HELP: Sneak attack vs Uncanny Dodge

[Grundle]

We have been playing that the Uncanny Dodge eliminates the Rogues ability to sneak attack in a flat-footed situation. Is this correct?

Looking at the Uncanny Dodge text it does not specifically call out this cancellation, but it does specifically call out that at a higher level that the character can't be flanked and this specifically eliminates flanking sneak attacks (unless the attacker is four levels higher).

The confusing part is the text in the Sneak Attack which reads "Basically, when the target is denied their dexterity AC bonus, they can be sneak attacked". The problem word is "basically" which implies that this has exceptions.

Is it true that Regardless of the "type" of attack, the Uncanny Dodge always allows the character to retain dexterity based AC bonuses?

What about sneack attacks the first round of battle against a character with Uncanny Dodge who is flat-footed?

 

[Storm Raven]

We have been playing that the Uncanny Dodge eliminates the Rogues ability to sneak attack in a flat-footed situation. Is this correct?

Yes. The first level of Uncanny Dodge allows you to retain your Dexterity modifier when you are flat-footed. As you are not denied your Dexterity bonus, you cannot be sneak attacked as a result of being flat footed (or attacked by an invisible opponent). You may, of course, be sneak attacked if you are denied your Dexterity bonus for another reason (you are held, stunned, running and so on), or you are flanked.

Some people don't like this, and have introduced house rules to the effect that even though a Rogue (or Barbarian or whatever) retains his Dexterity bonus to AC when he would be considered flat-flooted (or when he is attacked by an invisible opponent), that they are still vulnerable to being sneak attacked. But that is just a house rule, and in my view, a silly house rule at that.

 

[BlindKobold]

Uncanny Dodge gives a bonus in very specific instances. Barbarians and Rogues DO NOT always retain their bonuses.

For instance, they can still lose their DEX as a result of a stun, feint, hold person, etc.

But it IS very useful against flanking and flat-footed attacks, and against hidden opponents (invis,etc.). However, I rule that this ONLY applies to melee attacks, NOT missile attacks from invisible foes.

 

[IceBear]

Does the rouge being 4 levels higher than the barbarian cancel out this?

BTW Stormraven, try to be more political in your choice of words. "Silly" is much more inflamatory than just saying you don't like it and give the reasons why.

I think you were referring to me with that comment, and I actually don't use it, but had recorded it for further examination (which I haven't done yet, but probably won't use because I try to keep down the number of houserules).

IceBear

 

[jontherev]

Does the rouge being 4 levels higher than the barbarian cancel out this?
IceBear

nope, that's only for flanking, not for the dex issue.

 

[IceBear]

Thanks, I wasn't sure if someone had said that it was changed to allow that too, so I was just checking.

IceBear

 

[Storm Raven]

BTW Stormraven, try to be more political in your choice of words. "Silly" is much more inflamatory than just saying you don't like it and give the reasons why.

I call it as I see it. The house rule that you retain your Dexterity bonus when flat-footed due to Uncanny Dodge but are still vulnerable to being sneak attacked is, in my opinion, a silly house rule. Mostly because of the tortured logic used to get to that ruling.

And I wasn't thinking about you specifically on this. A tiny handful of people have made this argument, and none of them (including you) ever gave a really convincing justification. But I wasn't speficially thinking of you when I noted that the house rule is used, I was just noting that there is a small minority of people who use it or advocate it to some degree.

 

[jontherev]

Note, that

those with Uncanny Dodge still can't make AoO's if flat-footed...unless they have Combat Reflexes.

 

[IceBear]

I call it as I see it. The house rule that you retain your Dexterity bonus when flat-footed due to Uncanny Dodge but are still vulnerable to being sneak attacked is, in my opinion, a silly house rule. Mostly because of the tortured logic used to get to that ruling.

And I wasn't thinking about you specifically on this. A tiny handful of people have made this argument, and none of them (including you) ever gave a really convincing justification. But I wasn't speficially thinking of you when I noted that the house rule is used, I was just noting that there is a small minority of people who use it or advocate it to some degree.

Well, at its heart (which is how I examine game rules - we're not debating real life rationale) it was simply a rule that was offered to lower the power of a 2nd level ability. Thus, I never offered any justification of the rule, because it's a house rule (at one point I was confused as to whether or not someone from WotC had stated it was how the passage was supposed to be read, but it wasn't so thus it's a house rule and needs no more justification than any other house rule).

So, whether or not the houserule is "silly" depends on whether or not you consider it an overpowered 2nd level ability (which is the only real justification of a houserule - your group doesn't like how something works).

I recorded the rule in my notes for possible use *IF* my group started to feel that it was overpowered. Currently I don't have a barbarian or rogue in my group so I have no idea if it's overpowered or not and thus I am not using that as a house rule.

So again, I don't think calling someone "silly" because they like a certain rule is very polite. But, that's just me and you probably didn't mean any offense, so I'll just drop it.

IceBear