Imma give some pre-info up front with this question. I'm not looking for complex math, or physics, or anything that requires me to calculate things. I just want to know how YOU all would handle this situation at your table!
Scenario: This setting has trains that run about 30mph. The players have an immovable rod. They pin a guy against the back wall of the train, put the IR across his neck, and hit the button.
Question: Does the rod hover, immovable relative to the floor of the train? Or crush the guy's throat since the trains moving forward and the rod is immovable relative to the earth?
As stated before, I'm not interested in a physics lecture, I'm fully aware about how, "well actually! the earths always moving, so the rod will actually fly at 200k mph relative yadda yadda yadda..." but that's dumb in context of a magic item in DnD so I just wanna know what your rulings would be!
This flat iron rod has a button on one end. You can use an action to press the button, which causes the rod to become magically fixed in place. Until you or another creature uses an action to push the button again, the rod doesn't move, even if it is defying gravity. The rod can hold up to 8,000 pounds of weight. More weight causes the rod to deactivate and fall. A creature can use an action to make a DC 30 Strength check, moving the fixed rod up to 10 feet on a success.
Theoretically, The train would keep moving, bet the rod would stay still.
Is the material from which the train was constructed stronger than the amount of force generated by its engine?
If the material is stronger than the amount of force generated by the engine, then the Rod crushes the NPC’s throat, hits the back wall of the train car and causes the train to stop dead on its tracks.
If the amount of force generated by the engine is greater than what the material from which the train car was made can withstand, then the Rod would crush the NPC’s throat and rip a hole in the back of the train car as the train continued on its merry way.
The other possibility that I could imagine is that the material from which the train car was constructed might conceivably be stronger than the material used in the construction of the railway coupling. In that case, the Rod would crush the NPC’s throat, hit the back of the train car, there would be a sudden but brief jolt as the train’s engine struggled against the inertia of the Rod against the car, and then one of the couplings would break, leaving at least the last train car behind as the rest of the train continued on its way until stopped by the conductor.
Edit: If the materials used in the construction of the train were strong enough, and the engine exerts more than 8,000 ponds of force on the Rod once it hits the back wall of the train, then the Rod would crush the NPC’s throat, hit the back wall of the train car, there would be a brief jolt as the engine struggled against the inertia of the Rod against the back wall, and then the Rod would deactivate and fall to the floor of the train car.
Is the material from which the train was constructed stronger than the amount of force generated by its engine?
If the material is stronger than the amount of force generated by the engine, then the Rod crushes the NPC’s throat, hits the back wall of the train car and causes the train to stop dead on its tracks.
If the amount of force generated by the engine is greater than what the material from which the train car was made can withstand, then the Rod would crush the NPC’s throat and rip a hole in the back of the train car as the train continued on its merry way.
The other possibility that I could imagine is that the material from which the train car was constructed might conceivably be stronger than the material used in the construction of the railway coupling. In that case, the Rod would crush the NPC’s throat, hit the back of the train car, there would be a sudden but brief jolt as the train’s engine struggled against the inertia of the Rod against the car, and then one of the couplings would break, leaving at least the last train car behind as the rest of the train continued on its way until stopped by the conductor.
Edit: If the materials used in the construction of the train were strong enough, and the engine exerts more than 8,000 ponds of force on the Rod once it hits the back wall of the train, then the Rod would crush the NPC’s throat, hit the back wall of the train car, there would be a brief jolt as the engine struggled against the inertia of the Rod against the back wall, and then the Rod would deactivate and fall to the floor of the train car.
In all cases, the throat of the NPC is crushed. The NPC is likely decapitated. And given that most trains in Ebberon (I can't imagine another D&D setting that has trains) are not made of adamantium or reinforced steel, it is more than likely the rod blows out he back of the car and the train keeps on going.
What is more interesting is if this is not the last car in the train. If there are passengers or people in the cars behind, they may be decapitated/ mutilated, depending on the height of the bar.
Pretty sure a standard train engine produces more than 8000 pounds of force. The average passenger train is around 3000-4000 horsepower (statistics from Amtraks standard engines), with tractive effort of 25000-38000 pounds of force.
So the most likely scenario is the rod crushes/decapitates the baddie, hits the back of the train, and deactivates (if the train car material can withstand 8000 pounds of force) or it punches through (if the train car material can't). The train is very likely not stopping regardless based on the above
I think because the Rod gets fixed 'in place' rather than attaching itself to a surface, I'd rule that the bad guy gets decapitated. Agree that whether the Rod then gets deactivated or rips out the back of the train depends on how forceful the train is- I think I'd usually assume the former.
I too would rule that the rod stays in place relative to location rather than train.
Effects would depend on what the train walls are made of. In early train construction, they would be wood. So you end up with something like a cartoon where the NPC is smashed through the wall. In this case, the damage wouldn't be very high.
If the walls are metal, the damage could be substantial but the rod would deactivate. It would say that the limit would hit before the walls were penetrated so no hole.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I rule the Rod fix in place relative to the closest surrounding surfaces. In this case, it would be the train.
As the OP has said: "well actually! the earth is always moving, so the rod will actually fly at 200k mph..."
If the Rod is fixed in an absolute place, there is too much trouble because it would fly at high speed when fixing to an absolute point.
Same thing for fixing it to earth and bypass the train surface.
If it could do that, then
why can't it fix in place relative to the core of the earth?
why can't it fix in place relative to the other side of the earth?
why can't I point to the sun/moon and let it stay in a fix place relative to them and move at high speed?
if the reason is due to outside the range then where does it mention the range in PHB?
If the ruling is rod is immovable relative to the earth then, it may create more issues in other situations.
I think using "immovable relative to the floor of the train" should make it more consistent in the ruling.
Unless the OP is specifically playing. Their DnD campaign on Earth.
none of that matters
most DnD planes of existence are not Earth they are worlds built by gods and magic.
so the immovable rods literally does not move. Not based off of any relative locations it simply does. It move from where it was activated. If you think making it relative to the closest location makes it more in line with the item fine but that is not immovable that is the “Rod of relative to the closest object location”
Train weighs more than 8,000 lbs, the NPC's throat probably not so much. Decapitation and the rod falls to the ground when it hits the back wall of the very heavy train.
Thanks for all the replies everyone! It seems pretty much everyone is in agreement (for the most part) that the rod would NOT move with the train, and thus be immovable relative to the "Earth" (the world).
My next question is similar in nature! (if anyone is still checking this thread lol). What about Glyph of Warding? I know this spell can be pretty controversial with its "can't move more than 10ft" clause, but I'm curious how others would rule this situation:
Players are on a large ship and cast glyph of warding on the deck. Is it fine since the glyph isn't moving from its place on the deck, or will it be dispelled the second the whole ship moves 10 ft? I'm pretty sure RAW, it would be dispelled... but as a DM, I don't think I'd have a problem with it being placed on a large ship (trapping a chest/door or whatever)
Thanks for all the replies everyone! It seems pretty much everyone is in agreement (for the most part) that the rod would NOT move with the train, and thus be immovable relative to the "Earth" (the world).
My next question is similar in nature! (if anyone is still checking this thread lol). What about Glyph of Warding? I know this spell can be pretty controversial with its "can't move more than 10ft" clause, but I'm curious how others would rule this situation:
Players are on a large ship and cast glyph of warding on the deck. Is it fine since the glyph isn't moving from its place on the deck, or will it be dispelled the second the whole ship moves 10 ft? I'm pretty sure RAW, it would be dispelled... but as a DM, I don't think I'd have a problem with it being placed on a large ship (trapping a chest/door or whatever)
How you guys feeling on this one?
As it says:
f the surface or object is moved more than 10 feet from where you cast this spell
Therefore the glyph would be dispelled as soon as the boat moved 10 ft.
I agree with smokehorn above. The spell is not really meant to be cast on moving objects (of which a vehicle is one). a surface that moves is affected by that clause, so the surface of a boat or train or other large vehicle would be affected if the vehicle begins moving (heck, an anchored boat is particularly rough seas may move more than 10 feet vertically)
I was going to mention the old how-does-magic-work-on-a-boat trope because it gets to the heart of this issue with the rod. It's not a new debate. This is not just about GoW. What about Call Lightning or Moonbeam or Spiritual Weapon? Are they all easily defeated by a moving ship? Does a Spiritual Weapon fly out the back of a train after one round?
What I really care about is: Does that make the game better?
It might require some suspension of belief to do otherwise, but if you go all-in on "there is a universal fixed frame of reference that all magic respects," it opens up a lot of interactions that you might not like. Or maybe you do. Certainly having battles under different circumstances is fun and forces creative thinking and I'm all for that. But when I actually think through the implications of how a moving boat or train might affect spells, it doesn't really feel like a fun twist on the rules. It mostly feels like a long list of things that suddenly don't work - and some of those things would be super cool and thematic in a naval battle.
I'm not saying one way is the right way. I'm just saying that in the end this game is not a physics simulator and you do not have to be a slave to some imaginary rules. While fantasy worlds should have consistent logic whenever possible, it's also really important for the DM to be able to pull out and honestly assess what's fun. Sometimes a little suspension of disbelief is worth it for some groups.
It would involve trying to figure out RAI. I'm fairly certain that the idea behind not moving GoW is so that PCs and NPCs aren't walking around with multiple GoW "ammo" in a sack. They don't want to stop you from protecting a box or book or door (whatever) but don't want people throwing them around, hence the movement rule.
The rule is solid regarding objects on a ship. If cast on a hatch on a ship, regardless of where the ship goes, as long as the hatch remains within 10 on where it was cast on the ship, the GoW is still viable. The same for a book on the ship - if the book stays within 10 feet of where on the ship the GoW was cast, it will still work.
For other spells and effects I agree with scatterbraind. Whatever choice you make, make it the one that maintains verisimilitude and fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Yeah, this one I would rule the other way. If you cast GoW on the deck of a ship, it stays up no matter where the ship goes to. If someone cuts out that particular bit of deck and moves it, that's when the glyph gets dispelled. I don't have a logical argument for this one, it's about 'feel' - but then, since magic breaks the laws of physics anyway, I generally think it should be ruled by feel rather than by absolute consistency.
I know you said not to get physicsy, but an important thing to point out is that the world is moving constantly and the rod is moving with it. Therefore, I would argue that it would move with the train just like it does with the world..
Imma give some pre-info up front with this question. I'm not looking for complex math, or physics, or anything that requires me to calculate things. I just want to know how YOU all would handle this situation at your table!
Scenario: This setting has trains that run about 30mph. The players have an immovable rod. They pin a guy against the back wall of the train, put the IR across his neck, and hit the button.
Question: Does the rod hover, immovable relative to the floor of the train? Or crush the guy's throat since the trains moving forward and the rod is immovable relative to the earth?
As stated before, I'm not interested in a physics lecture, I'm fully aware about how, "well actually! the earths always moving, so the rod will actually fly at 200k mph relative yadda yadda yadda..." but that's dumb in context of a magic item in DnD so I just wanna know what your rulings would be!
Heres the items description:
Theoretically, The train would keep moving, bet the rod would stay still.
Supreme Cat-lover Of The First Grade
I AM A CAT PERSON. /\_____/\
She/her pronouns please. (=^.^=)
My ruling would depend on one main thing:
Is the material from which the train was constructed stronger than the amount of force generated by its engine?
If the material is stronger than the amount of force generated by the engine, then the Rod crushes the NPC’s throat, hits the back wall of the train car and causes the train to stop dead on its tracks.
If the amount of force generated by the engine is greater than what the material from which the train car was made can withstand, then the Rod would crush the NPC’s throat and rip a hole in the back of the train car as the train continued on its merry way.
The other possibility that I could imagine is that the material from which the train car was constructed might conceivably be stronger than the material used in the construction of the railway coupling. In that case, the Rod would crush the NPC’s throat, hit the back of the train car, there would be a sudden but brief jolt as the train’s engine struggled against the inertia of the Rod against the car, and then one of the couplings would break, leaving at least the last train car behind as the rest of the train continued on its way until stopped by the conductor.
Edit: If the materials used in the construction of the train were strong enough, and the engine exerts more than 8,000 ponds of force on the Rod once it hits the back wall of the train, then the Rod would crush the NPC’s throat, hit the back wall of the train car, there would be a brief jolt as the engine struggled against the inertia of the Rod against the back wall, and then the Rod would deactivate and fall to the floor of the train car.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
In all cases, the throat of the NPC is crushed. The NPC is likely decapitated. And given that most trains in Ebberon (I can't imagine another D&D setting that has trains) are not made of adamantium or reinforced steel, it is more than likely the rod blows out he back of the car and the train keeps on going.
What is more interesting is if this is not the last car in the train. If there are passengers or people in the cars behind, they may be decapitated/ mutilated, depending on the height of the bar.
Eh, I'd also consider whether the engine generates more than 8,000 pounds of force. The rod might get deactivated.
Pretty sure a standard train engine produces more than 8000 pounds of force. The average passenger train is around 3000-4000 horsepower (statistics from Amtraks standard engines), with tractive effort of 25000-38000 pounds of force.
So the most likely scenario is the rod crushes/decapitates the baddie, hits the back of the train, and deactivates (if the train car material can withstand 8000 pounds of force) or it punches through (if the train car material can't). The train is very likely not stopping regardless based on the above
I think because the Rod gets fixed 'in place' rather than attaching itself to a surface, I'd rule that the bad guy gets decapitated. Agree that whether the Rod then gets deactivated or rips out the back of the train depends on how forceful the train is- I think I'd usually assume the former.
I too would rule that the rod stays in place relative to location rather than train.
Effects would depend on what the train walls are made of. In early train construction, they would be wood. So you end up with something like a cartoon where the NPC is smashed through the wall. In this case, the damage wouldn't be very high.
If the walls are metal, the damage could be substantial but the rod would deactivate. It would say that the limit would hit before the walls were penetrated so no hole.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I rule the Rod fix in place relative to the closest surrounding surfaces. In this case, it would be the train.
As the OP has said: "well actually! the earth is always moving, so the rod will actually fly at 200k mph..."
If the Rod is fixed in an absolute place, there is too much trouble because it would fly at high speed when fixing to an absolute point.
Same thing for fixing it to earth and bypass the train surface.
If it could do that, then
If the ruling is rod is immovable relative to the earth then, it may create more issues in other situations.
I think using "immovable relative to the floor of the train" should make it more consistent in the ruling.
I did go back and cover that in the “Edit” portion of my post.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Unless the OP is specifically playing. Their DnD campaign on Earth.
none of that matters
most DnD planes of existence are not Earth they are worlds built by gods and magic.
so the immovable rods literally does not move. Not based off of any relative locations it simply does. It move from where it was activated. If you think making it relative to the closest location makes it more in line with the item fine but that is not immovable that is the “Rod of relative to the closest object location”
Train weighs more than 8,000 lbs, the NPC's throat probably not so much. Decapitation and the rod falls to the ground when it hits the back wall of the very heavy train.
I agree with you, sounds like the group wants a cheap "I win" button um rod. OP don't tell the group the rod focus is the train's floor not the earth.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
Thanks for all the replies everyone! It seems pretty much everyone is in agreement (for the most part) that the rod would NOT move with the train, and thus be immovable relative to the "Earth" (the world).
My next question is similar in nature! (if anyone is still checking this thread lol). What about Glyph of Warding? I know this spell can be pretty controversial with its "can't move more than 10ft" clause, but I'm curious how others would rule this situation:
Players are on a large ship and cast glyph of warding on the deck. Is it fine since the glyph isn't moving from its place on the deck, or will it be dispelled the second the whole ship moves 10 ft?
I'm pretty sure RAW, it would be dispelled... but as a DM, I don't think I'd have a problem with it being placed on a large ship (trapping a chest/door or whatever)
How you guys feeling on this one?
As it says:
Therefore the glyph would be dispelled as soon as the boat moved 10 ft.
Supreme Cat-lover Of The First Grade
I AM A CAT PERSON. /\_____/\
She/her pronouns please. (=^.^=)
I agree with smokehorn above. The spell is not really meant to be cast on moving objects (of which a vehicle is one). a surface that moves is affected by that clause, so the surface of a boat or train or other large vehicle would be affected if the vehicle begins moving (heck, an anchored boat is particularly rough seas may move more than 10 feet vertically)
I was going to mention the old how-does-magic-work-on-a-boat trope because it gets to the heart of this issue with the rod. It's not a new debate. This is not just about GoW. What about Call Lightning or Moonbeam or Spiritual Weapon? Are they all easily defeated by a moving ship? Does a Spiritual Weapon fly out the back of a train after one round?
What I really care about is: Does that make the game better?
It might require some suspension of belief to do otherwise, but if you go all-in on "there is a universal fixed frame of reference that all magic respects," it opens up a lot of interactions that you might not like. Or maybe you do. Certainly having battles under different circumstances is fun and forces creative thinking and I'm all for that. But when I actually think through the implications of how a moving boat or train might affect spells, it doesn't really feel like a fun twist on the rules. It mostly feels like a long list of things that suddenly don't work - and some of those things would be super cool and thematic in a naval battle.
I'm not saying one way is the right way. I'm just saying that in the end this game is not a physics simulator and you do not have to be a slave to some imaginary rules. While fantasy worlds should have consistent logic whenever possible, it's also really important for the DM to be able to pull out and honestly assess what's fun. Sometimes a little suspension of disbelief is worth it for some groups.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
It would involve trying to figure out RAI. I'm fairly certain that the idea behind not moving GoW is so that PCs and NPCs aren't walking around with multiple GoW "ammo" in a sack. They don't want to stop you from protecting a box or book or door (whatever) but don't want people throwing them around, hence the movement rule.
The rule is solid regarding objects on a ship. If cast on a hatch on a ship, regardless of where the ship goes, as long as the hatch remains within 10 on where it was cast on the ship, the GoW is still viable. The same for a book on the ship - if the book stays within 10 feet of where on the ship the GoW was cast, it will still work.
For other spells and effects I agree with scatterbraind. Whatever choice you make, make it the one that maintains verisimilitude and fun.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Yeah, this one I would rule the other way. If you cast GoW on the deck of a ship, it stays up no matter where the ship goes to. If someone cuts out that particular bit of deck and moves it, that's when the glyph gets dispelled. I don't have a logical argument for this one, it's about 'feel' - but then, since magic breaks the laws of physics anyway, I generally think it should be ruled by feel rather than by absolute consistency.
I know you said not to get physicsy, but an important thing to point out is that the world is moving constantly and the rod is moving with it. Therefore, I would argue that it would move with the train just like it does with the world..
Chilling kinda vibe.