Working on building and playing a rogue for the first time, want to make sure I have a handle on the rules. Here are the rules to reference for my question, below:
List of Ranged Weapons - warning, this list contains a variety of weapons not found in the PHB, with no apparent way to determine their source. It includes firearms from the DMG but contradicts the DMG listing them as Martial, which hasn't been errataed or anything. There's also a Boomerang weapon which lacks the Thrown and Ammunition properties, meaning it functionally has infinite ammo, and even more bizarrely it has neither a cost nor a weight, and I have no idea where it comes from. I'm staying away from both the Boomerang and the Firearms, wholesale, regardless.
Determining modifiers for an attack - this rule uses an otherwise undefined game term, but there's Sage Advice clarifying that a <type> weapon attack is a <type> attack made with a weapon, not an attack made with a <type> weapon or a <type> attack made with a <type> weapon.
How to qualify to use a bonus action to make a Two Weapon Fighting attack - you must attack at least once during an attack action with a light melee weapon, and then you can use a light melee weapon for the TWF attack. There is no prereq that the attack be ranged vs melee. The bonus action attack doesn't add the relevant modifier to damage, but it does to the attack.
So, to make sure I'm following correctly (questions are without any feats or other class abilities interfering):
Daggers qualify for both sneak attack and two weapon fighting, regardless of when making a melee or ranged attack. They deal 1d4 damage in either case, and can use STR or DEX as the modifier in either case, due to Finesse.
Darts and Whips are identical, except that they do not qualify for two weapon fighting.
Shortswords and Scimitars follow nearly identical rules, but deal 1d6 damage when making a melee attack and 1d4 at range.
Rapiers do not qualify for twf, and their melee damage is 1d8, but are otherwise identical.
Hand Crossbows never qualify for two weapon fighting, because they are not melee weapons. They qualify for sneak attack; when making a ranged attack, they deal 1d6 damage, and when making a melee attack, they deal 1d4 damage. Because they lack Finesse, their melee attacks must use STR, and their ranged attacks must use DEX.
Slings follow the same rules as a Hand Crossbow for these purposes, but they deal 1d4 damage regardless of attack type.
Blowguns follow the same rules as a Hand Crossbow for these purposes, but they deal 1 damage with a ranged attack and 1d4 in melee.
Nets (the only thrown non-finesse ranged weapon in the game) follow the same rules as a Hand Crossbow for these purposes, but their damage is my second time in this list having no idea how they work. Options are outlined below, but for clarity's sake, first I will link you to the dndbeyond entry for nets, and then note that there's no errata on the net, so this contradicts the PHB: a net's damage is listed as -, not 0 bludgeoning. I have not been able to find any rules for handling a weapon with damage -, and it's not covered in Sage Advice that I found.
DnDBeyond is correct; a net is simply a weapon that deals 0 base damage, meaning a net deals DEX modifier damage when making a ranged attack, and 1d4+STR modifier damage when making a melee attack. Regardless, a Huge or larger target takes no damage.
The PHB is correct, and - has some meaning defined somewhere I haven't found.
If this is the case, I think - is intended to mean nets never deal any damage, which means Sneak Attacking with one isn't defined, as the net also reduces your Sneak Attack damage to 0. Furthermore, this would presumably override the general rule that Improvised Weapons coerce damage to 1d4 - otherwise, the damage would be untyped, which wouldn't make any sense.
Just as a followup, nets are extraordinarily unique w.r.t. the weapons table. There's a Sage Advice ruling on nets which makes no sense, because it explains that attacks made with a net within 5 feet are at disadvantage because you're within 5 feet, but it cites as relevant PHB p149, which is the page for the weapons table, not the page for why you'd suffer disadvantage within 5 feet (the rule for which is on p195). Does anyone know how to resolve a Net's Special rule when clubbing someone with the rope in melee? I can think of many possibilities.
Acid, Alchemist's Fire, Holy Water, and Oil have no entry in the weapons table, unlike nets, which means they're neither melee nor ranged weapons, so while they can be thrown (I'm not clear on whether the flasks deal 1d4 bludgeoning damage as they shatter or not), they can't be used for a Sneak Attack, full stop.
I know that was confusing, so I'll recap my actual questions:
With the exception of Nets, do I have all that correct? I've sorted everything numerically, so you can point out anything I got wrong with dot syntax, like 1.3 for Rapiers.
What's the correct way to handle a) Net damage and b) Nets in melee?
Net's don't deal damage. That's what "-" means. I don't know that there's any rule that says you couldn't still do sneak attack damage, though. I don't understand what you mean by "what's the correct way to handle nets in melee?"
Daggers qualify for both sneak attack and two weapon fighting, regardless of when making a melee or ranged attack. They deal 1d4 damage in either case, and can use STR or DEX as the modifier in either case, due to Finesse.
Darts and Whips are identical, except that they do not qualify for two weapon fighting.
Shortswords and Scimitars follow nearly identical rules, but deal 1d6 damage when making a melee attack and 1d4 at range.
Rapiers do not qualify for twf, and their melee damage is 1d8, but are otherwise identical.
Shortswords, Scimitars, and Rapiers can be thrown with Strength (while dealing improvised weapon damage) because of Finesse. But Darts can't be thrown with Strength, because they don't have Finesse, and Thrown doesn't actually let you throw with strength, just with the same score you use to attack with a melee weapon, and darts aren't melee weapons. Otherwise, fine.
2. Hand Crossbows never qualify for two weapon fighting, because they are not melee weapons. They qualify for sneak attack; when making a ranged attack, they deal 1d6 damage, and when making a melee attack, they deal 1d4 damage. Because they lack Finesse, their melee attacks must use STR, and their ranged attacks must use DEX.
Yes.
3. Slings follow the same rules as a Hand Crossbow for these purposes, but they deal 1d4 damage regardless of attack type.
Yes.
4. Blowguns follow the same rules as a Hand Crossbow for these purposes, but they deal 1 damage with a ranged attack and 1d4 in melee.
Yes.
5. Nets (the only thrown non-finesse ranged weapon in the game) follow the same rules as a Hand Crossbow for these purposes, but their damage is my second time in this list having no idea how they work. Options are outlined below, but for clarity's sake, first I will link you to the dndbeyond entry for nets, and then note that there's no errata on the net, so this contradicts the PHB: a net's damage is listed as -, not 0 bludgeoning. I have not been able to find any rules for handling a weapon with damage -, and it's not covered in Sage Advice that I found.
DnDBeyond is correct; a net is simply a weapon that deals 0 base damage, meaning a net deals DEX modifier damage when making a ranged attack, and 1d4+STR modifier damage when making a melee attack. Regardless, a Huge or larger target takes no damage.
The PHB is correct, and - has some meaning defined somewhere I haven't found.
If this is the case, I think - is intended to mean nets never deal any damage, which means Sneak Attacking with one isn't defined, as the net also reduces your Sneak Attack damage to 0. Furthermore, this would presumably override the general rule that Improvised Weapons coerce damage to 1d4 - otherwise, the damage would be untyped, which wouldn't make any sense.
Just as a followup, nets are extraordinarily unique w.r.t. the weapons table. There's a Sage Advice ruling on nets which makes no sense, because it explains that attacks made with a net within 5 feet are at disadvantage because you're within 5 feet, but it cites as relevant PHB p149, which is the page for the weapons table, not the page for why you'd suffer disadvantage within 5 feet (the rule for which is on p195). Does anyone know how to resolve a Net's Special rule when clubbing someone with the rope in melee? I can think of many possibilities.
There's no RAW rule that nets don't deal ability score modifier damage on a hit like every other ranged weapon, or modifiers like Sharpshooter, or bonus damage like sneak attack. Yup. That makes a lot of people mad, but it's RAW in my book. So... option #1.
6. Acid, Alchemist's Fire, Holy Water, and Oil have no entry in the weapons table, unlike nets, which means they're neither melee nor ranged weapons, so while they can be thrown (I'm not clear on whether the flasks deal 1d4 bludgeoning damage as they shatter or not), they can't be used for a Sneak Attack, full stop.
I wouldn't say that. I think that there's a conspicuous lack of clarity as to whether flasks do their special damage + default 1d4 improvised weapon damage, or instead of it (see also Torches, about which there was a thread a week or two ago). But a "melee weapon" is not just the weapons appearing on the weapons table. I'd think it's reasonable to rule that all improvised weapons are melee weapons, which may or may not have the Thrown property. I'd also think it would be reasonable to rule that an improvised weapon is a melee weapon when making melee attacks, and a ranged weapon when making ranged attacks (including that a Longbow becomes a melee weapon when used to make improvised weapon attacks in melee). Or, maybe some other variation. But "improvised weapons are never melee weapons and never ranged weapons" doesn't feel intended, and is weird, and nerfs too many player abilities for me to support without clear written direction that I must do so.
If a net said it did no damage then the damage box would most likely have "-". Whereas specifically saying "0 bludgeoning" indicates that its base damage is 0, and any final damage total will be of the bludgeoning. So Chicken_Champ is correct on this point.
You would have to ask your DM about your thrown bottles/flasks/vials as to if the container does damage + ability bonus.
So what type of damage does a net do? we can't go by DDB character sheet because it blatantly obvious that the coding of weapons requires them to but a number in the box.... But as per RAW Net has no damage type. SO you can't really to +MOD damage, of no type...
If a net said it did no damage then the damage box would most likely have "-". Whereas specifically saying "0 bludgeoning" indicates that its base damage is 0, and any final damage total will be of the bludgeoning. So Chicken_Champ is correct on this point.
You would have to ask your DM about your thrown bottles/flasks/vials as to if the container does damage + ability bonus.
It doesn’t say “0 bludgeoning.” That’s an artifact of DDB being poorly designed. DDB has no way of displaying “-“ in these fields, so it uses “0” instead.
Its futile to try to divine the significance of "-"; its pretty arguable whether that was meant to imply that nets cannot do damage, or instead cannot do weapon die damage, or merely cannot do weapon die damage when used to make a ranged attack, or roll 1d0, or.... a million different perspectives probably, all of which "-" on a weapon table is a pretty good shorthand for. But I'm not big on reading unwritten restrictions on players' damage and abilities that isn't found written in the rulebooks. Nets don't have any language which tells you not to add your Dexterity modifier to ranged attacks. Nets don't have any language which suggests that they make less effective improvised weapons than anything else. Nets don't have any language which suggests they can't be used to deliver a sneak attack, trigger a Hunter's Mark, or Sharpshooter. So each and every ruling in that vein that you make against a player, that's a houserule that you're passing which has the primary benefit of punishing a net user, and telling them they should be using a different weapon. Well within a DM's right, but not my style, and not RAW.
Its futile to try to divine the significance of "-"; its pretty arguable whether that was meant to imply that nets cannot do damage, or instead cannot do weapon die damage, or merely cannot do weapon die damage when used to make a ranged attack, or roll 1d0, or.... a million different perspectives probably, all of which "-" on a weapon table is a pretty good shorthand for. But I'm not big on reading unwritten restrictions on players' damage and abilities that isn't found written in the rulebooks. Nets don't have any language which tells you not to add your Dexterity modifier to ranged attacks. Nets don't have any language which suggests that they make less effective improvised weapons than anything else. Nets don't have any language which suggests they can't be used to deliver a sneak attack, trigger a Hunter's Mark, or Sharpshooter. So each and every ruling in that vein that you make against a player, that's a houserule that you're passing which has the primary benefit of punishing a net user, and telling them they should be using a different weapon. Well within a DM's right, but not my style, and not RAW.
SO again by RAW what type of damage would SA, Hunter's Mark, or yur simply +MOD be when you "hit with a net? The net in the books offers NO RAW for what the damage type would be, and ALL damage has to have a type so therefore, Nets deal no damage.
Net's don't deal damage. That's what "-" means. I don't know that there's any rule that says you couldn't still do sneak attack damage, though. I don't understand what you mean by "what's the correct way to handle nets in melee?"
The Special rule on Nets feels to me like it was written to assume the Net was thrown, but you don't have to throw it. Furthermore, this potentially has strange interactions with damage -. Example oddities:
*If you swing a net in melee, its damage is by definition coerced to 1d4+Str, which is really weird, right?
*If you swing a net in melee, you restrain the target, but no rule in the game forces you to stop holding onto the net. In fact, no rule stops you from, while surrounded by targets, progressively restraining each of them *with the same net*. That's infinitely weird, right?
*As above, but this time, pointing out that holding onto the net without inflicting the grappled condition or anything like it means you can, RAW, club someone with the net, thereby restraining them, and then just walk away. This is because Nets inflict Restrained on hit, without a requirement that the net be in the Restrained target's space. That makes no sense at all.
Frankly, I think the sanest rule would be for their Special rule to only work when the weapon is Thrown, but that rules text isn't present. So my questions about Net melee are both its damage and its Special rule.
There's no RAW rule that nets don't deal ability score modifier damage on a hit like every other ranged weapon, or modifiers like Sharpshooter, or bonus damage like sneak attack. Yup. That makes a lot of people mad, but it's RAW in my book.
While the rules don't explicitly tell you "don't do that", you quickly hit a snag if you try: you have no damage type. So the argument has to shift to "the rules don't explicitly prohibit untyped damage." While that's technically true, there's still big problems with that:
The rules also don't explicitly allow it.
Without a damage type you can't give even a crude description of how you're killing the monster, which is kind of a problem in a role-playing/story-telling game.
In 7 years of 5e books, there's never been any examples of untyped damage. The closest things to that are:
The Stirge's blood drain, which reduces your HP (not quite the same thing as inflicting damage) and still gives you a clear mechanism (blood loss).
The Wish spell's unconditional, irreducible damage (which still has a type, because of point 2.)
As far as DM guidance in the core books goes, it's never suggested that you can leave damage untyped or assign it a new damage type. The DMG even has a section for improvising damage and that's never brought up.
Allowing untyped damage or new damage types creates lots of new problems that are clearly unintended. e.g. If you can apply untyped Sneak Attack damage with a net, you can "net" werewolves to death using a non-silvered, non-magical weapon.
But "improvised weapons are never melee weapons and never ranged weapons" doesn't feel intended, and is weird, and nerfs too many player abilities for me to support without clear written direction that I must do so.
Improvised weapons are pretty much not weapons by definition. There's no rules support for treating some random object as a weapon (barring the DM saying it's literally equivalent to a weapon from the list), and allowing it opens up a lot of shenanigans, like using the Dual Wielder feat with a pair of bar stools.
SO again by RAW what type of damage would SA, Hunter's Mark, or yur simply +MOD be when you "hit with a net? The net in the books offers NO RAW for what the damage type would be, and ALL damage has to have a type so therefore, Nets deal no damage.
Source that all damage must have a type?
Damage Types
Different attacks, damaging spells, and other harmful effects deal different types of damage. Damage types have no rules of their own, but other rules, such as damage resistance, rely on the types.
I'm not thrilled when I encounter untyped damage either, but Hunter's Mark always has been. What type of damage does Hunter's Mark do when added to a weapon that does both bludgeoning and fire? That's not a new question, and no more problematic on a net than it is on a mixed damage weapon.
Untyped damage is just damage that other rules, like damage resistance, can't prevent. When a source tells me what kind of damage it is, I apply it as that kind. When a source doesn't tell me, the RAWest ruling might be to have it deal untyped, if it's really so hard to come up with a reasonable type that it should be (as dndbeyond has so helpfully done by deciding that nets deal 0 bludgeoning).
Untyped damage bonuses to a net are only untyped if you want them to be. Otherwise, just call them bludgeoning, unless the net is sharp, and call it a day.
Improvised weapons are pretty much not weapons by definition. There's no rules support for treating some random object as a weapon (barring the DM saying it's literally equivalent to a weapon from the list), and allowing it opens up a lot of shenanigans, like using the Dual Wielder feat with a pair of bar stools.
I'll skip responding to the other stuff, but do want to acknowledge that this "improvised weapons aren't weapons" position remains one with no textual support, contradicts its placement within the "weapons" section of the PHB, relies on ignoring plain language, and causes more problems for character abilities than it's worth with no particular balance or ease of play justification for doing so. I reject it, but acknowledge that you and some others hold to it.
Net's don't deal damage. That's what "-" means. I don't know that there's any rule that says you couldn't still do sneak attack damage, though. I don't understand what you mean by "what's the correct way to handle nets in melee?"
The Special rule on Nets feels to me like it was written to assume the Net was thrown, but you don't have to throw it. Furthermore, this potentially has strange interactions with damage -. Example oddities:
*If you swing a net in melee, its damage is by definition coerced to 1d4+Str, which is really weird, right?
*If you swing a net in melee, you restrain the target, but no rule in the game forces you to stop holding onto the net. In fact, no rule stops you from, while surrounded by targets, progressively restraining each of them *with the same net*. That's infinitely weird, right?
*As above, but this time, pointing out that holding onto the net without inflicting the grappled condition or anything like it means you can, RAW, club someone with the net, thereby restraining them, and then just walk away. This is because Nets inflict Restrained on hit, without a requirement that the net be in the Restrained target's space. That makes no sense at all.
Frankly, I think the sanest rule would be for their Special rule to only work when the weapon is Thrown, but that rules text isn't present. So my questions about Net melee are both its damage and its Special rule.
Be careful about assuming that weapons keep their weapon properties (or at least, all of their properties) when used as improvised weapons. Is a Longbow still Heavy when you bonk with it? Yeah, probably, because it didn't get any smaller or lighter... but is a Net still Special when you're whacking someone with it like a club instead of tossing it to spread out? Debatable. Your mileage may vary with your DM, don't assume they restrain in melee.
I'll skip responding to the other stuff, but do want to acknowledge that this "improvised weapons aren't weapons" position remains one with no textual support,
What exactly do you think the writers meant by: "Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand"? Why do you think they're called improvised weapons?
contradicts its placement within the "weapons" section of the PHB
It's a perfectly sensible place to put those rules. Making players jump to a completely separate part of the book to figure out what to do if they don't have weapons isn't ideal.
relies on ignoring plain language
What?
and causes more problems for character abilities than it's worth with no particular balance or ease of play justification for doing so.
Such as? You haven't given any examples, much less anything that'd outweigh the kind of cheese this enables.
I'd think it's reasonable to rule that all improvised weapons are melee weapons, which may or may not have the Thrown property.
Mechanically speaking, something like this - all non-weapons are melee weapons when improvised - has *huge* implications for someone wielding a sword and shield with the Dual Wielder feat. +3 AC in exchange for your bonus attack only dealing 1d4 base damage would be such a good deal every sword and board melee person would take it at level 4. That seems incredibly unlikely to me, since I have never even seen a sword and board 5e build incorporating twf.
The mirror ruling - the 4 flask/vial weapons I listed are improvised ranged weapons - would explicitly enable Sneak Attack with them, which would be so good every Rogue ever would collect acid like candy, which isn't a thing on the forums.
So I very much doubt either of these are the actual rules.
I'd think it's reasonable to rule that all improvised weapons are melee weapons, which may or may not have the Thrown property.
Mechanically speaking, something like this - all non-weapons are melee weapons when improvised - has *huge* implications for someone wielding a sword and shield with the Dual Wielder feat. +3 AC in exchange for your bonus attack only dealing 1d4 base damage would be such a good deal every sword and board melee person would take it at level 4. That seems incredibly unlikely to me, since I have never even seen a sword and board 5e build incorporating twf.
The mirror ruling - the 4 flask/vial weapons I listed are improvised ranged weapons - would explicitly enable Sneak Attack with them, which would be so good every Rogue ever would collect acid like candy, which isn't a thing on the forums.
So I very much doubt either of these are the actual rules.
There's workarounds. "Wielding" is poorly defined, no reason to assume that one can simultaneously wield a shield as both a weapon and a shield. I have no problem with shields being treated as improvised offhand weapons (d4, no + from strength, no proficiency bonus to hit) during a person's turn, but probably would never let it grant an additional +1 AC as an offhand weapon. But, even if I were to allow that with the feat.... an extra feat investment for +1 AC, which benefits dual wielders and sword n' board users alike? Wouldn't break anything, let players have the benefit of the costs they incur investing in feats.
And Coder, I'm not sure this is the thread to get sucked into the "are improvised weapons weapons?" debate. If you want to dive into it, feel free to start a seperate thread. In short, we're given no definition of "weapon" that would exclude everything and anything used as a weapon, "weapon" appears in their name, "weapons" is the section they're in, there's no balance reason why improvised weapons should not be weapons, every other thing called a weapon (simple weapons, martial weapons, natural weapons, melee weapons, ranged weapons) is a weapon, the damage calculations you use them in involve weapon damage dice, etc etc etc. There are far far far more arguments for improvised weapons being weapons than there are arguments against, and I don't choose to go out of my way to support a counterintuitive ruling with no textual support whose primary operation is to nerf player's turns.
I made an S8 Rogue (to force his unarmed damage to 0 base) and then gave him some nets. As you can see, for what it's worth, basic, +3, and Vicious nets all fail to list a Damage value, contradicting the net entry I linked listing them as 0 bludgeoning. But I'd really like an actual rules reference for what Damage - even means.
I dug into the Net entries in the builder, and the damage type is still bludgeoning, but the damage value is -. I'm not sure what the intent is, but this means for the above weapons, the Vicious Net will actually deal 7 bludgeoning when you roll a 20 to hit with it.
I made an S8 Rogue (to force his unarmed damage to 0 base) and then gave him some nets. As you can see, for what it's worth, basic, +3, and Vicious nets all fail to list a Damage value, contradicting the net entry I linked listing them as 0 bludgeoning. But I'd really like an actual rules reference for what Damage - even means.
Quin, there isn't one, as we've been discussing. Trying to divine the RAI behind "-" is an exercise in futility, it is what it is. You know that nets deal "-". You know that ranged attacks add Dexterity to weapon damage. You know that Rogues can deal Sneak Attack on hits with ranged weapons. Put it all together however you choose to, nobody can summon PHB language from the ether that doesn't exist, and tweets from JC on the subject may or may not be any more persuasive than posts from strangers on the forums, as your individual predilections dictate.
Working on building and playing a rogue for the first time, want to make sure I have a handle on the rules. Here are the rules to reference for my question, below:
So, to make sure I'm following correctly (questions are without any feats or other class abilities interfering):
I know that was confusing, so I'll recap my actual questions:
Net's don't deal damage. That's what "-" means. I don't know that there's any rule that says you couldn't still do sneak attack damage, though. I don't understand what you mean by "what's the correct way to handle nets in melee?"
Shortswords, Scimitars, and Rapiers can be thrown with Strength (while dealing improvised weapon damage) because of Finesse. But Darts can't be thrown with Strength, because they don't have Finesse, and Thrown doesn't actually let you throw with strength, just with the same score you use to attack with a melee weapon, and darts aren't melee weapons. Otherwise, fine.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
There's no RAW rule that nets don't deal ability score modifier damage on a hit like every other ranged weapon, or modifiers like Sharpshooter, or bonus damage like sneak attack. Yup. That makes a lot of people mad, but it's RAW in my book. So... option #1.
I wouldn't say that. I think that there's a conspicuous lack of clarity as to whether flasks do their special damage + default 1d4 improvised weapon damage, or instead of it (see also Torches, about which there was a thread a week or two ago). But a "melee weapon" is not just the weapons appearing on the weapons table. I'd think it's reasonable to rule that all improvised weapons are melee weapons, which may or may not have the Thrown property. I'd also think it would be reasonable to rule that an improvised weapon is a melee weapon when making melee attacks, and a ranged weapon when making ranged attacks (including that a Longbow becomes a melee weapon when used to make improvised weapon attacks in melee). Or, maybe some other variation. But "improvised weapons are never melee weapons and never ranged weapons" doesn't feel intended, and is weird, and nerfs too many player abilities for me to support without clear written direction that I must do so.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
If a net said it did no damage then the damage box would most likely have "-". Whereas specifically saying "0 bludgeoning" indicates that its base damage is 0, and any final damage total will be of the bludgeoning. So Chicken_Champ is correct on this point.
You would have to ask your DM about your thrown bottles/flasks/vials as to if the container does damage + ability bonus.
I mean it does have a "-" in the table in the PHB.
So what type of damage does a net do? we can't go by DDB character sheet because it blatantly obvious that the coding of weapons requires them to but a number in the box.... But as per RAW Net has no damage type. SO you can't really to +MOD damage, of no type...
It doesn’t say “0 bludgeoning.” That’s an artifact of DDB being poorly designed. DDB has no way of displaying “-“ in these fields, so it uses “0” instead.
Its futile to try to divine the significance of "-"; its pretty arguable whether that was meant to imply that nets cannot do damage, or instead cannot do weapon die damage, or merely cannot do weapon die damage when used to make a ranged attack, or roll 1d0, or.... a million different perspectives probably, all of which "-" on a weapon table is a pretty good shorthand for. But I'm not big on reading unwritten restrictions on players' damage and abilities that isn't found written in the rulebooks. Nets don't have any language which tells you not to add your Dexterity modifier to ranged attacks. Nets don't have any language which suggests that they make less effective improvised weapons than anything else. Nets don't have any language which suggests they can't be used to deliver a sneak attack, trigger a Hunter's Mark, or Sharpshooter. So each and every ruling in that vein that you make against a player, that's a houserule that you're passing which has the primary benefit of punishing a net user, and telling them they should be using a different weapon. Well within a DM's right, but not my style, and not RAW.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Darts have Finesse: https://www.dndbeyond.com/equipment/dart (I'm on mobile, so the forum ui is hiding the button I need to make that link more elegant - I hope it's clickable)
SO again by RAW what type of damage would SA, Hunter's Mark, or yur simply +MOD be when you "hit with a net? The net in the books offers NO RAW for what the damage type would be, and ALL damage has to have a type so therefore, Nets deal no damage.
Lol they do? Guess that shows me for making an assumption :p
Thanks for catching that!
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The Special rule on Nets feels to me like it was written to assume the Net was thrown, but you don't have to throw it. Furthermore, this potentially has strange interactions with damage -. Example oddities:
*If you swing a net in melee, its damage is by definition coerced to 1d4+Str, which is really weird, right?
*If you swing a net in melee, you restrain the target, but no rule in the game forces you to stop holding onto the net. In fact, no rule stops you from, while surrounded by targets, progressively restraining each of them *with the same net*. That's infinitely weird, right?
*As above, but this time, pointing out that holding onto the net without inflicting the grappled condition or anything like it means you can, RAW, club someone with the net, thereby restraining them, and then just walk away. This is because Nets inflict Restrained on hit, without a requirement that the net be in the Restrained target's space. That makes no sense at all.
Frankly, I think the sanest rule would be for their Special rule to only work when the weapon is Thrown, but that rules text isn't present. So my questions about Net melee are both its damage and its Special rule.
While the rules don't explicitly tell you "don't do that", you quickly hit a snag if you try: you have no damage type. So the argument has to shift to "the rules don't explicitly prohibit untyped damage." While that's technically true, there's still big problems with that:
Improvised weapons are pretty much not weapons by definition. There's no rules support for treating some random object as a weapon (barring the DM saying it's literally equivalent to a weapon from the list), and allowing it opens up a lot of shenanigans, like using the Dual Wielder feat with a pair of bar stools.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Source that all damage must have a type?
I'm not thrilled when I encounter untyped damage either, but Hunter's Mark always has been. What type of damage does Hunter's Mark do when added to a weapon that does both bludgeoning and fire? That's not a new question, and no more problematic on a net than it is on a mixed damage weapon.
Untyped damage is just damage that other rules, like damage resistance, can't prevent. When a source tells me what kind of damage it is, I apply it as that kind. When a source doesn't tell me, the RAWest ruling might be to have it deal untyped, if it's really so hard to come up with a reasonable type that it should be (as dndbeyond has so helpfully done by deciding that nets deal 0 bludgeoning).
Untyped damage bonuses to a net are only untyped if you want them to be. Otherwise, just call them bludgeoning, unless the net is sharp, and call it a day.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I'll skip responding to the other stuff, but do want to acknowledge that this "improvised weapons aren't weapons" position remains one with no textual support, contradicts its placement within the "weapons" section of the PHB, relies on ignoring plain language, and causes more problems for character abilities than it's worth with no particular balance or ease of play justification for doing so. I reject it, but acknowledge that you and some others hold to it.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Be careful about assuming that weapons keep their weapon properties (or at least, all of their properties) when used as improvised weapons. Is a Longbow still Heavy when you bonk with it? Yeah, probably, because it didn't get any smaller or lighter... but is a Net still Special when you're whacking someone with it like a club instead of tossing it to spread out? Debatable. Your mileage may vary with your DM, don't assume they restrain in melee.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
What exactly do you think the writers meant by: "Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand"? Why do you think they're called improvised weapons?
It's a perfectly sensible place to put those rules. Making players jump to a completely separate part of the book to figure out what to do if they don't have weapons isn't ideal.
What?
Such as? You haven't given any examples, much less anything that'd outweigh the kind of cheese this enables.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Mechanically speaking, something like this - all non-weapons are melee weapons when improvised - has *huge* implications for someone wielding a sword and shield with the Dual Wielder feat. +3 AC in exchange for your bonus attack only dealing 1d4 base damage would be such a good deal every sword and board melee person would take it at level 4. That seems incredibly unlikely to me, since I have never even seen a sword and board 5e build incorporating twf.
The mirror ruling - the 4 flask/vial weapons I listed are improvised ranged weapons - would explicitly enable Sneak Attack with them, which would be so good every Rogue ever would collect acid like candy, which isn't a thing on the forums.
So I very much doubt either of these are the actual rules.
There's workarounds. "Wielding" is poorly defined, no reason to assume that one can simultaneously wield a shield as both a weapon and a shield. I have no problem with shields being treated as improvised offhand weapons (d4, no + from strength, no proficiency bonus to hit) during a person's turn, but probably would never let it grant an additional +1 AC as an offhand weapon. But, even if I were to allow that with the feat.... an extra feat investment for +1 AC, which benefits dual wielders and sword n' board users alike? Wouldn't break anything, let players have the benefit of the costs they incur investing in feats.
And Coder, I'm not sure this is the thread to get sucked into the "are improvised weapons weapons?" debate. If you want to dive into it, feel free to start a seperate thread. In short, we're given no definition of "weapon" that would exclude everything and anything used as a weapon, "weapon" appears in their name, "weapons" is the section they're in, there's no balance reason why improvised weapons should not be weapons, every other thing called a weapon (simple weapons, martial weapons, natural weapons, melee weapons, ranged weapons) is a weapon, the damage calculations you use them in involve weapon damage dice, etc etc etc. There are far far far more arguments for improvised weapons being weapons than there are arguments against, and I don't choose to go out of my way to support a counterintuitive ruling with no textual support whose primary operation is to nerf player's turns.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I made an S8 Rogue (to force his unarmed damage to 0 base) and then gave him some nets. As you can see, for what it's worth, basic, +3, and Vicious nets all fail to list a Damage value, contradicting the net entry I linked listing them as 0 bludgeoning. But I'd really like an actual rules reference for what Damage - even means.
I dug into the Net entries in the builder, and the damage type is still bludgeoning, but the damage value is -. I'm not sure what the intent is, but this means for the above weapons, the Vicious Net will actually deal 7 bludgeoning when you roll a 20 to hit with it.
Quin, there isn't one, as we've been discussing. Trying to divine the RAI behind "-" is an exercise in futility, it is what it is. You know that nets deal "-". You know that ranged attacks add Dexterity to weapon damage. You know that Rogues can deal Sneak Attack on hits with ranged weapons. Put it all together however you choose to, nobody can summon PHB language from the ether that doesn't exist, and tweets from JC on the subject may or may not be any more persuasive than posts from strangers on the forums, as your individual predilections dictate.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.