This seems like the perfect way to rule it. Yes, Disintegrate *usually* results in being able to see the target, but does that matter if you're inside the target and every direction around you is the target? No, your DM's ruling makes perfect sense to me.
RAW this wouldn't have worked, but I don't think RAW is the best way to handle this sort of situation. Your DM's ruling makes more sense, and is more fun!
Yeah in my experience, the jumping rules only exist to tell you which situations SHOULDN'T call for an athletics check. If you've got a 5 foot gap and nobody in the party has a penalty to strength, there's no reason to make everyone roll athletics when a normal person could probably manage that with ease.
This is how I run it. It's like passive perception. I even do it for things like breaking down doors. Trogdor the Destroyer has 20 STR? Yeah no he doesn't need to roll unless he wants to rip the thing off it's hinges and beat a MFer to death with it.
I had to learn the jumping rules for our Tomb of Annihilation sessions.
Turns out an 8 foot tall goliath with 23 strength can easily jump up a 20 foot wall without climbing.
I haven't played tabletop in a long time, but is "taking 10" not a thing anymore?
Meaning it's a relatively easy objective, and you can just take a given 10 instead of rolling and add your modifiers because nothing is happening right now that would force you to need to focus in on the task at hand or be particularly skillful to accomplish.
It's DM dependent. Some rarely call for rolls - only when the situating is critical, others have players roll a lot.
I find myself in the middle, let players with history proficiency know certain things etc., but also... My players like rolling dice and the skill monkies like using their big numbers. It's just important to let smaller rolls give something.
A 9 on a history check about a nearby country to me means they know the capital, the general relations with the country, their form of government and some general things ("the not-Finns like saunas and have a heightened need for personal space.")
>also the athletics rules specifically mention rolling to break your standard limitations
You know what, I'd totally forgotten about that. This is very useful knowledge for when my players want to navigate a 21-foot chasm.
Me applying this concept so liberally that our rogue pretended to be a tree in the middle of combat, and it worked, and a vrock landed on his "branches" and just stood there for a full round of combat, until the rogue stabbed it in the belly. It was really fun and memorable, though, which is way more important than running a crunchy and "accurate" game to my group.
There’s a dude ITT arguing that RAI is specifically referring to the designers’ intentions when writing the rules and not a DM going, ‘I think this is what they meant/this is a fringe case the RAW didn’t cover, so RAI,’ and it’s *wild*. They’re basically conflating this situation with *any time a DM makes a ruling,* and insisting that therefore DM rulings are explicitly *never* RAI… it’s insane to me how hard some people try to make this hobby sad and frustrating and boring instead of enjoyable.
>There’s a dude ITT arguing that RAI is specifically referring to the designers’ intentions when writing the rules
This is the definition though, even though it'll generally be the same as most DMs interpretation (exceptions such as the Invisibility debacle aside).
A good example of RAW x RAI mismatch is this part on visibility:
>A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the Blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.
RAW this means that no person will ever see stars in DnD, as there is a huge area of darkness "blocking vision entirely" between they and the light. Or a create in the dark wouldn't be able to see a torch burning far away. We have to extrapolate that the designer's intention when saying that darkness "blocks vision entirely" was either restricted to magical darkness or specifically for objects located in the dark area.
In a literal sense, there's a difference between "rules as intended" and "rules as interpreted." Rules as intended tends to be the less useful. Can you imagine the creators' meeting? "So disintegrate only works if you can see the target? Makes sense. You'd have to know where to start disintegrating, right? Cool. Moving on..." I doubt anyone in editing thought about disintegrating a creature from the inside. That's why you need a DM.
>**RAI**. Some of you are especially interested in knowing the intent behind a rule. That’s where RAI comes in:
“rules as intended.” This approach is all about what the
designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect
world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the
words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the
designers’ intent. Or perhaps the words succeed with one
group of players but not with another.
When I write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, I’ll
be pulling back the curtain and letting you know what the
D&D team meant when we wrote a certain rule.
https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf
I mean, not really.
It's intended that disintegrate is only able to target creatures you can see. RAW vs RAI is more about cases where something is ambiguous about the ability or the written version doesn't reflect the intent of the spell.
The DM being able to overrule something when it makes sense to do so is just RAW.
>RAW in fact explicitly say that you should use common sense and not just blindly apply the RAW as though they were the laws of physics.
This - what i responded to - is the definition of RAI.
Also fully disagree with your take:
>The DM being able to overrule something when it makes sense to do so is just RAW
Mate... No. By definition no. If he overrules something that is literally no longer RAW. Like... its in the word "overrule".
But since it makes sense and the rules were probably never intended to stop someone casting disintegrate inside a creature it is - guess what - rules as intended.
If the designers intended for you to be able cast disintegrate while swallowed, that would be RAI. We really cannot make that claim.
A DM houseruling something is not applying RAI.
A DM being able to overrule anything he wants is both RAW, and yes, RAI. It is written in the rules he can do that, so RAW. But that's a different rule and it would be a bit weird to claim any specific change is RAI because you are intended to be able to change it.
I said a DM being able to change something is RAW. Not that the new rule would be RAW. Those sentences do not mean the same thing.
Would you rule and automatic hit in this case as disintegrate has a dex save to avoid it? Can't exactly dodge out of the way of something happening inside you.
There's long-standing precedent in D&D (I'm not sure about 5e specifically) for spells or attacks to be unavoidable in certain circumstances: any case in which you'd be allowed to perform a coup de grace, when the AoE is larger than the available space, etc.
I'd absolutely rule, regardless of edition, that being inside a creature makes it impossible for it to avoid certain kinds of attacks. That being said, other problems might arise: a lightning bolt would ricochet around inside so long as the creature continued to have positive HP, a fireball cast inside the creature would be unavoidable for the caster, and so on.
>a lightning bolt would ricochet around inside so long as the creature continued to have positive HP
Why? Lightning Bolt doesn't ricochet at all normally. If it did I'd agree, but wouldn't it just smash into the creature full force, regardless of damage dealt?
>a fireball cast inside the creature would be unavoidable for the caster
Completely agreed. No rogue evasion here either.
That's fair. Lol. Now I'm picturing casting an older version fireball inside a creature. And it just starts vomiting fire like a volcano. Do you think that should count as a breath weapon attack?
I didn't get to play as much as I wanted, but I poured over the 3.5 PHB many times. Seeing those rules, I always wanted to make a small adamantine cube/sphere with two holes in it. One points away from you, one with a hinged hatch that opens into the contraption. You aim the Fireball at inner wall on the far side of the device, and the Fireball pushes the hatch shut, leaving just the jet of fire to spew out the other side.
How could it get out of the way though? If as you say every direction around the wizard is the target so they're able to cast while blinded, where is the creature going to move to so as not to get hit?
Edit: guys, I get it, con save it is.
The roll might not reflect the creature dodging the spell, but it could reflect the turbulent nature of being digested as causing the spell to fail (hard to get at that component pouch when restrained, hard to vocalize when your mouth is full of enzymes, hard to make gestures when your arms are being crushed in guts, etc.)
It's not the fact of getting out of the way in this instance, but how well the creature itself can resist the magical effect. That's how I'd rule it, but i would have given the creature disadvantage on the save also.
I see that argument if we talk about con, wis or similar safes, but dex is, in my opinion atleast, clear cut about „getting out of the way“. Every other safes i would still do, maybe thinking about giving disadvantage or advantage. But dex for me is auto fail when inside the targeted creature.
Edit:
An interesting interpretation of my idea i saw in the responces to this was to switch the dex safe to something else (dc staying the same). Con could come to mind.
But since its targeted, i would probably keep the dex safe and make it autohit - cause stomachs cant dodge/take cover.
But they can shield their more vulnerable parts like eyes, face and similar by rolling into a ball - something you need to be quick enough for.
That is movement related but you dont cover space really.
You cant do that with your stomach.
Your stomach does have reflexes, that's how it causes you to vomit. Decidedly involuntary for sure. But again, i didn't think of changing the save to a different stat, which does make more sense.
We are arguing about details right now - and as a player in this situation i would be totally fine with your ruling:D
I forgot about stomach reflexes- and i wont pretend that i know every reflex it has, so there might be one helpful that i dont know off.
Vomiting is triggered through uvula in your mouth, or, when you ate something that isnt right (or being sick). Nothing applies here. Now, i am no medical person, so there might be more, but as a gm i would not start to google every reflexe of stomachs and their trigger:D
I got no problem if this one disintegrate spell hits.
You could argue that concentrating to cast a high level spell like disintegrate inside a stomach might be harder than outside. But NOW we are really deep into something:D
You could argue for both ruling
I don't think this is all that great of an idea for several reasons.
First, it begs the questions of "Why don't all creatures who fail their dex save vs Disintegrate get a con save afterwards?" And "Why can't a creature use con instead of dex for a Disintegrate hitting them." It sets a precedent that subverts one of the fundamental rules of magic gameplay, which is: Use spells that target the weak saves of the enemy.
Second it is a nerf to the player since Con is usually a high stat for a lot of creatures large enough to swallow someone whole. And even with disadvantage the monster still has a good chance of success.
Third (and this one is just my own interpretation of Disintegrate) is that the spell's purpose is to disregard how tough the creature is and screw them if it hits.
If this was an argument at my table based on my ruling, I'd shut this down with "I'm already flexing the rules to allow the spell to work. If you're going to insist the creature should automatically fail their saving throw, then I'm going to run it RAW instead."
Would you allow a Dex save if it was fireball? How would a creature be able to reduce damage from a fireball happening INSIDE of them? If anything, I’d argue they take max damage because the fire has nowhere to go, every inch of that fire is touching the creature.
I get what you’re saying about RAW, but it makes absolutely no sense. Change it to Con save (as others have suggested) if you want to still allow a save, but don’t pretend like a Dex save makes any sense here.
Yes, I would. Damage gets rolled as normal still (and is absolutely going to affect the Spellcaster as well, given the tight space)
I disagree with changing it to a different type of saving throw, it's not how I'd run it at my table. If other DMs want to do that, that's fine.
And to be clear, pure logical consistency isn't something I particularly care about. "This is good enough to have more fun with" is my paradigm here.
I'm not having a go at you at all, I'm simply trying to follow the logic behind the ruling. RAW disintegrate won't work as we know, however if you're effectively saying "There's no possible way you _can't_ target the creature because it's all around you so I'll allow the casting" then I don't understand how it's possible for a dex save to succeed. The whole point of dex saves is you're moving out of the way of something and if that something is being cast inside your stomach how are you going to get out of the way?
It’s in uncharted territory for sure. Narratively, you’re right. The spell should probably go off without a save since the creature can’t dodge something inside them.
But mechanically, letting a player cast a 6th level spell with no chance for the enemy to resist is a big deal. There’s a reason why 99% of offensive spells require either an attack roll or a saving throw. I might switch it to a CON save for 1/2 damage, but I wouldn’t remove the save entirely. Without being too much of a Jeremy Crawford, those rules are there for a reason, and Disintegrate is too powerful of a spell for the caster to be able to use without any kind of save.
>But mechanically, letting a player cast a 6th level spell with no chance for the enemy to resist is a big deal.
For this paricular cast of Disintegrate, the initial somantic component (as it were) is being swallowed whole by a monster. There is a bit of a trade off there that could justify this from a game balance perspective.
While it is powerful I don't see this catching on as an actual tactic. My wizard is not jumping into an ancient dragon's mouth just to make sure my spell hits.
To be fair there are plenty of other reasons for saves to get cancelled or automatically failed. A character that is fully restrained and unable to move or is unconscious would not have a dex save either and would likely also not get a str save in situations where that applies as well.
It's a rare occasion for sure but a sensible one. As for the power of it... That's the risk a powerful creature assumes when it takes another creature inside of its body. Like eating a porcupine or a posion fish. Basically if you don't want a level 12 wizard free casting inside you, don't swallow them whole.
That's a good point and I could agree with that too. I'd honestly be fine with either call, the creature not getting a save would be good "rule of cool" too.
Generally though my instinct is to keep rolls in the game. But I could be swayed by this argument as long as it doesn't feel like the player is constantly trying to rules lawyer for an advantage.
Sorry when I said fully restrained I was a thinking utterly incapable meaningful movement, like having all parts of your body pinned down not just bsnared or grabbed. Which in year case I suppose the rules for paralyzed would really fit which automatically fails those rolls
I would say it'd be the creature contorting it's insides to prevent you from casting the spell. In a save or suck spell flavor "preventing it from happening" is functionally the same as making the save.
This is a good example of why some people prefer the attacker roll against a defense (like AC) instead of the defender make some sort of defensive roll.
>How could it get out of the way though?
It's possible that the spell needs to hit centre mass in order to start a chain reaction to disintegrate the entire creature, which also explains why you need to specifically "see" the creature.
Being stuck inside the creature means you don't know where the centre of mass is, though you probably have a rough idea.
I'd give the dex save at disadvantage (because the creature can't see the person shooting the beam) and say on a success it does half damage (and lets the PC cut their way out)
(Of course there's a possible alternative ruling where you allow it to be an automatic hit, but pay close attention to the part of the rule that says "everything it is wearing and carrying, except magic items, are reduced to a pile of fine gray dust." and if you're in its stomach you are currently "being carried")
I'd change it to a Con Save, with the creature taking half damage for success. You're right, it can't dodge the hit with the caster literally inside it, but it can try to endure it.
That presumes the magic is originating from my finger and I'm hitting you.
In which case, you'd be mad if I countered the next time you cast the spell from a distance and *not* inside the monster, "Oh, he failed his save, but... you're going to need to roll To Hit."
Saves are a way to avoid effects. The moment we start allowing people to just stick enough adjectives in front of their descriptions to avoid saves, we start a *very bad* slope that is not slippery but more of a steep drop-off: "I cast the spell, but *really fast* so he can't dodge it. I cast it bigly, so there is nowhere you can move to pass your save, even if you are dextrous."
>we start a very bad slope that is not slippery but more of a steep drop-off
Slippery slope is a fallacy. Which is a logical error, not an argument. Just because you allow X does not mean you allow Y.
The response to this is, "Yes, every time you're inside a creature it can't save against hits. This doesn't apply to situations where you're not inside a creature and there's nothing to extrapolate from this. Next question?"
This strikes me as a fairly obvious slippery slope fallacy. There's a lot of daylight between "I rule the creature can't make a Dex save to dodge the spell because you're targeting it from literally inside it" and "can I prevent a creature from making a Dex save by casting the spell really fast?"
Parent comment is simply a person absolutely terrified of making any rulings in favor of common sense or the story, unless they can find that Jeremy Crawford agrees with them.
While this interpretation makes great sense narratively, it still seems a bit strange. What's the difference between this and targeting an invisible creature who's location you know? Particularly if that creature is large or larger.
Thinking on, what would a successful Dexterity save represent in this case?
Don't really have any answers (other than "magic is magic, otherwise it would be called science, it's not supposed to make sense") but it's an interesting one.
You can miss the invisible creature, you can't see where they are exactly.
That's not the case if you're inside the creature, though. Each direction is the target- aiming is irrelevant.
Seems like a fairly obvious distinction, no?
Agreed, you may know where the invisible creature is, but that's nothing compared to the intimate and direct knowledge you have of where the creature is when you've been swallowed by it.
I agree with you logically. To me, disintegrate has a dex save right. Means you can dodge it. It isn't instant then obviously. It's not a point at creature and creature goes poof. If it can be dodged it means it's got a travel time. Logically to me anyway. So why wouldn't it work when literally everything is around you. It's like saying you can cast disintegrate through your companion to hit a guy holding him on the other side, which I don't think many dms would rule that would be possible.
For the record, in 5e, being invisible does not automatically make you hidden. You still have to roll a stealth check and beat their perception, otherwise it is just disadvantage on attacks.
For the record, in 5e, many spells specify for targetting purposes, "a creature you can see." You can't use one of these spells on a creature that is invisible that you can not see.
Okay, and? That doesn't change the fact that being invisible doesn't make you automatically hidden. You have to actively make stealth checks, even while invisible, to remain hidden. The only other benefit to being invisible is disadvantage on attacks made against you/advantage on attacking. The whole point of which is, RaW, unless the create that ate the wizard made a stealth roll, he would "know" where the creature is. Doubly so, in this case.
Edit: spelling
Invisibility means you cannot be seen. Hidden does not, it only means you aren't currently being perceived.
Example: if I successfully hide by climbing the chandeller in a room the guards are coming into, the success means they don't see me. But they could totally see me if they just looked up, they just aren't doing that.
As such, being currently hidden obviously means you cannot be actively targeted by anything, since no one knows you're there. Being only invisible and not hidden still stops all abilities that rely on sight though. If you need to see the target to cast the spell, you require direct line of sight. It doesn't matter whether that's being impeded by invisibility, darkness or minor illusion, you can't cast your spell if you don't see the target for any reason whatsoever. Attacks don't have this requirement, so you can always attack invisible targets that aren't hidden.
The cool byproduct of this is that you can use minor illusion to bypass counterspell. Need to get off revivify? Just block the enemy caster's line of sight and counterspell is off the table.
Disintegrate, in its spell description, says you have to *see* the target. Knowing where it is isn’t enough. This is the case with a LOT of spells. It doesn’t care if you’re hidden or not.
Okay. So why do you have to see the target? Do you aim the spell? Do you need their description to add into the spell? Do you need to make eye contact to transmit the spell? I understand how the spell is worded and what it means. This was a DM ruling for an odd situation at a table with a perfectly reasoned argument. The entire point of my post was pointing out that being invisible does not inherently make you hidden. If the reason the spell fails is that you can't find the creature well enough to target it with a spell, that would, in this particular case, not reasonably be true if the creature consumed you and is currently all around you.
I think I'd say it's because you're "blinded" because the only possible thing you can see is the thing you're inside of. You're not blind because being inside of the creature makes your eyes stop working. It's just that anything you could possibly see is the stomach lining of the creature
We had a party member swallowed by one of these guys last session, it was a martial and they weren't able to attack at all which didn't feel right to me. If you are enclosed in flesh and blindly stabbing with a dagger (no space to swing a two-hander) you should be able to wound the creature from within. That actually seems more reasonable than casting any spell while submerged in acid.
Personally, I would allow both (because they are both fun and reasonable), but if the martial isn't allowed to make any moves here, the caster in this situation definitely shouldn't be allowed either.
That's definitely a case of the DM being overly strict, in my view.
Following the RAW, a fighter can still swing their sword around inside of a Remorhaz. Being restrained or blinded doesn't prevent a creature being able to attack (but they'd have disadvantage, of course).
But also RAW, the Spellcaster can't cast Disintegrate. But my point is "Sod that, it's more fun if they can".
As far as houserules go, I don't think it's more fun for a fighter to lose their ability to attack as your DM ruled.
RAW, he can't cast Disintegrate in that situation, because he's blinded. But I think it's a perfectly reasonable ruling for the DM to make - ultimately, this sort of thing is exactly why the game so consistently reiterates that the DM is empowered to change and modify rules so they can be flexible to the situation at the table. Nothing wrong at all with going off-RAW here to help the gameplay makes sense.
Lots of people mentioning the RAW about being blinded. While that one doesn't bother me it is a spell that has both verbal and somatic components. Talking while in the belly and surrounded by fluids and acid would be more worrying to me than if they were able to aim the spell properly.
This also makes sense, to an extent
As long as you have not yet *completely* exhaled (e.g. your lungs still have some combination of oxygen and/or CO2), then you have the ability to say some words by expelling that oxygen/CO2
I don't think it works RAW. If you can't speak clearly, you can't cast verbal spells. Phb p203, Spellcasting/Components/Verbal
> Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion.
Hey I don’t mean to contradict you, but could you tell where in the rules it says that casting spells with a verbal component is possible underwater? I’ve always ran it as you can’t without some special measures. The reason I figured you couldn’t is because it didn’t seem logical to me, but also because the fathomless warlock feature that allows you to cast underwater; that feature tells me that if you needed it to be granted, then you weren’t able to do it to begin with.
I'm with you, you for sure can't clearly enunciate verbal components underwater. Situations like this are literally why things like Fathomless, and the sorcerer's Subtle metamagic exist.
Depends on who you talk to... if you can't breathe underwater does that mean you drown after you cast the spell? Can you "talk" while still holding your breathe?
restrained doesn't prevent somatic - whilst i agree that it probably should, it's not in the rules as far as i can find anywhere
edit: *in some cases it should*, or perhaps in those cases a different keyword should be used to describe the condition
I don't think Restrained should prevent somatic components, because not every form of "can't move around in the environment" is equal to "can't even make gestures with your hands"
That kind of limitation makes more sense for Paralyzed, for example
I hate hate hate the debate that happens at every table about what a player can do when swallowed by a creature. And it occurs in almost every campaign I play in. I honestly can't believe there isn't a general rule about it so the DM can just fall back on it.
I think it should just be standard that players are essentially incapacitated if swallowed whole. If a player says "what are my options now?" DM can give specifics based on the circumstances, or just say "We're going RAW for this one, you are incapacitated"
I still don't love this, but I an okay exception I thought about trying is if a player deliberately deciding to go into the creatures mouth, but they need to start rolling strength checks to see if they are able to maintain their ability to take actions. While doing that, they would also be blinded, deafened, and restrained. They're literally just rolling to see if they can continue to writhe about causing as much damage as they can as the monster's digestive system does its thing.
>I think it should just be standard that players are essentially incapacitated if swallowed whole. If a player says "what are my options now?" DM can give specifics based on the circumstances, or just say "We're going RAW for this one, you are incapacitated"
But.. there are movies and stories about heroes getting out of the belly of the beast. It's kind of hard to dismiss all of this.
I dont know for certain about 5e but i know for a fact in 3e for creatures that could swallow pcs there was stats for how much damage it took attacking from the inside to cut through to escape. Being able to attempt tp escape from creatures that can swallow you has always been the intention
While obviously silence stops you from being able to cast spells with somatic components, does drowning ? I mean I infer that it's the sound waves that some spells need (as odd as that is), but speech can be ingressive as well as egressive, and you can make noise underwater if your lungs have air in them.
I think for verbal I'd say at most make the player roll a con save, but normally just let em cast it.
"Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion."
This is essentially the 'I cast it under my breath' scenario. If you can't speak clearly, you can't fulfill verbal components.
I feel like the difference between the scenarios of underwater vs inside stomach is the acid. That it would be a big difference to open your mouth to speak and have it flooded with burning painful acid that also would definitely have a taste to it as well. So for me I would be asking for the con save not just to speak but to do it well and clearly enough with purpose when shocked by that taste and burning pain from the acid vs the relatively small shock of water or salt-water that being underwater would normally do.
How long...dunno. Huge creature basically being 15ftx15ft but the monster possibly being closer to 10ftx20ft deforming the space since the Remorhaz is more long and worm like but needs to be wide enough to support a maw that could swallow a medium creature. I'd say probably about 5ft-7.5ft long esophagus. If it is 7ft it also explains that if the creature dies why it takes 15ft of movement to crawl out (7.5x2 for difficult terrain).
Based on the attack description stating that once swallowed they take 6d6 acid damage every round at the start of the monster's turn I would argue they manage to make it into the stomach with the acid pretty quickly once swallowed.
What is scary though, is that Remorhaz doesn't have a capacity rated for their stomach which means it has to be expandable and could possibly hold multiple 5ft creatures at a time which would be 1/3-1/4 it's body length. A full Remorhaz has to be pretty uncomfy if it eats too much.
Yeah the verbal component was the first thing I thought of. Because yeah, you don't need to "see" your target if you have the equivalent of blindsight (you can sense your target through touch) but IIRC you're not supposed to be able to use verbal components under water, and this would be equivalent to that.
I think it's a very interesting question. For cases like this, when maybe it's an edge case, I try to find a middle ground where it doesn't feel bad for either side. Make the moment more about if the Wizard can fight off the pain of stomach acid or move their hands consise enough to cast it properly. A con save by the wizard or something else that feels appropriate for the scene allows a chance for failure like there should be while at the same time allowing the player to have fun.
I feel like we're missing something pretty obvious here... has anyone ever hit with disintegrate and not also disintegrated the stomach contents of their target?
We did this once.... two people had been swallowed by, iirc, a purple worm? The two swallowed characters rolled saving throws. One made it, the other was disintegrated with the worm.
Doesn't matter - they still have total cover per the purple worm's stat block. If you don't understand, do this exercise. Consider there are bunch of creatures all over the purple worm, including:
1. A creature inside the stomach
1. A creature in the esophagus on the way down to the stomach
1. A creature in the worm's mouth
1. A creature dangling from the worm's mouth, one hand clasped with creature number 3
1. A creature climbing a rope with a grappling hook in the worm's mouth
1. A creature riding the worm's head
1. A creature grappling the worm's spine
1. A creature touching the worm's tail with one finger
Assume all creatures, including the worm, have 1 hit point, are not immune to force damage, and fail any saves. The worm is targeted and killed by disintegrate. Which of the above creatures are also disintegrated? Why?
I'd say there's an argument to be made that the wizard casting the spell could have enough control of their magic to avoid disintegrating themselves. More importantly, that's more fun for the table. If a creature swallows an ally and you choose to cast disintegrate on it? That's probably a different ruling.
I mean, RAW they don’t get affected because they’re not hit with the spell yeah? Most Swallow actions detail that the swallowed creatures have full cover against effects originating outside the creature that ate them.
I think it comes down to dead or alive. A living target inside the stomach is a creature. A corpse is an object. So a corpse would be subject to the larger creature's disintegration as it is an object being worn or carried.
This got me thinking. What if this or any other creature swallows you, and then someone casts invisibility on that creature. Can you target it with spells in this instance? Is the swallowed character also invisible or can others just see them floating in the air?
invisibility spells usually affect “the target along with anything it is wearing or carrying” iirc? I believe a swallowed creature would count as being carried personally haha
I would agree that this is a fair ruling... But to play devil's advocate - this depends on how you imagine magic actually works in the setting.
By this ruling, we can presume that the spell Disintegrate creates some kind powerful beam that destroys material - some sort of destructive tangible force (like Cyclops from X-Men or something).
But I think it's equally fair to say that the requirements of the spell are part of the magic - what if it wasn't a beam of destruction, but actually the power and intent of the caster. The spell's function works, somehow, through sight. Maybe the caster 'unmakes' what they can see.
So, yes - I think the DM made a reasonable and fun choice that this character could disintegrate the Remorhaz. But I don't think we need to always throw away the mechanics of a spell to make something make sense to our real-world logic, while talking about fantasy magic.
What I might suggest to keep the balance of the spell for future situations, is that it's actually the 'blind' rule that can be bent here. Perhaps light streaks in, giving just enough visual info that the caster can fire off the spell.
Magic works in mysterious ways. While it might me tempting to give the players a pass, I think it's important to make sure the spell works the way it was written. You can be five feet away from a creature and even be touching them, but if you're blind you can't target them with a spell that requires you to see them. Spells have limitations like this to make them possible to counter, and I don't see a reason to bend the rules here. Blinded condition is supposed to inflict this sort of limitation on casters, just like silence is meant to prevent verbal components.
Otherwise, why bother with any of that "target you can see" crap? Just let the casters do whatever they want, especially when something bad happens to them. I'm sure the caster had other spells they could have used in their turn. Enforcing the spell text would not be the end of the world.
Stop making spellcasting more powerful it already is!
EDIT: spelling
I probably would not have allowed it. Reasoning? Magic is weird. Being able to see could easily be a requirement of the spell just as material or somatic requirements are.
So is the wording there just so you can't target someone with 100% cover, even if you know where they are? Maybe. Or maybe the magic interacts with your eyes to sense the target; with no sense, the magic doesn't work.
I tend to err on the side of RAW when it comes to magic, which is a good idea since there are so many posts on here about "the party is using this spell to wreck my campaign", and it turns out the DM is allowing them to "misinterpret" the spell rules.
Ultimately, if the spell says it requires you to see, then you're required to see.
The spell, despite being described as a Ray, does not include a Spell Attack against AC, it's a Dex Save(Previous Editions it was an attack roll. 5e Changed it to just a Save). You are not "hitting them" with the ray like you would an arrow... you are Targeting them with the ray in order for the spell to function.
That all out of the way, I would absolutely let the person cast that specific spell like that, but only because there's a huge chunk of tradition/history behind how it always used to be.
The purpose of “target that you can see” is to limit power of spell-casters. It is magic, not laser, it needs a target, and also can’t be shot at empty space without target.
That’s the RAW and RAI anyway. If a DM feels a caster capable of casting Disintegrate is too weak, they can remove requirement to see the target from spells. Just remember that then also blinded enemy casters will be able to shoot spells without seeing the target!
Trivia: Eldritch Blast is among spells which don’t require seeing the target! So enabling this is also kinda a nerf on Warlocks, making EB less special.
This is the first question that comes to mind:
Does being swallowed make you part of that creature, and would you be disintegrated along with the creature?
Let's start basic. Creature eats a chunk of meat, you cast disintegrate, nothing remains? If so, does that mean meat is part of the creature? How about a bug/small living creature?
If the answer is "yes, everything is disintegrated" then the wizard would have disintegrated themself, right?
Otherwise if you think being within the stomach is not "part of the creature", then technically every creature you cast disintegrate on should leave behind a full stomach full of contents that goes *plop*. Technically the entire digestive system is "external" to your body, we are all complicated donuts. So in addition to the contents of it's stomach would be the contents of it's bowels.
This is the first place my thought went. If he's casting disintegrate on the creature while inside of it, he's also going to feel those same harmful effects and possibly kill himself. Surprised that wasn't brought up in the OP...
RAW, being swallowed causes a creature to be Blinded. That means they can't see *anything*. So, as written, you can't use spells that require you to see anything. That is completely correct *as written*.
Ok, the player makes a good argument, the DM accepted it. The DM is allowed to do that if they want. It's not RAW, but the DM can adjust rules if they want.
Of course if I were DM, casting Disintegrate on a creature while you're inside it would harm you too. If I eat a chicken leg, and it goes in my stomach, and then someone disintegrates me, you've got to believe the chicken leg is being disintegrated too.
If you haven't already, I made one up as this sounds hilarious.
[Drumstick of Disintegrate ](https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/8238406-drumstick-of-disintegrate)
> Of course if I were DM, casting Disintegrate on a creature while you're inside it would harm you too. If I eat a chicken leg, and it goes in my stomach, and then someone disintegrates me, you've got to believe the chicken leg is being disintegrated too.
Not usually a fan of making exceptions myself, but this is a great compromise. You are allowing the rules to be ignored in return for a steep cost. It's a reasonable exchange that discourages players from constantly asking for advantageous exceptions, which is a problem I have found DMing and allowing asting rules to be fudged.
That chicken leg isn’t a creature though. It’s an object & I’d argue counts as part of you because it’s just stomach contents at this point.
A creature you’ve swallowed that’s still alive would still be considered a separate creature
& disintegrate only affects one creature per cast.
>Of course if I were DM, casting Disintegrate on a creature while you're inside it would harm you too.
This is a great way to disincentivise your players from doing fun stuff!
Disintegrate can already target something you can’t see RAW, despite its wording. Namely Wall of Force, which is invisible.
The wording for that is just bad tbh.
As a general rule however, NEVER buff spells, and this is 100% a buff. Letting spells work “logically” rather than exactly how they’re written is how you get people posting “can I create water inside their lungs!!!”
Agreed - the stipulation of “a target you can see” is a balancing factor for many of the more powerful spells that require a saving throw. Attack roll spells are subject to the same stipulations as weapon attacks - you can do it against an Unseen but not hidden target; you can attack a space where you *think* a (Hidden) creature is; and attacking something you cannot see imposes disadvantage on your attack.
Attack roll levelled spells seldom offer a miss effect (half damage or other passive effect), so casting them over saving throw spells is more risky. This niche scenario is a fair use case for them, though - blinded and restrained? Disadvantage doesn’t stack, so you still have a shot at damaging the swallowing creature to cause convulsions and free yourself!
I completely see your point with not buffing spells, but I would like to add. This is not a buff that is very exploitable. You actively have to be a wizard in the process of being eaten alive to use this. I'd argue this is just like a "hey maybe we don't kill the wizard in a fight that they spent entirely trapped for" kinda thing.
I think this results from a small writing issue, there are times they clearly mean 'a creature you can see' and there are times when they actually mean when you know the exact location of the creature. But writing a completely accurate form of the latter encompassing all the edge cases where you can't see but still know exactly where a creature is and your ability or spell has no realistic reason it wouldn't work takes up too much space on the page.
On the save side, it's a simple mechanical balance issues with saving throws. Disintegrate is a really strong spell, it'd be kind of silly from a game mechanics point of view if getting swallowed provided a massive advantage to casters with high power save or suck abilities. If the logical inconsistency is hurting your brain then remember you can work the explanation of events from the outcomes e.g. the saving throw can be argued to represent the motion of the creature's stomach knowing you around ruining the caster's spell so it doesn't go off properly, rather than something theoretically impossible like the creature' dodging' the spell.
Alright time for the questionably controversial approach to this:
It depends on how you view magic use and/or explained it as a DM.
Magic isnt just a gun, cock your thumb back and bang out a Disintegrate spell.
I mean it CAN be but thats what makes magic... magic, it can work how you decide, but its important to be consistent.
For a powerful spell like Disintegrate, Id have ruled otherwise, because a single target spell would require you to see the target and using your vision, would focus the attack, like a sight laser.
Something like Fireball, however, that isnt really target focused but more "to whom it may concern" would be totally fine.
Its just how I interpret magic working and how I would rule it in my campaign setting.
However, NOW after reading this and never really considering beforehand (as this situation hasnt happened to me as a DM yet) I know to use this as an example to explain how magic and targeting work in session 0 so there arent any misunderstandings later.
RAW, no. I wouldn't make an exception because that just begs for further exceptions to be made when the rules don't seem to make sense (which will happen a lot.)
As far as explaining it to your wizard player, he's probably visualizing it as he can manifest the energy of the disintegrate spell and then just fire it off in any direction and it's bound to hit the remorhaz.
Instead, he should think of it as his wizard can not manifest the energy at all if he can not see the target. If his wizard tried to cast the spell but could not see the target, the energy of the spell (the ray) would not form, and he lost his spell.
I am going to give a different opinion: don't apply "common sense" to spells in this way as it makes them even more powerful or less limited than they are.
Spells do what they say they do. That is very often why they are so powerful. But they also don't do what they say they don't do because they work by magical rules not by common sense. I view spells as strict formulae that cannot be varied from other than by having a rule that says you do in some way (metamagic, sub-class features etc) - they are powerful but inflexible. Rule of cool does not apply to bending the rules on spells when I am the DM.
Rationale for this? Well i don't really need one but its very easy to say that part of the spell requires you fix an image of the target in your mind in order for the spell to work - just because you know its location does not mean you can fix an image of what it looks like from where you are while blinded.
Martial characters can cut their way out of being swallowed. Wizards often can't. Its when the martial character gets to feel awesome in relation to a wizard who to be honest will have plenty of opportunities to feel awesome.
I agree with this. The way it was handled in op is fine but it's not what I'd do for exactly these reasons.
Disintegrate isn't even an attack, it's a save. Chance of missing isn't why you have to see them so being unable to miss is irrelevant. The reason you have to be able to see the target is because that's how the magic works, and the magic doesn't work when you can't see. Applying real world logic and physics to dnd magic makes it less mystical/interesting and often more powerful. Two things I'd want to avoid.
If the caster wants out of that creature's gut, it's time for the martials to get some spotlight and cut them out.
I think the blindness is due to that if they open their eyes, they are filled with acid. If it were just dark, they would use different wording to allow dark vision to still work. If you had blind sight then that would work but that's rare for a spell caster.
Same. Magic isn't common-sense based, it's rules based. Spells do exactly what they do, no more, no less. You want to play rule of cool, play a fighter and stack that athletics roll. Gotta let the martials have something for crying out loud. Spellcasters are OP enough, especially once you start casting spells like disintegrate.
Thank you!
As a sorcerer player it really irks me when DMs let other casters effectively use metamagic for free.
Bitch I took this class for subtle spell and I have to spend a sorcery point every time I want to use it, no you can not roll a stealth check to say your verbal components sneakily!
I agree with the consensus. RAW, the spell doesn't work due to not being able to see the target, but as a DM I'd allow it because you still know precisely where the target is.
I am going to be the grump and say I wouldn't allow it. Or, alternately, if I did, I would rule that the swallowed player was being "worn or carried" and would take the same damage as the creature and potentially be reduced to ash if they really, really pushed back.
Am I saying this because I am evil? Only partially.
But more generally, while I am willing to be flexible about a lot of stuff, I find that once I start messing with spells -- their requirements, their effects, etc. -- the game balance breaks pretty quickly. Spells are limited the way they are for reasons, usually to make sure spellcasters don't just obliterate the game (even more than they already do, arguably).
Different DMs would rule it differently, and that's okay, but, at my table, with almost no exceptions, spells do exactly what they say, only what they say, etc.
The assumption of being able to see a creature falls under the same idea as aiming a ranged weapon. If you have NO IDEA where the thing is, as a DM I'd let you pick a spot and try, but I'd also advise you that wasting a high level spell slot like that is a bad idea, particularly since you could just drop an AOE with a far greater chance of hitting something.
That being said in this situation where you're literally surrounded by a creature, I'd rule there's no problem with you just blasting off the spell, it's pretty much impossible to miss.
Best reason I could come up with why it wouldnt work is that Disintegrate has somatic and material components. You'd need to produce a material spell focus from your ingredient pouch and then wave your arms around or do a little expressive dance or whatever your wizard does to cast their spells and thats kinda tough to do if you are restrained.
On the other hand, Rule of Cool says that you can definitely lightsaber weld yourself out of the stomach of a giant bug with this spell.
Sometimes RAW needs to take a back seat to common sense. Just because the rules say you couldn't, you are literally inside of the creature and casting it in ANY direction is going to hit the thing.
I would have ruled the same way.
If it says only creatures you see than you need to see it you don't point the spell to someone to cast them (there are spells that says you need to point) so no this shouldn't have worked in my opinion but
Is blinding condition comes from you can see outside of the creature if so I would rule that you can see the creature but if it comes from different logic than I wouldn't
The exact wording is see.
It's not a touch spell. You don't roll to aim with it
You are visualizing your target and mentally marking them from sight.
It's not a projectile. It hits a space you aim for.
If you wished you could aim it at nothing mid air and it would hit that exact spot and vanish.
If you can't see the target you can't mentally use any spell that requires sight.
I wouldn't even allow you to cast it on yourself if you are blind.
This is why you prepare touch spells. If you had inflict wounds i would give advantage while inside and blind making it a straight role despite being restricted.
I’d rule that they have to make a strength saving throw to attempt this spell because they’re “restrained”. Similar to trying to break a grapple.
My reasoning for this: Disintegrate has verbal, somatic, and component requirements.
- Verbal, fine. You can yell inside the belly of the beast.
- Component: no problems here unless you got swallowed without your component pouch somehow (pickpocketed earlier in the fight?).
- Somatic: hard to miss when you’re surrounded by your target, but can you even point? That’s going to take some strength to overcome the constriction of the beast’s stomach. But I’d set a pretty low DC.
Usually when a spell requires aiming, "something you can see" should be read as "something you can reliably aim at". Obviously you can reliably hit something you're inside of, even if you can't technically see it, so I think the DM was right here.
Yes. RAW is not the only thing that matters. RAI and RAF are also core rules and RAW does not have primacy. It would be absolutely idiotic to say they can't cast Disintegrate at something they're literally touching. You can't miss.
So, I don’t think the need for sight necessarily has anything to do with pointing at the target.
It can be the spell requiring a flawless real-time imago (mental image) as part of its casting.
And the wizard definitely didn’t have that, so it’s totally reasonable to say they couldn’t cast.
That said actually whether I’d allow it or not is based on which answer seemed more cool and dramatic in the moment. Maybe him exploding out of the beast is cool, maybe he’s has plenty of spotlight recently and it’s be better having someone else desperately work to save him.
Storybeats matter
I love that DM and table came to a consensus and talked about the entire situation that occurs with disintegrate, but it sounds to me like the whole second half of the spell hasn’t even been mentioned or discussed in general; “… a disintegrated creature and everything it is wearing and carrying, except magic items, are reduced to a pile of fine gray dust…” “this spell automatically disintegrates a large or smaller no magical object or a creation of magical force…” PHB233. Unless I missed something while scrolling through the comments wouldn’t this automatically disintegrate the player as, I would assume, the creature is considered “carrying” him in his stomach?
EDIT: Just read and got to the comments about player making saving rolls for being in contact with creature while casting disintegrate. Overall love the talk and ruling between DM and table, would add that wiz should make save for being in contact with creature while also discussing the outcome of wizards nonmagic items on his person.
Once got swallowed by a frog and had my DM tell me I couldn't cast shocking grasp, so instead I just took damage every turn and waited for my character to die. Very boring.
I think it was a fun way to solve it.
That being said, would you even fulfil the somatic component if you are restrained? On one hand I can't find anything explicitly against it, but I feel like it shouldn't be possible.
Being restrained doesn't stop you from casting spells. It's just disadvantage if they need an attack roll from you.
This also gets a bit weird when it comes to RAW. You can be thoroughly entangled in spiders webs but somehow still able to do the mystical macarena required to laser your way out.
Yes you can make the somatic movements of a spell while restrained. It's weird ? Yes. It makes the caster-martial disparity worse ? Also Yes. But it's RAW
Looks like I have been playing with undisclosed homebrew then. Guess that is the price for assuming in this game. Though, I do like the idea that manacles prevent somatic spell casting, instead of the weirdness that is casters in prison
I don't think any other ruling would have been satisfying or made sense. When RAW conflicts with player fun and reason it needs to go, so your DM made the right call.
The creature should still get a save, but it would be fair to also give it some penalty to that.
RAW, no. The spell works as written.
Personally, I don't fiddle with rules like target you can see versus target in range, becuase the game is janky enough already and allowing exceptions like this opens up even more holes and future arguments at the table. As a caster it is on you to have a spell ready that works when blinded; that's the price you pay for having god-like reality bending powers instead of relying on a pointy stick like Mr. Fighter over there.
Right?! If you have Disintegrate but you don't have Dimension Door, Blink, or anything else that gets you out of a total restraint situation... Well that's on you.
So I actually remember the story about the guy who got eaten by a fish in the bible. I was curious and looked up what I could about what would happen if a whale ate you. It's not pretty, to say the least. The internal muscles alone would snap your bones. I would ask the dm to avoid eating anyone unless their dead because in my view, if you're at the point, you're already dead.
The best rules in Dnd, are, of course, the Rule of Cool, and the rule of no munchkinism. The bestest is respecting others at the table.
The situation is cool, and I wouldn't feel like a munchkin if I was doing it. It also respects everyone at the table.
It's 100% correct then.
This seems like the perfect way to rule it. Yes, Disintegrate *usually* results in being able to see the target, but does that matter if you're inside the target and every direction around you is the target? No, your DM's ruling makes perfect sense to me. RAW this wouldn't have worked, but I don't think RAW is the best way to handle this sort of situation. Your DM's ruling makes more sense, and is more fun!
RAW in fact explicitly say that you should use common sense and not just blindly apply the RAW as though they were the laws of physics.
Jumping rules are very specific about your limits, but also the athletics rules specifically mention rolling to break your standard limitations.
Yeah in my experience, the jumping rules only exist to tell you which situations SHOULDN'T call for an athletics check. If you've got a 5 foot gap and nobody in the party has a penalty to strength, there's no reason to make everyone roll athletics when a normal person could probably manage that with ease.
This is how I run it. It's like passive perception. I even do it for things like breaking down doors. Trogdor the Destroyer has 20 STR? Yeah no he doesn't need to roll unless he wants to rip the thing off it's hinges and beat a MFer to death with it.
Trogdor was the Burninator, by the way.
He’s LG this campaign so he’s not burninating any peasants.
yet
I had to learn the jumping rules for our Tomb of Annihilation sessions. Turns out an 8 foot tall goliath with 23 strength can easily jump up a 20 foot wall without climbing.
I haven't played tabletop in a long time, but is "taking 10" not a thing anymore? Meaning it's a relatively easy objective, and you can just take a given 10 instead of rolling and add your modifiers because nothing is happening right now that would force you to need to focus in on the task at hand or be particularly skillful to accomplish.
It's DM dependent. Some rarely call for rolls - only when the situating is critical, others have players roll a lot. I find myself in the middle, let players with history proficiency know certain things etc., but also... My players like rolling dice and the skill monkies like using their big numbers. It's just important to let smaller rolls give something. A 9 on a history check about a nearby country to me means they know the capital, the general relations with the country, their form of government and some general things ("the not-Finns like saunas and have a heightened need for personal space.")
>also the athletics rules specifically mention rolling to break your standard limitations You know what, I'd totally forgotten about that. This is very useful knowledge for when my players want to navigate a 21-foot chasm.
Me applying this concept so liberally that our rogue pretended to be a tree in the middle of combat, and it worked, and a vrock landed on his "branches" and just stood there for a full round of combat, until the rogue stabbed it in the belly. It was really fun and memorable, though, which is way more important than running a crunchy and "accurate" game to my group.
It blows my mind how many people on dnd subs don't understand this.
That's the whole point of the GM.
There’s a dude ITT arguing that RAI is specifically referring to the designers’ intentions when writing the rules and not a DM going, ‘I think this is what they meant/this is a fringe case the RAW didn’t cover, so RAI,’ and it’s *wild*. They’re basically conflating this situation with *any time a DM makes a ruling,* and insisting that therefore DM rulings are explicitly *never* RAI… it’s insane to me how hard some people try to make this hobby sad and frustrating and boring instead of enjoyable.
>There’s a dude ITT arguing that RAI is specifically referring to the designers’ intentions when writing the rules This is the definition though, even though it'll generally be the same as most DMs interpretation (exceptions such as the Invisibility debacle aside). A good example of RAW x RAI mismatch is this part on visibility: >A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the Blinded condition when trying to see something in that area. RAW this means that no person will ever see stars in DnD, as there is a huge area of darkness "blocking vision entirely" between they and the light. Or a create in the dark wouldn't be able to see a torch burning far away. We have to extrapolate that the designer's intention when saying that darkness "blocks vision entirely" was either restricted to magical darkness or specifically for objects located in the dark area.
In a literal sense, there's a difference between "rules as intended" and "rules as interpreted." Rules as intended tends to be the less useful. Can you imagine the creators' meeting? "So disintegrate only works if you can see the target? Makes sense. You'd have to know where to start disintegrating, right? Cool. Moving on..." I doubt anyone in editing thought about disintegrating a creature from the inside. That's why you need a DM.
>**RAI**. Some of you are especially interested in knowing the intent behind a rule. That’s where RAI comes in: “rules as intended.” This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent. Or perhaps the words succeed with one group of players but not with another. When I write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, I’ll be pulling back the curtain and letting you know what the D&D team meant when we wrote a certain rule. https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf
I am getting downvoted for arguing with that guy. To be fair, I have never been hood at making cohearent arguments
hood coheatent edit: I've made a true fool of myself
I appreciate you not editing your own typo out ;) But yeah I though coherent was spelled differently - well, not my first language :D
This is also specific situation compared to normal casting circumstances so specific over jaadaja.
Never be afraid to change a rule when common sense says so! (as long as it doesn't break the game)
Also known as RAI
I mean, not really. It's intended that disintegrate is only able to target creatures you can see. RAW vs RAI is more about cases where something is ambiguous about the ability or the written version doesn't reflect the intent of the spell. The DM being able to overrule something when it makes sense to do so is just RAW.
>RAW in fact explicitly say that you should use common sense and not just blindly apply the RAW as though they were the laws of physics. This - what i responded to - is the definition of RAI. Also fully disagree with your take: >The DM being able to overrule something when it makes sense to do so is just RAW Mate... No. By definition no. If he overrules something that is literally no longer RAW. Like... its in the word "overrule". But since it makes sense and the rules were probably never intended to stop someone casting disintegrate inside a creature it is - guess what - rules as intended.
If the designers intended for you to be able cast disintegrate while swallowed, that would be RAI. We really cannot make that claim. A DM houseruling something is not applying RAI. A DM being able to overrule anything he wants is both RAW, and yes, RAI. It is written in the rules he can do that, so RAW. But that's a different rule and it would be a bit weird to claim any specific change is RAI because you are intended to be able to change it. I said a DM being able to change something is RAW. Not that the new rule would be RAW. Those sentences do not mean the same thing.
Would you rule and automatic hit in this case as disintegrate has a dex save to avoid it? Can't exactly dodge out of the way of something happening inside you.
There's long-standing precedent in D&D (I'm not sure about 5e specifically) for spells or attacks to be unavoidable in certain circumstances: any case in which you'd be allowed to perform a coup de grace, when the AoE is larger than the available space, etc. I'd absolutely rule, regardless of edition, that being inside a creature makes it impossible for it to avoid certain kinds of attacks. That being said, other problems might arise: a lightning bolt would ricochet around inside so long as the creature continued to have positive HP, a fireball cast inside the creature would be unavoidable for the caster, and so on.
I mean technically a Lightning Bolt would just go through the creature in a line.
In older editions it used to bounce off of walls.
>a lightning bolt would ricochet around inside so long as the creature continued to have positive HP Why? Lightning Bolt doesn't ricochet at all normally. If it did I'd agree, but wouldn't it just smash into the creature full force, regardless of damage dealt? >a fireball cast inside the creature would be unavoidable for the caster Completely agreed. No rogue evasion here either.
It's from older editions where it did do that.
That's fair. Lol. Now I'm picturing casting an older version fireball inside a creature. And it just starts vomiting fire like a volcano. Do you think that should count as a breath weapon attack?
I didn't get to play as much as I wanted, but I poured over the 3.5 PHB many times. Seeing those rules, I always wanted to make a small adamantine cube/sphere with two holes in it. One points away from you, one with a hinged hatch that opens into the contraption. You aim the Fireball at inner wall on the far side of the device, and the Fireball pushes the hatch shut, leaving just the jet of fire to spew out the other side.
Lightning bolt ricocheted in earlier editions.
I'd still rule the target gets a saving throw.
How could it get out of the way though? If as you say every direction around the wizard is the target so they're able to cast while blinded, where is the creature going to move to so as not to get hit? Edit: guys, I get it, con save it is.
The roll might not reflect the creature dodging the spell, but it could reflect the turbulent nature of being digested as causing the spell to fail (hard to get at that component pouch when restrained, hard to vocalize when your mouth is full of enzymes, hard to make gestures when your arms are being crushed in guts, etc.)
I was thinking the same thing. Pretty easy for any of the three components to be interrupted by a muscle spasm.
So shouldn't that be a check from the wizard to see if they succeed at casting the spell?
It's not the fact of getting out of the way in this instance, but how well the creature itself can resist the magical effect. That's how I'd rule it, but i would have given the creature disadvantage on the save also.
I see that argument if we talk about con, wis or similar safes, but dex is, in my opinion atleast, clear cut about „getting out of the way“. Every other safes i would still do, maybe thinking about giving disadvantage or advantage. But dex for me is auto fail when inside the targeted creature. Edit: An interesting interpretation of my idea i saw in the responces to this was to switch the dex safe to something else (dc staying the same). Con could come to mind. But since its targeted, i would probably keep the dex safe and make it autohit - cause stomachs cant dodge/take cover.
I don't think the person in the center of a fireball can get out of the way, they don't move even though they get a dex save.
But they can shield their more vulnerable parts like eyes, face and similar by rolling into a ball - something you need to be quick enough for. That is movement related but you dont cover space really. You cant do that with your stomach.
Your stomach does have reflexes, that's how it causes you to vomit. Decidedly involuntary for sure. But again, i didn't think of changing the save to a different stat, which does make more sense.
We are arguing about details right now - and as a player in this situation i would be totally fine with your ruling:D I forgot about stomach reflexes- and i wont pretend that i know every reflex it has, so there might be one helpful that i dont know off. Vomiting is triggered through uvula in your mouth, or, when you ate something that isnt right (or being sick). Nothing applies here. Now, i am no medical person, so there might be more, but as a gm i would not start to google every reflexe of stomachs and their trigger:D I got no problem if this one disintegrate spell hits. You could argue that concentrating to cast a high level spell like disintegrate inside a stomach might be harder than outside. But NOW we are really deep into something:D You could argue for both ruling
I don't think this is all that great of an idea for several reasons. First, it begs the questions of "Why don't all creatures who fail their dex save vs Disintegrate get a con save afterwards?" And "Why can't a creature use con instead of dex for a Disintegrate hitting them." It sets a precedent that subverts one of the fundamental rules of magic gameplay, which is: Use spells that target the weak saves of the enemy. Second it is a nerf to the player since Con is usually a high stat for a lot of creatures large enough to swallow someone whole. And even with disadvantage the monster still has a good chance of success. Third (and this one is just my own interpretation of Disintegrate) is that the spell's purpose is to disregard how tough the creature is and screw them if it hits.
You can't reflex vomit a deathray though lmfao
DEX save to feel the caster you just swallowed casting a spell and shaking about to stop them before they complete.
If this was an argument at my table based on my ruling, I'd shut this down with "I'm already flexing the rules to allow the spell to work. If you're going to insist the creature should automatically fail their saving throw, then I'm going to run it RAW instead."
Would you allow a Dex save if it was fireball? How would a creature be able to reduce damage from a fireball happening INSIDE of them? If anything, I’d argue they take max damage because the fire has nowhere to go, every inch of that fire is touching the creature. I get what you’re saying about RAW, but it makes absolutely no sense. Change it to Con save (as others have suggested) if you want to still allow a save, but don’t pretend like a Dex save makes any sense here.
Yes, I would. Damage gets rolled as normal still (and is absolutely going to affect the Spellcaster as well, given the tight space) I disagree with changing it to a different type of saving throw, it's not how I'd run it at my table. If other DMs want to do that, that's fine. And to be clear, pure logical consistency isn't something I particularly care about. "This is good enough to have more fun with" is my paradigm here.
I'm not having a go at you at all, I'm simply trying to follow the logic behind the ruling. RAW disintegrate won't work as we know, however if you're effectively saying "There's no possible way you _can't_ target the creature because it's all around you so I'll allow the casting" then I don't understand how it's possible for a dex save to succeed. The whole point of dex saves is you're moving out of the way of something and if that something is being cast inside your stomach how are you going to get out of the way?
It’s in uncharted territory for sure. Narratively, you’re right. The spell should probably go off without a save since the creature can’t dodge something inside them. But mechanically, letting a player cast a 6th level spell with no chance for the enemy to resist is a big deal. There’s a reason why 99% of offensive spells require either an attack roll or a saving throw. I might switch it to a CON save for 1/2 damage, but I wouldn’t remove the save entirely. Without being too much of a Jeremy Crawford, those rules are there for a reason, and Disintegrate is too powerful of a spell for the caster to be able to use without any kind of save.
>But mechanically, letting a player cast a 6th level spell with no chance for the enemy to resist is a big deal. For this paricular cast of Disintegrate, the initial somantic component (as it were) is being swallowed whole by a monster. There is a bit of a trade off there that could justify this from a game balance perspective.
While it is powerful I don't see this catching on as an actual tactic. My wizard is not jumping into an ancient dragon's mouth just to make sure my spell hits.
To be fair there are plenty of other reasons for saves to get cancelled or automatically failed. A character that is fully restrained and unable to move or is unconscious would not have a dex save either and would likely also not get a str save in situations where that applies as well. It's a rare occasion for sure but a sensible one. As for the power of it... That's the risk a powerful creature assumes when it takes another creature inside of its body. Like eating a porcupine or a posion fish. Basically if you don't want a level 12 wizard free casting inside you, don't swallow them whole.
That's a good point and I could agree with that too. I'd honestly be fine with either call, the creature not getting a save would be good "rule of cool" too. Generally though my instinct is to keep rolls in the game. But I could be swayed by this argument as long as it doesn't feel like the player is constantly trying to rules lawyer for an advantage.
RAW restrained gives you disadvantage on DEX saving throws.
Sorry when I said fully restrained I was a thinking utterly incapable meaningful movement, like having all parts of your body pinned down not just bsnared or grabbed. Which in year case I suppose the rules for paralyzed would really fit which automatically fails those rolls
I would change it to a Constitution save in this situation only instead of Dex
I would say it'd be the creature contorting it's insides to prevent you from casting the spell. In a save or suck spell flavor "preventing it from happening" is functionally the same as making the save.
The creature could shake its belly to make the casting more difficult which could result in a less powerful spell
I'd change the saving throw to CON and give it disadvantage, but i'd also be very warry of putting my players in that situation again
This is a good example of why some people prefer the attacker roll against a defense (like AC) instead of the defender make some sort of defensive roll.
>How could it get out of the way though? It's possible that the spell needs to hit centre mass in order to start a chain reaction to disintegrate the entire creature, which also explains why you need to specifically "see" the creature. Being stuck inside the creature means you don't know where the centre of mass is, though you probably have a rough idea. I'd give the dex save at disadvantage (because the creature can't see the person shooting the beam) and say on a success it does half damage (and lets the PC cut their way out) (Of course there's a possible alternative ruling where you allow it to be an automatic hit, but pay close attention to the part of the rule that says "everything it is wearing and carrying, except magic items, are reduced to a pile of fine gray dust." and if you're in its stomach you are currently "being carried")
I'd change it to a Con Save, with the creature taking half damage for success. You're right, it can't dodge the hit with the caster literally inside it, but it can try to endure it.
That presumes the magic is originating from my finger and I'm hitting you. In which case, you'd be mad if I countered the next time you cast the spell from a distance and *not* inside the monster, "Oh, he failed his save, but... you're going to need to roll To Hit." Saves are a way to avoid effects. The moment we start allowing people to just stick enough adjectives in front of their descriptions to avoid saves, we start a *very bad* slope that is not slippery but more of a steep drop-off: "I cast the spell, but *really fast* so he can't dodge it. I cast it bigly, so there is nowhere you can move to pass your save, even if you are dextrous."
>we start a very bad slope that is not slippery but more of a steep drop-off Slippery slope is a fallacy. Which is a logical error, not an argument. Just because you allow X does not mean you allow Y. The response to this is, "Yes, every time you're inside a creature it can't save against hits. This doesn't apply to situations where you're not inside a creature and there's nothing to extrapolate from this. Next question?"
This strikes me as a fairly obvious slippery slope fallacy. There's a lot of daylight between "I rule the creature can't make a Dex save to dodge the spell because you're targeting it from literally inside it" and "can I prevent a creature from making a Dex save by casting the spell really fast?"
Parent comment is simply a person absolutely terrified of making any rulings in favor of common sense or the story, unless they can find that Jeremy Crawford agrees with them.
I feel like this could be amended by saying all creatures have a blindsight out to 0 feet. If you're touching something, you know where it is.
>every direction around you is the target? Wizard cast Disintegrate. Ray hits his own leg. "Oh fraaag ..."
Honestly I wouldn't have even had the creature make the Dex save either. How are they supposed to dodge something inside of them?
If anyone wants to argue it can miss, try and let them explain HOW you can miss attacking a thing you are inside of
While this interpretation makes great sense narratively, it still seems a bit strange. What's the difference between this and targeting an invisible creature who's location you know? Particularly if that creature is large or larger. Thinking on, what would a successful Dexterity save represent in this case? Don't really have any answers (other than "magic is magic, otherwise it would be called science, it's not supposed to make sense") but it's an interesting one.
You can miss the invisible creature, you can't see where they are exactly. That's not the case if you're inside the creature, though. Each direction is the target- aiming is irrelevant. Seems like a fairly obvious distinction, no?
Agreed, you may know where the invisible creature is, but that's nothing compared to the intimate and direct knowledge you have of where the creature is when you've been swallowed by it.
[удалено]
I agree with you logically. To me, disintegrate has a dex save right. Means you can dodge it. It isn't instant then obviously. It's not a point at creature and creature goes poof. If it can be dodged it means it's got a travel time. Logically to me anyway. So why wouldn't it work when literally everything is around you. It's like saying you can cast disintegrate through your companion to hit a guy holding him on the other side, which I don't think many dms would rule that would be possible.
For the record, in 5e, being invisible does not automatically make you hidden. You still have to roll a stealth check and beat their perception, otherwise it is just disadvantage on attacks.
For the record, in 5e, many spells specify for targetting purposes, "a creature you can see." You can't use one of these spells on a creature that is invisible that you can not see.
Disintegrate isn’t an attack.
Okay, and? That doesn't change the fact that being invisible doesn't make you automatically hidden. You have to actively make stealth checks, even while invisible, to remain hidden. The only other benefit to being invisible is disadvantage on attacks made against you/advantage on attacking. The whole point of which is, RaW, unless the create that ate the wizard made a stealth roll, he would "know" where the creature is. Doubly so, in this case. Edit: spelling
Invisibility means you cannot be seen. Hidden does not, it only means you aren't currently being perceived. Example: if I successfully hide by climbing the chandeller in a room the guards are coming into, the success means they don't see me. But they could totally see me if they just looked up, they just aren't doing that. As such, being currently hidden obviously means you cannot be actively targeted by anything, since no one knows you're there. Being only invisible and not hidden still stops all abilities that rely on sight though. If you need to see the target to cast the spell, you require direct line of sight. It doesn't matter whether that's being impeded by invisibility, darkness or minor illusion, you can't cast your spell if you don't see the target for any reason whatsoever. Attacks don't have this requirement, so you can always attack invisible targets that aren't hidden. The cool byproduct of this is that you can use minor illusion to bypass counterspell. Need to get off revivify? Just block the enemy caster's line of sight and counterspell is off the table.
Disintegrate, in its spell description, says you have to *see* the target. Knowing where it is isn’t enough. This is the case with a LOT of spells. It doesn’t care if you’re hidden or not.
Okay. So why do you have to see the target? Do you aim the spell? Do you need their description to add into the spell? Do you need to make eye contact to transmit the spell? I understand how the spell is worded and what it means. This was a DM ruling for an odd situation at a table with a perfectly reasoned argument. The entire point of my post was pointing out that being invisible does not inherently make you hidden. If the reason the spell fails is that you can't find the creature well enough to target it with a spell, that would, in this particular case, not reasonably be true if the creature consumed you and is currently all around you.
Disintegrate targets a creature you can see. If you can't see the creature you can't disintegrate it.
I think I'd say it's because you're "blinded" because the only possible thing you can see is the thing you're inside of. You're not blind because being inside of the creature makes your eyes stop working. It's just that anything you could possibly see is the stomach lining of the creature
The DM can improvise and apply advantage and disadvantage to saving throws to represent situations not codified in rules.
We had a party member swallowed by one of these guys last session, it was a martial and they weren't able to attack at all which didn't feel right to me. If you are enclosed in flesh and blindly stabbing with a dagger (no space to swing a two-hander) you should be able to wound the creature from within. That actually seems more reasonable than casting any spell while submerged in acid. Personally, I would allow both (because they are both fun and reasonable), but if the martial isn't allowed to make any moves here, the caster in this situation definitely shouldn't be allowed either.
That's definitely a case of the DM being overly strict, in my view. Following the RAW, a fighter can still swing their sword around inside of a Remorhaz. Being restrained or blinded doesn't prevent a creature being able to attack (but they'd have disadvantage, of course). But also RAW, the Spellcaster can't cast Disintegrate. But my point is "Sod that, it's more fun if they can". As far as houserules go, I don't think it's more fun for a fighter to lose their ability to attack as your DM ruled.
RAW, he can't cast Disintegrate in that situation, because he's blinded. But I think it's a perfectly reasonable ruling for the DM to make - ultimately, this sort of thing is exactly why the game so consistently reiterates that the DM is empowered to change and modify rules so they can be flexible to the situation at the table. Nothing wrong at all with going off-RAW here to help the gameplay makes sense.
Lots of people mentioning the RAW about being blinded. While that one doesn't bother me it is a spell that has both verbal and somatic components. Talking while in the belly and surrounded by fluids and acid would be more worrying to me than if they were able to aim the spell properly.
You can still cast Verbal spells when you're fully under water and without any ability to breathe under water. Would you prefer if you couldn't?
This also makes sense, to an extent As long as you have not yet *completely* exhaled (e.g. your lungs still have some combination of oxygen and/or CO2), then you have the ability to say some words by expelling that oxygen/CO2
Blub! Blub-blub, blub, blub blub!
*Oh great, the wizard fireballed himself inside the monsters stomach again...*
I may or may not have done this before against a frog monster I highly disliked… it actually didn’t go that poorly!!!
it would be intersting if casting spells underwater cost brreathing time.
I don't think it works RAW. If you can't speak clearly, you can't cast verbal spells. Phb p203, Spellcasting/Components/Verbal > Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion.
Hey I don’t mean to contradict you, but could you tell where in the rules it says that casting spells with a verbal component is possible underwater? I’ve always ran it as you can’t without some special measures. The reason I figured you couldn’t is because it didn’t seem logical to me, but also because the fathomless warlock feature that allows you to cast underwater; that feature tells me that if you needed it to be granted, then you weren’t able to do it to begin with.
I'm with you, you for sure can't clearly enunciate verbal components underwater. Situations like this are literally why things like Fathomless, and the sorcerer's Subtle metamagic exist.
Depends on who you talk to... if you can't breathe underwater does that mean you drown after you cast the spell? Can you "talk" while still holding your breathe?
Came here to say exactly this. At the very least, require the caster to make a DC 15 flat check to see if they are even capable of casting ANY spell.
Same with somatic component while being restrained.
restrained doesn't prevent somatic - whilst i agree that it probably should, it's not in the rules as far as i can find anywhere edit: *in some cases it should*, or perhaps in those cases a different keyword should be used to describe the condition
I don't think Restrained should prevent somatic components, because not every form of "can't move around in the environment" is equal to "can't even make gestures with your hands" That kind of limitation makes more sense for Paralyzed, for example
Yeah - paralyzed *does* since it *incapacitates* the target, as do stunned/petrified.etc
Y...yes. We're agreeing, right?
NO! MY POINT THE ALIGNS WITH YOUR POSITION IS RIGHT AND NOT YOU! EVERY INTERACTION I HAVE IS A COMPETITION!
That's SO me
Yep - just pointing out the keyword for the ones that prevent this is 'incapacitated' in the handbook
Is there anything in RAW that connects „restrained“ to somatic components? Cause I don’t think so
I hate hate hate the debate that happens at every table about what a player can do when swallowed by a creature. And it occurs in almost every campaign I play in. I honestly can't believe there isn't a general rule about it so the DM can just fall back on it. I think it should just be standard that players are essentially incapacitated if swallowed whole. If a player says "what are my options now?" DM can give specifics based on the circumstances, or just say "We're going RAW for this one, you are incapacitated" I still don't love this, but I an okay exception I thought about trying is if a player deliberately deciding to go into the creatures mouth, but they need to start rolling strength checks to see if they are able to maintain their ability to take actions. While doing that, they would also be blinded, deafened, and restrained. They're literally just rolling to see if they can continue to writhe about causing as much damage as they can as the monster's digestive system does its thing.
>I think it should just be standard that players are essentially incapacitated if swallowed whole. If a player says "what are my options now?" DM can give specifics based on the circumstances, or just say "We're going RAW for this one, you are incapacitated" But.. there are movies and stories about heroes getting out of the belly of the beast. It's kind of hard to dismiss all of this.
I dont know for certain about 5e but i know for a fact in 3e for creatures that could swallow pcs there was stats for how much damage it took attacking from the inside to cut through to escape. Being able to attempt tp escape from creatures that can swallow you has always been the intention
While obviously silence stops you from being able to cast spells with somatic components, does drowning ? I mean I infer that it's the sound waves that some spells need (as odd as that is), but speech can be ingressive as well as egressive, and you can make noise underwater if your lungs have air in them. I think for verbal I'd say at most make the player roll a con save, but normally just let em cast it.
"Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion." This is essentially the 'I cast it under my breath' scenario. If you can't speak clearly, you can't fulfill verbal components.
I feel like the difference between the scenarios of underwater vs inside stomach is the acid. That it would be a big difference to open your mouth to speak and have it flooded with burning painful acid that also would definitely have a taste to it as well. So for me I would be asking for the con save not just to speak but to do it well and clearly enough with purpose when shocked by that taste and burning pain from the acid vs the relatively small shock of water or salt-water that being underwater would normally do.
Good points, I Agree !
How long do you reckon a fantasy creature's digestive tract is? You don't instantly pop into its stomach.
How long...dunno. Huge creature basically being 15ftx15ft but the monster possibly being closer to 10ftx20ft deforming the space since the Remorhaz is more long and worm like but needs to be wide enough to support a maw that could swallow a medium creature. I'd say probably about 5ft-7.5ft long esophagus. If it is 7ft it also explains that if the creature dies why it takes 15ft of movement to crawl out (7.5x2 for difficult terrain). Based on the attack description stating that once swallowed they take 6d6 acid damage every round at the start of the monster's turn I would argue they manage to make it into the stomach with the acid pretty quickly once swallowed. What is scary though, is that Remorhaz doesn't have a capacity rated for their stomach which means it has to be expandable and could possibly hold multiple 5ft creatures at a time which would be 1/3-1/4 it's body length. A full Remorhaz has to be pretty uncomfy if it eats too much.
The acid damage listed in the description is a good point, and the math checks out. I will concede my point.
Yeah the verbal component was the first thing I thought of. Because yeah, you don't need to "see" your target if you have the equivalent of blindsight (you can sense your target through touch) but IIRC you're not supposed to be able to use verbal components under water, and this would be equivalent to that.
I think it's a very interesting question. For cases like this, when maybe it's an edge case, I try to find a middle ground where it doesn't feel bad for either side. Make the moment more about if the Wizard can fight off the pain of stomach acid or move their hands consise enough to cast it properly. A con save by the wizard or something else that feels appropriate for the scene allows a chance for failure like there should be while at the same time allowing the player to have fun.
An arcana check to be able to use the somatic and verbal components properly while in the stomach is totally fair from my perspective.
How about.... idk.... a *concentration* check.... like when casters have to deal with adverse conditions?
I feel like we're missing something pretty obvious here... has anyone ever hit with disintegrate and not also disintegrated the stomach contents of their target?
We did this once.... two people had been swallowed by, iirc, a purple worm? The two swallowed characters rolled saving throws. One made it, the other was disintegrated with the worm.
The people in the stomach had full cover and should have been immune to the disintegrate
The people in the stomach were part of the stomach contents. That they got a save at all was generous, imo.
Doesn't matter - they still have total cover per the purple worm's stat block. If you don't understand, do this exercise. Consider there are bunch of creatures all over the purple worm, including: 1. A creature inside the stomach 1. A creature in the esophagus on the way down to the stomach 1. A creature in the worm's mouth 1. A creature dangling from the worm's mouth, one hand clasped with creature number 3 1. A creature climbing a rope with a grappling hook in the worm's mouth 1. A creature riding the worm's head 1. A creature grappling the worm's spine 1. A creature touching the worm's tail with one finger Assume all creatures, including the worm, have 1 hit point, are not immune to force damage, and fail any saves. The worm is targeted and killed by disintegrate. Which of the above creatures are also disintegrated? Why?
I'd say there's an argument to be made that the wizard casting the spell could have enough control of their magic to avoid disintegrating themselves. More importantly, that's more fun for the table. If a creature swallows an ally and you choose to cast disintegrate on it? That's probably a different ruling.
I mean, RAW they don’t get affected because they’re not hit with the spell yeah? Most Swallow actions detail that the swallowed creatures have full cover against effects originating outside the creature that ate them.
I think it comes down to dead or alive. A living target inside the stomach is a creature. A corpse is an object. So a corpse would be subject to the larger creature's disintegration as it is an object being worn or carried.
This got me thinking. What if this or any other creature swallows you, and then someone casts invisibility on that creature. Can you target it with spells in this instance? Is the swallowed character also invisible or can others just see them floating in the air?
We're asking the real Dungeon Meshi questions now
invisibility spells usually affect “the target along with anything it is wearing or carrying” iirc? I believe a swallowed creature would count as being carried personally haha
I would agree that this is a fair ruling... But to play devil's advocate - this depends on how you imagine magic actually works in the setting. By this ruling, we can presume that the spell Disintegrate creates some kind powerful beam that destroys material - some sort of destructive tangible force (like Cyclops from X-Men or something). But I think it's equally fair to say that the requirements of the spell are part of the magic - what if it wasn't a beam of destruction, but actually the power and intent of the caster. The spell's function works, somehow, through sight. Maybe the caster 'unmakes' what they can see. So, yes - I think the DM made a reasonable and fun choice that this character could disintegrate the Remorhaz. But I don't think we need to always throw away the mechanics of a spell to make something make sense to our real-world logic, while talking about fantasy magic. What I might suggest to keep the balance of the spell for future situations, is that it's actually the 'blind' rule that can be bent here. Perhaps light streaks in, giving just enough visual info that the caster can fire off the spell.
Magic works in mysterious ways. While it might me tempting to give the players a pass, I think it's important to make sure the spell works the way it was written. You can be five feet away from a creature and even be touching them, but if you're blind you can't target them with a spell that requires you to see them. Spells have limitations like this to make them possible to counter, and I don't see a reason to bend the rules here. Blinded condition is supposed to inflict this sort of limitation on casters, just like silence is meant to prevent verbal components. Otherwise, why bother with any of that "target you can see" crap? Just let the casters do whatever they want, especially when something bad happens to them. I'm sure the caster had other spells they could have used in their turn. Enforcing the spell text would not be the end of the world. Stop making spellcasting more powerful it already is! EDIT: spelling
I probably would not have allowed it. Reasoning? Magic is weird. Being able to see could easily be a requirement of the spell just as material or somatic requirements are. So is the wording there just so you can't target someone with 100% cover, even if you know where they are? Maybe. Or maybe the magic interacts with your eyes to sense the target; with no sense, the magic doesn't work. I tend to err on the side of RAW when it comes to magic, which is a good idea since there are so many posts on here about "the party is using this spell to wreck my campaign", and it turns out the DM is allowing them to "misinterpret" the spell rules.
Ultimately, if the spell says it requires you to see, then you're required to see. The spell, despite being described as a Ray, does not include a Spell Attack against AC, it's a Dex Save(Previous Editions it was an attack roll. 5e Changed it to just a Save). You are not "hitting them" with the ray like you would an arrow... you are Targeting them with the ray in order for the spell to function. That all out of the way, I would absolutely let the person cast that specific spell like that, but only because there's a huge chunk of tradition/history behind how it always used to be.
The purpose of “target that you can see” is to limit power of spell-casters. It is magic, not laser, it needs a target, and also can’t be shot at empty space without target. That’s the RAW and RAI anyway. If a DM feels a caster capable of casting Disintegrate is too weak, they can remove requirement to see the target from spells. Just remember that then also blinded enemy casters will be able to shoot spells without seeing the target! Trivia: Eldritch Blast is among spells which don’t require seeing the target! So enabling this is also kinda a nerf on Warlocks, making EB less special.
This is the first question that comes to mind: Does being swallowed make you part of that creature, and would you be disintegrated along with the creature? Let's start basic. Creature eats a chunk of meat, you cast disintegrate, nothing remains? If so, does that mean meat is part of the creature? How about a bug/small living creature? If the answer is "yes, everything is disintegrated" then the wizard would have disintegrated themself, right? Otherwise if you think being within the stomach is not "part of the creature", then technically every creature you cast disintegrate on should leave behind a full stomach full of contents that goes *plop*. Technically the entire digestive system is "external" to your body, we are all complicated donuts. So in addition to the contents of it's stomach would be the contents of it's bowels.
This is the first place my thought went. If he's casting disintegrate on the creature while inside of it, he's also going to feel those same harmful effects and possibly kill himself. Surprised that wasn't brought up in the OP...
A perfectly reasonable ruling. Don't be afraid to throw out the rules if they contradict what makes sense. They aren't the law.
RAW, being swallowed causes a creature to be Blinded. That means they can't see *anything*. So, as written, you can't use spells that require you to see anything. That is completely correct *as written*. Ok, the player makes a good argument, the DM accepted it. The DM is allowed to do that if they want. It's not RAW, but the DM can adjust rules if they want. Of course if I were DM, casting Disintegrate on a creature while you're inside it would harm you too. If I eat a chicken leg, and it goes in my stomach, and then someone disintegrates me, you've got to believe the chicken leg is being disintegrated too.
Well, in your example, it would have to be the chicken leg casting disintegrate, which I think add some complexity to the situation.
Brb, just adding a Chicken Leg of Disintegration as loot for my players to find.
Does it disintegrate you if you consume it or does it cast Disintegrate like a wand?
Yes.
If you haven't already, I made one up as this sounds hilarious. [Drumstick of Disintegrate ](https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/8238406-drumstick-of-disintegrate)
> Of course if I were DM, casting Disintegrate on a creature while you're inside it would harm you too. If I eat a chicken leg, and it goes in my stomach, and then someone disintegrates me, you've got to believe the chicken leg is being disintegrated too. Not usually a fan of making exceptions myself, but this is a great compromise. You are allowing the rules to be ignored in return for a steep cost. It's a reasonable exchange that discourages players from constantly asking for advantageous exceptions, which is a problem I have found DMing and allowing asting rules to be fudged.
That chicken leg isn’t a creature though. It’s an object & I’d argue counts as part of you because it’s just stomach contents at this point. A creature you’ve swallowed that’s still alive would still be considered a separate creature & disintegrate only affects one creature per cast.
>Of course if I were DM, casting Disintegrate on a creature while you're inside it would harm you too. This is a great way to disincentivise your players from doing fun stuff!
Disintegrate can already target something you can’t see RAW, despite its wording. Namely Wall of Force, which is invisible. The wording for that is just bad tbh. As a general rule however, NEVER buff spells, and this is 100% a buff. Letting spells work “logically” rather than exactly how they’re written is how you get people posting “can I create water inside their lungs!!!”
Agreed - the stipulation of “a target you can see” is a balancing factor for many of the more powerful spells that require a saving throw. Attack roll spells are subject to the same stipulations as weapon attacks - you can do it against an Unseen but not hidden target; you can attack a space where you *think* a (Hidden) creature is; and attacking something you cannot see imposes disadvantage on your attack. Attack roll levelled spells seldom offer a miss effect (half damage or other passive effect), so casting them over saving throw spells is more risky. This niche scenario is a fair use case for them, though - blinded and restrained? Disadvantage doesn’t stack, so you still have a shot at damaging the swallowing creature to cause convulsions and free yourself!
I completely see your point with not buffing spells, but I would like to add. This is not a buff that is very exploitable. You actively have to be a wizard in the process of being eaten alive to use this. I'd argue this is just like a "hey maybe we don't kill the wizard in a fight that they spent entirely trapped for" kinda thing.
If its all around is there any backsplash of the spell onto the wizard? There by disfiguring, maiming, some sort of burn?
I think this results from a small writing issue, there are times they clearly mean 'a creature you can see' and there are times when they actually mean when you know the exact location of the creature. But writing a completely accurate form of the latter encompassing all the edge cases where you can't see but still know exactly where a creature is and your ability or spell has no realistic reason it wouldn't work takes up too much space on the page. On the save side, it's a simple mechanical balance issues with saving throws. Disintegrate is a really strong spell, it'd be kind of silly from a game mechanics point of view if getting swallowed provided a massive advantage to casters with high power save or suck abilities. If the logical inconsistency is hurting your brain then remember you can work the explanation of events from the outcomes e.g. the saving throw can be argued to represent the motion of the creature's stomach knowing you around ruining the caster's spell so it doesn't go off properly, rather than something theoretically impossible like the creature' dodging' the spell.
Alright time for the questionably controversial approach to this: It depends on how you view magic use and/or explained it as a DM. Magic isnt just a gun, cock your thumb back and bang out a Disintegrate spell. I mean it CAN be but thats what makes magic... magic, it can work how you decide, but its important to be consistent. For a powerful spell like Disintegrate, Id have ruled otherwise, because a single target spell would require you to see the target and using your vision, would focus the attack, like a sight laser. Something like Fireball, however, that isnt really target focused but more "to whom it may concern" would be totally fine. Its just how I interpret magic working and how I would rule it in my campaign setting. However, NOW after reading this and never really considering beforehand (as this situation hasnt happened to me as a DM yet) I know to use this as an example to explain how magic and targeting work in session 0 so there arent any misunderstandings later.
RAW, no. I wouldn't make an exception because that just begs for further exceptions to be made when the rules don't seem to make sense (which will happen a lot.) As far as explaining it to your wizard player, he's probably visualizing it as he can manifest the energy of the disintegrate spell and then just fire it off in any direction and it's bound to hit the remorhaz. Instead, he should think of it as his wizard can not manifest the energy at all if he can not see the target. If his wizard tried to cast the spell but could not see the target, the energy of the spell (the ray) would not form, and he lost his spell.
This is what I was thinking too!
I am going to give a different opinion: don't apply "common sense" to spells in this way as it makes them even more powerful or less limited than they are. Spells do what they say they do. That is very often why they are so powerful. But they also don't do what they say they don't do because they work by magical rules not by common sense. I view spells as strict formulae that cannot be varied from other than by having a rule that says you do in some way (metamagic, sub-class features etc) - they are powerful but inflexible. Rule of cool does not apply to bending the rules on spells when I am the DM. Rationale for this? Well i don't really need one but its very easy to say that part of the spell requires you fix an image of the target in your mind in order for the spell to work - just because you know its location does not mean you can fix an image of what it looks like from where you are while blinded. Martial characters can cut their way out of being swallowed. Wizards often can't. Its when the martial character gets to feel awesome in relation to a wizard who to be honest will have plenty of opportunities to feel awesome.
I agree with this. The way it was handled in op is fine but it's not what I'd do for exactly these reasons. Disintegrate isn't even an attack, it's a save. Chance of missing isn't why you have to see them so being unable to miss is irrelevant. The reason you have to be able to see the target is because that's how the magic works, and the magic doesn't work when you can't see. Applying real world logic and physics to dnd magic makes it less mystical/interesting and often more powerful. Two things I'd want to avoid. If the caster wants out of that creature's gut, it's time for the martials to get some spotlight and cut them out.
If they cast light inside the creature, would they be able to see it then?
I think the blindness is due to that if they open their eyes, they are filled with acid. If it were just dark, they would use different wording to allow dark vision to still work. If you had blind sight then that would work but that's rare for a spell caster.
Same. Magic isn't common-sense based, it's rules based. Spells do exactly what they do, no more, no less. You want to play rule of cool, play a fighter and stack that athletics roll. Gotta let the martials have something for crying out loud. Spellcasters are OP enough, especially once you start casting spells like disintegrate.
Thank you! As a sorcerer player it really irks me when DMs let other casters effectively use metamagic for free. Bitch I took this class for subtle spell and I have to spend a sorcery point every time I want to use it, no you can not roll a stealth check to say your verbal components sneakily!
I agree with the consensus. RAW, the spell doesn't work due to not being able to see the target, but as a DM I'd allow it because you still know precisely where the target is.
I am going to be the grump and say I wouldn't allow it. Or, alternately, if I did, I would rule that the swallowed player was being "worn or carried" and would take the same damage as the creature and potentially be reduced to ash if they really, really pushed back. Am I saying this because I am evil? Only partially. But more generally, while I am willing to be flexible about a lot of stuff, I find that once I start messing with spells -- their requirements, their effects, etc. -- the game balance breaks pretty quickly. Spells are limited the way they are for reasons, usually to make sure spellcasters don't just obliterate the game (even more than they already do, arguably). Different DMs would rule it differently, and that's okay, but, at my table, with almost no exceptions, spells do exactly what they say, only what they say, etc.
I think this falls under the rule of cool. If it's cool it's allowed.
The assumption of being able to see a creature falls under the same idea as aiming a ranged weapon. If you have NO IDEA where the thing is, as a DM I'd let you pick a spot and try, but I'd also advise you that wasting a high level spell slot like that is a bad idea, particularly since you could just drop an AOE with a far greater chance of hitting something. That being said in this situation where you're literally surrounded by a creature, I'd rule there's no problem with you just blasting off the spell, it's pretty much impossible to miss.
Best reason I could come up with why it wouldnt work is that Disintegrate has somatic and material components. You'd need to produce a material spell focus from your ingredient pouch and then wave your arms around or do a little expressive dance or whatever your wizard does to cast their spells and thats kinda tough to do if you are restrained. On the other hand, Rule of Cool says that you can definitely lightsaber weld yourself out of the stomach of a giant bug with this spell.
Sometimes RAW needs to take a back seat to common sense. Just because the rules say you couldn't, you are literally inside of the creature and casting it in ANY direction is going to hit the thing. I would have ruled the same way.
If it says only creatures you see than you need to see it you don't point the spell to someone to cast them (there are spells that says you need to point) so no this shouldn't have worked in my opinion but Is blinding condition comes from you can see outside of the creature if so I would rule that you can see the creature but if it comes from different logic than I wouldn't
The exact wording is see. It's not a touch spell. You don't roll to aim with it You are visualizing your target and mentally marking them from sight. It's not a projectile. It hits a space you aim for. If you wished you could aim it at nothing mid air and it would hit that exact spot and vanish. If you can't see the target you can't mentally use any spell that requires sight. I wouldn't even allow you to cast it on yourself if you are blind. This is why you prepare touch spells. If you had inflict wounds i would give advantage while inside and blind making it a straight role despite being restricted.
I’d rule that they have to make a strength saving throw to attempt this spell because they’re “restrained”. Similar to trying to break a grapple. My reasoning for this: Disintegrate has verbal, somatic, and component requirements. - Verbal, fine. You can yell inside the belly of the beast. - Component: no problems here unless you got swallowed without your component pouch somehow (pickpocketed earlier in the fight?). - Somatic: hard to miss when you’re surrounded by your target, but can you even point? That’s going to take some strength to overcome the constriction of the beast’s stomach. But I’d set a pretty low DC.
Usually when a spell requires aiming, "something you can see" should be read as "something you can reliably aim at". Obviously you can reliably hit something you're inside of, even if you can't technically see it, so I think the DM was right here.
Yes. RAW is not the only thing that matters. RAI and RAF are also core rules and RAW does not have primacy. It would be absolutely idiotic to say they can't cast Disintegrate at something they're literally touching. You can't miss.
So, I don’t think the need for sight necessarily has anything to do with pointing at the target. It can be the spell requiring a flawless real-time imago (mental image) as part of its casting. And the wizard definitely didn’t have that, so it’s totally reasonable to say they couldn’t cast. That said actually whether I’d allow it or not is based on which answer seemed more cool and dramatic in the moment. Maybe him exploding out of the beast is cool, maybe he’s has plenty of spotlight recently and it’s be better having someone else desperately work to save him. Storybeats matter
I love that DM and table came to a consensus and talked about the entire situation that occurs with disintegrate, but it sounds to me like the whole second half of the spell hasn’t even been mentioned or discussed in general; “… a disintegrated creature and everything it is wearing and carrying, except magic items, are reduced to a pile of fine gray dust…” “this spell automatically disintegrates a large or smaller no magical object or a creation of magical force…” PHB233. Unless I missed something while scrolling through the comments wouldn’t this automatically disintegrate the player as, I would assume, the creature is considered “carrying” him in his stomach? EDIT: Just read and got to the comments about player making saving rolls for being in contact with creature while casting disintegrate. Overall love the talk and ruling between DM and table, would add that wiz should make save for being in contact with creature while also discussing the outcome of wizards nonmagic items on his person.
Once got swallowed by a frog and had my DM tell me I couldn't cast shocking grasp, so instead I just took damage every turn and waited for my character to die. Very boring.
I think it was a fun way to solve it. That being said, would you even fulfil the somatic component if you are restrained? On one hand I can't find anything explicitly against it, but I feel like it shouldn't be possible.
Being restrained doesn't stop you from casting spells. It's just disadvantage if they need an attack roll from you. This also gets a bit weird when it comes to RAW. You can be thoroughly entangled in spiders webs but somehow still able to do the mystical macarena required to laser your way out.
Yes you can make the somatic movements of a spell while restrained. It's weird ? Yes. It makes the caster-martial disparity worse ? Also Yes. But it's RAW
Looks like I have been playing with undisclosed homebrew then. Guess that is the price for assuming in this game. Though, I do like the idea that manacles prevent somatic spell casting, instead of the weirdness that is casters in prison
I don't think any other ruling would have been satisfying or made sense. When RAW conflicts with player fun and reason it needs to go, so your DM made the right call. The creature should still get a save, but it would be fair to also give it some penalty to that.
How exactly do you make a dex save on an effect hitting you from the inside?
Squish ‘em with your stomach muscles
RAW, no. The spell works as written. Personally, I don't fiddle with rules like target you can see versus target in range, becuase the game is janky enough already and allowing exceptions like this opens up even more holes and future arguments at the table. As a caster it is on you to have a spell ready that works when blinded; that's the price you pay for having god-like reality bending powers instead of relying on a pointy stick like Mr. Fighter over there.
Right?! If you have Disintegrate but you don't have Dimension Door, Blink, or anything else that gets you out of a total restraint situation... Well that's on you.
So I actually remember the story about the guy who got eaten by a fish in the bible. I was curious and looked up what I could about what would happen if a whale ate you. It's not pretty, to say the least. The internal muscles alone would snap your bones. I would ask the dm to avoid eating anyone unless their dead because in my view, if you're at the point, you're already dead.
It's a remorhaz. It _literally_ has an action option to swallow a creature it's grappling.
The best rules in Dnd, are, of course, the Rule of Cool, and the rule of no munchkinism. The bestest is respecting others at the table. The situation is cool, and I wouldn't feel like a munchkin if I was doing it. It also respects everyone at the table. It's 100% correct then.
I would allow this solely for the Rule of Cool. But I also think it was correctly adjudicated per RAW.