Question about Skill Mastery with an Unchained Rogue

[Paul Griffith]

First off here is the text for Skill Mastery from Pathfinder Unchained;
Skill Mastery: The rogue becomes so confident in the use of certain skills that she can use them reliably even under adverse conditions. The rogue selects a number of skills equal to her Intelligence modifier. When making a skill check with one of the selected skills (or any of the skills selected through the rogue's edge class feature), she can take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so. A rogue can gain this special ability multiple times, selecting additional skills for skill mastery to apply to each time.

My question here is are any skills not allowed to be selected? I mean I know that some skills you can not take 10s on. My current Rogue that I am running in our Reign of Winter game just leveled up and I am considering taking Skill Mastery because well it sounds awesome. Not to mention I have selected with Rogue's Edge; Acrobatics and Knowledge, and I could select another 5 which I could take 10, but can I take 10 on a Knowledge check or Use Magic Device with this Talent? I know Use magic Device says you can not take a 10 in it's description, and Knowledge I really can not find a definitive you can or cannot take a 10 on it ruling by searching the skill. But does this Talent circumvent the no taking a 10 on certain skills like Use Magic Device? Sorry if I have just missed something obvious, and thanks for any help you can provide. Hope you all have a wonderful day and happy gaming to you all.

[Jeff Merola]

Yes on Knowledge. Expect Table Variation on UMD.

[Faelyn]

I would say that it does not overrule any limitations on specific skills regarding 'Taking 10', if said skill has wording indicating limitations. It does, however, allow you to 'Take 10' in combat, which is pretty awesome. Need to make an easy Climb/Acrobatics check that you can make by Taking 10 and you're in combat... don't worry!

In regards to the Knowledge skills... I am inclined to say that it would not allow you to 'Take 10', but I would suggest speaking to your GM about possibly allowing it.

[Jeff Merola]

Faelyn wrote:

In regards to the Knowledge skills... I am inclined to say that it would not allow you to 'Take 10', but I would suggest speaking to your GM about possibly allowing it.

Might want to read my link.

[Claxon]

You can absolutely take 10 of knowledge checks with it. You can take 10 on them outside of combat in the first place, Skill Mastery simply allows you to do it in combat.

As for UMD, no you cannot use Skill Mastery with it. UMD has a restriction in it's description that it simply cannot be used with take 10. It is not that stress and distractions prevent the otherwise normal use of take 10 with UMD, it's that take 10 simply isn't allowed with UMD because the rules say so.

But pretty much anything else is fair game to use with Skill Mastery. Using it with Stealth might not be bad since you could build for a strong stealth skill, this prevents a bad roll from getting you caught. It basically becomes necessary for someone to have an incredibly good perception check to notice you are there.

[Archaeik]

I'd say no to UMD, because the base restriction has nothing to do with "stress of distractions", you simply can't.

Also, peripheral evidence suggests you need UMD called out expressly to change this.

Adept Activation (Ex): wrote:

A Pathfinder savant can always take 10 on Use Magic Device checks, except when activating an item blindly.

[Faelyn]

Jeff Merola wrote:

Faelyn wrote:

In regards to the Knowledge skills... I am inclined to say that it would not allow you to 'Take 10', but I would suggest speaking to your GM about possibly allowing it.

Might want to read my link.

Just did! Thanks for linking that Jeff! I was thinking you could do it, but then read over the Bard's ability and it made me rethink my initial opinion on it. Glad to know my first thought was correct!

[Paul Griffith]

Thank you so much everyone. I am so happy y'all could confirm all this information for me. I think I will still take Skill Mastery even though I can not do UMD with it, I already have a +18 with that skill so as long as I do not roll a 1 I can activate any wand I want which is the main reason I use it. Anyway, Thanks again everyone you have all been a big help. Hope you all have a wonderful day and happy gaming.

[Brandenfascher]

Apologies for necroing a semi-old thread, but after (quite a bit of) researching this I am very certain UMD is usable with Skill Mastery. It appears as if the "even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so" is very misleading to most, the crux of it due to a broad misunderstanding of the logic behind "even if" (Another apology for introducing English grammatics):

Here's the English logical operative meanings of "Even If", where "She may take 10" = {B}, and "stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so" = {A}.

Even if {A}, {B}:

1 - If {A} happens, {B} will still happen.
2 - Whether or not {A} happens, {B} will still happen.
3 - {B} is true, regardless of {A}

It seems most people read it by #1, which gives the appearance that the Skill Mastery use only gives new ability where {A} is true:

-If "stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so", "She may take 10" will still happen.

However, that is only half of what even if means. Following the meaning of #2 it would read as follows:

-Whether or not "stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so", "She may take 10" will still happen.

Following the meaning of #3, it would read as follows:

-"She may take 10" is true, regardless of "stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so"

#2 and #3 state that {B} is true regardless of whatever {A} is. {A} is just a side note that pretty much says "Yes, you can also take ten when stress and distractions would normally prevent it." Because {B} is its own clause, and the even if statement prevents it from being restricted in any way by clause {A}, this means I can also say just {B}, and it would be true:

-"She may take 10."

Or, in fuller context:

-"When making a skill check with one of these skills, she may take 10."

If it is supposed to be worded to mean otherwise, it should have been worded like this:

"When making a skill check with one of these skills, she may take 10 when stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so."

[kinevon]

No, you cannot take 10 with UMD unless you already have a class feature or other ability that bypasses UMD's "You CANNOT take 10 with UMD." clause.

As a GM, you could allow it at your home game. As a player, you could ask your GM. Otherwise, no.

Skill Mastery wrote:

The rogue becomes so confident in the use of certain skills that she can use them reliably even under adverse conditions. The rogue selects a number of skills equal to her Intelligence modifier. When making a skill check with one of the selected skills (or any of the skills selected through the rogue’s edge class feature), she can take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so. A rogue can gain this special ability multiple times, selecting additional skills for skill mastery to apply to each time.

Special wrote:

You cannot take 10 with this skill.

You cannot take 10 with this skill.

[Brandenfascher]

kinevon wrote:

No, you cannot take 10 with UMD unless you already have a class feature or other ability that bypasses UMD's "You CANNOT take 10 with UMD." clause.

As a GM, you could allow it at your home game. As a player, you could ask your GM. Otherwise, no.

Skill Mastery wrote:

The rogue becomes so confident in the use of certain skills that she can use them reliably even under adverse conditions. The rogue selects a number of skills equal to her Intelligence modifier. When making a skill check with one of the selected skills (or any of the skills selected through the rogue’s edge class feature), she can take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so. A rogue can gain this special ability multiple times, selecting additional skills for skill mastery to apply to each time.

Special wrote:

You cannot take 10 with this skill.

You cannot take 10 with this skill.

I do understand that UMD states the restriction, but how did you determine what is the official wordage that an ability would need to bypass that, if at all?

On one hand, the Bard's 19th level ability from Jack of All Trades explicitly states that she can take ten "even if it is not normally allowed".

As well as that, we have Arcane Savant Prestige class which grants at first level that "An arcane savant can always take 10 on Use Magic Device checks, except when activating an item blindly."

On the other hand, the mythic trickster's Unwavering Skill (Ex) explicitly states "You can always take 10 or 20 on class skills, even if threatened or in a hazardous situation", but also that "You can't use this ability with skill checks that don't normally allow you to take 10 or take 20."

On the third hand, we have Skill Mastery which does not specify either way, and does nothing of the sort to warn the player/GM in any way that it won't overcome UMD's requirement or not.

And finally, on the fourth disembodied hand, 3.5's warlock has syntax almost precisely the same as Skill Mastery that allows taking 10 with UMD. Comparing the two (bold and italics for emphasis):

"Deceive Item (Ex): At 4th level and higher, a warlock has the ability to more easily commandeer magic items made for the use of other characters. When making a Use Magic Device check, a warlock can take 10 even if distracted or threatened."

"Skill Mastery: The rogue becomes so confident in the use of certain skills that she can use them reliably even under adverse conditions. Upon gaining this ability, she selects a number of skills equal to 3 + her Intelligence modifier. When making a skill check with one of these skills, she may take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so."

I know we aren't discussing 3.5 rules here, but I am comparing a nearly exact syntax that, English language's faults granted, should apply to both cases equally. If the phrasing for Skill Mastery indeed does not bypass restriction to allow taking 10 on UMD, then it definitely wouldn't allow it for the 3.5 warlock, which would have made it a pointless, self-defeating ability for the warlock. The only reason we wouldn't naturally think of it that way is that the Warlock ability specifies UMD as the only skill it is designed for. Skill Mastery's wordage apparently allows any skills to be picked without restriction, which should mean UMD is on the table, whether it actually works with UMD or not.

So that's where I'm coming from. I would put my opinion that by RAW it allows taking 10, but as I find it's generally not all very consistent overall, I find it's difficult to say either way. Ultimately, if it really were to prevent Skill Mastery being useful with UMD, it would have been better worded to be similar to the Mythic Trickster's Unwavering Skill.

[dragonhunterq]

The key difference is that warlock is specifically referring to UMD so automatically also addresses the restriction, it over-rides that restriction. Skill mastery is talking about all skills in general so doesn't specifically address the restriction in UMD. It would need to specifically address the restriction to overcome it.

[Brandenfascher]

Well, ok then. I suppose if that's how it works, then that's how it is. But where can I find the rule of "specific overrules general"? I've never spotted this in the core rules or anywhere else, unless I've overlooked it.

[Snowblind]

Brandenfascher wrote:

Well, ok then. I suppose if that's how it works, then that's how it is. But where can I find the rule of "specific overrules general"? I've never spotted this in the core rules or anywhere else, unless I've overlooked it.

You won't find it in the PF ruleset, because it isn't spelled out. The concept was explicitly stated in 3.5, and it is assumed that Pathfinder works the same since the rules literally don't function otherwise. Seriously. The concept of having a general rule that is overridden by specific rules elements (aka an exception based ruleset) is seen throughout the PF RPG. As far as I know, attempting to apply any other paradigm to the ruleset results in the rule being completely broken, because so many parts of PF contradict each other (which specific-beats-general resolves by treating those contradictions as exceptions).

[Brandenfascher]

Snowblind wrote:

Brandenfascher wrote:

Well, ok then. I suppose if that's how it works, then that's how it is. But where can I find the rule of "specific overrules general"? I've never spotted this in the core rules or anywhere else, unless I've overlooked it.

You won't find it in the PF ruleset, because it isn't spelled out. The concept was explicitly stated in 3.5, and it is assumed that Pathfinder works the same since the rules literally don't function otherwise. Seriously. The concept of having a general rule that is overridden by specific rules elements (aka an exception based ruleset) is seen throughout the PF RPG. As far as I know, attempting to apply any other paradigm to the ruleset results in the rule being completely broken, because so many parts of PF contradict each other (which specific-beats-general resolves by treating those contradictions as exceptions).

Ah. Well, that's good to know, but it's a bit disconcerting to someone like me who touched 3.5 and past editions minimally or not at all, and has been using Pathfinder for a good while now. Are there any other unwritten rules I should be wary about?

[Snowblind]

Brandenfascher wrote:

Snowblind wrote:

Brandenfascher wrote:

Well, ok then. I suppose if that's how it works, then that's how it is. But where can I find the rule of "specific overrules general"? I've never spotted this in the core rules or anywhere else, unless I've overlooked it.

You won't find it in the PF ruleset, because it isn't spelled out. The concept was explicitly stated in 3.5, and it is assumed that Pathfinder works the same since the rules literally don't function otherwise. Seriously. The concept of having a general rule that is overridden by specific rules elements (aka an exception based ruleset) is seen throughout the PF RPG. As far as I know, attempting to apply any other paradigm to the ruleset results in the rule being completely broken, because so many parts of PF contradict each other (which specific-beats-general resolves by treating those contradictions as exceptions).

Ah. Well, that's good to know, but it's a bit disconcerting to someone like me who touched 3.5 and past editions minimally or not at all, and has been using Pathfinder for a good while now. Are there any other unwritten rules I should be wary about?

There is the whole "Hands of Effort" unwritten rules thing, but that is very much a Pathfinder problem, not something inherited from 3.5.

For some reason Pathfinder lacks rules for how to handle burrow. You have to refer to the 3.5 rules.

Since Pathfinder lacks anything resembling comprehensive rules for Illusions, you will sometimes see people referring to the 3.5 "All about Illusions" articles, which give a much more in depth explanation for how to adjudicate things like disbelief (which makes up for 3.5's lack of comprehensive illusion rules).

As far as I can remember, that's about it.

[Brandenfascher]

Snowblind wrote:

There is the whole "Hands of Effort" unwritten rules thing, but that is very much a Pathfinder problem, not something inherited from 3.5.

For some reason Pathfinder lacks rules for how to handle burrow. You have to refer to the 3.5 rules.

Since Pathfinder lacks anything resembling comprehensive rules for Illusions, you will sometimes see people referring to the 3.5 "All about Illusions" articles, which give a much more in depth explanation for how to adjudicate things like disbelief (which makes up for 3.5's lack of comprehensive illusion rules).

As far as I can remember, that's about it.

Great, thanks! I'll have to remember the illusions and disbelief too. I've been waffling on how to treat that kind of animal. However, I did find the burrow rules when searching the d20pfsrd a few months ago for an encounter I was preparing. It seems to indicate that it's part of the Universal Monster Rules. Maybe it was a very recent errata that it was added in.

EDIT: Hah, I totally failed to notice the note stating that burrow rules were not included in the Pathfinder rules. I guess it never was added as you said. Strange.