The Immovable Rod

[TheManicMonocle]

So, I have a friend who, when he DMs, bans the immovable rod on the grounds that it's "stupid," and that "if it was really immovable the planet would move independently of it and potentially crash into the rod," Any thoughts?

[Mystral]

Well, that is just a silly argument. You can just assume that the rod takes the center of the current planet as it's point of orientation and thus stays the same. Also, it's magic, and it's not like you need a quantum level explanation for a fly spell, right? All in all, your DM is *CLANG* What the **** was that?

[Kelb_Panthera]

It's stupid isn't a valid criticism of any element of a fantasy game. Lots of things are stupid if you examine them in any serious manner. Not to say he can't ban it on that basis, it's just a stupid thing to do.

That out of the way, why presume the planet revolves around the sun as it does IRL? Maybe the sun is a hole in reality to the elemental plane of fire and the planet and sun don't move at all in relation to each other and/or at all relative to some center of reality.

I'm of the opinion that presuming any element of physics that requires instrumentation to observe is a thing to avoid in a fantasy game. It adds a great deal of unnecessary complication and is -will- conflict with things that are observed in the game setting; e.g. fire elementals being made of solid fire.

[Knaight]

That whole argument assumes that there's some sort of privileged reference frame that an immovable rod must be relative to, and that the planet must be moving towards. That's not a safe assumption - any reference frame can be used (see: relativity), and there's no issue with the reference frame being based on a point on a planet's surface.

[Kami2awa]

It's a fantasy world. The rod might slowly drift sideways as the turtle holding up the world swims on. It might be fixed relative to the crystal sphere holding up the stars. It might work by binding to the soul of the Great Earth Spirit.

What is this "reference frame" of which you speak?

[Knaight]

It's a fantasy world. The rod might slowly drift sideways as the turtle holding up the world swims on. It might be fixed relative to the crystal sphere holding up the stars. It might work by binding to the soul of the Great Earth Spirit.

What is this "reference frame" of which you speak?

The turtle, sphere, or great earth spirit in these cases. The reference frame bit still works in a fantasy world, there's just a lot less math involves than when the term usually comes up.

[Spore]

It's stupid isn't a valid criticism of any element of a fantasy game. Lots of things are stupid if you examine them in any serious manner. Not to say he can't ban it on that basis, it's just a stupid thing to do.

I think his point is that both unstoppable force and immovable object are concepts to theorize both observations in the physical world and use in theoretical thought experiments. There is no unstoppable force in the games, so why would there be an immovable object? If there would be a "Whistle of Unstoppable Breeze" then the immovable rod seems more likely.

It is also a valid enough reason to not include something into the game you play for fun if it is not fun to you. Still D&D is a group based game.

[AvatarVecna]

I think his point is that both unstoppable force and immovable object are concepts to theorize both observations in the physical world and use in theoretical thought experiments. There is no unstoppable force in the games, so why would there be an immovable object? If there would be a "Whistle of Unstoppable Breeze" then the immovable rod seems more likely.

It is also a valid enough reason to not include something into the game you play for fun if it is not fun to you. Still D&D is a group based game.

This is only a valid argument if an Immovable Rod is actually immovable...which it is not. In 3.5 and 5e, if you put more than 8000 lbs on top of one, it falls to the ground regardless of immovability, and anybody can move it with a DC 30 Str check (granted, barely anybody can make such a ridiculous check at non-epic levels, but still).

[Helen1997]

Thanks I had the same problem with this Dm

[VoxRationis]

I'm of the opinion that presuming any element of physics that requires instrumentation to measure is a thing to avoid in a fantasy game. It adds a great deal of unnecessary complication and is -will- conflict with things that are observed in the game setting; e.g. fire elementals being made of solid fire.

The problem is that you kind of have to get into such things with the immovable rod, because it has an ability with many far-reaching implications, only two of which are covered in the rules. The nature of RPGs makes it quite easy to engineer situations with such a device that simply aren't covered by the game rules. Say you work out a way to feed a rod to a creature large enough to swallow it whole but not enough to make the DC 30 Strength check reliably, then activate it. What happens if the creature was running when the rod's activated? The game rules don't have anything to say about that, but it seems logical that something bad should happen to most creatures in such a situation. And for that you have to delve into our world's rules. What if you use the rod to parry the attacks of a much more powerful foe? Should that give some sort of defense bonus? Again, not stated.

[braveheart]

What if you use the rod to parry the attacks of a much more powerful foe? Should that give some sort of defense bonus? Again, not stated.

Excuse me while I start working on a home brew for a magical trinket focused class

[Erys]

The problem is that you kind of have to get into such things with the immovable rod, because it has an ability with many far-reaching implications, only two of which are covered in the rules. The nature of RPGs makes it quite easy to engineer situations with such a device that simply aren't covered by the game rules. Say you work out a way to feed a rod to a creature large enough to swallow it whole but not enough to make the DC 30 Strength check reliably, then activate it. What happens if the creature was running when the rod's activated? The game rules don't have anything to say about that, but it seems logical that something bad should happen to most creatures in such a situation. And for that you have to delve into our world's rules. What if you use the rod to parry the attacks of a much more powerful foe? Should that give some sort of defense bonus? Again, not stated.

Playing a little devils advocate here, but...

To be fair, the only way you can get the rod inside a creature and activate it (from within) is to be swallowed first. If its something that cannot make the DC check means it is stuck, for a time. Personally I would rule that acid damage each round affects the rod, especially if it is left unattended. Also, to activate it you press a button on its side, which means the creature could possibly push the button on its own as it frantically tries to move about.

Maneuvers like parrying are usually wrapped into you AC already; I guess you could use a feat/reaction to get a boost to said AC (like with defensive duelist) but I don't think I would let that fly... the rod doesn't strike me as a light weapon.

In the end, the immovable rod is useful; but hardly game breaking. DMs just need to use a little creativity.

[Segev]

Banning the Immovable Rod because he doesn't want to try to come up with rules for what it's immovable with respect to is valid.

Because if you get into any situation where the party is on a moving object, it can get weird. If you're on a boat, does it fix wrt the boat or wrt the planet? If you're on a wagon, same question. If you're on a flying island, same question. If you're magically transported to the moon, does it stay fixed wrt the moon or the planet below?

It's obviously silly to say that it's fixed wrt the sun, or the galactic core, or "the center of the universe," if the planet is moving wrt these things, because yes, that makes it a totally useless item except as a ballistic missile that you might do great damage with if you aim it just right before activating it.

[VoxRationis]

Playing a little devils advocate here, but...

To be fair, the only way you can get the rod inside a creature and activate it (from within) is to be swallowed first. If its something that cannot make the DC check means it is stuck, for a time. Personally I would rule that acid damage each round affects the rod, especially if it is left unattended. Also, to activate it you press a button on its side, which means the creature could possibly push the button on its own as it frantically tries to move about.

Hardly the only way. An unseen servant could accompany the rod, or a clockwork cap made that pushes the button after a time delay, or some sort of contingent spell glyph laid upon it. But yes, getting swallowed is the easiest way. Anyway, I don't think being "stuck" really encapsulates the victim's situation properly. A creature moving potentially several hundred feet per round suddenly has a metal object in its innards that is moving, relative to it, several hundred feet per round backwards. You can cause life-threatening injuries by ingesting two magnets at the same time—magnets attracted to each other with much less force than the rod has relative to the moving creature.

Maneuvers like parrying are usually wrapped into you AC already; I guess you could use a feat/reaction to get a boost to said AC (like with defensive duelist) but I don't think I would let that fly... the rod doesn't strike me as a light weapon.

But when you parry normally, you have to worry about being able to put enough oomph into the parry that the blow doesn't just batter your weapon out of your hand. If someone swings at your head with an axe and you parry with the rod, you don't have to put any effort in to resisting the blow. Having an object that resists up to 8000 pounds of force before it gives and can be left in the air should make parrying much easier (maybe with a little practice).

[Lord Torath]

Banning the Immovable Rod because he doesn't want to try to come up with rules for what it's immovable with respect to is valid.

Because if you get into any situation where the party is on a moving object, it can get weird. If you're on a boat, does it fix wrt the boat or wrt the planet? If you're on a wagon, same question. If you're on a flying island, same question. If you're magically transported to the moon, does it stay fixed wrt the moon or the planet below?

It's obviously silly to say that it's fixed wrt the sun, or the galactic core, or "the center of the universe," if the planet is moving wrt these things, because yes, that makes it a totally useless item except as a ballistic missile that you might do great damage with if you aim it just right before activating it.

One method is to let the person who activates the rod determine what it stays put relative to. This is the most useful version of the rod. This lets the user use it for whatever they want. Need to reach the crows nest on a ship with a busted ladder? Make it stationary relative to the mast. Want to use it to escape the ship you're currently on? Make it stationary relative to the planet, and it will whisk you off the ship. I'd probably specify it must be a solid object, and must be something you are already “in the influence of”. A vehicle you are on or in arm’s reach of would be fine, but a vehicle a 100 yards off would not be.

In Wildspace, a nearby celestial body (close enough to pull you out of spelljamming speed) would be fine, but one on the other side of the crystal sphere would not be (So if you’re on a planet, you couldn’t lock it to a moon). The Sphere itself would also be allowed, as would any ship that has you inside its air envelope.

I'd probably do the same thing for the Wall of Force type spells.

[Knaight]

But when you parry normally, you have to worry about being able to put enough oomph into the parry that the blow doesn't just batter your weapon out of your hand. If someone swings at your head with an axe and you parry with the rod, you don't have to put any effort in to resisting the blow. Having an object that resists up to 8000 pounds of force before it gives and can be left in the air should make parrying much easier (maybe with a little practice).

There's upsides and downsides. Having to push a button before you parry that completely immobilizes your weapon is generally a terrible thing, and I'd expect the rod to be worse than nothing against foes of comparable size. If used against something like a giant though...

[TheIronGolem]

But when you parry normally, you have to worry about being able to put enough oomph into the parry that the blow doesn't just batter your weapon out of your hand. If someone swings at your head with an axe and you parry with the rod, you don't have to put any effort in to resisting the blow. Having an object that resists up to 8000 pounds of force before it gives and can be left in the air should make parrying much easier (maybe with a little practice).

Blocking blows with an immovable rod is a hella cool visual, but it doesn't necessarily need special rule support. As you alluded to, it would be tricky to use the rod in such a way in the heat of combat, because you'd have to incorporate well-timed activation and deactivation into the process of parrying. Absent any kind of mechanical abilities that reflect training/practice using the rod this way, I'd call it a wash AC-wise and just let the player fluff missed attacks against them as "Aha, my Immovable Rod blocks your axe!"

Of course, I'd also work with that player to create a custom feat if they wanted - one that gives them a shield bonus to AC with a rod in their hand. Maybe let them treat it as a light shield for other purposes as well.

[Knaight]

Blocking blows with an immovable rod is a hella cool visual, but it doesn't necessarily need special rule support. As you alluded to, it would be tricky to use the rod in such a way in the heat of combat, because you'd have to incorporate well-timed activation and deactivation into the process of parrying. Absent any kind of mechanical abilities that reflect training/practice using the rod this way, I'd call it a wash AC-wise and just let the player fluff missed attacks against them as "Aha, my Immovable Rod blocks your axe!"

This is a pretty game dependant thing. Even putting aside how the immovable rod is one of the coolest D&D magic items and thus most likely to be stolen borrowed for use in other games, there are some editions which could justify more than this. In 5e I'd be totally on board with allowing this as a source of disadvantage, at least for a round or two while the element of surprise is still there.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The problem is that you kind of have to get into such things with the immovable rod, because it has an ability with many far-reaching implications, only two of which are covered in the rules. The nature of RPGs makes it quite easy to engineer situations with such a device that simply aren't covered by the game rules. Say you work out a way to feed a rod to a creature large enough to swallow it whole but not enough to make the DC 30 Strength check reliably, then activate it. What happens if the creature was running when the rod's activated? The game rules don't have anything to say about that, but it seems logical that something bad should happen to most creatures in such a situation. And for that you have to delve into our world's rules. What if you use the rod to parry the attacks of a much more powerful foe? Should that give some sort of defense bonus? Again, not stated.

None of that requires physics that require instrumentation to observe. I mispoke when I said "measure."

To your examples;

Assuming the creature lacks the swallow whole ability, there are no rules to get the rod into it in the first place. If they do have that ability; their gullet is tough enough that the rod can't hurt it, only pin it down. This is a non-issue. One requires houserules, irrespective of the rod, to happen in the first place and the other requires no rules beyond those already described for the device.

You can't parry with something you can't move because the act of parrying involves pushing the enemy's weapon. You could argue that the rod provides partial cover from melee attacks while active but that's it. Again, no special rules, just judicious application of the existing ones.

[veti]

The problem is that you kind of have to get into such things with the immovable rod, because it has an ability with many far-reaching implications, only two of which are covered in the rules. The nature of RPGs makes it quite easy to engineer situations with such a device that simply aren't covered by the game rules.

This. The DM can ban absolutely anything and everything - items, artifacts, spells, races, classes, monsters, gods - on any basis he likes. His game, his rules. And "It's too vaguely defined, I don't want to get into arguments about what it does in each of the 1,037 possible situations you might try to (ab)use it in" is a very good reason.

[Jay R]

If he wants to think of it as a "rod motionless with respect to the planet's frame of reference rod", that's fine, but he'll never get people to call it that. Until they've studied modern physics, they will simply believe it's as an immovable rod. Even afterwards, they'll probably just call it a motionless rod, just like people today naively say that the sun sets in the west, rather than saying the earth is rotating eastward.

[In one of my recent worlds, it's actually motionless. That world was based on the Ptolemaic model, in which the earth is the motionless center of the universe.]

To be fair, the only way you can get the rod inside a creature and activate it (from within) is to be swallowed first.

Actually, I favor pushing my foe against the wall, and then shoving the rod into his mouth as hard as I can, button end first.

[Knaight]

This. The DM can ban absolutely anything and everything - items, artifacts, spells, races, classes, monsters, gods - on any basis he likes. His game, his rules. And "It's too vaguely defined, I don't want to get into arguments about what it does in each of the 1,037 possible situations you might try to (ab)use it in" is a very good reason.

That's a very different reason than "it's dumb, it should go flying at speed if it's an immovable rod" though.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That's a very different reason than "it's dumb, it should go flying at speed if it's an immovable rod" though.

Agreed, though I don't think it's particularly applicable to the immovable rod. It's just a bar hanging in space. If it were suspended by monofiliment from a frame hidden in the surrounding area instead of being locked in place by magic, it woulnd't look any different and, with small exception, it wouldn't function any different. It's not that complicated.

[TheManicMonocle]

Tbh though, I kinda want to make a floating city that hangs from an immovable rod

[Knaight]

Tbh though, I kinda want to make a floating city that hangs from an immovable rod

Sounds cool to me - it would need to be a special rod (or just a lot more than one rod), as any city is going to be way over the weight limit to move the rod, but it's this sort of thing that makes the immovable rod such a fun item.

[Max_Killjoy]

As noted earlier, I'd say the easiest "solution" to the "problem" is that the rod works in reference to the largest local mass, which is (almost) always the planet.

[Segev]

Potential house rule to remove ambiguity (but still allow for some interesting game-ability): The rod is immovable relative to the last non-creature surface to bear its activator's weight.

[Inevitability]

Potential house rule to remove ambiguity (but still allow for some interesting game-ability): The rod is immovable relative to the last non-creature surface to bear its activator's weight.

What if someone activates one on the Plane of Air? Would it remain immovable relative to some piece of land on another plane? How would that even work?

[Segev]

What if someone activates one on the Plane of Air? Would it remain immovable relative to some piece of land on another plane? How would that even work?

Magic!



...



Okay, more seriously, if the last surface upon which they stood has no meaning, then this doesn't work, and we need a second rule to fall back on.

[VoxRationis]

What if someone activates one on the Plane of Air? Would it remain immovable relative to some piece of land on another plane? How would that even work?

You'd better hope the other planes lie parallel to one another and don't move in real space, or that could get tricky.