I bought some manacles on one of my characters, but there really aren't any rules for using them. Does the target have to be helpless / willing? Can you just apply them as part of an Attack action?
See my signature.
If you asked me that question at a table I was running I would say for auto application it would have to be on a willing or unconcious person. I would also allow it to be done during a grapple, if you start a turn in a grapple (that you started) you can use your action to do an opposed strength athletics roll with your target. If you win the roll you then have the manacles on the target.
dwgautier wrote:
How about a slight of hand / stealth vs. perception to try and cuff an unaware character. Might be great for some fun role play for a sneaky bounty hunter type.
My question is once you are in them what are your options to escape?
The key, thieves tools, direct attack all seem to make sense. But would you allow a Strength check to break them?
I think the real question here is whether you can load a crossbow while wearing manacles 
.
Slight of Hand would work, I might give advantage on the targets passive perception though, Manacles aren't that small, they are pretty big actually (not the handcuff we are used to). I could see manacles being fun for the Thieve achetype. Binding targets as a bonus action.
As for breaking manacles or getting out of them there are already rules for it. DC 20 Dex for escaping, DC 20 Strength for breaking. DC 15 to unlock them with thieves tools (I would make the DC higher if the bond target was using tools they had hidden on them). Manacles also have 15 HP for folks that want to use acid or attack them with a weapon.
Applying manacles unnoticed would be pretty damn hard considering how big and clanky they are. Probably disadvantage on the sleight of hand would be more appropriate than advantage for the observer. Or maybe both depending on how hard you think it might be.
Undrhil wrote:
iserith wrote:
Like the rules say (Basic Rules, page 58), whether or not the outcome is uncertain depends entirely on the DM's sole determination.
iserith wrote:
No, the DM does not have to justify those determinations.
Jay_Ibero_911 wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Seems like a distinction without a difference. The important point is that a roll is not always necessary, and it is up to the DM to determine when it is or isn't.
Jay_Ibero_911 wrote:
As I've said before "Ask your DM" is not a good response. Some things I can understand there being DM deviation from the norm, but there are some things which require there to *be* a norm. This would be one of those things.
WotC is dropping the ball on 5e. They remember all of the flak they got from 4e being really stringent and, instead of trying to figure out what they did wrong with 4e, they are saying "Well, let's just let the DMs do all the rules work."
I dunno, 3.5 didn't even have a rule that covered the application of manacles (though it did have some defined rules on how strong you needed to be to escape, etc.). The situation where you are putting manacles on someone is usually when they are incapacitated and restrained, I would think. If they are flailing about, not under your control, I don't think a one-size fits all rule for that (exceedingly rare) situation would be that great. That's not how manacles are used. Police don't pull out their handcuffs and try to slap them on perps before they have the perp under their control. So if that's how you wanted to use them, its an improvised action that is goign to require a DM to weigh the circumstances...
Undrhil wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Jay_Ibero_911 wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
After reading over the above posts a little more, I am going to amend my suggestion. Makes sense to have a grapple contest to gain an edge, as it would be exceedingly difficult to slap manacles on someone flailing their arms around, though not outright impossible. A dexterity (sleight of hand) check seems most visually appropriate to me. Armor shouldn't play a factor, which is why I nix my own attack vs. AC idea.
Trying to settle this in my mind, as now that the topic of manacles has been raised, I'm keen to have my NPCs try this on a player or two. For now, I think I'll use a dex (sleight of hand) vs DC 10 (maybe 15?), with disadvantage if the target is not grappled. An ability score Contest of Dex (sleight of hand) vs Str (athletics)/ Dex (sleight of hand) seem logical also. Restrained condition on enemy provides advantage/disadvantage as usual.
Jay_Ibero_911 wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Jay_Ibero_911 wrote:
Jay_Ibero_911 wrote:
There are a handful of scenarios, right?
- Handcuff someone who is incapacitated or cooperative. Automatic success.
- Handcuff someone who is fighting, but grappled. Handcuffer strength vs strength or dexterity as an action? Possibly repeat twice, as suggested in #24.
- Handcuff someone who is fighthing, not grappled. This tough, and may not be practical. Handcuffer strength with disadvantage vs strength or dexterity as an action.
- Handcuff someone without them noticing. I would think stealth + sleight of hand + some way of getting the target distracted.
These make sense to me and would be something I might implement ... any suggestions?
Jay_Ibero_911 wrote:
Looks like I've got some catching up to do.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Varden_Khol wrote:
Jay_Ibero_911 wrote:
Jay_Ibero_911 wrote:
Varden_Khol wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Jay_Ibero_911 wrote:
iserith wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Succeeding at something and knowing that you succeeded at something are two different (but at times related) skills. We know from a great body of experimental data that generally, people who do the poorest at a task also have the least insight into how bad they did. This is especially true for something like perception or insight -- e.g., if someone is lying to you, you fail *because* you don't know how badly your judge of character is off.
So, for these kinds of checks, I think it makes the most sense for the DM to roll them behind the screen, and also that means sometimes rolling dice behind the screen just to avoid telegraphing information that the characters shouldn't have as an artifact of the game mechanics.
Now, I'm quite confident that this isn't how Iserith runs his game, and I'm not going to say he's a bad DM because of it (and I hope he returns the favor). This is a DM-style question. Unless it violates the social contract that exists between a given DM and his or her players, it isn't 'bad' DMing.
iserith wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Jay_Ibero_911 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
iserith wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
iserith wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
iserith wrote:
This thread is so far off topic. Start a new thread please.
Bloodscythe wrote:
dwgautier wrote:
iserith wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
These are medieval manacles, right, not modern handcuffs? Thick iron chain and bracelets with metal pins you hammer in to close them? I don't think you're going to apply these to an unwilling target unless they're restrained or incapacitated, or unless you're a Crossbow Expert.
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Finieous wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
onceMoreIntoBreech wrote:
iserith wrote:
Finieous wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
I was going to suggest a Dex save, myself. Entangle, Evard's, and Web all have that, as well as Imprisoned's Chaining. Not exactly apples to oranges, but I think I'd also rule that they had to be at least Restrained to be able to apply.
It also makes pinning more useful - graple->pin->apply manacles. That sounds like a Bounty hunter to me.
Bloodscythe wrote:
These aren't necessarily used in medieval times, but they are certainly in line with the description in the book. I hope they help for visualization.
FYI I had asked one of the devs about manacles and here's what he said;
@Plaguescarred Howdy Jeremy! Quick question for you, does it require any action/check to use manacles vs unwilling target?
@JeremyECrawford As a DM, I would require an action. If the target isn't incapacitated, I would also require an appropriate contest.