Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="werk" data-source="post: 2550353" data-attributes="member: 29663">The barbarian IS flat-footed, just because of initiative, but he keeps his dex bonus to AC.  Uncanny dodge doesn't relieve the condition flat footed, but overrides one of the penalties, loss of dex bonus to AC.So throw that out.  Flat footed.  It isn't really needed for the argument.The rogue can sneak attack anytime the target WOULD be denied a dex bonus to AC. By the reasoning that lets the rogue SA anytime the target COULD be denied it's dex bonus to AC, says a rogue can SA a target any time that target makes a save or skill check to keep dex bonus to AC, successful or not.  That's just silly.  (no offense)Now, the problem is really the word: would.  Would is the past tense of the word: will, and is used in several different ways.  When used in the main clause of a conditional statement to express a possibility or likelihood, 'would' can generally be replaced with the word 'if'.So we can reconstruct the sentence a couple of different ways to maybe yield the true meaning of the sentence.The rogue can sneak attack anytime the target WILL be denied a dex bonus to AC.  (no SA)orThe rogue can sneak attack anytime if the target is denied a dex bonus to AC. (no SA)That's about as far down as I can go...</blockquote>