Swallow Whole and Attack of Opportunity


Rules Discussion

1 to 50 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

If a player is Swallowed Whole, do they get to make an Attack of Opportunity when the creature that swallowed them moves?

I think this may be a case of RAW says yes and common sense says no, but I'd like to hear what some others might say or if I've overlooked something. Thanks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
jrg1199 wrote:
I think this may be a case of RAW says yes and common sense says no,

Pretty much that. That's how I read it too.

I wouldn't let AoO trigger once the character is swallowed.


I second breithauptclan.

I wonder no what happens if a polymorphed character swallows an enemy and the next round the polymorph effect ends ( dispelled or the spell runs out of time).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
jrg1199 wrote:

If a player is Swallowed Whole, do they get to make an Attack of Opportunity when the creature that swallowed them moves?

I think this may be a case of RAW says yes and common sense says no, but I'd like to hear what some others might say or if I've overlooked something. Thanks.

I'd definitely say no. This is largely because a character needs to be aware of the action taking place in order for it to take a reaction against it. It would be no different than if a character that is unseen or invisible performs a move action, or appears to do an action that's different from a move action (such as with an illusion).

In this case, the character is swallowed whole; all it can see is the insides of the creature. It does not see the creature moving, and it's not (fully) aware that the creature is moving, so it can't take a reaction against it because there is no trigger to its knowledge. Even if it somehow could (such as with some special sense, maybe blindsight, tremorsense, etc.), it would still be restricted to the weapon limitations while being swallowed whole.


AoO? Interesting, but even more interesting is Disrupt Prey. How about a swallowed ranger hunting the swallower? Disrupt Prey is unlimited as a Free Action. With crits, could they be stabbing the swallower so painfully that they keep disrupting its movement?


I see disrupt prey as a reaction.
How can you enhance the feat making it a free action?


Ah, thanks. I see they errata-ed that. It's a reaction now which makes sense.


Plane wrote:
AoO? Interesting, but even more interesting is Disrupt Prey. How about a swallowed ranger hunting the swallower? Disrupt Prey is unlimited as a Free Action. With crits, could they be stabbing the swallower so painfully that they keep disrupting its movement?

My argument still applies for any activity that has a trigger, which includes Disrupt Prey, Stand Still, Implement's Interrption, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'd say 100% no. The target needs to leave a threatened square. Being in the creature's stomach, the PC would be moving with the creature, right? This doesn't even remotely meet the criteria for leaving a threatened square to cause an AoO.


jrg1199 wrote:

If a player is Swallowed Whole, do they get to make an Attack of Opportunity when the creature that swallowed them moves?

I think this may be a case of RAW says yes and common sense says no, but I'd like to hear what some others might say or if I've overlooked something. Thanks.

Interesting argument.

Attack of Opportunity wrote:

Source Core Rulebook pg. 142 3.0

Trigger 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.

It fails because even though a creature 5 ft away would be within your reach. If you have been swallowed whole your reach is not far as there is a wall in the way.

Range and Reach wrote:

Source Core Rulebook pg. 455 3.0

Reach is how far you can physically reach with your body or a weapon

I think that being physically blocked from reaching a square makes it clear enough Attack of Opportunity won't work.

Not really a RAW problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wouldn't they still be in your reach? You know, since you can still stab the inside of their mouth/stomach?


Guntermench wrote:
Wouldn't they still be in your reach? You know, since you can still stab the inside of their mouth/stomach?

Again, how do you know they are performing a move action while you are inside the creature?


Probably when you start shaking around.

But that wasn't my point, my point was in regards to Gortle's post about reach.


Guntermench wrote:
Wouldn't they still be in your reach? You know, since you can still stab the inside of their mouth/stomach?

OK. Fine. Point taken.

Their action is not within your reach.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So you're arguing they're being given full cover by their own body?

Interesting.


Well you can't reach the action you want to react to.
Maybe we need to look at rules for Line of Sight or Line of Effect.

How do you detect that the movement has happened?


On the one hand, I feel like a typical creature's locomotion involves enough jostling that a creature within them would be able to detect. If you can tell a creature you're riding is moving (with your eyes closed) then you can tell when you're within them. On the other hand, it would be fair to argue that the physical rigours of combat would be sufficient to mask the difference between motion (from one square to another) and motion (fighting).

Aside from that, there is one minor misconception which I wanted to address from above:

Quote:
I'd say 100% no. The target needs to leave a threatened square.

In fact, there are three triggers for AoO.

-Leaving a threatened square during a move action (as mentioned)
-Making a ranged attack, or
-Using any action with the manipulate or move trait

The last is distinct from the former. Normally a move action would trigger by virtue of leaving the threatened square, but in the case of move actions which do not involve grid movement, they can still trigger by this secondary prompt.

This is not to say whether the Fighter should or shouldn't get the AoO. I'm inclined to believe not myself, but don't yet have stakes in the mechanical debate.


Guntermench wrote:
Probably when you start shaking around.

But you're always shaking around while you're in the esophagus of a creature that's fighting, regardless of whether they move (or do a move action) or not. That's basically how organs work; they move and writhe around inside your body, especially if they are trying to digest things. (And that's not an action with the Move trait, before you try to argue that as a reason for triggering, because if it was, simply being in a square triggers reactions then.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd give AoO to my players swallowed. Why wouldn't I? They're already in a super bad position. If the swallower was dumb enough to swallow a fighter still wielding sharp stabby things instead of the cleric, I'd let the fighter use the class abilities they invested their character in. Stab away.


For further consideration to your mental imagery: Remember that the Fighter will not be able to AoO with their long sword, great sword, or other large 1-2h weapon regardless what your table decides to do with triggers. If the Fighter is able to make an AoO it will have to be using an unarmed attack, dagger, or other light weapon. Biting back is unorthodox, but acceptable.


Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

On the one hand, I feel like a typical creature's locomotion involves enough jostling that a creature within them would be able to detect. If you can tell a creature you're riding is moving (with your eyes closed) then you can tell when you're within them. On the other hand, it would be fair to argue that the physical rigours of combat would be sufficient to mask the difference between motion (from one square to another) and motion (fighting).

Aside from that, there is one minor misconception which I wanted to address from above:

Quote:
I'd say 100% no. The target needs to leave a threatened square.

In fact, there are three triggers for AoO.

-Leaving a threatened square during a move action (as mentioned)
-Making a ranged attack, or
-Using any action with the manipulate or move trait

The last is distinct from the former. Normally a move action would trigger by virtue of leaving the threatened square, but in the case of move actions which do not involve grid movement, they can still trigger by this secondary prompt.

This is not to say whether the Fighter should or shouldn't get the AoO. I'm inclined to believe not myself, but don't yet have stakes in the mechanical debate.

The third one is meant to stuff like stand and high jump, since rules are from the crb ( I can't reall any other move action triggering without leaving a square, but I guess there may be others ).


No, it's for starting a Stride too. The leaving a square option is for when a creature started a move action outside your reach and passes through your reach.


You are right.

Never noticed in details because during a stride/tt/etc the character always move ( as AoO doesn't interrupt movements unless while being on a specific stance).


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

There are other scattered uses of the Move trait as well, of course. It's one of the traits on Perform if your type of Performance is Dance, for example.


Plane wrote:
I'd give AoO to my players swallowed. Why wouldn't I? They're already in a super bad position. If the swallower was dumb enough to swallow a fighter still wielding sharp stabby things instead of the cleric, I'd let the fighter use the class abilities they invested their character in. Stab away.

Fighters get AoO for free regardless of whatever build choices they take. It's not any more of an investment than it is for spells from a Wizard. Saying it's an investment is patently false, compared to any other class whom may get it as a feat later. That is an investment choice. Base class features are not.

Also, this doesn't address how they know a move action is taking place, when they are inside the creature, their line of sight to the creature's action being blocked by the insides of the creature. It would be like saying you should trigger on invisible creatures that you aren't aware of. Or even better, triggering from not doing anything.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Fighters get AoO for free regardless of whatever build choices they take. It's not any more of an investment than it is for spells from a Wizard. Saying it's an investment is patently false, compared to any other class whom may get it as a feat later.

Arguably that makes it the single biggest investment of your career.


Squiggit wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Fighters get AoO for free regardless of whatever build choices they take. It's not any more of an investment than it is for spells from a Wizard. Saying it's an investment is patently false, compared to any other class whom may get it as a feat later.
Arguably that makes it the single biggest investment of your career.

To a point. It's an investment in that it is a choice done in response to the weight of other choices. But it's far more external than someone who spent feats and waited class levels for it, and weighted it against other options in the same class, which is the far more common use of the term "investment" in this case.

Even so, taking a class shouldn't mean you can break obvious rules, like reacting to an event you can't see or sense happening, or making up random ways to trigger reactions.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Also, this doesn't address how they know a move action is taking place, when they are inside the creature, their line of sight to the creature's action being blocked by the insides of the creature. It would be like saying you should trigger on invisible creatures that you aren't aware of. Or even better, triggering from not doing anything.

How does the one swallowed not have line of sight to the creature that has swallowed them? I know of no rules that separate the parts of a single creature in such a way that actions are not done by the creature as a whole. That is like saying you couldn't possibly ever kill an opponent with an AoO triggered by a manipulate action because the manipulate was just done with a hand and so the attack could only be made on the hand.

Normally a creature provokes, and you are then allowed to attack the creature, not specific parts of the creature.


Mellack wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Also, this doesn't address how they know a move action is taking place, when they are inside the creature, their line of sight to the creature's action being blocked by the insides of the creature. It would be like saying you should trigger on invisible creatures that you aren't aware of. Or even better, triggering from not doing anything.

How does the one swallowed not have line of sight to the creature that has swallowed them?

Because you literally have a physical barrier between you and the actions taken. You don't see the legs move or the hands manipulate. You can literally see nothing from inside a creature that you could see from outside the creature, and vice versa. So how can you react to an action you can't see? Yes you can see the creature (asuming a light source or other) but only a part of the creature that is blocking you from seeing everything about the creature. In a real sense the creature is hidden from you.

Mellack wrote:
I know of no rules that separate the parts of a single creature in such a way that actions are not done by the creature as a whole.

Agreed.


Mellack wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Also, this doesn't address how they know a move action is taking place, when they are inside the creature, their line of sight to the creature's action being blocked by the insides of the creature. It would be like saying you should trigger on invisible creatures that you aren't aware of. Or even better, triggering from not doing anything.

How does the one swallowed not have line of sight to the creature that has swallowed them? I know of no rules that separate the parts of a single creature in such a way that actions are not done by the creature as a whole. That is like saying you couldn't possibly ever kill an opponent with an AoO triggered by a manipulate action because the manipulate was just done with a hand and so the attack could only be made on the hand.

Normally a creature provokes, and you are then allowed to attack the creature, not specific parts of the creature.

They don't have line of sight to the action being taken, because again, they're inside the creature, not out and about seeing it actually move. They have no means of knowing if the creature is moving, thereby making it vulnerable to reprisal.

Just as well, if a creature behind a wall performs a move action, can you take a Reaction on them if they're within your reach? Probably not. Same concept here. You can't Kool-Aid Man a wall as part of the reaction, and that's even assuming you can sense them move.

Even so, if we decide that's not actually the case then the creature that has Swallowed the PC can perform Reactions like AoO and make Strikes on the character that's been swallowed. Good talk. Now a Dragon can't ever lose for any reason because all he has to do is eat a PC, fly up, and just 1v1 them while they are severely debilitated. Short of some shenanigans, this doesn't work out well for the players.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Now a Dragon can't ever lose for any reason because all he has to do is eat a PC, fly up, and just 1v1 them while they are severely debilitated.

Smart enemies should do things like this. Or just hungry enemies.


Guntermench wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Now a Dragon can't ever lose for any reason because all he has to do is eat a PC, fly up, and just 1v1 them while they are severely debilitated.
Smart enemies should do things like this. Or just hungry enemies.

All I'm saying is that if the roles were reversed, I guarantee you a player would sit there and say "I shouldn't be attacked, he can't reach down his gullet to claw at me!" While in the same breath, saying he should get a reaction for an activity he didn't see occur, and can just Kool-Aid Man through said gullet to strike at the creature?

Yeah, no, there's a line to draw for shenanigans like this, and it's drawn there for obvious reasons.


So by the reasoning that you cannot see the action, you cannot react even though you can see the creature, couldn't someone have their cloak or shield over their hand whenever they are doing something with the manipulate trait to not trigger a response? Drawing a potion or casting just got a whole lot safer.


Mellack wrote:

So by the reasoning that you cannot see the action, you cannot react even though you can see the creature, couldn't someone have their cloak or shield over their hand whenever they are doing something with the manipulate trait to not trigger a response? Drawing a potion or casting just got a whole lot safer.

You can't see the external activities of the creature, which is what Moving and Manipulating involves; external bodily movement. That's what causes AoO to trigger. If you're inside the creature, all you will see is either darkness (if you can't see in the dark), or gastrointestinal flesh. That's it. If you can't see the creature moving, how do you know it's moving when you're inside its gullet? Reactions having a trigger also still need to be known that the trigger is being met to take them, and also need to have a reasonable means to reach the creature. While you can do the latter (because you're within reach), you don't have the former, which means it can't be done due to not having Line of Sight to the activity in question.

It would be no different than trying to strike a creature that is undetected by a character, or is completely blocked off by a wall, even if the wall in this case is...well...the insides of the creature. Do you know or see the creature is moving as a character? No? Then you can't react against it. Doing otherwise is metagaming shenanigans.

As for your cloak and shield shenanigans, while I cannot support the cloak argument, there is a feat that does similar to what you describe, but only for Striding, and for half their speed. Not going to say there is truth to what you say, but there is certainly limited feat support for the concept. Which, by the way, is far more obvious an investment compared to, say, simply choosing your starting class.

**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.


It is just so strange to claim that the creature is being hidden by that same creature. So you somehow both simultaneously are seeing it and not seeing it. This is even though you agreed that there is nowhere in any rules that support having actions not done by the entire creature.
You are saying you cannot see the creature move because that same moving creature is blocking you from seeing the creature you are looking at moving.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Just as well, if a creature behind a wall performs a move action, can you take a Reaction on them if they're within your reach? Probably not.

Well, the obivous difference here is that the 'wall' is the creature itself.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


**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."


Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
Biting back is unorthodox, but acceptable.

Apologies for the of-topic interjection, but...

That literally made me do a spit-take. LOL


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From an RAI point of view, AoOs are supposed to represent the fact that creatures taking a Manipulate or Move action are lowering their guard, allowing their opponent to seize the opportunity to land a blow. So, from RAI, you shouldn't have an AoO from the inside of a creature.

If you want to strictly apply RAW, then when a character is swallowed the player should move to another room as they are now unaware of whatever happens outside the insides of the monster and no one is aware of what's happening to the character. As a result, the player would not be aware of any AoO triggering action and as such unable to make an AoO.

If the GM wants, they may allow such a player to scream AoO once per round when they think the current bowel movements are part of a Move or Manipulate action, allowing an attack if it's the case or wasting its reaction if it's not. That can be funny. And it's still quite RAW.

But there's no way the character would know for sure that an actual Move or Manipulate action is happening. They have to literally read the entrails to determine it.

So, there's a bit of flexibility the GM can use to either allow or deny an AoO, but clearly it shouldn't be as easy as using the metagaming information the player has to know when the character can take their reaction.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Guntermench wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Now a Dragon can't ever lose for any reason because all he has to do is eat a PC, fly up, and just 1v1 them while they are severely debilitated.
Smart enemies should do things like this. Or just hungry enemies.
All I'm saying is that if the roles were reversed, I guarantee you a player would sit there and say "I shouldn't be attacked, he can't reach down his gullet to claw at me!"

It's fun because it's true!


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Guntermench wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Now a Dragon can't ever lose for any reason because all he has to do is eat a PC, fly up, and just 1v1 them while they are severely debilitated.
Smart enemies should do things like this. Or just hungry enemies.
All I'm saying is that if the roles were reversed, I guarantee you a player would sit there and say "I shouldn't be attacked, he can't reach down his gullet to claw at me!"

Having had multiple characters be punched while in and through a stomach and figured it made sense in the situation, I categorically disagree with you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Claiming that a swallowed PC can take AoOs when the creatures they are in moves is one of the most gamist shenanigans I have ever heard.
The swallowed character isn't even on a map square anymore.


Mellack wrote:

It is just so strange to claim that the creature is being hidden by that same creature. So you somehow both simultaneously are seeing it and not seeing it. This is even though you agreed that there is nowhere in any rules that support having actions not done by the entire creature.

You are saying you cannot see the creature move because that same moving creature is blocking you from seeing the creature you are looking at moving.

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.


Mellack wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


**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."

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Mellack wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


**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."

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.

That is just completely wrong. Fighters do not get an AoO to casting, they get it to actions that have the manipulate trait. Conceal spell has the manipulate trait, so a fighter gets to react. It doesn't matter if the fighter thinks they are casting a spell or making shadow puppets, they still get an AoO. Are you claiming that Conceal Spell somehow negates the Fighter's reaction to the action of Conceal Spell?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


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.

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.


Mellack wrote:
That is just completely wrong. Fighters do not get an AoO to casting, they get it to actions that have the manipulate trait. Conceal spell has the manipulate trait, so a fighter gets to react. It doesn't matter if the fighter thinks they are casting a spell or making shadow puppets, they still get an AoO. Are you claiming that Conceal Spell somehow negates the Fighter's reaction to the action of Conceal Spell?

You definitely get a reaction to Conceal Spell, Darksol is wrong about that. Still, you have no idea or a wrong idea of what you are reacting to (so if you are in a social interaction you will certainly not take it when in the middle of combat you will certainly take it).

Mellack wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


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.

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.

You can only react to actions you're aware of. If an Unnoticed creature pass by you don't get an AoO. Or, to be clearer, you get an AoO but you are never noticed you can take it.


SuperBidi wrote:


You can only react to actions you're aware of. If an Unnoticed creature pass by you don't get an AoO. Or, to be clearer, you get an AoO but you are never noticed you can take it.

I agree, but I am not convinced that a creature is able to conceal an action taken by that creature by interposing itself. That leads to things like if you have your belt pouch at the back of your belt, do you get to draw potions from it without triggering reactions?


Mellack wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:


You can only react to actions you're aware of. If an Unnoticed creature pass by you don't get an AoO. Or, to be clearer, you get an AoO but you are never noticed you can take it.
I agree, but I am not convinced that a creature is able to conceal an action taken by that creature by interposing itself. That leads to things like if you have your belt pouch at the back of your belt, do you get to draw potions from it without triggering reactions?

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.


SuperBidi wrote:


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.

1 to 50 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Swallow Whole and Attack of Opportunity All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.