Can Sharpshooter be used with a Net?

Dausuul · Mar 18, 2019

Paul Farquhar said:
0+10 = 10, not 0.

And if a net's damage were "0 [damage type]", this would apply.

But it isn't. The net's damage entry is "--"; it does not deal damage at all. There is no "deal damage" step when you attack with a net. So there's nothing to add 10 to.

Ristamar · Mar 18, 2019

Dausuul said:
And if a net's damage were "0 [damage type]", this would apply.

But it isn't. The net's damage entry is "--"; it does not deal damage at all. There is no "deal damage" step when you attack with a net. So there's nothing to add 10 to.

That's basically how Crawford explains it.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/04/15/net-attack/

akr71 · Mar 18, 2019

FrogReaver said:
RAW maybe. RAI definitely no. Go with RAI on this one.

^ I agree with this.

I would say, if you really wanted a net that did damage, modify one with barbed hooks. Maybe 1 point of piercing damage per hook that catches the target? This would also mean you don't have to take the -5 on your to hit roll. Now the question is how many hooks catch into the target.

Though this entire thought experiment brings me to conclude that the net shouldn't have a normal attack roll at all, but should be a Dex Save on the target. I have a hard time believing that a person with low Dex in plate armor is harder to catch than a moderately dexterous opponent in light armor. Perhaps the wielder should make a Dex based attack roll and the target uses that as the DC for their Dex Save.

Aiden_Keller_ · Mar 18, 2019

I would agree in that the net can be thrown and doesn't impose disadvantage...and you could ignore cover...

DND_Reborn · Mar 19, 2019

akr71 said:
I would say, if you really wanted a net that did damage, modify one with barbed hooks. Maybe 1 point of piercing damage per hook that catches the target? This would also mean you don't have to take the -5 on your to hit roll. Now the question is how many hooks catch into the target.

The issue with that is now since this modified net does 1 piercing, you could add +10 from SS and up to 10d6 from Sneak Attack. It is basically a work-around, and if that is what is needed you might as well just leave the net at 0 damage and allow features to add the damage anyway. There is the issue with the damage type, but I would probably rule it as bludgeoning if I had to.

akr71 said:
Though this entire thought experiment brings me to conclude that the net shouldn't have a normal attack roll at all, but should be a Dex Save on the target. I have a hard time believing that a person with low Dex in plate armor is harder to catch than a moderately dexterous opponent in light armor. Perhaps the wielder should make a Dex based attack roll and the target uses that as the DC for their Dex Save.

Great point! I would think avoiding a Net would require a Dex save with DC 8 + proficiency bonus + Dex Mod., adding disadvantage for armors which suffer penalty to Stealth.

Paul Farquhar · Mar 19, 2019

Dausuul said:
And if a net's damage were "0 [damage type]", this would apply.

But it isn't. The net's damage entry is "--"; it does not deal damage at all. There is no "deal damage" step when you attack with a net. So there's nothing to add 10 to.

There is no mention of skipping any steps in the PHB, and If you add 10 to "nothing" the answer is 10.

Larrin · Mar 19, 2019

Look, you might be adding 10 to the weapon's damage, but the weapon doesn't deal damage. So you're adding 10 to the damage which the weapon then proceeds to not deal. So best case scenario you went from not dealing "--" damage to not dealing 10 damage. A moral victory perhaps, but not a mechanical one.

FrogReaver · Mar 19, 2019

I find it silly how everyone is trying to interpret the rules around this to mean what they believe it should mean.

By RAW it obviously works. Net does 0 damage. 0+10 is 10. Obviously by RAW it works. There is no fancy rules lawyering that are going to get around this. The rules aren’t infallible. There are plenty of edge cases where they come up short.

That said RAI is clear. It’s also clearly better in this instance. So why care about RAW on this one?

Paul Farquhar · Mar 19, 2019

FrogReaver said:
That said RAI is clear. It’s also clearly better in this instance. So why care about RAW on this one?

I like that it annoys people who favour a literal interpretation of the rules.

I prefer to take it on a case by case basis.

Sharpshooter player: "I'm going to use my special ability to try and damage a target with this net I found."
DM (me): "how will you damage the target?"
Player: "I'm going to try and throttle them with it."
DM: "Okay, on a hit you will do 10 points of damage."

FrogReaver · Mar 19, 2019

Paul Farquhar said:
I like that it annoys people who favour a literal interpretation of the rules.

I prefer to take it on a case by case basis.

Sharpshooter player: "I'm going to use my special ability to try and damage a target with this net I found."
DM (me): "how will you damage the target?"
Player: "I'm going to try and throttle them with it."
DM: "Okay, on a hit you will do 10 points of damage."

Doesn’t make sense to me