Can Sharpshooter be used with a Net?

[Charlaquin]

It gives you sufficient information if and only if "your hp doesn't change" means the same as "you lost 0 hp". The normal person understands those 2 statements are equivalent. That's why saying your hp doesn't change is normally an answer an adequate answer to the question. However, in your world "your hp doesn't change" is different than "you lost 0 hp" and so "your hp doesn't change" cannot be an answer to how much hp you lose because in your world "your hp doesn't change" is not a statement that quantifies anything.

In “my world”, also known as the world, “your HP doesn’t change” and “you lose 0 HP” have the same outcome, but that does not make them equivalent. 2 + 2 and 2 * 2 both equal 4, but they are not equivalent. They are two different functions that happen to produce the same result.

You see, you simply can't answer a how much question without a quantification of some kind. If your not providing a quantification then you are not answering the question.

It isn’t an appropriate question to be asking. “How much did I lose” implies that a function is being performed. It isn’t. Nothing has occurred that would necessitate your query.

 

[DND_Reborn]

At this point, I think I'm glad FrogReaver blocked me after the Shield Master discussion.

If we want to create a mathematical function to describe how much damage a net does, it's simply multiplication with zero. (any modifiers you try and add to net damage) * 0 = 0, done. Or, as most people seem to understand, nets don't do damage as clearly indicated in the PHB.

Glad as you may be about him blocking you, it seems like you are actually enforcing his point that "the net's damage is 0" concept.

You are correct, IMO, in that most people seem to understand: net's don't do damage. It isn't that their damage is 0, it is that they don't have a damage effect that has any bearing on hit points. A net's effect on a hit is the target is restrained, not that it takes damage. To say something has a damage at all, even 0, is that it is, in fact, damaging.

I am hoping at this point he will block me, too, since he appears doomed to this unusual mindset.

 

[Asgorath]

Glad as you may be about him blocking you, it seems like you are actually enforcing his point that "the net's damage is 0" concept.

You are correct, IMO, in that most people seem to understand: net's don't do damage. It isn't that their damage is 0, it is that they don't have a damage effect that has any bearing on hit points. A net's effect on a hit is the target is restrained, not that it takes damage. To say something has a damage at all, even 0, is that it is, in fact, damaging.

I am hoping at this point he will block me, too, since he appears doomed to this unusual mindset.

To be clear, I completely agree with you. FrogReaver seems to be wanting to trap people into saying that nets do 0 damage, which means 0 + 10 = 10 with Sharpshooter. The PHB says nets don't do any damage, and my point was that if you want to translate that into a mathematical formula for some reason, then multiplication with zero seems like the best fit (in as much as a square peg fits into a round hole). The whole premise of translating net damage into numbers is fundamentally flawed of course, as you and others have pointed out.

 

[Satyrn]

I am hoping at this point he will block me, too, since he appears doomed to this unusual mindset.

You know you can just stop responding, right?

 

[FrogReaver]

You are claiming nets interact with hit point mechanics and I say they don't. If you agree with the point I made, then you are agreeing that nets don't interact with hit points. I feel you truly don't really understand the difference between the two. 8 pages of debate seems to be demonstrating this.

I wouldn’t use the terminology interact with hit point mechanics so I can’t agree or disagree about that until you better define it for me.

I will add this. Why do I say nets always deal 0 damage? Because when you are hit with a net you always take no damage.

I would love for you to define what damage is and what 0 damage means. I have given my definitions. What are yours?

 

[Charlaquin]

I wouldn’t use the terminology interact with hit point mechanics so I can’t agree or disagree about that until you better define it for me.

I will add this. Why do I say nets always deal 0 damage? Because when you are hit with a net you always take no damage.

I would love for you to define what damage is and what 0 damage means. I have given my definitions. What are yours?

I actually gave you a definition a few posts back, which you ignored, and then proceeded to ignore my calling you out for having ignored it. Maybe the third time will be the charm, but somehow I doubt it will.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You know you can just stop responding, right?

Yeah, I know, but in his mindset he will probably just feel he is "right" and "justified" and such. Honestly, what bothers me the most about such debates is when points are made but not addressed. The roper tendril attack is a perfect example of something similar to the net but ignored.

Oh, well... we are playing tomorrow and I have to get stuff ready for the gang to show up. Hopefully, we will find the druid to reincarnate our poor blasted Dragonborn... sad, sad story.

 

[Satyrn]

Oh, well... we are playing tomorrow and I have to get stuff ready for the gang to show up. Hopefully, we will find the druid to reincarnate our poor blasted Dragonborn... sad, sad story.

Was the dragonborn hit by an exploding net?

Oh, when he's returned to life, will he them be a dragoncarnated?

 

[Supergyro]

The book does not define what '--' means.

Generally this allows a general free for all on what people would think the most plausible definition would be. However, ironically, while I can't say what is most right, I can say those who argue that '--' means '0' are the most wrong in reading the rules because if it simply meant '0' in the same way a weapon that does 1 damage means '1', they would have just put '0'.

Maybe '--' means "does not do damage and can not have any modifiers that make it do damage' (this seems to be the ruling of the designers), perhaps it means "does not do damage, isn't given bonus damage by stats but can be given bonus damage by feats" (I could see this)..,

However, if you're reading '--' to mean simply '0', you're actively reading it to read something other than what it says.

 

[Charlaquin]

The book does not define what '--' means.

Generally this allows a general free for all on what people would think the most plausible definition would be. However, ironically, while I can't say what is most right, I can say those who argue that '--' means '0' are the most wrong in reading the rules because if it simply meant '0' in the same way a weapon that does 1 damage means '1', they would have just put '0'.

Maybe '--' means "does not do damage and can not have any modifiers that make it do damage' (this seems to be the ruling of the designers), perhaps it means "does not do damage, isn't given bonus damage by stats but can be given bonus damage by feats" (I could see this)..,

However, if you're reading '--' to mean simply '0', you're actively reading it to read something other than what it says.

We’re well beyond this. FrogReaver has already defined “--“ as “F(x) = 0,” a mathematical way of basically saying “it always comes out to 0 no matter what you add to it,” and is now arguing that everything in the game that doesn’t do damage actually does “--“ damage.