Grapple -> Pin -> Tie up with manacles

[Lab_Rat]

This came up with a character I played at a table with. Player was a grappler who could go all the way to tie-up in one turn. They used manacles to keep the enemy tied-up. However, the tie-up condition of grappling only states rope can maintain the pin condition.

Can you use manacles to maintain the pin-condition? - the tie-up rules don't mention them.

Do manacles prevent movement? - nothing about manacles prevents movement. In fact manacles are designed to allow a person to move in them. The only description of what the manacles look like is the image from the UE. They are handcuffs with quite a bit of chain between them. This is also backed up by the manacle barbs from ARG which insinuate that a character can in fact take 2 move actions while in manacles.

This leads me to believe that if a character manacled an enemy and left them there in the middle of combat that they could stand up and move away.

[BillyGoat]

The manacle rules in Ultimate Equipment leave a lot to the imagination.

They merely state that the manacles can "bind" a creature of the size category they're made for. Doesn't say what the limitations of "binding" are.

However, they're shown as classic cuffs, not "cuffs connected by chain to leg-cuffs". So I'd say they can only be used to prevent someone from using their hands. Aside from the obvious not being able to wield weapons/shields or cast somatic component spells, it's up to you, the GM, to determine the limitations.

This is one of those cases where Paizo's clear intent for the game not to be played by rules lawyers shows up.

For the tie-up action, I'd allow regular cuffs (manacles), but not the full body-harness style cuffs that inhibit the legs. Seems like it's too cumbersome to manipulate such a bulky contraption while holding a guy down.

Alternately, stick to rope, then transfer to manacles after the fact.

[VRMH]

What manacles allow the wearer to do depends largely on their design - some are meant to allow the prisoner a reasonable degree of movement, while others are almost as restrictive as a straitjacket.

Only manacles designed to go on feet would hinder movement in the Pathfinder sense of the word, and those usually aren't called "manacles", but "leg-irons". And even then you could probably still make a 5' hop.

Considering the intended tactic, the character would probably use manacles that are extremely restrictive. But you'd need two actions to (almost) completely immobilise a person in my opinion: one to shackle their arms, and another for their legs - with two sets of irons.

Rope's simply more flexible in what you can do, and provides more material to do it with.

[BillyGoat]

VRMH wrote:

What manacles allow the wearer to do depends largely on their design - some are meant to allow the prisoner a reasonable degree of movement, while others are almost as restrictive as a straitjacket.

Only manacles designed to go on feet would hinder movement in the Pathfinder sense of the word, and those usually aren't called "manacles", but "leg-irons". And even then you could probably still make a 5' hop.

Considering the intended tactic, the character would probably use manacles that are extremely restrictive. But you'd need two actions to (almost) completely immobilise a person in my opinion: one to shackle their arms, and another for their legs - with two sets of irons.

Rope's simply more flexible in what you can do, and provides more material to do it with.

Barring any better rules buried in the books somewhere, this is a pretty good way to run it.

[Bruno Breakbone]

Table Variance Warning:
Unless Grappler starts with ropes or manacles in hand at beginning of turn, you cannot progress to tie up in a single round as it is a move action to retrieve a stored item. Some GMs will handwave this, others may not.

Otherwise, BillyGoat has a pretty good handle on it.

[Lab_Rat]

Well we actually have full description of what manacles are and are not because of the Advanced Race Guide.

We get:

manacle barbs:

Manacle Barbs: Barbs added to these manacles wound a captive who does more than move slowly and with care. A creature secured in barbed manacles takes 1 point of piercing damage if it takes more than a single move action during a round. Rough movement of any kind, such as being struck in combat or falling prone, likewise causes 1 point of damage. Attempting to break out of barbed manacles with a Strength check deals 1d4 points of piercing damage to the captive regardless of the success of the attempt.

The fact that it states you take damage if you take more than 1 move action per round implies that you can take 2 move actions in manacles.

fetters:

Fetters: Fetters are manacles fitted around the ankles rather than the wrists, and use the same rules for breaking, escape, and cost relative to size. A creature in fetters is entangled and can only move at half speed. In addition, a fettered creature must succeed at a DC 15 Acrobatics check to move more than its (reduced) speed in a round. If it fails the check by 5 or more, the creature falls prone.

Finally a description that manacles are for wrist and fetters are for ankles.

Considering all this, I am pretty sure that neither manacles nor fetters are usable in keeping someone tied up (as the 3rd step of grappling).

[the first Magrim]

You're looking at this all wrong, pin them face down tork their arm back slap one manacle on it, then stick your boot right behind their head and pull on the arm one as hard as you can while peeling the back opposite leg back and snap one on that. No move actions but crappy flopping on the floor like a fish out of water.

I think it should only be a -5 to shackle them instead of -10 for rope. If rope was easier to contain people then cops would carry rope, not cuffs. But rope is nearly impossible to tie some one up while their moving around, bad game mechanic imo.

And you also can't have objects in your hand while you grapple, but you would need the rope or manacles in a quick easy place to get otherwise you would get an AoO...or lose pin or something bad.

[ErichAD]

While it isn't written into the rules anywhere, it's probably fine to substitute manacles for rope in this situation as being bound renders the target helpless, while manacles are much less restricting. Letting them substitute a lesser condition should be fine.