Escaping from a NET


General Discussion (Prerelease)


An entangled creature can escape with a DC 20 Escape
Artist check (a full-round action). The net has 5 hit points
and can be burst with a DC 25 Strength check (also a fullround
action)
.

So, you can simply destroy the net by dealing onnly 5 hit points instead of succeding against Escape Artist or Strength check??? PH or Pathfinder doesnt say what weapons you are allowed to use so you can also use a greatsword?
If thats true it makes the net completly useless. Not to mention that its an exot weapon.


Yeah, nets are pretty wimpy. But if your target cuts himself free, at least you made him waste a full-round action.


It is very reasonable to say that only slashing weapons can damage a net.

It's also reasonable to say that the only natural attack that can damage a net is teeth.

So throwing a net on a soldier equipped with a spear, or a mace, means he won't cut his way out. If he has a dagger or sword on his belt, he might draw that weapon and slash at the net, but drawing that weapon is a move action and slashing the net is a full round action, so you make the guy waste two rounds.

Likewise, throwing the net on a bear means it might bite through the net, but it cannot use its claws to slice the net open.

Of course, both the bear and the soldier could try the STR check to break free, ripping the net apart with sheer muscle power.

Historically, nets were never popular on the battlefield, but they were someimes used by hunting parties to capture a man alive - multiple hunters would succeed in casting at least one net on the victim, then immediately surround him and club him senseless while he tried to get free.

They were also used with some success in gladiator events in Rome. Gladiator vs. gladiator, one armed with a barbed net, one with a spear and shield. If net-gladiator made a good cast, then spear-gladiator was really not likely to get free at all, while the net wielder was then employing grappling tactics and simply kicking and pummeling his opponent to death.


Gyftomancer wrote:
If thats true it makes the net completly useless. Not to mention that its an exot weapon.

By the way, the fact that it's an exotic weapon doesn't make it useless; it's perfectly easy to use it even with no proficiency because it only requires a ranged touch attack. Likewise for the bola.


hogarth wrote:
Yeah, nets are pretty wimpy. But if your target cuts himself free, at least you made him waste a full-round action.

But you also waste your round not because there is a possibility not to score a hit but also you have to move near him since net's max range is 10 ft


DM_Blake wrote:

It is very reasonable to say that only slashing weapons can damage a net.

It's also reasonable to say that the only natural attack that can damage a net is teeth.

Likewise, throwing the net on a bear means it might bite through the net, but it cannot use its claws to slice the net open.

Historically, nets were never popular on the battlefield

Ok using a house rule is not what i would like to hear. I was hoping that there were some eratta for this. My house rule says that youu can damage a net only by using a light weapon and even then not a rapier. But natural attacks are light weapons too. Even if they werent i believe that a beast can tear up a net not only with teeth but with claws aswell. It doesnt have nails, it has very sharp claws that can easily kill commoners.

Btw, historically many things in DnD werent popular in the BATTLEFIELD. But close combat is not like that. The net should be usefull in a combat like that (after all you spend an exotic feat). Using realism you can entagle the enemy with a net but its very difficult to cut it off. Especially with just a chop...


This net, is it tiny? Because a tiny net is a deathtrap.

He'll be rotting in the sun like a papaya while we're inside living the good life.


Gyftomancer wrote:

An entangled creature can escape with a DC 20 Escape

Artist check (a full-round action). The net has 5 hit points
and can be burst with a DC 25 Strength check (also a fullround
action)
.

So, you can simply destroy the net by dealing onnly 5 hit points instead of succeding against Escape Artist or Strength check??? PH or Pathfinder doesnt say what weapons you are allowed to use so you can also use a greatsword?
If thats true it makes the net completly useless. Not to mention that its an exot weapon.

Hmmm,

Ok, the original WoTC SRD FAQ on ropes says that it's a DC 23 to burst a SINGLE STRAND OF ROPE. A net is not a single strand. It's multiple strands. In the WoTC they suggest that if someone is trying to break a rope to escape being tied up, instead of using an escape artist check, to add the DC of breaking the rope instead of the standard +10 bonus.

So, I'd suggest it is reasonable to take this rule and apply it to nets. If you attempt to just burst the net with str, you have to add a modifier based on how well you got netted (equivelent of use rope) to the DC. Afterall, if you barely got netted, you have more leverage to break the ropes than if someone got you really well. I'd add the difference between the persons AC and the attack roll to net them to the DC to break the net (So, if the netted character has an AC of 20, and the attacker rolled a 28 to net them, the DC to break the net is 33, because the attacker did a good job of getting the net around you, so you don't have as much leverage with your arms). You could even give a +10 bonus to that if the attacker critted (He got your arms tangled up in the net at awkward angles, so you really can't put any leverage into play to burst the net).

There is a lot of difference between how much strength you have, and how much you can apply, based on how much leverage you have. For slashing it with a dagger, I'd say it would be reasonable to say you can't put more than half your str bonus into the damage, it's a light weapon, and you have poor leverage on the net. For someone with an 18 str, they can slice the net open with a dagger if they can pull it (might require a reflex save to pull the dagger while netted, if it's not already in their hands) easily in 2 rounds, or 1 if they roll high. For a sorcerer with a 10 str, it would take at least 2 rounds, maybe 3 to cut their way out.


Gyftomancer wrote:
Ok using a house rule is not what i would like to hear.

I don't blame you. Last resort for me, too.

Gyftomancer wrote:
My house rule says that youu can damage a net only by using a light weapon

So, if I have a greatsword in my hands, and that puny net wraps around me and my sword, I can't use that sword to slice the net?

I completely understand not drawing a large heavy weapon. If your longsword is in its scabbard when the net entangles you, it's hard to imagine you have 3 feet of free arm motion to draw the sword.

But it hardly seems reasonable to deny the use of sharp edged weapons that are already in hand - heck, those blades are already directly in contact with the net the moment it intangles you (unless somehow both of your arms are still free after being entangled - in which case you can probably use your free arms to slash at the net with any kind of blade).

Gyftomancer wrote:
But natural attacks are light weapons too.

Fists are natural attacks, can they tear up a net?

Gyftomancer wrote:
Even if they werent i believe that a beast can tear up a net not only with teeth but with claws aswell.

Ever owned any beasts?

I have a 120 pound dog. His claws are quite blunt, and his paws have very little strength - I can lift his leg up (like when I ask him to shake hands) and hold his leg off the ground with just one of my fingers. Between blunt claws and weak legs, I don't see him clawing through even a tiny rope.

But when I buy him rope toys for tug-of-war, I have to put them on top of the fridge or he destroys them in less than a day. Not with his paws. Nope, he holds the rope down on the ground with his paws and shreds that rope with his teeth.

I have two cats. Their claws are needle-sharp. I buy them little toys on strings, and they have been known to destroy those. Again, chewing the strings with their teeth.

In fact, when they swat at the dangling toy, if they happen to snag the string with a claw, they get stuck. Hard to retract the claw when it's stuck in a string. They shake and twist and have a hard time getting their claw unstuck from the tiny tiny string. But they can chew through it in a minute if I let them.

Gyftomancer wrote:
It doesnt have nails, it has very sharp claws that can easily kill commoners.

Ahhh, I see.

You must be thinking of me!

Yes, we tarrasques have very sharp claws, perfect for easily killing commoners, soldiers, and adventurers alike.

And still, I can bite a wooly mammoth in half with a single chomp, whereas it usually takes me at least three slashes with a claw to bring one down.

Gyftomancer wrote:
Btw, historically many things in DnD werent popular in the BATTLEFIELD.

Quite true.

Gyftomancer wrote:
But close combat is not like that.

Many organized armies usually managed to keep their soldiers in ranks and formations. At least for most of a battle.

The Romans were masters of it.

But many less-disciplined armies, and many smaller battles (like say between a pair of rival Scottish clans, or a couple dozen vikings arrayed against a few dozen villagers defending their homes) frequently dissolve into small clusters of fighting, and lots of individual battles.


So, if I have a greatsword in my hands, and that puny net wraps around me and my sword, I can't use that sword to slice the net?.

I use the same rule that DnD uses when someone is into the stomach of a monster. After all if you can use a greatesword while entagled in a net then you could use it while grappling (another situation that you can only use light weapons)

But it hardly seems reasonable to deny the use of sharp edged weapons that are already in hand - heck, those blades are already directly in contact with the net the moment it intangles you.

Same as above plaus the fact that longsword or most medival swords werent too sharp (like daggers or katana). They use to hack and slash or better say chop. mighty chops against the victim that many time used to breake his bones. The only reason i use light weapons is to avoid too much realism but still use some.

Fists are natural attacks, can they tear up a net?.

No. They cant. Not every natural attack can. But those natural attacks that can simulate sharp blades can tear up the net. Thats the universal rule afterall because its not fair for the monsters not to be able to do things that weapons can. In every rule in DnD monsters can do the same things just if they had weapons.

Ever owned any beasts?.

No. Just reading rpg books or stuff like that that improve game mechanisms. Do you own?

I have a 120 pound dog. His claws are quite blunt, and his paws have very little strength - I can lift his leg up (like when I ask him to shake hands) and hold his leg off the ground with just one of my fingers. Between blunt claws and weak legs, I don't see him clawing through even a tiny rope.

Your dog is not a beast neither a wild animal that use its claws everyday to hunt and i am pretty much sure that its not a monster (you know those things that adventurers face in DnD game). And you forget that you need rules for weapons AND natural weapons aswell. Blunt weapons cant tear up a net. Neither can fists. Light slashing weapons ca. So should the natural slashing attacks of the monsters.

As for the romans or greeks ofc who were the first in battle formations they didnt use nets in the battle but they effectivly used them while hunting or facing a single enemy. Thats why i was finding underpowered the net to be destroied with just a slash. I was talking about the simple close combats and ofc the fact that IN GAME TERMS this exotic weapon is not very usefull.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / General Discussion (Prerelease) / Escaping from a NET All Messageboards
Recent threads in General Discussion (Prerelease)
Druid / Monk?