Swallowed Aim

[Rev666]

Let's say your DM is using the Steady Aim from Tashas.
You're a rswashbuckler rogue who gets swallowed by a kraken.
Normally you're restrained and blinded giving disadvantage.
On your turn you use bonus to Steady Aim (being restrained you haven't moved your turn) giving you advantage.
Being inside the kraken you are not within 5 feet of other enemies.

Does this mean that because steady aim cancelled my attacks disadvantage that I can apply sneak attack damage, increasing my chance to do enough damage to be regurgitated?

[CheddarChampion]

RAW, yes.

I'm away from my book, but I think you're also blinded while swallowed. I find it strange that you can "Aim" at a target you can't see... I might be inclined to houserule this as a DM.

[Zhorn]

Sounds RAW to me.
As far as how much it makes sense beyond that, I'm more in favour of "the player needs to have a way to get out, and a damage threshold to reach is good enough. If this is a way that makes that achievable, I'm all in favour of it."

[elyktsorb]

I'm away from my book, but I think you're also blinded while swallowed. I find it strange that you can "Aim" at a target you can't see... I might be inclined to houserule this as a DM.

'Steady Aim' despite how it sounds, actually does not rely on sight at all and it's only limitation is that you can't move after using it, and if you moved before using it, you can't use it. In the above situation this would only ever work for Swashbucklers who can apply sneak damage on normal attacks without allies nearby, or Inquisitives, provided they already succeeded on using Insightful Fighting on the target before.

For normal Rogues, they would still need an ally within 5ft of the target to deal sneak damage, and if your allies are outside of the creature within 5ft of it, you would still get sneak damage.

[Rev666]

RAW, yes.

I'm away from my book, but I think you're also blinded while swallowed. I find it strange that you can "Aim" at a target you can't see... I might be inclined to houserule this as a DM.

From my take on Steady Aim, you don't visually aim, you take an extra second to mentally aim. You'd know to tilt your bow slightly to get a headshot on a 7 foot tall opponent 50 feet away than on a 5 foot opponent who's also 50 feet away. Likewise if you've been swallowed you'd mentally stop for a second to get your dagger to stab at a part that feels like it'd hurt more.

Thats my take anyway and i appreciate people giving me answers.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I don't think you will be able to sneak attack.
I do believe you will attack regularly(no advantage or disadvantage).

That is because even when the advantage and disadvantage cancel eachother you still have disadvantage for this attack.

the second paragraph

You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll.

The text refers to having disadvantage, in that case you have disadvantage but don't roll with disadvantage because you also have advantage.

Because it was the second paragraph I see it is more specific than the first paragraph that says you should have sneak attack because you have advantage even when you don't roll with advantage.

the first paragraph

Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.

[Contrast]

That is because even when the advantage and disadvantage cancel eachother you still have disadvantage for this attack.

Just to respond with some quotes of my own:


If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them, and you roll one d20. This is true even if multiple circumstances impose disadvantage and only one grants advantage or vice versa. In such a situation, you have neither advantage nor disadvantage.

So if you have both adv and disadv you have neither so no sneak attack - unless you have an ally within 5ft.

If you had an ally within 5ft of the creature you could sneak attack.


Personally I might be inclined to rule that if your speed was already 0 for another reason you couldn't benefit from Steady Aim.

[stoutstien]

I'm picturing the end of the first MIB movie.

[Rev666]

So if you have both adv and disadv you have neither so no sneak attack - unless you have an ally within 5ft.


Personally I might be inclined to rule that if your speed was already 0 for another reason you couldn't benefit from Steady Aim.

As for first point i brought up that its a swashbuckler rogue so we could ignore the allies within 5 foot necessity and focus on the rogue on his own in the krakens gut.

As for second point i disagree. Theres been countless movies were some poor sod had his legs/back pinned or crushed and hes made the sacrifice to carry on shooting even though he cant move and is exposed. The drawback of steady aim is that your opening yourself to counterattack but by staying still you're not causing sway that might throw the shot off.

For example the CGI Tintin movie. While on a lifeboat he shoots a seaplane in the engine midflight by carefully aiming (with the seaplane strafing fire right at him as the drawback).

Now he was sitting on the boat and was free to move about but didnt. Had his legs been pinned (ie grappled condition) he would have still aimed in the exact same way as he had if he could move.

Hope my reasoning makes sense.

[Nifft]

On the one hand, even if you didn't voluntarily move, you have been moved, and thus it's reasonable to say that you moved.

On the other hand, being the chest-buster is awesome, and awesomeness should be encouraged.

[Avonar]

From my take on Steady Aim, you don't visually aim, you take an extra second to mentally aim. You'd know to tilt your bow slightly to get a headshot on a 7 foot tall opponent 50 feet away than on a 5 foot opponent who's also 50 feet away. Likewise if you've been swallowed you'd mentally stop for a second to get your dagger to stab at a part that feels like it'd hurt more.

Thats my take anyway and i appreciate people giving me answers.

Those things you said require sight to function though. A different example would be that I wouldn't allow someone blinded to use Steady Aim to negate the disadvantage. Similarly here, I don't see how not moving lets you better hit something you cannot see in an extremely difficult situation.

[qube]

Those things you said require sight to function though. A different example would be that I wouldn't allow someone blinded to use Steady Aim to negate the disadvantage.The biggest problem with being blind, is the fact you don't know the loction. But if that is solved, it's quite the common trope if the protagnoist is blinded, that he focusses and lets his other senses take over.

[stoutstien]

On the one hand, even if you didn't voluntarily move, you have been moved, and thus it's reasonable to say that you moved.

On the other hand, being the chest-buster is awesome, and awesomeness should be encouraged.

No conflict on the first point. As long as the user has not moved on the given turn they can use steady aim and it set movement to zero until the end of the same turn.

[Rev666]

Those things you said require sight to function though. A different example would be that I wouldn't allow someone blinded to use Steady Aim to negate the disadvantage. Similarly here, I don't see how not moving lets you better hit something you cannot see in an extremely difficult situation.

Apologies i neglected to mention a factor.

Lets say you're firing at said 7 foot guy 50 feet away when all of a sudden his buddy casts blindness/deafness and blinds you.
Normally you'd be at disadvantage (lets assume you're next in initiative before 7 foot guy so he hasnt moved from his spot) but as a skilled archer instead of just grabbing an arrow and firing you nock the arrow, think for a second, comfortably set the arrows arc to hit the square he was in and shoot.

Of course when his turn comes up and he moves then you're gonna have to get someone to tell you that he's moved 10 foot to your left but if you mentally adjust for that 10 foot with the steady aim action then you're at least calculating your best chance of hitting.

Hope this clears up the point i was trying to make.

[Bloodcloud]

I guess in this scenario you could fluff it as the swashbuckler touching around to find a less protected fold/raw spot/organs behind the digestive tract and stabbing THERE. It's cool, keeps versimilitude. Plus, I agree it's quite RAW.

[Avonar]

Apologies i neglected to mention a factor.

Lets say you're firing at said 7 foot guy 50 feet away when all of a sudden his buddy casts blindness/deafness and blinds you.
Normally you'd be at disadvantage (lets assume you're next in initiative before 7 foot guy so he hasnt moved from his spot) but as a skilled archer instead of just grabbing an arrow and firing you nock the arrow, think for a second, comfortably set the arrows arc to hit the square he was in and shoot.

Of course when his turn comes up and he moves then you're gonna have to get someone to tell you that he's moved 10 foot to your left but if you mentally adjust for that 10 foot with the steady aim action then you're at least calculating your best chance of hitting.

Hope this clears up the point i was trying to make.

No I see what you're doing, I just disagree with it. Not being able to see is a bigger hindrance than that.

[Catullus64]

No I see what you're doing, I just disagree with it. Not being able to see is a bigger hindrance than that.

A pretty big conceit of D&D combat rules is that sight =/= situational awareness to anything like the extent it does in life. If you can't see, you're still aware of any creatures that you would otherwise be aware of (those that are not Hidden). The effects of not being able to see are mostly limited to:


Advantage/Disadvantage.
No spells that require visible targets.
No Opportunity Attacks (the rules text for which specifies a creature you can see.)
Auto-failing sight-based checks.


If you as the DM decide to impose additional restrictions on what a person can and cannot do while blinded... it's your prerogative as the DM, but I feel like it will then become really hard to draw the line as to what other features can and cannot be used. We have other conditions that prevent people from taking actions, and Blinded isn't designed to fill that niche.

[Peelee]

For normal Rogues, they would still need an ally within 5ft of the target to deal sneak damage

Why? They have Advantage, and the ally in 5 feet wouldn't have any effect since the Rogue would have Disadvantage.

I am not a smart man.

[Scarytincan]

I mean, I think things are already evened out there. Aren't you blinded? Also, aren't you unseen by the target?

[qube]

No I see what you're doing, I just disagree with it. Not being able to see is a bigger hindrance than that.Have you considered, that the rule you're pointing out (advantage/disadvantage canceling eachother out) - is the same rule that makes sure that 2 people in total darkness fight exactly at the same efficiency as they do with normal light. 2 blind archers shooting each other litterly hit each other with perfectly normal percission.

That's the bar that 5E sets. I mean, I get what you're saying Hitting a target while blinded is hard - but 5E's adv/disadv system is a simpliciation of reality; there are no degrees.



situation
effect


normal
no modifier


1 or more benefits
advantage


1 or more hindrence
disadvantage


1 or more benefits & 1 or more hindrence, no matter the amount
no modifier

what this means

Shooting a statue (petrfied human) while poisoned
no modifier


Shooting the same target, while poisoned, in darkness, while restrained, on your back, while you're inches away from dying of exhaustion
equally hard



In that light, do you still consider a bigger hindrence?

[Avonar]

Have you considered, that the rule you're pointing out (advantage/disadvantage canceling eachother out) - is the same rule that makes sure that 2 people in total darkness fight exactly at the same efficiency as they do with normal light. 2 blind archers shooting each other litterly hit each other with perfectly normal percission.

That's the bar that 5E sets. I mean, I get what you're saying Hitting a target while blinded is hard - but 5E's adv/disadv system is a simpliciation of reality; there are no degrees.

And there's a reason I houserule that: because I think it's silly. Melee, maybe. But I am absolutely not letting you take a longbow shot while blinded from 150ft with a normal roll if your target is also blinded. I'll admit it's a houserule, sure, but it's one that feels more natural to me.

[Littlemike137]

And there's a reason I houserule that: because I think it's silly. Melee, maybe. But I am absolutely not letting you take a longbow shot while blinded from 150ft with a normal roll if your target is also blinded. I'll admit it's a houserule, sure, but it's one that feels more natural to me.

It makes a kind of sense, given the 5e system. You can’t see the guy, hence disadvantage on the attack, but you can still attack him because of sound or other stuff. However, he can’t see the attack coming in, can’t try to dodge it or anything, and so you get advantage. But since they cancel each other out, the effects are the same as a normal roll. Theater of the mind, I don’t see this as normal fighting even though the dice effects are the same, instead it is two guys flailing about equally badly in the dark.

[Avonar]

It makes a kind of sense, given the 5e system. You can’t see the guy, hence disadvantage on the attack, but you can still attack him because of sound or other stuff. However, he can’t see the attack coming in, can’t try to dodge it or anything, and so you get advantage. But since they cancel each other out, the effects are the same as a normal roll. Theater of the mind, I don’t see this as normal fighting even though the dice effects are the same, instead it is two guys flailing about equally badly in the dark.

And like I said, I might allow that for melee but it makes less sense for ranged attacks.