Can Sharpshooter be used with a Net?

[lingual]

There is no logical way math or computer science can deduce that some random symbol equals 0.

That is human intuition ( and wrong too ).

 

[FrogReaver]

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

Do you even know what Null is in computer science?

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

No, we keep differentiating between "0 damage" and "damage not dealt", which there is an important distinction as has been shown numerous times by now. In the former damage is applied, even if it is "0 damage", in the latter damage is not even a factor and thus neither are hit points.

If you are only arguing about "0 damage" and "no damage" being equivalent to each other, then we're not even discussing the same topic.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, we keep differentiating between "0 damage" and "damage not dealt", which there is an important distinction as has been shown numerous times by now. In the former damage is applied, even if it is "0 damage", in the latter damage is not even a factor and thus neither are hit points.

If you are only arguing about "0 damage" and "no damage" being equivalent to each other, then we're not even discussing the same topic.

So let me get this straight, you are saying that "damage not dealt" is different than "no damage"?

 

[DND_Reborn]

So let me get this straight, you are saying that "damage not dealt" is different than "no damage"?

Seriously? That has been my position (and others) all along!

We've been explaining to you over and over how not every attack deals damage (nets are only one example). If the attack deals damage, even if it is "0", then it is subject to being modified by SS, Sneak Attack, spells, etc. To say "a net's damage is 0" is to imply that. To say "a net doesn't deal damage" is to imply it cannot be modified to do damage and possibly have that damage adjusted by features like SS and Sneak Attack.

What I don't understand is why you don't seem to get that!?

 

[FrogReaver]

Seriously? That has been my position (and others) all along!

Interesting. So do you also think that apples not obtained is different than no apples?

I guess what I'm trying to ask is, why don't you assign the output of damage not dealt or apples not obtained as 0?

We've been explaining to you over and over how not every attack deals damage (nets are only one example). If the attack deals damage, even if it is "0", then it is subject to being modified by SS, Sneak Attack, spells, etc. To say "a net's damage is 0" is to imply that. To say "a net doesn't deal damage" is to imply it cannot be modified to do damage and possibly have that damage adjusted by features like SS and Sneak Attack.

What I don't understand is why you don't seem to get that!?

Because I've already explained countless times that an attack that doesn't deal damage always does 0 damage.

 

[Charlaquin]

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?

Because that would be a useless gamestate. Look at WotC’s other flagship product, Magic: the Gathering. In that game, like in D&D, damage is not defined as loss of a player’s health or a creaure’s toughness, but it causes loss of a player’s health or a creature’s toughness. If a creature like Ornithopter, which has 0 power, attacks and is not blocked, you resolve that attack by entering the damage step and dealing 0 damage, thereby causing the defending player to lose 0 life. But if no creature attacks, you don’t enter the damage step and don’t do 0 damage. You just skip the unnecessary step and move on to the end step of the active player’s turn. Likewise in D&D, if someone with 8 Strength punches someone, you apply 0 damage. If no one attacks anyone, or the attack is coded to do something other than damage, you don’t bother with the deal damage gamestate. It’s useless, non-value-added work.

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.

No one is trying to say that 0 damage doesn’t mean “no damage”. We are saying that if something doesn’t have the capability of dealing damage, it doesn’t do “no damage”. If you query how much damageit does, the answer will be “null,” because damage is not among its properties. The ability to draw this distinction is part of the reason it’s useful to have 0 as a number to represent a naught value. From my perspective it is you who is arguing to diminish the value of 0 by treating it as interchangable with “null.”

 

[Charlaquin]

Interesting. So do you also think that apples not obtained is different than no apples?

I guess what I'm trying to ask is, why don't you assign the output of damage not dealt or apples not obtained as 0?.

Apples exist. Damage dealt by a net does not.

 

[FrogReaver]

Apples exist. Damage dealt by a net does not.

Apples exist. Damage exists. Would be the proper analogy.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The PHB does not say the net "doesn't do damage". The PHB says the net "does no damage". The intent of the author may well have been that the net can never do damage, but they didn't write that.