D&D 5E Rogue’s Fast Hands and Manacles

[Oofta]

I guess my point is that, to manacle someone, it’s not just a straight action. There needs to be some kind of circumstance set up before you can do it.
Being sufficiently distracted might do it (for slight of hand) but that feels like an out of combat maneuver.

I think we agree - I can't think of many situations combat that I'd allow just a sleight of hand check. If you're in the middle of battle and not incapacitated in some way, you're moving around and assumed to be aware.

Even paralyzed for example, it would depend. Is the target next to something you can handcuff them to? I'm not going to assume the target was paralyzed with their arms behind their back. This has never come up in any of my games, I think it would require multiple checks including grappling plus other opposed checks. Likely require multiple attackers as well.

Outside of combat I have allowed it under the right conditions.

 

[iserith]

As a dm do you allow the ability for a rogue to with quick hands to clip manacles on someone? Do what kinds of penalties you you give? What kind of check is it?

My Dm has been doing slight of hand vs athletics or acrobatics. The rogue, though, has expertise in slight of hand so it’s almost guaranteed success. It usually hampers a target enough that they are no longer a factor in a battle. Seeing it in action, I’m not sure I’d allow it in a game I’d run. But idk. Fast hands is kind of fun.

thoughts?

Only when the target can't take actions or reactions in my game (incapacitated, paralyzed, petrified, stunned, unconscious).

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Yeah. Manacles aren't modern, spring-loaded ratcheted handcuffs. You need to clamp a cuff around someone's limb, close the hinge then turn the key, and lock the cuff.

I'd definitely allow a rogue's Fast Hands ability to help. But it would take several actions to apply to an unresisting target and opposed grapple checks in addition for a resisting one.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I don't think I'd allow it while grappled, I'd require restrained or paralyzed. Grappled is just held in place, the target still generally has full use of their arms.

While I agree that this is the way the rules read, the problem is that there's no longer any way in the rules to escalate a grapple to a restraint pin without taking a feat -- which itself is an optional rule. The problem is that there's no way to restrain an unwilling creature at all short of magic. That's absurd. It's saying you can't wrestle another creature to the ground and tie them up. I understand why they don't want combat to be like that, but it's still completely absurd.

 

[Oofta]

While I agree that this is the way the rules read, the problem is that there's no longer any way in the rules to escalate a grapple to a restraint pin without taking a feat -- which itself is an optional rule. The problem is that there's no way to restrain an unwilling creature at all short of magic. That's absurd. It's saying you can't wrestle another creature to the ground and tie them up. I understand why they don't want combat to be like that, but it's still completely absurd.

I've never had it come up in combat, but it would be some kind of contest that's not really covered by the rules. I'd also probably lean heavily in favor of the target because I wouldn't want it to be a go-to tactic out of personal preference. Like others have said, manacles are not generally pictured as handcuffs, although that of course is going to vary from campaign to campaign. This post on an old thread had a good picture of what I envision.

 

[Arvok]

I could see allowing it in combat as with quick hands, but only to manacle one hand. To get the other one in the manacles would require a grapple check. Also there would be some obvious limitations. You couldn't use it against someone's shield arm and probably not against someone armored (medieval manacles weren't adjustable like modern handcuffs and even those might not be big enough to get around armored gauntlets).

To restrain someone with manacles would probably require a group effort and several grapple checks. Now if the rogue already had the manacles attached to something, he might be able to limit the target's mobility...

 

[Unwise]

Would you let somebody use "Interact with Object" to say that they are going to put a sword inside somebody? Surely that is easier than manacling somebody.

I would say that you can use "interact with object" to put manacles on somebody you already have grappled. You would have to have something else to put it on though, I am not letting anybody manacle both hands together, unless they make a second grapple attack.

So a rogue could grapple with their attack, grab the persons arm, then interact with an object to put manacles on the arm they are holding. The next round, they could grapple again to grab another arm or leg and manacle that too. Of course, it would be simpler to just chain them to a bannister, or pole or something.

I would let them use Dex for the grapple if they were not looking to hold on, just to slap the manacles on.

 

[ECMO3]

As a dm do you allow the ability for a rogue to with quick hands to clip manacles on someone? Do what kinds of penalties you you give? What kind of check is it?

My Dm has been doing slight of hand vs athletics or acrobatics. The rogue, though, has expertise in slight of hand so it’s almost guaranteed success. It usually hampers a target enough that they are no longer a factor in a battle. Seeing it in action, I’m not sure I’d allow it in a game I’d run. But idk. Fast hands is kind of fun.

thoughts?

Is the person holding out his hands to be cuffed? If so yes. If not then no.

If it is in combat I would make the Rogue or someone else complete a grapple first, then do an ahtletics check to position the enemies hands (which would require another action or a BA with fast hands), then a third action or fast hands BA to put on the manacles. So a Rogue-fighter could do this is one turn using action surge, otherwise it requires two people or two turns.

If it is not in combat , like it is just while he is talking and wants to slap them on I would allow it with a SOH check, in that case it does not really matter if it is with fast hands. I wouldm alternatively allow it with a deception check if he described how he was going to do it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Fast hands is an often overlooked or forgotten ability.
I think a grapple and restrain first might be a good idea.
So it could work like:
1st round:
Grapple. Fast hands draw manacles.
2nd round:
athletics to drop prone, fast hands to use manacles.

A different idea would be, as you mentioned, sleight of hand after a successful bluff or stealth check, to get the manacles around 1 arm and something else.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

So, thinking about it more, the issue is in the description.

"I use my bonus action to put manacles on him"

Rolls are had and DM narrates success. "He's all tied up and can't swing his sword. He's at disadvantage to attack"

I'd require more description: "How will you put on the manacles? He's looking at you as you approach. Are you putting them on his wrists or his ankles? Are you trying to tie his limbs together or are you trying to tie him to an obstacle or another person?"

From there, it seems easier to adjudicate. I come to this conclusion trying to imagine what my character would do to defend himself against the rogue if the rogue was dominated or something. if I keep my arms apart instead in a sword/sheild combo instead of wielding a sword in two hands, he can't lock my arms together. If I keep my stance wide, he can't lock my legs together. To do so, he'd need to physically move my limbs together which would require athletics (which I'm trained in) instead of Slight of Hand.

Essentially, 'I know the trick' so I can deny him the use of his apex skill which relies on distraction and deception.

So, given that train of thought, in combat, for a rogue (or anyone) to slip on manacles as an action, with slight of hand, they'd need to have surprise: the target must be distracted and not expecting to be manacled(probably requiring a stealth check, at the least). The action (what body part do you manacle) must make sense for the stance of the attacker also. I'd say that trying to manacle to hands together to be almost impossible. But you might get one hand. Or you might even be able to manacle two people together.

Essentially, each situation might be adjudicated differently instead of a general 'Slight of Hand vs opposing skill'.

My overall impression is it might take multiple actions to 'lock' someone down.