| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
First: "Net" is listed under "(exotic) ranged weapons." Okay, so far, so good. The rules at this point don't specify if it is a one-handed or a two-handed weapon. The "Combat" section of the CRB, under "Two Weapon Fighting" and then "Thrown Weapons" specifies that the net is a one-handed weapon, but there's a contradiction we'll discuss later on. For now, we'll leave it at this: the net is a ranged weapon with a MAXIMUM range of 10 feet (meaning, you can't throw it any farther than 10 feet away).
Second: We have the Net Adept feat, from Ultimate Combat. The Net Adapt feat says that, normally, a net is a ranged weapon that imposes a -4 penalty on ranged attack rolls if used unfolded. However, with "Net Adept" feat, a character can treat the net as a one-handed MELEE weapon with 10-foot reach, and there is no melee penalty to using an unfolded net.
Okay, so far, so good.
Then, however, things get tricky. The Net and Trident feat says that a net is normally a TWO-HANDED ranged weapon (this contradicts what the CRB says), but that with this feat you can treat a net as a one-handed RANGED weapon. This portion of the feat is - mostly - pointless. First of all, the CRB claims that you already treat the net as a one-handed ranged weapon, making this part of the feat 100% completely pointless.
If that's wrong, however, and it IS normally a two-handed ranged weapon, given the benefits of the feat "Net Adept," this portion of the feat is STILL mostly pointless.
Why? Because we already know the net has a maximum range of 10 feet, what advantage does using it as a one-handed ranged weapon give you over using it as a one-handed melee reach weapon? Even if your Ranged Attack modifier is higher than your melee attack modifier, the fact that you make touch-attacks with a net makes such a benefit minor at best. Further still, net adept takes away the penalties for MELEE attack rolls on the use of an unfolded net - meaning, they don't apply to RANGED attack rolls on the use of an unfolded net - meaning, even if your dexterity modifier was superior to your strength modifier, it'd still be superior to use the net as a melee weapon rather than a ranged weapon to avoid that unfolded penalty.
Despite all of the above, the feat COULD still be useful IF you could throw the net beyond 10 feet, but the net's description clearly states that 10-feet is a net's maximum range, so that's awash.
Add to all of this, there is an exotic two-handed MELEE weapon, the SNAG net, from the Advanced Race Guide. According to the item description, a "snag net works like a typical net exotic weapon," but again: it's listed as a two-handed melee weapon with 10-foot reach - but a typical net exotic weapon is a ranged weapon (sometimes listed as one-handed, sometimes listed as two-handed)!
Another issue: to take the "net and trident" feat, you have to take the feat Two Weapon Fighting. This is basically a feat tax. First of all, neither a trident or a net are a light weapon, meaning you'll be taking -4 to both attacks when you use them. Okay, that's a minor setback, but I can deal with that. However, with the way net-and-trident would work, you will basically never make use of TWF!
Let's say it's my turn, and I'm making a full attack. I throw my net (at 10-foot reach), entangle the opponent, five-foot step in, and make my second attack with my trident. Okay, that's all good. ... but after that point, you're no longer making any second attacks with your second weapon! You're holding onto the trailing rope, but you're only making one attack with your one weapon, which means you don't take TWF penalties (meaning there's no benefit to taking TWF)!
As a net-and-trident character, 90% of the time you aren't getting *anything* out of TWF, because your off-hand is just sitting there holding onto the net. I *guess* you get uses out of it if you're using a snag net, but that's an addendum to the rules (Advanced Race Guide came out way after Ultimate Combat).
Finally, as far as nitpicking goes, there's a LOT that's unclear about nets. If you control the trailing rope, does the net count as an unattended weapon for the purposes of requiring sunder attempts to attack? If a net is sundered, is it destroyed or does it merely gain the "broken" condition? Can the trailing rope be attacked separately from the net? What happens if you fail your opposed strength check to prevent an enemy from moving beyond the 10-foot reach of your rope?
Most of these issues can all be solved and addressed by DM fiat, but that's a LOT of ambiguity that there really should be official rules about.
TL;DR SUMMARY:
- Various official Paizo sources declare that the net is a one-handed ranged weapon, a two-handed ranged weapon, and a two-handed melee weapon. Different items/feats/documents reflect each of these.
- The first half of the "Net and Trident" feat is largely pointless
- Requiring TWF as a pre-requisite for Net and Trident seems unfair as a net-and-trident character will rarely actually make use of TWF; she'll mostly be making only her normal, iterative attacks with one weapon
- There are numerous important points of net-use that are very unclear and that, at this point in time, all require DM fiat rulings when there should be something official
You seem to understand the net and Net Adept, so no problems there.
Net and Trident has some contradictions with the TWF section, but it otherwise works as written. All it does is gives +2 to damage and confirmation rolls against entangled opponents with any light or one-handed weapon (not just tridents).
Where do you get Sang Net as a Two-handed weapon? My copy of the ARG, and the PRD, list it merely as an exotic weapon, and specifies it works like the net (making it an exotic ranged weapon as well).
If you control the trailing rope, does the net count as an unattended weapon for the purposes of requiring sunder attempts to attack?
If you aren't holding the net it's unattended.
If a net is sundered, is it destroyed or does it merely gain the "broken" condition?
If a weapon is reduced to half hp, it gains the broken condition. If it's reduced to 0 hp the sunderer has the option of destroying it.
Can the trailing rope be attacked separately from the net?
The trailing rope is not the net, therefore it is separate from the net.
What happens if you fail your opposed strength check to prevent an enemy from moving beyond the 10-foot reach of your rope?
The opponent moves away. If the rope is too short you have no choice but to drop it. There's simply no mechanic for the opponent to drag you about by the rope.
Edit: Also, check out this post/thread.
Net and Trident has some contradictions with the TWF section, but it otherwise works as written. All it does is gives +2 to damage and confirmation rolls against entangled opponents with any light or one-handed weapon (not just tridents).
I've got the last bit, but the contradictions are important to clarify. Is it meant to normally be a two-handed weapon, or is it meant to be a one-handed weapon? This matters a LOT for people who don't take the feat but still choose to use a net, and it also matters in terms of the feat itself: was the feat designed in oversight? Did the people who wrote the feat think that a net was normally a two-handed weapon, and therefore thought they were expanding options by taking the feat, rather than not getting anything new from it?
Where do you get Sang Net as a Two-handed weapon? My copy of the ARG, and the PRD, list it merely as an exotic weapon, and specifies it works like the net (making it an exotic ranged weapon as well).
Whoops, looks like this bit is an error. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons lists it as a two-handed melee weapon.
If you control the trailing rope, does the net count as an unattended weapon for the purposes of requiring sunder attempts to attack?If you aren't holding the net it's unattended.
I feel like there could certainly be made an argument that, by holding the net attached to the rope, you are holding the net. And, if this ISN'T true, it makes nets sufficiently garbage. All it takes is one free attack at AC0, doing 5 damage, and the net is obliterated? Even if you invest a bunch of money to make your net magical, if you're using it beyond level 5 it's trivial for any character to destroy it. AND, there aren't even special rules listed about if bludgeoning or piercing weapons are exempt from damaging nets! These are more examples of things that CAN be solved by DM fiat, but that SHOULD be addressed by the text.
Can the trailing rope be attacked separately from the net?The trailing rope is not the net, therefore it is separate from the net.
Okay... so it CAN be attacked? Does it have the stats of the net, or of rope? If there's a taut rope running through a 5-foot square at waist height, shouldn't that make the square difficult terrain?
What happens if you fail your opposed strength check to prevent an enemy from moving beyond the 10-foot reach of your rope?The opponent moves away. If the rope is too short you have no choice but to drop it. There's simply no mechanic for the opponent to drag you about by the rope.
So the maximum thrown range of the net is 10 feet - what's the maximum length of the trailing rope? Is there a reason you couldn't tie an extra five feet of rope onto it? Re: there not being a mechanic for being dragged if you fail the check - why couldn't there be one? There are special rules for what happens if you fail various CMBs by 10 or more, for instance - why not have a special rule for failing opposed net-controlling strength checks?
Thanks for the link - it helps, but despite that the biggest areas from my original post remain unaddressed:
TL;DR SUMMARY:
- Various official Paizo sources declare that the net is a one-handed ranged weapon and a two-handed ranged weapon. Different items/feats/documents reflect each of these.
Again, this is still important. Seems the snag net thing was an oversight, but we still have two conflicting definitions of how ropes work. Paizo should get us an official ruling one way or the other.
- The first half of the "Net and Trident" feat is largely pointless
Again; this is 100% true if a net was already a one-handed weapon, and is all-but-inarguable even if it wasn't, due to the mechanics of wielding a net and a melee weapon simultaneously.
All of this is doubly true if the feat was drafted by the authors based on an internal misunderstanding of Pathfinder net mechanics (based on the item description it seems clear the authors believe a net is a two-handed weapon, and that they were adding an option, but in actuality they may not have added anything). If the authors were wrong about net mechanics, than the feat should be reworked or at the minimum reworded to reflect that.
Requiring TWF as a pre-requisite for Net and Trident seems unfair as a net-and-trident character will rarely actually make use of TWF; she'll mostly be making only her normal, iterative attacks with one weapon
TWF being a Net and Trident pre-req is a pointless feat tax on what is already a UP feat progression. It adds all-but-nothing to the fighting style of net-and-trident.
Now admittedly, TWF does start to add some benefit if you take the Net Trickery feat at BAB+6, because in place of attacks you can attempt to blind a foe, but a) this is at BAB+6, so why not make TWF a pre-req for Net Trickery but not Net and Trident, and b) it's still a very modest benefit - most of the time you're still making only normal, iterative attacks.
AND:
Despite all of the above, the feat COULD still be useful IF you could throw the net beyond 10 feet, but the net's description clearly states that 10-feet is a net's maximum range, so that's awash.
If you're throwing a bundled up net, why can't you throw it further than 10 feet? Surely sailors throw nets further than that all the time! They might not be very precise, but if you're throwing up a folded, bundled up net, it can get some serious distance on it before it hits the ground.
In fact, Steve, many of the points raised AFTER your post in the thread you linked (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n1zs?All-Tangled-up#24) - especially by Beldhyr - still have not been addressed.
Which means this has been an open issue known to be unclear and awkward and contradictory for almost THREE YEARS and there still hasn't been an official response... pretty disappointing =/
|
Requiring TWF as a pre-requisite for Net and Trident seems unfair as a net-and-trident character will rarely actually make use of TWF; she'll mostly be making only her normal, iterative attacks with one weapon
This isn't the first time Paizo has made a feat tax that sorta fits thematically but mechanically will be useless to the chain. See Combat Expertise.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
long stuff
A net is a Thrown Weapon which is a ranged weapon that uses one hand to throw in the core rule book. This does not make it a One-Handed melee weapon.
The author of Net and Trident probably thought the net was like a default Thrown weapon and used two hands to throw. But the only core Thrown weapons that can be thrown with one hand are dart, shuriken, bolas, javelin, net, or sling.
Net Adept feat makes it a One-Handed melee weapon.
Net and Trident gives you the bonus damage, but the first part is wasted because the author assumed it was like all other Thrown weapons.
The Snag Net is a Two-Handed melee weapon.
TL;DR
The only error you have found is the Net and Trident author assumed the Net was like a Spear and thrown with two hands and not one hand.
First of all, that's still an error and it should be addressed.
Secondly, although it's not an "error," there are still those numerous important points of net-use that are very unclear and that, at this point in time, all require DM fiat rulings when there should be something official.
There are also issues that should be discussed re: net's maximum range, the futility of TWF, and various mechanical issues (IE if you fail the opposed strength check!).
Finally, even if there's only the one error, it's clear based on the discussion there's been throughout not just this topic but also here: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n1zs?All-Tangled-up that the net rules are incredibly confusing, ambiguous, and need to be phrased better in a way that makes more sense at first glance.