@NautArch I wrote “interpretation” in the sense that everything is interpreted since I am not omnipotent. I don’t have to “be clear it’s my interpretation” since that is a given for all humans all the time.

@RyanThompson um, no your wrong. You can see my rebuttal to this same point by someone else.

@Yakk please see my rebuttal above to your exact point made by someone else who was wrong.

@AmethystWizard Your argument is that if the listed ways to escape a net are not an exhaustive list, then none of the rules have any meaning because you could add any additional effect to anything at any time?

That argument seems specious to me.

5e explicitly says that the rules aren't intended to exhaustively cover every situation and empowers and encourages the DM to fill in the gaps as needed.

See e.g. dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/introduction#Part3MasterofRules and dndbeyond.com/sources/xgte/…

It is reasonable, and I would argue expected, that in cases not directly covered by the rules, a DM should rule that a net works like a net, for example by ruling that if the net is removed from a creature by any means, the creature is freed.

But yes, someone can try to break the net using a piercing or bludegoning weapon; how that would work would indeed be up to the DM. If someone turns to mist? Maybe that would escape, again up to the DM. Polymorph into a Huge creature? Again, up to the DM. In some cases there is no guidance, but in the case of the net there is explicit guidance that the creature is no longer restrained if whatever action caused the creature to be "freed".