Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Tichrimo Jul 07, 2014 14:19:01	For example, the Rogue's sneak attack ability says "...you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack..."     It doesn't specify that you have to do damage with the attack, just hit.  A net requires an attack and "hits" -- could you sneak attack with a net?   I recall in 4e there was explicit text that stated you needed to do damage in order to apply extra damage, but there is no such qualifier in the 5e Basic rules.  Is this a case of keeping the rules non-legalistic and hoping common sense will prevail, or a legit loophole?
#2 AaronOfBarbaria Jul 07, 2014 14:48:23	The game shouldn't have to specify that you have to do some damage before you can do extra damage because that is already covered by the definition of the word "extra."
#3 Plaguescarred1 Jul 07, 2014 14:56:00	As Aaron said, I'd say no and say that to deal extra damage you must deal damage in the first place, according to the word definition   Extra adjective  Added to an existing or usual amount or number:
#4 Archon007 Jul 07, 2014 22:18:51	Plaguescarred wrote:
#5 E-Tallitnics Jul 07, 2014 23:26:18	Archon007 wrote:
#6 SilentSin Jul 08, 2014 2:18:24	E-Tallitnics wrote:
#7 Uchawi Jul 08, 2014 5:02:12	If it just states hit, then that is all you need to do, but there will always be special exceptions that will need to be discussed with the DM. So the table could rule the weapon must be able to damage before you are able to add sneak attack damage. Otherwise, if that is not the developers intent then it should be updated in errata.
#8 Plaguescarred1 Jul 08, 2014 5:17:29	Archon007 wrote:
#9 Joe_the_Rat Jul 08, 2014 5:49:11	I'd consider Sneak Attack damage on a net... used as an improvised weapon to try and strangle someone. But I'm not sure that's a finesseable use, so it may not qualify. Maybe you should just punch him?
#10 Kravell Jul 08, 2014 6:28:39	If you throw a net on top of someone how would you damage them with sneak attack? That would not make sense. I can't throw the net extra hard and make the ropes smash someone's head in. If I hit someone with a feather can I now kill them? No.   Although there was a Stephen King movie in which someone was killed with a corn on the cob. But at least the cob has some substance to it.
#11 Kravell Jul 08, 2014 6:19:58	While I don't think this discussion makes a lot of sense, here are the actual rules to stop a thief from bashing someone's head in with a feather:   You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target.   The and means you do all three (some type of damage, sneak attack, and do the damage). If you can't do all three, you don't do any damage.
#12 Trance-Zg Jul 08, 2014 7:29:07	I personally think that attack must be able to deal damage in the first place before it can get bonus damage from sneak attack.
#13 Chimerasame Jul 08, 2014 8:32:17	Kravell wrote:
#14 Archon007 Jul 08, 2014 9:49:56	Kravell wrote:
#15 Arithezoo Jul 08, 2014 10:28:25	But why does "something different" NEED to include damage?   I agree with Plaguescarred here.  The intent of 5th edition seems to be that the rules are designed more around standard english then game terminology.  In other words, when you read the rules for Sneak Attack, you don't need to cross reference with the rules for "Extra Damage", you just go with what that means in English.   The net doesn't do any damage.  The net entry doesn't even say "0" for damage, it says "-".  Meaning: Not Applicable.  While I don't think applying sneak attack damage to the net would ruin the game, I wouldn't allow it in my own game.
#16 Plaguescarred1 Jul 08, 2014 11:26:38	Mike Mearls said its a no go on twitter;      @Plaguescarred Can a rogue sneak attack with a net even if it deals no damage?
#17 Archon007 Jul 08, 2014 12:29:56	Plaguescarred wrote:
#18 Archon007 Jul 08, 2014 14:12:48	Archon007 wrote:
(Reply to #18) Tichrimo	Archon007 wrote:
#20 Uchawi Jul 08, 2014 16:13:24	Then it should be updated via errata versus some esoteric reference on a forum. Maybe the PHB makes the distinction, and it was lost in the shuffle with the release of basic.