If you're having rogue problems I feel bad for you son

[Business Scrub]

I got 99 PC's and THEY ALL HAVE UNCANNY DODGE.

Hey everyone. I'm running a mid-level gestalt game. I built many of the villains ahead of time and I just ran into a problem. One of these NPC's is a high level rogue who is built around scoring ranged sneak attacks with a crossbow. However, I neglected how many (4/5) of my PC's have uncanny dodge!

They squared off with him (and his mooks) once, and although they didn't manage to kill him he didn't really pose much of a threat. Do you all have any tricks/feats/spells I can equip him with to better land sneak attacks on people with uncanny dodge?

[Flickerdart]

Uncanny Dodge does nothing against sneak attackers - while the character keeps his Dex bonus against the attack, he is still subject to getting stabbed painfully. Only Improved Uncanny Dodge defeats Sneak Attack, because it explicitly says so (and even then, being higher level works for you).

One thing you can do is give him that one feat that deals SA damage on critical hits, as well as high-crit-range weapons.

[Necroticplague]

Get up close and personal, use flanking to get Sneak Attacks. Simply find a way to get Total Concealment, and you won't have to worry about the AoOs. I recommend the Shadow template. Of course, any other method that gets rid of the ranged AoO would also work (possibly a modified version of Arrow Mind to work with the crossbow (Bolt Mind?)).

[TheIronGolem]

Uncanny Dodge does nothing against sneak attackers - while the character keeps his Dex bonus against the attack, he is still subject to getting stabbed painfully. Only Improved Uncanny Dodge defeats Sneak Attack, because it explicitly says so (and even then, being higher level works for you).


What? No. If you keep your DEX bonus, your attacker can't key a Sneak Attack off of denying you your DEX bonus.

EDIT: Citation (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040302a):

The uncanny dodge ability allows a flat-footed creature to retain its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) and it foils sneak attacks when in does so.

[Business Scrub]

Uncanny Dodge does nothing against sneak attackers - while the character keeps his Dex bonus against the attack, he is still subject to getting stabbed painfully. Only Improved Uncanny Dodge defeats Sneak Attack, because it explicitly says so (and even then, being higher level works for you).

One thing you can do is give him that one feat that deals SA damage on critical hits, as well as high-crit-range weapons.


What? No. If you keep your DEX bonus, your attacker can't key a Sneak Attack off of denying you your DEX bonus.

I'd be interested to get another opinion on this ruling. My understanding is that TheIronGolem is right, and an Uncanny Dodge hoses ranged SA by denying them flat footed.

I love the arrowmind idea though. He has a high UMD and a deep pool of resources, so casting spells shouldn't be a problem. I wonder if there's any way to count as being adjacent for a ranged attack somehow, like with the Archmage's Arcane Reach ability. I'm hesitant to put him in melee range since there's a warblade, barbarian, rogue, and crusader with strong battlefield control.

Edit: Unless I had him create an illusion firing from far away, and actually be invisible in melee range with arrowmind?

[Flickerdart]

What? No. If you keep your DEX bonus, your attacker can't key a Sneak Attack off of denying you your DEX bonus.

EDIT: Citation (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040302a):

Ah yes, "Rules of the Game" AKA Skip Williams' houserule column. What a damning piece of evidence indeed.

[TheIronGolem]

It's more evidence than you've presented.

[Vaz]

Doesn't Skip Williams disqualify himself harder than a Dragon Disciple in regards to rules?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Uncanny Dodge does nothing against sneak attackers - while the character keeps his Dex bonus against the attack, he is still subject to getting stabbed painfully. Only Improved Uncanny Dodge defeats Sneak Attack, because it explicitly says so (and even then, being higher level works for you).
What? :smallconfused: Sneak Attack says "flanked or denied Dex." Uncanny Dodge says "retains Dex." The target isn't denied his Dex bonus to AC, so he can't be Sneak Attacked that way. Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

[Jeff the Green]

What? :smallconfused: Sneak Attack says "flanked or denied Dex." Uncanny Dodge says "retains Dex." The target isn't denied his Dex bonus to AC, so he can't be Sneak Attacked that way. Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

Actually, it says "would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC". The question is what the circumstances the "would" refers to are. Is it "absent anything to the contrary"? Is it "if they had a Dexterity bonus"? It's ambiguous, though the latter is implied.

[Necroticplague]

Apparently the SRD notes on Sneak Attack are a bit different. Because what I'm seeing on it is something that pretty clear-cut makes sneak attack work on people with Uncanny Dodge.

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. Not any time they are denied the bonus, any time they would be. If they can't see the attacker, they would be denied their dex bonus to AC. Their uncanny dodge prevents that, but they still meet the qualification of 'would be denied a dex bonus to AC', merely with a 'if not for.....' appended on.
Just to play devil's advocate.

[Business Scrub]

Apparently the SRD notes on Sneak Attack are a bit different. Because what I'm seeing on it is something that pretty clear-cut makes sneak attack work on people with Uncanny Dodge.
Not any time they are denied the bonus, any time they would be. If they can't see the attacker, they would be denied their dex bonus to AC. Their uncanny dodge prevents that, but they still meet the qualification of 'would be denied a dex bonus to AC', merely with a 'if not for.....' appended on.
Just to play devil's advocate.

I ran into this discrepancy as well and all 1 threads that I read on it seemed to conclude that the would be refers to the fact that even if they have no Dex to lose, they can still be sneak attacked. (IE, having 10 or 11 dex doesn't make you immune to sneak attacks.)

I'm not advocating a side, just relaying what I found cause I'm looking for a loophole that doesn't make my build sad.

[TheIronGolem]

A character without Uncanny Dodge would be denied his DEX bonus if attacked while flat-footed.

A character without Uncanny Dodge would be denied his DEX bonus if attacked by an unseen attacker.

A character with Uncanny Dodge would not be denied his DEX bonus if attacked while flat-footed.

A character with Uncanny Dodge would not be denied his DEX bonus if attacked by an unseen attacker.


Doesn't Skip Williams disqualify himself harder than a Dragon Disciple in regards to rules?
No. If you're going to tell me that one of the people who wrote this rule is wrong about what this rule says, I am going to have to insist on some substantial evidence. And I'll preemptively note that an instance of him being wrong about some other unrelated rule doesn't cut it.

[Necroticplague]

A character without Uncanny Dodge would be denied his DEX bonus if attacked while flat-footed.

A character without Uncanny Dodge would be denied his DEX bonus if attacked by an unseen attacker.

A character with Uncanny Dodge would not be denied his DEX bonus if attacked while flat-footed.

A character with Uncanny Dodge would not be denied his DEX bonus if attacked by an unseen attacker.
Alternatively:
A character without Uncanny Dodge would be denied his DEX bonus if attacked while flat-footed.

A character without Uncanny Dodge would be denied his DEX bonus if attacked by an unseen attacker.

A character with Uncanny Dodge would be denied his DEX bonus if attacked while flat-footed, were it not for their Uncanny Dodge.

A character with Uncanny Dodge would be denied his DEX bonus if attacked by an unseen attacker, were it not for their Uncanny Dodge.



No. If you're going to tell me that one of the people who wrote this rule is wrong about what this rule says, I am going to have to insist on some substantial evidence. And I'll preemptively note that an instance of him being wrong about some other unrelated rule doesn't cut it.
Er, just to point out, people who wrote the rules are actually some of the least able to interpret it correctly, due to mental biases (for the same reason it's easier to edit someone else than to edit yourself).

[Zanos]

No. If you're going to tell me that one of the people who wrote this rule is wrong about what this rule says, I am going to have to insist on some substantial evidence. And I'll preemptively note that an instance of him being wrong about some other unrelated rule doesn't cut it.
While I agree with your position that Uncanny Dodge foils sneak attack while flat-footed, you should be aware that the games writers often say things in non-official capacities that directly contradicts what is written in the actual books.

Considering they were written by multiple people, it's a fair assumption to say they didn't always agree.

[Cerefel]

If nothing else, the BBEG could just have sniper friend with the Distracting Attack ACF.

[Psyren]

UD = retain Dex bonus even if you'd otherwise lose it (invisible attacker, surprise etc.)
IUD = UD + can't be flanked (except by 4+ higher level rogue.)

In short, regular old vanilla UD will indeed defeat a ranged sneak attacker (the OP's scenario), unless they've found some way to flank from range.


(Remember that being flanked doesn't take away your Dex bonus to AC; it's just another way to trigger sneak attack, and a more reliable way at that. It's the main reason why sneak attack is considered stronger than Sudden Strike.)

[Surpriser]

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.

Uncanny Dodge (Ex)

Starting at 4th level, a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if she is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker.

Uncanny Dodge makes you not lose Dex to AC -> No sneak attacks from being flat-footed. It doesn't really get much clearer than this.
Note that you are still flat-footed, but for the purpose of sneak attacks, this is irrelevant.

EDIT: Read strictly, the meaning of the sentence is ambiguous at best. Therefore, "strict RAW" cannot give an answer to this question, while RAI seems perfectly clear.
OT and personal opinion: Natural language is by definition ambiguous and subject to interpretation. Therefore, something like "Pure RAW" does not exist, there is always some extent of interpretation present. That's why we need a DM.

There are multiple different ways to get SA though:
- Flanking. Hard to do ranged, especially since you don't threaten adjacent squares with a ranged weapon. There might be an argument involving spiked gauntlets, but that seems rather cheesy. Arrowmind helps, if you have access to it.
- Climbing (rather hard to force someone to do) or balancing (much easier). Simply grease the floor, via spell or oil, and anyone without 5 ranks in Balance can be sneak-attacked.
- Stunning/Paralyzing. Hard to get, but works too.
- Feinting. Not really applicable to ranged combat.
- Grappling. This works if you can get some disposable grappler minion, but will be hard to apply against melee types and imposes a 50% chance that you will hit your ally instead.

[Cerefel]

The main reason I suggested a friend with Distracting Attack is that it allows for ranged flanking.

[TheIronGolem]

I'd be interested to get another opinion on this ruling. My understanding is that TheIronGolem is right, and an Uncanny Dodge hoses ranged SA by denying them flat footed.


Well, technically, that's not what it does. UD doesn't keep you from being flat-footed1, it just keeps the flat-footed condition from denying you your DEX bonus to AC. You're still flat-footed, and any other consequences of being flat-footed apply (for example, you can't make AoO's unless you have Combat Reflexes). Sneak Attack doesn't actually care whether you're flat-footed or not.

1Unless you're playing Pathfinder, in which case it explicitly does that.

[Denver]

One thing you can do is give him that one feat that deals SA damage on critical hits, as well as high-crit-range weapons.

Telling Blow is the name of the feat in question.

That feat and a Rogue utilizing a crossbow with a bundle of bolts that has had Keen Edge cast on it can start doing Sneak Attack damage fairly reliably, on top of critical hit damage. You *could* add Craven to the character for a greatly increased damage output.

If you find yourself wanting to take the Rogue into a critical fishing style build, you could look at the Great Crossbow, though that might slow your Rogue's turns down considerably, and use up a meaningful portion of his feat choices.

[Necroticplague]

Uncanny Dodge makes you not lose Dex to AC -> No sneak attacks from being flat-footed. It doesn't really get much clearer than this.
Note that you are still flat-footed, but for the purpose of sneak attacks, this is irrelevant. But it doesn't stop you from being in a condition where you normally lose DEX to AC, which is what sneak attack checks for.


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.
And a person with Uncanny Dodge would be denied their DEX to AC, were it not for that ability. Ergo, they meet the 'would be' qualifier, and are susceptable to sneak attacks.



OT and personal opinion: Natural language is by definition ambiguous and subject to interpretation. Therefore, something like "Pure RAW" does not exist, there is always some extent of interpretation present. That's why we need a DM.

Pure RAW is possible. There are some scenarios where the language is incredibly straightforward, and no real interpretation is needed. Nobody thinks the rules for determining the STR modifier based on having 26 STR is ambiguous, do they?
Heck, the other major WOTC product, MTG, is a pretty good example of something where even a complex body of rules can be made straightforward by a combination of exception-based design (i.e, you can't do something unless something else says you can), and rigorously defining and being consistent about the terms used. There are a few problems that pop up here and there, but it's ratio of ambiguous text: functioning rules is far better than DnD.

[Chronos]

Uncanny dodge prevents you from losing your Dex bonus due to being flatfooted or to not seeing your attacker, but it does not always prevent you from losing your Dex bonus. Although those are the two most common reasons to be denied your Dex to AC, they're not the only ones. You'll also lose Dex to AC if grappling, stunned, or blinded, among other reasons.

[TheIronGolem]

And a person with Uncanny Dodge would be denied their DEX to AC, were it not for that ability. Ergo, they meet the 'would be' qualifier, and are susceptable to sneak attacks.

That's like saying a person who's awake would be denied their DEX to AC, were it not for their having woken up before - technically true, but irrelevant to the situation at hand.

Look further in the description:


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 is the reason for the "would be". It's there to say that even if you don't have a DEX bonus (because, for example, your DEX is too low to have one), you're still vulnerable to Sneak Attacks in situations where you'd be denied it. Otherwise it wouldn't work on anyone with a DEX below 12, because you can't be denied a bonus you don't have. Therefore, "would be denied" is clearer than "is denied".

That's it. It's just preventing a "low DEX = Sneak Attack immunity" bug.

Uncanny Dodge removes "you're flat-footed" and "you can't see your attacker" from the list of situations where you would be denied your DEX to AC. Therefore, it foils Sneak Attacks that rely on either of those conditions.

Furthermore, consider the first sentence in Sneak Attack's description:


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.

SA works because the target can't effectively avoid your attack, because they don't know you're there or haven't had time to react or whatever. But Uncanny Dodge means that in a subset of those situations, you can effectively defend yourself (hence retaining your DEX bonus) due to your superior reflexes/awareness.

So why would an ability that hinges on attacking the target when they can't defend themselves work when the target can defend themselves and is actively doing so?

[DarkSoul]

Sneak attack applies whenever the rogue's target is denied their dexterity bonus to their armor class, or when the rogue is flanking the target. Uncanny dodge prevents the loss of their dexterity modifier to AC when flat-footed or the attacker is unseen, but it does nothing about flanking. You need improved uncanny dodge for that.

Long story short, put your bad guy in melee and go to town. Barring that, put his minions into melee and focus the one that you can sneak attack. If it's a mid-level caster, that's probably one of the wisest courses of action anyway.

[Necroticplague]

That's like saying a person who's awake would be denied their DEX to AC, were it not for their having woken up before - technically true, but irrelevant to the situation at hand. The difference between the two being how specific and general rules are working. In this case of sleeping, the chain would look like this:
Normally you have a dex bonus to AC (general). However, Sleeping characters do not (specific).
When you're awake, you never fall under the specific rule, and it is thus completely irrelevant.
Now, let's look at the case of Uncanny Dodge:
Normally, you have a dex bonus to AC (general). However, those who cannot see their attackers do not (specific). Unless they have Uncanny Dodge (even more specific).
In this case, you are still covered by the specific rule, you are merely given a special exception to it by an even more specific rule. The 'would be' means that the 1st specific rule is sufficient.



Look further in the description:



This is the reason for the "would be". It's there to say that even if you don't have a DEX bonus (because, for example, your DEX is too low to have one), you're still vulnerable to Sneak Attacks in situations where you'd be denied it. Otherwise it wouldn't work on anyone with a DEX below 12, because you can't be denied a bonus you don't have. Therefore, "would be denied" is clearer than "is denied".

That's it. It's just preventing a "low DEX = Sneak Attack immunity" bug. If that was actually the reason for that clause, it would not be needed. Even if your DEX is 10 or 11, you do have a DEX bonus. It's simply that it has a value of zero. Even if you have DEX 9 or Lower, you still have a DEX bonus. It simply has a negative value. Heck, even if you were sessile and incapable of moving (DEX as a nonability), you'd still have a DEX mod (value of zero). So there is literally no reason that phrase is needed to plug that hole, given how said hole doesn't exist.



Uncanny Dodge removes "you're flat-footed" and "you can't see your attacker" from the list of situations where you would be denied your DEX to AC. Therefore, it foils Sneak Attacks that rely on either of those conditions. But it doesn't remove them from the general list of conditions that causes you to lose your DEX to AC, which is what Sneak Attack checks (due to the 'would be' language).


Furthermore, consider the first sentence in Sneak Attack's description:



SA works because the target can't effectively avoid your attack, because they don't know you're there or haven't had time to react or whatever. But Uncanny Dodge means that in a subset of those situations, you can effectively defend yourself (hence retaining your DEX bonus) due to your superior reflexes/awareness.

So why would an ability that hinges on attacking the target when they can't defend themselves work when the target can defend themselves and is actively doing so?
A: Fluff doesn't magically transform into crunch. That sentence has no weight of its own.
B:Several factors indicate that Sneak Attack is not only a property of them having a hard time defending themselves, but also your ability to aim at them (the fact it's foiled by concealment, the fact flank->sneak attack is possible). So in this case, if they don't know where you are, they may be able to react to the arrow fast enough to try and dodge it (get DEX to AC), but their unknowingness of your location gives you time to line up a better shot aimed for something that's gonna hurt.
Or another way of thinking from it from a fluff standpoint: There's still some delay under these condition. Uncanny Dodge means you can listen/detect subtle cues an attack is underway to dodge. However, such cues means the attack is underway already, so there's still a slight moment of delay. Most creatures can't capitalize on this small delay, but those who've specifically practiced to aim for the right spots can.

[Platymus Pus]

Fluff doesn't magically transform into crunch. That sentence has no weight of its own.
I wouldn't call how an attack works fluff.

Uncanny Dodge means you can listen/detect subtle cues an attack is underway to dodge.
I'd go by the name more instead of you personal interpretation.
It gives the uncanny ability to dodge things with no warning whatsoever. It's more a cosmic sense than any of that.

[Beheld]

Alternatively:
A character without Uncanny Dodge would be denied his DEX bonus if attacked while flat-footed.

A character without Uncanny Dodge would be denied his DEX bonus if attacked by an unseen attacker.

A character with Uncanny Dodge would be denied his DEX bonus if attacked while flat-footed, were it not for their Uncanny Dodge.

A character with Uncanny Dodge would be denied his DEX bonus if attacked by an unseen attacker, were it not for their Uncanny Dodge.

Yeah this. Also a character with Uncanny Dodge would be denied his DEX bonus if attacked when not flat-footed were he actually flat-footed, and didn't have Uncanny Dodge.

All attacks forever have SA applied, because you can just add in complete nonsense whenever you want!

[daremetoidareyo]

If you find yourself wanting to take the Rogue into a critical fishing style build, you could look at the Great Crossbow, though that might slow your Rogue's turns down considerably, and use up a meaningful portion of his feat choices.

A squire is cheap. Just reload and pass. Reload and pass. Meanwhile, bbeg just shoots and drops , shoots and drops. If said squire were a sorcerer with Keen edge and some back up transposition spells... Well that's fun.

[Necroticplague]

Yeah this. Also a character with Uncanny Dodge would be denied his DEX bonus if attacked when not flat-footed were he actually flat-footed, and didn't have Uncanny Dodge.

All attacks forever have SA applied, because you can just add in complete nonsense whenever you want!
I already covered this complete nonsense of hyperbole, so I'll just quote myself in response.


The difference between the two being how specific and general rules are working. In this case of sleeping, the chain would look like this:
Normally you have a dex bonus to AC (general). However, Sleeping characters do not (specific).
When you're awake, you never fall under the specific rule, and it is thus completely irrelevant.
Now, let's look at the case of Uncanny Dodge:
Normally, you have a dex bonus to AC (general). However, those who cannot see their attackers do not (specific). Unless they have Uncanny Dodge (even more specific).
In this case, you are still covered by the specific rule, you are merely given a special exception to it by an even more specific rule. The 'would be' means that the 1st specific rule is sufficient.

[Ettina]

Apparently the SRD notes on Sneak Attack are a bit different. Because what I'm seeing on it is something that pretty clear-cut makes sneak attack work on people with Uncanny Dodge.
Not any time they are denied the bonus, any time they would be. If they can't see the attacker, they would be denied their dex bonus to AC. Their uncanny dodge prevents that, but they still meet the qualification of 'would be denied a dex bonus to AC', merely with a 'if not for.....' appended on.
Just to play devil's advocate.


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.

Note the bolded section. I think it's pretty clear that using 'would' instead of 'is' has nothing to do with Uncanny Dodge. It's because Sneak Attacks work on a guy with a Dex of 10, not because they'd overcome some ability specifically designed to counter unexpected attacks.

[Necroticplague]

Note the bolded section. I think it's pretty clear that using 'would' instead of 'is' has nothing to do with Uncanny Dodge. It's because Sneak Attacks work on a guy with a Dex of 10, not because they'd overcome some ability specifically designed to counter unexpected attacks.
Already answered this one.


If that was actually the reason for that clause, it would not be needed. Even if your DEX is 10 or 11, you do have a DEX bonus. It's simply that it has a value of zero. Even if you have DEX 9 or Lower, you still have a DEX bonus. It simply has a negative value. Heck, even if you were sessile and incapable of moving (DEX as a nonability), you'd still have a DEX mod (value of zero). So there is literally no reason that phrase is needed to plug that hole, given how said hole doesn't exist.

[Ettina]

If that was actually the reason for that clause, it would not be needed. Even if your DEX is 10 or 11, you do have a DEX bonus. It's simply that it has a value of zero. Even if you have DEX 9 or Lower, you still have a DEX bonus. It simply has a negative value. Heck, even if you were sessile and incapable of moving (DEX as a nonability), you'd still have a DEX mod (value of zero). So there is literally no reason that phrase is needed to plug that hole, given how said hole doesn't exist.

My take is that they were just trying to idiot-proof the rules, and in the process fell into the trap of a different kind of idiot.

[Surpriser]

If that was actually the reason for that clause, it would not be needed. Even if your DEX is 10 or 11, you do have a DEX bonus. It's simply that it has a value of zero. Even if you have DEX 9 or Lower, you still have a DEX bonus. It simply has a negative value. Heck, even if you were sessile and incapable of moving (DEX as a nonability), you'd still have a DEX mod (value of zero). So there is literally no reason that phrase is needed to plug that hole, given how said hole doesn't exist.

This is not true.
The rules distinguish quite clearly between a "bonus" and a "modifier", in that a bonus can never be negative (as written, a bonus is always positive, but there are instances where also a 0 is considered a bonus).

Therefore, someone with DEX 9 or lower does not have a DEX bonus, making the "would" necessary to allow sneak attacks against such creatures. The sentence in parentheses then clarifies what this "would" refers to.

[Telonius]

It might be worth mentioning that the 3.0 version (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html) of Uncanny Dodge actually did include immunity to flanking:


Uncanny Dodge: At 3rd level and above, she retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) if caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker.
At 6th level , the rogue can no longer be flanked. Another rogue at least four levels higher can still flank.
At 11th level, the rogue gains a +1 bonus to Reflex saves made to avoid traps and a +1 dodge bonus to AC against attacks by traps. At 14th level, these bonuses rise to +2. At 17th, they rise to +3, and at 20th they rise to +4.


When 3.5 came out, those abilities were split up between Uncanny Dodge, Improved Uncanny Dodge, and Trap Sense.

[ace rooster]

Alternatively:
A character without Uncanny Dodge would be denied his DEX bonus if attacked while flat-footed.

A character without Uncanny Dodge would be denied his DEX bonus if attacked by an unseen attacker.

A character with Uncanny Dodge would be denied his DEX bonus if attacked while flat-footed, were it not for their Uncanny Dodge.

A character with Uncanny Dodge would be denied his DEX bonus if attacked by an unseen attacker, were it not for their Uncanny Dodge.


Can I play?

A character would not be denied his Dex bonus if attacked, were it not for their attacker being invisible.

No ranged sneak attack ever! :smalltongue:

The difficulty is that we are negating a statement with no guidence as to how (normally it is not required, the final meaning of the statement will be invariant). We are then having to parse the statement we produce and test whether the "would" is negated or not. This is not invariant of negation method, so by applying negation in a particular way we can get whatever answer we like without changing the meaning of the statement. By negating twice we can go completely crazy.

The only way to resolve this that is consistent IMHO is to check whether the character is denied their dex bonus, as this is invariant under natural language transformations. Hence I would rule that UD denies ranged SA.

[Rakoa]

Already answered this one.

As someone has already pointed out, someone with a Dex of 8 does not have a Dex bonus. They have a Dex modifier of -1, and a bonus does not exist. Hence the idiotproofing of the wording in Sneak Attack. It is pretty clear that Uncanny Dodge trumps Sneak Attack, and the wording is to prevent low Dex PCs from claiming immunity to enemy Rogues.

[TheIronGolem]

If that was actually the reason for that clause, it would not be needed. Even if your DEX is 10 or 11, you do have a DEX bonus. It's simply that it has a value of zero. Even if you have DEX 9 or Lower, you still have a DEX bonus. It simply has a negative value. Heck, even if you were sessile and incapable of moving (DEX as a nonability), you'd still have a DEX mod (value of zero). So there is literally no reason that phrase is needed to plug that hole, given how said hole doesn't exist.

The game rules variously use the terms "bonus", "penalty", and "modifier" to describe the numerical changes that can apply to various statistics, and they do so with a consistent pattern. "Bonus" is used when the modifier is assumed to be positive, "penalty" when the modifier is assumed negative, and "modifier" when neither positive nor negative is assumed. The only exceptions I can think of are cases where language like "modifier (if positive)" is used. There certainly aren't any references to "negative bonuses" or "positive penalties" anywhere that I've seen.

But if you'd like to assume that "bonus" is just another synonym for "modifier" without implying positivity, then I guess a monk with WIS 9 takes a -1 penalty (no, wait, a -1 bonus) to AC, since monks add their Wisdom "bonus" to AC (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm#aCBonus). The same applies to the saving throws of paladins with low Charisma (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm#divineGrace). After all, in neither case does it say "bonus if positive".

Then again, maybe "bonus" means what we've all understood it to mean for the last fifteen years.

And if everyone has a DEX bonus at all times, even when it's negative, then please explain this:


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.

Clearly, it's possible for the target not to have a DEX bonus. Therefore, it's necessary to clarify that even if the target doesn't have a bonus, they're vulnerable to Sneak Attack if they would be denied its use against the attack.

If.

Uncanny Dodge puts you on the right side of that "if", at least under certain prescribed circumstances.

[Odin's Eyepatch]

If you look at the intent of SA and UD:

SA is when you take your target by surprise, sticking your weapon where it hurts, like the jugular vein, or into your kidney. Your target can't defend himself against the attack.

UD means that you have an extraordinary-like talent to always try and dodge a blow, even if you aren't aware. The SA doesn't really apply, because you are always dodging, and are never staying still long enough to line up that perfect shot. So I think that the intent was to have UD negate SA.

But wait, that isn't RAW, so the above is meaningless :smalltongue:

Seriously though: when me and my mates started D&D, we were also confused by that line, and fell into the camp of UD does NOT negate sneak attack. Then, not so long ago, I discovered the other meaning on this very forum, along with Skip's take on it. So since then, we've swung the other way, and suddenly dipping rogue or scout is a lot more interesting.

Anyway, there are plenty of other ways to trigger sneak attacks without making someone flat-footed, as many other people have noted, both in this thread, and in others.

[Beheld]

Anyway, there are plenty of other ways to trigger sneak attacks without making someone flat-footed, as many other people have noted, both in this thread, and in others.

UD doesn't negate flat-footed, it negates denied dex when flat-footed or attacked by invisible. I think that means it applies when you are blinded maybe?

It doesn't apply when you are stunned or grappled.

[Chronos]

For what it's worth, the Scout's version of Uncanny Dodge does deny flat-footed.

And again, Uncanny Dodge negates the two most common ways of being denied dex, but not all of them.

[Business Scrub]

Checking back into this thread like https://media.giphy.com/media/aJnQ9P7JVR25W/giphy.gif

[Der_DWSage]

...Yeah. So getting back to the point of helping out the original poster, rather than squabbling over the rules which will only have the players objecting hard if it's brought up in person.

Focus on immobilizing the PCs-pinning, paralysis, stasis of some type or other, all of these work. Heck, maybe even make use of the feinting rules. (It's not great, but at least he can land a sneak attack.)

All that said, maybe he'd be better off retraining to a Factotum or something, to retrain most of his Roguey flavor without having to deal with the Uncanny Dodge.

[daremetoidareyo]

Give him a buddy who is at least a 4th level ranger (archery focus) who has the distracting attack ACF from PHB2.