Sneak attack while swallowed?

[Kmart Kommando]

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.

agreed, except for:

Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature. In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more.

natural reach = how far out they can attack with a non-reach melee weapon normally.

 

[Eric Tolle]

Actually, this matter is far simpler than all of you are making it out to be. It's this: do you want to screw over the player, or the monster? Are you on the side of the players or the monster? Answer that, and stick to your guns.

Of course in the case of house rules, you can also ask the question "Is it cooler or better for the game that the rogue be able to slice and dice the monster from the inside, or is it cooler and better for the game if he dies slowly screaming?"

Really, you guys are overthinking things, with your discussion of anatomy and such. If you want a truly generic ruling, use the truly generic principles.

 

[moritheil]

Actually, this matter is far simpler than all of you are making it out to be. It's this: do you want to screw over the player, or the monster? Are you on the side of the players or the monster? Answer that, and stick to your guns.

Of course in the case of house rules, you can also ask the question "Is it cooler or better for the game that the rogue be able to slice and dice the monster from the inside, or is it cooler and better for the game if he dies slowly screaming?"

Really, you guys are overthinking things, with your discussion of anatomy and such. If you want a truly generic ruling, use the truly generic principles.

The problem is that kind of thinking is unacceptable if you want a pure simulationist set of rulings, free of metagame influence.

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

Thank you. Now, what does threatening mean, in your interpretation of the term?

 

[ElectricDragon]

Grappling: Engaged in wrestling or some other form of hand-to-hand struggle with one or more attackers. A grappling character can undertake only a limited number of actions. He does not threaten any squares, and loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) against opponents he isn’t grappling.

So a grappling creature does not lose its Dex bonus to AC against the creature it is grappling. The statement about Dex not applying to the gullet AC is just a formula, not a deny statement. (note the word DENY or DENIED does not appear, whereas it does in every other case that I can find).

A swallowed creature is considered to be grappled

Ciao
Dave

 

[billd91]

Thank you. Now, what does threatening mean, in your interpretation of the term?

The Glossary covers this pretty reasonably.

Threaten: To be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space. A creature typically threatens all squares within its natural reach, even when it is not its turn to take an action.

There are further elaborations on sized creatures and all that. Note that it does not say anything about being unable to make an attack into a square if that square is not threatened, as is the case when the character is unarmed and when the character is grappled. It does say typically, which not only suggests that most of the time the character does threaten any square into which it can make an attack, but also that there are cases where that does not hold (the atypical cases).

The biggest problem I have with threatening being sufficient to define ability to make a melee attack is that the condition becomes circular. You threaten an area because you can make a melee attack there. Then, you can make a melee attack there because you threaten. Which is the chicken and which is the egg?

The way I see things, you threaten an area if you can make a melee attack there... barring a few specific conditions (unarmed, grappled). Threatening enables you to make an AoO. Not threatening means you can't make an AoO, but it doesn't necessarily mean you can't make a melee attack on your own turn since there are those specific conditions.

 

[moritheil]

The biggest problem I have with threatening being sufficient to define ability to make a melee attack is that the condition becomes circular. You threaten an area because you can make a melee attack there. Then, you can make a melee attack there because you threaten. Which is the chicken and which is the egg?

But you agree that threatening = being able to attack in melee. I mean, it says so right there in the text you quoted.

If you have two quarters, you have 50 cents; they are two ways of expressing the same thing (one with slightly more information.) Would you argue that there is a chicken and egg conundrum in that statement?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Threaten: To be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space.

So if "Threaten" means "To be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space", does that not mean that "Don't Threaten" means "To be unable to attack in melee without moving from your current space"?

-Hyp.

 

[billd91]

So if "Threaten" means "To be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space", does that not mean that "Don't Threaten" means "To be unable to attack in melee without moving from your current space"?

-Hyp.

Nope. Unarmed combat without having improved unarmed combat = character doesn't threaten yet can make melee attacks without moving from his current space.
I agree that lack of threat indicates that the situation should be scrutinized to see what the situation means about making attacks, but I do not subscribe to the notion that lack of threat means you cannot make melee attacks because there are specific defined exceptions that make that assertion invalid. The statement needs more elaboration to determine what attacks, if any, can be made.

 

[billd91]

But you agree that threatening = being able to attack in melee. I mean, it says so right there in the text you quoted.

If you have two quarters, you have 50 cents; they are two ways of expressing the same thing (one with slightly more information.) Would you argue that there is a chicken and egg conundrum in that statement?

No. I agree that threatening is a situation caused by being able to attack, not that they are synonymous.

 

[Nail]

If you want a truly generic ruling, use the truly generic principles.

What do you mean by this? I'm interested.