D&D 5E Attacking a creature while in it's belly?

[CTurbo]

The Remorhaz for example. If it swallows you, you are blinded and restrained. You have to deal 30 damage from a single turn from inside it in order to escape.

My questions are, if you were holding a dagger, or similar, would you still have disadvantage on your attack? If anything, it seems like it would be an autohit if you're in a belly. literally any direction you poke is a hit IMO.

Also, what if you were holding a maul? it's not logical to even be able to attack with that from inside a belly.

Ok now what if you're a caster and you want to cast firebolt. Would you take damage from your own attack too?

 

[Lanliss]

Holding dagger, I would say no disadvantage. It is small, and easy to use, designed for close quarters "just push it in" style combat.

Maul, can near impossible to attack with. I would just have them roll an Athletics check against a high DC, like 25. If they succeed, roll damage.

Spell casting, I would say yes, they take damage, and possibly suffer Disadvantage since delicate hand movements would be tricky. I wouldn't rule it as a "miss" though, I would just rule that they failed to cast the spell.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

My questions are, if you were holding a dagger, or similar, would you still have disadvantage on your attack?

By the rules, yes absolutely.

Also, what if you were holding a maul? it's not logical to even be able to attack with that from inside a belly.

In the 5th edition design paradigm, ease of play far outranks any attempt at simulation of reality.

Ok now what if you're a caster and you want to cast firebolt. Would you take damage from your own attack too?

Single-target attacks don't suddenly become multi-target attacks - a rules element would have to specify such a change, and being swallowed doesn't do that.

But there is no reason not to house-rule any of that that if you don't like it.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Technically, the Remorhaz can't see you either while you're in its belly, which ought to cancel out the disadvantage you suffer from being restrained.

In practice, it seems like that shouldn't work, and you should still have disadvantage or something.

 

[CTurbo]

Yeah I tend to stick to logic as best as possible even in a world of magic, monsters, demons, and gods.

 

[Storyteller Hero]

I feel that small weapons like daggers should be allowed to attack normally, but larger weapons like a long sword or halberd should have disadvantage since there isn't much room to move or swing, and your balance is going to be off.

With a piercing or slashing weapon, I'd treat the PC's hit as a critical hit for damage. With a bludgeoning weapon, I'd still grant normal damage because there are still bones in the right spots that you can try shattering.

Of course the PCs can also try to get creative by jamming things where they don't belong...

 

[Shiroiken]

In some previous editions, you couldn't even attack while swallowed unless it was a very small weapons (such as a dagger). 5E has simpler rules, even if they don't always make a lot of logical sense. Logic is left to the DM's discretion, so you can tweak it as much as you want.

 

[dave2008]

By the rules, yes absolutely.

In the 5th edition design paradigm, ease of play far outranks any attempt at simulation of reality.

Yes, but DM adjudication is also a design paradigm and it is equally easy, IMO, to say you can use a dagger normally or you can't use a two handed weapon or bludgeoning weapons do half damage or whatever.

 

[dave2008]

Technically, the Remorhaz can't see you either while you're in its belly, which ought to cancel out the disadvantage you suffer from being restrained.

In practice, it seems like that shouldn't work, and you should still have disadvantage or something.

But the Remorhaz is not attacking the swallowed creature - does it still apply, I can't remember the RAW. I assumed the disadvantage came from the restraint not being blinded anyway (P.S. I know the RAW of the conditions) since the target surrounds you I wouldn't think being blinded would matter for targeting.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Yes, but DM adjudication is also a design paradigm and it is equally easy, IMO, to say you can use a dagger normally or you can't use a two handed weapon or bludgeoning weapons do half damage or whatever.

Of course. I was just saying that a rule which applies the same conditions to all circumstances (i.e. all attacks being handled uniformly while swallowed) is easier to use relative to one that applies to some, but not all, circumstances (i.e. there are penalties, but not when X or Y).

Sure, 5th edition has some instances of the later (Underwater combat having a short list of weapons that don't suffer disadvantage) but it heavily leans towards the former.