Results 1 to 30 of 40
Thread: Use of Antimagic Shackles
-
2012-09-13, 10:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Gender
Use of Antimagic Shackles
BoED has Antimagic Shackles (AMS): "These adamantine manacles fit any Small to Large creature and create an antimagic field to a radius of 5 feet when they are fastened." This has various tactical possibilities that I would like to understand the validity of within the rules.
Note that 5' radius = 4 adjacent squares.
(a) Is AMS a slotted item?
(b) Does AMS need to be fastened to someone to be active?
(c) If an AMS is either fastened to a wrist or held in the hand, can reach be used to center the AMS so that the body is not inside the generated AMF?
(d) Can AMS be hurled as an improvised thrown weapon?
My understanding at the moment:
(a) No. Evidence is provided by "Shackles of Silence" in MIC which take no body slot.
(b) No. Shackles can be fastened without fitting to anything.
(c) Yes, as an attack or a move action (including full attack).
(d) Yes, as an improvised one handed thrown weapon (range 10', standard action), since a weight of 5lbs is very similar to other one handed weapons.
Is this understanding correct or wrong? If so, where and why?
-
2012-09-13, 10:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
Re: Use of Antimagic Shackles
Within the Custom Item rules, they're about the same price as a continuous AMF.
a) I don't think so. Wearing Gloves of Dexterity should not prevent Antimagic Shackles from functioning. Shackles do not occupy a body slot.
b) I'm AFB now, but I'll check this one in my copy of BoED.
c) By RAW, a weapon remains in your space as long as you hold it. Regardless, any part of your body still within the radius would still be affected, or your 10ft pole, or whatever you're using to extend it. Human arms are only like 3ft long, so this shouldn't work by RAI either. You can drop it into an adjacent space as a free action.
d) Anything you can carry can be an improvised thrown weapon, including Antimagic Shackles. Hence the term "improvised". They're quite expensive to be tossing around without guaranteed retrieval, though.
-
2012-09-13, 11:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- NYC
- Gender
-
2012-09-13, 11:44 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Use of Antimagic Shackles
Why do you think throwing them will affect the target? If you toss your handcuffs at a fleeing felon, does he automatically become restrained? More likely, you'll just bonk him in the head and have to go pick them up, if you hit at all. They're not a pair of bolas or a net.
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2012-09-14, 04:36 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
- Location
Re: Use of Antimagic Shackles
If a tree falls in the forest and the PCs aren't around to hear it... what do I roll to see how loud it is?
Is 3.5 a fried-egg, chili-chutney sandwich?
-
2012-09-14, 06:43 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Use of Antimagic Shackles
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2012-09-14, 08:39 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Gender
Re: Use of Antimagic Shackles
Right.
Citation? This seems completely implausible to me, because it says fights between adjacent opponents consist of displays of fighting prowess not actually hitting anyone yet somehow inflicting hp damage. Some evidence against: the AntiMagic section in Rules Compendium says:
"A magic weapon ... used to attack a creature inside an antimagic area, gains none of the benefits of its magic properties."
I'm thinking about a "long arm" graft, which yields a 10' reach.
(a) I disagree in the sense that it's not crazy to say "I fasten my watchband to itself".
(b) If that isn't convincing, assume I fasten it to a short 1" diameter stick.
I'm presuming that your interpretation is addressed by either (a) or (b). If not, please explain.
-
2012-09-14, 08:47 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Use of Antimagic Shackles
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2012-09-14, 08:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Gender
Re: Use of Antimagic Shackles
RAW says it fits small to large creatures, but that does not exclude the possibility of fitting a stick of halfling arm diameter. Similarly, when I say "my watch fits on my arm", that doesn't mean that it doesn't fit on your arm.
In fact "fits small" implies that it fits a stick of halfling arm diameter.
-
2012-09-14, 09:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Use of Antimagic Shackles
Yes, but a stick is not a creature. If you're going to exploit RAW, you open yourself up to it being used against you as well.
To use their field, you need to fasten them; to fasten them, you need a Small or Medium creature to fit them to.Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2012-09-14, 09:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
Re: Use of Antimagic Shackles
If AMF shackles could be moved out to a square within reach, then any creature wearing them could just hold them out and suddenly not be affected by them. Which would make using them against the very people they're presumably designed to contain, spellcasters, pointless. They could simply hold them out and teleport away.
Also, fitting sticks is irrelevant due to the shackles explicitly saying they work on creatures. Creatures, in D&D, are anything with a wisdom score, so sticks wouldn't work. This is the same reason disintegrate cannot affect living trees by RAW.Last edited by Hirax; 2012-09-14 at 09:57 PM.
-
2012-09-14, 11:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2012
Re: Use of Antimagic Shackles
you could wear them, and then become a grappling monk..
-
2012-09-15, 05:08 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
Re: Use of Antimagic Shackles
Toss them on a Halfling Monk, and then toss the Halfling? I mean, use the Halfling as a ranged weapon?
-
2012-09-15, 05:15 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Gender
-
2012-09-15, 07:14 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Gender
Re: Use of Antimagic Shackles
I expect this would depend on how the shackling is done. Think about handcuffs. There are very ineffective ways to use handcuffs, like applying both ends to the same wrist. Similarly, there are effective ways.
Ouch! With a bad shackling, either (a) arm is left behind by teleporting or (b) nothing happens.
In general english, "fit" is just not the same concept as "exclusively fit". A fits B does not imply that A does not fit C.
A fits B does not imply that A does not fit C. That's just not the way english works.
-
2012-09-15, 08:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Use of Antimagic Shackles
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2012-09-15, 12:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
Re: Use of Antimagic Shackles
Either demonstrate incontrovertible rules citations that there's a RAW way to do what you want to do, or else everyone is probably going to side with the interpretation that doesn't make the shackles useless. Either they can be held out as far as a creature's reach, in which case for prisoners they're useless, or they can't. Your invented distinction means nothing, there's no RAW check or method to see whether they're "effectively" shackled. There is no such thing as a partial teleport. If there is not an AMF in your square, then you can teleport out (or shapechange if you're a lycanthrope), and take your entire body with you, there's no RAW support for your claim of an arm being left behind. Also, your last sentence is flatly untrue in this context. This all smacks of wishful thinking, you don't get to invent or extend existing rules into spaces where there are none just because you think it makes sense to do so. Edit: Why fuss over putting them on a stick, anyway? Toss a halfling wearing them instead, or a dog. In fact, a dog would be your best option, because they're loyal and trainable. You could train it to follow whoever it's thrown at.
Last edited by Hirax; 2012-09-15 at 01:23 PM.
-
2012-09-15, 01:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Location
- Seattle, WA
Re: Use of Antimagic Shackles
The Antimagic Shackles from BoED are a poor choice to keep a spellcaster bound. You can get out with a DC 27 Escape Artist check. (In comparison, standard manacles are DC 30, while masterwork manacles are DC 35.) For their price and being made out of adamantine, I'd expect Antimagic Shackles would be at least DC 35 if not 40.
You can make a DC 27 Escape Artist check with DEX 20, a mere 2 ranks in Escape Artist, and taking 20. Since a check only takes 1 minute, if the BBEG ever uses Antimagic Shackles on you and walks away from the dungeon laughing, in 20 minutes you've escaped and are bringing him to justice.
-
2012-09-15, 01:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2008
- Location
- In an Octopus's Garden
Re: Use of Antimagic Shackles
Dex
SpoilerRegarding my Necrotic Apprentice trick:
Regarding my Non-Epic Hidecarved Dragon:
Check out the Versatile Domain Generalist.
-
2012-09-15, 01:44 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
Re: Use of Antimagic Shackles
Come to think, I'm not sure I'd freely grant that AMF shackles are slotless. Intuitively they'd be a wrist item, and it was a later formatting decision in 3.5 to specifically list what slot (if any) a magic item used. In the DMG, for instance, wondrous items items don't specify the slot they use, due to the fact that it's generally obvious. This appears to be the case in the BoED too. The shackles in the MIC could just as easily be an anomaly, rather than following some sort of precedent. I'm not willing to cast judgment one way or the other on this one.
-
2012-09-15, 02:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
Re: Use of Antimagic Shackles
I'm aware that the shackles are quite expensive and mostly for higher-level play, but do your wizards routinely have 20 dex and cross-class skill ranks in escape artist?
Also, if the shackles must be worn to be active, it might behoove you to find some way to obtain a monk's Unarmed damage progression so that you can just kick people instead. You'll be like Cody from Street Fighter.
-
2012-09-15, 03:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
- Location
- Argonth
Re: Use of Antimagic Shackles
My understanding is:
(a) By the rules, no slot is specified. Although I would call it a wrist slot item personally.
(b) Yes, they have to be worn to activate.
(c) Yes, if you have a ten foot reach you could be standing outside of the effect since the rules state AMF only affects parts of creatures that are inside it.
(d) No, because as stated it has to be worn to turn on.
If you wanted to wear them then you should know making full attacks with shackles on would be very awkward. If you're alright with the custom item rules already(or your DM is, if you are not the DM) then I would suggest just making them bracers, no chain connecting them. Taking up the wrist slot is hardly an issue since anything you could be wearing there would be inside the AMF anyway. Either that, or make it some sort of thrown weapon so that it can be active all the time, not just when wielded. This also would negate the -4 improvised penalty.Witty sig here nosey, aren't ya?
Avatar by Hacktor
-
2012-09-15, 04:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
Re: Use of Antimagic Shackles
Nope, you only need a 5' reach to stand outside the effect, if you want to believe the shackles work that way. A 5' radius by RAW is equivalent to 10' square. Therefore, by RAW, there will always be a diagonal space within your reach that you could theoretically push the shackles out to in order to not be affected by them. Which is why I believe that interpretation to be wrong until rock solid evidence is shown to the contrary, otherwise the shackles are useless for containing a spellcaster that can cast teleport, or shapechanger that can just transform.
Last edited by Hirax; 2012-09-15 at 04:24 PM.
-
2012-09-15, 04:44 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
- Location
- Argonth
Re: Use of Antimagic Shackles
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I was referring to the long arms graft he's getting for his character, which even by RAW would put the ends of his hands far enough from his body that the 5 foot field would not cover him. It would only come up to his elbows or something.
Witty sig here nosey, aren't ya?
Avatar by Hacktor
-
2012-09-15, 04:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
-
2012-09-15, 05:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
- Location
- Argonth
Re: Use of Antimagic Shackles
Nuh uh. If you have 5 foot reach, your hands are in the space next to you. As has been pointed out, a 5 foot radius is two squares. So the square adjacent to you where your hands are, and the space you're standing in. If you have ten foot reach, it would be in the squares two away from you and adjacent.
Witty sig here nosey, aren't ya?
Avatar by Hacktor
-
2012-09-15, 05:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
Re: Use of Antimagic Shackles
If you reach to square 7, the AMF is no longer affecting you. Red is where the AMF affects normally, green is where it affects if you reach to square 7, and the star is a medium or small creature. In retrospect, it would have been better to stripe square 7 rather than split it in half, but what the heck, it wouldn't be a paint drawing if it weren't in some way hideously flawed.
Edit: of course, I still don't believe that the shackles ever leave the wearer's square. But if you want to believe that they can, then this rendering is the reality.Last edited by Hirax; 2012-09-15 at 05:20 PM.
-
2012-09-15, 06:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
- Location
- Argonth
Re: Use of Antimagic Shackles
Witty sig here nosey, aren't ya?
Avatar by Hacktor
-
2012-09-15, 06:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
Re: Use of Antimagic Shackles
Ok, I see where you were going wrong. Well, aside from allowing the shackles to leave the wearer's square in the first place. I don't believe it ever states anywhere that an attended item is ever occupying, entering, or exiting a square other than the one its owner is in. Even the Rules Compendium quote Anthrowhale cites doesn't say this. On its face, it would intuitively be a corollary to that quote, that a weapon in is the AMF's square vis-a-vis verisimilitude, but that's not necessarily the case for the purposes of rules. It's entirely possible that the intended reading is that for the purposes of location, an attended item is only ever in its owner's square, and attacking into an AMF has that one specific interaction with an item. I don't have a hard time believing that the rules are written in such a way as to make it so you don't need to keep track of what squares attended items are in, in addition to people. Edit: Plus, that interpretation makes AMF shackles not useless for their intended purpose, as mentioned.
Last edited by Hirax; 2012-09-15 at 10:22 PM.
-
2012-09-15, 07:53 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2008
- Location
- In an Octopus's Garden
Re: Use of Antimagic Shackles
Wait. Wouldn't his interpretation make them worthless for his intended use as well? He gets right up next to the mage, who can then just reach outside the AMF and suddenly be able to cast a spell?
Dex
SpoilerRegarding my Necrotic Apprentice trick:
Regarding my Non-Epic Hidecarved Dragon:
Check out the Versatile Domain Generalist.