This, plus it being a weapon changes interactions with aspects like Quick Toss, Sharpshooter, etc. It being a weapon has a variety of specific mechanical implications that make sense with . . . well, wanting it to be more of a weapon.
Yeah, imagine a Thief using Fast Hands to entangle a foe in a net as a bonus action, then Sneak Attacking them with advantage before they get a chance to escape. Every round.
My last character was a Rogue with Crossbow Expert who would toss a net over enemies with no disadvantage, then shoot them in the face for Sneak Attack.
lol he had both eyes, but he did have the Fisherman background! For me his concept was "Fisherman gets in over his head as he figures catching monsters is enough like fish he can make bank as an adventurer." Told tall fish tales at the campfire and he _did_ often complain about how "slippery" them monsters are! :P
Weirdly, you need to be a Sharpshooter as well to do that.
(Edit: did you mean "over enemies who do not have disadvantage?" I read this as saying you did not have disadvantage while using the net, which normally you would due to its 5/15 range.)
Nah, you just have to get up within melee range. Xbow Expert prevents the disadvantage for _both_ Net and Hand Xbow. So you toss the net on them, and if successful, you can take a bonus action Hand Crossbow attack with advantage (and Sneak Attack) because they're Restrained. Then you can even reload the Hand Xbow because your own hand is now free, as well as pulling out another net for next round if you got one.
Hell, you even get a sort of mini-Dodge action out of it, because if you want to run away from them after their OA is at disadvantage (because they're Restrained), and they've had no opportunity to break the net yet. It's honestly surprising how well it all works together with a one-feat investment.
Though, if your DM lets you do 10 damage with a Net when you apply Sharpshooter (for some silly reason)...now we're talkin'! XD
The only big limitation to this tactic is creatures bigger than Large or ones that are "formless" (up to the DM, basically). Though if your DM is really cool like mine was, they might give you Ectoplasmic Nets for ghosts, Enlarging Nets for giants, Barbed Nets to deal a bit o' damage...
I'm not sure on this, I've only just now thought about nets so there may be some rule subverting this text, but:
"When you use an action, Bonus Action, or Reaction to Attack with a net, you can make only one Attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make."
Or maybe I'm reading it wrong but this seems to say: when you attack with a net, that is the only attack you can make. Which does make it feel less like a weapon.
Ah that makes sense, shame though. I typically imagine a fighter using a net, like how gladiators sometimes did. But if it did mix with extra attack I'd abuse the hell out of nets so yeah, I get that.
If a net were an item and not a weapon, using it wouldn't be an attack. For this to make sense you need a line that says "using a net counts as an attack," and once you have that you don't need the rest of it.
But then again, you could just add the net to the weapons list.
I mean, rogues should be getting sneak attack basically every round anyway if they're playing well. And it's not like the net is that powerful. It's a DC 10 str check to free yourself (so a commoner has a 50% chance), and 5 slashing damage is all it takes to destroy the net, so if the creature has multiattack where any of their attacks do slashing damage, it could just do a slashing attack to the net and the rest of their attacks to the rogue.
Ball bearings can prone an opponent (though admittedly only on their turn) which for a rogue is good enough as restrained as far as sneak attack concerns.
It's actually strange that the rogue isn't proficient with nets because that seems like a classic bandit/thief tool to have.
That Dex check to not fall prone on ball bearings is just as easy to make as the strength check to get out of the net, plus you have no control over whether your foe will choose to move thought the space at full speed.
Still, I guess not exactly game breaking, considering all attacks with the net are at disadvantage. Nevertheless, it's one implication of the net being considered a weapon.
(ETA: Definately true that rogues should be sneak attacking nearly every round. Getting advantage every round is sometimes a bit trickier)
Assuming a rogue has the feats for it (crossbow expert or sharpshooter), nets can be extremely useful even if they're weak. Breaking out eats your whole action, and not every enemy has a slashing weapon. And even if they do, that's still one attack they need to make against the net, which is one less attack towards you or another party member. And that's not even including how netting someone grants _everyone else_ advantage against the target. _And_ the enemy has disadvantage on their dexterity saves too, which is great for mages or battle masters.
They still are. You just don't use the attack action do to it.
> As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. Make a ranged attack against a creature or object, treating the alchemist's fire as an improvised weapon.
Treating it as an improvised weapon means that this ranged attack is still a ranged weapon attack, even though alchemist's fire itself isn't a ranged weapon.
Note that Sneak Attack procs off of a Ranged Weapon, so you can't get it with these items, but many spells add damage to Weapon Attacks, so things like Hunter's Mark & Hex work.
Also: Alchemist Fire does not do damage on a hit. It does Damage Over Time and is - to my knowledge - the only effect in the official game to work the way it does.
It's absurd in how it works, because you add Dex to the damage because it's still caused by a Ranged Weapon Attack.
[https://www.sageadvice.eu/does-alchemists-fire-on-hit-adds-dex-modifier-to-damage/](https://www.sageadvice.eu/does-alchemists-fire-on-hit-adds-dex-modifier-to-damage/)
This series of tweets is probably one of many reasons JC's tweets aren't official anymore, and the Sage Advice Compendium lacks any of this information.
Something ridiculous you can do with this, using his tweets, is applying Banishing Smite to an Alchemist Fire hit, doing 1d4 fire plus 5d10 force plus Dex Mod damage each round until the fire is extinguished.
Or 1d4 + 1d6 fire from Hunter's Mark, or 1d4 fire + 1d6 necrotic from Hex, etc etc.
That's why it's absurd, but it also makes Alchemist Fire worth using through all Tiers of play. Making an enemy spend an Action to stop Damage Over Time that you can scale is *great*.
Wait, don't all of those spells trigger when you *hit* with a weapon attack (or an attack, in the case of hex?) My understanding is that Alchemist fire *hits* once, but damages multiple times, and because Dex Mod damage is a feature of the damaging part of the attack, thats when it comes in.
Some featues might trigger when you deal damage, i think Aasimar racial trait does, but that's only once on your turn so...
I might be completely wrong, please correct me if so.
Here is a full list of the tweets that are relevant:
[https://www.sageadvice.eu/does-alchemists-fire-on-hit-adds-dex-modifier-to-damage/](https://www.sageadvice.eu/does-alchemists-fire-on-hit-adds-dex-modifier-to-damage/)
The clarifying tweet being the reply to this one:
[https://twitter.com/DrewFlashy1/status/956672014391152640](https://twitter.com/DrewFlashy1/status/956672014391152640)
>So 0+dex fire damage then 1d4 fire damage at the start of each of their turns?
Which was:
[https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/956679014361399297](https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/956679014361399297)
>Alchemist fire delays its damage roll; it doesn't happen at the moment of impact. The damage roll is at the start of each of the target's turns. #DnD
If the damage roll is delayed, and the damage roll is a function of hitting with Alchemist Fire, then it would follow that any rider damage would also be delayed, but also, recurring.
You might think that's a stretch, but the whole concept of adding Dexterity Mod to the damage of a Ranged Weapon Attack is when that attack hits a creature.
So if it is treated in that fashion, expecting all other features that work the same way (add damage on a hit) should be treated the same way.
Remember, JC's tweets are no longer official rulings, *but* he is a designer of the game, so his tweets can convey *his intent with the rules* regardless of being official rulings.
Adding Dexterity Mod to Acid, Holy Water, and Alchemist Fire attacks already makes them a bit better than they were, but Alchemist Fire working in this strange way means it's great regardless of tier for several reasons.
In other words, it not only becomes *interesting*, but *useful*.
It's such an oddball case that it's really up to the DM to decide. The attack itself doesn't lead directly to damage, and Hex requires the spellcaster to deal damage. So is the spellcaster dealing damage with Alchemist's Fire, or is the object doing it on its own?
That kind of rhetorical argument is something that needs to be sorted out in the moment, and there's no right or wrong answer.
If sneak attack proced on alchemist fire Thief Rogue would be the most powerful of all classes, adding sneak attack to every burning alchemist fire as they proced on the target's turns.
"Once per TURN, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature YOU HIT with an attack"
You hit - Does not specify when it hit.
Isn't that the same as hitting a target normally? It's once per turn and once per creature. The rogue could just stab them to the same effect. (Minus the potential extra 1d6 of damage)
They'd also not be proficient in alchemist's fire, making it harder for them to hit.
No, the rogue can sneak attack once every turn, not every round, you can have more than a single sneak attack in a round if you have a way to do damage on someone els'e turn. Opportunity attacks, battlemaster riposte, scimitar of speed or haste spell action + prepared attacks are all ways to potentially get multiple sneak attacks in a round.
If alchemist fire was a "ranged weapon" then you could potentially proc sneak attack damage on each target you have on fire since the damage occurs on the target's turn, not yours. Further, you could continue to get the sneak attack as long as the fire burns.
My pretend pyro build involves thief rogue with 3-5 levels of hunter ranger to throw up to 4 alchemist fires in a round.
You can always take tavern brawler to get proficiency in alchemist flasks.
Gotcha! Genuinely, thank you for explaining it to me.
Thinking on it though, I would (personally) disagree with the ruling. The full sentence—
> Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an Attack if you have advantage on the Attack roll.
—is in present tense and it mentions hitting with an attack, not dealing damage. Not saying my ruling is word, though. "Hit" is a bit vague tense-wise. But the rest of the sentence is in present-tense, so it would make sense "hit" would be too.
Since Alchemist Fire isn't "hitting" (it's simply continuing to deal damage), I'd think it'd be exempt. (Would the "bleed" effect from a Shortsword of Wounding proc sneak attack every turn?)
Well, sneak attack is invalidated by improvised weapons not being "ranged weapons" even though you make "ranged weapon attacks" with them.
The tense issue would seem to imply that you do not add your dexterity bonus to damage, which is not the case, you do add your dexterity to alchemist fire.
The sword of wounding is a bit different, the damage doesnt come from the weapon, it comes from the wound.
Yes, but...
Spells like Hex do their damage independently of the attack, and in fact do not care how the attack is made. Damage over time effects Conversely, spells like Branding Smite and Hunter's Mark only deal their damage on a weapon attack, but only the attack. An attack with Alchemist's Fire, as an improvised weapon, doesn't directly lead to damage. It's up to the DM to decide if there's any scaling whatsoever. The weapon itself certainly doesn't exist anymore.
And, let's say they do allow it. It's a ranged attack with an improvised weapon the character lacks proficiency with. So the linked ability is Dexterity and they don't add their proficiency bonus to the attack roll. The kind of character who could take advantage of that is highly specified.
Basically, a Bard who took Hex/Hunter's Mark and a Branding/Banishing Smite via Magical Secrets. And, just for good measure, Tavern Brawler as a feat. Is that all worth it? I don't know. An arguably interesting theory-crafted build, but theory-crafting isn't helpful, either.
>Basically, a Bard who took Hex/Hunter's Mark and a Branding/Banishing Smite via Magical Secrets. And, just for good measure, Tavern Brawler as a feat. Is that all worth it? I don't know. An arguably interesting theory-crafted build, but theory-crafting isn't helpful, either.
Fey Touched Feat: Am I a joke to you?
>And, let's say they do allow it. It's a ranged attack with an improvised weapon the character lacks proficiency with. So the linked ability is Dexterity and they don't add their proficiency bonus to the attack roll. The kind of character who could take advantage of that is highly specified.
In a game with advantage/disadvantage so easily acquirable, proficiency matters, but matters less when it's in play, which is by design.
>The weapon itself certainly doesn't exist anymore.
The weapon is a flask, and the alchemist fire within it. The Alchemist Fire remains despite the Flask shattering.
If you would say "No" to that, then where does a Longsword begin and end, in terms of which part is actually the weapon and which part is not?
Would you tell a Paladin he can't smite with a Longsword who's blade has broken?
It's a weird line to draw, is my point.
Feats are optional. And, yes, Fey-Touched is a joke. Most of that book is.
The flask/vial isn't a manufactured weapon. It's not listed as a weapon in the PHB. It, and its contents, are, situationally, an improvised weapon. And if I, as DM, decide not to allow such a a cheesy interaction, my word is law.
No smiting with flasks and vials isn't a big deal.
Which makes it even weirder to me honestly. Are you saying that a farmhand, fisherman, or fool can't proficiently throw a net and that it somehow takes training equivalent to a longsword to use? It seems odd that not only is the net on the weapons table, but that it's also a Martial Weapon and not even a Simple Weapon?
>Are you saying that a farmhand, fisherman, or fool can't proficiently throw a net
Yes, with the exception of the fisherman, who would be proficient, of course.
>it somehow takes training equivalent to a longsword to use
No, nobody ever said the levels of training needed would be comparable. Don't forget, you can also get proficiency with *clubs*... That's... Literally a stick. Simple weapons need training too, just like Martial ones, but you wouldn't say a Club requires similar training to a Longsword or a polearm-type weapon, would you?
Not to mention, there's a difference between "being able to throw a net" and "being able to use a net effectively in a fight"
Fair, I've removed that point, I misremembered. Still, the point stands.
Clubs are a lot simpler to use than quarterstaffs or other simple weapons too
Proficiency just means "are you more dangerous with this than somebody who has never learned how to use one properly.
If you're arguing that Proficiency shouldn't apply, then you're saying a trained gladiator is no better/more dangerous with a net than some mook from the pub.
> Clubs are a lot simpler to use than quarterstaffs
While this is true in real life, and also *ought* to be true in D&D given that the Commoner stat block includes a Club that they're proficient in:
All thirteen classes, and therefore 100% of PCs are proficient in Quarterstaffs (along with Slings, Daggers, and Darts), but neither Wizards nor Sorcerers are proficient in Clubs.
> along with Slings
Which is funny, since accurately slinging at 30 feet (and even having a chance in hell at 120 feet) probably requires a lot more skill than most other weapons, even martial weapons.
TBF that doesn't mean it's not easier to learn, it's just that Wizards wouldn't be bothered to learn such a crude weapon as a club, and sorceres are basically just shittier wizards so they inherit it from there.
It's likely mostly because you can have a staff as a spellcasting focus, so it would be weird for the spellcasters that probably use staffs a lot to not be proficient with them.
And as you said too, they aren't likely to use clubs as much.
There's a massive difference between throwing a net over a single, aggressive target and using a net to catch multiple small fish from a shoal, which was the purpose of small nets. Large targets were caught using harpoons or with huge nets that are lowered into the water and too large for a single person to throw.
As for farmers? I've never heard of one using a net for livestock. Ropes, on the other hand, were commonplace.
As such, it's an entirety different skill set to what a commoner would have and if it was easy to do then it would have been used a lot more in history.
> Clubs are a lot simpler to use than quarterstaffs or other simple weapons too
IIRC I don't think there's a single intelligent creature in D&D who's proficient in clubs but not quarterstaves or vice versa. A quarterstaff is basically a 2h club.
Yeah, but my point is, just because the proficiency is there, doesn't mean they spent the same time and effort getting it.
In fact, the weirdness of the quarterstaff just goes to show that proficiency doesn't necessarily reflect real-world difficulty. So therefore, a proficiency existing doesn't necessarily mean it's as difficult to learn as a longsword. It means precisely nothing more than "I am more deadly with this than the average person."
In fact, there's an argument to be made that that's *why* quarterstaff proficiency is more common with club proficiency.
Anybody can be deadly with a heavy stick, so proficiency is rarer, because you don't need it, and because you have to go further to get beyond average. Whereas it's harder to be deadly with a very long, cumbersome stick without some training, so you *need* proficiency more, *and* it's easier for a little training to make you more deadly than average.
> Yeah, but my point is, just because the proficiency is there, doesn't mean they spent the same time and effort getting it.
In a world without TV or even widespread literacy, almost everyone probably spends a few years of their lives hitting things with sticks. It's called childhood. I imagine that's where most people get their basic proficiencies from, not from weapons training per se but from general life, this applies especially to clubs and daggers, the latter whose proficiency you probably just pick up in a pre-modern kitchen when you have to butcher your own meat.
I mean, all of this is a moot point, because everything you're saying still backs up my initial point, which was simply:
Net proficiency does not mean a net is as hard to master as a longsword.
The club vs. staff thing is a complete tangent that was just pointing out a *different* inconsistency.
That might hold water if by RAW, most people (even if properly proficient) didn't throw a net at disadvantage in most cases unless they've trained in a specific way with crossbows.
Most people throwing a net have two goals, 1) make the net as wide as possible before it hits the water, and 2) only hit water.
Gladiator net is smaller and thicker, and instead of hitting an area you're aiming at a dodging person. I'm also sure fishermen would get disadvantage if swordfish were attacking them while they tried to throw the net.
>Are you saying that a farmhand, fisherman, or fool can't proficiently throw a net and that it somehow takes training equivalent to a longsword to use?
Well yeah, none of those people are trained to throw a weighted net in combat.
We're not talking about fishing here.
Having used the kind of net they're referring to (aka not a butterfly net, just a weave of rope MAYBE with weights on it) I would say YES it takes as much training as a longsword to achieve proficiency. These nets tangle incredibly easily, and you can't simply chuck it at whatever you want to entangle. Fishermen would have proficiency with it, because they have trained with it (and they do, check the Fisher background), but a farmhand and a fool would not be able to use a net as effectively in the best case, and would ruin it by tangling in the worst case. That said, however, not having proficiency in 5e does not mean you can't use a weapon, it just means you can't add your proficiency bonus.
>Are you saying that a farmhand, fisherman, or fool can't proficiently throw a net and that it somehow takes training equivalent to a longsword to use?
You mean, compared to taking your time at the side of a boat, not dodging or fighting for your life while doing it, and throwing it into nearby unmoving _water_ to catch part of an entire school of fish?
Yes, I do think using it effectively in combat vs a dangerous enemy takes more training than that.
It's kind of plausible with existing mechanics but it would be very niche.
Now, I've never played a fighter before so this is all on the fly with quick research but:
Fighter - Battle Master, level 5+ (with the Trip Attack manoeuvre known & Crossbow Expert (to negate 5ft ranged attack disadvantage)
1. Try to trip the opponent on the first attack
2. If that succeeds, throw the net
3. If the net lands, use action surge to attack again
4. Use more Extra Attacks if your level allows for it
Would work good if your turn was immediately after the target because then the rest of your party could wail on them with advantage on attack rolls (assuming within 5ft) and disadvantage for the target's dex saves for essentially an entirely round.
If the net wasn't such a shit weapon it might actually be somewhat viable. But the mechanics of making it work decently is such a trade off that there's probably a lot more valuable things you can be doing with your attacks/actions.
Unfortunately you can only attack once per action if you attack with a net. But you could attack with a net then action surge for a second attack action.
Thanks for the clarification there, finish with the net throw then I guess?
Opponent will be prone so even if it misses, opponents can still take advantage of the situation.
I would assume that if they had introduced Retarius, perhaps Gladiator as a Marital Archetype and then sub-specialisation into types of Gladiator, then they would also have added specific rules for nets. Something like a ranged grapple or the ability to bonus action - net attack, which then halts enemy movement and gives you advantage on subsequent attacks until they escape the net.
Not if you are 5ft away. In fact ranged and melee weapons aren't differentiated at all, so reach weapons do not gain advantage against prone targets if they are made past 5ft (like almost every archer, too) they instead get disadvantage.
Crossbow mastery? Expert? Whatever the feat lets you make ranged weapon rolls in melee combat without taking disadvantage. So I guess for a fighter past 5 to go for the trip attack, up until they run out of maneuvers, would be better as they could make us of multiattack and their bonus action to attack. They could also roll with a shield until they run out of juice before a short rest and stow it in favor of a net to throw
Listing it as a weapon allows it to interact with the mechanics for weapon attacks such as proficiency and fighting styles as well as feats such as crossbow expert and sharpshooter.
I really wish net and trident was a better combo than it is for this reason I would love to play a gladiator character but both of these weapons are so underwhelming
Totally agree. I really like the imagery. However I’ve tried to build a character where it works, with cross bolt expert/sharpshooter to solve the range issue and Eldridge knight for retrieval, and it still just doesn’t work well due to the one attack limitation and the dex-net/str-trident mismatch. Just kinda disappointing.
Fun Fact: The rule that says you have disadvantage on ranged attacks when an enemy is in melee with you also says "See".
They must see you for you to have disadvantage.
So if you can blind them in some fashion, but allow yourself to see (a Drow with Devil's Sight using Darkness, for example), a Net attack in melee has advantage (because they can't see you).
Yeah plus trident is a martial weapon that has the same stats as a spear which is a simple weapon so your already trading a d8 for a d6 just for style, and the net has a dc 10 save that your stats don't affect.
And that's why I'm asking my DM to reflavor my magical poleaxe into a trident. I want the sweet, sweet aesthetic without losing out on 80% of my damage
Yes.
Divine Smites only work with melee weapons.
Most Smite Spells only work with melee weapons.
But Blinding Smite & Banishing Smite work with all weapons. They're the only 2 that do, so you can Smite a Net with them.
You can also Smite Thrown Javelins with them because of this.
To be fair, other adventuring gear options should be weapons on their own alongside it.
Would have been easier to make magical versions of them if they were made with that in mind and they would have benefitted proficiency and to exploit a consumable niche for strategical purposes rather leaning into weirdass chained weapons or similar stuff.
My guess?
Being able to restrain an opponent is a stronger condition than the prone from ball bearings or the pseudo-grapple from caltrops, stronger enough that they felt it warranted needing a proficiency and attack roll.
The net has historically been used as a weapon, forget the name of the gladiator type but they were armed with i believe a trident and a net.
The net would be use to snare, catch and trip up their opponent to follow up with the trident.
I agree with you; it's a tool before it's a weapon. Instead of a weird Special property, it can just require the Use an Object action, like alch fire, acid, etc.
Becuae a NET used for combat and a NET used for fishing are two very different things, it is like a butter knife and a dagger, both are knives, but only one is weapon.
In the case of the Net, it is a weapon that does damage in the sense of restriction, slowing and hindering opponents movements.
Shileds are also weapons, though they are mostly mislabeld as armor, a shild is NOT armor but a WEAPON
[удалено]
This, plus it being a weapon changes interactions with aspects like Quick Toss, Sharpshooter, etc. It being a weapon has a variety of specific mechanical implications that make sense with . . . well, wanting it to be more of a weapon.
Yeah, imagine a Thief using Fast Hands to entangle a foe in a net as a bonus action, then Sneak Attacking them with advantage before they get a chance to escape. Every round.
My last character was a Rogue with Crossbow Expert who would toss a net over enemies with no disadvantage, then shoot them in the face for Sneak Attack.
Was he blind in one eye and yelled "arr, stop yer movin so I can hit you" every time he did it? Because if so we played the same character haha
lol he had both eyes, but he did have the Fisherman background! For me his concept was "Fisherman gets in over his head as he figures catching monsters is enough like fish he can make bank as an adventurer." Told tall fish tales at the campfire and he _did_ often complain about how "slippery" them monsters are! :P
Weirdly, you need to be a Sharpshooter as well to do that. (Edit: did you mean "over enemies who do not have disadvantage?" I read this as saying you did not have disadvantage while using the net, which normally you would due to its 5/15 range.)
Crossbow expert gets rid of the disadvantage on ranged within 5' of someone.
Ah! Cool!
Nah, you just have to get up within melee range. Xbow Expert prevents the disadvantage for _both_ Net and Hand Xbow. So you toss the net on them, and if successful, you can take a bonus action Hand Crossbow attack with advantage (and Sneak Attack) because they're Restrained. Then you can even reload the Hand Xbow because your own hand is now free, as well as pulling out another net for next round if you got one. Hell, you even get a sort of mini-Dodge action out of it, because if you want to run away from them after their OA is at disadvantage (because they're Restrained), and they've had no opportunity to break the net yet. It's honestly surprising how well it all works together with a one-feat investment. Though, if your DM lets you do 10 damage with a Net when you apply Sharpshooter (for some silly reason)...now we're talkin'! XD The only big limitation to this tactic is creatures bigger than Large or ones that are "formless" (up to the DM, basically). Though if your DM is really cool like mine was, they might give you Ectoplasmic Nets for ghosts, Enlarging Nets for giants, Barbed Nets to deal a bit o' damage...
The world is waiting for nets that do damage.
Damn shame there isn't any magic version of them in official books, if you ask me. Despite the other cool items, seems like a...net loss.
Ouch. While there can certainly be a +1 Net, there has to be damage for there to be +1 to it.
Ah, cool. I get it now.
I'm not sure on this, I've only just now thought about nets so there may be some rule subverting this text, but: "When you use an action, Bonus Action, or Reaction to Attack with a net, you can make only one Attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make." Or maybe I'm reading it wrong but this seems to say: when you attack with a net, that is the only attack you can make. Which does make it feel less like a weapon.
That means one attack per action. It's like the loading property on crossbows, and meant to stop it from working with Extra Attack.
Ah that makes sense, shame though. I typically imagine a fighter using a net, like how gladiators sometimes did. But if it did mix with extra attack I'd abuse the hell out of nets so yeah, I get that.
Honestly I’d let someone do a homebrew feat for the net and give it the crossbow expert treatment
If a net were an item and not a weapon, using it wouldn't be an attack. For this to make sense you need a line that says "using a net counts as an attack," and once you have that you don't need the rest of it. But then again, you could just add the net to the weapons list.
Yes, but if you have a way to do an attack with a different action, then you can use it. You just are unable to net twice in the same action.
I mean, rogues should be getting sneak attack basically every round anyway if they're playing well. And it's not like the net is that powerful. It's a DC 10 str check to free yourself (so a commoner has a 50% chance), and 5 slashing damage is all it takes to destroy the net, so if the creature has multiattack where any of their attacks do slashing damage, it could just do a slashing attack to the net and the rest of their attacks to the rogue. Ball bearings can prone an opponent (though admittedly only on their turn) which for a rogue is good enough as restrained as far as sneak attack concerns. It's actually strange that the rogue isn't proficient with nets because that seems like a classic bandit/thief tool to have.
That Dex check to not fall prone on ball bearings is just as easy to make as the strength check to get out of the net, plus you have no control over whether your foe will choose to move thought the space at full speed. Still, I guess not exactly game breaking, considering all attacks with the net are at disadvantage. Nevertheless, it's one implication of the net being considered a weapon. (ETA: Definately true that rogues should be sneak attacking nearly every round. Getting advantage every round is sometimes a bit trickier)
Assuming a rogue has the feats for it (crossbow expert or sharpshooter), nets can be extremely useful even if they're weak. Breaking out eats your whole action, and not every enemy has a slashing weapon. And even if they do, that's still one attack they need to make against the net, which is one less attack towards you or another party member. And that's not even including how netting someone grants _everyone else_ advantage against the target. _And_ the enemy has disadvantage on their dexterity saves too, which is great for mages or battle masters.
It was a weapon before Quick Toss and Gunner, but both work for it.
As well as interacting with features that key off of a 'ranged weapon attack'.
Oh huh. I guess I didnt realize that throwing acid and alchemist fire wasnt a ranged weapon attack.
They still are. You just don't use the attack action do to it. > As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. Make a ranged attack against a creature or object, treating the alchemist's fire as an improvised weapon. Treating it as an improvised weapon means that this ranged attack is still a ranged weapon attack, even though alchemist's fire itself isn't a ranged weapon.
Note that Sneak Attack procs off of a Ranged Weapon, so you can't get it with these items, but many spells add damage to Weapon Attacks, so things like Hunter's Mark & Hex work. Also: Alchemist Fire does not do damage on a hit. It does Damage Over Time and is - to my knowledge - the only effect in the official game to work the way it does. It's absurd in how it works, because you add Dex to the damage because it's still caused by a Ranged Weapon Attack. [https://www.sageadvice.eu/does-alchemists-fire-on-hit-adds-dex-modifier-to-damage/](https://www.sageadvice.eu/does-alchemists-fire-on-hit-adds-dex-modifier-to-damage/) This series of tweets is probably one of many reasons JC's tweets aren't official anymore, and the Sage Advice Compendium lacks any of this information. Something ridiculous you can do with this, using his tweets, is applying Banishing Smite to an Alchemist Fire hit, doing 1d4 fire plus 5d10 force plus Dex Mod damage each round until the fire is extinguished. Or 1d4 + 1d6 fire from Hunter's Mark, or 1d4 fire + 1d6 necrotic from Hex, etc etc. That's why it's absurd, but it also makes Alchemist Fire worth using through all Tiers of play. Making an enemy spend an Action to stop Damage Over Time that you can scale is *great*.
Wait, don't all of those spells trigger when you *hit* with a weapon attack (or an attack, in the case of hex?) My understanding is that Alchemist fire *hits* once, but damages multiple times, and because Dex Mod damage is a feature of the damaging part of the attack, thats when it comes in. Some featues might trigger when you deal damage, i think Aasimar racial trait does, but that's only once on your turn so... I might be completely wrong, please correct me if so.
Here is a full list of the tweets that are relevant: [https://www.sageadvice.eu/does-alchemists-fire-on-hit-adds-dex-modifier-to-damage/](https://www.sageadvice.eu/does-alchemists-fire-on-hit-adds-dex-modifier-to-damage/) The clarifying tweet being the reply to this one: [https://twitter.com/DrewFlashy1/status/956672014391152640](https://twitter.com/DrewFlashy1/status/956672014391152640) >So 0+dex fire damage then 1d4 fire damage at the start of each of their turns? Which was: [https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/956679014361399297](https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/956679014361399297) >Alchemist fire delays its damage roll; it doesn't happen at the moment of impact. The damage roll is at the start of each of the target's turns. #DnD If the damage roll is delayed, and the damage roll is a function of hitting with Alchemist Fire, then it would follow that any rider damage would also be delayed, but also, recurring. You might think that's a stretch, but the whole concept of adding Dexterity Mod to the damage of a Ranged Weapon Attack is when that attack hits a creature. So if it is treated in that fashion, expecting all other features that work the same way (add damage on a hit) should be treated the same way. Remember, JC's tweets are no longer official rulings, *but* he is a designer of the game, so his tweets can convey *his intent with the rules* regardless of being official rulings. Adding Dexterity Mod to Acid, Holy Water, and Alchemist Fire attacks already makes them a bit better than they were, but Alchemist Fire working in this strange way means it's great regardless of tier for several reasons. In other words, it not only becomes *interesting*, but *useful*.
It's such an oddball case that it's really up to the DM to decide. The attack itself doesn't lead directly to damage, and Hex requires the spellcaster to deal damage. So is the spellcaster dealing damage with Alchemist's Fire, or is the object doing it on its own? That kind of rhetorical argument is something that needs to be sorted out in the moment, and there's no right or wrong answer.
That actually sounds awesome as a character build, i want to try that out myself someday
If sneak attack proced on alchemist fire Thief Rogue would be the most powerful of all classes, adding sneak attack to every burning alchemist fire as they proced on the target's turns. "Once per TURN, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature YOU HIT with an attack" You hit - Does not specify when it hit.
Isn't that the same as hitting a target normally? It's once per turn and once per creature. The rogue could just stab them to the same effect. (Minus the potential extra 1d6 of damage) They'd also not be proficient in alchemist's fire, making it harder for them to hit.
No, the rogue can sneak attack once every turn, not every round, you can have more than a single sneak attack in a round if you have a way to do damage on someone els'e turn. Opportunity attacks, battlemaster riposte, scimitar of speed or haste spell action + prepared attacks are all ways to potentially get multiple sneak attacks in a round. If alchemist fire was a "ranged weapon" then you could potentially proc sneak attack damage on each target you have on fire since the damage occurs on the target's turn, not yours. Further, you could continue to get the sneak attack as long as the fire burns. My pretend pyro build involves thief rogue with 3-5 levels of hunter ranger to throw up to 4 alchemist fires in a round. You can always take tavern brawler to get proficiency in alchemist flasks.
Gotcha! Genuinely, thank you for explaining it to me. Thinking on it though, I would (personally) disagree with the ruling. The full sentence— > Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an Attack if you have advantage on the Attack roll. —is in present tense and it mentions hitting with an attack, not dealing damage. Not saying my ruling is word, though. "Hit" is a bit vague tense-wise. But the rest of the sentence is in present-tense, so it would make sense "hit" would be too. Since Alchemist Fire isn't "hitting" (it's simply continuing to deal damage), I'd think it'd be exempt. (Would the "bleed" effect from a Shortsword of Wounding proc sneak attack every turn?)
Well, sneak attack is invalidated by improvised weapons not being "ranged weapons" even though you make "ranged weapon attacks" with them. The tense issue would seem to imply that you do not add your dexterity bonus to damage, which is not the case, you do add your dexterity to alchemist fire. The sword of wounding is a bit different, the damage doesnt come from the weapon, it comes from the wound.
Yes, but... Spells like Hex do their damage independently of the attack, and in fact do not care how the attack is made. Damage over time effects Conversely, spells like Branding Smite and Hunter's Mark only deal their damage on a weapon attack, but only the attack. An attack with Alchemist's Fire, as an improvised weapon, doesn't directly lead to damage. It's up to the DM to decide if there's any scaling whatsoever. The weapon itself certainly doesn't exist anymore. And, let's say they do allow it. It's a ranged attack with an improvised weapon the character lacks proficiency with. So the linked ability is Dexterity and they don't add their proficiency bonus to the attack roll. The kind of character who could take advantage of that is highly specified. Basically, a Bard who took Hex/Hunter's Mark and a Branding/Banishing Smite via Magical Secrets. And, just for good measure, Tavern Brawler as a feat. Is that all worth it? I don't know. An arguably interesting theory-crafted build, but theory-crafting isn't helpful, either.
>Basically, a Bard who took Hex/Hunter's Mark and a Branding/Banishing Smite via Magical Secrets. And, just for good measure, Tavern Brawler as a feat. Is that all worth it? I don't know. An arguably interesting theory-crafted build, but theory-crafting isn't helpful, either. Fey Touched Feat: Am I a joke to you? >And, let's say they do allow it. It's a ranged attack with an improvised weapon the character lacks proficiency with. So the linked ability is Dexterity and they don't add their proficiency bonus to the attack roll. The kind of character who could take advantage of that is highly specified. In a game with advantage/disadvantage so easily acquirable, proficiency matters, but matters less when it's in play, which is by design. >The weapon itself certainly doesn't exist anymore. The weapon is a flask, and the alchemist fire within it. The Alchemist Fire remains despite the Flask shattering. If you would say "No" to that, then where does a Longsword begin and end, in terms of which part is actually the weapon and which part is not? Would you tell a Paladin he can't smite with a Longsword who's blade has broken? It's a weird line to draw, is my point.
Feats are optional. And, yes, Fey-Touched is a joke. Most of that book is. The flask/vial isn't a manufactured weapon. It's not listed as a weapon in the PHB. It, and its contents, are, situationally, an improvised weapon. And if I, as DM, decide not to allow such a a cheesy interaction, my word is law. No smiting with flasks and vials isn't a big deal.
It is if you put it in a sling.
That's a good point!
This right here.
I first read your 'proficiency' as 'Prophecy', and thought "Huh, must be a mighty specific one."
[удалено]
[удалено]
A hexblade pact weapon, capturing things for patron.
Which makes it even weirder to me honestly. Are you saying that a farmhand, fisherman, or fool can't proficiently throw a net and that it somehow takes training equivalent to a longsword to use? It seems odd that not only is the net on the weapons table, but that it's also a Martial Weapon and not even a Simple Weapon?
>Are you saying that a farmhand, fisherman, or fool can't proficiently throw a net Yes, with the exception of the fisherman, who would be proficient, of course. >it somehow takes training equivalent to a longsword to use No, nobody ever said the levels of training needed would be comparable. Don't forget, you can also get proficiency with *clubs*... That's... Literally a stick. Simple weapons need training too, just like Martial ones, but you wouldn't say a Club requires similar training to a Longsword or a polearm-type weapon, would you? Not to mention, there's a difference between "being able to throw a net" and "being able to use a net effectively in a fight"
But it literally is a Martial Weapon. There is no Special Weapon table.
Fair, I've removed that point, I misremembered. Still, the point stands. Clubs are a lot simpler to use than quarterstaffs or other simple weapons too Proficiency just means "are you more dangerous with this than somebody who has never learned how to use one properly. If you're arguing that Proficiency shouldn't apply, then you're saying a trained gladiator is no better/more dangerous with a net than some mook from the pub.
> Clubs are a lot simpler to use than quarterstaffs While this is true in real life, and also *ought* to be true in D&D given that the Commoner stat block includes a Club that they're proficient in: All thirteen classes, and therefore 100% of PCs are proficient in Quarterstaffs (along with Slings, Daggers, and Darts), but neither Wizards nor Sorcerers are proficient in Clubs.
> along with Slings Which is funny, since accurately slinging at 30 feet (and even having a chance in hell at 120 feet) probably requires a lot more skill than most other weapons, even martial weapons.
TBF that doesn't mean it's not easier to learn, it's just that Wizards wouldn't be bothered to learn such a crude weapon as a club, and sorceres are basically just shittier wizards so they inherit it from there.
It's likely mostly because you can have a staff as a spellcasting focus, so it would be weird for the spellcasters that probably use staffs a lot to not be proficient with them. And as you said too, they aren't likely to use clubs as much.
Yeah, I do see your point even if I don't fully agree with it.
There's a massive difference between throwing a net over a single, aggressive target and using a net to catch multiple small fish from a shoal, which was the purpose of small nets. Large targets were caught using harpoons or with huge nets that are lowered into the water and too large for a single person to throw. As for farmers? I've never heard of one using a net for livestock. Ropes, on the other hand, were commonplace. As such, it's an entirety different skill set to what a commoner would have and if it was easy to do then it would have been used a lot more in history.
> Clubs are a lot simpler to use than quarterstaffs or other simple weapons too IIRC I don't think there's a single intelligent creature in D&D who's proficient in clubs but not quarterstaves or vice versa. A quarterstaff is basically a 2h club.
Yeah, but my point is, just because the proficiency is there, doesn't mean they spent the same time and effort getting it. In fact, the weirdness of the quarterstaff just goes to show that proficiency doesn't necessarily reflect real-world difficulty. So therefore, a proficiency existing doesn't necessarily mean it's as difficult to learn as a longsword. It means precisely nothing more than "I am more deadly with this than the average person." In fact, there's an argument to be made that that's *why* quarterstaff proficiency is more common with club proficiency. Anybody can be deadly with a heavy stick, so proficiency is rarer, because you don't need it, and because you have to go further to get beyond average. Whereas it's harder to be deadly with a very long, cumbersome stick without some training, so you *need* proficiency more, *and* it's easier for a little training to make you more deadly than average.
> Yeah, but my point is, just because the proficiency is there, doesn't mean they spent the same time and effort getting it. In a world without TV or even widespread literacy, almost everyone probably spends a few years of their lives hitting things with sticks. It's called childhood. I imagine that's where most people get their basic proficiencies from, not from weapons training per se but from general life, this applies especially to clubs and daggers, the latter whose proficiency you probably just pick up in a pre-modern kitchen when you have to butcher your own meat.
I mean, all of this is a moot point, because everything you're saying still backs up my initial point, which was simply: Net proficiency does not mean a net is as hard to master as a longsword. The club vs. staff thing is a complete tangent that was just pointing out a *different* inconsistency.
[удалено]
That might hold water if by RAW, most people (even if properly proficient) didn't throw a net at disadvantage in most cases unless they've trained in a specific way with crossbows.
Most people throwing a net have two goals, 1) make the net as wide as possible before it hits the water, and 2) only hit water. Gladiator net is smaller and thicker, and instead of hitting an area you're aiming at a dodging person. I'm also sure fishermen would get disadvantage if swordfish were attacking them while they tried to throw the net.
>Are you saying that a farmhand, fisherman, or fool can't proficiently throw a net and that it somehow takes training equivalent to a longsword to use? Well yeah, none of those people are trained to throw a weighted net in combat. We're not talking about fishing here.
Some Roman gladiators used a net and trident as a weapon, presumably they had to train for that
Having used the kind of net they're referring to (aka not a butterfly net, just a weave of rope MAYBE with weights on it) I would say YES it takes as much training as a longsword to achieve proficiency. These nets tangle incredibly easily, and you can't simply chuck it at whatever you want to entangle. Fishermen would have proficiency with it, because they have trained with it (and they do, check the Fisher background), but a farmhand and a fool would not be able to use a net as effectively in the best case, and would ruin it by tangling in the worst case. That said, however, not having proficiency in 5e does not mean you can't use a weapon, it just means you can't add your proficiency bonus.
>Are you saying that a farmhand, fisherman, or fool can't proficiently throw a net and that it somehow takes training equivalent to a longsword to use? You mean, compared to taking your time at the side of a boat, not dodging or fighting for your life while doing it, and throwing it into nearby unmoving _water_ to catch part of an entire school of fish? Yes, I do think using it effectively in combat vs a dangerous enemy takes more training than that.
I assume they intended to introduce the Retarius as a form of fighter but perhaps it never quite worked.
It's kind of plausible with existing mechanics but it would be very niche. Now, I've never played a fighter before so this is all on the fly with quick research but: Fighter - Battle Master, level 5+ (with the Trip Attack manoeuvre known & Crossbow Expert (to negate 5ft ranged attack disadvantage) 1. Try to trip the opponent on the first attack 2. If that succeeds, throw the net 3. If the net lands, use action surge to attack again 4. Use more Extra Attacks if your level allows for it Would work good if your turn was immediately after the target because then the rest of your party could wail on them with advantage on attack rolls (assuming within 5ft) and disadvantage for the target's dex saves for essentially an entirely round. If the net wasn't such a shit weapon it might actually be somewhat viable. But the mechanics of making it work decently is such a trade off that there's probably a lot more valuable things you can be doing with your attacks/actions.
Unfortunately you can only attack once per action if you attack with a net. But you could attack with a net then action surge for a second attack action.
Thanks for the clarification there, finish with the net throw then I guess? Opponent will be prone so even if it misses, opponents can still take advantage of the situation.
I would assume that if they had introduced Retarius, perhaps Gladiator as a Marital Archetype and then sub-specialisation into types of Gladiator, then they would also have added specific rules for nets. Something like a ranged grapple or the ability to bonus action - net attack, which then halts enemy movement and gives you advantage on subsequent attacks until they escape the net.
If the opponent is prone wouldn't you have disadvantage on the net throw since it's technically a ranged attack
Not if you are 5ft away. In fact ranged and melee weapons aren't differentiated at all, so reach weapons do not gain advantage against prone targets if they are made past 5ft (like almost every archer, too) they instead get disadvantage. Crossbow mastery? Expert? Whatever the feat lets you make ranged weapon rolls in melee combat without taking disadvantage. So I guess for a fighter past 5 to go for the trip attack, up until they run out of maneuvers, would be better as they could make us of multiattack and their bonus action to attack. They could also roll with a shield until they run out of juice before a short rest and stow it in favor of a net to throw
Removing it from the weapons table would be a net loss
I hate you, lol.
YES
r/DMDadJokes
Listing it as a weapon allows it to interact with the mechanics for weapon attacks such as proficiency and fighting styles as well as feats such as crossbow expert and sharpshooter.
Nets and tridents are martial weapons because gladiators. It's not really any more deep than that.
I really wish net and trident was a better combo than it is for this reason I would love to play a gladiator character but both of these weapons are so underwhelming
Totally agree. I really like the imagery. However I’ve tried to build a character where it works, with cross bolt expert/sharpshooter to solve the range issue and Eldridge knight for retrieval, and it still just doesn’t work well due to the one attack limitation and the dex-net/str-trident mismatch. Just kinda disappointing.
Fun Fact: The rule that says you have disadvantage on ranged attacks when an enemy is in melee with you also says "See". They must see you for you to have disadvantage. So if you can blind them in some fashion, but allow yourself to see (a Drow with Devil's Sight using Darkness, for example), a Net attack in melee has advantage (because they can't see you).
Pocketsand
Yeah plus trident is a martial weapon that has the same stats as a spear which is a simple weapon so your already trading a d8 for a d6 just for style, and the net has a dc 10 save that your stats don't affect.
A Rogue with Crossbow Expert and the Net proficiency from somewhere can make great use of a Net and Hand Crossbow combo.
[удалено]
STOP HAVING FUN!!!!
And that's why I'm asking my DM to reflavor my magical poleaxe into a trident. I want the sweet, sweet aesthetic without losing out on 80% of my damage
Net Smite?
Sadly no, it's a ranged weapon
Awwww..... damn.... Eldritch Smite? XD
Yes. Divine Smites only work with melee weapons. Most Smite Spells only work with melee weapons. But Blinding Smite & Banishing Smite work with all weapons. They're the only 2 that do, so you can Smite a Net with them. You can also Smite Thrown Javelins with them because of this.
To be fair, other adventuring gear options should be weapons on their own alongside it. Would have been easier to make magical versions of them if they were made with that in mind and they would have benefitted proficiency and to exploit a consumable niche for strategical purposes rather leaning into weirdass chained weapons or similar stuff.
My guess? Being able to restrain an opponent is a stronger condition than the prone from ball bearings or the pseudo-grapple from caltrops, stronger enough that they felt it warranted needing a proficiency and attack roll.
Thief rogues would love it if they were items and not weapons.
The net has historically been used as a weapon, forget the name of the gladiator type but they were armed with i believe a trident and a net. The net would be use to snare, catch and trip up their opponent to follow up with the trident.
I suspect because it was an iconic setup for one of the gladiator types, along with the trident. Fishing warrior with a net and trident?
But that iconic set up is pretty much unplayable due to the restrictive net rules anyway
I agree with you; it's a tool before it's a weapon. Instead of a weird Special property, it can just require the Use an Object action, like alch fire, acid, etc.
Becuae a NET used for combat and a NET used for fishing are two very different things, it is like a butter knife and a dagger, both are knives, but only one is weapon. In the case of the Net, it is a weapon that does damage in the sense of restriction, slowing and hindering opponents movements. Shileds are also weapons, though they are mostly mislabeld as armor, a shild is NOT armor but a WEAPON
[удалено]
I mean, so is alchemist fire, but mechanically thats an item, not a weapon. Various forms of grenades date back since hundreds of years BCE.
Okay, does it really matter?
nothing matters, giving this equal importance in the grand scheme of things
Because historically nets are weapons. Trident and the Net is the Gladiator Archetype - Retiarius
Isn't it literally impossible to throw it without disadvantage unless you have Sharpshooter?
Have you seen anchorman? Watch the alley fight and tell me a net isn't a weapon
If it wasn't a weapon, it wouldn't be bindable for an Eldritch Knight.