Is it a standard action to hold onto a net?

[Noumenon]

If you control the trailing rope by succeeding on an opposed Strength check while holding it, the entangled creature can move only within the limits that the rope allows. -- Net

What is this -- one check at the time you hit, a full-round action, a free action that takes both hands, or what?

Edit: also, however many actions it takes, I would like to try to invert the rule. It should take the same number of actions and checks, but it should be the entangled creature who initiates the opposed Strength check when they want to move. Just seems to analogize to what's really happening better.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I think your edit is how it's meant to work. You take no actions. The other creature tries to move and you resist with an opposed str check. Without rules making it a special action, I guess the trapped creature could do this as a move action and get two tries per round. But given what low level spells like Entangle can do, it probably wouldn't be out of line to make it a standard action.

Or just try and model it after the grapple rules for moving the grapple, but that might just complicate things more.

 

[Noumenon]

Apparently I can still give you XP even though you've disabled it... hope you don't mind.

Grapple is a good analogy. When you grapple someone to prevent them from moving, it doesn't cost you any actions to stop them -- the burden is on them to win a check. But grappling does put you in a state where you can't attack anyone else.

I'm thinking just from a usability perspective, hardly anyone will give up all their actions to hold onto a rope in case the opponent might move. But from a reality perspective, you'd need to be bracing yourself in case they did move, not holding on with just one hand to cast spells and stuff. Going back to grapple as an analogy, I'm thinking the best option would be to let you attack the person in the net, but no one else. You have that person in your power, but only as long as you focus on him. Maybe a single attack only, and one hand must stay on the rope.

 

[kitcik]

Apparently I can still give you XP even though you've disabled it... hope you don't mind.

When it says @StreamOfTheSky has disabled experience points, that just means they can park in the handicapped zone.

 

[Noumenon]

[MENTION=35909]StreamOfTheSky[/MENTION] doesn't need experience points, because [MENTION=35909]StreamOfTheSky[/MENTION] is already at Enworld Level 9000.

When it says [MENTION=35909]StreamOfTheSky[/MENTION] has disabled experience points, it means you will be disabled if you don't give him enough of them.

There is no need for [MENTION=35909]StreamOfTheSky[/MENTION] to spread some experience points around before giving them to you again. He just doesn't like you.

[MENTION=35909]StreamOfTheSky[/MENTION] could give you experience points via direct transfusion, if your heart were only strong enough to take it.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

1. I'm over 9000, actually.

2. I disabled the mentions notification

 

[Greenfield]

I'd almost be tempted to call it a Move action. Here's why:

I see no reason why a person holding a net shouldn't be able to strike at the person in the net, so long as they're using a one handed weapon.

However, attempts to move apart, by either party, would call for that opposed Strength check.

The person holding the net should, in fact, suffer a penalty equal to one half their Strength bonus if they're holding the net with one hand (presumably their off hand), since the person in the net can use their full weight and Strength.

 

[Tharkon]

Bracing when holding on to a rope is no more of an action then blocking in incoming attack with your shield, it doesn't require you to ready an action. It is assumed you do so, and the attack of opportunity mechanic takes care of situations where you are unable to do so properly.

I'd say the opposed strength check is part of any attemp the roped character makes to move and not an action in its own right. That is, the roped character could spend both move actions to keep trying.

Given that with a single full-round action they could escape the net altogether, and depending on the characters skill choices might even be a lot easier, just trying to walk while inside the net should definetely take less than a full-round action.

 

[Croesus]

I'd almost be tempted to call it a Move action. Here's why:

I see no reason why a person holding a net shouldn't be able to strike at the person in the net, so long as they're using a one handed weapon.

That sounds reasonable, since the holder is still focusing on the person trapped in the net.

However, if you rule it's only a move action to hold the rope, nothing prevents the holder from turning and striking at someone else, attempting to drink a potion, read a scroll, cast a spell, etc. - all standard actions. If someone in real life were to attempt those things, the person in the net would easily be able to disrupt their action and/or pull away, because the holder is focusing on something else.

The requirement for concentration on the net suggests that holding the rope is a standard action, but like a grapple, the holder is allowed to strike at the person in the net.

Just my two cents' - YMMV.

 

[Water Bob]

I'd almost be tempted to call it a Move action.

That was my first thought. It's a conditional Move action, with maybe a check involved. The character can still make a standard action with his feet, or maybe by holding the net with one hand and using the other to perform a standard action at a penalty DC.