Nobody Expects Nets! Nobody!

[zoobob9]

There's a combo that I just through of, but I'm not sure if it's legal under RAW. It involves the Net and the Dungeoncrash ability, along with other bull rush oriented abilities.

Concerning the net, "If you control the trailing rope by succeeding on an opposed Strength check while holding it, the entangled creature can move only within the limits that the rope allows." PH 121

Concerning Dungeoncrash, "If you force an opponent to move into a wall or other solid object, he stops as normal. However, your momentum crushes him against it, dealing an amount of bludgeoning damage equal to 4d6 + twice your strength bonus (if any)." Dungeonscape 10. This bonus is increased to 8d6 + three times the strength bonus later on.

The combo is this: I throw the net onto them, hold on to the rope in my one hand, and punch them with the other hand. The punch bull rushes them to the end of the net where they can't move anymore. Note that I'm using Knockback to stay in the same place while bull rushing them however many feet. The bull rush is stopped short, technically by a solid object.

Would the extra Dungeoncrash damage apply?

[Drachasor]

You are not forcing them into a wall or other solid object, imho. "Solid" doesn't mean "solid state of matter" in this context, but "rigid" and the net isn't rigid.

[zoobob9]

You are not forcing them into a wall or other solid object, imho. "Solid" doesn't mean "solid state of matter" in this context, but "rigid" and the net isn't rigid.

It's not rigid, but it prevents movement without much "give" if that makes sense. If it's bull rushed into a troll or something, there's a bit of a cushion, but at the end of the net it stops them without any "give." Then again, this explanation is getting into RAI instead of RAW.

[Flickerdart]

You are not forcing them into anything. You're making them stop by pulling on a rope. It's not RAI, nor RAW.

[Drachasor]

It's not rigid, but it prevents movement without much "give" if that makes sense. If it's bull rushed into a troll or something, there's a bit of a cushion, but at the end of the net it stops them without any "give." Then again, this explanation is getting into RAI instead of RAW.

Yeah, but stopping movement is not sufficient.

The amount of give doesn't strictly matter. But a rope does have give.

[GameSpawn]

The problem is that there isn't, to my knowledge, a definition of "solid" in RAW, so it needs to be interpreted (the word "solid" can be used in ways that apply to the net, and ways that do not).

Of course, almost no DM would allow this anyway.

[HereBeMonsters]

Be interesting if you could make a str check to swing them around into a wall though. Maybe enlarge person for bonuses.

[Coidzor]

Be interesting if you could make a str check to swing them around into a wall though. Maybe enlarge person for bonuses.

Yeah, houseruling/homebrewing up something like that seems like the only way. Also, awesome. :smallcool:

[Vhaidara]

The problem is that there isn't, to my knowledge, a definition of "solid" in RAW, so it needs to be interpreted (the word "solid" can be used in ways that apply to the net, and ways that do not).

Of course, almost no DM would allow this anyway.

Honestly, I might. Just because of the image off netting someone and then yoyo punching them.

[HereBeMonsters]

And now i am imagining a warforge yoyoing a goblin thanks

[GameSpawn]

Honestly, I might. Just because of the image off netting someone and then yoyo punching them.

Yeah, after I wrote that I realized "many DMs wouldn't allow this even if they agreed that it was RAW" would have been a more accurate statement.

[Phaederkiel]

there were some great debates wether for example, other monsters, or other pcs are solid objects. I stood firmly on the side of no, they aren't and think there were some good arguments against it.

[HereBeMonsters]

Large sized and swing them over your shoulder into the very solid ground with the net.

[Flickerdart]

Large sized and swing them over your shoulder into the very solid ground with the net.
That's great, but neither a bullrush nor an actual thing one can do as an attack without the appropriate feat or maneuver.

[Coidzor]

That's great, but neither a bullrush nor an actual thing one can do as an attack without the appropriate feat or maneuver.

There's a feat for that? I thought it wasn't even modeled directly by maneuvers.

[Another_Poet]

I gotta say no.

From a common sense standpoint: The point of the feat is you're crushing them between your body and a hard object, or throwing them against a hard object. That isn't happening here.

Or, from RAW: You're not forcing your opponent into a solid object.


If you force an opponent to move into a wall or other solid object

This explicitly states that you force your opponent into something, doing damage (and reinforcing my common sense interpretation of "crushing" above). With the net, they are already in the net. You are not forcing them "into" the net a second time.

It doesn't matter whether the net counts as a solid object. Sure, let's say it does. Nonetheless you need to find a new solid object and bullrush them into that one.

If I was your GM: I'd grant 1d6 ropeburn damage as a consolation prize.

[schoklat]

Steel rope nets? :smalltongue:

[GameSpawn]

Or, from RAW: You're not forcing your opponent into a solid object.



This explicitly states that you force your opponent into something, doing damage (and reinforcing my common sense interpretation of "crushing" above). With the net, they are already in the net. You are not forcing them "into" the net a second time.

It doesn't matter whether the net counts as a solid object. Sure, let's say it does. Nonetheless you need to find a new solid object and bullrush them into that one.

If I was your GM: I'd grant 1d6 ropeburn damage as a consolation prize.

Well, I think the argument is that you're forcing them into the side of the net, since that's what stops their movement. I probably wouldn't allow it either, but you're forcing your opponent into the side of the net, and it's stopping their movement, so there's some validity to the RAW argument.

[Brookshw]

Hmmm, fun question and hilarious. The raw has drawn a parallel between a wall and a solid object, so I'd personally say that a wall is the baseline for whatever a solid object is. Why do I want to play tetherball all of a sudden?

[Coidzor]

Hmmm, fun question and hilarious. The raw has drawn a parallel between a wall and a solid object, so I'd personally say that a wall is the baseline for whatever a solid object is. Why do I want to play tetherball all of a sudden?

Because the idea of two PCs smacking a goblin back and forth to play tetherball is amazing?