Yeah, being bludgeoned to death by poor quote formatting kills my willingness to stay in these threads a second longer than necessary.
I see your logic chain, that “-“ could mean no damage and no possibility of damage, no damage type, etc. it’s a fine theory. None of it is to be found written though, so it’s all just a houserule. Have fun playing it your way, but it’s not a logical inevitability, and it’s not self evident, and it’s not RAW.
A short swords d6 tells me nothing one way or the other about strength modifiers, fighting styles, maneuvers, Hex, smites etc. Those features tell me what they do, and nothing in the short swords traits or the weapons section says otherwise.
A net is no different, in that respect. It’s special trait does what it says (restrains), not what it doesn’t (make damage inapplicable on net hits). You’re the one reading for extra rules not found in the net, nor the PHB at large, nor anywhere. That’s a houserule, my dudes, and while not a totally unreasonable one, it’s just not in the books that nets deal no damage, so quit spouting that off like it’s anything more than your own opinion.
The DDB implementation of the net is incorrect. The books rightly say that the damage is "_" with no value and no type mentioned, so please explain to me what you add damage to something that does not even have a numerical value ?
What is the damage value of a water balloon? What is the damage value of a water somehow fired at supersonic speeds or forcefully shoved down someone's throat? That something does not normally do damage does not automatically equate to being incapable of being used to cause damage.
Fun fact: RAW, the weapon restriction on Sneak Attack is "The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon." Nets may not in and of themselves do damage, but they are still ranged martial weapons. RAW, a rogue can manage to do damage with one, provided the other conditions are also favourable to a sneak attack.
No, they actually can't. Sneak Attack adds damage dice to the damage caused by the weapon, and those damage dice must be of the same type of damage as the weapon. So if you use Sneak Attack with a dagger, rapier, or hand crossbow, that extra damage will be Piercing. If you can get proficiency with a scimitar, that extra damage will be Slashing.
But since the net has no damage type, and damage cannot be untyped, Sneak Attack cannot, by RAW, deal damage with a net.
Have fun playing with your house rule and explain to your players how throwing a net, which does no damage and does not add any ability score to its damage dice suddenly does damage because it's thrown with a higher precision. And of what type.
My nets do piercing damage. I include a nail into every single knot that makes up the net. :-)
Or maybe I'll make the rope from magical mono-filament wire, which will be slashing damage.
A lack of something, plus something, equals something. You can actually add to a lack of things. This is normal in math. In math, you either have something or you do not. There is no mystery '-' state that is neither zero nor non-zero.
In addition to feeling mildly surprised from being hit by a liquid filled balloon (that otherwise did no impact damage), your flesh is badly burnt by the acid that was inside the balloon.
And we are talking about RAW, not about how easily RAW can be explained.
That's now things normally operate, yes. But you also have to follow the rules. And dealing damage in combat has its own rules you need to follow.
If there's no weapon die, then there's no damage type and you don't get to add the ability modifier to the result. The fact of the matter is the net simply cannot deal damage. And that means Sneak Attack doesn't work with it, either.
Yeah, being bludgeoned to death by poor quote formatting kills my willingness to stay in these threads a second longer than necessary.
I see your logic chain, that “-“ could mean no damage and no possibility of damage, no damage type, etc. it’s a fine theory. None of it is to be found written though, so it’s all just a houserule. Have fun playing it your way, but it’s not a logical inevitability, and it’s not self evident, and it’s not RAW.
Regardless of whether you look in the Basic Rules or the Player's Handbook, the net has no expressed damage die or type. A thing does what it says it does, and it doesn't do more than what it says. If the net was intended to deal any sort of damage, then it would say so somewhere in its description.
A lack of something, plus something, equals something. You can actually add to a lack of things. This is normal in math. In math, you either have something or you do not. There is no mystery '-' state that is neither zero nor non-zero.
The fault in your premise is that "-" is not a number. Addition is not an operation that's well-defined when combining numbers and non-numbers. It's not unreasonable, from a lay perspective anyway, to just treat it as "0," but it's also not supported by any actual rule. Ergo, it's a houserule.
There's likewise no actual rule that says that means no damage. I'm not convinced there is a RAW answer here, but I think the closest would be to say "if the operation is undefined, nothing happens."
Yeah, being bludgeoned to death by poor quote formatting kills my willingness to stay in these threads a second longer than necessary.
I see your logic chain, that “-“ could mean no damage and no possibility of damage, no damage type, etc. it’s a fine theory. None of it is to be found written though, so it’s all just a houserule. Have fun playing it your way, but it’s not a logical inevitability, and it’s not self evident, and it’s not RAW.
It isn't a house rule. No one arguing that nets can't deal damage are assigning meaning to "-". Just the opposite.
It doesn't matter what "-" could mean, we only need to know what "-" doesn't mean: a damage value and/or damage type. All other weapons have a damage value and damage type, nets do not.
You can't add damage to net, not because that is what "-" means, but because "-" is not a value that can be added to. That's it. No house rules.
It’s the inverse of the exact same argument I made for why Longstrider gives a Giant Shark a walking speed of 10. Because it has a speed of 0, and 0+10=10. If they had given a Giant Shark a walking speed of —, then I would be saying the same thing as I’ll say here: You can’t add anything to it, it won’t work.
A lack of something, plus something, equals something. You can actually add to a lack of things. This is normal in math. In math, you either have something or you do not. There is no mystery '-' state that is neither zero nor non-zero.
The fault in your premise is that "-" is not a number. Addition is not an operation that's well-defined when combining numbers and non-numbers. It's not unreasonable, from a lay perspective anyway, to just treat it as "0," but it's also not supported by any actual rule. Ergo, it's a houserule.
There's likewise no actual rule that says that means no damage. I'm not convinced there is a RAW answer here, but I think the closest would be to say "if the operation is undefined, nothing happens."
I am not sure how that is in any way relevant.
Sneak attack does not say that he originating weapon has to do damage. That is not a qualifier. It does not matter if "-" is a number, a symbol, a concept, or a the nose of a little animal whose eyes are revealed when surrounding it with quotation marks. Sneak attack does extra damage, i.e. damage not otherwise done by the attack.
Now should it? That is a different question
Is it RAI? Also a different question. Likely not.
But RAW? Seems the answer is 'Yes, it is.'
So, is it your contention that sneak attack damage is not actually part of the attack's damage? If it's entirely separate, then I agree, you don't have to do addition to determine the total attack damage, and it doesn't matter what the base weapon damage is. It also means sneak attack damage isn't doubled on a crit, since it's not the attack's damage. I honestly think this interpretation is not at all contradicted by actual rules text, though designers have made numerous statements that this is absolutely not the case.
If, however, this "extra damage" is a bonus to the base attack's damage, rather than an entirely separate effect, we run into the very problem that you can't see the relevance of: "- + 4d6" is not 4d6. It's not anything. You may as well ask what 3 plus purple is. It's meaningless, unless the rules somewhere give definition to it, which they do not. You cannot add 4d6 to a value of "-" unless you houserule "-" into something you can, like 0.
Some effects say “the weapon” does additional damage, some say “the attack,” and others say “you.” If “you” or “the attack” deals additional damage, then it’s possible. If “the weapon” deals additional damage then it isn’t because— cannot be added to.
Some effects say “the weapon” does additional damage, some say “the attack,” and others say “you.” If “you” or “the attack” deals additional damage, then it’s possible. If “the weapon” deals additional damage then it isn’t because— cannot be added to.
There is no rule in the game that - cannot be added to.
Some effects say “the weapon” does additional damage, some say “the attack,” and others say “you.” If “you” or “the attack” deals additional damage, then it’s possible. If “the weapon” deals additional damage then it isn’t because— cannot be added to.
There is no rule in the game that - cannot be added to.
It doesn’t need to be, it’s common sense. It’s the distinction between — and 0.
It’s relevant, because “how do you damage someone with a sneak attack with a weapon that doesn’t have base damage?” isnt a question that 5E claims to need an answer to. Sneak Attack does damage on a ranged weapon hit. A net is a ranged weapon. Thus it deals sneak attack damage, even if you’re having trouble imagining what that means, or even if you’re having a hard time deciding what type of damage that would deal for some reason.
It’s relevant, because “how do you damage someone with a sneak attack with a weapon that doesn’t have base damage?” isnt a question that 5E claims to need an answer to. Sneak Attack does damage on a ranged weapon hit. A net is a ranged weapon. Thus it deals sneak attack damage, even if you’re having trouble imagining what that means, or even if you’re having a hard time deciding what type of damage that would deal for some reason.
Ignoring the fact that sneak attack would be adding extra damage to a non-damaging effect:
All damage has a damage type. What would the sneak attack damage type be? (Link and quote from PHB please).
Whatever the DM rules it to be, just like the sneak attack from a flaming sword comes down to a ruling. Not important what my own ruling would be to clear up that ambiguity, there’s plenty of vagueries that 5E leaves in the hand of the DM to rule. The fact that a weapon interaction will put a DM in a situation to have to make a decision is not support for that interaction being illegal or for reading unwritten rules that restrict that decision making.
Whatever the DM rules it to be, just like the sneak attack from a flaming sword comes down to a ruling. Not important what my own ruling would be to clear up that ambiguity, there’s plenty of vagueries that 5E leaves in the hand of the DM to rule. The fact that a weapon interaction will put a DM in a situation to have to make a decision is not support for that interaction being illegal or for reading unwritten rules that restrict that decision making.
You're dodging the question. All damage must have a damage type. What is the damage type of a net and why?
Whatever the DM rules it to be, just like the sneak attack from a flaming sword comes down to a ruling. Not important what my own ruling would be to clear up that ambiguity, there’s plenty of vagueries that 5E leaves in the hand of the DM to rule. The fact that a weapon interaction will put a DM in a situation to have to make a decision is not support for that interaction being illegal or for reading unwritten rules that restrict that decision making.
You're dodging the question. All damage must have a damage type. What is the damage type of a net and why?
Objection! Asked and answered. Blunt because it makes the most sense of the options. And not sure why that part is being played up as so substantial, given the only ones talking about new undefined damage types are those trying to insist it isn't RAW.
That's because "new undefined damage types" aren't RAW. And if WotC wanted the net to have a damage type, they'd have given it a damage type.
Whatever the DM rules it to be, just like the sneak attack from a flaming sword comes down to a ruling. Not important what my own ruling would be to clear up that ambiguity, there’s plenty of vagueries that 5E leaves in the hand of the DM to rule. The fact that a weapon interaction will put a DM in a situation to have to make a decision is not support for that interaction being illegal or for reading unwritten rules that restrict that decision making.
You're dodging the question. All damage must have a damage type. What is the damage type of a net and why?
Objection! Asked and answered. Blunt because it makes the most sense of the options. And not sure why that part is being played up as so substantial, given the only ones talking about new undefined damage types are those trying to insist it isn't RAW.
That's because "new undefined damage types" aren't RAW. And if WotC wanted the net to have a damage type, they'd have given it a damage type.
Then they would have to deal with people whining "How can it have a damage type if it does no damage" and person after person asking if it is a typo.
Right, so it has no damage type and does no damage. That's the RAW.
If you, or someone else, want to change that so Sneak Attack works with it, that's your prerogative. House rules are absolutely a thing. Just be aware of how it mucks with stuff.
There’s no rule that says that a weapon with no damage type can’t deal damage. Quote plz? Damage, when it’s dealt, has a type. If the DM is in a position where they need to decide what type is being dealt? Boohoo, that’s literally their job.
Well, if a wall falls on you, then it no longer serves it's purpose as a wall and becomes a trap/very op improved weapon which gives it its damage type/damage dice.
You can certainly make improvised weapon attacks with a net, cause doing so would give it a damage type/damage dice. However it would no longer serve as a net, and therefore no restrained property or whatever. Probably means no disadvantage too, cause your just bundling the net up and knocking people out which is a lot easier than tying people up.
Edit: This is irrelevant but can you all stop making such huge quote chains, just quote the text you need and delete the rest. Like for example I would do
Right. On its own it has no damage type and does no damage. This does not mean that sneak attack does not work with it. Again, resting against a wall as opposed to the wall falling on you. What damage and damage type does a wall have. Normally neither. But under the right circumstances, it does have both. There is no listing under equipment for a wall doing damage. Does this mean one falling on you cannot hurt you?
Whatever the DM rules it to be, just like the sneak attack from a flaming sword comes down to a ruling. Not important what my own ruling would be to clear up that ambiguity, there’s plenty of vagueries that 5E leaves in the hand of the DM to rule. The fact that a weapon interaction will put a DM in a situation to have to make a decision is not support for that interaction being illegal or for reading unwritten rules that restrict that decision making.
You're dodging the question. All damage must have a damage type. What is the damage type of a net and why?
Objection! Asked and answered. Blunt because it makes the most sense of the options. And not sure why that part is being played up as so substantial, given the only ones talking about new undefined damage types are those trying to insist it isn't RAW.
That's because "new undefined damage types" aren't RAW. And if WotC wanted the net to have a damage type, they'd have given it a damage type.
Then they would have to deal with people whining "How can it have a damage type if it does no damage" and person after person asking if it is a typo.
Right, so it has no damage type and does no damage. That's the RAW.
If you, or someone else, want to change that so Sneak Attack works with it, that's your prerogative. House rules are absolutely a thing. Just be aware of how it mucks with stuff.
Right. On its own it has no damage type and does no damage. This does not mean that sneak attack does not work with it. Again, resting against a wall as opposed to the wall falling on you. What damage and damage type does a wall have. Normally neither. But under the right circumstances, it does have both. There is no listing under equipment for a wall doing damage. Does this mean one falling on you cannot hurt you?
Okay, there are a few things going on here. So we'll address the one at a time.
Sneak Attack does not work with a net. Sneak Attack does not have a damage type. Its damage type is determined by the weapon used. Normally, this is piercing; if for no other reason than the majority of compatible weapons they are natively proficient with deal piercing damage. But since the net has no damage die or damage type, there is no damage to be added to. You don't even get to add your Dexterity modifier to the damage roll.
Falling can result in bludgeoning damage. If you wish to discuss the hypotheticals of a wall falling onto a creature, that is an improvised situation not explicitly covered by the rules. Perhaps it's a trap; in which case, there are some rules for designing traps in both the DMG and Xanathar's. But if you're relying on an improvised scenario where the DM must exercise judgment, absent of any hard rules, to justify your position on a net's compatibility with Sneak Attack...
Look, you may not see what's going on here, but I bet others can. You are conflating a DM's periodic need for improvisation with the clearly expressed rules of the game. And it's leading to a place where things can get seriously mucked up. If you can arbitrarily assign a damage type to Sneak Attack, regardless of whatever damage the weapon might actually deal, then you're opening up a can of purple worms. It is a ridiculous proposition.
Yeah, being bludgeoned to death by poor quote formatting kills my willingness to stay in these threads a second longer than necessary.
I see your logic chain, that “-“ could mean no damage and no possibility of damage, no damage type, etc. it’s a fine theory. None of it is to be found written though, so it’s all just a houserule. Have fun playing it your way, but it’s not a logical inevitability, and it’s not self evident, and it’s not RAW.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
No, they actually can't. Sneak Attack adds damage dice to the damage caused by the weapon, and those damage dice must be of the same type of damage as the weapon. So if you use Sneak Attack with a dagger, rapier, or hand crossbow, that extra damage will be Piercing. If you can get proficiency with a scimitar, that extra damage will be Slashing.
But since the net has no damage type, and damage cannot be untyped, Sneak Attack cannot, by RAW, deal damage with a net.
My nets do piercing damage. I include a nail into every single knot that makes up the net. :-)
Or maybe I'll make the rope from magical mono-filament wire, which will be slashing damage.
That's now things normally operate, yes. But you also have to follow the rules. And dealing damage in combat has its own rules you need to follow.
If there's no weapon die, then there's no damage type and you don't get to add the ability modifier to the result. The fact of the matter is the net simply cannot deal damage. And that means Sneak Attack doesn't work with it, either.
Regardless of whether you look in the Basic Rules or the Player's Handbook, the net has no expressed damage die or type. A thing does what it says it does, and it doesn't do more than what it says. If the net was intended to deal any sort of damage, then it would say so somewhere in its description.
The fault in your premise is that "-" is not a number. Addition is not an operation that's well-defined when combining numbers and non-numbers. It's not unreasonable, from a lay perspective anyway, to just treat it as "0," but it's also not supported by any actual rule. Ergo, it's a houserule.
There's likewise no actual rule that says that means no damage. I'm not convinced there is a RAW answer here, but I think the closest would be to say "if the operation is undefined, nothing happens."
It isn't a house rule. No one arguing that nets can't deal damage are assigning meaning to "-". Just the opposite.
It doesn't matter what "-" could mean, we only need to know what "-" doesn't mean: a damage value and/or damage type. All other weapons have a damage value and damage type, nets do not.
You can't add damage to net, not because that is what "-" means, but because "-" is not a value that can be added to. That's it. No house rules.
It’s the inverse of the exact same argument I made for why Longstrider gives a Giant Shark a walking speed of 10. Because it has a speed of 0, and 0+10=10. If they had given a Giant Shark a walking speed of —, then I would be saying the same thing as I’ll say here: You can’t add anything to it, it won’t work.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
So, is it your contention that sneak attack damage is not actually part of the attack's damage? If it's entirely separate, then I agree, you don't have to do addition to determine the total attack damage, and it doesn't matter what the base weapon damage is. It also means sneak attack damage isn't doubled on a crit, since it's not the attack's damage. I honestly think this interpretation is not at all contradicted by actual rules text, though designers have made numerous statements that this is absolutely not the case.
If, however, this "extra damage" is a bonus to the base attack's damage, rather than an entirely separate effect, we run into the very problem that you can't see the relevance of: "- + 4d6" is not 4d6. It's not anything. You may as well ask what 3 plus purple is. It's meaningless, unless the rules somewhere give definition to it, which they do not. You cannot add 4d6 to a value of "-" unless you houserule "-" into something you can, like 0.
Some effects say “the weapon” does additional damage, some say “the attack,” and others say “you.” If “you” or “the attack” deals additional damage, then it’s possible. If “the weapon” deals additional damage then it isn’t because— cannot be added to.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
There is no rule in the game that - cannot be added to.
It doesn’t need to be, it’s common sense. It’s the distinction between — and 0.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
It’s relevant, because “how do you damage someone with a sneak attack with a weapon that doesn’t have base damage?” isnt a question that 5E claims to need an answer to. Sneak Attack does damage on a ranged weapon hit. A net is a ranged weapon. Thus it deals sneak attack damage, even if you’re having trouble imagining what that means, or even if you’re having a hard time deciding what type of damage that would deal for some reason.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Ignoring the fact that sneak attack would be adding extra damage to a non-damaging effect:
All damage has a damage type. What would the sneak attack damage type be? (Link and quote from PHB please).
Whatever the DM rules it to be, just like the sneak attack from a flaming sword comes down to a ruling. Not important what my own ruling would be to clear up that ambiguity, there’s plenty of vagueries that 5E leaves in the hand of the DM to rule. The fact that a weapon interaction will put a DM in a situation to have to make a decision is not support for that interaction being illegal or for reading unwritten rules that restrict that decision making.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You're dodging the question. All damage must have a damage type. What is the damage type of a net and why?
That's because "new undefined damage types" aren't RAW. And if WotC wanted the net to have a damage type, they'd have given it a damage type.
Right, so it has no damage type and does no damage. That's the RAW.
If you, or someone else, want to change that so Sneak Attack works with it, that's your prerogative. House rules are absolutely a thing. Just be aware of how it mucks with stuff.
There’s no rule that says that a weapon with no damage type can’t deal damage. Quote plz? Damage, when it’s dealt, has a type. If the DM is in a position where they need to decide what type is being dealt? Boohoo, that’s literally their job.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Well, if a wall falls on you, then it no longer serves it's purpose as a wall and becomes a trap/very op improved weapon which gives it its damage type/damage dice.
You can certainly make improvised weapon attacks with a net, cause doing so would give it a damage type/damage dice. However it would no longer serve as a net, and therefore no restrained property or whatever. Probably means no disadvantage too, cause your just bundling the net up and knocking people out which is a lot easier than tying people up.
Edit: This is irrelevant but can you all stop making such huge quote chains, just quote the text you need and delete the rest. Like for example I would do
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Okay, there are a few things going on here. So we'll address the one at a time.
Look, you may not see what's going on here, but I bet others can. You are conflating a DM's periodic need for improvisation with the clearly expressed rules of the game. And it's leading to a place where things can get seriously mucked up. If you can arbitrarily assign a damage type to Sneak Attack, regardless of whatever damage the weapon might actually deal, then you're opening up a can of purple worms. It is a ridiculous proposition.