Are Rakes Secondary, Primary, or Both?

[Legildur]

Ahhh, I see, I see. Thanks Frank. And now I (also) understand why the explicitly call out rake in a pounce.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I really appreciate the legwork, guys. I had started some of it, but I had been typing up and working on so many stat blocks, I got tired of it quickly. I am just about finished (tomorrow prolly) with all the Summon Nature's Ally monsters plus all of them with Animal Growth effects (but not augmented summoning or anything else--as that should be easier to finagle on the fly).

Yeah, this has been done before by others (yours truly included), but these are all in the new MMIV format, 4/page, with languages, pictures, and even descriptions (height/weight if available). Er, anyone interested (zipped Word docs)? Just e-mail me. If you've received them before from me, I'll auto-resend to you. Warning: I have a couple of houserules in this, including some error corrections. I'm confident you could use them as is without breaking a game, but if you need them core, I don't think they would be too onerous to revise. They would be extremely useful as a starting place even then. I do explicitly mention the houserules in the docs. Heck, you might even adopt them yourself.

Back to this topic, I think it would be best to go with the rule that rake attacks are secondary attacks and are treated as claws for purposes of feats. Thus, -5 (or -2) on attack and 1/2 damage. Having a majority of them be half damage is the only way that could be justified. Also, I think that whoever originally typed up the stats put the attack bonus in there for a rake attack in a grapple, because that is the default method to make a rake attack, and then forgot that secondary attacks get -5 even if they're the only attacks made that round. The rule that rakes don't get -4 in a grapple probably caused the brain fart.

Anyone strongly disagree with this "correction"?

 

[Infiniti2000]

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

I had another comment about this. Yes, it's a special attack but it's still a natural weapon attack (explicitly named). And, the natural weapon sections says "When a creature has more than one natural weapon, one of them (or sometimes a pair or set of them) is the primary weapon. All the creature’s remaining natural weapons are secondary."

Since the rake natural weapon is not the primary natural weapon, it must be a secondary one. Nothing in the rake description overrides this (not considering the attack bonus listed). If we consider the attack bonus listed, well, then you get into the nightmare as my esteemed colleagues have noted above.

 

[Bad Paper]

Since the rake natural weapon is not the primary natural weapon, it must be a secondary one. Nothing in the rake description overrides this (not considering the attack bonus listed). If we consider the attack bonus listed, well, then you get into the nightmare as my esteemed colleagues have noted above.

OK, rake is a natural weapon, AKA natural attack. I say, however, that it is not a secondary attack. If it were, it would be listed in the "full attack" section of the statblock. However, it appears only in special attacks. Hence, Improved Natural Attack (claw) applies, while Weapon Focus (claw) does not. Weapon Focus gives a bonus to attack rolls, and since the attack is "rake," not "claw," you have to pick up Weapon Focus (rake) to make use of it.

 

[Neorealist]

Rake?

If it helps any the 3.0 Savage Species gives a fairly generic definition of rake from the text of the feral template. It looks like it's a extraordinary ability, which allows for 2 attacks at the primary attack bonus, which both do normal claw damage for the creature and gain the (normally a property of a secondary weapon) 1/2 strength bonus to damage. But the attacks can only be used under special conditions (the text itself specifically allows for a pounce, but i'd assume the regular grapple rules would apply.)

Heh i don't know if that muddles things up worse than before or clarifys anything, but there you have it.

 

[Infiniti2000]

OK, rake is a natural weapon, AKA natural attack. I say, however, that it is not a secondary attack. If it were, it would be listed in the "full attack" section of the statblock. However, it appears only in special attacks. Hence, Improved Natural Attack (claw) applies, while Weapon Focus (claw) does not. Weapon Focus gives a bonus to attack rolls, and since the attack is "rake," not "claw," you have to pick up Weapon Focus (rake) to make use of it.

Then you also need Improved Natural Attack (rake) and not (claw). Your argument otherwise makes no sense.

Additionally, if it's not a secondary weapon then it must be primary. If so, it gets full damage and no minuses on the attack.

It can't be neither as that option is too silly (IMO) to consider.

 

[frankthedm]

Additionally, if it's not a secondary weapon then it must be primary. If so, it gets full damage and no minuses on the attack.

Not necessarily. That is only true if the rake is part of a normal, listed in stat block, full attack. By being listed as a separate entity, that does free the rake to operate by it’s own rules. Not that silly either since it is close to the way a person using a off hand weapon only gets 1/2 str on that off hand weapon.

The problem was WotC did not specify HOW those rules are supposed to work. This is one of those reason I greatly desire to get my hands on the 3E and 3.5 playtest documents to see the deeper mechanics of the system. But that is not likely to happen because those same documents have the material used to make a lot of the splat books.

It sounds like savage species hits the mechanic dead on for rakes that are part of a feline attack-grab-rake routine.

 

[Bad Paper]

Then you also need Improved Natural Attack (rake) and not (claw). Your argument otherwise makes no sense.

OK, let it make no sense. Let us consider applying INA(claw) to the rake attack to be an error on WotC's part.

Additionally, if it's not a secondary weapon then it must be primary.

waaa? Stop calling it a secondary weapon. It is a Special Attack!

What you have said is tantamount to "Constrict is not a secondary attack for a squid. Therefore it is a primary attack. Trample is not a secondary attack for an elephant. Therefore it is a primary attack."

d00d, not to 1) put words in your mouth, or 2) call you names, but you're being silly

 

[frankthedm]

OK, let it make no sense. Let us consider applying INA(claw) to the rake attack to be an error on WotC's part.

No, lets not. Applying common sense is never a mistake. Improved natural attack is applied to rakes because INA does represent larger natural weapon. While some magical beasts and stranger hybrids might have notably divergent front and back paw sizes, most critters with rake have the same size feet front and back.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Not necessarily. That is only true if the rake is part of a normal, listed in stat block, full attack. By being listed as a separate entity, that does free the rake to operate by it’s own rules. Not that silly either since it is close to the way a person using a off hand weapon only gets 1/2 str on that off hand weapon.

It's very silly because without a definition of how the attack bonus and damage is calculated, we cannot adjust it. Thus, you cannot apply enhancement bonuses to attack with it, and so forth because you don't know if one is already added in. A dire tiger gets +18 on a rake attack. If I cast bull strength on the dire tiger, does that become +20? You have no idea because you don't even know if the +18 includes strength. It's just a number. Do you get +2 or +3 on damage? You have no idea without a definition.

So, not having a definition is silly, especially within the application of pounce, where it is part of a full attack.

d00d, not to 1) put words in your mouth, or 2) call you names, but you're being silly

No problem, BP. I figure you owe me a lot of bad names for what seans23 did to you on my behalf. (At least, I think it was you)

waaa? Stop calling it a secondary weapon. It is a Special Attack!

Let me clarify my position and, as being the OP, my desire for this thread (though you can take it anywhere you want to).

The Rake special attack is undefined in how they calculate the attack bonus, damage dice, and damage bonus. Agreed?

I want to define it, plain and simple. We have three options, the first two of which you and Frank reject:

1. Primary
2. Secondary
3. Other

With the first two options, the rules are clear, especially if we allow (claw) effects (e.g. WF and INA) affect rakes. Choosing 1 vs. 2 is not a big deal, I think.

The last option, however, is fraught with problems. First off, the good thing about it is that it assumes all of the entries are correct and there is no errata for any monster with a rake. The bad thing about it is that those numbers are static and cannot be modified.

So, either I treat rakes as primary/secondary (easy option) or things like bull's strength, animal growth, advancement, and so forth have no effect at all on rake attacks. This last reason is why I call it silly and I don't think my consternation over this problem is at all silly or unbelievable.