Can Sharpshooter be used with a Net?

FrogReaver said:

f(x) = 0 is the mathematical function

Click to expand...

f(x) = null is a perfectly valid function too

It's not really a math problem. It is more of a logic/computer science problem.

Alex Lang said:

F(x) = null
G(x) = 0

Null and 0 can have equivalent effects in many cases. But they are not equal. 0 is an integer. Null does not have that type of classification. Some programming languages inherently consider them equivalent in many cases- but they are not equal.

If the net has no damage type, then it's damage type would also be "null". It's damage type is not 0.

Click to expand...

no apples = 0 apples. no damage = 0 damage.

You could be an astronaut in the space station and have no chance of having an apple and you would still answer I have 0 apples if asked how many apples you have. Likewise you could have an ability that has no chance of dealing damage and you would still answer I did 0 damage if asked how much damage you did.

So yes, I fully understand the concept of the empty set, the null set etc in the mathematical sense. Do you?

Alex Lang said:

f(x) = null is a perfectly valid function too

It's not really a math problem. It is more of a logic/computer science problem.

Click to expand...

You lose me when you say "f(x) = " isn't a math problem. If you are talking functions you are talking math. If you talk functions in computer science it's because computer science has a strong mathematical foundation.

FrogReaver said:

no apples = 0 apples. no damage = 0 damage.

You could be an astronaut in the space station and have no chance of having an apple and you would still answer I have 0 apples if asked how many apples you have. Likewise you could have an ability that has no chance of dealing damage and you would still answer I did 0 damage if asked how much damage you did.

So yes, I fully understand the concept of the empty set, the null set etc in the mathematical sense. Do you?

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with set theory. You are confusing equivalence with equality. Null damage and 0 damage have equivalent effects on hit points. But they are not equal.

Algorithmically, the function that calculates hit points after a hit would treat null and 0 the same. Mathematically, one can add an integer to another integer. However, you cannot add an integer to a null value. If at your table, you want to treat a net's null damage as a 0, then that is fine. A lot of computer programs do the same. Add all the sneak attack damage you want - that still does not prove that null and 0 are the same.

It would be more accurate to say I threw null touchdowns at the Super Bowl - rather than zero.

And no need to get snarky.

Dausuul said:

So do you agree that Sharpshooter's -5/+10 does not cause a net attack to deal 10 damage?

If not, what's different?

Click to expand...

Yes. But the reason why is so important that I've spent the last 3+ pages on. Can you agree that a net does 0 damage?

FrogReaver said:

You lose me when you say "f(x) = " isn't a math problem. If you are talking functions you are talking math. If you talk functions in computer science it's because computer science has a strong mathematical foundation.

Click to expand...

Computer science handles nulls differently than math. Integer math just equates it to zero because it does not handle non-numbers. Null is a non-number. It is not zero.

Alex Lang said:

This has nothing to do with set theory. You are confusing equivalence with equality. Null damage and 0 damage have equivalent effects on hit points. But they are not equal.

Click to expand...

No I am not. You are confusing what should be zero with null.

What you are trying to say would be like claiming "Null Velocity and 0 velocity have equivalent effects on motion. But they are not equal." When you aren't moving your velocity isn't NULL. Even if you were incapable of moving your velocity still wouldn't be NULL, it would be 0.

Algorithmically, the function that calculates hit points after a hit would treat null and 0 the same.

Click to expand...

Sure

Mathematically, one can add an integer to another integer.

Click to expand...

Yes! But you are assuming the final damage total is g(x) = x + (damage bonus) and so g(f(x)) = f(x) + (damage bonus). That's not the case.

What's happening is f(x) = 0 s.t. x = y + (damage bonus) where y = 0 damage.

However, you cannot add an integer to a null value.

Click to expand...

Agreed

If at your table, you want to treat a net's null damage as a 0, then that is fine. A lot of computer programs do the same.

Click to expand...

...The proper way to define no damage is with 0 damage just as the proper way to define no velocity is with 0 velocity.

Add all the sneak attack damage you want - that still does not prove that null and 0 are the same.

Click to expand...

Where on earth are you and others getting the insane idea that I think 0 and null are the same thing? My argument is that what you are attempting to call Null is not Null but actually 0.

It would be more accurate to say I threw null touchdowns at the Super Bowl - rather than zero.

Click to expand...

No it would not. That's precisely the illogical mess this confusion over null and 0 leads to. When you are quantifying something the answer is 0 unless the thing in question cannot be quantified that way. Touchdowns and damage and velocity etc all can. Most things can be quantified with 0 and so when answering the question of how much the answer will be 0 and not null.

And no need to get snarky.

Click to expand...

I've spent 3 pages here as the only one arguing for the correct definition of 0 vs null. I'm a bit entitled to at this point

Alex Lang said:

Computer science handles nulls differently than math. Integer math just equates it to zero because it does not handle non-numbers. Null is a non-number. It is not zero.

Click to expand...

Sure. but No velocity is 0 velocity. No touchdowns is 0 touchdowns. No dogs is 0 dogs. No apples is 0 apples etc.

It's not a hard concept to grasp....

Lots of things do 0 damage. Air. A blossoming flower. Cure Wounds also does 0 damage. or does it do negative damage?

I don't get this argument.

If Darkness does 0 damage, even if you AFTER you add 5 to it, then it, somehow, does no damage at all. I wonder if there some kind of convenient way to put that down in text so that there is no confusion?

I propose '-'

TaranTheWanderer said:

Lots of things do 0 damage. Air. A blossoming flower. Cure Wounds also does 0 damage. or does it do negative damage?

I don't get this argument.

If Darkness does 0 damage, even if you AFTER you add 5 to it, then it, somehow, does no damage at all. I wonder if there some kind of convenient way to put that down in text so that there is no confusion?

I propose '-'

Click to expand...

Now you get it