Rake attack bonus

[Biggus]

Does anyone know how this is calculated? For most monsters, it's the same attack bonus as their normal claw attacks, but for some (dire tiger, dire lion, tayellah) it's lower by varying amounts.

I want to know because I'm building an advanced dire tiger animal companion and I'm not sure what to include.

[Doctor Despair]

Dire Tiger stats are:

BAB 12
STR 27 (+8)
DEX 15 (+2)

Full Attack: 2 claws +20 melee (2d4+8) and bite +14 melee (2d6+4)

With BAB 12, the tiger has a +8 modifier to its claw. It has -1 from size, and +1 from its weapon focus, so that's just going to be raw strength. 6 less than that is 14 for its bite, so that tracks as well.

The rake's +18 is peculiar though. However, I think I've spotted a formula that works. +1.5x str, then -5 for being a secondary attack. That would yield 12 BAB +12 str -1 size = 23, -5 is 18.

If that seems logical to you, then you'd just change that formula as you adjust its bab, strength, and size.

[Biggus]

Interesting idea, but I tried applying that formula to other creatures with rake and it didn't work. Thanks for the suggestion though.

[Doctor Despair]

Interesting idea, but I tried applying that formula to other creatures with rake and it didn't work. Thanks for the suggestion though.

As you said, the other creatures have different calculations. Lions, for instance, have +3 bab. -1 size, and a +5 str modifier. Their rake? +7 exactly, so they clearly just use +str and treat it as primary. That clearly doesn't work for dire tigers, as it would result in 19, not 18. Wizards isn't consistent, but what else is new?

Edit: Dire lions have 6 bab, -1 size, +7 str, so 12 for their rake. That tracks. Their claw benefits from weapon focus; that's why it's different.

Edit: Tayellah has 34 bab, and 48 dex (+19 with weapon finesse), so 53, and a -4 size modifier, so a cumulative 49. The rake is 44, so it must be treated as secondary.

[Gruftzwerg]

Imho there are 2 options:

a) in the later MM some monsters have their Power Attack modifiers included (marked with an * )
(seems not to be the chase in your given examples.



b) editing error and thus text trumps table.
Let's take the Dire Lion as example. Imho they forgot to add the weapon focus (claws) in the attack lines but still seem to have subtracted it (difference of 1) from the "rake" attacks.
We have general rules that handle how these things are calculated, and none of the example calls out an exception nor create they a more specific situation. Thus we fall back to the general rules to calculate em.

[Biggus]

As you said, the other creatures have different calculations. Lions, for instance, have +3 bab. -1 size, and a +5 size modifier. Their rake? +7 exactly, so they clearly just use +str and treat it as primary. That clearly doesn't work for dire tigers, as it would result in 19, not 18. Wizards isn't consistent, but what else is new?

Edit: Dire lions have 6 bab, -1 size, +7 str, so 12 for their rake. That tracks. Their claw benefits from weapon focus; that's why it's different.

Edit: Tayellah has 34 bab, and 48 dex (+19 with weapon finesse), so 53, and a -4 size modifier, so a cumulative 49. The rake is 44, so it must be treated as secondary.

Hmm, I think you've got most of the answer there, weapon focus apparently only counts for normal claw attacks, not rake attacks even if they're also claws, and rake is sometimes treated as a secondary attack (the tayellah does mention it rakes "with legs it normally only uses for walking", and the griffon also makes sense that way).

So given all that, the dire tiger is the only anomaly. I'm starting to suspect it's just a misprint and should actually be +19.

Thanks again for your help.

[Fizban]

As mentioned, sometimes there's a Weapon Focus feat to account for, and otherwise sometimes it's just arbitrary. I wouldn't necessarily expect them to always be "secondary" even if they're usually at -5, however, because that's a specific term that interacts with the Multiattack feat. And I think I've run into rake attacks at -5 on creatures with Multiattack (while yet others will specifically call them out as secondary).

[sleepyphoenixx]

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.

Rake attacks are natural attacks, so aside from not being subject to the -4 penalty for attacking with it in a grapple they function the same as other natural attacks.
They're never listed as a primary natural attack, so that makes them secondary natural attacks by default (because a natural attack is either primary or secondary, there is no third category).

So since rake attacks are secondary natural attacks they have the same AB as any other secondary natural attack (barring things like Weapon Focus).
Without a special ability of some sort to change that every stat block claiming otherwise is a typo.

[Biggus]

Rake attacks are natural attacks, so aside from not being subject to the -4 penalty for attacking with it in a grapple they function the same as other natural attacks.
They're never listed as a primary natural attack, so that makes them secondary natural attacks by default (because a natural attack is either primary or secondary, there is no third category).


This doesn't seem to be the case, looking at the numbers they're usually treated as a primary attack. In most cases this is where claws are the primary attack, so they seem to be treated the same as those. In the case of the tayellah they're secondary but are specifically called out as using legs it doesn't usually use for attacking. The griffon's rake is secondary but so are its claw attacks.

-----------------------

Just noticed another weird one, the legendary tiger's rake attacks are at +30 while its normal claw attacks are "only" +29. WotC really seems to have got confused about tigers.

[Zombimode]

Without a special ability of some sort to change that every stat block claiming otherwise is a typo.

Well, if something is consistently presented "wrong" maybe it is time to question ones own assumptions.

The Dire Tiger IS the anomaly. Dire Lions, Lions, Tigers and Leopards have their rake attacks at full bab with any Weapon Focus (Claw) not applying to the rake attacks (only relevant for the Dire Lion).

[sleepyphoenixx]

Well, if something is consistently presented "wrong" maybe it is time to question ones own assumptions.

The Dire Tiger IS the anomaly. Dire Lions, Lions, Tigers and Leopards have their rake attacks at full bab with any Weapon Focus (Claw) not applying to the rake attacks (only relevant for the Dire Lion).
Which is neither RAW nor sensible since rakes are usually performed with the back claws, not the front (primary attack) ones.
Not that statblocks are a reliable source most of the time but if they're that consistent about it i concede that it's likely the intended mechanic.

[Darg]

The AB shown in the Rake ability description is usually equal the the AB of the weapon in the statblock minus any specific weapon modifiers like weapon focus. This means if claws are secondary attacks in the statblock then they will have the AB of secondary weapons. If claw attacks are primary weapons they will not have the -5 applied. I think the dire tiger rake ability is just a mistake and should be +19 in the description. There are many such typos in statblocks.

[ciopo]

Tbh I always applied wpn focus(claw) to rakes, too. The description itself says they are extra claws attacks, so why wouldnt wpn focus(claw) apply to it? And for the same reason I'd treat them as primary if the claws were the creature primary.

I don't trust statblocks over the plaintext math/ability description.

One consistently wrong statblock info for example is large or bigger creatures using the damage die of medium size weapons, and then there are outliers like large creature having a bite doing 2d8, like ??? (Dire bear iirc) doesnt even have INA.