Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 7581845" data-attributes="member: 6987520">The argument isn't about &quot;no damage = 0 damage&quot;. Of course no damage equals zero damage! But this is about the fact that something is not capable of dealing damage compared to 0 damage. Nil or not applicable DNE 0.Also, you never addressed my Roper example. A perfect instance when an attack does not deal damage in any fashion. 5E does not equate &quot;not capable of dealing damage&quot; to &quot;0 damage&quot; although you seem to believe otherwise. Several attacks have either damage or an effect, and some have both. Nets and the Roper's Tendril attack are examples of attacks that have an effect but don't deal damage to the target.In contrast to a net, which does not deal damage at all, consider a character with a STR 8 who punches. That character deals 1 damage for the punch, -1 for Str mod, equals 0 damage total. It isn't that the attack does not deal damage, it is that the damage is ineffectual at reducing the target's HP and that the damage dealt is 0.A net has no chance to reduce the target's HP total because it is neither assigned damage (like a blowgun dart or a punch, both dealing 1) nor does it roll for damage (like a dagger). As has also been pointed out, all damage has a type assigned to it (slashing, radiant, thunder, etc.). Nets have no damage type because they are not capable of dealing damage.I would think you are intelligent enough to understand the difference, and to continue means you just want to argue. I have better use for my time (where is that Shield Master thread...? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> j/k).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 7581845, member: 6987520"] The argument isn't about "no damage = 0 damage". Of course no damage equals zero damage! But this is about the fact that something is [I]not capable of dealing damage[/I] compared to [I]0 damage[/I]. Nil or not applicable DNE 0. Also, you never addressed my Roper example. A perfect instance when an attack does not deal damage in any fashion. 5E does not equate "not capable of dealing damage" to "0 damage" although you seem to believe otherwise. Several attacks have either damage or an effect, and some have both. Nets and the Roper's Tendril attack are examples of attacks that have an effect but don't deal damage to the target. In contrast to a net, which does not deal damage at all, consider a character with a STR 8 who punches. That character deals 1 damage for the punch, -1 for Str mod, equals 0 damage total. It isn't that the attack does not deal damage, it is that the damage is ineffectual at reducing the target's HP and that the damage dealt is 0. A net has no chance to reduce the target's HP total because it is neither assigned damage (like a blowgun dart or a punch, both dealing 1) nor does it roll for damage (like a dagger). As has also been pointed out, all damage has a type assigned to it (slashing, radiant, thunder, etc.). Nets have no damage type because they are not capable of dealing damage. I would think you are intelligent enough to understand the difference, and to continue means you just want to argue. I have better use for my time (where is that Shield Master thread...? ;) j/k). [/QUOTE]

Verification