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?
The background gives a net, but no combat proficiency in it. They are very different skills. And the fact that a commoner might use a two handed axe to fell trees or chop wood, or a net to fish, or a flail to thresh wheat does not mean they are also trained in fighting with them, or that simply because they can be used as tools that therefore they are simple to be used as weapons.
So when the book says:
Most people can use simple weapons with proficiency.
-PHB, 146
How does that lead to the interpretation that most people can use simple weapons as tools, but not as weapons when the book declares that most people can "use simple weapons with proficiency"?
You say "trained to use them in combat", but where is it explicitly stated by RAW that proficiency means someone has been trained in them? In the PHB, proficiencies are defined as follows:
Your proficiencies define many of the things your character can do particularly well, from using certain weapons to telling a convincing lie.
-PHB, 11
Nothing there about training. Can you find me an excerpt from any of the books that claims that proficiency in something necessarily means you have been trained in that particular something? The only time that I can recall of a weapon proficiency being explicitly tied to training is in dwarven/elvish weapon training race features.
This is getting a bit off-track, though, I will admit. Apologies. And. indeed, perhaps a fisherman is not proficient at making attacks with a net, even against fish. That is what the background says.
I really hate to ask this question, since I know people want this thread to die but it seems appropriate to the topic.
Would Mage Hand be able to drop Alchemist's Fire on a target, creature, or object and not be consider it an attack? This came up in my last game and I ruled it as no, based on relevant points of this thread, but thought to ask the Hivemind.
DROP, imo, yes, but only if the creature doesn't know its up there.
On alchemist's fire and back to the net. IMO, I think if the target is unaware, yes...but treated as a trap, not an attack. If a character walks under a net trap, it gets trapped in the net...there's no attack throw. Similarly, if a mob unknowingly passes under a mage hand holding a net and the caster can see that, it can release the net and it just falls on them (imo). Same with an alchemist's flask, if a creature unknowingly passes under the hand, it can drop the flask and hit.
DROP, imo, yes, but only if the creature doesn't know its up there.
On alchemist's fire and back to the net. IMO, I think if the target is unaware, yes...but treated as a trap, not an attack. If a character walks under a net trap, it gets trapped in the net...there's no attack throw. Similarly, if a mob unknowingly passes under a mage hand holding a net and the caster can see that, it can release the net and it just falls on them (imo). Same with an alchemist's flask, if a creature unknowingly passes under the hand, it can drop the flask and hit.
Not RAW, just IMO.
Yeah, the alchemist's fire situation was during a combat encounter, while it was the Mage Hand from the Arcane Trickster subclass which could turn invisible there was still the possibility of seeing a floating vial. But my ruling was because the intention was used as an attack than an object interaction action.
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?
The background gives a net, but no combat proficiency in it. They are very different skills. And the fact that a commoner might use a two handed axe to fell trees or chop wood, or a net to fish, or a flail to thresh wheat does not mean they are also trained in fighting with them, or that simply because they can be used as tools that therefore they are simple to be used as weapons.
So when the book says:
Most people can use simple weapons with proficiency.
-PHB, 146
How does that lead to the interpretation that most people can use simple weapons as tools, but not as weapons when the book declares that most people can "use simple weapons with proficiency"?
You say "trained to use them in combat", but where is it explicitly stated by RAW that proficiency means someone has been trained in them? In the PHB, proficiencies are defined as follows:
Your proficiencies define many of the things your character can do particularly well, from using certain weapons to telling a convincing lie.
-PHB, 11
Nothing there about training. Can you find me an excerpt from any of the books that claims that proficiency in something necessarily means you have been trained in that particular something? The only time that I can recall of a weapon proficiency being explicitly tied to training is in dwarven/elvish weapon training race features.
This is getting a bit off-track, though, I will admit. Apologies. And. indeed, perhaps a fisherman is not proficient at making attacks with a net, even against fish. That is what the background says.
Nets are clearly defined in the rules as Martial, not as Simple. You seem to be trying to say that because peasants can use them as tools, they must be simple and therefore they must be proficient in them completely ignoring that they are not simple.
It is nothing to do with 'training' or anything of the sort. For combat purposes, they are not simple weapons. And them as tools is different from them as weapons.
A trap is not an attack roll, though. So, no, using Mage Hand to drop a Net is do-able if you can make it into a trap instead of an attack. You're clearly against players using their imagination to accomplish things since you even don't like the idea of Familiars with hands dropping alchemist fire on enemies. And if you're the DM, you can certainly run things that way. Suffice to say that I would not want to play a table where a DM is so stingy with the use of character abilities and spells such that it takes away from player agency to do things that are clearly NOT overpowered.
What about spinning? Spinning is good. Then dismiss the hand.
Could a mage hand spin a net? Sure. Could it let go of a spinning net? Sure. Could it aim the spinning net when it lets go of it? Nope. That’s what the Attack action is for, and a mage hand can’t attack.
What about spinning? Spinning is good. Then dismiss the hand.
Could a mage hand spin a net? Sure. Could it let go of a spinning net? Sure. Could it aim the spinning net when it lets go of it? Nope. That’s what the Attack action is for, and a mage hand can’t attack.
I would say that spinning a net is also too fine a work for it unless the character is an arcane trickster.
There's nothing about Mage Hand Legerdemain which even implicitly grants such capability, so that move is purely DM's fiat.
Which is fine. Your table, your rules. I just don't think it's particularly fair or defined. Is this still a ranged attack, made as a bonus action? Are you overriding the usual Dexterity modifier for attack and damage rolls with Intelligence, the spellcasting ability? With the playtest moving nets from weapons to adventuring gear, would this step on the toes of the Thief archetype and its Fast Hands feature?
Mage Hand dropping a net over a location defined by the PC before combat is not an attack just because it happens to trigger on a (potential) opponent's turn. That is a trap, not an attack. Therefore, yes, Mage Hand can be situationally useful for dropping a net on a creature.
Functionally, how is that different from dropping a sword on someone? Dropping a net that's bunched up and/or hanging down does not mean it'll spread out like a spun fishing net.
If it's a trap, how do you determine the saving throw? Fix it at 15, the same as avoiding a falling character? Apply a formula, such as 8 + Proficiency Bonus + Spellcasting Ability?
Functionally, how is that different from dropping a sword on someone? Dropping a net that's bunched up and/or hanging down does not mean it'll spread out like a spun fishing net.
Please go back and read the first page of this topic. I already covered this in Post #9 and Post #11, and likely repeated myself again on page 2 of this topic.
As for the saving throw, isn't that typically the DM's decision? It would likely depend on things like the quality of the net, the height from which it was dropped, the size of the creature under the net, etc. The DC would not be very high. Probably no more than a 10.
Functionally, how is that different from dropping a sword on someone? Dropping a net that's bunched up and/or hanging down does not mean it'll spread out like a spun fishing net.
Please go back and read the first page of this topic. I already covered this in Post #9 and Post #11, and likely repeated myself again on page 2 of this topic.
As for the saving throw, isn't that typically the DM's decision? It would likely depend on things like the quality of the net, the height from which it was dropped, the size of the creature under the net, etc. The DC would not be very high. Probably no more than a 10.
Your comment in #11 sent me back to #7; written 3.5 years ago.
Basically, your answer is, "Let's figure out a way to add no more than 7 lbs of wood to create a frame, so the net is permanently splayed open."
I question the seriousness of this discussion topic.
Functionally, how is that different from dropping a sword on someone? Dropping a net that's bunched up and/or hanging down does not mean it'll spread out like a spun fishing net.
Please go back and read the first page of this topic. I already covered this in Post #9 and Post #11, and likely repeated myself again on page 2 of this topic.
As for the saving throw, isn't that typically the DM's decision? It would likely depend on things like the quality of the net, the height from which it was dropped, the size of the creature under the net, etc. The DC would not be very high. Probably no more than a 10.
Your comment in #11 sent me back to #7; written 3.5 years ago.
Basically, your answer is, "Let's figure out a way to add no more than 7 lbs of wood to create a frame, so the net is permanently splayed open."
I question the seriousness of this discussion topic.
Since we are going back, how, exactly, does this thing target, since the caster cannot see through the hand? And if the caster is anywhere that could reasonably have similar line of sight, they might as well drop the thing themselves.
Plus you have this entire frame arrangement, which needs to be 10lbs or under, incl net, and is still guaranteed to drop flat. Oh and is somehow concealed well enough that the would be target simply does not step under it.
Functionally, how is that different from dropping a sword on someone? Dropping a net that's bunched up and/or hanging down does not mean it'll spread out like a spun fishing net.
Please go back and read the first page of this topic. I already covered this in Post #9 and Post #11, and likely repeated myself again on page 2 of this topic.
As for the saving throw, isn't that typically the DM's decision? It would likely depend on things like the quality of the net, the height from which it was dropped, the size of the creature under the net, etc. The DC would not be very high. Probably no more than a 10.
Your comment in #11 sent me back to #7; written 3.5 years ago.
Basically, your answer is, "Let's figure out a way to add no more than 7 lbs of wood to create a frame, so the net is permanently splayed open."
I question the seriousness of this discussion topic.
LOL. So D&D is no longer a creative game? Why exactly do crafting rules even exist if not to be able to come up with interesting solutions to problems, including problems of action economy?
There are plenty of ways to use wood to make a frame. Balsa wood, for example, is extraordinarily light. The clasps don't need to be iron, just copper or bronze is fine. You don't need a heavy duty frame to hold open a net that is only big enough to entrap a Medium sized creature.
Your comment in #11 sent me back to #7; written 3.5 years ago.
Basically, your answer is, "Let's figure out a way to add no more than 7 lbs of wood to create a frame, so the net is permanently splayed open."
I question the seriousness of this discussion topic.
Since we are going back, how, exactly, does this thing target, since the caster cannot see through the hand? And if the caster is anywhere that could reasonably have similar line of sight, they might as well drop the thing themselves.
Plus you have this entire frame arrangement, which needs to be 10lbs or under, incl net, and is still guaranteed to drop flat. Oh and is somehow concealed well enough that the would be target simply does not step under it.
This again? *sigh*
The wizard can easily have line of sight without having to be above the net to drop it themselves. That's what Minor Illusion and Silent Image are for.
Nobody said the net is supposed to be a guaranteed effective trap. That's why there's a save DC (which I already stated should not be very high). The great thing about being an adventurer in a magical world is that you have spells like Mending. The frame drops and breaks without catching your target? Just try again later after fixing the frame with a Mending spell. Somehow people keep forgeting that magic exists to solve a variety of problems, not just to kill or heal people.
Your comment in #11 sent me back to #7; written 3.5 years ago.
Basically, your answer is, "Let's figure out a way to add no more than 7 lbs of wood to create a frame, so the net is permanently splayed open."
I question the seriousness of this discussion topic.
Since we are going back, how, exactly, does this thing target, since the caster cannot see through the hand? And if the caster is anywhere that could reasonably have similar line of sight, they might as well drop the thing themselves.
Plus you have this entire frame arrangement, which needs to be 10lbs or under, incl net, and is still guaranteed to drop flat. Oh and is somehow concealed well enough that the would be target simply does not step under it.
This again? *sigh*
The wizard can easily have line of sight without having to be above the net to drop it themselves. That's what Minor Illusion and Silent Image are for.
Nobody said the net is supposed to be a guaranteed effective trap. That's why there's a save DC (which I already stated should not be very high). The great thing about being an adventurer in a magical world is that you have spells like Mending. The frame drops and breaks without catching your target? Just try again later after fixing the frame with a Mending spell. Somehow people keep forgeting that magic exists to solve a variety of problems, not just to kill or heal people.
Neither minor illusion nor silent image are remote sensing. To have line of sight useful for targeting, you would have to be above the hand. You need the same line of sight the hand would if you were seeing through it. The illusion you are presumably using to conceal yourself is also problematic, since you cannot see up at yourself from the ground, to make it match the terrain behind you properly from that lower vantage point. And again with all this, why not just drop it yourself?
Magic exists to solve problems but that does not mean any given spell does everything you want it to simply because you want it to. You are adding a lot of utility to a couple cantrips. Plus handwaving the physics of dropped objects. Oh and also conflating a net stretched across a rigid frame and how a net actually entraps.
Isn't this obvious? If you're using your action to control the hand, you're definitely not using your action to attack with a net. Right?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So when the book says:
How does that lead to the interpretation that most people can use simple weapons as tools, but not as weapons when the book declares that most people can "use simple weapons with proficiency"?
You say "trained to use them in combat", but where is it explicitly stated by RAW that proficiency means someone has been trained in them? In the PHB, proficiencies are defined as follows:
Nothing there about training. Can you find me an excerpt from any of the books that claims that proficiency in something necessarily means you have been trained in that particular something? The only time that I can recall of a weapon proficiency being explicitly tied to training is in dwarven/elvish weapon training race features.
This is getting a bit off-track, though, I will admit. Apologies. And. indeed, perhaps a fisherman is not proficient at making attacks with a net, even against fish. That is what the background says.
I really hate to ask this question, since I know people want this thread to die but it seems appropriate to the topic.
Would Mage Hand be able to drop Alchemist's Fire on a target, creature, or object and not be consider it an attack? This came up in my last game and I ruled it as no, based on relevant points of this thread, but thought to ask the Hivemind.
DROP, imo, yes, but only if the creature doesn't know its up there.
On alchemist's fire and back to the net. IMO, I think if the target is unaware, yes...but treated as a trap, not an attack. If a character walks under a net trap, it gets trapped in the net...there's no attack throw. Similarly, if a mob unknowingly passes under a mage hand holding a net and the caster can see that, it can release the net and it just falls on them (imo). Same with an alchemist's flask, if a creature unknowingly passes under the hand, it can drop the flask and hit.
Not RAW, just IMO.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
Yeah, the alchemist's fire situation was during a combat encounter, while it was the Mage Hand from the Arcane Trickster subclass which could turn invisible there was still the possibility of seeing a floating vial. But my ruling was because the intention was used as an attack than an object interaction action.
A trap is not an attack roll, though. So, no, using Mage Hand to drop a Net is do-able if you can make it into a trap instead of an attack. You're clearly against players using their imagination to accomplish things since you even don't like the idea of Familiars with hands dropping alchemist fire on enemies. And if you're the DM, you can certainly run things that way. Suffice to say that I would not want to play a table where a DM is so stingy with the use of character abilities and spells such that it takes away from player agency to do things that are clearly NOT overpowered.
As written, mage hand can't help in attacking with a net. But it might be able to help in removing the net.
What about spinning? Spinning is good. Then dismiss the hand.
Could a mage hand spin a net? Sure. Could it let go of a spinning net? Sure. Could it aim the spinning net when it lets go of it? Nope. That’s what the Attack action is for, and a mage hand can’t attack.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I would say that spinning a net is also too fine a work for it unless the character is an arcane trickster.
Arcane Trickster. Yup.
There's nothing about Mage Hand Legerdemain which even implicitly grants such capability, so that move is purely DM's fiat.
Which is fine. Your table, your rules. I just don't think it's particularly fair or defined. Is this still a ranged attack, made as a bonus action? Are you overriding the usual Dexterity modifier for attack and damage rolls with Intelligence, the spellcasting ability? With the playtest moving nets from weapons to adventuring gear, would this step on the toes of the Thief archetype and its Fast Hands feature?
Mage Hand dropping a net over a location defined by the PC before combat is not an attack just because it happens to trigger on a (potential) opponent's turn. That is a trap, not an attack. Therefore, yes, Mage Hand can be situationally useful for dropping a net on a creature.
Functionally, how is that different from dropping a sword on someone? Dropping a net that's bunched up and/or hanging down does not mean it'll spread out like a spun fishing net.
If it's a trap, how do you determine the saving throw? Fix it at 15, the same as avoiding a falling character? Apply a formula, such as 8 + Proficiency Bonus + Spellcasting Ability?
Please go back and read the first page of this topic. I already covered this in Post #9 and Post #11, and likely repeated myself again on page 2 of this topic.
As for the saving throw, isn't that typically the DM's decision? It would likely depend on things like the quality of the net, the height from which it was dropped, the size of the creature under the net, etc. The DC would not be very high. Probably no more than a 10.
Your comment in #11 sent me back to #7; written 3.5 years ago.
Basically, your answer is, "Let's figure out a way to add no more than 7 lbs of wood to create a frame, so the net is permanently splayed open."
I question the seriousness of this discussion topic.
Since we are going back, how, exactly, does this thing target, since the caster cannot see through the hand? And if the caster is anywhere that could reasonably have similar line of sight, they might as well drop the thing themselves.
Plus you have this entire frame arrangement, which needs to be 10lbs or under, incl net, and is still guaranteed to drop flat. Oh and is somehow concealed well enough that the would be target simply does not step under it.
LOL. So D&D is no longer a creative game? Why exactly do crafting rules even exist if not to be able to come up with interesting solutions to problems, including problems of action economy?
There are plenty of ways to use wood to make a frame. Balsa wood, for example, is extraordinarily light. The clasps don't need to be iron, just copper or bronze is fine. You don't need a heavy duty frame to hold open a net that is only big enough to entrap a Medium sized creature.
This again? *sigh*
The wizard can easily have line of sight without having to be above the net to drop it themselves. That's what Minor Illusion and Silent Image are for.
Nobody said the net is supposed to be a guaranteed effective trap. That's why there's a save DC (which I already stated should not be very high). The great thing about being an adventurer in a magical world is that you have spells like Mending. The frame drops and breaks without catching your target? Just try again later after fixing the frame with a Mending spell. Somehow people keep forgeting that magic exists to solve a variety of problems, not just to kill or heal people.
Neither minor illusion nor silent image are remote sensing. To have line of sight useful for targeting, you would have to be above the hand. You need the same line of sight the hand would if you were seeing through it. The illusion you are presumably using to conceal yourself is also problematic, since you cannot see up at yourself from the ground, to make it match the terrain behind you properly from that lower vantage point. And again with all this, why not just drop it yourself?
Magic exists to solve problems but that does not mean any given spell does everything you want it to simply because you want it to. You are adding a lot of utility to a couple cantrips. Plus handwaving the physics of dropped objects. Oh and also conflating a net stretched across a rigid frame and how a net actually entraps.
Isn't this obvious? If you're using your action to control the hand, you're definitely not using your action to attack with a net. Right?
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.