Sneak Attack Damaging a Barbarian...

[FCWesel]

Uncanny Dodge ONLY works against invisibile attackers and being flat-footed. Imp. Uncanny Dodge increases this list to include flanking

That I would disagree with as the description says "EVEN", not "ONLY".

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.

 

[mikebr99]

From the same skill as a Rogue...

​

...can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so.
​

​

My spidey senses are tingling!!​

My UD senses are saying the attack is coming from the way they have been specifically bluffed to say. I am ready for that attack, Not the one levelled at the family jewels!​

Mike​

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

Not the one levelled at the family jewels!

A ruby-tipped scepter, no less.

AR

 

[Kemrain]

The way I read this, the Barbarian keeps his Dex to AC, but can still be sneak attacked, because he would have lost it. Is that dead wrong?

- Kemrain the Confused

 

[billd91]

Note that the descriptions of Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge say that the character doesn't lose Dex bonus if caught flat-footed, the attacker is invisible, and the character can't be flanked. I would treat those as very specific conditions. The successful bluff causes the character to lose his Dex bonus but not through the mechanism of making him flat-footed, an attacker who's invisible, or via flanking. Therefore, I would say that the barbarian can still be bluffed into a sneak attack.
Note also that the loss of Dex bonus being flat-footed, attacked by invisible attacker, or flanked are normally pretty automatic. If the condition occurs, the penalty is paid. In the case of bluff, there are other fairly stiff mechanisms to keep that power in balance. I think it's quite fair for the barbarian to still be sneak-attackable via feint.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The way I read this, the Barbarian keeps his Dex to AC, but can still be sneak attacked, because he would have lost it. Is that dead wrong?

It's wrong in two ways, and both are questions that come up regularly because of ambiguous wording.

The first is the "even if" that's already been referenced in this thread. It's badly written, but it's been clarified by Sage, designers, etc that "struck by an invisible attacker" and "flat-footed" are the conditions UD protects against, not just examples of some conditions UD protects against.

So if you lose the opposed check when the rogue feints, you lose your Dex bonus against his next attack despite Uncanny Dodge.

The second is the "would have lost" clause in Sneak Attack.

It refers to whether you would have lost your Dex bonus if you had one to lose.

Let's say my Dexterity is 9. My Dexterity modifier is -1; a Dex penalty. I have no Dex bonus to AC: A bonus is a positive modifier.

So when an invisible rogue attacks me, he says "Because I'm invisible, you lose your Dex bonus, so I can sneak attack." "Ha-ha!" I reply. "I don't have a Dex bonus. So I didn't 'lose my Dex bonus', and you can't sneak attack!"

But the rules say I can be sneak attacked if I would have lost my Dex bonus. If I had a Dex bonus, I would have lost it, so the sneak attack applies.

But now let's take another example - a barbarian with 9 Dexterity and Uncanny Dodge. The invisible rogue attacks. The barbarian has no Dex bonus to lose, but even if he did have a Dex bonus, he would not have lost it, because he has Uncanny Dodge. Therefore the attack is not a sneak attack.

It's not "You would have lost your Dex bonus if you didn't have Uncanny Dodge!"... it's "You would have lost your Dex bonus if you had one to lose!" that's important.

-Hyp.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

Too... well... explained...

brain implodes

AR