# Does casting Light, or a similar spell, have any effect when the caster is swallowed by a monster?

So you've been swallowed by a Giant Toad. Oops. Your fellows are sure to kill it soon enough, but you want to do something in the meantime.

"Well," you say, "perhaps I'll attack the toad from the inside!"

"Ah," says God (you're used to God commenting on your intended actions), "But remember, you're blinded and restrained. So any roll you make is with Disadvantage." (You are also used to God using bizarre terminology to describe your life like some sort of game. You roll with it.)

"But I am surrounded on all sides by toad! Surely that would involve some advantageous modifier!"

"You are restrained by the toad's gullet," replies God, "your arms can't move well enough to attack effectively, even if you weren't blind."

Phooey. You think to yourself for a moment. "Perhaps I'd better cast a spell, then," you say, "Magic Missile doesn't even require an attack roll! Oh, but, drat, I need to see the target, don't I? Perhaps I should cast Light on any given object on my person first."

"It's not just dark, you're blinded," says God, "Light will do nothing. Neither will torches, lanterns or whatnot."

"Are you suggesting that my face is always pressed up against some portion of the frog's anatomy? Restrained or not, it feels like I should have at least the range of motion to remedy that!"

So, is there any indication whatsoever that you can ever see the toad that you are inside of enough to target it with a spell?

• Well... welcome to rpg.se! But not really, you've been around for a while hey? Take the tour and get a badge I guess? Nice to see a quality first question from a long time user. Thanks for participating and happy gaming! – linksassin Apr 4 '19 at 7:11
• – V2Blast Apr 4 '19 at 7:17
• You roll with it. Nat 20! God makes a saving throw... – Michael Apr 4 '19 at 19:36
• This sorta reminds me of Zane from the Mistborn series. Except God isn't telling you to kill everyone in this case. – Q Paul Oct 16 '19 at 15:14

# No, your "god" was right.

As the giant toad's stat block clearly states:

The swallowed target is blinded and restrained, ...

This means you can't regain your vision by creating light inside of the toad. A blind man with a torch in front of his face is still a blind man.

Note that a spell like Darkness never gives any indication of the "blinded" condition:

Darkness spreads to fill a 15-foot-radius sphere for the duration. The darkness goes around corners. A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it.

This means the effect of the spell can be ended with a powerful enough source of light.

You could bargain with your god and make a clear agreement on how your table is going to handle this issue in the future, but bear in mind that they are technically correct.

• Depending on how far away that torch is, he may be a blind man with no eyebrows. – T.J.L. Apr 4 '19 at 16:23
• What about arguing that your opponent can't see you, giving you advantage? This then cancels with your disadvantage, leaving a straight die roll. Not the way I would rule it, but I think that may work by RAW. – sirjonsnow Apr 4 '19 at 19:54
• @sirjonsnow You make a good point, you should put it in an answer. – Flumph Apr 5 '19 at 6:39
• @sirjonsnow Personally, I'd rule that you're not hidden from the toad, it knows exactly where you are, even if it can't see you. – Exal Apr 5 '19 at 20:35

From a thematic perspective, do note that they are likely bathing in digestive juices. Opening your eyes would probably result in an ACTUAL permanent blinding if you were a human being and not a game piece.

So, if you wish to override gameplay with reality, you are still blind.

However, as a DM, if a player were in this situation and needed a hit roll on a spell without somatic, verbal, material components, that described itself as a ray that makes contact, I might consider the to-hit roll being 'not hitting yourself' and give no penalty or advantage.

This would be a thematically appropriate time to inflict a concentration check as well for any spell of any type to even cast it.

• Good catch on the blinding part - but the "no somatic, verbal and material component ray" seems problematic. Does such a spell even exist? Moreover, it seems that nothing RAW (barring rule 0) prevents a restrained, blinded spellcaster from providing V,S,M components. – Bash Apr 5 '19 at 6:35
• Incorporating the sorcerer's ability to remove components with subtle spell, there are possible candidates. It really comes down to the flavor of the spell at that point. In regards to RAW, my response is in the vein of going for fluff over RAW. RAW uses lack of seeing the target, barriers between you and targets outside the enemy and disadvantage on attack rolls to help mitigate casting while being digested alive. If you wish to counter the RAW with fluff, keep in mind that fluff is working very hard against you as well. Generally speaking, being swallowed alive is a very bad thing. – Robert Valentine Apr 5 '19 at 16:42
• Further, before I provided this answer I did not have the ability to comment, or I would have commented on the much better answer by Flumph playing off of RAW rules. – Robert Valentine Apr 5 '19 at 16:42
• To clarify : I love the first part of your answer precisely because it derives fluff from rules. Doing the opposite, as in the second part, often leads to untested homebrew content which is tipically discouraged. I feel your answer would be improved by either removing that part, or clarifying that you are using a house rule (namely, a swallowed character can't use V,S,M components) when offering that adjudication "as a DM". You have my upvote anyway :) – Bash Apr 5 '19 at 18:55