More zaniness with Improved Natural Attack

[Lord Pendragon]

Okay, I don't have a lot of experience with advancing monsters and the monstrous feats, so some clarification would be very helpful here.

A griffon out of the box has the following attack routine:

Full Attack: Bite +11 melee (2d6+4) and 2 claws +8 melee (1d4+2)

If the griffon pounces, it can also make two rake attacks:

Pounce (Ex): If a griffon dives upon or charges a foe, it can make a full attack, including two rake attacks.
Rake (Ex): Attack bonus +8 melee, damage 1d6+2.

Now say this griffon gets a couple more hit dice and is considering Improved Natural Attack:

IMPROVED NATURAL ATTACK [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: Choose one of the creature’s natural attack forms. The damage for this natural weapon increases by one step, as if
the creature’s size had increased by one category: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.
A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.

If the griffon picks up Improved Natural Attack, can it choose just plain "claw" and have it apply to both claw attacks, or must it select one claw? Giving it an attack routine of:

Bite +11 melee (2d4+4), claw +8 melee (1d6+2) and claw +8 melee (1d4+2)?

If it applies to both claws, would it also apply to the rake attacks, which are delivered by the hind leg claws?

 

[Vurt]

I would interpret both claws to be one "attack form", as required by the feat description. That said, I would also interpret the rake attack to be a separate attack form.

Cheers,
Vurt

 

[reveal]

The griffon has 3 natural attacks: bite, claw, and rake. Pick one type, as per the feat, and that's what it applies to.

Bite would become 3d6+4. Claw (both front claws) would become 1d6+2. Rake would become 1d8+2.

 

[the Jester]

It affects both claws. However, a rake is a distinctly different attack form.

 

[Diirk]

I disagree, a rake is fundamentally a claw attack and thus Improved Natural Attack (claw) should cover them both. However its odd that the griffon's claw and rake damage are different... I haven't seen any other monsters where the damage isn't the same. If you read the natural weapons section tho it clearly lists the different types of natural attack (bite, claw, slam, etc etc) and even tho it says that those are only the most common and thus you could argue that rake is a seperate type but isn't 'common', going by the number of monsters with rake attacks I couldn't bring myself to believe that. I think they're just covering their asses incase they feel the need to invent new natural weapons in the future, like sharks with fricking lasers or something

 

[reveal]

I disagree, a rake is fundamentally a claw attack and thus Improved Natural Attack (claw) should cover them both. However its odd that the griffon's claw and rake damage are different... I haven't seen any other monsters where the damage isn't the same. If you read the natural weapons section tho it clearly lists the different types of natural attack (bite, claw, slam, etc etc) and even tho it says that those are only the most common and thus you could argue that rake is a seperate type but isn't 'common', going by the number of monsters with rake attacks I couldn't bring myself to believe that. I think they're just covering their asses incase they feel the need to invent new natural weapons in the future, like sharks with fricking lasers or something

I stand corrected. INA would make the damage for the Rake attack go up. Here's the definition of Rake from the SRD:

Rake (Ex): A creature with this special attack gains extra natural attacks when it grapples its foe. Normally, a monster can attack with only one of its natural weapons while grappling, but a monster with the rake ability usually gains two additional claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe. Rake attacks are not subject to the usual –4 penalty for attacking with a natural weapon in a grapple.

A monster with the rake ability must begin its turn grappling to use its rake—it can’t begin a grapple and rake in the same turn.

Emphasis mine.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The problem, of course, is that Rake does not follow the same rules as claw attacks.

While typing up a detailed rebuttal to reveal's post #3 (which, before posting, I said, "Eh," and deleted it), I did a quick survey of those creatures in the SRD which possess rake.

In nearly all cases, they followed the following formula:

1. Base damage = claw damage if claw is a primary natural weapon
2. Base damage = claw damage improved one die if it isn't
3. Strength bonus to damage = .5 Str bonus
4. To hit bonus = claw to hit bonus, not including claw-specific feats like Weapon Focus

 

[Diirk]

As a counterexample to that, take the tiger. It has claw as a primary natural weapon, so its claw/rake damage should be the same. Which they are. But the tiger also has Improved Natural Attack (claw).

Or the leopard. It has bite as a primary weapon, not the claw.. yet its claw and rake damage are both 1d3.

So I went to check the weapon focus thing, and the dire tiger seemed like a decent idea. It has +20 attack with its claws (+12 BAB, -1 size, +8 str, +1 weapon focus) but only +18 with its rake (+12 BAB, -1 size, +8 strength, -1 ????) so uh... oh well, so much for that idea

The Dire Lion is correct in its attack bonus calculations tho, and doesn't apply weapon focus to its rake. Which personally I find odd, but still.

So yeah, thats probably a pretty good argument against ina applying to both claw and rake... I'd probably house rule it the other way tho, a claw is a claw imo.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Rake may usually consist of claw attacks, but they are not the same as the other claw attacks unless the monster's rake description specifically says so. In this case, there is ample evidence that the rear claws (the rake) and the foreclaws are not the same and should not be treated as the same for the purposes of INA. If the Rake does the same damage, I think you could argue the case for INA (claw) being applied to Rake. However, I have never seen a Rake description not specify the damage. If it truly were the same claw attack, I'd think it would say, "Rake (Ex): See claw attack bonus and damage." or even "Rake (Ex): 2 claws."

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Yeah, like I said, "Nearly all cases."

As a counterexample to that, take the tiger. It has claw as a primary natural weapon, so its claw/rake damage should be the same. Which they are. But the tiger also has Improved Natural Attack (claw).

The same is also true for the Dire Tiger.

Additionally, the leonal doesn't get 1/2 strength bonus to damage on its rakes.

Or the leopard. It has bite as a primary weapon, not the claw.. yet its claw and rake damage are both 1d3.

Yes, he's one of the exceptions to that "rule" I could find. The criosphinx and hieracosphinx are two others. Note that the sphinxes attack with their rakes at full AB, as well, rather than at claw AB.

Skum are an example of creatures who do follow the rule.

So I went to check the weapon focus thing, and the dire tiger seemed like a decent idea. It has +20 attack with its claws (+12 BAB, -1 size, +8 str, +1 weapon focus) but only +18 with its rake (+12 BAB, -1 size, +8 strength, -1 ????) so uh... oh well, so much for that idea

Yeah, I'm not sure what happened there.

So yeah, thats probably a pretty good argument against ina applying to both claw and rake... I'd probably house rule it the other way tho, a claw is a claw imo.

I'd actually argue that there's pretty strong evidence for INA (Claw) improving Rake damage, as well, based solely on the Dire Tiger example.