You are saying that a person whose hands are bound in rope is helpless, am I correct?
No, nothing in 'tied up' or 'manacles' mentions hands. Both mention a character being bound.
And a bound character is helpless.
No, nothing in 'tied up' or 'manacles' mentions hands. Both mention a character being bound.And a bound character is helpless.
Compared to what I wrote previously, I see your interpretation of "bound" as meaning "bound with no mean of moving" aka "all limbs tied together". In this case, your are totally correct, since the rules don't mention the possibility of someone being partially bound (as in "hands only" or "legs only").
It is not what many people think of when they see the picture of manacles in the book, though - and what they think about the Tie Up manoeuver, either. In real life, pinning someone and tying him up generally means tying his wrists together - as in scenes where policemen arrest suspects. I think that the action of "binding someone so that they are helpless" should last more than a single grapple check (standard/move).
This is especially true with creatures with more than 4 limbs. Regular manacles are merely described as able to bind a Medium creature, with no mention of the number of limbs. I don't think that a set of manacles made for a humanoid could be used to bind a Medium-sized octopus - just an example.
Whichever way this thread is going to conclude, I still think the rules should explain this better.
...the rules don't mention the possibility of someone being partially bound (as in "hands only" or "legs only").
Not true. Read the definition of 'entangled'. Included is a description of a condition that could apply to a character whose legs are bound (or even shackled to a wall).
It is not what many people think of when they think about the Tie Up manoeuver...
When I think of grapple > pin > tie up, I think 'hog tie'. The description of the effect reflects this, as it leaves the character pinned and bound.
This is especially true with creatures with more than 4 limbs. Regular manacles are merely described as able to bind a Medium creature, with no mention of the number of limbs. I don't think that a set of manacles made for a humanoid could be used to bind a Medium-sized octopus - just an example.
Whichever way this thread is going to conclude, I still think the rules should explain this better.
I agree on both these points.
...the rules don't mention the possibility of someone being partially bound (as in "hands only" or "legs only").Not true. Read the definition of 'entangled'. Included is a description of a condition that could apply to a character whose legs are bound (or even shackled to a wall).
You are correct. The problem is that this description has not been made in a coherent manner with "binding" - i.e. I didn't see "entangled" anywhere near the descriptions of manacles and the tie up action.
It is not what many people think of when they think about the Tie Up manoeuver...When I think of grapple > pin > tie up, I think 'hog tie'. The description of the effect reflects this, as it leaves the character pinned and bound.
I understand your logic, there. My proposal for additional rules was about the time needed to "hog tie" someone, and what could be added if someone wanted to tie only someone's hands (I saw nothing on that particular point).
I agree on both these points.This is especially true with creatures with more than 4 limbs. Regular manacles are merely described as able to bind a Medium creature, with no mention of the number of limbs. I don't think that a set of manacles made for a humanoid could be used to bind a Medium-sized octopus - just an example.
Whichever way this thread is going to conclude, I still think the rules should explain this better.
Thanks. The latter point is really what this thread is about, methink.