I attack you with a ranged weapon, RAW I know that I add Dexterity to the damage I deal. The reason being, PHB Chapter 9 tells me to do so: "When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier — the same modifier used for the attack roll — to the damage." If my DM wants the net to not accept a Dexterity modifier, and deal no damage, they will need to make that call. Just because one DM prohibits Nets from dealing ability score modifier damage does not mean another DM will. In conclusion, Net doing no damage = houserule. It really is as simple as that.
I attack you with a ranged weapon, RAW I know that I add Dexterity to the damage I deal. The reason being, PHB Chapter 9 tells me to do so: "When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier — the same modifier used for the attack roll — to the damage." If my DM wants the net to not accept a Dexterity modifier, and deal no damage, they will need to make that call. Just because one DM prohibits Nets from dealing ability score modifier damage does not mean another DM will. In conclusion, Net doing no damage = houserule. It really is as simple as that.
That's what you sound like.
I really appreciate the effort you are putting into this, however trying to twist my words against me is kinda hard because as you have previously acknowledged RAW Net has no damage type so go ahead add your Dex modifier just let your DM know what type of damage it will do without the DM having to make a ruling.
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.
That's not entirely accurate. The ambiguity is with regards to the interaction with Sneak Attack, not nets. They, rather explicitly, don't have a damage die or type associated with the attack. If the DM wishes to assign one, that's a house rule; plain and simple.
By plain reading, it's possible for an attack with a net to meet the criteria for triggering a rogue's Sneak Attack. It's a ranged weapon, and if the rogue can find a way to negate the disadvantage for the attack and have an ally engaged in melee range with the target then the right conditions have met. The only question is what damage type is used if the DM even allows the interaction. After all, Sneak Attack relies entirely on the weapon you're using.
And any assigning of a damage type, while it's the DM's prerogative, is something not clearly expressed and still falls under house rules.
If any object, any normally non-damaging object at all, is used in a way in which it could actually do damage, the rules for improvised weapons say to assign it a reasonable damage type. And if anything, there not being any net listed that does do damage, the argument based on the improvised weapons rules would even give it a base 1d4 damage, on top of assigning it a damage type (likely bludgeoning).
And I have given examples earlier of how a net more carefully deployed could cause damage. The target could be restrained in a painful or damaging position by way of careful timing of net deployment.
Yes, a net can be used to cause damage - by using it as an improvised weapon and not as a net. In this case the DM needs to decide the damage type. When a net is thrown as a net its damage is N/A. The existence of improvised weapons and environmental damage from falling objects (which require the DM to assign an ad hoc damage type) does not support your ruling that a net's N/A damage can be added to and then requires the DM to assign a damage type.
The reasonable interpretation is that the hyphen means N/A and this means a net (being an exception to normal weapon damage rules) does not and can not deal damage. This reasonable interpretation aligns with all other rules, does not require any ad hoc DM interventions, and has been backed up by two of the game's designers as the intended interpretation.
None of the arguments against this position have been very persuasive. Not "but the net is a ranged weapon", nor "but a chicken bone can cause damage", nor "but what about a falling wall". We know that the RAW in this situation is not perfectly clear. We all also know exactly what the correct RAI is. I don't see the point of further argument.
I am fine leaving it at that. However when any given poster is insisting that the RAW is perfectly clear, I will still object to them saying so.
You are correct in that. Any rule disagreement that lasts six pages is invariably due to the rules not being written clearly enough in the first place.
Again, what is the damage type of a normal wall? Or of anything else not normally causing damage? What is the damage type of any of the steel ball bearings listed as regular equipment? What is the damage type of a stone, something not listed in equipment at all?
Many things that can cause damage if used to cause damage do not have damage types, simply since, in normal use they don't. Sneak attacks with nets or hexed nets are not 'normal use.'
This is not the first time you've made this bad faith argument, and you should know better. A falling wall is not specifically covered by the rules, so it's left for the DM to adjudicate. And the ability to make that adjudication is RAW; whether you like it or not.
If you attempt to use Sneak Attack with a net, then the DM is forced to improvise; to adjudicate something not expressly covered by the rules. The weapon is not intended to deal damage, as it has no listed damage die or type. But they are clearly additive; with Sneak Attack expressly being "extra" damage.
Sneak Attack
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 weapon.
You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t [Tooltip Not Found], and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll.
The amount of the extra damage increases as you gain levels in this class, as shown in the Sneak Attack column of the Rogue table.
So the only ambiguity here is how do they interact, if at all. If the DM wishes to assign a damage type, that is their prerogative. But it also gets finicky because now a weapon that what never intended to deal damage, and expressly lacks the capacity for dealing damage, is suddenly being used to deal damage. Allowing the interaction fundamentally changes something about the game. If we treat "-" as "0", can the net now deal damage when not used with Sneak Attack? How does this change interact with other features and spells? There are potentially serious ramifications to allowing this interaction. Consistency is important; not just for verisimilitude but also for fairness. Nobody wants their DM to spring this kind of surprise on an unsuspecting party.
I had a rope hammock from L.L.Bean growing up. Imagine scoring a Critical Hit by wrapping someone up in a rope hammock and dealing 2d6 (at the lowest possible point with Sneak Attack) bludgeoning damage. And you expressly can't deal nonlethal damage with a ranged or spell attack. So you're talking about killing [monster]commoner;commoners[/monter], who only have 4 hit points, with just a net; a weapon designed to restrain and not harm. It's insane.
And, again, the hex spell has always been usable with a net because the spell only requires a successful attack. It doesn't matter if the attack is made with a simple, martial, or improvised weapon; or a spell. And the damage caused by hex is not conditional on the triggering attack dealing damage.
And, again, the hex spell has always been usable with a net because the spell only requires a successful attack. It doesn't matter if the attack is made with a simple, martial, or improvised weapon; or a spell. And the damage caused by hex is not conditional on the triggering attack dealing damage.
Why are you arguing with Kotath? His point, as he's made clear multiple times, isn't even about the RAI, it's about the RAW. And there's no RAW-based argument that nets work with Hex but not Hunter's Mark; literally the only difference in their text about dealing damage is that Hex specifies a type and Hunter's Mark does not. They literally both even use the word "extra", just like Sneak Attack.
Your ruling that Hex works with a net, like any ruling to resolve this mess, is a house rule. That's perfectly fine, but there's no sense denying that it is a house rule.
And, again, the hex spell has always been usable with a net because the spell only requires a successful attack. It doesn't matter if the attack is made with a simple, martial, or improvised weapon; or a spell. And the damage caused by hex is not conditional on the triggering attack dealing damage.
Why are you arguing with Kotath? His point, as he's made clear multiple times, isn't even about the RAI, it's about the RAW. And there's no RAW-based argument that nets work with Hex but not Hunter's Mark; literally the only difference in their text about dealing damage is that Hex specifies a type and Hunter's Mark does not. They literally both even use the word "extra", just like Sneak Attack.
Your ruling that Hex works with a net, like any ruling to resolve this mess, is a house rule. That's perfectly fine, but there's no sense denying that it is a house rule.
This is not the first time you've made this bad faith argument, and you should know better. A falling wall is not specifically covered by the rules, so it's left for the DM to adjudicate. And the ability to make that adjudication is RAW; whether you like it or not.
Crawford was quoted earlier in this discussion stating that this 'extra damage' situation is not clearly covered under the rules and that there is no clear RAW on the subject.
So deciding the issue either was is left for the DM to adjudicate. When a DM adjudicates and basically writes a rule to cover a situation not expressly stated or expressly clear, then although their ability to do so is RAW, their ruling applies to their table only and is not in and of itself, RAW.
Oh and an argument that someone finds unclear or disagrees with is not a bad faith argument.
What I disagree with is your repeated insistence on bringing up a falling wall when it's completely irrelevant to the conversation. So why do it?
This is not the first time you've made this bad faith argument, and you should know better. A falling wall is not specifically covered by the rules, so it's left for the DM to adjudicate. And the ability to make that adjudication is RAW; whether you like it or not.
Crawford was quoted earlier in this discussion stating that this 'extra damage' situation is not clearly covered under the rules and that there is no clear RAW on the subject.
So deciding the issue either was is left for the DM to adjudicate. When a DM adjudicates and basically writes a rule to cover a situation not expressly stated or expressly clear, then although their ability to do so is RAW, their ruling applies to their table only and is not in and of itself, RAW.
Oh and an argument that someone finds unclear or disagrees with is not a bad faith argument.
What I disagree with is your repeated insistence on bringing up a falling wall when it's completely irrelevant to the conversation. So why do it?
Your personal inability to understand an analogy does not invalidate the analogy generally.
We all have a duty to make our communications clear so they cannot be misunderstood. If I don't understand your analogy, then it's a poorly constructed analogy.
You're trying to link a trap or environmental hazard with an interaction that would create a lethalnet. And I already gave my two cents on this; maybe you didn't see it. But there are ramifications for taking your train of thought to its logical conclusion. Nevermind that it also flies in the face of the intent behind the expressed design.
This is not the first time you've made this bad faith argument, and you should know better. A falling wall is not specifically covered by the rules, so it's left for the DM to adjudicate. And the ability to make that adjudication is RAW; whether you like it or not.
Crawford was quoted earlier in this discussion stating that this 'extra damage' situation is not clearly covered under the rules and that there is no clear RAW on the subject.
So deciding the issue either was is left for the DM to adjudicate. When a DM adjudicates and basically writes a rule to cover a situation not expressly stated or expressly clear, then although their ability to do so is RAW, their ruling applies to their table only and is not in and of itself, RAW.
Oh and an argument that someone finds unclear or disagrees with is not a bad faith argument.
What I disagree with is your repeated insistence on bringing up a falling wall when it's completely irrelevant to the conversation. So why do it?
Your personal inability to understand an analogy does not invalidate the analogy generally.
We all have a duty to make our communications clear so they cannot be misunderstood. If I don't understand your analogy, then it's a poorly constructed analogy.
You're trying to link a trap or environmental hazard with an interaction that would create a lethalnet. And I already gave my two cents on this; maybe you didn't see it. But there are ramifications for taking your train of thought to its logical conclusion. Nevermind that it also flies in the face of the intent behind the expressed design.
So, again, why?
I gave other examples too. Steel ball bearings (listed under equipment, which is not true of a wall) or just a rock.
I have also explained my reasons way back in post #74 AND have mentioned having done so more than once. Not that why one posts is relevant in any way to the validity of their arguments.
Your damage type argument ignores the fact that a DM can simply assign it an existing damage type. That falling can cause damage backs my point. If someone falls far enough in to a combat net, do they take no damage simply because 'nets do no damage?.' If someone wraps a net around their feet and lands feet first after a long fall, does the net absorb all the damage, since net hits ground (for no damage) and net hits person, for no damage, since 'nets do no damage' and the person does not directly hit the ground?
Remember, we are talking RAW here, NOT RAI and not 'What you think RAW should be.'
There is no actual rule anywhere in RAW that states 'if no damage type is specified, the item can under no circumstances cause damage.' That is NOT an actual rule in RAW.
If a creature falls, then by RAW, they take bludgeoning damage. The net isn't the source of the damage, and it's not being used as a weapon, so the [item]net;net's[item] lack of damage as a weapon is not a factor here. That said, it's a different situation than what is normally thought of when taking falling damage. Presumably, this is a situation the DM anticipated and already has a ruling put together. But if not, because it's not a standard scenario, they have to improvise something.
And the hypothetical of wrapping the net around their legs is just ridiculous. You're talking about a bound character. You're not making good-faith arguments, and you're THIS close to just getting blocked for it.
Yes, the DM can (and should) improvise. We all do it. But I do think you're putting the cart before the horse. You're arguing from a point of view that is demanding a prohibition. That's not how the books are written. They work on granting permissions. The rules tell you what you can do, not what you can't, and they (generally) explain how they work when you attempt something. Sometimes you have to put two and two together, but the writers clearly trusted the reader(s) to do that. After all, the books are all written in natural language. It shouldn't be this hard.
The net, explicitly, lacks both a damage die and damage type. So, when used as a weapon in its intended purpose, it does not deal damage. If it's utilized differently, such as an improvised weapon, then that expressed description does not matter. Rather, you default to the general rules for those. If it's utilized in yet another way, one not covered by the rules, then the DM needs to make a judgment call.
When it comes to Sneak Attack and hunter's mark, which rely on the weapon having a damage type in order to deal their damage, the lack of an explicitly stated damage type is problematic. The DM, if they so desire, can add a damage type. But they should also be aware that it turns the net into a lethal weapon. A fact you don't seem to care to acknowledge, which makes me question how seriously you take this discussion.
The net, explicitly, lacks both a damage die and damage type.
That's not true. It lacks a damage type, which we know because the list of damage types is explicitly given. But it doesn't lack a damage die (except in the sense that a blowgun lacks a damage die - you mean damage value, not damage die, right?); it has a damage die (value) of -, just as a blowgun has a damage die (value) of 1. We have a RAW explanation what 1 means. We have no RAW explanation of what - means, but whatever it means, the - is present in the table.
When it comes to Sneak Attack and hunter's mark, which rely on the weapon having a damage type in order to deal their damage, the lack of an explicitly stated damage type is problematic.
That is not a RAW rule. Neither Sneak Attack nor Hunter's Mark have a RAW forcing them to rely on the weapon having a damage type. In fact, for example, a Genie Warlock/Rogue could deal their Genie damage and then try to Sneak Attack using the Genie damage's type, and the GM would have no RAW basis for deciding the issue. That's true of all weapons, not just nets - the Genielock could do that with a dagger. Same thing is true of all Warlock/Rogues with Hex up: they could attempt to Sneak Attack and use Hex's type, and again, the GM would have no RAW basis for adjudicating. Again, this is not a new issue - the Warlock/Rogue could do it with a dagger. And those are combinable, since a Genie Warlock/Rogue could have Hex up.
You're free to rule at your table that Sneak Attack cannot piggyback any damage source other than the original weapon, but that will be a house rule of yours, not the RAW.
I'm going to have to ask you to be clear and use precise naming, because I really don't want to have to go digging to make sense of it all.
As to your first point, the net lacks both an explicit damage die (you do not roll a damage die) and a numerical damage value ("-"). And, naturally, there is no damage type. My statement was not remotely incorrect.
But as to your second...
Both hunter's mark and Sneak Attack are reliant on a weapon attack that deals damage because both lack a damage type. The simplest explanation is any "extra" damage is the same damage type as the triggering damage. And that damage comes from the weapon used. If I have both Hexblade's Curse and hex active, then the bonus damage (equal to the character's proficiency bonus) from the former can be Necrotic because the only requirement is there must be damage dealt. (Hexblade's Curse will deal additional damage from a spell, even one with a saving throw.)
But when it comes to hunter's mark and Sneak Attack, they work differently. How they precisely work is slightly different, if only because one is magical and the other isn't, but both make the weapon's attacks more lethal. And both are limited by the damage type of the weapon, but weapons can have different damage types. A rogue armed with the Sunsword from Curse of Strahd would deal Radiant damage with their Sneak Attack. So, too, would hunter's mark.
But "extra" damage isn't always weapon damage. It wouldn't work with hex, so Sneak Attack can't use it to deal extra Necrotic damage. In season one of Critical Role, Vax'ildan was a multiclassed rogue 13/paladin 6/druid 1 who had a flame tongue dagger. With it, he could deal both Piercing and Fire damage. But he couldn't use his Sneak Attack to deal bonus Fire (from the dagger) or Radiant (from Divine Smite) damage because those effects are not weapon damage; they're extra.
So, really, just what shenanigans are y'all trying to pull?
The "extra" damage caused by Sneak Attack and/or hunter's mark is weapon damage. You're not adding extra damage to extra damage. Or did you not bother reading any of the links?
If a creature falls, then by RAW, they take bludgeoning damage. The net isn't the source of the damage, and it's not being used as a weapon, so the net'slack of damage as a weapon is not a factor here. That said, it's a different situation than what is normally thought of when taking falling damage. Presumably, this is a situation the DM anticipated and already has a ruling put together. But if not, because it's not a standard scenario, they have to improvise something.
And the hypothetical of wrapping the net around their legs is just ridiculous. You're talking about a bound character. You're not making good-faith arguments, and you're THIS close to just getting blocked for it.
Yes, the DM can (and should) improvise. We all do it. But I do think you're putting the cart before the horse. You're arguing from a point of view that is demanding a prohibition. That's not how the books are written. They work on granting permissions. The rules tell you what you can do, not what you can't, and they (generally) explain how they work when you attempt something. Sometimes you have to put two and two together, but the writers clearly trusted the reader(s) to do that. After all, the books are all written in natural language. It shouldn't be this hard.
The net, explicitly, lacks both a damage die and damage type. So, when used as a weapon in its intended purpose, it does not deal damage. If it's utilized differently, such as an improvised weapon, then that expressed description does not matter. Rather, you default to the general rules for those. If it's utilized in yet another way, one not covered by the rules, then the DM needs to make a judgment call.
When it comes to Sneak Attack and hunter's mark, which rely on the weapon having a damage type in order to deal their damage, the lack of an explicitly stated damage type is problematic. The DM, if they so desire, can add a damage type. But they should also be aware that it turns the net into a lethal weapon. A fact you don't seem to care to acknowledge, which makes me question how seriously you take this discussion.
Sneak attack says "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 weapon."
Nowhere there does it say anything about the weapon damaging the opponent. It merely refers to hitting.
Hunter's Mark uses exactly the same language: " Until the spell ends, you deal an extra 1d6 damage to the target whenever you hit it with a weapon attack"
And again, we are discussing what RAW is, not what is RAI or what RAW should be.
A net is intended for use for non-lethal capture. If one sneak attacks with it, one is presumably not worried about sticking with that intended use. This is not the massive play balance issue you seem to feel it is. Not many DM's would allow a character to simply have as many ready nets as they wish. Those who would allow such a thing would allow all sorts of other things we would both likely agree shouldn't be allowed.
But those would be house rules. Even going with RAI would be a house rule.
Again, though, pointing out flaws in logic is not bad faith. Dismissing arguments off hand without really thinking them through, however, is bad faith.
Yes, I'd already covered how it's possible for the weapon attack to deal 0 damage. But that same weapon attack still sets the damage type, which both Sneak Attack and hunter's mark need in order to function. Without that information, the DM is forced to implement a house rule.
So, rules as written, they cannot function with a weapon attack that lacks a damage type. Because every incident of damage dealt requires a damage type, and no damage type was explicitly assigned. Anything beyond that is a house rule. Which is, again, fine if that's what you want to do. I'm not going to tell anyone how they should DM at their table. No one here should. But RAW is RAW, and you are wrong.
You cannot just look at the Sneak Attack feature as if it exists in a vacuum; because it doesn't. The rules on dealing damage are just as important. For example, if a character were to take the Use an Object action to throw an acid vial as an improvised weapon with a range of 20/60 feet, they're not just rolling 2d6 acid damage. They're rolling 2d6 plus their Dexterity modifier in acid damage because they're still attacking with a weapon; improvised or not. And if they have the Tavern Brawler feat, then they are guaranteed to add their proficiency bonus to the ranged attack roll. What's more, because they're taking the Use an Object action, a rogue with the Thief archetype can use their Fast Hands feature, acquired at 3rd-level, to throw a vial as a bonus action. They just use Sneak Attack with the vial because (A) it's not a ranged weapon and (B) it lacks the Finesse property.
As a game engine, D&D 5e is built on carving out exceptions. The net just happens to be one of those. It's the only weapon without an explicit damage type, and I get the frustration. Without a clearly expressed damage type, you have no way of knowing how Sneak Attack would interact with a creature's damage immunities, resistances, or vulnerabilities. You have no way of knowing if it affects something like a conditional regeneration; such as a troll's.
So take Occam's razor use it to carve out the path of least resistance. The simplest solution is almost always the best. No damage type means they just don't work together. This isn't worth wracking your brain over.
D&D works on a system of if it's not there, it doesn't exist. The rule states that melee weapons can do non-lethal damage, but says nothing of ranged weapons. Thus, ranged weapons can't do non-lethal damage cause they are excluded in the rule (not mentioned = excluded).
The everything needs a damage type thing isn't really a rule in D&D, like there's no sentence that says that all damage must have a damage type or it does nothing. It just says damages have damage types (which is proven wrong via Sneak Attack, and no it doesn't define the whole sneak attack damage type becomes the type of your weapon rule either that I think is also RAI not RAW, or maybe it's some tiny section of XGtE/DMG I forgot about).
Does a net do damage? The answer is maybe, it doesn't say it does damage, but it also doesn't say it doesn't do damage. It just says "-", and the author's forgot to put in the sentence that explains what a dash actually means (it's supposed to mean the net cannot do damage no matter what as shown via the tweets, but since they overlooked it and didn't include that it counts as RAI not RAW). Therefore, the answer to the question at hand is:
RAW: it does - damage which is either 0 or N/A depending on how your feeling today.
RAI: Definitely not even with modifiers & sneak attack.
I would go with RAI, because there is quite literally no RAW. This isn't the first time there has been no RAW answer either, so there is past precedent for this kind of thing.
D&D works on a system of if it's not there, it doesn't exist. The rule states that melee weapons can do non-lethal damage, but says nothing of ranged weapons. Thus, ranged weapons can't do non-lethal damage cause they are excluded in the rule (not mentioned = excluded).
The everything needs a damage type thing isn't really a rule in D&D, like there's no sentence that says that all damage must have a damage type or it does nothing. It just says damages have damage types (which is proven wrong via Sneak Attack, and no it doesn't define the whole sneak attack damage type becomes the type of your weapon rule either that I think is also RAI not RAW, or maybe it's some tiny section of XGtE/DMG I forgot about).
Does a net do damage? The answer is maybe, it doesn't say it does damage, but it also doesn't say it doesn't do damage. It just says "-", and the author's forgot to put in the sentence that explains what a dash actually means (it's supposed to mean the net cannot do damage no matter what as shown via the tweets, but since they overlooked it and didn't include that it counts as RAI not RAW). Therefore, the answer to the question at hand is:
RAW: it does - damage which is either 0 or N/A depending on how your feeling today.
RAI: Definitely not even with modifiers & sneak attack.
I would go with RAI, because there is quite literally no RAW. This isn't the first time there has been no RAW answer either, so there is past precedent for this kind of thing.
Stop arguing neither of you have any evidence.
There are some glaring logic holes in all this.
You state that if something isn't included, then it doesn't exist. And this is true. But since nets don't explicitly have damage dice, value, or type, they must inherently lack these properties.
Every source of damage does, indeed, have a damage type. If we assume Sneak Attack is inherently untyped, then it doesn't just break the rules on all damage belonging to one of the listed types. It would also ignore all immunities, resistances, and weaknesses. That has serious ramifications, and there's no specific rule saying the damage is of another type. The general rule, that the damage is "extra" and wholly dependent on the weapon being used, leaves us with only one logical alternative.
See #1. You don't get to waffle on this.
The game can't run effectively without consistency. And you can't even be consistent here.
The rules as written are in the affirmative; not the negative. Every single rule is granting some degree of permission or explanation of how something operates. You won't ever find a rule expressed as something to the effect of, "You cannot do X." And you cannot take that lack of expressed prohibition as permission to follow through anyway. If every rule could be countered with, "Well, it doesn't say I can't do this...," then we'd have pure, unadulterated chaos.
Having said that, I also need to reiterate that DMs are free to change things however they want. But you also have to share that space with the players at your table. You're not a dictator, and they are just as free to leave as you are free to change the rules. Those rules, as written, form the basis for a social contract. They put forth shared expectations of, if nothing else, how resolutions will take place.
If it's not written down, then it does not exist. It's not ambiguous whether or not a net can deal damage. It can't deal damage because it lacks the traits to do so. The only question that's even up for debate is how a net interacts with Sneak Attack and hunter's mark. And none of those can define the damage that might be dealt, so I ask you: does damage exist if it is undefined?
I know today is April 1st, but this is ridiculous.
The vast majority of the time, there are no immunities or resistances in play and damage type is completely irrelevant. Thus, in the vast majority of cases, insisting that a damage type is needed is merely being pedantic.
Any game that has Artificers, Barbarians, Bards, Druids, Sorcerers, Warlocks or Wizards can have resistances in play at Level 1. Rangers at Level 2, so your vast majority of cases will be games that only involve Clerics, Fighters, Monks, Rogues and Paladins?
Barbarians have Rage.
Artificers, Druids, Rangers, Sorcerers and Wizards have access to Absorb Elements.
Bards, Sorcerers, Warlocks and Wizards have access to Blade Ward.
Resistances are a lot more common than you give it credit for, hence the reason why damage needs a type.
The vast majority of the time, there are no immunities or resistances in play and damage type is completely irrelevant. Thus, in the vast majority of cases, insisting that a damage type is needed is merely being pedantic.
Any game that has Artificers, Barbarians, Bards, Druids, Sorcerers, Warlocks or Wizards can have resistances in play at Level 1. Rangers at Level 2, so your vast majority of cases will be games that only involve Clerics, Fighters, Monks, Rogues and Paladins?
Barbarians have Rage.
Artificers, Druids, Rangers, Sorcerers and Wizards have access to Absorb Elements.
Bards, Sorcerers, Warlocks and Wizards have access to Blade Ward.
Resistances are a lot more common than you give it credit for, hence the reason why damage needs a type.
"Can have" does not equal "Is likely."
Rage matters if you fight against a barbarian. There are likely some campaigns where that is common place but nevertheless.
How often does someone cast Absorb Elements unless fighting someone clearly using elemental magic... and even then?
Blade Ward? How often is that used at all? Ever?
Now how often do these events occur against someone attempting to sneak attack with a net? If you are using a net against a barbarian, you do not want to damage them, so why would someone sneak attack them? Toss a net over them and while they are trying to break out of the net (which neither damages them nor involves an attack), their rage cools off.
Rage matters if there's a barbarian in the party; you don't need your players fighting one. And, technically, any variant human with proficiency in heavy armor can start with the Heavy Armor Master feat. Now the list of available classes that absolutely cannot make use of damage resistance, from 1st-level, is only two: the monk and the rogue. And some classes can acquire it later on. Druids and Monks can both become totally immune to poison; the damage type and the poisoned condition.
Never mind all the different playable races which can have damage resistances. Dragonborn, Dwarves, and Tieflings all appear in the PHB. Aasimar, Goliaths, Tritons, and Yuan-ti Pureblooks are in Xanathar's.
Fiends, lycanthropes, oozes, and undead all make use of damage types for calculating immunities, resistances, and vulnerabilities. They're pretty common enemies.
You do not get to hold up whatever you think the unlikelihood of a scenario is as a reason to discount it. If we did, then we'd be throwing this entire thread out because no sane rogue is going to try and Sneak Attack with a goddang net. The fact remains those rules for damage types exist, and they are in use from 1st-level onward. They matter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I attack you with a ranged weapon, RAW I know that I add Dexterity to the damage I deal. The reason being, PHB Chapter 9 tells me to do so: "When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier — the same modifier used for the attack roll — to the damage." If my DM wants the net to not accept a Dexterity modifier, and deal no damage, they will need to make that call. Just because one DM prohibits Nets from dealing ability score modifier damage does not mean another DM will. In conclusion, Net doing no damage = houserule. It really is as simple as that.
That's what you sound like.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I really appreciate the effort you are putting into this, however trying to twist my words against me is kinda hard because as you have previously acknowledged RAW Net has no damage type so go ahead add your Dex modifier just let your DM know what type of damage it will do without the DM having to make a ruling.
I wish you luck in that endeavor.
That's not entirely accurate. The ambiguity is with regards to the interaction with Sneak Attack, not nets. They, rather explicitly, don't have a damage die or type associated with the attack. If the DM wishes to assign one, that's a house rule; plain and simple.
By plain reading, it's possible for an attack with a net to meet the criteria for triggering a rogue's Sneak Attack. It's a ranged weapon, and if the rogue can find a way to negate the disadvantage for the attack and have an ally engaged in melee range with the target then the right conditions have met. The only question is what damage type is used if the DM even allows the interaction. After all, Sneak Attack relies entirely on the weapon you're using.
And any assigning of a damage type, while it's the DM's prerogative, is something not clearly expressed and still falls under house rules.
EDIT: And hex does work with nets, FYI.
Yes, a net can be used to cause damage - by using it as an improvised weapon and not as a net. In this case the DM needs to decide the damage type. When a net is thrown as a net its damage is N/A. The existence of improvised weapons and environmental damage from falling objects (which require the DM to assign an ad hoc damage type) does not support your ruling that a net's N/A damage can be added to and then requires the DM to assign a damage type.
The reasonable interpretation is that the hyphen means N/A and this means a net (being an exception to normal weapon damage rules) does not and can not deal damage. This reasonable interpretation aligns with all other rules, does not require any ad hoc DM interventions, and has been backed up by two of the game's designers as the intended interpretation.
None of the arguments against this position have been very persuasive. Not "but the net is a ranged weapon", nor "but a chicken bone can cause damage", nor "but what about a falling wall". We know that the RAW in this situation is not perfectly clear. We all also know exactly what the correct RAI is. I don't see the point of further argument.
You are correct in that. Any rule disagreement that lasts six pages is invariably due to the rules not being written clearly enough in the first place.
This is not the first time you've made this bad faith argument, and you should know better. A falling wall is not specifically covered by the rules, so it's left for the DM to adjudicate. And the ability to make that adjudication is RAW; whether you like it or not.
If you attempt to use Sneak Attack with a net, then the DM is forced to improvise; to adjudicate something not expressly covered by the rules. The weapon is not intended to deal damage, as it has no listed damage die or type. But they are clearly additive; with Sneak Attack expressly being "extra" damage.
So the only ambiguity here is how do they interact, if at all. If the DM wishes to assign a damage type, that is their prerogative. But it also gets finicky because now a weapon that what never intended to deal damage, and expressly lacks the capacity for dealing damage, is suddenly being used to deal damage. Allowing the interaction fundamentally changes something about the game. If we treat "-" as "0", can the net now deal damage when not used with Sneak Attack? How does this change interact with other features and spells? There are potentially serious ramifications to allowing this interaction. Consistency is important; not just for verisimilitude but also for fairness. Nobody wants their DM to spring this kind of surprise on an unsuspecting party.
I had a rope hammock from L.L.Bean growing up. Imagine scoring a Critical Hit by wrapping someone up in a rope hammock and dealing 2d6 (at the lowest possible point with Sneak Attack) bludgeoning damage. And you expressly can't deal nonlethal damage with a ranged or spell attack. So you're talking about killing [monster]commoner;commoners[/monter], who only have 4 hit points, with just a net; a weapon designed to restrain and not harm. It's insane.
And, again, the hex spell has always been usable with a net because the spell only requires a successful attack. It doesn't matter if the attack is made with a simple, martial, or improvised weapon; or a spell. And the damage caused by hex is not conditional on the triggering attack dealing damage.
Why are you arguing with Kotath? His point, as he's made clear multiple times, isn't even about the RAI, it's about the RAW. And there's no RAW-based argument that nets work with Hex but not Hunter's Mark; literally the only difference in their text about dealing damage is that Hex specifies a type and Hunter's Mark does not. They literally both even use the word "extra", just like Sneak Attack.
Your ruling that Hex works with a net, like any ruling to resolve this mess, is a house rule. That's perfectly fine, but there's no sense denying that it is a house rule.
Because they're wrong, and it's not a house rule. The damage type for hex is defined (necrotic) and wholly independent of the weapon. It doesn't require the attack to deal any damage at all.
What I disagree with is your repeated insistence on bringing up a falling wall when it's completely irrelevant to the conversation. So why do it?
We all have a duty to make our communications clear so they cannot be misunderstood. If I don't understand your analogy, then it's a poorly constructed analogy.
You're trying to link a trap or environmental hazard with an interaction that would create a lethal net. And I already gave my two cents on this; maybe you didn't see it. But there are ramifications for taking your train of thought to its logical conclusion. Nevermind that it also flies in the face of the intent behind the expressed design.
So, again, why?
If a creature falls, then by RAW, they take bludgeoning damage. The net isn't the source of the damage, and it's not being used as a weapon, so the [item]net;net's[item] lack of damage as a weapon is not a factor here. That said, it's a different situation than what is normally thought of when taking falling damage. Presumably, this is a situation the DM anticipated and already has a ruling put together. But if not, because it's not a standard scenario, they have to improvise something.
And the hypothetical of wrapping the net around their legs is just ridiculous. You're talking about a bound character. You're not making good-faith arguments, and you're THIS close to just getting blocked for it.
Yes, the DM can (and should) improvise. We all do it. But I do think you're putting the cart before the horse. You're arguing from a point of view that is demanding a prohibition. That's not how the books are written. They work on granting permissions. The rules tell you what you can do, not what you can't, and they (generally) explain how they work when you attempt something. Sometimes you have to put two and two together, but the writers clearly trusted the reader(s) to do that. After all, the books are all written in natural language. It shouldn't be this hard.
The net, explicitly, lacks both a damage die and damage type. So, when used as a weapon in its intended purpose, it does not deal damage. If it's utilized differently, such as an improvised weapon, then that expressed description does not matter. Rather, you default to the general rules for those. If it's utilized in yet another way, one not covered by the rules, then the DM needs to make a judgment call.
When it comes to Sneak Attack and hunter's mark, which rely on the weapon having a damage type in order to deal their damage, the lack of an explicitly stated damage type is problematic. The DM, if they so desire, can add a damage type. But they should also be aware that it turns the net into a lethal weapon. A fact you don't seem to care to acknowledge, which makes me question how seriously you take this discussion.
That's not true. It lacks a damage type, which we know because the list of damage types is explicitly given. But it doesn't lack a damage die (except in the sense that a blowgun lacks a damage die - you mean damage value, not damage die, right?); it has a damage die (value) of -, just as a blowgun has a damage die (value) of 1. We have a RAW explanation what 1 means. We have no RAW explanation of what - means, but whatever it means, the - is present in the table.
That is not a RAW rule. Neither Sneak Attack nor Hunter's Mark have a RAW forcing them to rely on the weapon having a damage type. In fact, for example, a Genie Warlock/Rogue could deal their Genie damage and then try to Sneak Attack using the Genie damage's type, and the GM would have no RAW basis for deciding the issue. That's true of all weapons, not just nets - the Genielock could do that with a dagger. Same thing is true of all Warlock/Rogues with Hex up: they could attempt to Sneak Attack and use Hex's type, and again, the GM would have no RAW basis for adjudicating. Again, this is not a new issue - the Warlock/Rogue could do it with a dagger. And those are combinable, since a Genie Warlock/Rogue could have Hex up.
You're free to rule at your table that Sneak Attack cannot piggyback any damage source other than the original weapon, but that will be a house rule of yours, not the RAW.
I'm going to have to ask you to be clear and use precise naming, because I really don't want to have to go digging to make sense of it all.
As to your first point, the net lacks both an explicit damage die (you do not roll a damage die) and a numerical damage value ("-"). And, naturally, there is no damage type. My statement was not remotely incorrect.
But as to your second...
Both hunter's mark and Sneak Attack are reliant on a weapon attack that deals damage because both lack a damage type. The simplest explanation is any "extra" damage is the same damage type as the triggering damage. And that damage comes from the weapon used. If I have both Hexblade's Curse and hex active, then the bonus damage (equal to the character's proficiency bonus) from the former can be Necrotic because the only requirement is there must be damage dealt. (Hexblade's Curse will deal additional damage from a spell, even one with a saving throw.)
But when it comes to hunter's mark and Sneak Attack, they work differently. How they precisely work is slightly different, if only because one is magical and the other isn't, but both make the weapon's attacks more lethal. And both are limited by the damage type of the weapon, but weapons can have different damage types. A rogue armed with the Sunsword from Curse of Strahd would deal Radiant damage with their Sneak Attack. So, too, would hunter's mark.
But "extra" damage isn't always weapon damage. It wouldn't work with hex, so Sneak Attack can't use it to deal extra Necrotic damage. In season one of Critical Role, Vax'ildan was a multiclassed rogue 13/paladin 6/druid 1 who had a flame tongue dagger. With it, he could deal both Piercing and Fire damage. But he couldn't use his Sneak Attack to deal bonus Fire (from the dagger) or Radiant (from Divine Smite) damage because those effects are not weapon damage; they're extra.
So, really, just what shenanigans are y'all trying to pull?
The "extra" damage caused by Sneak Attack and/or hunter's mark is weapon damage. You're not adding extra damage to extra damage. Or did you not bother reading any of the links?
Yes, I'd already covered how it's possible for the weapon attack to deal 0 damage. But that same weapon attack still sets the damage type, which both Sneak Attack and hunter's mark need in order to function. Without that information, the DM is forced to implement a house rule.
So, rules as written, they cannot function with a weapon attack that lacks a damage type. Because every incident of damage dealt requires a damage type, and no damage type was explicitly assigned. Anything beyond that is a house rule. Which is, again, fine if that's what you want to do. I'm not going to tell anyone how they should DM at their table. No one here should. But RAW is RAW, and you are wrong.
You cannot just look at the Sneak Attack feature as if it exists in a vacuum; because it doesn't. The rules on dealing damage are just as important. For example, if a character were to take the Use an Object action to throw an acid vial as an improvised weapon with a range of 20/60 feet, they're not just rolling 2d6 acid damage. They're rolling 2d6 plus their Dexterity modifier in acid damage because they're still attacking with a weapon; improvised or not. And if they have the Tavern Brawler feat, then they are guaranteed to add their proficiency bonus to the ranged attack roll. What's more, because they're taking the Use an Object action, a rogue with the Thief archetype can use their Fast Hands feature, acquired at 3rd-level, to throw a vial as a bonus action. They just use Sneak Attack with the vial because (A) it's not a ranged weapon and (B) it lacks the Finesse property.
As a game engine, D&D 5e is built on carving out exceptions. The net just happens to be one of those. It's the only weapon without an explicit damage type, and I get the frustration. Without a clearly expressed damage type, you have no way of knowing how Sneak Attack would interact with a creature's damage immunities, resistances, or vulnerabilities. You have no way of knowing if it affects something like a conditional regeneration; such as a troll's.
So take Occam's razor use it to carve out the path of least resistance. The simplest solution is almost always the best. No damage type means they just don't work together. This isn't worth wracking your brain over.
Am going to say it again,
D&D works on a system of if it's not there, it doesn't exist. The rule states that melee weapons can do non-lethal damage, but says nothing of ranged weapons. Thus, ranged weapons can't do non-lethal damage cause they are excluded in the rule (not mentioned = excluded).
The everything needs a damage type thing isn't really a rule in D&D, like there's no sentence that says that all damage must have a damage type or it does nothing. It just says damages have damage types (which is proven wrong via Sneak Attack, and no it doesn't define the whole sneak attack damage type becomes the type of your weapon rule either that I think is also RAI not RAW, or maybe it's some tiny section of XGtE/DMG I forgot about).
Does a net do damage? The answer is maybe, it doesn't say it does damage, but it also doesn't say it doesn't do damage. It just says "-", and the author's forgot to put in the sentence that explains what a dash actually means (it's supposed to mean the net cannot do damage no matter what as shown via the tweets, but since they overlooked it and didn't include that it counts as RAI not RAW). Therefore, the answer to the question at hand is:
RAW: it does - damage which is either 0 or N/A depending on how your feeling today.
RAI: Definitely not even with modifiers & sneak attack.
I would go with RAI, because there is quite literally no RAW. This isn't the first time there has been no RAW answer either, so there is past precedent for this kind of thing.
Stop arguing neither of you have any evidence.
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.
There are some glaring logic holes in all this.
The game can't run effectively without consistency. And you can't even be consistent here.
The rules as written are in the affirmative; not the negative. Every single rule is granting some degree of permission or explanation of how something operates. You won't ever find a rule expressed as something to the effect of, "You cannot do X." And you cannot take that lack of expressed prohibition as permission to follow through anyway. If every rule could be countered with, "Well, it doesn't say I can't do this...," then we'd have pure, unadulterated chaos.
Having said that, I also need to reiterate that DMs are free to change things however they want. But you also have to share that space with the players at your table. You're not a dictator, and they are just as free to leave as you are free to change the rules. Those rules, as written, form the basis for a social contract. They put forth shared expectations of, if nothing else, how resolutions will take place.
If it's not written down, then it does not exist. It's not ambiguous whether or not a net can deal damage. It can't deal damage because it lacks the traits to do so. The only question that's even up for debate is how a net interacts with Sneak Attack and hunter's mark. And none of those can define the damage that might be dealt, so I ask you: does damage exist if it is undefined?
I know today is April 1st, but this is ridiculous.
This is what Kotath and I are trying to communicate to Jounichi. I hope he listens to you, because he refuses to listen to us.
Any game that has Artificers, Barbarians, Bards, Druids, Sorcerers, Warlocks or Wizards can have resistances in play at Level 1. Rangers at Level 2, so your vast majority of cases will be games that only involve Clerics, Fighters, Monks, Rogues and Paladins?
Barbarians have Rage.
Artificers, Druids, Rangers, Sorcerers and Wizards have access to Absorb Elements.
Bards, Sorcerers, Warlocks and Wizards have access to Blade Ward.
Resistances are a lot more common than you give it credit for, hence the reason why damage needs a type.
Rage matters if there's a barbarian in the party; you don't need your players fighting one. And, technically, any variant human with proficiency in heavy armor can start with the Heavy Armor Master feat. Now the list of available classes that absolutely cannot make use of damage resistance, from 1st-level, is only two: the monk and the rogue. And some classes can acquire it later on. Druids and Monks can both become totally immune to poison; the damage type and the poisoned condition.
Never mind all the different playable races which can have damage resistances. Dragonborn, Dwarves, and Tieflings all appear in the PHB. Aasimar, Goliaths, Tritons, and Yuan-ti Pureblooks are in Xanathar's.
Fiends, lycanthropes, oozes, and undead all make use of damage types for calculating immunities, resistances, and vulnerabilities. They're pretty common enemies.
You do not get to hold up whatever you think the unlikelihood of a scenario is as a reason to discount it. If we did, then we'd be throwing this entire thread out because no sane rogue is going to try and Sneak Attack with a goddang net. The fact remains those rules for damage types exist, and they are in use from 1st-level onward. They matter.