In my game last night this came up. Someone used an Immovable Rod to pin a prone caster to the ground. The caster cast Freedom of Movement and it wasn't immediately clear whether the irresistible force or the immovable object wins out. Just wanted to get people's take on the matter.
In my game last night this came up. Someone used an Immovable Rod to pin a prone caster to the ground. The caster cast Freedom of Movement and it wasn't immediately clear whether the irresistible force or the immovable object wins out. Just wanted to get people's take on the matter.
It's intrinsically homebrew to allow the Immovable Rod to grapple or restrain a target, so there's no RAW way to answer you other than to tell you that the spell won't do anything RAW but also RAW it doesn't need to because the caster can just move out from under the rod. If your DM has given you a very tightly worded homebrew rule for how your rod works, then we can analyze it in the context of the rest of the RAW.
If your DM is having the rod act as a nonmagical restraint, the spell will allow the target to escape the rod with 5 feet of movement, just as it would from manacles. If your DM is having the rod act as a magical restraint, the target's speed can't be reduced by the rod in the first place due to the spell, so the spell "wins". Your DM might be doing neither. The best thing you can do is ask your DM.
In my game last night this came up. Someone used an Immovable Rodto pin a prone caster to the ground. The caster cast Freedom of Movement and it wasn't immediately clear whether the irresistible force or the immovable object wins out. Just wanted to get people's take on the matter.
Yea I have to agree with quindraco. Using the rod to pin a creature requires the DM decide that it can be done and thus it also requires the DM to decide how that interact with other rules.
The immovable rod can't be moved. However, allowing it to pin a character is a DM ruling since the Rod doesn't have that capability by default.
If I was running it, I might allow the rod to pin the spellcaster to the ground initially but the rod is not a magical effect acting directly on the spellcaster - it is simply an obstruction in their way that is blocking their movement.
Freedom of Movement says:
"The target can also spend 5 feet of movement to automatically escape from nonmagical restraints, such as manacles or a creature that has it grappled."
The spell allows the character to automatically escape from nonmagical restraints (like manacles) and if I had homebrewed the rod to allow it to pin a character to the ground then I would also rule that freedom of movement would allow the character to move away from the rod since the magic of the rod is not the aspect that is restraining the character - it is the placement of the rod.
So DM ruling wise - I would think Freedom of Movement would work.
The immovable rod can't be moved. However, allowing it to pin a character is a DM ruling since the Rod doesn't have that capability by default.
If I was running it, I might allow the rod to pin the spellcaster to the ground initially but the rod is not a magical effect acting directly on the spellcaster - it is simply an obstruction in their way that is blocking their movement.
Freedom of Movement says:
"The target can also spend 5 feet of movement to automatically escape from nonmagical restraints, such as manacles or a creature that has it grappled."
The spell allows the character to automatically escape from nonmagical restraints (like manacles) and if I had homebrewed the rod to allow it to pin a character to the ground then I would also rule that freedom of movement would allow the character to move away from the rod since the magic of the rod is not the aspect that is restraining the character - it is the placement of the rod.
So DM ruling wise - I would think Freedom of Movement would work.
This is basically where I came down on it too.
In the end it wasn't that consequential, it was more an interesting question on how to rule it.
In my game last night this came up. Someone used an Immovable Rod to pin a prone caster to the ground. The caster cast Freedom of Movement and it wasn't immediately clear whether the irresistible force or the immovable object wins out. Just wanted to get people's take on the matter.
It's intrinsically homebrew to allow the Immovable Rod to grapple or restrain a target, so there's no RAW way to answer you other than to tell you that the spell won't do anything RAW but also RAW it doesn't need to because the caster can just move out from under the rod. If your DM has given you a very tightly worded homebrew rule for how your rod works, then we can analyze it in the context of the rest of the RAW.
If your DM is having the rod act as a nonmagical restraint, the spell will allow the target to escape the rod with 5 feet of movement, just as it would from manacles. If your DM is having the rod act as a magical restraint, the target's speed can't be reduced by the rod in the first place due to the spell, so the spell "wins". Your DM might be doing neither. The best thing you can do is ask your DM.
There isn't any kind of explicit homebrew that spelled it out. The way it was used in game was to place it right on the chest of the creature that was already prone and grappled by another character.
I guess the question then isn't so much about analyzing RAW but how would people rule FoM against an IR when said rod was already allowed to be used to pin a creature? Would the restraint be considered magical or non magical? The magic of the rod isn't directly causing the immobility but breaking free of it isn't exactly the same as breaking being pinned by something else.
The way it was used in game was to place it right on the chest of the creature that was already prone and grappled by another character.
So, basically using it like Thor putting Mjolnir on someone's chest. Nifty!
In that specific scenario though, I'd rule FoM would allow the caster to slide out from underneath the rod using the usual 5 feet of movement
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There isn't any kind of explicit homebrew that spelled it out. The way it was used in game was to place it right on the chest of the creature that was already prone and grappled by another character.
I guess the question then isn't so much about analyzing RAW but how would people rule FoM against an IR when said rod was already allowed to be used to pin a creature? Would the restraint be considered magical or non magical? The magic of the rod isn't directly causing the immobility but breaking free of it isn't exactly the same as breaking being pinned by something else.
Basically, the spell should "win". Whether or not the caster should have to spend 5 feet of movement is based on how your DM decides it should go. My personal homebrew would be that I would assess the 5 foot penalty, as the rod is simulating a mundane heavy object, rather than magically doing anything to the target.
In my game last night this came up. Someone used an Immovable Rod to pin a prone caster to the ground. The caster cast Freedom of Movement and it wasn't immediately clear whether the irresistible force or the immovable object wins out. Just wanted to get people's take on the matter.
Kind of like Thor putting Mjölnir on someone's chest to pin them to the ground, eh? That isn't really the way an immovable rod is intended to work. That being said, I would ABSOLUTELY allow this at my table because that rules :) The immovable rod is an item that just begs to bend the rules as written in the name of creativity. I would also allow freedom of movement to let the caster escape. The caster is investing a spell slot in their response to a challenge. I like it all around.
"The target can also spend 5 feet of movement to automatically escape from nonmagical restraints, such as manacles or a creature that has it grappled."
The spell allows the character to automatically escape from nonmagical restraints (like manacles) and if I had homebrewed the rod to allow it to pin a character to the ground then I would also rule that freedom of movement would allow the character to move away from the rod since the magic of the rod is not the aspect that is restraining the character - it is the placement of the rod.
I think this is the strongest argument in favor of the Immovable Rod "winning." That the spell says it can be used to escape nonmagical restraints strongly suggests it has no effect against magical restraints, which the Immovable Rod definitely is, if the DM allows it to be used as such.
I think this is the strongest argument in favor of the Immovable Rod "winning." That the spell says it can be used to escape nonmagical restraints strongly suggests it has no effect against magical restraints
It does though:
For the duration, the target's movement is unaffected by difficult terrain, and spells and other magical effects can neither reduce the target's speed nor cause the target to be paralyzed or restrained.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
While the rod is clearly magical, its use as a "restraint" is improvised, at best. Short of homebrew, it's not a set of manacles nor a grapple. It's the DM's call, but I'd say the spells wins out (by virtue of the "restraint" falling under "other magical effects," or just by virtue of an explicit spell beating an improvisation).
I think this is the strongest argument in favor of the Immovable Rod "winning." That the spell says it can be used to escape nonmagical restraints strongly suggests it has no effect against magical restraints
It does though:
For the duration, the target's movement is unaffected by difficult terrain, and spells and other magical effects can neither reduce the target's speed nor cause the target to be paralyzed or restrained.
No it doesn't. What you've quoted prevents spells and magical effects (of which the rod is neither) from applying two specific conditions (who knows if either is relevant). We're in house rule territory already, and I don't feel like going through every possible permutation of rulings, but this could easily go either way in an entirely logically consistent manner.
While the rod is clearly magical, its use as a "restraint" is improvised, at best. Short of homebrew, it's not a set of manacles nor a grapple. It's the DM's call, but I'd say the spells wins out (by virtue of the "restraint" falling under "other magical effects," or just by virtue of an explicit spell beating an improvisation).
I don't buy that it being improvised matters at all, and that the restraint (object) is magical doesn't mean that the restraint (action) is magical. It's certainly the DM's call, and there are arguments in both directions.
I would say that if you're going to adjudicate it in such a way that the use of the rod imposes the restrained conditions on the target, then freedom of movement is a tougher sell for me because the spell's description specifies non-magical restraints. If you are going to play it a little looser and just say "It's pinning you down, but none of the effects of the condition, aside from 0 speed, apply to you," then FoM seems like a more straightforward solution.
Also, in the above example, where the person's arms are pinned in such a way that they cannot reach the rod to press the button, it's very possible somatic components of spells may be situationally off-limits as well. That might mean FoM is not an option anyway.
No it doesn't. What you've quoted prevents spells and magical effects (of which the rod is neither) from applying two specific conditions (who knows if either is relevant). We're in house rule territory already, and I don't feel like going through every possible permutation of rulings, but this could easily go either way in an entirely logically consistent manner.
If you want to rules lawyer it up and split hairs between "a magic item restraining you" and "the restrained condition being imposed by a magical effect", go right ahead
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
While obviously in homebrew territory, I'd argue that the closest precedent we have in the rules would be a set of magical manacles, or even a wall of force that is boxing you in. The three all have the same thing in common:
Your movement is being restricted by something magical (so the second half of the spell does not apply)
That restriction is not caused by a speed reduction, or by a condition like Restrained or Paralyzed (so the first half of the spell does not apply)
Freedom of movement definitely loses to Magical Manacles, and I think I'd say that the it loses against the rod as well.
But again - homebrew territory. It depends on how the DM decides that the 'pinning in place' actually works, mechanically.
In my game last night this came up. Someone used an Immovable Rod to pin a prone caster to the ground. The caster cast Freedom of Movement and it wasn't immediately clear whether the irresistible force or the immovable object wins out. Just wanted to get people's take on the matter.
It's intrinsically homebrew to allow the Immovable Rod to grapple or restrain a target, so there's no RAW way to answer you other than to tell you that the spell won't do anything RAW but also RAW it doesn't need to because the caster can just move out from under the rod. If your DM has given you a very tightly worded homebrew rule for how your rod works, then we can analyze it in the context of the rest of the RAW.
If your DM is having the rod act as a nonmagical restraint, the spell will allow the target to escape the rod with 5 feet of movement, just as it would from manacles. If your DM is having the rod act as a magical restraint, the target's speed can't be reduced by the rod in the first place due to the spell, so the spell "wins". Your DM might be doing neither. The best thing you can do is ask your DM.
Yea I have to agree with quindraco. Using the rod to pin a creature requires the DM decide that it can be done and thus it also requires the DM to decide how that interact with other rules.
The immovable rod can't be moved. However, allowing it to pin a character is a DM ruling since the Rod doesn't have that capability by default.
If I was running it, I might allow the rod to pin the spellcaster to the ground initially but the rod is not a magical effect acting directly on the spellcaster - it is simply an obstruction in their way that is blocking their movement.
Freedom of Movement says:
"The target can also spend 5 feet of movement to automatically escape from nonmagical restraints, such as manacles or a creature that has it grappled."
The spell allows the character to automatically escape from nonmagical restraints (like manacles) and if I had homebrewed the rod to allow it to pin a character to the ground then I would also rule that freedom of movement would allow the character to move away from the rod since the magic of the rod is not the aspect that is restraining the character - it is the placement of the rod.
So DM ruling wise - I would think Freedom of Movement would work.
This is basically where I came down on it too.
In the end it wasn't that consequential, it was more an interesting question on how to rule it.
There isn't any kind of explicit homebrew that spelled it out. The way it was used in game was to place it right on the chest of the creature that was already prone and grappled by another character.
I guess the question then isn't so much about analyzing RAW but how would people rule FoM against an IR when said rod was already allowed to be used to pin a creature? Would the restraint be considered magical or non magical? The magic of the rod isn't directly causing the immobility but breaking free of it isn't exactly the same as breaking being pinned by something else.
So, basically using it like Thor putting Mjolnir on someone's chest. Nifty!
In that specific scenario though, I'd rule FoM would allow the caster to slide out from underneath the rod using the usual 5 feet of movement
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yeah, that's the way the player described it in game.
Basically, the spell should "win". Whether or not the caster should have to spend 5 feet of movement is based on how your DM decides it should go. My personal homebrew would be that I would assess the 5 foot penalty, as the rod is simulating a mundane heavy object, rather than magically doing anything to the target.
...why didn't the pinned player just press the button on the rod themselves?
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
The implication is that the pinned caster has been pinned with their stomach to the ground and the rod to their back, so they can't reach the button.
Got it, thanks!
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
I'd say Freedom of Movement win in this case.
Kind of like Thor putting Mjölnir on someone's chest to pin them to the ground, eh? That isn't really the way an immovable rod is intended to work. That being said, I would ABSOLUTELY allow this at my table because that rules :) The immovable rod is an item that just begs to bend the rules as written in the name of creativity. I would also allow freedom of movement to let the caster escape. The caster is investing a spell slot in their response to a challenge. I like it all around.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think this is the strongest argument in favor of the Immovable Rod "winning." That the spell says it can be used to escape nonmagical restraints strongly suggests it has no effect against magical restraints, which the Immovable Rod definitely is, if the DM allows it to be used as such.
It does though:
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
While the rod is clearly magical, its use as a "restraint" is improvised, at best. Short of homebrew, it's not a set of manacles nor a grapple. It's the DM's call, but I'd say the spells wins out (by virtue of the "restraint" falling under "other magical effects," or just by virtue of an explicit spell beating an improvisation).
No it doesn't. What you've quoted prevents spells and magical effects (of which the rod is neither) from applying two specific conditions (who knows if either is relevant). We're in house rule territory already, and I don't feel like going through every possible permutation of rulings, but this could easily go either way in an entirely logically consistent manner.
I don't buy that it being improvised matters at all, and that the restraint (object) is magical doesn't mean that the restraint (action) is magical. It's certainly the DM's call, and there are arguments in both directions.
I would say that if you're going to adjudicate it in such a way that the use of the rod imposes the restrained conditions on the target, then freedom of movement is a tougher sell for me because the spell's description specifies non-magical restraints. If you are going to play it a little looser and just say "It's pinning you down, but none of the effects of the condition, aside from 0 speed, apply to you," then FoM seems like a more straightforward solution.
Also, in the above example, where the person's arms are pinned in such a way that they cannot reach the rod to press the button, it's very possible somatic components of spells may be situationally off-limits as well. That might mean FoM is not an option anyway.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
If you want to rules lawyer it up and split hairs between "a magic item restraining you" and "the restrained condition being imposed by a magical effect", go right ahead
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
While obviously in homebrew territory, I'd argue that the closest precedent we have in the rules would be a set of magical manacles, or even a wall of force that is boxing you in. The three all have the same thing in common:
Freedom of movement definitely loses to Magical Manacles, and I think I'd say that the it loses against the rod as well.
But again - homebrew territory. It depends on how the DM decides that the 'pinning in place' actually works, mechanically.