Shards of Memory OOC

[Brother Shatterstone]

Not if he doesn't shut up... Quote from him: "So...if you're a spryte you have to use a Size Tiny Morningstar? That's such crap!"

That's like 1d4 damage... It’s not that bad. Besides "spryte" are not know as a race for their unbeatable fighters.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Granted I might be stretching it a bit when it comes to sundering since a net isn't a melee weapon but a net can damage you… (PHB “Thrown Weapons” page 113)



So a fighter with 18 strength would do 4 damage with a successful hit with a net...

A 19th level rogue with strength of 12 would do 1 + 10d6 SA damage with a net on an opponent that was surprised.

Edit: So Weapon Specialization isn't a worthless feat after all.

You add your strength modifier to damage rolls. However, nets do not deal damage--they have no damage roll at all. It isn't that they deal 0 damage, its that you don't get a damage roll

 

[Rystil Arden]

That's like 1d4 damage... It’s not that bad. Besides "spryte" are not know as a race for their unbeatable fighters.

I didn't say it was bad, that was him

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

You add your strength modifier to damage rolls. However, nets do not deal damage--they have no damage roll at all. It isn't that they deal 0 damage, its that you don't get a damage roll

You’re more than welcome to go and talk to Hypersmurf about it... but that is how the RAW is written, Nets do damage if you have a strength bonus, and their is no room for common sense when it comes to the RAW...

but your more than welcome to house rule it.

 

[Rystil Arden]

You’re more than welcome to go and talk to Hypersmurf about it... but that is how the RAW is written, Nets do damage if you have a strength bonus, and their is no room for common sense when it comes to the RAW...

but your more than welcome to house rule it.

Nope--you get to add your strength bonus to the damage roll, but there is no roll to which to add it. So you do not deal damage with nets by the RAW. Its an issue of comparing a '--' to a '0' . Another example of this is with spells--if you have 0 spells of a certain level, you can still add bonus spells to it and cast them, but if you have -- spells, you just can't cast them at all

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

Nope--you get to add your strength bonus to the damage roll, but there is no roll to which to add it. So you do not deal damage with nets by the RAW.

You'll have to do better than a table to argue RAW. They’re the first things to be thrown out when something conflicts within RAW.

Its an issue of comparing a '--' to a '0' . Another example of this is with spells--if you have 0 spells of a certain level, you can still add bonus spells to it and cast them, but if you have -- spells, you just can't cast them at all

Another example of this would be the range increment for a bastard sword... by your ruling you couldn't toss it in ten feet increments but by the rest of the RAW you can. (with a negative -4 on the attack roll.) (again pg 113)

 

[Rystil Arden]

You'll have to do better than a table to argue RAW. They’re the first things to be thrown out when something conflicts within RAW.



Another example of this would be the range increment for a bastard sword... by your ruling you couldn't toss it in ten feet increments but by the rest of the RAW you can. (with a negative -4 on the attack roll.) (again pg 113)

Well, of course, the sentence you quoted does not at all imply anything against what I said. The part in the RAW that trumps any of the things you suggested is the description of the net--which states very clearly everything that happens with a net, from start to finish, and you'll see there are no damage rolls involved. No damage rolls means bonus to damage rolls is irrelevant

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

The part in the RAW that trumps any of the things you suggested is the description of the net--which states very clearly everything that happens with a net, from start to finish, and you'll see there are no damage rolls involved.

Yes of course let me read that...

Net: A net is used to entangle enemies. When you throw a net, you make a ranged touch attack against your target. A net’s maximum range is 10 feet. If you hit, the target is entangled. An entangled creature takes a –2 penalty on attack rolls and a –4 penalty on Dexterity, can move at only half speed, and cannot charge or run. If you control the trailing rope by succeeding on an opposed Strength check while holding it, the entangled creature can move only within the limits that the rope allows. If the entangled creature attempts to cast a spell, it must make a DC 15 Concentration check or be unable to cast the spell.
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 full-round action).

A net is useful only against creatures within one size category of you.

A net must be folded to be thrown effectively. The first time you throw your net in a fight, you make a normal ranged touch attack roll. After the net is unfolded, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls with it. It takes 2 rounds for a proficient user to fold a net and twice that long for a nonproficient one to do so.

I've read it 5 times now and I see not a single entry saying it deals no damage.... So maybe the entries of weapons that do damage list it?

Sword, Bastard: A bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.

Nope it doesn't state it does damage also.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Yes of course let me read that...



I've read it 5 times now and I see not a single entry saying it deals no damage.... So maybe the entries of weapons that do damage list it?



Nope it doesn't state it does damage also.

That's because the Bastard Sword works under the normal rules for weapons--anything in the specific weapon text overrides the normal rules for a weapon, and otherwise you use the default

You could try it, but I can pretty-much guarantee that Hypersmurf would be with me on this one

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

Considering I think your mind is actually thinking now and I would rather see your time devoted to IC posts I’m pretty much going to stop replying to this.