Improved Natural Attack Questions

[Hypersmurf]

This lead to a large number of discussions about whether or not a rogue was proficient with a kukri.

I also note that the description in 3.5 changed from "heavy, curved dagger" to "heavy, curved knife"

-Hyp.

 

[Zurai]

So do you think it should be +19 (BAB + size + Str), or +20 (BAB + size + Str + Weapon Focus: Claw)?

-Hyp.

I obviously (given my other posts in this thread) think it should be +20, but I can definitely see the argument for +19 as valid and wouldn't object to such a ruling should it be offered.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I obviously (given my other posts in this thread) think it should be +20, but I can definitely see the argument for +19 as valid and wouldn't object to such a ruling should it be offered.

Of course, delving deeper just makes matters more confusing

Leopard, Lion, Tiger, Annis Hag, and Leonal Guardinal all use their full attack bonus for a rake.

Skum use their secondary attack bonus (full -5), while Griffons and Sahuagin use their Multiattack secondary attack bonus (full -2).

Dire Lion uses full attack bonus without Weapon Focus (claw) added. (Claw +13, Rake +12)

Dire Tiger uses full attack bonus -1... two less than full attack bonus plus WF: Claw.

And then there's the Fleshraker Dinosaur from MM3, who doesn't have WF: Claw... his rake is either full attack bonus -4, or secondary attack bonus +1... either way, it's weird.

-Hyp.

 

[Diirk]

Leopard, Lion, Tiger, Annis Hag, and Leonal Guardinal all use their full attack bonus for a rake.

Skum use their secondary attack bonus (full -5), while Griffons and Sahuagin use their Multiattack secondary attack bonus (full -2).

The first set have claws as their primary natural weapon, while the second set use claws as their secondary natural weapons. This may be the difference, as a rake is still based on the claw attack, even if it doesn't seem to share weapon focus.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The first set have claws as their primary natural weapon, while the second set use claws as their secondary natural weapons. This may be the difference, as a rake is still based on the claw attack, even if it doesn't seem to share weapon focus.

LEOPARD
Attack: Bite +6 melee (1d6+3)
Full Attack: Bite +6 melee (1d6+3) and 2 claws +1 melee (1d3+1)
Rake (Ex): Attack bonus +6 melee, damage 1d3+1.

Then, of course, there's the Str bonus question - the cats, skum, griffon, and sahuagin add half Str bonus (whether they use full attack bonus or secondary attack bonus), and the hag and guardinal add full Str bonus to damage.

-Hyp.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I don't know if this helps or not, but a griffin has d4 claws, but a d6 rake. I always assumed rake was back claws, while normal claws were front claws.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't know if this helps or not, but a griffin has d4 claws, but a d6 rake.

Indeed.

-Hyp.

 

[eamon]

... so we end up concluding that there's not standard answer to how rake's attack bonus and damage are calculated, but that it's certainly not a simple formula based on claw attacks - right?

So... I wouldn't allow WF or Imp.Nat.Attack claw to apply rake. It's also nice and simple that way

 

[eamon]

Of course, delving deeper just makes matters more confusing

Leopard, Lion, Tiger, Annis Hag, and Leonal Guardinal all use their full attack bonus for a rake.

Skum use their secondary attack bonus (full -5), while Griffons and Sahuagin use their Multiattack secondary attack bonus (full -2).

Dire Lion uses full attack bonus without Weapon Focus (claw) added. (Claw +13, Rake +12)

Dire Tiger uses full attack bonus -1... two less than full attack bonus plus WF: Claw.

And then there's the Fleshraker Dinosaur from MM3, who doesn't have WF: Claw... his rake is either full attack bonus -4, or secondary attack bonus +1... either way, it's weird.

-Hyp.

Oh boy! What a mess...

 

[Quartz]

You could obviate the whole thing and just say that INA simply gives +1 damage per die.