In my campaign I had the party start at lvl 10 and allowed them each to start with 1 rare magical item. One player (A monk) asked if he could instead have 2 uncommon items, and I said that would be fine (A rare magical item can cost much more than 2 uncommon items). It turns out the player chose to have 2 immovable rods, and had a hammer head attached to the end to make them a light hammer that he can also use as a weapon. This at first didn't seem like a problem, I was wrong.
Every time the party gets into an encounter he will try to make an attack on the creature. If he hits with both his attacks he states he hits the enemy in a way where he can lock the immovable rod just perfectly to prevent the creature from being able to move. (Normally he says he perfectly locks the hammers around their neck and presses the button so that they become permanently restrained. In one instance he said he locked it around this creatures neck in a way that the creature could not even turn around, and then he would just attack it from behind with it completely helpless). Every single encounter he states he uses his hammer to restrain the enemy. He's even tried saying that when he hits a cloaker he was fighting that he used the hammer to pierce its tail and pin it to the ground (and press the button to lock the hammer in place).
Its become to the point where every one of his attacks he tries to envoke restrain with his immovable rods. With the rods requiring a DC 30 strength check to move them it seems nearly impossible for a monster to break free of it. I don't want to just envoke dm law and tell him i won't allow that (it just makes the players mad). But i also can't allow him to apply unbreakable restraint with each attack he makes.
One idea I had was creating a rule that if a player wants to make an attack a specific way (Such as swinging the hammers perfectly to lock around a creatures neck in a way it can't slide out). The defending creature would gain a +4 to their AC (as it is much harder to hit in a specific way than to just hit the target anywhere for damage). Another idea I had was requiring the creature to make an easier strength/dexterity check to squeeze out of the restraint.
In this dnd group we are rotating between 3 campaigns to allow each of us (except 2 members) to dm our own campaign. (We rotate every 3 sessions). And this player has tried to use the immovable rods in each person's campaign (including his own where he has his npc's use them (against us) big time). He seems to build his characters, actions, and tactics all around the immovable rod. Or he will spend the campaign trying to get the rod (or modify it). The immovable rod has kinda become his centerpiece in dnd (considering he makes it a part of everything he does in every campaign). So I'm afraid that it will piss him off if I either take away those rods, or make a dm ruling that he can't use it in combat that way.
Anyone have advice?
Every time the party gets into an encounter he will try to make an attack on the creature. If he hits with both his attacks he states he hits the enemy in a way where he can lock the immovable rod just perfectly to prevent the creature from being able to move. (Normally he says he perfectly locks the hammers around their neck and presses the button so that they become permanently restrained. In one instance he said he locked it around this creatures neck in a way that the creature could not even turn around, and then he would just attack it from behind with it completely helpless). Every single encounter he states he uses his hammer to restrain the enemy. He's even tried saying that when he hits a cloaker he was fighting that he used the hammer to pierce its tail and pin it to the ground (and press the button to lock the hammer in place).
Its become to the point where every one of his attacks he tries to envoke restrain with his immovable rods. With the rods requiring a DC 30 strength check to move them it seems nearly impossible for a monster to break free of it. I don't want to just envoke dm law and tell him i won't allow that (it just makes the players mad). But i also can't allow him to apply unbreakable restraint with each attack he makes.
One idea I had was creating a rule that if a player wants to make an attack a specific way (Such as swinging the hammers perfectly to lock around a creatures neck in a way it can't slide out). The defending creature would gain a +4 to their AC (as it is much harder to hit in a specific way than to just hit the target anywhere for damage). Another idea I had was requiring the creature to make an easier strength/dexterity check to squeeze out of the restraint.
In this dnd group we are rotating between 3 campaigns to allow each of us (except 2 members) to dm our own campaign. (We rotate every 3 sessions). And this player has tried to use the immovable rods in each person's campaign (including his own where he has his npc's use them (against us) big time). He seems to build his characters, actions, and tactics all around the immovable rod. Or he will spend the campaign trying to get the rod (or modify it). The immovable rod has kinda become his centerpiece in dnd (considering he makes it a part of everything he does in every campaign). So I'm afraid that it will piss him off if I either take away those rods, or make a dm ruling that he can't use it in combat that way.
Anyone have advice?
