Ok the other day I was playing a fighter that got swallowed by a purple worm. As I was trying to figure out how to cut my way out (with only enough HP left to live about one round), I rolled my to hit with my mighty piton (I didn't even have a dagger handy, foolish me) the DM asks "you're human right?"
"yes"
"So you have a 50% miss chance since you can't see"
I didn't bother arguing since it was PFS and I didn't want to waste time, but I was and am of the opinion that has has to be one of the strangest, and dumbest GM adjudications I've ever heard of.
The character was in the belly of a giant worm. How the hell could he possibly miss? Not like he could swing at empty air when you are being pressed in on all sides by stomach walls.
While it shouldn't matter my condition at the time, but still I was a round from being unconscious and the GM pulls some asinine rule call? I really have to wonder what the hell was going on in his head.
So, now that I've ranted, do you think it was a valid call or strange application of rule?
Dumb. What do you need to see to cut your way out? I'd think that opening your eyes while bathing in digestive acid is probably a worse idea.
I dont' think you should have been penalized for sight, The PDR says
Swallow Whole (Ex) If a creature with this special attack begins its turn with an opponent grappled in its mouth (see Grab), it can attempt a new combat maneuver 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 causes a creature to take damage each round. The amount and type of damage varies and is given in the creature's statistics. A swallowed creature keeps the grappled condition, while the creature that did the swallowing does 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 equal to 1/10 the creature's total hit points), 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 a swallowed creature cuts its way out, the swallowing creature cannot use swallow whole again until the damage is healed. If the swallowed creature escapes the grapple, success puts it back in the attacker's mouth, where it may be bitten or swallowed again.
I rule it as not being able to strike effectively 50% of the time. So I consider it valid.
So let me ask this, if I happened to be a dwarf with darkvision, would I have not suffered the penalty? (the GM certainly gave that impression)
Or better yet, why not have me make a bloody healing check so I can determine the internal anatomy of the worm so I will know which way to cut to get out?
If there is a possibility of not striking effectively, how exactly can you assume any given shot is effective? How can you really assign a probability to that? You just assume that in half the cases you are cutting in the wrong direction as opposed to towards the outside of the beast?
So let me ask this, if I happened to be a dwarf with darkvision, would I have not suffered the penalty? (the GM certainly gave that impression)
-Yes. You're getting a miss chance because you were in the dark, and can't see. A dwarf or a half orc would have been able to see. you would have been able to see if you'd had a continual flame rock on your person as well.
Or better yet, why not have me make a bloody healing check so I can determine the internal anatomy of the worm so I will know which way to cut to get out?
-Because the heal check is no good if you can't see.
If there is a possibility of not striking effectively, how exactly can you assume any given shot is effective?
-... you dont? The interior wall has an armor class, so it can be missed. The 50% miss chance isn't just from missing the wall, you can cut a part that only leads you deeper inside, or you can hit a rock that it has in its crop, or you could hit the helmet from the last adventurer that was in there. Its a little nutty, but it is the rules.
How can you really assign a probability to that? You just assume that in half the cases you are cutting in the wrong direction as opposed to towards the outside of the beast?
-He didn't assign a probability to it, the darkness rules did.
|
So let me ask this, if I happened to be a dwarf with darkvision, would I have not suffered the penalty? (the GM certainly gave that impression)
Or better yet, why not have me make a bloody healing check so I can determine the internal anatomy of the worm so I will know which way to cut to get out?
If there is a possibility of not striking effectively, how exactly can you assume any given shot is effective? How can you really assign a probability to that? You just assume that in half the cases you are cutting in the wrong direction as opposed to towards the outside of the beast?
1. Yes, darkvision lets you see where you're striking, negating the attacks that are ineffectively used.
2. What good is a healing check going to do if you can't strike effectively?
3. It's a fifty/fifty chance of your strike being able to hit the AC. I don't assume half the cases fail, I let the dice decide.
I've never imposed a miss chance due to concealment (darkness) on a swallowed whole PC. I suppose from the arguments I've seen here that it is arguable from a rules standpoint, if your favorite flavor of cheese is "asinine."
To my mind, the only reason you roll in this situation is to see if you penetrate tissue. Not because you might miss (remember, the rule states the creature cannot apply it's Dex mod to the AC).
Missing is not an issue, therefore, neither should be a miss chance.
So let me ask this, if I happened to be a dwarf with darkvision, would I have not suffered the penalty? (the GM certainly gave that impression)
-Yes. You're getting a miss chance because you were in the dark, and can't see. A dwarf or a half orc would have been able to see. you would have been able to see if you'd had a continual flame rock on your person as well.
Ok, then how does the Half Orc or Dwarf happen to know in which direction to cut? Is there a sign in there with instructions for those with darkvision?
I mean how puerile does this have to be?
Again, you are surrounded my tissue on all sides. You are in the center of the critter. All directions lead out.
How exactly do I manage to:
A) miss
or
B) pick a direction which doesn't lead out?
So let me ask this, if I happened to be a dwarf with darkvision, would I have not suffered the penalty? (the GM certainly gave that impression)
Or better yet, why not have me make a bloody healing check so I can determine the internal anatomy of the worm so I will know which way to cut to get out?
If there is a possibility of not striking effectively, how exactly can you assume any given shot is effective? How can you really assign a probability to that? You just assume that in half the cases you are cutting in the wrong direction as opposed to towards the outside of the beast?
1. Yes, darkvision lets you see where you're striking, negating the attacks that are ineffectively used.
So you would also rule that leaning against a wall, I couldn't hit it in the dark?
2. What good is a healing check going to do if you can't strike effectively?
Evidently you didn't get my point. If there is some potential for ineffective strikes while on the inside of a target (not to mention completely surrounded and in contact), then would not a heal check be required to determine where to strike even if you did have darkvision?
3. It's a fifty/fifty chance of your strike being able to hit the AC. I don't assume half the cases fail, I let the dice decide.
It's idiotic assuming you can't hit something engulfing you on all sides. There are times when a literal reading of the rules defies any shred of common sense. This is one of those.
You did exactly the right thing. Obey the GM during the game, gripe about it after the game.
If it didn't result in a PC death, the game was probably pretty fun, and picking apart the rules at that moment would only have made the game less fun.
I've made rulings like this that I later regretted. Maybe your GM was just trying to keep things moving, and he latched on to the first semi-logical explanation that crossed his mind.
Anyway, GMing overclocks the brain. Always cut the Gm slack, and if it really bothers you, take it up respectfully after the game. (which is what it looks like you did, so kudos!)
If every direction except "up", "down" and "in" (blade towards you) is a valid direction, and better than "here", how can you be cutting in the wrong direction?So let me ask this, if I happened to be a dwarf with darkvision, would I have not suffered the penalty? (the GM certainly gave that impression)
Or better yet, why not have me make a bloody healing check so I can determine the internal anatomy of the worm so I will know which way to cut to get out?
If there is a possibility of not striking effectively, how exactly can you assume any given shot is effective? How can you really assign a probability to that? You just assume that in half the cases you are cutting in the wrong direction as opposed to towards the outside of the beast?
1. Yes, darkvision lets you see where you're striking, negating the attacks that are ineffectively used.
2. What good is a healing check going to do if you can't strike effectively?
3. It's a fifty/fifty chance of your strike being able to hit the AC. I don't assume half the cases fail, I let the dice decide.
Given that any direction but 'in' leads toward freedom, yes, your first strike cannot miss...but after that, you have to strike the same area repeatedly to make any progress; otherwise, you're just causing ulcers. Having seen videos of a stomach in action from the inside, this is not at all easy. I'd even agree with the 50% miss chance...but I would apply it to all races. If the character insisted on opening his or her eyes while in combat with an active stomach lining, I'd ask about acid protection, followed by fortitude saves to avoid blindness (I'd worry about the permanency of the blindness after the fight was over, and we knew whether the adventurer even survived to deal with blindness).
On the other hand, none of that is in the rules, so...definitely a GM thing.
|
|
drbuzzard, in the interest of civility, I'm done with this thread. If you want to discuss something with me in the future, please adjust your tone.
Although I will leave this last thought. If you are being pressed from all sides with no room to spare, how well can you use a knife? The rules are abstract to avoid just this type of argument at the table.
Very Douglas Adams. Will help closing your eyes help when you fall? 50% miss chance. That's how you fly.
how can you be cutting in the wrong direction?
-Cutting out of the craw and going into the stomach or further down the throat is getting out of the frying pan and into the fire.
The AC is what determines whether you hit the right spot or not.
Miss chance means miss chance. There's no chance you miss the target entirely, so there's no miss chance.
This is where smart players put the book down and use their brains. Not the dumbest thing I've ever seen a GM do, but still pretty dumb.
I had a GM once that told me after I nat20ed a listen check at a door, that I didn't hear anything, then when I opened the door I was surprised by a howler. HOWLER. Same GM, different game, had some NPC pirates teleport me to their boat against my will and chop my arm off with no rolls and no save. So take solace in the fact that your GM could be worse.
|
|
This is where smart players put the book down and use their brains. Not the dumbest thing I've ever seen a GM do, but still pretty dumb.
Can we not throw insults at people while we're discussing this please? You could easily have said 'This is where I put the rules down and play it the way I think best.'
The AC is what determines whether you hit the right spot or not.
Miss chance means miss chance. There's no chance you miss the target entirely, so there's no miss chance.
This is where smart players put the book down and use their brains.
For me, that might mean putting the books away and using my feet.
The "Haha, I'm going to screw you over, and if you I think you're getting out, I'm screwing you over some more so I win" thing is a great way to get me to stop playing with you. Of course, just telling me works, too, and makes the GM less of a tosser.
I had a GM once that told me after I nat20ed a listen check at a door, that I didn't hear anything, then when I opened the door I was surprised by a howler. HOWLER.
Well, depends on how silent those critters can be when not actively howling. My Bestiary 2 tells me that they actually have a bonus to stealth, and seem to be capable stalkers.
And don't forget that a natural 20 is not an automatic success with skill checks.
Same GM, different game, had some NPC pirates teleport me to their boat against my will and chop my arm off with no rolls and no save.
That would be almost assuredly an instant out for me.
|
The wall has an AC, you cannot see it, RAW you clearly have a 50% miss chance, and I would say it makes perfect sense that you do. It easy to justify imo, you strike at the wrong angle, you catch your weapons hilt on another bit of engulfing stomach, you thrust blindly in the wrong direction because you have no idea which way is up down or slantways.
I'm not sure where it says that the inside of a creature is dark . . . strictly RAW speaking of course. I mean, who's to say that all those slashes and stabs didn't create nice little openings of light inside the creatures stomach, or that the creature didn't swallow an everburning torch a couple of days ago (assuming it survived the acid), or even that one of the many gems the creatures swallow doesn't reflect the light from the creatures mouth when it opens wide to swallow another adventurer . . .
DMs call since I don't think any of us have been inside a purple worm before. For all we know, the worms stomach lining glows bright pink shedding light everywhere. Fantasy is strange like that.
I have to agree, respectfully, of course, with those who think the 50% miss chance was a bad call.