Sneak Attack (am I reading too much into this?)

[RigaMortus]

From the 3.5 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. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.

The way I read this suggest that, the Rogue's opponent is still susceptable to Sneak Attack if they retain their Dex bonus in situations where they normally wouldn't. For example:

Combat begins, and initiative is rolled. The Rogue gets an 18 for Init, and a Barbarian gets a 14 for Init. The Rogue goes first, and the Barbarian would be flat-footed, EXCEPT he has Uncanny Dodge. However, the way I read Sneak Attack makes it seem that the Rogue still gets their Sneak Attack against the Barbarian, even though they have their Dex bonus (because of UD). Normally they wouldn't have their Dex bonus.

Is this the correct interpretation of how Sneak Attack works, or am I reading too much into it?

Should it read:

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

 

[Kylearan]

Well met!

I think you are reading too much into this; the would shows that even those opponents with a Dexterity penalty (e.g. DEX 8). who don't get a Dex bonus, are suscepible to a sneak attack while flat-footed. If they wrote is[/] then one could argue that low-dex types are not affected.

If the victim has an ability that negates a requirement for sneak attacks (like uncanny dodge while flat-footed), the victim is fine (more or less).

Kylearan

 

[maddman75]

You're reading too much into it. This just means that if your Dex is 6 and you're flatfooted, you still get sneak attacked even though you don't lose a bonus - you've got no bonus to lose. But if you had one, you would have lost it.

If a barbarian has uncanny dodge and a dex of 6, he isn't sneak attacked when flatfooted, because even if he had a dex bonus, he wouldn't have lost it.

That phrase is just an anti-munchkin clause for someone claiming because their dex is 11 or lower they can't be SAed.

 

[RigaMortus]

Ok, then why did they go ahead and add what is in parenthesis? Doesn't the whole (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not) take care of that on it's own? That is the anti-munchkin clause. Therefore, there is no reason for them to add would in there.

 

[Tilla the Hun (work)]

Ok, then why did they go ahead and add what is in parenthesis? Doesn't the whole (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not) take care of that on it's own? That is the anti-munchkin clause. Therefore, there is no reason for them to add would in there.

Heh - I have to admit - I may have been reading too much into this as well. For all of 3.0, I'd been playing under a simplistic house rule that simply stated 'if they would be denied dex bonus, then sneak attack."

I'd read that line you quoted above in 3.5 and thought that it backed up me up on that .

However, it appears I may have been incorrect.

Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.
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. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.

Bold 1 indicates the nature of the sneak attack opportunity - WHEN the opponent is unable to defend themselves.

Bold 2 and 3 indicate that regardless of whether or not the opponent HAS a dex bonus, if they are in a situation where they would be denied that dex bonus, they may be sneak attacked.

Right after bold three, it comments that when a rogue flanks her target, she can sneak attack. However,

Uncanny Dodge (Ex): 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. However, he still loses his Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized. If a barbarian already has uncanny dodge from a different class, he automatically gains improved uncanny dodge (see below) instead.

In this case, the Barbarian *would* not be denied a dex bonus when the invisible rogue attempts to sneak attack him.
Even though he *would* be if he were not a barb, because he is he *would* not be.

It's a valid semantic question, but unfortunately the correct interpretation is against the rogue.

 

[KarinsDad]

Yes, you are reading too much into this.

The Barbarian would not be denied his dex bonus, hence the phrase would be does not apply.

You can replace the phrase would be with is, but I do not see a need.

 

[Olive]

Yes, you are reading too much into this.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Ok, then why did they go ahead and add what is in parenthesis?

Emphasis and redundancy

Fear not, that phrasing - and it certainly could be better - has been catching people out for over three years.

-Hyp.

 

[The Souljourner]

In general, if you have to ask "Am I reading too much into this?" then you are.

Sneak attack only applies when the target is actually denied your dex bonus (regardless of whether or not he has one to lose), and when he is flanked (unless he has improved uncanny dodge).

It's just poor wording, and people trying too hard to read into the rules. In general, go with the most simplistic reading of the rules, it's generally what was intended.

-The Souljourner

 

[Voadam]

Ok, then why did they go ahead and add what is in parenthesis? Doesn't the whole (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not) take care of that on it's own? That is the anti-munchkin clause. Therefore, there is no reason for them to add would in there.

The parenthetical is an explanatory phrase explaining the condition more explicitly. If it was sufficient on its own it would be separated by a comma, not put in a parenthetical.