Sneak attack while swallowed?

[eamon]

The point is, does "with no modifiers for size or Dexterity" mean the "target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC".

....and of course the answer is: "Yes. Not getting a modifier from Dex is - by definition - being denied your Dex bonus to AC."

If I say "You may not use the modifier of 'Kids' on your taxes", you would clearly consider that being "denied your Kid bonus to taxes".

I agree with jaelis that you might not be able to sneak even if an opponent is denied his dex bonus, like when you can't percieve any vital spots. Notably, I don't doubt that rogues are very trained in identifying vital spots from the outside, but somehow have the feeling they're not quite as practiced find them from the inside. It's a rare experience, I have a feeling ;-).

In any case, merely because you don't have a dex bonus doesn't mean you're being denied it. It's possible to lose your dex modifier without being denied it, for example through something as mundane as a dexterity penalty. The gullet has no dexterity modifier - no penalty & no bonus - but that doesn't mean its dex bonus is denied either.

The gullet is not denied dex, it's just that a creature's gullet has no dex modifier (just like it has no armor, no deflection and no size modifier etc...) Therefore, the absence of a dex modifier in the gullet's AC can't be interpreted as being denied dex for the purposes of sneak attack.

 

[Nail]

I agree with jaelis that you might not be able to sneak even if an opponent is denied his dex bonus, like when you can't percieve any vital spots.

If I put a knife in your gullet, would that be a "vital spot"?

The argument about the interior of the gullet not being a vital spot is ....reaching, IMO. The gullet does not have separate hp. It's part of the creature -- and right next to the heart, lungs, etc...

In fact it is NOT self-evident that the gullet is not a vital spot in and of itself.

 

[jaelis]

If I put a knife in your gullet, would that be a "vital spot"?

Yes, but I would never try to swallow a live creature holding a knife either. Some monsters are different from me in that regard.

In fact it is NOT self-evident that the gullet is not a vital spot in and of itself.

I think that's a decision individual DMs can make for themselves. The point is that there is an additional requirement for sneak attack, and the rules don't say how to adjudicate it. That's fine, it just means a DM should look at the issue and decide.

 

[Nail]

I think that's a decision individual DMs can make for themselves.

Agreed.

...with a little help from the rogue's player, I hope.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Agreed.

...with a little help from the rogue's player, I hope.

That's how we did it, on a case by case basis, with a trend towards allowing it.

Certainly, sitting in the stomach of a fiendish dire shark with paired short swords and carving my way through to its intestines or heart seems less dangerous than cutting my way out, just to be bitten and swallowed again.

Brad

 

[Nail]

Right.

Our party has run into T. Rexes twice. The second time, the swallowed guy just stayed inside and hacked away. Much less risky.

 

[AnonymousOne]

That's how we did it, on a case by case basis, with a trend towards allowing it.

Certainly, sitting in the stomach of a fiendish dire shark with paired short swords and carving my way through to its intestines or heart seems less dangerous than cutting my way out, just to be bitten and swallowed again.

Brad

Too bad you can only attack with one light one handed weapon while swallowed as per the grapple rules.

 

[Pbartender]

You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. While grappling, you threaten no squares. Into which squares can you make a melee attack? No squares.

Careful there Hyp... Read the rest of the passage, "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity."

Threatened area is not the same as reach. You can't threaten outside your reach, but you can feasibly reach outside your threatened area. Threatened area only determines where you can target AoOs. Reach determines where you can attack.

For example, a normal human making an unarmed attack does not threaten any area, but does still have a reach of 5'... Otherwise, nobody would ever be able to punch each other without Improved Unarmed Attack.

So, technically speaking, a grappled character could attack someone outside the grapple, so long as the target is within reach. However, none of the specific actions when grappled allow for attacking outside the grapple. So, you are correct in that a grappled character can only attack the person they are grappling with, and since the grappled opponent neither loses their Dex bonus nor is flanked, you can't Sneak Attack them... but that has nothing to do with losing your threatened area.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Too bad you can only attack with one light one handed weapon while swallowed as per the grapple rules.

But it looked cool, erm, awesome, erm, tubular at the time. (It's the principle of the matter, you know.)

Besides, what else was I supposed to do with my other sword?

Brad

 

[Hypersmurf]

Threatened area is not the same as reach.

The way it is being used in this context, it is. They state that your ability to attack others is limited. The way that they limit it is to forbid you to threaten any squares - thus removing the existence of any squares into which you can make a melee attack.

Compare the text for reach weapons with the text for big and small creatures in combat:

A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren’t adjacent to him or her. Most reach double the wielder’s natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square.

and

Creatures that take up more than 1 square typically have a natural reach of 10 feet or more, meaning that they can reach targets even if they aren’t in adjacent squares.

Unlike when someone uses a reach weapon, a creature with greater than normal natural reach (more than 5 feet) still threatens squares adjacent to it. A creature with greater than normal natural reach usually gets an attack of opportunity against you if you approach it, because you must enter and move within the range of its reach before you can attack it. (This attack of opportunity is not provoked if you take a 5-foot step.)

Someone with a reach weapon: Has doubled reach - 10 feet - which means can strike 10 feet, cannot strike 5 feet.
Large creature: Has 10 feet of reach. Can strike 10 feet, and threatens adjacent squares.

Now, we know that 10 feet of reach means "can strike 10 feet, cannot strike 5 feet" from the reach weapon description, and we know from the big and little text that the Large creature threatens adjacent squares. If we're drawing a demarcation between the definition of 'ability to attack' and 'ability to make an AoO', though, the fact that the Large creature threatens adjacent squares doesn't remove the prohibition that 10 feet of reach forbids striking adjacent creatures. He threatens them, he just can't hit them.

But it's clear that by "still threatens adjacent squares", the Large creature gains the ability to make an AoO into adjacent squares, and also to strike into those squares. The term 'threaten' covers both AoOs, and ability to attack.

The grappling creature loses his ability to threaten squares - he cannot make AoOs, not may he attack.

Consider the phrase "your next action". At times, this is used to mean "the next time you take a free/move/standard action". At other times, it is used to mean "your next turn in the initiative order". It's necessary to consider context to determine which is meant.

Similarly, the way 'you don't threaten' is used with respect to unarmed strikes and whip is less restrictive than how it is used with respect to grappling. We know from other parts of the rules that the grappler may not attack non-grappling opponents; the only rules text that actually imposes this limitation is "You threaten no squares while grappling". In the grpapling context, "You threaten no squares" prevents you attacking at all into those squares. In the unarmed strike context, "You threaten no squares" prevents you making AoOs.

-Hyp.