Something that is somewhat pertaining to my assassin who needs to stay in hiding has been in the back of my mind. I want him to be able to slip into roles so I have been thinking of taking Perform Act.
However, I wonder if perform act can be used in place of bluff. This of course would require roleplaying, probably before a fight starts, but I was thinking I might be able to scare enemies by making them think I am more powerful than I really am. Of course I am thinking the roll the roll would depend on how good the act is. I remember the DC of 30 being able to attract the attention of the Gods.
Would I have to use bluff, perform, or perhaps both?
I would say no. If you want to fake the funk with alternate skill checks, there is a class ability that will let you do just that: Versatile Performance.
:)
GNOME
Would I have to use bluff, perform, or perhaps both?
You would have to use bluff. While you may need to act while using bluff, you are not actually performing.
While I might say that an actor gave a convincing performance, I still know he was acting--a performance for an audience. A street hustler might talk a good story but would be absolutely retched on stage.
If a GM wanted to grant a circumstance bonus, I could see it, but Pathfinder did away with synergy bonuses and I don't see a compelling reason to bring them back.
In general, I don't think it is good practice to start letting one skill stand in for another existing skill. Pathfinder has consolidated skills already.
I guess you could of course make a normal bluff check, so the enemy believes your act. Having high perfomr act skill, or succeeding on a check might give you a +2 or so on Disguise if you're also disguised.
But in the end you'd still use the normal bluff checks.
But using your perform skill instead of a bluff is the territory of versatile performance, a bard feature.