6
\$\begingroup\$

So, my D&D group is in a major fight, and the artificer cast Immovable Object on the coat of an enemy. What we ruled was that it held him immobile and his clothes (not himself) couldn’t move. I was curious what actually happens in this case, according to RAW.

I have a couple of RAW questions.

  1. Would a creature trapped by an Immovable Object spell on their clothes be considered grappled?
  2. Would that creature be able to make a check to move the clothes?
  3. Would that same creature be able to make some kind of acrobatics check to get out of the clothes (no laughter, please, he was wearing a shirt underneath)?

This is not a question on whether or not the clothes can actually be targeted. We determined it can target the clothes.

Improve this question
\$\endgroup\$
0
12
\$\begingroup\$

This generally works

The Immovable Object does not have any specific language calling out it works differently with worn or carried objects, a piece of clothing is definitely an object so it's a valid target for the spell.

Addressing the individual questions:

  1. Would a creature trapped by an Immovable Object spell on their clothes be considered grappled?

No, nothing in here causes the grappled condition. However, your DM might (and probably should) rule that the creature is Restrained instead. This isn't an effect directly inflicted by the spell, just a natural consequence of what the spell does.

  1. Would that creature be able to make a check to move the clothes?

Yes, as per the rules for the spell they can make a strength check against the casters spell save DC to move the affected object "up to 10 feet".

  1. Would that same creature be able to make some kind of acrobatics check to get out of the clothes (no laughter, please, he was wearing a shirt underneath)?

The rules don't say, so the only applicable RAW here is rule 0: The DM decides if that works, if it requires any checks and which if so, if any skill proficiencies apply etc.

Word of advice

RAW this works. RAF this shouldn't work, as a no-save no-attack instant restraint on anything that wears clothes, armor or similar for just a single casting of a 2nd level is broken as all heck. I'd strongly recommend any group that wants to allow Graviturgy wizards to change the spell so that it can't target worn or carried objects.

This applies to a bunch of other features from the Wildemount book as well btw, while a lot of the content from there is pretty cool it's not the most well written material I've ever seen in my life. A lot of the features from that book are unclear or otherwise broken by a strict RAW reading.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
6
  • \$\begingroup\$ There were a lot of caveats put on this use of the spell, including an attack roll. I didn’t think they were relevant, so I didn’t include them. \$\endgroup\$ – Bardic Wizard Aug 29 '20 at 20:24
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I don't have Wildemount, but wikidot version of the spell says "You touch an object that weighs no more than 10 pounds..." The weight limit means it won't work on most armors, and the touch requirement would likely require a melee spell attack. I agree a better-edited version of the spell would say "If the object is worn or carried, you must hit with a melee spell attack to touch the object" \$\endgroup\$ – Kirt Aug 29 '20 at 21:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Kirt most armors don't consist of only a single object. When using realistic weights this will practically work on most armors worn by medium sized creatures. Chainmail would probably be the heaviest (if it's long chainmail probably too heavy for this spell), but that's typically worn with a gambeson or similar which could still be targeted (the chainmail wouldn't fully cover it). \$\endgroup\$ – Cubic Aug 29 '20 at 21:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Cubic I honestly don't understand what a single "object" is (DMG 243) and why, for example, a book is an object but a rowboat is not. \$\endgroup\$ – Kirt Aug 29 '20 at 21:19
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Cubic Is "we know things are definitely not a single object if you can take them apart without breaking anything" something you personally use, or RAW? I'm pretty sure a sword can be taken apart without breaking it (blade/guard/hilt/pommel). If breastplate armor is 20lb and leather is 10lb, I don't think the breastplate portion of armors is comfortably less than 10lb. None of this invalidates your answer itself, it just speaks to the confusion arising from a spell that targets "an object". \$\endgroup\$ – Kirt Aug 29 '20 at 21:45

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.