EvilBrage Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Simple - "using" a pair of handcuffs or cable restraints in your active hand makes it appear as though you are handcuffed by examination. If you've actually gone through the trouble of removing a pair of cuffs without someone noticing, then you deserve to have the element of surprise when it comes to a potential ambush.
EvilBrage Posted September 25, 2015 Author Posted September 25, 2015 Two months have passed and not a single gripe or complaint - truly this is an indication that I've provided the most immaculate of suggestions.
Guest Posted September 25, 2015 Posted September 25, 2015 Two months have passed and not a single gripe or complaint - truly this is an indication that I've provided the most immaculate of suggestions. I think it's an excellent idea, but I'm guessing some form of inspection when the bluff goes off needs to be provided, a way to check if the person is actually cuffed. Maybe when the characters are standing next to each other?
Conservatron Posted September 25, 2015 Posted September 25, 2015 maybe an examine at 1 tile distance shows that they aren't cuffed, but more than one shows they are? (like how when you examine paper at +1 tile it says a piece of paper, at 1 tile it says whats on the paper) also a disarm will make you drop the cuffs obviously
Frances Posted September 26, 2015 Posted September 26, 2015 Why does this need 'counterplay'? It's already a (slight) reward someone gets for going through a lengthy and difficult process, so it doesn't seem terribly broken (you have to be left alone and immobile for the entire duration of the resist action, and if you're in cuffs your opponent probably has several other advantages over you as well). If there was a way to actually tell by shift+clicking at close range, I think people would go crazy over it and check cuffs whenever they could (unless they were just being inattentive). Much in the same way certain officers make a point to keep a tile's distance from confirmed changelings, even without knowledge of their abilities.
FinalVerdict3 Posted September 26, 2015 Posted September 26, 2015 Hm... nah. It's fine the way it is, really. How come this would get changed? From what the OP said - when I have enough time to read it properly instead of skimming, you're talking about breaking free from restraints but it wouldn't be announced such as "X is trying to uncuff themselves!" In that case, it really shouldn't be changed. Why? Because the answer is simple: if you tried to break restraints, there would be alot of activity going on to do so, granted my brother escaped cuffs one time by slipping his wrist through but that's because he had skinny arms.
LordFowl Posted September 26, 2015 Posted September 26, 2015 >not what the OP was suggesting at all. I also support the idea that the feigned restraint shouldn't be visible from an inspection. The only indication that it would be false is if you tried to disarm/unhandcuff, the handcuffs would come off immediately, but that wouldn't happen in most situations where this would be used.
FinalVerdict3 Posted September 26, 2015 Posted September 26, 2015 >not what the OP was suggesting at all. Meh, not important then.
Carver Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 I love the idea, but I don't see the need for any sort of 'inspection' mechanic. It already gives you large, red text when the guy uncuffs themself if you're nearby and paying attention. If you left a guy alone for thirty seconds to two minutes and he's gotten free and set a trap in the meanwhile, then I'd say you've been sufficiently outplayed.
EvilBrage Posted October 17, 2015 Author Posted October 17, 2015 Help intent handcuffing yourself would be what makes you feign the cuffs. I still like this idea, a lot.
Greekin Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 I support this I love this idea, but just whatever happens, don't make it visible through any sort of shift+clicking examination at any distance.
Recommended Posts