Sneak attack while swallowed?

[Hypersmurf]

I don't think that's the spin that they meant or that we should be putting on the statement about not threatening squares. Not being able to threaten means no AoO, which right there fulfills the statement "While you're grappling, your ability to attack others... is limited."

So do you feel a Large creature with 10 foot reach can make an attack into an adjacent square? He's prohibited by the rules for reach weapons, but by virtue of being large, he is granted the ability to threaten the adjacent square. If "threaten" and "can attack" are distinct concepts, then the ability to threaten adjacent squares doesn't actually override the prohibition on attacking into adjacent squares, no?

-Hyp.

 

[billd91]

What I'm saying, mainly, is that the inability to threaten a square is insufficient to declare you cannot make an attack there. As others have brought up, you can make unarmed attacks in squares you do not threaten. A grappled character threatens no squares, yet he can make attacks in the same square he's in (vs the opponent grappling him).
Threatening a square may be sufficient to allow an attack there, but I don't think we can say it works the other direction.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

Actually, the rules assume Medium creatures all the time.

Other sized creatures are handled in, oddly enough, the section called: "BIG AND LITTLE CREATURES IN COMBAT"
which includes allowing Large creatures to attack at range and up close in their natural threatened area(s).

 

[Hypersmurf]

Other sized creatures are handled in, oddly enough, the section called: "BIG AND LITTLE CREATURES IN COMBAT"
which includes allowing Large creatures to attack at range and up close in their natural threatened area(s).

Under Big and Little Creatures In Combat, it allows Large creatures to attack at range, and to threaten up close.

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.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

As others have brought up, you can make unarmed attacks in squares you do not threaten.

Due to the explicit statement.

A grappled character threatens no squares, yet he can make attacks in the same square he's in (vs the opponent grappling him).

Only by taking the Attack Opponent With Light Weapon grappling option. He can't take the Attack Action to swing his longsword at someone in his square.

-Hyp.

 

[moritheil]

What I'm saying, mainly, is that the inability to threaten a square is insufficient to declare you cannot make an attack there. As others have brought up, you can make unarmed attacks in squares you do not threaten.

As a specified exception to the general rule.

A grappled character threatens no squares, yet he can make attacks in the same square he's in (vs the opponent grappling him).

As a specified exception to the general rule.

Threatening a square may be sufficient to allow an attack there, but I don't think we can say it works the other direction.

What rule do you use to justify the fact that my character cannot draw a sword with 5' reach and attack someone 1000' away with it? Please reference it.

 

[eamon]

Agreed.

When swallowed, the PC can use whatever skills and class abilities he can normally use. That sounds simplest!

Normally, a rogue can sneak attack (if he can see, if he can reach a vital spot, and if the target is denied his dex bonus). So while swallowed, a rogue can sneak attack (if the rogue has darkvision, is near a vital spot, and possible since he is attacking a creature denied it's Dex bonus).

No "extra rules" there, you'll notice. No "special cases".

The rogue can not "normally" use his sneak attack; he can use it when fighting creatures with discernible anatomy who are denied their dex bonus.

I wonder whether the gullets anatomy is discernible; and the rules don't say, why do you assume it is?

I wonder whether the gullet is "denied its dex bonus"; and again, the rules don't say, why do you assume it is?

Consistency suggests that you don't swallow things that intend to stick you with pointy things if you have soft spots they can stick you with. The rules don't say the gullet is subject to sneak attack; and in many ways the gullet is clearly not a normal creature, thus, I'm not going to assume it is vulnerable to sneak attack.

I don't think it has a discernible anatomy even if you can see in the dark, and I don't think it's denied it's dex bonus in the normal sense either. Would you apply 50% mischance for those that can't see in the dark to hit it? I wouldn't. Total concealment normally dictates a 50% mischance if you can't see something, but if it's surrounding you entirely, I don't think it applies. The gullet's a special case, and concerning matters affecting it in-game, I would only use the rules effecting it in game ;-).

 

[billd91]

What rule do you use to justify the fact that my character cannot draw a sword with 5' reach and attack someone 1000' away with it? Please reference it.

How about this:

Melee Attacks
With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can’t strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).

No reference to threatening at all as a prerequisite for being able to make an attack.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I wonder whether the gullets anatomy is discernible; and the rules don't say, why do you assume it is?

Unlike the Gibbering Mouther or the Phasm, the Tyrannosaurus and the Dire Shark have no special quality telling us they have no discernible anatomy.

Discernible anatomy is something that's true for creatures unless something is stated to the contrary. The rules don't say a bugbear, or a unicorn, or a gray render, or a ravid have discernible anatomies; we assume they have them. The rules don't say a Dire Shark has a discernible anatomy; we assume it has one.

The rules say a gibbering mouther does not, so we assume it doesn't.

-Hyp.

 

[Nail]

The rogue can not "normally" use his sneak attack; he can use it when fighting creatures with discernible anatomy who are denied their dex bonus.

A rogue has abilities he can use under certain conditions. These abilities are normal for a rogue. If a creature is not subject to these abilities, that would be abnormal, and the description of the creature should say so. See the Undead type description, for example.

I wonder whether the gullets anatomy is discernible; and the rules don't say, why do you assume it is?

The burden of proof is on exceptions to the rule. Why do you assume the rogue cannot decern the creature's anatomy?

I wonder whether the gullet is "denied its dex bonus"; and again, the rules don't say, why do you assume it is?

When being attacked from within the gullet, the creature's AC is not adjusted by Dex. The creature is denied its Dex to its AC. Clear enough.

The rules don't say the gullet is subject to sneak attack...

The rules don't explicitly state that a blind kobold is subject to sneak attack...unless you look up what "blind" means. The rules don't work the way you suggest.

Would you apply 50% mischance for those that can't see in the dark to hit it? I wouldn't.

When in the gullet, a creature must roll an attack against an AC. It's quite clear you can miss. Are you claiming there is no chance of missing?