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

[FormerlyHemlock]

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?

Not that I can think of, but Disarm from the DMG is attack roll vs. ability check, so there is precedent for heterogenous contests.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Emphasis mine: I'm not quite sure what you mean by that phrasing (it could be "I roll an attack, you roll a save" or it could be "a save instead of an attack roll"). Battlemaster maneuvers work precisely like the former; there are none precisely like the latter to my knowledge, but as noted, there is the Disarm thing, and there's also Grapple. Grapple is explicitly an Attack, albeit a "special" one, and functions in every way like an Attack (you can make a Grapple check as one of your attacks granted by the Extra Attack feature), except that it doesn't use an Attack Roll nor the target's AC, it uses an Ability Check--Strength(Athletics)--contested by the target's choice of Strength(Athletics) or Dexterity(Acrobatics). And there's some precedent for DCs involved in weapon-based save effects via the Weaponmaster's maneuver DC, although I will admit that that works as a rider on a successful attack rather than directly forcing a save.

With all those examples of situations where Attacks, made with weapons, don't have to be cashed out as Attack Rolls though, I feel like there's nothing really unusual about treating a Net as a "weapon" that forces a save in place of dealing damage. It provides a clearly different effect from most "weapons," doesn't deal damage, and is even explicitly listed as having the "Special" property, which is described as, "A weapon with the Special property has unusual rules governing its use, explained in the weapon's description (see 'Special Weapons' later in this section)." Emphasis mine: we already know that the net is going to have "unusual rules," so the game is already fully prepared for nets to do weird and wonky things that aren't like other weapons.

If it still bothers you that a special weapon with unusual rules doesn't work like other weapons, consider making the net a tool proficiency rather than a weapon proficiency. That liberates it from being shackled to the rules for how weapon attacks work, for one thing, and removes the need for the clunky "you can only make one attack using a net, even if you can make multiple attacks" rule. Just define it as an Action to use the net and you're golden--can't take the Attack and Use Net actions at the same time. Unless you blow an Action Surge for it as a Fighter, which seems like a sufficient investment on its own (and opens a precedent for the "net fighter" gladiator archetype).

 

[Warbringer]

What's up with the Net? Zombie Army DDS from 100 million smartphones ... Scary eh

 

[Hriston]

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.

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

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.

Yeah, penalty was the wrong word to use. What I meant is what you refer to here, AC limits Dex by armor type, a saving throw doesn't. Imposing such a limitation on Dex saves requires a house-rule that, if applied consistently, would have far ranging implications beyond simply applying a situational modifier to an attack roll. Of course you could say you're applying a situational modifier to the Dex save, but I can just imagine a player saying, "What d'you mean I can't use my Dex on a Dex save?"

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).

That's where it comes down to a matter of preference for me. I feel like the attacker should roll and that the net's identity as a weapon is well founded, a weapon essentially being a tool you use in battle. For a weapon "attack" to impose a save seems to put it more in the realm of a spell. For anyone who remembers the 1985 Unearthed Arcana, this is exactly how that edition dealt with the lasso, by applying a modifier to the attack roll that had a one-to-one equivalence with the defender's AC.

 

[Gabriel Pendragon]

Well by RAW a rogue can use a net to ensnare and apply sneak attack damage.

 

[Hriston]

Well by RAW a rogue can use a net to ensnare and apply sneak attack damage.

Yes, as long as the target is within 5 feet of the rogue and either can't see the rogue or is incapacitated and within 5 feet of a creature friendly to the rogue, I would definitely allow sneak attack damage with a net. I'm not sure how I would actually narrate how the damage is delivered by the net, however.

 

[dmnqwk]

For simplicity's sake, maybe the Net can simply be an opposed Grapple check? I mean it is essentially grappling a creature with it's big long netty arms *snicker*

It still constitutes "an attack" but just like a Grapple deals no damage and is merely Athletics vs Athletics/Acrobatics. Set the escape check at DC 11 to break the grapple and you have something that counts as an attack (so if a 5th level Ranger throws a net, then can still draw a weapon to use for their second attack). Would make a Net fairly useful, since it costs you an attack but can remove their entire action if successful (or if they fail to break free even more actions!).

The only thing I might consider adding to a net is that while you are under a net it is considered a hostile creature (to prevent someone firing a bow while under a net's grapple without disadvantage).

 

[Uchawi]

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

 

[Dausuul]

Well by RAW a rogue can use a net to ensnare and apply sneak attack damage.

Debatable. Sneak Attack says you deal an "extra" 1d6 (or whatever) damage. The word "extra" implies that you are dealing damage in the first place.

Also, unless you have Crossbow Expert or Sharpshooter, your attacks with a net are always at disadvantage by RAW. The net has range 5/15, so you are always either at long range (disadvantage due to range), or in melee (disadvantage due to making a ranged attack in melee). So you couldn't Sneak Attack anyhow.

 

[Hriston]

Debatable. Sneak Attack says you deal an "extra" 1d6 (or whatever) damage. The word "extra" implies that you are dealing damage in the first place.

According to a tweet from Mike Mearls, this is correct and intended, so no sneak attack with a net, which makes a lot of sense. Thank you.

Also, unless you have Crossbow Expert or Sharpshooter, your attacks with a net are always at disadvantage by RAW. The net has range 5/15, so you are always either at long range (disadvantage due to range), or in melee (disadvantage due to making a ranged attack in melee). So you couldn't Sneak Attack anyhow.

Disadvantage wouldn't apply if hostile creatures within 5 feet can't see you or are incapacitated, so if you're unseen you can get advantage on an attack with a net at short range, but not sneak attack because there's no damage to add to.