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

[Oofta]

I'd probably allow anyone in the stomach to attack with just about any weapon, although it would have disadvantage with anything not light. Even if they're using a maul, they could use it to punch the critter's kidneys. Spells, of course are not limited by being restrained, I don't think I'd apply the normal penalty for ranged spells.

Of course this is all pointless. Like the old joke about escaping the stomach of a whale, all you have to do is run around until you're all pooped out.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

You normally have advantage for attacking a creature who cannot see you. Thus, technically, the Remorhaz being "blinded" w/rt you inside its stomach cancels out the disadvantage for being blinded and restrained, by RAW. In practice I question how many DMs would apply the rules this way. You might find them ruling something more like "being in intimate physical contact with each other is as good as seeing, so the only thing that matters is restraint, which means you have disadvantage."

 

[aco175]

I thought that most swallowed creatures automatically take crushing and acid damage each round of some combination. It is not an attack, so there would be no disadvantage.

The other point is the 30 points of damage needed to escape. Not many PCs are doing this in one round unless they have multiattack or possibly backstab. Fighting a large enough creature to swallow you may make you high enough level to get these things, but it is still hard enough to get out in one round.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I'd say disadvantage no matter what you are using. I don't think the 1d4 damage from a dagger is for just pushing it into something any more than the 1 point of unarmed attack damage is for giving a noogie.

I might, however, say that some weapons are simply not usable. I wouldn't let you swing a maul in a 2.5ft square crawlspace, so why should I let you do so in something's stomach?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I think the general intent is that you get disadvantage from being restrained but that a DM is free to grant any kind of benefit for any well-justified clever idea on the player's part or extra penalty for trying something silly, just like in any other situation in the game.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[Plaguescarred]

I let swallowed creature attack the creature with disadvantage, provided it has sufficient room to wield the weapon.


Yan
D&D Playtester

 

[CTurbo]

I'll cast fireball from inside it's stomach! haha

Hmm would rogue get sneak attack damage from inside a stomach?

I think I'll rule it on a weapon to weapon basis. Swinging a maul just doesn't make sense, but I guess you could still sorta ram it in the creature's insides.

30 damage does seem like a lot for some characters.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Hmm would rogue get sneak attack damage from inside a stomach?

No, because you can't sneak attack if you have disadvantage on the attack roll.

I think I'll rule it on a weapon to weapon basis. Swinging a maul just doesn't make sense, but I guess you could still sorta ram it in the creature's insides.

I'm actually interested in how people are trying to come at this situation from the point of view of "make sense", and aren't arriving at it making perfect sense that a stomach full of live food can cause serious harm just by aspect of struggling while in contact with your soft tissues.

If a person somehow got their stomach filled by a live cat, I'm sure it'd hurt like mad even if it didn't have claws or teeth to snag and poke with.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

No, because you can't sneak attack if you have disadvantage on the attack roll.

Does that also count if it's neutralized by an advantage, though?

For me it would be a clear case of 2x advantage and 1x disadvantage, which should neutralize to "No advantage, no disadvantage". But then I'd assume you can sneak attack, no?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Does that also count if it's neutralized by an advantage, though?

If, while blinded and restrained inside the creature that swallowed you, you manage to get advantage, yes you could then sneak attack so long as the creature has another enemy at the appropriate distance from it that isn't incapacitated.