Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Infiniti2000" data-source="post: 3013534" data-attributes="member: 31734">It's very silly because without a definition of how the attack bonus and damage is calculated, we cannot adjust it.&nbsp; Thus, you cannot apply enhancement bonuses to attack with it, and so forth because you don't know if one is already added in.&nbsp; A dire tiger gets +18 on a rake attack.&nbsp; If I cast bull strength on the dire tiger, does that become +20?&nbsp; You have no idea because you don't even know if the +18 includes strength.&nbsp; It's just a number.&nbsp; Do you get +2 or +3 on damage?&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;No problem, BP.&nbsp; I figure you owe me a lot of bad names for what seans23 did to you on my behalf.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> (At least, I think it was you)&nbsp;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.&nbsp; Agreed?I want to define it, plain and simple.&nbsp; We have three options, the first two of which you and Frank reject:1. Primary2. Secondary3. OtherWith the first two options, the rules are clear, especially if we allow (claw) effects (e.g. WF and INA) affect rakes.&nbsp; Choosing 1 vs. 2 is not a big deal, I think.The last option, however, is fraught with problems.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Infiniti2000, post: 3013534, member: 31734"] 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 [B]is[/B] part of a full attack. No problem, BP. I figure you owe me a lot of bad names for what seans23 did to you on my behalf. :p (At least, I think it was you) 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification