Savage Slice Question

[RaidenOmega]

Here is the setup: Lets say you do 1d6 weapon damage on the first hit. Make the second, it does 2d6.

Question: If you are lucky enough to make a third hit, would it not do 3d6 because the second hit did 2d6 with the savage slice added?

It simply says, "Add another damage dice", it doesn't say to the original weapon damage. So I find this a little confusing.

[Atalius]

I hope one day you get the answer to your question my friend. You have been patiently waiting for quite some time.

[Edge93]

It would do 2d6, not 3d6. It says "Make another Strike against the same target...if it hits, it does an additional die of damage". It does not say anything about doing more damage than the previous attack, it says to add a die to the Strike, and the Strike is a normal attack.

If we go with the other logic you would have weird interactions if you hit with one weapon than used Savage Slice with a weapon that does a different die type, and that's definitely not intended.

So yeah, it just adds 1 extra die to your normal Strike damage, regardless of if you already used Savage Slice that turn.

ACTUALLY, nevermind all that! Just remembered a thing about actions like Savage Slice. Savage Slice is a 1-action ability that involves a Strike action in its process. HOWEVER, abilities like this that involve a specific action like that do not count as that action. So while Savage Slice involves using the Strike action and its effects, it does not count as using the Strike action for other purposes. And Savage Slice requires that "Your last action was a weapon Strike (Note the capital S, indicating that this refers to the specific Strike action) that dealt slashing damage".

So if you Strike with your first action and use Savage Slice for your second, your third action can't be Savage Slice because your last action was Savage Slice, not Strike.

Likewise you can't use Savage Slice after something like Power Attack, Intimidating Strike, Certain Strike, etc. that includes a Strike as part of the action.

So in the end, really, the question is moot because it will NEVER come up. But the logic at the start of the post would stand if it did.

[Bardarok]

But does it work with claws? That's the thing I never did get a proper answer for.

[Edge93]

Ironically, RAW, they don't because unarmed attacks don't count as weapons and the language specifies weapons.

I doubt this is RAI, and I think Paizo is looking at the language around natural attack stuff for the final release.

TBH I think the main reason for them not counting as weapons is to avoid the questions about what hapens if you put a potency rune on a dragon's 4d10 bite. XD

[Bardarok]

Edge93 wrote:

Ironically, RAW, they don't because unarmed attacks don't count as weapons and the language specifies weapons.

I doubt this is RAI, and I think Paizo is looking at the language around natural attack stuff for the final release.

TBH I think the main reason for them not counting as weapons is to avoid the questions about what hapens if you put a potency rune on a dragon's 4d10 bite. XD

Problem is RAW it says unarmed strikes count as simple weapons on p 178 and then explicitly says that they are not weapons on p 419 so either interpretation has support from the text and RAI isn't clear to me either. I just hope they make it clear one way or the other in the final book.

[Edge93]

Indeed.