6
\$\begingroup\$

I have several questions regarding how Dimensional Shackles work in an antimagic field (below are the relevant parts of their descriptions):

Dimensional Shackles:

[...] In addition to serving as mundane manacles, the shackles prevent a creature bound by them from using any method of extradimensional movement, including teleportation or travel to a different plane of existence. They don't prevent the creature from passing through an interdimensional portal.

You and any creature you designate when you use the shackles can use an action to remove them. Once every 30 days, the bound creature can make a DC 30 Strength (Athletics) check. On a success, the creature breaks free and destroys the shackles.

The antimagic field spell:

[...] The properties and powers of magic items are suppressed in the sphere. For example, a longsword, +1 in the sphere functions as a nonmagical longsword [...]

First: are the locking mechanisms on the dimensional shackles magical, are they not magical, or do they not exist and the shackles are held together by magic? Depending on the answer to the former question, what are the implications to the following questions:

  • Do Dimensional Shackles simply become mundane manacles in the field?
  • Will Dimensional Shackles remain on the bound creature at all; Are they held together by magical means and fall off in an antimagic field?
  • Will they still have a DC 30 strength check to break, or will the be broken by a 20 which is what is needed to break mundane manacles?
  • Can the selected creatures still simply remove them with an action?
  • Unlike manacles, there is no DC for using thieves' tools; does this change when entering an antimagic field? (in fact, in pictures I have seen, Dimensional Shackles don't seem to have a lock or anything holding them together for that matter)

Not having a DC for thieve's tools is my premise for whether the locking mechanism is magical in the first place. This can go both ways though, it could be that magic keeps tools from picking the lock.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I'll remove my earlier comments now and suggest you do the same, since it seems this went well. As such, I'll just reiterate; Welcome to the site! Take the tour if you haven't already and visit the help center if you have further questions. (Helpful tip, you can ping/notify people using @ followed by their username, or just the first three letters) Great first question, and happy gaming. \$\endgroup\$
    – Exempt-Medic
    Commented Dec 14, 2019 at 23:21
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I noticed that and I think I had it in my original post which got edited out (I had more premises for my thoughts, but my questions were all muddled). serving as mundane manacles and having the same properties definitely have different meanings. Additionally, read that post before creating my question :). \$\endgroup\$
    – Dezvul
    Commented Dec 15, 2019 at 0:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ I've now opened a related question: "Do Dimensional Shackles share the properties of Manacles?" \$\endgroup\$
    – Exempt-Medic
    Commented Dec 15, 2019 at 0:35

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3
\$\begingroup\$

They serve as mundane manacles

That’s the starting point that the magic modifies. Remember, there are no secret rules.

Do Dimensional Shackles simply become mundane manacles in the field?

Yes

Will Dimensional Shackles remain on the bound creature at all; Are they held together by magical means and fall off in an antimagic field?

Yes and no respectively.

Will they still have a DC 30 strength check to break, or will the be broken by a 20 which is what is needed to break mundane manacles?

They are now mundane, so DC20. By the way, the DC 30 applies only to the restrained creature - they are DC20 for everyone else.

Can the selected creatures still simply remove them with an action?

No, they are mundane manacles. Without the magic they would need the key.

Unlike manacles, there is no DC for using thieves' tools; does this change when entering an antimagic field? (in fact, in pictures I have seen, Dimensional Shackles don't seem to have a lock or anything holding them together for that matter)

They are manacles, therefore the DC15 for thieves tools applies all the time because the magic doesn’t change that.

\$\endgroup\$
7
  • \$\begingroup\$ So you'd say that even regular Dimensional Shackles can be simply opened by a DC 15 check? Similarly then, wouldn't they come with a key since all manacles do? And they would have a mere 15 hit points? \$\endgroup\$
    – Exempt-Medic
    Commented Dec 15, 2019 at 0:14
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Medix2 Note that as magic items, they have resistance to all damage, so they're sturdier than normal manacles even if they have the same number of hit points. \$\endgroup\$
    – Mark Wells
    Commented Dec 15, 2019 at 0:20
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @MarkWells Yes it just seems odd to me that you can only attempt to escape once every 30 days, or you can just headbutt them until you deal enough damage. With a strength modifier of +1, you could break them in 15 turns. \$\endgroup\$
    – Exempt-Medic
    Commented Dec 15, 2019 at 0:23
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Medix2 makes some very good points, it is strange that you could break the manacles in less than 2 minutes when you can't make the strength check again for 30 days. The wording on dimensional shackles says they serve as mundane manacles, to me that means they perform the same role that manacles do: binding someone. It in no way says that they have the properties of mundane manacles which has an entirely different definition. While I like your answer, and will probably use it as a DM, it works off of the assumption that it serves and shares the same purposes and properties as mundane manacles. \$\endgroup\$
    – Dezvul
    Commented Dec 15, 2019 at 0:51
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I have a better way of putting it: they serve the same purpose as mundane manacles. That is to say, they do the same things manacles do, and as said, they have an additional feature. Nowhere does it say they are just a magical version of mundane manacles. \$\endgroup\$
    – Dezvul
    Commented Dec 15, 2019 at 2:45

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .