Nets

[DwarfFighter]

How would you go about using a net effectively?

A net can be used against Large or smaller creatures. It is a thrown weapon, but also a ranged martial weapon, which I guess ultimately means it's a Dex based attack roll (it's not Finesse, but also not Melee...). With a range of 5/15, without any special abilities beyond proficiency, and against a normal opponent there is going to be Disadvantage on the attack roll.

As it stands, the net is something of a Hail Mary pass, something to try for if you have no better options. Or is it?

What can a character do to make the net a viable combat weapon? What will it cost him?

[Naanomi]

1) Find a way to negate the disadvantage... feats like Crossbow Expert or Sharp Shooter; any way to get advantage yourself, knocking the opponent prone, be hidden, whatever...

2) Use in situations where retraining the enemy harmlessly OR providing advantage to allies is more important than your own attack.

The best use I've personally done is on a Beastmaster Ranger... make your net attack, give your other attacks to the Beast to take advantage of the situation... but lots of my characters carry one

[BamBam]

Clockwork Sorceror can remove disadvantage.

[Rara1212]

The updated Bladesinger can potentially cast a cantrip and then toss a net(or even Net then cantrip)
Combined with Xbow expert & a Hand crossbow for some fun.

[MaxWilson]

The updated Bladesinger can potentially cast a cantrip and then toss a net

Ditto Eldritch Knight 7.

Also a hidden PC (goblin works well) doesn't take disadvantage for being within 5' of an enemy, because the enemy can't see them. They already get advantage for being unseen, so can actually throw the net with advantage. Net-throwing is pretty good for a goblin, often better than cantrips.

[Rara1212]

Ditto Eldritch Knight 7.

Also a hidden PC (goblin works well) doesn't take disadvantage for being within 5' of an enemy, because the enemy can't see them. They already get advantage for being unseen, so can actually throw the net with advantage. Net-throwing is pretty good for a goblin, often better than cantrips.

Wait, why do they not get disadvantage? I get that they get advantage and it'd cancel out.

[RifleAvenger]

WARNING, TABLE SPECIFIC RULING. This is 5e, after all.

At my local table, one GM allows rider effects with the Catapult spell based on the item tossed. Powerful way to deploy nets, ball bearings, oil slicks, caltrops, etc.

Massively increases the power and utility of Catapult and I expect it to fly at very few tables. Quite fun though, in my experience.

[Ir0ns0ul]

My current character is a Hobgoblin Iron Wizard (based on this build ( https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=23837856&postcount=45) by the sage LudicSavant), I took Net (and Rapier) prof from my racial Martial Training feature.

My character is using Net a lot in combat, and it has been quite useful. Two ways I’m employing it:

1. Regular 15 ft. ranged attack and mitigating the disadvantage through the help action of my Familiar

2. Casting Catapult in a Net and driving it to my enemy (very good advise by Bilbron in this video here (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QG2xkfpLYTU))

[Lavaeolus]

For a while I've had a Fighter 1 / Rogue X on the backlog, to try and milk some use out of a weapon I'd normally ignore. Going Variant Human or Custom Lineage (if you're using Tasha's) to grab Crossbow Expert makes this come online a little sooner.

Most of the martials get Extra Attack, and so are encouraged to make a bunch of attacks over dedicating their action to a net. Rogues just care about getting off one hit, which makes this a little more workable. Thanks to Crossbow Expert, you'll bypass close-range disadvantage and the net'll trigger a bonus-action attack; a crossbow requires a free hand to load, but conveniently enough, a net is no longer taking up a hand once we've attacked with it. If the net does hit, it'll give us advantage and help with landing Sneak Attack.

Now, Rogue doesn't get proficiency with nets by default, so you should really find some way of nabbing it. Taking one level in Fighter isn't too bad, and gets us the Archery FS to improve our accuracy.

And voilà! A downside might be that heading into melee frequently takes away one of crossbow's benefits, but you're not obligated to use a net when staying at range and relying on two crossbow shots would be the smarter call. You generally wade in with your crossbow drawn, and when wanted, use your turn's object interaction drawing your net.

[Asisreo1]

How would you go about using a net effectively?

A net can be used against Large or smaller creatures. It is a thrown weapon, but also a ranged martial weapon, which I guess ultimately means it's a Dex based attack roll (it's not Finesse, but also not Melee...). With a range of 5/15, without any special abilities beyond proficiency, and against a normal opponent there is going to be Disadvantage on the attack roll.

As it stands, the net is something of a Hail Mary pass, something to try for if you have no better options. Or is it?

What can a character do to make the net a viable combat weapon? What will it cost him?
A monk can stun their enemy then use a net on its next turn. This not only negates disadvantage, but it also gives you advantage.

A spellcaster can cast a Hold spell on their target and also get advantage.

A rogue can get advantage with a net if they're hidden within 5ft of the target.

A regular fighter can also shove their target prone for regular attack, though he might need to grapple too.

There's plenty of opportunities to turn disadvantage into advantage with a net. Remember, the net is only made at disadvantage if the target is within 5ft of the PC and the PC is visible and the target is not incapacitated

Out of the various conditions, the ones that will turn disadvantage into advantage with regard to the net is: Blinded, Invisivible(self), Paralyzed, Petrified, Stunned, Unconscious.

[FrancisBean]

Wait, why do they not get disadvantage? I get that they get advantage and it'd cancel out.
It's in the PHB, pg 195, under Ranged Attacks in Close Combat.

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.

[CheddarChampion]

I also like the Fighter 1/Rogue X build (see Lavaeolus's post).

Nets are great when in the hands of minions. Maybe you convinced some guards to come with you, maybe you are a Necromancer, maybe you are a DM.

Another niche is using it with Haste + Sharpshooter. EK probably does this best.

At low levels a War domain cleric could make good use of it. Who cares about disadvantage if you can add a +10... and throw a second one as a bonus action (mind the item interaction limit).

[Rara1212]

It's in the PHB, pg 195, under Ranged Attacks in Close Combat.

Ah, I forgot the "can see you" part. Nice

[DwarfFighter]

Thanks for the tips - I see a lot can be gained from the party members co-operating on a tactic :)

-DF

[moonfly7]

How would you go about using a net effectively?

A net can be used against Large or smaller creatures. It is a thrown weapon, but also a ranged martial weapon, which I guess ultimately means it's a Dex based attack roll (it's not Finesse, but also not Melee...). With a range of 5/15, without any special abilities beyond proficiency, and against a normal opponent there is going to be Disadvantage on the attack roll.

As it stands, the net is something of a Hail Mary pass, something to try for if you have no better options. Or is it?

What can a character do to make the net a viable combat weapon? What will it cost him?

Plenty of other people are covering the "how to hit with the net" issue, so I'm going to offer up something else: how to deal damage with the net.
Theres a new fighting style in tashas that lets you add +2 damage to all thrown weapon attacks, just saying, it could be applied to nets pretty easily. Next is the battlemaster maneuver that lets you bonus action throw a weapon, it lets you deal maneuver dice in damage, so we're talking anywhere from a d6 to a d12. Some clerics can deal extra d8's of damage with their attacks, specifically "when you hit with a weapon attack" so you don't need to deal damage to add the d8, so a net is viable.
This last one is a stretch since nets don't have a damage die, but if your DM is REALLY nice it might work: go monk, grab a race that lets you grab weapon proficiency in nets or use tashas proficiency rules, martial Arts die replace a weapons normal damage, so if your DM is SUPER lenient they might interpret this as letting you deal damage with your nets equal to your monk martial Arts die.

[MaxWilson]

Plenty of other people are covering the "how to hit with the net" issue, so I'm going to offer up something else: how to deal damage with the net.
Theres a new fighting style in tashas that lets you add +2 damage to all thrown weapon attacks, just saying, it could be applied to nets pretty easily. Next is the battlemaster maneuver that lets you bonus action throw a weapon, it lets you deal maneuver dice in damage, so we're talking anywhere from a d6 to a d12. Some clerics can deal extra d8's of damage with their attacks, specifically "when you hit with a weapon attack" so you don't need to deal damage to add the d8, so a net is viable.
This last one is a stretch since nets don't have a damage die, but if your DM is REALLY nice it might work: go monk, grab a race that lets you grab weapon proficiency in nets or use tashas proficiency rules, martial Arts die replace a weapons normal damage, so if your DM is SUPER lenient they might interpret this as letting you deal damage with your nets equal to your monk martial Arts die.

Also, sneak attack. If your DM lets the fighting style +2 work, Sneak Attack +Nd6 should work too.

[Meichrob7]

Easiest method to make a net useful is to take crossbow expert and a level of fighter, and have the rest of your levels be in rogue.

Fighter gives you net proficiency and the archery fighting style which will boost the net and the crossbow’s accuracy.

You then attack with the net as your action and then shoot the enemy with your crossbow as your bonus action. Assuming the net hit you should have advantage on this attack so you’ll get to apply sneak attack.

The enemy will at the very least need to spend an attack breaking the net, but if they don’t have the right damage type, or can’t reliably break it in a single attempt, they’ll need to spend their whole action to break out.

This gets even better with sharpshooter since it lets you both fire the net off from 15ft away, and on turns where you aren’t firing the net, it lets you make two attacks, the first hopefully hits and activates sneak attack, if it doesn’t you use the second attack to try again, but whenever you hit first try your second attack with crossbow expert would be a little useless since it wouldn’t deal much damage, but since you’ve already hit your sneak attack for that round it’s not risky to take the -5/+10 sharpshooter option.

[Sorinth]

Using nets depends a lot on how the DM rules the part about only making 1 attack even if you have multiple attacks.

To optimize net usage you probably want need to think about the party as a whole. Restrained is a strong debuff that is great for strikers like Rogues, or Crit-fishing Paladins. The other thing you want is to win the action economy game by forcing the enemy to spend an action breaking free while you have a BA attack of some kind.

[iTreeby]

Echo Knight can throw a net through its echo without disadvantage. Level 3 no feats necessary.

[tatsuyashiba]

Lucky feat.

Turn disadvantage into super advantage.

[Valmark]

Echo Knight can throw a net through its echo without disadvantage. Level 3 no feats necessary.

How does it negate disadvantage?

[Damon_Tor]

Why is nobody talking about Quick Toss (From TCoE)?

A net is EXCELLENT on a sharpshooter Battlemaster, or any sharpshooter fighter with Superior Technique and/or Martial Adept. Use the Quick Toss maneuver to throw the net as a bonus action. Then you can unleash your full attack chain on the other guy with advantage. As an archer you want Sharpshooter anyway, so it's not like you're adding a feat to your build just so this combo works. All the objections to using a net are resolved by this combo, and getting advantage on 4-8 attacks in a row is WELL worth the use of a superiority dice, especially if you're an elf with Elvish Accuracy.

[stoutstien]

Why is nobody talking about Quick Toss (From TCoE)?

A net is EXCELLENT on a sharpshooter Battlemaster, or any sharpshooter fighter with Superior Technique and/or Martial Adept. Use the Quick Toss maneuver to throw the net as a bonus action. Then you can unleash your full attack chain on the other guy with advantage. As an archer you want Sharpshooter anyway, so it's not like you're adding a feat to your build just so this combo works. All the objections to using a net are resolved by this combo, and getting advantage on 4-8 attacks in a row is WELL worth the use of a superiority dice, especially if you're an elf with Elvish Accuracy.

I've been looking at that myself for my BM pit fighter.

[Sorinth]

Why is nobody talking about Quick Toss (From TCoE)?

A net is EXCELLENT on a sharpshooter Battlemaster, or any sharpshooter fighter with Superior Technique and/or Martial Adept. Use the Quick Toss maneuver to throw the net as a bonus action. Then you can unleash your full attack chain on the other guy with advantage. As an archer you want Sharpshooter anyway, so it's not like you're adding a feat to your build just so this combo works. All the objections to using a net are resolved by this combo, and getting advantage on 4-8 attacks in a row is WELL worth the use of a superiority dice, especially if you're an elf with Elvish Accuracy.

It's certainly a strong use.

The one annoying thing is that by RAW you wouldn't get the superiority dice as damage since it adds the damage to a damage roll that you don't make.

[Damon_Tor]

It's certainly a strong use.

The one annoying thing is that by RAW you wouldn't get the superiority dice as damage since it adds the damage to a damage roll that you don't make.

Well worth it for adding advantage to your whole attack chain though.

[iTreeby]

How does it negate disadvantage?

By using the Echo to attack, you can use the short range increment (5 ft) while being more than 5ft from the target. Disadvantage isn't applied to the attack because you aren't within 5 ft.

[Valmark]

By using the Echo to attack, you can use the short range increment (5 ft) while being more than 5ft from the target. Disadvantage isn't applied to the attack because you aren't within 5 ft.

Oh I see. I'd say you still get disadvantage since you would be making the attack within 5 feet when using the echo's location but I can see the other interpretation.

[MrCharlie]

How would you go about using a net effectively?

A net can be used against Large or smaller creatures. It is a thrown weapon, but also a ranged martial weapon, which I guess ultimately means it's a Dex based attack roll (it's not Finesse, but also not Melee...). With a range of 5/15, without any special abilities beyond proficiency, and against a normal opponent there is going to be Disadvantage on the attack roll.

As it stands, the net is something of a Hail Mary pass, something to try for if you have no better options. Or is it?

What can a character do to make the net a viable combat weapon? What will it cost him?
A net is probably the best way to use something like Haste. You only get one attack anyway, so use it to impose restrained then slam a bunch of attacks downrange at advantage. Strikers like the Paladin going nova don't like this as much per say, but fighters do.

Assuming you can net and attack cantrip with the new bladesinger (there was a long, long conversation about this, I don't desire going back to it) that's also an excellent usage of a net.

Bonus action attacks, if they are generic weapon attacks, are also a fine use of a net at high level. Quick throw has been mentioned, but classes like the War Cleric can also use them.

(As an aside, I wonder how an ability like quick throw interacts with a weapon that does not deal damage...)

And finally, a net is probably the best weapon for something like a Wizard in an antimagic field, or a rogue or fighter against an enemy immune to weapon damage (For whatever reason). I've used one to good effect on stone golems before with a samurai fighter/archer. In general when you can either do miniscule damage or waste your action, nets become more attractive, even if you can't hit with them reliably.

Oh, and if you have to rely on weak hirelings or NPCs, give them a ton of nets. 20 commoners with nets and a river can kill a vampire.

(and as a DM, giving goblins nets is fun)

[Swosh]

A 1 lvl Peace Clerics dip is also huge! +2.5 to attack rolls is nothing to sneeze at (+5 with bless). Add on Archery (+7 total) and Sharpshooter (removes disadvantage) this will pretty much always guarantee a hit.

8 Arcane Trickster Rogue / 1 Peace Domain Cleric / 11 Battle Master Fighter, with Archery, Sharpshooter and Quick Toss.



(As an aside, I wonder how an ability like quick throw interacts with a weapon that does not deal damage...)

It dosnt. You can throw the net as a bonus action, but you cant add a superiority die to a damage roll that dosnt exist ("If you hit, add the superiority die to the weapon’s damage roll.").

[Quoz]

Its probably table dependent, but a chain pact warlock could have their familiar drop a net. Either as part of their attack with extra attack, or with investment of the chain master (which could conceivably up the net DCs to your spell save DC if really generous).

A pixie is probably the best for this, with 18 Dex, flight, and invisibility to grant advantage. You would need to clear some of this with your GM - a tiny creature probably couldn't net a large one, and RAW they don't get proficiency. But overall this may be one of the better options for adding a net to your arsenal.

[DwarfFighter]

Using nets depends a lot on how the DM rules the part about only making 1 attack even if you have multiple attacks.


What do you mean?

[MaxWilson]

What do you mean?

It makes a big difference whether you just don't get the benefit of Extra Attack (only one attack that action) or can only make one attack that whole round. In the latter case, making a bonus action net attack then attacking at advantage (possibly with action surge) is illegal.

[Sorinth]

What do you mean?

The way it's written it can be read three different ways.


If you attack with a net you can't make any other attacks that round regardless of other abilities you may have. So even if you have a way to use a BA attack with the net, that means you can't take the Attack action as your main action (Or vice versa).
When you attack with a net you can't make any additional attacks as part of that same action. So you lose things Extra Attack, but you can still make additional attacks that round using things like Bonus Action.
When you attack with a net you can't make additional attacks with a Net. But if you have Extra Attack and another weapon handy you could use that weapon to make your Extra Attack, but you can't throw 2 nets.


I think the middle option is what most people play with but I've seen people argue for the others.

[MrCharlie]

The way it's written it can be read three different ways.


If you attack with a net you can't make any other attacks that round regardless of other abilities you may have. So even if you have a way to use a BA attack with the net, that means you can't take the Attack action as your main action (Or vice versa).
When you attack with a net you can't make any additional attacks as part of that same action. So you lose things Extra Attack, but you can still make additional attacks that round using things like Bonus Action.
When you attack with a net you can't make additional attacks with a Net. But if you have Extra Attack and another weapon handy you could use that weapon to make your Extra Attack, but you can't throw 2 nets.


I think the middle option is what most people play with but I've seen people argue for the others.
I've never actually heard any interpretation other than 2, and don't think it's important to list them. 2 seems correct and is how everyone plays.

Also, if 1 is correct, then the only use is if you can't deal weapon damage and use weapons, or you do magic damage and can't use magic. Or are very low level and only attack once anyway. So basically, it's boring and the answer is that they aren't useful except as an emergency weapon, which OP already knew.

[NecessaryWeevil]

1) Find a way to negate the disadvantage... feats like Crossbow Expert or Sharp Shooter; any way to get advantage yourself, knocking the opponent prone, be hidden, whatever...


1a) Use it when disadvantage is irrelevant, such as when you *already* have disadvantage due to light, etc.

[Valmark]

The way it's written it can be read three different ways.


If you attack with a net you can't make any other attacks that round regardless of other abilities you may have. So even if you have a way to use a BA attack with the net, that means you can't take the Attack action as your main action (Or vice versa).
When you attack with a net you can't make any additional attacks as part of that same action. So you lose things Extra Attack, but you can still make additional attacks that round using things like Bonus Action.
When you attack with a net you can't make additional attacks with a Net. But if you have Extra Attack and another weapon handy you could use that weapon to make your Extra Attack, but you can't throw 2 nets.


I think the middle option is what most people play with but I've seen people argue for the others.


I've never actually heard any interpretation other than 2, and don't think it's important to list them. 2 seems correct and is how everyone plays.


Funny enough, this is the first time I hear anybody ruling nets any way but the third one.

[MrCharlie]

Funny enough, this is the first time I hear anybody ruling nets any way but the third one.
I find that extremely odd. I've played with 20 different DnD groups and no one has ever even suggested you can throw a net then attack, after reading the text on nets. Maybe it's just an American DnD culture thing, but I've played online too. There is complete agreement among everyone I have played with, which is impressive given that I've seen disagreement on every aspect of the rules otherwise.

[MaxWilson]

I've never actually heard any interpretation other than 2, and don't think it's important to list them. 2 seems correct and is how everyone plays.

Also, if 1 is correct, then the only use is if you can't deal weapon damage and use weapons, or you do magic damage and can't use magic. Or are very low level and only attack once anyway. So basically, it's boring and the answer is that they aren't useful except as an emergency weapon, which OP already knew.

I have been doing #1 all along. Plan to continue using it.

[Damon_Tor]

I have been doing #1 all along. Plan to continue using it.

The biggest problem with this reading of the rules is this: no time frame is given for the prohibition. It never says "until the end of this turn" or anything similar. Which means that you are prohibited from attacking again forever.

[MrCharlie]

The biggest problem with this reading of the rules is this: no time frame is given for the prohibition. It never says "until the end of this turn" or anything similar. Which means that you are prohibited from attacking again forever.
The other problem is that it mentions the different type of actions you can take in a turn, and connects these thoughts. So to interpret that it's talking about an entire round when it's specifically just mentioned a variety of different actions requires ignoring the context of the sentence. Take type of action-make one attack with net instead of however many you usually take. Reading that as "in a turn" almost seems like your adding text.

Further, reading that as "With a net" (option three) also seems to require interpreting more text, and implies a fourth option-that you can only make one attack with that net, but you could pull out another in the same action. If 3 is correct, 4 is just as valid. You might say that there is no reason to word it that way because it's a thrown weapon, but this isn't a valid way of parsing rules text generally-and it could be clarifying in case someone missed that it's a thrown weapon. Stranger text exists.

All this doesn't make the other options incorrect as language is inherently imprecise, but I firmly believe the other interpretations are somewhere between minority opinions and limited to people in this thread. I've never heard of them until someone mentioned them as options, and I've played with a wide variety of groups and read online discussions on 5e for several years now.

[MaxWilson]

The biggest problem with this reading of the rules is this: no time frame is given for the prohibition. It never says "until the end of this turn" or anything similar. Which means that you are prohibited from attacking again forever.

The problem with assuming that it's only trying to prohibit Extra Attack is, what then do you do with the explicit mention of action/bonus action/reaction, since Extra Attack doesn't trigger (by RAW at least) on a bonus action or reaction?


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's messy either way, but reading it as a prohibition on making more than one attack between your action+reaction+bonus action (i.e. the current round) is where I settled some years ago for various reasons, and while I'm not opposed per se to revisiting that decision, I'd have to have a good answer first to the above question. What is that rule trying to accomplish w/rt reactions and bonus actions?

[Valmark]

The other problem is that it mentions the different type of actions you can take in a turn, and connects these thoughts. So to interpret that it's talking about an entire round when it's specifically just mentioned a variety of different actions requires ignoring the context of the sentence. Take type of action-make one attack with net instead of however many you usually take. Reading that as "in a turn" almost seems like your adding text.

Further, reading that as "With a net" (option three) also seems to require interpreting more text, and implies a fourth option-that you can only make one attack with that net, but you could pull out another in the same action. If 3 is correct, 4 is just as valid. You might say that there is no reason to word it that way because it's a thrown weapon, but this isn't a valid way of parsing rules text generally-and it could be clarifying in case someone missed that it's a thrown weapon. Stranger text exists.

All this doesn't make the other options incorrect as language is inherently imprecise, but I firmly believe the other interpretations are somewhere between minority opinions and limited to people in this thread. I've never heard of them until someone mentioned them as options, and I've played with a wide variety of groups and read online discussions on 5e for several years now.

Given the range of a net, 4 is actually a real "worry". As in, one could easily throw a net and pick it up with minimal movement in case they missed. I don't think they would limit only such a scenario, but it's still valid.

On another note, I just realized that Returning Weapon makes a net useless and I find that strangely amusing.

[stoutstien]

I never understood the reasoning why nets are on the weapon table to begin with. It makes more sense as adventuring gear and it would avoid the whole rule mess.

[Darzil]

On another note, I just realized that Returning Weapon makes a net useless and I find that strangely amusing.
Now I want to see a Net with a Returning Weapon curse!

[Samayu]

I never understood the reasoning why nets are on the weapon table to begin with. It makes more sense as adventuring gear and it would avoid the whole rule mess.

Absolutely! Deploying a net costs an action, thereby eliminating those arguments about whether you still get a bonus action. On the other hand, would it require some kind of proficiency?

[stoutstien]

Absolutely! Deploying a net costs an action, thereby eliminating those arguments about whether you still get a bonus action. On the other hand, would it require some kind of proficiency?
No more than ball bearings or caltrops

[Meichrob7]

It makes a big difference whether you just don't get the benefit of Extra Attack (only one attack that action) or can only make one attack that whole round. In the latter case, making a bonus action net attack then attacking at advantage (possibly with action surge) is illegal.

I’ve seen and had this argument before and my stance is that reading it as being a limitation that applies to your whole round or turn, isn’t a fair interpretation of the weapon.

The only mentioning of any sort of duration is when the weapon makes references to actions, bonus actions, or reactions. To quote the effect here it says

“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 never mentions anything about it lasting for the round or the turn, so if you DON’T think that the specific action is the duration of the effect, then there’s no real reason to say it lasts for the round and isn’t just an indefinite curse you’ve inflicted upon yourself. Since that’s obviously a stupid interpretation of a mundane net toss then I’d say that the limit has to be specific to the action itself.

If a dm said otherwise I couldn’t really argue with it since it’s their game, but I’d make it clear that I’d view it as them homebrewing a new rule since I think it’s not even something that should be up for interpretation.

[OvisCaedo]

The problem with assuming that it's only trying to prohibit Extra Attack is, what then do you do with the explicit mention of action/bonus action/reaction, since Extra Attack doesn't trigger (by RAW at least) on a bonus action or reaction?


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's messy either way, but reading it as a prohibition on making more than one attack between your action+reaction+bonus action (i.e. the current round) is where I settled some years ago for various reasons, and while I'm not opposed per se to revisiting that decision, I'd have to have a good answer first to the above question. What is that rule trying to accomplish w/rt reactions and bonus actions?

It's possible it's written that way just to cover the theoretical possibility of ever being able to normally make multiple attacks with a bonus action or reaction, even if the options to do so with a net didn't actually exist yet. (and still don't probably?) Swift quiver isn't compatible with nets, but would be an example of multiattack from a bonus action existing SOMEWHERE in the game. Ah, flurry of blows, too, though similarly incompatible.

also possible an option to do so would have existed at some point in 5e's development and the language never really updated because the book was a little hacked together across a bunch of rewrites and oversights.

[Hal]

How would you deal with a creature with reach and a net?

It wouldn't make sense to me that, say, a giant with a a net could hit you from 10 feet away with a club but has to be next to you to drop a net on you.

But as it's a ranged weapon, not a melee weapon, reach doesn't necessarily apply.

[DwarfFighter]

The biggest problem with this reading of the rules is this: no time frame is given for the prohibition. It never says "until the end of this turn" or anything similar. Which means that you are prohibited from attacking again forever.

Actions, bonus actions and reactions can potentially allow multiple attacks to be made within the scope of each. It seems very reasonable to assume that the "one attack only" applies within the current "action scope". If you can take multiple actions, each is a separate "action scope" if you use them to take the Attack action.

At least it seems more reasonable to assuming that that the limit applies to the timeframes (action, bonus action, reaction) mentioned in this context, rather than assuming "forever".

Also, I think it isn't too much that one read this

"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."

As

"When you (...) attack with a net, you can make only one attack (with it) (...)"

Which should allow for other stuff like stabbing the restrained target with your spear, gladiator style.

[Sorinth]

How would you deal with a creature with reach and a net?

It wouldn't make sense to me that, say, a giant with a a net could hit you from 10 feet away with a club but has to be next to you to drop a net on you.

But as it's a ranged weapon, not a melee weapon, reach doesn't necessarily apply.

I'm not sure I understand the question the giant can throw the net normally so has a range of 15 feet so it doesn't have to be right next to the target to use a net. I'll grant you that perhaps the range increments should be increased based on reach but it's not necessary.

[MrCharlie]

The problem with assuming that it's only trying to prohibit Extra Attack is, what then do you do with the explicit mention of action/bonus action/reaction, since Extra Attack doesn't trigger (by RAW at least) on a bonus action or reaction?


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's messy either way, but reading it as a prohibition on making more than one attack between your action+reaction+bonus action (i.e. the current round) is where I settled some years ago for various reasons, and while I'm not opposed per se to revisiting that decision, I'd have to have a good answer first to the above question. What is that rule trying to accomplish w/rt reactions and bonus actions?
There actually are bonus actions that attack more than once-to my knowledge none work with a net unless you convince your DM you can swift quiver it, but that is not to say they never will.

The reaction wording is a bit more odd, but can still be conceived as future proofing-they listed all the ways you can attack in the rules, so it's clear that all of them are covered. Even if a class eventually comes along that can make multiple attacks with one reaction you can only throw a net once.

To put it another way, if you interpret that it has a full round restriction, then you are also saying that if a thief or a samurai taking two turns throws a net on either of them, they can't make other attacks-and because the restriction is (as usual) "orderless", it a samurai threw a net in their second turn they couldn't have made attacks on their first turn.

If you find this absurd, then you have to admit that you are in reality limiting it to actions within your current turn-at which point what does the prohibition on reaction attacks even mean? You take reactions off turn by default, and the chances of taking multiple reactions in one turn are, to be frank, miniscule-even zero in the current ruleset, so that text prohibits only making reaction attacks on your turn, which is absurdly rare in and of itself.

The end result of these interacting rules is that there is no way to add a duration to that effect beyond that of the original action itself without creating an absurdity-which isn't a firm reason why your interpretation is wrong, DnD has absurdities all the time-but it disfavors that interpretation.

[Hytheter]

If they'd meant for net attacks to bar you from making actions for the entire turn they would have just said that. The whole "When you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to attack with a net" line would be unnecessarily wordy and confusing for such a thing. It's pretty obvious they're just cutting off Extra Attack and anything like it, extant or yet to exist, which could grant multiple attacks.

Besides, nets are hard to use effectively as is without building for it and are situational regardless. If you're going with an interpretation that makes them even worse you might as well just strike them off the weapons table.