I really dislike that nets are no longer a weapon. While I understand some of the confusion around 0 damage, it really reduces their utility.
Nets were always a way of circumventing creatures with good saves by targeting AC. it created a choice for a class or spell "saving throw feature" or a net. it also allowed for using archery fighting style or stacking a spell effect(ensnaring strike). obviously some spells don't make sense but others become really fun tactically.
It seems like wotc isn't thinking about fixing things but rather trying to avoid issues all together.(not just nets but many parts of the game).
Also, someone pointed out that now nets work for any class even if you have never trained with one. if they were weapons, some of the mastery options could really fit well with a net.
did your tables use nets?
did you have issues resolving its game play 5e interactions?
We've used nets in other editions and game systems, but it hasn't come up in 5e at any of the tables I play at.
Mind you, the times it came up in those other games, it was only time it was used as a weapon (that I remember). 90% of the time it was used like a trap. The one time it was a direct weapon it was a pseudo-classical period set game and the character was a gladiator type, using it in a similar way to a Roman Retiarius. So, she often used it to entangle the opponent's weapon/shield, assist disarms, and extend the grappling range a little bit.
Nets in 5e have the problem that, absent crossbow expert or sharpshooter, they always had disadvantage -- either you were within 5' and had disadvantage for ranged attacks in melee, or you were more than 5' and had disadvantage for long range.
Nets in 5e have the problem that, absent crossbow expert or sharpshooter, they always had disadvantage -- either you were within 5' and had disadvantage for ranged attacks in melee, or you were more than 5' and had disadvantage for long range.
but there were builds that worked because they wanted those feats anyway........ in particular many ranger builds had the ability to use nets without extra investment. There were fighter options as well. part of the reason it worked because those classes could easily offset the downside.(archery, Advantage tricks {ambushes, gloom stalker, beast teamwork} or the feat)
Now having it as a saving throw avoids requiring the feat or tricks but its also has no way to optimize its use for higher combats. So we are still worse off. if people weren't using it before this certainly won't make them consider it.
I've been playing 5e ever since it was released, and I can't recall ever seeing a player use a net in their usual tactic. Do you see a lot of nets in your games?
I have a player that uses nets and has multiple nets for when they are inevitably cut and destroyed or the fish/flying monster disappears out of site with it
They tend to tag team with any other player character to grant advantage
Once cut up they gather the bits and ask the Spell caster to cast mend
I've been playing 5e ever since it was released, and I can't recall ever seeing a player use a net in their usual tactic. Do you see a lot of nets in your games?
I would not say its a common strategy but I see use often enough. Like i said it is at least a good strategy for targeting AC for strength based enemies. Parties that build around grapple strategies keep them as backup options.(to cost a bit of action economy to such enemies). The other times it really comes up is "Catch and release" / no kill combats.
Normally when the question arises the players turn to a ranger which was usually naturally effective with nets and builds that aren't tend to also have a different no kill option. with the new design every one can use it but no one can be good at it.
I would not say its a common strategy but I see use often enough. Like i said it is at least a good strategy for targeting AC for strength based enemies.
Honestly, AC applying against nets is pretty dumb.
Setting aside the differences between 5E nets and UA nets, lets compare the UA nets with UA Unarmed Strike.
Nets have a range of 15 ft. Unarmed Strikes have a range of 5 ft.
Nets use the attackers DEX modifier. Unarmed Strikes use the STR modifier.
Nets force a DEX save. Unarmed Strikes allow the target to choose DEX or STR.
Nets cause the restrained condition (0 speed, Attacks have Disadvantage, Incoming attacks have Advantage, Disadvantage on DEX saves). Unarmed Strikes either cause Prone (Attacks have Disadvantage, Incoming attacks have Advantage) or Grappled (0 Speed, some Attacks have Disadvantage). I would say Restrained is comparable to Grappled+Prone.
Escaping a Net is a low DC of 10 with Athletics, or damaging the net. A Grapple DC is higher, but can also be escaped by shoving/pushing the grappler.
Multiple Nets can be thrown on the same creature, requiring extra Action economy to escape.
Overall I would rate Nets as better than Unarmed Strikes, mainly due to the Restrained condition. Almost to the point that a single net is worth 2 Unarmed Strikes (Grapple + Shove Prone). I'll request in my feedback that Nets should cause less of a condition than Restrained, such as Grappled or just 0 Speed.
I really wish they'd gone the mastery/exotic weapon direction with nets rather than just de-weaponizing them.
One of my favorite characters in 4e was a dual-net wielding fighter who wore a yellow raincoat and captained a fishing boat. A weapon that specializes in control/debuffing would open up a whole new niche for fighters and could be really fun to play. Oh well, there's always homebrew...
I really wish they'd gone the mastery/exotic weapon direction with nets rather than just de-weaponizing them.
One of my favorite characters in 4e was a dual-net wielding fighter who wore a yellow raincoat and captained a fishing boat. A weapon that specializes in control/debuffing would open up a whole new niche for fighters and could be really fun to play. Oh well, there's always homebrew...
I've gotta agree there. I do think that nets needed a fix... as has been pointed out in this thread, RAW, you pretty much always have disadvantage when using them since they're a ranged weapon with a 5/15 range. On top of that, it has special rules saying you can't use extra attack... or really any feature that allows you to attack more than once per turn if you used a net on that same turn, so it's not like you could pull off cool comboes with it easily.
It would be a bit too valuable of a weapon if everyone could restrain an enemy and then hammer on them with a greatsword or, uh... a hammer. But I think keeping it as a niche, awkward-to-use weapon that becomes more versatile if you go out of your way to take mastery in it would be pretty cool. I've seen in the UA that fighters can easily swap masteries or potentially gain even more of them... but honestly, how often do you see players swapping weapon-types mid-day? For the most part people are just going to get mastery in their preferred Melee weapon and their preferred ranged weapon and then just leave it at that. So if you're going to have extra masteries floating around you might as well get the option to put them into a niche, battlefield control weapon.
I'm also in the camp of preferring to make a weapon attack rather than force a save from the enemy. Not that forcing a save doesn't make sense or anything... but for my personal fun at the table I prefer to be the one rolling instead of waiting for the DM to roll. It's an extremely minor thing... less about game balance or what makes sense, and more just my lizard brain enjoying the clacky-clacky math-rocks.
While I can sort of understand the rationale of a net no longer being classed as a weapon because it doesn't do damage, not every weapon needs to deal damage to be dangerous – the whole point of a net is it impedes the target, and makes them vulnerable to further attack.
In fact I'd actually prefer to see the opposite and see various other items become proper weapons, such as alchemist's fire (flask), bombs etc. Even if these need to be listed after the main table (because they need descriptions to fully cover them), this would make them first class citizens of the game as weapons and actually make it possible to make them viable on more characters in RAW.
For nets specifically they should be a melee weapon with range 5/15 with a new mastery "Guide" that eliminates disadvantage on long range (I'd like to see the same on darts), taking effect on hit but with the saving throw to get rid of it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I think that a saving throw for nets is more of an advantage than a disadvantage besides being thematically appropriate (armor wouldn't really help against a net, as has been mentioned). Assuming it is martial characters that would be using them primarily, their main thing is attacking against AC, and this provides them with an option they could use if fighting a high AC opponent.
Setting aside the differences between 5E nets and UA nets, lets compare the UA nets with UA Unarmed Strike.
Nets have a range of 15 ft. Unarmed Strikes have a range of 5 ft.
Nets use the attackers DEX modifier. Unarmed Strikes use the STR modifier.
Nets force a DEX save. Unarmed Strikes allow the target to choose DEX or STR.
Nets cause the restrained condition (0 speed, Attacks have Disadvantage, Incoming attacks have Advantage, Disadvantage on DEX saves). Unarmed Strikes either cause Prone (Attacks have Disadvantage, Incoming attacks have Advantage) or Grappled (0 Speed, some Attacks have Disadvantage). I would say Restrained is comparable to Grappled+Prone.
Escaping a Net is a low DC of 10 with Athletics, or damaging the net. A Grapple DC is higher, but can also be escaped by shoving/pushing the grappler.
Multiple Nets can be thrown on the same creature, requiring extra Action economy to escape.
Overall I would rate Nets as better than Unarmed Strikes, mainly due to the Restrained condition. Almost to the point that a single net is worth 2 Unarmed Strikes (Grapple + Shove Prone). I'll request in my feedback that Nets should cause less of a condition than Restrained, such as Grappled or just 0 Speed.
one thing you are forgetting is nets are essentially ammo. That means they are limited unless you have more and they have the potential to be consumed. this means they should get a little trade off just for having such weaknesses.
I would not say its a common strategy but I see use often enough. Like i said it is at least a good strategy for targeting AC for strength based enemies.
Honestly, AC applying against nets is pretty dumb.
I think the concept of AC as your ability to avoid damage works better than allowing full use of nets for untrained individuals. especially since armor training involves moving and reacting in such gear.
but the narrative explanation seems secondary (IMO) to the fact that by moving it from a weapon to equipment creates a gameplay "gap."
these are the Gaps i don't like:
less ways to deal with high saves or features like legendary resistances
no game play synergies (yes they still need to have balances) like features that happen on attacks or hits.
it undermines character concepts like rangers, bountyhunters or other trained "experts" in traps
I think that a saving throw for nets is more of an advantage than a disadvantage besides being thematically appropriate (armor wouldn't really help against a net, as has been mentioned). Assuming it is martial characters that would be using them primarily, their main thing is attacking against AC, and this provides them with an option they could use if fighting a high AC opponent.
That's a fair point, although I would say that not all AC is armour, and that's thanks to the dumbing down of all defence into AC; on lightly armoured, or even unarmoured, characters like Monks, it's more about dodging. We used to have separate armour and reflex (iirc) to handle these separately, so a net could have targeted reflex instead of armour, so could "armour piercing" weapons and so-on.
Saving throws do seem to be the "correct" way to do that in 5e, but it's not a great way IMO when everything aiming related mechanically is tied up in attack rolls vs. the target's AC.
That said, I've experimented in homebrew with the concept of "armour piercing" effects in which instead of attacking the target's AC you attack a specific AC formula, e.g- 10 + DEX for something that bypass armour entirely. Could maybe work as an alternative?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
While I can sort of understand the rationale of a net no longer being classed as a weapon because it doesn't do damage, not every weapon needs to deal damage to be dangerous – the whole point of a net is it impedes the target, and makes them vulnerable to further attack.
In fact I'd actually prefer to see the opposite and see various other items become proper weapons, such as alchemist's fire (flask), bombs etc. Even if these need to be listed after the main table (because they need descriptions to fully cover them), this would make them first class citizens of the game as weapons and actually make it possible to make them viable on more characters in RAW.
For nets specifically they should be a melee weapon with range 5/15 with a new mastery "Guide" that eliminates disadvantage on long range (I'd like to see the same on darts), taking effect on hit but with the saving throw to get rid of it.
with the changes to Fast hands(from the thief) there were indicators that they were evaluating objects. the nets change seems opposite to what they said.
it really seems like they just chose the arbitrary metric of "weapons do damage" but that seems verifiably false.
I don't know that it's quite as simple as "weapons do damage", but I'm sure that's a factor.
I think part of it is that a lot of players don't use nets simply because they don't really want to deal with them. They're aware that they're a martial weapon of some kind, but aside from having an attack roll as part of their use they don't really function as weapons. They have special rules for how they're utilized, they include AC and HP you have to keep track of, and since they're Martial Weapons they're really only useful to people who would, for the most part, rather be dishing out damage. The fact that it effectively cancels out extra attack makes it far less enticing than even something as simple as grappling an enemy, since you can use extra attack to both attempt a grapple and also still be able to attack at least once in the turn.
I don't know that it's quite as simple as "weapons do damage", but I'm sure that's a factor.
I think part of it is that a lot of players don't use nets simply because they don't really want to deal with them. They're aware that they're a martial weapon of some kind, but aside from having an attack roll as part of their use they don't really function as weapons. They have special rules for how they're utilized, they include AC and HP you have to keep track of, and since they're Martial Weapons they're really only useful to people who would, for the most part, rather be dishing out damage. The fact that it effectively cancels out extra attack makes it far less enticing than even something as simple as grappling an enemy, since you can use extra attack to both attempt a grapple and also still be able to attack at least once in the turn.
I was saying that because I will believe the reason wotc gave in the design notes. I they probably had some simplification intended especially since there was debate on how extra attacks functioned and whether it was RAI.
I do not think they actually cared how often players used it but rather assume the general principle that simplification makes it easier to use and more will consider its use. I can get behind those concepts but... the implementation feels off. I do not believe they thought through which abilities should be able to interact and which ones shouldn't.
From the change log:
The Net, which doesn’t deal damage, is now adventuring gear rather than a weapon. See“Adventuring Gear” below for the item’s playtest description.
The net should have an advantage against slow and bulky beings (heavy armor, characters with more than 75% of their carrying capacity or holding a heavy weapon) and in difficult terrain such as a very muddy place, a swamp, it could even affect more than 1 creature at a time, such as "Acid Splash"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I really dislike that nets are no longer a weapon. While I understand some of the confusion around 0 damage, it really reduces their utility.
Nets were always a way of circumventing creatures with good saves by targeting AC. it created a choice for a class or spell "saving throw feature" or a net. it also allowed for using archery fighting style or stacking a spell effect(ensnaring strike). obviously some spells don't make sense but others become really fun tactically.
It seems like wotc isn't thinking about fixing things but rather trying to avoid issues all together.(not just nets but many parts of the game).
Also, someone pointed out that now nets work for any class even if you have never trained with one. if they were weapons, some of the mastery options could really fit well with a net.
did your tables use nets?
did you have issues resolving its game play 5e interactions?
We've used nets in other editions and game systems, but it hasn't come up in 5e at any of the tables I play at.
Mind you, the times it came up in those other games, it was only time it was used as a weapon (that I remember). 90% of the time it was used like a trap. The one time it was a direct weapon it was a pseudo-classical period set game and the character was a gladiator type, using it in a similar way to a Roman Retiarius. So, she often used it to entangle the opponent's weapon/shield, assist disarms, and extend the grappling range a little bit.
Nets in 5e have the problem that, absent crossbow expert or sharpshooter, they always had disadvantage -- either you were within 5' and had disadvantage for ranged attacks in melee, or you were more than 5' and had disadvantage for long range.
but there were builds that worked because they wanted those feats anyway........ in particular many ranger builds had the ability to use nets without extra investment. There were fighter options as well. part of the reason it worked because those classes could easily offset the downside.(archery, Advantage tricks {ambushes, gloom stalker, beast teamwork} or the feat)
Now having it as a saving throw avoids requiring the feat or tricks but its also has no way to optimize its use for higher combats. So we are still worse off. if people weren't using it before this certainly won't make them consider it.
I've been playing 5e ever since it was released, and I can't recall ever seeing a player use a net in their usual tactic. Do you see a lot of nets in your games?
I have a player that uses nets and has multiple nets for when they are inevitably cut and destroyed or the fish/flying monster disappears out of site with it
They tend to tag team with any other player character to grant advantage
Once cut up they gather the bits and ask the Spell caster to cast mend
its very effective
I would not say its a common strategy but I see use often enough. Like i said it is at least a good strategy for targeting AC for strength based enemies. Parties that build around grapple strategies keep them as backup options.(to cost a bit of action economy to such enemies). The other times it really comes up is "Catch and release" / no kill combats.
Normally when the question arises the players turn to a ranger which was usually naturally effective with nets and builds that aren't tend to also have a different no kill option. with the new design every one can use it but no one can be good at it.
Honestly, AC applying against nets is pretty dumb.
Setting aside the differences between 5E nets and UA nets, lets compare the UA nets with UA Unarmed Strike.
Nets have a range of 15 ft. Unarmed Strikes have a range of 5 ft.
Nets use the attackers DEX modifier. Unarmed Strikes use the STR modifier.
Nets force a DEX save. Unarmed Strikes allow the target to choose DEX or STR.
Nets cause the restrained condition (0 speed, Attacks have Disadvantage, Incoming attacks have Advantage, Disadvantage on DEX saves). Unarmed Strikes either cause Prone (Attacks have Disadvantage, Incoming attacks have Advantage) or Grappled (0 Speed, some Attacks have Disadvantage). I would say Restrained is comparable to Grappled+Prone.
Escaping a Net is a low DC of 10 with Athletics, or damaging the net. A Grapple DC is higher, but can also be escaped by shoving/pushing the grappler.
Multiple Nets can be thrown on the same creature, requiring extra Action economy to escape.
Overall I would rate Nets as better than Unarmed Strikes, mainly due to the Restrained condition. Almost to the point that a single net is worth 2 Unarmed Strikes (Grapple + Shove Prone). I'll request in my feedback that Nets should cause less of a condition than Restrained, such as Grappled or just 0 Speed.
I really wish they'd gone the mastery/exotic weapon direction with nets rather than just de-weaponizing them.
One of my favorite characters in 4e was a dual-net wielding fighter who wore a yellow raincoat and captained a fishing boat. A weapon that specializes in control/debuffing would open up a whole new niche for fighters and could be really fun to play. Oh well, there's always homebrew...
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I've gotta agree there. I do think that nets needed a fix... as has been pointed out in this thread, RAW, you pretty much always have disadvantage when using them since they're a ranged weapon with a 5/15 range. On top of that, it has special rules saying you can't use extra attack... or really any feature that allows you to attack more than once per turn if you used a net on that same turn, so it's not like you could pull off cool comboes with it easily.
It would be a bit too valuable of a weapon if everyone could restrain an enemy and then hammer on them with a greatsword or, uh... a hammer. But I think keeping it as a niche, awkward-to-use weapon that becomes more versatile if you go out of your way to take mastery in it would be pretty cool. I've seen in the UA that fighters can easily swap masteries or potentially gain even more of them... but honestly, how often do you see players swapping weapon-types mid-day? For the most part people are just going to get mastery in their preferred Melee weapon and their preferred ranged weapon and then just leave it at that. So if you're going to have extra masteries floating around you might as well get the option to put them into a niche, battlefield control weapon.
I'm also in the camp of preferring to make a weapon attack rather than force a save from the enemy. Not that forcing a save doesn't make sense or anything... but for my personal fun at the table I prefer to be the one rolling instead of waiting for the DM to roll. It's an extremely minor thing... less about game balance or what makes sense, and more just my lizard brain enjoying the clacky-clacky math-rocks.
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
While I can sort of understand the rationale of a net no longer being classed as a weapon because it doesn't do damage, not every weapon needs to deal damage to be dangerous – the whole point of a net is it impedes the target, and makes them vulnerable to further attack.
In fact I'd actually prefer to see the opposite and see various other items become proper weapons, such as alchemist's fire (flask), bombs etc. Even if these need to be listed after the main table (because they need descriptions to fully cover them), this would make them first class citizens of the game as weapons and actually make it possible to make them viable on more characters in RAW.
For nets specifically they should be a melee weapon with range 5/15 with a new mastery "Guide" that eliminates disadvantage on long range (I'd like to see the same on darts), taking effect on hit but with the saving throw to get rid of it.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I think that a saving throw for nets is more of an advantage than a disadvantage besides being thematically appropriate (armor wouldn't really help against a net, as has been mentioned). Assuming it is martial characters that would be using them primarily, their main thing is attacking against AC, and this provides them with an option they could use if fighting a high AC opponent.
one thing you are forgetting is nets are essentially ammo. That means they are limited unless you have more and they have the potential to be consumed. this means they should get a little trade off just for having such weaknesses.
I think the concept of AC as your ability to avoid damage works better than allowing full use of nets for untrained individuals. especially since armor training involves moving and reacting in such gear.
but the narrative explanation seems secondary (IMO) to the fact that by moving it from a weapon to equipment creates a gameplay "gap."
these are the Gaps i don't like:
That's a fair point, although I would say that not all AC is armour, and that's thanks to the dumbing down of all defence into AC; on lightly armoured, or even unarmoured, characters like Monks, it's more about dodging. We used to have separate armour and reflex (iirc) to handle these separately, so a net could have targeted reflex instead of armour, so could "armour piercing" weapons and so-on.
Saving throws do seem to be the "correct" way to do that in 5e, but it's not a great way IMO when everything aiming related mechanically is tied up in attack rolls vs. the target's AC.
That said, I've experimented in homebrew with the concept of "armour piercing" effects in which instead of attacking the target's AC you attack a specific AC formula, e.g- 10 + DEX for something that bypass armour entirely. Could maybe work as an alternative?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
with the changes to Fast hands(from the thief) there were indicators that they were evaluating objects. the nets change seems opposite to what they said.
it really seems like they just chose the arbitrary metric of "weapons do damage" but that seems verifiably false.
I don't know that it's quite as simple as "weapons do damage", but I'm sure that's a factor.
I think part of it is that a lot of players don't use nets simply because they don't really want to deal with them. They're aware that they're a martial weapon of some kind, but aside from having an attack roll as part of their use they don't really function as weapons. They have special rules for how they're utilized, they include AC and HP you have to keep track of, and since they're Martial Weapons they're really only useful to people who would, for the most part, rather be dishing out damage. The fact that it effectively cancels out extra attack makes it far less enticing than even something as simple as grappling an enemy, since you can use extra attack to both attempt a grapple and also still be able to attack at least once in the turn.
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
I was saying that because I will believe the reason wotc gave in the design notes. I they probably had some simplification intended especially since there was debate on how extra attacks functioned and whether it was RAI.
I do not think they actually cared how often players used it but rather assume the general principle that simplification makes it easier to use and more will consider its use. I can get behind those concepts but... the implementation feels off. I do not believe they thought through which abilities should be able to interact and which ones shouldn't.
From the change log:
The net should have an advantage against slow and bulky beings (heavy armor, characters with more than 75% of their carrying capacity or holding a heavy weapon) and in difficult terrain such as a very muddy place, a swamp, it could even affect more than 1 creature at a time, such as "Acid Splash"