No, you can't do that without a class feature or a GM specific case. You have to be aware that the creature takes a Manipulate action but not necessarily what action. So you know the creature is manipulating something behind its back so it's enough for an AoO to be triggered.The case of the creature who swallowed you is that you have hard time knowing it takes a Move or Manipulate action as the information you get from the creature is extremely limited.
I think that (recognizing movement) is very much as a GM call, probably with the rules defaulting to noticing. You agreed that it normally takes a feature or specific case to hide such things.
Imagine you are in the back of an enclosed truck that were to suddenly leap 5 or 10 feet to the left, or to take off from a red light. I think you would probably be able to notice that. I can accept GMs might disagree, but some here are saying it would be absolutely impossible and trying to say the rules forbid noticing.
If you manage to differentiate a move, a Step, an attack and a creature falling prone from inside its stomach you have a pretty incredible perception of your body in space. You know the creature is doing things, you just don't know what.
The GM can allow you a check if they want, but by default you have no idea what's happening.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to be pedantic, but it's worth addressing a minor change in wording because it realisitically can come up. You can indeed take an AoO against a creature you can't see but you must be able to sense its activity. Namely if an invisible creature runs past you, you will very likely hear them leaving a square you threaten, and thus could attempt the strike at the usual penalty.
Of course, even in such an instance it is unlikely you will be able to sense them dropping their guard to perform a manipulate action, since you can only tell their positioning.
(Likewise if a character had echolocation they would be able to react to all triggers without needing to see them, but I don't seriously think anyone needs to argue on that point just now).
Interestingly enough, this would be much easier to solve if, say, the Engulf and Swallow Whole abilities mentioned that the creature is blinded/deafened with regard to things that happen outside the stomach. As it is, the condition is still treated as a grab + slow by a non-mouth body part. There isn't even a line of text to suggest that the swallowing creature can move without releasing the grab, though imho you would have to be barking up the wrong froghemoth to argue seriously against what appears to be RAI in this case.
Yep. A minor change to the wording of Swallow Whole. Just to remind people they probably can't percieve or react to anything outside belly of the beast they are in.
While I don't think any of arguments against AoO on this situation are particularly compelling, I think a reasonable ruling for this if you don't want players to be able to always get an AoO in this situation is the GM making a perception check for the player to know if there was a trigger.
So the solution is to implement an ad hoc BS houserule that has no basis on anything instead of saying "you can't reasonably react to this activity given your current situation of being swallowed whole"?
These mental gymnastics being proposed make me glad that even I am not that pedantic at my tables. Simulationism serves a purpose, and it's to debunk garbage arguments like this.
Nobody can ever see the ENTIRE creature. At best you see the outside of one side of a creature, yet this doesn't mean you still do not get to react to actions. I would be interested to see some sort of rules citation for your position that creatures can hide behind themselves.
I am saying you can't see the ENTIRE creature. If the creature is invisible or obscured in some fashion, you can't react to it because you can't see it. All you can see is it's insides, so it's insides is all you can react to.
A creature isn't a square. It occupies a square, but unless we are facing a gelatinous cube or similar creature, that line of thinking is absurd. We aren't geometry shapes like in Minecraft, we don't see one side or "face" of a creature at a given time.
My rules citation is common sense. You can't react to activities you don't perceive happening. Doing otherwise is metagaming, because even if the player knows, the character does not.
Do you just let Fighters with bad Perception take AoOs on allies by rolling 1's with their Seek Actions? Sounds like you should, because maybe that "ally" is just an illusion of an invisible enemy. /sarcasm
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the solution is to implement an ad hoc BS houserule
This whole thread is about picking your flavor of "ad hoc BS houserule" to adjudicate a weird corner case in the rules. The whole scenario is a little bit janky and underexplored in the rules.
Can't really wrap my head around the amount of contempt being thrown at someone over someting like this. Like goddamn nobody's pissing on your food chill out.
So the solution is to implement an ad hoc BS houseruleThis whole thread is about picking your flavor of "ad hoc BS houserule" to adjudicate a weird corner case in the rules. The whole scenario is a little bit janky and underexplored in the rules.
Can't really wrap my head around the amount of contempt being thrown at someone over someting like this. Like g+!$$&n nobody's pissing on your food chill out.
Sure, but a rules answer shouldn't involve going less conservative by comparison. "You can't react to things your character isn't aware of is happening" is far more conservative of an approach than "Creature can claw and bite and tail swipe you while you're inside its stomach because you think you should be able to AoO it."
You are missing the point. You have just said that there is no way to be aware of what is happening. The rules do not state that, and it can be argued that it is perceivable. There is no reason to construct a strawman argument.
Sure, but a rules answer shouldn't involve going less conservative by comparison. "You can't react to things your character isn't aware of is happening" is far more conservative of an approach than "Creature can claw and bite and tail swipe you while you're inside its stomach because you think you should be able to AoO it."
I didn't miss anything. The rules don't also state you throw in free Perception checks to know if you can react to a creature. If you can't debate by the same conditions of "don't make up random stuff to justify shenanigans", then this is pointless.
Even accepting your cheap provocation, under what argument is it perceivable? A Perception check? As an action, maybe, via Seeking. Even so, under what sense(s) would you be seeking with? It can't be sight, you can't see outside the creature's stomach. Arguing that you can is shenanigans. Hearing? It's imprecise, so all it will do is tell you the creature's current location at-best, it doesn't tell you if it moves from that location or not. Touch? It's a vague sense. Really, the only reason it's helpful here is because you're inside a creature, but it won't do much to tell you that it's moving. Any other sense? Not the default assumption, meaning it'd have to be a pretty specific corner-case. Maybe blindsight, tremorsense, or echolocation, but again, not the default assumption.
Well under RAW, the creature isn't undetected. It isn't unnoticed. It's within reach. It meets all the requirements to trigger an AoO.
Also I never said a perception check was RAW. I said it was a reasonable ruling.
I disagree. It performs a move action, but the character isn't in a position to be aware of the activity. It's inside a creature. There is no sound, no light, nothing to be able to see a creature moving about. Unless the creature is also inside the creature moving, you can't react to it.
The same reasoning why a character can't be clawed, bitten, or tail whipped inside a creature is the same reasoning behind a character being unable to react to things outside the creature. No way a creature can claw through itself unscathed to harm a creature inside its gullet.
Doesn't have to be RAW, but it also doesn't need to be further from RAW than what makes sense.
when the fighter first became aware that the creature's body parts were shifting around him
The trigger for AoO is "A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it’s using." not "body parts are shifting around".
Body parts shifting around are not a clear indicator of a move action that triggers an AoO (Step would trigger otherwise, as would attack as you rarely stand still while attacking). It's not a guessing game, you have to perceive the trigger to take a reaction.
There is nothing in the rules as written that say that a character cannot perceive a creature that swallowed it whole.
Swallowed whole says:
"The monster can’t attack creatures it has swallowed.
A swallowed creature is grabbed, is slowed 1, and has to hold its breath or start suffocating. The swallowed creature takes the listed amount of damage when first swallowed and at the end of each of its turns while it’s swallowed. If the victim Escapes this ability’s grabbed condition, it exits through the monster’s mouth. This frees any other creature grabbed in the monster’s mouth or jaws. A swallowed creature can attack the monster that has swallowed it, but only with unarmed attacks or with weapons of light Bulk or less. The engulfing creature is flat-footed against the attack."
The rules here are explicitly stating that the monster cannot attack the swallowed creature, but the swallowed creature can attack the monster that swallowed it. There is no mention of Blindness, a Perception check, or any other impediment on the swallowed creature's ability to react to movement or make an attack on the monster while Swallowed Whole. In fact, the rules state that the monster is flat-footed to any attack by the swallowed creature. This could be because the swallowed creature is currently located right next to sensitive areas of the creature's body and, as such, is currently able to attack those areas more easily. As has already been pointed out in this thread, the swallowed creature's perception of the monster's motion would likely not be based on visual perception of a movement in the more conventional sense. It would likely be based on feeling that the creature that swallowed it was moving body parts and that their position in space was changing (e.g., several real life studies have affirmed that at a certain point in development, babies in the womb can react to music, the sound of their mother's voice, motion, etc.). At that moment in time, when the fighter first became aware that the creature's body parts...
Okay, I guess the rules accounted for the monster striking the creature in its stomach already, so I can concede that point.
But it's not like the stomach is some see-through pane of glass or some scrying orb; you still need to be able to perceive the creature taking a move action in order to react to it, and your circumstances deny your ability to do so, simply because you can't see out of it. Suggesting you can requires some non-default ability, such as blindsight, echolocation, etc.
You can't listen or see through a creature's insides (unless it's a gelatinous cube or similarly transparent creature) to gauge its activity. No sane GM would allow that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real problem with it is that it violates common sense for a lot of GMs (myself included) and it won't get past Rule 0.
You can't see the action that might trigger the AoO.
You can't reach the limbs doing sad action.
There is a resasonable argument it violates line of sight and line of effect.
If you have a GM who has a rules are rules approach it may be allowed to work. If you have a GM who likes to apply some common sense to things you probably won't get it to work.
The rules suggest that motion can be detected through senses other than vision.
For example, if a Hidden Invisible Rogue tries to Sneak away from a monster and he fails, he does not become Undetected. That is, the creature that the Rogue tried to Sneak away from was able to track the Rogue's movement from one square to another square. The Rogue remains Hidden because he cannot be seen, but the monster knows which square that the Rogue moved to because the Rogue failed his Sneak check. Maybe he stepped on a branch, and the monster heard where that sound was coming from. Maybe the Rogue farted as they tried to Sneak, and they can smell them. Maybe the monster felt the wind as the Rogue passed by. However they sensed it, the monster was able to detect where the Rogue moved to using a sense other than vision, and they didn't need a special sense to do this. It is similarly plausible that we can sense motion while we are inside another creature even though we cannot see the creature moving. As I mentioned previously, even babies can sense motion while they are inside their mothers.
This isn't Stealth rules that state a specific condition from a specific result, so using it as a basis for general combat awareness isn't palatable in the slightest. (The Stealth rules already come with their own set of unusual baggage, don't need to add more to it.) Even then, those specific conditions still follow the general rules, meaning the Rogue would still become Visible once they no longer benefit from Cover or Concealment for a given creature unless they possess an ability like Legendary Sneak, AKA Hide in Plain Sight, so the idea that the Rogue remains Hidden after a successful check is only true if the Rogue's new position makes them Covered or Concealed to the enemy. And once a creature moves to clearly see the Rogue, that condition goes away.
It would certainly be amusing for a Rogue to try to Stealth while inside the creature, but I would argue that without a feat like Foil Senses, it wouldn't be feasible, given that the creature can still physically feel the Rogue in its stomach. It's the same reasoning why a Rogue can't just use Stealth when a creature has Lifesense, Blindsight, Tremorsense, etc.
You can't compare an infantile entity that's lived inside of a creature for months to an unusual prey that has probably not been exposed for nearly enough time to react to stimuli outside of what is otherwise hazardous to the character. Even if you tried, an infant's motions aren't anywhere near as controlled as a fully functional living being, and reactions are meant to be voluntary options that a character is knowingly taking. Sorry, I don't think baby is taking an AoO at mama's guts every time mama is getting off her chair.
The rules suggest that motion can be detected through senses other than vision.
For example, if a Hidden Invisible Rogue tries to Sneak away from a monster and he fails, he does not become Undetected. That is, the creature that the Rogue tried to Sneak away from was able to track the Rogue's movement from one square to another square. The Rogue remains Hidden because he cannot be seen, but the monster knows which square that the Rogue moved to because the Rogue failed his Sneak check. Maybe he stepped on a branch, and the monster heard where that sound was coming from. Maybe the Rogue farted as they tried to Sneak, and they can smell them. Maybe the monster felt the wind as the Rogue passed by. However they sensed it, the monster was able to detect where the Rogue moved to using a sense other than vision, and they didn't need a special sense to do this. It is similarly plausible that we can sense motion while we are inside another creature even though we cannot see the creature moving. As I mentioned previously, even babies can sense motion while they are inside their mothers.
This isn't Stealth rules that state a specific condition from a specific result, so using it as a basis for general combat awareness isn't palatable in the slightest. (The Stealth rules already come with their own set of unusual baggage, don't need to add more to it.) Even then, those specific conditions still follow the general rules, meaning the Rogue would still become Visible once they no longer benefit from Cover or Concealment for a given creature unless they possess an ability like Legendary Sneak, AKA Hide in Plain Sight, so the idea that the Rogue remains Hidden after a successful check is only true if the Rogue's new position makes them Covered or Concealed to the enemy. And once a creature moves to clearly see the Rogue, that condition goes away.
I guess you missed the part where I said that the Rogue was Hidden because he was Invisible (this can happen when any creature observing the Rogue is watching while he becomes Invisible due to some magical effect).
Not sure what you are saying here as I did not say that the Rogue was trying to Sneak out of the creature that swallowed it whole.
Looks like I did, but it doesn't really change my point, which is Stealth rules isn't a general indicator of senses. The senses rules are, and basically the rules state you need a sense capable of perceiving the world around you. In short, being eaten means most of your base senses are ineffective, since none of those senses penetrate living flesh.
Just means the creature doesn't know the Rogue is eaten because it can't detect the Rogue.
The real problem with it is that it violates common sense for a lot of GMs (myself included) and it won't get past Rule 0.
Do you use "common sense" to change other parts of the rules in this case?
A monster gets to use its full AC (minus the flat footed condition) against a fighter trying to gouge out its insides with a knife. That's not exactly realistic or sensible either.
Dunno, but IMO there is a case for a swallowed fighter to make an AOO on every turn they are swallowed.
AOO is not actually based on the movement, it is based on an opponent dropping their defenses to the fighter during a combat. That's why a Stride (turn and run) provokes but a Step (back away in guard) does not, and why Manipulate (switching attention away from your guard to open a pouch or draw precise symbols in the air) provokes as well.
The rules clarify most of the "normal" situations where that occurs but cannot cover every possible scenario.
I'd say a creature that has swallowed a Fighter has definitely dropped its guard, and fighters (plus anyone else invested in AOO) are meant to be the twitchiest instinctive slashers around...
Swallowing a fighter with two daggers is basically like swallowing the fragmentation grenade that's been dropped in your foxhole. It's a tactic, sure, but not a good one! Most creatures, even Froghemoths, would probably opt for the juicy wizard and avoid the steel porcupine. Just because they *can* swallow whole doesn't mean they *will* swallow whole every time... might not always be a sound idea.
It does seem to be a rules gap, and maybe that would be OP-ish for the rare cases it happens, but doesn't seem wrong necessarily.
Being swallowed does not automatically mean you can just make an AoO for free every round if the creature chooses to act, that falls under TGTBT. No sane GM would put up with those shenanigans.
Wait; it's "not actually based on movement", but references "move actions" or "during a movement action" as part of its triggers. You sure you want to just completely change the rules behind AoO just to make your argument work out? Sounds like moving goal posts to me. Step says it doesn't trigger reactions because it says it doesn't, and all they're doing is "moving carefully." They're still running like cowards, though, and you can react to anything, why not punish them for fleeing your threatened square? Weird how your argument doesn't hold up if we followed it out to its logical conclusions.
The rules clarify conditions for triggers on reactions. Moving counts, but the character still needs to be aware of the action taking place. Being eaten and inside the creature would count under "I don't know if this creature is flying away or not." You can assume it, but an assumption doesn't necessarily count as a means to trigger a reaction. You're also not on a square in a grid map, so which areas can you attack?
A creature is flat-footed because it can't reasonably defend itself from inside its stomach, which means abilities like Sneak Attack would work. It doesn't mean any activity it does should provoke AoOs, because that's not what the rules have ever said. Once again, we are moving goal posts just to satisfy some unprecedented fantasy that isn't based in the rules whatsoever.
Why can't the Fighter use Shortswords instead? Heck, why not Sawtooth Sabers, since they can use Advanced Weapons without problem. And of course, a smart enemy or a sadistic GM (or both) will opt to eat the Wizard first, but if said Fighter is using, say, a Two-handed Weapon instead? Sounds like they aren't very effective with smaller weapons, and also isn't going to be using said big weapon to beat your face in; a smart tactic if you can't just fly away.
|
Again, the Fighter has to be aware he is casting spells (AKA performing actions) to use reactions against it. You can't take reactions for things your character isn't aware of. That's metagaming.
You have to be aware they're momentarily distracted and dropped their guard. The Fighter isn't capable of making an attack and deciding not to unless the enemy casts a spell.
Heck, you probably don't know what the action is at that point--that's metagaming.
Again, the Fighter has to be aware he is casting spells (AKA performing actions) to use reactions against it. You can't take reactions for things your character isn't aware of. That's metagaming.
**EDIT** Let's take an example with Conceal Spell from Wizards. This is a feat that lets them do some Skill Checks (Deception and Stealth) to make it seem like they aren't casting a spell. If they succeed at these checks, does the Fighter still get an Attack of Opportunity, even though the Wizard's Conceal Spell feat demonstrates to the Fighter that they aren't physically casting a spell? The answer you provide to this question will definitely be telling of any further conversation we have.Yes, the Fighter absolutely would. Fighters get an AoO for actions with the manipulate trait, which Conceal Spell has, so the fighter definitely still gets an AoO. It is the manipulate action, not the spell itself that is a trigger. Are you suggesting that Conceal Spell wouldn't trigger an AoO even though it has manipulate?
Core Rulebook Pg 473 "This reaction lets you make a melee Strike if a creature within reach uses a manipulate or move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action."
You have to be aware they're momentarily distracted and dropped their guard. The Fighter isn't capable of making an attack and deciding not to unless the enemy casts a spell.
Heck, you probably don't know what the action is at that point--that's metagamint.
Spellcasting is described to be obvious enough that anyone can pick up that it is happening. That is why there are feats that help conceal the fact you are casting a spell. Otherwise it is just as obvious as movement.
I'm on the fence about whether the AoO can be made, but I also thought of something else that would be kind of ridiculous in this situation. Since you're effectively blind, do you have to make a flat check to hit the creature whose body completely surrounds you?
If you have Darkvision, obviously not, since you can see. But even if you don't, being enclosed in a creature means you can't not hit the creature, either. It's comparable to Electrons in physics.
That’s what makes sense and it’s what I assumed, but if you’re playing by RAW and you don’t have darkvision, wouldn’t you technically have to pass the flat check?I'm on the fence about whether the AoO can be made, but I also thought of something else that would be kind of ridiculous in this situation. Since you're effectively blind, do you have to make a flat check to hit the creature whose body completely surrounds you?If you have Darkvision, obviously not, since you can see. But even if you don't, being enclosed in a creature means you can't not hit the creature, either. It's comparable to Electrons in physics.
Even playing by RAW you shouldn't have to make a flat check. You can't ever not touch the creature when you're making a strike in this case due to the sense of touch on your person being overwhelming and essentially present all across your body. Being unable to see, but being encased in creature, makes your vague sense of touch prevalent enough to not require a flat check.