Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Harmor 10-05-04, 03:42 AM	I happen to be a halfling rogue that was swallowed by a creature that is not immune to critical hits. So I'm inside the stomach taking crushing/acid damage and such, but I'm sitting inside there critical hitting and doing alot of damage (+6d6 sneak attack). Obviously I did more than 50 points of damage and such while inside, which for this creature is enough to escape, but I wanted to stay in...can I? I happened to have Stoneskin and Resistance to Elements cast on me at the momemnt, so I wasn't really worried btw...
Sucineri 10-05-04, 03:48 AM	I wouldn't see any reason you would HAVE to escape unless you use a slashing weapon and cut directly below yourself, heh. But how exactly are you constantly doing sneak attack damage when you can't see anything from inside the creature?
Harmor 10-05-04, 04:13 AM	I have Darkvision goggles :mymy:
Harmor 10-05-04, 04:14 AM	I'm using a +1 dagger of Wounding.
Sucineri 10-05-04, 05:21 AM	Okay, well being on the inside of a creature isn't the same as attack from the outside. You know what the creature's stomach looks like now, but you still can't climb to it's chest and stab it in the heart or anything. So what your question was about, you don't have to escape if you don't want to.
tarkin 10-05-04, 09:57 AM	Your DM appears to be using a bad House Rule that lets you Sneak Attack from inside a creature's stomach. Using WoTC rules, you are not allowed to do that. While I understand that an inexperienced DM would fall for the "he can't see me" logic, a smarter DM will realize it would be unbalancing and double check. When he did, he would read the following line: The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. And rule that obviously, being inside the stomache prevents you from reaching such a spot. While it is possible that some creatures would have such a vital spot in their stomache, clearly any creature that's uses "swallow whole" would NOT have such a "vital" spot inside the biological trap especially designed to kill their victims. As a DM, I would however allow someone to do a "critical" hit, as Critical hits, and would definitely allow the Wounding -------------- As for leaving, if you want to stay inside, I would rule that you definitely are allowed to stay inside.
bullfrog 10-05-04, 01:13 PM	I would let you stay in it. And rule that obviously, being inside the stomache prevents you from reaching such a spot. Wouldn’t the stomach be a vital spot? I still probably wouldn’t allow the sneak attack.
tarkin 10-05-04, 02:34 PM	Like I tried to say earlier: While the stomache might be considered a "vital" spot for a regular creature.... Any creature that takes has the ability "Swallow Whole", uses their stomache as a weapon to grapple/hold/damage their opponent and therefore it should not be considered a "vital spot" for any creature that has "Swallow Whole".
Callista 10-05-04, 02:38 PM	Perhaps allow sneak attacks only after enough damage to escape has been done, but only if the player declares that s/he is attempting not to cut free but to reach a vital spot in order to sneak attack? Of course, after that, one would have to again do enough damage to escape to get free entirely, since it's probably just as hard (if not harder) to escape from near a critter's vital organs as to escape from its stomach.
ClementWillowbreaker 10-05-04, 04:26 PM	That's quite an interesting idea- burrowing rogues, like nematode parasites or roundworm, slowly but steadly working their way to the aorta...but what a mess when you get done... ::Dragon roars, then gulps and flops over:: Fighter: What the hell? ::Rogue slices out of chest, covered in viscera:: Congenital heart defect. Though they do need darkvision/blindsight/a light source to get around the concealment.
Purkake 10-05-04, 04:35 PM	The real question is: IS the creatures stomach flat footed? It would be fun to have to rogues flank a big creature's kidney :D
D.A.Dervish 10-05-04, 04:43 PM	So, if the stomach of a creature with swallow whole attacks are not vital areas, what about other creatures? I mean, can you use a grapple check to force yourself into the mouth of a creature to really, and I mean really :eek:, get at the kidneys? /D.A.Dervish
Purkake 10-05-04, 05:37 PM	They will probably be long dead before you could make your way to the kidneys, unless its a abberation and has kidneys in its throat. *imagines a iron golem forcing itself down a halfling's throat to get to the kidneys*
thepuregamer 10-05-04, 05:49 PM	Like I tried to say earlier: While the stomache might be considered a "vital" spot for a regular creature.... Any creature that takes has the ability "Swallow Whole", uses their stomache as a weapon to grapple/hold/damage their opponent and therefore it should not be considered a "vital spot" for any creature that has "Swallow Whole". A stomache is a stomache is a stomache. From the swallow whole ability, their stomache deals damage. Nothing says that their stomache is no longer a vital organ for them. As long as the rogue can see what he is doing, they should still be able sneak attack. A critical hit under current definitions is a vital strike, similiar to a sneak attack. Anywhere you could do a critical hit, you could also do a sneak attack. In the same way, " The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot." Well swallow whole doesn't state that the stomache is no longer a vital spot and it doesn't state that the stomache is a weapon. And it doesn't say that the stomache is immune to sneak attacks. So if he can see inside the stomache, sneak attack is still a go.
Lavis Knight 10-05-04, 06:04 PM	I would definetly allow critical hits. Although Sneak attacks is a little more confusing. What if the Dragon were hit by a stunning fist while someone was swallowed hole (And assuming they could see in the darkness) would then the sneak attacks work? For Attacks while done in the stomach is the Dragon considered flatfooted?
thepuregamer 10-05-04, 06:09 PM	On the issue of flatfootedness, it seems that the AC to hit the stomache involves neither dex mod nor size modifiers. AC for stomache is 10+ 1/2 natural armor. So no dex bonus means sneak attack can happen.
CptCarnage 10-05-04, 07:56 PM	Wouldnt you have to beat the STR score of the dragon to even move (with the grapple rules)? Also, isnt being in there concidered under water combat (being submersed in acid)? If this doesnt matter, then: The dragon would probably vomit you into his mouth, chew you up some more then swallow you. If you wanted to stay in the belly of the beast I would probably have you make a swim check (if you had already made your STR check) to against the flow of vomit. Possible? yes. Likly? not really.
Harmor 10-05-04, 10:31 PM	On the issue of flatfootedness, it seems that the AC to hit the stomache involves neither dex mod nor size modifiers. AC for stomache is 10+ 1/2 natural armor. So no dex bonus means sneak attack can happen.AC 5. The beast got no natural armor because I'm not attacking his thick hide...I'm INSIDE him attacking the nice gewy stuff.
Purkake 10-06-04, 08:53 AM	On the issue of flatfootedness, it seems that the AC to hit the stomache involves neither dex mod nor size modifiers. AC for stomache is 10+ 1/2 natural armor. So no dex bonus means sneak attack can happen. Just because it doesn't have a dex bonus doesn't mean it flatfooted or othervise denied it's dex bonus. For example if you have dex 10 and don't have an ac bonus because of thet does that mean every attack against you may be a sneak attack?
Loren Pechtel 10-07-04, 12:39 AM	I agree with the logic that a creature with swallow whole can't be sneak attacked in the stomach. I'm sure it would have anatomy that precluded that. Crits should work normally, though. I do like the idea of "escaping" into the creatures innards, though. At that point I would allow sneak attacks *IF* the rogue had some means of knowing where it was and what was around it.
Purkake 10-07-04, 07:35 AM	Maybe he could make knowlage(anatomy) or knowlage(nature) checks to see if he could find anything to sneak attack.
Nom 10-07-04, 10:02 AM	To bring "realism" into this discussion (always dangerous), the stomach isn't actually a "vital spot". If you're going to be hit in an internal organ, the stomach is a good choice - at least in the short term. More pertinent is that the "sneak attack" represents hitting a part of the creature that will rapidly cripple or kill it, rather than wearing it down through fatigue, luck and accumulated minor damage. As pointed out before, the throat and stomach of a creature with a constriction attack is designed to be used as a weapon. If you're swallowed, you're exactly where the creature wants you. The argument makes as much sense as saying "well, he's successfully grappled me, so I should be able to sneak attack since we're in such close proximity" or "hey, while the lion is holding me in his jaws, I can get a clean shot at his eyes".
thepuregamer 10-07-04, 10:43 AM	Just because it doesn't have a dex bonus doesn't mean it flatfooted or othervise denied it's dex bonus. For example if you have dex 10 and don't have an ac bonus because of thet does that mean every attack against you may be a sneak attack? Well actually you have a +0dex bonus. Just as if you have a negative modifier you have a negative dex bonus to ac. Being flat-footed has to do with whether you have the ability to dodge attacks or not. Their stomache is not hopping and ducking to keep away from your dagger attacks while you are in there. Loren Pechtel, "I agree with the logic that a creature with swallow whole can't be sneak attacked in the stomach. I'm sure it would have anatomy that precluded that. Crits should work normally, though. I do like the idea of "escaping" into the creatures innards, though. At that point I would allow sneak attacks *IF* the rogue had some means of knowing where it was and what was around it. " Loren, the problem with your logic is you assume that the rogue shouldn't have sneak attacks in this situation. That is called reading beyond the rules. The rules don't say anywhere that he has special anatomy that prevents sneak attacks to the stomach. It does say that he has a special anatomy that allows him to swallow creatures whole. I also suspect that the rogue knows very well where he is after being swallowed by a monster. Maybe not. I mean some things might not use a stomache to digest you. But if there is a burning and corroding sensation I think they will make a few guesses. Nom, The monster gets the benefit of swallowing you and doing damage for free while it deals with other enemies. That is the benefit. They don't make monster's abilities thinking that it will be perfect against everything. For everything else other than a rogue, this ability works like a charm. Also, getting stabbed from the inside of your own stomache would be tremendously painful and that will factor in. And when then poke holes in your stomache and your own stomache acid starts pouring into the rest of your body, that is bad. No it is a vital organ, in the sense that it can be targeted and used against a person. Anyway, people should note that there is nothing in the rules that prevents sneak attacks in the stomache. If the creature is susceptible to crits, and it swallows you, its stomache is basically flat-footed or prone. It can do absolutely nothing to dodge your attacks. And if you plan on allowing critical hits then you should surely allow sneak attacks because both require vital areas. all they need is to be able to see what they are doing. Requiring knowledge checks would also be pointless since their characters main ability is sneak attacking. They should understand finding and hitting vital spots. It is their job. That's about it
Purkake 10-07-04, 12:37 PM	I just thought it would be a little harder without knowing the exact locations of a creature's organs. You are basically in a wet mass on flesh when you go from stomach to innards. Without knowlage you might poke around but you really wouldn't know what you are doing. Just because a rogue knows that sliting a throat or poking in a lung will hit more doesn't mean he could find them from the INSIDE.
thepuregamer 10-07-04, 01:25 PM	I see some of your point, but the rogue still knows in general where he is and what is going to hurt the creature.
Sucineri 10-07-04, 01:57 PM	We have come to the conclusion that when you are swallowed whole, that doing enough damage doesn't mean you HAVE to leave the creature's insides. There is no rule to say yes or no about that.. Yet we try to give some advice saying that you can't sneak attack the inside of a creature, and you use the excuse of "well there isn't a rule that says otherwise".. So basically what we have here is that you agree when it is good for you, and you disagree when it is bad for you.. Here's my two cents on sneak attacking from inside. Every round you must make a concentration check equal to the damage done by the stomach..maybe up the ante by 1 extra point each round that stack with eachother. So first round you get check of 3d6, then you get 3d6+1, then 3d6+2, and so on. You may ask why..but think about it, to make a sneak attack, you have to be paying attention to what you are doing, and being in a burning pool of acid is not the best way to pay attention. So there ya go. Either NO you can't sneak attack, or YES you can sneak attack with a concentration check DC = damage each round +1.
Finarin Panjoro 10-07-04, 02:06 PM	I see no reason you could not choose to stay inside after cutting a hole. Protected as you are its probably easier to hit from inside and you could still score critical hits. However as a DM, I would never allow a sneak attack while swallowed whole. First, you're essentially wrapped in a writhing mass of indistiguishable flesh. Most likely you can't even tell which direction is up let alone tell which direction his heart is in. Second, you're swimming in acid; opaque acid. Even with darkvision you'd be blind because the acid is not transparent. Third, if cutting a hole through the side of his stomach and out of his body doesn't constitute a death blow in and of itself I think its safe to say that the stomach's integrity is not essential to the creature's immediate survival. So it isn't a vital organ. But that's just my take on it. If your DM is willing then go for it.
thepuregamer 10-07-04, 04:08 PM	Ok good news everyone. You don't even need to pretend you are right now. Because it says you need to do 50hp points of damage to cut your way out of the creature. You have basically created a tunnel. You could leave if you wanted to. It does not say however that you deal 50 hps and you are ejected from the monster. So no need even to compare my point with yours. For example, your leaving the monsters relies on your desires. The fact that there is something inside the monster with darkvision goggles and a dagger is entirely out of the monsters control. By the way, the acid doesn't need to be opache as many acids are not. If it were that insanely bad, no one would be able to get out of the monster. But this is beyond the point. The choice of staying or leaving need not have ever been contested because it does not say when 50 hp damage is done you must leave. No it says you can leave. The 50hp damage is cutting a path free. It does not close up behind you, unless you are inside a troll or something like that. The rules are also clear about sneak attacking. You need to be able to see and reach a vital area. The target must be flat-footed. The target must be susceptible to critical hits. You guys have said again and again, that you do not think it is a vital area and then you say but you would allow critical hits. Critical hits require that there be something vital to hit as well. A critical hit is a vital strike. I am not saying that the rules don't say one thing in either direction about sneak attacking here. I said that there is no listed special condition under the special attack swallow whole that states that 1) sneak attack just don't work. 2) that the stomach is not a vital area but a weapon. So under normal sneak attacking protocal, you look for a vital area, you see if you can reach it, you see if it is flat-footed and if all this stuff clears up, commence rolling sneak attack damage. Anything else would be house ruling. Which is perfectly fine. If I were ever again to DM a campaign( I am lazy and I have only tried twice) I might make a few house rules. But some of you who are making rules should note that you are throwing preconceived notions of what this seems like. You have a world with only opache stomach acid, possibly only opache acid in general, you have tunnels that are only one way, and you have organs inside a huge creature that are not vital. This sounds like an entirely new campaign world. I would propose it to WotC but they just made Eberron so I guess they won't need this one. Oh and if a creature is big enough to swallow you whole, a hole coming out of their stomach as big as or smaller than their own mouth might not be such a big deal to them. In the extreme of circumstances, the tarrasque wouldn't even notice the hole and in this case I suspect that it would close behind you. That would be funny. So no I am not asking for any special considerations. Well not too many... just a few from the moderators cause I suspect this is baiting. They got me last week for that.
Purkake 10-07-04, 05:12 PM	Well actually the description of swallow whole says that "a muscular reaction closes the wound and another creature has to make his own way out" I would guess that you don't have to go out, but if you do you would have to do 50 AND go out. Its kinda like digging with the tunnel falling down behind you.
thepuregamer 10-07-04, 06:04 PM	that is actually not in the glossary definition. But it is in the Tarrasque description so I agree with you. So you could just cut and stay where you were or leave.
Finarin Panjoro 10-07-04, 06:30 PM	Puregamer, I agree that you should have the choice of leaving or staying once you do damage. It is completely reasonable to disallow sneak attacks under these conditions. Critical hits can occur by luck (you just happen to slice through a lung on your way through the stomach wall), sneak attacks cannot occur by luck. They must be intentional well aimed strikes. Since cutting through the stomach is not any worse for the creature than cutting through its skin (meaning it doesn't take more damage from my short sword becuase I'm hitting its stomach rather than its skin) I logically conclude that the stomach does not constitute as a vital organ. There are many organs in the body which are not vital or immediately life threatening if they stop functioning. In any event, since I can't see through the stomach wall all of the creatures vital organs have total concealment from me and are thus immune to sneak attack. Further he isn't denied his dex bonus to AC. His stomach simply doesn't have a dex bonus to AC. Nor is the target flat-footed, so I can't sneak attack him for that reason either. As far as stomach acid being opaque, I've never seen anyone vomit clear fluid before. I suppose if the only thing they had consumed in the last several hours was water it would be possible. But most stomach contents are awfully murky from what I've seen. So you most likely are blind and conducting your cut through the stomach action by touch rather than sight. Play it however you like, but the rules and precedents of the game support not being able to sneak attack under these conditions.
Lord Schpungus 10-07-04, 07:17 PM	1) There's no written rule against sneak attack while swallowed whole. If there were it would specifically say so. Anything else is a house rule. I think there's a board for that, but it's not this one. 2) While probably not a 'real-world' vital organ, the stomach is close enough and surrounded enough by kidneys, bladders, intestines, lungs, etc. to reach 'vital' areas. 3) I would also say the creature is denied its dex bonus because, face it, how is he going to dodge his kidneys, lungs, etc. out of the way?
Purkake 10-07-04, 07:26 PM	Doing regular stomach exercises and becoming the master-stomach-dodger?
thepuregamer 10-07-04, 07:33 PM	Well Lord Schpungus(hmmm how should that be pronounced) said my part for me. So now I will hit your example of critical strikes. So they are entirely random right? It has nothing to do with your character? So that means that a character can't be any better than another at getting critical hits, right? Well that is interesting because certain weapons have wider threat ranges and a weapon can be keened, and a character can get better at striking a critical hit through a well known feat called improved critical hit. They get better at it and the threat range doubles. This would mean that it has something to do with the character trying to get a critical hit and your die roll being how good your attempt is. If your character can affect the probability of striking a vital area, then it isn't random at all. Oh and the stuff that comes up is murky because it is the food they were eating. But if you were in someone's stomach that would likely be whatever you were wading through. The liquid acid itself is likely not going to be any specific color. And it does not say in the description that the creatures stomache is filled to the brim with acid because then you would have to get out before you suffocated. So if your head and essentially your eyes are not submerged in acid, then with dark vision goggles seeing will not be a problem. Oh and I should apologize because my reply feels to me alittle mean in attitude.
Hoth Osric 10-07-04, 08:27 PM	Has anyone addressed the issue of BREATHING inside a monster? There's no way in hell you're "tunneling" to a dragon's heart from it's stomach. There's no air pockets in there. My personal interpretation of sutting oneself out is that you manage to do enough damage to a creature's stomach/gut to open a sizeable hole to squirm through. "Tunneling" is out of the question. I'd rule against sneak attacks, since the inside of a stomach is uniform and an incredibly hostile environment. There's no way you'd know which direction the lungs or kidneys are in, especially when you're being suffocated, dissolved and crushed all at once. I'd allow crits though. There's no reason not to.
buchw001 10-07-04, 08:44 PM	The rogue's sneak attack ability has two very clear and specific conditions that grant the extra damage. The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. So the questions are as follows: 1) Is the creature that did the swallowing denied its Dexterity bonus? 2) Is the creature that did the swallowing flanked? So what are the answers? I think all agree that the answer to 2) is NO. For question 1), the rules do not specifically state that a creature is denied its Dexterity bonus when it uses the swallow whole ability; however, logic would dictate otherwise. I guess a related question is if the creature would be granted its Dexterity bonus against a normal attack (probably not). If a fighter (or some other non-rogue character) was swallowed and made an attack, I believe almost all DM's would not include DEX in the AC. Based on this answer, I must agree that sneak attack is O.K.
Nom 10-08-04, 01:23 AM	Swallow Whole (Ex): A purple worm can try to swallow a grabbed opponent of a smaller size than itself by making a successful grapple check. Once inside, the opponent takes 2d8+12 points of crushing damage plus 8 points of acid damage per round from the worm’s gizzard. A swallowed creature can cut its way out by using a light slashing or piercing weapon to deal 25 points of damage to the gizzard (AC 17). Once the creature exits, muscular action closes the hole; another swallowed opponent must cut its own way out. A Gargantuan worm’s interior can hold 2 Large, 8 Medium, 32 Small, 128 Tiny, or 512 Diminutive or smaller opponents.Salient points: (1) Swallow whole is an expansion on grapple. However, there is automatic continuous damage that is worse than grapple damage. (2) No mention is made of flat footed, loss of Dex bonus or other modifiers. Instead, a flat AC is given (17 in this case), and the damage must be dealt with a light piercing or slashing weapon. Interpretation - think hacking a focused hole in the stomach wall. (3) The stomach can hold 8 medium creatures! You're inside a giant, acid filled tough bag that is being repeatedly squeezed. A character in that environment is in no position to reach vital spots. The stomach lining and muscle alone is likely to be thicker than your (light) weapon is long. (4) No indication is given either way whether the 25 points of "cutting out" damage actually counts against the creature's hp. By default, I'd probably assume it does, since hydras and the like explicitly specify when damage is not counted against total hp. I could see a DM in a cinematic scenario allowing a character to try to get into the mouth of a huge creature and drive a longsword up into its skull, but the default answer to "Can I sneak attack from inside a creature's belly?" should be amused laughter.
Loren Pechtel 10-08-04, 01:28 AM	Maybe he could make knowlage(anatomy) or knowlage(nature) checks to see if he could find anything to sneak attack. I was thinking about this but then I decided his sneak-attack knowledge already gives him the information.
Loren Pechtel 10-08-04, 01:36 AM	I could see a DM in a cinematic scenario allowing a character to try to get into the mouth of a huge creature and drive a longsword up into its skull, but the default answer to "Can I sneak attack from inside a creature's belly?" should be amused laughter. Belly, yes. Stomach, no. Cut your way out of the stomach but don't actually exit the monster's body. You don't have the acid anymore, you don't have the muscles squashing you anymore. Assuming you have some means of locating your target I'd permit a sneak attack. There are going to be blood vessels around there, they would make suitable targets. If you can truly get around in there and pick targets freely I'm inclined to say you can even CDG them. There are a couple of critical blood vessels in there.
Beerkeg 10-08-04, 02:10 AM	What happens when the Dragon swallows my dwarf cleric, My cleric makes his Concentration check and summons a blade barrier inside the dragon? :D
Sucineri 10-08-04, 03:27 AM	Okay..I guess I am going to have to once again email someone at WotC to figure this out like I did with the Combat Expertise/Power Attack thing..be back when I get an answer I guess.
boytbpc 10-08-04, 08:10 AM	2 points: 1) the creature would obviously be denied it's dex bonus, unless it can juke and jive with its stomach. 2) Once inside a creature everything is vital. That's where the vital things are stored. That is why the armor is on the outside, because the squishy important things are on the inside. Look at any vet school anatomy book, from the stomach your pretty much a short sword away from everything. Boytbpc
Sucineri 10-08-04, 09:24 AM	Well..let's look at it another way. If you are one that knows how to fight..like barefisted ultimate fighting and all that stuff, you are considered a chump/newbie if you are punching someone in the stomach. The "vital" bits on the torso I believe are the kidneys, lungs, heart, crotch..and even on a guy, getting punched in the crotch isn't that painful..UNLESS you make contact with his berries! :P If you watch a boxing match, when people get punched in the stomach it doesn't really do anything to the guy, they just take the punch. Even on the inside, it might be painful to be stabbed inside the stomach, but it isn't critical or anything. CRITS would tend to happen inside the stomach if you are blindly stabbing and happen to pierce the stomach and hit a kidney, or one of the other areas I mentioned. And that is all based on luck, because you can't actually SEE the kidneys or anything from inside the stomach..which is why crits are based on luck mostly.
Hoth Osric 10-08-04, 09:33 AM	Belly, yes. Stomach, no. Cut your way out of the stomach but don't actually exit the monster's body. You don't have the acid anymore, you don't have the muscles squashing you anymore. Assuming you have some means of locating your target I'd permit a sneak attack. There are going to be blood vessels around there, they would make suitable targets. If you can truly get around in there and pick targets freely I'm inclined to say you can even CDG them. There are a couple of critical blood vessels in there. I'm not quite sure what you visualize the interior of a body to be like. It's not like you hack out of the stomach into a "cave" inside the body. You're still being crushed by musculature. You're still drowning in blood and fat. The stomach acid from the creature is still flowing out of the hole you cut in the stomach. Just because you're outside the stomach itself doesn't mean you're safe. There's also the matter of size. Look at your belly. Your stomach is only just under the surface of your ribs/skin. There's no way I'd allow one of myplayers to attempt to tunnel around in a purple worm, dragon, etc like the Miner Guy in Dig Dug. Being swallowed whole is BAD. it's not a way to get an advantage on the monster. I'd start the suffocation rules the instant the PC was swalloed, personally.
Purkake 10-08-04, 09:33 AM	Look at any vet school anatomy book, from the stomach your pretty much a short sword away from everything.Boytbpc I doubt that any vet school anatomy book has tarrasque or and other DnD monster's anatomy. Any if your target is bigger than a human then everything is not "a short sword away"
Finarin Panjoro 10-08-04, 10:13 AM	The creature should not be considered denied his dexterity bonus to AC. Even if the creature does not move he is assumed by the game to be dodging and weaving within his designated space. That means you are being rolled, tossed, squished, sloshed, bashed, crushed, burned, and generally disoriented inside a writhing indistinguishable mass of flesh. I don't care if you're the greatest living expert on purple worms and a rogue 20 to boot, in my campaign you are not making a sneak attack under those conditions. puregamer, I said that critical hits CAN occur by luck, not they ALWAYS occur by luck. Sneak attacks NEVER occur by luck. Also if the stomach is itself a vital organ then why doesn't it count as an automatic critical hit when the fighter starts cutting his way out? The answer: because it's not vital! And why are we given rules regarding the muscular action closing the hole requiring someone else to cut their own way out? That means that someone in the stomach can't even find the existing human-sized wound, let alone chose a more vital target! Being in a writhing creature's stomach is not like bieng in a stable room half full of water where you can look around for the best place to strike. It's more like being in a zip-lock bag, filled with vomit, being shaken and twisted around by a giant chef. If you're lucky you can get a hold of the wall of the bag and cut through it to get out. You can probably only use a light weapon because you need the other hand to keep from being thrown away from the area you're cutting at. Nope, no way is sneak attack occuring under those conditions, not in any game I'm running anyway.
Derren S. 10-08-04, 10:18 AM	Don't forget that you are still considered grappling with the creature when swallowed together with all penalties (for you) This includes that both creatures don't loose their dex bonus against each other so no sneak attacks.
Sucineri 10-08-04, 11:05 AM	Finarin! That is a horrible horrible example! HAHAHAHA! As far as technicallity, I hate to say it, but you are absolutely right, it isn't a room you can look around in, you are being crushed and can only use a light weapon because you don't have much room to move around in.
thepuregamer 10-08-04, 12:08 PM	I don't even know why you guys force me to say this again. If you allow critical hits, then you allow sneak attacks. They need the same thing to function and that is a vital area to hit. If you say yes to crits, then you are required to allow sneak attacks because if as has been said, sneak attacks should be disallowed because they can't reach the vital area, then they wouldn't be able to reach the vital area to critically strike the creature anyway. Furthermore, the suffocation isn't likely a factor because I think if it were it would seriously be mentioned. I mean, suffocating is a more pertinant issue than dying from damage if you are going to be inside the monster for more than 2 or 3 seconds. Some people won't be able to get out in time. Also I would say that no one should be laughing here because this is a depressing thread. Give alittle more than opinions and nonsense. OK people, how tough do you think this stomach really is? I mean it seems that everyone is comparing it to their real experiences in the area. How often have you been swallowed by a dragon? Were there scales on the inside? It makes perfect sense that something people use for digesting food would be armored and impenetrable against steel weapons. No it doesn't give any idications of things like that. Basically what this ability is saying, is that said creature is freaking huge and he has decided to eat you. Once you are inside, all you need do is start poking around with your short sword or dagger. There are vital organs all around the creatures stomach within easy access. So please make some real arguements.
Naeron 10-08-04, 12:20 PM	AC 5. The beast got no natural armor because I'm not attacking his thick hide...I'm INSIDE him attacking the nice gewy stuff. No, the SRD specifically states "The Armor Class of the interior of a creature that swallows whole is normally 10 + 1/2 its natural armor bonus, with no modifiers for size or Dexterity" under the descrition of swallow whole. This formula can be seen to be true for the Behir (+11 Natural, swallowed AC 15), Tyrannosaurus, Dire Shark etc. Monster with tough skins also have tough stomach linings. It also makes clear that no size or dex modifiers apply. That is not the same as the creature being denied its dex bonus to AC so this does not cause a qualification for sneak attack. However as the monster cannot see the person it has swallowed they would count as losing their DEX bonus to AC for being struck by an invisible attacker so SA damage would be valid. But I agree that this is definitely a case for applying the ruling "The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot." While trapped inside the stomach of a creature the rogue cannot see the target's vital spots because everything is hidden from sight by the stomach lining.
Finarin Panjoro 10-08-04, 12:30 PM	I don't even know why you guys force me to say this again. If you allow critical hits, then you allow sneak attacks. They need the same thing to function and that is a vital area to hit. If you say yes to crits, then you are required to allow sneak attacks because if as has been said, sneak attacks should be disallowed because they can't reach the vital area, then they wouldn't be able to reach the vital area to critically strike the creature anyway. No one is saying it is impossible to REACH a vital area. We're saying its impossible to TARGET a vital area. You can get lucky and hit a vital area when you're cutting through the stomach wall (roll a critical hit). But you cannot CHOOSE to strike a vital area that you cannot see (no sneak attack). I would still allow improved critical and keen enhancements to function because they can still be representations of luck. Sneak attack is never a result of luck. It is the result of carefully aiming an attack at a vulnerable opponent. You have niether a vulnerable opponent nor the ability to carefully aim while you are in the stomach of a huge moving creature. Here's another example where this is true. An opponent with concealment is still vulnerable to critical hits. However he CANNOT be sneak attacked. The rogue can't AIM at a vital area. He may still hit one (by scoring a critical), but its more by chance than by choice. See the difference? Sneak attacks and critical hits are not the same thing at all and conditions which allow one do not necessarily allow the other.
Hoth Osric 10-08-04, 01:36 PM	I don't even know why you guys force me to say this again. If you allow critical hits, then you allow sneak attacks. They need the same thing to function and that is a vital area to hit. If you say yes to crits, then you are required to allow sneak attacks because if as has been said, sneak attacks should be disallowed because they can't reach the vital area, then they wouldn't be able to reach the vital area to critically strike the creature anyway. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can crit without sneak attacking, and you can sneak attack without crit'ing. Hell, you can crit when sneak attacking! The argument is more that you cannot SEE a clear spot to sneak attack. Your character cannot tell which way is up inside a creature's stomach. He sure as hell can't pinpoint a vulnerable area. The inside of a stomach is one uniform surface covered in silia. There's no discernable anatomy in there other than that. Critical hits are a system of extra strong attacks by happenstance. You can't aim for a critical hit. They equate to a hugely powerful swing or slipping in over a target's shield or something. Sneak attack damage is TRAINED attacks on immediately vitals. A stomach is vital, but you won't die from an ulcer in ten minutes they way you would from a collapsed lung or perforated artery. Furthermore, the suffocation isn't likely a factor because I think if it were it would seriously be mentioned. I mean, suffocating is a more pertinant issue than dying from damage if you are going to be inside the monster for more than 2 or 3 seconds. Some people won't be able to get out in time. Suffocation takes longer than 2-3 seconds. Per the DMG, a character can hold their breath for 2 rounds per point of Consitiution. Each round after the max requires a DC 10 Con save, with an increasing +1 to DC each round. Then after failing the save, you start to suffocate and will die in three rounds. Even a wizard with 10 Con has 20 rounds of action before it becomes a problem, but it still doesn't allow a character to go "tunneling" through a beast's innards. Also I would say that no one should be laughing here because this is a depressing thread. Give alittle more than opinions and nonsense. OK people, how tough do you think this stomach really is? I mean it seems that everyone is comparing it to their real experiences in the area. How often have you been swallowed by a dragon? Were there scales on the inside? It makes perfect sense that something people use for digesting food would be armored and impenetrable against steel weapons. No it doesn't give any idications of things like that. Basically what this ability is saying, is that said creature is freaking huge and he has decided to eat you. Once you are inside, all you need do is start poking around with your short sword or dagger. There are vital organs all around the creatures stomach within easy access. So please make some real arguements. You just refuted yourself here. You say our real-life experiences cannot be valid points, but then turn around and use them to validate your own idea that there are vital organs all around the stomach to poke at. Please define "easy access" for us. I don't consider being pinned by a wall of flesh, dissolved by acid and holding my breath to do anything "easy access".
Purkake 10-08-04, 02:03 PM	Don't forget that you are still considered grappling with the creature when swallowed together with all penalties (for you) This includes that both creatures don't loose their dex bonus against each other so no sneak attacks. Here is your answer! It doesn't really matter if you can see or can't. You are grappled and neighter of you loses your dex bouns to ac.(it doesn't matter for the stomach because it is auto-hit).
Sucineri 10-08-04, 07:56 PM	Okay, I got a reply on my email so we can rest this topic now. No, the rules do not support this. *Please quote this e-mail in any reply.* Darrin Wizards of the Coast Customer Service Department Wizards of the Coast 1-800-324-6496 -----Original Message----- From: **********@*****.Com [mailto:**********@*****.Com] Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 12:36 AM To: Wizards Customer Service Subject: Game rules question - Dungeons & Dragons/Forgotten Realms Feedback Game rules question - Dungeons & Dragons/Forgotten Realms Feedback From: ***** ****** (**********@*****.Com) (User ID Sucineri) Swallowed Whole - When one does enough damage to break free of ones stomach who has swallowed you, do you HAVE to leave the creatures stomach? Swallow Whole - IF you are able to stay inside, can you make sneak attacks inside the stomach of said creature? Being that all you can see is the stomach and have no clue where any vital areas are in relation to you? I ask because it is a question on the boards that is getting kinda hectic. : Sent to: custserv@wizards.com So the answer is NO, you don't have to leave after doing the right amount of damage, and NO you can't sneak attack from inside a creature.
Hoth Osric 10-09-04, 12:29 PM	Okay, I got a reply on my email so we can rest this topic now. [/size] So the answer is NO, you don't have to leave after doing the right amount of damage, and NO you can't sneak attack from inside a creature. I interpreted that as "No, you can't stay in there because the rules don't support it."
Sucineri 10-09-04, 01:11 PM	The 2 questions I asked were.. When one does enough damage to break free of ones stomach who has swallowed you, do you HAVE to leave the creatures stomach? And by looking at the end..do you HAVE to leave..the answer is no. It doesn't say anywhere that you have to leave the body, so you don't have to. IF you are able to stay inside, can you make sneak attacks inside the stomach of said creature? Being that all you can see is the stomach and have no clue where any vital areas are in relation to you? We answered the first part about IF. So can you sneak attack from the inside? The answer is no, because the rules don't state that you can. If you COULD sneak attack from the inside then it would probably have stated that in a book, but it doesn't. So in both circumstances the answer is no..you don't have to leave, and you can't sneak attack from inside.
thepuregamer 10-10-04, 08:15 PM	sorry all, but I have been away from my computer for the weekend. Anyway, first I will take out customer services. While they are a "official source", they are rarely a correct and reliable source as they have in my experience, often misunderstood the rules they were explaining. For example, Darrin said, "no the rules don't support this". Well that is an amazing explanation. Oh and Sucineri, the rules would only make a statement about sneak attacking if there were going to be an exception to the rules. For example, an exception to the rule would be stating that sneak attacking from inside a stomach isn't allowed. If you have a means of seeing while you are in the stomach, then you have a means of finding orientation. If you can orient yourself, then you can target specific parts of the body. While natural armor does mean that the monster likely has tougher body parts ( skin and stomache lining and the like). It doesn't effect damage. Natural armor doesn't effect critical hits. So here are my points in an orderly representation. 1. One follows the rules to their normal conclusions unless there are exceptions listed. So unless they specifically state that a stomache is immune to criticals, they should still apply. 2. sneak attack requires specific things. It requires the opponent be flat-footed to you. Well the opponent can't see you and has no way of dodging your attack(applying his dex to ac). So he is flat-footed. Second, it says that you be able to see and reach a vital area. Well First off we are saying that the person has a means of seeing(likely darkvision). Second, it hasn't been ruled anywhere that the stomach isn't vital. It is vital to a creature. Second, if you can see while you are in its stomach, then you can find your orientation and target areas that are vital( if you think the stomach itself is not). Since if the creatures stomach is big enough to hold you, then its other organs are likely to be huge and easy targets as well. 3. The possibility of criticals and sneak attacks are directly related. If you allow criticals, then you allow sneak attacks. Both are dependent on vital areas. Both require some form of personal skill and luck. Basically I am saying that rules work as written unless they say otherwise. Dnd is a fantasy world and as such for game mechanics, one should not apply personal real life experience to Dnd unless you plan on making a house ruling. I did make one mess up before. I made an assumption about the lining of the stomach. But none of that matters. Natural armor does not deny sneak attacks or critcal hits because it makes the thing you are attacking tougher. The toughness of the target is already accounted for in the AC. So the getting through the stomach lining is accounted for in hitting it. Oh and I was mistaken about the suffocation part. But yeah they would mention suffocation if it were part of the stomachs attack. Anyway I am done. This is as organized as I plan on getting.
Sucineri 10-11-04, 02:20 AM	So basically you are plugging your ears with your finger and shouting *LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU LA LA LA!*. We are giving really good reasons why you can't do such things. I don't care if you can visually see inside the stomach of a creature..the stomach is not translucent so you can't see through it to see other more vital organs than the stomach!
thepuregamer 10-11-04, 08:40 AM	So basically you are plugging your ears with your finger and shouting *LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU LA LA LA!*. We are giving really good reasons why you can't do such things. I don't care if you can visually see inside the stomach of a creature..the stomach is not translucent so you can't see through it to see other more vital organs than the stomach! I read your reasons, and I am not impressed. I gave one explanation why you can target vital areas. Because you can determine your orientation in the creatures stomach. By the way, when you are outside a creature and you target their neck, it is not their neck that is vital but the arteries underneath the skin that are vital. In the same way, if you can determine your orientation in the stomach, which shouldn't be difficult if you can see, then you can determine where vital areas would be. So actually I am not the one plugging my ears.
Derren S. 10-11-04, 08:56 AM	I say it again, just for you. When you are grappling you loose your Dex bonus against everyone else but not against the one you grapple. That means that even while you are inside the stomach, the monster has its dex bonus against you (because you two are grappling) and you can't sneak attack.
Finarin Panjoro 10-11-04, 10:34 AM	I read your reasons, and I am not impressed. I gave one explanation why you can target vital areas. Because you can determine your orientation in the creatures stomach. The bold part of your statement is the part I find so amusing. How exactly are you determining your orientation even by sight? The walls are essentailly featureless masses of flesh which are moving and twisting around you. You are taking crushing damage so they are also pressed around you meaning your head is probably nearly incased. In addition they are filled with acid, which even if clear (highly unlikely IMO) is being churned and sloshed by your movements and the creatures. I wouldn't even let you find the opening to the stomach that you came through on your way down, let alone target a vital organ outside the stomach. On top of all that, Derren S. is right, you're grappling. Niether target is denied his dex bonus with regard to each other. No sneak attack. There are so many legitimate reasons why sneak attack wouldn't work in this situation that its startling to me that people are still arguing otherwise. Having said that I completely agree that customer services answers have no bearing on the discussion. I don't like to say that they are unreliable, but their answers are often as open to interpretation as the initial questions were.
Aracor 10-11-04, 11:14 AM	I agree that you can't but for different reasons. Even assuming that you have darkvision, darkvision is NOT going to do well when you're underwater. There's some doubt whether you can see through stomach acid at all, but I think we can all agree that it's not as clear as a swimming pool. And even in a swimming pool without goggles, you can't see well enough to really direct a shot at someone's in particular. In a more natural environment, you can't see very well even WITH goggles. That would imply concealment. Which would imply that you can't take a shot with enough precision to make a sneak attack. It's also actually mentioned back in the "How does it work" segment, back when they covered tripping and grappling and overrunning and such. It said in there that Lidda would not be allowed to make a sneak attack from within the purple worm. ~Aracor
Prachett 10-11-04, 11:45 AM	I can't believe the arguing either, I'm in the "No, you can't sneak attack" camp. Couple of points: Just because the rules say you can't do something does not mean automatically mean you can do something. The rules can not cover every possible iteration. You must extrapolate. Be able to crit does not mean you can sneak attack. If a rogue faces off against a normal opponent, he may be able to crit, but not neccessarily sneak attack. I'm with the conrticting, undulating, writhing, goo filled mass description of the stomach. It's kinda like being in a nasty zipped up sleeping bag on a trampolene (sp?) with a bunch of people kicking you in the guts. Yes, you can cut your way out, but due to the constant action of the stomach, you can't spread the skin out taunt, hold it in place and land that sneak attack. IMO, you can also stay inside and just slash the bejesus out of the guy. I had a ranger who tried to get swallowed. The bad guy was dead before suffucating even came into play, but he did his cutting with eyes closed. Anyway, my 2 cps
thepuregamer 10-11-04, 03:48 PM	Ok, new points to throw in. The grappling factor almost tanks my arguement except for one small line in swallow whole. It goes like this, "A swallowed creature is considered to be grappled, while the creature that did the swallowing is not." So while you are grappled he is not. What does this mean, well lets check. Grappling consequences: no threatened squares, no dex bonus to non grapplers or whatever you want to write it as, and no movement. Well since the monster that swallowed you is not grappled, he does not have any of these. So basically we can find that his dex bonus is lost to you for the normal reasons one loses their dex bonus. I have already stated those. Next, I never stated that one could simply sneak attack anytime they could critical but rather that if criticals are allowed, the possibility of sneak attacking is there as long as you meet the requirements for being able to sneak attack. Oh and prachett, this is how things work. If there is no extenuating circumstance listed in the rules(exceptions), then you follow the rules as listed. As simple as that. If we followed your line of thinking we could drop the basic rules and just have all the possible things one could do with every new thing. So if you were to goto the weapons section of the phb, they would have to list exactly which attacks you could use with every weapon. That would be a huge waste of time. Anyway, for all you guys out there empathizing with the rogue being crushed and squshed and burned in the stomach. That effect is already being taken care of by the damage. This is what I am trying to get across to you people. The effects from all these things are already taken care of in the rules. If being crushed and burned also effected your vision, then they would mention it. If the acid was opache, then they would mention it because that would be a specific exception where normal rules didn't apply because of circumstances. With darkvision goggles, you could see where you came into the stomach, you could figure out where the vital areas that were in orientation to you. It is the same way people often explain directions on the phone. They describe things in orientation. Well you would find the vital organs in orientation to you. And if you don't want to allow the person to be able to see because you have decided that the acid is opache well that is fine but as I have said before, you are houseruling. Thank you people.
thepuregamer 10-11-04, 04:07 PM	The bold part of your statement is the part I find so amusing. How exactly are you determining your orientation even by sight? The walls are essentailly featureless masses of flesh which are moving and twisting around you. You are taking crushing damage so they are also pressed around you meaning your head is probably nearly incased. In addition they are filled with acid, which even if clear (highly unlikely IMO) is being churned and sloshed by your movements and the creatures. I wouldn't even let you find the opening to the stomach that you came through on your way down, let alone target a vital organ outside the stomach. On top of all that, Derren S. is right, you're grappling. Niether target is denied his dex bonus with regard to each other. No sneak attack. Anyway just to give you guys some examples, this is exactly what I am talking about. Here you give me a list of non rule reasons why YOU as DM would not let someone sneak attack from the inside. Well that is called house ruling. This is for you guys so you have something tangible to grab onto. To show how my interpretation of things is right, one more thing. If swallow whole worked just like normal grappling, it wouldn't say anything. Both you and the monster swallowing you would be grappled. Instead it gives you an exception to the rule. What is that hmmmm? well the monster swallowing you is not counted as grappled. Everything about dnd works this way. You follow the normal rules unless a new ability gives an exception. Well swallow whole does not list any exceptions about sneak attack, so you follow the normal rules. :teach: Oh and I had previously missed the part about grappling because I was rushing through the posts. So that was my oops or rather I will read the arguements alil more thoroughly now.
Finarin Panjoro 10-11-04, 04:42 PM	The fact remains that your target is not denied his dex bonus to AC as a result of having swallowed you nor are you flanking him. So how are you performing a sneak attack which requires one of those two conditions to exist? Secondly, the sneak attack rules state that you must be able to reach and TARGET your foes vital anatomy to be able to perform a sneak attack. We've amply demonstrated that you cannot target his vitals from inside his stomach even if you can see. puregamer, you are houseruling that the swallowing creature is denied his dex to ac making him vulnerable to sneak attack. No two ways about it, denied dex to ac, is not a stated consequence of having swallowed someone whole.
thepuregamer 10-11-04, 05:44 PM	Goto page 136 phb. "sometimes you can't use your dexterity bonus. If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your dexderity bonus to AC." So the stomach can't react to your attacks. So dex bonus gone. Now we have already covered reaching the vital areas. Now I have used this example before, when a rogue is outside a monsters body and he makes sneak attacks he does not neccessarily see those areas. A sneak attack to the heart is a grand example. Do you directly see the creatures heart? no. But you know it is there because you know where it is on the creature. Well, if you are inside that creature and you can see. Then you can determine your orientation to the creatures vital areas. So actually you never actually see the creatures vital areas, you just know where they are on the creature. The vital areas are never on the outside silly. that should be good for now.
Derren S. 10-11-04, 05:45 PM	Well since the monster that swallowed you is not grappled, he does not have any of these. So basically we can find that his dex bonus is lost to you for the normal reasons one loses their dex bonus. I have already stated those. But you are still grappling with that creature which means that it doesn't loose the dex bonus against you. A monster doesn't need to be considered grappling to be in a grapple. See the -20 on grapple checks rule. So, no sneak attack. Why do you not accept that you are wrong? Are you really that much of a powergamer?
thepuregamer 10-12-04, 03:14 AM	It has nothing to do with being a powergamer. I come to the boards to argue points, that is all. I argue because I think I am right. If I agreed with you, then I wouldn't contest your points. Anyway, can you guide me to the spot you are talking about. In the glossary for grappling, it gives the consequences of it. But no matter what you say, if swallow whole says the monster swallowing you is no longer grappled, then he no longer suffers the consequences of grappling. It is that simple. If he no longer suffers the consequences of grappling then he can lose his dex bonus to the creature that is inside it. So I don't accept that I am wrong because I have not been proven wrong. I have no plans to use this in a game, I am just proving my points. So give me the specific section you are talking about that makes you right and then I will give you a real reply.
Naeron 10-12-04, 04:39 AM	<snip> Well since the monster that swallowed you is not grappled, he does not have any of these. So basically we can find that his dex bonus is lost to you for the normal reasons one loses their dex bonus. I have already stated those. Next, I never stated that one could simply sneak attack anytime they could critical but rather that if criticals are allowed, the possibility of sneak attacking is there as long as you meet the requirements for being able to sneak attack <snip>. Firstly the swallower is not denied their dexterity bonus to AC, which is a very specific state in 3E. The statement is that SIZ and DEX modifiers do not apply. That is not the same as stating that the swallower is denied their DEX bonus to AC. Secondly there are situations where criticals are possible but sneak ayttacks are not. When attacking an invisible opponent you can critical as normal but you cannot perform a sneak attack because "The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot". If your target has full concealment you cannot sneak attack them.
Derren S. 10-12-04, 06:15 AM	In the glossary for grappling, it gives the consequences of it. But no matter what you say, if swallow whole says the monster swallowing you is no longer grappled, then he no longer suffers the consequences of grappling. It is that simple. If he no longer suffers the consequences of grappling then he can lose his dex bonus to the creature that is inside it. You look it the wrong way. Yes, the monster isn't grappling anymore. It retains its Dex bonus, can move and attack and can sneak attack you (theoretically). But you are still grappling the monster. That means besides the usual grappling penalties that the monster doesn't loose its Dex bonus against you because you are grappling it.
Sucineri 10-12-04, 10:24 AM	What about the case of a wizard using something like bigby's crushing hand on a rogue? The rogue is being grappled, the wizard isn't grappling..and the rogue can't sneak attack. :) You also make the accusation that WE are house ruling that sneak attacks aren't allowed..yet it doesn't say they ARE allowed either..so essentially, you are house ruling this as well.
Derren S. 10-12-04, 11:13 AM	What about the case of a wizard using something like bigby's crushing hand on a rogue? The rogue is being grappled, the wizard isn't grappling..and the rogue can't sneak attack. :) The rogue grapples the hand, not the wizard. So he cant sneak attack the hand but if he somehow can make an attack on the mage he could sneak attack.
thepuregamer 10-12-04, 03:32 PM	You look it the wrong way. Yes, the monster isn't grappling anymore. It retains its Dex bonus, can move and attack and can sneak attack you (theoretically). But you are still grappling the monster. That means besides the usual grappling penalties that the monster doesn't loose its Dex bonus against you because you are grappling it. Derren, you have a magical way of looking at the rules. There is no such thing as grappling and not grappling at the same time. If swallow whole says, the person swallowed is grappled and the person swallowing is not. Then that is exactly what it means. It means that the consequences of grappling are only applied to the person who has been swallowed. See what you are doing is called selectively applying the rules. You picked just one of the consequences of grappling and applied it. One does not apply some of the rules. You apply all of the affecting rules. So the monster either is grappling or not. If he is, then he keeps his dex mod against the person swallowed but not against everyone else. He also can't move and doesn't threaten anyone. Also it is not theoretically possible for the monster to sneak attack you because all the attacks he makes in his stomach don't require a attack roll. So if another creature that was immune to acid and crushing damage lived in his stomach, it could sneak attack you. Sucineri, Derren already said it. Your example does not match the current one. You are not grappling the wizard anyway but a magical hand. In this circumstance, it would take more than just attacking the wizard. If the wizards dex mod could be taken away somehow and the rogue could attack him, then yes he could attack him.
thepuregamer 10-12-04, 03:43 PM	You also make the accusation that WE are house ruling that sneak attacks aren't allowed..yet it doesn't say they ARE allowed either..so essentially, you are house ruling this as well. I am not houseruling because I am following the rules in general. It does not have to say you can sneak attack because that is not an exception to the general rule. All a rogue needs to do to sneak attack is meet the prerequisites for it. Opponent denied dex mod, can reach and find vital area. Naeron, to see if the monster retained its dex mod to ac, I went to page 136 on armor class. It states that if a monster cannot react to your attack, then it is denied its dex mod to ac. dex mod denied. Anyway it does not say that I need to see the vital area because there are always things hiding vital areas. Muscle, skin, whatever. I just need to see the target well enough to pinpoint a vital area. Well if my rogue had darkvision in some form, then he would be able to see his target, wouldn't he. He knows where in the monster he is and thus can pick any vital areas he wants on a moderately sized list and start attacking those vital areas. I have said this before. A sneak attack made outside a creature is made without actually seeing those vital areas. The heart is not on the surface, so does it have concealment? If that were so people then sneak attacks would never be possible. I think I have replied to all of todays comments good day.
Aracor 10-12-04, 04:33 PM	Well if my rogue had darkvision in some form, then he would be able to see his target, wouldn't he. No. Darkvision or not, you're basically in an acidic swimming pool. Even if you can see in the dark, that does NOT mean you can see inside a creature filled with liquid, especially if said liquid burns your eyes. Or, for that matter, that you could see well in a pool filled with perfectly clear spring water. All of this is notwithstanding the fact that you're being churned around in it. It's not that easy. ~Aracor
Derren S. 10-12-04, 04:40 PM	Derren, you have a magical way of looking at the rules. There is no such thing as grappling and not grappling at the same time. If swallow whole says, the person swallowed is grappled and the person swallowing is not. Then that is exactly what it means. It means that the consequences of grappling are only applied to the person who has been swallowed. Well, it sucks to get your own medicin? Can you provide a rule which supports your point? Untill you can, my ruling follows the RAW and you have to accept that. So, instead of dismissing everything said by us (and teh WotC customer support), why not try to find rules against them? You want us to find exact quotes that say that you can't SA when swallowed but you dismiss our points without any rule quotes. So lets turn arround and say that you have to find a rule which says that our points are false.
Aracor 10-12-04, 04:49 PM	And just in case that isn't enough, we'll look here: PC (Lidda): Say, since I'm inside the worm and it can't see what I'm up to in here, I don't suppose it's unable to defend itself from my attack, is it? DM: Are you asking if you can sneak attack the worm's gut? PC (Lidda): Exactly! DM: Nope. First, once the worm has swallowed you, you're still grappled but it's not grappled or flat-footed. Second, its gullet doesn't provide you with a discernible anatomy. You can't pick out a critical area to sneak attack. So it's a normal attack. That's an excerpt from the WotC Gamestoppers column that they ran a while ago. You can find the entire column at: Gamestoppers, Part 6 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/gs/20020217a) I'd say that pretty much covers it. ~Aracor
Sucineri 10-12-04, 04:51 PM	ALSO you have to look at another thing..a round is the equivalent of 6 seconds. You don't take the acid/crushing damage for the first second then are fine for 5 seconds. You are constantly taking the damage..you cannot concentrate hard enough to pull off your 1337 assassin-type skills like that. When there are 2 fighters fighting eachother combat mechanically goes like this.. F1: Miss, Hit, Hit. F2: Hit, Miss, Hit. F1: Miss, Miss, Hit. F2: Miss, Miss, Miss. etc. But what is REALLY happening in the game is this.. F1: Attack F2: Deflect, Counter F1: Damage, Attack F2: Damage, Attack F1: Deflect, Counter F2: Damage, Attack F1: Damage F1: Attack F2: Deflect, Counter F1: Deflect, Counter F2: Deflect, Counter F1: Deflect, Counter F2: Damage, Attack F1: Deflect See? THAT is what it looks like during 2 rounds of straight combat between 2 fighters with 3 attacks each. I could add dodging or parrying or whatever, but I wanted to make it more simple. In the swallow scenario maybe the stomach contractions are every 6 seconds or so..or every 3 seconds or whatever.. Second 1: Crush, Acid Second 2: Acid Second 3: Acid Second 4: Crush, Acid Second 5: Acid Second 6: Acid Do you understand those examples at all?
Derren S. 10-12-04, 04:56 PM	I'd say that pretty much covers it. ~Aracor Yes, this ends this discussion as you can't say that this is a houserule. You can't get it much more official than that.
Finarin Panjoro 10-12-04, 05:46 PM	Ah...sweet victory. :cool:
thepuregamer 10-12-04, 08:45 PM	I will bow to gamestoppers although they don't completely explain it. As rule by rule I am still right. Concentrating is not an issue. Sneak attacking does not really require concentration checks. Because combat often involves damage. And acid and crushing damage aren't any more special than other types of damage. Anyway I will go from rule to rule for you people. Because the reason I turned down the customer services was because he did not give support for his answer. It is about the same for the gamestoppers answer. It lacks support. pg. 50- "The rogues attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a dexterity bonus to AC( whether the target has a dexterity bonus or not)" "The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot." Those are the requirements for sneak attacking. Those are always followed when a target is susceptible to critical hits. Now we turn to page 160. Grappling Consequences While you are grappling, your ability to attack others and defend yourself is limited. No threatened squares: you don't threaten any squares while grappling. No dexterity bonus: You lose your dexterity bonus to AC(if you have one) against opponents you aren't grappling. (You can still use it against opponents you are grappling). No Movement: You can't move normally while grappling. You may however, make an opposed grappling check to move while grappling. You are either grappling or you are not. Well what does swallowing whole say? It says, "A swallowed creature is considered to be grappled, while the creature that did the swallowing is not." (source glossary of MM 3.5E) It clearly states that the monster swallowing you is not grappled. Meaning, it does not lose its dex bonus from grappling, it still threatens, and it can still move. Rules don't go both ways. I have never done things that way. So how does one rule that the monster loses its dex bonus to the rogue? In a very simple way. Goto pg 136 phb. "If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your dexterity bonus to AC." Well it is pretty obvious that the creature can't react to your attacks. Dex bonus to AC gone. For those of you with short attention spans. Scroll back up. The first prerequisite for sneak attacking has been met. Dex bonus to AC denied. Now for the second part, "The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot." Well it is agreed that the rogue can reach said vital spot because critical hits are allowed(they are never said as disallowed in this area). Now what it doesn't say is does the rogue have to be able to see the vital area he is attacking. He just needs to see the target well enough to discern where the vital areas are. Well if the creature has darkvision or any other means of seeing without light like blindsight. He can see his target well enough to gain an understanding of his orientation inside the creature and where the creatures vital spots are. This is exactly how all normal sneak attacks work. One never actually sees an enemies vital areas. He knows where they are on the enemies body. The heart does not gain concealment because you cannot see it when you are outside the monsters body. So why should the vital areas gain concealment when you are inside the enemies body. You know where it is on the enemy. You know where you are in the enemy. What I am arguing in this thread is that rules are followed throughout unless you are told not to follow them. When you are told not to follow them, you are also told how not to follow them. In this case, if the whole stomachis filled with acid so that you cannot open your eyes for fear of being blinded. It would be mentioned. It would also likely mention counting the rounds until your player suffocates. Well it does not mention any of those kinds of things. The damage from the crushing and the acid is already taken care of by your loss of hit points. Damage is damage. If you couldn't make precise melee attacks everytime you were taking damage then the rogue would be a pitiful class. It would also be mentioned somewhere else that this was so. But apparently, only spells require that kind of concentration. They also do not list that your vision is impeded while in the stomach so once again you work with how vision normally works without light. I am not doing anything special here. Just following rules point by point. Saying you couldn't orient yourself in a huge stomach is silly. If you can see, you can orient yourself. If you know where creatures have vital areas you can find them because you know where they are in general. You also know where you are in general. So while gamestoppers sides with you, they do not give any logical or rule based answer but rather just an official answer. I have not turned anything two ways to suit my needs. This is how the rules work.
thepuregamer 10-12-04, 08:53 PM	And just in case that isn't enough, we'll look here: PC (Lidda): Say, since I'm inside the worm and it can't see what I'm up to in here, I don't suppose it's unable to defend itself from my attack, is it? DM: Are you asking if you can sneak attack the worm's gut? PC (Lidda): Exactly! DM: Nope. First, once the worm has swallowed you, you're still grappled but it's not grappled or flat-footed. Second, its gullet doesn't provide you with a discernible anatomy. You can't pick out a critical area to sneak attack. So it's a normal attack. ~Aracor Ok to explain why their answer doesn't work. I will spend a second explaining. They state quite factually that the worm is not grappled but you are. Then they apply the rules of grappling in an incorrect fashion. If the worm is not grappling, then the consequences of grappling are not applied to it. Second, the gullet has been decided to be a nonvital organ. Well so is the arm. It is the arteries in the arm that are vital. You have to cut through the arm to get to the arteries. It is the same with the gullet. The gullet is not what is vital but since you know you are in the gullet and more precisely where in the gullet you are then you know where to attack to hit vital areas behind the gullet. It is the exact same example. No where in swallow whole does it say the ability to see is lost. I still see, I can figure out where I am. That means I can figure out where vital areas are. So gamestoppers does not impress me either because they misinterpret the rules.
thepuregamer 10-12-04, 08:59 PM	The bold part of your statement is the part I find so amusing. How exactly are you determining your orientation even by sight? The walls are essentailly featureless masses of flesh which are moving and twisting around you. You are taking crushing damage so they are also pressed around you meaning your head is probably nearly incased. In addition they are filled with acid, which even if clear (highly unlikely IMO) is being churned and sloshed by your movements and the creatures. I wouldn't even let you find the opening to the stomach that you came through on your way down, let alone target a vital organ outside the stomach. One other point, I never answered Finarin Panjoro about this. Well determining your orientation by sight involves looking around the stomach and also using the entrance that you came in through to gain orientation. No where in the description of swallow whole or grappling does it state that your vision is impaired or obstructed. And the stuff I bolded is what I have been talking about this whole time. You people are adding extra effects to these circumstances. Effects that have not once been mentioned. oops I may have answered this one before.
Sucineri 10-12-04, 09:29 PM	Jesus Effin Christ! You won't back off unless they release version 4.0 and state specifically under swallowing whole that sneak attacks aren't allow! People here are giving damn good reasons why it should be possible and you discount them for not being in the rules whereas YOUR ideas aren't in the rules specifically either. I get a customer support email to answer which isn't in your favor so you discount that too (and I can understand slightly that they are wrong from time to time). THEN you discount a SPECIFIC instance that the company itself laid out through a previous article, and you discount it because they don't explain the rules in their example? I wish someone would close this thread because you are just being a pain in the ass troll now. No matter what we say you are just going to ignore it. Even if one of the designers of the game walked upto you at your house and told you to your face that you are wrong you would argue that you are right since it isn't in a book. EVEN THOUGH WHAT YOU SAY ISNT IN A BOOK!
Hoth Osric 10-13-04, 12:56 AM	Jesus Effin Christ! You won't back off unless they release version 4.0 and state specifically under swallowing whole that sneak attacks aren't allow! People here are giving damn good reasons why it should be possible and you discount them for not being in the rules whereas YOUR ideas aren't in the rules specifically either. I get a customer support email to answer which isn't in your favor so you discount that too (and I can understand slightly that they are wrong from time to time). THEN you discount a SPECIFIC instance that the company itself laid out through a previous article, and you discount it because they don't explain the rules in their example? I wish someone would close this thread because you are just being a pain in the ass troll now. No matter what we say you are just going to ignore it. Even if one of the designers of the game walked upto you at your house and told you to your face that you are wrong you would argue that you are right since it isn't in a book. EVEN THOUGH WHAT YOU SAY ISNT IN A BOOK! AMEN!
thepuregamer 10-13-04, 01:55 AM	Jesus Effin Christ! You won't back off unless they release version 4.0 and state specifically under swallowing whole that sneak attacks aren't allow! People here are giving damn good reasons why it should be possible and you discount them for not being in the rules whereas YOUR ideas aren't in the rules specifically either. I get a customer support email to answer which isn't in your favor so you discount that too (and I can understand slightly that they are wrong from time to time). THEN you discount a SPECIFIC instance that the company itself laid out through a previous article, and you discount it because they don't explain the rules in their example? I wish someone would close this thread because you are just being a pain in the ass troll now. No matter what we say you are just going to ignore it. Even if one of the designers of the game walked upto you at your house and told you to your face that you are wrong you would argue that you are right since it isn't in a book. EVEN THOUGH WHAT YOU SAY ISNT IN A BOOK! Wow, looks like I hit a sore point. Did you even read my post? I actually go rule by rule. I give page numbers to the spots in the book I am using. I was never argueing the abilities intent. That is why you have gone crazy. I do not look for its intent. Just what it says on the page. I don't give a F*** what the designers think. I am just using their system because I like most of it. There are too many freaking mistakes in this system for me to worship a designer like you do. And your gamestoppers guy is still using some 3.0 terminology. Read through that whole swallowing whole example and you will hit the word "tiny" weapon partway through. I could look for more but if they publish 3.5 and explain 3.5 using 3.0 terminology that has been amended then there is no reason for me to listen to their explanation. You people cannot prove anything yourselves and so you look to some "higher powers" for help in your arguement. But just because they are official doesn't mean they understand what they are explaining. None of your reasons(this is all of you on this thread) are useful to the arguement because you don't use the rules. You pretend they don't exist just so you can think that your monster can both benefit from grappling and not be penalized by it. It doesn't work that way. You are either grappled or you are not. I discount their example because although it is official it is incorrect. If they take out an errata that specifically removes the possibility of sneak attacking while inside a monster I would follow it because that would be a rule as an exception to general sneak attacking protocal. I would be fine with that. But if they say nothing specifically about prohibiting a rogue from sneak attacking while inside a monster, then I will use the rules as they are. Do notice that I have not ignored your posts but actually refuted them. Amen is right!
thepuregamer 10-13-04, 02:02 AM	Oh and I've discounted customer service emails that have been in my favor before because all they say is. "Yes it is ok by the rules." or " no it is not supported by the rules" That says nothing of substance. :headexplo
Naeron 10-13-04, 06:27 AM	<snip>The gullet is not what is vital but since you know you are in the gullet and more precisely where in the gullet you are then you know where to attack to hit vital areas behind the gullet. It is the exact same example. No where in swallow whole does it say the ability to see is lost. I still see, I can figure out where I am. That means I can figure out where vital areas are. So gamestoppers does not impress me either because they misinterpret the rules. This is your main error, you assume that any specific piece of a hundred foot or so of intestine can be accurately differentiated from any othe piece. All that you can determine is that you are somewhere within the creatures gut, which is an area with no discernable anatomy because it all looks the same. Gamestoppers interpreted the rules absolutely correctly. They stated that Lidda was counted as grappled and that the worm counts as neither grappled (which may cause loss of dex bonus) nor flat-footed (which causes loss of dex bonus). It also then stated that a creatures Gut offers no discernable anatomy (which is factually correct) and that that would prevent sneak attack in any case.
Sucineri 10-13-04, 09:24 AM	You know what..the swallow whole ability seems a little stupid to me because PERSONALLY I believe being swallowed whole means you are dead. BUT it is in the book saying that they are giving you a chance to free yourself so I go with that. I go word for word by what the Swallow Whole ability says. I don't go looking for other rules, if Swallow Whole mentions sneak attacking, then I will go with that..I won't dig deep down to figure something out on my own when the skill itself doesn't say anything about it. And who gives a crap if they used 3.0 terminology! Swallow Whole looks the same in both versions, and you know what they mean when they use the word "tiny" for weapons. RULES If a creature with this special attack begins its turn with an opponent held in its mouth (see Improved Grab, page 310), it can attempt a new grapple check (as though attempting to pin the opponent). If it succeeds, it swallows its prey, and the opponent takes bite damage....Being swallowed has various consequences, depending on the creature doing the swallowing. A swallowed creature is considered to be grappled, while the creature that did the swallowing is not. A swallowed creature can try to cut its way free with any light slashing or piercing weapon (the amount of cutting damage required to get free is noted in the creature description), or it can just try to escape the grapple. the Armor Class of the interior of a creature that swallows whole is normally 10 + 1/2 its natural armor bonus, with no modifiers for size or Dexterity. If the swallowed creature escapes the grapple, success puts it back in the attacker's mouth, where it may be bitten or swallowed again. Swallowed creature acts as if being grappled by the monster. Therefor the creature is grappling, but the rogue is not. AC of INTERIOR of a creature is 10+1/2 natural. It doesn't LOSE it's dex mod, it just doesn't have one. If a creature with this special attack hits with a melee weapon (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity (see Grapple, page 155 of the Player's Handbook). No initial touch attack is required....The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the improved grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a -20 penalty on grapple checks, but is not considered grappled itself; the creature does not lose its Dexterity bonus to AC; still threatens an area, and can use its remaining attacks against other opponents. A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack....When a creature gets a hold after an impred grab attack, it pulls the opponent into its space. This act does not provoke attacks of opportunity. It can even move (possibly carrying away the opponent), provided it can drag the opponent's weight. This one doesn't deal exactly with our situation we are trying to explain..it is just the beginning of the swallowing part which we are already past. Still though, there is no loss of dex bonus and the creature isn't being grappled, it is doing the grappling. No Dexterity Bonus: You lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if you have one) against opponents you aren't grappling. (You can still use it against opponents you are grappling The creature is the one doing the grappling against the rogue. Therefor it doesn't lose it's dex bonus..even if it didn't have one in the first place. Attack Your Opponent: You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling. You take a -4 penalty on such attacks. You can't attack with two weapons while grappling, even if both are light weapons Rogue is grappling but the creature is not grappled..also it is looking as though you can't move around too much..so how can you get your weapon in a precision spot if your whole self is being held relatively still? ....When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), the the opponent is flanked....Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can't flank and opponent. The INTERIOR of the creature is not being flanked, plus if anything you are taking the same space as the creature, so there is no way for you to be on one side of the creature while your partner is on the opposite side, also sounds to me like only being able to use light weapons means you can't really use any kind of reach on the creature. END RULES See..the creature doesn't lose it's dex bonus at any point..it is not grappled..and the rogue can barely move enough for a precision shot, which is what a sneak attack is. You can't sneak attack unless the target is denied it's dex bonus. The interior of a creature doesn't have a dex bonus, but it also doesn't lose it's dex bonus. So you can't sneak attack based off of that. That enough proof for you?
Aracor 10-13-04, 01:18 PM	Just to point out, the Gamestoppers article was a 3.0 article. It was finished before 3.5 came out. Other than that, I agree that shouldn't need to see, for instance, the heart specifically, in order to sneak attack. But things are a lot more discernable from the outside where you can aim for an armpit, or between a rib, or a kidney, or something, that when you're in a big, nearly featureless blob. Also, you can consider that if something is big enough to swallow you whole, it's big enough that even the length of a short sword will not easily penetrate the entire lining of the stomache, much less long enough that it can shove its way up to the heart or something, which you specifically cited earlier. And as mentioned above in swallow whole, YES, grappling works that way when you're swallowed. The monster that swallowed you is not considered grappled, while you are. Which means you lose your dexterity bonus compared to it (which is meaningless here) but it does NOT lose its dexterity bonus compared to you. The problem is that you're using flavor text to describe something that is defined more precisely than that. Goto pg 136 phb. "If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your dexterity bonus to AC." It goes further to say that you can deny someone's dexterity bonus by catching them flat-footed (which the example monster isn't) or by the monster being stunned, paralyzed, helpless, and several others (which the example monster isn't). Going by the RaW, you can't just arbitrarily decide that when you're inside someone, they're denied their dexterity bonus against you, any more than we can state you can't see well inside something's stomach even if you can see in the dark. Both of those are reasonable assumptions, but NEITHER of them are specifically mentioned in the rules. Which means NEITHER of them apply to the RaW. ~Aracor
thepuregamer 10-13-04, 01:48 PM	Ok, this is very simple. Sorry posted before I said anything one sec plz. Aracor, what you call flavor text is most assurdedly not flavor text. Later in that paragraph they give examples. Lets read. "You lose your dexterity bonus when, for example, an invisible opponent attacks you, you're hanging on to the face of a crumbling cliff high above a river of lava, or you're caught flat-footed at the beginning of combat." First example, opponent is invisible. That means you can't see them and you are denied your dex bonus to them even if you think they are there. You have no way to dodge an attack you can't see. the second example, you are hanging onto a crumbling cliff face. Well even if you know what you need to dodge you lack the ability. There is nothing in your power to make use of your dexterity. And flat-footed doesn't really apply here. As combat has most likely started a while ago since you are in a monsters stomach. So according to the phb a core rule book, under normal rules, the monster is denied his dex bonus. On the issue of grappling, Swallow whole specifically states that the monster doing the swallowing is not considered grappled. So he does not lose his dex bonus to anyone unless he cannot make use of said dex bonus. Well above I have shown that he cannot make use of his dex bonus even though he knows you are in his stomach. Now onto sucineri, the 3.5 dnd gaming system follows a huge number of world limiting rules. They have rules for almost anything. There are basic rules for combat. Not combat specifically on a field or in a dungeon, but combat anywhere. So you use the same rules for combat when you are in combat. The only time you ignore these rules is when they tell you to ignore them. This should not be so complicated. So when I look at swallow whole and read the ability, I look for the exceptions to normal combat rules. Well here is one. The monster that has done the swallowing is not considered grappled. but the person swallowed still is. This says everything. It says that you don't use the grappling rules for the monster but just for the rogue. So the rogue can't move around, the rogue cannot threaten, and the rogue loses his dex bonus to enemies he isn't grappling. None of this is applied to the monster. The monster retains his ability to threaten, move, and use his dex bonus. This is how swallow whole defines itself. Improved grab is another example of you helping my arguement. It specifically states that the creature still has the ability to threaten, move, and retain its dex bonus and grapple at the same time. Meaning if the monster is going to both retain its dex bonus, movement, and ability to threaten and also be grappling at the same time, they have to say it because they are making an exception to the general rules. I assume that I can still make a precise shot against the monster because they still allow critical hits. Meaning the possibility of reaching a vital area still exists. So reach is not an issue. Above I also show how the creature loses its dex bonus. I do not feel the need to show you again in the same post. And finally Naeron( I am working backwards by the way just in case you guys needed it spelled out for you) Ok this will be easy as well. Your rogue knows he is in the creatures stomach, correct? He knows where all living creatures vital spots are, correct? Well if he knows where he is and he knows where he needs to strike and he can see where in the stomach he is because he has some form of vision that is required for this, then that means that he can determine where to attack to hit a vital area. Using his eyes he looks around the stomach right? He sees where he entered he sees where he is now and he now knows what side of the monsters stomach he is on. If the stomach is big enough to hold the rogue then that means that all the other vital areas are also increased in size and thus easier to find and hit. So I have listed all the requirements the rogue needs meet to use his sneak attack. This was a lovely chat
buchw001 10-13-04, 02:53 PM	Well I have been trying to follow this little debate and I would like to change my original opinion on this matter. How can the creature be denied his dex bonus and also not use his dex bonus? I have read thepuregamer's post over and over again and this one point keeps sticking out. <snip>...So according to the phb a core rule book, under normal rules, the monster is denied his dex bonus... ...None of this is applied to the monster. The monster retains his ability to threaten, move, and use his dex bonus... Sorry. NO sneak attack by your own statements.
Sucineri 10-13-04, 03:03 PM	You are talking as if inside the creature it is cavernous, and that is not the case. Take a balloon or a plastic bag. Put a miniature inside it..now suck all the air out. That's about how much you can move. It is a big area compared to your size..but there is still pressure pushing all around you. Now take 10 miniatures and put them in the bag and suck out all the air. They take up more space, yet they still can't move much. You cannot just walk around a creatures stomach, that is my main point I am trying to make. And we have explained facts from the books even that don't support your claim, and you just say "nope, nuh uh". How about YOU quote from the book exactly what supports your theory? I quoted the rules of grapple and swallow whole to show you that the creature in fact does NOT lose it's dex bonus, it just doesn't have a dex bonus. And you cannot flank the creature from inside it either..because it says in the books that you and your partner have to be on opposite squares of the target, and you are in the same square as the target, so flanking does not work. Sneak Attack can ONLY happen if the target is denied it's dex modifier OR is flanked. Neither of which happen to be the case.
thepuregamer 10-13-04, 03:24 PM	Ok buchw001, you misunderstand my statements. For example, if two people are in combat with each other. Lets say two fighters. They both can use their dex bonus in defending themselves from each other. But if someone who is invisible sneaks or just hidden and unnoticed sneaks behind one of them and hits them, then the fighter can use his dex bonus against the fighter he knows is there but not against the enemy he hasn't seen. So this is an example of having your dex bonus against one person but not against another. In the two things you quoted me I am trying to say that the monster is not denied his dex bonus because of any form of grappling but rather from the fact that he cannot defend against the rogues attack in any way. So it is not an issue of contradictory phrases so much as me showing what the monster loses his dex bonus from. So his loss of dex bonus does not happen from grappling but rather from not being able to use his dex bonus as defined in the phb(A true source). Sucineri, I don't know what more I can do for you. If you are that stupid, it really is not my job to fix you. I understand that he cannot move around in the stomach. I never said he could. I said he could look around the stomach to figure out where he is. I am being lazy here for one thing and that is assuming that no where in grappling does it say your vision is limited. It just says that you are unable to move around the stomach. I understand that the stomach squeezes you. That is where the crushing damage comes from. That is what the crushing damage deals with. So that factor is taken care of. Did you know in real life you can't see in 360 degrees? Well in dnd your vision works in 360 degrees. With darkvision you see 60 feet in every direction. So I can see 60 feet in whatever direction I want to in order for my rogue to gain an understanding of where he needs to thrust his light weapon to sneak attack the monster. Oh and the fact that it doesn't have a dex bonus doesn't matter either. In the phb, if you don't have a dex bonus, nothing happens to your ac. It then just serves the purpose of meeting the requirement of being denied your dex bonus for sneak attacking. I have shown that the in book examples that use 3.5 rules show that being unable to react to a blow means you are denied your dex bonus. So I am not just throwing flavor text in your faces but actual rules. I use these rules in a real and substantial manor which is more than you guys can ever claim. While you cannot undermine my examples with rules, I actually do use the rules to pinpoint the exact areas where you stopped using them.
Sucineri 10-13-04, 03:30 PM	Okay fine, then point out the book and page where I can find that having no dex bonus means the same as losing your dex bonus. I am trying to throw out some real world examples to let you visualize it better. But I AM backing it up with quotes directly from the books. So give me a page number and book for where you are getting your info. If not, they you are just trying to have us blindly believe you and that is not going to happen here. Give us facts (aka, books and pages) and we may change our mind. *edit* Oh, and if what you say IS true and you can find facts to back it up. That would mean that any creature you face 1 on 1 that has less than 12 dex you can sneak attack no matter what. Even if they watch you walk upto them and are not surprised or anything.
Aracor 10-13-04, 03:36 PM	First of all, you didn't even address my size issue. And second of all, by the examples you gave: You lose your dexterity bonus when, for example, an invisible opponent attacks you, you're hanging on to the face of a crumbling cliff high above a river of lava, or you're caught flat-footed at the beginning of combat. As far as I can tell, none of those actually apply to this situation. Which one would? The opponent isn't invisible, the monster isn't climbing, and we've both agreed that flat-footed doesn't apply. ~Aracor
Sucineri 10-13-04, 03:40 PM	He says that the rogue IS invisible if he is on the inside though..but that is not the case at all. You can attack a creature who is invisible with I believe a 50% miss chance. So you will miss half the time. But with being inside a monster..he KNOWS specifically that you are there..and the attack hits 100% of the time..there is no 50% miss chance..therefor no invisibility.
thepuregamer 10-13-04, 04:11 PM	Okay, first aracor then sucineri. The first two examples have two general characteristics. The enemy lacks the ability to defend itself. For example, the enemy has lost the ablity to use its dex against an invisible enemy because they cannot see that enemy. Since they cannot see it, they cannot use their dex to react to a blow coming from that enemy. The second example involves the character climbing. They have lost the ability to use their dex to defend themselves because they cannot react to a blow while climibing because they do not possess the ability to. It is beyond their power in these two examples to make use of their dex. The first example involves sight and the second example involves lack of the ability to dodge at all. In this instance, both of these circumstances apply to being in a creatures stomach. The first one applies because the monster cannot see you. You are in his stomach. Even though he knows you are there in a sorta general sense. He does not know where you will attack or how. This is the same with invisible creatures because even if you know there is an invisible creature in the area, perhaps you saw them before they cast invisibility, you still cannot use your dex to react to their attacks because you cannot see them and thus do not know where or how they will attack. For the second part, the climber cannot dodge any bloes because it is beyond his power to dodge said blows. The specifics of climbing do not matter here because all that matters in this example is that he does not have the ability to react. It is exactly the same in the situation of the monster for the monster that uses swallow whole. He cannot see you and he cannot react to your attacks anyway. There is no possible way for him to use his dex. The three examples in the book go like this. The enemy cannot see you and thus cannot react, the enemy does not have the ability to react, and flat-footed means you are attacking before they can react. In all of these circumstances one is denied their dex bonus to AC. Whether it effects their AC or not. Sucineri, I have never once argued that the monster is denied its dex bonus because it doesn't have one. I have argued that even though having or not having a dex bonus does not change the monsters ac, it still changes whether or not the monster is susceptible to sneak attacks. What you mention at the end of your post has never been said by me. A creatures actual dex bonus is how well they react to your blow. So a negative dex bonus to AC means that they react badly to your blow. It does not help them. A 0 dex bonus means means that the way they react to your blow doesn't effect how hard it is to hit them. A positive dex bonus means that the way you react to a blow makes it harder for them to hit you. Being denied your dex bonus is different. It means that in some way or other, you cannot react to their blow. That is how it works. Ok for the last part. I was worried for a second but now I have exactly what is needed. Goto pg. 50 "Basically, the rogues attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a dexterity bonus to AC(whether the target actually has a dexterity bonus or not)" Bing bing bing. Whether it has one or not. Well it doesn't appear to have one but that doesn't matter because it is still denied any form of dexterity bonus. That work for you guys? Move onto new grievances this one has been answered somewhat thoroughly.
Sucineri 10-13-04, 04:25 PM	Ok for the last part. I was worried for a second but now I have exactly what is needed. Goto pg. 50 "Basically, the rogues attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a dexterity bonus to AC(whether the target actually has a dexterity bonus or not)" Bing bing bing. Whether it has one or not. Well it doesn't appear to have one but that doesn't matter because it is still denied any form of dexterity bonus. That work for you guys? Move onto new grievances this one has been answered somewhat thoroughly. Man, you totally missed the point in what you said here. The ()'s refer directly to what was in front of it. "Any time her target would be denied a dexterity bonus to AC". In Swallow Whole or Grapple, I don't remember..it specifically states that the creature is NOT denied their dex bonus. So the bold part you highlighted doesn't matter at all. And even if it did matter..still, the creature does not lose their dex bonus. Sorry, Try Again.
thepuregamer 10-13-04, 04:27 PM	He says that the rogue IS invisible if he is on the inside though..but that is not the case at all. You can attack a creature who is invisible with I believe a 50% miss chance. So you will miss half the time. But with being inside a monster..he KNOWS specifically that you are there..and the attack hits 100% of the time..there is no 50% miss chance..therefor no invisibility. I did not say invisible, just not detectable by sight. If you are invisible you cannot be seen right. You can still be heard. If you are heard, they know specifically where you are. But they cannot pinpoint you with sight and thus cannot use their vision to react to your blows. They can attempt to hit you for a 50% miss chance but they cannot use their dex against your attacks. The monster does not roll attacks against you while you are in his stomach. You just take acid and crushing damage every round. If there was some way for him to attack you he would have to be able to see you or you would have total concealment from him and thus he would have a 50% miss chance to hit you.
thepuregamer 10-13-04, 04:36 PM	Man, you totally missed the point in what you said here. The ()'s refer directly to what was in front of it. "Any time her target would be denied a dexterity bonus to AC". In Swallow Whole or Grapple, I don't remember..it specifically states that the creature is NOT denied their dex bonus. So the bold part you highlighted doesn't matter at all. And even if it did matter..still, the creature does not lose their dex bonus. Sorry, Try Again. Sucineri, your problem is that you don't look stuff up and thus you look like a fool when you use examples that don't exist. Once again you misunderstand something that is very obvious and simple. this is what swallow whole says about this. "The armor class of the interior of a creature that swallows whole is 10+1/2 its natural armor bonus, with no modifiers for size of dexterity." I have never once used this to say that the creature is denied its dex bonus against you. I have used the normal rules for being denied your dex bonus. Nowhere in swallow whole does it say, "monster retains dex bonus no matter what" So I say that whether the monster has a dex modifier or not, anytime he would be denied his dex bonus, according to the rules mentioned in the phb, the rogue gains sneak attack damage for his attacks. I have covered the finding vital spots and the reaching vital spots, the grappling, and how monster is denied its dex bonus. That covers it all.
Sucineri 10-13-04, 04:41 PM	Oh my god, are you that ignorant? You keep repeating it over and over to me! This is from YOU.. So I say that whether the monster has a dex modifier or not, anytime he would be denied his dex bonus, according to the rules mentioned in the phb, the rogue gains sneak attack damage for his attacks. YES, anytime he would be denied his dex bonus you can get a sneak attack. The creature does NOT get denied his dex bonus, so you cannot sneak attack! Read the last post on page 3 of this very thread! The very FIRST part that I quoted states that the creature does NOT lose their dex modifier, it just doesn't have one. A creature with 10 or 11 dex has no dex modifier..but it doesn't mean it lost it..it just doesn't have one.
Aracor 10-13-04, 04:48 PM	You have NOT covered finding vital spots. I agree that shouldn't need to see, for instance, the heart specifically, in order to sneak attack. But things are a lot more discernable from the outside where you can aim for an armpit, or between a rib, or a kidney, or something, that when you're in a big, nearly featureless blob. Also, you can consider that if something is big enough to swallow you whole, it's big enough that even the length of a short sword will not easily penetrate the entire lining of the stomache, much less long enough that it can shove its way up to the heart or something, which you specifically cited earlier. Considering those limitations, how exactly are you finding a specific place to strike that's a vulnerability. I'd also point out that in sneak attack, if you cannot REACH any vital areas, you cannot sneak attack. If you can reach a stomach, you can't hit the liver or the lungs or anything else that's going to hurt more. ~Aracor
thepuregamer 10-13-04, 04:50 PM	Oh my god, are you that ignorant? You keep repeating it over and over to me! This is from YOU.. YES, anytime he would be denied his dex bonus you can get a sneak attack. The creature does NOT get denied his dex bonus, so you cannot sneak attack! I grow tired of you Sucineri, show me where it says that the monster retains his dex bonus to ac against the normal rules for retaining dex modifiers? show me where in the phb, the mm, the dmg, or anything really that pertains to this that the monster retains his dex bonus? It says nothing about retaining a dex bonus in the definition of swallow whole. So look at the usual rules for dex modifiers. What do they say? They say, if you can't react to a blow, you are denied your dex modifier. The monster has absolutely no way of reacting to your blow whether he wants to or not. For these reasons he is denied his dex bonus to ac whether he has one or not. It is time for you to use some real evidence. So far you have given nothing to this thread.
Sucineri 10-13-04, 05:00 PM	A swallowed creature is considered to be grappled, while the creature that did the swallowing is not. That is from Swallow Whole, page 315 of the monster manual. No Dexterity Bonus: You lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if you have one) against opponents you aren't grappling. (You can still use it against opponents you are grappling) That is from Grappling Consequences, page 156 of the player's handbook. The rogue is being grappled (so the creature is grappling [rogue loses dex modifier]), the creature is not being grappled (rogue is not grappling the creature [creature does not lose dex modifier]). Therefor the creature does NOT lose it's dex modifier (even if it doesn't have one). Therefor, no sneak attack. Now..give me some freaking PROOF here instead of just saying I am wrong!
thepuregamer 10-13-04, 05:04 PM	You have NOT covered finding vital spots. I agree that shouldn't need to see, for instance, the heart specifically, in order to sneak attack. But things are a lot more discernable from the outside where you can aim for an armpit, or between a rib, or a kidney, or something, that when you're in a big, nearly featureless blob. Also, you can consider that if something is big enough to swallow you whole, it's big enough that even the length of a short sword will not easily penetrate the entire lining of the stomache, much less long enough that it can shove its way up to the heart or something, which you specifically cited earlier. Considering those limitations, how exactly are you finding a specific place to strike that's a vulnerability. I'd also point out that in sneak attack, if you cannot REACH any vital areas, you cannot sneak attack. If you can reach a stomach, you can't hit the liver or the lungs or anything else that's going to hurt more. ~Aracor Aracor, when a rogue is outside a creature it sees all of its specific parts of anatomy. The rogue knows where the vital spots to hit are over the whole monsters body. Once you are in the creatures stomach you are near a very specific part of its body. You know where you are. You know where the vital parts of the monsters body are as well. There are vital things to hit around the stomach. If you can see while you are in the stomach, then you can decide where you need to strike to hit said vital areas. You see where you are in the stomach and where you came in. This allows you to pinpoint where you need to strike to make a sneak attack on the monster. Since the monsters stomach is bigger, all the other organs are likely bigger as well. So these vital areas are easier to find. Anyway maybe that isn't enough for you. But two points is normally enough to plot a course on a map. This is way out there and likely shouldn't even count as an example.
Sucineri 10-13-04, 05:10 PM	I thought you weren't houseruling it..yet you are stating what you THINK without any backup of RAW. Give some hard facts in the rules. Give page numbers and book to reference. And when I debunk your "evidence" don't just start insulting me or telling me you tire of me. If anything I should be getting tired of you not backing up your claims and calling me wrong.
Aracor 10-13-04, 05:16 PM	While I'm not convinced that you can see that accurately while you're in a virtually featureless fleshy blob, even with darkvision, or blindsight for that matter, that wasn't my main point in this case. I was more referring to the ability to reach them rather than the ability to know where they are. Considering the fact that you're grappled and can only use light weapons, I find it difficult to believe that you'd be able to deliberately stick someone even in the kidneys or liver, which are traditionally rather close to the stomach. As the article says, there isn't much of a discernable anatomy. I kind of like the analogy of the balloon. How can you tell where you came in if you're basically wrapped in a blanket that shrinks around you? And that really does apply in this case, because you ARE grappled. I'd find it difficult to believe that you could make a sneak attack while grappled, simply because it would be difficult to position the knife (or other weapon) in the correct position. But that's not in the RaW, so it wouldn't apply. And I'm still not convinced the the RaW would allow for it to be considered denied its dexterity, but it's obvious that you're not going to be swayed, so I'm just going to drop the issue rather than let it degenerate into a "Yes! No!" argument as it has with Sucineri. Mostly it's just a question of personal taste for that. ~Aracor
Sucineri 10-13-04, 05:26 PM	It hasn't gone down to a "Yes! No!" argument though. It's more of a "Yes, and here's why! No, cuz I'm right!" argument. No matter what happens he will think the RAW doesn't apply to him. Oh well. It may mention something about vital areas and all that..but specifically in the situation we are talking about..IN the Swallow Whole area of the book it specifically states that the creature is not being grappled. And by rules of grappling, it does not lose it's dex modifier. So he is reaching FAR to try to argue against it..and even then he isn't grabbing anything of substance.
Hoth Osric 10-13-04, 05:43 PM	I'm under the impression that puregamer thinks that being inside a creature is like being in a small room or tunnel. Being swallowed is like wrapping six black trash bags around your head and squeezing it in a vice. Contrary to the anatomy photos in a biology book, a stomach is not some inflated sack. YES, the stats for how many creatures of a certain size are listed with creatures that can swallow whole, but if one medium creature is plopped into a stomach that can HOLD 8 Mediums, that lone creature doesn't have the room of 7 people to run around in. He's still crushed by the stomach walls. He doesn't get to pick and choose where he stabs/cuts. He slashes at what's in front of him in an attempt to get OUT. This whole "give me encyclopaedic examples I can read on paper" BS is stupid. There will be no reasoning with puregamer as he is a rules lawyer of the worst sort. I'd have DM-Bolted him ages ago and let him play a level 3 Expert with skill ranks in Basketweaving. *vomits*
thepuregamer 10-13-04, 06:07 PM	I thought you weren't houseruling it..yet you are stating what you THINK without any backup of RAW. Give some hard facts in the rules. Give page numbers and book to reference. And when I debunk your "evidence" don't just start insulting me or telling me you tire of me. If anything I should be getting tired of you not backing up your claims and calling me wrong. Sucineri, I don't care what you say. I will admit that insulting you while amusing does not help the arguement. Still your evidence before proves nothing. Your grappling evidence is stuff I actually used before. The monster isn't grappled and the rogue is. So yes the rogue loses his dex bonus because of grappling but the monster does not lose his dex bonus from grappling. He is denied his dex bonus from being unable to react to the rogues blow. Your attempts have given nothing to prove this wrong. So keep posting because it doesn't hurt my side. Aracor is posting useful things. Well on the issue of reaching the vital area. If you can critical, you can reach the vital area. If you couldn't reach a vital area then you couldn't make a critical strike. There is no mentioning of not being able to make critical strikes so I would guess that it is still ok. Because everything else that is immune to critical strikes has it mentioned. So reaching the spot is not an issue. So I will admit that the only weak point in my arguement is the part about seeing well enough to find a vital spot. I do agree that I am saying that 2 points of reference(where you are in the stomach and where you entered) is enough to know where to strike to sneak attack. This is where I am not using the rules I guess but I think 2 points of reference is enough. It only says you need to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot. Well this is where it breaks down into conjecture. I say that you see it well enough and you say it is not enough. On a 3 dimensional graph 2 points is enough. 1dependent variable and 2 independent variables. If I have pinpointed 2 spots in the stomach I should be able to know my orientation inside the stomach. If reach is not an issue, then a rogue should be able to sneak attack. But Dnd doesn't neccessarily follow all the same rules as math does so maybe this isn't convincing enough. But Sucineri, your argueing over grappling and dex bonus has already been proven wrong with specific rules. If you don't want to accept the rules that I show you, there isn't much more I can tell you that will convince you of anything. It doesn't matter to me so much that you agree with me because you haven't shown me anything that proves me wrong yet. I guess though that my arguement about orientation isn't good enough for aracor. Well at a certain point, neither side is strong enough to win over the other on the point of the finding vital points.
Sucineri 10-13-04, 06:09 PM	WCH from another thread made a VERY good point that we haven't even brushed against here.. I'd say no sneak attack, because there are no "vital points" to strike. Yes, everything would be vital, but sneak attack is about doing extra damage from targetting something more vital than the rest. When inside a creature, I see no reason a rogue with a dagger could hit a more vital spot than a cleric with a heavy mace. Fact is both would hurt like an unlubed bugger, but, unless the Swallow Whole ability mentions extra damage, it doesn't do any. Simple as that. The inside of a stomach is a discernable mass of flesh. Sure, every part is "vital" but not "extra vital" as a sneak attack is. A cleric or a sorceror or bard or anything with a dagger doesn't get a sneak attack so why does a rogue?
thepuregamer 10-13-04, 06:22 PM	I'm under the impression that puregamer thinks that being inside a creature is like being in a small room or tunnel. Being swallowed is like wrapping six black trash bags around your head and squeezing it in a vice. Contrary to the anatomy photos in a biology book, a stomach is not some inflated sack. YES, the stats for how many creatures of a certain size are listed with creatures that can swallow whole, but if one medium creature is plopped into a stomach that can HOLD 8 Mediums, that lone creature doesn't have the room of 7 people to run around in. He's still crushed by the stomach walls. He doesn't get to pick and choose where he stabs/cuts. He slashes at what's in front of him in an attempt to get OUT. This whole "give me encyclopaedic examples I can read on paper" BS is stupid. There will be no reasoning with puregamer as he is a rules lawyer of the worst sort. I'd have DM-Bolted him ages ago and let him play a level 3 Expert with skill ranks in Basketweaving. *vomits* lol one problem with your anatomy example. How do you know what the creatures digestive tract is going to be like? You may know what a human one looks like but a dragons? or a tarrasques? Being a rules lawyer as you say is very important to the game because dnd is not reality but fantasy. There is no magic in real life. Under the effects of gravity, the shapes of these huge creatures might not be structurally sound. Like all those huge insect movies. In reality, a insect whose size was enlarged a 100,000 times over would not be able to support itself. So assuming what kind of digestive tract the creature has is not really helpful. We do assume that the rogue understands where creatures weak points are. We assume that since you don't have to name a weak point every time you attack that the rogue knows very many weak points and that he can basically find them all over the body. All he needs to do is see well enough to find them. I never said that the stomach he was in was a huge bag or sack. I have assumed very little about the shape of the digestive tract he is in because they say nothing about it. Dnd is not the same as reality. It simulates reality but it doesn't follow rules as reality does. The game has its own rules. So of course there is a reason to be a rules lawyer for this game. I would rather be a rules lawyer who understands the rules than be a person who plays a game without the desire or the ability to understand the rules. Games have rules. When you play a game you abide by those rules. It is that simple. The fact that you are importing real life into your game when there is no rule about said real life example means that you have nothing to give to any arguement on this forum. If you want to discuss anatomy, goto an academic center and discuss anatomy. It is not my desire to discuss anatomy but the rules involved with doing specific things in this game. The only place I can't really prove my point in this thread is about "seeing the target well enough to find vital areas". I have said that you retain your vision inside the digestive tract or wherever you are. I think that therefore you can see where you entered said digestive tract and where you are currently in this digestive tract. Therefore you know where to attack to sneak attack. If you aren't in a big sack it is actually better for you because you won't be confused about sides of the stomach. If you aren't here to discuss rules then there is no point for you to be here. I wouldn't kick you off the forum but I will tell you that you have no purpose here. Thank you for the compliments. Keep them coming
thepuregamer 10-13-04, 06:28 PM	WCH from another thread made a VERY good point that we haven't even brushed against here.. Originally Posted by WCH I'd say no sneak attack, because there are no "vital points" to strike. Yes, everything would be vital, but sneak attack is about doing extra damage from targetting something more vital than the rest. When inside a creature, I see no reason a rogue with a dagger could hit a more vital spot than a cleric with a heavy mace. Fact is both would hurt like an unlubed bugger, but, unless the Swallow Whole ability mentions extra damage, it doesn't do any. Simple as that. The inside of a stomach is a discernable mass of flesh. Sure, every part is "vital" but not "extra vital" as a sneak attack is. A cleric or a sorceror or bard or anything with a dagger doesn't get a sneak attack so why does a rogue? Because it is the rogues ability. I am not saying that the stomach is the thing that is vital. But anyway Sucineri, I swear I am not insulting you, just guiding you. Please start finding things of value. Things we are actually discussing. For example this last post does not bring in anything of value. No one is argueing that the stomach is all that vital. We are saying that some unnamed vital organs that a rogue specifically knows about(as it is his line of work) are what he hits to gain his sneak attack. So this whole last post could have not been mentioned since it doesn't aid your arguement. Since it doesn't apply to the current arguement Edit: oh and the way one tells if a rogue has the possibility of making a sneak attack is if the creature he is attacking is immune to criticals or not. So just because you are inside the creature doesn't mean vital areas disappear. They are just as available as usual. Wasn't sure if you would misunderstand the above statement if I didn't include this. oops that was an insult sorry
Sucineri 10-13-04, 06:31 PM	Okay, well then I guess we are even. I tried my hardest to throw all the points at you that I can, and have given examples and rules from the book, and it won't change your mind. And you are constantly saying I am wrong and even now are saying that you can't prove one of your arguments.. ..wait a minute, that sounds like I won. Now I am done with this topic.
thepuregamer 10-13-04, 06:36 PM	well it was nice talking to you so I guess this is goodbye. But I never said that you guys were right. Just that I didn't have enough rules on the issue to point the arguement either way. Atleast I am honest. 2 points of reference in my mind is enough. Anyway thats all for now.
Hoth Osric 10-13-04, 06:55 PM	I would rather be a rules lawyer who understands the rules than be a person who plays a game without the desire or the ability to understand the rules. Games have rules. When you play a game you abide by those rules. It is that simple. So you essentially supplant fun and imagination with rules. Boy howdy! That sounds like a good time to me!
thepuregamer 10-13-04, 09:24 PM	Lol. I love roleplaying. I also like being around people who understand the rules very well. If you go specifically by the rules and not by your own feeling of how things work than a game goes much smoother. It is actually alot more fun to play through a game without interuption about how things work. This is how it goes when everyone understands the rules. It is easier to get to the roleplaying when everyone understands what they can and cannot do.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 10-13-04, 11:50 PM	No where in the description of swallow whole or grappling does it state that your vision is impaired or obstructed....You people are adding extra effects to these circumstances. Effects that have not once been mentioned. You're quite right---people are adding extra effects like "you can't see the battlefield normally while you're inside a creature's gullet." And, since you say... this is how things work. If there is no extenuating circumstance listed in the rules(exceptions), then you follow the rules as listed. As simple as that....If being crushed and burned also effected your vision, then they would mention it. If the acid was opache, then they would mention it because that would be a specific exception where normal rules didn't apply because of circumstances. ...then you are clearly arguing that unless the rules specifically mention an exception, the regular rules apply. According to your "only specifically mentioned rules apply" criterion, I'm sure people would be curious to see you quote specific rules---with page numbers---that directly mention these two things: 1) Where do the rules specifically state that being in a creature's gullet stops you from seeing the rest of the battlefield as normal? 2) Where do the rules specifically state that a creature's stomache "can't react to a blow"? If you're going to argue from the position that only specifically stated exceptions in the rules apply, then #2 torpedoes your argument, and #1 shows the entire position to be ridiculous in the first place.
thepuregamer 10-14-04, 08:42 AM	Dire whoever you are, I have already gone through the rules about circumstances that deny the creature its dex so I am not going to do it again just for you. And if you want to know more about vision, goto pages 164 and 165 of the phb. Have fun :)
Sucineri 10-14-04, 09:35 AM	I had to come back to the thread to debunk an argument. ....Characters with darkvision (dwarves and half-orcs) can see lit areas normally as well as dark areas within 60 feet of a character with darkvision.... We are not arguing that a darkvision doesn't work in this circumstance..it does, and I am fine with that. BUT it's like putting a bag over your head. Sure, you can SEE the inside of the bag that's over your head, doesn't mean you can see anything outside of that limitation though..UNLESS the gut of the creature is cavernous, when it is not. You are inside a tight sleeping bag that is over your head, and it is being jerked this way and that through muscle contractions.
thepuregamer 10-14-04, 10:45 AM	BUT it's like putting a bag over your head. I agree with you that vision works within the confines of the space you are in. But is it really shaped like a bag? I would have thought more along the lines of a tube or tunnel that is squeezing and and convulsing. But furthermore, they don't really tell us where you go so much as you are swallowed and now in the digestive tract. How far into the digestive tract? Maybe not that far at all if they say that you could make an escape artist check to get back into the mouth. That makes me think that you are within 15 feet at most of the mouth. Meaning you have a pretty good idea of where you are and what you can see. I said think here because they don't say lower abdomen or throat. But if you can in one turns movement crawl back into the mouth that cannot be more than a 15 foot crawl. If this creature is huge then you are not that far into their digestive tract at all. Anyway, I am away from a book now so I leave the quoting to other people
Mal20 10-14-04, 12:10 PM	How could I resist sticking my oar into such a wonderful debate?? I think this issue needs to be looked at from two angles – RAW and common sense. Now by the RAW, in order for Sneak Attack to apply the target must be denied his Dex bonus or Flanked. The swallower is most certainly not flanked. Is it denied its Dex bonus to AC? Under the description of the Dex stat it says you receive the bonus to AC, “provided that the character can react to the attack.” It would seem reasonable to assume that the swallower can’t react to the attack, but at any point does it say under Swallow Whole that the swallower can’t react to attacks by the swallowee? No. It does give a modified AC for the creature’s innards, without modifiers for Dex bonus, but this is not explicitly defined as ‘denied Dex bonus’. It could just as easily be a static AC for the creatures innards. So, according to RAW, the creature is NOT denied its Dex bonus against attacks from the swallowee, and therefore not subject to Sneak Attacks. This is where common sense, interpretation and good Dming take the stage. Obviously a creature’s stomach can’t react to attacks from inside it, and the phrase ‘with no modifiers for size or Dexterity’ could very easily be interpreted as meeting the conditions for denial of Dex bonus. Therefore, using common sense, the swallower is denied its Dex bonus and subject to Sneak Attacks. However, the Rogue must meet certain conditions in order to be able to perform a Sneak Attack, no matter what the condition of the victim: “The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A Rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.” Can a Rogue pick out a vital spot? Nothing in the RAW says he can’t, especially with Darkvision. A creatures belly is not immune to criticals (and therefore Sneak Attacks). Can he reach such a spot? Again, nothing in the RAW says he can’t. Does the creature have concealment, or are its vitals beyond reach? Yet again, the RAW says nothing that would suggest this. Therefore, according to the RAW, the Rogue meets the prerequisites for Sneak Attack. But then we have our old friends common sense and DM judgement. The Rogue has been swallowed, he’s taking damage, and, most importantly, he’s grappled. It would be reasonable to say that being crushed inside a creature’s stomach dramatically reduces vision and orientation, making the job of picking out a vital spot next to impossible. It would reasonable to rule that under these circumstances the Rogue cannot manoeuvre himself enough to reach a vital spot, even if he could see it. It would also be reasonable to rule that knowing a creatures anatomy from the outside is not the same thing as knowing it from the inside, especially under the stressful circumstances of being swallowed. It might be argued that everywhere inside a creature is ‘vital’, but if that were the case then wouldn’t it be subject to automatic criticals (coup de grace)? Therefore, common sense says the Rogue does not meet the prerequisites for Sneak Attack. So, back to the beginning. Is the creature denied its Dex bonus, and therefore vulnerable to Sneak Attacks? RAW says no, but common sense says yes. Does the Rogue meet the prerequisites for Sneak Attack? RAW says yes, but common sense says no. Therefore, can a swallowed Rogue Sneak Attack the swallower? RAW says no. Common sense says no. Now, it seems, like so many things in this game we love that there is no ‘right answer’ – the RAW frequently throws up legal possibilities that are frankly ludicrous. It all to DM judgement to spot them and deal with the problem as he sees fit. This is all just my interpretation, of course!
thepuregamer 10-14-04, 12:47 PM	Mal20, read the rest of the dexterity to armor class page that you have been quoting. I have been quoting it as well. But there is more on that page if you look. They give three examples of times a person is denied their dex mod to AC. One is against an invisible opponent. The second is when you are climbing the face of a crumbling cliff over lava and the third is when you are flat-footed(not first in initiative). Well lets interpret these examples. Why can't the person use dex in the first example? He cannot see his opponent. The issue of knowing you opponent is there doesn't seem to be a factor(such as having heard an invisible opponent). So it is impossible for the oppnent to react to your blow because he cannot see you and thus cannot predict how you will attack and where you will attack. Dex denied. Second example, the opponent is hanging on to the side of a cliff. It is entirely beyond his power to make use of his dex. You can't dodge when you are on the side of a cliff. Well this is an example of the opponent being unable to react to a blow whether he knows you are there or not. The third example would be that the blow comes before the opponent can react to it. This is the general meaning of the three examples. The monster that swallows you both cannot see you and cannot react to your blow in the first place. Both of these examples deny the monster his dex mod to ac whether he has one or not. Look at pg 50 as well. Under sneak attack, it says, "Basically, the rogues attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a dexterity bonus to AC(whether the target actually has a dexterity bonus or not)". Well it may not have a dex mod to ac on the inside but it doesn't mean it isn't denied the possibility of using it under the rules on page 160. So, using commom sense for denying the monsters dex is not required. On the note of where in the creature you are, this is what I was talking about. MM pg 315 swallow whole ability "...If the swallowed creature escapes the grapple, success puts it back in the attackers mouth." If in one turns movement you are back in the creatures mouth, then you were no more than 15 feet from its mouth before the grapple. Maybe less. This looks like it would be climbing as well as hampered movement. So I think it is pretty easy to say that the rogue hasn't gone that far into the creatures digestive tract that he cannot distinguish where he is.
thepuregamer 10-14-04, 12:49 PM	So Raw say yes common sense says "how could a person who is between 5 and 6 feet tall be swallowed whole". But yeah this seems to differ person to person. Meaning we might not be using a "common" sense, but our own personal sense of things.
Sucineri 10-14-04, 01:01 PM	Not being visible is not the same as being invisible. I can be behind a rock and not be visible, but that doesn't mean I am invisible. As far as hanging off a cliff, you are using this specific example to try to help yourself, but this circumstance has NOTHING to do with hanging from a cliff, so it just doesn't work.
thepuregamer 10-14-04, 01:40 PM	Sucineri, do you think that every instance in the book has to be spelled out for you? Not seeing the person is for all instances the same as being invisible. For example, lets say you are behind a rock with 100% concealment hiding from someone else. If they hear you but do not spot you they know where you are in general. They are for all purposes denied their dex bonus to you currently because they do not know where you are specifically. The point of examples is to show a correlation between different things. The things stopping the character from using his dex bonus against an invisible opponent is that he cannot see him. It is the same for a hidden opponent. For an opponent you cannot see. For the example of the guy on the side of the cliff. What is that keeps him from using his dex? Well the fact that he is on the side of a cliff makes it beyond his ability to use his dex. There is no way to react to a blow when on the side of a mountain. These examples tie directly to the current arguement. The monster that swallows you is under the same general conditions that the characters in the first two examples are. 1. The monster cannot see the person inside him. 2. He lacks the ability to react to a blow that comes from inside himself. 2 out of 3 examples back my interpretation of the monster losing his dex. The third doesn't apply because this situation is mid combat. Do you expect them to give examples in the core books for every situation that will arise in the game? That would be a difficult and arduous task to complete. It would also be an utter waste of time. In your mind, characters are only denied their dex bonus against invisible opponents and when they are hanging from cliffs. well I would love to see how you work that.
Gamebird 10-14-04, 01:54 PM	Obviously a creature’s stomach can’t react to attacks from inside it... That's not obvious to me. This stomach/gullet is a specially designed attack devise belonging to the monster. It is part of the monster. It is in full contact with the swallowed creature. A person is allowed to react to things they can sense. This is not restricted to vision. Note that you get your DEX bonus (are not surprised or flat footed) against monsters or attacks that come out of thin air right in front of you via various spells, assuming you've already taken an action in the combat. I think a creature's stomach CAN react to attacks inside it. It can "feel" the character and is entirely aware of the character's struggles and movements, thereby being able to adjust crushing attacks against it.
Mal20 10-14-04, 02:51 PM	Mal20, read the rest of the dexterity to armor class page that you have been quoting... Well lets interpret these examples...Second example, the opponent is hanging on to the side of a cliff. It is entirely beyond his power to make use of his dex. You can't dodge when you are on the side of a cliff. Well this is an example of the opponent being unable to react to a blow whether he knows you are there or not. (apologies for abbreviating your quote) I agree, but applying that to the swallowed whole situation is an interpretation (albeit a pretty clear interpretation) of the rules, not strictly RAW. DM judgement must play a part. If in one turns movement you are back in the creatures mouth, then you were no more than 15 feet from its mouth before the grapple. Maybe less. This looks like it would be climbing as well as hampered movement. This is quite an interesting point - there already is a mechanic for allowing movement within the stomach. Perhaps a DM could be convinced that on a sucessful attempt to break free from pinning the Rogue could get a Sneak Attack instead of moving up to the mouth? Thinking about it, I'd consider allowing a PC with some sort of Free Action effect operating to make a Sneak Attack. That's not obvious to me. This stomach/gullet is a specially designed attack devise belonging to the monster. It is part of the monster. It is in full contact with the swallowed creature. A person is allowed to react to things they can sense. This is not restricted to vision. Note that you get your DEX bonus (are not surprised or flat footed) against monsters or attacks that come out of thin air right in front of you via various spells, assuming you've already taken an action in the combat. I think a creature's stomach CAN react to attacks inside it. It can "feel" the character and is entirely aware of the character's struggles and movements, thereby being able to adjust crushing attacks against it. Good point, and a perfectly reasonable judgement to make. I'm not sure I'd personally rule that such a creature has a 'prehensile stomach', but it's not beyond the realms of fantasy. To be honest I'm not really that concerned about the actual question of 'Sneak Attack while swallowed', I'm just suggesting that when put under enough pressure the rules designed to believably simulate the game world can collapse into farce (the character optimisation boards are full of that kind of thing). When this happens it's up to the DM to take control and make a judgement. I guess we still need the blighters...
Gamebird 10-14-04, 03:40 PM	I'm not sure I'd personally rule that such a creature has a 'prehensile stomach', but it's not beyond the realms of fantasy. Doesn't have to be "prehensile", it just has to be able to shift and react to attacks/movement. There are lots of monsters in DnD that get their DEX adjustment that have no prehensile (grasping) appendages. They usually get slam attacks. I think that's a good approximation to what the stomach/gullet is doing in this case. Something else to be tossed into the mix, as far as the reality side of it, creatures that have muscular gullets designed to crush creatures usually swallow rocks and hard objects to assist in the process. A chicken's gizzard has a thick membrane on the inside that you don't see when you buy them. It (along with the grit) is removed before sale because it is so tough that there's no way of cooking it that makes it edible. I don't know about the gizzards of larger creatures, but a chicken's gizzard is twice the size of its heart and is one big wad of muscle (tastes good breaded and fried, too!) I think a person within an organ like that would be in a situation like a person being constricted by a snake - very little mobility.
Sucineri 10-14-04, 03:46 PM	I know sometimes when I get a cramp or something in my stomach I can usually just squeeze my stomach muscles and relieve it. Oh, and that thing about a chicken gizzard being strong makes sense in this case. It also shows why you have to do so much damage to break free of the thing in the first place.
thepuregamer 10-14-04, 04:40 PM	sucineri, so you are saying that you can manipulate your body to effectively react to something on the inside? Lets say you swallowed a needle and it got jammed in on the way down, what could you possibly do to alleviate the problem just using motions of your digestive tract. I can't wait to see your amazing bs answer. As for the monster. he has no sense of where specifically you are going to attack. He knows in general where you are in his body but that doesn't mean he can tell what you are doing on the inside. The kind of special sense you are giving the monsters is way out of the ordinary and you are assuming a great amount. And a chicken gizzard is alittle too specific to apply to all creatures that use swallow whole in dnd. Especially since gizzards are found mainly among birds and invertebrates. Anyway, Mal20 you are pretty much right about the DM thing. They are the ones who decide things. If they want, sneak attacks are allowed. Or sneak attacks aren't allowed. Hell if I were a DM I would allow everything to be criticalled. Because in my mind a critical is not a vital strike but a really strong strike. The best way I can explain this is the idea of hitting the sweet spot with a baseball bat. It is like your strike connects just right. The only thing I would say was immune to criticals was something that was immaterial. That isn't what the rules say though. They say it is a vital strike. So when I play, it is a vital strike. The rules are the basic premise for the game. Sure we can drop our own perceptions on the game but that is exactly what it is. Modifying the game or forcing your own opinion on the game. I suspect that interpreting the examples is a bit like that. But not close to as much as everyone else is doing. I mean is a tarrasque like a chicken? The common theme behind creatures with swallow whole is the fact that they are big enough to swallow you whole. That is why they can do it. Not because their digestive tract is any more like a weapon than a smaller creatures. Just by the fact that it is big enough to fit these creatures inside it.
Sucineri 10-14-04, 05:45 PM	Well, swallowing a needle isn't going to instantly kill you, or even do tons of damage to you right away. It is the equivalent of dealing normal damage to you. It may EVENTUALLY kill you..but so would a wizard using a dagger on the inside of a monster. In the case of swallowing a needle that gets stuck..you call 911, they show up, bring you to a hospital and you either die there, or they get the needle out. But that takes WAY more time than the equivalent of 100+ rounds in combat. If it DOES hit a vital area (as in a certain artery or something) that would be a critical hit because it just happened to pierce there..which is the equivalent of a wizard getting a critical hit with a dagger.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 10-14-04, 08:02 PM	I have already gone through the rules about circumstances that deny the creature its dex At no point have you quoted a rule that specifically states a creature's gullet can not react to attacks. All you've said is "by my interpretation of this rule, I can make an unlisted exception and declare that gullets can not react to attacks." If you insist on only using exceptions that are specifically noted in the rules, you need to provide a quote that directly says "a creature's gullet can not react to attacks". It's not stunned, paralyzed, sleeping, or any of the other conditions specifically listed as preventing something from reacting to attacks, so the burden of proof is on you to provide that the rules specifically and in detail prevent gullets from reacting to attacks. If you have such a rule, it should be very easy for you to provide. Until you do that, though, your argument is worthless by your own criteria. (If you have any interest in convincing people rather than simply ranting into the ether, you should take note that this is one of the reasons why you've completely failed to convince anyone of your point of view, and if you don't make your argument internally consistent, you'll just keep on wasting your time. If you're just trolling, though, feel free to continue on as before.)
Sucineri 10-14-04, 08:08 PM	I agree with DCB, you are not showing any proof of anything, just your interpretations. Every time you try to make an argument I have shot it down with cross refrences, but you keep making assumptions and trying to explain your interpretations. Hell, I really don't mind being wrong..it has happened before and I am the first to admit it when it does happen, but you need to give me some proof here that specifically states with this particular circumstance why your theory is right. And the best way to do that is to read specifically how a sneak attack can happen (which is only by way of being flat footed or a losing a dex bonus) and since swallow whole does not state losing a dex bonus or being caught flat footed to the swallowed target then don't just say "but it shouldn't happen". Facts man.. ..Learn Them.. ..Live Them.. ..Love Them.
thepuregamer 10-19-04, 04:28 PM	Well, swallowing a needle isn't going to instantly kill you, or even do tons of damage to you right away. It is the equivalent of dealing normal damage to you. It may EVENTUALLY kill you..but so would a wizard using a dagger on the inside of a monster. In the case of swallowing a needle that gets stuck..you call 911, they show up, bring you to a hospital and you either die there, or they get the needle out. But that takes WAY more time than the equivalent of 100+ rounds in combat. If it DOES hit a vital area (as in a certain artery or something) that would be a critical hit because it just happened to pierce there..which is the equivalent of a wizard getting a critical hit with a dagger. I hate to bring this thread back to life but I was offline for the weekend and I feel your example only helps me. Your points all help me. So if you swallow a needle right it isn't going to instantly kill you. You say it is the same if a monster swallows a wizard who is holding a dagger. Well how about this. what if the wizard is outside the monster with a dagger? Does he get sneak attack even if the monster is helpless? No he does not because it is not his class ability. If the rogue is outside the monster holding a dagger he can sneak attack the monster because he meets the needed circumstances and it is his class ability. If he meets the circumstances when he is inside the monster, it is no less possible. Rabid bonobo, your arguement is moot for one point. If you are going to use my own ideas against me. Use them as I did. This is how the game works. There are general rules for everything in dnd. There are combat rules and magic rules and skill rules. These all work in general how they are described. When these rules do not work as generally described, an exception is listed. This is how many special abilities work by the way. They bend, break, or modify the general rules. Well what does swallow whole allow a monster to do which is otherwise not allowed in a grapple hmmm? It allows the monster to swallow the character. That is what it does. There are other specific things and they are listed under the ability. None of those exceptions say, " the monster cannot lose dexterity under the normal combat rules in the phb for losing dex mod to ac". I say that the players handbook says, "If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your dexterity bonus to AC." You guys have shown me nothing that says the monster can react to the blow. He has some magical blindsight stomach? So the monster is denied dex. That is how the rules work. The reason I am not convincing you is because you have a preset notion of how things should work. Swallow whole does not give a description of the creatures digestive tract so you guys supplant your own vision of what it is. Well that is all nice and lovely but if all creatures had the same anatomy, there would be no reason to study biology or medicine. You guys have taken this way too far away from the game. Just follow the rules word for word. Sucineri, I can realize when I am wrong about things too but you should notice that I can also realize when other people are wrong. You have given no arguement breaking "cross references". In fact you have made few such references. Anyway so if you agree with bonobo you should both first make sure you know what you are talking about. I know the rules, the so called facts, and they side with me. This is not some special digestive tract that can dodge blows and make attacks of its own. This is very much a normal digestive tract, just huge. How is it different than yours? Well in general it is big enough to fit in a medium sized creature atleast. It has become pretty obvious how weak your arguments have become when you used your personal experience stomach remark before. You say, "I know sometimes when I get a cramp or something in my stomach I can usually just squeeze my stomach muscles and relieve it." Yeah but if there were anything sharp or dangerous in there you wouldn't be able to do anything. You said yourself that you would have to go to a doctor to get it fixed. That is one amazing reacting stomach you have there. If it can fix a cramp, it can surely fix the issue of the crazy midget with a knife going down it as well. That is a powerful argument that defeats all in its path. No, you have defeated nothing while posting on this thread and my only fault is that I do not post concisely.
Aracor 10-19-04, 09:37 PM	It also doesn't say anywhere in the rules where swallowing something whole specifically denies someone their dexterity modifier. And so far, the rules that I've cited, the WotC customer support, the Gamestoppers Article, and common sense side with everyone against you. And as it says under sneak attack, you need to meet ALL the requirements for a sneak attack. Not just denying their dexterity. "The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. ... A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies -- undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach." So they need to have a discernable anatomy, and they need to be able to pick out a vital spot, which it hasn't been proven they will in a stomach. Technically speaking, geometrically, you need three points of reference to actually define a space. Two points of reference define a LINE, not a space. So that would mean that with two points of reference, you can identify top and bottom. But how are you going to know if you're facing the front or back? And you still need to be able to reach a specific vital point, which also hasn't been proven is possible from within something's stomach. I'm willing to admit that the rules are sketchy on this particular issue. I'm willing to go so far as to admit that it's probably never going to be decided with 100% certainty, because of the fact that the rules are sketchy. But generally when the rules are sketchy, that's exactly why Wizards releases articles that help to explain things, and that's why they have customer support (although I'll be the first to admit that they have contradicted themselves at times). It also seems to me that if you're actually allowing a rogue a chance to sneak attack when they're being swallowed, you're really giving them more than they should receive. Think of it this way: The damage that you're dealing is mostly focused on getting out, that's why after you deal a certain amount of damage you can actually escape from the creature. That would seem to mean to me that you're probably focused on getting out of the creature's stomach so you don't get digested, rather than being focused on exactly where to stab the critter to do maximum damage. But like I said, the debate will probably not be solved. Although it seems to me that since most of the official and semi-official sources that can be found are going against you, that any ruling that rogues can sneak attack while being swallowed is a house rule. And you can feel free to make any house rules that you want, but it's just that. Anyway, happy gaming! ~Aracor
Sucineri 10-19-04, 10:45 PM	:grumble: I truly believed this thread died..dangit! Anyway, what Aracor says is completely true, the rules ARE sketchy..but every official/semi-official source seems to point towards the situation not being possible. There is no way you can 100% prove that the situation is possible. We also cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the situation is impossible. So if anything let's just end it with this.. ..IF you (as a DM) want sneak attacks to work, go for it..if you (as a DM) do not, then don't allow it. I am siding with the "don't".
thepuregamer 10-19-04, 11:08 PM	So they need to have a discernable anatomy, and they need to be able to pick out a vital spot, which it hasn't been proven they will in a stomach. Technically speaking, geometrically, you need three points of reference to actually define a space. Two points of reference define a LINE, not a space. So that would mean that with two points of reference, you can identify top and bottom. But how are you going to know if you're facing the front or back? And you still need to be able to reach a specific vital point, which also hasn't been proven is possible from within something's stomach. I'm willing to admit that the rules are sketchy on this particular issue. I'm willing to go so far as to admit that it's probably never going to be decided with 100% certainty, because of the fact that the rules are sketchy. But generally when the rules are sketchy, that's exactly why Wizards releases articles that help to explain things, and that's why they have customer support (although I'll be the first to admit that they have contradicted themselves at times). It also seems to me that if you're actually allowing a rogue a chance to sneak attack when they're being swallowed, you're really giving them more than they should receive. Think of it this way: The damage that you're dealing is mostly focused on getting out, that's why after you deal a certain amount of damage you can actually escape from the creature. That would seem to mean to me that you're probably focused on getting out of the creature's stomach so you don't get digested, rather than being focused on exactly where to stab the critter to do maximum damage. ~Aracor Ok I modified the quote a bit. There were some major parts I wanted to address. On the issue of where you are in the monster. This is very important. I will address this on two sides; common sense and rules. Ok according to the rules, "If the swallowed creature escapes the grapple, success puts it back in the attackers mouth...". Well what does this mean? It means specifically that you are very near the creatures mouth when you are swallowed. You in fact do not make it that far down the creatures mouth. Because if one escapes the grapple they need to make it back to the creatures mouth. Well under movement rules you can move 30 feet in a round. This is likely both crawling and hampered movement so you move at a 1/2 to 1/4 speed. That means you are at most 15 feet from the creatures mouth and at least 7 to 8 feet from its mouth. That is not that far at all. The rogue can certainly see where he is then because 8 feet back is the mouth and cranium of the creature. He is right in the neck of the creature if this assumption on distance is right. The rogue can surely reach and find a vital spot if this is true. If the dex is denied the creature and this proves true, then all the requirements for Sa are met. Anyway, way way back at the beggining of this thread we addressed the issue of the rogue wanting for any reason to stay in the creatures crushing and acidic environment. Specifically in this case, he has some form of protection from the damage. Maybe the rogue thinks he is fairing much better inside the creature then outside. Anyway the rogue wants to stay. He can concentrate on making his SA strikes. Whether the rogue can concentrate on making SA strikes or whether he will freak and just start slashing away is up to either a Concentration check or a morale check. But I don't know how you would work those. A rogue doesn't normally have to concentrate when using his class abilities so I don't see why a different type of scary deadly situation would mess him up. That is an roleplaying element more likely. If you think your guy would freak, he freaks. If he is fearless then hey he doesn't forget what needs to be done. That sort of thing. On the issue of dex, the rules are not sketchy. Just general. Where they get open to interpretation is on where you are in the monster. It looks like from a logistical point of view that the rogue cannot be all that far down the monsters throat. Anyway comment away.
Aracor 10-19-04, 11:51 PM	Well, I'm done. It's pretty obvious that we're not going to agree. I'm fine with that. ..IF you (as a DM) want sneak attacks to work, go for it..if you (as a DM) do not, then don't allow it. That's pretty much it. I'm not going to bother posting any more, simply because I have nothing left to say. We're pretty much throwing the same tired old arguments at each other, and nothing's going to change. As far as I'm concerned, one isn't allowed to sneak attack while one is in a creature's stomach. By the sketchy rules, it can be rather successfully argued either way. Since the rules lack specific examples, all that's left is going by the sources we can find. As far as multiple sources at WotC are concerned, it's not allowed. Personally, I'll stick with the WotC rulings. If you choose differently, feel free. Have fun either way! ~Aracor
Naeron 10-20-04, 05:34 AM	<snip> There are other specific things and they are listed under the ability. None of those exceptions say, " the monster cannot lose dexterity under the normal combat rules in the phb for losing dex mod to ac". I say that the players handbook says, "If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your dexterity bonus to AC." You guys have shown me nothing that says the monster can react to the blow. He has some magical blindsight stomach? So the monster is denied dex. That is how the rules work. <snip>. No, if you want a rule that shows that the monsters can react to the blow so that it is not denied its dex bonus I will show you it, its one that you've seen before. "The Armor Class of the interior of a creature that swallows whole is normally 10 + 1/2 its natural armor bonus, with no modifiers for size or Dexterity". There it is, attacks made by the swallowee do not apply the target's modifiers for size or Dexterity. If attacks made by the swallowee would count the target as being denied their dexterity bonus to AC then it would say so, rather than specifcally stating a completely different modification to the DEX bonus of the swallower. A Swallowing Creature with a DEX of 9 does not apply the -1 DEX modifier to their internal AC. If the intention was that the swallower did lose DEX bonus to AC it would have been listed in the effects of the Swallow Whole ability. While you like to quote that piece about climbing over lava etc as supporting your "unable to react" argument you should note that each of those examples specifically state in the relative section that Dexterity Bonus to AC is denied, see the entries for combat modifiers, flat-footed and the climb skill. Each piece of text is supported by an entry in the definition of the state itself. Swallow Whole does not make any such statement in its definition.
thepuregamer 10-20-04, 09:30 AM	Anyway you should see this, This is loosely interpreted as meaning doesn't need to have a dex bonus. I have already used it. "The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not)". oh and under the circumstances of being swallowed whole, you are invisible to that creature. Open up the phb and check the glossary for invisible. They don't mean under the spell invisibility, they mean as it is the first thing they say, "visusally undetectable". Who is going to argue that this is not true? anything swallowed is visually undetectable. Dex gone. I think this is more concrete for the rest of you than the can't react statements. See a new point. I knew I would notice one.
CruelDM 10-20-04, 09:43 AM	I saw a Ripleys Believe It or Not where a guy could swallow $1.50 in different U.S coinage and regurgitate them on cue (ie. The spectator would ask for .85 cents and the guy would literally "cough" it up). Then for an encore, he swallowed 10 dimes, each of a different printing year, and could cough up the correct coin by year on cue. I would say, yes, items in the stomach can be manipulated by the swallower. They even had him do his trick with an X-Ray and showed exactly what was happening inside him as he sorted the coins to deliver the "change".
thepuregamer 10-20-04, 09:48 AM	Cruel, Would you say that this was a trained trick? Or something anyone can do just off the bat. Does swallow whole say anywhere that it can vomit you back up? Or that it can vomit back up specific creatures it has swallowed? I would suspect it does not mention this extra special ability. anyway like I said, that sounds trained meaning in dnd terms comes from a class.
Gamebird 10-20-04, 12:32 PM	Puregamer - Why do you believe that selective portions of a monster can lose their DEX adjustment? DnD very explicitly treats all creatures as a whole, not as parts. They don't even allow called shots. If a creature is denied their DEX modifier, then their whole body is denied their DEX modifier. Similarly, if a part of their body is denied a DEX modifier, then their whole body has lost their DEX modifier. The rules for Swallow Whole explicitly say that DEX is not counted - not that it's denied, but simply that it isn't a factor for attacks while in the stomach. So in the absense of it plainly saying DEX is denied, that means the monster (and it's stomach) have not been denied their DEX modifier. Thus, you can't Sneak Attack because the stomach has not been denied it's DEX adjustment, even if the DEX doesn't directly affect the AC you have to hit while in the stomach.
Sucineri 10-20-04, 01:03 PM	He likes to mis-interpret grammar in his favor. The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not)". Like this argument..he liked to read the part in parenthesis as the main part of the argument and it is not. It is based off of the part outside of the parenthesis..MEANING.. The rogue's attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC ..which it does not. But if it DID...THEN you would apply.. (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not) ..but he cannot see them apart for some reason so he believes the parenthesis don't count. thepuregamer..just sit back and read this for a second.. The Armor Class of the interior of a creature that swallows whole is normally 10 + 1/2 its natural armor bonus, with no modifiers for size or Dexterity. Which means..if the creature has a +4 bonus to dexterity it doesn't count. ALSO means..if the creature has a -4 PENALTY to dexterity it doesn't count. You don't LOSE the dex bonus, IT DOESNT COUNT.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 10-20-04, 03:25 PM	Open up the phb and check the glossary for invisible. They don't mean under the spell invisibility they mean as it is the first thing they say, "visusally undetectable". Who is going to argue that this is not true? anything swallowed is visually undetectable. Dex gone. You are making the following logical error: 1) All A are B. 2) X is a B. 3) Therefore, X is an A. i.e., 1) All "invisible" things are "visually undetectable". 2) "Anything swallowed" is "visually undetectable". 3) Therefore, "anything swallowed" is "invisible". This is completely false. The obvious counterexample of the general principle you're trying to use is: 1) All dogs are animals. 2) A cat is an animal. 3) Therefore, a cat is a dog. Worse, even if you were right, your argument still doesn't solve your problem. An "invisible" creature can be seen with certain spells---such as "See Invisibility"---that grant no ability to see through solid matter, yet you claim they should be able to see an "invisible" creature in a monster's belly, or an "invisible" creature on the other side of a stone wall? Your (wrong) interpretation creates more problems than it even tries to solve. (Besides, which precise rule in the PHB, DMG, or MM states that a swallowed creature is "visually undetectable"? If you're going to obstinately insist on direct rules quotations, follow your own requirements.) I think this is more concrete for the rest of you than the can't react statements. See a new point. I knew I would notice one. Yeah, and it's just as bogus as the others. Until you can precisely quote rules that DIRECTLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY support your statements, you have no argument. Still.
CruelDM 10-20-04, 04:34 PM	Cruel, Would you say that this was a trained trick? Of course, can you do it? I cant. Just because I cant manipulate a certain item in my stomach doesnt mean I cant throw it up. anyway like I said, that sounds trained meaning in dnd terms comes from a class. Trained doesnt come from a class either, by your belief, what class is a dog? Its trained, what class is it? Incidentally, I agree that a creature that was swallowed whole cannot be seen by the swallower, I disagree that the swallower doesnt know where it is, or that it cant detect it in its belly. I am sure if the swallowed creature is struggling, the swallower knows it. I dont have a DMG in front of me, but isnt a creature that is swallowed whole limited to light weapons? If so, this alone would be enough to disallow a sneak attack, simply because the attacker is limited in his actions and doesnt have the freedom of movement needed to make effective strikes. That, and the fact that the foe isnt denied Dex to AC, coupled with the foe not being flanked, that a foe large enough to eat you means you probably couldnt have reached a vital area even you hadnt been swallowed in the first place...... None of the requirements have been met to allow a sneak attack.
evangelion1010 10-22-04, 05:41 PM	Fine, the creatures have evolved the ability to swallow prey whole and deal acid/crushing damage from inside the stomach. i can almost say for certain that during their evolution, they weren't swallowing 11+ level rouges with stoneskin and energy resistance cast on them. Being swallowed is near certain death for most creatures, so it would stand to reason that most wouldn't be alive for more than a few rounds... nor would they be prepared or know what to do.. most would just struggle in vain.... but a rouge who has the intent of doing this... well, it makes sense that they could. As for being able to target a vital organ... i don't know about you, but pretty much every organ is vital to some degree, and internal bleeding is certainly not a pleasant thing. think about it... if you thought having gas in the stomach was a bad thing, imangine having it having holes torn in it, causing excessive bleeding and allowing the acid to spill out of it... If that doesn't cause damage, what would? If you still don't buy it, let the rouge take a feat that allows them to do it. It shouldn't come up that often, and if the DM doesn't like it, seriously... have the creature metagame a little and swallow someone else.
Gamebird 10-22-04, 05:52 PM	As for being able to target a vital organ... i don't know about you, but pretty much every organ is vital to some degree, and internal bleeding is certainly not a pleasant thing. think about it... if you thought having gas in the stomach was a bad thing, imangine having it having holes torn in it, causing excessive bleeding and allowing the acid to spill out of it... If that doesn't cause damage, what would? Sure, causes whole piles of damage and the rules already allow a character who is swallowed to use a tiny weapon to cut a whole in the creature's gullet and escape out through it. D&D does not use rules for bleeding from normal weapon cuts, thus a hole cut into the gullet and crawled through will not inconvenience the monster any more than any other amount of damage points incurred in a different way. 25 points to the gullet do exactly 25 points of damage to the creature. They do not do 25 points of excessive bleeding extra damage with acid spillover. It's 25 points of damage. Period. The question is whether or not a rogue who is swallowed would be able to manuever such to do a disproportionate amount of damage as compared to, say, a fighter who was swallowed. I see no reason why a swallowed rogue would be able to manuever that way to be grossly superior as a stomach-fighter than a fighter would be. And the rules in no way support that a rogue would be able to exercise his sneak attack ability inside a stomach.
Sucineri 10-22-04, 07:13 PM	Guys guys guys..it isn't about what you can theoretically do, it is about if the RULES support it. And no, they don't. Unofficial sources say it won't work (that one article that was mentioned that I forgot), Semi-Official sources say it won't work (emails to WotC), the RAW (rules in the book..which are quoted several times here by me) say it won't work. So it will NOT WORK. Period. If you want to go ahead and design a FEAT for it to work then that is your right, and I won't fault you for that..there should be a FEAT for it if people truly want to go about their business this way..that's what FEATs are for. Oh..and as far as internal bleeding and stuff goes..that is ONLY possible by certain spells and certain feats and certain magical weapons/special weapons. When one does enough damage to escape the creature's stomach the muscles contract and close the wound so that a new person has to deal with it from the beginning again..so that right there tells me that internal bleeding with normal attacks won't do crap. And yes, "most areas would be vital"..I agree with you. An arm is vital, a leg is vital, organs are vital..pretty much everything is vital. But sneak attacks and critical hits are about what is MORE vital. If you don't believe that they you should run your game where no matter what, every hit that connects is a critical hit.
thepuregamer 10-24-04, 04:17 PM	Man, I take the weekend off and everyone goes crazy. I mean tons of posting. Anyway, none of your arguements works because you are not disproving any of my arguements. What do I mean by this? For example, sucineri used the monsters no dex mod applied to ac and the rogue quote to say that the no dex mod doesn't mean that the creature is denied its dex. Well I never said that the creature is denied its dex because it has none applied to its ac. That is just silly. I gave other reasons. It cannot react and it cannot see you. Those were the reasons I gave you. And gamebird, I never said selective portions of a monster lose its dex bonus. I said the monster loses its dex bonus specifically to the things it swallows. Slightly different statement if you intend to read my post. Oh and since they define invisible in the glossary of the phb for me. They state that invisible means visually undetectable. Well they define it I quote it. They don't say visually undetectable because of magic. They say visually undetectable. They don't say all things invisible are visually undetectable but rather that invisible means visually undetectable. What confuses me is the last part of DCB's post. He says, "Worse, even if you were right, your argument still doesn't solve your problem. An "invisible" creature can be seen with certain spells---such as "See Invisibility"---that grant no ability to see through solid matter, yet you claim they should be able to see an "invisible" creature in a monster's belly, or an "invisible" creature on the other side of a stone wall?" First off, see invisibility says, "You can see any objects or beings that are invisible within your range of vision". The important part is within you range of vision. So your normal range of vision is what limits you from seeing them. Can you normally see through walls? NO. You do not have x-ray vision but light dependent vision. If you want to brush up on your understanding of the rules about vision goto pages 164 and 165. It is explained there. I am not going to cover 2 pages of material for people who do not understand a basic part of the game. You could never have played dnd before if you did not understand how your character could see. So read up this will help you. I think it will improve your gaming experience. So no, this is not a bogus answer. cruel DM, I apologize about the trained answer it is slightly off. What I meant to say is this. Is throwing up exact change something all humans can do? I suspect it is not. Atleast I cannot do this. If reacting to the creatures inside its stomach was possible for monsters with swallow whole, it would be mentioned as it is something extra, something special. But it is not a general characteristic of stomachs/digestive tracts, that they can react to what is inside them. Now sucineri in his last post has a point. He has disagreed with all his previous arguements but that is ok. He says that everything has a specific effect. Bleeding is taken care of by magical effects and some class abilities. Well, vital strikes are taken care of by criticals and sneak attacks. The tight space inside a creatures digestive tract is taken care of by the limiting of your weapons to light. The limiting of your weapons to light doesn't also take away your ability to reach vital areas. That would be mentioned. The reason rogues can deal more damage with a dagger than a fighter or wizard is because the rogue has the class ability sneak attack. There are obvious lines of effect in dnd. A creature being suddenly immune to criticals would be mentioned. So reach is not an issue. Since you are visually undetectable, the creature cannot react to you. It is denied its dex even though its dex does not apply to its ac. Since you can see you can find vital areas. There are more than two points of reference. For example you are likely no more than 10 feet from the creatures mouth because upon escaping from the grapple you are in its mouth. Logistically this means you crawled back into its mouth. Well in 1 round you cannot crawl more than 10 feet or so. If you have only gone that far you surely know where you are and where to strike. So RAW side with me. Common sense sides with me. Only you guys do not side with me but that isn't my problem. It has been said before, my convincing or not convincing you guys does not change anything for me. So if you want, you can create a special feat for monsters with swallow whole so they can detect monsters inside them because otherwise they have no way to do it normally. Otherwise do whatever you want.
Sucineri 10-24-04, 07:39 PM	Swallow whole does not deny a dex mod. If the inside of a creature was flanked then it would have mentioned it. Sure..being invisible (visually..like you are mentioning) would mean someone gets denied their dex bonus. Yet in swallow whole it does not say the creature loses it's dex bonus. Which means that it doesn't matter how visible you are or not, it is not denied it's dex bonus..therefor no sneak attack. You can argue your point all you want..but RAW is on my side, not yours..I am sorry, but that's the fact here. If visibility was a factor then it would have mentioned it..OR it would have mentioned being denied it's dex bonus and it doesn't.
thepuregamer 10-24-04, 10:27 PM	You are a fool sucineri, visibility is always a factor. If he cannot see you he cannot react to you. Just because his dex isn't part of the ac inside of the stomach doesn't mean it cannot be denied for the purposes of sneak attack. RAW, I have all the support I need. You have nothing.
Sucineri 10-24-04, 11:05 PM	You don't even understand the concept of RAW. You look at Sneak Attack and then Swallow Whole. You see what constitutes a Sneak Attack by the rules and you get that info..if there is further info suggested then go ahead and look at that. Then you see the definition of Swallow Whole and all the modifiers and all that stuff that happen. If it says in Swallow Whole that there is no denied bonus to Dex that means there is no denied bonus to Dex. Which means no sneak attack. If sneak attack says that you can be invisible and sneak attack that is fine..but then you read swallow whole and it says it doesn't lose the dex bonus..which means that invisibility is not a factor. Don't call me a fool..I know how to read these type things perfectly well. You just like to interpret them wrong. The information in Swallow Whole tells you basically ALL that affects it during Swallow Whole..and if it doesn't say there is a denied dex, then being invisible doesn't deny it's dex because being invisible is already part of the equation.
thepuregamer 10-25-04, 01:14 AM	If it says in Swallow Whole that there is no denied bonus to Dex that means there is no denied bonus to Dex. Which means no sneak attack. If sneak attack says that you can be invisible and sneak attack that is fine..but then you read swallow whole and it says it doesn't lose the dex bonus..which means that invisibility is not a factor. Oh please show me where it says, "doesn't lose dex bonus" because I see nothing that says anything remotely like that. I do see something that appears like this though. "The Armor Class of the interior of a creature that swallows whole is normally 10+ 1/2 its natural armor bonus, with no modifiers for size or dexterity." This is all it says sucineri. You are the one misinterpreting things. It never says , the creature is not denied its dex bonus. It just says that the dex bonus is not applied to the AC. But as I have said before, it need not have a dex mod to ac to be denied its dex bonus. I have shown how its dex bonus is lost. Quite accurately. That is why I said you have nothing.
billboyjones 10-25-04, 04:32 AM	I seriously cannot believe that this has gone on for 6 pages. I mean good god! It seems to me that there are some power gaming twinks that just can't let go of the wet dream of continual sneak attacks. YOU CAN'T DO IT. MOVE ON. STOP TRYING TO EXPLOIT SWALLOW WHOLE.
thepuregamer 10-25-04, 12:54 PM	Woah billy bob thorton or whoever you are. If you don't like message boards, don't goto them. I am here to post. And I actually have all the proof I need so I don't see the point of your attack. And don't be calling me a power gamer because I think the real munchkins would be insulted. I just like to abuse alittle power but I have no plan on using this little trick if that is what you mean. I am just saying it is possible if you wanted to use it. Anyway you need some valium or maybe some fiber would help you out because something is stuck up your... well that would be rude.
CruelDM 10-25-04, 01:40 PM	There are 2 conditions that specifically grant the opportunity for a sneak attack to a rogue in the PH. The first is denial of Dex to AC, the second is flanking. We can rule out flanking in this situation, we can rule out denial of Dex to AC also as the inside of the beast is not denied a Dex modifier, it simply doesnt have one. There are quite a few conditions in the sneak attack description that negate the sneak attack even when the conditions that grant it are in effect. One says the rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital area. This can be argued while inside the creature, but either way, if the rogue doesnt have means to see then the sneak attack is not allowed. If he does have some way to see in the darkened belly then the question becomes can he see well enough to identify vital areas? Probably not. Another stipulation of a sneak attack is that the rogue must be able to reach a vital area, so even if he flanks or the target is denied Dex to AC, if he cannot reach a vital area then he gets no sneak attack. The fact that anyone inside a creature has very limited movement and restricted weapon choices doesnt go very far towards helping out the debate that he could reach a vital area. Regardless of the rules arguments I think its pretty clear that the rules did not intend for it to be a beneficial condition to anyone if swallowed whole. To think that the spirit of the rules was to give sneak attack benefits to a rogue flies in the face of common sense, especially when the rogue probably couldnt have gotten a sneak attack on a creature large enough to swallow him in the first place.
billboyjones 10-25-04, 03:50 PM	Hmm...that may not have come out *quite* like I intended. To respond, I like message boards just fine. I go to several of them devoted to a wide range of topics and issues. I just hate seeing a topic where page after page is the same baseless argument over and over again. It gets really annoying after 4+ pages. Being swallowed hole is not a sneak attack wonderland. The creature is not denied the dexterity bonus. Granted, the dexterity bonus isn't factored into the stomach AC, but this doesn't mean that the creature is denied it's bonus. Merely that the bonus is not calculated because there's no manuevering to be done. It's not a denial, merely a 'not applicable'. Even you yourself said that the RAW doesn't say that the dexterity bonus is denied. Granted, you also said that it doesn't say that it's NOT denied. However, if it's not directly stated as denying the dexterity bonus of the creature, that means it's implied that you go with the default (ie dexterity bonus = not denied/no sneak attack).
thepuregamer 10-25-04, 09:51 PM	There are 2 conditions that specifically grant the opportunity for a sneak attack to a rogue in the PH. The first is denial of Dex to AC, the second is flanking. We can rule out flanking in this situation, we can rule out denial of Dex to AC also as the inside of the beast is not denied a Dex modifier, it simply doesnt have one. Another stipulation of a sneak attack is that the rogue must be able to reach a vital area, so even if he flanks or the target is denied Dex to AC, if he cannot reach a vital area then he gets no sneak attack. The fact that anyone inside a creature has very limited movement and restricted weapon choices doesnt go very far towards helping out the debate that he could reach a vital area. Regardless of the rules arguments I think its pretty clear that the rules did not intend for it to be a beneficial condition to anyone if swallowed whole. To think that the spirit of the rules was to give sneak attack benefits to a rogue flies in the face of common sense, especially when the rogue probably couldnt have gotten a sneak attack on a creature large enough to swallow him in the first place. First, not having a dex modifier does not mean you cannot be denied your dex. In the case of the stomach, not having a dex modifier just effects the creatures armor class. Being denied your dex for other purposes can still happen. This is the quote that backs this interpretation. "The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not)" It says the rogue deals extra damage anytime the target "would" be denied a dex bonus. It also says that the targets having an actual dex bonus does not change this. Well the targets ac has no dex bonus but that means nothing if the target is denied its dex bonus because of any of the usual circumstances. I have shown those circumstances to exist. The one no one can contest is that you are visually undetectable to the creature making you invisible to it. So it loses its dex bonus to you. On the issue of being able to see the vital area, it is slightly less obvious. I say that since you cannot be more than 10 feet from the origin of this mishap(its mouth), you have an very clear understanding of where you are. The point about being 10 feet away has to do with the fact that you re-enter the creatures mouth if you escape the grapple. So that is where that number comes from. So seeing well enough to find vital areas is not a problem. Reaching the vital areas is also not an issue because criticals are allowed inside the creature. What is a critical? Well it is a vital strike. If you can by luck make a vital strike then a rogue can surely reach said vital area. Reach is thus also not an issue. So, denial of dex, seeing the vital area, and striking the vital area are all possible making sneak attack also possible. On this issue of what the rules intend, it is not so clear actually. I think the rules intend to give creatures with swallow whole the ability to greatly enhance their fighting potential. Not the defense potential. So if they swallow a creature they can basically continue dealing damage to that creature and fight the other enemies as they would normally. That is the feel and intent of the ability. Anything more is called overinterpreting the special ability. Sorry billy but I do not know how to quote a second time in a post so I will just cut and paste part of your reply. "Being swallowed hole is not a sneak attack wonderland. The creature is not denied the dexterity bonus. Granted, the dexterity bonus isn't factored into the stomach AC, but this doesn't mean that the creature is denied it's bonus. Merely that the bonus is not calculated because there's no manuevering to be done. It's not a denial, merely a 'not applicable'." Now the idea of swallowed whole is that it is not targeting any specific character type. It doesn't say, you can only swallow wizards or fighters. It is meant to be used on everything. So the idea of it specifically targeting sneak attacks is silly. On the latter part of the paragraph I agree mostly. The denial of the creatures dex is not caused by it not being applied to the ac. But for other reasons which are always a factor in whether dex is kept or not. I have never once stated that its not being applied means denied. That is what you guys have said that I said. You being visually undetectable to the creature is what denies them their ac. I feel repetitive but it doesn't seem that anyone notices when I say this. This applies to everyone on this thread. Read the last few sentences. Several times if needed. This is my arguement.
Sucineri 10-25-04, 11:02 PM	Undead can't be denied their con bonus because they don't have one. Creature (keep in mind, I am pulling numbers out of my arse here) 19 Str, 25 Dex, 37 Con, 12 Int, 1 Wis, 53 Cha Stomach 19 Str, - Dex, 37 Con, 12 Int, 1 Wis, 53 Cha Can't deny dex..just doesn't exist..like you can't affect Undead by con-based spells.
Cindre2000 10-25-04, 11:49 PM	Why, why, why did this thread go on so long. Ok first of all. The stomach has no dex modifier. It does have a dex score or you could not get crushing damage (well you could but that is not the same). Second, since the stomach has no real defensive mechanisms (at least from attacks) besides natural armor and no eyes, it is denied it's dex bonus; which is +0. So far according to RAW sneak attack will work. Now is the fun part the pure gamer. We now are forced to move beyond the RAW (ahhh scary).... What makes you think that your rogue, who has to be able to see in order to sneak attack (RAW), can reach the vital area? They are in a mostly featureless organ. If they can see, they might be able to see the entrance and exit. Now they have to cut through the stomach lining with a light weapon and reach blindly into the hole and hope that they strike a lung, heart, or major artery. Tell me where it is explicity stated in RAW that a rogue can do this???? I do not want- "Since he can crawl out, he can find the heart". That is not rules on sneak attacks in the stomach, that is rules for escaping. hmmm???? Remember if you go only by RAW, then the game is less fun. Play by what the rules are supposed to support not what they explicity say.
BooMittwoch 10-25-04, 11:55 PM	I love this game, but six pages of this it nuts. It's a good thing I only read one page. I'll keep my sanity. I have the SOLUTION!! Actually, two. One, you could flip a coin. That's easy enough. Two, if it's that important, contact Wizards of the Coast. Or you can argue, if it's more fun. Either way, I'll never look at this thread again :)
Sucineri 10-26-04, 03:56 AM	I already did contact WotC and they said it wasn't possible. There was some kind of an article that specifically mentioned this situation and said it couldn't work. But he will not go with that because for one..WotC has been known from time to time to get their wires crossed..AND because the article that mentioned it was in version 3.0 and heaven forbid..if they don't resay it for 3.5 it MUST be wrong. And damnit..it would specifically state that the creature would have lost its dex bonus if it were the case and it is not..it just says you dont count the dex modifier, doesn't say you LOSE the dex modifier..just says that you dont count it. This is what it keeps coming down to..I am going specifically by the RAW and he says he is going by the RAW by making stuff up. Such as by saying that since you can escape a grapple and come out of the mouth..that specifically means you can sneak attack since you know where you are when swallowed..and it does not say that ANYWHERE in the book..which means that is NOT the freaking RAW! I am finished with this damn thread now! There isn't anything else I can say to change his mind because he is stubborn..and I don't mind being wrong..seriously..I have been wrong before..but he has not given me one shred of evidence supporting his claim that everything he says is what the RAW is.
billboyjones 10-26-04, 10:31 AM	Okay puregamer, Since you simply will not give up on the idea, it's time to lay your theory to rest once and for all. I tried explaining it to you before (as have others), but since I didn't have the time to quote the rules, I didn't present my case as strongly as I should have. So, now that I've got the time to quote the book, here it comes. Fair enough? Good. Here goes: You're insisting that a character who has been swallowed whole can sneak attack the creature who swallowed it because it's Dexterity bonus is not included in the AC for its stomach. To disprove this theory, I'm going to take the long approach. First and foremost, let's look at the sneak attack ability. It states: The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. So, in order for your theory to be true, being swallowed whole must either: [A] deny the swallowing creature its Dex bonus, or [B] cause the swallowing creature to be flanked by the rogue Clearly, option b is out. This leaves A, which is the option that you've backed - that a creature that swallows a character whole is denied its Dexterity bonus against that character. Thus it becomes prudent to look at what things deny Dexterity bonus. This takes us to the "Combat Modifiers" section. I would quote the SRD here, but it's a table, so it gets screwed up without proper formatting. So, you'll have to excuse my lack of a quote and bear with me explaining it out. According to the Combat Modifiers tables, a character/creature loses its Dexterity bonus if: [A] The attacker (in this case the swallowed character) is invisible. [B] The defender (in this case, the swallowing creature) is blinded. [C] The defender (in this case, the swallowing creature) is cowering. [D] The defender (in this case, the swallowing creature) is flat-footed. [E] The defender (in this case, the swallowing creature) is grappling with the attacker (in this case the swallowed character) not grappling. [F] The defender (in this case, the swallowing creature) is stunned. Those are the only things according to the RAW which denies a Dexterity bonus. So, if one of more of these is true in the case of being swallowed whole, then you would be correct. However, if none of them are true, then you would be incorrect. So, let's go over each one in turn and examine them in close detail. [A] Obviously, the character doesn't become invisible when swallowed whole. Still, just to be thorough, let's quote the SRD on the matter. Of invisibility, the SRD says: Invisible: Visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents’ Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). (See Invisibility, under Special Abilities.) Now, being swallowed whole would make the character undectectable by vision to the creature. However, that is not a stipulation of invisibility. It says undetectable by vision. Not undetectable by vision because the character is not currently seen. So that rules A out. [B] The creature has not been blinded by swallowing the character. Of being blinded or blind, the SRD says: Blinded: The character cannot see. He takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), moves at half speed, and takes a –4 penalty on Search checks and on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Spot checks) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) to the blinded character. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them. Clearly this is not the case. The creature can still see just fine. So that rules B out. [C] The creature is not cowered because it swallowed the character. Regarding cowering or being cowered, the SRD writes: Cowering: The character is frozen in fear and can take no actions. A cowering character takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class and loses her Dexterity bonus (if any). As with A and B, this is not the case, so C is out too. [D] The creature is not flat-footed from having swallowed the character. The SRD says of flat-footedness: Flat-Footed: A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, not yet reacting normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity. If the creature swallowed the character (an action), it has clearly acted and is not flat-footed. Scratch D off the list. [E] Now here is where it will get a bit tricky if you're not careful. In order for this to be true, the monster would have to be grappling, with the character not grappling. So, let's take this a step at a time here. Firstly, in order to swallow a character whole, the creature needs to conduct a two-step process. It needs to first establish a hold on the character with the Improved Grab monster ability, and then swallow the character whole. So first up, let's take a look at Improved Grab: Improved Grab (Ex): If a creature with this special attack hits with a melee weapon (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. No initial touch attack is required. Unless otherwise noted, improved grab works only against opponents at least one size category smaller than the creature. The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the improved grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on grapple checks, but is not considered grappled itself; the creature does not lose its Dexterity bonus to AC, still threatens an area, and can use its remaining attacks against other opponents. A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature’s descriptive text). When a creature gets a hold after an improved grab attack, it pulls the opponent into its space. This act does not provoke attacks of opportunity. It can even move (possibly carrying away the opponent), provided it can drag the opponent’s weight. Now, initially this seems to support your theory because the creature initiates a grapple check. However, the creature isn't grappling the character, it's establishing a hold so that it can use the Swallow Whole ability. Reading back over the description, we see that a creature establishing a hold is not considered grappling. So that would rule that out. However, just for completeness, let's look at Swallow Hole: Swallow Whole (Ex): If a creature with this special attack begins its turn with an opponent held in its mouth (see Improved Grab), it can attempt a new grapple check (as though attempting to pin the opponent). If it succeeds, it swallows its prey, and the opponent takes bite damage. Unless otherwise noted, the opponent can be up to one size category smaller than the swallowing creature. Being swallowed has various consequences, depending on the creature doing the swallowing. A swallowed creature is considered to be grappled, while the creature that did the swallowing is not. A swallowed creature can try to cut its way free with any light slashing or piercing weapon (the amount of cutting damage required to get free is noted in the creature description), or it can just try to escape the grapple. The Armor Class of the interior of a creature that swallows whole is normally 10 + 1/2 its natural armor bonus, with no modifiers for size or Dexterity. If the swallowed creature escapes the grapple, success puts it back in the attacker’s mouth, where it may be bitten or swallowed again. Please note up front in the first sentence that it stipulates the character being 'held'. Meaning that the creature used the second option of Improved Grab and thus (once again) is not considered to be grappling. Still, if we read the rest of the monster ability, we see that a swallowed character is considered to be grappled. This thoroughly rules E out of the picture as for E to be true, the creature needed to be grappling (which is not the case) and the character needed to not be grappling (the character is considered grappled). So, not only scratch E off the list, but tear it up into tiny peices. [F] Finally, the creature that swallowed the character is not considered stunned. The SRD defines stunned as: Stunned: A stunned creature drops everything held, can’t take actions, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). We can see that obviously the creature is not stunned from swallowing the character whole. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, I've looked at and evaluated EVERY method by which a creature would be denied its Dexterity bonus according to the rules - which I've quoted. NONE fit the bill for Swallow Whole. The Dexterity bonus is NOT denied, and thus the swallowed character can NOT make sneak attacks. Period. I find (and hopefully have proven once and for all) that your theory is incorrect. ((thanks all for reading this all the way through))
thepuregamer 10-26-04, 10:33 AM	Sucineri, you are overinterpreting that line of swallow whole. It does not say that the creature no longer has a dex score. Undead do not have a con score. This is the difference. All It says is that the creature no longer has a dex mod added to his ac. It also says that there is no longer a size modifier added to his ac. does that mean the creature is no longer way bigger than you? No. It also does not need to mention that the dex modifier is denied because the reason it is denied is because of combat rules in the phb. If you look at improved grab, they specifically state that the creature is not denied its dex bonus. If they did not need to state it as you say, then why mention it for another special ability? They mention it with improved grab because they are bending the usual combat rules. Here they make no such statement. So if the creature is denied its dex because of things listed in the combat section of the phb, then it is denied its dex. The dex mod does not factor in to its ac, but that does not mean it cannot be denied its dex. Cindre, you are mostly right about the seeing and reaching part. I am saying that if they know where they are in the monster, then they know where to strike to hit an organ. I do not state a specific organ because we are argueing generalities. It could be an artery that he hits but the fact remains, that the rogue knows where all these creatures vital areas are. If he did not know where they are, it would not matter if he was inside the creature or not. I claim that he knows where he is because he is not far at all from the creatures mouth. So there is no confusion on that part. Furthermore, it is not like a rogue has ever needed to specifically see the vital area to hit it. He knows that the heart is hidden in the chest. Anyway, for reach, I just say that if criticals are possible(and there is nothing that says they are not), then reach is not an issue. edit: Just noticed billy's post. Well you are doing what sucineri was doing, overinterpreting things. It does not say how the invisible person is invisible. It just says that being invisible is being visually undetectable. This is a clear case that nothing they do will make your character visually detectable to them. So you have not shot anything down.
billboyjones 10-26-04, 10:42 AM	edit: Just noticed billy's post. Well you are doing what sucineri was doing, overinterpreting things. It does not say how the invisible person is invisible. It just says that being invisible is being visually undetectable. This is a clear case that nothing they do will make your character visually detectable to them. So you have not shot anything down. I've shot everything down. You're trying to redefine invisibility. Hiding in the woods doesn't make you invisible. It makes you not seen. You can still be detected by vision if someone spots you. The same thing goes here. Invisibility is a specific condition in the rules and being swallowed does NOT make you invisible.
thepuregamer 10-26-04, 10:48 AM	Hiding in the woods is not visually undetectable. It is visually undetected. Meaning they could have seen you but did not. Being inside a creatures stomach, is visually undetectable because their is nothing the creature can do to see you. Visually undetectable. The game has a glossary for a purpose. They do not say that it is only a case of magically being visually undetectable. It only says visually undetectable. Man I feel silly. I keep repeating those 2 words. Anyway, that is the rub. Take it or leave it.
billboyjones 10-26-04, 10:53 AM	Hiding in the woods is not visually undetectable. It is visually undetected. Meaning they could have seen you but did not. Being inside a creatures stomach, is visually undetectable because their is nothing the creature can do to see you. Visually undetectable. Bull. That creature could rip its own stomach open and see you just fine (it won't, but it could). Hiding inside its stomach is no different than hiding behind a tree. You aren't seen because it's vision is obstructed. That does not make you visually undetectable.
thepuregamer 10-26-04, 10:59 AM	Well a creature that has invisibility cast on it could be seen with a true seeing spell or in the area of an anti-magic spell. There are conditions that undo invisibility. But invisibility is being undetectable to normal vision. Ripping his stomach open is not a part of his normal vision. I could also say that if the creature had x-ray vision in some magical form, he could see you as well. But with his light dependent vision, he cannot see through his stomach and that makes you invisible to him.
billboyjones 10-26-04, 11:02 AM	So, according to you, if your character drapped a sheet over his head, he'd be invisible.. I mean, after all, a monster would need x-ray vision to see you under there. Seriously though, invisibility is a specific thing, and there are specific things that counteract it. If a creature rips his own stomach open to see you, he's not changing his mode of vision, he's merely removing the thing that's blocking his normal sight of you. The same as if he came around the other side of the tree you were hiding behind. In this case, removing the thing blocking his vision is a bit more gruesome and painful.
CruelDM 10-26-04, 11:03 AM	A rogue swallowed whole has no way to determine his exact location. He may know he is close to the mouth, he may also know which way is up (arguable) but there is no way for him to know which way he is facing (front of creature, rear or either side), so in effect, he is lost. This is all assuming he can see at all. What, did the last swallowed rogue leave an anatomy map drawn in charcoal on the stomach wall for him to refer to? Of course not, assuming the rogue has any clue as to his actual location is ridiculous. He may know vaguely where he is, but certainly cannot determine where something might be (vital area) that he cannot see. Any organ outside the stomach/gullet has total cover or at least concealment, which, by the RAW would either deny the rogue the attack all together or at best give him a 50% miss chance.
thepuregamer 10-26-04, 11:12 AM	I'm sorry but if invisibility were just the spell invisibility or spell-like effects, then it would not need to be defined in the glossary. The fact remains that they do not define all the other spells in the glossary. The do not define all the other spell's effects in the glossary. Meaning exactly what it means. Cruel DM, the rogue is not lost at all. If he is only a very short distance into the creature then the entrance is still very visible. Seeing the entrance, which leads out and faces out means that the rogue knows exactly where he is. In order for you to be right you have to assume the rogue cannot see at all. The ability swallow whole never once hints at vision being limited. And like I said before, if you were right about organs, they would always have total concealment. The fact remains that his attack roll is against the creature. Creatures get concealment. Not parts of creatures.
billboyjones 10-26-04, 11:18 AM	I'm sorry but if invisibility were just the spell invisibility or spell-like effects, then it would not need to be defined in the glossary. The fact remains that they do not define all the other spells in the glossary. The do not define all the other spell's effects in the glossary. Meaning exactly what it means. They're not defining "Invisibility" the spell. They are defining what "invisibility" means. "Invisibility" the spell causes "invisibility". In order to use the "Invisibility" spell, you need to know what "invisibility" is with respects to game mechanics. That's why if you look at that glossary, "invisibility" is defined under "invisibility" and not "Invisibility". "Invisibility" is a spell, "invisibility" is not - it's a game mechanic.
CruelDM 10-26-04, 11:47 AM	if you were right about organs, they would always have total concealment. The fact remains that his attack roll is against the creature. Creatures get concealment. Not parts of creatures. You are actually mistaken as this is a special case. The attack from inside a creature is not against the creature but against its innards, hence the formula for determining its AC. If what you propose is true the innards would use the creatures AC. In this instance parts get concealment not the creature. You also seem to assume that the rogue has X-ray vision if you truly allow him to target vital organs he cannot see. Just because using your logic allows him to see out does not mean he can see in. Seeing out in no way implies he could see anything but out, seeing out doesnt allow him to see the heart or kidney, or even know exactly where these organs are in relation to his position and the exit.
billboyjones 10-26-04, 11:53 AM	I don't get why you guys are still arguing what the rogue can see or can't see. He can't sneak attack from inside because the creature doesn't lose its Dex bonus. Period.
Cindre2000 10-26-04, 01:42 PM	billboyjones it is true, the idea has been shot down by several people. However thepuregamer just does not want to believe it. :bored: :bigeyes: thepuregamer: I have already acknowlaged that you can stretch the RAW to cause the stomach to lose its dex bonus. Thus allowing a rogue to "possibly" sneak attack. Now I ask again, tell me how the rogue it going to reach/see the vital spot? Yes he has to see the vital spot, that is why concealment prevents sneak attack. He does not necessarally need to see the artery or lung or heart that he is stabbing. However he has to know where to stab. These is easy when you are outside a creature with a normal anatomy. You just have to reach the spot. It becomes very, very, very different when you are inside. It is like putting a "rogue" in a empty room with whitewashed walls and a enterance and a exit. Then you tell him- stab the vital area. He has to cut through the "wall" hopeing that he is aiming right. And all the time the "room" is crushing him, so it is more like being in a undulating sleeping bag. Now where in the RAW is this written. Since it is against the spirit of the rules.
billboyjones 10-26-04, 02:55 PM	billboyjones it is true, the idea has been shot down by several people. Actually (if I may play devil's advocate for a minute :D ), I can see ways that would potentially work. For example, one of the conditions that causes a creature to lose its Dexterity bonus is to be blinded. So, if the party's rogue was swallowed whole by a creature, and then that creature was subsequently blinded by another party member, technically, I think that an 'interrior sneak attack' would be within the confines of the RAW (the rogue can make attacks from inside, and the creature is denied its Dex bonus). As far as I can find, there's nothing that really covers this sort of contingency. In such a case, you get back to the visibility issues I think. Whether or not a rogue knows which way is what and all that. In the end, I think most DM's would make the rogue succeed at the grapple check to get out of the stomach and back to the mouth. From there, a 'sneak attack' into the brain (sword through the top inside of the mouth) would certainly be possible - and painful too! Still, if you think about it, if a grapple check gets the person out of the stomach and back to the mouth, theoretically, that implies that the rogue (or any character really) does have some indication as to what is where. Thus lending a touch of credibility to the previous arguments about being able to find vital spots while inside. Not trying to murky the waters by any means, but the possibility is out there I think.
thepuregamer 10-26-04, 02:58 PM	Actually, nothing has been shot down. Your idea of concealment is entirely incorrect. Parts of a creature do not get concealment. Your target no matter what is the creature. Swallow whole tells us the armor class for the interior of the creature. You are not directly attacking said vital areas. The attack roll is to beat the armor class. Concealment does not exist in this situation. Anyway, I have already given all that is needed to show that the rogue can sneak attack. Repeating it would be a waste of time. If you don't think it is enough, then that is fine. As I have said before, I do not feel the need to convince you people. I have all the information I need. By the way billy, text overrides tables. So your earlier post with all the examples doesn't matter. as for seeing. I have 3 points of reference. I have the entrence, the exit, and the rogues position. 3 points of reference is enough to show where one is mathematically. So vision is not a problem. Reach is not a problem because crits are still allowed. And the rogue meets the definition for invisibility as well as the quote, if the target can't react to a blow, it is denied its dex bonus. So I am done with this thread because the same things have been said and resaid and even I don't have this much free time to be wasting it all the time on this. So play it as you wish and so will I.
billboyjones 10-26-04, 03:04 PM	LOL, OMG guy you never learn. I mean honestly come on, know when you have lost. You have not done anything. You're sitting there talking about three points of reference for the character to know where things are, but that doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the rules. I mean damn nothing. Quote the SRD on it, please... :rofl: You also have no idea how to read the rules if you think that being inside the creature's stomach makes the character invisible. That's just plain dumb. Here I am trying to make your wet dream a reality for you (see my previous post) and you go and post this garbage. Long story short, the technique is theoretically possible (DM dependant too I think), but not in the way that you're trying to do it. You need to stop worrying so much about mathematics, and start worrying about following the rules of the game. EDIT: Also, my other post about the various things that make a creature lose it's Dexterity bonus is valid. The tables are there for a reason. You show me text that overrides what I said, and I'll acknowledge it. But since there isn't, I'm not worried. Your problem is that you want this interior sneak attack so badly that you're willing to forgoe all rules and run off your own half-baked ideas to get it. Play it like that if you want to, just know that you're doing it dead wrong.
thepuregamer 10-26-04, 04:39 PM	Do note that the srd is d20 not core dnd 3.5. You have shown nothing. Invisibility is defined in the glossary. Conditions for invisibility have been shown to be met. Like I said previously, I actually no nothing invested in this working. I do not plan on using it anytime soon. I was just proving a point. Text that overrides what you said hmmm? Ok how about the line that says, " if a creature can't react to a blow, it is denied its dex." That contradicts your table. Not completely but it shows that there are other examples that the table does not account for. I have an in table example and off table examples. I have not misread the rules. But since none of us are saying new things here. I will spend my efforts elsewhere. By the way, being able to tell where you are is never mentioned in the books, so basically you would need to look to what normally is required to see in 3 dimensions. That would be 3 directions. On graphs it is x,y, and z. To be able to tell where you are in the creature, you need 3 points of reference. So you should stop posting garbage as well as you wet dreams. I do not need to hear about that on a dnd forum. The inside of your mind is embarrassing to see. Ta ta for now.
Gamebird 10-26-04, 05:00 PM	Puregamer AGAIN, why are you treating the stomach's sneak-attack-ability as different from that of the monster? If the monster is not flanked by you and the monster has not been denied it's DEX bonus, then you can't sneak attack. Neither of these conditions exist for Swallow Whole. Instead, the portion of the monster you have access to does not have a DEX modifier. This is different than DENIED a DEX bonus. It is different from being flanked.
Gamebird 10-26-04, 05:04 PM	Ok how about the line that says, " if a creature can't react to a blow, it is denied its dex." And you have in no way shown that a monster's stomach can not react to a blow. I think it can. You haven't proven otherwise with the RAW. As far as that goes, I'll restate what someone said back on page 2 or so, which is that the RAW does not say that a swallowed person can't see the entire battlefield or be seen by everyone on said battlefield. No where does it say that anyone loses visual sight of you when you are swallowed. No where does it say that a cleric can't come over and touch you for a heal spell while you are swallowed. Common sense says something different, but common sense also tells me you can't sneak attack in the stomach. Since we're talking about the RAW, we might as well pay attention to what the RAW says and doesn't say. And in that vein, the RAW doesn't say a monster can't see you perfectly well while you're in its stomach and it doesn't say the monster or the monster's stomach can't react to your blows.
CruelDM 10-26-04, 05:19 PM	The 3 points to determine location smokescreen dissipates also, there is only one point of reference, if any, and that would be the exit if you believe he can see it to begin with. Technically, regarding the invisibility issue, if the rogue is invisible, so is the creature to the rogue.But with his light dependent vision, he cannot see through his stomach and that makes you invisible to him. If the rogue cannot see the now (according to your own definition) invisible creature then he cannot sneak attack it.
Sucineri 10-26-04, 05:33 PM	Had to jump in to throw in a stupid argument just to fan the flames a bit. You say that being inside a creature makes you totally invisible..okay..then swallow 2 creatures with darkvision. They can see eachother..so the invisibility thing no longer works. You are saying totally invisible here..that NOBODY can see the rogue..but if someone else is swallowed and can see the rogue then there is no longer any invisibility. As far as not reaching to blows..are you kidding me? Have you ever been punched in the stomach? You can tighted your stomach and 'react to the blow'. People are known to do belly rolls..that's having your stomach react. When a hot chick crosses by..you might suck in your gut..that's having your stomach react. Even right now I can have it so my belly just above my bellybutton is sucked in and nothing else is affected. I can also have it so just the area under my bellybutton is sucked in. If that's not being able to control or 'react' with your stomach then you my friend are an idiot.
billboyjones 10-27-04, 05:17 AM	The bottom line is the you have no basis from the SRD or the Core D&D rules puregamer. Your entire argument is stretching, and trying to redefine terms that are explicity laid out in the glossary. You are wrong on this matter. Get over it.