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.
Your argument was the vast majority of time resistances and immunities are not in play therefore damage type is not important.
My counter argument is that resistances and immunities are very much in play the vast majority of time and therefore damage type is very important.
I have backed up my argument with examples of classes and spells that gain access to resistances from level 1, you then say that sometimes damage type matters.
It all comes back around to the fact that the Net not having a damage type is a very important detail.
Fine, you want to claim that the "vast majority of the time" damage types are irrelevant.
Put up some statistics. Otherwise, you're talking out your anus.
I countered every example you gave. Your only response was 'But they exist!!!'
We are both citing estimates. Why does my opinion get tossed out when you are putting even less up to back yours?
When you cite an estimate, you give a citation. You know, a source.
And I never professed to give an estimate. I'm just calling you on your bull hockey. And you flat out ignored this:
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.
Your opinion of how likely or unlikely you think something is doesn't matter. Something only doesn't matter until it does. And you have no way of knowing every instance when that something will matter. No one knows, and that uncertainly is exciting. But, if I didn't know any better, you're trying to use it to keep the game (and other players) down.
Those rules exist; whether they need to be referenced 1% of the time or 100%. And no one gets to just decide when they do or don't matter. So if you don't have all the information, if you cannot define something, then you cannot describe how it interacts with the world. It lacks the necessary substance to exist. If you want to change that, mechanically, and fill in the blanks then you fundamentally change something about the game world. And there are repercussions.
But, make no mistake, that's all house rules territory. Rules as written, the lack of definition means certain interactions cannot take place.
Ultimately the view that the Net does no damage is mainly attributed to the fact that it has no damage type listed. Damage type is important because Resistances and Immunities can occur as early as Level 1. That is the reason damage needs a type, your argument that its all edge cases and what not does not translate into what makes the game flow and work. Damage type exists for a reason and you can not just ignore it if its convenient like trying to do typeless damage with a Net until a Raging Barbarian shows up and throws a spanner in the works. You follow the rules or you make Houserules for instances where your DM feels it is needed. And for the record I am totally fine with Net having a damage type as a Houserule.
You cannot just state that something that has no damage type can trigger effects like Sneak Attack and turn that into typeless damage as well. At least not without a Houserule.
I will now take my leave from this thread and I wish you a good day sir.
I'm backing out of this thread as well, so many things I want to say but it's not really worth it.
Before I do though,
"Again, it would NOT be 'type-less damage.' However unless type is relevant to the situation, there is no need to care or rule on what type it is."
Random question but why does type-less damage get assigned damage types via weapon anyways? Like how rogues doing sneak attack with a rapier does purely 100% piercing damage and not piercing + type-less damage? Just a random question, is there a actual statement saying so? Or is just because "it makes the most sense/most balanced" (which it's been clearly been shown "makes sense" has little impact on RAW).
I've been ruling it like this for a while now, and am just now wondering where exactly I got this rule from. (Will obviously continue ruling it like this cause much better than the alternative, but just wondering exactly how RAW is this?)
Eh the main issue with "However, objectively, to those that understand how the PHB is supposed to be read and understood" is two-fold.
1. The net has a defined damage value/dice, it's "-". The book never explains what a damage value of "-" is supposed to mean, but it certainly isn't nothing, nor is it 0. Obviously we know now due to dev. tweets it's supposed to mean N/A (not applicable), that the net can't do damage no matter what, but that would be RAI not RAW.
2. The whole damage type debate has kinda made me super confused ngl. What does the likely-hood of resistance/immunities have to do with RAW? Anyhow, I do question most of the statement people bring up regarding damage-types (everything must have a damage type because resistances/immunities are a vital part of balance is more of a RAF concern than a RAW one, I don't see a single line that states damage requires a damage type).
Any statement regarding the rules of damage types is already flawed enough cause the only thing RAW about damage types is that it says damage types have 0 rules, just that they're used for resistance/immunities. So already saying that "all damage must have a damage type" is adding a rule to damage types, which RAW forbids.
Edit: oh i said I was leaving the thread- oops I completely forgot.
1. The net has a defined damage value/dice, it's "-". The book never explains what a damage value of "-" is supposed to mean, but it certainly isn't nothing, nor is it 0. Obviously we know now due to dev. tweets it's supposed to mean N/A (not applicable), that the net can't do damage no matter what, but that would be RAI not RAW.
It's not that we don't know what "-" means, but that we know what it isn't. We know it's not a d4, d6, d8, d10, or d12. And we know there's no accompanying damage type. It lacks all the traits which typify weapon damage. Some people take this lack of information as an ambiguity to be filled in later. But the information they seek was omitted because it wasn't important. If it was, it would have been included. The lack of definition, if we're going to call it that, means the damage does not exist.
2. The whole damage type debate has kinda made me super confused ngl. What does the likely-hood of resistance/immunities have to do with RAW? Anyhow, I do question most of the statement people bring up regarding damage-types (everything must have a damage type because resistances/immunities are a vital part of balance is more of a RAF concern than a RAW one, I don't see a single line that states damage requires a damage type).
There's no expressed line saying every damage must have a type; you won't find it worded like that. But every instance of damage dealt has at least one type: prescribed from a list expressly given to us. We know, because of this list, there is no "untyped" damage. Previous editions (3.5 notably) dealt with untyped damage for some spells and effects. The spell disintegrate, for example, wasn't always Force damage. It used to be Untyped. But no such exception, if you could call it that, for untyped damage exists in 5th Edition. And there's no expressly listed untyped damage, so all damage must belong to one of the listed types. So if an attack has no damage type then it deals no damage.
So it shouldn't matter whether the damage dealt by Sneak Attack is "extra" or not. If it lacks a damage type, then it doesn't exist.
Your argument was the vast majority of time resistances and immunities are not in play therefore damage type is not important.
My counter argument is that resistances and immunities are very much in play the vast majority of time and therefore damage type is very important.
I have backed up my argument with examples of classes and spells that gain access to resistances from level 1, you then say that sometimes damage type matters.
It all comes back around to the fact that the Net not having a damage type is a very important detail.
Fine, you want to claim that the "vast majority of the time" damage types are irrelevant.
Put up some statistics. Otherwise, you're talking out your anus.
When you cite an estimate, you give a citation. You know, a source.
And I never professed to give an estimate. I'm just calling you on your bull hockey. And you flat out ignored this:
Your opinion of how likely or unlikely you think something is doesn't matter. Something only doesn't matter until it does. And you have no way of knowing every instance when that something will matter. No one knows, and that uncertainly is exciting. But, if I didn't know any better, you're trying to use it to keep the game (and other players) down.
Those rules exist; whether they need to be referenced 1% of the time or 100%. And no one gets to just decide when they do or don't matter. So if you don't have all the information, if you cannot define something, then you cannot describe how it interacts with the world. It lacks the necessary substance to exist. If you want to change that, mechanically, and fill in the blanks then you fundamentally change something about the game world. And there are repercussions.
But, make no mistake, that's all house rules territory. Rules as written, the lack of definition means certain interactions cannot take place.
You never gave us any sources, and you misattributed links of mine to tweets when they were to other parts of this website.
If you're not going to take this seriously, then you're wasting everyone's time; including your own.
And this will be the last you hear from me on these forums.
This will also be my last reply.
Ultimately the view that the Net does no damage is mainly attributed to the fact that it has no damage type listed. Damage type is important because Resistances and Immunities can occur as early as Level 1. That is the reason damage needs a type, your argument that its all edge cases and what not does not translate into what makes the game flow and work. Damage type exists for a reason and you can not just ignore it if its convenient like trying to do typeless damage with a Net until a Raging Barbarian shows up and throws a spanner in the works. You follow the rules or you make Houserules for instances where your DM feels it is needed. And for the record I am totally fine with Net having a damage type as a Houserule.
You cannot just state that something that has no damage type can trigger effects like Sneak Attack and turn that into typeless damage as well. At least not without a Houserule.
I will now take my leave from this thread and I wish you a good day sir.
I'm backing out of this thread as well, so many things I want to say but it's not really worth it.
Before I do though,
"Again, it would NOT be 'type-less damage.' However unless type is relevant to the situation, there is no need to care or rule on what type it is."
Random question but why does type-less damage get assigned damage types via weapon anyways? Like how rogues doing sneak attack with a rapier does purely 100% piercing damage and not piercing + type-less damage? Just a random question, is there a actual statement saying so? Or is just because "it makes the most sense/most balanced" (which it's been clearly been shown "makes sense" has little impact on RAW).
I've been ruling it like this for a while now, and am just now wondering where exactly I got this rule from. (Will obviously continue ruling it like this cause much better than the alternative, but just wondering exactly how RAW is this?)
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.
Eh the main issue with "However, objectively, to those that understand how the PHB is supposed to be read and understood" is two-fold.
1. The net has a defined damage value/dice, it's "-". The book never explains what a damage value of "-" is supposed to mean, but it certainly isn't nothing, nor is it 0. Obviously we know now due to dev. tweets it's supposed to mean N/A (not applicable), that the net can't do damage no matter what, but that would be RAI not RAW.
2. The whole damage type debate has kinda made me super confused ngl. What does the likely-hood of resistance/immunities have to do with RAW? Anyhow, I do question most of the statement people bring up regarding damage-types (everything must have a damage type because resistances/immunities are a vital part of balance is more of a RAF concern than a RAW one, I don't see a single line that states damage requires a damage type).
Any statement regarding the rules of damage types is already flawed enough cause the only thing RAW about damage types is that it says damage types have 0 rules, just that they're used for resistance/immunities. So already saying that "all damage must have a damage type" is adding a rule to damage types, which RAW forbids.
Edit: oh i said I was leaving the thread- oops I completely forgot.
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.
I'll try to clear things up as much as possible.
It's not that we don't know what "-" means, but that we know what it isn't. We know it's not a d4, d6, d8, d10, or d12. And we know there's no accompanying damage type. It lacks all the traits which typify weapon damage. Some people take this lack of information as an ambiguity to be filled in later. But the information they seek was omitted because it wasn't important. If it was, it would have been included. The lack of definition, if we're going to call it that, means the damage does not exist.
There's no expressed line saying every damage must have a type; you won't find it worded like that. But every instance of damage dealt has at least one type: prescribed from a list expressly given to us. We know, because of this list, there is no "untyped" damage. Previous editions (3.5 notably) dealt with untyped damage for some spells and effects. The spell disintegrate, for example, wasn't always Force damage. It used to be Untyped. But no such exception, if you could call it that, for untyped damage exists in 5th Edition. And there's no expressly listed untyped damage, so all damage must belong to one of the listed types. So if an attack has no damage type then it deals no damage.
So it shouldn't matter whether the damage dealt by Sneak Attack is "extra" or not. If it lacks a damage type, then it doesn't exist.