James Jacobs- Big Game Hunter & Favored Enemies

[Watcher]

James,

Big Game Hunter was one of the bonus feats from the Runelord's Players Guide:

Spoiler:

Big Game Hunter: You are experienced in fighting the gigantic creatures that stalk Varisia’s landscape.
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on attack rolls and a +2 bonus on weapon damage rolls against Large or larger creatures.

As a GM would you allow these bonuses to stack with a Ranger's Favored Enemies Bonus?

I don't want to punish a player for intelligent character design, but this a campaign where those old player's guide bonus feats were allowed prior to full conversion to the PF Core. I'm concerned about the bonuses stacking up too high and being an unbalancing factor. Especialy at high levels where the bonus against a favored enemy (i.e. the bonus against Giants becomes +7 to and +9 on damage on single unmodified arrow from a non-magical bow).

Thanks!

[Evil Lincoln]

I am RPing James Jacobs:

"Yes."

[Kharis2000]

Personally, I'd say 'yes' as well (and I'm not role-playing and/or channeling Mr. Jacobs).

To get to that point without the feat, a ranger wouldn't need to be insanely high in level anyway. At 5th level they could be +4/+4 on a favored enemy, and with Deadly Aim -2/+4. With a DEX of 18, they'd be +6/+8 on each arrow at that point, +7/+9 with Point Blank Shot if they're within 30 feet, and +5/+9 with Rapid Shot for 2 arrows per round

At that point, another +1/+2 really isn't that big a deal.

[gigglestick]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

I am RPing James Jacobs:

"Yes."

I can't imagine why it wouldn't. (BTW- somewhere on one of these threads, someone did a redo turning all of the ROTR Background Feats into Traits.)

Anyway, its a good character concept and not all that much of a bonus...and if they're fighting large creatures, they may need it.

[Watcher]

Thanks for the replies folks, but I'm still hoping James will reply. Bumping to keep it visible.

[Tangible Delusions]

Watcher wrote:

Thanks for the replies folks, but I'm still hoping James will reply. Bumping to keep it visible.

I know you are waiting for James to answer it, but consider this a bump at least.

I am running the AP and so far it hasn't been an issue having these bonuses stack. In fact after nearly half the AP before their Half-feat/trait kicked in as well as their favored enemy, it is a nice extra bonus for them and their patience.

[Watcher]

Tangible Delusions wrote:

Watcher wrote:

Thanks for the replies folks, but I'm still hoping James will reply. Bumping to keep it visible.

I know you are waiting for James to answer it, but consider this a bump at least.

I am running the AP and so far it hasn't been an issue having these bonuses stack. In fact after nearly half the AP before their Half-feat/trait kicked in as well as their favored enemy, it is a nice extra bonus for them and their patience.

I appreciate the feedback! I'm mostly just curious what James will say, but I don't harbor any thoughts that he's going to disagree with everyone else.

I have a ranger in my party, though, who can go through a stone giant in one round with only a little luck needed. He's a dedicated archery ranger, composite bow, with his all feats going back into archery. He did get a giantbane property added to his bow which is accounting for a lot of it.. But with Rapid Shot, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Deadly Aim, etc, etc,.. Yikes.

I can't really say he's a munchkin. He came by everything fairly.

With some reflection, however, I do see that a previous poster had a good point. I'm not sure taking away Big Game Hunter is going to make any difference; so why do it? Probably just as well to leave it as it is.

[Twowlves]

I had a PC in my last campaign that was just like what you describe, only without the BGH feat. Trust me, when the machine gun is firing, +1/+2 doesn't break anything. In fact, I have a hard time seeing how a lot of parties survive the last half of this AP without every little +1/+2 they can get!

[James Jacobs]

The bonuses granted from Big Game Hunter are untyped. They'd stack with anything and everything, including those granted by favored enemy.

The theory behind the Big Game Hunter feat is that big monsters tend to have a LOT of hit points, so letting a character inflict a couple extra points per hit, or get in an extra hit about 5% of the time is by no means game breaking. It's only when you stack a bazillion of these types of bonuses together that it gets bad.

If/when we reprint Big Game Hunter, I suspect that we'll give the attack and damage bonus a type, but I suspect that it'll still stack with favored enemy bonuses. It is, after all, a great feat for a ranger, both mechanically and thematically.

[galvatron42]

I am currently playing a dwarven ranger in our Runelords game. I did not take the big game hunter feat, but I can say that even without it, I am still taking out giants in 1 round. I made the character with the idea of being a giant killer, so have really taken alot of steps towards that end. I am a dedicated archer with all my feats going into that. I also added the Bane (giant) abilty and the hunting ability to my composite longbow. My character build has worked perfectly. A little too good I'm starting to think. I'm afraid my giant killer is taking some of the fun out for the other players. I have sometimes quit using my bow and gone in to melee with my axe, with which I am slightly better than the cleric. I have even considered making a new character and having Dolgrin return to Sandpoint to guard from future goblin raids. My point is, if you have a player that has the idea of being some anti-giant machine gun, there are alot of ways he can go about it, and when he does, it is going to be nasty. Another +1 or +2 is not going to break anything. To be clear, we are only in the 3rd book of the AP. I don't know how much longer giants are in the AP, but if it is just a little while, then the ranger will have his fun, live out his initial concept, and continue the AP with no more real advantage than any other party member.

[Watcher]

Thanks for the replies folks!

And to create a new tradition on the boards, now that James has given his opinion, I'm not going to argue with it. :D

Actually, I'm not going to argue with anybody. I agree with the consensus opinion that +1/+2 isn't going to make any difference.

Let me tell you about last night. Chapter Four Spoilers!

Spoiler:

They went into the Black Tower and confronted the Black Monk. Amazingly the poor ranger couldn't make (what for him should have been) an easy acrobatics roll to remain standing on the ice. When he finally stood as a move action, he shot off one arrow, which got batted down by the Monk's Deflect Arrows feat. The party had a tough fight but everyone lived. However the poor ranger ended up contributing practically nothing. This reminded me that circumstance plays a big part of these moments of superior advantage.

So you convinced me. Thanks for being a sounding board!

galvatron42 wrote:

To be clear, we are only in the 3rd book of the AP. I don't know how much longer giants are in the AP, but if it is just a little while, then the ranger will have his fun, live out his initial concept, and continue the AP with no more real advantage than any other party member.

Without elaborating on the adventure, this particularly is a point well taken.

EDIT: Ninja'd by the Dark Lord of the Stovepipe Hat

[Evil Lincoln]

Galvatron, there's more to this AP than giants, so I think it will balance out. Enjoy your rather long run of superiority.

[Majuba]

Watcher wrote:

As a GM would you allow these bonuses to stack with a Ranger's Favored Enemies Bonus?

I don't want to punish a player for intelligent character design, but this a campaign where those old player's guide bonus feats were allowed prior to full conversion to the PF Core.

I've got a ranger (melee) with Big Game Hunter and favored enemy (+4), and it makes a difference as every bonus does, but no reason not to stack it. The same bonuses existed in 3.5 as well.

No Giantbane yet though (whew) - though has Holy - big undead (also +4) be very afraid!

[SirUrza]

James Jacobs wrote:

If/when we reprint Big Game Hunter, I suspect that we'll give the attack and damage bonus a type, but I suspect that it'll still stack with favored enemy bonuses. It is, after all, a great feat for a ranger, both mechanically and thematically.

Will it come with a plastic red-orange rifle? :)

[The Grandfather]

galvatron42 wrote:

... I have even considered making a new character and having Dolgrin return to Sandpoint to guard from future goblin raids...

Dolgrin Twinaxe:

Funny coincidence: In order to throw in some story elements for the dwarven fighter and dwarven cleric in my paty I changed Vale Tempos for a dwaren ranger called Dolgrin. Basically he was built as Vale but was just a dwarf in stead. I.e. a dwarven fighter/ranger fighting with twin axes - hence the name Dolgrin Twinaxe

Our Dolgrin, who was meant to become a cohort for the party's cleric, met an untimely end at the hands of Jaagrath Kreek while trying to protect the party's spellcasters from him... No PC would have survived Jaagrath's critical hit with power attack and vital strike (18d6+66=avg. 129hp).
He did not give his life in vain.

[Devastation Bob]

As long as it stacks with Large Target.