| SuperParkourio |
Snake Fangs allows the caster to Swallow Whole, sending the target to an extraplanar space resembling the inside of a snake's stomach. So it's not the caster's real stomach. Can damage dealt to the stomach still affect the caster, or does it only matter for Rupturing the stomach?
| Finoan |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say that since the spell doesn't say it's you that swallows and that you take that damage, you don't take it.
It does say that you use the Swallow Whole ability. It even gives a Rupture value that increases with the Heightened Rank of the spell.
I would rule that the swallowed creature does do damage to the caster.
| Errenor |
Well, it does say that you are the one doing the swallowing. It's just that the swallowed creature is going to an extraplanar space.
Errenor wrote:I'd say that since the spell doesn't say it's you that swallows and that you take that damage, you don't take it.It does say that you use the Swallow Whole ability. It even gives a Rupture value that increases with the Heightened Rank of the spell.
Yes, but SW assumes that the swallowed creature is inside the swallowing creature (which is obvious and how could it be otherwise?). But this spell explicitly says it's not the case. It could be different (spell could explain that the victim somehow fits inside the caster). It's not. It's clearly specific against general case. And GMs are allowed to not be program interpreters. The victim is not inside the caster. The spell does not say the damage transfers to the caster. Therefore it does not.
| Finoan |
GMs are allowed to not be program interpreters. The victim is not inside the caster. The spell does not say the damage transfers to the caster. Therefore it does not.
I have to chuckle a bit at the inconsistency.
So I am allowed to not be a program interpreter - I can use my own logic and reasoning.
Except where it supports any other conclusion. If the spell does not say that the extraplanar space is still connected to the caster, then it must not be. And if the spell does not say that the Rupture damage transfers to the caster then it must not. No exceptions.
It couldn't possibly be that the extraplanar space is co-located in the caster's stomach.
| TheFinish |
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well as I read it, Rupture is damage that must be dealt to the creature using Swallow Whole, which in this case would be the caster.
Plus, wouldn't we need to use the caster's own Athletics DC for Escape, and their AC and resistances (if any) for the Rupture? Because it's either that or doing it out of thin air.
Which makes me think the interdimensional space is linked to the caster and the caster will take damage.
If the extradimensional space came with it's own set of statistics it would be different, but that's not the case.
| Castilliano |
Well as I read it, Rupture is damage that must be dealt to the creature using Swallow Whole, which in this case would be the caster.
Plus, wouldn't we need to use the caster's own Athletics DC for Escape, and their AC and resistances (if any) for the Rupture? Because it's either that or doing it out of thin air.
Which makes me think the interdimensional space is linked to the caster and the caster will take damage.
If the extradimensional space came with it's own set of statistics it would be different, but that's not the case.
That's how I read it too. You follow the normal rules for Swallow Whole because the spell does not provide overriding rules.
The writer probably should've clarified that (or other RAI) when introducing extraplanar elements. IMO those were added to justify issues of volume...to make the spell function, not necessarily to protect the caster. To protect the caster the spell would need to note the change, not require extrapolation (however reasonable when fleshed out).
Funnily enough, last night I was designing a monster w/ a similar extraplanar shunting w/ Swallow Whole (never having seen this spell). I figured it'd be too unfair if the swallowed couldn't cut their way out and that such cutting would in some way have to involve the monster taking damage. Much as Finoan referred to, that would involve some magical-woohoo colocation going on, which syncs with how the rules are presented with this spell.
The one detail nagging me though is how there's no mention of cutting an opening in the caster. Arrgh. Damn you, elusive RAI!
| Errenor |
It couldn't possibly be that the extraplanar space is co-located in the caster's stomach.
Exactly. If it is, it isn't extraplanar. Which are things with a lot of known properties in the game.
Like, not being connected physically with the Universe. When all interactions demand being able to interact with other planes. Which Strikes are not.The one detail nagging me though is how there's no mention of cutting an opening in the caster. Arrgh. Damn you, elusive RAI!
Yep. "It appears in a space adjacent to you"! Extremely scary and damaging for the caster! Surely the result of taking a lot of damage from the inside.
| Castilliano |
Finoan wrote:It couldn't possibly be that the extraplanar space is co-located in the caster's stomach.Exactly. If it is, it isn't extraplanar. Which are things with a lot of known properties in the game.
Like, not being connected physically with the Universe. When all interactions demand being able to interact with other planes. Which Strikes are not.
Castilliano wrote:The one detail nagging me though is how there's no mention of cutting an opening in the caster. Arrgh. Damn you, elusive RAI!Yep. "It appears in a space adjacent to you"! Extremely scary and damaging for the caster! Surely the result of taking a lot of damage from the inside.
Why are you only restating the points that agree with your position rather than addressing the counterpoints?
| Errenor |
Why are you only restating the points that agree with your position rather than addressing the counterpoints?
Because I don't see them as counterpoints. Or because my points are already counterpoints to them, I don't need to address anything specifically. As you like. You say "mechanically follow the rules even if the spell doesn't explicitly state your conclusions, don't even try to think about the story", and I say "GMs are allowed to take narrative into account, especially in this specific case which is a clear written exception and the game more or less clearly explains what 'extraplanar' is in several places".
I don't even say that your ruling is wrong. It's ok. You can use it as you like. It's just not the only ruling according to the rules, which aren't clear here.