Signature Skill


Pathfinder Society

51 to 79 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Lantern Lodge 5/5

I'm expecting that they disallow the feat and edit the wording because they're game designers, not implicit logicians.

It's clear that they don't want the feat to be legal- -they want the only way to gain the effects of the feat to be via the rogue's edge class ability.

It's arguing like this that gets things banned.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Renegade Paladin wrote:
The Additional Resources page says that the Signature Skill feat is available through the Rogue's Edge class ability (that it is only through that ability is irrelevant to the argument; that still means it is available).
It is incredibly relevant. You cannot claim that you are following the literal wording of whats written when you're removing words from whats written.

No it isn't, because of how sentence structure works in the English language. The fact that it's available through that ability means that it is available through that ability, which is the object of the discussion. No one is arguing that it's available without Rogue's Edge, so the fact that it isn't available without Rogue's Edge doesn't matter to anyone.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
The Rogue's Edge class ability itself does not give Signature Skill. Taken together, those two facts can only mean that if (and only if) you have the Rogue's Edge class ability, you may take Signature Skill.

Or it can mean that the additional resource document is the work of failable human beings and not the lexiconal manifestation of the laws of physics.

It can also mean that the Signature skill feat is NOT available, and they wanted to stress that the rogues edge class feature was though in case someone took the two very similar abilities to be the same thing.

It can also mean that the feat is not available(but may open up on a chronicle)

Yes, it could mean that the document is the work of fallible human beings. That's the point. If this isn't pointed out to them, it will not be fixed; that's why this matters. It's far better that we do this here and get it changed now than a bunch of players do it to their GMs next week and we wind up with a bunch of necessary character rewrites after the eventual clarification. The fact that it calls out skill unlocks and Signature Skill separately is the real kicker here that makes it more than possible to argue that they're referring to both things, not just one and using Signature Skill as shorthand. It's sloppily written, but the literal reading is that Signature Skill is available to characters with Rogue's Edge (and only characters with Rogue's Edge). We can infer a whole bunch of things about what was intended, but none of those are what it says.

Jayson MF Kip wrote:

I'm expecting that they disallow the feat and edit the wording because they're game designers, not implicit logicians.

It's clear that they don't want the feat to be legal- -they want the only way to gain the effects of the feat to be via the rogue's edge class ability.

It's arguing like this that gets things banned.

Well yes, that's the point. I strongly believe that allowing Signature Skill is not what was intended; I'm just not pretending that everything is already fine with the wording to make that happen.

4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Seattle

Mirza of Osirion wrote:

One could assume that Signature Skill was a legal feat because of how its awkwardly worded.

They could have worded it as:
"Skill Unlocks: The Signature Skill feat is not legal for play."

Boom. Done. No discussion needed.

If only. If they did that, I guarantee that some GMs will rule that the Rogue's Edge does not work in PFS because it says right there that it's not legal for play.

As is often the case, the more you try to clarify something, the murkier it becomes. And these writers have to consider those few readers out there who will purposefully stir up the waters to get concealment from the murkiness. I can't say that I envy them in the least.

Scarab Sages

Jayson MF Kip wrote:

I'm expecting that they disallow the feat and edit the wording because they're game designers, not implicit logicians.

It's clear that they don't want the feat to be legal- -they want the only way to gain the effects of the feat to be via the rogue's edge class ability.

It's arguing like this that gets things banned.

and the playerbase is to blame for things getting banned because of awkward/unclear wording within the additional resources when regarding legality?

A simple "Its not legal for PFS play." or "Yes its legal for PFS play." Would clear this matter up with relative ease when regarding the legality of a single feat by an actual developer/designer for Paizo.

Scarab Sages

Dorothy Lindman wrote:
Mirza of Osirion wrote:

One could assume that Signature Skill was a legal feat because of how its awkwardly worded.

They could have worded it as:
"Skill Unlocks: The Signature Skill feat is not legal for play."

Boom. Done. No discussion needed.

If only. If they did that, I guarantee that some GMs will rule that the Rogue's Edge does not work in PFS because it says right there that it's not legal for play.

As is often the case, the more you try to clarify something, the murkier it becomes. And these writers have to consider those few readers out there who will purposefully stir up the waters to get concealment from the murkiness. I can't say that I envy them in the least.

Fair enough. The original wording is also quiet murky to begin with as it also fails to mention the Cutting Edge advanced talent which directly opens up more Skill Unlocks for play.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dorothy Lindman wrote:
Mirza of Osirion wrote:

One could assume that Signature Skill was a legal feat because of how its awkwardly worded.

They could have worded it as:
"Skill Unlocks: The Signature Skill feat is not legal for play."

Boom. Done. No discussion needed.

If only. If they did that, I guarantee that some GMs will rule that the Rogue's Edge does not work in PFS because it says right there that it's not legal for play.

As is often the case, the more you try to clarify something, the murkier it becomes. And these writers have to consider those few readers out there who will purposefully stir up the waters to get concealment from the murkiness. I can't say that I envy them in the least.

If they did that and some GMs ruled that way then those GMs would be patently and obviously wrong because, as is the crux of the entire issue, Rogue's Edge is not Signature Skill and does not grant Signature Skill. There's nothing murky about it; the wording of the ability is crystal clear and doesn't mention Signature Skill at all. Wording Additional Resources as follows:

"Skill Unlocks: the skill unlocks are only available through the rogue's edge class ability."

Would work just fine and not allow any leeway to interpret Rogue's Edge as banned. It would also by default ban Signature Skill, but you could add "The Signature Skill feat is not legal for play," as a second sentence to eliminate any possibility of misinterpreting it. As worded currently the rule also bans Cutting Edge by default; I'm not sure if that's the intent or not but I assume no since the blog says that the talents and advanced talents presented in Pathfinder Unchained or mentioned in the sidebar (and only those) are legal for the Unchained rogue. Wording it this way:

"Skill Unlocks: the skill unlocks are only available through the rogue's edge class ability and Cutting Edge advanced talent. The Signature Skill feat is not legal for play."

Would clear this all up and not allow any reasonable room for error.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

At this point until it's clarified, it seems kinda pointless to go round and round and round in circles arguing what the meaning is.

-j

Silver Crusade 1/5 Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Wu wrote:

At this point until it's clarified, it seems kinda pointless to go round and round and round in circles arguing what the meaning is.

-j

You do know which Internet we're on, right? :P


Kalindlara wrote:
Jason Wu wrote:

At this point until it's clarified, it seems kinda pointless to go round and round and round in circles arguing what the meaning is.

-j

You do know which Internet we're on, right? :P

Right you are.

Carry on!

-j

5/5 5/55/55/5

Jason Wu wrote:

At this point until it's clarified, it seems kinda pointless to go round and round and round in circles arguing what the meaning is.

-j

But.. just one more time around I'll get my tail this time...

Silver Crusade 1/5 Contributor

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jason Wu wrote:

At this point until it's clarified, it seems kinda pointless to go round and round and round in circles arguing what the meaning is.

-j

But.. just one more time around I'll get my tail this time...

Well, they did clarify that one...

4/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Has anyone clicked the "FAQ" button on the first post besides me? I would like this answered, but we should probably tell Paizo we'd like in answered.

5/5 5/55/55/5

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

The original question is a little vague.

Can Link, the core rulebook rogue take the feat? (seems pretty clear no)

Can Biscotti, Fighter 4 Unchained Rogue 1 take the feat?

Can Skillmazo Unchained Rogue 5, take the feat so that he has the skill unlock in both Intimidate (from the feat) and Diplomacy (from the rogues edge talent)?

Liberty's Edge 3/5 *

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Has anyone clicked the "FAQ" button on the first post besides me? I would like this answered, but we should probably tell Paizo we'd like in answered.

I had marked this post because I thought it asked the question in a more thorough manner.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s8p1?Signature-Skill#28

Sovereign Court 5/5 *

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Michael Hallet wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Has anyone clicked the "FAQ" button on the first post besides me? I would like this answered, but we should probably tell Paizo we'd like in answered.

I had marked this post because I thought it asked the question in a more thorough manner.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s8p1?Signature-Skill#28

Linked

4/5

has this been clarified? I have a level 10 character with three levels of rogue (which I am planning on rebuilding as unchained rogue) - he is a skill monkey so has a TON of skills with over 5 ranks in them - so Signature Skill is a very tempting feat for him (though there are other options - tempted by either Spellcraft or Sense Motive though there are other good choices.

Silver Crusade

Rycaut wrote:
has this been clarified? I have a level 10 character with three levels of rogue (which I am planning on rebuilding as unchained rogue) - he is a skill monkey so has a TON of skills with over 5 ranks in them - so Signature Skill is a very tempting feat for him (though there are other options - tempted by either Spellcraft or Sense Motive though there are other good choices.

It has not been; the wording in Additional Resources is still exactly the same as it was when this thread was posted.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Huh, it reads prety straight forward to me. If you have the rogues edge class feature, then you can take the feat to get a second skill unlock. It's effectively a feat like all the "extra" feats (extra grit, extra lay on hands etc), you need the class feature already to qualify.

4/5

I personally would have preferred to be able to take it for my multi-classed characters who are Rogues (Unchained) but not yet level 5 though I can see why the campaign may want to require level 5 rogue (unchained) before taking it - though I don't think too many of the 5 rank or even 10 rank skill unlocks are too game breaking in the PFS campaign (many aren't things that happen in too many PFS scenarios)

Though combining the Stealth skill unlocks with a class/prestige class that grants the "hide in plain sight" ability is pretty potent.

Dark Archive 1/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:

It makes sense if you don't try to squint at it too hard.

Its only available once, to 5th level unchained rogues.

I think, but I could be wrong, that the Rogues Edge class ability grants the signature skill feat as a bonus feat in order to give the skill unlock. Which means an unchained rogue. Only way the wording of the AR makes sense to me. Since skill unlocks require the signature skill feat, but only unchained rogues get skill unlocks and that feat via rogue's edge...

Silver Crusade

Daniel Myhre wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

It makes sense if you don't try to squint at it too hard.

Its only available once, to 5th level unchained rogues.

I think, but I could be wrong, that the Rogues Edge class ability grants the signature skill feat as a bonus feat in order to give the skill unlock. Which means an unchained rogue. Only way the wording of the AR makes sense to me. Since skill unlocks require the signature skill feat, but only unchained rogues get skill unlocks and that feat via rogue's edge...

You are wrong; the Rogue's Edge class ability does not grant Signature Skill as a bonus feat. It simply allows an unchained rogue to select a skill unlock. Which is why the Additional Resources wording doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

4/5

nope.

Rogues edge doesn't grant Signature Skill - they are two very different things. Signature Skill specifically notes that it will stack with Rogues Edge and with the rogue talent that will give additional skill unlocks however Rogue's Edge doesn't grant any feats - it just grants one skill unlock at level 5 (for however many ranks you have in that skill) and then an additional skill unlocked at level 10, 15 and 20.

Signature Skill grants a single skill unlock and exists as a feat for a game where anyone could have a skill unlock (but they aren't automatic). In PFS it is unclear what the intent is as the current language is ambiguous. The baseline rule is that only unchained rogues will have Skill Unlocks in PFS - however it is less clear if there is also a "5 levels of unchained rogue" rule as well (so a multiclassed unchained rogue would need to have 5 levels before they could unlock any skills even if they have skills with 5 ranks before they have 5 levels in the rogue class.

1/5

I see the vervage never changed. Was there ever an official response on this elsewhere? Or did everyone just decide to go with "only Unchained Rogue 5 gets access to the feat" answer?

Liberty's Edge 3/5 *

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
zook1shoe wrote:
I see the vervage never changed. Was there ever an official response on this elsewhere? Or did everyone just decide to go with "only Unchained Rogue 5 gets access to the feat" answer?

I think it is more likely that in the absence of an official ruling, people are choosing to use the most restrictive reading, this way problems are avoided that could occur when someone shows up to a table with a PC with 1 level of unchained rogue that took the Signature Skill feat and the GM declares that feat is not legal for the PC. At which point the player either has to play the PC without the feat and its benefits (and no, they do not get to select a temporary replacement), play a different PC, play a pre-gen (if possible), or don't play.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Only unchained rogue.

Only level 5

Only as granted by the unchained rogue class.

1/5

Figured, thx

Silver Crusade

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Only unchained rogue.

Only level 5

Only as granted by the unchained rogue class.

The third clause is the entire sticking point, because the feat is not granted by the unchained rogue class in any way, shape, or form.

This really does need to be either answered or changed in Additional Resources.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Renegade Paladin wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Only unchained rogue.

Only level 5

Only as granted by the unchained rogue class.

The third clause is the entire sticking point, because the feat is not granted by the unchained rogue class in any way, shape, or form.

This really does need to be either answered or changed in Additional Resources.

1) whats with the thread necro

2) 5th +3 +1 +4 +1 Rogue's edge, sneak attack +3d6

Rogue's Edge (Ex): At 5th level, a rogue has mastered a single skill beyond that skill's normal boundaries, gaining results that others can only dream about. She gains the skill unlock powers for that skill as appropriate for her number of ranks in that skill. At 10th, 15th, and 20th levels, she chooses an additional skill and gains skill unlock powers for that skill as well.

Pedantic hairsplitting on the non existant difference between the skill unlock or the signature skill feat which gives you the skill unlocks is not helpful or productive. There is no difference between the two. if you want to shout "WRONG" you need to expound on that and say how it matters.

Silver Crusade

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Renegade Paladin wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Only unchained rogue.

Only level 5

Only as granted by the unchained rogue class.

The third clause is the entire sticking point, because the feat is not granted by the unchained rogue class in any way, shape, or form.

This really does need to be either answered or changed in Additional Resources.

1) whats with the thread necro

2) 5th +3 +1 +4 +1 Rogue's edge, sneak attack +3d6

Rogue's Edge (Ex): At 5th level, a rogue has mastered a single skill beyond that skill's normal boundaries, gaining results that others can only dream about. She gains the skill unlock powers for that skill as appropriate for her number of ranks in that skill. At 10th, 15th, and 20th levels, she chooses an additional skill and gains skill unlock powers for that skill as well.

Pedantic hairsplitting on the non existant difference between the skill unlock or the signature skill feat which gives you the skill unlocks is not helpful or productive. There is no difference between the two. if you want to shout "WRONG" you need to expound on that and say how it matters.

For the first, I notice you didn't question zook1shoe when he did it the first time, and I did it because Additional Resources still has the apparently contradictory wording that sparked this whole thing in the first place.

For the second, the difference absolutely is existent. I explained why extensively already, but I'll explain again. Compare the wording of Rogue's Edge to that of Finesse Training. Notice that the latter says, "At 1st level, a rogue gains Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat," while the former does not say that "At 5th level, a rogue gains Signature Skill as a bonus feat," nor does it say that the rogue gains Signature Skill as a bonus feat at 10th, 15th, or 20th when it gets additional skill unlocks.

This is important to the system, because it means that the rogue does not have Signature Skill for the purpose of things that reference Signature Skill, such as feat or prestige class requirements, without taking the feat in the normal way. Additional Resources saying that Signature Skill is only available through Rogue's Edge and furthermore explicitly calling out Rogue's Edge's skill unlocks as separate from Signature Skill, therefore, can only mean one thing, though I don't believe that one thing is intended since permitting Signature Skill with the additional prerequisite of the rogue's edge class ability could be so much more clearly worded. It also awkwardly leaves the Cutting Edge advanced talent out in the cold, since it is not on the list of things that allow skill unlocks, yet it isn't explicitly banned either. Cleaning this up would take about five minutes, in something like this manner: "Skill Unlocks: the skill unlocks are only available through the rogue's edge class ability and Cutting Edge advanced rogue talent. The Signature Skill feat is not legal for play."

So I would thank you to not characterize me as shouting "WRONG" at you, since I have repeatedly laid out precisely why I believe this is poor wording and have done so calmly every time.

51 to 79 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Signature Skill All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society