FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Just to recap. I said this on page 3. It was flat out wrong as I had forgotten to consider the correct f(x) = 0 possibility.
Can Sharpshooter be used with a Net?
- Thread starter Argyle King
- Start date
"--" is not a number. Not a hard concept to grasp.
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
Nope. A net does not deal damage, just as similar things don't deal damage. I've explained this to you numerous times and yet you ignore that simple to grasp concept. Not every thing in D&D has to "deal damage" even if you want to equate that damage to 0. If Net was listed as 0 damage in the PHB, it would open up all kinds of weird things like SS, sneak attack, Dex mod, etc. and it would be said to have 0 damage. But, it doesn't. To say something does not deal damage, or is incapable of dealing damage, equals "0 damage" is nonsense.
So, perhaps instead of null, think of a net's damage as undefined. Since you seem to like functions so much here is the damage function, f:
where:
d-sub1 is the non-negative integer maximum for the first die rolled,
d-sub2 is the non-negative integer maximum for the second die rolled,
d-sub3 is the non-negative integer maximum for the third die rolled,
etc.,
c-sub1 through c-sub-y are integer constants, and
r(d-subM) is the function that randomly generates the die roll results from 1 to d-sub-x and where r(0) = 0.
There, that function satisfies all things in D&D that are capable of dealing damage.
A typical punch? all d's = 0 (no dice are rolled) so the summation of r(d-subM) = 0, c-sub1 = 1, c-sub2 = ability modifier.
A +2 great sword wielded by a creature with Str 18? d-sub1 = 6, d=sub2 = 6, c-sub1 = 2, c-sub2 = 4.
But wait, what about the net and its entry of "—"? Well, "—" is not in the domain of the damage function, f, and thus for a net and "—" the damage function is undefined. It is NOT equal to 0. For the damage function to equal zero, the summation of r(d-subM) plus c must equal 0 or c must equal 0 while all d's equal 0. If the PHB listed the net's damage as 0, then it would be "0 damage". But, again, it doesn't.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
Is that a fishing net or a butterfly net?
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
Any. 5E doesn't distinguish between types of nets. Heck, it could be a hair net for all that matters. Of course, I'd hate to see the size of the head using a 3-lb hair net...
TaranTheWanderer
Legend
Now you get it
I did, but sadly, unless you have changed your stance, we still don't agree. If something does no damage then it's not worth quantifying at all. By your definition, when you hit, a net also does 0 earthquakes and 0 dance moves. I can list all the things it does 0 of. But why? If something is, literally, incapable of doing those things, then it doesn't do 0 because you don't bother quantifying them. Darkness doesn't do damage just as it doesn't cause any amount of earthquakes. It's not an amount.
And your formula is wrong, given my example with darkness.
f(x) = 0
If you add Int damage after the fact, it would be f(x)+5 = 5 , wouldn't it? I wouldn't allow darkness to do 5 damage to everyone in the effect so I, instead rule that darkness can't do damage. It only does darkness. That's the only thing you can quantify with a number.
If you define everything as 'doing' or 'not doing' damage, then your example works. Sadly, that's not how the game works.
I'm fairly certain you can argue your point forever without people budging.
I wish I could say I was taking '0' psychic damage from this conversation but I can't.
Last edited:
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Do you think I claim it is?
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Dealing 0 damage is dealing no damage AKA "not dealing damage"
Agreed.
I didn't say 0 damage = incapable of dealing damage. I did say that incapable of dealing damage means that it always does 0 damage.
Sure. But it doesn't satisfy things that are not capable of dealing damage. F(x) = 0 does.
Yep
You have explicitly chosen a function that excludes "-" from it's domain and then are trying to argue that since your carefully chosen function excludes "-" from it's domain that I must be incorrect. Proof by counterexample. Let "-" be included in the domain of x. Then f(x) = 0 is a function which maps "-" to 0 damage. Since I can provide you a function that includes "-" in it's domain and always returns 0 then your function as nice as it is doesn't prove anything about the issue at hand.
The symbol "-" was placed there because the net only has a special attack that never deals damage. To mathematically model that you don't need to talk about undefined functions or null values etc. All you need is f(x) = 0. 0 damage is the absence of damage. 0 velocity is the absence of velocity. 0 apples is the absence of apples. etc.
Last edited:
Damage is not even a property of net. So it can't be quantified by an integer such as 0. That's where your math fails.
Computer science has taught us that there is a distinct difference between null (or undefined) and 0. The former implies that a quality does not even exist. The latter does not.
Your interpretation leads to RAW where sneak attack and SharpShooter, etc. could be applied.
That's why the net lacks a damage attribute and you see the "-".
Computer science has taught us that there is a distinct difference between null (or undefined) and 0. The former implies that a quality does not even exist. The latter does not.
Your interpretation leads to RAW where sneak attack and SharpShooter, etc. could be applied.
That's why the net lacks a damage attribute and you see the "-".
Sorcerers Apprentice
Hero
This thread is definitely doing a not-null amount of damage to my Sanity score.
Similar Threads
