Sneak attack while swallowed?

[Hypersmurf]

There is no "rest of the creature." You're attacking the gullet. It's a specific part of the creature, not the creature.

It's a part of the creature, and so sticking it with a knife damages the creature. Just like if I stick the knife into any other part of the creature.

What I get from the above is that you attack the T-Rex's gizzard at AC 12 and once you deal 25 points of damage, you escape (with the hole closing).

Right. And if the T-Rex only had 10 hit points left when you started, by the time you escape, it's dead.

If you "miss" the gizzard (how you manage to do so is bizarre), then you do not get a second chance on the same attack roll for hitting the vital organs or other parts of the creature.

Certainly not. But if you hit the gizzard, and meet all the requirements for a sneak attack, he takes +Xd6 damage. By meeting the requirements of a sneak attack, you hit something vital with your successful attack.

Let's take another example, the dire shark. Is the digestive tract (not even just a gullet or gizzard) a vital organ? Obviously, it can't be (at least not for the dire shark).

Your attack on its digestive tract might hit something vital, or it might not, depending on circumstances.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No mechanical reason to assume the gullet is flat-footed.

Don't forget, you have total concealment, since the creature can't see you...

-Hyp.

 

[ElectricDragon]

But wouldn't the gullet have "gulletsense" a kind of tremorsense that only senses things in its gullet? Thus denying any type of concealment>

Ciao
Dave

 

[Jhulae]

But wouldn't the gullet have "gulletsense" a kind of tremorsense that only senses things in its gullet? Thus denying any type of concealment>

Ciao
Dave

Um.. And is the monster also supposed to be able to shift its organs at will when something it swallowed starts poking swords and daggers through the gullet lining?

 

[eamon]

Don't forget, you have total concealment, since the creature can't see you...

Most likely, the gullet has total concealment as well, since you can't see it either (since you're not swimming in pristine water here)

The problem with these kind of arguments is that there is a sum total of one paragraph which describes the situation; if you seek to back them up in the rules... well, it's pure inference.

Since a gullet is in constant contact with you, the total concealment argument is iffy.

Basically, I can only imagine a vanishingly small fraction of cases in which sneak attack is viable. The rogue must be able to see in the dark, he must be able to see through any muck in the gullet, the gullet must have not only vital spots, but perceivable vital spots (which isn't obvious at all, given that it seems rather uniform).

For this to further be consistent as a whole, you need to wonder why the creature is swallowing things at all, and consider balance.

To me, it looks like a situation not treated in the rule-books since it's unlikely to ever occur, and just doesn't make much sense. The entire set-up of the rules tells me this case just didn't make the radar. What if the creature is immobilized - does the gullet take a -5 dex penalty to AC? The swallowing mechanics are a short, succinct self-contained mechanism which should be used as they're written, and cannot be reasonably combined with the rest of the rules.

 

[Nail]

To me, it looks like a situation not treated in the rule-books since it's unlikely to ever occur, ....

You sure?

A rogue subject to the ability swallow whole?
A rogue that can see in the dark?
A rogue with a light weapon?

It seems like none of these are "rare".

The issue to adjudicate is "can you hit a vital area of the creature while in the creature's gullet?" Some say "no". I say "Sure! The rogue is next to plenty of vital areas, including the heart, lungs, major blood vessels, etc." YMMV

Now as for the "blinded by muck" argument: Does the swallow whole ability say the swallowed creature is blinded? If so, everyone swallowed would have a 50% miss chance. Do you enforce that in your games?

 

[Flipguarder]

Two options

1. the rule-system, not specifically talked about, and in addition, the rules regarding it are debated. So, house rule it thats what DMs are for. we can't all be the DMs of everyone. Work it out.

2. the role-playing system. depends on the animal. an animal large enough that it swallows someone entirely into their stomach or some localized area in its body in which the person is trapped, I believe you'd have to decide whether or not that is a vital spot.

I also believe there are some monsters that swallow whole by enveloping characters with their bodies. In any case where the character is not localized inside and can reach a vital part of the monster and is able to decide where that is, without

basically, think about it. Can the character see a vital spot. Then he can do it, imho.

 

[eamon]

Now as for the "blinded by muck" argument: Does the swallow whole ability say the swallowed creature is blinded? If so, everyone swallowed would have a 50% miss chance. Do you enforce that in your games?

Do you enforce the 50% mischance for hitting a gullet for people that can't see in the dark?

My core argument is precisely that the Swallow whole rule is a small stand-alone rule for a specific situation and that reading too much into it isn't a good idea. Reading mischance into it, for instance, certainly isn't. I think the regular swallow whole mechanic without rule interactions works fine, and adding other rules to the mix doesn't improve things. That means, you can attack the gullet with a -4 penalty, and you can cut yourself out, and that's pretty much it. (You can of course do some other things you could normally do in a grapple, such as activate a magic item, or draw a light weapon, but you can't pin your opponent).

In any case, I don't think I've ever seen a rogue that could see in the dark swallowed whole before - of course, I might have forgotten, but it's certainly not exactly a common situation.

Basically, an "extra" mechanic like swallow whole which is used rarely works best when its very simple. All these factors like mischance and sneak attack etc just aren't simple enough - and they don't necessarily make much sense either, so I wouldn't allow em.

 

[Nail]

Basically, an "extra" mechanic like swallow whole which is used rarely works best when its very simple.

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".

 

[billd91]

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.

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."

I think the only thing that really addresses whether or not you can attack outside of the grapple, period, is the list of specifically allowed actions while grappling. In other words, you're trying to get way too much mileage out of the three statements under the heading Grappling Consequences if you think that's what prevents the grappled character from making an attack outside the grapple. The section following is much more explicit and detailed and is perfectly sufficient justification for allowing the rogue to attack the creature that grappled him and nothing else.