I have an idea for an unmounted bugbear(+reach) with a lance(+reach, disadvantage at 5)
Crusher (feat) Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
Net (item) damage = 0 bludgeoning range = 5/15
So a creature gets nice and cozy 5ft range of you.... can you throw a net at them (str attack roll, dc10 unrestrain) if your 'attack' hit's from your attack roll that is 0 bludgeoning meaning that crusher can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space
I have an idea for an unmounted bugbear(+reach) with a lance(+reach, disadvantage at 5)
Crusher (feat) Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
Net (item) damage = 0 bludgeoning range = 5/15
So a creature gets nice and cozy 5ft range of you.... can you throw a net at them (str attack roll, dc10 unrestrain) if your 'attack' hit's from your attack roll that is 0 bludgeoning meaning that crusher can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space
I have an idea for an unmounted bugbear(+reach) with a lance(+reach, disadvantage at 5)
Crusher (feat) Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
Net (item) damage = 0 bludgeoning range = 5/15
So a creature gets nice and cozy 5ft range of you.... can you throw a net at them (str attack roll, dc10 unrestrain) if your 'attack' hit's from your attack roll that is 0 bludgeoning meaning that crusher can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space
No. Thinking about someone does 0 bludgeoning damage. Cutting their head off with an axe does 0 bludgeoning damage. The only way this could be argued is an attack with a listed bludgeoning damage(Such as a warhammer or fist) that has a damage penalty which brings the damage to 0. And you still have disadvantage attacking with the net since it is a ranged weapon in melee range. The net is made so that all attacks with it have disadvantage unless you have a feat that lets you ignore range penalties.
I believe the net has a damage type listed on DDBeyond because they could not make a weapon entry with no damage, but if you actually look in the PHB nets don't have a damage type listed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I have an idea for an unmounted bugbear(+reach) with a lance(+reach, disadvantage at 5)
Crusher (feat) Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
Net (item) damage = 0 bludgeoning range = 5/15
So a creature gets nice and cozy 5ft range of you.... can you throw a net at them (str attack roll, dc10 unrestrain) if your 'attack' hit's from your attack roll that is 0 bludgeoning meaning that crusher can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space
It isn't even a actually 0. The net does not have a damage type because it doesn't do damage. The limitations of the character sheet may have required them to put something, but that is not the rules. Crusher will not interact with it RAW.
Also the net is a ranged weapon, so it uses DEX mod for the attack roll (at disadvantage unless you have a feat like crossbow expert to remove that).
I agree, when it comes to a net, that this is just a quirk on DDB. The official rules do not list a damage type because it doesn't do damage.
However, this raises an interesting side question: Say you hit with a mace, but the combination of damage roll and modifiers leads to zero damage. The weapon's damage type is Bludgeoning, but does it "deal bludgeoning damage" (and therefore trigger the Crusher effect) if it doesn't cause any damage?
I don't believe the rules explicitly state "Dealing 0 damage doesn't count as dealing damage" because that's logically inferred by what "0 damage" would mean. 0 damage means no damage, thus anything that triggers off dealing damage would not trigger off dealing no damage, thus wouldn't trigger off 0 damage.
This works for effects that deal 0 damage:
After modifiers (say an unarmed strike with -1 strength)
After immunity
Of a certain type (a sword doesn't deal any bludgeoning damage)
As a property of the effect/attack (such as a net or spell that doesn't deal damage)
This is oddly reminiscent of the difference between "diet coke" and "coke zero". one has no sugar, no calories - the other has zero sugar, zero calories. fortunately, both of them fall under "sooner drink my own urine" for me so the difference is moot.
the difference between "diet coke" and "coke zero"... fortunately, both of them fall under "sooner drink my own urine" for me so the difference is moot
However, this raises an interesting side question: Say you hit with a mace, but the combination of damage roll and modifiers leads to zero damage. The weapon's damage type is Bludgeoning, but does it "deal bludgeoning damage" (and therefore trigger the Crusher effect) if it doesn't cause any damage?
I would have sworn that there was a rule that said 0 damage is not damage, but while checking rules for this thread all I found was 2 instances of "it is possible to deal 0 damage," with no further rule or elaboration on that case. So if it is possible to deal 0 bludgeoning damage, then you dealt bludgeoning damage I guess.
Crusher requires you to hit with an attack that does bludgeoning damage, but it doesn't actually require doing damage, it just requires the type of damage be crushing.
Heh. I know of a situation where a player keeps getting his Rage dropped due to interference preventing the player making attacks while also not taking damage. One of the other players does 1+(-1) when making an unarmed hit. It would be funny if the other player could keep the barbarian's rage going by making a successful unarmed attack and doing 1+(-1) damage.🤣
It doesn't work that way, but it would still be funny if it did.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Lets put this into perspective. If you get shot in the face with a nerf gun, do you feel you've been hit? Yes If you get shot in the face with a nerf gun, do you take physical, harmful damage? No
So for the purpose of determining hit with bludgeoning damage versus damage from bludgeoning damage it all depends on the wording.
"when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage" I'd say yes, you've been hit with the nerf dart that deals bludgeoning damage. Crusher would apply. The feat doesn't specify that harm needs to be inflicted just that you need to hit with an attack of the bludgeoning type.
So a baby clobbers you in the face. Did you get hit? Yes. Did you take damage? No. It's not about if 0 damage is no damage. It's about whether you got hit with bludgeoning damage, which you did.
So a baby clobbers you in the face. Did you get hit? Yes. Did you take damage? No. It's not about if 0 damage is no damage. It's about whether you got hit with bludgeoning damage, which you did.
Obviously you have not been holding my niece when she decides to have a temper tantrum.
So a baby clobbers you in the face. Did you get hit? Yes. Did you take damage? No. It's not about if 0 damage is no damage. It's about whether you got hit with bludgeoning damage, which you did.
I'm inclined to agree with you, but I can't find a rule that does.
So a baby clobbers you in the face. Did you get hit? Yes. Did you take damage? No. It's not about if 0 damage is no damage. It's about whether you got hit with bludgeoning damage, which you did.
I would love to see a variant human baby use the crusher feat.
Is 0 a number or is 0 NULL? Oh boy!
I have an idea for an unmounted bugbear(+reach) with a lance(+reach, disadvantage at 5)
Crusher (feat)
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
Net (item)
damage = 0 bludgeoning
range = 5/15
So a creature gets nice and cozy 5ft range of you.... can you throw a net at them (str attack roll, dc10 unrestrain) if your 'attack' hit's from your attack roll that is 0 bludgeoning meaning that crusher can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space
No. Thinking about someone does 0 bludgeoning damage. Cutting their head off with an axe does 0 bludgeoning damage. The only way this could be argued is an attack with a listed bludgeoning damage(Such as a warhammer or fist) that has a damage penalty which brings the damage to 0. And you still have disadvantage attacking with the net since it is a ranged weapon in melee range. The net is made so that all attacks with it have disadvantage unless you have a feat that lets you ignore range penalties.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
I believe the net has a damage type listed on DDBeyond because they could not make a weapon entry with no damage, but if you actually look in the PHB nets don't have a damage type listed.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
It isn't even a actually 0. The net does not have a damage type because it doesn't do damage. The limitations of the character sheet may have required them to put something, but that is not the rules. Crusher will not interact with it RAW.
Also the net is a ranged weapon, so it uses DEX mod for the attack roll (at disadvantage unless you have a feat like crossbow expert to remove that).
I agree, when it comes to a net, that this is just a quirk on DDB. The official rules do not list a damage type because it doesn't do damage.
However, this raises an interesting side question: Say you hit with a mace, but the combination of damage roll and modifiers leads to zero damage. The weapon's damage type is Bludgeoning, but does it "deal bludgeoning damage" (and therefore trigger the Crusher effect) if it doesn't cause any damage?
I don't believe the rules explicitly state "Dealing 0 damage doesn't count as dealing damage" because that's logically inferred by what "0 damage" would mean. 0 damage means no damage, thus anything that triggers off dealing damage would not trigger off dealing no damage, thus wouldn't trigger off 0 damage.
This works for effects that deal 0 damage:
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
That was what I thought, too. Thanks :) . Figured it was worth adding this to the thread, though, as it is very closely related to the OPs question.
This is oddly reminiscent of the difference between "diet coke" and "coke zero". one has no sugar, no calories - the other has zero sugar, zero calories. fortunately, both of them fall under "sooner drink my own urine" for me so the difference is moot.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Love it, brilliant! Also, I completely agree
I would have sworn that there was a rule that said 0 damage is not damage, but while checking rules for this thread all I found was 2 instances of "it is possible to deal 0 damage," with no further rule or elaboration on that case. So if it is possible to deal 0 bludgeoning damage, then you dealt bludgeoning damage I guess.
Crusher requires you to hit with an attack that does bludgeoning damage, but it doesn't actually require doing damage, it just requires the type of damage be crushing.
But does the attack do or deal bludgeoning damage if the amount of damage is zero?
Heh. I know of a situation where a player keeps getting his Rage dropped due to interference preventing the player making attacks while also not taking damage. One of the other players does 1+(-1) when making an unarmed hit. It would be funny if the other player could keep the barbarian's rage going by making a successful unarmed attack and doing 1+(-1) damage.🤣
It doesn't work that way, but it would still be funny if it did.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
The attack deals 0 bludgeoning damage :p
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Lets put this into perspective.
If you get shot in the face with a nerf gun, do you feel you've been hit? Yes
If you get shot in the face with a nerf gun, do you take physical, harmful damage? No
So for the purpose of determining hit with bludgeoning damage versus damage from bludgeoning damage it all depends on the wording.
"when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage"
I'd say yes, you've been hit with the nerf dart that deals bludgeoning damage. Crusher would apply. The feat doesn't specify that harm needs to be inflicted just that you need to hit with an attack of the bludgeoning type.
0 damage is no damage. It's not a video game, there is no glitch or trick or exploit to be found here. If damage = 0, the damage doesn't exist.
So a baby clobbers you in the face. Did you get hit? Yes. Did you take damage? No. It's not about if 0 damage is no damage. It's about whether you got hit with bludgeoning damage, which you did.
Obviously you have not been holding my niece when she decides to have a temper tantrum.
I'm inclined to agree with you, but I can't find a rule that does.
I would love to see a variant human baby use the crusher feat.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)