Bump/Necro? I'm confused too.
Quoting from the RotR Anniversary Player's Guide, p.4:
"You gain a +1 trait bonus on Bluff, Perception, and Sense Motive checks and +1 trait bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls against creatures of the giant subtype."
So all that is against the giant subtype?
Bah I wish they took out the first "and" before sense motive to make the list look more natural. Really confused me thinking there's to parts with the second "and".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be far too strong as a trait if it was universal. Also thematically inappropriate.
Hmmm, upon reflection I can see how the sentence might be confusing and yes the first "and" is redundant. In the author's defense, however, I would suggest the background (or fluff if you prefer) for the trait doesn't justify a bonus to anything but "giant" interactions. Dragonhunterq's point about power level or balance issues is also on point. My inference was the trait provided a minor version of the ranger class bonus against Giants so the clumsy grammar didn't hinder me.
Read literally, it gives a skill bonus that is universal and a combat bonus that is against Giants. That's RAW, but it may not be RAI.
Many GMs will house rule that so all of it only applies to Giants; but I'd be fine with it as written. Talk to your group and GM to make a decision for your table.
Ah good. I'm mostly happy my reading comprehension isn't completely terrible and other folks got where my confusion came form.
It's a single sentence, so the "against creatures of the giant subtype" clause applies to the entire sentence. If it were written as two sentences (or a semicolon was inserted after Sense Motive) then only the later bonuses would be limited.
But even if it were vague, the fact that a flat +1 to three skills plus a bonus to hit and damage an entire subtype would be stronger than many feats, never mind every other skill trait would mean that the intent is obviously not to grant an unrestricted bonus to three skills.
(Both "and"s are needed as well. The first "and" is part of the list of skill bonuses. The second "and" is grouping the skill bonuses and the combat bonuses.)
It's a single sentence, so the "against creatures of the giant subtype" clause applies to the entire sentence. If it were written as two sentences (or a semicolon was inserted after Sense Motive) then only the later bonuses would be limited.
Technically no, the word "and" can separate a sentence into two separate clauses.
This is one of those situations where the Oxford Comma (and getting rid of the superfluous "and") would have really clarified things.
From a GM perspectiev though, most traits grant a +1 bonus to one skill which is also then in class. Getting a +1 to three skills plus a +1 to hit and damage to giants would way more powerful than most traits. So I definitely think the intent is to grant those bonuses only when interacting with giants.
No argument here that it'd be too crazy strong for universal situation skill bonuses. But I had a RAW argument before in the past with fellow player and figured I'd finally poll the forums for opinions.
It's just giants. Read it as basically granting 1/2 of a normal favored enemy bonus vs humanoid (giant).
It's a single sentence, so the "against creatures of the giant subtype" clause applies to the entire sentence. If it were written as two sentences (or a semicolon was inserted after Sense Motive) then only the later bonuses would be limited.
But even if it were vague, the fact that a flat +1 to three skills plus a bonus to hit and damage an entire subtype would be stronger than many feats, never mind every other skill trait would mean that the intent is obviously not to grant an unrestricted bonus to three skills.
(Both "and"s are needed as well. The first "and" is part of the list of skill bonuses. The second "and" is grouping the skill bonuses and the combat bonuses.)
It is a campaign trait we're talking about, and those can sometimes be very powerful, depending on the AP. A good judge to see where the power level of this trait lies is to look at the power level for the other traits in this AP.
Based on the other traits in this AP, I would have to agree that a flat bonus to three skills is too powerful. RAI is most likely for the bonus to only apply vs Giants.
Big Game Hunter is a feat from the 3.5 version that was not reprinted in the Anniversary PG, which I think you can take as an indication that BGH should no longer be available. The initial version of RotR predates the trait system and I think the campaign traits are intended to replace those early feats. (Most of them are actually too weak for a feat, but BGH applies to way too many creatures in the game and I'd peg it as too strong by itself.)
It's a single sentence, so the "against creatures of the giant subtype" clause applies to the entire sentence. If it were written as two sentences (or a semicolon was inserted after Sense Motive) then only the later bonuses would be limited.
Exactly.
Big Game Hunter is a feat from the 3.5 version that was not reprinted in the Anniversary PG, which I think you can take as an indication that BGH should no longer be available. The initial version of RotR predates the trait system and I think the campaign traits are intended to replace those early feats. (Most of them are actually too weak for a feat, but BGH applies to way too many creatures in the game and I'd peg it as too strong by itself.)
I re-wrote the Big Game Hunter feat for my home game...
Big Game Hunter (Combat)
You are experienced in fighting the gigantic creatures that stalk the countryside.
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on attack rolls and +2 bonus on damage rolls against opponents of size Large or larger of the following creature types: Animal, Dragon, Magical Beast, Vermin.
...mainly because those are the only creatures types that I would consider to be "game."