Net and backstab damage RAW legal? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 GabrielPendragon Jan 17, 2015 14:53:19	Sneak attack says that you can add the bonus damage to an attack that you hit with if you have advantage on the attack with light weapons and ranged weapons. While this is hard to do with the net it can be done as it is a ranged weapon. So would a rogue be able to sneak attack when hitting with a net by RAW rules?
#2 Archon007 Jan 17, 2015 15:15:21	GabrielPendragon wrote:
#3 El_Condoro Jan 17, 2015 22:05:31	Sneak Attack is effective when the weapon is a finesse or ranged weapon. A net is 'special' and has its own category but it also has a range, just like a long bow (e.g.) and is a ranged (special) weapon p. 148. If the net was thrown and the target was still restrained by it then the rogue would have advantage on a subsequent attack (once per turn), if any, and would get the sneak attack damage on one subsequent attack but not the net attack itself. A point of contention might be the part of the net's description that says you can only make one attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make. I would define that as 'attacks with the net' but others might define it as all attacks.
#4 Plaguescarred4 Jan 18, 2015 3:20:34	Archon007 wrote:
#5 iserith Jan 18, 2015 5:48:26	Weave some nasty (and rusty) hooks and barbs into that net, then throw it. The thing about nets though is without the Sharpshooter feat, you're always throwing the thing with disadvantage because either you're adjacent to the target or throwing it at long range. So even if you have advantage, it is probably cancelled out anyway (without the feat), right?
#6 GabrielPendragon Jan 18, 2015 10:59:43	That was what I was meaning when I said it was hard to do but possible, sharpshooter or the crossbow mastery which removes the disadvantage from ranged attacks while in melee. Even being special it is still listed under ranged weapons just as all the other ranged weapons. Also, where is this extra damage rule your talking about listed as I can't find it in the PHB anywhere. The only thing I see is that you must hit with an attack using a ranged weapon, the net is a ranged weapon and it can hit. I know it doesn't make sense, but RAW isn't always the best about making sense.
#7 El_Condoro Jan 18, 2015 13:52:17	The description of Sneak Attack p. 96 "you can deal an extra 1d6 damage..."
#8 GabrielPendragon Jan 18, 2015 21:52:11	yes when you hit, not seeing anything about there being a problem adding extra damage to the attack by RAW.
#9 Kalani Jan 18, 2015 22:13:53	GabrielPendragon wrote:
#10 Plaguescarred4 Jan 19, 2015 6:24:07	GabrielPendragon wrote:
#11 Noctaem Jan 19, 2015 7:47:28	Plaguescarred4 wrote:
#12 Coredump00 Jan 19, 2015 9:45:41	Guys... you can add to 0. If zero is the "usual amount or number" then anything you add would be 'extra' damage If you usually do 1, and you do 3 extra, you now do 4 If you usually do 0, and you do 3 extra, you now do 3. Now, I can understand the Devs having the rules work otherwise for game balance reasons... but it has nothing to do with how 'extra' works.
#13 Yunru Jan 19, 2015 9:47:46	Yes but a net doesn't deal 0 damage, it deals no damage. One is a value, the other isn't.
#14 AaronOfBarbaria Jan 19, 2015 9:57:54	Here's something which might aid a few folks in understanding the interplay of "extra damage." Sandwiches. If you order a sandwich that normally comes with cheese by saying "I'll take the #1 sandwich, extra cheese." Then you get that sandwich with more cheese than it normally comes with. If you order a sandwich that doesn't normally come with cheese by saying "I'll take the #2 sandwich, extra cheese." You either A) End up with an employee that knows what you meant, but has to clarify whether you meant "add the normal amount of cheese" or you meant "add the normal amount of cheese, and then also add more cheese." or B) End up with an employee that says "That doesn't come with cheese," and points out that you have to add cheese before you can have extra. Either way, if you want to take a sandwich from "does not have cheese" to "has extra cheese" you have to pass the intermediate stage of "has cheese" first, just like you can't go from "doesn't deal damage" to "extra damage" without first going to "deals damage" - and though I am using cheese as an analogue for damage in this illustrative example, I'm not meaning to imply that wanting more damage is in any way cheesy.
#15 Noctaem Jan 19, 2015 10:07:56	"cheese"
(Reply to #14) Coredump00	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#17 AaronOfBarbaria Jan 19, 2015 13:18:02	I disagree, Coredump. A person does not say "I got paid an extra $20 for helping my brother-in-law with some yardwork" unless they are refering to being paid some amount besides that $20, even though that $20 is "more than normal, added to the usual, etc." not geting paid at all. And while my sandwich analogue does involve pricing schemes, that doesn't change the fact that you can't have "extra cheese" and "add cheese" meaning the exact same thing and not be confusing the meanings, when starting with "doesn't have cheese." Put very simply "extra damage" is "damage added to the usual damage," and not just "added damage."
#18 Smashpunk Jan 19, 2015 18:58:33	Both are good analogies. No damage is different from zero damage. What I find interesting is I couldn't spot anywhere that handles if you do zero damage or even negative damage. Such as attacking with a longsword and an 8 strength and rolling a 1. Throw a slime into the mix and things get more complicated.
#19 RCanine Jan 19, 2015 19:05:23	The net is a ranged weapon with a short range of 5 ft. You're either making a ranged attack in melee or at long range. How do you get advantage? Aside from that, 4E stipulated that you needed to roll damage dice to get extra damage. I don't think 5E has something similar, does it?
(Reply to #17) Coredump00	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#21 Plaguescarred4 Jan 19, 2015 19:56:53	If the net really dealt 0 damage, then modifiers to damage from Dexterity and others bonuses would apply. It deals no damage instead.
#22 Plaguescarred4 Jan 19, 2015 19:56:53	If the net really dealt 0 damage, then modifiers to damage from Dexterity and others bonuses would apply. It deals no damage instead.
(Reply to #20) AaronOfBarbaria	Coredump00 wrote:
#24 Yunru Jan 20, 2015 2:14:22	Again Core is ignoring things to match his arguement :/ A Net doesn't deal 0 damage, it deals no damage. If you have to put into numbers, a Net always deals 0 damage, regardless of outside modifiers. Because it doesn't deal damage.
#25 GabrielPendragon Jan 21, 2015 17:13:30	As for getting advantage, crossbow mastery removes the disadvantage penalty from attacking in melee, and sharpshooter increases the range both instances would allow you to then gain advantage in the normal ways that ranged attacks can gain advantage, like i said difficult but possible. The wording is extra damage when you hit, not extra damage when you deal damage, no where in the description of sneak attack does it say that you need to deal damage to gain the extra damage. Like I also said, logically it doesn't make sense, but by Rules as Written (RAW) I see no reason it doesn't work. Even searched through the DMG for the requirement of extra damage needing to deal damage in the first place, it isn't there. As written the extra damage is being added to the hit. Also, a net's special rules doesn't say tht a net doesn't deal any damage, it just says that it restrains a target hit by it, and the weapon list has a dash for the damage line. It doesn't say that it can't deal damage, just that it doesn't get a damage roll when it hits. Also if it is that much of a problem you can also just use it as an improvised weapon dealing 1d4 to melee attack with it as you can with all ranged weapons. As it only needs to have the ranged weapon tag not a ranged attack via sneak attack. Since they are still hit with the net the net special property would still apply also.
#26 Yunru Jan 22, 2015 4:13:58	You are missing the point. It doesn't need to be defined elsewhere because it is wholy defined in the word "extra". If something doesn't deal damage then you can't have extra damage because it doesn't deal damage.
#27 GabrielPendragon Jan 22, 2015 11:36:09	Again, even ruled as such, using the net as an improvised weapon to do a melee attack bypasses that problem.
#28 guachi Jan 22, 2015 13:03:48	In that case, you likely wouldn't get the net's properties to entangle. You'd just be wadding the net up and flogging people with it.
#29 Plaguescarred4 Jan 22, 2015 13:04:56	GabrielPendragon wrote:
(Reply to #24) Coredump00	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #21) Coredump00	Plaguescarred4 wrote:
(Reply to #26) Coredump00	Yunru wrote:
#33 Noctaem Jan 22, 2015 14:03:13	Coredump00 wrote:
#34 El_Condoro Jan 23, 2015 0:37:10	Aside from the wording and the meaning of "extra" how would a DM narrate a net causing 2d6 or more damage to a target? That is assuming the net has not been prepared with bone, glass or other cutting agents, as iserith mentioned above.
(Reply to #33) Coredump00	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #35) Yunru	Coredump00 wrote:
#37 Noctaem Jan 23, 2015 3:27:23	Yunru wrote:
#38 Macv12 Jan 23, 2015 5:05:59	Here's another way of saying it that might make sense. A net doesn't deal "0 damage" or "no damage"; it's damage value is "does not deal damage." You can't add 2d6 to "does not deal damage," because it's not a mathematical value. Even if you were to "increase" or "add to" the damage it does, you'd have 2d6+"does not do any damage," so it doesn't do damage. Hopefully that's clearer?
#39 Noctaem Jan 23, 2015 5:37:00	Macv12 wrote:
(Reply to #36) Coredump00	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #38) Coredump00	Macv12 wrote:
(Reply to #39) Coredump00	Noctaem wrote:
#43 guachi Jan 23, 2015 10:12:32	I agree with those who say that a net doesn't just deal "no damage" it deals "always does no damage" for the exact reason(s) you have all mentioned. All I can say to Coredump is that if the rest of us, including people that don't always agree, are on the same side there is probably merit to our argument.
#44 Noctaem Jan 23, 2015 10:43:50	Coredump00 wrote:
#45 Yunru Jan 23, 2015 10:30:32	The differences hinges on the fact that "none" is not a value. "None" is different from "nothing", which is what 0 represents.
(Reply to #41) Macv12	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #43) Coredump00	guachi wrote:
(Reply to #44) Coredump00	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #45) Coredump00	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #46) Coredump00	Macv12 wrote:
#51 Noctaem Jan 23, 2015 13:05:06	Coredump00 wrote:
#52 Noctaem Jan 23, 2015 13:08:09	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #52) Coredump00	Noctaem wrote:
#54 ModusPonens Jan 23, 2015 14:35:37	Coredump00 wrote:
#55 Noctaem Jan 23, 2015 16:24:45	lol this is normal for coredump, if he can't win with the stuff in the PHB he diverts to grammar and just keeps arguing and arguing and arguing. At this point what he's saying doesn't even make sense, but that doesn't matter! "dictionaries" agree with him. Whatever the hell that even means.
(Reply to #54) Coredump00	ModusPonens wrote:
#57 Yunru Jan 23, 2015 16:46:44	Very hard apparently, since every time you're presented with it you just go "Nuh uh!" without proof or backing. But okay, lets put it mathmatically. X is your accuracy, Y is your damage on a hit: A Net does not deal damage, therefore it's equation is as follows: X*0Y. No matter how much you increase Y, it still does no damage. It does not deal damage, so no damage is considered, Extra or Inherent.
#58 ModusPonens Jan 23, 2015 16:48:41	Coredump00 wrote:
#59 AaronOfBarbaria Jan 23, 2015 17:30:02	I encourage everyone to cease arguing with Coredump about this - especially considering that the real issue of whether or not sneak attack damage can be added to a net is something that Coredump expressed agreement in not being able to happen, and is just arguing that everyone else's explanation of why that is true is wrong because we aren't using the right definition of a particular word. We all agree on the answer, but have been quibbling about who did the right work to get to that answer - which is why I dropped out of trying to convince Coredump of contextual definition of the word extra earlier in this thread. It is especially wasteful to spend time arguing with someone about the definition of a word since the usage of that word defines it, and the dictionary changes to match the usage rather than the dictionary providing absolute definition and any usage outside those described being impossible. It would be pretty cool (see what I did there?) if dictionaries were law that everyone had to follow and weren't mutable to a state of being in contaxt flux, but that isn't the case - so when everyone else agrees what a word means in a given context, then that's what it means in that context... but, if you ask me, I think that is pretty sweet (see what I did here too?).
(Reply to #57) Coredump00	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #58) Coredump00	ModusPonens wrote:
#62 EthanSental Jan 23, 2015 20:13:04	Only gaming nerds, our version of lawyers, ie rules lawyers, post 55 answers to debate a question like this. Somebody find the Tweet that Mike Mearls tweeted so we can move on to the next question about the minutiae of a role playing game.
(Reply to #61) AaronOfBarbaria	One last shot: Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #63) Coredump00	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#65 Yunru Jan 24, 2015 13:28:16	No, it doesn't have a number, it doesn't do damage.
(Reply to #65) Coredump00	Yunru wrote:
#67 EthanSental Jan 25, 2015 0:05:27	Found it from July 8th of this year. DMs can house rule it but you can see Mike's intent from his tweet. next topic please @mikemearls Can a rogue sneak attack with a net even if it deals no damage? @Plaguescarred No, sneak attack is additional damage. @mikemearls Why? This rule only limits players into just attacking. I can use a net for 0 damage or my bow for d8+5d6.. er I attack @Hadan_Ashcroft a sneak attack is extra damage, needs initial damage to sit on top of. DM can rule otherwise, but that's intent
(Reply to #66) Yunru	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #67) Coredump00	EthanSental wrote:
(Reply to #68) Coredump00	Yunru wrote:
#71 Yunru Jan 25, 2015 2:57:15	Extra would add to a value of zero. But the Net doesn't do damage. Stack as much extra damage as you like, the Net still won't do damage because it doesn't do damage. If a container doesn't hold water, for instance, you can't have extra water in the container because it doesn't hold water.
(Reply to #70) Yunru	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #72) Coredump00	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #72) Coredump00	Yunru wrote:
#75 Yunru Jan 25, 2015 6:58:36	Doesn't is the restriction. No damage means it can do damage, but that damage is 0. Doesn't do damage means that damage isn't even considered.
(Reply to #75) Coredump00	Yunru wrote:
#77 AaronOfBarbaria Jan 25, 2015 13:52:29	Maybe this would help, but I am kind of doubting it: Using an analogue of explosive yield for damage, which makes more sense: treating the phrase "cardboard is not an explosive material," and "cardboard has an explosive yield of zero," as being the same thing - or treating those two phrases as having different meanings? Many of us are saying that the two phrases mean different things (because cardboard is not an explosive material with an imeasurably low yield), just like we say that a net is not a damaging object and that is different from it being a damaging object with an extremely low damage value.
#78 Macv12 Jan 25, 2015 16:10:14	1) I stab someone with a dagger, doing 3 damage. Their Heavy Armor Master feat negates the attack, doing 0 damage. Fortunately, I had advantage on the attack, granting Sneak Attack. I roll 10d6 for 35 extra damage, added on to that same hit, so none of it is negated. 2) I stab someone with a dagger. Unfortunately it's a toy dagger with a collapsing blade, and the damage is "n/a." It's not dangerous enough to hurt the enemy. I can roll Sneak Attack, but the action I took couldn't hurt anyone, regardless of how precise it was. Extra damage is not applied. I still do a total damage of "none." Cursory example of difference between "0" and "n/a" damage. It requires some real-world reasoning to make it intuitive, but devs have confirmed that this is how the rules are designed, anyway.
#79 Coredump00 Jan 25, 2015 16:33:38	You are both changing the terms. You are now making the argument using a description of 'net', and not the description of 'Sneak attack'. IF you interpret the rules of the net as saying "The net cannot ever cause damage", then you are completely correct. But that has nothing to do with arguing that 'extra' has some meaning that it doesn't. If Aaron's first post had been "Nets are designed so they can't damage someone, not even using additional damage" that would have been a very different argument. To claim that the word "extra" can ONLY be applied to putting more of the same.... is incorrect. The fact that the Net has a "-" listed under damage does not necessarily equate to it being incapable of causing damage. That may be a decent inference.... but it does not a direct result. All we know for sure is that it doesn't cause damage, there is not way to decide that it can't cause damage. When I first responded, I assumed this would be over pretty quickly. The response would be "We think the dash means the Net is incapable of causing damage; not even additional damage" But instead people spent dozens of posts claiming 'extra' really meant something not found in any defintion anywhere. Now that we are back to discussing the authors intent by using the "-".... it is a different issue. And part of the fun was seeing how far Yunru would go... to start claming that zero was not the same as nothing.... comedy gold!! The situation as I see it" Extra, by every defintion so far discovered, can apply to zero damage, or no damage, or nothing damage, or whatever. The Net is intended to be incapable of causing damage when used as intended "Extra" damage does not let a net go from incapable to capable. Two things to note: The fact that the net is incapable of causing damage is not explicitly stated, and has to be inferred or assumed. (though Dev tweets help with that) It is possible (likely) that the Devs were using 'Extra' as they wanted it defined, not how it is actually defined. Thus it is possible (likely?) that they want 'extra' to only apply to non-zero amounts. But again, that is based on the Devs use and intent, not the actual meaning of the word. And last of all, good things good to know: Doesn't is a restriction and saying "He has no eggs" and saying "He has zero eggs" are..... "Completely different" Good times...
#80 Macv12 Jan 25, 2015 17:07:56	You are both changing the terms. You are now making the argument using a description of 'net', and not the description of 'Sneak attack'.
#81 Yunru Jan 25, 2015 17:09:47	Yes it means something not found in any definition... except all of them, including the ones you quote from.
#82 Noctaem Jan 25, 2015 17:14:28	Macv12 wrote:
#83 ORC_Cricket Jan 25, 2015 18:15:32	We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others. Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
#84 Macv12 Jan 25, 2015 20:20:39	Coredump00 wrote:
#85 GabrielPendragon Jan 25, 2015 22:06:34	Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged w eapon. You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy o f the target is within 5 feet o f it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll. Bolded part is my emphasis. This is the block for sneak attack right from the PHB, no where in the block does it say anything about needing to deal damage with the attack. The only limiters are the next two lines after the bolded portion, which is having advantage and being either ranged or finesee. The next paragraph expands on the needing advantage by denoting a situation where advantage isn't needed. As I have listed off before, there are a handful of ways to make sure that you don't have disadvantage when attacking with the net. A: Sharpshoort to remove disadvantage from long ranged attacks, B: crossbow mastery to remove the penalty of disadvantage on ranged attacks while in melee range and finally using the net as an improvised weapon to do a melee attack with it. In all these instances you are allowing yourself to not have disadvantage thus making having advantage possible, or being in the situation listed that means you don't need advantage. Also, the description of the special property on net is this: Net. A Large or smaller creature hit by a net is restrained until it is freed. A net has no effect on creatures that are formless, or creatures that are Huge or larger. A creature can use its action to make a DC 10 Strength check, freeing itself or another creature within its reach on a success. Dealing 5 slashing damage to the net (AC 10) also frees the creature without harming it, ending the effect and destroying the net. When you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to attack with a net, you can make only one attack regardless o f the number of attacks you can normally make. This only says that a net has no effect on formless or huge creatures, not that it doesn't deal damage, or that it can't deal damage. Net 1 gp — 3 lb. Special, thrown (range 5/15) Is the line in the chart for net. A dash in the damage line, ok so the net itself can't deal damage, doesn't matter as that isn't the question here. Does not say the net can't deal damage however. So no where in the nets description does it say the net can't deal damage. If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. This line from improvised weapons tells me exactly what i've been saying, the net could be used to deal damage if it is being used to attack with in an unorthodox way. The simple fact that a rogue needs to take a feat inorder to use a net without a penalty, and has to use two slots of said feat to use it as an improvised weapon without penalty also, probably suggests said rogue has taken the time to learn how to use the net in such unorthodox ways. The syntax everyone has been spending so much time arguing doesn't even have a relavant place in the wording of the book. The damage isn't being added to the damage of an attack, it is being added to the hit of the attack, saying to add this in addition to any other effects of said attack. Now if it read something more like add x damage to the damage of the attack I might agree with you, but that isn't what is said in the book.
(Reply to #85) Macv12	GabrielPendragon wrote:
#87 ORC_Nashira Jan 26, 2015 3:05:54	We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others. Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
#88 ModusPonens Jan 26, 2015 12:35:30	Coredump00 wrote:
#89 Noctaem Jan 26, 2015 12:45:16	ModusPonens wrote:
#90 GabrielPendragon Jan 26, 2015 13:55:40	The spirit of the law...so RAI, rules as interpreted. Which is what I'm not talking about. This is a question about RAW, rules as written. As we have agreed the damage is being added to the attack, damage is an effect of the attack not the attack itself. I'm paying an extra cost to do extra stuff with my attack, this theme is used heavily in Wizards products. The cost being the limitations of when sneak attack can be applied, with the extra cost of also needing to use a feat to not do so with penalties, in addition to the base cost for all attacks of needing to hit. This is from the great weapon master feat: Before you make a melee attack with a heavy weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a - 5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack’s damage. This specifies the attack's damage, where as sneak attack does not. The formats are completely different when telling you how to apply the extra damage. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to creature you hit with an attack if yo u have advantage on the attack roll. The first one adds damage to the attacks damage, where the second gives you an addition effect of the attack. The wording is telling us exactly what is being added to what, just like in 4th edition the difference between adding damage to an attack, and adding to the damage roll made a huge difference with magic missile, and why effects that just added damage still worked with MM while things that added damage to the damage roll did not. With the outliers being specificly rewritten to apply their bonuses to magic missile. As for what that unorthodox way might be, couldn't say, haven't really taken the time to learn how to fight with a net. Though I've known a lot of nets to have weights on them.
#91 EthanSental Jan 27, 2015 4:41:34	Just house rule it in your game and move on. Or are you a player and the DM doesn't see a net as being able to do damage and therefore no SA extra damage? Not sure what the question is now after posting the tweet explaining the intent by the game designer, RAW/ RAI, its a game that you can house rule, no need to take this to the Supreme court for an official rulling as its not the US Constitution we are talking about.

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

GabrielPendragon

Jan 17, 2015 14:53:19

Sneak attack says that you can add the bonus damage to an attack that you hit with if you have advantage on the attack with light weapons and ranged weapons. While this is hard to do with the net it can be done as it is a ranged weapon. So would a rogue be able to sneak attack when hitting with a net by RAW rules?

Archon007

Jan 17, 2015 15:15:21

GabrielPendragon wrote:

El_Condoro

Jan 17, 2015 22:05:31

Sneak Attack is effective when the weapon is a finesse or ranged weapon. A net is 'special' and has its own category but it also has a range, just like a long bow (e.g.) and is a ranged (special) weapon p. 148.

If the net was thrown and the target was still restrained by it then the rogue would have advantage on a subsequent attack (once per turn), if any, and would get the sneak attack damage on one subsequent attack but not the net attack itself.

A point of contention might be the part of the net's description that says you can only make one attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make. I would define that as 'attacks with the net' but others might define it as all attacks.

Plaguescarred4

Jan 18, 2015 3:20:34

Archon007 wrote:

iserith

Jan 18, 2015 5:48:26

Weave some nasty (and rusty) hooks and barbs into that net, then throw it. The thing about nets though is without the Sharpshooter feat, you're always throwing the thing with disadvantage because either you're adjacent to the target or throwing it at long range. So even if you have advantage, it is probably cancelled out anyway (without the feat), right?

GabrielPendragon

Jan 18, 2015 10:59:43

That was what I was meaning when I said it was hard to do but possible, sharpshooter or the crossbow mastery which removes the disadvantage from ranged attacks while in melee. Even being special it is still listed under ranged weapons just as all the other ranged weapons. Also, where is this extra damage rule your talking about listed as I can't find it in the PHB anywhere. The only thing I see is that you must hit with an attack using a ranged weapon, the net is a ranged weapon and it can hit. I know it doesn't make sense, but RAW isn't always the best about making sense.

El_Condoro

Jan 18, 2015 13:52:17

The description of Sneak Attack p. 96 "you can deal an extra 1d6 damage..."

GabrielPendragon

Jan 18, 2015 21:52:11

yes when you hit, not seeing anything about there being a problem adding extra damage to the attack by RAW.

Kalani

Jan 18, 2015 22:13:53

GabrielPendragon wrote:

#10

Plaguescarred4

Jan 19, 2015 6:24:07

GabrielPendragon wrote:

#11

Noctaem

Jan 19, 2015 7:47:28

Plaguescarred4 wrote:

#12

Coredump00

Jan 19, 2015 9:45:41

Guys... you *can* add to 0. If zero is the "usual amount or number" then anything you add would be 'extra' damage

If you usually do 1, and you do 3 extra, you now do 4

If you usually do 0, and you do 3 extra, you now do 3.

Now, I can understand the Devs having the rules work otherwise for game balance reasons... but it has nothing to do with how 'extra' works.

#13

Yunru

Jan 19, 2015 9:47:46

Yes but a net doesn't deal 0 damage, it deals no damage. One is a value, the other isn't.

#14

AaronOfBarbaria

Jan 19, 2015 9:57:54

Here's something which might aid a few folks in understanding the interplay of "extra damage."

Sandwiches.

If you order a sandwich that normally comes with cheese by saying "I'll take the #1 sandwich, extra cheese." Then you get that sandwich with more cheese than it normally comes with.

If you order a sandwich that doesn't normally come with cheese by saying "I'll take the #2 sandwich, extra cheese." You either A) End up with an employee that knows what you meant, but has to clarify whether you meant "add the normal amount of cheese" or you meant "add the normal amount of cheese, and then also add more cheese." or B) End up with an employee that says "That doesn't come with cheese," and points out that you have to add cheese before you can have extra.

Either way, if you want to take a sandwich from "does not have cheese" to "has extra cheese" you have to pass the intermediate stage of "has cheese" first, just like you can't go from "doesn't deal damage" to "extra damage" without first going to "deals damage" - and though I am using cheese as an analogue for damage in this illustrative example, I'm not meaning to imply that wanting more damage is in any way cheesy.

#15

Noctaem

Jan 19, 2015 10:07:56

"cheese"

(Reply to #14)

Coredump00

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

#17

AaronOfBarbaria

Jan 19, 2015 13:18:02

I disagree, Coredump.

A person does not say "I got paid an extra $20 for helping my brother-in-law with some yardwork" unless they are refering to being paid some amount besides that $20, even though that $20 is "more than normal, added to the usual, etc." not geting paid at all.

And while my sandwich analogue does involve pricing schemes, that doesn't change the fact that you can't have "extra cheese" and "add cheese" meaning the exact same thing and not be confusing the meanings, when starting with "doesn't have cheese."

Put very simply "extra damage" is "damage added to the usual damage," and not just "added damage."

#18

Smashpunk

Jan 19, 2015 18:58:33

Both are good analogies. No damage is different from zero damage. What I find interesting is I couldn't spot anywhere that handles if you do zero damage or even negative damage. Such as attacking with a longsword and an 8 strength and rolling a 1. Throw a slime into the mix and things get more complicated.

#19

RCanine

Jan 19, 2015 19:05:23

The net is a ranged weapon with a short range of 5 ft. You're either making a ranged attack in melee or at long range. How do you get advantage?

Aside from that, 4E stipulated that you needed to roll damage dice to get extra damage. I don't think 5E has something similar, does it?

(Reply to #17)

Coredump00

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

#21

Plaguescarred4

Jan 19, 2015 19:56:53

If the net really dealt 0 damage, then modifiers to damage from Dexterity and others bonuses would apply. It deals no damage instead.

#22

Plaguescarred4

Jan 19, 2015 19:56:53

If the net really dealt 0 damage, then modifiers to damage from Dexterity and others bonuses would apply. It deals no damage instead.

(Reply to #20)

AaronOfBarbaria

Coredump00 wrote:

#24

Yunru

Jan 20, 2015 2:14:22

Again Core is ignoring things to match his arguement :/

A Net doesn't deal 0 damage, it deals no damage. If you have to put into numbers, a Net always deals 0 damage, regardless of outside modifiers. Because it doesn't deal damage.

#25

GabrielPendragon

Jan 21, 2015 17:13:30

As for getting advantage, crossbow mastery removes the disadvantage penalty from attacking in melee, and sharpshooter increases the range both instances would allow you to then gain advantage in the normal ways that ranged attacks can gain advantage, like i said difficult but possible. The wording is extra damage when you hit, not extra damage when you deal damage, no where in the description of sneak attack does it say that you need to deal damage to gain the extra damage.

Like I also said, logically it doesn't make sense, but by Rules as Written (RAW) I see no reason it doesn't work. Even searched through the DMG for the requirement of extra damage needing to deal damage in the first place, it isn't there. As written the extra damage is being added to the hit. Also, a net's special rules doesn't say tht a net doesn't deal any damage, it just says that it restrains a target hit by it, and the weapon list has a dash for the damage line. It doesn't say that it can't deal damage, just that it doesn't get a damage roll when it hits.

Also if it is that much of a problem you can also just use it as an improvised weapon dealing 1d4 to melee attack with it as you can with all ranged weapons. As it only needs to have the ranged weapon tag not a ranged attack via sneak attack. Since they are still hit with the net the net special property would still apply also.

#26

Yunru

Jan 22, 2015 4:13:58

You are missing the point. It doesn't need to be defined elsewhere because it is wholy defined in the word "extra". If something doesn't deal damage then you can't have extra damage because it doesn't deal damage.

#27

GabrielPendragon

Jan 22, 2015 11:36:09

Again, even ruled as such, using the net as an improvised weapon to do a melee attack bypasses that problem.

#28

guachi

Jan 22, 2015 13:03:48

In that case, you likely wouldn't get the net's properties to entangle. You'd just be wadding the net up and flogging people with it.

#29

Plaguescarred4

Jan 22, 2015 13:04:56

GabrielPendragon wrote:

(Reply to #24)

Coredump00

Yunru wrote:

(Reply to #21)

Coredump00

Plaguescarred4 wrote:

(Reply to #26)

Coredump00

Yunru wrote:

#33

Noctaem

Jan 22, 2015 14:03:13

Coredump00 wrote:

#34

El_Condoro

Jan 23, 2015 0:37:10

Aside from the wording and the meaning of "extra" how would a DM narrate a net causing 2d6 or more damage to a target? That is assuming the net has not been prepared with bone, glass or other cutting agents, as iserith mentioned above.

(Reply to #33)

Coredump00

Noctaem wrote:

(Reply to #35)

Yunru

Coredump00 wrote:

#37

Noctaem

Jan 23, 2015 3:27:23

Yunru wrote:

#38

Macv12

Jan 23, 2015 5:05:59

Here's another way of saying it that might make sense. A net doesn't deal "0 damage" or "no damage"; it's damage value is "does not deal damage." You can't add 2d6 to "does not deal damage," because it's not a mathematical value. Even if you were to "increase" or "add to" the damage it does, you'd have 2d6+"does not do any damage," so it doesn't do damage. Hopefully that's clearer?

#39

Noctaem

Jan 23, 2015 5:37:00

Macv12 wrote:

(Reply to #36)

Coredump00

Yunru wrote:

(Reply to #38)

Coredump00

Macv12 wrote:

(Reply to #39)

Coredump00

Noctaem wrote:

#43

guachi

Jan 23, 2015 10:12:32

I agree with those who say that a net doesn't just deal "no damage" it deals "always does no damage" for the exact reason(s) you have all mentioned. All I can say to Coredump is that if the rest of us, including people that don't always agree, are on the same side there is probably merit to our argument.

#44

Noctaem

Jan 23, 2015 10:43:50

Coredump00 wrote:

#45

Yunru

Jan 23, 2015 10:30:32

The differences hinges on the fact that "none" is not a value. "None" is different from "nothing", which is what 0 represents.

(Reply to #41)

Macv12

Coredump00 wrote:

(Reply to #43)

Coredump00

guachi wrote:

(Reply to #44)

Coredump00

Noctaem wrote:

(Reply to #45)

Coredump00

Yunru wrote:

(Reply to #46)

Coredump00

Macv12 wrote:

#51

Noctaem

Jan 23, 2015 13:05:06

Coredump00 wrote:

#52

Noctaem

Jan 23, 2015 13:08:09

Coredump00 wrote:

(Reply to #52)

Coredump00

Noctaem wrote:

#54

ModusPonens

Jan 23, 2015 14:35:37

Coredump00 wrote:

#55

Noctaem

Jan 23, 2015 16:24:45

lol this is normal for coredump, if he can't win with the stuff in the PHB he diverts to grammar and just keeps arguing and arguing and arguing. At this point what he's saying doesn't even make sense, but that doesn't matter! "dictionaries" agree with him. Whatever the hell that even means.

(Reply to #54)

Coredump00

ModusPonens wrote:

#57

Yunru

Jan 23, 2015 16:46:44

Very hard apparently, since every time you're presented with it you just go "Nuh uh!" without proof or backing.

But okay, lets put it mathmatically.

X is your accuracy, Y is your damage on a hit:

A Net does not deal damage, therefore it's equation is as follows: X*0Y. No matter how much you increase Y, it still does no damage. It does not deal damage, so no damage is considered, Extra or Inherent.

#58

ModusPonens

Jan 23, 2015 16:48:41

Coredump00 wrote:

#59

AaronOfBarbaria

Jan 23, 2015 17:30:02

I encourage everyone to cease arguing with Coredump about this - especially considering that the real issue of whether or not sneak attack damage can be added to a net is something that Coredump expressed agreement in not being able to happen, and is just arguing that everyone else's explanation of why that is true is wrong because we aren't using the right definition of a particular word.

We all agree on the answer, but have been quibbling about who did the right work to get to that answer - which is why I dropped out of trying to convince Coredump of contextual definition of the word extra earlier in this thread.

It is especially wasteful to spend time arguing with someone about the definition of a word since the usage of that word defines it, and the dictionary changes to match the usage rather than the dictionary providing absolute definition and any usage outside those described being impossible.

It would be pretty cool (see what I did there?) if dictionaries were law that everyone had to follow and weren't mutable to a state of being in contaxt flux, but that isn't the case - so when everyone else agrees what a word means in a given context, then that's what it means in that context... but, if you ask me, I think that is pretty sweet (see what I did here too?).

(Reply to #57)

Coredump00

Yunru wrote:

(Reply to #58)

Coredump00

ModusPonens wrote:

#62

EthanSental

Jan 23, 2015 20:13:04

Only gaming nerds, our version of lawyers, ie rules lawyers, post 55 answers to debate a question like this. Somebody find the Tweet that Mike Mearls tweeted so we can move on to the next question about the minutiae of a role playing game.

(Reply to #61)

AaronOfBarbaria

One last shot:

Coredump00 wrote:

(Reply to #63)

Coredump00

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

#65

Yunru

Jan 24, 2015 13:28:16

No, it doesn't have a number, it doesn't do damage.

(Reply to #65)

Coredump00

Yunru wrote:

#67

EthanSental

Jan 25, 2015 0:05:27

Found it from July 8th of this year. DMs can house rule it but you can see Mike's intent from his tweet. next topic please

@mikemearls Can a rogue sneak attack with a net even if it deals no damage?

@Plaguescarred No, sneak attack is additional damage.

@mikemearls Why? This rule only limits players into just attacking. I can use a net for 0 damage or my bow for d8+5d6.. er I attack

@Hadan_Ashcroft a sneak attack is *extra* damage, needs initial damage to sit on top of. DM can rule otherwise, but that's intent

(Reply to #66)

Yunru

Coredump00 wrote:

(Reply to #67)

Coredump00

EthanSental wrote:

(Reply to #68)

Coredump00

Yunru wrote:

#71

Yunru

Jan 25, 2015 2:57:15

Extra would add to a value of zero. But the Net doesn't do damage. Stack as much extra damage as you like, the Net still won't do damage because it doesn't do damage.

If a container doesn't hold water, for instance, you can't have extra water in the container because it doesn't hold water.

(Reply to #70)

Yunru

Coredump00 wrote:

(Reply to #72)

Coredump00

Yunru wrote:

(Reply to #72)

Coredump00

Yunru wrote:

#75

Yunru

Jan 25, 2015 6:58:36

Doesn't is the restriction. No damage means it can do damage, but that damage is 0. Doesn't do damage means that damage isn't even considered.

(Reply to #75)

Coredump00

Yunru wrote:

#77

AaronOfBarbaria

Jan 25, 2015 13:52:29

Maybe this would help, but I am kind of doubting it:

Using an analogue of explosive yield for damage, which makes more sense: treating the phrase "cardboard is not an explosive material," and "cardboard has an explosive yield of zero," as being the same thing - or treating those two phrases as having different meanings?

Many of us are saying that the two phrases mean different things (because cardboard is not an explosive material with an imeasurably low yield), just like we say that a net is not a damaging object and that is different from it being a damaging object with an extremely low damage value.

#78

Macv12

Jan 25, 2015 16:10:14

I stab someone with a dagger, doing 3 damage. Their Heavy Armor Master feat negates the attack, doing 0 damage. Fortunately, I had advantage on the attack, granting Sneak Attack. I roll 10d6 for 35 extra damage, added on to that same hit, so none of it is negated.

I stab someone with a dagger. Unfortunately it's a toy dagger with a collapsing blade, and the damage is "n/a." It's not dangerous enough to hurt the enemy. I can roll Sneak Attack, but the action I took couldn't hurt anyone, regardless of how precise it was. Extra damage is not applied. I still do a total damage of "none."

Cursory example of difference between "0" and "n/a" damage. It requires some real-world reasoning to make it intuitive, but devs have confirmed that this is how the rules are designed, anyway.

#79

Coredump00

Jan 25, 2015 16:33:38

You are both changing the terms. You are now making the argument using a description of 'net', and not the description of 'Sneak attack'.

*IF* you interpret the rules of the net as saying "The net cannot ever cause damage", then you are completely correct. But that has nothing to do with arguing that 'extra' has some meaning that it doesn't.

If Aaron's first post had been "Nets are designed so they can't damage someone, not even using additional damage" that would have been a very different argument.

To claim that the word "extra" can *ONLY* be applied to putting more of the same.... is incorrect.

The fact that the Net has a "-" listed under damage does not necessarily equate to it being incapable of causing damage. That may be a decent inference.... but it does not a direct result. All we know for sure is that it *doesn't* cause damage, there is not way to decide that it *can't* cause damage.

When I first responded, I assumed this would be over pretty quickly. The response would be "We think the dash means the Net is incapable of causing damage; not even additional damage" But instead people spent dozens of posts claiming 'extra' really meant something not found in *any* defintion anywhere. Now that we are back to discussing the authors intent by using the "-".... it is a different issue.

And part of the fun was seeing how far Yunru would go... to start claming that zero was not the same as nothing.... comedy gold!!

The situation as I see it"

Extra, by every defintion so far discovered, *can* apply to zero damage, or no damage, or nothing damage, or whatever.

The Net is intended to be *incapable* of causing damage when used as intended

"Extra" damage does not let a net go from incapable to capable.

Two things to note:

The fact that the net is incapable of causing damage is *not* explicitly stated, and has to be inferred or assumed. (though Dev tweets help with that)

It is possible (likely) that the Devs were using 'Extra' as they wanted it defined, not how it is actually defined. Thus it is possible (likely?) that they want 'extra' to only apply to non-zero amounts. But again, that is based on the Devs use and intent, not the actual meaning of the word.

And last of all, good things good to know:

Doesn't is a restriction and saying "He has no eggs" and saying "He has zero eggs" are..... "Completely different"

Good times...

#80

Macv12

Jan 25, 2015 17:07:56

You are both changing the terms. You are now making the argument using a description of 'net', and not the description of 'Sneak attack'.

#81

Yunru

Jan 25, 2015 17:09:47

Yes it means something not found in any definition... except all of them, including the ones you quote from.

#82

Noctaem

Jan 25, 2015 17:14:28

Macv12 wrote:

#83

ORC_Cricket

Jan 25, 2015 18:15:32

We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.

You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct

Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.

Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.

#84

Macv12

Jan 25, 2015 20:20:39

Coredump00 wrote:

#85

GabrielPendragon

Jan 25, 2015 22:06:34

Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly
and exploit a foe’s distraction. Once per turn, you can
deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with
an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The
attack must use a finesse or a ranged w eapon.
You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another
enemy o f the target is within 5 feet o f it, that enemy
isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on
the attack roll.

Bolded part is my emphasis. This is the block for sneak attack right from the PHB, no where in the block does it say anything about needing to deal damage with the attack. The only limiters are the next two lines after the bolded portion, which is having advantage and being either ranged or finesee. The next paragraph expands on the needing advantage by denoting a situation where advantage isn't needed.

As I have listed off before, there are a handful of ways to make sure that you don't have disadvantage when attacking with the net. A: Sharpshoort to remove disadvantage from long ranged attacks, B: crossbow mastery to remove the penalty of disadvantage on ranged attacks while in melee range and finally using the net as an improvised weapon to do a melee attack with it. In all these instances you are allowing yourself to not have disadvantage thus making having advantage possible, or being in the situation listed that means you don't need advantage.

Also, the description of the special property on net is this:

Net. A Large or smaller creature hit by a net is
restrained until it is freed. A net has no effect on
creatures that are formless, or creatures that are Huge
or larger. A creature can use its action to make a DC 10
Strength check, freeing itself or another creature within
its reach on a success. Dealing 5 slashing damage to the
net (AC 10) also frees the creature without harming it,
ending the effect and destroying the net.
When you use an action, bonus action, or reaction
to attack with a net, you can make only one attack
regardless o f the number of attacks you can
normally make.

This only says that a net has no effect on formless or huge creatures, not that it doesn't deal damage, or that it can't deal damage.

Net 1 gp — 3 lb. Special, thrown (range 5/15)

Is the line in the chart for net. A dash in the damage line, ok so the net itself can't deal damage, doesn't matter as that isn't the question here. Does not say the net can't deal damage however.

So no where in the nets description does it say the net can't deal damage.

If a character uses a ranged
weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee
weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also
deals 1d4 damage.

This line from improvised weapons tells me exactly what i've been saying, the net could be used to deal damage if it is being used to attack with in an unorthodox way. The simple fact that a rogue needs to take a feat inorder to use a net without a penalty, and has to use two slots of said feat to use it as an improvised weapon without penalty also, probably suggests said rogue has taken the time to learn how to use the net in such unorthodox ways.

The syntax everyone has been spending so much time arguing doesn't even have a relavant place in the wording of the book. The damage isn't being added to the damage of an attack, it is being added to the hit of the attack, saying to add this in addition to any other effects of said attack.

Now if it read something more like add x damage to the damage of the attack I might agree with you, but that isn't what is said in the book.

(Reply to #85)

Macv12

GabrielPendragon wrote:

#87

ORC_Nashira

Jan 26, 2015 3:05:54

We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.

You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct

Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.

Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.

#88

ModusPonens

Jan 26, 2015 12:35:30

Coredump00 wrote:

#89

Noctaem

Jan 26, 2015 12:45:16

ModusPonens wrote:

#90

GabrielPendragon

Jan 26, 2015 13:55:40

The spirit of the law...so RAI, rules as interpreted. Which is what I'm not talking about. This is a question about RAW, rules as written. As we have agreed the damage is being added to the attack, damage is an effect of the attack not the attack itself. I'm paying an extra cost to do extra stuff with my attack, this theme is used heavily in Wizards products. The cost being the limitations of when sneak attack can be applied, with the extra cost of also needing to use a feat to not do so with penalties, in addition to the base cost for all attacks of needing to hit.

This is from the great weapon master feat:

Before you make a melee attack with a heavy weapon
that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a
- 5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add
+10 to the attack’s damage.

This specifies the attack's damage, where as sneak attack does not. The formats are completely different when telling you how to apply the extra damage.

Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to creature you hit with an attack if yo u have advantage on the attack roll.

The first one adds damage to the attacks damage, where the second gives you an addition effect of the attack. The wording is telling us exactly what is being added to what, just like in 4th edition the difference between adding damage to an attack, and adding to the damage roll made a huge difference with magic missile, and why effects that just added damage still worked with MM while things that added damage to the damage roll did not. With the outliers being specificly rewritten to apply their bonuses to magic missile.

As for what that unorthodox way might be, couldn't say, haven't really taken the time to learn how to fight with a net. Though I've known a lot of nets to have weights on them.

#91

EthanSental

Jan 27, 2015 4:41:34

Just house rule it in your game and move on. Or are you a player and the DM doesn't see a net as being able to do damage and therefore no SA extra damage? Not sure what the question is now after posting the tweet explaining the intent by the game designer, RAW/ RAI, its a game that you can house rule, no need to take this to the Supreme court for an official rulling as its not the US Constitution we are talking about.