D&D 3.5 Rake ability question

[coffeedragon]

Hi all
I'm having trouble figuring out how to calculate the damage bonus on a Rake attack?
I've taken a Fleshrender dinosaur as my animal companion and his BAB and strength have both gone up.

My confusion stems from the entry in the MM3 where it states that his rake attack (for an unmodified FR dinosaur) is +2 and dam 1d6+2
But his BAB is +3 and his strength is 17, so another +3, which should be +6?

On the damage, with a str bonus of +3, I would have thought it would be 1d6 +3, but even if you half the str bonus it should round down for a 1, not a 2?

Furthermore, the entry for Rake in the glossary states Rake ignores the -4 penalty for attacking while grappled...?

I've checked the errata for MM3 but there is nothing for Fleshrender.

Please help!

[Peregrine]

I don't have MM3, but I can say this much: rake attacks are a bit of a mess. They're normally (or just usually?) treated as primary natural weapons for attack bonus, and as claw attacks with half Strength bonus for damage. In MM1 (or rather, in the SRD, since I'll be looking at some epic-section monsters), this holds true for at least the lion, tiger, leopard and sphinxes.

The dire lion's rake is at +12, not +13 like its claws, but that'd be because Weapon Focus (claw) doesn't count for rake attacks (silly if you ask me, but strictly correct). But then look at the golden protector lammasu, who has Weapon Focus (claw) for a +19, and then rakes at... +19! *facepalm*

The griffon's rake is at +8, like its claw attacks, instead of getting the primary natural attack bonus of +10. This is in contrast to, say, the leopard, whose claws are secondary (+1) but who rakes at +6.

The tayellah's rake is pretty much completely unrelated to its claw attack. Probably because it rakes "with legs it normally only uses for walking". Like the griffon, its rake attack bonus is calculated as a secondary natural weapon (without the benefit of its feats). The +15 to damage in the table is pretty clearly a typo; the text states the correct figure of +5.

The legendary tiger has an inexplicable +30 to rake. Perhaps someone forgot its -1 size penalty to attack?

[coffeedragon]

Thanks Peregrine, I was starting to wonder if I was the only one having trouble with this... I suppose I'll just have to hammer out an agreement with my DM