Can Sharpshooter be used with a Net?

[DND_Reborn]

Was the dragonborn hit by an exploding net?

Oh, when he's returned to life, will he them be a dragoncarnated?

Well, if he had died by an exploding, sneak attacked, sharp-shot net, he would then be "reincarnetted" by the druid.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I wouldn’t use the terminology interact with hit point mechanics so I can’t agree or disagree about that until you better define it for me.

I will add this. Why do I say nets always deal 0 damage? Because when you are hit with a net you always take no damage.

I would love for you to define what damage is and what 0 damage means. I have given my definitions. What are yours?

There's no definition for damage in regards to a net. The item 'net' does not interact with hit point mechanics. The same way that Thieves tools do not interact with hit point mechanics. You ignore hit points when using these tools because hit points are not applicable to their function. They use a skill roll or saving throw mechanic which is separate from hit points.

I don't say, 'when you are hit with a net, you take no damage'.

I say, 'when you are hit with a net, you become restrained.'

When my character hits someone with Faerie Fire, I don't say 'you take no damage.' I say, 'you must make a save or be lit up.'

When someone uses Deception on an NPC I don't say, "He believes you and he takes no damage"

Nets, Faerie Fire and Deception checks, if listed on a table, would have a weapon value of '-'


You notice how it's a totally different mechanic? I only say, 'you take no damage' if something hits you and there's damage but the sum of that damage is enough to result in 0 damage. Like if you have Heavy Armour Expert and you take 3 damage but your Feat absorbs that damage and you, therefore, take 0 damage. Because both being hit by a weapon with a weapon value of '0 or greater' and Heavy Armour Master interact with the hit point mechanics. Nets do not have a weapon value of 0. They have a weapon value of '-'.

I actually believe you are goading people to see how long you can make this thread go.

 

[DND_Reborn]

We’re well beyond this. Saturn has already defined “--“ as “F(x) = 0,” a mathematical way of basically saying “it always comes out to 0 no matter what you add to it,” and is now arguing that everything in the game that doesn’t do damage actually does “--“ damage.

Um... don't you mean FrogReaver? I don't recall what Satyrn's position was.

 

[FrogReaver]

The book does not define what '--' means.

Generally this allows a general free for all on what people would think the most plausible definition would be. However, ironically, while I can't say what is most right, I can say those who argue that '--' means '0' are the most wrong in reading the rules because if it simply meant '0' in the same way a weapon that does 1 damage means '1', they would have just put '0'.

Maybe '--' means "does not do damage and can not have any modifiers that make it do damage' (this seems to be the ruling of the designers), perhaps it means "does not do damage, isn't given bonus damage by stats but can be given bonus damage by feats" (I could see this)..,

However, if you're reading '--' to mean simply '0', you're actively reading it to read something other than what it says.

Agreed. "--" does not equal 0, but the damage dealt by any weapon with a damage entry of "--" always does 0 damage.

That's what the last 10 pages have been about. I still don't get what's so hard to grasp about this.

 

[FrogReaver]

Um... don't you mean FrogReaver? I don't recall what Satyrn's position was.

The comic relief.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I actually believe you are goading people to see how long you can make this thread go.

We could try to get it past the Shield Master/SAC thread! Huh, huh, what do you think??? LOL!

 

[FrogReaver]

I actually gave you a definition a few posts back, which you ignored, and then proceeded to ignore my calling you out for having ignored it. Maybe the third time will be the charm, but somehow I doubt it will.

No you didn't

 

[Charlaquin]

Um... don't you mean FrogReaver? I don't recall what Satyrn's position was.

Yes, sorry. Will fix ASAP.

 

[FrogReaver]

We’re well beyond this. FrogReaver has already defined “--“ as “F(x) = 0,” a mathematical way of basically saying “it always comes out to 0 no matter what you add to it,” and is now arguing that everything in the game that doesn’t do damage actually does “--“ damage.

That last line isn't my position. My position is that things like the net and the darkness spell all follow the F(x) = 0 math and always return 0 for damage no matter what. My claim is that they cause 0 damage, not that they cause "--" damage.

 

[Satyrn]

Um... don't you mean FrogReaver? I don't recall what Satyrn's position was.

I gave no position on this subject.

The last several many pages have all been a semantic back and forth, the substance of which doesn't interest me in the least. The arguing itself is weirdly entertaining though, so that's why I'm still reading.

Since I've actually made myself present in this thread, even though it was really just for comic relief (as Froggy says), I s'pose I ought to state my position: I still don't care one bit whether this is a math thing or a logic thing, it's blindingly clear to me that the rules don't intend for the net to ever do damage.

But if my player asked me if he could do so, I'd say "yeah, sure. And hey, can you pour me a whiskey?"