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
^ This is the part that I don't get about this argument? Why is this not true for a creature within another creature? If you cannot be seen, how does it know what you are doing with your axe or dagger? It's the same thing. Is the argument that the creature is a sitting duck anyway so it doesn't matter if he can see the attack? In which case, perhaps the DM should be granting advantage for a whole different reason instead of the Unseen Attacker rule? Why would that make any difference? In the end, I guess this detail doesn't really matter -- we seem to agree on the end result.
Yes, I agree with all of this. As long as it's clear that "it can reasonably be ruled either way" is referring to one way being RAW and the other way intentionally being not RAW. How much that distinction actually matters to any given group will vary from group to group.
So, I actually addressed this in my first post:
"Now you might say "Yes, but the creature IS less likely to dodge your attack, because you are inside of it! How could it dodge or anticipate your attack!" and I get the argument, however that really wouldn't come from being "unseen". That isn't the case that the target has a limited ability to avoid your attack due to not knowing where the attack is coming from or seeing the attack, but much more like an attack made against a Restrained creature. You get advantage on a restrained creature because they physically cannot (or have limited ability to) anticipate and/or move out of the way/block the attack. That is much more similar to what is actually going on with attacking from inside of a creature."
While D&D is not a real-world physics simulator, I think as a DM it is important to understand why a rule exists, how it is meant to work in the world, and under what circumstances it is meant to come into play. Because as we all know, with players doing everything they can to bend the reality of the world to their will, much of our time as a DM when it comes to rules interactions is interpreting edge cases and figuring out how opposing or vague rules might apply in a given situation.
In the case of Unseen Attackers, while it isn't spelled out in the rulebook, I have a vision for why the rule works as it does (which I explained in the Deer example and also in that "because with the attacker being unseen, the creature being attacked has a more limited ability to appropriately defend itself (either by dodging, holding up a shield, etc)." This is the framework I use to decide when to apply the Unseen Attackers rule. The basic premise being that the target is less able to defend itself how it normally would (dodging, holding up a shield, etc) because it cannot visually perceive the incoming attack. That's why I would not apply Unseen Attackers to the creature inside the stomach. It wouldn't matter if the creature was invisible or not, the reasoning behind the advantage given for unseen attackers doesn't logically flow with the situation. The target is not more likely to be struck because of its inability to move out of the way of or anticipate the attack.
That's why I said I would still understand granting advantage to the swallowed creature based on the rules for a Restrained creature (though the swallower doesn't have that condition) because it makes sense for a target that is not physically able to move out of the way.
Though the ending might be the same, the way we get there is different. And because D&D is not just this one question, asked by the OP, it is important, especially as a DM, for me to understand the pathway to the ruling and to have them make sense to the players.
Example: a creature is both bound AND has a blindfold over their eyes. They are chained to the ground and cannot move, thus having the Restrained and Blinded conditions. Another creature attacks that bound creature. The attacking creature has Advantage on the attack, obviously. But why? In this case is it from being Unseen? The fact that it cannot anticipate the movement and thus dodge out of the way? Eh, you could maybe argue that, but for me it is the fact that they are bound, chained down, physically incapable of moving out of the way of the attack. So as a DM, that's how I narrate it.
I think in cases of the OP's question it is important to not only give the RAW answer (which I did), but also explore the bigger context around it. D&D is not played in a vacuum of "absolute textual rule truth". So to just say "RAW you're right" misses on a deeper understanding of things. For instance, like I said previously, OP seemed to be suggesting that this ruling was part of a pattern of hostile, player-antagonistic rulings by the DM. My suggestion being that, while RAW it would be a straight roll, it was fully defensible and logical how the DM ruled, if outside the scope of a sterile reading of the rules.
So yes, from each of us the end result is the same. I mostly just like to provide myself a logical (to me) framework with which to judge how rules are intended to work and when they might apply, which perhaps for others seeing how I view the intent of the rule to work would be beneficial for their tables or to other DMs who might have a similar mindset. Neither side is wrong and both viewpoints have value, and the fact that different tables play things out differently is part of what makes D&D such an amazing game to play.
I dont know of any generic "swallowed" condition/effect/consequences in the rules. The only examples ive ever seen are rules for specific monsters. And those monsters say exactly what happens to a player character if they are swallowed.
And in those examples, they are quite explicit about the effects, so I dont know why anyone would argue for anything different other than to homebrew something.
If you want to homebrew that the monster cant see the player character in its stomach, therefore the pc can attack with advantage, then homebrew it. But the rules seems explicit as to what happens as written when a pc is swallowed by a monster
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” — Voltaire
Why would you refer to this as "homebrew"? Do creatures see through solid objects by default in your games?
It's homebrew because the actual power description doesn't put a solid object in the way.
Are creature’s bodies translucent by default in your games?
No, but as written they aren't in the way.
If a monster stat block says if you are swallowed you have disadvantage on all attacks, and thats all it says, how can anyone justify just adding, oh, and the monster cant see you so you have the invisible condition and also have advantage on attacks, canceling out each other????
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” — Voltaire
That makes no sense. A creature cannot see inside of its own stomach unless something says that it can. The text in question is silent on that point, so we use the default behavior for that.
This sort of thing happens all the time throughout the game. Generally speaking, when something says that you acquire advantage or disadvantage that counts as one source of advantage or disadvantage. The rules are clear on what happens when you have multiple sources of advantage or disadvantage at the same time.
You are misreading the rules.
If swallowed you are blinded and restrained (which means you have disadvantage). You have cover, not from the creature that swallowed you, but from creatures outside the creature that swallowed you. As such there is no source of advantage to cancel out the disadvantage you have.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (original Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
Still doesn't mean that the swallowing creature can see the content of their own stomach...
They don't need to. Cover is determined by drawing a line from any corner of a creature's 'square or occupied squares' to each corner of the target's 'square or occupied squares'; then counting how many of those lines are broken by cover (don't reach the target's corners), determining the level of cover. A creature can't block its own view of a target for the purpose of determining cover.
If the rules were to be interpreted as you suggest, then each monster description containing the swallow ability would mention it - they don't. They don't mention giving the swallowed target cover from the swallower, instead they specifically mention giving the swallowed target cover from 'creatures outside the' swallower. See the description of Giant Toad for an example of this.The description describes inflicting two conditions that impose disadvantage on the swallowed target, and describes cover being granted from 'those outside the swallower'. It makes no mention of having cover from the swallowed creature, nor does it describe any condition applying advantage.
Here's the exact quote, "While swallowed, the target isn’t Grappled but has the Blinded and Restrained conditions, and it has Total Cover against attacks and other effects outside the toad." I added the underlining for emphasis.
Swallowed creatures are therefore at disadvantage unless they can somehow avoid the blinded and restrained conditions mentioned.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (original Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
Why do you think that Cover has anything to do with this?
Where is the term "Cover" within the following rule:
Because cover is what makes the target unseen.
Again, why would the rules be so explicit about what the swallowed condition imposes as it applies to disadvantage on attacks, but not mention that swallowed creatures also have the invisible condition which gives advantage, canceling each other out?
If thats what they wanted, why not just say swallowed creatures have advantage and disadvantage on attack rolls, canceling each other out, preventing advantage or disadvantage being added to the roll from another source.
Thats not what it says and its not what it intends either.
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” — Voltaire
My assumption is that it's just sloppy writing/editing, and I have no idea what the actual intended behavior is.
Creatures see other creatures sharing their space regardless of their anatomy - a halfling can stand underneath an elephant and attack it from below where an elephant couldn't realisti ally see it but is not considered an unseen attacker.
That's false. Cover is not required to make an attacker an Unseen Attacker. The requirement is: "When a creature can't see you". See above for the quoted rule from the text.
Nobody is saying anything about the Invisible Condition.
Again, the rules generally don't work that way. Typically, a rule will say that it imposes advantage or disadvantage to an attack roll. That gets factored in along with everything else that might be happening which also might impose advantage or disadvantage on that same roll. For example, if you have the Blinded condition, you have disadvantage on attack rolls. But there will be lots of situations where you have the Blinded condition but do not actually roll with disadvantage.
No, that's not a rule.
While it might be true that the Line of Sight rule only applies when trying to see something in another space, again, that's not the only factor which determines whether or not a creature can be seen.
For example, the elephant and the halfling might both be standing in Darkness. Unless the elephant has Darkvision it would not see such a halfling that's in its own space. Note that phenomena such as Darkness or Dense Fog do not provide Cover.
Exactly.
There is a strain of DM that I encounter who sees the rules as some multilayered, byzantine, riddle that needs to be decoded, and all they do is make the game waaaay more complicated than it should be.
The kraken stat block says what happens if you are swallowed by the kraken: "swallowed creature has the Restrained condition, has Total Cover against attacks and other effects outside the kraken"
Restrained says: "your attack rolls have Disadvantage."
Simple. Well defined. Done.
There is no need to overcomplicate that. And the end effect of making everything in the game overly complicated is new players give up and leave. Its over complicating things to act as gatekeepers.
If youre swallowed by a monster, youre restrained, and restrained means your attacks have disadvantage. Simple. Done. Everyone gets it. There no need to overcomplicate things so only the die hards can play thr game
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” — Voltaire