Inventor Dedication errata candidate or intended omission?

[Baarogue]

I was going over Inventor Dedication and noticed it lacks language common to every other MC Dedication that grants a skill (aside from Animist, whose "granted" skills are gained from which spirit they're bonded to each day - they don't gain a permanently trained skill like other MC Dedications which grant skills)

"You become trained in [x skill(s)]; if you were already trained in [x skill(s)], you become trained in a skill(or skills) of your choice."

Instead Inventor simply states, "You become trained in Crafting and inventor class DC." and then continues on to the Inventor skill feat and the rest of the Dedication's features. The legacy printing had this same omission and I don't recall it getting errata'd, so perhaps it IS intended or maybe simply overlooked this entire time

Due to the precedent of literally all the other MCDs with granted skills giving "a skill of your choice" I plan to run it the same as them, but thought I'd report this here in case it has gone unnoticed by the editors. If this has already been noted please forgive me for repeating it, but I did not find a thread about this topic with a search for "inventor dedication crafting"

[SuperBidi]

Sometimes you might become trained in the same skill from multiple sources, such as if your background granted training in Survival and you took the ranger class, which also grants training in Survival. Each time after the first that you'd become trained in a given skill, you instead allocate the trained proficiency to any other skill of your choice—though if the skill is a Lore skill, the new skill must also be a Lore skill.

So it's just redundant to state it. You have to treat it like any MCDs.

[Baarogue]

SuperBidi wrote:

Sometimes you might become trained in the same skill from multiple sources, such as if your background granted training in Survival and you took the ranger class, which also grants training in Survival. Each time after the first that you'd become trained in a given skill, you instead allocate the trained proficiency to any other skill of your choice—though if the skill is a Lore skill, the new skill must also be a Lore skill.

So it's just redundant to state it. You have to treat it like any MCDs.

right on. Thanks SB

[Finoan]

SuperBidi wrote:

So it's just redundant to state it. You have to treat it like any MCDs.

There is a bit of wiggle room in the ruling. Though I rule it the same way.

The paragraph that this rule appears in start out by talking about 1st level character creation. And the example that it gives are from two things that are given at 1st level.

Skills wrote:

A character gains training in certain skills at 1st level: typically two from their background, a small number of predetermined skills from their class, and several skills of your choice granted by their class. This training increases your proficiency ranks for those skills to trained instead of untrained and lets you use more of the skills' actions. Sometimes you might become trained in the same skill from multiple sources, such as if your background granted training in Survival and you took the ranger class, which also grants training in Survival. Each time after the first that you'd become trained in a given skill, you instead allocate the trained proficiency to any other skill of your choice—though if the skill is a Lore skill, the new skill must also be a Lore skill.

I have seen people on these forums argue over more important things than redundant skill training with less justification than that.

But yes, example being treated as an example instead of an exhaustive list, and starting sentence not being considered a limiting factor, I also agree that the rule in this case is that last sentence - which stands as a complete sentence on its own.

"Each time after the first that you'd become trained in a given skill, you instead allocate the trained proficiency to any other skill of your choice—though if the skill is a Lore skill, the new skill must also be a Lore skill."

[SuperBidi]

Finoan wrote:

I have seen people on these forums argue over more important things than redundant skill training with less justification than that.

From my perspective: I've seen people argue on nearly nothing when it meant getting an undue bonus. In that case, the interpretation that makes the most sense is also the best one from the player perspective, so I don't expect anyone to argue :D