Has there ever been an official response to how Nets work?

[Meichrob7]

I’ve seen a lot of confusion over the exact rules regarding nets, and there’s been a few people who’ve mentioned trying to ask for the RAI in a safe response but not getting any answers. So I was wondering if anyone knew if there had in the past been an “official” interpretation?

The rule in question that seems to cause confusion is this one.

“ When you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to atlack with a net, you can make only one attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make.”

The three possible interpretations of the rule that I’ve seen (in order from most to least restrictive) are,

- When you attack with the net that’s the only attack you can make that turn. ex: Attack with a net as an action, do nothing else.

- When you attack with the net you can only make that one attack during that action, but if you can make attacks during other actions there is no restriction on them. ex: Attack with a normal weapon as an action then use an effect like war cleric’s “War Priest” to attack with the net as a bonus action.

- When you attack with a net you can’t make more net attacks but you can make attacks with other weapons. ex: A fifth level fighter taking the attack action, throwing a net, drawing their sword as a free interaction, then attacking with the sword as part of the same action by using the extra attack feature.

I’ve heard that the intent behind the net rule was to make it so you couldn’t throw multiple nets in a turn, but that doesn’t totally clarify things because all three of these rules accomplish this.

My personal interpretation has always been the second version, but I’ve had enough people disagree that I thought it worth the time to ask if anyone knew for sure.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I’ve seen a lot of confusion over the exact rules regarding nets, and there’s been a few people who’ve mentioned trying to ask for the RAI in a safe response but not getting any answers. So I was wondering if anyone knew if there had in the past been an “official” interpretation?

The rule in question that seems to cause confusion is this one.

“ When you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to atlack with a net, you can make only one attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make.”

The three possible interpretations of the rule that I’ve seen (in order from most to least restrictive) are,

- When you attack with the net that’s the only attack you can make that turn. ex: Attack with a net as an action, do nothing else.

- When you attack with the net you can only make that one attack during that action, but if you can make attacks during other actions there is no restriction on them. ex: Attack with a normal weapon as an action then use an effect like war cleric’s “War Priest” to attack with the net as a bonus action.

- When you attack with a net you can’t make more net attacks but you can make attacks with other weapons. ex: A fifth level fighter taking the attack action, throwing a net, drawing their sword as a free interaction, then attacking with the sword as part of the same action by using the extra attack feature.

I’ve heard that the intent behind the net rule was to make it so you couldn’t throw multiple nets in a turn, but that doesn’t totally clarify things because all three of these rules accomplish this.

My personal interpretation has always been the second version, but I’ve had enough people disagree that I thought it worth the time to ask if anyone knew for sure.

I've always understood it as the second option. So a Fighter 5 could use the Attack action to throw a net but would waste his second attack, but if he Action Surged he could spend that other action to do 2 attacks with other weapons. Or if he had a source of bonus action attacks (Haste?) he could use those. Or he could Haste Attack (net) and then use his regular action(s) to attack with other weapons. Just no two nets in a turn without blowing Action Surge.

But I'd accept the 3rd option as well. The first just feels wrong.

But I've never seen an official response. Then again, I haven't looked.

[AttilatheYeon]

DM discretion. Personally, i go with you can make one attack with that action or bonus action.

[Meichrob7]

I've always understood it as the second option. So a Fighter 5 could use the Attack action to throw a net but would waste his second attack, but if he Action Surged he could spend that other action to do 2 attacks with other weapons. Or if he had a source of bonus action attacks (Haste?) he could use those. Or he could Haste Attack (net) and then use his regular action(s) to attack with other weapons. Just no two nets in a turn without blowing Action Surge.

But I'd accept the 3rd option as well. The first just feels wrong.

But I've never seen an official response. Then again, I haven't looked.

Yah my main problem with the first interpretation is that the net rule says “when you use an action...” which to me implies that the restrictions are only applying to that action.

However for the first interpretation you have to be saying that the start of the paragraph isn’t actually referencing the restriction, but if that’s the case when does the net restriction end? If it’s not just for that action and there’s no “until the start of your next turn” or “until the end of your turn” end clause for the restriction, then there’s no reason to say it’d ever end at all.

So if you do think it applies to more than the one action then there’s no reason to say it’s not just an indefinite curse that never goes away, since there’s no real justification to saying it ends at the end of your turn or the end of the round or even at the end of combat.

Admittedly that’s one I never actually thought was possibly the correct answer but I’d heard enough (like three) people think that’s how it worked that it seemed worth mentioning if only to get some validation for my own opinion that the first version was super super not right

[Hytheter]

If it was meant to prevent any attacks in the whole turn they wouldn't have said it in such a roundabout way. It's pretty clear to me that it only applies to the action in question, otherwise why even specify "When you use an action, bonus action, or reaction"?

The argument against option 3 is less obvious but I think if other attacks were allowed then they would have specified that you can't make additional net attacks instead of just saying you can't make other attacks. Compare with the loading property. As a DM I'd be willing to budge on that, though.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If it was meant to prevent any attacks in the whole turn they wouldn't have said it in such a roundabout way. It's pretty clear to me that it only applies to the action in question, otherwise why even specify "When you use an action, bonus action, or reaction"?

The argument against option 3 is less obvious but I think if other attacks were allowed then they would have specified that you can't make additional net attacks instead of just saying you can't make other attacks. Compare with the loading property. As a DM I'd be willing to budge on that, though.

Yeah. If they just wanted to null net attacks, they'd have just given it the loading property. But they didn't, and worded it particularly and differently. Option 2 is the best-fit IMO. But if I ever had someone who felt like building a net-using character, I'd probably be ok with budging to option 3.

[AttilatheYeon]

Nets are amazing on a xbow master rogue, if using option 2.

[MaxWilson]

Yah my main problem with the first interpretation is that the net rule says “when you use an action...” which to me implies that the restrictions are only applying to that action.

However for the first interpretation you have to be saying that the start of the paragraph isn’t actually referencing the restriction, but if that’s the case when does the net restriction end? If it’s not just for that action and there’s no “until the start of your next turn” or “until the end of your turn” end clause for the restriction, then there’s no reason to say it’d ever end at all.

So if you do think it applies to more than the one action then there’s no reason to say it’s not just an indefinite curse that never goes away, since there’s no real justification to saying it ends at the end of your turn or the end of the round or even at the end of combat.

Admittedly that’s one I never actually thought was possibly the correct answer but I’d heard enough (like three) people think that’s how it worked that it seemed worth mentioning if only to get some validation for my own opinion that the first version was super super not right

FWIW I've always just shrugged and used the first interpretation, but you've just persuaded me that it's untenable. I'll switch to #2, which will make nets more popular with EKs and give a definite reason for War Magic to exist even without SCAG cantrips.

[Xetheral]

Note that even at a table that uses interpretation #1, it's possible to attack with a net without using an action, bonus action, or reaction via the Hunter's Horde Breaker ability.

[Willie the Duck]

This makes me wonder if they should have just given the net the Loading property. :smallbiggrin:

[MaxWilson]

Note that even at a table that uses interpretation #1, it's possible to attack with a net without using an action, bonus action, or reaction via the Hunter's Horde Breaker ability.

I don't see how it's possible. If it were already possible to attack without using an action, bonus action, or reaction, Horde Breaker would give you another attack, but you've got a chicken-and-egg problem there.

It is however apparently technically possible to make one attack against many, many targets via Volley:

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.

This seems to explicitly be one attack with multiple attack rolls, each against a different target. It's very peculiar because it breaks the normal structure of attacks, and means you can both hit and miss with the same attack (albeit against different targets). In practice it's probably better just to treat Volley as a whole bunch of attacks.

[Naanomi]

I used a net all the time with my beastmaster character using Interpretation #1 (and my pet taking my other attack anyways)

[Sorinth]

I think the RAI was #2, PCs with the Extra attack who want to use nets would be recommended to use the net in their offhand so that they can make the net attack as a bonus action and still make their normal attacks in the round.

Though personally I would houserule allowing #3.


One interesting aspect is when TWF with a net you can generally still use the Dueling fighting style since the net(s) will be drawn with your free object interaction and thrown right away so generally only ever have one weapon in one hand. This is also generally where having a versatile weapon comes in handy since you have reason to switch between 1 and 2 handed on the fly.

[Xetheral]

I don't see how it's possible. If it were already possible to attack without using an action, bonus action, or reaction, Horde Breaker would give you another attack, but you've got a chicken-and-egg problem there.

I don't see a chicken-and-egg issue. Attack first with something other than a net. This triggers Horde Breaker. Then attack with a net using Horde Breaker, which takes no action at all. Since you didn't use an action/bonus/reaction to attack with the net, the limitation on other attacks never triggers.

[Valmark]

I don't see a chicken-and-egg issue. Attack first with something other than a net. This triggers Horde Breaker. Then attack with a net using Horde Breaker, which takes no action at all. Since you didn't use an action/bonus/reaction to attack with the net, the limitation on other attacks never triggers.

Horde Breaker says that you need to use the same weapon as the triggering attack.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I thought this thread was going to address the RAW of nets.

It's a thrown weapon melee attack with a range of 5/15'. You are disadvantaged when you make ranged attacks at 5' (PHB 195 1st col para 8). You are also disadvantaged when you throw over 5'.

Set me straight. When are you ever NOT disadvantaged (except when you would otherwise be advantaged cause hidden, paralyzed target, etc.) when using a net?

I thought there was an official response to THIS issue.

[MaxWilson]

I thought this thread was going to address the RAW of nets.

It's a thrown weapon melee attack with a range of 5/15'. You are disadvantaged when you make ranged attacks at 5' (PHB 195 1st col para 8). You are also disadvantaged when you throw over 5'.

Set me straight. When are you ever NOT disadvantaged (except when you would otherwise be advantaged cause hidden, paralyzed target, etc.) when using a net?

Here's the rule for ranged attacks in melee: When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn't incapacitated.

So for example, if you're a Skulker goblin hiding in the shadows, and you sneak up to your target and throw a net on them from 5' away, by RAW:

(1) You have advantage for being an unseen attacker, and
(2) You don't have disadvantage from being within 5' of a hostile creature who can see you and isn't incapacitated, because the target can't see you while you're hidden, and you're hidden until you make that net attack.

Another example is if you Hypnotic Pattern a bunch of monsters and then have your animated skeletons toss a bunch of nets on the incapacitated ones to slow them down just in case the non-incapacitated ones wake them up. A skeleton standing next to an incapacitated monster, with no other monsters within 5', will be rolling straight d20+4, no disadvantage.

In practice, offsetting advantage is also kind of nice. For example, when you've got a monster already grappled and prone, consider throwing a net on it. You have disadvantage (being within 5' of a hostile, non-incapacitated enemy who can see you) and advantage (prone), and now even if the monster escapes your grapple with its action, it's still prone and restrained until it or someone else spends another action to take the net off. Meanwhile you can just re-grapple it with one of your attacks and then resume beating on it.

And of course, Crossbow Expert or Sharpshooter can also come into play here. Booming Blade + Bonus action (War Magic) Net attack is pretty solid control for a Crossbow Expert Eldritch Knight--maybe you're mostly a Sharpshooter/Crossbow Expert who likes to plink away with bolts, but there will be times when you're more interested in stopping a bad guy from eating someone else than in killing it quickly, and that's when you'd BB+Net.

[Xetheral]

Horde Breaker says that you need to use the same weapon as the triggering attack.

Oh right. I'd forgotten about that restriction. Never mind then.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Here's the rule for ranged attacks in melee: When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn't incapacitated.

So for example, if you're a Skulker goblin hiding in the shadows, and you sneak up to your target and throw a net on them from 5' away, by RAW:

(1) You have advantage for being an unseen attacker, and
(2) You don't have disadvantage from being within 5' of a hostile creature who can see you and isn't incapacitated, because the target can't see you while you're hidden, and you're hidden until you make that net attack.

Another example is if you Hypnotic Pattern a bunch of monsters and then have your animated skeletons toss a bunch of nets on the incapacitated ones to slow them down just in case the non-incapacitated ones wake them up. A skeleton standing next to an incapacitated monster, with no other monsters within 5', will be rolling straight d20+4, no disadvantage.

So what you are saying is by RAW, you have to have VERY special (not quite corner case) circumstances to NOT throw at disadvantage if you where, I dunno, a freaking fighter/GLADIATOR using a net. Wasn't a lot of stealth and catching opponents unaware in an arena...

Yep, still unresolved, 'cause this makes nets suck worse than anything else you could use. I've never had a player net, and I'd houserule away the within 5' disadvantage. I was hoping someone official had already done this.

[Lunali]

I thought this thread was going to address the RAW of nets.

It's a thrown weapon melee attack with a range of 5/15'. You are disadvantaged when you make ranged attacks at 5' (PHB 195 1st col para 8). You are also disadvantaged when you throw over 5'.

Set me straight. When are you ever NOT disadvantaged (except when you would otherwise be advantaged cause hidden, paralyzed target, etc.) when using a net?

I thought there was an official response to THIS issue.

When you get someone to throw one at your monk so you can deflect it with 20/60 range and actually do damage with it.

[Valmark]

I may be forgetting something but...

Why would a PC throw a net within 5 feet instead of attacking normally?

[Naanomi]

I may be forgetting something but...

Why would a PC throw a net within 5 feet instead of attacking normally?
To trap weak creatures, as a non-lethal combat option when needed, and to give allies bonuses (my beastmaster used a net to help his pet... and party I guess.. attack better)

They are good to drop on people who are already prone (disadvantage cancelled that way) to further keep them pinned down

[Valmark]

To trap weak creatures, as a non-lethal combat option when needed, and to give allies bonuses (my beastmaster used a net to help his pet... and party I guess.. attack better)

They are good to drop on people who are already prone (disadvantage cancelled that way) to further keep them pinned down

I meant why not attack normally with the net. You don't have to throw it to use it, or at least nothing in the special rule mentions that.

[Lunali]

I meant why not attack normally with the net. You don't have to throw it to use it, or at least nothing in the special rule mentions that.

It is a ranged weapon, using it as a melee weapon would follow the improvised weapon rules instead of the rules for a net.

[Naanomi]

I meant why not attack normally with the net. You don't have to throw it to use it, or at least nothing in the special rule mentions that.
It is a 'ranged weapon', not a melee weapon with 'thrown'. You could thwack someone with it like you would a bow or something, but I suspect it wouldn't be a 'net' in such situations

[Valmark]

It is a ranged weapon, using it as a melee weapon would follow the improvised weapon rules instead of the rules for a net.

Oh, I did miss something >.> Nevermind then.

[MaxWilson]

So what you are saying is by RAW, you have to have VERY special (not quite corner case) circumstances to NOT throw at disadvantage if you where, I dunno, a freaking fighter/GLADIATOR using a net. Wasn't a lot of stealth and catching opponents unaware in an arena....

No, you just need very special circumstances to throw at advantage. For no disadvantage, throw nets at a prone target 5' away, get Help from a familiar, or take Sharpshooter or CE.

[Sorinth]

Nets should probably have been a Dex save instead of an attack roll similar to how some cantrips are saves and others are attacks rolls.


But assuming point 2 is the way it works, the classic Trident and Net wielding gladiator seems pretty decent power wise.

You need Dual Wielder feat, and probably want it at first level, so V. Human.

But you'd attack one handed with your trident as your Action getting all the Extra Attacks, then as a BA attack with the net. If they don't break free then next round attack two-handed with advantage. Yes it's easy to get out of the net, but by using your BA you are winning the Action Economy game since they have to spend an action or an attack. So overall it's seems like a decent build, somewhat limited because you can't use a net against all possible types of opponents but for the most part it should be fine.

There are also plenty of ways to offset the Disadvantage besides being hidden such as the Fighting Styles: Archery, or Close Quarters Shooter (UA) or the Feats:X-Bow Expert or Sharpshooter.

[MaxWilson]

Nets should probably have been a Dex save instead of an attack roll similar to how some cantrips are saves and others are attacks rolls.


But assuming point 2 is the way it works, the classic Trident and Net wielding gladiator seems pretty decent power wise.

You need Dual Wielder feat, and probably want it at first level, so V. Human.

But you'd attack one handed with your trident as your Action getting all the Extra Attacks, then as a BA attack with the net. If they don't break free then next round attack two-handed with advantage. Yes it's easy to get out of the net, but by using your BA you are winning the Action Economy game since they have to spend an action or an attack. So overall it's seems like a decent build, somewhat limited because you can't use a net against all possible types of opponents but for the most part it should be fine.

There are also plenty of ways to offset the Disadvantage besides being hidden such as the Fighting Styles: Archery, or Close Quarters Shooter (UA) or the Feats:X-Bow Expert or Sharpshooter.

Dual Wielder wouldn't work here. Two Weapon Fighting explicitly requires two melee weapons ("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."), and a Net is a ranged weapon. Dual Wielder doesn't remove the melee limitation, it just says that "You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light."

However, Crossbow Expert works. "When you use the Attack action and attack with a one handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a hand crossbow you are holding." So you throw a net at your enemy (no disadvantage because Crossbow Expert says "Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls."), then you shoot them as a bonus action, with advantage if your net attack landed. Now they have disadvantage to attack you back until they cut the net free or spend an action throwing it off.

[Sorinth]

Dual Wielder wouldn't work here. Two Weapon Fighting explicitly requires two melee weapons ("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."), and a Net is a ranged weapon. Dual Wielder doesn't remove the melee limitation, it just says that "You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light."

However, Crossbow Expert works. "When you use the Attack action and attack with a one handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a hand crossbow you are holding." So you throw a net at your enemy (no disadvantage because Crossbow Expert says "Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls."), then you shoot them as a bonus action, with advantage if your net attack landed. Now they have disadvantage to attack you back until they cut the net free or spend an action throwing it off.

Right, we had always houseruled that melee thing away so I forgot about it.

[Tanarii]

It is however apparently technically possible to make one attack against many, many targets via Volley:

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.

This seems to explicitly be one attack with multiple attack rolls, each against a different target. It's very peculiar because it breaks the normal structure of attacks, and means you can both hit and miss with the same attack (albeit against different targets). In practice it's probably better just to treat Volley as a whole bunch of attacks.
Nets aren't ammunition, so I'm not sure that would work. OTOH I'm not sure it's intended that characters can't volley with thrown weapons.

[Kurt Kurageous]

No, you just need very special circumstances to throw at advantage. For no disadvantage, throw nets at a prone target 5' away, get Help from a familiar, or take Sharpshooter or CE.

Again, my point. Unless you have a significant advantage, net is disadvantaged when all other weapons are not. You can NEVER be advantaged with a net because adv/disadv doesn't stack. No other weapon sucks this bad.

You'd be ADVANTAGED with almost any other weapon in these , but because using a net, sux. I don't believe this is RAI, but badly written RAW for a special weapon.

[Naanomi]

Again, my point. Unless you have a significant advantage, net is disadvantaged when all other weapons are not. You can NEVER be advantaged with a net because adv/disadv doesn't stack. No other weapon sucks this bad.

You'd be ADVANTAGED with almost any other weapon in these , but because using a net, sux. I don't believe this is RAI, but badly written RAW for a special weapon.
Sharpshooter and Crossbow Mastery both create circumstances where you can get advantage if other factors are present

[Lunali]

Sharpshooter and Crossbow Mastery both create circumstances where you can get advantage if other factors are present

While it's true that they work, it's also ridiculous. It makes me annoyed both that they work and that you need them to make it work.

[MaxWilson]

Again, my point. Unless you have a significant advantage, net is disadvantaged when all other weapons are not. You can NEVER be advantaged with a net because adv/disadv doesn't stack. No other weapon sucks this bad.

You'd be ADVANTAGED with almost any other weapon in these , but because using a net, sux. I don't believe this is RAI, but badly written RAW for a special weapon.

Are you kidding? Control/action denial is much better than dealing a few points of damage. Nets are definitely useful by RAW. If skeletons and peasants could throw them without disadvantage they'd be overpowered.

[iTreeby]

Sharpshooter and Crossbow Mastery both create circumstances where you can get advantage if other factors are present

Manifest echo also let's you attack without disadvantage, for the record.

[Lunali]

Manifest echo also let's you attack without disadvantage, for the record.

How so? Attacks originating from the echo would have the same range and same disadvantage for a 5' attack with a ranged weapon.

[iTreeby]

How so? Attacks originating from the echo would have the same range and same disadvantage for a 5' attack with a ranged weapon.

"Aiming a ranged attack is more difficult when a foe is next to you. When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn't incapacitated."

Manifest echo let's you attack as if you were in the echo's space but it doesn't mean the enemy is within 5 ft of you. I could see dms ruling it either way but it seems clear to me that manifest echo let's you attack from a location that you are not in.

[AttilatheYeon]

"Aiming a ranged attack is more difficult when a foe is next to you. When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn't incapacitated."

Manifest echo let's you attack as if you were in the echo's space but it doesn't mean the enemy is within 5 ft of you. I could see dms ruling it either way but it seems clear to me that manifest echo let's you attack from a location that you are not in.

Net is a ranged weapon with a short range of 5ft. I think you now put yourself in long range which is attack at disadvantage.

[iTreeby]

Net is a ranged weapon with a short range of 5ft. I think you now put yourself in long range which is attack at disadvantage.

You can attack from 5 ft away through the Echo while you are say, 30 ft away.

[Damon_Tor]

I feel like I've read the whole thread, but I haven't seen anyone mention using Sharpshooter or Crossbow Master to attack without disadvantage. I assume someone said it and I just missed it.

If the new book coming out includes the new maneuvers that were published in the UA article a while ago, a net would be an awesome investment for an archery fighter. Use the Snipe maneuver to both draw and attack with a net at long range (sharpshooter allows this attack to be made without disadvantage) then use your action to attack with your bow normally. Your bow attacks would be made with advantage due to the restrained condition, and the enemy would have to use it's action to free itself on its turn, keeping you pretty safe.

[BoxANT]

net fix? simple

make the range 10/15

gives the net a 10 ft "sweet spot"

[Asisreo1]

net fix? simple

make the range 10/15

gives the net a 10 ft "sweet spot"
Out of everything, I truly believe a net does not need a fix. It's incredibly effective pre-5th level on most classes and it is the type of restrain that takes an action to undo.

Also, you can attack with it normally underwater IIRC.

[Valmark]

Out of everything, I truly believe a net does not need a fix. It's incredibly effective pre-5th level on most classes and it is the type of restrain that takes an action to undo.

Also, you can attack with it normally underwater IIRC.

The problem is making it stick. As others have said, it takes specific circumstances to be used without disadvantage.

How are you attacking well with it underwater? It can only attack at disadvantage within 5 ft.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Nets should have been simply thrown weapons and not ranged weapons, that would have let you use them in melee without penalty. They do have a use however but its very nitch its only useful when fighting a single foe. Forcing an enemy to have disadvantage on all its attacks or forgo its attacks to get out the net IS a victory. But really it has more use for NPC's, when the PC's are outnumbered two to one. Trying to net one or two PC's might be more effective then having everyone attack.

Now there IS a way to use a net at range without disadvantage but it requires two characters. Throw a net at your allied monk. He can then spend a key point to deflect missiles and throw it at someone else with a range of 20ft/60ft. I

[Valmark]

Nets should have been thrown weapons, that would have let you use them in melee without penalty.

Nets are thrown weapons, you meant they should have been melee weapons?

[Lord Vukodlak]

Nets are thrown weapons, you meant they should have been melee weapons?
Yes that is what I mean, the problem is the ranged tag. Remove the ranged tag and you can use them in melee.

[Tanarii]

Are you kidding? Control/action denial is much better than dealing a few points of damage. Nets are definitely useful by RAW. If skeletons and peasants could throw them without disadvantage they'd be overpowered.
Agreed, removing disadvantage at all ranges from nets is OP.

Lots of people only like to think about how useful something is on them PC. Not how dangerous it would be used against them by monsters. The same is often true in the case of analysis of spells.

[Zalabim]

Consider the ogre. AC 11, large, blunt weapon, and 19 Strength. Throwing a net lands 49% of the time with disadvantage and +5 to hit. Grappling the ogre with +5 athletics, without disadvantage, succeeds 52.5% of the time. The net has a niche. The net has tactics. The net works.

[MaxWilson]

Consider the ogre. AC 11, large, blunt weapon, and 19 Strength. Throwing a net lands 49% of the time with disadvantage and +5 to hit. Grappling the ogre with +5 athletics, without disadvantage, succeeds 52.5% of the time. The net has a niche. The net has tactics. The net works.

To be fair, it *is* quite strange that plate armor and a shield protect you from entanglement in a net. But that's a topic for another thread, on realism not RAW.

[Sorinth]

To be fair, it *is* quite strange that plate armor and a shield protect you from entanglement in a net. But that's a topic for another thread, on realism not RAW.

It would have been the perfect place to have a Dex Save instead of an attack roll. It would avoid the whole almost always at disadvantage, but you could still add something like they gain advantage on the save if you throw the net from more then 5' away and/or the DC is 8+Prof so the DC is lower then "normal" to keep balance in check.

[Sorinth]

I wonder if EK would be the way to go with Nets.

War Magic would allow you to cast a Cantrip and then make your 1 net attack as a BA. Hitting with a net would trigger Eldritch Strike so your next spell would force disadvantage, although being in the net already creates disadvantage against Dex saves.

A lenient DM might allow some shenanigans where once you've entangled a creature in the net and then summon it to your hand. Same with Create Bonfire as the Cantrip, does the net count as being worn/carried when it's entangling a creature.

Though realistically it might be better to do something like Shocking Grasp, Net attack and move away. If they don't have a ranged attack it seems like a decent way of bringing a strong single opponent down, especially if they don't have a slashing weapon and actually have to waste their action getting out the net each round.

[MaxWilson]

I wonder if EK would be the way to go with Nets.

In my experience, carrying a few nets is definitely a good idea for a Sharpshooter/CE EK with Booming Blade. But it's more of a fringe benefit backup tactic than a go-to option. Typically you'd prefer to just shoot the enemy full of holes while someone _else_ restrains them or knocks them prone.

Who really benefits from nets is Necromancers with dozens of skeletal minions. Either have them Help each other, or have half of them Shove prone and the other half throw nets on whoever is prone (from 5' away so no net disadvantage).

[Asisreo1]

A monk can use a net to gain advantage. You can stun your enemy then throw the net from 5'. The incapacitation clause removes the disadvantage while the stun gives advantage. Meaning that a monk is a single-build option to use nets with advantage.

Of course, coordination can be used by having a spellcaster hold or stun the enemy too. Hypnotized enemies also work but they unfortunately don't grant advantage.

[Valmark]

A monk can use a net to gain advantage. You can stun your enemy then throw the net from 5'. The incapacitation clause removes the disadvantage while the stun gives advantage. Meaning that a monk is a single-build option to use nets with advantage.

Of course, coordination can be used by having a spellcaster hold or stun the enemy too. Hypnotized enemies also work but they unfortunately don't grant advantage.

...? Advantages don't stack, at most you'd be throwing normally if I understood what you mean.

[stoutstien]

Nets work a lot better as adventuring gear than a weapon. If it was an action to use and save based it suddenly fixes 90% of the problems.

[MaxWilson]

...? Advantages don't stack, at most you'd be throwing normally if I understood what you mean.

Stunning creates advantage. Being within 5' of a non-incapacitated hostile creature which can see you gives you disadvantage on ranged attacks, but if the enemy is incapacitated, there is nothing to create disadvantage, so you just have advantage on your net attack.

A similar scenario is a hidden creature (like a Skulker Moon Druid) throwing a net. You get advantage, and they can't see you, so there's no offsetting disadvantage, and you just roll with advantage.

[Valmark]

Stunning creates advantage. Being within 5' of a non-incapacitated hostile creature which can see you gives you disadvantage on ranged attacks, but if the enemy is incapacitated, there is nothing to create disadvantage, so you just have advantage on your net attack.

A similar scenario is a hidden creature (like a Skulker Moon Druid) throwing a net. You get advantage, and they can't see you, so there's no offsetting disadvantage, and you just roll with advantage.

Oooh I was forgetting that clause. Yeah, makes sense.

[Tanarii]

Nets work a lot better as adventuring gear than a weapon. If it was an action to use and save based it suddenly fixes 90% of the problems.
It'd be cool in that case, because it'd work with Fast Hands.

[MaxWilson]

It'd be cool in that case, because it'd work with Fast Hands.

But, it would also stop working with Crossbow Expert.

That would be good for bards and necromancers and druids and other classes who are normally bad at personal archery, but bad for Fighters. The only real issue it fixes is that strangeness of plate armor defending against net entanglement, and frankly 5E has bigger problems from a realism angle anyway (such as the fact that a naked, unconscious, paralyzed Dex 20 guy has AC 15 while a naked, unconscious, paralyzed Dex 3 guy has AC 6).

[Hytheter]

A monk can use a net to gain advantage. You can stun your enemy then throw the net from 5'. The incapacitation clause removes the disadvantage while the stun gives advantage. Meaning that a monk is a single-build option to use nets with advantage.

You can't stun and throw a net in the same turn though because the net prevents additional attacks in the same action. Monks aren't even proficient with nets either.

Close quarters shooter fighting style is probably the most accessible way to use nets without disadvantage if UA is allowed.

[Asisreo1]

You can't stun and throw a net in the same turn though because the net prevents additional attacks in the same action. Monks aren't even proficient with nets either.

Close quarters shooter fighting style is probably the most accessible way to use nets without disadvantage if UA is allowed.
The stun doesn't end until the end of your next go. The optimal thing to do would be to stun and continue that same action as normal then throw the net next turn. The advantage is a nice substitute for proficiency, it's not like you really need it in this instance since it won't be viable at higher levels where the advantage will beat proficiency. It most definitely beats throwing the net with proficiency but with disadvantage no matter what.

[Hytheter]

The stun doesn't end until the end of your next go.

Oh huh, for some reason I thought stun ended sooner than that. Nevermind then.

[MaxWilson]

The stun doesn't end until the end of your next go. The optimal thing to do would be to stun and continue that same action as normal then throw the net next turn. The advantage is a nice substitute for proficiency, it's not like you really need it in this instance since it won't be viable at higher levels where the advantage will beat proficiency. It most definitely beats throwing the net with proficiency but with disadvantage no matter what.

Another option is to stun, then next turn grapple + prone. Unlike a net, a grapple or prone attempt is an autosuccess against an incapacitated target (unlike a thrown net attempt, even at advantage, especially if you lack proficiency), and this way you have the option to make a Martial Arts attack. Also the DC for escaping your grapple might be higher than the DC for escaping a net (if you have Athletics prof) and monsters can't just destroy you with 10 points of slashing damage like they can a net.

An even better option is to stun somebody and then have somebody's armored zombie/skeleton grapple them and another one shove them prone, while you move on to other targets. That forces them to engage with the zombie, without costing you personally any more attacks or ki.

[Asisreo1]

Another option is to stun, then next turn grapple + prone. Unlike a net, a grapple or prone attempt is an autosuccess against an incapacitated target (unlike a thrown net attempt, even at advantage, especially if you lack proficiency), and this way you have the option to make a Martial Arts attack. Also the DC for escaping your grapple might be higher than the DC for escaping a net (if you have Athletics prof) and monsters can't just destroy you with 10 points of slashing damage like they can a net.

An even better option is to stun somebody and then have somebody's armored zombie/skeleton grapple them and another one shove them prone, while you move on to other targets. That forces them to engage with the zombie, without costing you personally any more attacks or ki.
Your ranged allies and AoE casters don't benefit from the proned condition.

Also, grapple is not an autosuccess on stun. Grapples are contests which are ability checks and ability checks are not autofailed on stunned condition. Them being stunned doesn't have any effect.

[NaughtyTiger]

Also, grapple is not an autosuccess on stun. Grapples are contests which are ability checks and ability checks are not autofailed on stunned condition. Them being stunned doesn't have any effect.

i have been doing that wrong this whole time. nice point.

[Lavaeolus]

i have been doing that wrong this whole time. nice point.

Yep, RAW only Strength and Dexterity "saving throws" are affected. That goes for Paralysed, Petrified or any other condition with a similar effect. Technically, unconscious people still only automatically fail STR and DEX saves, so that knocked-out wily Rogue might still stand a chance of Acrobatics-ing his way out of a headlock.

Story-wise, this is a little odd. I don't think I could begrude a DM who had me autofail while unconscious, and I'd probably be alright if they outright ruled Paralysis / Stunning allows easy grapples. As far as Stunned specifically goes, I'd probably at least give the enemy disadvantage on the roll.

If you're curious about RAI or dev commentary (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/11/06/stunned-creature-ability/):
The rules leave the answer to this question up to the DM. In most cases, I'd have a stunned creature fail to resist a grapple.

[MaxWilson]

Your ranged allies and AoE casters don't benefit from the proned condition.

Also, grapple is not an autosuccess on stun. Grapples are contests which are ability checks and ability checks are not autofailed on stunned condition. Them being stunned doesn't have any effect.

Stunning includes incapacitation, which did not originally but now does mean autofail vs. Grapple or Shove attempts. See most recent errata for pg. 195-6.

Grappling (p. 195). Before “If you
succeed” in the second paragraph, the
following sentence has been added:
“You succeed automatically if the target
is incapacitated.”

Shoving a Creature (p. 196). In the
last sentence of the second paragraph,
“If you win the contest,” has been
changed to “You succeed automatically
if the target is incapacitated. If you
succeed,”


i have been doing that wrong this whole time. nice point.

It stopped being wrong by RAW about a year and a half ago.

[Naanomi]

Another option is to stun, then next turn grapple + prone. Unlike a net, a grapple or prone attempt is an autosuccess against an incapacitated target (unlike a thrown net attempt, even at advantage, especially if you lack proficiency), and this way you have the option to make a Martial Arts attack. Also the DC for escaping your grapple might be higher than the DC for escaping a net (if you have Athletics prof) and monsters can't just destroy you with 10 points of slashing damage like they can a net.

An even better option is to stun somebody and then have somebody's armored zombie/skeleton grapple them and another one shove them prone, while you move on to other targets. That forces them to engage with the zombie, without costing you personally any more attacks or ki.
Why one or the other... layers of incapacitation means it is multiple checks (and multiple turns of effort) to escape in most cases. Beastmaster throws his net, ensnaring strike, and his pet Giant Crab grapples... that is someone at least three actions from freedom

[Lavaeolus]

Stunning includes incapacitation, which did not originally but now does mean autofail vs. Grapple or Shove attempts. See most recent errata for pg. 195-6.

Oh, I'd missed that! Thanks for bringing it up. Quite nice for a grappler.

[MaxWilson]

Why one or the other... layers of incapacitation means it is multiple checks (and multiple turns of effort) to escape in most cases. Beastmaster throws his net, ensnaring strike, and his pet Giant Crab grapples... that is someone at least three actions from freedom

Yep, totally valid. In fact you can have an arbitrary number of creatures grapple (if there is space) and AFAIK they have to break all of the grapples individually before they can even stand up.

Normally this is overkill because you've got other enemies to deal with, but when you've got a creature that is Charmed- or Incapacitated-until-damaged and you've killed or disabled all of its buddies, sometimes it's nice to pile on the grapples before hitting them (as well as handcuffing them with manacles, maybe forcing them to partially don armor if a non-armor-proficient spellcaster to prevent spellcasting, burying them in dirt up to their shoulders via Mold Earth, etc.).

[Asisreo1]

Stunning includes incapacitation, which did not originally but now does mean autofail vs. Grapple or Shove attempts. See most recent errata for pg. 195-6.

Grappling (p. 195). Before “If you
succeed” in the second paragraph, the
following sentence has been added:
“You succeed automatically if the target
is incapacitated.”

Shoving a Creature (p. 196). In the
last sentence of the second paragraph,
“If you win the contest,” has been
changed to “You succeed automatically
if the target is incapacitated. If you
succeed,”



It stopped being wrong by RAW about a year and a half ago.
Curse my outdated books. This is what you get for buying stuff early, kids.

You still would need to be an athletic proficient monk with decent str so it's quite an investment for something that might fall off at later levels (due to extremely high enemy skills at these levels).

[stoutstien]

But, it would also stop working with Crossbow Expert.

That would be good for bards and necromancers and druids and other classes who are normally bad at personal archery, but bad for Fighters. The only real issue it fixes is that strangeness of plate armor defending against net entanglement, and frankly 5E has bigger problems from a realism angle anyway (such as the fact that a naked, unconscious, paralyzed Dex 20 guy has AC 15 while a naked, unconscious, paralyzed Dex 3 guy has AC 6).

originally I started looking at it because I didn't like the idea of a weapon that does no damage. Too many weird side cases that could potentially stop the game to figure out.
I did add a feat specifically for using adventuring gear to more than make up for the loss.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Whether you think the net needs a nerf or doesn't, its up to the "official" addendum folks to fix it (or not). Net is still the only weapon you are never advantaged to use.

I think its a dandy thing combined with mage hand, as the net weighs 3 pounds, well under the hand's limit. So it is with a vial of holy water, poison or flask of oil.

[MaxWilson]

Whether you think the net needs a nerf or doesn't, its up to the "official" addendum folks to fix it (or not). Net is still the only weapon you are never advantaged to use.

I think its a dandy thing combined with mage hand, as the net weighs 3 pounds, well under the hand's limit. So it is with a vial of holy water, poison or flask of oil.

Nitpick: a Mage Hand cannot attack with a net. From the spell description: "The hand can't Attack, activate magical items, or carry more than 10 pounds."

(And of course there are numerous circumstances where you can throw nets with advantage, such as while invisible or hidden.)

[Kurt Kurageous]

Nitpick: a Mage Hand cannot attack with a net. From the spell description: "The hand can't Attack, activate magical items, or carry more than 10 pounds."

(And of course there are numerous circumstances where you can throw nets with advantage, such as while invisible or hidden.)

With all due respect, your titanness...

True, but you can drop the net, just like it can trigger a trap. And maybe there's room for DM discretion with the approach, "It's not the hand attacking, it's the net."

You are never going to be advantaged when using a net because advantage/disadvantages do not stack. You are disadvantaged every time you use the net from the start. So you get an advantage...great, you cancelled the disadvantage. But that's not throwing the net with advantage.

Are you allowing advantage/disadvantage to stack as a house rule?

[Asisreo1]

You are never going to be advantaged when using a net because advantage/disadvantages do not stack. You are disadvantaged every time you use the net from the start. So you get an advantage...great, you cancelled the disadvantage. But that's not throwing the net with advantage.

Are you allowing advantage/disadvantage to stack as a house rule?
We've established that you get advantage from incapacitated enemies if you gain another form of advantage (reckless attack, paralysis, etc).

You also don't get disadvantage underwater.

[Valmark]

With all due respect, your titanness...

True, but you can drop the net, just like it can trigger a trap. And maybe there's room for DM discretion with the approach, "It's not the hand attacking, it's the net."

You are never going to be advantaged when using a net because advantage/disadvantages do not stack. You are disadvantaged every time you use the net from the start. So you get an advantage...great, you cancelled the disadvantage. But that's not throwing the net with advantage.

Are you allowing advantage/disadvantage to stack as a house rule?

You can remove the disadvantage as already stated. Cases that were previously mentioned including striking from hiding or incapacitating the enemy, making it so that you can throw within 5 feet freely.

[MaxWilson]

With all due respect, your titanness...

True, but you can drop the net, just like it can trigger a trap. And maybe there's room for DM discretion with the approach, "It's not the hand attacking, it's the net."

You are never going to be advantaged when using a net because advantage/disadvantages do not stack. You are disadvantaged every time you use the net from the start. So you get an advantage...great, you cancelled the disadvantage. But that's not throwing the net with advantage.

Are you allowing advantage/disadvantage to stack as a house rule?

No, I'm not houseruling advantage/disadvantage.

The answer is the same as it was on page 1 of this thread.


Here's the rule for ranged attacks in melee: When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn't incapacitated.

So for example, if you're a Skulker goblin hiding in the shadows, and you sneak up to your target and throw a net on them from 5' away, by RAW:

(1) You have advantage for being an unseen attacker, and
(2) You don't have disadvantage from being within 5' of a hostile creature who can see you and isn't incapacitated, because the target can't see you while you're hidden, and you're hidden until you make that net attack.

Another example is if you Hypnotic Pattern a bunch of monsters and then have your animated skeletons toss a bunch of nets on the incapacitated ones to slow them down just in case the non-incapacitated ones wake them up. A skeleton standing next to an incapacitated monster, with no other monsters within 5', will be rolling straight d20+4, no disadvantage.

*SNIP*

And of course, Crossbow Expert or Sharpshooter can also come into play here.

So that's three ways to avoid disadvantage, and one of them (being unseen) also has advantage built-in. For the others (incapacitated opponent, or feats) you still need a way to gain advantage (Help, prone enemy, etc.) but when you do it's actual advantage because you don't also have disadvantage.