Yes it does. It’s a ranged weapon, which works exactly like other ranged weapons, except for its damage dice (0) and any other special rules in its Special trait.
Sorry, so your opinion is that if the Battlemaster doesn’t use his superiority die on Precision Attack, in order to attempt a hit, and instead spends it on a Trip Attack, assuming a hit on disadvantage, the target would be restrained, suffer 1d8 bludgeoning damage, (or whatever die depending on level) and also be subject to a saving throw or be rendered prone, as well?
But assuming a hit, on disadvantage due to range, wouldn’t a superiority die spent on a Trip Attack cause restrained condition, damage from superiority die, AND a STR saving throw against being knocked prone?
Yes it does. It’s a ranged weapon, which works exactly like other ranged weapons, except for its damage dice (0) and any other special rules in its Special trait.
It does not have a damage dice or a damage type (DDB tools have 0 bludgeoning for syntax, but this is not RAW). It does not deal damage on hit and has no damage roll as a result. Effects that add to the damage roll have nothing to add to.
Sorry, so your opinion is that if the Battlemaster doesn’t use his superiority die on Precision Attack, in order to attempt a hit, and instead spends it on a Trip Attack, assuming a hit on disadvantage, the target would be restrained, suffer 1d8 bludgeoning damage, (or whatever die depending on level) and also be subject to a saving throw or be rendered prone, as well?
Here is what happens. On hit, target is restrained until it (or an ally) frees itself with an action/attack. If you choose to expend a superiority die for trip attack, 1d# of typeless damage floats into the ether and the target also makes a STR save to avoid being knocked prone (in addition to being restrained, yes).
It does not have a damage dice or a damage type (DDB tools have 0 bludgeoning for syntax, but this is not RAW). It does not deal damage on hit and has no damage roll as a result. Effects that add to the damage roll have nothing to add to.
Aaaand none of what you’ve typed there is found in the text of a nets “special” trait, so you’re way out on a limb, nor is a system like what you’re described mentioned in the weapons section at all. You’re writing your own rules to justify “a net does not deal damage,” when in reality, what we have is that “a net deals 0 damage” in the same way a dagger “deals 1d4.”
Aaaand none of what you’ve typed there is found in the text of a nets “special” trait, so you’re way out on a limb, nor is a system like what you’re described mentioned in the weapons section at all. You’re writing your own rules to justify “a net does not deal damage,” when in reality, what we have is that “a net deals 0 damage” in the same way a dagger “deals 1d4.”
We do not at all have "a net deals 0 damage". We have in fact a dash in the column for damage in the equipment tables, and an item description that does not have any suggestion of damage. D&D Beyond has given it 0 bludgeoning in their tables for their own reasons, but that is not RAW. In normal language and formatting, a dash or hyphen in a table of values like that will generally mean "Not Applicable". If damage is not applicable for a net then it is not a zero damage weapon - it is a weapon for which damage is genuinely not applicable. It cannot deliver damage, unless something both gives it the power to deliver damage and indicates a type of damage to deliver.
A short swords d6 tells me nothing one way or the other about strength modifiers, fighting styles, maneuvers, Hex, smites etc. Those features tell me what they do, and nothing in the short swords traits or the weapons section says otherwise.
A net is no different, in that respect. It’s special trait does what it says (restrains), not what it doesn’t (make damage inapplicable on net hits). You’re the one reading for extra rules not found in the net, nor the PHB at large, nor anywhere. That’s a houserule, my dudes, and while not a totally unreasonable one, it’s just not in the books that nets deal no damage, so quit spouting that off like it’s anything more than your own opinion.
A short swords d6 tells me nothing one way or the other about strength modifiers, fighting styles, maneuvers, Hex, smites etc. Those features tell me what they do, and nothing in the short swords traits or the weapons section says otherwise.
True, you will find those in other places in the rules.
A net is no different, in that respect. It’s special trait does what it says (restrains), not what it doesn’t (make damage inapplicable on net hits). You’re the one reading for extra rules not found in the net, nor the PHB at large, nor anywhere. That’s a houserule, my dudes, and while not a totally unreasonable one, it’s just not in the books that nets deal no damage, so quit spouting that off like it’s anything more than your own opinion.
Weapon damage is not defined by the special weapon property (unless it is circumstantial), so why would it be mentioned there?
Fine, please point to the part of the PHB where it says the net's damage value and type so we can all stick to RAW and not house rule any numbers or types into or out of existence.
Your characters cannot afford daggers now? If you want to debate the improvised weapon rules, start a separate thread.
It does not matter whether a net independently does damage or not. It is a martial ranged weapon and, RAW, assuming all other necessary conditions are met, therefore meets the qualification to trigger sneak attack damage. How does it do this? Maybe the rogue tangles it around the enemies neck. Maybe it restrains them in a temporarily painful position.
What kind of damage it does would be up to the DM. However, RAW, it does damage under such circumstances.
Nets could do 0 Sneak Attack damage. Their rules are missing, and I can absolutely fabricate rules for you that would mean Nets deal 0 Sneak Attack damage. I've been down this rabbit hole, and I assure you, the argument that Nets deal any Sneak Attack damage at all is just as valid or invalid as the argument that they do none - or, indeed, the argument that they spontaneously turn into a Tarrasque when you Sneak Attack with them.
The problem is that Nets deal damage -. Not 0 Bludgeoning, or even 0. They deal - damage. That is literally undefined. The dash symbol in the damage column of the weapons table has no meaning whatsoever. Because there is no RAW meaning to this, all claims as to what this means have the same RAW basis of "no basis". Damage - could just as well mean 0 Bludgeoning as it could mean "this weapon causes its targets to turn into miniature pink elephants".
All you can do is turn to your GM and ask for a houserule. My GM likes the dndbeyond "solution" of a net dealing 0 bludgeoning, so that's what we're going with for now, and we might change it later if he doesn't like the consequences. If you're turning to your GM for a houserule, I recommend considering the following corner cases:
How much damage does a net do normally, just a normal person throwing a normal net?
What about a +3 Net or a Vicious Net?
What about untyped class features, both nonspells (Sneak Attack, Favored Foe) and spells (Hunter's Mark)? For fleshing out this answer, you should also answer how these features deal damage with Flame Tongue swords.
What about typed class features, both nonspells (Genie Warlocks) and spells (Hex)?
And then remember these cases combine - e.g. a rogue could sneak attack with a vicious net.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Since the net s a thrown weapon with a range of 5/15 does that mean that every net attack is at disadvantage?
Yes. Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert or Gunner alleviate the problem.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Bummer. Thanks. I have a Battlemaster so maybe the Precision Attack maneuver also helps?
Yes. Restrained is a powerful condition.
How about this, a net does no base damage so does a Battlemaster’s Trip Attack, for instance, still ad the superiority die of damage?
Nets don't have a damage roll, so probably not.
Yes it does. It’s a ranged weapon, which works exactly like other ranged weapons, except for its damage dice (0) and any other special rules in its Special trait.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
In theory, yes, but restrained is far more powerful than prone. There wouldn't be much of a point.
Sorry, so your opinion is that if the Battlemaster doesn’t use his superiority die on Precision Attack, in order to attempt a hit, and instead spends it on a Trip Attack, assuming a hit on disadvantage, the target would be restrained, suffer 1d8 bludgeoning damage, (or whatever die depending on level) and also be subject to a saving throw or be rendered prone, as well?
But assuming a hit, on disadvantage due to range, wouldn’t a superiority die spent on a Trip Attack cause restrained condition, damage from superiority die, AND a STR saving throw against being knocked prone?
It does not have a damage dice or a damage type (DDB tools have 0 bludgeoning for syntax, but this is not RAW). It does not deal damage on hit and has no damage roll as a result. Effects that add to the damage roll have nothing to add to.
Here is what happens. On hit, target is restrained until it (or an ally) frees itself with an action/attack. If you choose to expend a superiority die for trip attack, 1d# of typeless damage floats into the ether and the target also makes a STR save to avoid being knocked prone (in addition to being restrained, yes).
It's about the extra damage, not the proneness.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
Bad news on that front.
It does not have a damage dice or a damage type (DDB tools have 0 bludgeoning for syntax, but this is not RAW). It does not deal damage on hit and has no damage roll as a result. Effects that add to the damage roll have nothing to add to.
Aaaand none of what you’ve typed there is found in the text of a nets “special” trait, so you’re way out on a limb, nor is a system like what you’re described mentioned in the weapons section at all. You’re writing your own rules to justify “a net does not deal damage,” when in reality, what we have is that “a net deals 0 damage” in the same way a dagger “deals 1d4.”
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
We do not at all have "a net deals 0 damage". We have in fact a dash in the column for damage in the equipment tables, and an item description that does not have any suggestion of damage. D&D Beyond has given it 0 bludgeoning in their tables for their own reasons, but that is not RAW. In normal language and formatting, a dash or hyphen in a table of values like that will generally mean "Not Applicable". If damage is not applicable for a net then it is not a zero damage weapon - it is a weapon for which damage is genuinely not applicable. It cannot deliver damage, unless something both gives it the power to deliver damage and indicates a type of damage to deliver.
A short swords d6 tells me nothing one way or the other about strength modifiers, fighting styles, maneuvers, Hex, smites etc. Those features tell me what they do, and nothing in the short swords traits or the weapons section says otherwise.
A net is no different, in that respect. It’s special trait does what it says (restrains), not what it doesn’t (make damage inapplicable on net hits). You’re the one reading for extra rules not found in the net, nor the PHB at large, nor anywhere. That’s a houserule, my dudes, and while not a totally unreasonable one, it’s just not in the books that nets deal no damage, so quit spouting that off like it’s anything more than your own opinion.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
True, you will find those in other places in the rules.
Weapon damage is not defined by the special weapon property (unless it is circumstantial), so why would it be mentioned there?
Fine, please point to the part of the PHB where it says the net's damage value and type so we can all stick to RAW and not house rule any numbers or types into or out of existence.
I’ll remember that if I’m ever playing a game that JC is running, or an Adventure League game. Otherwise, cool story, he’s welcome to his opinion.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Actually DDB only put it in as 0 bludgeoning damage is because the coding required it. It has been answered here:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/bugs-support/54579-net-has-inconsistent-damage
So please stop saying Nets do bludgeoning damage.
Nets could do 0 Sneak Attack damage. Their rules are missing, and I can absolutely fabricate rules for you that would mean Nets deal 0 Sneak Attack damage. I've been down this rabbit hole, and I assure you, the argument that Nets deal any Sneak Attack damage at all is just as valid or invalid as the argument that they do none - or, indeed, the argument that they spontaneously turn into a Tarrasque when you Sneak Attack with them.
The problem is that Nets deal damage -. Not 0 Bludgeoning, or even 0. They deal - damage. That is literally undefined. The dash symbol in the damage column of the weapons table has no meaning whatsoever. Because there is no RAW meaning to this, all claims as to what this means have the same RAW basis of "no basis". Damage - could just as well mean 0 Bludgeoning as it could mean "this weapon causes its targets to turn into miniature pink elephants".
All you can do is turn to your GM and ask for a houserule. My GM likes the dndbeyond "solution" of a net dealing 0 bludgeoning, so that's what we're going with for now, and we might change it later if he doesn't like the consequences. If you're turning to your GM for a houserule, I recommend considering the following corner cases:
And then remember these cases combine - e.g. a rogue could sneak attack with a vicious net.