably adjudicate that Athletics applies to some of these, but not others, with the idea behind the immovable rod being that you can't generally get into a position to use your training and have to rely on pure muscle rather than on any stacking or other techniques.)

That's why I like it. It gives a nice high baseline for what a DC 30 ability check should look like. :smallamused:

[Magicspook]

How about: the wizard that created the rod anchored it to an object in their posession, like a gem or something. When you press the button, all motion relative to that item ceases.

Would be a nice plot hook if the rod suddenly starts moving because an adventurer somewhere half a continent away found the gem

[Segev]

How about: the wizard that created the rod anchored it to an object in their posession, like a gem or something. When you press the button, all motion relative to that item ceases.

Would be a nice plot hook if the rod suddenly starts moving because an adventurer somewhere half a continent away found the gem

That'd be a pretty cool item!

[dafrca]

How about: the wizard that created the rod anchored it to an object in their posession, like a gem or something. When you press the button, all motion relative to that item ceases.

Would be a nice plot hook if the rod suddenly starts moving because an adventurer somewhere half a continent away found the gem

Bold added by me:

I want to watch that game moment when the player of the wizard realizes his rod is moving because the gem is. LOL

[Segev]

Bold added by me:

I want to watch that game moment when the player of the wizard realizes his rod is moving because the gem is. LOL

To be fair, unless this was an exploit the wizard intended to use, himself, it seems more likely such rods would be fixed relative to very big, heavy things, so that the rod would be likely to remain immobile in the context the creator intended.

Either fixed to a particular boat on which it's intended to be used, or fixed to a particular building or tree or massive natural formation that is unlikely to move.

[dafrca]

To be fair, unless this was an exploit the wizard intended to use, himself, it seems more likely such rods would be fixed relative to very big, heavy things, so that the rod would be likely to remain immobile in the context the creator intended.

Either fixed to a particular boat on which it's intended to be used, or fixed to a particular building or tree or massive natural formation that is unlikely to move.

True and fair enough. But you got to admit, it would be a great moment when they realized something was wrong and their gem was moving. LOL

[Segev]

True and fair enough. But you got to admit, it would be a great moment when they realized something was wrong and their gem was moving. LOL

Indeed.

Could do this with, say, a dragon turtle that was sleeping and everyone thought was an island. Suddenly, it wakes up, and this ancient immovable rod that was tied to the "island" back then (or was tied to the dragon turtle when the dragon turtle was known to be a creature and the owner wanted it to move with his fortress on its back), is moving around seemingly at random.

[Chronos]

I can't use that one, because the immovable rod my party has, they made themselves (I gave them a magic item formula as a reward). However... One of the ingredients in the formula I gave them was a stone from the highest pinnacle of a mountain (it had to have been there for at least 50 years prior, so they can't mass-produce immovable rods). So the logical choice for me is that the rod is motionless relative to Mt. Waterdeep. If they ever come to another mountain and make another, then that rod will be anchored to that mountain, which could have tectonic implications.

Come to think of it, a recent adventure did bring them to another mountain, but none of us, including me, remembered that detail at the time...

[da newt]

As an aside - sea level is a really crappy reference point IRL as it is nearly undefinable / not fixed.

[Peelee]

As an aside - sea level is a really crappy reference point IRL as it is nearly undefinable / not fixed.

Sure it is. The elevation where pressure is 1 atm. Easy peasy, lemme know what else you need defined.

[Greywander]

As an aside - sea level is a really crappy reference point IRL as it is nearly undefinable / not fixed.
Unless it is. See my previous post about how appeals to realism generally fall into either "like real life" or "internally consistent". No reason to think sea level would need to change in a fantasy world. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. It all depends on the world building.


Sure it is. The elevation where pressure is 1 atm. Easy peasy, lemme know what else you need defined.
The same applies here, but in the other way. This is fantasy, not science fiction. You need to define things in mythological terms, not scientific ones. Something like "pressure" might not even exist in the same sense. After all, imagine how much you need to bend the rules of science to break the square-cube law and get giant creatures that don't collapse under their own weight, to name but one aspect of a fantasy world that breaks the laws of physics.

The idea mentioned early about using the highest stone from a mountain attuning the rod to that mountain is more in line with how fantasy typically works. It does still beg questions like what happens if the mountain gets split in two, or gets leveled, or whatever, but you can probably work those out. It is at least approaching the concept from a mythological perspective, rather than a scientific one.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The idea mentioned early about using the highest stone from a mountain attuning the rod to that mountain is more in line with how fantasy typically works. It does still beg questions like what happens if the mountain gets split in two, or gets leveled, or whatever, but you can probably work those out. It is at least approaching the concept from a mythological perspective, rather than a scientific one.

The kind of things leveling mountains in fantasy settings generally have people worrying less about how their immovable rod stopped working and instead how to stop the gigantic magical disaster/world ending beast can be stopped before it does more than erase a mountain.

Nitpicking aside, I agree, if you must have it stationary relative to a specific thing, a mountain is a good place to start.

[Segev]

The kind of things leveling mountains in fantasy settings generally have people worrying less about how their immovable rod stopped working and instead how to stop the gigantic magical disaster/world ending beast can be stopped before it does more than erase a mountain.

Nitpicking aside, I agree, if you must have it stationary relative to a specific thing, a mountain is a good place to start.

Ah, but the fact the immovable rod stopped working would be a good clue something happened to the mountain, possibly. (Assuming the mountain isn't in easy view of the starting area.)

[Sception]

What I'm wondering is what the rod is anchored to.

I'd set it relative the the CMB. It's the only reference frame with a claim to universality.

[Derpy]

Whatever the character needs it to without conscious thought. Maybe I worded that poorly, but the general concept is that it defaults to the planet (whether or not your game's planet is in motion in space. Or plane, if on a different plane.) I tend to think of the worlds in my games as moving through space, but the characters think of the ground as solid and stable, like most of us think of our planet in day to day life. If the character is on an air-ship or a sea going ship for an extended period of time and it becomes second nature for them to think of it as the most stable identifying marker around, and they need it to do some minor task, like a hand hold or a foot up I wouldn't have an issue with that. It's not breaking anything. If the character starts overthinking it, either looking for an exploit (where they acknowledge to themselves that the object it's in relation to isn't the most stable thing around) or like wile-e-coyote looking down after standing in open air for a while, I might declare that their perception of stability has shifted and as such the interpretation of immobility has. It doesn't seem more or less arbitrary to me then any other base line assumptions of immobility, and it lets them use the item a bit more. It has holes, of course, like any interpretation.

[Chronos]

To give a serious answer to a silly comment, the CMB doesn't actually define a reference frame. It defines a whole bunch of them, a different one for every point in the Universe. A locally-comoving reference frame is a convenient thing to be able to define, but it's still only local, not "universal".

Of course, an Immovable Rod does indisputably have a location, so this would still be a perfectly viable and consistent way of ruling for it. But it would surely have unintended effects, that nobody in the game world would describe with the word "immovable".

Oh, and when I came up with the recipe for the magic item formula, I wasn't even thinking about the whole "immovable relative to what" question. My thought process was purely limited to including costly materials that add up to about the right price, making it feel thematic, and making sure they couldn't churn out unlimited numbers of them (but could, under the right circumstances, make more than 1, so it would still be different from just giving them the item directly). IIRC, the ingredients I told them were the mountaintop-stone, a lodestone, a diamond, and some quantity of adamantium.

[MoiMagnus]

I've never understood the appeal to "realism" when you have 10,000 lb flying lizards who spit fire and can rewrite reality itself on a whim.

The main good reasons I've seen are:

(1) For the most part, the rule in RPG is "things that are considered intuitive for the players (GM included), are true unless it is very important for the game that they are false". E.g humans have two eyes. And depending on your table, the amount of things that are considered "intuitive" varies. At a table full of medieval historians, there will be more expectation about having a social structure that actually make sense for your world, because they will use their personal knowledge about how societies work to guide their choices. Similarly, at a table full of theoretical physicists, a good share of them will probably expect astronomy to works mostly as IRL unless it is an absolute necessity of the worldbuilding that it doesn't.

(2) Because it's very fun/interesting to do for a certain part of the population, and when you're table is constituted at 80% of peoples that find if fun to extrapolate on how the general relativity would interact with the law of magic, this kind of reasoning will end up in your D&D games with those peoples. Just because you can explain everything with "don't think about it, it's MAGIC", it doesn't prevent you from finding the minimal amount of "Magic Nonsense" necessary to make the world works.

(3) Because the GM has a (edit: IME homebrewed) consistent worldbuilding including the fact that the D&D universe is literally a post-sci-fy universe (so mankind had an usual sci-fy development, and after breaking the laws of reality in an apocalyptic war you ended up with the D&D universe) and is making sure as many part of the rules are consistent with this worldbuilding (including the fact that the material plane is still made of planets).

[Saint-Just]

(1) For the most part, the rule in RPG is "things that are considered intuitive for the players (GM included), are true unless it is very important for the game that they are false". E.g humans have two eyes. And depending on your table, the amount of things that are considered "intuitive" varies. At a table full of medieval historians, there will be more expectation about having a social structure that actually make sense for your world, because they will use their personal knowledge about how societies work to guide their choices. Similarly, at a table full of theoretical physicists, a good share of them will probably expect astronomy to works mostly as IRL unless it is an absolute necessity of the worldbuilding that it doesn't.

I am under impression that if you have a table full of players with an interest in an area, that area may end up being like IRL, or it may end up being weird for the sake of weird. What it is likely to be is to be defined and, if possible, self-consistent.

[dafrca]

I've never understood the appeal to "realism" when you have 10,000 lb flying lizards who spit fire and can rewrite reality itself on a whim.

The main good reasons I've seen are:

(1) For the most part, the rule in RPG is "things that are considered intuitive for the players (GM included), are true unless it is very important for the game that they are false".

This is why I have started to use the word "verisimilitude" rather than "realism". For me, most of the time I accept what happens in game if it feels consistent with the setting and other things in the game. So for example: if a 10,000 lb lizard can fly and so can a medieval cog style ship, then I expect it should not be an issue for my character to fly using a spell. It has nothing to do with reality, it has to do with setting consistency for me almost all of the time. :smallsmile:

[Amdy_vill]

I'm about to give my group an Immovable rod.
It's an airship campaign.
What I'm wondering is what the rod is anchored to. Is it anchored to the planet or is it anchored to the location. If I'm in an airship and I set an immovable rod does it stay immovable in relation to my surroundings(the ship), allowing me to use it as a handhold in a duct; or in relation to the ground, ripping through the hull of the ship in motion and hanging in the air.

If it's the latter, a fun random event might be to collide with a stationary immovable rod, doing some damage but nothing major, just a time setback to patch the holes

personally in relation to what makes sense in context. you on a planet it's the planet. you're in a spaceship is the sun. you're in limbo. it's whatever rock you're on. in your example I would ask intent. if you want to make a ladder it's the ship. if you want to **** the ship it's the earth.

[Chronos]

Quoth MoiMagnus:

(3) Because the GM has a consistent worldbuilding including the fact that the D&D universe is literally a post-sci-fy universe (so mankind had an usual sci-fy development, and after breaking the laws of reality in an apocalyptic war you ended up with the D&D universe)
There are many "D&D universes", not just one, but I don't think I've ever seen one for which that was stated to be the case. Cite?

[Gurgeh]

I'm not sure whether it's been part of any actual published D&D settings, but the game itself was heavily influenced by the works of Jack Vance - and his Dying Earth stories in particular, which were full of post-scientific technology-regarded-as-magic by his characters, so it seems reasonable for a game to be established along those lines.

[Tanarii]

(3) Because the GM has a consistent worldbuilding including the fact that the D&D universe is literally a post-sci-fy universe (so mankind had an usual sci-fy development, and after breaking the laws of reality in an apocalyptic war you ended up with the D&D universe) and is making sure as many part of the rules are consistent with this worldbuilding (including the fact that the material plane is still made of planets).


There are many "D&D universes", not just one, but I don't think I've ever seen one for which that was stated to be the case. Cite?
Mystara, Forgotten Realms, Darksun, Eberron.

Probably not Dragonlance, the Irda and pre-cataclysm society weren't advanced enough. Not sure about Greyhawk. Definitely not Ravenloft.

[MoiMagnus]

There are many "D&D universes", not just one, but I don't think I've ever seen one for which that was stated to be the case. Cite?

Sorry, I should have made it cleared that I was talking about an homebrewed world (more precisely for the case I had in mind, it was an homebrewed world made by the father of my current GM). I've never actually played a campaign in a non "significantly hombrewed" D&D universes (and never had a D&D GM interested in doing so, and neither am I as a D&D GM), and the fragments of knowledge I have from one-shots are not enough to give you a specific publicly available example.

[And when I say "significantly homebrewed", I mean that you can probably count on your fingers the numbers of names, including gods and cities, that already exists in any of the published books]

[Gurgeh]

Yeah, I'm in the same boat. I don't think I've seen a published setting that I've cared for, and I've been irritated by 5e's shift towards Forgotten Realms as a "default" setting (horrible cosmology, headdesk-worthy cultural stereotypes, world packed full of risible DMPCs). I want my worlds to belong to the GM and the players, not the sourcebook writers.

[Carpe Gonzo]

Spelljammer rules. Relative to local gravity.

Which would be really bad if you had it turned on when your Spelljammer approached a planet. :smallamused:
OTOH so is flying upside down.

It is amazing how intuitive Spelljammer's rules for an Immovable Rod are once you're familiar with how its rules for gravity planes and spheres and air bubbles work, considering that's exactly how I ruled it in my Spelljammer campaign without ever looking up what the Spelljammer rules for Immovable Rods specifically are.