Sneak Attack vs. Uncanny Dodge

[Jarrod]

This came up in game last night. Can a rogue Sneak Attack a flatfooted enemy who has Uncanny dodge? Start of the combat, barbarian had not acted yet.

Relevant snippets from the SRD:

... The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target ...

... At 2nd level, a barbarian retains his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if he is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker ...


The argument for allowing the sneak attack was that the barbarian _would have_ been denied his Dex bonus (due to being flatfooted), but wasn't due to Uncanny Dodge. So the barbarian received his Dex bonus to AC but was sneak-attackable.

The argument against was that the barbarian explicitly _did not_ lose his Dex bonus, and so was not sneak-attackable.

I've looked through the FAQ and this was not answered. Given the players involved, I'd prefer an official answer if there is one. Otherwise we'll hash it out at the table using this thread as reference.

 

[Pasus Nauran]

I've been wondering about this one myself, but I don't think the \Rogue can make a sneak attack in such a case (unless the target were flanked, in which case only Improved Uncanny Dodge would help).

If the target retains their Dex bonus to AC, it's like a sixth sense, and thus I don't see how a rogue could sneak an attack on them.

 

[mrtauntaun]

In the RAW you can not Sneak Attack someone who has Uncanny Dodge in this instance.

From the SRD:

The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC

The Barbarian is not denied his Dexterity, therefore no Sneak Attack.
I can see where someone would aruge this by the use of the word 'would' in the above quote, but I still think the RAW is clear on this.

 

[Pinotage]

No. Since the specification for sneak attack is not 'flat-footed' but 'deny his dexterity bonus',, which the character with Uncanny Dodge keeps, the rogue can't sneak attack a character with Uncanny Dodge. He can still flank him and sneak attack unless the character has Improved Uncanny Dodge, but then the rogue can still overcome that by being four levels higher than the character.

Pinotage

 

[Pasus Nauran]

I think the issue here is with the term "would be". The description of sneak attack states:

The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC

This can be interpreted as saying that whether or not a character is in fact denied hs Dex bonus to AC, if that character would be denied their dexterity bonus to AC, they are suceptible to Sneak Attacks.

I'm not saying I personally think this, I'm just clarifying where I think the question is raised.

 

[billd91]

I think the interpretation (or misinterpretation) that a rogue can sneak attack another character with uncanny dodge hinges on the use of the term "would". Any time the "target would be denied a Dex bonus" seems to suggest that since the barbarian would have lost his Dex bonus for being flatfooted if he didn't have uncanny dodge, he can be sneak attacked.
I don't believe that is the intent of the wording. I think would should be interpreted with the parenthetic segment in mind. That "would" is what makes a character with no Dex bonus sneak attackable. Otherwise, not having a Dex bonus, he doesn't lose it, thus he can't be sneak attacked.
In the case of the barbarian, it doesn't matter if he would have lost it or not: he didn't lose it at all. Thus I would say he can't be sneak attacked. A lesser man would have been vulnerable in that situation, but the barbarian's uncanny dodge saves him from that.

Besides, search for uncanny dodge in the 3.0 FAQ and it pretty clearly says that uncanny dodge prevents sneak attacks. While that issue hasn't specifically made it into the 3.5 FAQ, I think it's pretty clearly the same issue.

 

[FEADIN]

Yes, no sneak attack if you have uncanny dodge because you keep your dexterity bonuses.

 

[Orm]

Was the rogue in a flanking position or just acting first?

Improved Uncanny Dodge (Ex)

At 5th level and higher, a barbarian can no longer be flanked. This defense denies a rogue the ability to sneak attack the barbarian by flanking him, unless the attacker has at least four more rogue levels than the target has barbarian levels. If a character already has uncanny dodge from a second class, the character automatically gains improved uncanny dodge instead, and the levels from the classes that grant uncanny dodge stack to determine the minimum level a rogue must be to flank the character.

(emphasis mine)
With that, the only way to deal sneak damage to a barbarian with UD is flanking. A barbarian with IUD can´t even be flanked, unless the rogue is of sufficient high level.

 

[werk]

Can a rogue Sneak Attack a flatfooted enemy who has Uncanny dodge? Start of the combat, barbarian had not acted yet.

The barbarian dodges the rogue's sneak attack uncannily.

First line of sneak attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack...

The way they determine if 'he is unable to defend himself' is if he is flat-footed or flanked (or worse).
He can't be flat-footed...it's uncanny.

 

[Jarrod]

This was straight flat-footed.

The problem is with the wording of "would". Oy.

Would the barbarian be denied his dex bonus? Yes, he would, but he has Uncanny Dodge.

For the record, I agree with the majority, that the "would" refers to whether or not the target has a dex bonus to begin with. However, the rogue thinks differently.