Can Sharpshooter be used with a Net?

[FrogReaver]

wait.

Ok, the spell Darkness does '-' or 0 damage (according to the arguments flying around)
I argued that, if that were the case, Since Darkness is an evocation, Empowered Spellcasting should add your INT bonus damage to darkness because 0+INT bonus = damage.
I was told that f(x)=0 and regardless of what I added to 0, it would always be 0. Darkness would have no effect on my hit points.

using this logic:

A sling has a weight of '-' or 0
regardless of what I add to 0 it will not have an effect on my encumbrance.
I add Fullplate armour
f(x)=0. Full plate cannot add mass to my sling, therefore the result is 0..

Having a sling your backpack makes everything you carry weigh 0

Do I have it right?

Nope

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Yeah, I see what you're saying but it's not what I was getting at and could probably try to clarify but I think my last post just illustrates that I need to segue out of this conversation. I'll just maintain all my previous points and continue to disagree with Frogreaver's theories.

edit

Nope

That's the first time you've responded to any of my posts for the last few pages. I was waiting with baited breath. At least you waited for the most ridiculous one, it was easy pickings.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yeah, I see what you're saying but it's not what I was getting at and could probably try to clarify but I think my last post just illustrates that I need to segue out of this conversation. I'll just maintain all my previous points and continue to disagree with Frogreaver's theories.

edit



That's the first time you've responded to any of my posts for the last few pages. I was waiting with baited breath. At least you waited for the most ridiculous one, it was easy pickings.

Get out while the gettin's good!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Okay, I think I should come clean. My point is not that "net should do sharpshooter damage". The point I am actually making is that trying to use the rules RAW is stupid.

 

[5ekyu]

My well considered opinion is thusly expressed.

"-" is defined as "Fuggedaboutit"

As anyone from Jersey strip-clubs knows, "Fuggedaboutit"+10 is still "Fuggedaboutit".

Or do we gotta call "Uncle Paulie" over to help clear that up?

"Hey, you guys yourself a real nice difference of opinion here. It would be a real shame if, well, you know...".

Just a bit of Jersey mob boss humor there guys... nothing more... "Fuggedaboutit"

 

[Argyle King]

I'm not sure if this matters, but the wording of Sharpshooter seems to indicate that the +10 is to the attack's damage, not the weapon's damage.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'm not sure if this matters, but the wording of Sharpshooter seems to indicate that the +10 is to the attack's damage, not the weapon's damage.

Hunter's Mark uses the same language. But no, it doesn't matter since both require a weapon either way. Only when people want to continue rules-lawyering would it matter. 5E isn't a law book written with annoyingly precise language because it was written by people who try to be specific but use common language. Sure, if you want to be precise, both Hunter's Mark and SS should be written something like:

"Add 1d6/+10/whatever to the damage dealt by the weapon in that you made the attack with. This additional damage has the same damage type as the weapon used in the attack."

Which is another issue already mentioned numerous times: both this spell and feat don't specify a damage type for the additional damage being done.

Otherwise, if people want to berate yet another issue on something that logically and as intended is pretty clear, be my guest. I'm going to work.

 

[5ekyu]

Hunter's Mark uses the same language. But no, it doesn't matter since both require a weapon either way. Only when people want to continue rules-lawyering would it matter. 5E isn't a law book written with annoyingly precise language because it was written by people who try to be specific but use common language. Sure, if you want to be precise, both Hunter's Mark and SS should be written something like:

"Add 1d6/+10/whatever to the damage dealt by the weapon in that you made the attack with. This additional damage has the same damage type as the weapon used in the attack."

Which is another issue already mentioned numerous times: both this spell and feat don't specify a damage type for the additional damage being done.

Otherwise, if people want to berate yet another issue on something that logically and as intended is pretty clear, be my guest. I'm going to work.

Easy solution, the added +10 damage is "legal" damage that not only reduces your health but also your gold. if you do not have enough gold, the damage is trebled plus you are incapacitated until bail is posted.

 

[Argyle King]

Hunter's Mark uses the same language. But no, it doesn't matter since both require a weapon either way. Only when people want to continue rules-lawyering would it matter. 5E isn't a law book written with annoyingly precise language because it was written by people who try to be specific but use common language. Sure, if you want to be precise, both Hunter's Mark and SS should be written something like:

"Add 1d6/+10/whatever to the damage dealt by the weapon in that you made the attack with. This additional damage has the same damage type as the weapon used in the attack."

Which is another issue already mentioned numerous times: both this spell and feat don't specify a damage type for the additional damage being done.

Otherwise, if people want to berate yet another issue on something that logically and as intended is pretty clear, be my guest. I'm going to work.

D&D doesn't always use language in a way which is clear. For example, it's not always exactly easy to parse the difference between a melee weapon and a melee weapon attack.

Secondly, as mentioned earlier in this thread, the rules seem to indicate that it's actually impossible to attack with a net without have disadvantage. That's another example of "logic" indicating that something should work a certain way, but the game not necessarily agreeing.