D&D 5E What's up with the Net?

[Hriston]

Why do that instead of a Dex save?

You're attacking with a weapon; make an attack roll. An attack roll is usually versus AC. Are there any other mechanics in the game that are resolved by attack roll versus a saving throw? i can't think of any right now. Inventing one for this one weapon is what I mean by "messy". A save versus a static DC is unsatisfying to me because it circumvents the rules for making attacks as they apply to the net, i.e. disadvantage unless unseen, etc. It also makes the net more of an effect you impose rather than a weapon, so conceptually weird for me. I could see it being a special attack that resolves with an opposed Dex check, but again this abandons the disadvantage of the attack rules and interacts oddly with the Strength check to escape the resulting restrained condition, IMO. My solution is to keep everything the same and add a modifier to the attack to counter the target's armor. AC already takes the target's Dex into account better, afaic, than a save or a check does.

 

[Hriston]

There are plenty of situations where Dex/Heavy Armor both contributing to AC doesn't make sense.

But they don't both contribute, not at the same time anyway, unless I'm misunderstanding you. Only light armor lets dex contribute fully. On the other hand, I'd like to hear about all these situations where it doesn't make sense for armor to contribute to AC, if that's what you meant.

 

[Hriston]

[DrEvilFace] A chink in the armor of the combat rules? [/DrEvilFace]

Just give advantange to the unarmored target.

Advantage on what, their AC? The attack will already most likely be made with disadvantage.

 

[GreenTengu]

Well, yes, the system isn't a perfectly consistent reflection of reality.

There are certainly times when it seems like one would either move out of the way or one wouldn't, but it is tested against AC.

There are also cases where is seems like having heavy armor would really help you in a situation, but instead it is checked against a standard constitution check like average.

I feel the stats that armor and weapons were given in this edition and the way the skills were assigned to attributes, Dexterity already has a ridiculous advantage in the game. So I really don't see any good coming from adding additional "you'd better have high Dex or you are screwed" situations in the game.

Not unless you are willing to stat splitting Dexterity into 2 stats.

 

[Dausuul]

A save versus a static DC is unsatisfying to me because it circumvents the rules for making attacks as they apply to the net, i.e. disadvantage unless unseen, etc.

I feel like that's beyond the point where it's worth worrying about. You can't have rules for everything. Dex save vs. DC 8 + attacker's ability mod + proficiency bonus seems fine to me, simpler and cleaner than creating what amounts to a touch AC which will only be used with nets.

It also makes the net more of an effect you impose rather than a weapon, so conceptually weird for me.

But it is more of an effect rather than a weapon. It deals no damage; instead, it imposes a condition (restrained) until the target escapes.

As an alternative, you could just use the grapple rules. When you try to snare a creature with a net, you make a grapple check. If you succeed, the creature is now grappled by the net, with an escape DC of 10.

 

[dmnqwk]

You're attacking with a weapon.

A net is only a weapon because they put it in a column. Unarmed Strikes were there but got errata to change that. A net is more of a tool, than weapon. After all, a poison dart in a trap rarely rolls an attack, though dart has an entry as a weapon!

I think the net should be moved to the equipment section with the rules explaining it's use there instead of being treated as a damage-dealing weapon. Then giving it opposed rolls would be awesome.

 

[Hriston]

You could have an attack like getting caught in a net require a DEX save instead of an attack vs AC.
Just use 8+attack bonus as the DC.

This doesn't account for the disadvantage of attacking with a net unless unseen. If I went this route, I'd go for 5+attack bonus for most attacks, or 10+attack bonus if unseen and target's within 5 feet. What I also don't like about using a Dex save, however, is that there's no penalty for heavier armors.

 

[Hriston]

I would rule that you attack vs. static AC of 10. if you hit target roll dex save vs. your DC.
if your attack is a critical hit target gets no save.

This is similar to what I'm proposing without the save. In these terms, I'm resolving net attacks with an attack roll (usually with disadvantage) against an AC of 10+Dex (maximum of 2 if wearing medium armor, 0 if wearing heavy armor). If the attack hits, the target is restrained until it escapes.

 

[Hriston]

I feel the stats that armor and weapons were given in this edition and the way the skills were assigned to attributes, Dexterity already has a ridiculous advantage in the game. So I really don't see any good coming from adding additional "you'd better have high Dex or you are screwed" situations in the game.

Not what I'm proposing. AC already incorporates Dex but limits its contribution if you're wearing heavier armor. I would retain those limitations while negating the armor's contribution to AC, because I can't conceive of armor giving a benefit against a net attack. Armor in this case only represents a hindrance to movement.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This doesn't account for the disadvantage of attacking with a net unless unseen.

Obviously, if you're switching from an attack vs AC to forcing a save, advantage on the attack simply becomes disadvantage on the save, and disadvantage on the attack becomes advantage of the save.

...ok, maybe not /that/ obvious or simple.

If I went this route, I'd go for 5+attack bonus for most attacks, or 10+attack bonus if unseen and target's within 5 feet.

Sticking with the Adv/Dis mechanic would be more consistent, likewise using 8+attack bonus.

What I also don't like about using a Dex save, however, is that there's no penalty for heavier armors.

There's no penalty for them on the attack roll, either. Now, if you wanted to, you could limit DEX mod by armor type for purposes other than AC bonus, in which case /all/ DEX saves would have an issue with heavy armor... But that just makes heavy armor suck and DEX more of an uberstat.

Not what I'm proposing. AC already incorporates Dex but limits its contribution if you're wearing heavier armor. I would retain those limitations while negating the armor's contribution to AC, because I can't conceive of armor giving a benefit against a net attack. Armor in this case only represents a hindrance to movement.

That's essentially an attack vs 3.5/PF "Touch AC" or 4e "Reflex Def." 5e did away with both of those in favor of DEX saves, whether for 'simplicity' (it's actually more complicated) or to hearken back to the old-school distinction between attacks and saves (even though a save and an attack in d20 are mathematically identical, only differing in whether the attacker or defender rolls).