damage from constrict, rend, rake & trample

[paranoid]

Which of these monster special attacks are strength-based?

I am working on a handy little spreadsheet where the most important abilities of summoned monsters are summarized, including the augment summoning feat, which increases the strength of summoned monsters by 4. It is clear that all attack bonuses benefit, as well as the damage of all "normal" natural weapons, depending on whether it is a primary (x1), secondary (x0.5) or solitary (x1.5) weapon.

But does damage from special attacks like constrict, rend and rake also benefit from increased strength?

We know from trample (SRD):

A trample attack deals bludgeoning damage (the creature’s slam damage + 1-1/2 times its Str modifier). The creature’s descriptive text gives the exact amount.

But this information is lacking in the descriptions of constrict and the other mentioned attack forms:

The amount of damage is given in the creature’s entry.

example 1: Giant Constrictor Snake (Str 25/+7), constrict dmg: 1d8+10.
-it looks like if the damage is Str-based (x1.5).

example 2: Giant Octopus (Str 20/+5), constrict dmg: 2d8+6.
-doesn't look like the damage is based on Str.

Most of the times the entry indicates that the damage is based on Str,
example 2 above is a rare exception. For me, it looks like this:
trample - based on Str, dmg = bonus x 1.5
constrict - based on Str, dmg = bonus x 1.5
rend - based on Str, dmg = bonus x 1.5
rake - based on Str, dmg = bonus x 0.5

So what do you think, am I correct or are the damage amounts "set"?

-p.

 

[Norfleet]

The difference between the snake and octopus constriction attacks could be that the snake performs a constriction attack using its entire body. Although snakes lack hands, the use of the entire body could be construed as equivalent to two-handedness.

An octopus, on the other hand, constricts with a tentacle, with possible assistance of one or more others, but probably not all 8. Therefore, the strength bonus might not be as high as the full 50%.

All this, of course, is pure speculation: There's no evidence to indicate any reasoning process was followed at all in either case.

 

[Archer]

I'm sure the octopus is an editing error left in from when they increased the octopus' strength from 18 to 20. All of the attack forms are based on strength.

 

[paranoid]

Edited my first post, because rake damage, as a secondary attack, uses only half the strength modifier.

I'm sure the octopus is an editing error left in from when they increased the octopus' strength from 18 to 20.

in 3.0, the Giant Octopus also had Str 20, but you are right that the constriction damage in 3.0 also was 2d8+6. Might actually be an editing error.

All of the attack forms are based on strength.

I hope you're right.

-p.