...magic net? [Archive] - Wizards Community

...magic net? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
flyingmoose
05-01-04, 05:49 PM Okay, so I'm rolling up random magic weapons because I'm a geek and have no life. Rolling a lot of really obvious things, +1 keen daggers, +2 icy burst longswords, the usual suspects.
I managed to roll up a +1 flaming net.

...?

How would that work? The +1 would obviously add to the touch attack, but the flaming? When would it deal the damage? Would it deal the damage?
Would it be 1d6 fire per round entangled? 1d6 fire when you land the attack?
Would the +1 also add to the opposed strength to control the netted creature?

There's a whole mess of weapon abilities that according to the random tables could possibly apply to a net that don't make any freakin' sense. What good is a brilliant energy net when it's already a touch attack?

Anybody have any answers here?
Seeker95
05-01-04, 06:04 PM Sometimes, when mixing and matching various tables, the DM needs to step in and think during the creation process. :P

If it doesn't sound right, don't so it.
Vanigo
05-01-04, 06:16 PM Actually, a magic net wouldn't be too horrible an idea. It would hit more often, and it'd be harder to cut your way out of. Of course, most normal weapon enhancements don't make any sense on a net (maybe distance, but not many others), but a magical plus wouldn't hurt. Maybe even house rule that it makes escape artist checks to get out harder.

Hehehe... a returning net...
glenw77
05-01-04, 06:25 PM You actually activate weapons that flame and the like. It takes a standard action to turn them on and a standard action to shut them off. I would agree that basically, yes they damage every round they are in contact. For instance, if you laid a flaming sword on somebody yes I beleive it would deal 1d6 damage a round.

A strict interpretation may assume that it only does damage on "a successful hit" though.

Here is a dilema though. A net is a thrown weapon. Once it is on somebody, it could be considered to be part of their equipment. Just like if you took a flaming sword from somebody. By definition, a flaming weapon will not damage to the weilder. Would he being in possession of the net now be consisdered the wielder?

Flaming: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the fire energy upon their ammunition.
Moderate evocation; CL 10th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor and flame blade, flame strike, or fireball; Price +1 bonus.
flyingmoose
05-01-04, 06:37 PM Originally posted by glenw77
Once it is on somebody, it could be considered to be part of their equipment. Just like if you took a flaming sword from somebody. :uh-huh:...? No. No it wouldn't.

Originally posted by glenw77
By definition, a flaming weapon will not damage to the weilder. Would he being in possession of the net now be consisdered the wielder? Being caught in a net does not constitute "wielding it."
With that kind of logic, you could count an ooze that had engulfed you as part of your equipment.

You'd even be attending eachother.
glenw77
05-01-04, 07:07 PM haha, like how you brought that back from the other thread :)

Yeah, I'm playing devils advocate there. Just trying to look at all the angles.

The wielding argument is weak, but if you only consider wielded to be when it is in your hands, which makes absolute sense then if you are of the opinion that it is always burning when active you must shut if off before putting it at your side or it will start buring you as it becomes unweilded. You would also not be able to pick it back up without buring yourself. Unless you go by the rule that it only damages things during that actual attack role, in which case it will not damage a person every round they are in the net.

If you decide that it will continue to burn the person than unless you think there is something special about ownership and the net understanding that it is owned by the thrower, the guy in the flaming net should be able to take a standard action and deactive the net if he knew that it was a flaming net.
flyingmoose
05-01-04, 07:33 PM ...
No. A person caught in a net is not weilding it.

Read the net rules. The person holding the trailing rope is still weilding it. (3.5 PHB p119, right column)
If you were to yank that rope out of the Weilder's hands, escape from the net, and drop whatever other weapons you might've been weilding, then you could be considered the new weilder. You can't weild a net by getting entangled in it any more than you can wield a sword by having someone cut you with it.

If you care, I'm actually of the opinion that flaming/shock/etc. would be invalid on a weapon that doesn't actually deal damage.
glenw77
05-01-04, 10:25 PM Arg, looks like you caught me on a bad day Flying Moose, usually really on top of this stuff. Forgot that net had a trailing rope (actually I thought that was a different net).

Yeah, I was TOTALLY wrong. No weilding or anything, user never looses control of the net (as long as he has the rope), Not a chance.

Eh, we all make mistakes.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
flyingmoose 05-01-04, 05:49 PM	Okay, so I'm rolling up random magic weapons because I'm a geek and have no life. Rolling a lot of really obvious things, +1 keen daggers, +2 icy burst longswords, the usual suspects. I managed to roll up a +1 flaming net. ...? How would that work? The +1 would obviously add to the touch attack, but the flaming? When would it deal the damage? Would it deal the damage? Would it be 1d6 fire per round entangled? 1d6 fire when you land the attack? Would the +1 also add to the opposed strength to control the netted creature? There's a whole mess of weapon abilities that according to the random tables could possibly apply to a net that don't make any freakin' sense. What good is a brilliant energy net when it's already a touch attack? Anybody have any answers here?
Seeker95 05-01-04, 06:04 PM	Sometimes, when mixing and matching various tables, the DM needs to step in and think during the creation process. :P If it doesn't sound right, don't so it.
Vanigo 05-01-04, 06:16 PM	Actually, a magic net wouldn't be too horrible an idea. It would hit more often, and it'd be harder to cut your way out of. Of course, most normal weapon enhancements don't make any sense on a net (maybe distance, but not many others), but a magical plus wouldn't hurt. Maybe even house rule that it makes escape artist checks to get out harder. Hehehe... a returning net...
glenw77 05-01-04, 06:25 PM	You actually activate weapons that flame and the like. It takes a standard action to turn them on and a standard action to shut them off. I would agree that basically, yes they damage every round they are in contact. For instance, if you laid a flaming sword on somebody yes I beleive it would deal 1d6 damage a round. A strict interpretation may assume that it only does damage on "a successful hit" though. Here is a dilema though. A net is a thrown weapon. Once it is on somebody, it could be considered to be part of their equipment. Just like if you took a flaming sword from somebody. By definition, a flaming weapon will not damage to the weilder. Would he being in possession of the net now be consisdered the wielder? Flaming: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the fire energy upon their ammunition. Moderate evocation; CL 10th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor and flame blade, flame strike, or fireball; Price +1 bonus.
flyingmoose 05-01-04, 06:37 PM	Originally posted by glenw77 Once it is on somebody, it could be considered to be part of their equipment. Just like if you took a flaming sword from somebody. :uh-huh:...? No. No it wouldn't. Originally posted by glenw77 By definition, a flaming weapon will not damage to the weilder. Would he being in possession of the net now be consisdered the wielder? Being caught in a net does not constitute "wielding it." With that kind of logic, you could count an ooze that had engulfed you as part of your equipment. You'd even be attending eachother.
glenw77 05-01-04, 07:07 PM	haha, like how you brought that back from the other thread :) Yeah, I'm playing devils advocate there. Just trying to look at all the angles. The wielding argument is weak, but if you only consider wielded to be when it is in your hands, which makes absolute sense then if you are of the opinion that it is always burning when active you must shut if off before putting it at your side or it will start buring you as it becomes unweilded. You would also not be able to pick it back up without buring yourself. Unless you go by the rule that it only damages things during that actual attack role, in which case it will not damage a person every round they are in the net. If you decide that it will continue to burn the person than unless you think there is something special about ownership and the net understanding that it is owned by the thrower, the guy in the flaming net should be able to take a standard action and deactive the net if he knew that it was a flaming net.
flyingmoose 05-01-04, 07:33 PM	... No. A person caught in a net is not weilding it. Read the net rules. The person holding the trailing rope is still weilding it. (3.5 PHB p119, right column) If you were to yank that rope out of the Weilder's hands, escape from the net, and drop whatever other weapons you might've been weilding, then you could be considered the new weilder. You can't weild a net by getting entangled in it any more than you can wield a sword by having someone cut you with it. If you care, I'm actually of the opinion that flaming/shock/etc. would be invalid on a weapon that doesn't actually deal damage.
glenw77 05-01-04, 10:25 PM	Arg, looks like you caught me on a bad day Flying Moose, usually really on top of this stuff. Forgot that net had a trailing rope (actually I thought that was a different net). Yeah, I was TOTALLY wrong. No weilding or anything, user never looses control of the net (as long as he has the rope), Not a chance. Eh, we all make mistakes.