Improved Natural Attack Questions
- Thread starter mcgeedis
- Start date
eamon
Explorer
Juding be the Rake description - which refers to gaining extra claw attacks - you'd guess that the attack gained is of type "claw" and thus affected by rake. Judging by precedent and rules consistency, you'll note that WF claw doesn't apply to rake (ever?).
I'm thinking: it's a mistake in the MM; and it's impossible to satisfy both demands, and you shouldn't lose sleep about it, since it's not your fault.
In this imperfect situation, what ruling is "best"?
To each his own, but I think considering rake's attacks to be different from normal claw attacks (i.e. in keeping with the WF difference) is more likely to be balanced. Also note that the creatures with rake generally include something like "rake 1d6+3" in the special attacks line, at least making it seem like it's a type. It's not important however, as it's never going to get even close to a whole CR difference. On the PC side of things, druids aren't the weakest bunch, so I don't think I'd be very sympathetic to a player who wanted to apply INA to rakes - he'd need some very good story why the explicit precedent of WF doesn't apply.
I'm thinking: it's a mistake in the MM; and it's impossible to satisfy both demands, and you shouldn't lose sleep about it, since it's not your fault.
In this imperfect situation, what ruling is "best"?
To each his own, but I think considering rake's attacks to be different from normal claw attacks (i.e. in keeping with the WF difference) is more likely to be balanced. Also note that the creatures with rake generally include something like "rake 1d6+3" in the special attacks line, at least making it seem like it's a type. It's not important however, as it's never going to get even close to a whole CR difference. On the PC side of things, druids aren't the weakest bunch, so I don't think I'd be very sympathetic to a player who wanted to apply INA to rakes - he'd need some very good story why the explicit precedent of WF doesn't apply.
I'm thoroughly confused. A Dire Tiger has 2 claws at +20 then a bite at +14. With BAB +12, size modifier -1, strength modifier +8, weapon focus (claw), this all adds up fine. But then he rakes at +18... even ignoring the weapon focus (claw), 12 + 8 - 1 = 19. Why's his rake at +18 ?
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Diirk said:
As long as we're looking at the Dire Tiger, his INA Claw deals 2d4.
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.
What does an unimproved claw deal, for a Dire Tiger?
-Hyp.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Zurai said:
I agree. I don't have an answer for that, and in addition, the damage is unusual.
-Hyp.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Zurai said:
So do you think it should be +19 (BAB + size + Str), or +20 (BAB + size + Str + Weapon Focus: Claw)?
-Hyp.
This whole arguement reminds me of the rogue and kukri debate in early 3.0. For those of you that may not remember, a 3.0 rogue had proficiency with "dagger (any type)", and the description of a kukri said it was a "heavy, curved dagger". This lead to a large number of discussions about whether or not a rogue was proficient with a kukri. Does the fact that there are different entries for a kukri and dagger make a difference? Is the flavor text using the word "dagger" sufficient to define the kukri as a dagger, or would it have to be labeled as a "Dagger, Kukri" or "Kukri (Dagger)" to count? Eventually, the question was answered by the sage: no.
Whether a rake counts as a claw attack is essentially the exact same arguement. Is the flavor text sufficient reason to count rake attacks as claw attacks? I would say no, and use the previous case as precedent. I agree that it's an annoyingly grey area, though.
Whether a rake counts as a claw attack is essentially the exact same arguement. Is the flavor text sufficient reason to count rake attacks as claw attacks? I would say no, and use the previous case as precedent. I agree that it's an annoyingly grey area, though.
