I seriously do not get the argument here. The purpose of a Net is to restrain and entangle a target, not to hurt or kill it (unless you want to hurt or kill after it is restrained). Heck look at gladiatorial combat, a Net wielder is not trying to hurt his opponent with the Net, he is trying to entangle his opponent or his opponent's weapon in it. His spear or trident does the damage.
There are no clearly expressed rules that you don’t add Dex to a ranged weapon attack, quite the opposite. The clearly expressed rules about nets are found in the special trait of the net, nowhere else. That special trait does NOT say it does no damage, cannot deliver bonus damage, cannot sneak attack, etc. If you truly cannot understand the leap you are taking to get at “nets can’t do damage even though they’re a weapon,” I really don’t know what more to tell you. A net doesn’t roll a weapon damage dice. That’s it.
Then it would say 0 like a lot of other things do (IAmSposta gave the example of Giant Sharks, which shows the WoTC knows what the difference between - and 0 is).
But it doesn't, it says -, which in common word usage instead means N/A or Null, not 0.
There are no clearly expressed rules that you don’t add Dex to a ranged weapon attack, quite the opposite. The clearly expressed rules about nets are found in the special trait of the net, nowhere else. That special trait does NOT say it does no damage, cannot deliver bonus damage, cannot sneak attack, etc. If you truly cannot understand the leap you are taking to get at “nets can’t do damage even though they’re a weapon,” I really don’t know what more to tell you. A net doesn’t roll a weapon damage dice. That’s it.
"You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target," means if there's no damage die then there's nothing to add your ability modifier to. The Unarmed Strike, mentioned earlier in that chapter, is a specific exception to the general rule. So is the net.
I understand your perspective. You believe that if there is no rolled damage dice to add bonuses to, then the whole rest of the equation crumbles. A damage formula is (1) weapon + (2) ability score + (3) bonuses, and you believe that without a (1) you may never have a (2) or (3).
But nothing in your quoted section SAYS that no (1)=no (2) or (3). I’m reading the same language you are, but you’re reaching. We add to 0 all the time, it’s not a novel thing to add up 0+2... or even that odd in English to say that you have none of something, “plus an extra” amount of that thing. Your camp is arguing that there’s some intrinsic universal meaning to a dash that means something other than 0, that “null” or “n/a” is a concept in 5E with game meaning that “-“ obviously represents, and... there’s just no support for that position I’ve seen quoted yet. Where else do you find null, that can’t be understood to be 0?
I read Sneak Attack to essentially mean “however much damage you do with a hit, even 0, do Xd6 more”. You read it as if it means “if you do 1 or more damage with a hit, do Xd6 more.” Neither of those meanings is any more quotable in the PHB than the other, please just acknowledge that, even if you believe your ruling to be more reasonable than mine, neither side has black and white language to point to in net or anywhere else that says “this really isn’t hard.”
I understand your perspective. You believe that if there is no rolled damage dice to add bonuses to, then the whole rest of the equation crumbles. A damage formula is (1) weapon + (2) ability score + (3) bonuses, and you believe that without a (1) you may never have a (2) or (3).
But nothing in your quoted section SAYS that no (1)=no (2) or (3). I’m reading the same language you are, but you’re reaching. We add to 0 all the time, it’s not a novel thing to add up 0+2... or even that odd in English to say that you have none of something, “plus an extra” amount of that thing. Your camp is arguing that there’s some intrinsic universal meaning to a dash that means something other than 0, that “null” or “n/a” is a concept in 5E with game meaning that “-“ obviously represents, and... there’s just no support for that position I’ve seen quoted yet. Where else do you find null, that can’t be understood to be 0?
I read Sneak Attack to essentially mean “however much damage you do with a hit, even 0, do Xd6 more”. You read it as if it means “if you do 1 or more damage with a hit, do Xd6 more.” Neither of those meanings is any more quotable in the PHB than the other, please just acknowledge that, even if you believe your ruling to be more reasonable than mine, neither side has black and white language to point to in net or anywhere else that says “this really isn’t hard.”
I'm not the one who's reaching. You're not adding to an expressed zero. You're adding to an expressed dash, a textual entry. You're looking for something in the rules that prohibits you from doing something, and you're not going to find it. Fifth Edition D&D simply doesn't work that way; it's not written that way.
If an interaction was intended to be allowed, it would explicitly say so. Your train of thought is the same as those who say the area affected by the grease spell is flammable; not because the spell doesn't say it is but because the spell doesn't prohibit it. And that's, quite frankly, bull hockey.
Sneak Attack cannot deal damage on its own. Full stop. And there is no damage to be amplified by, or define, a Sneak Attack.
"But a DM is free to override that intent. The RAW certainly isn't entirely clear here."
... and we have looped back to the part where, although it's not entirely clear, the interpretation that it does no damage of any type and is therefore boosted by nothing is the only one that is consistent with all the other rules (and in particular not inventing a new damage type), but which is also the intent of two separate game designers, Mearls and Crawford. And you are arguing against it because ? Because what exactly ?
It's not consistent with all other rules, and I'm quite certain we don't have a tweet from JC claiming that Hex doesn't work on nets.
"But a DM is free to override that intent. The RAW certainly isn't entirely clear here."
... and we have looped back to the part where, although it's not entirely clear, the interpretation that it does no damage of any type and is therefore boosted by nothing is the only one that is consistent with all the other rules (and in particular not inventing a new damage type), but which is also the intent of two separate game designers, Mearls and Crawford. And you are arguing against it because ? Because what exactly ?
It's not consistent with all other rules, and I'm quite certain we don't have a tweet from JC claiming that Hex doesn't work on nets.
Hex came up in a previous tweet in the same conversation. That spell deals damage of a specified damage type (necrotic) and isn't reliant on an attack, any attack, dealing damage. It doesn't even need a weapon. Hex works just as well with simple, martial, and improvised weapons as it does with an unarmed strike. And, yes, this includes the net.
The issue is Sneak Attack not having a damage type; making it entirely reliant on the weapon being used. And if the weapon is not intended to deal any damage, and therefore has no damage type, then there's nothing to define the Sneak Attack.
There is a world of difference between the "-" found in the PHB and a "0". It's mathematically possible to make a weapon attack and have a net 0 on the base damage roll. The rogue in question simply needs a negative Ability modifier and a low enough roll on the weapon's damage die for them to cancel out. But the attack can still land, and even if the weapon deals 0 damage there is now a damage type that can be applied to Sneak Attack.
Hex came up in a previous tweet in the same conversation. That spell deals damage of a specified damage type (necrotic) and isn't reliant on an attack, any attack, dealing damage. It doesn't even need a weapon. Hex works just as well with simple, martial, and improvised weapons as it does with an unarmed strike. And, yes, this includes the net.
The issue is Sneak Attack not having a damage type; making it entirely reliant on the weapon being used. And if the weapon is not intended to deal any damage, and therefore has no damage type, then there's nothing to define the Sneak Attack.
There is a world of difference between the "-" found in the PHB and a "0". It's mathematically possible to make a weapon attack and have a net 0 on the base damage roll. The rogue in question simply needs a negative Ability modifier and a low enough roll on the weapon's damage die for them to cancel out. But the attack can still land, and even if the weapon deals 0 damage there is now a damage type that can be applied to Sneak Attack.
This argument means that you can Sneak Attack with a Net, provided you have Hex in place first to give Sneak Attack a damage type. That's fine, but it's a house rule, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. The plain and simple truth is that the PHB doesn't offer the rules support necessary for Nets to have enough RAW to actually function, and the only way forward is the GM house ruling how Nets interact with a variety of rules.
Note that the same argument (from damage types) means that with Hex up, Nets also include Dexterity modifier for damage. It also means Hex and Hunter's Mark don't behave anything like each other w.r.t. a Net. These are also fine, just pointing them out explicitly.
Yeah I have no clue where we got the whole damage types argument from, while it is true the rules state that damage has a damage type, it doesn't exactly explain what to do with untyped damage or what that even means.
The main argument is that the symbol "-" stands for Null, or Not Applicable. Since Not Applicable means it doesn't apply, null means that any mathematical operations does not do anything because damage as a concept does not apply to the net.
I guess the counterargument is that it doesn't say anywhere that "-" means Null, and that it could mean 0, but it's pretty obvious that it's not meant to be 0. (Both all the tweets and Sage Advice, the fact that 0 is actually used several times in the rules, etc.)
Edit: So it's implied that no nets can't do damage even with modifiers/sneak attack, but because it's implied and not strictly written down, then well. Mark it up to an issue with common words usage I guess. RAW no evidence either way, just know that RAI it's definitely no.
Nope, because sneak attack is not additional damage to Hex, but to a weapon's damage. You are reaching so far there that it's becoming absurd.
You just made that rule up. The actual rule for Sneak Attack does not say "weapon damage" anywhere. It says you can deal extra damage to a creature you hit with an attack. The type is not specified and it most certainly does not say the extra damage is weapon damage.
No, the only way forward is to apply the rules as written, and they have been even explained to you by two game designers.
No they haven't.
Your reading of the rules is abysmal. Since when does Dex modifier affect Hex ?
Dex modifier affects Nets. If the argument is that the reason Nets don't deal Dex modifier damage is that the lack of type is an issue, then that means once you have a type, from Hex, the problem goes away.
Hex came up in a previous tweet in the same conversation. That spell deals damage of a specified damage type (necrotic) and isn't reliant on an attack, any attack, dealing damage. It doesn't even need a weapon. Hex works just as well with simple, martial, and improvised weapons as it does with an unarmed strike. And, yes, this includes the net.
The issue is Sneak Attack not having a damage type; making it entirely reliant on the weapon being used. And if the weapon is not intended to deal any damage, and therefore has no damage type, then there's nothing to define the Sneak Attack.
There is a world of difference between the "-" found in the PHB and a "0". It's mathematically possible to make a weapon attack and have a net 0 on the base damage roll. The rogue in question simply needs a negative Ability modifier and a low enough roll on the weapon's damage die for them to cancel out. But the attack can still land, and even if the weapon deals 0 damage there is now a damage type that can be applied to Sneak Attack.
This argument means that you can Sneak Attack with a Net, provided you have Hex in place first to give Sneak Attack a damage type. That's fine, but it's a house rule, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. The plain and simple truth is that the PHB doesn't offer the rules support necessary for Nets to have enough RAW to actually function, and the only way forward is the GM house ruling how Nets interact with a variety of rules.
Note that the same argument (from damage types) means that with Hex up, Nets also include Dexterity modifier for damage. It also means Hex and Hunter's Mark don't behave anything like each other w.r.t. a Net. These are also fine, just pointing them out explicitly.
Yes and no, I think. I've honestly never thought about combining Sneak Attack with hex before, so I'm not sure how they'd interact. I'd say the intention of Sneak Attack is to use the weapon's damage type(s), and hex is a separate spell effect so it shouldn't be able to deal additional necrotic damage. And as a house rule, I'm not sure how powerful it is. It is all just one big damage roll, though. So...maybe.
But simply adding hex to a damage calculation is not the same as giving the weapon a damage die. You wouldn't get to add your Dexterity modifier to the damage roll because the damage of the net is still null. It's not supposed to deal any damage, so all of the damage is coming from the spell. That said, the two do work surprisingly well together. Being restrained means you have disadvantage on attack rolls. If you use hex to impose disadvantage on Strength checks, then the victim might be stuck for a while.
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.
None of this is RAW, on either side. Give it a rest already. What's RAW is, Nets are published with a "-". On the one side, you have JC acknowledging the written ambiguity but saying that RAI is that "-" is not "0", but rather a larger statement about Nets being unable to do damage at all. On the other side, you have folks like Kotath and I saying that JC can go fly a kite, and that treating "-" as "0" is the most sensible approach. Both sides have perfectly decent arguments. Neither side is RAW.
None of this is RAW, on either side. Give it a rest already. What's RAW is, Nets are published with a "-". On the one side, you have JC acknowledging the written ambiguity but saying that RAI is that "-" is not "0", but rather a larger statement about Nets being unable to do damage at all. On the other side, you have folks like Kotath and I saying that JC can go fly a kite, and that treating "-" as "0" is the most sensible approach. Both sides have perfectly decent arguments. Neither side is RAW.
Everyone just stahp now.
I will humor you and say that a Net does 0 damage to allow Dex modifier damage and Sneak Attack damage to be added. Now humor me and tell me what type of damage that it will do RAW without a DM having to make a call and making up a houserule to add a damage type to the Net.
It doesn't have a RAW damage type, acknowledged. A reasonable ruling would be to make it blunt for a standard rope net, but I could also see slashing for a metal monofilament one, or piercing for a barbed one, or heck, maybe force or fire or something as the base damage for a magical net? The DM is free to make a reasonable ruling based on the net in question.
Asking the DM to look at the net and pick a damage type for it is no harder than when they look at an Improvised Weapon and "assign a damage type appropriate to the object." Not every situation calling for a ruling means you've stepped beyond the bounds of "the rules" into houserule territory, there are several situations that the PHB and DMG provide which call for the DM to make a ruling themself without being told a single correct answer (see for example Hiding, where a DM must decide themself "when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.")
It doesn't have a RAW damage type, acknowledged. A reasonable ruling would be to make it blunt for a standard rope net, but I could also see slashing for a metal monofilament one, or piercing for a barbed one, or heck, maybe force or fire or something as the base damage for a magical net? The DM is free to make a reasonable ruling based on the net in question.
Asking the DM to look at the net and pick a damage type for it is no harder than when they look at an Improvised Weapon and "assign a damage type appropriate to the object." Not every situation calling for a ruling means you've stepped beyond the bounds of "the rules" into houserule territory, there are several situations that the PHB and DMG provide which call for the DM to make a ruling themself without being told a single correct answer (see for example Hiding, where a DM must decide themself "when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.")
Thats the point I am trying to make. As soon as a DM has to make a ruling on something thats not written in the books then it is no longer RAW, it becomes a houserule. Regarding Improvised Weapons yes it is not a houserule because it is basically impossible to even begin to guess what players will try to use as a weapon lol so DM discretion is necessary but regarding hiding it is most definitely a houserule because different tables can do different things. For example at one table a DM might let you hide if you duck behind a wall while another DM might say that enemies saw you duck behind that wall so know you are still there, thus you cannot hide.
So my view is that the Net doing 0 damage is fine as long as its a house rule because RAW does not support it.
How is the ruling that nets don't add ability score bonuses, sneak attack, Hex, fighting styles, etc. any less of a ruling? That's not written down either, but is (arguably) a "reasonable" ruling for a DM to make based on what is in the PHB: "-".
Its rulings either way you come down on this. RAW, all we know about a net is "-", not what "-" means or how it plays with the normal weapon die + ability score + bonuses damage formula. There's no RAW on that, just your choice of what ruling you feel is closer to RAI, funnest, easiest to play at the table, etc. Gotta make a ruling either way.
How is the ruling that nets don't add ability score bonuses, sneak attack, Hex, fighting styles, etc. any less of a ruling? That's not written down either, but is a "reasonable" ruling for a DM to make based on what is in the PHB: "-".
Its rulings either way you come down on this. RAW, all we know about a net is "-", not what "-" means or how it plays with the normal weapon die + ability score + bonuses damage formula. There's no RAW on that, just your choice of what ruling you feel is closer to RAI, funnest, easiest to play at the table, etc. Gotta make a ruling either way.
Simply put I attack you with a Long Bow, RAW I know what to roll and what damage it will do without any DM rulings.
I attack you with a Net, RAW I know it can restrain you but if I want to know if it will do damage and what type of damage it does I will need my DM to make a call, thus turning it into a houserule. The reason being is that just because one DM allows the Net to do damage does not mean another DM will.
In conclusion Net doing damage = houserule. It really is as simple as that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I seriously do not get the argument here. The purpose of a Net is to restrain and entangle a target, not to hurt or kill it (unless you want to hurt or kill after it is restrained). Heck look at gladiatorial combat, a Net wielder is not trying to hurt his opponent with the Net, he is trying to entangle his opponent or his opponent's weapon in it. His spear or trident does the damage.
There are no clearly expressed rules that you don’t add Dex to a ranged weapon attack, quite the opposite. The clearly expressed rules about nets are found in the special trait of the net, nowhere else. That special trait does NOT say it does no damage, cannot deliver bonus damage, cannot sneak attack, etc. If you truly cannot understand the leap you are taking to get at “nets can’t do damage even though they’re a weapon,” I really don’t know what more to tell you. A net doesn’t roll a weapon damage dice. That’s it.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Then it would say 0 like a lot of other things do (IAmSposta gave the example of Giant Sharks, which shows the WoTC knows what the difference between - and 0 is).
But it doesn't, it says -, which in common word usage instead means N/A or Null, not 0.
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.
If only it were that simple...
"You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target," means if there's no damage die then there's nothing to add your ability modifier to. The Unarmed Strike, mentioned earlier in that chapter, is a specific exception to the general rule. So is the net.
This really isn't hard.
I understand your perspective. You believe that if there is no rolled damage dice to add bonuses to, then the whole rest of the equation crumbles. A damage formula is (1) weapon + (2) ability score + (3) bonuses, and you believe that without a (1) you may never have a (2) or (3).
But nothing in your quoted section SAYS that no (1)=no (2) or (3). I’m reading the same language you are, but you’re reaching. We add to 0 all the time, it’s not a novel thing to add up 0+2... or even that odd in English to say that you have none of something, “plus an extra” amount of that thing. Your camp is arguing that there’s some intrinsic universal meaning to a dash that means something other than 0, that “null” or “n/a” is a concept in 5E with game meaning that “-“ obviously represents, and... there’s just no support for that position I’ve seen quoted yet. Where else do you find null, that can’t be understood to be 0?
I read Sneak Attack to essentially mean “however much damage you do with a hit, even 0, do Xd6 more”. You read it as if it means “if you do 1 or more damage with a hit, do Xd6 more.” Neither of those meanings is any more quotable in the PHB than the other, please just acknowledge that, even if you believe your ruling to be more reasonable than mine, neither side has black and white language to point to in net or anywhere else that says “this really isn’t hard.”
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I'm not the one who's reaching. You're not adding to an expressed zero. You're adding to an expressed dash, a textual entry. You're looking for something in the rules that prohibits you from doing something, and you're not going to find it. Fifth Edition D&D simply doesn't work that way; it's not written that way.
If an interaction was intended to be allowed, it would explicitly say so. Your train of thought is the same as those who say the area affected by the grease spell is flammable; not because the spell doesn't say it is but because the spell doesn't prohibit it. And that's, quite frankly, bull hockey.
Sneak Attack cannot deal damage on its own. Full stop. And there is no damage to be amplified by, or define, a Sneak Attack.
Would you like to get it straight from Crawford?
It's not consistent with all other rules, and I'm quite certain we don't have a tweet from JC claiming that Hex doesn't work on nets.
Hex came up in a previous tweet in the same conversation. That spell deals damage of a specified damage type (necrotic) and isn't reliant on an attack, any attack, dealing damage. It doesn't even need a weapon. Hex works just as well with simple, martial, and improvised weapons as it does with an unarmed strike. And, yes, this includes the net.
The issue is Sneak Attack not having a damage type; making it entirely reliant on the weapon being used. And if the weapon is not intended to deal any damage, and therefore has no damage type, then there's nothing to define the Sneak Attack.
There is a world of difference between the "-" found in the PHB and a "0". It's mathematically possible to make a weapon attack and have a net 0 on the base damage roll. The rogue in question simply needs a negative Ability modifier and a low enough roll on the weapon's damage die for them to cancel out. But the attack can still land, and even if the weapon deals 0 damage there is now a damage type that can be applied to Sneak Attack.
This argument means that you can Sneak Attack with a Net, provided you have Hex in place first to give Sneak Attack a damage type. That's fine, but it's a house rule, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. The plain and simple truth is that the PHB doesn't offer the rules support necessary for Nets to have enough RAW to actually function, and the only way forward is the GM house ruling how Nets interact with a variety of rules.
Note that the same argument (from damage types) means that with Hex up, Nets also include Dexterity modifier for damage. It also means Hex and Hunter's Mark don't behave anything like each other w.r.t. a Net. These are also fine, just pointing them out explicitly.
Yeah I have no clue where we got the whole damage types argument from, while it is true the rules state that damage has a damage type, it doesn't exactly explain what to do with untyped damage or what that even means.
The main argument is that the symbol "-" stands for Null, or Not Applicable. Since Not Applicable means it doesn't apply, null means that any mathematical operations does not do anything because damage as a concept does not apply to the net.
I guess the counterargument is that it doesn't say anywhere that "-" means Null, and that it could mean 0, but it's pretty obvious that it's not meant to be 0. (Both all the tweets and Sage Advice, the fact that 0 is actually used several times in the rules, etc.)
Edit: So it's implied that no nets can't do damage even with modifiers/sneak attack, but because it's implied and not strictly written down, then well. Mark it up to an issue with common words usage I guess. RAW no evidence either way, just know that RAI it's definitely no.
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.
You just made that rule up. The actual rule for Sneak Attack does not say "weapon damage" anywhere. It says you can deal extra damage to a creature you hit with an attack. The type is not specified and it most certainly does not say the extra damage is weapon damage.
No they haven't.
Dex modifier affects Nets. If the argument is that the reason Nets don't deal Dex modifier damage is that the lack of type is an issue, then that means once you have a type, from Hex, the problem goes away.
Yes and no, I think. I've honestly never thought about combining Sneak Attack with hex before, so I'm not sure how they'd interact. I'd say the intention of Sneak Attack is to use the weapon's damage type(s), and hex is a separate spell effect so it shouldn't be able to deal additional necrotic damage. And as a house rule, I'm not sure how powerful it is. It is all just one big damage roll, though. So...maybe.
But simply adding hex to a damage calculation is not the same as giving the weapon a damage die. You wouldn't get to add your Dexterity modifier to the damage roll because the damage of the net is still null. It's not supposed to deal any damage, so all of the damage is coming from the spell. That said, the two do work surprisingly well together. Being restrained means you have disadvantage on attack rolls. If you use hex to impose disadvantage on Strength checks, then the victim might be stuck for a while.
Lyxen's general demeanor aside, at least in my experience, his comprehension is fine.
Don't be a jerk who resorts to insults.
But that is just your houserule. It isn't RAW.
None of this is RAW, on either side. Give it a rest already. What's RAW is, Nets are published with a "-". On the one side, you have JC acknowledging the written ambiguity but saying that RAI is that "-" is not "0", but rather a larger statement about Nets being unable to do damage at all. On the other side, you have folks like Kotath and I saying that JC can go fly a kite, and that treating "-" as "0" is the most sensible approach. Both sides have perfectly decent arguments. Neither side is RAW.
Everyone just stahp now.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I will humor you and say that a Net does 0 damage to allow Dex modifier damage and Sneak Attack damage to be added. Now humor me and tell me what type of damage that it will do RAW without a DM having to make a call and making up a houserule to add a damage type to the Net.
It doesn't have a RAW damage type, acknowledged. A reasonable ruling would be to make it blunt for a standard rope net, but I could also see slashing for a metal monofilament one, or piercing for a barbed one, or heck, maybe force or fire or something as the base damage for a magical net? The DM is free to make a reasonable ruling based on the net in question.
Asking the DM to look at the net and pick a damage type for it is no harder than when they look at an Improvised Weapon and "assign a damage type appropriate to the object." Not every situation calling for a ruling means you've stepped beyond the bounds of "the rules" into houserule territory, there are several situations that the PHB and DMG provide which call for the DM to make a ruling themself without being told a single correct answer (see for example Hiding, where a DM must decide themself "when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.")
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Thats the point I am trying to make. As soon as a DM has to make a ruling on something thats not written in the books then it is no longer RAW, it becomes a houserule. Regarding Improvised Weapons yes it is not a houserule because it is basically impossible to even begin to guess what players will try to use as a weapon lol so DM discretion is necessary but regarding hiding it is most definitely a houserule because different tables can do different things. For example at one table a DM might let you hide if you duck behind a wall while another DM might say that enemies saw you duck behind that wall so know you are still there, thus you cannot hide.
So my view is that the Net doing 0 damage is fine as long as its a house rule because RAW does not support it.
How is the ruling that nets don't add ability score bonuses, sneak attack, Hex, fighting styles, etc. any less of a ruling? That's not written down either, but is (arguably) a "reasonable" ruling for a DM to make based on what is in the PHB: "-".
Its rulings either way you come down on this. RAW, all we know about a net is "-", not what "-" means or how it plays with the normal weapon die + ability score + bonuses damage formula. There's no RAW on that, just your choice of what ruling you feel is closer to RAI, funnest, easiest to play at the table, etc. Gotta make a ruling either way.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Simply put I attack you with a Long Bow, RAW I know what to roll and what damage it will do without any DM rulings.
I attack you with a Net, RAW I know it can restrain you but if I want to know if it will do damage and what type of damage it does I will need my DM to make a call, thus turning it into a houserule. The reason being is that just because one DM allows the Net to do damage does not mean another DM will.
In conclusion Net doing damage = houserule. It really is as simple as that.