Bluff vs. Perform(Acting)

[ajb47]

This has been something I've been wondering about since back in 3.5 days. I'm not sure where the line is between them. Is the Acting not what we think of nowadays so it is far more stage-specific?

Which should be used for a character who wants to appear drunk so as to hustle at cards or dice in a tavern? Or to fake an injury to get out of a dance at a gala? Is it Bluff or Acting to have a character's face show sympathy when the character feels none?

Or is it as simple as when using Perform it is obviously a performance and there is no real Bluff involved? And by that I mean that Acting is used for the purposes of giving a performance and Bluff is used for all other lying in the rest of the character's life.

I just made a Charlatan rogue (basically - he has some wizard for campaign reasons) headed for Master Spy and this kind of thing occupies my thoughts about him from time to time.

AJ

[Orfamay Quest]

I think this is up to your GM.

I tend to follow the make-skills-as-broad-as-possible school of thought, so if you can come up with a justification as to why your Craft (weapons) skill would allow you to successfully bake a loaf of bread, I'll go with it. It's more fun for the players than if you take the alternatively approach that only one skill can be applicable to do a certain thing, because then everyone's sitting around bewailing the fact that no one has Craft (boatmaking) and therefore no one can repair the hole in the canoe and the adventure stopped dead.

[Xaratherus]

Echoing that I think it's up to the GM. I generally will allow common sense substitutions (like Perform (Act) for Bluff).

There's even some precedence to allowing skills some cross-use - 3.5's skill synergies (which were removed because they sometimes had unintended consequences - example from JJ was that you could technically achieve a +17 in Diplomacy at 2nd level through synergies).

[Orfamay Quest]

Something else that should be considered is that, while the skill itself might be useful, the DC is not necessarily fixed.

E.g. something that requires a DC 15 Bluff check might require a DC 20 Perform (Act) check or a DC 25 Acrobatics check or a DC 35 Craft (origami) check.

[ryric]

I would allow Perform(acting) to be used in situations where the character is actively pretending to be a different person. Bluff would still be used for one-off lying, and for opposing Sense Motive (a high Sense Motive would let the listener realize you were acting. Acting very well, possibly, but acting nonetheless).

ajb47 wrote:

Which should be used for a character who wants to appear drunk so as to hustle at cards or dice in a tavern? Or to fake an injury to get out of a dance at a gala? Is it Bluff or Acting to have a character's face show sympathy when the character feels none?

Just off the cuff:

I'd allow the hustling to fall under the money-making provisions of Perform.
Faking an injury seems more like Bluff or even Disguise.
Fake emotions well it depends - is the character trying to be themself, yet show fake emotions? Bluff. Are they pretending to be someone else who would care? Perform(acting).

Not sure there is a right or wrong call on this one. I'd advise some caution in using them interchangably as that steps on the bard's toes a little bit. They get a class feature that lets them do just that.

[ajb47]

Thanks for the answers.

And I thought of another way to ask the question, one that is more pertinent to my character. Which gets used for going undercover? I think most of the rules for that kind of thing call for Bluff, which to me seems to leave Perform for just performing, but that bangs up against the idea that pretending to be someone else sounds like Acting.

I don't have a problem with just using Bluff for it. This was just something I found myself wondering about.

Thanks again.

AJ

[Nefreet]

*imagines someone acting in place of using Bluff for a feint maneuver*

[Artanthos]

I generally allow a fair amount of overlap in skills.

Diplomacy vs. Perform(Oration) for example. A person with either skill should be able to deliver a convincing argument.

[Ughbash]

The problem wiht allowing a lot of overlap is it devaules the bards versatiel performace.

A bard CAN us Perform Oratory for Diplomacy if he choose that one. A bard CAN use perform acting for Bluff (I think) if he choose that one. Letting evryoen do it takes away from the bard.

It is like saying, I want a highly magical game so every class gets sorceror arcane casting... or I want a bloody game, every class gets sneak attack. Ok, those might be giving away more then versatile performance but still you are really stepping on the bards toes there.

[mplindustries]

Perform (Acting) is specifically used to make money while acting.

Tricking someone/lying is the realm of Bluff and Disguise.

If you wanted to play a master spy that could fool anyone into thinking he was whoever you liked, you'd take Bluff and Disguise. If you wanted to be able to entertain someone with how well you fool them, then you'd take Perform (Acting).

[Kalshane]

This hasn't really come up in my games, but I probably wouldn't let them overlap much.

Perform: Acting is intended more for stage play/being a character

Bluff is for actively deceiving people.

For going undercover, I'd let a player use Acting for day-to-day being the person he's pretending to be, but in pressure situations where he's forced to make up lies and be convincing, I would require him to make Bluff checks. I'd probably give him a circumstance bonus if his performance has been convincing up to this point, but it would still be a Bluff roll.

[Orfamay Quest]

Ughbash wrote:

The problem wiht allowing a lot of overlap is it devaules the bards versatiel performace.

A bard CAN us Perform Oratory for Diplomacy if he choose that one. A bard CAN use perform acting for Bluff (I think) if he choose that one. Letting evryoen do it takes away from the bard.

Not really. As I pointed out, the DC isn't the same for all skills. The bard can use Acting for Bluff and get the best of both worlds in terms of the task DC.