Can Sharpshooter be used with a Net?

[Dausuul]

I find it silly how everyone is trying to interpret the rules around this to mean what they believe it should mean.

By RAW it obviously works. Net does 0 damage. 0+10 is 10.

The net's damage is "--", not "0". You cannot add ten to "--".

"Zero" and "no value" are two different things.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The net's damage is "--", not "0". You cannot add ten to "--".

"Zero" and "no value" are two different things.

The PHB does not say that. It does not define any rules about how to handle "undefined".

The goblin has 10 hp. After it is hit with a net it still has 10 hp. Change in hp = 10-10 = 0. The net does 0 damage. If "undefined" was a thing in D&D rules, then the goblin's hp after being hit with the net would become undefined. 10 - "undefined"= "undefined".

 

[Mort]

The PHB does not say that. It does not define any rules about how to handle "undefined".

The goblin has 10 hp. After it is hit with a net it still has 10 hp. Change in hp = 10-10 = 0. The net does 0 damage. If "undefined" was a thing in D&D rules, then the goblin's hp after being hit with the net would become undefined. 10 - "undefined"= "undefined".

I choose to see it as "not applicable" as opposed to "undefined" as in - a net simply doesn't do damage so you can't make it do more damage. Not going to argue that's RAW (though it has been interpreted that way by the sage), but it makes sense to me.

SS already gives a decent benefit for the net - using at 15' without disadvantage and ignoring cover. SS certainly doesn't need any more improvement!

 

[FrogReaver]

The net's damage is "--", not "0". You cannot add ten to "--".

"Zero" and "no value" are two different things.

if "--" = 0 then you can. So does "--" = 0? I think the rules are clear in that regard. Everyone knows a net attack does 0 damage...

 

[FrogReaver]

I choose to see it as "not applicable" as opposed to "undefined" as in - a net simply doesn't do damage so you can't make it do more damage. Not going to argue that's RAW (though it has been interpreted that way by the sage), but it makes sense to me.

So.... Doing 0 damage is what "not doing damage" mathematically means.

SS already gives a decent benefit for the net - using at 15' without disadvantage and ignoring cover. SS certainly doesn't need any more improvement!

No one is arguing that SS needs more improvement. No one is arguing that SS doesn't already give a net a nice benefit. So why even bring this up in a debate about rules about SS? What purpose does it serve? Do you think it strengthens your position? Do you think it weakens your oppositions position? I don't get it.

 

[Mort]

So.... Doing 0 damage is what "not doing damage" mathematically means.

No, not doing damage means not doing damage and no potential to do damage. 0 could mean you can add to it. You add strength mod to thrown weapons. Are you arguing the net does 0 + strength mod? If not, it's much easier to conceptualize it as no damage, period, as opposed to 0.

No one is arguing that SS needs more improvement. No one is arguing that SS doesn't already give a net a nice benefit. So why even bring this up in a debate about rules about SS? What purpose does it serve? Do you think it strengthens your position? Do you think it weakens your oppositions position? I don't get it.

When expressing an opinion, as I was doing, it is customary to give reasons for that opinion.

Here, the question is, does SS apply to a net. My answer was not only no, but even if by RAW it did, it shouldn't - I gave an additional reason for my opinion.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, not doing damage means not doing damage and no potential to do damage. 0 could mean you can add to it. You add strength mod to thrown weapons. Are you arguing the net does 0 + strength mod? If not, it's much easier to conceptualize it as no damage, period, as opposed to 0.

1. No damage mathematically means 0 damage.
2. No potential to ever do damage is a distinct concept from no damage.
3. Obviously if the net did strength mod damage it wouldn't do 0 damage now. So there was no reason to bring that point up in a discussion about whether the net does 0 damage now but not always.

I notice you raise a lot of smart sounding points that don't actually deal with the subject at hand. Raising smart sounding points that have nothing to do with the disagreement may work on some people but it doesn't work on me.

When expressing an opinion, as I was doing, it is customary to give reasons for that opinion.

Sure, typically those reasons aren't statements everyone already agrees with, including those individuals that don't agree with the position you are attempting to use them to support...

Here, the question is, does SS apply to a net. My answer was not only no, but even if by RAW it did, it shouldn't - I gave an additional reason for my opinion.

Okay, then my opinion is that you provided a terrible justification for why that scenario...

 

[MechaPilot]

Can Sharpshooter be used with a net?

My initial thought was no, but, upon review of how things are worded, it appears that "maybe" might be the more accurate answer.

Sharpshooter states that it requires taking a penalty to the attack roll. Hitting with a net does indeed require an attack roll, so that condition can be met.

Sharpshooter further states that success means the attack deals +10 damage. There is no mention of the damage boost requiring dice rolling or anything of that nature, simply +10 damage. 0 + 10 = 10

I'm sure at least part of it can.

I wouldn't allow the -5/+10 to work, but the no penalty for long range should be fine.

 

[Mort]

1. No damage mathematically means 0 damage.
2. No potential to ever do damage is a distinct concept from no damage.
3. Obviously if the net did strength mod damage it wouldn't do 0 damage now. So there was no reason to bring that point up in a discussion about whether the net does 0 damage now but not always.

I notice you raise a lot of smart sounding points that don't actually deal with the subject at hand. Raising smart sounding points that have nothing to do with the disagreement may work on some people but it doesn't work on me.

People in this very thread are arguing that it should do 10 damage. My point was that, if you argue this then mod damage should also be added, and how that seems completely wrong.

It absolutely deals with the subject at hand, the subject being: is 0 the same as "-" as was brought up in discussion. The point is that no damage is added because damage never even comes in to play.

Sure, typically those reasons aren't statements everyone already agrees with, including those individuals that don't agree with the position you are attempting to use them to support...


Okay, then my opinion is that you provided a terrible justification for why that scenario...

The question was about SS, I made a comment about SS. Discussing the strength of SS is perfectly valid when expressing an opinion on SS.

 

[FrogReaver]

People in this very thread are arguing that it should do 10 damage. My point was that, if you argue this then mod damage should also be added, and how that seems completely wrong.

Your skipping a lot of important intermediate steps to arrive at that conclusion. What makes you think that adding the +10 means that mod damage also needs added? From my perspective that's the gap that makes it seem like your not really making a point about the topic at hand.

It absolutely deals with the subject at hand, the subject being: is 0 the same as "-" as was brought up in discussion. The point is that no damage is added because damage never even comes in to play.

You keep saying that but repeating it 100 times don't make it true. Damage not coming into simply means 0 damage was dealt.

The question was about SS, I made a comment about SS. Discussing the strength of SS is perfectly valid when expressing an opinion on SS.

Not when your making a case for your opinion and that point has nothing to do with that opinion.