The Rod is immovable in relation to what?

[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.

[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 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.
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.

[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.