8
\$\begingroup\$

Part of the net's "special" property states:

When you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to attack with a net, you can make only one attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make.

There are already questions here and here regarding attacks made using a net. I already understand that if you have extra attack and you attack first with a net, you get no more attacks for that action.

I am wondering what happens if you have Extra Attack and make the first attack with, say, a dagger instead, and then wish to attack with a net for the second attack. Does the phrasing of the net's property make it so that using the dagger first prevents you from using a net at all?

\$\endgroup\$
8
\$\begingroup\$

You cannot make the second attack with the net

When you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to attack with a net, you can make only one attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make.

In this case you are using an action, bonus action, or reaction to attack and even though you start with a different weapon (in this case a dagger), that same action (&c) would also be used to also attack with the net. Allowing the net attack after would cause the rule to break logically because now you would be taking an action that includes a net attack with more than one attack.

"One attack" applies to all attacks, not just the net

This is discussed at length in this Q&A, but it seems clear that "one attack" is not just limited to net attacks. The reasons this makes more sense are:

  1. It is what the rules actually say. We can try to guess and speculate that maybe they intended to say "net attack" but they didn't and the phrase "one attack" does not really have anything ambiguous about it.
  2. The limitation as interpreted the other way would be basically useless for a net used normally. Since a net is almost always thrown, the restriction would then only apply to someone who wanted to attack with multiple nets in one action. Which, seems like an incredibly specific restriction to put in there and even weirder then that they did not actually specify it enough to restrict it.
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Medix2 ah! Good point. I'll rephrase that. \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose Jul 1 at 17:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ The description of doing an attack is really too vague to give a proper judgement anyway, as it seems to read that you can only make 1 attack with the net (which makes sense given the prior text listing results), but could also be interpreted as in the answer given. \$\endgroup\$ – Journer Jul 1 at 17:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Journer Shown here it would seem to most people this is not an ambiguity \$\endgroup\$ – Medix2 Jul 1 at 17:06
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @Journer I'm pretty confident in this interpretation for a couple reasons 1) this is a literal reading of the rules. We can guess that maybe they intended to say "net attack" but they didn't and getting "one attack" does not really have anything ambiguous about it. 2) Unless I'm missing something, the limitation would be basically useless for a net. Since you most often throw a net then there wouldn't be ever any issue with attacking with another weapon only with another net, and it is extremely unlikely that they put in a restriction only for characters throwing multiple nets per action. \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose Jul 1 at 17:14
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Rubiksmoose Honestly, I think it really could be reasonably ruled either way, it is just difficult given the lack of clarification within its own description. My interpretation is that, given the statement of attack follows the statement about being Restrained until freed, it seems to be implied about the net itself, but is too vague to tell properly. \$\endgroup\$ – Journer Jul 1 at 17:20
1
\$\begingroup\$

It is difficult to give a proper answer, as the description on the net attack is too vague:

When you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to attack with a net, you can make only one attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make.

At first glance, the above would seem to indicate that if you use a net to attack, no other attack could be performed, but why state 'reaction' and 'bonus action'? To my knowledge, there is no non-magical way to make multiple attacks with a reaction or bonus action (magical being using Twinned Spell on a reaction or bonus-action spell). Further, if using a bonus action or reaction to attack with a net prevents any other attacks, this could prevent the use of the Attack action on the same turn. Then, if we look at the first sentence of the net's description:

A Large or smaller creature hit by a net is restrained until it is freed.

This would seem to indicate the net is left on the creature, which would prevent it's use in further attacks, and which is a requirement of no other weapon, as well as allowing the mention of reactions and bonus actions to make sense.

The problem here, is that if you use the whole of the net's description for context, the last sentence seems to apply only to the net weapon, but using only the last sentence seems to mean all weapons (if a net is used to attack).

Finally, because the last sentence does only say attacks, and not 'net attacks' or 'weapon attacks', it could be interpreted in either way.

I would say, given the context provided by the both the first sentence, and the description as a whole, that the last sentence is intended to refer to net attacks themselves, and that you can use other attacks alongside a net attack, if you have them available, before or after you use a net to attack.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ There is nothing vague about the description of nets. "you can make only one attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make" is pretty much as clear as it gets. \$\endgroup\$ – Joakim M. H. Jul 2 at 11:46
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @JoakimM.H. It is vague, because it does not specify 'weapon attacks', and no rule allows a Reaction nor Bonus action to prevent the use of an Action, which would be the case if you take the last sentence literally to mean that using a net prevents the use of other attacks. Further, no other weapon requires you leave it on the target, which would prevent multiple attacks with said weapon regardless, which could easily be what the last sentence means, a mechanical reinforcement of that trait. \$\endgroup\$ – Journer Jul 2 at 20:39
  • \$\begingroup\$ Don't the rules on bonus action spell casting prevent action options for certain spells? \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Jul 2 at 21:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch As I recall, the only restriction is that if you cast a spell as a bonus action, it prevents you from casting a spell with a level 1 or higher slot using your main action, only allowing cantrip spells at base level (cantrip) (assuming you want to cast more than 1 spell in that turn). I dont recall it preventing any non-magic attacks via the Attack Action. \$\endgroup\$ – Journer Jul 2 at 21:20
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ it doesn't. But it is an example of a bonus action affecting what you could do with your action, which is what you were talking about? \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Jul 2 at 21:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.