Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
Realism only matters to someone invoking "realism" that inside a stomach should be soft and easy to cut.
And regardless of how hard or easy it is to.cut, the simple fact remains: who would design a monster where its a straight attack roll to hit the monster whether you are inside or outside the monster? If thats hownit works, being swallowed js probably ther safer place to be than outside and open to bite and claws.
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” — Voltaire
No because all swallow actions involve automatic and enormous acid damage at the start of each turn... You never want to stay in there.
No it doesnt.
Worst case, a kraken does 2 tentacle attacks (48 dmg) and a lightning strike (33 dmg), for a total of 81 dmg.
If you a seallowed by a kraken, you take 24 acid damage a turn.
You are exposed to 3+ times the damage if you are outside the kraken. You are exposed to a third of the damage if you are swallowed by a kraken.
If you get a normal attack against the kraken whether you are inside or outside the kraken, youre better off inside.
And if you are a kraken, with an intelligence of 22 and a wisdom of 18, and you can either pummel your biggest threat with 81 damage, or swallow them where they take 24 dmg, and either way they get to roll normal attack rolls against you, why in the world would you swallow anyone???
The only way swallowing make sense for the kraken is if swallowed creatures attack at didadvantage. The kraken wont be able to inflict as much damage, but neither will the swallowed creature.
If a kraken swallows a creature, and that creature makes normal attack rolls against the kraken, the kraken would be smart enough to know to NOT swallow the creature and just blast them with 80 dmg per turn.
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” — Voltaire
You mean, "automatic and unimpressive acid damage at the start of the swallowing creature's turn".
If swallow damage were actually dangerous, it would be worth using, but your average level 15 PC, if swallowed by a CR 15 purple worm, will be able to solo kill the worm from inside (I've had a purple worm swallow a 12th level cleric. It was not a good decision on the part of the worm).
To be fair, a Cleric is just about the absolute worst PC a monster would want to swallow. That's an extreme example.
Sure, it's not the best of choices, but "swallow whole is useful when used on a rogue, and should be avoided for every other class" still isn't exactly impressive. Any character that doesn't die in one round to its normal attacks is probably a bad idea to swallow.
Youre a kraken. You do 81 damage externally or 24 acid damage internally. Either way, internal or external, you enemies attack you with normal attack rolls. You also have an int and wis of 20.
At no point does swallowing an enemy make sense.
There is no good class to swallow.
The only way it makes some, barely there sense, is if the creature you swallow has to attack you at disadvantage.
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” — Voltaire
Any caster is only modestly inconvenienced by being swallowed, a Barbarian too, even a Rogue can use Steady Aim to cancel out the DA and theoretically could sneak attack from within the monster. Being swallowed alive is more a narrative drama than a good combat strategy for most monsters. Really being swallowed is only really scary if the PC is already on their last legs, or is unconscious. Or if the monster flees while the swallowed creature is still trapped inside.
"Combat strategy" shouldn't matter to monsters... especially the kind of monsters that have Swallow actions. They're monsters, not Sun Tzu.
Krakens have an intelligence of 22 and a wisdom of 18.
Smarter than einstein. Wiser than confusious.
They know they can do 80 dmg to external enemies or only 24 dmg if they swallow them.
The ONLY way this makes sense is if the swallowed creature attacks with disadvantage.
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” — Voltaire
Every PC, NPC, and monster has its own motivations. A good DM makes decisions for the NPCs and monsters based upon those individual motivations. Something mindless may just move in straight lines and attack anything within reach, something hungry might be looking for the easiest meal with the least amount of risk, something evil and intelligent may be looking to instill as much fear as possible. Many predators go after the perceived weakest target.
And any creature that is "built" to swallow things whole, likely has a tougher digestive track that's made to handle struggling not-quite-dead-yet food - or they wouldn't be swallowing whole, they'd chew it first.
Bears swallow bees and their young along with honey when they raid a bee hive. Their tissues have evolved to handle the resulting stings. A lot of small and medium sized creatures have claws, any creature that can swallow them whole likely has tougher innards meant to protect them from those claws.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (original Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
Talk about cherry-picking...
Purple Worm: INT 1
Tarrasque: INT 3
Hertilod: INT 3
Giant Toad: INT 2
And these are not their modifiers: It's their SCORES. The vast majority of monsters that can swallow are dumb as rocks. Their choices are made through instinct, not strategy.
I would probably have the same problem as a DM with a rogue using sneak attack while being swallowed as I do the Unseen Attacker rule applying, and that being the narrative reason the rule exists.
My issue would be them using the sneak attack if it came from having an ally within 5 feet. You seemingly cannot use the "having Advantage" rule to sneak attack from within, because your attack will always be at Disadvantage or a straight roll (depending on your interpretation of how some of these other rules are interacting).
The reason for being able to use Sneak Attack while not having advantage because you have an ally within 5 feet of the target is assumed to be because that ally is distracting them somehow, being a threat, etc, which opens the target up to a more devastating attack from the rogue. That's the idea behind why the rule exists. The target cannot focus all of their attention on defending itself from the rogue, and therefore the rogue gets in a more precise and damaging strike.
But this narratively doesn't work in the swallowed situation. Nothing about having an ally within 5 feet makes the rogue have an easier time striking the target from within it. It just doesn't make sense. So while it may be RAW, as a DM I probably wouldn't allow it because it doesn't make sense in the reality of the game why that rule would apply here.
Same with the Unseen Attacker rule. it makes sense that you would get advantage on a strike on someone because they could not see where the attack was coming from, and therefore could not dodge, block, brace for it, etc as easily. But when the attacker is inside the target, whether they are seen or unseen makes no difference. The target cannot dodge, block, brace for, etc attacks originating within itself, so to me it doesn't make sense, even if it might be RAW, to apply the Unseen Attacker rule to the attacking creature within the target.
You could never Sneak Attack from inside a creature because Unseen Attacker or not, you still get disadvantage from the Restrained condition. So you'd get a straight roll at best.
It could happen if an ally is within 5ft of the swallower though, Unseen Attacker or not.
I can hear that argument but it really depends on how you DM. If you're the kind of DM who shuts down a player who wants to do something they think is cool but you won't allow because the mechanical rules say otherwise, you don't get to shut them down when they want to play RAW something that doesn't make sense to you. If you only bend the rules to screw over your players, don't be surprised when you end up with an empty table.
On the other hand, if you're the kind of DM who frequently invokes the rule of cool, then that works as long as your players are into this kind of DMing style. But a lot of players (especially ND players) want fixed, predictable rules, because unpredictability is stressful to them. And they come to your table to have fun, not to be stressed.
Cherry picking? Everyone who has replied to you has told you that perhaps with a strict, lawyerly reading of the rules, one could argue you get advantage being an unseen attacker while swallowed. But they all have said they would rule the attacks are rolled with disadvantage in their game and that your dm made the correct call.
Your DM made the right call
Now, a strict legalese interpretation of the rules was the approach used to justify the peasant railgun. And it took until the 2024 dmg before that nonsense was specifically called out as not within the rules.
I dont know if "you attack normaly while swallowed" will gain the same level.of traction to require an erratta. But until that time, your dm made the right call.
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” — Voltaire
Yes, when you take the one example of an intelligent creature to discredit my claim that swallowers are generally not intelligent when literally every other creature that does as an INT score lower than 5, that's called cherry-picking. Everything else that you said in your reply is irrelevant to that fact.
I think you are misinterpreting my point. I was saying I have the same issue with using Sneak Attack from inside a creature based on the "Ally within 5 feet" rule as I do with the Unseen Attacker rule, in that to me both of them miss the narrative reason for the rule to exist. I was not suggesting Unseen Attacker was making it possible to Sneak Attack from within another creature. I'm saying I have the same issue with either of these rules applying to the swallowed creature scenario. Basically: Sneak Attack (due to ally within 5 feet) shouldn't apply, and Unseen Attacker shouldn't apply. Both separate, but both for the same reason.
I actually DO get to "shut them down when they want to play RAW on something that doesn't make sense to me." Mostly because I've been DMing my table for years and I trust my players and my players trust me. We've built a relationship and table etiquette based on how we want the game to be played for the maximum enjoyment of all people at the table. It doesn't have to be "we can either allow 'rule of cool' and some rule bending when it is fun/makes sense, or we can play it straight RAW in ever scenario, regardless of how dumb it seems". It's a give and take, a balance. I don't make up rules or rulings on a whim just to screw my players over. I always make sure my rulings make sense in the context of the world, the story, and the rules. And if they don't like it, we discuss it to figure out how to make it acceptable for all parties. Also, in general, I try to not "shut down" any of my players. Instead using, "yes, and; yes, but; no, and; no; but".
Monsters, even very stupid monsters, have strategies. They may be stupid strategies, but they're not going to be self-destructive in their regular hunting behavior, and the safest hunting behavior is "beat on until no longer resisting, then swallow".
"Irrelevant"??? Everyone here is telling you that even if you might be "technically" correct, they also say your dm was correct: you roll at disadvantage when swallowed. But you want to keep cherry picking the rules to argue that youre right.
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” — Voltaire
This is a RAW discussion. Always has been since the start of this thread. So yes: irrelevant.
I respectfully disagree. Beasts and monstrosities with very low intelligence (3 or less) should be run more as if running on instinct in a fight or flight situation. Hell, even humans can rarely strategize in the middle of a fight. Can you imagine if D&D was a real-time game? :)