Can Sharpshooter be used with a Net?

[Supergyro]

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

Please quote the page # of the book where that definition is given. Please quote the wording *exactly*...

Because without that, all you're doing is claiming that '--' means 'whatever I say it means'.

 

[FrogReaver]

Please quote the page # of the book where that definition is given. Please quote the wording *exactly*...

Because without that, all you're doing is claiming that '--' means 'whatever I say it means'.

My argument isn't about what "--" means. It about what 0 damage means.

 

[Charlaquin]

No you didn't

Yes I did:

Okay I'm going to simplify this.

What is damage?
What is 1 damage?
What is 0 damage?

Damage is defined as the loss of hp.
1 Damage is the loss of 1 hp -> X Damage is the loss of X hp -> 0 Damage is the loss of 0 hp

When you are hit with a net how many hp do you lose? (Obviously 0)

So given that being hit with a net caused you to lose 0 hp and that 0 damage is the loss of 0 hp then it follows that being hit with a net caused 0 damage (because it caused you to lose 0 hp).

I disagree with the bolded statement. Damage causes loss of HP, it is not defined as loss of HP. You can lose HP to sources other than damage, such as level 4 exhaustion.

HP is a resource, and damage is a game state that causes loss of that resource. When that resource is not being lost, it is not because a source has caused damage in the amount of 0, it is because no source has dealt damage, therefore the game state where hp is lost as a result of damage being taken has not occurred.

To reiterate: damage is a gamestate, which causes loss of the hit point resource in an amount determined by the action which triggered the gamestate. An unarmed strike from a character with 8 Strength does 0 damage, because hitting with an un unarmed strike triggers the “take damage” gamestate and defines the amount of hp lost as 1 + -1. A net does not do 0 damage, nor does the darkness spell or soap, because none of those things trigger the “take damage” gamestate at all.

 

[Supergyro]

*removed due to accidental duplication*

 

[Supergyro]

My argument isn't about what "--" means. It about what 0 damage means.

But the issue here is what "--" means.... because that's what the damage is given for the net on page 149 of the PHB.

It says "--", not "0.

Now please point to where in the book you think this links somehow to "0" and give the wording... *exactly*... if you can't, all you're doing is arguing for a house rule...

 

[FrogReaver]

But the issue here is what "--" means.... because that's what the damage is given for the net on page 149 of the PHB.

It says "--", not "0.

Now please point to where in the book you think this links somehow to "0" and give the wording... *exactly*... if you can't, all you're doing is arguing for a house rule...

There doesn't need to be a page number. It's called logical deduction and is the foundation of most math and computer science.

--If being hit with a net causes you to lose 0 hp then being hit with a net caused you to take 0 damage.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes I did:



To reiterate: damage is a gamestate, which causes loss of the hit point resource in an amount determined by the action which triggered the gamestate. An unarmed strike from a character with 8 Strength does 0 damage, because hitting with an un unarmed strike triggers the “take damage” gamestate and defines the amount of hp lost as 1 + -1. A net does not do 0 damage, nor does the darkness spell or soap, because none of those things trigger the “take damage” gamestate at all.

I'm following along until you say that nets and darkness etc don't trigger the takes damage gamestate. Why do you say they don't? Why not instead say they trigger it and always deal 0 damage?

 

[Dausuul]

So, the debate is now between "-- means damage never occurs," and "-- means damage occurs but is always reduced to zero, negating all consequences."

Next up: The auditory consequences of falling trees.

Personally, I think the "never occurs" approach is simpler and cleaner, but I also don't much care what path is taken if it leads to exactly the same result.

 

[FrogReaver]

So, the debate is now between "-- means damage never occurs," and "-- means damage occurs but is always reduced to zero, negating all consequences."

Next up: The auditory consequences of falling trees.

Personally, I think the "never occurs" approach is simpler and cleaner, but I also don't much care what path is taken if it leads to exactly the same result.

I care because I care about math and one is the correct mathematical approach and one is not.

In math the concept of 0 = none is important because it marks one of the earliest developments of abstract mathematical thought. Without the development of abstract mathematical thought we wouldn't have 0 as a number, we wouldn't have negative numbers, we wouldn't have imaginary numbers. In short any attempt to say that 0 is not none is an attack on abstract mathematical thought as a whole. That's my issue with the arguments.

They keep trying to differentiate 0 and "no damage" as if there's any distinction that can be made.

 

[lingual]

Dude. That is not a math concept. That's a computer science concept. O and Null are not the same thing.