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.

[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.

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.

[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.