EDIT: Changed the Archetype to Dawnflower Dervish, the correct Archetype for the question. Thank you Belafon for noting the error!
I am building a PFS character, and someone on the Advice Forum pointed out some wording issues, so I thought I should ask for PFS specific rulings. I have checked the forum, and I do not see anything that directly relates, so I will post here in hopes of a moderately definitive answer. Please point me to any rulings by Mr. Brock, or the designers, if you are aware of any.
I plan to build a Dawnflower Dervish bard who worships Serenrae and is a halfling. This is intended to be an intimidate/nonlethal build.
1) At level 1, I intend to take the Taunt feat from Advanced Player's Guide, page 172.
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.
I want to use taunt to remove the size penalty for my being a halfling.
2) I want to take Enforcer from the Advanced Player's, Guide page 159, at level 3.
You are skilled at causing fear in those you brutalize.
Prerequisite: Intimidate 1 rank.
Benefit: Whenever you deal nonlethal damage with a melee weapon, you can make an Intimidate check to demoralize your target as a free action. If you are successful, the target is shaken for a number of rounds equal to the damage dealt. If your attack was a critical hit, your target is frightened for 1 round with a successful Intimidate check, as well as being shaken for a number of rounds equal to the damage dealt.
3) I will be using the Blade of Mercy trait from Legacy of Fire Player's Guide:
You know that within the heart of even the most hateful and cruel living creature exists a sliver of shame and hope for redemption. You have trained long on martial techniques to use bladed weapons not to kill, but to subdue.
Benefit: When striking to inflict nonlethal damage with any slashing weapon, you do not take the normal –4 penalty on your attack roll, and gain a +1 trait bonus to any nonlethal damage you inflict with a slashing weapon.
4) As a Bard, I get Versatile Performance at level 2. I plan to take Versatile Performance (Sing) to allow me to use Perform (Song) in place of Bluff and Sense Motive.
All together, I believe it would work like this at level 3+ :
I attack Bob the evil goblin using my scimitar to deal nonlethal damage. I declare that I am using Enforcer. Assuming I hit, I make an intimidate check to demoralize the evil Bob goblin.
Enforcer allows the free action Intimidate Check.
Taunt allows me to forego the minuses due to size, and allows me to use Bluff in place of Intimidate.
Versatile Performance allows me to use Perform (Sing) in place of Bluff.
I roll 1d20+Perform(Sing) skill to determine whether or not I demoralize my target.
Question:
Am I mistaken, and if so, how am I mistaken so I can try to fix it.
I am sorry, dawnflower dervish is the correct archetype. I always confuse those two!
Enforcer says "make an Intimidate check to demoralize your target as a free action"
Taunt says "You can demoralize opponents using Bluff rather than Intimidate"
Enforcer is very specific about the check that needs to be made and I would expect a fair number of GMs to require an actual intimidate check and not allow the bluff check (which is really the perform check instead).
It looks to me like they'd work together, and you're spending enough feats on it it should work.
Enforcer says "make an Intimidate check to demoralize your target as a free action"
Taunt says "You can demoralize opponents using Bluff rather than Intimidate"
Enforcer is very specific about the check that needs to be made and I would expect a fair number of GMs to require an actual intimidate check and not allow the bluff check (which is really the perform check instead).
My counter would be that every skill check is a check. If you cannot use bluff in place of intimidate on checks, you cannot use the feat at all.
The only rule forum post I was able to find was this one, which indicates that it is valid, but not from a Dev or Mr. Brock.
SKR stated that the enforcer/Versatile Performance would work, here. Following the same logic, it seems that Taunt and Enforcer should work. Since we already know that the one version works, it seems the entirety should be fine. But that is just me, and the reason I am asking.
Not saying that it should or shouldn't work, simply stating that you're not likely to get an official PFS opinion and you're likely to experience table variation. Taunt/Enforcer is very much a different combination than Enforcer/VP.
I can't really find any justification to deny this working apart from "not on my table", which is GM shorthand for "that's perfectly legal, but I don't like it so you can't do it", which isn't allowed in Pathfinder Society.
I agree, but for the sake of hope on my own part, I have opened a Rules question as there is no concrete answer here.
You can find the question here: Taunt and Enforcer Rules Question