Moving the net off weapon table onto equipment.

[stoutstien]

Title says it all. I'm just unsure how to stat it was thinking:
Net
As an action you can attempt to throw the net on a large or smaller creature within 15 feet. The creature must succeed a DC 13 Dex save or become restrianed.as an action a creature can attempt to break free with a strength check of 10, freeing it self or a creature with in reach. Dealing 5 slashing damage (ac 10)destroys the net.

Maybe make a feat that at Prof bonus to saves of all Adventure equipment items like Hunter trap, ball bearings, and the like?

[Kadesh]

o.O

What does this achieve, exactly? Makes it a save rather than attack role? This is such a minor change it's not even worth discussing.

[stoutstien]

First it makes nets usable by anyone.(martial weapon really). So it opens up options to arm low powered PC and npc such as villagers.

Why is on the weapon table to began with? Zero damage and always disadvantage.

[JackPhoenix]

First it makes nets usable by anyone.(martial weapon really). So it opens up options to arm low powered PC and npc such as villagers.

That's because net is pretty hard to use effectively. I wouldn't expect a random villager to be able to throw it to catch an opponent in combat.

[opaopajr]

It's already usable by anyone. All that weapon proficiency gives you is your Proficiency Bonus to your attack roll. :smallsmile:

That and there is no restriction demanding you to always use Nets as ranged weapons. :smallcool: There is also no Ammunition keyword redefining its usage during a melee weapon attack as an Improvised Weapon attack. The only limit is the Special keyword saying it restricts the number of attacks you can make with it to one, even if you have extra attacks (but it's not the Loading keyword, either).

So, since there's no "specific beating general" saying otherwise, you may use a Net in a melee attack without:

a) incurring disadvantage from making a ranged attack within 5' (because you are not making a ranged attack),
and
b) being an Improvised Weapon attack and not getting your Proficiency Bonus if you are weapon proficient, (because it is a known weapon that doesn't have the Ammunition keyword).

Go forth and have fun! :smalltongue:

[stoutstien]

So the best use of a net is to beat kolbolds over the head like a handbag full of crochet equipment.

[stoutstien]

That's because net is pretty hard to use effectively. I wouldn't expect a random villager to be able to throw it to catch an opponent in combat.

But every villager in their grandmother are proficient at throwing darts, daggers, and even javelins accurately.

[Vogie]

But every villager and their grandmother are proficient at throwing darts

To be fair, there are an excessive amount of taverns, so...

[Kadesh]

But every villager in their grandmother are proficient at throwing darts, daggers, and even javelins accurately.

No they're not. They're only proficient with a club.

[stoutstien]

To be fair, there are an excessive amount of taverns, so...

Lol. I have the best image of dnd npc school set up Hogwarts style based on alignment. Tavern life 202-assignment- the social economical effects that adventures have on the geographical disbursement of mead Halls.

[stoutstien]

No they're not. They're only proficient with a club.

Equipment doesn't equal total proficiency. Somewhere in the DMG there a part about switching one simple weapon for another.

[MaxWilson]

o.O

What does this achieve, exactly? Makes it a save rather than attack role? This is such a minor change it's not even worth discussing.

It has bad side effects on Beastmaster Rangers because they can no longer throw a Net + have animal companion attack.

[sophontteks]

It allows thieves to throw nets as a bonus action.

[coyote_sly]

It allows thieves to throw nets as a bonus action.
Yeah, I think that's a pretty big deal. I'd actually say that's probably a point in favor of this, so ce thieves usually just don't have many options for Fast Hands, but only if you're willing to track weight, encumbrance, and number of nets since otherwise it's a no-brainer action every turn.

[Derpaligtr]

That's because net is pretty hard to use effectively. I wouldn't expect a random villager to be able to throw it to catch an opponent in combat.

I would expect a fisher or sailor to be able to though.

However, I could see two people working together to use it against one creature without disadvantage.

[MaxWilson]

However, I could see two people working together to use it against one creature without disadvantage.

That's exactly how it works today, using the Help action.

[Derpaligtr]

That's exactly how it works today, using the Help action.

Are you sure? Cause I'm not completely up to date on the rules or how the help action works. :smallsigh:

[JackPhoenix]

It's already usable by anyone. All that weapon proficiency gives you is your Proficiency Bonus to your attack roll. :smallsmile:

That and there is no restriction demanding you to always use Nets as ranged weapons. :smallcool: There is also no Ammunition keyword redefining its usage during a melee weapon attack as an Improvised Weapon attack. The only limit is the Special keyword saying it restricts the number of attacks you can make with it to one, even if you have extra attacks (but it's not the Loading keyword, either).

So, since there's no "specific beating general" saying otherwise, you may use a Net in a melee attack without:

a) incurring disadvantage from making a ranged attack within 5' (because you are not making a ranged attack),
and
b) being an Improvised Weapon attack and not getting your Proficiency Bonus if you are weapon proficient, (because it is a known weapon that doesn't have the Ammunition keyword).

Go forth and have fun! :smalltongue:

If you use a ranged weapon to make melee attack, it counts as improvised weapon, thus no proficiency. Also, it does 1d4 damage instead of using its special rules. Ammunition property has nothing to do with that.


But every villager in their grandmother are proficient at throwing darts, daggers, and even javelins accurately.

Assuming your DM uses that optional rule. And nothing says they are proficient in all of them, and not just the single weapon they're using.

[MaxWilson]

Are you sure? Cause I'm not completely up to date on the rules or how the help action works. :smallsigh:

Two villagers (or skeletons, or whatever). Each has a net. The first one declares Help action to grant the other guy advantage on his attack. The second dude makes an attack at advantage for Help, and disadvantage for long range or having an enemy within 5'. Disadvantage and advantage cancel out, so he makes an attack roll without advantage or disadvantage.

Together they get one attack roll without disadvantage.

[stoutstien]

It just feels really out of place on the weapon list. Weapons deal damage, armor increases AC. Ok so far so good. Then you have the net that does no damage. I don't want to get the point of the tanglefoot bag spam of ol'.
What if we had like a gladiator-style net with barbs or hooks that deal 1d6 piercing damage when used as a melee weapon or could be thrown just limit the range to 5 feet. Maybe 1d4 damage per round intil freed.
Then have your plain old net that can be tossed further but make it a two handed and follow the rules as written

[Naanomi]

Loses interaction with Archery Combat Style, Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert Feats, any source of advantage, beastmasters, other (admittedly rare) sources or +Hit

[stoutstien]

Loses interaction with Archery Combat Style, Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert Feats, any source of advantage, beastmasters, other (admittedly rare) sources or +Hit

And most that doesn't bother me. The fact of the two feats that actually support net use are designed for bows and crossbows. Maybe if it was a heavy crossbow that launched the net I could be on board with it. What if it was moved to the melee weapons now be used with duelist or other fighting styles and Beast Masters are a mess to start with they were so worried about break in the action economy they just broke the sub class. Which plays better than it reads actually, just really clunky.

[Naanomi]

And most that doesn't bother me. The fact of the two feats that actually support net use are designed for bows and crossbows. Maybe if it was a heavy crossbow that launched the net I could be on board with it. What if it was moved to the melee weapons now be used with duelist or other fighting styles and Beast Masters are a mess to start with they were so worried about break in the action economy they just broke the sub class. Which plays better than it reads actually, just really clunky.
I played a beastmaster 1-20; and a net (with entangling strike) was one of my go-to moves

And feats are intentionally given uses beyond their main/obvious focus... it is a feature, not a bug

[stoutstien]

Yep crossbows expert was totally meant to be combined with spells attacks and pole arm master and quarter staffs was designed too completely out preform dual wielding/ dual weilding feat. I believe 5th edition is one of the most well-written pen and paper games written a claiming that nets work ing with xbow or sharp shooter was intentional in any form or fashion is a Long Reach.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything but one corner case with one class and 2 feat combination doesn't actually address the issue of the net not really fitting on the weapon table.

[Derpaligtr]

Two villagers (or skeletons, or whatever). Each has a net. The first one declares Help action to grant the other guy advantage on his attack. The second dude makes an attack at advantage for Help, and disadvantage for long range or having an enemy within 5'. Disadvantage and advantage cancel out, so he makes an attack roll without advantage or disadvantage.

Together they get one attack roll without disadvantage.

I don't know, seems sketchy to me.

Whatever would I do without someone explaining all these things to me! :smallsigh:

[sophontteks]

Yep crossbows expert was totally meant to be combined with spells attacks and pole arm master and quarter staffs was designed too completely out preform dual wielding/ dual weilding feat. I believe 5th edition is one of the most well-written pen and paper games written a claiming that nets work ing with xbow or sharp shooter was intentional in any form or fashion is a Long Reach.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything but one corner case with one class and 2 feat combination doesn't actually address the issue of the net not really fitting on the weapon table.
5e is full of sweeping generalized abilities like this. Other examples include using charms and fear spells on undead where in previous editions they required their own specific spells (that did the same thing.) They did intend for these things to work like this. They favored less abilities that work with more things for simplicity. Do we need a specific feat that does what sharpshooter does but only works for spells? Or is it easier to just have one feat work with both? Similiarly, what is so wrong with it working with nets?

The polearm master quarterstaff vs. Dual wielding is just a case of the dual wielding feat being pretty bad. I think they totally intended for the combination.

[MaxWilson]

I don't know, seems sketchy to me.

Whatever would I do without someone explaining all these things to me! :smallsigh:

Poe's Law, apparently. I didn't realize you were only pretending to be ignorant.

[Kadesh]

It just feels really out of place on the weapon list. Weapons deal damage, armor increases AC. Ok so far so good. Then you have the net that does no damage. I don't want to get the point of the tanglefoot bag spam of ol'.
What if we had like a gladiator-style net with barbs or hooks that deal 1d6 piercing damage when used as a melee weapon or could be thrown just limit the range to 5 feet. Maybe 1d4 damage per round intil freed.
Then have your plain old net that can be tossed further but make it a two handed and follow the rules as written

I have a Cambion who is gradually becoming the head of an army in a homebrew game - she has a magic net, which provides Disadvantage against Charm Saves. She's essentially being played like Kerrigan from Starcraft, and she's bringing in new Demonic allies, like Tanarukk's, Minotaurs, and other Fiends related to Baphomet. However, despite that, she has the ability to gain the control of enemies with her Charm Ability; which is where her Magic Net comes in;



Weapon (net), Legendary (requires attunement)
- The net is possessed by a malignant presence that entwines itself with the attuned bearer. While attuned to the net, you are proficient in its use, and its short range and long range when thrown increases by 5ft for every 2 points of proficiency bonus you have. In addition, if it is on the same plane of existence, you can summon the net as a bonus action on your turn, causing it to teleport instantly to your hand. This malignant presence does not however imply a Sentience.
- The DC of the Strength check to escape the net is equal to 8+Your Proficiency+Charisma bonus, and you must deal an amount of slashing and/or radiant damage to the net equal to twice the escape DC - for example, if the escape DC was 16, you must deal 32 points of damage to the net for it to be destroyed.
- Unless the net was destroyed in direct sunlight or in an area of bright light created by a spell of 6th level or higher, you can summon the net again as a bonus action provided you are on the same plane as the net was when it was destroyed after you complete a short or long rest. At the start of each of your turns, all damage dealt to the net is healed.
- Any creature entangled by the net has disadvantage on saving throws against being charmed. Whenever a creature attempts to escape the net, you can use your reaction to deal 2d6 Psychic Damage (increases to 3d6 at 11th level, and 4d6 at 17th level) to the creature and all others touching the net, or you can let it automatically pass the strength check to escape.
Yes, this is a magic weapon. Yes, this is specific for a creature to escape, but it's intended and relevant to make a specific encounter challenging.

Are villagers throwing nets a serious part of campaign your players are involved in? If they're that desperate, are they intended to win? You've already stated yourself you're aware of the fact that you can change a commoners Weapon Proficiency from +0 to +2 for the purposes of throwing a net (perhaps they're fishermen?), and that working in pairs you can nullify any disadvantage. You can make a melee attack with a net without disadvantage.

I'm not sure I understand your complaint, properly - that commoners are bad at fighting with nets? Er... Duh?

[JellyPooga]

Are villagers throwing nets a serious part of campaign your players are involved in?

If your campaign is modeled after the likes of Seven Samurai or its Western remake Magnificdnt Seven, or similar "small village defending itself from danger" stories/tropes...then, yeah? It could be? As you say, the RAW already allow for peasants to be at least vaguely competent in their use when they outnumber their foe (which is usually the case in such scenarios), but the possibility is there for it to come up, if not regularly, but at least occasionally.

The point that I would make/support is that the net being a weapon feels wrong, opposed to it being equipment. As another poster made, it doesn't fit the usual mould of what a weapon is i.e. "a thing that does damage", even if that damage is very low (e.g. the Blowgun), doing damage is what a weapon seems to do. The Net is not a "thing that does damage", rather it's more akin to the Hunters Trap or Ball Bearings; both a "thing that inflicts a penalty". For me the Net is a practical tool (like the Hunters Trap) that is sometimes, or rather could be used in a combat situation. That's equipment, not a weapon.

This is, of course, setting aside the high likelihood that nets were never, historically, used in combat outside of entertainment or desperation.

[Kadesh]

Isn't that a campaign, and a short story arc, though, like maybe 3-4 sessions of actual mechanical impact? And if so, do you really want them to be capable? And if you want them to be capable, why not have some vHuman Fighter 2's (Champion 3's?) with Action Surge, Net Proficiency, and Sharpshooter? They can throw 15ft without disadvantage, charge and make an attack (and get adv on a 19-20 Crit), and attack. Given that Hex deals additional damage on a hit (Jeremy Crawford (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/977242900701458433)) the Sharpshooter could also take effect. Whether RAW or reasonable houseruling, I don't see a problem with this.)

The complaint appears to be things that are bad at fighting are also bad at fighting with nets. To which, dur. They are bad at fighting, what do you expect? And to things which are good at fighting - you don't need nets, because you have easy sources of advantage, but if you have guys dropping nets or assisting each other with nets, or even being 2-3rd level adventurers who are acting as a trained militia somewhat between Guards and Veterans, you have yourself a very nice source of action-economy-less advantage and movement impairment (and more importantly - it takes an action to escape), of which the only real cost (outside of the GP to arm them) is your characters roleplay on how they're going to take the almost inevitable deaths that occur as someone assists you with the defense of their hometown. Alternatively, you can go to the effort and time of getting some Falling Net Trap's set up, which have the benefit of also knocking them prone, so they can't move that far even if they escape the first turn.

I'm still not sure why the issue is that making it into an item requiring a DC13 Dex Save to escape is any different than giving a bunch of commoners proficiency in it - it's still the DM needing to roll a 11+ to hit a low level opponent or a low level opponent making an 11+ roll to dodge? The players aren't making these rolls, it's still literally the DM making the same roll for the same result.

It's nonsense.

[stoutstien]

If
The point that I would make/support is that the net being a weapon feels wrong, opposed to it being equipment. As another poster made, it doesn't fit the usual mould of what a weapon is i.e. "a thing that does damage", even if that damage is very low (e.g. the Blowgun), doing damage is what a weapon seems to do. The Net is not a "thing that does damage", rather it's more akin to the Hunters Trap or Ball Bearings; both a "thing that inflicts a penalty". For me the Net is a practical tool (like the Hunters Trap) that is sometimes, or rather could be used in a combat situation. That's equipment, not a weapon.

This is, of course, setting aside the high likelihood that nets were never, historically, used in combat outside of entertainment or desperation.

I guess this was the point I was trying to make and the only reason I was turning it into a save was that no adventures gear uses an attack roll, only saves was why I trying to switched it.

It should have just been a throwing Bola on the weapon table.

[Kadesh]

You mean like Alchemist Fire doesn't requore an attack roll... Oh wai...

[stoutstien]

You mean like Alchemist Fire doesn't requore an attack roll... Oh wai...
Alchemist fire makes more sense to me to be on the weapon table because of the attack roll.

[Kadesh]

Alchemist fire makes more sense to me to be on the weapon table because of the attack roll.

But a net is on the table and has an attack roll...

[JackPhoenix]

Alchemist fire makes more sense to me to be on the weapon table because of the attack roll.

Alchemist's fire is also specifically not an actual weapon, but you can throw it (just like you can throw pretty much anything, using the rules for improvised weapons)

[youtellatale]

As a side note - I'm curious how Rangers were able to use a net and then command their companion to attack. The net says that you only get one attack, no matter how many you normally make, thus it would be the only attack you make. Your pet would have to attack the next turn, correct? Maybe I'm reading it wrong.

In regards to OP - I think it fits fine on the weapon table. Acid & Alchemist's Fire could both be on the weapon table too FWIW. So could the Portable Ram and the Hunting Trap. If your group wants to use it as an item and not as a weapon then do it but I don't think you'll find many on here agreeing with you about it needing a change. It's just an odd choice to throw a gauntlet down on IMO.

[Kadesh]

They only took one attack? And what happens if you duel wield net and x? Still only took one attack with a net?

[Naanomi]

Beastmaster Rules:

You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help action. Once you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make one weapon attack yourself when you command the beast to take the Attack action.


Net Rules:

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.


So your action is to command the beast, which after fifth level happens to give you an attack, which can be to throw a net