Are Rakes Secondary, Primary, or Both?

[Infiniti2000]

Are rake attacks, such as with a tiger or dire lion, secondary, primary, or both?

I'd say they were secondary and thus take a -5 on the attack roll, but the above examples give them no such penalty. Those examples, however, also give them half the strength modifier on damage as if they were secondary.

For additional confusion, note that the tiger's rake gets the same damage die as the claw (with improved natural attack), but the dire lion's rake does not get the weapon focus (claw).

Rules:

Rake
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.

(Dire Lion) Pounce (Ex)
If a dire lion charges, it can make a full attack, including two rake attacks.

(Tiger) Pounce (Ex)
If a tiger charges a foe, it can make a full attack, including two rake attacks.

 

[Bad Paper]

Neither. Rake is a special attack, hence its listing under "Special Attacks."

The formula seems to be "use primary attack bonus, but secondary claw damage." I think the Weapon Focus issue implies the existence of Weapon Focus (rake).

 

[Infiniti2000]

And a dire tiger has an invalid attack bonus for rake, no matter the formula.

If there's no formula, the damage and/or attack is not adjusted due to enhancements to strength, animal growth, or anything, right?

If there is a formula, then it has to be considered one or the other, especially since it's added in to a "full attack". I refuse to accept that it's an undefined special case (it may be, but I need a resolution to this). I am calculating out animal growths and this turns out to be nontrivial in some cases.

 

[frankthedm]

I noticed this when i was making the Liger and dire ligers in my monster thread. I'd recommend checking each entry, noting how they each work and then make a judgment on how it is done most of the time.

 

[frankthedm]

The jury has been assembled. Based on thier write ups, I believe that Rakes

Get Primary “to hit”,
Do not count for weapon focus claw,
Do count as claws for improved natural attack since that feat does assume the creature’s natural weapons are larger than the norm
Only have ½ STR bonus to damage.

Supporters of this…

Behir rakes have the primary ‘to hit’ of its bite attack and only get ½ str. The rake damage die is also smaller than usual but they do get 6 of them....

Dire lions operate like two primary claws not getting weapon focus and only geting ½ STR bonus.

Hieracosphinxes’ Rakes have the primary ‘to hit’ of its bite attack and deals damage like it’s secondary claw attacks

Lammaus’ rakes are like two primary claw attacks that only get ½ str.

Leopards’ Rakes have the primary ‘to hit’ of its bite attack and deals damage like it’s secondary claw attacks

Lions’ rakes are like two primary claw attacks that only get ½ str.

Tigers’ rakes are like two primary claw attacks that only get ½ str. They do get the benefit of improved natural attack claw on these rakes.

Anomalies to this…

Dire tiger’s rake operates like 2 “non-primary back claws” getting weapon focus and ½ str bonus. I also think the 2d4 claw damage is a typo since there is no way to get “2d4” with an improved natural attack. 1d6 goes to 1d8, 1d8 goes to 2d6. Either that or they gave the dire tiger a tiny upgrade from the tiger’s improved natural attack that was already a 1d8.

Leonal’s Rakes are two primary claw attacks.

Skums’ rakes are like two secondary claw attacks that only get ½ str. They get these as normal attacks while in the water, not part of the Bite, improved grab then Rake combo..

Tayellas’ rakes have the “to hit” of a secondary natural weapon and does not get the benefits of the weapon focus / epic weapon focus feats it has. The claws it usually uses have damage dice of 2d6 +11, the claws it walks on and only use to rake have damage dice of 4d6+5 [The stat block shows the damage bonus as +15 though the rake entry says +5].


Just noticed this in the SRD, Is this why so many critters with rake and pounce specify the critter rakes on a pounce...

Rake
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.

 

[Legildur]

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.

Frank, I don't see how you come to that conclusion. Why can't a creature enter into a grapple and then rake? I'm sure you are right, but I've only had one coffee so far this morning and I am anything but sharp at the moment.

 

[frankthedm]

Frank, I don't see how you come to that conclusion. Why can't a creature enter into a grapple and then rake? I'm sure you are right, but I've only had one coffee so far this morning and I am anything but sharp at the moment.

I did not, thats the SRD in the times new roman font.

 

[kerbarian]

And a dire tiger has an invalid attack bonus for rake, no matter the formula.

If there's no formula, the damage and/or attack is not adjusted due to enhancements to strength, animal growth, or anything, right?

If there is a formula, then it has to be considered one or the other, especially since it's added in to a "full attack". I refuse to accept that it's an undefined special case (it may be, but I need a resolution to this). I am calculating out animal growths and this turns out to be nontrivial in some cases.

IMO, there should be a formula, but honestly, it doesn't look like there is one. Either that, or there are a *lot* of errors for monsters with rake. Some examples:

Dire Tiger -- Attack is full attack bonus - 1 (or -2 if weapon focus(claw) applies to the rake). Dire Tigers don't have multiattack. Damage is as a front claw (including INA(claw)) + 1/2 strength.

Tiger -- Attack is full attack bonus. Damage is as a front claw (including INA(claw)) + 1/2 strength.

Skum -- Attack is full attack bonus - 5 (front claws are secondary attacks, no multiattack). Damage is more than a front claw (1d6 vs. 1d4) + 1/2 strength.

Griffon -- Attack is full attack bonus - 2 (front claws are secondary attacks, Griffons do have multiattack). Damage is more than a front claw (1d6 vs. 1d4) + 1/2 strength.

Sahuagin -- Attack is full attack bonus - 2 (front claws are primary attacks, Sahuagin do have multiattack). Damage is as a front claw + 1/2 strength.

Fleshraker Dinosaur -- Attack is full attack bonus - 4 (front claws are primary attacks, no multiattack). Damage is as a front claw (including INA(claw)) + some weird amount. It's 1d6+2, and the Fleshraker's str bonus is +3.

Cave Troll -- Attack is full attack bonus - 3 points of power attack. Damage is as a claw + 1/2 strength + 3 points of power attack.

Leonal -- Attack is full attack bonus. Damage is as a front claw + full strength bonus.

Annis -- Attack is full attack bonus. Damage is as a front claw + full strength bonus.

So usually the base damage is the same as a front claw, but not always (Skum and Griffon are exceptions). Usually 1/2 strength is added to the base damage, but not always (Leonal, Annis, and Fleshraker are exceptions). And the attack bonus is all over the place -- there are cases for full attack bonus, full - 1, full - 2, full - 4, and full - 5 just among these few examples. I'd say the most common case is for the rake to have the same attack bonus as a front claw attack, but Dire Tiger, Fleshraker, and Sahuagin are exceptions to that.

 

[Menexenus]

I did not, thats the SRD in the times new roman font.

So even though there is a difference in font sizes, both sections of green writing are direct quotes from the SRD?

 

[frankthedm]

So even though there is a difference in font sizes, both sections of green writing are direct quotes from the SRD?

After that mix up Added the green to make it more distict, dropped the font change, left the size to draw attention to the text.