D&D 5E I'm the DM and a player is trying to abuse the Immovable Rod. Advice?

[Caliburn101]

It does indeed take an action to activate the rod.

It is also a creative idea... albeit proffered by a complete munchkin.

So I would suggest that the 'middle ground' here be that the PC has to succeed in a grapple the first round, then can use his free object interaction AND an action to activate both rods the next round IF he has the initiative and the target has not yet successfully broken free.

I wouldn't tolerate anything less onerous considering it's a pair of 'IWIN' buttons in some fights...

 

[Delazar]

Ruleswise, as many have stated before, it takes an action to activate a single rod, so I guess the problem is solved right there. In the rare case you manage to grapple someone with it (looks pretty situational to me), nothing stops the target to push the button again and free itself.

But what I don't appreciate is a player asking me permission to do something, and then coming at me with "gotcha!". The player should have asked you "can I get two immovable rods? Because I'm planning to try and restrain every foe I meet". Then you could have pondered more carefully on your decision.

I don't think the player came up with the idea after receiving the rods, he had this plan in mind all along. Not a nice person to play a game with.

 

[CapnZapp]

The forum went down the moment I attempted to respond but here's more or less what I wrote.

I took some time to review some of the possible "abuses". All of them rely on the DM either not knowing how the item works, or the DM allowing you to get away with shenanigans with the item. There are a few reasonable uses mentioned, such as blocking up a heavy door or stopping a fast-moving object, which are clearly "intended uses" not abuses. There are others that are clearly abuses, but they rely on an abuse of the rules, not an abuse of the item, such as being swallowed by a dragon and activating the item. When you are swallowed you are considered Restrained, meaning you can take no Actions. It is an Action to activate the rod, therefore you cannot do this. Others rely on heavy abuse of the concept of "Restrained". You may be able to pin a man down with a Rod, but the Rod does nothing to impair his limbs or other body parts, unless you sit there and bat away his hands he can simply turn the Rod off. Infinite ladder? You need 3, not two. One to stand on while you climb up the others, because otherwise it's more like infinite Monkey Bars, and that calls for Endurance checks because you can't hang from your arms for forever. Not to mention half the suggestions require modding the rod, or activating it from range. The first is easy to resolve: it's a magic item, don't allow modifications, that's where the 3.X crafting system was broken. The second is less easy to resolve, since you could potentially activate it with a mage-hand, but otherwise it's not remote-controlled. You have to push a physical button on the Rod itsself.

So quite frankly I'm just not seeing the terror in two immovable rods.

Just because you (and those giving you XP: koga305, AaronOfBarbaria, doctorbadwolf) don't doesn't mean you should trivialize the potential problem. With a creative (but ruthless) player, a pair of immovable rods will become an endless source of headaches for a DM. Trust me on this.

While we might debate exactly how big a headache, and exactly how to fix each "abuse attempt" as it happens, why not step back for a second and take a deep breath.

By not having the rods in the campaign all problems are instantly solved and every issue magically goes away. To me, that is vastly preferably, and therefore I strongly encourage the OP to do just that.

It is much better, quicker and in the long run painless to revert the earlier decision to allow the rods, than to try to handle and contain them in game. Sorry but that is the plain truth, and if you won't say it, I will.

PS. Then of course a reasonably argument is "but if the player is willing to go to such lengths to acquire advantages, what says he won't simply find another magic item to use and abuse?" And you'd be right. But the first lithmus test is precisely to take away his rods. if he can't accept that, everybody is done a favor of him leaving the group. And if he stays on (as I'm sure everybody hopes he will) he will at least know his DM doesn't take just any crap.

The expression nip it in the bud is appropriate here.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yes but that's not abuse, that's creative use of tools at hand. That, I feel, should be rewarded, not frowned upon.

How can you say that - you have no idea what Lanliss is thinking of!

 

[CapnZapp]

Technically you could use a pair of rods to fly, you don't need a wall even. Just lock one three feet in the air, and climb on it to put the next at 6 feet. On and on, as high as you want.

I'd compare it more to Levitate than Fly, but yes.

 

[Maxperson]

I'd compare it more to Levitate than Fly, but yes.

That wouldn't work very well in my game. A rod is 2-3 feet long and 1 inch thick. It's very hard to pull yourself up onto something that small and stay there, especially while doing other things like placing and activating another rod. I'd stick a fairly tough DC dex check on each and every 3 feet. A PC wouldn't be able to get very high that way before he fell.

 

[Horwath]

Just read the rules.

It takes and action to activate the rod.

He spent and action to hit with the hammer. And who can tell that it was a pin except you? Also moster has his own turn and can move the hammer away. Also it can use it's action to deactivate the rod.


two rods are already powerfull enought that you can "climb" and/or "jump" over any chasm, wall, castle or what ever. Even barring doors.

 

[Sunseeker]

Just because you (and those giving you XP: koga305, AaronOfBarbaria, doctorbadwolf) don't doesn't mean you should trivialize the potential problem. With a creative (but ruthless) player, a pair of immovable rods will become an endless source of headaches for a DM. Trust me on this.

While we might debate exactly how big a headache, and exactly how to fix each "abuse attempt" as it happens, why not step back for a second and take a deep breath.

By not having the rods in the campaign all problems are instantly solved and every issue magically goes away. To me, that is vastly preferably, and therefore I strongly encourage the OP to do just that.

It is much better, quicker and in the long run painless to revert the earlier decision to allow the rods, than to try to handle and contain them in game. Sorry but that is the plain truth, and if you won't say it, I will.

PS. Then of course a reasonably argument is "but if the player is willing to go to such lengths to acquire advantages, what says he won't simply find another magic item to use and abuse?" And you'd be right. But the first lithmus test is precisely to take away his rods. if he can't accept that, everybody is done a favor of him leaving the group. And if he stays on (as I'm sure everybody hopes he will) he will at least know his DM doesn't take just any crap.

The expression nip it in the bud is appropriate here.

Abusive players don't stop being abusive when you take away their toys. The abuse here doesn't even stem from the rods themselves, it stems from the player making rules claims about what hes doing with them. The rules claims are flat out wrong on their face, not to mention that the real problem is the player making any sort of rules adjudication on their own, and demanding the DM accept them.

I played a campaign with a Immovable Rod for a long time, maybe I just wasn't "creative" but I think I just wasn't looking for an excuse to break the game, because I'm not an abusive player.

Again: if you apply the rules properly and stop allowing the player to make rulings on his own, the problem goes away and he gets to keep his silly rods.

Taking away his rods of course will resolve the immediate problem but will not resolve the problem of the player.

 

[Mark CMG]

I'm the DM and a player is trying to abuse the Immovable Rod. Advice?

Tell him to stay seated . . .

 

[ccs]

Just because you (and those giving you XP: koga305, AaronOfBarbaria, doctorbadwolf) don't doesn't mean you should trivialize the potential problem. With a creative (but ruthless) player, a pair of immovable rods will become an endless source of headaches for a DM. Trust me on this.

While we might debate exactly how big a headache, and exactly how to fix each "abuse attempt" as it happens, why not step back for a second and take a deep breath.

By not having the rods in the campaign all problems are instantly solved and every issue magically goes away. To me, that is vastly preferably, and therefore I strongly encourage the OP to do just that.

It is much better, quicker and in the long run painless to revert the earlier decision to allow the rods, than to try to handle and contain them in game. Sorry but that is the plain truth, and if you won't say it, I will.

PS. Then of course a reasonably argument is "but if the player is willing to go to such lengths to acquire advantages, what says he won't simply find another magic item to use and abuse?" And you'd be right. But the first lithmus test is precisely to take away his rods. if he can't accept that, everybody is done a favor of him leaving the group. And if he stays on (as I'm sure everybody hopes he will) he will at least know his DM doesn't take just any crap.

The expression nip it in the bud is appropriate here.

I'm still waiting for you to actually elaborate upon what all these horrible game-breaking abuses are. I'm sure I'm not alone.
I mean, you keep saying awful things will happen, that vastly experienced people aren't seeing the problem (or are trivializing it), trust you, etc.
But WHY?