Is a rogues target still flatfooted after first attack of a double slice?

[markvs]

Is a rogues sneak attack target still flatfooted after first attack of a double slice.
Both attacks seem to happen at the same time.

From playtest update:

Page 158—In the Sneak action of the Stealth skill, in the third paragraph, in the first sentence, change “any time during your movement” to “at the end of the Sneak action”. After the third sentence, add the following “If you succeed at your Stealth check and then attempt to Strike a creature, the creature remains flat-footed against that attack, and then you become seen.” Remove the last sentence of that paragraph.

DOUBLE SLICE FEAT 1:
Requirements You are wielding two melee weapons, each in a different hand.
Make one Strike (see page 308) with each of your two melee weapons, each at your current multiple attack penalty. The second Strike takes a –2 circumstance penalty if it’s made with a weapon that doesn’t have the agile trait (see page 182). If both attacks hit, combine the attacks’ damage, and then add any other applicable enhancements from both weapons. For purposes of resistances and weaknesses, this is considered a single Strike. This counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty (see page 305).

[ClanPsi]

I can't give a definitive answer, but in PF1 Sneak Attack wouldn't apply to the second attack, so presumably it's the same in the playtest.

[Zman0]

I think this one is ambiguous, though, since Double Slice is an activity which is kind of a logical wrapping, and it does have single attack language for resistances etc and sneak references "attack"...

Though the situation is technically ambiguous, I would rule that both strikes as part of the double slice activity constitute the "attack" and would benefit from the sneak attack flatfooted condition.

I don't think you'll get an "official" answer for this one.

[WizardsBlade]

I agree with ZmanO. I read, "For purposes of resistances and weaknesses, this is considered a single Strike", to account for the condition drop too (although it doesn't explicitly say it.)
A question I would have is, if double slice doesn't count as a single strike for conditions then would you have to pick which strike happens first? Because even a missed strike drops the flat footed condition.

[Draco18s]

By a very strict reading, Double Slice gives you two Strikes, and the target would not be flat footed after the first one.

However, thematically, Double Slice (and similar abilities) should be treated as 1 attack for this purpose. Particularly because the damage isn't applied until after the second Strike, the second Strike uses your same MAP, etc.

[Barnabas Eckleworth III]

I think the slices are thematically supposed to occur simultaneously. But since you can't really do that... unless you rolled both attack dice at once or something. That's really the only reason you have a "second" attack. Is because one has to be first chronologically in the dice rolling.

[shroudb]

Raw, it seems that after the 1st strike it's over.

Flat-footed is neither a Resistance nor a vulnerability, it's a condition. There's clear distinction that Double slice is 2 Strikes for everything else and each strike is an Attack.

We've been running it like this in our table and it didn't feel underpowered to either me (DM) or the rogue player.

[Kerx]

Adding a voice to the pile: only first strike of double slice has sneak attack.

Also I could see an argument from narrow reading that because it says "If you succeed at your Stealth check and then attempt to Strike a creature, the creature remains flat-footed against that attack, and then you become seen", you would potentially not be able to use double slice from stealth anyways. Only the Strike action alone is relevant by the narrow reading and is only that way because they didn't say "Attack" (capitol A to reference anything with the attack tag) where they put "Strike" (capitol S only references strike action).

I probably wouldn't run it this way because I don't think rogues are really that stellar right now but I believe it's the most literal reading.

[shroudb]

Kerx wrote:

Adding a voice to the pile: only first strike of double slice has sneak attack.

Also I could see an argument from narrow reading that because it says "If you succeed at your Stealth check and then attempt to Strike a creature, the creature remains flat-footed against that attack, and then you become seen", you would potentially not be able to use double slice from stealth anyways. Only the Strike action alone is relevant by the narrow reading and is only that way because they didn't say "Attack" (capitol A to reference anything with the attack tag) where they put "Strike" (capitol S only references strike action).

I probably wouldn't run it this way because I don't think rogues are really that stellar right now but I believe it's the most literal reading.

It doesn't prohibit you to use an activity for said Strike.

And double slice is such a case.

I think that distinction is more for non Strike attacks (like spells)

[Bardarok]

I think only the first attack would have the sneak attack bonus. That said if you are starting combat off this way both would do to surprise attack. If your sneaking during combat though it's only one.

Double slice attacks happen at almost the same time not the same time, there is still a distinction between the attacks since you make two rolls sequentially and it matters if the second one is agile or not. Compare to Sweep which is really one attack where you make one attack roll and compare it to the AC of two different targets. At least that is my interpretation.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Zman0 wrote:

I think this one is ambiguous, though, since Double Slice is an activity which is kind of a logical wrapping, and it does have single attack language for resistances etc and sneak references "attack"...

Though the situation is technically ambiguous, I would rule that both strikes as part of the double slice activity constitute the "attack" and would benefit from the sneak attack flatfooted condition.

I don't think you'll get an "official" answer for this one.

Specific trumps general. Double Strike only counts as one strike for the purposes of overcoming resistances and applying weaknesses. For other purposes, you count as making one strike per weapon as the feat states (which means two strikes total, so any strikes after the first one you make do not benefit from Sneak Attack unless they are flat-footed for all attacks with a certain option or ability of some kind), and two strikes for calculating MAP of future actions. That's it.

I would honestly expect an answer for this eventually, because there are ways to trigger this sort of thing now, and there will be more and more ways as content gets developed, so a clarification for this (such as if they decide Sneak attack should affect all of Double Strike) would be desired more than we think.

[Kerx]

shroudb wrote:

It doesn't prohibit you to use an activity for said Strike.

I mean it kind of does but once again down to interpretation. In the CRB the next sentence is "If you do anything else, you become seen just before you act." So I guess what I'm saying is the strict reading would say that committing to the Double Slice counts as "anything else" since you commit to using Double Slice before making the two strikes, making you seen prior to the strikes that are a component of that.

My basis for this interpretation is from the following:

CRB pg. 8 wrote:

Once you spend the last action required, your activity is complete and its effects occur.

Which makes me feel like it's not too outlandish to suggest Double Slice makes you seen before hand.

If we could just get a statement of intention on this it'd be great. Really, really want errata notes. One of my favorite things about modern game development is that patchnotes often come with statements explaining the why certain changes were made. That would clear up a lot of my issues thus far.

shroudb wrote:

I think that distinction is more for non Strike attacks (like spells)

Yeah it probably is, but it could be written definitively if that's their intention. All I'm really trying to say here.