Has anyone ever tried to make a fighter who uses a net (e.g., the classic net-and-trident gladiator?) I am a bit confused on how to interpret the text, and it seems like a weapon that would be very hard to use RAW. First of all, with a range of 5/15 you always have disadvantage to use it: either you are within 5' of your opponent and have disadvantage on ranged attacks, or you are at long range, and have disadvantage from that (feats or such aside). Beyond that, the RAW 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," and I am not clear if that means any other attack with the net (i.e. no miss and re-cast) or any attack at all. The former I understand: you have to re-gather and re-fold it, so it's not a weapon you can use more than once in a fight, really. The latter seems a straighter read of the text, but means your net-and-trident fighter casts, then has to give its opponent at least one chance to get out of it before attacking, which given a DC 10 they realistically make more often than not. This rather obviates the point of tangling up the opponent and then poking them with the trident while they are impeded. If the RAW means no other attacks at all then a fighter gives up, depending on level, 1-4 attacks (counting an off-hand weapon), in order to make one attack at disadvantage that might restrain the opponent for a turn. Most of the time, since the attack is at disadvantage and an opponent is more likely than not to be able to make a DC 10 save or do 5 slashing to the net, you're spending your action on an attack that will do nothing at all - even if you hit, one turn later you are back in exactly the same position with a once-again unimpeded opponent. You've both wasted a round, but nothing has changed. Yes, the other party members get to beat on your opponent with advantage, but it's a gladiatorial style meant to be used in duels, not for group fights. I suppose there is a reason it was a flashy weapon for entertaining people rather than an infantry weapon issued to legionnaires: just not that effective in a real fight. Incidentally, it also seems odd that it's not a finesse weapon: it's maybe the thrown weapon that depends least on raw strength to have its effect, but at least there the RAW is quite clear. Anyone have any experience with it or better sense of how it is supposed to work? Ultimately, I'll present the question to my GM, whose word is final, but I'm still curious.
Beyond that, the RAW 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," and I am not clear if that means any other attack with the net (i.e. no miss and re-cast) or any attack at all.
It doesn't say "with the net" so it is no other attacks at all.
If the RAW means no other attacks at all then a fighter gives up, depending on level, 1-4 attacks (counting an off-hand weapon), in order to make one attack at disadvantage that might restrain the opponent for a turn.
Correction: 1-3 attacks. It doesn't prevent the BA attack from 2 weapon fighting, but neither does it work with it anyway. Either way only the extra attacks are given up when used (which still sucks).
Incidentally, it also seems odd that it's not a finesse weapon: it's maybe the thrown weapon that depends least on raw strength to have its effect, but at least there the RAW is quite clear.
It already uses DEX for being a ranged weapon, and loke you said it isn't really strength based so it would be weird to add finesse.
Yeah, the net is intentionally bad, IDK why. You can get around some of the attack disadvantage with sharpshooter and/or crossbow expert. It is least restrictive if you have a bonus action attack or are hasted. The wording could also indicate that it works with catapult which is probably the most popular use of it.
Beyond that, the RAW 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," and I am not clear if that means any other attack with the net (i.e. no miss and re-cast) or any attack at all.
It doesn't say "with the net" so it is no other attacks at all.
If the RAW means no other attacks at all then a fighter gives up, depending on level, 1-4 attacks (counting an off-hand weapon), in order to make one attack at disadvantage that might restrain the opponent for a turn.
Correction: 1-3 attacks. It doesn't prevent the BA attack from 2 weapon fighting, but neither does it work with it anyway. Either way only the extra attacks are given up when used (which still sucks).
Incidentally, it also seems odd that it's not a finesse weapon: it's maybe the thrown weapon that depends least on raw strength to have its effect, but at least there the RAW is quite clear.
It already uses DEX for being a ranged weapon, and loke you said it isn't really strength based so it would be weird to add finesse.
Yeah, the net is intentionally bad, IDK why. You can get around some of the attack disadvantage with sharpshooter and/or crossbow expert. It is least restrictive if you have a bonus action attack or are hasted. The wording could also indicate that it works with catapult which is probably the most popular use of it.
Thanks, this is helpful. On your read it seems it might, actually, prevent the off-hand attack too: as you say, it says "any attack." Ultimately the GM's call on how he wants to interpret it and I may argue for the "with the net" interpretation just to have the weapon have some use, even if you are probably right RAW. I really want to do a sharpshooter build with net, shield, and a large supply of thrown daggers or darts so tangle with the net from second rank (10-15' range) then throw a dart into them at -5 (but advantage!) for d4+10+dx plus letting the frontline hammer away at advantage at least once, depending on initiative scores. Or a rogue build the same who uses the offhand throw with sneak attack and a club (cosh) for the nonlethal throw-it-over-them-and-knockout combo. Can't believe I missed the "no need for finesse because it's already ranged" bit: too wrapped up in thinking about thrown weapons like daggers and handaxes, where it matters.
The Devs intended the limitation to only apply to action using the net.
@BobbyBarbarian Can a pc with Crossbow Expert, a hand crossbow, and a net attack with the net and then the hand crossbow on the same turn?
@JeremyECrawford The net attack limitation applies only to the action/reaction/bonus action you use to attack with the net.
So the build using the net off-hand works, but the build where you have a shield but get two attacks out of one attack action because you are a fighter (ranger, etc), one of which is with the net and the other(s) with follow-up thrown weapons, doesn't. Got it. Thanks.
Has anyone ever tried to make a fighter who uses a net (e.g., the classic net-and-trident gladiator?) I am a bit confused on how to interpret the text, and it seems like a weapon that would be very hard to use RAW. First of all, with a range of 5/15 you always have disadvantage to use it: either you are within 5' of your opponent and have disadvantage on ranged attacks, or you are at long range, and have disadvantage from that (feats or such aside).
So something interesting about the net is that it's a "Thrown" weapon and not a "ranged" weapon. So within 5 feet you would actually be using it to make a melee attack so the attack wouldn't be at disadvantage. But yeah... there's no way to use it at range without it being at disadvantage.
It does seem like there's some value in holding onto one in your off-hand for Attacks of Opportunity, but overall it's so difficult to use I can't imagine many players getting much use out of it. I've certainly never seen anyone use it in any actual play video or podcast, and I've never been at a table where someone used one.
So something interesting about the net is that it's a "Thrown" weapon and not a "ranged" weapon. So within 5 feet you would actually be using it to make a melee attack so the attack wouldn't be at disadvantage. But yeah... there's no way to use it at range without it being at disadvantage.
It's both a ranged weapon with the thrown property.
There's a Sage Advice Compendium entry on it as well;
Are attacks with a net always made with disadvantage? Unless you have a special ability that says otherwise, any net attack has disadvantage because you’re either within 5 feet of your target (see PH, 149) or you’re attacking at long range, which is between 5 and 15 feet for a net.
Has anyone ever tried to make a fighter who uses a net (e.g., the classic net-and-trident gladiator?) I am a bit confused on how to interpret the text, and it seems like a weapon that would be very hard to use RAW. First of all, with a range of 5/15 you always have disadvantage to use it: either you are within 5' of your opponent and have disadvantage on ranged attacks, or you are at long range, and have disadvantage from that (feats or such aside).
So something interesting about the net is that it's a "Thrown" weapon and not a "ranged" weapon. So within 5 feet you would actually be using it to make a melee attack so the attack wouldn't be at disadvantage. But yeah... there's no way to use it at range without it being at disadvantage.
It does seem like there's some value in holding onto one in your off-hand for Attacks of Opportunity, but overall it's so difficult to use I can't imagine many players getting much use out of it. I've certainly never seen anyone use it in any actual play video or podcast, and I've never been at a table where someone used one.
Not quite, it is a thrown weapon, but it is a ranged weapon not a melee weapon just like a dart.
The Devs intended the limitation to only apply to action using the net.
@BobbyBarbarian Can a pc with Crossbow Expert, a hand crossbow, and a net attack with the net and then the hand crossbow on the same turn?
@JeremyECrawford The net attack limitation applies only to the action/reaction/bonus action you use to attack with the net.
So the build using the net off-hand works, but the build where you have a shield but get two attacks out of one attack action because you are a fighter (ranger, etc), one of which is with the net and the other(s) with follow-up thrown weapons, doesn't. Got it. Thanks.
You can't "make an offhand attack" with ranged weapons.
Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand.
What the net attack should be is a special grapple attack - thrown at AC 10 (+DB) and countered by the grapple strength test that would make its single attack somehow worth while.
The Devs intended the limitation to only apply to action using the net.
@BobbyBarbarian Can a pc with Crossbow Expert, a hand crossbow, and a net attack with the net and then the hand crossbow on the same turn?
@JeremyECrawford The net attack limitation applies only to the action/reaction/bonus action you use to attack with the net.
So the build using the net off-hand works, but the build where you have a shield but get two attacks out of one attack action because you are a fighter (ranger, etc), one of which is with the net and the other(s) with follow-up thrown weapons, doesn't. Got it. Thanks.
You can't "make an offhand attack" with ranged weapons.
Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand.
While it does say that, it goes on to say the "If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack" (PHB, p. 195), so you can make an offhand attack with certain ranged weapons, anyway, but the net isn't light, which rather puts paid to that idea. Unless you take both Sharpshooter/crossbow expert and two-weapon fighting, it seems like a waste of time, and that's a lot of feats to spend for one kind-of-cool move. One or the other of those feats is common, the combination...not so much. So the net-and-trident gladiator just plain doesn't work, and neither does the rogue with sharpshooter and the off-hand net attack. Like TransMorpher I've never seen one used, and I was hoping to find a use case for it, but it appears no such luck, at least RAW.
The Devs intended the limitation to only apply to action using the net.
@BobbyBarbarian Can a pc with Crossbow Expert, a hand crossbow, and a net attack with the net and then the hand crossbow on the same turn?
@JeremyECrawford The net attack limitation applies only to the action/reaction/bonus action you use to attack with the net.
So the build using the net off-hand works, but the build where you have a shield but get two attacks out of one attack action because you are a fighter (ranger, etc), one of which is with the net and the other(s) with follow-up thrown weapons, doesn't. Got it. Thanks.
You can't "make an offhand attack" with ranged weapons.
Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand.
While it does say that, it goes on to say the "If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack" (PHB, p. 195), so you can make an offhand attack with certain ranged weapons, anyway, but the net isn't light, which rather puts paid to that idea. Unless you take both Sharpshooter/crossbow expert and two-weapon fighting, it seems like a waste of time, and that's a lot of feats to spend for one kind-of-cool move. One or the other of those feats is common, the combination...not so much. So the net-and-trident gladiator just plain doesn't work, and neither does the rogue with sharpshooter and the off-hand net attack. Like TransMorpher I've never seen one used, and I was hoping to find a use case for it, but it appears no such luck, at least RAW.
No it still has to be a melee weapon, it just doesn't have to be a melee attack. The "either weapon" it is referring to is the previously specified "light melee weapon[s]".
The Devs intended the limitation to only apply to action using the net.
@BobbyBarbarian Can a pc with Crossbow Expert, a hand crossbow, and a net attack with the net and then the hand crossbow on the same turn?
@JeremyECrawford The net attack limitation applies only to the action/reaction/bonus action you use to attack with the net.
So the build using the net off-hand works, but the build where you have a shield but get two attacks out of one attack action because you are a fighter (ranger, etc), one of which is with the net and the other(s) with follow-up thrown weapons, doesn't. Got it. Thanks.
You can't "make an offhand attack" with ranged weapons.
Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand.
While it does say that, it goes on to say the "If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack" (PHB, p. 195), so you can make an offhand attack with certain ranged weapons, anyway, but the net isn't light, which rather puts paid to that idea. Unless you take both Sharpshooter/crossbow expert and two-weapon fighting, it seems like a waste of time, and that's a lot of feats to spend for one kind-of-cool move. One or the other of those feats is common, the combination...not so much. So the net-and-trident gladiator just plain doesn't work, and neither does the rogue with sharpshooter and the off-hand net attack. Like TransMorpher I've never seen one used, and I was hoping to find a use case for it, but it appears no such luck, at least RAW.
How are you going to do something instead of making a melee attack with a weapon you can't make melee attacks with? This rule provides an alternative to the bonus action melee attack, but it doesn't change the prerequisite.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
The main limitation I'm wondering is about Fighter extra attack (and action surge) while throwing the net as a bonus action due to using the Battle Master "quick toss".
With a Battle Master Fighter one of the manoeuvres is "Quick Toss": "As a bonus action, you can ... make a ranged attack with a weapon that has the thrown property"
So a fighter can use BA to toss the net. On hit, the target is restrained giving advantage. Then the fighter attacks with a weapon twice (or more) by using extra attack then uses action surge for 2+ more. This means the opponent has suffered 4+ attacks at advantage.
However, RAW states: "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 by RAW, extra weapon attacks are not allowed. I guess this may be RAI to reduce the amount of attacks to the restrained person but it contradicts what JC states about the limit only applying to additional net attacks (which is understandable, as a net is a cumbersome weapon).
A further question I have is that there is the omission of "per turn" in the rule.
(for example the text could have stated " you can make only one attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make per turn")
so RAW the fighter should be able to use action surge for 2+ additional attacks at advantage.
If the intent is simply to disallow multiple net attacks, the rule text could state:
"When you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to attack with a net, you can make only one NET attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make.".
So I can't tell if this text is only to apply to net attacks or if it was RAI to make net fighter attacks less powerful
The attack limit is per action/bonus action/reaction with a net, you can only make one attack if such action let you do more than one. If you use an action to attack with a different weapon, no such limit exist.
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.
The attack limit is per action/bonus action/reaction with a net, you can only make one attack if such action let you do more than one. If you use an action to attack with a different weapon, no such limit exist.
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.
The problem is that the wording is ambiguous. When I first read it, it seems to say that if you use an action, bonus action or reaction to use a net then you can ONLY make the one attack (for your turn) regardless of the number you can normally make. However, if you interpret as (for that action) rather than (for your turn) you get a different interpretation and to be honest without clarification in the text specifying when you only get to make the one attack, it can be read either way.
After thinking about it, (for that action) probably makes more sense though it isn't how I first read it . In addition, I don't know of any ways to make multiple attacks as a reaction, and the only bonus action option I can think of is the monk flurry of blows where this would not apply, so including bonus actions and reactions is either "future proofing" for rules that didn't exist when the net was introduced or (for that action) might not be the intended interpretation.
Craft a "net harness" that spreads out the net. Set up the net so that it is above a doorway and rig it to a rope snare. Tripping the rope snare causes the net harness to release and the net to fall. That way you avoid all this using an Action nonsense. Or set the net harness to release using an Invisible Servant, a Familiar, or Mage Hand.
Yes, the ambiguity of the rule is certainly a problem. I asked a league table about this rule and there were three separate opinions, all with good arguments.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Has anyone ever tried to make a fighter who uses a net (e.g., the classic net-and-trident gladiator?) I am a bit confused on how to interpret the text, and it seems like a weapon that would be very hard to use RAW. First of all, with a range of 5/15 you always have disadvantage to use it: either you are within 5' of your opponent and have disadvantage on ranged attacks, or you are at long range, and have disadvantage from that (feats or such aside). Beyond that, the RAW 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," and I am not clear if that means any other attack with the net (i.e. no miss and re-cast) or any attack at all. The former I understand: you have to re-gather and re-fold it, so it's not a weapon you can use more than once in a fight, really. The latter seems a straighter read of the text, but means your net-and-trident fighter casts, then has to give its opponent at least one chance to get out of it before attacking, which given a DC 10 they realistically make more often than not. This rather obviates the point of tangling up the opponent and then poking them with the trident while they are impeded. If the RAW means no other attacks at all then a fighter gives up, depending on level, 1-4 attacks (counting an off-hand weapon), in order to make one attack at disadvantage that might restrain the opponent for a turn. Most of the time, since the attack is at disadvantage and an opponent is more likely than not to be able to make a DC 10 save or do 5 slashing to the net, you're spending your action on an attack that will do nothing at all - even if you hit, one turn later you are back in exactly the same position with a once-again unimpeded opponent. You've both wasted a round, but nothing has changed. Yes, the other party members get to beat on your opponent with advantage, but it's a gladiatorial style meant to be used in duels, not for group fights. I suppose there is a reason it was a flashy weapon for entertaining people rather than an infantry weapon issued to legionnaires: just not that effective in a real fight. Incidentally, it also seems odd that it's not a finesse weapon: it's maybe the thrown weapon that depends least on raw strength to have its effect, but at least there the RAW is quite clear. Anyone have any experience with it or better sense of how it is supposed to work? Ultimately, I'll present the question to my GM, whose word is final, but I'm still curious.
It doesn't say "with the net" so it is no other attacks at all.
Correction: 1-3 attacks. It doesn't prevent the BA attack from 2 weapon fighting, but neither does it work with it anyway. Either way only the extra attacks are given up when used (which still sucks).
It already uses DEX for being a ranged weapon, and loke you said it isn't really strength based so it would be weird to add finesse.
Yeah, the net is intentionally bad, IDK why. You can get around some of the attack disadvantage with sharpshooter and/or crossbow expert. It is least restrictive if you have a bonus action attack or are hasted. The wording could also indicate that it works with catapult which is probably the most popular use of it.
Thanks, this is helpful. On your read it seems it might, actually, prevent the off-hand attack too: as you say, it says "any attack." Ultimately the GM's call on how he wants to interpret it and I may argue for the "with the net" interpretation just to have the weapon have some use, even if you are probably right RAW. I really want to do a sharpshooter build with net, shield, and a large supply of thrown daggers or darts so tangle with the net from second rank (10-15' range) then throw a dart into them at -5 (but advantage!) for d4+10+dx plus letting the frontline hammer away at advantage at least once, depending on initiative scores. Or a rogue build the same who uses the offhand throw with sneak attack and a club (cosh) for the nonlethal throw-it-over-them-and-knockout combo. Can't believe I missed the "no need for finesse because it's already ranged" bit: too wrapped up in thinking about thrown weapons like daggers and handaxes, where it matters.
The Devs intended the limitation to only apply to action using the net.
So the build using the net off-hand works, but the build where you have a shield but get two attacks out of one attack action because you are a fighter (ranger, etc), one of which is with the net and the other(s) with follow-up thrown weapons, doesn't. Got it. Thanks.
So something interesting about the net is that it's a "Thrown" weapon and not a "ranged" weapon. So within 5 feet you would actually be using it to make a melee attack so the attack wouldn't be at disadvantage. But yeah... there's no way to use it at range without it being at disadvantage.
It does seem like there's some value in holding onto one in your off-hand for Attacks of Opportunity, but overall it's so difficult to use I can't imagine many players getting much use out of it. I've certainly never seen anyone use it in any actual play video or podcast, and I've never been at a table where someone used one.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
It's both a ranged weapon with the thrown property.
There's a Sage Advice Compendium entry on it as well;
Not quite, it is a thrown weapon, but it is a ranged weapon not a melee weapon just like a dart.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
You can't "make an offhand attack" with ranged weapons.
What the net attack should be is a special grapple attack - thrown at AC 10 (+DB) and countered by the grapple strength test that would make its single attack somehow worth while.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
While it does say that, it goes on to say the "If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack" (PHB, p. 195), so you can make an offhand attack with certain ranged weapons, anyway, but the net isn't light, which rather puts paid to that idea. Unless you take both Sharpshooter/crossbow expert and two-weapon fighting, it seems like a waste of time, and that's a lot of feats to spend for one kind-of-cool move. One or the other of those feats is common, the combination...not so much. So the net-and-trident gladiator just plain doesn't work, and neither does the rogue with sharpshooter and the off-hand net attack. Like TransMorpher I've never seen one used, and I was hoping to find a use case for it, but it appears no such luck, at least RAW.
No it still has to be a melee weapon, it just doesn't have to be a melee attack. The "either weapon" it is referring to is the previously specified "light melee weapon[s]".
How are you going to do something instead of making a melee attack with a weapon you can't make melee attacks with? This rule provides an alternative to the bonus action melee attack, but it doesn't change the prerequisite.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
The main limitation I'm wondering is about Fighter extra attack (and action surge) while throwing the net as a bonus action due to using the Battle Master "quick toss".
With a Battle Master Fighter one of the manoeuvres is "Quick Toss": "As a bonus action, you can ... make a ranged attack with a weapon that has the thrown property"
So a fighter can use BA to toss the net. On hit, the target is restrained giving advantage. Then the fighter attacks with a weapon twice (or more) by using extra attack then uses action surge for 2+ more. This means the opponent has suffered 4+ attacks at advantage.
However, RAW states: "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 by RAW, extra weapon attacks are not allowed. I guess this may be RAI to reduce the amount of attacks to the restrained person but it contradicts what JC states about the limit only applying to additional net attacks (which is understandable, as a net is a cumbersome weapon).
A further question I have is that there is the omission of "per turn" in the rule.
(for example the text could have stated " you can make only one attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make per turn")
so RAW the fighter should be able to use action surge for 2+ additional attacks at advantage.
If the intent is simply to disallow multiple net attacks, the rule text could state:
"When you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to attack with a net, you can make only one NET attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make.".
So I can't tell if this text is only to apply to net attacks or if it was RAI to make net fighter attacks less powerful
The attack limit is per action/bonus action/reaction with a net, you can only make one attack if such action let you do more than one. If you use an action to attack with a different weapon, no such limit exist.
The problem is that the wording is ambiguous. When I first read it, it seems to say that if you use an action, bonus action or reaction to use a net then you can ONLY make the one attack (for your turn) regardless of the number you can normally make. However, if you interpret as (for that action) rather than (for your turn) you get a different interpretation and to be honest without clarification in the text specifying when you only get to make the one attack, it can be read either way.
After thinking about it, (for that action) probably makes more sense though it isn't how I first read it . In addition, I don't know of any ways to make multiple attacks as a reaction, and the only bonus action option I can think of is the monk flurry of blows where this would not apply, so including bonus actions and reactions is either "future proofing" for rules that didn't exist when the net was introduced or (for that action) might not be the intended interpretation.
Craft a "net harness" that spreads out the net. Set up the net so that it is above a doorway and rig it to a rope snare. Tripping the rope snare causes the net harness to release and the net to fall. That way you avoid all this using an Action nonsense. Or set the net harness to release using an Invisible Servant, a Familiar, or Mage Hand.
Yes, the ambiguity of the rule is certainly a problem. I asked a league table about this rule and there were three separate opinions, all with good arguments.