A net with a wooden harness isn't a "standard bog-ordinary item" though. It is a highly specialised creation of engineering - and the classic D&D world isn't high tech - otherwise you get back to the portable hole and bag of holding arrow.
The net is very standard. A wooden frame is just two pieces of wood nailed together. I see your point about the clasps. Those are what would be custom-made. However, you have several sub-class features that would explicitly allow for it. The Forge Cleric's 2nd level Artisan's Blessing, for instance. You could also probably find a kind Gnome or Dwarf somewhere to craft them - better yet, if a PC has Smith's Tools and downtime, they could do it as well. These are not game-breaking magical items (or magical at all) and their applicability is limited by circumstance regardless.
Just to add another counter-argument. Nets are martial weapons, not even mere simple weapons. That strongly backs the argument that simply dropping one, even via a frame apparatus is not enough. How would you aim this thing anyway? You have complete control of the mage hand, but from your vantage point, not from the point of view of the mage hand.
Now whether they should be that difficult to use is a different question, however for game purposes ,they simply are.
You do realize that fishermen with no training in "martial weapons" use nets to catch fish all the time right?
Also, there is a significant difference between one humanoid throwing a net on another humanoid that they are obviously hostile to during combat and dropping a net from high above onto an unsuspecting creature. You also not taking account the possibility that the ATrickster/Wizard/Warlock is in a tree or has some kind of overhead perspective on the target. Is that likely? It depends on the PC, really. An Aarakocra PC could easily justify having an aerial perspective. So could a Warlock with a flying familiar or that nifty Levitation Invocation.
You do realize that fishermen with no training in "martial weapons" use nets to catch fish all the time right?
Also, there is a significant difference between one humanoid throwing a net on another humanoid that they are obviously hostile to during combat and dropping a net from high above onto an unsuspecting creature. You also not taking account the possibility that the ATrickster/Wizard/Warlock is in a tree or has some kind of overhead perspective on the target. Is that likely? It depends on the PC, really. An Aarakocra PC could easily justify having an aerial perspective. So could a Warlock with a flying familiar or that nifty Levitation Invocation.
You realize that this is a fantasy game and not the real world, right? Even then, those fishermen are not literally trying to throw said nets on a specific individual fish, but rather large schools hoping to simply catch as many as they can. Plus they are using them to catch fish, not active combatants. Plus there is skill involved even in casting nets for fishing. Nets can get tangled pretty easily if not deployed properly. If you want to change nets for your campaign specifically, go for it. Why even treat them as weapons then? Why not a survival skill 'attack' check? Or define nets as a fishing tool rather than as a weapon.... That would be a house rule on your part though. In game, per RAW, they are martial weapons.
But the topic is regarding using mage hand to drop a net, not any PC dropping said net themselves, regardless of how the PC achieves elevation. If the PC themselves is above the target, why, exactly would they be bothering with a mage hand?
It's silly to say that nets can ONLY be defined as martial weapons because, for the most part, they are Not used as weapons. They are for entrapment of creatures, usually fish and game.
Are you saying that fishing doesn't exist in D&D? If it does exist in a game world, then it's an absolutely fair comparison. And just because nets are generally used to catch fish doesn't mean people don't use nets to catch specific animals. How do you think people caught dolphins or killer whales for captivity?
It sounds like you are saying that because nets are in the Martial Weapons category, they can only be deployed by a creature with a martial weapons proficiency. If that is true, then traps in general that use nets, crossbows+arrows, and swords of any kind automatically can't work b/c devices have no skills.
I think any sort of frame that allows a net to be extended and dropped by a mage hand in a manner that isn't an attack would likely weigh more than the weight limit of mage hand (10 pounds, of which 3 is the net).
In general, I would allow a mage hand to drop something on someone, but to deploy the net would have to be an attack.
If the OP is using his own two hands to manage two corners of the net, and a bonus-action Mage Hand for the third corner of a three-cornered net, then either it would be an attack roll if they are simply launching the net at the target.
If they are holding the net above an area to catch something passing underneath, then that sounds like a trap, so a DEX saving throw to avoid the falling net would be required.
But maybe the OP isn't interested in the answer any more, since they haven't posted at all since starting the thread.
You do realize that fishermen with no training in "martial weapons" use nets to catch fish all the time right?
Also, there is a significant difference between one humanoid throwing a net on another humanoid that they are obviously hostile to during combat and dropping a net from high above onto an unsuspecting creature. You also not taking account the possibility that the ATrickster/Wizard/Warlock is in a tree or has some kind of overhead perspective on the target. Is that likely? It depends on the PC, really. An Aarakocra PC could easily justify having an aerial perspective. So could a Warlock with a flying familiar or that nifty Levitation Invocation.
You realize that this is a fantasy game and not the real world, right? Even then, those fishermen are not literally trying to throw said nets on a specific individual fish, but rather large schools hoping to simply catch as many as they can. Plus they are using them to catch fish, not active combatants. Plus there is skill involved even in casting nets for fishing. Nets can get tangled pretty easily if not deployed properly. If you want to change nets for your campaign specifically, go for it. Why even treat them as weapons then? Why not a survival skill 'attack' check? Or define nets as a fishing tool rather than as a weapon.... That would be a house rule on your part though. In game, per RAW, they are martial weapons.
But the topic is regarding using mage hand to drop a net, not any PC dropping said net themselves, regardless of how the PC achieves elevation. If the PC themselves is above the target, why, exactly would they be bothering with a mage hand?
It's silly to say that nets can ONLY be defined as martial weapons because, for the most part, they are Not used as weapons. They are for entrapment of creatures, usually fish and game.
Are you saying that fishing doesn't exist in D&D? If it does exist in a game world, then it's an absolutely fair comparison. And just because nets are generally used to catch fish doesn't mean people don't use nets to catch specific animals. How do you think people caught dolphins or killer whales for captivity?
It sounds like you are saying that because nets are in the Martial Weapons category, they can only be deployed by a creature with a martial weapons proficiency. If that is true, then traps in general that use nets, crossbows+arrows, and swords of any kind automatically can't work b/c devices have no skills.
A trap is not a creature: it does not make attack rolls. Traps are resolved via Saving Throw against a Difficulty Check. Even if a crossbow spring trap did have skills, it is not necessary for it to be proficient in crossbows for the crossbow to be used by the spring trap because you can use any weapon that you are not proficient with: you simply do not get your proficiency bonus added to the attack rolls made with the weapon.
I would imagine that a net fisherman would have proficiency with nets in combat, unlike many adventurers who do not have a background in casting nets. Like many classes, and, indeed, some races, there can be situations where a character can be proficient in a particular martial weapon without otherwise having blanket martial weapon proficiencies. Druids don't have martial weapon proficiency, but they're still proficient with scimitar; Rogues don't have martial weapon proficiency, but they can still use longswords, rapiers, and shortswords; etc.
Also, as above, everyone is capable of casting a net upon someone; only those with proficiency with nets will get their proficiency modifier added to their attack roll, though.
It sounds as though you are under the impression that you automatically fail with any weapon you are not proficient with in D&D: that is not the case. Just as you, a human on Earth, could pick up a halberd and attack someone with it, an adventurer or anyone for that matter in D&D 5e could do the same. However, you and any 5e creature not proficient with halberds will do a poor job at it because you are not proficient with halberds.
I would imagine that a net fisherman would have proficiency with nets in combat, unlike many adventurers who do not have a background in casting nets.
And I'm pretty sure he would not. Nets used in combat are very different from fishing ones, as fishing ones would be extremely inefficient in combat. Even the simplest ones require an advantage in height to be cast (like from a fishing boat) and are made to trap the fishes vertically. And a fisherman would have zero combat training anyway.
Like many classes, and, indeed, some races, there can be situations where a character can be proficient in a particular martial weapon without otherwise having blanket martial weapon proficiencies. Druids don't have martial weapon proficiency, but they're still proficient with scimitar; Rogues don't have martial weapon proficiency, but they can still use longswords, rapiers, and shortswords; etc.
I would be fine with it if it were the same weapon, but honestly, it's not. And all the adventurer classes are considered to have combat training, whereas a fisherman certainly does not.
That's fine if you want to rule it as such, for the only attacks commoners have in their standard statblock is club attacks, but it would be a logical assumption that, if you were to customize a commoner that uses nets every day of their life, that they would be proficient with nets, and that a casting net can fall under the "close enough to a weapon to be used as such" ruling. Commoners are implied to have some degree of martial ability, as their statblock gives them a +2 to their club attacks despite a +0 to their strength stat, implying the base +2 proficiency albiet not explicitly stated as a proficiency in that weapon. But fair. Short of customizing things, it is true that commoners do not have proficiency in anything but clubs, and that is only implied by the qualities of their club attacks.
Edit: However, as per PHB, 146:
"Most people can use simple weapons with proficiency. These weapons include clubs, maces, and other weapons often found in the hands of commoners. Martial weapons... require more specialized training to use effectively."
Implicitly a commoner can have proficiency in more than clubs since most people can use at least simple weapons with proficiency. You could even use that martial weapons clause to argue a fisherman to have training in the use of nets with proficiency, even if not explicitly against humans and monsters. Reminder: fishes are creatures too. To cast a net upon them is implicitly an attack roll.
And is it an automatic assumption that adventurers have combat training? Wizards and sorcerers have extremely limited proficiency to only 5/14 common simple weapons and 0/23 common martial weapons for proficiency in 5/37 of the common weapons. Doesn't exactly sound like much combat training has been achieved to me. Where exactly would a tiefling sorcerer living as a hermit in exile with a squalid life style get combat training? What about a background as a non-gladiator entertainer or a sage implies combat training?
The only races that I know of that implicitly have combat training for all adventurers is elves with the "elf weapon training" feature and dwarves with the "dwarven combat training" feature.
Is there somewhere in the PHB that explicitly states that all adventurers have combat training? And, tying it back to "most people can use simple weapons with proficiency", does that mean most people have combat training? What kind of combat training do wizards and sorcerers get to become less proficient than most people with simple weapons?
And again, one does not throw a trap at a victim. One lays a trap for a victim. You are using analogies that simply do not fit. Even to the extent that fishing using thrown nets exists, it exists in the form of an AE attack, throwing the net into a school of fish. Next you will insist that taking down a deer with a bow and arrow does not count as an attack, or that doing so with a longbow somehow means that a longbow therefore equals a simple weapon rather than martial, ignoring in both cases the concept that a fishing net does not have to be anything practical to use in combat in order to catch fish with it, or that hunting can be done with lesser bows.
And I ask again, what about the targeting issue?
By the way, NO ONE caught whales for captivity using D&D tech level gear. The first recorded capture of live dolphins and whales was not until the 1860's. Even capturing whales for slaughter by net did not happen until 1675 and involved a heck of a lot more than just throwing nets at them.
A trap can affect a creature without "targeting" the creature. Otherwise, how would automatic traps ever be effective? As Changed said above, that is why a DEX saving throw would be called for in case of a Mage Hand dropping a net, not an attack roll. If you as the DM want to rule that the creature under the dropped net has advantage to their saving throw b/c of positioning issues or the person wielding Mage Hand is not "above" the creature-to-be-trapped, that's fine. I'm just saying that, by RAW, this can work with enough preparation. It functions as a trap. If a flying Imp familiar were holding the frame attached to the net, it would work in a similar way (perhaps better) via the Imp's Interact with Object capability, but in both the case of Mage Hand and in the case of the Imp, it could still work because it is NOT an attack roll.
And again, one does not throw a trap at a victim. One lays a trap for a victim. You are using analogies that simply do not fit. Even to the extent that fishing using thrown nets exists, it exists in the form of an AE attack, throwing the net into a school of fish. Next you will insist that taking down a deer with a bow and arrow does not count as an attack, or that doing so with a longbow somehow means that a longbow therefore equals a simple weapon rather than martial, ignoring in both cases the concept that a fishing net does not have to be anything practical to use in combat in order to catch fish with it, or that hunting can be done with lesser bows.
And I ask again, what about the targeting issue?
By the way, NO ONE caught whales for captivity using D&D tech level gear. The first recorded capture of live dolphins and whales was not until the 1860's. Even capturing whales for slaughter by net did not happen until 1675 and involved a heck of a lot more than just throwing nets at them.
A trap can affect a creature without "targeting" the creature. Otherwise, how would automatic traps ever be effective? As Changed said above, that is why a DEX saving throw would be called for in case of a Mage Hand dropping a net, not an attack roll. If you as the DM want to rule that the creature under the dropped net has advantage to their saving throw b/c of positioning issues or the person wielding Mage Hand is not "above" the creature-to-be-trapped, that's fine. I'm just saying that, by RAW, this can work with enough preparation. It functions as a trap. If a flying Imp familiar were holding the frame attached to the net, it would work in a similar way (perhaps better) via the Imp's Interact with Object capability, but in both the case of Mage Hand and in the case of the Imp, it could still work because it is NOT an attack roll.
Traps still have triggers. There has to be some way for the trap to know when to go off. Otherwise it goes off instantly or never at all. And frankly, this really feels like an end run around the rules.
Okay, so traps have triggers. A drow, who is seen by a PC who is an ATrickster, walks beneath a net being held up by a frame+net by a Mage Hand. The PC uses bonus action to get Mage Hand to release the net. The trigger here is the visual stimulus of seeing the drow.
This is a solution that works by RAW. Now, does it make Mage Hand OP? Not really. B/c the inherent limitations to the size of the net, the frailty of the frame, and the fact that the DM is basically a super deity who can redesign encounters as they see fit means that it won't stay OP it it ever was. This only traps 1 Medium or Small sized creature. It's main utility is to capture alive particular targets in particular situations. There are WAY more effective things you could do with Mage Hand (also RAW) if your aim was to kill, not capture.
This only traps 1 Medium or Small sized creature. It's main utility is to capture alive particular targets in particular situations. There are WAY more effective things you could do with Mage Hand (also RAW) if your aim was to kill, not capture.
It won't be particularly effective at capturing combatants, since they will start using whatever sharp tools they have to cut their way out - most animals don't carry sharp weapons, or have the INT to know how to cut open a net.
Hit the thing and have the last blow knock out the target is the simplest (and RAW) way to capture a creature.
This only traps 1 Medium or Small sized creature. It's main utility is to capture alive particular targets in particular situations. There are WAY more effective things you could do with Mage Hand (also RAW) if your aim was to kill, not capture.
It won't be particularly effective at capturing combatants, since they will start using whatever sharp tools they have to cut their way out - most animals don't carry sharp weapons, or have the INT to know how to cut open a net.
Hit the thing and have the last blow knock out the target is the simplest (and RAW) way to capture a creature.
Ok, now you have one more PC with nothing better to do than play bait. Not even throwing a net themselves. You have a convenient way to hide the net without it getting tangled in tree limbs or whatever other cover is being used and the target being baited conveniently following exactly under the net without the bait risking being caught.
And even then it is an end run around the 'cannot make attacks' rule. That applies to a familiar too by the way.
It works by RAW, though. And Familiars with hands are supposed to be good for something in combat, or why base an entire subclass on having a Familiar with hands? LIke I said, it's not OP because Imps, Quasits, etc. have been around as Warlock familiars for a decade now and have not been nerfed.
Ok, now you have one more PC with nothing better to do than play bait. Not even throwing a net themselves. You have a convenient way to hide the net without it getting tangled in tree limbs or whatever other cover is being used and the target being baited conveniently following exactly under the net without the bait risking being caught.
And even then it is an end run around the 'cannot make attacks' rule. That applies to a familiar too by the way.
It works by RAW, though. And Familiars with hands are supposed to be good for something in combat, or why base an entire subclass on having a Familiar with hands? LIke I said, it's not OP because Imps, Quasits, etc. have been around as Warlock familiars for a decade now and have not been nerfed.
Pardon, but on what basis is the bolded true?
On the basis that that they are allowed the freedom to interact with objects that have relevance in combat. Also note that most of the improved familiars that Chain Warlocks get have useful attack abilites, from Fear to poison effect to poison damage. It's also RAW that Warlocks can give up their own attack so that their familiars can attack instead.
Really, why are you bothering to argue about something that RAW and has never been nerfed in the 10+ years since the PHB came out. The Pact of the Chain Warlock familiars get to do cool stuff. That is why they are integral to the subclass and not just a minor feature.
Also, as I have explained there is nothing remotely OP about an occasional net-dropping. Isn't that you main concern here? That a net dropped on one Medium or Small size creature occasionally is somehow game-breaking? It's laughable how you rush to squash a creative use of Mage Hand when there are plenty of WAY more broken things people do with a feat at Level 1 through going Variant Human and picking up Sharpshooter that is already RAW.
i haven't read through the rest of the thread so this may or may not be useful :)
1) RAW, neither a familiar nor a mage hand can make an attack with a net. Using the net requires making an attack roll. Familiars can't attack.
2) If a net has been deployed as a TRAP (e.g. static placement) then it is up to the GM to adjudicate how it works. It would require some sort of spring or counter weight to apply force when the trap is sprung since (in my opinion as a DM) neither a familiar nor a mage hand has the strength to power such a trap. However, either of them is likely to be able to trigger/activate such a trap at an appropriate moment. TRAPs are clearly in the area of DM adjudication.
3) If a character is making an attack with a net then a familiar could potentially take the help action to give the character advantage on the attack roll (when combined with the usual disadvantage for either adjacent attack with a ranged weapon (use at 5') or attack at long range (use at 10') when using a net) the result would be a straight to hit roll.
Mage hand can not be used in the same way except for the level 13 arcane trickster feature.
"VERSATILE TRICKSTER At 13th level, you gain the ability to distract targets with your mage hand. As a bonus action on your turn, you can designate a creature within 5 feet of the spectral hand created by the spell. Doing so gives you advantage on attack rolls against that creature until the end of the turn."
A level 13 arcane trickster can use a bonus action and the mage hand to give themselves advantage on the attack roll with a net (which becomes a straight roll).
However, because the level 13 arcane trickster feature specifically allows a special use of mage hand to grant them advantage, I would tend to NOT allow casters with mage hand other than the arcane trickster to use it in this way since otherwise you are essentially giving everyone the 13th level arcane trickster feature for free.
Ok, now you have one more PC with nothing better to do than play bait. Not even throwing a net themselves. You have a convenient way to hide the net without it getting tangled in tree limbs or whatever other cover is being used and the target being baited conveniently following exactly under the net without the bait risking being caught.
And even then it is an end run around the 'cannot make attacks' rule. That applies to a familiar too by the way.
It works by RAW, though. And Familiars with hands are supposed to be good for something in combat, or why base an entire subclass on having a Familiar with hands? LIke I said, it's not OP because Imps, Quasits, etc. have been around as Warlock familiars for a decade now and have not been nerfed.
Pardon, but on what basis is the bolded true?
On the basis that that they are allowed the freedom to interact with objects that have relevance in combat. Also note that most of the improved familiars that Chain Warlocks get have useful attack abilites, from Fear to poison effect to poison damage. It's also RAW that Warlocks can give up their own attack so that their familiars can attack instead.
Really, why are you bothering to argue about something that RAW and has never been nerfed in the 10+ years since the PHB came out. The Pact of the Chain Warlock familiars get to do cool stuff. That is why they are integral to the subclass and not just a minor feature.
Also, as I have explained there is nothing remotely OP about an occasional net-dropping. Isn't that you main concern here? That a net dropped on one Medium or Small size creature occasionally is somehow game-breaking? It's laughable how you rush to squash a creative use of Mage Hand when there are plenty of WAY more broken things people do with a feat at Level 1 through going Variant Human and picking up Sharpshooter that is already RAW.
They are allowed to carry weapons, but specifically excluded from wielding them as weapons. A scabbard can also 'interact with objects that have relevance in combat.' You have to help the scabbard by sheathing an appropriate weapon in it, but it holds the weapon just fine from then on.
Pact of the Chain Warlocks require one to be a Pact of the Chain Warlock, not merely to be able to cast Mage Hand.
And insisting that there are things you consider more broken is merely saying 'This game is not broken enough' or 'This game is broken anyway so it should be anything goes.' Your argument does not mean what you think it means.
My point is that Mage Hand with proper setup to trap 1 singular creature with a net is smart gaming and clearly not broken in the first place compared to a whole slew of other options that are completely RAW to begin with.
And my point is that it's a harsh DM who punishes their players who want to play creatively, which is half the point of playing a table-top RPG instead of a compute game: you get to do creative things besides "hit with axe," "damage with spell," etc. Unless your argument is that D&D should be played as the live version of an MMORPG?
i haven't read through the rest of the thread so this may or may not be useful :)
1) RAW, neither a familiar nor a mage hand can make an attack with a net. Using the net requires making an attack roll. Familiars can't attack.
2) If a net has been deployed as a TRAP (e.g. static placement) then it is up to the GM to adjudicate how it works. It would require some sort of spring or counter weight to apply force when the trap is sprung since (in my opinion as a DM) neither a familiar nor a mage hand has the strength to power such a trap. However, either of them is likely to be able to trigger/activate such a trap at an appropriate moment. TRAPs are clearly in the area of DM adjudication.
Using a frame built to accomodate a net and dropping it from above using Mage Hand is very much a trap. If somebody trips a wire and a net falls on them, it's the same principle. Thus, DEX saving throw, not an attack roll and therefore not an "attack with a net."
In 5e, they can hit someone with a club, and they seem to have only one weapon proficiency, the club, which is certainly not the same as having proficiencies in multiple weapons like any level 1 adventurer.
On top of that, although you could claim weapon similarity for a few things, a fishing net and a combat net have almost nothing in common about their use, especially with one being out of combat and the other one being not only only useful in combat but being a martial weapon on top of it.
Finally, this is assuming that this is a fisherman fishing with a throwing net, which is not always the case. There are tons of different fishing techniques, some using nets (albeit in very varied ways) and some not. So I would not automatically grant the proficiency to any fisherman.
As per PHB, 146:
"Most people can use simple weapons can use simple weapons with proficiency. These weapons include clubs, maces, and other weapons often found in the hands of commoners.
Adventurers are not most people, but most people can use simple weapons with proficiency. Maces and other weapons are also often found in the hands of commoners alongside clubs. It's arguable that they could potentially use most simple weapons.
Anyway, while I have not used a fisherman in combat before, were there to be a fisherman who usually fishes with weighted casting nets (the type you throw), were he given a net that is thrown, would he not be proficient in throwing said net at a quipper?
I can't believe this thread is still open. It is very simple - RAW requires an attack roll to use a net to encompass it's target. RAW also states that a mage hand cannot make an attack. It isn't rocket science.
This is the RAW discussion forum, if you want to "But what if" or "How about when" you should start a thread in the homebrew discussion forum where it belongs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The net is very standard. A wooden frame is just two pieces of wood nailed together. I see your point about the clasps. Those are what would be custom-made. However, you have several sub-class features that would explicitly allow for it. The Forge Cleric's 2nd level Artisan's Blessing, for instance. You could also probably find a kind Gnome or Dwarf somewhere to craft them - better yet, if a PC has Smith's Tools and downtime, they could do it as well. These are not game-breaking magical items (or magical at all) and their applicability is limited by circumstance regardless.
Thank you.
You do realize that fishermen with no training in "martial weapons" use nets to catch fish all the time right?
Also, there is a significant difference between one humanoid throwing a net on another humanoid that they are obviously hostile to during combat and dropping a net from high above onto an unsuspecting creature. You also not taking account the possibility that the ATrickster/Wizard/Warlock is in a tree or has some kind of overhead perspective on the target. Is that likely? It depends on the PC, really. An Aarakocra PC could easily justify having an aerial perspective. So could a Warlock with a flying familiar or that nifty Levitation Invocation.
It's silly to say that nets can ONLY be defined as martial weapons because, for the most part, they are Not used as weapons. They are for entrapment of creatures, usually fish and game.
Are you saying that fishing doesn't exist in D&D? If it does exist in a game world, then it's an absolutely fair comparison. And just because nets are generally used to catch fish doesn't mean people don't use nets to catch specific animals. How do you think people caught dolphins or killer whales for captivity?
It sounds like you are saying that because nets are in the Martial Weapons category, they can only be deployed by a creature with a martial weapons proficiency. If that is true, then traps in general that use nets, crossbows+arrows, and swords of any kind automatically can't work b/c devices have no skills.
I think any sort of frame that allows a net to be extended and dropped by a mage hand in a manner that isn't an attack would likely weigh more than the weight limit of mage hand (10 pounds, of which 3 is the net).
In general, I would allow a mage hand to drop something on someone, but to deploy the net would have to be an attack.
If the OP is using his own two hands to manage two corners of the net, and a bonus-action Mage Hand for the third corner of a three-cornered net, then either it would be an attack roll if they are simply launching the net at the target.
If they are holding the net above an area to catch something passing underneath, then that sounds like a trap, so a DEX saving throw to avoid the falling net would be required.
But maybe the OP isn't interested in the answer any more, since they haven't posted at all since starting the thread.
A trap is not a creature: it does not make attack rolls. Traps are resolved via Saving Throw against a Difficulty Check. Even if a crossbow spring trap did have skills, it is not necessary for it to be proficient in crossbows for the crossbow to be used by the spring trap because you can use any weapon that you are not proficient with: you simply do not get your proficiency bonus added to the attack rolls made with the weapon.
I would imagine that a net fisherman would have proficiency with nets in combat, unlike many adventurers who do not have a background in casting nets. Like many classes, and, indeed, some races, there can be situations where a character can be proficient in a particular martial weapon without otherwise having blanket martial weapon proficiencies. Druids don't have martial weapon proficiency, but they're still proficient with scimitar; Rogues don't have martial weapon proficiency, but they can still use longswords, rapiers, and shortswords; etc.
Also, as above, everyone is capable of casting a net upon someone; only those with proficiency with nets will get their proficiency modifier added to their attack roll, though.
It sounds as though you are under the impression that you automatically fail with any weapon you are not proficient with in D&D: that is not the case. Just as you, a human on Earth, could pick up a halberd and attack someone with it, an adventurer or anyone for that matter in D&D 5e could do the same. However, you and any 5e creature not proficient with halberds will do a poor job at it because you are not proficient with halberds.
That's fine if you want to rule it as such, for the only attacks commoners have in their standard statblock is club attacks, but it would be a logical assumption that, if you were to customize a commoner that uses nets every day of their life, that they would be proficient with nets, and that a casting net can fall under the "close enough to a weapon to be used as such" ruling. Commoners are implied to have some degree of martial ability, as their statblock gives them a +2 to their club attacks despite a +0 to their strength stat, implying the base +2 proficiency albiet not explicitly stated as a proficiency in that weapon. But fair. Short of customizing things, it is true that commoners do not have proficiency in anything but clubs, and that is only implied by the qualities of their club attacks.
Edit: However, as per PHB, 146:
Implicitly a commoner can have proficiency in more than clubs since most people can use at least simple weapons with proficiency. You could even use that martial weapons clause to argue a fisherman to have training in the use of nets with proficiency, even if not explicitly against humans and monsters. Reminder: fishes are creatures too. To cast a net upon them is implicitly an attack roll.
And is it an automatic assumption that adventurers have combat training? Wizards and sorcerers have extremely limited proficiency to only 5/14 common simple weapons and 0/23 common martial weapons for proficiency in 5/37 of the common weapons. Doesn't exactly sound like much combat training has been achieved to me. Where exactly would a tiefling sorcerer living as a hermit in exile with a squalid life style get combat training? What about a background as a non-gladiator entertainer or a sage implies combat training?
The only races that I know of that implicitly have combat training for all adventurers is elves with the "elf weapon training" feature and dwarves with the "dwarven combat training" feature.
Is there somewhere in the PHB that explicitly states that all adventurers have combat training? And, tying it back to "most people can use simple weapons with proficiency", does that mean most people have combat training? What kind of combat training do wizards and sorcerers get to become less proficient than most people with simple weapons?
A trap can affect a creature without "targeting" the creature. Otherwise, how would automatic traps ever be effective? As Changed said above, that is why a DEX saving throw would be called for in case of a Mage Hand dropping a net, not an attack roll. If you as the DM want to rule that the creature under the dropped net has advantage to their saving throw b/c of positioning issues or the person wielding Mage Hand is not "above" the creature-to-be-trapped, that's fine. I'm just saying that, by RAW, this can work with enough preparation. It functions as a trap. If a flying Imp familiar were holding the frame attached to the net, it would work in a similar way (perhaps better) via the Imp's Interact with Object capability, but in both the case of Mage Hand and in the case of the Imp, it could still work because it is NOT an attack roll.
Okay, so traps have triggers. A drow, who is seen by a PC who is an ATrickster, walks beneath a net being held up by a frame+net by a Mage Hand. The PC uses bonus action to get Mage Hand to release the net. The trigger here is the visual stimulus of seeing the drow.
This is a solution that works by RAW. Now, does it make Mage Hand OP? Not really. B/c the inherent limitations to the size of the net, the frailty of the frame, and the fact that the DM is basically a super deity who can redesign encounters as they see fit means that it won't stay OP it it ever was. This only traps 1 Medium or Small sized creature. It's main utility is to capture alive particular targets in particular situations. There are WAY more effective things you could do with Mage Hand (also RAW) if your aim was to kill, not capture.
It won't be particularly effective at capturing combatants, since they will start using whatever sharp tools they have to cut their way out - most animals don't carry sharp weapons, or have the INT to know how to cut open a net.
Hit the thing and have the last blow knock out the target is the simplest (and RAW) way to capture a creature.
Exactly why it is not, by any means, OP.
It works by RAW, though. And Familiars with hands are supposed to be good for something in combat, or why base an entire subclass on having a Familiar with hands? LIke I said, it's not OP because Imps, Quasits, etc. have been around as Warlock familiars for a decade now and have not been nerfed.
On the basis that that they are allowed the freedom to interact with objects that have relevance in combat. Also note that most of the improved familiars that Chain Warlocks get have useful attack abilites, from Fear to poison effect to poison damage. It's also RAW that Warlocks can give up their own attack so that their familiars can attack instead.
Really, why are you bothering to argue about something that RAW and has never been nerfed in the 10+ years since the PHB came out. The Pact of the Chain Warlock familiars get to do cool stuff. That is why they are integral to the subclass and not just a minor feature.
Also, as I have explained there is nothing remotely OP about an occasional net-dropping. Isn't that you main concern here? That a net dropped on one Medium or Small size creature occasionally is somehow game-breaking? It's laughable how you rush to squash a creative use of Mage Hand when there are plenty of WAY more broken things people do with a feat at Level 1 through going Variant Human and picking up Sharpshooter that is already RAW.
i haven't read through the rest of the thread so this may or may not be useful :)
1) RAW, neither a familiar nor a mage hand can make an attack with a net. Using the net requires making an attack roll. Familiars can't attack.
2) If a net has been deployed as a TRAP (e.g. static placement) then it is up to the GM to adjudicate how it works. It would require some sort of spring or counter weight to apply force when the trap is sprung since (in my opinion as a DM) neither a familiar nor a mage hand has the strength to power such a trap. However, either of them is likely to be able to trigger/activate such a trap at an appropriate moment. TRAPs are clearly in the area of DM adjudication.
3) If a character is making an attack with a net then a familiar could potentially take the help action to give the character advantage on the attack roll (when combined with the usual disadvantage for either adjacent attack with a ranged weapon (use at 5') or attack at long range (use at 10') when using a net) the result would be a straight to hit roll.
Mage hand can not be used in the same way except for the level 13 arcane trickster feature.
"VERSATILE TRICKSTER
At 13th level, you gain the ability to distract targets with your mage hand. As a bonus action on your turn, you can designate a creature within 5 feet of the spectral hand created by the spell. Doing so gives you advantage on attack rolls against that creature until the end of the turn."
A level 13 arcane trickster can use a bonus action and the mage hand to give themselves advantage on the attack roll with a net (which becomes a straight roll).
However, because the level 13 arcane trickster feature specifically allows a special use of mage hand to grant them advantage, I would tend to NOT allow casters with mage hand other than the arcane trickster to use it in this way since otherwise you are essentially giving everyone the 13th level arcane trickster feature for free.
My point is that Mage Hand with proper setup to trap 1 singular creature with a net is smart gaming and clearly not broken in the first place compared to a whole slew of other options that are completely RAW to begin with.
And my point is that it's a harsh DM who punishes their players who want to play creatively, which is half the point of playing a table-top RPG instead of a compute game: you get to do creative things besides "hit with axe," "damage with spell," etc. Unless your argument is that D&D should be played as the live version of an MMORPG?
Using a frame built to accomodate a net and dropping it from above using Mage Hand is very much a trap. If somebody trips a wire and a net falls on them, it's the same principle. Thus, DEX saving throw, not an attack roll and therefore not an "attack with a net."
What makes tripping a wire so special exactly? A trap is a trap is a trap.
It is the set up to construct the entire trap which is triggered by the trip wire.
But with a trip wire, what is the point of mage hand?
As per PHB, 146:
Adventurers are not most people, but most people can use simple weapons with proficiency. Maces and other weapons are also often found in the hands of commoners alongside clubs. It's arguable that they could potentially use most simple weapons.
Anyway, while I have not used a fisherman in combat before, were there to be a fisherman who usually fishes with weighted casting nets (the type you throw), were he given a net that is thrown, would he not be proficient in throwing said net at a quipper?
I can't believe this thread is still open. It is very simple - RAW requires an attack roll to use a net to encompass it's target. RAW also states that a mage hand cannot make an attack. It isn't rocket science.
This is the RAW discussion forum, if you want to "But what if" or "How about when" you should start a thread in the homebrew discussion forum where it belongs.