Would a Net Fighter work?

[Rebonack]

I want to make sure my thinking on this is right, but I'm pretty sure I've figured out how to make a net-and-weapon gladiator style fighter work.

VHuman, Fighter, pick up the Two Weapon Feat and the Close Quarters Shooter (UA) fighting style. Net in one hand, rapier in the other. Walk up to someone and use the bonus action off-hand attack to net them. Use the Action to start stabbing the heck out of them with the rapier. This leaves your target with three options.

1) Waste an attack to cut through the net, assuming they have a source of slashing damage available.
2) Use an action to escape from the net.
3) Attack the Fighter at disadvantage.

It also gives your whole party advantage on their attacks due to the restrained condition, so I imagine being able to inflict that status more or less at will would be pretty great. Would this work? Or would the net's weird rules mess it up somehow?

[Grod_The_Giant]

The only problem I can see is how you read the "When you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to attack with a net, you can make only one attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make."

[Vogie]

I like it. Maybe include a couple levels of Rogue so you can doubly benefit from the advantage from the restrained condition, provided you're using a finesse weapon?

In addition, choosing your Fighter archetype will impact the viability of the tactic. Cavalier, for example, will give you bonus not-reaction attacks on the target, in addition giving them disadvantage from attacking targets other than you, based on your STR mod. EK would give you an additional "net" via casting Hold Person at level 7, and having a net as a summon-able bonded weapon could be quite interesting. BM Fighters can further remove the target's ability to slash at the net by using a disarming maneuver first could be a thing.

[strangebloke]

The only problem I can see is how you read the "When you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to attack with a net, you can make only one attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make."

Even if you allow the 'one attack' restriction to apply to the bonus action, there's the problem of ordering. Many would rule that you can't take the bonus action attack until after you've made the attack action.

Personally, I'd allow you to throw a net and then stab an enemy, particularly if you've invested into a feat and a fighting style.

[Sigreid]

I would like to see a net fighter feat that let you use your athletics to oppose attempts to break free. Maybe a fighting style instead to make it a fighter only trick.

[Rebonack]

The only problem I can see is how you read the "When you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to attack with a net, you can make only one attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make."

That's my main concern, too. The way the net rules are worded could be more clear. My understanding is that only the net attack can be made with any single action, even if you can usually take multiple attacks with that action. So long as you're using your bonus action or reaction to throw the net, I think you're okay.

[nickl_2000]

That's my main concern, too. The way the net rules are worded could be more clear. My understanding is that only the net attack can be made with any single action, even if you can usually take multiple attacks with that action. So long as you're using your bonus action or reaction to throw the net, I think you're okay.

There is no good way, as far as I know, to use the net to make an attack as a reaction. AoOs are melee only, Sentinel is Melee only. Commander's Strike from Battle Master would allow it, as would a readied action. However, neither of these are really all that great.


Now, if you were to play a Rogue with Sharpshooter and X-bow expert you could sneak attack with a net and leave them restrained at the end of it.

[Sigreid]

AFB but curious. If you have spell sniper could you have a booming blade net?

[Vogie]

AFB but curious. If you have spell sniper could you have a booming blade net?

I don't believe so - Nets are considered Ranged weapons, and BB calls out specifically to "Make a melee attack with a weapon"

They both have a range of 5 ft, so...

[nickl_2000]

AFB but curious. If you have spell sniper could you have a booming blade net?

Nope. You can't make a melee attack with a net. You make a ranged attack only and therefore no Booming/Green Flame Blade

[MaxWilson]

There is no good way, as far as I know, to use the net to make an attack as a reaction. AoOs are melee only, Sentinel is Melee only. Commander's Strike from Battle Master would allow it, as would a readied action. However, neither of these are really all that great.


Now, if you were to play a Rogue with Sharpshooter and X-bow expert you could sneak attack with a net and leave them restrained at the end of it.

You don't really need Sharpshooter AND Crossbow Expert. Either one will suffice.

Nets are a great way for lesser characters to involve themselves in combat. Animate Dead is a great way to get nets into play. If necessary, have skeletons pair themselves off (Helper + Net thrower) to cancel ranged disadvantage.

Another version is for e.g. a Fighter to grapple/prone a strong (non-Huge+) enemy one turn, then toss a net on him next turn. (Prone cancels out the disadvantage for using middle weapons near enemies.) Now the enemy has to break both the grapple and the net in a single turn to escape, which is quite difficult to do even with crazy-high Athletics skill. (Basically you need to Shove away the grappler with one attack and then cut the net.) If he throws off the net but doesn't break the grapple, you'll just throw a new net next turn, so he wasted his action, and meanwhile he's still prone. Ditto if he breaks the grapple but not the net.

So unless he can teleport, he's basically stuck fighting at disadvantage for the rest of the combat, while your team beats on him with advantage. As long as you outnumber him that's a winning play.

Nets reward team play.

[Deathtongue]

I'm honestly legit curious as to why nets don't get used more often. I'm thinking it's because nets are so powerful when used correctly that it feels like cheating. And unlike a lot of 'OMG hax' tricks like Simulacrums or Quickened Hex-Hexblade Curse Eldritch Blast, it's eminently repeatable.

[JackPhoenix]

I'm honestly legit curious as to why nets don't get used more often. I'm thinking it's because nets are so powerful when used correctly that it feels like cheating. And unlike a lot of 'OMG hax' tricks like Simulacrums or Quickened Hex-Hexblade Curse Eldritch Blast, it's eminently repeatable.

More like because they are next to useless. You only get one attack per turn, you always use it at disadvantage, unless you take a feat, and it's not especially hard to escape. Or destroy, which isn't a problem with any other weapon. It's got some niche use, but unless you're a Lore Bard, you'll have more effective ways to end the combat with your actions.

[strangebloke]

More like because they are next to useless. You only get one attack per turn, you always use it at disadvantage, unless you take a feat, and it's not especially hard to escape. Or destroy, which isn't a problem with any other weapon. It's got some niche use, but unless you're a Lore Bard, you'll have more effective ways to end the combat with your actions.

As with most things, it gets a little silly when combined with necromancy.

Fun to use against PCs.

[MaxWilson]

I'm honestly legit curious as to why nets don't get used more often. I'm thinking it's because nets are so powerful when used correctly that it feels like cheating. And unlike a lot of '--- hax' tricks like Simulacrums or Quickened Hex-Hexblade Curse Eldritch Blast, it's eminently repeatable.

I suspect the combination of always-at-disadvantage (barring special abilities like Sharpshooter), the "only once per turn" limitation, the martial weapon requirement, and the size limitation is enough to make most people pass them by when they first view them in the PHB. Most people who can use nets with proficiency bonus and without disadvantage typically have something better to do with their action, and most of the other PCs don't think to do so. (E.g. your typical 3rd level wizard with a familiar may think to have his Familiar Help him with a Fire Bolt/Chill Touch, but won't think to have his familiar Help him land a net attack to give everyone else advantage. Plus he doesn't want to be near the front lines anyway.)

P.S. I have always wanted to try a Net Hunter Ranger though. You can only make one attack, but Volley lets you target tons of enemies with a single attack. "Volley: You can use your action to make a ranged Attack against any number of creatures within 10 feet of a point you can see within your weapon’s range. You must have Ammunition for each target, as normal, and you make a separate Attack roll for each target." Arguably, since nets do not consume ammunition, you could use one net to ensnare 8+ orcs in a single action; if the DM rules that you need one net per target (which in some ways makes more sense and in some ways is more ridiculous) you just carry more nets. Then the wolves and velociraptors you summoned with Conjure Animals eat all of the orcs, at advantage. Fun, right?

[Naanomi]

A net is a great resource for a beastmaster; who gets only one attack anyways and directly benefits in helping her pet get advantages against netted opponents (even moreso with revised ranger and coordinated attack)

[Platypusbill]

OP's idea does not work because the net is a ranged weapon. Two-weapon fighting only works with melee weapons.

The problems with nets are A) you can only make one net attack per action/bonus action/reaction even if you could otherwise make more than one, B) attacks are always made at disadvantage unless you have Crossbow Expert/Sharpshooter/Close Quarters Shooter. A) basically means that it is incompatible with Extra Attack.

However, I've previously come up with a couple of builds that are effective with nets:

1) Rogue w/ Crossbow Expert.
The net can be used with the action and then followed up on with a bonus action hand crossbow attack. The fact that you only get one damaging shot doesn't matter because you get Sneak Attack.

2) Hunter Ranger 5/War Cleric 15 w/ Sharpshooter.
The War Cleric can make a bonus action attack with the net (though uses of this are limited) and then shoot twice with the Attack action. If using the -5 attack roll/+10 damage tradeoff of Sharpshooter, at least one miss is fairly likely even with advantage, but Colossus Slayer and Divine Strike provide a once-per-turn extra 3d8 damage.

[Griswold]

OP's idea does not work because the net is a ranged weapon. Two-weapon fighting only works with melee weapons.

That's not actually true; because nets have the thrown property, you can use them with two-weapon fighting.


If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.

[PeteNutButter]

Seems like a solid use of the haste action. No need for even a feat, should be easy enough to just get advantage one of the plethora of other ways to offset the disadvantage. No issue with the ordering of the action either.

[MaxWilson]

Seems like a solid use of the haste action. No need for even a feat, should be easy enough to just get advantage one of the plethora of other ways to offset the disadvantage. No issue with the ordering of the action either.

Haste would work great if you wanted to use a net and throw a spell, but it's problematic when you want to use a net and make weapon attacks taking advantage of the net. The way I read the spell, you only get one weapon attack, period, on a turn when you use a net. Haste doesn't change that.

[PeteNutButter]

Haste would work great if you wanted to use a net and throw a spell, but it's problematic when you want to use a net and make weapon attacks taking advantage of the net. The way I read the spell, you only get one weapon attack, period, on a turn when you use a net. Haste doesn't change that.

But that's... incorrect.

"When you use an action, Bonus Action, or reaction to Attack with a net, you can make only one Attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make."

It very clearly is referring to that action you make the attack with. There is no mention of a turn time limit on it. If its not referring to that attack... can you never make attacks again? :smalltongue:

[MrStabby]

The net isn't too bad on an eldritch knight that can use a cantrip and use the net as a bonus action. The fact that they get extra feats to make it work is also pretty awesome. High level valor bards can also do similar.

Nets are also good if you have spells like heat metal in the party or other ways of disarming an opponent. Making it really inefficient to get out of the net is good. The trouble is that, like a lot of things like grappling, you put resources into specialising in that style then suck when you come up against big enemies. That said is part of the specialism is sharpshooter you might be OK, depending on your dexterity.

At what point do you just go for using one of your attacks to just shove the enemy instead? Same advantage for you and all your team but so much less to worry about and, given typical athletics proficiency for enemies, more likely to succeed.

[MrStabby]

Seems like a solid use of the haste action. No need for even a feat, should be easy enough to just get advantage one of the plethora of other ways to offset the disadvantage. No issue with the ordering of the action either.

I wont argue that there are not many ways to get advantage... but if PCs already have advantage against this enemy do you really need to throw a net on top?

[PeteNutButter]

I wont argue that there are not many ways to get advantage... but if PCs already have advantage against this enemy do you really need to throw a net on top?

Well there are a lot of ways to get advantage that are limited or temporary such as familiar help, proning etc. The net converts it to advantage for the whole team until the enemy wastes their turn getting out or until it the thing is dead.

[CTurbo]

I had an Archer Fighter that was mainly a longbow guy but he did carry and use nets. With Sharpshooter and Archery, he was dangerous with his net from 10ft away. Other characters would ready their actions sometimes to attack as soon I caught the enemy in the net.

The DM even homebrewed me a +1 magic acid net that dealt 2d4+1 acid damage a turn to anybody caught in it.

[opaopajr]

Having enemies shoved prone helps, as does having Adv from being hidden, and so on. Since Adv & Disadv cancel put, and cannot stack, you only need one Adv to cancel things out. Five feet from a Prone target grants Adv. Hidden grants Adv. Now you have an even shot to land the net.

Faerie Fire? Stunned, Blinded, etc.? Same.

As for TWF, unfortunately Darts & Nets are S.O.L. because even though they have Thrown property, they are NOT light NOR melee weapons. (Shhh, just let the obvious dart weight contradiction go. :smalltongue:) Further, Net has a "special" keyword which gives 'specific beating general' rules that says more clearly: "No."

OA states for a melee attack, BUT does not limit it to a melee weapon attack. (Here's where there is room for comfusion on Net.) However, there's no explicit text on barring using a ranged weapon for a melee attack. In fact, Ammunition keyword tells you HOW to do so (you treat it as an Improvised Weapon,). But Darts and Nets have no Ammunition keyword.

Further, the only other info is in Thrown keyword. Thrown tells you you can make a ranged attack with the weapon, so you get a choice. Next it singles out that melee weapons use typical melee stats (STR) for attack & damage -- and gives an example on how it works. And further the example shows how how Finesse in daggers gives you options. So basically following the above lead: if these Ranged Weapon with Thrown are thrown, use typical ranged stats (DEX) for attack & damage, barring Finesse which gives you options.

But again it doesn't answer about Ranged Weapons being used for a melee attack. Obviously you can do it, hence Ammo property's clause referring to Improvised Weapon section. But there's no further commentary...

So what happens to using a Net for a melee attack? :smallcool:

Seems doable? :smallwink: Likely follows typical melee rules (STR) for atk & dmg. Likely doesn't get Improvised Weapon 1d4 dmg value (because it is a known weapon on the table, and dmg value is explicitly a dash, but again GM interpretation on that clause). Nor does it get Disadv for being a Ranged Attack within 5' because it is not being used for a ranged attack.

That's a lot of checked conditions that don't tell you "No." In fact, it's several conditions that tell you "Yes, but if X, do Y..." that don't qualify because you are Z. So does that tell you "Yes?" :smallwink:

Well, that's for your GM to decide... :smallcool: I'd say all known indicators lead towards "Sure, why not?"

[strangebloke]

But that's... incorrect.

"When you use an action, Bonus Action, or reaction to Attack with a net, you can make only one Attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make."

It very clearly is referring to that action you make the attack with. There is no mention of a turn time limit on it. If its not referring to that attack... can you never make attacks again? :smalltongue:

I mean, how are you supposed to read that?

If it's "only one attack per turn" then it's very strange that that is never specified.

If it's "only one attack with that action" then it's very strange that reactions are called out, since I'm pretty sure you can't make more than one attack as a reaction.

Also: nets interact with tunnel fighter in a very funny way. Since the tunnel fighter reaction attack is actually an actionless attack, there's nothing stopping you from throwing all the nets you want.

ALSO: you can apply sneak attack damage and other riders to a net. So if you want to have fun with this, your best build option is probably a swashbuckler, or maybe a cleric. Tempest Domain divine strike on a net!

[PeteNutButter]

I mean, how are you supposed to read that?

If it's "only one attack per turn" then it's very strange that that is never specified.

If it's "only one attack with that action" then it's very strange that reactions are called out, since I'm pretty sure you can't make more than one attack as a reaction.

Also: nets interact with tunnel fighter in a very funny way. Since the tunnel fighter reaction attack is actually an actionless attack, there's nothing stopping you from throwing all the nets you want.

ALSO: you can apply sneak attack damage and other riders to a net. So if you want to have fun with this, your best build option is probably a swashbuckler, or maybe a cleric. Tempest Domain divine strike on a net!

There is no wording specifying turn length so that interpretation is putting words into the text that just aren’t there.

The wording about using an action, reaction, or bonus action is a bit odd, but there are two possible reasons for it being the way it is.
1) Ease of wording. The original text pre-edit might have read something like “if you use an action to throw a net you can only make one attack [regardless of extra attack]...”. Since the game has specific actions it makes sense to call them out.
2) Future hedging. While there is no way currently to make two attacks as a reaction there is no reason the game couldn’t later come up with a feature that did so. Making the net clear now, prevents future exploits if they creature such a feature.

As it currently is the fact that there is no existing feature to make multiple attacks as a single reaction doesn’t in any way confuse the wording of the item. IMO the wording is a balance feature to prevent extra attack classes, especially fighters from netting everything with their first attack. Without the limitation the net would be superior to the shove prone action in every way. The designers probably didn't want people playing Nets&Dragons.

Tunnel Fighter is UA, and inherently unbalanced because it breaks the action economy. Just because the net limitation technically wouldn’t apply to it doesn’t mean it somehow magically grants more attacks. The limitation tells you what you can’t do (make more than one attack with it as any type of action). It’s a limitation not an enabler.

The added damage thing came up before in a session when a ranger hit the target of their hunter's mark with a net. Technically it should trigger hunter's mark damage, but since the net does no damage it's a bit of a puzzle. What would the damage type even be? The player ultimately said forget it and the DM agreed since it just didn't make narrative sense, despite being RAW. If sneak attack worked, it's actually a fairly viable rogue weapon.

EDIT: Just googled it and apparently there is a sage advice agreeing with that ruling. https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/04/15/net-attack/

...but take that with a grain of salt as usual. Technically there is nothing saying you don't add your attack stat to the damage either. So the attack would theoretically deal dex/str + SS + Hunter's Mark + Sneak attack.

[strangebloke]

There is no wording specifying turn length so that interpretation is putting words into the text that just aren’t there.

The wording about using an action, reaction, or bonus action is a bit odd, but there are two possible reasons for it being the way it is.
1) Ease of wording. The original text pre-edit might have read something like “if you use an action to throw a net you can only make one attack...”. Since the game has specific actions it makes sense to call them out.
2) Future hedging. While there is no way currently to make two attacks as a reaction there is no reason the game couldn’t later come up with a feature that did so. Making the net clear now, prevents future exploits if they creature such a feature.

As it currently is the fact that there is no existing feature to make multiple attacks as a single reaction doesn’t in any way confuse the wording of the item.

Tunnel Fighter is UA, and inherently unbalanced because it breaks the action economy. Just because the net limitation technically wouldn’t apply to it doesn’t mean it somehow magically grant more attacks. The limitation tells you what you can’t do (make more than one attack with it as any type of action). It’s a limitation not an enabler.

The added damage thing came up before in a session when a ranger hit the target of their hunter's mark with a net. Technically it should trigger hunter's mark damage, but since the net does no damage it's a bit of a puzzle. What would the damage type even be? The player ultimately said forget it and the DM agreed since it just didn't make narrative sense, despite being RAW. If sneak attack worked, it's actually a fairly viable rogue weapon.

EDIT: Just googled it and apparently there is a sage advice agreeing with that ruling. https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/04/15/net-attack/

...but take that with a grain of salt as usual. Technically there is nothing saying you don't add your attack stat to the damage either. So the attack would theoretically deal dex/str + SS + Hunter's Mark + Sneak attack.
In spirit, I agree that sneak attack on a net attack is pretty weird.

I don't think there's anything weird about dex/str to damage on a net. Getting hit by a weighted net is going to suck.

My point with tunnel fighter was merely that it's one of a few ways to throw a lot of nets in a round. Doing so requires a very specific setup however, to the point that it's probably untenable.

Overall, the more I look at this weapon description, the more it seems like a dumpster fire.


it's a ranged thrown weapon. The definition of 'Thrown' includes the text: "If a weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged Attack. If the weapon is a melee weapon, you use the same ability modifier for that Attack roll and damage roll that you would use for a melee Attack with the weapon." but the weapon isn't a melee weapon, so what ability mod is used? Strength? If a net is used to make a melee attack, it's an improvised weapon, and therefore not a net, right? So it loses it's special text. If thrown means "You can make a dex-based ranged attack" then why is that text even there, since 'ranged' covered it that same info.
Ranged weapon with a range increment of 5. Wut? So it can't be used without disadvantage unless you have a very specific feat?
The fact that it's a weapon that doesn't deal any damage, although that's never specified or clarified. It really should deal attribute damage at least, but then the interaction with sneak attack and divine strike is weird.
usual thrown weapon problems.


Seems like a mess. But then, the weapon tables have always been pretty messy upon close inspection.

[Platypusbill]

That's not actually true; because nets have the thrown property, you can use them with two-weapon fighting.

When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.

If either weapon has the Thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.

You can make ranged attacks with thrown weapons, but the weapons still need to be categorised as melee weapons to be compatible (the light property is omitted if you have the Dual Wielder feat, however). You can't use two-weapon fighting with darts for this exact reason, though it's a little silly considering darts are basically cheaper and lighter daggers that can only be used for throwing.