Blistering Invective + Taunt

[Mike Lindner]

I would like to get other people's opinions on whether the Taunt feat will work with the Blistering Invective spell to allow the demoralize attempt to use Bluff.

Quote:

Taunt

You may be small, but your remarks cut others down to size.
Prerequisites: Cha 13, Small size or smaller.

Benefit: You can demoralize opponents using Bluff rather than Intimidate (see the Intimidate skill description for details) and take no skill check penalty for being smaller than your target.

Quote:

Blistering Invective

School evocation [fire, language-dependant]; Level alchemist 2, bard 2, inquisitor 2
Components V, S
Casting Time 1 standard action
Range personal
Area 30-ft. radius
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Reflex partial, see text; Spell Resistance special, see below

You unleash an insulting tirade so vicious and spiteful that enemies who hear it are physically scorched by your fury. When you cast this spell, make an Intimidate check to demoralize each enemy within 30 feet of you. Enemies that are demoralized this way take 1d10 points of fire damage and must succeed at a Reflex save or catch fire. Spell resistance can negate the fire damage caused by this spell, but does not protect the creature from the demoralizing effect.

The spell clearly says to make an intimidate check but the purpose of the check is to demoralize, so it seems to me that Taunt would apply.

[Luther]

You're asking if one could use bluff instead of intimidate on the check involved with the spell. Since Taunt allows the use of the bluff skill instead of intimidate when making demoralize actions I see no problem with it. The spell calls for a check to demoralize using intimidate and would not work under the assumption that the user has the feat.

I would allow this. It's thematic, the action uses a spell and requires a feat just to use it in that way. It's certainly not game-breaking.

[DrakeRoberts]

Curious if others agree with this or not, as it came up in a character I was looking at building.

[Pizza Lord]

I agree with Luther for the reasons he gave in his first three sentences. I don't necessarily agree or care about the last three.

[Snakers]

I agree with Luther's interpretation. 'Make an Intimidate check' when you have an ability to 'use Bluff for intimidate checks' seems clear cut to me.

Although strange to think of how you'd bluff someone so hard they'd catch on fire.

[Claxon]

I believe it's like this

[Kazaan]

Brings whole new meaning to the phrase "droppin' the fire".