14
\$\begingroup\$

Is a handcuffed spellcaster still capable of executing the somatic components of spells? I'm asking about rulings in the official rulebooks, not "This is how I'd do this" responses.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ If you are interested in official answers, can you clarify the official source of 'handcuffs'? Do you mean manacles? \$\endgroup\$
    – Kirt
    Commented Dec 31, 2023 at 5:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Kirt Yes, I do. \$\endgroup\$
    – User 23415
    Commented Dec 31, 2023 at 21:20

5 Answers 5

17
\$\begingroup\$

A sensible reading of the rules of somatic components says that handcuffs = no Somatic spells.

Somatic (S) Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.

One might argue that they can still move their hands while they're handcuffed/manacled, but I don't know of any definition of the turn of phrase "free use" that would reasonably apply to handcuffed hands.

Completely losing the ability to separate your hands would limit the number of "intricate sets of gestures" one could reasonably perform to much less than normal (thus not qualifying as 'free use') and certainly puts a crimp on any "forceful gesticulating."

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ You can perform quite a set of one handed gestures with your second hand cuffed to the first (and apparently the gestures need only one hand) if your hands are cuffed together in front of your body. Would require some coordination though. Behind it ... Different story. Try it out, put your left hand on your right wrist and then paint something imaginary with the right hand. Easy. \$\endgroup\$
    – DonQuiKong
    Commented Dec 31, 2023 at 16:26
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Your answer mentions "stuck behind your back", which the answer doesn't say. If the person can get their hands in front of them, would it different? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 1 at 0:43
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Acccumulation Behind or in front, in any practical scenario having your hands manacled/cuffed together still limits the overall range of motion available. If you can't flap your arms at your side and wiggle your fingers, that might be part of the "intricate gestures" or "forceful gesticulation" required by the spell. It's a case where flavor certainly can influence mechanics (for example, I could type just fine with handcuffs on), but I feel it would be disingenuous to argue to a DM that I have the same range of options ("free use") in gestures manacled that I would otherwise. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 1 at 9:02
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ If you are unsatisfied with this answer, consider that magic is quite abundant in most D&D settings and if handcuffs as we generally imagine them didn't stop people from casting spells, civilized people living in those worlds would have certainly designed more restrictive handcuffs that do, for example by limiting the movement of fingers as well. \$\endgroup\$
    – Kryomaani
    Commented Jan 3 at 9:09
4
\$\begingroup\$

You have to have free use of at least one hand

Manacles or handcuffs do not fully immobilize your hands, they just shackle them to each other (or to another object) at the wrist.

"Free use" is not further defined in the rules -- it could be interpreted to mean entirely freely moving the hand around and gesticulating with it (which would include needing to be able to move the arm freely, too, because for example rotating your hand is really a movement that comes from your arm), or just being able to freely use all fingers. The rules are not explicit about it, and if you use a spell focus or material components, the rules also state (PHB, p. 203)

A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.

That means, you can perform somatic components when you are holding a spell focus in that hand, which even would severely limit your freedom to use all your fingers. So, in the end this will be a DM call.

Note however, the rules are explicit that you must have free use of at least one hand to perform the gestures. That means, it is entirely possible to block spellcasters from casting spells with somatic components by tying up their hands. You just have to do it in a way that does not give them one of their hands to freely use -- for example, you could interlace their hands and then tie them up tightly with rope, you could tie them together at the thumbs, or you could wrap the rope through the spaces between the fingers.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ "you can perform somatic components when you are holding a spell focus in that hand" note that this requires spell focus. Any other comparable item, which isn't a focus for you, will not allow Somatic components, arguably not even if it is spell focus for someone else. So it's not a matter of restricting the movements, it's a matter of magic. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 31, 2023 at 12:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ @WakiNadiVellir Yes it is, and you are right it only works for the focus. All spellcasting is a matter of magic, the point is that using common sense for what "free hand" means, and what it appears to mean under the rules differs, so we cannot just rely on the common sense interpretation. I upvoted TheFallenOne as that is how I‘d rule in my games, and they make the best possible case for that reading, but the question asked for strict RAW, and I think there is no strict, unequivocal reading here. Encryptor is right on that (even though I don't particularly like it). \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 31, 2023 at 21:02
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ A sensible, though setting-specific answer, is that nobody in a high-magic setting would design manacles that allow spellcasters to cast spells for obvious reasons. Of course, if spellcasting is rare, then regular Earth handcuffs (which clearly aren't designed to prevent spellcasting) might be common. \$\endgroup\$
    – Zwuwdz
    Commented Jan 3 at 0:17
1
\$\begingroup\$

The rules do not define this

D&D ruleset is designed to support heroic fantasy tropes. Spellcasting being tied, gagged, naked or handcuffed goes against these tropes. Therefore, this kind of situations is supposed to be rare in D&D games.

Since it is rare, the rules do not describe this. The DM has to make a ruling, that's what DMs do. According to the game's author Jeremy Crawford, this is intentional:

The rules are intentionally silent on these corner cases, leaving adjudication to DMs. As always, I say go with what's best for your story.

The game text about manacles can be read in a very borad way:

These metal restraints can bind a Small or Medium creature.

"Bind" is not a game term, so we use the plain English reading of the word along with common sense. Presumably, manacles restrict arms movement but leave hands relatively free. This allows performing somatic components:

the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures

Things which can explicitly prevent spellcasting are scarce in 5e, so this is aligned with the rest of the rules. Burning hands might be an exception, or it can depend on a particular manacles type.

\$\endgroup\$
7
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ I sort of feel like you might be overlooking the explicit requirement of "free use of at least one hand," despite quoting it. If you put manacles on someone's wrists, particularly behind their back, even if they can still move their fingers around, I'm not sure one could reasonably call that free use, could they? For example, they have no freedom to separate their hands apart from each other and move them around in intricate patterns. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 31, 2023 at 8:08
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @TheFallen0ne while moving arms is probably how we picture it, the rule just says free hand. \$\endgroup\$
    – SeriousBri
    Commented Dec 31, 2023 at 9:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SeriousBri I mean it's really getting down into the nitty gritty of the language, but I'd point out that grappling rules require a free hand (which isn't really something I feel can be genuinely argued if you're handcuffed), and somatic rules require free use of at least one hand. Subtle language difference, but that's the stuff RAW sortings are made of, right? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 1 at 9:56
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ It seems like good ambiguity. The wording "at least one free hand" seems to directly allow a person in normal Earth handcuffs to cast spells (one of your hands is free to move, the other has to follow it). I'd expect this to be the norm in a low-or-no magic setting. On the other hand, if you are in a high-magic setting, I can't imagine anyone would create manacles that allow every spellcaster to go around still basically "armed." \$\endgroup\$
    – Zwuwdz
    Commented Jan 3 at 0:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm not sure I get why Heroic Fantasy would not have spell-casting with bound hands. Getting captured by the villain is a solid trope, it lets the heroes prove that they can build themselves back up from zero with wit and chutzpah alone (and conveniently moves the plot along to the villain's castle). \$\endgroup\$
    – Zwuwdz
    Commented Jan 3 at 0:13
-3
\$\begingroup\$

The rules state you need use of atleast one hand. Your arm is not your hand. As long your hand is fully mobile (again not your arm) you can still cast spells. But as always it is completely up to your dm to decide if you can or not. But rules as written i see no reason why you can’t.

\$\endgroup\$
-5
\$\begingroup\$

I'm feeling that hand cuffs probably limits your gestures. Why? Because sorcerers can use metamagic 'subtle casting' to avoid problems like this. If somatic components were not prevented by tieing up arms..etc..then subtle casting would be a 50% waste..only being good in silenced areas..or where you otherwise couldn't speak.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

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