If a Rogue is Swallowed Whole and is cutting her way out with a Light Piercing or Slashing Weapon, does she get her Sneak Attack Bonus?
Arguments in favor: It seems to me that the creature would have a discernable anatomy--the Rogue is inside it's anatomy! The Swallowing creature would not get its Dex Mod to AC: it's not like you can duck out of the way of something inside you. The Rogue in question has a Feat that is something like the Mouser Underfoot Assault Ability. The creature is Flatfooted while the Rogue is in its square, and if you are in its gizzard, surely you are in its square!
Arguments against: Swallowed Whole is essentially a more extreme version of the Grappled Condition, and maybe the creature is too restrained to attack effectively. Maybe a creature that can swallow you whole is biologically adapted to contain what swallowed it, inside the Froghemoth's gizzard maybe is not a particularly vulnerable spot, and the Rogue choice of targets from the inside might be considered somewhat homogenous.
Interesting. The AC the victim has to hit has no dex modifier, which is not the same as flatfooted. But by RAW if does look like the swallowee threatens the swallower, which seems a bit silly. RAW and logic collide very much here.
In your specific case I would say sneak attack works, due to the ability you mentioned the rogue having. More generally, I am not at all sure.
Hmm... the wording is problematic, but I think, that just because the AC to the interior space of a creature is not adjusted for Dex or size, that is not the same as being denied Dex, just as having a Dex modifier of 0 or even a penalty is not the same. Additionally, I would say that if a creature has damage bonuses against a larger creature, that damage bonus would apply, even though the interior space they are attacking has no size modifier.
I also don't believe swallowed creatures are considered to be threatening their captor. I don't believe they get free AoOs if the creature casts a spell or moves around.
As for the mouser, assuming you are referring to Underfoot Assault, the wording is as you or the player say, but I think the wording and intent is very clear that the mouser is in control of their movement and not hindered, moving about the battlefield as they wish. I don't believe that if the mouser were knocked unconscious or tied up in a giant's backpack, that the giant is intended to have a –4 to attack the mouser's allies, nor do I believe that the mouser can just freely move about inside the swallowing creature and leave unhindered with no other qualifier, despite the wording.
As for just straight ability to sneak attack a creature's interior, I am against that personally, since Swallow Whole is already so hindering and dangerous in almost all cases, but I don't have a strict rebuttal to it, other than I believe that since you're restricted to only being able to attack the creature's interior holding space (stomach, gizzard, whatever), that prevents you from being able to hit more vital organs (which stomachs and gizzards aren't generally considered). Just like I probably wouldn't let you decapitate a swallowing creature from inside while cutting your way out if you had a vorpal light slashing weapon or something. But this is Rules, and I will have to state that that is my opinion on the matter.
Interesting. The AC the victim has to hit has no dex modifier, which is not the same as flatfooted.
You don't have to get your opponent Flatfooted to get SAD. If your opponent is denied his Dex Mod to AC by some other means than being Flatfooted, such as being Blinded, you get your SAD, too.
Universal Monster Rules wrote:
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.
So, your swallower does not get his Dex Mod to AC against you. Does that mean he "denied a Dexterity bonus to AC?"
What does single ability dependency have to do with this?
In this instance, it stands for Sneak Attack Damage.
As for whether or not one would get Sneak Attack, it seems to me that if you were could attack while swallowed, you'd be more likely to be going against Touch rather than Flat-Footed. Since armor tends to be on the outside of a body.
My current game has actually had a character get swallowed whole twice. Same guy too. When he attacked from the inside, he went against Touch. But he doesn't have Sneak Attack at all, so I'm not sure how it would have been ruled.
Hmm... the wording is problematic, but I think, that just because the AC to the interior space of a creature is not adjusted for Dex or size, that is not the same as being denied Dex,
Okay. So, if you are Grappled, your Dexterity goes down by 4 points, and your Dex Mod will go down, too. But even if your Dex Mod is reduced to 0, that does not mean you are "denied a Dex Mod to AC." But I don't think that quite applies. The creature's interior does not get a Dex Mod to AC.
But you're saying that "no modifiers for Dexterity" does not equal being denied your Dex modifier.
What makes you lean that way?
Pizza Lord wrote:
I don't believe they get free AoOs if the creature casts a spell or moves around.
HA! The next time I get Swallowed Whole by a Dragon, and that Dragon tries to cast a spell, I will TOTALLY try to get an AoO from the GM!
Pizza Lord wrote:
As for the mouser, assuming you are referring to Underfoot Assault, the wording is as you or the player say, but I think the wording and intent is very clear that the mouser is in control of their movement and not hindered, moving about the battlefield as they wish. I don't believe that if the mouser were knocked unconscious or tied up in a giant's backpack, that the giant is intended to have a –4 to attack the mouser's allies, nor do I believe that the mouser can just freely move about inside the swallowing creature and leave unhindered with no other qualifier, despite the wording.
That is the Ability I was referring to. I was looking for a Pathfinder-equivalent version of what the character actually has, which is the 3.5 Feat Confound the Bigfolk. I guess I can look at the wording again. But I think you might have a point about the intent.
Pizza Lord wrote:
As for just straight ability to sneak attack a creature's interior, I am against that personally, since Swallow Whole is already so hindering and dangerous in almost all cases, but I don't have a strict rebuttal to it
Thank you.
Pizza Lord wrote:
other than I believe that since you're restricted to only being able to attack the creature's interior holding space (stomach, gizzard, whatever), that prevents you from being able to hit more vital organs (which stomachs and gizzards aren't generally considered).
In the real world, I certainly disagree with you there! Gastro-intestinal perforation can totally kill you. If it happens to you, you need emergency medical attention.
That being said, it is usually the sort of thing that kills you in days, maybe hours, usually through sepsis or peritonitis, not in under a minute: the time frame we are talking about for melee combat.
That being said, we also are not talking about a tear caused by an ulcer. We're talking about getting cut from the inside out with a sword. That could totally result in rapid bleeding out. But that is death in minutes, and also maybe not in the time frame of melee combat.
Meanwhile, every time you try to talk about reality in a fantasy game, somewhere in the world, a catgirl dies.
Pizza Lord wrote:
Just like I probably wouldn't let you decapitate a swallowing creature from inside while cutting your way out if you had a vorpal light slashing weapon or something.
Decapitate with a Vorpal Sword? No. But score a Crit with a Keen edge? Why not? But I'm not sure that Crittable from that position = Sneak Attackable.
Not having modifiers factor is isn't the same as being denied dex bonus as it's also ignoring dex of less than 10 penalties as well. You arent being denied Dexterity, its simply not a factor.
Is the PC blind or has darkvision? no sneak attack when blind.
grappled = no threat contribution, likewise, the rogue cannot see PCs on the outside due to the visual barrier.
the creature itself is not denied the dex bonus, the rule says that dex does not apply in this case, which removes it as a consideration in the factors of sneak attack.
does the PC have a feint ability, that could create a situation of denying dex bonus, technically. If the PC does not have improved, then also technically, the creature should get an AOO in response.
too early in the morning for me here to be totally coherent, will give this some more thought.
The rogue’s attack deals extra damage anytime 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.
Swallow Whole wrote:
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.
Seems pretty clean-cut with RAW to me. The AC of the interior of a creature with Swallow Whole is 10 plus half its Natural Armor. This AC has no Dex modifier. You're not targeting the actual creature's AC - this is an entirely new equation. It's clearly written in a way as to clarify that the AC is not from a circumstance that made it LOSE its Dex to AC, but that Dex is simply not part of equating its AC; The Dex mod of the creature's interior is effectively zero. Barring Flanking, or some other niche circumstance, Sneak Attack only applies when factors at hand nullify the AC's Dex. That's not what's happening here - there is no Dex.
Realistically, should cutting your way out of a creature's stomach deal extra damage (regardless of class abilities like Sneak Attack)? I should say so, since it would fully kill most creatures, so I wouldn't disagree with anyone arguing that applying real-world logic should permit them to deal sneak attack, but Swallow Whole is meant to apply a debilitating circumstance upon a PC, not cut them a blank check for free sneak attacks.
Well, an important part of swallow whole is that once sufficient damage is dealt you fall out of the creatures stomach. What this probably means is that a one or two sneak attack will get them out. You wont get a bunch of free sneak attacks.
As noted Cuup the issue isn't of the rogue would get a sneak attack when something is denied a dex bonus, but not that it isn't being "denied" anything. It's just not part of how to escape swallowed whole.
As noted Cuup the issue isn't of the rogue would get a sneak attack when something is denied a dex bonus, but not that it isn't being "denied" anything. It's just not part of how to escape swallowed whole.
That's what he said. His initial quote may have made it seem like that, but he was pointing out the differences between being denied and having no modifier.
For the OP, I believe the phrasing of Swallow Whole was meant to be read as akin to a situation where you were attacking a medium creature with 10 or 11 Dexterity and the GM said "Its AC is 10 + 2 for half natural armor, no modifier for size or Dex", not "It's denied its Dex." That pretty much confuses the Swallow Whole description where the swallowing creature loses grapple (which is just a Dex penalty) and gets a worse condition with no stated indication of that.
Nor is the lack of size modifier meant to imply that the swallowing creature now counts as medium size for spells or abilities that the swallowed target might attempt. For instance, if you got a free bullrush attempt against a medium or smaller target you hit. You wouldn't be knocking the much larger swallowing creature (or its gizzard) around the battlefield (as amusing as that image is). It's still the same size.
Well, an important part of swallow whole is that once sufficient damage is dealt you fall out of the creatures stomach. What this probably means is that a one or two sneak attack will get them out. You wont get a bunch of free sneak attacks.
According to an FAQ, it costs either a Standard action, Move action, or 5' Step to leave a creature's stomach. The rules for the Swallow Whole ability also cover the two methods of escaping (either back up into the creature's mouth, or by cutting their way free). What is NOT spelled out, however, is if the swallowed creature can elect to remain inside the creature, even after dealing enough damage to cut itself free. So, while most sane PC's would escape asap, a particularly bold PC could remain inside the creature's stomach at the cost of the swallow whole damage, and continue to wreak havoc. In this situation, an incorrect ruling of how Swallow Whole and Sneak Attack interact could result in many, many Sneak Attacks.
Cavall: What Pizza Lord said. Sorry if the way I formatted my quotes was obnoxious.
Well, an important part of swallow whole is that once sufficient damage is dealt you fall out of the creatures stomach. What this probably means is that a one or two sneak attack will get them out. You wont get a bunch of free sneak attacks.
According to an FAQ, it costs either a Standard action, Move action, or 5' Step to leave a creature's stomach. The rules for the Swallow Whole ability also cover the two methods of escaping (either back up into the creature's mouth, or by cutting their way free). What is NOT spelled out, however, is if the swallowed creature can elect to remain inside the creature, even after dealing enough damage to cut itself free. So, while most sane PC's would escape asap, a particularly bold PC could remain inside the creature's stomach at the cost of the swallow whole damage, and continue to wreak havoc. In this situation, an incorrect ruling of how Swallow Whole and Sneak Attack interact could result in many, many Sneak Attacks.
Cavall: What Pizza Lord said. Sorry if the way I formatted my quotes was obnoxious.
Do you have a link to the FAQ that specifies it costs an action to leave the creature's stomach? This is the first I've ever heard of it.
As a GM and at tables I've played we've ruled that dealing sufficient damage automatically causes you to fall out of the creatures stomach, you've "cut your way free". Thematically, staying inside isn't an option as you've significantly damaged the creature's stomach that things don't easily stay inside.
Swallow Whole: Once you've dealt enough damage to a monster's insides, what kind of action is it to escape?
A swallowed character must use a standard action, move action, or 5-foot-step to escape. This applies whether the acting character is the one who cut his way free or another swallowed character making use the exit carved by another character.
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. Format: swallow whole (5d6 acid damage, AC 15, 18 hp); Location: Special Attacks.
This has been pretty beat like a dead horse, but above is the ability in question. Note that is does give notice that the inside AC is separate from the outside and cutting free is specific rule for escaping this condition. What is required for sneak attack is a condition which grants a loss of dexterity bonus (whether DEX is used or not) since it is not possible for flanking to be brought to bear. Earlier, I suggested feint may be a way to achieve this, however, the affected creature needs to perceive the feinting PC to be effective and that may not possible from inside its belly (depending on DM fiat, the text makes no note on how the feint occurs, only that it is opposed by sense motive and takes a standard action, modified by improved feint feat). Personally I would rule against, however, I am stymied by the lack of qualifiers for making a feint mechanically as it should work if the PC just uses it. Just remember that without the improved version, they are subject to an AOO if the creature has one and the only attack method it has in its belly is the swallow whole damage.
Does anyone have any other new takes on this situation?
My 3.5 Halfling Fighter Rogue, Carl Wolfgang von Grignrsbane, has been Swallowed Whole 3 times now, and the first time he emerged from the Tyrannosaurus's slit-open belly, he roared, "I have single-handedly vanquished the beast!"
While you are swallowed, you cannot perceive most things that might provoke an Attack of Opportunity. So its spellcasting will not provoke from you.
While you are swallowed, it cannot perceive you well enough to avoid your attacks. So, as per Armor Class: "If you can’t react to a blow, you can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC." This means denied Dex, and so you get SA damage.
While you are swallowed, you cannot perceive most things that might provoke an Attack of Opportunity. So its spellcasting will not provoke from you.
While you are swallowed, it cannot perceive you well enough to avoid your attacks.
While that is true, the wording for sneak attack makes it clear that you must be able to see a target clearly and be able to strike an actual vital area (as opposed to a critical hit which is hitting a weakness or flaw, similar but different). Even a %1 concealment (which would be unusual, but would count) will negate sneak attack and, while being swallowed doesn't mention concealment specifically, I think not being able to see the target creature well enough (and being unable to strike anything but the stomach or gizzard) is clearly implied, even in your response.
Cevah wrote:
So, as per Armor Class: "If you can’t react to a blow, you can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC." This means denied Dex, and so you get SA damage.
Also true, but if the attacker is unable to clearly perceive the target, concealment or not, or is unable to effectively strike a vital area, it doesn't matter. A target could be flat-footed, denied Dex, and flanked and there would be no sneak attack damage.
Similarly I wouldn't let the swallowing creature benefit from most forms of concealment or miss chances against the swallowed creature: blur, displacement, being in the dark, even mirror image (because the attacker can't see the target and images, and probably even a blinded swallowee (probably). So it isn't unfair, it's just a special, rare combat situation and occurrence.
Sneak Attack wrote:
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.
For those creatures subject to sneak attack, nothing states they must be attacked from the outside to get it. :-)
Nothing states that they must be above, under, or outside, but it does state you need to clearly be able to see the creature AND be able to strike effectively at a vital area. That's over and above even concealment negating sneak attack. So no sneak attack while swallowed. This would apply even if you ended up swallowed into an open caged space, like some gargantuan skeletal creature that swallowed foes into a ribcage-like holding area (and was otherwise subject to sneak attack damage, of course). If you can't reach a 'vital area' (whatever that may be, there are too many creature types, forms, and anatomical forms even among one creature type to cover every base), you can't deal sneak attack damage.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
So, what if the swallowed creature has Darkvision?
Whether you can see in the dark of a creature's gizzard or stomach or even have blindsight (and that doesn't mean you aren't being squished or squeezed by the organ, pressing in on your face and eyes like a blob or wet quilt preventing you from seeing), if you cannot fully see your target (not just its ankle or part of its stomach), you cannot deal sneak attack damage. I don't let you try and sunder a hydra's head if somehow one swallowed you, because you cannot believably and in-game reach to strike it effectively, even if you are in the same space as the swallowing creature and even though the head would be one Escape Artist check away to climbing into.
Again:
Sneak Attack wrote:
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spotandmust be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
It's quite apparent by the mechanics that the stomach, gizzard, or what-have-you of a swallowing creature is not a 'vital' area for being damaged in game terms, otherwise the damage dealt to it would be far more crippling than 'can't swallowed whole until healed'; not 'begins bleeding to death', 'is incapacitated', or even 'takes extra damage'.
If a massive creature had you captured and cupped in its hands, like if you were holding a bug or a fly, even if you can't see it, it is not believably able to fully see you or strike and reach a vital area (unless you somehow want to claim your palm and fingers are as vital to your life functions as your heart or kidneys or lungs or brain). It is no different being in the swallowed creature (for purposes of sneak attack).
Doesn't the stomach have a dex of - and there for can not be denied their dex ever thus making the even trying to get sneak attack mute?
To my knowledge, having a Dex of '—' doesn't prevent you from being denied your Dex, you just are incapable of movement (whereas being at 0 Dex makes you immobile). It's possible that a creature that can't move (but was suitably intelligent) might be Bluffed/Feinted or something and thus be denied Dex and be eligible for Sneak Attack damage (assuming everything else required for Sneak Attack was true). Granted, that would likely be on a case-by-case basis, but without a specific creature example it's hard to cover all the bases for every way a specific individual creature might be denied Dex.
However, if you're going to use that line of thinking and logic and now consider the stomach or gizzard to be your 'whole target' and as such, you can clearly see it or in some way strike a vital part of it (which is not the normal way hitting creatures typically works, though there could be specific creatures with their own rules for striking body parts; hydra, ropers, or kraken, or something), then you'd almost have to have the stomach or gizzard be wholly separate and not apply any damage to it to the actual creature (or only a portion, like when a hydra loses a head). That is certainly a fair house-rule if you are one who feels swallow whole is far too detrimental to actually be a viable tactic in most cases. Otherwise, it's a specific part of a larger creature, just like hitting a creature's ankle isn't likely a 'vital spot' but you can't suddenly turn it into a viable sneak attack location because you can only see and target the ankle, so that's your 'target', not the immense giant or dinosaur standing on you.
@Pizza Lord:
Sounds like you think the whole creature needs to be seen to be sneak attacked. This includs the inside, since it could be seen when you get swallowed. So how would you rule this: Halfling Rogue vs. 20' tall giant, and the upper half of the giant is in a cloud spell like obscuring mist? The head is totally concealed by the mist per the rules, however, there is no way the halfling could even reach to attack the upper half of the body. Yet, without the mist the same reach would get sneak attack as appropriate.
Unless the vitals are noted specifically in a location, there is no reason to deny access just because some of the creature is not visible.
I think you are placing to many assumptions on how it works. I grant that you need clear sight of your attack spot, but not limiting vitals to just locations on the outside. They do call them the vital organs, don't they?
Doesn't the stomach have a dex of - and there for can not be denied their dex ever thus making the even trying to get sneak attack mute?
To my knowledge, having a Dex of '—' doesn't prevent you from being denied your Dex, you just are incapable of movement (whereas being at 0 Dex makes you immobile). It's possible that a creature that can't move (but was suitably intelligent) might be Bluffed/Feinted or something and thus be denied Dex and be eligible for Sneak Attack damage (assuming everything else required for Sneak Attack was true). Granted, that would likely be on a case-by-case basis, but without a specific creature example it's hard to cover all the bases for every way a specific individual creature might be denied Dex.
However, if you're going to use that line of thinking and logic and now consider the stomach or gizzard to be your 'whole target' and as such, you can clearly see it or in some way strike a vital part of it (which is not the normal way hitting creatures typically works, though there could be specific creatures with their own rules for striking body parts; hydra, ropers, or kraken, or something), then you'd almost have to have the stomach or gizzard be wholly separate and not apply any damage to it to the actual creature (or only a portion, like when a hydra loses a head). That is certainly a fair house-rule if you are one who feels swallow whole is far too detrimental to actually be a viable tactic in most cases. Otherwise, it's a specific part of a larger creature, just like hitting a creature's ankle isn't likely a 'vital spot' but you can't suddenly turn it into a viable sneak attack location because you can only see and target the ankle, so that's your 'target', not the immense giant or dinosaur standing on you.
You cant deny something they can't attain in the 1st place...
Doesn't the stomach have a dex of - and there for can not be denied their dex ever thus making the even trying to get sneak attack mute?
To my knowledge, having a Dex of '—' doesn't prevent you from being denied your Dex, you just are incapable of movement (whereas being at 0 Dex makes you immobile). It's possible that a creature that can't move (but was suitably intelligent) might be Bluffed/Feinted or something and thus be denied Dex and be eligible for Sneak Attack damage (assuming everything else required for Sneak Attack was true). Granted, that would likely be on a case-by-case basis, but without a specific creature example it's hard to cover all the bases for every way a specific individual creature might be denied Dex.
However, if you're going to use that line of thinking and logic and now consider the stomach or gizzard to be your 'whole target' and as such, you can clearly see it or in some way strike a vital part of it (which is not the normal way hitting creatures typically works, though there could be specific creatures with their own rules for striking body parts; hydra, ropers, or kraken, or something), then you'd almost have to have the stomach or gizzard be wholly separate and not apply any damage to it to the actual creature (or only a portion, like when a hydra loses a head). That is certainly a fair house-rule if you are one who feels swallow whole is far too detrimental to actually be a viable tactic in most cases. Otherwise, it's a specific part of a larger creature, just like hitting a creature's ankle isn't likely a 'vital spot' but you can't suddenly turn it into a viable sneak attack location because you can only see and target the ankle, so that's your 'target', not the immense giant or dinosaur standing on you.
You cant deny something they can't attain in the 1st place...
Actually, you can.
Just because their Dex does not help their AC does not mean you cannor deny it. Especially if they could get a spell that boosted Dex. For a dex of "-", the question is more complicated. However, I don't know what kind of creature has such. And that creature would be treated as having a Dex of 10.
I think you are placing to many assumptions on how it works. I grant that you need clear sight of your attack spot, but not limiting vitals to just locations on the outside.
I am not making assumptions.
Sneak Attack wrote:
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot...
Where is my assumption that you must be able to see a target well enough to pick out a vital spot? If I quote that a 1st-level rogue has a +1d6 sneak attack, that's not an assumption. They add +1d6 damage on a sneak attack. The assumption would be that they don't add it on an attack that isn't a sneak attack. That doesn't make it wrong because it's an assumption. My stance is actually what the words say and is in context with the entire section.
Quote:
.. and must be able to reach such a spot.
It is very clearly written and spelled out. Just like Safe Fall says the wall must be within arm's reach, not Reach (which is your field of threat in combat), but actually close enough to be touched when you fall. It's not an assumption.
I admit that such attacks are probably abstracted in most games, just like not all GMs want to describe every normal hit (where it lands, how it feels, whether it's a scratch or deep cut), and in most cases (like when you aren't swallowed inside a creature and can't effectively maneuver around a battlefield) it's probably fine, like how spell component pouches always have spell components no matter how much they're used because it's hand-waved that somehow they're being refilled (even if you really aren't doing it).
Quote:
They do call them the vital organs, don't they?
Who calls what a vital organ? Fair enough, let's assume we're talking about humanoid or similar anatomy and not just making up or using fantastic creatures which can be almost anything (and even using your giant, which is close enough anatomically to be a human-analogue). What are the definitions of a 'vital organ' as you ask? Again, sticking with your example (though I don't know any giants that swallow whole). It looks to me, like there are five: brain, heart, liver, kidneys, and lungs. Anything else, like testicles or collarbone or jugular strikes would fall under a critical hit parameter, being a strike at a weak point (rather than a vital spot, there is a difference, though it seems semantic). Those might hurt a lot or be incapacitating, like a blow to the solar plexus, but they aren't 'vital' in the terms of Sneak Attack. I will, however, for clarity's sake, point out that Sneak Attack says 'vital spot' not necessarily 'vital organ'. That was your example, but that wording is likely because of the numerous anatomies and creatures that might be encountered in the game.
If in your game you want to claim that a swallowed creature (who I think most of us will assume cannot discern the target spots of a creature or see through the stomach or gizzard of most creatures) is able to pick out the heart or kidneys while cutting their way out (which is the action being taken, specifically) and are targeting them instead of the stomach, then go ahead. I don't think the rules for Sneak Attack support that and in fact are very clear. If you want to say your swallowed creature can see the swallowing creature's brain and can reach it while swallowed, more power to you for letting him do so. But I have to interpret the rules and my interpretation matches the words and likely the intent.
Cevah wrote:
The head is totally concealed by the mist per the rules, however, there is no way the halfling could even reach to attack the upper half of the body.
First, the OP (and everyone here) aren't talking about a creature that is unrestricted and freely able to observe a significant amount of space (even its own) with relative clarity. But you haven't stated in your example: One, is there a vital spot the halfling can see and discern? And two, can the halfling reach that spot? That leaves everyone here with having to make assumptions (which you seem to decry). Regardless, if the answer to either of those is no, then you cannot deal sneak attack damage. Otherwise, you need to give your reason why you think the wording for sneak attack that says it requires it means it does not require it. Do you think I am making an assumption that you can't sneak attack a creature with concealment or that can't be seen clearly too?
I get what your stance is. You see all these qualifiers that should allow sneak attack. "What will let me sneak attack? Is target flat-footed? Is target flanked? Did I just successfully feint the target? Am I now invisible? Is the target denied Dex against my attack?" "Yes, the answer to all those is 'Yes'! My sneak attack is validated five times over on this attack!" Except... your target has concealment (even if it were somehow mindbogglingly as low as 1% concealment, because you have a feat or skill that reduces concealment against your attacks)... so the answer is 'No'. No, you cannot sneak attack. If you cannot see well enough to pick out a vital spot (be that aiming at the chest, even if you can't see the heart or lungs specifically, or aiming at the head, even though the brains are likely not visible) or you cannot reach that area you are trying to hit... you cannot deal sneak attack damage.
Doesn't the stomach have a dex of - and there for can not be denied their dex ever thus making the even trying to get sneak attack mute?
To my knowledge, having a Dex of '—' doesn't prevent you from being denied your Dex, you just are incapable of movement (whereas being at 0 Dex makes you immobile). It's possible that a creature that can't move (but was suitably intelligent) might be Bluffed/Feinted or something and thus be denied Dex and be eligible for Sneak Attack damage (assuming everything else required for Sneak Attack was true). Granted, that would likely be on a case-by-case basis, but without a specific creature example it's hard to cover all the bases for every way a specific individual creature might be denied Dex.
However, if you're going to use that line of thinking and logic and now consider the stomach or gizzard to be your 'whole target' and as such, you can clearly see it or in some way strike a vital part of it (which is not the normal way hitting creatures typically works, though there could be specific creatures with their own rules for striking body parts; hydra, ropers, or kraken, or something), then you'd almost have to have the stomach or gizzard be wholly separate and not apply any damage to it to the actual creature (or only a portion, like when a hydra loses a head). That is certainly a fair house-rule if you are one who feels swallow whole is far too detrimental to actually be a viable tactic in most cases. Otherwise, it's a specific part of a larger creature, just like hitting a creature's ankle isn't likely a 'vital spot' but you can't suddenly turn it into a viable sneak attack location because you can only see and target the ankle, so that's your 'target', not the immense giant or dinosaur standing on you.
You cant deny something they can't attain in the 1st place...
Actually, you can.
Just because their Dex does not help their AC does not mean you cannor deny it. Especially...
If there was an ability that denied con to hp for the target would you allow it to effect undead and constructs?
So, if my halfling if fighting an Colossal creature with an dagger, and he can only reach the creature feet, he can´t effectivelly sneak attack ?
First, we are talking about a specific (and undeniably restrictive) situation where a combatant is hindered and inhibited. Things in combat (meaning typical combat) are abstract. Just like the five-foot reach rule applies whether you're headbutting, holding a dagger, or wielding a 6-foot greatsword. That space and reach that you control and threaten is not you standing in one spot, but the space you are maneuvering in and doing footwork and feinting and lunging and darting back and forth in.
To answer your question, in a typical straight up fight, both combatants are described as lunging in and out and that there are opportunities where you can legitimately take a strike at a creature's vitals: at its head to hit its brain when it leans in to bite, at its chest when it tries to crush you in a bear hug, etc.
That has no bearing on what's being discussed. Just like the facing rule that means you don't have a 'front or back' means you actually don't have a front or back or that the no-facing rule is meant that outside of combat you can't sneak behind one or that they can literally see where they specifically aren't looking (ie. behind them). It is a combat rule that applies in a situation where you expected to be looking for threats actively, not applied to separate situations. This is no different.
For your example, like I said, in actual combat where the giant is moving (because I hope you understand combat is not actually depicted as people doing something and then standing stock still for the other 3 to 5 seconds, nor are they described as moving and stopping every six seconds, they are continually in motion), you should be fine. If, however, since you didn't specify, you are clearly stating that you cannot discern (which I don't think you are) or that you cannot reach any vital spot (which I think you are stating), then you cannot sneak attack that vital spot.
Either you can, or you cannot. Otherwise we're left trying to make assumptions from your clearly incomplete example beyond what you have given. For instance, how would we assume you are getting a sneak attack? You haven't stated that you're flanking, or that you're hidden or invisible, or that the target is flat-footed or denied Dex or anything. I certainly hope you are being genuine in your question and not just tossing out spurious examples that clearly are not related to the topic of sneak attack while swallowed whole merely because you don't agree with the rules on sneak attack. I will go out on a limb and assume (in your favor), that you are being genuine and I truly hope that cleared up your question, however.
If there was an ability that denied con to hp for the target would you allow it to effect undead and constructs?
If it said it worked on constructs and undead, then yes. It would have the same effect it would have on any other creature with a Con of 10 or 11 (0 modifier), which is none, or at least no appreciable mechanical effect.
Expanding your example a little, if you had a skill or attack that said 'Creatures with no bonus hit points from Constitution take an extra 1d6 damage from this attack', then it would apply to undead and constructs just as it would a creature with a zero or negative modifier. The fact that they have no Dexterity score or that they might be getting bonus hit points from size or Charisma in place of it, makes no difference. They would still be subject to the attack and its effects.
Swallow Whole: Once you've dealt enough damage to a monster's insides, what kind of action is it to escape?
A swallowed character must use a standard action, move action, or 5-foot-step to escape. This applies whether the acting character is the one who cut his way free or another swallowed character making use the exit carved by another character.
I'm not sure I like that honestly.
Because it does raise the issue that you could theoretically just stay inside...which is dumb.
Being inside a creature with swallow whole is usually a lot safer than being outside. The automatic damage is generally a lot less than what the attacks of the creature would deal if they hit you, and you have much easier AC to hit typically. Honestly, being swallowed whole is usually beneficial if you're not about to go unconscious.
Swallow Whole: Once you've dealt enough damage to a monster's insides, what kind of action is it to escape?
A swallowed character must use a standard action, move action, or 5-foot-step to escape. This applies whether the acting character is the one who cut his way free or another swallowed character making use the exit carved by another character.
I'm not sure I like that honestly.
Because it does raise the issue that you could theoretically just stay inside...which is dumb.
Being inside a creature with swallow whole is usually a lot safer than being outside. The automatic damage is generally a lot less than what the attacks of the creature would deal if they hit you, and you have much easier AC to hit typically. Honestly, being swallowed whole is usually beneficial if you're not about to go unconscious.
Then you realize nothing says you can't attack a swallowed creature.
I think you are placing to many assumptions on how it works. I grant that you need clear sight of your attack spot, but not limiting vitals to just locations on the outside.
I am not making assumptions.
Where is my assumption that you must be able to see a target well enough to pick out a vital spot?
You do realize that I said I agreed with you about this?
(plural vital organs)
* An organ of the body which performs a sufficiently important function that damage to the organ can cause death.
Pizza Lord wrote:
It looks to me, like there are five: brain, heart, liver, kidneys, and lungs.
You are adding real world realism into an abstract fantasy game. :-)
Unless the creature definition calls them out, vitals are everywhere.
Pizza Lord wrote:
But I have to interpret the rules and my interpretation matches the words and likely the intent.
I agree that you do. I am just saying that the rules don't tell you where the vitals are. Therefore, since you can always hit them when outside, you can also do so when inside.
Pizza Lord wrote:
Cevah wrote:
The head is totally concealed by the mist per the rules, however, there is no way the halfling could even reach to attack the upper half of the body.
First, the OP (and everyone here) aren't talking about a creature that is unrestricted and freely able to observe a significant amount of space (even its own) with relative clarity. But you haven't stated in your example: One, is there a vital spot the halfling can see and discern? And two, can the halfling reach that spot? That leaves everyone here with having to make assumptions (which you seem to decry). Regardless, if the answer to either of those is no, then you cannot deal sneak attack damage. Otherwise, you need to give your reason why you think the wording for sneak attack that says it requires it means it does not require it.
In my example, I made the assumption that everyone understood I was referring to the halfling attacking the giant in such a way as to qualify for sneak attack, and that the halfling did not have a reach weapon.
Pizza Lord wrote:
Do you think I am making an assumption that you can't sneak attack a creature with concealment or that can't be seen clearly too?
No. However, I was pointing out how concealment can be applied to part of a creature, and that I think if you can attack a non-concealed part, then you can qualify for sneak attack on that part if you could were the creature not partially concealed.
Pizza Lord wrote:
I get what your stance is. You see all these qualifiers that should allow sneak attack. "What will let me sneak attack? Is target flat-footed? Is target flanked? Did I just successfully feint the target? Am I now invisible? Is the target denied Dex against my attack?" "Yes, the answer to all those is 'Yes'! My sneak attack is validated five times over on this attack!" Except... your target has concealment (even if it were somehow mindbogglingly as low as 1% concealment, because you have a feat or skill that reduces concealment against your attacks)... so the answer is 'No'. No, you cannot sneak attack.
If they have some concealment for its entire body, then no sneak attack. I just disagree when the concealment only applies to part of the body.
Pizza Lord wrote:
First, we are talking about a specific (and undeniably restrictive) situation where a combatant is hindered and inhibited.
Being grappled or entangled makes you hindered and inhibited, yet it does not prevent you from sneak attacking. It just gives penalties.
Pizza Lord wrote:
... more stuff concerning real world vs. abstract combat rules....
You talk about the 'facing' being abstracted, but you require 'vitals' to be real world. In Pathfinder, 'vitals' are abstracted. As you said:
Pizza Lord wrote:
Things in combat (meaning typical combat) are abstract.
I am just saying that the rules don't tell you where the vitals are. Therefore, since you can always hit them when outside, you can also do so when inside.
First off, if that were the assumption, then there would never be a reason for the Sneak Attack rules to state that the attacker must be able to be able to reach them.
Cevah wrote:
In my example, ... I was referring to the halfling attacking the giant in such a way as to qualify for sneak attack, and that the halfling did not have a reach weapon.
Your example is a creature who is only able to strike at the limbs of a target and cannot reach its vitals?
Pathfinder Documents have systematically excised examples and other clarifications (which does not mean that any mechanics, intents, or rules were changed). The Sneak Attack description (pertaining to this discussion), before the removal of the example is:
Sneak Attack wrote:
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.
And just for comparison, here is the wording without the example:
Sneak Attack wrote:
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.
There has been absolutely no change to this rule mechanic or its intent. Not from 3.0 to 3.5 to Pathfinder. The only removed redundant, unnecessary example (they just stated that you need to be able to strike a vital area immediately prior).
Cevah wrote:
Being grappled or entangled makes you hindered and inhibited, yet it does not prevent you from sneak attacking.
Conditions:
If the discussion were about grappling and entangle being hindering and restricting movement, would you then point out that being deafened is hindering too but doesn't prevent (or even hinder) movement, so being grappled or entangled doesn't actually do what their descriptions say? You can do a lot of things while shaken that you can't do while frightened or panicked. Being Swallowed Whole, means you are inside a creature's gizzard/stomach/etc. (in general), which means you are not able to see or strike as effectively as being unhindered or even hindered in a grapple or entangle or any one of a number of other hindrances that don't put you in a position that prevents you from clearly seeing or striking a vital area (which is a requirement to deal sneak attack damage).
Just because being Swallowed Whole also grants the grappled condition does not mean you are grappling. You may as well be trying to imply that means the swallowed creature can do all the things stated in the 'If you are grappled' section because they have the grappled condition, thus allowing them to reverse the grapple or pin the swallowing creature or move it about by succeeding at grapple checks. It is a whole different set of circumstances over and above just being possibly grappled (or even possibly being sightless, compressed by a bodily organ, and being dissolved in acid or enzymes all at once).
Cevah wrote:
You talk about the 'facing' being abstracted, but you require 'vitals' to be real world. In Pathfinder, 'vitals' are abstracted.
Spoiler:
It is misinterpretations like this that make me believe you aren't just debating or sharing an opinion in good faith, but instead trying to purposefully mislead other readers that might come to this topic looking for advice and believe you. It also explains why your 'quote' of what I said clearly didn't contain anything I actually said.
I said that in most games, combat locations and descriptions of where attacks land or what they do 'scratch, crush, bruise, gash, etc.' are probably abstracted. The reference to facing you took from a reply and context to a completely separate question from another poster involving a situation that had nothing to do with concealment or swallowed whole (or even any situation other than a normal combat attack).
The 'no facing' rule in combat does not 'abstract' that participants have discernible fronts or backs, it is meant to imply that they are aware of threats and are paying attention to those moving about them. It just tells you not to worry about such things until you do have to worry about them, ie. if a creature has a special attack that says they latch onto a creature's front or back. The player doesn't get to claim they don't have a front or back because anatomy is 'abstract' in Pathfinder. In such a case, a GM is well within the rules to state the target cannot Sneak Attack that creature due to the difficulty of seeing the creature on their back or being able to effectively attack a vital spot. This is in spite of the 'no facing' rule making it seem like a creature can see in every direction or even if they can still attack the creature or see a part of it (like an arm or hand clinging to their shoulder).
Cevah wrote:
You talk about the 'facing' being abstracted, but you require 'vitals' to be real world. In Pathfinder, 'vitals' are abstracted.
If you are allowing and describing to your players how they stab a dragon in the ankle and pierce its brains or lungs, then I think there's just too much of a disconnect between you and how the designers wrote the rules to be interpreted. If what you imply were the truth, there would be absolutely no reason for them to have the wording that an attacker has to be able to reach and strike those vitals (whether they are defined or not!).
Cevah wrote:
I am just saying that the rules don't tell you where the vitals are.
Why do you need the rules to tell you where someone's brain or heart is? If there were a special or different place on a creature, that would be the domain of a creature's description or bestiary entry, not the Sneak Attack rules. If it isn't there, it's probably because it's obvious.
Real world anatomy:
As for using real-world anatomy, descriptions, and common wording, definitions or sense, that is both proper and expected when called for, even in a fantasy game. Something that is red is red, whether the character can perceive it or not (ie. using darkvision). If someone says there's a horse in a fantasy world, then it probably has a mane and hooves, unless it says they don't, whether they are described as having hooves or not in any Pathfinder description.
Humans in Pathfinder probably have two eyes, even though you can claim up and down that there's no such indicator in any written description in the game, and this is whether or not there are humans with one eye, no eyes, or even both eyes but they can't see out of them because they're blind. Humans have brains and hearts and lungs and those 'vital spots' are expected to be in real-world analogue locations, like in their head or in their chest.
As any developer will tell you, the wording is written the way it is because there are countless and myriad fantasy creatures that might not have the same (or might have a wholly unique) vital area that another unique and fantastic creature might have and expecting them to write out a detailed, 5 page example to cover every possible iteration (including creatures a GM might make up from their own imagination that no one else could possibly be expected to know or predict when creating the game).
Because of the situation the swallowee is placed into (whether ambiguous or abstract or not), if Swallow Whole were intended to allow Sneak Attack damage based on the specific situation it places the target into, then it would have been stated and spelled out (again, unless there's a unique and specific situation changing that). It's no different than with coup de grace` where, despite obviously requiring a helpless target, it specifically notes that a rogue gets to add sneak attack damage against a helpless target. What would be the purpose if not to make sure it was understood it applied (since it's already understood the target is helpless). They didn't put the wording about being able to pick out and reach vital spots just to add word count (they actually trimmed some that wasn't needed, the example, because it was pretty well-covered, at least in a manner most would understand with a little consideration).
Swallow Whole does not grant sneak attack to the swallowed creature based on any of the situations or conditions applied to either creature (but that is not saying that there couldn't be a rare, unique, incredibly specific situation or creature involved where it couldn't conceivably occur). Not based on the rules, wording, or intent.
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.
I've never liked rules like that. Is the GM really supposed to adjudicate which bits of every creature are vital spots and whether the halfling rogue can currently reach them?
I am just saying that the rules don't tell you where the vitals are.
That's pretty funny: prior to inflicting Sneak Attack Damage, the Rogue must make the appropriate Knowledge check at a DC of 10 + the Monster's CR. The Rogue gets a +4 Circumstance Bonus if she is the same Type as her victim (Humanoid, Monstrous Humanoid, Abberation etc.). The Rogue can substitute a Healing or Profession, Assassin Check for the appropriate Knowledge check at a DC of +5!
In the case of a Halfling Rogue trying to stab at the shins of a Titan, just because the Halfling can't reach the heart doesn't mean that there are no vital spots to Precisely Damage: The Femoral Arteries run all the way down the feet (although I'm not sure they are still called Femoral Arteries distal to the Femur). There are tendons, notably the Achilles Tendon which Paris so notably scored Precision Damage on with his Arrow! There are lots of other joints, tendons and sensitive spots on most creatures feet that can be precisely targeted. Have you ever been treated by a reflexologist? Mine was wonderful! You may think reflexology is fantasy medicine, but this is a fantasy game. Meanwhile, do not underestimate the power of a foot massage!
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.
I've never liked rules like that. Is the GM really supposed to adjudicate which bits of every creature are vital spots and whether the halfling rogue can currently reach them?
I am just saying that the rules don't tell you where the vitals are.
That's pretty funny: prior to inflicting Sneak Attack Damage, the Rogue must make the appropriate Knowledge check at a DC of 10 + the Monster's CR. The Rogue gets a +4 Circumstance Bonus if she is the same Type as her victim (Humanoid, Monstrous Humanoid, Abberation etc.). The Rogue can substitute a Healing or Profession, Assassin Check for the appropriate Knowledge check at a DC of +5!
I have not heard about this rule. Can you cite?
Pizza Lord wrote:
Cevah wrote:
I am just saying that the rules don't tell you where the vitals are. Therefore, since you can always hit them when outside, you can also do so when inside.
First off, if that were the assumption, then there would never be a reason for the Sneak Attack rules to state that the attacker must be able to be able to reach them.
Where is the assumption? I made two statements here:
A) rules don't tell you where the vitals are.
B) If you can from outside, you can from inside.
If you are referring to A, then show me the rules.
If you are referring to B, then I submit that you are closer to the vitals when you are inside.
Pizza Lord wrote:
Cevah wrote:
In my example, ... I was referring to the halfling attacking the giant in such a way as to qualify for sneak attack, and that the halfling did not have a reach weapon.
Your example is a creature who is only able to strike at the limbs of a target and cannot reach its vitals?
No, it is a creature making an attack that qualifies for SA. You are assuming limbs and then disqualifying the attack.
Pizza Lord wrote:
Pathfinder Documents have systematically excised examples and other clarifications (which does not mean that any mechanics, intents, or rules were changed). The Sneak Attack description (pertaining to this discussion), before the removal of the example is:
Sneak Attack wrote:
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.
And just for comparison, here is the wording without the example:
Sneak Attack wrote:
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.
There has been absolutely no change to this rule mechanic or its intent. Not from 3.0 to 3.5 to Pathfinder. The only removed redundant, unnecessary example (they just stated that you need to be able to strike a vital area immediately prior).
By removing the example, they also removed the concept of vitals not being in the limbs. Now the GM must define what is OK. As to reach, what does it refer to? Anatomy? Maybe, but it could also mean if you are not adjacent and don't have a reach weapon, you cannot reach. This I think is the more readily understood meaning since the example is no longer there. This is a mechanical change.
Pizza Lord wrote:
Cevah wrote:
Being grappled or entangled makes you hindered and inhibited, yet it does not prevent you from sneak attacking.
Conditions ...
Hindered and inhibited are not defined conditions. So I gave the examples of Entangled and Grappled. Neither mentions anything about affecting sneak attack. Swallow Whole references Grappled, but not sneak attack. Each does what it states. None of them affect sneak attack beyond the penalties mentioned already.
Pizza Lord wrote:
... point/counterpoint on abstracting 'vitals'....
Show me where vitals are described as having a specific location. Without that, I cannot agree with you.
As to my quote of you not being exact, that is why I used the OOC text. That was to summarize what I thought was said rather than quote a wall of text.
As to facing, that was a thing in 2nd Ed that was removed in 3.0. This required mechanical changes to a bunch of things, including sneak attack. The abstraction is that you no longer had to keep track of position and facing of each creature, and could instead just check position for the extra damage.
Pizza Lord wrote:
If you are allowing and describing to your players how they stab a dragon in the ankle and pierce its brains or lungs, then I think there's just too much of a disconnect between you and how the designers wrote the rules to be interpreted. If what you imply were the truth, there would be absolutely no reason for them to have the wording that an attacker has to be able to reach and strike those vitals (whether they are defined or not!).
As a GM, I only describe such things when there is a particularly worthy attack, such as a crit that does significant overkill. Even then, it is usually along the lines of slice in two, smash into the ground/wall, or some such.
Pizza Lord wrote:
Why do you need the rules to tell you where someone's brain or heart is? If there were a special or different place on a creature, that would be the domain of a creature's description or bestiary entry, not the Sneak Attack rules.
Without them, there is no definition of what is a vital spot, or even what kind of vital it is.
Pizza Lord wrote:
If it isn't there, it's probably because it's obvious.
Or more likely, that it doesn't matter.
Pizza Lord wrote:
Because of the situation the swallowee is placed into (whether ambiguous or abstract or not), if Swallow Whole were intended to allow Sneak Attack damage based on the specific situation it places the target into, then it would have been stated and spelled out (again, unless there's a unique and specific situation changing that). It's no different than with coup de grace` where, despite obviously requiring a helpless target, it specifically notes that a rogue gets to add sneak attack damage against a helpless target. What would be the purpose if not to make sure it was understood it applied (since it's already understood the target is helpless). They didn't put the wording about being able to pick out and reach vital spots just to add word count (they actually trimmed some that wasn't needed, the example, because it was pretty well-covered, at least in a manner most would understand with a little consideration).
Swallow Whole does not grant sneak attack to the swallowed creature based on any of the situations or conditions applied to either creature (but that is not saying that there couldn't be a rare, unique, incredibly specific situation or creature involved where it couldn't conceivably occur). Not based on the rules, wording, or intent.
Sneak Attack is a general rule. For Swallow Whole to prevent it, it must call it out. SA has several ways to be achieved. Flanking is prohibited by SW, as you are not on the opposite side of the creature that threatens it. Denied Dex, however, does apply unless the creature can see inside itself.
Maybe I'm way off base here, but I assume the swallow whole "interior" is meant to work more like an object or an abstraction, than as a creature. Damage done to the interior doesn't seem to also apply to the hp of the swallowing creature.
Quote:
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.
Format: swallow whole (5d6 acid damage, AC 15, 18 hp); Location: Special Attacks.
Note that the format lists the AC and hp of the interior as if it were its own standalone thing.
I think the real question may be, "Can you choose to damage the creature that swallowed you, instead of just attacking its interior?"
Note that the format lists the AC and hp of the interior as if it were its own standalone thing.
I think the real question may be, "Can you choose to damage the creature that swallowed you, instead of just attacking its interior?"
The HP is what you need to inflict to escape.
I think it is just a portion of the overall HP that represents the specific location. These specific HP must be healed in order to regain the ability's use. Regen 1 and one round would be sufficient to count.
Note that the format lists the AC and hp of the interior as if it were its own standalone thing.
I think the real question may be, "Can you choose to damage the creature that swallowed you, instead of just attacking its interior?"
The HP is what you need to inflict to escape.
I think it is just a portion of the overall HP that represents the specific location. These specific HP must be healed in order to regain the ability's use. Regen 1 and one round would be sufficient to count.
/cevah
I find it more likely that the interior is its own pool of hit points based off the owner, just like a familiar's hitpoints are based off the owner. Nothing in the swallow whole ability suggests that damage dealt to the interior is also taken from the creature's hit points.
