The Art of Kidney Harvesting

[LanSlyde]

So, a recent issue has come up at the table, which personally I think is a non-issue. However, the DM has asked me to throw it on the forum for the Playgrounds opinion.

The issue is over the specific wording for Sneak Attack:

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.

One of our players has voiced the idea that uncanny dodge does not specifically disregard SA on the grounds that under normal situations that would leave the target denied his dex bonus (such as a surprise round) he is still allowed to apply sneak attack damage. However, instead of only having to beat his FlatFooted ac, the rogue must beat his normal AC. Because uncanny dodge states that a character with Uncanny Dodge retains his Dex to his AC if he would otherwise be denied it.

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. However, she still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized.

My interpretation is that if a subject has Uncanny Dodge then they cannot be subject to Sneak Attacks from simply being caught "off guard". Because Uncanny Dodge specifically states that you retain your Dex to AC and one of the requirments that must be met for SA to apply is your target is denied their Dex to AC, which with Uncanny Dodge the character specifically is not denied their Dex to AC.

For evidence of my interpretation being correct, I turn to Skip Williams himself.

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.

The entire article can be read Here.



EDIT: Discuss Opinions!

[The Dark Fiddler]

Because Uncanny Dodge specifically states that you retain your Dex to AC and one of the requirments that must be met for SA to apply is your target is denied their Dex to AC, which with Uncanny Dodge the character specifically is not denied their Dex to AC.

Pretty much this. Sneak attack triggers if you would be denied your Dex bonus, but with Uncanny Dodge you wouldn't be denied your Dex bonus. No trigger.

[BowStreetRunner]

Uncanny dodge does not directly prevent sneak attacking. It does prevent you from losing your Dex to AC when flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. If the sneak attack is enabled by a flank, you would still be vulnerable. But if the only way an attacking rogue can gain a sneak attack on you is due to one of the two aforementioned conditions, then Uncanny dodge effectively prevents the sneak attack. It is important to keep in mind that there are other effects that could cause you to lose Dex to AC - such as being Immobilized. Uncanny dodge does not prevent this, therefore you still lose Dex to AC and are vulnerable to sneak attack.

[LanSlyde]

Spoiler

Show

Uncanny dodge does not directly prevent sneak attacking. It does prevent you from losing your Dex to AC when flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. If the sneak attack is enabled by a flank, you would still be vulnerable. But if the only way an attacking rogue can gain a sneak attack on you is due to one of the two aforementioned conditions, then Uncanny dodge effectively prevents the sneak attack. It is important to keep in mind that there are other effects that could cause you to lose Dex to AC - such as being Immobilized. Uncanny dodge does not prevent this, therefore you still lose Dex to AC and are vulnerable to sneak attack.

Yes, we get this, what he is attempting to claim is that because of the wording on SA Uncanny Dodge wouldn't deny a SA outright, just that the AC to hit would be higher because the target gets to keep his Dex.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Yes, we get this, what he is attempting to claim is that because of the wording on SA Uncanny Dodge wouldn't deny a SA outright, just that the AC to hit would be higher because the target gets to keep his Dex.

But it does deny it outright: SA is dependent on the target being denied a Dexterity bonus. Uncanny Dodge specifically states that you retain your Dex bonus: i.e. you are never denied said bonus. Thus, no attacks. Pretty straightforward.

[LanSlyde]

But it does deny it outright: SA is dependent on the target being denied a Dexterity bonus. Uncanny Dodge specifically states that you retain your Dex bonus: i.e. you are never denied said bonus. Thus, no attacks. Pretty straightforward.

He is claiming that because if caught flatfooted you would "normally" lose your Dex to AC. His argument is on the grounds of the specific wording of SA where is states "would be denied Dex to AC" instead of it being worded "is denied Dex to AC". Would you normally lose dex to ac? yes. Therefor he claims a possible SA. Regardless of whether or not you have abilities in place that allow you to claim Dex to AC.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I don't agree with his reasoning.

On the other hand, I don't like that article series. In part 4, skip suggests a really terrible houserule to let enemies ignore a flanker that completely breaks the game. It is a houserule and not presented as RAW, but I steer clear of that series of SA articles due to that regardless. I mean, the guy designed the game and he thinks this is a good idea, what could go wrong?
/newbie DM thought process

[olentu]

He is claiming that because if caught flatfooted you would "normally" lose your Dex to AC. His argument is on the grounds of the specific wording of SA where is states "would be denied Dex to AC" instead of it being worded "is denied Dex to AC". Would you normally lose dex to ac? yes. Therefor he claims a possible SA. Regardless of whether or not you have abilities in place that allow you to claim Dex to AC.

The thing is, it doesn't say "would normally be denied" it says "would be denied," and that is the problem. Adding in that extra word means that now there is also added the new unspoken assumption of a "normal" case that could mean anything. For example consider the case of an attack by, say, an unseen assailant. For the sake of argument, let's assume that your world does not have invisible attackers jumping out at everyone most of the time. Thus in the normal course of the day the character is attacked by visible creatures, and so the invisibility must be discounted when seeing if the character would normally be denied their dexterity bonus. It is just as fair to discount some factor in the favor of the attacker as in the favor of the defender.

[Jeff the Green]

The thing is, it doesn't say "would normally be denied" it says "would be denied," and that is the problem. Adding in that extra word means that now there is also added the new unspoken assumption of a "normal" case that could mean anything.

My opinion, which I hold for reasons I can't quite articulate at the moment, is that the use of "would be" instead of "is" is due to the fact that not all creatures have a Dexterity bonus to be denied. If it read "is," you could make an argument for sneak attacking an opponent with Dexterity <12 to be impossible without flanking.

[Killer Angel]

My opinion, which I hold for reasons I can't quite articulate at the moment, is that the use of "would be" instead of "is" is due to the fact that not all creatures have a Dexterity bonus to be denied. If it read "is," you could make an argument for sneak attacking an opponent with Dexterity <12 to be impossible without flanking.

Pretty much, given also that it's clearly written: "whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not" means exactly that. It doesn't matter that you don't have a bonus, 'cause it would be denied anyway.
An ability that let you retain the bonus, foils this kind of SA.

[Twilightwyrm]

Pretty much, given also that it's clearly written: "whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not" means exactly that. It doesn't matter that you don't have a bonus, 'cause it would be denied anyway.
An ability that let you retain the bonus, foils this kind of SA.

This would theoretically be true if the book didn't go on to clarify precisely that immediately afterwords.

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 doesn't make it impossible that what you are saying it true, but if so, why make it redundant immediately afterwords?
I know every group I've been involved with has always played with the ruling that Uncanny Dodge does not prevent Sneak Attack, in part I suspect due to the "would" part in there. (Also, I suspect, because there are quite enough things already that prevent sneak attacking without having to Uncanny Dodge to the mix)

[Augmental]

Out of curiosity, what does this have to do with kidney harvesting? Is it just a title?

[olentu]

Out of curiosity, what does this have to do with kidney harvesting? Is it just a title?

It is important to properly aerate the area around the growing kidneys to ensure a bountiful harvest.

[Slipperychicken]

Out of curiosity, what does this have to do with kidney harvesting? Is it just a title?

I came to this thread, expecting PCs looting their enemy's organs in their latest bid for wealth, and the OP asking what skill best represented organ-harvesting ability (I was about to suggest Heal, too). It would have been awesome; PCs looting not just gold, or weapons, or magic items, or furniture, or locks.. but peices of their enemys' still-warm corpses, too. Real PCs use every part of the encounter.


I am disappoint

[mattie_p]

Send a couple of rogues to SA the PC (presumably the PC is a rogue), and see if the player wants his uncanny dodge to kick in. There's your answer.

[LanSlyde]

Send a couple of rogues to SA the PC (presumably the PC is a rogue), and see if the player wants his uncanny dodge to kick in. There's your answer.

Ah but you see, therein is the problem. His not claiming that Uncanny Dodge won't kick in, he's claiming that Uncanny Dodge does not auto-negate SA, instead it just means that the attacker must beat his AC that also applies his Dex.

[Manly Man]

Well, if you folks give Improved Uncanny Dodge a look, it's that point at which the Sneak Attacking was intended to be cancelled out, unless by a rogue/other sneak attacker who's got levels four higher than the guy who has IUD. Based on that alone, I'd say that UC doesn't cancel out the Sneak Attack but, as was reasoned by the OP's player, it only denies the AC penalty.

[NikitaDarkstar]

Well, if you folks give Improved Uncanny Dodge a look, it's that point at which the Sneak Attacking was intended to be cancelled out, unless by a rogue/other sneak attacker who's got levels four higher than the guy who has IUD. Based on that alone, I'd say that UC doesn't cancel out the Sneak Attack but, as was reasoned by the OP's player, it only denies the AC penalty.

Exactly this.

Uncanny Dodge = You have to beat the normal AC instead of the flat-footed, you still sneak attack.

Improved Uncanny Dodge = Unless you're also a sneak attack AND at least 4 levels higher than the other guy you're not SA'ing.

[BowStreetRunner]

Here is what the FAQ has to say about it.

Since uncanny dodge doesn’t prevent you from being
flat-footed, does that mean that a rogue can use sneak
attack against a flat-footed character who has uncanny
dodge?
No. Rogues don’t get to use sneak attack because a target is
flat-footed, they get to use sneak attack because the target is
denied its Dexterity bonus to AC (italics added), which is a
normal side effect of being flat-footed. A barbarian (or any
other character) with uncanny dodge retains his Dexterity
bonus to AC when flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker.
Therefore, being flat-footed doesn’t render a foe vulnerable to
enemy sneak attack.

Myself, I would tell the player in question that it entirely depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

[olentu]

Yeah, so improved uncanny dodge. Unless I am mistaken if only applies to flanking which has nothing to do with the situation at hand. However one chooses to rule on uncanny dodge, improved uncanny dodge does nothing to change that situation as the two abilities apply in different circumstances.

[LanSlyde]

Yeah, so improved uncanny dodge. Unless I am mistaken if only applies to flanking which has nothing to do with the situation at hand. However one chooses to rule on uncanny dodge, improved uncanny dodge does nothing to change that situation as the two abilities apply in different circumstances.

Indeed, which is why I never said a word about Improved Uncanny Dodge. I just spoke of Uncanny Dodge.

As BowStreetRunner pointed out SA relies on 1 of two things. Your target is flanked by you, or your target is denied their Dex to AC. Uncanny Dodge allows a PC to retain their Dex to AC. Therefor Uncanny Dodge foils 1 way to gain SA on a target. Improved Uncanny Dodge foils the other way, unless the SA flanker is 4 levels higher than the target they are flanking.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Unless you're a wish-twisting genie you're not allowed to add words like that. "Would" does not imply "Would normally," therefore the PC's argument has no weight.

[BowStreetRunner]

It does not have to be obvious to the player that the use of the word 'would' and the inclusion of the parenthetical note 'whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not' was intended to ensure that characters with a Dex lower than 12 are not immune to Sneak Attack. It just has to be obvious to the DM.

[LanSlyde]

It does not have to be obvious to the player that the use of the word 'would' and the inclusion of the parenthetical note 'whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not' was intended to ensure that characters with a Dex lower than 12 are not immune to Sneak Attack. It just has to be obvious to the DM.

Indeed, which is why I threw it up here on the off chance someone else would try and convince the DM that this players interpretation is incorrect.