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

[Tony Vargas]

You could also add an element of trained versus non-trained for exotic weapons. What I don't like about save mechanics is not treating it like an attack where the skill of the attacker comes into play.

If you set the DC to 8 + attack bonus then the save would take into account the skill of the attacker (attack bonus includes proficiency).

I see a net as an equal amount of strength and dexterity to use it correctly.

Then you could use the lower of STR mod or DEX mod to calculate the attack bonus (or DC if using a save). Sort of anti-finesse (finesse lets you use STR or DEX at your option - presumably you always choose the higher, this would force you to use the lower, so 'optimal' is equal STR & DEX).

That's actually very convincing. I honestly hadn't thought of flipping it around that way. So a Dex save, usually with advantage, against DC 8+attacker's Dex and Proficiency. Sounds good, but I still have some misgivings. 1) Some characters are proficient with Dex saves, giving them an advantage they wouldn't have against an attack roll. At higher levels this could potentially be unbalancing, no?

Yes, though at high level there are much worse things to fail your DEX save against than a Net. So it's really just a symptom of a larger issue (I won't say 'problem' because it could well be intended), that the design of saves makes you relatively more likely to fail a non-proficient save as you level up.

2) Characters in medium and heavy armor may not apply the full benefit of their Dex bonus to their AC, whereas the whole point of a Dex save is using your Dex. (Now I realize that 1 and 2 represent a somewhat even trade-off at lower levels, but again, at higher levels not so much.)

Again, that's an inconsistency with DEX saves, in general. You have a choice of inconsistencies, really. If vs AC, then armor helps when it 'realistically' shouldn't. If DEX save, then heavy armor doesn't hurt when 'realistically,' perhaps, it should.

And 3) I guess I just feel like the person making the attack should be the one to roll, because it's fun.

Sounds reasonable to me. In concept, I like the idea of the player rolling as much as possible (so rolling attacks, but rolling saves when attacked), but I've never implemented it. Mathematically, it doesn't matter who rolls the dice, the chance of success can be identical.
5e has some attacks that use attack rolls (weapons, many cantrips, some spells, claw & fang, etc) and some (spells, breath weapons, poisons, etc) that force saving throws, instead. The diving line is part tradition, part how one would defend against the attack (in particular whether it needs to overcome armor). In the case of the net, they chose the former over the latter.

 

[Gabriel Pendragon]

It also says all you have to do is hit with an attack with the latter addition of ranged or finesse weapon, it doesn't say the attack needs to do damage. Also you could poison said net if damage is required and now it does do damage on a failed save. Logically it makes plenty of sense why it could do damage, fishing hooks in the net, entangling in a manner that torques a limb in a painful way, or any other such method. The weapon is devastating when used in battle by a skilled fighter, it's also flashy, the two big reasons it was used by gladiators. Needing to take one to three feats in order to be able to use the net, and possibly a level in an off class, is quite the payment for such a thing. It also paints a huge bullseye on your head when leveling as a class with low hp gains.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Logically it makes plenty of sense why it could do damage, fishing hooks in the net, entangling in a manner that torques a limb in a painful way, or any other such method. The weapon is devastating when used in battle by a skilled fighter, it's also flashy, the two big reasons it was used by gladiators.

Using the net to do damage, by swinging the weighted ends like a flail, for instance, may not be compatible with using it to entangle (or it might). A lot more detail could have been gone into with it if they'd wanted to.
But, player could conceivably state all sorts of actions with a net - swing it for damage like a whip/flail, cast (in the sense of throw) it conventionally to entangle, try to snare just a weapon or limb - adding hooks would make it nastier, but much harder to use, especially in the conventional way - and the DM would rule as he felt appropriate at the time - and, if the player is trying to model a Retiarius, he should err on the side of cool...

 

[Gabriel Pendragon]

It's a huge risk vs reward payoff, normally some one with a net is a minor nuisance, ensnares some one, said some one cuts their way free and the net is gone and stole a single action from an enemy. It's nice, but nothing special, since to keep doing it the player will just be trading actions to mess with the tempo of battle more than anything else, it's fun and gimiky but nothing special. By the time a rogue can reliably deal damage with this weapon they are at least 4th level, if not 8th. In which they have been forgoing other power increases in order to do something cool. Most of the time it would have just been more effective shooting with a longbow or stabbing with a rapier or double tapping with hand crossbow. While I don't have problems with the gang up and murder approach to rogues, they are such a wide variety of possibilities it would be nice seeing more of them used regularly.

 

[Celtavian]

Anyone care to rationalize why it's harder to ensnare a target wearing plate with a net than it is to hit an unarmored target. Is it just me or should the net get a bonus on attack rolls against higher AC? It's not like it does any damage anyway. Your thoughts?

Same reason it's harder to hit a plate armor guy for an incorporeal creature. Their attack mechanic doesn't bother with touch ACs and flat-footed ACs even though they add verisimilitude to the game. It's something you deal with even though you know it's kind of a dumb rule that wouldn't work anything close to the same in the real world. Best not to think about it too much or you'll drive yourself nuts.

 

[Hriston]

Same reason it's harder to hit a plate armor guy for an incorporeal creature. Their attack mechanic doesn't bother with touch ACs and flat-footed ACs even though they add verisimilitude to the game. It's something you deal with even though you know it's kind of a dumb rule that wouldn't work anything close to the same in the real world. Best not to think about it too much or you'll drive yourself nuts.

Why wouldn't plate armor offer protection from the touch attacks of ghosts and banshees? That seems like a lot to assume simply because a creature has incorporeal movement.

 

[Celtavian]

Why wouldn't plate armor offer protection from the touch attacks of ghosts and banshees? That seems like a lot to assume simply because a creature has incorporeal movement.

The creature has incorporeal movement because it is incorporeal all the time. That has not changed in this edition. We all know what ghosts, wraiths, and specters are.

Because they can pass through walls and other solid objects because they're incorporeal, but somehow plate armor blocks their attack more effectively than moving out of the way. Why would an armor that relies on providing full body protection due to being covered in steel provide more protection against an attack that can pass right through it than a heavy dex character that can move out of the way? The 3E method was one of the more intelligent rules they thought up for dealing with incorporeal attacks or attacks that merely require contact with the individual to do their effect. I know they got rid of it due to the whole, "Keep things uncomplicated" mantra, but it doesn't make sense or improve verisimilitude. It's best not to think about it too much, though at some point I may write a house rule to modify it at some point. Then again undead are extremely weak in this edition and it may not be worth it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Because they can pass through walls and other solid objects because they're incorporeal, but somehow plate armor blocks their attack more effectively than moving out of the way. Why would an armor that relies on providing full body protection due to being covered in steel provide more protection against an attack that can pass right through it than a heavy dex character that can move out of the way?

I'm sure there are all sorts of possible rationalizations. Maybe iron or steel is harder to pass through than the stone or wood of walls, perhaps because the latter are more porous; maybe the metaphysical essence of armor as protection makes it effective, maybe even only because the ghost or the wearer believes it does; maybe 'phasing' works better against stationary objects than moving ones; etc...

The 3E method was one of the more intelligent rules they thought up for dealing with incorporeal attacks or attacks that merely require contact with the individual to do their effect.

It was a cool idea, but it was still a little weird because AC has always been more than a little weird. GURPS, which gave each armor separate deflection and damage-absorption statistics went further in that direction. Touch attacks were also pretty broken in 3.5, and would have shattered 5e Bounded Accuracy. Plus, Touch AC and REF Saves were prettymuch doing the same thing in mechanically inverted ways, anyhow, so it was a tad redundant.

I know they got rid of it due to the whole, "Keep things uncomplicated" mantra, but it doesn't make sense or improve verisimilitude.

If they'd really wanted to make things less complicated they wouldn't have gone back to saves, either.

It's best not to think about it too much, though at some point I may write a house rule to modify it at some point.

As suggested, above, using DEX saves (DC = 8 + attack bonus) to handle attacks that you think should bypass armor would be an obvious, not terribly complicated way to do it. At worst, you have to invert adv/dis and handle some mods differently (attack with advantage becomes force a save at disadvantage, etc).

 

[Hriston]

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.

A grapple doesn't impose the restrained condition, so this would nerf the effect of the net. Also, I don't see resolving a net attack with a strength check. It's a ranged weapon.

 

[Hriston]

The creature has incorporeal movement because it is incorporeal all the time. That has not changed in this edition. We all know what ghosts, wraiths, and specters are.

I had to consult the Monster Manual before replying to this because I thought these so-called "incorporeal" creatures might have some mechanical reality in the game beyond having incorporeal movement, but they don't. Personally, I've never seen a ghost, wraith, or spectre, so I don't have a preconceived notion of how they work that I want the rules to conform to. I have, however, seen a net, and I very much doubt that wearing plate armor would help you avoid becoming ensnared in one.

Because they can pass through walls and other solid objects because they're incorporeal, but somehow plate armor blocks their attack more effectively than moving out of the way. Why would an armor that relies on providing full body protection due to being covered in steel provide more protection against an attack that can pass right through it than a heavy dex character that can move out of the way? The 3E method was one of the more intelligent rules they thought up for dealing with incorporeal attacks or attacks that merely require contact with the individual to do their effect. I know they got rid of it due to the whole, "Keep things uncomplicated" mantra, but it doesn't make sense or improve verisimilitude. It's best not to think about it too much, though at some point I may write a house rule to modify it at some point. Then again undead are extremely weak in this edition and it may not be worth it.

If you look at incorporeal movement you'll see that it's explicitly not what you describe. Creatures with this ability treat other creatures and objects as difficult terrain. They can pass through, but it slows them down. There is resistance, and if they end their turn in the space of an object or another creature they take force damage. So obviously their ability to pass through physical objects has certain limitations, including the fact that they need to overcome armor protections to effectively attack an armored opponent.