Bladesinger Net Fighter

[Limited Gish]

I am not sure how viable it is, but seems like it could be a solid way to use a net:

New bladesinger Extra Attack allows you to Replace an Attack with a Cantrip. Nets only allow one Attack as part of the action to use it.

Would bladesinger allow you to throw the net then cantrip them to benefit from the net? And if so, how best to use the combo?

[MrCharlie]

I am not sure how viable it is, but seems like it could be a solid way to use a net:

New bladesinger Extra Attack allows you to Replace an Attack with a Cantrip. Nets only allow one Attack as part of the action to use it.

Would bladesinger allow you to throw the net then cantrip them to benefit from the net? And if so, how best to use the combo?
This...Is a really, really neat catch!

RAW, nets do not inflict prone. Probably the best way to do is would be to throw the net from 15 feet then firebolt them, or if the DM likes saying that firebolt would ignite the net, use chill touch or another similar spell. You get advantage out of it and either eat their action or restrain them.

The other option is to build for this, and take crossbow expert. Crossbow expert synergizes with this three times over-First, you get a bonus action attack after throwing the net (it is a one handed weapon you made an attack with, and yes, throwing a net is still an attack). Second, crossbow expert lets you throw nets without disadvantage from 5 feet. Third, Crossbow expert lets you make that crossbow attack without disadvantage in melee.

So the sequence is walk up to creature, declare attack action, throw net on them, shocking grasp them, then bonus action shoot them. Then you walk away, as they can't AOO you due to shocking grasp.

Rinse and repeat.

Edit: You could probably also draw a weapon and use booming or greenflame blade, but I think that shocking grasp works best because you can kite out of melee with this, and bladesinger no longer has enough bladesong uses to ensure they have consistently high AC. You also need to get hand crossbows if you want to actually invest in this, but eh.

[Aett_Thorn]

I'm not sure that it would work. The net rules state that "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 if you use the attack action to use the net, you get only one attack. So you don't have a second one to swap out for a cantrip, is my reading.

[Samayu]

True strike to cancel the disadvantage from casting the net?

[Quietus]

I don't think this works. From the Net :


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.

From the Bladesinger errata :


“Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.”

So when you use your action to attack with a net, you only get one attack. If you do make that attack with the net, you don't have a second attack to cast a cantrip.

[Aett_Thorn]

True strike to cancel the disadvantage from casting the net?

Only if you use True Strike a round before throwing the net. True Strike specifically applies only on your next turn. One of the many reasons it's very, very weak.

[Samayu]

I'm not sure that it would work. The net rules state that "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 if you use the attack action to use the net, you get only one attack. So you don't have a second one to swap out for a cantrip, is my reading.

If you want to use a very precise reading of the rules... swap the cantrip for the attack first. That leaves you with only one attack. Then cast the net with that attack.

[MrCharlie]

I'm not sure that it would work. The net rules state that "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 if you use the attack action to use the net, you get only one attack. So you don't have a second one to swap out for a cantrip, is my reading.
You aren't using the attack to cast a cantrip, you are replacing an attack with casting a cantrip.

To put it another way, nets don't keep you from using extra attack, they keep you from making attacks with extra attack. It's just that all extra attack used to do was let you make more attacks. The wording side steps the entire issue-you don't make two attacks with extra attack, so there is no conflict at all.

Where you do have a point is that you could then interpret that the spell cast it is the same action as the net, and cantrips can require an attack roll. Hence, you could only cast cantrips that don't require attack rolls, in which case cantrips that cause saving throws would have to be used instead. Something like create bonfire would be ideal because restrained grants disadvantage on DEX saves and keeps the target still, assuming the net wouldn't burn up.

[MaxWilson]

I'm not sure that it would work. The net rules state that "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 if you use the attack action to use the net, you get only one attack. So you don't have a second one to swap out for a cantrip, is my reading.

Seems plausible. Note that Eldrich Knights aren't subject to this limitation though: cantrip + War Magic (Net) is legal for them.

[Samayu]

Only if you use True Strike a round before throwing the net. True Strike specifically applies only on your next turn. One of the many reasons it's very, very weak.

Dammit! OK, house ruling... It now reads "until end of next turn." Of course, it still doesn't make it good enough to actually take.

How do you get around disadvantage on nets?

Also, is there a way to give a Bladesinger proficiency with a net?

[MrCharlie]

Dammit! OK, house ruling... It now reads "until end of next turn." Of course, it still doesn't make it good enough to actually take.

How do you get around disadvantage on nets?

Also, is there a way to give a Bladesinger proficiency with a net?
Crossbow expert gets around the 5 foot minimum range being within the 5 foot disadvantage interval for ranged weapons, letting you throw it in melee. Sharpshooter gets around the disadvantage for throwing it between 10 to 15 feet, as you ignore range penalties for long range.

Weapon master or multiclassing.

[MaxWilson]

Dammit! OK, house ruling... It now reads "until end of next turn." Of course, it still doesn't make it good enough to actually take.

How do you get around disadvantage on nets?

Also, is there a way to give a Bladesinger proficiency with a net?

IIRC Bladesingers get to pick two weapon proficiencies at level 2. Just make nets one of them.


Crossbow expert gets around the 5 foot minimum range being within the 5 foot disadvantage interval for ranged weapons, letting you throw it in melee. Sharpshooter gets around the disadvantage for throwing it between 10 to 15 feet, as you ignore range penalties for long range.

Weapon master or multiclassing.

Invisibility or heavy obscurement or being hidden also gets around the disadvantage, since the disadvantage is only imposed when you're within 5' of a hostile creature that can see you. It's why goblins hexbardlocks with nets are so much fun: they get net proficiency from Hexblade, and Stealth Expertise from Bard, and they can actually get advantage on the Net attack every round instead of merely cancelling disadvantage. (It's still not a primary strategy for them but nets are a fun little fringe benefit on a combo (goblin bardlock) that's good already.)

[MrCharlie]

IIRC Bladesingers get to pick two weapon proficiencies at level 2. Just make nets one of them.
One, and it has to be a melee weapon.

[Gignere]

IIRC Bladesingers get to pick two weapon proficiencies at level 2. Just make nets one of them.

You get to pick one weapon proficiency.

[MaxWilson]

One, and it has to be a melee weapon.

Ah, my bad. Must have been thinking of Kensai monks I guess, although it turns out that Kensais can't choose nets as monk weapons either.

[MrCharlie]

Ah, my bad. Must have been thinking of Kensai monks I guess, although it turns out that Kensais can't choose nets as monk weapons either.
Huh, I never actually realized that. I guess it makes some sense, but it's interesting that they bothered to define that. Maybe it's actually aimed at lances to avoid mounted monks? I'd be interested to see the designer intent here.

[SirDidymus]

It's less efficient, but could you do it in the other order? If you replace the first attack with the cantrip, you then take your only actual attack with the net?

[Samayu]

It's less efficient, but could you do it in the other order? If you replace the first attack with the cantrip, you then take your only actual attack with the net?

Yes. It's not a bonus action predicated on the use of an attack.

[MrCharlie]

It's less efficient, but could you do it in the other order? If you replace the first attack with the cantrip, you then take your only actual attack with the net?
I don't think it would work if you can't use the cantrip in the other order because the wording isn't order-sensitive-to put it another way, if it was possible, you could just attack before throwing a net, which isn't correct. Order does not matter.

[kazaryu]

I don't think it would work if you can't use the cantrip in the other order because the wording isn't order-sensitive-to put it another way, if it was possible, you could just attack before throwing a net, which isn't correct. Order does not matter.

to double down on this, essentially its the same reason most people allow shield masters to shove before attacking. so long as the attack action occurs, it doesn't matter what order it actually happens in. you if you've already used one of your attacks you wouldn't then be able to throw the net as an extra attack.

[Aett_Thorn]

to double down on this, essentially its the same reason most people allow shield masters to shove before attacking. so long as the attack action occurs, it doesn't matter what order it actually happens in. you if you've already used one of your attacks you wouldn't then be able to throw the net as an extra attack.

It would then also be possible to cast a leveled spell and a bonus action spell if you just did them in the 'wrong' order as well. The game is not really written in such a way that order matters much, except when specified. Now again, nets are pretty much worthless, so giving them a boost isn't going to break the game or anything, I just don't think that it personally works by the rules. But I might still let one of my players do it.

[kazaryu]

It would then also be possible to cast a leveled spell and a bonus action spell if you just did them in the 'wrong' order as well. The game is not really written in such a way that order matters much, except when specified. Now again, nets are pretty much worthless, so giving them a boost isn't going to break the game or anything, I just don't think that it personally works by the rules. But I might still let one of my players do it.

i think the big reason the net is so limited is almost explicitly for people like fighters. in general the net is worthless, but when you have a **** ton of attacks you can afford to sacrifice 1 to give the rest advantage. still not sure its needed, but thats the only real reason i could see for such a limitation.

[Aett_Thorn]

i think the big reason the net is so limited is almost explicitly for people like fighters. in general the net is worthless, but when you have a **** ton of attacks you can afford to sacrifice 1 to give the rest advantage. still not sure its needed, but thats the only real reason i could see for such a limitation.

The problem with that is two-fold, in my opinion:

1) Because of the limitation of the net itself and preventing more attacks that round, the Fighter at higher levels actually loses MORE than other classes by using a net. Fighters at level 11+ lose two or more attacks by using a net. Rangers, Paladins, Barbarians, etc. lose only one attack.

2) At level 5+ when you're sacrificing an attack to use the net, most creatures can easily deal 5 damage to the net or make a DC 10 Str check to get out on their turn. So how much of an advantage (lower case 'a') are you creating for others?


I understand that they didn't want a cheap, easy way for martials to lock down an enemy, but they really nerfed the %*(@ out of nets to make sure that this didn't happen. And by doing so, they just made nets useless.

[KorvinStarmast]

so long as the attack action occurs, it doesn't matter what order it actually happens in. Yeah, which is right out of how timing on a bonus action is written, but maybe we ought not open that can of worms again ...

[SirDidymus]

I don't think it would work if you can't use the cantrip in the other order because the wording isn't order-sensitive-to put it another way, if it was possible, you could just attack before throwing a net, which isn't correct. Order does not matter.

But at this point, you haven't attacked, you cast a spell. It may just be arguing semantics, but it all comes down to if the cantrip still counts as an attack after it's been swapped in.

[MrCharlie]

But at this point, you haven't attacked, you cast a spell. It may just be arguing semantics, but it all comes down to if the cantrip still counts as an attack after it's been swapped in.
In that case, you can throw the net first. There is no reason to throw it second.

I also agree that, in fact, you can absolutely do this. To re-iterate, the net says you can only make one attack when you have a feature that grants more attacks. Technically, it doesn't remove your extra attacks, you just can't use them. Bladesinger replaces one attack with the cast a spell action-it's no longer an attack, so it's no longer "making an attack" to cast the cantrip. Hence, unless the bladesinger's cantrip makes an attack roll, there is no conflict. Even if it does, there is room for argument.

The key is if you think "replaces one attack" means that the replacement is still an attack, or if "make only one attack" means that the entire feature of extra attack is wiped out, but neither is technically true.

[WaroftheCrans]

When playing as any other class with extra attack, can you still shove, trip, grapple, etc. after throwing a net? If not then you can't cast a cantrip either. If that's a yes, then the question becomes whether the cantrip can have an attack roll, or whether it must have a save

Does anybody know how the Raw interacts with that? I'm inclined to agree that it should work, at least for cantrips in general, I'm split on whether cantrips with an attack roll would work.

[MrCharlie]

When playing as any other class with extra attack, can you still shove, trip, grapple, etc. after throwing a net? If not then you can't cast a cantrip either. If that's a yes, then the question becomes whether the cantrip can have an attack roll, or whether it must have a save

Does anybody know how the Raw interacts with that? I'm inclined to agree that it should work, at least for cantrips in general, I'm split on whether cantrips with an attack roll would work.
Not so. The cantrip replaces an attack but isn't an attack. Shoving and grappling replace attacks by the same text...But they are called special attacks, meaning for a completely unrelated reason you can't grapple or shove after throwing a net.

The key is that a cantrip still isn't an attack, even if it replaces one. Unless, as part of the cantrip, you make an attack roll. In which case...eh?

[kazaryu]

Not so. The cantrip replaces an attack but isn't an attack. Shoving and grappling replace attacks by the same text...But they are called special attacks, meaning for a completely unrelated reason you can't grapple or shove after throwing a net.

The key is that a cantrip still isn't an attack, even if it replaces one. Unless, as part of the cantrip, you make an attack roll. In which case...eh?

the point is, when you throw the net, you don't get extra attacks to replace. you just get the net attack. using the net, essentially cancels the extra attack feature. (technically, it does more than that, since it would also apply to things like gloom stalkers as well).

[AttilatheYeon]

Not so. The cantrip replaces an attack but isn't an attack. Shoving and grappling replace attacks by the same text...But they are called special attacks, meaning for a completely unrelated reason you can't grapple or shove after throwing a net.

The key is that a cantrip still isn't an attack, even if it replaces one. Unless, as part of the cantrip, you make an attack roll. In which case...eh?

I think it depends on the cantrip. Firebolt would still be an attack. Poison spray would not.