Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Slit518 Mar 08, 2015 17:24:57	Do any of you find manacles to be too weak?  A 20 Dexterity check to save or a 20 Strength check to break free.  Does it count as a save with the +2 proficency bonus (I am going to say not)?  If the person fails once, can they keep trying?  If yes, couldn't they just take 20 instead?  Opinions, thoughts, thanks in advance!
#2 Devilbass Mar 09, 2015 0:09:09	I think as far as standard manacles are concerned, they're fine.  As far as your specific concerns:   1)  No, proficiency bonus is not added to these ability checks unless there is a specific class or race-based ability that allows it, or if maybe the DM calls for a Str (Athletics), or Dex (Acrobatics) check instead of the flat ability checks.  While he or she would not add proficiency, a raging barbarian would, for example, have advantage on the strength check to break them.    2)  Taking 20 is not something you can do in 5th Ed, nor is taking 10.  Your group may decide to use these rules from previous editions, but they will have significant effect in 5e, as DCs tend to be lower than in 3e or 3.5.   3)  Characters can generally retry, however, there it will generally be up to the DM (or the table as a whole) as to within what time frame something can be re-attempted.  Maybe trying to force open metal manacles is far too painful to try every couple of minutes?  Another issue to consider is how long making said check may actually take.  For example, slipping out of manacles with a Dex check could take an hour or more as the character has to slowly work his hands and thumb through such a confined space.  All things to consider.   Assuming only the flat ability checks are called for, even the strongest/slickest characters are only going to be successful on 15 or higher.  Someone with a score of 10 is only going to succeed on a roll of 20.  As such, manacles are designed just fine for the average Joe from a game-play perspective.  Now, if you'd still rather have stronger/tighter/better manacles, you can have higher quality pairs in your game, keeping in mind that DC 25 means only Str or Dex 20 characters can succeed (unless you consider a roll of 20 as an auto-success on ability checks).   Hope this was helpful.
#3 Psikerlord Mar 09, 2015 2:12:35	I think DC 20 is fine for a standard set, against str or dex check (not a save, so dont add prof). I also would only allow one attempt until circumstances change (eg the manacles are damaged, or whatever). I do not allow take 10 or take 20 either (indeed I do not use passive perception partly for this reason).   However it's lalso easy to increase the DC to 21+ for especially strong or well made manacles.
#4 Slyck314 Mar 09, 2015 8:57:36	I had two characters in manacles in my game last night. I had them take a little damage each time they struggled against their bonds and fail to break free.
#5 Kalani Mar 09, 2015 9:06:22	1 point of damage / failure seems reasonable - you scrape the flesh from your wrists/hands or cause minor bruising, etc.   Also, attempting to break free of the manacles is noisy (DC 10 perception to hear). Attempting to do so silently should impose disadvantage on your check (DM fiat).
#6 ChrisCarlson Mar 09, 2015 9:16:18	I like Slyck's suggestion too.   Though if/when I impliment something similar, it will be more a factor of, failing to free yourself sapping your will and weakening your resolve. Plus, of course, a little physical harm to your wrists/hands for effect. But I particularly like the psychological harm involved, of coming to grips with being unable to escape, being a factor of why your HPs just dropped a bit. And there's nothing that says HPs can't be that too (and no, that is not an invitation for the usual "what are HPs" debates, because I'm not taking about your games. Only mine.).
#7 iserith Mar 09, 2015 9:15:07	Slit518 wrote:
#8 Kalani Mar 09, 2015 9:17:11	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#9 ChrisCarlson Mar 09, 2015 9:19:14	It's all about emphasis. You seemed to indicate the harm as a primary factor, and etc.'ed the rest.   I intend to have the phychological impact be the focus of the loss. Explaining to the player that his will/resolve lowering is why he's losing the HPs. Not so much bruises and scrapes.   Also, I should have added, I won't likely have it do just 1 point. Maybe have it be based on how far off the attempt was vis-a-vis the DC. I dunno. Have to think on it more.
(Reply to #5) Farmer42	Kalani wrote:
#11 Kalani Mar 09, 2015 9:59:55	Farmer42 wrote:
(Reply to #2) Coredump00	Devilbass wrote:
#13 Kalani Mar 09, 2015 10:34:06	Coredump00 wrote:
#14 Farmer42 Mar 09, 2015 11:06:03	Yeah.  Opening a locked chest in your apartment?  You have plenty of time and opportunity.  The only time that's really applicable to manacles is if they chain you and then leave you for dead.  If you're locked in a corner or a jail cell, then you don't really have a reasonable amount of time to dedicate to success.
(Reply to #13) Coredump00	Kalani wrote:
#16 Slit518 Mar 09, 2015 13:38:36	Thanks for the clarification, everyone!  Imposing a minor penalty sounds like a good idea, and considering they don't add their proficency bonus to the roll, it does make it seem better.
#17 Psikerlord Mar 09, 2015 14:17:15	Coredump00 wrote:
#18 EnglishLanguage Mar 09, 2015 14:30:28	Eh, they're better than playtest manacles, which were apparently mystical superiron that could bind even the most powerful of the gods because of the way the skill system worked.
#19 ChrisCarlson Mar 09, 2015 14:46:20	EnglishLanguage wrote:
(Reply to #17) Farmer42	Psikerlord wrote:
(Reply to #17) Coredump00	Psikerlord wrote: