What do Manacles actually do?

[Belac93]

Just wondering this. I get that you can put someone's hands together, but by RAW, that doesn't do anything. If my barbarian is handcuffed, why would I waste time trying to break the chains? I can smash people's heads in just as well while my hands are locked together!

So what does this item do?

[Arkhios]

Just wondering this. I get that you can put someone's hands together, but by RAW, that doesn't do anything. If my barbarian is handcuffed, why would I waste time trying to break the chains? I can smash people's heads in just as well while my hands are locked together!

So what does this item do?

It's a bit hard if you're cuffed hands behind your back... :smallwink:

And manacles can be put on your ankles too, limiting how fast you can move.

[Specter]

I imagine restraints would leave a creature restrained, but it's not specifically spoken out, so who knows.

[Daishain]

Manacles are typically attached to something else, a wall, a deadweight, more manacles on the ankles, a chain binding a group of people together, etc. If the binder has nothing of the sort to work with, he'll probably bind the hands behind the prisoner as Arkhios mentions.

In any case, manacles don't necessarily have to entirely prevent you from moving about and attacking. Just slow you down enough that the guards can easily poke lots of holes in you before you do much.

[tieren]

Seems to me the best manacles would be a set of heavy armor gauntlets fastened together so casters not proficient in HA couldn't cast while wearing them.

[Daishain]

Seems to me the best manacles would be a set of heavy armor gauntlets fastened together so casters not proficient in HA couldn't cast while wearing them.
Better yet, modify them so the fingers can be locked in place. That way even if they have proficiency, anything other than pure vocal spells are a no go unless they also have stilled metamagic.

Besides, if someone just stuck gauntlets on a non-proficient caster, and they spent time getting used to waving their hands about, I'd probably let them cast with a 50% chance of the spell fizzling, wasting the slot in the process. (that may just be me, but it seems like a reasonable enough ruling that other DMs may likewise come to)

[Coffee_Dragon]

So what does this item do?

Imply a restriction on what facts can be introduced in the shared reality, not through flipping a mechanical switch, but through merely stating something to be the case.

As a basic hack, you could represent it mechanically as the restrained condition minus reducing the speed to 0 (depending on circumstances), and disallowing spellcasting with a somatic component.

[Willie the Duck]

Depends on context. I'm rather happy with how they have it in the books--no special condition, just apply logic. Manacles attach your hands to things. If those things are heavy (like a deadweight or a wall, this will restrict your movement. If those things are a fixed distance apart (a solid bar manacle), you probably can't cast somatic spells or wield a bow. It makes sense. I could hold (and probably wield, albeit with difficulty--probably disadvantage in game terms) a sword in my hands with handcuffs on. If those cuffs were behind my back, not as well.

[IShouldntBehere]

They keep you from moving you arms and hands normally, which makes them fairly useless for both holding weapons and unarmed attacks. The rules don't state this specifically for the same reason they don't provide you rules for breathing under normal circumstances, or for ingesting a jar of mercury. The process is obvious and the effects doubly so.

RAW provides no provisions for losing limbs or what happens when limbs are lost. This doesn't mean if a character is tied down and has a bone saw taken to them their arms and legs remain intact. Nor does it mean that absent arms and legs a character is still moving around fine, making attacks and sprinting like nothing happened. We don't need the rules to tell us what a reasonable outcome is.

Similarly manacles obviously render the arms and hands fairly useless that's what manacles do when used properly. We don't need the rules to spell out a reasonable outcome there.

[Falcon X]

In my game, it restricts the somatic component of spellcasting. However, that would be a DM's call.
- Stuff a sock in their mouth too and you have an almost completely disabled spellcaster. Course, if you don't get their hands first, they will pull it right out.
- Grappling should probably be a prerequisite to any of these shenanigans.

[CursedRhubarb]

Our group tends to run into situations where we need to tie someone up so I make sure to keep a prisoner kit on me.

Manacles x2 (hands and feet)
Rope to bind them like a dastardly villain does to the lady on the train tracks
Cloth scraps to gag them
A sack to put over their head

This tends to work wonders as it makes them mute, blind, and completely immobile so no spellcasting and even a raging barbarian would have a heck of a time breaking out of it.

[malachi]

Isn't it only a DC 20 strength check to break out of a pair of manacles?
So a level 1 character with 16 STR would break out of manacles in 7 attempts (or a lvl 1 barbarian in 4 attempts while raging).

That seems too easy to do. Maybe you have to put on a second pair of manacles for disadvantage to make it take 45 attempts to get out (assuming 1 attempt / round, that's still less than 5 minutes).

[Addaran]

They keep you from moving you arms and hands normally, which makes them fairly useless for both holding weapons and unarmed attacks. The rules don't state this specifically for the same reason they don't provide you rules for breathing under normal circumstances, or for ingesting a jar of mercury. The process is obvious and the effects doubly so.

RAW provides no provisions for losing limbs or what happens when limbs are lost. This doesn't mean if a character is tied down and has a bone saw taken to them their arms and legs remain intact. Nor does it mean that absent arms and legs a character is still moving around fine, making attacks and sprinting like nothing happened. We don't need the rules to tell us what a reasonable outcome is.

Similarly manacles obviously render the arms and hands fairly useless that's what manacles do when used properly. We don't need the rules to spell out a reasonable outcome there.

With standard manacles ( cop modern ones) or just your hands tied together with a bit of rope between them, you can pretty much normaly wield a 2-handed weapon like a sword. I wouldn't give penality for 2-hand (both not polearm kind) or versatile weapons. Having your hands together would restrict normal one-handed fighting style or those usually used with dex.

[CursedRhubarb]

Isn't it only a DC 20 strength check to break out of a pair of manacles?
So a level 1 character with 16 STR would break out of manacles in 7 attempts (or a lvl 1 barbarian in 4 attempts while raging).

That seems too easy to do. Maybe you have to put on a second pair of manacles for disadvantage to make it take 45 attempts to get out (assuming 1 attempt / round, that's still less than 5 minutes).

That's why I also gag, hood, and bind with rope, making sure to keep it nice and tight on the neck so that can just barely breathe. Even a barbarian needs to breathe to flex his muscles. Add some chain to make it better.

Or for those male targets that need tied up, use fishing line to tie a tight knot around his junk and the other end to the manacles. To break the manacles he will remove some bits I'm sure he'd rather keep.

[RickAllison]

Isn't it only a DC 20 strength check to break out of a pair of manacles?
So a level 1 character with 16 STR would break out of manacles in 7 attempts (or a lvl 1 barbarian in 4 attempts while raging).

That seems too easy to do. Maybe you have to put on a second pair of manacles for disadvantage to make it take 45 attempts to get out (assuming 1 attempt / round, that's still less than 5 minutes).

Also, 15 HP on the manacles. Smash them against the walls a few times and you are golden for the manacles.

[Mellack]

Since spellcasting only requires the use of one hand, I don't think having your wrists connected would stop that much. If you could write cuffed, you could probably cast with that hand. Cuffing behind the back would change that.

[Mirakk]

Don't use Manacles by themselves unless you're trying to tie up commoners or something.

I usually keep two sets of Manacles, a lock of the highest quality, and some chains. Apply the manacles to the hands and feet, and chain them together, fastening with the lock. Be sure to search their persons for concealed objects that might aid in their escape. I usually take their footwear away, gag with a piece of cloth, and put a sack over their head as well. I don't take prisoners often, but when I do, I prefer to do it right.

Also, keep a guard handy. If they're trying to break out with brute force, you should be whalloping them into an unconscious state. Just sayin.

[dropbear8mybaby]

Given how weak and easy they are to break out of, functionally nothing.

[famousringo]

Even assuming your hands aren't chained to something or behind your back, having them locked close together you'll find it hard to balance, slow to react, impossible to defend with one hand while attacking with the other, etc. Even two-handed weapons often place hands far apart on the shaft or sometimes release grip with one hand to re-balance, and an extra 6 pounds of iron on your wrists (some of it an unstable swinging chain that pulls with delayed inertia, snags on things, gets in your face...) will make that big, bulky weapon even clumsier.

Easy disadvantage to any attack and most physical checks.

[Plaguescarred]

Since these restraints bind you, i assume your hands are no longer free and can prevent you from performing things that may require free use of hands such as spellcasting, deflect missile etc...

[JellyPooga]

Given how weak and easy they are to break out of, functionally nothing.

Increase to DC to break them to 25 and call them Master Crafted Manacles. Now only those with olympian strength (Str 20+) or magical assistance can break them.

[Vogonjeltz]

Better yet, modify them so the fingers can be locked in place. That way even if they have proficiency, anything other than pure vocal spells are a no go unless they also have stilled metamagic

I would imagine anyone who has demonstrated that kind of capability would either be killed on sight or placed into an antimagic field at all times.

[dropbear8mybaby]

Increase to DC to break them to 25 and call them Master Crafted Manacles. Now only those with olympian strength (Str 20+) or magical assistance can break them.

Still too easy to get out of due to hit points and self-picking them with improvised tools.

This is my version of bog-standard manacles:

Armour Class: 19
Hit Points: 20
Damage Resistance: Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing.
Break DC (Strength check): 25.
Escape DC (Dexterity check): 25.
Lock DC (Thieves' Tools): 20.

Can still be smashed, can still be broken out of or slipped out of, can still be picked with improvised tools (disadvantage), but it's going to be hard, require a lot of checks and therefore a lot of time and/or very high Strength or Dexterity.

[RickAllison]

Still too easy to get out of due to hit points and self-picking them with improvised tools.

This is my version of bog-standard manacles:

Armour Class: 19
Hit Points: 20
Damage Resistance: Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing.
Break DC (Strength check): 25.
Escape DC (Dexterity check): 25.
Lock DC (Thieves' Tools): 20.

Can still be smashed, can still be broken out of or slipped out of, can still be picked with improvised tools (disadvantage), but it's going to be hard, require a lot of checks and therefore a lot of time and/or very high Strength or Dexterity.

I would hardly assume it can be broken or slipped out of. Those are straight ability checks excepting the tools, meaning that only godlike specimens of humanoids even have a chance.

I think a better solution would be to increase the timespan of the check with a 25 instead being an instant breakout and making regular manacles resistant (as you suggested) and special ones immune to nonmagical weapons. Makes it so godlike people can escape instantly per your idea, regular people can escape with much time and difficulty, and all the measures can't be neutralized by a few good swings.

For bonus points, maybe total immunity to piercing damage while even magical blunt damage is resisted.

[dropbear8mybaby]

I would hardly assume it can be broken or slipped out of.
The standard ones can be broken out of with a Strength check of 20, meaning anyone with enough time can break out out of metal manacles. That's just crazy. Short of really crappy iron made by someone incompetent, that shouldn't happen no matter how lucky you are.

Setting the break DC to 25 means that, yes, only exceptionally strong people can break metal shackles.

Furthermore, the standard manacles don't have resistances or an AC, meaning that someone in them just bangs them on a rock a few times and they break open. 15 hit points is, what? 7 rounds of smashing against a rock (assuming 1d4 damage from rock)?


Makes it so godlike people can escape instantly per your idea, regular people can escape with much time and difficulty, and all the measures can't be neutralized by a few good swings.
That's exactly what mine does though. The AC (the equivalent of Iron from the DMG), means that just smashing against a rock isn't enough. To actually cause damage, it's going to require a really good strike, and since it's an improvised weapon, you'll be doing it without proficiency as well. And even then, the damage is reduced so that you're essentially pecking away at it for a very, very long time before it will break from damage. At Strength 10 without Tavern Brawler, it would forever.

[RickAllison]

The standard ones can be broken out of with a Strength check of 20, meaning anyone with enough time can break out out of metal manacles. That's just crazy. Short of really crappy iron made by someone incompetent, that shouldn't happen no matter how lucky you are.

Setting the break DC to 25 means that, yes, only exceptionally strong people can break metal shackles.

Furthermore, the standard manacles don't have resistances or an AC, meaning that someone in them just bangs them on a rock a few times and they break open. 15 hit points is, what? 7 rounds of smashing against a rock (assuming 1d4 damage from rock)?


That's exactly what mine does though. The AC (the equivalent of Iron from the DMG), means that just smashing against a rock isn't enough. To actually cause damage, it's going to require a really good strike, and since it's an improvised weapon, you'll be doing it without proficiency as well. And even then, the damage is reduced so that you're essentially pecking away at it for a very, very long time before it will break from damage. At Strength 10 without Tavern Brawler, it would forever.

I agree that only exceptional people should break the manacles. That is covered if we don't make the actions to escape 6 seconds and instead 10 minutes. This reflects that manacles are NOT a permanent restraint. They are intended for transporting criminals, not locking them up.

In real life, ordinary people can break shackles given time. Strong men, people who are ranking only at 16, are able to shatter them. A 25 DC makes absolutely no sense unless it is a divinely made pair of manacles.

[Vogonjeltz]

The standard ones can be broken out of with a Strength check of 20, meaning anyone with enough time can break out out of metal manacles. That's just crazy. Short of really crappy iron made by someone incompetent, that shouldn't happen no matter how lucky you are.

Setting the break DC to 25 means that, yes, only exceptionally strong people can break metal shackles.

Furthermore, the standard manacles don't have resistances or an AC, meaning that someone in them just bangs them on a rock a few times and they break open. 15 hit points is, what? 7 rounds of smashing against a rock (assuming 1d4 damage from rock)?


That's exactly what mine does though. The AC (the equivalent of Iron from the DMG), means that just smashing against a rock isn't enough. To actually cause damage, it's going to require a really good strike, and since it's an improvised weapon, you'll be doing it without proficiency as well. And even then, the damage is reduced so that you're essentially pecking away at it for a very, very long time before it will break from damage. At Strength 10 without Tavern Brawler, it would forever.

Arguably the over time example is someone smashing the manacles against a wall or whatever, or using force wrapping the chain around a rock and pulling until the metal breaks from stress and fatigue.

[dropbear8mybaby]

In real life, ordinary people can break shackles given time.
Yeah, which is the damage option I made.


Strong men, people who are ranking only at 16, are able to shatter them. A 25 DC makes absolutely no sense unless it is a divinely made pair of manacles.
Shatter iron chains just by strength alone? See, now, I can't get on board with that. No regular human being can just pull apart iron chains with their bare hands. I'd peg 16 Strength as being the rough equivalent of a gym bro, 18 as an olympic record holder in the clean and jerk, and a 20 as a freak of nature that defies normal physical parameters (and also physics, seriously, there's only so much weight a human can lift and hold without muscles tearing and bones breaking).


Arguably the over time example is someone smashing the manacles against a wall or whatever, or using force wrapping the chain around a rock and pulling until the metal breaks from stress and fatigue.
Sure, whatever, I was only using a rock as a baseline example.

[Vorpalchicken]

I would give only one attempt to break out or escape unless the escape conditions change. If you fail once, then you are not getting out without further help.

[Slipperychicken]

Here are manacles rules as I like them:

They shut down somatic components completely. Being restrained does not give you free use of your hands -it's exactly the opposite. If your captors think you're a caster for any reason, they will typically gag you too, which shuts down all verbal components. During feeding, a character might have a chance to get a spell off, but paranoid captors will generally minimize this risk with threat of physical violence (such as a knife to the throat) and either very rapidly shoving food into the character's mouth after the gag is removed, or briefly forcing the character's mouth open so as to prevent him from effectively intoning the necessary components.
The burst DC should be just over 20, perhaps 22 or 23, so that it takes a strong person to have any chance of breaking them. Natural 20s are not automatic successes in this case.
-Escape attempts take 10 minutes each and are obvious to anyone watching (no check if watching attentively, DC 10 each minute if distracted by conversation). If a guard sees you struggling against your restraints, he'll probably tell you to cut it out, and depending on circumstances might start beating you if you don't.
Attempts to attack while manacled are considered unarmed attacks (strength to hit, damage is 1 + strength mod, minimum 1), and are made at disadvantage. Even attacks made with the feet or head are at disadvantage as the character must maintain his balance and cannot put his full body into the effort. If the hands are manacled behind the restrained character's back (as is the custom in some places), then he cannot effectively use a weapon in them.
If restraints are applied to the legs so as to restrict their movement, then the character's land speed is reduced to 5 feet and the character may be forced to crawl (GM's discretion). Otherwise the character's speed is unaffected. Restraints on the legs must be removed separately from those on the hands.

[JellyPooga]

I would give only one attempt to break out or escape unless the escape conditions change. If you fail once, then you are not getting out without further help.

This is an important tool that many GMs forget. In previous editions, for example, Thieves that failed to pick a lock had to wait until they went up a level to try again. I see no reason why I, as GM, should allow a creature to retry indefinitely until they succeed.

In the case of manacles, I might be inclined to say that the first attempt takes a round, the second attempt one minute, third attempt 10 minutes and one final try which takes an hour. If you haven't broken the cuffs in over an hour of trying (four attempts), then you're never going to do it. If circumstances change such that the parameters of the breaking attempt change (e.g. someone finds a lever or crowbar), then I might allow one or two additional attempts, with the time taken depending on the specifics of the situation.

[Plaguescarred]

Here are manacles rules as I like them:

They shut down somatic components completely. Being restrained does not give you free use of your hands
Likewise they should shut down material components spellcasting too since you must have a hand free to access your components.

[Slipperychicken]

Likewise they should shut down material components spellcasting too since you must have a hand free to access your components.

This is true. They absolutely should.

[Willie the Duck]

This is an important tool that many GMs forget. In previous editions, for example, Thieves that failed to pick a lock had to wait until they went up a level to try again. I see no reason why I, as GM, should allow a creature to retry indefinitely until they succeed.

In the case of manacles, I might be inclined to say that the first attempt takes a round, the second attempt one minute, third attempt 10 minutes and one final try which takes an hour. If you haven't broken the cuffs in over an hour of trying (four attempts), then you're never going to do it. If circumstances change such that the parameters of the breaking attempt change (e.g. someone finds a lever or crowbar), then I might allow one or two additional attempts, with the time taken depending on the specifics of the situation.

A good idea. The most obvious change in circumstance might be that the guards leave, so now you can start bashing the things against the wall.

[RickAllison]

This is an important tool that many GMs forget. In previous editions, for example, Thieves that failed to pick a lock had to wait until they went up a level to try again. I see no reason why I, as GM, should allow a creature to retry indefinitely until they succeed.

In the case of manacles, I might be inclined to say that the first attempt takes a round, the second attempt one minute, third attempt 10 minutes and one final try which takes an hour. If you haven't broken the cuffs in over an hour of trying (four attempts), then you're never going to do it. If circumstances change such that the parameters of the breaking attempt change (e.g. someone finds a lever or crowbar), then I might allow one or two additional attempts, with the time taken depending on the specifics of the situation.

Do note that fatigue is a source of failure and works on a logarithmic scale. So scaling it up to a day, a week, and a month (it really stopped being useful at a day...) is realistic. At that point, the guards would probably just mock the prisoner's feeble attempts...

[LordVonDerp]

With standard manacles ( cop modern ones) or just your hands tied together with a bit of rope between them, you can pretty much normaly wield a 2-handed weapon like a sword. I wouldn't give penality for 2-hand (both not polearm kind) or versatile weapons. Having your hands together would restrict normal one-handed fighting style or those usually used with dex.
No, you really can't wield a greatsword in manacles, your hands need to be at least a foot apart to wield on of those things properly, two to three feet if you're wielding it in close combat.

[RickAllison]

No, you really can't wield a greatsword in manacles, your hands need to be at least a foot apart to wield on of those things properly, two to three feet if you're wielding it in close combat.

Worse for 2H axes and mauls. Whereas the greatsword could be used if they have longer chains like for transport, those two require two to three foot hand placements for leverage.

Now a hand-and-a-half sword like the longsword? That should work fine.

[R.Shackleford]

Just wondering this. I get that you can put someone's hands together, but by RAW, that doesn't do anything. If my barbarian is handcuffed, why would I waste time trying to break the chains? I can smash people's heads in just as well while my hands are locked together!

So what does this item do?

Like the crystal coconut from the Donkey Kong 90's TV series, it does whatever is needed of it and so much more.

[LordVonDerp]

Worse for 2H axes and mauls. Whereas the greatsword could be used if they have longer chains like for transport, those two require two to three foot hand placements for leverage.

Now a hand-and-a-half sword like the longsword? That should work fine.
Maybe. Depends on the length of the chain, though. If it goes taut at any point you'll likely lose control of it, plus you won't be able to do a lot of the standard high guards.