Netting Some Nonsense

[willistillam]

I honestly don't understand the indifference to using nets as a tertiary weapon especially in light (Pun intended??) of Kobold advantage/disadvantage wackiness. With a kobold in sunlight there is no point in avoiding disadvantage you get from nets because you already have disadvantage, heck, why not use the 15 feet long range, it ain't going to hurt you any more. This is when someone says "but you still have disadvantage", and I say who cares you can't stop sunlight sensitivity. You then counter "pack advantage cancels daylight sensitivity disadvantage" and I say you are right, you are now throwing a constant disadvantaged weapon at long range with a normal roll. Also remember that it's dex taking advantage of kobold's plus 2.
Next issue is bringing up effectiveness of nets, they require no contested roll or anything else just straight up attack roll. If you succeed it immediately burns targets next action. Target failing the weak DC for extra round is icing. This is a very situational weapon ideally used when there are few enemies, want crowd control, or if you need to stall.
Final issue is only "one attack per action." which isn't a problem if you use it with a bonus ACTION, reACTION (trust me it works) or if you only have one attack anyways.

Overall I think that situationally it is a great weapon and shouldn't be overlooked by literally everything on the planet. What are your thoughts??

P.S.Hey DMs!! a pack of player kobolds with nets could be a ridiculously annoying encounter

P.S.S. my whole argument is based off having no levels of disadvantage/advantage, if you have 2 levels of disadvantage it is just disadvantage, if you have any multiple of both you roll normally (believe this concept is right, correct me if i'm wrong, may be wrong addition).

[JellyPooga]

The problem with nets is that it usually takes your action to attempt to prevent an action; which isn't a good trade. Given to an NPC, yeah, a net is great; it allows you to set up for some shenanigans and an NPCs other options aren't often going to be that good anyway. On the subject of netting someone as a Reaction, you have the problem of actually getting to use it as a Reaction; nothing (to my knowledge) grants a ranged attack as a Reaction (and a net attack is always a ranged attack), unless you Ready an action to do it, but that also eats your Action on your turn so we're back to that bad trade again.

Nets as a bad idea isn't so much to do with the disadvantage, so much as the problem with your Action economy. Solve that problem and you might see them used more often.

[gfishfunk]

It's not an action for action trade. It's an attack for action trade. A fighter gets a lot. A ranger would not have too bad of a time with it either.

Also, it's not just action negation, but imposing advantage on attacks against it, disadvantage on Dex saves, and disadvantage on its attacks if it doesn't try to break out.

[Naanomi]

Ranger throws net,
Entangling Strike,
Giant crab pet names attack and grapples,
Triple lockdown in troublesome NPC!

[Tanarii]

It's not an action for action trade. It's an attack for action trade. A fighter gets a lot. A ranger would not have too bad of a time with it either.If you attack with a net, you can only make one attack with the action used. That makes it even worse for using with Extra Attack.

[gfishfunk]

If you attack with a net, you can only make one attack with the action used. That makes it even worse for using with Extra Attack.

Not necessarily:

1 - Attack with net.
2 - Move action, object interaction to draw other weapon
3 - Other attacks if applicable
4 - Off-Hand attack if applicable
5 - Remainder of party's attacks

[hymer]

Not necessarily

It's one of the effects of the net that you don't get Extra Attack with it.


[...]you can make only one attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make.

[gfishfunk]

It's one of the effects of the net that you don't get Extra Attack with it.

Oh snap.

I guess its not too bad for a cleric. I'll have to chew on this. Or a beastmaster Ranger from the UA rework...

[MrStabby]

Nets are fantastic tools but tend to not be good to build around. Pinning down a dex based character like an archer is good. Their backup weapon had better be doing slashing damage or else they are needing to make that strength save. Sure, most enemies might have pretty good strength but this is not bad for the ones that don't.

As for bonus action attacks with ranged weapons - you want an eldritch knights war magic I think. Net them then blast them

[Naanomi]

Oh snap.

I guess its not too bad for a cleric. I'll have to chew on this. Or a beastmaster Ranger from the UA rework...
Also useful for eldritch knights and valor bards who can attack + cantrip

[JBPuffin]

Nets are fantastic tools but tend to not be good to build around. Pinning down a dex based character like an archer is good. Their backup weapon had better be doing slashing damage or else they are needing to make that strength save. Sure, most enemies might have pretty good strength but this is not bad for the ones that don't.

As for bonus action attacks with ranged weapons - you want an eldritch knights war magic I think. Net them then blast them

War Magic's the other way around - cantrip, then attack (aka, Lightning Lure+Greatsword shenanigans).

[MrStabby]

War Magic's the other way around - cantrip, then attack (aka, Lightning Lure+Greatsword shenanigans).

I thought that bonus actions were before or after main actions unless it was specifically specified - like in flurry of blows?

[Tanarii]

War Magic's the other way around - cantrip, then attack (aka, Lightning Lure+Greatsword shenanigans).
Sage Advice ruled that the intent is you can do it in any order.

IMO that's pretty explicitly NOT any reasonable interpretation of the RAW, but it is what it is.

[Naanomi]

Sage Advice ruled that the intent is you can do it in any order.

IMO that's pretty explicitly NOT any reasonable interpretation of the RAW, but it is what it is.
The argument, as I understand it, is that *declaring* you are going to use your action to Attack, Cast a Spell, or whatever what generates the bonus action... not actually *doing* that thing, so you can choose to do the Bonus Action that you generated by declaring the action before actually performing that action. Convoluted, perhaps, but I can see where you get to that point

[Tanarii]

The argument, as I understand it, is that *declaring* you are going to use your action to Attack, Cast a Spell, or whatever what generates the bonus action... not actually *doing* that thing, so you can choose to do the Bonus Action that you generated by declaring the action before actually performing that action. Convoluted, perhaps, but I can see where you get to that point
Yeah I know that argument. In some cases it makes sense. But when the requirement is using your action to cast a Cantrip, not just taking the 'Cast a Spell' action, that argument falls apart. Either that, or you are locking all selections required when the spell in question is selected and cast (target, etc) in when the action is taken (aka declared).

In other words, you can't just have it both ways unless the intent is, as sage advice seems to think, that the wording didn't actually mean that the requirement is 'when you use your action to cast a cantrip' but rather 'in any round in which you plan to use your action to cast a cantrip'. Or possibly 'when you use the Cast a Spell action and declare it will be a cantrip'. Or even just: 'look guys, it's not meant to be that atomic & restrictive, it's not a computer program, you're just supposed to be limited to being able to do X things in a round in some combination that your abilities let you do' would be a reasonable addendum to the Sage Advice on triggering actions & bonus actions.

Here's one of the SA. It was a tweet by JC on Shield Master feat. I may be mis-remembering it being an actual SA document response.
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/29/shield-master-feat/

[willistillam]

It's one of the effects of the net that you don't get Extra Attack with it.

only per type of action, you can do it as a bonus action, if your class has that option... then you have all of your attacks granted by an action

[willistillam]

Nets as a bad idea isn't so much to do with the disadvantage, so much as the problem with your Action economy. Solve that problem and you might see them used more often.

ok, then bonus action?? I know that you can use bonus actions to attack (don't know about range), honestly im not familiar with melee builds, I bring this up because pg 148 says "when you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to attack with net..." If we can get past that then it does work because it goes on to say "regardless of how many attacks you can make." this part states that if you do it as any type of action then you can do only one, it does not say per turn.

[RickAllison]

ok, then bonus action?? I know that you can use bonus actions to attack (don't know about range), honestly im not familiar with melee builds, I bring this up because pg 148 says "when you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to attack with net..." If we can get past that then it does work because it goes on to say "regardless of how many attacks you can make." this part states that if you do it as any type of action then you can do only one, it does not say per turn.

Part of the issue for that idea is that it is comparatively difficult to get bonus actions and such with a net. It is a ranged weapon, which means no two-weapon fighting (restricted to melee weapons), no feat support (other than combining a net with a hand crossbow bonus action attack, which is not a bad idea), and few class features to help. The big features I see for this are the Eldritch Knight's and Valor Bard's abilities to use a cantrip and bonus action attack. And in fact, several of the prospective net builds I've seen have used those two with Haste. Arguably, you could use a monk with this rather well as Flurry of Blows only requires the attack action and you would be unarmed when you actually attack.

But the net is mainly an additional tool for a weapon-user, not the primary one. It is great for Demiliches, fliers, or any Large or smaller creatures relying on single attacks.

[MrStabby]

For me the big issue with the net is competition.

The net seems to be in natural competition with shoving someone prone.

Pros of Shove
It is an opposed ability check, which is easier to rig to your advantage by adding expertise/proficiency etc..
No disadvantage from enemy within 5ft or being at long range.
Uncommon to have disadvantage from any other source - plenty of things give disadvantage to attack rolls but not skill checks.
you can do it multiple times - also no need to draw a weapon.
It takes an attack, not a whole action so frees you up for other things
You can shove people away or grapple them with the same skills if it is ever better


Pros of Net
You can use dex - maybe a bit better
You can get advantage on an attack (if players have advantage attacking an NPC anyway then there is a limit to the benefits of putting them in a net though)
You impose disadvantage on their dex saves
Requires at least an attack to break free (although easy enough to do)
May take a whole action if the target has no source of slashing damage

[Tanarii]

Pros of Net
You can get advantage on an attack (if players have advantage attacking an NPC anyway then there is a limit to the benefits of putting them in a net though)
Cons - Unless you have the crossbow expert feat, you always attack with a net at disadvantage. Either from being in melee range, or being at long range. So at best, adv cancels out disadv.

Which is also:
Pros - Disadv doesn't stack, so if you're getting it anyway it doesn't matter that you're already at disadv with a net.

[RickAllison]

Cons - Unless you have the crossbow expert feat, you always attack with a net at disadvantage. Either from being in melee range, or being at long range. So at best, adv cancels out disadv.

Which is also:
Pros - Disadv doesn't stack, so if you're getting it anyway it doesn't matter that you're already at disadv with a net.

Kobolds, away!

[Naanomi]

Cons - Unless you have the crossbow expert feat, you always attack with a net at disadvantage. Either from being in melee range, or being at long range. So at best, adv cancels out disadv.
Or sharpshooter to double the range

And only if they see you and are not incapacitated; so good to keep a down enemy staying down; or in a surprise situation

[Tanarii]

Or sharpshooter to double the rangeSharpshooter doesn't double the range. But it does remove disadvantage at long range. So it still does what you meant. :smallwink:

[Naanomi]

Sharpshooter doesn't double the range. But it does remove disadvantage at long range. So it still does what you meant. :smallwink:
Right, that thing you said *oops*. I think I was mixing it up with spellsniper for some reason, but in any case I've used sharpshooter + net before so I know it works.

[RickAllison]

Right, that thing you said *oops*. I think I was mixing it up with spellsniper for some reason, but in any case I've used sharpshooter + net before so I know it works.

Now if only you could get the +10 damage...

[The Shadowdove]

Eldritch Knight with truestrike?

[hymer]

only per type of action, you can do it as a bonus action, if your class has that option... then you have all of your attacks granted by an action

I'm not sure I follow. I wrote you can't use Extra Attack with a net.
Yes, you can with various features or spells throw more than one net in a round. But that's not Extra Attack (the class feature), though it could be said to be extra attacks.