D&D 5E How would I build a Net-and-Trident Warrior?

[Tales and Chronicles]

This would be a super-simple fix for a homebrew net-and-trident user.

Agreed. I already modified the equipment tables a lot, but never had anyone at my table interested in using nets, so I let them stay where they are. Next time I work on those tables, I'll make sure to modify the nets also.

 

[Charlaquin]

? Thrown weapons count as ranged weapons, or at least throwing such a weapon is a ranged weapon attack.

A dagger (for example) is a melee weapon that can be used to make ranged weapon attacks due to the thrown property. It therefore qualifies for the first two benefits of Sharpshooter, which apply to ranged weapon attacks, but not for the third benefit, which applies to attacks with ranged weapons.

I know, it’s stupid that those are two different things and it flies in the face of “natural language,” but it is how 5e is written.

 

[Faolyn]

A dagger (for example) is a melee weapon that can be used to make ranged weapon attacks due to the thrown property. It therefore qualifies for the first two benefits of Sharpshooter, which apply to ranged weapon attacks, but not for the third benefit, which applies to attacks with ranged weapons.

I know, it’s stupid that those are two different things and it flies in the face of “natural language,” but it is how 5e is written.

Yeah, that's dumb. It can be used at range; thus, it's a ranged weapon. It's not a weapon with reach. Stoopid natural language.

 

[tommybahama]

Treantmonk did a video on this question

 

[Stormonu]

After our Saltmarsh game and the introduction of Wave, I've thrown out the standard 5E trident. I turned it into a 3d3 piercing with Thrown and Versatile (3d4) properties.

That had a side effect of making the Pitch/Military Fork a 2d3 piercing with Thrown and Versatile (2d4) properties.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

5E sucks at both nets and tridents sadly. Now, if the net could count as a grapple, now we're cooking with gas. Although then you're dealing with the hot mess that is the 5E grapple rules. I guess if you're ok navigating those choppy waters that's probably, if I were DM, how I'd handle that in terms of mechanization.

I’ve never understood what is bad about 5e grapple rules. Maybe I run them wrong or something but they’ve always been a breeze IME.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The messy bit is that essentially no creatures have the skills necessary to not get grappled into oblivion. Setting that aside, there's a lot of room for shenanigans in terms of forced movement that D&D otherwise really doesn't go in for. Anyway, the rules are just a bit of odd fit IMO.

Ah, there’s the issue. I add at least 2 proficiencies to every NPC I use, so it isn’t uncommon for combatant NPCs to have Athletics or acrobatics.

Ive never heard about any forced movement shenanigans, unless you just mean that D&D doesn't have a lot of forced movement elements in the current rules?

 

[Fenris-77]

Ah, there’s the issue. I add at least 2 proficiencies to every NPC I use, so it isn’t uncommon for combatant NPCs to have Athletics or acrobatics.

Ive never heard about any forced movement shenanigans, unless you just mean that D&D doesn't have a lot of forced movement elements in the current rules?

Partially yes, that D&D doesn't have a ton of those sorts of rules, and what there is tends to be straight line. Grappling makes it super easy to toss guys off cliffs or into areas of effect. It not as much the grapple rules themaelves in that regard but more about how I dont think they really fit into the 5E rules in general very well.

Well, and the nonsense you get woth expertise and who can make the best grapplers, which is just silly IMO. Anyway, that's my two cents.

 

[iserith]

Partially yes, that D&D doesn't have a ton of those sorts of rules, and what there is tends to be straight line. Grappling makes it super easy to toss guys off cliffs or into areas of effect. It not as much the grapple rules themaelves in that regard but more about how I dont think they really fit into the 5E rules in general very well.

Well, and the nonsense you get woth expertise and who can make the best grapplers, which is just silly IMO. Anyway, that's my two cents.

The way I interpret the Moving a Grappled Creature rules, the attacker can drag the creature to the cliff, but it takes a shove to push them off since Shoving a Creature is the rule that resolves pushing someone away from you. So that's two separate attacks to make it happen. A lot of DMs just say they're dragged off the cliff by grapple-drag-release, but I don't rule it that way. For someone with Extra Attack, they can still get it done on their turn if they succeed at both checks. For anyone else, you have to set it up on one turn and shove the next.

 

[Fenris-77]

The way I interpret the Moving a Grappled Creature rules, the attacker can drag the creature to the cliff, but it takes a shove to push them off since Shoving a Creature is the rule that resolves pushing someone away from you. So that's two separate attacks to make it happen. A lot of DMs just say they're dragged off the cliff by grapple-drag-release, but I don't rule it that way. For someone with Extra Attack, they can still get it done on their turn if they succeed at both checks. For anyone else, you have to set it up on one turn and shove the next.

That's reasonable. I wasn't suggesting that there weren't answers, only that I dislike the system because it requires a bunch of noodling to make it make sense (IMO, naturally). I feel like it could be a lot tighter and better folded into the actual combat rules.